Post by: pi on January 04, 2013, 04:11:52 pm
Succinctly the subject and its contents can be summarised by this gif:
(http://i.imgur.com/1tf3V.gif)
There are a number of reasons I chose that gif, and I don't think there's any need to go into all of them. So I'll go over the main issues.
The false lure...
If you asked a normal non-VCE-keen yr10 what they expected physics to be about, they would include: explosions, fire, calculus, black holes, and the list of exciting features goes on, culminating in what many would expect to be an exciting and challenging subject to get a 40+ raw in.
What they get in reality: 300kg cyclists, significant figures, counting squares, electric circuits that don't work all the time, a textbook with a skateboard on the front cover, and the list of disappointments goes on, culminating in what in reality is a dull and disappointing curriculum.
The fabled cheat cheat
This course is the only one in the VCE curriculum that has a cheat sheet. Now many would say in outrage: "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BOUND REFERENCES AND STUFF, AREN'T THEY, LIKE, CHEAT SHEETS BUT BIGGER?", to which I would answer "no". This is because VCE Physics has a *lot* of theory compared to the VCE maths subjects and Further "Maths". Having said that, it has a *lot* less theory than Bio or Psych, and arguably Chem too.
Hence, the question needs to be asked: "Is there a need for a cheat sheet?". Again, my answer would be "no".
Not only does the cheat sheet make it very easy to hit a good study score (just dump all the theory, formulas, pics, examples on it with size 1.5 font and done!) but it also adds to the disappointment of the subject. I mean, what's the point learning so much theory when it's going to be chucked on a cheat sheet and copied off it word-for-word anyway if it comes on the exam?
An argument put forward against this might be: "the questions the majority of the cohort struggle with are conceptual, rather than calculator-based". Sure, I can't deny that and looking at the assessor's reports will tell you that's true. What does that mean? The majority of students aren't being taught how to make good cheat sheets with model answers. It's that simple.
Sure, if you're aiming to be in the top 2% of the state, having *some* understanding of what's going on is important to get those conceptual marks, but let's be honest, at least 90% of the state aren't aiming for 45+ raw, so that's not really an excuse to have the cheat sheet.
If VCAA wanted to give the subject some respect, they'd remove the cheat sheet. But clearly, they also think the subject is a bit of a joke.
Physics has loads of maths... Right..? >.>
Nope.
The only maths VCE physics has are:
- Rearranging formulas (which can all be pre-done on your cheat sheet)
- Converting units (which can all be pre-done on your cheat sheet)
- Counting squares
- Plugging numbers into formulas (aided by scientific calc)
Wikipedia says:
Quote
Mathematics is the language used for compact description of the order in nature, especially the laws of physics. This was noted and advocated by Pythagoras, Plato, Galileo, and Newton.
I wonder if those big names would be impressed to see what the highest level of physics VCAA has to offer in terms of maths.
But alas, the comment might come up: "VCE Physics is designed to ensure one does not need to take Methods or Spesh in order to go through the content". Sure, but then don't call it Physics. Physics has maths, do it properly or not at all imo.
So again, VCAA provides another disappointment. A distinct lack of maths.
Units 1 and 2 will surely be helpful for Units 3 and 4, that's the way VCE works right?
That's the way most subjects work, but again, VCE Physics fails here too.
Essentially everything your do in Units 1&2 that is relevant you do in Units 3&4 is covered again, and in largely the same pace too (much like Methods, but with no maths).
Some might argue that the role was to provide a "broad overview of all areas of physics". But in reality, does it actually do that? Most of the chapters are covered in next to no depth (in comparison to the supplementary material in Unit 1&2 Bio for example). How is a student supposed to get that broad grasp when they don't even know what they're doing half the time.
The "flow" between units is very poor in this regard.
The "plug and play" nature of the subject
To get a 40+ in this subject is simple, you need 1) a good cheat sheet 2) be handy with a calculator. That's it.
Calculation questions are usually very straightforward, with the majority of marks being lost on 1) units 2) plugging things in wrong. Now, again, some might say: "But isn't VCE Maths similar, careless errors blah blah blah?". Well, yes it is similar, but VCE Maths is far form plug-and-play. There is a lot of application of concepts, not just subbing things into V=IR or v=u+at to get an answer.
