How do you Study 4 UNI. (1 Viewer)

[Benny1103]

But on the inverse, it shows your ignorance in saying that those with Credits and Passes are poor students.

The reason for fails are for those who have not achieved the necessary requirements.

They are there for arbitrary reasons, to distinguish between the failing and the passing. The ability to pass is measured, but having passed/satisfied, means that you will complete a degree, not everyone who gets passes is dumb nor smart, its a mark for the tasks completed.

It is rather senseless to draw parallels between what constitutes a good student and intelligence. In fact, I never made that comparison so don't try to make it seem as if I did.

Obviously, if you understand the material well then it follows that you will score highly. How well you understand the material is measured by the grades you obtain.

If you just pass then you have a very basic understanding of the material - and that doesn't make you a good student. I don't see how you could possibly dispute that. There are special cases yes, but unless you are prepared to make the ridiculous claim that all students who scrape the pass mark are all struck down by some mysterious illness before every assessment, then I don't see how you can dispute that.

Conversely if you have a poor understanding of the material, it follows that you will score badly - and that is what makes a poor student. It has nothing to do with intelligence. What it does mean is that if you scrape the pass mark all of the time then you have a poor understanding of the material and hence it makes you a poor student.

Response to your edit: Re-read the thread. This started when I quoted SweetSeasons and said something along the lines of not needing to study if you just want to pass. No criticism there. Following that, what I said and it is blatantly obvious, is that I believe that it is a total waste of money to just obtain passes. There was no criticism. I did not say anything along the lines of "hey if you get passes then you are automatically a loser." If you take what I said as a criticism (as ridiculous as it would be to do so) then pretty much any opinionated response on this forum is a criticism.

 

[AsyLum]

Again you're drawing conclusions based on numbers and marks and missing motivation.

I could know the inside out of the course, but the extra effort to assert my knowledge and gain extra information outside of what is needed may not be in the best interests of someone who is working full time and only needs the degree as a credential.

You are merely measuring something from numbers and statistics, please, come back when you understand they do not constitute ANYTHING but, as i have said prior, the marks which one attains.

Response to your edit: Re-read the thread. This started when I quoted SweetSeasons and said something along the lines of not needing to study if you just want to pass. No criticism there. Following that, what I said and it is blatantly obvious, is that I believe that it is a total waste of money to just obtain passes. There was no criticism. I did not say anything along the lines of "hey if you get passes then you are automatically a loser." If you take what I said as a criticism (as ridiculous as it would be to do so) then pretty much any opinionated response on this forum is a criticism.

Please don't pull the "ogm relativism!! individuality!! perspective" card.

Your claim was the Passes and Credits were poor marks, as they were a waste of the time and money.

You do realise, that marks can be guided along a scale rather than as a reward of raw marks.

 

[Benny1103]

I could know the inside out of the course, but the extra effort to assert my knowledge and gain extra information outside of what is needed may not be in the best interests of someone who is working full time and only needs the degree as a credential.

So you are saying that even if you knew the material 'inside out' then you wouldn't actually put in the effort during an exam to show what you know? Sounds pretty stupid seeing that regardless of your other commitments, you're going to be sitting in that exam room for a couple of hours anyway.

You are merely measuring something from numbers and statistics, please, come back when you understand they do not constitute ANYTHING but, as i have said prior, the marks which one attains.

They show how well you understand the material as I explained before. Regardless of how much emphasis you put on the word "anything", it doesn't change the fact that you're in error when you say that your marks don't consitute "anything." I can think of many things that your marks are symbolic of. A single counter example already renders what you said above completely incorrect.

Please don't pull the "ogm relativism!! individuality!! perspective" card.

Your claim was the Passes and Credits were poor marks, as they were a waste of the time and money.

Please don't resort to pathetic sarcastic arguments in which you need to make things up, it's kind of embarassing. I was not arguing on technicalities. I clearly stated in one of my earlier posts that I am of the opinion that "..." The intention was not to say that whatever I state is necessarily correct. I would have thought it was rather obvious that what I said was clearly just an opinion. I mean, even a ten year old would be able to understand something like that.

You do realise, that marks can be guided along a scale rather than as a reward of raw marks.

What's your point? That marks can get scaled up and hence make students look better? Or the converse of that? Empty 'facts' like what you included above do very little in illustrating your point.

