• We need YOU to help the next generation of students in the community for the new syllabus!
    Share your notes and trial papers on our Notes & Resources page
  • Like us on facebook here

Maths rorting! (1 Viewer)

chubbaraff

Proudly BOS Left
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
159
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Chubbaraff, I will openly admit getting 81.15 as my UAI, not nearly in the same category as what u have led me to believe u would get, and mostly because i enjoy the subject, politics and journalism at notre dame next year.
I got 97.85 call that inflated, but I worked my ass of, as you could have chosen to... but I am led to believe we have very similar interests. I am going to study politics at uni when i go (not next year), it is just unfortunate that i have gathered the arrogance of a political scholar way before my time. Im going to do an arts/science double degree that i need 84 to go into. But also remember UAI is supposed to be a measure of your ability to meet the expectations of a course ( i dont fully agree with this proposition in all cases) you could never understand the advantage of a 4unit student because you have never done the subject. For example i would argue that i would have never got 89 in english without 4unit maths because it makes u analyze things so much clearer. And besides when you do 4 unit you have done first year uni, of course you are much better prepared for university.

I believe that my mathematical intelligence was not up to 4U standard, and this is along with the other 57,000 out of 60,000, some minority.
So we study a subject that has equivalence to first year university (which occupies 40% of our study time and it should be worth 1 unit?? Yeh?? Think of that, people, who later become the actuaries, the ceo's and the engineers of the innovation of australia should be told that theyre advanced studies should only be worth half the study of petty mathematics that is uncreative and serves no purpose. 4unit has to be worth 2, and my result so does 3 unit. But I will not be the actuary or the ceo and i have my own quarrels with the opportunists, however in any meritocracy, theyre hard work is farly rewarded by the doubling of three unit. And remember, it is as much a gamble as it is an advantage. The guy who got the highest uai at our school went particularly bad in a 3unit test early on because all his time was being spent on 4 unit and he nearly dropped 4unit, why should these people who are clearly capable be given the stupid disincentive to do 4unit by having it worth 1 unit. He stayed, improved his results and got the results he deserved in both subjects that put him a cut above the rest because he had initiative and a will to succeed. Its not a matter of black and white right or wrong. I would argue that our intellectual ability alone has no relevance at university. It is as much a game of motivated and focussed players who are keen to learn and don't chicken out. Another guy in our year took 4unit and after the first lesson dropped it and was like ahhhh thats too much work. Both these people are in clearly different categories and should be adjusted accordingly. If 3u more then tested you, put in more work until 4 unit more then tests you, then you will realise the benefit of being a worker, and not a whinger. (appologies for the continued animosity, your banter is just incredibly frustrating.)
 

ajmason87

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
43
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
chubbaraff said:
For example i would argue that i would have never got 89 in english without 4unit maths because it makes u analyze things so much clearer.



And remember, it is as much a gamble as it is an advantage. The guy who got the highest uai at our school went particularly bad in a 3unit test early on because all his time was being spent on 4 unit and he nearly dropped 4unit,

These sentences really make me laugh, they contradict themselves, shouldnt by your first arguement, shouldnt this guy have analyzed 3u better? and by your second, u shouldve done worse in english cause 4u takes up much of its time?

hows that for logic?
 
Last edited:

volition

arr.
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,281
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
chubbaraff said:
For example i would argue that i would have never got 89 in english without 4unit maths because it makes u analyze things so much clearer. And besides when you do 4 unit you have done first year uni, of course you are much better prepared for university.

So we study a subject that has equivalence to first year university (which occupies 40% of our study time and it should be worth 1 unit?? Yeh?? Think of that, people, who later become the actuaries, the ceo's and the engineers of the innovation of australia should be told that theyre advanced studies should only be worth half the study of petty mathematics that is uncreative and serves no purpose.
In your first paragraph there, are you really explaining why you think "3unit should not count for 2units", or are you just talking 4unit up? I find it hard to believe that doing 4unit maths makes you better at english... Does that happen in all cases? I doubt it.

Now, with regards to your second paragraph, you go on about how "4unit maths = first year uni". Well, that statement shows you that 4unit maths is NOT necessary to go to uni. Because if it's equivalent and you're going to DO first year uni anyway, it certainly means that 4unit is not necessary. (at least for actuarial studies at UNSW), Where the head of that major said that students are taught how to do it from the start. Sure, it might have been useful to do 4unit maths, but it isn't necessary.

Speaking of useful, don't you think it might be 'useful' in the same regard for people going for law to do "legal studies"??? Notice how the people who go into law at uni don't always do "legal studies" for their HSC??? Notice how those people tend to do 4unit maths, physics and/or chem??? (So that they can make the extraordinarily high cut off marks for law at Sydney or UNSW)

Also, you could argue that as a subject, PDHPE is at least somewhat 'close' to what you'd be learning in Medicine at uni, but note the similarity with the 'legal studies and law', where PDHPE is not a subject that is commonly undertaken by prospective Medicine students.

So, looking at the two examples above, would you really say that the HSC rewards people who do subjects that they "like" (perceivably you like a subject if you plan to do it at uni), or does it reward people who 'just take harder subjects'. (assuming that you do comparatively worse in the harder subject than you would have done in the 'easier' subject, to account for the fact that it actually is harder for you??) Some might say that scaling and whatever adjustment takes place ensures that the system remains fair, but I dont think it does if you look at how easy it is to do well in 3unit maths for example.

Also, you say that a subject that takes up "40% of your time should not only count for one unit", but perhaps you aren't realising that maybe you wouldn't spend as much time on that subject if you knew it only counted for one unit??
And here's a nice place to throw in the idea that maybe you shouldn't be doing a subject if it takes up "40% of your time" (well, if in 'unitary' cost they counted the same, unless for SOME reason, 4unit and 3unit are worth more....)

