Criticisms of the VCE

[kyzoo]

Well I don't know about Physics, but I do agree that Methods doesn't discriminate between students. Methods however isn't the hardest maths in VCE, so perhaps it isn't meant to discriminate.

[appianway]

It's not the hardest, but it should still discriminate using the material embodied in the course.

[kyzoo]

iTute exams =)

[Aden]

Even though I agree with the notion that all those students who have attained a ‘profound conceptual understanding’ of a course should be rewarded, it is a sad reality that this will never happen in an educational system whose purpose is to measure their ‘understanding’ through a series of written (and sometimes oral) tests. A multitude of factors will influence their performance which, along with their own chosen method of working in the system, can change the end result (study score). This may or may not reflect the actual understanding or ability of the individual who is being tested, but, c’est la vie.

Although, I would have to agree with appianway’s point that the current VCE system seemingly does not attempt to lessen the extent of the aforementioned problem. By occasionally creating exams that fail to discriminate between students of differing levels, it allows for (sometimes large) fluctuations in the relation between students’ ‘profound conceptual understanding’ and their received study score – this is not the point of VCE, which is instead supposed to, as accurately as possible, test a student’s level of understanding.

At the same time, I would have to disagree with Akirus’ statement that it is nonsensical that people can attain a high score without as profound of an understanding as someone who attained a lower score. As it is, this is definitely possible with certain subjects under the correct circumstances.

[Akirus]

Akirus, I wasn't insisting at all that students with a natural aptitude for a subject automatically deserve success. Rather, I said that individuals with a profound conceptual understanding of a course - whether this be obtained by study or facility with learning - deserve to have this reflected in their marks. The VCE system doesn't do this.

My main point seems to have been missed - some of the subjects (in particular, physics and mathematical methods) do not accurately discriminate between students, especially at the upper end. It's inevitable that the students with the best understanding (which I believe strongly should be rewarded) aren't always going to be the top achievers, but I think the simplicity of some VCE assessments increases the prevalence of this occuring.

Okay, I can't sleep, so I'll amuse you again. I could essentially copy-paste my initial post and it'd still be valid, but since you don't seem to get it, I will illuminate, again.

Let me explain with an example. Lets say there are 100 people, each with a different level of control over the course (with the best having a "profound conceptual understanding"). Now, lets say there are 5 questions on the exam that only the top 50 can answer. The top 30, of course, resent this, as they have a better understanding than the top 30. So, using your logic, they complain: there needs to be a greater distinction. Starting to notice the trend?

Listening to these complaints, the VCAA adjusts the exams so only the top 30 or so students are capable of answering certain questions. Oh, but wait. Now the top 20 students have a gripe. How is it fair that 10 people "not as smart" as us can get the same grades or possibly better? Blasphemy! Time to bitch again.

You could essentially do this until only 1 student, or even no students, can fully complete the exam. See why the reasoning is hokum, yet? I could also dismantle the intricacies for you as well, but I think I've said enough for now.

This leads onto the more important component of my contention: you are still getting caught up on the notion that the students with the "profound conceptual understanding of the course" should do the best. I could explain again in different words, but it's pointless because I get the feeling you're going to repeat the same stubbornly biased opinion.

I have missed nothing; perhaps you are the one that should read the content of my posts more carefully. Your view on life is typical of a sheltered private school student, made apparent by your blatant bias and double-standard logic. To put it into perspective for you, it's like a fat lady with F-cup breasts loudly proclaiming to everyone that attractiveness is based on breast size alone, or a tennis player with the fastest serve insisting that tennis should be won on how fast you can hit the ball over the net.

Oh, by the way, way to defame me for opposing your opinion, very noble of you. I hope you're not getting bitter, this is a purely intellectual exchange (or at least that was my intention). ^_~

Fair separation can occur with a bound on difficulty.

Because you decide what constitutes "fair separation", amirite?

