Getting 99 with humanities subjects

[Will T]

They are indeed different people.

[HossRyams]

Nope, they're different people.

Oops, my bad! ><

You should be fine, 48 for Psych is heaps good, I'm sure you'd be able to score near that in your other subjects. And you don't even need another 48 for a 99.

English 45
Psych 48
Philosophy 45
Global 43
Methods 40
UMEP 4.0

Will 'already' net you a 99


For the 45+ in English just post some essays on the forum:)

Yeah I tested out what scores I needed, and they sound doable individually, but when I think about handling all the subjects at once it becomes an issue. But I guess so many students have done it before, so it can't be insanely out of reach. >< I'm honestly aiming as high as possible for English and Philosophy, as you've probably gathered Philosophy is my favourite subject by far, and Politics will probably be a challenge for me I reckon.

FUTHERMORE, are there any commercial exams for subjects like politics/philosophy? o_O I can't imagine finding study guides on them. But then I guess everyone would be in the same boat.

[Shenz0r]

Just focus on working and don't worry about numbers for most of the year.

But yes, make sure English doesn't dip to low 40s and you'll have a better chance of getting over 99. I think you need to get an average of around 45 scaled in your primary four.

[Professor Polonsky]

Aw thank you :') Congratulations on your scores! Looks like we matched for methods hehehe

Thank you! It seems so, yeah

I don't have any experience with philosophy or global politics (unfortunately... I would have loved to do one of them), but if you're passionate about those subjects and those are your interests, then those are the subjects you should be doing.

If you're worried about politics, I guess an alternative in terms of subject selection would be picking one of the other two maths. It might be a somewhat safer bet for a high score. It merits consideration, but I don't see anything wrong at all with the subjects which you're doing now.

[Emie]

I'm in a similar position and would have to get very high 40s in order to get 99+ as all my subjects scale down!

[Destiny]

It's harder to do well on humanities subjects. I got a 44 RAW on History which was my second highest RAW but ultimately my Specialist maths (technically one of my 'worse' subjects) definitely pwned my History mark.

Because of this, I'd suggest that you definitely choose subjects which scale up. But still, you may be different from me because I have strengths in almost all the subjects though my humanities are slightly weaker than my maths/sciences. Most of the students in my cohort achieved a high ATAR with languages or spesh. Very few did humanities and did well.

And another thing you'd want to consider is the fact that if you do maths/sciences and do well, you are basically guaranteed the mark. With my humanities I tended to swing wildly with the marks. Sometimes I'd get an A+ and sometimes an A. It's not very predictable and Humanities subjects can cause very unexpected subject scores which are either higher or lower than your ability. Confidence is essential.

[HossRyams]

It's harder to do well on humanities subjects. I got a 44 RAW on History which was my second highest RAW but ultimately my Specialist maths (technically one of my 'worse' subjects) definitely pwned my History mark.

Because of this, I'd suggest that you definitely choose subjects which scale up. But still, you may be different from me because I have strengths in almost all the subjects though my humanities are slightly weaker than my maths/sciences. Most of the students in my cohort achieved a high ATAR with languages or spesh. Very few did humanities and did well.

And another thing you'd want to consider is the fact that if you do maths/sciences and do well, you are basically guaranteed the mark. With my humanities I tended to swing wildly with the marks. Sometimes I'd get an A+ and sometimes an A. It's not very predictable and Humanities subjects can cause very unexpected subject scores which are either higher or lower than your ability. Confidence is essential.

Interesting. Are humanities your strength and how strong was your cohort?
I'm pretty confident for English and Philosophy; I think I've got a particularly good shot at them provided I keep up with the work this year. It's just politics that is my concern (for a second I've been thinking about doing a scaling subject in place of this but not sure...)
But if I do dominate English and Philosophy, then those subjects along with Psychology and even my methods score (I planned from the start for it to be in my bottom 2 but my score turns out to be find for my top 4 if my other two subjects are like my Psychology score) allow me to basically fail politics and still get mid 99s. So I'm thinking I should just take the risk and ensure I absolutely own the crap out of English and Philosophy? >_<

[mark_alec]

It's harder to do well on humanities subjects.

No it isn't. After scaling, scores can be compared to have roughly equal difficulty. Thus, a 40 (scaled) in history is an equivalent achievement to a 40 (scaled) in specialist maths. Scaling has nothing to do with innate difficulty of the subject (except amongst the maths, which are objectively compared to each other) and everything to do with the strength of the cohort that takes the subject.

[EvangelionZeta]

FUTHERMORE, are there any commercial exams for subjects like politics/philosophy? o_O I can't imagine finding study guides on them. But then I guess everyone would be in the same boat.

ConnectEducation

No it isn't. After scaling, scores can be compared to have roughly equal difficulty. Thus, a 40 (scaled) in history is an equivalent achievement to a 40 (scaled) in specialist maths. Scaling has nothing to do with innate difficulty of the subject (except amongst the maths, which are objectively compared to each other) and everything to do with the strength of the cohort that takes the subject.

That doesn't mean anything in human terms though. Strengths of cohorts (ie. what determines scaling) in terms of their other subjects do not dictate their strengths in the subject that they are specifically taking (everyone taking philosophy could be amazing at that subject specifically whilst being terrible at everything else, and it would have bad scaling as a result...).

