myth busters---2006 hsc (1 Viewer)

[wdoueihi]

na the hsc is no longer ranked based. it is now purely based on the performance of yourself. there are however slight impacts on your mark becasuse of the marks of the cohort around you ie your class mates. in 1994 exactly 10% of students received a uai of 90+. in 2004 about 17% of total students received a uai of 90+. the hsc is getting easier and easier every year. some ppl reckon its coz the government wants people to think that the education system in australia is getting better.

 

[orange_blob]

Whether or not the memory retention thing is true for the 2 hours studying thing, I'd think you'd want to do more - considering that most exams are 3 hours, if you always only study for 2 hours it's going to be a bit of a shock when you have to concentrate for 3 hours in the exam.

 

[jho]

hmmm....u guys are absolute morons....

wuts the pt in talking about all this bs?

idiots...

 

[rusty123]

na the hsc is no longer ranked based. it is now purely based on the performance of yourself. there are however slight impacts on your mark becasuse of the marks of the cohort around you ie your class mates. in 1994 exactly 10% of students received a uai of 90+. in 2004 about 17% of total students received a uai of 90+. the hsc is getting easier and easier every year. some ppl reckon its coz the government wants people to think that the education system in australia is getting better.

CLEARLY this guy has no idea what he's talking about. firstly, in 1994 it was the TER, which is different to the UAI so you can't compare them. second, the reason 17% of people got 90+ is because the UAI works as if everyone who dropped out in year 10 is also doing it (unlike the TER), therefore 10% of the people who completed year 10 must be roughly equivalent to 17% of the people completing the HSC. thirdly, the UAI is most definitely a ranking. read any board of studies document about this, or even use wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_Admission_Index) and you will see. mate if you are doing your hsc this year, as your profile says, you should probably have known this stuff more than a week before it starts. how can you say "it is now purely based on the performance of yourself" and then, in the very next sentence, say that others have an impact up your mark? get your facts straight buddy.

 

[_dhj_]

Does that not contradict itself? lol.

And I call bull crap, how many people was this study taken over? Especially the first point, I believe it's down to the individual and their own methods. Infact, if I was to only study 2 hours a day, I'd most likely forget the stuff I studied since it would be over such a long period of time...
It also depends how people space out their study, if you were to do 4 hours in the early hours of the day it would sink in by night, then another 3 hours at night would sink in over night...

that's not bull crap. most of it is true.

 

[uhawww]

^ I don't even think 2 hours a day would be enough to cover the whole HSC course more than once. Infact, you'd have to work everyday to probably just scrape it in, depending on your subjects. This is then contradicted by the second "fact".
Is the way the minds of 230 people work really enough to make a conclusion on this? Perhaps a more extensive study has come up with the same "results", and even then I fail to believe this would be the case for everyone, an example being myself.. and a number of the other people who posted in this thread.

 

[wdoueihi]

CLEARLY this guy has no idea what he's talking about. firstly, in 1994 it was the TER, which is different to the UAI so you can't compare them. second, the reason 17% of people got 90+ is because the UAI works as if everyone who dropped out in year 10 is also doing it (unlike the TER), therefore 10% of the people who completed year 10 must be roughly equivalent to 17% of the people completing the HSC. thirdly, the UAI is most definitely a ranking. read any board of studies document about this, or even use wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_Admission_Index) and you will see. mate if you are doing your hsc this year, as your profile says, you should probably have known this stuff more than a week before it starts. how can you say "it is now purely based on the performance of yourself" and then, in the very next sentence, say that others have an impact up your mark? get your facts straight buddy.

i think rusty123's head is a bit rusty. perhaps you should place your head in a toilet and flush several times in order to clear your head up. how would you know whether or not i know what i am talking about. THE HSC IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL... IM TRYING TO GET PEOPLE MOTIVATED TO DO SOME STUDY FOR CHRISTS SAKE. anyways im saying that my bros wife is a uni lecturer and shes got all these PHDs and stuff in nuerology and psychology. she knows what shes talking about.

 

[DeathB4Life]

so....you just lied to us???

