Enwiabe's glorious solution to the English problem.

[Collin Li]

yeah it shud be up to the university to decide whether how they calculate the enter, in relation to what course and stuff. for example, for engineering degrees, they might place less weight on english and more weight on math and physics, and you would have an "engineering" ENTER

this sounds good, and it actually fulfills the purpose of enters = uni selection

Yeah, that's what I meant. I wasn't against aggregating totally, I was against a "standard national aggregate." I think universities should realise that they can get better students by creating their own aggregates. We wouldn't necessarily need to destroy the ENTER, we could just have universities making smarter decisions: using their own selection process, and hence the ENTER would begin to become obsolete. You'd have your 99, but it might not mean much if you got 35 in Specialist Maths and 45 in English versus someone with 45 in Specialist Maths and 35 in English for the "engineering ENTER".

I think, right now, universities must use ENTER as the mainstream selection process if they want designate CSP places. However, I think the government should let universities decide where their CSP places goto (and it would be in their best interests to let them goto people who the universities think are the smartest, to encourage competition, and hence quality).

[brendan]

however i do not know of any evidence that suggests that my proposal would correlate any better than the current ENTER .

[melanie.dee]

i think it will. as proven from another thread, lots of people choose their songs based on enter maximisaton.. 'asian 5' and all that. subjects that scale well. la la la

whereas i think that that kind of system will draw people into choosing things that matter for their course. and then theres no need for scaling scores etc. because ultiamtely you dont WANT to judge them against the whole population.. thats completely pointless because not everyone is aiming for the same outcomes and areas. you want to see where people stand in certain areas. and the study score does that. it distributes people according to their achievement in that subject area. so you could even stick to the score out of 50 system and not do the A - UG grading if you wanted.

i think thats so much better. you get people doing the subjects they want to do later in life. and then you get a ranking of those people in those subjects. which will be better in letting you rank students for their suitability towards that degree.

wow that makes no sense, im in the middle of doing smething else ill clarify after

eta; ahaha choose their SONGS. clearly someones watching aus idol :oops: oh the shame. anyway i meant subjects

[brendan]

that matter for their course. and then theres no need for scaling scores etc. ]

no my proposal would not eliminate the need for scaling. scaling is still necessary, and will be necessary.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336868248.html

VCE results are scaled because individual study scores are not an absolute measurement of overall performance. On behalf of tertiary institutions, VTAC combines study scores to form an aggregate (total) which is then converted into a rank called the ENTER.

Before study scores can be fairly added together they have to be compared and adjusted. This is because students take very different combinations of VCE studies, and VTAC can only legitimately add study scores together if the strength of competition in each study is about the same.

For example, it is unfair to assume that first place in the Melbourne Cup and Kyneton Cup represent equal achievements. Scaling overcomes this difficulty and ensures that each study contributes equally to the ENTER (for example, an ENTER subject score of 25 in English is equivalent to an ENTER subject score of 25 in psychology or 25 in chemistry).

There has always been a scaling process in Victoria and other Australian states. Before the VCE it was hidden in HSC scores and did not receive much attention.

Now the process is transparent. In this way, you are not only able to see your performance within each study, but also how you rank for tertiary selection compared with other students.

[enwiabe]

Major flaw with this. What happens if you decide to do maths subjects, and then want to go do arts? Or what happens if you don't WANT to choose to do a certain career path now and do a mix of Maths, Science, History and English etc.

Then you can't have different aggregates because you've got a range of subjects and so the whole idea falls down. Then you get people disadvantaged for not choosing to do a subject because they wanted to keep their options open. I'm of the belief that year 11 and 12 SHOULD be a general education. I know that I want to do maths and physics, but most people don't know what they want. Making them choose is highly unfair. So yes, a general ENTER is required to achieve parity.

[melanie.dee]

that matter for their course. and then theres no need for scaling scores etc. ]

no my proposal would not eliminate the need for scaling. scaling is still necessary, and will be necessary.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336868248.html

VCE results are scaled because individual study scores are not an absolute measurement of overall performance. On behalf of tertiary institutions, VTAC combines study scores to form an aggregate (total) which is then converted into a rank called the ENTER.

Before study scores can be fairly added together they have to be compared and adjusted. This is because students take very different combinations of VCE studies, and VTAC can only legitimately add study scores together if the strength of competition in each study is about the same.

For example, it is unfair to assume that first place in the Melbourne Cup and Kyneton Cup represent equal achievements. Scaling overcomes this difficulty and ensures that each study contributes equally to the ENTER (for example, an ENTER subject score of 25 in English is equivalent to an ENTER subject score of 25 in psychology or 25 in chemistry).

There has always been a scaling process in Victoria and other Australian states. Before the VCE it was hidden in HSC scores and did not receive much attention.

