Measurement and scale of a Selective and a Non-Selective (1 Viewer)

[axwe7]

Hey guys,

I'm currently in Year 10...

Say for example, that in a selective school, and for this sake, we'll take Girraween High, the 'cut-off' for Ext 2 Math in Year 12 is top 70 students. That's if they have a cut-off.

I go to a school ranked around ~140's and I've already planned to do Ext 2 Math in Year 12.

They way it works in our school, is that we have a cut-off for Ext 2 Math. So basically, from what I've heard, is that you've got to be below rank 30-40 in Ext 1. Math to be eligible for Ext 2. Math. I was just wondering, that if I get in the top 30's for math (I currently am top 10, so no worry for me ) in my Prelim year, does that mean that if I were in a selective school, I'd be in that top 130 student bracket?

This may seem like a pretty stereotypical question, but I just wanted to know.

Thanks,
Axwe7.

 

[crowley926]

Hmm not necessarily

The competition in a selective school would be considerably higher and you can't really compare ranks between schools like that since schools set different exams with different difficulty levels etc. So a person who misses the hypothetical 70 only cut-off at Girra could still be doing better than a person ranked 1st in a different school. Or they could actually be doing worse. You can't really say unless you get all the students to compete in a standardized examination to see how they rank in competition with each other (= HSC)

 

[axwe7]

Hmm not necessarily

The competition in a selective school would be considerably higher and you can't really compare ranks between schools like that since schools set different exams with different difficulty levels etc. So a person who misses the hypothetical 70 only cut-off at Girra could still be doing better than a person ranked 1st in a different school. Or they could actually be doing worse. You can't really say unless you get all the students to compete in a standardized examination to see how they rank in competition with each other (= HSC)

Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but if you're eligible for a subject that they can also do, doesn't that mean, to a certain extent, you're at the same level as them?

 

[crowley926]

Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but if you're eligible for a subject that they can also do, doesn't that mean, to a certain extent, you're at the same level as them?

Ummm yeah I'd say to a certain extent. 4U Maths is a very challenging course and to be eligible you do have to be very capable in maths so if you are satisfying the basic requirements of the course then yes you would be attaining the same level of achievement as selective students who also satisfy the basic requirements. However, the extent to which they surpass (or fall short of) you is a totally different story.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but if you're eligible for a subject that they can also do, doesn't that mean, to a certain extent, you're at the same level as them?

It depends. For example with 4U maths, some selective schools only want the top group to sit the subject and are more selective to ensure that the school gets the best marks they can whereas other schools are more willing to let people do the subjects they want. The numbers they choose (top 70, top 30 etc.) are just the schools' deciding how big they want the cohort to be, not a standard of "we think we have x number of students that match selective students" if that makes sense

 

[axwe7]

It depends. For example with 4U maths, some selective schools only want the top group to sit the subject and are more selective to ensure that the school gets the best marks they can whereas other schools are more willing to let people do the subjects they want. The numbers they choose (top 70, top 30 etc.) are just the schools' deciding how big they want the cohort to be, not a standard of "we think we have x number of students that match selective students" if that makes sense

Yeah that makes perfect sense. But why do they get to decide how big the cohort should be? Shouldn't it be up to the students' to decide, because they know their potential, albeit the fact that they may not have tried hard in tests?

Btw, which school do you go to?
And best of luck for tomorrow

 

[sy37]

Yeah that makes perfect sense. But why do they get to decide how big the cohort should be? Shouldn't it be up to the students' to decide, because they know their potential, albeit the fact that they may not have tried hard in tests?

Btw, which school do you go to?
And best of luck for tomorrow

Approaching your question from a different perspective, if what you say is true, then you would expect a much more standardised distribution of marks across all schools, which is not the case as per BOS reports. The school decides who can and cannot get into the class and stuff, based on their own judgement which may or may not be completely objective at most times.

 

[axwe7]

Approaching your question from a different perspective, if what you say is true, then you would expect a much more standardised distribution of marks across all schools, which is not the case as per BOS reports. The school decides who can and cannot get into the class and stuff, based on their own judgement which may or may not be completely objective at most times.

Ohh I see....

But hang on a sec... do you know why it's always ranks?

What I mean to say, is that they want the people who are <30 or <70...

But how about if the top 100 get a course mark of 90+?

Shouldn't it be up to the course mark, not the rank, say if you go to JRAHS, and suppose if they want the top 20 for Ext 2. Math.

How about if the top 50 get course marks of above 95+? It just means that they all did really good, and shouldn't be subjected to marginalisation.

Just a thought....

 

[sy37]

Ohh I see....

But hang on a sec... do you know why it's always ranks?

What I mean to say, is that they want the people who are <30 or <70...

But how about if the top 100 get a course mark of 90+?

Shouldn't it be up to the course mark, not the rank, say if you go to JRAHS, and suppose if they want the top 20 for Ext 2. Math.

How about if the top 50 get course marks of above 95+? It just means that they all did really good, and shouldn't be subjected to marginalisation.

Just a thought....

Mainly budget problems / lack of resources that is why

I know in my school there is one advanced class for example.

 

[axwe7]

Wow...

So the students ability to choose what they want to do is dependent on how to principal uses the revenue. And if unable to provide the subject the student chose, they are subjected to marginalisation...

That is total balderdash.

Btw, which school do you go to?

 

[WrittenLoveLetters]

Yeah that makes perfect sense. But why do they get to decide how big the cohort should be? Shouldn't it be up to the students' to decide, because they know their potential, albeit the fact that they may not have tried hard in tests?

Btw, which school do you go to?
And best of luck for tomorrow

They decide who can so they take out students who are slightly off par of the calibre of the truely top top students. They want their cohort to do well and if that means taking out risks, they will do it.

Additionally, if someone doesn't try in their Maths exams and expect to get into 4U, they must be dreaming. For 4U, it's not just any other class, whilst it is a subject that needs a student to have that passion, the student needs to prove that they have the skills to perform. Even my school, which is in the 150s ~ 200s (2014 rank) expects high standards from Year 11s trying to get into MX2, the students in my 3U class, which was the top in our school, was expected to get close to - if not 100% in 2U exams, and those students follow up in 3U exams with consistent 90s and for our final exam, they were expected to get at least 75% but most of them got 80% + since it was the most challenging 3U exam for that year.

If you're not proving that you are working hard, you don't deserve a spot in a subject despite passions you have, and I could definitely understand why the school would limit the type of students in those classes

 

[crowley926]

So the students ability to choose what they want to do is dependent on how to principal uses the revenue. And if unable to provide the subject the student chose, they are subjected to marginalisation...

Haha I don't think it's as simple as the principal simply "choosing" to spend school money on other things... I know for public schools (and obviously private would have salary budgets too) there is only a certain number of teachers they can hire based on how many students there are so obviously they would be restricted in that sense, from hiring as many teachers as they want. And also they'd consider demand within the school body? I mean, a school won't hire 5 Food tech teachers if every year only like four kids choose it as an elective. So principals then have the job of assessing those two factors (and others) to see exactly which and how many teachers they can hire.

And also, with your comment about Ruse - I'm pretty sure they'd take way more than 20 kids for 4U (I'd say maybe around 60-70 even) and like I honestly doubt that all those kids within top 70 are getting 95+ ... the marks would, probably, start tapering down to the 80s by then (maybe even the 70s).