English is a waste of life. (2 Viewers)

[charlesdinio]

lala2,

I did make a suggestion before, it went along the lines of:

- Leave english as a compulsory subject
- Make it mandatory to sit the HSC english exam
- BUT DO NOT make it count for best 10 units if it is not good enough.

I mean doesn't that satisfy everyone?

The BOS have everyone studying their useless subject, the students are learning 'vital' information, but it doesn't HAVE to count.

Tell me where the fairness is if I can excel in 5 subjects but am horrible at english? one of my personal choices can't count towards the HSC, thats such a large injustice.

If they just abandoned the compulsory addition to the 10 units, everyone would be happy.

youll be speaking chinese then i presume? writing in it also?

hahaha! not quite.

I plan on speaking and writting in english. I happen to be ok at both! BUT thats not what HSC english is about. At all.

HSC english is about studying the likes of powerplay, In the wild and other useless topics. If they were teaching me how to speak more fluently or how to write in an appealing manner, I would be a fan of the subject, because I would be learning something relevant!

 

[Bobness]

hahaha! not quite.

I plan on speaking and writting in english. I happen to be ok at both! BUT thats not what HSC english is about. At all.

HSC english is about studying the likes of powerplay, In the wild and other useless topics. If they were teaching me how to speak more fluently or how to write in an appealing manner, I would be a fan of the subject, because I would be learning something relevant!

Well maybe you should study ESL then?

They have a compulsory listening task that could improve your communication and listening abilities.

That said, even in the HSC context, speeches are a compulsory marked text type so you would hopefully gain some skills in rhetoric from this.

Of course you don't need strong english to score distinctions in law; but really if you want to progress in the industry and be a barrister / judge in the future (in a Commonwealth jurisdiction), you would be expected to have an insightful grasp of the language and how elements of punctuation and grammar affect interpretations of for eg precedent in case law or in statutory interpretation.

I think that was the 5-10 years scaredytiger was referring to.

NB i notice also that you mentioned your sister scored distinction in a 'tough course', so take my comment as more of a prophetic assertion of your future path (should your reductive view of english is retained)

 

[prichardson]

Might want to snap out of essay mode.

My understanding on that seems to be lacking

Scaredytiger,

Parents are LEGALLY (which I learnt in legal studies, and is relevant to life) obliged to look after their childrens health, but I dont recall my parents, or im sure any of my mates parents, teaching them the risk factors of CVD or cancer etc. The advice parents gives are.. 'eat vegetables'. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my mates, I suppose some parents would be more uptight about it.

In my opinion, knowing how to maintain good health is FAR more important than learning a dead language, i.e. Shakespeare.

And I acknowledge that your sister does law and doesn't have the best grammer, but thats speaking for one person. Both my sisters have managed distinction in a tough course and dont need anything they have learnt in any of the english modules.

Legal studies is uesless at a university level, your right, but I can promise you that I wont be studying property law, or family law next year. If anything, legal has taught me which aspects of the law I appreciate and dont. Hence it has saved me some time, money and decision making. English on the other hand, is not relevant at all. I PROMISE you the second my HSC is done I will never ever again need to make notes on a poem, analyse technique or study any of those useless modules which teach nothing relevant and are merely there to rank students.

"english's relevancy is not about the content. a lot of people will not understand what they have actually learnt from doing the course, and some will only understand 5-10 years later"

(Sorry I'm new to this, I dont know how to quote little bits)

If a lot of people will not understand what they have learnt, I truly debate the validity of learning it. I for one don't have a clue, your completely right! In 5-10 years, I think I would have moved on to a job, where english has been well and truly put to sleep.

Your post is rather revolting... what you're saying is that you find no value in the past? That means everything historical means nothing to you? There is no point in understanding Egyptian, Buddhist or Hindu philosophy? Those were first written in ancient- dead, languages.

Seen 300 before? Did you like it? Herodotus wrote in Ancient Greek.

That kind of foreshadows anything else which may have been agreeable that you said...

hahaha! not quite.

I plan on speaking and writting in english. I happen to be ok at both! BUT thats not what HSC english is about. At all.

