Methods 44+ percentage?

[cara.mel]

45 = top 2%

[enwiabe]

I got 44 in methods in 2006 with 40/40 in exam 1, 77/80 in exam 2 and 97% for my SACs... I thought it was a friggen' joke.

[bubble sunglasses]

I never ask for guess my SS but I can't resist..

In what percent do you have to be to obtain a study score of 44 in methods?
Isn't it like top percent for 50?

I think I might have got, at a maximum 38/40 for exam 1. Most of you can relate the difficulty to a year (probably 2006). In 2006 the cut off for A+ was 37.5 for exam one.
Assuming I get 75/80 in exam 2, is it possible for a 44 Raw?

Thank you.

 think it's top 0.3% for 50

[hard]

I got 44 in methods in 2006 with 40/40 in exam 1, 77/80 in exam 2 and 97% for my SACs... I thought it was a friggen' joke.

wtf?? that's crazy! you lost 3 marks and you get a 44? WTFFFFF

[ninwa]

I got 44 in methods in 2006 with 40/40 in exam 1, 77/80 in exam 2 and 97% for my SACs... I thought it was a friggen' joke.

I also got 44 with full marks in exam 1, dropped 2 in exam 2, had B+ average for SACs (maybe 75-80%?)

But the exams that year were ridiculously easy, I highly doubt it'll be that tough this year (or ever - VCAA learnt their lesson I think)

[hard]

I got 44 in methods in 2006 with 40/40 in exam 1, 77/80 in exam 2 and 97% for my SACs... I thought it was a friggen' joke.

I also got 44 with full marks in exam 1, dropped 2 in exam 2, had B+ average for SACs (maybe 75-80%?)

But the exams that year were ridiculously easy, I highly doubt it'll be that tough this year (or ever - VCAA learnt their lesson I think)

WTFF x2. Which school did you go to. The SAC's must of been ridiculously hard.

[ninwa]

caulfield grammar, and the SACs weren't hard, I just didn't bother studying for any of them

[hard]

lol so you would've got like 45+ if you had put in the effort for SAC's. nice.

[ninwa]

I doubt it - I got very similar exam scores to enwiabe, and he had a 97% SAC mark

[hard]

wow a 50 must've been hard to get then...

[bubble sunglasses]

wow a 50 must've been hard to get then...

 nah, overall, 50s [and other high scores] would have been more attainable for those who performed well on the day(s), and less so for those of high mathematical ability, which isn't *neccesarily* the same thing

[cara.mel]

2006 Methods was fucked, in a word.

From the CAS class at school (seperate cohort to nina, our cas class consisted of 13 people and had nearly all the year 11s doing MM34) I lost 5 over both exams and got 43 (highest SS). Someone else lost 4 over both and got 40. I didn't study for sacs but I was rank 1 by ages.
I have trouble with maths exams for some reason. Methods, spec and now uni. I do brilliant in the non exam component and then exam questions that should be 'easy' given i do 'so well' *coughs* at the other stuff are really hard =/

The fact this was also the year they failed at calculating study scores (weighted both exams 33% instead of 22% and 44%) means that while they did adjust SS up, statistically speaking there are quite a few people with higher SS then they deserve, who potentially robbed the spot of someone who did better (if any of you follow this train of thought)