Citizenship - The Citizenship Testing Discussion Paper (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Personally, I believe English should be optional. If you want to learn about it and are perhaps interested in getting a job which requires the skills taught in English, then do so but if you just want to be a tradesman or something, you really don't need it.

English is compulsory while maths is not for one very simple reason - to disadvantage Asians. Of course there have been some side-effects since this policy was implemented, such as making girls attain better uais than guys.

 

[banco55]

English is compulsory while maths is not for one very simple reason - to disadvantage Asians. Of course there have been some side-effects since this policy was implemented, such as making girls attain better uais than guys.

Just about any job that requires any mathematical skills you will need english that is at least at HSC level.

 

[_dhj_]

Just about any job that requires any mathematical skills you will need english that is at least at HSC level.

What exactly is "HSC level" english? Are you saying that early school leavers will be unable to communicate in their profession?

 

[banco55]

What exactly is "HSC level" english? Are you saying that early school leavers will be unable to communicate in their profession?

I'm saying that any job that requires mathematical skills (ie accountancy, pharmacy) is also going to require a good command of english (at least HSC standard). While you can get by in courses like law, english, history (at uni level) without having any math skills.

 

[HotShot]

I'm saying that any job that requires mathematical skills (ie accountancy, pharmacy) is also going to require a good command of english (at least HSC standard). While you can get by in courses like law, english, history (at uni level) without having any math skills.

nah, yr 10 ten english is more than enough if ur doing pharmacy, enginerring or even history. Because say if you are doing history - u will cope with it.

accountacy required no english at all.. just numbers basically. yr 10 english is plenty in my opinion.

i think they should abolish HSC english or change it curriculum and make it more worthwhile.

 

[_dhj_]

I'm saying that any job that requires mathematical skills (ie accountancy, pharmacy) is also going to require a good command of english (at least HSC standard). While you can get by in courses like law, english, history (at uni level) without having any math skills.

Every other subject (except for maths) requires you to at least be able to construct short answer responses and essays. But answers in those subjects are not improved by HSC english. For me, the most sophisticated essays were written for Modern History, not English. By HSC level, english itself becomes about the concept of discourse rather than improving one's discoursive ability. Of course this is a good stepping stone for becoming a literary theorist, an author or any such positions, just as maths is relevant almost universally within the commercial and scientific sphere.

 

[banco55]

nah, yr 10 ten english is more than enough if ur doing pharmacy, enginerring or even history. Because say if you are doing history - u will cope with it.

accountacy required no english at all.. just numbers basically. yr 10 english is plenty in my opinion.

i think they should abolish HSC english or change it curriculum and make it more worthwhile.

yr 10 english was a pretty low standard from memory. If you are studying accounting at uni you will still have to write up reports.

 

[HotShot]

Every other subject (except for maths) requires you to at least be able to construct short answer responses and essays. For me, the most sophisticated essays were written for Modern History, not English. By HSC level, english itself becomes about the concept of discourse rather than improving one's discoursive ability. Of course this is a good stepping stone for becoming a literary theorist, an author or any such positions, just as maths is relevant almost universally within the commercial and scientific sphere.

true HSC history was tough, you had to be very analytical at the same time show no bias (unless ur required to) and make sense.

on the other you have english - where you just memorise ur essay and cough it up in the exam. for history you could do the same thing but its a lot harder.

for subjects like physics and chem etc.. it was mainly just definitions.

 

[HotShot]

yr 10 english was a pretty low standard from memory. If you are studying accounting at uni you will still have to write up reports.

yeah yr10 ten english was low, but i am saying if u having an average of 75% till then (till yr10) then thats more than enough.

yeah u have report in accounting and stuff - but most are numerical based those that arrent u just copy from other reports and adapt it to yours.

 

[MikiRei]

* Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?
* What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?
* How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?
* How important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia's way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia ?

