Should English be compulsory?? (1 Viewer)

[Spiritual Being]

"Would you like fries with that?"

Is USYD arts > auto mcdonalds?

 

[psychotropic]

well because the hsc english system has become so prone to memorised essays and the like, it shouldnt be compulsory in the form that it is
however, i think english should be a compulsory subject until year 12, and this is for the primary reason that the development of an argument, the use of evidence, the ability to express creative thoughts, and the conventions and features of any given text type is something that we all use, not just arts kids.

 

[Spiritual Being]

well because the hsc english system has become so prone to memorised essays and the like, it shouldnt be compulsory in the form that it is
however, i think english should be a compulsory subject until year 12, and this is for the primary reason that the development of an argument, the use of evidence, the ability to express creative thoughts, and the conventions and features of any given text type is something that we all use, not just arts kids.

tl;dr

ENGLISH IS JUST AS USEFUL AS ARTS

nek minnit im doing arts at usyd

 

[Drifting95]

tl;dr

ENGLISH IS JUST AS USEFUL AS ARTS

nek minnit im doing arts at usyd

You wouldn't make USYD arts, lets be slightly more realistic and say UWS arts. #inb4dolebludger

 

[Spiritual Being]

You wouldn't make USYD arts, lets be slightly more realistic and say UWS arts. #inb4dolebludger

haha

I'll get a higher ATAR than you

inb4commlawanthonyroccisanosuicideterm1

 

[Drifting95]

haha

I'll get a higher ATAR than you

inb4commlawanthonyroccisanosuicideterm1

lol we'll see.

"If i don't get a 90 atar i'm going to hang myself"

-Anthony Roccisano

 

[Squar3root]

im pretty sure they dont

 

[nkw]

My brain is legitimately aching from the grammar and vocabulary used in this thread. Wow, everyone here is so smart!

 

[BigBadBader]

English ? Fucken Oath. but not the english they are teaching now...wtf is Distictivly visual/voices?

 

[jdennis]

I've read a lot of the posts in this thread, and I thought it was about time I registered and contributed my own opinion to this discussion.

Firstly, in my view, the short answer is no. English should not be compulsory in Year 11 or 12, and it should not count towards a student's ATAR.

I have no problem with the way English works up to and including Year 10, and I think it is fine that English is compulsory in those years, because maths, history, geography and science are too, and this gives a student a broad base of subjects to base their selections on for the HSC and ultimately at university (if they choose to go there). The marks achieved in these years have no bearing on your final HSC mark, so I don't have a problem with it being compulsory up to the end of Year 10.

However, I don't think it is fair for students in Year 11 and 12 to be forced to do a subject that they may not necessarily be good at and that may not be relevant to their future. The whole point of being able to choose your subjects is that you can specialise in areas that you are good at and can maximise your mark this way. English being compulsory completely undermines this objective.

English has always struck me as being a very subjectively marked course. This becomes very clear when it is compared to something like Chemistry or Physics. In these subjects, there are clear marking guidelines that show EXACTLY what a student needs to write in order to gain a certain number of marks. When marking the HSC, markers use these guidelines to ensure marking is done fairly and objectively. However, this kind of certainty never exists in English. As a student, I never have much of an idea of how I will go in an English exam, because there are no exact guidelines and no objective marking criteria governing how many marks I get. It is purely a subjective judgement that relies on the marker's opinion and impression of a student's work based on their idea of what a good or bad response is.

I have many classmates who say they struggle with English because they find it difficult to write quickly. While writing that sentence I noticed just how insanely unfair that sounds! How can an exam be a judgement of what a student knows if success is dependent on the ability to write quickly? English exams are notorious for their extremely strict time limits that make it difficult for students to show the marker what they know, and while time limits do exist in other subjects, they don't impose the same urgency on students and are generally more lenient.

I find it difficult to understand how the Board of Studies can justify making English compulsory when so much of a student's success relies on subjective marking and the ability to write quickly.

