Go to navigation
It is currently Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:27 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:37 am
Posts: 16
Herewego1 wrote:
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this!
This is similar to Arewenearlythereyet’s estimate on another thread.

Let’s see in March, it’s crazy high!!!!!


......no worries only needed just a couple of minutes to add the Judd IC. If I knew the cut-offs for Dartford, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells etc it would have been equally quick to add those but I will call it done now.

It’s good that there is varied sourced yet consistent predicted cut-off, which unfortunately is suggesting very high cut-off indeed. But that is what the data seems to be suggesting together with some judgments.

These are all guesstimates (Guess work + Reasonable Estimates) and should not be taken as gospel truth but only a guide. We can only be sure when actual outcomes are known in March.

Best wishes to all!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:44 am
Posts: 132
Apologies can’t access the spreadsheet for some reason. What is the estimate for OOC cut off please based on the analysis it contains? Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:57 am
Posts: 12
LocalTWmum1 wrote:
Apologies can’t access the spreadsheet for some reason. What is the estimate for OOC cut off please based on the analysis it contains? Thanks!


On "Cut off scores" thread Fibonacciseries had said the following in relation to his spreadsheet analysis (the link seems to have been terminated):

"Data is heavily summarised this time and even banded in many instances so requires a little bit of faffing and assumptions to make it usable for your personal purpose.

KCC could have been slightly more helpful (as they usually are), at least could have provided level of granularity as previous years but there you go not much we can press for.

It is very clear though that the 400+ scorers are way higher this time than previous years; which is no surprise given the jump in threshold pass mark from 323 to 330. Given we’re dealing with over 16,000 applicants in all cases, I wouldn’t attribute any thing to the cohort being any clever than previous. The obvious seems to be that the 3 tests as a collective was easier hence increasing number of scorers at each mark, noting that overall pass rate remained almost unchanged (minutely up).

Now what’s my take incase you care to know? As an OCC parent interested in Judd, son scoring between 410-415, I had been waiting for the data to have a feel for what we were up against, without making any assumptions about how safe he is based on historic thresholds. On the basis of the numbers together with previous, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the ‘Outer’ cutt-off to be above 408 but unlikely to be beyond 413. Please note this is only based on a very quick and rough ‘back of the envelope’ checks. Others may have different interpretations and assumptions.

On one hand I feel he’s safe but there is the small uncertainty. Whilst hot housing into ‘Inner Catchment’ looks a no-brainer to eliminate this uncertainty but we will remain, but I think ‘inner catchment’ should brace as there is likely to be some inflow by families scoring 385-400.

See you in March 2020."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:37 am
Posts: 16
LocalTWmum1 wrote:
Apologies can’t access the spreadsheet for some reason. What is the estimate for OOC cut off please based on the analysis it contains? Thanks!


Only last version of the links should work, repasted below.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AqttyoLasQwpjBtkQNT ... C?e=fF2wgz

In summary, it does appear Judd OOC cut-off is likely to be between 407-410 and IC between 384-387. As for where it actually would be no one really knows but the data does suggest clearly that huge jumps are to be expected from previous cut-offs, and the spike should be expected across all the super-selectives with knock-on impacts on the neighbouring grammars.

But this shouldn’t be alarming as it seem all candidates scores have been ‘inflated’ due to what seems a relatively easier test (collective over the 3 subjects) and pulling up minimum pass mark and anticipated cut-offs. I wouldn’t think there’s been any thing systemic for concern such as dramatic changes in: number of test takers, pass rates, KCC policies, cohort abilities or admission policies. We could well see things normalising if test operator (GL) readjusts the Test content.

Hope this helps.

Best wishes to all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 1:51 pm
Posts: 38
Looking at the raw to standardised scores for the last few years, I’m not sure that I agree that the papers were easier this year.

Maths seems to be standardised in a similar way to previous years, but for both reasoning and English a lower raw score is given a higher standardised score this year.

It seems to me that standardising for 330 to be the pass mark was a deliberate choice, and they could have changed the way the maths was standardised this year rather than changing both the English and reasoning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:37 am
Posts: 16
mum24 wrote:
Looking at the raw to standardised scores for the last few years, I’m not sure that I agree that the papers were easier this year.

Maths seems to be standardised in a similar way to previous years, but for both reasoning and English a lower raw score is given a higher standardised score this year.

