NCEA opinions sought

**Wasp** · 7th September 2006, 13:05

i sat level 2 last year and level 1 the year before that, i feel that it failed me badly and if i had been given the option i would have chosen to do school cert.

**BuFfY** · 7th September 2006, 13:09

Well the level of their achievement in that specific area would show the employer the depth of engagement in that area.

But what if you are really good at the majority of maths but you are ratshit at calculus, why should your possible high grade be lowered because of this, it could just mean they are a 75% student over all when they are actually 95% competent in everything else.

The way in which everyone knows how to interpret the old assessment scheme is because it has been around for years and the employers went through it themselves. Things will be exactly the same in 20 years as us lucky individuals who went through NCEA will know how to read it, and school c and stuff will be totally gone and irrelevant

**Ixion** · 7th September 2006, 13:10

Originally Posted by Jantar

,, He was achieving all of his credits, and actually doing very well. As to my question of why his school report was so bad, it came down to the standards set under NCEA. One of the criteria at levl 1 - 3 subjects is "consistantly studys on his/her own time and produses work to provide evedence of this study". My son was bright enough in his chosen subjects that he didn't need to put in extra study in his own time, and so didn't meet this part of the criteria and therefore struggled to get the requisite assessment. But he knew the subject. An exam would have shown this.
,,.

I am not in any way affected by NCEA . But I dislike it on principle for just this reason. It is too subjective, and too prone to being influenced by a techer's dislike of a pupil, or disapproval of his/her study methods.

When I was at school I was an argumentative little shit (now, I'm an argumentative old shit!). So, teachers being the herd animals they are, with a deep dislike of being questioned, they disliked me.

I also have an "explosive" learning style. I learn best under pressure, working furiously for a period , then taking a break. I do not produce well, or learn well, on a "steady drip feed basis" (This is still the case - hence my posting here from werk. It is in the "take a break and recharge " periods). Many males have this pattern. Very few women do.

This also alienated many teachers. Because I would appear to be doing little or no work through the term (such work as was required to actually understand the priunciples of the subject I was able to do very quickly, I found school work very easy).

They would complain loudly to me (and my parents) about this. And predict dire failure come exam time. Then when the exams came (internal or external) I would get stuck in a week or so before hand , and always produced good results (top quartile). Which infuriated the teachers even more, their predictions proving false.

Under an NCEA regime I would have received very poor marks, because of its (female oriented) focus on drip feed learning.

This is one reason why males appear to be doing badly these days.

A million years of evolution has conditioned males to do things explosively. Sit for hours waiting for dinner to walk down the jungle path. Then half an hour of explosive energy killing it, cutting it up and carrying it home. As distinguished from Mrs Caveman who steadily and methodically worked her way through the forest all day gathering berries and fruits etc.

The NCEA is female centric. It would have failed me. I prefer examinations. Show me the enemy. When he is not there, leave me alone.

**Hitcher** · 7th September 2006, 13:18

Originally Posted by BuFfY

But what if you are really good at the majority of maths but you are ratshit at calculus, why should your possible high grade be lowered because of this, it could just mean they are a 75% student over all when they are actually 95% competent in everything else.

Your grade would be 75% because, overall, you're a 75% student. To be a 95% student you'd have to be pretty good at calculus as well. Cherry-picking the stuff you're good at to give yourself a better mark is a bit like Tour de France winners taking drugs or beauty queens having plastic surgery. It may not strictly be "cheating" but it does involve taking liberties with the "truth".

**Indiana_Jones** · 7th September 2006, 13:27

it's like saying "I can take the plane off, fly it, but I can't land; But I should still be allowed to fly" lol

-Indy

**Magua** · 7th September 2006, 13:33

Originally Posted by Flyingpony

Hell, they don't even have to enrol or attend the classes to get a passing grade!

What are you talking about? If you skip classes, you won't be able to pass, unless you are refering to the whole Cambridge high fiasco?

Originally Posted by Flyingpony

It feels to me that students can go to gym class and reading book class (it's really

time) and woohoo, they've passed the year. But what have they really learnt? Did they actually pass Science, Chemistry, Geography, Mathematics and English?

When I look at my certificates for NCEA levels one, two and three, it clearly shows where I got my credits, Physics, History, etc.

**MSTRS:Me** · 7th September 2006, 13:49

Originally Posted by BuFfY

... It can't be all negative if a) they decided to change the assessment scheme and b) they haven't gotten rid of it.
....

Oh yes it can!!! Since when was refusing to admit that 'well, that was a stuff up' proof that it was right to keep going with said fiasco??
Anyway, teachers almost invariably vote Labour. Win-win for the social engineers...

**Indiana_Jones** · 7th September 2006, 13:57

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Oh yes it can!!! Since when was refusing to admit that 'well, that was a stuff up' proof that it was right to keep going with said fiasco??
Anyway, teachers almost invariably vote Labour. Win-win for the social engineers...

lol rep given!

-Indy

**BuFfY** · 7th September 2006, 13:59

But I didn't!!

Generalisations are so anoying!

**Indiana_Jones** · 7th September 2006, 14:03

Avast!

you mean like that generalisation?

-Indy

**Magua** · 7th September 2006, 14:06

Stereotyping for the win.

**MSTRS:Me** · 7th September 2006, 14:10

Originally Posted by Magua

Stereotyping for the win.

I use 2 fingers when typing....does that count as 'stereo'??

**Magua** · 7th September 2006, 14:13

Close enough for government work.

**Michaelt** · 7th September 2006, 14:31

The main problem with NCEA, as I see it, is that it's far too easy to take advantage of the system.
Too easy to "pass" NCEA, and especially to get university entrance, which requires 42 credits at L3 including at least 14 (out of 24) in each of two approved subjects (ie. academic subjects) and another 14 total over no more than two other subjects (ie. anything at all).
These credits don't have to be merit or excellence, just achieved, so to get into uni, all you really need is to pass just over half of two subjects at a very mediocre level and get another 14 credits in woodworking or PE or something, and you're guaranteed entry.
It worked well for me though, I was accepted to uni after 5th form thanks to that rule, so I'm not really complaining. I shouldn't have been able to do that though.

Michael