scaling (2 Viewers)

[Zephyrio]

While it does depend on the year and the difficulty of the paper being assessed, the general trend (that I have observed from the relatively small amount of raw mark data received from FOI requests and conversations with people about speculation of their raw marks and comparing it with their received HSC exam mark, so only of own opinion really) is that mid 60s/84 raw will get you the bare minimum E4 mark. I'm pretty sure that the BOS is not that generous with aligned marks as to give mid 50s/80 raw marks an E4 aligned HSC exam mark.

I have reason to believe that for a paper with the difficulty of say, 2006 or 2008, it is perfectly within the realm of possibility that mid-50's would equate to an E4 mark. A good example would be Sefton High's 2006 cohort, of which 40 received E4's, meaning that 40 of the top students (i.e. half our 3U maths candidature) received at least 90. Generally, Sefton High's 3U averages are quite abysmal too. I mean, the average for the 3U trial for my year was 48/84.

Conversely, according to me121, he got a raw mark around 67, which equated to 94 in 2007, which was no where near as difficult as 2008.

 

[SoulSearcher]

I have reason to believe that for a paper with the difficulty of say, 2006 or 2008, it is perfectly within the realm of possibility that mid-50's would equate to an E4 mark. A good example would be Sefton High's 2006 cohort, of which 40 received E4's, meaning that 40 of the top students (i.e. half our 3U maths candidature) received at least 90. Generally, Sefton High's 3U averages are quite abysmal too. I mean, the average for the 3U trial for my year was 48/84.

Conversely, according to me121, he got a raw mark around 67, which equated to 94 in 2007, which was no where near as difficult as 2008.

While I can certainly see your viewpoint on the matter, I'm just not sure that the mark cutoff would be brought down large enough so that equating a mid 50s raw mark would equate to a band E4. From what I know, I got around 75-77 in the 2006 exam and received an aligned mark of 48/50 and my friend who got 46 aligned in the 2006 exam got around 64-66, so I'm going off my own experince in doing the paper (which I do admit I may just have misinterpreted badly). So for 2006, it was probably a lower cutoff than what is generally the case, but I'm not quite sure that it would be enough to bring it down into mid 50s range.

However, it is quite perfectly reasonable to conclude that due to the nature of the exam this year that the E4 cutoff would be lowered from what is generally the case. I just don't see it falling to mid 50s, but quite possibly a high 50s mark would be enough to get into E4 this year. Regardless, people shouldn't worry about this too much and just focus on the next exam they have or relaxing after their final exam.

 

[Zephyrio]

While I can certainly see your viewpoint on the matter, I'm just not sure that the mark cutoff would be brought down large enough so that equating a mid 50s raw mark would equate to a band E4. From what I know, I got around 75-77 in the 2006 exam and received an aligned mark of 48/50 and my friend who got 46 aligned in the 2006 exam got around 64-66, so I'm going off my own experince in doing the paper (which I do admit I may just have misinterpreted badly). So for 2006, it was probably a lower cutoff than what is generally the case, but I'm not quite sure that it would be enough to bring it down into mid 50s range.

However, it is quite perfectly reasonable to conclude that due to the nature of the exam this year that the E4 cutoff would be lowered from what is generally the case. I just don't see it falling to mid 50s, but quite possibly a high 50s mark would be enough to get into E4 this year. Regardless, people shouldn't worry about this too much and just focus on the next exam they have or relaxing after their final exam.

The E4 cutoff for 2001's HSC was around 50/84, so yeah, I don't know. I certainly do not see half of Sefton's 2006 cohort getting 66+, 18 marks over what is normally our average for the trial. Bear in mind that 2006 was one of our worst years regarding HSC results too.

Also, I guess bear in mind that the aligned marks and corresponding raw marks go up exponentially, so there would be a larger mark range for a 45 and a smaller one for a 49 I guess.

I just don't think the E4 cutoffs they have are terribly stringent; my friend who came within the last 10 of her 2007 3U cohort at Sefton ended up getting 44. (And she failed every single assessment task during the year lol)

 

[lionking1191]

no you idiot. 69 would be about 46 for sure, if not lower...

in 2007 79% aligned to 94.

where does your info come from? -__-

 

[SoulSearcher]

The E4 cutoff for 2001's HSC was around 50/84, so yeah, I don't know. I certainly do not see half of Sefton's 2006 cohort getting 66+, 18 marks over what is normally our average for the trial. Bear in mind that 2006 was one of our worst years regarding HSC results too.

Also, I guess bear in mind that the aligned marks and corresponding raw marks go up exponentially, so there would be a larger mark range for a 45 and a smaller one for a 49 I guess.

