Prelim 2015 Chit Chat Thread (10 Viewers)

[SammyT123]

How is english a dodgy subject? How is it subjective?

Just an opinion, although I can be sure I'm not the only one . My English teachers themselves have walked us through the thought processes involved in marking, and have admitted to a good amount of subjectiveness.

I know that I attend one school out of the many, but many other students from schools also in the top 20 believe English is ...dodgy

There are a countless no of reasons for my opinion , the most recent being our last class activity.

Essentially we were given a picture of a man leaning on a brick wall, and we're supposed to write things like : how the wall showed the hardness of the mans life , and reflected his character

We weren't given any context whatsoever . It's just a dude leaning on a wall.

I find this frustrating, and pretty much all my peers from a range of schools agree that there needs to be some level of BS in their writing .

Again, this is my personal opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DatAtarLyfe]

How is english a dodgy subject? How is it subjective?

Hey wats up Ambility,
i think by subjective and dodgy, he is referring to how english is not exactly clear-cut and objective, like maths, moreover it's based on personal thinking and can be interpreted in different ways based on different individuals, thus making it "dodgy"

In saying that, i have to agree about what he said abut how maths and the sciences are much more difficult based on their objective nature, and thus scale higher, making them better benchmarks as opposed to english

 

[Speed6]

We need more depth, that's right.

The man that is leaning on the brick wall could just possible be waiting for a mate? You never know do you?

So context is very important as well as the motivation on why the man is doing that particular stance.

 

[SammyT123]

I'm glad you guys understand my thoughts exactly.

Either way, if you enjoy English , lucky you. The one subject that's compulsory is one you like. I can't say the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hawkrider]

I understand what your trying to say, but your logic is flawed.

The sciences or maths subjects only scale a lot more because students do not perform as well in them when compared to the benchmark (I.e English )

Yes, students tend to perform well in different areas, but frankly with such a large sample size, it becomes very evident that 4U math is harder than , let say VA.

The humanities would scale higher if they were harder. Each individual's talents/preferences can almost be completely ignored when considering scaling of the whole cohort.

English as a benchmark is fine in that sense (scaling), but it's a dodgy subject (very subjective)

Maths is simply black and white . Right or wrong. Yes, lots of people hate maths, but lots of people hate English as well. Therefore maths IF YOU AGREE ENGLISH IS DODGY, maths is a better benchmark

Otherwise, it doesn't matter

Yeah, I think you completely and utterly ignored my point, so I'll reiterate it again.

No, scaling is not a measure of difficulty of the subject, but rather the strength of the cohort/competition. It has absolutely nothing to do with how hard X subject is in comparison to Y. Maths/sciences would naturally scale better because the upper limit is well defined, i.e. you can objectively get 100%, whereas in humanities, there may not be as many high marks due to the subjective nature. But in fact, language extension courses such as Latin tend to scale as well, if not better than Mathematics Extension 2. You may not realise it but there are heaps of students who are rather average at humanities. It's those students who skew the scaling downwards. You should choose the subjects that you will do well in. It just so happens that those who are crap at everything tend to do humanities - it's a hard thing to swallow but you'd have to accept it. Scaling is carried out afresh each year. What happened in 2014 has no bearing on 2015.

Of course talent/preference helps but you have failed to realise that it doesn't amount to much in the HSC in regards to scaling - it's about your ability to work hard and doing well, and if there's more students excelling in said subject, of course it'd be scaled up. But it has nothing to do with talent in the first place; talent without effort is not enough.

Well no, because if you make maths the benchmark for determining your ATAR, then you're obviously providing bias for those student who take maths and science since they scale higher. English is supposed to allow those who aren't good at maths to have a chance at achieving a decent ATAR. And what ways could you think of? It's quite easy to be on the outside throwing stones, but a lot more difficult to be on the inside building it up. I don't think I could think of any other way of scaling subjects without English. Someone on this thread also mentioned that both maths and english should be counted to your ATAR, but did they ever consider that some students aren't good at maths and english anyhow? In that case, it's only fair that English has to count to your ATAR just because everyone speaks it, and even though you may think the texts are useless as shit, the communication skills are not.

