Raw score that equals band 5 or 6 (1 Viewer)

[Trebla]

Sorry if I offended you...but 100/105 is quite outrageous for band 6 cut-off. I have friends who never achieve anywhere near that and managed band 6 for their externals.

You're assuming that the quality of the cohort between Advanced and Standard are the same. That can't be true. Generally, the quality of the cohort in Advanced is much higher than Standard, which is why Advanced has a higher percentage of band 6s (keep in mind this discrimination is faciliated in Paper 1). There is a higher proportion of less competent people in english in Standard.

Also, the performance band descriptors which describe what a student in a particular band should typically exhibit (and are guidelines to aligning of marks) for both Standard and Advanced are the same, which is strong evidence that the raw band cut-offs are roughly the same.

Performance Band Descriptors - 2007 HSC - English (Advanced) 2 unit (15140) - Board of Studies NSW

Performance Band Descriptors - 2007 HSC - English (Standard) 2 unit (15130) - Board of Studies NSW

 

[dp624]

I'm actually assuming the top end of each subject is the same. It's true enough I guess - look at the top scaled marks for, say, 2u and 4u. both are scaled 100.
now, i was expecting about 100raw/105 for my advanced exam, and i got a 96 for it. i'm quite sure there are a lot of people doing standard who got more than 100 raw, yet the top mark for standard was 96/100 (someone on this forum i think). now, topping a subject is no easy feat - i'm assuming at least 103/105.

also, once you think about it, about 280 people get 95+ in advanced. let's say 95+ is about 97/105 raw (seems reasonable). since the top ends of both standard and advanced are similar, i reckon at least 100 people would get 97+ raw in standard. these are my assumptions and i think they're reasonable

and yes, i revised my estimate of 100/105 to about 95 in an above post

 

[Lazarus]

Trebla is essentially correct.

The raw band cut-offs for Standard and Advanced are almost exactly the same these days.

The common area of study paper is used to adjust the marks of each course on the modules paper.

Here's another way of looking at it.

On the common paper:

The Standard students score their own set of marks.

The Advanced students score their own set of marks.​

On the modules paper:

The Standard students receive the same set of marks that were awarded to them on the common paper but re-ordered according to the way in which the Standard students were ranked on the modules paper.

The Advanced students receive the same set of marks that were awarded to them on the common paper but re-ordered according to the way in which the Advanced students were ranked on the modules paper.​

Because Advanced students typically perform better on the common paper, and the values of the modules marks are determined by marks on the common paper, the overall marks of the Advanced students are higher. There are accordingly more Advanced students in the upper bands.

That the two courses have almost the same raw band cut-offs can be seen from Table A3 of the scaling reports. For example, in 2008, an HSC mark of 43/50 in Standard became a scaled mark of 38/50, and an HSC mark of 42.5/50 in Advanced became a scaled mark of 37.8/50.

As scaled marks are calculated from raw marks and not aligned marks, and we know that Standard and Advanced are scaled as a single group, the equivalences between raw marks and aligned marks must have been roughly the same in both courses - else greater discrepancies would be observed in the equivalences between aligned and scaled marks for each course as reported in Table A3. (The cut-offs are not exactly identical though, which can be seen from a comparison of P100 in Standard with P99 in Advanced as reported in Table A3 from 2005.)

Professor Paul Ayres of UNSW has conducted a study which tentatively suggests that less able students might even be advantaged by taking Standard: P Ayres, The Scaling of HSC English: Myths and Facts (2005) 142 English in Australia 10-15 (url).

With respect to UAIs and scaled marks, there is no evidence which suggests that more able students are disadvantaged by taking Standard.

 

[Pwnage101]

wow, nice post Lazarus!

 

[dp624]

Ahk, then i stand corrected if the site owner says so =P
However, why is it that my school does not offer standard?
Also, the fact that my HSC mark was the same as the mark which topped standard. i seriously doubt i would have state-ranked standard if i did it.

 

[Trebla]

However, why is it that my school does not offer standard?

I have reason to believe that everyone does Extension English at your school in Year 11. Is that correct? If so, there's your answer.

 

[dp624]

No, not everyone does ext eng. about 140 out of 167. this then dwindled to about 60 at the end of year 12

 

[Trebla]

Well....almost everyone does Extension English. For those who don't, most teachers probably think you're all capable of doing Advanced anyway (or they don't have to resources to facilitate Standard). I mean, the remaining 27 probably want to do Advanced, and there simply isn't enough demand to form a Standard class.

Many selective schools don't offer Standard because they believe their students are capable of doing Advanced or believe in the myth that it's harder to get band 6 in Standard. However, band 6s in Standard have increased dramatically over the past few years...

 

[dp624]

Oh yes, another thing. Is it really that likely that all the 'good students' choose advanced? there are like thousands of advanced band6s compared to standard's 70... this is somewhat disconcerting.

 

[Trebla]

Yes. If you were in a non-selective school, they generally dump the lower end of the cohort to Standard lol. Furthermore, very few selective schools offer Standard, which pretty much means most 'good students' don't get a choice anyway.

Also, 'good students' at English would have the tendancy to take Extension courses, which can only be done by taking the base course as Advanced.

 

[Lazarus]

Ahk, then i stand corrected if the site owner says so =P

I am not always right, and you can of course feel free to express an alternative view, but I thought my reasoning was relatively sound.

However, why is it that my school does not offer standard?

My understanding is that the students who attend your school are, in general, more able than most and so there might not be any need or demand for English (Standard).

