Should eng. be a manditory subject? (1 Viewer)

[alexh333]

Obviously the subject of English is needed to be taught in schools, but it seems to me that this had become more a sentimental gesture attempting to hold on to what we consider the idea of to be educated. The problem with english (also other subjects, but bare with me) is that is does not actually test inteliigence: it tests knowledge and rewards those with a particular writting style.
The Problem with testing knowledge is that it is usless, any drooling idiot can read a text and scrape out a couple of key ideas. When will they learn that Knowledge does not equal education, they key to intelligence is understanding. And I mean honestly, the syllabus does not really dive into any deep psycho-analytical or phillosophical areas, or truely relate to the issues of today's society.
And whats with the structure and style of EVERY-FUKING-THING, i mean who really gives the shit. We have to make our writting sophisticated and intelectual, and to a point i understand that...but wouldnt the true purpose of intelligence to be to share it? To be able to explain the sophisticated in a simple way? I mean it was good enough for einstein, but the not the BOS...u'll only get a 13/20 instead of an 18. total BS. Even so, if u do move into a career surrounding what u have learnt in english, u'd better forget everything u learnt...because everything now-a-days is to explain everything to the general public. That's right, all u 4U english students out there will find it hard to find a proper job in media because they all fear that the pompous bullshit ur teachers taught u distant u from the public.
But im not just ranting on here, i am here to pose a point of discussion: should eng be complusarary? They did scrap maths. In all my deliberation i have so far concluded that eng. probably should be manditory, but it shouldnt have to count for ur HSC/UAI mark. A just solution?

 

[Ioup]

............
What the hell...

 

[B35tY]

Mandatory and "complusarary", in fact.

 

[berra]

i disagree... i mean i used to think the same way, but now, i realise how important the subject really is. not only does it enable us to view many things from different perspectives - because we are taught to look at everything from other points of views- but it also brings out that creative creature in us. so, no matter what anyone says, i believe english should be mandatory.

 

[dagwoman]

Yes, definitely. Analytical and writing skills are vital in life and the workforce, and such skills need to be continued beyond year 10 and into the prelim. and HSC course. It is true that it's difficult to measure understanding, but I think that the people who really understand the texts are able to convey that in their writing to a better degree than just spilling out facts- it's about "flair" in writing.

 

[Danm999]

I don't think 4 unit English students are all pompous, and I don't think that they all want careers in the media. I know I don't really want one.

Does that really matter now? I mean, this post is clearly about idiocy and generalisations, so I'll thank you not to end that.

But seriously, how can the original poster be so stupid? Does he honestly think jobs in the fields of journalism or media and communications are going to turn down highly educated students because they composed their own major work?!

Sounds to me like somebody is trying to justify their choice of courses with puerile and ill-informed generalisations.

 

[Testpilot]

I hate English and that's because you have to re-state teachers/markers opinions if you want good marks, at least at my school anyway. We were told that we could say anything in the subject so long as we had contextual proof. Yet this didn't happen in the HSC internal assessments at my school. People were rewarded for memorising and reproducing the teacher's anti-Howard, anti-capitalist and pro-communist propaganda. Did you know that despite being written in 1932 Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is actually talking about the totalitian life under John Howard 74 years later. 20/20 well done, get fucked English teacher.

Aside from that personal rant they should introduce a third (more practical) course focusing on grammar/spelling etc with practice in writing different texts as well as analysis of texts. Time should be divided evenly between all three. This course would suit more mathematically minded people.

 

[glitterfairy]

Even so, if u do move into a career surrounding what u have learnt in english, u'd better forget everything u learnt...because everything now-a-days is to explain everything to the general public. That's right, all u 4U english students out there will find it hard to find a proper job in media because they all fear that the pompous bullshit ur teachers taught u distant u from the public.

Not true. A great deal of the english HSC syllabus revolves around analysing texts in a particular way for a particular audience (ie the HSC markers). Anyone that takes English or Creative Writing studies up at uni will soon learn that they want you to completely forget the style of analysis you learnt in high school and learn a new one that's more open-minded.

