Secondary ATAR results

Remove this Banner Ad

magic_johnson! said:
I disagree. I did specialist, and probably averaged 6+ hours a week throughout the year studying for it. I almost did more study for that that any other subject, and if it wasn't scaled, then i'd be left with a 29 which would not be just reward. It would encourage me to instead do further, where little work is put in and little is learnt, but a high raw score is easier to come by as some of my friends have seen, recieving high scores.

If you want to do a lote and your school doesn't offer lote, then go to another school. Your parents pick a school, among other things, on the ability to broaden your studies and let you do what you want. There are many high schools around, you shouldn't be limited like that. And again, just because it's scaled up, does not mean it's easy to get a good score. You must apply yourself for a good 6 years if you want a good score, as it's not an area you can just pick up overnight.
Click to expand...

The specialist bias is bullshit. Arts gets destroyed like Port in 2007 but you need to put the same level of work, if not more into mastering that. That is where the critics come from. Same goes for music. How that gets scaled down where it is another distinct talent that needs hours upon hours of effort is beyond me.

Also the higher raw score for further because you didn't do specialist is a myth as some of my cohort found out. They dropped spec and though they would walk into mid 40s and ewre shocked when they got 38s and 39s. The fact a strong contingent does this unit despite how easy it is actually makes it harder to perform and ironically contradicts the mathematical logic behind the system.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
The specialist bias is bullshit. Arts gets destroyed like Port in 2007 but you need to put the same level of work, if not more into mastering that. That is where the critics come from. Same goes for music. How that gets scaled down where it is another distinct talent that needs hours upon hours of effort is beyond me.

Also the higher raw score for further because you didn't do specialist is a myth as some of my cohort found out. They dropped spec and though they would walk into mid 40s and ewre shocked when they got 38s and 39s. The fact a strong contingent does this unit despite how easy it is actually makes it harder to perform and ironically contradicts the mathematical logic behind the system.
Click to expand...

I think you are confused with how scaling works. It has nothing to do with how much work is required, or how hard or easy the subject is. It is all about how the students perform. While obviously it sucks that it doesn't always reward hard work, it is a ranking system, whereby it has nothing to do with smarts or hard work, and all to do with actual performance.The average of every subject is scaled to 30 so that scores are comparable between subjects. Thus, in a subject like Further, where the average is above 30, it scales down, while in Specialist, the average is below 30, so it scales up.

I suppose it does suck for subjects with not many students doing it, as it reduces the number of students able to get the higher scores, but in order for the system to work, everything needs to be standardised.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
The specialist bias is bullshit. Arts gets destroyed like Port in 2007 but you need to put the same level of work, if not more into mastering that. That is where the critics come from. Same goes for music. How that gets scaled down where it is another distinct talent that needs hours upon hours of effort is beyond me.

Also the higher raw score for further because you didn't do specialist is a myth as some of my cohort found out. They dropped spec and though they would walk into mid 40s and ewre shocked when they got 38s and 39s. The fact a strong contingent does this unit despite how easy it is actually makes it harder to perform and ironically contradicts the mathematical logic behind the system.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, dude.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Prudster said:
I think you are confused with how scaling works. It has nothing to do with how much work is required, or how hard or easy the subject is. It is all about how the students perform. While obviously it sucks that it doesn't always reward hard work, it is a ranking system, whereby it has nothing to do with smarts or hard work, and all to do with actual performance.The average of every subject is scaled to 30 so that scores are comparable between subjects. Thus, in a subject like Further, where the average is above 30, it scales down, while in Specialist, the average is below 30, so it scales up.

I suppose it does suck for subjects with not many students doing it, as it reduces the number of students able to get the higher scores, but in order for the system to work, everything needs to be standardised.
Click to expand...

