Originally posted by Survivor39
According to the scaling, why is Mathematics Extension 2 scaled higher than the Distinction courses - Cosmology, Comparative Litrature and Philosophy??
The only explanation is that, in general, ME2 students tend to have a better overall performance than DC students.
Results for DCs are actually combined and scaled as a single course (in the same way as std/adv english) and the statistics are only separated for the purposes of reporting. If you average the scaled means published for the three DCs, you'll get an approximation of the 'real' scaled mean, which is only a few marks below ME2.
There are also far more students taking ME2 than there are taking DCs. Compare 2578 with 76 (2001) and 2960 with 87 (2002).
Originally posted by Survivor39
I thought students in distinction courses are accelerated in at least one course, and are doing extension courses in school, are proven to be all round excellent.... blah blah blah.
Whilst it is true that almost all DC students have accelerated a course, you can't say that they're all doing extension courses. I think the most plausible explanation is that most of the DC students excel in a particular area (hence the acceleration) but, overall, do not perform better than the ME2 students.
There are inevitably some brilliant students taking DCs - even with their small candidatures, each course usually produces at least one UAI of 100 every year (and considering there's only around 22 of them, that's pretty good). There are also a number of students who accelerated a course (maybe it is the 'thing' at their school) and are simply along for the ride.
I should also point out that the course lecturers perform a few little scaling tricks of their own (the type that are typical of universities) before sending them off to the Board... naturally, however, most of this goes unreported.
The difference between your raw mark and your final mark in a DC is usually nothing to complain about.
