Nope, I don't really wanna talk about it.
GPAs:
French 81
History 80
English 75
Physics 67
Calculus 58
... I suppose I got them all.
Anyway, good things: I TOTALLY GOT AN EXCELLENCE AND A MERIT FOR THE HISTORY ESSAYS I PWN YOU. <3
And, and, I didn't get French schol but
I GOT ENGLISH SCHOL
OMG
!!
So yeah. *thrilled*
Bad things (only one, really) I failed two calc papers. >.< I really thought I'd done better than that. So bleeyah. But, I got 13 credits for it.. kinda annoys me because it's not 14 but it's enough. And that was all I failed.
GPAs:
French 81
History 80
English 75
Physics 67
Calculus 58
... I suppose I got them all.
Anyway, good things: I TOTALLY GOT AN EXCELLENCE AND A MERIT FOR THE HISTORY ESSAYS I PWN YOU. <3
And, and, I didn't get French schol but
I GOT ENGLISH SCHOL
OMG
!!
So yeah. *thrilled*
Bad things (only one, really) I failed two calc papers. >.< I really thought I'd done better than that. So bleeyah. But, I got 13 credits for it.. kinda annoys me because it's not 14 but it's enough. And that was all I failed.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:42 am (UTC)Again, the NCEA is a fuckwit. Be pleased it didn't eat your life... and it's not at Uni!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:44 am (UTC)Well, GPA is Grade Point Average here too, but they're most easily thought of in tersm of percentages. We have four grades- Excellence, about 95-100% or percentile, Merit which covers about 90 to about 65, Achieved which is the basic pass from 45 to 65, and not achieved which is all the failing marks. It's easiest to just say the GPA because each subject is split into a lot of different areas called "Achievement Standards" and those grades are taken and have stuff done to them to produce your GPA, which is your overall mark for your whole subject.
Um, yeah, it's confusing because this new system, NCEA, it's totally off its head. :P It'll get more standard here, at least, I hope eventually.
So yeah, 100 would be all excellences. *shrug* because we don't have real percentages, or marks out of anything at all- it's jsut graded- it's kinda hard to make the direct comparision, but it's an okay one.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:45 am (UTC)It fully is *eyeroll* And OMG THANK GOD. We're going to get percentage marks again... *daydreams*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:46 am (UTC)Heaven forbid.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:50 am (UTC)failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:50 am (UTC)Remember that discussion about we had about the glass being half full? Don't make me come over there and paddle your sorry ass!
Unless, of course, that's -
Nooooooooooo, don't go there! Don't GO there!!!
;-)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:52 am (UTC)You know what I hate most about life? I hate the way some subjects will never be comparable. Like Calculus, okay, you could never compare Calculus marks with Stats marks because Calculus is just so much harder- not that I've taken Stats myself, but I know a lot of people have. (Of course, this calc-is-hard thing is working really well for me right now, but you know.) Or, say, the way an excellence in Visual Arts represents SO MUCH MROE WORK than an Excellence in French.
I don't know. :p
Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:52 am (UTC)Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:53 am (UTC)Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:55 am (UTC)[drools unmentionably]
Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:55 am (UTC)Uh, right.... :p
no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 04:57 am (UTC)It's not fair. How come she gets to be both brilliant AND hardworking??
Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:58 am (UTC)And trust me that is NOT something to be proud about. I'm a minor, here!
Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 04:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 05:01 am (UTC)Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 05:58 am (UTC)As to minor status, m'lud, the prosecution would like to refer to the postings of 27th December 2004 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/labellementeuse/68005.html) and 30th December 2004 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/labellementeuse/69557.html), especially the comments referring to the defendent's taste for "slash" fiction. ... No, m'lud, I am relaibly informed that I can't understand "slash" fiction either, due to my possession of a willy, apparently. I fear, m'lud, that the defendent has forgotten momentarily (due to the presence of a 'dropkick' and the reception of rather good exam results) that the court can read her back journal and judge for themselves her claim to "minor status".
Quite right, m'lud and well said.
Re: failed schmailed
Date: 2005-01-10 06:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-10 07:17 am (UTC)