ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: AcademyPlus on October 05, 2010, 10:42:10 pm
-
Hey guys, this will make a worthwhile discussion - feel free to post your views in the comment sections... I am stirring again no doubt, but it would be great to hear how you would change/not change the VCE systems as students!
Thanks
http://vcetuition.com.au/is-vce-fair
-
I think it's about as fair as can be. Any system has its flaws, but the VCE one is actually quite solid compared to what happens in uni, graduate course selection and so on. The only change I might make is to keep some form of English compulsory, but not compulsory in the top 4 in the ATAR calculation. Then the courses that need good English can just adjust their pre-reqs accordingly, but the majority that don't no longer have English as a major barrier to entry.
-
i think the sac ranking aspect of it should be abolished. i mean right now im going to be punished for a bad year of methods, despite studying like crazy for the exams :(
-
I think it's about as fair as can be. Any system has its flaws, but the VCE one is actually quite solid compared to what happens in uni, graduate course selection and so on. The only change I might make is to keep some form of English compulsory, but not compulsory in the top 4 in the ATAR calculation. Then the courses that need good English can just adjust their pre-reqs accordingly, but the majority that don't no longer have English as a major barrier to entry.
+too many.
english should NOT be part of top 4, however, i think it's fair if it was compulsary top 4 for international students, at least those who don't speak much english - as they should know english if they are coming here, and not just take away all our top scores.
-
i think the sac ranking aspect of it should be abolished. i mean right now im going to be punished for a bad year of methods, despite studying like crazy for the exams :(
I would have to disagree with you there. I believe the SAC ranking system is fair. In this way people from disadvantaged schools are not demolished when scores are made.
-
Nothing is fair. At least VCE tries to be fair.
-
VCE is so not fair, if u do crap throughout the year and ace exams u should be getting high 40s but SACS will make u get like 30s
-
yes and no. the thing that should be changed is the amount of scaling.some subjects are harder than others but becuase it is about ranking scaling should not come into effect
-
I think it's about as fair as can be. Any system has its flaws, but the VCE one is actually quite solid compared to what happens in uni, graduate course selection and so on. The only change I might make is to keep some form of English compulsory, but not compulsory in the top 4 in the ATAR calculation. Then the courses that need good English can just adjust their pre-reqs accordingly, but the majority that don't no longer have English as a major barrier to entry.
+too many.
english should NOT be part of top 4, however, i think it's fair if it was compulsary top 4 for international students, at least those who don't speak much english - as they should know english if they are coming here, and not just take away all our top scores.
Agreed.
Also maybe need to review the requirements to do ESL. I know some people who are very capable with English, yet are able to still do ESL.
Flawed system.
-
Also maybe need to review the requirements to do ESL. I know some people who are very capable with English, yet are able to still do ESL.
Flawed system.
There's a kid in my literature class who could be doing ESL if he wanted, and he is a very good english student... But it's difficult to decide who can and can't do ESL- where do you draw the line?
-
SAC is unfair due to the favouratism of the teachers and the fact that SACs are easier than the exams, which means they cannot test the ability of the students. You might say.. "but you're competing against your cohort, and even if the SACs are easy, they still give a fair ranking according to your ability within your school."
No, exams are complete different things as they combine various topics together (possibly in one question) to test the students' knowledge.
And also, English should not be the top 4. Maybe they should make a minimum study score for English in order to pass VCE, but English is not a subject that you can do well even if you study 10 hours a day. It's a subject to drag down the foreigners that are leaning towards maths and sciences.
-
yes and no. the thing that should be changed is the amount of scaling.some subjects are harder than others but becuase it is about ranking scaling should not come into effect
Erroneous assumption.
This has been discussed many-a-time here on VN, but I'm assuming you haven't seen any of these.
Scaling is employed to make the ranking system fair.
A worthy analogy:
If you come second in a footrace against some friends,
should that be counted the same as coming second in the Olympics?
It is the same deal with scaling, they determine the level of competition within the subject (by comparing the scores students obtained in the study compared to their other studies) and scale the results accordingly.
-
I know it's 'cool' to always rail against the 'establishment' and home in on its flaws, but I think VCE is about as fair as it could realistically hope to be. Let me refer to some examples of VCE's 'unfairness' here:
1. People capable of doing English or Literature are doing ESL.
This isn't really a fault of VCE, but rather civilisation's technical inability to derive someone's competency in language. We can't test students on this competency either as they'd just intentionally fail that test to enter into ESL.
2. VCE isn't fair because it punishes people who do poorly on SACs.
How is it unfair that students who don't work get a lower mark than those who do? SACs can be drastically scaled up if you really improve anyway.
3. The impact of English is too great on one's ATAR.
I partially agree. I don't know about you, but I want the surgeon operating on my nuts to be a fluent English speaker. I do admit however doing well in English is about far more than just speaking the language itself fluently, and that Science/Maths-minded students unduly must put in much more effort into this subject than Humanities-minded students.
4. SACs depend on favouritism of teachers
That's a fault of human nature, not the wider VCE system.
In summary, VCE isn't perfect, but to one-mindedly rail against it because you don't like it is an immature response to that fact. We shouldn't forget that our complaints, it seems to me, are mostly petty and centre on maybe one or two subjects and nuances in the scaling system. In the grand scheme of things, it leaves VCE a rather effective system albeit an imperfect one.
Don't get me wrong - I suffer from its flaws too. I do History: Revolutions in which the average exam score is something like 45%. The subject scales up by one.
-
With 4. it is a fault in the system.
Though there is some kind of accountability at least, with cross-marking and audits.
The problem is not where issues originate or who's to blame. Rather, the presence of these faults IS the problem.
Whether we look to new methods or attempt to improve the current ones, a fault is a fault, and they must be addressed if any improvement is to come.
I agree that the system is actually quite reasonable at the moment. But never fall into believing that something is "as fair as it could realistically hope to be". Not that what we say and think is going to have a huge impact on the future of VCE, but it is a very dangerous attitude to foster.
Complacency stagnates society.
-
At least we're not like Queensland lol. Their whole system is based on how their internals scale.
-
I agree that the system is actually quite reasonable at the moment. But never fall into believing that something is "as fair as it could realistically hope to be". Not that what we say and think is going to have a huge impact on the future of VCE, but it is a very dangerous attitude to foster.
Complacency stagnates society.
If what you meant was we should always remain vigilant that these things really are the best possible then I agree, but I made that statement on the premise that was assured. If something can't realistically be improved, it's hardly stagnancy in my opinion to let it be.
-
Out there in the big non-vce world, you'd be hard pressed to find a system that is more fair than the vce.
-
SAC is unfair due to the favouratism of the teachers and the fact that SACs are easier than the exams, which means they cannot test the ability of the students. You might say.. "but you're competing against your cohort, and even if the SACs are easy, they still give a fair ranking according to your ability within your school."
No, exams are complete different things as they combine various topics together (possibly in one question) to test the students' knowledge.
The whole 'SACs are easier than exams' thing is debatable. Depends which school you go to really. And yes, SACs are often quite different from the structure of the exam, but they're purposefully done like that so other skills are developed in the course of the subject - not just the ability to do a written exam. For example, producing a film in media studies is something that is obviously necessary. I guess some of these aspects could be not formally assessed, but then people just won't try at all on them if they're not assessed and then their learning is impaired I guess.
Don't get me wrong - I suffer from its flaws too. I do History: Revolutions in which the average exam score is something like 45%. The subject scales up by one.
Actually raw exam scores have no bearing on scaling. Only the strength of the cohort in their other subjects does. Don't see how this is particularly a flaw. Using m@tty's race analogy, the subject you're doing could be likened to the length of race you're running. It doesn't matter about your raw time that you achieve in this race; just the number of people who you beat, and how good they are at their other races.
-
I think it's about as fair as can be. Any system has its flaws, but the VCE one is actually quite solid compared to what happens in uni, graduate course selection and so on. The only change I might make is to keep some form of English compulsory, but not compulsory in the top 4 in the ATAR calculation. Then the courses that need good English can just adjust their pre-reqs accordingly, but the majority that don't no longer have English as a major barrier to entry.
+too many.
english should NOT be part of top 4, however, i think it's fair if it was compulsary top 4 for international students, at least those who don't speak much english - as they should know english if they are coming here, and not just take away all our top scores.
Agreed.
Also maybe need to review the requirements to do ESL. I know some people who are very capable with English, yet are able to still do ESL.
Flawed system.
theres a kid at my school who got 48 in ESL few years back .. did english the next year and took home a 49.
pretty stupid system in my eyes.
also ... a guy this year .. is probably the best at english in our school , yet ,hes doing ESL.
-
I think it's about as fair as can be. Any system has its flaws, but the VCE one is actually quite solid compared to what happens in uni, graduate course selection and so on. The only change I might make is to keep some form of English compulsory, but not compulsory in the top 4 in the ATAR calculation. Then the courses that need good English can just adjust their pre-reqs accordingly, but the majority that don't no longer have English as a major barrier to entry.
+too many.
english should NOT be part of top 4, however, i think it's fair if it was compulsary top 4 for international students, at least those who don't speak much english - as they should know english if they are coming here, and not just take away all our top scores.
Agreed.
Also maybe need to review the requirements to do ESL. I know some people who are very capable with English, yet are able to still do ESL.
Flawed system.
theres a kid at my school who got 48 in ESL few years back .. did english the next year and took home a 49.
pretty stupid system in my eyes.
also ... a guy this year .. is probably the best at english in our school , yet ,hes doing ESL.
How is that stupid? Perhaps the "kid" was very competent at writing essays and enjoyed English languages. Do you think it's stupid for someone who goes well in specialist maths to do further maths?
And would anyone know what the "requirements" are for ESL? I tried to search for it on the VCAA website but couldn't find anything...
-
Actually raw exam scores have no bearing on scaling. Only the strength of the cohort in their other subjects does. Don't see how this is particularly a flaw. Using m@tty's race analogy, the subject you're doing could be likened to the length of race you're running. It doesn't matter about your raw time that you achieve in this race; just the number of people who you beat, and how good they are at their other races.
I know scaling isn't based off raw scores - that was actually my entire point. Ask anyone doing Revs and they'll tell you it's a ball-breaker. Don't you think it's a 'flaw' that it only scales by 1? Don't you think it's a flaw that the extra hours required aren't being properly compensated?
-
Also less corruption and 'cheating' in certain subjects in VCE would probably make it fairer, but it is a very good system relatively to many others out there... (look at China's secondary education system and you'll understand)
-
I think it's about as fair as can be. Any system has its flaws, but the VCE one is actually quite solid compared to what happens in uni, graduate course selection and so on. The only change I might make is to keep some form of English compulsory, but not compulsory in the top 4 in the ATAR calculation. Then the courses that need good English can just adjust their pre-reqs accordingly, but the majority that don't no longer have English as a major barrier to entry.
+too many.
english should NOT be part of top 4, however, i think it's fair if it was compulsary top 4 for international students, at least those who don't speak much english - as they should know english if they are coming here, and not just take away all our top scores.
Agreed.
Also maybe need to review the requirements to do ESL. I know some people who are very capable with English, yet are able to still do ESL.
Flawed system.
theres a kid at my school who got 48 in ESL few years back .. did english the next year and took home a 49.
pretty stupid system in my eyes.
also ... a guy this year .. is probably the best at english in our school , yet ,hes doing ESL.
How is that stupid? Perhaps the "kid" was very competent at writing essays and enjoyed English languages. Do you think it's stupid for someone who goes well in specialist maths to do further maths?
And would anyone know what the "requirements" are for ESL? I tried to search for it on the VCAA website but couldn't find anything...
Requirements are .... must NOT be living in australia for more than 7 years i believe?.
and obviously come from a non english speaking backround.
also .. if its close to 7 years .. e.g 6 or so ... you have to do a "pre test".
also
I think its stupid , because people like him are completely abusing the system.
he came to Australia and has been here for 6 years at the time of when he did ESL.
however , in India . his main language was English. he spoke English at home , and at school.
his English was 10X better than his Hindi..... completely competent , fluent and pretty much , an amazing writer.
He SHOULD NOT be allowed to do ESL... although , all it takes is to say " im from india , my english is bad" , fake a pretest , and away you go.
I know of many , not just at my school but also at others who are abusing the system.
Esl wasnt made like further and specialist ... ESL was made for students are having trouble with English because its their SECOND language ... that generally means , their first language is obviously better than their english.
-
Actually raw exam scores have no bearing on scaling. Only the strength of the cohort in their other subjects does. Don't see how this is particularly a flaw. Using m@tty's race analogy, the subject you're doing could be likened to the length of race you're running. It doesn't matter about your raw time that you achieve in this race; just the number of people who you beat, and how good they are at their other races.
I know scaling isn't based off raw scores - that was actually my entire point. Ask anyone doing Revs and they'll tell you it's a ball-breaker. Don't you think it's a 'flaw' that it only scales by 1? Don't you think it's a flaw that the extra hours required aren't being properly compensated?
This is true. If all the smart people that normally do the asian subjects all suddenly decided to do a subject, it is likely that that subject will have higher scaling from the intense competition caused.
-
Also less corruption and 'cheating' in certain subjects in VCE would probably make it fairer, but it is a very good system relatively to many others out there... (look at China's secondary education system and you'll understand)
can you explain what China's secondary education system is like? pretty interested to find out
-
It is WAY more confined than VCE, if you think having English as a compulsory subject is bad enough, in China, Chinese, Mathematics and English are all compulsory. Also from what my parents have told me, there are subjects which you MUST study even if you don't get examined them on in "Gao Kao" (basically the Chinese equivalent of VCAA exams), these include Chinese history, literature etc. VCE is much less constrained than the Chinese secondary education system, you can pick subjects to your own liking and whatever suits your taste (except for the compulsory subject English). In China you don't get this freedom, your education is already set out for you, the majority of all the subjects you do are all compulsory, so if you are bad at those subjects then bad luck.
In other words, unless you go to a technical school, ie, a specialised school for sports, music or whatever, you will be doing the EXACT same subjects as the rest of all the secondary school kids. So if mathematics ain't your strong point you have no choice but to get beaten by many other students.
-
I should add there's even choice in English here - you can do Literature, English Language or ESL under certain conditions.
-
It is WAY more confined than VCE, if you think having English as a compulsory subject is bad enough, in China, Chinese, Mathematics and English are all compulsory. Also from what my parents have told me, there are subjects which you MUST study even if you don't get examined them on in "Gao Kao" (basically the Chinese equivalent of VCAA exams), these include Chinese history, literature etc. VCE is much less constrained than the Chinese secondary education system, you can pick subjects to your own liking and whatever suits your taste (except for the compulsory subject English). In China you don't get this freedom, your education is already set out for you, the majority of all the subjects you do are all compulsory, so if you are bad at those subjects then bad luck.
very similar to my home country, dunno how it is now though since communism died, however when my parents completed secondary school, everybody did the same subjects => math,physics,chemistry,biology,literature,history,own language of what i know.
-
It is WAY more confined than VCE, if you think having English as a compulsory subject is bad enough, in China, Chinese, Mathematics and English are all compulsory. Also from what my parents have told me, there are subjects which you MUST study even if you don't get examined them on in "Gao Kao" (basically the Chinese equivalent of VCAA exams), these include Chinese history, literature etc. VCE is much less constrained than the Chinese secondary education system, you can pick subjects to your own liking and whatever suits your taste (except for the compulsory subject English). In China you don't get this freedom, your education is already set out for you, the majority of all the subjects you do are all compulsory, so if you are bad at those subjects then bad luck.
very similar to my home country, dunno how it is now though since communism died, however when my parents completed secondary school, everybody did the same subjects => math,physics,chemistry,biology,literature,history,own language of what i know.
Yup I just edited my above post, so yeah everyone basically does the same subjects... you don't have a choice in what you want to do, at least in VCE you can pick the subjects which you are interested in bar one compulsory subject, I think that already makes a very good system.
-
It is WAY more confined than VCE, if you think having English as a compulsory subject is bad enough, in China, Chinese, Mathematics and English are all compulsory. Also from what my parents have told me, there are subjects which you MUST study even if you don't get examined them on in "Gao Kao" (basically the Chinese equivalent of VCAA exams), these include Chinese history, literature etc. VCE is much less constrained than the Chinese secondary education system, you can pick subjects to your own liking and whatever suits your taste (except for the compulsory subject English). In China you don't get this freedom, your education is already set out for you, the majority of all the subjects you do are all compulsory, so if you are bad at those subjects then bad luck.
very similar to my home country, dunno how it is now though since communism died, however when my parents completed secondary school, everybody did the same subjects => math,physics,chemistry,biology,literature,history,own language of what i know.
Yup I just edited my above post, so yeah everyone basically does the same subjects... you don't have a choice in what you want to do, at least in VCE you can pick the subjects which you are interested in bar one compulsory subject, I think that already makes a very good system.
China and Russia pretty much have the same schooling =P
-
It is WAY more confined than VCE, if you think having English as a compulsory subject is bad enough, in China, Chinese, Mathematics and English are all compulsory. Also from what my parents have told me, there are subjects which you MUST study even if you don't get examined them on in "Gao Kao" (basically the Chinese equivalent of VCAA exams), these include Chinese history, literature etc. VCE is much less constrained than the Chinese secondary education system, you can pick subjects to your own liking and whatever suits your taste (except for the compulsory subject English). In China you don't get this freedom, your education is already set out for you, the majority of all the subjects you do are all compulsory, so if you are bad at those subjects then bad luck.
In other words, unless you go to a technical school, ie, a specialised school for sports, music or whatever, you will be doing the EXACT same subjects as the rest of all the secondary school kids. So if mathematics ain't your strong point you have no choice but to get beaten by many other students.
To add to this, every student in the WHOLE country use the exact same textbooks which are made by some government body. (so I hear from my mum)
-
Yup, I still have all of the Chinese secondary mathematics textbooks, they were used by my dad when he was in school and they are STILL using them (although some stuff are changed but the general parts are still the same).
I admit though, they are of a MUCH higher standard than Australian secondary education (for mathematics) which probably makes it worse for those students who dislike mathematics but are forced to do it.
-
however it's no stereotype that the majority of chinese students would excel in australian schooling, which just shows the level these two countries are at. Therefore the government is obviously doing something right to produce so many bright kids.
-
Actually raw exam scores have no bearing on scaling. Only the strength of the cohort in their other subjects does. Don't see how this is particularly a flaw. Using m@tty's race analogy, the subject you're doing could be likened to the length of race you're running. It doesn't matter about your raw time that you achieve in this race; just the number of people who you beat, and how good they are at their other races.
I know scaling isn't based off raw scores - that was actually my entire point. Ask anyone doing Revs and they'll tell you it's a ball-breaker. Don't you think it's a 'flaw' that it only scales by 1? Don't you think it's a flaw that the extra hours required aren't being properly compensated?
I don't see the relevance of pointing out the average exam percentage then. But anyway, many of the art subjects like viscomm and so on require long hours yet get scaled down even. Point is, long hours doesn't mean anything. One thing people commonly argue is unfair is this notion of people spending long hours and not being rewarded. While it is something that would be ideal in a fair world, VCE is a case of finding the smartest and hours spent isn't necessarily proportional to 'intelligence' (I use this term warily since I wouldn't say VCE really measures this). They're finding the best people for the job really. So in this regard, even if these people spent ages on Revs, they're apparently not doing that well in their other subjects, hence explaining the low amount scaled. Going back to the race analogy once again (credits to m@tty for it - finding it so useful :P), it's like having an event that people do a crap load of training in to do well in, but when they go to any other event, they suck. So in a case where you're picking the best runners, who would you give more credit to? And yeh, I know that you can't compare running events like this. No one really does both sprinting and long distance and there is no 'standard' best runner. This is ultimately what I see as the flaw in VCE. Proficiency at different events can be likened to the different intelligences, and I don't see how someone who chooses a heap of art subjects and does well at them is more suitable to be doing a science degree than someone who did half decent in a range of science subjects. So in this sense, I don't see how you can scale subjects against one another - because you're effectively saying that someone's artistical intelligence is worth less because they're not as good in a scientific sense. They're totally different things, and if you chucked the science students who scored 50 actually into arts subjects, then they'd be pretty screwed. However, the VCE system seems to imply that they'd expect them to score 50 (well, even higher if it were possible given that arts scales down and science tends to scale up).
However, it's the only way to keep with VCAA's aim to allow people to get into almost any course doing almost any combination of subjects. I don't see it as being particularly productive but I guess people are often quite indecisive and don't want to be locked in. I just think that if they did force people to think about their future earlier, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. It's just that now people don't really have much pressure to think about it until VTAC preferences are due that we're having this problem of people being uncertain about what course they actually want to do and deciding last minute.
-
I don't feel that one 2 hour examination is a fair assessment of my skills and knowledge in a subject. To be tested on one occasion, for a few hours, for something you have been learning for MONTHS, is entirely unfair in my mind. Not only does it limit the amount of content that can be tested to a very small portion of the study design, it is a situation which can be ruined by the unfortunate chance you are having a bad day.
My academic potential should not be measured by a few, short examinations. It is not a true reflection of my abilities.
We need more external examinations throughout the year.
-
I don't feel that one 2 hour examination is a fair assessment of my skills and knowledge in a subject. To be tested on one occasion, for a few hours, for something you have been learning for MONTHS, is entirely unfair in my mind. Not only does it limit the amount of content that can be tested to a very small portion of the study design, it is a situation which can be ruined by the unfortunate chance you are having a bad day.
My academic potential should not be measured by a few, short examinations. It is not a true reflection of my abilities.
We need more external examinations throughout the year.
True. The more content you examine, the more accurate the final result is going to be in ranking students. Quite simple. However, it's just a logistical and financial nightmare for VCAA really. It all comes back to this really =S
-
Saving time and pennies at the cost of unfair assessment, it seems.
-
Welcome to reality I guess :)
-
The scaling is a bit too extreme thats what I think. If you took 1/3 of the scaling off each subject then it would be much fairer. Apart from that VCE is pretty fair
-
Shinny I'd love to debate you about whether VCE is about intelligence or knowledge (you seem to be equally unsure - "I use this term warily" etc) but I think this was beside the original point I made in this thread. Furthermore such a debate is beyond the scope of VCE, as difficulty is an immeasurable, subjective emotion rather than an institutional function with a clear-cut purpose which either works or not.
What I argued was that while VCE undoubtedly has some flaws, it can't realistically get a lot better. That note about me 'suffering' from Revs I made lest someone level the accusation that I wasn't that critical of VCE because the subjects I was studying were favourable to me personally, or that I didn't care about their sense of injustice.
That's not to say I was 'lying' about Revs being difficult yet under-rewarded, but it wasn't my intention to start up a debate about assessing the difficulty of subjects. It's probably my fault due to my prior post (07:34:38 PM) that you might think I intended to.
Well done on a fantastic ENTER by the way!
-
I don't feel that one 2 hour examination is a fair assessment of my skills and knowledge in a subject. To be tested on one occasion, for a few hours, for something you have been learning for MONTHS, is entirely unfair in my mind. Not only does it limit the amount of content that can be tested to a very small portion of the study design, it is a situation which can be ruined by the unfortunate chance you are having a bad day.
My academic potential should not be measured by a few, short examinations. It is not a true reflection of my abilities.
We need more external examinations throughout the year.
I couldn't agree more.
-
I don't feel that one 2 hour examination is a fair assessment of my skills and knowledge in a subject. To be tested on one occasion, for a few hours, for something you have been learning for MONTHS, is entirely unfair in my mind. Not only does it limit the amount of content that can be tested to a very small portion of the study design, it is a situation which can be ruined by the unfortunate chance you are having a bad day.
My academic potential should not be measured by a few, short examinations. It is not a true reflection of my abilities.
We need more external examinations throughout the year.
I couldn't agree more.
i couldn't agree more to agree more
-
I don't feel that one 2 hour examination is a fair assessment of my skills and knowledge in a subject. To be tested on one occasion, for a few hours, for something you have been learning for MONTHS, is entirely unfair in my mind. Not only does it limit the amount of content that can be tested to a very small portion of the study design, it is a situation which can be ruined by the unfortunate chance you are having a bad day.
My academic potential should not be measured by a few, short examinations. It is not a true reflection of my abilities.
We need more external examinations throughout the year.
But the thing is...that would mean 9358901580135x more stress and people would be discouraged much more easily. Let's take a subject like Methods which has its exam in one period at the end of the year. Before this period people who have screwed up their SACs will be like "I'm going to whip the exams" and they are thereby encouraged to try. Yet for something like Chem for a midyear and an end-of-year, some people will be discouraged at their lacklustre performance on the midyears and are then discouraged to work on that subject for the rest of the year. It's a generalization, I know.
And the only thing I really want is to have an exam where you have ~3 hours to solve maybe 4-5 absurdly hard maths/science problems. I really don't like the fact that I can immediately perceive how to do 95% of exam questions that I see.
-
In my personal opinion, rather than testing the students' intelligence, VCE is more about testing how hard the students work. But then I guess it's not a bad thing to reward the hard working students, "hard-working" could be an indicator to future success.
