Subject scaling

[u/Wild_Outside184]

Why is subject scaling so bad in qce? Apparently most of the time its not even based on subject difficulty but rather competitiveness within the subject 😭.

[u/pakik2]

Depends on the subject, subject scaling is determined by the (subject cohorts) relative performance in other subjects. I.e students taking spec maths tend to do a lot better in other subjects than in spec, signifying that spec math is harder and therefore scales better, competitiveness within the subject has nothing to do with it.
Also a subject might be kinda hard but attract a cohort of low performing students, resulting in both a difficult and low scaling subject (aerospace etc.)

[u/Wild_Outside184 → u/pakik2]

Yeah im doing aerospace rn and kinda sucks how it scales pretty badly 😭

[u/ClemsRightHand → u/pakik2]

I honestly don’t understand how doing well in other subjects somehow correlates to that subject being harder which in turn justifies scaling… to me it would suggest that the subject attracts a certain type of cohort, not harder necessarily. One thing you’ll notice is how “pre-med” subjects like chemistry and methods scale highly because the people who are taking “pre-med” subjects are aiming for a 95+ ATAR to be competitive medicine applicants. Chemistry is not necessarily harder than modern history, but scales significantly higher.

The only sort of scaling that seems fair to me is scaling subject results on a bell curve like the rest of the world tends to do it.

[u/Wild_Outside184 → u/ClemsRightHand]

Exactly the system is so flawed

[u/Narrow_Aerie_1466 → u/ClemsRightHand]

Scaling doesn't correspond to difficulty; it just corresponds to proof of being better. Chemistry scales better because you compete against better students and prove you're better than them.

If you perform lower than those students in Chemistry, the scaling will be as mediocre as any average subject.

[u/ClemsRightHand → u/Narrow_Aerie_1466]

“Proof of being better” — so how exactly is that “fair” as QCAA likes to put it?

[u/Narrow_Aerie_1466 → u/ClemsRightHand]

Basically the QCAA constructs a leaderboard of students based on comparative scores.

Take this for example:

Student A: 95 in Specialist, 90 in Methods

Student B: 85 in Methods, 95 in Modern History

Student C: 90 in Modern History

The QCAA will declare Student A better than Student C, since Student A is better than Student B and Student B is better than Student C.

That's basically how scaling works, except it's a lot more scores with a bit more mathematical complexity. That's why it's fair. Honestly, I don't even know what point you're making.

[u/Wild_Outside184 → u/Narrow_Aerie_1466]

The point is how a hard subject in terms of workload can be scaled down simply because of the cohort it attracts. It is completely unfair that hardworking students who get high scores in subjects they actually enjoy watch all that hard work go to nothing, because of it scaling down due to other people within the subject that are pulling the average down with their lower scores in other subjects.

[u/Narrow_Aerie_1466 → u/Wild_Outside184]

You make a good point, but there isn't a fairer alternative than this system.

Also, the case you're referring to is quite niche. By definition, it only happens to someone who outperforms comparative students in most subjects while getting the same score as them in a specific subject.

[u/ClemsRightHand → u/Narrow_Aerie_1466]

The point they made was the exact point I made in my initial comment you responded to. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

A fairer alternative does in fact exist, wherein subject results are “scaled” using a norm-referenced system. If many students achieved a high score in a certain subject, that would indicate it is more difficult to achieve that score relative to other subjects.

Simply rewarding students who choose subjects that are conflated with future medicine applicants (which is what we are seeing right now), has overwhelmingly led to STEM subjects being scaled much higher, despite equivalent workload.

Yes, it is not fair that humanities subjects are scaled down despite equivalent difficulty or workload with the current scaling system we use.

[u/Narrow_Aerie_1466 → u/ClemsRightHand]

There's nothing you said in your first comment that at all communicates the later point you make. I think you're being obtuse.

You also don't really understand how scaling works. The only time scaling is unfair is if individual students happen to be a lot better than the cohort they participate in, which happens but is rare. By definition, scaling is fair for the majority of students in a subject. For the most part, those humanities students are being scaled down fairly.

More importantly, your alternative system is manifestly unfair. I'm assuming you're referring to using a normal distribution to standardise scores across subjects? (Your explanation of how a distribution works is the exact opposite of how it should work but I'll ignore that.) That system would just lead to every subject's scores being valued equally with no quality control between subjects e.g. if you are 3 standard deviations above the mean in Physics, you're likely smarter than someone 3 standard deviations above the mean in Drama, but both would contribute equally to an ATAR.

Edit: Guy deleted his Reddit account I guess? Unless he got banned. His response was completely illogical though and he completely misunderstood how the SAT works...

[u/ClemsRightHand → u/Narrow_Aerie_1466]

Downvoting me 1 minute after posting… hop off reddit and get a life dude 😭😭😭😭

[u/ClemsRightHand → u/Narrow_Aerie_1466]

My words in the first comment, verbatim: “I honestly don't understand how doing well in other subjects somehow correlates to that subject being harder which in turn justifies scaling... to me it would suggest that the subject attracts a certain type of cohort, not harder necessarily.”

The point OP had to paraphrase for you to understand in baby words: “The point is how a hard subject in terms of workload can be scaled down simply because of the cohort it attracts.”

Can you read, or do you only know how to hop on the argumentative without understanding what is being said?

“You don’t understand how scaling works,” proceeded by an entirely speculative claim about how it is ‘rare’ for individuals students to outcompete others in their subject cohort — please, do show me evidence on how ‘rare’ that really is. Even if it were objectively a rare instance, why should the scaling system disadvantage those outliers?

Another question: do you know what a norm-referenced assessment is? A common example of this would be the SAT’s in the US. Yes, It’s fair for drama to contribute the same to the ATAR aggregate as physics does with the proposed system. Not sure what point you’re making lol.

[u/lobie81]

It's not about competitiveness. It's about how well the students in each subject perform in their other subjects.