Post by: wildareal on January 30, 2010, 01:21:03 pm
Post by: appianway on January 30, 2010, 01:38:52 pm
And more.
Post by: m@tty on January 30, 2010, 01:48:46 pm
Personally, I hate 'rote learning'. I see no benefit in mindlessly regurgitating things, especially those which won't better your understanding of things(Life, the Universe, and Everything).
Though with subjects based largely around theory it will never be possible to eradicate the need for learning things 'off by heart'. If there are no concepts, rather slabs of information,
Post by: appianway on January 30, 2010, 01:58:49 pm
Post by: m@tty on January 30, 2010, 01:59:46 pm
Post by: ninwa on January 30, 2010, 02:45:49 pm
Post by: slothpomba on January 30, 2010, 10:42:46 pm
I don't think criticising it or constantly complaining this blah blah is holding me back is a good thing.
It's the system we got given, yeah its a crappy one but we have to work and deal inside of this system.
Oh damn, ive conformed already, theyve broken me.
Post by: TrueTears on January 30, 2010, 10:45:58 pm
Post by: jejak on January 30, 2010, 10:56:36 pm
I personally found this to be a bigger problem in the physical sciences and mathematics - my chemistry teacher would often only explain how to spot the right MC answer, not why it was indeed correct - but I imagine it occurs also in humanities-style subjects that can be
bluffed with a formulaic essay and the use of certain "trigger words."
My secondary criticism is that there is a disturbing number of subjects that seem to rely on rote memorisation, and don't teach interdisciplinary skills. The rote thing isn't really a problem per se - language learning is basically a memory exercise - but often these subjects require little or no critical thinking on the part of the student, and are only self-contained "bubbles" of meaningless information that have no interdisciplinary "links". Can anyone really say that business management challenged their reasoning skills, made them more knowledgeable about the world, or even merely served as a pre-req for further commerce studies? Not so much, I'm guessing.
Post by: Akirus on January 30, 2010, 11:28:36 pm
The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.
When you say this, you're essentially proposing that the subject examinations should have no bound on its difficulty, i.e. there is no structured syllabus and marking criteria. If not, there is no possible way to accurately differentiate between those who are actually "incredible in a subject", because there must be a threshold at some point. I think it's quite clear how this is implausible.
Secondly, you're making another assumption that the purpose of education, exams, and in this case, VCE, is to test your knowledge and skill alone. Why this is actually a delusion is because assessment is not about measuring how "smart" you are; rather, it probes your capacity to succeed, and this encompasses numerous factors. Universities do not just want the most intelligent students. Wonder why? This is because in life, just like VCE, the people that learn quickly (i.e. the people you define to be "smart") do not always win. Do you think entities such as universities and the like care how "incredible" people are if they cannot produce results?
I do understand your sentiments (it crossed my mind at some point as well), but ultimately this is just a diversion for top students in the event that they don't satisfy their expectations.
Post by: kyzoo on January 31, 2010, 12:02:00 am
If the Chem teacher doesn't explain why a certain MCQ question is correct, then take the initiative to figure that out yourself, don't expect everything to be spoonfed to you.
Post by: Akirus on January 31, 2010, 12:55:21 am
If the Chem teacher doesn't explain why a certain MCQ question is correct, then take the initiative to figure that out yourself, don't expect everything to be spoonfed to you.
I agree with kyzoo on this one, but that withstanding, the way your chem teacher teaches you is less a problem with the VCE system and more your individual teacher.
Post by: jejak on January 31, 2010, 12:57:19 am
Quote
If the Chem teacher doesn't explain why a certain MCQ question is correct, then take the initiative to figure that out yourself, don't expect everything to be spoonfed to you.
Perhaps I gave a poor example. It wasn't the case that students didn't take the initiative and ask why the MCQ was correct (for example); my concern was that - as I tried to show, but clearly failed to do so :) - the emphasis of the teaching method was back-to-front. The teacher should present the subject matter to be learnt as something of value in its own right first, so that the student's own, complete understanding can then be used to answer a given question. The problem is precisely that students are spoon-fed, and incorrectly at that.
My more general point is that any given VCE study is so severely restricted in its depth and focus that it inevitably lends itself more to mere test-preparation, rather than learning per se. Understanding the full depth and range of the subject matter is not a pre-requisite for success, and individual interest is not encouraged or rewarded.
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on January 31, 2010, 01:08:33 am
Post by: jejak on January 31, 2010, 01:10:45 am
Quote
I really don't understand all this fuss about courses being rote-learned.Rote-learning in and of itself is not a problem. There are subjects that clearly require rote-learned knowledge (e.g. languages - vocab and grammatical structures) as a kind of adjunct to assisting in a larger reasoning problem (e.g. interpreting a text in LOTE.) My concern is that some studies seem to prioritise the rote memorisation of facts that have no appreciable contextual use or interdisciplinary value. By contrast, successful students of history, I imagine, use rote-learned facts to form a synthesised analysis topics covered throughout the year.
Quote
Maths and sciences are rote-learned in VCE? Not in my experience; I barely rote memorize anything in these subjects.Outside of the most basic facts, I'm not sure that these subjects can be "rote-learned".... I don't think the concept of rote learning applies to procedural knowledge, which is usually what is tested. Certainly it is possible to have a poor overall knowledge of the topic, though, yet be able to prepare adequately for a test.
Post by: jejak on January 31, 2010, 01:14:49 am
Quote
pro students will always find whatever learning system we have lacking in depth.This is 100% true. I do think, though, that adding a deeper theoretical background to much of what we study at VCE could also be a boon for students who aren't so pro - that way, they have a more solid theoretical basis on which to build a sound understanding of the material. As TrueTears said, otherwise you just "don't learn the fundamentals," which can spell disaster for some people who need to understand the content globally, or "from the ground up." Of course this would require a lot more time and care on the part of students.
Quote
I found VCE Chemistry had more than enough depth for me to fail.LOL, same here... :D
Post by: appianway on January 31, 2010, 10:34:08 am
The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.
When you say this, you're essentially proposing that the subject examinations should have no bound on its difficulty, i.e. there is no structured syllabus and marking criteria. If not, there is no possible way to accurately differentiate between those who are actually "incredible in a subject", because there must be a threshold at some point. I think it's quite clear how this is implausible.
Secondly, you're making another assumption that the purpose of education, exams, and in this case, VCE, is to test your knowledge and skill alone. Why this is actually a delusion is because assessment is not about measuring how "smart" you are; rather, it probes your capacity to succeed, and this encompasses numerous factors. Universities do not just want the most intelligent students. Wonder why? This is because in life, just like VCE, the people that learn quickly (i.e. the people you define to be "smart") do not always win. Do you think entities such as universities and the like care how "incredible" people are if they cannot produce results?
I do understand your sentiments (it crossed my mind at some point as well), but ultimately this is just a diversion for top students in the event that they don't satisfy their expectations.
You've misinterpreted my statement. It's certainly possible to restrict the difficulty of subjects but incorporate a range of questions to engage all students. A science or maths exam with 3 or 4 more challenging questions wouldn't compromise the ability of the test to differentiate students; rather, it'd highlight students with a more profound understanding of the work. I think any individual who denies this evidently has no understanding of what frequently happens in the VCE - hardworking, intelligent (and hence "successful") students often lose out to less deserving pupils because of a small number of careless mistakes.
You also mentioned that universities want students who "succeed". I agree. However, I think that success has the potential to be measured more accurately (with examinations that test true understanding of the material) - the current assessments don't fairly reward intelligent students who've put in a lot of work. I know a plethora of individuals who've represented Australia in certain sciences and have put in a tremendous amount of work (both for their VCE/HSC and olympiad preparation) who haven't received stellar scores, due to a small number of trivial errors in their exams. I think it's an insult to them (and many others with similar experiences) to state that they don't "succeed". An examination at the end of the year with no challenging questions doesn't allow people like this to shine.
I think you've missed the whole point of my argument. I never said that the VCE examinations should be pitched at an incredibly difficult level. Rather, I believe that there should be a small number of questions on each paper which allow superior students (who happen to work hard and be intelligent) to come above the crowd.
After all, universities shouldn't be looking solely for students who make very few careless mistakes. Hard work and creative thinking should play a more vital role.
Post by: turley on January 31, 2010, 01:31:54 pm
Post by: Akirus on January 31, 2010, 02:14:40 pm
The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.
When you say this, you're essentially proposing that the subject examinations should have no bound on its difficulty, i.e. there is no structured syllabus and marking criteria. If not, there is no possible way to accurately differentiate between those who are actually "incredible in a subject", because there must be a threshold at some point. I think it's quite clear how this is implausible.
Secondly, you're making another assumption that the purpose of education, exams, and in this case, VCE, is to test your knowledge and skill alone. Why this is actually a delusion is because assessment is not about measuring how "smart" you are; rather, it probes your capacity to succeed, and this encompasses numerous factors. Universities do not just want the most intelligent students. Wonder why? This is because in life, just like VCE, the people that learn quickly (i.e. the people you define to be "smart") do not always win. Do you think entities such as universities and the like care how "incredible" people are if they cannot produce results?
I do understand your sentiments (it crossed my mind at some point as well), but ultimately this is just a diversion for top students in the event that they don't satisfy their expectations.
You've misinterpreted my statement. It's certainly possible to restrict the difficulty of subjects but incorporate a range of questions to engage all students. A science or maths exam with 3 or 4 more challenging questions wouldn't compromise the ability of the test to differentiate students; rather, it'd highlight students with a more profound understanding of the work. I think any individual who denies this evidently has no understanding of what frequently happens in the VCE - hardworking, intelligent (and hence "successful") students often lose out to less deserving pupils because of a small number of careless mistakes.
You also mentioned that universities want students who "succeed". I agree. However, I think that success has the potential to be measured more accurately (with examinations that test true understanding of the material) - the current assessments don't fairly reward intelligent students who've put in a lot of work. I know a plethora of individuals who've represented Australia in certain sciences and have put in a tremendous amount of work (both for their VCE/HSC and olympiad preparation) who haven't received stellar scores, due to a small number of trivial errors in their exams. I think it's an insult to them (and many others with similar experiences) to state that they don't "succeed". An examination at the end of the year with no challenging questions doesn't allow people like this to shine.
I think you've missed the whole point of my argument. I never said that the VCE examinations should be pitched at an incredibly difficult level. Rather, I believe that there should be a small number of questions on each paper which allow superior students (who happen to work hard and be intelligent) to come above the crowd.
After all, universities shouldn't be looking solely for students who make very few careless mistakes. Hard work and creative thinking should play a more vital role.
Your suggestion is still superficial in the light of the fact that the notion of these "challenging questions" is completely subjective. Do you realize you could apply this same reasoning until the questions are so difficult nobody in the state can answer them? Moreover, you are implying that students can ace VCE (45+) without having a solid grasp on the subject. No matter how you look at it, this is at best an excuse for top students that fail to get those coveted scores. tl;dr, it's all hokum.
Your second paragraph illustrates that you have not understood anything I typed. I digress: hard work and "intelligence" are related but not the same as success.
My lappy battery is dying, so I'll have to wrap it up here.
Post by: appianway on January 31, 2010, 02:41:02 pm
The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.
When you say this, you're essentially proposing that the subject examinations should have no bound on its difficulty, i.e. there is no structured syllabus and marking criteria. If not, there is no possible way to accurately differentiate between those who are actually "incredible in a subject", because there must be a threshold at some point. I think it's quite clear how this is implausible.
Secondly, you're making another assumption that the purpose of education, exams, and in this case, VCE, is to test your knowledge and skill alone. Why this is actually a delusion is because assessment is not about measuring how "smart" you are; rather, it probes your capacity to succeed, and this encompasses numerous factors. Universities do not just want the most intelligent students. Wonder why? This is because in life, just like VCE, the people that learn quickly (i.e. the people you define to be "smart") do not always win. Do you think entities such as universities and the like care how "incredible" people are if they cannot produce results?
I do understand your sentiments (it crossed my mind at some point as well), but ultimately this is just a diversion for top students in the event that they don't satisfy their expectations.
You've misinterpreted my statement. It's certainly possible to restrict the difficulty of subjects but incorporate a range of questions to engage all students. A science or maths exam with 3 or 4 more challenging questions wouldn't compromise the ability of the test to differentiate students; rather, it'd highlight students with a more profound understanding of the work. I think any individual who denies this evidently has no understanding of what frequently happens in the VCE - hardworking, intelligent (and hence "successful") students often lose out to less deserving pupils because of a small number of careless mistakes.
You also mentioned that universities want students who "succeed". I agree. However, I think that success has the potential to be measured more accurately (with examinations that test true understanding of the material) - the current assessments don't fairly reward intelligent students who've put in a lot of work. I know a plethora of individuals who've represented Australia in certain sciences and have put in a tremendous amount of work (both for their VCE/HSC and olympiad preparation) who haven't received stellar scores, due to a small number of trivial errors in their exams. I think it's an insult to them (and many others with similar experiences) to state that they don't "succeed". An examination at the end of the year with no challenging questions doesn't allow people like this to shine.
I think you've missed the whole point of my argument. I never said that the VCE examinations should be pitched at an incredibly difficult level. Rather, I believe that there should be a small number of questions on each paper which allow superior students (who happen to work hard and be intelligent) to come above the crowd.
After all, universities shouldn't be looking solely for students who make very few careless mistakes. Hard work and creative thinking should play a more vital role.
Your suggestion is still superficial in the light of the fact that the notion of these "challenging questions" is completely subjective. Do you realize you could apply this same reasoning until the questions are so difficult nobody in the state can answer them? Moreover, you are implying that students can ace VCE (45+) without having a solid grasp on the subject. No matter how you look at it, this is at best an excuse for top students that fail to get those coveted scores. tl;dr, it's all hokum.
Your second paragraph illustrates that you have not understood anything I typed. I digress: hard work and "intelligence" are related but not the same as success.
My lappy battery is dying, so I'll have to wrap it up here.
I defined being worthy of success as having a natural aptitude for the subject as well as putting in considerable work. If you so desperately beg to differ, how would you define it?
Your statement about the difficulty being able to escalate to ridiculous levels is inherently flawed. There's no motivation for exam writers to pitch papers at this level, and furthermore, I emphasised in my response that this would be unacceptable. To be clear, I never proposed anything of such immense difficulty that "no one" in the state can answer. Rather, I stipulated that "it's certainly possible to restrict the difficulty but incorporate a range of questions to engage all students". This suggestion isn't superficial. Although examiners can never know with absolute certainty whether questions will be perceived as "difficult", I'm sure that teachers with sufficient experience would be able to tell if the questions were appropriate, and if they could distinguish between top students. That argument can be refuted by debating that such practices exist presently, however, I believe that there's a consensus among many teachers for subjects such as physics and mathematical methods that the current question do not challenge most students, hence demonstrating that the aforementioned practice has not already been rendered null. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the difficulty wouldn't rest upon a single individual - a team of staff are involved in the composition of each examination paper. The appropriate level of difficulty isn't too difficult to determine - a statistical analysis of past examination questions (and a comparison to prospective problems for a certain year) could roughly gauge the appropriate level.
I'm not sure how on earth you could perceive my statements as saying that students in the top 2% lack a grasp of the subject. Instead, I suggested that within (and slightly outside) this range, students aren't differentiated based on their true understanding, but rather, trivial factors in the examination. I've used this example to death by now, but consider the Unit 3 Physics examination. A total of 4 marks could be dropped to stay within the top 11 or so percent; a score of 88/90 thus equated to roughly the top 3 or 4%. As the paper didn't test a profound understanding of the subject (most of the questions involved the regurgitation of formulae with little or no manipulation), perfect scores could be obtained without understanding the complexities of the course. However, a student who possessed such a keen comprehension of the material (and perhaps sat within the top 0.5 or so percent of their school cohort) could easily drop a few marks by making a substitution error, colouring the wrong multiple choice bubble accidentally, or not seeing a question (this happened to a friend of mine who had high 90s on our rather difficult SACs). Such a student wouldn't achieve a score indicative of their understanding of the subject, and likewise, a student with a grasp (albeit far less profound) of the material could attain 90/90. I never suggested once that students didn't understand the subject; rather, I stated that the order of marks wasn't representative of the true comprehension of the students.
If you honestly think that the difficulty of the VCE system presently suffices (and hence believe that a few questions which require higher orders of thinking don't deserve a place in our examinations), you obviously have little familiarity with the qualification itself. Let me say this: if there's an exam where 10% of the state scores 96% or above, it's not going to discriminate fairly between students.
Post by: appianway on January 31, 2010, 02:51:50 pm
emphasis on VCE often discourages students from continuing other activities such as sport and music
And agreed. However, this is more of a social flaw rather than a problem with the system itself - individuals in certain circles place an unfair emphasis on the score obtained, and often use this as a judgement of character (despite the lack of relevance to personality whatsoever). This emphasis is often completely unneccesary - if someone's aiming for a course with a cut off of 98, a 99.5 has little importance, unless it's for personal satisfaction... although personal satisfaction can also come from success/involvement in sport and music.
Post by: brightsky on January 31, 2010, 03:16:40 pm
The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.
When you say this, you're essentially proposing that the subject examinations should have no bound on its difficulty, i.e. there is no structured syllabus and marking criteria. If not, there is no possible way to accurately differentiate between those who are actually "incredible in a subject", because there must be a threshold at some point. I think it's quite clear how this is implausible.
Secondly, you're making another assumption that the purpose of education, exams, and in this case, VCE, is to test your knowledge and skill alone. Why this is actually a delusion is because assessment is not about measuring how "smart" you are; rather, it probes your capacity to succeed, and this encompasses numerous factors. Universities do not just want the most intelligent students. Wonder why? This is because in life, just like VCE, the people that learn quickly (i.e. the people you define to be "smart") do not always win. Do you think entities such as universities and the like care how "incredible" people are if they cannot produce results?
I do understand your sentiments (it crossed my mind at some point as well), but ultimately this is just a diversion for top students in the event that they don't satisfy their expectations.
You've misinterpreted my statement. It's certainly possible to restrict the difficulty of subjects but incorporate a range of questions to engage all students. A science or maths exam with 3 or 4 more challenging questions wouldn't compromise the ability of the test to differentiate students; rather, it'd highlight students with a more profound understanding of the work. I think any individual who denies this evidently has no understanding of what frequently happens in the VCE - hardworking, intelligent (and hence "successful") students often lose out to less deserving pupils because of a small number of careless mistakes.
You also mentioned that universities want students who "succeed". I agree. However, I think that success has the potential to be measured more accurately (with examinations that test true understanding of the material) - the current assessments don't fairly reward intelligent students who've put in a lot of work. I know a plethora of individuals who've represented Australia in certain sciences and have put in a tremendous amount of work (both for their VCE/HSC and olympiad preparation) who haven't received stellar scores, due to a small number of trivial errors in their exams. I think it's an insult to them (and many others with similar experiences) to state that they don't "succeed". An examination at the end of the year with no challenging questions doesn't allow people like this to shine.
I think you've missed the whole point of my argument. I never said that the VCE examinations should be pitched at an incredibly difficult level. Rather, I believe that there should be a small number of questions on each paper which allow superior students (who happen to work hard and be intelligent) to come above the crowd.
After all, universities shouldn't be looking solely for students who make very few careless mistakes. Hard work and creative thinking should play a more vital role.
Your suggestion is still superficial in the light of the fact that the notion of these "challenging questions" is completely subjective. Do you realize you could apply this same reasoning until the questions are so difficult nobody in the state can answer them? Moreover, you are implying that students can ace VCE (45+) without having a solid grasp on the subject. No matter how you look at it, this is at best an excuse for top students that fail to get those coveted scores. tl;dr, it's all hokum.
Your second paragraph illustrates that you have not understood anything I typed. I digress: hard work and "intelligence" are related but not the same as success.
My lappy battery is dying, so I'll have to wrap it up here.
I defined being worthy of success as having a natural aptitude for the subject as well as putting in considerable work. If you so desperately beg to differ, how would you define it?