I will agree that the HSC English course is flawed, but then going by that logic, you can argue that the whole educational system (including maths) is dodgy and needs repairing.

 

[SammyT123]

Editing ...

 

[SammyT123]

Yeah, I think you completely and utterly ignored my point, so I'll reiterate it again.

No, scaling is not a measure of difficulty of the subject, but rather the strength of the cohort/competition. It has absolutely nothing to do with how hard X subject is in comparison to Y. Maths/sciences would naturally scale better because the upper limit is well defined, i.e. you can objectively get 100%, whereas in humanities, there may not be as many high marks due to the subjective nature. But in fact, language extension courses such as Latin tend to scale as well, if not better than Mathematics Extension 2. You may not realise it but there are heaps of students who are rather average at humanities. It's those students who skew the scaling downwards. You should choose the subjects that you will do well in. It just so happens that those who are crap at everything tend to do humanities - it's a hard thing to swallow but you'd have to accept it. Scaling is carried out afresh each year. What happened in 2014 has no bearing on 2015.

Of course talent/preference helps but you have failed to realise that it doesn't amount to much in the HSC in regards to scaling - it's about your ability to work hard and doing well, and if there's more students excelling in said subject, of course it'd be scaled up. But it has nothing to do with talent in the first place; talent without effort is not enough.

Well no, because if you make maths the benchmark for determining your ATAR, then you're obviously providing bias for those student who take maths and science since they scale higher. English is supposed to allow those who aren't good at maths to have a chance at achieving a decent ATAR. And what ways could you think of? It's quite easy to be on the outside throwing stones, but a lot more difficult to be on the inside building it up. I don't think I could think of any other way of scaling subjects without English. Someone on this thread also mentioned that both maths and english should be counted to your ATAR, but did they ever consider that some students aren't good at maths and english anyhow? In that case, it's only fair that English has to count to your ATAR just because everyone speaks it, and even though you may think the texts are useless as shit, the communication skills are not.

I will agree that the HSC English course is flawed, but then going by that logic, you can argue that the whole educational system (including maths) is dodgy and needs repairing.

Why would a subject scale higher because it's upper limit is defined? Of course there are people that are rather average at humanities, I'm one of them. Also,I do know that Latin scales higher, but don't understand its relevance to your point. And yes, I do know scaling changes each year, but thanks for telling me anyway.

Back to the point.
I still think it's safe to assume that if an ENTIRE cohort is stronger at subject X, and weaker at subject Y, Y is the harder subject

Give 10,000 people two tests. One for subject X and one for subject Y. I'm sure that if most people do good in X and bad in Y, Y is the harder test..

Also, you said if there's s more students excelling in a subject, it is bound to be scaled up?

By my understanding, it is scales down. If I theoretically created a hsc course that is extremely easy ( questions were as simple as 1+1), and almost 99% of students do well in it, it would not be logical to scale it up
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Speed6]

Sammy listen to me for a second, you seem to be very passionate about your stance, just hold up man

Do you personally believe that HSC English is flawed?

Thankyou...

 

[SammyT123]

Why would a subject scale higher because it's upper limit is defined? Of course there are people that are rather average at humanities, I'm one of them. Also,I do know that Latin scales higher, but don't understand its relevance to your point. And yes, I do know scaling changes each year, but thanks for telling me anyway.

Back to the point.
I still think it's safe to assume that if an ENTIRE cohort is stronger at subject X, and weaker at subject Y, Y is the harder subject

Give 10,000 people two tests. One for subject X and one for subject Y. I'm sure that if most people do good in X and bad in Y, Y is the harder test..

Also, you said if there's more students excelling in a subject, it is bound to be scaled up?

