UMAT Results Graphs for 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011

Originally Posted by miss_universe

That would suggest either the candidates are getting smarter, or the UMAT is getting easier. I am going with....one of them

Hahaha, not game to say it muse? . Yeah I guess so, has to be one of the two.

Originally Posted by Cide

Hahaha, not game to say it muse? . Yeah I guess so, has to be one of the two.

Ill'd rather not be verbally abused by a large percentage of the current MSO community. Its more likely though.

Originally Posted by miss_universe

Ill'd rather not be verbally abused by a large percentage of the current MSO community. Its more likely though.

Mmmm I don't blame you, and it is. Besides it doesn't matter if it is that reason because theoretically the percentages make up for it [everyone does better, due to either of the reasons ]

Originally Posted by Cide

Mmmm I don't blame you, and it is. Besides it doesn't matter if it is that reason because theoretically the percentages make up for it [everyone does better, due to either of the reasons ]

It does matter. If UMAT = useable for 2 years then the 2010 UMAT should be comparable to the 2011 UMAT considering that unis only consider raw scores instead of percentiles. If there is a raw score inflation due to the easiness of the exam in one year then it disadvantages those applicants using their previous years scores.

Originally Posted by godoftoast

It does matter. If UMAT = useable for 2 years then the 2010 UMAT should be comparable to the 2011 UMAT considering that unis only consider raw scores instead of percentiles. If there is a raw score inflation due to the easiness of the exam in one year then it disadvantages those applicants using their previous years scores.

Between years of course its going to matter. But how comparable was 2010 UMAT to 2009, I can't remember.

percentiles were more or less exactly the same iirc

Universities say they take into account the overall UMAT score as opposed to percentiles, I wonder whether it is better to score say a 60 in 2011 (assume it's 90th percentile or something like that) than a 59 in 2010 (that was, let's say, 92nd percentile)? Just curious because this probably affects UNSW's ATAR/UMAT combination interview offer table significantly from 2010 to 2011 given that it got higher from 2009 to 2010 when these years' UMAT score to percentile were similar. hopefully that made sense haha!

Would be that candidates are getting smarter. This is because UMAT 2011 section scores are comparable to UMAT 2010; this is why ACER has to moderate the scores.

Originally Posted by mastermind666

Would be that candidates are getting smarter. This is because UMAT 2011 section scores are comparable to UMAT 2010; this is why ACER has to moderate the scores.

I'd actually hazard a guess that the number of applicants is increasing, therefore the need to be able to distinguish between them clearly necessitated bumping the raw scores up for the higher-scoring candidates. Note that 50th%ile is raw score 51, when last year it would've been 50 iirc, whereas 62, which used to be around 95th%ile, is now 92nd, and 98th% has moved from 65-->68. Therefore what ACER are probably trying to do is broaden the raw score range among the top 10-15% of people, so that unis have more wiggle room when it comes to picking applicants (ie: So that there's less of this: Post the cut-off, and there were heaps of people sitting on that cut-off who didn't make it in, then whinge).