Are statistics showing that is it getting more competitive?

[kenhung123]

Get real

[the.watchman]

Get real

I was joking...

[NE2000]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

I think it was around the low 210 mark from memory so yes it would have been possible that way.

[kyzoo]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

But if you don't have 50+ scaling, you can't afford to screw any subject up - you essentially need 49 or 50 for every subject. Whereas if you have 50+ scaling, you can afford to screw up in maybe 1 subject out of your top 4. For example someone at my school got 99.95 from his top 4 being composed of two 52-54 LOTE scaled scores, 50 English, and low 40's Spesh.

And 99.95 has been less than 209.5 in the last 2 years.

[kenhung123]

kyzoo you are an ambitious man

[the.watchman]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

But if you don't have 50+ scaling, you can't afford to screw any subject up - you essentially need 49 or 50 for every subject. Whereas if you have 50+ scaling, you can afford to screw up in maybe 1 subject out of your top 4. For example someone at my school got 99.95 from his top 4 being composed of two 52-54 LOTE scaled scores, 50 English, and low 40's Spesh.

And 99.95 has been less than 209.5 in the last 2 years.

I was really joking, of course it's impossible to maintain the focus to get those sorts of marks, it was just hypothetical...

[NE2000]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

But if you don't have 50+ scaling, you can't afford to screw any subject up - you essentially need 49 or 50 for every subject. Whereas if you have 50+ scaling, you can afford to screw up in maybe 1 subject out of your top 4. For example someone at my school got 99.95 from his top 4 being composed of two 52-54 LOTE scaled scores, 50 English, and low 40's Spesh.

And 99.95 has been less than 209.5 in the last 2 years.

I was really joking, of course it's impossible to maintain the focus to get those sorts of marks, it was just hypothetical...

Not necessarily impossible . I think four people got five 50s in 2009 based on what I remember of a brief discussion when results were out (two MGS, which is where kyzoo goes I believe, and two MHS). So if you think you're up for it, aim high

[the.watchman]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

But if you don't have 50+ scaling, you can't afford to screw any subject up - you essentially need 49 or 50 for every subject. Whereas if you have 50+ scaling, you can afford to screw up in maybe 1 subject out of your top 4. For example someone at my school got 99.95 from his top 4 being composed of two 52-54 LOTE scaled scores, 50 English, and low 40's Spesh.

And 99.95 has been less than 209.5 in the last 2 years.

I was really joking, of course it's impossible to maintain the focus to get those sorts of marks, it was just hypothetical...

Not necessarily impossible . Four people got five 50s in 2009 I think. So if you think you're up for it, aim high

LOL I'm not up for it

[NE2000]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

But if you don't have 50+ scaling, you can't afford to screw any subject up - you essentially need 49 or 50 for every subject. Whereas if you have 50+ scaling, you can afford to screw up in maybe 1 subject out of your top 4. For example someone at my school got 99.95 from his top 4 being composed of two 52-54 LOTE scaled scores, 50 English, and low 40's Spesh.

And 99.95 has been less than 209.5 in the last 2 years.

I was really joking, of course it's impossible to maintain the focus to get those sorts of marks, it was just hypothetical...

Not necessarily impossible . Four people got five 50s in 2009 I think. So if you think you're up for it, aim high

LOL I'm not up for it

Still, aim as high as possible in each subject, you'd be surprised how things can turn out sometimes. You're already aiming fairly high, with a lot of hard work you can afford to aim higher. Although I think your taking of both Latin and Spesh hurts your chances of five 50s

[the.watchman]

Well, you could get 50 for five subjects and 5.5 in a uni subject and get 210.5 aggregate.
But it depends what the 99.95 cut-off aggregate was.

But if you don't have 50+ scaling, you can't afford to screw any subject up - you essentially need 49 or 50 for every subject. Whereas if you have 50+ scaling, you can afford to screw up in maybe 1 subject out of your top 4. For example someone at my school got 99.95 from his top 4 being composed of two 52-54 LOTE scaled scores, 50 English, and low 40's Spesh.

And 99.95 has been less than 209.5 in the last 2 years.

I was really joking, of course it's impossible to maintain the focus to get those sorts of marks, it was just hypothetical...

Not necessarily impossible . Four people got five 50s in 2009 I think. So if you think you're up for it, aim high

LOL I'm not up for it

Still, aim as high as possible in each subject, you'd be surprised how things can turn out sometimes. You're already aiming fairly high, with a lot of hard work you can afford to aim higher. Although I think your taking of both Latin and Spesh hurts your chances of five 50s

Hey hold on, when did I say I was aiming for 5 50s?!?!?!
Yeh, Latin is no for 50s...
In comes Cisco to the rescue!!!
If my top 4 average 50 scaled, I may get a 5.0 from it

[*ryan777*]

at the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly is cisco?
i know it takes the ave of ur top 4 ss as a 10% increment but that it

[the.watchman]

It's an IT networking-based VCE/VET subject.
Our school only offers 1/2, but there is also a 3/4.

[appianway]

I don't think the aggregates are really all that indicative of how "competitive" a cohort is, because a lower aggregate would suggest that there are a higher number of high performing people, opposed to a small number of exceptionally high performing people (as study scores that contribute to the aggregate are standardised anyway).

In saying that, the class of 2010 seems pretty competitive across Australia, from what I've heard.

[NE2000]

In saying that, the class of 2010 seems pretty competitive across Australia, from what I've heard.

Not to disagree, but I would be somewhat skeptical of any class being any more or less competitive than the previous one, or the next, or the one from five years ago. With the extremely large sample size, year-to-year variations in the ability of students isn't going to make much difference if any.

[appianway]

That's true. But across Australia, there's a higher proportion of top end students who seem to be in the class of 2010.

By top end I mean national olympiad teams, winning major competitions, etc...