Can someone please give me an honest opinon? (1 Viewer)

[Anonymou5]

And you wouldn't have any idea how delightful strawberries dipped in chocolate tastes unless you've tried it.

That's true. I think that it would be reasonable to suggest that for most people, the quality of a uni is based on the 'whole' experience. This includes the quality of teaching, level of interaction between teaching staff and students and extra curricular acitivities but more importantly, the learning atmosphere.

Aesthetics aside, the learning atmosphere will be affected by the students around you, you'd be foolish to ignore this fact. How can you reasonably say that a cohort (we're talking about a large group here) with lower UAIs is on par with one which has significantly higher UAIs, in terms of motivation to study? I think that's one the main reasons people are using the whole UAI argument, it's that people with low UAIs tend to be lazy. In uni where no one's pushing you to study if you're surrounding by slackers it's not going to be as beneficial to you compared to being surrounded by people who are motivated. That's one of the main reasons why the 'stuck up' unis are viewed as being better than UWS, on the basis of UAI.

Before someone uses the untrue 'but people can become motivated once they get to uni and are doing something they like' line; I'm sure you all know someone who failed year 12 science, but went on to do science in uni achieving HDs in every subject, received the university medal and wrote an award winning paper for their PhD. But that's an exception and to be honest, most people will not change once they get to uni, seeing as you are not pushed at all to do any work.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

Aesthetics aside, the learning atmosphere will be affected by the students around you, you'd be foolish to ignore this fact. How can you reasonably say that a cohort (we're talking about a large group here) with lower UAIs is on par with one which has significantly higher UAIs, in terms of motivation to study? I think that's one the main reasons people are using the whole UAI argument, it's that people with low UAIs tend to be lazy. In uni where no one's pushing you to study if you're surrounding by slackers it's not going to be as beneficial to you compared to being surrounded by people who are motivated. That's one of the main reasons why the 'stuck up' unis are viewed as being better than UWS, on the basis of UAI.

Fair argument. If you require a competitive learning atmosphere, then UWS may not be for you. In fact, I have found that most students tend to assist each other.

However, this has not hindered me, and I feel as though I am an extremely competitive person. If you set personal goals (GPA, for example) the success, failure or dedication of those around you becomes irrelevant. Moreover, I don't see myself as competing only with UWS students. Instead, I am in competition with all law students.

 

[Jacks]

One thing you need to be aware of, and it may have been covered already but there's a lot to read through in this thread is that many of the lecturers and tutors at UWS also teach at other unis. I've said it before, but the majority of my tutors in fact teach at UWS, Macquarie and Sydney uni throughout the one semester. They may be employed on a more casual basis, but the concept is still the same....you are receiving the same "teaching" given at many other unis.

A debate such as this could really go on and on depending on which side you are on, and there are probably valid arguments from both sides. The lower UAI at UWS is certainly a factor, but that in itself leads to discussions about how much weight one places on a UAI in the first place, and the extent to which it really determines a person's ability to excel in a certain degree. The long and the short of it is that there will probably be good and bad lecturers and good and bad students at every uni. It's just a decision you have to make for yourself, but definitely don't let "status" and "reputation" put you off UWS.

 

[Anonymou5]

You make some valid points but you're going too far by implying that people with UAIs in the 60s are generally not lazy when it comes to study. Considering that a large proportion of people taking the HSC are not even looking to get into uni, a UAI in the 60s generally indicates laziness.

The word "marks" is misleading because in the HSC you never get your raw marks. The scores you receive are merely indicative of your relative position among other students taking the subjects which you're studying. In any case, if you've looked at the exams for various HSC subjects, you'd realise that only someone who hasn't studied much would miss out on subject scores exceeding 70; there are lots of freebie marks.

As for your point about grad jobs, that's all fine and good but employers look at extracurricular aspects of applicants. So your implication that your situation indicates that lower UAI students are generally committed to their studies is plain wrong. I mean, it's a well known fact that people with crappy scores can secure grad jobs so your point is irrelevant.

 

[Anonymou5]

Oh but haven't you said many times that the UAI has nothing to do with intelligence/smartness? So shouldn't it follow that the only reason that someone would achieve a low UAI is because they're lazy? (Yes there are people who are held back by circumstances out of their control but again, I'm talking about the majority.)

