Master of Chudy 'n' Curry
- Oct 12, 2002
Ok, tell me how they judge which course contains more "academically able" students when people do a variety of different subjects?! You can't simply judge a course based on how well MOST people tend to go in their other subjects when everyone is different. - THIS is why I assumed UAC was simply saying "Okay, Industrial Tech has crappy people, so let's scale em down no matter how well they go and physics people - yeah they're all right, let's give 'em a hand"Originally posted by Lazarus
Sure, your friend did great compared to everyone who takes Industrial Technology. But the vast majority of students who take IT are not 'academically able' and tend not to do well overall in their courses. If you slot your friend's IT performance into a 'more able' candidature, such as that of physics or chemistry, it suddenly doesn't look quite as good.
Okay... I'm happy to call it quits now.
This debate is going no where, it's as though you're not heeding my message (or perhaps the other way around...or both.) Never the less, I stick by my belief that if you're an academically able student whichever course you pick, you're better off picking the "better" subjects I've mentioned time and time again because the sad truth is- other courses just don't cut it.
Ok another example I just thought of - RURAL/regional students tend to get crappy UAIs, not cuz their dumb but because there's a lack of teaching experience, meaning they can't teach the "harder", "better" subjects. Ergo, their UAIs suffer.
Anyways, if you want you can reply and continue this debate, otherwise I'll continue my crusade to convert all BoS users into nerds. :apig: