LC Physics bad news for students not keen on maths

A

ajapale

Guest
from todays Irish Times

Leaving Certificate Physics was described as bad news for students who are not keen on maths
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here? To demonstrate understanding of Physics a student must know and understand the underlying mathematics.

What next? Leaving Certificate History was described as bad news for students who are not keen on English?

Or? Leaving Certificate Accountancy was described as bad news for students who are not keen on numbers.

ajapale
 
maths...

I'm with you on this one, ajapale.

Argument has also been put forward regarding engineering and science courses at third level.

Given the recent poor performance trend of students in higher level maths, colleges were lobbying to remove the honours requirement for the courses...

Bad move, as would be easing the syllabus for higher maths. For physics and the other sciences, good maths is a prerequisite. Students who struggle at LC maths will be far worse off at college.

Of course, there was also talk of relaxing the maths requirements at third level for the sciences...heaven help us.
 
Re: maths...

The maths required by LC Physics is little more than plugging numbers into forumlas so this is really sad. Anyone put off by it shouldn't be studying the subject.

The maths requirements for most college science/engineering courses aren't that high either, unless the student is taking a degree in Mathematics or Theoretical/Mathematical Physics. Trinity actually had to increase the maths entry requirements for these courses about a decade ago because too many people unable for it were dropping out during first year.

Students with high ability need to be attracted from other areas rather than lowering entry standards.
 
Leaving Cert History

Hi Repaymentator,

I fully agree with the broad thrust of your contribution with one exception (and I suspect i may have misunderstood this one point).

The maths required by LC Physics is little more than plugging numbers into forumlas
Click to expand...

It is 25 years since I did LC physics and must agree that if the maths content has been reduced to plugging formulae it is really sad. I dont believe this is the case.

My understanding of LC physics (Im not a scientist or a teacher) is that it is about developing mathematical models which seek to explain real world events and subsequently verifying the model by experimentation.

I really enjoyed LC physics since I hated learning by rote and once one mastered the understanding it became very easy. There was little or no subjectivity in the marking which was also an advantage. There was great synergy between maths, physics and applied maths (and in fairness chemistry). This synergy meant that once you cracked a concept in one you cracked it for all. Similar synergies exist in other areas as well but they are not as pronounced (English and History).

As an aside, what do people think of the experience and competency of teachers of physics, honours maths etc? I think (and I might be wrong) that we have a whole raft of teachers who have come through the system with a negative attitued toward honours maths and are imbueing their fears and negativity about the subject into their students.

Is it time to consider retraining practicing scientists and engineers as secondary school teachers?

ajapale
 
And another thing

Apparently they had pictures of famous scientists in the chemistry exam and asked questions about them.

This is apparently part of a campaign to sex up chemistry and attract more punters especially female ones.

Now how about pictures of our Founder in the accountancy exam and a question - discuss this man's contribution to society. :eek
 
Re: And another thing

Why would they need to sex up Chemistry?? I loved it (and I'm female). I thought it was the easiest and most interesting subject for the Leaving Cert. It made way more sense than English.

Admittedly my Chemistry teacher was crap and I clearly remember fighting with her in class over the equation E=mc2 (meant to be squared not 2). She kept insisting that it was a chemistry equation and that c stood for the calorific value. In the end she had to apologise to me in front of the class!!!
 
..

Yea. I mean its probably only the most famous equation in the world....I mean, who'd expect a teacher to know that...
 
Re: singularity of binary operation

One and one is two

or

One and one are two

is irrevelant

Neither can be mathematically proven
 
To Prove 1+1=2

from [broken link removed]

(This proof makes sense ... assuming that zero is a number)

"One option is to do something like this:

Axiom 1: There is a number called zero.

Axiom 2: For any number n, it is possible to find the successor of n, a number referred to as Sn.

Axiom 3: The process of addition of two numbers n+m is taken to mean - start at n, and find the next m successors of n. This gives the answer.

Now, to prove 1+1=2:

1. Axioms 1 and 2 tell us that there is a number S0, which we choose to call 1.

2. Axiom 2 tells us that there is a number S1, which we give the symbol 2.

3. Axiom 3 tells us to interpret 1+1 to mean "Find S0 successors of the number S0".

This gives S0 + S0 = SS0 = S1 = 2.

So, 1+1 = 2. Wasn't that easy?"
 
One plus One equals Two

A number is the set of all sets which can be mapped element to element to each other - definition.