Your statement about the difficulty being able to escalate to ridiculous levels is inherently flawed. There's no motivation for exam writers to pitch papers at this level, and furthermore, I emphasised in my response that this would be unacceptable. To be clear, I never proposed anything of such immense difficulty that "no one" in the state can answer. Rather, I stipulated that "it's certainly possible to restrict the difficulty but incorporate a range of questions to engage all students". This suggestion isn't superficial. Although examiners can never know with absolute certainty whether questions will be perceived as "difficult", I'm sure that teachers with sufficient experience would be able to tell if the questions were appropriate, and if they could distinguish between top students. That argument can be refuted by debating that such practices exist presently, however, I believe that there's a consensus among many teachers for subjects such as physics and mathematical methods that the current question do not challenge most students, hence demonstrating that the aforementioned practice has not already been rendered null. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the difficulty wouldn't rest upon a single individual - a team of staff are involved in the composition of each examination paper. The appropriate level of difficulty isn't too difficult to determine - a statistical analysis of past examination questions (and a comparison to prospective problems for a certain year) could roughly gauge the appropriate level.
I'm not sure how on earth you could perceive my statements as saying that students in the top 2% lack a grasp of the subject. Instead, I suggested that within (and slightly outside) this range, students aren't differentiated based on their true understanding, but rather, trivial factors in the examination. I've used this example to death by now, but consider the Unit 3 Physics examination. A total of 4 marks could be dropped to stay within the top 11 or so percent; a score of 88/90 thus equated to roughly the top 3 or 4%. As the paper didn't test a profound understanding of the subject (most of the questions involved the regurgitation of formulae with little or no manipulation), perfect scores could be obtained without understanding the complexities of the course. However, a student who possessed such a keen comprehension of the material (and perhaps sat within the top 0.5 or so percent of their school cohort) could easily drop a few marks by making a substitution error, colouring the wrong multiple choice bubble accidentally, or not seeing a question (this happened to a friend of mine who had high 90s on our rather difficult SACs). Such a student wouldn't achieve a score indicative of their understanding of the subject, and likewise, a student with a grasp (albeit far less profound) of the material could attain 90/90. I never suggested once that students didn't understand the subject; rather, I stated that the order of marks wasn't representative of the true comprehension of the students.
If you honestly think that the difficulty of the VCE system presently suffices (and hence believe that a few questions which require higher orders of thinking don't deserve a place in our examinations), you obviously have little familiarity with the qualification itself. Let me say this: if there's an exam where 10% of the state scores 96% or above, it's not going to discriminate fairly between students.
I've tried to converge both of your arguments and I think the disagreement elicits from the different viewpoints of the word "smart". I see where Akirus' sentiments are heading towards, and I can riposte here by saying that the issue of not having bright students shine is not just a problem that the VCE has, but a problem that most educational institutions have, including Universities. Yes, alas, there is a major difference in our society between being "smart" and being able to "succeed". What the concern is is that such educational institutions rely too heavily on examinations to determine one's worthiness and potential, which, in my opinion, can only measure one dimension of the individual. The entire magnitude of one's potential cannot be solely demonstrated on an exam. Common questions that arise are: how about if they "stuffed up" on the day? How about if they had a "memory blank"? How about if they run out of time? All these questions revolve around the student's examination technique, and not their true aptitude in the related subject.
Furthermore, I need to emphasise that appianway's comment that one can actually "ace" VCE by not actually having AS DEEP A conceptual understanding of the material as a student who scored a lower mark. As with most other written examinations, a lot of the material can be rote-learned and memorised, and hence such is sufficient to score exceptional marks on said exam. Yes, what I am saying is a generalisation, but it is a veritable possibility.
@ appianway. I don't think the issue is rooted from surface difficulty of the exam, but the actual content. I cannot see any way thus far to test "real" ability. The term "real" rather ambiguous, because every student is different. But I do see your sentiments.
Post by: brightsky on January 31, 2010, 03:20:34 pm
emphasis on VCE often discourages students from continuing other activities such as sport and music
And agreed. However, this is more of a social flaw rather than a problem with the system itself - individuals in certain circles place an unfair emphasis on the score obtained, and often use this as a judgement of character (despite the lack of relevance to personality whatsoever). This emphasis is often completely unneccesary - if someone's aiming for a course with a cut off of 98, a 99.5 has little importance, unless it's for personal satisfaction... although personal satisfaction can also come from success/involvement in sport and music.
This happens can happen in all exams, not just VCE. It depends on the individual, and their willingness to engage in these activities. You should see in China, students become so immersed into exams that they become psychologically derailed, and their WHOLE life becomes revolved around exams and doing well in them.
Post by: NE2000 on January 31, 2010, 04:03:22 pm
Post by: Akirus on January 31, 2010, 04:27:37 pm
The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.
I defined being worthy of success as having a natural aptitude for the subject as well as putting in considerable work. If you so desperately beg to differ, how would you define it?
Your statement about the difficulty being able to escalate to ridiculous levels is inherently flawed.
I stopped reading here, you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.
To answer your question (although I denounce that I am even showing a hint of desperation; on what do you base this presumption?), there is no such thing as "worthy of success". Your insistence that students with natural aptitude for a subject "deserve" the best grades is a fallacy.
While I would like to make a detailed analysis of your post and pick out all the inconsistencies in your argument, it is, unfortunately, the eve of the beginning of school. I don't have time for further long-winded rebuttals. You may take this as you will.
Post by: brightsky on January 31, 2010, 04:36:26 pm
Quote
To answer your question (although I denounce that I am even showing a hint of desperation; on what do you base this presumption?), there is no such thing as "worthy of success". Your insistence that students with natural aptitude for a subject "deserve" the best grades is a fallacy.
Agreed. But I resent it. Life sucks?
Post by: kyzoo on January 31, 2010, 04:42:03 pm
Christopher Langan, proclaimed as "the smartest man in America," has a natural aptitude and has done considerable work, as evidenced by his IQ of 195-210 and being mostly self-taught. He achieved a perfect SAT score, yet his theory of the universe, the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)," has failed to achieve the acceptance and acclaim that Einstein's theory of relativity attained. Langan furthermore is a relatively unknown figure.
My point is that natural aptitude and considerable work is insufficient for success.
Post by: brightsky on January 31, 2010, 05:01:11 pm
Those who are worthy of success will obtain success. By that line of reasoning, a natural aptitude and doing considerable work is insufficient; there's more to success than just that. I'm not going to provide the whole picture, but one significant factor you missed out was the correct method - the correct application of effort. Effort is merely "raw material," what matters is the product.
Christopher Langan, proclaimed as "the smartest man in America," has a natural aptitude and has done considerable work, as evidenced by his IQ of 195-210 and being mostly self-taught. He achieved a perfect SAT score, yet his theory of the universe, the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)," has failed to achieve the acceptance and acclaim that Einstein's theory of relativity attained. Langan furthermore is a relatively unknown figure.
My point is that natural aptitude and considerable work is insufficient for success.
I disagree and agree with you. The questions I pose are: Where do we draw the line between one that is "unworthy of success" and those that are "worthy"? There are some people that are seemingly "unworthy of success" by your definition that do in fact achieve "success". Is this fair?
And your example is a paragon to what is being discuss. Intelligence can be measured in many ways depending on how one defines intelligence. Yes, achieving perfect scores in the SAT or the VCE may define the individual as "intelligent", but how many people in China come out of their PhD studies and become useless individuals that cannot contribute anything to society other than their plethora of competition awards and Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate certificates? Following this chain of thought, another idea arises. How about if we define "intelligence" by one's potential contribution to society? However, at times, these two are very contradictory.
Take the trite old Einstein example. Einstein was seen as an inherently underperforming student at school. He was rebellious and was failing in terms of grades. And yet, decades later, he shall be named the smartest man on Earth.
So the ultimate question returns: how the hell do we measure intelligence? The VCE system, patently, does not measure it entirely successfully.
Post by: kyzoo on January 31, 2010, 05:24:13 pm
Post by: appianway on January 31, 2010, 05:35:02 pm
My main point seems to have been missed - some of the subjects (in particular, physics and mathematical methods) do not accurately discriminate between students, especially at the upper end. It's inevitable that the students with the best understanding (which I believe strongly should be rewarded) aren't always going to be the top achievers, but I think the simplicity of some VCE assessments increases the prevalence of this occuring.
Post by: kyzoo on January 31, 2010, 06:23:07 pm
Post by: appianway on January 31, 2010, 07:28:01 pm
Post by: kyzoo on January 31, 2010, 08:05:50 pm
Post by: Aden on January 31, 2010, 08:54:23 pm
Although, I would have to agree with appianway’s point that the current VCE system seemingly does not attempt to lessen the extent of the aforementioned problem. By occasionally creating exams that fail to discriminate between students of differing levels, it allows for (sometimes large) fluctuations in the relation between students’ ‘profound conceptual understanding’ and their received study score – this is not the point of VCE, which is instead supposed to, as accurately as possible, test a student’s level of understanding.
At the same time, I would have to disagree with Akirus’ statement that it is nonsensical that people can attain a high score without as profound of an understanding as someone who attained a lower score. As it is, this is definitely possible with certain subjects under the correct circumstances.
Post by: Akirus on February 01, 2010, 02:00:27 am
Akirus, I wasn't insisting at all that students with a natural aptitude for a subject automatically deserve success. Rather, I said that individuals with a profound conceptual understanding of a course - whether this be obtained by study or facility with learning - deserve to have this reflected in their marks. The VCE system doesn't do this.
My main point seems to have been missed - some of the subjects (in particular, physics and mathematical methods) do not accurately discriminate between students, especially at the upper end. It's inevitable that the students with the best understanding (which I believe strongly should be rewarded) aren't always going to be the top achievers, but I think the simplicity of some VCE assessments increases the prevalence of this occuring.
Okay, I can't sleep, so I'll amuse you again. I could essentially copy-paste my initial post and it'd still be valid, but since you don't seem to get it, I will illuminate, again.
Let me explain with an example. Lets say there are 100 people, each with a different level of control over the course (with the best having a "profound conceptual understanding"). Now, lets say there are 5 questions on the exam that only the top 50 can answer. The top 30, of course, resent this, as they have a better understanding than the top 30. So, using your logic, they complain: there needs to be a greater distinction. Starting to notice the trend?
Listening to these complaints, the VCAA adjusts the exams so only the top 30 or so students are capable of answering certain questions. Oh, but wait. Now the top 20 students have a gripe. How is it fair that 10 people "not as smart" as us can get the same grades or possibly better? Blasphemy! Time to bitch again.
You could essentially do this until only 1 student, or even no students, can fully complete the exam. See why the reasoning is hokum, yet? I could also dismantle the intricacies for you as well, but I think I've said enough for now.
This leads onto the more important component of my contention: you are still getting caught up on the notion that the students with the "profound conceptual understanding of the course" should do the best. I could explain again in different words, but it's pointless because I get the feeling you're going to repeat the same stubbornly biased opinion.
I have missed nothing; perhaps you are the one that should read the content of my posts more carefully. Your view on life is typical of a sheltered private school student, made apparent by your blatant bias and double-standard logic. To put it into perspective for you, it's like a fat lady with F-cup breasts loudly proclaiming to everyone that attractiveness is based on breast size alone, or a tennis player with the fastest serve insisting that tennis should be won on how fast you can hit the ball over the net.
Oh, by the way, way to defame me for opposing your opinion, very noble of you. I hope you're not getting bitter, this is a purely intellectual exchange (or at least that was my intention). ^_~
Quote from: appianway
Fair separation can occur with a bound on difficulty.
Because you decide what constitutes "fair separation", amirite?
QuoteTo answer your question (although I denounce that I am even showing a hint of desperation; on what do you base this presumption?), there is no such thing as "worthy of success". Your insistence that students with natural aptitude for a subject "deserve" the best grades is a fallacy.Agreed. But I resent it. Life sucks?
Sure does, but misers that can only whine about it are worse.
Quote from: brightsky
I disagree and agree with you. The questions I pose are: Where do we draw the line between one that is "unworthy of success" and those that are "worthy"? There are some people that are seemingly "unworthy of success" by your definition that do in fact achieve "success". Is this fair?
And your example is a paragon to what is being discuss. Intelligence can be measured in many ways depending on how one defines intelligence. Yes, achieving perfect scores in the SAT or the VCE may define the individual as "intelligent", but how many people in China come out of their PhD studies and become useless individuals that cannot contribute anything to society other than their plethora of competition awards and Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate certificates? Following this chain of thought, another idea arises. How about if we define "intelligence" by one's potential contribution to society? However, at times, these two are very contradictory.
Take the trite old Einstein example. Einstein was seen as an inherently underperforming student at school. He was rebellious and was failing in terms of grades. And yet, decades later, he shall be named the smartest man on Earth.
So the ultimate question returns: how the hell do we measure intelligence? The VCE system, patently, does not measure it entirely successfully.
It's actually very simple. If you're worthy of success, then you will succeed. If you are lacking in any area, then you will fail.
Before you answer your "ultimate question", there first must be the precursor, what exactly is intelligence?
And, as I have repeated time and time again, VCE's purpose is not to measure intelligence. Intelligence and knowledge is only one aspect. I stress, academic success, or any kind of success, really, is not based on a singular factor. You need to break free of that linear thinking.
Quote from: Aden
At the same time, I would have to disagree with Akirus’ statement that it is nonsensical that people can attain a high score without as profound of an understanding as someone who attained a lower score. As it is, this is definitely possible with certain subjects under the correct circumstances.
I never made this assertion.
Post by: ninwa on February 01, 2010, 12:49:29 pm
I'm not sure how on earth you could perceive my statements as saying that students in the top 2% lack a grasp of the subject. Instead, I suggested that within (and slightly outside) this range, students aren't differentiated based on their true understanding, but rather, trivial factors in the examination. I've used this example to death by now, but consider the Unit 3 Physics examination. A total of 4 marks could be dropped to stay within the top 11 or so percent; a score of 88/90 thus equated to roughly the top 3 or 4%. As the paper didn't test a profound understanding of the subject (most of the questions involved the regurgitation of formulae with little or no manipulation), perfect scores could be obtained without understanding the complexities of the course. However, a student who possessed such a keen comprehension of the material (and perhaps sat within the top 0.5 or so percent of their school cohort) could easily drop a few marks by making a substitution error, colouring the wrong multiple choice bubble accidentally, or not seeing a question (this happened to a friend of mine who had high 90s on our rather difficult SACs). Such a student wouldn't achieve a score indicative of their understanding of the subject, and likewise, a student with a grasp (albeit far less profound) of the material could attain 90/90. I never suggested once that students didn't understand the subject; rather, I stated that the order of marks wasn't representative of the true comprehension of the students.
If you honestly think that the difficulty of the VCE system presently suffices (and hence believe that a few questions which require higher orders of thinking don't deserve a place in our examinations), you obviously have little familiarity with the qualification itself. Let me say this: if there's an exam where 10% of the state scores 96% or above, it's not going to discriminate fairly between students.
I think your example shows the stubborn incomprehension which you so condescendingly accuse others of having a great deal more than has yet been displayed in this thread. After reading the above quote, I highly doubt appianway was suggesting a boundlessly difficult examination; rather, just that enough challenging questions be included in the exams so that perhaps "a student who possessed such a keen comprehension of the material (and perhaps sat within the top 0.5 or so percent of their school cohort)" would receive a score which reflected this.
How would you define "worthy of success"? That's a rather subjective concept.
Oh, by the way:
- appianway isn't a private school student;
- she never defamed you: there is more defamation and immaturity in your post than in anything she has said, and why would you take karma so seriously anyway? and
- I actually agree with your arguments, I just don't agree with the arrogant tone with which you have been presenting them.
Post by: brightsky on February 01, 2010, 08:08:29 pm
Your question about intelligence is exactly what I've been trying to convey in my post. My viewpoint is that "intelligence" is up to the individual to decide.Quote from: brightskyI disagree and agree with you. The questions I pose are: Where do we draw the line between one that is "unworthy of success" and those that are "worthy"? There are some people that are seemingly "unworthy of success" by your definition that do in fact achieve "success". Is this fair?
And your example is a paragon to what is being discuss. Intelligence can be measured in many ways depending on how one defines intelligence. Yes, achieving perfect scores in the SAT or the VCE may define the individual as "intelligent", but how many people in China come out of their PhD studies and become useless individuals that cannot contribute anything to society other than their plethora of competition awards and Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate certificates? Following this chain of thought, another idea arises. How about if we define "intelligence" by one's potential contribution to society? However, at times, these two are very contradictory.
Take the trite old Einstein example. Einstein was seen as an inherently underperforming student at school. He was rebellious and was failing in terms of grades. And yet, decades later, he shall be named the smartest man on Earth.
So the ultimate question returns: how the hell do we measure intelligence? The VCE system, patently, does not measure it entirely successfully.
It's actually very simple. If you're worthy of success, then you will succeed. If you are lacking in any area, then you will fail.
Before you answer your "ultimate question", there first must be the precursor, what exactly is intelligence?
And, as I have repeated time and time again, VCE's purpose is not to measure intelligence. Intelligence and knowledge is only one aspect. I stress, academic success, or any kind of success, really, is not based on a singular factor. You need to break free of that linear thinking.
About your last paragraph. No, I don't think VCE is all about measuring success. You are just off. VCE is, or should be, about measuring one's potential to succeed, and not success per se. The whole rationale of such a tertiary entrance selection system is for universities to grab the people they think will thrive under their courses, the people that they think will have a potential to succeed in the field and become useful people in society who can contribute to it. As I have said, getting 99.95 in the VCE doesn't mean they will become Albert Einstein's and revolutionise our society to the better. Herein lies the problem of the VCE system.
Oh, Akirus, you were going so well before you descended into ad hominem.
I'd have to agree here. Your intention of a "purely intellectual exchange" has been undermined only by yourself. Yes, the ideas you convey are probably more important than how you express it, but that does not mean the latter is negligible.
EZ Edit: Fixed double post.
Post by: appianway on February 01, 2010, 09:49:42 pm
Listening to these complaints, the VCAA adjusts the exams so only the top 30 or so students are capable of answering certain questions. Oh, but wait. Now the top 20 students have a gripe. How is it fair that 10 people "not as smart" as us can get the same grades or possibly better? Blasphemy! Time to bitch again.
You could essentially do this until only 1 student, or even no students, can fully complete the exam. See why the reasoning is hokum, yet?
(In the spirit of continuing "intellectual" discussion...) Not quite. Aside from premiers' awards, the VCE system distinguishes students in roughly 0.2 increments. Say that on average, each student gets an allowance of, I don't know, 2 points worth of careless mistakes. The difficulty of the exams should thus be set so that at most 0.2% of students lose 2 marks or less, and so on. This can be achieved by including a small number of questions (which can be deemed difficult by comparison with questions believed to be "similar" from past examinations that had a low percentage of high scorers) of suitable level.
Post by: kyzoo on February 02, 2010, 12:21:53 am
VCE English is utterly pointless. It doesn’t teach you spelling or grammar. For instance, a person can get away with misspelling words such as ‘welfare’ and still get a higher mark on a SAC than someone who has perfect spelling.
Because spelling isn't as significant as content, structure, or expression. A few spelling mistakes here and there doesn't mean much as long as the piece is excellent overall.
Why should Specialist Maths be scaled up? If someone takes the subject, it should be because they believe they are competent enough to score highly in it. A lot of people do mediocre in Methods, attaining study scores of 30 raw and still aim to do Specialist. It’s likely they won’t perform much better. It’s also obvious that the main motivation here is the scaling. If the subject is taken truly because people feel they can do well, there is no need to scale it up as everyone will do their very best – the people doing the subject will be of almost equal ability.
Would you say this if you did Spesh?
I reckon that they should make people exempt from the top 4 requirement if they get 35 and above in English. A study score of 35 is deemed above average in all subjects – why shouldn’t it be the case for English?
No offense, but this kind of condition just sounds weird and illogical.
