New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (1 Viewer)

[Duffman0]

Again, I'm not saying that the exam was hard or anything. But their "shock" over students not adapting to the exam is stupid because every single exam they've given of the past few years has been "narrow". The trials were "narrow". What were we supposed to expect?

I understand that they're fully within their rights and they can do whatever they want. But to say it's our fault for preparing too narrowly when all they've done for the past 8 years are narrow questions? That's stupid.

 

[jet]

Again, I'm not saying that the exam was hard or anything. But their "shock" over students not adapting to the exam is stupid because every single exam they've given of the past few years has been "narrow". The trials were "narrow". What were we supposed to expect?

I understand that they're fully within their rights and they can do whatever they want. But to say it's our fault for preparing too narrowly when all they've done for the past 8 years are narrow questions? That's stupid.

Don't you realise that the SOR syllabus is relatively new? It was first tested in 2007, so your argument is ill-founded.

 

[annabackwards]

Again, I'm not saying that the exam was hard or anything. But their "shock" over students not adapting to the exam is stupid because every single exam they've given of the past few years has been "narrow". The trials were "narrow". What were we supposed to expect?

I understand that they're fully within their rights and they can do whatever they want. But to say it's our fault for preparing too narrowly when all they've done for the past 8 years are narrow questions? That's stupid.

You have a bit of a point, but if students really knew their content the question should not have been a problem. They just had to adapt; those who did will do well and those you did not will do crap. That's the way it should be

Don't you realise that the SOR syllabus is relatively new? It was first tested in 2007, so your argument is ill-founded.

I must give you some rep too

 

[Duffman0]

Don't you realise that the SOR syllabus is relatively new? It was first tested in 2007, so your argument is ill-founded.

M to V - Board of Studies NSW That's from 2001. It includes SOR I and II. I know that the requirements of the syllabus change, and that questions like "contrast and compare" don't appear any more. But look at those questions. Do you see anything like that at all? go through every past paper and tell me if you find anything like what we had to go through this year. It's too big of a difference. My arguement is not ill-founded at all.

 

[jet]

M to V - Board of Studies NSW That's from 2001. It includes SOR I and II. I know that the requirements of the syllabus change, and that questions like "contrast and compare" don't appear any more. But look at those questions. Do you see anything like that at all? go through every past paper and tell me if you find anything like what we had to go through this year. It's too big of a difference. My arguement is not ill-founded at all.

Your argument is based on the fact that they have asked the same questions in the SOR I/II exams for, and I quote, "The past 8 years".

Now, because the syllabus has changed (if you don't believe me, look on the front of the syllabus, dated April 2005) the questions are different. Compare the 2001 paper or even the 2006 paper to the '07, '08 and '09 papers; they have completely different structures. Section 3 isn't even divided up into religious traditions. As a result, there is no way that they could have asked the same questions for the past 8 years, thus, I still maintain my view that your argument is ill-founded.

Even then, some of the questions in the exams from 2001-2006 require you to discuss TWO religious traditions in the one response - that's a synthesis question, is it not? The questions in the 2009 paper were also synthesis questions, requiring you to integrate knowledge from different aspects of the tradition.

It seems that the fact that students needed to think (instead of merely 'vomiting' out a memorised essay onto the page) when answering this question has them completely taken aback. God forbid we need to think once in our lives.

 

[jellybelly59]

M to V - Board of Studies NSW That's from 2001. It includes SOR I and II. I know that the requirements of the syllabus change, and that questions like "contrast and compare" don't appear any more. But look at those questions. Do you see anything like that at all? go through every past paper and tell me if you find anything like what we had to go through this year. It's too big of a difference. My arguement is not ill-founded at all.

You're using past papers as a foundation for your argument which is i don't think is really valid. I agree with what anna said about them testing within anything that is within their bounds. Past examination hscs can only be provide minimal guidance to students as examinations formats may change and are subject to change by the board. Essentially the questions must follow the examination question rubrics (which is provided at the very top of every section in the hsc) combined with the syllabus - it is not followed on the basis of prior examinations which you seem to purport. The same with trial papers, they make sure that they put on trial papers that it is only meant to reflect the hsc examinations but in no way do they make guarantees that it will be exactly the same as the actual hsc.

 

[cutemouse]

Reminds me of what my Physics teacher said.

A few years ago they decided to ask how a cyclotron works (in 2006 IIRC). My Physics teacher didn't think that it was in the course, and I think he was right in saying so because there is no dotpoint that states "Explain how a cyclotron and linear accelerator works".

But he is an excellent teacher, so he covered it anyway back then.

I think is a bit different, but the BOS can be a bit wacky sometimes.

 

[spazamataz]

Baha im expecting in maths tommorow for there to be something like "Explain pythagoras' theorem" or "Describe Pythagoras' upbringing."I would actually laugh

 

[cutemouse]

Baha im expecting in maths tommorow for there to be something like "Explain pythagoras' theorem&quot

Well, you do have to be able to prove it.

 

[possessionless]

You guys are fucking retarded and completely missed the point. I wasn't whinging about how the exam was hard - I was saying that if the board springs a question that is ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT to the ones it's written before, it should EXPECT people to go "WTF" in the exam.

