Should students that do Specialist be restricted from Further?

[Professor Polonsky]

I don't think the whole VCE maths system is ideal at all, but the reason why you can do more than one maths subject is to make up for the relative lack of them compared with humanities. You could easily find 5 humanities subjects, it'd be a lot harder with maths/science if they restrict you to one maths.

[FlorianK]

I don't think the whole VCE maths system is ideal at all, but the reason why you can do more than one maths subject is to make up for the relative lack of them compared with humanities. You could easily find 5 humanities subjects, it'd be a lot harder with maths/science if they restrict you to one maths.

I completly disagree with you one of my mates did not do Physics just because he was forced to do Methods, while he only wanted to do specialist. Doing more than 1 math and in the case of specialst being forced to do more than 1 math restricts people from doing other subjects.

[Professor Polonsky]

As I said, it's not ideal. I never said they should force you to do more than one maths, only that that option should be open.

Which other subjects did he do, out of interest?

[FlorianK]

As I said, it's not ideal. I never said they should force you to do more than one maths, only that that option should be open.

Which other subjects did he do, out of interest?

Chem, French and English

[watto_22]

I think it is such a poor decision for Spesh kids to do Further. I think VCAA shouldn't even need to make it that Spesh kids are restricted from Further, but rather that students would just never pick both those subjects. However, students do do all 3, and hence this needs to be stopped via VCAA intervention.

With methods as a prerequisite for Spesh, already these people do 2 maths subjects - for them to also take on a third (further), and hence have potentially half their ATAR (6 subjects, 4 full, 2 at 10%, giving 4.2 subjects - with 3 maths, you have 2.1 subjects contributing) based purely off maths seems too much.

Contrastingly, for LOTEs (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/french-italian-its-all-double-dutch-to-many-20121006-276gz.html - almost nobody does 2 languages, let alone 3), there are almost no students who so limit themselves to one field of study. I don't have any statistics or resources or anything, but I don't think that there would be many people who study 3 history subjects - either Revs, Renaissance, Australian (or Classics as well).

Already I think that genuine Further students are at a big disadvantage in doing well in that subject when there are Methods kids also doing Further. Additionally, there are Spesh kids who also do Further. For me, this hardly seems reasonable whatsoever to those who truly belong in Further.

For instance, just how many of the 40+ scores published for Further do you think would belong to real Further students, those who did not also do Methods or Spesh? Or how would you feel as a pure Methods student (who doesn't do Spesh) if suddenly University maths students were now also dropping in to do Methods and were taking basically all of the Study Scores of 40 and above?

Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like essentially the only reason that Spesh kids would ever do Further is in the hope of getting a better ATAR. Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.

(For a similar reason, I seriously dislike that there are some who choose LOTEs purely for ATAR purposes - most particularly, the boys who pick up Latin in something like Year 10, for the sole reason (surely) of boosting their ATAR. Believe me in saying that I scarcely considered the mark-ups for Latin or French when choosing my subjects. They had been my two favourite subjects since I started them in Year 7.)

I feel like people and students especially should be looking more toward the future and long term goals (i.e. how the work you did at school will aid you in your knowledge required for later life) and not so much looking towards an ATAR and other very short term goals.
I find it hard to believe that any Spesh student who then chooses Further is doing anything but thinking about the latter.

[Homer]

If thats the case, they should be restricted from methods aswell, they may not get the direct fifty in methods, but they are more likely to get 45+ than the methods only student.

[Professor Polonsky]

I think it is such a poor decision for Spesh kids to do Further. I think VCAA shouldn't even need to make it that Spesh kids are restricted from Further, but rather that students would just never pick both those subjects. However, students do do all 3, and hence this needs to be stopped via VCAA intervention.

With methods as a prerequisite for Spesh, already these people do 2 maths subjects - for them to also take on a third (further), and hence have potentially half their ATAR (6 subjects, 4 full, 2 at 10%, giving 4.2 subjects - with 3 maths, you have 2.1 subjects contributing) based purely off maths seems too much.

So you have 2.1 instead of 2. How is that too much?

Contrastingly, for LOTEs (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/french-italian-its-all-double-dutch-to-many-20121006-276gz.html - almost nobody does 2 languages, let alone 3), there are almost no students who so limit themselves to one field of study.

Most people find it extremely difficult to study one language, let alone three. There are different skills and knowledge required in each one. With maths, it's a safe bet that if you can do spesh you can do further as well.

I don't have any statistics or resources or anything, but I don't think that there would be many people who study 3 history subjects - either Revs, Renaissance, Australian (or Classics as well).

But history is a humanity, and there are many of those. Many people do three humanities.

