Aggregate Cut-Offs for UAIs (1 Viewer)

[dp624]

Yes, I've seen the table A8, but they only give very rough indications on what aggregates are needed for some UAI. Does anyone know roughly what kind of aggregates are needed for each UAI in between 99.50 and 100? Because I don;'t think you can linearly scale it, it's obviously not linear.
My school gives estimate UAIs by scaling report marks to create an aggregate. But their cutoffs for UAIs are whacked because they like to underestimate you =P

Oh yes, is it just me, or did all (relatively high) UAIs require 3-4 more aggregates than the previous year? (i.e. 2007 vs 2006)

When do the 2008 Table A's come out?

 

[Zephyrio]

Was playing around with SAM and Einstein...

For 100 it's usually 484-485
For 99.95 it's usually 475ish-484
Etcetera. :S

And yes, you needed a slightly higher aggregate last year to get the 100. I remember a girl, sssglain, she got:

3U: 99
4U: 98
Chem: 98
Bio: 96
English: 93

And her aggregate was around 484. JUST off the 100, as she got 99.95.

 

[lyounamu]

Was playing around with SAM and Einstein...

For 100 it's usually 484-485
For 99.95 it's usually 475ish-484
Etcetera. :S

475/5 = 95 scaled mark for 2 unit subjects = crazy!!

That's pretty crazy for 99.95 UAI still. I reckon I can only get 95+ scaled marks in Mathematics Extension 1 and Mathematics Extension 2! (may be for other subjects... but not too sure)

To zephyrio: yeah, I know! she was like so close to 100. What a pity. I would have been pissed off with that...

 

[Zephyrio]

475/5 = 95 scaled mark for 2 unit subjects = crazy!!

That's pretty crazy for 99.95 UAI still. I reckon I can only get 95+ scaled marks in Mathematics Extension 1 and Mathematics Extension 2! (may be for other subjects... but not too sure)

Yeah but if you get state ranks for some subjects it can "compensate" for the slightly lower contributions your other subjects may make to your aggregate.

For example, I know a person who got 99.95

Advanced 99/100
Extension 48/50
Extension II 47/50
Maths 95/100
3U 47/50
Biology 95/100
Chemistry 91/100
Ancient History 99/100

The ancient history and English made up for the other subjects where the aggregate contributions may have been slightly lower.

 

[dp624]

Well I'll put what my school does with scaling and aggregates etc.

They use last year's cohort data to create the report marks for this year's cohort. Since my school's performance remains pretty similar, this is usually accurate. THen they scale these marks. It's pessimistic as usual (e.g. I think a 93 in adv eng should not go to 91, but more like 92).

Then they add up the top 10 units. Makes an aggregate, which they compare to a shifty table they made up.
Apparently my school thinks 479+ is 99.95, and 474 is 99.90. i tihnk this is kinda whacked, it;'s really really high..


Btw are you sure htat JUAI and Einstein and all that jazzz don't use linear? Because I think they would lol.

 

[lyounamu]

Yeah but if you get state ranks for some subjects it can "compensate" for the slightly lower contributions your other subjects may make to your aggregate.

For example, I know a person who got 99.95

Advanced 99/100
Extension 48/50
Extension II 47/50
Maths 95/100
3U 47/50
Biology 95/100
Chemistry 91/100
Ancient History 99/100

The ancient history and English made up for the other subjects where the aggregate contributions may have been slightly lower.

Ah I see.

To dp624: Yeah, I am thinking that Einstein uses linear too. Ironically, it's not very smart at all.

 

[dp624]

Yeah but if you get state ranks for some subjects it can "compensate" for the slightly lower contributions your other subjects may make to your aggregate.

For example, I know a person who got 99.95

Advanced 99/100
Extension 48/50
Extension II 47/50
Maths 95/100
3U 47/50
Biology 95/100
Chemistry 91/100
Ancient History 99/100

The ancient history and English made up for the other subjects where the aggregate contributions may have been slightly lower.

Holy SHIT advanced eng 99. isn' that 1st in state?

3U: 99
4U: 98
Chem: 98
Bio: 96
English: 93

My school would scale that to umm, 98+99+98+94+91 = 480. lawl

 

[Zephyrio]

Well I'll put what my school does with scaling and aggregates etc.

They use last year's cohort data to create the report marks for this year's cohort. Since my school's performance remains pretty similar, this is usually accurate. THen they scale these marks. It's pessimistic as usual (e.g. I think a 93 in adv eng should not go to 91, but more like 92).

Then they add up the top 10 units. Makes an aggregate, which they compare to a shifty table they made up.
Apparently my school thinks 479+ is 99.95, and 474 is 99.90. i tihnk this is kinda whacked, it;'s really really high..


Btw are you sure htat JUAI and Einstein and all that jazzz don't use linear? Because I think they would lol.

I don't think they use linear scales, because it's commonly accepted that it's kinda exponential i.e. the higher you go the harder it is to get into the next increment. I.e. there's kinda a big difference between 99.95 and 100, and that shows in the aggregate. But I don't know.