I just don't think the E4 cutoffs they have are terribly stringent; my friend who came within the last 10 of her 2007 3U cohort at Sefton ended up getting 44. (And she failed every single assessment task during the year lol)

Hmm, I see what you mean, so unless you're part of the committee that determines these cutoffs, all I suppose you can do is speculate based on what you have gathered in terms of information.

It is also good to bear in mind there that while that might have been a bad grade, Sefton is still a partially selective school, so the standard could be higher there than in many other schools, but still, I wouldn't have a clue, really. It was probably quite a low cutoff that year, not to be discounted and almost impossible, I suppose.

It's just safer to say that it will be a lower cutoff this year as opposed to most other years, and we'll probably get a better indication of the cutoff range when the HSC results do come out.

 

[erm]

I have reason to believe that for a paper with the difficulty of say, 2006 or 2008, it is perfectly within the realm of possibility that mid-50's would equate to an E4 mark. A good example would be Sefton High's 2006 cohort, of which 40 received E4's, meaning that 40 of the top students (i.e. half our 3U maths candidature) received at least 90. Generally, Sefton High's 3U averages are quite abysmal too. I mean, the average for the 3U trial for my year was 48/84.

Conversely, according to me121, he got a raw mark around 67, which equated to 94 in 2007, which was no where near as difficult as 2008.

I love you.

you give us weaklings some glint of hope.

 

[Zephyrio]

Oh don't worry guys, I'm just trying to reassure myself after I bombed out in the exam. LOL.

 

[friction]

While I can certainly see your viewpoint on the matter, I'm just not sure that the mark cutoff would be brought down large enough so that equating a mid 50s raw mark would equate to a band E4. From what I know, I got around 75-77 in the 2006 exam and received an aligned mark of 48/50 and my friend who got 46 aligned in the 2006 exam got around 64-66, so I'm going off my own experince in doing the paper (which I do admit I may just have misinterpreted badly). So for 2006, it was probably a lower cutoff than what is generally the case, but I'm not quite sure that it would be enough to bring it down into mid 50s range.

However, it is quite perfectly reasonable to conclude that due to the nature of the exam this year that the E4 cutoff would be lowered from what is generally the case. I just don't see it falling to mid 50s, but quite possibly a high 50s mark would be enough to get into E4 this year. Regardless, people shouldn't worry about this too much and just focus on the next exam they have or relaxing after their final exam.

I think you really did misinterpret that badly as less marks make a change in HSC mark when you are getting less percent and when you get higher the gaps between HSC marks get higher. 75-77 i reckon would get probably 97-98 in 2006. Especially if 64-66 gets a 92. As the gap in raw between 98 and 100 will be bigger then the gap between 98 and 96 and so on. And i think towards the top they start getting quiet big.

 

[adnan91]

Ok so wat would a 79-80% this year scale to. Based on last year 79%-->94 and previous years

 

[SoulSearcher]

I think you really did misinterpret that badly as less marks make a change in HSC mark when you are getting less percent and when you get higher the gaps between HSC marks get higher. 75-77 i reckon would get probably 97-98 in 2006. Especially if 64-66 gets a 92. As the gap in raw between 98 and 100 will be bigger then the gap between 98 and 96 and so on. And i think towards the top they start getting quiet big.

Umm, ok? I said that I got a 96 aligned HSC exam mark with that sort of mark range in the 2006 paper, which I sat and actually did the HSC exam for. No 97-98, just 96.

The rest of that statement could also be clarified and cleaned up a lot further. However, I am willing to concede that the raw mark cutoff would be lower this year, but probably to around high 50s as a raw mark. It is not outside the realm of possibility that it will be around mid 50s, but my opinion is slanted on it not being that low. It will be lower than last year though, that's for sure.

 

[timmiitippii]

whats the point in saying all subjects to scale down. U might as well say everything scales up (including business studies , cooking, sewing , dancing ) with the exception that some scales higher ...

first of all i have better things to do than to make up post =.=
and its not me saying that "all subjects scale down" its uac and their published statistics which says that

page 44 - "Table A3 Descriptive statistics and selected percentiles for HSC marks
and scaled marks by course"

http://www.uac.edu.au/pubs/pdf/tsc_report_2007_fin_web-sep.pdf

as u can see in the marks columns, the actual hsc mark is always higher than their scaled worth.
only sum courses for example ext 1 maths where when u get realli low marks, the scaled mark might be a bit higher than what u earned, but generally overall nearly all subjects either remains the same if u sumhow manage to get 100 (50/50 per unit) or they decrease depending on their curve.
As opposed to ext 2 maths where u can obviously see that no matter what mark u get, it always gets scaled up, with the scaling factor increasing the lower the mark gets.

