Injustice, Part II
June 17, 2008
With reference to the previous post, I think I might have figured out several explanations to my No.3 position in class. Have yet to ask teacher regarding this matter, but I will soon... in an hour. The list is arranged probability-wise.
#1 -
Number of creditsBased on the position spread they pasted at the back of the class, I reckon they evaluate by counting the number of credits we scored. Credits are grade 6C and above, by the way. Whatever it is, those taking extra subjects will always be at the top, whether those people taking the base subjects scored straight A1s or not.
IF that's really the case, someone who scored all Cs downright beats the one who scored straight As. Why? Again
, just cause they have more subjects.
#2 -
No sub-grading systemThey make themselves blind to the significance of the sub-grading system. With their new 'spectacles', they
suddenly see A1 and A2 as peers, overlooking every tint of difference left. A1
used to be a better grade than A2. Now, there are no standards to differentiate a good from an average student anymore. Average sutdents get to
step on good students with their new retarded system. The average students don't even have to
try to be on top. They are purely encouraging students to study 'just enough' and not to 'do the best, be the best'. Send in a letter of suggestion to the Ministry of Education to abolish that system, I dare them.
#3 -
DIRE misdemenanourThe oxymoron sounds about right here. Either the school is dumb or stupid (I don't know which is worse), they just had to appoint a careless, clumsy, hagged, and oblivious HUMAN to do the job. I'm not going to say names here, in case there's a spy in here... somewhere. But, everyone knows who I'm talking about. Well, it's pretty self-explanatory from the title. I doubt this would be the reason why though. Still, it's probable.
That's it, I guess. I'm too sleepy to think of others. Busy planning a Jonestown with my fellow English-eds. Just kidding... or not.
... as said by Joo
at 6:27 am