new resources for new syllabus (1 Viewer)

[kendricklamarlover101]

thank god the syllabus got rid of the pigeon hole principle, what a fucking useless topic

not true PHP has plenty of applications in all sorts of fields. some that i can think of off the top of my head are error correcting codes, analysis, number theory and algorithmic design.

 

[jane1820]

thank god the syllabus got rid of the pigeon hole principle, what a fucking useless topic

stop i actually hated php and i dont get it

 

[jane1820]

opinion:
i just had a read of the new syllabus and i realised it so easy now compared to ours like wtf
why are they spoon feeding the new generation? atp everyone should be able to do ext 2 since most of the new stuff is from yr11 ext 1 not even yr 12!!!

 

[tywebb]

cambridge did a youtube for changes in standard:

they will make another webinar for advanced/extension 1 on june 10 and that will probably go up on yt on june 10 or shortly thereafter

 

[PraxusAI]

Seeing the recycled content + errata is exactly why a few of us have been building PraxusAI. It generates brand-new, never-seen-before HSC-style questions (with worked solutions) that line up with the new syllabus dot-points – so you’re not stuck re-doing clones of 2012 papers or hunting for corrections.


We’re opening a small early-access student pilot this month. If you’d like to road-test it (and tell us what needs fixing before Trials hit), you can get early access here : praxus.ai/students

 

[tywebb]

they will make another webinar for advanced/extension 1 on june 10 and that will probably go up on yt on june 10 or shortly thereafter

here the new yt from cambridge for advanced/extension 1:

which went up today

 

[tywebb]

in the q & a session a question came up how they gonna deal with the central limit theorem

that's a year 12 thing and the focus so far is year 11 so in the video they said it isn't finalised and that bit hasn't even been written yet, but they predicted it will be a hand-wavy type of thing.

so not rigorous?

so not in keeping with the government commissioned stacey review of 1998:

Stacey, K., Dowsey, J., McCrae, B., & Stephens, M. (1998). Review of senior secondary mathematics curriculum. Sydney: NSW Board of Studies.

in which it recommended that content maintains rigour - to which the government responded with white paper accepting that recommendation - and no government since has rescinded that white paper

maintaining rigour is therefore something nesa has to do. it's not like they have a choice. they can give advice to the minister of education and the minister can act on that advice in accordance with the education act. but until and unless that white paper is rescinded, they have to maintain rigour.

so no hand-waving please

McGill University Dept. Epidemiology and Biostatistics have put up a somewhat more rigorous treatment of the central limit theorem with no handwaving whatsoever, but from a historical perspective:

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/bios601/GaussianModel/HistoryCentralLimitTheorem.pdf

so there u go

cambridge's breach of stacey review is now resolved

 

[tywebb]

ok well that might me a bit over-kill but way back in post #1 we see the following question in the sample paper:

In a large school, the average amount of money spent per student per day at the 3 canteen is $8 with a standard deviation of 6.5.
At the end of each day, 50 randomly chosen students are asked how much they spent at the canteen on that day.
Use the standard normal distribution to find the probability that the sample mean on a particular day is greater than $10.

- and this might give some indication of what can reasonably be expected at this level for the clt.