Gatekeep resources prior trials (2 Viewers)

[carrotsss]

my greatest disappointment is how i shared a pretty decent chem drive with a large amount of people in my cohort and the chem average is still terrible and barely anyone has dropped

i kinda figured out over year 12 that resources can enable someone motivated to do better but they can’t really change someone who isn’t motivated anyway

 

[Aeonium]

i kinda figured out over year 12 that resources can enable someone motivated to do better but they can’t really change someone who isn’t motivated anyway

no they all seem motivated n stuff which is why i'm confused i'm considering the possibility of them.. not being competent..

 

[Luukas.2]

Some nerds are weirdly competitive when it comes to ranks/marks.

When I was at school, many high achieving students in my year lied about how much they studied in order to try to de-spirit other students, they gatekept resources, or just actively deceived others about how difficult certain things were.

The reality is that once you go to uni your school marks are completely worthless, as the only thing the uni cares about is your uni marks.

If the only way you can win is by preventing others from having useful resources, not only are you bringing the general society down by not sharing the resources (people who could have done better with the resources haven't, this is a net bad for society), you were never a real winner to begin with.

That's pretty judgemental.

Some competition can become unhealthy, sure, and high school students can be immature and petty at times - but being "net bad" for society and "bringing the general society down"? Isn't this a bit over the top? Are "some nerds" really the group that are "never real winner(s)"? How about the children of the rich who have the support that wealth brings who feel entitled to privilege on the basis of inheritance? Society is far from a level playing field, nor a meritocracy, and if some "nerds" feel a need to protect resources they have generated when competing for (say) financial support to be able to access university, are they really deserving of being held responsible for a decline in society?

 

[ZakaryJayNicholls]

That's pretty judgemental.

Some competition can become unhealthy, sure, and high school students can be immature and petty at times - but being "net bad" for society and "bringing the general society down"? Isn't this a bit over the top? Are "some nerds" really the group that are "never real winner(s)"? How about the children of the rich who have the support that wealth brings who feel entitled to privilege on the basis of inheritance? Society is far from a level playing field, nor a meritocracy, and if some "nerds" feel a need to protect resources they have generated when competing for (say) financial support to be able to access university, are they really deserving of being held responsible for a decline in society?

First, you should know that there is no point in attending a university if you cannot achieve exceptional results in an environment of equal access to resources, this is particularly true in STEM faculties, but true of the university system in general, and if you want financial support, you can get a job (most of the contributing members of the community have them - it might do you some good).

Second, you also seem to see education as an individual achievement, which it is not. Education is a collaborative enterprise spanning the majority of the society, countlessly many people work tirelessly so your cohort can have access to as much learning as is possible, many of the people in the education system are not paid for their contributions but work hard to ensure everyone has the opportunity to achieve as much as they can, having individual students withholding resources for marginal personal educational performance is not at all in the spirit of this system. As a society, we need the education system to produce suitable prepared candidates for the advanced education and training systems in order to train as many critical professionals, researchers, and educators as is possible. This means having all people trained as much as is possible is crucial.

We note here that the training of other professionals not only helps them, but also helps you. If more students were given the resources to train as doctors or nurses we would have more doctors and nurses, if more students were given the highest quality of study note in math we would have more students capable of receiving degrees in finance or engineering, the existence of these people is a net benefit to everyone in the society, and anything which stifles their production is not in the best interest of the broader society.

If you still think the education system is “you vs everyone else” and have desire to advance even if that means holding others back, not only have you failed to understand anything about the nature of the education system, you have disgraced the countless hours of volunteer work that thousands of scholars, teachers, and educators have done to make the system as efficient and equitable as is possible, and your ignorance worsens the net overall state of the economy and the broader society by depriving others of the best education possible.

 

[Realstudytips]

First, you should know that there is no point in attending a university if you cannot achieve exceptional results in an environment of equal access to resources, this is particularly true in STEM faculties, but true of the university system in general, and if you want financial support, you can get a job (most of the contributing members of the community have them - it might do you some good).

Second, you also seem to see education as an individual achievement, which it is not. Education is a collaborative enterprise spanning the majority of the society, countlessly many people work tirelessly so your cohort can have access to as much learning as is possible, many of the people in the education system are not paid for their contributions but work hard to ensure everyone has the opportunity to achieve as much as they can, having individual students withholding resources for marginal personal educational performance is not at all in the spirit of this system. As a society, we need the education system to produce suitable prepared candidates for the advanced education and training systems in order to train as many critical professionals, researchers, and educators as is possible. This means having all people trained as much as is possible is crucial.

