Would u still do English (3 Viewers)

[wantingtoknow]

With our current syllabus, I would have dropped English. I think it's utter crap; where is knowing how to critically analyse a text/ appreciate a text etc going to get us in life?

The syllabus should focus more on areas such as spelling, grammar etc, which we can actually utilise in life. If the syllabus was like that, English should be compulsory but still should not be counted in your ATAR. I think it's really unfair that it is at the moment. It's really going to jeopardize my ATAR T_T

 

[the-derivative]

I'd probably not do english - not because I don't like it, or because I think it's irrelevant, but because English is my weakest subject and I think if I had the option - I'd replace it with something like Economics or Biology, where I'd be more confident in.

Or I'd replace English with a language.

Better for my ATAR. Better for my brain. Win win situation.

 

[ninetypercent]

lol If I didn't do English from yr 7-yr 10, my essays in other subjects would be atrocious.

With our current syllabus, I would have dropped English. I think it's utter crap; where is knowing how to critically analyse a text/ appreciate a text etc going to get us in life?

lolz, they aid us with the understanding of texts. seriously, I'm really shit in English - I can't understand the language used in newspapers; the current HSC syllabus does assess our understanding of texts which is valuable for people like me.

The syllabus should focus more on areas such as spelling, grammar etc, which we can actually utilise in life. If the syllabus was like that, English should be compulsory but still should not be counted in your ATAR. I think it's really unfair that it is at the moment. It's really going to jeopardize my ATAR T_T

agreed with the more focus on spelling and grammar. LOL I thought about the second statement as well, but if it wasn't going to count towards the ATAR, most people won't give a shit about it.

 

[Absolutezero]

Most people are saying that they'd be more inclined to do English if it focused more on grammar and punctuation. However, can you image two years of just that sort of stuff. 'This week we learn what an adverb is...'

They're is no way they could maintain broad interest which that type of information. I believe it can be used as a supplement to the current syllabus, but not a viable replacement.

 

[bwendan]

You make a valid statement.

Here's a question for you.

Don't you think that by studying, say Hamlet, and exploring the concept of belonging would somewhat improve our literacy skills?

How does exploring the concept of belonging improve your literacy skills anymore than exploring the role of the High Court in legal studies? You can improve your literacy skills in numerous ways, but it doesn't have to involve hamlet and exploring "belonging". The fact is that not everyone cares and has the desire to explore "belonging"

Furthermore all this nonsense argument "English should not be have to be in the UAI cos it brings me down" is crap. That's no real argument. The UAI/ENTER has been designed as a selection tool to predict performance at university, not designed so that you could go to university.

 

[bwendan]

In a materialistic world, English and humanities are the only subjects left that makes us "human". (that is, knowing how to communicate effectively) This is important as materialism is making us more robotic as time goes by. If the world is limited to Maths and Sciences, how are we going to interact with each other? How are we to express our feelings effectively?
As much as I hate English, I do have to agree that the study of English is substantial for people in our age. Why are you going to employ people really good at Maths when they can't speak properly!!!

It's characteristic of folks who like the humanities to make it out as if they have a monopoloy on "knowing how to communicate effectively" and "expressing feelings" when in fact if you actually look at the reader for any humanities course at university, their English is nearly unintelligible.

I mean take a look at this paragraph:

"I propose to embrace tactical strategies in moving in disruption of the [theory/praxis] dichotomy, as crucial to an epistemology of resistance/liberation. To do so is to give uptake to the disaggregation of collectivity concomitant with social fragmentation and to theorize the navigation of its perils without giving uptake to its logic."

Humanities is the last place anyone should go to to learn intelligible English.

 

[lychnobity]

I think a part of the English syllabus is tied in with our critical thinking skills. It's the type of thinking you don't gain in subjects like maths or physics. Like, how to construct an argument effectively, and think about philosophical topics/metaphysics. In a way, studying English gives me a grasp of my opinions, and thus who I am.

At the very least, it makes me a more articulated individual.

