[offtopic] scaling, private vs public schools, etc

[Aurelian]

It's also worth noting something here.

I've met about 12 chancellor's scholars who plan on doing med.

3 from Camberwell Grammar, 4ish from Melbourne Grammar and three from MHS or Macrob, 1 from Scotch and 1 from Xavier.

I think you see the trend here ^.

What I find pretty annoying is that one of the kids actually had lower scores then myself in Methods, Physics and Spesh, whilst we drew in chemistry. He, however got 37 raw in latin and 50 in English (at a school that got like 7 50s or something) and he's a chancellor's scholar whilst I'm not. It's all a bit annoying to me.

End rant.

Interesting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206681/Why-doctors-clever-used-be.html

Also, what is your view on this Russ ^

So I'm not Russ, but I think I'll reply to this anyway. I don't mean to be rude, but to be honest you're just coming off as a bit bitter. I understand that you might be a bit annoyed by that (I probably would be too), but I think a couple of things you're implying are a bit misleading. I imagine whoever this person is, their scores in the subjects listed weren't demonstrably below yours, and the way you said "37 in Latin" makes it sound as though this person only got where they are because of the gross injustice that is Latin scaling. While I'll admit Latin probably shouldn't get quite the scaling it does, I think you're underestimating the difficulty of getting 37 in the subject - it's still pretty damn hard.

As for the link you've posted, given the preceding listing of CGS, MGS, Scotch and Xavier in what appears to be a disdainful way, I feel as though you're implying that these Chancellor's Scholars are largely where they are because of the opportunities given to them on account of wealth. This is pretty inaccurate though. Pretty much all the top top-end at any private school is funded by scholarships, and most of them are not by any means from a wealthy background; they're there because they're naturally quite intelligent.

As for the link itself, the fact that it's a discussion based entirely around IQ being the basis of intelligence is itself concerning. Furthermore though, I don't think that at the end of the day what's most important in a doctor is intelligence (letalone their IQ). What's far more important is just, well, how good they actually are at *being* a doctor. I'm sure you'll agree there are many very intelligent people who'd make terrible doctors...

[Russ]

Hey Peanuts - UniMelb also has a DMedSci (which is the new name for the OLD melbourne MD - which is a research degree) which I think you can use ur research paper from the MD for - I'm not 100% sure on specifics, but I think it is an extra 2 years.

I doubt you can use your research paper from the MD for it, since they're different forms of research. You might be able to, but none of this has been worked out yet since it's at least 2 years before they have to worry about it

Also, what is your view on this Russ ^

Going to a private school makes it easier to get a higher ATAR. This isn't fair. Life is unfair, but get used to it.

Simple as that unfortunately.

[paulsterio]

I agree with Aurelian, but on the flip side, being someone who didn't get 99.90+, I understand what Peanuts11 means and I do understand why he/she might be bitter about the whole issue.

Although his implications might not be true, a lot of what he said does say quite a fair bit. Latin, the most highly scaled subject in VCE, is scaled crazily high, and although a 37 in Latin is good, I don't think it quite warrants a 50+ scaled score, especially true to people who might have gotten high 40s or even 50s in other subjects. If I got 50 in say Methods or Chem, I'd be annoyed at the kid who got a 37 in Latin and managed to get a higher scaled score.

Although I don't agree with the way he referred to those private schools, he does raise a true point, that is, the majority of high performing students in the state are from private (or select entry) schools, which can be a little unfair. While there are scholarships...etc. you'd agree that 100% scholarships are very, very rare and hard to come by. Even a 70-80% scholarship wouldn't be enough for some people, such as myself, because we just can't afford it.

Having been to a public school, I do understand Peanuts11's frustration.

[pi]

Just on the latin point, it is actually ridiculously difficult. I tried it in yr7 and 8 (very basic latin mind you) in UHS, and everyone except two people in my class struggled (ie <60% for the end-of-year exam - and that's with a cheat-sheet+magnifying-glass!).

I know getting a 50 in methods is absolutely amazing, but getting a score of low 40s or high 30s in Latin is equal in difficulty imo, it's actually that hard.

