ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: wildareal on June 28, 2010, 06:16:02 pm
-
Last year I put up a post about how James Lu was ranting, however having experienced the VCE myself, his claims are founded. The only gripe however, is the lofty way in which he put forward his claims. Opinions?
-
Yes i dont like the scaling either.
Firstly, English should not be scaled down.
Secondly, certain lotes should not scale up by ridiculous amounts e.g. chinese
Thirdly, here are my personal opinion on scaling for certain subjects
at 30 enter
Spesh 6+
Methods 4+
Further -2
English ZERO
Biology 2+ (plus one is just ridiculous considering that biology is actually quite hard imo)
-
I don't know whether this has been previously discussed, but I've got another question: do you think the imminent National Curriculum would, in any way, amend these "loopholes" in the present VCE system?
-
I've already said this, but it is scaling above 50 that destroys the system. It NEEDS to go, and I don't care for the mathematical explanation in regards to why it even exists. It is pointless and unfair.
-
I've already said this, but it is scaling above 50 that destroys the system. It NEEDS to go, and I don't care for the mathematical explanation in regards to why it even exists. It is pointless and unfair.
Care to elaborate on how it "destroys the system"? And for what reason do you dismiss the "mathematical explanation" for it.
Yes i dont like the scaling either.
For what reason do you not like scaling? The answer "it is not advantageous to me" is not a legitimate reason.
-
I've already said this, but it is scaling above 50 that destroys the system. It NEEDS to go, and I don't care for the mathematical explanation in regards to why it even exists. It is pointless and unfair.
Care to elaborate on how it "destroys the system"? And for what reason do you dismiss the "mathematical explanation" for it.
I thought the scaling above 50 was the exception to the mathematical basis behind scaling in fact. Isn't it just a blanket +5 to all LOTEs simply because the government wants more people to do languages? Sure, it's unfair, but the government has their own agendas which they'll inevitably push into all aspects of their control. As for the +5 to spesh simply because it's difficult, I never quite understood that either given that scaling isn't decided based on the difficulty of a subject. And I do see that it destroys the system at the absolute top end of the scale as you often need these subjects to hit 99.95 (often 99.95 is above 210 aggregate). As for everything else, I really don't think it matters. You can do just as well with low scaling subjects.
Yes i dont like the scaling either.
Firstly, English should not be scaled down.
Secondly, certain lotes should not scale up by ridiculous amounts e.g. chinese
Thirdly, here are my personal opinion on scaling for certain subjects
at 30 enter
Spesh 6+
Methods 4+
Further -2
English ZERO
Biology 2+ (plus one is just ridiculous considering that biology is actually quite hard imo)
And these are your opinions based on gut feeling? Well they need a systematic way of deciding scaling, and they do have mathematical justification for it which stands as a form of justification far stronger than simple gut feeling =/ As for the English being zero, not everyone does mainstream English. Some choose to do lit or eng lang. Those who are in these subjects tend to be better at English, so it's harder to do well in them. Are you saying that those who choose to do these other English subjects should be at a disadvantage relative to those who choose mainstream?
-
The general consensus with scaling is those who do subjects which scale down end up getting much lower ENTER scores than those who do subjects that scale up high. I myself did three subjects which scaled up by a fair amount and one which scaled up above 50. Yet if you calculate my aggregate score without scaling, then my ENTER score will only be 0.05 lower. And so my ENTER score is based on the fact I did hard subjects that scaled up high, it's because I did really well in those subjects, and the one that scaled above 50 balanced out my English score that scaled down.
The whole thing of scaling was introduced to standardise subjects. It is fair, it's just people abuse the system by choosing the subjects that do go up a lot. And these subjects only go up a lot because the cohort are a bright bunch of students who perform really well in other subjects. Of course you can't compare the difficulty of subjects. For example you can't say that Methods is harder than History. For a bright maths mind, Methods is easy yet History would be difficult. A flaw exists there. It is only resolved in maths subjects where Spesh is harder than Methods which is harder than Further. Hence the harder the maths, the higher the scaling.
A lot of people forget that VCE is actually a competition. Your score is your ranking amongst the state, hence why there is scaling to rank your score from one subject to another. As with the 99.95 ENTER score sometimes requiring aggregates above 210, this does destroy the system. It means someone with 6 perfect 50s can only get 99.90 and not the perfect score they deserve. What they should be doing is if you get 6 perfect raw 50s, then you automatically get 99.95. The aggregate required should not be above 210, it should be achievable by any combination of subjects. If this happens, then VCAA can be happy that the years cohort is extra intelligent.
-
Yes i dont like the scaling either.
Firstly, English should not be scaled down.
Secondly, certain lotes should not scale up by ridiculous amounts e.g. chinese
Thirdly, here are my personal opinion on scaling for certain subjects
at 30 enter
Spesh 6+
Methods 4+
Further -2
English ZERO
Biology 2+ (plus one is just ridiculous considering that biology is actually quite hard imo)
umm... English -2
I say get rid of scaling over 50 and all english subjects should not be scaled down.
-
I find it funny how you all complain abut certain subjects being scaled high, and then you aren't doing those subjects yourself. I agree some of the scaling is a bit ridculous, and scaling has already gone down for spesh, what more do you want?
You don't know yourself how competitive Chinese is, so i would refrain from judging.
-
Agree with VCAA on scaling above 50 (and scaling in general). It ensures that students who take harder subjects are not disadvantaged. If you get rid of scaling, then a 48 in Methods = a 48 in further, and would not reflect the true capability of the student or the score they deserve.
Additionally, without scaling, students will be less inclined to select and persevere in harder subjects, as they will have no advantage over those taking easier subjects.
A 50 in Outdoor ed should not be allowed to equal a 50 in Hebrew or spesh. The VCE system has its flaws, but at least the standardization is relatively fair.
-
The general consensus with scaling is those who do subjects which scale down end up getting much lower ENTER scores than those who do subjects that scale up high.