Besides, it really seems like you're nitpicking. You've been through the HSC, so I would've thought you would know that it is not exactly difficult to achieve marks in the 60s. I mean, you don't need to be a genius or study 24/7 to get those sorts of marks.

 

[Anonymou5]

You're ignoring the fact that for most people the UAI they obtain is indicative of how much work they've put in. Again, considering that there is a large proportion of people undertaking the HSC who don't even plan on going to uni and that people who dropped out prior to the HSC are included in the calculation of the UAI, a UAI of 60 is in actual fact nearer to the bottom end than the top. At that level, the only people who obtain such scores are those who don't put in the effort.

You're saying that some people work damn hard and still get UAIs in the 60s. That's only true for very few people and you're still ignoring that fact; you're assuming (incorrectly) that a huge number of people have learning disabilities when that is not true at all. The truth is, because UAIs are inflated (in the sense that people who aren't even doing the HSC are included in the calculation of the UAI), it is not difficult for the vast majority of people to get UAIs of over 60 if they put in the time and effort to study. But how many people who get 60s "work damn hard?" Not many.

You also say that everyone is different but again, you're ignoring the fact that the HSC is geared towards hard workers. The majority of those who put in the hours will not achieve a UAI in the 60s. We're not talking about height or weight here. In the HSC the UAI is proportional to the effort that you put in and this is unequivocally true due to the very nature fo the HSC. The HSC promotes practice, rote learning and application. All of these skills are developed through putting in time and effort into studying. So no, this is not a case of 'everyone being different', it's a matter of whether or not you put in the work.

 

[melodic_gal]

UWS is not shit it is alright I just don't like the course I am doing thats all that i don't like. la de da da da

 

[hYperTrOphY]

There are numerous factors which contribute to one's UAI, but I'd suggest the most influential is effort.

Does this mean UWS students are less hard-working? Probably. However, as most of my posts on this topic have suggested, the possible flaws of UWS as an institution or as a cohort of students are superseded by you, the individual.

 

[AsyLum]

You're ignoring the fact that for most people the UAI they obtain is indicative of how much work they've put in. Again, considering that there is a large proportion of people undertaking the HSC who don't even plan on going to uni and that people who dropped out prior to the HSC are included in the calculation of the UAI, a UAI of 60 is in actual fact nearer to the bottom end than the top. At that level, the only people who obtain such scores are those who don't put in the effort.

You're saying that some people work damn hard and still get UAIs in the 60s. That's only true for very few people and you're still ignoring that fact; you're assuming (incorrectly) that a huge number of people have learning disabilities when that is not true at all. The truth is, because UAIs are inflated (in the sense that people who aren't even doing the HSC are included in the calculation of the UAI), it is not difficult for the vast majority of people to get UAIs of over 60 if they put in the time and effort to study. But how many people who get 60s "work damn hard?" Not many.

You also say that everyone is different but again, you're ignoring the fact that the HSC is geared towards hard workers. The majority of those who put in the hours will not achieve a UAI in the 60s. We're not talking about height or weight here. In the HSC the UAI is proportional to the effort that you put in and this is unequivocally true due to the very nature fo the HSC. The HSC promotes practice, rote learning and application. All of these skills are developed through putting in time and effort into studying. So no, this is not a case of 'everyone being different', it's a matter of whether or not you put in the work.

Logic is flawed on so many levels.

Hard worker A vs. Spoon Fed B. Hard worker may attain a fairly high score, but at the same time Spoon Fed B will get as high, if not higher one due to 'reputation' and being cotton-balled. To say someone who got 60 didn't put in the effort is both silly and pretentious. The learning structure, resources, circumstances all factor into it, as well as the overall goal, perhaps there is already a planned apprenticeship or otherwise afterwards. While it is easy to generalise, to say the UAI is a good indication of 'effort' is absolute bollocks and is the same buillshit perpetuated which spawns these type of threads.

Example of logic failing: Boy at my old high school would study his ass off, carry books everywhere, teachers pet. Gained <60 for his UAI.

