Ext math bad judge of ability (1 Viewer)

[spice girl]

Weisy's got a good pt. Depends on the topic, really. I can't imagine legal studies without political/social context.

 

[Zeech]

Spice:
Im not sure that you understand the consequence of removing social ethical and politial awareness and that type of education from the syllabuses. Perhaps the context of these issues may be better resolved, but the exclusion of them is crazzy.

Unless Australia is trying to breed a future generation of people that are ignorant of the operations, concepts, and requrements of an efficient political and social system, then they should retain the social and ethical aspects of each course.

Weisy: i agree totally when you say that the context of these studies should be improved. but will removing them give the same result? Your right in that people should enjoy the topics they have chosen, but the soical and ethical considerations are fundamental, and an awareness of them is v-important imho.

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Zeech
Spice:
Im not sure that you understand the consequence of removing social ethical and politial awareness and that type of education from the syllabuses. Perhaps the context of these issues may be better resolved, but the exclusion of them is crazzy.

Yes I do. It'll just revert back to the old syllabus. I have less complaints about the old syllabus. How crazy is their exclusion, Zeech?

Knowing about social and political issues to each topic is "interesting", but it shouldn't be used to differentiate between a "good" student and a "not-so-good" student. Because for science, we are learning science, not politics. For vocational subjects, i don't know, because i don't do them (except eco).

Just as a matter of interest, do SDD people learn: "the social, political and economical impacts of computer viruses"?

Learning contextual issues may be "interesting" and can certainly help students learn the relevance of their subject matter (as opposed to rote-learn some crap that has no relevance), but context shouldn't be more important than content.

Sure, it's good to have an "interesting" HSC, but doing the HSC "for fun" isn't my kind of thing. If they're looking for people with ability in particular subjects, they should design subjects with exams that are able to pick these from the rest of the population.

If the HSC is looking for something else, like "focus" and "commitment", well...

 

[Weisy]

Hear, hear. Bring back the old syllabus!

What should the discriminator between a 'good' and a 'not so good' student be?

Originally posted by Zeech
Your right in that people should enjoy the topics they have chosen, but the soical and ethical considerations are fundamental, and an awareness of them is v-important imho.

On a personal level, I agree. On a societal level, it is an interesting consideration, but I don't think you're being realistic. You seem to want to change the 'new generation' of young people into socially aware, and ethically 'right' people. But I don't believe this can be achieved just by making everyone learn about context. As I said before, our society promotes diversity and it then becomes a matter of what people are interested in.

 

[Zeech]

Knowing about social and political issues to each topic is "interesting", but it shouldn't be used to differentiate between a "good" student and a "not-so-good" student. Because for science, we are learning science, not politics

This isnt exactly what i meant. An understanding of the social and eithical issues is important because teaching the issues relating to each course, within that course it's self isthe only way that we can impose a knowlege of social, ethical, and political understanding to the students.
Otherwise, anyone who isnt doing a political or social related subject like myself would have nfi about the surrounding impacts of society and politics in the relation of my studies..

And in software, viruses fall under the responsibilities of software creators, to ensure that their distributed software is free from them etc.. This is a paradigm for the importance of S&E issues. Imagine i become a Software developer, and i am unaware of this responsibility, and others relating to it, them im in for trouble arent i..

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Weisy
What should the discriminator between a 'good' and a 'not so good' student be?

One word. Depth.

 

[Zeech]

Weisy:
I am defiantely a realistic as sposed to idealistic person. I dont want to create a New generation of young people, i just dont want to see the current awareness fall any lower than it is.. I know that by individually comming here and saying so, it's not going to make a difference, but if the BOS takes it out of the corriculum for subjects unrelated directly to society, then that definately will.

Spice: The whole point of the thread became mainly to show that depth is not used to determine a good from a not-so-good student..
Havent we talked about this?
didnt we agree that the determination of a good student came directly from their ability to write down what the syllabus says to, and there is more than one method of doing so. Yes one of these methods is depth and understanding, but the other is memorisaion...


