Selective schools debate (2 Viewers)

[dasfas]

Here's my response to this.

[1]True

[2] Not really. No one who wants to get a high atar really plays in high school. Especially in year 11 and 12 where most students drop sports(including me). So really doesn't matter the school but any student who wants to get a high atar will end up dropping sports and forget about 'play' time as such.

[3] I missed sports as well in year 11 and 12. Completely dropped and so did everyone serious about getting a high atar and this is in a non selective school.

[4]I don't really get this.

[5] I was always studying as well. It's year 11 and 12, just 2 years of sacrifice doesn't matter if the selective system existed or not.

[6] Everything remains fair. A good student does well no matter where they are. You can't just be a failing student, go to a selective school and then expect the cohort will scale your marks up. That's not how scaling works.

[2] doing well academically and doing sport aren't mutually exclusive, for example, my friends got 99.95 and all did sport all through y12 as well as additional extra curricular activities

 

[Trebla]

Agree. You can either have a life or be good/great at a thing. No pain, no gain.

[6] Actually, no. Lol. They literally take the mean of the people at your school for that subject then distribute marks according to how close your rank is to the mean rank (lack of better terminology). This is with the exception of the bottom rank and the top rank which get un-moderated marks. So basically if you're at James Ruse just screwing around at 80, but the mean is at 94, your internal mark would actually be carried upwards by like 2-5 marks. Sydney Morning Herald's HSC paper or smth, gave a few examples of how moderation of internal marks actually works.

Conversely, if you are unluckily rank 2 at a rank 300 school and the mean is substantially lower than your deserved internal mark(external mark rank 2), then your internal mark would actually go down by like 1-3 marks.

Are you assuming an 80 in Ruse (with a mean of 94) is equivalent to a rank 2nd in rank 300 school? There is a lot of missing information you need to make that kind of conclusion, such as what the distribution of marks are across the cohort in the external exam for both schools.

If the person ranked 2nd in a rank 300 school gets 80 external and their cohort’s mean is 70 then he/she obviously won’t benefit from the moderating as much compared to say if they got 90 instead.

The whole point of the moderating system is to put all schools on a common scale (based on performance in external exam) so one school is not overly advantaged/disadvantaged over another. It’s obviously not perfect since it is a mathematical model but the whole notion of a ‘scaling advantage’ by going to a selective school is a myth.

Also be aware that there are students who get ATARs well below 80 in selective schools and not everyone there is super studious.

 

[Drongoski]

I get annoyed when I read things like "Asian education systems are notorious for their rote learning . . .".

1) 1st Asia is a huge continent. Although Indians strangely enough are not considered Asians here, of course they all are. Afghans are very different from Burmese, who in turn are different from the Tamils, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Bhutanese and the Uzbeks. Their educational systems are not all the same.

2) You cannot generalise about Asia. The standards of education in Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Korea, Japan and China are not the same. You can see this from their performance in the PISA assessments.

3) I notice there is a tendency in Australia and similar Anglo countries to dismiss and to sneer at so-called rote learning. I strongly believe there is an important place for rote learning. Certain things are best learnt by rote. Certain things are meant to be learnt by reasoning. How do you remember the names of the elements, if not by rote? Can you figure them out by logical deduction?

4) So, are we saying, say, that the Chinese learn mostly by rote. So by rote, the participating regions of Shanghai, Beijing, Jiangsu, Zhejiang ..., all somehow topped the world in all the 3 categories examined?

 

[Drdusk]

[2] doing well academically and doing sport aren't mutually exclusive, for example, my friends got 99.95 and all did sport all through y12 as well as additional extra curricular activities

Agreed but in general people end up dropping sports. I know a lot of people from a lot of different schools who got high atars yet I don't know a single one who kept doing sports in year 12.

 

[idkkdi]

Yeah the school would affect it, but in a majority of cases I'd wager that the impact is minimal. There are still people in ruse who get 70 atar. Unless you're naturally gifted, you can't just slack off and expect 80.

Your school hsc mark depends on the spread of the marks. If you're ranked second, your hsc school mark would depend on the difference between you and first place. If the gap between you and first place is huge, then you'll get a lower mark, which seems fair to me.

You're severely overestimating the impact of your school cohort on your final mark. The system isn't perfect, but it's reasonably fair, and probably the best solution short of full scale state wide standardized testing.

1-5 marks variation on your internal mark based on cohort performance doesn't seem like overestimation to me lol. Also, I highly doubt that there's actually anyone in Ruse getting in the 70s for their ATAR. Can you please give an example? In fact, I doubt there's more than three on any given year in the 80s range.

