New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (2 Viewers)

[we0426]

Yeah, some people would have misread it. It'd probably be like one mark if they even did. If you look in one of the "Hot Topic" threads on the front page about it, they apparently decided that you won't.
But like I said. If I misread, say, 5 questions on my maths paper, I'm liable to lose at least one mark for each. It'd be unfair to say in a different subject "It's okay, even though you obviously read the question wrong and didn't answer it properly, we won't take that into account".
Like I said, they came to the conclusion that it won't happen. I personally just with the markers would.
Though having said that... while it took me about a second glance to notice it didn't say "one or more", that's what they wanted. To trip people up and make sure they were reading the questions.

OKY..KOOL .and i kNow how u feel my friend..thats what happend in my chem trial..when they asked a question about ethanol 8 marks..and about production of it ..and some people started writing about how its polar ans shit like that and they got like 6 marks out of 8 coz they didnot read da question properly..I GOT 7..BUT IT WAS VERY UNFAIR THAT THEY ANSWER DA QUESTION WRONG AND STILL GET GOOD MARKS....AND I HOPE I DONT LOSE MARKS BECOZ I USED 2 TEXTS BUT OVERALL I AM SHIT IN ENGISH ANYWAYS.......SO I AM JUST AIMING FOR A BAND 4 LIKE A 75...=(

 

[Riffy Raffy]

Yeah but English is a compulsory subject. I'm sure that many people, if they had the choice not to, wouldn't do it. So it's a fair call in my opinion that they would be complaining about the exam.
SOR on the other hand is another story.
I think it'd be fairer if they made at least 2U maths a compulsory subject as it'd obviously disadvantage those that aren't good at maths (ie. most that are good at HSC English), like how the people not good at English (ie. literature) are forced to do it.
But I think that it would be even more fair if they didn't make such a literature based subject compulsory. I know it stems out of the fact that people should do the language they speak etc... but looking at the grammar of some top English students at my school shocks me (ie. not being able discern whether to use "your" or "you're" etc).
I think that they should introduce a course that actually tests your actual English ability, instead of this stupid course.

Most of this post is bullshit.
It being compulsory doesn't change anything. If it says ONE text, you do ONE text.
Why 2U maths though? Why not Science? Why not General Maths? Why not anything which apparently people who are 'good at HSC English' are bad at? Either way, the statement is stupid because theres a reason why English is compulsory and maths isn't - because we live in an English speaking country, and communication is an essential aspect of living here. Maths doesn't help communication skills, English does.
And I don't know about your school but the best English students at mine know proper grammar.

 

[we0426]

i think it was unfair that the board of studies threw in an unanticipated 'twist', because if anything, it was the board of studies itself that made the hsc a word-vomiting rampage. Teacher's have been teaching specific content, and students have been following the syllabus to the bone...also, a lot of what is being taught is incorrect. The chemistry taught in high school is as real as santa claus. It makes me wonder what it will be like when i sit the hsc next year...

chemistry is da best subject in da whole world..aiming a band six inshallah i well get it....need any help tell me....

 

[hosay]

i feel sorry for any composer that has his/her texts on the prescribed texts list. youre gonna have people having interpretations that have nothing to do with what the text is about. Like, take skryznecki, there's nothing special about his poems, a simple account of some of the difficulties that he had as a kid.

 

[verdades]

Have a massive cry, what's done is done. English is NOT maths, and reading a question in maths is NOT like reading a question in English you imbecile, there's interpretations of the question, no right answer etc. The Board is only dealing with a problem they themselves created. If you really wanted students to 'think and apply knowledge on their feet,' there are much better ways than screwing over half the state. Off the top of my god damn head: use unseen related material from section one to complete section three... tada?

Sweetheart, if they say "ONE" related text, then misreading and writing two is absolutely nothing to do with your ability to interprete a question. I wouldn't go calling someone an imbecile when you're lacking the mental capability to understand that clearly setting the number of related texts does not relate to an in-depth interpretation of what the question is asking.
I do consider it to be like maths in that sense, as it is in no way based on the interpretation of the rest of the question.

 

[Riffy Raffy]

i feel sorry for any composer that has his/her texts on the prescribed texts list. youre gonna have people having interpretations that have nothing to do with what the text is about. Like, take skryznecki, there's nothing special about his poems, a simple account of some of the difficulties that he had as a kid.

Also, I hate this kind of stupid logic. 'having interpretations that have nothing to do with what the text is about' Isn't that a bit contradictory? You're saying interpretations have nothing to do with what the text is about - but that's just saying THEIR interpretation conflicts with YOURS. English isn't about what the author was thinking, it isn't a detective game. It's about trying to formulate an opinion on the text, showing your understanding of literary critique, and demonstrating it through proper communication and evidence. There may not be an 'objective' answer, but there is a 'proper' answer. And I wish people would stop whining about this lack of objectivity. Not everything in the world is objectively true, and sometimes you'll be in a situation where you have to give an opinion rather than a fact. English can help you do that.

 

[lolrofllol]

Sweetheart, if they say "ONE" related text, then misreading and writing is absolutely nothing to do with your ability to interprete a question. I wouldn't go calling someone an imbecile when you're lacking the mental capability to understand that clearly setting the number of related texts does not relate to an in-depth interpretation of what the question is asking.
I do consider it to be like maths in that sense, as it is in no way based on the interpretation of the rest of the question.

