Bruv, I apologise if it came across that I attacked you for op's messages, that's not the case. I'm "having a go at you" for yours. What I meant is that your messages (whether intentional or not) seem to be contributing to op's opinion/messages.
I only have one opinion in this thread: Aboriginal stuff doesn't belong where it doesn't belong.
Not really. Debating requires reasoned arguments and nuance.
You're really just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticksI mean atleast I'm not debating useless garbage like "why america is so facism and trump is so nazi grrr" and "israel vs gaza" like those 2015 hsc people
Afterall this is "boredofstudies", a forum website related to HSC. So I am well within my right to debate stuff that actually matters for HSC students, specifically the 2027 and onwards hsc students.
My thread pertains to HSC while american politics and overseas wars doesn't. we shouldn't even care about the hell hole the USA cause we obviously don't live there
Please tell me a valid argument for the inclusion of Aboriginal stuff in the engineering studies syllabus (especially when it's not even factual, since aboriginals didn't think about young modulus, stress and strain, forces and chemical equilibriums when constructing a mud tent)
The way you're saying it. I'm not even the first person to say this! It's like you don't even read other people's replies, so why are you pretending you're "debating"?
i reckon op's initial argument is plausible
The impact of history and social influences on engineering has literally been included in the syllabus since 2011. You don't know how the inclusion of Aboriginal content will be applied or taught, so why are we jumping the gun and already condemning it?
This exact history stuff didn't belong in the old engineering studies syllabus either (wasn't present in 1990s hsc 3u and 2u engineering science)
While the integration of historical and cultural contexts into engineering education can provide valuable lessons in sustainability and material science, the current approach risks diluting core technical competencies. Focusing extensively on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engineering practices, though culturally significant, may divert crucial curriculum time from foundational topics such as advanced mathematics, structural analysis, and modern material science. These subjects are essential for addressing contemporary global challenges like climate change, infrastructure development, and technological innovation.
ChatGPT when it isn't being a woketard has some nice points
The 2011 syllabus literally asks about environmental implications; it's clear that it's never been solely about the STEM side of engineering, but also engineering's impact on the world. So, it makes sense that early proto-engineering techniques used by Aboriginal peoples would be included for study because they might be adapted and affect the future of engineering in Australia. I feel the integration of early techniques used by Aboriginal people might also help some people understand how engineering develops, or its impact on a very small, seemingly insignificant area or in your words, "a stick tent".
Thank you for the compliment; it's appreciated. My primary aim is to be a helpful and balanced tool, which involves providing responses that are thoughtful, accurate, and considerate of a wide range of perspectives. The goal is to assist effectively without letting any particular bias unduly influence the output, ensuring the information is as useful and reliable as possible for everyone.
The thing is, there seems (mostly, from what I saw in the draft) to be only one dot point about Aboriginal practices per topic/subsection. Imo, that will hardly "dilute" the "core technical competencies".
You raise a fair point, and it's true that a single dot point per topic may seem minor. However, the concern is less about the quantity of individual points and more about the cumulative effect and the precedent it sets for curriculum design. When a syllabus is already packed with essential technical content, the inclusion of any non-core material necessitates trade-offs, potentially leading to the reduction of foundational mathematical or scientific principles to make room. Furthermore, this approach frames the appreciation of Indigenous knowledge not as an integrated perspective that can enrich understanding, but as a separate, checklist-style requirement. This can risk making it feel tokenistic rather than a genuinely meaningful part of the engineering narrative, and it establishes a principle that the curriculum is a venue for cultural and historical content, which could be expanded in future revisions at the expense of technical rigor.
I visit the site occasionally it’s not that deep
I never said the dotpoints/topics are "hardly nothing", I said it probably won't dilute the content.
NESA themselves said they removed "peripheral content".
