Criticisms of the VCE

[QuantumJG]

hmmm if english wasn't in the top 4 wouldn't that it be the same thing... (having difficulty explaining this... lol) like... the aggragate would rise or something... lol confusing myself..

also correct me if im wrong... doesn't like nearly every country require they do that language ... and i think most foreign countries have english (as compulsory?)..... i mean like lets say france, doesn't french students living in france have to do french? + (english possibly?)

hmm i still think that english is a good idea.. whether it be lite or wateva .... and its good when you start from a younger age... cause like in uni they do have english helpers in the library ... but seriously... whose gonna use them (well..some ppl do but still eh ppl get lazy)...

anyway ...its not like i did excellent at english ... i got 32 .... but wateva im in third yr now so eh

I would have loved a 32.

Anyway I believe that in English they should get rid of the context part and use it to try and teach people how to write properly (I.e. Spelling, grammar, etc).

At school I found English was reading books, but there was no emphasis on teaching people to write a good essay (this goes for my whole high school life).

[NE2000]

I actually think the context part encourages deeper more original thinking and also allows one to have a little bit more fun with English. Writing essays can get repetitive, but writing different context pieces for different publications and in different styles doesn't get so boring. In contrast, learning spelling and grammar could get very boring, especially spelling.......what would they make us do? Cover, write, check or whatever it was back in year 6?

[Mao]

ilovesmeth most of your argument is quite embarrassing. Stop thinking you deserve a 99.90 cause you put frankly, you don't, you deserve a 99.75. Don't belittle the efforts of those who actually received such a score cause im sure they put in just as much effort to obtaining that score.

And VCE english is a must.

OMG OMG iv english wernt part ov mah top 4, i woolda goten 99.90 t00. EnGliSH is sHit.

[periwinkle]

ilovesmeth most of your argument is quite embarrassing. Stop thinking you deserve a 99.90 cause you put frankly, you don't, you deserve a 99.75. Don't belittle the efforts of those who actually received such a score cause im sure they put in just as much effort to obtaining that score.

And VCE english is a must.

  You are sooo right! Without VCE English I think I'd just shrivel up and die.

[Cthulhu]

Without VCE English you wouldn't have been able to write such long arguments as to why VCE English is bad because you would have never learned about context or how to analyse other peoples arguments to be able to respond to them. Shazam.

[ninwa]

 I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.) So completing English can be edifying, or (through reading Orwell, learning about rhetoric, etc) make you more worldly? The same case can be made for any VCE subject that isn't completely reliant on rote learning.

I wasn't so much arguing for upholding the status quo (though I haven't yet seen any suggestion which would actually improve the system as it is - kendraaaa's post was spot on IMO) as I was expressing my disappointment at the argument that the system was wrong because ILMM didn't get the ENTER score she felt she deserved.

Frankly, it's arrogant and completely undermines the achievements of those who did receive a higher ENTER than her - or even the same ENTER. TrueTears (as far as I can remember - he doesn't have his scores in his sig ) didn't receive nearly as many "near-50s" as ILMM did. By her logic then, he did not deserve to get the same ENTER as she did. Sorry, but that kind of attitude is quite repugnant.

It's wholly unfair to only have a compulsory humanities subject.

I don't think so. I think the scaling on maths and science subjects more than make up for it.

[ReVeL]

Omg TT only got 2 48's and that other person got like 4!... WTF THATS BS HE DOESN'T DESERVE 99.75

Seriously...

[crappy]

This thread is making baby jesus cry

[schmalex]

I think it's to hilarious to complain about compulsory English, when IB students have compulsory second language, science and something. Basically VCE gives you a lot more freedom than other systems.

[ninwa]

  I still haven't heard any decent arguments for upholding the status quo. The fact that one might need to write X thousand words in a science course only justifies the Unis making a hurdle requirement of English (or, as I said before, a decent writing score in the GAT.)

But that would mean every university would need to make English a hurdle requirement for every course. It's just simpler to keep it in the top 4, no?

[ninwa]

Stop twisting my words.

Very well. I'll take you step-by-step through your logic then, shall I?

Contention 1:

I’m just asking you, why is it that despite achieving similar raw scores, in fact more raw scores closer to 50, I achieved 99.75 and missed out from being waived HECs fees?

- people with similar raw scores "deserve" similar ENTERs; and
- having more raw scores closer to 50 signifies that one deserves a higher ENTER.

Supported by Contention 2:

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?

- your ENTER should reflect your raw study scores;
- person A receiving higher raw study scores means than person B means A performed better in VCE than B; and
- no mention of scaling or subject difficulty suggests that this is regardless of which subjects were studied.

Contention 3:

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.

- it is wrong (sorry, a "WTF phenomenon", didn't mean to twist your words!) that someone who received lower study scores than you ended up with a higher ENTER than you.

