public school or private school to do better in HSC? (2 Viewers)

[Conspiración]

This thread doesn't make sense. The title is misleading.
The title asks who performs better in the HSC then the OP goes into social and communication skills.

There are some pretty shit private schools out there. And there are some excellent public schools out there (e.g. Burwood Girls who are ranked 65, up there with all the private and selective schools).
I think we all agree it depends on the efforts of the individual (?).

 

[ccc123]

This thread doesn't make sense. The title is misleading.
The title asks who performs better in the HSC then the OP goes into social and communication skills.

There are some pretty shit private schools out there. And there are some excellent public schools out there (e.g. Burwood Girls who are ranked 65, up there with all the private and selective schools).
I think we all agree it depends on the efforts of the individual (?).

Agreed. /END THREAD

 

[BackCountrySnow]

This thread doesn't make sense. The title is misleading.
The title asks who performs better in the HSC then the OP goes into social and communication skills.

because by 'better' perhaps the OP is taking into account more than just UAIs. If you compare schools qualitively you need to take into account factors such as communication and social skills.

There are some pretty shit private schools out there. And there are some excellent public schools out there (e.g. Burwood Girls who are ranked 65, up there with all the private and selective schools).
I think we all agree it depends on the efforts of the individual (?).

Of course it depends on the efforts of the individual, but the quality of teaching and the school environment also plays a significant role.

Agreed. /END THREAD

lol, i never understood why people do this whole "</thread>" thing. Let the people talk.
</post>

 

[ccc123]

lol, i never understood why people do this whole "</thread>" thing. Let the people talk.
</post>

Lol. I just understood it to mean 'well the contentious issue has been resolved' sort of thing, rather than 'hey mod, close the thread'. But maybe tahts just me misinterpreting internet jargon.

 

[boris]

Lol, the point of your UAI isn't to get a job. It's to get into uni...
.

to be honest, unless your degree requires a UAI of 90+, you'll be able to get into uni. i mean fuck, i got a statement of attainment and they let me in.

and if you do get in, thats the last you'll ever use your UAI. ive been at uni 3 years and not once have i heard a person mention their UAI. i dont even put the bastard on my resume like some people.

 

[Conspiración]

because by 'better' perhaps the OP is taking into account more than just UAIs. If you compare schools qualitively you need to take into account factors such as communication and social skills.

Last I remember, there wasn't an HSC examination on social skills. No such paper exists. They do not assess your social skills, self-esteem and confidence. This should not be a factor in determining excellence in the HSC or any other examination for that matter.

Of course it depends on the efforts of the individual, but the quality of teaching and the school environment also plays a significant role.

The "quality" of teachers you get is simply by luck. Going to a selective or private school does not necessarily mean you will get better teachers. I hope you are speaking from experience, as I am. Otherwise, you cannot claim (or generalise) that private=higher quality of teaching.
The environment of private/selective schools, speaking in a general sense, is more "strict". In order to keep that prestigious image, there are many things you cannot say or do. This does not lead to an increase in social skills but rather, a decrease. There is a much more relaxed feeling (overall) in public schooling which puts the student in a position to debate what is best for them. If it is strictly "do as you are told" and there is no room for discussion, I highly doubt you would a) do better in the HSC based solely on the information teachers are forcefully feeding you and b) certainly wouldn't encourage you to think for yourself.
If I were enrolled into a private/selective school right now, my HSC would be royally fucked. Period.

 

[michael1990]

The "quality" of teachers you get is simply by luck. Going to a selective or private school does not necessarily mean you will get better teachers.

Disagree with you on this point.

So you're saying that at James Ruse (a selective public school) would allow a teacher that has no ability in the classroom to teach?

Scots College (a highly sort after private school) would allow a teacher that has no ability in the classroom?

No their prestigious image is based on getting high results, they would not allow a teacher who does not get results to teach at these schools.

 

[-WaxingLyrical-]

The environment of private/selective schools, speaking in a general sense, is more "strict". In order to keep that prestigious image, there are many things you cannot say or do. This does not lead to an increase in social skills but rather, a decrease. There is a much more relaxed feeling (overall) in public schooling which puts the student in a position to debate what is best for them.

That's a load of crap. Generally, the restrictions placed upon people in selective/private schools are related to public image ie we have a strict uniform policy at our school (but that doesn't stop people from not adhering to it).
These restrictions don't impact on your level of sociability, and they don't create a tenser atmosphere - they're completely unrelated.

