Unusual SAC Ranking Problem ==

[mystikal]

Heys

This is a problem i have not come across in this forum and now that i have fallen victim to it please help me out ==

Ok for Japanese 3/4 I am rank 1 for Unit 3 SACs (1 point ahead) but i am Rank 2 in unit 4 SAC's (1 point behind) so overall i would be equal rank 1 with 2 other people (theres only 10 of us)

So how does this work when it comes to exams? how will the SAC's be scaled? (also Japanese is one where SAC's are worth 50% and the end of year the other 50%)

Am i still rank 1? Those unit 4 take priority over unit 3? === sooooo confused ====

[AppleThief]

No unit takes priority over the other. The teacher can either submit your SAC marks as they are, or rank properly and give the person who is likely to perform best on the exam, the highest SAC ranking.

[mystikal]

great my teacher hates me == and since i think he would go for the unit 4 result im gonna be rank 3 == ARGGHHHHHHHH  == hate my teacher ==

[xox.happy1.xox]

Aww... Try your hardest in the exam, and there is no reason why you can't top your Japanese class. Never give up hope before the exams!

[shinny]

I don't think the teacher's submit scores to VCAA at the end of the year though; its given progressively. And yeh, unit 3 and 4 marks are weighed equally (even though theres less sacs in unit 4 typically, its still 50/50). As for scaling, SACs are used ONLY to get a ranking of students, the mark themselves don't work. Although I'm not too sure exactly what happens when theres equal scores, I imagine that the three of you will be denoted #1, while the person after you guys will then be #4. Then from then on, the same system applies; the three of you inherit the best exam mark produced from your cohort (the ten of you that is) as your SAC score, whilst the #4 from before inherits the 4th best exam score from your cohort. If you don't quite get what I mean, read up on it at VCAA, although their explanations might be even more confusing.

VCAA: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/exams/statisticalmoderation/statmod.html

[*Roxxii*]

I remember reading somewhere that when there are equal scores, say 3 people on rank #1...
Instead of the three of you all inheriting the best exam mark produced from your cohort ...
All three people get the average of the top 3 exam marks.

But i'm not sure how reliable this information is, it could purely just be a rumour

[ninwa]

Hmm ... I vaguely remember a teacher telling us that if two people are equally ranked, then they will get the worst score out of them both. I distinctly remember her explaining that this was why she would never ever rank two people the same.

Then again my memory is appalling so I'd double check with a more reliable source.

[*Roxxii*]

Hahaa...whoever is reading this is gonna get so confused

The last 3 posts suggest that if people get equal rankings, they will receive the...
*Best score
*Average of scores
*Worst score

 It'd be funny if all 3 of us are wrong  hahahaa

[Noblesse]

I have heard Worst score
Sadly I think it's the accurate one, and I have an equal rank 1 in Religion. Basically if they screw the exam I get screwed too :/

[*Roxxii*]

Awww...that really sucks
I REALLY REALLY hope its not true...

Coz at my school,we have pretty easy sacs...so in methods, we have like 2 people on rank #1 and 3-4 people on rank #2

Grrr....we're gonna get so screwed over  :tickedoff:

[Mao]

WOAH so many misunderstandings,.....

1) "scaling" and "statistical moderation" are two different terms relating to two different things. Statistical moderation refers to the moderation of SAC score according to exam scores (which takes GAT into account as well, long process). Scaling are moderation of study scores by VTAC to make sure harder studies (such as specialist maths) are given a bonus due to their difficulty, and easier studies (such as food tech) are not "exploited".

2) It might be true that you do not rank as high as you'd like to be, but that doesn't exactly translate to the end of the world.
Your SAC mark is essentially a ranking, which will be moderated approximately to the same-ranked exam score. For a person to beat you in a SAC, the ability of that person must be similar, if not better, than you. That is, in the exam, that person will perform at a similar level to (if not better than) you. And hence, ranking second to that person is not a disadvantage at all.
and I must stress approximately. you do not "inherit" the ranking exam score, (in fact, you do not inherit an exam score at all). The statistically moderated score is an "external score", which is the average SAC score the state achieves for a level of achievement in the exam, with tweakings done cross-referenced to GAT scores and also SAC reviews.

3) The "worst score" theory for equal SAC rankings is incorrect. What actually happens is the "average score" of the equal ranking students are used (not exactly the average, but approximately that). That is a disadvantage to the higher achieving student in that equal ranking group, hence is avoided by most teachers (unless your teacher is unexperienced with year 12. our biology cohort suffered last year because of easy SACs and the spread of better students couldn't be accurately gauged). However, it also serves as a slight advantage to lower achieving students in that same group..... (some teachers do this around the middle of the cohort to avoid too many low scores... tragic)


I used to be a person who frets about SAC rankings (i was ranked #2 in specialist). But come to think about it, if your "nemesis" can give you a good run for the money, that person won't be someone who would negatively impact statistical moderation of your SACs. At worst, it probably just mean you won't take advantage of them.

[Noblesse]

Thank you Mao Type, type!

[*Roxxii*]

Weeeee yayyyy its the average score

Ooops...better put in APPROXIMATELY...
Or else Mao will turn me into dumplings

[mystikal]

Aww thats gay then

because like i only did bad in the last SAC since it was in my weakest field ==

ARGGGHHH that means if we get repectively

90%, 85% and 80% approximately for the end of years our SAC's will get scaled to == 85% approximately ARGGHHH

what happens if i do extremely well? like 95% will it still average or will it need 3 of us to do well in order for my SAC's to do well == Also can teacher designate rankings without changing the score if so... if i get ranked 2 or 3 because of it will this mean that i am more distadvantaged than being equal rank 1?

O yea while we are on the topic can you guy predict the RAW SS from my scores?
GA1 (Unit 3)  rank 1
A+(46/50)-which is a low A+ according to Grade distributions of 2004-2007 (A+ = 46-50)
GA2 (Unit 4) rank 2
A+(47/50)-which is also a low A+ according to Grade distributions of 2004-2007 (A+ = 47-50)
Overall equal Rank1
For the end of year if i get a low A+ or middle A+ or high A does that mean a 40?

[Noblesse]

3) The "worst score" theory for equal SAC rankings is incorrect. What actually happens is the "average score" of the equal ranking students are used (not exactly the average, but approximately that). That is a disadvantage to the higher achieving student in that equal ranking group, hence is avoided by most teachers (unless your teacher is unexperienced with year 12. our biology cohort suffered last year because of easy SACs and the spread of better students couldn't be accurately gauged). However, it also serves as a slight advantage to lower achieving students in that same group..... (some teachers do this around the middle of the cohort to avoid too many low scores... tragic)

Thanks for this explanation Mao, however I do not mean to question your answer (in fact I really, really hope you are right) but do you have any quotes from the VCAA to back up this answer? I am sure (and hope) you are correct but I seem to worry a ton and this would help my worrying