• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Here's my rant, as promised... (1 Viewer)

GruvisMalt

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
22
Hmmm, i agree with the whole scaling thing. What i think is utterly stupid is the way they deal with internal assessments. Teachers marking students assignments can vary so much it's not even funny. Someone from my school borrowed a friends isp whom got 20/20, yet he only got 60/100 ... just goes to show how innacurate internal assessments are. I know they try to make it right by rankings and comparing it to hsc scores and whatnots, but i think they should just have standardised exams all throughout the year. More efficient. And makes sure kids work all year too.
 

stazi

Nightman
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
14,093
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
HAHHAHAHHAHAH!!! Women once again display their stupidity.
Funnily enough, the word bub didn't arrise from the slave trade. It's roots are actually from the English colloquialism meaning 'fellow'. In fact bub has nothing to do with black slaves.

'Look at me, I'm so against women's traditional roles as women. My ex boyfriend knocked me out with a brick one day and built a kitchen around me. For years I was making sandwiches until I escaped. Promptly after I became a feminazi. Equality this equality that. Fuck men. Women should have more rights in society anyway."

Unfortunatelly, if you remember correctly, Charles Darwin, the father of evolution once said in I think his second report: "Women are a mystery of nature to me. I don't understand why the evolved legs. It seems a hassle pleasuring a men. One must go down on her knees".
 

Menace2Sobriety

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
24
Location
South
Apathetic said:
excuse me, not only do I know that, but you should move into the present, because whether the word originated from there or not is not the issue. He meant it the way I interpreted it, end of discussion. :vcross:

Wow...not only are feminists self righteous...they are really really dumb.
 

Apathetic

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
49
Location
Blue Mtns
great idea gruvis! :)
as for you, "1Time4thePpl", how dare you! I happen to think that men and women are equally important in contemporary society, and that women are in revolt of men and need to accept that if they keep going the way they are then men will never treat them equally because they then will revolt against women, who are attempting to "pay men back" for the mistakes of their fathers and grandfathers.
But some comments however, are blatantly sexist and just plain rude!
I feel sorry for you, I guess no girl will ever go down on her knees for you; it must be tough!
 

stazi

Nightman
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
14,093
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
As for you apathy, I find it interesting how you follow a paradigm that you know nothing about. When faced with a tidbit of new information criticising your 'revolt' you pretend that you had in fact known this fact, thus showing your extreme stupidity.
No girl has to go down on their knees for me. I just tend to saw off their legs to save them the bother. Oh furthermore its called a blowjob, in case you can't pronounce the word. Or is that politically inorrect and sexist too? Because women shouldn't really do any blowing. 'Oral stimulation' perhaps?
It's because of people like you there are world famines!!
 

Apathetic

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
49
Location
Blue Mtns
Incase this is an abnormal occurance where you're from, sex, or "oral stimulation" is generally an act that both parties consent to, so the fact that you claim to be going around "sawing girls' legs off" would imply that the girls arent consenting, right? So correct me if I'm wrong, but not only was I right about you not getting any, but what you are getting is more commonly referred to as "rape".

And now that that is over with, I find it interesting that you seem incapable of having an intelligent argument. You see, this is called the "music forum", hence, we discuss music, which is what I was doing until you and your dirty mouth came along!
 

mbevz

New Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
12
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'm not so concerned about music getting scaled down. It's just one of those things, you know?

If you're complaining about 'the man,' I'd be more inclined to complain about how A) English is compulsory and 2) How it has to be counted towards your UAI.
 

stazi

Nightman
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
14,093
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Once again you have demonstrated your stupidity. Yes, I really do run around sawing girls legs off. You've probably seen me on the news. I've had over one thousand victims in the blue mountains area.
 

=Mike B=

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
31
Location
Northern Beaches
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You just proved my point. The HSC doesn't reward talent, it rewards hard work. OF course talent is a major factor in this, and in some cases (like music) it can be the ONLY factor, but it shouldn't be. You should have to work hard to get a good mark also, which, for a large part in music, you do not have to.
How interesting,

Do you think this "musical talent" just magically arises from no-where? i know lots of "talented" musicians, and being a Music student that does all peformance elective (Music2 & ext) it is not just my magical "talent" that gets good marks.

Hypothetical
Perhaps if every physics student did 2 hours of study a day... everyday for more than a year... they would inherit this "talent" which we are talking about...?

Or perhaps... if this physics student started learning when they were six... and studied every day for 11 years... would they be seen with physics talent?


My point here is that saying sometihng like "you have to do hardly any work to get a good mark" is bullsh|t... especially in music where peoples long committment to their study (either in performance, musicology or composition) usually goes unseen.

