ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Hancock on January 09, 2013, 12:36:22 am
-
I was actually giving this some thought the other day. Since further is meant to be targeted to students with lower mathematical ability, should students that want to do Specialist as well be unable to enrol in Further?
Further, at the moment, is a subject that most cluey maths students take to just dominate easily (content is not that difficult), leaving the targeted students with <40 scores.
I don't hold a stance either way, just wanted to know what everyone else thinks.
-
Restriction makes sense, but I don't know how it would work. What if they do Further in Year 11 and then decide to do Specialist later? That's a pretty big loophole.
-
Considering students who do specialist can't have further maths in their primary 4 (unless it replaces methods or specialist), then there is no use in placing another restriction. The system is enough of a discouragement as it is. It's not like their ATAR is going to go up significantly by doing 3 maths instead of 2.
-
I think that rule should exist. If you want to do Further, don't do spesh.
Even better is an idea that came up on IRC. Have basic (don't scale much if at all) and advanced versions of subjects (scale well). ie. Physics Basic (like our current vce physics) and Physics Advanced (with maths and stuff), Methods and Spesh (no Further needed), etc. And then have a rule that everyone has to do at least 2 advanced subjects out of 6 for example. I think this mirrors systems overseas, but I'm not sure which ones haha
-
I don't think that there is enough overlap between them to warrant letting students chose only one. I mean you could say the same thing about letting "smart people" do "easy" subjects. You could say people who do specialist shouldn't be allowed to do food tech because it's "easier".
-
If I'm not mistaken, this rule was implemented prior to the '2 maths in top 4' rule which reduced the restriction that Further / Spec can both be done.
@Pi: My Physics teacher actually said exactly the same thing last year. He was contemplating having two classes, with specialist students in one, and MM students in the other. This would allow him to have a more mathematical version of physics (kinematics/work done by area and such) compared to the 'main' MM stream.
-
I don't think that there is enough overlap between them to warrant letting students chose one. I mean you could say the same thing about letting "smart people" do "easy" subjects. I mean you could say people who do specialist shouldn't be allowed to do food tech because it's "easier".
It's not really the same thing, although your argument and metaphor does make sense. Specialist is nothing like Food Tech, however Further and Specialist both come under the umbrella of Mathematics.
-
Yeah. But for students like me who prefer all maths and science, it provides us with a big advantage to boost up our ATAR Scores.
I'm saying that many just use it as an easy way out of getting a high ATAR Score. For example, getting a 50 in Further, and a 37 in Specialist meant that I had approximately 2 50 scaled scores, compared to the 43 from Methods in Year 11. The increment for methods was 43 raw, meaning that either way, it doesn't disadvantage anyone, it merely provides those that like mathematics with an alternative to getting a high ATAR Score. Simply because many of us, cannot get 50 in Specialist, nor methods, so we choose the easy way out
Pi is right about Physics though. The course is entirely pathetic. The Physics Unit 3 is pretty much chug and plug with minimal theory to be learned from the book, as just having an adequate cheat sheet means that you can pretty much do the entire exam, copying definitions word for word and still receiving full marks. Same with Unit 4, the entire course is extremely easy to complete with minimal difficulties for someone who simply listens to the teacher, and answers the questions.
:)
-
I dunno about Food Tech, I think I'd actually find that to be rather hard tbh :/ I was never good at subjects like that haha
-
I dunno about Food Tech, I think I'd actually find that to be rather hard tbh :/ I was never good at subjects like that haha
I think that too, which is why I included quotations. Since I have little to no interest in cooking I have no doubt that I would do worse in food tech than in specialist, even though it is usually perceived as easier.
-
There should just be two streams of 3&4, both of which stem from the same 1&2 - Further A - for students who are doing no other mathematics subjects; and Further B - for students who will complete Methods or Spesh.
-
There should just be two streams of 3&4, both of which stem from the same 1&2 - Further A - for students who are doing no other mathematics subjects; and Further B - for students who will complete Methods or Spesh.
Then applying the same logic should there be two streams of English 3 & 4? (students who have completed Lit. & students who haven't?)
-
Then applying the same logic should there be two streams of English 3 & 4? (students who have completed Lit. & students who haven't?)
I don't think the Lit cohorts are big enough to matter. Although, they SHOULD be scaled against each other.
-
Not that it answers the question, but for me I am beginning to like doing some hard maths and so I didn't choose Further. Though this may be as I am not really into getting a high ATAR score but rather want some challenge, so I chose a mix of mathematical subjects and other things.
As to the question, maybe there are be students who choose to do Further & Spesh simply to learn more math content or do what they like - then I can't think what I would do more to restrict them further, besides having top 2 maths in primary four.
-
Distorting what is otherwise an objective scaling algorithm based on perceptions is a dangerous thing.
-
Ugh. I wish my school wouldn't do what it does and encourage all the strong Maths students to do all three subjects. I do think something needs to be done because it's simply not fair for the kids who actually belong in Further.
I went into Further last year not expecting to do Specialist Maths, but I had to do GMA so I wouldn't forget my 1/2 Methods knowledge from Year 10. I ended up doing really well at it and I would've been stupid not to have picked Specialist Maths in the end.
-
The whole 4 math thing is redundant bullshit, you should only be allowed to choose 1 math, 1 english etc.
