Scaling, the good and the bad. (2 Viewers)

[Mdzabakly]

what is so good/bad about scaling..

Discuss.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

Good=Aimed to offer incentive for students to take harder subjects (like the Extensions) and rewards their marks. It accounts for the difficulty and candidature of subjects.

Bad=Some feel the scalings of some subjects are excessively high or low. Some people feel they are penalised with the subject choices.

Personally I think it's a good thing, with the maths/science set or humanities set, 99.95 is still relatively achievable (despite it being really hard in the first place). And unless you pick a whole set of "bad" scalers, one bad scaler isn't detrimental provided you do well in it.

 

[Mdzabakly]

my brother said ...
* scaling is like disadvantaging some students for not being able to do harder subjects

 

[wannabesurgeon]

my brother said ...
* scaling is like disadvantaging some students for not being able to do harder subjects

^^. But at the same time I feel the people who do the harder subjects should be rewarded with good scaling.

 

[Mdzabakly]

^^. But at the same time I feel the people who do the harder subjects should be rewarded with good scaling.

that's what i say..
*harder subjects ( 4 unit) are more complicated, harder to grasp, require a higher order of thinking, and more effort and time....

 

[LoveHateSchool]

That's what I think too.

Mind you, I think 4U is a little overinflated considering it counts for two units as well...but I feel you maths Ext 2ers should be rewarded with good scaling. I'm surprised at some 2 units subject scaling is a little low considering the work you would have to put in to get a band6.

But at least scaling isn't intrinsically set, so the MX2 candidature is also boss and hence gets the good scaling

 

[My Name is Khan]

People make 4U sound really hard, trust me, it is not that hard.

 

[someth1ng]

People make 4U sound really hard, trust me, it is not that hard.

Well, I wouldn't say that it's "not that hard", just the most difficult subject in the HSC - though, if you have mathematical talent, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

[My Name is Khan]

Well, I wouldn't say that it's "not that hard", just the most difficult subject in the HSC - though, if you have mathematical talent, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

I reckon people exaggerate, it IS hard for people who don't put enough effort in it!

 

[My Name is Khan]

[video=youtube_share;BiEEJds8JFE]http://youtu.be/BiEEJds8JFE[/video]

 

[Sy123]

*scaling is like disadvantaging some students for not being able to do harder subjects.

Pretty much this, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it either. Though it is the pessimistic approach. You can say it like that, or the optimistic one is "scaling is an advantage for some students who do harder subjects". The above statement however demonstrates the other end of the spectrum. Because I dont find it fair if 70 Raw in 4U should be equivalent to 70 Raw in General Math. Other people wont find it fair if their hard earnt 90 in Chemistry or Economics is just as equivalent as someone getting the 90 Raw in a VET subject or Food tech or something.

But of course, these are just the extremities in the scaling system, what happens within it however, where you have distinguished from subjects like Legal to Physics or Biology from Business etc.

I like to think of it as the way scaling is determined, is that the more logic and thinking a subject involves, the more scaling it has. For example, rote learning is virtually non-existent in 4U math, Economics and Chemistry as well to an extent. For English, there is just general diffifcult aura around it. You need to be able to write a deep blistering essay in 40 min, and although some people memorise essays, (which I am against), you cant simply memorise all throughout English, there is a point where you have to use your natural ability in the exam. And as you go down the scaling spectrum, the easier it is to memorise your way through thoughtlessly.

Thats the way I see it I guess...

 

[Nooblet94]

my brother said ...
* scaling is like disadvantaging some students for not being able to do harder subjects

Yeah, exactly - they're not able to do harder subjects... because they're not smart enough to.

 

[asianese]

TBH I reckon scaling is quite unfair. I know a few people who are doing good scaling subjects like 4u maths, economics, physics..they don't put the hard yards in but they'll still get 97+

But for those who do crap scaling subjects and try their ass off might only get 96.

But it does reward those who can cope with difficult subjects.



But I guess scaling is a 'natural occurrence' because how they determine what scales up/down is by looking at the cohort that's doing that subject. They look at all their OTHER marks and if their other marks (in other subjects) are good, then the subject is scaled well. MX2 scales so well because everyone doing it rips shit at their other subjects - ie do very well, usually. Dance doesn't scale well because there are people who fail their other subjects doing it.


