So who thinks there's problems with this syllabus? (1 Viewer)

[DVDVDVDV]

A lot of stuff seems a bit on the "social science" side, as opposed to the "pure science" side.

I mean come on, straight from the syllabus:

"outline and examine some uses of different metals through history, including contemporary uses, as uncombined metals or as alloys"

How would that help someone striving to become a chemist?

 

[DVDVDVDV]

Do you care when copper was first used and manufactured.

I value history, but only as a resource to learn from. Dates aren't important, events are and their impacts, but not as something for Chemists.

If your view is that, as a chemist, you should know the history of your subject, you learn it, but not using the resources given to you by the government.

 

[spence]

You are aware that it is not a vocational course allowing you to become a chemist right?

 

[nat_doc]

just wait till u get to the HSC

 

[pwoh]

TBH those parts of the syllabus are rather annoying. But there aren't that many points about the history, etc - the balance at the moment seems alright.

 

[iMAN2]

1/4 of the hsc physics course is pretty much history.

 

[js992]

Yeah do you do physics?

If you do you;re gonna hate it, half the dot points end up asking you about the history/ social impact of what you just learnt.

 

[DVDVDVDV]

Yeah, I was looking for a general science category to put this in, but I couldn't find one, so I just went with the subject which (so far) has thrown up the most of this sort of stuff.

Yes I do do Physics, but I'm only in Year 11.

@spence I also realise that doing Chemistry doesn't make you a Chemist, but I know that it's not even supposed to help with becoming a historian or a social worker.

 

[Trebla]

I think the Preliminary syllabus is fine. There aren't that many history related dot points and in fact most of the stuff covered in Preliminary is the most useful when it comes to tertiary level chemistry.

The HSC syllabus is a lot worse. Other than the fact there is more history, the main reason is because it does not cover as many fundamental concepts as it should, rather it only scratches the surface of them.

In the preliminary course for example, the mole concept and polarity concept are one of the most important fundamental ideas in chemistry.

However, in the HSC course such treatment of many important fundamental concepts is incomplete. For example, you cover all definitions of acids/bases up to Bronsted but completely ignore the Lewis acid/base definition which is extremely important in both organic and inorganic chemistry. Another example, is that you learn about a handful of organic chemistry reactions but rarely do you ever learn about their mechanisms which is a hugely important thing in organic chemistry because it helps understand how the reaction actually works as opposed to memorising the products and reactants.

 

[Chemical Ali]

There is no pure science. Science is done by people in a society and an economy; the idea of some dude in a white lab coat isolated from the world in his lab is a myth.

Wanna be a researcher in chemistry? See how far you get without being able to write about Implications of your research for Society & the Environment. A scientist with no funding is scarcely a scientist at all.