So there is no interpretation involved in answering English questions? You have just proved you are beyond idiocy. According to this brilliant logic, solve 2x = 6 is the same as 'A deeper understanding of aspirations and identity emerges from considering parallels between text x and y, to what extent do you agree.' You are interpreting the question when you read what it asks aren't you? This goes for related texts too.

 

[Jeee]

chemistry is da best subject in da whole world..aiming a band six inshallah i well get it....need any help tell me....

Lol, thanks for the offer, but I'm not doing any sciences for the HSC. Hope you get the band six you want though : )

 

[verdades]

So there is no interpretation involved in answering English questions? You have just proved you are beyond idiocy. According to this brilliant logic, solve 2x = 6 is the same as 'A deeper understanding of aspirations and identity emerges from considering parallels between text x and y, to what extent do you agree.'

I'm not in any way referring to the rest of the question. It said "ONE" text, that is my point. If you misread that as "TWO" texts, and wrote two, then you may have answered the rest of the question, but not that particular bit. And no matter how much English is based on subjectivity, that's a numerical value. In case you don't get it, that means that little bit was a clear instruction, not a statement to be discussed.
How the hell does giving you a limit of one related text even relate to the interpretation of what they're asking? All it does is set a numerical limit for you to follow. I mean, you have to sit and think for a second about which related text you're going to use, but that's the point.

As I'm not even talking about the rest of the question, I'll show you what I mean with your example.

2x = 6

What I mean is accidentally reading "5" instead of that "6". People read "TWO" instead of the "ONE".
They most likely did the rest of the question correctly, but they missed that one little aspect which was CLEARLY STATED in the question.

Unless you can't count, setting a number of related texts isn't anything comprehensive.

 

[Aerath]

Unless you can't count, setting a number of related texts isn't anything comprehensive.

Is it -comprehensive- anyway?

 

[verdades]

Is it -comprehensive- anyway?

*snickers*
Touche, of course.
xD

 

[absorber]

That is wrong. It does help but it isn't required. Up until the 90s Maths was compulsory in the HSC

My understanding is that scaling is based on the performance of the cohort of any subject on English. For example, chemistry scales well because its candidates do relatively well in English. I know this leaves gaps, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's worked out...

 

[tku336]

Isn't it based around all subjects? Like if people in Eco do really well in physics and maths, that would pull up eco?

 

[youngminii]

My understanding is that scaling is based on the performance of the cohort of any subject on English. For example, chemistry scales well because its candidates do relatively well in English. I know this leaves gaps, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's worked out...

I believe it's based around all subjects, not just English. You're implying that English is the most important subject.
Imagine a subject with only around 10 people or so. Why don't they just flunk the subject and concentrate full on for English? In that case, their relative performance would cause the subject to get scaled like crazy.

On topic though, I thought what the BoS did was fair for English (I haven't seen the SoR paper and I suppose I wouldn't understand even if I did). So stop whining, and stop making this thread into another OMG I DID TWO RELATED TEXTS OH NO thread

 

[AnandDNA]

i dont really have any problems with the general question given in SOR. But i do have a problem with how the question for Hinduism and Buddhism specified ethics and/or practice while the other 3 religions had nothing. Now those like me who learnt christianity/islam would have been stumped on which one of the three things learnt we should be writing about. While those who did buddhism and Hinduism would have know instantly they want us to refer to more than one aspect of the course. I know it seems like a small issue but a lot of people wasted time in trying to figure out what the questions asked for them whereas those who did buddhism or hindiusm would have gone straight into the essay.But yeh i dont really have anything against BOS even though i did 2 related texts for english

 

[izzy88]

i feel sorry for any composer that has his/her texts on the prescribed texts list. youre gonna have people having interpretations that have nothing to do with what the text is about. Like, take skryznecki, there's nothing special about his poems, a simple account of some of the difficulties that he had as a kid.

Actually i think having a book on the prescribed text list would be great for an author. You know thousands of students are going to be forced to buy it every year. Great for sales and getting a readership.

 

[stormstealer27]

All in all it was just making sure that you READ THE QUESTION PROPERLY no? I was one of them that put in ONE related text And I don't think it's fair that those that put two related texts don't get marked down. It's like having a time limit on a speech you go over it you lose marks, only so it's kept fair. Before the whole time limit, student would be able to answer the question COMPLETELY which was unfair to other student. [thanks to Peter who gave me this explanation XD] The HSC is about applying your knowledge. Why else would we do it?? I didn't have a problem with the exam thought it was pretty good =]

 

[helper]

My understanding is that scaling is based on the performance of the cohort of any subject on English. For example, chemistry scales well because its candidates do relatively well in English. I know this leaves gaps, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's worked out...

No every subject is scaled against every other subject based on who does what combination. There isn't a single reference.

 

[absorber]

No every subject is scaled against every other subject based on who does what combination. There isn't a single reference.

ah k, my bad then

 

[marcquelle]

OK to go back to OP. Who cares, they made the questions a little different to weed out those who can apply their knowledge instead of just doing a 'brain dump' on the page. If you had a prepared answer and they changed the question and you found it hard, its no-ones fault but your own for trying to 'trick' the markers by using a prepared answer.