 

[Drdusk]

I highly doubt that there's actually anyone in Ruse getting in the 70s for their ATAR. Can you please give an example? In fact, I doubt there's more than three on any given year in the 80s range.

Of course hardly anyone gets that low but there will be at least one or two people with an Atar in the 70's. In other top selective schools there are usually a few people with atars in the 70s as said in their published reports so Ruse probably has like one or two..

 

[Trebla]

Not Ruse, but here is the ATAR distribution for Sydney Boys

http://www.sydneyboyshigh.com/publications/document-library/doc_view/7845-atar-breakdown-2001-2018

Out of 207 students in 2018, 52 (roughly 25%) got ATARs below 90 and 25 (roughly 12%) got ATARs in the 70s or less.

So basically, if you’re in bottom 25% of Sydney Boys good luck getting an ATAR above 90 lol...

Also, ever wondered why Ruse usually boasts about their median ATAR and not their mean?

 

[idkkdi]

Not Ruse, but here is the ATAR distribution for Sydney Boys

http://www.sydneyboyshigh.com/publications/document-library/doc_view/7845-atar-breakdown-2001-2018

Out of 207 students in 2018, 52 (roughly 25%) got ATARs below 90 and 25 (roughly 12%) got ATARs in the 70s or less.

So basically, if you’re in bottom 25% of Sydney Boys good luck getting an ATAR above 90 lol...

Also, ever wondered why Ruse usually boasts about their median ATAR and not their mean?

Keep in mind that Sydney boys has imports.

 

[idkkdi]

There's no official articles dedicated to people getting 70 in ruse, nor will there be any Facebook posts by those who get 70 bragging about their mark. All I have to rely on is word of mouth, as well as experience as a teacher who has taught many ruse students. In my year, I knew a reasonable proportion of the ruse grade, many of whom have told me that there are people who get 70, and a fair few that get 80. This was corroborated by other students from the year below mine. All in all, ruse students aren't immortal godlike figureheads who are guaranteed 90+, and just like any other selective school, there will be those who did well in y6 but then became dropkicks afterwards. Going to ruse doesn't guarantee you a good mark. If you bludge and don't study, you'll lie several standard deviations below the mean, and you'll get a crap mark. In a lower ranked school, you might only be 2 standards below the mean. At ruse, because the mean is so high, you might end up being 4 standards below the mean, so it all works out in the end.

High school students tend to view ruse students as godlike infallible immortals. They're not. They're normal people who can get bad grades but not caring. Once you sit the hsc and meet ruse alumni, you'll see that it's not at all unlikely for ruse kids to get low atars.

Nvm. Rechecked ATAR reports. There are outliers lol.

 

[idkkdi]

Oh what's atar reports? I'm interested, can u link me?

Friends have access to paperback annual book thingies given by the school. Can’t link.

 

[Trebla]

Keep in mind that Sydney boys has imports.

Not sure what you mean by that?

Either way, it’s hardly relevant because they’re counted in the cohort regardless and will influence the moderating of internal marks. That table is evidence that just because you’re in a top tier selective school doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to get a high ATAR. It’s your own abilities that count.

 

[Drdusk]

The original comparison was with Singapore, so when I say "Asian", I mean developed east Asian countries: Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan. I'll also include China in the mix.

I absolutely believe it's acceptable to generalize the above countries in this case, in the same way that I can generalize that most western education systems have less emphasis on passing exams and promote a higher emphasis on critical thinking. While it may be a stereotype, stereotypes are usually true to some extent, which is why they exist in the first place. It is true that the above countries do not have uniform education systems, and they are all different. However, they do follow a similar philosophy of passing exams above all else, and usually via a rote-learning mentality. FYI I'm from one of those countries, and I have an abundance of friends who have studied high school in those countries who can vouch for that. Likewise, my parents and relatives have all said similar things about the education system where they grew up - things like teachers only accepting one mathematical approach to a problem was wide spread, and is still wide spread to this day despite proposed educational reforms. Also, if I google Asian rote learning, there's an abundance of news articles about it, which goes to show that it's not simply a myth that can be brushed aside.

Learning names of elements, events in history, etc, doesn't qualify as rote learning. We all need to accept the basics before we can move onto my advanced things. The math example I gave above would be rote learning - just learning one method to do things and following that approach like a script. Another example was given to me a few weeks ago when I met up with some doctor friends of mine. They were at some medical competition, and the Chinese team was asked this question involving some organ, which my friends said they didn't quite understand. Unable to directly answer the question, they supposedly quoted 2-3 entire paragraphs, word for word, about the functionalities of the organ, but did not answer the question. My friends (as well as the judges) were amazed at how they were able to just regurgitate this information.

