Raw Vs Aligned (1 Viewer)

[JAZZAY]

I really would love to get a 90 in this years chemistry paper....it wasnt too bad but now that ive been through a few threads i realised i made some stupid mistakes (probably due to nerves). Anyway approximately what raw mark in the chemistry exam would give me a 90?

 

[Gesus]

anyone who gives you a answer to this is just pulling it from their arse, no one knows how much the aligning will work, it depends on how well your school went, and how well the state went

 

[Lazarus]

No - it depends on how hard the markers think the exam was in comparison to previous years.

 

[euphoric]

it was no doubt harder then previous years.

 

[mathock]

can anybody give a basic indication??

 

[ildzke]

that exam was tricky...you had to get your head around so many of the question, nothing straight forward, however some longer responses weren't too bad ... i forgot how to make up a standard solution !

 

[DAAVE]

Sure, have a look at this thread:

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=34578

I don't know how reliable that is though... 63 for a band 5 sounds like a bit of BS to me...

 

[Steven12]

its tricky alright, god you dont know how pissed i am at this test.I thought i nailed the theory part and out it came so many pracs, i reckon people who did half as much chemistry as me would make up some believable bullshit throughout the exam and still beat me, lucky i rank first so i got some buffer... but arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. high seventies for me if i am lucky

 

[Steven12]

from that chart of aligning, that means the higher your mark, less... its diminishing return.....
wouldnt that be unfair for people who studied hard for this?

 

[Lazarus]

I don't know how reliable that is though... 63 for a band 5 sounds like a bit of BS to me...

Remember that the raw band cut-offs change dramatically from year to year.

That cut-off was only for the 2003 paper.

from that chart of aligning, that means the higher your mark, less... its diminishing return.....
wouldnt that be unfair for people who studied hard for this?

No. The marks are only aligned so that they correspond with the appropriate band descriptors, indicating what a student at that level typically knows and can do.

It is the raw (unadjusted) marks that are scaled and used for UAI purposes. This has nothing to do with aligning.

(See this flowchart for an overview.)

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

This whole scaling aligning etc. is too complicated, so don't worry, you'll get whatever you deserve to get

 

[googleplex]

Err what I got from this exam is that you there was an increase in data analysis type questions which is maybe to combat mofos who just memorise excel. Cunts who studied their asses off are going to be getting the same marks as smart people who have an idea of what is happening in each situation (eg HFCs, HCFCs, etc) and being able to extrapolate the right info.

just my 2 cents

 

[Steven12]

I agree, its against those people who memorise notes from website.


so aligning of marks got nothing to with UAI calculation? from that flowchart

 

[smallcattle]

Remember that the raw band cut-offs change dramatically from year to year.

That cut-off was only for the 2003 paper.

since today's paper was apparently harder compared to last years, does that mean it will be scaled even higher?

 

[sub]

since today's paper was apparently harder compared to last years, does that mean it will be scaled even higher?

i hope so...and that would make sense

 

[Ragerunner]

so aligning of marks got nothing to with UAI calculation? from that flowchart

Correct.

The UAC takes the raw exam mark and scales that. Which in turn is used for UAI calculation.

 

[Managore]

Yup. The "difficulty" of this exam is calculated through how well everyone doing the course (or maybe a small sample percentage?) goes in their other subjects. That forms a sort of standard, by which our marks our scaled. I'm guessing (and it's just a guess) scalling will be approximately 5 marks for someone with a fairly good mark (above say 65). This mark of course is nothing more than a statistic in calculating UAI, so I don't see the point in trying to figure out scaled marks.. except for if using them for SAM or other proggys.

And that's my two cents.

 

[omg_a]

this is all totally beyond me...please crazy scaling computer program spit out a good mark for me, please...

 

[lucyinthehole]

i forgot how to make up a standard solution !

me too! i for some reason decided that the standard solution is the one you find out throuh titration. so i described titration as the procedure. i guess i'll get one mark for saying "dissolve a wieghed amount of crystals" WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE QUESTION, but in more detail. i don't know what came over me.

 

[sub]

I DESERVED MORE DAMNIT!

I really did.

we always do...but thats the way it is...