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 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.
You also do MX2, and I think you will agree with me that gaining marks for half the exam is pretty easy, but it gets aligned to 80+, and scaled to about 98. I reckon that's probably the biggest flaw in the system when people with the aptitude get that boost over other subjects. Or what about Languages. There's always that one or two language that out scales MX2 in the odd year; but people with a background in that language can almost certainly get 95+, which gets scaled to what, 99. Is that without flaw?
Anyway, point being, you do the subjects that are going to get you the ATAR needed to get into Uni. There's no point doing high scaling subjects if you don't like them; you won't get a good mark.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Anyway, I think I've made my point, and you've made yours. I don't believe this is going to be settled, but good luck in the examinations!