Criticisms of the VCE

[wildareal]

I'd like to hear your experiences with problems you've faced in the VCE. My main gripe are the subjects such as Business Management and other Commerce subjects which require you to rote-learn terms without understanding. In my opinion, part of the educational experience should be able to conceptualise things, and not rote learn definitions per se.

[appianway]

The lack of creative thinking embodied in the subjects. The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark. The simplicity of the subjects. The emphasis on excessive memorisation rather than conceptual understanding.

And more.

[m@tty]

With BM I never 'rote learned' definitions and concepts as such, I never drilled it into my brain, or sat repeating stuff over and over. Rather, I tried to link things with what I already knew, and the logic behind actually being a manager. BM does not have to be approached as a R&R(remember and regurgitate) subject.

Personally, I hate 'rote learning'. I see no benefit in mindlessly regurgitating things, especially those which won't better your understanding of things(Life, the Universe, and Everything).
Though with subjects based largely around theory it will never be possible to eradicate the need for learning things 'off by heart'. If there are no concepts, rather slabs of information, as in History(I think? Feel free to correct me) how can the learning be made conceptual?

[appianway]

History doesn't have to be rote learning. In Unit 1, we were encouraged to formulate our own opinions and support these with relevant evidence.

[m@tty]

Ok, thanks. I was going off year 7-10 history.

[ninwa]

I'd just like to mention that all of these criticisms apply equally to a lot of university subjects.

[slothpomba]

It has a lot of problems and i used to pick out the problems too.

I don't think criticising it or constantly complaining this blah blah is holding me back is a good thing.

It's the system we got given, yeah its a crappy one but we have to work and deal inside of this system.

Oh damn, ive conformed already, theyve broken me.

[TrueTears]

Not learning the fundamentals.

[jejak]

My main criticism of the VCE is really one that, I imagine, would be common to all national examination systems: namely, that students simply learn how to answer exam questions, rather than learn the content on which they are being examined. The former does not imply the latter, yet surely it is real, sustained learning that is the goal of the VCE itself.

I personally found this to be a bigger problem in the physical sciences and mathematics - my chemistry teacher would often only explain how to spot the right MC answer, not why it was indeed correct -  but I imagine it occurs also in humanities-style subjects that can be
bluffed with a formulaic essay and the use of certain "trigger words."

My secondary criticism is that there is a disturbing number of subjects that seem to rely on rote memorisation, and don't teach interdisciplinary skills. The rote thing isn't really a problem per se - language learning is basically a memory exercise -  but often these subjects require little or no critical thinking on the part of the student, and are only self-contained "bubbles" of meaningless information that have no interdisciplinary "links". Can anyone really say that business management challenged their reasoning skills, made them more knowledgeable about the world, or even merely served as a pre-req for further commerce studies? Not so much, I'm guessing.

[Akirus]

The fact that you can be incredible in a subject and not have this reflected in the mark.

When you say this, you're essentially proposing that the subject examinations should have no bound on its difficulty, i.e. there is no structured syllabus and marking criteria. If not, there is no possible way to accurately differentiate between those who are actually "incredible in a subject", because there must be a threshold at some point. I think it's quite clear how this is implausible.

Secondly, you're making another assumption that the purpose of education, exams, and in this case, VCE, is to test your knowledge and skill alone. Why this is actually a delusion is because assessment is not about measuring how "smart" you are; rather, it probes your capacity to succeed, and this encompasses numerous factors. Universities do not just want the most intelligent students. Wonder why? This is because in life, just like VCE, the people that learn quickly (i.e. the people you define to be "smart") do not always win. Do you think entities such as universities and the like care how "incredible" people are if they cannot produce results?

I do understand your sentiments (it crossed my mind at some point as well), but ultimately this is just a diversion for top students in the event that they don't satisfy their expectations.

[kyzoo]

I really don't understand all this fuss about courses being rote-learned. IMO it's all about how the student chooses to learn. If the student makes a conscious choice to not rote-learn, then he won't, nothing the teacher does will change that. Maths and sciences are rote-learned in VCE? Not in my experience; I barely rote memorize anything in these subjects.

If the Chem teacher doesn't explain why a certain MCQ question is correct, then take the initiative to figure that out yourself, don't expect everything to be spoonfed to you.

[Akirus]

If the Chem teacher doesn't explain why a certain MCQ question is correct, then take the initiative to figure that out yourself, don't expect everything to be spoonfed to you.

I agree with kyzoo on this one, but that withstanding, the way your chem teacher teaches you is less a problem with the VCE system and more your individual teacher.

[jejak]

If the Chem teacher doesn't explain why a certain MCQ question is correct, then take the initiative to figure that out yourself, don't expect everything to be spoonfed to you.

Perhaps I gave a poor example. It wasn't the case that students didn't take the initiative and ask why the MCQ was correct (for example); my concern was that - as I tried to show, but clearly failed to do so - the emphasis of the teaching method was back-to-front. The teacher should present the subject matter to be learnt as something of value in its own right first, so that the student's own, complete understanding can then be used to answer a given question. The problem is precisely that students are spoon-fed, and incorrectly at that.

My more general point is that any given VCE study is so severely restricted in its depth and focus that it inevitably lends itself more to mere test-preparation, rather than learning per se. Understanding the full depth and range of the subject matter is not a pre-requisite for success, and individual interest is not encouraged or rewarded.

[IntoTheNewWorld]

pro students will always find whatever learning system we have lacking in depth. I found VCE Chemistry had more than enough depth for me to fail.

[jejak]

I really don't understand all this fuss about courses being rote-learned.

Rote-learning in and of itself is not a problem. There are subjects that clearly require rote-learned knowledge (e.g. languages - vocab and grammatical structures) as a kind of adjunct to assisting in a larger reasoning problem (e.g. interpreting a text in LOTE.) My concern is that some studies seem to prioritise the rote memorisation of facts that have no appreciable contextual use or interdisciplinary value. By contrast, successful students of history, I imagine, use rote-learned facts to form a synthesised analysis topics covered throughout the year.

Maths and sciences are rote-learned in VCE? Not in my experience; I barely rote memorize anything in these subjects.

Outside of the most basic facts, I'm not sure that these subjects can be "rote-learned".... I don't think the concept of rote learning applies to procedural knowledge, which is usually what is tested. Certainly it is possible to have a poor overall knowledge of the topic, though, yet be able to prepare adequately for a test.