That is what i mean when i say all subs scales down just the tough subjects scales down less. Except Ext 2 maths.
And to make sure ppl are not confused, i'm talking about "scaling" as in how much ur hsc marks in each subject worth when determining ur UAI. The common misconception is that people confuse scaling with alligning or even moderating. Alligning is when they set cut-off bands for raw exam scores so that even a difficult subject like ext 1 maths can have a mark out of 100 as a percentage to make it more comparable to the other subjects. *since many parents who are told that their child got 60% in ext 1 maths whereas their friend's child got 90% in business studies won't understand unless raw marks are alligned*

Why scale even after alligning u ask? because simply in the end, a 90% in a hard subject worths more than a 90% in an easy subject.

 

[timmiitippii]

Ok so wat would a 79-80% this year scale to. Based on last year 79%-->94 and previous years

if that was true... i would be realli realli happy
after going through terry lee's answers, im 95% sure i managed to get 67/84..
which is 80%. and if ppl's speculations about the cutoff being lower than last year, quite possibly might allign to a 95 or even 96 as a stretch since i am aware that it looks somewhat like a bell curve?

 

[karnage]

Woooo hope

 

[narrowpin]

if that was true... i would be realli realli happy
after going through terry lee's answers, im 95% sure i managed to get 67/84..
which is 80%. and if ppl's speculations about the cutoff being lower than last year, quite possibly might allign to a 95 or even 96 as a stretch since i am aware that it looks somewhat like a bell curve?

dream on. soulsearcher got 96 in 2006..which was hard as well after getting a raw of 75-77

 

[timmiitippii]

dream on. soulsearcher got 96 in 2006..which was hard as well after getting a raw of 75-77

but that's not the point here.
The point is that its agreed across the board that 08 ext 1 paper is much harder than the 07 paper.
Andrew Harvey who actually got his script from the board of studies got 94 (47/50) alligned with his raw of 67-71/84

http://andrew.harvey4.googlepages.com/07HSCMathExt1Script_17807706.pdf

So even if the cut-off is lowered only by a bit, which is probably less likely than it being lowered more, (since 07 is extremely easy if i managed to get 78/84), its not a stretch at all to say a 67/84 in 08 would be 95 or 96 alligned

Unless soulsearcher has his script from 06, then u cannot realli make the comparison, since no1 can ever realli be aware of how many silly mistakes they might of made.
No offense intended at all to you soulsearcher since i respect your post and knowledge, but im just making a point to "narrowpin"

 

[adnan91]

if that was true... i would be realli realli happy
after going through terry lee's answers, im 95% sure i managed to get 67/84..
which is 80%. and if ppl's speculations about the cutoff being lower than last year, quite possibly might allign to a 95 or even 96 as a stretch since i am aware that it looks somewhat like a bell curve?

Ya me too im certain i got 67/84. You really think it might scale to 95? I dunno it just doesnt feel right if you know what i mean.

 

[narrowpin]

but that's not the point here.
The point is that its agreed across the board that 08 ext 1 paper is much harder than the 07 paper.
Andrew Harvey who actually got his script from the board of studies got 94 (47/50) alligned with his raw of 67-71/84

http://andrew.harvey4.googlepages.com/07HSCMathExt1Script_17807706.pdf

So even if the cut-off is lowered only by a bit, which is probably less likely than it being lowered more, (since 07 is extremely easy if i managed to get 78/84), its not a stretch at all to say a 67/84 in 08 would be 95 or 96 alligned

Unless soulsearcher has his script from 06, then u cannot realli make the comparison, since no1 can ever realli be aware of how many silly mistakes they might of made.
No offense intended at all to you soulsearcher since i respect your post and knowledge, but im just making a point to "narrowpin"

wow i thought andrew had estimated his mark as well, but since he has his script, then he definitely did get about 69(taking the middle) which was scaled to 94. man i fucked my test up, so im hoping for a low as possible E4 cut off, but its just stupid having unrealistic hopes if you get what i mean, which is why its so hard to believe what everyones saying that a low 60 and even a high 50's mark could be an E4.

 

[ziggy.zoozah]

any mark under 70 that i receive for my macedonian continuers is transformed into at least 98. its honestly the best subject.
although im confident that i aced it and got 99 but then again, just in case i didnt, it doesnt matter because im guaranteed a good uai due to macedonian's AWESOME scaling!

 

[narrowpin]

LOL and then theres 8 of your other units fucktard. you dumbfuck everything else scales down like hell. good fucking luck

 

[ziggy.zoozah]

LOL and then theres 8 of your other units fucktard. you dumbfuck everything else scales down like hell. good fucking luck

youre clearly deluded and misguided. all my subjects scale up except for english standard but my ranking there is good enough to scale up. shame on you. go to hell.