Your school might also have a policy of encouraging students to challenge themselves and to take on higher level courses.

Your comment that 84% of your year started out doing the extension course seems to support both theories. Taking the preliminary extension course in year 11 obviously precludes taking the preliminary standard course in year 11, and I imagine it would be rare for an advanced student to drop to standard at the start of year 12 (such an occurrence is likely unheard of at your school).

Also, the fact that my HSC mark was the same as the mark which topped standard. i seriously doubt i would have state-ranked standard if i did it.

You may be right. It is entirely possible that you had a particularly good teacher for advanced and that had you taken the standard course (assuming it was offered) the teacher for that course would not have pushed you to excel in the same way as an advanced student might be pushed.

On the other hand, perhaps you would have topped standard if you'd taken it. The scaled mean for standard students was 17.9/50. You state-ranked 9th in chemistry (smean 31.6) and =8th in mex1 (smean 40.0), both cohorts being significantly stronger than the standard cohort.

It's all very speculative.

 

[Lazarus]

Oh yes, another thing. Is it really that likely that all the 'good students' choose advanced? there are like thousands of advanced band6s compared to standard's 70... this is somewhat disconcerting.

Not all of them do, obviously.

In 2008 there were thousands of standard students who receive higher scaled marks than advanced students.

The top 20% of the standard cohort, being approximately 6406 students, all received scaled marks equal to or greater than 6420 advanced students.

The top 10% of the standard cohort, being approximately 2929 students, all received scaled marks equal to or greater than 11606 advanced students.

You really can't make generalisations about either cohort. But it is easy to do and is often done.

 

[cutemouse]

Hmm, then does that mean someone capable of doing well in Advanced English (like say they're capable 85 in Advanced), could do Standard and get 90+?

Because I know that in Maths at least, a person capable of doing Ext 2 Maths would be somewhat disadvantaged by doing General, as it is capped.

So I guess you can 'dumb down' in English in order to receive a good result?

 

[Trebla]

Standard and Advanced are essentially two different types of courses in terms of Modules. In Advanced, the focus is on how context shapes the meaning of a text whereas in Standard, the focus is on how language works to create meaning. So it all depends on what approach you prefer.

A person who is outstanding in English is obviously better off taking English Extension 2 as opposed to just English Standard, because they can have 4 units of good marks that can count as opposed to just 2 units.

 

[dp624]

(The cut-offs are not exactly identical though, which can be seen from a comparison of P100 in Standard with P99 in Advanced as reported in Table A3 from 2005.)

oh yes, is there some source of the A3 tables of each year?
i have the A1-8 tables of 06 to 08
I have the TSC reports of 2003 and 2004. What of the other years? thanks

 

[Lazarus]

Hmm, then does that mean someone capable of doing well in Advanced English (like say they're capable 85 in Advanced), could do Standard and get 90+?

If, after taking the standard course, their performance on the common paper is as good as their performance would have been after taking the advanced course, then in my opinion the answer is yes.

Because I know that in Maths at least, a person capable of doing Ext 2 Maths would be somewhat disadvantaged by doing General, as it is capped.

So I guess you can 'dumb down' in English in order to receive a good result?

There's no 'dumbing down' involved. You still have to achieve the same result on the common paper that you would have achieved had you taken the advanced course.

In my opinion assessment in the advanced course is on higher order concepts and is typically more rigorous than that in the standard course - accordingly it facilitates the preparation of an able student for the final exam.

 

[Lazarus]

oh yes, is there some source of the A3 tables of each year?
i have the A1-8 tables of 06 to 08
I have the TSC reports of 2003 and 2004. What of the other years? thanks

2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Save them while they're still there.

 

[Deltan]

Does anyone know the raw marks for band 6 in ESL and why it scales better than Eng std?

 

[cutemouse]

In my opinion assessment in the advanced course is on higher order concepts and is typically more rigorous than that in the standard course - accordingly it facilitates the preparation of an able student for the final exam.

Yes you need to achieve a good result in the common paper, but wouldn't that mean it'd be easier to get a Band 6, provided that I did okay in the Standard paper, and well in the common paper?

 

[Lazarus]

Yes you need to achieve a good result in the common paper, but wouldn't that mean it'd be easier to get a Band 6, provided that I did okay in the Standard paper, and well in the common paper?

I hope I have interpreted your question correctly. You might need to be more specific if this post doesn't directly answer it.

Although the cut-offs for the two courses appear to have been similar in recent years (notably 2008), that hasn't always been the case, and it isn't guaranteed to continue.

As far as I can tell, when there has been a difference in cut-offs, the Standard cut-off for band 6 has usually been slightly higher than the Advanced cut-off. (In other words, you usually need a slightly higher HSC mark in Standard - say, one or two points higher - in order to achieve parity with the scaled marks of Advanced students.) For an example to the contrary, see the 2007 data.

Even if the cut-offs were identical, and you took Standard, you wouldn't get the same raw HSC mark unless on both the common paper and the modules paper you performed just as well as you would have performed had you taken Advanced.

Ultimately, if you're aiming for a band 6 result, you want to:

(a) minimise the band 6 cut-off; and

(b) maximise your raw HSC mark.

You can't really influence the first criterion much at all. Choosing Advanced might make it slightly more likely that the band 6 cut-off will be lower, but you never really know.

The second criterion certainly isn't affected by your choice between the two courses - but it will be affected by how much effort you put in and how much you are pushed by your teacher. The Advanced course might facilitate this.

If you're aiming for a high scaled mark and don't care about the band, it doesn't seem to matter which course you take.