2012 will be the final year of VCE mid-year examinations

[b^3]

^ there'll have to be IMO, the SD has to change.

Yeah they are, my chem teacher went to a meeting a couple of weeks back to discuss the changes, apparently it's heading towards HSC-like, as thushan said..

Hopefully only small changes otherwise as tutors we'll have to go back and learn a couple of new things.

[REBORN]

re:b^3 ; I just lost my business. My self created Psych exam is useless after 2012 -.-

[thushan]

Ahahah make a new one, or amend your old one!

[REBORN]

Not possible haha. I have no idea how to make a 2.5 hour exam + content will be different.

[Ravit]

could someone explain why it was changed, whats wrong with the current system?

[Random_Guy]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[EvangelionZeta]

Not sure what my thoughts are on this.  I never did any subjects requiring mid-years, but it seems to be a good idea to ensure that not everything rests on the one major piece of assessment...

[stonecold]

Everything is done to save money.  This will save them shitloads.  Not having to prepare, administer and mark mid year exams will be a lot more financially viable.  And AFAIK, the GAT is (or at least was) outsourced to ACER, so this leaves them having to only run the end of year exams.

From an educational perspective, I think it sucks.  Having to memorise a years worth of work will be tough.

That having been said, I am all for long (3 hour) exams, especially in the sciences.  3 hour exams are pretty much standard in first year uni science subjects.  Moreover, whilst the may seem harder at the surface, I would argue that they are easier.  3 hours is a long time so you can manage your time better.  In a short exam, if you have a bad 10 or 15 mins, it is very difficult to recover from it.   3 hours on the other hand gives you more flexibility for the occasional stuff up, which takes the pressure off a little.

[paulsterio]

I actually think this is better, mid-year exams were always a bother and they came around too quickly, and by the end of the year, you regret doing badly on your midyears, I think the few months from mid-years to end-of-years gave me so much more maturity!

[thushan]

Actually they are 2.5 hours - I agree with stonecold, they should be 3 hours.

[Reckoner]

That having been said, I am all for long (3 hour) exams, especially in the sciences.  3 hour exams are pretty much standard in first year uni science subjects.  Moreover, whilst the may seem harder at the surface, I would argue that they are easier.  3 hours is a long time so you can manage your time better.  In a short exam, if you have a bad 10 or 15 mins, it is very difficult to recover from it.   3 hours on the other hand gives you more flexibility for the occasional stuff up, which takes the pressure off a little.

I agree, longer exams would mean generally more marks, so the effect of a stupid mistake or brain fade is much less. Although, the longer exam could cause you to be more tired, and increase mistakes.

[paulsterio]

I am totally against the three hour exam, the GAT and the English exam are enough torture, I cannot describe how good 1 hour/1.5 hour exams are!!

(Especially given the fact that we still have 15min reading time)

[thushan]

Nah 3 hour english exam is only torture coz you're constantly writing for 3 hours.
With the science exams (esp chem and physics) you wont be doing anywhere near as much writing!

[REBORN]

Nar the timing isn't an issue, in fact better as Stonecold pointed out. The issue is the content of each subject and how much the SD will change.

[Phy124]

Do you think that they will split subjects like Chemistry into 2 exams - multiple choice and short-answer - similar to further? (I think further's like this, I didn't actually study it)

edit: looked at link posted, I guess not