But the premise of scaling is based on how well students in a certain subject do in their others. So if you take a step back and forget there was any scaling at all, those who are in subjects which scale down are already performing worse at an equivalent level than those who are in subjects scaling up before any scaling is applied anyway. The reason for scaling is then because someone in the cohorts which scale up could avoid the competition against these 'smarter' people and just head into the cohorts that scale down, making it inevitably easier to achieve a higher rank. The need for scaling is so that someone could be at the 80th percentile in a strong cohort and achieve the same mark as someone at the 100th percentile in a weaker cohort. VCAA just tries to do this via statistical inference. Sure, it's not perfect, but at least they try and mildly succeed. Removing scaling only makes the system worse. Unless someone here wants to take over being the head of VCAA's statistics department, I don't think there's much you can do to make it any more accurate.
I just think that the tertiary system needs more pre-reqs or some sort of priority system to even out the playing field. For example, someone competing to get a law place who had 50 for legal and English could be beaten by someone else who did a mess of erroneous subjects, but achieved a higher ENTER regardless. But then again, VCAA says they want people to be able to get into almost any course they want regardless of subject selection, so that's the reason why it's like this. I just think it's not a good idea because there's different types of intelligence, and you shouldn't be chucking people into certain courses just because they're good at something else.
-
Agree with VCAA on scaling above 50 (and scaling in general). It ensures that students who take harder subjects are not disadvantaged. If you get rid of scaling, then a 48 in Methods = a 48 in further, and would not reflect the true capability of the student or the score they deserve.
Additionally, without scaling, students will be less inclined to select and persevere in harder subjects, as they will have no advantage over those taking easier subjects.
A 50 in Outdoor ed should not be allowed to equal a 50 in Hebrew or spesh. The VCE system has its flaws, but at least the standardization is relatively fair.
a) A 50 in any subject is an amazing achievement.
b) It is not okay to compare a 50 in Outdoor Ed with Spesh, but it is with Chem or Physics?
No one forces you to choose which subjects to do. And it is clear that many students do LOTE and Spesh for the scaling. For no reason other than this. I'm not saying it is all students, but I believe it is the majority.
I personally couldn't care less about scaling. I wish I had done Food Tech/VET Hospitality/PE instead of English. And the food scaling is like -7 for a SS of 30.
People should be encouraged to do subjects which they enjoy. You will always do better at something if you have the passion for it.
-
I've already said this, but it is scaling above 50 that destroys the system. It NEEDS to go, and I don't care for the mathematical explanation in regards to why it even exists. It is pointless and unfair.
Care to elaborate on how it "destroys the system"? And for what reason do you dismiss the "mathematical explanation" for it.
I thought the scaling above 50 was the exception to the mathematical basis behind scaling in fact. Isn't it just a blanket +5 to all LOTEs simply because the government wants more people to do languages? Sure, it's unfair, but the government has their own agendas which they'll inevitably push into all aspects of their control. As for the +5 to spesh simply because it's difficult, I never quite understood that either given that scaling isn't decided based on the difficulty of a subject. And I do see that it destroys the system at the absolute top end of the scale as you often need these subjects to hit 99.95 (often 99.95 is above 210 aggregate). As for everything else, I really don't think it matters. You can do just as well with low scaling subjects.
If you actually look at the scaling report, you'll find that lately the 50+ scaling has been dramatically reduced (in fact, a 40 in Spesh only goes to 47 now...), and people can get 99.95 with around 209.1 aggregates (meaning the days of 50+ scaling being necessary for it are over). Also Iffets' point is true about difficulty - getting above 50 in any of these subjects in the first place is RIDICULOUSLY hard - realistically, even without the scaling the people who get the top scores would probably end up with pretty much the same score anyway.
Chavi has the right idea - getting a 50 in Spesh is a sign of VCE-intelligence far and beyond the ability needed to get a 50 in Further, for instance... Also note how the 50+ scaling subjects are all exceptionally hard (LOTEs and Spesh, basically), meaning that you either have to be awesome to get 50+ in the first place anyway (thus making the system not so unbalanced, again because of how scaling works...).
-
agreed with stonecold, what there needs to be is more education for year 10s to understand instead of typical "CHOOSE WHAT YOU LOVE" (nobody listens to that).
Instead of abolishing scaling, educate people to get their facts right.
-
Biased or not, I consider LOTE scaling, particularly Latin/Hebrew etc to be borderline 'cheating'.
-
barely anyone gets over 40 for those languages, it is moderated you know.
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
-
So, they're not cheaters. Blame the school system for not introducing Latin into more schools.
And Latin is a difficult subject.
-
"Cheaters" indeed.
-
Secondly, certain lotes should not scale up by ridiculous amounts e.g. chinese
Agreed
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
Latin is an extreme case that suffers from the same problem as a lot of "small studies" like Ancient Greek, Classics, Environmental Science and Philosophy (albeit to a more annoying degree given the insanity of its scaling). However, I'd argue that when considering the number of schools that offer it, along with the number of schools that actually manage to do well with it (ie. only a handful of ELITE private schools), I don't think it's enough to impact significantly on the system. For any school outside of that handful of elite private schools, getting above 30 in Latin is pretty much unheard of.
Example point: girl who got mostly high 40s/50s for her raw scores got 34 in Latin (and she was considered GOOD at Latin), which went to around 49. The scaling is justified.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
And just for clarification, I realise that there WILL be people who do get put at an advantage by this system (eg. the plethora of people who are incredibly well-versed in any given LOTE, or the elite private schools in Latin...), but the percentage of such individuals is so low that for most of the populous I really can't see it making that much of a difference.
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
Latin is an extreme case that suffers from the same problem as a lot of "small studies" like Ancient Greek, Classics, Environmental Science and Philosophy (albeit to a more annoying degree given the insanity of its scaling). However, I'd argue that when considering the number of schools that offer it, along with the number of schools that actually manage to do well with it (ie. only a handful of ELITE private schools), I don't think it's enough to impact significantly on the system. For any school outside of that handful of elite private schools, getting above 30 in Latin is pretty much unheard of.