 

[Demandred]

Miss Cow:

Each week you're assigned readings, and more likely, questions to do after reading those parts of the book. Summarise and understand the readings and do those questions every week. That should be enough to a high C to a D.

I hear many tutors and lecturers say that you're suppose to put in 2 hours for every hour spent at Uni, if you're aiming for a HD, go for that. Realistically, few hours of revision everyweek on all your materials should be enough - lecture notes, your own notes, books, secondary sources etc... Time would be better spent on assignments rather than hardcorestudying, you'll be getting from at least 7 - 12 through the 13 week semester, I got one due each week last year.

I only do study once I finish all my assignments or at least 2-3 weeks before exams. You may get like 5 weeks to study for your exams after the semester depending on the spread of the exam timetable.

As for books, you usually bring them only to tutorials, a typical course will make you attend 4 tutorials a week, so you won't break your back carrying bricks.

As for grades, I'll make an car analogy:

Pass - Old bomb - had lots of hiccups during the journey, but still crossed over the line - barely though.

Credit - Normal modern family cars - works fine, well tuned, pretty fast, looks nice.

Distinction - Modern BMWs and Mercs - looks awesome and performes just as well.

High Distinction - Bugatti, Porsche, Aston Martin - top of the class.

Of course, that's how I see things, many would agree with me but its not universal.

 

[AsyLum]

So you are saying that even if you knew the material 'inside out' then you wouldn't actually put in the effort during an exam to show what you know? Sounds pretty stupid seeing that regardless of your other commitments, you're going to be sitting in that exam room for a couple of hours anyway.

If all i needed was passes, and to gain a credit i would've needed to have studied extra materials x, y, z, and it wasnt in my interests due to time constraints, then i hardly see the detrimental attitude you are carrying on with. Like i said, gaining marks != uni experience.

They show how well you understand the material as I explained before. Regardless of how much emphasis you put on the word "anything", it doesn't change the fact that you're in error when you say that your marks don't consitute "anything." I can think of many things that your marks are symbolic of. A single counter example already renders what you said above completely incorrect.

Example a) student gains Pass.
Example b) student gains Credit.

student a) gets a mark of 64, student b) gets a mark of 65. GPA reflects one student gains a pass, other gets a credit. Tell me, what do those tell me about the students' abilities to tackle the sphere of the industrial and real world in terms of practical skills? What do those marks tell me of their respective motivations and wants in life, in the unit, and what advantages they have gained out of the course itself?

Take this example:

Student a) has previous knowledge of the unit, having done substantial work on it and gains a Distinction.
Student b) has no previous knowledge, and achives a Credit mark.

Do marks and GPA's tell me which got the more 'satisfying' experience?

Please don't resort to pathetic sarcastic arguments in which you need to make things up, it's kind of embarassing. I was not arguing on technicalities. I clearly stated in one of my earlier posts that I am of the opion that "..." The intention was not to say that whatever I say is necessarily correct, even a ten year old would be able to understand something like that.

Yes, that is all you need. Sometimes you can even get just below 50 and still obtain pass after making various pathetic pleas to your lecturer. [/sarcasm]

Pot, Kettle, Black?

Is that supposed to be something to be proud of/happy with/satisified with?

In reference to the credit/pass average/GPA.

Now the question here within lies not upon the validity of individual 'notions' of truth and perspective, but rather on the validity of your comment.

If you are willing to declare such a thing on a public forum, you must therefore be ready to defend such a statement, and not suddenly claim moral superiority over 'individual' perspectives as a notion of defense.

Saying, "I believe xx is a murderer" in a public document or environment as such that it correlates as a statement, when the truth is the opposite results in a sort of character assassination. Is it not then allowable for others to question your statement based upon the fact it was publically stated? Surely, if you we are to project a statement, they should be allowed to be criticised and analysed, and if needs be, rectified.

What's your point? That marks can get scaled up and hence make students look better? Or the converse of that? Empty 'facts' like what you included above do very little in illustrating your point.

Marks can follow, whether they be sub-conscious or consciously a 'quota' filling type of mark allocation, whereby people are accorded places based upon a certain limit to individual 'bands' rather than as pure straight forward yes or no type allocations.

 

[Benny1103]

Like i said, gaining marks != uni experience.

Don't try to change the topic. I was discussing what makes a good student. That is distinct from how good your time at uni is.