Seriously? Fuck you guys. Learn to read.

the people like you who go WTF are the people that have prepared too narrowly.so fuck you

 

[tommykins]

the people like you who go WTF are the people that have prepared too narrowly.so fuck you

hahahah love the 'so fuck you'. Must spread rep

 

[ekoolish]

It's ironic that a mad feud has started over a Studies of Religion exam.

 

[Dragonmaster262]

It's ironic that a mad feud has started over a Studies of Religion exam.

True religion is about tolerance and forgiveness. Perhaps this is God's way of seeing how much devoted you really are to religion.

 

[annabackwards]

True religion is about tolerance and forgiveness. Perhaps this is God's way of seeing how much devoted you really are to religion.

The past crusades and "Holy Wars" that are still going on now seem to suggest the opposite though lol

 

[acemusic415]

Yeah... writing about how Julius Caesar and analysing how different texts portray him has really affected by arguments... Similarly writing about the ideas about belonging in Romulus my father has really shaped my arguments. And we can say this about creative writing and the rest of the topics in the course.

What's the point in talking to you? You haven't even gotten the point I'm trying to get across. Literature compliments the course. Ultimately, Literature is English. Hence, that is the reason why the use texts of Literature. Having an array of texts, teaches you to interpret and simply grasp concepts. You clearly have a myopic view on the HSC English Course. Would you prefer Maths and Science to be compulsory HSC Courses? When we start communicating in Maths and Science, give me a call, but right now you should ignore it.

Probably? And you were stating before that I should use real evidence?

Put it this way - I was speculating, you were asserting.

You know, you're communication skills aren't that great, so if I were you, I'd get off my high horse

I never said they were. I was just proving a point, that Junior English establishes communication skill. Even if the HSC Course wasn't suitable for you, my skills in terms of communication have improved, along with many of those in my grade.

Excuse me? But do you know who I am, or are you in a position to be commenting on my academic progress in the course? Have you ever seen my actual marks? Who are you trying to convince?

I have every right to challenge your argument, and you do as well.
Point is that you believe that English should not be compulsory. Although, I concur with the exaggeration in the syllabus and the required texts, English is essential in so many ways. Even though, it hasn't assisted you, I believe that many people unknowingly benefit from it. Possibly it is your indifferent views in regards to English, but to be honest, if we start communicating in Mathematics and Science, I will completely agree with you. But this is a world of communication, and I believe that the English Course is relevant and imperative (well to a certain extent). This is going off topic, we should stop - Sorry guys :O

 

[Blaz-357]

Very spot-on response. I totally agree with Board of Studies this time. HSC is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.

i totally agree with u to namu, esp since ppl at my skool have just been QQ'in the fact "OMG IT WASNT IN THE SYLLABUS"(SoR) srsly grow the fuk up ppl

 

[melissaj38]

I think that the people who did two related texts in eng should lose marks coz its english and and you need to be abe to read a question properly. Also i dont see why english needs to be compulsory subject coz yes we do live in an english speaking country but have you ever heard people talking about belonging and analysing skrzynecki poems in everyday life. No. I id hear my english teacher say though that they may introduce an english course that is more spelling and grammer but its more for those who do VET and dont want an Atar.Teachers should stop predicting what they think will be in an exam coz its confusing.

 

[cutemouse]

When we start communicating in Maths and Science, give me a call, but right now you should ignore it.

Answer my question.

And plus, how can you comment on the HSC English course when you haven't done it? Because if you have done it, you'd know how useless it is in terms of actually speaking in English.

 

[Jeee]

well if u dont do any science, how can u call chemistry "as real as santa clause". Sure, some of the concepts are a little simplified, but its not as if when u go to uni and do chem u will go "holy shit, thats wrong, cos thats not what i learned in hsc chem".

I DID do sciences. I did biology and chemistry. Dropped both however. HSC chem is not merely 'simplified', it's that it hasn't been updated because both BOS and teachers are too lazy to update the syllabus, and change what they teach.

 

[acemusic415]

Answer my question.

And plus, how can you comment on the HSC English course when you haven't done it? Because if you have done it, you'd know how useless it is in terms of actually speaking in English.

Actually, my school actually does the ex HSC Course, if you understand what I mean. We do Journeys, Belonging, Shakespeare all relevant to the HSC Course, but the texts are changed around. We cover the main HSC modules, we did Conflicing Perspectives just last term. We did Change and Journeys last year. Our school only does this, because it acts as a well rounded 'head start'.

In my personal opinion, even though its partly rubbish and prejudice to the other subjects which aren't compulsory - there is a reason why its compulsory, even though it may not be absolutely relevant to actually speaking in English. I would say, Change, Journeys and Belonging teach us about the world around us, and we can explore very insightful concepts. I acknowledge why you don't see the connection between communicating in the language itself and the course, but English to an extent, has provided me with more sense and realisation about the world around me.

I don't know the Board of Studies' reasons behind this contentious issue, but 'living' in Australia, speaking in English and being present in a progressive yet learned world are valid reasons to do the course (well some of it). Maths, I believe at least General or 2 unit would be enough, but like most people would say (including me), we don't communicate in Maths.

I seriously cannot tell you why, prominent people up in the occupation ladder who have science degree. To be honest, I could understand why they have it - but I won't exactly pursue it, or have it in my arsenal as a weapon of appeal or intimidation. But, if you're asking me in a subjective perspective and more realistic one as well - I agree Science, in a sense should be compulsory. (again, to a certain extent).