ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE Science => VCE Mathematics/Science/Technology => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Physics => Topic started by: fredrick on June 05, 2008, 03:27:27 pm
-
Are questions like these still in the physics course?
[IMG]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1061/motionde3.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1061/motionde3.8aad84198d.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/8807/motion1vx8.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/8807/motion1vx8.139fdeda79.jpg[/img]
-
Yeah, the physics syllabus hasn't changed since 2005. It is set to change next year though.
-
I dont think so.
they have taken circular motion in the vertical plane out of the course
-
I dont think so.
they have taken circular motion in the vertical plane out of the course
Damn those questions were fun.
-
I dont think so.
they have taken circular motion in the vertical plane out of the course
Sigh, the Victorian Maths/Physics course is disgustingly dumbed down. I'm looking to start some action to beef up Specialist Maths and Physics to compare with the NSW and WA standards which trump ours by a ridiculous margin.
-
Holy crap NSW has a incredibly hard math paper. Lots of the questions remind me of the types you might find in competitions. Lots of 'prove this' and other problem solving type questions. ~20 pages of absolute madness. Yeah I agree, Victoria needs a real math and physics course.
-
Their 4u mathematics is, what i would term, '1337'.
-
I disagree, I think the subjects as they are are structured to lead nicely towards uni, especially in maths. Physics could easily be harder, but I believe it is made easy to encourage people to do it. Whilst some people are attracted to maths courses because they want pain and hardship, most people at VCE choose the easiest load, even if it isn't what they like. With victoria having only 0.5% of graduates with a maths major (OECD average is 1%), we need to attract people to mathematical disciplines, and making them harder probably isn't the best way to do this.
-
I further disagree with you. Why offer unimaths, then? I think they should have further, methods, specialist, AND UMEP only as a VCE subject like 4U maths does. Plenty of people still do 4u mathematics... who knows, maybe they can scale the new maths up to 60. :P That'd attract a fuckload of people. Haha
-
I further disagree with you. Why offer unimaths, then? I think they should have further, methods, specialist, AND UMEP only as a VCE subject like 4U maths does. Plenty of people still do 4u mathematics... who knows, maybe they can scale the new maths up to 60. :P That'd attract a fuckload of people. Haha
that'll just attract a lot of humanities people crying "science people have unfair advantage over us~"
:P
VCE is all stuffed up
-
No, I am not persuaded, your argument, why offer unimaths then (where then seems to imply that there is no point to a hard maths when we have only easy maths) makes no particular sense. In fact, having easier maths provides a fantastic niche for people who do desire harder maths.
Now there is roughly 200 people in UMEP and I'd imagine similar numbers in MUEP, so if it became a subject it would have a pitiful enrolment, and most likely only be offered at the more elite and academic schools. UMEP and MUEP allow anybody interested in maths to study on an almost equal footing. Thus, institutionalising UMEP would be detrimental, whilst making the maths subjects harder would serve to drive people away from maths and make enhancement maths redundant
-
No, I am not persuaded, your argument, why offer unimaths then (where then seems to imply that there is no point to a hard maths when we have only easy maths) makes no particular sense. In fact, having easier maths provides a fantastic niche for people who do desire harder maths.
Now there is roughly 200 people in UMEP and I'd imagine similar numbers in MUEP, so if it became a subject it would have a pitiful enrolment, and most likely only be offered at the more elite and academic schools. UMEP and MUEP allow anybody interested in maths to study on an almost equal footing. Thus, institutionalising UMEP would be detrimental, whilst making the maths subjects harder would serve to drive people away from maths and make enhancement maths redundant
I smell a straw-man
I think enwiabe is arguing for a UMEP/MUEP level math offered as a VCE subject with nice incentives [ridiculously high scaling :P] that will attract students, which isnt a bad idea, considering the impact of attending UMEP/MUEP can have on your other classes.
and on the note of "pitiful enrolment", there are many studies that are very low in numbers, yet they are not invalidated on the basis of "pitiful enrolment". One of such is Indigenous Languages, ought we make these subjects only offered by specialist institutions?
