Dumb School vs Smart School... (1 Viewer)

[FinalFantasy]

So is there any unfairness to a person if he\she went to a dumb school as opposed to a smart school?(This is referring to the person doing HSC at that school)

 

[Lazarus]

No.

If you want to know why, read and understand this thread.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

So is there any unfairness to a person if he\she went to a dumb school as opposed to a smart school?(This is referring to the person doing HSC at that school)

No there is no difference. The only difference arises from competition which motivates you further and therefore potentially increases your mark. Other than that, you aren't disadvantaged by going to a "dumb school".

Additionally, going to a "smart school" (e.g. selective) could lead to an increase in academic pressure to perform to particular standards, which could actually be dentrimental to your final marks.

 

[wrong_turn]

the problem is that if you go to a dumb school, if your ranks are crap, your doomed. you should be aiming for the top 3 ranks when going to a dumb school, or else the chances of getting in the higher part of the nighties might not be achieved. however, the rank of about 3rd in a smart school, could boost you up there in the high nighties.

it is in other words, depended somewhat on your school cohert, however, you have to perform as well at the same time to do well.

 

[mack]

Ranked first in all courses= School becomes meaningless, and it up to you for the external exams.

It's a silly idea anyway. If a school is considered 'dumb' it is because of a previous cohort. It has absolutely no bearing on the current year.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Ranked first in all courses= School becomes meaningless, and it up to you for the external exams.

It's a silly idea anyway. If a school is considered 'dumb' it is because of a previous cohort. It has absolutely no bearing on the current year.

Although in general, schools tend to perform similarly from year to year as they will have set a particular standard. For instance, schools that have an entrance exam will probably perform well every year, whilst those that don't start off with a good academic reputation won't attract academic students, thus continuing the cycle...but there are variations to this (such as a random 100 at an unknown school)

 

[wrong_turn]

and also the fact that if you know how well your cohert is in comparison to other schools, that could help in a way.

but as wrench has said, the entrance exams and the standard of a school is usually similar. however, in some coherts, the smart people might choose to remain, rather than go to a selective school, therefore boosting the cohert.

 

[song]

Actually, the assessments in selective schools are much more difficult than the ones tested in "dumb" schools. However, i think that "smart" schools get better scaling. Correct me if im wrong.

 

[FinalFantasy]

Actually, the assessments in selective schools are much more difficult than the ones tested in "dumb" schools. However, i think that "smart" schools get better scaling. Correct me if im wrong.

some assessments in "dumb" schools can be quite nasty=P

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Actually, the assessments in selective schools are much more difficult than the ones tested in "dumb" schools. However, i think that "smart" schools get better scaling. Correct me if im wrong.

Schools with better-able candidature don't get better scaling and they don't necessarily get harder assessments either e.g. CSSA papers are sometimes just as difficult (if not harder) than JR papers. However, it's more difficult to get a higher internal ranking because the competition is so fierce. This may improve your chances of getting a higher moderated assessment mark, but only if you do well yourself.

 

[Marquette]

Rankings

I was first in all courses in a 'dumb' school, and my parents thought I was rorted with my UAI, but I don't know. First in all your courses means you go it alone, basically. It just meant I got first in all my exams as well and my Assessment marks were identical to my Exam Marks. I suppose if you were in a smart school you might get pulled up? I mean if someone really blitzed the exams but you were first in assesments... To be honest I think the cohort and culture of the school is more important. When the priority becomes passing rather than doing well or getting to uni...

Oh, and being an easy first in a dumb school does not help when there's no-one else's marks to fall back on.. so it's definately not better to be in a dumb school.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

I was first in all courses in a 'dumb' school, and my parents thought I was rorted with my UAI, but I don't know. First in all your courses means you go it alone, basically. It just meant I got first in all my exams as well and my Assessment marks were identical to my Exam Marks. I suppose if you were in a smart school you might get pulled up? I mean if someone really blitzed the exams but you were first in assesments... To be honest I think the cohort and culture of the school is more important. When the priority becomes passing rather than doing well or getting to uni...

Oh, and being an easy first in a dumb school does not help when there's no-one else's marks to fall back on.. so it's definately not better to be in a dumb school.

Good point.
When you're first you have to get a good exam mark to get a good HSC mark, because it's most likely that other people from your class aren't going to perform better than you in the final exam, unless it's very close. If by some act of God, you're first by a few marks and the person in 2nd or 3rd gets 99 as an exam mark, then that'll pull you up but I don't think that happens often.

 

[google88]

ppl say that it makes no difference but dumb schools have pretty average teachers and yes ofcourse it affects students performances

the system will never be fair, theres always going to be let the smart ppl accelerate and average ppl do the best with what they have.