Many students struggle with English because it often lacks logical conclusions. In Maths, for example, there are rules and laws that have been proven to be true, and cannot be broken. These logical 'building blocks' allow students to answer questions with certainty and show conclusively that something is or is not true. In English, conclusions are drawn much more freely and without the rigidity that is present in a lot of other subjects, making it difficult to show that something is or is not true. Two people can have an entirely different idea of what is actually true, and again, this makes the marking process very subjective, as a marker may not agree with what a student says and therefore not award as many marks for it.

I understand that some students prefer this method and find it easier to do well in English than in maths and science subjects. However, an unfair situation arises from this, because while these students can simply elect not to do subjects such as Maths and Science, students who find the lack of logic in English baffling cannot simply elect to drop it. How is it fair that some students are immediately advantaged over others because they prefer one subject over another? It is just not fair to force students to do a subject that may compromise the mark they get at the end of the course, which ultimately will influence the path they take after leaving school. What is the point of being able to choose your subjects if you can't maximise your mark by dropping subjects you are not good at?

I have heard the argument that English is compulsory because it serves as a benchmark for comparing students. Firstly, this is unfair, for the reasons I have already mentioned, but secondly it is flawed and does not provide an accurate assessment of a student's ability. This system assumes that the same set of students doing English and Physics (for example) will perform in a similar way. This is not true, because they are completely different subjects and success in one does not mean success in the other, and vice versa.

As you can see I feel very strongly about this issue, but I have tried not to assert things without backing them up in this post. I would be interested to hear some rebuttals to my points from someone who disagrees with me - but if you're going to do this, please provide a reason for your view. It would be great to have an informed debate on this.

Thankyou for reading this if you got this far!

 

[Kiraken]

I've read a lot of the posts in this thread, and I thought it was about time I registered and contributed my own opinion to this discussion.

Firstly, in my view, the short answer is no. English should not be compulsory in Year 11 or 12, and it should not count towards a student's ATAR.

I have no problem with the way English works up to and including Year 10, and I think it is fine that English is compulsory in those years, because maths, history, geography and science are too, and this gives a student a broad base of subjects to base their selections on for the HSC and ultimately at university (if they choose to go there). The marks achieved in these years have no bearing on your final HSC mark, so I don't have a problem with it being compulsory up to the end of Year 10.

However, I don't think it is fair for students in Year 11 and 12 to be forced to do a subject that they may not necessarily be good at and that may not be relevant to their future. The whole point of being able to choose your subjects is that you can specialise in areas that you are good at and can maximise your mark this way. English being compulsory completely undermines this objective.

English has always struck me as being a very subjectively marked course. This becomes very clear when it is compared to something like Chemistry or Physics. In these subjects, there are clear marking guidelines that show EXACTLY what a student needs to write in order to gain a certain number of marks. When marking the HSC, markers use these guidelines to ensure marking is done fairly and objectively. However, this kind of certainty never exists in English. As a student, I never have much of an idea of how I will go in an English exam, because there are no exact guidelines and no objective marking criteria governing how many marks I get. It is purely a subjective judgement that relies on the marker's opinion and impression of a student's work based on their idea of what a good or bad response is.

I have many classmates who say they struggle with English because they find it difficult to write quickly. While writing that sentence I noticed just how insanely unfair that sounds! How can an exam be a judgement of what a student knows if success is dependent on the ability to write quickly? English exams are notorious for their extremely strict time limits that make it difficult for students to show the marker what they know, and while time limits do exist in other subjects, they don't impose the same urgency on students and are generally more lenient.

I find it difficult to understand how the Board of Studies can justify making English compulsory when so much of a student's success relies on subjective marking and the ability to write quickly.

Many students struggle with English because it often lacks logical conclusions. In Maths, for example, there are rules and laws that have been proven to be true, and cannot be broken. These logical 'building blocks' allow students to answer questions with certainty and show conclusively that something is or is not true. In English, conclusions are drawn much more freely and without the rigidity that is present in a lot of other subjects, making it difficult to show that something is or is not true. Two people can have an entirely different idea of what is actually true, and again, this makes the marking process very subjective, as a marker may not agree with what a student says and therefore not award as many marks for it.

