the hsc cannot tell you how smart you are. discuss (2 Viewers)

[AsyLum]

Contrary to popular belief, very few "top" students actually do this.

You're kidding right? You're telling me these kids go in there, without a pre-planned essay, or essays which they had done based on a 'similar' question or notion to the one which is expected? That they go in there blindly, and having just researched over the course of a year, several authors, their prospography and authorial content without having done a similar essay?

Please, the whole thing is centred around one essay. You progressively do the same essay in different guises up to the HSC.

 

[_dhj_]

You're kidding right? You're telling me these kids go in there, without a pre-planned essay, or essays which they had done based on a 'similar' question or notion to the one which is expected? That they go in there blindly, and having just researched over the course of a year, several authors, their prospography and authorial content without having done a similar essay?

Please, the whole thing is centred around one essay. You progressively do the same essay in different guises up to the HSC.

That would actually be a good way to go in theory. However, you will find that like anything else in life, those who excel tend to have some genuine interest in the subject matter. That means they will tend to do extra readings, outside research etc. Of course, some subjects (such as English) lend themselves more to ROTE learning and essay memorisation. But in general, the notion that the top students work all year on one "super-essay" is false.

 

[AsyLum]

That would actually be a good way to go in theory. However, you will find that like anything else in life, those who excel tend to have some genuine interest in the subject matter. That means they will tend to do extra readings, outside research etc. Of course, some subjects (such as English) lend themselves more to ROTE learning and essay memorisation. But in general, the notion that the top students work all year on one "super-essay" is false.

Why are you using 'top' students as an example, when the majority of students aren't in that bracket?

And the problem with your "interest in subject matter" is that its too defined a bracket, thats why some intelligent people don't go through high school successfully getting a high UAI. Because in the end, it doesn't interest them, and if it is too volatile a factor, that can hardly be attributed when we're talking of a general nature can it?

 

[_dhj_]

Why are you using 'top' students as an example, when the majority of students aren't in that bracket?

And the problem with your "interest in subject matter" is that its too defined a bracket, thats why some intelligent people don't go through high school successfully getting a high UAI. Because in the end, it doesn't interest them, and if it is too volatile a factor, that can hardly be attributed when we're talking of a general nature can it?

The example I've given was only meant to address your statement in regard to the formula of success (the "super-essay"), not the general topic of the thread. But what I've said before holds true - if they were smart they would have "played the game".

 

[Benny1103]

What kind of a stupid idiot would go into an exam room having not prepared anything or studied the material being tested? Especially considering that their performance in that particular exam might be the difference between getting into the course or not. Oh and I'd really love to see someone "rote learn" the material from 4U maths and then get a perfect score on the exam for that subject.

As for the intelligence discussion. The UAI is essentially a rank. There is really no mention of it indicating intelligence levels. So why do people still have a waah about being dumb because their UAI is low? Simple, because people feel so inferior because of their UAI, that they decide to ramble about the UAI not indicating their true level of intelligence. And all that, despite the fact that the people who run the HSC have never said that the UAI indicates how intelligent you are.

Edit: Oh and wtf is with people saying that high achievers in highschool 'crash and burn' in uni? In Victoria, there are plenty of highscool graduates from recent years who have excelled in uni. I'm talking about 95+ average in their subjects + extra curricular activities. So don't kid yourself, you're not intelligent if you have to constantly put down high achievers. Just because you're in Uni, the competition you had in high school won't just fade.

 

[AsyLum]

We're not discussing the preparation of material, we're talking about the spoonfeeding.

Again, you're using a limited criteria as a test sample. Not everyone does 4U Maths, how can we calculate how 'smart' someone is based on whether they did 4U maths in the first place. Or are you telling me those who do 4U maths are superior in some way? Additionally, there aren't too many kids who study their asses off and yet still achieve a perfect score in 4U maths.

Second, the ROTE learning, is to do with the essays, namely due to the fact everyone has to take English, which involves essay formats. Again, having a year to fine-tune a few essays is hardly 'smart' or 'intelligent' criteria.

Again, its a matter of wording, we alluded to the fact that there are those who struggle in university after getting 90+ UAI's whereas those who might have just sneaked through find the atmosphere refreshing and succeed at a much higher level.

"So don't kid yourself, you're not intelligent if you have to constantly put down high achievers. Just because you're in Uni, the competition you had in high school won't just fade." Intelligence, i would think would consist of being able to understand the argument thus far dont you think? No one is saying theyre absolute idiots, the argument runs that the HSC/UAI system is a rank, a number, and the HSC is ultimately a year long exam preparation during Year 12. It is a very limited measure of success, intelligence and 'smartness'.

 

[Benny1103]

True, not every one does 4u maths but lets not forget that when we're talking about the number of students enrolled un 4u maths, the numbers are in the thousands. But that isn't my point. Many things which have been said in this thread are context dependent so to get things straight can you answer the following question? Do you think that someone can achieve near perfect scores in 4u maths from rote learning? Your previous post seems to suggest that you acknowledge that rote learning ! = high UAI/high subject scores.