On the point of private school advantage:

Going to a private school makes it easier to get a higher ATAR. This isn't fair. Life is unfair, but get used to it.

Simple as that unfortunately.

^My opinion too.

Peanuts11, I don't think its 100% fair to "complain" about going to a "bad" school either, there are plenty of opportunities to go for scholarships throughout your high-schooling (they don't have to be at the biggest and best private schools, any improvement is a improvement) or even sit for entrance into MHS/Mac.Rob (and all those other "wannabe" selective schools there are now ).

[Peanuts11]

Firstly, private schools that offer Latin from my understanding generally teach their students Latin far before VCE begins. I am not recklessly throwing around statements and making assumptions because that's what I like to do. From the person who got 37 in latin, they said that they felt it wasn't harder then any other subject. His school just started early, had a good teacher and to be fair he put more effort in English then Latin. In his very own words, 'I cheated VCE, private school and latin.'

Aurelian, explain to me why so many of the 99.90+ers come from private schools and not from public schools if there is no distinct difference between private schools. Or are you saying that there is a marked difference in intelligence between your private school top-end and public school top-end? Moreso, why did you yourself attend Melbourne Grammar and spend the copious amounts of money if you thought you could receive the same education and compete with the state's best at a public school?

Take the user of 'Ahmad' on this forum. As someone who knows him in real life, he is incredibly intelligent and incredibly hard-working yet got an atar of 99.6ish. Yet I am certain that at least one of the 99.95ers this year was less intelligent and less hard-working but went to a private school.

"What's far more important is just, well, how good they actually are at *being* a doctor. I'm sure you'll agree there are many very intelligent people who'd make terrible doctors..."   

This is irrelevant ^. When considering only their intelligence, I would rather have the smartest doctor then a less smarter counterpart. Intelligence in medicine is certainly a desirable quality and what makes you think that intelligence and being a good doctor aren't correlated? You can't say, 'oh well ye, we have dumber doctors, but there are other things that make a good doctor, I'm sure they're good at that anyway, who cares if they're smart?'

pi and Cam, what you are suggesting is that academic fate should be determined on a scholarship/MHS etc. Then effectively your academic future is sealed at around year 8. Hardly fair at all, not everyone is studious at the age of 12/13. Should this rule them out from high-end professions?

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[Starlight]

As many as you want until you a) run out of money b) run out of time c) run into the 10 year rule (you have to have completed your degree within 10 years of applying

And honours/masters/workforce/time off etc. there are plenty of them

How come your name keeps changing? lol

[Aurelian]

Aurelian, explain to me why so many of the 99.90+ers come from private schools and not from public schools if there is no distinct difference between private schools. Or are you saying that there is a marked difference in intelligence between your private school top-end and public school top-end? Moreso, why did you yourself attend Melbourne Grammar and spend the copious amounts of money if you thought you could receive the same education and compete with the state's best at a public school?

Oh, I wasn't really saying any of those things actually... There is, unfortunately, a great disparity between private school education and much of the public school sector, so no I didn't think I'd receive the same quality education at a public school. Also, as an aside, I didn't spend the "copious amounts of money" because, as I explained in my previous post, I was lucky enough to be on scholarship.

"What's far more important is just, well, how good they actually are at *being* a doctor. I'm sure you'll agree there are many very intelligent people who'd make terrible doctors..."   

This is irrelevant ^. When considering only their intelligence, I would rather have the smartest doctor then a less smarter counterpart. Intelligence in medicine is certainly a desirable quality and what makes you think that intelligence and being a good doctor aren't correlated?

I think this is a bit silly. Would you really rather be treated by a more "intelligent" doctor who fails to realise you have cancer, than a less intelligent but better doctor (that is, a doctor more successful at treating his patients) who sees the signs early and saves your life...? You've also strawmanned me again; of course there's a correlation between being a good doctor and how 'intelligent' you are, I just denied that it was the only factor.

pi and Cam, what you are suggesting is that academic fate should be determined on a scholarship/MHS etc. Then effectively your academic future is sealed at around year 8. Hardly fair at all, not everyone is studious at the age of 12/13. Should this rule them out from high-end professions?