-
Simple solution: Keep the unis running enhancement programs but count them as fully fledged study scores.
-
And also "why offer unimaths then" was a retort to you saying that people wanted the easier option. As has been evidenced people SHOULD have the harder option. In NSW, they have General Maths - further, 2U mathematics - methods, 3U mathematics - spec, and 4U mathematics - our 'unimaths' and they get on with it JUST fine. Why should we be any different?
-
Simple solution: Keep the unis running enhancement programs but count them as fully fledged study scores.
agreed.
the current incentives really isnt much, whilst a 55 may sound nice, it only works as a 5.5 aggregate... [like thats gonna get you far~]
the system more or less reflect lazy attitudes in Victorian students, [even though we are the most densely populated, and hence the competition should be stronger]
rather than falling back and creating "easier options" that encourage these people to take on "harder" subjects, the level of learning should be increased in all VCE studies [and prior] that encourages overall achievement rather than easier-way-out.
if we, for example, increase the difficulty of MM, it may mean some faint-hearted will pull out, but most will stay in as it is a university entry requirement for many courses. the outcome is simply, a few people abandoning some options, while the standard is raised. is that so bad?
-
No, giving enhancement subjects full study scores is not a solution. This is primarily because they do not involve a full subjects workload. about 3 hours of study including lessons per week can get you a high distinction/first class honours.
Excessively high scaling is also not a good way to entice people to do maths and physics. Take the example of languages, which I believe get scaled up five more than they should as a government plan to bolster language studies. Whilst this a benefit to apt students, students who really struggle take the subject for the scaling and then get below 25. They would, (and the VCAA VCE brochure agrees) be better off doing a subject they enjoy. If UMEP were a normal subject, with a full workload, it would be scaled by at least 15. Such a number would attract many Specialist students who couldn't cope with the maths understanding along with digesting Specialist.
Furthermore, this would discourage people from spreading their subjects across various fields. It would mean that someone could have 3 maths subjects that scale up in their top 4. The IB, one possible example for modern education standards requires a diverse course selection. Adding another high end mainstream math detracts from the diversity you can find in a VCE course.
So, this is why having enhancement subjects scale is a bad idea. They are an enhancement to the VCE, not the VCE itself and should be regarded as such. Given the structure of scaling, were they to be taught, the VCE system would have to be overhauled.
BTW, I eagerly await a response, devil's advocate is my favourite game
-
No, giving enhancement subjects full study scores is not a solution. This is primarily because they do not involve a full subjects workload. about 3 hours of study including lessons per week can get you a high distinction/first class honours.
Excessively high scaling is also not a good way to entice people to do maths and physics. Take the example of languages, which I believe get scaled up five more than they should as a government plan to bolster language studies. Whilst this a benefit to apt students, students who really struggle take the subject for the scaling and then get below 25. They would, (and the VCAA VCE brochure agrees) be better off doing a subject they enjoy. If UMEP were a normal subject, with a full workload, it would be scaled by at least 15. Such a number would attract many Specialist students who couldn't cope with the maths understanding along with digesting Specialist.
and these people would soon realise this.
what should not be ignored is that teachers arent automatic robots, and you dont just pick your subjects, there is such thing called "career conselling", which involves teachers who know your abilities talking to you about what subjects you can and should do.
a student picking this subject beyond their level do so at their own peril, its not like they have no information about it at all.
Furthermore, this would discourage people from spreading their subjects across various fields. It would mean that someone could have 3 maths subjects that scale up in their top 4. The IB, one possible example for modern education standards requires a diverse course selection. Adding another high end mainstream math detracts from the diversity you can find in a VCE course.
such a system is already in place: only three mathematic subjects count towards the ENTER. there is nothing wrong with having three subjects scale up in the top 4, it just means this person is a capable student who is well suited for some awesome degree.
also keep in mind that prerequisites towards particular courses should not be ignored. say for medicine, whilst a person may buff up with three maths, chemistry and english are still prereqs, its not as if there is no compulsory diversification.
another key point should be noted is that not many people will have the enthusiasm to pursue three concurrent math enrolments. true that some people will exploit the advantages, but few will have the mentality to keep this up. simply put, people arent all crazy and fatalistic [sorry :P] like some of us, and this option allows those who enjoys math to develop their potential and their achievements valued.
