James Lu, I salute you

[TrueTears]

To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>

Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.

i totally agree with this...

[Eriny]

To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>

Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.

What I have a problem with is people who seem to be able to get way with doing Chinese SL and ESL? (I've only heard anecdotal reports of it)

I think ESL is often abused as a subject too.

ETA: Also, it sucks how someone can spend a lot of time in-country and have a really good background in the language, and still take the same stream as anyone else. I know it doesn't mean your skills are necessarily technically perfect, but it does give you a huge advantage. I know in WA, if you want to do a language you need to sign a form saying you haven't lived in-country for more than X amount of time and stuff. I know there are people who take languages at the beginners level at university, even though they studied it in school, and although that doesn't mean their language skills are perfect, they have so much more vocab and conceptual understanding to draw on than people who really are beginners.

[happyhappyland]

I've already said this, but it is scaling above 50 that destroys the system.  It NEEDS to go, and I don't care for the mathematical explanation in regards to why it even exists.  It is pointless and unfair.

Care to elaborate on how it "destroys the system"? And for what reason do you dismiss the "mathematical explanation" for it.

Yes i dont like the scaling either.

For what reason do you not like scaling? The answer "it is not advantageous to me" is not a legitimate reason.

It would have been. I was allowed to do chinese second language and spesh, but I chose not to. I had four subjects to choose from for year 12 (I chose a uni subject which benefits for griffith provisional med). I had to choose english, methods and chem because it broadens my subject options. I chose biology because I like it instead of chinese/spesh.

I dont care about scaling, Id rather do subject I like. The scaling restrict some from doing so

[akira88]

To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>

Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.

What I have a problem with is people who seem to be able to get way with doing Chinese SL and ESL? (I've only heard anecdotal reports of it)

I think ESL is often abused as a subject too.

ETA: Also, it sucks how someone can spend a lot of time in-country and have a really good background in the language, and still take the same stream as anyone else. I know it doesn't mean your skills are necessarily technically perfect, but it does give you a huge advantage. I know in WA, if you want to do a language you need to sign a form saying you haven't lived in-country for more than X amount of time and stuff. I know there are people who take languages at the beginners level at university, even though they studied it in school, and although that doesn't mean their language skills are perfect, they have so much more vocab and conceptual understanding to draw on than people who really are beginners.

What you say about ESL is true, but most universities have higher prerequisites for those who did ESL- eg. a course that needs 30 in English needs at least 35 in ESL. So I guess it works out?

[iffets12345]

To those complaining about the Chinese scaling. Chinese is my first language, I speak it at home, and I've looked at the Chinese FL paper and I would've been capable of doing it. Yet I would have qualified for SL. The poor non-natives in Chinese deserve all the scaling they can get >_>

Don't say a subject doesn't deserve its scaling til you've done it. Languages are damn difficult.

What I have a problem with is people who seem to be able to get way with doing Chinese SL and ESL? (I've only heard anecdotal reports of it)

I think ESL is often abused as a subject too.
ETA: Also, it sucks how someone can spend a lot of time in-country and have a really good background in the language, and still take the same stream as anyone else. I know it doesn't mean your skills are necessarily technically perfect, but it does give you a huge advantage. I know in WA, if you want to do a language you need to sign a form saying you haven't lived in-country for more than X amount of time and stuff. I know there are people who take languages at the beginners level at university, even though they studied it in school, and although that doesn't mean their language skills are perfect, they have so much more vocab and conceptual understanding to draw on than people who really are beginners.

I know someone doing Japanese SL and ESL, he slipped through that seven year gap or something.
AND, I've heard of someone getting 50 in ESL and 50 in Literature.
So yes, the system doesn't work very well in that sense, but I can't fathom how they can improve it.
And Eriny, we already have that form for Chinese SL and stuff.
The problem is not the background speakers, its the lack of SL/FL options for languages with less students since there would be no point separating them- like French.

[iffets12345]

I dont care about scaling, Id rather do subject I like. The scaling restrict some from doing so

I suppose you mean that other people are mentally influenced by scaling and you dislike how they will choose a scaled subject over their favourites? That is ultimately their problem and poor thinking, not the system. I've seen those people and they have frustrated me, but I have never been mad at the scaling process. Rather, I think we need teachers to help get rid of this "scaling fanatic" culture.