Bringing it back to the original argument, "that 3unit should not count for two".
Do you agree with me when I say that not everybody spends a great deal of time on ext maths (both ext units)? Because, they certainly don't HAVE TO. Given that it is very easy to score say 35/50 or 70/100 in 3unit(and get a fat UAI contribution) thanks to BOS/UAC alignment/scaling whatever, I doubt that you would even need to spend much time studying to get a better UAI contribution than what you would have otherwise scored trying to do 'as well' in another subject, and this is what the argument is about.

In 2001, according to: http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=34578&page=1 For Ext 1 maths, to get 35/50 you needed somewhere between (30-43)/84, and to get 45/50 you needed somewhere between (45-52)/84. So, looking at those raw marks, it is possible to have scored 45/84 = 53.6% and got given 90/100 for your 'trouble'. Just have a look at what you needed to get 90 in other courses and you might see what I'm trying to say here.
 

ajmason87

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
43
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
woo hoo great stuff volition, finally another 3 unitter who will back up this point
 

thegangmaster

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
24
Location
Epping
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
ok 3-unit ppl stop having a cry about 3u counting for 2 units if u do 4-unit. If u do 3-unit for the majority of ppl their 2unit mark shud be much higher than 3 unit mark thus being better for ur UAI than if ur 3u mark was double (see my earlier post).

Only ppl who stuffed up their 2unit would have benefited from doubling their 3-unit mark. Thus the system shouldn't be changed just to benefit this minority. 2 maths exams is enuf ne ways, even tho 4 unit ppl will rip 2 unit its just a waste of time to require all 4 unit students to do it just to catch out the minority of 4-unit ppl who shouldn't be doing 4 unit in the first place (if they can't rip 2unit). Those ppl shoudn't bother u neways since they will get so low in the end that u shud smash them.
 

ajmason87

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
43
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
thegangmaster said:
ok 3-unit ppl stop having a cry about 3u counting for 2 units if u do 4-unit. If u do 3-unit for the majority of ppl their 2unit mark shud be much higher than 3 unit mark thus being better for ur UAI than if ur 3u mark was double (see my earlier post).

Only ppl who stuffed up their 2unit would have benefited from doubling their 3-unit mark. Thus the system shouldn't be changed just to benefit this minority. 2 maths exams is enuf ne ways, even tho 4 unit ppl will rip 2 unit its just a waste of time to require all 4 unit students to do it just to catch out the minority of 4-unit ppl who shouldn't be doing 4 unit in the first place (if they can't rip 2unit). Those ppl shoudn't bother u neways since they will get so low in the end that u shud smash them.
That really is stupid, difficulty and ease at which a 4 unitter could smash a 3 or 2 unitter is completely irrelevant. Ok, u tell me y 4 unit ppl shud get 3 u doubled over 3 unitters, when it is a subject it its own right, with separate rankings, scalings, assessment and common periods. After all i sat in the same classroom as the 4 unit ppl for 3 unit material, no matter wat there other subjects are i cant see how a doubling for them is justified, plz gangmaster enlighten me.
 

thegangmaster

New Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
24
Location
Epping
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
ajmason87 said:
That really is stupid, difficulty and ease at which a 4 unitter could smash a 3 or 2 unitter is completely irrelevant. Ok, u tell me y 4 unit ppl shud get 3 u doubled over 3 unitters, when it is a subject it its own right, with separate rankings, scalings, assessment and common periods. After all i sat in the same classroom as the 4 unit ppl for 3 unit material, no matter wat there other subjects are i cant see how a doubling for them is justified, plz gangmaster enlighten me.
Its just the only logical way of doing it as 4unit maths must count for 4 units thus 2u for 3u and 2u for 4u is best system. As requiring 4u students to do the 2u exam (another 3hr exam) is stupid. Like i said before the majority of 4u students would rip 2u hence being a waste of time as it would not prove anything. Also this would also mean that they will occupy most of the higher range of marks making it extremely difficult for 2u and 3u only students to obtain band 6 marks. This will be very biased towards the 4unit students as they learn much more difficult material but get to do same exam as the other students. Thus the system in place now is more fair in a sense that it is more balanced in terms of more balanced canditure against each other.
 

chubbaraff

Proudly BOS Left
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
159
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
The length of your post voilition is long enough for me to say fine have your moral victory, ive had enough of this stupid thread, I work 30hours a week like u should have if you wanted to get ahead. Your all friegen tall poppy syndrome whingers who should for once get of your friegen arse and be proactive. Damn, take the hardest road if you can be bothered to get away with it, and you never know guys, your need to whinge and moan about your poor and disadvantaged selves on the internet may well dissapear
 

volition

arr.
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,281
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
thegangmaster said:
Like i said before the majority of 4u students would rip 2u hence being a waste of time as it would not prove anything. Also this would also mean that they will occupy most of the higher range of marks making it extremely difficult for 2u and 3u only students to obtain band 6 marks.
This is incorrect, because HSC marks are not awarded on a 'rank basis', they are awarded based on how many marks you get (and hence what band you fall into as determined by the people who set the exams). For example, it is certainly POSSIBLE for everyone in the state to achieve band 6 in a subject, if they all score above the raw mark band 6 cutoff(however unlikely that may seem). You cannot argue that '2u and 3u' students will miss out.

And if 4u students ARE that good, then fine, let them 'smash' 2unit. It's what happens in English isn't it? (4unit english students do the 2unit english exam).
 

SeDaTeD

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
571
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
English is different. They learn different material that doesn't build on the 2u component, whereas in maths, it does.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top