So, this is why having enhancement subjects scale is a bad idea. They are an enhancement to the VCE, not the VCE itself and should be regarded as such. Given the structure of scaling, were they to be taught, the VCE system would have to be overhauled.
BTW, I eagerly await a response, devil's advocate is my favourite game
VCE should be overhauled, I have no wish to be compared to an Arts student [for example], ENTER is not the best system
and LOL, devil's advocate is always fun :)
-
I think MM's standard is good. It's a medium maths that introduces the calculus foundations and probability without going overboard. It's nice as it is.
Spec, on the other hand, is a fucking joke.
-
VCE should be overhauled, I have no wish to be compared to an Arts student [for example], ENTER is not the best system
and LOL, devil's advocate is always fun :)
Forget a reworking of the ENTER, a complete overhaul on university selection is necessary that is unbiased and allows the best candidate for the position to be selected. Such a system would measure intellectual capacity, not the ability to regurgitate a book in an exam. The system would require every potential applicant to submit his or her DNA for close aptitude analysis. Those who possess the necessary genetic qualities for the chosen career are selected and those genetically inferior are rightfully rejected to choose a profession or field more suited to their abilities.
Gatacca anyone? Umat works on the same basis, testing natural ability at understanding and solving problems, not how many equations you can remember. Or at least that’s my understanding of it
Let the debating on ethics begin..
-
VCE should be overhauled, I have no wish to be compared to an Arts student [for example], ENTER is not the best system
and LOL, devil's advocate is always fun :)
Forget a reworking of the ENTER, a complete overhaul on university selection is necessary that is unbiased and allows the best candidate for the position to be selected. Such a system would measure intellectual capacity, not the ability to regurgitate a book in an exam. The system would require every potential applicant to submit his or her DNA for close aptitude analysis. Those who possess the necessary genetic qualities for the chosen career are selected and those genetically inferior are rightfully rejected to choose a profession or field more suited to their abilities.
Gatacca anyone? Umat works on the same basis, testing natural ability at understanding and solving problems, not how many equations you can remember. Or at least that’s my understanding of it
Let the debating on ethics begin..
now that is absurd. we dont have the technology nor resources to examine everyone by their DNA, nor do we have the scientific foundation to judge people by their foundation.
and your view on exams is very biased. they are not hopeless regurgitation, they are application of your knowledge. If you memorised the formulae but dont understand the material, you will not know how to do a question even though you have all the protocols for solving questions. If you understand the material but cannot apply the formulae, you are sorrily imcompetent and regardless of the level of understanding, it is futile and useless as there is no application.
and on the note for DNA, lets suppose two people with the same level of "intelligence", one is a lazy ass and one is a working nerd. according to you they should have the same opportunities into education. dilemma?
-
and on the note for DNA, lets suppose two people with the same level of "intelligence", one is a lazy ass and one is a working nerd. according to you they should have the same opportunities into education. dilemma?
Ah you are missing the point, their DNA would ensure that they were not lazy! :P
-
and on the note for DNA, lets suppose two people with the same level of "intelligence", one is a lazy ass and one is a working nerd. according to you they should have the same opportunities into education. dilemma?
Ah you are missing the point, their DNA would ensure that they were not lazy! :P
I shall volunteer for burger-making then :P
Its better than the shame of "course rejected due to: LAZY GENE!!! LOL"
-
I think performance in VCE is a far better indicator of future performance than testing on the basis of 'natural ability.' Aptitude tests provide a reflection of general ability but are not indicative of work ethic for example. Performing well in VCE requires a sustained and consistent approach over a considerable period of time.
