A letter to the Board of Studies re: Paper 2 and its stupidity... (1 Viewer)

[nwatts]

no, we DO understand how you feel. trust me, the top students everywhere feel the same way. My whole year complained for months about it as we were having tremendous problems with our rankings. but in the end you just have to do it. Look at what you just wrote:

I realise "we just have to do it" and i'm not out to change things for the upcoming HSC exams. I'm not trying to get out of doing it. I'm simply voicing a concern.

I can imagine future years in the same position I am in. If I can go one small step to a minor change in the organisation of the HSC exams, then I think it's worthwhile. To dismiss this because it's something you've done, i'll do and "that's the way it is" is pretty defeatist. I'd prefer to at least try and make a change rather than not caring and leaving it for future years.

in a way, this DOES test your knowledge of the topic as you need to know everything in depth do you are prepared for whatever question or format they ask. Sure, someone could get lucky - know only one aspect of the topic and have that be asked - but that could happen in anything.

In Module B, I'd say you're right. There is a pretty vast scope of what could be asked, so students need to prepare for *everything* in order to make sure that they can answer the question effectively (I have serious issues with this too, but we'll leave that for another day).

But then in Modules A and C (and in extension 1), questions are shaped so that they can be answered in a variety of different ways, and can explore all of your knowledge and understanding into the topic at hand. If you had 4 hours on the one Transformations/In the Wild essay, I'm sure a top student could fill it, and fill it with the same solid, synthesised nature of response. I'm simply asking for 20 more minutes (for future years), as I've felt that this reasonably small increase in time can allow for such greater depth of discussion.

This all springs from my deep-seeded hatred for exams. I tend to perform quite well, but I believe the entire concept behind them is completely flawed. But I won't lauch into that debate just yet.

 

[drewgcn]

I wholeheartedly agree with you nwatts, but unfortunately I believe you'll be systematically ignored as an unperson.

 

[AsyLum]

I was chatting with a few of my esteemed English colleagues recently about the English Paper 2 exam, and the shear stupidity of its entire makeup.

We learn three modules of work over an entire year, in very significant detail, to then come to the HSC exam with only 40mins to express our knowledge and understanding into each module. I feel (and apparently, so do many others) that this is a pretty unfair practice. Students are expected to know a vast amount of information, and come HSC exam time, 70% of it will be thrown away in order to sustain a coherent response in 40mins.

a) By formulating the more 'complete' picture, you utilise what you have termed the 70% in addition to is context with the 30%. You cannot simply grasp the laws of thermodynamics without knowing algebra or the steps that came before it. Additionally it is a test which pre-empts this criteria and analyses your ability to critically configure an essay towards a specific question whilst having this plethora of 'supposed knowledge' . In fact, i would have to say that we learn too little, especially considering the amount i have learnt in university courses with respect to high school subjects of the same nature.

I find it astounding at what a difference 20mins can make to an essay. In Extension 1 (as all E3U students would know), the essay is allocated 60mins, as is the creative task. I find this extra 20mins increases my ability to express and inform on a complex, detailed level that gets me the high marks.

b) You feel that way because of the intensive and specific nature of EE1. EAdv/ESta. focuses on three areas, and being a compulsory subject, a syllabus is devised to suit and accomodate for the whole state rather than a few. The assumption of EE1 is that you hold a firm enough basis of basics and as such, can focus on 'specifics'.

So I'm planning on drafting a brief letter to the Board of Studies, suggesting that English Paper 2 be allocated 3 hours, and each essay be allocated 60mins. It would increase the markers' ability to differentiate between a very good response and a brilliant response; and would also allow students the opportunity of really showing what they've learnt and understood throughout each module.

c) Primarily, it would be rejected on a number of cases, most evident is logistics. 3 hour exams allow for a multitude of time, and possibility/expectation of more work/pages written. Thus, to mark those within the time frame that teachers are forced to, would be ludicrous at best.
d) A brilliant response is not quantity, but quality. If you fail to meet the time limits, word constraints, or other limiting factors, that is YOUR problem. Life is full of them, laws, rules, regulations. Why should something which is supposed to be the end of your bubble existence be accomodated for the wellbeing of spoonfeeding?
e) An extra half an hour of bullshit or horrible writing isnt going to make much difference if you don't know your concepts.

