I totally get what your saying, but i guess i do see his point. the stringent adherence to study design doesn't provide a structured avenue for learning so much as it does a stifling and restrictive program for memorisation (in quite a fair few subjects). VCE is a system of ranking, and to be fair it can't be anything but a system for ranking (how else would uni selection work?), but idk - the more i reflect on it, the more the system feels stagnant and ossified. that's not to say some subjects aren't awesome - i really love mine most of the time; but idk, flexibility would be great.
Hmm, I guess I can't really say for subjects other than maths/science, but I think in terms of the 'mental stimulation' that these subjects provide, it's adequate enough. Sure, sometimes the content can be dry and a little superficial, but for all intents and purposes, they do good enough of a job. And we have to remember that schools, and arguably VCAA, have to cater to the majority of students. The fact of the matter is that the majority of students don't complain about how unchallenging or shallow a subject is, but rather, how 'difficult' and 'confusing' it is. Perhaps this may stem from how disengaging VCE can be, but this probably has more to do with the delivery of the content as opposed to the content itself.
Besides, from what I've seen/read, many tertiary-level subjects do in fact have an emphasis on rote-learning (just have a read of the UoM General Chat); not only that, from what I've read, many uni subjects also adhere extensively to a study design (a unit guide perhaps) and rely heavily on reading off lecture slides to deliver their content (read:
http://theconversation.com/why-universities-should-get-rid-of-powerpoint-and-why-they-wont-43323). In this sense, it's a problem not only restricted to the VCE.
As an aside, some people argue that because VCE is inherently unfair from the outset, this somehow justifies cheating in SACs and the like. Nothing more than a logical fallacy if you ask me.
Home
Help
Search
Login