What's more, is that from most accounts, physics in uni is completely different. Good one VCE Physics!
The textbooks are huge, surely they're good quality?
Again, the subject disappoints.
The Heinemann text is a good 600-odd pages, and in all honesty, is best used as a paper-weight or a door-stopper. The texts did not at all prepare you for the exams, not in terms of questions or theory.
In the chance that your teacher wasn't great and you didn't have access to any help, you'd be in a fair bit of trouble with just the textbooks.
So there we go, some very unbiased points regarding the subject that is "VCE Physics".
If I were to provide an overall rating, I'd probably have to give it a lowly 0/5 for reasons that are aforementioned.
Post by: HighLatency on January 04, 2013, 04:13:30 pm
Post by: Hancock on January 04, 2013, 04:14:16 pm
Post by: Special At Specialist on January 04, 2013, 04:32:37 pm
I love astrophysics, astronomy and calculus, but there was hardly any of that in VCE physics, especially when the only thing my teacher knew how to teach was electricity (arguably the most boring physics topic ever).
Post by: Hancock on January 04, 2013, 04:41:17 pm
edit: spelling
Post by: Planck's constant on January 04, 2013, 04:51:07 pm
The Physics in Specialist Maths is better.
Post by: pi on January 04, 2013, 04:53:13 pm
The Physics in Specialist Maths is better.
Exactly.
It's like they've just gone: "Lets make a physics subject with pretty much just basic theory and then makes let them have a cheat sheet so they don't have to remember the theory, plus we'll add in a few equations".
-_-
Post by: ShiCarnt on January 06, 2013, 12:04:44 am
Post by: duhherro on January 06, 2013, 09:53:48 pm
Post by: thushan on January 06, 2013, 10:20:54 pm
Exactly.
It's like they've just gone: "Lets make a physics subject with pretty much just basic theory and then makes let them have a cheat sheet so they don't have to remember the theory, plus we'll add in a few equations".
-_-
Just go in without a cheat sheet.
Post by: brenden on January 07, 2013, 02:30:57 am
Just go in without a cheat sheet.Absolutely ferocious. Good suggestion #fuckthepolice
Post by: pi on January 07, 2013, 01:57:02 pm
Just go in without a cheat sheet.
Why would you if everyone else has one?
Post by: Planck's constant on January 07, 2013, 02:57:29 pm
Why would you if everyone else has one?
You just go around saying 'cheat sheets are for babies' and this psyches out the opposition :)
Post by: wanigara on January 07, 2013, 04:35:53 pm
Good teacher or tutor is always helpful to create a passion on Physics..
Post by: WhoTookMyUsername on January 07, 2013, 05:16:20 pm
Post by: lemonade on January 07, 2013, 06:00:00 pm
I did Unit 1&2 Physics last year and hated it. I blame my lazy and irresponsible Physics teacher for my lack of motivation in this subject.
Anyways, I dropped Physics and picked up Psychology.
Psychology is somewhat okay to me but I'm not sure if I'll regret this decision later down the year.
So should I continue with Physics or stick to Psychology?
Post by: pi on January 07, 2013, 06:03:45 pm
Post by: HighLatency on January 07, 2013, 06:05:11 pm
I'm not sure if I should do VCE Phyiscs in year 12.
I did Unit 1&2 Physics last year and hated it. I blame my lazy and irresponsible Physics teacher for my lack of motivation in this subject.
Anyways, I dropped Physics and picked up Psychology.
Psychology is somewhat okay to me but I'm not sure if I'll regret this decision later down the year.
So should I continue with Physics or stick to Psychology?
Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology Biology
Post by: thushan on January 07, 2013, 06:20:39 pm
May be VCE Physics course is not fulfilling all the excitements and expectation of a novice but it gives some exposure to very basics that necessary from Engineering perspective. Some of the basics behind the course structure will deepen students understanding in your day to day activities which you never ever pay attention until you study some basics concepts in year 12 Physics. True that there is no up market or trendy topics are involved, but still give a insight on what Physics is...
Good teacher or tutor is always helpful to create a passion on Physics..
Pi is very passionate about Physics. That's why we call him LovesPhysics.