1. *shrug*
2. So long you can get by on a daily basis?
3. My question will be to ask, WHAT is "knowledge of Australia"? I don't think every Ozzies know that themselves.
4. Again, I say "please explain" *laughs stupidly* How much will be a fair bit of committment? WHAT contributes as "committment to Australia's way of life"? Do we needa watch the Footy Show and go to the AFL finals or drink at the Pub every Friday to be called committed?

- anywayz, enuff for tongith I think

 

[ogmzergrush]

4. Again, I say "please explain" *laughs stupidly* How much will be a fair bit of committment? WHAT contributes as "committment to Australia's way of life"? Do we needa watch the Footy Show and go to the AFL finals or drink at the Pub every Friday to be called committed?

- anywayz, enuff for tongith I think

"way of life"
n : a course of conduct; "the path of virtue"; "we went our separate ways"; "our paths in life led us apart"; "genius usually follows a revolutionary path" [syn: way, path]

S: (n) life style, life-style, lifestyle, modus vivendi (a manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes)

What's with the insistence on taking the most shallow interpretation of "way of life" and "lifestyle" possible? It might be great for comedic effect, but it got old after the first page, and I'm not 100% sure that all of you are even joking...

If I were to make a reference to the Islamic way of life, woud you go "olol wearing funny clothes and having beards!"? Is it conceivable that there's a bit more to an Amish lifestyle than "having no tv and not liking photos olol!"?

I know it's a great laugh to poke fun at stereotypes, however I don't think it reflects any real depth of thought to consider these stereotypes as being synonymous with the other terms. If this is deliberate (the lack of depth in considering the issue), then the indignant tone seems a little out of place. Again, I don't intend to single you out, but I made this point previously in relation to another post, but have noticed a few people repeat similar comments since then.

Of course, correct me if this seems unreasonable. Is there any good reason why "lifestyle" and/or "way of life" should refer specifically to hobbies and passtimes which are fairly widespread stereotypes about Australians, or alternatively; is there any particular reason why these terms should not include things of a little more significance like highly regarded attitudes and values, that is, those which are seen as desirable in people living in our country?

Edit: By way of explaining this response, I've seen a number of posts saying "hurhur australian lifestyle and way of life is all about sport and pies! that's not important". This concerns me a little bit, as I see a commitment to the Australian way of life as being to do with accepting and respecting others, helping out wherever possible, not seeking to ruin things for others, following the laws and respecting the institutional processes which are in place, as well as other similar attitudes along this vein (I've elaborated on this earlier in the thread, for those interested or not clear on what I'm saying).

The reason for concern here is that to me, this is the most important thing to look for in someone coming to the country. I see it as far more important that someone has a commitment to upholding these values and ideals when moving here than it is for them to speak English, or understand even the basics of our history. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone say the same thing yet, and I guess it just seems to me like maybe people are missing the importance here because they're not really giving the deserved thought to the idea of a commitment to the Australian way of life.

Are there values and attitudes which you think are desirable in people moving here, or, are there specific values and attitudes which are undesirable? I have a hard time believing that people posting here would assess capacity to communicate in English, but not be at all interested in the way which people coming here feel about the country and how people here go about their business, and how interested the person is in becoming a part of that (not a reference to assimilation, for those of you waiting to make a jump). If I was to advocate a test like this at all, that's what I'd be most interested in, not whether they spoke English, not whether they knew our history, but how they felt about our country and the people in it. I think that's what this is about, not meat pies.

 

[_dhj_]

This concerns me a little bit, as I see a commitment to the Australian way of life as being to do with accepting and respecting others, helping out wherever possible, not seeking to ruin things for others, following the laws and respecting the institutional processes which are in place, as well as other similar attitudes along this vein (I've elaborated on this earlier in the thread, for those interested or not clear on what I'm saying).

I think any country, in fact probably even Islamic countries would like to claim these virtues as their own. The fact is that in any country, there will be some people who adhere to them and some who don't. The values are not unique, or even partially exclusive to Australia. On the other hand, AFL (though Victorian rather than Australian), having a drink with mates and barbecues etc., which are actually valid interpretations of the terms "lifestyle" or "way of life", are far closer to being distinctly Australian than the aforementioned "values".

