ATAR Notes: Forum

Archived Discussion => 2014 => Results Discussion => Victoria => 2008 => Topic started by: anonymous12 on December 15, 2008, 08:14:13 am

Title: 32 raw specilist
Post by: anonymous12 on December 15, 2008, 08:14:13 am
40.88??!! WTF I GOING ON??
I thought it will get scaled up at least 10, NOT FUCKING 8!! PLUS THIS YEARS WAS FUCKING HARD!!
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xers on December 15, 2008, 08:58:06 am
I got 40 which scaled to 47.92, and my friend who got 38 got scaled to 49, wtf is going on?
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: champorado on December 15, 2008, 09:00:45 am
.. I have a bad feeling about this. I wonder how many results vcaa/vtac fucked up. Now I'm sure they screwed up mine.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: fredrick on December 15, 2008, 09:01:05 am
I got 40 which scaled to 47.92, and my friend who got 38 got scaled to 49, wtf is going on?
l0l?
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: gta007 on December 15, 2008, 09:01:14 am
Seriously, someone send VCAA a complaint. I need that 98. :D
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xers on December 15, 2008, 09:01:59 am
Wait, i think because im doing 3 maths. So it scales less
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: the_head on December 15, 2008, 09:02:17 am
29 to 37.64
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: excal on December 15, 2008, 09:03:47 am
i got exactly that too

(this is Glock btw)
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: azn_kiwi91 on December 15, 2008, 09:04:01 am
max is 53.03, so much lower than previous years
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: vce08 on December 15, 2008, 09:08:59 am
JUST CAUSE U GOT 50
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: champorado on December 15, 2008, 09:10:05 am
Wait, i think because im doing 3 maths. So it scales less
That's not how it works. You're lowest out of the three would just be forced to contribute 10% (assuming those maths are your highest).
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xers on December 15, 2008, 09:22:41 am
Yea, I know that. my further is higher than my physics but further is counted as 10%. Im still puzzled how my friend could have beaten me when i got higher Raw.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: fredrick on December 15, 2008, 09:24:56 am
Yea, I know that. my further is higher than my physics but further is counted as 10%. Im still puzzled how my friend could have beaten me when i got higher Raw.
must be a mistake, or hes lying.

The exams were harder so whats up with the scaling??
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: lacoste on December 15, 2008, 09:26:34 am
I got 40 which scaled to 47.92, and my friend who got 38 got scaled to 49, wtf is going on?

if this is seriously true, vcaa has serious problems.
are you 100% sure? not mistaking anything?

if you are sure, then contact your principal.

as if a higher raw scales to a lower score.

wait did your friend get special consideration or whatever its called. derived score ? etc
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xers on December 15, 2008, 09:27:13 am
Ah sorry guys, she made a mistake, its 46 not 49. And yes, i expected some higher scaling for spesh this year.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: lacoste on December 15, 2008, 09:31:02 am
no worries.

=]
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: ron203iq on December 15, 2008, 09:33:22 am
fk whats wrong witht he scalling this year/....... that was a fking hard exam..........
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: gta007 on December 15, 2008, 09:35:31 am
Ah sorry guys, she made a mistake, its 46 not 49. And yes, i expected some higher scaling for spesh this year.

Way to break my chances of suing VCAA. jks. Someone should really ask them, why scaling was lower this year considering it was a much difficult exam to last year.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Jeffree on December 15, 2008, 09:37:18 am
yeah i got 38 aswell, -> 46
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xers on December 15, 2008, 09:41:23 am
Ah sorry guys, she made a mistake, its 46 not 49. And yes, i expected some higher scaling for spesh this year.

Way to break my chances of suing VCAA. jks. Someone should really ask them, why scaling was lower this year considering it was a much difficult exam to last year.
Oops, sorry lol. While we think it's hard, there's apparently lots of people who thought it was easy and did well so yea.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: humph on December 15, 2008, 10:17:39 am
Wow, you guys got jibbed. In my year, my 43 scaled to a 52 :D

Ah sorry guys, she made a mistake, its 46 not 49. And yes, i expected some higher scaling for spesh this year.

