ACT students no worse at uni

Except at UC you can bring all your notes and reference material into your law exams so they’re not really like HSC exams at all because in the former you still need to know your stuff but your source material is at your fingertips. In an HSC exam you need to just have all the crap jammed in your head.

I’m guessing that the most effective form of assessment would be somewhere in the middle with a mix of examinations and ongoing assessments – I suspect that most HSC programmes have this.

Look business is a nicer middle of the road course to pick – there would be some exams, and some continuous assessment.

If they picked law the exams would more closely reflect the HSC. If they picked drama studies the ongoing assessment would reflect the College system.

It seems people have very fixed opinions on this topic and even research showing they are both equally good has not convinced any of the die-hard HSC fans.

When your last 6 months of grind, tears, sweat and otherwise unpleasant work are disintegrated by one single meeting, causing you to restart the entire project, then you will know not to ask.

Have you ever bothered to ask yourself why the Public Service keeps going over the same old ground over and over again ?

An old trick learned by old Public Servants is to recycle the same material every 8-10 years.

I get that these meetings etc are a valuable skill – how often do they revolve around the 6 months work of an individual though rather than a team? Just saying is all.

The Romans gave us concrete as well.

LM’s right about it being possible to blow a bunch of effort in a meeting – I remember grimacing through the PWC consortiums presentation to the Bushfire Recovery Taskforce – you could see the taskforce’s eyes glazing over. I,m guessing that by his age and the fact this chap had both commerce and law qualifications that he would have been well versed in sitting exams – just crap at boardroom presentations.

I’ve seen six months + of work blown in meetings far too regularly.

It’s an essential skill, being able to hold it all together in the boardroom during that 3 hour horror meeting.

The Roman Numeral system, and Times New Roman.

Ok, fair enough VY – but there’s pressure and there’s pressure. I’d say that there would be a lot less of these kinds of meetings or 3 hour sessions that screwing up in would result in blowing six months (or a years) worth of work.

I sat this morning in a meeting that lasted about 2 hours, during which time I was expected to sensibly discuss a variety of complex IT problems within the context of a series of detailed standards. Of course, I could have had the standards in front of me, but I am supposed to know what I’m talking about.

Exams test more than memory. They test how an individual performs under pressure, whether they can follow instructions, and whether they can complete work and/or solve problems in a timely manner.

In my work, this sort of stuff comes up all the time.

Can anyone explain how a 3 hour exam actually relates to anything that people do in the real world?

Does it measure your ability to work in a team or to identify and access resources that you need to do your job?

How many times do you need to sit down at work for 3 hours and complete a major piece of work with just your memory to rely on?