I understand that some students prefer this method and find it easier to do well in English than in maths and science subjects. However, an unfair situation arises from this, because while these students can simply elect not to do subjects such as Maths and Science, students who find the lack of logic in English baffling cannot simply elect to drop it. How is it fair that some students are immediately advantaged over others because they prefer one subject over another? It is just not fair to force students to do a subject that may compromise the mark they get at the end of the course, which ultimately will influence the path they take after leaving school. What is the point of being able to choose your subjects if you can't maximise your mark by dropping subjects you are not good at?

I have heard the argument that English is compulsory because it serves as a benchmark for comparing students. Firstly, this is unfair, for the reasons I have already mentioned, but secondly it is flawed and does not provide an accurate assessment of a student's ability. This system assumes that the same set of students doing English and Physics (for example) will perform in a similar way. This is not true, because they are completely different subjects and success in one does not mean success in the other, and vice versa.

As you can see I feel very strongly about this issue, but I have tried not to assert things without backing them up in this post. I would be interested to hear some rebuttals to my points from someone who disagrees with me - but if you're going to do this, please provide a reason for your view!

Thankyou for reading this if you got this far - I think this would probably be one of the longest first posts ever written!

Unfortunately many things in the world aren't black and white nor is everything purely objective. English as a subject probably prepares you better for later life when you realise that sometimes things don't have an objective marking criteria you can rote-learn and insert onto a page, sometimes you have to think and make decisions based on a judgement that is only as right as you are able to justify it.

The time limits in English are strict but not so strict that it should be a hindrance to the capable student. It's not incredibly difficult to write solid essays/creatives etc. in that time, in fact markers often prefer essays that are succinct not 10 pages of waffle. Sure, it's not *easy* to finish everything to an optimal standard in that time but it is still very possible for capable students to dish out some very high quality essays.

Incorrect. Essay writing has a very large logical component to it. It's essentially justifying your points of view, justification being based greatly on logic. Just because there is some degree of subjectivity in it doesn't make it illogical. The entire point of an essay is to use logic to justify why your subjective interpretation is valid.

 

[jdennis]

Unfortunately many things in the world aren't black and white nor is everything purely objective. English as a subject probably prepares you better for later life when you realise that sometimes things don't have an objective marking criteria you can rote-learn and insert onto a page, sometimes you have to think and make decisions based on a judgement that is only as right as you are able to justify it.

I completely agree that a large number of things in life are not purely objective. However, I don't think this analogy should really apply to the situation of the HSC. In all HSC subjects, there is a syllabus document that outlines what students need to know and what they need to be able to do. If an exam is intended to test a student's knowledge of this certain defined material, then that exam needs to be conducted objectively to ensure that a fair judgement of the student's knowledge is made. The example I gave of Chemistry and Physics exams shows this objectivity; while English assessment does not do this, as I stated in my first post, because it is based more on opinion and subjective analysis.

Also, to do well in most subjects, you can't just rote-learn formulas and regurgitate them. For example, completing a difficult proof in Maths requires knowledge of the applicable formulas and laws, and also an understanding of how to apply them to new situations. However, unlike English, these formulas and laws are clearly defined, rather than based on a subjective analysis of a text. Maths allows you to make a statement and justify it using reasoning and logic, however the way in which this is done is, in my opinion, more fair and objective than in English.

The time limits in English are strict but not so strict that it should be a hindrance to the capable student. It's not incredibly difficult to write solid essays/creatives etc. in that time, in fact markers often prefer essays that are succinct not 10 pages of waffle. Sure, it's not *easy* to finish everything to an optimal standard in that time but it is still very possible for capable students to dish out some very high quality essays.

I would like to give you an example of a student I once knew who had enormous trouble with writing quickly. This student was intelligent and perfectly capable of expressing his knowledge in an exam. However he often got cramps in his hand while writing, because he had to push himself to the limit in order to complete tasks like essays and creative pieces within the time limits of an English exam. Conversely, I haven't heard of this kind of thing happening in a Maths exam, for example, because there is adequate time to clearly think through your answer and write it down. Of course, there must be time limits on any exam, but my argument is that the restrictions on English exams are just too short to be fair to students like the one I mentioned.

