Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:49 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:38 pm
Posts: 6
Below is what my DD scored at Tiffin Girls. While i understand the scaled marks for Reading and Writing and i dont understand the scaled marks for NVR/VR and Maths. It just looks low. Please can anyone explain this ? (DD DOB Aug 2002)

Raw Mark Scaled Mark
NVR/VR 130 out of 160 6.97 out of 30
Maths 34 out of 50 11.06 out of 20
Reading 23 out of 60 13.30 out of 30
Writing 10 out of 20 10.50 out fo 20

Final Mark 41.83

150th place offered to an applicant with a final mark of 49.78

Many Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:46 pm
Posts: 1
I have just joined the forum though have been following up for last few months. My dd also just got her results. I am trying to understand the scaling myself, maybe it is dependent on the performance of others....

I am shocked at my dd's reading and writing scores, especially when she is being prepped up for attempting level 6 reading at her primary school. Either she got the wrong end of the stick or tiffin has been extra tough....

Do others share the same view on the reading and writing scores?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5420
Location: RBK
Gundumummy wrote:
Below is what my DD scored at Tiffin Girls. While i understand the scaled marks for Reading and Writing and i dont understand the scaled marks for NVR/VR and Maths. It just looks low. Please can anyone explain this ? (DD DOB Aug 2002)

Raw Mark Scaled Mark
NVR/VR 130 out of 160 6.97 out of 30
Maths 34 out of 50 11.06 out of 20
Reading 23 out of 60 13.30 out of 30
Writing 10 out of 20 10.50 out fo 20

Final Mark 41.83

150th place offered to an applicant with a final mark of 49.78

Many Thanks


It is unclear how did they work out scaled marks. What was your DD's the standardized score for Stage 1?

At the least it would be 219 or above. Stage 1 has 30% weightage.
30*219/280 should give 23.64 points.

It is also not clear if the Maths/English papers were standardized. And how these were scaled down.

English got 50% weightage. Maths had only 20% weightage.

Weightages individual papers in Maths/English were not announced before the tests and certainly, there is a case for more transparency.

Perhaps, if some parents were to appeal and ask for all these clarifications, then TGS methods would become clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 182
I'm thinking maybe the 1st round scores have been restandardised.I've read on the Hertfordshire section about latymer school doing it and that it makes a huge difference.
It's worth checking up with the school.
Sgcmum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5420
Location: RBK
Are they making some big mistake in calculations for scaled marks.

raw marks: 130
max raw marks: 160
max. standardized marks: 280
min. standardized score: 219 (Actual score achieved may be higher)
weightage for stage 1: 30%

We know the scaled marks given for stage 1 is 6.97

How can this number be arrived based on above data?

A) based on raw score
30*130/160 = 24.38

B) based on standarized score
30*219/280 = 23.46 minimum

How these are scaled marked as 6.97.
Something is missing.. or the figure of 6.97 is not given correctly in OP.


sgcmum wrote:
I'm thinking maybe the 1st round scores have been restandardised.I've read on the Hertfordshire section about latymer school doing it and that it makes a huge difference.
It's worth checking up with the school.
Sgcmum


1. Firstly, there is no mention of re-standardizing raw score in any of the DAA or other information by TGS. If this has been done, that itself may be a ground of appeal.

2. Secondly, even if scores are restandardized, how could 219 minimum become so low that it would only give 6.97 out of 30? Some thing is not right. May be their calculation formula is not right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:21 am
Posts: 439
I think the scaled marks are obtained by using all the range of marks from all the stage 2 candidates. Hence a small change in the raw score might make a huge different in the scaled marks? Any thought from any statistician on this forum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:21 am
Posts: 439
I think the scaled marks are obtained by using all the range of marks from all the stage 2 candidates. Hence a small change in the raw score might make a huge different in the scaled marks? Any thought from any statistician on this forum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5420
Location: RBK
tabasco wrote:
I think the scaled marks are obtained by using all the range of marks from all the stage 2 candidates. Hence a small change in the raw score might make a huge different in the scaled marks? Any thought from any statistician on this forum?


Perhaps that may be true for Stage 2 test papers, but not for Stage 1 score. That would be like moving goal post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 182
When restandardisation is done using only the raw scores of those that progressed to the 2nd round, it does make a big difference as Tabasco says.Sorry, not able to post the link from the herts section.
It needs to be clarified first if tiffins indeed have done this though. As tiffinboys has pointed out,it's not mentioned anywhere in their process. It's only a possible explanation that I can think of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:21 am
Posts: 439
tiffinboys wrote:
tabasco wrote:
I think the scaled marks are obtained by using all the range of marks from all the stage 2 candidates. Hence a small change in the raw score might make a huge different in the scaled marks? Any thought from any statistician on this forum?


Perhaps that may be true for Stage 2 test papers, but not for Stage 1 score. That would be like moving goal post.


It definitely have been standardised after stage 2 as my DD's NVR/VR 255/280=91.07% but her scaled score is 71.57%.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016