I dont now about you but i would call 11 years of learning/studying/playing fvcking hard work...



NB: why hasnt a moderator done something about the stupid bicker that has gone on in the last few posts... i dont think this is the place nor time
 

Skillo

is in a theatre near you
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
947
Location
In my blue-light backstage hovel, the theatre.
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
GruvisMalt said:
I feel like a broken record ...

ok, here's my point. Disregard the majority of music students and physics students, let's focus on the very top elite few in each subject.

Music: some kid has been playing guitar for 10 years. He could simply pick 4 performances, already know them like the back of his hand, not go under any intense rehearsals or trainings, and still get very good marks up around 90%. I know it happens. A lot of people are like this.

Physics: some kid is a mathematics genius and aboslutely loves physics. Obviously he has an advantage over the other kids who dont necessarily enjoy physics .. BUT, in order for this guy to get a high mark like 90%, he can't just rely on his plain talent and enjoyment of the subject, he'd still have to study his arse off to get a good mark.


This is the difference. It's easier for a lot of people to get a band 6 mark in music as it is for physic students to get a band 6 mark. I agree, SOME music students would work as hard as physics students to earn their mark, but what im saying is there is a high possability that a very talented musician could breeze through the performance exam with very little effort and still get high marks - this more or less IS NOT possibly for physics students.


I really hate bringing this into it, but you brought it up, and i must defend myself. I play drums. I chose 2 perf + core. All the songs i played were songs i previously knew and did not require any intense rehearsals (only with my backing musicians so that we were in sync). Obviously i cant present you with my exma marks to "prove" my theory correct, but if it means anything, for my trial performances, i got 9/10 (core), 17/20 (elective) and 18/20 (elective) .. and all 3 pieces were pieces i already knew and spent no specific time rehearsing for the exam. If i had of done that in my physics trial, i assure you i would not have passed. My point is it's very possibly for a music student to get high marks without trying, whereas it's not possible for a physics student to get high marks without trying hard. Thus the difference is clear, and physics gets scaled up. Now if you lot keep repeating the same arguments and misinterpretting what im saying, well, then i'll, er, be very cranky .. so there.
In three words:
Thats absolute bullshit.
 

skankit

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
158
let me try and settle this -
those that do well in music do not get scaled down to oblivion, depending on their mark/course theyll get scaled up, at the very least stay on their actual mark

those who don't do so well do get scaled down, often quite substantially, but there are reasons for this! in a way everyones right...

the reason that those who do badly are so horribly scaled is because whether you admit it or not, music is perceived as a bludge subject, and so a lot of people take it just because thye cant be bothered to do a hard subject, beacuse while music canbe hard work if you make it, the minimum work required IS less than other subjects ifyou dont care about it.

the BOS cant exactly let people who just pick the subject to fill units to be scaled well, so those who dont do well are assumed to be thse people and are scaled down.

those who do well are assumed to be those that have put in the hard work AND have the natural talent, and they are rewarded by good scaling.

so pretty much the reason for the scaling is to seperate the serious candidates from the non-serious, not to punish people from doing arts subjects

and the reason music 2 is scaled better than music 1 is pretty similar - more "serious" music students are expected to take music 2 because it is assumed knowledge for most uni courses relating to music. again the generalisation for music 1 is that they are not as serious, hence they are not scaled as well

sorry if i offended anyone :eek:
 

amnesious

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
4
completely and utterly agree with gruvismalt (thats gotta be u chinky right?)
i played guitar for one of gruvis' hsc performances and well we nailed that song the first time we practised it
music is such an easy subject
nobody decides to do music for their hsc unless they can play an instrument at a sound level and can play full songs well
yes a physics student deserves to get more marks than some kid walking in to a room playin 4 songs on guitar, physics is a much more demanding subject study wise
the written section of the music exam is fine and should definately be in the course
music isnt only about performing, there is so much more to it than that and being about to analyse music is a great skill to have
the only thing in music which required any long amounts of time was my composition, that was a bit of a bitch, but still turned out well so im happy
music was by far the easiest subject i did at school
 

Circles

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
29
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
amnesious said:
completely and utterly agree with gruvismalt (thats gotta be u chinky right?)
i played guitar for one of gruvis' hsc performances and well we nailed that song the first time we practised it
music is such an easy subject
You are a clown dude... cmon.. wtf are u talking about... you just cruised into a room and busted out with some tunes.. you must have played it several times and listened to it several times b4 u could start jamming away at this song.. its not the matrix.. u dont just load some shit into ur head and whammo...

