What raw marks in extension 2 generally correspond to state ranks? (2 Viewers)

[TheOnePheeph]

Hi all
I am aiming for a state rank, preferably top 5, in this years's extension 2 maths hsc, and want to know what types of raw marks I should be aiming for to achieve the goal. I have done several past trials, and generally score in the high 90s, though they are self marked, so that may be off. Some papers I have done under timed conditions that I can remember are:
2018 HSC - Received 96/100
2017 HSC - 97/100
2016 HSC - 98/100
2000 HSC - 115/120
2003 HSC 120/120
CSSA 2009 Paper - 117/120
Independent 2009- Paper - 116/120
CSSA 2014 Paper - 98/100

Again, these marks may be off, as I self marked them all. Is my goal realistic? Thank you in advance for any advice.

 

[HeroWise]

Have you done the papers before? Or seen similar questions like those?

 

[TheOnePheeph]

Have you done the papers before? Or seen similar questions like those?

Yeah, I've done all of the actual papers I've mentioned, as well as pretty much all the HSCs after 2000 and a lot of trials from Sydney Grammar, James Ruse, Baulko etc.

 

[HeroWise]

No resits right? They are the marks for the first time you did the paper?

 

[TheOnePheeph]

No resits right? They are the marks for the first time you did the paper?

Yeah. Like I said though, I self marked them so the true results may a bit lower. Generally my proofs are pretty much the same as those in the sample answers though. Also, its possible I had gone over some of the hsc questions earlier this year in class, but it was a while ago and the independent and cssa trials were completely fresh.

 

[HeroWise]

Man, thats wonderful!
Definitely top 5!,, Rooting for you man


The recent years dropped you down a bit, any reason why?

 

[jazz519]

there's a website called like 'raw marks info' I would go on there. Usually state ranks for maths subjects are either 99 or 100 HSC mark, but the raw mark will vary because of the exam difficulty so you can see on that website the rough raw mark to hsc mark ratio

 

[TheOnePheeph]

Man, thats wonderful!
Definitely top 5!,, Rooting for you man


The recent years dropped you down a bit, any reason why?

Thank you very much, that's really encouraging to hear

2018 was pretty much the first trial paper I had ever attempted, and that triangle question at the end was awful. I wasn't able to do part 2 of it, and it took up a lot of time meaning I wasn't able to check my previous questions, resulting in a really stupid mistake in the multiple choice and one of the integration questions. 2017 I don't remember too well, but I think I just made a few dumb mistakes on the mechanics question. 2000 was also quite tricky, I didn't really understand the very last question when I attempted, which was hard to mark as well, because back then they didn't separate the marks for each part of the question.

 

[DrEuler]

Usually a mark of about 95 Raw corresponds to a state rank...

I recommend you try the 1989 Hsc paper

Were all rooting for you, good luck for that state rank!

 

[TheOnePheeph]

Usually a mark of about 95 Raw corresponds to a state rank...

I recommend you try the 1989 Hsc paper

Were all rooting for you, good luck for that state rank!

Thanks a lot, I will have a look at the 1989 paper

 

[Jacobagel]

What was your raw mark like for the 2010 HSC paper, because I have found that the hardest paper I've done so far.

 

[TheOnePheeph]

What was your raw mark like for the 2010 HSC paper, because I have found that the hardest paper I've done so far.

I'm not actually sure if I've done the 2010 paper, but a lot of the questions in it look quite familiar, I think I went over some of them like at the start of this year or something. I can give it a go now if you want but my raw mark may not be very indicative if I've seen the questions before.

 

[DrEuler]

2010 was in fact a hard year. Question 16 was a continuation of just one question which led to a nice end result part of what is known as the Riemann zeta function.

2001, 2003 were also really tough years

Then there was 1989 which was the hardest one ever

 

[TheOnePheeph]

2010 was in fact a hard year. Question 16 was a continuation of just one question which led to a nice end result part of what is known as the Riemann zeta function.

2001, 2003 were also really tough years

Then there was 1989 which was the hardest one ever

I went through the 1989, ended up with around 115/120 (Wasn't sure how many marks to deduct). The very last part of the last question and the proof of the circular motion formula I wasn't able to fully get out. Also made a dumb mistake on one of the integrals. The paper was really weird though, like that random 2u coordinate geometry question lying around the middle. Still definitely a really hard paper, tied with 2000 imo. 2003 wasn't too bad apart from the pi irrationality proof and I don't remember 2001.

 

[DrEuler]

I went through the 1989, ended up with around 115/120 (Wasn't sure how many marks to deduct). The very last part of the last question and the proof of the circular motion formula I wasn't able to fully get out. Also made a dumb mistake on one of the integrals. The paper was really weird though, like that random 2u coordinate geometry question lying around the middle. Still definitely a really hard paper, tied with 2000 imo. 2003 wasn't too bad apart from the pi irrationality proof and I don't remember 2001.

1989 was statistically the hardest.

Question 8b, no one in the state got full marks for. Including first in state....

 

[TheOnePheeph]

1989 was statistically the hardest.

Question 8b, no one in the state got full marks for. Including first in state....

Yeah lol, that question was awful. Was it the very last part everyone struggled with? Parts one and 2 were alright in comparison and the 2nd part of 3 was a bit tricky, but I didn't even know where to start with 4, and only had like 3 minutes left on the clock anyway.

 

[DrEuler]

Part 3b. I mean just look at that. In exam conditions its the last question, you see that and just flip tf out.

"Divide the interval 0 < x < 1 into N subintervals each of length 1/N and show that there must be integers m and n with m = n and 1 <= m, n <= N + 1 such that F((m − n)b) < 1/N "

 

[TheOnePheeph]

Part 3b. I mean just look at that. In exam conditions its the last question, you see that and just flip tf out.

"Divide the interval 0 < x < 1 into N subintervals each of length 1/N and show that there must be integers m and n with m = n and 1 <= m, n <= N + 1 such that F((m − n)b) < 1/N "

Yeah that question took up a lot of my time as well. I ended up getting it out, but I think i did it incorrectly. I can't really recall my solution now, but I think I did something like assume the two fractional parts needed to be a distances of less than 1/N apart due to them being distinct or something like that, but did it in a weird way that didn't really make sense, and I think the hsc markers wouldn't mark it correct. Couldn't imagine doing it in an exam room with supervisors roaming around everywhere though.

 

[Jacobagel]

How do you gain access to the 1989 paper? Is there a link?

 

[1039213]

Pretty sure you need 95+ Raw for a state rank but it also depends on your internal mark.