So how the f#%%# does this work? (1 Viewer)

[theone111]

ok im gna get straight to it

If im tied 3rd (with 2 other people)

do my internals take the average of the 3rd, 4th and 5th external mark - irrespective of me being only 2 assessment marks behind 1st place?

i heard that the bos only takes the highest and lowest external mark (given to first and last place) and then does some equation factoring in the assessment mrk differences etc etcc

so say 1st place get an external of 94 and, therefore, an internal of 94.. what is my internal mark looking at being - being 3rd place and all

sorry for the dyslexic sentencing.. im in a rush!

 

[Trans4M]

all 3 of you will get the same mark for internal marks however, it might not necessarily be the average of the 3rd,4th and 5th highest scores. it depends on the range of highest and lowest mark. But it will definetly be looking at 90-92 for internal marks if 1st got 94 because they need to keep the relative gap of the 2 marks. However, if your school does so well that the lowest mark is like 92... with 94 being highest, everyone will get like 93.

So to sum up, depends on what the lowest mark in your grade is and then it will determine how marks are distributed

 

[theone111]

What if two people are first.. what happens?

 

[Shadowdude]

Whenever people are tied, the tied people's external HSC marks are averaged to give the moderated HSC mark that is given to all people who are tied for that position.

There may be some exceptions, but that's how they do it - in general.

 

[theone111]

Whenever people are tied, the tied people's external HSC marks are averaged to give the moderated HSC mark that is given to all people who are tied for that position.

There may be some exceptions, but that's how they do it - in general.

so is this wrong then?

this is how i thought it went:

They take the top external mark and lowest mark and administer it to top and bottom rank to determine internal results..

they then look at the disparity between, lets say, rank 1 and 2 (pretend its 1%) and determine rank 2's internal mark according to the top external mark and the difference in assessment results...

now the alt is that.. rank 2 gets the internal mark of the 2nd top external mark

which is the case?

 

[Shadowdude]

so is this wrong then?

this is how i thought it went:

They take the top external mark and lowest mark and administer it to top and bottom rank to determine internal results..

they then look at the disparity between, lets say, rank 1 and 2 (pretend its 1%) and determine rank 2's internal mark according to the top external mark and the difference in assessment results...

now the alt is that.. rank 2 gets the internal mark of the 2nd top external mark

which is the case?

What I emboldened is correct. But IF there are tied results, then what I described - happens.

 

[theone111]

what if 3 people are tied on 3rd place (and behind 1st by only 2 marks) - are they going to average the 3rd, 4th and 5th mark to determine our internal mark?

if so, then that wouldnt be in conjunction with the rest of the process...

im a bit confused

i thought averaging only happens if the there are =firsts or =lasts

 

[theone111]

bamp

 

[Shadowdude]

what if 3 people are tied on 3rd place (and behind 1st by only 2 marks) - are they going to average the 3rd, 4th and 5th mark to determine our internal mark?

if so, then that wouldnt be in conjunction with the rest of the process...

im a bit confused

i thought averaging only happens if the there are =firsts or =lasts

Well obviously lots of people tied for a place is a special circumstance, it doesn't happen often. So they'll do some tinkering to how they allocate the marks, but it'll be pretty much the same thing in moderating marks as they would normally, plotting to a graph, etc.

 

[Riproot]

What if 2 people are =1st and 3 are =4th out of 10?
And what if 1 and 2 are separate but 3 are =3rd and 2 are =6th out of 11?

 

[tambam]

If 2 people (or more) are tied at first place, the top 2 (or more) marks will be averaged togive each of those people their internal mark.
This would also happenfor last place tied rankings.

Everyone else will just be moderated around the mean of the cohort through the normal moderation process, people tied 3rd will all have the same mark internally.

And shadowdude, tied ranks are actually extremely common, its just potentially disadvantageous to be tied in first place, because theaverage of the top 2 marks could get dragged down if one of the top 2 marks is lower thanthe other by a margin (ie someone bombs the externals)

(So yeah, shadowdude is wrong about the tied places thing)

 

[theone111]

What if 2 people are =1st and 3 are =4th out of 10?
And what if 1 and 2 are separate but 3 are =3rd and 2 are =6th out of 11?

i know, its confusing...

heres what ive understood:

=1sts: they average out the top 2 marks to find out the school max. external

=3rds: they look at the difference between 3rd and 1st in assessment marks and administer the internal mark accordingly.. no averaging occurs

have i understood it correctly

 

[tambam]

i know, its confusing...

heres what ive understood:

=1sts: they average out the top 2 marks to find out the school max. external

=3rds: they look at the difference between 3rd and 1st in assessment marks and administer the internal mark accordingly.. no averaging occurs

have i understood it correctly

Yes, disregard what shadowdude said, he's incorrect.

 

[theone111]

Yes, disregard what shadowdude said, he's incorrect.

thanks!

im just a bit scared, cos our school told us differently..

they said: rank 2 will get the 2nd highest external mark as their internal...

that sounds completely wrong.. but why would they tell us that?

 

[tambam]

thanks!

im just a bit scared, cos our school told us differently..

they said: rank 2 will get the 2nd highest external mark as their internal...

that sounds completely wrong.. but why would they tell us that?

This is a common misinterpretation of the moderation process, or its an oversimplified explanation.
Can't be bothered to find the link, but google 'board of studies modeeration explanation' to find the official 'proof'

 

[theone111]

This is a common misinterpretation of the moderation process, or its an oversimplified explanation.
Can't be bothered to find the link, but google 'board of studies modeeration explanation' to find the official 'proof'

i 100% agree with you

their reason didnt make the slightest bit of logical sense to me

thanks!

 

[Shadowdude]

I'm wrong about... the prevalence of tied ranks?

 

[theone111]

I'm wrong about... the prevalence of tied ranks?

in relation to being tied 3rd.. yes

 

[Aquawhite]

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc-results/moderation.html

Read it, understand it, and live in infamy with pure knowledge. It's quite simple to wrap your head around this stuff on the BOS website.