Inaccuracy of the honour roll (1 Viewer)

[~ ReNcH ~]

Aligning is meant to be for the sake of comparison of marks within subjects, so isn't the honour roll slightly inaccurate in that it would be easier to attain a Band 6 in some subjects than others. Not to mention the inaccuracy of the recipients of the Premier's Award as a direct consequence. Shouldn't these awards be based on scaled marks instead??

Btw. I'm not complaining or anything (I'm completing my HSC next year), but I'm just curious as to what people think.

 

[KeypadSDM]

So would you prefer the people who got "Top 10% in state in 10 units of subjects or over"?

(Which would have been better, I would have got a Premier's award that way )

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

So would you prefer the people who got "Top 10% in state in 10 units of subjects or over"?

(Which would have been better, I would have got a Premier's award that way )

Yea, that may have been better - fairer in my opinion at least

 

[Xayma]

No it wouldn't have been any fairer. Obviously getting in the top 10% of Mathematics Extension 2 would be harder then top 10% in General Mathematics.

 

[Lazarus]

Yes, you're correct - comparisons of aligned marks between courses are invalid. The same goes for percentiles.

If only the Technical Committee and UAC were willing to publish scaled marks... the world would be a better place.

 

[grimreaper]

Yes, you're correct - comparisons of aligned marks between courses are invalid. The same goes for percentiles.

If only the Technical Committee and UAC were willing to publish scaled marks... the world would be a better place.

but then the ignorant masses would realise just how badly some subjects "appear" to scale, and no one would do them

But seriously - yes i think the honour role is silly - especially having done some of the "harder" courses and just missing out on Premier's award by 3 marks in chem

 

[helper]

Yes, you're correct - comparisons of aligned marks between courses are invalid. The same goes for percentiles.

If only the Technical Committee and UAC were willing to publish scaled marks... the world would be a better place.

A return to the 80's when that is what was published on your HSC. Then you have the complaints about why is the average for this subject more than that. Sadly, there is no universal system everyone is happy with.

 

[Lazarus]

A return to the 80's when that is what was published on your HSC. Then you have the complaints about why is the average for this subject more than that. Sadly, there is no universal system everyone is happy with.

So instead of helping people reach a greater level of understanding, the details are secreted away in some Pandora's Box, with whispers of widespread panic and mass confusion resulting if they were ever to be released into the open.

I don't believe that people are inherently stupid, or are incapable of understanding. Such a belief would completely undermine our education system and all that it strives to achieve. Yet that seems to be what those at the Board and on the Technical Committee believe nonetheless.

Maybe I'm idealistic.

I'm inclined to think they just chose to take the easy way out.

 

[helper]

What you say may be true to a certain extent.

However, under the old system myths quickly buildt up about how hard subjects like maths and sciences always come out better than English. Teachers still sprout this crap as shown on this board.

The other main problem is comparing between years. Under the scaling system, or the system used in the 90s, he same mark does not mean the same thing from year to year. It is dependent on the cohort you are in.

Sadly the board did explain the system but people who do not understand statistics see it as a big black box where marks go in and the marks come out. They see there is inherent rigging in that black box. It is like the preferential voting sytem and the myth your vote doesn't count if you vote for a small party.

The aligned system has definite advantages once people understand it but I cannot see why UAC can't give out scaled marks with your UAI.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

1. Maybe the government should develope a UAI education program to explain scaling - actually have a BOS official explain it and assure students that the HSC is fair. It would expel the thousands of questions asked on these forums (some by me ) and all the questions students ask their teachers concerning scaling.

2. As for the honour roll/Premier's Award...BOS should reveal scaled marks, and base them on scaled marks - scaled mark of 90+ or 45+ = distinguished achiever.

