James Lu should be happy he got 99.95 and stop dishing out on the VCE

[kyzoo]

xD that reply is frustratingly irrelevant to the main issue.

[lynt.br]

This is the letter?

"Keeping it even
JAMES Lu's critique of VCE scaling (Letters, 15/12) demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of how and why subjects are scaled. Scaling exists to ensure a level playing field, so that no one subject poses an advantage over another in the allocation of marks.

Distribution of scores across subjects can differ greatly, with many not representing a normal distribution. Scaling fixes this problem. If scaling didn't exist, then students would gravitate towards subjects perceived to be conceptually easier. That would foster real exploitation of the system.

Tristan Gooey, Dingley"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/a-public-treasure-we-must-retain-20091215-kufs.html

Yeah that is the one. It misses a significant portion of his argument and I'm fairly sure if James Lu could get a 99.95 he is already aware of the 'theory' behind subject scaling.

[shinny]

This is the letter?

"Keeping it even
JAMES Lu's critique of VCE scaling (Letters, 15/12) demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of how and why subjects are scaled. Scaling exists to ensure a level playing field, so that no one subject poses an advantage over another in the allocation of marks.

Distribution of scores across subjects can differ greatly, with many not representing a normal distribution. Scaling fixes this problem. If scaling didn't exist, then students would gravitate towards subjects perceived to be conceptually easier. That would foster real exploitation of the system.

Tristan Gooey, Dingley"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/a-public-treasure-we-must-retain-20091215-kufs.html

That person themselves seems to have a misunderstanding of the scaling system. It's not to balance out the difficulty of subjects (with the exception of perhaps Specialist Maths with it scaling over 50), but rather, to account for the strength of the cohort in each subject. The 'perceived conceptual difficulty' of a subject is irrelevant, just as is the difficulty of the exams that came up that year. Neither has any bearing on scaling.

[stonecold]

I don't have a problem with scaling, but I believe the fact to a select few subjects scale above 50 is is where the system begins to fall apart.  In most subjects, all students have the opportunity to achieve the best possible score, being 50.  If this was the same across the board, then the system could no longer be exploited.  The maximum aggregate should be 210, and all students should have a chance at achieving this.

Scaling above 50 should be removed, as this is the biggest cause of students exploiting the system and choosing their subjects based purely on this reason, and not because they have a genuine interest in the subjects.  I question why LOTE's scale above 50.  Obviously the government incentives are the main factor.  Sure learning a LOTE is possibly the hardest of the VCE subjects, however when you consider that LOTE's aren't prerequisites for any university courses, it's hard to see why a student would choose to do the study, other than for scaling incentives.

As for Specialist Maths, the scaling should also be brought back to a maximum 50.  This will probably cause outrage amongst many students, as Specialist Maths is again considered one of the most difficult VCE subjects.  Most students would immediately think, "stuff this, I'm doing Further Maths instead,"  again demonstrating how students simply choose subjects based on whether or not they scale above 50.  Sure a 50 in Further Mathematics isn't comparable to a 50 in Specialist Maths, however this is where VTAC needs to step in, and make Specialist Maths a prerequisite for Engineering and Science courses which do require this high level of mathematics, ensuring students don't take this easier option.  UMEP programs should also be brought back to a maximum contribution of 5 points to the aggregate, to ensure equality across the entire VCE program.

Furthermore, I believe that achieving a 50 study score in any study is an extraordinary achievement, and a student who is capable of doing this multiple times, should at least have a shot at getting a perfect ENTER.

I honestly believe that if scaling above 50 was removed and the maximum possible aggregate was 210, you would see more students doing studies they enjoy and require to gain entry into university, rather than merely choosing those that will give the best score.

Just so I am clear, I still believe that subjects need to be scaled, just not above 50.

[samuch]

I don't have a problem with scaling, but I believe the fact to a select few subjects scale above 50 is is where the system begins to fall apart.  In most subjects, all students have the opportunity to achieve the best possible score, being 50.  If this was the same across the board, then the system could no longer be exploited.  The maximum aggregate should be 210, and all students should have a chance at achieving this.

