Who thinks the HSC is unfair? (1 Viewer)

[Sadiah]

^ I for one feel it's really unfair.

Everything is unfair in this world.

 

[kaz1]

Everything is unfair in this world.

Not the justice system.

 

[annabackwards]

Now you are just maneuvering around what I said without addressing it; I agreed with you that you can do well in any school, I still maintain however that you would be very likely to do better in a better school, for the reasons I already outlined.

I did adress it, i basically said your reasoning was flawed and lots of kids don't benefit from going to a selective school etc etc at all.

Even if it was true, it has still got nothing to do with the HSC system itself. Whatever system is adopted, there will always be the "top" or "better" schools. But as i said, your school won't matter if you have a good work ethic.

TL;DR - You say that kids who go to better/selective schools would most likely get better ATARs because of the environment. But that still has nothing to do with the HSC system itself. Of course, feel free to propose a better, practical method/process to solve this "problem".

 

[Sadiah]

Not the justice system.

lol, there's nothing called justice in this world.

 

[rougesummer101]

yeah i think those who think the hsc is unfair. are just not trying enough.

i mean, if i hadnt studied at all i would have got a shit mark. If i had studied really hard i definatley would have got in the 90's.

I studied pretty averagely and got 85. so really its up to you how you do. you cant expect more than what you put in.


That said. they could up the scaling on humanities

 

[ilikebeeef]

yeah i think those who think the hsc is unfair. are just not trying enough.

Yeah they could be the people who did poor-scaling subjects and only put "average" effort in, hence they get lower ATARS than they feel they deserve, so they feel "disadvantaged". Or they could be people who underestimate the effort required for the high scaling subjects.

 

[emilyo]

lol im sure that everyone who got the atar they wanted think that hsc is fair while everyone who didnt do so well dont think it is. I for one got well above what i deserved seeing as i didnt do any work yet blitzed it so i wont complain. Really if you prepare for all your assessments throughout the year and do well in the final exams there is no reason for you to be disappointed (and there are always other pathways into uni ;P)

 

[leadboy]

my point is it seems redundant to have the extra exam after when the final outcome will still be the same. however the hsc is a standardised exam to make sure school assessments weren't too easy though why should it have so much weighting as it does? it's just another exam after all.

well the exam is the only way of comparing evry school in the state. thats why it weighs so much. plus, if your assessments weigh 50 %. if it was more, then any school cud just bump up the students marks

 

[leadboy]

I reckon scaling is pretty unfair. Getting band 5s in good scaling subjects like Physics and Chemistry help your ATAR more than say getting a band 5 in Aboriginal studies, the ATAR system seems to be giving more of an advantage to people good at science based subjects rather than students good at artsy subjects.

well look at it this way, its not just science subjects. take economics. neone wud agree that economics is more difficult than aboriginal studies. therefore it takes more effort to do well in economics. im not saying aboriginal studies is a neglected subject. but its just a way of distinguishing the level of effort required to do well in certain subjects

better example. maths ext 2 scales higher than general maths. if scaling wasnt ther, ppl doing ext 2, defininately the harder of the two wud b hard done by. and the ppl hu say that if u pick a high scaling subject ull do fine. well u still hav to do well in the subject and put in effort

 

[Schoey93]

well look at it this way, its not just science subjects. take economics. neone wud agree that economics is more difficult than aboriginal studies. therefore it takes more effort to do well in economics. im not saying aboriginal studies is a neglected subject. but its just a way of distinguishing the level of effort required to do well in certain subjects

better example. maths ext 2 scales higher than general maths. if scaling wasnt ther, ppl doing ext 2, defininately the harder of the two wud b hard done by. and the ppl hu say that if u pick a high scaling subject ull do fine. well u still hav to do well in the subject and put in effort

Stupid. People who like Economics but don't like Aboriginal Studies would obviously find Aboriginal Studies harder. It comes down to doing what you love, that's what will be easy.

