MedVision ad

Well that was a load of crap... (2 Viewers)

mercury

.:: Hg ::.
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
307
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
in conclusion:
if u happen to do 2u physics, 2u chem, 2u bio and 4u eng
u r doing 10 units of english :D

only maths is still free from corruption... the day maths becomes corrupted = the day we should :chainsaw: the hsc
 
Last edited:

~TeLEpAtHeTiC~

Aesthetically Challenged
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
654
Location
Shanty Hut Ge
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by mercury
in conclusion:
if u happen to do 2u physics, 2u chem, 2u bio and 4u eng
u r doing 10 units of english :D

only maths is still free from corruption... the day maths becomes corrupted = the day we should :chainsaw: the hsc
LMAO
thats meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 

tegs

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
102
Location
Bathurst
Ok, I don't get the connection about how thats meant to be more appealing to the girls.
I'm a maths girl, I hate english, it always stuffs me up. I get shit marks in the english exams, and the questions in maths and science exams which screw me up are the badly worded english questions.
I do not agree that just becuase someones a girl, they're going to have a greater affinity with english than maths. Grow up and move along into the 21st century, or maybe even the 20th.
 

ro

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
36
Location
lunchbox3n.
chem is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more history/english orientated then physics!
 

Bannanafish

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
153
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
even more so is biology

btw tegs, statistics show that it does
grow up and face the facts :D jk
 

kaseita

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
454
Location
Castle Hill
and statistics are always exaggerated ;)

it just says that girls are more englishy than guys - now how many guys are englishy :p
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
A science teacher said to me this year, and she's 'ozzie':
"In the seventies, there was this great influx of asian students and many of them outperformed the locals in sciences...."
 

LadyMoon

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
109
Location
Watching over you from the Moon
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Well the new syllabus for physics is much better than the previous one. The other was just an extension on maths. Physics is all about explaining concepts and observations, thus you have to write a lot. The whole purpose of the new syllabus is to make Physics more applicable to people who arent extremely strong in maths, but would like to learn and understand concepts of science.
So if you can write answers than calculate them, it allows for discussion and a range of answers, thus it is actually easier (other than multiple choice) to get marks!

Dont spread hate :p
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Anyway, I think the real reason for changing the science syllabuses and other changes for is to create an illusion for students that they are doing well by squeezing the reported marks to a narrow range

For example, there use to be 2 different types of history courses. One is mroe academically worthy, with many essays for students to write while the other is less academic and have activities such as empathy tasks among other fun activities. Now there's only one ancient history and one modern history class, that combines the old courses.

Many extension courses are removed. such as 3 Unit legal studies. This removes the perceived triviality of the lesser courses.

Difficult mathematics are chopped from sciences so that more people can achieve a 'decent' mark.

And this thing of reporting against standards just virtually bumps the marks up
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Originally posted by smeyo
just remember who did and said what
Ah.. see how we've turned back even in historiography and the study of history? There has been a movement in the past century to investigate social history - history which looks at social conditions and the lives of everyday folks, instead of concentrating history on great white males, whether they were kings, emperors, generals, or whatever. The history syllabus, sorry I mean physics now brings back the tradition of learning about the idols and elites. And to propogate their legendary discoveries.

Please, leave the arts for the elites, science should be for the masses.
 
Last edited:

Constip8edSkunk

Joga Bonito
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
2,397
Location
Maroubra
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by LadyMoon
Well the new syllabus for physics is much better than the previous one. The other was just an extension on maths. Physics is all about explaining concepts and observations, thus you have to write a lot. The whole purpose of the new syllabus is to make Physics more applicable to people who arent extremely strong in maths, but would like to learn and understand concepts of science.
So if you can write answers than calculate them, it allows for discussion and a range of answers, thus it is actually easier (other than multiple choice) to get marks!

Dont spread hate :p
Well the new syllabus for physics is much worse than the previous one. This is just an extension on English/History. Physics is not about regurgitating concepts and observations blindly with minimal thought, you should be taught the underlying concepts with problem solving applications rather than memorising superficial dot points and descriptions. The whole purpose of the new syllabus is to make Physics more applicable to people who arent extremely strong in maths, and would like to learn another arts subject.
So if you can write essays, mini essays, arguments, discussions, assessments, evaluations with fluency and verbosity without quite actually understanding what you wrote, you win. it allows for discussion and a range of answers, thus it is actually another easier (other than multiple choice) arts subject to get free marks!

