The VCE is biased

[excal]

Through this year I've learnt one solid fact, the VCE is extremely biased towards the Maths and Sciences. Have a look around, the vast majority of those who have obtained 95+ have done the 'asian five' or 'curry six' - (Methods, Spesh, Physics, Chem, Acc). Nearly all of these subjects get scaled extremely, yes they are hard however the learning curve for these subjects is quite smaller for those, who are naturally biased to the type of thinking that these subjects require. From observing those at my school, the kids studying the aforementioned subjects *generally* don't perform as well in English. Those A+ marks in Spesh SACs are quite rarely matched in English SACs.

You're mixing up your words?

Besides, if a student chose subjects they're good at (i.e., subjects that require logical thought such as mathematics and sciences) and do well in it, what's wrong with that? What you have to remember about how scaling works is that it refers to the level of competition in a unit - a person doing Specialist will receive a lower study score than they would in Further for the exact same level of performance. The scaling process is intended to balance these out to a limited extent. Of course, being a statistical process, it's not perfect but neither is democracy.

Also, it's VTAC that handles scaling, not VCAA.

[shinny]

I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.

[QuantumJG]

Through this year I've learnt one solid fact, the VCE is extremely biased towards the Maths and Sciences. Have a look around, the vast majority of those who have obtained 95+ have done the 'asian five' or 'curry six' - (Methods, Spesh, Physics, Chem, Acc). Nearly all of these subjects get scaled extremely, yes they are hard however the learning curve for these subjects is quite smaller for those, who are naturally biased to the type of thinking that these subjects require. From observing those at my school, the kids studying the aforementioned subjects *generally* don't perform as well in English. Those A+ marks in Spesh SACs are quite rarely matched in English SACs.

I'll use one subject from the humanities to clearly illustrate my point - History: Revolutions. Last year, a raw 40 scaled down to a 39. I'm doing this subject myself this year, along with Chemistry (as a comparison). To obtain an A in a Revs SAC I had to do the following. Firstly, obtain a basic grasp of what happened, this required 3 months worths of classes in which we were taught the 'basics'. In about a week prior to the actual SAC, I started revising. This included revisiting all the content firstly on a basic level, then on an analytical level, and finally synthesize all the information to be prepared for the SAC. I had to memorize 5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head - which totalled 10 pages in the acutal SAC.

For a recent Chem SAC I also obtained an A. The task was on electrolysis, galvanic cells, and fuel cells. This was taught to us in ~2 weeks. 4 days prior to the SAC I did all the extended-response check point questions releveant to electrolysis. I also did about 10 for each of the other areas of study. The SAC was about 4-5 pages long, and we finished it in a period.

Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. For the lead up to the exams, I will (and have) put in about 3x the hours for Revolutions than Chemistry - to obtain (hopefully) A+ on both of the exams. However, the reward for my efforts in History are it being scaled down. In Chem, a 35 gets me a 40. I'm not trying to insult the maths/sciences, what I'm saying is that those subjects compared with the humanities require a totally different approach.

I have no doubt that the humanities subjects are hard. You are right, with the sciences we are at a go go pace. It may take us a short amount of time to go through something classwise but you go through a lot of topics and consolidation time will nearly always outweighs the class pace.

In maths and science I was the A/A+ guy (In my school I came 2nd in physics, 5th in methods, chemistry and Specialist maths), whilst with English I believe I got a study score that was below our average (Our highest score was 47 and I got a 30. English was a real weakness because the process in which you take to learn English was different to that of my other subjects. What I don't like is English scaling down. Everybody has to do it why scale it down?

Our Dux got 99.4 and did no maths or science subjects. But in general to get 95+ you need to be good at both the humanities and sciences. If a student can start VCE with excellent English skills and excellent skills in maths and science, then, getting 95+ is definately achievable.

[EvangelionZeta]

I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.

Technically speaking the Humanities subjects outnumber the Maths/Science ones - within English and History alone you have six, then with half a dozen of others like International Studies, Philosophy, National Politics, etc.  The problem is that compared to Maths/Science, these subjects are a lot less cohesive - there's a lot less overlap between Literature and Revs than say with Spesh and Physics, in terms of the actual style of work which you need to apply.  Hence, whilst you're not exactly wrong, I think the lack of synergy in Humanities scaling is more an adverse effect of the subjects themselves rather than the number of subjects. 

What I don't like is English scaling down. Everybody has to do it why scale it down?

Our Dux got 99.4 and did no maths or science subjects. But in order to get 95+ you need to be good at both.

1. Because believe it or not not EVERYONE does English.  A lot of the stronger English students end up doing Literature instead, whilst some of the harder-working maths/Science people go with English Language.  Removal of some of the top scorers=lower average=slightly downward scaling.

2. ... 

[QuantumJG]

 

What I don't like is English scaling down. Everybody has to do it why scale it down?

Our Dux got 99.4 and did no maths or science subjects. But in order to get 95+ you need to be good at both.

1. Because believe it or not not EVERYONE does English.  A lot of the stronger English students end up doing Literature instead, whilst some of the harder-working maths/Science people go with English Language.  Removal of some of the top scorers=lower average=slightly downward scaling.

2. ... 

2. Touché, I modified it. Just realized I made a contradiction!

[shinny]

I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.

Technically speaking the Humanities subjects outnumber the Maths/Science ones - within English and History alone you have six, then with half a dozen of others like International Studies, Philosophy, National Politics, etc.  The problem is that compared to Maths/Science, these subjects are a lot less cohesive - there's a lot less overlap between Literature and Revs than say with Spesh and Physics, in terms of the actual style of work which you need to apply.  Hence, whilst you're not exactly wrong, I think the lack of synergy in Humanities scaling is more an adverse effect of the subjects themselves rather than the number of subjects. 

I guess that was more or less my point although I didn't make it clear. What we consider under the umbrella 'humanities' is just subjects that really have no synergy whatsoever. Still uncertain about my point on whether or not they ultimately 'scale each other up' though.

[QuantumJG]

you people are stupid. that is all.

wtf

"you people"?

[IntoTheNewWorld]

I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.

Never thought of it like that. The logic behind it messes with my head though >_>

[minilunchbox]

you people are stupid. that is all.

wtf

"you people"?

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

RDJ was robbed of this year's Oscars, robbed I say. Except not, he should've gotten it for Chaplin.

[kurrymuncher]

you people are stupid. that is all.

wtf

"you people"?

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

RDJ was robbed of this year's Oscars, robbed I say. Except not, he should've gotten it for Chaplin.

What? Robbed? Heath Ledger won it because he deserved it!

[minilunchbox]

you people are stupid. that is all.

wtf

"you people"?

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

RDJ was robbed of this year's Oscars, robbed I say. Except not, he should've gotten it for Chaplin.

What? Robbed? Heath Ledger won it because he deserved it!

I wasn't actually be serious. I know he was crazy amazing in The Dark Knight.

[jimmy999]

I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.

However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.

Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage

[mypurpleundercracka]

I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.

However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.

Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage

a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"

[kurrymuncher]

I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.

However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.

Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage

a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"

Yeah, like Psychology, thats a humanities subject isn't it?

[EvangelionZeta]

I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.

However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.

Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage

a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"

Technically speaking you could do the combination of English, Literature, Latin, Philosophy, Classics and English Language to get a full series of similarish subjects (all six have some sort of English-style essay component", although I don't think any school offers all six of those subjects in tandem.  :p