Example a) student gains Pass.
Example b) student gains Credit.

student a) gets a mark of 64, student b) gets a mark of 65. GPA reflects one student gains a pass, other gets a credit. Tell me, what do those tell me about the students' abilities to tackle the sphere of the industrial and real world in terms of practical skills? What do those marks tell me of their respective motivations and wants in life, in the unit, and what advantages they have gained out of the course itself?

Hey, good 'reasoning' there. Firstly, that is a special case. I was discussing things in a broader context. Please don't tell me that you didn't understand that either. Secondly, you are implicitly assuming that these two students will definitely have differing levels of competence in industry. What makes you think that these two students aren't equally capable outside of uni? What makes you think that the higher scoring student won't have a comparable, if not higher level of experience in industry? Again, you've just made up a convenient example in order to justify your 'reasoning.'

Take this example:

Student a) has previous knowledge of the unit, having done substantial work on it and gains a Distinction.
Student b) has no previous knowledge, and achives a Credit mark.

Do marks and GPA's tell me which got the more 'satisfying' experience?

As I said in response to the first quote above, don't change the topic.

Pot, Kettle, Black?

Still, can't, comprehend, simple, concepts? That quote you produced was in response to a question. The context was a question, not an argument as in this case. Your arguments are degrading to the point where you need to take things out of context just to support whatever weak point you're trying to make.

Saying, "I believe xx is a murderer" in a public document or environment as such that it correlates as a statement, when the truth is the opposite results in a sort of character assassination. Is it not then allowable for others to question your statement based upon the fact it was publically stated? Surely, if you we are to project a statement, they should be allowed to be criticised and analysed, and if needs be, rectified.

Let me get this straight, you're comparing something as big and serious as murder, to an opinion about marks? Perhaps you should learn to judge the level of severity between statements before you tell others what they can and cannot do.

Oh and didn't you say that I have no right to criticise other people's motivations in life? (not that I did anyway) From your 'reasoning' above, it follows that since someone posted details about themselves on a public forum, I should be able to criticise them for that, if I wanted to. Things work both ways, keep that in mind.

Marks can follow, whether they be sub-conscious or consciously a 'quota' filling type of mark allocation, whereby people are accorded places based upon a certain limit to individual 'bands' rather than as pure straight forward yes or no type allocations.

Unless you are going to say that most people who get final marks of around the pass mark actually obtain raw marks of 70+ then your previous assertions don't really say much. Should I explain why to you? Sorry if I'm insulting your intelligence by asking you this but judging from that comparison you made between murder and marks, I simply cannot be sure how much you can understand.

 

[tabbi_neubeck]

Final marks are scaled and are mearly a comparison of how you are going compared to others in your course, so if you are getting a credit you should still be rather happy with yourself, as you are technically ahead of 50% of the people in your course. As there are more passes than credits, more credits than distictions, and more distinctions than high distinctions.
And as was said earlier, some people go to uni with different aims, and different courses have different demands and requirements to reach different levels of achievement. It isn't all as straight and simple as it may all appear. People all go through different experiences, and have had different experiences leading up to their time at uni which may either work for or against them.
In the end it is no good telling people that they are not going as well as they could be if they are getting a credits. Let me just put it this way, i think when doing assessment tasks your aim should be to get a high as a mark as possible, and be happy with a credit. Look at a pass as needing some improvement, and anything higher than a credit as being a bonus, insuring that you make note of the things that you done that were both good and bad, and work on them.
In the end it is not worth beating yourself up over not achieving excellent marks, as long as you pass that is all that matters in the end, your biggest aim should be to avoid failing anything by aiming for high marks.
No body is perfect and it often takes people a while to adjust to what is expected of them.

 

[Lundy]

In some areas it's not just a case of either knowing the material or not knowing the material, especially in the essay-intensive humanities, where there are no clear-cut yes/no answers.

 

[AsyLum]

I was discussing things in a broader context. Please don't tell me that you didn't understand that either. Secondly, you are implicitly assuming that these two students will definitely have differing levels of competence in industry. What makes you think that these two students aren't equally capable outside of uni? What makes you think that the higher scoring student won't have a comparable, if not higher level of experience in industry?

That's exactly what im saying, what evidence do you have FROM MARKS ALONE, that determine as such?

Again, you've just made up a convenient example in order to justify your 'reasoning.'