But I'm glad I can reap scaling - woot

 

[twinklegal19]

According to the UAC scaling report

"The scaling process is designed to encourage students to take the courses for which they are best suited and which best prepare them for their future studies. The underlying principle is that a student should neither be advantaged nor disadvantaged by choosing one HSC course over another. The scaling algorithm estimates what students’ marks would have been if all courses had been studied by all students."

The scaling system is not 100% perfect, but I think it's fair enough. E.g. in Subject A, you are in the 95th percentile of that course candidature. However according to UAC's algorithm, if everyone in that state did that same subject, you would only be in the 80th percentile, hence it scales down.

UAC scales people, not the actual courses. I guess it can be unfair in a way that the scaling of a subject is determined by how everyone else performs in their other subjects. The worse the overall performance of the students taking a course, the nearer the top you have to be in order to benefit from scaling (which is relatively easier if the cohort is of "poorer quality"). I would recommend everyone reading UAC's annual scaling report, it's quite detailed and informative. Tutoring colleges like Talent 100, Matrix and Dux College also publish decent articles about scaling that are easy to understand, although keep in mind the bias obviously.

The scaling presentation by Jacqui Ramagge (Associate Professor in Pure Maths) at the University of Wollongong is floating around the internet somewhere and is also a very good read.

 

[iSplicer]

Whether scaling is 'good' or not, it's a fact of the HSC. You can either use it to your advantage, or continue whining about how it's unfair that it's harder to get 99.95 whilst doing history, geography, dance and textiles.

 

[Mdzabakly]

TBH I reckon scaling is quite unfair. I know a few people who are doing good scaling subjects like 4u maths, economics, physics..they don't put the hard yards in but they'll still get 97+

But for those who do crap scaling subjects and try their ass off might only get 96.

But it does reward those who can cope with difficult subjects.



But I guess scaling is a 'natural occurrence' because how they determine what scales up/down is by looking at the cohort that's doing that subject. They look at all their OTHER marks and if their other marks (in other subjects) are good, then the subject is scaled well. MX2 scales so well because everyone doing it rips shit at their other subjects - ie do very well, usually. Dance doesn't scale well because there are people who fail their other subjects doing it.

But I'm glad I can reap scaling - woot

thats not true, im sure that all those subjects cant just be " winged" .

 

[enoilgam]

Scaling accounts for the relative difficulty in subjects. So lets say an 90 in VA scales the same as an 80 in physics, the premise is that a 90 in VA is the equivalent difficulty of an 80 in physics (whether scaling achieves this is debatable, but thats roughly the aim).

 

[enoilgam]

This thread has got me thinking a bit so I did an experiment with an ATAR calculator. Basically, what I did was look for the bare minimum marks needed to achieve 99.95 with a high scaling combo of subjects (i.e. the Asian 10) and a humanities combo.

Here is what I got:

High Scalers:

Advanced English: 96
MX1: 93
MX2: 93
Chemistry: 96
Physics: 96

Humanities combo

Advanced English 96
Modern History 96
Geography 96
Legal Studies 97
Business studies 97

I thought that was pretty interesting. The maths subjects have a lot of push power, but chemistry and physics required similar marks to the humanities subjects.

 

[twinklegal19]

This thread has got me thinking a bit so I did an experiment with an ATAR calculator. Basically, what I did was look for the bare minimum marks needed to achieve 99.95 with a high scaling combo of subjects (i.e. the Asian 10) and a humanities combo.

Here is what I got:

High Scalers:

Advanced English: 96
MX1: 93
MX2: 93
Chemistry: 96
Physics: 96

Humanities combo

Advanced English 96
Modern History 96
Geography 96
Legal Studies 97
Business studies 97

I thought that was pretty interesting. The maths subjects have a lot of push power, but chemistry and physics required similar marks to the humanities subjects.

Interesting. Just for comparison's sake, here are the marks needed for subjects generally considered as very low scaling to get 99.95

English Standard: 96
General Mathematics: 99
Aboriginal Studies: 98
Community and Family Studies: 100
Dance: 100

(This is according to Matrix Reverse ATAR calculator)
Don't forget to consider aligning as well, e.g. 96 for English Standard vs 96 in Advanced, I would imagine they would have very different raw marks.

 

[Mdzabakly]

tallent 100/einstien

100% in : english standard, hospitality, food tech, music, drama will only get you 99.7