sirfeathers
Member
Hey everyone,
I have a question about how an unusual situation in one of my subjects (4U maths) would be scaled.
We were a class of 4. In the internal assessments, I came first with a raw average of about 90%. The person who came 2nd would've been about 70%, 3rd about 60% and 4th 40-50%. So in the internal assessments, the difference between my marks and the rest were quite large.
However, I screwed up the exam massively. I think I got about 70-80/120, when all my previous exams and practice papers were like 110+/120. The thing is, I'm pretty sure that I still ranked first out of my class in the externals, and it was only me who really underperformed ie. the other 3 people got marks that corresponded pretty well with their internal marks. (I am taking into account the fact that this year's paper was considered very hard and likely to be scaled better than in previous years).
Now from the info on this site, it sounds as if the mark I would recieve as my internal moderated assessment mark would be the same as the highest mark scored in the externals, since i was ranked first in my class for both. (This would make me really sad because I performed really well in all my internals, and yet my external mark would make it look like all my assessment tasks were "easy").
OK. So I'm wondering whether there is some process that the BOS uses when it's clear that a student's external mark was abnormally bad. In my case it would be clear from the marks of the rest of my class that our internals weren't any easier than anyone elses, merely that I screwed up in the exam. Even more so because if the BOS method (as I understand it) holds in all cases, then the moderated internal marks that my class receives will be very close together, despite the fact that there were large differences between the raw internal marks submitted for first and second place. This sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
I have a question about how an unusual situation in one of my subjects (4U maths) would be scaled.
We were a class of 4. In the internal assessments, I came first with a raw average of about 90%. The person who came 2nd would've been about 70%, 3rd about 60% and 4th 40-50%. So in the internal assessments, the difference between my marks and the rest were quite large.
However, I screwed up the exam massively. I think I got about 70-80/120, when all my previous exams and practice papers were like 110+/120. The thing is, I'm pretty sure that I still ranked first out of my class in the externals, and it was only me who really underperformed ie. the other 3 people got marks that corresponded pretty well with their internal marks. (I am taking into account the fact that this year's paper was considered very hard and likely to be scaled better than in previous years).
Now from the info on this site, it sounds as if the mark I would recieve as my internal moderated assessment mark would be the same as the highest mark scored in the externals, since i was ranked first in my class for both. (This would make me really sad because I performed really well in all my internals, and yet my external mark would make it look like all my assessment tasks were "easy").
OK. So I'm wondering whether there is some process that the BOS uses when it's clear that a student's external mark was abnormally bad. In my case it would be clear from the marks of the rest of my class that our internals weren't any easier than anyone elses, merely that I screwed up in the exam. Even more so because if the BOS method (as I understand it) holds in all cases, then the moderated internal marks that my class receives will be very close together, despite the fact that there were large differences between the raw internal marks submitted for first and second place. This sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
