enter calculator gone berserk

[osmoister]

   someone please explain

[cara.mel]

I've talked with Daniel15 before as to why this happens

He grabbed VTAC's aggregate to ENTER table. Occasionally values are missing from it where no one actually got that aggregate. Because of this, his program is assuming the enter = 0 as there is no enter value listed for the aggregate calculated.

It generally only happens at the very top end, and you can work out what it is supposed to correlate to anyway

[xox.happy1.xox]

It looks like 99.95 though.

[cara.mel]

It looks like 99.95 though.

It'd be 99.90, it's using 2007's data.

[xox.happy1.xox]

It looks like 99.95 though.

It'd be 99.90, it's using 2007's data.

Wow, VCAA were more lenient this year with ENTER scores...

[cara.mel]

It looks like 99.95 though.

It'd be 99.90, it's using 2007's data.

Wow, VCAA were more lenient this year with ENTER scores...

They're not more lenient. The same number of people would have gotten 99.95 as they did last year.
However aggregates needed for a certain enter have certainly lowered from previous years. Two main explanations are a weaker cohort, and spec/languages are scaling up less (I personally think it is awesome you didnt need to do spec/a language to get 99.95 this year)

[Collin Li]

Other possibilities include a higher amount of mismatches with regards to high scaled study scores pairing up with each other.

This also explains lower scaling (as matching high scores improve the scaling of subjects).

[lacoste]

will vcaa keep it this way for next year?

[xox.happy1.xox]

will vcaa keep it this way for next year?

Only time will tell...

[excal]

It looks like 99.95 though.

It'd be 99.90, it's using 2007's data.

Wow, VCAA were more lenient this year with ENTER scores...

VTAC, you mean.

[xox.happy1.xox]

It looks like 99.95 though.

It'd be 99.90, it's using 2007's data.

Wow, VCAA were more lenient this year with ENTER scores...

VTAC, you mean.

I always get them confused. :S