Mayor insists that NSB + NSG should become partially selective schools? (2 Viewers)

[salshel]

wat

>> Sorry that sounds weird taken out of context... read my previous post to put it back in context!

 

[Kiraken]

Precisely, which is why I'm saying that a dog-eat-dog model isn't the best thing. What you're saying is that students are already under an incredible amount of pressure to do well and what I'm saying is that they don't need even more pressure to achieve the exact same thing. Furthermore, students do have the option to transfer out if they feel the need to suicide under the aforementioned pressure.

I agree with rumbleroar. The space is an obvious issue and frankly, the two schools don't really have much to spare, if any at all. If we compare "space", it should be more feasible to expand in an independent school, given that they really have better resources (like c'mon, most private shcools have their own gym, pool etc. etc.) space-wise. Surely a compromise could be met?



You're failing to understand that all my posts have been referring to generalisations. Sure, sure, we all hear of the one kid who goes to a rank 4874987348 school, is financially disadvantaged, yet accelerates like 5 years and graduates from high school or uni or w/e at the top of their cohort. But, realistically, how many of those geniuses do you think exist? In fact, the whole reason why selective schools exist in the first place is because the general population agree that frankly "bright people" do need to be "mollycuddled", maybe not to just "succeed", but to be given that slight push to realise their full potential.

And comprehensive schools just don't offer that opportunity.



That "shit" doesn't matter once you "hit" uni, but it sure matters when you're trying to get into uni.

Well, our society does kinda favour the elite, (not to offend anyone with my choice of words) because why would we not "groom" such potential candidates to advance our human civilisation?

Sadly the education system is an elitist system and does follow the concept of priming the top students to hold the top-tier positions such in firms and/or their respective fields (medicine, science etc.) simply because those positions are more seen as more "important" than the average blue-collar worker.

The system, in my opinion, does work though, because competition stimulates growth and/or change and it really does separate the apathetic, from the enthusiastic and/or hard-working. Like classicjimbo so kindly suggested, anybody can achieve the top results if they try. Our education system however, recognises a selective school as a huge gathering of those "potential candidates" and therefore, it is important to them that children with the "potential" to succeed, actually do succeed. Kudos to those who achieve a high ATAR through hard-work alone, but why would you not take the easy path when it is willingly offered to you? (and at no disadvantage to you either)

It's almost as if we're priming the next generation under the guise of "human advancement" to "fix the mistakes of the previous generation". Think of it as their parting gift.

yes but literally nothing in your post addresses the point that there are a plethora of other selective schools out there where those students can go, the fact is most students at NSG and NSB are not even from the area and live closer to other selective schools and naturally the government would prioritise giving local kids a basic education than elite kids from elsewhere who can go elsewhere more conveniently a selective school environment

 

[OzKo]

Keep into account that removing a selective stream from a high school will only serve to make other selective schools better as they become more desirable. There isn't a loss in the quality of education unless a school's culture (disregarding the actual student body) is playing a significant effect.

 

[flashyGoldFish]

To help out the bottom we should never hold back the progress of the brightest and best students

 

[salshel]

yes but literally nothing in your post addresses the point that there are a plethora of other selective schools out there where those students can go, the fact is most students at NSG and NSB are not even from the area and live closer to other selective schools and naturally the government would prioritise giving local kids a basic education than elite kids from elsewhere who can go elsewhere more conveniently a selective school environment

Lol, my previous-previous (I'm losing count <>")post did actually suggest that there is not a plethora of other selective schools around. The post that you quoted was a post addressing the cons of implementing this new plan.

What you're suggesting sort of goes both ways, local kids are also capable of traveling- and there should be a plethora of other suitable institutions around. To put ranking into perspective, from what I do know, a drop in only 6 ranks from the school I attend (non-private) to another school (non-private) may not seem big, but is actually kinda demotivating for high-achievers. For one, the only-six-ranks-lower school has never had a student who achieved 99.95 whereas the school I attend constantly has at approximately 20-25% of all students achieving over 99 ATAR. Which is kind of a big difference. They're both selective and about ~16km apart, but you can really guess which one you'd rather attend.

 

[Kiraken]

Lol, my previous-previous (I'm losing count <>")post did actually suggest that there is not a plethora of other selective schools around. The post that you quoted was a post addressing the cons of implementing this new plan.

