ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Technical Score Discussion => Topic started by: zzdfa on November 17, 2008, 01:23:54 pm
-
EDIT july 2 2009: this is a piece of crap don't bother. might try updating it near the end of this year.
just put in your subject, estimated marks, and which years data you want to use (04 to 07) and away you go.
NOTE: atm this doesn't account for SAC moderation, in reality SACS count for little, so choose a SAC mark close to your exam mark.
by sac mark thing i mean this:
say you think you got 150/160 for exam 2 and 70/80 for exam 1. that's 220/240 in total, which is about 91%. so put 90 in your sac marks score.
You have to do this because this program doesn't account for the sac moderation that vcaa does. if you get a high exam score but shitty sac mark, vcaa will adjust your sac mark upwards, etc.
http://vcecalc.co.nr/calc.html
it's very basic and ugly atm but i will add more stuff soon.
-
wow this is pretty cool, thanks
-
Hey,
when I type 'Mathematical Methods (CAS) "
it says, 'A problem occurred in a Python script.'
-
^delete the space after the closing bracket
-
^delete the space after the closing bracket
what space?
-
^delete the space after the closing bracket
what space?
the one after closing bracket for CAS
i got the same error when i just copy pasted the subject from the list..just make sure your cursor (the vertical line thingy when you type) is right after the closed bracket and hit delete a couple of times. should work then.
-
yeah, i got it. Thanks :)
-
I doubt its accuracy. For methods, i typed in 96, 76 and 140 and i got a range of : RAW: 41.5647529886 to 42.8904252657, expected 42.1731396317
Then i typed in 96, 76 and 130 and got a range of : 42.4625815801 to 43.7206831747, expected 43.0391228371
-
i typed in economics
and it doesnt come up, i get A problem occurred in a Python script
?
-
I doubt its accuracy. For methods, i typed in 96, 76 and 140 and i got a range of : RAW: 41.5647529886 to 42.8904252657, expected 42.1731396317
Then i typed in 96, 76 and 130 and got a range of : 42.4625815801 to 43.7206831747, expected 43.0391228371
Yeah, its not that accurate.
-
fixed the trailing space thing, you don't have to worry about the spaces anymore.
@doboman
thanks for the feedback ill try to fix it.
@cloud
could you elaborate? i.e. what scores you put in and what score you got.
-
Its very inaccurate
Accounting
85/90 Exam 1
199/200 SACS
85/90 Exam 2
41.2692298501
-
fixed the trailing space thing, you don't have to worry about the spaces anymore.
@doboman
thanks for the feedback ill try to fix it.
@cloud
could you elaborate? i.e. what scores you put in and what score you got.
I put scores pretty much within the A range and it came out with a 33!!! This is for methods CAS
-
Business Management:
GA1: 95/100
GA2: 95/100
GA3: 120/120
RAW: 43.42587599 to 44.6248744247, expected 43.9742825229
:-\ ???
Those scores should get a 45++ at least.
-
I might need to change the way the script calculates high end scores, atm for some subjects (mostly the ones with easy exams like Accounting) you need 100% to get 50, and losing 1 mark drops you down to 45. 20-45 seems to work ok at the moment though.
@jsimmo , yea, that should be ~48, it's because it doesn't account for sac moderation by vcaa, you should put in sac marks close to your exam %
@doboman
it seems like that only happens when you put in 96 for SAC marks and year 2007 =S 95 and 97 work fine.
@cloud if they were low As, that sounds about right. otherwise, post the exact values you are putting in or try slightly different (+- 1 mark); because it could be like doboman's problem.
-
I used it with a known set of biology results from 2006.
The results were:
GA 1: 126/150
GA 2: 200/200
GA 3: 144/150
The guy that got these results achieved a 50 study score
This calculator gives a 44.37
I did another known 50 from 2007 and once again got 46 or so.
Although then I did a 2007 one I know for biology and it gave a 40.5, which is close enough to the 41 this particular person got. So I think it's not accurate on the high-end of the scale, but low 40s looks pretty accurate.
-
NOTE: atm this doesn't account for SAC moderation, in reality SACS count for little, so choose a SAC mark close to your exam mark.
i dont understand what you mean by saying "so choose a SAC mark close to your exam mark" ?
-
NOTE: atm this doesn't account for SAC moderation, in reality SACS count for little, so choose a SAC mark close to your exam mark.
i dont understand what you mean by saying "so choose a SAC mark close to your exam mark" ?
Yeah, same.
451=451
-
In chemistry 2007:
-weightings listed are inaccurate
-put 146/146, 200/200, 166/168, got RAW: 43.6268184989 to 44.8103056322, expected 44.1680950976
edit this should yield 50
-
i mean this:
say you think you got 150/160 for exam 2 and 70/80 for exam 1. that's 220/240 in total, which is about 91%. so put 90 in your sac marks score.
You have to do this because this program doesn't account for the sac moderation that vcaa does. if you get a high exam score but shitty sac mark, vcaa will adjust your sac mark upwards, etc.