In regards to 4U...most 4U students I know (and ex-students, including myself) frequently turn around and laugh in despair at the state of the HSC english syllabus. I know it may be hard to believe, but when you've gone through eng adv, ee1 and have thinking time to spare after that, you can see the holes that exist. But you know what they want, so you give it to them because you want a good UAI so you never have to do the HSC ever again.

It could also be observed as thus:
Eng Adv --> new multisyllable words are seen, used, but not really understood
EE1 --> multisyllable words studied in more depth, therefore understood and applied more frequently
EE2 --> more complex terms and concepts experimented with and commented upon

My main gripes with the current syllabus is that a) they're trying to teach you uni-level stuff (good, but definately high-level stuff that takes time to understand) in about one eighth of the time uni students get, and b) a good number of NSW teachers weren't properly trained to teach the new syllabus. It's not a good combination.

despite being written in 1932 Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is actually talking about the totalitian life under John Howard 74 years later.

It is, in the sense that 'readers can bring their own meaning to texts'. But again, this is a uni-level literary concept and linked to a rather philosophical approach to literature. Although I bet most teachers wouldn't have spent a lot of time explaining that to you though (or its opposite - where some claim that a reader can ONLY gain whatever insights the author intended to be conveyed).


I'm ambivalent as to whether 2 units of english should be mandatory in the calculation of one's UAI. We're an english-speaking country so it makes perfect sense to put people through the rather basic Eng AOS exam, but by the same token it just so stupid at times.

 

[matty fwd]

There are strong arguements for and against really. I mean there is no questioning the relevance of a topic like "Telling the truth". Whenever I read any article now, I automatically see all the language techniques they're using to try and 'convince' me. By that same token, the word journey has now lost all meaning. There is no educational value in telling me what a journey is, then asking me to write an essay, based on what they've told me.

 

[Mumma]

I suppose we are an english speaking country, but then thats why we do English up to year 10. We dont need senior level english, and if they need to make it compulsory make it simpler. I mean seriously we have to know somewhere around 13 texts for a total 4 hours of examination. That is overkill. They are more testing how well you can prepare for an exam and how fast you can write. I always do excellent in take-home assignments, but do poorly in exams because I simply dont have time to think and write, and it all boils down to memorising pre-prepared paragraphs.

 

[glitterfairy]

^ Eng Standard and Eng AOS are pretty simple in my opinion. And without trying to sound overly pro-HSC english, the jump between Yr 10 and uni-level english (even for non-humanities degrees) is too great.

I don't feel there's a huge amount of difference between Yr 7 and Yr 10 english. Yr 11 and Yr 12 though, is a completely different story... perhaps a solution would be for the Board to try and spread the difficulty of content more evenly across the 6 years of high school. I still have many memories of Yr 11, holding my head and crying out in frustration because it was just SO much harder than anything else I'd ever done before. It turned out to be a great form of boot camp (I actually found my HSC year easier than Yr 11), but crash coursing is not always the best way to teach something...

I always do excellent in take-home assignments, but do poorly in exams because I simply dont have time to think and write, and it all boils down to memorising pre-prepared paragraphs.

See, when you get to uni you will HAVE to be able to think and write on the spot. The format of the HSC as a kind of 'step up' to tertiary-level examinations seems ridiculous when you consider that more and more students are turning to rote-learning to "get through" to uni.

Gah. How bad do things have to get before the Board is forced to make some changes.

 

[Mumma]

See, when you get to uni you will HAVE to be able to think and write on the spot.

No, I wont be, as I will be doing Engineering. From what I can tell there are no creative texts to study in any field of engineering. Oh man they should have a subject called "English for Engineers". Oh well less than a week Ill never have to write another pointless essay in my life again

 

[passion89]

Gah. How bad do things have to get before the Board is forced to make some changes.

I totally agree. The difference in the level of difficulty from yr 7-10 to yr 11-12 is ridiculous.

