Why has UAI decreased so much? (1 Viewer)

[prj]

Yes sorry if this has already been asked before I tried to search but couldnt find anything, if there is an existing thread a link would be appreciated.

Anyway I imputted some marks into SAM and I was just wondering why has the UAI decreased so much from 2001 to 2003? eg in 2001 I would have got a UAI of 78.80 but in 2003 only 68.05 ~ 10 points decrease? And in 2004 its only gonna get worse

Thanks in advance...

 

[mack]

It cant be said whether its going to be worse or better, it does not automatically go down each year, it all depends on the candidature. Generally, people are working harder and getting better marks each year and university places are narrowing so this will mean the same aggregate of scaled marks may result in a different rank over the years.

 

[redruM]

the uai isnt a mark, it doesnt go down.

it is a rank.

theoretically you would have got the same uai in no matter what year you do it. its hard to explain really. think of the canditure it will remain the same, and your rank amongst them wont change. ie if your uai will be the same, no matter what year you would have been up against. this is of course theoretical, there are variations.

 

[suhee]

.... hey thats not correct

heyz...
your right but the ranking... does not work that way...
as it is a 'rank' between students who participate in that year.
so the ranking cannot stay the say every year...because.. students receive different marks according to each student...
the the ranking may be higher ir lower depending on how well the students go.
say..
in 2003 Melissa got 100 in the uai.. and all her marks were band 5(80's) and band 4(70's), the reason why she got such a high uai was because,. other students did not go pass that mark Melissa had gotton.
so.... in 2004... if every one gets high 80's and 90's people getiing 70's and 80's will be ranked down....
so it depends on how well you class.. school and the state goes....

 

[SipSip]

It all depends on rank, and also, to be honest, the HSC is becoming more and more competitive.

Example 4U maths use to practically ensure you a UAI of 90+ in the past but now 4U is become so common that you actually need very good marks to make the effort worth it...

Not onli has uai become more competitive, you should know that the cut-offs are also rising every year

 

[santaslayer]

It all depends on rank, and also, to be honest, the HSC is becoming more and more competitive.

Example 4U maths use to practically ensure you a UAI of 90+ in the past but now 4U is become so common that you actually need very good marks to make the effort worth it...

Not onli has uai become more competitive, you should know that the cut-offs are also rising every year

4U maths never ensured a 90.00+ UAI, that''s bs.

My friend got a 73.95 doing 4 U maths, accounting, physics, standard english and bio.

 

[Zarathustra]

It cant be said whether its going to be worse or better, it does not automatically go down each year, it all depends on the candidature. Generally, people are working harder and getting better marks each year and university places are narrowing so this will mean the same aggregate of scaled marks may result in a different rank over the years.

That would only have been true of the TER which was based only on the students applying for uni admittance. The UAI is based on the cohort which sat the SC together - so as up until year 10 schooling is compulsory there should be no change in UAI. Higher retention rates won't affect the UAI. If those that remain attain higher UAIs then universities would have to increase UAI cut-offs (as well as because of the cuts in positions - of course...) - so I guess you're right...

 

[SipSip]

4U maths never ensured a 90.00+ UAI, that''s bs.

My friend got a 73.95 doing 4 U maths, accounting, physics, standard english and bio.

Ensured as in if you get 85+ for every test, you're pretty much set...ok, of course you have to do well in other subjects

 

[redruM]

heyz...
your right but the ranking... does not work that way...
as it is a 'rank' between students who participate in that year.
so the ranking cannot stay the say every year...because.. students receive different marks according to each student...
the the ranking may be higher ir lower depending on how well the students go.
say..
in 2003 Melissa got 100 in the uai.. and all her marks were band 5(80's) and band 4(70's), the reason why she got such a high uai was because,. other students did not go pass that mark Melissa had gotton.
so.... in 2004... if every one gets high 80's and 90's people getiing 70's and 80's will be ranked down....
so it depends on how well you class.. school and the state goes....

no, i did say theoretically...and theoretically the students of each year will be distributed the same, in terms of their "ability.
you are also saying that the scaling of the subjects will not differ year to year, we know that this is incorrect as they do differ year to year. so i would think that you cannot say that your 90 in 04 will beat a 90 in 03.

in your example you disagree with the assumption that every year is similarly distributed, which is why the discrepency...

i actually would like laz or rage to comment on this, i am just theorising on my own accord.

edit: 85+ in assessments for 4u *might* get you in the 90's aye? i'd say as around 60% would get you in the 90's, of course depending on the difficulty of the assessments.

 

[santaslayer]

no, i did say theoretically...and theoretically the students of each year will be distributed the same, in terms of their "ability.
you are also saying that the scaling of the subjects will not differ year to year, we know that this is incorrect as they do differ year to year. so i would think that you cannot say that your 90 in 04 will beat a 90 in 03.

in your example you disagree with the assumption that every year is similarly distributed, which is why the discrepency...

i actually would like laz or rage to comment on this, i am just theorising on my own accord.

edit: 85+ in assessments for 4u *might* get you in the 90's aye? i'd say as around 60% would get you in the 90's, of course depending on the difficulty of the assessments.

I agree with everything redruM (Murder ) has said, especially the EDITED bit. :uhhuh:

 

[jm1234567890]

This change i believe is not because the anything has changed with the distribution of UAI. It is due to inaccuracies in the modeling of the aggregate -> UAI curve. 2001 was special I remember. 2002 and 2003 will be close to 2004. you prolly should ignore the 2001 figure.