Example point: girl who got mostly high 40s/50s for her raw scores got 34 in Latin (and she was considered GOOD at Latin), which went to around 49. The scaling is justified.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
And just for clarification, I realise that there WILL be people who do get put at an advantage by this system (eg. the plethora of people who are incredibly well-versed in any given LOTE, or the elite private schools in Latin...), but the percentage of such individuals is so low that for most of the populous I really can't see it making that much of a difference.
The problem is that there are only a handful of people that'll get scores like 99.95 as well, which is where Latin makes a difference (and the domain in which I consider it "cheating"). Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, like you said.
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
Latin is an extreme case that suffers from the same problem as a lot of "small studies" like Ancient Greek, Classics, Environmental Science and Philosophy (albeit to a more annoying degree given the insanity of its scaling). However, I'd argue that when considering the number of schools that offer it, along with the number of schools that actually manage to do well with it (ie. only a handful of ELITE private schools), I don't think it's enough to impact significantly on the system. For any school outside of that handful of elite private schools, getting above 30 in Latin is pretty much unheard of.
Example point: girl who got mostly high 40s/50s for her raw scores got 34 in Latin (and she was considered GOOD at Latin), which went to around 49. The scaling is justified.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
And just for clarification, I realise that there WILL be people who do get put at an advantage by this system (eg. the plethora of people who are incredibly well-versed in any given LOTE, or the elite private schools in Latin...), but the percentage of such individuals is so low that for most of the populous I really can't see it making that much of a difference.
The problem is that there are only a handful of people that'll get scores like 99.95 as well, which is where Latin makes a difference (and the domain in which I consider it "cheating"). Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, like you said.
Most of the kids who get 99.95 who do Latin would be getting 99.95 just based on their other subjects, usually. If they weren't doing Latin, they'd just be doing another subject they'd be getting close to 50 in after scaling. I'll admit there are probably one or two who sneak in with Latin each year, but even at the top end it isn't enough to significantly unbalance things (to re-emphasise, getting 35 in Latin is actually quite hard, even for high achievers and EVEN for the majority of the elite private school kids...).
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
Latin is an extreme case that suffers from the same problem as a lot of "small studies" like Ancient Greek, Classics, Environmental Science and Philosophy (albeit to a more annoying degree given the insanity of its scaling). However, I'd argue that when considering the number of schools that offer it, along with the number of schools that actually manage to do well with it (ie. only a handful of ELITE private schools), I don't think it's enough to impact significantly on the system. For any school outside of that handful of elite private schools, getting above 30 in Latin is pretty much unheard of.
Example point: girl who got mostly high 40s/50s for her raw scores got 34 in Latin (and she was considered GOOD at Latin), which went to around 49. The scaling is justified.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
And just for clarification, I realise that there WILL be people who do get put at an advantage by this system (eg. the plethora of people who are incredibly well-versed in any given LOTE, or the elite private schools in Latin...), but the percentage of such individuals is so low that for most of the populous I really can't see it making that much of a difference.
The problem is that there are only a handful of people that'll get scores like 99.95 as well, which is where Latin makes a difference (and the domain in which I consider it "cheating"). Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, like you said.
Most of the kids who get 99.95 who do Latin would be getting 99.95 just based on their other subjects, usually. If they weren't doing Latin, they'd just be doing another subject they'd be getting close to 50 in after scaling. I'll admit there are probably one or two who sneak in with Latin each year, but even at the top end it isn't enough to significantly unbalance things (to re-emphasise, getting 35 in Latin is actually quite hard, even for high achievers and EVEN for the majority of the elite private school kids...).
Be that as it may, you are suggesting that it is as hard to get 35 in Latin as it is to get 50 in, say, a 'standard' subject like chem or physics, a notion which I am rather skeptical towards. Of course, not having actually done Latin, I suppose I can only talk in terms of my perception towards the subject, returning me to my initial disclaimer that I am, more likely than not, biased in the matter.
Additionally, that's an analysis in hindsight only, but lets not go there. I'm not really passionate enough about my views to expend any considerable effort defending them.
-
>50 scaling only exists in specialist and a select number of languages. For Spesh, I don't know the mechanics of it, but it arises from the requirement that spesh scaling > methods scaling.
With languages it is a government incentive program whereby the normal scaling is determined and then 5 points are added. Hence, when you have languages essentially exclusive to elite schools, the scaling is MASSIVE.
These are both reasonable consequences of reasonable notions.
VCE is a competition. Every subject is different. VTAC are trying in some way to make performances in different subjects comparable.
Is it perfect?
No.
Can it be manipulated?
Yes.
But in my experience I would say the majority of high-achieving students do not pursue subjects which scale high merely to this end, rather they have some interest and perhaps even passion in that subject area. And of course we are talking of high-achievers here. I have no doubt that there are a vast number of students at the lower end who care only for the scaling.
And Akirus, after taking away the 5 point bonus (which is immaterial to your comparison), you are comparing a 35 raw in Latin to a scaled 45 in any other subject(say, 40 in Chem/Physics). Now equality looks a bit bleak, and the Latin student short-changed.
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
Thank you.
This is my point exactly. There is politics in the VCE Chinese system that I would appreciate peolpe who have not dealt with it first hand to understand. So refrain from your criticism for Chinese. Despite the SL/SLA/FL changes, many ABCs speak fluent chinese as a result of upbringing regardless, leavnig caucasians at a disadvantage, and also other ABCs who are as we call them, "bananas" (yellow outside white inside). That is why there is a scaling of +12, amongst other reasons.
The person who gets a 50 for SL has such a cleear disparity against someone with a 32, and unfortunately, I will say most anglo saxons score in the 20-30s, so of course they deserve a +12 scaling as, though their chinese is good, unfortunately the local chinese speaker has more experience and oppurtunity.
I'm not even going to talk about xin jin shan or Chinese school politics.