Sounds all farmiliar no? (;

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by Zeech
Spice: The whole point of the thread became mainly to show that depth is not used to determine a good from a not-so-good student..
Havent we talked about this?
didnt we agree that the determination of a good student came directly from their ability to write down what the syllabus says to, and there is more than one method of doing so. Yes one of these methods is depth and understanding, but the other is memorisaion...

Yes, the argument that depth IS NOT the determinant, but I'm arguing that it SHOULD BE.

And I remember you arguing about how people who actually know what they're doing get low marks.

It's because these ppl have depth, and the exams don't assess that as a good thing.

 

[Weisy]

ok Zeech, understood.

As for the whole depth thing, it is all very poignant, but are we talking about depth of understanding as perceived by ourselves as what should be the determining factor, or what actually is the determining factor?

edit: sorry, didn't see spice girl's post above

ahhh...

I can't see the continuation of the discussion being extremely healthy for any of us....

 

[Zeech]

Spice:

Yes, the argument that depth IS NOT the determinant, but I'm arguing that it SHOULD BE.

And I remember you arguing about how people who actually know what they're doing get low marks.

It's because these ppl have depth, and the exams don't assess that as a good thing.

Yeah fucken aye. took the words streight from my mouth

Weisy:
I think your absol right. Both in the depth, and the fact that the discussion is too open-ended/time waster

*goes to the OTHER desk..*

 

[spice girl]

 

[BlackJack]

6 pages in around 24 hours... good stuff ppl. Fastest growing thread in the history of exam thoughts sections, or something... maybe even the entire forum excepting *certain* threads...

 

[Chicken]

The memory is in having to remember what to do in certain situations, but 3u and 4u are different to 2u IN THAT they are extensions of the SAME concepts.

2 UNIT is memory, but 3 UNIT and 4 UNIT are testing to see how much you know it by testing you ability to APPLY this knowledge. It is NOT just memory - it is applications.

 

[McLake]

You guys STILL fighting?

 

[macca202]

Originally posted by BlackJack
6 pages in around 24 hours... good stuff ppl. Fastest growing thread in the history of exam thoughts sections, or something... maybe even the entire forum excepting *certain* threads...

Iwould put that down to the lengthy respones, but even more so, the LENGTH of ZEECHES signature. Look how long it is :

 

[spice girl]

Originally posted by McLake
You guys STILL fighting?

No I think we're happy now. Fed up with 6 pages of saying the same thing.

 

[McLake]

Originally posted by spice girl

No I think we're happy now. Fed up with 6 pages of saying the same thing.

Good, wouldn't want to think this forum was keeping you from vital study ...

 

[Minai]

Wow...I spent like 1/2 hr reading simply this thread
It's too late for me to place my own input into this, as u guys have got basically everything covered
just one thing...ive been on this forum since the 2nd day it opened, and one of Weisy's earlier posts in this thread was the longest that I've seen!

and I agree with spice's views on the science syllabi, it should be concentrated on theory and application, rather than the social consequences...because thats wat an Arts degree is for
and that syllabus point, about Planck and Einstein - society and politics...wats the point? its more like history than physics
I do physics and Ive recently started to enjoy it simply because I'm a better humanities (English, Economics etc) student than a maths student, and I find this physics course rather easier than i initially expected, simply because its all on general theory that u simply regurgitate...I flip thru Jacaranda and become amazed at their mathematical proofs for certain concepts, yet I look in the syllabus and there is no mention of "Derive an expression to prove Balmer's equation", rather, "Discuss and critically analyse how Balmer's equation influenced the development of physics"
(its exaggerated i kno, but u understand)

right now im cramming everything I can for physics, and i think i can do well simply because it doesnt require a deeper knowledge

 

[BlackJack]

Originally posted by McLake


Good, wouldn't want to think this forum was keeping you from vital study ...

Curses! Revealed for what we truly are... you win, Mr. Lake... this time...

*goes back to open dusty physics notes to Space: first dot point...*

ah, but this lengthy treatise serves to increase our skills in logical reasoning, which shall be required in big 6~8 mark questions... where's thy victory now...?

 

[-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-]

can u guys like stop dissing the hsc now? Coz would it make u feel better if they decided to change the whole hsc and make it better for next yr?