What you're suggesting sort of goes both ways, local kids are also capable of traveling- and there should be a plethora of other suitable institutions around. To put ranking into perspective, from what I do know, a drop in only 6 ranks from the school I attend (non-private) to another school (non-private) may not seem big, but is actually kinda demotivating for high-achievers. For one, the only-six-ranks-lower school has never had a student who achieved 99.95 whereas the school I attend constantly has at approximately 20-25% of all students achieving over 99 ATAR. Which is kind of a big difference. They're both selective and about ~16km apart, but you can really guess which one you'd rather attend.

I read that post too, and it didn't suggest that at all lol, there are in fact plenty of selective schools distributed throughout the state all with the competitive environment a selective school possesses. For many students attending NSG or NSB schools like Baulkho and Ruse are actually probably closer and there are always options like Fort Street, Sydney Tech etc. for those from other areas. If ranking is really that much of a concern when it comes to choosing between selective schools (even though high performing students from all selective schools are practically on par with each other), as Ozko stated, making NSG/NSB non-selective would increase the ranking of others schools, making them more viable options for people opting for a selective education anyway.

And lol there aren't a "plethora of other suitable institutions" around for local students, that is *precisely* what is causing this issue to be discussed in the first place, there is no room for local kids to get a comprehensive education locally, so why should they be forced to travel far for a normal education? The difference is ultimately that high-performing students wishing to attend a selective school because of its competitive environment have tonnes of options that are closer to them, these local kids don't

 

[Lina3]

There is no denying that the student problem in the North Shore is very real. However, making NSG/NSB 'partially selective' is heavily problematic.

As a student from a school with both a selective and non-selective component, I have seen first hand that this model just does not work for most people.Say whatever you like about 'personal drive' but a person's adolescent years are usually tumultuous and it is easy to find distractions when you are young and impressionable. It is a long road from year 7 to the HSC and I have seen first hand people who have gotten into my school on a selective basis get distracted and waste their potential, something that may not have happened had they been mixed with like-minded students to begin with. Environment plays a huge factor in a person's education. Of course, there will always be exceptions...and people from non-selective do get those outstanding results. However, the reality is that the majority of students don't. The reason selective schools do so well in the first place is because they create an environment specially designed for bright and motivated students. From the other side of the fence, the non-selective students also deserve to go somewhere suited for their academic capabilities.

Also, from what I've heard NSG/NSB are not huge schools to begin with...so throwing in a few local kids is really not going to solve the problem. Why bother if building a new school is a so much more practical?

 

[JT145]

this is a conspiracy to maintain Ruse's first ranking

 

[Erinaceous]

Lol @ that cos the whole reason why this debate is happening in the first place is because of ... dun dun dun... money! (I'm taking into consideration time & effort also equates to spending more money.)

At the end of the day even though public education institutions, such as selective schools, are under direct control of the government where they can really do anything to "what's theirs" save a few bucks.. it's going to be ~primarily~ the selective kids that are gonna go to university and fuel the economy.

wat

I don't get how you reached the conclusion that Salshel's post was about there not being a large amount of selective schools within the region. I thought she was more saying that since money is the core issue of this problem since it's the reason why the government's at a toss-up between building a new school or implementing a part-selective program in high ranked selective schools such as NSG and NSB to accomodate for the large amount of would-be students in the north sydney area, if you make NSG and NSB half selective, then you basically end up with an economy that doesn't run as well, and eventually we'll be losing money instead of gaining in the long term. Her reasoning behind this appears to be that it's because selective school kids will (predictably) eventually have careers that will influence the economy much more than the career that the average public school kid gets. I would agree with this, namely because selective school kids tend (although there are always exceptions) to get a higher ATAR, which means that they have a much more wider choice of job careers, which means that they can choose a career with high pay, which means that they earn more and which eventually means that they'll spend more. (I understand that pay is only but one factor that graduating students take ito account when they select an area of study in uni)

At least that's how I interpreted it

 

[Erinaceous]

this is a conspiracy to maintain Ruse's first ranking

LOL +1

 

[Kiraken]