Another thing which people are still not understanding is that there is no 'official' source which says that high UAI = high intelligence. In fact, generally you'll find that most people on BOS don't make that assertion either. Yet for some reason, in your response to my 4u example, you still decided to bring intelligence into the discussion. My point was that someone can't get a perfect score in 4u maths from just rote learning the material. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

I also want to point out to people that things in life won't always turn out the way you want them to. Those who are successful in life will adapt to the situation they are in. Those who are stupid will simply ignore things they do not like. I didn't like taking english but I knew that if I didn't do any study for it I would get a low TER. So guess what? Unlike many lazy drifters, I got off my ass and I did something about my crappy english marks and ended up with a fairly good score. Do you really think that someone who ignores everything they dislike will be a success in life?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes it is extremely hard to define intelligence, and I would say it relates in different ways to different people. There was a nobel prize winner whom claimed URI GELLAR really had psychic powers... and there are people without such an amazing reputation that can tell him otherwise.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Your UAI is a measure of your worth as a human being

That is all.

 

[Silver Persian]

If you think life intelligence revolves around managing time, then your definition of intelligence is somewhat skewed. Those are life skills, not intelligence.

Most uni courses need the skills, but unfortunately the HSC is becoming more and more spoon fed and stagnant. While you may develop the skills needed, there is nothing inherently special about the HSC which really creates that atmosphere in most of the courses.[/QUOTE]

Im kind of defining life intelligence as how well you can manipulate your intelligence. There are lots of absolutely genius people who cannot control their brain and thus tend not to do well at either school or uni. After all, no matter how intelligent you are, you're not going to understand how a car engine works unless you know what each part does - which requires rote learning. (Note that this may not necessarily be true in the case of savant genius types...but how many of them are there floating around)

Yes, I agree that the HSC is increasingly becoming more about how prepared you are, rather than how smart you are, but once again preparedness is almost always a prerequisite to success (unless you are lucky...or an arts student)

 

[fleepbasding]

We're not discussing it DOESN'T correlate, we're saying its a certain kind of correlation, like you said, knowledge/memorising, but it cannot tell you how smart you are.

It is too limited, and tests very minimal criterias for 'success' (you are effectively memorising one essay for the year, and you are allotted a year to 'perfect' and fine-tune this essay, rather than being time-constrained.

hey, I wasn't responding to what you constantly claim we are discussing, but specifically to what you said. I won't re-quote it, but stuff like "HSC is memorizing and recall. The END". I was saying that there is more to it, and I listed some of the things that I believe were the decisive factor in my own HSC. For example, contrary to your belief that I was working the whole year towards a super-essay, I completely improvised my essay for history extension exam, when the question really didn't fit anything I'd practiced. (and it was in this exam that I performed better than all the others)

and even on the 'super essay', that I won't deny ius employed by many students, they require a fair bit of skill that goes beyond memorizing. Anywaym that's not my main point.

Try MWs. They're a big part of the HSC for many students, and their isn't any memorize and recall in that! ext 2 english, drama, histext, SOC, music, Vart, dance... it is clear here also that people with those 'other' sorts of intelligence get their chance to show their skill/"intelligence".

 

[Lundy]

Just curious, what do people believe is a "precise" measure of intelligence?

I just hate all this circuitous discussion about whether HSC correlates with intelligence, when intelligence is such a fluid concept.
People have different talents and abilities: creative, analytical, mathematical, artistic, etc. to try and give more weight to one form of “intelligence” (for lack of a better word) over another, I think, is pointless and erroneous.

I agree. I don't think there is any way to precisely measure someone's intelligence. But at the same time, I think it's fair and accurate to say of person A, who got 99 in their HSC and sits on a HD average in university, is more scholastically dexterous than person B, who got 55 in their HSC scraped into uni but is sitting on a pass average. There's only a certain extent to which person B can excuse themselves with 'it's not a REAL measure of my intelligence.'

Although personally I think people constantly tell themselves "I got a crappy UAI but it's not a measure of my intelligence!!11" to make themselves feel better. I think they should just accept that either a) they didn't apply themselves to the best of their abilities and paid for it, or b) the field of academics just isn't their strength and their strengths lie elsewhere. Or they just took the wrong subjects.

If you gave me a math or science test, my score would make me look like a retard, because I really fucking suck at those areas, nor do I have any interest in them. But I don't consider myself unintelligent because of that. I excel in other areas. So I think it's really stupid to use "intelligent" as a blanket term.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Where I lack intelligence, I have amazing ammounts of awesomeness*

 

[Lundy]

Nah I would've said: Where I lack intelligence, I have an amazingly big dick.

 

[Alimoe_KG]

If you were stupid enough to not take your hsc seriously, i bet you are pretty stupid overall.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you were stupid enough to not take your hsc seriously, i bet you are pretty stupid overall.

People change.

 

[Alimoe_KG]

People change.

True. My initial statement referred to their intelligence level during the HSC period then

While obviously it's better if you get the course you want at the uni you want straight off, it think sometimes, a little failure and disappointment could potentially be an even more powerful motivation tool in the long term.

As Jordan said: "I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed."

In the end, however smart you are, if you do things half-heartedly, you can expect half-hearted results. And no one will care when you cry and moan about how unfair life is.

 

[glycerine]

i enjoyed ur 2 cents gummy bear but dont u think english is getting abit better? its still very much so ur teachers words ttho. i did yates (lucky me) and the question was basicly wat is ur oppinion on yates. granted the answer had to be hes good but i have hope for the next year, i think its getting better...

well no wonder you didn't do so great considering you DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPELL THE POET'S NAME!

 

[glycerine]

If you were stupid enough to not take your hsc seriously, i bet you are pretty stupid overall.

thanks fuckwit we can't all be constantly motivated geniuses like you

 

[Not-That-Bright]

While obviously it's better if you get the course you want at the uni you want straight off, it think sometimes, a little failure and disappointment could potentially be an even more powerful motivation tool in the long term.

Agreed. I think it's very likely that determined people whom maybe didn't do so well might have something to prove.