New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (3 Viewers)

[acemusic415]

Doing HSC English will not help me become a better communicator. How do you then explain the numerous amount of top students in the course that make vital grammatical errors? To me that isn't very good communication, in fact it adds to the idea that it is unfair for those who are not orientated in the area of humanities.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim of making 'vital grammatical errors?' From clear logic, if they were top students in the course of HSC English, then only a few errors should be made. That statement you have pointed out, is a clear contradiction. You can't score top marks with 'vital grammatical errors'. Also right now, you are communicating with me, you are providing me with rebuttals, and as such, from the implications of your argument, English has not helped in your competency in arguing, whether verbally or written? That's a bit farfetched in my opinion.

Actually it does. The truth of the matter is that science orientated people don't get into high positions because for instance they know how to find the forces on an object, or how to differentiate or integrate functions. No, it's because they usually have great analytical and research skills that help advance the company that has employed them. HSC English clearly does not help with this.

What you have not understood is that HSC English does not provide the entirety for the ability to analyse. HSC English is only a fraction of that competency. Like I said previously, HSC English is only the building blocks. In saying that, your own individual approach of analysing in relation to your future careers must be acquired through experience, experimentation etc. There are copious methods of analysing and as such you cannot expect the English course itself to teach you all methods of analysing relevant to all courses in the outside world. It is your duty to forge your own approach in analysing and ultimately interpreting what is necessary. Although this may be prejudice to other subjects, but analysing and rationalising in English is more appropriated to other Humanity courses.

And where exactly would I use that in life? I hope that you do know that scientific journals and publications are usually in dot form giving the relevant information, if you're trying to say that it applies to writing essays in science courses

Again you are proving my point. Right now at this very moment, you are providing me with explicit arguments and valid responses. Essays and the other various text types may not be used, however its intentions are used daily. The intentions - well obviously are establishing concepts, perspectives etc. Essays, expositions, feature articles and so forth all establish and reinforce a viewpoint. Similarly, you are introducing a viewpoint in this very debate. You may not realise it, but HSC English is used everyday.

 

[marcquelle]

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim of making 'vital grammatical errors?' From clear logic, if they were top students in the course of HSC English, then only a few errors should be made. That statement you have pointed out, is a clear contradiction. You can't score top marks with 'vital grammatical errors'. Also right now, you are communicating with me, you are providing me with rebuttals, and as such, from the implications of your argument, English has not helped in your competency in arguing, whether verbally or written? That's a bit farfetched in my opinion.

What you have not understood is that HSC English does not provide the entirety for the ability to analyse. HSC English is only a fraction of that competency. Like I said previously, HSC English is only the building blocks. In saying that, your own individual approach of analysing in relation to your future careers must be acquired through experience, experimentation etc. There are copious methods of analysing and as such you cannot expect the English course itself to teach you all methods of analysing relevant to all courses in the outside world. It is your duty to forge your own approach in analysing and ultimately interpreting what is necessary. Although this may be prejudice to other subjects, but analysing and rationalising in English is more appropriated to other Humanity courses.

Again you are proving my point. Right now at this very moment, you are providing me with explicit arguments and valid responses. Essays and the other various text types may not be used, however its intentions are used daily. The intentions - well obviously are establishing concepts, perspectives etc. Essays, expositions, feature articles and so forth all establish and reinforce a viewpoint. Similarly, you are introducing a viewpoint in this very debate. You may not realise it, but HSC English is used everyday.

+1 and at uni, how do you expect to go, if you cannot communicate in assessments and quizzes from the skills you have learned from HSC english. And if mistakes are made in essays at top level in hsc exams remember the fact. THAT THESE ARE LITERALLY FIRST DRAFTS AND ARE DONE UNDER CONSTRAINTS SO THERE ARE BOUND TO BE MISTAKES.

 

[bradbradbrad]

All I can picture is Billy Madison in the bath, but replace shampoo and conditioner with maths and English.

"Oh, I am Maths, I develop logical problem soving skills!"

"But I am English, I am the FOUNDATION OF COMMUNICATION!"


Give it up - you're just gonna keep sucking the dick of what you're good at until someone leaves.

 

[Vandalism]

All I can picture is Billy Madison in the bath, but replace shampoo and conditioner with maths and English.

