The Gaming Den

The whole disused degree thing is a big deal in it's own right.

Personally I think more degrees and tertiary qualifications should be more generalized in nature so they have more potential for application. The knee jerk response sadly is to move more towards specialized "vocational" education. Which is a big pile of bullshit.

Aside from that the system basically needs to be totally upturned. Employers should be employing or committing to employ UNQUALIFIED staff who THEN undergo specialist training. The current model is designed to take any and all risk and expense off the shoulders of employers and put it on the shoulders of individuals and that is frankly unworkable.

It is also designed to create unemployment in fields requiring advanced qualifications to drive down wages despite a need for years if not decades of dedicated work to even qualify to work in the field.

PhoneLobster wrote:

They publish the results, and the subject pick lucky dip rarely (if ever) changes.

That seems odd. Because we were never informed of subject scaling in advance back when I did it (prior to 10 years ago). Indeed the closest we got was to be told that the then 4 unit math subject was "usually scaled very high" but that subject scaling was not known until the results of the cohort in that subject came in. Which meant that scaling was basically not even calculated until after the final tests. And I know for a fact that, and several other key "advanced" subjects that year had much worse subject scalings than they had in other years.

The scaling was determined after the exams by comparing marks across subjects. For most years, maths scaled less well than english, which lead to the dux of my school for several years running did no maths at all.
Since I no longer work at a uni, I'm not aware of the current system's intricacies.

It doesn't rarely matter though

It matters a lot. I got out fairly OK because I was in the top percentile of my (crappy) school, but it makes or breaks things for many of these kids. Universities DO apply their own school based and regional scaling in an ad hoc attempt to partially compensate for the bad scaling effects of the HSC (I mean surely THAT is a sign the scaling system is bad if it needs RESCALING before being applied).

Uni's changed their own entry requirements, which is slightly different - more later.

And no there ARE comparisons made across years.

I'm unaware that this was/is the case.

And again, it's not like it's even all that helpful for the Universities that then have to jumble all the numbers up again and ignore portions of them for the whole "full fee paying student" debacle and so forth.

I can't see this sort of system being retained a generation from now, for obvious reasons.

I don't think it will be retained, but not because of the scaling. There are a couple of basic issues that the unis have with the system. The final mark was an aggregate across subjects and the required mark was based on applications received by the university.
The upshot of this is that the final mark in no way reflects whether you're able to do the course. So heavily maths based subjects (maths, engineering, comp sci, physics, etc.) need students able to cope with high level maths, which is not reflected in the score.
Also, Unis see lowering the required mark as a dint on their reputation, so there's an enormous amount of 'special programs' to bring in enough students without having to lower the entry requirements. Most positive discrimination, e.g. Women in Engineering falls into this camp. (That's not to say that they're inappropriate for the course, but that the marks do not reflect capabilities in the limited required subjects.)

Unis can bring students in *before* the marks are released, "based" on their pre exam marks. They've been doing this for nigh on 25 years now.
Finally they all run their own "You didn't score enough, so pay us some money for a second chance" schemes through university owned colleges.

My current advice to students is to get into an early entry course. It's practically guaranteed entry, which works especially well for bright students in crappy schools.

While the current system disadvantages students who don't attend the best schools, few in the system actually care about that. Getting enough of the right students into the courses is much more important. I think that we'll see a change, but it will be driven by the big 8 unis and not schools.

Blasted wrote:The upshot of this is that the final mark in no way reflects whether you're able to do the course.

Back when I started my degree my year was the last year in which that University required entrants to have completed specific minimum course requirements in the HSC. So we needed a minimum TER and we needed to complete things like proper Physics and Chemistry courses and a minimum level of Math course.

After my year you could get into that University and go do science or whatever more easily by doing a combination of Science For Idiots and Math for People Who Can't Count with Both Hands At Once and getting a higher final mark because there were no longer pre-requisite course requirements.

Edit: Not coincidentally my year was among the first to start paying genuinely noticable HECs fees. Prior to that it was a relatively token amount and prior to that in Australia higher education was fucking free.

They even changed things while I was there so there were ALSO no longer pre-requisite course requirements for individual subjects WITHIN the university even if those formerly pre-requisite course requirements were other subjects in the same university. I think they ran with that because they couldn't even get their time tabling straight.

Maybe they reversed that policy since then. But probably not.

I strongly suspect I went to one of the WORST organized Universities in Australia.

Did I mention that once each year every year during the time I spent there they un-enrolled me from everything by accident? Usually as part of a campus wide enrollment administration reform, that typically would unenroll about half the students. Which they "revolutionised" to fix the "broken" old system with a "new functioning one". Every single year. And as part of that they moved the campus administration office. And built a new building for it. And bought new furniture. Every single year. During which time they laid off teachers brought them back at lower rates as part timers, then laid them off because they couldn't afford that, cut back courses, put us in rooms with HALF the STANDING capacity of enrolled students, and then eventually they declared themselves basically bankrupt.