I mean you could get into med with the following subjects:
English
Further
Methods
Spesh
UMEP
Chem
So basically you did only 3 subjects. VCE should promote diversity rather than doing 3 math and forcing everybody doing spesh to do methods.
-
The whole 4 math thing is redundant bullshit, you should only be allowed to choose 1 math, 1 english etc.
I mean you could get into med with the following subjects:
English
Further
Methods
Spesh
UMEP
Chem
So basically you did only 3 subjects. VCE should promote diversity rather than doing 3 math and forcing everybody doing spesh to do methods.
The problem is that Methods is a PREREQUISITE for spesh.
But I agree that we should have Physics Basic and Physics Advanced, and have that for the other science subjects - where difficulty lies in the complexity of the theory.
And Spesh should be a prereq for Physics Advanced.
We really should have a "Chem Advanced" - we are SO FAR behind the rest of the world in secondary chemistry education...take it from the person who competed internationally in the Chemistry Olympiad. The Australian team needed a helluva lot of extra training to bring us up to international standard.
Physics should also seriously be vamped up. Actually you know what, I agree with Pi. VCE Physics sucks.
-
Maths is unique in that students are streamed according to ability from as early as year 8 (this happened in my school and I know it happens in other similar schools).
Those in the top stream are accelerated to do Methods 3/4 in Year 11 and Specialist in Year 12.
I believe it is completely pointless for those students to also do Further in Year 12. It's like Barcelona FC playing in Division 4.
Why not UMEP Maths for those students?. You can get the same ATAR increment, learn useful things, and earn University credits.
-
Just a quick question. I'm doing GMA (General Maths Advanced) this year and then at the end of the year I decide I don't want to continue to Spesh, so I want to do Further in Year 12. Is there any disadvantage in doing Further Maths in year 12 without having done GMS in year 11?
-
I think a major problem in this sort of discussion is that we focus on the stronger students - I think we really need to see it from the perspective of the students who are actually meant to be in that subject. Another issue is that some schools (like mine) blindly lead naive Year 10 students into doing it because the good results reflect well on the school (6 students got 45+ in my class alone, and approximately 20% of my Further cohort got a study score above 40 - no other subject at my school even gets close to that unfortunately). I acknowledge that I should have looked into things a bit better and perhaps should have anticipated the fact that I might want to enrol in Specialist Maths in Year 12 (in hindsight, I have no regrets doing the subject just yet since I got a 50 :P). This situation really just involves viewing the subject in a different manner to what we have been.
-
Just a quick question. I'm doing GMA (General Maths Advanced) this year and then at the end of the year I decide I don't want to continue to Spesh, so I want to do Further in Year 12. Is there any disadvantage in doing Further Maths in year 12 without having done GMS in year 11?
No disadvantage whatsoever.
-
Maths is unique in that students are streamed according to ability from as early as year 8 (this happened in my school and I know it happens in other similar schools).
Those in the top stream are accelerated to do Methods 3/4 in Year 11 and Specialist in Year 12.
I believe it is completely pointless for those students to also do Further in Year 12. It's like Barcelona FC playing in Division 4.
Why not UMEP Maths for those students?. You can get the same ATAR increment, learn useful things, and earn University credits.
Doesn't happen in all schools, which is why its a bit unfair.
Just a quick question. I'm doing GMA (General Maths Advanced) this year and then at the end of the year I decide I don't want to continue to Spesh, so I want to do Further in Year 12. Is there any disadvantage in doing Further Maths in year 12 without having done GMS in year 11?
You'll be fine, I didn't do GMS, and did Further at the same time I was doing methods1/2 and GMA, still did well in the end - 45. It's further, its really not that hard to pick up, half of it you would have covered in previous years anyway, and the rest, there isn't really many complciated ideas in Further.
-
The system being mentioned where students have to do a variety of subjects, which have standard and higher levels is already available. It's called IB (International Baccalaureate). You do 6 subjects which must include an English, Maths, LOTE, humanities, Science and an arts (can be another science instead though). You have to do 3 higher level subjects and 3 standard level. The standard level is about at VCE level, but I'm not sure how much further the higher level subjects are though.
The problem is that its not offered at all that many schools, almost all of which are private so isn't an alternative for the wider state unfortunately. The list of schools that offer are found here http://bettereducation.com.au/Resources/IBSchools.aspx
On topic: I don't think they should be restricted. The 2 maths in top 4 is enough of a restriction imo, and having the specialist students in further will increase the scaling (makes it less negative) of the subject, which somewhat evens things up.
-
What I disagree in terms of the IB is the compulsory nature of it. Some people are just not LOTE people and won't ever need a LOTE for the rest of their life (for example).
-
What I disagree in terms of the IB is the compulsory nature of it. Some people are just not LOTE people and won't ever need a LOTE for the rest of their life (for example).
I totally agree with this, but I guess that's the choice you make with the IB!
-
What I disagree in terms of the IB is the compulsory nature of it. Some people are just not LOTE people and won't ever need a LOTE for the rest of their life (for example).
Yeah same; that's the reason I chose to do VCE. I also think the subject scoring system is better with VCE; IB has each subject given a mark out of 7. Although it is becoming increasingly popular (at my school at least, about 1/4 students in my year 12 cohort chose IB). Each to their own I guess
-
I haven't read every post but this is my opinion.
I don't think that there should be a restriction because even though Further is technically the easiest the complete course is different from Spech. If for example, Further had the exact same course as Spech but the questions were just set way easier, then maybe there could be a restriction. But because the courses are completely different, it wouldnt be fair to place such a restriction.