Australia is a multicultural nation – why are they still insisting English be compulsory? If it is to increase literacy skills, trust me – pursuing VCE English will not help this. It only adds to people’s stress levels, acts as a de-motivator and comes down to how thoughtful and creative you are. It’s got nothing to do with grammar and spelling as we would think it to be.
Even if our country is multicultural, English is still arguably the world's primary language. Furthermore every subject adds to people's stress levels, not just English. Ability to express oneself clearly is more important than little things like grammar and spelling.
Today our teacher told our class that there was one student who at the start of Y12 had horrific writing, and didn't even use paragraphs, yet due to improvement over the year attained a 40. Accordingly VCE English does enhance our communication ability.
Biggest problem. Why should English be in the top 4? A person can get 99.95 without taking any Maths and Science. Both these subjects are essential to well rounded education and doing well in the work force. My argument is that if English is compulsory for the top 4, then so should Maths and Science subjects.
The need for the ability to express oneself in English is universal, not so for understanding of Maths and Science concepts.
Post by: ninwa on February 02, 2010, 01:37:32 am
English is compulsory because it's the national language of Australia (and one of the most spoken in the world). A basic level of literacy is required no matter what path you take in life.
English is needed for every career - yes, even subjects like science, engineering, medicine, fine arts. Maths and sciences are not. Why should I have to have a maths/science in my top 4 if I'm doing degrees in arts and law, which have absolutely no relevance to my career path? (and before you suggest that I have no experience in this area, chemistry was in my top 4 and maths methods, my top 6, and yes, without English my ENTER would have been slightly higher. So what?)
I have not had to use a single bit of the stuff I learned in methods, chemistry or biology since I graduated. What use is knowledge of how to differentiate, the chemical formula of ethanol, the photosynthesis cycle to a lawyer?
I must also disagree with your contention that VCE English is "utterly pointless". Do you honestly think that writing essays contributes absolutely nothing to your literacy skills? That if nothing else, it doesn't help improve one's vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, spelling? (unless the teacher is a dud and doesn't pick up on any errors, but that is a question of teacher quality, not of whether VCE English serves a useful purpose).
In your misdirected disappointment you are forgetting the other English subjects - Literature and English Language. Are you suggesting that these alternatives to the VCE English you detest so much also have no intrinsic value?
As for the scaling of specialist maths, there have been numerous threads on the logic behind the scaling system, you might want to read up on it and actually understand it before you start arguing against it.
Re: your statement about it coming down to how "thoughtful and creative you are" - are you suggesting a VCE system whereby such virtues are not actively encouraged? I highly doubt that a generation of drones is what society needs.
VCE ENTER scores occasionally will not reflect the amount of work you put in. That is because dedication is not the only deciding factor. Intelligence, luck, interest all play a role. Perhaps you were just unlucky. Or maybe chose a subject which did not complement your areas of strength. That doesn't make the system wrong.
edited for 1.30am engrish SEE THIS IS WHY VCE ENGLISH IS GOOD so fobs like me get practice lah
Post by: periwinkle on February 02, 2010, 04:19:36 am
think I'm with Ilovemathsmeth here; it's nonsensical for English to be the only compulsory subject. It's up to ppl to ensure they have the necessary English skillz for whatever they want to do in life, to decide whether or not VCE English would benefit them. [Unis could then require ppl to achieve a half-decent score in the written part of the GAT to ensure they weren't completely illiterate.]
Post by: NE2000 on February 02, 2010, 09:53:52 am
Why should Specialist Maths be scaled up? If someone takes the subject, it should be because they believe they are competent enough to score highly in it. A lot of people do mediocre in Methods, attaining study scores of 30 raw and still aim to do Specialist. It’s likely they won’t perform much better. It’s also obvious that the main motivation here is the scaling. If the subject is taken truly because people feel they can do well, there is no need to scale it up as everyone will do their very best – the people doing the subject will be of almost equal ability. Similar concept with LOTEs.
Others are replying to other aspects of your posts, but I would just like to point out that this part makes zero sense.
For every single subject, apart from maybe small study LOTEs, the top 9% will get 40+, top 2% will get 45+, the top 0.2% will get a 50. The study scores will always be distributed such that the mean is 30 and the standard deviation is 7.
OK, so let's not attack your premise here that most people take spesh for the scaling and not because they are good at the subject. And then you suggest that the only people that take spesh should be those who think they can score highly on it (I assume you mean 40+ at the very least). Now as we currently stand, those that get 40+ are in the top 9% of the spesh cohort. That is, 91% of the spesh cohort do worse than them. Now if you both remove scaling, and also remove that bottom 91% (as you are suggesting), then the people that get 40+ will be the top 9% of the new cohort. The top 9% of the original 9% would be the top 0.81% of the original spesh cohort, which I would say would be the people who are getting 48+ for spesh and getting scaled past 50. So your suggestion would result in people who now get a 48+ in spesh and get rewarded past 50 getting a 40 out of spesh.
A 30 is awarded if one's scores are in the top 50%. The top 50% of that original top 9% would be the top 4.5% of the original spesh cohort, which is around 43 I would guess. So through this suggestion, the people who would today be getting 43s for spesh and getting it scaled to high 40s, would now be getting raw 30s that would be unscaled.
Naturally this would be a major deterrent to picking the subject in the first place. Hence why there is scaling.
The irony of this is, that given how much you care about your ENTER score and maximizing it, so much so that you are still unhappy over what is a pretty high ENTER, you probably wouldn't have taken spesh (I know that you didn't have the chance, but say that you did) if you knew that it was so competitive that you could easily come out of it with only a 30 even if you are fairly strong at maths.
Post by: NE2000 on February 02, 2010, 12:48:27 pm
I was always reasonable. If it has to be in the top 4, why not make its removal an incentive for people to do well in it? For example, if you make a rule saying that those who score 40 or above (a very high score you will accept, showing that the candidate has appropriate skills in literacy) are exempt from having English in their top 4, provided it's not actually one of their highest subjects, people are more likely to actually put in the effort for English without giving up. This is because a 40 in English is achievable with hard work/literacy skills and is also a decent study score.
Thing is, what makes 40 such a special number. What if you get a 39? That could represent an extraordinary jump in aggregate. Five 50s and a 40 calculated would yield 99.95 while five 50s and a 39 would yield an aggregate 10 points lower. So it doesn't really work out that way.
Such a system would actually penalize those that struggle with English (and presumably aren't going to use it in their university studies) but are good in their other subjects a lot more, and I thought it was these such people you were trying to help when you said:
Quote
A person can get five study scores of 50 and miss out on 99.95 because they didn’t get as high in English. His ENTER doesn’t reflect his incredible abilities.
Also think of the fact that making English no longer a compulsory part of the top 4 for 40+ scorers would lift aggregate thresholds, simply because this change wouldn't decrease anyone's aggregate in this 40+ category, but would only increase it. This would put people that scored 39 or less at a significant disadvantage in their ENTER.
Post by: ninwa on February 02, 2010, 01:13:01 pm
Ninwa, I can accept that English being the national language of Australia should be compulsory in VCE, but I disagree that it belongs in the top 4. To me, this seems a direct conspiracy against all those who are weaker in the subject. I.e. myself.
Firstly, a "direct conspiracy"?? =\
Secondly, a 43 is hardly a sign of weakness in a subject. You should probably read what you wrote yourself:
a 40 in English ... is also a decent study score.
You seem to find no use for Maths/Chem in your degree. Well I don't find any use for writing essays that are pages long, analysing novels in mine either. To me, that subject was pointless because it only focused on writing essays where you were forced to analyse the views and beliefs of the characters (how does this apply to Commerce?) and people who made several spelling mistakes in their SACs still got higher marks than those who didn't. Perhaps writing essays does improve sentence structure, but for that single reason I don't think it needs to be in the top 4.
You do realise that university degrees will require you to write essays? Every single degree (with the exception of perhaps medicine - I'm not sure about that one) has essay components. Even a lot of TAFE courses have VCE components. Almost every single VCE graduate who wishes to pursue further study will need to have some semblance of essay-writing skills.
Why not remove English from the top 4 and simply have a spelling, grammar and vocabulary test with the GAT? That seems a whole lot more useful than English to me, honestly.
Because essay-writing skills are required for tertiary study.
I never said that those other English alternatives have no intrinsic value.umm...
VCE English is utterly pointless.
I'm sure Literature and Eng Lang are useful subjects - but I hardly think this justifies them to be compulsory.
Yet you are advocating compulsory mathematics / science because they are "useful"?
Creativity should be encouraged, not forced. Some people find it difficult to be imaginative, especially in the most important year of their schooling. I disagree that without English we would all lack creativity because until year 10, we are required to participate in role plays, make posters, etc.
Equally, until year 10 maths was compulsory. Surely that is sufficient for the "basic maths skills" you state are needed.
Every argument you present for making English optional can equally be directed at your contention that maths or science should be made compulsory.
You can't help feeling pissed off when you realised that people who got two subjects in the 30s still got 99.90 and 99.95. And here I am, with 4 near 50s and above 40 for English and still no 99.90. It's a WTF phenomenon.
No it isn't. Those 30s subjects may have merely been more difficult than your "near 50s" subjects. This is what scaling does.
Clearly you can see that mine is higher, that this suggests my raw scores are higher and that overall I performed better in my subjects than person X. Not reflected in my ENTER is it?
Once again, I think you need to familiarise yourself with the logic behind the scaling system. By your logic, a 40 in further mathematics deserves a higher contribution to your ENTER than a 35 in specialist maths - because in terms of raw scores, the 40 is higher. How is that fair or reasonable?
I must confess that I am quite disappointed that you would belittle the efforts of someone who received a 99.90 just because you didn't get the score you believe you deserved.
Post by: polky on February 02, 2010, 03:27:42 pm
You seem to find no use for Maths/Chem in your degree. Well I don't find any use for writing essays that are pages long, analysing novels in mine either. To me, that subject was pointless because it only focused on writing essays where you were forced to analyse the views and beliefs of the characters (how does this apply to Commerce?) and people who made several spelling mistakes in their SACs still got higher marks than those who didn't. Perhaps writing essays does improve sentence structure, but for that single reason I don't think it needs to be in the top 4.
You do realise that university degrees will require you to write essays? Every single degree (with the exception of perhaps medicine - I'm not sure about that one) has essay components. Even a lot of TAFE courses have VCE components. Almost every single VCE graduate who wishes to pursue further study will need to have some semblance of essay-writing skills.
You have to write essays in Medicine too - written assignments contribute ~20% of the first year grade (for MBBS@Monash), and there are extended response components in the exams too. Written skills are actually quite important in the medical field because alot of the correspondence between health care professionals is done in writing, and it is important that you convey the right information to other doctors/allied health professionals.
At the end of the day, ILMM, you cannot blame the system for your loss in motivation for english. You can only blame yourself. You knew from day one that English would be in your top 4, and thus it would be in your benefit to maximise your english score.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 02, 2010, 03:35:53 pm
I'm going to tell you a secret... a deep dark secret that you will probably find out for yourself but I'm telling you now: after the day you get your ENTER score: no one gives a shit about it; it is a novelty item in university that is used to determine if you worked hard enough to get into the course you wanted.
English being in the top four is an incentive for people to actually learn and do well in English so they are ready for university. If it wasn't in the top four students wouldn't take it seriously and only attempt to get the minimum they need to get into university which is a SS of 25. This would leave them unready for the task of writing essays in university where the standards are set much higher. No matter what degree you do you will still have to write an essay some point in your undergraduate life.
That is all. I am leaving this thread forever.
Post by: shinny on February 02, 2010, 03:39:41 pm
You do realise that university degrees will require you to write essays? Every single degree (with the exception of perhaps medicine - I'm not sure about that one)...
Even Medicine does. Been through like 2 long essays this year already (3000 words or so).
Anywho, I think people are overlooking the whole point of mainstream VCE English. Already this year, the skills I learnt in Language Analysis came useful when I had to do an assignment on how medical stories and 'facts' are skewed in the media. This also has implications on pharmaceutical advertising to doctors and so on, so it will have some use at least in my own career. Also, such skills are going to be useful for you guys when you begin taking control of your own lives and have to make lots of decisions. Such decisions are going to be skewed by the inevitable torrent of crap coming out from the media and advertising, and it is really up to such skills to filter through said crap.
Context on the other hand, depending on how you approach it, at least helped me to develop the skills I needed for academic writing since I focused predominately on expository, and hence allowed me to develop a style which could explain things clearly. I've also found that in general life, the way I explain things is clearer and more succinct now in things such as tutoring and teaching things to friends at uni etc. While I can't attribute this solely to just VCE, it definitely had an effect.
Next, what I believe most people are overlooking is that English is not just a subject about writing! What my first tutor said and what has stuck in my approach to this subject is that it is actually one of the few 'thinking' subjects in VCE. Yep, it does involve a lot of thought. Compared to the many rote learning subjects such as business management, the difficulty of the thinking required in English is actually much harder. Hell, I found the thinking in English actually more difficult than most sections of subjects such as even Specialist Maths because of the distinction that in Maths, everything has already been done for you. The formulae, step-by-step methods, shortcuts, theory and so on are all set out for you in a textbook, and whether you take the 'correct' way and understand the concepts or just memorise such textbook examples, it can still be said that you're still just copying someone else's work. The same can be said for most Maths/Science subjects. In contrast in English, there is no right way regarding your ideas. The majority of ideas that will score you some actual marks will not be ideas that you've ripped from a study guide, nor heard from others. It is purely your thinking alone that will get you these ideas - not someone else's. What sounds more difficult? The reason why many don't achieve the English score they want is because they lack this ability to 'think outside the square', and consequently, I think it's fitting that they don't achieve those 99.90+ scores because honestly, such skills seem way more desirable to me than the ability to recall the process for solving implicit differentials.
Also, people continue to question the point of texts and say that they're pointless, but they're really only there as a medium to base your ideas around- I mean, what the hell else are they going to get you going to write on? It's not something as simple as "they're just getting us to talk about characters and themes, what's the point in that?". It's just that there's not much better to write on which doesn't disadvantage certain groups.
Overall, I also think that just people need to get off their Maths/Science high-horses and realise that humanities subjects can actually be far more challenging depending on what kind of person, and I guess, what type of intelligence you have. There's nothing to say that just because you aced Maths, that you deserve a higher ENTER. You really should actually be grateful that the current VCE system favours such students already, and in turn, penalises students who study humanities subjects because it can be seen that the majority of the people in these subjects are perhaps not as smart as the rest of the VCE cohort, and hence the entire cohort for that subject consequently gets scaled down. However, I have no doubt that some of the most brilliant minds I've met in my life are those who sit at the top of these penalised humanities cohorts, because like I said before, these are often the people that have the ability to think for themselves, not just work off someone else's work.
EDIT: Do note that I'm referring to VCE-style Maths. Obviously high level Maths involves a high degree of thinking on one's own part - I just don't think VCE does.
Post by: ninwa on February 02, 2010, 03:50:26 pm
You do realise that university degrees will require you to write essays? Every single degree (with the exception of perhaps medicine - I'm not sure about that one)...
Even Medicine does. Been through like 2 long essays this year already (3000 words or so).
Oh wow. The longest essay I've written thus far is 1500 words....
"Those 30s subjects may have merely been more difficult than your "near 50s" subjects."
Well I confess myself disappointed that you can belittle my efforts in getting near 50 for Maths Methods, Accounting and Further Maths.
No, merely explaining why someone who gets "only 30s" can still receive an ENTER of 99.90. Obviously those subjects were harder to get a 30 in, and therefore scaling made up for it.
Believe I deserved? I'd have got around there myself had English been in my bottom two, as it was my lowest study score.
Yes, HAD IT BEEN in your bottom two. But it wasn't. As polky said, you had plenty of warning that this was how the system would work. This is how it works for everyone, i.e. everyone is on equal ground (with regards to the system anyway, don't want to get into that old private/public school resources blah blah blah debate), and on this equal ground, you did not do as well as those who received an ENTER of 99.90. Therefore, no, you did not deserve to get higher.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who believes English shouldn't be in the top 4.
Perhaps, but justifying this contention on the basis of "I deserved a higher ENTER therefore the system is wrong" is hardly a convincing argument.
Overall, I also think that just people need to get off their Maths/Science high-horses and realise that humanities subjects can actually be far more challenging depending on what kind of person, and I guess, what type of intelligence you have. There's nothing to say that just because you aced Maths, that you deserve a higher ENTER. You really should actually be grateful that the current VCE system favours such students already, and in turn, penalises students who study humanities subjects because it can be seen that the majority of the people in these subjects are perhaps not as smart as the rest of the VCE cohort, and hence the entire cohort for that subject consequently gets scaled down. However, I have no doubt that some of the most brilliant minds I've met in my life are those who sit at the top of these penalised humanities cohorts, because like I said before, these are often the people that have the ability to think for themselves, not just work off someone else's work.
+10000000000000000
you said it better than I ever could have
Post by: schmalex on February 02, 2010, 04:05:08 pm
Post by: NE2000 on February 02, 2010, 05:56:21 pm
And NE2000, your example was enlightening. What about someone who gets five 50s and 35 for English? According to the present system, they're going to get around 99.30. They wouldn't be disadvantaged with the above suggestion because they'd end up getting approx the same as they would in this system. Maybe they got 35 for English because they gave up? Maybe 40 is a more achievable goal for them?
What I'm trying to say is you cannot have a system where people that get 40+ in English are treated differently to people who get less than 40. That's a lot worse than the scaling that happens with specialist math or the current system where English is in the Top 4 but everyone is treated the same. And if they got a 35 because they gave up, then whose fault is that?
Look, I personally am not entirely sold on the English top 4 thing either, I don't entirely agree that it's necessary, but I'm a bit ambivalent on the point. In fact I'm a bit uneasy with the entire concept of the top 4, because some people have dumped subjects just because it is bottom 2 to focus on others, and I think the concept of a top 4 encourages such practices when the VCE should be encouraging more, not less, breadth in learning. English is hard for some people and the top 4 regulation does affect some people greatly. But the way you have presented your arguments and the alternatives you have considered aren't logical. You have attempted to discredit it as a subject, and as shinny and ninwa have proven, it's a very important subject for future life.
You can probably tell from my subjects and posts that I'm a maths-science person. But not only did I know that English would make or break my ENTER, I also tried to have fun with the subject. As shinny said, it's a thinking subject. From all your posts it seems that you've been too marks-driven to sit back and appreciate the power of original thought in the subject. And out of all the books you could criticize, Hard Times! There is so much to write about on that text simply because the writer is a genius who overloads his books with imagery and metaphors. The plot is very much a device. It is a very very dense text. It's awesome to analyze; many people would love to have it over their own text. The literary merit compared to Dickens' other novels could be disputed but that's not really your qualm with it.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on February 02, 2010, 06:38:27 pm
Polky, unlike some people a loss of motivation doesn't make me stop working. It just makes me hate my life and the subject that I'm studying. So no, I don't think the 'if I'd worked a bit harder I might have got higher in English' doesn't really apply to me. That was basically my standard on the day of the exam. Call it shit teacher, or lack of exceptional English skills or whatever - it was what I got.
I'm past regretting my English score. I'm regretting why it's even compulsory. The name of his thread is called 'Criticisms of the VCE'. I'm not saying I'm correct in my opinions; they're just my view. There is absolutely no need for people to sink so low and tell me that I 'do not deserve to get higher'. Because basically they don't know me, nor have they seen the extent to which I've worked.
Cthulhu, I'm not sure why you're stereotyping everyone as being the type to take English easy if it wasn't in the top 4. I suspected from the start of the year that Chem and Accounting would be in my bottom two. Did I slack off for them? Similarly if English weren't compulsory, someone like me would have had a heart attack if they'd scored less than 40 for it. Just enlightening you that your stereotype doesn't fit me. And the only reason I wanted to get higher is because I wanted to feel self-satisfied that 3 years of hardwork had been rewarded. Not because I think Melb Uni is going to give a shit, because I really don't think they would.
