SMH article on how shit is HSC English

[untouchablecuz]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by sikhman

HSC English needs more critical theory. critical theory makes english interesting.

this

[freaky.styly]

...This calls for a rant...


"but it had fallen victim to post-modernism"

-post-modernism has perhaps been one of the most interesting and informative concepts to learn about in my entire schooling life, and every student ought to encounter it at some stage, purely to encourage open-mindedness

"If anything it is too hard" ~ "compare the rote learning"

-f*ck off, the questions proposed are more than reasonable, the conditions under which we are expected to answer them in, are not. There is a blatant imbalance in the consideration of quality measured against quantity, an inadequate provision of reading and planning time, and the stubborn failure to recognise the application of modern word processing technology - computers!!!

"None of the parents I have asked said they memorised essays for exams ... Rather they ... thought about them from every angle"

- Consider perhaps, that is reasonable and beneficial to practice and remember the content of practice essays. If essays need to be written in the exam, then thinking about them won't be quite as beneficial as thinking and then writing essays beforehand, on them - memorised or not, after all, the HSC essentially is one great memory test (for a large part).

"Thinking on their feet, as in the good old days, is one skill English students don't master"

- Feel free to provide evidence for this before insulting us.

"hsc not a memorising test"

-Yes, it is. You're given a mere 5min reading time for Paper 2, and are allowed no resources. It has everything to do with memory.

"Who can sensibly ''create'' in 40 minutes?"

-To the standard expected? You tell me.

Adele Horin, ask some students, get it right.

[brigadier123456]

its funny, because the title of this thread is grammatically wrong.

[angelita]

I think what many people are forgetting is that not everyone is the same; what may work for someone might not work for another. Some people excel learning just techniques and ideas and going into the exam room and pulling out fantastic essays out of their asses, while others do not.

Personally, my problem isn't learning techniques or quotes. My problem is not being able to remember the sentences that make your structure flow, and what pulls your essay up to a band 6 from a band 5. That's why I always memorise the bulk of the content in my essays save for intros/conclusions, because if I don't, the stress of being in the exam room prevents me from writing to my full capacity and I end up writing an essay that even a year 8 student would be ashamed of.

My performance (and I'm sure I'm not alone) always decreases in exams which is a huge disadvantage, and I really hope markers take that into consideration, as well as the ridiculous 40 minute limit.

[scaredytiger]

Thread title makes no sense. I will listen to laments about English syllabi when - and only when - those who complain learn to construct a sentence.

[penguin.ali]

Originally Posted by evilflic

I'm no genius, and I don't even have an english folder because I've done no work for it all year, but whilst cramming before the trials and actual HSC english exams, I wrote out a few practice essays.
My internal school mark is currently 96/100 and if I don't get above 95 for Advanced in the HSC, I'll be seriously disappointed. That's not because I'm a stuck-up bitch who sets unrealistic expectations. It's because I can confidently say that I've nailed getting an essay plan etc. down in less than the allocated time - a bit of practice is all it takes. It's not impossible.
When you say it's "just too much to ask" - okay, maybe you found it challenging, but there is a good percentage of the state who've practiced effectively enough to be able to write something "of quality".

Thank you ^

I think there needs to be some emphasis on study here, rather than on the wrote essay dilemma.
I, as well, am not particularly bright. I have never received an award for excellence in anything, yet all my teachers tell me that I am going to do very well during the HSC. You know why?

Because I practised my bum off.
Yes, people are saying "it's too hard to plan an essay in three minutes".
No its not. You know what you need to do? Practise writing TO TIME so that you develop the skills to do that, otherwise you'll only ever hit the mediocre marks. I did. And I moved my average up from 4 pages in 40 mins to 10 pages in 40 mins, and it only takes me a couple of minutes to plan, where it used to take much longer.
And this over reliance on rote learned essays is disgusting. My teacher has just been named as a senior english marker and says that she is able to spot a memorised essay a mile off. Why? Because the markers are aware of what students can do in 40-45 minutes. Anything that is above that quality is more than likely memorised.

