Arts and HSC results (1 Viewer)

[Mutant Kitty]

I forgot to mention, I was doing extension 1 English as well as planning on doing extension 2, but I just knew that it wouldn't have been worth my time due to her teaching it.
And before someone calls me hypocritical for benefiting off of easing artistic extension subjects, I'm doing law so it isn't like I was padding to do medicine or anything lol.

 

[historia]

I think its more a problem of universities not being more stringent in requiring students to take specific courses related to the discipline they want to study in uni. However, whilst I do understand that its far from an ideal metric for engineering, I still think that the current system is fairer for a wider spectrum of students than it would be if entrance was based on something like the SATS.

To my mind, intelligence is too ambiguous a concept to accurately measure with any generalised type of test. Plus, I think this type of system would only serve to exacerbate the already prevalent issue of people seeing school as something they need to be 'coached' for rather than for the simple (yet important) purpose of getting an education. In excelling at these 'creative/ artsy' subjects, the student who got high marks in art and music displays talent, and more importantly, work ethic and creativity. Even if they're somewhat talented, there wouldn't be too many people that could get 95 in VA and music without putting in significant effort to those subjects. And whilst of course the science/ maths student could be very well be hardworking/ intelligent/ talented also, it would be totally unfair to diminish the achievements of the person taking creative type subjects because they used their intelligence in a different way.

This is obviously just personal opinion, but if I had to define how 'intelligent' someone was i'd see a person's ability to think creatively as a hugely significant aspect. Whilst i'm not trying to deny the benefits of being able to think logically/ analytically, often the people who we see (in any field) as being the most successful are those who can bring a creative/ fresh approach to the problems of their discipline. And it's for this reason that I think people's performance in creative type subjects should be valued no matter what course/ career they are looking at, and thus we shouldn't change the current system. If anything, I think that the current system should be adjusted to recognise the achievements of people in these type of subjects more.

As long as the VA/ Music person took the recommended maths/ physics courses for engineering, I can't see why their their type 'intelligence' is less relevant to their course than the other person. Also, (which is probably something I regret in my own subject choices) I think it's important to encourage people to be as diverse as possible with their HSC courses, which I think a standardised test would discourage. Just my two cents

 

[D94]

I don't see any issue here.

I don't think it's accurate to describe someone who did well in VA and Music as not intelligent.

She must have done above average in the Maths and Physics in order to obtain a decently high ATAR. Doing well in 2 subjects doesn't determine your ATAR.

Your other friend did average in Chem and MX1, so if you were to compare the two, it seems like your first friend is indeed better in what you call the "logic" department.

 

[phoenix1]

I think its more a problem of universities not being more stringent in requiring students to take specific courses related to the discipline they want to study in uni. However, whilst I do understand that its far from an ideal metric for engineering, I still think that the current system is fairer for a wider spectrum of students than it would be if entrance was based on something like the SATS.

To my mind, intelligence is too ambiguous a concept to accurately measure with any generalised type of test. Plus, I think this type of system would only serve to exacerbate the already prevalent issue of people seeing school as something they need to be 'coached' for rather than for the simple (yet important) purpose of getting an education. In excelling at these 'creative/ artsy' subjects, the student who got high marks in art and music displays talent, and more importantly, work ethic and creativity. Even if they're somewhat talented, there wouldn't be too many people that could get 95 in VA and music without putting in significant effort to those subjects. And whilst of course the science/ maths student could be very well be hardworking/ intelligent/ talented also, it would be totally unfair to diminish the achievements of the person taking creative type subjects because they used their intelligence in a different way.

This is obviously just personal opinion, but if I had to define how 'intelligent' someone was i'd see a person's ability to think creatively as a hugely significant aspect. Whilst i'm not trying to deny the benefits of being able to think logically/ analytically, often the people who we see (in any field) as being the most successful are those who can bring a creative/ fresh approach to the problems of their discipline. And it's for this reason that I think people's performance in creative type subjects should be valued no matter what course/ career they are looking at, and thus we shouldn't change the current system. If anything, I think that the current system should be adjusted to recognise the achievements of people in these type of subjects more.

As long as the VA/ Music person took the recommended maths/ physics courses for engineering, I can't see why their their type 'intelligence' is less relevant to their course than the other person. Also, (which is probably something I regret in my own subject choices) I think it's important to encourage people to be as diverse as possible with their HSC courses, which I think a standardised test would discourage. Just my two cents

It doesn't hurt to be good in both science and arts. If she also excelled in maths and physics, as well as music and art, then she's probably an all rounder. Then by all means go for it.

Whereas if this friend just did well in music and art:95 and get below 90 in maths and physics, then I think she will have an extremely hard time in engineering and she might as well do something else instead.

I also do not undermine creative and artistic people. Not everyone can paint well, or even dance well. But if you're that talented in the creative arts, you might as well utilize your talent and succeed in that field. Instead of being an engineer who struggles in maths and science which is truly a joke.

If you're good in arts, do arts subjects, if you're good in science, do science subjects. Why do something that you don't even have an aptitude for? That's such a waste of time and your life.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Absolutezero]

It doesn't hurt to be good in both science and arts. If she also excelled in maths and physics, as well as music and art, then she's probably an all rounder. Then by all means go for it.

Whereas if this friend just did well in music and art:95 and get below 90 in maths and physics, then I think she will have an extremely hard time in engineering and she might as well do something else instead.

I also do not undermine creative and artistic people. Not everyone can paint well, or even dance well. But if you're that talented in the creative arts, you might as well utilize your talent and succeed in that field. Instead of being an engineer who struggles in maths and science which is truly a joke.

If you're good in arts, do arts subjects, if you're good in science, do science subjects. Why do something that you don't even have an aptitude for? That's such a waste of time and your life.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Heaps of people do heaps of things they're terrible at, because they enjoy doing it, or think it's worth doing.

Also, HSC levels subjects aren't really a good measure of aptitude. Of anything.

Also also, given the ATAR that was achieved, even if the Math-style subjects were lower, the mark is by no means bad.

 

[hjed]

It doesn't hurt to be good in both science and arts. If she also excelled in maths and physics, as well as music and art, then she's probably an all rounder. Then by all means go for it.

Whereas if this friend just did well in music and art:95 and get below 90 in maths and physics, then I think she will have an extremely hard time in engineering and she might as well do something else instead.

I also do not undermine creative and artistic people. Not everyone can paint well, or even dance well. But if you're that talented in the creative arts, you might as well utilize your talent and succeed in that field. Instead of being an engineer who struggles in maths and science which is truly a joke.

If you're good in arts, do arts subjects, if you're good in science, do science subjects. Why do something that you don't even have an aptitude for? That's such a waste of time and your life.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Considering that even if you do all maths/sciences you don't need to get band sixs to get a 91+ ATAR for engineering I think you are being a little small minded there. (I know someone who got 94 with no band 6s and all science/maths subjects)
Performance in the HSC depends more on the amount of work you do than your intelligence, intelligence only makes it easier to do the work. To get band 6 in any subject OR a 90+ ATAR you need have a good work ethic and organisational skills and that is far more important.
So long as they don't fail the 'assumed knowledge' subjects, there is no reason for them not to get in.