Does the HSC determine how smart you are. Discuss. (1 Viewer)

[Fade1233]

There's a reason the HSC provides an ATAR, but it's not to test your intelligence. A lot of people complain that it's all memorisation and playing the game. Whilst I admit that the 'playing the game' element is a bit of a problem (I.e. kids not doing maths in HSC but then doing engineering degrees) the memorisation isn't testing your memorisation skills per se, but rather your commitment to memorising, if that makes sense. It tests your work ethic. Some give up and whine and complain when they get poor ATARs but those who get high ATARs put in a f**k load of effort for the most part and a good work ethic is what you need to survive uni and the real world.

Yes
No. And if yes, then the quotient of redundancy of HSC is exceeded indefinitely-> OO. It is called higher school certificate for not work ethic.

 

[Fade1233]

Couldnt agree more with this. As I've said before, the HSC teaches heaps of soft skills which are necessary for tertiary education and work. Ultimately though, it is up to you to master those skills, the system isnt going to just give them to you. If you choose to rote your way through school and dont get organised, then you cant blame the system for not preparing you for uni.

And you are saying that you can cruise through Chemistry without rote learning? Please elaborate on what you meaning by organisation. I guess math to an extent fulfills requirements of proper higher school education but some schools donot accept reasoning in maths. They go with what they want and too stubborn to accept new solutions (coming from experience).

Casual triple post here.



Quoting from the Board of Studies:


Having had a few years to reflect on this, it comes down to how the high school student approaches the HSC. If they want to be spoonfed information, then the HSC probably doesn't provide that foundation, but if the student uses it as an opportunity to prepare themselves for university, then I would agree with the Board of Studies' claim.

HSC doesnt spoonfeed. It makes you such that you go into uni and thats all you do is Get spoonfed as half of HSC syllabus is just remembering tons and tons of theory without any application at all. WHAT is the point of THEORY is you dont APPLY it?

 

[anomalousdecay]

And you are saying that you can cruise through Chemistry without rote learning? Please elaborate on what you meaning by organisation. I guess math to an extent fulfills requirements of proper higher school education but some schools donot accept reasoning in maths. They go with what they want and too stubborn to accept new solutions (coming from experience).

Well you can learn the concepts. With HSC Chemistry you can leave the rote learning until getting ready for the final exams in the month lead up where there are stuff you inevitably will have to remember. You may have a bit of rote here and there for when you do class assessments too. However you can do the alternative and rote your way through the whole course. However that's not a good idea and leaves big gaps in knowledge.

HSC doesnt spoonfeed. It makes you such that you go into uni and thats all you do is Get spoonfed as half of HSC syllabus is just remembering tons and tons of theory without any application at all. WHAT is the point of THEORY is you dont APPLY it?

He never said that HSC spoon feeds. He said that students can choose whether to spoon feed or do their own work/research.

You can choose to do either one. Either way, for uni you will not be spoon fed anything.

As an example, for HSC Chemistry I was spoon fed, but for HSC Physics I had to do all my work from scratch.

In the end I did better in Physics considerably (4 marks is quite large in the top end). Reason why is because I could make my own research and did not become complacent with it. In Chemistry there were times where I was getting complacent because we were spoon fed and I didn't bother with doing much work at home.

Well in uni things get different because ultimately you get a job which is related to real life and hence you have to apply the theory.

However, HSC Chemistry does have some real life applications in it. Same with HSC Physics. You just aren't being creative enough I'm afraid.

I mean come on, we made our own soap, you actually learn how soap works, how water interacts with things, etc which are all applicable to real life if you think hard enough. Even the way car engines work is an application of HSC Chemistry, but you have to be creative about it as shown here:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/17/chemistry/315655/extracurricular-topics.html#post6491486

Likewise for Physics, you can do heaps of things. We found a way to simulate the photoelectric effect using an old 15 year old radio/cassette player (the big boom boxes lol) and an induction coil with a gap between two electrodes. Worked like a charm.


You may feel that HSC courses don't have enough application, but you need a solid foundation first. If you don't have a solid foundation, then how can you expect to understand what is going on in the applications?

Give it time and you will get there. There will be a time where you are thankful for having learnt the foundations, because its going to be in handy in the future for many things.

 

[Fade1233]

Well you can learn the concepts. With HSC Chemistry you can leave the rote learning until getting ready for the final exams in the month lead up where there are stuff you inevitably will have to remember. You may have a bit of rote here and there for when you do class assessments too. However you can do the alternative and rote your way through the whole course. However that's not a good idea and leaves big gaps in knowledge.



He never said that HSC spoon feeds. He said that students can choose whether to spoon feed or do their own work/research.

You can choose to do either one. Either way, for uni you will not be spoon fed anything.

