NSW Science syllabuses (physics, chem and bio) are a global embarrassment (1 Viewer)

[coolcat6778]

Pre 2000s HSC Physics exams weren't extraordinary, they were the minimum standard of what high school physics should be... Now, it's complete bullshit and embarrassing.

1995-2000 HSC Exam Papers - Board of Studies Teaching and Educational Standards NSW

www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au

2u Physics

https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2000exams/hsc00_physics/00physics.pdf

3u Engineering science aka physics

https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2000exams/hsc00_enginsci/00engscience3U.pdf

What's notable to me is that the old physics exams used the keyword briefly numerous times for qualitative questions (which is the norm in physics exams) and also only giving 4 lines maximum for describing questions. (which is again the norm). What the keyword "Briefly" means to me is a fuck you to wordcels. In addition, quantitative questions comprised 85% of the pre 2000s HSC physics exams in comparison to 30-40% now. The quantitative questions were also generally deeper than the current extremely surface level quantitative questions. There were 0% essay style regurgitation or history questions if you chose an actual elective (rotation or engineering physics)

Here's an example of a rotational mechanics HSC question, a topic which should've never been removed.



Gordon Stanley, is the reason the 21st century HSC program is so fucking awful, from the miserable English syllabus to the subpar sciences we do right now.

 

[coolcat6778]

Left-wing influence has destroyed HSC Physics from its pre 2000s former glory


The retarded BS history stuff we do in HSC physics right now was literally optional back then, people who were actually interested in physics would've picked rotational mechanics or physics in technology. Board of Studies literally acknowledged these topics as History. Board of Studies should've never added this had they known it was going to culminate in the current shit stain 21st century syllabus we have today.

NESA doesn't even acknowledge module 7 and 8 topics as history. Well NESA, just cause you don't call these topics history anymore, it doesn't make it an actual physics topic. NESA is a fucking miserable corporation. I literally had hope when I saw that they were going to release a new syllabus soon, only for it to be an even more regressed version. Welp, HSC is and always will be a shit program ever since the y2k.

Left-wingers shouldn't be allowed to influence fucking STEM subjects. Add whatever the fuck you want in the modern history syllabus, including anti-fascism and indigenous propaganda, I don't give a shit, but don't fucking touch STEM. This destruction of actual science education is quite literally the anti-intellectualism the left likes to moan about - this time, it's not trivial. Who the fuck gives a shit about the arts? I didn't fucking chose physics to learn history. I'm actually fucking pissed.

To deflect this change as unrelated to left-wing politics is completely delusional. The favouring of the humanities and arts over STEM is inherently left-wing. It's even more clear when they just introduced aboriginal identity politics (obviously left-wing) into the 2027 Physics syllabus.

The HSC has been tough and fucking miserable to me due to the fact it favours absolutely useless English style essay writing, memorisation and regurgitation.

Honestly, how the fuck are incredibly prestigious universities overseas trusting the HSC for entrance into a uni of the same calibre as University of Cambridge or Imperial College? The fact that cambridge says "This program may not be rigorous enough" for certain qualifications in certain countries, yet allows something as shit as the HSC is crazy. For science, HSC syllabus is the LEAST rigorous in the entire globe (essay writing and regurgitation doesn't fucking make it rigorous in any shape or form).

Side note: Currently, all the physics Olympiad kids in Australia come from Vic, not NSW. If that's not telling about our dog-fuck syllabus I don't know what is.

tl:dr
There was a point in time where HSC Physics used to be quite rigorous, now it amounts to nothing.

 

[dillydally]

political neutrality for non-political things is really a gift nowadays

 

[coolcat6778]

@tywebb what are your thoughts on the current physics syllabus compared to pre 2000s?

 

[coolcat6778]

HSC BIOLOGY IS A FUCKING JOKE, AP (US) AND VCE (VICTORIA) ARE MODELS FOR AN ACTUAL BIOLOGY SYLLABUS.


THIS IS ALL FROM THE 2024 PAPER. ONE FUCKING PAPER WITH THIS MUCH PURE REGURGITATION. THIS ALSO ISNT COMPREHENSIVE, THERES NUMEROUS MORE QUESTIONS LIKE THIS IN THE SAME EXACT PAPER
HSC BIOLOGY IS A FUCKING JOKE

Just take a fucking look at the VCE syllabus, the questions there aren't FUCKING asking you to memorise case studies unlike the fucking HSC, IT ALSO DOESNT FUCKING ASK A POLITICAL HUMANITIES QUESTION ON FUCKING ETHICS

https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-03/2024biology-w.pdf

 

[coolcat6778]

I didn't expect it to get this fucking bad I genuinely always thought only Physics was the dumbed down science before looking at other states' and countries' papers. NESA needs to fucking do a meeting or some shit, this is fucking unacceptable.