-
I think the 80% class attendance or you fail rule is a bit unfair. Even though this is a requirement for every student I don't see the point of going to school if you are proficient with all the concepts covered (at least when you are going through the basics in class) or are more of an independent learner and would like to go through things at your own pace.
-
But the thing is...that would mean 9358901580135x more stress and people would be discouraged much more easily. Let's take a subject like Methods which has its exam in one period at the end of the year. Before this period people who have screwed up their SACs will be like "I'm going to whip the exams" and they are thereby encouraged to try. Yet for something like Chem for a midyear and an end-of-year, some people will be discouraged at their lacklustre performance on the midyears and are then discouraged to work on that subject for the rest of the year. It's a generalization, I know.
And the only thing I really want is to have an exam where you have ~3 hours to solve maybe 4-5 absurdly hard maths/science problems. I really don't like the fact that I can immediately perceive how to do 95% of exam questions that I see.
Aha, but you see, i think you are greatly confused in saying so.
Why do we stress about exams in the first place? I think the answer is because they're worth so very much of a score which can determine the next few years of our lives. The amount of stress felt is directly proportionate to how much the assessment will contribute to your study score, i believe.
Numerous external exams (perhaps even for each AOS) would achieve the following:
PROS
-More consistency in study and revision across the student population, as important assessments would be more frequent;
-Stress levels spread evenly throughout the year, rather than overflowing at the mid- and end-points;
-An increased element of fairness, as students are given multiple opportunities to prove their knowledge at an external level, which will ultimately contribute to their scaling and overall score;
-Less dependency on how one is feeling on the day of an exam, as they will be worth proportionately less;
-Remove excellent students receiving a score that is not reflective of their true knowledge, intelligence or academic ability, due to having a headache, cold or extreme levels of stress on ONE DAY OF THEIR LIFE.
CONS
-Higher costs to Government.
To say the costs outweigh the potential benefit is ludicrous, in my mind. Ignoring this suggestion based on practicality and fiscal matters in entirely unjust and a disgrace to the education system; the centrepoint of all other industries.
-
And the only thing I really want is to have an exam where you have ~3 hours to solve maybe 4-5 absurdly hard maths/science problems. I really don't like the fact that I can immediately perceive how to do 95% of exam questions that I see.
Where do you draw the line at difficult...? I couldn't understand 95% of the Methods exam questions I saw...?
-
Where do you draw the line at difficult...? I couldn't understand 95% of the Methods exam questions I saw...?
This is why it's not the case, you'd get 5% of the state doing well and the other 95% having no chance. Also, you'd only be testing a few concepts which is something this thread seems to hate.
To say the costs outweigh the potential benefit is ludicrous, in my mind. Ignoring this suggestion based on practicality and fiscal matters in entirely unjust and a disgrace to the education system; the centrepoint of all other industries.
Where do you want to take the money from? Say there's an exam at the end of every term, you just quadrupled (talking generally) the amount of money required to organise/write/correct/etc. exams. Sure, we could improve the education system by injecting more money into it and streamlining it so that students are rewarded based on what they've learned but it's not cost effective. If we can produce people who are capable of success in the workforce/higher education then the VCE/HSC/etc. is doing its job.
-
But the thing is...that would mean 9358901580135x more stress and people would be discouraged much more easily. Let's take a subject like Methods which has its exam in one period at the end of the year. Before this period people who have screwed up their SACs will be like "I'm going to whip the exams" and they are thereby encouraged to try. Yet for something like Chem for a midyear and an end-of-year, some people will be discouraged at their lacklustre performance on the midyears and are then discouraged to work on that subject for the rest of the year. It's a generalization, I know.
And the only thing I really want is to have an exam where you have ~3 hours to solve maybe 4-5 absurdly hard maths/science problems. I really don't like the fact that I can immediately perceive how to do 95% of exam questions that I see.
dude, that describes the melbourne uni maths comp pretty much. and look at the resutl fro that....... what 50%+ of ppl get uner 50+....AND that's the small sample of already really decnt students that bother to sit it...
having an exam every term is ludicrous. It is utterly impratical. The aftermath of the end of year exams last for about 6 months by the time they've tyed up all the loose ends e.g. inspecting scripts is just happning now for students who sat the mid year. Now do that four times a year.....
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
at least when you're sick on an exam you can apply for a derived score, try telling the multinational comapany you're applying for a job in that you have a cough on the day of your inteview and see how they would respond...
-
Where do you want to take the money from? Say there's an exam at the end of every term, you just quadrupled (talking generally) the amount of money required to organise/write/correct/etc. exams. Sure, we could improve the education system by injecting more money into it and streamlining it so that students are rewarded based on what they've learned but it's not cost effective. If we can produce people who are capable of success in the workforce/higher education then the VCE/HSC/etc. is doing its job.
having an exam every term is ludicrous. It is utterly impratical. The aftermath of the end of year exams last for about 6 months by the time they've tyed up all the loose ends e.g. inspecting scripts is just happning now for students who sat the mid year. Now do that four times a year.....
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
To dismiss the idea of multiple examinations (which you have both noted as beneficial in nature) due to the high costs and assumed impracticality associated with such, is a clear representation of an attitude unwilling for change. To give up on a brilliant proposition due to foreseen troubles which would prove somewhat difficult to overcome, is perhaps the clearest representation of "complacency stagnating society." (brilliant quote m@tty)
If the world's great revolutionaries gave up on their ideas because they contained economic hardships and enormous amounts of effort to overcome, the world would be a much worse place.
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
at least when you're sick on an exam you can apply for a derived score, try telling the multinational comapany you're applying for a job in that you have a cough on the day of your inteview and see how they would respond...
VCE shouldn't be akin to the harsh corporate world awaiting some. It should prepare us for such, but not at the cost of fair assessment. VCE should provide students with learning opportunities that inspire them to further their education and training; not make them want to escape it.
-
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
Yah, very true, it's one of the fairest systems out there...
-
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
Yah, very true, it's one of the fairest systems out there...
yeah agreed
I mean , I know of alot of people who are majorly abusing the system , but thats always going to happen.
the only main unfair thing Is , if you are sick and miss out on an exam they use GAT results.
I know of someone who would have got an amazing score in psych last year .. but missed the exam and im guessing they used his gat scores ( which he didnt really even bother with). i know its his own fault .. but i dont like how a 3 hour RANDOM test is meant to decide how well you would do in a exam which you study hard for.
All in all.
vce is a very fair system considering the amount of people doing it.
-
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
Yah, very true, it's one of the fairest systems out there...
TrueTears, tell me this;
You are in a room with 3 other people. One has cancer of the brain. Another, tuberculosis. The third, is vomiting blood violently.
You have a bad case of tonsillitis.
Would you refuse medical attention as you are the healthiest, by comparison?
-
ok zomgSEAN, sure whatever i'm not going to blame you for wanting change, and i don't actually digagree with the undelying principle of your argument, i just think you are severely underestimating the magnitude of what you are proposing
-
I don't get your question lol
What's tonsillitis? If it's not a really bad sickness I probably wouldn't go to the hospital, if it was I'd go and get checked up. :)
Anyways I don't see how that has anything to do with VCE being fair, like I said earlier, when compared with many other systems out there, it is by far the fairest, be happy with what you have, it's not perfect so what, that's life, at least it's better than the other systems out there.
-
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
Yah, very true, it's one of the fairest systems out there...
TrueTears, tell me this;
You are in a room with 3 other people. One has cancer of the brain. Another, tuberculosis. The third, is vomiting blood violently.
You have a bad case of tonsillitis.
Would you refuse medical attention as you are the healthiest, by comparison?
if it was me? of course.......i don't see what you point is zomgSEAN.....
-
Where do you want to take the money from? Say there's an exam at the end of every term, you just quadrupled (talking generally) the amount of money required to organise/write/correct/etc. exams. Sure, we could improve the education system by injecting more money into it and streamlining it so that students are rewarded based on what they've learned but it's not cost effective. If we can produce people who are capable of success in the workforce/higher education then the VCE/HSC/etc. is doing its job.
having an exam every term is ludicrous. It is utterly impratical. The aftermath of the end of year exams last for about 6 months by the time they've tyed up all the loose ends e.g. inspecting scripts is just happning now for students who sat the mid year. Now do that four times a year.....
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
To dismiss the idea of multiple examinations (which you have both noted as beneficial in nature) due to the high costs and assumed impracticality associated with such, is a clear representation of an attitude unwilling for revolution. To give up on a brilliant proposition due to foreseen troubles which would prove somewhat difficult to overcome, is perhaps the clearest representation of "complacency stagnating society." (brilliant quote m@tty)
If the world's great revolutionaries gave up on their ideas because they contained economic hardships and enormous amounts of effort to overcome, the world would be a much worse place.
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
at least when you're sick on an exam you can apply for a derived score, try telling the multinational comapany you're applying for a job in that you have a cough on the day of your inteview and see how they would respond...
VCE shouldn't be akin to the harsh corporate world awaiting some. It should prepare us for such, but not at the cost of fair assessment. VCE should provide students with learning opportunities that inspire them to further their education and training; not make them want to escape it.
I'm just wondering what the benefit of having more examinations will actually be in reality. The most influential effect will probably be sorting out those who put in consistent effort from those who don't (i.e. crammers). The intended effect of reflecting people's true ability probably isn't going to be that significant, and not worth the economic trade off. Sure, it may help out those few cases where people actually do bomb out, but I'd say most people get the mark they deserve just from knowing what SS's my friends got.
Sure in an ideal world ther woudl be amny more exams, but as has been metioned in the thread many times, i wouldn't complain about vce, it's as fair as it gets....
Yah, very true, it's one of the fairest systems out there...
TrueTears, tell me this;
You are in a room with 3 other people. One has cancer of the brain. Another, tuberculosis. The third, is vomiting blood violently.
You have a bad case of tonsillitis.
Would you refuse medical attention as you are the healthiest, by comparison?
I don't really see the complete relevance of this analogy and it's not even up to the individual since the doctors will triage the situation accordingly, just like how the government will when it comes to allocation of funds. We've got public infrastructure such as trains and roads that need work, a dying health care system and a education system that's working relatively fine. However, a few students had their scores misrepresented. What should the money go into?
-
To dismiss the idea of multiple examinations (which you have both noted as beneficial in nature) due to the high costs and assumed impracticality associated with such, is a clear representation of an attitude unwilling for revolution.
You know what else would be beneficial? If you could have an elective surgery on the same day you decided you needed it, for free, because without good health everything else (including education) is worthless. The reason we can't do this, is because it's not feasible. With a realistic approach, introducing extra exams / different types of assessment / etc. is something that needs to be considered very carefully and introduced slowly. Add mid year assessment for more of the science based subjects, like maths, then consider what effect it has had. Don't jump straight to a revolution (lol) and changing the whole thing.
If the world's great revolutionaries gave up on their ideas because they contained economic hardships and enormous amounts of effort to overcome, the world would be a much worse place.
So redesigning the Victorian education system is just as important as abolishing apartheid in South Africa? No, it's not, so there shouldn't be an overly zealous approach to it. (Yes, it's a stupid comparison, but that just proves the point of comparing the world's great revolutionaries to this situation...) VCE assessment is over an (arbitrary) "fair" threshold. We could bring it closer to "optimum" but it's a curve of diminishing returns. There is no reason to completely overhaul and redesign the education system when it is already perfectly functional.
You are in a room with 3 other people. One has cancer of the brain. Another, tuberculosis. The third, is vomiting blood violently.
You have a bad case of tonsillitis.
Would you refuse medical attention as you are the healthiest, by comparison?
Please tell me this was facetious...
FWIW, the brain cancer and TB patients don't need attention and there's really not much you can do for the guy vomiting blood without proper medical equipment
-
The one thing I would only mention in these sorts of thread is that you will only know what constitutes an unfair test when you start doing university assessments.
-
The one thing I would only mention in these sorts of thread is that you will only know what constitutes an unfair test when you start doing university assessments.
Best (worst) question I ever had was "draw a cell in detail"
-
ok zomgSEAN, sure whatever i'm not going to blame you for wanting change, and i don't actually digagree with the undelying principle of your argument, i just think you are severely underestimating the magnitude of what you are proposing
I am definitely aware of the major costs which will be incurred if the system was to change in this way. I only wish to point out that we should make some effort to address this flaw, which, as Russ has just pointed out, was not expressed very well in my use of 'revolution', which was both inappropriate and foolish on my behalf. Drastic and immediate change would be inconsiderate towards the other great issues of our country and world; the change needs to be slow, measured and gradual.
