2012 Extension/Enhancement increment changes

[brightsky]

And there's no benefit to getting a really good result on UMEP subjects apart from the fact that it looks good on your academic transcript? WHY did they change the system???!!!! I liked the 4, 5, 5.5 idea.

Same. In key with all the scaling business, shouldn't students who do well in Uni subjects be rewarded, instead of simply allowing one's results in other studies be the sole determinant for your result?

To ensure that students undertaking the more difficult Mathematics studies are not disadvantaged, Mathematical Methods (CAS) is compared to Further Mathematics and scaled up if necessary. Similarly Specialist Mathematics is compared to Mathematical Methods (CAS) and scaled up if necessary.

...yet the scores of doing first year Uni subjects are the same as a VET subject.

[EvangelionZeta]

And there's no benefit to getting a really good result on UMEP subjects apart from the fact that it looks good on your academic transcript? WHY did they change the system???!!!! I liked the 4, 5, 5.5 idea.

Same. In key with all the scaling business, shouldn't students who do well in Uni subjects be rewarded, instead of simply allowing one's results in other studies be the sole determinant for your result?

To ensure that students undertaking the more difficult Mathematics studies are not disadvantaged, Mathematical Methods (CAS) is compared to Further Mathematics and scaled up if necessary. Similarly Specialist Mathematics is compared to Mathematical Methods (CAS) and scaled up if necessary.

...yet the scores of doing first year Uni subjects are the same as a VET subject.

The thing is, doing well in Uni subjects isn't particularly difficult.  I can sort of see where they're coming from in saying the 5.5 isn't entirely justified, given the amount of work it needs to get it compared to getting the actual 5.5 (which is impossible anyway).

[Eriny]

And there's no benefit to getting a really good result on UMEP subjects apart from the fact that it looks good on your academic transcript? WHY did they change the system???!!!! I liked the 4, 5, 5.5 idea.

Same. In key with all the scaling business, shouldn't students who do well in Uni subjects be rewarded, instead of simply allowing one's results in other studies be the sole determinant for your result?

To ensure that students undertaking the more difficult Mathematics studies are not disadvantaged, Mathematical Methods (CAS) is compared to Further Mathematics and scaled up if necessary. Similarly Specialist Mathematics is compared to Mathematical Methods (CAS) and scaled up if necessary.

...yet the scores of doing first year Uni subjects are the same as a VET subject.

The thing is, doing well in Uni subjects isn't particularly difficult.  I can sort of see where they're coming from in saying the 5.5 isn't entirely justified, given the amount of work it needs to get it compared to getting the actual 5.5 (which is impossible anyway).

It depends, I would say a study score of 55 would be way too much, but an increment of 5.5 isn't so out of proportion. No matter how much work you do or don't do to get your uni mark, it only counts for a very small percentage of your final mark as it is.

How much will it affect your score in the end? I went to the ATAR calculator and put in my year 12 results, which in 2009 would be calculated to be 98.65. I then changed the increment from 5.5 to 4.0 (even though my increment would have been more like 4.4) and got 98.45. It changes things enough to be potentially significant, but not huge.

[AzureBlue]

It doesn't make sense how people who get a pass get the same increment to people with, say like a 100. If I only cared about my VCE (which I don't as Accel Maths 1 is a compulsory subject in my uni course) then I would focus more heavily on my VCE studies as I know that getting a really high score on UMEP won't count at all.

2008:
99.8 = 203.3
99.9 = 206.4 +

2009:
99.8 = 201.9
99.9 = 205.6 +

[vexx]

^ You're doing specialist and Chinese, clearly you cannot complain about scaling issues haha >_>

[kenhung123]

Is there any particular reason why you want 99.95?

[brightsky]

Now I need like a 50 50 50 50 5 5... or something really close to that after scaling... FML... and I'm not even doing Latin or French

I do hope the cut-offs will drop accordingly.

The thing is, doing well in Uni subjects isn't particularly difficult.  I can sort of see where they're coming from in saying the 5.5 isn't entirely justified, given the amount of work it needs to get it compared to getting the actual 5.5 (which is impossible anyway).

Probably the workload isn't as much as normal VCE subjects but when you compare Uni Maths with the other maths subjects offered at a high school level, the jump probably does justify a 5.5. As andrewloppol said, it really depends on what Uni subject you're doing. And even if the 5.5 isn't justified, a 10% increment for a pass is more so. As AzureBlue said, there is no distinction between getting a 100% and just making the cut for a pass.

[m@tty]

Does anyone know what the 99.95 aggregate cut-off last year was just out of interest?

209.1

[EvangelionZeta]

Now I need like a 50 50 50 50 5 5... or something really close to that after scaling... FML... and I'm not even doing Latin or French

I do hope the cut-offs will drop accordingly.

The thing is, doing well in Uni subjects isn't particularly difficult.  I can sort of see where they're coming from in saying the 5.5 isn't entirely justified, given the amount of work it needs to get it compared to getting the actual 5.5 (which is impossible anyway).