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
Latin is an extreme case that suffers from the same problem as a lot of "small studies" like Ancient Greek, Classics, Environmental Science and Philosophy (albeit to a more annoying degree given the insanity of its scaling). However, I'd argue that when considering the number of schools that offer it, along with the number of schools that actually manage to do well with it (ie. only a handful of ELITE private schools), I don't think it's enough to impact significantly on the system. For any school outside of that handful of elite private schools, getting above 30 in Latin is pretty much unheard of.
Example point: girl who got mostly high 40s/50s for her raw scores got 34 in Latin (and she was considered GOOD at Latin), which went to around 49. The scaling is justified.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
And just for clarification, I realise that there WILL be people who do get put at an advantage by this system (eg. the plethora of people who are incredibly well-versed in any given LOTE, or the elite private schools in Latin...), but the percentage of such individuals is so low that for most of the populous I really can't see it making that much of a difference.
The problem is that there are only a handful of people that'll get scores like 99.95 as well, which is where Latin makes a difference (and the domain in which I consider it "cheating"). Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, like you said.
Most of the kids who get 99.95 who do Latin would be getting 99.95 just based on their other subjects, usually. If they weren't doing Latin, they'd just be doing another subject they'd be getting close to 50 in after scaling. I'll admit there are probably one or two who sneak in with Latin each year, but even at the top end it isn't enough to significantly unbalance things (to re-emphasise, getting 35 in Latin is actually quite hard, even for high achievers and EVEN for the majority of the elite private school kids...).
Be that as it may, you are suggesting that it is as hard to get 35 in Latin as it is to get 50 in, say, a 'standard' subject like chem or physics, a notion which I am rather skeptical towards. Of course, not having actually done Latin, I suppose I can only talk in terms of my perception towards the subject, returning me to my initial disclaimer that I am, more likely than not, biased in the matter.
Additionally, that's an analysis in hindsight only, but lets not go there. I'm not really passionate enough about my views to expend any considerable effort defending them.
If you want another example of it actually being reasonably difficult to get 35+ in Latin, along with the aforementioned case of the girl getting 50s and then a 34 in Latin, there was a guy at MGS last year who got mid-high 40s in English, Chem, Physics, Methods and low 40s in Spesh (all scaled to high 40s/around 50), and a 33 in Latin. As I said before, it's not exactly a walk in the park to get above 35...
I won't deny that some will find it easier to get 35+ in Latin than a 50 in Chem/Physics, but it's really not as "broken" as some seem to think on a larger scale (ie. realistically, it won't make that much of a difference for the people who actually DO get the 35+ scores in Latin...).
-
Latin 35 -> 50
It also remains that barely anyone does Latin to begin with (relatively speaking), rendering your point moot.
To all the people who complain about Chinese, it's probably the hardest LOTE to do well in if you're not in the "political" game of playing around with Chinese schools etc. Again, to illustrate my point that the scaling is generally justified, people getting 50s in English etc. often get high 30s/low 40s in Chinese, and in an extreme case there's a guy I know who got three 50s and a 37 in Chinese. Doing well in Chinese (enough to get the 50+ scaled score) is, again, so hard that the scaling is pretty much justified.
Thank you.
This is my point exactly. There is politics in the VCE Chinese system that I would appreciate peolpe who have not dealt with it first hand to understand. So refrain from your criticism for Chinese. Despite the SL/SLA/FL changes, many ABCs speak fluent chinese as a result of upbringing regardless, leavnig caucasians at a disadvantage, and also other ABCs who are as we call them, "bananas" (yellow outside white inside). That is why there is a scaling of +12, amongst other reasons.
The person who gets a 50 for SL has such a cleear disparity against someone with a 32, and unfortunately, I will say most anglo saxons score in the 20-30s, so of course they deserve a +12 scaling as, though their chinese is good, unfortunately the local chinese speaker has more experience and oppurtunity.
I'm not even going to talk about xin jin shan or Chinese school politics.
i was going to defend chinese, but these two post pretty say eveything i was going to say, espeically the bolded bit
-
I have some pretty smart friends who scored low 20s in latin...
-
>50 scaling only exists in specialist and a select number of languages. For Spesh, I don't know the mechanics of it, but it arises from the requirement that spesh scaling > methods scaling.
With languages it is a government incentive program whereby the normal scaling is determined and then 5 points are added. Hence, when you have languages essentially exclusive to elite schools, the scaling is MASSIVE.
These are both reasonable consequences of reasonable notions.
VCE is a competition. Every subject is different. VTAC are trying in some way to make performances in different subjects comparable.
Is it perfect?
No.
Can it be manipulated?
Yes.
But in my experience I would say the majority of high-achieving students do not pursue subjects which scale high merely to this end, rather they have some interest and perhaps even passion in that subject area. And of course we are talking of high-achievers here. I have no doubt that there are a vast number of students at the lower end who care only for the scaling.
And Akirus, after taking away the 5 point bonus (which is immaterial to your comparison), you are comparing a 35 raw in Latin to a scaled 45 in any other subject(say, 40 in Chem/Physics). Now equality looks a bit bleak, and the Latin student short-changed.
40 in chem/physics does not become a 45, it's closer to 43~. Both of those subjects will scale from 45->47~. I still dispute the implied difficulty of Latin. If anything, removing the 5 makes it much more fair.
If you want another example of it actually being reasonably difficult to get 35+ in Latin, along with the aforementioned case of the girl getting 50s and then a 34 in Latin, there was a guy at MGS last year who got mid-high 40s in English, Chem, Physics, Methods and low 40s in Spesh (all scaled to high 40s/around 50), and a 33 in Latin. As I said before, it's not exactly a walk in the park to get above 35...
I won't deny that some will find it easier to get 35+ in Latin than a 50 in Chem/Physics, but it's really not as "broken" as some seem to think on a larger scale (ie. realistically, it won't make that much of a difference for the people who actually DO get the 35+ scores in Latin...).
