Doesn't this mean at higher ranked schools (better academic achievers), the range of marks is smaller (more people are getting higher marks than at a lower academic schol) thus proving it to be a disadvantage for anyone in a top ranked school who isn't getting top ranks?
Yeah, but only to a certain extent. For example, say a school has 40% of Band 6s out of every exam (the primary measure of school rankings). It's probably safe to say that if you're within the top 40% of your cohort, then it would prove more of an advantage than a disadvantage. However, if you're below that, that may be another story. There would be some leeway in that some people who were below that 40% of the cohort would get mid-high 80s however, so as long as you're not in the bottom 30%, you should be fine.
roborob said:
Personally, I'm at a school somewhere in the top 20-25 (can't be bothered finding it), and for most of my subjects I'm ranked almost dead in the middle. So this means, even if I do well in my external, I'll still be pulled down by the fact I'm ranked not so well? In that case, what advantages do we actually get from going to a higher ranked school if I could be ranked top 5 in a lower ranked school?
Thanks
Depends on whether your cohort does well or not I guess. I don't know, I heard that the ranks were pretty volatile in the HSC years - especially if you were middle, so just try to get up a few ranks to be safe or something. If you were ranked top 5 in a lower ranked school, it shouldn't really matter if those top 5 are always consistent (always get high marks), since it basically means you can ignore the rest of the cohort in terms of affecting your final internal mark.
There isn't really any technical advantage of going to a higher ranked school, but there are definately some advantages in the form of a better cohort and all that.
