Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
I have just received DS's score breakdown and I'm unsure where he may be able to consider. (possibly nowhere!)
We are currently OOC so can only consider those schools with no distance criteria. Am I right in thinking this leaves Judd, Skinners and Dartford boys.
Can anyone indicate cut-off scores for these schools or where I might find them. He did not get full marks across the board but was close.
It would give me an idea of possibilities.
We are currently OOC so can only consider those schools with no distance criteria. Am I right in thinking this leaves Judd, Skinners and Dartford boys.
Can anyone indicate cut-off scores for these schools or where I might find them. He did not get full marks across the board but was close.
It would give me an idea of possibilities.
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Hi HT at Judd said 418 was cut off in 2012. Think I've seen on here Skinners was 410. Although I believe the test was much harder this year i.e at yardley court in 2012 22 got full marks, this year just one. So you may find that in the end the cut off possibly may be
lower... Best wishes
lower... Best wishes
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Myrtle - that is interesting about Yardley Court results. Certainly many dead cert pupils have come out with less that anticipated. But on the other hand I am also reading about pupils that have done a great deal better than expected.
Do people think it was a harder paper or was in marked differently? Have they marked the older children particularly fiercely?
Certainly on a couple of other threads it is clear that many people are perplexed by the relationship between raw scores and standardised scores.
Do people think it was a harder paper or was in marked differently? Have they marked the older children particularly fiercely?
Certainly on a couple of other threads it is clear that many people are perplexed by the relationship between raw scores and standardised scores.
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Children born in the same month are standardised against each other so 'statistically' the same number from each month should pass/fail/get top marks etcetera.westkent wrote: ...
Have they marked the older children particularly fiercely?
...
There is often talk of 'advantage' given to younger children but it's simply not the case when talking about standardised scores. There should be the same number of top marks in each month. I suppose if we were to be pedantic you could argue that children born at the start of each month have an advantage.
DaddyOh
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Thanks DaddyOh.
I understand that this is usually the case but my question was really does anyone think that the system of marking had changed this year. Only speculation as know one can know.
For instance
June 77% = 141
Dec 80% = 138
That differential is larger than previous years. Wondered why.
Unless there were just some extremely high marks in certain month groups and not others.
I understand that this is usually the case but my question was really does anyone think that the system of marking had changed this year. Only speculation as know one can know.
For instance
June 77% = 141
Dec 80% = 138
That differential is larger than previous years. Wondered why.
Unless there were just some extremely high marks in certain month groups and not others.
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
In previous years it has been around 2-3 marks for the raw scores across the year so that equates to about 2-4% depending on paper etcetera.
Not certain where those numbers you mention have come from but I'd be dubious of them since it's impossible to get 77% on any of the papers (unless you use the rather uncommon round down from a half convention for 62/72 in the NVR or unless they sneakily changed the number of questions in the papers but I'd have thought we'd have heard if that had happened).
DaddyOH
Not certain where those numbers you mention have come from but I'd be dubious of them since it's impossible to get 77% on any of the papers (unless you use the rather uncommon round down from a half convention for 62/72 in the NVR or unless they sneakily changed the number of questions in the papers but I'd have thought we'd have heard if that had happened).
DaddyOH
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Interested in what you said Daddyoh....I can see it working for pass/fail, but not convinced about at the top end. I know in recent years boys born after March were a rarity at Judd.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:46 am
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
DG boys: 2012 the lowest mark went to 418, @4.95 miles from Greenwich borough. The info was sent to me by email from Kent admissions - they use straight line measuring distanceHedwig wrote:I have just received DS's score breakdown and I'm unsure where he may be able to consider. (possibly nowhere!)
We are currently OOC so can only consider those schools with no distance criteria. Am I right in thinking this leaves Judd, Skinners and Dartford boys.
Can anyone indicate cut-off scores for these schools or where I might find them. He did not get full marks across the board but was close.
It would give me an idea of possibilities.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:46 am
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Also still 10% would have got 423 full marks- nothing changed with that. 420-422 probably 3% of the kids passed so if maths is done on the data, 13 % would have got 420-423.
Re: Boys schools with no distance criteria - cut offs
Billie wrote:Interested in what you said Daddyoh....I can see it working for pass/fail, but not convinced about at the top end. I know in recent years boys born after March were a rarity at Judd.
Do you have a link to those statistics?
DaddyOh