Proposed changes to the Mathematics syllabus: Thoughts? (3 Viewers)

[leehuan]

such as...

Go look this up every uni states what's assumed/recommended knowledge for said degree.

 

[InteGrand]

such as...

As in the HSC subjects aren't listed as compulsory/prerequisite, just 'assumed knowledge', so even if you haven't done them in the HSC, you can enrol in degrees that have them as assumed knowledge.

 

[eyeseeyou]

As in the HSC subjects aren't listed as compulsory/prerequisite, just 'assumed knowledge', so even if you haven't done them in the HSC, you can enrol in degrees that have them as assumed knowledge.

They should make 3U compulsory in order to raise standards and expectations

 

[leehuan]

They should make 3U compulsory in order to raise standards and expectations

True. (Provided we are still talking about stuff such as actuarial)

But fact is unis aren't gonna give a crap they just want your money

 

[eyeseeyou]

True. (Provided we are still talking about stuff such as actuarial)

But fact is unis aren't gonna give a crap they just want your money

For courses like engineeiring, maths, physics, finance, etc

 

[leehuan]

For courses like engineeiring, maths, physics, finance, etc

Pretty sure 2U is enough for just finance though

Still heavy maths but it's nowhere near as rigorous as the other three

 

[eyeseeyou]

Pretty sure 2U is enough for just finance though

Thats ridiculous imo but I heard first year uni physics is harder than 4U maths

 

[leehuan]

Thats ridiculous imo but I heard first year uni physics is harder than 4U maths

Wtf does physics got to do with finance?

 

[eyeseeyou]

Wtf does physics got to do with finance?

No no no I'm talking about something different

 

[InteGrand]

Wtf does physics got to do with finance?

Actually (incidentally) a lot of the models in Finance have come from Physics (or have connections to mathematical models used in Physics).

 

[leehuan]

Actually (incidentally) a lot of the models in Finance have come from Physics (or have connections to mathematical models used in Physics).

Oh really? Example?

 

[Trebla]

Oh really? Example?

The Black Scholes model used to price some financial securities is based on the heat equation derived from Physics.

Some of the more advanced models (i.e. ones you will never see at uni unless you are exposed to forefront academic literature) attempt to use chaos theory (which is a Physics concept) to model stock market prices.

 

[InteGrand]

Oh really? Example?

Yeah Black-Scholes and its relation to the heat equation was one thing I had in mind.

"It [heat equation] also can be used to model some phenomena arising in finance, like the Black–Scholes or the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes."

(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation#Three-dimensional_problem )

• Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, used in both Physics and Finance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornstein-Uhlenbeck_process

• Black-Scholes model from Finance (quite famous, the creators of it got a Nobel Prize for Economics for it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black–Scholes_model

I believe there also are other advanced models in Finance areas (e.g. Options Pricing, stock market modelling) that have adapted models originally from Physics. You may be able to find some stuff out about them by researching online.

You may also want to read about Econophysics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econophysics .

 

[omegadot]

Thats ridiculous imo but I heard first year uni physics is harder than 4U maths

I am guessing many students find first-year physics harder than 4 Unit Maths since it is most likely their first ever exposure to real physics. There is absolutely no relation between the real physics taught at universities with that light weigh puff piece known as HSC Physics. The latter is nothing more than a BOSTES masquerade for the former.

 

[InteGrand]

I am guessing many students find first-year physics harder than 4 Unit Maths since it is most likely their first ever exposure to real physics. There is absolutely no relation between the real physics taught at universities with that light weigh puff piece known as HSC Physics. The latter is nothing more than a BOSTES masquerade for the former.

Apparently HSC 3 Unit Physics (and Chemistry) is planning on being introduced soon by BOSTES. Will these be helpful in preparing students for real science, or are they likely to still be inadequate (haven't looked into them too closely)?

 

[si2136]

Apparently HSC 3 Unit Physics (and Chemistry) is planning on being introduced soon by BOSTES. Will these be helpful in preparing students for real science, or are they likely to still be inadequate (haven't looked into them too closely)?

They have said that for the past few years already.

Science and Humanities should all have extension subjects.

 

[omegadot]

Apparently HSC 3 Unit Physics (and Chemistry) is planning on being introduced soon by BOSTES. Will these be helpful in preparing students for real science, or are they likely to still be inadequate (haven't looked into them too closely)?

One of the three options being proposed for physics (and chemistry as well) late last year which BOSTES were seeking feedback on, was a return to a standard, introductory-level physics course (essentially something akin to what we had pre-2001). Although the proposal was a little light on content detail, if adopted, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Of course nothing is ever going to be perfect, but what we have now is an absolute disgrace.

I also agree that all of the sciences, just like the humanities, should have a 3 Unit option available. I am guessing one of the major reasons why in the past they have not had this is probably due to the lack of teachers capable of teaching them.

Regarding adding statistics to the 2, 3, and 4 Unit sequence, personally, while understanding its inherent importance, I would be in favour of creating a totally new course called Statistics rather than trying to add it in to the existing courses. The humanities seem to be able to add new courses at pretty regular intervals, so why can this not be done in mathematics and the sciences?

 

[leehuan]

One of the three options being proposed for physics (and chemistry as well) late last year which BOSTES were seeking feedback on, was a return to a standard, introductory-level physics course (essentially something akin to what we had pre-2001). Although the proposal was a little light on content detail, if adopted, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Of course nothing is ever going to be perfect, but what we have now is an absolute disgrace.

I also agree that all of the sciences, just like the humanities, should have a 3 Unit option available. I am guessing one of the major reasons why in the past they have not had this is probably due to the lack of teachers capable of teaching them.

Regarding adding statistics to the 2, 3, and 4 Unit sequence, personally, while understanding its inherent importance, I would be in favour of creating a totally new course called Statistics rather than trying to add it in to the existing courses. The humanities seem to be able to add new courses at pretty regular intervals, so why can this not be done in mathematics and the sciences?

Because nobody will take statistics given how shit it was back in junior years.

I loathed the thoughts of stats at uni until I actually got there and realised how good it was.

 

[Drongoski]

Every time you offer another subject, you are spreading the student numbers too thin. If Statistics were offered as an HSC subject in its own right, then who is going to do it (useful but boring as shit) and how many teachers are going to be able to teach it, if offered? If we, as now have nearly 100 (??? - don't know the actual number), the actual cost of supporting such a programme is enormous. You will have a subject where, one year you may have 9 students doing it, and next, only 5. Imagine the cost of one teacher for a class of only 5.

 

[leehuan]

Every time you offer another subject, you are spreading the student numbers too thin. If Statistics were offered as an HSC subject in its own right, then who is going to do it (useful but boring as shit) and how many teachers are going to be able to teach it, if offered? If we, as now have nearly 100 (??? - don't know the actual number), the actual cost of supporting such a programme is enormous. You will have a subject where, one year you may have 9 students doing it, and next, only 5. Imagine the cost of one teacher for a class of only 5.

Just the last point

A lot of schools offer MX2 even when there's < 5 students. I was in a class of three for MX2 and I know Italian continuers was also a class of 3

But yeah ditto to everything else