The UAI is nothing more than a rank which is given based on a set of exams which are taught/structured over a year. It is a measure used to control student entry into the quota-based systems set in universities. Nothing more, nothing less.

The structure of uni is so much more different in that there isn't that faction of rich-school spoon feeding, everyone is made to do things on their own. This may facilitate a complete turn-around for someone who was bored with the structure of high school, who enjoys subjects, and enjoys being out of the highly biased and prejudiced world of high school cliques and factionism.

Now get your head out of your ass, I can show you several people who would disprove your theory of 'low score = lazy dumb fuck" theory in a blink of an eye, and has little to or no correlation on university results. If anything those who get a relatively lower score are the harder workers as they are woken up to the reality of the situation and work harder through various different schemes to gain entry into uni, while those spoon-fed crash and burn, hard and fast.

I can only assume, by bringing back UAI's you are a 06er or younger, if not, then you are an idiot.

 

[Anonymou5]

You're not reading what's been said and that is clearly shown by your comment "I can show you several people who would disprove your theory of 'low score = lazy dumb fuck" theory in a blink of an eye." Why? Because you still don't realise that I've already explained that your example is just that, an example. I'm talking about the majority here. The rubbish that you've just splurted out is the equivalent of saying 'here is a dog, therefore all dogs are black.' Oh and learn to read, I didn't go as far as to say that my statement is true in every single case. In fact, I acknowledged the exceptions but such special cases are far and few between.

As for the rich-kid spoon feeding comment. From the various posts of yours which I have seen, you clearly suffer from an inferiority complex which stems from your background during your highschool years. You say that rich kids get spoon fed but bozo, what do you actually mean by that? Do those rich kids find out what their exam questions are before the other kids? No.

If anything those who get a relatively lower score are the harder workers as they are woken up to the reality of the situation and work harder through various different schemes to gain entry into uni

What's this? Are you trying to convey some sort of pathetic underdog image? You're assuming that high achievers didn't need to work exceptionally hard to achieve their high UAIs. Further, you're also assuming that such high achievers don't work hard to achieve great marks in uni. Those assumptions are plain wrong. But what else could I expect from someone who is blinded by their inferiority complex. Oh and don't bother denying that you have an inferiority complex since only a loser would ignore the hard work and dedication required to achieve academic success in both highschool and university.

Edit: Oh and why did you add "dumb fuck" to the end of "low score = lazy?" Low scores don't mean someone is stupid and others and I had already agreed on that in the past, or is that your inferiority complex creeping in again?

while those spoon-fed crash and burn, hard and fast.

You're implying that those 'rich kids' who achieve high UAIs get wrecked in uni. Oh so that's why there are people who achieved a perfect university entrance score and then went on to to receive Dean's honours for three consecutive years.

 

[AsyLum]

You're not reading what's been said and that is clearly shown by your comment "I can show you several people who would disprove your theory of 'low score = lazy dumb fuck" theory in a blink of an eye." Why? Because you still don't realise that I've already explained that your example is just that, an example.

You're implying that those 'rich kids' who achieve high UAIs get wrecked in uni. Oh so that's why there are people who achieved a perfect university entrance score and then went on to to receive Dean's honours for three consecutive years.

Oh wait...no that can't be right, cos they're examples as well right? But of course you can give me pure scientific data based purely on unbiased sources which directly correlate UAI entrance marks with a) academic smarts b) effort shown through life/uni c) a big e-penis. Right?

As for the rich-kid spoon feeding comment. From the various posts of yours which I have seen, you clearly suffer from an inferiority complex which stems from your background during your highschool years. You say that rich kids get spoon fed but bozo, what do you actually mean by that? Do those rich kids find out what their exam questions are before the other kids? No.

Did I hit a nerve I'm glad that you're finding this session of psychoanalysis interesting from the few posts you've read as its hilariously funny.

You're saying that those rich kids are not advantaged through their facilities, teachers and teaching styles which are expected through these institutions? You are basically drilled into memorising 'quality responses' from previous years, with little or no attention being paid to the processes involved in the study or the content. I've seen more than enough through various first year programs through uni and from academic advising days to know that there is a great disparity between those who end up more successful in university. But then again, a blanket comment of yours (olol the irony) stating that this is the exception is of course in play, thus negating anything I say as heresay, obviously.

