How is that a stupid assertion? I chose all my subjects based on what i liked, ignoring scaling (I was going to do EES but it was on the same line as physics >.>) and it just so happened that all my subjects were high scaling. I would assume that shadowdude did the same thing.
Now, you've been the one misleading people. In fact, your definition of a scaled subject is
wrong. A capped subject is a subjects who had a maximum
scaled mark less than 100 (UAC scales marks, nto BOS). It's not that "
The maximum mark achieved in a course" - you are talking about the aligned overall subject marks there. They are
different things.
And just FYI - many subjects don't need a student to get 100% in order to reward them a 100/100 subject mark - they just have to get higher than the aligned mark required to get 100 (BOS not UAC aligns).
Of course hospo could be included in someone's subjects who got 99.10 - it'd just have to be an awesome mark that gives a decent scaled mark which when added to the other scaled marks of that person equates to a rank of 99.10.
So there you go - you're the one that should stop misleading people.
Sort of correct. They don't just cap general maths because it's an "easy subject" or because they don't want to put it on the same "level" at MX2. It's because the kids sitting general maths are relatively "stupid" compared to kids in other subjects. If all the MX2 students did general maths instead, then general maths would have much better scaling.
I'd actually say that you're the scaling noob seeing as you didn't even know what is meant by a subject being
capped.
Oh and Legal studies scaled average in my books - its scaling is
relatively average/ok. If you don't know what the difference is between relative scaling and actual/literal scaling then you my friend have lots of reading to do.
Ok now you're just confusing everyone. If the cut off for n E4 (= band 6) that year was 70% then everyone in the state would get an E4. This process is called
aligning if that was what you were referring to.
If you were talking about actual scaling, then UAC would take the raw marks and scale them based on the strengh of that year's cohort. This is apparently determined by some magic formula but it's basically calculated on the performance of that subject's students in other subjects. So if everyone in MX2 was super smart and scored highly in other subjects, MX2 marks would be scaled
up. The reverse is also true - if they scored horribly in other subjects the MX2 marks would be scaled down.
So there you go - it doesn't matter whether or not everyone got over some certain % - marks or scaled up or down based on the strength of the cohort not what mark they got in that subject.
Indeed you are somewhat correct - the max scaled mark = max scaled mark achieved for that year (note that i said max
scaled mark because scaled mark =/= overall subject mark!) and could vary from year to year. However, as i've said before scaling is based on the strength of that subject's cohort so for subjects which are capped, unless lots of smart kids suddenly do that subject the max scalled mark will pretty much stay the same (and it really doesn't fluctuate much at all) - ie it will stay capped.
So yes, the A3 table does prove something as it shows a reliable trend of what the capped subjects are.
Your 1st statement is correct but you're second is incorrect. You can get 99.95 doing histories but you need excellent marks for the histories as well as excellent marks in other subjects
+1 but of course if you get a super great mark in legal your scaled mark will be very good anyway