-
I haven't read every post but this is my opinion.
I don't think that there should be a restriction because even though Further is technically the easiest the complete course is different from Spech. If for example, Further had the exact same course as Spech but the questions were just set way easier, then maybe there could be a restriction. But because the courses are completely different, it wouldnt be fair to place such a restriction.
A very valid point. Last year was the first time I ever came across Data Analysis and Business-related Mathematics. I guess no one could argue I had an unfair advantage there.
-
If you break it up, you can see the lack of overlapping material.
Further course:
- Statistics
3 of
- Sequences and series
- Geometry and trigonometry
- Linear graphs and relations
- Business
- Networks
- Matrices
Specialist course:
- Functions
- Vectors
- Algebra
- Calculus
- Mechanics
The only things that are common to both are sequences are series, basic trigonometry, sketching linear graphs, and the use of matrices, which only apply of you do certain modules.
-
I don't think the whole VCE maths system is ideal at all, but the reason why you can do more than one maths subject is to make up for the relative lack of them compared with humanities. You could easily find 5 humanities subjects, it'd be a lot harder with maths/science if they restrict you to one maths.
-
I don't think the whole VCE maths system is ideal at all, but the reason why you can do more than one maths subject is to make up for the relative lack of them compared with humanities. You could easily find 5 humanities subjects, it'd be a lot harder with maths/science if they restrict you to one maths.
I completly disagree with you one of my mates did not do Physics just because he was forced to do Methods, while he only wanted to do specialist. Doing more than 1 math and in the case of specialst being forced to do more than 1 math restricts people from doing other subjects.
-
As I said, it's not ideal. I never said they should force you to do more than one maths, only that that option should be open.
Which other subjects did he do, out of interest?
-
As I said, it's not ideal. I never said they should force you to do more than one maths, only that that option should be open.
Which other subjects did he do, out of interest?
Chem, French and English
-
I think it is such a poor decision for Spesh kids to do Further. I think VCAA shouldn't even need to make it that Spesh kids are restricted from Further, but rather that students would just never pick both those subjects. However, students do do all 3, and hence this needs to be stopped via VCAA intervention.
With methods as a prerequisite for Spesh, already these people do 2 maths subjects - for them to also take on a third (further), and hence have potentially half their ATAR (6 subjects, 4 full, 2 at 10%, giving 4.2 subjects - with 3 maths, you have 2.1 subjects contributing) based purely off maths seems too much.
Contrastingly, for LOTEs (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/french-italian-its-all-double-dutch-to-many-20121006-276gz.html - almost nobody does 2 languages, let alone 3), there are almost no students who so limit themselves to one field of study. I don't have any statistics or resources or anything, but I don't think that there would be many people who study 3 history subjects - either Revs, Renaissance, Australian (or Classics as well).
Already I think that genuine Further students are at a big disadvantage in doing well in that subject when there are Methods kids also doing Further. Additionally, there are Spesh kids who also do Further. For me, this hardly seems reasonable whatsoever to those who truly belong in Further.
For instance, just how many of the 40+ scores published for Further do you think would belong to real Further students, those who did not also do Methods or Spesh? Or how would you feel as a pure Methods student (who doesn't do Spesh) if suddenly University maths students were now also dropping in to do Methods and were taking basically all of the Study Scores of 40 and above?
Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like essentially the only reason that Spesh kids would ever do Further is in the hope of getting a better ATAR. Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.
(For a similar reason, I seriously dislike that there are some who choose LOTEs purely for ATAR purposes - most particularly, the boys who pick up Latin in something like Year 10, for the sole reason (surely) of boosting their ATAR. Believe me in saying that I scarcely considered the mark-ups for Latin or French when choosing my subjects. They had been my two favourite subjects since I started them in Year 7.)
I feel like people and students especially should be looking more toward the future and long term goals (i.e. how the work you did at school will aid you in your knowledge required for later life) and not so much looking towards an ATAR and other very short term goals.
I find it hard to believe that any Spesh student who then chooses Further is doing anything but thinking about the latter.
-
If thats the case, they should be restricted from methods aswell, they may not get the direct fifty in methods, but they are more likely to get 45+ than the methods only student.
-
I think it is such a poor decision for Spesh kids to do Further. I think VCAA shouldn't even need to make it that Spesh kids are restricted from Further, but rather that students would just never pick both those subjects. However, students do do all 3, and hence this needs to be stopped via VCAA intervention.
With methods as a prerequisite for Spesh, already these people do 2 maths subjects - for them to also take on a third (further), and hence have potentially half their ATAR (6 subjects, 4 full, 2 at 10%, giving 4.2 subjects - with 3 maths, you have 2.1 subjects contributing) based purely off maths seems too much.
So you have 2.1 instead of 2. How is that too much?
Contrastingly, for LOTEs (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/french-italian-its-all-double-dutch-to-many-20121006-276gz.html - almost nobody does 2 languages, let alone 3), there are almost no students who so limit themselves to one field of study.
Most people find it extremely difficult to study one language, let alone three. There are different skills and knowledge required in each one. With maths, it's a safe bet that if you can do spesh you can do further as well.
I don't have any statistics or resources or anything, but I don't think that there would be many people who study 3 history subjects - either Revs, Renaissance, Australian (or Classics as well).
But history is a humanity, and there are many of those. Many people do three humanities.
