Who thinks the HSC is unfair? (1 Viewer)

[suling]

i don't agree with her statement that maths or science have no use in society seeing how they will save us from global warming but i can definitely say i know a lot of maths/science inclined people who actually despise and look down on the arts and humanities.

although i am an exception seeing how i am equally inclined to both but enjoy the humanities much more

sorry about coming across as though I believe maths and science are useless( I do maths (albeit 2u) and bio, by the way).. I didn't really articulate my opinion very well.

I just don't think that these subjects are necessarily a superior measure of our intellectual worth, when compared to humanities subjects

 

[noelknows]

this is how i interpret 'vocational' aspects in subjects. that subjects like modern history should have more assessments that require research skills rather than memory skills, a major work for those kind of subjects would be perfect. i know history extension has this but in my opinion it should just be the major work but obviously based on whatever topics are in the syllabus not just any random topic a student chooses. this is what i mean by a vocational and practical sensibility, practical application of knowledge. we don't need more students that can describe the entire history of the Russian Revolution we need students that have the skills to discover new information.

Then perhaps we misunderstood each other. But your definition is silly - 'vocational subjects' refer to those targeted at specific career paths: hospitality, early childhood etc. 'Vocational'does not refer to subtle things like research skills, which are inherent in almost any subject. If more research is all you want, I don't know why you guys were complaining in the first place. There is no imperative. Most subjects already adhere to your definition of 'vocational'. Though an assessment testing memory does not explicitly expect extra research, pro-active students would be rewarded if they pursued further knowledge, differentiating themselves from their peers. The point I'm making is that memory skills and research skills within a subject are not mutually exclusive. I can't think of any teacher who would not encourage a student to do extra researh. And let's face it, if 'life skills' are what you're after for HSC subjects, many would consider memory skills, analysis skills, and articulation - albeit not 'research' based - highly relevent to any career and to 'life'
Indeed, my friend, the HSC prepares us as well as it can.

 

[noelknows]

I don't endorse vocationally-minded courses at all, I agree with what your saying in the first paragraph. As for the second, I completely disagree. School is about teaching students to work to specific outcomes and function in an institution. Free thinking isn't valued at all.

Free thinking is inherent in all aspects of the HSC. You can pick which subjects you want, you can perform them to whatever level you want, and in many, such as english extension 2, or history extension, you can select any topic area you want, indeed, we are given near freedom of choice in all major-work subjects. Even in things like english advanced or standard, we can write any creative story we want (albeit not things like rape), and select any related texts we want. The HSC rewards diverstiy, and it rewards originality.

Moreover, there is nothing necessarily bad about "work(ing) to specific outcomes and function(ing) in an institution." It prepares us for society, where we must do these things. HSC regulations like minimum of 10 units, or getting an assessment in on time (which is by no means binding, by the way) are no more restrictive than you needing a bus pass to catch a bus, or being expected to brush your teeth in the morning. These things are a necessary concession for society to function. Our democracy is all about walking the fine balance between rules and freedom, choice and circumstance. The HSC walks that balance too.

It is absurd to argue that just because there are petty rules and regulations, "working to outcomes", students will emerge from year 12 as indoctrinated zombies, with no sense of free-thought. You forget that students have numerous chances and forums to express freedom outside of the HSC classroom: we can dress how we like, play whatever sports we like etc.

I don't think board of studies bureaucracy is enough to supress our individuality.

 

[ekoolish]

i think it's unfair. Seriously 13 years of schooling and all we get is a number.

 

[philphie]

sorry about coming across as though I believe maths and science are useless( I do maths (albeit 2u) and bio, by the way).. I didn't really articulate my opinion very well.

I just don't think that these subjects are necessarily a superior measure of our intellectual worth, when compared to humanities subjects

that i can agree to. but the way these kind of subjects are taught at school it would be apparent the maths/science subjects are harder only because generally the way humanities are taught at schools is through black and white memorising. so my point of argument is the method of teaching humanity subjects is crippling the intellectual value of them

 

[noelknows]

i think it's unfair. Seriously 13 years of schooling and all we get is a number.

What would you rather then? A cake? An award? A small sum of money? A song and dance number composed in your honour?

 

[noelknows]

that i can agree to. but the way these kind of subjects are taught at school it would be apparent the maths/science subjects are harder only because generally the way humanities are taught at schools is through black and white memorising. so my point of argument is the method of teaching humanity subjects is crippling the intellectual value of them

True with the last part, but the intellectual value lies not only in the methodology, but in the subject matter. Even if you rote learn, you still benefit from the actual stuff you're putting on the paper.

