1. BS. almost all subjects in the HSC requires students to communicate their thoughts and responses to the question, so its actually stupid when people use this argument constantly as if english is the ONLY subject out there that builds up communication skills. At most, it builds up literature analysis skills, which pales in comparison to the power of learning science or mathematics in terms of making a substantial societal contribution. tell me how many literature texts it took to fully analyse and BS about to construct structures and devices that improve our lifestyles or the livelihoods of others?
2. there's senior science and environmental science available for a less rigourous science-based courses other than your typical phys, chem and bio. there's also different levels of maths, such as general, advanced mathematics, MX1 and MX2. Just like English. With your argument, maths has been introduced into our education systems since kindy, yet why isn't that mandatory?? and also, people have varying degrees of ability in English, just like maths and science, so by your logic, mandating english isn't too great either.
I argue for at least general maths to be mandatory. The functional skills from gen math are actually extremely applicable to real life, and students should be able to choose whether or not they want to go up. the biggest deterrent from picking maths is the suffocating structure of the syllabus. the entire syllabus needs reform if any subject should be mandatory.
I'm not completely disregarding the benefits of English, but I feel the current system of developing autonomous critical thinking skills is stifling at best. Nowadays, the HSC English course breeds essay memorisation - where's the critical thinking in that? It's not really independent if we regurgitate other people's essays. I think if we adopted more SAT-style English courses, such as writing essays on topical concerns like, what is the importance of technology on family or something (bad example) it would be a much better course because it focuses on our relationship with society much more, and how critical essays should be written because the spontaneity of the topics meAns students are less reliant on memorisation, but rather proficiency of critical skill.
However I feel this discussion is sidelining from the actual topic haha which I will say as a response to it:
Without ATARs, how else would you standardise university entrances? Although the ATAR system has it's limitations, it's probably the fairest way of determining who gets in and who doesn't.
1. a) Argueably language
is a scientific device.
b) that's kinda your opinion lol. Using the right language, and knowing how to use the right language is used occupations along with various other knowledge/fields. E.g, councellors, other medical fields that treat mental disorders. You can't just claim that language is complete bs, that science and maths oh so betters our society etc, because may I ask you, how does year 11 and 12 maths and science better our society? University english is apparently nothing like HSC english, your argument is based upon university maths and science, therefore not plausible. To argue so would also be to completely disregard professions such as philosophers who ponder and write essays, not experiments, essays.
You do art, I'm surprised you haven't done an essay on "what is art and it's function" yet. If you have, then those literary texts which may seem like mere entertainment for you is actually vital in our society. And I don't just mean by capalitistic/profitable means.
I could also argue that science and maths is simply regurgitating facts, it does not further critical or logical thinking in the way english does.
2. I never argued that eng should be mandatory. I'm simply saying that if any one subject were to be mandated, eng would prolly be the best option. Based off your argument, maths should be mandatory because it was taught since kindy. The average person speaks like, at least 6 hours a day? The average person works on how many math questions a day?
Mandating maths and science, means that 6 units of the compulsory 10 are already taken up. This gives kids very little opportunity to chose other courses for lack of time, so idk. It would certainly help those who were already thinkingo f taking up maths and science subjects, but what about the more humanities or arts centered? You can take up to 14 units without too much morning classes etc, (2 morning classes and 2 hours a week after school, at least for me) so that leaves 8 units. The average person only would take 10-12 units for the hsc though. Idk. 6 compulsory units seems like a lot, when senior school is meant to "specialise" / "free choice" etc :/
First of all, how would your new model prevent students from memorising and regurigitating essay?
There's a flaw to every system, you can't expect a course to run perfectly. Like someone has mentioned, the HSC is like a game, there are various ways around it. I could argue that you can't actually memorise an essay for Eng, you need to adapt a memorised essay to the question. Failure to do so = not answering the question. Ability to adapt and mould arguments with set contextual evidence is part of what builds the critical and logical thinking.