One is defined as the set of all sets containing a single member.

Addition of numbers, Set A + Set B, is defined as Set A+B, the set of all sets which are a Union of a set from Set A and a set from Set B. It can easily be proved that this set satisfies the definition of a number.

Two is defined as One + One.

QED :D
 
Re: One plus One equals Two

Apologies,

It turns out my LC Physics teacher lied

BTW he was Higher Maths teacher also

Maybe he didn't

I give up
 
One plue One Equals Two

The Subject is now correct.

Anyway....

there's a lot of defining going.

For a given man (me),
let's define him as loaded and
assume he has a trophy wife.
Now, how do you prove that his wife won't take him to the cleaners?

Anyway I have a serious issue about Teacher's last post. I don't think that his/her definition is correct, because if you assume that an irrational number is a number then because you cannot have a one-to-one mapping between irrational numbers this renders the definition of a number incorrect. Maybe that definition of a number only applies to natural numbers and rational numbers. BUT I am only speculating.
 
Number definitions

Yes of course, pedant, I only meant Natural Numbers, and a slight error in my definition in taking the union of a set from Number A and a set from Number B to create a set from Number A+B you must exclude sets with common members, but I am sure you realised that.

A Rational Numbers is a Natural Number Ordered Pair.

Real Numbers are defined as any set of Rational Numbers which, if it includes Rational Number A, also includes all Rational Numbers less than A (where order is defined elsewhere)

A Complex Number is a Real Number Ordered Pair. :D
 
Re: Number definitions

Real Numbers are defined as any set of Rational Numbers which, if it includes Rational Number A, also includes all Rational Numbers less than A (where order is defined elsewhere)
Click to expand...

The order must also be Dedekind complete. i.e. every non-empty subset of the Reals with an upper bound in the Reals has a least upper bound. The Real numbers have this least upper bound property.

For example, the set of rationals with square less than 2 has a rational upper bound (e.g., 1.5) but no rational least upper bound, because the square root of 2 is not rational.
 
Re: Leaving Cert History

Does anyone have any comments on the questions I originally posted?

Is it time to consider retraining practicing scientists and engineers as secondary school teachers?

Have a whole raft of teachers who have come through the system with a negative attitude toward honours maths?

Should LC Physics be "dumbed down" to make it more appealing to students?

ajapale
 
The Teaching of the Sciences and Maths at School Level

The short answers to ajapale's last questions (in order) are yes, yes, no.

I believe that every subject now is treated the same with respect to gaining the all important points. If the hard subjects are made easier then there'll ne more drop-outs in college. If there is no special requirement for getting into certain courses then the student is going to do whatever they think is easiest to get points.

Previously an A in honours maths at honours level got you 7 points whereas an A in another subject also at honours level got you 5 points. This principle has gone, yet there is still a premium for doing tests through Irish.

I say that there should be a points premium for 'hard' subjects. It is not enough to say that the same percentage of people get an A in hons maths as in hons for an easier subject because you have to factor in the ability of those doing hons maths.
 
It ain't fair

Trinity regard 3 A's in A-Levels as the equivalent of 570 points in LC for the purposes of Medicine.

12% of ALL NI A-Level students get 3 A's, indeed 45% of those that sit Maths get an A!!!

1% of LC students get 570 points.

And I thought discrimination was limited to the Belfast Shipyards.
 
Looking at LC thru' ageing specs

My limited understanding of LC Maths is that it has been dumbed down. I looked at a proposed LC syllabus a few years ago and it was a slimmer course. Can someone confirm that (teacher if you are one) there are three levels now, (seems odd but I do remember a Maths teacher telling me that this was going to be the case)

BTW I completely agree with Ajapale Physics is the mathematical modelling of the physical world without Maths you can’t have physics. However, the degree of maths required for LC is/was (?) not very high. That is except for the mechanics section which is 100% Maths. Ajapale, 25 years is quite a while did you really have that much maths on the course back then? Electromagnetism required you to derive a few equations and such but no big sweat. If memory serves and my LC was 20 years ago, the Maths on LC physics was to ordinary level so in all fairness it couldn’t have been all that tough. No calculus was required to do Higher Physics, however is easier if you actually did use calcus, as deriving equations without calculus is a long winded pain.

To address your other query should Engineers be allowed to teach? … sure why not? Just as soon as they learn to walk upright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top