HSC english is about studying the likes of powerplay, In the wild and other useless topics. If they were teaching me how to speak more fluently or how to write in an appealing manner, I would be a fan of the subject, because I would be learning something relevant!

I agree with this... what you said Scaredy was a bit useless. You don't really do anything relating to learning the language itself in HSC English, it's more just analysing things.

Well maybe you should study ESL then?

They have a compulsory listening task that could improve your communication and listening abilities.

That said, even in the HSC context, speeches are a compulsory marked text type so you would hopefully gain some skills in rhetoric from this.

Of course you don't need strong english to score distinctions in law; but really if you want to progress in the industry and be a barrister / judge in the future (in a Commonwealth jurisdiction), you would be expected to have an insightful grasp of the language and how elements of punctuation and grammar affect interpretations of for eg precedent in case law or in statutory interpretation.

I think that was the 5-10 years scaredytiger was referring to.

NB i notice also that you mentioned your sister scored distinction in a 'tough course', so take my comment as more of a prophetic assertion of your future path (should your reductive view of english is retained)

Ho ho ho... why don't we also go and do maths up until but not including division and multiplication whilst we are at it? Pretty snide of you. The point I believe is being made is that our knowledge of spoken English, grammar and nuaces of the English language is sufficient.

In HSC English, you learn nothing of spelling and punctuation. I have seen many a 20/20 essay fresh from the marking tables with absolutely ridiculous amounts of mistakes of both spelling and punctuation, and they are not even always circled in red! Furthermore, which part of our course deals with applications of spelling and punctuation in ANY context?

Back to the drawing boards for you, Mr. "should your reductive view of english is retained". I'd really have to try to get that one wrong, so I hope it was just a little joke from you as a vocal advocate for the English course and (so I hear) an English Tutor.

 

[Bobness]

Ho ho ho... why don't we also go and do maths up until but not including division and multiplication whilst we are at it? Pretty snide of you. The point I believe is being made is that our knowledge of spoken English, grammar and nuaces of the English language is sufficient.

In HSC English, you learn nothing of spelling and punctuation. I have seen many a 20/20 essay fresh from the marking tables with absolutely ridiculous amounts of mistakes of both spelling and punctuation, and they are not even always circled in red! Furthermore, which part of our course deals with applications of spelling and punctuation in ANY context?

Back to the drawing boards for you, Mr. "should your reductive view of english is retained". I'd really have to try to get that one wrong, so I hope it was just a little joke from you as a vocal advocate for the English course and (so I hear) an English Tutor.

Are you making any sense at all with the bolded comment? What analogy are you even alluding to?

Yes we do study spelling (of text names at the very least, for eg if you consistently misspell Skrzynecki's name in your paper you will invariably lower - significantly from first hand hearsay - your final grade due to impression marks) and punctuation (techniques such as rhetorical questions, exclamatory remark and typographical separations all rely on this) in HSC english.

You're still a student so you are viewing everything from your limited pinhole vision, once you actually consider the grander scale of things it will dawn on you exactly how much the process of learning even HSC english benefits long term written expression. Of course there are flaws in the system (or any human-defined structure) but the meaning is there, albeit latent.

Pardon me for being presumptious, but are you not faring too well in english at present? Your subject selection implies you are a 'humanities' student though, so i take it that a poor experience with a teacher / peer / what you have read has made you so spiteful?

 

[Graney]

Furthermore, which part of our course deals with applications of spelling and punctuation in ANY context?

You're supposed to fully know spelling and punctuation before the end of year ten. Normal students do. The HSC course is not remedial english ffs.

I stated HSC english had been more usefull to me in preparation for tertiary science than any other subject, to which you replied:

So, tell me, which areas does it help you with?

Essays, paper writing, research. They are the core of most degrees, in any field. No subject deals with them like HSC english, and it does a fairly good job as an introduction to them.

 

[charlesdinio]

Yes we do study spelling (of text names at the very least, for eg if you consistently misspell Skrzynecki's name in your paper you will invariably lower - significantly from first hand hearsay - your final grade due to impression marks) and punctuation (techniques such as rhetorical questions, exclamatory remark and typographical separations all rely on this) in HSC english.

hahaha! How hard is it to learn a name? And no, we do not study spelling. Tell me when in english you sat down and studied how to spell words. You're getting it mixed up with everyday writting.

