A New System Required?

[iNerd]

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?

On the contrary, No. Owned Y7, 'Failed' Y8, Owned Y9, 'Failed' Y10. I fit in the 30 - 97 category

[jasoN-]

I agree no one should be limited due to their performance in previous studies.

The sole purpose of junior-intermediate studies is to bring out the students interest. That's mainly why those students do 10+ subjects per year between two semesters.
I didn't like art or music, but does that mean I'll be disadvantaged in the future knowing that my poor results will reflect my goals and dreams? It just doesn't add up.

The 'value' that Years 7-10 will bring is the foundations to a certain interest to the student, whether it be arts, science, english, whatever. They shouldn't be obliged to achieve good results in ALL their studies to allow a chance at the 'higher' ATAR.
And let's be honest Years 7-10 allowed bludging and fun all in good will in developing a child's passions to a better future.

VCE allows the choice of subjects, a pathway to a future and a career which entails interest to the student.
If the system changed to benefit those who did well in previous years and discouraged those who didn't it would stigmatise the 'less intelligent' and limit their desired scores, it would demotivate, maybe even remove a certain pathway that they dreamed of having because they didn't try hard enough throughout years 7-10.

tl;dr: system is fine as it is

[Slumdawg]

I personally am very thankful years 7-10 don't count for much. I found them very biased. Some of my teachers played favourites and gave some students better marks just cos they liked the way they set out their work or the presentation or whatever. I think year 12 is good because it involves external assessment which is undertaken by highly qualified assessors instead of dud teachers. So you know you're getting judged/marked very fairly.. There's a huge variation in the way teachers mark during years 7-10. Some people got A+ the whole year cos their english teacher was an easy marker while others would have to deal with Bs cos their teacher was much harsher.

I reckon I'd be thrown into the "30 - 97" category if they based it on years 7-10 performance and others who got much lower scores than me in year 12 would have been put into "98+". Mainly due to people underestimating me. I like how underdogs can really shine through year 12, even when others didn't think they would.

[iNerd]

I agree no one should be limited due to their performance in previous studies.

The sole purpose of junior-intermediate studies is to bring out the students interest. That's mainly why those students do 10+ subjects per year between two semesters.
I didn't like art or music, but does that mean I'll be disadvantaged in the future knowing that my poor results will reflect my goals and dreams? It just doesn't add up.

The 'value' that Years 7-10 will bring is the foundations to a certain interest to the student, whether it be arts, science, english, whatever. They shouldn't be obliged to achieve good results in ALL their studies to allow a chance at the 'higher' ATAR.
And let's be honest Years 7-10 allowed bludging and fun all in good will in developing a child's passions to a better future.

VCE allows the choice of subjects, a pathway to a future and a career which entails interest to the student.
If the system changed to benefit those who did well in previous years and discouraged those who didn't it would stigmatise the 'less intelligent' and limit their desired scores, it would demotivate, maybe even remove a certain pathway that they dreamed of having because they didn't try hard enough throughout years 7-10.

tl;dr: system is fine as it is

Okay, yeah, fair enough. Then how about only include the CORE subjects? English, Maths and Science. Okay now you'll say what about those who take History etc. They can state they won't do Maths and Science and instead be assessed on History and Geography.

@Slumdawg: Very true. Bias is a massive flaw. Conclusion: this system fails

[lexitu]

I think the earlier years should be more about personal development than academic diligence and performance. Aside from the flaws that others have pointed out above (and I know this is just a rough idea to prompt discussion), I think that placing such a big emphasis on results at a young age could be restrictive and exhaustive. Kids should be encouraged to explore all facets of life and there are too many problems with the education system (teachers in particular) for this to be conducted alongside a system with the general purposes that you propose. If kids have this pressure to perform well in their schoolwork - especially in core subjects - they may well ignore other activities that will provide non-immediate benefits intellectually/socially/physically. Also, being classified into a certain group so early can have a damaging affect. Life already has enough classifications, but if we group people by forecasted performance this inequality has psychological implications which could decrease performance in lower groups. The latter has been well researched.

[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?

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.

We're not debating what does and doesn't work for VCE? Why the hell did you even mention what works for SlumDawg and doesn't work for Kyzoo, how people obtain great results is irrelevant. Secondly, why should the whole system be changed to suit people in subjects where wording is paramount? Mathematics/Sciences does not depend on luck, if you are the best, you will get the best mark, providing you perform well in the exam and deal with the pressure of it all.

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?

Why, not everything in life is rewarded. I never put in 10% of the effort of some of the people in my class, yet still obtained better marks than them, and I still do even though now I'm working hard. As you said, at that age, academic shouldn't be the main focus of children. So, if they enjoy studying, than so be it. They learn and that in itself is beneficial to them as a whole. Why then, aren't children who absolutely kill pokemon rewarded in the VCE? It's because at that age, you do what you like, if that happens to be academia, you will obtain good grades for years 7-10.

[pi]

A typical iNerd 'conversation'...

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.

Just a major flaw here, what if your ATAR was 97.50?

Therefore, the system would fail

[IntoTheNewWorld]

You could keep extending that logic and say hey, why not start assessing them for VCE from year 7 or even earlier, but that would be suicide inducing. You seem to be under the impression that education only has value if it is assessed? What's wrong with learning just for the sake of learning? Assessments dumb down the process in my opinion, and introducing assessments even earlier can only be detrimental.

[aznboy50]

Rohitpi, to be fair to the 'great' iNerd, that is but a trivial part of the system.

However, why doesn't this work fundamentally?

