2013 3&4U Raw Marks Database (1 Viewer)

[mreditor16]

Well, it seems like Board of Studies are now letting schools access the raw marks for externals of their students (of course, note they have pretty much always had access to the aligned external marks of their students, but not raw marks...)

As a result, for the 2013 HSC, a teacher has let us know the following raw marks were adjusted to these aligned marks as below. By the way, rep will be appreciated for this valuable info

EXTENSION 2 MATHS (4U) - NB: Actual exam was out of 100.

60% (raw) --> 87% (aligned)
65% (raw) --> 90% (aligned)
70% (raw) --> 92% (aligned)
75% (raw) --> 93% (aligned)
80% (raw) --> 94% (aligned)
86% (raw) --> 96% (aligned)
90% (raw) --> 97% (aligned)
93% (raw) --> 98% (aligned)


EXTENSION 1 MATHS (3U) - NB: Actual exam was out of 70.

64% (raw) --> 88% (aligned)
67% (raw) --> 90% (aligned)
70% (raw) --> 91% (aligned)
76% (raw) --> 92% (aligned)
92% (raw) --> 97% (aligned)
99% (raw) --> 100% (aligned)


Okay, cool! Hope that provides some insight. Esp with it being stats from last year...

 

[photastic]

Wow, thanks for this

 

[mreditor16]

btw, I can not 100% guarantee the accuracy of this data. So yeah... Don't bother sledging me and refuting the data. This is what has been reported to me.... That's all.

 

[cub3root]

btw, I can not 100% guarantee the accuracy of this data. So yeah... Don't bother sledging me and refuting the data. This is what has been reported to me.... That's all.

I understand ans respect this, but the MX1 paper is out of 70 and was out of 84. How could the marks be integers with such precision?

But anyways, thanks for your efforts

 

[integral95]

81-->95 aligned

 

[mreditor16]

I understand ans respect this, but the MX1 paper is out of 70 and was out of 84. How could the marks be integers with such precision?

But anyways, thanks for your efforts

Oh yes I shall clarify, for 3U, they are all percentages. Lemme edit the post.

 

[mreditor16]

81-->95 aligned

i assume this is for 4U. that sounds about right!

 

[mreditor16]

Okay, original post has been modified.

 

[Kurosaki]

What about for 2 unit mathematics last year?

 

[mreditor16]

What about for 2 unit mathematics last year?

I was provided with no data for 2U. Nor general, as well.

Sorry guys. :/

 

[anomalousdecay]

Its not a question of how accurate they are (as they do look very legit), its a question of how a "teacher" can start telling students this lol.

 

[turnerloos]

Thankks !!

 

[mreditor16]

Its not a question of how accurate they are (as they do look very legit), its a question of how a "teacher" can start telling students this lol.

I don't see where the problem lies. Could you elaborate?

 

[photastic]

I don't see where the problem lies. Could you elaborate?

Better than nothing. I didn't know extension 1 had crappy aligning

 

[anomalousdecay]

I don't see where the problem lies. Could you elaborate?

Well students do indeed pay for their raw marks a fee of approximately $6, not including the results check which is an extra $15 or something like that.

If a teacher or school starts telling students this, then its possible that students will be less inclined to buy back their raw marks for curiosity reasons and simply start asking people for information.

So the Board would never want a teacher/school to tell students exactly what marks have been given. The Board would not condone of something like that if the teacher/school was given information by the Board themselves. If the teacher/school was purely speculating off research and educated guesses, the Board would not care as its not their (the Board's) supplied information.

Not many people actually will be given full information of exact cut-offs.

However, its possible that this teacher had a number of students whom did buy back their raw marks, and those students told the teacher their raw marks, then hence the teacher told others about the marks.

Imo, this teacher does not seem to be someone aligned with the Board. And I am not sure that your claim "seems like the Board of Studies are now letting schools access the raw marks for externals of their students," would be correct. The students would have had to bought them and then told their teachers what they got. This was the whole point I was trying to make.

Nevertheless many thanks for posting this up. Its a useful resource

 

[mreditor16]

Nevertheless many thanks for posting this up. Its a useful resource

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. Let me clear some things up. My explanation can be found below - I'm commenting within a copy of your post:

Well students do indeed pay for their raw marks a fee of approximately $6, not including the results check which is an extra $15 or something like that.

ME - Yes, that is most true.

If a teacher or school starts telling students this, then its possible that students will be less inclined to buy back their raw marks for curiosity reasons and simply start asking people for information.

ME - Yes, you have a point here. BUT these were made available to schools last week. So, they would only be able to find out through this manner 10 months after their HSC.

So the Board would never want a teacher/school to tell students exactly what marks have been given. The Board would not condone of something like that if the teacher/school was given information by the Board themselves. If the teacher/school was purely speculating off research and educated guesses, the Board would not care as its not their (the Board's) supplied information.

ME - I can guarantee that the said teacher wasn't speculating at all. They accessed Schools Online, and were then able to use a feature provided by BOSTES, where the teacher can choose a group of students from their cohort last year and with names removed, see what raw mark adjusted to what aligned mark for those students. Over the years, BOSTES has been reducing the minimum size of the group that needs to be selected. Now it is only 1. Thus, the teacher accessed Schools Online, and did the process for each student. And got these numbers. The Board has supplied this information. 100% guarantee of that

Not many people actually will be given full information of exact cut-offs.

ME - Not sure what you mean here.

However, its possible that this teacher had a number of students whom did buy back their raw marks, and those students told the teacher their raw marks, then hence the teacher told others about the marks.

ME - This is not what happened. This is BOSTES data, supplied directly to schools.

Imo, this teacher does not seem to be someone aligned with the Board. And I am not sure that your claim "seems like the Board of Studies are now letting schools access the raw marks for externals of their students," would be correct. The students would have had to bought them and then told their teachers what they got. This was the whole point I was trying to make.

ME - And again, this is not the case. The teacher specifically said they did not do this. i.e. they didn't get students to request raw marks and then extrapolated...



Hope that all makes sense!

 

[anomalousdecay]

Hmm this is quite interesting. Never would have thought the Board would do something like that.

 

[mreditor16]

I think BOSTES is consciously on the move towards more transparancy and finally responding to criticisms over time, made by parents, principals, teachers and students.

 

[anomalousdecay]

I think BOSTES is consciously on the move towards more transparancy and finally responding to criticisms over time, made by parents, principals, teachers and students.

That's one of the things I would criticise last about BOSTES haha.

Though I don't speak for the general public now do I?

 

[Thank_You]

Omg, how is 76% for 3U aligned to 92%. Wtf that is so good