Bobness, back to your ESL comment - ESL is for people with speaking and writting problems, people who are behind the the rest of the form.

Although to a degree, ESL has it right, they teach more appropriate things to everyday life. If there was a smarter version of ESL, I would be first on the bandwagon.

Of course you don't need strong english to score distinctions in law; but really if you want to progress in the industry and be a barrister / judge in the future (in a Commonwealth jurisdiction), you would be expected to have an insightful grasp of the language and how elements of punctuation and grammar affect interpretations of for eg precedent in case law or in statutory interpretation.

I challenge you to go to Austlii and read a common law case right now.

If anything, you would need a VERY strong understanding of colloquial language, as a lot of the talking is done by witnesses during cross examination etc. As you can imagine, the people getting asked questions about their crimes arn't the smartest of people as they're idiots and committed a crime in the first place.

These idiots do not make use of grammer or elements of puncutation. The interpretation of these statements lacking any intelligence is often the most time consuming task in a case, hence making english not relevant in this case either.

 

[black_kat_meow]

As you can imagine, the people getting asked questions about their crimes arn't the smartest of people as they're idiots and committed a crime in the first place.

These idiots do not make use of grammer or elements of puncutation. The interpretation of these statements lacking any intelligence is often the most time consuming task in a case, hence making english not relevant in this case either.

So you are supposed to use similarly bad English when presenting your case? This isn't the extent of a lawyers duties anyway, you're an idiot.

 

[charlesdinio]

So you are supposed to use similarly bad English when presenting your case? This isn't the extent of a lawyers duties anyway, you're an idiot.

Perhaps you dont understand, If you read a few comments up you will discover the likes of ESL.

It was regarding INTERPRETATION not crafting a legal argument. A judge does not need complex gramatical skills when interpreting conversation by criminals.

This thread has truly gone off on a tangent.

 

[prichardson]

Are you making any sense at all with the bolded comment? What analogy are you even alluding to?

Yes we do study spelling (of text names at the very least, for eg if you consistently misspell Skrzynecki's name in your paper you will invariably lower - significantly from first hand hearsay - your final grade due to impression marks) and punctuation (techniques such as rhetorical questions, exclamatory remark and typographical separations all rely on this) in HSC english.

You're still a student so you are viewing everything from your limited pinhole vision, once you actually consider the grander scale of things it will dawn on you exactly how much the process of learning even HSC english benefits long term written expression. Of course there are flaws in the system (or any human-defined structure) but the meaning is there, albeit latent.

Pardon me for being presumptious, but are you not faring too well in english at present? Your subject selection implies you are a 'humanities' student though, so i take it that a poor experience with a teacher / peer / what you have read has made you so spiteful?

First of all, the bolded comment; it was referring to you saying to [the other dude?] to do ESL because he didn't like the course.

Perhaps a repeated mistake on something such as the authors name might draw penalty, but mistakes throughout the test [...or at least, at my school, which I suppose is the limit of my experience] do not. I would also put my money on HSC marking centres at the very least not having stringent controls over penalties relating to those kinds of errors.

Obviously your third paragraph is one which I cannot argue (even if "I'm not sure about that" was an understatement). I haven't finished school so I couldn't say. But what would you say is the fault with most of the alternatives people have suggested here? -the Queensland English course, having to do English but not having it necassarily counted towards your HSC [maybe not for ESL students, but for those... and I say this with a cringe at the thought of some people... who are fluent English speakers] and maybe one or 2 other decent alternatives? Answering that probably won't change anything, but I'd still like your (and others') opinion.

Also, I'm doing quite well in English [top of my adv. class (although there is a "top" advanced class which I'm not in) and about 30/220 overall this year]. It is true that I very much dislike it, and yes I have had a bad teacher in the past, but that was a while ago and I still liked English after her. Presently I have quite a good teacher... only I'm reading all class. Aside from that, apart from having an moron who likes to blurt out stupid shit such as "I don't get what that story is about... I get that there's like a storm and that Prospero is angry... but that's it." -upon completing reading the whole book over about 10 lessons. But I just find her funny, and certainly not the weaver of any ill-feelings I have towards English. If by "what you've read" you mean a book I've read for English, or even other peoples posts or... anything really: then no, that isn't the cause of my spite. I'd say it's just anger that the course (so far as my experience with it seems) condones a separation of emotion from the work of authors, directors, poets- all artists, which is bound to fail. For me it destroys all joy that I may have been able to experience from the text. Even Frontline has become tiresome for me after we not only grasped the meaning and as a class put together a list of techniques, but then went on to grind the most insignificant details with the most insignificant final outcomes on the essential value of the text.

