Criticisms of the VCE

[ninwa]

Unfortunately we've got a lot of VCAA worshippers who seem to feel personally offended when I point out faults in the VCE that have antagonized me over the past two years.

Well, unlike you, us "VCAA worshippers" actually back up our arguments with evidence other than "I deserved better woe is me". You are making illogical jumps, and then getting "personally offended" when other people point them out.

You still haven't addressed why my conclusion re: TrueTears was wrong. Can you do that instead of getting all emotive on me?


I am a perfectionist too, and I'm offended that you use that to justify your conceitedness. I also beat myself up severely when I didn't get the ENTER score I wanted, when I didn't achieve ANY of my study score aims. That doesn't mean I go around saying "oh VCE was so unfair to me boohoo I did so shit the system is bad". That means I recognise that perhaps I overestimated myself, or didn't work as hard as I should have, and then I move on.

You should be grateful that you did so well (top 0.25% of the state and top ~7% in English is no mean feat) and got into your first preference. I missed out on my first two. So what? Life will deliver much harsher disappointments. Learn to deal with it.

[d0minicz]

Life will deliver much harsher disappointments. Learn to deal with it.

[NE2000]

I imply that that's the extent to which I've worked. That you couldn't have worked a lot more than what I did. Nature would be wrong to give you a lower ENTER.

I've always got this impression from you: that somehow you consider yourself the epitome of hard work. Do you know how incredibly self-centered that is? Is this sense of entitlement your idea of humility?

You know what, I know some perfectionists and I know some people who worked incredibly hard in VCE both to get higher ENTERs than yours and lower. SmRandmAzn goes to a school which will have its own huge share of perfectionists and people who beat themselves up over anything less than full marks. But so many of them are humble about it and are on a path of self improvement where they feel annoyed with themselves for not getting a high enough score rather than getting annoyed with the system. These are people who if they make a careless error will put it down to not working hard enough to eliminate careless errors from their own work, or for not having the right exam technique. If these people get a 9/10 for an essay they will put it down to not planning it properly, or being unclear in their contention, not because English is a pointless subject. And none of them seem to think that how much they've worked is enough...in fact in the nature of a perfectionist is this notion that if you had worked harder or kept your presence of mind you could have got a higher score.

Perfectionism is about self improvement.

Funny, really. How long have you known me exactly to have "always got a certain impression" from me? Epitome of hard work - some people are hardworking, I'm just one of those.

Whenever someone has challenged you on your sense of entitlement. Be it from that first BoS thread that was posted somewhere or from here, you have come out with the same answer: that you worked so hard, and if the person you're arguing with had worked as hard as you they would be the same. Has it ever occurred to you that others can work harder? Has it ever possibly occurred to you that the people challenging you could have worked as hard, if not harder than you?

I'm not trying to belittle your efforts in year 12. I don't doubt that you worked extremely hard. But the implication that somehow this hard work somehow gives you the right to a 50, or a place in the top 0.2% of the state, is not cool. There are many others who are very intelligent and work very hard and don't feel they deserved a 50, but feel that they generally deserved what they got, and if they had worked harder or built better exam technique or not been overconfident or been generally more aware of careless errors then they would have got higher.

[ninwa]

I don't get what to address - can you explain that?

This post: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,22808.msg232470.html#msg232470, which is connected to this one: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,22808.msg232478.html#msg232478.

I also notice you have not addressed any of most people's points. Rather, you keep retreating behind your wall of "poor victimised me" - which is starting to crumble.

Haha "conceitedness" - nobody has ever called me conceited before.

... except most of the people in this thread.

As I've explained before, I've never taken pride in any of my achievements.

Uhh you seem to take a LOT of pride in how hard you worked. So much so that you feel that it is impossible for anyone to have worked any harder than you. Or is that not an achievement now? And if it isn't an achievement, then why does it entitle you to a higher ENTER?

If your first two preferences had a cut-off of 99.95 or around there, how can you compare it to Commerce which had 94.80 as its cut-off this year?

My first two preferences were medicine at Monash and UoM, which, FYI, don't actually have ENTER requirements.

[NE2000]

I've always accepted, unlike some, that it is hardwork that yields results. Not even intelligence. If you're smart, but don't work, it's unlikely you'll do well.

Great, I believe that too.

Thus I was disappointed that despite putting in so much effort for English, I still sucked at it. My principles were momentarily questioned.

Perhaps your work was misdirected? That is, you weren't going about it in the most efficient way and hence progress would be slow.

Do you know, even if I had done well in English and had got a higher ENTER, I'd have still made these criticisms? Because it is unfair that at the moment, English is in the top 4. I just used my example to show that it's unfair. I thought it was the perfect thread to vent my frustration. Apparently not, it's still offending somebody.

It's just the sense of entitlement that's creating issues. The person X example was tactless. As have some of your other comments

I am internally grateful that I did the paperwork correctly, that I didn't screw up Methods or Psych in year 11, that I managed above 40 in all my subjects - I'd prefer not to further publicise how grateful I am about my VCE. I am fully aware that it could have been a lower ENTER. I myself was surprised when I saw my English score and overall ENTER as I'd been expecting a lower ENTER for that score.

Well that makes it seem like you have a very negative perspective overall, doesn't it? If you would air your gratefulness a bit more than your disappointment, people might gain a better impression. It is the internet after all...

hint hint: defusing situation

[ninwa]

SO ANYWAY LET'S DISCUSS LOTES NOW! YAY!

I think one of the problems with VCE is that in languages with SL components, the FL threshold is too high.