Way to break my chances of suing VCAA. jks. Someone should really ask them, why scaling was lower this year considering it was a much difficult exam to last year.
Oops, sorry lol. While we think it's hard, there's apparently lots of people who thought it was easy and did well so yea.
The scaling has nothing to do with how difficult the exam was.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xers on December 15, 2008, 10:19:12 am
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: darlok on December 15, 2008, 10:20:07 am
41->48.62 would have expected 50, oh wellz.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xox.happy1.xox on December 15, 2008, 10:20:46 am
Ekkk... My 26 got scaled to 34... Would have gotten better doing business or something. :P
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: humph on December 15, 2008, 10:37:42 am
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
NO.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: champorado on December 15, 2008, 11:23:27 am
I thought it was based on competition, and not on difficulty? There was that scaling pamphlet.. something about seeing what the average was for all their other subjects or something. Gotta go find it.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: /0 on December 15, 2008, 01:29:30 pm
I thought it was based on competition, and not on difficulty? There was that scaling pamphlet.. something about seeing what the average was for all their other subjects or something. Gotta go find it.

Yep
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: TonyHem on December 15, 2008, 02:07:57 pm
How do you work out the exact scaling?
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Fyrefly on December 15, 2008, 02:37:55 pm
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
NO.

Agreed... that's not how it works, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: humph on December 15, 2008, 02:40:47 pm
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
NO.

Agreed... that's not how it works, I'm afraid.
1000th post :)
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Edmund on December 15, 2008, 03:11:41 pm
I guess not everyone found the paper hard?

I got 33 - 41
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Fyrefly on December 15, 2008, 04:15:49 pm
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
NO.

Agreed... that's not how it works, I'm afraid.
1000th post :)

Lol... I noticed that... and an utterly memorable 1 it was XD ::)

...and in a thread that isn't even spelt rite ;D
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Robbo on December 15, 2008, 05:19:18 pm
So what are we saying is the reason for a lower scaling cause it all but killed my hopes of getting into my course lol
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xox.happy1.xox on December 15, 2008, 05:25:58 pm
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
NO.

Agreed... that's not how it works, I'm afraid.
1000th post :)

Lol... I noticed that... and an utterly memorable 1 it was XD ::)

...and in a thread that isn't even spelt rite ;D

Are you talking about my thread, Jess... :S... Well I did get 36 in English, cut me some slack. :P
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Fyrefly on December 15, 2008, 05:59:08 pm
But if many people did well then it would scale less wouldnt it?
NO.

Agreed... that's not how it works, I'm afraid.
1000th post :)

Lol... I noticed that... and an utterly memorable 1 it was XD ::)

...and in a thread that isn't even spelt rite ;D

Are you talking about my thread, Jess... :S... Well I did get 36 in English, cut me some slack. :P

No, this thread... :-S
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: lacoste on December 15, 2008, 07:33:36 pm
 so was the scaling so different?
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: anonymous12 on December 15, 2008, 07:58:21 pm
this is bullshit. all i know is that we got  ROBBED.
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Fyrefly on December 15, 2008, 11:52:16 pm
so was the scaling so different?


High end ENTERs, a lil change in scaling can make a whole lot of a difference...
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: chemboy on December 21, 2008, 07:01:20 pm
The scaling i found, was lower across most subjects compared to last year. As a result the aggregate has also lowered to achieve that particular enter. Hence, lower scaling has no effect on your ENTER score at all. Stop complaining!
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: xox.happy1.xox on December 21, 2008, 08:20:15 pm
Hehe, I guess you didn't need a language or spec this year to get 99.95? :P
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: Synesthetic on December 30, 2008, 05:51:15 pm
Hehe, I guess you didn't need a language or spec this year to get 99.95? :P

This is one way to do it!

2008
1. Robbins, Natasha (Ballarat and Clarendon College): 4 total
   English: 50
   History - Australian History: 50
   Physical Education: 50
   Psychology: 50

2007
306. Robbins, Natasha (Ballarat and Clarendon College): 2 total
   Legal Studies: 50
   Mathematics - Further Mathematics: 44

*edit* I'm not actually sure she got 99.95 ... if not she was VERY close; it is dependent on how much Further was scaled down (but based on the fact that (45)[44], it would seem that it is scaled down by 1, in which case she just makes the cut)
Title: Re: 32 raw specilist
Post by: ReVeL on December 30, 2008, 06:28:24 pm
Haha if five 50's doesn't get you 99.95 I don't know what will...