General Advice - Secrets to VCE Success

[brightsky]

VCAA has it's reasons.

"VCE results are scaled because individual study scores are not an
absolute measurement of overall performance.
On behalf of tertiary institutions, VTAC combines study scores to
form an aggregate (total) which is then converted into a rank called
the ‘ENTER’.
Before study scores can be fairly added together they have to be
compared and adjusted. This is because students take very different
combinations of VCE studies, and VTAC can only legitimately add study
scores together if the strength of competition in each study is about the
same.
For example it is unfair to compare the best and fairest of an
individual football team with the best and fairest in the national
competition. Scaling overcomes this difficulty and ensures that each
study contributes equally to the ENTER (that is an ENTER subject
score of 25 in English is equivalent to an ENTER subject score of 25 in
Psychology or an ENTER subject score of 25 in Chemistry).
There has always been a scaling process in Victoria and other
Australian states. Prior to the VCE it was not discussed, it was
embedded in HSC scores and did not receive much attention. Now
the process is transparent. In this way, you are not only able to see
your performance within each study, but also how you rank for
tertiary selection compared with other students."

In the Specialist Maths case, the same reason applies. Should a 50 in further maths equivalate to a 50 in Specialist Maths? VCAA is asserting that students doing Spesh who do just as well as a person doing Further would be disadvantaged, or why would the student choose Specialist Maths, and get a 38, while he can choose Further and get a 50?


As the purpose of VCE is to rank students top to bottom per se, it shouldn't be that students who have a specific adroitness in maths should only be compared to those with the same aptitude, while people who are not necessarily the best at maths being ranked only in their category. I hope I make some sense, and having witnessed a lot of situation like yours, I do believe that it is unfair to some students, but the VCE s all statistical, and up till now there isn't any resolution that would make it fair for EVERYBODY. If we cancel the scaling, that would make it unfair for people tackling the harder subject, as they wouldn't be justly compared with students taking "easier" ones.

[brightsky]

i think vcaa also needs stop english being compolsury to be in the top 4

+100000000000000000

+!!!!
Will make it easier to get higher ENTER's!

[the.watchman]

i think vcaa also needs stop english being compolsury to be in the top 4

+100000000000000000

+!!!!
Will make it easier to get higher ENTER's!

Woohoo!
Now everyone would like that!

[samuch]

i think vcaa also needs stop english being compolsury to be in the top 4

+100000000000000000

+!!!!
Will make it easier to get higher ENTER's!

Woohoo!
Now everyone would like that!

exactly, and aus is meant to be a very multicultural country ... so why make english compulsory!!!
different cultures = different languages being spoken

[ZachCharge]

i think vcaa also needs stop english being compolsury to be in the top 4

+100000000000000000

+!!!!
Will make it easier to get higher ENTER's!

More people with better aggregates ≠ easier to get higher ENTER ATAR.

[brightsky]

More people with better aggregates ≠ easier to get higher ENTER ATAR.
[/quote]

Yeah, I'm sure it would average out in the end and everything would be just the same as it is now...99.95 = impossible. :p

[Ilovemathsmeth]

i think vcaa also needs stop english being compolsury to be in the top 4

+100000000000000000

+infinity

I totally totally totally agree. If English weren't compulsory, Further would've been in my top 4 and I'd have got 99.90. I wouldn't have to pay HECS then.

[superflya]

There is no logic in saying that the Asian 5 will get you a higher score. They aren't the highest scaling subjects and higher scaling won't neccesarily boost your mark.

The only subjects that scale higher are LOTEs?

^+1

and why would you need the highest scaling subjects to boost your marks(are you saying that subjects like chem and methods aren't really worth your try because they don't really benefit you)? also, why wouldn't a higher scaling boost your mark? (i am puzzles as to how you view the scaling system's effects one one's enter score)

taking higher scaling subjects will only benefit you if u enjoy the subject and your fairly good at it, this is simply because if u take a high scaling subject (spesh) even though you dont enjoy maths, u will most definately end up with a score that u woodnt be happy with even after scaling.