The average does not change because of the standard of the cohort. The only reason there is variance is due to tied scores etc and is nominal. The basic statistical principle of the bell shaped curve is used and this can be done by manipulating the data to fit it in to the bell. Someone will always get an A+ and 50 and someone will get 0. What that is worth depends on the range from the top mark to the lowest mark needed to encompass a sufficient student population into the range for that year. For example at school, our B+ range was 75-79. In further in year 12 however, the B+ range was 52-61% and the follow ing year it was 58-66% because the exam was better performed on/easier in that year. Under the bell shaped curve principle, 68% of data lies within two standard deviations of the average. Now due to the way the data comes out the mean just happens to fall around 30. As a result, the value of the B+ is still 50% to your score and your 52% in my year is worth the same as a 58% the year after. As 68% has to fall within two standard deviations of the mean, statistical manipulation is done then to rank students according to this based on the data used for raw scores. The only bit of standardisation for your raw scores is your sacs marks and this is done according to your school's performance and your performance against others. It has no bearing on scaling for the unit and is merely done to give students a fair ranking to count in their ranking calculation. Each year the VCE releases their same standard statistics which are fixed on what percentage of the cohort receive a 40+ 20+ etc. This is not done on scaling but rather done on raw scores. The scaling is done by ATAR or whoever after the raw scores have been calculated to reflect the supposed predisposition that certain subjects are harder than others and despite there being numerous studies showing the contrary. This is done after the raw scores have been calculated and school assessment bias and variability has been adjusted for.

As we were told by the careers/vce coordinator, scaling occurs based on the easy or hard nature of the unit when calculating your enter and this is true. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the students in further are more likely to get an automatically higher score in further compared to specialist because the pure laws of statistics show how data can be ranked to ensure the same required spread of scores is achieved, regardless of how you perform. This is why students and teachers alike often bitch that a star student can get A+A+A+ and = 38 or in this year they got 85% for a top A but for two years ago that would have been the second highest score in the year for the state. The statistical system doesn't discriminate, it still ranks effectively and accurately based on what you have done and how this relates to that year across the state.
 
magic_johnson! said:
I disagree. I did specialist, and probably averaged 6+ hours a week throughout the year studying for it. I almost did more study for that that any other subject, and if it wasn't scaled, then i'd be left with a 29 which would not be just reward. It would encourage me to instead do further, where little work is put in and little is learnt, but a high raw score is easier to come by as some of my friends have seen, recieving high scores.
Click to expand...

In the exact same position, worked as hard as I could in Specialist getting a 29, scaled to 41. The scaling rewards students for doing a harder subject and not penalizing them.
 
St Specky said:
In the exact same position, worked as hard as I could in Specialist getting a 29, scaled to 41. The scaling rewards students for doing a harder subject and not penalizing them.
Click to expand...

this x 1000000

the general idea behind this is applied calculus is a lot harder than drawing or cooking....
 
But why should Mathematics have a higher pull than say Philosophy?

I certainly believe philosophers and the great thinkers have shaped the world more than mathematicians - or, at least as much as.

Who are the education departments to dictate what is right and wrong. Because that is what scaling is. Having a natural predisposition toward the social studies and arts, according to Australian education departments, is not as meaningful as having a mathematical slant.

I don't want to bicker over what we like more. I understand if maths kids hate writing. I sympathise totally. But the system is very unfair.

I find the education system here to be flawed. I'd much prefer a sixth form-like system. You can do three English subjects. If your heart is set on the written word, all power to you. If you like maths, you can do three sets of maths. It caters to the needs and wants of the individual. It will also make Australia's society more functional. Instead of being pretty good and okay at two things, we're utterly dedicated and skilled at one thing, and not at all in the other (which of course, this void is filled by the vice versa).
 
Silent Alarm said:
But why should Mathematics have a higher pull than say Philosophy?

I certainly believe philosophers and the great thinkers have shaped the world more than mathematicians - or, at least as much as.

Who are the education departments to dictate what is right and wrong. Because that is what scaling is. Having a natural predisposition toward the social studies and arts, according to Australian education departments, is not as meaningful as having a mathematical slant.

I don't want to bicker over what we like more. I understand if maths kids hate writing. I sympathise totally. But the system is very unfair.

I find the education system here to be flawed. I'd much prefer a sixth form-like system. You can do three English subjects. If your heart is set on the written word, all power to you. If you like maths, you can do three sets of maths. It caters to the needs and wants of the individual. It will also make Australia's society more functional. Instead of being pretty good and okay at two things, we're utterly dedicated and skilled at one thing, and not at all in the other (which of course, this void is filled by the vice versa).
Click to expand...