Probably the workload isn't as much as normal VCE subjects but when you compare Uni Maths with the other maths subjects offered at a high school level, the jump probably does justify a 5.5. As andrewloppol said, it really depends on what Uni subject you're doing. And even if the 5.5 isn't justified, a 10% increment for a pass is more so. As AzureBlue said, there is no distinction between getting a 100% and just making the cut for a pass.

Not going to say I'm speaking truth since I don't actually do it, but from experience reasonably kids often don't do any work for Uni Maths, cram right before the exam and get 5.5.  People say other subjects are like this too: off the top of my head, I know people who have said UMEP Linguistics, MUEP Japanese, MUEP Maths and UMEP Maths are easier than their VCE equivalents, fairly straightforward to get at least 5.0 in, and comparatively easy to get 5.5 in.  I'd like to see evidence of Uni subjects actually being "difficult" to do well in compared to a VCE subject.

I will also come out and say that getting a 5.5 in Uni Philosophy is a LOT easier (or seems a lot easier) than getting 40+ in VCE Philosophy.

How can you say they're not particularly difficult? All UMEP subjects are different though? And they're designed to be a challenge?
I heard UMEP Philosophers are happy to pass, whereas I'm annoyed at my current 5.0.

Designed to be a challenge doesn't mean WILL be a challenge.  This is inductive reasoning again, but just about everyone I've talked to has said their Uni subject is easier than the VCE equivalent.  Also, it's a small sample space, but about 30% of the kids taking Uni Philosophy at Monash get 5.5.  

It depends, I would say a study score of 55 would be way too much, but an increment of 5.5 isn't so out of proportion. No matter how much work you do or don't do to get your uni mark, it only counts for a very small percentage of your final mark as it is.

How much will it affect your score in the end? I went to the ATAR calculator and put in my year 12 results, which in 2009 would be calculated to be 98.65. I then changed the increment from 5.5 to 4.0 (even though my increment would have been more like 4.4) and got 98.45. It changes things enough to be potentially significant, but not huge.

1. Your point about it counting for very little works both ways - it's not like changing this is going to make a massive difference to most people's ATARs, so why all the fuss about making it slightly more balanced?

2. ATAR is relative - the amount of Uni extension students probably won't affect the cut-offs THAT much, but I'd imagine if everyone lost the "broken" 5.5, then the cutoffs might go down a few decimal points (ie. enough to accomodate for most the loss of .2 ATAR that you reported).  

It doesn't make sense how people who get a pass get the same increment to people with, say like a 100. If I only cared about my VCE (which I don't as Accel Maths 1 is a compulsory subject in my uni course) then I would focus more heavily on my VCE studies as I know that getting a really high score on UMEP won't count at all.

I think this addresses a key issue here.  Doing a Uni Extension subject shouldn't be about getting the ATAR - it should be about the experience of an early Uni education, and the fact that some students just do it to get an easy 5.5, then "hack" their way through the course means that it's undermining the purpose of the program.  As for the point about the pass being worth less than say 100, it actually STILL is the case, given that Unis can use your extension subjects in your academic transcript (which is where it SHOULD count anyway).  Sure, somebody could just cruise through and achieve a bare pass, but then they can't sit back on an awesome Uni subject score for when they hit tertiary education.

Yeah but the maths subjects scale way less than before and so does Chinese I think (and now they're removing the 5.5 increment from UMEP)... I wonder what's going to happen next. At least the aggregates for 99.9 are going down (probably for the above reasons).

ATAR is relative.  If the scaling goes down, so does the required aggregate for every ATAR.

[AzureBlue]

ATAR is, indeed relative but we are changing the scaling of some subjects and not others. So reducing the scaling for said subject disadvantages the students who are taking that subject and not the students that are taking others...

Not going to say I'm speaking truth since I don't actually do it, but from experience reasonably kids often don't do any work for Uni Maths, cram right before the exam and get 5.5.  People say other subjects are like this too: off the top of my head, I know people who have said UMEP Linguistics, MUEP Japanese, MUEP Maths and UMEP Maths are easier than their VCE equivalents, fairly straightforward to get at least 5.0 in, and comparatively easy to get 5.5 in.  I'd like to see evidence of Uni subjects actually being "difficult" to do well in compared to a VCE subject.

Really? I heard that students in UMEP maths are often looking at the board not knowing what's going on... of course uni subjects are harder than their VCE equivalents - first-year uni is of a higher level than year 12 isn't it?

1. Your point about it counting for very little works both ways - it's not like changing this is going to make a massive difference to most people's ATARs, so why all the fuss about making it slightly more balanced?
2. ATAR is relative - the amount of Uni extension students probably won't affect the cut-offs THAT much, but I'd imagine if everyone lost the "broken" 5.5, then the cutoffs might go down a few decimal points (ie. enough to accomodate for most the loss of .2 ATAR that you reported). 