So you're saying that at James Ruse (a selective public school) would allow a teacher that has no ability in the classroom to teach?...prestigious image is based on getting high results, they would not allow a teacher who does not get results to teach at these schools.

Nah you're wrong. I go to a selective school, and that doesn't stop my physics teacher from being possibly one of the worst physics teachers in Sydney. A girl from my class teaches the rest of us (and him) instead.

 

[michael1990]

Nah you're wrong. I go to a selective school, and that doesn't stop my physics teacher from being possibly one of the worst physics teachers in Sydney. A girl from my class teaches the rest of us (and him) instead.

The thing is, how do you know that your schools physic teachers are as bad as my schools physic teachers?

I am merely pointing out that schools such as James Ruse and Scots College will not allow such teachers to teach at their prestigious school.

Scots provides a dynamic educational experience with emphasis on excellence in teaching and learning.

http://www.tsc.nsw.edu.au/index.cfm?id=3229

 

[Conspiración]

Generally, the restrictions placed upon people in selective/private schools are related to public image ie we have a strict uniform policy at our school (but that doesn't stop people from not adhering to it).

And, as you quoted, I did say the restrictions were related to the perceived prestigious image. I think you're overwhelming yourself here.

Conspiración[/B]]In order to keep that prestigious image, there are many things you cannot say or do.

I don't think "public image" is right, when it comes to speaking of private/selective schools. "Prestigious image" would be more correct. I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but "public image" refers to anything without adding the hint of prestige - obviously. Anyway, that's not the issue here.

These restrictions don't impact on your level of sociability, and they don't create a tenser atmosphere - they're completely unrelated.

Firstly, although your quote itself did not take my words out of context, you have. Or you've completely ignored/missed the point. Either way:

In order to keep that prestigious image, there are many things you cannot say or do. This does not lead to an increase in social skills but rather, a decrease. There is a much more relaxed feeling (overall) in public schooling which puts the student in a position to debate what is best for them.

The ridiculous hierarchy in some private/selective schools (not to say that public schools don't have any blah systems) does not allow you to "mix n match" as you'd please. I'd love to see someone at James Ruse etc doing Pathways or repeating their HSC. That certainly doesn't give them that all-mighty image. The public schooling system is much more relaxed and you cannot argue with that. Having experienced both private and public schooling, the public eduational system not only gives more voice and "authority", or the power to debate their situation/circumstances, but generally gives the student the impression that they are genuinely concerned and they are there to help the student - not after their money.
Anyway...
From experience, I can tell you that my self-esteem, confidence and social skills sky-rocketed once I transferred from the private system to the public one. Private schools just don't like to see people socialising it seems. I'm not stating this as a "common misconception", but as a real life experience.

I'm sure the consequences of not wearing the uniform correctly at a selective/private school would be more "severe" compared to the consequences at a public school. Again, all because of the prestigious image.

 

[Conspiración]

Disagree with you on this point.

So you're saying that at James Ruse (a selective public school) would allow a teacher that has no ability in the classroom to teach?

Scots College (a highly sort after private school) would allow a teacher that has no ability in the classroom?

No their prestigious image is based on getting high results, they would not allow a teacher who does not get results to teach at these schools.

Firstly, quoting the Scots site is not helping you any - every school will state they are providing excellent teachers, boast about their extra-curricular activities, etc. But when people with crap teachers come out with a 99+ UAI, it clearly indicates performance is based on the student's efforts and motivation. Teachers do aid, I'll admit. But they do not play the significant role in your education - learning is up to you, you cannot learn just by sitting in the class with a fantastic teacher if you couldn't care less about the topic/subject/etc.
You're underminding the efforts of the individual to an extent. If you got over this selective/private=better mentality, you would excel in the HSC rather than lament about not attending a private school or repeating your HSC.

All schools will have some sort of quality control. But if only the "good" teachers were to be employed, you would be looking at a shocking percentage of unemployment in the education industry.

 

[Aplus]

Actually their teachers are pretty dedicated and strict from what I've heard.

 

[undalay]

I'd love to see someone at James Ruse etc doing Pathways or repeating their HSC.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
I attend a highly ranked selective school.
You definitely are allowed to do pathways.
You definitely are allowed to repeat your HSC.
Infact there are 3 or 4 people in my grade that actually do pathways.

Although we only allow Advanced english, there is one person doing standard english because the school provides for the individuals needs.

The reason schools do well is not because of teachers or whatnot.