Not "anyone" or everyone would agree that Economics is harder than Aboriginal Studies. They are completely different fields. One subject, ECON, looks at money, of which the nomadic Aborigines have and had none. Aboriginal Studies is a great subject that I would have done had it been offered - you get to learn about your heritage (white people who massacred the natives, yay for capitalism! ) and the tragic story of 1788.

We European-descended Australians destroyed this country, we didn't make it. Australia and its Aborigines were better off without our nasty dangerous money and guns. To suggest that Economics (money) is progress is ridiculous. Money practically killed a beautiful ancient society of wonderfully resourceful people

I challenge an economist to survive without money in a forest or the outback - I really do believe the Aborigines achievements of sustainability and emotional wealth are far more wonderful and beautifully touching than some bridge over water with moving things on it and some expensive house

I'm so angry and sad. I wish I was born a nomad Aborigine. It would have been bliss (fuck the shorter life expectancy, at least the years I would have had would have been more happy than this terrible white "civilised" life where Australians and Americans consent to blasting fellow homo sapiens/people to pieces in Iraq

 

[kaz1]

Stupid. People who like Economics but don't like Aboriginal Studies would obviously find Aboriginal Studies harder. It comes down to doing what you love, that's what will be easy.

Not "anyone" or everyone would agree that Economics is harder than Aboriginal Studies. They are completely different fields. One subject, ECON, looks at money, of which the nomadic Aborigines have and had none. Aboriginal Studies is a great subject that I would have done had it been offered - you get to learn about your heritage (white people who massacred the natives, yay for capitalism! ) and the tragic story of 1788.

We European-descended Australians destroyed this country, we didn't make it. Australia and its Aborigines were better off without our nasty dangerous money and guns. To suggest that Economics (money) is progress is ridiculous. Money practically killed a beautiful ancient society of wonderfully resourceful people

I challenge an economist to survive without money in a forest or the outback - I really do believe the Aborigines achievements of sustainability and emotional wealth are far more wonderful and beautifully touching than some bridge over water with moving things on it and some expensive house

I'm so angry and sad. I wish I was born a nomad Aborigine. It would have been bliss (fuck the shorter life expectancy, at least the years I would have had would have been more happy than this terrible white "civilised" life where Australians and Americans consent to blasting fellow homo sapiens/people to pieces in Iraq

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

hahahahaha you think Economics is about money.

Although I do agree those two subjects are two very different fields.

 

[annabackwards]

Stupid. People who like Economics but don't like Aboriginal Studies would obviously find Aboriginal Studies harder. It comes down to doing what you love, that's what will be easy.

Lots people hate certain subjects or find them boring but still find them easy.

And just so you kiddies know, scaling has nothing to do with comparing how hard one subject is to another. It compares marks based on the strength of the subject's candidature.

For eg, If all the "smart" MX2 kids suddenly did general maths and all the "dumb" general kids did MX2, general maths for that year would scale excellently while MX2 would scale abysmally.

 

[ilikebeeef]

If all the "smart" MX2 kids suddenly did general maths and all the "dumb" general kids did MX2, general maths for that year would scale excellently while MX2 would scale abysmally.

Omg that would be so cool. If only that it would happen...

 

[lpodnano]

Omg that would be so cool. If only that it would happen...

I wish that would happen.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I don't think the HSC is unfair beyond getting into uni.

The whole process of creating a TER/UAI/ATAR/etc is pathetic. Having a 3.1 digit number as a ranking to get into uni is ridiculous, especially given:
1. How flexible many uni courses are with the rankings on the one hand,
2. how inflexible many other uni courses are with the rankings on the other hand,
3. how students confuse their ATAR/etc with their HSC results,
4. how the ATAR is calculated,
5. the potential irrelevance of ATAR/etc ranking with university potential, hence why many courses look at other things (see 1.).

The whole system needs to be replaced with something like the IB, although slightly changed for the Australian educational culture. I'd personally leave it exactly the way it is, except add a vocational Group and blend two of the other groups.

 

[G-face]

Yeah, I think its unfair in regards to the actual HSC examinations themselves; the whole time limit thing how is that fair? What if someone simply can't write fast. Why should they be disadvantaged?

