Which subjects should you do to get an "easy" 50?

[maine]

outdoor education, i think 3 people got it this year, in my school

[lynt.br]

If it means anything, I got a 50 for IT:SD this year and did about 3 practice exams.

A friend of mine got the same SS for IT:Apps with apparently just as much study.

[Ilovemathsmeth]

Gahh God has blessed me with 3 49s...so I guess luck does come in the way of a 50

[turley]

it is incredibly difficult to get raw 50 in any subject
however, due to scaling, getting 50 is quite achievable with spesh maths, languages (in particular LATIN)

[stonecold]

I have changed my stance on Further Maths.  50 is nigh impossible, unless you can go through a 40 and 60 mark exam without making one mistake, don't expect a perfect SS.  Some years you may get lucky with difficult exams, which could mean you can drop 1-3 marks and still pull a 50, however I wouldn't count on it.  If you are a good maths student and wan't to maximize your scores, then the methods/specialist path is the way to go.

[appianway]

I really don't think the students with the most talent always get the highest marks. Not at all.

[lynt.br]

I really don't think the students with the most talent always get the highest marks. Not at all.

That is because you can't quantify talent. It works the other way as well. Sometimes people get high marks while truly knowing nothing about the subject. I managed a 50 in Software Development while knowing shit all about coding. There were people in my class who got SS in the 30-40 range who have stacks more practical IT knowledge than I do.

I think it works the same in maths subjects too. Even though I'm far from good at maths, I didn't really think there was anything on the methods exam that was completely beyond my understanding. For the maths geniuses, the exams must really be a piece of cake which probably means the 45+ range is determined mostly by who made the most silly mistakes. I doubt there is much noticeable difference between ability once you reach that score range.

I have changed my stance on Further Maths.  50 is nigh impossible, unless you can go through a 40 and 60 mark exam without making one mistake, don't expect a perfect SS.  Some years you may get lucky with difficult exams, which could mean you can drop 1-3 marks and still pull a 50, however I wouldn't count on it.  If you are a good maths student and wan't to maximize your scores, then the methods/specialist path is the way to go.

A lot of people had the idea that if they were very good at maths, they could take FM for an easy 50. The problem is, the ease of getting a 50 is unrelated to subject difficulty. You still need to outperform the same percentage of people as any other subject so in actual fact, picking an "easy" subject like FM could have been detrimental to people who are good at maths because differentiating students at the high end most probably came down to luck with careless errors.

Also remember a lot of people had the same idea of trying to do FM after a more difficult maths subject like Methods or Spec. This meant that to score a 50, you would still need to outperform specialist level students.

it is incredibly difficult to get raw 50 in any subject
however, due to scaling, getting 50 is quite achievable with spesh maths, languages (in particular LATIN)

A little aside; according to the scaling report this year the mean scaled SS for Latin was a whopping 45, probably brought about by the fact that a 30 raw in Latin scales to that score anyway.
 

[kyzoo]

I disagree with what you propose regarding the lack of "noticeable difference between ability." IMO there is a wide range of mathematical ability within the 45+ range. The thing is, you only need to be good enough at Maths to be qualified for a 45+. Once you're past "good enough," any extra mathematical ability is irrelevant to your chances of 45+. Instead, it becomes a matter of who has the best exam technique, i.e., who is able to manage their mental state, and who has developed an exam procedure, such that the probability of avoidable errors is 0. This also means that it isn't who does the most practice exams who gets the 50, but it is who derives the most benefit from each individual practice exam that does.

[kenhung123]

Is a spesh 40 or further 48 easier?

[/0]

You probably won't find many people who have done both subjects... but I will say spesh 40. You can simply look at the number of people who get high scores in Spesh and Further, and with a spesh 40 you can afford to drop down quite far in the ranks, but with a further 48 you still need to be very near the top.

[Ilovemathsmeth]

Stonecold, I agree. I lost only 1 mark, to give 49. I was really counting on 50 in Further the whole year, as a sort of cheer up for having really bad SAC marks.

I agree now that if you feel strong with Maths, don't take Further unless you're really really accurate/good under time pressure. Spesh would be a better option, although I didn't take it - wish I had though.

[kenhung123]

You probably won't find many people who have done both subjects... but I will say spesh 40. You can simply look at the number of people who get high scores in Spesh and Further, and with a spesh 40 you can afford to drop down quite far in the ranks, but with a further 48 you still need to be very near the top.

But what if you take into account the amount of time and effort required for spesh? Such that you may sacrifice some time from studying for physics, chem or english.

[Ilovemathsmeth]

Yeah, fair point. You'd need to consider that too - I got 49 relatively easily for Further this year - with less work that I did for Methods. But then again, the mark I got was the same for Methods - I reckon a 40 in Methods might need about the same work as a 49 in Further?

[kyzoo]

I really don't think Spesh is hard enough such that it takes away time from Physics, Chem, or English. Actually Chem is harder than Spesh.

[vexx]

Yeah, fair point. You'd need to consider that too - I got 49 relatively easily for Further this year - with less work that I did for Methods. But then again, the mark I got was the same for Methods - I reckon a 35 in Methods might need about the same work as a 49 in Further?

although i don't do further, i beg to differ.
since further 45+ requires a lot of practice, i, personally, would need to spam prac exams to get 49 in further, or even 47.
but for 35, it would be achievable with barely any work all year for methods.

maybe thats just me, but im sure there are others like me here?