smh.com.au (1 Viewer)

[Jezzabelle]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/02/1099362148883.html?from=moreStories&oneclick=true
and i quote..
"The new HSC physics syllabus, introduced in 2001, has been criticised by some teachers and university lecturers for relying too heavily on students' literacy and lacks mathematical rigour...."

 

[sub]

hahaha, too true...especially the jordan question.

that was srsly an english question...assess, HAH! whatta joke

 

[boz]

so true

what happened to the good old days when pracs gave you testicular cancer and mercury send you mad? I say more blowing up stuff, less english.

can i get a "here here"

 

[BillyMak]

The Jordan question wasn't an English question. The idea of it was that you figure stuff out, like the max height he could jump, and decide whether the passage had merit or not.

 

[nit]

Yeh, in some ways it was tp do with english, but I can also see that it was a damn good question - it basically allows you to do whatever you so desire with the question, which, after all, is what science is about, and not simply ask a whole set of dot-points. I mean, come on let's face it - the course hardly teaches much real physics, and so questions like these become vital for testing our knowledge of the physics course.

 

[hfis]

Compared to Chemistry, this was actually a good paper as far as calculations were concerned.

 

[mojako]

The Jordan question wasn't an English question. The idea of it was that you figure stuff out, like the max height he could jump, and decide whether the passage had merit or not.

I didnt assess it
tried to write some assessment when they said pens down

i got max height as somewhere around 7 m is that right?
shud've said its impossible...

 

[BillyMak]

Yeah, it was 7.something or other for the max height he would have to jump.

 

[stoydgen]

Compared to Chemistry, this was actually a good paper as far as calculations were concerned.

Chemistry had virtually no calculations, Physics had tons more!

 

[hfis]

Exactly.

This line is to make this message longer than 10 characters.

 

[budj]

Lol, i completely fucked this questionup. I considered him as a projectile and used the mx range formula and max height formula to determine what angle Fords should launch himself at to get max range (had no clue with the basketball hint), and I talked about the law of conservation of momentum and how it relates to him understanding the consequences of hitting someone twice as heavier than him, and what velocity is needed to makesure that he is better of in the collision etc etc. Completely missed the essence of it

 

[kunny funt]

lol

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/03/1099362225310.html

 

[BillyMak]

The people that the author of that article was talking to think very differently of pretty much else I've talked to.

It was a fine question, it was obvious that when it said he could be in the air for 2.5 seconds, you had to figure out how high he would have to jump (since it said something like "use mathematical evidence to support your argument").
Also, the article said that apart from that question the paper was fair. I personally didn't think including a 6 mark question on a dot point that was removed from the syllabus 2 years ago was fair....

 

[redruM]

physics has become more of a theory/content driven subject.
this was the feeling among last couple of hsc's aswell.

the 'old' syllabus had 4u circular motion stuff in it, which was conveniently taken out.

 

[budj]

Yeah fair enough. Its good that they knocked back a bit of the maths, but they still should of kept a lot more in it. There are alot more engineering drop outs as a result

 

[mossup]

I'm over physics.........

so what i'm gunna do at the end of the required 9 weeks of keeping a subject, is drop it!!!

 

[redruM]

maybe you guys can have a look at university physics and compare the difference. its too much a leap from hsc physics, without a doubt.

 

[daniel2ya]

The people that the author of that article was talking to think very differently of pretty much else I've talked to.

It was a fine question, it was obvious that when it said he could be in the air for 2.5 seconds, you had to figure out how high he would have to jump (since it said something like "use mathematical evidence to support your argument").
Also, the article said that apart from that question the paper was fair. I personally didn't think including a 6 mark question on a dot point that was removed from the syllabus 2 years ago was fair....

how can u figure anything out u have 1 value the time no initial velocity, velocity assumed acceleration is -9.8m/s u could hardly work it out i dont think that is what the question was about

 

[BillyMak]

You had 2 values, time in the air and acceleration (unless he was playing basketball on the moon which I strongly doubt). The thing about this question was that it required application of what we've learnt, rather than just regurgitation of what we've learnt. IMO a question like this was long overdue.

The 2 values enabled you to do a lot of things. You could find the height he would have to reach if staying in the air for 2.5 seconds, his vertical initial velocity, and if you wanted to you could say "Ok, MJ weighs about 100kg, it would take him ~0.3 of a second to accelerate himself, so the force he would have to apply to the ground is <insert force here>"