 

[nhoustonrocks]

Lots people hate certain subjects or find them boring but still find them easy.

And just so you kiddies know, scaling has nothing to do with comparing how hard one subject is to another. It compares marks based on the strength of the subject's candidature.

For eg, If all the "smart" MX2 kids suddenly did general maths and all the "dumb" general kids did MX2, general maths for that year would scale excellently while MX2 would scale abysmally.

but how would they judge on who the smarter people are??

obviously the people who do MX2 are going to be better at maths than the people who do general maths, but how would they compare to people, lets say between chemistry and visual arts?

 

[Njn]

but how would they judge on who the smarter people are??

obviously the people who do MX2 are going to be better at maths than the people who do general maths, but how would they compare to people, lets say between chemistry and visual arts?

By comparing the marks of people within the subjects themselves. If you go by annabackward's analogy, you should at least note this:

And just so you kiddies know, scaling has nothing to do with comparing how hard one subject is to another. It compares marks based on the strength of the subject's candidature.

The matter of the fact is, they don't compare between 'how hard' a subject is compared to another. This doesn't just apply to different levels of maths or english, but any other subject. What determines scaling is how "smart" the people who do the particular subject are.

For example, if you may excuse my stereotyping, you would assume that the "smart" students would generally pick chemistry over visual arts, and that you also know that chemistry scales better than visual arts. See a trend?

 

[Bar901]

Stupid. People who like Economics but don't like Aboriginal Studies would obviously find Aboriginal Studies harder. It comes down to doing what you love, that's what will be easy.

Not "anyone" or everyone would agree that Economics is harder than Aboriginal Studies. They are completely different fields. One subject, ECON, looks at money, of which the nomadic Aborigines have and had none. Aboriginal Studies is a great subject that I would have done had it been offered - you get to learn about your heritage (white people who massacred the natives, yay for capitalism! ) and the tragic story of 1788.

We European-descended Australians destroyed this country, we didn't make it. Australia and its Aborigines were better off without our nasty dangerous money and guns. To suggest that Economics (money) is progress is ridiculous. Money practically killed a beautiful ancient society of wonderfully resourceful people

I challenge an economist to survive without money in a forest or the outback - I really do believe the Aborigines achievements of sustainability and emotional wealth are far more wonderful and beautifully touching than some bridge over water with moving things on it and some expensive house

I'm so angry and sad. I wish I was born a nomad Aborigine. It would have been bliss (fuck the shorter life expectancy, at least the years I would have had would have been more happy than this terrible white "civilised" life where Australians and Americans consent to blasting fellow homo sapiens/people to pieces in Iraq

Ahhh man do I love bleeding heart hippies.

Anyone who can say - with a straight face of course - that they would have prefered to be born into a nomadic aboriginal society rather than living in Sydney, a city with some of the highest living standards in the world, is a flat out idiot.

Simple as that.

I get the distinct feeling you are one of those people who complains and complains about the state of the world, how capitalism ruins our earth etc etc. All the while you sit around using the very tools you so despise to present your opinion while never actually attempting to make a difference.

Seriously, you just sound ridiculous.

 

[Bar901]

And just so you kiddies know, scaling has nothing to do with comparing how hard one subject is to another. It compares marks based on the strength of the subject's candidature.

For eg, If all the "smart" MX2 kids suddenly did general maths and all the "dumb" general kids did MX2, general maths for that year would scale excellently while MX2 would scale abysmally.

I know you love to say this, and you even corrected me before. However I already knew this, I just think it is a far simpler explanation to say that the harder a subject, in general the better it scales.

I know technically it has NOTHING to do with a subjects difficulty, but across the board a subjects difficulty and it's canditatures relative strength are almost ALWAYS exactly correlated. You might think it is a bad thing to give slightly misleading information, but when you are trying to explain it to people who have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (and who often struggle with the concept), I think it is just easier to say "Basically, the harder a subject the better it will scale".