Anyway, sorry for having a go at you there, in all other circumstances and threads I have respected what you have said and usually agreed, but that opening remark had me riled up.

You're supposed to fully know spelling and punctuation before the end of year ten. Normal students do. The HSC course is not remedial english ffs.

I stated HSC english had been more usefull to me in preparation for tertiary science than any other subject, to which you replied:



Essays, paper writing, research. They are the core of most degrees, in any field. No subject deals with them like HSC english, and it does a fairly good job as an introduction to them.

Obviously the years up to year 10 are a failure then, looking at an astounding number of people.

Sorry, obviously didn't register that bit... but still, I have also said (not sure if it was in my reply to you) that for essays and research (especially in relation to how those 2 things are done at uni-level) Extension History is far and away the best. Obviously not everyone will be adept at either of the histories, or even if they are, be up to the huge challenge of Extension - but then again, if the course you wanted to do required those skills then you'd choose it. English deals neigh on zilch in terms of research, you have to read a text and then interpret it, with not even a hint of cross-referencing or anything.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Obviously the years up to year 10 are a failure then, looking at an astounding number of people.

Sorry, obviously didn't register that bit... but still, I have also said (not sure if it was in my reply to you) that for essays and research (especially in relation to how those 2 things are done at uni-level) Extension History is far and away the best. Obviously not everyone will be adept at either of the histories, or even if they are, be up to the huge challenge of Extension - but then again, if the course you wanted to do required those skills then you'd choose it. English deals neigh on zilch in terms of research, you have to read a text and then interpret it, with not even a hint of cross-referencing or anything.

While I still argue for the usefulness of English later in life - particularly for those who do not, by the end of year 10, obtain acceptable levels of English whether through their own doing, language barriers, or plain laziness - I have to agree with the comment on History Ex. Unlike in English, and more so Society and Culture, what you write, mainly for your MW, is what you have hypothesised, researched, loved, debated with others and yourself and then interpret and present. Having just completed my own history x mw, I appreciate how useful having done that is going to be in tertiary education and in life.

so, in short
history x > english
in terms of preparing you for tertiary education and life.

Then again, one has to have a fairly high level of english skill already to excell in the history extension course and mw, in my opinion.

 

[prichardson]

Perhaps you dont understand, If you read a few comments up you will discover the likes of ESL.

It was regarding INTERPRETATION not crafting a legal argument. A judge does not need complex gramatical skills when interpreting conversation by criminals.

This thread has truly gone off on a tangent.

I think that may just be a little stark a generalisation? Not every criminal is a meathead. Often times the worst are just crazed intelligent people with a little to much time to think over all the bad things in their lives.

I would have said that proportionally the majority of difficult-to-solve cases were related to these people. Not necassarily murder, but other crimes like theft too.

While I still argue for the usefulness of English later in life - particularly for those who do not, by the end of year 10, obtain acceptable levels of English whether through their own doing, language barriers, or plain laziness - I have to agree with the comment on History Ex. Unlike in English, and more so Society and Culture, what you write, mainly for your MW, is what you have hypothesised, researched, loved, debated with others and yourself and then interpret and present. Having just completed my own history x mw, I appreciate how useful having done that is going to be in tertiary education and in life.

so, in short
history x > english
in terms of preparing you for tertiary education and life.

Then again, one has to have a fairly high level of english skill already to excell in the history extension course and mw, in my opinion.

Or, even better; a high level of Ancient/Modern History skill :uhhuh:

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Or, even better; a high level of Ancient/Modern History skill :uhhuh:

Well I though that was obvious
=d

At my school, we're not encouraged to take History X unless we acheive over 80+ constantly through out the prelim course.