Thing is, scaling is dictated due to statistics, not ones general opinion. Specialist Maths has been shown to have a lower mean study score than Philosophy. That is why it scales, not because people believe it to be harder, it has been proven that people do worse off in that particular subject.
 
St Specky said:
Thing is, scaling is dictated due to statistics, not ones general opinion. Specialist Maths has been shown to have a lower mean study score than Philosophy. That is why it scales, not because people believe it to be harder, it has been proven that people do worse off in that particular subject.
Click to expand...

Again this is a myth, as statistically students will be ranked under the bell shaped curve principal on fixed percentages with only the top 2% getting above 45 for example reagrdless of what spin you put on it.

The scaling is done because VCAA etc argue that in certain subjects it is harder to do well because the cohort in that subject is stronger and therefore your chances of doing well are reduced. Despite this fact, there is no proof as yet that music is easier than specialist maths to score in or that scores even need to be scaled because there are a number of variables that influence each subject.

This is from the VCAA website

VTAC adjusts the Study Scores for each study to take account of how strong the students were in the study and how difficult it was to achieve
the middle ranking.
Click to expand...

This means scaling is done purely on how hard the subject is and not on any merit other than that. There is no sufficient evidence I have seen that proves to me it is harder to get a top score in arts compared with Hebrew. Further, the raw data evaluated into study scores has no need to be reevaluated because the bell shaped curve principal is designed to eliminate most of the discrepancy in units through its deviation principal. This system has been manipulated for many years by private schools who are all for it and do not seek review to it because it would actually make them perform worse if they did. There are many capable music students who bypass the music subject for example because of the risk they pose to their enter because they are seemingly easy and because the effort level to high achieve is excessively high compared with the risks to the score.

You know the system fails when students pick latin and specialist maths to boost their scores, yet their raw scores in business and accounting are identical to their specialist score.
 
Port_Adelaide said:
Maybe for some people Applied Calculus is a lot easier than Drawing or Cooking?
Click to expand...

and these are the people you want doing the top jobs, therefore they should get into their medicine and engineering courses? art courses usually have low mark requirements because they know due to the system their marks will go down dramatically.
 
Ghossein said:
and these are the people you want doing the top jobs, therefore they should get into their medicine and engineering courses? art courses usually have low mark requirements because they know due to the system their marks will go down dramatically.
Click to expand...

Art courses are usually interview and folio based because the vce score is irrelevant for the reasons you mention above. Again you are being stupid. Just because someone has done specialist maths does not mean they are better as an engineer or a surgeon. I have a friend who is going into med next year after his first degree who did woodwork of all subjects as part of year 12. In fact some of the design units actually show medical skills ability better, as they demonstrate an individual's fine motor skilols better than calculus ever would. Hence the reason course coordinators have changed or are changing the medical entrance requirements to include a heavy non academic program because they have learnt that academia proficiency doesn't mean you are a good doctor or lawyer.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
Art courses are usually interview and folio based because the vce score is irrelevant for the reasons you mention above. Again you are being stupid. Just because someone has done specialist maths does not mean they are better as an engineer or a surgeon. I have a friend who is going into med next year after his first degree who did woodwork of all subjects as part of year 12. In fact some of the design units actually show medical skills ability better, as they demonstrate an individual's fine motor skilols better than calculus ever would. Hence the reason course coordinators have changed or are changing the medical entrance requirements to include a heavy non academic program because they have learnt that academia proficiency doesn't mean you are a good doctor or lawyer.
Click to expand...

Basically what i'm trying to say is yes, the system favours your high maths and chem and physics courses, and the art and creative courses generally get shot down, but you're not the only one that notices this, uni's do to, and just because you might get shot down because of scaling does not mean your opportunities are over. your friend is a great example, i know a mate that went from being a tradie and is now a sports specialised physiotherapist.

