Ext math bad judge of ability (2 Viewers)

[Weisy]

I think what we're really talking about here is the need for a total overhaul of not just the maths and science syllabi, but the entire HSC. Otherwise, we're just whinging as a result of being individuals with different strengths and different ways of thinking, and perhaps intelligent enough to realise that not all our strengths are being brought out by the current HSC.

Changing syllabus outcomes to understanding the implications of them in real life is a great idea. But how deep an understanding are you proposing? It is unfortunate that although the amount that there is to know and understand in what we perceive as civilisation is all interrelated, yet the only way educators have come up with to approach the imparting of this knowledge to children is to divide them into subject areas that begin completely unrelated.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that we claim to foster and acknowledge diversity, yet we still live in a society in which success is measured by comparing oneself to others.

Originally posted by Zeech

I know for sure that some of the top-dogs in my maths class will be blown away by the level of understanding required at Uni. This no doubt is the combined reason that so many 1st year uni students fail (that and the fact theyre sick of studying and have a break for a year while pretending to be studying at uni)

As much as I agree, can I also point out that you seem to be talking about two distinct groups of people which in my opinion seems to be wrong

1) those who study, which automatically means that they really possess no real intelligence and only know how to answer HSC-type questions

2) those who don't study as much because they are frustrated with the repetition, failure of the syllabus to grasp big ideas as opposed to trivial unrelated points and memory work, which is consequently an indicator of their obvious superior intelligence and subsequent success in university.

Firstly, I think that there are many intelligent people who work very hard and do very well, who have the intuition and a love for a subject area to continue on with it to university level.

Secondly, university courses are different from the HSC courses for a reason. HSC courses are the last time an entire age cohort (more or less) is assessed in relation to the rest of the cohort. At university, people diversify in what they're interested in, even within the same subject area. There is assessment against others, but never again the need for mass-assessment. This mass-assessment demands that the syllabus be kept broad enough for the general population. As much as I or anyone else here would like certain outcomes in the syllabus to be changed to focus on a deeper understanding of concepts, it won't be done, because the HSC is NOT a test of intelligence at all, but a test of

(a) how much content we've been taught (hence quality of the education system - it all goes back to politics, of course) OR

(b) how much we study (since some teachers are just %&^#&$* and undeserving even of the measly salary they do get *remembers year 10 extension maths teacher and shudders*

It's due to to these mass-considerate, 'practical' reasons that the syllabuses are so content/memory driven. So either the OBOS produces a syllabus like the present one, which (I suppose to a certain extent) attempts to mass-assess people in the most 'equitable' way possible, or they get rid of the HSC altogether. I am at present torn between these two - Is there any real point (apart from statistical reasons) in assessing a entire year group in such a way?

Originally posted by Zeech

There are syllabus outcomes like "write down the real part Re(z) and the imaginary part Img(z) of a complex number z=x+iy" These types of points are almost trivial in it's nature. shouldnt it have an acompanying syllabus statement like "student must understand the impact of each part" or something? Not just be able towrite it down..

The entire concept of multiple dot points in essence is wrong. the syllabus should say "students explore whatever the hell they want to, to whatever depth they would like, within the confines of the following areas of study...."

but would there be any viable way of testing and comparing one student's knowledge and level of understanding to another's?

hehe - the first dot point in the complex numbers syllabus is actually "appreciate the need for i."

this is the longest post i have ever written. ahh..the joys of ranting...

 

[BlackJack]

We need to ask the senior people whther we can crown this the king of all posts... Longest I've ever seen.

What about a complete options-based syllabus (see phys & chem)... wait, that's wouldn't be fair and equitable.

We've been reinterating points for some time... I would'vemMake this the long, windy conclusion that I wrote for my forum respons in trials, if the topic was on the HSC...
oh well. Maybe they should start education earlier and kick the year 11s and 12s into uni earlier too so we don't bitch as much about this entire impossibility called HSC... I mean, when we grow old enough to realise that this junk is the most economic way possible to examine the entire age cohort it'd be over already.
However, that'd make Australia a 'knowledge' nation ahead of all other nations... which may be impossible... :\

There is one problem with this arguement... I know people who are devoted to one subject area because they love it and is crap at all others. However, they have to seek alternate ways becaus the HSC requires all 10 units of study to go good if they wanted to get into a high speccialist course like software eng.

 

[Weisy]

Originally posted by BlackJack
Maybe they should start education earlier and kick the year 11s and 12s into uni earlier too so we don't bitch as much about this entire impossibility called HSC... I mean, when we grow old enough to realise that this junk is the most economic way possible to examine the entire age cohort it'd be over already.

I like that thought.

Originally posted by BlackJack
There is one problem with this arguement... I know people who are devoted to one subject area because they love it and is crap at all others. However, they have to seek alternate ways becaus the HSC requires all 10 units of study to go good if they wanted to get into a high speccialist course like software eng.

That's when it sucks. For some, it's deciding what they want to do in life that's the problem and what makes them work really hard at all their subjects just to 'be able to get into whatever they would maybe like to do later'.

For others, they can't get there fast enough. And yes I agree, how is everyone supposed to be at the same stage of personal development at age 17-18?

 

[Zeech]

Hmm it's all very true, but like black jack says, the need for 10 units of study limits the candature for any specific course at Uni.

Imagine i was real buff at SDD, but then i sucked at all of the other courses. I'd get a moderate/low UAI, be refused into uni, and then havea shit at tafe and/or other educational facility of that sort.
Despite the fact that a person is able to thrive at a subject, and/or show immense development and ability at one thing, the broad analasys of the students forces them into areas of dilslike.

As said in the subsequent pages, it it alot easier to study something that you are ineterested in, But the chances of someone being interested in all of their subjects is low.

I know a person who did Ext math, chem, bio, etc so that they could just get into Uni, where they did arts, literature, English, Latin etc.

Of course, due to lack of interest, this person would have blatantly memorised the requirements of the course.

I doubt very much so that this is the emphasis that he board of studies and the UAC should impose. Unfortunately, none of us here will be able to suggest a better system..

 

[BlackJack]

Yep, in some asian countries they have three years of kindergarten. That's where I draw my resources... and un-telligence. And THEN they have started pre-schools privately to ensure early starts for kids... freaky...

Can't decide what to do either . The entire problem is that I realise I can go just as well in everything (barring sport...) if I devote myself o it... but I want to be like one of the last scientists in the 19th cent. who knows EVERYTHING about science. eg. Faraday... The problem is, we simply can't do that anymore.

"O HSC... why hast thou tortured thine subjects thus..."
Oh well, at least we get to enjoy our time together... *sad smile*

 

[-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-]

ye bj, their evil plot is not working.
I can back that up wiv sumfin else

The umat test! 1/2 the crap is on communication skills, so u'd fink ah this is another 1 of them scams. But the biggest surprise was that out skool captain, a true blue aussie whose first at bio didn't get thru, and one of the most unco guys ino got thru. I'm talking unco as in he's dropped his calculator on the floor like at least once a week. And u wouldn't want sum1 like him to operate on ya.

But hey, there's always the interview

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Weisy

Secondly, university courses are different from the HSC courses for a reason. HSC courses are the last time an entire age cohort (more or less) is assessed in relation to the rest of the cohort. At university, people diversify in what they're interested in, even within the same subject area. There is assessment against others, but never again the need for mass-assessment. This mass-assessment demands that the syllabus be kept broad enough for the general population. As much as I or anyone else here would like certain outcomes in the syllabus to be changed to focus on a deeper understanding of concepts, it won't be done, because the HSC is NOT a test of intelligence at all, but a test of

(a) how much content we've been taught (hence quality of the education system - it all goes back to politics, of course) OR

(b) how much we study (since some teachers are just %&^#&$* and undeserving even of the measly salary they do get *remembers year 10 extension maths teacher and shudders*

It's due to to these mass-considerate, 'practical' reasons that the syllabuses are so content/memory driven.

That's no excuse for making science subjects into humanities: "Discuss the impacts on society and environment of the invention of blablabla". If people don't like science, they don't have to do it. Even in senior high school, we have the choice of doing / not doing any subject, and by screwing around with all the subjects to make it more palatable to the lowest denominator, I think the HSC's actually limiting the choices of the upper end.

I mean, for the sake of making the system work, the last thing to do is to lower the standards.

And besides, we DO live in a society where life is relative. Success is measured by comparison. Wealth is measured by comparison to those who are poor. Be glad that no one is absolutely crap at everything (at least I don't think so), but that's how it is. In the HSC, there should be those who pass, and those who fail. The system DOES NOT work better by letting everyone pass.

 

[Bloodypossum]

In response to those who feel that the HSC is not a true indication of someones values:

1) It is an indication of the ability to stay focused and committed. Don't kid yourself thats what the uni's are looking for

2) Those who work their ass off all year consistently to their full potential deserve the top marks. And for them the HSC is not a matter of cramming, but only putting pen to paper.

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Bloodypossum
In response to those who feel that the HSC is not a true indication of someones values:

1) It is an indication of the ability to stay focused and committed. Don't kid yourself thats what the uni's are looking for

2) Those who work their ass off all year consistently to their full potential deserve the top marks. And for them the HSC is not a matter of cramming, but only putting pen to paper.

If they're looking for focus and commitment, then I've got a brilliant suggestion. Why not just combine all the subjects into one big subject, call it "10 Unit Work" or something, which specifically tests for how well, and how much we can regurgitate a wide range of different types of "information".

Questions would be like: "Write at least 8 things you have learnt about suchandsuch a topic".

If commitment and focus is what they're "REALLY" looking for, why do they bother having a wide 'range' of subjects for us to choose from?

 

[BlackJack]

It is at this time I like to quote: " 'wide reading' has replaced 'deep reading'... teachers and students drown in shallow water."
But enough of this... we're bashing the syllabus to death. I don't disagree with possum's second observation, but there are people who stay focused, studying and yet still don't get good marks...

 

[Zeech]

Spice:

If commitment and focus is what they're "REALLY" looking for, why do they bother having a wide 'range' of subjects for us to choose from?

The creation of a wide range of subjects, and their inclusion into the corriculum was done for the benefits of the students. Not so long ago it was compolsary for students to do mathematics, and it still is in some places. This is not a show of how the BOS is widening our focus, but how it's DEEPENING it!

Take SDD for example. Not too long ago, students could NEVER take sutch an indepth course into Programming it's self. All of the courses were like IT, just word processing and using windows etc. You may all say that the focus of our curriculum is widenig, but i think oppositely. By engaging the students into a range of subjects which FOCUS on aspects, helps send them into "professions" as apposed to plain and broad occupations.

Bon: I think your right again. They have cut down the content, such as resisted motion and circular banked tracks (which were not so long ago in the Physics syllabus), but they are somewhat "sacraficing" these sub-topics to create a more indepth aproach to others such as this history and development of theories and models (which imho is less important. It's physics, not history ffs)

 

[Weisy]

Originally posted by spice girl

If commitment and focus is what they're "REALLY" looking for, why do they bother having a wide 'range' of subjects for us to choose from?

err, why is it impossible for a group of people who are different to commit and focus on a wide range of subjects?

 

[Bloodypossum]

Spice girl, you strike me as a little narrow minded.
You only have to regurgitate textbook answers if you want to!
The reason for a wide range of subjects is obvious.
If the only subject was your hypothetical "10 unit work" then many people would not continue their education past yr 10 - which is the exact opposite of what the BOS is trying to achieve!

The sacrificing of depth of knowledge for breadth is a good observation, however the diverse range of topics in the sciences has been interesting.

Given the choice I'd rather know something about everything, than everything about something.

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Zeech
Spice:

The creation of a wide range of subjects, and their inclusion into the corriculum was done for the benefits of the students. Not so long ago it was compolsary for students to do mathematics, and it still is in some places. This is not a show of how the BOS is widening our focus, but how it's DEEPENING it!

By engaging the students into a range of subjects which FOCUS on aspects, helps send them into "professions" as apposed to plain and broad occupations.

Zeech,

Maybe you should've addressed this message to Bloodypossum, because you've just illustrated my point. My point was that the different subjects are there so that we have a choice to be assessed by different measures (of science, maths, business, and others), not as different flavours of measuring "commitment" and "focus". I think you failed to pick up the sarcasm from my previous post...

Anyway, I'll spare the rest of the rant on the science syllabus. I think I've said enough recently...

 

[Zeech]

You only have to regurgitate textbook answers if you want to!

That is the worst and most innacurate statement ive heard for a long time man (except for sourie)

Ever sat for an IPT exam for example? Me and Bon sat for it last year accelerated, and the ONLY thing you needed to know was the text book responses. Im not exaggerating, or overstating man thats exactly right. If i didnt know a single thing about a computer, or how to use one etc i would have done BETTER, because at least i would have stoped trying to ascociate the concepts with anything other than the textbook.
There were questions like full 8 markers that needed a direct quote from the passage of the textbook.

And if you dont give them a textbook answer? Half marks max. I lost a mark in chemistry once for saying "Clear" instead of the textbook "Colorless".

Ask anyone that does a similar Subject, be it the technicals, sciences, and even maths to a degree..
Each one relies on textbook asnwers, Like it or not.

 

[spice girl]

My controversial post has probably gotten everyone's heads into a spin. Let me explain in plain english:

Bloodypossum's idea that the HSC and the unis are really looking for commitment and focus allows him to conclude that those who "work their ass off" deserve the top marks.

1) He's forgotten that everybody's "full potential" is different, and working to one's "full potential" is not a justification of full marks. There are people who work hard, and there are people who work effectively.

2) My "10 unit Work" joke was just to illustrate that the HSC is NOT just looking to separate the people who "work their ass off" from the rest of the population. Far from it (or at least they shouldn't be).

Just a question Bloodypossum, you said "Given the choice I'd rather know something about everything, than everything about something." If the HSC is there to give you that, then why do they separate the knowledge into subjects such as "science", "maths", "business studies", "history", etc..?

Clearly not. No one can expect to know a bit about everything, because they'll end up knowing next to nothing. It's a good thing to be diverse and all that, but there should be a balance between diversity and depth.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising the vocational subjects such as IPT, SDD, and all that, but surely, when you choose SDD, you expect to be learning SDD, instead of society and ethics and all that political crap. Same should go with science and maths.

 

[Weisy]

yes, it is indeed unfortunate that we have all been sucked into this HSC. Because as much as we're dissing it, I'll bet we've all learnt to follow our textbooks to the letter and address every dot point meticulously. We wouldn't be pulling it apart so if we didn't feel confined by it. However, who can help it, and as many have already pointed out, enough has been said.

And just for the record, 'clear' and 'colourless' are two completely different things. The textbook's definitely not to blame for that one.

 

[Zeech]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising the vocational subjects such as IPT, SDD, and all that, but surely, when you choose SDD, you expect to be learning SDD, instead of society and ethics and all that political crap. Same should go with science and maths

hmm thats bullshit. By seperating each of the subects, different sciences and maths etc, it is nescicary to seperate each subject's social, ethical and politial issues to be passed along with it. Without knowlege and understanding of these issues, The students wouldnt get a grasp of the concepts, contexts, and understandings of a social and political working ascociated with their new found knowlege.

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Zeech
hmm thats bullshit. By seperating each of the subects, different sciences and maths etc, it is nescicary to seperate each subject's social, ethical and politial issues to be passed along with it. Without knowlege and understanding of these issues, The students wouldnt get a grasp of the concepts, contexts, and understandings of a social and political working ascociated with their new found knowlege.

Do you even realise that it's exactly how propaganda has been, and is still being inserted into our education system?

You do NOT need to know how the Haber process has helped Germany last so long in WW1, to be able to understand equilibrium. Nor do you need to know "Planck's and Einstein's debate of science in society and politics" to be able to understand the photoelectric effect and quantum physics.

Why learn how to apply science knowledge into the real world, if you aren't taught in depth enough to be able to?

 

[Weisy]

Originally posted by Zeech


hmm thats bullshit. By seperating each of the subects, different sciences and maths etc, it is nescicary to seperate each subject's social, ethical and politial issues to be passed along with it. Without knowlege and understanding of these issues, The students wouldnt get a grasp of the concepts, contexts, and understandings of a social and political working ascociated with their new found knowlege.

No, i don't think it's bullshit at all, what he said. But I also think that some subjects such as SDD, IPT, IT, Business Studies, even English etc. need more of a social context because they are based on social change and context. Subjects like science and maths also have this context and application to the real world, but this takes a more historical basis, and they can also be seen as studies of pure logic and reasoning.

I think it depends only on what you as an individual find more enjoyable - some people find enjoyment and challenge in just theoretical 'knowledge'. Others need to, or are fascinated by the context, history and application of subjects. It is not necessaryto understand the politics of Escher's society to understand and appreciate the mathematical patterns he applied. I am not saying that it wouldn't help a person understand something better, just that people should be allowed to study what they want to study, and if they're not interested in history and social contexts then so be it. If everyone was interested in the same stuff there wouldn't be such a diverse range of subjects, or areas within subjects in the first place.