what if you don't get UAI you wanted? (2 Viewers)

[dp624]

77-78%?
or 77/78 raw out of 105?

(once more I apologise for my mathematical ineptitude)

% i think, every subject gets aligned up quite a bit

 

[4unitfreak]

Ahh probably throw a pair of tongs at everyone who asks me what it is, for a while at least. I'm hoping 90+.

 

[fallenstar]

% i think, every subject gets aligned up quite a bit

so 78% out of 100 aligns to 90? wow. Why is there such a low percentage of B6s in Advanced every year then? 77-78 seems very reasonable in my opinion.

 

[diametric]

holyshit. if thats true. and i dont get a band 6; damn will i feel shitty. wayyy shitty.

 

[fallenstar]

holyshit. if thats true. and i dont get a band 6; damn will i feel shitty. wayyy shitty.

haha yeah. But given your '3 worst case scenarios', you will get a band 6 for sure.

Hate to be someone who knows that 77-78 is all that's required, and gets a band 3 or something. eek, think of the aligning there. I'd rather NOT have that knowledge if I attained a lower band. But I was confident I'd get a b6 even before I found out you only need 77. So it doesn't faze me

 

[Lordie]

A HSC marker said it's roughly an 87/105 that gets you a band 6. A little different to 77% .

 

[fallenstar]

A HSC marker said it's roughly an 87/105 that gets you a band 6. A little different to 77% .

What the hell, I've heard so many different things it's not funny:

1. That 82/105 was aligned to 90 in the 2007 HSC. (user: ctrlaltv)
2. That in the aligning of raw marks, paper 1 becomes 40% and paper 2 60%; these percentages are then added together to create a percentage /100.
3. That raw band cutoffs are simply applied to raw marks out of 105 with no/very little consideration of percentages.

and a whole bunch of other jazz.

Your opinion?

I thought 78 was quite low, yeah. But 87 seems too high, although it does explain the small number who attain a b6 overall.

 

[dp624]

What the hell, I've heard so many different things it's not funny:

1. That 82/105 was aligned to 90 in the 2007 HSC. (user: ctrlaltv)
2. That in the aligning of raw marks, paper 1 becomes 40% and paper 2 60%; these percentages are then added together to create a percentage /100.
3. That raw band cutoffs are simply applied to raw marks out of 105 with no/very little consideration of percentages.

and a whole bunch of other jazz.

Your opinion?

I thought 78 was quite low, yeah. But 87 seems too high, although it does explain the small number who attain a b6 overall.

Number two is TRUE. I can't say about the B6 cutoff but imo it's high 70s

 

[emytaylor164]

I will go to uni anyway

 

[Timothy.Siu]

does the english raw mark for band 6 really matter that much?
, u may not know exactly how they mark, the marks allocated would probably be different to the ones you would get at school (possibly)

 

[fallenstar]

does the english raw mark for band 6 really matter that much?
, u may not know exactly how they mark, the marks allocated would probably be different to the ones you would get at school (possibly)

Obviously. It's just sort of calming to know, even approximately, the raw band cutoff for English when your results are a day and 9 hrs away

 

[diametric]

and - well, ive found that english marks dont vary too greatly unless there was a major screwage for miscellaneous reasons.

 

[fallenstar]

and - well, ive found that english marks dont vary too greatly unless there was a major screwage for miscellaneous reasons.

Yeah, if only we could have some consensus regarding the the approximate raw band cutoff... We've had 77%, 82/105 and 87/105. Big jumps...

 

[dp624]

It's 77,78, and 83. That's not a big diff

 

[fallenstar]

It's 77,78, and 83. That's not a big diff

I know, but we have also had someone say that his HSC-marker teacher said 87/105 is the general cutoff for 90. and in another thread someone said their teacher, also a HSC marker, said 89/105. So effectively an 11-mark jump from 78.

 

[Timothy.Siu]

well, maybe the marking criteria changed, because didn't a new english committee just come in for the HSC english, like a new "board" to write the tests

 

[fallenstar]

well, maybe the marking criteria changed, because didn't a new english committee just come in for the HSC english, like a new "board" to write the tests

Do you mean the major syllabus overhaul for 09? I don't remember hearing anything about a 'new board writing HSC tests'.

 

[Timothy.Siu]

Do you mean the major syllabus overhaul for 09? I don't remember hearing anything about a 'new board writing HSC tests'.

my english teacher told us that they change every 6 years or so and this years exam was their first one they wrote and apparently their exams ARE gonna be a "bit different" to the previous ones

 

[fallenstar]

my english teacher told us that they change every 6 years or so and this years exam was their first one they wrote and apparently their exams ARE gonna be a "bit different" to the previous ones

'bit different' in terms of raw band cutoffs? or content?
also- you don't mean the 2009 HSC English exam do you?

 

[Timothy.Siu]

'bit different' in terms of raw band cutoffs? or content?
also- you don't mean the 2009 HSC English exam do you?

nup 2008, i'm not sure wats different, apparently they're gonna have weirder questions