*tear

 

[rusty123]

i think rusty123's head is a bit rusty. perhaps you should place your head in a toilet and flush several times in order to clear your head up. how would you know whether or not i know what i am talking about. THE HSC IS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL... IM TRYING TO GET PEOPLE MOTIVATED TO DO SOME STUDY FOR CHRISTS SAKE. anyways im saying that my bros wife is a uni lecturer and shes got all these PHDs and stuff in nuerology and psychology. she knows what shes talking about.

the hsc is about the individual compared to the state as a whole. motivating people may be a noble cause, but perhaps lying to them about the nature of the hsc isn't the way to do it. also, i didn't refute the stuff about info retention etc - it looks like bs to me but i don't have any proof otherwise. what i questioned was your comments about the hsc's structure - how would having a phd in neurology and pshychology help your bro's wife know about that?

 

[blacsheep]

hey all sorry to bust this guys bubble that started this myth i go to school with him and im not even sure he has a older brother so ireckon his turning it up anyways why dont we see some proper documentation to prove it

 

[GORDO1515]

A sample base of 230 people can by no means give the clear picture, especially when its the HSC we are talking about it is a totally different. What types of study were tested because i can't see how for science subjests and maths that doing past paper isn't going to help. If you did 5 hours of past papers you would be better than had you done 2. Also are the different range of subjects taken into account?

way too subjective to get anywhere near a definative answer, especially with only 230 people who may have come from the same school.

 

[dandel26]

Sounds like a cop out to me

 

[Tim035]

sniff sniff... whats that I smell



BULLSHIT!!

You are either trying to put others off studying in some weird attempt to give yourself an advantage in the HSC or are just plain gullible.

If you could do well in the HSC on two hours study a day 95% of the members on this forum would be expected to go super well in the HSC, it just doesn't add up. In two hours you couldn't even get one past paper for one subject done. You'd be studying most of your subjects once or at the most twice in a weekly period, which means you'd have done a total of around 6-8 hours stuvac preparation walking into the HSC.

EVERYONE I know that got over 90 UAI did 6 or more hours study over stuvac per day.

 

[shinji]

hey all sorry to bust this guys bubble that started this myth i go to school with him and im not even sure he has a older brother so ireckon his turning it up anyways why dont we see some proper documentation to prove it

lol. this myth has been busted

 

[airie]

:rofl:

Cramming should help, but only for subjects where loads of theory is tested eg. IPT. For subjects that require more skills and techniques, I'd say cramming's not the way to go

 

[wdoueihi]

the hsc is about the individual compared to the state as a whole. motivating people may be a noble cause, but perhaps lying to them about the nature of the hsc isn't the way to do it. also, i didn't refute the stuff about info retention etc - it looks like bs to me but i don't have any proof otherwise. what i questioned was your comments about the hsc's structure - how would having a phd in neurology and pshychology help your bro's wife know about that?

hold on mate...who said anything about lying?????????????? i didn't lie. what i meant was that i wouldn't have gone to the effort of posting this if i didn't think people would benefit. rusty123 i think its time for you to reuse the toilet.
and black sheep you are a psychopath. why do you claim to know me?? i havent even talked to you before.

 

[rusty123]

hold on mate...who said anything about lying?????????????? i didn't lie. what i meant was that i wouldn't have gone to the effort of posting this if i didn't think people would benefit. rusty123 i think its time for you to reuse the toilet.
and black sheep you are a psychopath. why do you claim to know me?? i havent even talked to you before.

giving people false information about the hsc (i.e. saying it is not rank based), which has been proven wrong = lying.

 

[joesmith1975]

Re: Contribute to Myths of the 2006 HSC!

its different for everyone, 30 minutes a day could be enoght so stfu dagwoman

 

[dagwoman]

Re: Contribute to Myths of the 2006 HSC!

its different for everyone, 30 minutes a day could be enoght so stfu dagwoman

stfu??? Of course it's different for everyone, but that still doesn't make the original post not total bullshit. And yes, I'm sure 30 minutes a day could be enough if you don't give a shit about your UAI.

 

[dagwoman]

Hahaha.. just looked up "stfu" on Urban Dictionary:

stfu
A way of saying "shut the fuck up", instead of actually typing it. Has less meaning than actually typing "shut the fuck up", and is often said by people that are losing an argument or can't think of a comeback.