I have the support of my English class. What do you guys think? A waste of time, or a solid idea? Even if the BOS do nothing, they'll still be aware that many believe the Paper 2 to be poorly organised. Perhaps come 07 when they revise the syllabus they'll alter it a little.

f) As shown above, it is not only laughable, but also based upon a whinge nothing more, nothing less.

 

[SiZmOs]

Dude, having sat the exam, i whole-heartidly agree with you. It's absurd. And to all of you who are saying 'just put up with it', or 'we had to do it, so do you' then you obviously didn't care enough to voice a concern or opinion about your future.
Write the letter. That's all there is to it. Consider myself, and therefore the entire Advanced English class of Condell Park High behind you.

 

[*girl04*]

If it was just my problem I wouldn't be here raising this issue. The top students of our school felt the same way.

I don't think you're all reading what i've written the right way. My issue is with the ratio of how much time we have for the essay to how much material is in each module. We learn such a vast amount of information, to only express a small part it. I agree, to get the top marks you need to sift through and sort out what is relevant to the question, effectively use your time, etc. etc.. But I'm not really worried about the marks (in this discussion). I just feel it's poorly organised, in the sense that the BOS set so much work, yet so little of it is tested.

ENGLISH ADVANCED is worth 2units the exam is 4 HOURS ( 2 hour modules, 2 AOS)
Most other 2unit subject have 3 hour exams, it would hardly be fair to give EVEN MORE TIME for the modules exam, without increasing the time for say mathematics ( which i am sure lots of students would also wish for more time)
It is like that in every subject more so in ancient history you are tested on a tiny fragment of the work you do ( in terms of historical period essays)

 

[*girl04*]

I think you are really naive to believe that they will alter the exam time in the future because of you. Trust me the BOS is aware that students yearn for more time, but it is the hsc, you aren't meant to get what you want!

 

[volition]

Yeah lets just reduce the level of content in the English course! That way we'll all be happy

 

[Rafy]

Yeah lets just reduce the level of content in the English course! That way we'll all be happy

But then we would be sitting around doing nothing for a term. I know at my school we finished thecourse back at the start of term 2. And at other schools its the first course they finish.

 

[SiZmOs]

I was chatting with a few of my esteemed English colleagues recently about the English Paper 2 exam, and the shear stupidity of its entire makeup.

We learn three modules of work over an entire year, in very significant detail, to then come to the HSC exam with only 40mins to express our knowledge and understanding into each module. I feel (and apparently, so do many others) that this is a pretty unfair practice. Students are expected to know a vast amount of information, and come HSC exam time, 70% of it will be thrown away in order to sustain a coherent response in 40mins.

I find it astounding at what a difference 20mins can make to an essay. In Extension 1 (as all E3U students would know), the essay is allocated 60mins, as is the creative task. I find this extra 20mins increases my ability to express and inform on a complex, detailed level that gets me the high marks.

So I'm planning on drafting a brief letter to the Board of Studies, suggesting that English Paper 2 be allocated 3 hours, and each essay be allocated 60mins. It would increase the markers' ability to differentiate between a very good response and a brilliant response; and would also allow students the opportunity of really showing what they've learnt and understood throughout each module.

I have the support of my English class. What do you guys think? A waste of time, or a solid idea? Even if the BOS do nothing, they'll still be aware that many believe the Paper 2 to be poorly organised. Perhaps come 07 when they revise the syllabus they'll alter it a little.

Any comments/questions?

Nick

If you wish, send a copy of the letter to
Simon Dee
C/O Condell Park High School
3rd Avenue
Condell Park 2200.

I'll get the signatures of my english class and then forward it to the BOS as well.

 

[AsyLum]

2005: The year of fucking whingers and bludgers?

God i hope you lot have fun in Uni or outside into the real world.

 

[...]

well if you want to distinguish the smart ppl and the dumb ones

why don't EVERYONE sit in the same 20hr exam and see who is the last one standing
i'm sure thats a better alternative

 

[silvermoon]

I can imagine future years in the same position I am in. If I can go one small step to a minor change in the organisation of the HSC exams, then I think it's worthwhile. To dismiss this because it's something you've done, i'll do and "that's the way it is" is pretty defeatist. I'd prefer to at least try and make a change rather than not caring and leaving it for future years.

there's a difference between defeatist and realist. There's no point in complaining unless you have a viable alternative. If you argue "20 minutes more would be good" where is the cut off point going to be? what stops every year saying "well, we can write excellent papers in 1 hour but in 1 1/2 hours the papers would be brilliant!" and so on and so forth. If you could have a week to write it your paper would be better again. it doesn't matter if you could write a better paper with 20 more minutes doll, the important thing is that everyone has to turn out what they can do in 40. that's what is being tested: your work against others in the same time period. 40 minutes is fair.