The system just benefits the nerds and extremely 'smart' people to ensure they get into their courses first time around, it doesn't mean they're the only ones that will become doctors and lawyers in the end...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DTRAIN87 said:
Art courses are usually interview and folio based because the vce score is irrelevant for the reasons you mention above.
Click to expand...
Well this is misinformed.

Arts is quite broad. The title of Arts incorporates not just fine art – it isn't limited to canvas painting, sculpturing, photographer, drawing. The written word, thought, and anything that allows some degree of free thinking is Arts. You probably know this, and I don't want to sound condescending. But that clarification is essential.

A 'folio is necessary for Fine Arts at some tertiary institutions.

All of my uni applications are for courses within the Arts. I've not had to give any portfolio or example of my work. The way in which I will get into my Arts courses is by completing WACE requirements and sitting an exam. I will get into my courses through an ATAR mark. The same way in which someone doing Engineering will go to uni.

But I totally agree about everything else you said (and the parts I deleted - Journalism at its finest, here!).
 
Forgot you are un wa. In Victoria some courses go down the score only part nut those less theoretical like photography often rely on just folio and interview performance. The girl I know who applied this year knew at year 12s end she had been accepted and her exams were meaningless. She didn't even bother trying.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
This is the same flawed logic that a number of Education graduates from high school got into when choosing Melbourne on name. The industry certainly doesn't rank Melbourne as number one in the field. Again, it comes down to what you want to do career wise. Institutions will go for their own graduate first when it comes to postgraduate studies.
Click to expand...
Do you mean Psychology specifically or overall? Because on an overall basis, Melbourne Uni is preferred over any university except maybe ANU. This is particularly true for Commerce, though I'm not sure about Psychology.
 
Aldo said:
Do you mean Psychology specifically or overall? Because on an overall basis, Melbourne Uni is preferred over any university except maybe ANU. This is particularly true for Commerce, though I'm not sure about Psychology.
Click to expand...

No it's not and the industry doesn't look at Melbourne as a favoured option over other unis for commerce or other similar degrees. Industry is now clued up on facts such as uni x is better for this degree or this major and therefore their graduates are the most sought after. The core units are so bland and generic that firms are generally more concerned with your major choice/performance rather than what school you went to or similar. RMIT's professional practice gives students for example a critical edge when it comes to being employed. Further areas of business such as property and management (sports) are well recognised at Deakin as being the best courses in their field and both which are commerce courses.
 
ATAR scores out tomorrow for WACE students...

It says 8.00am is the time of release. But students from last year and the year before assured me it can be earlier.

Still, is anyone else a little nervous? That is, if there's anyone else...
 
71.09

Thanks for coming.

Did no study all year and spent my year on the internet. My score was 88 in English, scaled down to about 75... so I was pretty disappointed about that. All my subjects were scaled by 13-20 as well, which hurt.

But ****!
 
Silent Alarm said:
71.09

Thanks for coming.

Did no study all year and spent my year on the internet. My score was 88 in English, scaled down to about 75... so I was pretty disappointed about that. All my subjects were scaled by 13-20 as well, which hurt.

But ****!
Click to expand...
Well Done
What did you end up choosing for uni next year mate


lewigie said:
I got 96.4 last year, didn't study at all, just aced the exams of AIT and Geography.
Click to expand...
Big Noter :D
 
So happy I got in before the server crash. My girlfriend is currently waiting and says the wait is quite literally nauseating.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
No it's not and the industry doesn't look at Melbourne as a favoured option over other unis for commerce or other similar degrees. Industry is now clued up on facts such as uni x is better for this degree or this major and therefore their graduates are the most sought after. The core units are so bland and generic that firms are generally more concerned with your major choice/performance rather than what school you went to or similar. RMIT's professional practice gives students for example a critical edge when it comes to being employed. Further areas of business such as property and management (sports) are well recognised at Deakin as being the best courses in their field and both which are commerce courses.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that is too true. I know quite a few people who are undergoing internships in large finance and accounting firms such as Ernst & Young and KPMG, and I'm told most of the people who are being accepted into these very competitive internships are Melbourne University students. If not Melb Uni, then Monash, but very few RMIT, Swinburne or Deakin students. In fact I am not aware of anyone at these firms from a University outside of Melbourne and Monash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top