The main point of exams is so that everybody is on an even footing and is one of the best ways to test a large number of people on their knowledge. So, if you think about it, it's kinda like sport, and memorising essays is like a drug.

Sure, they may give you an advantage, but more than likely it will blow up in your face and make your genitals shrink. Because, as I've said, the markers can spot rote learned essays a mile off and chances are, they're not going to go easy on you because what you've done, can be considered a form of cheating.

How about you learn the content and learn to think, instead of relying on what your teachers say will be awesome in the exams?

[Empyrean444]

Originally Posted by penguin.ali

Thank you ^
Because I practised my bum off.
Yes, people are saying "it's too hard to plan an essay in three minutes".
No its not. You know what you need to do? Practise writing TO TIME so that you develop the skills to do that, otherwise you'll only ever hit the mediocre marks. I did. And I moved my average up from 4 pages in 40 mins to 10 pages in 40 mins, and it only takes me a couple of minutes to plan, where it used to take much longer.
And this over reliance on rote learned essays is disgusting. My teacher has just been named as a senior english marker and says that she is able to spot a memorised essay a mile off. Why? Because the markers are aware of what students can do in 40-45 minutes. Anything that is above that quality is more than likely memorised.

No it isn't. In spite of the noble declarations of the BOS English Propaganda and bullshit artistry dept, the HSC is about performing well in assessments throughout the year and an exam at the end. It is not some moral challenge where students learn to apply all this ever lasting and valuable knowledge and skills learned via reading things into texts that clearly aren't present.

The main point of exams is so that everybody is on an even footing and is one of the best ways to test a large number of people on their knowledge. So, if you think about it, it's kinda like sport, and memorising essays is like a drug.

No, it isn't. Memorising an essay is a 'tactic', it is a particular method of approaching both study, exam preparation and the actual exam itself. Sportspeople may, say, employ different training methods and even have a slightly different technique in the race/game/sport proper - this is not 'cheating', merely a different approach. A prepared essay could only be considered a 'drug' - an artificial cheat, if you will - if someone else writes it for you and then you memorise it (and really, at best I think this is a circumstance that surely occurs rarely and is dystopically exagerrated by the demagogues of the world of the secondary school academic commentators). And really, simply memorising an essay and not adapting it to the question (and sustaining this throughout is silly.

Indeed, by your logic, if one student studies, this could count as drug abuse considering they will clearly be on superior footing to those who havent.

Sure, they may give you an advantage, but more than likely it will blow up in your face and make your genitals shrink. Because, as I've said, the markers can spot rote learned essays a mile off and chances are, they're not going to go easy on you because what you've done, can be considered a form of cheating.

How about you learn the content and learn to think, instead of relying on what your teachers say will be awesome in the exams?

A 'memorised' (or preferably, as I have applied, skilfully 'adapted' in exam) essay requires the emboldened; it simply takes it a step further by imposing a pre-emptive structure upon them.

[Empyrean444]

I generally like English, but by the end I have come to despise the course.
Firstly, Postmodernism is a problem. I know a lot of the 'arty' types tend to enjoy it, but for the vast majority of students (including myself) - and this is by no means dependant on English ability or disposition - it is alienating, largely by dint of the fact that a fair bit of it is a load of rubbish totally disparate from reality. At best, it should be an optional extra (which it isn't for the ext 1 elective my school chose) which individual students can elect at their own discretion)

What is more concerning, though, is the postmodern 'structure', imo, used in the course. By this, I mean that rather than doing that unintellectual and cretinous method of simply studying a text on its own merits and grounds (unworthy, of course, of such literati as us NSW HSC english students) we look at it through a specific and stupefying lens, for example, 'belonging' or 'history and memory' or even, in ext, something even worse like 'navigating the global'. The result is the devaluation of the text, as we cover it in a superficial manner which omits much of importance. We ultimately end up imposing rubbish upon a text that really isn't there. Moreover, we are forced by necessity to draw stupid lines of comparison between essentially different texts.

