ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => Victorian Education Discussion => Topic started by: kendraaaaa on September 29, 2009, 11:33:02 pm
-
Through this year I've learnt one solid fact, the VCE is extremely biased towards the Maths and Sciences. Have a look around, the vast majority of those who have obtained 95+ have done the 'asian five' or 'curry six' - (Methods, Spesh, Physics, Chem, Acc). Nearly all of these subjects get scaled extremely, yes they are hard however the learning curve for these subjects is quite smaller for those, who are naturally biased to the type of thinking that these subjects require. From observing those at my school, the kids studying the aforementioned subjects *generally* don't perform as well in English. Those A+ marks in Spesh SACs are quite rarely matched in English SACs.
I'll use one subject from the humanities to clearly illustrate my point - History: Revolutions. Last year, a raw 40 scaled down to a 39. I'm doing this subject myself this year, along with Chemistry (as a comparison). To obtain an A in a Revs SAC I had to do the following. Firstly, obtain a basic grasp of what happened, this required 3 months worths of classes in which we were taught the 'basics'. In about a week prior to the actual SAC, I started revising. This included revisiting all the content firstly on a basic level, then on an analytical level, and finally synthesize all the information to be prepared for the SAC. I had to memorize 5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head - which totalled 10 pages in the acutal SAC.
For a recent Chem SAC I also obtained an A. The task was on electrolysis, galvanic cells, and fuel cells. This was taught to us in ~2 weeks. 4 days prior to the SAC I did all the extended-response check point questions releveant to electrolysis. I also did about 10 for each of the other areas of study. The SAC was about 4-5 pages long, and we finished it in a period.
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. For the lead up to the exams, I will (and have) put in about 3x the hours for Revolutions than Chemistry - to obtain (hopefully) A+ on both of the exams. However, the reward for my efforts in History are it being scaled down. In Chem, a 35 gets me a 40. I'm not trying to insult the maths/sciences, what I'm saying is that those subjects compared with the humanities require a totally different approach.
-
haha kendra, Its always been known that the VCE is biased towards people that do the asian 5 or curry 6. Just forget about it, and study hardcore, by the time you get your enter score and get your first preference, this wont even matter anymore.
-
how long does it take for u to memorise "5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head"
coz some people can memorise 50 essays in about a 4 - 5 days.
-
i THINK, just a thought, the reason subjects get scaled isn't purely for moderation and making is cough cough "fair" I think it also has to do with skill shortages (thoguh it never is mentioned anywhere). Like that's why spesh, LOTEs, and the sciences get scaled up hardcore. It's not scaled because its necessarily harder, for you can't compare history with science, or maths with English/languages.
And like kurrymuncher said, dw about it. It's almost over, complain only when you get ur marks :P. LOL. But yeah. That's why they say choose subjects u enjoy and are good at. There are hundreds of people who do what they like, and score betetr than pplz who chose spesh or sciences. Some have gotten in the 90's with just arts/music/humanities
-
how long does it take for u to memorise "5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head"
coz some people can memorise 50 essays in about a 4 - 5 days.
really? i dont know if you're being sarcastic because i really hope so. please show me who can memorize 150,000 words in 4-5 days. the essay i wrote was about 3000 words long. and no i didn't memorize it word for word, but i pretty much came close.
-
how long does it take for u to memorise "5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head"
coz some people can memorise 50 essays in about a 4 - 5 days.
really? i dont know if you're being sarcastic because i really hope so. please show me who can memorize 150,000 words in 4-5 days. the essay i wrote was about 3000 words long. and no i didn't memorize it word for word, but i pretty much came close.
truetears can, since year 7 hes memorised like wat probs 500 essays by now, he memorised around 60 - 70 chinese essays last year for exam.
-
how long does it take for u to memorise "5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head"
coz some people can memorise 50 essays in about a 4 - 5 days.
really? i dont know if you're being sarcastic because i really hope so. please show me who can memorize 150,000 words in 4-5 days. the essay i wrote was about 3000 words long. and no i didn't memorize it word for word, but i pretty much came close.
truetears can, since year 7 hes memorised like wat probs 500 essays by now, he memorised around 60 - 70 chinese essays last year for exam.
faaaaaaaaark me!
-
HOYL SHITT
-
Revs should get scaled up, by far the best and one of the most challenging subjects in the vce course
-
how long does it take for u to memorise "5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head"
coz some people can memorise 50 essays in about a 4 - 5 days.
really? i dont know if you're being sarcastic because i really hope so. please show me who can memorize 150,000 words in 4-5 days. the essay i wrote was about 3000 words long. and no i didn't memorize it word for word, but i pretty much came close.
truetears can, since year 7 hes memorised like wat probs 500 essays by now, he memorised around 60 - 70 chinese essays last year for exam.
Are you really trying to use that as some sort of evidence?
-
When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be about schools/teachers/examiners.
There is no way to make VCE "fair". Someone is always going to complain or have a sook about something.
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
Because then no-one would do Latin or Specialists.
And before you point out that you would do Spec anywayz TT, know that you are an exceptionally brilliant and rare person.
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
Because then no-one would do Latin or Specialists.
And before you point out that you would do Spec anywayz TT, know that you are an exceptionally brilliant and rare person.
hahahaha that's a good point.
but still all this scaling and moderating annoys me lol
-
really? i dont know if you're being sarcastic because i really hope so. please show me who can memorize 150,000 words in 4-5 days. the essay i wrote was about 3000 words long. and no i didn't memorize it word for word, but i pretty much came close.
I memorised a 2000 word essay an hour before the exam (this included about 10 statistics as well). Your short-term memory can be amazing if you are desperate enough :P
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. For the lead up to the exams, I will (and have) put in about 3x the hours for Revolutions than Chemistry - to obtain (hopefully) A+ on both of the exams. However, the reward for my efforts in History are it being scaled down. In Chem, a 35 gets me a 40. I'm not trying to insult the maths/sciences, what I'm saying is that those subjects compared with the humanities require a totally different approach.
A different approach, sure, but not necessarily more difficult nor necessarily deserving of reward.
Remember that scaling takes into account the cohort's performance in that subject as compared to their other subjects. Maths/sciences are scaled up so much more than, for example, Revs because the maths/sciences cohort generally performs worse than the Revs cohort.
I don't think the VCE is magically "biased" towards maths/sciences and against humanities/arts. Examples:
- Further scales down.
- Music (solo and styles) scales up.
- International studies and politics scale up more than biology does.
Btw LOTEs are scaled up so much because the government believes that there are great benefits (I'm guessing in terms of commerce, diplomacy etc.) to more students knowing foreign languages, and therefore it has been incentivised.
Languages Other Than English (LOTEs)
As a result of government policy to encourage the study of LOTEs, the mean of each LOTE is adjusted up by adding five to the ENTER subject score mean. This does not imply that all LOTE students receive an increase of five ENTER points. For each LOTE the scaled mean equals "normal" scaled mean plus five. In general all students of a LOTE receive an adjustment, but it is not a uniform adjustment. For example, a student achieving a perfect study score of 50 is guaranteed an ENTER subject score of 50, with the maximum ENTER subject score only going above 50 when the scaled mean plus twice the scaled standard deviation exceeds 50.