 

[absorber]

^ I for one feel it's really unfair.

imo the biggest injustice is that too much of it is about writing speed

 

[G4_SuperTeam]

SCALING IS NOT FREAKING UNFAIR

subjects get scaled because of difficulty. It's not that we "hate humanities", its just fact that they're just really easy subjects. It would be unfair if scaling didnt exist, because the people who are really smart and get 70% in 4u maths would then do worse than the people who get 90% in general maths.

Im sorry, but people who think scaling is dumb are just stupid. That's just what they say when they pick easy subjects and feel bad that they're getting scaled down as opposed to the people who do challenging, harder subjects like physics/chem.

 

[ekoolish]

What would you rather then? A cake? An award? A small sum of money? A song and dance number composed in your honour?

A cake would be good, man i've been waiting for ages for 'the thread' to reach 300k posts and i just found out that 'I will post BOS a cake' does not include actual BOS posters. Another words no cake for me. So ye cake would be sweet (oh snap literary technique right there).

Actually money isn't such a bad idea either. Or a lottery each year, eg. K Rudd chooses a random number from 36-99.95 and if you get the ATAR of that number you get $1000. Yes, such a great idea. MW2 for everyone who gets above 90 would also be good.

 

[philphie]

Then perhaps we misunderstood each other. But your definition is silly - 'vocational subjects' refer to those targeted at specific career paths: hospitality, early childhood etc. 'Vocational'does not refer to subtle things like research skills, which are inherent in almost any subject. If more research is all you want, I don't know why you guys were complaining in the first place. There is no imperative. Most subjects already adhere to your definition of 'vocational'. Though an assessment testing memory does not explicitly expect extra research, pro-active students would be rewarded if they pursued further knowledge, differentiating themselves from their peers. The point I'm making is that memory skills and research skills within a subject are not mutually exclusive. I can't think of any teacher who would not encourage a student to do extra researh. And let's face it, if 'life skills' are what you're after for HSC subjects, many would consider memory skills, analysis skills, and articulation - albeit not 'research' based - highly relevent to any career and to 'life'
Indeed, my friend, the HSC prepares us as well as it can.

I feel my definition of vocational as rather fitting, shouldn't whatever we learn be applied to practical use and contribute to society? if not that, we're being trained to be a bunch of encyclopedias.

have you done modern or ancient history? the assessments require minimal research, if you had a textbook or study guide alone you could get full marks. to suggest extra research is an extra directive, my argument is it should be a requirement. yes the hsc does offer those 'life skills' but its methods? an exam? at the end of they day it comes down to that one hsc exam, what can you reveal then? good memory and clean and fast handwriting.

one good example i can recall was my mate's Physics class. one key assessment was to create something innovative using solar energy, all of them were uninspired, most of them being rechargers. then it come to their hsc exam, great marks. so how would you critique the skills of this particular class? by how well they do in an exam, or how well they did applying their knowledge to practical use?

in my view, the hsc prepares us tp be the best students we can be, but what are the prospects of being a great student? grad school for a lifetime?

 

[philphie]

True with the last part, but the intellectual value lies not only in the methodology, but in the subject matter. Even if you rote learn, you still benefit from the actual stuff you're putting on the paper.

sorry didn't see this post

 

[noelknows]

imo the biggest injustice is that too much of it is about writing speed

True, but it's your fault if you don't have the speed. The onus is on you to practice. With doing study, and writing heaps, comes speed. And if there's a genuine problem preventing you from writing quickly, special provisions caters for you.

You can't blame anyone else but yourself for not writing fast, as you can't blame anyone else but yourself for not studying the content.

If you argue that everyone innately has differing hand dexterity, meaning some can naturally write faster than others, and that is unfair, then you could,by the same logic, argue that everyone innately has differing intelligences, meaning some can naturally produce better answers than others, and is that unfair?

Perhaps the HSC is more comprehensive as it tests mental and physical ability.

Even if it was unfair that you need to have a speedy pen, what alternative do we have? Do you want us to telepathically project our answers onto the paper?

Life's hard, take a concrete tablet.

Writing speed is by no means "the biggest injustice". That label lies with the disparity in results between those from low and high socio-economic backgrounds, it lies with the exploitation of special provisions, it lies with the wealthier having greater access to resources and services.

Don't come to me with your pitiful pen woes and your hyperbolic rhetoric.

 

[bubbrubb]

imo i think you guys are both right and wrong..

i will conceive that there is a level of unfairness with the fact that humanities scale worse than maths and sciences because: someone may be good at humanities but not maths and science and is disadvantaged because his talent is not in the right field..

