Motherf***in' Scaling! (1 Viewer)

[OzE Hindu]

Scaling!

Damn, I'm just recently learning about scaling. I'm so pissed at the school for not having explained. They basically just said that UAC carries out all the scaling and that the HSC isn't scaled. And now I know that they were incorrect.

OK basically I just want to know how this "pooling" system works. What is its aim and how does it achieve its aim. The other thing is, I remember hearing from someone that our marks are scaled up by 20 marks or something for each subject. This is due to the fact that roughly 20-30% of people leave school (drop out) after year 10. So basically, we cash in on higher ranks because they've already left and given up. Can someone clear this up for me?

I am real confused with the pooling system. I mean, if someone is coming first and has high marks, then what's the point of issuing them with more marks? Is it supposed to compensate for something?

 

[Ragerunner]

Well I guess your school is more concerned about what you are concerned about if that makes sense. i.e. UAC scaling --> UAI, and since most of us mainly care about the type of UAI we get to get into university courses you can say that the UAC scaling is the important one.

The HSC is scaled, or more accurately "aligned". This aligning of marks takes your RAW HSC marks and 'aligns' them to performance bands.

The "pooling" system is to ensure state-wise fairness in Internal assessment marks. Of course each and every school will hold different assessment tasks each of varying difficulty, hence these marks cannot be compared state-wise.

The only thing that is common throughout the state is the HSC exam which everyone in the states does. So this 'pooling' system uses the 'pool' of marks from the HSC exam and distributes it corresponding to the rank that individual belongs taking account of the relative differences between the students in marks.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean when you say you heard someone saying that your marks are scaled up by 20 marks or something for each subject. There is no form or scaling up marks because of the year 10 drop out.....

People coming first and has high marks do not get issued with more marks, they are simply given the highest HSC exam mark as their internal assessment mark which is fair if they managed to attain a first ranked position.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by OzE Hindu
OK basically I just want to know how this "pooling" system works. What is its aim and how does it achieve its aim.

The aim is to make your assessment marks comparable between schools. As Ragerunner said, some schools might set very easy or very difficult tasks, which could advantage or disadvantage some students. Similarly, some schools might mark particularly leniently or particularly harshly. To avoid any students being unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged, the HSC exams are used to place the assessment marks for each class on the same scale as the examination marks for that class. The HSC exams are taken statewide by everyone, and so it is fair to use them as a benchmark.

Originally posted by OzE Hindu
I mean, if someone is coming first and has high marks, then what's the point of issuing them with more marks?

The student may have been coming first in their own school, but it's unlikely that they would have been coming first in the state. The moderating process aims to make marks comparable between schools, and hence those extra marks do actually have meaning when compared with marks of students from other schools.

Originally posted by OzE Hindu
The other thing is, I remember hearing from someone that our marks are scaled up by 20 marks or something for each subject. This is due to the fact that roughly 20-30% of people leave school (drop out) after year 10. So basically, we cash in on higher ranks because they've already left and given up.

That's not entirely accurate.

Prior to 1998, students were given a TER instead of a UAI. This ranked students within the HSC. The UAI was introduced because it ranks students within their state age cohort - that is, everyone who completed the School Certificate with them two years beforehand. It just so happens that the 'more able' students in Yr 10 tend to be the ones who continue on to do Yr 12 and the HSC. This means that UAIs tend to be higher than the corresponding TERs (by up to 15 points near the bottom end of the scale).

But there's really no advantage, because everyone doing the HSC receives the higher ranking - it's just an illusion.

 

[Snapwizard]

Originally posted by Lazarus

Prior to 1998, students were given a TER instead of a UAI. This ranked students within the HSC. The UAI was introduced because it ranks students within their state age cohort - that is, everyone who completed the School Certificate with them two years beforehand. It just so happens that the 'more able' students in Yr 10 tend to be the ones who continue on to do Yr 12 and the HSC. This means that UAIs tend to be higher than the corresponding TERs (by up to 15 points near the bottom end of the scale).

But there's really no advantage, because everyone doing the HSC receives the higher ranking - it's just an illusion.

Which system do you reckon is fairer?, and why are all state different? last question what was the point of the actual SC tests? I heard if people fail in it they still get to do the HSC.

 

[Lazarus]

Both systems are as fair as each other - they each achieve their aim, which is to rank students based on their overall HSC achievement. They're just ranking students within different groups. In fact, TERs are still calculated as an interim process when determining UAIs, but you don't get to see them.

The table in this thread happens to also be a (very rough) table of UAI/TER equivalencies. In general, a UAI of 99 is (very roughly) equivalent to a TER of 98, and a UAI of 90 is (very roughly) equivalent to a TER of 84, etc.

The SC examinations really only have significance to students who choose not to go on to complete the HSC. I'm not certain of whether satisactory completion of the SC is a prerequisite for entrance to the HSC years, but it would seem logical.

 

[overwhelming]

OMG.. that SAM thing has ruined my day.

I now realise that I have to get like band 6's in at least half my subjects to have a chance of UAI >98

 

[Ragerunner]

SAM has merely given you an idea of how much you must now work to achieve your goal, which is better than not knowing how much effort you need to put in and become disappointed when the results come.

Remember 98 UAI is amongst the top in the state, so naturally you'd have to expect to achieve band 6's in order to attain that UAI.

But that doesn't mean you should give up hope.

 

[honky tonk]

What are you hoping to do at Uni, overwhelming?

 

[elizabethy]

i cud never understand this system of scaling even though Laz and ragerrunner tried to explain me zillions of times

i m glad i don't need to understand it now co'z my HSC is over

 

[overwhelming]

Combined Law or Actuarial Studies

 

[santaslayer]

u can do that with a 91.....lol
or even an 80.00 if ur willing to move out!

 

[SKA]

i gotta say...that if the school explained the uai and subject scaling better then half of yr 11 and 12 wouldnt be doing the subjects they chose

 

[Lazarus]

Too many students place too much weight on scaling - if 'less able' students begin taking courses which have typically had high scaled means, then the scaling is going to drop. It's as simple as that. All of the scaling parameters are calculated afresh each year with regard to the new candidature.

I also strongly agree with the following paragraphs from p7 of the Report on the Scaling of the 2001 HSC:

A UAI will obviously have greatest predictive validity when there is congruence between the
outcomes a student achieves and the knowledge and skills required of the chosen university
course. This has implications for universities, which need to identify the academic attributes
necessary for a range of courses, and make them known to school students.

It also has implications for schools. Students need to be advised to choose HSC courses that
provide a suitable background for what they wish to study at university. Advising them in
terms of what courses are likely to result in a high UAI while ignoring the nature of the
courses they wish to study is counterproductive, and leads to a trivialising of education. If
students choose courses in which they interested and which will provide a suitable
background for their future career, they are likely to work harder. The ultimate result is that
they are more likely to succeed.