So.
Having read, laughed, and pulled funny faces at 14 pages of sentiments in this intellectual hotpot of a discussion ranging from outright sycophancy for james to those of pyros whose only joy in life is to flame others, I'll try reignite this debate from its apparent abysmal decline into quotidian bickering over whose historical idols are better.
Firstly, addressing all the flamers: you have no business here. This thread was not created to attack james. You may attack him only if can match him. Challenge laid.
Secondly, on to the debate at hand. Early on this was about scaling and whether this breeds mediocrity, james' favorite word. Scaling was invented for the same reason as rewarding those who choose to do a Uni subject a 5.5 max score contribution. although this isn't much, it does run along the same vein of thought: that harder subjects should be rewarded more to encourage ongoing educational stimulus and prevent intellectual stagnation with subject choice. without something like scaling subjects like Specialist would contribute as much to aggregate as something like home tech. an absurd idea. granted the scaling is not perfect and the debate has been primarily sparked by fear of inequality of scaling: it is hard to differentiate which subjects are 'tougher' e.g. legal and national politics? while the system may be flawed in terms of its inherent subjectivity, you are a fool if you blame vcaa.
regarding scaling over 50: it does seem unfair. but if you were to rid over 50 results, you would need to remove 5.5 max uni subject score.
regarding scaling affecting intellectual curiosity: in my opinion, most students who chose subjects for scaling are doomed to fail as some have pointed out and even given personal anecdotes about... those who choose a subject because it appeals to them will do better and so will be rewarded more. those who exploit the system as james says and succeed in their exploits are likely to be of the character that scaling or no, they would achieve good scores simply by their perseverance.
i think the vce system is good in that it offers much to chose from and so gives potential for all to be interested in. it is not vcaa's responsibility, but rather the school's to maintain a love for learning by teaching coursework in an appealing fashion, which i know is easier said than done. also teachers should not be bound by the course, as they should not limit students' curiosity, should they possess some (most do).
at this point in time those with attention spans long enough to still be reading this rant would be thinking: again, another poster with no alternative
at this point i riposte vigorously with a veritable lexicon of polysyllabic, illogical procession of compound adjectives.
what if there were no aggregate, only study scores? university courses would be more detailed in their pre-requisites and so students do the pre-req subjects that lead into their career choice. there would be no need for scaling and students would do what they were interested in. of course universities would look for students who have a broad range of subjects like LOTEs to indicate a lively intellectual curiosity. in this way uni admins will have to do a bit more than just ring up people on the day of results... but isnt that what's needed to improve this education system? to encourage a continued drive for obtaining a holistic education beyond high school? or year 10?
i hear you say this: most students do not know what they want to do for their careers.
i know. tell me about it. but in this case they would choose a broad range of subjects which most appeal to them to ensure maximum career path.
please comment and critique delineated replacement system.
my fingers are becoming tired. i end this post abrup
Home
Help
Search
Login
