Is VCE fair?

[zomgSEAN]

ok zomgSEAN, sure whatever i'm not going to blame you for wanting change, and i don't actually digagree with the undelying principle of your argument, i just think you are severely underestimating the magnitude of what you are proposing

I am definitely aware of the major costs which will be incurred if the system was to change in this way. I only wish to point out that we should make some effort to address this flaw, which, as Russ has just pointed out, was not expressed very well in my use of 'revolution', which was both inappropriate and foolish on my behalf. Drastic and immediate change would be inconsiderate towards the other great issues of our country and world; the change needs to be slow, measured and gradual.
I only debate this issue to dispel the complacency many of you have expressed with our system. It's helpful to point out the flaws and accept them as potentially fixable, as this begets reform.

I'm just wondering what the benefit of having more examinations will actually be in reality........

Refer to my post made Today at 09:11:17.

I don't really see the complete relevance of this analogy and it's not even up to the individual since the doctors will triage the situation accordingly, just like how the government will when it comes to allocation of funds.

if it was me? of course.......i don't see what you point is zomgSEAN.....

I don't get your question lol
What's tonsillitis? If it's not a really bad sickness I probably wouldn't go to the hospital, if it was I'd go and get checked up.

Please tell me this was facetious...
FWIW, the brain cancer and TB patients don't need attention and there's really not much you can do for the guy vomiting blood without proper medical equipment

Tonsillitis is an infection of the tonsils, causing a sore throat and in some extreme cases narrowing of the airways. Treatment is antibiotics.

The analogy was a hypothetical situation, it shouldn't be taken so logically. Obviously, the doctors would deal with such an issue, but you have to approach the situation in the mindset that you are to decide if you receive medical treatment or not. You DO NOT DECIDE whether the OTHERS receive treatment. You have to decide whether you are willing to accept your own unhealthiness because others are much worse-off, or not.
The associations are between: Level of sickness=Degree of unfairness; Medical attention=Education system reform; Refusing medical attention=Accepting the VCE system as it is and disagree with any proposal to address its flaws.

With a realistic approach, introducing extra exams / different types of assessment / etc. is something that needs to be considered very carefully and introduced slowly. Add mid year assessment for more of the science based subjects, like maths, then consider what effect it has had.

Couldn't agree more. My use of 'revolution' was not well-considered; the result of an unfamiliarity with the definition.

[shinny]

I'm just wondering what the benefit of having more examinations will actually be in reality........

Refer to my post made Today at 09:11:17.

I said in reality. I can't be certain about what effect these changes will have on real people, but I can only assume using my own experiences and I guess my understanding of how people study. Like I said, those things you've mentioned about fairness, more accurate representation of ability etc. are what most likely only applies to a minority, and hence, the intended purpose of this change you're proposing might not be the predominate effect that results. As I said, I think the end result will be that it will single out those who can't be bothered sustaining a year of study (i.e. the majority of the state). And yes, even though you've said it will encourage more consistent study, I don't think so. SACs are already here to achieve that purpose yet the majority of the state already couldn't give a crap about them anyway. People aren't made to sustain long-term stress. Unless something is worth enough (i.e. final exams), they're just not going to put in the same effort.

So continuing about stress levels, well I happen to be in a course where there are constant assessments. I've got 2000 word assignments that are worth 2% of my year. I've probably had about 15 or so assignments this year worth 5% or 2%. This doesn't spread the stress or lower it. It just keeps it at high levels. And long-term stress is worse than anything. Short term stress actually improves performance, long term stress reduces it and has medical implications even. I'd rather cram for a week than stay under pressure constantly. Having more assessments doesn't reduce the value of them really. Those aiming to do well will realise that even though these assignments are worth 5%, getting 60% on each of these 5% assignments still heavily impacts on your end grade. So the net value of these assessments to those who are motivated and actually want to do really well is just as high, and so the stress levels will pretty much be just as high. This would be a similar situation to what would happen to those keen on doing well in VCE in regards to additional exams. I mean honestly, do you place any lower value on your subjects with midyears just because there are 2 exams?

[zomgSEAN]

I said in reality. I can't be certain about what effect these changes will have on real people, but I can only assume using my own experiences and I guess my understanding of how people study. Like I said, those things you've mentioned about fairness, more accurate representation of ability etc. are what most likely only applies to a minority, and hence, the intended purpose of this change you're proposing might not be the predominate effect that results. As I said, I think the end result will be that it will single out those who can't be bothered sustaining a year of study (i.e. the majority of the state). And yes, even though you've said it will encourage more consistent study, I don't think so. SACs are already here to achieve that purpose yet the majority of the state already couldn't give a crap about them anyway. People aren't made to sustain long-term stress. Unless something is worth enough (i.e. final exams), they're just not going to put in the same effort.