Post by: lemonade on January 07, 2013, 06:23:28 pm
I'm not really sure, I hated the subject because of that ONE teacher. I actually enjoyed Motion, when I started to do some questions.
However, stopped trying when I found out she wasn't going to check the homework or even teach us properly lol.
I heard the old teacher is coming back so maybe just maybe I'll start liking the subject again... or hate it again...
Post by: SenriAkane on January 07, 2013, 06:32:14 pm
VCE 3/4 physics : why the hell are we doing this and how to fail at explaining concepts with very minimal maths
Post by: lemonade on January 07, 2013, 06:43:24 pm
Post by: SenriAkane on January 07, 2013, 06:52:49 pm
I want to do engineering when I finish school... if that might change anyone's opinion. Oh and I chose Psych because I heard from others that if I liked Bio, I would like Psychology.Engineering would require physics along the way but you can do a bridging course in Monash.
Make sure you do chem though.
Post by: lemonade on January 07, 2013, 07:06:52 pm
Post by: jaydee on January 07, 2013, 07:07:38 pm
Post by: Conic on January 07, 2013, 09:48:25 pm
Post by: nerfsdacier on January 07, 2013, 09:52:11 pm
Post by: ShiCarnt on January 07, 2013, 11:30:56 pm
your tricked into thinking physics is enjoyable in units 1 and 2, altho i didnt do unit 1 i heard it was very (relatively) interesting. when units 3 and 4 come around, however, it becomes not a test of skills and knowledge but who can be bothered enough to do work for the subject because it is so unbelievably dry having to do questions that involve explaining why you should build some road at some angle
Post by: polar on January 07, 2013, 11:33:09 pm
but physics is alright, the theory is pretty interesting lol
Post by: Hancock on January 08, 2013, 12:01:52 am
Post by: pi on January 08, 2013, 12:04:09 am
While it may not be the best subject, I think that severity of it's 'sucking' is exaggerated in this thread.
Well, the thread was made by me :P
Post by: Hancock on January 08, 2013, 01:09:18 am
Post by: Jenny_2108 on January 08, 2013, 04:56:35 am
While it may not be the best subject, I think that severity of it's 'sucking' is exaggerated in this thread.
True, if it sucks, why do people keep doing it? haha
Post by: SenriAkane on January 08, 2013, 09:30:25 am
True, if it sucks, why do people keep doing it? hahaIt's pi` so you have to expect that he will say something about VCE physics eventually.
Post by: Planck's constant on January 08, 2013, 02:04:44 pm
But VCE physics is terrible.
And the most terrible thing about VCE physics are the textbooks.
I defy anyone to read read the Jacaranda chapters on the wave theory of light and understand what is going on. The material is not even presented in the right order. It reads like there was a change in the Study Design at some point and the material was hacked and randomly rearranged.
Post by: Shenz0r on January 09, 2013, 01:26:22 pm
Post by: pi on January 09, 2013, 05:23:16 pm
Actually you know what, I agree with Pi. VCE Physics sucks.
Post by: Conic on January 10, 2013, 03:35:09 am
Post by: FlorianK on January 10, 2013, 04:10:04 am
"As much as we wanna know about shakespear .... and what do I know about shakespear? its not a great deal, but I know a bit. And I think people, who read shakespear and are professionally into shakespear should know about quantum-theory at the level I know about shakespear"
Post by: deleted on March 24, 2013, 04:58:41 pm
Hoping to do well on Physics (probably my best subject).
Post by: availn on March 25, 2013, 09:39:38 pm
Post by: Lasercookie on March 25, 2013, 09:56:10 pm
Hang on, was this always stickied? :oI'm assuming that pi felt that everyone should read his unbiased review.
Post by: sunny246 on March 30, 2013, 07:19:22 pm
be warned Ochlocracy
your tricked into thinking physics is enjoyable in units 1 and 2, altho i didnt do unit 1 i heard it was very (relatively) interesting. when units 3 and 4 come around, however, it becomes not a test of skills and knowledge but who can be bothered enough to do work for the subject because it is so unbelievably dry having to do questions that involve explaining why you should build some road at some angle
Is it very easy?
Post by: BigAl on March 30, 2013, 11:14:37 pm
I want to do engineering when I finish school... if that might change anyone's opinion. Oh and I chose Psych because I heard from others that if I liked Bio, I would like Psychology.