As an example, for HSC Chemistry I was spoon fed, but for HSC Physics I had to do all my work from scratch.

In the end I did better in Physics considerably (4 marks is quite large in the top end). Reason why is because I could make my own research and did not become complacent with it. In Chemistry there were times where I was getting complacent because we were spoon fed and I didn't bother with doing much work at home.

Well in uni things get different because ultimately you get a job which is related to real life and hence you have to apply the theory.

However, HSC Chemistry does have some real life applications in it. Same with HSC Physics. You just aren't being creative enough I'm afraid.

I mean come on, we made our own soap, you actually learn how soap works, how water interacts with things, etc which are all applicable to real life if you think hard enough. Even the way car engines work is an application of HSC Chemistry, but you have to be creative about it as shown here:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/17/chemistry/315655/extracurricular-topics.html#post6491486

Likewise for Physics, you can do heaps of things. We found a way to simulate the photoelectric effect using an old 15 year old radio/cassette player (the big boom boxes lol) and an induction coil with a gap between two electrodes. Worked like a charm.


You may feel that HSC courses don't have enough application, but you need a solid foundation first. If you don't have a solid foundation, then how can you expect to understand what is going on in the applications?

Give it time and you will get there. There will be a time where you are thankful for having learnt the foundations, because its going to be in handy in the future for many things.

Fine.

 

[greengirl01]

Absolutely not. My fav teacher quit school in year 10, now she's a really engaging, passionate and bright history teacher. Smart kids can fail HSC and not so smart ones (if you are organised and determined) can do well, like BLIT2014 said.

 

[Futuremedstudent]

Well you can learn the concepts. With HSC Chemistry you can leave the rote learning until getting ready for the final exams in the month lead up where there are stuff you inevitably will have to remember. You may have a bit of rote here and there for when you do class assessments too. However you can do the alternative and rote your way through the whole course. However that's not a good idea and leaves big gaps in knowledge.

If you rote learn, then how would one get full marks in a 7 or 8 marker chemistry extended response question?

 

[kalstar]

Western suburbs mentality: Do you even lift brah?

 

[rumbleroar]

If you rote learn, then how would one get full marks in a 7 or 8 marker chemistry extended response question?

wat
you can rote learn your way through hsc and know how to answer questions well enough to get full marks in 7 or 8 markers

 

[Futuremedstudent]

wat
you can rote learn your way through hsc and know how to answer questions well enough to get full marks in 7 or 8 markers

what if it's problem solving like maths, if you don't really understand what ur writing then how would one get full marks?
Like come first in the state. I'm assuming that most (emphasis on most) state rankers both rote learn AND fully understand the content.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

what if it's problem solving like maths, if you don't really understand what ur writing then how would one get full marks?
Like come first in the state. I'm assuming that most (emphasis on most) state rankers both rote learn AND fully understand the content.

I'd dare say ''all''.

6/7/8 markers in HSC sciences are never calculations but rather ''assess'' or ''evaluate'' type questions.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

So I'm guessing the 6/7/8 markers is one of those instances where you have to rote learn responses.

E.g. ''Assess the impact of X on society and the environment'' type questions are simply a matter of presenting advantages + disadvantages then giving a judgement at the end.

You can use ''common sense'' to present advantages/disadvantages or you can rote learn the syllabus content (i.e. facts for these type of questions) from your notes or the textbook to deliver the 'perfect answer' (you really want to score full marks for these type of questions).

Rote learning prepared responses for HSC science (even for 6-7 markers) is probably not advisable for several reasons... including the fact that they can make significant modifications to the syllabus dot-point and present that as a question. In this case, you're better off knowing the content (whether it is through understanding or rote-learning/memorising the content) to directly answer the GIVEN question in the exam.

The only advantage of doing so is ''speed'' in answering straight syllabus ''dot-point questions'' (i.e. they take a dot-point from the syllabus and use the exact wording as an exam question) - which rarely and almost never appear in trials or HSC exams.

 

[aDimitri]

rote learning is very achievable for HSC science because the syllabus is extremely succinct. I agree with RoT about state rankers understanding the content of course though. In order to truly nail those 6/7/8 markers (which can ONLY come from syllabus dot points that require you to discuss, analyse, or evaluate) you first need to understand the content, then draft up your own responses to these dot points, then rote learn your own responses. This way, in the even that there is a minor alteration to the way the question is asked in the HSC exam, you understand how to alter your rote learned response to change it slightly.

 

[rumbleroar]

what if it's problem solving like maths, if you don't really understand what ur writing then how would one get full marks?
Like come first in the state. I'm assuming that most (emphasis on most) state rankers both rote learn AND fully understand the content.

you were talking about science though
to state rank maths you need a super deep understanding of it beyond the syllabus imo
you can never rote maths

 

[RivalryofTroll]

you were talking about science though
to state rank maths you need a super deep understanding of it beyond the syllabus imo
you can never rote maths

Well, technically you can but rote just won't help you for the last question (or last 2) in a 2U/3U/4U exam.