I never said rote learning prevents high marks. It works, but the downside is that it leaves little room critical thinking which is even more important. HK and SG also rank very highly on the PISA charts, but I have stacks of friends who have studied in HK and SG who can attest to their rote learning culture there. In fact, if you google those 2 countries, there's a lot of articles that seem to indicate those 2 countries are notorious when it comes to rote learning. The PISA scores that most of their population has a very good numerical ability and literacy. It doesn't have anything to do with how they learnt the material. It's significantly more likely that it's due to the cultural and societal importance of education in Asia when compared with the west. If you ask any of your Asian friend's parents, I'm almost certain a large majority of them will say that there's a much higher emphasis on education in Asia than in Australia. The entire PISA list can even be dominated by east Asia, but it doesn't change the fact that they have a much more rote-learning-oriented philosophy than the west.

This is what I've always thought but I have a question that I've always wanted to ask.

So everyone always says that Asian countries focus on rote learning and I do agree but then how does China most of the time end up topping the International Olympiads? Like the Olympiads are everything but rote learning so if anything doesn't it show the opposite?

 

[Trebla]

This is what I've always thought but I have a question that I've always wanted to ask.

So everyone always says that Asian countries focus on rote learning and I do agree but then how does China most of the time end up topping the International Olympiads? Like the Olympiads are everything but rote learning so if anything doesn't it show the opposite?

The performance of a handful of people in an Olympiad is not necessarily representative of the population’s average.

 

[Drdusk]

Keep in mind that it's a generalisation, so it's not universal. The top students in every country are likely to be very smart who don't learn via the conventional way. China has a huge population, which would make sense that they have a very high chance of finding someone super smart. It's like saying Australian students drop all extracirricular activities for their HSC. That's mostly true, but the top few Aussies who do make it onto Harvard, MIT, etc, obviously wouldn't fit this generalisation.

Also, you still train for the olympiad, so its possible to rote learn your way through. However, I wouldn't assume that the top Chinese students are rote learners.

The performance of a handful of people in an Olympiad is not necessarily representative of the population’s average.

True this is what I thought too but it would be good to see how much the average Asian student actually rote learns. I mean for something like Maths how do you even rote learn anyway? You just do problem after problem and I would say this probably does build creativity. All the worlds creative geniuses in Maths and Physics started at a very early age and just kept on doing problem after problem to answer their curiosity. Isn't that in essence what they do in Asian countries?

I just have a hard time seeing how one would rote learn for something like Math or Physics etc..

 

[sida1049]

Learning names of elements, events in history, etc, doesn't qualify as rote learning. We all need to accept the basics before we can move onto my advanced things.

When done so in order to pass an exam, is this not rote-learning? I can no longer recall even the most basic of concepts from chemistry... I vaguely remember a man by the name of Avagardro (is that how you spell his name?), something about his constant, something something number of molecules...?

I guess rote-learning is necessary - mathematicians don't recall how to solve elementary integrals all the time (and a brilliant lecturer I've once had did a fraction over fraction in class, and mentioned he always get those wrong).

That said, I strongly prefer the education system here, not because it's necessarily less rote-learny (I rote-learned the shit out of my HSC), but simply because it's more relaxed.

Perhaps rote-learning isn't such a bad thing after all, especially in China; in order to get accepted into grad school, you have to regurgitate propaganda onto a compulsory ideology exam, so rote-learning here is a way of mechanically detaching yourself from the propaganda while needing to look like you get it.

And in the same way for me, it was a method of mechanically detaching myself from stuff I don't care about to excel.

 

[Aerath]

True this is what I thought too but it would be good to see how much the average Asian student actually rote learns. I mean for something like Maths how do you even rote learn anyway? You just do problem after problem and I would say this probably does build creativity. All the worlds creative geniuses in Maths and Physics started at a very early age and just kept on doing problem after problem to answer their curiosity. Isn't that in essence what they do in Asian countries?

I just have a hard time seeing how one would rote learn for something like Math or Physics etc..

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that certain people are predisposed towards doing well in the HSC, whereas the more "creative" maths that people undertake in university and for example, Olympiads, benefits those that are more predisposed towards "pure" mathematics.

For example, I did really well with respect to maths and physics during high school - largely due to the rote nature of the subjects. But when it came to Olympiads and university maths (which I didn't even undertake - went straight from 4 Maths (as it were known then - showing my age), Phys, Chem, to doing Arts/Law in uni), I would've been a mess.

Finally, I'm sure it's covered above but I'm of the strong belief that the debate about selective schools stems down to racial attributes. People just try to colour it (pardon the pun) by mentioning things like "well-rounded" candidates (ie code). Just my 2c.

 

[Accurate]

I'll give in my 2 cents as I've seen both sides of the spectrum.

