lolits boring, it requires personal response
teachers arn't motivating
teachers think their opinions are the only correct ones
i am a male
you will find out soon enough. lol english teachers are just drop outs, out of all subjects english teachers are just shit, english is for the people that are too shit to teach anything else, and can you people imagine the unemployment rate if english wasnt compulsoryim in year 10 and like reading alot,but what ive read from this site,it seems that the hsc english course is really bad or just plain evil.
is it more about memory,creativity,interpretation or mix of the 3 to get top marks?
100% correctYeh, the marks are a coin toss, work put in doesnt determine mark, it's completely random. The ridiculous over analysis of everything and the fact it is all philosophical and not actually working with fact or knowledge like other subjects.
so trueCos it involves:AND its compulsory
- Reading
- Writing
- Thinking
- Pretending we care about a crappy movie/book/poem/etc. that we have dissected for the past year, and still don't understand what irony is
- Attempting to be creative
- ruining your passive viewing/reading/listening experiences for the rest of your life
people hate hsc english because the way it is taught is quite pathetic and so is the course work.I absolutely love English-People on this forum hate it because they are maths people (?), sorry to say
I looked at the resources section just a few minutes ago, at some complex worksheet, and it made me ill just thinking about maths. It's good though that you appreciate english. Certainly for me it boosted my atar incredibly, in the face of my maths marks being really low
This.the fact that one techer might mark your essay 17/20, however the teacher you have marks it 14/20. Hence, everyone in the other classes is beating your ass (to an extent), while you're comming last. Ahh, english is so subjective!
Critical thinking and analysing skills may be important, but why are we forced to do it on some texts we hate or don't care about? There has to be a better way of doing itIn theory, it works perfectly fine. Year 11 and 12 are about developing your critical skills, being able to engage in the messages being put forward. This is incredibly important in a world filled with misleading media and advertising. Being able to deconstruct what is actually being said, and being able to argue your own opinions is highly important, regardless of the industry you're in.
The problem is, students aren't getting the foundations right in earlier years. So you get to year 12, and then your asked to critically engage with a text and you don't have the meta language to do it. You don't have the language structure to formulate an argument and you don't have the punctuate skills to make your sentences flow. So you end up cobbling together notes you've taken from other peoples analysis and memorising an essay that's been written before the exam that may or may not answer the question. And this sort of behaviour is encouraged by many top tier schools, where essay and creative sharing is rampant.
The problem is the execution, not the subject.
There has to be some sort of uniformity, otherwise there would be no yardstick for comparison. Not everyone is going to like every text. And sometimes, you do have to analyse things you don't like, because that's how things will be in life.Critical thinking and analysing skills may be important, but why are we forced to do it on some texts we hate or don't care about? There has to be a better way of doing it