So continuing about stress levels, well I happen to be in a course where there are constant assessments. I've got 2000 word assignments that are worth 2% of my year. I've probably had about 15 or so assignments this year worth 5% or 2%. This doesn't spread the stress or lower it. It just keeps it at high levels. And long-term stress is worse than anything. Short term stress actually improves performance, long term stress reduces it and has medical implications even. I'd rather cram for a week than stay under pressure constantly. Having more assessments doesn't reduce the value of them really. Those aiming to do well will realise that even though these assignments are worth 5%, getting 60% on each of these 5% assignments still heavily impacts on your end grade. So the net value of these assessments to those who are motivated and actually want to do really well is just as high, and so the stress levels will pretty much be just as high. This would be a similar situation to what would happen to those keen on doing well in VCE in regards to additional exams. I mean honestly, do you place any lower value on your subjects with midyears just because there are 2 exams?

You have noted an interesting point, in that the change would benefit only a minority of students. However, I do not think we should abandon the proposed reform due to this, for it would still help thousands of future VCE students.

Also, I do not feel having more exams would drag the same level of stress experienced at end-of-year exams throughout the entire year, but rather spread it out in an even manner, which can be reasonably coped with by an adolescent.

I am eternally grateful of Psychology because I receive two exam opportunities. First, because it allows me more than one opportunity to present my academic ability in the subject, enabling me to compensate for mistakes made on previous assessment when SAC-scaling is done. Also, because I did not suffer the high stress when approaching the mid-year that I am experiencing now with my regular subjects, as I knew that if i was to make too many mistakes, it wouldn't matter TOO much, as it was worth only a 3rd of my SS, rather than half.
This is not to say i go into SACs completely careless as to how i perform, as i am aware that they all add up to something meaningful. But i go into them with my confidence prevailing over any nervousness or anxiety, as i understand that a single SAC will not ruin my ATAR, or even SS. Because of this, i perform well and am able to maintain the flow of knowledge throughout the period; much different to my experience in an exam condition.

[shinny]

I said in reality. I can't be certain about what effect these changes will have on real people, but I can only assume using my own experiences and I guess my understanding of how people study. Like I said, those things you've mentioned about fairness, more accurate representation of ability etc. are what most likely only applies to a minority, and hence, the intended purpose of this change you're proposing might not be the predominate effect that results. As I said, I think the end result will be that it will single out those who can't be bothered sustaining a year of study (i.e. the majority of the state). And yes, even though you've said it will encourage more consistent study, I don't think so. SACs are already here to achieve that purpose yet the majority of the state already couldn't give a crap about them anyway. People aren't made to sustain long-term stress. Unless something is worth enough (i.e. final exams), they're just not going to put in the same effort.

So continuing about stress levels, well I happen to be in a course where there are constant assessments. I've got 2000 word assignments that are worth 2% of my year. I've probably had about 15 or so assignments this year worth 5% or 2%. This doesn't spread the stress or lower it. It just keeps it at high levels. And long-term stress is worse than anything. Short term stress actually improves performance, long term stress reduces it and has medical implications even. I'd rather cram for a week than stay under pressure constantly. Having more assessments doesn't reduce the value of them really. Those aiming to do well will realise that even though these assignments are worth 5%, getting 60% on each of these 5% assignments still heavily impacts on your end grade. So the net value of these assessments to those who are motivated and actually want to do really well is just as high, and so the stress levels will pretty much be just as high. This would be a similar situation to what would happen to those keen on doing well in VCE in regards to additional exams. I mean honestly, do you place any lower value on your subjects with midyears just because there are 2 exams?

You have noted an interesting point, in that the change would benefit only a minority of students. However, I do not think we should abandon the proposed reform due to this, for it would still help thousands of future VCE students.

Also, I do not feel having more exams would drag the same level of stress experienced at end-of-year exams throughout the entire year, but rather spread it out in an even manner, which can be reasonably coped with by an adolescent.

I am eternally grateful of Psychology because I receive two exam opportunities. First, because it allows me more than one opportunity to present my academic ability in the subject, enabling me to compensate for mistakes made on previous assessment when SAC-scaling is done. Also, because I did not suffer the high stress when approaching the mid-year that I am experiencing now with my regular subjects, as I knew that if i was to make too many mistakes, it wouldn't matter TOO much, as it was worth only a 3rd of my SS, rather than half.
This is not to say i go into SACs completely careless as to how i perform, as i am aware that they all add up to something meaningful. But i go into them with my confidence prevailing over any nervousness or anxiety, as i understand that a single SAC will not ruin my ATAR, or even SS. Because of this, i perform well and am able to maintain the flow of knowledge throughout the period; much different to my experience in an exam condition.