Already I think that genuine Further students are at a big disadvantage in doing well in that subject when there are Methods kids also doing Further. Additionally, there are Spesh kids who also do Further. For me, this hardly seems reasonable whatsoever to those who truly belong in Further.

For instance, just how many of the 40+ scores published for Further do you think would belong to real Further students, those who did not also do Methods or Spesh? Or how would you feel as a pure Methods student (who doesn't do Spesh) if suddenly University maths students were now also dropping in to do Methods and were taking basically all of the Study Scores of 40 and above?

So... If you're good at a subject you shouldn't do it? Why is this logic only ever applied to maths?

Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like essentially the only reason that Spesh kids would ever do Further is in the hope of getting a better ATAR. Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.

See below

(For a similar reason, I seriously dislike that there are some who choose LOTEs purely for ATAR purposes - most particularly, the boys who pick up Latin in something like Year 10, for the sole reason (surely) of boosting their ATAR. Believe me in saying that I scarcely considered the mark-ups for Latin or French when choosing my subjects. They had been my two favourite subjects since I started them in Year 7.)

To how many people is a LOTE going to be relevant in their higher education? First you wanted people to do more LOTEs, now you only want them to do it if it's relevant... I'm confused.

I feel like people and students especially should be looking more toward the future and long term goals (i.e. how the work you did at school will aid you in your knowledge required for later life) and not so much looking towards an ATAR and other very short term goals.
I find it hard to believe that any Spesh student who then chooses Further is doing anything but thinking about the latter.

Some people require the high ATAR to get into their university courses. I'd let people make their own subject selection decisions.

[Stick]

I think it is such a poor decision for Spesh kids to do Further. I think VCAA shouldn't even need to make it that Spesh kids are restricted from Further, but rather that students would just never pick both those subjects. However, students do do all 3, and hence this needs to be stopped via VCAA intervention.

With methods as a prerequisite for Spesh, already these people do 2 maths subjects - for them to also take on a third (further), and hence have potentially half their ATAR (6 subjects, 4 full, 2 at 10%, giving 4.2 subjects - with 3 maths, you have 2.1 subjects contributing) based purely off maths seems too much.

Contrastingly, for LOTEs (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/french-italian-its-all-double-dutch-to-many-20121006-276gz.html - almost nobody does 2 languages, let alone 3), there are almost no students who so limit themselves to one field of study. I don't have any statistics or resources or anything, but I don't think that there would be many people who study 3 history subjects - either Revs, Renaissance, Australian (or Classics as well).

Already I think that genuine Further students are at a big disadvantage in doing well in that subject when there are Methods kids also doing Further. Additionally, there are Spesh kids who also do Further. For me, this hardly seems reasonable whatsoever to those who truly belong in Further.

For instance, just how many of the 40+ scores published for Further do you think would belong to real Further students, those who did not also do Methods or Spesh? Or how would you feel as a pure Methods student (who doesn't do Spesh) if suddenly University maths students were now also dropping in to do Methods and were taking basically all of the Study Scores of 40 and above?

Finally, and correct me if I am wrong, but I feel like essentially the only reason that Spesh kids would ever do Further is in the hope of getting a better ATAR. Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.

(For a similar reason, I seriously dislike that there are some who choose LOTEs purely for ATAR purposes - most particularly, the boys who pick up Latin in something like Year 10, for the sole reason (surely) of boosting their ATAR. Believe me in saying that I scarcely considered the mark-ups for Latin or French when choosing my subjects. They had been my two favourite subjects since I started them in Year 7.)

I feel like people and students especially should be looking more toward the future and long term goals (i.e. how the work you did at school will aid you in your knowledge required for later life) and not so much looking towards an ATAR and other very short term goals.
I find it hard to believe that any Spesh student who then chooses Further is doing anything but thinking about the latter.

Don't just assume everyone who picks all three Maths subjects is some greedy cow who wants to maximise their ATAR (with the current rules anyway it probably doesn't do wonders for your score). As I said, I was put in a very awkward situation where, after doing Methods 1&2 in Year 10, the accelerated students were encouraged to do Further 3&4 because the staff thought Specialist would be too difficult for us. They didn't want us to repeat Methods 1&2 again but instead wanted us to build upon our Mathematical skills, so we were all put into a GMA class last year, which a lot of us did really well in. We would've been silly not to have continued on with Specialist this year, considering it had proven to be a strength. Now it's put us all in a rut. :|

[Conic]

Unless these students with all 3 maths (most likely combined with physics, ie 4 maths) are each planning on doing Pure Maths degrees at Uni (this being the only other reason I can think of to support choosing all 3), I think these students are then at a disadvantage when they get into Uni on the back of a devious ATAR, half comprised of scores from Maths subjects which may be of little or no relevance to the Uni courses that they will study.