To answer your question (although I denounce that I am even showing a hint of desperation; on what do you base this presumption?), there is no such thing as "worthy of success". Your insistence that students with natural aptitude for a subject "deserve" the best grades is a fallacy.

Agreed. But I resent it. Life sucks?

Sure does, but misers that can only whine about it are worse.

I disagree and agree with you. The questions I pose are: Where do we draw the line between one that is "unworthy of success" and those that are "worthy"? There are some people that are seemingly "unworthy of success" by your definition that do in fact achieve "success". Is this fair?

And your example is a paragon to what is being discuss. Intelligence can be measured in many ways depending on how one defines intelligence. Yes, achieving perfect scores in the SAT or the VCE may define the individual as "intelligent", but how many people in China come out of their PhD studies and become useless individuals that cannot contribute anything to society other than their plethora of competition awards and Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate certificates? Following this chain of thought, another idea arises. How about if we define "intelligence" by one's potential contribution to society? However, at times, these two are very contradictory.

Take the trite old Einstein example. Einstein was seen as an inherently underperforming student at school. He was rebellious and was failing in terms of grades. And yet, decades later, he shall be named the smartest man on Earth.

So the ultimate question returns: how the hell do we measure intelligence? The VCE system, patently, does not measure it entirely successfully.

It's actually very simple. If you're worthy of success, then you will succeed. If you are lacking in any area, then you will fail.

Before you answer your "ultimate question", there first must be the precursor, what exactly is intelligence?

And, as I have repeated time and time again, VCE's purpose is not to measure intelligence. Intelligence and knowledge is only one aspect. I stress, academic success, or any kind of success, really, is not based on a singular factor. You need to break free of that linear thinking.

At the same time, I would have to disagree with Akirus’ statement that it is nonsensical that people can attain a high score without as profound of an understanding as someone who attained a lower score. As it is, this is definitely possible with certain subjects under the correct circumstances.

I never made this assertion.

[ninwa]

Oh, Akirus, you were going so well before you descended into ad hominem.

I'm not sure how on earth you could perceive my statements as saying that students in the top 2% lack a grasp of the subject. Instead, I suggested that within (and slightly outside) this range, students aren't differentiated based on their true understanding, but rather, trivial factors in the examination. I've used this example to death by now, but consider the Unit 3 Physics examination. A total of 4 marks could be dropped to stay within the top 11 or so percent; a score of 88/90 thus equated to roughly the top 3 or 4%. As the paper didn't test a profound understanding of the subject (most of the questions involved the regurgitation of formulae with little or no manipulation), perfect scores could be obtained without understanding the complexities of the course. However, a student who possessed such a keen comprehension of the material (and perhaps sat within the top 0.5 or so percent of their school cohort) could easily drop a few marks by making a substitution error, colouring the wrong multiple choice bubble accidentally, or not seeing a question (this happened to a friend of mine who had high 90s on our rather difficult SACs). Such a student wouldn't achieve a score indicative of their understanding of the subject, and likewise, a student with a grasp (albeit far less profound) of the material could attain 90/90. I never suggested once that students didn't understand the subject; rather, I stated that the order of marks wasn't representative of the true comprehension of the students.

If you honestly think that the difficulty of the VCE system presently suffices (and hence believe that a few questions which require higher orders of thinking don't deserve a place in our examinations), you obviously have little familiarity with the qualification itself. Let me say this: if there's an exam where 10% of the state scores 96% or above, it's not going to discriminate fairly between students.

I think your example shows the stubborn incomprehension which you so condescendingly accuse others of having a great deal more than has yet been displayed in this thread. After reading the above quote, I highly doubt appianway was suggesting a boundlessly difficult examination; rather, just that enough challenging questions be included in the exams so that perhaps "a student who possessed such a keen comprehension of the material (and perhaps sat within the top 0.5 or so percent of their school cohort)" would receive a score which reflected this.