I only debate this issue to dispel the complacency many of you have expressed with our system. It's helpful to point out the flaws and accept them as potentially fixable, as this begets reform.
I'm just wondering what the benefit of having more examinations will actually be in reality........
Refer to my post made Today at 09:11:17.
I don't really see the complete relevance of this analogy and it's not even up to the individual since the doctors will triage the situation accordingly, just like how the government will when it comes to allocation of funds.
if it was me? of course.......i don't see what you point is zomgSEAN.....
I don't get your question lol
What's tonsillitis? If it's not a really bad sickness I probably wouldn't go to the hospital, if it was I'd go and get checked up. :)
Please tell me this was facetious...
FWIW, the brain cancer and TB patients don't need attention and there's really not much you can do for the guy vomiting blood without proper medical equipment
Tonsillitis is an infection of the tonsils, causing a sore throat and in some extreme cases narrowing of the airways. Treatment is antibiotics.
The analogy was a hypothetical situation, it shouldn't be taken so logically. Obviously, the doctors would deal with such an issue, but you have to approach the situation in the mindset that you are to decide if you receive medical treatment or not. You DO NOT DECIDE whether the OTHERS receive treatment. You have to decide whether you are willing to accept your own unhealthiness because others are much worse-off, or not.
The associations are between: Level of sickness=Degree of unfairness; Medical attention=Education system reform; Refusing medical attention=Accepting the VCE system as it is and disagree with any proposal to address its flaws.
With a realistic approach, introducing extra exams / different types of assessment / etc. is something that needs to be considered very carefully and introduced slowly. Add mid year assessment for more of the science based subjects, like maths, then consider what effect it has had.
Couldn't agree more. My use of 'revolution' was not well-considered; the result of an unfamiliarity with the definition.
-
I'm just wondering what the benefit of having more examinations will actually be in reality........
Refer to my post made Today at 09:11:17.
I said in reality. I can't be certain about what effect these changes will have on real people, but I can only assume using my own experiences and I guess my understanding of how people study. Like I said, those things you've mentioned about fairness, more accurate representation of ability etc. are what most likely only applies to a minority, and hence, the intended purpose of this change you're proposing might not be the predominate effect that results. As I said, I think the end result will be that it will single out those who can't be bothered sustaining a year of study (i.e. the majority of the state). And yes, even though you've said it will encourage more consistent study, I don't think so. SACs are already here to achieve that purpose yet the majority of the state already couldn't give a crap about them anyway. People aren't made to sustain long-term stress. Unless something is worth enough (i.e. final exams), they're just not going to put in the same effort.
So continuing about stress levels, well I happen to be in a course where there are constant assessments. I've got 2000 word assignments that are worth 2% of my year. I've probably had about 15 or so assignments this year worth 5% or 2%. This doesn't spread the stress or lower it. It just keeps it at high levels. And long-term stress is worse than anything. Short term stress actually improves performance, long term stress reduces it and has medical implications even. I'd rather cram for a week than stay under pressure constantly. Having more assessments doesn't reduce the value of them really. Those aiming to do well will realise that even though these assignments are worth 5%, getting 60% on each of these 5% assignments still heavily impacts on your end grade. So the net value of these assessments to those who are motivated and actually want to do really well is just as high, and so the stress levels will pretty much be just as high. This would be a similar situation to what would happen to those keen on doing well in VCE in regards to additional exams. I mean honestly, do you place any lower value on your subjects with midyears just because there are 2 exams?
-
I said in reality. I can't be certain about what effect these changes will have on real people, but I can only assume using my own experiences and I guess my understanding of how people study. Like I said, those things you've mentioned about fairness, more accurate representation of ability etc. are what most likely only applies to a minority, and hence, the intended purpose of this change you're proposing might not be the predominate effect that results. As I said, I think the end result will be that it will single out those who can't be bothered sustaining a year of study (i.e. the majority of the state). And yes, even though you've said it will encourage more consistent study, I don't think so. SACs are already here to achieve that purpose yet the majority of the state already couldn't give a crap about them anyway. People aren't made to sustain long-term stress. Unless something is worth enough (i.e. final exams), they're just not going to put in the same effort.
So continuing about stress levels, well I happen to be in a course where there are constant assessments. I've got 2000 word assignments that are worth 2% of my year. I've probably had about 15 or so assignments this year worth 5% or 2%. This doesn't spread the stress or lower it. It just keeps it at high levels. And long-term stress is worse than anything. Short term stress actually improves performance, long term stress reduces it and has medical implications even. I'd rather cram for a week than stay under pressure constantly. Having more assessments doesn't reduce the value of them really. Those aiming to do well will realise that even though these assignments are worth 5%, getting 60% on each of these 5% assignments still heavily impacts on your end grade. So the net value of these assessments to those who are motivated and actually want to do really well is just as high, and so the stress levels will pretty much be just as high. This would be a similar situation to what would happen to those keen on doing well in VCE in regards to additional exams. I mean honestly, do you place any lower value on your subjects with midyears just because there are 2 exams?
You have noted an interesting point, in that the change would benefit only a minority of students. However, I do not think we should abandon the proposed reform due to this, for it would still help thousands of future VCE students.
Also, I do not feel having more exams would drag the same level of stress experienced at end-of-year exams throughout the entire year, but rather spread it out in an even manner, which can be reasonably coped with by an adolescent.
I am eternally grateful of Psychology because I receive two exam opportunities. First, because it allows me more than one opportunity to present my academic ability in the subject, enabling me to compensate for mistakes made on previous assessment when SAC-scaling is done. Also, because I did not suffer the high stress when approaching the mid-year that I am experiencing now with my regular subjects, as I knew that if i was to make too many mistakes, it wouldn't matter TOO much, as it was worth only a 3rd of my SS, rather than half.
This is not to say i go into SACs completely careless as to how i perform, as i am aware that they all add up to something meaningful. But i go into them with my confidence prevailing over any nervousness or anxiety, as i understand that a single SAC will not ruin my ATAR, or even SS. Because of this, i perform well and am able to maintain the flow of knowledge throughout the period; much different to my experience in an exam condition.
-
I said in reality. I can't be certain about what effect these changes will have on real people, but I can only assume using my own experiences and I guess my understanding of how people study. Like I said, those things you've mentioned about fairness, more accurate representation of ability etc. are what most likely only applies to a minority, and hence, the intended purpose of this change you're proposing might not be the predominate effect that results. As I said, I think the end result will be that it will single out those who can't be bothered sustaining a year of study (i.e. the majority of the state). And yes, even though you've said it will encourage more consistent study, I don't think so. SACs are already here to achieve that purpose yet the majority of the state already couldn't give a crap about them anyway. People aren't made to sustain long-term stress. Unless something is worth enough (i.e. final exams), they're just not going to put in the same effort.
So continuing about stress levels, well I happen to be in a course where there are constant assessments. I've got 2000 word assignments that are worth 2% of my year. I've probably had about 15 or so assignments this year worth 5% or 2%. This doesn't spread the stress or lower it. It just keeps it at high levels. And long-term stress is worse than anything. Short term stress actually improves performance, long term stress reduces it and has medical implications even. I'd rather cram for a week than stay under pressure constantly. Having more assessments doesn't reduce the value of them really. Those aiming to do well will realise that even though these assignments are worth 5%, getting 60% on each of these 5% assignments still heavily impacts on your end grade. So the net value of these assessments to those who are motivated and actually want to do really well is just as high, and so the stress levels will pretty much be just as high. This would be a similar situation to what would happen to those keen on doing well in VCE in regards to additional exams. I mean honestly, do you place any lower value on your subjects with midyears just because there are 2 exams?
You have noted an interesting point, in that the change would benefit only a minority of students. However, I do not think we should abandon the proposed reform due to this, for it would still help thousands of future VCE students.
Also, I do not feel having more exams would drag the same level of stress experienced at end-of-year exams throughout the entire year, but rather spread it out in an even manner, which can be reasonably coped with by an adolescent.
I am eternally grateful of Psychology because I receive two exam opportunities. First, because it allows me more than one opportunity to present my academic ability in the subject, enabling me to compensate for mistakes made on previous assessment when SAC-scaling is done. Also, because I did not suffer the high stress when approaching the mid-year that I am experiencing now with my regular subjects, as I knew that if i was to make too many mistakes, it wouldn't matter TOO much, as it was worth only a 3rd of my SS, rather than half.
This is not to say i go into SACs completely careless as to how i perform, as i am aware that they all add up to something meaningful. But i go into them with my confidence prevailing over any nervousness or anxiety, as i understand that a single SAC will not ruin my ATAR, or even SS. Because of this, i perform well and am able to maintain the flow of knowledge throughout the period; much different to my experience in an exam condition.
Hmm, I guess it's just differences in our individual perceptions to stress then.
-
Perhaps so.
-
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.
In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.
I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.
-
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.
In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.
I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.
Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.
Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.
I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.
-
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.
In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.
I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.
Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.
Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.
I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.
Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.
-
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.
In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.
I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.
Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.
Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.
I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.
Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.
Chavi, I feel that your comments are very naive. The only opportunity for reasonable tertiary study leading on to professional qualifications, is by performing in VCE. There is so much importance placed upon the scores you receive. It is the key point of selection into University. Performance on exams is necessary for near-future success.
The proposed unimportance of VCE is in conflict with the very website which we are now communicating on!
Please reconsider your comments.
-
Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.
Chavi, I feel that your comments are very naive. The only opportunity for reasonable tertiary study leading on to professional qualifications, is by performing in VCE. There is so much importance placed upon the scores you receive. It is the key point of selection into University. Performance on exams is necessary for near-future success.
The proposed unimportance of VCE is in conflict with the very website which we are now communicating on!
Please reconsider your comments.
VCE marks are not a litmus test for future success - in fact their only purpose is top assist in undergrad rankings for prospective uni students. Getting a 99.95 doesn't guarantee that you won't be out on the street in 10 years. And btw, if you miss out on your dream course, you can always transfer into it at a later date.
I didn't say VCE is unimportant I said it's relatively unimportant - just a technical hurdle to be safely negotiated. The fact only a tiny percentage of students such as you and I use this website just proves how *unimportant* VCE is for most students, and how *unimportant* it will be once you get accepted into uni.
And I don't believe that VCE is conducive for near-future success either. Think of the many tradesmen and blue-collar workers who are fulfilling happy lives without an ENTER score. As has been noted in one of the previous comments - come December time, and you'll give jack * about how you went. The fact that you adhere to the narrow parochialism that VCE is the only purpose of school, and that education for it's own quaint sake is meaningless without a score-ranking highlights your own naivety, not mine.
-
Given that one of the best ATAR predictors is one's postcode, I'd say no, it probably isn't fair.
-
Given that one of the best ATAR predictors is one's postcode, I'd say no, it probably isn't fair.
To be honest if you are refering to cohort strength I dont think it matters if your number one. But if you are talking about peer pressure and the school society influence towards how students perform, then yeh it probably isnt fair where someone from rural areas dont understand the full expectations and standards of VCE. I remember last year when a classmate at the start of the year said they wanted to get a 50 in Accounting, without knowing that a 50 is like the top top percentile. He ended up with a 34 just because his friend group didnt study at all and he didnt know that a 40 was top 8% and what marks he needed to get.
-
If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
I agree lol. IMO much of your exam grade comes from following the correct mental procedures within the actual exam, rather than than knowing everything in the course.
-
If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
I agree lol. IMO much of your exam grade comes from following the correct mental procedures within the actual exam, rather than than knowing everything in the course.
Only when you get to the upper levels. The vast majority of students do not know the course well, at all. It's easy to forget that when you're at the top =p
-
Of course the other things is that none of this really matters because the VCE isn't really going to exist in it's current from in the next few years.
-
Given that one of the best ATAR predictors is one's postcode, I'd say no, it probably isn't fair.
Privilege doesn't guarantee intelligence, just privilege. A smart student will succeed in any school. An affluent student may not.
-
Given that one of the best ATAR predictors is one's postcode, I'd say no, it probably isn't fair.
Privilege doesn't guarantee intelligence, just privilege. A smart student will succeed in any school. An affluent student may not.
I agree to an extent, but privilege does make a huge difference, especially to the average student.
-
Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.
Chavi, I feel that your comments are very naive. The only opportunity for reasonable tertiary study leading on to professional qualifications, is by performing in VCE. There is so much importance placed upon the scores you receive. It is the key point of selection into University. Performance on exams is necessary for near-future success.
The proposed unimportance of VCE is in conflict with the very website which we are now communicating on!
Please reconsider your comments.
VCE marks are not a litmus test for future success - in fact their only purpose is top assist in undergrad rankings for prospective uni students. Getting a 99.95 doesn't guarantee that you won't be out on the street in 10 years. And btw, if you miss out on your dream course, you can always transfer into it at a later date.