 

[Futuremedstudent]

you were talking about science though
to state rank maths you need a super deep understanding of it beyond the syllabus imo
you can never rote maths

do u think I can state rank if I continue with the same work ethic and results i got this year?

 

[nerdasdasd]

do u think I can state rank if I continue with the same work ethic and results i got this year?

I think you can

 

[enoilgam]

what if it's problem solving like maths, if you don't really understand what ur writing then how would one get full marks?
Like come first in the state. I'm assuming that most (emphasis on most) state rankers both rote learn AND fully understand the content.

Rote learning is a necessary learning tool - it becomes an issue when you try rote learning things which need a deeper understanding.

E.g. ''Assess the impact of X on society and the environment'' type questions are simply a matter of presenting advantages + disadvantages then giving a judgement at the end.

I fail to see how this is science.

 

[Fiction]

Before I replied to the thread name. Here is a reply to the OP:



For a top notch debater the claim is as unintelligent as can be.

Hence why everyone questions Haya's iq claims.

haha but maybe because they're a debater they were able to successfully characterised the HSC to be a measure of intelligence? Or they convinced themselves so anyways.

Just a question - how do you measure intelligence anyways? I was shown this vid in like year 10 by a sub, where a group of guys tried to measure intellect, by getting
- a world class chess player
- some dude who frequently takes the IQ test and scores well in it
- a professional artist (who described herself to be a high school dropout pretty much)
- a quantast scientist (can't spell)

and various others which I can't remember atm. They basically put these people through various activities to measure/determine what affects or determines intellect. - e.g creativeness, IQ tests etc (or something along those lines)

Idk, maybe the HSC does determine (at least a ~large~ aspect of) intelligence, if intellect was (largely) based upon effort, especially since we seem to parrallel success with the HSC, and success with intellect therefore intellect = HSC? Just something to consider and not a view that I neccessarily agree with

 

[Fiction]

How does one DEFINE intelligence though?

IQ?

Are we assuming ''intelligence'' the ability to outperform your peers academically or artistically if you and your peers were theoretically putting in EQUAL EFFORT (which is not realistic anyways because people have different levels of motivation)?

''Talent you have naturally''. If we all did not study or studied to the same extent, those who are naturally talented (or ''intelligent'') would always be the winners. Talent/''intelligence'' clearly gives you a much needed competitive advantage in academics (or the HSC in this case) that can't be ''trained''. It assists in your ability to quickly understand more complex concepts compared to your less gifted peers.

''Skill'' is developed by hard work and work ethic. Knowing your syllabus (whether it be through long hours of memorising/rote-learning or just long hours of trying to understand it) takes ''skill''. Exam technique can also be ''trained'' or ''developed'' --> e.g. this is a reason why not all Science Olympiads (seen to be more ''intelligent'') become HSC science state rankers.

Basically, the HSC is not a measure of intelligence or talent. It's not a measure of ''skill''/effort (or the ability to work hard purely). It's a measure of the combination of both.

However, the greatest weight is given to skill/hard work for the HSC. People say ''talent'' fails if you fail to work hard. But ''talent'' becomes a greater weapon as you progress to university and chase your ambition (career and future)... There's no denying that ''intelligence'' is an important factor to achieving the GREATEST results against your peers.



Pure rote learners cannot achieve 99.95. Yes, I agree.

The more flexible/adaptable ''rote-learners'' can achieve 99+ (the possibly heavier rote learners who know that there's some things you can't just memorise and should just try to understand). E.g. one who rote learns their English essays but can directly answer/adapt to the essay questions given on the day.

I'm not particularly ''intelligent'' or ''talented'' but I somehow achieved a 99+ with strong work ethic and the willingness to develop ''skill''. If I put in 0 effort (whether it be rote learning/memorising/understanding the syllabus, concepts, essays, etc.), I would get nowhere close to the HSC marks I ended up achieving. And I'd definitely be outperformed by more ''intelligent'' kids who put in low effort.

Not to mention, some subjects seem to reward ''hard work'' (even if its through rote learning) more than others. Examples include Economics and Business Studies. Humanities in general. While others may nullify this effort vs reward - e.g. Extension 2 Mathematics or Physics.

Assuming they aren't naturally ''intelligent''/gifted, a person would probably see more success in a subject like Business Studies (where skill will take them far, even if it's through rote learning and being also adaptable) compared to a subject like Extension 2 Mathematics (which probably requires a degree of natural mathematical ability).



All comes down to how people define it.

Whoops, didn't realise someone had already posted this point xD

 

[obliviousninja]

Snake rank