It is because of the people that occupy the school (intelligence)
and the atmosphere of competition (pressure to do well / effort)

I'm sure the consequences of not wearing the uniform correctly at a selective/private school would be more "severe" compared to the consequences at a public school. Again, all because of the prestigious image.

At my school the uniform code is very lax. If you don't wear uniform, you get a uniform 'slip' (if the teachers bother). You get 3 you get a detention. Ties etc are not compulsary.

I was talking to the teacher, and basically a public selective school follows the same guidelines as a normal comprehensive public school.
I.e. The grounds for expulsion/suspension are the same.
It is not "more" strict.

I can't say anything for private schools though.

You've never been to a public selective school.

 

[-WaxingLyrical-]

And, as you quoted, I did say the restrictions were related to the perceived prestigious image. I think you're overwhelming yourself here.

I should have elaborated... you said there are 'many things you cannot say or do'. I'm saying that's bull. I don't know about private schools, but I don't feel those restrictions imposed upon me at a selective school. But w/e, it might just be better if you clarified what these restrictions are.

The ridiculous hierarchy in some private/selective schools (not to say that public schools don't have any blah systems) does not allow you to "mix n match" as you'd please. I'd love to see someone at James Ruse etc doing Pathways or repeating their HSC. That certainly doesn't give them that all-mighty image.

Wrong again. Whilst top ranking selective schools may be unhappy about having their students repeat or do Pathways, they won't actually discourage or refuse them from doing so. They want the students to achieve the best possible UAI they can even if it means deferring their HSC- because the 'all-mighty image' of the school is dependent on the results of their students, and if they can be improved by deferring their HSC then so be it.

It's not wrong to say that you'll find fewer people doing pathways/repeating in selective schools than in non-selective, but that is dependent on the students - and their assessment of their own capability - not the school they go to.

 

[Zrap]

Does it matter eventually you go to a UNI that is not separated by public and private.

 

[michael1990]

Does it matter eventually you go to a UNI that is not separated by public and private.

No it doesn't, nor does it matter what you got for a UAI when you get into UNI.

 

[michael1990]

Firstly, quoting the Scots site is not helping you any - every school will state they are providing excellent teachers, boast about their extra-curricular activities, etc. But when people with crap teachers come out with a 99+ UAI, it clearly indicates performance is based on the student's efforts and motivation. Teachers do aid, I'll admit. But they do not play the significant role in your education - learning is up to you, you cannot learn just by sitting in the class with a fantastic teacher if you couldn't care less about the topic/subject/etc.
You're underminding the efforts of the individual to an extent. If you got over this selective/private=better mentality, you would excel in the HSC rather than lament about not attending a private school or repeating your HSC.

All schools will have some sort of quality control. But if only the "good" teachers were to be employed, you would be looking at a shocking percentage of unemployment in the education industry.

No i was not undermining the efforts of students. I was merely having the discussion about Private Schools and Public Selective Schools.

The Scots College, as an ELITE private school, would not allow teachers of low quality to teach their. I mean the principal has a PhD. I couldn't find much information on the other teachers though.

Also, i have based this on my brother attending and also from the website.
I did a lot of reading up on it as well.

The student of course is a major part of learning, i would put it down to 75% Student and 25% teacher.

 

[undalay]

Does it matter eventually you go to a UNI that is not separated by public and private.

UNI doesn't matter once your dead, whats your point?

 

[notaaron]

I have been to both private ( magdalene college) and public ( leumeah high )
and from my own experience i would say the private school would do better.

Its not that the teachers are 'better' its that the school have more rules to follow, and its easier to get in trouble and generally, not all the time, the trouble makers are the 'unintelligent' ones.

At the public school atm, there are rules, but even I don't follow them. I never wear uniform ect, at my private school top button undone= detention.

I believe the system goes Public selective(or selective)>Private>Public

on the whole scale, obviously there are exceptions.

 

[Iruka]

Elite private schools will always be the employer of choice for most teachers.

Why? Mainly, the pay starts at 5-8% higher than the public system. At the top of the pay scale (eg, principals) the difference is huge.

In addition, class sizes are generally smaller and disruptive students are eventually asked to pursue their educational experience elsewhere. So in some respects, the job is easier.

Consequently, who do you think gets to cherry pick the best teachers?

Selective public schools get teachers from the staffing pool on the same basis as every other public school, so you will not necessarily have a better teacher just because you are in selective school (as several posters on this thread have mentioned).