Is my physics exam unfair? (1 Viewer)

[albertcamus]

And they too are unfair. Using this logic "oh it happens heaps" does not consitute an argument against an exam being unfair. It more like a politician's manouvre to get around answering the actual question.



This.

If it were similar, sure. However it was word for word which is just blatantly stupid on the teacher's behalf and presents an unfair advantage to those lucky enough to have seen the answers to these questions prior. It also is unfair to the students who went good as they aren't actually obtaining any exam practice whatsoever by a rehashed excuse of an exam. The rankings would be negatively effected (and we know how much all you guys would cry over be screwed over), which is quite obviously just... unfair.

Lol well it happens in virtually every single trial paper and I reckon that justifies it. You've really just gotta take it. If you honestly knew your content well enough, then I don't see why you wouldn't get those questions right.

 

[albertcamus]

Well, the only problem with the OP's exam is that it may be hard to distinguish those who are able to use their knowledge, and synthesise a solution, to those who got lucky. The problem with getting lucky is that in the actual HSC, there's much less chance of getting lucky. One of the perks of physics is the marking criteria, they may be looking for specific things that get that extra mark. For example, I know a former student who never lost more than 1 mark for any one question in their physics exam, but those 1 marks accumulated and subtracted a fair bit from the total. I know another student, who, got lucky in his half-yearlies physics exam because he happened to do the same question from a past paper exam that the half-yearlies asked. He went up to me and said, "I know what they were looking for, I remembered the marking criteria and it said to include X,Y, and Z!". He didn't know what to include the first time around, but got lucky when it was assessed. The only disadvantage with this is that, as a result, his critical thinking skills, required to answer HSC questions later on, was not as developed as it should be.

But HSC doesn't test really critical thinking full stop LOL. So in terms of the HSC, it's not necessary that "it should be" developed so it's not an issue of that.

And isn't that whole "having done question before exam" a good thing? Exposing yourself to different questions is what it's all about. And inherently there's going to be an element of luck associated with the fact that one student might study using CSSA papers, and another from Independent, and another from HSC. And who gets questions that they're suited to. Really just too bad.

 

[albertcamus]

There you go.

Also this debate in general is somewhat argumentum ad populum-esque accompanied with people acting like their word is law.

Any different to most other debates?

 

[MATHmaster]

Why hasn't anyone mention about HSC English yet? Apparently the only way to get "good" marks is to memorise essays. What's fair in that?

What's 'unfair' in memorising essays? The marking criteria is based on how well you answer the question in the exam, not how well you answer the question in your prepared essay...

 

[hayabusaboston]

Do you think it would be fair if the HSC Physics exam 2013 is a collection of past paper questions?

My point is, although these resources are available, they are not the only resources. Questions can appear from any school paper, but this is just past hsc exams. How is the paper any original to distinguish between the rote-learners and intelligent students?

well thats a bit of an oxymoron right there LOL

intelligent students realise that rote learning is an integral and unavoidable component of HSC science and if dismissed as "something for stupid people" then the intelligent students can expect to fail quite badly. Some things just have to be known. Where applicable you visualise, deconstruct, analyse and play with the concepts you are given, this is where intelligent students shine and this is how they like to believe they are studying, But you must have some information purely memorised if you want good marks man.

No point gloating over "superior understanding of HSC science on the deepest possible level", when you cant answer something on historical developments of motors or whatever it is. Just gotta swallow your pride and admit that without at least SOME rote learning, you won't get top marks.

 

[iBibah]

Do you think it would be fair if the HSC Physics exam 2013 is a collection of past paper questions?

My point is, although these resources are available, they are not the only resources. Questions can appear from any school paper, but this is just past hsc exams. How is the paper any original to distinguish between the rote-learners and intelligent students?

Yes it would be fair, because everyone has access to those questions, no group of people had information that others didn't, and it still technically addresses the syllabus. It may be a bad exam in terms of correctly assessing one's ability, but it is still fair. A definition of 'just': "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception". There was no bias or favouritism. One cannot argue unfairness due to that it "indirectly" favoured those who studied the right questions, that's like arguing that a maths exam "indirectly" favoured some people as it's questions were mainly a topic they studied more.

In the end, the exam has to favour someone in some way. It will be:
- Those who know concepts really well and how to answer questions
- Those who did a ton of practice in order to familiarise themselves with questions and how to answer them
- Those who happened to study the right questions and got lucky they were in the exam

It's normal to get annoyed at no. 3, but their luck will run out, and 1 and 2 will prevail. Some people are confusing the fairness of the test with the validity.

 

[Capt Rifle]

Mate next time just whip out those past papers and nail them... lol

 

[Sy123]

well thats a bit of an oxymoron right there LOL

intelligent students realise that rote learning is an integral and unavoidable component of HSC science and if dismissed as "something for stupid people" then the intelligent students can expect to fail quite badly. Some things just have to be known. Where applicable you visualise, deconstruct, analyse and play with the concepts you are given, this is where intelligent students shine and this is how they like to believe they are studying, But you must have some information purely memorised if you want good marks man.

No point gloating over "superior understanding of HSC science on the deepest possible level", when you cant answer something on historical developments of motors or whatever it is. Just gotta swallow your pride and admit that without at least SOME rote learning, you won't get top marks.

You are completely wrong. There is no oxymoron present.
Intelligent students will learn science how it should be learnt and that is with understanding, if it comes to a point whereby an intelligent student needs to rote learn, i.e. soft science, then no it does not put them in the same category as those who cheat the education system.