I see your point, although I disagree with the logic that "I got 50 in every other subject so its fair I got 50~ in subject x". That is to say, just because I get 50 in English, MM, phys and accounting doesn't mean I should also get 50 in chemistry.
-
I personally did not see James Lu's post but I assume it was about scaling?
I am undecided about scaling. I definitely needs to be there in some cases ( further,methods,spesh) but in other cases I believe it does not work. For example my english teacher was telling us about her daughter who among other things did P.E and Spesh. Her daughter was a natural at maths and did spesh no problem but when it came to P.e found that she had to put double the amount of time in to get a reasonable score. She ended up getting raw 41 for spesh and 30 for p.e. P.e also goes down by 2 or something. What I am getting at people think differently and what one person may consider "hard", another may call "easy". So in that respect scaling is wrong. What do you guys think?
-
out of intrest where is the orignal post from james lu?
-
I think James' comments were just in the newspaper berating the VCE system.
-
If scaling was required, how about marking the subject more leniently and hence people will have a higher raw score. Then the subject can scale lower and eveyone is happy...?
How does one mark 'leniently'? For example, in spesh, if an answer is wrong, it's wrong.
-
40 in chem/physics does not become a 45, it's closer to 43~. Both of those subjects will scale from 45->47~. I still dispute the implied difficulty of Latin. If anything, removing the 5 makes it much more fair.
Okay, yes, I concede that the raw scores required for 45 in Chem/Physics are a little higher than I said.
And the extra 5 is not in any way meant to be fair. It is meant to be fair before the five, then as an incentive extra is added. That is why it is irrelevant to your comparison.
I see your point, although I disagree with the logic that "I got 50 in every other subject so its fair I got 50~ in subject x". That is to say, just because I get 50 in English, MM, phys and accounting doesn't mean I should also get 50 in chemistry.
It is this logic that underpins scaling, essentially. They take students' raw scores and infer the difficulty of scoring in a certain subject. This is done by the disparity between the raw scores obtained by the students within that subject and the raw scores achieved by the cohort in other subjects. So, in essence, they look and say "all-round top students are only mid-range students in x subject. Hence the scores obtained by students of x cohort needs adjustment upward." This is the basis for an argument for what you said there, and holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.
-
.If scaling was required, how about marking the subject more leniently and hence people will have a higher raw score. Then the subject can scale lower and eveyone is happy...?
If we mark more leniently, the standard of VCE would be even worse than it already is compared to things like IB and HSC.
Sorry, I don't like that ><.
How does one mark 'leniently'? For example, in spesh, if an answer is wrong, it's wrong.
Yup, referring to LOTEs in most cases.
For essays, maybe they could demand a lower level of say, vocabulary - whatever the marking scheme.
For spesh, maybe it could be modified by requiring not as much compulsory workings. However, it's very hard to say for Maths itself
I am sorry but I CANNOT agree with this leniency appeal. It would demote the standards of VCE even further than it already has been compared to the rest of the world and IB/HSC.
-
40 in chem/physics does not become a 45, it's closer to 43~. Both of those subjects will scale from 45->47~. I still dispute the implied difficulty of Latin. If anything, removing the 5 makes it much more fair.
Okay, yes, I concede that the raw scores required for 45 in Chem/Physics are a little higher than I said.
And the extra 5 is not in any way meant to be fair. It is meant to be fair before the five, then as an incentive extra is added. That is why it is irrelevant to your comparison.
That was my point; you were suggesting that if the +5 incentive is removed, it would be unfair, whereas I maintain that it is not.
I see your point, although I disagree with the logic that "I got 50 in every other subject so its fair I got 50~ in subject x". That is to say, just because I get 50 in English, MM, phys and accounting doesn't mean I should also get 50 in chemistry.
It is this logic that underpins scaling, essentially. They take students' raw scores and infer the difficulty of scoring in a certain subject. This is done by the disparity between the raw scores obtained by the students within that subject and the raw scores achieved by the cohort in other subjects. So, in essence, they look and say "all-round top students are only mid-range students in x subject. Hence the scores obtained by students of x cohort needs adjustment upward." This is the basis for an argument for what you said there, and holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.
Scaling is based upon the raw score of the student, not the scaled score, nor is it based upon the scores of a single individual. Just because I get 50 in every other subject does not mean my chemistry grade should also scale up to 50.
-
No but it should scale close to that since you are supposed to be smart my friend. It's not foolproof but it gives universities an idea of where you stand. I think that is the point.
-
No but it should scale close to that since you are supposed to be smart my friend. It's not foolproof but it gives universities an idea of where you stand. I think that is the point.
If that's the case, why give everyone multiple subjects? Lets just do one each since all the others 'should scale close' anyway, right?
On another note, I re-read James Lu's letter and at the moment, I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of methods and all the pseudo-science we do in physics, I want to start learning real stuff. The notion that I'll have to spend multiple weeks doing practice exams and other miscellaneous preparations is making me sick, especially when I consider all the things I could possibly learn in that time.
-
I see your point, although I disagree with the logic that "I got 50 in every other subject so its fair I got 50~ in subject x". That is to say, just because I get 50 in English, MM, phys and accounting doesn't mean I should also get 50 in chemistry.
It is this logic that underpins scaling, essentially. They take students' raw scores and infer the difficulty of scoring in a certain subject. This is done by the disparity between the raw scores obtained by the students within that subject and the raw scores achieved by the cohort in other subjects. So, in essence, they look and say "all-round top students are only mid-range students in x subject. Hence the scores obtained by students of x cohort needs adjustment upward." This is the basis for an argument for what you said there, and holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.
Scaling is based upon the raw score of the student, not the scaled score, nor is it based upon the scores of a single individual. Just because I get 50 in every other subject does not mean my chemistry grade should also scale up to 50.
I have no idea where you got the "scaled" and "individual student" stuff from... I was merely linking the scaling process to your example when I talked of a small group of students.
