Why not 100 ? (1 Viewer)

[Mdzabakly]

Why don't the atar reach 100 ?

 

[U MAD BRO]

Perfection Doesn't Exist.
Even a black hole isn't perfectly black.

 

[inJust]

I actually think the Board will give you 100 Atar if you state rank 1st in MX1 MX2 EE1 EE2 MODERN HISTORY HISTORY EXTENSION LATIN EXTENSION CHEMISTRY AND ECONOMICS.

 

[U MAD BRO]

But I think it should be everyone's goal in life to at least try to be perfect, they'll not reach it but they will at least achieve something, otherwise, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE?

 

[U MAD BRO]

I actually think the Board will give you 100 Atar if you state rank 1st in MX1 MX2 EE1 EE2 MODERN HISTORY HISTORY EXTENSION LATIN EXTENSION CHEMISTRY AND ECONOMICS.

and physics -_-

 

[inJust]

and physics -_-

Nah, that's 12 units already. So you have to state rank first in 12 units, because 10 isn't good enough.

 

[LoveHateSchool]

Because it's the maximum? Back in old days was out of 500 (aggregate nowadays), then 99.95, then 100 and now back to 99.95.

 

[Mdzabakly]

Because it's the maximum? Back in old days was out of 500 (aggregate nowadays), then 99.95, then 100 and now back to 99.95.

but why is it the maximum ?, there arnt many reasons ( judging from the reply so far)

 

[Absolutezero]

I don't think this is the reason for it, but it's probably easier on admin. Less values to deal with in the processing. Less boxes needed on forms etc.

 

[JINOUGA]

but why is it the maximum ?, there arnt many reasons ( judging from the reply so far)

It was due to them prepping it for the nationalisation of the system or something iirc. The other states had 99.95 as their max, nsw followed suit

 

[Rafy]

The reason cited at the time was to end the impression that there were a handful of students that got a 'perfect score'. Getting a UAI of 100 never actually meant you had a perfect score (in aggregate terms) but that was the impression that was created.

It's also why other states don't use 100, NSW was moving into line with the national practice.

 

[barbernator]

I always perceived that it was somewhat a percentile system in which you couldn't beat 100% of the student cohort as there were others on equal rank?

 

[theind1996]

I think that this calls for:

 

[barbernator]

I think that this calls for:

inappropriate. we were having a deep and discerning discussion

 

[SunnyScience]

I always perceived that it was somewhat a percentile system in which you couldn't beat 100% of the student cohort as there were others on equal rank?

I agree.

 

[Kurosaki]

The reason cited at the time was to end the impression that there were a handful of students that got a 'perfect score'. Getting a UAI of 100 never actually meant you had a perfect score (in aggregate terms) but that was the impression that was created.

It's also why other states don't use 100, NSW was moving into line with the national practice.

I agree. No matter how well you do you can never claim to have beaten everybody.

 

[Parvee]

I always perceived that it was somewhat a percentile system in which you couldn't beat 100% of the student cohort as there were others on equal rank?

^
I thought it was due to this as well

 

[Rafy]

And of course there's never been a perfect 500/500 aggregate. Even Laurie Field only got 498.

 

[Mdzabakly]

And of course there's never been a perfect 500/500 aggregate. Even Laurie Field only got 498.

??

 

[iBibah]

??

Topped four courses in 2003 or 2004 iirc.