To all you English fanatics out there, can I ask why VCAA are debating to remove English from the top 4 in the next few years? I'm asking, why not do it sooner and spare people like me?
Shinny, if you think doing well in Maths is simply 'copying someone's work' how come only thirty people in the state get 50? Clearly there is some other process that is involved.
Well ninwa, I disagree that I didn't do as well as those who got 99.90. People can get 99.90 with a 38 in Chem, a 36 in Methods and two 48s and two 50s. Apart from English, I'm about there myself. Which explains my annoyance with the system. Being exempt from paying HECs is a HELL of a big deal. Isn't it a lot harder to get above 40 for all your subjects than get subjects in the 30s? And no, I don't care about subject difficulty - I'm talking raw scores.
You know what's hilarious - I thought this forum would understand where I'm coming from, since it comprises of people who want to do well themselves. It's disappointing that we've got so many worshippers of the VCE system. Accept it for its flaws guys.
And you must excuse me if I did find English useless - once again, only my opinion. Just like some of you love English here, I just happened to hate it with a passion.
I can even live with Eng being compulsory, just not it's presence in the top 4. If you look at it from my point of view, it can be quite crushing to have a 44 and a 49 in your bottom 2.
And I'd have had the same contention even if I'd done very well in English.
EZ Edit: Got rid of TRIPLE post...
I think the biggest problem with what you're arguing is that what you're saying seems to treat VCE as a system where it's all about being rewarded marks-wise for hard work. Universities don't care about "raw scores" or the number of marks you got in a subject - they care about the collective merit of you as a student. From my point of view, the logic of the top 4 makes sense in that for most career paths, four subjects at most would be needed for skills and so on. Medicine would hardly need more than Biology, Chemistry, Methods and English. VCAA isn't there to handle your self-satisfaction; it's there to ensure that Unis get the students with the aptitudes that they need, and this includes a high level of competence in English for students who (in their opinion) warrant HECS-exemption.
Post by: NE2000 on February 02, 2010, 08:00:06 pm
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 02, 2010, 08:59:44 pm
hey ilmm, some of your posts give me the impression that you don't fully understand the relative nature of VCE study scores. When you say things like why only 30 people in the state get 50 and how only students confident of getting a high SS in spesh should do it....but maybe I'm misinterpreting you
I also get that impression from her.
Post by: appianway on February 02, 2010, 09:40:21 pm
Post by: Gloamglozer on February 02, 2010, 09:59:14 pm
... Can I ask why VCAA are debating to remove English from the top 4 in the next few years? I'm asking, why not do it sooner and spare people like me?
When did they say that? I thought that with the national curriculum they'd still have English (or a form of English) as a "major" subject, aren't they?
Post by: Gloamglozer on February 02, 2010, 10:06:42 pm
It's a rumour that's been circulating since pretty much forever
Ah, I must be growing old now, me ears and senses are starting to fail me. :P
EDIT: But you said it was a "rumour". Lots of rumours have circulated since the start of VCE: like VCAA dropping English out of the top 4 for the last... decade.
Post by: schmalex on February 02, 2010, 10:09:31 pm
Post by: Glockmeister on February 02, 2010, 10:14:47 pm
Post by: Gloamglozer on February 02, 2010, 10:21:40 pm
English being removed from the Top 4 will never happen, it'd just cause too much controversy (the conservatives will point out that this is yet 'another example of declining English standards amongst our youth').
That's why I was confused when ILMM was talking about when she said "VCAA was debating..." because I never heard about them debating about that.
Post by: monokekie on February 02, 2010, 10:29:34 pm
^^^hence, i think English/ESL should be made compulsory. Also, comparing Australia/Victoria to other countries whove made many science/humanity subjects compulsory(eg, India, China), to be frank, the VCE system is already user-friendly enough, not to mention other humane factors including offering exam inspections, exam downloads, statement of marks etc.
that's just my point of view on this issue.
Post by: kendraaaaa on February 02, 2010, 10:39:44 pm
Post by: Glockmeister on February 02, 2010, 10:44:52 pm
If we all take a step back and swallow our pride, I think we have to acknowledge that the VCE system is as fair as much as it can be.
Having been at uni for a year, I think you'll find there's probably more to complain about assessments at university compared to VCE, if you wanted to complain and find holes about it. VCE is a pretty good system.
Post by: crappy on February 03, 2010, 12:12:56 am
If we all take a step back and swallow our pride, I think we have to acknowledge that the VCE system is as fair as much as it can be.
+1
Post by: shinny on February 03, 2010, 12:52:13 am
If we all take a step back and swallow our pride, I think we have to acknowledge that the VCE system is as fair as much as it can be.
Having been at uni for a year, I think you'll find there's probably more to complain about assessments at university compared to VCE, if you wanted to complain and find holes about it. VCE is a pretty good system.
God yes. If you think English SACs were subjective, wait 'til you see uni assessments =\
Post by: enwiabe on February 03, 2010, 01:43:58 am
When I was in year 12, I remember agonising greatly over English. At the start, I thought "okay, I'll get a really good tutor and it'll all work out and I won't have to do much work because it's too painful". What a spoilt brat I was.
For most of term 1, barring our oral (which I loved doing because I enjoy public speaking), I barely did a lick of work. Every week I'd go to the tutor and she'd be almost embarrassed that I was expecting her to effectively teach me English (not her job, refinement and elucidation is any tutor's job). I had read 180 (out of 300+ pages) of our first book, Lake of the Woods. I didn't do a single bit of practise writing for it outside of class (I think we had 1 or 2 in class essays? I managed to pass them, but only because I wrote what the teacher had been saying in class). The first SAC came around, and I basically got a friend to forward me the practise essays he'd done, and read them as my revision, as well as memorising a few quotes. As you might imagine, my first SAC mark came back "good". (Our marks went: Fail, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good, Excellent). It was a lovely C (according to another teacher who didn't mind depoliticising the marking scheme).
It suddenly occurred to me that if I didn't work out a way of succeeding at this subject, I was going to be severely screwed. It was an absolute pain, but the next semester, I did do 2 or 3 practise essays (and read the whole book!). I know that sounds incredibly spoiled, but it was actually a real accomplishment for me at the time to force myself to do that much work for something I hated so much.
The mark for the next book came back a much improved Very Good (a B+ by our rough standards). This gave me a confidence, and a hope, for the subject that I had never before experienced. For the creative writing SAC, I actually found a way to enjoy it. I would find a way to make my writing for it as zany and quirky as absolutely possible. I believe I authored 5 practise pieces 5-700 words long each. I almost couldn't believe it.
Roll around to studying for the exam... I hated it. I absolutely hated sitting for 3 hours writing non-stop. So I didn't. I did essays in isolation. Over 2 weeks leading up to the exam, I think I wrote 6 or 7 isolation essays in total, and did 2 past papers in timed conditions (one in our mock exams at school). If you'd have told me at the start of the year that I was going to do 15 essays (total incl. exams) for English as my revision leading up to the exam, I'd have said "over my dead body". I'm not going to lie and say that I started to enjoy it. It was a complete pain the whole way through (with perhaps the exception of creative writing), but I got on with it. My writing improved magnificently. I looked back after VCE at my writing in year 11. It was absolutely atrocious. I wrote like a child, in the most cliched, boring language you could imagine.
Through slogging away at the subject, I improved to the point where I feel I can write about whatever I want and not worry about whether or not I will convey my message effectively. Because of VCE English, I write
I am studying at university Aerospace Engineering and Science (Maths, Physics). No writing, yeah? For Engineering, I have had several long reports 15 pages in length, of which perhaps 8 pages were maths/graphs. The other 7 pages were all written. I have had perhaps 6 or 7 long reports in Physics of 1000-2000 words, each. I recently wrote a 40 page research project in Maths which was, I believe, 8000 words long.
Perhaps 1 out of every 3 times I write something for a maths/science assessment, the assessor will comment on how well it is written (the scientific content is not always fantastic, however :P). I put that down solely to VCE English. I hated its guts, but boy did it teach me how to write.
There's also the fundamentally important lesson of learning "life is not fair, deal with it". I am so glad that I had an opportunity to learn it through VCE English. You think in life you will always get a garden of roses to work with? There are challenges and obstacles littered throughout your life. Overcoming these obstacles, and learning coping mechanisms for running into these obstacles and coming off a bit worse for wear is part and parcel with the goals of VCE. You are supposed to be challenged, and learn how to overcome these challenges. You're going to go complain to your course co-ordinator when there's a core unit that you loathe? And believe me, these occur in every course. You will find a unit that you hate, and you will find that it is compulsory.
English is part of your top 4 for a reason. You will use it every day for the rest of your life. If it isn't made a part of your top 4, nobody who hated the subject in their right mind would sacrifice the man hours required to get a high score would do it. They'd all aim for what they could to maximise their ENTER. I'm pretty sure VCAA doesn't want to have to explain to the government why they're turning out tens of thousands of functionally illiterate graduates.
I hated VCE English as much as you, and possibly more. But as much as it was a pain, it also gave me the gift of prose. For me, it was well worth the hardship, and the ENTER cost. I firmly believe that English should remain a compulsory subject in the top 4. It's not perfect, and I believe there can definitely be changes, but not the ones that you are proposing. Such changes would result in scores of graduates who can't read or write, an outcome too horriffic to fathom.
Edit: The wordcount of this post is 1100 words and took me roughly half an hour to write. At the start of VCE English, I struggled to write 500 words in 1 hour, on any topic. Worth it? Definitely.
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 02:31:20 am
As for selection for courses and scholarships, I think ppl are forgetting that that is down to Unis' use of the ENTER (or whatever it's called nowadays) rather than the ENTER itself. I think I prefer the British system, of selection on a case-by-case basis (using the students A-Level results and an interview). Unis make their own decisions about the significance of individual subjects, removing the need for scaling; Maths departments know that the harder maths (which just happens to be called Further Maths) is worth more than the standard option. Then someone like Ahmad would be on the juiciest scholarship available, and who would argue with that? :D
Post by: shinny on February 03, 2010, 02:47:35 am
I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.) So completing English can be edifying, or (through reading Orwell, learning about rhetoric, etc) make you more worldly? The same case can be made for any VCE subject that isn't completely reliant on rote learning. It's wholly unfair to only have a compulsory humanities subject.
As for selection for courses and scholarships, I think ppl are forgetting that that is down to Unis' use of the ENTER (or whatever it's called nowadays) rather than the ENTER itself. I think I prefer the British system, of selection on a case-by-case basis (using the students A-Level results and an interview). Unis make their own decisions about the significance of individual subjects, removing the need for scaling; Maths departments know that the harder maths (which just happens to be called Further Maths) is worth more than the standard option. Then someone like Ahmad would be on the juiciest scholarship available, and who would argue with that? :D
My previous post wasn't directly targeted at supporting the status quo, but rather, was intended to just show that English isn't the useless subject it's put out to be by most. My ideal system would be similar to the one you mentioned where selection criteria by universities are determined by themselves and can be subject specific. The reason why it's not currently like this is because of the whole thing about high school being too early of a time to lock people into a career, and instead, allowing flexibility so that people can change their minds as to what course they would want to get into. The Melbourne Model was added to also offer this kind of idea (or so they say, but perhaps they just wanted money). Both systems have their merits, but I still think a system involving selection based on subject scores suited for that course would work best. Pre-reqs in VCE already break the whole flexibility idea as is, so it's almost as if the system is being a bit half-assed on its intentions.
Post by: TrueLight on February 03, 2010, 02:52:49 am
"You're going to go complain to your course co-ordinator when there's a core unit that you loathe? And believe me, these occur in every course. You will find a unit that you hate, and you will find that it is compulsory." ... hell yeah! sci2010......vomit...
and yep science does require a lot of writing.... and analysing....
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 03:05:41 am
i think english in the top 4 is a good thingBut why not let people decide for themselves whether English will help them? You're a libertarian, no? ;)
"You're going to go complain to your course co-ordinator when there's a core unit that you loathe? And believe me, these occur in every course. You will find a unit that you hate, and you will find that it is compulsory." ... hell yeah! sci2010......vomit...
and yep science does require a lot of writing.... and analysing....
ppl can decide to sharpen up on their English skills later on if they feel the need.
@Shinny: yeah, many ppl in Britain think doing only 3 [though some bright kids do several more] subjects is rather limiting, though it does give you the option of more in-depth study. swings and roundabouts.
Post by: enwiabe on February 03, 2010, 03:14:39 am
I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.) So completing English can be edifying, or (through reading Orwell, learning about rhetoric, etc) make you more worldly? The same case can be made for any VCE subject that isn't completely reliant on rote learning. It's wholly unfair to only have a compulsory humanities subject.
As for selection for courses and scholarships, I think ppl are forgetting that that is down to Unis' use of the ENTER (or whatever it's called nowadays) rather than the ENTER itself. I think I prefer the British system, of selection on a case-by-case basis (using the students A-Level results and an interview). Unis make their own decisions about the significance of individual subjects, removing the need for scaling; Maths departments know that the harder maths (which just happens to be called Further Maths) is worth more than the standard option. Then someone like Ahmad would be on the juiciest scholarship available, and who would argue with that? :D
Quick history lesson. A long time ago, in a VCE land far far away (then known as HSC), English used to simply be a hurdle. All you needed was 50%, and it didn't count towards your final grade. Then the unis complained that they were getting people in their courses who had absolutely no idea how to write properly. So they changed it. Tada
Post by: Cthulhu on February 03, 2010, 03:24:13 am
i think english in the top 4 is a good thingFuck yeah! Sci2010! I wish I could avoid that :(
"You're going to go complain to your course co-ordinator when there's a core unit that you loathe? And believe me, these occur in every course. You will find a unit that you hate, and you will find that it is compulsory." ... hell yeah! sci2010......vomit...
and yep science does require a lot of writing.... and analysing....
Post by: enwiabe on February 03, 2010, 03:26:20 am
i think english in the top 4 is a good thingFuck yeah! Sci2010! I wish I could avoid that :(
"You're going to go complain to your course co-ordinator when there's a core unit that you loathe? And believe me, these occur in every course. You will find a unit that you hate, and you will find that it is compulsory." ... hell yeah! sci2010......vomit...
and yep science does require a lot of writing.... and analysing....
If you do Engineering/Science, you can :D
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 03:43:02 am
I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.) So completing English can be edifying, or (through reading Orwell, learning about rhetoric, etc) make you more worldly? The same case can be made for any VCE subject that isn't completely reliant on rote learning. It's wholly unfair to only have a compulsory humanities subject.
As for selection for courses and scholarships, I think ppl are forgetting that that is down to Unis' use of the ENTER (or whatever it's called nowadays) rather than the ENTER itself. I think I prefer the British system, of selection on a case-by-case basis (using the students A-Level results and an interview). Unis make their own decisions about the significance of individual subjects, removing the need for scaling; Maths departments know that the harder maths (which just happens to be called Further Maths) is worth more than the standard option. Then someone like Ahmad would be on the juiciest scholarship available, and who would argue with that? :D
Quick history lesson. A long time ago, in a VCE land far far away (then known as HSC), English used to simply be a hurdle. All you needed was 50%, and it didn't count towards your final grade. Then the unis complained that they were getting people in their courses who had absolutely no idea how to write properly. So they changed it. Tada
Well, that particular hurdle obviously needed revising; it doesn't justify the need to force those who could already write, or who just to be able to write, to do a whole extra subject. I like the idea [proposed by Brendan] of having an 'English Lite' option.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a highly literate population, but, as with politics, I think it's bad practice to conflate one's personal preferences with one's policy perspectives.
Post by: TrueLight on February 03, 2010, 04:33:37 am
also correct me if im wrong... doesn't like nearly every country require they do that language ... and i think most foreign countries have english (as compulsory?)..... i mean like lets say france, doesn't french students living in france have to do french? + (english possibly?)
hmm i still think that english is a good idea.. whether it be lite or wateva .... and its good when you start from a younger age... cause like in uni they do have english helpers in the library ... but seriously... whose gonna use them (well..some ppl do but still eh ppl get lazy)...
anyway ...its not like i did excellent at english ... i got 32 .... but wateva im in third yr now so eh
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 04:42:32 am
hmmm if english wasn't in the top 4 wouldn't that it be the same thing... (having difficulty explaining this... lol) like... the aggragate would rise or something... lol confusing myself..
also correct me if im wrong... doesn't like nearly every country require they do that language ... and i think most foreign countries have english (as compulsory?)
hmm i still think that english is a good idea.. whether it be lite or wateva .... and its good when you start from a younger age... cause like in uni they do have english helpers in the library ... but seriously... whose gonna use them (well..some ppl do but still eh ppl get lazy)...
anyway ...its not like i did excellent at english ... i got 32 .... but wateva im in third yr now so eh
It's compulsory in the [different guises of the] Baccalaureate, but alongside several other subjects
Post by: QuantumJG on February 03, 2010, 09:34:48 am
hmmm if english wasn't in the top 4 wouldn't that it be the same thing... (having difficulty explaining this... lol) like... the aggragate would rise or something... lol confusing myself..
also correct me if im wrong... doesn't like nearly every country require they do that language ... and i think most foreign countries have english (as compulsory?)..... i mean like lets say france, doesn't french students living in france have to do french? + (english possibly?)
hmm i still think that english is a good idea.. whether it be lite or wateva .... and its good when you start from a younger age... cause like in uni they do have english helpers in the library ... but seriously... whose gonna use them (well..some ppl do but still eh ppl get lazy)...
anyway ...its not like i did excellent at english ... i got 32 .... but wateva im in third yr now so eh
I would have loved a 32.
Anyway I believe that in English they should get rid of the context part and use it to try and teach people how to write properly (I.e. Spelling, grammar, etc).
At school I found English was reading books, but there was no emphasis on teaching people to write a good essay (this goes for my whole high school life).
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 09:56:56 am
Post by: Mao on February 03, 2010, 10:22:56 am
ilovesmeth most of your argument is quite embarrassing. Stop thinking you deserve a 99.90 cause you put frankly, you don't, you deserve a 99.75. Don't belittle the efforts of those who actually received such a score cause im sure they put in just as much effort to obtaining that score.
And VCE english is a must.
OMG OMG iv english wernt part ov mah top 4, i woolda goten 99.90 t00. EnGliSH is sHit.
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 10:27:20 am
ilovesmeth most of your argument is quite embarrassing. Stop thinking you deserve a 99.90 cause you put frankly, you don't, you deserve a 99.75. Don't belittle the efforts of those who actually received such a score cause im sure they put in just as much effort to obtaining that score.
And VCE english is a must.
You are sooo right! Without VCE English I think I'd just shrivel up and die.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 03, 2010, 11:00:31 am
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 11:19:59 am
I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.) So completing English can be edifying, or (through reading Orwell, learning about rhetoric, etc) make you more worldly? The same case can be made for any VCE subject that isn't completely reliant on rote learning.
I wasn't so much arguing for upholding the status quo (though I haven't yet seen any suggestion which would actually improve the system as it is - kendraaaa's post was spot on IMO) as I was expressing my disappointment at the argument that the system was wrong because ILMM didn't get the ENTER score she felt she deserved.
Frankly, it's arrogant and completely undermines the achievements of those who did receive a higher ENTER than her - or even the same ENTER. TrueTears (as far as I can remember - he doesn't have his scores in his sig :() didn't receive nearly as many "near-50s" as ILMM did. By her logic then, he did not deserve to get the same ENTER as she did. Sorry, but that kind of attitude is quite repugnant.
It's wholly unfair to only have a compulsory humanities subject.
I don't think so. I think the scaling on maths and science subjects more than make up for it.
Post by: ReVeL on February 03, 2010, 11:31:46 am
Seriously...
Post by: crappy on February 03, 2010, 11:50:14 am
Post by: schmalex on February 03, 2010, 12:02:37 pm
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 12:20:00 pm
I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.)
But that would mean every university would need to make English a hurdle requirement for every course. It's just simpler to keep it in the top 4, no?