I firmly believe that if you are a humanities person, you can do just as well as a maths/sciences person.
EDIT: I'M SORRY ABOUT THE RANT I'M VERY BORED TONIGHT.
-
really? i dont know if you're being sarcastic because i really hope so. please show me who can memorize 150,000 words in 4-5 days. the essay i wrote was about 3000 words long. and no i didn't memorize it word for word, but i pretty much came close.
I memorised a 2000 word essay an hour before the exam (this included about 10 statistics as well). Your short-term memory can be amazing if you are desperate enough :P
Wow! That's amazing :D I wish I can do that in the english exam
-
Just quietly, three out of four of MacRob's 99.95s last year were Humanities students.
I think it's more a reflection upon the students themselves than on the system. People with a certain drive in, say, English, probably won't strive as hard in six subjects due to the lack of overlap, whereas people who are into Maths are generally somewhat Science orientated and will do Meth+Spesh+Chem+Physics in tandem for great justice.
-
Just quietly, three out of four of MacRob's 99.95s last year were Humanities students.
I think it's more a reflection upon the students themselves than on the system. People with a certain drive in, say, English, probably won't strive as hard in six subjects due to the lack of overlap, whereas people who are into Maths are generally somewhat Science orientated and will do Meth+Spesh+Chem+Physics in tandem for great justice.
I agree.
Languages are an exception as they get bumped up from the modern languages incentive or some shit. But I think many of the people who are saying 'VCE is UNFAIR' clearly do not understand scaling. It has nothing to do with how 'hard' a subject is for it to be scaled.It just so happens that the conceptually 'harder' subjects such as specialist maths are scaled higher because they have smarter (read: better at vce) students doing the subject. IT IS A RANKING GAME.
I will use the analogy of the running race. If you are in a race with extremely fast and well trained runners. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to place in the top 8 out of 100. Compare this to a race with an inconsistent blend of runners - some very under prepared, some runners who simply don't give a FUCK. In this race it is MUCH easier to come in the top 8 out of 100. If we were to award equal points to both runners for there placings in each race (even though the runner who does poorly in the fast race may be as fast as the runner who does well in the slower race) we would be doing the harder race runner an injustice. Thus, we analyze exactly how much harder the first race was (by getting the times for each of the racers and comparing the two race times), and award points according to how much more difficult it was.
THIS, gives you the markup.
It angers me that people seem to think that VCAA sit there twirling their mustaches making it 'unfair' for the 'poor' humanities students. That is nonsense. There are many reasons why maths/science students tend to do better than humanities students - the VCAAs malevolence or inability to create a fair system is not one of them.
-
It angers me that people seem to think that VCAA sit there twirling their mustaches making it 'unfair' for the 'poor' humanities students.
(http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/fyrefly89/moustache0gi.jpg)
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
Because such a score would be very meaningless. Is a score of 30/50 in methods really the same as the score of 30/50 in specialist? I really don't think so.
-
It angers me that people seem to think that VCAA sit there twirling their mustaches making it 'unfair' for the 'poor' humanities students.
(http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/fyrefly89/moustache0gi.jpg)
Thats so awesome! ahahahahhaha!
-
It angers me that people seem to think that VCAA sit there twirling their mustaches making it 'unfair' for the 'poor' humanities students.
(http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/fyrefly89/moustache0gi.jpg)
Thats so awesome! ahahahahhaha!
This is my random mullet-moustache man.
I call him 'Bob, the random mullet-moustache man'.
Thank-you Google, you enrich my life.
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
Because such a score would be very meaningless. Is a score of 30/50 in methods really the same as the score of 30/50 in specialist? I really don't think so.
Well from my perspective scores shouldn't 'mean' anything. In fact, I think the score you get should determine your ranking in that subject, without any moderation or scaling done to the score and also that subject shouldn't be compared with any other subject. Ok, some people might think spesh is harder than methods but some people also think methods is harder than spesh. There shouldn't be this 'scaling' that tries to get each subject on equal terms with each other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the current system, it's just that if changes were to be implemented, those would be my inputs.
-
It angers me that people seem to think that VCAA sit there twirling their mustaches making it 'unfair' for the 'poor' humanities students. That is nonsense. There are many reasons why maths/science students tend to do better than humanities students - the VCAAs malevolence or inability to create a fair system is not one of them.
To be fair, I used to think like that - feeling sorry for myself because I didn't do spesh and was therefore disadvantaged somehow. I think some of it is just irrationality borne out of the stress of approaching exams. Or the very human tendency to blame anyone except ourselves when we don't do as well as we hoped (I was very guilty of that when I got bad SAC marks!)
I did 3 maths/science subjects in VCE and yet my top 4 consisted of English, music, German and business management. Of course I changed my viewpoint after that :P
-
Ok, some people might think spesh is harder than methods but some people also think methods is harder than spesh.
I'd love to meet the person who thinks further is harder than spesh, though :P
-
Ok, some people might think spesh is harder than methods but some people also think methods is harder than spesh.
I'd love to meet the person who thinks further is harder than spesh, though :P
hahahahahah
-
Ok, some people might think spesh is harder than methods but some people also think methods is harder than spesh.
I'd love to meet the person who thinks further is harder than spesh, though :P
hello, nice to meet you :P
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
Because such a score would be very meaningless. Is a score of 30/50 in methods really the same as the score of 30/50 in specialist? I really don't think so.
Well from my perspective scores shouldn't 'mean' anything. In fact, I think the score you get should determine your ranking in that subject, without any moderation or scaling done to the score and also that subject shouldn't be compared with any other subject. Ok, some people might think spesh is harder than methods but some people also think methods is harder than spesh. There shouldn't be this 'scaling' that tries to get each subject on equal terms with each other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the current system, it's just that if changes were to be implemented, those would be my inputs.
Well, I'd have to object to your proposes changes for statistical reasons. For the purposes for calculating an ENTER (or ATAR after 2009) score (which is what scaling is for), you need to ensure that statistically that each population is normalised so that the scores from one subject can be compared, and thus added to another.
-
I've never liked the VCE system with all the scaling and moderation and all that bs.
Why can't we just get the score we get.
Because such a score would be very meaningless. Is a score of 30/50 in methods really the same as the score of 30/50 in specialist? I really don't think so.
Well from my perspective scores shouldn't 'mean' anything. In fact, I think the score you get should determine your ranking in that subject, without any moderation or scaling done to the score and also that subject shouldn't be compared with any other subject. Ok, some people might think spesh is harder than methods but some people also think methods is harder than spesh. There shouldn't be this 'scaling' that tries to get each subject on equal terms with each other.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the current system, it's just that if changes were to be implemented, those would be my inputs.
Well, I'd have to object to your proposes changes for statistical reasons. For the purposes for calculating an ENTER (or ATAR after 2009) score (which is what scaling is for), you need to ensure that statistically that each population is normalised so that the scores from one subject can be compared, and thus added to another.
Ahhhh see and this is where I get lost lol.