Scaling above 50 should be removed, as this is the biggest cause of students exploiting the system and choosing their subjects based purely on this reason, and not because they have a genuine interest in the subjects.  I question why LOTE's scale above 50.  Obviously the government incentives are the main factor.  Sure learning a LOTE is possibly the hardest of the VCE subjects, however when you consider that LOTE's aren't prerequisites for any university courses, it's hard to see why a student would choose to do the study, other than for scaling incentives.

As for Specialist Maths, the scaling should also be brought back to a maximum 50.  This will probably cause outrage amongst many students, as Specialist Maths is again considered one of the most difficult VCE subjects.  Most students would immediately think, "stuff this, I'm doing Further Maths instead,"  again demonstrating how students simply choose subjects based on whether or not they scale above 50.  Sure a 50 in Further Mathematics isn't comparable to a 50 in Specialist Maths, however this is where VTAC needs to step in, and make Specialist Maths a prerequisite for Engineering and Science courses which do require this high level of mathematics, ensuring students don't take this easier option.  UMEP programs should also be brought back to a maximum contribution of 5 points to the aggregate, to ensure equality across the entire VCE program.

Furthermore, I believe that achieving a 50 study score in any study is an extraordinary achievement, and a student who is capable of doing this multiple times, should at least have a shot at getting a perfect ENTER.

I honestly believe that if scaling above 50 was removed and the maximum possible aggregate was 210, you would see more students doing studies they enjoy and require to gain entry into university, rather than merely choosing those that will give the best score.

Just so I am clear, I still believe that subjects need to be scaled, just not above 50.

i 100% agree with this
btw nicely said

[xXNovaxX]

I have NO problem with scaling.

When I was in year 10, and knew so little about it my ignoance found me criticise scaling for being "unfair", that is "oh, my subejcts all get scaled down, and a person who does 'x' gets scaled up, thats so unfair"

However, so many people including myself took subjects which scale down, of all my subejcts, only 2 got scaled up and by 1 or 2....the rest got scaled down by 3-4.

HOWEVER, seeing my ENTER which was enough to get me into the University of Melbourne it has NOT disadvantedg me. People can still earn an ENTER in the 90's, and even get a perfect score e.g. Shinny in BM.

In fact, scaling has helped put one of my weakest subejcts in my top 4 (politics scales up), whereas my strongest subject which I performed very well in at school (scales down by 4), ended up being my bottom 2, and one of my lowest scoring subjects.

I do not do any sciences or specialist maths etc, but I would hate people who attempt these subjects to NOT get scaled up, scaling I think is also meant to help a 50 in spieclist maths equal a 50 in Business Management...

But yeah, scaling worked agaisnt me, and I still got very good

I would hate to have GATS and SATS and Americanised system used, I would ask people to look at the GAT thread and see how many of our brightest members scoring ENTERS in the high 90's, got dare I say TERRIBLE GAT results. And if you are one these people I mean no to offend, for in fact I respect that.

Thanks

Can I add, I just read the above post, I agree I find it ridiculous how subjects I think Latin? Scale up to 55? 53? There is no need for this, 50 should be the maximum, this way EVERY SINGLE subject is fair

[Tashi]

^ James Lu apparently has seen this?

And no one is criticising him personally - just agreeing/disagreeing with his opinion.

[m@tty]

Can I add, I just read the above post, I agree I find it ridiculous how subjects I think Latin? Scale up to 55? 53? There is no need for this, 50 should be the maximum, this way EVERY SINGLE subject is fair

Depends how you see 'fair', does fair mean that no matter what subjects you undertake you are not disadvantaged? Or does it mean that no matter what you are rewarded for your work? Assumably a 50 in a subject with a higher scaled mean is 'harder' work than in a subject where the scaled mean is low. How can it be that(generally) all but one score is scaled - that doesn't sound fair.

LOTE's scaling above 50 is a direct result of the government incentive for students to learn another language - it's not meant to be fair.