We note here that the training of other professionals not only helps them, but also helps you. If more students were given the resources to train as doctors or nurses we would have more doctors and nurses, if more students were given the highest quality of study note in math we would have more students capable of receiving degrees in finance or engineering, the existence of these people is a net benefit to everyone in the society, and anything which stifles their production is not in the best interest of the broader society.

If you still think the education system is “you vs everyone else” and have desire to advance even if that means holding others back, not only have you failed to understand anything about the nature of the education system, you have disgraced the countless hours of volunteer work that thousands of scholars, teachers, and educators have done to make the system as efficient and equitable as is possible, and your ignorance worsens the net overall state of the economy and the broader society by depriving others of the best education possible.

yo u cooked so hard u literally bombed a kitchen

 

[jonolad69]

First, you should know that there is no point in attending a university if you cannot achieve exceptional results in an environment of equal access to resources, this is particularly true in STEM faculties, but true of the university system in general, and if you want financial support, you can get a job (most of the contributing members of the community have them - it might do you some good).

Second, you also seem to see education as an individual achievement, which it is not. Education is a collaborative enterprise spanning the majority of the society, countlessly many people work tirelessly so your cohort can have access to as much learning as is possible, many of the people in the education system are not paid for their contributions but work hard to ensure everyone has the opportunity to achieve as much as they can, having individual students withholding resources for marginal personal educational performance is not at all in the spirit of this system. As a society, we need the education system to produce suitable prepared candidates for the advanced education and training systems in order to train as many critical professionals, researchers, and educators as is possible. This means having all people trained as much as is possible is crucial.

We note here that the training of other professionals not only helps them, but also helps you. If more students were given the resources to train as doctors or nurses we would have more doctors and nurses, if more students were given the highest quality of study note in math we would have more students capable of receiving degrees in finance or engineering, the existence of these people is a net benefit to everyone in the society, and anything which stifles their production is not in the best interest of the broader society.

If you still think the education system is “you vs everyone else” and have desire to advance even if that means holding others back, not only have you failed to understand anything about the nature of the education system, you have disgraced the countless hours of volunteer work that thousands of scholars, teachers, and educators have done to make the system as efficient and equitable as is possible, and your ignorance worsens the net overall state of the economy and the broader society by depriving others of the best education possible.

let him cook

 

[Luukas.2]

First, you should know that there is no point in attending a university if you cannot achieve exceptional results in an environment of equal access to resources, this is particularly true in STEM faculties, but true of the university system in general, and if you want financial support, you can get a job (most of the contributing members of the community have them - it might do you some good).

Second, you also seem to see education as an individual achievement, which it is not. Education is a collaborative enterprise spanning the majority of the society, countlessly many people work tirelessly so your cohort can have access to as much learning as is possible, many of the people in the education system are not paid for their contributions but work hard to ensure everyone has the opportunity to achieve as much as they can, having individual students withholding resources for marginal personal educational performance is not at all in the spirit of this system. As a society, we need the education system to produce suitable prepared candidates for the advanced education and training systems in order to train as many critical professionals, researchers, and educators as is possible. This means having all people trained as much as is possible is crucial.

We note here that the training of other professionals not only helps them, but also helps you. If more students were given the resources to train as doctors or nurses we would have more doctors and nurses, if more students were given the highest quality of study note in math we would have more students capable of receiving degrees in finance or engineering, the existence of these people is a net benefit to everyone in the society, and anything which stifles their production is not in the best interest of the broader society.

If you still think the education system is “you vs everyone else” and have desire to advance even if that means holding others back, not only have you failed to understand anything about the nature of the education system, you have disgraced the countless hours of volunteer work that thousands of scholars, teachers, and educators have done to make the system as efficient and equitable as is possible, and your ignorance worsens the net overall state of the economy and the broader society by depriving others of the best education possible.

Zakary, I'm not sure how you are trying to come across. I sincerely hope it is not as you are coming across, at least from my perspective, because that would reflect very poorly on you, in my opinion.