What's this? Are you trying to convey some sort of pathetic underdog image? You're assuming that high achievers didn't need to work exceptionally hard to achieve their high UAIs. Further, you're also assuming that such high achievers don't work hard to achieve great marks in uni. Those assumptions are plain wrong. But what else could I expect from someone who is blinded by their inferiority complex. Oh and don't bother denying that you have an inferiority complex since only a loser would ignore the hard work and dedication required to achieve academic success in both highschool and university.

Its just as I said mate, those who go through other entry schemes or otherwise work harder than their counterparts. To deny this would be a truism first off, due to the complexities of the entry-scheme structures, but even without being a pedantic fuck, your assumption that every hard worker wants HDs and perfect averages is again just that, an assumption. Particularly with the way university marks are structured, that being there is a quota on the top marks and that only a few will ever get in there at all, throws a spanner into your "OGM 100 UAI = HD GPA". Again from what I've seen from working within various positions at university, that this is true more times than not.

You're not reading what's been said and that is clearly shown by your comment "I can show you several people who would disprove your theory of 'low score = lazy dumb fuck" theory in a blink of an eye." Why? Because you still don't realise that I've already explained that your example is just that, an example. I'm talking about the majority here. The rubbish that you've just splurted out is the equivalent of saying 'here is a dog, therefore all dogs are black.' Oh and learn to read, I didn't go as far as to say that my statement is true in every single case. In fact, I acknowledged the exceptions but such special cases are far and few between.

Oh please provide us with this mystical orb of understanding, I mean, to show that this is right, you would have to prove, that every person who gets 90+ would be guaranteed a mark of D+ right? To directly correlate with the effort and hard work they put in. Now, please oh mighty one, show us these statistics which PROVE that you are in fact in the right, and as such can be as dismissive of my arguments, which stem from empirical experiences working through a variety of university positions. No?

It simply stands to reason that while the UWS environment isn't as competitive as others, that there is no reason at all for those with motivation or those who are simply liking their course to succeed at a higher rate than others. University is the great leveller, it'll expose both weaknesses and strengths, but more importantly, it will either teach you to cope with such pressures or destroy you. There are no in-betweens, just varying degrees of coping.

The HSC content can only take you so far, heck, in most cases its made pretty redundant by first year, and so that aspect is somewhat taken care of. Which leaves the processes and motivation factors as the prime example of the different 'castes' of university students. This is what I'm getting at. But again, feel free to psycho-babble, its quite a laugh.

 

[Anonymou5]

Did I hit a nerve

Nope because I'm not a rich kid. But I must've hit a nerve since you did get beaten by a hell of a lot of people in the HSC didn't you? So I must've triggered something which is clearly shown by the fact that you added "dumb fuck" to the end of of "low UAI = lazy" even though I made no reference to stupidity (in the context of laziness) in my earlier posts.

You are basically drilled into memorising 'quality responses' from previous years, with little or no attention being paid to the processes involved in the study or the content

Is it really that simple? If that's the case then pretty much anyone could just memorise quality responses and achieve high marks in their exams. But clearly, that isn't the case.

Oh please provide us with this mystical orb of understanding, I mean, to show that this is right, you would have to prove, that every person who gets 90+ would be guaranteed a mark of D+ right? To directly correlate with the effort and hard work they put in

In your ignorance, you continue to fail to see that there is a much larger difference between a UAI of 60 and 90, compared with the difference between a credit average and a distinction average. Many university marks are bell curved, unlike the UAI distribution which for all intents and purposes is uniformly distributed. So anyone with a functioning brain would know that you only need to stuff up a little bit to miss out on a distinction, whereas you would need to do quite badly to drop from a UAI of 90 to 60. So no, you cannot apply the same 'marks are directly proportional to effort' line here, because proportionality implies a constant variation which is clearly not the case with the bell curved university marks.

Particularly with the way university marks are structured, that being there is a quota on the top marks and that only a few will ever get in there at all, throws a spanner into your "OGM 100 UAI = HD GPA"

I did not say that 100 UAI = HD GPA. What I did was indicate to you that there are many people who achieve success both in uni and the HSC. The purpose was to show how senseless it was for you to imply that the only people who do well in uni are the ones with low UAIs. So please avoid intentionally taking my comments way out of context, it just illustrates how stupid you are to need to resort to such tactics and is rather embarassing for you.

