Scaling process (1 Viewer)

[ccc123]

How is the scaling process fair? Why is that subjects like maths and science are valued above others?

They are not necessarily more difficult, and shouldn't it be assumed if you are going to choose somehing like Physics or Chem, its because you find these easier than other options? How can the scaling process apply a blanket rule and judge what subject should be valued over another?

Why is the mathematician and scientist valued over the artist and humanities student? Shouldn't it be recognised that everyone has different talents and strengths? Why should students be penalised according to what talents they possess?

 

[Zozo6969]

Yeh but some subjects just have more difficult concepts to get your heads around.

You could almost say the same thing for people that study languages. Many language subjects scale quite well, and if there are only a few people doing the subject, you can get like top 10 in the state. But how is it fair that they get to do a course in which they have studied possibly their whole lives living in foreign countries or at homes, nothing is unfamiliar to them, whilst everyone else is doing subjects like histories and sciences in which they need to learn everything from scratch. not being racist, but its pretty unfair.

 

[undalay]

The scaling of a subject is based on the average of that subject for the whole state vs the average of other subjects (excludes extensions).

In essence you could say that your hsc mark for a particular subject itself is a ranking.

If physics for example had an average of 40 for the entire cohort, where as legal studies had an average of 60 for the entire cohort, then physics is evidently harder and should scale moreso then legal.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

Scaling also applies to the popularity of and demand for particular subjects. A lot of degrees have maths components to them, so maths would scale well to allow more people to get a higher UAI. However, there's only a handful of degrees that would have a music or art component (there's almost none outside specialisations in secondary teaching). People are not being penalised for having different talents; scaling is simply a reflection of what is in demand at the time. Geography scaled incredibly well during my HSC year (and I came seventh in the state), but it has hardly scaled at all since.

I'm willing to bet you're someone who did the likes of art and music and the humanities and is now annoyed because you didn't get the UAI you wanted. The only thing you can do now is start to consider your options. Believe me when I say this: scaling and the UAI will mean absolutely nothing in about two weeks and much less when you get to university. Because nobody cares. If certain subjects are a prerequisite for your course, then so be it. But once you get to university, your lecturers, your tutors and your peers won't give two shits about scaling and UAIs, so whinging about it now ain't going to do you a world of good.

 

[ccc123]

I'm willing to bet you're someone who did the likes of art and music and the humanities and is now annoyed because you didn't get the UAI you wanted. .

You bet wrong. Observe my profile: HSC 2008. I am not musical or artistic. I just think its unfair that those people are denigrated.

 

[ccc123]

mathematicians and scientists will always be valued over an artist, however that is just my opinion.

I would not expect anything else from someone who has 'I love Math' as their signature.

 

[Boxxxhead]

Subjects are scaled based on the average performance of the candidature across their HSC courses. The reason maths, physics etc tend to scale high, is because the students perform well across all their courses. That's why many languages have such volatile scaling. As an example, in 2002 the scaled mean for Ukranian was 44.9 (2nd highest) and in 2003 it was 33.8. This isn't because Ukranian is necessarily harder or easier than any other subjects, but just that in one particular year, the average student doing Ukranian is more intelligent than the average Ukranian student in another year.

Maths and Science aren't scaled higher for the hell of it, but the students actually doing the courses tend to be better performers. This is one reason why English is compulsory, it gives a common subject for other subjects to be scaled against.

Therefore, in a way, those who are good at maths and NOT good at humanities/english etc are disadvantaged because they are forced to do English, whereas a humanities/english student doesn't have to do maths or anything along those lines which would push them down.

 

[ccc123]

You could almost say the same thing for people that study languages. Many language subjects scale quite well, and if there are only a few people doing the subject, you can get like top 10 in the state. But how is it fair that they get to do a course in which they have studied possibly their whole lives living in foreign countries or at homes, nothing is unfamiliar to them, whilst everyone else is doing subjects like histories and sciences in which they need to learn everything from scratch. not being racist, but its pretty unfair.

I agree. Note the names of the top perfomers in most languages with Maria's topping Italian 'beginners' and the like.

 

[ccc123]

Subjects are scaled based on the average performance of the candidature across their HSC courses. The reason maths, physics etc tend to scale high, is because the students perform well across all their courses. That's why many languages have such volatile scaling. As an example, in 2002 the scaled mean for Ukranian was 44.9 (2nd highest) and in 2003 it was 33.8. This isn't because Ukranian is necessarily harder or easier than any other subjects, but just that in one particular year, the average student doing Ukranian is more intelligent than the average Ukranian student in another year.