Incorrect. Essay writing has a very large logical component to it. It's essentially justifying your points of view, justification being based greatly on logic. Just because there is some degree of subjectivity in it doesn't make it illogical. The entire point of an essay is to use logic to justify why your subjective interpretation is valid.

As I said earlier, subjects like Maths and Science also allow you to justify your point of view with logic. However, the reasoning behind a mathematical or scientific justification (or proof) of something is much more clearly defined than that of an English essay. In short, Maths still allows you to use logical reasoning skills, however it is based on a more clear set of base facts than any interpretation in English can be.

 

[zmccu3]

I've read a lot of the posts in this thread, and I thought it was about time I registered and contributed my own opinion to this discussion.

Firstly, in my view, the short answer is no. English should not be compulsory in Year 11 or 12, and it should not count towards a student's ATAR.

I have no problem with the way English works up to and including Year 10, and I think it is fine that English is compulsory in those years, because maths, history, geography and science are too, and this gives a student a broad base of subjects to base their selections on for the HSC and ultimately at university (if they choose to go there). The marks achieved in these years have no bearing on your final HSC mark, so I don't have a problem with it being compulsory up to the end of Year 10.

However, I don't think it is fair for students in Year 11 and 12 to be forced to do a subject that they may not necessarily be good at and that may not be relevant to their future. The whole point of being able to choose your subjects is that you can specialise in areas that you are good at and can maximise your mark this way. English being compulsory completely undermines this objective.

English has always struck me as being a very subjectively marked course. This becomes very clear when it is compared to something like Chemistry or Physics. In these subjects, there are clear marking guidelines that show EXACTLY what a student needs to write in order to gain a certain number of marks. When marking the HSC, markers use these guidelines to ensure marking is done fairly and objectively. However, this kind of certainty never exists in English. As a student, I never have much of an idea of how I will go in an English exam, because there are no exact guidelines and no objective marking criteria governing how many marks I get. It is purely a subjective judgement that relies on the marker's opinion and impression of a student's work based on their idea of what a good or bad response is.

I have many classmates who say they struggle with English because they find it difficult to write quickly. While writing that sentence I noticed just how insanely unfair that sounds! How can an exam be a judgement of what a student knows if success is dependent on the ability to write quickly? English exams are notorious for their extremely strict time limits that make it difficult for students to show the marker what they know, and while time limits do exist in other subjects, they don't impose the same urgency on students and are generally more lenient.

I find it difficult to understand how the Board of Studies can justify making English compulsory when so much of a student's success relies on subjective marking and the ability to write quickly.

Many students struggle with English because it often lacks logical conclusions. In Maths, for example, there are rules and laws that have been proven to be true, and cannot be broken. These logical 'building blocks' allow students to answer questions with certainty and show conclusively that something is or is not true. In English, conclusions are drawn much more freely and without the rigidity that is present in a lot of other subjects, making it difficult to show that something is or is not true. Two people can have an entirely different idea of what is actually true, and again, this makes the marking process very subjective, as a marker may not agree with what a student says and therefore not award as many marks for it.

I understand that some students prefer this method and find it easier to do well in English than in maths and science subjects. However, an unfair situation arises from this, because while these students can simply elect not to do subjects such as Maths and Science, students who find the lack of logic in English baffling cannot simply elect to drop it. How is it fair that some students are immediately advantaged over others because they prefer one subject over another? It is just not fair to force students to do a subject that may compromise the mark they get at the end of the course, which ultimately will influence the path they take after leaving school. What is the point of being able to choose your subjects if you can't maximise your mark by dropping subjects you are not good at?