1 + 2 = more educated students + fairer system = everyone is happy

 

[helper]

1)
UAI is nothing to do with the board of studies.
It should be UAC or the universites that explain that system. This why you were sent out the booklet
http://www.uac.edu.au/pubs/pdf/uaibook-2004-web.pdf

2) The Board of Studies and the Government/Premier does not have your scaled marks so they cannot publish them even if they wanted to.
The honour roll is meant to reflect who has achieved the highest standard of achievement in each course. This standard is reflected in the band statements you should have seen. It is not a reflection of how well you go against other students in the state.

 

[helper]

The Band 6 means something if you are not going to Uni and IF Employers look at the skills that are represented by the bands. Otherwise they mean nothing.

The Honour Roll is good for what it says it is. However, the Premier should get together with UAC to determine the top 100 students and publish and reward them.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Well that's actually done really well, they either get a 5 digit UAI or a 99.9x

Isn't that a reward enough? (Ok well no, there's no public display of "OMFG")

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

1)
UAI is nothing to do with the board of studies.
It should be UAC or the universites that explain that system. This why you were sent out the booklet
http://www.uac.edu.au/pubs/pdf/uaibook-2004-web.pdf

2) The Board of Studies and the Government/Premier does not have your scaled marks so they cannot publish them even if they wanted to.
The honour roll is meant to reflect who has achieved the highest standard of achievement in each course. This standard is reflected in the band statements you should have seen. It is not a reflection of how well you go against other students in the state.

True. Well, UAC should:
a) Publish the scaled marks and make them available
b) Develop an education program - booklets aren't enough esp. for guys who open the envelope, see 5000 words to read and then chuck it in the bin...

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

The Band 6 means something if you are not going to Uni and IF Employers look at the skills that are represented by the bands. Otherwise they mean nothing.

The Honour Roll is good for what it says it is. However, the Premier should get together with UAC to determine the top 100 students and publish and reward them.

So do employers actually look at the marks you gained? For instance, if someone got 90 in Maths Ext 2, but another candidate for a job received 98 would they really consider that? (although I guess it depends on the job) - a Band 6 is very broad and there's a very wide range of students with differing abilities within just one band. Would employers ignore your marks and concentrate more closely on your UAI??

 

[KeypadSDM]

If I was an employer, I'd be looking at uni results (more recent). If I bothered to look at HSC at all, then I'd probably be an idiot.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol my mate's brother got HD's all thruout uni in his eng course... only got 80 something for his uai tho and when he went to an employer they actually questioned him on why he did so bad in highschool.

 

[Lazarus]

So do employers actually look at the marks you gained? For instance, if someone got 90 in Maths Ext 2, but another candidate for a job received 98 would they really consider that? (although I guess it depends on the job) - a Band 6 is very broad and there's a very wide range of students with differing abilities within just one band. Would employers ignore your marks and concentrate more closely on your UAI??

Employers aren't going to know or understand anything about bands and standards.

They won't be familiar with the distinction between Mathematics Extension 1 and Mathematics Extension 2 - they might even just think they're two different types of extension classes (unless perhaps you refer to the latter as "4U Maths" in your interview).

I doubt they'd attempt to compare marks between applicants either... why would you need to, when you're given a single figure (UAI) that does it for you?

The only exception might be in the case of apprenticeships and so on where skills in a relevant area are particularly important.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Employers aren't going to know or understand anything about bands and standards.

They won't be familiar with the distinction between Mathematics Extension 1 and Mathematics Extension 2 - they might even just think they're two different types of extension classes (unless perhaps you refer to the latter as "4U Maths" in your interview).

I doubt they'd attempt to compare marks between applicants either... why would you need to, when you're given a single figure (UAI) that does it for you?

The only exception might be in the case of apprenticeships and so on where skills in a relevant area are particularly important.

True - very true.
And I think what Keypad said is also very true - employers probably screw your HSC results once you've gone to uni.

But if it was for a job that required skills in one particular subject area, particularly Actuarial Studies or Law, the UAI could be misleading coz there are many guys who excel at Maths or English but who get lower UAIs because of language barriers etc...just an example.