As a result of government policy to encourage the study of LOTEs,
the mean (or average) of each LOTE is adjusted up by adding five to
the ENTER subject score mean. This does not imply that all LOTE
students receive an increase of 5 ENTER points. For each LOTE the
scaled mean = “normal” scaled mean +5. In general all students of a
LOTE receive an adjustment, but it is not a uniform adjustment. For
example a student achieving a perfect study score of 50 is guaranteed
an ENTER subject score of 50, with the maximum ENTER subject
score only going above 50, when the scaled mean plus twice the
scaled standard deviation exceeds 50.

Specialist scaling above 50 comes from VTAC ensuring that no student is disadvantaged by selecting a harder maths subject - how can they do this without scaling above 50? As methods scaling is already huge.

VCE Mathematics studies are designed to cater for students of differing
abilities and interests. Specialist Mathematics is the most difficult,
followed by Mathematical Methods and then by Further Mathematics.

In the second instance and to ensure that students undertaking
the more difficult Mathematics studies are not disadvantaged,
Mathematical Methods is compared to Further Mathematics and
adjusted up as and if necessary (scores in Mathematical Methods
(CAS) and adjusted to be consistent with those in Mathematical
Methods). Similarly Specialist Mathematics is compared to
Mathematical Methods and adjusted up as and if necessary.

EDIT:

he's probably gonna find this one day, or his family, and there going to feel bad.

He already has, read EvangeionZeta last few posts, that's James Lu.

you should be negative karma'd all the way to forum hell

Don't you want your own karma lowered??

[vitir]

lol Yeah.

sorry there--> they're

I was confused by EvangeionZeta's posts - they were chat convo scripts or something, but ok.

[m@tty]

I realise that 50 raw in any subject is an amazing feat and is often well deserved of a scaled ENTER subject score of 50, though when coming from this perspective of 'fair' the unaltered 50 of most subjects becomes questionable. There is no way of accurately ranking the young adults of a community, it is impossible, there is however action that needs to be taken to give everyone the best chance to show their ability. The idea of replacing SAC's with external exams would be 'fairer' but much too costly and the logistics of 6 external exams per subject is monstrous. The current system is definitely not perfect, much thought needs to be put into reforming our VCE system. Though do not think we have a horrible system that is not the case, our system tries very hard to make most 'fair' through the complex system of scaling.

[samuch]

lol this is never going to be resolved sooo
the system we need includes:

- the sorting hat from harry potter

the only difference is it shouldnt place us into house groups but into professions instead...
its a no brainer!

[QuantumJG]

I don't have a problem with scaling, but I believe the fact to a select few subjects scale above 50 is is where the system begins to fall apart.  In most subjects, all students have the opportunity to achieve the best possible score, being 50.  If this was the same across the board, then the system could no longer be exploited.  The maximum aggregate should be 210, and all students should have a chance at achieving this.

Scaling above 50 should be removed, as this is the biggest cause of students exploiting the system and choosing their subjects based purely on this reason, and not because they have a genuine interest in the subjects.  I question why LOTE's scale above 50.  Obviously the government incentives are the main factor.  Sure learning a LOTE is possibly the hardest of the VCE subjects, however when you consider that LOTE's aren't prerequisites for any university courses, it's hard to see why a student would choose to do the study, other than for scaling incentives.

As for Specialist Maths, the scaling should also be brought back to a maximum 50.  This will probably cause outrage amongst many students, as Specialist Maths is again considered one of the most difficult VCE subjects.  Most students would immediately think, "stuff this, I'm doing Further Maths instead,"  again demonstrating how students simply choose subjects based on whether or not they scale above 50.  Sure a 50 in Further Mathematics isn't comparable to a 50 in Specialist Maths, however this is where VTAC needs to step in, and make Specialist Maths a prerequisite for Engineering and Science courses which do require this high level of mathematics, ensuring students don't take this easier option.  UMEP programs should also be brought back to a maximum contribution of 5 points to the aggregate, to ensure equality across the entire VCE program.

Furthermore, I believe that achieving a 50 study score in any study is an extraordinary achievement, and a student who is capable of doing this multiple times, should at least have a shot at getting a perfect ENTER.