@NE2000
yea if you put anything over 138 for his SAC mark (which is probably what his SAC mark got moderated to by VCAA) the calculator does give 50.
@caramel
thanks for that, i just assumed that any subject that had a midyear had .33,.33,.33 weightings.
edit: nvm it was actually due to a typo
-
(mostly the ones with easy exams like Accounting)
I find that offensive :P
-
(mostly the ones with easy exams like Accounting)
I find that offensive :P
Yeah he doesn't know what he's talking about :P
-
:P
i retract that statement, it's broken for pretty much every subject 45+
-
How do you type in the subject.
every subject I put is an error.
-
"Internal Server Error"
Not working for me at all.
-
How do you type in the subject.
every subject I put is an error.
i had that problem to, i ended up copying and pasting the names of the subjects from the list :)
-
That's not working either.
-
"Internal Server Error"
Not working for me at all.
Now im getting the same error as you ? :|
Perhaps udating the site... ?
-
"Internal Server Error"
Not working for me at all.
Now im getting the same error as you ? :|
Perhaps udating the site... ?
im hacking it, thats why.
-
yea, back up now
i should really test my changes first
-
What's expected?
-
What's expected?
the expected SS you will get between the higher and lower range based on your scores
-
Haha i know you are fixing this but found this funny
RAW: 45.1450465725 to 46.2473028087, expected 45.6478504638
100% in bus managment still can't get you 50
-
well, i made it so that 100% always gives you a 50.... so that shouldnt be happening
-
We're all just too shit to get a 50 in business.
-
For Chem and Methods it's so flattering. Like my marks are getting me pretty good scores.
-
(mostly the ones with easy exams like Accounting)
I find that offensive :P
you should find a hobby
-
@NE2000
yea if you put anything over 138 for his SAC mark (which is probably what his SAC mark got moderated to by VCAA) the calculator does give 50.
Er...no...the 126/150 was for Exam 1. The 200/200 was the SAC marks after moderation. For science subjects, GA1 = exam 1, GA2 = SACs, GA3 = exam 2.
EDIT: with that fixed, the marks seem to be looking a bit better. However, without meaning to be too nit-picky, a put in full-marks A+ (endyear), full marks A+ (SACs) and then 50% C (midyear) and got 43...is that actually possible? Because if that is the case you can't ever tell someone its impossible to get 40+ no matter what their mid-year mark is
-
'page you're accessing no longer exists'?
-
That happened to me too
-
That happened to me too
-
That happened to me too
-
@ne2000 dont forget VCAA probably wouldn't give 200/200 for sacs if you had C for midyear and A+ for endyear. even so, 43 is probably too high, i'm going to be constantly tweaking this thing until i get it right.
it's working again.
-
??? I still can't get it to work..
-
Methods CAS is not working for me.
"Could not find the subject you requested. Please press Back and copy and paste a subject from the list."
I copied and pasted but nothing happens
-
For Chem and Methods it's so flattering. Like my marks are getting me pretty good scores.
lol same, i reckon it was right though...we're probably underestimating the SS we'll get.
-
^have you tried the new version
methods CAS is working now.
-
LOL, if i got my current exam scores in 2004, then I would have 48 for methods. hahahaha :(
-
just looking at your sig... wtf methods cas has a midyear?
-
just looking at your sig... wtf methods cas has a midyear?
Lol it doesnt, he's just being funny :P
-
something is wrong with the site when i enter all the details i get this hosting site or is it just my comp?
-
yea sorry if that happens just try again in 5 mins im probably just updating it.
-
kurrymuncher ---> u should re-think calculating ur raw scores prior to 04 as SS did NOT get scaled
-
Its pretty accurate.
I put in my stats for Outdoor Ed last year.
I got 44 scaled, so the raw I think from the results pack I ordered was around 47. Which on the calculator gave me RAW: 45.1403929164 to 47.1949607412, expected 46.6207074487
-
Hopefully this isn't VERY accurate. ::) Not exactly happy with my predicted SS.
-
I hope it is :D
Makes me feel good.
-
Hopefully this isn't VERY accurate. ::) Not exactly happy with my predicted SS.
Yeah, same. Is this for maths methods?
-
Yeah, same. Is this for maths methods?
Yeah. I chose 2006 (I felt the difficulty was comparable to 2006's) and Mathematical Methods. You'd choose CAS but I'm not sure how that was in 2006.
-
Yeah, same. Is this for maths methods?
Yeah. I chose 2006 (I felt the difficulty was comparable to 2006's) and Mathematical Methods. You'd choose CAS but I'm not sure how that was in 2006.
Its pretty similar to normal methods, I think.
-
i dont know if this is right...isnt top 9 % supposed to be 41+ ?
-
Aww... It said 35 for Psych, when I only got 30 last year. :( Now it really makes me think I should have studied last year instead of worked, especially considering Psych wasn't as hard as I thought it would have been. :)
-
How accurate is this thing now?
-
Not too accurate, but still give it a try, I guess. :)