The Mathematical Methods grade distributions for 2023 and 2024 are remarkably consistent, and that consistency tells a very precise story about how the subject functions as an assessment tool. When read carefully, they show that Mathematical Methods is not separating students by topic knowledge, but by execution reliability under exam conditions.
The centre of gravity sits firmly at C+ to B in both years
In both 2023 and 2024, the median grade for all three graded assessments sits at C+ or B, not because the cohort is weak, but because this is where partial completion dominates.
For Coursework (GA1), the median is C+ in both years, with the highest concentration of students clustered tightly between C, C+ and B . This reflects that most students can access the content when time pressure is lower and scaffolding is present.
For Exam 1 and Exam 2, the median shifts to B, but the distribution remains steep through the middle. In 2023 Exam 1, approximately 31 per cent of students sit between C+ and B+, and in 2024 that figure is almost identical .
This is not a coincidence. It is the structural outcome of multi-mark questions where students gain some marks but fail to complete entire chains of reasoning.
The middle is crowded because partial success is common
The distributions show a pronounced bulge in the mid bands, particularly C+, B and B+.
In 2023 Exam 2, over 43 per cent of the cohort sits between C+ and B+, corresponding to raw score ranges of approximately 58–101 out of 160 . In 2024 Exam 2, the same pattern appears, with a similar proportion of students clustered in the 64–110 range .
This tells us something important. Many students are not failing questions outright. They are starting them correctly, performing substantial working, and then losing marks through:
- algebraic slips that cascade
- missing restrictions or conditions
- incomplete conclusions
- misinterpretation of CAS output
The distribution shape confirms what Examiner’s Reports repeatedly say in words: students are doing enough mathematics to stay in the middle, but not enough precision to move out of it.
The drop-off above B+ is sharp and unforgiving
One of the most striking features of both years is how quickly the distribution thins above B+.
In 2023 Exam 1, only around 20 per cent of students achieve A or A+, and in Exam 2 the proportion is similar . In 2024, despite slightly higher raw means in Exam 2, the proportion of A+ students remains under 10 per cent .
This shows that reaching the top bands is not about mastering a small set of difficult questions. It requires consistency across the entire paper.
Students in the A and A+ bands are distinguished not by flashes of insight, but by their ability to avoid losing marks on questions they fundamentally understand.
Exam 1 amplifies small errors more than any other component
The distributions for Exam 1 in both years are noticeably wider at the lower end than Coursework, with a longer tail through D and D+.
In 2023 Exam 1, approximately 20 per cent of students fall at D+ or below, and in 2024 the proportion is similar . This reflects the compounding nature of algebraic error in a non-CAS environment.
A single algebraic mistake early in a question often invalidates several subsequent marks. The distribution shows this effect at scale.
Students who can maintain algebraic control gain a disproportionate advantage, which is why Exam 1 is such a strong discriminator.
Exam 2 rewards judgement, not just technology
Exam 2 distributions show slightly higher means, but they do not flatten at the top.
In both years, students still lose marks late in questions through poor handling of CAS output, failure to restrict solutions, or weak interpretation. This keeps the distribution compressed and prevents easy access to the highest bands.
The data confirms that CAS does not equalise performance. It shifts the assessment burden from calculation to judgement.
Why small gains produce large rank movement
Because the distribution is steep through the middle and thin at the top, a gain of even 5–10 raw marks can move a student across multiple grade bands.
This is why students often feel that they “worked just as hard” as peers but received a very different outcome. The distributions show that Methods rewards reliability, not effort.
What this means for students and families
The data does not suggest that Mathematical Methods is unpredictable or unfair. It suggests that it is extremely sensitive to execution quality.
Students sitting in the middle of the distribution are often closer to the top than they realise, but only if they can eliminate repeated small losses.
An ATAR STAR perspective
ATAR STAR uses grade distribution data diagnostically, not emotionally.
We help students identify where they are positioned in the distribution and why. Our focus is on removing the specific execution errors that keep capable students clustered in the middle and on refining consistency for students already performing well.
The grade distributions make one thing unmistakably clear. In Mathematical Methods, outcomes are shaped far more by precision than by difficulty.