For example, I would have qualified for Chinese SL even though it is incredibly easy for me (I speak Chinese at home, it's my first language though I would've failed at Chinese FL) and would have been extremely unfair on the people for whom it is actually a second language. I think someone mentioned that the majority of 40+ names in the newspaper for Chinese SL were Chinese names, and that seems a bit... wrong.

Hint: also trying to start new topic!!

[TrueTears]

I didn't like the VCE system that much either, but I tried to get the best out of it and just put up with the things I didn't like. Not everything in life is gonna go your way, just learn to deal with it

PS: Hardwork does not always yield results, I know that from many years of experience - not just academically but also from a musical perspective.

[NE2000]

Which is why the VCAA system is flawed. A person can be brilliant at a subject and still miss out on 50 because they've made careless mistakes on their exam or had a bad day. There are people on this forum who fit this description.

Hardwork = results. It's like a law of nature. That's why I feel entitled to certain scores. By not getting them, I question hardwork - does it really bring results? Is that the only thing that matters?

So what would you propose? No exams? That's a common gripe but a completely unavoidable one. In fact it's ok in VCE because you have quite a few exams. When you have single exams determining major parts of your career, as happens sometimes, it's a lot worse.
 
And hardwork brings results. I wholly agree. In fact what others consider 'natural smartness' I consider to be harder work and extension at a young age. But you really ought not to care too much about results. Work hard and eventually it balances out imo. (edit: lol TT beat me to it to contradict me )

I know others can work harder, just 99% positive that it won't be a lot of people. Has it maybe occurred to you that maybe I'm not exaggerating but actually did dedicate myself to VCE for about 3 years?

I'm not trying to belittle your efforts in year 12. I don't doubt that you worked extremely hard.

I would say I have acknowledged how hard you have worked.

But has it occurred to you that others might have worked just as hard, and otherrs have also dedicated themselves to pushing their academic boundaries over three years, and have never once mentioned it here so as to not impose it on others, so as to not air a sense of superiority?

[NE2000]

SO ANYWAY LET'S DISCUSS LOTES NOW! YAY!

I think one of the problems with VCE is that in languages with SL components, the FL threshold is too high.

For example, I would have qualified for Chinese SL even though it is incredibly easy for me (I speak Chinese at home, it's my first language though I would've failed at Chinese FL) and would have been extremely unfair on the people for whom it is actually a second language. I think someone mentioned that the majority of 40+ names in the newspaper for Chinese SL were Chinese names, and that seems a bit... wrong.

Hint: also trying to start new topic!!

Hmmm....it does seem to be a bit of an advantage. But then how can you differentiate? There are people born here who speak chinese at home, and others born here who wouldn't speak chinese at home. You can't really tell can you...

And some people say that speaking at home can be a disadvantage, as you can pick up bad habits and colloquialisms. Not sure how much of this is true.

[ninwa]

Yeah that's a good point. I have to admit most VCE Chinese graduates speak more "proper" Chinese than I do, even if their vocabulary and knowledge of grammar is smaller. Also they can write better than me (I know how to write about 10 characters and that's it).

Perhaps there could be a placement test system similar to university-level languages? There's always the risk of people deliberately doing badly on those tests to get put into a lower level (just like in uni -_-) but I suppose higher scaling for higher level languages could be incentive enough to discourage that.

[doboman]

I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.

Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.

[IntoTheNewWorld]

And some people say that speaking at home can be a disadvantage, as you can pick up bad habits and colloquialisms. Not sure how much of this is true.

colloquialism isn't really that hard to fix, however, compared to the immense advantage in other areas. Range of vocabulary and grammar is wayyyy more important.

[ninwa]

I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.

Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.

I kind of sort of understand what you're saying? Maybe?

But couldn't the same argument be applied to certain subjects which have higher proportions of certain cultures enrolling in them? (coughAsian5cough)

[IntoTheNewWorld]

I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.

Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.

I kind of sort of understand what you're saying? Maybe?

But couldn't the same argument be applied to certain subjects which have higher proportions of certain cultures enrolling in them? (coughAsian5cough)

Isn't it just the same thing if we call those doing Spesh, a "race" of harder working individuals?

EDIT: No, I don't understand what I'm saying either.

[doboman]

I personally have a problem with how some of the LOTEs scale. Given the fact that we know how scaling works (compare X subject cohorts performance in this subject to their performance in other subjects) isn't it a bit racist? For example, I'd assume most people who do Chinese FL are most likely, well, Chinese (correct me if i'm wrong). So it's the race (and all its affiliates: culture etc) which determines how the subject scales. Similarly, most people who do Arabic are people from Arabic backgrounds - and their performance in other subjects are also influenced by culture and work ethic. So scaling is no longer based on how difficult the subject is, but rather how much the certain race emphasises education and doing well at school etc.

Does it make sense what I'm saying? It's pretty hard to put it in words, but I personally think LOTE scalings have a tendancy to be racist.

I kind of sort of understand what you're saying? Maybe?

But couldn't the same argument be applied to certain subjects which have higher proportions of certain cultures enrolling in them? (coughAsian5cough)

Isn't it just the same thing if we call those doing Spesh, a "race" of harder working individuals?

EDIT: No, I don't understand what I'm saying either.

Hah, yeah it's quite hard to convey it here. Yeah, it can be said for those who are doing Spesh, but I'm talking about being racist (in its original form). And yeah, ninwa, I can see where you're going with the asian 5 thing. I agree, but that isn't being racist per-se as there is a great proportion of other students, from different ethnicities, who also completed that subject. In certain LOTEs however, this idea of cultural influence on scaling is greatly accentuated. Well, atleast I think so.