>>Let's take extension 2 math for example, 37.5% of the canditure got >= 90%, that's around 900 people. This is supposed to be one of the hardest, if not the hardest course<<
Ext2 and the other extensions, are very obviously not 'scored' in the same way as most (i.e. 2u) courses. There's absolutely no way over a third of candidates would score over 90%, ask anyone who's sitting the exam. That's the range I scored in and there's absolutely no way that's what my raw score was, no way in a million years.
The extension courses are obviously moderated in some way that is between completely raw and completely moderated. They're another thing that shows the flaws in the system.
>>May I ask what kind of marks and UAI you got last year ? The people who did poorly, or not as well as they hoped to like to blame the 'new' HSC for their results when every other student was in the same boat. <<
I was wondering when you might accuse me of bias. My marks and UAI were good enough that I'm definitely not 'blaming' the system for anything. I did very well out of the system. But I recognise that, with ANY system, some people will get a slightly rawer deal than others -- and some people will get a slight advantage. With the new HSC, it's a slightly different set of people.
>>Afaik, linux doesn't receive any criticism except 'it's too hard to use', which shows a lack of intellect from the person. All MS users who bash it lack the intellect to use linux too. Any fair criticism of linux would come from linux developers themselves, who are deeply involved in it. <<
Well, that's your opinion, but it avoids the question of whether such criticism, if it existed, would actually be valid.
>>As for criticising charities, why would anyone criticise them ? Good on them for doing such a thing, I know I sure as hell wouldn't. <<
That's a pretty black and white POV. Just because they're aiming for good, everything they do is automatically unquestionably for the better? People's interpretation of "good" and "better" is open to interpretation. What about, for example, western charities trying to force technological advancement on traditional societies in a third-world country. They might want to have no part of it, although it's OUR definition of progress. Such criticism has to be valid.
Any part of society that is exempt from criticism and scrutiny gains power over democracy, as far as I can see. It seems to me that if we truly want things to be for the best, we have to question everything to aim for it.
If you would like to continue this I suggest you email me - Brianna@masheo.com - as I doubt this is still an appropriate forum...
Cheers,
Brianna
Ext2 and the other extensions, are very obviously not 'scored' in the same way as most (i.e. 2u) courses. There's absolutely no way over a third of candidates would score over 90%, ask anyone who's sitting the exam. That's the range I scored in and there's absolutely no way that's what my raw score was, no way in a million years.
The extension courses are obviously moderated in some way that is between completely raw and completely moderated. They're another thing that shows the flaws in the system.
>>May I ask what kind of marks and UAI you got last year ? The people who did poorly, or not as well as they hoped to like to blame the 'new' HSC for their results when every other student was in the same boat. <<
I was wondering when you might accuse me of bias. My marks and UAI were good enough that I'm definitely not 'blaming' the system for anything. I did very well out of the system. But I recognise that, with ANY system, some people will get a slightly rawer deal than others -- and some people will get a slight advantage. With the new HSC, it's a slightly different set of people.
>>Afaik, linux doesn't receive any criticism except 'it's too hard to use', which shows a lack of intellect from the person. All MS users who bash it lack the intellect to use linux too. Any fair criticism of linux would come from linux developers themselves, who are deeply involved in it. <<
Well, that's your opinion, but it avoids the question of whether such criticism, if it existed, would actually be valid.
>>As for criticising charities, why would anyone criticise them ? Good on them for doing such a thing, I know I sure as hell wouldn't. <<
That's a pretty black and white POV. Just because they're aiming for good, everything they do is automatically unquestionably for the better? People's interpretation of "good" and "better" is open to interpretation. What about, for example, western charities trying to force technological advancement on traditional societies in a third-world country. They might want to have no part of it, although it's OUR definition of progress. Such criticism has to be valid.
Any part of society that is exempt from criticism and scrutiny gains power over democracy, as far as I can see. It seems to me that if we truly want things to be for the best, we have to question everything to aim for it.
If you would like to continue this I suggest you email me - Brianna@masheo.com - as I doubt this is still an appropriate forum...
Cheers,
Brianna