Already I think that genuine Further students are at a big disadvantage in doing well in that subject when there are Methods kids also doing Further. Additionally, there are Spesh kids who also do Further. For me, this hardly seems reasonable whatsoever to those who truly belong in Further.
For instance, just how many of the 40+ scores published for Further do you think would belong to real Further students, those who did not also do Methods or Spesh? Or how would you feel as a pure Methods student (who doesn't do Spesh) if suddenly University maths students were now also dropping in to do Methods and were taking basically all of the Study Scores of 40 and above?
So... If you're good at a subject you shouldn't do it? Why is this logic only ever applied to maths?
Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like essentially the only reason that Spesh kids would ever do Further is in the hope of getting a better ATAR. Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.
See below
(For a similar reason, I seriously dislike that there are some who choose LOTEs purely for ATAR purposes - most particularly, the boys who pick up Latin in something like Year 10, for the sole reason (surely) of boosting their ATAR. Believe me in saying that I scarcely considered the mark-ups for Latin or French when choosing my subjects. They had been my two favourite subjects since I started them in Year 7.)
To how many people is a LOTE going to be relevant in their higher education? First you wanted people to do more LOTEs, now you only want them to do it if it's relevant... I'm confused.
I feel like people and students especially should be looking more toward the future and long term goals (i.e. how the work you did at school will aid you in your knowledge required for later life) and not so much looking towards an ATAR and other very short term goals.
I find it hard to believe that any Spesh student who then chooses Further is doing anything but thinking about the latter.
Some people require the high ATAR to get into their university courses. I'd let people make their own subject selection decisions.
-
I think it is such a poor decision for Spesh kids to do Further. I think VCAA shouldn't even need to make it that Spesh kids are restricted from Further, but rather that students would just never pick both those subjects. However, students do do all 3, and hence this needs to be stopped via VCAA intervention.
With methods as a prerequisite for Spesh, already these people do 2 maths subjects - for them to also take on a third (further), and hence have potentially half their ATAR (6 subjects, 4 full, 2 at 10%, giving 4.2 subjects - with 3 maths, you have 2.1 subjects contributing) based purely off maths seems too much.
Contrastingly, for LOTEs (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/french-italian-its-all-double-dutch-to-many-20121006-276gz.html - almost nobody does 2 languages, let alone 3), there are almost no students who so limit themselves to one field of study. I don't have any statistics or resources or anything, but I don't think that there would be many people who study 3 history subjects - either Revs, Renaissance, Australian (or Classics as well).
Already I think that genuine Further students are at a big disadvantage in doing well in that subject when there are Methods kids also doing Further. Additionally, there are Spesh kids who also do Further. For me, this hardly seems reasonable whatsoever to those who truly belong in Further.
For instance, just how many of the 40+ scores published for Further do you think would belong to real Further students, those who did not also do Methods or Spesh? Or how would you feel as a pure Methods student (who doesn't do Spesh) if suddenly University maths students were now also dropping in to do Methods and were taking basically all of the Study Scores of 40 and above?
Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like essentially the only reason that Spesh kids would ever do Further is in the hope of getting a better ATAR. Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.
(For a similar reason, I seriously dislike that there are some who choose LOTEs purely for ATAR purposes - most particularly, the boys who pick up Latin in something like Year 10, for the sole reason (surely) of boosting their ATAR. Believe me in saying that I scarcely considered the mark-ups for Latin or French when choosing my subjects. They had been my two favourite subjects since I started them in Year 7.)
I feel like people and students especially should be looking more toward the future and long term goals (i.e. how the work you did at school will aid you in your knowledge required for later life) and not so much looking towards an ATAR and other very short term goals.
I find it hard to believe that any Spesh student who then chooses Further is doing anything but thinking about the latter.
Don't just assume everyone who picks all three Maths subjects is some greedy cow who wants to maximise their ATAR (with the current rules anyway it probably doesn't do wonders for your score). As I said, I was put in a very awkward situation where, after doing Methods 1&2 in Year 10, the accelerated students were encouraged to do Further 3&4 because the staff thought Specialist would be too difficult for us. They didn't want us to repeat Methods 1&2 again but instead wanted us to build upon our Mathematical skills, so we were all put into a GMA class last year, which a lot of us did really well in. We would've been silly not to have continued on with Specialist this year, considering it had proven to be a strength. Now it's put us all in a rut. :|
-
Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.
Some people pick 3 maths because they find maths interesting, and they shouldn't be limited to one type of it because other people supposedly "can't compete" with the specialist students. Maths can be applied to science and commerce easily, and you aren't really limiting yourself.
-
I see both sides to ten argument. Maybe VCAA should consider two further maths streams. One for those enrolled in MM and Spesh and the other purely for Further students, who like myself, are most definitely not suited to anything but Further.
I'm not saying its a complete disadvantage, I love looking at the things I'll be doing in GMB this year and it excites me that I'll be able to comprehend the topics with greater ease this year. I intend to work my butt off with further in year 12, so this supposed 'disadvantage' for just the further students is not a disadvantage at all.
-
So you have 2.1 instead of 2. How is that too much?
It's too much because in all likelihood those scores might be around 48+ scaled, and the person gets 3 chances from comparable subjects to get two SS of 50 in their top 4.
Most people find it extremely difficult to study one language, let alone three. There are different skills and knowledge required in each one. With maths, it's a safe bet that if you can do spesh you can do further as well.