Replying to some of your points:

• ... there is no point in attending a university if you cannot achieve exceptional results in an environment of equal access to resources ...
  • Somewhere around half of university students will achieve results in the pass range, 50 to 64%. They graduate with degrees in their field, go on to paid employment, and can live fulfilled lives despite not achieving exceptional results. If everyone achieved exceptional results, they would not be exceptional. You might view many (most?) university graduates as having wasted their time attending university, or as failures for not achieving exceptional university results, but I most certainly do not agree with your view. Was attending school similarly pointless for those with ATARs below 90 (say)?

• ... if you want financial support, you can get a job (most of the contributing members of the community have them - it might do you some good).
  • Thanks for your (incorrect) assumption that I have not held a job. Thanks also for your casual dismissal of the notion that there are financial barriers to attending university that are formidable for some. University access in Australia is much easier than in many places, but that does not mean that it is easy for everyone.

• Second, you also seem to see education as an individual achievement, which it is not.
  • I hope that you are trying to say that education is not solely an individual achievement - which is true, in that it is also necessary for progress of our society - because it is preposterous to deny that individual achievement is a core aspect of education. We rank students based on personal results, grant or withhold access to further studies, provide rewards, judge candidates for employment, etc, all with consideration given to individual achievement. Your own claims on the importance of achieving "exceptional results" are evaluations of individual achievement.

• Education is a collaborative enterprise spanning the majority of the society, countlessly many people work tirelessly so your cohort can have access to as much learning as is possible, many of the people in the education system are not paid for their contributions but work hard to ensure everyone has the opportunity to achieve as much as they can, having individual students withholding resources for marginal personal educational performance is not at all in the spirit of this system.
  • It is regrettable that you choose to inform me of unpaid / voluntary contributions made for the benefit of all on a forum where I am making unpaid / voluntary contributions... and where your own contributions are coming with advertising for your tutoring work.

• As a society, we need the education system to produce suitable prepared candidates for the advanced education and training systems in order to train as many critical professionals, researchers, and educators as is possible. This means having all people trained as much as is possible is crucial.
  • How do you reconcile the need for "all people [to be] trained as much as is possible" with university attendance being pointless for those who don't achieve exceptional results?
  • Also, your argument reminds me of successive governments who have viewed the purpose of the early childhood sector as being to free parents to return to the workforce, disregarding the fact that high quality early childhood education provides profound and lasting benefits for the children. In the same way, secondary and tertiary education may provide skills for future employment, but an education sector devoted to such ends would be underperforming and not serving society well. Education is about learning to think critically and independently, to self-direct ongoing learning through seeking out and applying emerging knowledge in novel contexts, to be able to recognise limitations and act to address them, to function collaboratively and cooperatively in facing challenges. In virtually any field of study, significant content learned at university will be replaced by new discoveries, methods, theories, and circumstances., and so education needs to equip graduates with the capacity to adapt and continue to grow as individuals. A GP must have knowledge of medicine, of course... but (and more importantly) they need to learn to think in a medical way about problems and apply their understanding to address the needs of each patient. In a sense, education is less about acquisition of knowledge as it is enculturation into a community of practice, and the focus on training of specific skills to make graduates job-ready is actually a devaluation of education.

 

[Luukas.2]

• ... If more students were given the resources to train as doctors or nurses we would have more doctors and nurses, if more students were given the highest quality of study note in math we would have more students capable of receiving degrees in finance or engineering, the existence of these people is a net benefit to everyone in the society, and anything which stifles their production is not in the best interest of the broader society.
  • I don't see how you reconcile this view with your "exceptional marks" view. In any case, the limitation on places for doctors and nurses, etc, is a result of government choice, not student behaviour. The notion that only those with an ATAR of 99 (or whatever it is) has the capability to study medicine and function as a medical practitioner is absurd. Many students with ATARs of (say) 90+ are intelligent enough to cope with medical studies. The limitation is the number of funded places, which results from government policy. Given greater demand for places than the number available produces competition between students, competition that inevitably leads to some self-interested behaviours. Society forces individual students into competition and criticising students for responding to competition pressures in self-interested ways without recognising the role of their circumstances is incentivising such responses is unreasonable.