 

[Sanchez__]

From my knowledge UAI has not gone down but board of studies marks have gone up. The board of studies sets a standard which it considers is worth 70 and a standard worth 90 and for all marks for every subject. This means everyone who achieves this standard gets that mark rather than an amount of people getting any mark. I would say part of the impression that 'uai going down' is due to generally people getting higher marks from the board of studies each year. I assume this is due to teachers and students gaining a better idea of what they are required to do to achieve a high standard or the board changing what the standards are to make it easier.

Either way while in 2001 your academic ability may have earned you 70 in all your subjects and you get 85 UAI in 2003 the same ability may have earned you 80 in all your subjects because of one of the reasons above, BUT you may still get a UAI of 85 with those 'higher' marks. This is because as people have said unlike the marks you get the uai is a rank. So each year a similar number of people get each mark, so a similar number get 99.1 in 2001 and 2003. But to get 99.1 in 2003 you needed to get higher marks from the board of studies because on average students got better marks.


I guess it may also have something to do with the scaling in different years for the subjects you are studying. I dont know so much about this but I assume if the subjects you are studying were scaled worse in 2001 to 2003 then it would also contribute to the lower UAI SAM calculates.

Generally though you should get a very similar UAI nomatter what year you study in though your marks for your subjects may be different.

 

[Lazarus]

Sanchez has the right idea.

Notice that if you enter sets of results for different years such that the course percentiles (and not necessarily the marks) are the same in each year, the UAIs are roughly equivalent. The course percentile refers to your position or rank in the state candidature, and is not fixed to an objective scale like the aligned marks.

 

[jm1234567890]

hmmm. from the first post too...

 

[Sanchez__]

But in 2001 chances are you would not have goten the same marks. You would have gotten lower marks correspoding to a similar uai. Maybe you know this and just wanted to sigh about the injustice, just thought id point it out.

 

[kpq_sniper017]

The board of studies sets a standard which it considers is worth 70 and a standard worth 90 and for all marks for every subject. This means everyone who achieves this standard gets that mark rather than an amount of people getting any mark.

when u (and other people) say that a committee decides what mark is worth a band 6, band 5 etc, is that a scaled mark? (i.e. a scaled mark of 90 is a band 6?). when people discuss their marks, they generally speak in terms of their aligned marks and this gets me all confused.
when u r given the band u achieved (6, 5...), is that based on ur aligned mark or ur scaled mark?

 

[Lazarus]

when u (and other people) say that a committee decides what mark is worth a band 6, band 5 etc, is that a scaled mark? (i.e. a scaled mark of 90 is a band 6?).

No - it's actually a raw mark. The Board's judges for each course decide what raw mark should equate to an aligned mark of 90, what raw mark should equate to an aligned mark of 80, and so on. These are the raw band cut-offs. They're for the Board's standards-referenced system of reporting, and have nothing to do with UAIs.

when u r given the band u achieved (6, 5...), is that based on ur aligned mark or ur scaled mark?

The band is determined from your aligned mark. Aligned marks between 90 and 100 (inclusive) fall into band 6.

Your aligned mark is calculated by using the raw band cut-offs to align your raw mark. For example, let's pretend that, in a particular course, the Board's judges have chosen the following raw band cut-offs:

Raw band 5/6 cut-off: 85/100 (This corresponds to an aligned mark of 90.)
Raw band 4/5 cut-off: 65/100 (This corresponds to an aligned mark of 80.)

If your raw mark was 75/100, which is halfway between the two raw band cut-offs, your aligned mark would be 85, which is halfway between the two corresponding aligned band cut-offs.

Scaled marks are completely separate - see <a href="/other/flowchart.pdf" target="_blank">this flowchart</a>.

 

[Jait]

My perception from having taught HSC for the last 4 years as to why the UAI's are going "down":

Simply this means that the UAI is lower for a set mark because all students on average are getting higher marks each year. That is to say a mark of say "80" used to beat 90 percent of students and now it only beats 75 percent of students (Just an example - will vary from subject to subject). Your UAI is merely a calculation to try and rank you into a percentile.

The reasons I think students are getting higher marks (in order of importance):

1) Board of Studies is refining the standards they set and how they mark exams. They may dispute this but as an example I feel that the exam in IPT has gotten significantly easier over the past 3 years. (Less than 1 percent got 90 2001 and now its around 10 percent) This may be because of point 3 though.

2) Exam marking has been more "favourable". At least this is the impression I get from talking to exam markers. All markers that I have spoken to expressed the belief that the marking standard (especially at the Band 5/6 end) was initially too harsh and inflexible.

3) Teachers are more aware of what the new exams are like, and more importantly - how the marking is done, and are better able to prepare students to do well in it. (The exam key words are your friend.)

I would argue that the change in student performance is actually quite small. Historically student standards were better in the past because many less capable students dropped out in Year 10. While their may be a small increase due to competitiveness this would be balanced by more students staying in each year for Year 12 who would normally not be ideally suited for it.

I seriously doubt the effort put in by your average student changes much from year to year. It certainly wouldnt change by the amount that the UAI/Marks are changing by.

Just my view - but the change is quite significant and not just due to student "improvement".