-
VCE should be overhauled, I have no wish to be compared to an Arts student [for example], ENTER is not the best system
and LOL, devil's advocate is always fun :)
Forget a reworking of the ENTER, a complete overhaul on university selection is necessary that is unbiased and allows the best candidate for the position to be selected. Such a system would measure intellectual capacity, not the ability to regurgitate a book in an exam. The system would require every potential applicant to submit his or her DNA for close aptitude analysis. Those who possess the necessary genetic qualities for the chosen career are selected and those genetically inferior are rightfully rejected to choose a profession or field more suited to their abilities.
Gatacca anyone? Umat works on the same basis, testing natural ability at understanding and solving problems, not how many equations you can remember. Or at least that’s my understanding of it
Let the debating on ethics begin..
DNA analysis, look what my school does to people :P
-
VCE should be overhauled, I have no wish to be compared to an Arts student [for example], ENTER is not the best system
and LOL, devil's advocate is always fun :)
Forget a reworking of the ENTER, a complete overhaul on university selection is necessary that is unbiased and allows the best candidate for the position to be selected. Such a system would measure intellectual capacity, not the ability to regurgitate a book in an exam. The system would require every potential applicant to submit his or her DNA for close aptitude analysis. Those who possess the necessary genetic qualities for the chosen career are selected and those genetically inferior are rightfully rejected to choose a profession or field more suited to their abilities.
Gatacca anyone? Umat works on the same basis, testing natural ability at understanding and solving problems, not how many equations you can remember. Or at least that’s my understanding of it
Let the debating on ethics begin..
I made bold everything I agree with.
-
hey don't question the validity of DNA testing, just because yours made you turn out like this
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q256/radu123/nerd.jpg)
-
How can a DNA test be unbiased?
-
hey don't question the validity DNA testing, just because yours made you turn out like this
do you have any reasoning/evidence that proves the validity of DNA testing?
-
I know that in Queensland, most university selection is based on a GAT like exam. An ideal system would measure aptitude and effort. The GAT is a good measure of aptitude, but how can you measure effort? Perhaps in teacher reports.
on the topic of DNA testing, we see in the mentioned Gattaca film, "There is no gene for the human spirit" (that IS a quote,its on the DVD cover, good ol' Yr 9 English). The entire movie is a case against DNA testing as it shows that doing so would exclude valuable, inspired people from working in a position where they will exceed because their genes are wrong.
Perhaps the best system looks at study scores as opposed to ENTER, or different courses calculate the ENTER in different ways. However, the unfortunate fact seems to be that the better you want to make the system, the harder it is to calculate a fair ENTER.
It must also be said though that ENTER is not the end of the road in a career, but a DNA test probably is.
-
I know that in Queensland, most university selection is based on a GAT like exam. An ideal system would measure aptitude and effort. The GAT is a good measure of aptitude, but how can you measure effort? Perhaps in teacher reports.
on the topic of DNA testing, we see in the mentioned Gattaca film, "There is no gene for the human spirit" (that IS a quote,its on the DVD cover, good ol' Yr 9 English). The entire movie is a case against DNA testing as it shows that doing so would exclude valuable, inspired people from working in a position where they will exceed because their genes are wrong.
Perhaps the best system looks at study scores as opposed to ENTER, or different courses calculate the ENTER in different ways. However, the unfortunate fact seems to be that the better you want to make the system, the harder it is to calculate a fair ENTER.
It must also be said though that ENTER is not the end of the road in a career, but a DNA test probably is.
well said.
there is another option though, that we abandon ENTER altogether [or even VCE altogether], and let the universities decide their own prereqs and examinations.
that system will be a lot "fairer". [as for why, I know but i cannot explain. coblin can if he can be bothered :P ]
-
I know that in Queensland, most university selection is based on a GAT like exam. An ideal system would measure aptitude and effort. The GAT is a good measure of aptitude, but how can you measure effort? Perhaps in teacher reports.
on the topic of DNA testing, we see in the mentioned Gattaca film, "There is no gene for the human spirit" (that IS a quote,its on the DVD cover, good ol' Yr 9 English). The entire movie is a case against DNA testing as it shows that doing so would exclude valuable, inspired people from working in a position where they will exceed because their genes are wrong.