• If you still think the education system is “you vs everyone else” and have desire to advance even if that means holding others back, not only have you failed to understand anything about the nature of the education system, you have disgraced the countless hours of volunteer work that thousands of scholars, teachers, and educators have done to make the system as efficient and equitable as is possible, and your ignorance worsens the net overall state of the economy and the broader society by depriving others of the best education possible.
  • I think... I know that the education system starts out very collaborative and cooperative and morphs into a much more competitive structure through high school. The HSC / ATAR system is used t create a queue for access to higher education where places available are far below the demand from capable students, which creates a competitive tension that is unhelpful to the students caught in it and which undermines the wider goals of education. Claiming that the HSC / ATAR system is "as efficient and equitable as is possible" is ridiculous. Look at the uneven resourcing of schools, the huge amounts of money invested by parents into schools and tutoring with the goals of advancing their child's interests ahead of others, and the way that individuals are reduced to a number for making university entry decisions. This is (perhaps) efficient in an economic sense, but it is neither equitable nor based in a holistic evaluation of each individual.
  • I won't criticise HSC students for feeling like they are in competition with everyone else in their school and in the state because that is an entirely understandable feeling about the way that the system in which they are functioning operates. I think it is actually remarkable that many students still desire to work together, that they see that helping each other is also helping themselves. It speaks well of the nature of humanity that so many decline to adopt a Machiavellian attitude to the HSC, despite its design to label relative winners and losers.
  • Tertiary education returns to being more collaborative and cooperative, though remains competitive at undergraduate levels. It is only postgraduate education where the competitive aspects largely drop away.
  • You can describe my views as a disgrace, you can call me ignorant, you can say that I have deprived others of the best education that they could have had. Despite not knowing me, despite my contributions here providing evidence that you are wrong, and despite your inaccurate assumptions about me, you have the right to be insulting. Fortunately, you also have the right to be wrong.

 

[WeiWeiMan]

no they all seem motivated n stuff which is why i'm confused i'm considering the possibility of them.. not being competent..

Plz gimme

 

[ZakaryJayNicholls]

• Second, you also seem to see education as an individual achievement, which it is not.
  • I hope that you are trying to say that education is not solely an individual achievement - which is true, in that it is also necessary for progress of our society - because it is preposterous to deny that individual achievement is a core aspect of education. We rank students based on personal results, grant or withhold access to further studies, provide rewards, judge candidates for employment, etc, all with consideration given to individual achievement. Your own claims on the importance of achieving "exceptional results" are evaluations of individual achievement.

This comment demonstrates a quite poor understand of the education system, and why you support gatekeeping materials even if the materials could benefit others (which is obviously not in the best interest of the education system or of anyone for that matter).

Education is not a uniquely individual achievement it is a systemic achievement (an achievement of the system, not of the individual), as networks of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people make an individual person educated. In the standard economic model, the educated person then goes on to provide goods/services (in alignment to their field of expertise) to the community, in part in exchange for the education. This is true of exceptional results as well, they are something a well-supported and educated person will simply produce, however given their production entirely stems from good implementation of a functional education system - they are not uniquely personal achievements.

We should also stress that education is not primarily something you do; it is primarily something which happens to you (in the same way that riding a rollercoaster is something which primarily happens to you, as opposed to driving a car which is something you do - a carnival patron does not drive a rollercoaster - you can mess up riding in a rollercoaster if you choose not to follow the instructions, the same is true for education, but the quality of the provided education combined with your fundamental genetics are the determinants of your capacity to achieve within the system - e.g. you are not in control of these things, given that you don't choose your genetics and you don't choose the quality of your provided education).

When you receive a qualification, it's yours in the sense that you're the one who happened to get it and you have the training associated with it (which is of systemic value - everyone can be proud of a system which produces skilled graduates - including the graduates), but it is not a uniquely personal achievement. The idea that you should be trying to do the best (and beat others in the process) in order to attain higher rank (in a vain attempt to be granted further studies, be provided with rewards, or gain specific employments - presumably under some false delusion of being deserving or superior), as opposed to simply trying to allow everyone to achieve their best alongside trying to achieve your best (and simply evenhandedly accepting further studies, rewards, or jobs if you are fortunate enough to get them get them), is not what the school ranking system is designed to do - the only people who tend to think otherwise are overly grade zealous students, who simply don't know better.

 

[liamkk112]

This comment demonstrates a quite poor understand of the education system, and why you support gatekeeping materials even if the materials could benefit others (which is obviously not in the best interest of the education system or of anyone for that matter).