"Oh, I am Maths, I develop logical problem soving skills!"

"But I am English, I am the FOUNDATION OF COMMUNICATION!"


Give it up - you're just gonna keep sucking the dick of what you're good at until someone leaves.

Pure win. You sir, get the gold star.

 

[annabackwards]

Again you are proving my point. Right now at this very moment, you are providing me with explicit arguments and valid responses. Essays and the other various text types may not be used, however its intentions are used daily. The intentions - well obviously are establishing concepts, perspectives etc. Essays, expositions, feature articles and so forth all establish and reinforce a viewpoint. Similarly, you are introducing a viewpoint in this very debate. You may not realise it, but HSC English is used everyday.

"Our" point is that the average person can provide "explicit arguments and valid responses" without the need of sitting HSC English. Much like a person who does not do even general maths can push buttons in a calculator - it's a basic skill and there's no need to force people who don't like HSC english to do HSC english. There are also plenty of people who failed HSC english and excelled in both uni and life in general.

By the way, wasn't the main problem with the SOR exam that it asked kids doing the Islam option to speak about Muhammad when they were specifically told NOT to learn about him?

 

[duckcowhybrid]

Why not just prepare a 1.4k word essay with lots of depth on 3 texts and cut out what you find you don't need in the exam.

 

[Deathless]

Im glad they did what they did - I would of been prepared I think. Its not memorising, and I never memorise my essays and do worse off than those who do (I study my notes and consolidate facts etc), so I hope they do this again.

 

[Trebla]

I agree that skills-wise HSC English is important but content-wise it's completely irrelevant to most people. Where else (other than those pursuing to be in the arts field) would one be required to write say a critical essay or some other text type on how context shapes meaning whilst citing a lot of language techniques from generally fictional texts?

 

[absorber]

Everyone. EVERYONE.

Maths and English both have significance. In science this isn't really true.
Year 10 maths is enough unless you want to do a profession involving mathematics. English is harder to measure, but the articulation skills gained from the course in years 11 and 12 probably cater indirectly for more professions than maths. One must be able to write clearly in a huge proportion of jobs, I'd say a majority. In this way it is my opinion that English is of greater importance. And to all those maths and science people out there, at the least it'll help you get an impressive resume if you derive something from the course. EDIT: Oh, and CEOs from science backgrounds? No fucking way. Try Law and Commerce.

 

[Hadn]

Ill be honest, I found the religon question difficult, but I assume I hadnt studied enough (probably true) and I foolishly did write two related texts for english and not one. I agree that they should only count the first text and not the second when marking, but I dont agree we should be disadvantaged any further then that. We already disadvantaged ourselves enough by not writing with enough detail on one text. We dont need the BOS to kick us while were down.

 

[annabackwards]

No one answered my question, so i'll ask again XD

"Wasn't the main problem with the SOR exam that it asked kids doing the Islam option to speak about Muhammad when they were specifically told NOT to learn about him?"

 

[Hadn]

No one answered my question, so i'll ask again XD

"Wasn't the main problem with the SOR exam that it asked kids doing the Islam option to speak about Muhammad when they were specifically told NOT to learn about him?"

Yes that was one problem I heard, but I believe all of section three had been worded differently and confused many students. If it had been that studens were asked to speak about muhammad when they were told not to learn about him, then the board of studies would definatley have had an inquiry about this by now and would have said something.

 

[theresekathryn]

No one answered my question, so i'll ask again XD

"Wasn't the main problem with the SOR exam that it asked kids doing the Islam option to speak about Muhammad when they were specifically told NOT to learn about him?"

Technically the question didn't ask about Muhammad, it asked about the revelations made through him.
So essentially, the question was asking about the Qur'an.

I guess some people just (dare I say it) couldn't read?
Unfortunately our year seems to be building some sort of reputation...

 

[annabackwards]

Yes that was one problem I heard, but I believe all of section three had been worded differently and confused many students. If it had been that studens were asked to speak about muhammad when they were told not to learn about him, then the board of studies would definatley have had an inquiry about this by now and would have said something.

Ah yes, i was told that the questions were super vague XD

Technically the question didn't ask about Muhammad, it asked about the revelations made through him.
So essentially, the question was asking about the Qur'an.

I guess some people just (dare I say it) couldn't read?
Unfortunately our year seems to be building some sort of reputation...

