please tell me this isnt true
this is completely false: consider the following situation.
At John Doe School, ranked #400 last year, there are twenty students in English Advanced.
At James Ruse School, ranked #2 last year, there are also twenty students in English Advanced.
We can see, using the school ranking, that last year the students at James Ruse performed significantly better than those at John Doe.
Let's take a look at the average
internal marks from both schools (I don't know if that's a thing but stick with me here)
| John Doe | James Ruse |
Rank #1 | 80% | 70% |
Rank #2 | 73% | 68% |
So we see that, apparently, the James Ruse students performed worse than John Doe? How could that be possible?!
But this data is actually misleading.
The James Ruse exam will likely have been harder, and the number of high performing students will be greater. This means that you don't have to rank as high in a selective/high ranked school as the cohort will be academically superior. Ranking second at John Doe is worse, as the student body is less academically capable and ranking second at James Ruse will not be detrimental to your success, as the rest of your cohort will do well.
I'm not sure if that actually illustrates what i'm trying to say: basically if you're in a highly ranked school, you don't have to rank as highly as you would have to at a lower ranked school to achieve high results.
does that sound about right
maybe i'm yapping about nothing...