Interpretation of scores
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Interpretation of scores
Wondered what a reasonable score for Kegs entry would be? We are at 327
Re: Interpretation of scores
Don't think that will be high enough unfortunately but would stand a chance at one of the Southend GS. Good luck.
Re: Interpretation of scores
I agree that it seems unlikely. I think they were anticipating somewhere around 340. What does the advice say?
Re: Interpretation of scores
I appreciate the advice, thank you
Re: Interpretation of scores
I don't think the score is high enough for Chelmsford. Based on the CSSE guidance sheet, the lowest standardised score to be admitted a place at KEGS by 1 March in the past four years was 337 if inside 12.5 miles, and 355 if outside 12.5 miles.
If you are out of priority area for Southend and Westcliff, 327 would give you a reasonable chance of an offer. If you are in priority area, then the likelihood of an offer is very high.
Good luck.
If you are out of priority area for Southend and Westcliff, 327 would give you a reasonable chance of an offer. If you are in priority area, then the likelihood of an offer is very high.
Good luck.
Re: Interpretation of scores
I think it would be very difficult to judge the cut of marks for any school this year.
The catchment area rule brought in for Chelmsford schools will change the whole complexion of the entry process. So, I would not pay much attention to what the Consortium may or may not recommend.
Theoretically the cut of mark for the Chelmsford schools could even be lower than 303 for the catchment area candidates, as there is no bottom limit set. The admission rule is simply: 80% from the catchment area whatever the scores.
What is certain on the other hand is that the cut off marks for the Southend and Westcliff schools will be higher than any of the previous years', as the out-of-catchment-spill over from Chelmsford schools will mostly target these schools. Also taking into consideration the fact that Southend catchment area is somewhat extended, might mean even higher scores would be needed for the out-of-catchment candidates.
But of course it is good news for candidates who qualify for the Chelmsford catchment area.
Good luck everyone.
The catchment area rule brought in for Chelmsford schools will change the whole complexion of the entry process. So, I would not pay much attention to what the Consortium may or may not recommend.
Theoretically the cut of mark for the Chelmsford schools could even be lower than 303 for the catchment area candidates, as there is no bottom limit set. The admission rule is simply: 80% from the catchment area whatever the scores.
What is certain on the other hand is that the cut off marks for the Southend and Westcliff schools will be higher than any of the previous years', as the out-of-catchment-spill over from Chelmsford schools will mostly target these schools. Also taking into consideration the fact that Southend catchment area is somewhat extended, might mean even higher scores would be needed for the out-of-catchment candidates.
But of course it is good news for candidates who qualify for the Chelmsford catchment area.
Good luck everyone.
Re: Interpretation of scores
Ekk - Still will be a lot of competition for the Chelmsford in catchment places, I would be very surprised if it is not around the 337 mark. The DC sat the exam a couple of months earlier which may also lower the scores generally but not by that much.
Re: Interpretation of scores
The scores are standardised so taking the exam earlier will not affect the standardised score. In fact, looking at the scores coming it, the papers seem to be easier than previous years.
The information provided in the attachment to the results provide a useful indicator of the type of score likely required to gain a place.
There is no way the cut-off mark for ChCHS and KEGS will be lower than 303 as there are so many candidates who wish to apply to these two schools gaining scores far far higher than 303, whilst there are only roughly 120 and 108 places available. I don't have the figures to hand, but there are two boys and two girls schools in Southend making a total of nearly twice the places available which is why the Southend scores are lower.
Regarding Westcliff High School for Boys and Girls, it looks like they are sticking to what they have said in that all pupils scoring 303 inside the catchment area will be offered a place. The scores for Southend schools suggest they may require slightly higher scores due to limited places. In all four Southend schools, whatever places are still available after in catchment candidates are considered, are then opened up to out of catchment area candidates so these scores will indeed be hard to gauge.
The information provided in the attachment to the results provide a useful indicator of the type of score likely required to gain a place.
There is no way the cut-off mark for ChCHS and KEGS will be lower than 303 as there are so many candidates who wish to apply to these two schools gaining scores far far higher than 303, whilst there are only roughly 120 and 108 places available. I don't have the figures to hand, but there are two boys and two girls schools in Southend making a total of nearly twice the places available which is why the Southend scores are lower.
Regarding Westcliff High School for Boys and Girls, it looks like they are sticking to what they have said in that all pupils scoring 303 inside the catchment area will be offered a place. The scores for Southend schools suggest they may require slightly higher scores due to limited places. In all four Southend schools, whatever places are still available after in catchment candidates are considered, are then opened up to out of catchment area candidates so these scores will indeed be hard to gauge.
Re: Interpretation of scores
I think we all need to understand the whole admission process, past and present, to make a more educated choice when we fill our common application forms.