Some people pick 3 maths because they find maths interesting, and they shouldn't be limited to one type of it because other people supposedly "can't compete" with the specialist students. Maths can be applied to science and commerce easily, and you aren't really limiting yourself.

[walkec]

I see both sides to ten argument. Maybe VCAA should consider two further maths streams. One for those enrolled in MM and Spesh and the other purely for Further students, who like myself, are most definitely not suited to anything but Further.

I'm not saying its a complete disadvantage, I love looking at the things I'll be doing in GMB this year and it excites me that I'll be able to comprehend the topics with greater ease this year. I intend to work my butt off with further in year 12, so this supposed 'disadvantage' for just the further students is not a disadvantage at all.

[watto_22]

So you have 2.1 instead of 2. How is that too much?

It's too much because in all likelihood those scores might be around 48+ scaled, and the person gets 3 chances from comparable subjects to get two SS of 50 in their top 4.

Most people find it extremely difficult to study one language, let alone three. There are different skills and knowledge required in each one. With maths, it's a safe bet that if you can do spesh you can do further as well.

Exactly. With LOTEs, the knowledge is different. With Maths, it isn't so different. Do you think it would be fair that students could take 3 different subjects all under the broad heading of French, where each of those three subjects would help the other 2?

But history is a humanity, and there are many of those. Many people do three humanities.

But again, the knowledge required for those humanities are quite distinct. Find me three humanities subjects that are as closely related in their knowledge as the 3 maths are, and then you'll have a case.

So... If you're good at a subject you shouldn't do it? Why is this logic only ever applied to maths?

So...if you're good at a subject, you should do the easiest available stream of it?
So...if you're good at a subject, you should be allowed to do it three times for VCE?

To how many people is a LOTE going to be relevant in their higher education? First you wanted people to do more LOTEs, now you only want them to do it if it's relevant... I'm confused.

I never said that I want more people to do LOTEs, but I think that students shouldn't pick up a language purely for scaling and hence ATAR boosting purposes. Regardless, this is a Maths discussion.

Some people require the high ATAR to get into their university courses. I'd let people make their own subject selection decisions.

This I guess is fair. However, I think it might be strange for someone to go into a Uni course which doesn't really involve maths, when the main reason that they got into that course was because of their maths.
However, I suppose most of the high-ATAR-cut-off-entry courses (Science, commerce etc) are fairly maths based and so doing those subjects is fair enough.

Some people pick 3 maths because they find maths interesting, and they shouldn't be limited to one type of it because other people supposedly "can't compete" with the specialist students.

supposedly? more like definitely. if TrueTears or the like was doing further and came up against your average Further student, you would say that that is a fair contest?

Don't just assume everyone who picks all three Maths subjects is some greedy cow who wants to maximise their ATAR (with the current rules anyway it probably doesn't do wonders for your score). As I said, I was put in a very awkward situation where, after doing Methods 1&2 in Year 10, the accelerated students were encouraged to do Further 3&4 because the staff thought Specialist would be too difficult for us. They didn't want us to repeat Methods 1&2 again but instead wanted us to build upon our Mathematical skills, so we were all put into a GMA class last year, which a lot of us did really well in. We would've been silly not to have continued on with Specialist this year, considering it had proven to be a strength. Now it's put us all in a rut.

Obviously your case is much different.
And I did my best not to make any assumptions, but I'm battling to see why else someone might pick all 3 maths subjects.
Sure, they can find Maths 'interesting'.
But hey, I found Latin really interesting, and yet I could only do that for one of my subjects, not for two of them, let alone three times.

[brightsky]

Okay, I haven't read every post in this thread, but allow me to address some of your more contentious points, watto_22.

Firstly, you seem to assume that mathematical proficiency is a natural gift. Such an assumption is not to be borne, for reasons which I consider quite conspicuous. Competence in mathematics comes from hard work and dedication. Succinctly, a good mathematician is not born, but made. With this in mind, I see no reason why one should deem it 'unfair' for a student who is mathematically adept to undertake Further Maths as a VCE subject. A student who is as good at maths as TT is in year 12 would no doubt have put in the hard yards. To deny such a student admission into a subject based on the assertion that is "too good for it" is simply absurd. I might have been impelled, last year, to deem thushan too good for VCE chemistry. Does this mean that he should not be allowed to do the subject? The same principle applies here.