Exactly. With LOTEs, the knowledge is different. With Maths, it isn't so different. Do you think it would be fair that students could take 3 different subjects all under the broad heading of French, where each of those three subjects would help the other 2?
But history is a humanity, and there are many of those. Many people do three humanities.
But again, the knowledge required for those humanities are quite distinct. Find me three humanities subjects that are as closely related in their knowledge as the 3 maths are, and then you'll have a case.
So... If you're good at a subject you shouldn't do it? Why is this logic only ever applied to maths?
So...if you're good at a subject, you should do the easiest available stream of it?
So...if you're good at a subject, you should be allowed to do it three times for VCE?
To how many people is a LOTE going to be relevant in their higher education? First you wanted people to do more LOTEs, now you only want them to do it if it's relevant... I'm confused.
I never said that I want more people to do LOTEs, but I think that students shouldn't pick up a language purely for scaling and hence ATAR boosting purposes. Regardless, this is a Maths discussion.
Some people require the high ATAR to get into their university courses. I'd let people make their own subject selection decisions.
This I guess is fair. However, I think it might be strange for someone to go into a Uni course which doesn't really involve maths, when the main reason that they got into that course was because of their maths.
However, I suppose most of the high-ATAR-cut-off-entry courses (Science, commerce etc) are fairly maths based and so doing those subjects is fair enough.
Some people pick 3 maths because they find maths interesting, and they shouldn't be limited to one type of it because other people supposedly "can't compete" with the specialist students.
supposedly? more like definitely. if TrueTears or the like was doing further and came up against your average Further student, you would say that that is a fair contest?
Don't just assume everyone who picks all three Maths subjects is some greedy cow who wants to maximise their ATAR (with the current rules anyway it probably doesn't do wonders for your score). As I said, I was put in a very awkward situation where, after doing Methods 1&2 in Year 10, the accelerated students were encouraged to do Further 3&4 because the staff thought Specialist would be too difficult for us. They didn't want us to repeat Methods 1&2 again but instead wanted us to build upon our Mathematical skills, so we were all put into a GMA class last year, which a lot of us did really well in. We would've been silly not to have continued on with Specialist this year, considering it had proven to be a strength. Now it's put us all in a rut.
Obviously your case is much different.
And I did my best not to make any assumptions, but I'm battling to see why else someone might pick all 3 maths subjects.
Sure, they can find Maths 'interesting'.
But hey, I found Latin really interesting, and yet I could only do that for one of my subjects, not for two of them, let alone three times.
-
Okay, I haven't read every post in this thread, but allow me to address some of your more contentious points, watto_22.
Firstly, you seem to assume that mathematical proficiency is a natural gift. Such an assumption is not to be borne, for reasons which I consider quite conspicuous. Competence in mathematics comes from hard work and dedication. Succinctly, a good mathematician is not born, but made. With this in mind, I see no reason why one should deem it 'unfair' for a student who is mathematically adept to undertake Further Maths as a VCE subject. A student who is as good at maths as TT is in year 12 would no doubt have put in the hard yards. To deny such a student admission into a subject based on the assertion that is "too good for it" is simply absurd. I might have been impelled, last year, to deem thushan too good for VCE chemistry. Does this mean that he should not be allowed to do the subject? The same principle applies here.
Secondly, you make it as though Further, Methods and Spesh are so similar they might as well be considered one subject. I believe that a large enough discrepancy exists among these three subjects. Whilst there are overlaps, each course focuses on an entirely different aspect of maths. As far as I am aware, there is no calculus in Further, meaning that the calculus knowledge a student garners from Spesh will be of no use should he choose to do Further concurrently. I remind you that overlaps exist for humanities, and science, subjects as well. English and Classics both test a student's ability to write well. Would it be 'fair', in your opinion, to preclude a student who writes like Orwell from choosing three humanities subjects?
Bear in mind that VCE is more or less a competition. Like all competitions, it operates on a set of rules. As far as I am aware, the rules of VCE do not forbid a student from doing all three maths subjects. A student who is mathematically capable is therefore permitted to capitalise on his talent, and I don't see why one should object to that on moral grounds. I'm also a bit tentative to speak of morality in general for reasons which are beyond the scope of this thread.
-
I'd see a problem with having these restriction in cases like mine as well. At the start of year 11 I had no intentions whatsoever if doing specialist maths, but I changed my mind only a couple of months ago. I picked further last year because I love maths, which is the same reason I've decided to choose specialist!
With these restrictions, it would basically screw up me being able to do specialist
-
Being good at mechanics and calculus doesn't mean that you can't lose marks in statistics. There are 3 maths subjects because there are a lot of different areas of maths. Perhaps the better solution to the problem is making a harder and more comprehensive statistics subject and making a new "further" for those less interested in maths. Then the students who enjoy maths can do 3, and the people who are less interested can have less competition, while also restricting people from doing the "harder" maths from doing the new further. That way people who are interested in statistics aren't shafted.
-
Firstly, you seem to assume that mathematical proficiency is a natural gift. Such an assumption is not to be borne, for reasons which I consider quite conspicuous. Competence in mathematics comes from hard work and dedication. Succinctly, a good mathematician is not born, but made. With this in mind, I see no reason why one should deem it 'unfair' for a student who is mathematically adept to undertake Further Maths as a VCE subject. A student who is as good at maths as TT is in year 12 would no doubt have put in the hard yards. To deny such a student admission into a subject based on the assertion that is "too good for it" is simply absurd. I might have been impelled, last year, to deem thushan too good for VCE chemistry. Does this mean that he should not be allowed to do the subject? The same principle applies here.