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 12:39:46 pm
Stop twisting my words.
Very well. I'll take you step-by-step through your logic then, shall I?
Contention 1:
I’m just asking you, why is it that despite achieving similar raw scores, in fact more raw scores closer to 50, I achieved 99.75 and missed out from being waived HECs fees?
- people with similar raw scores "deserve" similar ENTERs; and
- having more raw scores closer to 50 signifies that one deserves a higher ENTER.
Supported by Contention 2:
Clearly you can see that mine is higher, that this suggests my raw scores are higher and that overall I performed better in my subjects than person X. Not reflected in my ENTER is it?
- your ENTER should reflect your raw study scores;
- person A receiving higher raw study scores means than person B means A performed better in VCE than B; and
- no mention of scaling or subject difficulty suggests that this is regardless of which subjects were studied.
Contention 3:
You can't help feeling pissed off when you realised that people who got two subjects in the 30s still got 99.90 and 99.95. And here I am, with 4 near 50s and above 40 for English and still no 99.90. It's a WTF phenomenon.
- it is wrong (sorry, a "WTF phenomenon", didn't mean to twist your words!) that someone who received lower study scores than you ended up with a higher ENTER than you.
Contention 4:
If you add up the highest four raw scores of person X and then add the 10% of the bottom 2 subjects, you get: 200.4 approx.
For me: 205.7 approx.
This is measured in terms of raw scores only. The higher your raw scores, the higher your aggregate
- the person with a higher aggregate of raw scores deserves a higher ENTER.
Contention 1:
You have one 50 and three 49s, meaning you have four “close to 50” scores.
TrueTears has two 48s, meaning he has two “close to 50” scores, and your “close to 50”s are closer to 50 than his.
Therefore, you deserve a higher ENTER.
Contention 2:
The above shows that overall you performed better in your subjects than TrueTears did, judging from raw scores.
Therefore, you performed better in VCE than TrueTears.
Therefore, your ENTER should have been higher than his.
Contention 3:
You: 50, 49, 49, 49, 44, 43.
TT: 48, 48, 46, 44, 43, 40.
TT received lower study scores than you, yet received the same ENTER. This is wrong.
Contention 4:
Your raw score aggregate is “205.7 approx.”
TT’s is 194.3.
Your aggregate was much higher. Therefore your ENTER should have been much higher. Or alternatively, if your ENTER were to remain at 99.75, TT should have received somewhere closer to say, 97, judging by the disparity in aggregates.
Final conclusion: You deserved a higher ENTER than TrueTears.
Post by: enwiabe on February 03, 2010, 12:47:21 pm
At some point, you're really going to have to realise that there are many people who worked harder than you did for a much lower ENTER. You should feel extremely lucky for the gifts which which you've been blessed in order to obtain the score that you did. I really advise you to quit with the introspective attitude that you have, and start to broaden your horizons to develop some empathy for the hardships of others.
You complain about English about being in your top 4. That difficulty pales in comparison to some of the regional suburbs who don't have basic laboratory equipment. That difficulty pales in comparison to students who have to work in delapidated buildings, in a culture where academia is discouraged (and they can be bullied for it), and where, sadly, their teachers have been jaded into apathy by years of student bullying.
You want to see disadvantage by a system that favours one kind of student over the other? Go look at the great, whopping divide between your school, the darling gem of the Victorian Government, and the ones that they treat in an analogue of Cinderella and her evil stepmother. Rags, beat-downs and deprivation of the basics.
Then you might gain some perspective on the silliness of being unhappy with your ENTER,
Post by: Noblesse on February 03, 2010, 01:06:22 pm
(Sorry TT, not sure why I'm using you as an example)
My raw aggregate: 50+50+46+41+4.4+4.4 = 195.8
Now I'm sad :P
Humanities FTL
Post by: enwiabe on February 03, 2010, 01:09:19 pm
Well I never intended to conclude that. That's actually disgusting, the way you've put that up there, as though I'm deliberately insulting a forum member. I don't appreciate it. I've had nothing but respect for TrueTears, for his dedication and Mathematical prowess. It's actually really low of you to try and create conflict like this, ninwa. Just my opinion.
Why not use TT as an example? It was the exact argument you were making. You said you deserved a higher ENTER than people with lower raw scores. Is it perhaps replacing "person X" with TrueTears that makes it repugnant for you, because you actually are, in effect, belittling his efforts? It's so much easier when you can just call them 'person X'. Give them a name, though, and it gets ugly. Right?
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 01:14:45 pm
To ninwa,
Well I never intended to conclude that. That's actually disgusting, the way you've put that up there, as though I'm deliberately insulting a forum member. I don't appreciate it. I've had nothing but respect for TrueTears, for his dedication and Mathematical prowess. It's actually really low of you to try and create conflict like this, ninwa. Just my opinion.
So tell me where the error of logic is (instead of using empty emotive words like "disgusting" with no substance).
Never once did I use the study scores of someone on this forum. I used my own which I'm allowed to use.
Compared to a hypothetical "person X". TrueTears fits that bill. All the high achievers on this forum do. I merely chose TT because his ENTER was the same as yours and thus better faciliates the comparison.
I'm only frustrated that despite getting close to four 50s I didn't get that little bit higher.
Isn't that the basic premise of my logical progression?
And you are wrong ninwa, TT got close to three 50s. Aren't we talking about 46 or 46+?
Are we? Where did you define that? Are you denying that your aggregated raw scores (using your system of calculation) was a lot higher than TT's? (don't know how you can deny that, it's basic addition...)
My whole argument was about why I couldn't get that bit higher... compared to "person X" who as I said before could be any high achiever.
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 01:19:36 pm
You can duel to the death at the next class. Choose your weapons now :)
Post by: Cthulhu on February 03, 2010, 01:20:56 pm
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 03, 2010, 01:22:18 pm
but the way you are linking that to your belief that you should have received a higher ENTER is what is irking people.
Indeed. I believe your perception of ENTER and effort aren't realistic due to the school you are in, as is mine. As Enwiabe mentioned, there are no doubt people out there that have worked just as hard as you, or even harder for an ENTER nowhere near as high as yours.
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 01:23:05 pm
Look ilmm, just forget it. We're not here to antagonize you, which is how you appear to be feeling about this now. It's natural to be disappointed, but it's almost been two whole months! You've got a whole career ahead of you, it's too small a thing to get bogged down over.
Debating the validity of having English in the top 4 is fine, and can happen without any antagonization whatsoever, but the way you are linking that to your belief that you should have received a higher ENTER is what is irking people.
Yeah, this is stupid. If you refuse to see your own arguments to their logical conclusion then there's nothing anyone can do about that.
But I think it would do you well to read enwiabe's post and perhaps gain some humility/empathy/perspective.
Also, as a commerce student, you'll be doing a lot of wordy subjects with much essay writing. Probably for your own benefit that you suck it up and get used to it.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 03, 2010, 01:26:03 pm
Hint: I'm trying to start a new topic of conversation.
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 01:26:24 pm
but the way you are linking that to your belief that you should have received a higher ENTER is what is irking people.
Indeed. I believe your perception of ENTER and effort aren't realistic due to the school you are in, as is mine. As Enwiabe mentioned, there are no doubt people out there that have worked just as hard as you, or even harder for an ENTER nowhere near as high as yours.
Fair point. On the topic of perception of ENTER and effort, imagine if you were at James Ruse Agricultural High School in NSW, getting a 99.75 would mean you're barely above the median, and just less than half of your school's year got higher than you....
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 01:27:04 pm
I don't understand why English is scaled down in fact I don't understand why English is scaled down at all. If its [the only] compulsory subject why not just leave it as the raw study score? I think the scaling down is a bigger disadvantage to students than the actual subject being in the top four itself.
It's all about competition. I think the Literature and English Language cohorts may be marginally brighter than the English one, which leads to the differences in scaling.
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 03, 2010, 01:29:21 pm
Statistical moderation is always going to be more fair than manual adjustment (LOTE isn't meant to be fair, it's an incentive).
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 01:49:27 pm
I'm not sure if I agree that people could have worked more than me for a lower ENTER. Not sure if nature permits this to happen. You can't possibly have worked more than me and got a lower ENTER score.Not everyone's as smart as you are. Geez.
Anyway.
I think one of the problems with VCE is that in languages with SL components, the FL threshold is too high.
For example, I would have qualified for Chinese SL even though it is incredibly easy for me (I speak Chinese at home, it's my first language though I would've failed at Chinese FL) and would have been extremely unfair on the people for whom it is actually a second language. I think someone mentioned that the majority of 40+ names in the newspaper for Chinese SL were Chinese names, and that seems a bit... wrong.
Hint: also trying to start new topic!!
Post by: enwiabe on February 03, 2010, 01:55:47 pm
To enwiabe,
How is this so called bitching offensive though? I haven't criticised anyone's ENTER except my own.
I'm not sure if I agree that people could have worked more than me for a lower ENTER. Not sure if nature permits this to happen. You can't possibly have worked more than me and got a lower ENTER score.
Is that really true, that some schools don't have laboratory equipment - in Australia? I somehow thought all schools had roughly the same facilities.
I don't know why you think it's silly though, it's only ambition.
This post encapsulated just how seemingly unwilling you are to empathise with others. Yes, people did work harder than you. They scored lower. That's a reality. As hard as you worked, there was somebody working harder. And they achieved less than you.
And you need to open your eyes and look at schools with median study scores of 20. They absolutely do not have the same facilities as you. Nowhere near, in fact. I guess it's the "living in a bubble" effect :-/
It is silly, you're going to realise it now that you're out in the real world. Not today, or tomorrow, but I would say within the next year, you're going to have an "OSHI-" moment, and it will all become clear.
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 03, 2010, 01:59:54 pm
To enwiabe,
How is this so called bitching offensive though? I haven't criticised anyone's ENTER except my own.
I'm not sure if I agree that people could have worked more than me for a lower ENTER. Not sure if nature permits this to happen. You can't possibly have worked more than me and got a lower ENTER score.
Is that really true, that some schools don't have laboratory equipment - in Australia? I somehow thought all schools had roughly the same facilities.
I don't know why you think it's silly though, it's only ambition.
This post encapsulated just how seemingly unwilling you are to empathise with others. Yes, people did work harder than you. They scored lower. That's a reality. As hard as you worked, there was somebody working harder. And they achieved less than you.
And you need to open your eyes and look at schools with median study scores of 20. They absolutely do not have the same facilities as you. Nowhere near, in fact. I guess it's the "living in a bubble" effect :-/
It is silly, you're going to realise it now that you're out in the real world. Not today, or tomorrow, but I would say within the next year, you're going to have an "OSHI-" moment, and it will all become clear.
I agree with this post oh so much.
I find it incredible that ILMM seems to be wholly unaware of how she sounds, with a complete lack of tact, humility, and perspective. "living in a bubble" effect indeed.
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 03, 2010, 02:00:23 pm
I don't understand why English is scaled down in fact I don't understand why English is scaled down at all. If its [the only] compulsory subject why not just leave it as the raw study score? I think the scaling down is a bigger disadvantage to students than the actual subject being in the top four itself.
Hint: I'm trying to start a new topic of conversation.
Yep agree. Why should it be scaled down?
Post by: periwinkle on February 03, 2010, 02:01:06 pm
You seem a very nice person in the context of all your posts, however. Why soil your reputation in
one thread?
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 03, 2010, 02:06:59 pm
ILMM: There is nothing wrong with your arguments per se, however the fact that you use them to promote your own case makes you seem petty and supercilious.
You seem a very nice person in the context of all your posts, however. Why soil your reputation in
one thread?
I dunno, I was trying to back up my arguments with real evidence.
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 02:12:05 pm
I imply that that's the extent to which I've worked. That you couldn't have worked a lot more than what I did. Nature would be wrong to give you a lower ENTER.
I've always got this impression from you: that somehow you consider yourself the epitome of hard work. Do you know how incredibly self-centered that is? Is this sense of entitlement your idea of humility?
You know what, I know some perfectionists and I know some people who worked incredibly hard in VCE both to get higher ENTERs than yours and lower. SmRandmAzn goes to a school which will have its own huge share of perfectionists and people who beat themselves up over anything less than full marks. But so many of them are humble about it and are on a path of self improvement where they feel annoyed with themselves for not getting a high enough score rather than getting annoyed with the system. These are people who if they make a careless error will put it down to not working hard enough to eliminate careless errors from their own work, or for not having the right exam technique. If these people get a 9/10 for an essay they will put it down to not planning it properly, or being unclear in their contention, not because English is a pointless subject. And none of them seem to think that how much they've worked is enough...in fact in the nature of a perfectionist is this notion that if you had worked harder or kept your presence of mind you could have got a higher score.
Perfectionism is about self improvement.
edit: yeah I'm a perfectionist too, and proud of it... :)
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 02:15:25 pm
Unfortunately we've got a lot of VCAA worshippers who seem to feel personally offended when I point out faults in the VCE that have antagonized me over the past two years.
Well, unlike you, us "VCAA worshippers" actually back up our arguments with evidence other than "I deserved better woe is me". You are making illogical jumps, and then getting "personally offended" when other people point them out.
You still haven't addressed why my conclusion re: TrueTears was wrong. Can you do that instead of getting all emotive on me?
I am a perfectionist too, and I'm offended that you use that to justify your conceitedness. I also beat myself up severely when I didn't get the ENTER score I wanted, when I didn't achieve ANY of my study score aims. That doesn't mean I go around saying "oh VCE was so unfair to me boohoo I did so shit the system is bad". That means I recognise that perhaps I overestimated myself, or didn't work as hard as I should have, and then I move on.
You should be grateful that you did so well (top 0.25% of the state and top ~7% in English is no mean feat) and got into your first preference. I missed out on my first two. So what? Life will deliver much harsher disappointments. Learn to deal with it.
Post by: d0minicz on February 03, 2010, 02:19:44 pm
Life will deliver much harsher disappointments. Learn to deal with it.
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 02:28:16 pm
I imply that that's the extent to which I've worked. That you couldn't have worked a lot more than what I did. Nature would be wrong to give you a lower ENTER.
I've always got this impression from you: that somehow you consider yourself the epitome of hard work. Do you know how incredibly self-centered that is? Is this sense of entitlement your idea of humility?
You know what, I know some perfectionists and I know some people who worked incredibly hard in VCE both to get higher ENTERs than yours and lower. SmRandmAzn goes to a school which will have its own huge share of perfectionists and people who beat themselves up over anything less than full marks. But so many of them are humble about it and are on a path of self improvement where they feel annoyed with themselves for not getting a high enough score rather than getting annoyed with the system. These are people who if they make a careless error will put it down to not working hard enough to eliminate careless errors from their own work, or for not having the right exam technique. If these people get a 9/10 for an essay they will put it down to not planning it properly, or being unclear in their contention, not because English is a pointless subject. And none of them seem to think that how much they've worked is enough...in fact in the nature of a perfectionist is this notion that if you had worked harder or kept your presence of mind you could have got a higher score.
Perfectionism is about self improvement.
Funny, really. How long have you known me exactly to have "always got a certain impression" from me? Epitome of hard work - some people are hardworking, I'm just one of those.
Whenever someone has challenged you on your sense of entitlement. Be it from that first BoS thread that was posted somewhere or from here, you have come out with the same answer: that you worked so hard, and if the person you're arguing with had worked as hard as you they would be the same. Has it ever occurred to you that others can work harder? Has it ever possibly occurred to you that the people challenging you could have worked as hard, if not harder than you?
I'm not trying to belittle your efforts in year 12. I don't doubt that you worked extremely hard. But the implication that somehow this hard work somehow gives you the right to a 50, or a place in the top 0.2% of the state, is not cool. There are many others who are very intelligent and work very hard and don't feel they deserved a 50, but feel that they generally deserved what they got, and if they had worked harder or built better exam technique or not been overconfident or been generally more aware of careless errors then they would have got higher.
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 02:36:34 pm
I don't get what to address - can you explain that?This post: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,22808.msg232470.html#msg232470, which is connected to this one: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,22808.msg232478.html#msg232478.
I also notice you have not addressed any of most people's points. Rather, you keep retreating behind your wall of "poor victimised me" - which is starting to crumble.
Haha "conceitedness" - nobody has ever called me conceited before.... except most of the people in this thread.
As I've explained before, I've never taken pride in any of my achievements.
Uhh you seem to take a LOT of pride in how hard you worked. So much so that you feel that it is impossible for anyone to have worked any harder than you. Or is that not an achievement now? And if it isn't an achievement, then why does it entitle you to a higher ENTER?
If your first two preferences had a cut-off of 99.95 or around there, how can you compare it to Commerce which had 94.80 as its cut-off this year?
My first two preferences were medicine at Monash and UoM, which, FYI, don't actually have ENTER requirements.
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 02:39:21 pm
I've always accepted, unlike some, that it is hardwork that yields results. Not even intelligence. If you're smart, but don't work, it's unlikely you'll do well.Great, I believe that too.
Quote
Thus I was disappointed that despite putting in so much effort for English, I still sucked at it. My principles were momentarily questioned.
Perhaps your work was misdirected? That is, you weren't going about it in the most efficient way and hence progress would be slow.
Quote
Do you know, even if I had done well in English and had got a higher ENTER, I'd have still made these criticisms? Because it is unfair that at the moment, English is in the top 4. I just used my example to show that it's unfair. I thought it was the perfect thread to vent my frustration. Apparently not, it's still offending somebody.
It's just the sense of entitlement that's creating issues. The person X example was tactless. As have some of your other comments
Quote
I am internally grateful that I did the paperwork correctly, that I didn't screw up Methods or Psych in year 11, that I managed above 40 in all my subjects - I'd prefer not to further publicise how grateful I am about my VCE. I am fully aware that it could have been a lower ENTER. I myself was surprised when I saw my English score and overall ENTER as I'd been expecting a lower ENTER for that score.
Well that makes it seem like you have a very negative perspective overall, doesn't it? If you would air your gratefulness a bit more than your disappointment, people might gain a better impression. It is the internet after all...
hint hint: defusing situation
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 02:40:35 pm
I think one of the problems with VCE is that in languages with SL components, the FL threshold is too high.
For example, I would have qualified for Chinese SL even though it is incredibly easy for me (I speak Chinese at home, it's my first language though I would've failed at Chinese FL) and would have been extremely unfair on the people for whom it is actually a second language. I think someone mentioned that the majority of 40+ names in the newspaper for Chinese SL were Chinese names, and that seems a bit... wrong.
Hint: also trying to start new topic!!
Post by: TrueTears on February 03, 2010, 02:42:10 pm
PS: Hardwork does not always yield results, I know that from many years of experience - not just academically but also from a musical perspective.
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 02:45:38 pm
Which is why the VCAA system is flawed. A person can be brilliant at a subject and still miss out on 50 because they've made careless mistakes on their exam or had a bad day. There are people on this forum who fit this description.
Hardwork = results. It's like a law of nature. That's why I feel entitled to certain scores. By not getting them, I question hardwork - does it really bring results? Is that the only thing that matters?
So what would you propose? No exams? That's a common gripe but a completely unavoidable one. In fact it's ok in VCE because you have quite a few exams. When you have single exams determining major parts of your career, as happens sometimes, it's a lot worse.
And hardwork brings results. I wholly agree. In fact what others consider 'natural smartness' I consider to be harder work and extension at a young age. But you really ought not to care too much about results. Work hard and eventually it balances out imo. (edit: lol TT beat me to it to contradict me :P )
I know others can work harder, just 99% positive that it won't be a lot of people. Has it maybe occurred to you that maybe I'm not exaggerating but actually did dedicate myself to VCE for about 3 years?
Quote
I'm not trying to belittle your efforts in year 12. I don't doubt that you worked extremely hard.
I would say I have acknowledged how hard you have worked.
But has it occurred to you that others might have worked just as hard, and otherrs have also dedicated themselves to pushing their academic boundaries over three years, and have never once mentioned it here so as to not impose it on others, so as to not air a sense of superiority?