Perhaps the best system looks at study scores as opposed to ENTER, or different courses calculate the ENTER in different ways. However, the unfortunate fact seems to be that the better you want to make the system, the harder it is to calculate a fair ENTER.
It must also be said though that ENTER is not the end of the road in a career, but a DNA test probably is.
Yay for someone who has actually seen the movie and knows that in the end determination wins over genetic advantage. I thought we were making arguments for the sake of it, well that was my intention but I guess Mao doesn’t see this. The current ENTER system seems fair and as a current y12 student what choice do I have other than to play along so I can get in my desired course next year. You guys though will most likely have no problem finishing in the top % of the state anyway through your efforts and intelligence, so why all the anger?
Oh Applexy, don’t think you will get away with that comment. THIS is what my school does to people (actual picture of him taken in the library with my phone)
Check out the mad nerd bling bling.
[IMG]http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5192/image010tu2.jpg[/img]
-
I know that in Queensland, most university selection is based on a GAT like exam. An ideal system would measure aptitude and effort. The GAT is a good measure of aptitude, but how can you measure effort? Perhaps in teacher reports.
on the topic of DNA testing, we see in the mentioned Gattaca film, "There is no gene for the human spirit" (that IS a quote,its on the DVD cover, good ol' Yr 9 English). The entire movie is a case against DNA testing as it shows that doing so would exclude valuable, inspired people from working in a position where they will exceed because their genes are wrong.
Perhaps the best system looks at study scores as opposed to ENTER, or different courses calculate the ENTER in different ways. However, the unfortunate fact seems to be that the better you want to make the system, the harder it is to calculate a fair ENTER.
It must also be said though that ENTER is not the end of the road in a career, but a DNA test probably is.
Yay for someone who has actually seen the movie and knows that in the end determination wins over genetic advantage. I thought we were making arguments for the sake of it, well that was my intention but I guess Mao doesn’t see this. The current ENTER system seems fair and as a current y12 student what choice do I have other than to play along so I can get in my desired course next year. You guys though will most likely have no problem finishing in the top % of the state anyway through your efforts and intelligence, so why all the anger?
arguing for the sake of it does involve valid arguments or be branded as "absolutely absurd", you know that, right? :P
-
I know that in Queensland, most university selection is based on a GAT like exam. An ideal system would measure aptitude and effort. The GAT is a good measure of aptitude, but how can you measure effort? Perhaps in teacher reports.
on the topic of DNA testing, we see in the mentioned Gattaca film, "There is no gene for the human spirit" (that IS a quote,its on the DVD cover, good ol' Yr 9 English). The entire movie is a case against DNA testing as it shows that doing so would exclude valuable, inspired people from working in a position where they will exceed because their genes are wrong.
Perhaps the best system looks at study scores as opposed to ENTER, or different courses calculate the ENTER in different ways. However, the unfortunate fact seems to be that the better you want to make the system, the harder it is to calculate a fair ENTER.
It must also be said though that ENTER is not the end of the road in a career, but a DNA test probably is.
Yay for someone who has actually seen the movie and knows that in the end determination wins over genetic advantage. I thought we were making arguments for the sake of it, well that was my intention but I guess Mao doesn’t see this. The current ENTER system seems fair and as a current y12 student what choice do I have other than to play along so I can get in my desired course next year. You guys though will most likely have no problem finishing in the top % of the state anyway through your efforts and intelligence, so why all the anger?
Oh Applexy, don’t think you will get away with that comment. THIS is what my school does to people (actual picture of him taken in the library with my phone)
Check out the mad nerd bling bling.
[IMG]http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5192/image010tu2.jpg[/img]
GRR TEO. now everyone knows your name, tie :P