 

[ogmzergrush]

I think any country, in fact probably even Islamic countries would like to claim these virtues as their own. The fact is that in any country, there will be some people who adhere to them and some who don't. The values are not unique, or even partially exclusive to Australia. On the other hand, AFL (though Victorian rather than Australian), having a drink with mates and barbecues etc., which are actually valid interpretations of the terms "lifestyle" or "way of life", are far closer to being distinctly Australian than the aforementioned "values".

I don't think they need to be unique to be considered an important aspect of our "way of life". Unless you either disagree with the definitions provided, or can suggest to me values or attitudes which would be considered "unique" in any country, I don't see how that's relevant.

I'm not suggesting that these things are able to uniquely identify our nation, just that they're a pretty good thing for people living here already, or planning on coming here to be interested in. And I still believe that, despite the apparent uniqueness of an interest in getting pissed, to suggest that this is *all* that there is to our way of life and/or lifestyle is to miss the point.

 

[_dhj_]

I don't think they need to be unique to be considered an important aspect of our "way of life". Unless you either disagree with the definitions provided, or can suggest to me values or attitudes which would be considered "unique" in any country, I don't see how that's relevant.

I'm not suggesting that these things are able to uniquely identify our nation, just that they're a pretty good thing for people living here already, or planning on coming here to be interested in. And I still believe that, despite the apparent uniqueness of an interest in getting pissed, to suggest that this is *all* that there is to our way of life and/or lifestyle is to miss the point.

Although I think very few people actually practice the values you've mentioned, either in Australia or overseas, I agree they are "pretty good thing for people living here already". Problem is, how exactly would you go about testing for these values? Any test of one's attitude towards life or values would fall short of satisfactory. Anyone could say that they agree with "respect for others", "fair go" or any such vague notions in order to gain their citizenship. With something like trivia about Australian society, Australian history etc. it's easier to devise relevant tests, but again one could undertake tutoring to pass these tests, and tbh I think knowledge of Australian history is neither essential nor common amongst existing Australians.

Respect for Australian lifestyle is something that basically can't be tested. But more fundamentally, it should not be a requisite for citizenship. This is because what is "Australian" is simply what is common in Australia or among Australians or what Australians tend to agree with. Identifying commonalities and enshrining them as requirements forces people to conform with popular opinion. This of course is fundamentally "un-Australian" .

 

[ogmzergrush]

Although I think very few people actually practice the values you've mentioned, either in Australia or overseas,

True, but that's what ideals are for. The fact that these values aren't nearly as predominant, here or elsewhere in the world, as they should be is of little relevance.

I agree they are "pretty good thing for people living here already". Problem is, how exactly would you go about testing for these values?

Any test of one's attitude towards life or values would fall short of satisfactory. Anyone could say that they agree with "respect for others", "fair go" or any such vague notions in order to gain their citizenship. With something like trivia about Australian society, Australian history etc. it's easier to devise relevant tests, but again one could undertake tutoring to pass these tests, and tbh I think knowledge of Australian history is neither essential nor common amongst existing Australians.

Precisely why I'd stop short of advocating a test. Of the things originally suggested for testing, this is the one factor which I would call important, and it's the one which is least able to be assessed by any conceivable form of test. This is the point I made initially when I posted, and have repeated a few times since. Of course, that doesn't actually change the importance of these values, in my eyes, it just means that a test to ensure that they were held would be fruitless.

My point behind my more recent posts here has been that people seem to be placing an astouding lack of importance on the role of values in our society, due to the perhaps somewhat misleading phrases used to describe this concept. To clarify, my point was never that they are important and should be tested.

Respect for Australian lifestyle is something that basically can't be tested. But more fundamentally, it should not be a requisite for citizenship. This is because what is "Australian" is simply what is common in Australia or among Australians or what Australians tend to agree with. Identifying commonalities and enshrining them as requirements forces people to conform with popular opinion. This of course is fundamentally "un-Australian" .