No we're not suggesting this at all, and I'll agree with you wholeheartedly; it isn't fair at all, and I wish it weren't this way. But, as Russ said, it *is* this way, unfortunately.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[pi]

Or are you saying that there is a marked difference in intelligence between your private school top-end and public school top-end?

If you measure intelligence by ATAR alone, then that's probably true. The MGS top-end (for example) was definitely better than the MHS/Mac.Rob top-end ATAR-wise.

If intelligence is not only ATAR, its harder to say. I'd say they're more equal in then.

pi and Cam, what you are suggesting is that academic fate should be determined on a scholarship/MHS etc. Then effectively your academic future is sealed at around year 8. Hardly fair at all, not everyone is studious at the age of 12/13. Should this rule them out from high-end professions?

No we're not suggesting this at all, and I'll agree with you wholeheartedly; it isn't fair at all, and I wish it weren't this way. But, as Russ said, it *is* this way, unfortunately.

Exactly, we can't change this, despite how unfair it is

Take the user of 'Ahmad' on this forum. As someone who knows him in real life, he is incredibly intelligent and incredibly hard-working yet got an atar of 99.6ish. Yet I am certain that at least one of the 99.95ers this year was less intelligent and less hard-working but went to a private school.

Was he intelligent in English too? I'm not taking a shot at Ahmad, because he is amazing at maths, but getting 99.95 seems ('seems', as I obviously did not get 99.95) to be more than just intelligence and hard-working (that's why it is hard to answer your first question I quoted). Studying 'smart' is the third part of it. If you disregard English until yr11 (or even yr12), you're going to be in more trouble that someone who hasn't, and hence no number of 50s in maths/science will push you into that top percentile. Just an idea.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[thushan]

Hey guys...try cool it a little! It's not too bad atm, but just reminding you - we don't want any flaming!

Peanuts11 --> The public vs private school issue is fairly complex, and I really do understand your bitterness. Having said that - it's uni now, and you're in a way on an equal footing. It's a new style of learning for everyone. Now, all I have to say here is GO GET 'EM - that is the knowledge, the principles, oh and the scores!

And come on - this is a thread about getting a guaranteed place in the MD - not a thread about Public vs Private schools and Intelligence vs ATAR!

[Peanuts11]

Or are you saying that there is a marked difference in intelligence between your private school top-end and public school top-end?

If you measure intelligence by ATAR alone, then that's probably true. The MGS top-end (for example) was definitely better than the MHS/Mac.Rob top-end ATAR-wise.

If intelligence is not only ATAR, its harder to say. I'd say they're more equal in then.

pi and Cam, what you are suggesting is that academic fate should be determined on a scholarship/MHS etc. Then effectively your academic future is sealed at around year 8. Hardly fair at all, not everyone is studious at the age of 12/13. Should this rule them out from high-end professions?

No we're not suggesting this at all, and I'll agree with you wholeheartedly; it isn't fair at all, and I wish it weren't this way. But, as Russ said, it *is* this way, unfortunately.

Exactly, we can't change this, despite how unfair it is

Intelligence has nothing to do with ATAR. The smartest person I've ever met got like 50ish in his ATAR. He just didn't care about school at all. If he's not smarter than everyone, he's definitely smarter than me.

I realise that the being intelligent isn't the only component of being a good doctor. I just think it's one quality that is desirable amongst a plethora of qualities that are desirable and if this quality is being diminished due to private school types taking public school types positions in medicine, this is obviously not a good thing. Obviously my first priority as a patient is surviving, what I am saying is that I think there is a stronger chance of surviving if my doctor is intelligent as this is a quality that leads to a good doctor. In my opinion, the components of a good doctor are personality, intelligence and commitment to his profession in both learning and applying his work. Taking any of these creates serious issues in my opinion.

I think intelligence is more important than most of us think in medicine. Russ to confirm/disprove this?