I don't get how you reached the conclusion that Salshel's post was about there not being a large amount of selective schools within the region. I thought she was more saying that since money is the core issue of this problem since it's the reason why the government's at a toss-up between building a new school or implementing a part-selective program in high ranked selective schools such as NSG and NSB to accomodate for the large amount of would-be students in the north sydney area, if you make NSG and NSB half selective, then you basically end up with an economy that doesn't run as well, and eventually we'll be losing money instead of gaining in the long term. Her reasoning behind this appears to be that it's because selective school kids will (predictably) eventually have careers that will influence the economy much more than the career that the average public school kid gets. I would agree with this, namely because selective school kids tend (although there are always exceptions) to get a higher ATAR, which means that they have a much more wider choice of job careers, which means that they can choose a career with high pay, which means that they earn more and which eventually means that they'll spend more. (I understand that pay is only but one factor that graduating students take ito account when they select an area of study in uni)

At least that's how I interpreted it

however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there, which isn't the case. What will happen is that they will simply go to another selective school and still get high ATARS and so on.

You missed my point which was that making NSG and NSB partially selective does not make a selective education any less viable for kids who opt for a selective education as chances are there are schools ranked just as high closer to where they live anyway

 

[nerdasdasd]

however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there, which isn't the case. What will happen is that they will simply go to another selective school and still get high ATARS and so on.

You missed my point which was that making NSG and NSB partially selective does not make a selective education any less viable for kids who opt for a selective education as chances are there are schools ranked just as high closer to where they live anyway

It makes a education less valuable to those who want to purely succeed ... It is like putting general math peeps in a 2U class.

 

[Futuremedstudent]

I disagree, Ruse is the best!!!!!!

 

[Trebla]

I'm just going to challenge a few points here...

we're getting quite side tracked but im just saying the unnecessary special needs that all bright people supposedly need according to you two shouldn't be put above local students needs especially when these students can have their special needs fulfilled elsewhere where overcrowding isn't a problem

its funny how underperforming kids need the most amount of help/resources to be brought up to scratch yet were throwing tons of money at kids so they can go "lol 99 atar im a badass" like that shit matters when they hit uni.

Pretty sure government places more emphasis/funding on disadvantaged kids than selective schools unless anyone has reliable stats to prove otherwise. The idea is to give these 'gifted' students the opportunity to reach their potential. It wouldn't make sense to deny that kind of opportunity. There seems to be an impression that these 'bright' people come from privileged backgrounds which is certainly not true. A lot of 'bright' kids do come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

yes but literally nothing in your post addresses the point that there are a plethora of other selective schools out there where those students can go, the fact is most students at NSG and NSB are not even from the area and live closer to other selective schools and naturally the government would prioritise giving local kids a basic education than elite kids from elsewhere who can go elsewhere more conveniently a selective school environment

Keep into account that removing a selective stream from a high school will only serve to make other selective schools better as they become more desirable. There isn't a loss in the quality of education unless a school's culture (disregarding the actual student body) is playing a significant effect.

I read that post too, and it didn't suggest that at all lol, there are in fact plenty of selective schools distributed throughout the state all with the competitive environment a selective school possesses. For many students attending NSG or NSB schools like Baulkho and Ruse are actually probably closer and there are always options like Fort Street, Sydney Tech etc. for those from other areas. If ranking is really that much of a concern when it comes to choosing between selective schools (even though high performing students from all selective schools are practically on par with each other), as Ozko stated, making NSG/NSB non-selective would increase the ranking of others schools, making them more viable options for people opting for a selective education anyway.

And lol there aren't a "plethora of other suitable institutions" around for local students, that is *precisely* what is causing this issue to be discussed in the first place, there is no room for local kids to get a comprehensive education locally, so why should they be forced to travel far for a normal education? The difference is ultimately that high-performing students wishing to attend a selective school because of its competitive environment have tonnes of options that are closer to them, these local kids don't

however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there, which isn't the case. What will happen is that they will simply go to another selective school and still get high ATARS and so on.

You missed my point which was that making NSG and NSB partially selective does not make a selective education any less viable for kids who opt for a selective education as chances are there are schools ranked just as high closer to where they live anyway

Shortening the supply does not address issue of the high demand for selective school positions. Being more desirable does not mean that it makes other selective schools 'better' given the number of positions available is more or less the same. If anything, it will make it less viable for the lower end of those who want to get into selective schools and more people will miss out. If this is in reference to a supposed 'increase in cohort quality' across all selective schools due to the lower number of selective schools, then we might as well remove as many selective schools as we can thereby cranking up the cohort quality in whatever selective schools remain and denying everyone else the opportunity to be part of that selective school environment.

