I thought we handled this in the other thread. I suppose not.
Firstly, stop being so fastidious. When people ask about scaling, they always ask about relative scaling. UAI is a ranking. Only relative scaling matters at all. The OP asked whether he should do business studies or engineering studies, it's even more obvious that he's asking which one is "scaled up" relative to the other one. Absolute marks don't matter.
It's like in physics. We don't give a shit how fast an object is moving (It's impossible to measure), we only measure the relative velocity. Sure classical physics might fuck up at the "very high end" but for our purposes it is more than suitable and really we don't give a shit about quantum theory.
Secondly, I want to see your sources supporting "e.g. very high end phys/chem and eco might scale up". You don't see so sure yourself. Stuff "might" scale up. Afaik they don't release many stats on the very high end, and the stats that do exist aren't extremely reliable/and or not official.
Have a good day.
Perhaps your definitions are a bit screwed, but his question was precisely "Does Engineering Studies Scale up well?" to which i replied almost all subjects scale down. which is definitely true. See, people are under the misconception that X subject will scale up, when it actually doesn't. Shizzle brah.
And going along with your physics example. Let's say OP asked: does this train have a high positive velocity. You don't say "it does, because its negative velocity is less than the other train's" (relative to, say the earth). You have to say "no, the train has negative velocity."
And I put that 'might' in there as a qualifier to say that I don't have the precise statistics. Meanwhile, you sound so sure of yourself.
My response is no more technical than dps, the only difference is that I elaborated.
and dp was annoying me with his inane comments.
and you're not exactly annoying me, are you? hrmm
The stats that are available are official. They are released by UAC that does the scaling. They provide statistically important points, to enable a representation of the normal distribution to be made for each subject.
This does enable you to look at different points along the curve and to talk about different segments is a lot more valid than just talking about a subject being scaled up or down.
Link me?
And I seriously hope you don't link me the statistics on aligned marks.
Seriously, did you ever take a look at the statistics? Or is what you spout online all hearsay?
This thread is about scaling.
Have you heard about your friends where an 85 in 4u counts over a 93 in biology (or something to that effect).
That is due to scaling.
Everyone is talking about scaling in this thread.
edit: What I was trying to say is that the the information frm raw marks -> scaled marks are insufficient to obtain an idea of absolute scaling.
(I think there may be some scaling statistics floating around as well)
I do not believe that there are scaling statistics available from raw -> scaled marks. However, that in itself is flawed, since raw marks change each year with difficulty while aligned marks are done to performance bands. So, essentially, I believe comparing aligned -> scaled marks is better
Ok I don't have a clue of what marks you are talking about
UAC each year provides clear and precise relationships between aligned marks and scaled marks. This is what SAM and other use to model the scaling system.
They are found at
Index of /documents/uai
The 2008 thatshows how the scaling occurs for differnt positions along the aligned curve is found at:
http://www.uac.edu.au/documents/uai/2008_table_A5.pdf
The table below shows how the different aligned marks end up after scaling
http://www.uac.edu.au/documents/uai/2008_table_A3.pdf
The table that shows how scaling has changed between 2007 and 2008 is
http://www.uac.edu.au/documents/uai/2008_table_A4.pdf
QFT
