1972 English Papers (1 Viewer)

[Captain pi]

Dear beloved bosers,

I give you the 1972 paper! Enjoy!

"English was better in 1972 than it is now."

Discuss with reference to the attached text.

Love and cuddles,

the pi.

 

[Ultraviolent]

Haha, that's awesome. The Yeats question is especially

 

[ElGronko]

Bahahahahahaha, nice.

Cheers for that.

I do think English was better back then as, as you can see by the test, it relied on actual intelligence, and ability to analyse text on the spot. Now days it's all about memorising your (tutors/websites) essay.

The only problem with those old exams is that i know that things like grammar, spelling and handwriting were of much greater importance, whereas now days, thanks to computers the need for anything beyond year 6 spelling has become near obsolete.

 

[Captain pi]

Bahahahahahaha, nice.

Cheers for that.

Not a problem.

I do think English was better back then as, as you can see by the test, it relied on actual intelligence, and ability to analyse text on the spot. Now days it's all about memorising your (tutors/websites) essay.

The only problem with those old exams is that i know that things like grammar, spelling and handwriting were of much greater importance, whereas now days, thanks to computers the need for anything beyond year 6 spelling has become near obsolete.

Well, I agree with you that it relied on actual intelligence. I don't think the problem is with people getting their tutors to write their essays for them (although, I admit I am somewhat sheltered. ): I think the problem with the New HSC syllabus is that, essentially, we study the ideas of the syllabus and find (or contrive – but English is never going to be as rigorous as something like maths, so let's abandon that argument) support for those ideas in the prescribed "texts".

Personally, and as the 1972 paper demonstrates, there are plenty of fine works out there: we don't need contemporary genres (or "text types" as per the disgusting alliteration of the syllabus). Further—indeed, at the other end of the spectrum— I question whether secondary education should be based on immediate need. "O! reason not the need!" as King Lear says (nihilist ); sure, he may be mad, but his sisters are evil – so who do we believe (It's a Module C, Module B combo! Wow! I am positively drooling with excitement. )

That's my little rant about the syllabus. Stay tuned for more to come!

As for the exams, the contrast between the two is huge: whereas 2005 was dull and predictable, the 1972 paper (in my elevated opinion) shows just how interesting an English paper could be when there's no syllabus to study – when one merely studies the works and develops ideas himself about it.

(PS: I don't think the 1972 examinations can be blamed for being supposedly obsolete in 2005. I think we could have 1972 papers with 2005 standards of spelling. )

 

[bonniejjj]

I always thought the current HSC English syllabus was the result of a strange mutated evolution... I really like the fact that this 1972 paper shows a course that develops real English skills- that are of actual use in the real world. Studying texts were a way of developing and using skills, and appreciating them in practice... not the central focus. I really think the "new HSC" needs some major reform across the board. I love English, but some of the things teachers are forced to teach seem rather... pointless.

 

[Mandy101]

Am I the only one who prefers the current format - writing essays? I'd much rather do that than analyse a little poem to death.

 

[Jago]

THIS is real english, if i did that i might've actually enjoyed year 12...

 

[_dhj_]

Am I the only one who prefers the current format - writing essays? I'd much rather do that than analyse a little poem to death.

Nup.. you're not the only one.

Be afraid though.. it seems like these aesthetic reactionaries are growing in numbers.. ughh!!

 

[ART]

oh my god what happened, u used to be beautiful

i LOVE this kind of English!!!!!(in the '72 paper!) The questions are actually questions!!!! They are actually ENJOYABLE. (compared to questions like: "how has the contextuality illuminated ...bla bla bla... appropriated...bla transormation ...."<<<wtf?). This type of exam actually tests students' ability to write, spell, interpret, comprehend, grammar, and vocabularly.<<which is essentially what English is supposed to be all about.
i am the living proof that the current english course is bullshit. i obtained a 96 in the english school cert. (which i consider a valid testing of comprehension/writing), but my english hsc internal mark is 80!!!! WHAT THE?!?!
after the hsc i plan to start a petition to the BOS or whoever wrote this dishgusting hsc english syllabus to urge them to convert it back to the 1970-type examination!! more details to come peeps!

 

[Trebla]

According to my teacher, back in the old days, English exams mainly asked about the 'who'/'what'/'when'/'where' (i.e. comprehension skills), nowadays they ask about the 'why' (purpose and audience) and the 'how' (language techniques).

 

[wizard146]

have a look at this too: it is like an international type paper for english. seems pretty good...

 

[Captain pi]

Am I the only one who prefers the current format - writing essays? I'd much rather do that than analyse a little poem to death.

In English Paper 1, 1972, you had to answer three essays as well as one question (Section A xor B) on appraising a poem or analysing a passage. I don't think that the question "What do you think this poem is about? Make your own appraisal of it." is a call to analyse it to death!

According to my teacher, back in the old days, English exams mainly asked about the 'who'/'what'/'when'/'where' (i.e. comprehension skills), nowadays they ask about the 'why' (purpose and audience) and the 'how' (language techniques).

I think that's partly right. Although, I think that the 1972 papers look at the "how", too – one merely doesn't have to use LFF words. I don't think it's possible to examine English without asking how the writer achieves his purpose. Further, the comprehension is often seen nowadays as a softer option than writing essays; however, if you look at Section B in 1972, the comprehension is quite difficult – much more so than Paper One in 2005.

 

[gordo]

and back then u would have been marked down for splitting a transitive verb and its noun. Now half the students proabably don't even know what a transitive sentence is

 

[Sweets]

I love how people say it tests your TRUE intelligence, because standardised testing is such an effective way to test intelligence It is the same as the new HSC, it has its positives and negatives.

 

[fleepbasding]

and back then u would have been marked down for splitting a transitive verb and its noun. Now half the students proabably don't even know what a transitive sentence is

yeah *nervous laugh*. I'm dissapointed that we haven't learnt enough about grammer. I actaully find it very interesting and challenging to break down language into smaller pieces. I suppose I can pursue that in University or just from a book or something.

 

[The_highwayman]

Am I the only one who prefers the current format - writing essays? I'd much rather do that than analyse a little poem to death.

No i agree, i like the current english format. i hate on-the-spot analysis. That's what the school certificate is for.

I think the BoS is trying to not only teach us about texts but also teach us about other concepts such as "you are embarking on a journey" (shudders) "don't trust the media"(telling the truth) Or "the environment is in danger, look after it." (in the wild) or "value your memories" (gwennie)

 

[Captain pi]

I think the BoS is trying to not only teach us about texts but also teach us about other concepts such as "you are embarking on a journey" (shudders) "don't trust the media"(telling the truth) Or "the environment is in danger, look after it." (in the wild) or "value your memories" (gwennie)

No offence, but those are hardly 'concepts'; they are really just conclusions one can draw from works.

In terms of education, why – if this is what you are arguing – is the instilling of these concepts worthwhile? or more worthwhile than latter papers' format?

No i agree, i like the current english format. i hate on-the-spot analysis. That's what the school certificate is for.

I don't understand your line of reasoning.

 

[Casmira]

I wish I could somehow take an extension english subect that helps deal with people like me who don't know what a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, proverb etc.. is (what is that shit?!)

im thinking of buying a year 5 english book and doing that

 

[skyrockets1530]

I wish I could somehow take an extension english subect that helps deal with people like me who don't know what a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, proverb etc.. is (what is that shit?!)

im thinking of buying a year 5 english book and doing that

I totally agree, i dont know enough about grammar, and I wish I knew a great deal more about it cause it is actually interesting.
Although I do know enough to know that a proverb isnt a part of speech.

 

[Lhyviathan]

1972 > now.