Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
ok here we go again, the overall academic performance for a particular candicture is not affected by the internal performance in that particular course.
Incorrect. The overall academic ability of the candidature is measured over
all courses they took, and not simply over all
other courses. (However, the iterative procedure used prior to 1986 measured academic ability according to the performance of the candidature in all other courses. You described something vaguely resembling this procedure in an earlier post - but it's no longer used.)
Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
because look at 4u math this year... the heighest raw is about 90% and 99 for hsc mark... so if what you are claiming is true then the 4u math canditure is severly disadvantaged compared to general math where the heighest raw is 100% and hsc 100.
There is no such disadvantage. The distributions of raw marks for all courses are standardised to have a common mean, standard deviation and top mark before the scaling procedures are applied. In fact, various modelling experiments have shown that the results of scaling are extraordinarily similar even if this initial standardisation doesn't occur.
I wonder if I should write a script to simulate it.
Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
but even if it does... i think mathematically it can be proven that disadvantages of letting others gain more marks is stronger than the so called advantages that will be gained from raising the scale unfairly.
Yes, well, that is a possibility.