How would you define "worthy of success"? That's a rather subjective concept.

Oh, by the way:
- appianway isn't a private school student;
- she never defamed you: there is more defamation and immaturity in your post than in anything she has said, and why would you take karma so seriously anyway? and
- I actually agree with your arguments, I just don't agree with the arrogant tone with which you have been presenting them.

[brightsky]

I disagree and agree with you. The questions I pose are: Where do we draw the line between one that is "unworthy of success" and those that are "worthy"? There are some people that are seemingly "unworthy of success" by your definition that do in fact achieve "success". Is this fair?

And your example is a paragon to what is being discuss. Intelligence can be measured in many ways depending on how one defines intelligence. Yes, achieving perfect scores in the SAT or the VCE may define the individual as "intelligent", but how many people in China come out of their PhD studies and become useless individuals that cannot contribute anything to society other than their plethora of competition awards and Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate certificates? Following this chain of thought, another idea arises. How about if we define "intelligence" by one's potential contribution to society? However, at times, these two are very contradictory.

Take the trite old Einstein example. Einstein was seen as an inherently underperforming student at school. He was rebellious and was failing in terms of grades. And yet, decades later, he shall be named the smartest man on Earth.

So the ultimate question returns: how the hell do we measure intelligence? The VCE system, patently, does not measure it entirely successfully.

It's actually very simple. If you're worthy of success, then you will succeed. If you are lacking in any area, then you will fail.

Before you answer your "ultimate question", there first must be the precursor, what exactly is intelligence?

And, as I have repeated time and time again, VCE's purpose is not to measure intelligence. Intelligence and knowledge is only one aspect. I stress, academic success, or any kind of success, really, is not based on a singular factor. You need to break free of that linear thinking.

Your question about intelligence is exactly what I've been trying to convey in my post. My viewpoint is that "intelligence" is up to the individual to decide.

About your last paragraph. No, I don't think VCE is all about measuring success. You are just off. VCE is, or should be, about measuring one's potential to succeed, and not success per se. The whole rationale of such a tertiary entrance selection system is for universities to grab the people they think will thrive under their courses, the people that they think will have a potential to succeed in the field and become useful people in society who can contribute to it. As I have said, getting 99.95 in the VCE doesn't mean they will become Albert Einstein's and revolutionise our society to the better. Herein lies the problem of the VCE system.

Oh, Akirus, you were going so well before you descended into ad hominem.

I'd have to agree here. Your intention of a "purely intellectual exchange" has been undermined only by yourself. Yes, the ideas you convey are probably more important than how you express it, but that does not mean the latter is negligible.

EZ Edit: Fixed double post.

[appianway]

Listening to these complaints, the VCAA adjusts the exams so only the top 30 or so students are capable of answering certain questions. Oh, but wait. Now the top 20 students have a gripe. How is it fair that 10 people "not as smart" as us can get the same grades or possibly better? Blasphemy! Time to bitch again.

You could essentially do this until only 1 student, or even no students, can fully complete the exam. See why the reasoning is hokum, yet?

(In the spirit of continuing "intellectual" discussion...) Not quite. Aside from premiers' awards, the VCE system distinguishes students in roughly 0.2 increments. Say that on average, each student gets an allowance of, I don't know, 2 points worth of careless mistakes. The difficulty of the exams should thus be set so that at most 0.2% of students lose 2 marks or less, and so on. This can be achieved by including a small number of questions (which can be deemed difficult by comparison with questions believed to be "similar" from past examinations that had a low percentage of high scorers) of suitable level.

[kyzoo]

VCE English is utterly pointless. It doesn’t teach you spelling or grammar. For instance, a person can get away with misspelling words such as ‘welfare’ and still get a higher mark on a SAC than someone who has perfect spelling.

Because spelling isn't as significant as content, structure, or expression. A few spelling mistakes here and there doesn't mean much as long as the piece is excellent overall.

