ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: dior1 on January 19, 2009, 04:22:42 pm
-
Can anybody tell me how I can find out what my school ranked in 2008? Is there a list somewhere out there floating around?
tia :)
-
Nevermind, I've found it
-
Can I have the link? Thanks.
-
you sure can :)
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/statistics/schoolstats/postcompcompletiondata-2008schools.pdf
-
Hmm.. Is there one with the school's position in state?
-
Err yeah, that's not the right one. Maybe I just imagined I saw the ranking ><
Lol sorry
-
They don't release 'school rankings' as such.
-
I presume there would be someone out there who would compile rankings from released stats though.
-
i think that the state doesn't allow rankings of schools to be printed, that's what happened this year.. only the rankings of the top performing schools were printed... but you can still work it out with the VCAA chart.
-
I'm sure there was a link in one of the threads in the results section, someone had made rankings based on that link from VCAA...I'm not sure where tho
-
They used to give schools a ranking, but they don't do that anymore. I think they stopped because parents would pick which school their child would go to based upon the rankings. That sounds familar
-
lol. our school figured ours out. lol. this year we were 11th in the state based on median study score.
-
Yeah schools probably figure it out. Only the pro schools would tell anyone the findings though.
-
http://bettereducation.com.au/Results/VCE2008Results.aspx
This was posted in the Results section 'Study Score Analysis' thread by someone, I knew I saw it somewhere :)
-
Ahh nice list.
-
Rad :) So we're actually 19th (i think that's what it was... ) *proud*
-
317
-
386
-
391 :(
-
Girls seem to perform better in single-sex schools than the boys
-
349!
LOL
-
OMG 188!!
-
There was/still is a ranking list of median enter scores published somewhere, Herald Sun I think, which changes the rankings due to some schools 'specialising' in maths/science type subjects which scale up.
-
What is this "Ruyton Girl's School"...Were they always this high?
-
271 LOL FAIL
What is this "Ruyton Girl's School"...Were they always this high?
I heard they only have like 150 people(or less) in their cohort
-
What is this "Ruyton Girl's School"...Were they always this high?
no, they weren't always this high.. they've just done really well this year.
-
Hehe, mine was four hundred and something.
-
271 LOL FAIL
What is this "Ruyton Girl's School"...Were they always this high?
I heard they only have like 150 people(or less) in their cohort
EPIC PHAIL
-
What is this "Ruyton Girl's School"...Were they always this high?
Don't think so, I think it's more just this year's cohort. Smaller schools tend to jump up and down a bit more
-
They had like 125-150 kids spread across year 11 and 12.
-
Hehe, mine was four hundred and something.
Mao can be even prouder ;)
-
schools with IB get shafted in this ranking.
-
Hehe, mine was four hundred and something.
Mao can be even prouder ;)
can't be as bad as 485 :P
-
388, whee... I get to be school captain of this smart bunch too. Hooray.
-
Hehe, mine was four hundred and something.
Mao can be even prouder ;)
can't be as bad as 485 :P
Not quite. 427.
-
253! Damn a lot higher than I thought!!
-
253! Damn a lot higher than I thought!!
what school??
-
Mine got 10th! Not as good as previous years. Wow...I sound like such a pretentious wanker. :P
-
253! Damn a lot higher than I thought!!
what school??
look on the list. :P
-
383 ;)
TOP THAT LOL
-
359 represent!
-
388, whee... I get to be school captain of this smart bunch too. Hooray.
hahaha our school sucks so bad
-
dam, my school was rubbish this year, only 32! Though we have a high % of top students take the IB course, so we did get hit the that a bit, plus last year was a rubbish cohort.
-
well i guess Mao just shows that you can get good marks whatever school you go to. Has anyone read freakonomics? Its hard to explain how they worked it out but in chicago, students who WANTED to go to a top school did a lot better than those who didn't, but whether they actually got into a top school made no difference to their actual score.
And yeah, its a bit skewed as well because of those schools that kick people out right before exams in they're not doing very well in school and stuff like that.
Well yeah...you can generally get high marks in most schools. It's just how likely it is. A mark like Mao's is pretty much a miracle in his school, but happens every year in the top schools. Maybe Mao would've got even higher at a top school, but we'll never know.
-
well i guess Mao just shows that you can get good marks whatever school you go to. Has anyone read freakonomics? Its hard to explain how they worked it out but in chicago, students who WANTED to go to a top school did a lot better than those who didn't, but whether they actually got into a top school made no difference to their actual score.
Given that i do closely follow the economic research on this, I highly doubt that Steven Levitt would make the argument that what school you go to, doesn't matter.
EDIT: Harvard Econ Prof Caroline Hoxby explains:
http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/publications/hoxby_2006.pdf
Do Chicago charter schools improve education for students who attend
them? In a recent study of Chicago charter schools, Jonah Rockoff and I have
shown that the answer is yes.2
Applicants to the charter schools in the study were 74 percent Black, 22 percent Hispanic and 81 percent
poor. Using longitudinal data, we compared charter school applicants who
were randomly admitted (the ‘lotteried-in’) and who consequently attended
charter schools with applicants who were randomly not admitted (the
‘lotteried-out’) and who consequently continued to attend Chicago’s regular
public schools. We were able to ascertain that the Chicago charter school
lotteries were indeed fair. The lotteried-in and lotteried-out students were
almost identical in terms of race, ethnicity, family income, home location,
special education status, limited English proficiency, and prior achievement
in the regular public schools (see Figure 1).
After following both groups of students, we found that, after two years,
lotteried-in students who attended charter schools had mathematics and
reading achievement that was about 6 percentile points higher than lotteriedout
students who continued in regular public schools (see Figure 2). To put
these gains in context, 6 percentile points is more than half of the difference in
achievement between very disadvantaged students in the United States (like
the ones served by the charter schools in the study) and typical students in
the United States.3
Do magnet schools produce similar gains? The answer appears to be no.
In a recent study, Julie Cullen, Brian Jacob and Steven Levitt compared students
who were lotteried-in and lotteried-out of the magnet schools.4
that students did just as well in the regular public schools as in the magnet
schools. Now, when we think about the structure of magnet schools, this
should come as no surprise: the schools do not qualify as a form of school
choice because they lack its essential properties. Sadly, the authors of this
study have created great confusion by not describing the magnet schools’
structure clearly and by not distinguishing them from school choice. Indeed,
they have done the opposite and described magnet schools as a classic form of
school choice despite expressions of concern from fellow economists and
despite the fact that many areas of the United States have had magnet schools
for years without regarding them as a form of school choice.