First:There never was a catchment area policy for the Chelmsford schools prior to this year. Hence, there would be no distinction between the admission marks catchment area or otherwise. So, if the consortium is claiming that lowest mark for KEGS from "within catchment" was 337 and from "outside" 355, then either there are typo errors in their text, or there was previously an untold catchment area policy after all. In fact, 337 was the lowest mark for any candidate irrespective of the area of residence.
Also: Last year 57% of the admissions were from outside the currently set catchment area. That means a 37% reduction for the non-catchment and therefore 37% extra places for the catchment, 41 extra places.
There seems to be brewing another aspect to the whole process, which is a little puzzling to say the least.
Quite a few score above 390 are posted in the forum. Looking at the raw scores (seems to be in the high 80%s), we could be forgiving to think that this does not quite tally with the previous experience. Of course, scores above 390 is possible, but the earlier years' results suggest that the raw score were then usually in the high 90%s.
If anyone has an idea why these discrepancies and bewildering statements are forthcoming this year, I would be very interested to know.
First:There never was a catchment area policy for the Chelmsford schools prior to this year. Hence, there would be no distinction between the admission marks catchment area or otherwise. So, if the consortium is claiming that lowest mark for KEGS from "within catchment" was 337 and from "outside" 355, then either there are typo errors in their text, or there was previously an untold catchment area policy after all. In fact, 337 was the lowest mark for any candidate irrespective of the area of residence.
Also: Last year 57% of the admissions were from outside the currently set catchment area. That means a 37% reduction for the non-catchment and therefore 37% extra places for the catchment, 41 extra places.
There seems to be brewing another aspect to the whole process, which is a little puzzling to say the least.
Quite a few score above 390 are posted in the forum. Looking at the raw scores (seems to be in the high 80%s), we could be forgiving to think that this does not quite tally with the previous experience. Of course, scores above 390 is possible, but the earlier years' results suggest that the raw score were then usually in the high 90%s.
If anyone has an idea why these discrepancies and bewildering statements are forthcoming this year, I would be very interested to know.
Re: Interpretation of scores
Apologies in advance but it isn't really that bewildering.
Based on the KEGS "consultation" document earlier this year, they plotted the address of every pupil in each year and analysed the 11+ entrance score against this. So they can retrospectively analyse what the lowest score for in priority and out of priority was (notwithstanding the addresses of pupils may have changed or been incorrectly provided in the first place). It is not a stretch of the imagination that each school or CSSE have records showing 11+ results against postcode of students at 11+ schools to generate the numbers in the attachment.
337 was the lowest score to be admitted for in priority candidates, but for out of priority, 338 would not have gained a place. The lowest score according to the CSSE information was that 355 was needed for out of priority area in the past four years.
I don't know what the point was about the change in admissions and places so cannot answer that.
Standardised scores of 390 are indeed rare but usually reserved for the top few candidates. It is possible that we just happen to have more of them in this forum than previous year. It is also possible that there were more candidates taking the 11+ this year and whereas in previous years, supposedly scores above 130 were truncated at 130 may have been truncated at say 132 instead.
The standardised score does not depend on raw scores being high, it just means that the child is performing amongst the top 1% or 0.1%. For example, I have had the misfortune of sitting a ridiculously hard university exam where the marks were all between 10% and 50%. Any score near to that 50% would have resulted in a standardised score equivalent of 130.
There are sticky posts in these forums which explain how standardisation works and it would be useful to take a look at that if you are interested.
Based on the KEGS "consultation" document earlier this year, they plotted the address of every pupil in each year and analysed the 11+ entrance score against this. So they can retrospectively analyse what the lowest score for in priority and out of priority was (notwithstanding the addresses of pupils may have changed or been incorrectly provided in the first place). It is not a stretch of the imagination that each school or CSSE have records showing 11+ results against postcode of students at 11+ schools to generate the numbers in the attachment.
337 was the lowest score to be admitted for in priority candidates, but for out of priority, 338 would not have gained a place. The lowest score according to the CSSE information was that 355 was needed for out of priority area in the past four years.
I don't know what the point was about the change in admissions and places so cannot answer that.
Standardised scores of 390 are indeed rare but usually reserved for the top few candidates. It is possible that we just happen to have more of them in this forum than previous year. It is also possible that there were more candidates taking the 11+ this year and whereas in previous years, supposedly scores above 130 were truncated at 130 may have been truncated at say 132 instead.
The standardised score does not depend on raw scores being high, it just means that the child is performing amongst the top 1% or 0.1%. For example, I have had the misfortune of sitting a ridiculously hard university exam where the marks were all between 10% and 50%. Any score near to that 50% would have resulted in a standardised score equivalent of 130.
There are sticky posts in these forums which explain how standardisation works and it would be useful to take a look at that if you are interested.