Why should Specialist Maths be scaled up? If someone takes the subject, it should be because they believe they are competent enough to score highly in it. A lot of people do mediocre in Methods, attaining study scores of 30 raw and still aim to do Specialist. It’s likely they won’t perform much better. It’s also obvious that the main motivation here is the scaling. If the subject is taken truly because people feel they can do well, there is no need to scale it up as everyone will do their very best – the people doing the subject will be of almost equal ability.

Would you say this if you did Spesh?

I reckon that they should make people exempt from the top 4 requirement if they get 35 and above in English. A study score of 35 is deemed above average in all subjects – why shouldn’t it be the case for English?

No offense, but this kind of condition just sounds weird and illogical.

Australia is a multicultural nation – why are they still insisting English be compulsory? If it is to increase literacy skills, trust me – pursuing VCE English will not help this. It only adds to people’s stress levels, acts as a de-motivator and comes down to how thoughtful and creative you are. It’s got nothing to do with grammar and spelling as we would think it to be.

Even if our country is multicultural, English is still arguably the world's primary language. Furthermore every subject adds to people's stress levels, not just English. Ability to express oneself clearly is more important than little things like grammar and spelling.

Today our teacher told our class that there was one student who at the start of Y12 had horrific writing, and didn't even use paragraphs, yet due to improvement over the year attained a 40. Accordingly VCE English does enhance our communication ability.

Biggest problem. Why should English be in the top 4? A person can get 99.95 without taking any Maths and Science. Both these subjects are essential to well rounded education and doing well in the work force. My argument is that if English is compulsory for the top 4, then so should Maths and Science subjects.

The need for the ability to express oneself in English is universal, not so for understanding of Maths and Science concepts.

[ninwa]

I'm typing with one hand atm so I cbf quoting, but this is in response to I<3MM.

English is compulsory because it's the national language of Australia (and one of the most spoken in the world). A basic level of literacy is required no matter what path you take in life.

English is needed for every career - yes, even subjects like science, engineering, medicine, fine arts. Maths and sciences are not. Why should I have to have a maths/science in my top 4 if I'm doing degrees in arts and law, which have absolutely no relevance to my career path? (and before you suggest that I have no experience in this area, chemistry was in my top 4 and maths methods, my top 6, and yes, without English my ENTER would have been slightly higher. So what?)

I have not had to use a single bit of the stuff I learned in methods, chemistry or biology since I graduated. What use is knowledge of how to differentiate, the chemical formula of ethanol, the photosynthesis cycle to a lawyer?

I must also disagree with your contention that VCE English is "utterly pointless". Do you honestly think that writing essays contributes absolutely nothing to your literacy skills? That if nothing else, it doesn't help improve one's vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, spelling? (unless the teacher is a dud and doesn't pick up on any errors, but that is a question of teacher quality, not of whether VCE English serves a useful purpose).

In your misdirected disappointment you are forgetting the other English subjects - Literature and English Language. Are you suggesting that these alternatives to the VCE English you detest so much also have no intrinsic value?

As for the scaling of specialist maths, there have been numerous threads on the logic behind the scaling system, you might want to read up on it and actually understand it before you start arguing against it.

Re: your statement about it coming down to how "thoughtful and creative you are" - are you suggesting a VCE system whereby such virtues are not actively encouraged? I highly doubt that a generation of drones is what society needs.

VCE ENTER scores occasionally will not reflect the amount of work you put in. That is because dedication is not the only deciding factor. Intelligence, luck, interest all play a role. Perhaps you were just unlucky. Or maybe chose a subject which did not complement your areas of strength. That doesn't make the system wrong.


edited for 1.30am engrish SEE THIS IS WHY VCE ENGLISH IS GOOD so fobs like me get practice lah

[periwinkle]

    think I'm with Ilovemathsmeth here; it's nonsensical for English to be the only compulsory subject. It's up to ppl to ensure they have the necessary English skillz for whatever they want to do in life, to decide whether or not VCE English would benefit them. [Unis could then require ppl to achieve a half-decent score in the written part of the GAT to ensure they weren't completely illiterate.]