I absolutely agree that the people who are amazing at maths have no doubt worked hard at it.
No doubt that Thushan, to use him as an example, worked seriously hard for chemistry.
Does this mean that he should not be allowed to do the subject? Not at all. Please, do chem.
But should he be allowed to do it three times with similar yet different chemistry subjects?
Would you like to see multiple branches of all subjects to reward those who work hard? Shall we make, for instance, separate subjects for organic chem and inorganic chem and perhaps industrial chem as well.
I'm actually a fan of this idea, but I can't see it happening.
Therfore it seems unfair to me at least that those who have worked hard for Mathematics since they were infants should be allowed the advantage of doing Maths for 3 subjects, when this situation doesn't truly occur for any other competitors in the VCE competition who have worked hard in other subject areas.
Secondly, you make it as though Further, Methods and Spesh are so similar they might as well be considered one subject. I believe that a large enough discrepancy exists among these three subjects. Whilst there are overlaps, each course focuses on an entirely different aspect of maths. As far as I am aware, there is no calculus in Further, meaning that the calculus knowledge a student garners from Spesh will be of no use should he choose to do Further concurrently.
Realistically, if you really believe that the skills needed for Further are not fostered by the other Maths subjects, go now onto the VCAA website and do the Further exams from say last year. Inform us of how you go despite never having looked at the Further course.
This could be a fun holiday activity for us all to do!
I remind you that overlaps exist for humanities, and science, subjects as well. English and Classics both test a student's ability to write well. Would it be 'fair', in your opinion, to preclude a student who writes like Orwell from choosing three humanities subjects?
I think there are enough differences between these humanities subjects to warrant Mr Orwell picking six of them if he so wishes. Perhaps he would get bored though?
Bear in mind that VCE is more or less a competition. Like all competitions, it operates on a set of rules. As far as I am aware, the rules of VCE do not forbid a student from doing all three maths subjects. A student who is mathematically capable is therefore permitted to capitalise on his talent, and I don't see why one should object to that on moral grounds.
Thank you for informing us all of the 'rules of VCE'.
Yes, it is currently allowed for students of the VCE competition to take all 3 maths. But should it be? - that is the question.
VCAA don't operate on a moral basis, so disregard that.
To use a sporting analogy, should the Under 18 soccer team (Spesh students) be allowed to play against the Under 12 rugby players (Further students) in a rugby match?
-
Firstly, you seem to assume that mathematical proficiency is a natural gift. Such an assumption is not to be borne, for reasons which I consider quite conspicuous. Competence in mathematics comes from hard work and dedication. Succinctly, a good mathematician is not born, but made.
I can't agree with that. A lot of it is natural talent.
-
So Watto..
Pretty much all you are saying is that all the Spech kids out there are geniuses at maths and are almost definitely better than every single Further kid out there. Well let me tell you for a fact that many Further kids pick further and not Specialist specifically because they believe it is easier and more rewarding for their ATAR. I remember back in my high school days when many of the top maths students in my school decided against picking Spech and doing Further instead and then scoring an amazing score.
The kids who pick Spech and Further not only have to learn an extra subject but they also have to compete against the brilliant math kids who are doing only Further. Ok so you think that the overlap of maths between the two subjects would benefit the Spech students. Well Spech has almost a whole chapter of Physics and would it be fair to not let the Physics kids to Spech? of course not. The restriction that only 2 maths can be in top 4 is already enough. There is no guarantee that all the spech kids will do well in further, and from experience with friends who did do both, they either did well in spech or further and rarely both.
-
BoredSatan has a point. You might only further discourage people from doing spesh, which is not desirable.
-
There is no guarantee that all the spech kids will do well in further, and from experience with friends who did do both, they either did well in spech or further and rarely both.
Not sure exactly what you might define as doing 'well', but if you are talking about getting 45+ scaled scores, I think it is unfair for mathematicians to get 3 chances to have 2 really good Maths scores in their top 4, in addition to whatever the 3rd maths score was, while no other subject area really has this luxury.
How did these friends generally go in Methods?
BoredSatan has a point. You might only further discourage people from doing spesh, which is not desirable.
I hadn't actually thought of that - that there are perhaps people capable for either subject who already are choosing further over spesh.
I find it disheartening that these people knowingly chose the 'easier' subject just because it is 'more rewarding for their ATAR'. Surely it's a vote of disconfidence from themselves to themselves as much as anything, because if they can crack a raw 40 for spesh then their scaled score (40 --> 51) will be higher than even a 50 for Further.
Do you think that having a restriction, and effectively forcing these students to choose only one of Spesh or Further, would result in fewer boys doing Spesh (because they will pick Further)?
Previously I had thought that the best Maths kids would all just pick Spesh, but as BoredSatan wrote, it sounds like this would hardly be the case.
Regardless, the restriction would force boys to do a different subject in lieu of another maths. Especially with the Physics/Spesh similarities, a common Top 4 subject combination could be:
English/Lit/EL, Methods, Spesh, Physics
which I guess is fine, if quite similar.