I didn't say VCE is unimportant I said it's relatively unimportant - just a technical hurdle to be safely negotiated. The fact only a tiny percentage of students such as you and I use this website just proves how *unimportant* VCE is for most students, and how *unimportant* it will be once you get accepted into uni.
And I don't believe that VCE is conducive for near-future success either. Think of the many tradesmen and blue-collar workers who are fulfilling happy lives without an ENTER score. As has been noted in one of the previous comments - come December time, and you'll give jack * about how you went. The fact that you adhere to the narrow parochialism that VCE is the only purpose of school, and that education for it's own quaint sake is meaningless without a score-ranking highlights your own naivety, not mine.
Should VCE measure ability to perform under strict, stressful conditions? Or should it measure a student's intellect and ability to learn the content of a subject?
When talking of success, I was referring exclusively to that of the academic field. I am fully aware of the fulfilling lives many blue-collar workers live.
But that's just it, we don't get accepted if we don't perform well. We can't reach that point of not-caring until we've spent the previous year caring a shitload.
I adhere to no such thing. I believe that school should PRIMARILY be an inspiring learning experience; one that encourages them to further their education. However, in performing that primary role, it also has to provide some system of ranking so that students may be selected fairly into tertiary education. The most fair way to achieve a coexistence of these roles is to reduce the impact the ranking has on the beauty of the academic experience.
The importance of VCE is decided by one's own wishes. For someone wishing to get into medicine STRAIGHT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL, it is of paramount importance. On the other hand, for someone who wishes to pursue medicine AT SOME STAGE in their life, it isn't of that much importance. The importance of VCE cannot be judged from an objective perspective; it will always be subject to personal goals.
-
Should VCE measure ability to perform under strict, stressful conditions? Or should it measure a student's intellect and ability to learn the content of a subject?
But that's just it, we don't get accepted if we don't perform well. We can't reach that point of not-caring until we've spent the previous year caring a shitload.
Purple text: It measures both? What's the problem with measuring performance under strict, stressful conditions? Isn't life full of that?
-
Should VCE measure ability to perform under strict, stressful conditions? Or should it measure a student's intellect and ability to learn the content of a subject?
But that's just it, we don't get accepted if we don't perform well. We can't reach that point of not-caring until we've spent the previous year caring a shitload.
Purple text: It measures both? What's the problem with measuring performance under strict, stressful conditions? Isn't life full of that?
I do not believe it does both in a fair, weighted manner. There is too much emphasis on the stressful situation, and not enough on testing a good proportion of the study design.
Multiple exams would reduce the stress for assessment, as well as allow more topics/concepts to be examined.
-
not enough on testing a good proportion of the study design.
I don't know, the VCAA are usually pretty good at getting a very broad range of topics into their exams. Even if it's just a minor questions, they usually get most stuff in.
-
Should VCE measure ability to perform under strict, stressful conditions? Or should it measure a student's intellect and ability to learn the content of a subject?
But that's just it, we don't get accepted if we don't perform well. We can't reach that point of not-caring until we've spent the previous year caring a shitload.
Purple text: It measures both? What's the problem with measuring performance under strict, stressful conditions? Isn't life full of that?
I do not believe it does both in a fair, weighted manner. There is too much emphasis on the stressful situation, and not enough on testing a good proportion of the study design.
Multiple exams would reduce the stress for assessment, as well as allow more topics/concepts to be examined.
I may be biased from my own experience, but the stress you experience in exams isn't really severe enough to cripple you if you know the whole course. Besides, overcoming stress is merely a matter of focus and concentration on the task at hand, and I think it's fair that exams test your ability to concentrate.
Question: What 3/4 did you do in Y11?
-
I like VCE. As mentioned previously, I believe an average student will do better in a certain school, but that's another discussion altogether so yes. Saying that it is even all around the state would be utter bullshit. But, VCE tries. we can't get things perfect and I appreciate what they're doing now. better than 100% on exams.
Also, my cousin in malaysia's doing 11 subjects. I'd rather do 6 in-depth that I like rather than 11 haphazardly. Good system overall. Maybe the degree of difficulty in some ways should be increased, I have alot of respect for the IB.
-
I like VCE. As mentioned previously, I believe an average student will do better in a certain school, but that's another discussion altogether so yes. Saying that it is even all around the state would be utter bullshit. But, VCE tries. we can't get things perfect and I appreciate what they're doing now. better than 100% on exams.
Also, my cousin in malaysia's doing 11 subjects. I'd rather do 6 in-depth that I like rather than 11 haphazardly. Good system overall. Maybe the degree of difficulty in some ways should be increased, I have alot of respect for the IB.
I like how in IB how they make you do a language.
-
^ and philo :D
-
EE is the best part of IB I reckon.
-
You guys are a bunch of whining girls.
NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS FAIR. Even being born a female, you have less than a 50/50 chance.
If you really think VCE is that unfair, you would actually do something more about it than just getting your opinion heard in this forum. If you are not willing to change anything, don't complain.
-
You guys are a bunch of whining girls.
NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS FAIR. Even being born a female, you have less than a 50/50 chance.
If you really think VCE is that unfair, you would actually do something more about it than just getting your opinion heard in this forum. If you are not willing to change anything, don't complain.
LOL cool story
-
I think the VCE system is mostly fair but it still has a lot of flaws like any system.
What you get out, is a decent reflection of what you put in most of the time (or occasionally natural talent if you're doing rather well or poor subject choice if you're doing rather bad regardless...). There is a lot of choice so everyone out there can be at least partially satisfied and it gives you a good taste of what a certain subject is like and if you would want to pursue it in uni. I can confidently say, i've learnt more last year or this year than i have in the sum of all my other years of education.
My opinion is VCE is not intended to be an intelligence test (although sometimes it does end up that way; that is not the goal). It tests your capability to work hard and how well you study, which produces an atar score which allows you into uni. People who get rather low atars most likely didnt want to do VCE and want to go to uni, still you need to have a decent amount of study skills and at least do work every once in a while to not make uni a total waste of time.
As for multiple exams, the more times you would take an exam, the closer the result would be to what you deserve. Though, the argument is, how much closer? For most students i doubt it would differ drastically. Sometimes we forget theres a whole other world out there besides this VCE bubble, as someone else previously stated, running 3 extra exams, would cost 3 times as much. Again from a ultilitarian perspective, i dont really think this is the best way to blow a shitload of tax money (the government is pretty good at that though..), we could probably find something else better to spend it on.
If you look at this from the returns it will generate, in essence "what will we get out of this" it also doesn't work. Those 4 extra exams won't really make you much more intelligent or make you much more able to contribute to the economy, building australia and paying taxes in the long run, so for all that extra money, we're getting relatively little out of it.
The education system in general can be bias against those from a lower socioeconomic status or a crappy school but this is a flaw of the education system, not VCE as such. Some schools will always wind up with better teachers or more resources, SEAS does a little to alleviate this problem but not much, better education funding is best way to go about this but thats outside the scope of the article. An intelligent student will do well in any school but they could do so much better in a better equipped or private school, this holds true for the average student as well.
-
I may be biased from my own experience, but the stress you experience in exams isn't really severe enough to cripple you if you know the whole course. Besides, overcoming stress is merely a matter of focus and concentration on the task at hand, and I think it's fair that exams test your ability to concentrate.
Question: What 3/4 did you do in Y11?
Does that mean you learnt all the 3 4 material before school started?
-
Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.
zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.
In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.
I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.
Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.
Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.
I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.
Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.
The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.
Chavi, I feel that your comments are very naive. The only opportunity for reasonable tertiary study leading on to professional qualifications, is by performing in VCE. There is so much importance placed upon the scores you receive. It is the key point of selection into University. Performance on exams is necessary for near-future success.
Tbh, that's a load of crap...
There are many Mature-aged students, many of whom have not completed VCE at all, having dropped out earlier in life.
As an aside, there is a test conducted by ACER as an alternative entry for VCE for mature-aged students.
-
As an aside, there is a test conducted by ACER as an alternative entry for VCE for mature-aged students.
I've never heard of this test. Out of curiosity, what's it called?
-
As an aside, there is a test conducted by ACER as an alternative entry for VCE for mature-aged students.
I've never heard of this test. Out of curiosity, what's it called?
I believe it's the STAT test.
There are many pathways to get to what you want zomgSEAN...
VCE is just the easiest way I guess. Getting into highly ranked universities in Australia through VCE is pretty damn easy compared to other countries, from what I hear. I mean, Monash Science is in the 70s.
-
I may be biased from my own experience, but the stress you experience in exams isn't really severe enough to cripple you if you know the whole course. Besides, overcoming stress is merely a matter of focus and concentration on the task at hand, and I think it's fair that exams test your ability to concentrate.
Question: What 3/4 did you do in Y11?
I'm unsure of what you mean by 'cripple', but i would say that the stress is enough to unfairly compromise one's ability to express their knowledge of course content. I'm all for testing focus and concentration, as long as it takes the place of a secondary role; assessing student's knowledge taking the primary.
I did not do a 3/4 in Grade 11.
Tbh, that's a load of crap...
There are many Mature-aged students, many of whom have not completed VCE at all, having dropped out earlier in life.
As an aside, there is a test conducted by ACER as an alternative entry for VCE for mature-aged students.
I did not overlook this factor, hence my noting of "near-future success". Perhaps i should make it more clear; immediate-future success.
There are many pathways to get to what you want zomgSEAN...
Yes, but only one pathway(i believe) to achieving such in the shortest time possible - VCE. Many students can be deterred or discouraged from tertiary study due to not achieving the ENTER to get into their preferred course, meaning they have to engage in other bridging pathways costing them extra money and time from their lives. More exams would reduce this from occurring to many excellent students that merely tripped up on an exam or two due to immense stress.
You guys are a bunch of whining girls.
NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS FAIR. Even being born a female, you have less than a 50/50 chance.
If you really think VCE is that unfair, you would actually do something more about it than just getting your opinion heard in this forum. If you are not willing to change anything, don't complain.
You mad?
-
Everyone who is sitting the exams is faced with exactly the same situation; hence it is fair. How people react to the stress or the pressure to perform is where the discrepancy arises. Though, if one is thoroughly prepared and feels confident with the material, then they are likely to be less nervous. Alternatively, if one accepts that however they go on the exam that if they try their best the result doesn't matter in the end, the pressure is relieved.
It is people who believe that VCE is their only option, that if they do not meet their pre-determined standards then they have 'failed' - they are the ones who mount stress upon themselves. There are other options. It is a narrow-mindedness of these people that has created a stigma whereby exams are widely perceived as - and through this perception become - ineffably stressful experiences. Ironically, through their fear mongering they actually decrease their likelihood of success.
If year 12 students do well they can possibly achieve their goals faster, but in stressing they only do themselves a disservice. If people would realise that the progression of their life does not depend on these exams, then they would transform this notoriously stressful time of their life into simply another year of learning.
-
It is people who believe that VCE is their only option, that if they do not meet their pre-determined standards then they have 'failed' - they are the ones who mount stress upon themselves. There are other options. It is a narrow-mindedness of these people that has created a stigma whereby exams are widely perceived as - and through this perception become - ineffably stressful experiences. Ironically, through their fear mongering they actually decrease their likelihood of success.
oh god that is me.
-
Whether it's fair is pretty irrelevant isn't it?
The point is we have to do it, no matter how shit the system is.
-
Everyone who is sitting the exams is faced with exactly the same situation; hence it is fair.
Yes, it creates fairness in terms of equality. However, there are many different aspects of assessment which must be considered when deciding whether overall fairness is achieved.
On one hand, the fact that everyone does the same exams creates an element of fairness. However, on the other hand, the nature and conditions of the exams, as i have frequently noted, is unfair. The former fairness is undoubtedly easier to achieve.
absurdlittlebird, your signature is inspirational, even if satirical.
-
It is people who believe that VCE is their only option, that if they do not meet their pre-determined standards then they have 'failed' - they are the ones who mount stress upon themselves. There are other options. It is a narrow-mindedness of these people that has created a stigma whereby exams are widely perceived as - and through this perception become - ineffably stressful experiences. Ironically, through their fear mongering they actually decrease their likelihood of success.
oh god that is me.
That is me as well, but I don't feel that much stress =/
-
However, on the other hand, the nature and conditions of the exams, as i have frequently noted, is unfair.
Yes, and just about everyone else disagrees with you about the extent of this "unfairness". If you're experiencing debilitating stress in the exam period, that's a problem unrelated to the frequency of exams.
-
If you're experiencing debilitating stress in the exam period, that's a problem unrelated to the frequency of exams.