Education is not a uniquely individual achievement it is a systemic achievement (an achievement of the system, not of the individual), as networks of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people make an individual person educated. In the standard economic model, the educated person then goes on to provide goods/services (in alignment to their field of expertise) to the community, in part in exchange for the education. This is true of exceptional results as well, they are something a well-supported and educated person will simply produce, however given their production entirely stems from good implementation of a functional education system - they are not uniquely personal achievements.

We should also stress that education is not primarily something you do; it is primarily something which happens to you (in the same way that riding a rollercoaster is something which primarily happens to you, as opposed to driving a car which is something you do - a carnival patron does not drive a rollercoaster - you can mess up riding in a rollercoaster if you choose not to follow the instructions, the same is true for education, but the quality of the provided education combined with your fundamental genetics are the determinants of your capacity to achieve within the system - e.g. you are not in control of these things, given that you don't choose your genetics and you don't choose the quality of your provided education).

When you receive a qualification, it's yours in the sense that you're the one who happened to get it and you have the training associated with it (which is of systemic value - everyone can be proud of a system which produces skilled graduates - including the graduates), but it is not a uniquely personal achievement. The idea that you should be trying to do the best (and beat others in the process) in order to attain higher rank (in a vain attempt to be granted further studies, be provided with rewards, or gain specific employments - presumably under some false delusion of being deserving or superior), as opposed to simply trying to allow everyone to achieve their best alongside trying to achieve your best (and simply evenhandedly accepting further studies, rewards, or jobs if you are fortunate enough to get them get them), is not what the school ranking system is designed to do - the only people who tend to think otherwise are overly grade zealous students, who simply don't know better.

1. it seems to me that you misunderstand the point of luukas's comments. he doesn't seem to "support" gatekeeping materials, clearly not as he is actively contributing on this forum by providing resources and assisting with questions. he is simply stating that students are often put into situations where they feel like gatekeeping materials is necessary for success due to the pressures of ranking and competitiveness within many high schools (notably selective ones, and you cannot argue that rankings are not a competitve system that does have a major impact on results), and that in some sense it makes sense why students would keep resources to themselves, as it does literally provide them with a major advantage in the hsc and atar systems, which lets face it is an incredibly competitive race where you try to finish ahead of the rest of the state/country. he even goes on to compliment those who continue to share despite these pressures.

2. like it or not, students HAVE to compete in order to make it into whatever tertiary course they desire. you are describing a perfect world here where teachers, peers, textbook writers, historical contributors to subjects etc are all credited with helping progress a students "individual achievement" and everyone wins; but this does not exist. a uni looks at the score that YOU have recieved, and how competitive you are relative to other students, including those from your cohort who you are competing against. unfortunately, they could really care less about the "systemic achievement" and "economic model" that you are discussing. in reality high school students are placed in a situation where they must try to beat everyone else, this is why parents will pay for tutoring to try to make their child get ahead of others at their school. naturally, students are inclined to gatekeep their resources, as it literally provides them a systemic advantage which may be the difference between their access to their dream course or not. if this perfect world was true, then no student would gatekeep their resources, as there would be no incentive to do so, but unfortunately this is not the world we live in.

3. you are being quite dismissive of socioeconomic boundaries that exist. not every student has access to external tutors such as yourself, not every student can afford to go to a private school, or afford to move near a high ranking school if they are rural. naturally, students who are disadvantaged are now placed in a situation where they are fighting against students who are receiving huge amounts of support. these students already have a lack of resources compared to these more advantaged students, and due to the highly competitive environment of the hsc feel as though they have no choice but to gatekeep their resources. on top of this the advantaged students also want to remain advantaged, and so will not share their resources with those around them. this is a socioeconomic boundary, like it or not this exists and is prevalent in systems where you must compete amognst one another such as the hsc.

your view that everyone shouldn't try to beat each other in the hsc is literally the exact opposite of the point of the hsc/atar system. this system is built for students to be ranked amongst one another (australian tertiary admissions rank), which naturally encourages students to gatekeep their resources, as they feel as though this is one way they can climb the ranks. of course this is not the way a perfect system operates where everyone can cooperate and achieve their best together by sharing their resources, as has been said these systems do exist to an extent such as at university often students are more collaborative as rankings are less important than just pure grades. but the reasons why students gatekeep their resources is much deeper than "right vs wrong", it could be from socioeconomic boundaries, competitiveness for certain tertiary courses, or simply just the pressures placed upon them due to the environment of the hsc or certain schools. it is very dismissive to call all the students who gatekeep their resources "overzealous", many (if not all) of them are just playing the system they are put into.