Yeah, but a few decimal points can mean a lot...

[EvangelionZeta]

ATAR is, indeed relative but we are changing the scaling of some subjects and not others. So reducing the scaling for said subject disadvantages the students who are taking that subject and not the students that are taking others...

The only maths subject that is scaling less is Spesh, and that's because Spesh's scaling was arguably broken previously.  Can't speak for everyone again, but at my school at least last year most people's Spesh scaled scores were still higher than their Methods ones.  Not to mention, it's hardly a disadvantage when your subject's scaling goes from +9 to +7 - it's still 10 points higher than say, Psychology.  If the VCAA's official line is to be accepted as well, the only reason the scaling is reducing is because the cohort is weakening for the subject, which makes sense given the rising numbers of people attempting to abuse LOTE/Spesh scaling nowadays.

Not going to say I'm speaking truth since I don't actually do it, but from experience reasonably kids often don't do any work for Uni Maths, cram right before the exam and get 5.5.  People say other subjects are like this too: off the top of my head, I know people who have said UMEP Linguistics, MUEP Japanese, MUEP Maths and UMEP Maths are easier than their VCE equivalents, fairly straightforward to get at least 5.0 in, and comparatively easy to get 5.5 in.  I'd like to see evidence of Uni subjects actually being "difficult" to do well in compared to a VCE subject.

Really? I heard that students in UMEP maths are often looking at the board not knowing what's going on... of course uni subjects are harder than their VCE equivalents - first-year uni is of a higher level than year 12 isn't it?

The material is harder, but getting a decent mark is easier.  It's not like Spesh where they purposely put in hard questions to sort of the cohort - like I said, people cram for UMEP Maths and still get 5.5 because the exam is just that much easier compared to the VCE one relative to the course material.

1. Your point about it counting for very little works both ways - it's not like changing this is going to make a massive difference to most people's ATARs, so why all the fuss about making it slightly more balanced?
2. ATAR is relative - the amount of Uni extension students probably won't affect the cut-offs THAT much, but I'd imagine if everyone lost the "broken" 5.5, then the cutoffs might go down a few decimal points (ie. enough to accomodate for most the loss of .2 ATAR that you reported). 

Yeah, but a few decimal points can mean a lot...

CAN, but usually doesn't.  And again, it works both ways - even though you might be upset this change makes it "harder" for you to get 99.95, someone out there is probably rejoicing because the decreased "h4x" values for Uni extension means they get to get into their course of choice (due to weaker students getting 5.5 getting lower ATARs).

[EvangelionZeta]

Not to mention, it's hardly a disadvantage when your subject's scaling goes from +9 to +7 - it's still 10 points higher than say, Psychology.

Fair enough... it used to scale to possibly 54-55 I guess it just makes getting a top ATAR score a bit harder, in that you can't compensate for a study score < 50 with a scaled score > 50 as well as before. Didn't methods used to scale higher like 10 years ago or not? I don't think I remember that far back lol

You should qualify that statement - it makes it harder for YOU to get a "top ATAR" score.  It used to be that you literally couldn't get 99.95 without Spesh or a LOTE.  I think changing this fact is a sign of balance, rather than making the system unfair. 

And I believe they didn't actually have scaling 10 years (possibly more?) ago.  I also can't imagine Methods scaling higher than 50, but if it did then it's probably a good thing it got changed.

[AzureBlue]

Ok. So, abandon ship... the new plan is ==>

Study score aims:
2011: Mathematical Methods CAS [50], Biology [50]
2012: English Language [50], Specialist Maths [50], Chemistry [50], Chinese SL [50], UMEP Maths [5.1]

LOL...











I wish.

If that doesn't guarantee a 99.95, I don't know what will. 

[AzureBlue]

You should qualify that statement - it makes it harder for YOU to get a "top ATAR" score.  It used to be that you literally couldn't get 99.95 without Spesh or a LOTE.  I think changing this fact is a sign of balance, rather than making the system unfair.  

Some languages still scale phenomenally... like Latin ==> 55 and French ==> 54. Chinese used to go to 54 too, like spech but since last year only 52.

[EvangelionZeta]

You should qualify that statement - it makes it harder for YOU to get a "top ATAR" score.  It used to be that you literally couldn't get 99.95 without Spesh or a LOTE.  I think changing this fact is a sign of balance, rather than making the system unfair. 

Some languages still scale phenomenally... like Latin ==> 55 and French ==> 54. Chinese used to go to 54 too, like spech but since last year only 52.

Spesh I'd imagine is just cohort based.  Similarly, if you look at the 2008/2009 reports, Chinese SL went down, but Chinese SLA actually went up: I'd imagine it's just a cohort issue again.  We'll wait and see what happens this year, but for now I think the best thing we can surmise is that it's statistically based, as opposed to VCAA trying to screw over anyone who does Chinese.