Also, the idea that there are schools ranked just as high nearby is definitely not true. Take the Liverpool area for example, the main selective schools nearby are Hurlstone Ag and Macquarie Fields which are not exactly high ranked schools. If you live in the Bankstown area, you've got Sydney Tech and Sefton which aren't exactly high ranked schools either.

You also have the reverse problem as well. For example, just because you live next to Baulko or Ruse doesn't mean that you can automatically get into either of them. If your marks are only good enough for say Fort St or Sydney Tech which is further away then that's where you will end up. Some of the statements made appear to assume that all selective schools are the same and easily accessible, when in reality that is definitely not the case. Other factors play a significant role in what selective school a student ends up in.

There is of course the main issue of local kids having trouble accessing schools, but in my view, compromising selective schools is not the right way to go about solving the problem.

 

[Kiraken]

I'm just going to challenge a few points here...



Pretty sure government places more emphasis/funding on disadvantaged kids than selective schools unless anyone has reliable stats to prove otherwise. The idea is to give these 'gifted' students the opportunity to reach their potential. It wouldn't make sense to deny that kind of opportunity. There seems to be an impression that these 'bright' people come from privileged backgrounds which is certainly not true. A lot of 'bright' kids do come from disadvantaged backgrounds.





Shortening the supply does not address issue of the high demand for selective school positions. Being more desirable does not mean that it makes other selective schools 'better' given the number of positions available is more or less the same. If anything, it will make it less viable for the lower end of those who want to get into selective schools and more people will miss out. If this is in reference to a supposed 'increase in cohort quality' across all selective schools due to the lower number of selective schools, then we might as well remove as many selective schools as we can thereby cranking up the cohort quality in whatever selective schools remain and denying everyone else the opportunity to be part of that selective school environment.

Also, the idea that there are schools ranked just as high nearby is definitely not true. Take the Liverpool area for example, the main selective schools nearby are Hurlstone Ag and Macquarie Fields which are not exactly high ranked schools. If you live in the Bankstown area, you've got Sydney Tech and Sefton which aren't exactly high ranked schools either.

You also have the reverse problem as well. For example, just because you live next to Baulko or Ruse doesn't mean that you can automatically get into either of them. If your marks are only good enough for say Fort St or Sydney Tech which is further away then that's where you will end up. Some of the statements made appear to assume that all selective schools are the same and easily accessible, when in reality that is definitely not the case. Other factors play a significant role in what selective school a student ends up in.

There is of course the main issue of local kids having trouble accessing schools, but in my view, compromising selective schools is not the right way to go about solving the problem.

well no, because the point is this situation is one that is pretty unavoidable, we are assuming (i asked this earlier in the thread) that expanding local comprehensive schools etc, is not viable nor is building an entirely new comprehensive school.

Hurlstone and Sydney Tech definitely offer a competitive environment considering top tier students from that school manage to get excellent results, ranking is irrelevant when you consider they still offer a competitive environment that fuels your learning which is the main point of a selective school.

NSG and NSB are pretty high ranked schools so students who get into those schools would likely be able to get into Baulkho or other similarly high ranked schools anyway.

I'm not saying it's ideal but what I'm saying is you can understand why the government would prioritise local students getting a basic comprehensive education over a bunch of students, most of whom aren't local, who have a lot more options for their "elite" education

of course there are more efficient ways, i asked earlier in this thread if it was possible to integrate these students into comprehensive schools already in the area by expanding them, which in my view is the best option, but we are basing this debate on the premise that this is not viable as we don't really have any figures to work with.

 

[isildurrrr1]

trebla: i'm not talking about disadvantaged kids that are smart. everyone is doing everything in their power to help them from high schools to unis. i'm talking about kids who fall behind in school and the not so bright kids. those kids are usually left back in the classroom and unless the teacher cares about them, they just keep flunking classes and scraping by. The best way to improve a countries test numbers is to bring the kids at the bottom up to scratch.

there's so many resources poured into kids who already are gifted, but not enough for the below average kids is where im getting at.

 

[Trebla]

trebla: i'm not talking about disadvantaged kids that are smart. everyone is doing everything in their power to help them from high schools to unis. i'm talking about kids who fall behind in school and the not so bright kids. those kids are usually left back in the classroom and unless the teacher cares about them, they just keep flunking classes and scraping by. The best way to improve a countries test numbers is to bring the kids at the bottom up to scratch.

there's so many resources poured into kids who already are gifted, but not enough for the below average kids is where im getting at.