Secondly, you make it as though Further, Methods and Spesh are so similar they might as well be considered one subject. I believe that a large enough discrepancy exists among these three subjects. Whilst there are overlaps, each course focuses on an entirely different aspect of maths. As far as I am aware, there is no calculus in Further, meaning that the calculus knowledge a student garners from Spesh will be of no use should he choose to do Further concurrently. I remind you that overlaps exist for humanities, and science, subjects as well. English and Classics both test a student's ability to write well. Would it be 'fair', in your opinion, to preclude a student who writes like Orwell from choosing three humanities subjects?

Bear in mind that VCE is more or less a competition. Like all competitions, it operates on a set of rules. As far as I am aware, the rules of VCE do not forbid a student from doing all three maths subjects. A student who is mathematically capable is therefore permitted to capitalise on his talent, and I don't see why one should object to that on moral grounds. I'm also a bit tentative to speak of morality in general for reasons which are beyond the scope of this thread.

[simba]

I'd see a problem with having these restriction in cases like mine as well. At the start of year 11 I had no intentions whatsoever if doing specialist maths, but I changed my mind only a couple of months ago. I picked further last year because I love maths, which is the same reason I've decided to choose specialist!
With these restrictions, it would basically screw up me being able to do specialist

[Conic]

Being good at mechanics and calculus doesn't mean that you can't lose marks in statistics. There are 3 maths subjects because there are a lot of different areas of maths. Perhaps the better solution to the problem is making a harder and more comprehensive statistics subject and making a new "further" for those less interested in maths. Then the students who enjoy maths can do 3, and the people who are less interested can have less competition, while also restricting people from doing the "harder" maths from doing the new further. That way people who are interested in statistics aren't shafted.

[watto_22]

Firstly, you seem to assume that mathematical proficiency is a natural gift. Such an assumption is not to be borne, for reasons which I consider quite conspicuous. Competence in mathematics comes from hard work and dedication. Succinctly, a good mathematician is not born, but made. With this in mind, I see no reason why one should deem it 'unfair' for a student who is mathematically adept to undertake Further Maths as a VCE subject. A student who is as good at maths as TT is in year 12 would no doubt have put in the hard yards. To deny such a student admission into a subject based on the assertion that is "too good for it" is simply absurd. I might have been impelled, last year, to deem thushan too good for VCE chemistry. Does this mean that he should not be allowed to do the subject? The same principle applies here.

I absolutely agree that the people who are amazing at maths have no doubt worked hard at it.
No doubt that Thushan, to use him as an example, worked seriously hard for chemistry.
Does this mean that he should not be allowed to do the subject? Not at all. Please, do chem.
But should he be allowed to do it three times with similar yet different chemistry subjects?
Would you like to see multiple branches of all subjects to reward those who work hard? Shall we make, for instance, separate subjects for organic chem and inorganic chem and perhaps industrial chem as well.
I'm actually a fan of this idea, but I can't see it happening.
Therfore it seems unfair to me at least that those who have worked hard for Mathematics since they were infants should be allowed the advantage of doing Maths for 3 subjects, when this situation doesn't truly occur for any other competitors in the VCE competition who have worked hard in other subject areas.

Secondly, you make it as though Further, Methods and Spesh are so similar they might as well be considered one subject. I believe that a large enough discrepancy exists among these three subjects. Whilst there are overlaps, each course focuses on an entirely different aspect of maths. As far as I am aware, there is no calculus in Further, meaning that the calculus knowledge a student garners from Spesh will be of no use should he choose to do Further concurrently.

Realistically, if you really believe that the skills needed for Further are not fostered by the other Maths subjects, go now onto the VCAA website and do the Further exams from say last year. Inform us of how you go despite never having looked at the Further course.
This could be a fun holiday activity for us all to do!

I remind you that overlaps exist for humanities, and science, subjects as well. English and Classics both test a student's ability to write well. Would it be 'fair', in your opinion, to preclude a student who writes like Orwell from choosing three humanities subjects?

I think there are enough differences between these humanities subjects to warrant Mr Orwell picking six of them if he so wishes. Perhaps he would get bored though?

Bear in mind that VCE is more or less a competition. Like all competitions, it operates on a set of rules. As far as I am aware, the rules of VCE do not forbid a student from doing all three maths subjects. A student who is mathematically capable is therefore permitted to capitalise on his talent, and I don't see why one should object to that on moral grounds.

Thank you for informing us all of the 'rules of VCE'.
Yes, it is currently allowed for students of the VCE competition to take all 3 maths. But should it be? - that is the question.
VCAA don't operate on a moral basis, so disregard that.

To use a sporting analogy, should the Under 18 soccer team (Spesh students) be allowed to play against the Under 12 rugby players (Further students) in a rugby match?