It seems to me that standardising for 330 to be the pass mark was a deliberate choice, and they could have changed the way the maths was standardised this year rather than changing both the English and reasoning.



Thanks for your points but just to politely disagree/correct couple of things:

To begin with I presume your reference is the ‘raw-standardized’ score thread. These are very few, and mostly high scorers posting, I wouldn’t rely on it to make any conclusions. Too few and skewed to be representative.

Secondly, on your points;
- ‘Maths seems to be standardised in a similar way to previous years’ – this only means the relative performance of the different birth-months, in the same cohorts, has not changed much compared to previous years. Which could, but not necessarily, mean the tests were of similar difficulty.

- ‘but for both reasoning and English a lower raw score is given a higher standardised score this year’ – It’s only saying the relative performance of the different birth-months, in their own cohort, has shifted when compared to other years. Again, it does not mean the test was less/more difficult this time. In fact, we cannot draw any substantive conclusion on test difficulty from comparing the ‘raw-standardised’ score relationship between different years.

- ‘It seems to me that standardising for 330 to be the pass mark was a deliberate choice’ – This is incorrect. They wouldn’t pick an arbitrary cut-off; all they are working to is to have 25% of the candidates classed as selective based on the standardized score.

- ‘and they could have changed the way the maths was standardised this year rather than changing both the English and reasoning’ – again incorrect. They wouldn’t arbitrarily change standardization to favour one subject than the other. This would defeat the purpose of standardization. i.e. to attempt to ‘level playing field’ for different birth-months and to give equal weighting to each question across all 3 subjects so that the results can be meaningfully added.

What is very clear though and quite easy to realise is that if more people are scoring from and above each standardised score, and together with minimum passing standardized score going up significantly, it means the 3 tests as a collective is easier, particularly because the number of applicants and pass rate is almost unchanged from last year. KCC is still looking for 25% of cohort taking the test to be selective as previously mentioned.

One can argue that the current cohort is more clever hence the increase, but if you ‘randomly’ select over 16,000 similar-aged kids (which is very large) from roughly same schools year-on-year, you are almost likely to have same level of average intelligence coming out of them apart from a couple of exceptionally weak/strong candidates. So I wouldn’t attribute anything to this reason.

Anyway enough said, and hope it makes sense.

Let’s all hope for the best in March 2020. Best wishes!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:18 pm
Posts: 67
It's going to be even harder to predict next year when the TWGSB Sevenoaks annexe (probably) opens!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 3:38 pm
Posts: 7
FibonacciSeries wrote:
Herewego1 wrote:
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this!
This is similar to Arewenearlythereyet’s estimate on another thread.

Let’s see in March, it’s crazy high!!!!!


......no worries only needed just a couple of minutes to add the Judd IC. If I knew the cut-offs for Dartford, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells etc it would have been equally quick to add those but I will call it done now.

It’s good that there is varied sourced yet consistent predicted cut-off, which unfortunately is suggesting very high cut-off indeed. But that is what the data seems to be suggesting together with some judgments.

These are all guesstimates (Guess work + Reasonable Estimates) and should not be taken as gospel truth but only a guide. We can only be sure when actual outcomes are known in March.

Best wishes to all!!



Hi, thanks for the analysis.. I tried to use the sheet to predict for DGSG for which cut off for last year was 385 but unable to do so...
Can you please help and provide your guesstimate for this year???
Thanks in advance...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:37 am
Posts: 16
Bexleymum2608 wrote:
Hi, thanks for the analysis.. I tried to use the sheet to predict for DGSG for which cut off for last year was 385 but unable to do so...
Can you please help and provide your guesstimate for this year???
Thanks in advance...


Estimates in the spreadsheet link and what others on here have indicated based on different analyses seems to suggest that first round cut-offs for the ‘super-selectives’ are expected to increase between 5-10 marks. This is also consistent with the jump in minimum pass mark by 7 marks (323 to 330).

So without looking into further details, I would suggest a generalisation for all ‘super-selectives’ as a rough and crude but not any less accurate guide, to assume cut-off to increase by around 5-8 marks for OOC and 7-10 marks for IC. Noting that the difference in OOC and IC is reflecting the fact that there is going to be slightly more pressure on IC in the form of some high scoring OOC could chose to become IC, over the next month or so, but the reverse is remote and can be ruled out.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2020