You don't need physics as long as you're doing chem in vce. For engineering, you'll have specific physics concepts in your area anyway..such as materials, dynamics, fluid mechanics etc...more like applied physics
Post by: pi on August 15, 2013, 09:31:18 pm
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q86/r270/s720x720/1176242_10201257817241191_1974945462_n.jpg)
The responses for those keen (some are probably not "safe for work")
Spoiler
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/944791_10201268138379213_1034433678_n.jpg)
Post by: lzxnl on August 15, 2013, 09:44:23 pm
Post by: Twanny666 on August 29, 2013, 09:21:19 pm
I can't stand learning from the Heineman Text book.
In 1/2 I really struggled but I guess I didn't work at all haha..
My classes aren't really productive and I find that I learn a lot in class that is unrelated to what will be on my VCE Exam at the end of the year.
Most of our Sac's are completely dissimilar to some of the Practice Exams I have done.
I feel like I'm wasting a lot of my time... but the subject isn't relatively hard, especially when I just write most of the theory out from a cheat sheet.
Post by: P0ppinfr3sh on October 09, 2013, 08:35:42 pm
Are you kidding? It has the reverse effect on me. I hate doing VCE physics homework. I really do. Even though spesh is just as simple for me, it's at least mentally stimulating and interesting to do. Physics is just poorly designed and a mental anaesthetic for me. I mean 100 Checkpoints question on the photoelectric effect and wave nature of matter...when really I could group all of them into around ten question types or so.
I agree. I've found that physics is just essentially subbing values into an equation and as you said, there's an extremely limited amount of question types for each topic (at least this is what i've found in my experience) and it does eventually get boring and tiresome, (while on the other hand i reckon i could do spesh questions for hours).
P.S. Personally i thought interactions of light and matter was the most area of study, (although we didn't go into the depth that i would've liked).
Post by: lzxnl on October 09, 2013, 09:00:20 pm
Post by: Aurelian on October 09, 2013, 09:18:12 pm
Light and matter...part of it was a lie...electrons don't form standing waves around atoms -.- there are electron-electron repulsions too.
Sure, contemporary quantum mechanics doesn't view electronic structure in this simple way anymore, but the model in the VCE course was once taken very seriously by scientists. If you're going to consider this part of the course a "lie" because it concerns a model for something we now have better models for, then you're going to have to call all of the stuff on classical mechanics a "lie" as well.
As an aside, it's also not entirely true that electrons don't form standing waves. While we don't model them as simple one-dimensional waves anymore, the wavefunctions we do use to describe atomic orbitals aren't called wavefunctions for no reason...!
Post by: lzxnl on October 09, 2013, 09:36:49 pm
You're right, the wavefunction does suggest that the electrons form some form of wave structure which is stable with itself, but these wave functions aren't simple sine curves that we can stretch and squeeze to form different energy levels.
As for your point on classical mechanics, classical mechanics generally works very well to a high degree of precision for a lot of everyday scenarios; it's a very good approximation. The Bohr model works for one specific instance where the nucleus is surrounded by one electron, and fails miserably elsewhere. I don't quite see how we can make an analogy here.
Post by: Aurelian on October 09, 2013, 09:53:25 pm
Electrons certainly don't form standing waves in the way that VCE physics suggests they do; not fitting sine curves to a circle at least. The implicit assumption is that this is how all atoms operate as well; at least, I've seen questions that make general statements about fitting wavelengths around an atom applying to all atoms. If it's just those companies, then ok.
Yes, I think it's fair to say that the model is treated too matter-of-factly and as objective "truth", but that's certainly not to say there's anything wrong with teaching it. Provided that the appropriate historical context is given, it's a very important first step for anyone learning about quantum mechanics. Would you rather have students be confronted with a partial differential equation in three dimensions at the outset of their very first lesson in quantum mechanics...?
You're right, the wavefunction does suggest that the electrons form some form of wave structure which is stable with itself, but these wave functions aren't simple sine curves that we can stretch and squeeze to form different energy levels.