I tend to think that enforcing [what should be] commonly held values, when we're referring to things like not willfully victimising others due to their racial background, sexual preference, religion, or whatever else, and when we're talking about seeking to coexist peacefully is something we could probably afford to do without worrying too much about being the bad guy.

What you've described above seems to suggest that things like anti-discrimination law shouldn't exist because it's "un-Australian" to enforce things like mutual respect, which is what I was talking about, however this claim would seem to run counter to another widely perceived value, being that of the "fair go", so I don't really know how that suggestion on your part works.

I think shared values, and a distinct lack of deeply-seated ideological differences, are fundamental in peacefully coexisting, and the suggestion that a commitment to this isn't important for citizens puzzles me.

 

[_dhj_]

What you've described above seems to suggest that things like anti-discrimination law shouldn't exist because it's "un-Australian" to enforce things like mutual respect, which is what I was talking about, however this claim would seem to run counter to another widely perceived value, being that of the "fair go", so I don't really know how that suggestion on your part works.

I think shared values, and a distinct lack of deeply-seated ideological differences, are fundamental in peacefully coexisting, and the suggestion that a commitment to this isn't important for citizens puzzles me.

There is a distinction between having discriminating or prejudicial values and attitudes and actually carrying them out which involves the infringement of the rights (in the purely lay sense) of others. If you subconsciously believe that caucasians are superior to aborigines (as alot of us probably do), there's nothing you can do about that. It is only when you act on that belief - by discrimination, violence or other unlawful means that you should be liable to any form of punishment or coercion. Of course, Australian law already serves that purpose.

 

[ogmzergrush]

There is a distinction between having discriminating or prejudicial values and attitudes and actually carrying them out which involves the infringement of the rights (in the purely lay sense) of others. If you subconsciously believe that caucasians are superior to aborigines (as alot of us probably do), there's nothing you can do about that. It is only when you act on that belief - by discrimination, violence or other unlawful means that you should be liable to any form of punishment or coercion. Of course, Australian law already serves that purpose.

haha, that's pretty obvious too, but I had assumed we were talking about those who overtly hold these values in that they act upon them, as those who do not are probably not going to draw attention to themselves as not having the values which we would encourage. If it makes that much of a difference, I should have said "These values are important, *but* people can not hold them, providing they just think the nasty thoughts and don't act upon them, and that will be fine too". This seems a little like pedantry.

 

[The Logical One]

Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?

It depends on the circumstances in which citizenship might be granted. In an an emergency immediate understanding of english should be overlooked. However, learning english should be a priority upon entry into Australia as it is vital to survival.

What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?

What does it mean to participate as an Australian citizen? Surely a newborn baby doesn't need English to 'participate' as an Australian citizen. Citizenship is only a right to belong to a country. I don't think any level is required, but infact prefered.

How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?

" "

How important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia's way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia

This question is asking whether or not ALL Australians should be bound to particular values and a "way of life". This question is against the democracy which we are apart of as everyone should be entitled to their own values and views. Prejudice is not something which Australia stands for as a mainly liberal democratic country.



I didn't exactly read the articles but these questions are stupid.

 

[ogmzergrush]

This question is asking whether or not ALL Australians should be bound to particular values and a "way of life". This question is against the democracy which we are apart of as everyone should be entitled to their own values and views. Prejudice is not something which Australia stands for as a mainly liberal democratic country.

So... Australia doesn't stand for prejudice, but we should allow people with values which are inclined towards prejudice to go about their business, in a manner potentially detrimental to others, without protest or concern... because to not allow them to do so, or to comment that this is unacceptable and really shouldn't be allowed is to exhibit prejudice ourselves? Because we value the freedom of the individual so highly in our mainly liberal democratic country, we should be accepting of those who would reject or undermine said liberal democratic ways? This seems a little... strange.

I'm not saying we need to be mind police here and tell people they can't think things, but shouldn't there be a line in the sand there, somewhere, at all, just maybe, even if it is way, way, way out there?

 

[Snaykew]

So who are the real Australians? Victorians or New South Welshmen? Rugby League or AFL?!

Just kidding.