 

[goodcat911]

i aint reading all that

 

[ZakaryJayNicholls]

1. it seems to me that you misunderstand the point of luukas's comments. he doesn't seem to "support" gatekeeping materials, clearly not as he is actively contributing on this forum by providing resources and assisting with questions. he is simply stating that students are often put into situations where they feel like gatekeeping materials is necessary for success due to the pressures of ranking and competitiveness within many high schools (notably selective ones, and you cannot argue that rankings are not a competitve system that does have a major impact on results), and that in some sense it makes sense why students would keep resources to themselves, as it does literally provide them with a major advantage in the hsc and atar systems, which lets face it is an incredibly competitive race where you try to finish ahead of the rest of the state/country. he even goes on to compliment those who continue to share despite these pressures.

2. like it or not, students HAVE to compete in order to make it into whatever tertiary course they desire. you are describing a perfect world here where teachers, peers, textbook writers, historical contributors to subjects etc are all credited with helping progress a students "individual achievement" and everyone wins; but this does not exist. a uni looks at the score that YOU have recieved, and how competitive you are relative to other students, including those from your cohort who you are competing against. unfortunately, they could really care less about the "systemic achievement" and "economic model" that you are discussing. in reality high school students are placed in a situation where they must try to beat everyone else, this is why parents will pay for tutoring to try to make their child get ahead of others at their school. naturally, students are inclined to gatekeep their resources, as it literally provides them a systemic advantage which may be the difference between their access to their dream course or not. if this perfect world was true, then no student would gatekeep their resources, as there would be no incentive to do so, but unfortunately this is not the world we live in.

3. you are being quite dismissive of socioeconomic boundaries that exist. not every student has access to external tutors such as yourself, not every student can afford to go to a private school, or afford to move near a high ranking school if they are rural. naturally, students who are disadvantaged are now placed in a situation where they are fighting against students who are receiving huge amounts of support. these students already have a lack of resources compared to these more advantaged students, and due to the highly competitive environment of the hsc feel as though they have no choice but to gatekeep their resources. on top of this the advantaged students also want to remain advantaged, and so will not share their resources with those around them. this is a socioeconomic boundary, like it or not this exists and is prevalent in systems where you must compete amognst one another such as the hsc.

your view that everyone shouldn't try to beat each other in the hsc is literally the exact opposite of the point of the hsc/atar system. this system is built for students to be ranked amongst one another (australian tertiary admissions rank), which naturally encourages students to gatekeep their resources, as they feel as though this is one way they can climb the ranks. of course this is not the way a perfect system operates where everyone can cooperate and achieve their best together by sharing their resources, as has been said these systems do exist to an extent such as at university often students are more collaborative as rankings are less important than just pure grades. but the reasons why students gatekeep their resources is much deeper than "right vs wrong", it could be from socioeconomic boundaries, competitiveness for certain tertiary courses, or simply just the pressures placed upon them due to the environment of the hsc or certain schools. it is very dismissive to call all the students who gatekeep their resources "overzealous", many (if not all) of them are just playing the system they are put into.

You simply don’t understand how the education system works, there is no shame in not understanding something you are not educated or skilled in.

You and Lucas are simply children, recently out of the system, who have been brainwashed by your schools into believing the school system is all about individual competition, which it is not.

 

[carrotsss]

You simply don’t understand how the education system works, there is no shame in not understanding something you are not educated or skilled in.

You and Lucas are simply children, recently out of the system, who have been brainwashed by your schools into believing the school system is all about individual competition, which it is not.

Luukas isn’t “recently out of the system” iirc

 

[ZakaryJayNicholls]

Luukas isn’t “recently out of the system” iirc

Profile says HSC 2023, which is entirely consistent with his poor understanding of systems of education. I’ve taught thousands of students over the years and it’s very common for year 11-12 students to falsely imagine they know everything, I go through this kind of dance ever year.

 

[totally_screwed]

 

[C_master]

I-

 

[jonolad69]

 

[Luukas.2]

You simply don’t understand how the education system works, there is no shame in not understanding something you are not educated or skilled in.