 

[prichardson]

Well I though that was obvious
=d

At my school, we're not encouraged to take History X unless we acheive over 80+ constantly through out the prelim course.

Had to point it out for our "English is where you learn how to do essays" friends who forget about the more specific subject which also deal with essays

At our school we're not encouraged to take Hist X, minus around 3 people

I MADE THE LIST

That's mainly due to our teachers being sick of people picking it up in the past then dropping it some time fairly early in the course, leaving 2 teachers who have a timetabled lesson with around 5 students in their class.

But it's not based on marks for other classes so much as recommendations by our history teachers, head of department (who I think may consider to some extent other classes) and our history marks. Much better that way, I'd say?

 

[u-borat]

Obviously the years up to year 10 are a failure then, looking at an astounding number of people.

Sorry, obviously didn't register that bit... but still, I have also said (not sure if it was in my reply to you) that for essays and research (especially in relation to how those 2 things are done at uni-level) Extension History is far and away the best. Obviously not everyone will be adept at either of the histories, or even if they are, be up to the huge challenge of Extension - but then again, if the course you wanted to do required those skills then you'd choose it. English deals neigh on zilch in terms of research, you have to read a text and then interpret it, with not even a hint of cross-referencing or anything.

heard of 4 unit english? no, didn't think so.

and seriously. quit bitching.

 

[charlesdinio]

Prichardson,

In your massive reply - you hit the nail on the head.

Well said.

 

[prichardson]

heard of 4 unit english? no, didn't think so.

and seriously. quit bitching.

Yes I have heard of 4 unit English. Not only is it for the very pinnacle of English students, but it also doesn't match up to History Extension.

I have read quite a few EX2 papers and they just can't compete, sorry old chap. Furthermore, Sonyaleeisapixie, who does EX2 AND Hist Ext. agrees that Hist. X. is more rigorous.

So take your "all up in my face, bitch" tone out of this thread before you get ripped apart. I may be bitching to some extent, but I'm also providing a structured arguement against the English course. You, on the other hand, with your aggressive short sentences, ARE bitching- entirely. I am gagging on the noxious scent of hypocrasy here!

[EDIT] -by the way... ever though of getting out a little more? Your subject selection has me envisaging a person who probably starts doing a Rainman when people create change. Hope your parents didn't beat you too much as a kid to get to become a good Doctor or Lawyer, yessir!

Poor boo-boo. <SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_3591695", true); </SCRIPT><!-- Added by James for Benefactors: 11.30pm, 8 Feb 2005 -->

Prichardson,



In your massive reply - you hit the nail on the head.



Well said.

Thanks man, that's the plan, represent the anti-current-HSC-English [hereafter ACHE!! hahaha! that's perfect, represents English ] side of the arguement and keep of those people who think that we are all redneck drongos/boat people in line.

 

[u-borat]

Yes I have heard of 4 unit English. Not only is it for the very pinnacle of English students, but it also doesn't match up to History Extension.

I have read quite a few EX2 papers and they just can't compete, sorry old chap. Furthermore, Sonyaleeisapixie, who does EX2 AND Hist Ext. agrees that Hist. X. is more rigorous.

So take your "all up in my face, bitch" tone out of this thread before you get ripped apart. I may be bitching to some extent, but I'm also providing a structured arguement against the English course. You, on the other hand, with your aggressive short sentences, ARE bitching- entirely. I am gagging on the noxious scent of hypocrasy here!

[EDIT] -by the way... ever though of getting out a little more? Your subject selection has me envisaging a person who probably starts doing a Rainman when people create change. Hope your parents didn't beat you too much as a kid to get to become a good Doctor or Lawyer, yessir!

Oh that's hilarious, because I have zero intention of doing either medicine nor law at university.

congrats, you have one source.
i just asked a friend not 1 minute ago what he found more strenous...yeah i'll give you a clue and say that he disagrees with ur source.

and english is for the pinnacle of english students?

why...

At our school we're not encouraged to take Hist X, minus around 3 people

I MADE THE LIST

oh, and add a dash of modesty with that too.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Oh that's hilarious, because I have zero intention of doing either medicine nor law at university.

congrats, you have one source.
i just asked a friend not 1 minute ago what he found more strenous...yeah i'll give you a clue and say that he disagrees with ur source.

and english is for the pinnacle of english students?

why...



oh, and add a dash of modesty with that too.