Ultimately I suppose that I hope that a restriction on doing only one of Spesh or Further would mean that more students might choose to do more diverse subjects with that now vacant subject slot, as well as giving Further students more of a fair go. Hopefully that would make everyone happier
-
Realistically, if you really believe that the skills needed for Further are not fostered by the other Maths subjects, go now onto the VCAA website and do the Further exams from say last year. Inform us of how you go despite never having looked at the Further course.
This could be a fun holiday activity for us all to do!
Do Data Analysis, Business-related Mathematics and Networks and Decision Mathematics. I'd love to see how you'd score on them with no previous knowledge whatsoever. :P
-
I can't agree with that. A lot of it is natural talent.
I'm with Polonius. Mathematical talent can be made in that people can develop a skill for computational mathematics very well. However, when it comes to mathematics where instinct is required - for instance in the Olympiad (I'm talking International Mathematical Olympiad here), no matter how hard you work, if you don't have that instinct, you will not be able to progress to that level of competence.
-
I am more or less with watto_22 on this.
I am not advocating restrictions, but the only reason a Methods/Spesh student to also do further is for the tactical advantage of the easy marks with minimal effort leaving more time to devote to other subjects such as English.
I was tutoring a Further student last year (Core, Geometry, Networks, Matrices) and I can categorically state that it's childs play for a student with Methods 3/4 and GMA under their belt. They are already at a higher level in Geometry and Matrices and the only things they will have to learn is Time Series, smoothing and Seasonal Adjustment in Core and critical paths, optimal allocation algorithms in Networks which they should be able to do in a week.
My gut feel is that if all of the 4,000 Spesh students also did Further, they would all comfortably place in the Further Top 5,000.
-
....but the only reason a Methods/Spesh student to also do further is for the tactical advantage of the easy marks with minimal effort leaving more time to devote to other subjects such as English.
I did Further a year early in year 11, and it wasn't just to get a high score, I was looking at it as a 'trial run' for the next year, a way to get used to VCAA exams and preparation and such. Which did help me the year later, found what worked and what didn't work and was able to change things for yr 12. The high score in the end was just a bonus :)
-
gut feel is that if all of the 4,000 Spesh students also did Further, they would all comfortably place in the Further Top 5,000.
I'm pretty sure no one in my spesh class is doing further. I can't speak for other schools, but I assume the fact that all 3 can't be in you top 4 seems to deter people. A lot of schools seem to discourage or disallow people doing all 3 maths because of this.
-
I did Further a year early in year 11
Doing Further in Year 11 is understandable (for the reasons you mentioned).
I also believe that you were capable of smashing Methods 3/4 in Year 11 (had your school allowed you to accelerate), and if you had that choice I would have expected you to pick Methods.
-
Do Data Analysis, Business-related Mathematics and Networks and Decision Mathematics. I'd love to see how you'd score on them with no previous knowledge whatsoever. :P
Oh snap Stick!
-
Do Data Analysis, Business-related Mathematics and Networks and Decision Mathematics. I'd love to see how you'd score on them with no previous knowledge whatsoever. :P
Yeah maybe now, but realise that a Spesh kid who does Further is actually allowed (and probably is encouraged) to do at least some work throughout the year, so surely they would be just fine in those areas by the end of the year.
-
Yeah maybe now, but realise that a Spesh kid who does Further is actually allowed (and probably is encouraged) to do at least some work throughout the year, so surely they would be just fine in those areas by the end of the year.
Hmm, you'd like to think so. Especially with this idea that spesh kids always ace further! I know of a spesh kid that did further, didn't really put any attention into it because he said it was 'dumb dumb maths', boom 28 SS!
-
At my school, all students planning on doing Spec in Year 12 have to do Further 3/4 in Year 11 has part of an adjusted GMA class, basically so we get experience in VCE maths before Year 12. They do better than the average further cohort, but in no way is the difference amazing - statistics and sequence/series is so different to the rest of the maths we do, the only advantage our teacher really said we had was that we generally worked a lot quicker than the average further student. And I've known plenty of Further-only students who have gotten 40+ at my school, roughly equal to the number of year 11s who were planning on doing spec at school..
-
Hmm, you'd like to think so. Especially with this idea that spesh kids always ace further! I know of a spesh kid that did further, didn't really put any attention into it because he said it was 'dumb dumb maths', boom 28 SS!
also, definitely agreeing with this - there are plenty of kids who don't put in the required effort and get 20s/low 30s, just because it's the 'easy' maths. I personally found a lot of the content in Further a lot harder than in Methods, especially due to the wording of the questions.
-
Competence in mathematics comes from hard work and dedication.
If you talk about VCE-math than I can partially agree, but doing 100 practice IMO-papers won't make you score near full-marks.
-
Mm okay now I feel obliged to respond to that point, given so much dissent. Hard work, to me, does not mean completing 100 trial papers. Doing so is an incredibly inefficient way of 'learning', unless one approaches said papers with the correct mindset. I will focus on maths here, but the same principle applies to all subjects worth studying for.
