The SAC system based on ranking does fail at times. If the SACs aren't hard enough, then true talent isn't rewarded, as 'excellent' students receive similar marks to those who are just 'good', and careless errors can even put them behind others xD I realise that one may argue: "but they made mistakes, and got a lower mark in SACs, so they deserve to get a lower mark." Yes, that is the premise that this system is based on. But in situations such as this, is it really fair on the student? They weren't given a chance to shine? So is it their fault? Should their mark then be dependant upon the performance of these other students?
But I digress. The issue I want to raise is one which I have just come to realise myself: The ranking system fails with a small cohort. In a large school, you'd be right to assume that there would be a good spread of ability, from the high achieving students to the bludgers. So in this school is a few people were to be ranked slightly "unfairly" - I use this word to denote being ranked outside of their ability, for whatever reason - then there would be minimal impact on them, because there would only be a little difference in the moderated scores they received and that which they "deserve".
However, in a small cohort, there may be vast differences between the abilities of students. So if for example, the most capable student receives second rank, then there will be a large impact on the students moderated SAC score, and hence their SS - it could even end up costing them on their ATAR. And these 'damages' to their score are independent of the actual SAC mark, so long as they are ranked second.
Now, the reason I have brought this up is because I was affected by it. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet and claim that I am 'smarter' than everyone else in my school, but in terms of SACs I was severely disadvantaged for being just a few percent in SAC average behind someone who was not able to maintain such a high average in exams.
As an example of this: I was just 2 percent behind rank 1 in chemistry yet there was a whole grades difference in our moderated SAC score; she received an A+ while I was allotted an A. That's a difference of ~10% just because she did not maintain her average over exams. So even though I had 95% in SACs and an even higher average in exams, I get 44. Had the rankings been reversed (remember it would only take a change of 1-2% for each of us), I would have had 48+.
Another example, which shows even more blatantly the failing of the current SAC system, is my specialist maths result this year. In this subject I was just 1% behind first rank, and because of this minuscule difference my SACs were relegated to a B+! So because someone who marginally outperformed me in SACs stumbled in the exams, I take his "punishment" too? That is illogical. Again, this tiny difference in SACs, (which would normally be ignored anyway as we both had averages of over 90,) has cost me upwards of 6 SS points. That is unfair. Being 1% behind in SACs equates to a difference of two grades? If the ranking were reversed, I would have easily hit 42. Instead, I got 36.
The people who have the power to stop this is teachers, by setting harder SACs to provide a better spread of results.
Again, I expect that many will follow the line that "oh, but they made more mistakes, so they should get a lower score". I agree, the score should be lower, but not disproportionately; Is it really fair for a student who has 1% difference in SAC score to receive 20% lower in their moderated score? I shouldn't think so. This is what the current ranking system for SACs allows when there are holes in the distribution of performance of students (ie one student at high level, then the next student is only moderate. Or even a batch at high level, then a batch at moderate level. Those who are ranked around the change in "skill" can be disadvantaged.) And this is most likely to happen in small cohorts, but it also happens in large ones too.
EDIT:
Just to condense for those who cbf reading:
My main qualm with the current system is that a marginal difference in raw SAC scores can lead to a disproportionate discrepancy in the moderated mark.
Home
Help
Search
Login