I, too found yr 12 much easier than year 11 because I was so overwhelmed with the amount and level of difficulty it entailed when compared to year 10. The Board really needs to do something about this, it's basically unfair for them to chuck us in the deep end that way.

Also, the number of people memorising and regurgitating essays is really shocking. In my school, girls (all girl school) are not stressing about whether they've learnt the concepts or content, they're stressing about whether they can memorise the 2nd last paragraph or not. I have always been taught to yes, plan my essays but to an extent that leaves me totally open to interpret (and more importantly) answer the question.

By reading these forums, I saw that a crapload of students have already started memorising their generic essays for an unseen question. What's more is that some of these students get away with exceptional marks.
What kind of a system is this that it encourages rote learning?

 

[Trebla]

I reckon one of the biggest problems in the HSC English curriculum is that many teachers don't understand the course content themselves and especially in 2 unit English, the focus on a certain meaning of a text is too narrow.

Believe it or not, some of teachers do not understand the course themselves. Even more disturbing is that quite a number of teachers do not know or are deluded about what is required in a response. I, for one, know that many of my school's English staff focus way too much on structural elements of the response (grammar, punctuation, linking, synthesis etc) and there is not enough focus given on the requirements of the content whether it be in class or in their made up marking criteria. I don't know whether this is because that element of the response is a weakness (or their only strength) or whether they somehow believe that perfecting structural elements of the response will score higher marks. However, this focus (or lack there of) is obviously not very effective because every year we have a disgraceful number of band 6 results in English (Advanced) and what makes it more embarassing is that we have a selective cohort. (i.e. we are crap at English)

Another point I'd like to make is that we are limited to associating ceratain texts being dictated by a single concept. Therefore, there is no room to appreciate the diversity of ideas that the texts represent to us but rather we have to focus on a one-dimensional perspective of the text and we often get so sick of it. I just revised my Area of Study and attempted to re-read and analyse my texts in terms of Journeys. I am now sick of reading the texts again because I've done it so many times before. It's come to the point that whenever I see a Skrzynecki poem in future I will always think of Journeys rather than the actual content of the poem!!!

I reckon English shouldn't be a mandatory subject. Not this type of English at least. If the curriculum was revised with more focus on language and communication skills which are useful rather than literature concepts, then perhaps I would support it being mandatory.

 

[dagwoman]

I didn't find that there was a very big jump between years 10 and 11, personally. And if someone rote learns their essay and gets exceptional marks, it means that
1) the essay they prepared in the first place was really good, which has nothing to do with memorisation
2) they were obviously able to adapt their essay to the question, also not based on memorisation

 

[Testpilot]

I reckon English shouldn't be a mandatory subject. Not this type of English at least. If the curriculum was revised with more focus on language and communication skills which are useful rather than literature concepts, then perhaps I would support it being mandatory.

I totally agree. You can't argue that English should be mandatory because we use it in everyday life because then almost every subject should be mandatory. For example, I'm affected by the laws of physics everyday but thats not a compulsary subject and I often use a computer but computer based subjects aren't required.

 

[dagwoman]

I totally agree. You can't argue that English should be mandatory because we use it in everyday life because then almost every subject should be mandatory. For example, I'm affected by the laws of physics everyday but thats not a compulsary subject and I often use a computer but computer based subjects aren't required.

That's not a very good analogy. You use writing skills daily, you don't use knowledge on physics principles. And computer based subjects don't teach you how to open and save a word document.

 

[passion89]

That's not a very good analogy. You use writing skills daily, you don't use knowledge on physics principles. And computer based subjects don't teach you how to open and save a word document.

Lol have you thought about being a lawyer? You have an answer for everything

 

[n@ttyb]

im glad its mandatory, otherwise i wouldnt have chosen it cause i was crap at it. But ive brezed through it all year.

 

[dagwoman]

Lol have you thought about being a lawyer? You have an answer for everything

You being sarcastic or do you really mean that? I guess I'm just one to back up my opinions.