Thushan, this is my point, if the 99.95ers such as Cam were genuinely as intelligent and hard-working as their score reflects, why do they need that guarantee? It's crap that 50ish students will get places straight into the MD and that in my opinion, you virtually HAVE to have gone to a private school to get this guarantee.

And if intelligence and ATAR were correlated, what you are telling me then Veg is that in one year of MGS, there are more extremely intelligent people passing through (99.95ers) than in like 20 years of public schools (excluding MHS/Macrobs)

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[pi]

Thushan, this is my point, if the 99.95ers such as Cam very genuinely as intelligent and hard-working as their score reflects, why do they need that guarantee? It's crap that 50ish students will get places straight into the MD and that in my opinion, you virtually HAVE to have gone to a private school to get this guarantee.

That's a pretty strange view on it. These people (mostly) got into their respective school because they were very bright in yr7 or yr9 (or other) entrance exams. Everyone had that opportunity to work hard for those exams (not that everyone prepared, but most who get in do some sort of preparation). edit: They weren't all from the top-end private schools either...

We've already concluded that it is unfair, but we can't change that.


Also, please refrain from using real names whilst on the forum, even if you know them in person

[Peanuts11]

Thushan, this is my point, if the 99.95ers such as Cam very genuinely as intelligent and hard-working as their score reflects, why do they need that guarantee? It's crap that 50ish students will get places straight into the MD and that in my opinion, you virtually HAVE to have gone to a private school to get this guarantee.

That's a pretty strange view on it. These people (mostly) got into their respective school because they were very bright in yr7 or yr9 (or other) entrance exams. Everyone had that opportunity to work hard for those exams (not that everyone prepared, but most who get in do some sort of preparation).

We've already concluded that it is unfair, but we can't change that.


Also, please refrain from using real names whilst on the forum, even if you know them in person

To be fair, all I remember in years 1-8 were playing on the playground and yu-gi-oh cards, I can't believe people actually had an academic goal etc at this age. wow.

Anyway, I will not use real names anymore.

[pi]

To be fair, all I remember in years 1-8 were playing on the playground and yu-gi-oh cards, I can't believe people actually had an academic goal etc at this age. wow.

You'd be surprised. I wanted to go to MHS when I was in year 8, and many I know had similar goals at that time. It's actually not that rare tbh.

Sometimes it comes down to parents (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but the student usually has interest too (well, I did in any case).

[Peanuts11]

To be fair, all I remember in years 1-8 were playing on the playground and yu-gi-oh cards, I can't believe people actually had an academic goal etc at this age. wow.

You'd be surprised. I wanted to go to MHS when I was in year 8, and many I know had similar goals at that time. It's actually not that rare tbh.

Sometimes it comes down to parents (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but the student usually has interest too (well, I did in any case).

Look, I probably shouldn't say this, but I'm assuming you wanted to be doctors and large majority were Indian/Lankan/Paki/Asian etc?

To be fair, I've changed my view on this. I probably still would've preferred to be playing yu-gi-oh at that age, but if you guys really were committed, I guess good on you.

[pi]

To be fair, all I remember in years 1-8 were playing on the playground and yu-gi-oh cards, I can't believe people actually had an academic goal etc at this age. wow.

You'd be surprised. I wanted to go to MHS when I was in year 8, and many I know had similar goals at that time. It's actually not that rare tbh.

Sometimes it comes down to parents (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), but the student usually has interest too (well, I did in any case).

Look, I probably shouldn't say this, but I'm assuming you wanted to be doctors and large majority were Indian/Lankan/Paki/Asian etc?

No. Of my friends who were keen to try-out, one wanted to own a casino (is now doing engineering), one wanted to become a lawyer (not sure what he's doing), one wanted to become a CEO (I think, it was either this or an accountant... Now doing actuarial studies), two engineer, three or four didn't know what they wanted (in all honesty, doing a variety of things, UoM Science mostly), and me a doctor (although, I wasn't entirely sure tbh).

They weren't all Asian either. Only 3 of the people above were Indian, a couple were Caucasian, the rest were Asian (this kinda reflected the demographics of my class in UHS too, coincidentally).