Maths and Science aren't scaled higher for the hell of it, but the students actually doing the courses tend to be better performers. This is one reason why English is compulsory, it gives a common subject for other subjects to be scaled against.

Therefore, in a way, those who are good at maths and NOT good at humanities/english etc are disadvantaged because they are forced to do English, whereas a humanities/english student doesn't have to do maths or anything along those lines which would push them down.

Thanks for giving a logical response. Obviously, as an English/Humanities student, I'm still going to feel hard-done by, but now I better understand the justification for scaling maths/science more advantageously.

 

[blakegman]

humanities are easier then science subjects, which is why anyone taking them should be able to get higher marks then a comparatively skilled student undertaking science. and as for humanities giving bad uai's, false.

i took legal, business and economics and got a uai much higher then those who i consider to be of similar aptitude or maybe even higher then my own who took science subjects

 

[ccc123]

humanities are easier then science subjects, which is why anyone taking them should be able to get higher marks then a comparatively skilled student undertaking science. and as for humanities giving bad uai's, false.

i took legal, business and economics and got a uai much higher then those who i consider to be of similar aptitude or maybe even higher then my own who took science subjects

I agree that I can still achieve a good UAI with Eng/humanities, because i anticipate performing well in them.

However, I disagree that all humanties subjects are easier than science subjects. I'm willing to bet a lot of mathematically/scientifically inclined students would stuggle with some humanties subjects.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

you are 100% right with everything you said. you certainly know what you are talking about

Thank you. I'm a university student, so I've been there and done that.

You bet wrong. Observe my profile: HSC 2008. I am not musical or artistic. I just think its unfair that those people are denigrated.

Perhaps the more challenging question is what are you going to do about it? Petition to BoS, UAC and the Minister for Education? What's done is done, and you can't change it.

Look, I'll let you in on how it works once you get to uni. For the sake of argument, let's say we're going to the same university. You'll arrive and we'll meet. I'm not going to care what your UAI is, nor how your subjects scaled. I'm not even going to ask an nor is anyone else. The first-years might discuss their marks, but we generally won't care. Most of us don't even remember what we got.

You'll go to lectures and tutorials. Your lecturers won't make special provisons for people who got a certain UAI. You're not going to get better marks for an essay simply because of a number you were assigned to six months earlier. Like us, they won't even ask what you got. Admittedly there are some advanced units to be taken, but as university marks do not scale, admittance is based on your uni marks alone. Academically, all your lecturers will be concerned about is whether you can do the work.

I'm failing to see what your proplem is here. You say you're not an arts/humanities student, but here you are on some moral crusade on teir behalf. While that kind of activism certainly is admirable, you'd be better off focusing your attentions on Darfur or women's rights or something. While the system of UAI and scaling is certainly flawed, the Board of Studies isn't going to roll over simply because a handful of students thinks it's unfair.

 

[ccc123]

Perhaps the more challenging question is what are you going to do about it? Petition to BoS, UAC and the Minister for Education? What's done is done, and you can't change it.

I'm failing to see what your proplem is here. You say you're not an arts/humanities student, but here you are on some moral crusade on teir behalf. While that kind of activism certainly is admirable, you'd be better off focusing your attentions on Darfur or women's rights or something. While the system of UAI and scaling is certainly flawed, the Board of Studies isn't going to roll over simply because a handful of students thinks it's unfair.

Obviously, I'm not going to do anything about it. I'm perfectly aware that's the way the system functions, flaws and all. I am actually an English/Humanties student, but not artistically or musically inclined: I was just giving music and art as additional examples of subjects that are undervalued. Did you really think I was wholesome or altruistic enough to go on this 'moral crusade' solely for the plight of the artists and musicians?

Anyway. Meh. i get your point. Let me have my whinge.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

Did you really think I was wholesome or altruistic enough to go on this 'moral crusade' solely for the plight of the artists and musicians?

We get all sorts around these parts.

 

[Zephyrio]

Well, some people do think the scaling system is unfair and all, but scaling is in place because some courses are evidently more difficult than others (as determined by the average mark scored by students state-wide). Consider the following scenario: Jill gets 93/100 for Design and Technology, a course which has yielded a greater average than the extension two mathematics course. John has gotten, say 80% raw in four unit maths, and so logically scaling would work by pushing his mark up because four unit maths has a lower average. It would not be fair if a design and technology mark contributes the same as an equivalent 4U maths mark to the UAI. Scaling's there to iron out these differences.