Edit: How many people do you know of that obtained a UAI of 60 and now has a WAM of over 85? I know of many who have achieved a perfect university entrance score (or a very high one) and now have WAMs of over 85 across 3 or more years of university study. I ask this because you appear to think that people who gain alternative entry are guaranteed to have a massive turn around whereas those who do well in the HSC will 'crash and burn' in uni.

Its just as I said mate, those who go through other entry schemes or otherwise work harder than their counterparts. To deny this would be a truism first off, due to the complexities of the entry-scheme structures, but even without being a pedantic fuck, your assumption that every hard worker wants HDs and perfect averages is again just that, an assumption.

You continue to use arguments which completely ignore facts supporting the other side. You assume that those who gain direct entry didn't work hard to get there in the first place - that is, a sustained effort for an entire year at the very least, to gain direct entry. Whereas it might well be the case that those who need alternative entry sat on their ass doing nothing the entire year and then focused their time and energy for a few weeks to find out how to gain alternative entry. That kind of 'hard work' is nothing in comparison to those who work hard the entire year to gain direct entry.

Oh and before you go on to say that I'm ignoring the fact that some people do actually work hard for a whole year but obtain a low UAI, I'm simply using the same line of reasoning as you. The aim of which is to show how senseless it is for you ignore facts which support the other side of the argument.

The HSC content can only take you so far, heck, in most cases its made pretty redundant by first year, and so that aspect is somewhat taken care of.

You do realise that many courses in uni are not trivial (in the sense that you don't need to know anything from the HSC so that any random you take from the streets can successfully complete it) right? I'd like to see someone who hasn't gone through the HSC (or equivalent) tackle a first year engineering dynamics problem. [I could provide further examples but I hope that you at least have the sense to understand that your statement is plain wrong.]

As for your request for me to 'prove' the statements which I'm apparently making, I don't need to prove anything. Why? Because I haven't made any assertion about my statements being applicable to everyone. In fact, if you had read my posts properly, you'd see that I've said many times that my comments apply only to most people. So if I need to 'prove' my comments about most people, why don't you do the same for the above quote?

 

[AsyLum]

Nope because I'm not a rich kid. But I must've hit a nerve since you did get beaten by a hell of a lot of people in the HSC didn't you? So I must've triggered something which is clearly shown by the fact that you added "dumb fuck" to the end of of "low UAI = lazy" even though I made no reference to stupidity (in the context of laziness) in my earlier posts.



Is it really that simple? If that's the case then pretty much anyone could just memorise quality responses and achieve high marks in their exams. But clearly, that isn't the case.



In your ignorance, you continue to fail to see that there is a much larger difference between a UAI of 60 and 90, compared with the difference between a credit average and a distinction average. Many university marks are bell curved, unlike the UAI distribution which for all intents and purposes is uniformly distributed. So anyone with a functioning brain would know that you only need to stuff up a little bit to miss out on a distinction, whereas you would need to do quite badly to drop from a UAI of 90 to 60. So no, you cannot apply the same 'marks are directly proportional to effort' line here, because proportionality implies a constant variation which is clearly not the case with the bell curved university marks.



I did not say that 100 UAI = HD GPA. What I did was indicate to you that there are many people who achieve success both in uni and the HSC. The purpose was to show how senseless it was for you to imply that the only people who do well in uni are the ones with low UAIs. So please avoid intentionally taking my comments way out of context, it just illustrates how stupid you are to need to resort to such tactics and is rather embarassing for you.

Edit: How many people do you know of that obtained a UAI of 60 and now has a WAM of over 85? I know of many who have achieved a perfect university entrance score (or a very high one) and now have WAMs of over 85 across 3 or more years of university study. I ask this because you appear to think that people who gain alternative entry are guaranteed to have a massive turn around whereas those who do well in the HSC will 'crash and burn' in uni.