-
lol yeah I agree with kurrymuncher that you don't care about VCE anymore once it's done and your at uni. Comparing vce math/science it's pretty similair to the Turing Test and the Chineese room:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#The_Chinese_room
"John Searle's 1980 paper Minds, Brains, and Programs proposed an argument against the Turing Test known as the "Chinese room" thought experiment. Searle argued that software (such as ELIZA) could pass the Turing Test simply by manipulating symbols of which they had no understanding. Without understanding, they could not be described as "thinking" in the same sense people do. Therefore—Searle concludes—the Turing Test cannot prove that a machine[student] can think"
-
Through this year I've learnt one solid fact, the VCE is extremely biased towards the Maths and Sciences. Have a look around, the vast majority of those who have obtained 95+ have done the 'asian five' or 'curry six' - (Methods, Spesh, Physics, Chem, Acc). Nearly all of these subjects get scaled extremely, yes they are hard however the learning curve for these subjects is quite smaller for those, who are naturally biased to the type of thinking that these subjects require. From observing those at my school, the kids studying the aforementioned subjects *generally* don't perform as well in English. Those A+ marks in Spesh SACs are quite rarely matched in English SACs.
You're mixing up your words?
Besides, if a student chose subjects they're good at (i.e., subjects that require logical thought such as mathematics and sciences) and do well in it, what's wrong with that? What you have to remember about how scaling works is that it refers to the level of competition in a unit - a person doing Specialist will receive a lower study score than they would in Further for the exact same level of performance. The scaling process is intended to balance these out to a limited extent. Of course, being a statistical process, it's not perfect but neither is democracy.
Also, it's VTAC that handles scaling, not VCAA.
-
I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.
-
Through this year I've learnt one solid fact, the VCE is extremely biased towards the Maths and Sciences. Have a look around, the vast majority of those who have obtained 95+ have done the 'asian five' or 'curry six' - (Methods, Spesh, Physics, Chem, Acc). Nearly all of these subjects get scaled extremely, yes they are hard however the learning curve for these subjects is quite smaller for those, who are naturally biased to the type of thinking that these subjects require. From observing those at my school, the kids studying the aforementioned subjects *generally* don't perform as well in English. Those A+ marks in Spesh SACs are quite rarely matched in English SACs.
I'll use one subject from the humanities to clearly illustrate my point - History: Revolutions. Last year, a raw 40 scaled down to a 39. I'm doing this subject myself this year, along with Chemistry (as a comparison). To obtain an A in a Revs SAC I had to do the following. Firstly, obtain a basic grasp of what happened, this required 3 months worths of classes in which we were taught the 'basics'. In about a week prior to the actual SAC, I started revising. This included revisiting all the content firstly on a basic level, then on an analytical level, and finally synthesize all the information to be prepared for the SAC. I had to memorize 5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head - which totalled 10 pages in the acutal SAC.
For a recent Chem SAC I also obtained an A. The task was on electrolysis, galvanic cells, and fuel cells. This was taught to us in ~2 weeks. 4 days prior to the SAC I did all the extended-response check point questions releveant to electrolysis. I also did about 10 for each of the other areas of study. The SAC was about 4-5 pages long, and we finished it in a period.
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. For the lead up to the exams, I will (and have) put in about 3x the hours for Revolutions than Chemistry - to obtain (hopefully) A+ on both of the exams. However, the reward for my efforts in History are it being scaled down. In Chem, a 35 gets me a 40. I'm not trying to insult the maths/sciences, what I'm saying is that those subjects compared with the humanities require a totally different approach.
I have no doubt that the humanities subjects are hard. You are right, with the sciences we are at a go go pace. It may take us a short amount of time to go through something classwise but you go through a lot of topics and consolidation time will nearly always outweighs the class pace.
In maths and science I was the A/A+ guy (In my school I came 2nd in physics, 5th in methods, chemistry and Specialist maths), whilst with English I believe I got a study score that was below our average (Our highest score was 47 and I got a 30. English was a real weakness because the process in which you take to learn English was different to that of my other subjects. What I don't like is English scaling down. Everybody has to do it why scale it down?
Our Dux got 99.4 and did no maths or science subjects. But in general to get 95+ you need to be good at both the humanities and sciences. If a student can start VCE with excellent English skills and excellent skills in maths and science, then, getting 95+ is definately achievable.
-
I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.
Technically speaking the Humanities subjects outnumber the Maths/Science ones - within English and History alone you have six, then with half a dozen of others like International Studies, Philosophy, National Politics, etc. The problem is that compared to Maths/Science, these subjects are a lot less cohesive - there's a lot less overlap between Literature and Revs than say with Spesh and Physics, in terms of the actual style of work which you need to apply. Hence, whilst you're not exactly wrong, I think the lack of synergy in Humanities scaling is more an adverse effect of the subjects themselves rather than the number of subjects.
What I don't like is English scaling down. Everybody has to do it why scale it down?
Our Dux got 99.4 and did no maths or science subjects. But in order to get 95+ you need to be good at both.
1. Because believe it or not not EVERYONE does English. A lot of the stronger English students end up doing Literature instead, whilst some of the harder-working maths/Science people go with English Language. Removal of some of the top scorers=lower average=slightly downward scaling.
2. ...???
-
What I don't like is English scaling down. Everybody has to do it why scale it down?
Our Dux got 99.4 and did no maths or science subjects. But in order to get 95+ you need to be good at both.
1. Because believe it or not not EVERYONE does English. A lot of the stronger English students end up doing Literature instead, whilst some of the harder-working maths/Science people go with English Language. Removal of some of the top scorers=lower average=slightly downward scaling.
2. ...???
2. Touché, I modified it. Just realized I made a contradiction!
-
I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.
Technically speaking the Humanities subjects outnumber the Maths/Science ones - within English and History alone you have six, then with half a dozen of others like International Studies, Philosophy, National Politics, etc. The problem is that compared to Maths/Science, these subjects are a lot less cohesive - there's a lot less overlap between Literature and Revs than say with Spesh and Physics, in terms of the actual style of work which you need to apply. Hence, whilst you're not exactly wrong, I think the lack of synergy in Humanities scaling is more an adverse effect of the subjects themselves rather than the number of subjects.
I guess that was more or less my point although I didn't make it clear. What we consider under the umbrella 'humanities' is just subjects that really have no synergy whatsoever. Still uncertain about my point on whether or not they ultimately 'scale each other up' though.
-
you people are stupid. that is all.
wtf
"you people"?
-
I think that the only way it is biased (although there is probably some circular flaw in my logic; I can kind of see it but I can't pin point it) is that there are just so many maths/science subjects, with enough that one can pretty much fill their subject choices with them. Also, people who tend to be good at the maths, also tend to be good at the sciences. As a result, those who choose these subjects together (which I'd say is the majority of people) really cause a synergistic effect with regards to the scaling of these subjects. They're no longer scaling against all the other subjects (humanities etc.) to make scaling work; they're just scaling against each other, since scaling is determined by how those in the cohort of a subject perform in their other subjects. But yes, this is quite possibly wrong as to an explanation but my brain can't make the logic leaps required to work out what's going on at this hour of the morning.