Never said it was, but, again, the idea - provided that it is treated in an appropriate fashion - is really the only way you're going to gently ease students of physics into the idea of quantization which emerges out of wave mechanics. Once again, so long as it's made clear that this was an early model of energy quantization in atoms, and that it is now outdated, I don't see any problem with it being taught (in fact, I definitely think it *should* be taught). Triply again, I agree that this probably isn't made clear by the vast majority of physics teachers and textbooks, which is unfortunate.
As for your point on classical mechanics, classical mechanics generally works very well to a high degree of precision for a lot of everyday scenarios; it's a very good approximation. The Bohr model works for one specific instance where the nucleus is surrounded by one electron, and fails miserably elsewhere. I don't quite see how we can make an analogy here.
The point was a logical one, and it still stands; if you consider the crude model of electrons as one-dimensional standing waves as "false" because it is outdated and because there are more accurate alternative models available, then for the same reasons you are committed to regarding Newtonian mechanics as false too.
However, the more fundamental point here is that people shouldn't be assessing any scientific models as either "truth" or "lie" at all, and doing so reveals a misunderstanding of scientific method.
Anyway, take home point is just this: models can be outdated, but that doesn't make them unimportant, especially where scientific education is concerned.
Post by: lzxnl on October 09, 2013, 10:08:00 pm
The point was a logical one, and it still stands; if you consider the crude model of electrons as one-dimensional standing waves as "false" because it is outdated and because there are more accurate alternative models available, then for the same reasons you are committed to regarding Newtonian mechanics as false too.
However, the more fundamental point here is that people shouldn't be assessing any scientific models as either "truth" or "lie" at all, and doing so reveals a misunderstanding of scientific method.
Anyway, take home point is just this: models can be outdated, but that doesn't make them unimportant, especially where scientific education is concerned.
I only consider it "false" because of the horribly narrow set of instances where it can be applied. It's only accurate for one very specific, unrealistic case, yet the course generalises this to all atoms in general. If Newtonian mechanics only worked for matter with a temperature of over 100000 K, but people were asked questions about Newtonian mechanics at normal temperatures, that would annoy me too. As it is, as Newtonian mechanics works very well for speeds under 3*10^6 m/2, masses less than that of the earth (probably works for larger objects too) and macroscopic objects in general...it suits everyday applications quite well, which happens to be a large part of our lives.
Post by: muscle min on October 09, 2013, 10:40:07 pm
Post by: pi on October 09, 2013, 10:41:08 pm
Post by: muscle min on October 09, 2013, 10:52:26 pm
I see your point, but 43 is not an "Asian fail" :P
you're right. its more than a fail. its nothing short of total dishonour.
Post by: pi on October 09, 2013, 11:06:00 pm
Now let's get back on the topic of bagging VCE Physics :D
Post by: muscle min on October 09, 2013, 11:07:40 pm
Wtf you're allowed to retake subjects?
Do you get marked down or anything?
some schools let you. I used to go to Macrob, but they don't let you repeat a subject unless you really fail it. But my current school lets me repeat so yolo.
You don't get penalised for repeating.
Post by: BasicAcid on October 09, 2013, 11:16:05 pm
some schools let you. I used to go to Macrob, but they don't let you repeat a subject unless you really fail it. But my current school lets me repeat so .
You don't get penalised for repeating.
Oh I never knew that, cheers mate! And as if you weren't satisfied with 43, I'll be stoked with 43 this year haha
Post by: lzxnl on October 10, 2013, 04:23:48 pm
Post by: BasicAcid on October 10, 2013, 05:29:49 pm
There is someone who repeated Methods after getting a 43 one year. They didn't go to classes at all, but did the SACs and got a 50 the next year.
*Looks at your signature*
Post by: lzxnl on October 10, 2013, 06:31:41 pm
Post by: Alwin on October 10, 2013, 06:48:16 pm
I've done Methods only once. It's not me.
he only needed to do it once ;)
And semi back on track, a lot of people complain how vce physics is easy (looks at no one in particular *cough* *cough* pi` *cough* *cough*) but honestly if you don't get what you're doing / not inclined to look further into physics to why things work they way they do you might find it a bit tough to do well. Mate of mine accelerated with me in year 11, but he got mid 30s trying to tackle physics head on memorising formulas etc. A few others in my class got high 30s / low-mid 40s because they were always asking questions and wanting to know more about (for example) amplifiers, p-n junctions, different concepts or old reject models for light. Actually, most of the people I know who got 40+ in physics were like that, willing to learn more than the vce physics course.