Really, all electives ought to be restructured, imo, around the lines of the Module B sort of thing. Further, if this were done, then it would allow for a far deeper examination of techniques (especially structural devices which, say, rarely relate to something like belonging), themes, and even the influence of context on the work. In addition, it would make on the spot essays more viable considering that in each essay you would only have to talk about one text and would not have to formulate a broad and disturbing thesis centred on an external and only tangentally relevant paradigm like 'belonging'. I mean, even module A requires you to establish a lot of superficial and meaningless similitude between text to come to the *amazing* revelation that different contexts produce different values and texts (I mean who knew????)

[addikaye03]

I also think this arguement should extend past just HSC English, i think contrived memorised answers are just as common in physics and chemistry.

The answer: Revamp the HSC Chem and Phys course, and base it upon on prerequisite knowledge needed for uni ie. In phys, bring back the calculus-based course, instead of "30% calculation based".

Back to English, complete and utter revamp. Back the the "old school" days.

I personally think it should be acedemic questions, not literature based studies.

[copeys]

@Empyrean, I do understand your point you are saying, that memorizing an essay is a "tactic"

But, I disagree with it on some levels. An essay is not about regurgitating a pre-organised essay that you have practised and practised. It is about applying your knowledge to the question.

I wrote essays and plans for numerous questions on all 3 modules (and AOS), and I felt adequetly prepared going in. I knew the information on the text that I could use to back-up my point. This is what the BOS expects, a student with a comprehensive knowledge of their text. This said student is now measured/marked on how well they can write an essay for the question, and use the knowledge of the text they studied to back up their point. Not marked on how well they were able to do "refit" an essay to the question.

Yes, it can be a study technique, but the course is designed so you come out thinking more deeply. Now, don't get me wrong, I think english is a crock of S^&*, but as a student I feel that I am able to look at a text and understand elements that perhaps beforehand threw me. This "skill" has come from the preparation I took for my exams.

Now, I know that school is just a stepping stone for uni, yet more and more people are treating it like that, getting the best mark in the HSC for Uni by training themselves. I am all for trying your best, but I don't like to see students studying to just get through the exams. I like to see them studying to learn the course and enjoy their education

[Empyrean444]

Originally Posted by copeys

@Empyrean, I do understand your point you are saying, that memorizing an essay is a "tactic"

But, I disagree with it on some levels. An essay is not about regurgitating a pre-organised essay that you have practised and practised. It is about applying your knowledge to the question.

In theory, yes; but it is really about getting a good mark. If a student believes this to be their best avenue of approach, then I don't see the problem with it. The simple fact is that to construct one of these in the first place requires knowledge of the text, etc, etc, which appears to be ignored.

I wrote essays and plans for numerous questions on all 3 modules (and AOS), and I felt adequetly prepared going in. I knew the information on the text that I could use to back-up my point. This is what the BOS expects, a student with a comprehensive knowledge of their text. This said student is now measured/marked on how well they can write an essay for the question, and use the knowledge of the text they studied to back up their point. Not marked on how well they were able to do "refit" an essay to the question.

But the BOS 'expects' a lot of things, for instance, that learning about some rubbish in the 50th gayte, say, will actually be of any use. You still seem to thing that if one memorises/pre-writes an essay, then you somehow lose knowledge of the text or don't have it in the first place. Such knowledge/understanding is completely requisite for writing such an essay (trick is to make it broad). You must answer the question and, as English is a subjective and interpretive subject, manipulating that question and your own material is imo part of the game. And by 'refitting' I don't just mean a vague reference at the start/finish - I mean redirecting and playing with every paragraph so that each of your points directly answers the question (which is of course the purpose of the essay).

Yes, it can be a study technique, but the course is designed so you come out thinking more deeply. Now, don't get me wrong, I think english is a crock of S^&*, but as a student I feel that I am able to look at a text and understand elements that perhaps beforehand threw me. This "skill" has come from the preparation I took for my exams.