That's why I added this little clause here:
[This] holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.
If everyone equal to you and above you in a cohort was hitting 50 raw all round(yes, this is an exaggeration) then you should receive a scaled score very close to 50. Or, is it not fair that 35 raw in Latin be scaled to 45(before government bonus) if essentially all students who score 35 and above are getting 45 and above in their other subjects?
-
nobody really knows how the VCE system works. Not even those that work at VCAA. Discussing the inner workings of scaling and standardization is just speculation.
Sometimes you hit the jackpot and laugh all the way to the bank, sometimes you don't.
However, in the scheme of things VCE is relatively unimportant, so I wouldn't worry too much.
-
I may be wrong but I don't think James Lu's etter was primarily about scaling in the first place? Rather he criticised the way many VCE subjects are taught because of the heavy focus on passing exams rather than creating an interest in the subject itself.
A few people have implied in their posts that scaling reflects the difficulty of the subject. It is more accurate to say scaling reflects the strength of the cohort. VCAA does not arbitrarily determine which are 'hard' subjects when deciding how much to scale.
The perception that you need to do spesh, chem, methods, physics etc to do well is wrong and has been proven wrong year after year. The few exceptions are 99.95 TER scores, which in some years require a subject to scale past 50. As far as I am aware there is nothing that 'requires' a TER of 99.95. I believe some uni scholarships are awarded for scores of 99.90 and above? Regardless there are still plenty of private trust scholarships which award scholarships based on factors other than your TER.
Also people who are proclaiming X subject should scale by 3 less or Y subject should scale up by 5 more should really provide statistically analysis to show where these numbers are coming from and why they are 'fairer' than the current scaling values. Otherwise, it just seems like you are pulling numbers out of thin air.
-
I may be wrong but I don't think James Lu's etter was primarily about scaling in the first place? Rather he criticised the way many VCE subjects are taught because of the heavy focus on passing exams rather than creating an interest in the subject itself.
A few people have implied in their posts that scaling reflects the difficulty of the subject. It is more accurate to say scaling reflects the strength of the cohort. VCAA does not arbitrarily determine which are 'hard' subjects when deciding how much to scale.
The perception that you need to do spesh, chem, methods, physics etc to do well is wrong and has been proven wrong year after year. The few exceptions are 99.95 TER scores, which in some years require a subject to scale past 50. As far as I am aware there is nothing that 'requires' a TER of 99.95. I believe some uni scholarships are awarded for scores of 99.90 and above? Regardless there are still plenty of private trust scholarships which award scholarships based on factors other than your TER.
Also people who are proclaiming X subject should scale by 3 less or Y subject should scale up by 5 more should really provide statistically analysis to show where these numbers are coming from and why they are 'fairer' than the current scaling values. Otherwise, it just seems like you are pulling numbers out of thin air.
Precisely - all the talk of scaling is actually (mostly) irrelevant to what James was talking about in the first place.
Also, again, in recent years, the 99.95 cutoff hasn't required a subject to scale past 50 at all...
-
To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>
Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.
-
To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>
Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.
Yes that is true, however, experiences from people someone knows can definitely be used as evidence for saying so. I know of a bunch of people who found latin not hard at all, and many of them weren't that smart either, they ended up with low 30's with not much difficulty, and only did it to abuse the scaling- and it pushed up their enter A LOT.
i would have done latin if my school offered it, but it doesn't, and i'm annoyed that im disadvantaged by the fact none of my subjects scale that high; some languages definitely need to be lowered or else it is very unfair.
i'm sure it's very difficult to get 40+ in languages anyway, but to get a 35 in a language can be done for many people and it really should scale not over 9 or 10, getting a 45 is still a very good score after scaling.. just scaled 15+ is ridiculous..
-
To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>
Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.
i totally agree with this...
-
To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>
Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.
What I have a problem with is people who seem to be able to get way with doing Chinese SL and ESL? (I've only heard anecdotal reports of it)
I think ESL is often abused as a subject too.
ETA: Also, it sucks how someone can spend a lot of time in-country and have a really good background in the language, and still take the same stream as anyone else. I know it doesn't mean your skills are necessarily technically perfect, but it does give you a huge advantage. I know in WA, if you want to do a language you need to sign a form saying you haven't lived in-country for more than X amount of time and stuff. I know there are people who take languages at the beginners level at university, even though they studied it in school, and although that doesn't mean their language skills are perfect, they have so much more vocab and conceptual understanding to draw on than people who really are beginners.
-
I've already said this, but it is scaling above 50 that destroys the system. It NEEDS to go, and I don't care for the mathematical explanation in regards to why it even exists. It is pointless and unfair.
Care to elaborate on how it "destroys the system"? And for what reason do you dismiss the "mathematical explanation" for it.
Yes i dont like the scaling either.
For what reason do you not like scaling? The answer "it is not advantageous to me" is not a legitimate reason.
It would have been. I was allowed to do chinese second language and spesh, but I chose not to. I had four subjects to choose from for year 12 (I chose a uni subject which benefits for griffith provisional med). I had to choose english, methods and chem because it broadens my subject options. I chose biology because I like it instead of chinese/spesh.
I dont care about scaling, Id rather do subject I like. The scaling restrict some from doing so
-
To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>
Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.
What I have a problem with is people who seem to be able to get way with doing Chinese SL and ESL? (I've only heard anecdotal reports of it)
I think ESL is often abused as a subject too.
ETA: Also, it sucks how someone can spend a lot of time in-country and have a really good background in the language, and still take the same stream as anyone else. I know it doesn't mean your skills are necessarily technically perfect, but it does give you a huge advantage. I know in WA, if you want to do a language you need to sign a form saying you haven't lived in-country for more than X amount of time and stuff. I know there are people who take languages at the beginners level at university, even though they studied it in school, and although that doesn't mean their language skills are perfect, they have so much more vocab and conceptual understanding to draw on than people who really are beginners.
