Ranks....

[werdna]

Hmm.. yeah I think, end of the day, your exam score is your exam score. Your SACs will affect your overall score too. Whilst there's all this complex stuff about rankings and moderating, bottom line is: SACs do matter.

[horizon]

Is it still possible to get a 50, but rank 2nd, assuming that you do really well on the exam?

[/0]

Assuming your cohort is fairly strong, then yes

[golden]

If the SAC rankings cause the person to get the exam mark rankings, couldn't someone who knew that they were ranked 1 in the SACs  get 50% in the exam and that the first person's exam mark? If this was the case the system is not right.

Someone clarify this.

Or is it rank 1 exams = rank 1 SACs rather?

Or...?

[Dr.Lecter]

yes, cohort rank is proportional to exam score ranks

[Jdog]

just putting out there, in a good cohort there's no neccesisty to be rank 1, id say be in the top 15 and your in the mix.
but it all depends on how strong the cohort is.

[pi]

just putting out there, in a good cohort there's no neccesisty to be rank 1, id say be in the top 15 and your in the mix.
but it all depends on how strong the cohort is.

In MHS methods, being in the top 25-30 is pretty good. I would imagine that the same is for MacRob

[pi]

does being rank 1 over say rank 20 give a huge advantage at MHS or Macrob in getting a 50?, or do they both get moderated to mid to high A+ therefore not really affecting chance?

It doesn't really make a difference. In recent years, the rank 1 in bio and accounting hasn't got 50 (usually 45-48)

[taiga]

For geography pretty much the top ranks ended up getting  low scores (compared to what should be expected), and they ended up with high 30s, and as a result, everyone else got pushed down a fair bit.

It's a bit more reliable with methods/chem/bio/accounting though at MHS as people generally spam trial exams and do well, so the people below you and the people above you often hit up those good A-A+ marks consistently

[wildareal]

I don't truly believe that it is purely based on rank for certain subjects. I did Latin last year and got a 42/50 for Unit 3 and that only yielded a B+-this scaled to a 44/50. This is because to get an A+ you need 48+/50 per unit. So theoretically the number one rank may not get an A+ if his/her SACs are not high enough.

[taiga]

I don't truly believe that it is purely based on rank for certain subjects. I did Latin last year and got a 42/50 for Unit 3 and that only yielded a B+-this scaled to a 44/50. This is because to get an A+ you need 48+/50 per unit. So theoretically the number one rank may not get an A+ if his/her SACs are not high enough.

If he gets an A+ on his exam, but and is ranked one, it shouldn't matter how well he did on his sacs. Just gotta keep that rank.

[wildareal]

I swear there is a VCAA pdf which shows the scaled marks out of 100 for SACs needed to yield a certain grade. Anyone got the link? Cheers

[werdna]

I swear there is a VCAA pdf which shows the scaled marks out of 100 for SACs needed to yield a certain grade. Anyone got the link? Cheers

Sounds interesting!

[m@tty]

I swear there is a VCAA pdf which shows the scaled marks out of 100 for SACs needed to yield a certain grade. Anyone got the link? Cheers

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/statistics/subjectstats.html -> choose year -> section 3, graded distributions -> choose subject

[werdna]

Wow, the SAC requirement for an A+ in BM is really high!