NSW Science syllabuses (physics, chem and bio) are a global embarrassment (3 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

 

[coolcat6778]

bump, probably relevant given the highest candidature science exam was just held

 

[jane1820]

My physics teacher finds so much errors in the syllabus, formula sheet and exams every year and is always emailing NESA to fix their mistakes but instead they replied to him ‘stop emailing us, we know what we are doing’ (but formally) and LITERALLY blocked him

 

[coolcat6778]

My physics teacher finds so much errors in the syllabus, formula sheet and exams every year and is always emailing NESA to fix their mistakes but instead they replied to him ‘stop emailing us, we know what we are doing’ (but formally) and LITERALLY blocked him

especially this, how tf is there emf if the surface area of loop is basically zero?

Oh wait, it's motional emf, emf = Bℓv , something that isn't on the HSC formula sheet nor formally mentioned in the syllabus. However, it is on the VCE formula sheet.

Goes to show how shallow the syllabus content is even compared to VCE, that the examiners have no choice but to test stuff beyond it

 

[Sam Rowan]

noooo thermo was cool (even though noone takes it seriously cuz its not assessed in the hsc)
i see where they're coming from since they want to make hsc physics doable without needing to take math as a prerequisite (which is why the stuff that requires math like shm is in the math course) but i agree with most of ur points

i’m sorry they want to make physics not have a MATHS PRE-REQUISITE?? are they hearing themselves?
physics should have a math adv pre-q minimum (as someone else mentioned already)

As someone who takes standard math, THIS SHIT IS UNBELIEVABLY EASY. (I was going to take advanced but chemistry ended up filling my needs for extra maths without fighting my school to run a whole class for 3 students.)

And i believe anyone who wants to take physics realises that writing is not their strong suit. and, at least in my school anyway, most people who take physics also take EALD too.

The fact NESA is doing this is insane, someone needs to give them a reality check.

 

[Sam Rowan]

bro what the hell they really think they’re making some difference by adding this into the syllabus, it’s completely irrelevant. If you want some sort of recognition of ATSI people add it to a subject that’s actually relevant... also if yall are gonna add it to physics at least teach me how tf a boomerang works, not how they used ramps could’ve put the Romans in there for using ramps oml

I mean, if they’re turning it into a history but scientists instead of politicians why not involve the roman’s

 

[coolcat6778]

i’m sorry they want to make physics not have a MATHS PRE-REQUISITE?? are they hearing themselves?
physics should have a math adv pre-q minimum (as someone else mentioned already)

As someone who takes standard math, THIS SHIT IS UNBELIEVABLY EASY. (I was going to take advanced but chemistry ended up filling my needs for extra maths without fighting my school to run a whole class for 3 students.)

And i believe anyone who wants to take physics realises that writing is not their strong suit. and, at least in my school anyway, most people who take physics also take EALD too.

The fact NESA is doing this is insane, someone needs to give them a reality check.

It's also funny how HSC Chemistry and Physics have Logarithms functions, yet no quadratics. The quadratic formula is learnt in year 10, meanwhile log is normally learnt in year 11 for advanced and beyond.

The Sample answer assumes you don't know the quadratic formula x = -b+root(b...




Look at the HSC sample solution way, unheard of

 

[Sam Rowan]

Also, i’m really quite curious why they want us to regurgitate the textbook so much. i’m no expert, but i believe the point of learning is to be able to apply what has been taught to you. so memorising what your teacher has said and putting it on paper doesn’t tell me how well you understand the content at all.