Here's why:

After years 7-10, students would qualify for either the first,second or third tier. Two systems can be used to determine whom goes in to which tier. The first is an internal system, now you tell me, it is fair that a school can push even a weak student into the top tier and guarantee him an ATAR of 98+? External examinations are them required. From years 7-10 there is a large cohort of students, all of which must be in school under federal law. That is why teachers cannot go at a rapid pace to a curriculum that ensures as many students as possible get into the top tier for VCE, as many weaker students would be left behind. Furthermore, if we were to divide classes from years 7-10 into stronger and weaker students, so that the advanced can try for the top tier and the weaker  are not left behind,  are we really going to predetermine what a student can and can't achieve in their student life in grade 6?

Finally, your system fails, because not all students are of 98+ capabilities in all their subjects. So is it fair to guarantee someone a good score in a subject they are weak at because they are strong in several other subjects? We also cannot treat each subject as a specific stream as then students will focus only on their VCE subjects from years 7-10 totally neglecting either the humanities, science or LOTE.

The system may not be perfect. But a year 10 student who hasn't even been in the VCE is hardly qualified to think up a better system when he has not even undertaken the current one.  

[pi]

^^Agree with all of that. Its just not fair and requires too much internal work from schools which will undoubtedly lead to unfairness.  I also don't see many schools pushing for the lowest tier.

[Romperait]

The atar system currently in place sufficiently rewards hard work so I don't have too many issues with it on the whole.

And what exactly is the point of making specific groups for specific atars?

[pi]

The atar system currently in place sufficiently rewards hard work so I don't have too many issues with it on the whole.

+1, I don't see any need for a change (other than people correcting english essays could spend more time on each essay, and reduce the luck factor a little)

[Pixon]

Essentially, I agree with all the arguments against this system. What's interesting is that people are attacking the motive behind the proposed system because it is so terrible. One of VCE's (few) qualities is that it does reward hard work and it's easy to see students around you picking up the work load in year 11 and 12 in order to do well.
However, consider the American GPA system which runs for the last 4 years of high school education. This sort of acts to award general achievement and consistency.

I think that placing such a big emphasis on results at a young age could be restrictive and exhaustive. Kids should be encouraged to explore all facets of life and there are too many problems with the education system (teachers in particular) for this to be conducted alongside a system with the general purposes that you propose. If kids have this pressure to perform well in their schoolwork - especially in core subjects - they may well ignore other activities that will provide non-immediate benefits intellectually/socially/physically.

I've +1 Karma'd this because it's brilliant. I think the American system balances this by not focusing on so many subjects as we do. I think Harvard requires 3 subject exams to be taken, Yale requires 2 and many universities don't require any. This allows students to take up subjects out of interest without having to consider assessments and such too heavily whilst the GPA will keep students from simply ignoring them. In this way, students can explore more areas of life without the pressure.

So in part, I agree with what iNerd's system is trying to achieve, but, ignoring the fact that iNerd has no experience with VCE, it's just not well thought out. It's easy to look at our own system and think we're lucky because our years before VCE didn't count, (I know I'm particularly happy about this), but we can't deny the flaws in our education that is a result of our current system especially compared to the educational standard of America.

That being said, categorizing students for VCE is not the way to approach this issue. I'd also like to point out that James Lu is a perfect example of a person who hated the VCE system and had letters printed in the Age about it after getting 99.95. If you're going to listen to anyone, these are the type people who you should take seriously with the issues, because people who do poorly in VCE are the ones who complain and people just unfairly disregard them because of their score. I think iNerd should just wait to see what VCE is like for himself, then he/she might understand the pressure and such associated with it.

tl;dr: The system is as it is with all it's issues. The proposed system is illogical. Just deal with the current system.

[Romperait]

Essentially, I agree with all the arguments against this system. What's interesting is that people are attacking the motive behind the proposed system because it is so terrible. One of VCE's (few) qualities is that it does reward hard work and it's easy to see students around you picking up the work load in year 11 and 12 in order to do well.
However, consider the American GPA system which runs for the last 4 years of high school education. This sort of acts to award general achievement and consistency.

I think that placing such a big emphasis on results at a young age could be restrictive and exhaustive. Kids should be encouraged to explore all facets of life and there are too many problems with the education system (teachers in particular) for this to be conducted alongside a system with the general purposes that you propose. If kids have this pressure to perform well in their schoolwork - especially in core subjects - they may well ignore other activities that will provide non-immediate benefits intellectually/socially/physically.

I've +1 Karma'd this because it's brilliant. I think the American system balances this by not focusing on so many subjects as we do. I think Harvard requires 3 subject exams to be taken, Yale requires 2 and many universities don't require any. This allows students to take up subjects out of interest without having to consider assessments and such too heavily whilst the GPA will keep students from simply ignoring them. In this way, students can explore more areas of life without the pressure.

So in part, I agree with what iNerd's system is trying to achieve, but, ignoring the fact that iNerd has no experience with VCE, it's just not well thought out. It's easy to look at our own system and think we're lucky because our years before VCE didn't count, (I know I'm particularly happy about this), but we can't deny the flaws in our education that is a result of our current system especially compared to the educational standard of America.

That being said, categorizing students for VCE is not the way to approach this issue. I'd also like to point out that James Lu is a perfect example of a person who hated the VCE system and had letters printed in the Age about it after getting 99.95. If you're going to listen to anyone, these are the type people who you should take seriously with the issues, because people who do poorly in VCE are the ones who complain and people just unfairly disregard them because of their score. I think iNerd should just wait to see what VCE is like for himself, then he/she might understand the pressure and such associated with it.

tl;dr: The system is as it is with all it's issues. The proposed system is illogical. Just deal with the current system.

+1

[iNerd]

@Slumdawg: Very true. Bias is a massive flaw. Conclusion: this system fails

Okay...you guys went a bit overboard...but yes it does fail

...although the system will change, and I will be heavily interested to see what they come up with.