[Akirus]

I see your point, although I disagree with the logic that "I got 50 in every other subject so its fair I got 50~ in subject x". That is to say, just because I get 50 in English, MM, phys and accounting doesn't mean I should also get 50 in chemistry.

It is this logic that underpins scaling, essentially. They take students' raw scores and infer the difficulty of scoring in a certain subject. This is done by the disparity between the raw scores obtained by the students within that subject and the raw scores achieved by the cohort in other subjects. So, in essence, they look and say "all-round top students are only mid-range students in x subject. Hence the scores obtained by students of x cohort needs adjustment upward." This is the basis for an argument for what you said there, and holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.

Scaling is based upon the raw score of the student, not the scaled score, nor is it based upon the scores of a single individual. Just because I get 50 in every other subject does not mean my chemistry grade should also scale up to 50.

I have no idea where you got the "scaled" and "individual student" stuff from... I was merely linking the scaling process to your example when I talked of a small group of students.

That's why I added this little clause here:

[This] holds so long as the other students equal with you and above are generally of an equally high level.

If everyone equal to you and above you in a cohort was hitting 50 raw all round(yes, this is an exaggeration) then you should receive a scaled score very close to 50. Or, is it not fair that 35 raw in Latin be scaled to 45(before government bonus) if essentially all students who score 35 and above are getting 45 and above in their other subjects?

You are losing generality with your example. There are so many things wrong with your premise I don't even know where to begin.

[Kennybhoy]

Clearly no-one here has actually READ what James Lu said.

He's saying that VCE system is terrible because it's less about learning and more about getting the easiest path to the highest ENTER score. In other words, rather than thinking for yourself and learning what you want, you're bound to a syllabus so learning anything more would be seen as redundant.

Why the hell is everyone here talking about how the VCE scaling system is unfair? Subjects scale more when smarter people do it. A person getting a 30 in Specialist Maths would scale above a person getting 35 in Further Maths simply because the effort required to get their respective scored are different. Specialist Maths scales up massively due to the people who do it. Remember, VCE is a ranking system.

[Akirus]

Clearly no-one here has actually READ what James Lu said.

He's saying that VCE system is terrible because it's less about learning and more about getting the easiest path to the highest ENTER score. In other words, rather than thinking for yourself and learning what you want, you're bound to a syllabus so learning anything more would be seen as redundant.

Why the hell is everyone here talking about how the VCE scaling system is unfair? Subjects scale more when smarter people do it. A person getting a 30 in Specialist Maths would scale above a person getting 35 in Further Maths simply because the effort required to get their respective scored are different. Specialist Maths scales up massively due to the people who do it. Remember, VCE is a ranking system.

That'd be because no one actually linked James Lu's letter until the second or third page. Notice the scaling topic began on the first? Derp.

[Kennybhoy]

...

Notice the title of the topic?

[Twenty10]

can anyone direct me to Mr. Lu's article

[Akirus]

...

Notice the title of the topic?

The title of the topic does not dictate the exchanges so much as its contents. Notice the logical progression of the thread?

can anyone direct me to Mr. Lu's article

http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,20944.0.html

[Kennybhoy]

No I don't.

The OP was to do with James Lu's opinions. Immediately it turned into a scaling debate. Not a progression, more like a tangent.

EDIT: Link was made to his article, was not aknowledged. People continued on with the scaling debate. Isn't there another thread for that?

[Akirus]

No I don't.

The OP was to do with James Lu's opinions. Immediately it turned into a scaling debate. Not a progression, more like a tangent.

Except for the fact that only his name is mentioned with nothing to say of what he actually said, so you can hardly blame people for not addressing the point specifically. Moreover, James Lu criticized the VCE system, of which scaling is relevant. You are essentially saying the thread is meaningless because of the topic title.

Oh, and for a guy criticizing irrelevance to the point at hand, you're setting this thread on more of a tangent than it was initially.

[Kennybhoy]

You went from denying to justifying.

You actually brought on the tangent, might I add.

I never implied the thread was meaningless, I'm implying that the thread isn't about scaling but should be about the VCE education system and how it reflects on your actual intelligence or if its just a bunch of people trying to find the best way to get the top marks.