Also the head of their Graphic Arts department forged his qualifications. No really I kid you not.

Newcastle god damn university. It's twenty fucking minutes from the beach. You like the beach right?

Crap. I think I lost the right to bitch about the college I went to now, Jesus fucking Fuck that's fucked.

PhoneLobster wrote:
Also the head of their Graphic Arts department forged his qualifications. No really I kid you not.

That's strangely epic. That's, like, what was it, freehanding a perfect circle.

re: validity of bell curve distribution of grades

there is no validity to it, what kind of retard feelgood social engineering is this where certain percentages of the class must fall into certain grade categories. let them live or die by their efforts

It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

More like "hard work and sacrifice" is part of that +2 circumstance bonus for favorable condition is the Skills chapter. I will agree that most of it is indeed the d20 roll.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

More like "hard work and sacrifice" is part of that +2 circumstance bonus for favorable condition is the Skills chapter. I will agree that most of it is indeed the d20 roll.

Game On,
fbmf

I can concede to that.

PhoneLobster wrote:Also the head of their Graphic Arts department forged his qualifications. No really I kid you not.

That reminds me of this comic: http://xkcd.com/125/

Law students have it a little worst than most because, well, we have far too damn many law students and law school is hellishly expensive compared to many other master's programs. I got my MSEE in two years from a state university, and it cost me in the neighborhood of $30,000 for tuition, fees, and books. The nearest equivalent law school wants twice that for a 2-3 year juris doctor program. Really good law schools want over twice that, if you get in.

The thing is - and I've checked - the entry level jobs for a person with a law degree are basically the same amount of money I'd be looking at for my engineering master's degree - high $30k to mid $40k on average. There are better jobs out there (much better), but those are generally for people with more experience and better grades, and at least one internship.

That doesn't mean there aren't jobs out there for lawyers, but they're fewer and lower-paying (relatively) than they were in the past, so competition for them is fiercer. But there are still niche jobs available - if I went and got my juris doctor, I could totally become a patent attorney.

PhoneLobster wrote: That seems odd. Because we were never informed of subject scaling in advance back when I did it (prior to 10 years ago). Indeed the closest we got was to be told that the then 4 unit math subject was "usually scaled very high" but that subject scaling was not known until the results of the cohort in that subject came in. Which meant that scaling was basically not even calculated until after the final tests. And I know for a fact that, and several other key "advanced" subjects that year had much worse subject scalings than they had in other years.

Indeed, it is caculated after the tests - but the historical data is there for quite a period. It remains fairly consistent. A pile of physical copies of the school rankings, various scaling factors etc are actually issued to every year 11/12 campus as well - certainly I had my mother's copy (she was a teacher) when deciding what subjects to do in year 11 and she had one a few years back as well.

I have no idea why it isn't more widely distributed though it is on the intertubes.

A much more probable risk (and I'd suggest what probably happened to you) is that your classes performed worse than the historical averages for that class at your school, which is the normal source of significant variances.

It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

liberal defeatist narrative no wonder the french got their asses handed to them in WWII

Psychic Robot wrote:

It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

liberal defeatist narrative no wonder the french got their asses handed to them in WWII

The french had their asses handed to them in WWII because their economy was in such shambles that they literally didn't have an army. The french people were literally eating bread made out of horseshit to stave off starvation the famine was so bad.

Mock me all you want, but the French got a a bum rap after WWII, they had a long line of kicking ass before that.

EDIT: You know what I always wondered? Why do the French get shit about not being able to defend themselves against the Nazis in WWII, but the Dutch get away scot free? They both were so poverty-stricken that they couldn't oppose Germany, but it's funny to make fun of France (who has the highest military spending in the entire EU), but not the Dutch despite doing pretty much the same thing during the war?

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:

It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

liberal defeatist narrative no wonder the french got their asses handed to them in WWII

The french had their asses handed to them in WWII because their economy was in such shambles that they literally didn't have an army. The french people were literally eating bread made out of horseshit to stave off starvation the famine was so bad.

Mock me all you want, but the French got a a bum rap after WWII, they had a long line of kicking ass before that.

EDIT: You know what I always wondered? Why do the French get shit about not being able to defend themselves against the Nazis in WWII, but the Dutch get away scot free? They both were so poverty-stricken that they couldn't oppose Germany, but it's funny to make fun of France (who has the highest military spending in the entire EU), but not the Dutch despite doing pretty much the same thing during the war?

The really funny thing is that any of the western allies transplated to Frances physical location and size would have lost. Heck, even if Germany was where Canada was and attacked the mainland US as it was in 1939 the US would have probably lost (If it was where mexico was the US would have won easy).

fbmf wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

More like "hard work and sacrifice" is part of that +2 circumstance bonus for favorable condition is the Skills chapter. I will agree that most of it is indeed the d20 roll.