Just Kidding :p
 

hetfield_86

New Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Messages
14
Location
Sydney, Northern Beaches
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Physics should not be completely maths based or English based like they have made it in previous years...it should actually be physics based. All these BOS people are trying to please to many people at once by changing the syllabus to allow these courses to be easier (or harder) for certain minority groups. The information we learn in these courses should actually be helping us in the real world...but barely any of it does (and the stuff that can is made to complex for us to understand). I mean realistically how many times in your life are you going to have to write an essay in 40 minutes (or even write an essay for that matter)? The quality of our high school education is going down the drain.
I took up physics and chemistry because I had a love for science. I like to know how things work and why they work. I personally believe that throughout this last year I have learnt a very very SMALL amount of important concepts on the universeBut mostly I have learnt garbage thats only use is to astound the lower class of man :p.

And now I shall step off my soap box and retire for the night. I must get up bright and early to study for Chemistry.

Remember if all else fails...there is always Newton...:p
 

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Originally posted by LadyMoon
The whole purpose of the new syllabus is to make Physics more applicable to people who arent extremely strong in maths, but would like to learn and understand concepts of science.
Senior science is quite suitable for this purpose, I think physics should be there to prepare us for tertiary study.

Originally posted by LadyMoon
The other was just an extension on maths. Physics is all about explaining concepts and observations, thus you have to write a lot.
mathematics is an inseparable part of physics.

To prove my point, please attempt the following:

explain why a mass defect leads to a release of energy. And as HSC students, we don't understand why E=mc^2, if you use that formula please explain why it is so and not E=3mc^2 or E=mc^5.

it is not possible to change the speed of a charged particle by a magnetic field, explain. One of this year's students apparently did not know this and talked about using varying magnetic fields to accelerate electrons. Perhaps a result of removing mathematics from the course.

Explain how max planck's assumption of energy being quantised and discrete instead of being continous solved the 'Ultraviolet catastrophe' for black bodies., in particular, explain how does this postulate imply that the radiation intensity would eventually decrease to nothing at a sufficiently high frequency. I had trouble convincing a friend that this is the consequence.. coz I can't bring mathematics into my explanation.

Why would transmission by a higher voltage reduce energy loss to heat?

How did Bardeen, Cooper and Stirrer came up with their theory on superconductivity? Just by thinking general concepts? no, they did alot of work on mathematics before they proposed the theory.

Originally posted by LadyMoon
So if you can write answers than calculate them, it allows for discussion and a range of answers, thus it is actually easier (other than multiple choice) to get marks!
It's easier to fudge a half answer now(those responses that get -6/10 to 8/10) but it is also harder to score full marks because only a few students would have idea of exactly what the markers are looking for.
 
Last edited:

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Originally posted by hetfield_86
it should actually be physics based....

The information we learn in these courses should actually be helping us in the real world...but barely any of it does (and the stuff that can is made to complex for us to understand)
the first point sounds rhetorical, so now could you please explain what does 'physics based' mean?

I totally agree with your second point, let me list the things we should chop from the HSC:

From mathematics:
Induction, Weirdo inequalities, divisibility proofs, complex numbers, algebra (we can always do it by computers now). Irrationality of e or pi, who cares.. 38 decimal places is enough calculate the radius or the known universe with an error less than the size of a hydrogen atom

From English:
Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Poetry, Language techniques, Stimulus booklets.

From Physics:

Relativity, Space travel, Super conductors and all those introductory quantum physics, because it's only a few geeks who will need to know.

Ancient history should be dropped altogether
 
Last edited:

<METALHEAD>

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
22
Location
Newcastle
Physics is meant to be physics, and this test was specifically geared those who knew all the exact dot pointed related historys, whether they understood the physics or not. Now in my class there are 2 of us who click really well with PHYSICS. And there are 2 people who studied really hard on and knew all the history. Now good for them, but there are other courses for that. I would prefer if physics ability actually related to a decent result in physics. Its a joke.

Btw, Hetfield_86, Tallica Rock! Got ur tickets?
 

LadyMoon

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
109
Location
Watching over you from the Moon
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Affinity
Senior science is quite suitable for this purpose, I think physics should be there to prepare us for tertiary study.


mathematics is an inseparable part of physics.

To prove my point, please attempt the following:

explain why a mass defect leads to a release of energy. And as HSC students, we don't understand why E=mc^2, if you use that formula please explain why it is so and not E=3mc^2 or E=mc^5.

it is not possible to change the speed of a charged particle by a magnetic field, explain. One of this year's students apparently did not know this and talked about using varying magnetic fields to accelerate electrons. Perhaps a result of removing mathematics from the course.

Explain how max planck's assumption of energy being quantised and discrete instead of being continous solved the 'Ultraviolet catastrophe' for black bodies., in particular, explain how does this postulate imply that the radiation intensity would eventually decrease to nothing at a sufficiently high frequency. I had trouble convincing a friend that this is the consequence.. coz I can't bring mathematics into my explanation.

Why would transmission by a higher voltage reduce energy loss to heat?

How did Bardeen, Cooper and Stirrer came up with their theory on superconductivity? Just by thinking general concepts? no, they did alot of work on mathematics before they proposed the theory.



It's easier to fudge a half answer now(those responses that get -6/10 to 8/10) but it is also harder to score full marks because only a few students would have idea of exactly what the markers are looking for.

Actually most of the questions you are asking are questions that need to be answered in detail or and are "out of the scope" of our syallabus. The whole purpose of physics is to give us a foundation to the concepts that will be studied in university. As much as i want to know how the BCS theory came about, you know it is going to be complex, and we just dont have the time in on course to look at all this in detail, let alone remember it. Plus it just not physics we are (were) doing at high school, there are atleast another 5 subjects!
Why make it hard for yourself?
See why learn detailed concepts when you might not even want to continue the studies elsewhere?
Physics is just like everyother course; we just touch the surface of it, if we go into detail about quantum mechanics, there arent any students going to be doing physics.
For example when you read a novel in primary school, all you "analyse" is the plot. But when you get to 7th or 8th grade, you start to look at the themes, plot, and characters. When you get to 10th grade you start to look at it in more detail, relate the story to context (to a lesser extent), and then when you hit 12th grade you start looking at the mileu, context and interpreations of the novel in different era, relate the message of the novel to current or past worl events. A typical example of this is: Animal Farm. When you read animal farm in primary school, you had no idea it was about revolutionary figures or political ideologies, you didnt know that it was a farcical parody of democracy...
Another example in Chemistry: All through highschool we learn that photosynthesis is just one reaction. Go to uni and there is about 10 reactions in between.
Same thing with Physics at high school, now we are just learning about the basic concepts. If you start applying detailed maths into physics then it just gets too complicated.

But answers to questions like:
Originally posted by Affinity
Why would transmission by a higher voltage reduce energy loss to heat?
We already know. (well you should have learnt why)
Power=currentxVoltage
apllying the Conservation of energy
VI=VI
 

Dave_B

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
10
and ohmic resistance = R * I^2

thus lower current = lower energy loss to heat
 
Last edited:

Affinity

Active Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Oslo
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
there arent any students going to be doing physics.
ofcourse, not many will choose to study pure physics, but bear in mind that for virtually all engineering courses, people study physics, with alot of numbers and integral signs too

Actually most of the questions you are asking are questions that need to be answered in detail or and are "out of the scope" of our syallabus
this reminds me of James Hacker in Yes Minister. Those questions are based on course content. Yes, I know it's out of the scope of our syllabus, and that's exactly what I am criticising. I hope I made my point that you can't go far in physics without some mathematics. Taking out mathematics makes physics as good as an HSC english essay without quotes nor text references.

The physics syllabus includes too much fancy stuff such as super conductivity and transistors and special relativity. While they are very relevant to our lives, it's no good to make an impression to the public that we're being taught about those phenomenoms and devices when we're only touching it on the surface, or approaching it with jargon and rhetoric, just like what we do for our humanity essays

Same thing with Physics at high school, now we are just learning about the basic concepts. If you start applying detailed maths into physics then it just gets too complicated.
It's not too complicated, What did our friends do back in the 1990s 1980s? 70? And not to mention that many syllabuses for high school go deeper.

Finally, working on the 'honour system'(where people accept things from authority instead of verifying it themselves) contradicts the basic inquisitive nature of science.

PS: Guess which book I found most useful this year? The title roughly translates into: Ways of arguing in physics. And you see a quote from Marx, Engel or Mao every 5 pages or so. It's quite good for learning the history of physics. The only downside of the book is seeing every phenomenom in terms of 2 opposing binaries.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top