I honestly believe that if scaling above 50 was removed and the maximum possible aggregate was 210, you would see more students doing studies they enjoy and require to gain entry into university, rather than merely choosing those that will give the best score.

Just so I am clear, I still believe that subjects need to be scaled, just not above 50.

I agree with you 100%. Scaling above 50 is why (the vast majority) students do LOTE and specialist maths. Like I mean if you don't do a subject that scales over 50 you CAN'T get 99.95. Say someone does say 6 subjects and gets a 50 for each (none scale over 50), that is an aggregate of 210.

I also disagree with students doing these university subjects during VCE. Most schools don't offer this and the students who do this can get anadditional 4, 5 or 5.5 points added to their aggregate. If students want to do them, they can add it to their uni credit. Basically it's allowing someone to get credit for 7 subjects when the majority only can do 6.

Basically if we restrict what people can do, the margin won't be raised and we will have a much more level playing field for future VCE students.

Sorry I didn't realise the increment takes the place of a VCE subject. Please don't hurt me.

This is the letter?

"Keeping it even
JAMES Lu's critique of VCE scaling (Letters, 15/12) demonstrates a glaring misunderstanding of how and why subjects are scaled. Scaling exists to ensure a level playing field, so that no one subject poses an advantage over another in the allocation of marks.

Distribution of scores across subjects can differ greatly, with many not representing a normal distribution. Scaling fixes this problem. If scaling didn't exist, then students would gravitate towards subjects perceived to be conceptually easier. That would foster real exploitation of the system.

Tristan Gooey, Dingley"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/a-public-treasure-we-must-retain-20091215-kufs.html

This guy is just stupid. Plain and simple.

James Lu understands the system and he believes it is wrong. The thing is that students are avoiding the 'conceptually easy' subjects so they have a chance. He was discussing our fear of failure. The irony is that, this system we have to create a level playing field is anything but that.

I stand where I started, nobody can create the perfect system. What I would like is to see the government invest funds into those VCE subject lectures to allow people from low socio-economic backgrounds to be able to get an extra hand.  

[QuantumJG]

you guys are all fags

epic fags

ALL OF YOU

ok. I know flaming is against the rules, but I think its justified when you can do it to someone not on the forum BUT VERY LIKELY TO SEE THIS  POST

if you type in his name plus vce, guess what the first result is?

do you realize he is a real person

Wildareal, you should stop bitchin about another guy with a reasoned view on an internet forum.

you don't have any argument. YOUR the one who's bitchin

stupid fags
he's probably gonna find this one day, or his family, and there going to feel bad.

you should be negative karma'd all the way to forum hell

lol! Just go back a few pages and you will see he has already read it.

[stonecold]

I also disagree with students doing these university subjects during VCE. Most schools don't offer this and the students who do this can get anadditional 4, 5 or 5.5 points added to their aggregate. If students want to do them, they can add it to their uni credit. Basically it's allowing someone to get credit for 7 subjects when the majority only can do 6.

I thought that the additional 4, 5 or 5.5 points was in place of a 5th or 6th VCE subject.  If it is in addition to a 6th VCE subject, as you are saying, then that is blatantly unfair I'm sorry.  I don't care what anyone has to say, it is a joke.

[m@tty]

I also disagree with students doing these university subjects during VCE. Most schools don't offer this and the students who do this can get anadditional 4, 5 or 5.5 points added to their aggregate. If students want to do them, they can add it to their uni credit. Basically it's allowing someone to get credit for 7 subjects when the majority only can do 6.

An extension subject replaces a sixth VCE study, meaning this person can obtain at most a .5[5.5 vs. 5] point boost to their aggregate than someone who did not complete an extension study.

Scaling above 50 is why (the vast majority) students do ... specialist maths.

I doubt that this is the case, any student who is capable of achieving 45+ RAW[>50 scaled] would have an interest in maths hence another reason to do it, there would be several cases but I assume they are a dismissible minority. The ones who do it for scaling I think would achieve <35 RAW maybe 40. LOTE's are a different question, especially ones such as Classical Greek, Classical Hebrew and Latin.