Just some food for thought :)
Post by: lzxnl on October 10, 2013, 07:15:54 pm
he only needed to do it once ;)
And semi back on track, a lot of people complain how vce physics is easy (looks at no one in particular *cough* *cough* pi` *cough* *cough*) but honestly if you don't get what you're doing / not inclined to look further into physics to why things work they way they do you might find it a bit tough to do well. Mate of mine accelerated with me in year 11, but he got mid 30s trying to tackle physics head on memorising formulas etc. A few others in my class got high 30s / low-mid 40s because they were always asking questions and wanting to know more about (for example) amplifiers, p-n junctions, different concepts or old reject models for light. Actually, most of the people I know who got 40+ in physics were like that, willing to learn more than the vce physics course.
Just some food for thought :)
Just to elaborate on learning more, if you just learn the VCE physics course...a lot of the stuff may not make too much sense. For instance, you're just given this stuff about diffraction, and you're asked to just remember wavelength/slit width. Ever wonder where that comes from? Or...why exactly is the centripetal acceleration v^2/r? Or even why the Rutherford model of the atom fails; why can't an electron orbit an atom the way planets do? If you understand stuff beyond the physics course, you'll be better equipped to learn the physics course as an actual science course where you learn about the mechanics of the universe, and not just randomly remember that R^3/T^2=GM/4pi^2. Remembering formulas by itself won't get you very far unfortunately.
Post by: pi on October 10, 2013, 07:20:52 pm
Post by: lzxnl on October 10, 2013, 07:25:58 pm
I only think it's easy because you get a cheat-sheet and the application is minimal. I honestly think that it's not that hard to get 40+ if you make a good cheat-sheet.
I was told that the grades in physics weren't affected by the introduction of the cheat sheet. Although it would have been awesome for this to happen:
1. 3 hour exam
2. Nothing cut out
3. No cheat sheet
Avoids the potential problem that 109 people will get 100% on the exam; probably will happen this year as VCAA isn't likely to write a difficult exam in the first year that the two exams were merged, and add that to the fact that we have 4 sides of A4 for 5 areas of study as opposed to 6...you can put more on these sheets...
Post by: b^3 on October 10, 2013, 07:42:14 pm
If you want to do well, then learn the material properly, and go outside the course, with that being said, it's not impossible to do well without doing this, unfortunately.
Now for a bit of an anecdote. During year 12, I put a lot of effort into chemistry and spesh (really a lot of effort into chem). I didn't really put that much into physics, probably moreso because of loss of motivation resulting from our teacher marking in a way that contradicted VCAA (some of our sac questions were pulled from past vcaa exams, and giving what vcaa gave in the examiners report was marked wrong).
Anyways, what I'm getting at here is, physics is seen as 'easier' because a lot of those who do it compare it to other Asian 5 subjects, you don't have to put as much effort into physics to get the same score in chem or spesh. You have that cheat sheet to fall back on, to get you out of a pickle. In chem, if you don't know something in the exam, you don't know it and that's it. In physics, there's the off chance you can fall back on your cheat sheet. (Yes there is a bound reference in spesh, but you need more understanding to get through spesh than physics, and you don't have much time to use the bound reference in exam 2 if you need to anyways).
If you had to pick the easier subject/easiest subject to do well in out of the Asian 5 subjects, what would you pick? I'd have to go with physics. I'd also say that the average physics student isn't as great as the average chem or spesh student. Now again, this is only anecdotal but looking back at the demographics of my physics classes compared to say chem, spesh or even methods, on average we didn't have as many that were say aiming high, compared to our chem and spesh classes, if that makes sense. This could have just been my school though.
Now again, I don't encourage this, in an ideal world we'd be learning physics properly. I'm just getting at that with a bit of intelligence some people can get away with a 40+ study score without too much effort (you could even say it's not deserved, I don't think my physics score was deserved). At the same time I saw people put a lot more work into physics, but in the 'wrong way' for vce, and get mid 30's, they worked a lot harder than I did, (I'd call this the right way to learn properly though, which is again unfortunately, and frustrating).