Of course, one may find 4unit english more STRENUOUS than 4unit history! I dont think we ever said they couldn't or wouldn't. We're not talking personal strain. I'm finding english ex 2 more time consuming and tiring than I ever did history x - though its a close second - because I'm doing poetry.

HOWEVR
In terms of usefulness later on in tertiary education and the workforce, history extension is by far more useful for the reason previously stated.

I'm not arguing against english being compulsory; I like it that way. I would like to see Math also compulsory to even the score, but that brings us into a whole other world of debate, and as such, I digress.

What I'm saying is, while english skills at the HSC level ARE important, fundamental and important skills for people (particularly the lower level students), it is perhaps not the best in preparation for teriary education and jobs at the most difficult end of spectrum, and history extension is.
HOWEVER, a student must excell greatly at english skills to keep up with history x. It all goes hand in hand.

 

[tommykins]

In all this bitching,moaning and whinging - I ask myself, what purpose does it serve?

I'm doing pretty shit in English at the moment, I hate the subject, as the OP says - I find it "useless".

But in the grand scheme of things, English has pretty much aided in other skills which I'll use in the future, essays - reports - speeches etc. etc.

Hate it or love it, it's not going away, bare with it.

 

[prichardson]

Oh that's hilarious, because I have zero intention of doing either medicine nor law at university.

congrats, you have one source.
i just asked a friend not 1 minute ago what he found more strenous...yeah i'll give you a clue and say that he disagrees with ur source.

and english is for the pinnacle of english students?

why...



oh, and add a dash of modesty with that too.

That is truely suprising.

Congrats to you too, my friend, because it seems you only have one source too. Furthermore, what you asked him was not relevant to what I was arguing. I didn't say which of the 2 courses was harder, I said which of the 2 courses had more academic rigour in it's essays, and how much of a likeliness those essays bore to uni-level papers, given the lengthy source analysis' given to [as a generalisation] around 30 different sources and source types. I also said that I had read EX2 essays, and they did not match up in those departments. So- my point still stands.

Thankyou for also restating what I had said just in case I hadn't understood myself. Your response has nothing to do with what we are discussing, so... well; I hope it was a fun rant for you.

I was merely stating in a way not designed [or able] to bring other people down. Why can I not experience a level of pride in not merely scraping in to the course? It was an achievement which came about by hard work in Ancient History and other subjects. Should I have just left it in a way which would make everyone think I barely scraped into the course? It's something which made me happy, and happy about it I remain, given the level of competition there is between History students at my school.

Anyway, in summary, you post has solved nothing bar your pathetic bitching whine, which thankfully you dropped.

In all this bitching,moaning and whinging - I ask myself, what purpose does it serve?

I'm doing pretty shit in English at the moment, I hate the subject, as the OP says - I find it "useless".

But in the grand scheme of things, English has pretty much aided in other skills which I'll use in the future, essays - reports - speeches etc. etc.

Hate it or love it, it's not going away, bare with it.

What purpose does a worker strike which fails to reach an acceptable outcome acheive, as well a numerous other similar examples? Probably nothing, but it let's the world know that we care.

If you'd read the thread you would find that I am saying that the skills learnt in HSC English do not apply to later life. Essays, for example, can be found in all humanities subjects and more, where they are especially useful since those essays are in the style of that subject which is linked to tertiary studies. And reports? So... in which part of you HSC English have you ever written a report? So that leaves speeches. Not only are the speeches like essays in content (therefore my point about essays also applies here) but they also only rely on communications skills needed for most other subjects minus the sciences and maths. What I am trying to say, in effect, is that there is nothing which cannot be found elsewhere which can relate to most areas of tertiary study/employment (on a side note the point has been made about such things as media studies which I also replied to, so if you want to talk about one of those very few courses which does use English you can read my reply a few pages back).

Perhaps by me doing here what I am today I will add to an area of discussion which start long ago, contributing a tiny bit of momentum towards change. Another analogy- why shower for a few minutes less to save water when as a whole it won't do anything?

Hope, it's a powerful thing.