What you say about ESL is true, but most universities have higher prerequisites for those who did ESL- eg. a course that needs 30 in English needs at least 35 in ESL. So I guess it works out?
-
To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>
Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.
What I have a problem with is people who seem to be able to get way with doing Chinese SL and ESL? (I've only heard anecdotal reports of it)
I think ESL is often abused as a subject too.
ETA: Also, it sucks how someone can spend a lot of time in-country and have a really good background in the language, and still take the same stream as anyone else. I know it doesn't mean your skills are necessarily technically perfect, but it does give you a huge advantage. I know in WA, if you want to do a language you need to sign a form saying you haven't lived in-country for more than X amount of time and stuff. I know there are people who take languages at the beginners level at university, even though they studied it in school, and although that doesn't mean their language skills are perfect, they have so much more vocab and conceptual understanding to draw on than people who really are beginners.
I know someone doing Japanese SL and ESL, he slipped through that seven year gap or something.
AND, I've heard of someone getting 50 in ESL and 50 in Literature.
So yes, the system doesn't work very well in that sense, but I can't fathom how they can improve it.
And Eriny, we already have that form for Chinese SL and stuff.
The problem is not the background speakers, its the lack of SL/FL options for languages with less students since there would be no point separating them- like French.
-
I dont care about scaling, Id rather do subject I like. The scaling restrict some from doing so
I suppose you mean that other people are mentally influenced by scaling and you dislike how they will choose a scaled subject over their favourites? That is ultimately their problem and poor thinking, not the system. I've seen those people and they have frustrated me, but I have never been mad at the scaling process. Rather, I think we need teachers to help get rid of this "scaling fanatic" culture.
-
I see your point, although I disagree with the logic that "I got 50 in every other subject so its fair I got 50~ in subject x". That is to say, just because I get 50 in English, MM, phys and accounting doesn't mean I should also get 50 in chemistry.
It is this logic that underpins scaling, essentially. They take students' raw scores and infer the difficulty of scoring in a certain subject. This is done by the disparity between the raw scores obtained by the students within that subject and the raw scores achieved by the cohort in other subjects. So, in essence, they look and say "all-round top students are only mid-range students in x subject. Hence the scores obtained by students of x cohort needs adjustment upward." This is the basis for an argument for what you said there, and holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.
Scaling is based upon the raw score of the student, not the scaled score, nor is it based upon the scores of a single individual. Just because I get 50 in every other subject does not mean my chemistry grade should also scale up to 50.
I have no idea where you got the "scaled" and "individual student" stuff from... I was merely linking the scaling process to your example when I talked of a small group of students.
That's why I added this little clause here:
[This] holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.
If everyone equal to you and above you in a cohort was hitting 50 raw all round(yes, this is an exaggeration) then you should receive a scaled score very close to 50. Or, is it not fair that 35 raw in Latin be scaled to 45(before government bonus) if essentially all students who score 35 and above are getting 45 and above in their other subjects?
You are losing generality with your example. There are so many things wrong with your premise I don't even know where to begin.
-
Clearly no-one here has actually READ what James Lu said.
He's saying that VCE system is terrible because it's less about learning and more about getting the easiest path to the highest ENTER score. In other words, rather than thinking for yourself and learning what you want, you're bound to a syllabus so learning anything more would be seen as redundant.
Why the hell is everyone here talking about how the VCE scaling system is unfair? Subjects scale more when smarter people do it. A person getting a 30 in Specialist Maths would scale above a person getting 35 in Further Maths simply because the effort required to get their respective scored are different. Specialist Maths scales up massively due to the people who do it. Remember, VCE is a ranking system.
-
Clearly no-one here has actually READ what James Lu said.
He's saying that VCE system is terrible because it's less about learning and more about getting the easiest path to the highest ENTER score. In other words, rather than thinking for yourself and learning what you want, you're bound to a syllabus so learning anything more would be seen as redundant.
Why the hell is everyone here talking about how the VCE scaling system is unfair? Subjects scale more when smarter people do it. A person getting a 30 in Specialist Maths would scale above a person getting 35 in Further Maths simply because the effort required to get their respective scored are different. Specialist Maths scales up massively due to the people who do it. Remember, VCE is a ranking system.
That'd be because no one actually linked James Lu's letter until the second or third page. Notice the scaling topic began on the first? Derp.
-
...
Notice the title of the topic?
-
can anyone direct me to Mr. Lu's article :)
-
...
Notice the title of the topic?
The title of the topic does not dictate the exchanges so much as its contents. Notice the logical progression of the thread?
can anyone direct me to Mr. Lu's article :)
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,20944.0.html
-
No I don't.
The OP was to do with James Lu's opinions. Immediately it turned into a scaling debate. Not a progression, more like a tangent.
EDIT: Link was made to his article, was not aknowledged. People continued on with the scaling debate. Isn't there another thread for that?
-
No I don't.
The OP was to do with James Lu's opinions. Immediately it turned into a scaling debate. Not a progression, more like a tangent.
Except for the fact that only his name is mentioned with nothing to say of what he actually said, so you can hardly blame people for not addressing the point specifically. Moreover, James Lu criticized the VCE system, of which scaling is relevant. You are essentially saying the thread is meaningless because of the topic title.
Oh, and for a guy criticizing irrelevance to the point at hand, you're setting this thread on more of a tangent than it was initially.
-
You went from denying to justifying.
You actually brought on the tangent, might I add.
I never implied the thread was meaningless, I'm implying that the thread isn't about scaling but should be about the VCE education system and how it reflects on your actual intelligence or if its just a bunch of people trying to find the best way to get the top marks.
-
You went from denying to justifying.
You actually brought on the tangent, might I add.
I never implied the thread was meaningless, I'm implying that the thread isn't about scaling but should be about the VCE education system and how it reflects on your actual intelligence or if its just a bunch of people trying to find the best way to get the top marks.
Justifying another point*. My initial 'denial', if you'd call it that, remains. Conversation started about scaling because someone in the second post mentioned it, whereas James Lu's opinions are in an entirely different thread.
