Should university subjects scale like vce?

[Dedicated]

I say yes. I haven't started uni though so my answer may change over the course of this year.

[Dedicated]

For example is a HD in a level 1 subject at melb uni the same as a HD in a level 3 one?

[Hancock]

No; good luck trying to ascertain an objective value for how difficult science classes are for humanities students and vice versa. Internal moderation does occur for individual courses at the co-ordinator's discretion if too many people are getting HDs or failing, which I believe is the best system.

[Russ]

Scaling is dumb in VCE and would also be dumb at university

e, i should clarify that. You can't compare subjects and classes and define them as more or less difficult in any objective way. The only reason it's the VCE system is because it's cost-effective compared to all the alternatives

[TrueTears]

why would you scale in uni..... that's just dumb lol

[Dedicated]

Please support your opinions with reasons please. And does breadth contribute to GPA?

[pi]

Uni subjects should not be scaled lol

[TrueTears]

i dont think i need to put a reason, i'm pretty sure most people who have gone through a year or so of uni would agree lol

[nacho]

The only reason VCE is scaled is because it is practically a competition between students to receive seats in tertiary studies.

Why would you scale in uni when there is no actual need for it?

[thushan]

The only reason VCE is scaled is because it is practically a competition between students to receive seats in tertiary studies.

Why would you scale in uni when there is no actual need for it?

Because unlike in other universities, undergrad courses in Melb Uni are OFTEN a conduit to competitive graduate entry courses; in other words, it's VCE all over again.

Scaling...the issue with scaling is that it would be even more difficult to compare GPAs across universities which I presume don't scale subjects according to their apparent difficulty (because Melbourne doesn't admit ONLY Melbourne students into its graduate entry courses).

But it MAY somewhat alleviate the notion of "doing subjects because its easier to do well in as opposed to being good for your knowledge and interest". However, there is another way, and Princeton does this - use a C/D/F system (Credit/D/Fail). Elect one subject per semester (or per year?) that you want to be pass/fail and not count towards the GPA. I think this is a decent alternative and encourages students to pick subjects that are good for them rather than what will give them the marks. Perhaps only apply this to breadth studies.

[ninwa]

split off-topic discussion to here Breadth subjects advice

[simpak]

Penn does the election of P/F subjects as well, there is a limit to the number of them you can take as a part of your degree.  They recommended that exchange students do it but I didn't because I want to use my transcripts for postgrad entry and I thought A+ looks better than P/F.

Anyway, no scaling at Uni.  In VCE your cohort is everyone in the state, in university your cohort is everyone in the subject you happen to be taking and that's the way that it should be.  What would be the value of comparing somebody doing an Arts degree with somebody doing a Science degree by ranking or scaling?  There is almost no value.  Nobody needs to be ranked in University so I don't really see the need for a scaling system to ensure that rankings reflect difficulty (whether VCE succeeds in this is another story).

[Tomw2]

Should university subjects scale like vce?

No.

For example is a HD in a level 1 subject at melb uni the same as a HD in a level 3 one?

This question needs context.
The year level of units is taken into account in various ways. For instance, most honours admissions are on the basis of performance in select 3rd year units. For most graduate applications, year levels are given different weighting in terms of GPA - therefore a HD in first year contributes less to GPA than an HD at 3rd year level.

Please support your opinions with reasons please.

Firstly, as others have mentioned, there is really no remotely valid way of comparing the "difficulty" and "value" of particular units at university level. Different students perform better/worse in different subject. A unit that may be an easy HD to one person, will be a nightmare for another.

Secondly, if there are major disparities - e.g. majority of students in subject A will get an HD without attending any lectures and studying less than an hour a week vs subject B where the majority of students with 100% attendance and 10hours+ study a week struggle to get a C - then the solution is curriculum design, not scaling.

Because unlike in other universities, undergrad courses in Melb Uni are OFTEN a conduit to competitive graduate entry courses; in other words, it's VCE all over again.

I agree in principle, but practically speaking there's usually other factors that limit the advantage of the "easy subject" applicant. In medicine for instance, there's the GAMSAT and the interview (except at UQ). Law has LSAT. Honours generally prescribes specific units at specific year level.

[lynt.br]

maybe not scaling but they definitely need to recognise that some subjects/courses are harder than others. Often university wide scholarships have a single cut off WAM regardless of what degree you are doing. I know a number of students who are doing arts/law who missed out on a scholarship because their law marks were understandably lower than their arts marks and put them below the scholarship cut-off point, when they easily would have qualified if they were doing straight arts.

Another example is if you want to change from one double degree with law to another double degree with law (e.g. arts/law to commerce/law) you need to meet the same WAM requirements as someone trying to transfer from arts into arts/law.

[thushan]

I agree in principle, but practically speaking there's usually other factors that limit the advantage of the "easy subject" applicant. In medicine for instance, there's the GAMSAT and the interview (except at UQ). Law has LSAT. Honours generally prescribes specific units at specific year level.

Hmm. With that in mind though, it is quite possible that many (highly capable let's say) students take "easy subjects" purely for the purpose of boosting their GPA. Would these people not be advantaged against similarly capable students who do not use this tactic?

I think your idea is that "easy subject" applicants are generally less capable than others; my point is more about taking easy subjects tactically.

This is mainly for entry into competitive graduate-entry programs, such as the MD, DDS, JD, DPhysio, etc.