Now the process is transparent. In this way, you are not only able to see your performance within each study, but also how you rank for tertiary selection compared with other students.

yeh but im talking about my proposal. studies are scaled so they can be compared, exactly. but my proposal DOESNT compare them. there is no aggregrate, no overall enter. just performance in a certain area compared to the performance of others in that area.

and enwiabe yeh i agree about the what if people change their mind. i also think vce should be about a general education, not specialisation. but thats why i said 5 subjects. allow you to still maintain a wide range of subjects. and im not suggesting we have massively specific course requirements. just like say for arts a B in english and another humanities type subject.

if you do put them together though, and then go onto say B average accross other subjects, then yeh you would need some kind of scaling because, thats then comparing different subjects against each other.

so perhaps yes.

but im not sure. there are problems with the current scaling system anyway. theres no way a 50 in further is equivalent to a 50 in methods etc or a 50 in multimedia equal to a 50 in chem

[brendan]

Major flaw with this. What happens if you decide to do maths subjects, and then want to go do arts? Or what happens if you don't WANT to choose to do a certain career path now and do a mix of Maths, Science, History and English etc.

It is only logical that Engineering faculties would care more about physics and maths scores of a VCE student than stuff like History. The test of any selection tool is how does it correlate with a students actual performance at university. The better it correlates with performance at university, the better the selection tool.

We also have separate the idea of getting an ENTER and getting your VCE.

[rhcpfox1]

I'd just like to thank Enwiabe for changing the title of this thread.
Earlier in the day it was "Final Solution" which I thought was an unfortunate title given your Jewish heritage.

I mean no disrespect, but I thought it was odd and glad to see you picked up on it

Now back on topic.

Even though the current system is flawed I think no matter what system you implement there are always going to be people who will benefit and people who will feel hard done by. Those who come from non-english speaking backgrounds or are just bad at English are disadvantaged but I think English is a necessary Top 4 Subject, perhaps altering the English syllabus to 'level out the playing field' would be a good direction to take.

Don't ask me how it would be done, as Im sure anything I could come up with would be more flawed than the current system in place.

[Pencil]

I'd just like to thank Enwiabe for changing the title of this thread.
Earlier in the day it was "Final Solution" which I thought was an unfortunate title given your Jewish heritage.

I mean no disrespect, but I thought it was odd and glad to see you picked up on it

Ha I think it was deliberate

[kido_1]

Make English count as a subject with study scores out of 25 instead of 50.

Make the primary 4 aggregate out of 175. 3 subjects out of 50 and English counting for 25.

In fact, English should still be out of 50, but when counting towards your aggregate it only counts for 50%. That way, people who suck at English can still do well. A 35 in English now becomes 17.5 out of 25 and so you only lose 7.5 aggregate points, as opposed to 15. And this difference can be more easily made up with subjects that you are good at.

Thoughts, suggestions, comments?

lol

Not a bad system (especially for people who are noob at english).

However its pretty biased.

[enwiabe]

I'd just like to thank Enwiabe for changing the title of this thread.
Earlier in the day it was "Final Solution" which I thought was an unfortunate title given your Jewish heritage.

I mean no disrespect, but I thought it was odd and glad to see you picked up on it

Now back on topic.

Even though the current system is flawed I think no matter what system you implement there are always going to be people who will benefit and people who will feel hard done by. Those who come from non-english speaking backgrounds or are just bad at English are disadvantaged but I think English is a necessary Top 4 Subject, perhaps altering the English syllabus to 'level out the playing field' would be a good direction to take.

Don't ask me how it would be done, as Im sure anything I could come up with would be more flawed than the current system in place.

Someone on my moderating team edited it. The title you saw before was a poor joke made at my expense, and when I find out who did it, somebody is getting fired.

[millstone]

i don't think the system should be changed at all JUST to suit people who might not be great at english
i personally am not great at english but i can deal with the fact that it will be in my top 4

[Galelleo]

i don't think the system should be changed at all JUST to suit people who might not be great at english
i personally am not great at english but i can deal with the fact that it will be in my top 4

You dont want the highest possible enter you deserve?

[millstone]

i don't think the system should be changed at all JUST to suit people who might not be great at english
i personally am not great at english but i can deal with the fact that it will be in my top 4

You dont want the highest possible enter you deserve?

if you're not good at english do you REALLY deserve to have the system changed just for you?

[brendan]

You dont want the highest possible enter you deserve?

This is not about what any individual "deserves". This is about the reliability and accuracy of selection methods used by Universities. The better the selection method correlates with actual performance at university, the more reliable and accurate it is. It is of no relevance what an individual students subjectively feels he 'deserves'.

The only reason I can see for removing the requirement of VCE English in the primary 4 of the ENTER is that it may improve the ENTER's correlation with actual performance at university for degrees such as Engineering or Science. In any case I do not know of any evidence available that confirms this. Note that this has nothing to do with the VCAA requirement that all students must undertake at least one subject in the English group in year 11 and 12. That is a separate issue in itself. Furthermore I can think of 3 ways in which the VCE English may be treated by the ENTER:
(1) As it is now, with the requirement being that it must be in the top 4.
(2) It must be in the top 6.
(3) Treated like any other subject.

I think that the reason why the current regime is (1) is that Universities must believe that English skills are important in all unviersity degrees, and that to remove its requirement in the top 4 may allow students into courses in which they are suited, or another candidate is more suited. However, as before i suggested that this requirement (being applied across the board to all degrees) may not be appropriate for Engineering and Science degrees. In such cases arragement (2) or (3) further combined with a greater weighting of mathematics and natural science subjects may result in a more reliable and accurate selection method.