Never thought of it like that. The logic behind it messes with my head though >_>
-
you people are stupid. that is all.
wtf
"you people"?
"What do you mean, 'you people'?"
RDJ was robbed of this year's Oscars, robbed I say. Except not, he should've gotten it for Chaplin.
-
you people are stupid. that is all.
wtf
"you people"?
"What do you mean, 'you people'?"
RDJ was robbed of this year's Oscars, robbed I say. Except not, he should've gotten it for Chaplin.
What? Robbed? Heath Ledger won it because he deserved it!
-
you people are stupid. that is all.
wtf
"you people"?
"What do you mean, 'you people'?"
RDJ was robbed of this year's Oscars, robbed I say. Except not, he should've gotten it for Chaplin.
What? Robbed? Heath Ledger won it because he deserved it!
I wasn't actually be serious. I know he was crazy amazing in The Dark Knight.
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.
Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.
Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage
a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.
Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage
a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"
Yeah, like Psychology, thats a humanities subject isn't it?
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.
Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage
a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"
Technically speaking you could do the combination of English, Literature, Latin, Philosophy, Classics and English Language to get a full series of similarish subjects (all six have some sort of English-style essay component", although I don't think any school offers all six of those subjects in tandem. :p
-
think tis science
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.
Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage
a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"
Yeah, like Psychology, thats a humanities subject isn't it?
It's considered a Science subject in High School and can be both Arts/Science in Uni.
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
However for Maths/Science students, no matter how good they may be at those subjects, thing is they still have to complete an English subject, which a number of them (myself included) are not any good at it. So in the end, it will be harder for them to achieve the top scores no matter how much their other scores scale.
Now think about this, what if English didn't have to be included in the top four. Then maybe the Maths/Sciences will have the upper hand, but until then it's really the humanities students with the advantage
a lotta humanities subjects do not involve "essay writing"
Technically speaking you could do the combination of English, Literature, Latin, Philosophy, Classics and English Language to get a full series of similarish subjects (all six have some sort of English-style essay component", although I don't think any school offers all six of those subjects in tandem. :p
yeah but it all depends what constitutes a humanities subject, at my school accounting and business are bother considered part of the humanities faculty
-
of course they are. Economics @ my school is dubbed humanities. If you think about it in year 7-10, with the subject "Humanities" or Integrated Studies or SOSE, it involves history, geography, civics and citizenship, and economics (thats what the textbook had it in)
-
of course they are. Economics @ my school is dubbed humanities. If you think about it in year 7-10, with the subject "Humanities" or Integrated Studies or SOSE, it involves history, geography, civics and citizenship, and economics (thats what the textbook had it in)
MHS had a dedicated commerce department, so of course they fell under that instead. The definition of humanities is pretty vague really, which is why the whole thing with people saying VCE is biased against humanities doesn't really work. I mean, languages tend to fall under humanities, and languages have a pretty obvious undisguised bias towards them with the +5 scaling made by the government to encourage students to take up languages.
-
of course they are. Economics @ my school is dubbed humanities. If you think about it in year 7-10, with the subject "Humanities" or Integrated Studies or SOSE, it involves history, geography, civics and citizenship, and economics (thats what the textbook had it in)
MHS had a dedicated commerce department, so of course they fell under that instead. The definition of humanities is pretty vague really, which is why the whole thing with people saying VCE is biased against humanities doesn't really work. I mean, languages tend to fall under humanities, and languages have a pretty obvious undisguised bias towards them with the +5 scaling made by the government to encourage students to take up languages.
i dont understand how that lote scaling "+5" works, does that apply to all of them?, from my understanding the 37 i got in my lote last year would be around 36.5 after scaling
-
of course they are. Economics @ my school is dubbed humanities. If you think about it in year 7-10, with the subject "Humanities" or Integrated Studies or SOSE, it involves history, geography, civics and citizenship, and economics (thats what the textbook had it in)
MHS had a dedicated commerce department, so of course they fell under that instead. The definition of humanities is pretty vague really, which is why the whole thing with people saying VCE is biased against humanities doesn't really work. I mean, languages tend to fall under humanities, and languages have a pretty obvious undisguised bias towards them with the +5 scaling made by the government to encourage students to take up languages.
i dont understand how that lote scaling "+5" works, does that apply to all of them?, from my understanding the 37 i got in my lote last year would be around 36.5 after scaling
All LOTE subjects hve the +5 scaling. This does not mean though that you get an extra 5 points though,
-
of course they are. Economics @ my school is dubbed humanities. If you think about it in year 7-10, with the subject "Humanities" or Integrated Studies or SOSE, it involves history, geography, civics and citizenship, and economics (thats what the textbook had it in)
MHS had a dedicated commerce department, so of course they fell under that instead. The definition of humanities is pretty vague really, which is why the whole thing with people saying VCE is biased against humanities doesn't really work. I mean, languages tend to fall under humanities, and languages have a pretty obvious undisguised bias towards them with the +5 scaling made by the government to encourage students to take up languages.
i dont understand how that lote scaling "+5" works, does that apply to all of them?, from my understanding the 37 i got in my lote last year would be around 36.5 after scaling
All LOTE subjects hve the +5 scaling. This does not mean though that you get an extra 5 points though,
yeah i kinda get that, but then what would a 37 in Croatian get you? according to the entercalc it gets scaled down (based on 08 data)
-
all LOTE subjects automatically have an extra 5 points added to the Study Score (raw score). THEN they are scaled to produce the ENTER subject score.
-
what do you mean, some languages like Greek, and arabic goes down TWO
Filipino +1
Persian gets scaled DOWN 2, WTH
I think thats unfair. For one, German goes up from 20 to 28, yet Australia doesn't really have much trade etc with Germany thus not much demand for pplz who speak german, so why does it go up so much?
And if its based on difficulty, not demand for a language, why does arabic go down 2, have you SEEN their alphabet, its one of the hardest languages up their with Jap, and Chinese, especially coz they don't use letters, but characters.
-
It's not to do with how HARD the subject is, but what the STRENGTH of competition is in the cohort. Students doing German must have generally performed better in their other subjects whilst those doing Persian generally performed lower.
-
It's not to do with how HARD the subject is, but what the STRENGTH of competition is in the cohort. Students doing German must have generally performed better in their other subjects whilst those doing Persian generally performed lower.
You'd often find that this is the case where the majority of people taking that particular language are native speakers (or at least speak the language at home).
-
hmm, that's strange. I would have thought it makes more sense to either
*base scaling on the demand for a language (higher scaling=more demand for it due to shortage of speakers in Aus.)
OR
*the difficulty of a language, learning Spanish, Italian, German, is definitely a lot easier than learning Chinese, for those language are from the same roots as well as their sounds are pronounced much the same as reading English.
But then again,if I was doing Persian or some otehr language which isn't widely spoken, I wouldn't want to be scaled down/or not scaled up much because no demand for it, or because its easier than others.
*sigh* so difficult
-
It's not to do with how HARD the subject is, but what the STRENGTH of competition is in the cohort. Students doing German must have generally performed better in their other subjects whilst those doing Persian generally performed lower.
You'd often find that this is the case where the majority of people taking that particular language are native speakers (or at least speak the language at home).
But 99% (don't quote me) of Chinese SL students speak Chinese at home...?
EDIT: Glockmeister did you mean languages where students speak the language at home scale higher or lower?
hmm, that's strange. I would have thought it makes more sense to either
*base scaling on the demand for a language (higher scaling=more demand for it due to shortage of speakers in Aus.)
OR
*the difficulty of a language, learning Spanish, Italian, German, is definitely a lot easier than learning Chinese, for those language are from the same roots as well as their sounds are pronounced much the same as reading English.
But then again,if I was doing Persian or some otehr language which isn't widely spoken, I wouldn't want to be scaled down/or not scaled up much because no demand for it, or because its easier than others.
*sigh* so difficult
Difficulty is subjective. Statistical moderation is more appropriate.
-
It's not to do with how HARD the subject is, but what the STRENGTH of competition is in the cohort. Students doing German must have generally performed better in their other subjects whilst those doing Persian generally performed lower.
You'd often find that this is the case where the majority of people taking that particular language are native speakers (or at least speak the language at home).
But 99% (don't quote me) of Chinese SL students speak Chinese at home...?hmm, that's strange. I would have thought it makes more sense to either
*base scaling on the demand for a language (higher scaling=more demand for it due to shortage of speakers in Aus.)
OR
*the difficulty of a language, learning Spanish, Italian, German, is definitely a lot easier than learning Chinese, for those language are from the same roots as well as their sounds are pronounced much the same as reading English.
But then again,if I was doing Persian or some otehr language which isn't widely spoken, I wouldn't want to be scaled down/or not scaled up much because no demand for it, or because its easier than others.
*sigh* so difficult
Difficulty is subjective. Statistical moderation is more appropriate.
hahahah! I to have heard the rumour that many people who do SL, especially in Chinese speak it at home.
And ur 2nd point, it's a good answer :). As I was explaining my post, I begun to see that it is very subjective.
-
all LOTE subjects automatically have an extra 5 points added to the Study Score (raw score). THEN they are scaled to produce the ENTER subject score.
so thereby my raw score (before the +5) in Croatian would 32?
-
It's not to do with how HARD the subject is, but what the STRENGTH of competition is in the cohort. Students doing German must have generally performed better in their other subjects whilst those doing Persian generally performed lower.
You'd often find that this is the case where the majority of people taking that particular language are native speakers (or at least speak the language at home).
But 99% (don't quote me) of Chinese SL students speak Chinese at home...?
EDIT: Glockmeister did you mean languages where students speak the language at home scale higher or lower?
Language which are filled with people who speak the language at home would tend to have that subject scale down.
-
all LOTE subjects automatically have an extra 5 points added to the Study Score (raw score). THEN they are scaled to produce the ENTER subject score.
so thereby my raw score (before the +5) in Croatian would 32?
yes
-
On the topic of this thread, I would like to point out that while your work for revs is commendable and I'm sure you worked hard - I think it's unfair to insinuate that humanities subjects require more work than maths subjects to get high marks. Firstly, in some subjects (eg. physics, biology) you have to do full prac reports, some done at home (which tend to exceed the 30-40 page mark for many people) and some done at school (which do indeed involve memorization of tons of analysis of results; because most people don't want to risk losing their train of thought in high pressure SAC conditions so they memorize the contents of their report). Spesh maths requires constant hard work and study. Most maths/science students absolutely rip through one trial exam after another after another after another. If they don't, then they don't get that much of a high score. Now I'm not saying that this amount of hard work is in any way greater than the hard work you do for your humanities subjects, but I'm saying that it roughly evens itself out in the end. Also maths/science tends to be more competitive so getting a higher score is that much harder. It is my belief that (ignoring the luck that inevitably plays its part in these things) to get a scaled score of 45-48 in a maths/science subject would take roughly the same amount of effort as it does to get one in a humanities subject.
Although you have to note that from my subjects I a) have a clear bias and b) have no real clue about how humanities works other than Yr 10 and below. But I used to really like history back then (not as much as maths/sci tho) and found that if you're interested in the topic it's an interesting subject to study. And you also have to consider that many top maths/science students really feel a bit bogged down by the constant revision and stuff when what they would really want to do is to move on and learn new and wonderful things. You don't have that sort of restriction in many humanities subjects which affects your mindset towards studying. But again, the evidence for my ideas is meagre (if it exists), so it's just an opinion.
-
But 99% (don't quote me) of Chinese SL students speak Chinese at home...?
EDIT: Glockmeister did you mean languages where students speak the language at home scale higher or lower?
I wouldn't say 99% but I would say a high number. Despite this, you have to remember that for those background students, not all of them speak Mandarin (which is what you learn in VCE) at home. You have to take into account of all those speaking other dialects as well. For example, for those who studied or studying Chinese Second Language, how many people did you know who spoke Cantonese at home?
-
It is my belief that (ignoring the luck that inevitably plays its part in these things) to get a scaled score of 45-48 in a maths/science subject would take roughly the same amount of effort as it does to get one in a humanities subject.
Agreed, it was like that for me.
-
It is my belief that (ignoring the luck that inevitably plays its part in these things) to get a scaled score of 45-48 in a maths/science subject would take roughly the same amount of effort as it does to get one in a humanities subject.
Agreed, it was like that for me.
It took me considerably less effort to get a 50 in BM (1 and a half trial exams) than it did to get a 41 in spesh (probably 20 exam 1+2 sets or so).
-
shinny: you just memorised your notes? (BM)
-
It took me considerably less effort to get a 50 in BM (1 and a half trial exams) than it did to get a 41 in spesh (probably 20 exam 1+2 sets or so).
I dunno, I think that's a common experience of many people who did business management, possibly because it is such a rote-memorise-and-regurgitate subject. I got 48 without having done any trial exams, yet only got 46 in methods after doing maybe around 40.
-
I think VCE makes it much harder for students with high academic aspirations to undertake arts subjects. Music, for example, has an exceptionally talented cohort, but only scales slightly because of the relatively average scholastic skills of the students.
-
I think VCE makes it much harder for students with high academic aspirations to undertake arts subjects. Music, for example, has an exceptionally talented cohort, but only scales slightly because of the relatively average scholastic skills of the students.
that's weird. Because its a known fact that those who are good at music, are also good at maths, and languages, and even like media/art etc, because its that part of their mind they excercise.
-
I mean it in the sense that the arts courses are exceptionally competitive, and this competition isn't reflected in the scaling.
-
I think VCE makes it much harder for students with high academic aspirations to undertake arts subjects. Music, for example, has an exceptionally talented cohort, but only scales slightly because of the relatively average scholastic skills of the students.
that's weird. Because its a known fact that those who are good at music, are also good at maths, and languages, and even like media/art etc, because its that part of their mind they excercise.
Except because musical talent requires so much time investment, they lose time in studying other subjects and bomb a little. Or something. -shrug-
Regardless, the most musically talented people I've encountered aren't necessarily the smartest ones, or even close.
Ninwa isn't allowed to reply to that.
