Yet there is an uncomfortable reality which needs to be acknowledged. A perfect 5.00 does not necessarily reflect a complete understanding of the subjects studied for the 14 months. For many, particularly those pursuing STEM disciplines in higher education, the transition from HSC to university reveals the painful truth.

I am learning this lesson firsthand, especially since I am pursuing my major in Economics.

Like any other HSC candidate, I approached Higher Mathematics with a strategy rather than a philosophy of learning. The goal was clear: secure the highest possible marks of 200. The syllabus for Math 1st and 2nd Paper is widely extensive, covering several topics.

Completing every chapter thoroughly while preparing for multiple HSC subjects is a significant challenge, especially for candidates like me who are fond of extracurricular activities and prefer spending time in debate tournaments.

As examination season approached, I solved previous years’ questions, consulted suggestions, and identified chapters that appeared less frequently or were difficult. Eventually, I made what seemed like a rational decision, and I confidently skipped three chapters entirely.

At that time, the decision appeared justified due to time constraints and other factors.

I focused my time and energy on practising the remaining chapters, practised creative questions, and became highly efficient at solving the types of problems that were most likely to appear in the board examination.

The strategy worked exactly as intended. I earned 5 in Higher Maths, received appreciation and secured admission into an undergraduate Economics programme. By every conventional measure, it seems comfortable.

The problem was that the examination had rewarded my performance, not my understanding.

The distinction between the two became evident immediately after starting university. Like many others, I had assumed Economics would primarily involve discussions of markets, inflation, development, poverty, and public policy.

While these subjects certainly define the discipline, I quickly discovered that modern Economics is fundamentally based on mathematics. Mathematical reasoning is not merely an additional skill in Economics but the language through which economic concepts are developed, expressed, and tested.

Concepts such as Dead Weight Loss, Producer Surplus, Consumer Surplus, Equilibrium of quantity demanded and price, consumer choice, production theory, econometrics, and economic modelling rely heavily on algebra, functions, calculus, matrices, and statistics.

The mathematical concepts introduced in HSC Higher Mathematics are not isolated school topics but prerequisites for understanding university-level Economics and STEM-related subjects.

It was at this point that the consequences of my earlier decisions became hard to ignore.

Every chapter I had skipped represented a gap in my foundation. Those gaps did not remain confined to the school syllabus. They followed through lecture halls, textbooks, assignments, and examinations. When professors explained constrained optimisation or comparative statics, I found myself struggling not because the economic concepts were inherently beyond my ability, but due to a lack of confidence in the mathematical tools required to understand those concepts.

A topic that my classmates treated as revision material felt entirely new to me.

In reality, the issue is frequently structural rather than intellectual. My previous success reflected mastery of exam strategies, whereas my undergraduate studies demand conceptual depth and intellectual flexibility. The transition is therefore producing unnecessary frustration and self-doubt.

I believe the culture surrounding HSC preparation further reinforces this problem. Coaching centres, private tutors, and guidebooks frequently emphasise ‘important chapters,’ ‘common questions,’ and ‘probable suggestions’. While such resources undoubtedly help students to improve in exams, they also encourage a transactional view of education.

This phenomenon should not be interpreted as a failure of individual students. Given the intense competition for university admission, limited preparation time, and immense social pressure to achieve GPA 5, strategic studying is an understandable response. Students make rational decisions within the framework established by the education system. The responsibility therefore extends beyond individual learners. Assessment policies, curriculum design, and teaching practices collectively shape student behaviour. If comprehensive understanding is not consistently rewarded, selective learning will remain widespread.

Reflecting upon my own experience, I do not regret working hard to achieve a high GPA. What I regret is believing that exam success was equivalent to educational mastery. Had I devoted even a modest amount of time to understanding the chapters I skipped in maths, my transition into university would have been considerably smoother. I might not have achieved perfection in every topic, or revisited to learn those concepts again, but I would have developed the continuity of mathematical thinking that higher education expects.

For current HSC students, the lesson is not that strategic preparation is inherently wrong. Effective planning is an essential component of academic success. However, there is an important distinction between prioritising topics and abandoning them altogether. Some chapters may deserve greater attention because of their examination weight, but no foundational mathematical concept is truly irrelevant if one intends to pursue education in a quantitative field.

Looking back, my GPA 5 remains a minute academic achievement. Yet it also reminds me that grades are indicators of performance, not guarantees of understanding. The three chapters I chose to skip helped me save time during one exam season, but they created academic obstacles that are persisting.