^^ ah ok, got it.
Although I think it's unfair to judge people a) by their scores and b) by the subjects they got those scores in. I mean say someone gets 6 50s but they don't have spesh or uni maths but rather they chose economics, accounting, business management etc. I don't think that makes it any way less of a 'perfect vce'. But that's just my opinion.
I disagree, the subjects like spesh and LOTEs etc. are harder, that's why they're scaled so high, so it is more prestigious to get 50s in all these than 50s in other less-scaled subjects (hence the higher aggregates)
The people who take courses with such subjects are rewarded nicely with >50 scaling, but this is nothing to do with the difficulty. It is because of the government's initiative, whereby 5 points are added to LOTE's. In the case of specialist mathematics it is to keep fairness for those who choose harder maths.
The overall difficulty of any subject has no bearing on the difficulty of obtaining certain scores, as everyone encounters such difficulty. Aside from ultra pr0's like the ones mentioned in this thread.
I also think that the argument as to which subjects are more prestigious is a pointless pursuit, the difficulty of subjects is relative. As Brightsky said it is all dependant on the individual, someone who achieved 50 in Spesh, Chem and Methods could regard these scores as 'easy'. Whereas, they may consider English a very hard subject as they only achieved 30, they may think that only gods can achieve 50 in such a subject, or they could dismiss English as a waste of time, because of their deficiency of talent. Vice versa with an English/Humanities student. So Difficulty and by extension prestige is based upon the individual.
Home
Help
Search
Login