Practical applications of scaling aside though, I do actually agree with the idea that humanities can be "harder" in a sense in that they are more erratically marked. Even if
you can screw up a Maths exam by making silly mistakes, that level of randomness IMO doesn't compare with how subjectivity can influence exams (particularly when you get clueless examiners). I do still think it's very, very possible for humanities kids to do well, but I also want to point out that the complaints about difficulty (especially from high achievers) isn't completely unfounded either.

[HossRyams]

(everyone taking philosophy could be amazing at that subject specifically whilst being terrible at everything else, and it would have bad scaling as a result...).

Could you please explain that to me, I think I've misunderstood something I thought that if everyone taking philosophy did well in philosophy, the scaling would be good regardless of how they are at any other subjects? (I thought scaling was just to do with the cohort of that subject o_O)? Or do you mean they are just 'good' at it but they perform badly :O

[rice]

(everyone taking philosophy could be amazing at that subject specifically whilst being terrible at everything else, and it would have bad scaling as a result...).

Could you please explain that to me, I think I've misunderstood something I thought that if everyone taking philosophy did well in philosophy, the scaling would be good regardless of how they are at any other subjects? (I thought scaling was just to do with the cohort of that subject o_O)? Or do you mean they are just 'good' at it but they perform badly :O

My impression was that VTAC measures the strength of a cohort by the students' scores in other subjects. So, for example, if the students that get 40 in Philosophy happen to score higher than 40 on average for their other subjects, a raw score of 40 in Philosophy will scale up. Something like that - don't take my word for it

[HossRyams]

Could you please explain that to me, I think I've misunderstood something I thought that if everyone taking philosophy did well in philosophy, the scaling would be good regardless of how they are at any other subjects? (I thought scaling was just to do with the cohort of that subject o_O)? Or do you mean they are just 'good' at it but they perform badly :O


My impression was that VTAC measures the strength of a cohort by the students' scores in other subjects. So, for example, if the students that get 40 in Philosophy happen to score higher than 40 on average for their other subjects, a raw score of 40 in Philosophy will scale up. Something like that - don't take my word for it

Oh, that makes sense. Damn. Oh well I suppose for the most part it "balances out". Hopefully I can be another member of those giving living proof that you can score well with non-scaling subjects

[Professor Polonsky]

(everyone taking philosophy could be amazing at that subject specifically whilst being terrible at everything else, and it would have bad scaling as a result...).

That is true. Is there any evidence that that's the case with any subjects?

Youshine, if you're concerned about Politics, I would consider another maths subject. A 40 in Methods is a very respectable score. Further and Spesh are very different subjects, but you could do very well in both of them. Seeing that you're fairly confident with English and Philosophy, perhaps Further would be a good fall-back option in case one of them doesn't go as well as you expect.

[EvangelionZeta]

Oh, that makes sense. Damn. Oh well I suppose for the most part it "balances out". Hopefully I can be another member of those giving living proof that you can score well with non-scaling subjects

Yep - I was pointing at the worst case scenario, but thankfully for the most part the VCE is reasonably fair and the weird situations (like the one I hypothesised) don't uuuusually happen in extremes.  It is also worth pointing out that "difficulty" for any subject is a misnomer, or at least, misleading in terms of how it's discussed (as objective difficulty) - after all, different students have different skills, so at the end of the day the difficulty of any subject (even in terms of VCE scoring) is up to what you're good or bad at personally. 

That is true. Is there any evidence that that's the case with any subjects?

In my personal but possibly biased opinion, Literature.  It's the subject most dominated by people who have a particular proficiency for the subject: Lit is known to be "hard" but doesn't have the appeal that Spesh does with scaling, ergo you don't get a lot of weaker kids taking it for scaling purposes padding out the lower ranges, and as a result, it's mostly taken by people interested in it/good at it, ergo the general standard becomes quite high.  The erratic nature of it also means that at the top end in particular it can be hard to secure perfect marks (eg. a guy from my school from 2009 who got like five Premier's Awards and and five 50s got his only non-50 in Lit - he got a 50 in English btw). 

[HossRyams]

That is true. Is there any evidence that that's the case with any subjects?

Youshine, if you're concerned about Politics, I would consider another maths subject. A 40 in Methods is a very respectable score. Further and Spesh are very different subjects, but you could do very well in both of them. Seeing that you're fairly confident with English and Philosophy, perhaps Further would be a good fall-back option in case one of them doesn't go as well as you expect.

Yeah I thought about that. I don't think I'm too worried about politics, I just don't have the same confidence in it as my other subjects. But thankfully my year 11 scores allow me to have it in my bottom 2, provided I whoop English/Philosophy in the ass, and still get mid 99. (Which is much safer and higher, but I'm really just looking to get above 99) But that doesn't seem like the 'right' thing to do.

Which brings me to my next question for everyone:

Did you play to your strengths and make use of the "bottom 2" aspect of the ATAR, or did you just try to equally deal effort into each of your subjects? I've been thinking about this crazy idea that if I sincerely spend my time into dominating English and Philosophy, I could get basically below 30 in politics and get a very low increment for UMEP and still get 99 (an exaggeration - but of course, I'll still try to do far better than that!)
So I'm wondering if it's strategic at all to somewhat prioritise the subjects I'm stronger in to have an extremely strong top 3 and methods, and then politics/UMEP as my bottom 2.

Just a thought. I'd honestly just try my best to dominate all my subjects, but I just curious if anyone has tried 'playing the ATAR system' like that? <_>