I don't really care what you're implying, because my implication is that your implication is meaningless. Again, you are essentially arguing that the thread is invalid because of the title.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
-
Who cares? Most threads go off tangent anyway. If it annoys you that much get a mod to change thread title sheesh
-
You went from denying to justifying.
You actually brought on the tangent, might I add.
I never implied the thread was meaningless, I'm implying that the thread isn't about scaling but should be about the VCE education system and how it reflects on your actual intelligence or if its just a bunch of people trying to find the best way to get the top marks.
Justifying another point*. My initial 'denial', if you'd call it that, remains. Conversation started about scaling because someone in the second post mentioned it, whereas James Lu's opinions are in an entirely different thread.
I don't really care what you're implying, because my implication is that your implication is meaningless. Again, you are essentially arguing that the thread is invalid because of the title.
This kitten is really cute
(http://images.free-extras.com/pics/w/white_kitten-468.jpg)
-
i disagree, for a white cat it is indeed cute, but if we take into account cats on a whole, we must judge the white cat more harshly, as white cats generally are cuter than the adverage cat.
I give the cat a cuteness rating of 6/10, taking into account the fact that it is a white cat, it now gets a rating of 4/10, hence it is not cute.
-
LOL. :D
-
(http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5707/1186744819805.jpg)
-
Just one thing! You guys are arguing about people doing languages at a level below their capacity, but ... what about the kids who are acing methods and do further because they think it's an easy 50. Seriously if you have the competence in methods to get atleast a 40 then you should be forced to do specialist maths or another subject. Not only is it taking advantage of a subject, but these guys are restricting their options! Students who want to become Engineers, Mathematicians, Physicists, Actuaries need to finish VCE with Specialist maths behind them.
I still don't believe that subjects should be able to scale over 50. By all means include scaling, but going above 50 for some is just stupid.
-
i disagree, for a white cat it is indeed cute, but if we take into account cats on a whole, we must judge the white cat more harshly, as white cats generally are cuter than the adverage cat.
I give the cat a cuteness rating of 6/10, taking into account the fact that it is a white cat, it now gets a rating of 4/10, hence it is not cute.
VCE Scaling for pre-schoolers
-
well we need to intrduce them to the system early so they are used to it by the time they reach VCE
-
...
Notice the title of the topic?
The title of the topic does not dictate the exchanges so much as its contents. Notice the logical progression of the thread?
can anyone direct me to Mr. Lu's article :)
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,20944.0.html
umm the article in the Newspaper..
-
...
Notice the title of the topic?
The title of the topic does not dictate the exchanges so much as its contents. Notice the logical progression of the thread?
can anyone direct me to Mr. Lu's article :)
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,20944.0.html
umm the article in the Newspaper..
Scroll down a few posts, it's there.
-
EZ posted it in the forum.
Check out his letter to The Age:
"IT MIGHT seem a strange sentiment coming from a recent high school graduate, but I regret my lack of academic failure. Our education system churns out students who are afraid to fail, afraid to go beyond syllabus requirements, and perhaps even afraid to genuinely learn.
It is a disgusting enterprise. And the result? Entry via meaningless scores into a vocational vortex with only one destination: mediocrity.
This system does not teach students the difference between what is right, and what is easy - students simply take the path that secures more marks, unquestionably exemplified by the stereotypes that exist in subject selection.
The sense of wonder and discovery that should accompany the academic experience is lost amid all the interest in scaling and the ENTER. It is simply part of a pernicious culture that considers high scholarship for its own sake quaint.
James Lu, South Melbourne"
-
i disagree, for a white cat it is indeed cute, but if we take into account cats on a whole, we must judge the white cat more harshly, as white cats generally are cuter than the adverage cat.
I give the cat a cuteness rating of 6/10, taking into account the fact that it is a white cat, it now gets a rating of 4/10, hence it is not cute.
(http://wordandimage.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/dumbledore-is-gay-lolcat.jpg)
-
i disagree, for a white cat it is indeed cute, but if we take into account cats on a whole, we must judge the white cat more harshly, as white cats generally are cuter than the adverage cat.
I give the cat a cuteness rating of 6/10, taking into account the fact that it is a white cat, it now gets a rating of 4/10, hence it is not cute.
You're a backwards white supremacist.
-
i disagree, for a white cat it is indeed cute, but if we take into account cats on a whole, we must judge the white cat more harshly, as white cats generally are cuter than the adverage cat.
I give the cat a cuteness rating of 6/10, taking into account the fact that it is a white cat, it now gets a rating of 4/10, hence it is not cute.
You're a backwards white supremacist.
lol, yea.....totally :P
-
I don't understand why subjects cannot scale past 50.
The dude who gets 50 in Latin and the dude who gets 50 in food technology (no offense to the food tech kids out there) shouldn't be on the same level.
-
I don't understand why subjects cannot scale past 50.
The dude who gets 50 in Latin and the dude who gets 50 in food technology (no offense to the food tech kids out there) shouldn't be on the same level.
Some do, Latin can scale up to 55 (if there are enough students for a 50 to be handed out)
Also spesh goes above 50 (if you get a high enough SS)
-
As in, I don't understand why people are opposed to it.
-
I don't understand why subjects cannot scale past 50.
The dude who gets 50 in Latin and the dude who gets 50 in food technology (no offense to the food tech kids out there) shouldn't be on the same level.
There hasn't been a 50 in Latin in the last decade, I believe. xD
-
I don't understand why subjects cannot scale past 50.
The dude who gets 50 in Latin and the dude who gets 50 in food technology (no offense to the food tech kids out there) shouldn't be on the same level.
There hasn't been a 50 in Latin in the last decade, I believe. xD
Haha we had this conversation a while back EvangelionZeta, a certain student from Xavier in 2000 got a 50. He is now the vocalist for a Melbourne Indie band I like called Little Red. How Random!
50 (1 total):
*******, ****** (Xavier College Kew)