amnesious said:
nobody decides to do music for their hsc unless they can play an instrument at a sound level and can play full songs well
yes a physics student deserves to get more marks than some kid walking in to a room playin 4 songs on guitar, physics is a much more demanding subject study wise
ok.. captain obvious here... if u cant play an instrument.. of course ur not gonna do it fool... would you do maths if u couldnt count to 5? i doubt it. NO body just walks into a room and plays guitar. like wtf ur talking nonsense.. Think about all the time u spent locked in a room slaving away on ur axe... u didnt pick it up the day before hsc and rip out some satriani tune... its not possible..

amnesious said:
the written section of the music exam is fine and should definately be in the course
music isnt only about performing, there is so much more to it than that and being about to analyse music is a great skill to have
the only thing in music which required any long amounts of time was my composition, that was a bit of a bitch, but still turned out well so im happy
music was by far the easiest subject i did at school
hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ok 1 decent point music is about more than that... u get 1 point. everyone is talking about a subject being easy.. ever concider that perhaps its easy because you like it?? and because you like it you tend to spend more time on it?? Do you not think that if u were passionate about building a fucking nuclear particle accelorator you wouldn't find it easy to learn about? easy and hard relates to how much you like it. Not its ability to be understood. No matter how hard something is, if you like it you will slave away until you can do it.. or give up, which is rather weak. Either way.. if u like it. its gonna get done.
 

=Mike B=

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
31
Location
Northern Beaches
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
gee... what an open minded post :eek:


pointless too...


NB: in reference to amnesious
 
Last edited:

GruvisMalt

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
22
=Mike B= said:
Hypothetical
Perhaps if every physics student did 2 hours of study a day... everyday for more than a year... they would inherit this "talent" which we are talking about...?

Or perhaps... if this physics student started learning when they were six... and studied every day for 11 years... would they be seen with physics talent?
I agree. This kid would have an overall better "talent" at physics. However, here is the difference: Physics has a syllabus. And not just a music or english syllabus thats broad, it has exact dot points (a lot of them too) of information you NEED to know in order to do well in the HSC. Even if someone has been reading physics manuscripts since they were 6 months old, chances are they still haven't covered, especially not in the detail that the hsc course does, half the topics and points in the syllabus. Hence a lot of work still needs be done on their behalf in year 12 to learn all the content.

In the music course, there aren't specific dot points of information you need to learn to go well in your hsc. If you can play an instrument well and know your concepts thoroughly, you'll do well. Many people could have mastered their instrument by yr 9 or 10, and already know the concepts if they studied music in yr 9 and 10 (in 11 and 12 i've done NO work on concepts. We learnt it all in yr 10, and thoroughly too). These people could do very little work in yr 12 and still go well.

How about this to sum it up: I'm quite confident that a talented year 10 music student who hasn't studied the HSC course for music COULD perform the 4 prac exams and sit for the aural exam and perform quite satisfactorally. An equally talented year 10 Physics student who hasn't studied the HSC course most certainly COULD NOT sit the physics exam and do well. This is my point, subjects like physics have direct content you have to learn and study in yr 12 to do well. For Music, you could do well in the HSC exams purely going off what you learnt in yr 10. That's the difference.
 

amnesious

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
4
=Mike B= said:
gee... what an open minded post :eek:


pointless too...


NB: in reference to amnesious
and that wasnt pointless?
how was my post pointless when i was merely putting my point of view across just like everyone else here.......
plus to the duds with the apc avatar........sure i have spent a long time playing guitar, but i started playing a long time before the hsc for my enjoyment.......you cant consider sitting in your room playing drums or guitar or whatever studying, because its for your own enjoyment, even though some people may enjoy studying.......playing an instrument is not study
now with physics, when you hit that in the senior years its pretty much a new subject, besides what little physics u may have learnt in previous years science lessons, its pretty much completely new to you, as is the study that comes with it.
i cant believe u people are putting music and physics in the same light at all
and for that song i played with gruvis, we seriously did nail it first go, you can ask him if you want, he will agree
yes i love music, but that doesnt mean it isnt a fucking easy subject
god damn its such a fucking easy subject
 

Apathetic

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
49
Location
Blue Mtns
but dont you understand? It's so easy BECAUSE you like it so much!
That's the point here... if you like something, you work harder at it because it doesnt feel like working!
 

Circles

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
29
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
sighs :s this is a rather pointless debate.. nobody is getting anywhere.. I appologise for my uncalledfor hostility.. good luck to every1 with future exams.. keep at the music.
laters.
 

Circles

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
29
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
hmm perhaps i will stay and spam my way around this now useless thread.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top