NSW Science syllabuses (physics, chem and bio) are a global embarrassment (2 Viewers)

[coolcat6778]

all the qualitative questions in the hsc physics are questions that I can do with my eyes closed they are questions a baby could do they do not require any intellegence or knowledge the fact that you think they do says a lot. So you are not good at writing or calculations...... mhmm interesting

Didn't you just say "high school isn't hard except for English". Do you apply the same logic to English ?

 

[coolcat6778]

the only hard part about hsc physics is like the last mcq question everything else is about silly mistakes

well you lose marks on silly mistakes (not including key points) but most of the time just your structure.

 

[AAArated]

im just saying either they make it all piss easy calculations in which case it would ALL be about silly mistakes 0 way to differentiate you from someone that is smart. OR they make the calculations hard in which case once again people like you would complain. So they have chosen an alternative method of skill expression in writing - which if you know anything about pure science is required when making scientific papers etc. in multiple professions (e.g. doctors have to author multiple papers)

 

[coolcat6778]

im just saying either they make it all piss easy calculations in which case it would ALL be about silly mistakes 0 way to differentiate you from someone that is smart. OR they make the calculations hard in which case once again people like you would complain. So they have chosen an alternative method of skill expression in writing - which if you know anything about pure science is required when making scientific papers etc. in multiple professions (e.g. doctors have to author multiple papers)

bro I wouldn't complain at all. Scaling will be better and I will probably still get a slightly higher scaled mark as a result

 

[AAArated]

well you lose marks on silly mistakes (not including key points) but most of the time just your structure.

you lose 1 mark for structure you lose the rest for not including points that answer the question - in the hsc you wouldnt even lose a mark for structure

 

[coolcat6778]

you lose 1 mark for structure you lose the rest for not including points that answer the question - in the hsc you wouldnt even lose a mark for structure

nope, hsc biology teachers and tutors say that structure is very important at differentiating a full marker and a lower marker. Although it definitely applies for all hsc sciences

 

[AAArated]

bro I wouldn't complain at all. Scaling will be better and I will probably still get a slightly higher scaled mark as a result

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

 

[AAArated]

nope, hsc biology teachers and tutors say that structure is very important at differentiating a full marker and a lower marker. Although it definitely applies for all hsc sciences

I am a HSC chem and phys tutor who state ranked chemistry I think I know a thing or two about writing responses for questions

 

[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