Post by: NE2000 on February 03, 2010, 02:50:49 pm
SO ANYWAY LET'S DISCUSS LOTES NOW! YAY!I think one of the problems with VCE is that in languages with SL components, the FL threshold is too high.
For example, I would have qualified for Chinese SL even though it is incredibly easy for me (I speak Chinese at home, it's my first language though I would've failed at Chinese FL) and would have been extremely unfair on the people for whom it is actually a second language. I think someone mentioned that the majority of 40+ names in the newspaper for Chinese SL were Chinese names, and that seems a bit... wrong.
Hint: also trying to start new topic!!
Hmmm....it does seem to be a bit of an advantage. But then how can you differentiate? There are people born here who speak chinese at home, and others born here who wouldn't speak chinese at home. You can't really tell can you...
And some people say that speaking at home can be a disadvantage, as you can pick up bad habits and colloquialisms. Not sure how much of this is true.
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 02:59:06 pm
Perhaps there could be a placement test system similar to university-level languages? There's always the risk of people deliberately doing badly on those tests to get put into a lower level (just like in uni -_-) but I suppose higher scaling for higher level languages could be incentive enough to discourage that.
Post by: doboman on February 03, 2010, 03:52:48 pm
Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 03, 2010, 04:08:43 pm
And some people say that speaking at home can be a disadvantage, as you can pick up bad habits and colloquialisms. Not sure how much of this is true.
colloquialism isn't really that hard to fix, however, compared to the immense advantage in other areas. Range of vocabulary and grammar is wayyyy more important.
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 04:10:22 pm
I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.
Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.
I kind of sort of understand what you're saying? Maybe? :P
But couldn't the same argument be applied to certain subjects which have higher proportions of certain cultures enrolling in them? (coughAsian5cough)
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 03, 2010, 04:13:25 pm
I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.
Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.
I kind of sort of understand what you're saying? Maybe? :P
But couldn't the same argument be applied to certain subjects which have higher proportions of certain cultures enrolling in them? (coughAsian5cough)
Isn't it just the same thing if we call those doing Spesh, a "race" of harder working individuals?
EDIT: No, I don't understand what I'm saying either.
Post by: doboman on February 03, 2010, 04:25:46 pm
I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.
Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.
I kind of sort of understand what you're saying? Maybe? :P
But couldn't the same argument be applied to certain subjects which have higher proportions of certain cultures enrolling in them? (coughAsian5cough)
Isn't it just the same thing if we call those doing Spesh, a "race" of harder working individuals?
EDIT: No, I don't understand what I'm saying either.
Hah, yeah it's quite hard to convey it here. Yeah, it can be said for those who are doing Spesh, but I'm talking about being racist (in its original form). And yeah, ninwa, I can see where you're going with the asian 5 thing. I agree, but that isn't being racist per-se as there is a great proportion of other students, from different ethnicities, who also completed that subject. In certain LOTEs however, this idea of cultural influence on scaling is greatly accentuated. Well, atleast I think so.
Post by: kyzoo on February 03, 2010, 04:54:35 pm
Quote
Hardwork = results. It's like a law of nature.
Disagree. I've said this in other posts, but I'll say it again - effort is merely raw material, although more raw material will result in more product (higher marks), the relationship is not neccesarily linear, as you should know from doing Chem 3/4. Furthermore how you process the raw material (i.e. study method) - not just how much raw material you use - and how efficient your processing is, is significant.
I was guilty of falling into this "hard work = results" trap last year when I was dismayed at my English exam results. I was thinking, "I worked so hard and this is all I get?" It took me several days to discover the fallacy in this line of thinking, then I realised how awfully inefficient and ineffective my method of doing English was.
---
xD I guess I interrupted the flow of debate regarding this LOTE thing.
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 05:06:50 pm
(just kidding, I'm merely leaving that issue aside unless ILMM decides to address the points brought up previously)
Hah, yeah it's quite hard to convey it here. Yeah, it can be said for those who are doing Spesh, but I'm talking about being racist (in its original form). And yeah, ninwa, I can see where you're going with the asian 5 thing. I agree, but that isn't being racist per-se as there is a great proportion of other students, from different ethnicities, who also completed that subject. In certain LOTEs however, this idea of cultural influence on scaling is greatly accentuated. Well, atleast I think so.
I do see your point, but I'm not sure there's any way of fixing it... since Chinese students will always tend to take Chinese, Arabic students Arabic, etc. I guess you could even argue that separating subjects into SL and FL is racist, in a way :P
Post by: jejak on February 03, 2010, 07:26:33 pm
Quote
I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese [...] So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc. [...] I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.
I understand your point that LOTE scaling doesn't seem equitable - but "racism" is the wrong term for this phenomenon. If I've read your post correctly, I think you're conflating slightly the fact that a language scales well with the issue of largely "mother tongue cohorts" (most of the Chinese cohort are ethnically Chinese; possibly harder for white guys to succeed.) There are inequalities created by both phenomena, but they are largely separate, and IMHO, neither are explicitly racist.
So on the scaling first. LOTE scaling itself is not a form of discrimination or bias on the basis of race. As I understand it, it is simply that:
- cohort for language X performs competitively in VCE
- there is a language bonus
- therefore language X scales well.
This is exactly the same process for Latin, which of course has no native speakers:
- cohort for Latin performs competitively in VCE
- there is a language bonus
- therefore Latin scales well.
There is no racial bias here, but there are socio-economic ones. Language X may tend to attract people from a culture X ("mother tongue cohort"), which heavily values education (Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, Greek...) Indeed, the vast majority of immigrants I know, regardless of country, have an abiding belief in the value of education. But this is simply a statistical adjustment on the basis of the educational performance of the cohort - not a racially-motivated judgement.
Furthering this point, Latin tends to be taught in wealthy private schools only, which again forms a cohort of students whose families value education, and enjoy educational privilege. Again, as above, the scores achieved are manipulated statistically, and there is clearly no judgement made on the basis of race. Only on the basis of cohort performance.
Even if a given language tends to attract, in roughly equal proportions, both foreign and mother tongue speakers (Indonesian), there is of course the slight complicating factor that all language students, regardless of whether they are mother-tongue speakers or not, tend to perform above average in VCE - thus further inviting high scaling. This is where the greater inequality lies, between those of different language backgrounds - the cohort, while strong generally, differs in terms of its prior subject preparation, i.e. language exposure in childhood.
I do hope that none of my reasoning here is spurious, or worse, that it was correct yet bleedingly obvious! I simply thought it would be beneficial to draw a clearer dinstinction between the two LOTE issues. Once this has been achieved, I would really like to discuss the inequalities in the "mother tongue cohort" phenomenon, as I feel it greatly disadvantages people such as myself, who come from monolingual English backgrounds. I might write this separately, just to avoid too lengthy a post.
Post by: brightsky on February 03, 2010, 08:22:16 pm
If my memory doesn't fail me, I think the issue of VCE LOTEs and the disadvantage that native students have over non-backgrounders has been discussed quite thoroughly in another thread (given that I'm interpreting the meaning of the posts in this thread correctly). There can be only so much divisions we can implement on each LOTE, so it is inevitable that EVERY individual cannot be accomodated for their own background in the language (e.g. people who have had, say 6 months studying in a Chinese country would complain that they are in the same group as one who had 11 months. There is no way any educational system can accomodate on such discrepancies.)
A non-background student in the field on Chinese may be disadvantaged because of the fact that the vast majority of students that do the language are Chinese, and therefore the competition is thus determined, as well as the scaling. However, there are many cases where non-backgrounders do better than people speaking Chinese at home. It all comes down to the amount of exposure the individual has with the subject, and how much he wants to improve, and how much he DOES improve. A non-backgrounder may choose to seek more exposure in the language to improve his Chinese, albeit it would be harder, such as a trip to China or going to Chinese school. It is too generalised to just say that such students are "racially disadvantaged". There is some kind of disadvantage (the exposure part and as you stated, different ethnic beliefs in the field of education), but it comes down to the individual at this point to decide to change and amend these disadvantages.
Hope I make sense. :p
Post by: Mao on February 03, 2010, 09:57:47 pm
1. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BITCH BITCH BLAH BLAH BLAH BITCH BLAH
Get over your ENTER, no one cares. Life doesn't stop at a four digit number.
2. Scaling is completely statistical. No one 'decides' on how much a subject scales, you can't introduce a racist term into a statistical equation. It may appear racist, but that purely depends on the performance of the cohort.
Post by: QuantumJG on February 03, 2010, 10:07:52 pm
Well, I have many woes with the VCE.
Biggest problem. Why should English be in the top 4? A person can get 99.95 without taking any Maths and Science. Both these subjects are essential to well rounded education and doing well in the work force. My argument is that if English is compulsory for the top 4, then so should Maths and Science subjects.
VCE English is utterly pointless. It doesn’t teach you spelling or grammar. For instance, a person can get away with misspelling words such as ‘welfare’ and still get a higher mark on a SAC than someone who has perfect spelling. It’s very subjective as well. Arguments that are extremely good for one examiner might be considered worthless by another. All you do is write essays, often using the same ideas and concepts in each essay. Context is also a waste of time – it enables people to be creative. When we think about it, creativity is pretty useful but should that mean English ought to be compulsory for that single reason?
Take the following subjects:
English 50, History Revolutions 50, International Studies 49, Psychology 41, Literature 43, LOTE French 43 to give an ENTER score of 99.95 for person X.
Psychology 50, Maths Methods 49, Accounting 49, Further Maths 49, Chemistry 44, English 43 to give 99.75 for me.
Is this fair? I’m not saying that Person x doesn’t deserve that ENTER score. I’m just asking you, why is it that despite achieving similar raw scores, in fact more raw scores closer to 50, I achieved 99.75 and missed out from being waived HECs fees? What is lacking in me, apart from my English score? I did just as well subject wise. I also think that if the top 4 subjects are added together for each person and 10% of the bottom two subjects added to the aggregate without considering English in the top 4, I’d have the higher aggregate. That is, after considering raw scores only.
I think either English shouldn’t be compulsory, enabling people like myself to achieve their dreams. Or else, if it is compulsory, so should Maths and Science subjects. We shall never know if person X would have scored so highly if forced to take a Maths subject, LOTE and a Science subject as well and have both of them counted as their top 4. This way people like me won’t lose motivation half way through the year, knowing they’re not destined for the fabulous 99.95.
Australia is a multicultural nation – why are they still insisting English be compulsory? If it is to increase literacy skills, trust me – pursuing VCE English will not help this. It only adds to people’s stress levels, acts as a de-motivator and comes down to how thoughtful and creative you are. It’s got nothing to do with grammar and spelling as we would think it to be.
I also propose another strategy. If English is to be compulsory, why put it in the top 4? A person can get five study scores of 50 and miss out on 99.95 because they didn’t get as high in English. His ENTER doesn’t reflect his incredible abilities. I reckon that they should make people exempt from the top 4 requirement if they get 35 and above in English. A study score of 35 is deemed above average in all subjects – why shouldn’t it be the case for English?
I also have a problem with scaling. After taking VCAA’s advice very seriously and taking subjects that I feel comfortable with, I feel as though I’ve missed out on a higher ENTER score by not taking a LOTE or Specialist Maths.
Why should Specialist Maths be scaled up? If someone takes the subject, it should be because they believe they are competent enough to score highly in it. A lot of people do mediocre in Methods, attaining study scores of 30 raw and still aim to do Specialist. It’s likely they won’t perform much better. It’s also obvious that the main motivation here is the scaling. If the subject is taken truly because people feel they can do well, there is no need to scale it up as everyone will do their very best – the people doing the subject will be of almost equal ability. Similar concept with LOTEs.
Overall I am very disappointed with my ENTER score as it does not fully reflect the work I put in for VCE.
This is even better!
Data is from ENTER calc
Student A: Chemistry (37 -> 41.6), English (39 -> 38), Maths Methods (30 -> 36), Physics (39 -> 42) & Specialist maths (33 -> 42). ENTER 92.65
Student B: Chemistry (37 -> 41.6), English (30 -> 28), Maths Methods (39 -> 44), Physics (39 -> 42) & Specialist maths (33 -> 42). ENTER 89.70
Post by: ninwa on February 03, 2010, 10:14:20 pm
Post by: m@tty on February 03, 2010, 10:41:53 pm
Post by: the.watchman on February 03, 2010, 10:42:44 pm
I hate English and I support it's place in the top 4.
+1, I can't stand it, but I reckon VCAA's right on this occasion :(
Post by: jejak on February 03, 2010, 11:01:37 pm
Quote
Scaling is completely statistical. No one 'decides' on how much a subject scales, you can't introduce a racist term into a statistical equation. It may appear racist, but that purely depends on the performance of the cohort.
I completely agree. I was quite bemused really to see an unfortunate human trait, racism, applied to a blind statistical manipulation, as I've said above. It's like saying bell curves hate fat chicks, or something.
Quite aside from the scaling thing: I do think that the "mother tongue cohort" problem needs addressing. Of course, it does not always follow that heritage speakers will always outclass each and every motivated non-background student, but for languages like Chinese, the system is clearly unfair, in terms of SS outcomes, for everyone. Hopefully the introduction of the "heritage" language stream will address some of these issues.
Tbh though, I am quite pessimistic about the possibility of improving the situation. As I see it, there is no way for VCAA to differentiate on the basis of home linguistic environment -how would it be measured?- and this is the primary predicting factor for success in LOTE. To take the example of Chinese, a Chinese-born student who has been a long-time resident in Australia will usually have to take Chinese SLA. However, all the SLA students I know display huge individual difference in language ability, depending upon factors such as length of time in China/HK/Taiwan, parents' inclination to speak in English, and immersion in the hua qiao community. One SLA student in my class, the weakest, had skills below that of a typical non-background SL student.
For Australian-born Chinese students, home linguistic environment can be even more variable, with some ABC kids speaking no Chinese at all; some speaking dialect; some broken Mandarin; and a goodly number being functionally fluent. All of these students are forced to compete in one cohort, as is the typical white guy. And yet, there is no practical way (AFAIK) to differentiate between any one of these students.
There is also the more obvious issue of some countries being classified as non-Chinese speaking for VCAA purposes, despite one being able, in such a country, to receive a comprehensive Chinese-language education, and live within a Chinese-speaking community. This is certainly the case in Malaysia; I believe it is also possible in Vietnam. Ethnic Chinese students in Singapore receive education in Mandarin from their earliest school days, and many come from Mandarin-speaking, or mixed English/Mandarin-speaking, households.
Not that I'm bitter(...) but a Singaporean student in my Chinese Second Language class far outstripped all of us, and received a 50 in Chinese last year. The next best score? 37. Not only was this greatly disheartening for everyone else in class, but the student in question found the class positively soporific, and seemed to loathe it for being so. Basically, bad for everyone involved.
Quote
Lol guys don't bother, I'm thinking she's ditched the thread so she doesn't have to answer everyone's arguments...+1.
Post by: Mao on February 03, 2010, 11:35:45 pm
(http://beer-ligion.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/beer-2.jpg)I have two things to add:
1. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BITCH BITCH BLAH BLAH BLAH BITCH BLAH
Get over your ENTER, no one cares. Life doesn't stop at a four digit number.
2. Scaling is completely statistical. No one 'decides' on how much a subject scales, you can't introduce a racist term into a statistical equation. It may appear racist, but that purely depends on the performance of the cohort.
Oh I know it doesn't end at that number. Please realise that it's been less than two months since our ENTER scores came out. Disappointment, happiness, unhappiness etc will be raw. That's why I'm still beating myself up over it. Not that I give a shit for that number. For me, it was only a game of personal satisfaction. Something I haven't achieved for two years in a row.
I do not blame others for my disappointments. I was disappointed about Maths Methods but I blamed only myself for it. I made a mistake and was penalised. However, even now I don't blame VCAA for my ENTER. I ask what it could have been if English hadn't been compulsory, and express my displeasure at their decision for English to be in the top 4.
Post by: jejak on February 03, 2010, 11:39:10 pm
Quote
And Jejak, you're doing me a favour by ignoring this "boring" argument because we don't need another VCAA worshipper in this thread. We've got too many already.
Quite aside from the whole issue, I do sincerely apologise if my statement that I was "thoroughly bored" came off as mean or belittling. I'll be honest, I was quite bored (simply because it [the discussion] has been going on for pages! I wanted to talk about LOTE issues) but I don't mean to say that the status of English in VCE should be ignored. I guess that's one of the many perils of communicating over the internet: that you can't really control how your post will "sound" to others. Reading them now, my words sounded a bit unnecessarily glib.
Post by: QuantumJG on February 04, 2010, 12:02:03 am
(http://beer-ligion.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/beer-2.jpg)
WTF! Lol.
As for English there should be an English for people who want to go on with science, engineering, commerce, etc. Basically where students get to read over academic literature in those fields. We could have oral presentations on what's happening in the world in terms of science, lessons in writing analytical reports, etc.
The thing is that I have never been a fan of novels and as a kid I have read mainly all factual books, so if we could seperate english so arts students are happy and so are science students.
Maybe this is too out there though?
Post by: Gloamglozer on February 04, 2010, 12:12:40 am
Yes, I realise that you are bitterly disappointed with reminiscing your experiences with VCE but you have a whole future ahead of you. What's gone is gone. You have a degree, you have a path to follow. You are pursuing actuarial studies - an extremely lucrative profession. Once you are an accredited actuary, who bloody cares about HECs? You'll be able to pay it all off in no time. This year is the year where you show people what you are capable of achieving. By attaining such a high ENTER, it is an undisputed fact that you are a very conscientious student, one that is more than capable of doing great things in the future. Don't let four digits get in the way of life. Like you said, it's "shit". Don't let disappointment take hold of your life. You must look to the bright side of things because as we all know, VCE is another planet all together; you've made it through and you're on planet Earth now. Things are a lot more logical and make more sense. :)
1. http://www.theage.com.au/national/one-in-five-miss-out-on-uni-place-20100118-mgox.html
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 12:15:51 am
Hahaha about the planet analogy :)
Post by: jejak on February 04, 2010, 12:22:51 am
Quote
Most people in the state are allowed to exhibit weakness in a subject. For instance, if you are not doing so well in Chemistry, you are allowed to have that omitted from your top 4 calculation. My logic is the same. If people display weakness in English, how come they do not get the same consideration?
Firstly, I agree 100% with Gloamglozer; but your argument, phrased this way, intrigued me - so I guess I'll have to eat my words and reply! Briefly, briefly.
The only logical reason I can think of is that VCAA (and by extension, uni administration) don't allow students to "display weakness in English" because they believe, for whatever reason, that English is somehow a general predictor of success in tertiary education, and as such, that should be universally applied in such a way so as to _significantly affect_ a student's chances for admission to _any_ course (ie top 4 requirement).
I'm not saying that English is indeed such a general predictor of success in uni. Anecdotal evidence from my circle of friends doesn't really suggest to me that this is true. But just from the perspective of educational philosophy, I find it interesting to consider why VCAA might have thought this way.
General disclaimer: not the brightest bulb in the box - I may have missed something in my reasoning, etc etc.
Quote
VCE is another planet all together; you've made it through and you're on planet Earth now. Things are a lot more logical and make more sense [emphasis added]
LOL, I was so sleep-deprived and caffeine-addled throughout VCE - poor time management - that the planet analogy hit very, very close to home!
I agree with ILMM though that those are very much "words of wisdom" that spring from a well-rounded view of the role, and the privilege, of education. VN itself is kind of a rarefied environment in terms of academic success, and yet I think we have retained a healthy perspective, despite some individual disappointments.
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 12:26:55 am
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
Post by: TrueLight on February 04, 2010, 12:34:51 am
"knowledge is easy to gain, wisdom is much harder. much harm has come from those who don't know the difference."
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 12:37:43 am
Post by: Gloamglozer on February 04, 2010, 12:38:53 am
Thanks Gloamglozer for those words of wisdom. I do agree with you, I am so happy to have an opportunity at future study. I had taken it for granted until the day of offers when I suddenly wondered if I'd done the online work okay. Thank god I had.