[kyzoo]

LOL I think I was disadvantaged due to doing what VCAA says and "taking subjects I enjoyed without considering scaling."

Possibly a 42 in Specialist or French would have got me a higher ENTER as opposed to getting three 49s. It's quite hypocritical when you look at it.

I didn't even know about scaling when I chose my subjects, I only learned about the mechanisms of VCE in these last 3 months.


And 45 in Spesh scales to 50, so I'm sure your 49's were better than a 42 in Spesh.

[amirite?]

I dont think scaling should be abolished. It just seriously needs to be toned down. A 30 RAW in specialist = top 50% of students doing it, and it scales up to 38. For me to get a 38 scaled in PE I have to get at least 39.5 RAW, a top 8-9% finish.
Maximum scaling needs to be 5 for spesh. Humanities shouldnt get marked down and people who do them in VCE and get a similar ENTER to someone who did the asian 5 should get preference when it comes to humanities studies at unis. Food tech and co need to be marked down however.
I shouldnt be disadvantaged for not choosing the asian 5 especially when they are completely irrelevant to what I want to do after VCE.
Maybe there needs to be more emphasis on prerequisites and experience rather than just what you got as your ENTER when it comes to university selection processes.

[*ryan777*]

it think they should also measure more aptitute and "abilty" to learn (this could save students who perhaps just didnt do well on the day of the exam)

many vce subjects are irrelevant when u get to uni anyway
ie in vce economics is a humanities subject while at uni its 80% math

i actually think that universities should have their own entrance exams that are somewhat relevant to at least the basic skills needed for a course

[vexx]

i too would love love love if english didn't have to count. then that 99+ would seem much easier!

however, if it were like this, all the international students / those who can't speak good english or people who just aren't as could, could abuse the system and then they would make it very competitive, and getting 99+ would then become harder (perhaps instead of all 44's in your subjects, it becomes all 45's and 46's maybe even all 47's) :|

[the.watchman]

But then heaps more people would get high aggregates, making 99+ way more competitive, right?

[monokekie]

i too would love love love if english didn't have to count. then that 99+ would seem much easier!

however, if it were like this, all the international students / those who can't speak good english or people who just aren't as could, could abuse the system and then they would make it very competitive, and getting 99+ would then become harder (perhaps instead of all 44's in your subjects, it becomes all 45's and 46's maybe even all 47's) :|

while international students may pick more subjects that they are good at, no-one is really going to deprive locals of the opportunity to pick what they really want to do. uni's will still be wise enough to list english as a pre-req though, hopefully, lol

if one thinks he/she is good at english, then taking up english as a VCE subject should be a good idea as VCE english probably would scale-up if its not make compulsory  

[m@tty]

I dont think scaling should be abolished. It just seriously needs to be toned down. A 30 RAW in specialist = top 50% of students doing it, and it scales up to 38. For me to get a 38 scaled in PE I have to get at least 39.5 RAW, a top 8-9% finish.
Maximum scaling needs to be 5 for spesh. Humanities shouldnt get marked down and people who do them in VCE and get a similar ENTER to someone who did the asian 5 should get preference when it comes to humanities studies at unis. Food tech and co need to be marked down however.
I shouldnt be disadvantaged for not choosing the asian 5 especially when they are completely irrelevant to what I want to do after VCE.
Maybe there needs to be more emphasis on prerequisites and experience rather than just what you got as your ENTER when it comes to university selection processes.

Scaling is based on statistics. VTAC didn't just one day say 'ah, Spesh needs to be scaled from 30 to 40' it is based on the other raw scores of the students within that study. Specialist is scaled so highly because of the strength of the cohort, also for mathematics there is the requirement that no one is disadvantaged through choosing a more difficult stream of mathematics, ie for an equivalent raw SS the scaled scores will be FM<MM<SM. The scaling of Specialist has reduced greatly in the last few years (2007 50 ->54, 2009 50->52 ), this is due to a greater number of lower performing people taking Specialist, lowering the average SS in the Specialist cohort's other studies(which indicates that competition has lowered). These people most likely chose Specialist due to the scaling, in doing this they themselves have reduced the scaling.