I have heard the argument that English is compulsory because it serves as a benchmark for comparing students. Firstly, this is unfair, for the reasons I have already mentioned, but secondly it is flawed and does not provide an accurate assessment of a student's ability. This system assumes that the same set of students doing English and Physics (for example) will perform in a similar way. This is not true, because they are completely different subjects and success in one does not mean success in the other, and vice versa.

As you can see I feel very strongly about this issue, but I have tried not to assert things without backing them up in this post. I would be interested to hear some rebuttals to my points from someone who disagrees with me - but if you're going to do this, please provide a reason for your view. It would be great to have an informed debate on this.

Thankyou for reading this if you got this far!

I remember when I used to write mini essays like this in reply to something I had an opinion about. the hsc killed that motivation

 

[jdennis]

I remember when I used to write mini essays like this in reply to something I had an opinion about. the hsc killed that motivation

Haha, so true! I didn't even mean for it to be that long, but once I started, all my pent-up anger came out in a massive rant/rage thing! English just pisses me off...

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Re: Should Maths be compulsory?

English is a subject which teaches you how to express an opinion that you have, or knowledge that you have obtained. No matter what you do with you life, everyone needs to know how to express themselves, and the more eloquently you can do it the better. If you can't do this, you should be thankful that everyone in the state is forced to learn this skill, because without it your ability to function in any workplace or any environment is significantly diminished. If you can't write a polished application for a job you will be less likely to be called for an interview; if you don't know how to write academically you will struggle to present scientific findings; if you can't write a formal letter how will you deal with clients? Yet on the other hand, an author can get by perfectly fine without the quadratic equation. It is more universally vital to have the capacity to express yourself appropriately than to perform an array of equations.

Edit: I do agree with Carrotsticks though, while the subject is a valid necessity the way in which it is taught needs work to promote is applicability.

 

[Carrotsticks]

Re: Should Maths be compulsory?

Just putting it out there...

For somebody who is in such support of English, you sure lack the ability to break up your text into paragraphs.

 

[Absolutezero]

Re: Should Maths be compulsory?

My 2c:

- Out of the actual Mathematics you learn, the average person will use barely any of it.

- However, the problem solving skills and logical thinking stays.

- Writing and communication skills are more important in the real world employment-wise.

- HSC English does a poor job of developing such skills. Hell, even grammar and punctuation are not taught.

Just on this, it is not the job of HSC English to teach grammar and punctuation. That's the sort of thing that should have been learnt much earlier on. It's not a fault of the HSC syllabus that it's not cover.

 

[Absolutezero]

Re: Should Maths be compulsory?

Just putting it out there...

For somebody who is in such support of English, you sure lack the ability to break up your text into paragraphs.

She doesn't need to. It's a concentrated enough idea with a small enough number of sentences to qualify.

 

[hawkrider]

Re: Should Maths be compulsory?

English is a subject which teaches you how to express an opinion that you have, or knowledge that you have obtained. No matter what you do with you life, everyone needs to know how to express themselves, and the more eloquently you can do it the better. If you can't do this, you should be thankful that everyone in the state is forced to learn this skill, because without it your ability to function in any workplace or any environment is significantly diminished. If you can't write a polished application for a job you will be less likely to be called for an interview; if you don't know how to write academically you will struggle to present scientific findings; if you can't write a formal letter how will you deal with clients? Yet on the other hand, an author can get by perfectly fine without the quadratic equation. It is more universally vital to have the capacity to express yourself appropriately than to perform an array of equations.

Edit: I do agree with Carrotsticks though, while the subject is a valid necessity the way in which it is taught needs work to promote is applicability.

The problem with English is that the current syllabus does not teach how to write reports, resumes or letters, it focuses on literature which IMO I don't think it will be relevant to life. However there should be two courses introduced by the BOS, one on literacy and one on literature.

 

[HAX0R]

Re: Should Maths be compulsory?

What the hell I don't understand is how English is mandatory yet Maths isn't. English is never really used after the HSC, unless you want to become a writer. All you'll need is to be able to communicate in English. Maths is almost used in every course in uni, but not all. Therefore, neither of them should be mandatory, but English certainly shouldn't. It's not like you'll need to write essays later on in life.