Bright students 'betrayed' by HSC (2 Viewers)

[Michaelmoo]

but LOL at the Ruse principal defending the HSC. I really can't see her saying anything otherwise.

+1. Tbh I agree with the article. Certain things could really affect a bright persons performance in the HSC. A non-educated background could be a start.

 

[random-1005]

Bright students 'betrayed' by HSC

im better than any nerd that goes to James Ruse.

 

[possessionless]

im better than any nerd that goes to James Ruse.

you wish

 

[killua_3]

I can see why people might say that the system is a bit unfair towards those non-selective or even some private schools. But to say that it 'betrayed' bright students is too much.

I think that although the current system is not perfect, its not a bad one at all. (especially compared to China's education system, which is just fail all together. Although can't really blame the government on everything, since there are just too many students and thus too much competition)

But, there is, and never will, be a perfect educational system, where every student's ability as well as potential is assessed equally with 100% accuracy.

They could invent a new, additional, test for university entrance. Something along the lines of UMAT, but designed for the specific course. Though some might find this biased as well...

 

[SSRabbitohs2009]

"since universities began hand-picking some students on the basis of measures other than the uai."
that's the way to go.

But lol at the ruse principal defending the hsc. I really can't see her saying anything otherwise.

+1

 

[absorber]

bright students are most probably only betrayed if they live outside sydney or for some other reason can't go to a selective school that would benefit them, e.g. parents not making em do test or something. if you have reasonable teachers though, and/or you work well independently, I don't see the system neglecting you

 

[ehtefaz.hedayet]

you wish

+1

 

[speedofsound]

But larissa treskin, the principal of james ruse agricultural high school, said the hsc was the best indicator of a child's potential.

ahahahahahaha TRUST

 

[aussie-boy]

I agree with the article, I think the HSC is bs as well.

We should do it like it was done in the old days...
My grandpa did law at Usyd back in the 1940s - anyone could start the course, but 60-70% dropped out by graduation. Thus people who would make good lawyers got law degrees.

The only reason for this UAI bs is because the government is too stingy to fund a first year of uni for everyone.

Also, consider how easy some uni courses are (commerce for example) - you do not need the intelligence implied by a UAI of 95 to get Ds and HDs, its all about how much you work.

But the government is too scared to opt for the olden day system through harsh examination and high failure rates - the main income source (international students) would quickly disappear

 

[tommykins]

I agree with the article, I think the HSC is bs as well.

We should do it like it was done in the old days...
My grandpa did law at Usyd back in the 1940s - anyone could start the course, but 60-70% dropped out by graduation. Thus people who would make good lawyers got law degrees.

The only reason for this UAI bs is because the government is too stingy to fund a first year of uni for everyone.

Also, consider how easy some uni courses are (commerce for example) - you do not need the intelligence implied by a UAI of 95 to get Ds and HDs, its all about how much you work.

But the government is too scared to opt for the olden day system through harsh examination and high failure rates - the main income source (international students) would quickly disappear

lol, cause obviously UAI of 95 for a course means it's hard.

 

[speedofsound]

i dunno, unless someone comes up with some other ingenius idea to let kids into university, i don't see us left with many other options...

 

[Trebla]

"biased towards private and selective high schools"

I don't think there is any real evidence or justification behind that claim. I can't say much about private schools, but the whole point of a selective school is to put "bright" students together in a stimulated learning environment which is supposed to aid in their academic development which they would otherwise be unable to achieve at most other schools. A more competitive learning environment is obviously intended to motivate students to work at a higher standard.

So, if selective schools generally perform better in the HSC given that they have a more stimulated learning environment, would one truly be able to claim that the HSC is "biased" towards them? It's a bit like saying the Olympics is biased towards athletic people. Even a "fairer" form of assessment would still result in those from selective schools performing better than others. If selective schools did not perform better than other schools then it defeats their purpose.

As for students who are disadvantaged, there is already a means of support for them. This support system can probably be improved...

 

[aussie-boy]

So, if selective schools generally perform better in the HSC given that they have a more stimulated learning environment, would one truly be able to claim that the HSC is "biased" towards them? It's a bit like saying the Olympics is biased towards athletic people. Even a "fairer" form of assessment would still result in those from selective schools performing better than others. If selective schools did not perform better than other schools then it defeats their purpose.

The point is this:
Take student A and student B, both with the same intelligence.
IF student A is at Ruse and student B at Parramatta high then student A will do better, because of a number of obvious factors.
Whilst student A and B both have the mental capacity to complete the same uni courses, student B will be automatically excluded for some on the basis of unfair disadvantage.

lol, cause obviously UAI of 95 for a course means it's hard

Well excluding 95% of the population from doing something on the basis of marks would imply some intelligence requirement, right?

i dunno, unless someone comes up with some other ingenius idea to let kids into university, i don't see us left with many other options...

The answer is unlimited first year places, as the current Gov has proposed I think, and difficulty exams which get rid of most of the candidature

 

[Timothy.Siu]

The point is this:
Take student A and student B, both with the same intelligence.
IF student A is at Ruse and student B at Parramatta high then student A will do better, because of a number of obvious factors.
Whilst student A and B both have the mental capacity to complete the same uni courses, student B will be automatically excluded for some on the basis of unfair disadvantage.

no? not necessarily. why? you cant just say obvious factors.