Yes indeed.
It isn't the frequency of exams; it's the percentage proportion they contribute to my study score.
Indirectly, perhaps frequency of exams is the issue, assuming that more exams = more distribution of percentage contributions.
May I add that the members of VCENotes are merely a narrow representation of the entire state; the few participating in this thread even moreso.
If only we could see the results of a state-wide poll on the proposition of more exams and increased distribution of contribution.
-
If you're experiencing debilitating stress in the exam period, that's a problem unrelated to the frequency of exams.
Yes indeed.
It isn't the frequency of exams; it's the percentage proportion they contribute to my study score.
Indirectly, perhaps frequency of exams is the issue, assuming that more exams = more distribution of percentage contributions.
May I add that the members of VCENotes are merely a narrow representation of the entire state; the few participating in this thread even moreso.
If only we could see the results of a state-wide poll on the proposition of more exams and increased distribution of contribution.
My guess is that the majority of the state's attitudes to more exams would simply be 'CBF' for lack of a better way to put it.
-
absurdlittlebird, your signature is inspirational, even if satirical.
lol. It would be rather amazing... but we can only dream (:
-
It isn't the frequency of exams; it's the percentage proportion they contribute to my study score.
More assessment with less contribution doesn't decrease stress, it just lets you rationalise away bad marks.
-
Face it, life isn't fair. So exams are stressful, and you only get one chance to perform - this happens in the real world too (in the workplace, etc.).
I personally think exams are a great way to test us, it shows what we are like under pressure and really seperates the better students from the rest. Inevitably, some students are left behind by stressing out in the exam but if you think about it, only 4 of your subjects makes a huge difference to your ATAR, it is unlikely that you're going to screw up 3+ of them (if you end up doing 6-7). Plus you have the GAT if for some reason you can't sit the exam.
I do feel however that English in top 4 is BS, simply because some people enjoy it and are bound to do better...
If all maths/science students have to do one of the three English's, then all humanities/arts students should have to do one of the three maths :P
-
Face it, life isn't fair. So exams are stressful, and you only get one chance to perform - this happens in the real world too (in the workplace, etc.).
I personally think exams are a great way to test us, it shows what we are like under pressure and really seperates the better students from the rest. Inevitably, some students are left behind by stressing out in the exam but if you think about it, only 4 of your subjects makes a huge difference to your ATAR, it is unlikely that you're going to screw up 3+ of them (if you end up doing 6-7). Plus you have the GAT if for some reason you can't sit the exam.
I do feel however that English in top 4 is BS, simply because some people enjoy it and are bound to do better...
If all maths/science students have to do one of the three English's, then all humanities/arts students should have to do one of the three maths :P
i couldnt agree more with ur last statement tbh.
its bloody BS that english is in the top 4.
it should be compulsory .. but not in the top 4.
-
Why would you make it compulsory but not in the top 4? That would completely defeat the purpose of including it in your primary four.
There are very, very few professions where english/communication skills won't be useful.
-
Why would you make it compulsory but not in the top 4? That would completely defeat the purpose of including it in your primary four.
There are very, very few professions where english/communication skills won't be useful.
I think english is a primary requirement for everything.
but I dont like it to be in the top 4.
for e.g
for me .. ive worked incredibly hard this year .. however .. even with all the effort i have put in .. im only averaging low 80% for sacs.
my friend however .. he loves reading books .. loves english .. dosnt do much work .. averages 95%.
I think it gives advantages to those who are talented with english overs those who hate it.
and so i think ultimately . it shouldn't have to be in our top 4....
look buddy .. im not asking to you to agree with me .. so you dont have to argue with me.
im just sharing my view.
-
The whole point of English being in the top four is so the system does discriminate based on English ability.
-
I think it gives advantages to those who are talented with english overs those who hate it.
Yes, that's the reason it's like that. If you make it compulsory but not top 4, you'll get people ignoring the subject because they're not good at it and just taking an extra subject to compensate.
Either have it top four or not compulsory at all, don't go in between.
-
I like English being in the top four, every country has their national language on the curriculum. People who complain about English being in the top four are just self-motivated or personally stung because they aren't good at English. And if you feel offended by that statement, or want to refute it, then don't complain, cause why else would you? Only thing is, I do think maths should be in there too, like further as a minimum. Our national standard of maths is appalling.
-
I like English being in the top four, every country has their national language on the curriculum. People who complain about English being in the top four are just self-motivated or personally stung because they aren't good at English. And if you feel offended by that statement, or want to refute it, then don't complain, cause why else would you? Only thing is, I do think maths should be in there too, like further as a minimum. Our national standard of maths is appalling.
I agree do agree with you.
For me ... I speak persian at home and always have been. however i cannot do esl because i was born here.
thats all fair enough .... but my english isnt as good as it could be if i was to be speaking english all the time.
Thats why i dont like english ..... they are making me do a subject AND placing it in my top 4 .... and im not good at it .... ive been trying ridiculously hard all year .. and only slightly improving.
I think english is important .. but its a massive advantage to those who are already good at english.
think about it ... if maths was COMPULSORY in our top 4 ... all the dead shtz who cant add or subtract would be pissed off .. if they are STRONG in arts and humanity subjects .. it would be a massive disadvantage to them to have maths in the top 4.
if anything .. it should be .. one of science / maths / english in top 4 COMPULSORY.
now that would be more "fair" in my eyes .. as it would balance out the advantage/disadvantage
just an idea :)
-
It isn't the frequency of exams; it's the percentage proportion they contribute to my study score.
More assessment with less contribution doesn't decrease stress, it just lets you rationalise away bad marks.
And because i know i can rationalise away slip-ups, i will enter exams with less stress.
-
I don't think English should be necessarily in the top 4. It is more about natural talent than anything. You can spend 24/7 studying for English and still not get near to 100%. I think VCE should be more about hard work than natural talent and by having english compulsory in top 4 it makes an unfair advantage. I know someone who does barely any work for English so he can concentrate on other subjects he is not so good at and still gets over 90% in most SACs. I know someone else who is average at English and does a couple of hours a night for it and has not got over 80% for one SAC. Because of this it also gives the ones better at English more time to study for other subjects. Also people say that we need it because it is our national language, fair enough but what do we actually learn in VCE English that we can apply the real world? The answer is not much. When in the real world are we going to need to write an expository essay about AMFAS or write an essay about the imaginative landscape? Very rarely at most. If VCAA have it set in their mind that a subject should be compulsory then why not make it Business Mgt, Health and HD, Legal studies or Accounting? These are subjects yuor are likely to need in real life!
Rant over
-
I don't think English should be necessarily in the top 4. It is more about natural talent than anything. You can spend 24/7 studying for English and still not get near to 100%. I think VCE should be more about hard work than natural talent and by having english compulsory in top 4 it makes an unfair advantage. I know someone who does barely any work for English so he can concentrate on other subjects he is not so good at and still gets over 90% in most SACs. I know someone else who is average at English and does a couple of hours a night for it and has not got over 80% for one SAC. Because of this it also gives the ones better at English more time to study for other subjects. Also people say that we need it because it is our national language, fair enough but what do we actually learn in VCE English that we can apply the real world? The answer is not much. When in the real world are we going to need to write an expository essay about AMFAS or write an essay about the imaginative landscape? Very rarely at most. If VCAA have it set in their mind that a subject should be compulsory then why not make it Business Mgt, Health and HD, Legal studies or Accounting? These are subjects yuor are likely to need in real life!
Rant over
When will you ever use complex numbers in your life (spec), depreciate your Non Current Assets (accounting), apply Lenz's law when connecting electronics (physics) or sketch standard normal distributions (methods). Arguably, *almost* all subjects are irrelevant to students unless you specialize in Uni.
A high standard in English however, is necessary in all fields of work and study (unless you move to the developing world). This is why it's in your top 4.
-
I don't think English should be necessarily in the top 4. It is more about natural talent than anything. You can spend 24/7 studying for English and still not get near to 100%. I think VCE should be more about hard work than natural talent and by having english compulsory in top 4 it makes an unfair advantage. I know someone who does barely any work for English so he can concentrate on other subjects he is not so good at and still gets over 90% in most SACs. I know someone else who is average at English and does a couple of hours a night for it and has not got over 80% for one SAC. Because of this it also gives the ones better at English more time to study for other subjects. Also people say that we need it because it is our national language, fair enough but what do we actually learn in VCE English that we can apply the real world? The answer is not much. When in the real world are we going to need to write an expository essay about AMFAS or write an essay about the imaginative landscape? Very rarely at most. If VCAA have it set in their mind that a subject should be compulsory then why not make it Business Mgt, Health and HD, Legal studies or Accounting? These are subjects yuor are likely to need in real life!
Rant over
When will you ever use complex numbers in your life (spec), depreciate your Non Current Assets (accounting), apply Lenz's law when connecting electronics (physics) or sketch standard normal distributions (methods). Arguably, *almost* all subjects are irrelevant to students unless you specialize in Uni.
A high standard in English however, is necessary in all fields of work and study (unless you move to the developing world). This is why it's in your top 4.
I didn't say that Spesh, Methods or Physics should be complulsory. I don't do accounting myself but I have heard it would more than useful in real life. I stick by the other subjects too
-
There are very, very few professions where english/communication skills won't be useful.
That's why specific courses have a study score you need to achieve for english. There must be better ways of judging communication skills than conflict pieces and analysing a play.
When will you ever use complex numbers in your life (spec), depreciate your Non Current Assets (accounting), apply Lenz's law when connecting electronics (physics) or sketch standard normal distributions (methods).
About the same time you have to read a book and answer a prompt using an essay, write a piece on a context and analyse a persuasive piece in 3 hours.
So if everyone has to go to the extent of knowing how to write about context/analyse texts, then everyone has to sketch normal distributions. :)
-
Since the topic is about whether vce is fair or not, having one compulsory subject definitely makes it fairer relative to some of the other systems out there which often have 4 or 5 compulsory subjects.
-
Since the topic is about whether vce is fair or not, having one compulsory subject definitely makes it fairer relative to some of the other systems out there which often have 4 or 5 compulsory subjects.
to be honest
in australia .. i cannot think of any programs which use 3-4?
maybe in countries like china etc.
but i mean
in canberra ... english isnt in the top 4.
in nsw .. i believe english is compulsory.
vic it is
and dunno bout the others.
-
Perhaps English can be assessed differently, however the fact that English as a subject is compulsory for VCE should not be brought into question. I think there is a near-unanimous agreement that proper communication skills in English are of utmost importance in the classroom, the workplace and wider society.
There has to be a way for Unis and employers to gauge the level of english skills present in prospective employees/students - something that can't be done if some students choose to opt out of studying English for VCE.
Every other subject is highly course/requirement specific for each individual tert/employer, but English is inadvertently used everywhere - even if you don't decide to take a Law or Literature degree.
-
I don't think English should be necessarily in the top 4. It is more about natural talent than anything. You can spend 24/7 studying for English and still not get near to 100%. I think VCE should be more about hard work than natural talent and by having english compulsory in top 4 it makes an unfair advantage. I know someone who does barely any work for English so he can concentrate on other subjects he is not so good at and still gets over 90% in most SACs. I know someone else who is average at English and does a couple of hours a night for it and has not got over 80% for one SAC. Because of this it also gives the ones better at English more time to study for other subjects. Also people say that we need it because it is our national language, fair enough but what do we actually learn in VCE English that we can apply the real world? The answer is not much. When in the real world are we going to need to write an expository essay about AMFAS or write an essay about the imaginative landscape? Very rarely at most. If VCAA have it set in their mind that a subject should be compulsory then why not make it Business Mgt, Health and HD, Legal studies or Accounting? These are subjects yuor are likely to need in real life!
Rant over
English is not just about increasing your skills in essay writing. The beauty and usefulness of VCE English is the way it expands your ability to express your ideas, perspectives and construct opinions on a wide range of media, including film, novels, poems and societal, ethical and political issues.
The compulsory essay structure is merely the framework they want you to express your ideas within; it doesn't have a HUGE lot to do with the essence of VCE English itself.
-
And because i know i can rationalise away slip-ups, i will enter exams with less stress.
You will enter exams with the same amount of stress, but you'll be able to "justify" low marks.
-
Since the topic is about whether vce is fair or not, having one compulsory subject definitely makes it fairer relative to some of the other systems out there which often have 4 or 5 compulsory subjects.
to be honest
in australia .. i cannot think of any programs which use 3-4?
maybe in countries like china etc.
but i mean
in canberra ... english isnt in the top 4.
in nsw .. i believe english is compulsory.
vic it is
and dunno bout the others.
yeh.
-
And because i know i can rationalise away slip-ups, i will enter exams with less stress.