Hmm, I guess it's just differences in our individual perceptions to stress then.

[zomgSEAN]

Perhaps so.

[chem-nerd]

Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.

zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.

In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.

I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.

[zomgSEAN]

Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.

zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.

In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.

I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.

Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.

Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.

I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.

[Chavi]

Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.

zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.

In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.

I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.

Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.

Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.

I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.

Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.

The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.

[zomgSEAN]

Improvement can only occur if we make the attempt. And that step starts with us, as victims of this major flaw.

zomgSEAN I'd like to see you justify this unfair VCE education system and the additionally immense cost you're proposing for ongoing external assessment to the millions of young people who don't even have access to education.

In 6 months time you won't even give a shit about the VCE.

I think there are much more important 'major flaws' in education.

Chem-nerd, you seem quite aggravated. I think this is due to a misinterpretation.

Never did I say (without later correcting myself, in regards to my careless use of the word 'revolution') or imply that fixing our VCE system was an international, national or even state priority. It is merely something i feel should be addressed in future. By no means is it more important than achieving universal education. This is not what i contend.

I only wish to highlight that having content attitudes towards something flawed that could be potentially fixed, is not something which promotes evolution of society.

Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.

The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.

Chavi, I feel that your comments are very naive. The only opportunity for reasonable tertiary study leading on to professional qualifications, is by performing in VCE. There is so much importance placed upon the scores you receive. It is the key point of selection into University. Performance on exams is necessary for near-future success.

The proposed unimportance of VCE is in conflict with the very website which we are now communicating on!
Please reconsider your comments.

[Chavi]

Examinations are a necessary evil. If Albert Einstein fails the VCAA physics exam, it doesn't mean he's an idiot. VCE is just a gauge to help you get into uni. If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.

The cost and effort you are proposing to reform something which is already functional cannot be justified against the relative (pun intended) unimportance of VCE.

Chavi, I feel that your comments are very naive. The only opportunity for reasonable tertiary study leading on to professional qualifications, is by performing in VCE. There is so much importance placed upon the scores you receive. It is the key point of selection into University. Performance on exams is necessary for near-future success.

The proposed unimportance of VCE is in conflict with the very website which we are now communicating on!
Please reconsider your comments.

VCE marks are not a litmus test for future success - in fact their only purpose is top assist in undergrad rankings for prospective uni students. Getting a 99.95 doesn't guarantee that you won't be out on the street in 10 years. And btw, if you miss out on your dream course, you can always transfer into it at a later date.

I didn't say VCE is unimportant I said it's relatively unimportant - just a technical hurdle to be safely negotiated. The fact only a tiny percentage of students such as you and I use this website just proves how *unimportant* VCE is for most students, and how *unimportant* it will be once you get accepted into uni.

And I don't believe that VCE is conducive for near-future success either. Think of the many tradesmen and blue-collar workers who are fulfilling happy lives without an ENTER score. As has been noted in one of the previous comments - come December time, and you'll give jack * about how you went. The fact that you adhere to the narrow parochialism that VCE is the only purpose of school, and that education for it's own quaint sake is meaningless without a score-ranking highlights your own naivety, not mine.

[Eriny]

Given that one of the best ATAR predictors is one's postcode, I'd say no, it probably isn't fair.

[happyhappyland]

Given that one of the best ATAR predictors is one's postcode, I'd say no, it probably isn't fair.

To be honest if you are refering to cohort strength I dont think it matters if your number one. But if you are talking about peer pressure and the school society influence towards how students perform, then yeh it probably isnt fair where someone from rural areas dont understand the full expectations and standards of VCE. I remember last year when a classmate at the start of the year said they wanted to get a 50 in Accounting, without knowing that a 50 is like the top top percentile. He ended up with a 34 just because his friend group didnt study at all and he didnt know that a 40 was top 8% and what marks he needed to get.

[kyzoo]

If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.

I agree lol. IMO much of your exam grade comes from following the correct mental procedures within the actual exam, rather than than knowing everything in the course.

[IntoTheNewWorld]

If you screw up your finals because you had a breakdown *bad luck* - it just means you can't cope under pressure or it wasn't your day - it doesn't mean you don't understand the content, or in Einstein's case that you won't still be able to win the Nobel prize or develop the theory of relativity.

I agree lol. IMO much of your exam grade comes from following the correct mental procedures within the actual exam, rather than than knowing everything in the course.

Only when you get to the upper levels. The vast majority of students do not know the course well, at all. It's easy to forget that when you're at the top =p

[Glockmeister]

Of course the other things is that none of this really matters because the VCE isn't really going to exist in it's current from in the next few years.