Kinda unsure as to what you mean by the bolded sentence. :S

 

[lyounamu]

I don't think they use linear scales, because it's commonly accepted that it's kinda exponential i.e. the higher you go the harder it is to get into the next increment. I.e. there's kinda a big difference between 99.95 and 100, and that shows in the aggregate. But I don't know.

Kinda unsure as to what you mean by the bolded sentence. :S

Nah, I reckon it will be more like log graph because there are much less people getting 499-485 scaled marks.

To dp624: I don't think 99 is the first in the state. I heard that Alex got the top mark in the state for English (Advanced) in 20 years. That should be 100??? Is it not?

 

[Zephyrio]

Holy SHIT advanced eng 99. isn' that 1st in state?

Nah, it was 2nd. LOL
IF ONLY I COULD GET THAT... STUPID PAPER 2 LOL.

My school would scale that to umm, 98+99+98+94+91 = 480. lawl

Yeah, your school is kinda weird. But if you get a state rank for subjects like bio, chem etc, usually (USUALLY) the aggregate contribution would stay the same. So since she got a state rank for bio, her aggregate for bio would have been around 96. That's what I've gleaned from the various UAI estimators out there.

Pretty sure 3U maths would go to around 99 if you got 99; it's almost 1 aggregate point the higher you go.

 

[dp624]

@ Above: highest Aggregate last year was 495.4 THat is CRAZy stuff man.

But i don't know, I seem to think that there's a big gap between hte .95 and .00 lol. it's a lot harder. cos 22 people get 100 but around 25 people get .95

Bold sentence means Table A3 scaling. Like a 93 aligned mark, my school gives it a 91 scaled mark. I tihnk it'd be closer to 92.


And school scaling is lawlsome yes. damn pessimists.

 

[lyounamu]

@ Above: highest Aggregate last year was 495.4 THat is CRAZy stuff man.

But i don't know, I seem to think that there's a big gap between hte .95 and .00 lol. it's a lot harder. cos 22 people get 100 but around 25 people get .95

Bold sentence means Table A3 scaling. Like a 93 aligned mark, my school gives it a 91 scaled mark. I tihnk it'd be closer to 92.


And school scaling is lawlsome yes. damn pessimists.

93 aligned for English should be about 91 imho. That's because English is not very highly scaled and even Mathematics produces about same result too (and Mathematics is scaled similarly to English (Advanced)).

 

[dp624]

93 aligned for English should be about 91 imho. That's because English is not very highly scaled and even Mathematics produces about same result too (and Mathematics is scaled similarly to English (Advanced)).

in 2006 Table A3, 46.5 went to 46.4 for adveng. THat's 93 to 92.8.
But in 2007 it was 47.5 to 47.2 -> so scaling for english got worse over time.

 

[lyounamu]

in 2006 Table A3, 46.5 went to 46.4 for adveng. THat's 93 to 92.8.
But in 2007 it was 47.5 to 47.2 -> so scaling for english got worse over time.

Ah, I see. Sorry for my mistake. I don't think it got worse over time though as it reflects the quality of the students over time vs their results and so many other factors.

 

[Zephyrio]

I'm pretty sure the person who got the 495.4 was Michael Forgacs, who did about 2103298 different langauges, and got state rankings in them too (except latin continuers). His lowest mark was modern history (96), and the lowest mark that contributed to his UAI was 97 in advanced. LOL!

 

[lyounamu]

I'm pretty sure the person who got the 495.4 was Michael Forgacs, who did about 2103298 different langauges, and got state rankings in them too (except latin continuers). His lowest mark was modern history (96), and the lowest mark that contributed to his UAI was 97 in advanced. LOL!

Language geniuses always dominate...like Laurie Fields (Language & Maths & Science & English genius in this case).

 

[dp624]

LOL meanwhile I'm tihnking it's Roslyn Go from Ruse -> Her ranks
10th in chemstry
4th in eng adv
1st in french continuers
6th in physics
1st in ag (accelerated)

No maths stateranks but. lol as if she'd need em

 

[Zephyrio]

Hahahaha, but languages scale moar.

WHO CARES THOUGH? 100 ALL THE SAME.

 

[lyounamu]

LOL meanwhile I'm tihnking it's Roslyn Go from Ruse -> Her ranks
10th in chemstry
4th in eng adv
1st in french continuers
6th in physics
1st in ag (accelerated)

No maths but.

agriculture is firstly lowly scaled. Its top scaled mark is like 95/100 so it would hardly count. So it's basically

10th in chem, 4th in eng adv, 1st in french, 6th in physics vs 1st in french extension, 5th in french cont, 3rd in german extension (?) and another for german + 97 in eng advanced


I don't see who can win.

EDIT: I think it would be Michael then because rosyln would have lost more than 5 scaled marks from her subjects.

 

[dp624]

Hahahaha, but languages scale moar.

WHO CARES THOUGH? 100 ALL THE SAME.

really? i always thought sci state ranks had bloody awesome scaling (better than languages maybe?)

(maybe i shouldve done langauges instead then.... lmao)


@ namu
she got 99 aligned for ag, scaled to 95.8