You continue to use arguments which completely ignore facts supporting the other side. You assume that those who gain direct entry didn't work hard to get there in the first place - that is, a sustained effort for an entire year at the very least, to gain direct entry. Whereas it might well be the case that those who need alternative entry sat on their ass doing nothing the entire year and then focused their time and energy for a few weeks to find out how to gain alternative entry. That kind of 'hard work' is nothing in comparison to those who work hard the entire year to gain direct entry.

Oh and before you go on to say that I'm ignoring the fact that some people do actually work hard for a whole year but obtain a low UAI, I'm simply using the same line of reasoning as you. The aim of which is to show how senseless it is for you ignore facts which support the other side of the argument.




You do realise that many courses in uni are not trivial (in the sense that you don't need to know anything from the HSC so that any random you take from the streets can successfully complete it) right? I'd like to see how someone who hasn't gone through the HSC (or equivalent) tackle a first year engineering dynamics problem.

As for your request for me to 'prove' the statements which I'm apparently making, I don't need to prove anything. Why? Because I haven't made any assertion about my statements being applicable to everyone. In fact, if you had read my posts properly, you'd see that I've said many times that my comments apply only to most people. So if I need to 'prove' my comments about most people, why don't you do the same for the above quote?

Read as: wah wah wah, I've missed the point.

Lets recap:

At that level, the only people who obtain such scores are those who don't put in the effort.

The ONLY people, a definitive and very conclusive statement.

To try and say "I'm only saying for most people" seems to contradict this notion of 'only'. You mean 'only those people who fall under my example, but not those that don't because they don't count, only' right?

Considering that a large proportion of people taking the HSC are not even looking to get into uni, a UAI in the 60s generally indicates laziness.

"generally indicates laziness". Now granted this little gem isn't quite as 'conclusive' you still use 'laziness' as the prime reason why kids achieve a 60. Not disadvantages to learning, equipment, support or a range of other issues, no its because they're fucking lazy. Right? This is what I take exception to, and it is the kind of thinking which reeks of pretentious arrogance.

Again why does it indicate laziness? You have offered no direct correllation to individual marks or even a report saying this is true, thereby making your thoughts mere assumptions. They are, and will remain, just conjecture, conjecture which is open to analysis and critiquing as I have done over the past few posts.

Something about dogs, and being black seems to suit your argument quite a bit doesn't it?

In any case, if you've looked at the exams for various HSC subjects, you'd realise that only someone who hasn't studied much would miss out on subject scores exceeding 70; there are lots of freebie marks.

This can be horribly tempered by the quality of teaching, the course structure/teaching structure, the assessments, and a long list of other factors which all stem from the individual school and particular class contexts which are played in.

The vast majority of content can be easily ROTE learnt and even within the space of a few weeks leading to the HSC. The underlying processes are lost and its a sad state of affairs, but the methodology of the cut-throat education institutions demand results, the efficiency demands marks, marks maintain prestige, reputation and most important, money. To think otherwise is being idealistic at best, and ignorant at worst to suggest this doesn't happen on a widescale level.

Now onto the UAI, the majority of people will get over 50, with most gaining one between 60-80. Does this mean these people must be excluded and called lazy? Does this warrant such an assumption? I don't think so, and this is the crux of my argument, there are far more pressing and concerning factors which arise out of the current state and structure of the HSC than mere 'laziness'.

[link]If we are to believe your claims that those who gained 60s, were lazy, then just under half of those people who took the HSC would fall under this category. But lets take this to those who got under 70, thereby making the 'majority' of the people taking the HSC over those getting over.

It seems rather simplistic to say that for the larger proportion of people, that they 'just didn't try hard enough' or put in the effort. Could the state of our state schools which house the vast majority of students be a bigger factor in this, or is it really true that almost 50% of the state, (about 30,000 a year) are just plain lazy? With 75% of the state featuring under 85, can we say that these people tried, but not hard enough? Where do we draw the distinction? Are we saying that achieving the median can simply be put down to individual's motivation? Where are these magical statistics which prove that these 30,000 people a year are in fact just so darn lazy, that they can't achieve what +7% can do and get over 70? Or better still what only 25% of the state can get and get over 85? Realistically, lets face it, there aren't too many courses on offer under 75, and even at they're rare. Why not extend this assumption that those who can't get into uni are being lazy? Thereby a lazy 60% of students are simply slacking off in schools, and thats their own god damn fault. Right?