Game On,
fbmf

That is hilarious... except the truth in that sort of makes it sad.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:The french had their asses handed to them in WWII because their economy was in such shambles that they literally didn't have an army. The french people were literally eating bread made out of horseshit to stave off starvation the famine was so bad.

Yep. Also, this came about 20 years after a war that killed nearly an entire generation of French men, so it's not like they had a particularly big army left, anyway.

Psychic Robot wrote:liberal defeatist narrative no wonder the french got their asses handed to them in WWII

Thus, ironcially, setting the stage for the eventual defeat of Germany in WWII.

It was Hitler's insistance on reversing the dreaded treaty that ended WWI by having France sign its defeat on the anniversary. As a result he left the trapped British armed forces to be picked apart by the airforce. Before that happened, the greatest boatlift in history brought back most of the men. Had tha not happened they would have been completely crshed and Elgland would have fallen to German forces in less than a year.

France depended on their defense line and was still in a WWI mode of thinking. Germany's new style of fighting (as well as the ability to like go around a defense line) was simply not prepared for. Remember that at the same time the English were also getting their asses handed to them as well.

Koumei wrote:

fbmf wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:It's called "the world". The world doesn't reward hard work and sacrifice. It rewards blind chance.

More like "hard work and sacrifice" is part of that +2 circumstance bonus for favorable condition is the Skills chapter. I will agree that most of it is indeed the d20 roll.

Game On,
fbmf

That is hilarious... except the truth in that sort of makes it sad.

Actually, -not- having "hard work and sacrifice" gives you a -2 penalty.

Being middle class gives you a -2 in this economy. Being outright poor gives you a -4 on top of that.

Being rich gets you a bonus based on how rich we're talking about.

And if you abuse the wealth by level rules, you can break the economy!

tzor wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:liberal defeatist narrative no wonder the french got their asses handed to them in WWII

Thus, ironcially, setting the stage for the eventual defeat of Germany in WWII.

It was Hitler's insistance on reversing the dreaded treaty that ended WWI by having France sign its defeat on the anniversary. As a result he left the trapped British armed forces to be picked apart by the airforce. Before that happened, the greatest boatlift in history brought back most of the men. Had tha not happened they would have been completely crshed and Elgland would have fallen to German forces in less than a year.

France depended on their defense line and was still in a WWI mode of thinking. Germany's new style of fighting (as well as the ability to like go around a defense line) was simply not prepared for. Remember that at the same time the English were also getting their asses handed to them as well.

Things might have been different a little bit if America hadn't gotten involved, but I have read that Germany would have been defeated by Russia regardless of American involvement. Say what you want about the Russkies, they are one hardcore people.

The Vulcans have an ancient saying about land wars in Asia.

Ancient History wrote:The Vulcans have an ancient saying about land wars in Asia.

"Don't do it!" ?

Actually, -not- having "hard work and sacrifice" gives you a -2 penalty.

Being middle class gives you a -2 in this economy. Being outright poor gives you a -4 on top of that.

Being rich gets you a bonus based on how rich we're talking about.

More like -5 for not having "hard work and sacrifice".

And if your parents are mega-rich you can just skip the d20 roll and claim your sweet, sweet trust fund money. But there's not that many people who can do that.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

tzor wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:liberal defeatist narrative no wonder the french got their asses handed to them in WWII

Thus, ironcially, setting the stage for the eventual defeat of Germany in WWII.

It was Hitler's insistance on reversing the dreaded treaty that ended WWI by having France sign its defeat on the anniversary. As a result he left the trapped British armed forces to be picked apart by the airforce. Before that happened, the greatest boatlift in history brought back most of the men. Had tha not happened they would have been completely crshed and Elgland would have fallen to German forces in less than a year.

France depended on their defense line and was still in a WWI mode of thinking. Germany's new style of fighting (as well as the ability to like go around a defense line) was simply not prepared for. Remember that at the same time the English were also getting their asses handed to them as well.

Things might have been different a little bit if America hadn't gotten involved, but I have read that Germany would have been defeated by Russia regardless of American involvement. Say what you want about the Russkies, they are one hardcore people.

You need to define 'no american involvement' for that to have a truth value.

The Yanks gave the russians massive piles of material from trucks to boots to tinned food to radios to tanks to jeeps to petrol to high explosive blahblahblahblahblah. Two categories are the most intresting - transport vehicles and high explosive - because these were the categories the russians were struggling to make enough of themselves due to structural issues that would not be corrected in the timeframes of the war.

If the russians didn't have that assistance, things would have been much tricker for them. With absolutely no US involvement it is likely they would have lost. The US tying down the Japanese was also a big help because it meant the soviets were happy to relocate most of their forces in the east.

These two factors are major contributors to the USSR war effort with no US 'involvement'