By my understanding, it is scales down. If I theoretically created a hsc course that is extremely easy ( questions were as simple as 1+1), and almost 99% of students do well in it, it would not be logical to scale it up.

Thanks for restating my point in your third paragraph. Like I said, individual talents can be disregarded in this situation, as we are taking the scope to be of the entire cohort. I'm happy you agree.

If however the only reason English scales down is the fact that, as you said , people that are bad at everything take humanities (I doubt it , do you have sources to prove this?), then yes, English should be compulsory ALONGSIDE a straightforward and non-subjective subject like maths.

And what if people are bad at both? We can't make every subject compulsory , so it is only reasonable to tailor to the needs of the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SammyT123]

Sammy listen to me for a second, you seem to be very passionate about your stance, just hold up man

Do you personally believe that HSC English is flawed?

Thankyou...

Yes of course I do. But hawk is right, others may think maths is flawed, and furthermore the entire system

I truly believe English is slightly flawed myself, I hope you've understood that by now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Speed6]

Ok cool,

I just wanted to get an official reiteration that's all

I also agree with you

 

[SammyT123]

If hawk is right about the majority of rather average people taking humanities , then yes, it is unfair for passionate students , and I would totally vouch English as a compulsory subject

So , is there anything wrong with maths being compulsory aswell (aside to the minority of people that are both bad at math and English)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SammyT123]

Ok cool,

I just wanted to get an official reiteration that's all

I also agree with you

No worries,

Anyway, is anyone planning to go to defqon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambility]

I think english being subjective is subjective, lol.

One person's interpretation of a text may differ from another's, but as long as you can back up your interpretation with evidence from the text, you will get marks. It's about demonstrating your ability to perceive meaning from texts. Whether or not you get good marks seems objective to me - do you demonstrate the ability to perceive meaning or not?

Look at me - defending my most (or maybe second most) hated subject.

Hey wats up Ambility

Hey buddy!

 

[SammyT123]

I think english being subjective is subjective, lol.

One person's interpretation of a text may differ from another's, but as long as you can back up your interpretation with evidence from the text, you will get marks. It's about demonstrating your ability to perceive meaning from texts. Whether or not you get good marks seems objective to me - do you demonstrate the ability to perceive meaning or not?

Look at me - defending my most (or maybe second most) hated subject.



Hey buddy!

I would tell you a story rn about what the senior adv. eng marker said to me , but cbf
So what's your most hated subject then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambility]

I would tell you a story rn about what the senior adv. eng marker said to me , but cbf
So what's your most hated subject then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Business studies. I enjoyed it at the start of the year, but it has become so mundane, boring and rote. I can't wait to drop it next year.

 

[SammyT123]

Economics for me. I love the content of the course and I'll continue to study it in my free time, but I'm dropping it because of my bad teachers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DatAtarLyfe]

Business studies. I enjoyed it at the start of the year, but it has become so mundane, boring and rote. I can't wait to drop it next year.

hehe sounds familiar

 

[DatAtarLyfe]

No dude you should definitely keep it then. If you have that much passion to be able to study it and enjoy the content, despite the bad teacher, then you should definitely keep it cause that amount of hard work will get you a really good mark. Tbh, you can get through a course and do really well in the HSC without a teacher as long as you study hard

 

[SammyT123]

No dude you should definitely keep it then. If you have that much passion to be able to study it and enjoy the content, despite the bad teacher, then you should definitely keep it cause that amount of hard work will get you a really good mark. Tbh, you can get through a course and do really well in the HSC without a teacher as long as you study hard

Yes I know, but I feel that economics is a subject in which you really need a teacher to provoke thought and inspire creativity.

I have tried to do well without a teacher, but it's not easy. Maths/sciences you can rote learn, but I don't have the ability to do this on my own for economics
Whenever we have subs it feels like we learn so much more and actually understand the concepts.

Even if I top 5, we only got one DA last year for economics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk