A New System Required?

[iNerd]

VCE.
Victorian Certificate of Education.
Ah, the nerds that crawl this forum, the unbelievable median that is produced, the 99.95-ers busting it out.
In light of the thread VCE for Dummies a thought sparked my mind, encapsulating it with vigourous energy

Should there be three separate tiers of VCE?

One for the 98 + (as half the forum says anything over 45 is luck)
One for the 30 - 97
One for the <30

How would this work? Based on results from Year 7 to 10 with teacher contribution which would also give value to these years of education.

Discuss.

[Russ]

I really don't see how you could make this viable. It's an interesting idea but I don't think categorizing students into three groups on projected rank is ever going to work/be a good idea

[aznboy50]

For what it's worth.

I genuinely find in most cases of life, the person who gets the 50 says it was hard work. The person who gets the 45, says it was a matter of luck that he did not get 50. Was it luck that Derrick Ha got his 50's?

[iNerd]

For what it's worth.

I genuinely find in most cases of life, the person who gets the 50 says it was hard work. The person who gets the 45, says it was a matter of luck that he did not get 50. Was it luck that Derrick Ha got his 50's?

Oh please, your straying off topic for no reason. Did, ah, Derrich Ha take any language-type studies such as Legal and Psych where your wording is paramount? The differences between 47,48,49,50 are marginal at best. In fact there are a plethora of examples scattered over the forum. I mean we have SlumDawg giving 10 tips to VCE people and then we have kyzoo coming along and saying he's an exception to each one (lol). Discuss the idea please, don't attack the words.

[burbs]

Why?

[iNerd]

Why?

Why not?

[burbs]

1. Alexandra Adornetto should never be an example for anything other than 'people who misrepresent our generation.'
2. Because it's an A. A article I only skimmed it, but from what I gather it's that she says the skills from VCE aren't enough? Of so how does your 'system' address that?
3. Ability in school from yr7-10 should not be extrapolated to measure potential ability. My grades are an example of this.

To be honest I don't understand what your proposed system is, how it would work or be better. Please explain as I'm thoroughly confused, but am interested in your theory.

[Russ]

Why?

Why not?

Congratulations, your argument just lost all credibility.

As for a serious post:
as my first reply said - how are you going to fairly categorize students into these systems? why is a student in the second category prevented from achieving higher than a 97?

[iNerd]

Why?

Why not?

Congratulations, your argument just lost all credibility.

As for a serious post:
as my first reply said - how are you going to fairly categorize students into these systems? why is a student in the second category prevented from achieving higher than a 97?

Excuse me. I didn't bag VCE the system, I never said to 'change' it. I merely posted that article so Burberry could realise that not everyone bashes out 50s in BM and whatever and like VCE. I also think Y7-10 should have some value and this way incentive is provided. Never said this was plausible, but you could easily say if you don't perform well enough in Y7-10 then your not getting into the 97+ category which actually makes Y7-10 very important.

[burbs]

Why?

Why not?

Congratulations, your argument just lost all credibility.

As for a serious post:
as my first reply said - how are you going to fairly categorize students into these systems? why is a student in the second category prevented from achieving higher than a 97?

Excuse me. I didn't bag VCE the system, I never said to 'change' it. I merely posted that article so Burberry could realise that not everyone bashes out 50s in BM and whatever and like VCE. I also think Y7-10 should have some value and this way incentive is provided. Never said this was plausible, but you could easily say if you don't perform well enough in Y7-10 then your not getting into the 97+ category which actually makes Y7-10 very important.

When have I ever had that mindset? Plus Cs and D+s in yr 7-10 weren't alien to me and I'm hoping for 99.50+

[iNerd]

Why?

Why not?

Congratulations, your argument just lost all credibility.

As for a serious post:
as my first reply said - how are you going to fairly categorize students into these systems? why is a student in the second category prevented from achieving higher than a 97?

Excuse me. I didn't bag VCE the system, I never said to 'change' it. I merely posted that article so Burberry could realise that not everyone bashes out 50s in BM and whatever and like VCE. I also think Y7-10 should have some value and this way incentive is provided. Never said this was plausible, but you could easily say if you don't perform well enough in Y7-10 then your not getting into the 97+ category which actually makes Y7-10 very important.

When have I ever had that mindset? Plus Cs and D+s in yr 7-10 weren't alien to me and I'm hoping for 99.50+

Sorry, that wasn't an attack - excuse my poor phrasing. I just meant that instinctively if you do well at something (or like something) you like the system as a whole. I mean what type of person who gets 99.5 is going to say VCE is shit? ...I think my main point now is to bring value to Years 7 - 10.

[Russ]

You definitely want to change the system if you're imposing upper limits on the scores students can achieve.

As far as I can see, your idea just uses previous marks in years 7-10 to determine a student's acumen and then limits them to a potential score. If the student then does extremely well in years 11/12, they still can't go beyond that score (although granted the score is a relatively high one). I honestly don't understand how you consider this fair or a good framework. Giving schools a recommended coursework for years 7-10 would better serve students.

Whilst you can say that if you're not a great student before VCE, you're probably not going to achieve at the highest level - there's nothing stopping you from doing so. I know people who've done it, you probably do as well.

Explain your new system better because nobody here really has a great idea of what you mean

[burbs]

VCE rewards attitude more than aptitude. A hardworking student, regardless of their performance in VELS, has the ability for a 99.95. In no way should the system be to limit ANYONE ever.

My attitude for VCE is largely apathetic, but I do like that the effort I put in was rewarded. Yr 7-10 in my eyes is more a time for growing, for finding our interests. Putting too much academic pressure on it would stunt growth. Yr 7s should only be worrying about whether they should play pokemon or mario, or possibly why they suddenly have acne.

[iNerd]

VCE rewards attitude more than aptitude. A hardworking student, regardless of their performance in VELS, has the ability for a 99.95. In no way should the system be to limit ANYONE ever.

My attitude for VCE is largely apathetic, but I do like that the effort I put in was rewarded. Yr 7-10 in my eyes is more a time for growing, for finding our interests. Putting too much academic pressure on it would stunt growth. Yr 7s should only be worrying about whether they should play pokemon or mario, or possibly why they suddenly have acne.

I recall reading a thread of Person X vs Person Y where one person worked diligently through Years 7-10 whilst the other bludged it yet came out with a higher ATAR. VCE does not reward hard work at all. Yes this idea is really not that good but how is it fair that a person can bludge 3 years of education and only focus on 2? Don't you think there should be more value placed on Years 7 - 10?

[burbs]

Umm, in the text you quoted I said my view on what you asked me.  Not really. Also by your own logic before, I it possible you want this system because you performed well in Yr 7-10?