Rankings for 2019 entry

[Seraphina]

The rankings are now available on the WCC website. The spreadsheet doesn't break down by area, so I'm not sure how helpful this is!

https://apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/do ... CC-699-941" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[snow white]

I have just looked and have no idea what it means or whom it includes .... i.e Southern and Eastern as well as those Birmingham children who shared? Maybe we will get something to explain what it all means in the post at some point?

[Hopefulmumof2]

Official rankings, officially useless.
personally I am going to be guided on the aqs for previous years and hope for the best!

[Chantry_001]

The webpage also states that no other breakdown will be available even on request, so for those children with scores on the threshold from last year’s info, it does not give much clarity or assurance...

[sportsforall]

At first glance I don't think the rankings have actually changed much.

233 from memory in 2016 exam was ranked 576 of all children and it seems to be 499 this time.
214 was around 1100 in 2017 exam and it is almost the same this time.

Not breaking down by gender is ridiculously unhelpful since many of the schools are single-sex. Maybe next year they won't even provide rankings. I wonder what the thought process is behind that?

[Seraphina]

It's not very clear, but I think it includes Birmingham and Warks marks, as the top 200 on their FOI list shows the highest score in Warks as 271.

[HFL]

it is a rankling for all children who sat the exam regardless of where they live and will include the numbers for those from the Birmingham consortium.

A ranking by gender would have been helpful like last year since 4 of the GS are single sex.

[Centralperk]

Official rankings, officially useless.
personally I am going to be guided on the aqs for previous years and hope for the best!

I’ve been told twice on the phone by the admissions office that the AQS is not likely to change that much and it is a very good guide to go by.

[Here_goes]

At first glance I don't think the rankings have actually changed much.

233 from memory in 2016 exam was ranked 576 of all children and it seems to be 499 this time.
214 was around 1100 in 2017 exam and it is almost the same this time.

Not breaking down by gender is ridiculously unhelpful since many of the schools are single-sex. Maybe next year they won't even provide rankings. I wonder what the thought process is behind that?

Last year, 214 ranked as 992 all children. It's a bit lower this year at 1115. I agree, the rankings get less and less helpful each year, especially as I suspect a lot of them are shared scores who have no intention of taking a Warks place. It's almost a pointless exercise in providing the rankings.

[Zoot]

I think scores have increased somewhat. The work by kenyancowgirl on last years data is half way down this thread

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=52326

A score of 211 last year was at rank 1037 last year compared with 1253 this year ignoring gender and priority circle.

I don't know the data well enough to know what is causing this. To my mind the options would be

1) 'easier' test (Seems unlikely - CEM can't be seen to be a soft touch)
2) More well prepared children (Possible but tutors, online question sets, buying mock papers and going to mock tests are not new techniques)
3) Influence from a cohort of more prepared students - Birmingham scores always seem high. Has there been a shift of where kids take the test?
4) My statistical skills are not great, but it has always seemed odd to me that the average mean of standardised scores is 200 - that would mean that a RHS bound student 'only' needed to score 7 points over the mean -ie is just above average. (But getting a 207 score is not an easy thing to achieve)