-
I mean it in the sense that the arts courses are exceptionally competitive, and this competition isn't reflected in the scaling.
scaling is not meant to adjust for competition within a subject
-
I personally disagree with the topic creator. I think the VCE is biased towards the humanities subjects.
If a person is really good at English, they would be really good at other subjects that require essay writing. Hence as a result their raw study scores will be higher meaning it will be easier for them to get the top scores.
Says who?
A turd can not be polished with good essay writing skills.
-
Ninwa isn't allowed to reply to that.
... but
:(
-
A turd can not be polished with good essay writing skills.
but you can roll it in glitter :)
btw this post has nothing to do with the thread, I've just always wanted to be able to use this comeback to the 'can't polish a turd' statement
-
Through this year I've learnt one solid fact, the VCE is extremely biased towards the Maths and Sciences. Have a look around, the vast majority of those who have obtained 95+ have done the 'asian five' or 'curry six' - (Methods, Spesh, Physics, Chem, Acc). Nearly all of these subjects get scaled extremely, yes they are hard however the learning curve for these subjects is quite smaller for those, who are naturally biased to the type of thinking that these subjects require. From observing those at my school, the kids studying the aforementioned subjects *generally* don't perform as well in English. Those A+ marks in Spesh SACs are quite rarely matched in English SACs.
I'll use one subject from the humanities to clearly illustrate my point - History: Revolutions. Last year, a raw 40 scaled down to a 39. I'm doing this subject myself this year, along with Chemistry (as a comparison). To obtain an A in a Revs SAC I had to do the following. Firstly, obtain a basic grasp of what happened, this required 3 months worths of classes in which we were taught the 'basics'. In about a week prior to the actual SAC, I started revising. This included revisiting all the content firstly on a basic level, then on an analytical level, and finally synthesize all the information to be prepared for the SAC. I had to memorize 5 quotes, 6 four-numbered statistics, and have my essay in my head - which totalled 10 pages in the acutal SAC.
For a recent Chem SAC I also obtained an A. The task was on electrolysis, galvanic cells, and fuel cells. This was taught to us in ~2 weeks. 4 days prior to the SAC I did all the extended-response check point questions releveant to electrolysis. I also did about 10 for each of the other areas of study. The SAC was about 4-5 pages long, and we finished it in a period.
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. For the lead up to the exams, I will (and have) put in about 3x the hours for Revolutions than Chemistry - to obtain (hopefully) A+ on both of the exams. However, the reward for my efforts in History are it being scaled down. In Chem, a 35 gets me a 40. I'm not trying to insult the maths/sciences, what I'm saying is that those subjects compared with the humanities require a totally different approach.
Um just a thought... maybe you're just not very good at History Revs and thus you need to spend more time on it to consolidate the information, compared to chemistry. Just like some people who find math/sciences super easy and can ace an exam by just understanding fundamental concepts, there are individuals who are talented in the humanities and do well without much effort (those who can remember information and consolidate concepts without needing to revise/memorise large chunks). Everyone just learns differently and has strengths in different areas. Maybe your strengths lie in chemistry!
Also, I don't think the point of any subject is just hardcore memorising - it's to apply learnt concepts to unfamiliar situations. Yes, it may seem that History Revs has more memorising than math/science subjects (dates, facts, events), but not committing to memory entire essays!
Whatever it is, I don't think it is reasonable to expect that the same amount of effort would yield the same result for different subjects. That's just not how people work. Plus all that other stuff that people have mentioned about scaling and how it works - you're being scaled relative to the strength of the cohort, not the apparent (subjective) difficulty of a subject.
Don't get too caught up in VCE and ENTER and scaling. Just enjoy learning something which interests you, and everything else will fall into place.
-
A turd can not be polished with good essay writing skills.
but you can roll it in glitter :)
btw this post has nothing to do with the thread, I've just always wanted to be able to use this comeback to the 'can't polish a turd' statement
It's still gonna smell pretty bad.
Don't get too caught up in VCE and ENTER and scaling. Just enjoy learning something which interests you, and everything else will fall into place.
Perhaps the best advice yet.
I feel like I've had a very easy Year 12, as I enjoyed the content of each of my subjects in amongst the bedlam that you'd expect from overstressed students (that's not to say I didn't do any work, there was certainly plenty of it!). In fact, for IP&M, I really enjoyed the subject matter and my marks reflect that - even though subject scaled down significantly, it was most definitely up there in my Primary 4.
And, I'm studying my course of first preference.
-
I mean it in the sense that the arts courses are exceptionally competitive, and this competition isn't reflected in the scaling.
scaling is not meant to adjust for competition within a subject
Scaling adjusts scores so that they're in accordance with the cohort's academic performance. But lots of students opt not to study courses like music because the cohort's incredibly strong, and hence they're likely to score a lower mark without the compensation of scaling.
-
I think there may be confusion here between scaling and moderation? Or maybe it's just me that's confused.
-
I think there may be confusion here between scaling and moderation? Or maybe it's just me that's confused.
Nope, it's just you :P........only kidding. I'm not sure if there's a difference?
Moderation is the process of eliminating or lessening extremes. (hence your English SACS are checked by more than 1 teacher)
for the STUDY SCORE however, I think SCALING is used.
For example, in Economics in 2007 the average VCE Study Score was 30, but the students averaged 32 for all their studies. This shows that the students who did Economics in 2007 were of above average strength in their other studies. Therefore the scaling process adjusted the Study Scores upwards so that the
VTAC adjusts the Study Scores for each study to take account of how strong the students were in the study and
how difficult it was to achieve the middle ranking. The strength of competition in each study is measured by how well the students performed in all their studies.
But that's weird, you know how it says, it scales according to how you did in your other subjects? But how come in eco, and other subjects, they ALWAYS tend to be scaled up, there must be SOME years when people who did eco did bad in other subjects? But we always understand the sciences, and eco, etc to be scaled UPWARDS. I am missing a point here :S
-
My understanding of scaling is that they add/minus to your marks to get a the bell-shaped curve.
-
I think there may be confusion here between scaling and moderation? Or maybe it's just me that's confused.
Nope, it's just you :P........only kidding. I'm not sure if there's a difference?
Moderation is the process of eliminating or lessening extremes. (hence your English SACS are checked by more than 1 teacher)
for the STUDY SCORE however, I think SCALING is used.
For example, in Economics in 2007 the average VCE Study Score was 30, but the students averaged 32 for all their studies. This shows that the students who did Economics in 2007 were of above average strength in their other studies. Therefore the scaling process adjusted the Study Scores upwards so that the
VTAC adjusts the Study Scores for each study to take account of how strong the students were in the study and
how difficult it was to achieve the middle ranking. The strength of competition in each study is measured by how well the students performed in all their studies.
But that's weird, you know how it says, it scales according to how you did in your other subjects? But how come in eco, and other subjects, they ALWAYS tend to be scaled up, there must be SOME years when people who did eco did bad in other subjects? But we always understand the sciences, and eco, etc to be scaled UPWARDS. I am missing a point here :S
The way I see it is that moderation is the adjustment of our SAC marks that goes on that is dependent on the strength and competitiveness of the cohort we're in. So then comments about people in school with strong science cohorts traditionally going ahead and taking science subjects to take advantage of moderation make sense.