His question was, how to distinguish between rote learners and intelligent students. He is talking about those who cheat the education system and rote learn a lot of a course. Intelligent students would fall under those rote learning only because they have to, and thus an oxymoron/contradiction/redundancy does not exist.

He is correct in saying that if exams were ripped from various accessible sources, then there is no way to distinguish between intelligent students and those who rote learn everything.

 

[albertcamus]

You are completely wrong. There is no oxymoron present.
Intelligent students will learn science how it should be learnt and that is with understanding, if it comes to a point whereby an intelligent student needs to rote learn, i.e. soft science, then no it does not put them in the same category as those who cheat the education system.

His question was, how to distinguish between rote learners and intelligent students. He is talking about those who cheat the education system and rote learn a lot of a course. Intelligent students would fall under those rote learning only because they have to, and thus an oxymoron/contradiction/redundancy does not exist.

He is correct in saying that if exams were ripped from various accessible sources, then there is no way to distinguish between intelligent students and those who rote learn everything.

What do you think about things that can be understood further but can get extremely confusing, and are simply easier to rote learn and semi-understand for the extent of the HSC exams? (note: this can yield full marks virtually every time) - for example in Chem, the nuclear chemistry section.

 

[Sy123]

What do you think about things that can be understood further but can get extremely confusing, and are simply easier to rote learn and semi-understand for the extent of the HSC exams? (note: this can yield full marks virtually every time) - for example in Chem, the nuclear chemistry section.

What do you mean what do I think about them?
If you mean whether I would regard them as rote learners, I personally cannot draw a fine line between who we can classify a rote learner, and who isn't. (this doesn't mean I cannot draw a line).

 

[albertcamus]

What do you mean what do I think about them?
If you mean whether I would regard them as rote learners, I personally cannot draw a fine line between who we can classify a rote learner, and who isn't. (this doesn't mean I cannot draw a line).

Like what's your view on these parts of the syllabus? Do you try and understand them (they can be understood but can get confusing and go out of the syllabus) or just memorise?

 

[nifkeh]

You are right in that sense, however, it would be a roll of a die to know whether the student is doing past paper hsc questions as study, or past hsc questions from other schools. If the die rolls in favour of past hsc questions, how is it any fair to the student who was doing the hsc questions from various schools?

well kind of off topic here but my ancient history exam today looked like a photocopy of previous HSCs. I am not complaining but yes, even if it was past hscs for school assessments you know you had a chance to practice past papers. even if you didn't bother you wouldn't be severely disadvantaged as you should have got practice for it in some other way. but even if they were completely not past hscs, I'm sure doing past papers would most likely be good practice for it, and also doing practice questions from a textbook or so.

My year 11 maths class tests were purely past HSC questions, the teacher even said it to the class every time before the test. I didn't actually practice past hscs because I cbbs, but really the teacher isn't liable for allowing those to succeed as they were 'already seen' questions. He/she just really made it easier for you. Think of it as teachers who tell you what not to study for the exam - they are doing you a favour, you're just the one not putting in the effort. Sorry about that, but it's truth

 

[nifkeh]

You are completely wrong. There is no oxymoron present.
Intelligent students will learn science how it should be learnt and that is with understanding, if it comes to a point whereby an intelligent student needs to rote learn, i.e. soft science, then no it does not put them in the same category as those who cheat the education system.

His question was, how to distinguish between rote learners and intelligent students. He is talking about those who cheat the education system and rote learn a lot of a course. Intelligent students would fall under those rote learning only because they have to, and thus an oxymoron/contradiction/redundancy does not exist.

He is correct in saying that if exams were ripped from various accessible sources, then there is no way to distinguish between intelligent students and those who rote learn everything.

state rankers sell notes on science... is that not rote learning in the slightest

 

[RealiseNothing]

state rankers sell notes on science... is that not rote learning in the slightest

Since when did notes imply rote-learning?

 

[RG11]

this is something that is out of your control and imo this sort of crap happens to everybody all the time. Best thing you can do study and try not to worry.

 

[someth1ng]

I don't mind OP not changing his mind but it does annoy me that he will say anything that isn't in line with his opinion is wrong.

 

[MATHmaster]

I don't mind OP not changing his mind but it does annoy me that he will say anything that isn't in line with his opinion is wrong.

You must be really careful what you write. I completely understand how most of the opinions on this page show how the exam could be unfair, but I do not agree with them. Therefore, I am not saying all of their opinions are "wrong"

 

[zmccu3]

I kind of agree with OP or at least see where he's coming from. He could have studied past papers, the exact same as his peers but his peers have just gotten lucky in that they studied the 'right' papers. In this hypothetical scenario OP has put in equal effort/time studying and his peers are the ones who were benefited by it.

 

[OMGITzJustin]

just deal with it... happened to me the whole year no joke (along with the whole class) with 3 other students, but in chem.
the 3 three students were tutored by a person who graduated a year before us, so they had access to all the assessments for the year (teacher used the same ones but made slight changes). but for HY the chem teacher told us that he was going to use the half yearly from the last year but change things around, and he told us that if you do the hsc questions we should be fine. Btw, the only task they didnt have access to was the cssa trial

I just studied hard and matched them in assessments, I was beaten in the h/y, but I turned it around in the trials and raised my rank to the top

 

[MATHmaster]

LOL I came second in that exam after all... the people who rote learnt everything were punished