Hahaha about the planet analogy :)
Indeed. You have been granted the opportunity, why waste it? It's time to look forward, cherish the wonderful moments we shared with friends back in high school (all the laughs and sometimes practical jokes) and ultimately move forward and accept the fact that we made it out alive and well. Who knows, if you're really performing exceptionally in uni, the Faculty of Economics and Commerce might offer you a merit scholarship. :) I'm sure UoM wouldn't want to lose a student just because that student was offered a scholarship at Cambridge, right? ;)
Just remember: If you have a destination, be the postage stamp on the envelope. Why? Because the postage stamp always stays with the envelope until it reaches its destination. Never give up hope.
Post by: stonecold on February 04, 2010, 12:40:27 am
I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Post by: Mao on February 04, 2010, 12:41:31 am
(http://beer-ligion.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/beer-2.jpg)
I can't take responsibility of my weakness. It's the system's fault for not excusing my weakness.
Who said life was fair?
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 12:45:21 am
Thanks Gloamglozer for those words of wisdom. I do agree with you, I am so happy to have an opportunity at future study. I had taken it for granted until the day of offers when I suddenly wondered if I'd done the online work okay. Thank god I had.
Hahaha about the planet analogy :)
Indeed. You have been granted the opportunity, why waste it? It's time to look forward, cherish the wonderful moments we shared with friends back in high school (all the laughs and sometimes practical jokes) and ultimately move forward and accept the fact that we made it out alive and well. Who knows, if you're really performing exceptionally in uni, the Faculty of Economics and Commerce might offer you a merit scholarship. :) I'm sure UoM wouldn't want to lose a student just because that student was offered a scholarship at Cambridge, right? ;)
Just remember: If you have a destination, be the postage stamp on the envelope. Why? Because the postage stamp always stays with the envelope until it reaches its destination. Never give up hope.
Very inspirational words Gloamglozer. Thank you. :) All in all, I did enjoy high school. What a pity it was to leave :'(
Post by: Mao on February 04, 2010, 12:45:46 am
I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Uh-huh, so we have it tough?
Look at the tertiary entry exams in China, very rarely do students leave home after 6am, and very rarely do students leave school before 9pm, and very rarely do they relax when they get home.
And very rarely do they go and complain about how hard life is.
And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries in the same boat.
And here we are, complaining about 9-3 school days and a technicality in the system that is seemingly 'unfair'. Fair dinkum.
Post by: TrueTears on February 04, 2010, 12:50:00 am
Yeah, China kids have it way tougher than us...I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Uh-huh, so we have it tough?
Look at the tertiary entry exams in China, very rarely do students leave home after 6am, and very rarely do students leave school before 9pm, and very rarely do they relax when they get home.
And very rarely do they go and complain about how hard life is.
And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries in the same boat.
And here we are, complaining about 9-3 school days and a technicality in the system that is seemingly 'unfair'. Fair dinkum.
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 12:50:40 am
I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
I agree. Waking up at 7 am, then school plus late arrival back home and then additional study adds up to a very long day. I also agree that school time is useless. As you say, 17 hours is evidently all that is needed to do your subjects. I never found school helpful around exam time. They gave you time to study, but that was pointless since we'd just talk to each other and end up wasting most of that time. That's why stay home around exam time.
You do not need a good teacher to do well in VCE. My Methods teacher was absolutely shit, you have no idea - seriously she banned me from asking questions because she thought I was showing her up in the class (before someone tells me how arrogant I sound, as they have been doing so all day, this was actually not my assumption, it was that of my entire class and friends). Chemistry teacher was lousy and was only good for answering additional questions in private time. Further Maths - likewise. English - totally crap. Never bothered giving back essays on time, even lost one of my handwritten essays. Psych - teacher tried, but never managed to keep his class in control. Accounting was my one superb teacher for year 12. His help was priceless to me. He was such a dedicated teacher, always willing to help and supportive :)
Post by: crappy on February 04, 2010, 12:51:31 am
I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Uh-huh, so we have it tough?
Look at the tertiary entry exams in China, very rarely do students leave home after 6am, and very rarely do students leave school before 9pm, and very rarely do they relax when they get home.
And very rarely do they go and complain about how hard life is.
And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries in the same boat.
And here we are, complaining about 9-3 school days and a technicality in the system that is seemingly 'unfair'. Fair dinkum.
lol so true, its funny when people complain how grueling school is in aus...9-3... what a joke
Where I come from, which uses pretty much the same system Mao is describing, a "9-3" system would be a dream... almost a fantasy
/end bullshit rant in bullshit thread
Post by: stonecold on February 04, 2010, 12:55:10 am
I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Uh-huh, so we have it tough?
Look at the tertiary entry exams in China, very rarely do students leave home after 6am, and very rarely do students leave school before 9pm, and very rarely do they relax when they get home.
And very rarely do they go and complain about how hard life is.
And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries in the same boat.
And here we are, complaining about 9-3 school days and a technicality in the system that is seemingly 'unfair'. Fair dinkum.
I know we have it easy compared to other countries. What I am saying is that we spend too much time in school for the limited content which we actually learn. If we are required to spend 7 hours each day in school. Most of the time should be spent learning and studying, and not partaking in sporting carnivals, assemblies, masses, retreats, school productions etc. If you want extra curricular activities, then they should be optional and take place outside of school.
I seriously believe that students would achieve better scores if the school day was shortened. Remember that it is the quality of study that counts, not so much the quantity. Students often get awfully distracted in school.
Post by: TrueLight on February 04, 2010, 01:02:14 am
But can wisdom be gained without knowledge?
ah! ur making me think when my brain has turned to mush... i think its the hot stuffy weather....
hmm no i believe u need knowledge first... and wisdom comes with time and experience...
wait let me get wikipedias help...
"Wisdom is a deep understanding of people, things, events or situations, empowering the ability to choose or act to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy. Wisdom is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) apply perceptions and knowledge and so produce the desired results. Wisdom is comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action.
A standard philosophical definition says that wisdom consists of making the best use of available knowledge. As with any decision, a wise decision may be made with incomplete information."
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 01:03:55 am
Post by: crappy on February 04, 2010, 01:07:46 am
I too am confused with why they don't give Eng students a chance to show weakness.
I had very bad time management as well. Unlike you, I took tea regularly instead of coffee. I'd sometimes feel so tired after a day of school that I'd nearly fall asleep over my homework (usually winter). So sleep deprived too. Would sleep at 12.30 on an average night and wake up at 7.00. Over time, your body just can't cope anymore.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Uh-huh, so we have it tough?
Look at the tertiary entry exams in China, very rarely do students leave home after 6am, and very rarely do students leave school before 9pm, and very rarely do they relax when they get home.
And very rarely do they go and complain about how hard life is.
And I'm sure there are plenty of other countries in the same boat.
And here we are, complaining about 9-3 school days and a technicality in the system that is seemingly 'unfair'. Fair dinkum.
I know we have it easy compared to other countries. What I am saying is that we spend too much time in school for the limited content which we actually learn. If we are required to spend 7 hours each day in school. Most of the time should be spent learning and studying, and not partaking in sporting carnivals, assemblies, masses, retreats, school productions etc. If you want extra curricular activities, then they should be optional and take place outside of school.
I seriously believe that students would achieve better scores if the school day was shortened. Remember that it is the quality of study that counts, not so much the quantity. Students often get awfully distracted in school.
Are you serious? school would be an absolute bore to go to if you took out all those things. I agree that there should be more emphasis on studying, but to take out things like camp would just be wrong. Depends what kind of person you are...would probably work for a physical-activity-hating-bookwork I guess
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 01:10:15 am
Post by: Mao on February 04, 2010, 01:10:56 am
(http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/nobody_gets_outta_here_sane.PNG)
Post by: kyzoo on February 04, 2010, 01:21:37 am
Quote
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
Same, I get home anywhere from 4-6, but fatigue is easy to alleviate. I just lie in bed with eyes closed and iPod plugged in for 15-25 mins, and ta-da, energized once more.
Quote
What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
Last year I would have agreed with you, but not anymore. My learning is much more efficient during schooltime than during holiday time, despite the discrepancy in time available. Even in my Maths and Science classes, I've already learned stuff I would have never learned on my own; for English and LOTE, maybe only 50-70% of stuff I learn is due to individual study.
Post by: TrueTears on February 04, 2010, 01:23:24 am
Post by: ninwa on February 04, 2010, 09:32:03 am
(sorry for picking on you TT)
I’m bothered about solely my own ENTER. I don’t say I deserve higher than 99.75.
So what does this mean?
I’m just asking you, why is it that despite achieving similar raw scores, in fact more raw scores closer to 50, I achieved 99.75 and missed out from being waived HECs fees? What is lacking in me, apart from my English score? I did just as well subject wise. I also think that if the top 4 subjects are added together for each person and 10% of the bottom two subjects added to the aggregate without considering English in the top 4, I’d have the higher aggregate.
You did just as well, you have the higher raw score aggregate - so what's your point? I hardly think you were trying to say "I did better overall but my ENTER was still right!!!"
Clearly you can see that mine is higher, that this suggests my raw scores are higher and that overall I performed better in my subjects than person X. Not reflected in my ENTER is it?
Again - I hardly think you were suggesting your ENTER was too high.
You're saying if not for English you would have gotten a higher ENTER.
You then say therefore, English should not have been in the top 4.
Therefore, you think you should have gotten a higher ENTER.
Okay, so let’s think back to the argument presented – English being compulsory improves literacy rates. Fair enough. But why am I being penalized although as you said, I got in the top 7% of the cohort? Doesn’t that seem to show that I display pretty sufficient language skills?
This makes absolutely no sense. You were the top ~7%. Your study score reflects that. How are you being penalised? You got a GOOD score which reflects that fact that you are in the top 7%.
Maybe a better solution would be to just have a more challenging essay component of the GAT plus an additional spelling/grammar test provides universities with an idea of a candidate’s English abilities. In that sense, it also provides incentive for people to actually take the GAT seriously. A lot of people in my school don’t take the GAT seriously.My English study score was 46. My GAT score for the writing section was 50. I would have loved to have my GAT score as my English study score. But god forbid that happens, you would just find something else to bitch about ("oh she only deserved a 46 why did she get 50 rah rah rah")
it was actually because I was unable to perform well in the subject.
I wasn’t intending to offend anybody on this thread.Do you still not see how saying that a study score of 43, which a LOT of people would KILL for, is equivalent to not performing "well" is incredibly offensive to those who got a lower study score but worked extremely hard?!
I am simply a disappointed VCE student who feels that her ENTER score could have been higher if the system had been a little different. This is not called blaming the system.How is that not blaming the system....
...
I give up. You clearly refuse to see logic and keep repeating the same thing over and over without realising that it is actually supporting my argument (and ignoring the bits you can't refute)... I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall
If people display weakness in English, how come they do not get the same consideration?
Okay, so let’s think back to the argument presented – English being compulsory improves literacy rates. Fair enough. But why am I being penalized although as you said, I got in the top 7% of the cohort? Doesn’t that seem to show that I display pretty sufficient language skills?
Sigh, enwiabe addressed this. English used to be not compulsory and was made compulsory because universities were complaining (apparently - I didn't know this!)
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
I agree. Waking up at 7 am, then school plus late arrival back home and then additional study adds up to a very long day.
Oh dear, wait til you start full time work. It's a lot worse. You should probably either get used to it or get on the dole.
Post by: NE2000 on February 04, 2010, 09:36:12 am
Something else I was thinking of: the American entry system, from what I've heard, takes a very holistic approach to judging an application (correct me if I'm wrong btw). They look at your SAT scores, achievements, essays etc. and they judge you. It is more subjective than what we have in Australia in that way, but would people like ilmm like that sort of system more? But then that subjectivity would create it's own element of criticism...I'm not saying that it's better or worse, just food for thought. Note that they still place a high emphasis on English due to the essays you must submit.
Wisdom is drawn out of knowledge. Wikipedia is never wrong (apart from when it is), it is the source of all knowledge, but is it the source of wisdom?
Post by: ninwa on February 04, 2010, 09:54:19 am
Post by: NE2000 on February 04, 2010, 09:59:54 am
Post by: Mao on February 04, 2010, 10:00:02 am
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
I agree. Waking up at 7 am, then school plus late arrival back home and then additional study adds up to a very long day.
Oh dear, wait til you start full time work. It's a lot worse. You should probably either get used to it or get on the dole.
You think full time work is hard? Wait till you have children :P
Post by: ninwa on February 04, 2010, 10:03:23 am
Yeah I guess it would...but they do get time to work on it. Most American students trying to gain entry into the Ivy League will spend ages ensuring that it absolutely perfect I would imagine.
That's true, but if people can't even stand the thought of English in the top 4, then it'll be even worse when an essay is one of the major obstacles to even getting accepted into a university.
Post by: QuantumJG on February 04, 2010, 10:53:37 am
Most of the time should be spent learning and studying, and not partaking in sporting carnivals, assemblies, masses, retreats, school productions etc. If you want extra curricular activities, then they should be optional and take place outside of school.
I seriously believe that students would achieve better scores if the school day was shortened. Remember that it is the quality of study that counts, not so much the quantity. Students often get awfully distracted in school.
OMG I hated some of these things!
Sporting carnivals, we had two and if you came to school and didn't want to go to the carnival you were looked at as a disgrace. In year 12 I just found all the dates for these carnivals and stayed home. In earlier years we had to do sports and I would just do my maths... until the teacher found my pattern and gave me detentions. :(
Assemblies would annoy me because I would miss time on chemistry classes. What was even better was when we would have year 12 assemblies where we had motivational speakers regurgitate cliche after cliche or have our PTLs lecture us about how the study centre is being abused by drop-kick students (and there were times when you would be kicked out from it because of this).
With uni though it won't be any easier. I usually started uni at 10am (would leave home at 8am) and got home by 7pm. By the time I got home I would be so tired from commuting (standing on trains or being squeezed in a corner - I remember telling my auntie about being on a train for ages and she's like "well you can study on the train", I went "yeah...") I would procrastinate for an hour and then try studying. :(
Post by: QuantumJG on February 04, 2010, 11:07:42 am
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I always felt tired after school. When you consider travel time for most students, they wake up for school at around 7am and don't get home until 4.30-5.00. That is a pretty long day, especially when you are expected to maintain approx 4 hours a day of study outside of school as well.
I agree. Waking up at 7 am, then school plus late arrival back home and then additional study adds up to a very long day.
Oh dear, wait til you start full time work. It's a lot worse. You should probably either get used to it or get on the dole.
You think full time work is hard? Wait till you have children :P
Huh?
There us no way I would consider kids for atleast another 10 years. I would like to be close to paying off my house before that!
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 04, 2010, 11:11:11 am
Sporting carnivals, we had two and if you came to school and didn't want to go to the carnival you were looked at as a disgrace.
PSP wifi marathon.
(It's not my fault I didn't partcipate in the actual running/swimming, I just wasn't fast enough to qualify for anything :'( )
Post by: ninwa on February 04, 2010, 11:20:28 am
Sporting carnivals, we had two and if you came to school and didn't want to go to the carnival you were looked at as a disgrace.
Yeah, I remember my head of house giving us this huge spiel about how we were "letting down the house" and "not doing our duty to the house" if we didn't turn up to house events like swimming and athletics.
Fail guilt trip though, I wagged them anyway :P
Post by: IntoTheNewWorld on February 04, 2010, 11:29:29 am
Sporting carnivals, we had two and if you came to school and didn't want to go to the carnival you were looked at as a disgrace.
Yeah, I remember my head of house giving us this huge spiel about how we were "letting down the house" and "not doing our duty to the house" if we didn't turn up to house events like swimming and athletics.
Fail guilt trip though, I wagged them anyway :P
I was one of only 2 people in my house to not turn up to cross country one year I think. The managing teacher in my house was very, very strict about kids not showing up to stuff; he personally went around to every student in his house (over 300 kids) and asked if they were going to show up. When I said I had a piano exam, he called my Dad at work (on the same day) to ask if this was true =\
Post by: periwinkle on February 04, 2010, 11:30:32 am
heh, I got a massive rollicking once for forgetting my polo top in the colour of my houseSporting carnivals, we had two and if you came to school and didn't want to go to the carnival you were looked at as a disgrace.
Yeah, I remember my head of house giving us this huge spiel about how we were "letting down the house" and "not doing our duty to the house" if we didn't turn up to house events like swimming and athletics.
Fail guilt trip though, I wagged them anyway :P
unrelated, but I like the story about when your ethics teacher gave you detention for missing a class because you had a 3/4 exam. You should have told him/her to look up the words 'irony' and 'duplicity' :)
Post by: ninwa on February 04, 2010, 11:33:56 am
unrelated, but I like the story about when your ethics teacher gave you detention for missing a class because you had a 3/4 exam. You should have told him/her to look up the words 'irony' and 'duplicity' :)
I can't believe you actually remember that haha. Nah he was our reverend, nobody really took him seriously :P
Is it just me or is this whole "house events" thing a feature of many private schools?
Post by: periwinkle on February 04, 2010, 11:46:16 am
that also calls to mind a friend, who defaced his ethics exam paper in protest at the subject and was hence stripped of his award for technical services *after* he had spent 5 hours from 7pm-midnight setting up the equipment in the hall where we had our end-of-year awards. I mean...
Haha, there's this school in England which has a self-esteem curriculum, including "happiness prefects", liable to punish students not displaying the requisite levels of happiness ;D
Post by: QuantumJG on February 04, 2010, 12:14:37 pm
Sporting carnivals, we had two and if you came to school and didn't want to go to the carnival you were looked at as a disgrace.
PSP wifi marathon.
(It's not my fault I didn't partcipate in the actual running/swimming, I just wasn't fast enough to qualify for anything :'( )
PSP ftw!
Anyway I always had epic humiliations with sports. Whether it was swimming, running, etc. Sometimes I felt like asking my house captain "why do I have to humiliate myself by entering a sporting event I can't do?".
What is even worse is my dad is a tennis coach (loved tennis as a kid) and my mum use to iceskate (which I'm ok at - can't wait for the winter olympics). I'm like the nerd of the family. :S
What was even better was when I went to the tennis club my dad coached at and I bumped into the guy who brought out the compulsory attendence in PE for school students in prep-year 10. :S
Post by: QuantumJG on February 04, 2010, 12:21:22 pm
Haha, there's this school in England which has a self-esteem curriculum, including "happiness prefects", liable to punish students not displaying the requisite levels of happiness ;D
ROFL.
Student: "I stuffed up on a test, oh man am I depressed"
Prefect: "You are going to have a detention for not being happy"
Student: "Can my day get any worse?"
Prefect: "Do you want another detention?"
OMG this is priceless!
Post by: ninwa on February 04, 2010, 12:24:55 pm
Haha, there's this school in England which has a self-esteem curriculum, including "happiness prefects", liable to punish students not displaying the requisite levels of happiness ;D
LOL, talk about defeating the purpose....
Post by: jejak on February 04, 2010, 02:15:17 pm
Quote
Something else I was thinking of: the American entry system, from what I've heard, takes a very holistic approach to judging an application (correct me if I'm wrong btw). They look at your SAT scores, achievements, essays etc. and they judge you. It is more subjective than what we have in Australia in that way, but would people like ilmm like that sort of system more? But then that subjectivity would create it's own element of criticism...I'm not saying that it's better or worse, just food for thought. Note that they still place a high emphasis on English due to the essays you must submit.
I appreciate that you're not saying "[whether] it's better or worse", but I would like to weigh in. In theory the "holistic" American approach seems to be fairer, as it looks at a greater set of criteria, and also seems to produce more well-rounded students, due to the emphasis on extra-curriculars and essays.