Scaling is the adjustment of the study score at the end which is what this discussion is about. Again, some people may take science subjects for the scaling...but that could actually lower the scaling...as more people who may not be able to cope with the demands of say spesh take it because "it'll scale up anyway" and then the overall strength of the spesh cohort reduces and hence reduced scaling
-
VCAA should just make every vce subjects of equal difficulty (with a few minor exceptions, like further maths vs specialist maths), then there's no much need of scaling and therefore makes things more fair.
-
Is that even possible...?
-
VCAA should just make every vce subjects of equal difficulty (with a few minor exceptions, like further maths vs specialist maths), then there's no much need of scaling and therefore makes things more fair.
The point of scaling is that making all the subjects fair is obviously impossible. They all require different skills and have different subject matter to begin with.
-
Let's just abolish the VCE....
As much as we all complain, myself included, we have to admit, the way they all work it out, moderate, scale, bell curve-it etc is pretty clever, and really it is a fair system. In the USA, they don't have exams for every subject like we do, they undertake i think it was 7 GAT like tests to qualify for Uni, and you can't practise for it. (this is from a previous trhead I posted regarding equivalent of VCE o/s)
So we should be grateful! LOL, why do I doubt myself as i say this =(
-
As much as people like to complain, the VCE system is one of the better ones. You actually get to choose what you want to study from a wide range of subjects. Imagine being in a system where you are forced into choosing a numeracy or a humanity stream, or like in the USA where you have to know a bit about everything.
And from a mathematical perspective, the more I look at it, the less fault I can find. It is actually quite fair for a system this complex, and in my opinion, gives students a much better level playing field than forcing people to do what they don't like.
-
VCAA should just make every vce subjects of equal difficulty (with a few minor exceptions, like further maths vs specialist maths), then there's no much need of scaling and therefore makes things more fair.
That's like comparing apples and oranges. You can't really say objectively that apples are better than oranges.
-
VCAA should just make every vce subjects of equal difficulty (with a few minor exceptions, like further maths vs specialist maths), then there's no much need of scaling and therefore makes things more fair.
That's like comparing apples and oranges. You can't really say objectively that apples are better than oranges.
Oranges are better than apples because they taste better.
-
VCAA should just make every vce subjects of equal difficulty (with a few minor exceptions, like further maths vs specialist maths), then there's no much need of scaling and therefore makes things more fair.
That's like comparing apples and oranges. You can't really say objectively that apples are better than oranges.
Oranges are better than apples because they taste better.
But I think apples taste better than oranges.
The Food is biased! :P
-
how about they don't scale subjects down but only scale the 'harder' ones up :) then everyone should be happy ^.^
-
how about they don't scale subjects down but only scale the 'harder' ones up :) then everyone should be happy ^.^
wah spesh scaling compared to Further would be crazy then
-
how about they don't scale subjects down but only scale the 'harder' ones up :) then everyone should be happy ^.^
wah spesh scaling compared to Further would be crazy then
how about we forget about further then? :)
-
how about they don't scale subjects down but only scale the 'harder' ones up :) then everyone should be happy ^.^
Then the harder ones will just scale even higher to compensate :S
-
You guys need to look up what the point of scaling actually is
-
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
-
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
-
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
VCAL FTW
-
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
-
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
-
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
jeśli rozumie matematyki specjalisty, i będzie zmuszony zamknąć i siedzieć w domu
如果你的意思是数学专家，我将被迫退出并坐在家中
Se si intende matematica specialista, sarei costretto ad uscire e stare a casa
AT VCE notes, we welcome different
-
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
-
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
VCAL FTW
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
they should make both english and maths mandatory now that would be interesting !
If you meant spesh I would be forced to quit VCE and do VCAL.
Pussays
-
This is NOT a discussion of whether some subjects are more difficult for certain people or not.
Further off-topic will attract a lock.
Anyhow,
There's no need for mandatory mathematics, there's no point putting an arts student through trigonometry if they are never going to use it. On the other hand, people who will need the skills (such as in bachelor of science and other scientific and commerce disciplines) have to complete it as part of prerequisites.
-
i wasnt talking about spesh but any mathematics would be ok they shud jsut make it compulsory. (further etc.)
-
I think that all students should complete at least a basic maths, but I don't think it should be counted in the primary 4.
-
i dont think an english should be counted in the primary 4
-
I think that all students should complete at least a basic maths, but I don't think it should be counted in the primary 4.
doesn't that defeat the purpose of the vce system, to mainly have the freedom to pick and choose subjects (excluding english, of course)? year 10 level maths is suffice if you don't plan on using maths in the future, so i don't think students should be forced to choose one if they don't want to.
-
i dont think an english should be counted in the primary 4
Haha, would love that, but it'd be such a big advantage for math/science students.
-
I think that all students should complete at least a basic maths, but I don't think it should be counted in the primary 4.
doesn't that defeat the purpose of the vce system, to mainly have the freedom to pick and choose subjects (excluding english, of course)? year 10 level maths is suffice if you don't plan on using maths in the future, so i don't think students should be forced to choose one if they don't want to.
Hmm, I don't think that the consumer side of year 10 maths really suffices, but perhaps that's just what we studied (I think we may have skipped a few chapters...). Personally, I think that all individuals have to be able to manage their own finances, and I think that it's important that there's a component of the course that covers the basic skills for this.
Edit- I just realised that we go to the same school, but perhaps your teacher didn't skip the chapters that ours did. Anyway, I'm still not sure if the year 10 course covers enough mathematics for students to be able to act as wise consumers.
-
i dont think an english should be counted in the primary 4
Haha, would love that, but it'd be such a big advantage for math/science students.
yeah exactly :D but also whats the point in counting it in the primary 4? they shouldnt... maybe just leave it as compulsory
-
i dont think an english should be counted in the primary 4
I sometimes think that as well, BUT, we do live in an ENGLISH country, and already as it is we have so many unskilled, illiterate ADULTS and CHILDREN, it really needs to act as a "punishment", to make people not forget of the importance of English. Why should people who are good at all their other subjects, but can't anaylse a simple article r text, be able to get 99.95? I don't thnk they should, English is a requirement, and a necessity for Australias prosperity in the world.
-
Nova's got a point. Imagine the pwning potential of immigrants from stereotypically intelligent countries such as China, Russia, etc. coming here and doing Methods, Spesh, etc. Those subjects would be at a year 8 level for them (wild guess I have no clue, but you get my point). They'd ace those subjects, which require very very very basic english.
-
Not many people also realise that there's more to the English subjects than merely the skill of writing. They're one of the few subjects that actually require you to think and make up your own ideas and opinions as opposed to simply regurgitating what you've rote learned, or to what concepts you've learnt and apply. It involves a much less 'mechanical' way of thought I'd say. When you compare the ideas of those who get 40+ and those who get below, there's definitely a contrast.