You will enter exams with the same amount of stress, but you'll be able to "justify" low marks.
I will enter with less stress, as i will know that if i do make mistakes, they can be compensated for in later assessments.
If we are to continue like so, we will be here for eternity.
-
And because i know i can rationalise away slip-ups, i will enter exams with less stress.
You will enter exams with the same amount of stress, but you'll be able to "justify" low marks.
I will enter with less stress, as i will know that if i do make mistakes, they can be compensated for in later assessments.
If we are to continue like so, we will be here for eternity.
For anyone who doesnt understand, think about the stress before a SAC..it's not much right? That's because theres quite a few of them and they're not worth as much individually.
-
And because i know i can rationalise away slip-ups, i will enter exams with less stress.
You will enter exams with the same amount of stress, but you'll be able to "justify" low marks.
I will enter with less stress, as i will know that if i do make mistakes, they can be compensated for in later assessments.
If we are to continue like so, we will be here for eternity.
Except I'm speaking from experience of multiple exams per semester. You get just as worked up about them because they're...well...exams, under exam conditions. Just because they're only worth 10% doesn't stop anyone freaking out over them.
Eh, not like it really matters.
-
And i also speak from experience. The experience of SACs; still worth proportions of the SS, but relatively low; the stress is proportionate to such.
Stress is a relatively subjective experience, both in nature and extent, hence the disagreement in our perspectives.
-
SACs are nothing like exams.
-
SACs are nothing like exams.
-
SACs are nothing like exams.
Because of the differences zomgSEAN wishes to get rid of.
-
For the majority SACs are "just another class test". Exams are entirely different; the fact that they are externally set and marked, that they are above and beyond your own school's control - that is what creates the (generally) daunting atmosphere of exams(in VCE at least).
-
For the majority SACs are "just another class test". Exams are entirely different; the fact that they are externally set and marked, that they are above and beyond your own school's control - that is what creates the (generally) daunting atmosphere of exams(in VCE at least).
I getcha, but I was just trying to explain what zomgSEAN was trying to say :P
Personally I like the whole daunting thing, really brings out the best in me.
-
Things being stressful is unavoidable due to the nature of exams and dependent on the individual. If you cant handle a bit of stress in VCe, GL in real world.
-
Things being stressful is unavoidable due to the nature of exams and dependent on the individual. If you cant handle a bit of stress in VCe, GL in real world.
Exactly.
-
For the majority SACs are "just another class test". Exams are entirely different; the fact that they are externally set and marked, that they are above and beyond your own school's control - that is what creates the (generally) daunting atmosphere of exams(in VCE at least).
I don't know =/ I do better in exams then SACs
-
There are very, very few professions where english/communication skills won't be useful.
That's why specific courses have a study score you need to achieve for english. There must be better ways of judging communication skills than conflict pieces and analysing a play.
When will you ever use complex numbers in your life (spec), depreciate your Non Current Assets (accounting), apply Lenz's law when connecting electronics (physics) or sketch standard normal distributions (methods).
About the same time you have to read a book and answer a prompt using an essay, write a piece on a context and analyse a persuasive piece in 3 hours.
So if everyone has to go to the extent of knowing how to write about context/analyse texts, then everyone has to sketch normal distributions. :)
Take this from someone who absolutely despised VCE English. Whatever course you do, you will need to learn how to write essays and you will need to know how to critically analyse stuff. You will be surprised the amount of essays that you have to do, I certainly was at first year, even doing a science courses (well, these were biomed units).
-
English shouldnt be compulsory top 4 imo
Is this a VCE thingo or a VTAC thingo?
-
English shouldnt be compulsory top 4 imo
We live in Australia. English is the first and most predominant language. I can't help but disagree with you; the educated youth of this generation need to be able to speak and write English properly. What is the point in being a physics, history or philosophy whiz if you cannot even use the language of your country adequately?
-
English shouldnt be compulsory top 4 imo
We live in Australia. English is the first and most predominant language. I can't help but disagree with you; the educated youth of this generation need to be able to speak and write English properly. What is the point in being a physics, history or philosophy whiz if you cannot even use the language of your country adequately?
I think the skills required to pass Y12 English are sufficient for us to "use the language". Getting a 35 SS for English should be a good thing - not detrimental to your ATAR if you want 95+
-
For the majority SACs are "just another class test". Exams are entirely different; the fact that they are externally set and marked, that they are above and beyond your own school's control - that is what creates the (generally) daunting atmosphere of exams(in VCE at least).
Having impartial and unbiased assessors to mark our exams creates fairness. If this aspect creates stress for someone, perhaps they are too reliant on the soft markings of their respective teachers.
Things being stressful is unavoidable due to the nature of exams and dependent on the individual. If you cant handle a bit of stress in VCe, GL in real world.
I am not against stressful situations; i am against unreasonable amounts of stress which severely compromise student's performance to an unfair level.
SACs are nothing like exams.
Because of the differences zomgSEAN wishes to get rid of.
YES.
-
English shouldnt be compulsory top 4 imo
We live in Australia. English is the first and most predominant language. I can't help but disagree with you; the educated youth of this generation need to be able to speak and write English properly. What is the point in being a physics, history or philosophy whiz if you cannot even use the language of your country adequately?
You miss the point. im saying it should still be compulsory but not have to be in top 4. It should work like any other subj. And so long as uni's have their pre req's ppl will still try in it.
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
-
For the majority SACs are "just another class test". Exams are entirely different; the fact that they are externally set and marked, that they are above and beyond your own school's control - that is what creates the (generally) daunting atmosphere of exams(in VCE at least).
Having impartial and unbiased assessors to mark our exams creates fairness. If this aspect creates stress for someone, perhaps they are too reliant on the soft markings of their respective teachers.
Things being stressful is unavoidable due to the nature of exams and dependent on the individual. If you cant handle a bit of stress in VCe, GL in real world.
I am not against stressful situations; i am against unreasonable amounts of stress which severely compromise student's performance to an unfair level.
SACs are nothing like exams.
Because of the differences zomgSEAN wishes to get rid of.
YES.
Stress is relative and subjective, not everyone feels stress, and if you feel THAT MUCH stress, that means u care + your own personality generates that kind of stress. Some people, who are concerned for their studies and do well just naturally do not stress. Maybe you're just one of those people who feels it regardless. You can't go through life not feeling it, nor not wanting to feel it. Deal with it and don't blame stress for making you do bad. It's got nothing to do with VCE, that's a personal characteristic we all need to cope with.
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Mhmm, but I think that we should make further compulsory.
-
No, don't make Further compulsory; rather, at least one mathematics sequence should be completed by all students.
Though I'm sure that's what you meant anyway.
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Dont think serious ppl will ignore it when its still a pre-req to get into Uni.
I agree with m@tty. Maths should be compulsory as well.
-
No, don't make Further compulsory; rather, at least one mathematics sequence should be completed by all students.
Though I'm sure that's what you meant anyway.
yea, but can u imagine the backlash i'd get if I said MAKE SPECIALIST compulsory :P?
I just said further since it's considered the "easiest" for many. Like a base component. but yea, if you do a harder maths, no need to I guess.
Maths is important as well as literacy. Saves all those times you grumble over who pays the bill :)
-
No, don't make Further compulsory; rather, at least one mathematics sequence should be completed by all students.
Though I'm sure that's what you meant anyway.
yea, but can u imagine the backlash i'd get if I said MAKE SPECIALIST compulsory :P?
I just said further since it's considered the "easiest" for many. Like a base component. but yea, if you do a harder maths, no need to I guess.
Maths is important as well as literacy. Saves all those times you grumble over who pays the bill :)
I know many extremely intelligent people who exceed in english/drama and arts, yet fail miserably at any mathematics, if a large majority of people don't require or hold an interest in maths why would that be made compulsory. english fair enough, we're an english speaking nation... but maths is not essential. Personally because of the competition at higher levels i regret doing further maths, if you ask me it's methods(because it's a prereq) or just unnecessary.
-
No, don't make Further compulsory; rather, at least one mathematics sequence should be completed by all students.
Though I'm sure that's what you meant anyway.
yea, but can u imagine the backlash i'd get if I said MAKE SPECIALIST compulsory :P?
I just said further since it's considered the "easiest" for many. Like a base component. but yea, if you do a harder maths, no need to I guess.
Maths is important as well as literacy. Saves all those times you grumble over who pays the bill :)
I know many extremely intelligent people who exceed in english/drama and arts, yet fail miserably at any mathematics, if a large majority of people don't require or hold an interest in maths why would that be made compulsory. english fair enough, we're an english speaking nation... but maths is not essential. Personally because of the competition at higher levels i regret doing further maths, if you ask me it's methods(because it's a prereq) or just unnecessary.
I can't believe you just said maths is not essential. I personally find it embarrasing that some people I know think I'm amazing because I can add 180+270+360 off the top of my head.
The way I see it
people who suck at english complain that it shouldnt be in the top four
people who suck at maths complain that it shouldn't be in the top four.
We are all arguing because we want to protect our VCE scores and we don't want them to get affected by something compulsory. Well, tell that to IB where everyone has to do an EE and TOK.
And if you don't want maths in the top four, then the government needs to improve the standard of maths in the lower year levels.
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Dont think serious ppl will ignore it when its still a pre-req to get into Uni.
I agree with m@tty. Maths should be compulsory as well.
The prereq for a lot of courses is what...25?
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Dont think serious ppl will ignore it when its still a pre-req to get into Uni.
I agree with m@tty. Maths should be compulsory as well.
This is perfectely true, the need for eng to be a prereq means that people will have to be competen in english, but it won't overly restrict someone getting into say an engineering course where there is less need for english and good scores in maths and sciency subject are a much better indicator of their ability, hence they can still get a good enter by playing to their strengths.
As for the maths point, i compeltely agree. Maths is an essential part of life and while i agree that say vector spaces and number theory are not particualrly important in day to day life for 99.9999999% of people, my impression of further was that it largely was 'useful' maths (please correct me if i'm wrong).
At least one form of maths should be complusory (further itself should not be arbitarily compulsory as if people want to do uni maths doing four maths is obviosuly redundant)
Also masonnnn brings up a very good point in that the top end of further is extremely competitive. This is cos so many people who are extremely capble at maths chose to do it for an 'easy' high 40 SS. I think there should be a rule that if you do further, you can't do any other maths subjects to counteract this problem. Obviosuly the scaling would have to change to accomodate this alteration. I jsut don't think it's fair nor the point of having furher that people who do spech (or have the ability to do spech but chose to do futher instead) can do futher. It's not helping the students that genuinely do further because it just makes the top end ridicuously competive and it dosn't help the student doing futher for a high score as they are not extending themelves. Futher has a place in VCE but in teh current system, it is simpely being abused.
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Dont think serious ppl will ignore it when its still a pre-req to get into Uni.
I agree with m@tty. Maths should be compulsory as well.
The prereq for a lot of courses is what...25?
yeah true.... then mabey the prereq requirement should go up to 35 for the courses that really do need good writing skills, but you cant tell me that 40 in eng is going to be absolutely necessary for a pure maths major right? As is, people who perhaps are intending to do a course that uses little english should not ahve their atars restricted by english when it is 'useless'
oh and excuse my ignorance but what's EE/TOK??
-
No, don't make Further compulsory; rather, at least one mathematics sequence should be completed by all students.
Though I'm sure that's what you meant anyway.
yea, but can u imagine the backlash i'd get if I said MAKE SPECIALIST compulsory :P?
I just said further since it's considered the "easiest" for many. Like a base component. but yea, if you do a harder maths, no need to I guess.
Maths is important as well as literacy. Saves all those times you grumble over who pays the bill :)
I know many extremely intelligent people who exceed in english/drama and arts, yet fail miserably at any mathematics, if a large majority of people don't require or hold an interest in maths why would that be made compulsory. english fair enough, we're an english speaking nation... but maths is not essential. Personally because of the competition at higher levels i regret doing further maths, if you ask me it's methods(because it's a prereq) or just unnecessary.
I can't believe you just said maths is not essential. I personally find it embarrasing that some people I know think I'm amazing because I can add 180+270+360 off the top of my head.
The way I see it
people who suck at english complain that it shouldnt be in the top four
people who suck at maths complain that it shouldn't be in the top four.
We are all arguing because we want to protect our VCE scores and we don't want them to get affected by something compulsory. Well, tell that to IB where everyone has to do an EE and TOK.
And if you don't want maths in the top four, then the government needs to improve the standard of maths in the lower year levels.