 

[FinalFantasy]

ppl say that it makes no difference but dumb schools have pretty average teachers and yes ofcourse it affects students performances

the system will never be fair, theres always going to be let the smart ppl accelerate and average ppl do the best with what they have.

hahaha very true! especially mine! my school.. has BELOW AVERAGE teachers, there's a maths teacher teaching 2\3unit maths at my school and she doesn't even know her 2unit maths well! and that's only one of them

 

[wrong_turn]

that is incorrect. the level of teaching in a school can vary, yes. however, you cannot imply that with shit teachers, there will be shit students. it can be reversed. it is really a cohert's ability to perform. that is what matters.

even at selective government schools, there are very ordianry teaching happening.

however, one can then argue the teaching at a private and catholic school. i think they will have to be good since the pay comes directly from the school. therefore they should be quite slick in their teaching, i think.

 

[Peanut11]

Tara School.

Well in response to this talk of 'dumb schools', I can provide you with evidence which suggests that it is entirely cohort dependant, but tends not to vary too much considering each comprehensive/selective/private school consistently attracts the same type of pupil.

In recent years our top UAI has been in the high 98s low 99s range, followed by one or two low 98s, the average UAI being significantly lower.. I guess, I dunno really. Last year it was 98.9.

Anyways, this year we had 7 people over 99, top uai 99.85, and plenty of those were over 99.55 so there you go! Quite a huge leap, and the reason for this was that about 5 of us (and a few more who just missed 99!) didn't accept places at selective schools (such as Ruse, Baulko, NSG...) and some were from overseas and hadn't bothered with the selective school exams.

Furthermore, we had three students who were very passionate about their subjects - two did six units of science each, and three did six and five units of LOTE, gaining a total of 3 state placements! (congrats Britts on topping German and German Ext and Kimmi for placing in Japanese!!)

YAY. well. There u go! Good cohort! Our top 10 were all over 98 I'd say, so if your top 10 are strong, you can do just as well as the people at Ruse without having to achieve high ranks. But hey. If ur year is dumb u should be up there anyway!

Also, we weren't pushed at all. In fact we weren't encouraged to achieve UAIS over 99! Maybe that has something to do with it?

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

I agree 100% with lesmiester.
It is in fact the public/selective schools that tend to get the worst teachers, as government schooling provides the best opportunity for work for younger graduates and student teachers.
Private/Catholic schools have their own stricter selection processes (in regards to choosing teachers) and can literally "buy" their teachers with money e.g. Bill Pender and SGS.

As a result, private/Catholic schools will generally have the better teachers.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Quite a huge leap, and the reason for this was that about 5 of us (and a few more who just missed 99!) didn't accept places at selective schools (such as Ruse, Baulko, NSG...) and some were from overseas and hadn't bothered with the selective school exams.

That's a big factor in HSC results. Year 7 tends to put all the students through a filter, whereby the better students tend to go to selective and elite private schools. This, of course, will lower the standard of "average" schools. I can speak from experience: two academic students that I know of who I went to primary school with ended up going to selective/private schools - they could very well have come to my school, but chose not to....

Also, we weren't pushed at all. In fact we weren't encouraged to achieve UAIS over 99! Maybe that has something to do with it?

I don't think a bit of encouragement can do much harm, but it probably relieves the pressure on students. No school really encourages students to attain UAIs above 99. They do, however, encourage them to perform to the best of their abilities, which can ultimately lead to students attaining 99+.

 

[Marquette]

I agree 100% with lesmiester.
It is in fact the public/selective schools that tend to get the worst teachers, as government schooling provides the best opportunity for work for younger graduates and student teachers.
Private/Catholic schools have their own stricter selection processes (in regards to choosing teachers) and can literally "buy" their teachers with money e.g. Bill Pender and SGS.

As a result, private/Catholic schools will generally have the better teachers.

I agree to a point, because at my Catholic school we had a lot of great, intelligent, skillful and dedicated teachers, but then again no-one in my grade got over 92... so what do we think cones into play then? The area? It's Western Sydney, but I have problems with that theory because there are a lot of great people out here and schools like Penrith and Baulko do really well.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

I agree to a point, because at my Catholic school we had a lot of great, intelligent, skillful and dedicated teachers, but then again no-one in my grade got over 92... so what do we think cones into play then? The area? It's Western Sydney, but I have problems with that theory because there are a lot of great people out here and schools like Penrith and Baulko do really well.

I'd say that the region does have some bearing on results in general. Of course, living in a particular area generally won't either work to your advantage or disadvantage when it comes to the HSC. But many of the elite private schools are concentrated around the north and east, and that's where most of the good results come from (aside from selective schools).