HSC Physics is fucking embarrassing (4 Viewers)

[coolcat6778]

i had the same perspective as you I was also mad that for my year the scaling was non-existant because the paper was so fucking piss easy (I got raw 96 and scaled 96 or something) but they really don't have a lot of options where people don't complain. Btw don't get me wrong I agree I wish it was all hard calculations but it just isnt plausible

doesn't even have to be extension 2 level hard. just look at vce for an example... even the old pre 2000s hsc syllabus was 80% calculations.

topics that were removed from the hsc exam such as conservation of energy and momentum are integral in a physics exam. they should've never moved them to prelim solely.

prelim physics is what high school physics is like elsewhere. So much quantitative stuff of topics from waves, optics, mechanics and circuits were never touched upon again in the hsc exam, despite being covered in prelim.

 

[coolcat6778]

Wow, this must be one of the most retarded articles ever written regarding the physics HSC syllabus.

NSW HSC no longer includes women’s contributions to physics

www.sydney.edu.au

27 September 2018

I don't fucking give a shit of the history and humanities of any scientist, regardless of gender or sex. Why the fuck are they causing division for no reason?

I don't give a shit about Rosalind Franklin equally as I don't give a shit about Rutherford. It's not fucking a patriarchal issue.

I actually partly agree with usyd indirectly on one aspect though, they should just remove the entire history section so nobody can cry about not being "unfairly unrepresented" and "marginalized"

Like wtf? if this isn't evidence of left-wing influence and left-wing bureaucracy on the HSC syllabus, I don't know what is.

Now imagine the math syllabus being as shit as the science syllabuses. Do you really want to sit through history lessons on how Isaac Newton and Leibniz invented calculus, reshaped mathematics from Euclidean geometry, rather than actually doing calculus problems? Do you actually want to be spending your study time memorizing and regurgitating bs about the history of calculus rather than actually... you know, using calculus? I don't understand why the sciences should be any different.

While the study of the history of scientific experiments and design isn't completely trivial, it shouldn't be examined in a physics exam, especially given the fact it's pretty much pure regurgitation. Rather, It belongs in Investigating Science, "Investigating" as in experimental design.

If you don't believe me on the fact that it's pure regurgitation, let me present to you a good example. You know how one of Bohr's postulates is related to angular momentum?

In atomic state corresponding to the maximum emitted energy, the stationary orbits are attained at distances for which the angular momentum of the revolving electron is equal to the reduced Planck constant, h/2pi

There's definitely no way people understand what these means besides without consulting beyond the syllabus resources and topics. Yet they still ask questions related to this postulate, which is - like always - a test of your ability to regurgitate what the textbook said verbatim. We literally never learnt about angular anything besides velocity in so called "advanced" mechanics. "advanced" you're joking right? the so called "advanced" stuff is the bare minimum of high school physics brah.

 

[AAArated]

brotha go sleep

 

[coolcat6778]

bump, probably relevant given the highest candidature science exam was just held

 

[jane1820]

My physics teacher finds so much errors in the syllabus, formula sheet and exams every year and is always emailing NESA to fix their mistakes but instead they replied to him ‘stop emailing us, we know what we are doing’ (but formally) and LITERALLY blocked him

 

[coolcat6778]

My physics teacher finds so much errors in the syllabus, formula sheet and exams every year and is always emailing NESA to fix their mistakes but instead they replied to him ‘stop emailing us, we know what we are doing’ (but formally) and LITERALLY blocked him

especially this, how tf is there emf if the surface area of loop is basically zero?

Oh wait, it's motional emf, emf = Bℓv , something that isn't on the HSC formula sheet nor formally mentioned in the syllabus. However, it is on the VCE formula sheet.

Goes to show how shallow the syllabus content is even compared to VCE, that the examiners have no choice but to test stuff beyond it

 

[Sam Rowan]

noooo thermo was cool (even though noone takes it seriously cuz its not assessed in the hsc)
i see where they're coming from since they want to make hsc physics doable without needing to take math as a prerequisite (which is why the stuff that requires math like shm is in the math course) but i agree with most of ur points

i’m sorry they want to make physics not have a MATHS PRE-REQUISITE?? are they hearing themselves?
physics should have a math adv pre-q minimum (as someone else mentioned already)

As someone who takes standard math, THIS SHIT IS UNBELIEVABLY EASY. (I was going to take advanced but chemistry ended up filling my needs for extra maths without fighting my school to run a whole class for 3 students.)

And i believe anyone who wants to take physics realises that writing is not their strong suit. and, at least in my school anyway, most people who take physics also take EALD too.

The fact NESA is doing this is insane, someone needs to give them a reality check.

 

[Sam Rowan]

bro what the hell they really think they’re making some difference by adding this into the syllabus, it’s completely irrelevant. If you want some sort of recognition of ATSI people add it to a subject that’s actually relevant... also if yall are gonna add it to physics at least teach me how tf a boomerang works, not how they used ramps could’ve put the Romans in there for using ramps oml

I mean, if they’re turning it into a history but scientists instead of politicians why not involve the roman’s

 

[coolcat6778]

i’m sorry they want to make physics not have a MATHS PRE-REQUISITE?? are they hearing themselves?
physics should have a math adv pre-q minimum (as someone else mentioned already)

As someone who takes standard math, THIS SHIT IS UNBELIEVABLY EASY. (I was going to take advanced but chemistry ended up filling my needs for extra maths without fighting my school to run a whole class for 3 students.)

And i believe anyone who wants to take physics realises that writing is not their strong suit. and, at least in my school anyway, most people who take physics also take EALD too.

The fact NESA is doing this is insane, someone needs to give them a reality check.

It's also funny how HSC Chemistry and Physics have Logarithms functions, yet no quadratics. The quadratic formula is learnt in year 10, meanwhile log is normally learnt in year 11 for advanced and beyond.

The Sample answer assumes you don't know the quadratic formula x = -b+root(b...




Look at the HSC sample solution way, unheard of

 

[Sam Rowan]

Also, i’m really quite curious why they want us to regurgitate the textbook so much. i’m no expert, but i believe the point of learning is to be able to apply what has been taught to you. so memorising what your teacher has said and putting it on paper doesn’t tell me how well you understand the content at all.

 

[coolcat6778]

old thread i forgot i even made, that means i stay true to my words

 

[coolcat6778]

Let me just emphasis, physics is MEANT to be a fucking quantitative subject, not a fucking qualitative describing and essay writing subject. There's nothing gained from making kids learn more qualitative content just for the exams to follow a retarded "regurgitate what you just learnt" structure...

Thread starts from: https://boredofstudies.org/threads/...re-a-global-embarrassment.415070/post-7703084

 

[Paaandora]

Let me just emphasis, physics is MEANT to be a fucking quantitative subject, not a fucking qualitative describing and essay writing subject. There's nothing gained from making kids learn more qualitative content just for the exams to follow a retarded "regurgitate what you just learnt" structure...

Thread starts from: https://boredofstudies.org/threads/...re-a-global-embarrassment.415070/post-7703084

this is so right bro i feel like im js writing essays after essays which take sm of the marks but its meant to be actual calculations.. save the wriitng for bio or chem but physis is fundamentally a calculative subject and the syllabus doesnt address that enough

 

[Tony Stark]

Analyse the effect of Ancient Greek civilisation in the development of equations of motion, in comparison to Greek culture today.

 

[Tony Stark]

Apple fell on Newton's head -> adversity due to pain -> human experience -> growth, new insights into the forces of life

 

[coolcat6778]

HSC “Physics” is a piece of dogshit
Yes, this was all in one single fucking paper, representing a quarter of the section two questions.

5 + 8 + 6 = 19 marks of history questions

 

[coolcat6778]

It's not looking like HSC physics is getting any better. 2023 was the last year of an actual physics exam. I thought 2024 was bad and 2025 would improve, then came 2025's fucking garbage exam. Clearly I'm not exaggerating when I say NSW is stuck with the dumbest high school physics exam until atleast the year 2037. 2025's exam was probably essay heavy to test the waters for the new retarded syllabus for people who can't do maths.

Actual physics is and always will be a math heavy subject. NESA's trying to erase this fact for some reason

 

[tywebb]

@tywebb what are your thoughts on the current physics syllabus compared to pre 2000s?

well we were lucky enough in maths in 1998 when a review was undertaken external to and independent of the syllabus development process led by professor kaye stacey, so it is commonly referred to as "the stacey review" but the full reference is

Stacey, K., Dowsey, J., McCrae, B., & Stephens, M. (1998). Review of senior secondary mathematics curriculum. Sydney: NSW Board of Studies.

in this it recommended that content maintains rigour - to which the government responded with a white paper accepting that recommendation - and no government since has rescinded that white paper

maintaining rigour is therefore something nesa has to do when any change happens to the maths syllabuses. it's not like they have a choice. government white paper is above their heads.

anyway how does this relate to the physics? well unfortunately the stacey review terms of reference and subsequent government white paper did not extend to the science courses.

so unfortunately in the science courses dumbing down may happen, rigour may not be maintained and you may end up with an inferior physics syllabus

i haven't looked at the physics syllabus in detail so can't really comment on the details, but the tenet of this thread points to a dire need to have something like the stacey review applied to physics.

another thing you might not have considered is that when a syllabus like physics is dumbed down and made less rigorous many of the more suitably qualified physics teachers may decide to quit teaching, or go and teach the ib instead, or other physics curriculum instead.

the teachers who are left teaching hsc physics couldn't tell the difference between what is rigorous and what isn't so nesa can then get away with anything in terms of dumbing down and making it less rigorous.

that heads in the wrong direction in preparing students for university physics - and this gives another reason for having something like the stacey review applied to physics.

 

[SS173]

I am against one size fit for all approach for any subject.

Everyone has different objectives and needs. Nevertheless, we need to give a decent understanding of the science and math knowledge to the general citizens.

Maybe we need to grade all science subjects as we do in math.

Specifically for math, there is a tendency to go away from the rigorous treatment of calculus for non-math students including engineers. The proofs and other rigorous treatment are left for the graduate studies or selective courses that the interested students can take. This way the teacher can concentrate more in explaining the concepts and the practical applications.

As an electrical engineer, I like this approach. Sometimes I ask my colleagues. Except one of them who is in CSIRO, none of us needed any math proof in their life. I believe they would all fail even Extension 1 exam…

 

[Trial&Error]

I am against one size fit for all approach for any subject.

Everyone has different objectives and needs. Nevertheless, we need to give a decent understanding of the science and math knowledge to the general citizens.

Maybe we need to grade all science subjects as we do in math.

Specifically for math, there is a tendency to go away from the rigorous treatment of calculus for non-math students including engineers. The proofs and other rigorous treatment are left for the graduate studies or selective courses that the interested students can take. This way the teacher can concentrate more in explaining the concepts and the practical applications.

As an electrical engineer, I like this approach. Sometimes I ask my colleagues. Except one of them who is in CSIRO, none of us needed any math proof in their life. I believe they would all fail even Extension 1 exam…

Are you saying we need like “standard physics” and “Advanced physics“ ? That would be so cool and actually make a lot of sense as well.