This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I removed a link to two Christian Colleges in the "high performing schools" part and left MacRob, MHS and Bialik College there. The referenced article did not mention the removed schools at all and hence seems to be an attempt to plug the school. Ledward ( talk) 06:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that students in the ninth and tenth years (in the Victorian/NSW sense, with a "Prep" grade before 1, so the 10th and 11th years) can study a single VCE unit per semester to increase their score.
I don't think that they actually count towards your score do they, because I did a VCE subject in year 10 and on my statement of results last year for my yr12 subjects it made no mention of it -- 60.224.14.194 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) --- I feel that some aspects of this page contain errors or perhaps misplaced opinions. There also possible relevant additions and expansions that the article might require but I haven't examined them here. The revisions are these listed in the sections in which they occur in the article:
Orizon 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
Leon... 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Criticisms was cleared of what I believe was a POV. (The first line in the original implied that the VCE is near-perfect)
It still needs to be cleaned up. I do think of the girls/boys argument as a very very very unsupported fact, and there is hardly any evidence to show that is true. I think it should be removed. -- coblin 09:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is almost every occurance of "VCE" wiki-linked in this article? The article is about VCE! — Daniel15 ( Talk/ Contribs) 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Vcaa banner logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to see a bit more of the history of the VCE in this article. For example, the year it replaced the HSC (1990 I believe?), the reasons for the change, and so forth. This belongs in the first or second paragraph. A few sentences even would suffice. Can someone do this? Davez621 ( talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose that either or both of the following links be added to this article:
a) Link to
www.topscores.info in the Resources section
b) Link to
Bored of Studies in Wikipedia, or to
www.boredofstudies.org as a "See Also"
Rationale. The rationale for the additions is taken from Wikipedia guidelines:
a) www.topscores.info
1. It contains "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to .... amount of detail"
2. It is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
3. It is a site that "...contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
4. It is consistent with other links already present in the article.
b) Bored of Studies page (or to www.boredofstudies.org)
1. It is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
2. It is consistent with other links already present in the article.
3. Its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia is well established.
Rebuttal. The rebuttal to the negative case is:
"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Both sites meet this requirement by hosting substantial information stores well beyond the scope of any article.
"Links mainly intended to promote a website." The links are intended purely to add value to the Wikipedia topic in question. No promotional motivation is involved.
"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.". Bored of Studies contains a discussion forum as only one of its many functions. It is not a social networking site. The guideline does not apply to www.topscores.info.
"Links to blogs and personal web pages". Does not apply.
"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Bored of Studies is relevant by its coverage of course structure, subjects and UAIs/ENTERs. www.topscores.info is relevant by covering assessment outcomes and awards, both of which are outlined briefly within the Wikipedia article itself.
Request. My previous edits along these lines have been reverted by one individual Wikipedia editor in particular. This is a call for a consensus from the Wikipedia community on the issue. Independent views from third parties are welcomed.
Nilmania ( talk) 05:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the two tables would look better if they were side-by-side or left/right aligned
Darklight Shadows 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Victorian Certificate of Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.quppa.net/studyscores/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Now list them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:3:0:0:FACE:B00C ( talk) 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a large difference between unscored VETs (which will count as an increment of 10% of the fourth subject in your primary 4 regardless of what you score in them) and scored VET subjects (which are scored as any normal subject would be). These are all in one big table together with nothing mentioning the difference Abennyec ( talk) 08:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I removed a link to two Christian Colleges in the "high performing schools" part and left MacRob, MHS and Bialik College there. The referenced article did not mention the removed schools at all and hence seems to be an attempt to plug the school. Ledward ( talk) 06:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that students in the ninth and tenth years (in the Victorian/NSW sense, with a "Prep" grade before 1, so the 10th and 11th years) can study a single VCE unit per semester to increase their score.
I don't think that they actually count towards your score do they, because I did a VCE subject in year 10 and on my statement of results last year for my yr12 subjects it made no mention of it -- 60.224.14.194 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) --- I feel that some aspects of this page contain errors or perhaps misplaced opinions. There also possible relevant additions and expansions that the article might require but I haven't examined them here. The revisions are these listed in the sections in which they occur in the article:
Orizon 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
Leon... 10:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Criticisms was cleared of what I believe was a POV. (The first line in the original implied that the VCE is near-perfect)
It still needs to be cleaned up. I do think of the girls/boys argument as a very very very unsupported fact, and there is hardly any evidence to show that is true. I think it should be removed. -- coblin 09:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is almost every occurance of "VCE" wiki-linked in this article? The article is about VCE! — Daniel15 ( Talk/ Contribs) 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Vcaa banner logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to see a bit more of the history of the VCE in this article. For example, the year it replaced the HSC (1990 I believe?), the reasons for the change, and so forth. This belongs in the first or second paragraph. A few sentences even would suffice. Can someone do this? Davez621 ( talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose that either or both of the following links be added to this article:
a) Link to
www.topscores.info in the Resources section
b) Link to
Bored of Studies in Wikipedia, or to
www.boredofstudies.org as a "See Also"
Rationale. The rationale for the additions is taken from Wikipedia guidelines:
a) www.topscores.info
1. It contains "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to .... amount of detail"
2. It is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
3. It is a site that "...contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
4. It is consistent with other links already present in the article.
b) Bored of Studies page (or to www.boredofstudies.org)
1. It is a site "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"
2. It is consistent with other links already present in the article.
3. Its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia is well established.
Rebuttal. The rebuttal to the negative case is:
"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Both sites meet this requirement by hosting substantial information stores well beyond the scope of any article.
"Links mainly intended to promote a website." The links are intended purely to add value to the Wikipedia topic in question. No promotional motivation is involved.
"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.". Bored of Studies contains a discussion forum as only one of its many functions. It is not a social networking site. The guideline does not apply to www.topscores.info.
"Links to blogs and personal web pages". Does not apply.
"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Bored of Studies is relevant by its coverage of course structure, subjects and UAIs/ENTERs. www.topscores.info is relevant by covering assessment outcomes and awards, both of which are outlined briefly within the Wikipedia article itself.
Request. My previous edits along these lines have been reverted by one individual Wikipedia editor in particular. This is a call for a consensus from the Wikipedia community on the issue. Independent views from third parties are welcomed.
Nilmania ( talk) 05:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the two tables would look better if they were side-by-side or left/right aligned
Darklight Shadows 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Victorian Certificate of Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.quppa.net/studyscores/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Now list them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:3:0:0:FACE:B00C ( talk) 14:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a large difference between unscored VETs (which will count as an increment of 10% of the fourth subject in your primary 4 regardless of what you score in them) and scored VET subjects (which are scored as any normal subject would be). These are all in one big table together with nothing mentioning the difference Abennyec ( talk) 08:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)