Thats how you argue genius...or was i suppose to bring up an example where i was wrong?

Still, can't, comprehend, simple, concepts? That quote you produced was in response to a question. The context was a question, not an argument as in this case. Your arguments are degrading to the point where you need to take things out of context just to support whatever weak point you're trying to make.

Oh and didn't you say that I have no right to criticise other people's motivations in life? (not that I did anyway) From your 'reasoning' above, it follows that since someone posted details about themselves on a public forum, I should be able to criticise them for that, if I wanted to. Things work both ways, keep that in mind.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Furthermore, criticising people's objectives in life != their marks or my statements.

Let me get this straight, you're comparing something as big and serious as murder, to an opinion about marks? Perhaps you should learn to judge the level of severity between statements before you tell others what they can and cannot do.

What would you rather? XX is a failure? xx is incapable of y? The logic remains, your arguments are merely aesthetics and address nothing in terms of the reasoning.

Unless you are going to say that most people who get final marks of around the pass mark actually obtain raw marks of 70+ then your previous assertions don't really say much. Should I explain why to you? Sorry if I'm insulting your intelligence by asking you this but judging from that comparison you made between murder and marks, I simply cannot be sure how much you can understand.

Wow, attacking the person. Im deeply hurt. I thought you were above such peons.

Hey, good 'reasoning' there. Firstly, that is a special case.

Lets take a look at the mark structures shall we?

There is a smaller percentage of students consistently getting HD's and D's than there are getting Cr and Passes.

Let us assume, and being generous, that there is a significant amount of students who undertake a subject with prior knowledge. Now this number should mean that there should be a greater degree of these 'upper' echelons of students should there not? Or are the majority of students merely 'failures' ?

 

[...]

If you just pass then you have a very basic understanding of the material - and that doesn't make you a good student. I don't see how you could possibly dispute that. There are special cases yes, but unless you are prepared to make the ridiculous claim that all students who scrape the pass mark are all struck down by some mysterious illness before every assessment, then I don't see how you can dispute that.

Conversely if you have a poor understanding of the material, it follows that you will score badly - and that is what makes a poor student. It has nothing to do with intelligence. What it does mean is that if you scrape the pass mark all of the time then you have a poor understanding of the material and hence it makes you a poor student.

what happens if someone just memorises the past paper questions and walk into the exam room, just to spill out whatever is in their heads.

Does that actually make them a "good" student, even though they score D's or HD's??

 

[MedNez]

Benny1103 Woah slow down there chief, let's all take a deep breath and discuss this as reasonable adults, not shout at each other that the other person is wrong. If someone chooses to spend four years at University getting only passes, but has the best years of their life, gets a good job with that degree, then what does it matter?

 

[...]

Is that supposed to be something to be proud of/happy with/satisified with?

If don't already understand, my previous comment wasn't directed specifically at you. It is a statement which is true for a large proportion of people. The way I see it, credit and pass are both fairly poor grades so there's not much difference.

yeah, Cr average is nothing to be proud of

I'm one of those cunts that look down of ppl when they don't have HDs average at least. In fact, i go home everynight and get my body detaminated because i had to seat on a chair previously sat by some loser who only has a Cr average

 

[AsyLum]

That makes them a HSC student who is going to get 100

Good luck when you get a question about transversal depravation or the mechanics of the quantum ethics of the moral self

 

[ogmzergrush]

I'm with Benny on this one. Obviously the point of a a degree is to comprehensively absorb everything that is thrown at you, to the extent where you're able to recite it backwards. On top of that, you should be able to use this to make further deductions, coming to informed conclusions of your own. You should be able to do all of this on the spot, and should *never* be wrong. In fact, you should aim at being that smart kid at the front who thinks he can correct the lecturer. Everybody silenty acknowledges that he's a champion through and through, and that he is the only one in the room going anywhere in life.

Fact of the matter is that anyone at University who doesn't receive a full 100% on every assessment for every task, despite juggling employment, travel, family issues, not to mention the competing study needs, really should reconsider their choice. If you're not getting 100% on everything, your degree is worthless, and so are you.

PS: Fuck you Benny, you're a dickhead.

 

[sikeveo]

Funny how twisted benny's point has become.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Funny how twisted benny's point has become.