 

[silvermoon]

2005: The year of fucking whingers and bludgers?

God i hope you lot have fun in Uni or outside into the real world.

oh dear, asy is having a bad day. leave it doll, we both know the premise is completely flawed but pre-HSC stress doesn't seem to leave much room for anything else but "woe is me"-esque thoughts

 

[poloktim]

Funnily enough, you don't go through year 11/12 just for those examinations. Sure they make up a part, but think of all the knowledge you get from the subject, from study. That stays with you longer than you can care about your HSC marks.

Besides, you're just a pesky student. Who cares what you think.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

1 - In university, and in life, you won't exactly be given enough time to write say 5000 word essays in exams, Nor will you be given 5000 words as a cap for you assignments (more like 2000 max).

2 - It takes a very long time to mark all the papers, and it is also much harder to mark something as subjective as english the longer it gets. If you allow people 3 hours, then they could write say 30 pages and it would be extremely time consuming not just because of the ammount of work, but when it comes to the comparisons etc... The skill of a writer to put down their thoughts into say 5 pages better than anyone else is something that I feel should be examined.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I can imagine future years in the same position I am in. If I can go one small step to a minor change in the organisation of the HSC exams, then I think it's worthwhile. To dismiss this because it's something you've done, i'll do and "that's the way it is" is pretty defeatist. I'd prefer to at least try and make a change rather than not caring and leaving it for future years.

I'm with you! Viva la moon landing revolucion! Doing it for the kids, fuck yeah, wahoo!

 

[poloktim]

SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
DON'T WANNA HEAR IT!

 

[sNiPeR_24]

I think the proposal is plausible but then again the whole damn HSC needs reforming.

It's sad people attack you and have the pathetic "we've had to do it, so you should too" attitude. Sure, we might not have that extra 20 minutes in life to do all sorts of things, but then again we also won't go to a movie and say "Wow, the values of this text really inspired me and that extraordinarily insightful use of didactic imagery compelled me to go out and be a better person" or "this juxtaposition really kick-started my otherwise shitty monday morning". My point? The HSC is largely irrelevant to life, so don't make comparisons between it and non-school events.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, the HSC definately does need reforming.
The HSC should look to the IB for inspiration -> http://www.ibo.org/ibo/index.cfm/en/ibo/programmes/prg_dip

 

[AsyLum]

I think the proposal is plausible but then again the whole damn HSC needs reforming.

It's sad people attack you and have the pathetic "we've had to do it, so you should too" attitude. Sure, we might not have that extra 20 minutes in life to do all sorts of things, but then again we also won't go to a movie and say "Wow, the values of this text really inspired me and that extraordinarily insightful use of didactic imagery compelled me to go out and be a better person" or "this juxtaposition really kick-started my otherwise shitty monday morning". My point? The HSC is largely irrelevant to life, so don't make comparisons between it and non-school events.

You've totally missed the point havent you.

We know the system is fucked. Yes, thats given. What he's suggesting is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. What in fuck's name are you going to do with 20 minutes, AGAIN, if you don't have the skills nor knowledge to actually apply it to the question? I could give you years asking you to fly, but are you going to suddenly sprout wings and fly?

Additionally, the point of the exercise is to introduce you to limits, rules, caps, regulations. DEAL WITH IT. Or be a rebel, and write beyond that. Society is based on rules and regulations, business is based on the same things. Our very culture is one of social organisation. So i'll be very suprised to hear that you don't need these rules. (the very notion of rebelling is in fact an acknowledgement of the rules, and NOT following them, rather than not acknowledging them at all)

"The HSC is largely irrelevant in life" yadda yadda.
The HSC SHOULD be irrelevant to your life, ITS A FUCKING EXAM. The skills you learn on the other hand aren't. Whether implicitly or actively, the habits, skills, knowledge you gain, or dont, will formulate your future development. You can't have a present, without a past.