Your statement seems to imply that there are excessive amounts of resources targeted at gifted students and not enough for the not so bright students which was a statement I didn't agree with as I mentioned that the government focuses far more resources to helping people at the bottom than the top already.

 

[Erinaceous]

however that logic is flawed because it presupposes that when NSG and NSB become partially selective, that those students would still go there, which isn't the case. What will happen is that they will simply go to another selective school and still get high ATARS and so on.

You missed my point which was that making NSG and NSB partially selective does not make a selective education any less viable for kids who opt for a selective education as chances are there are schools ranked just as high closer to where they live anyway

Supposedly we go along with your argument. You're suggesting that NSG students and NSB students will no longer go to NSB and NSG once the schools become partly selective.The thing is that, if those students leave their previous school, they would be looking to go to other selective schools that are ranked near or around the rank in which their school was at. We're talking about the top 10 selective schools in NSW xD Fact of the matter - there's not that many selective schools that can compete with NSG and NSB.
But they can also go to public schools. Unwillingly perhaps, but they can still score the top ATARs in those lower ranked schools. True but if students from NSG and NSB so choose to go to a public school, then they're probably going to aim for the higher ranks, and push previous students that were doing well at the public school to do not so well - this is based off my understanding that everyone except rank 1, are affected by the ranks of everyone else in the cohort and that public schools have a larger variety of ATAR marks. (e.g The lowest mark in a course in a selective school may be 70, while a public school may several people with marks centering around 60)

You missed my point which was that making NSG and NSB partially selective does not make a selective education any less viable for kids who opt for a selective education as chances are there are schools ranked just as high closer to where they live anyway

Again, just how many schools that are ranked close to NSG and NSB's ranks are able to potentially accept the majority of each schools? We're talking about at least 800 kids per school lol xD The vast majority of those students will aim to score themselves a position within another top ranked selective school. I seriously doubt there's room for everyone.

Also, if the majority of students from NSG and NSB leave the school as you're suggesting, then that pretty much means that NSG and NSB won't really be a selective school anymore. I mean, if most present students of the school leave, then that means that you won't have enough of selective school kids who can sustain NSG and NSB's current ranking. Since students who apply to NSG and NSB primarily do so because of the school's yummy tempting rankings, this means that less students are going to apply to the educational institution since the rankings are no longer desirable. Once the reputation of the school is tainted, teachers may also leave and eventually you'll only have a very small number of selective school kids as opposed to public school kids. Surely there can't be that many public school children in need of a school in north sydney to fill up pretty much TWO whole schools :O You pretty much have a decrease in selective schools and an increase in public school c:

At least that's my opinion

On a side note, happy belated New Years

 

[iJimmy]

if the mayor does it, nsw is fked

 

[Erinaceous]

trebla: i'm not talking about disadvantaged kids that are smart. everyone is doing everything in their power to help them from high schools to unis. i'm talking about kids who fall behind in school and the not so bright kids. those kids are usually left back in the classroom and unless the teacher cares about them, they just keep flunking classes and scraping by. The best way to improve a countries test numbers is to bring the kids at the bottom up to scratch.

there's so many resources poured into kids who already are gifted, but not enough for the below average kids is where im getting at.

Why do you think that the government focuses more resources to those at the top anyways? Also - the HSC is primarily dependent on effort, no? Because I'm under the impression that even the dumbest kid can pretty much get a good score provided they work for it. Granted they may have to work harder than those who may be naturally more gifted, but they can still do it. Obviously there's exceptions to every rule but meh.

Honestly, no one can make a student do well unless they themselves want to do well. Perhaps the reason why selective schools have smarter kids is not because the government provides them with more resources (I disagree that the Gov. provides more resources at a selective school, I mean just look at the textbooks in my school D: ) or some other reason that favors the top students more, but rather because the effort put into studying by selective school students is greater than that of students who do poorly in public schools. Again there are exceptions to every rule

Your statement seems to imply that there are excessive amounts of resources targeted at gifted students and not enough for the not so bright students which was a statement I didn't agree with as I mentioned that the government focuses far more resources to helping people at the bottom than the top already.

Agreed. My school's in poverty lel firstworldproblemshaha