 

[bwendan]

Like, how to construct an argument effectively, and think about philosophical topics/metaphysics. In a way, studying English gives me a grasp of my opinions, and thus who I am.

At the very least, it makes me a more articulated individual.

Again, I don't see how English teaches you this effectively. If you want to learn argumentation then go out there and learn argumentation. If you want to learn philosophy and metaphysics then learn that.

Furthermore, at least from what I can recall of VCE English, the course tries to teach you how to make an effective argument, but it fails miserably. The course does no such thing.

 

[lychnobity]

Again, I don't see how English teaches you this effectively.

In writing an essay, you're forced to think of your opinion, how to back it up and how to make it irrefutable. That's where the top marks are, in a sustained, irrefutable argument.

If you want to learn argumentation then go out there and learn argumentation. If you want to learn philosophy and metaphysics then learn that.

Furthermore, at least from what I can recall of VCE English, the course tries to teach you how to make an effective argument, but it fails miserably. The course does no such thing.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

 

[chuboy]

Well, in any case, I think most students find grief in the fact that it will affect your ATAR, regardless of whether you can do it or not.

I personally hate the course, but only because I can't get the marks I want. I actually quite enjoy learning about it all, I just fail to see how it's fair to both force a student to take a subject AND make it count on their overall mark =/

 

[possessionless]

i get quite good marks in it
but the second half of year 12 has made me hate english.
i think its the texts we did :|

so at the moment, id probably say i wouldnt do it.
but then english is my subject that one day i like it, the next day i dont.
so who knows what ill think tomorrow.

 

[bwendan]

In writing an essay, you're forced to think of your opinion, how to back it up and how to make it irrefutable. That's where the top marks are, in a sustained, irrefutable argument.

But there's no reason why that skill is only learnt by writing essays on analyzing fiction novels. You could get that equally get that skill by writing essays on economics and finance.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

My point is that, if the purpose was to have students learn argumentation and philosophy, why mandate "English"? Why not just directly teach argumentation and philosophy.

 

[danielle..]

i'd definately do it. i think it's pretty interesting and i'm reasonably good at it. although i know alot of people hate it. it's just like any other subject though - you get good parts and bad parts. i think that alot of people hate english only because they are forced to do it.

 

[BlueCatBulletCD]

Come on guys, where would we be without English!

I mean we now know that nothing in a movie is done by accident. The Director used it for a purpose.

The boy running in the background is used to represent the energy of modern society which is juxtaposed with the green colour which represents the feeling of the protagonist in contrast to the antagonist who is represented through a long shot to show that the blue bird in the background has the same colour as the sky which ironically is the colour of the protagonists shirt.

Also how would we know that Darth Vader abused his power without the low angle shots of him?

 

[lpodnano]

I would still do English. I enjoy reading, writing and analysing texts.

 

[roar84eighty]

says the person that does extension 1 english

wtf? many people can hate eng advanced and love eng extension 1, and some people start to regret chosing eng extension 1

 

[possessionless]

wtf? many people can hate eng advanced and love eng extension 1, and some people start to regret chosing eng extension 1

ummm they said "i hate english" not "i hate eng advanced"
why would you do more english than you have to if you hate it?

and yes i know many people can hate eng advanced and love eng extension 1. i was one of them!

 

[Jemelet]

^^ i still hat Avd and love Ext1. the texts are better, its not as confusing or stressful and you compete with fewer people. if adv was more interesting (including better texts) and u didnt need so much to do everything then fine^^ ... i'd wish i had dropped to standard but then i'd miss out on Ext1 and thats way too good to miss.

 

[lyounamu]

no I wouldn't do it.

 

[Jemelet]

Furthermore all this nonsense argument "English should not be have to be in the UAI cos it brings me down" is crap. That's no real argument. The UAI/ENTER has been designed as a selection tool to predict performance at university, not designed so that you could go to university.

Am i the only one that noticed that ENTER is written instead of ATAR?

Also, if i could study how punctuation and grammar is used instead of the themes and results of those themes i would be a happier student.