admit card from nonsuch

[SunlampVexesEel]

This seems to imply that Nonsuch will probably have marks out of 280 this time...

It is traditional for NFER to normalise their tests to have results with mean 100, std deviation 15 and capped at 140 at the top and 70 at the bottom. Sometimes these normalisations also bucket different age groups to remove age related skew.
So with 2 tests... 140x2=280... with the mean being 200. i.e. Half of candidates will score <=200 and Half >200.
It's really not worrying about the scoring scheme... the challenge is simply to get as many marks in the right box as possible!
Regards
SVE

[One_Shot]

Thanks SunlampVexesEel.

Any views on how Wallington gets to 420 with 2 tests? It seems to imply one test is weighted two times in the standardization you describe? Is it maths that is twice weighted?

[laretta]

If I am correct the Wallington top mark has never been disclosed. Various previous posters have stated that when they phoned the school it refused to give out such info. Some posters have also stated their dd's mark for Wallington as above 420 it was a few years ago now, but the highest I can remember to be 436. (I think)
Here is a link to the original thread regarding the subject.

http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/ ... 36#p233106" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[One_Shot]

The long tail beyond 420 could be just couple of candidates falling beyond the 3 sigma std. deviation, with the school not deciding to cut-off at 3 std deviations.

However, the basic question remains. If the mean is around 300 with high end being ~ 420, does it mean that 1 test is weighted twice that of the other? If so which one? If both were weighted the same, there would be no reason to decide to keep the mean at 300 with high at around 420 - why not stick to the convention of 200 as mean with around 280 as max. The only logical conclusion I can think of is that the school weights 1 test twice that of the other.

it is just too tiresome for the school to not publish any data.

[tiffinboys]

Sorry, but I am quite suspicious about their lack of openness. What are they trying to hide?

I recall about Sutton Grammar School that School Adjudicator found out their method of banding was not disclosed in the admission arrangements. I suspect this was to avoid appeals at the cut off points as school's method of banding and selecting on distance at the last band was resulting in admitting children living nearby, even if they might have scored one or two points below the unsuccessful candidates living further away. Quite clever way of doing things.

[London_Mum]

They still do don't they? I thought SGS rounded up scores to the nearest 4 marks. That only offers a advantage for distance in terms of the last few places though - all other places are allocated strictly on score.

Was there ever a time when Wallington was more open about their scores? The boys' school used to be very open about rank order etc but that changed a few years ago. Is there an historical mark scheme for Wallington Girls or was it always hush-hush?

[tiffinboys]

Yes, SGS still do; but now it is spelled out in the admission arrangements. I would think that at the lower cut-off marks there usually are 10-12 children at each point. 4 marks bank would mean as many as 50 children or even more. These children get places on distance basis.

[London_Mum]

Do the others normally get in from the waiting list though?
I haven't followed the recent figures so I don't know. One would assume that, if the qualifying score ever drops even 1 point, then any distance advantage on March 1st become irrelevant in terms of who eventually gets offered a place.

Of course if the waiting lists don't move and drop by at least 1 mark then distance would be a real advantage for the 50 or so hovering at the last score admitted.

[One_Shot]

Wallington Girls admissions document suggests that:

4.4.3: 100 places on the basis of score in the assessment test in order of highest score

As I understand there are 110 places being allocated on the basis of catchment.

So, I would think that with admission document laying out clearly that 100 places are on basis of highest score, there is little scope for taking out 50 seats from this category using banding to then add to an unpublished distance criteria.

It is more likely that the school just does not want to disclose what weight-age it gives each test to keep everyone guessing and thus trying to nullify any tutoring advantages to get the brightest pupils - though I think this is not a good idea and the school should be open about what the rules of admission are and publish data against those criteria transparently post admissions.