I agree with people saying VCE-level maths is not essential - I believe maths should be compulsary up until year 10 (and perhaps improve the standard in the lower years...), but after that it's about as applicable to most people as an air conditioner is to an arctic home. As Glockmeister said, pretty much any degree/career you encounter will have some writing (and analytical writing) component - in contrast, outside of Science and Commerce, maths is used very little.
As for the maths point, i compeltely agree. Maths is an essential part of life and while i agree that say vector spaces and number theory are not particualrly important in day to day life for 99.9999999% of people, my impression of further was that it largely was 'useful' maths (please correct me if i'm wrong).
The problem is, as far as I can tell, most of the stuff they teach in Further (and somebody should confirm this for me, since I don't actually DO Further) is about the same as year 10 level maths - effectively, you're wasting two years of education by not really learning anything.
-
I know many extremely intelligent people who exceed in english/drama and arts, yet fail miserably at any mathematics, if a large majority of people don't require or hold an interest in maths why would that be made compulsory. english fair enough, we're an english speaking nation... but maths is not essential. Personally because of the competition at higher levels i regret doing further maths, if you ask me it's methods(because it's a prereq) or just unnecessary.
English - confined to only some parts of the world. Only 500 million–1.8 billion speakers (link -wiki). Being proficient in English will only get you so far; the majority of the world doesn't understand it.
On the other hand maths is uniform across the globe, so in that respect mathematics is indeed of greater importance as it is more prevalent.
Though more importantly - and this is also the main reason that English is compulsory - maths teaches crucial logic skills and provides experience in the application of knowledge. Just as text responses and language analysises do not directly benefit students, the actual questions involved in VCE mathematics is irrelevant. It is the mental skills developed through mathematics which are vital for success in any venture which justifies a compulsory maths subject - I'd argue that it is almost as important as English.
On top of that it helps people with basic arithmetic and data analysis - stuff that is required in many day-to-day situations.
And I can't believe you used the argument that it would disadvantage natural English students who have a feableness in mathematics; that is exactly what many many people have said about english being compulsory, and most pro-english people simply say "suck it up". So, I beseech you and all of your mathematically defunct friends to suck it up.
-
but the problem is, majority of kids don't really pay attention in year 10. You're only considering people who are hardworkers like yourself.
- this was to EZ's arugment.
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Dont think serious ppl will ignore it when its still a pre-req to get into Uni.
I agree with m@tty. Maths should be compulsory as well.
The prereq for a lot of courses is what...25?
but mind you there are already heaaps of ppl that dont try in english anyway.
the top students will always get top marks.
Ur right but maybe uni could increase pre-req.? to like 30? 30 i reckon is proficient enough to get by in this country.
Also i reckon they should replace the text response section with oral exam. I can see the relevance of an oral component to the exam much more than a text response. this will also minimize direct memorization. I mean by the time you actually write a text response in exam ur pretty much writing what you already have before. Context is similar but i think it helps you understand the world more. so keep it. and lang analysis is beneficial in many parts of life. so keep it.
-
On the other hand maths is uniform across the globe, so in that respect mathematics is indeed of greater importance as it is more prevalent.
By that logic, the language of music is also uniform across the globe. Let's make that compulsory too.
Re: usefulness after VCE - pretty much the only time I've used maths after VCE was in my tax return, and there's calculators (and e-tax!) for that.
-
There's no reason to have it compulsory but not top4. Then you'll just get people picking an extra subject and ignoring english completely. It's either important enough to be included in your mark or it's not, don't go in between.
Dont think serious ppl will ignore it when its still a pre-req to get into Uni.
I agree with m@tty. Maths should be compulsory as well.
The prereq for a lot of courses is what...25?
but mind you there are already heaaps of ppl that dont try in english anyway.
the top students will always get top marks.
Ur right but maybe uni could increase pre-req.? to like 30? 30 i reckon is proficient enough to get by in this country.
Also i reckon they should replace the text response section with oral exam. I can see the relevance of an oral component to the exam much more than a text response. this will also minimize direct memorization. I mean by the time you actually write a text response in exam ur pretty much writing what you already have before. Context is similar but i think it helps you understand the world more. so keep it. and lang analysis is beneficial in many parts of life. so keep it.
I think VCAA would have liked an oral (as you can see in their inclusion in all other languages) but its just logistically impossible to run oral exams for almost every student in the state. Hence, an oral is only a SAC requirement. As for the logic argument, I think English actually promotes the important aspects of it better than Maths. Maths focuses purely on rational reasoning, but English takes a broader approach to logical reasoning by developing argumentative skills. For example, both language analysis and text response are marked mostly based on how well you develop your argument and the reasoning behind it. This type of 'qualitative' reasoning is far more important in the real world than quantitative reasoning I believe. We aren't meant to be simple rational creatures that decide all our life's decisions based purely on numbers; we need the capability to think outside the box and take into consideration other factors that can't just be measured in numbers. Similarly, the ability to be able to logically build up an argument and convince others is just as important in the real world in almost any field. And yes, I haven't really found much of a use for Maths ever since leaving high school. I can't add for crap anymore either - calculator FTW.
-
in contrast, outside of Science and Commerce, maths is used very little.
Actually it's used in many other courses at uni, albeit less than in science but still used (at a quite high level too), these include engineering, chemical engineering, biology, psychology, architecture, information technology, computer science etc so it's a pretty damn important skill to have unless you're doing arts (which I suspect has little or no maths at all, not sure though)
-
You need maths even if you work at maccas....
-
I know many extremely intelligent people who exceed in english/drama and arts, yet fail miserably at any mathematics, if a large majority of people don't require or hold an interest in maths why would that be made compulsory. english fair enough, we're an english speaking nation... but maths is not essential. Personally because of the competition at higher levels i regret doing further maths, if you ask me it's methods(because it's a prereq) or just unnecessary.
English - confined to only some parts of the world. Only 500 million–1.8 billion speakers (link -wiki). Being proficient in English will only get you so far; the majority of the world doesn't understand it.
On the other hand maths is uniform across the globe, so in that respect mathematics is indeed of greater importance as it is more prevalent.
Though more importantly - and this is also the main reason that English is compulsory - maths teaches crucial logic skills and provides experience in the application of knowledge. Just as text responses and language analysises do not directly benefit students, the actual questions involved in VCE mathematics is irrelevant. It is the mental skills developed through mathematics which are vital for success in any venture which justifies a compulsory maths subject - I'd argue that it is almost as important as English.
On top of that it helps people with basic arithmetic and data analysis - stuff that is required in many day-to-day situations.
And I can't believe you used the argument that it would disadvantage natural English students who have a feableness in mathematics; that is exactly what many many people have said about english being compulsory, and most pro-english people simply say "suck it up". So, I beseech you and all of your mathematically defunct friends to suck it up.
1. Ninwa's argument - your position re: maths being universal becomes absurd when you consider other things which are "universal", plus the purpose of the VCE is to decide how much an AUSTRALIAN university wants you.
2. Agreed that maths is important in terms of rational thinking and so forth, but the problem is, having a "compulsary" maths component isn't going to necessarily encourage this if the majority of the state just does Further as a result. Basic arithmetic and data analysis is in year 1-10. And also, Shinny's argument about English promoting logic in its own right.
but the problem is, majority of kids don't really pay attention in year 10. You're only considering people who are hardworkers like yourself.
Even the most apathetic student who doesn't just ditch school altogether is going to pick up the fundamentals (basic arithmetic) necessary for life by that point.
Also i reckon they should replace the text response section with oral exam. I can see the relevance of an oral component to the exam much more than a text response. this will also minimize direct memorization. I mean by the time you actually write a text response in exam ur pretty much writing what you already have before. Context is similar but i think it helps you understand the world more. so keep it. and lang analysis is beneficial in many parts of life. so keep it.
This will be borderline philosophy, but I think the reason we still maintain text response is because of the significance of understanding "art" - in being able to appreciate our own literary culture, society flourishes. I also think putting an oral component into the exam also puts slightly more "unfairness" into the system - just as how background speakers get l33t h4x in LOTEs, kids who study drama or who are just naturally extraverted are going to have a much, much easier time than the introverts of the state. Having it as a SAC is good though, since it means it still matters, but just not to an almost unfair amount.
Actually it's used in many other courses at uni, albeit less than in science but still used (at a quite high level too), these include engineering, chemical engineering, biology, psychology, architecture, information technology, computer science etc so it's a pretty damn important skill to have unless you're doing arts (which I suspect has little or no maths at all, not sure though)
Every discipline you just listed was pretty much a branch of Science (except possibly Architecture, which has a maths requirement anyway IIRC), just putting it out there. You're also forgetting that the proportion of students doing Arts is fairly massive...
You need maths even if you work at maccas....
Yes, grade 5 maths. Unless I'm completely off and the counter people are constantly trying to work out the time at which the fries warm up with respect to time or something. >.>
-
Yeh they have to find pr(Golden Fries|Last fries were burnt) and take fries out when they are most likely to be golden brown.
-
Science as in what? General science? I said uni courses specifically, and engineering or computer science is definitely not grouped under Science, they are stand alone courses.
-
Science as in what? General science? I said uni courses specifically, and engineering or computer science is definitely not grouped under Science, they are stand alone courses.
General science courses - I should have been clearer, but I'm thinking more along the lines of American/Melbourne Model style courses than the vocationally-specific ones we tend to have over here.
-
Ahhh okay, I thought you meant Science, as in the university course science.
-
i hate to attentionwhore, but i'm genuinely interested in what people think about my suggestion:
Also masonnnn brings up a very good point in that the top end of further is extremely competitive. This is cos so many people who are extremely capble at maths chose to do it for an 'easy' high 40 SS. I think there should be a rule that if you do further, you can't do any other maths subjects to counteract this problem. Obviosuly the scaling would have to change to accomodate this alteration. I just don't think it's fair nor the point of having furher that people who do spech (or have the ability to do spech but chose to do futher instead) can do futher. It's not helping the students that genuinely do further because it just makes the top end ridicuously competive and it dosn't help the student doing futher for a high score as they are not extending themelves. Futher has a place in VCE but in the current system, it is simpely being abused.
Also at the risk of sounding like an idiot again: what's tok?? i gather it's soemthing to do with extra curriculars and is a component of IB?
-
Also at the risk of sounding like an idiot again: what's tok?? i gather it's soemthing to do with extra curriculars and is a component of IB?
TOK is Theory of Knowledge. CAS is community, action, service (with extra-curriculars) I believe.
-
and theory of knowledge is.............
-
and theory of knowledge is.............
What it sounds like. A mixture of philosophy and research (although nothing like the EE). They have to write an essay on a prompt discussing something like how "knowledge" should be developed etc.
Wish I'd done IB, the syllabus is very impressive.
Thought on altering VCE, get rid of the bell curve scaling, get rid of ATAR scores. Kids pick subjects over two years (1/2 and 3/4) and then their academic record gets reported to whatever university they apply for. So even if you do a LOTE and specialist and get low absolute marks, the university can still consider that whilst assessing your application
-
and theory of knowledge is.............
Really really bad epistemology - "How do we know xyxy is true?" or something, apparently.
-
and theory of knowledge is.............
What it sounds like. A mixture of philosophy and research (although nothing like the EE). They have to write an essay on a prompt discussing something like how "knowledge" should be developed etc.
Wish I'd done IB, the syllabus is very impressive.
Thought on altering VCE, get rid of the bell curve scaling, get rid of ATAR scores. Kids pick subjects over two years (1/2 and 3/4) and then their academic record gets reported to whatever university they apply for. So even if you do a LOTE and specialist and get low absolute marks, the university can still consider that whilst assessing your application
hmmmmmm i do like that idea..... but it's just too hard for every uni to indivudually assess each student's record, a atar make it so muhc easier to compare applicants..... also awarding scolarships would be an abosulute bitch? how do you qunatitatively compare a insane mark in a subject that is easy to a slightly worse mark in a insanely hard subject?
and theory of knowledge is.............
Really really bad epistemology - "How do we know xyxy is true?" or something, apparently.
epistemology is...........
-
Philosophy of knowledge... in 3 words
Here are more words
-
and theory of knowledge is.............
What it sounds like. A mixture of philosophy and research (although nothing like the EE). They have to write an essay on a prompt discussing something like how "knowledge" should be developed etc.
Wish I'd done IB, the syllabus is very impressive.
Thought on altering VCE, get rid of the bell curve scaling, get rid of ATAR scores. Kids pick subjects over two years (1/2 and 3/4) and then their academic record gets reported to whatever university they apply for. So even if you do a LOTE and specialist and get low absolute marks, the university can still consider that whilst assessing your application
You'd adding a level of subjectivity there -> One because without scaling, you can't compare subject to subject in any objective sense, and number two, now you have assessors choosing who goes into what course and assessors aren't actually good at that.