Ah i see, thanks. I don't do SOR so i was just wondering

 

[helper]

EDIT: Oh, and CEOs from science backgrounds? No fucking way. Try Law and Commerce.

You might want to check facts. Eg in the top 5 companies in Australia it is a balance of economics and science

 

[Trebla]

Year 10 maths is enough unless you want to do a profession involving mathematics. English is harder to measure, but the articulation skills gained from the course in years 11 and 12 probably cater indirectly for more professions than maths. One must be able to write clearly in a huge proportion of jobs, I'd say a majority. In this way it is my opinion that English is of greater importance. And to all those maths and science people out there, at the least it'll help you get an impressive resume if you derive something from the course. EDIT: Oh, and CEOs from science backgrounds? No fucking way. Try Law and Commerce.

Actually, most commerce majors involve a good understanding in mathematics beyond Year 10 level. Of particular relevance is probability, statistics, calculus and obviously consumer arithmetic (involving series applications). Those in executive positions must know how to interpret numbers and draw conclusions from them as well as be able to predict what might happen in the future based on modelling rather than just subjective intuition (this is where probability, calculus and statistical theory comes in). There is a reason why 2 unit Mathematics is assumed knowledge for those entering a Commerce degree.

In fact, if you read the job ads for many commerce-related jobs, they commonly cite that the employee they desire must have a high level of mathematical/quantitative skill. This is why those who do mathematics and statistics are in very high demand because they have a sophisticated level of quantitative skills. In fact, some investment banks cite that they find someone with a Physics major desirable because again they have great quantitative skills.

I'm not saying that mathematics is any more important than english, but don't underestimate the significance of HSC mathematics, especially in the corporate world.

 

[cutemouse]

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim of making 'vital grammatical errors?' From clear logic, if they were top students in the course of HSC English, then only a few errors should be made.

There you have it, you've stated exactly what I am complaining about and the unfairness of the course. And yes I do have evidence, there's this thing called Facebook for instance, and these people tend to write in it, which proves alot of things.

That statement you have pointed out, is a clear contradiction. You can't score top marks with 'vital grammatical errors'.

Uhh.. I think you can.

Also right now, you are communicating with me, you are providing me with rebuttals, and as such, from the implications of your argument, English has not helped in your competency in arguing, whether verbally or written? That's a bit farfetched in my opinion.

And what direct evidence do you have that this is a skill learned from HSC English? You're proving my point that has a weak HSC English student that I am still able to make written arguments, showing that the course unnecessary in the sense of giving people the skills that it claims to, as most people would have them regardless.

Again you are proving my point. Right now at this very moment, you are providing me with explicit arguments and valid responses.

I assure you that I would've been able to prove these 'arguments' without the aid of HSC English.

You may not realise it, but HSC English is used everyday.

So you're telling me that students before 2001 (ie. when HSC English was not compulsory, in the sense of calculation to the TER) aren't good communicators?

 

[Duffman0]

To be honest, I hate this "We're completely innocent and the students are imbeciles" stance that the BOS is taking on this matter. We're preparing too "narrowly" for the exams, you say? Well you arrogant, retarded people up at the BOS - who the hell wrote the last ~8 years worth of papers so narrowly? If you didn't want us to prepare "narrowly" you shouldnt've fucking lead us on all these years with the past papers. What did you want us to do? Study for shit that traditionally you haven't even asked? How about a bit of warning? Huh? How about the release of questions along the same sort of lines as what you want to spring on us? It's not our fault you idiots. You don't train an athelete for a fucking marathon run then shove him in a pool at the last minute telling him he's got to swim 5000m and that it was his fault he didn't prepare for the possibility that he needed to swim as well. God, Shut up you BOS Pricks. Two more exams and one more fucking ATAR mark and I'll never speak of you guys again.

 

[buildabridge]

For SOR I have no problem with integrating the question. It was good in that it did make us think. The only problem I have is that the questions (for Christianity/Islam particularly) were so vague and didn't make it clear what they wanted us to talk about.
I do think the Board are bit dismissive with the complaints.

English however is not the board's fault at all, it's people's responsibility to read the question.

 

[blackratpoo]

this is excellent for 2010! i think the BOS will be playing it very safe next year after all these problems. thanks guys.