In 2015 I sat my selective test and all went well, I made it in but I didn't go, the school was 2 hours away and I just decided to go to my local school, I thought going to a decently ranked school wasn't so important and it really didn't matter, nobody really told me it was going to affect my HSC and I was in Year 6 so I wasn't thinking ahead of time anyways.

Fast forward to now I'm now in a selective school (Transferred in Year 11) after 4 years of pain in a really badly ranked school I can finally compare it now. Sure it takes 1hr 50 mins to get there and I waste so much time on travel, but I'm never going back. Lets talk about my previous school, before 2007 this school never even got a rank, it was that bad and generally gets 1-10 Band 6's a year. Let me begin by saying that if you're in a selective environment you are like 100x better off than a kid that's in a local public school environment (that also wants to succeed), there's obviously a few exceptions, some public schools are okay like Cherrybrook and Carlingford and you can definitely succeed in them, but the majority fall within the 300-400+ ranks. Now I can't speak for every public high school because I reckon my one was really bad, it even came on the news for a fight conducted every year. Here are some of the reasons why a selective school can be so much more advantageous.

1. More motivated students.
2. Way better people in general, your bag won't be attempted to be stolen and your other belongings.
3. More resources in coaching centres, you're automatically placed in better classes because of your school.
4. No fights, people don't act like animals and most people aren't weird at all, compared to the previous school that is.
5. You don't have to make friends with people into "Eshay" culture bullshit or people that are just going to be associated with crime later on in life. People literally carried knives in their bags at school and attempted to steal money off people.
6. You become like the people around you. If you're in a selective environment you work more harder because the people around you do. If you're in a really bad school, (Unless you are very stubborn) in some way you will become like them too.
7. You have to take initiative and study on your own, you can't simply ask the kid next to you what he's up to and try to race up to what's he has completed.
8. You don't have to act solo and alone. To do well in my previous school you're going to literally have to be solo if you want to do well in the HSC, it means that you shouldn't be talking to anyone or chatting at recess or lunch because of heavy distraction of non-study related conversations and activies. Instead you should be using every spare time to study and using every bit of your time to do well, in the end you don't have the same resources as a kid in a selective or good ranking school so you will need to use more time in study to get equivalent results. This means studying ahead of the syllabus by a year to keep a safety net.

Initially when I was in my local school I hated it so much, but since I've moved I hate it even more even though I'm not even there anymore, I've realised how good it is outside of there. These are some of the points I can come up with, there's obviously so much more that I can't think of right now as i've written this briefly . Note that i compared this with my previous school and it does look a bit exaggerated but I assure you it is not. Maybe not all public schools are like this and it was just my previous school.

 

[_rakelt]

Ppl shitting on selective schools for performing well is utter bullsht. The HSC school ranking says it all. Priv schools cant relate, or can but the $$ is excessive. All the karens can keep hating. Even speaking as an ex-student from a private catholic school

 

[pikachu975]

Ppl shitting on selective schools for performing well is utter bullsht. The HSC school ranking says it all. Priv schools cant relate, or can but the $$ is excessive. All the karens can keep hating. Even speaking as an ex-student from a private catholic school

Yeah tbh private schools do cost a lot and I'm not even sure if it's worth it but I definitely don't regret going to my school over a selective one (didn't do the selective test so idk) because the teachers were good. From what I've heard, selective school teachers aren't like the best but people often learn from tutoring most of the time since lots of them have tutors. Not sure how true this is since I didn't go to a selective school and obvs there's outliers but yea... people hating on selective schools for doing well is pretty dumb - they all work hard and a competitive environment enhances that !

1. More motivated students.

Agree with this one heavily tbh. I went to a catholic/private school ranked around the 50s and there was still a bunch of motivated students which was good, but yea it definitely impacts you.

 

[_rakelt]

Yeah tbh private schools do cost a lot and I'm not even sure if it's worth it but I definitely don't regret going to my school over a selective one (didn't do the selective test so idk) because the teachers were good. From what I've heard, selective school teachers aren't like the best but people often learn from tutoring most of the time since lots of them have tutors. Not sure how true this is since I didn't go to a selective school and obvs there's outliers but yea... people hating on selective schools for doing well is pretty dumb - they all work hard and a competitive environment enhances that !



Agree with this one heavily tbh. I went to a catholic/private school ranked around the 50s and there was still a bunch of motivated students which was good, but yea it definitely impacts you.

Yeah I totally agree with you;; I don't have any regrets going to a catholic school (ranked like 150??), but i feel like if you were to weigh out the "better" than selective will always remain top tier. but again, yeah you can achieve any atar no matter what ur ranking/school is.

ALSO, spending ur time at 5 am in the morning on boredofstudies??? haha go to sleep