HOWEVER... it is not the board of studies that says "ok lets just scale this subject relli highly because we feel like it".. scaling works by comparing the scores of students who do a certain subject in comparison to how they perform in other subjects.

for example, say i did legal studies and got 95 but got 80 in maths and physics, that would suggest legal studies is easier than maths and physics and hence maths/physics is scaled more. Now all of you are saying this is bullshit because what if legal was just as difficult as maths/physics but i was just naturally better at legal... BUT, say another student got 95 in maths and physics and legal, this would now suggest that if you are good at maths and physics its likely you will be good at legal

the conclusions may seem bullshit but when you use thousands upon thousands of results, it shows things such as those who excel at maths 4 unit tend to do just as well in all subjects that they do. in doing so, they scale the subjects accordingly e.g. 4 unit maths gets scaled up heaps. Similarly, those who do subjects like aboriginal studies get scaled down heaps because those who do well in aboriginal studies probably dont do very well in other subjects.

So forget what ppl are saying about difficulty or "real" subjects. a perfect hsc would probably be that every student be forced to do every subject imaginable and then work out an atar... however.. since this is impossible.. scaling essentially judges what the student would have gotten in all the subjects he didnt choose... well thats not relli the case but its a way of thinking about it that should remove all the hating going on about scaling.

if it werent for the ppl who did awesome in humanities but then flunked in everything else, humanities wouldnt be scaled so low. if it werent for the guns at phys and chem who also gunned everything else they did, sciences wouldnt be scaled so highly.

sorry for the length of my post.

 

[noelknows]

A cake would be good, man i've been waiting for ages for 'the thread' to reach 300k posts and i just found out that 'I will post BOS a cake' does not include actual BOS posters. Another words no cake for me. So ye cake would be sweet (oh snap literary technique right there).

Actually money isn't such a bad idea either. Or a lottery each year, eg. K Rudd chooses a random number from 36-99.95 and if you get the ATAR of that number you get $1000. Yes, such a great idea. MW2 for everyone who gets above 90 would also be good.

lol, yeah. Perhaps create more incentive for students to work harder.

 

[philphie]

True, but it's your fault if you don't have the speed. The onus is on you to practice. With doing study, and writing heaps, comes speed. And if there's a genuine problem preventing you from writing quickly, special provisions caters for you.

You can't blame anyone else but yourself for not writing fast, as you can't blame anyone else but yourself for not studying the content.

If you argue that everyone innately has differing hand dexterity, meaning some can naturally write faster than others, and that is unfair, then you could,by the same logic, argue that everyone innately has differing intelligences, meaning some can naturally produce better answers than others, and is that unfair?

Perhaps the HSC is more comprehensive as it tests mental and physical ability.

Even if it was unfair that you need to have a speedy pen, what alternative do we have? Do you want us to telepathically project our answers onto the paper?

Life's hard, take a concrete tablet.

Writing speed is by no means "the biggest injustice". That label lies with the disparity in results between those from low and high socio-economic backgrounds, it lies with the exploitation of special provisions, it lies with the wealthier having greater access to resources and services.

Don't come to me with your pitiful pen woes and your hyperbolic rhetoric.

i here the BOS is now having everyone use computers in an exam because handwriting has just become so terrible. well this is it for me for the next hour, Black Adder calls!!!!!

 

[apple pancake]

I don't think that the HSC is unfair at all. Like i always say, you get what you put in. Some people can't deal with that fact. Pretty sad really. Even if you didn't get the ATAR you wanted, just be happy that the HSC is finally over, after two looooonnng years. There are always alternatives to uni.
I ended up getting an ATAR of 90.15, but it came from staying up til 10 every night, studying the bejeezus out of the subjects that i found difficult to get, like physics.

 

[philphie]

I don't think that the HSC is unfair at all. Like i always say, you get what you put in. Some people can't deal with that fact. Pretty sad really. Even if you didn't get the ATAR you wanted, just be happy that the HSC is finally over, after two looooonnng years. There are always alternatives to uni.
I ended up getting an ATAR of 90.15, but it came from staying up til 10 every night, studying the bejeezus out of the subjects that i found difficult to get, like physics.

lololol 10pm is late for you? what are you, 8? (don't take too much offense, just humouring you)

 

[Dragonmaster262]

Scaling just ensures that kids with the same ATAR put in the same amount of effort. I mean it's way easier to get a 85 in General Maths than a 85 in 4 Unit Maths. Hence, the 85 in 4 Unit should be worth more (scale better) since more time/effort is taken to achieve it.

 

[study-freak]

Scaling just ensures that kids with the same ATAR put in the same amount of effort. I mean it's way easier to get a 85 in General Maths than a 85 in 4 Unit Maths. Hence, the 85 in 4 Unit should be worth more (scale better) since more time/effort is taken to achieve it.

+1 although I disagree with the highlighted part due to differing intelligence.
It adjusts for the variation in difficulty of many courses.