-
Why should english be a definite top 4 subject, just keep forcing all students to take at least one english subject and as long as uni's still keep english prerequisites, surely that would be enough to prevent any massive decline in the states english standard? This also has the added benefit of doubling my ENTER
-
Why should english be a definite top 4 subject, just keep forcing all students to take at least one english subject and as long as uni's still keep english prerequisites, surely that would be enough to prevent any massive decline in the states english standard? This also has the added benefit of doubling my ENTER
omg ily
and it would double mine too!
-
Hmm, communication is essential in any profession, whether that be medicine, scientific academia, retail or a trade. I think that English should still be kept in the primary 4 - high competencies with language translate (in the majority of instances) into greater success.
-
it should still be compulsory... just not in the top 4
-
english must be a priority! anyone saying otherwise has obviously not considered the wider implications of allowing a system that belittles english as just another subject. I don't want a super nerd sitting behind a desk telling me to take medication without knowing a single word he has said.
I concur. I think english is very important and the system is fair as it is.
-
Although I suck at English, I do think it would be better for English to be part of the top 4.
-
I don't think it's fair that english is the only compulsory subject. You either have both [english and a maths/sci subject] or neither.
It's someone's responsibility to make sure they have good enough english skills for whatever they want to do. If a science student can't write a 500 word abstract, or do a presentation, more fool them [unless their intelligence is so polarised that they're an absolute genius at systematizing but can't write for toffee.]
-
English is actually one of my stronger subjects, but whenever I think about the exam I want to dig a very large and very deep hole and hide there forever and ever. I hate how subjective it can be and how my marks fluctuate every year depending on my teacher and I never really know if I'm actually good at it or not.
English should definitely be in the Top 4 but more schools should offer other options like Literature and English Language. My school only offers mainstream English and I would so rather do Englang because at least Englang won't give me an anxiety attack every time I think about it.
-
it should still be compulsory... just not in the top 4
we covered the implications of this already. If it was compulsory but not in the top 4, people wouldn't give a heck about it, not try very hard, and still reap the awards of a high ENTER without basic skills in LANGUAGE used across the world aka English.
-
English is actually one of my stronger subjects, but whenever I think about the exam I want to dig a very large and very deep hole and hide there forever and ever. I hate how subjective it can be and how my marks fluctuate every year depending on my teacher and I never really know if I'm actually good at it or not.
English should definitely be in the Top 4 but more schools should offer other options like Literature and English Language. My school only offers mainstream English and I would so rather do Englang because at least Englang won't give me an anxiety attack every time I think about it.
And also don't forget, we have ESL!!!! You would not believe how much fair the system is because of it. It really makes a tremendous difference to migrants arriving here, and better still it doesn't advantage ESL students over mainstream, but still allows them to demonstrate the skills/knolwedge needed.
-
it should still be compulsory... just not in the top 4
we covered the implications of this already. If it was compulsory but not in the top 4, people wouldn't give a heck about it, not try very hard, and still reap the awards of a high ENTER without basic skills in LANGUAGE used across the world aka English.
Then just put English pre-reqs suited to the course at hand. However, I still agree with requiring English in the top 4 anyway, for the reason that I stated a bit back about it being one of the few actual 'non-mechanical' thinking subjects. By forcing people to do it, you're avoiding people relying extensively on either rote learning skills, or maths skills etc.
-
In addition to what shinny said, and in contrast to what ryley believes, removing english from you top 4 will actually do very little to your ENTER. People forget that their ENTER is actually a rank. There are plenty of other students out there who get 45+ in their math/science subjects- and as a result- your rank, when compared to them, will change very little. The system is fair as is.
-
it should still be compulsory... just not in the top 4
we covered the implications of this already. If it was compulsory but not in the top 4, people wouldn't give a heck about it, not try very hard, and still reap the awards of a high ENTER without basic skills in LANGUAGE used across the world aka English.
Then just put English pre-reqs suited to the course at hand. However, I still agree with requiring English in the top 4 anyway, for the reason that I stated a bit back about it being one of the few actual 'non-mechanical' thinking subjects. By forcing people to do it, you're avoiding people relying extensively on either rote learning skills, or maths skills etc.
....i had that after thought regarding that xD.
-
If english wasn't a certain top 4 subject, I still don't think people would neglect it completely as it still a requirement for so many uni courses, so that would act as the predominant motivator to study instead of knowing it has to be in the top 4. If students were seen to be neglecting english, uni's could always just raise their minimum english prerequisites. I can't believe how many people say to me "Oh, english has to be in the top 4, otherwise people will bludge, get a 30 and not be able to speak conversational english or write enough to fill a birthday card", which is just bullshit.
@hard, Can you really say the system would treat english as just another subject if its top 4 status was revoked, surely through it being compulsory and a nearly universal uni requirement it still has enough importance to avoid being treated as another subject. And as for the super nerd behind the desk, surely he would still understand himself, but him lacking the communication skills required to express himself effectively is not something that can be attributed to a poor performnce in VCE english.
I completely understand why english is compulsory, but I still have no idea why it has to be in the top 4.
@doboman, Yes, I do understand how the ranking process works, and I know there is no way changing things would double my enter (I would still get dominated by the SUPER maths-science-illiterate students), I was exaggerating, but thanks anyway for pointing out the change would not be so great.
-
get a 30 and not be able to speak conversational english or write enough to fill a birthday card", which is just bullshit.
Hey I got a 30 in english and I can write enough to fill a birthday card.
Something that really depressed me in VCE was that I put a lot of time into chemistry and my scaled 41.79 contributed 4.17 points to my aggregate (It would have made barely any difference if I got a 25 raw in chemistry or the equivalence 2.9 added to my aggregate).
-
The stupidest thing about a 25 or 30 in English as a prerequisite is that study scores are always relative. You can have a super smart cohort and there will always be a percentage that below these study scores. It is unfair.
-
I recall this post by [former member] Brendan:
"I'm studying law and you would think that the skills you learn in VCE English would be useful, but think again. The stuff that you need, they don't teach you, and the stuff that they do teach, you don't really need. I think one of the most important English skills needed in a career in law (and probably just about any other profession) is a good grounding in grammar. Yet, the kind of teaching i received in grammar through my whole 13 years in schooling have been inadequate or non-existent. Another thing, that VCE English claims to teach students is "critical thinking skills". Yet, I think VCE English fails in that goal as well. Take for example, "language analysis". What good is being able to pick out persuasive techniques and their intended effect, if you can't assess their logical validity? If you look at "appeal to history" or "appeal to tradition", you would probably be taught examples of it being used, and its intended effect, but I doubt very much that you would have been taught that in many cases it is used in a logically fallacious manner - i.e. it is logically invalid."
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,28.75.html
it should still be compulsory... just not in the top 4
we covered the implications of this already. If it was compulsory but not in the top 4, people wouldn't give a heck about it, not try very hard, and still reap the awards of a high ENTER without basic skills in LANGUAGE used across the world aka English.
It could then be made compulsory to attain a particular percentage score, irrespective of SS.
But I'd only advocate that for the sort of [hypothetical] generalist subject described here by Coblin [from the same thread as Brendan's post].
"a broad subject which is a package of English, basic logical principles extracted from economics, and rudimentary mathematical skills."