[NE2000]

Why should Specialist Maths be scaled up? If someone takes the subject, it should be because they believe they are competent enough to score highly in it. A lot of people do mediocre in Methods, attaining study scores of 30 raw and still aim to do Specialist. It’s likely they won’t perform much better. It’s also obvious that the main motivation here is the scaling. If the subject is taken truly because people feel they can do well, there is no need to scale it up as everyone will do their very best – the people doing the subject will be of almost equal ability. Similar concept with LOTEs.

Others are replying to other aspects of your posts, but I would just like to point out that this part makes zero sense.

For every single subject, apart from maybe small study LOTEs, the top 9% will get 40+, top 2% will get 45+, the top 0.2% will get a 50. The study scores will always be distributed such that the mean is 30 and the standard deviation is 7.

OK, so let's not attack your premise here that most people take spesh for the scaling and not because they are good at the subject. And then you suggest that the only people that take spesh should be those who think they can score highly on it (I assume you mean 40+ at the very least). Now as we currently stand, those that get 40+ are in the top 9% of the spesh cohort. That is, 91% of the spesh cohort do worse than them. Now if you both remove scaling, and also remove that bottom 91% (as you are suggesting), then the people that get 40+ will be the top 9% of the new cohort. The top 9% of the original 9% would be the top 0.81% of the original spesh cohort, which I would say would be the people who are getting 48+ for spesh and getting scaled past 50. So your suggestion would result in people who now get a 48+ in spesh and get rewarded past 50 getting a 40 out of spesh.

A 30 is awarded if one's scores are in the top 50%. The top 50% of that original top 9% would be the top 4.5% of the original spesh cohort, which is around 43 I would guess. So through this suggestion, the people who would today be getting 43s for spesh and getting it scaled to high 40s, would now be getting raw 30s that would be unscaled.

Naturally this would be a major deterrent to picking the subject in the first place. Hence why there is scaling.

The irony of this is, that given how much you care about your ENTER score and maximizing it, so much so that you are still unhappy over what is a pretty high ENTER, you probably wouldn't have taken spesh (I know that you didn't have the chance, but say that you did) if you knew that it was so competitive that you could easily come out of it with only a 30 even if you are fairly strong at maths.

[NE2000]

I was always reasonable. If it has to be in the top 4, why not make its removal an incentive for people to do well in it? For example, if you make a rule saying that those who score 40 or above (a very high score you will accept, showing that the candidate has appropriate skills in literacy) are exempt from having English in their top 4, provided it's not actually one of their highest subjects, people are more likely to actually put in the effort for English without giving up. This is because a 40 in English is achievable with hard work/literacy skills and is also a decent study score.

Thing is, what makes 40 such a special number. What if you get a 39? That could represent an extraordinary jump in aggregate. Five 50s and a 40 calculated would yield 99.95 while five 50s and a 39 would yield an aggregate 10 points lower. So it doesn't really work out that way.

Such a system would actually penalize those that struggle with English (and presumably aren't going to use it in their university studies) but are good in their other subjects a lot more, and I thought it was these such people you were trying to help when you said:

A person can get five study scores of 50 and miss out on 99.95 because they didn’t get as high in English. His ENTER doesn’t reflect his incredible abilities.

Also think of the fact that making English no longer a compulsory part of the top 4 for 40+ scorers would lift aggregate thresholds, simply because this change wouldn't decrease anyone's aggregate in this 40+ category, but would only increase it. This would put people that scored 39 or less at a significant disadvantage in their ENTER.

[ninwa]

Ninwa, I can accept that English being the national language of Australia should be compulsory in VCE, but I disagree that it belongs in the top 4. To me, this seems a direct conspiracy against all those who are weaker in the subject. I.e. myself.