Once again - I don't see how the choice to prepare en essay fails to 'think deeply' about the text - once again, this is requisite for any quality such essay. I think this skill comes from the study one does to arrive at the points/techniques/data one uses for a thesis.

[bell531]

Please, Board of Studies, take notice of this thread. The entire original article by the English teacher describes exactly what we are all feeling. English, right now, is terrible. It needs a complete workover. Also, some more points raised which I completely agree with:

Originally Posted by Lothy

Is it just possible, just maybe, that the author didn't fill every second word with a special meaning

Originally Posted by jiratic

and on the theme of incidental techniques:
Shakespeare in his infinite wisdom did not have a thought process of 'Oh i'll insert some metonymy here, and I'll reinforce that with some antilabe in that next line or two. Hmm thats not complicated enough to be cool. lets add some assonance and pleonasm. Now my work is sufficiently witty and technique ridden so it will last 500 years and become part of hsc English

Originally Posted by Clifford

To be honest, I think the best part of english advanced is the creative writing because it's the only part where you needn't regurgitate techniques.

Originally Posted by Clifford

TO THE BOARD OF STUDIES - Throw out techniques, get us to respond to themes/ideas and actual thought!

Over analysis of techniques destroys English. This is not what texts are about, but this coincidental by-product of quality writing has somehow found its way into HSC English so that now what truly makes texts great has lost focus, and now takes a back seat to techniques in our essays.

Originally Posted by Clifford

What I meant by my original post, is that memorisation wouldn't be such an issue, and english would become much less mechanical, if there wasnt such an emphasis on quoting directly from the text and needing to analyse it in that way.

It would give free reign to the Board of Studies to ask more specific questions, as students wouldn't need in depth, copious references to access top marks, as they could respond more sincerly and thoughtfully, unhindered by the need to constantly refer to specific passages. This would also increase the capacity of intelligent students, those with a natural aptitude/appreciation of english to respond in a more varied way to a question. They wouldn't be confined by the 15 quotes they've got branded on their brain. A deeper knowledge of the texts would be required, but the memory, and thus regurgitation aspect, would be reduced.

Absolutely what English should be about. HSC English has developed to the point where we need to memorise essays to get good marks, and in doing so we have only a limited capacity to remember the quotes and techniques (which shouldn't be necessary anyway) which relate to the ideas in our pre-prepared essays. We can only remember so many quotes, and thus if we are asked anything else, we panic, and hope that we can adapt our essays well enough to scrape a decent mark.

Originally Posted by murphyad

I actually wrote a letter in to the SMH about this (not sure if they'll publish it though). I completely agree that writing decent responses 'off the cuff' is more or less impossible due to the time constraints involved.

Exactly how I feel, however, due to the "tutors write students' essays" mentality, there isnt much that can be done on this.

Originally Posted by jiratic

"Hsc English is tying english to a chair and beating the meaning out of it"

Board of Studies, can you fix this?

[LordPc]

your cause is admirable

but while I do think staff from the BoS do visit this site, I very much doubt that they give any consideration for what the students want and feel

[bell531]

Hopefully they will realise that I am actually done with English and posted that in the hope that future years don't have to suffer through it. And I'm not complaining because I went poorly, I didn't. Its more to do with the fact that I went through a year of memorising essays, reading only sections of the texts which I was to use, and desperately trying to mould my pre-prepared essays to ill-suited questions, and this really killed English to me. I hope that no one else has to suffer like this

[random-1005]

Originally Posted by bell531

Hopefully they will realise that I am actually done with English and posted that in the hope that future years don't have to suffer through it. And I'm not complaining because I went poorly, I didn't. Its more to do with the fact that I went through a year of memorising essays, reading only sections of the texts which I was to use, and desperately trying to mould my pre-prepared essays to ill-suited questions, and this really killed English to me. I hope that no one else has to suffer like this

nah keep it for one more year, because i hate this yrs 12 (ie hsc 2010), they are massive fukwits, the whole school is full of lads and criminals and whores now that yr12 2009 is gone