apollo1
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 938
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
oh yeah chem as well.Chemistry.
oh yeah chem as well.Chemistry.
Memorise, and know how to write. This isn't out of reach of the average intelligent person, whereas a lot of the stuff in MX1+2 is and Physics and Chem have odd questions in there sometimes, and Mathematics Q9+10 can even do this. Tbqh, I know someone that will get a band 6 in Modern that I beat in every common subject we do. (SoR2, English, etc.) So no, you don't have to be smart.Yes it does. To get a band six in ancient history, you not only need to memorise a lot of notes, but they also need to write with logic.
I don't think 'smart' will get anyone a band six. It is motivation and their eagar to strive that gets them there.
Physics, I honestly have no idea, but I know that Chemistry definitely has a few questions thrown in every year that like <1% will get. So, it doesn't matter whether the course is dumbed down, they can always throw something in that will surprise you in the sciences.For at least Physics, you just need to remember information. The current course is dumbed down and is almost all about rote learning. Your point about beating someone in common subjects is an isolated situation and isn't a good example. Whilst knowledge is essential, aptitude is key. Having the aptitude over smarts is needed to do well in any subject. The skill set in Modern and the skill set in Maths are very different and can't be fairly compared in a way so there is no bias towards already bad misconceptions. Anyway, I can advocate and vouch for either side.
What are you talking about? I didn't even mention modern historyMemorise, and know how to write. This isn't out of reach of the average intelligent person, whereas a lot of the stuff in MX1+2 is and Physics and Chem have odd questions in there sometimes, and Mathematics Q9+10 can even do this. Tbqh, I know someone that will get a band 6 in Modern that I beat in every common subject we do. (SoR2, English, etc.) So no, you don't have to be smart.
And your second statement lends itself to saying that you said modern history for no reason at all...
I saw Modern in their signature, and when they said "I can advocate and vouch for either side" I assumed they were lending their argument for modern.What are you talking about? I didn't even mention modern history
Yeah, was gonna edit what I said, then I was like, stuff it, delete. But since you managed to reply...Physics, I honestly have no idea, but I know that Chemistry definitely has a few questions thrown in every year that like <1% will get. So, it doesn't matter whether the course is dumbed down, they can always throw something in that will surprise you in the sciences.
Every common subject I have with someone that is coming top 5 in any HSIE subject, I am beating them. Apart from one beating me in SoR2 (a HSIE subject).
Also, through the scaling system it can be seen that Modern scales worse than these subjects because the students in Chem, MX2, Physics, etc. do well overall compared to the cohort of students doing Modern, and this is usually the case because they are smarter.
This tells me you don't know what scaling is.Like I said, aptitude is key. You're seriously using scaling as a measure of how smart a person is in a course? If you look at the diverse nature of the Physics course, it's no wonder why it requires scaling in order for it to "appear" like a good course or a tough course or a course which will get you the marks. For those who are good at Modern OR Physics or any of the listed above, they will get a top band.
I said nothing in contrary to this, there was no point for you to say this at all.I do both Maths and Humanities, and doing fairly well in them. Do I care that Modern doesn't scale as well? No, because I have the aptitude for both. If you don't have the aptitude for a subject, no matter how well it scales or how great of a course it seems, you're not going to do well in it.
How am I glorifying one over the other through "misconceptions"? My perception is quite clear through evidence that the students in one course (Physics) out shine the students in the other (History).And when I say "I can advocate and vouch for either side", I mean that there's no point trying to glorify a subject over another, based on misconceptions. I'm not lending an argument for Modern or MX2, I'm saying you can't discredit a subject based on a perceived level of required smartness. You're not really vouching for either side since you're clearly trying to show Maths/Science is > than Humanities.
I believe you can get band 5/6 for any subject if you 'do a lot of hard work'. The HSC syllabuses are designed so that the top band is within reach of ALL students, not just the so called students with 'brains'.This tells me you don't know what scaling is.
Scaling places the cohorts of different subjects against each other so that a fair rank can be worked out between the students. Overall, Physics student rank higher because the course is deemed more difficult than History and the students in Physics do better in their other subject than the students in History.
Aligning, is the procedure that makes raw marks appear as band 6s and makes physics appear like a good course.
I said nothing in contrary to this, there was no point for you to say this at all.
How am I glorifying one over the other through "misconceptions"? My perception is quite clear through evidence that the students in one course (Physics) out shine the students in the other (History).
I'm not discrediting it, I'm just stating the obvious; that MX2, Physics, Chemistry and the like need brains AND a hafty amount of hard work, whereas you can get away with doing a lot of hard work in History.
Ummm, I'm clearly expressing an opinion and at the same time vouching for the Maths/Science side. So, I'm CLEARLY vouching for at least one side... Do you even know what you're talking about?
I feel yah man. got a sore throat and runny nose f rom being up late.I've got a headache/ cold developing :'(
I know very well the difference between scaling and aligning. Scaling is not purely because a subject is deemed harder or required most effort. Scaling, being determined by UAC, presents a perceived difficulty of the course. Because people to naturally well in history/humanity subjects, it doesn't require UAC to scale it as high, and so there is indeed an illusion of difficulty.This tells me you don't know what scaling is.
Scaling places the cohorts of different subjects against each other so that a fair rank can be worked out between the students. Overall, Physics student rank higher because the course is deemed more difficult than History and the students in Physics do better in their other subject than the students in History.
Aligning, is the procedure that makes raw marks appear as band 6s and makes physics appear like a good course.
What evidence? It's all been hearsay or unverifiable anecdotes. You don't even do Physics or History, I'm not sure how you can judge the level of difficulty required in each course. To get maximum marks in Physics, you need to know the syllabus inside out and apply it in left field type questions, although sometimes in very straightforward questions. To get maximum marks in History, you need to know as much as world renowned historians, and apply it effectively in a short amount of time. Neither I would are easy, and both do require brains and hard work.How am I glorifying one over the other through "misconceptions"? My perception is quite clear through evidence that the students in one course (Physics) out shine the students in the other (History).
I'm not discrediting it, I'm just stating the obvious; that MX2, Physics, Chemistry and the like need brains AND a hafty amount of hard work, whereas you can get away with doing a lot of hard work in History.
When I said vouch for either side, I meant to provide an equal argument for both sides. Not to dictatorially vouch for one side only.Ummm, I'm clearly expressing an opinion and at the same time vouching for the Maths/Science side. So, I'm CLEARLY vouching for at least one side... Do you even know what you're talking about?
No, it scales well because the examiners have told the scaling committee on the perceived hardness of the exam. That is why it has been dumbed down; they reckon we don't have the ability to answer the questions to a great extent, and to make it balanced, they just scale it well. If they thought we had the ability to do well, then it wouldn't be scaled as well and we'd all get pretty shit marks. You need to remember that it's a bunch of people determining scaling, not some universal notion that the HSC Physics course is hard. They could write an easy exam and we'd all do well in it, and it wouldn't be scaled as much. If they made an easy Physics exam, it wouldn't be considered a hard course. We'd just be regurgitating information in the exam, and that doesn't test anything at all. Hence why an obscure test is required to avoid such regurgitation. I'm not saying Physics is an easy course, by all means it's a challenging course, but it has been dumbed down in a way so that there has been a mindset created over the many years.cbf quoting but i think it was D94 that said Physics is a 'dumbed down course'...blah blah...scales well...blah blah....
The thing about Physics is that unlike the other sciences, many questions require you to apply knowledge learned from the syllabus in unfamiliar situations not mentioned in the syllabus. THAT is why it is considered difficult and hence scales well.