You and Lucas are simply children, recently out of the system, who have been brainwashed by your schools into believing the school system is all about individual competition, which it is not.

1. I have already stated that you have made assumptions about me that are inaccurate. I am not a child - in fact, following the definition of a human child as an individual who has yet to begin puberty, almost no one here is a child. Even under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child definition of "under 18", I am not a child. More significantly, though, dismissing my views on the basis of age and your self-belief in your own authority is evidence of the cognitive bias that underlies the argumentum ab auctoritate logical fallacy.
2. Your arguments are internally contradictory, a point I have noted already and with which you have failed to engage. Examples include:
   • You have stated that "there is no point in attending a university if you cannot achieve exceptional results in an environment of equal access to resources." However, if everyone achieves exceptional results, then they are not exceptional. It follows that, for some to achieve exceptional results, many must achieve unexceptional results... and yet, according to you, this makes their attendance pointless.
   • At the same time, you advocate for increased opportunities for attendance. These positions are in conflict.
   • You have asserted that I have "disgraced the countless hours of volunteer work that thousands of scholars, teachers, and educators have done to make the system as efficient and equitable as is possible." You have asserted that my "education is not primarily something that [I did]; it is primarily something which happened to me" - something like a rollercoaster which carried me to a pre-determined outcome over which I have no control. Presumably, then, my alleged "brainwashing" is the intended outcome of those thousands of volunteers and their efficient and equitable system? In that case, how can I have become a brainwashed disgrace?
   • Your rollercoaster analogy is also deeply flawed. If students are mere passengers carried on a ride, their outcomes should be predictable and near-identical. Which they aren't.
   • Your ongoing failure to comprehend that my participation in this forum is inconsistent with advocacy for gate-keeping, and that noting that gate-keeping behaviours can be a rational response to a system that is competitive by design is not the same as defending them as desirable or praise-worthy.
3. Academic research on learning, accepted theories of education and learning, and the experiences of educators all point to learning as an individualised process of sense-making and construction of meaning occurring within a highly complex social framework and a fundamentally active process. Theories characterising learners as passive and near-identical information processors have been long abandoned. Each individual student brings existing knowledge and understanding, conceptions and misconceptions, interests, motivations, cognitive processes, and generic skills to a classroom. A teacher may hope that everyone in the class is similar in these regards, but only a profoundly ignorant teacher would imagine that they are identical. The most comprehensible explanation for one student may be confusing for another. Your rejection of individual difference and insistence that students are identical and interchangeable is shocking. Sadly, it aligns with your description of university "training" that leads to an outcome where everyone is "evenhandedly accepting [of] further studies, rewards, or jobs if you are fortunate enough to get them." Apparently, individuals don't have ambition to pursue, should not be striving for goals not initially attained, and should not be motivated by rewards; your worldview appears to me to disregard or deny human nature.
4. My arguments stand or fall on their merits. They are neither supported nor refuted by my age and qualifications, nor by your perceptions of them. Unlike some of your own arguments, mine do not depart into the logical fallacy of ad hominem pettiness. Others may form their own conclusions about the persuasiveness and logical coherence of our perspectives.

 

[Luukas.2]

Profile says HSC 2023, which is entirely consistent with his poor understanding of systems of education. I’ve taught thousands of students over the years and it’s very common for year 11-12 students to falsely imagine they know everything, I go through this kind of dance ever year.

Your assertion / belief that my understanding of the education system is poor does not make it so.

Your experience with "this kind of dance", on the other hand, should mean your arguments are well-tested, solidly grounded, and eloquently expressed. It is curious, then, that they contain insults that add nothing of substance to your argument, are grounded in a presupposition that we should bow to your arguments based on implied authority (a logical fallacy) and contain internal inconsistencies and contradictions.

One hallmark of wisdom is knowing one's own limitations. I am well aware that there are areas where I have extensive knowledge and other areas where my knowledge is limited, existing on a wide spectrum across different topics. Another is intellectual honesty, the willingness to engage with the perspectives of others on their merits and adapt. I have posted here at BoS agreeing with you at times, and I have expressed thoughts on nuances raised by some of your posts. I think you make a valuable contribution to many discussions, which I welcome. In this thread, however, I think you are doing yourself a disservice and portraying yourself in a way that diminishes you. I urge you to pause and reflect, not only the argument that you are advancing, but also on the way you are advancing it.