Firstly, I will pose a very broad question: what exactly is maths? Most students, mainly on account of indifference, do not spare a thought for questions of this kind. Feel free to disagree with my definition of maths, but to me, maths is simply an exercise in deduction. Indeed, the entire discipline is grounded on a set of fundamental axioms (which incidently, derive not from 'reason', whatever you may consider that as being, but experience, by which I mean raw empirical data). The concept of 'one', for instance, originates from what I like to call the world of experience. Unless we experience 'oneness' in some way, we would not have any conception of it. But I will make a giant leap of faith and claim that it so happens that most, if not all, humans have experienced 'oneness' before, ensuring mutual understanding of this mystical concept called 'integers' (obviously in order to properly conceive of integers, one would require experience of more things than 'oneness', but I will terminate my admittedly rather crude example here, mainly because I cbs delving into this too deeply). ALL mathematical results (encompassing everything from theorems to solutions to a random maths problem from IMO or whatever) stem from these fundamental axioms. Let's denote the set of axioms of which I speak by the letter A, and a particular mathematical result by the letter B. To get from A to B, all that is required deduction, by which I mean the application of logical relationships between concepts gained from experience (i.e. the relationship that sort of guarantees the 'truth' - coincidence of concept with world of experience - of B given the two premises (1) If A then B, and (2) A.)
I say all this because I want people to realise that competence in maths does not come from blindly doing questions and memorising a lot of formulae/pre-existing results and techniques. Succinctly, a person who is good at maths is (a) familiar with at least most of the fundamental axioms upon which mathematical premises are grounded and b) good at deduction. (a) is easy to accomplish. Most people have an intuitive understanding of 'oneness', and 'addition', etc., gleaning all of that from 'unconscious' experience (e.g. most people aren't aware that when they accompany their parents to buy fruit, or when they are literally just staring at an object like a table, they are already being acquainted with a good deal of mathematical axioms). (b) is infinitely harder to accomplish, mostly because maths is rarely taught 'properly' at a high school level (probably even at a tertiary level but not sure due to lack of experience). You learn a lot of mathematical methods in say VCE mathematical methods, but you are not told that these methods are in fact forms of deduction. Learning individual methods without an understanding of what they actually are in themselves is dangerous and horribly inefficient because you begin to build isolated techniques (e.g. Markov chain technique, etc.) without really knowing the bigger picture and how they relate to each other. 'Hard work' in maths means literally working to fully understand the 'bigger picture' of deduction, which, I confess, is really, really, really hard to do without instruction. Once you have understood the 'bigger picture', the raw substance of deduction, you should theoretically be able to derive ALL theorems, etc. BY YOURSELF without references to pre-existing proofs. By 'dedication', I literally just mean dedication to the journey one must inevitably take towards an understanding of the 'raw deduction'.
EDIT: If you buy into my theory of maths and to a certain extent my theory of the mind, then you would realise how bogus is the suggestion that mathematical ability is in part a result of natural talent. Indeed, the very concept of natural talent is farcical, unless you can come up with legitimate (aka not simply scientific) justification for the claim that some babies are touched by the maths god on birth, or that some babies have deduction in built into them when they come out of their mother's womb.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Addendum: Also, assuming that people are pushing for a change in the 'rules of VCE' and not merely questioning the moral status, whatever that may mean to them, of choosing Spesh and Further concurrently, this debate can basically be reduced to consideration of one single question: Is the difference between Further and say Spesh as great as, say, the difference between Classics and English? I've already stated explicitly my stance on this matter, and I guess an objective answer can never really be established unless one actually undertakes to do both courses. I think that maths is broad enough a discipline to warrant 'divisions'. As far as I'm concerned, a great deal of the Further Maths course is entirely unique to that particular course, and is not learned in either Spesh or Methods. Of course, students can circumvent this issue by simply focussing on becoming really good at deduction.
-
Well I'm bumping this thread because I just came across something interesting.
Here's the study design link: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/mathematics/mathsstd.pdf
Take a look at Page 12.
Students may not obtain credit for both Further Mathematics Units 3 and 4 and Specialist Mathematics
Units 3 and 4. In a given year, a student may not enrol in both Further Mathematics Units 3 and 4 and
Specialist Mathematics Units 3 and 4.
The study design was updated in January 2013, I'm not sure when if this statement is new or not. Either way, it's there but it doesn't seem that they're enforcing it (from what I can tell anyway).
Edit: 6/02/2013 - Disregard the above, see this post: Re obtaining credit for both Further Maths and Specialist Maths
-
The study design was updated in January 2013, I'm not sure when if this statement is new or not. Either way, it's there but it doesn't seem that they're enforcing it (from what I can tell anyway).
Just checked the Study Design I had saved on my desktop, doesn't have it in it, was downloaded Friday, 30 November 2012, 1:10:15 PM. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.... kinda swaying towards the latter.
-
It's a good move imo
-
Uhhh... If this was serious, you'd imagine they'd notify schools about it... or else I'm in big poop
-
Uhhh... If this was serious, you'd imagine they'd notify schools about it... or else I'm in big poop
It'd probably start in 2014.
-
Right, makes sense. Couldn't find anything in the Bulletins about it either.
-
They can't just change the rules on you like that anyway, if it were to start this year then they would have had to notify schools about it.
-
I think that rule should exist. If you want to do Further, don't do spesh.
Even better is an idea that came up on IRC. Have basic (don't scale much if at all) and advanced versions of subjects (scale well). ie. Physics Basic (like our current vce physics) and Physics Advanced (with maths and stuff), Methods and Spesh (no Further needed), etc. And then have a rule that everyone has to do at least 2 advanced subjects out of 6 for example. I think this mirrors systems overseas, but I'm not sure which ones haha
Similar to IB where you have to choose 3 Standard Level subjects and 3 High Level subjects.
-
they haven't changed the rules, don't worry!
-
I sense a bit of tall poppy ITT