 

[coolcat6778]

A fucking 7 marker 30 liner on fucking ethics, are you fucking kidding me? 20 marks on fucking expecting me to pull out random examples from my fucking ass?

The thing is, biology was never MEANT to be a fucking boring as shit rote learning subject. IT was genuinely meant to be fun, like the VCE

 

[C2H6O]

bro do you even do bio?

 

[coolcat6778]

bro do you even do bio?

nah i used to tho. it's crazy how prelim sciences are much more rigorous than the actual final hsc exam. Also this extends to chemistry as well. HSC Chemistry still has too much stupid bureaucracy just like HSC physics and bio when compared to VCE or overseas examinations like A Level and AP.

 

[C2H6O]

can i ask if your physics and english and maths was compressed or accelerated?

 

[coolcat6778]

can i ask if your physics and english and maths was compressed or accelerated?

compressed, that's right

 

[coolcat6778]

The real reason why NESA keeps involving science with politics at the expense of course rigor
I'm certain that the only reasons NESA keeps dumbing down the syllabus is to: one, indoctrinate the youth with left-wing agenda; two, lobbying from low intelligence science teachers who aren't smart enough to teach real science - after all, why as a science teacher would I want to teach a more cognitively demanding course, if I still get paid the same?; three, bar people who aren't good at hsc english style writing from a good university. Fuck them

 

[lunaaaa4403]

bitch go fucking study what u doinhg

 

[coolcat6778]

The real reason why NESA keeps involving science with politics at the expense of course rigor
I'm certain that the only reasons NESA keeps dumbing down the syllabus is to: one, indoctrinate the youth with left-wing agenda; two, lobbying from low intelligence science teachers who aren't smart enough to teach real science - after all, why as a science teacher would I want to teach a more cognitively demanding course, if I still get paid the same?; three, bar people who aren't good at hsc english style writing from a good university. Fuck them

 

[C2H6O]

Give this guy his own SMH article atp
Or maybe skynews

 

[coolcat6778]

Give this guy his own SMH article atp
Or maybe skynews

bro I'm hoping someone from like SMH quotes my posts soon. NESA needs to know just how miserable our science education is compared to other states in Australia and overseas. Nobody else has complained as vocally as me, however I'm sure many others share the same opinion on our science syllabus, i.e. too much writing and politics at the expense of course rigour and depth.

If someone ran a standardized science exam among most recent high school graduates, I wouldn't doubt NSW would come dead last. Who's fault will it be? certainly the failed education system. I find it funny how Americans say that their HS curriculum is so low quality, yet they haven't seen NSW's. Americans get to do AP courses in High School, which are much more rigorous than any HSC subject except extension 2 maths. Americans genuinely get a better High School education than New South Waliens.

 

[Trebla]

I’ve merged your threads into one rant thread. Please refrain from making new threads which basically repeat the same thing over and over.

 

[coolcat6778]

this thread pertained to physics originally. I made a new thread since it was a separate issue

 

[carrotsss]

yeah HSC physics is sorta silly, maths ext 2 is way way more useful/important for uni physics. chem imo is a bit better designed but still not perfect at all. its annoying but at least the current physics syllabus is better than the one from most of the 2000s/2010s which was even more qualitative heavy, they changed it from 2019 onwards to be a fair bit better.

 

[coolcat6778]

yeah HSC physics is sorta silly, maths ext 2 is way way more useful/important for uni physics. chem imo is a bit better designed but still not perfect at all. its annoying but at least the current physics syllabus is better than the one from most of the 2000s/2010s which was even more qualitative heavy, they changed it from 2019 onwards to be a fair bit better.

While the current 2017 syllabus is much better than the late 2000s syllabus, it really doesn't compare to pre 2000s HSC or even the current day VCE physics syllabus. Theres still too much emphasis on extended responses and essay writing, especially for module 7 and 8. Plus, all the quantitative questions are almost always surface level, despite there being possibilities for more rigour and depth via including a few more mechanics topics such as rotational mechanics (a topic that was in the old hsc physics syllabus).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

This question really should be a 1 marker multiple choice with four paragraph options. There's no good reason this should be a 7 marker besides testing your writing skills. This would be a perfect multiple choice question, not so much a section 2 question. Not only that, these marking schemes are ambiguous for no reason. The sample answer uses quantitative analysis, even though it only asked for an explanation?


These questions do not belong in physics. Board of Studies (superseded by NESA) even acknowledged these topics "History of Physical discoveries" in the pre 2000s syllabus, as an optional topic for those who don't want to study physics at a higher level.