 

[tommykins]

The point is this:
Take student A and student B, both with the same intelligence.
IF student A is at Ruse and student B at Parramatta high then student A will do better, because of a number of obvious factors.
Whilst student A and B both have the mental capacity to complete the same uni courses, student B will be automatically excluded for some on the basis of unfair disadvantage.

yeah okay say obvious factors without saying what they are - you have no point here.

Well excluding 95% of the population from doing something on the basis of marks would imply some intelligence requirement, right?

more like 8-9% and NO, it's ALL based on DEMAND and SUPPLY. NOTHING to do with 'intelligence requirement' otherwise engineering + sciences would be 95+ requirement

 

[aussie-boy]

no? not necessarily. why? you cant just say obvious factors.

Lol well they're obvious to me (and to all the parents who try so hard to get their kids into selective schools), and very well researched. If you can't accept these simple facts then I cbf to argue with you.
-selective schools have competitive pressure which makes you work harder than you would if you were the top of the class
-some kids have parents that push them, some parents don't care

more like 8-9% and NO, it's ALL based on DEMAND and SUPPLY. NOTHING to do with 'intelligence requirement' otherwise engineering + sciences would be 95+ requirement

Yeah i know that.. read my post properly; thats what ive been saying (i.e. that the UAI rank needed does not reflect course difficulty). This is the essential problem, because with UAI the demand/supply model is distorted as the 'price' is some arbitrary mark which doesn't reflect ones ability to succeed in the specific course

 

[tommykins]

Lol well they're obvious to me (and to all the parents who try so hard to get their kids into selective schools), and very well researched. If you can't accept these simple facts then I cbf to argue with you.

Cool, your 'facts' are now invalid.

-selective schools have competitive pressure which makes you work harder than you would if you were the top of the class

So? Why should this matter? I don't see any Uni kids whinging about their shit marks cause 'theres a lack of competition' amongst their peers.

How the fuck would they pass uni if they need 'competitive pressure' to make them pass?

-some kids have parents that push them, some parents don't care

My parents didn't care and I got 95+, your theory is out the window.

Yeah i know that.. read my post properly; thats what ive been saying (i.e. that the UAI rank needed does not reflect course difficulty). This is the essential problem, because with UAI the demand/supply model is distorted as the 'price' is some arbitrary mark which doesn't reflect ones ability to succeed in the specific course

No...you said excluding 95% of the population implies some intelligence - I say it doesn't. If your suggestion is 'uni places for everyone' then why have the HSC? Heck, why have Uni in the first place? Let's just put uni as an extra 4-5 years on your schooling life if any idiot can get in.

Have you even considered the ramifications of allowing every kid to go to Uni? This includes staff management, pricing of courses, resources, administration and overall paperwork for those that do drop out. Not to mention rooms required to support the student number and also the servers required for students to use (ie. myUNSW or evista)

Setting difficult exams is NOT a way to teach students because you have to have a 'limit' as to how difficult it is? The most recent mechanics quiz @ UNSW had a 23% pass rate, the average being 3/20 - if this 'difficult exam' was used to encourage students who can't handle it to drop out, then might as well make uni available only to geniuses.

 

[Aquawhite]

Cool, your 'facts' are now invalid.

So? Why should this matter? I don't see any Uni kids whinging about their shit marks cause 'theres a lack of competition' amongst their peers.

How the fuck would they pass uni if they need 'competitive pressure' to make them pass?

My parents didn't care and I got 95+, your theory is out the window.

No...you said excluding 95% of the population implies some intelligence - I say it doesn't. If your suggestion is 'uni places for everyone' then why have the HSC? Heck, why have Uni in the first place? Let's just put uni as an extra 4-5 years on your schooling life if any idiot can get in.

Have you even considered the ramifications of allowing every kid to go to Uni? This includes staff management, pricing of courses, resources, administration and overall paperwork for those that do drop out. Not to mention rooms required to support the student number and also the servers required for students to use (ie. myUNSW or evista)

Setting difficult exams is NOT a way to teach students because you have to have a 'limit' as to how difficult it is? The most recent mechanics quiz @ UNSW had a 23% pass rate, the average being 3/20 - if this 'difficult exam' was used to encourage students who can't handle it to drop out, then might as well make uni available only to geniuses.

Reply to underline: Hahahahaa XD Ps get degrees in uni. Anymore than a pass is a waste XD. (unless you really need an honours or something for a specific job.

Reply to bold: My mother couldn't be arsed to what ATAR I get... The real push comes from yourself and where you want to get to.

 

[-may-cat-]

Reply to underline: Hahahahaa XD Ps get degrees in uni. Anymore than a pass is a waste XD. (unless you really need an honours or something for a specific job.

I dunno, getting really good grades can open doors for you in certain degrees. I think it's good to aim high but that's just me.

 

[brad616]

I definately agree with the majority of points you have made. And yes a hihgly intelligent student who is motivated to do work could definately get 80+ atleast regardless of everything they have had to go through (which may or may not be taken into consideration). Put it this way if a highly intelligent and motivated student was severely influenced by circumstances "beyond their control" i.e disability, problems at home, financial hardship etc etc etc and they work really hard to get 80+ just imagine what they could have got had the circumstances been different. I think that I am a didactic example of the person you describe as I believe I have very high intelligence and and strong motivation but was disadvantaged for sooo many reasons in the HSC but still managed to get 80+ and am now working harder than ever and have recently gotten two high distinctions and am aiming to transfer. I do completely agree with your statement though that highly intelligent people will be able to find a way in if they really want to, even if it takes longer!

Any one else agree