But I must've hit a nerve since you did get beaten by a hell of a lot of people in the HSC didn't you? So I must've triggered something which is clearly shown by the fact that you added "dumb fuck" to the end of of "low UAI = lazy" even though I made no reference to stupidity (in the context of laziness) in my earlier posts.

They're lazy but i meant that in the nicest possible way, was more what you were trying to say wasn't it?

If you think you've hit a nerve because I beat a substantial percentage of the state when I was expecting to not even make it into uni, is a laugh, and I applaud you of your humour. It seems to be about the only thing that you've got even remotely right. Oh wait, it wasn't a joke?

 

[nik12]

I transferred from UTS to UWS because i HATED UTS so much. Straight out of high school i would probably not have wanted to go straight to Western Sydney because i heard it wasn't as good, however having had the experience of both uni's, i like UWS a lot better and academically i don't feel it is lacking compared to the classes at UTS.

UWS is not thought of as as good a uni because they have lower UAI's and also they do not get nearly as much money off the government as the other unis cuz they take mostly local students, where as the others take a lot of international students (more money).

The only not so positive thing about UWS i can think of compared to UTS is that the classes are bigger cuz they try to accept more people...
​

 

[Anonymou5]

It's rather amusing how you produce essay after essay consistng largely of off topic ramblings in response to a select few parts of my posts. I guess someone of your calibre has little else to live for. But go on, it's amusing.

Let me ask you this, do you know what is meant by 'an accepted use of speech?' Do you have any grasp of the notion that words can often have more than one interpretation and use? Obviously not because all of your crying and whining about how the world has been so cruel to you (as evidenced by your constant references to 'other pressing factors' which affect HSC performance) is formed on the basis of nitpicking my use of words. Do I need to make everything explicit to you? Because only (yep, that's the key word there, want to nitpick that as well) 5 year olds need that kind of treament. So if that's what you want then I'll try to satisfy your needs by acknowledging your childish nitpicking.

Do you really wish to insult your lack of intelligence even further with your nitpicking? Because you've already done so by ignoring my acknowledgements of various factors affecting HSC performance.

Lets recap:

Quote:
At that level, the only people who obtain such scores are those who don't put in the effort.
The ONLY people, a definitive and very conclusive statement.

To try and say "I'm only saying for most people" seems to contradict this notion of 'only'. You mean 'only those people who fall under my example, but not those that don't because they don't count, only' right?


"generally indicates laziness". Now granted this little gem isn't quite as 'conclusive' you still use 'laziness' as the prime reason why kids achieve a 60. Not disadvantages to learning, equipment, support or a range of other issues, no its because they're fucking lazy. Right? This is what I take exception to, and it is the kind of thinking which reeks of pretentious arrogance.

Again why does it indicate laziness? You have offered no direct correllation to individual marks or even a report saying this is true, thereby making your thoughts mere assumptions. They are, and will remain, just conjecture, conjecture which is open to analysis and critiquing as I have done over the past few posts.

Something about dogs, and being black seems to suit your argument quite a bit doesn't it?

This can be horribly tempered by the quality of teaching, the course structure/teaching structure, the assessments, and a long list of other factors which all stem from the individual school and particular class contexts which are played in.

The vast majority of content can be easily ROTE learnt and even within the space of a few weeks leading to the HSC. The underlying processes are lost and its a sad state of affairs, but the methodology of the cut-throat education institutions demand results, the efficiency demands marks, marks maintain prestige, reputation and most important, money. To think otherwise is being idealistic at best, and ignorant at worst to suggest this doesn't happen on a widescale level.

Now onto the UAI, the majority of people will get over 50, with most gaining one between 60-80. Does this mean these people must be excluded and called lazy? Does this warrant such an assumption? I don't think so, and this is the crux of my argument, there are far more pressing and concerning factors which arise out of the current state and structure of the HSC than mere 'laziness'.

[link]If we are to believe your claims that those who gained 60s, were lazy, then just under half of those people who took the HSC would fall under this category. But lets take this to those who got under 70, thereby making the 'majority' of the people taking the HSC over those getting over.