Contention 4:

If you add up the highest four raw scores of person X and then add the 10% of the bottom 2 subjects, you get: 200.4 approx.

For me: 205.7 approx.

This is measured in terms of raw scores only. The higher your raw scores, the higher your aggregate

-   the person with a higher aggregate of raw scores deserves a higher ENTER.

Contention 1:
You have one 50 and three 49s, meaning you have four “close to 50” scores.
TrueTears has two 48s, meaning he has two “close to 50” scores, and your “close to 50”s are closer to 50 than his.
Therefore, you deserve a higher ENTER.

Contention 2:
The above shows that overall you performed better in your subjects than TrueTears did, judging from raw scores.
Therefore, you performed better in VCE than TrueTears.
Therefore, your ENTER should have been higher than his.

Contention 3:
You: 50, 49, 49, 49, 44, 43.
TT: 48, 48, 46, 44, 43, 40.
TT received lower study scores than you, yet received the same ENTER. This is wrong.

Contention 4:
Your raw score aggregate is “205.7 approx.”
TT’s is 194.3.
Your aggregate was much higher. Therefore your ENTER should have been much higher. Or alternatively, if your ENTER were to remain at 99.75, TT should have received somewhere closer to say, 97, judging by the disparity in aggregates.

Final conclusion: You deserved a higher ENTER than TrueTears.

[enwiabe]

ILMM, you are certainly allowed to be as unhappy/overjoyed with it as you please. However, if you post these opinions on a public forum, and these opinions are offensive to others (and many people do rightly find that somebody bitching about being in the top 0.25% of the state offensive), then as you've posted on a public forum, expect a bit of backlash. Now, personal insults are not tolerated, but so far it's been civil. And people have been responding to your arguments. You're actually the one who's simply been crying "victim!" and glossing over everything.

At some point, you're really going to have to realise that there are many people who worked harder than you did for a much lower ENTER. You should feel extremely lucky for the gifts which which you've been blessed in order to obtain the score that you did. I really advise you to quit with the introspective attitude that you have, and start to broaden your horizons to develop some empathy for the hardships of others.

You complain about English about being in your top 4. That difficulty pales in comparison to some of the regional suburbs who don't have basic laboratory equipment. That difficulty pales in comparison to students who have to work in delapidated buildings, in a culture where academia is discouraged (and they can be bullied for it), and where, sadly, their teachers have been jaded into apathy by years of student bullying.

You want to see disadvantage by a system that favours one kind of student over the other? Go look at the great, whopping divide between your school, the darling gem of the Victorian Government, and the ones that they treat in an analogue of Cinderella and her evil stepmother. Rags, beat-downs and deprivation of the basics.

Then you might gain some perspective on the silliness of being unhappy with your ENTER,

[Noblesse]

TT's raw aggregate: 194.3
(Sorry TT, not sure why I'm using you as an example)
My raw aggregate: 50+50+46+41+4.4+4.4 = 195.8

Now I'm sad

Humanities FTL

[enwiabe]

Well I never intended to conclude that. That's actually disgusting, the way you've put that up there, as though I'm deliberately insulting a forum member. I don't appreciate it. I've had nothing but respect for TrueTears, for his dedication and Mathematical prowess. It's actually really low of you to try and create conflict like this, ninwa. Just my opinion.

Why not use TT as an example? It was the exact argument you were making. You said you deserved a higher ENTER than people with lower raw scores. Is it perhaps replacing "person X" with TrueTears that makes it repugnant for you, because you actually are, in effect, belittling his efforts? It's so much easier when you can just call them 'person X'. Give them a name, though, and it gets ugly. Right?

[ninwa]

To ninwa,

Well I never intended to conclude that. That's actually disgusting, the way you've put that up there, as though I'm deliberately insulting a forum member. I don't appreciate it. I've had nothing but respect for TrueTears, for his dedication and Mathematical prowess. It's actually really low of you to try and create conflict like this, ninwa. Just my opinion.

So tell me where the error of logic is (instead of using empty emotive words like "disgusting" with no substance).

Never once did I use the study scores of someone on this forum. I used my own which I'm allowed to use.

Compared to a hypothetical "person X". TrueTears fits that bill. All the high achievers on this forum do. I merely chose TT because his ENTER was the same as yours and thus better faciliates the comparison.

I'm only frustrated that despite getting close to four 50s I didn't get that little bit higher.

Isn't that the basic premise of my logical progression?

And you are wrong ninwa, TT got close to three 50s. Aren't we talking about 46 or 46+?

Are we? Where did you define that? Are you denying that your aggregated raw scores (using your system of calculation) was a lot higher than TT's? (don't know how you can deny that, it's basic addition...)

My whole argument was about why I couldn't get that bit higher

... compared to "person X" who as I said before could be any high achiever.