Firstly, a "direct conspiracy"?? =\
Secondly, a 43 is hardly a sign of weakness in a subject. You should probably read what you wrote yourself:

a 40 in English ... is also a decent study score.

You seem to find no use for Maths/Chem in your degree. Well I don't find any use for writing essays that are pages long, analysing novels in mine either. To me, that subject was pointless because it only focused on writing essays where you were forced to analyse the views and beliefs of the characters (how does this apply to Commerce?) and people who made several spelling mistakes in their SACs still got higher marks than those who didn't. Perhaps writing essays does improve sentence structure, but for that single reason I don't think it needs to be in the top 4.

You do realise that university degrees will require you to write essays? Every single degree (with the exception of perhaps medicine - I'm not sure about that one) has essay components. Even a lot of TAFE courses have VCE components. Almost every single VCE graduate who wishes to pursue further study will need to have some semblance of essay-writing skills.

Why not remove English from the top 4 and simply have a spelling, grammar and vocabulary test with the GAT? That seems a whole lot more useful than English to me, honestly.

Because essay-writing skills are required for tertiary study.

I never said that those other English alternatives have no intrinsic value.

umm...

VCE English is utterly pointless.

I'm sure Literature and Eng Lang are useful subjects - but I hardly think this justifies them to be compulsory.

Yet you are advocating compulsory mathematics / science because they are "useful"?

Creativity should be encouraged, not forced. Some people find it difficult to be imaginative, especially in the most important year of their schooling. I disagree that without English we would all lack creativity because until year 10, we are required to participate in role plays, make posters, etc.

Equally, until year 10 maths was compulsory. Surely that is sufficient for the "basic maths skills" you state are needed.

Every argument you present for making English optional can equally be directed at your contention that maths or science should be made compulsory.

You can't help feeling pissed off when you realised that people who got two subjects in the 30s still got 99.90 and 99.95. And here I am, with 4 near 50s and above 40 for English and still no 99.90. It's a WTF phenomenon.

No it isn't. Those 30s subjects may have merely been more difficult than your "near 50s" subjects. This is what scaling does.

Clearly you can see that mine is higher, that this suggests my raw scores are higher and that overall I performed better in my subjects than person X. Not reflected in my ENTER is it?

Once again, I think you need to familiarise yourself with the logic behind the scaling system. By your logic, a 40 in further mathematics deserves a higher contribution to your ENTER than a 35 in specialist maths - because in terms of raw scores, the 40 is higher. How is that fair or reasonable?


I must confess that I am quite disappointed that you would belittle the efforts of someone who received a 99.90 just because you didn't get the score you believe you deserved.

[polky]

You seem to find no use for Maths/Chem in your degree. Well I don't find any use for writing essays that are pages long, analysing novels in mine either. To me, that subject was pointless because it only focused on writing essays where you were forced to analyse the views and beliefs of the characters (how does this apply to Commerce?) and people who made several spelling mistakes in their SACs still got higher marks than those who didn't. Perhaps writing essays does improve sentence structure, but for that single reason I don't think it needs to be in the top 4.

You do realise that university degrees will require you to write essays? Every single degree (with the exception of perhaps medicine - I'm not sure about that one) has essay components. Even a lot of TAFE courses have VCE components. Almost every single VCE graduate who wishes to pursue further study will need to have some semblance of essay-writing skills.

You have to write essays in Medicine too - written assignments contribute ~20% of the first year grade (for MBBS@Monash), and there are extended response components in the exams too.  Written skills are actually quite important in the medical field because alot of the correspondence between health care professionals is done in writing, and it is important that you convey the right information to other doctors/allied health professionals.

At the end of the day, ILMM, you cannot blame the system for your loss in motivation for english.  You can only blame yourself.  You knew from day one that English would be in your top 4, and thus it would be in your benefit to maximise your english score.