The bit where he implied a credit average isn't something be proud of? For a lot of people it is, and if that's the best they can do then good on them for having a go. We're not all Mensa material like Benny. That's what I was responding to, hopefully that's not lost on anyone reading my post.

 

[hfis]

Benny1103, you're a sardonic little bitch, and I can't stand you. You are annoying. Shut up.

Regarding the thread topic: a few hours a week of revising lecture/written notes is usually enough. The university recommended '2 hours per hour at uni' thing is for psychopaths and people without lives.

 

[Benny1103]

That's exactly what im saying, what evidence do you have FROM MARKS ALONE, that determine as such?

The point is that your example is flawed to begin with. Let me ask you this. Do you wish to suggest that someone with lower marks is likely to be more capable in industry?

Thats how you argue genius...or was i suppose to bring up an example where i was wrong?

You argue by bringing up points which support your view. However, proper arguments generally don't use such narrow examples which are clearly in the minority in the scheme of things. If you were instead to use an entire cohort of students obtaining passes and credits and compare them then your argument would have meaning. You did not do that, so what you said was garbage.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Sorry, what are you rambling on about now? You highlighted the sentence where I referred to you telling me not to criticise other people's motivations in life so I'll assume you were referring to that. Basically, you told me not to criticise others and so as I explained before, people shouldn't be able to do that to me either. Works both ways.

Furthermore, criticising people's objectives in life != their marks or my statements.

Uh...wtf? Don't try to bring in things which have little to no relation to the discussion. It's called taking thing sout of context.

What would you rather? XX is a failure? xx is incapable of y? The logic remains, your arguments are merely aesthetics and address nothing in terms of the reasoning.

In this case, the comparison you make is important. It's not a trivial matter when people can get so worked up about it. As such when providing an example, you cannot divorce from it, the context which accompanies it. So yes, your example was flawed.

Lets take a look at the mark structures shall we?

There is a smaller percentage of students consistently getting HD's and D's than there are getting Cr and Passes.

If 1000 students take a particular subject. How many of those would you say would be allocated a fail mark regardless of the cohort's actual raw scores? If less than 500 then your point is really meaningless. Because unless they completely skew the mark distribution so that only the top 20% get higher than credits then it means that you haven't done well relatively to other students anyway. So a credit in that case doesn't show that you are a good student.

ogmzergrush - If you really understand the material you wouldn't need to rote learn it. As such, to get high scores you only need to know how to apply the fundamentals. Lol btw... "dickhead"...I thought people stopped using that after primary school, or year 7 at most but now that you're over 18 and you still use it?

It seems that people are jumping to the conclusion that you need to get 100% on every assessment task. Quite simply, if you simply want higher than a credit you don't need to get an average raw score of anywhere near 100%. Don't use it as an excuse for any scores that you may have 'achieved' - and I use the term loosely.

Further, it has become apparent that the people who are less able are assuming that I think that the only score which is adequate is 100%. I never even said that - unless of course people actually think that you need that kind of an average to exceed a credit mark.

hfis - Lol I'm a "sardonic little bitch" because I don't believe that a credit average is adequate?

... - You are obviously one of those people who cannot control their emotions when something that someone says strikes a nerve. Never did I say that people with credit averages are lowly. What I did say is that I am of the view that you are wasting your time if you just to go to uni to get passes.

Mednez - I simply stated my opinion on the matter. I didn't tell people what to do with their lives. That's a distinction which many people have ignored. Presumably because they fall under the bracket which I experessed my opinion on.

Funny how twisted benny's point has become.

Indeed, some people cannot seem to read. Or more likely, when I expressed my opinion on the matter (and not on people themselves), people might have been offended because they fall under the category which I described. Thus those who tend to let their emotions cloud their judgment, will invariably make false inferences and at times, draw completely false conclusions such as those on my view of people's worth.

 

[...]

The point is that your example is flawed to begin with. Let me ask you this. Do you wish to suggest that someone with lower marks is likely to be more capable in industry?

By getting "high" marks in a unit, it shows the person he is capable of memorising a whole textbook, and in a set given time able to spill out whatever possible
this might not make them industry capable, yet they are still one of the "top" students.


the end.

 

[Demandred]

Hey Benny, marks are not always a measure of one's chances at getting a decent job, or success for that matter.

If the guy is an arshole, nobody would give a crap over high many HDs he got, he still is an arsehole.