How is it that some people get 40 in methods but 48 in specialist?

[snowisawesome]

No - I'm saying anyone that has the potential to get past 35 in methods easily has the potential to do well (read: >30 ss) in specialist. It's only above 40 where luck really starts to play a part.

So if "person a" got 50 raw in methods in 2017, and then repeats methods in 2018, he could get a 45 raw if he had a bad exam day? (meaning that the difference between a 45 and 50 is just luck?)

[keltingmeith]

So if "person a" got 50 raw in methods in 2017, and then repeats methods in 2018, he could get a 45 raw if he had a bad exam day? (meaning that the difference between a 45 and 50 is just luck?)

He could easily get <40 on a bad exam day. It's not likely, but it doesn't take much - VCE isn't decided by intelligence by ability. It's mostly decided by who knows how to answer VCAA questions.

[MsNguyen]

Hello!

Having been in a student myself, studied maths in different contexts at uni and now teaching maths to younger people - I have experienced maths very differently in all these phases of my life.

To answer your question, I feel that Methods and Specialist are very different types of mathematics. As is Further Maths. Brains operate differently and hence produce different results. Some people are just better are certain things than others. Take for example two students, one who studies pure maths and the applied maths (university level). Both are very good at maths, but might really find the other branch of maths challenging.

Also as a lot of people have mentioned, it unfortunately does come down to luck a lot of the time, especially if you are entering 40+ territory. I have had students who have managed to do better than their peers (those who have put in more effort and have generally done better throughout the year).

[LifeisaConstantStruggle]

I might not be the most qualified person to say this but as a student who has done both Methods and Specialist myself I can say that they take very different set of skills to excel in, though they might have some form of similarity with one another.
Both methods and spec require attention to detail, and if you can avoid careless mistakes or be mindful of what you are doing at that point in time, you are basically set for a 35+, provided that you have learnt the course.
Through personal experience I would say that Specialist has way more content compared to Methods, which might throw some people off due to the content weight. (which is why they don't do as well in spec compared to methods) This means that to be able to assess every dot point on the study design VCAA has to write spec questions in a way that everything only scratches the surface of what we are required to know as students doing spec, and you hardly ever get questions that dive too deep because of time constraints and all that fluff. Students who aren't really careful with their calculations might score well because the questions are relatively straightforward, which leads to a better study score.
Methods however, can be written in a way that REALLY assesses your method of thinking, and ability to do questions because its contents are much easier to grasp. Rudimentary calculations in methods are plenty, and that can really hurt if you are more of a content learner compared to someone that can calculate well.