However, consider another scenario: Harriet does general mathematics, modern history, geography, drama, visual arts and music one. Now obviously these subjects don't scale too well, but because she is brilliant at them, if she absolutely aces these subjects, she won't be disadvantaged and, on the contrary, these subjects will be of benefit to her UAI. I recall this happening to a student at Cherrybrook recently, where a girl received 100UAI doing drama and general maths.

So scaling does not affect you, or if it does - in a very minor way - if you do well in your subjects. The best remedy for this situation, is choosing the best subjects for you. Even if statistically the sciences scale well in comparison to visual arts or legal studies, a student strong in the humanities choosing science subjects will inevitably screw him/herself over.

*Shrug* There are, of course, imperfections in the system. Scaling is often advantageous to science students, but this will be because the averages indicate that the course is harder than, say, visual arts. And besides, ccc123, you're a brilliant humanities/English scholar, so I've no doubt adverse scaling won't affect you much at all.

 

[me121]

Yeh but some subjects just have more difficult concepts to get your heads around.

You could almost say the same thing for people that study languages. Many language subjects scale quite well, and if there are only a few people doing the subject, you can get like top 10 in the state. But how is it fair that they get to do a course in which they have studied possibly their whole lives living in foreign countries or at homes, nothing is unfamiliar to them, whilst everyone else is doing subjects like histories and sciences in which they need to learn everything from scratch. not being racist, but its pretty unfair.

I think it is fair.

If English is your first language you are given the opportunity to show your skills in that subject through English Std/Adv.

If just say French is your first language, you are given equal opportunity to show your skills in that subject through French Continuer's (which should be of equal difficulty to English Standard, although i am not sure if it is).

They have no advantage, as English which is compulsory may be more difficult for them as it is their second language. If English is their second language then they have to learn that from scratch, just like you may need to learn science from scratch.

PS. The ranking in the subject has no affect on scaling or you HSC mark, so it should not matter if the candidature is small.

If physics for example had an average of 40 for the entire cohort, where as legal studies had an average of 60 for the entire cohort, then physics is evidently harder and should scale moreso then legal.

Not enirely true. Because otherwise the subjects with dumb people would scale up.

Scaling also applies to the popularity of and demand for particular subjects. A lot of degrees have maths components to them, so maths would scale well to allow more people to get a higher UAI. However, there's only a handful of degrees that would have a music or art component (there's almost none outside specialisations in secondary teaching). People are not being penalised for having different talents; scaling is simply a reflection of what is in demand at the time. Geography scaled incredibly well during my HSC year (and I came seventh in the state), but it has hardly scaled at all since.

there is a set scaling algorithm, and the demand of a course in uni is not a factor. what you have said is not correct.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

comedy (specialist in being true idiot)@ la trobe

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Come back when you're worthy.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

there is a set scaling algorithm, and the demand of a course in uni is not a factor. what you have said is not correct.

Go back and read my post again, then reply to it. You've seen maybe two or three words and instntly assumed I'm wrong. Subjects consistently scale well, but the numbers in them vary from year to year. UAC has to take that into account; sure, the numbers might be out by one per cent, but if our DNA were out by tha margin, we would be dolphins. I'm assuming the scaling algorithm is not basic mathematics and so variations from year to year would have to be taken into account.

 

[me121]

Go back and read my post again, then reply to it. You've seen maybe two or three words and instntly assumed I'm wrong. Subjects consistently scale well, but the numbers in them vary from year to year. UAC has to take that into account; sure, the numbers might be out by one per cent, but if our DNA were out by tha margin, we would be dolphins. I'm assuming the scaling algorithm is not basic mathematics and so variations from year to year would have to be taken into account.

But scaling for the UAI does not take into account the demand of a subject in university. Scaling is calculated solely on the performance of a subjects candidates in all their other subjects (except for some subjects with low candidature where adjustments are made if needed).

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

But scaling for the UAI does not take into account the demand of a subject in university. Scaling is calculated solely on the performance of a subjects candidates in all their other subjects (except for some subjects with low candidature where adjustments are made if needed).

I admit that was my fuck-up. I often re-write sections of posts before I actually post them and this was one time when I didn't go back and edit the bad stuff out. Doesn't happen very often, but whn it does happen it always seems to be in the wrong place in the wrong time.