I would argue though that you'd have trouble getting 45+ without knowing and understanding the content properly.
I will say this again, but I don't encourage going about physics this way, it's better to learn everything properly, otherwise you'll have gaps in your knowledge when you get to uni. It's frustrating that the course and system is this way, really frustrating, but that's the way it is. If you want the top scores, this won't work though.
I've kinda looped a bit, and repeated myself. The post isn't thought out well, I guess since I'm pretty frustrated typing it, as a lot of it goes against what I think is right, and want to be right I guess.
Post by: Gentoo on February 14, 2015, 08:27:59 pm
-WHY is gravity near the earth's surface treated as 10 m/s^(-2)?! We have access to a calculator ALL THE TIME so why don't we use the ACTUAL g value (or at least not round it to the nearest 1)?! Even in Spesh, which is partly non-calc, we still use 9.8. Hey, while we're at it, why don't we make pi equal to 3?! That should make things easier right?!
-The optional areas of study are even more stupid than the core study design, and that's saying something. They're ALL multiple choice, and I know for Sound at least, required you to either rote learn a ton of information about bloody microphones and speakers or waste 1/3 of your cheat sheet on it (the cheat sheet being a stupid idea in the first place, as others have expounded upon already) and not use a shred of critical thinking. Some of the questions were so easy it was just criminal (phonic curves and questions that use the v=f*landa formula - I remember one MC question one year that 98% of the state got right, and that's with around 1% not even answering). To make matters even worse, errors have been made for certain questions in particular areas of study (more frequently than other subjects it seems), which results in the question being nullified and students studying that AoS being given full marks for it, which gives them a free 2 marks compared to the rest of the people doing other AoS (with whom they are competing on the bell curve).
-I'm not sure if this is a compulsory point of the study design, but at our school they made us write an experimental report for our first SAC. This would be okay except incredibly vague advice was given from the teacher about what to write in it, some people were getting more help from the teacher than others, people were helping each other, some people were presumably getting their tutor to write it for them, etc. etc. so basically its ability to accurately measure people's knowledge of the subject was well and truly thrown out the window (not to mention its incredibly time consuming nature, and the fact that nothing valuable was really learned anyway). Also it took like 3 weeks.
End rant.
(sorry if this is considered a bump, it's just that this is a stickied thread anyway)
Post by: zsteve on November 19, 2015, 07:00:17 pm
- Current physics course for people who don't do Spesh
- Different Physics course for people who do Spesh - you need vectors for this kind of thing :P
Does anyone know if the IB course is any better? I know IB Maths is more advanced in some ways than Specialist
Post by: lzxnl on November 19, 2015, 07:33:38 pm
They should have two Physics subjects for VCE:
- Current physics course for people who don't do Spesh
- Different Physics course for people who do Spesh - you need vectors for this kind of thing :P
Does anyone know if the IB course is any better? I know IB Maths is more advanced in some ways than Specialist
In theory, this is an awesome idea. In practice, there are a few issues.
1. How are you going to design it? Who will teach it?
2. Cynically, you'll always have people unhappy at implementing an advanced course in one area and not others
3. There's an argument that disadvantaged schools may well be affected more by their inability to provide for teachers that can teach this sort of physics.
4. This puts our current uni physics courses in a bit of a weird spot. Are they going to be too easy? Are they going to have to make more physics streams? I know UoM has physics streams but I'm not sure about others.
The above holds true for any VCE extension subject (that's not a uni extension subject).
Post by: zsteve on November 19, 2015, 08:00:56 pm
jk, just forget about VCE entirely
Post by: lzxnl on November 20, 2015, 03:12:31 pm
Right then, make Methods prereq for Physics, then introduce calculus and linear algebra properly into Methods :P
jk, just forget about VCE entirely
Then you have people complaining about how hard the course is.
People complain about the current courses. Put that into perspective first.
Post by: odeaa on November 20, 2015, 03:42:53 pm
Right then, make Methods prereq for Physics, then introduce calculus and linear algebra properly into MethodsI think they have always wanted to do this (make methods prereq for physics) but the numbers for physics were decreasing until they got rid of calculus (pretty sure that pre-1997 vce physics had calculus)
jk, just forget about VCE entirely