However, from reading a lot of American media, I have come away with the impression that this approach is subject to a profound, overarching socio-economic bias. There are hugely expensive companies such as Ivywise that advise students on how to craft convincing essays, and to advise students on the right number of extra-curriculars to take, etc. Even if parents do not enlist the services of such a company (I'm imagining very few do use such a service), of course wealthier students have access to a broader range of extra-curricular activities and so forth. Whilst economic inequalities do similarly affect educational outcomes in systems like that of Australia, the unswerving focus on standardised testing means that admission basically comes down to prior academic preparation, which is more within an individual student's control.
Plus, if your school days are primarily focused upon preparing for SATs and amassing an impressive portfolio of school activities, one can imagine that actual learning falls by the wayside. Outside of the wealthier schools, or selective schools like Stuyvesant, I think the American high school student has a poorer preparation for tertiary study.
Quote from: periwinkle
Haha, there's this school in England which has a self-esteem curriculum, including "happiness prefects", liable to punish students not displaying the requisite levels of happiness:o...
God, I hate bright and shiny people. I'm not saying everyone should walk around in a depressed fog, but that kind of imposed happiness seems downright oppressive.
Quote
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I wouldn't mind if the school day were increased in length, but I agree that the amount of time wasted at school is horrendous. Part of it is down to disruptive students, lazy/late/just-damned-ineffectual teachers, and so on, but also, I found I spent a lot of time having to rock up to sports events (etc.) that I wasn't even allowed to participate in. How does this make me a better-adjusted person? If anything, it made me even more warped, haha. By all means, do extra-curricular activities to enrich yourself, but don't make them compulsory.
And more importantly, the school day ideally would be shorted, and made more "dense." Hard to say without personal experience, but the Chinese system/philosophy kind of appeals to me.
Post by: m@tty on February 04, 2010, 07:19:39 pm
This makes absolutely no sense. You were the top ~7%. Your study score reflects that. How are you being penalised? You got a GOOD score which reflects that fact that you are in the top 7%.I have one correction, 43 places you in the top 3.7% of students. An extremely great achievement, super pro.
Source: Find out your placement amongst the state here.(Thanks to vexx)
Post by: physics on February 04, 2010, 08:10:05 pm
i faile in bio lolThis makes absolutely no sense. You were the top ~7%. Your study score reflects that. How are you being penalised? You got a GOOD score which reflects that fact that you are in the top 7%.I have one correction, 43 places you in the top 3.7% of students. An extremely great achievement, super pro.
Source: Find out your placement amongst the state here.(Thanks to vexx)
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on February 04, 2010, 08:25:11 pm
Oh dear, wait til you start full time work. It's a lot worse. You should probably either get used to it or get on the dole.
Excuse me ninwa, but that was a very offensive and inappropriate remark. I hope to never rely on the dole thank you very much. If you can't tolerate so called bitching/complaining, please do not reply to my posts.
Post by: QuantumJG on February 04, 2010, 11:31:55 pm
"It has been said that the primary function of schools is to impart enough facts to make children stop asking questions. Some, with whom the schools do not succeed, become scientists."
Post by: ninwa on February 05, 2010, 12:00:02 am
Hermione Granger: ""Books! And cleverness! There are more important things - friendship and bravery..."
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist
Post by: Mao on February 05, 2010, 12:11:33 am
Okay ILMM, you just keep making your emotive, empty statements and go on ignoring all the logical arguments presented to you because you can't find a way to refute them. Good luck to you, seriously, you'll need it if you find reality so "offensive and inappropriate" (I won't bother asking why that was inappropriate because you'll just get all emotional again) and if you get so worked up over something so minor in the scheme of life. I'm done attempting to have any sort of mature discussion with you.
Hermione Granger: ""Books! And cleverness! There are more important things - friendship and bravery..."
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist
This is a really long, articulate and logically sound reply to why your reply to the reply ILMM replied to your reply to her comments is inappropriate. There are probably many reasons supporting this, but actually no, I agree with you. QFT
Post by: enwiabe on February 05, 2010, 12:59:33 am
Post by: periwinkle on February 05, 2010, 12:08:09 pm
EDIT: On that point, I think humph said 99.65 would get you a fairly lucrative scholarship at ANU
Post by: ninwa on February 05, 2010, 12:09:01 pm
Do you know what, ninwa, I'm absolutely sick of receiving your 'I think VCAA is the greatest' lecture every time I open my mouth to express my disappointments about VCAA and my ENTER etc. So everytime you just assume that 'I don't have any arguments to refute your logical ones' I am beginning to get very pissed off.Once again with the no-substance over-emotional hysterical responses. I know you are a mature person who is capable of reasoned, adult discussion. Can you use that capability please?
If I recall correctly, this is the first and only time where I have defended VCAA's system against your complaints. I could be wrong - so show me where else I've done it.
However, I was talking about a CHANGE in the present system, whereby English is no longer meant to be in the top 4.In which case you would have "deserved" a better score than TT because you "did better".
... which was the whole premise of my conclusion. Did you even bother to read it? But either way, thanks for confirming that you think the system is wrong because you didn't get a higher ENTER score than someone who you felt didn't perform as well as you did overall.
i.e. they may complain but may want to do a job and earn their own money.
... which suggests that they are "living with it", no? Which is one of the two "strategies" I proposed, no?
Where in that statement did I imply that one shouldn't complain?
I work full time at the moment with 3.5 hours of travel time, which means I leave home at 7.30am and get home by around 8pm. Every day except Thursdays, where I have my other job after this full-time job, which means I don't get home until 10-10.30pm. Life sucks!!!
^ there's my whinge.
However, I will suck it up and continue to be a contributing member of society.
^ there's me living with it. Et voila, option 2 for me!
Post by: QuantumJG on February 05, 2010, 12:45:23 pm
In the end a 99.75 ENTER is something that people (me being one) could only dream of getting. I would have been wrapped with a score in the 90's!
A 43 in English is a pretty awesome score (this is higher than any raw score I got for VCE and I put everything I had into these subjects).
You are going to be starting uni in a couple of weeks so invest your time into this and take some time to congratulate yourself on getting a great score. I have to say that you sound really selfish.
Post by: Mao on February 05, 2010, 11:41:15 pm
Post by: littlebecc on February 06, 2010, 12:07:19 am
Stop bitching about English, it's in the top 4 for a reason. And 43 is not a 'bad' score at all, in fact, it's a great score. And believe it or not it makes others feel like shit when you say it's a 'bad' score. I don't know what you're on...but pretty sure anything above 40 you're in the top 10% in that subject, if i'm not mistaken??
Quit your complaining. When you get to uni no ones really gonna care if you got a '99.75 or a 99.90'. You got what you got....no changing it now. Not everything works out the way you expect it. That's life.
MMK KTHXBI :D
Post by: Mao on February 06, 2010, 12:11:36 am
^^see how ridiculous that sounds?
Post by: kamil9876 on February 06, 2010, 12:12:24 am
Quote
Lol. I'd rename this thread to 'Why VCAA should be worshipped' if I were you.
What's with the dichotomy: one either agrees with criticisms about VCAA, otherwise they worship it.
I think a lot of people think VCAA is a joke but still do not agree with any of those criticisms. In fact crying over 0.10 of an ENTER score after 2 months, professing love for a VCAA subject in your username and failing to see the bigger picture in academic matters are much bigger signs of VCAA worshiping/obsessing.
Post by: littlebecc on February 06, 2010, 12:13:19 am
LMAO
Post by: TrueTears on February 06, 2010, 12:15:01 am
Post by: Mao on February 06, 2010, 12:17:57 am
Post by: ninwa on February 06, 2010, 12:25:56 am
Lol. I'd rename this thread to 'Why VCAA should be worshipped' if I were you.Or perhaps "ILMM is so good at ignoring any logic which doesn't support her assertions".
I would now like to hear from someone who got a 50 and did not receive a Premier's Award: GIVE ME A HELLS-YEAH.I got a 50 in year 10 and a premier's award BUT I DIDN'T GET 99.95. WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH THAT.
Post by: shinny on February 06, 2010, 12:29:11 am
Lol. I'd rename this thread to 'Why VCAA should be worshipped' if I were you.
Been meaning to say this for quite a while, but most of the posts so far aren't even about supporting English being in the top 4. They're more about your ridiculous attitudes to your ENTER and study scores. It's funny that you take all of this to mean that we're 'VCAA worshippers' and you've really been completely ignoring what we've been saying and just calling us by this label as a means to refute anything we put forward. Not many have actually said that they support English being in the top 4 - I've definitely said no to this in my previous post. You've really just taken any post against you to be a direct attack against your view that it shouldn't, but the topic has actually strayed far from being about English in the top four. Just because we're disagreeing with your view, or arguing against your logic for your point of view doesn't mean we're in direct opposition to it. Really, most people actually seem to not give a crap at all regarding English being in the top 4. Most people only started posting here once you began your whole bitch about how you deserved more, and the topic really has changed to that rather than 'should English be in the top 4'. There's not much VCAA left in this thread at all really.
EDIT:
I would now like to hear from someone who got a 50 and did not receive a Premier's Award: GIVE ME A HELLS-YEAH.HELLS-YEAH!
Post by: vexx on February 06, 2010, 12:29:17 am
I would now like to hear from someone who got a 50 and did not receive a Premier's Award: GIVE ME A HELLS-YEAH.
err how many actually do get the premiers award for each subject, is it like the 10 top exam/sac moderated scores?
Post by: kyzoo on February 06, 2010, 12:30:36 am
Post by: ninwa on February 06, 2010, 12:32:22 am
Depends how many you got right? Isn't what you've been "logically asserting" is how you're supposed to excel in Eng as well as the others to get that? Answers your own question.
..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_in_cheek
Post by: shinny on February 06, 2010, 12:33:45 am
EDIT: I mean, THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED. DAMN YOU VCAA RAGE RAGE RAGE
Post by: kamil9876 on February 06, 2010, 12:45:16 am
Quote
Kamil9876, whether I like a subject or not is entirely up to me. So no need to point out facts about my user name. Nobody gives a damn. I agree that I am obsessed with Maths Methods. That doesn't necessarily make me a worshipper of the system.
Fair enough, still probably a more reasonable inference than "You don't agree with me
Post by: Mao on February 06, 2010, 12:46:53 am
And please note that some of the posts here have been praising the VCAA, saying the system is as good as it can be - that's worshipping. Purely because they're blind to the flaws.
By that statement, I hope you live a good life. It sounds like you may end up giving yourself some sort of depression or other, everything has flaws. Soon you'll start complaining about university and its flawed system, the entire education system, the job market, trying to find a man for your life, the workplace, the husband, the government and taxes, pregnancy and hospitals, raising a child, childcare, going back to work, their schooling, the wave-particle duality of matter, gravity waves, grand unification theory, higgs boson, the big bang, God...
For everything else, there's MasterCard.
Post by: ninwa on February 06, 2010, 12:47:33 am
(for the last time, you STILL haven't shown how what you were saying does not logically lead to the conclusion that you deserved better than TT. I think I'll give up asking now, clearly you're not going to follow through.)
Or perhaps ninwa, you lack the ability to actually understand where I'm coming from. I remember you saying you were disappointed about your own VCE study score aims. Different people have different ways of reacting to their disappointments. We're all different. Right?
With one small difference. I didn't go around saying "oh I did so shit" - because I know I did well compared to a lot of people, and I knew that it would upset people who might have worked just as hard as I did but did not get as high an ENTER.
Something called empathy?
Yep I did well (can you not use that despicable word, nobody else here is swearing like that. It's disgusting).
Oh get off your high horse.
And please note that some of the posts here have been praising the VCAA, saying the system is as good as it can be - that's worshipping. Purely because they're blind to the flaws.
Saying the system is as good as it can be does not equate to worshipping. Rather, it is the realisation and acceptance of the system's flaws and the fact that no system can be perfect.
lol she doesn't even realise im mocking her by taking that comment seriously.
"She" has a name, ya know.
Post by: kyzoo on February 06, 2010, 12:47:51 am
And please note that some of the posts here have been praising the VCAA, saying the system is as good as it can be - that's worshipping. Purely because they're blind to the flaws.
IMO it's pragmatism.
This reminds me of Streetcar Named Desire - Idealistic Blanche vs. Pragmatic Stella.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on February 06, 2010, 12:48:28 am
Post by: kamil9876 on February 06, 2010, 12:49:25 am
Quote
lol she doesn't even realise im mocking her by taking that comment seriously.
lol this reminded me exactly of this check out "1.) winning by losing"
Post by: ninwa on February 06, 2010, 12:51:20 am
I suppose ninwa didn't find your speech hysterical or over emotional? That's right, because you're agreeing with her.
Unlike you, he has nothing to respond to.
I have directly asked you to respond in a mature and reasoned way to the point I have brought up and you have continuously refused to do so.
And now you're going the "but mummy HE did it too why aren't you telling him off!" argument. Real mature.
Post by: shinny on February 06, 2010, 12:52:58 am
Purely because they're blind to the flaws.
And then what are these said flaws? I'm really trying to get this actually to go somewhere because all we've heard from you (or all I remember amongst the rubbish, it's actually quite hard to keep up) regarding the flaws is that English is a useless subject and that you should be rewarded for the effort you put in. Do you have anything to add? Because for the latter, well, we really shouldn't dwell on that much more since you've seen what people think of such an argument, and for the former, well I dealt with that like 12 pages back or something. Also, there's a difference regarding this 'dissatisfaction'. Many people will feel this - difference is, most don't blame it on the system. I understand being dissatisfied with a 43. I was too (yes, call me conceited all you want too, but I also put in a lot of effort as did ILMM). Difference is that firstly, I don't blame the system. Being dissatisfied doesn't mean that I believed I deserved more and that the system was wrong. Unlike what you said previously, sorry, hard work doesn't equal results. There's a plethora of factors at hand really, but the mileage people get from the same amount of work varies greatly. The system isn't here to gauge who worked the hardest, otherwise we'd just have log books instead of exams. Secondly, I moved on quite quickly actually because I actually found my way out of super-competitive VCE land and realised uni offers mean so much more, and when you look it from a bigger perspective, mean almost nothing considering many people don't actually stick to the course they enrol in straight out of VCE. I've already got about 6 friends transferring after first year. And sure, if you're going to argue that scholarships are important, then I agree, but then you've got to get back to what I referred to at the start of this post and actually put forward your argument logically as to why the system is flawed.
Post by: ninwa on February 06, 2010, 12:57:00 am
Talk to me again when your lowest raw study score has been included in your top 4 calculation.
Oh hello there.
My name is ninwa, my lowest study score was 38, and it was in my top 4.
Your point?
Post by: monokekie on February 06, 2010, 12:59:31 am
wow 16 pages...thought i might leave some footprint here
*walks away*
Post by: Mao on February 06, 2010, 01:05:04 am
Talk to me again when your lowest raw study score has been included in your top 4 calculation.
Oh hello there.
My name is ninwa, my lowest study score was 38, and it was in my top 4.
Your point?
We are more alike than I knew.
My name is Mao, my lowest study score was 38, and it was in my top 4.
Your point?
Post by: Mao on February 06, 2010, 01:06:29 am
Quotelol she doesn't even realise im mocking her by taking that comment seriously.
lol this reminded me exactly of this check out "1.) winning by losing"
And what do you believe was wrong with my argument?
Yes, English needs to be removed from the top 4. Nothing but essays. I can write one essay and demonstrate to a Uni whether or not I'm literate, thank you. If people can get away with doing no Maths, then I should get away without doing Eng. Then I'd have got a higher ENTER as my real top 4 would have been selected. I.e. I wouldn't have my lowest study score in my top 4 and thus my ENTER would have been higher.
I really don't give a damn if you think this is bitching. This is how I feel. I was like this since I was a little kid. If I'd score 33/35 on a Maths test, I'd beat myself up for ages because it wasn't perfect. Not because that's a bad score. Because it could've been better. If you're a real perfectionist, you won't be completely happy about your achievements until you believe it's perfect. Talk to me again when your lowest raw study score has been included in your top 4 calculation.
"this baby is not good enough, it could be better... let's make another one."
Post by: Cthulhu on February 06, 2010, 01:07:05 am
People will always achieve higher than you in things. You just need to accept this and get over it.You're treating VCE like a god damned pissing contest. You were confident that you were going to get into Commerce so why the fuck should it matter that you got between 99.75 or 99.90?
Post by: shinny on February 06, 2010, 01:08:13 am
Talk to me again when your lowest raw study score has been included in your top 4 calculation.
Well we all know raws mean nothing, so I'll take that having my lowest scaled score in my top 4 counts as well. OH HELLO THAR.
Anyway, I'm still not really following your logic completely.
Yes, English needs to be removed from the top 4. Nothing but essays. I can write one essay and demonstrate to a Uni whether or not I'm literate, thank you.
OHEMGEE, a semi-valid argument. As some have said in previous posts, a system which looks at specific subjects and gives benchmarks for each would be more ideal.
If people can get away with doing no Maths, then I should get away without doing Eng. Then I'd have got a higher ENTER as my real top 4 would have been selected. I.e. I wouldn't have my lowest study score in my top 4 and thus my ENTER would have been higher.
Now back to super-competitive VCE land. Your argument starts off saying that people should be judged on their maths when most courses don't even need it. On the other hand, English skills are universal to all courses as many have shown so far. The rest of that sentence is really just showing that it seems like the only reason you're arguing this point of view is that you would have had something to gain from it. Your bias really does shine through quite easily.
Post by: kyzoo on February 06, 2010, 01:11:29 am
Post by: crappy on February 06, 2010, 01:12:16 am
And please note that some of the posts here have been praising the VCAA, saying the system is as good as it can be - that's worshipping. Purely because they're blind to the flaws.
By that statement, I hope you live a good life. It sounds like you may end up giving yourself some sort of depression or other, everything has flaws. Soon you'll start complaining about university and its flawed system, the entire education system, the job market, trying to find a man for your life, the workplace, the husband, the government and taxes, pregnancy and hospitals, raising a child, childcare, going back to work, their schooling, the wave-particle duality of matter, gravity waves, grand unification theory, higgs boson, the big bang, God...
For everything else, there's MasterCard.
Yep I complain a lot. It's a bad habit of mine but hey, everyone has bad habits.
me too. but I know when to stop.
Post by: kamil9876 on February 06, 2010, 01:13:12 am
Quote
English skills are universal to all courses as many have shown so far.
It's more useful in a Pure maths degree than maths methods. (no sarcasm)
Post by: Ahmad on February 06, 2010, 01:14:09 am
Post by: ninwa on February 06, 2010, 01:19:35 am
So tell me, is this creativity so important that we need it in the most important year of our schooling? Some people lack creativity. It's not their fault. Seriously, how does writing a story help me in Commerce?
Because you will need to write essays in commerce.
Because the best essays do not involve mere regurgitation of the textbooks, but rather show some measure of creativity, of original thinking, of innovation.
I don't know how you can dictate what university students need when you haven't even started.
People like me aren't allowed to exhibit weakness in this subject.
Refer to enwiabe's post, which tells the story of the fact that English never used to be in the top 4 but it was changed because universities were complaining about the calibre of graduates they were receiving.
Everyone else is allowed to have a subject in which they are weak, but it won't affect them as badly as it can go in their bottom two.
What a massively stupid generalisation. Already in this thread alone there have been two exceptions to that contention: for both Mao and I, our lowest study scores were 38. For both of us, that 38 was part of our top 4.
And I don't care if it sounds as though I'm bitching because frankly it's my opinion about the system. I thought this thread would be wonderful to vent my frustration but of course with wonderful contributors like ninwa and Mao, arguments are bound to happen.
Note that this thread was entitled "Criticisms of the VCE", not "my personal grudge toward the system which treated me unfairly therefore it is bad".
If you are suggesting that my contributions have been worthless, then go back and actually address my arguments. (But of course you're not going to do that because it does not further your agenda of making yourself out to be the victim.)
To everyone else: I'm sorry for my part in so massively derailing this thread. Arrogance is one of my pet peeves and I couldn't help responding to such a high level of it as exhibited in this thread. But anyway... /bows to Ahmad's decision