It seems rather simplistic to say that for the larger proportion of people, that they 'just didn't try hard enough' or put in the effort. Could the state of our state schools which house the vast majority of students be a bigger factor in this, or is it really true that almost 50% of the state, (about 30,000 a year) are just plain lazy? With 75% of the state featuring under 85, can we say that these people tried, but not hard enough? Where do we draw the distinction? Are we saying that achieving the median can simply be put down to individual's motivation? Where are these magical statistics which prove that these 30,000 people a year are in fact just so darn lazy, that they can't achieve what +7% can do and get over 70? Or better still what only 25% of the state can get and get over 85? Realistically, lets face it, there aren't too many courses on offer under 75, and even at they're rare. Why not extend this assumption that those who can't get into uni are being lazy? Thereby a lazy 60% of students are simply slacking off in schools, and thats their own god damn fault. Right?

Read as: Simplistic and vague play on statistics.

Anyone can incorrectly use statistics as you have (although not everyone, including me, has time to like you seeing as you don't have anything important to attend to). If you want to make a point, be more specific. If you want to say that wrongly set out assessments affect HSC performance then specifically state the flaws in such assessments. Don't just say 'z0mG class contexts!1!1', explain in what way such things affect an individual's ability to rote learn and do well in the HSC.

As for your numerous other questions, I've addressed them adequately in one way or another many times already. You just need to start actually reading my posts instead of dishing out vague ramblings.

 

[dude01]

I've been to both a public (non-selective) and private high school and just wanted to add that the school environment plays a bloody important role in how well someone does in the HSC. It's not an issue of laziness. I was average at both my public and private school, but if I had stayed at my old school I would have done a lot worse. Friends from my old public school who were at the top of the grade and work damn hard (a lot harder than me) got a lower uai than myself. I don't know how this happened, but I'm guessing it was a combination of the factors that asylum listed...

 

[Demandred]

Having spent the last two years at UWS, I have some mixed opinions. If you're driven to get HDs, climb the corporate ladder and you scored 90+ in your UAI, then perhaps you're better off at Usyd, UNSW, UTS or MacqU.

In my law classes, I have no complaints, great atmosphere, great people, great lecturers. But in my other units, people tend to slack off more often, and you often feel let down, because these people aren't as driven as you in attaining HDs. And not to mention the idiots who talk during lecturers and being a pain in the arse.

There's also an issue with reputation, yes UWS is a relatively new university, and its gaining rep, but ceteris paribus, it loses to most other universities. But keep in mind this can be easily be disregarded if you get Ds and HDs and gain connections at uni (or any uni).

But then again, these are just my experiences, it doesn't reflect all the units/courses at my uni. UWS is a ok university, but there are simply better ones out there, if you can make it, great! if not, there's nothing wrong with going to UWS.

There's also with the issue of campus, because it was designed to be so decentralised to cater for the Greater Sydney Region, some looks absolutely horrible IMO. Parramatta looks a lot better now with the new building, so does C'town and Kingswood, same can't be said for the rest.

 

[LaraB]

far out... why can't you all just make your point and then shut up rather than to-ing and fro=ing over crap that has NOTHINg to do with the question?!

No one cares about what you think makes a better teacher... no one cares if you think UAI's mean anyhting... that wasn't the question!

Have your little shit spiel, then answer the question or just shut up and go do something constructive.

 

[j_davo24]

There's also with the issue of campus, because it was designed to be so decentralised to cater for the Greater Sydney Region, some looks absolutely horrible IMO. Parramatta looks a lot better now with the new building, so does C'town and Kingswood, same can't be said for the rest.

Been to Usyd lately? Talk about ugly buildings especially on the Redfern side of City Rd, almost as ugly as that UTS tower. Lol.

On top of this anyone who actually basis their choice of university on 'how it looks' really has no concept of what is actually important.

In the end choose the University that has the course you want to do and then if you don't get in either do something else and try and transfer later or get a job.

 

[melsc]

Just post useful information guys we don't want it to turn out to be another useless flame eachother thread, keep it on topic so you can help people. I don't want to have to keep closing threads because people make it personal.