Paper 1 of my English trail exam is on Thursday, I have done little preparation for it (I've got tomorrow off though so I might be able to wing it). In my panic earlier this afternoon I kept wondering to myself, what I am really getting out of doing English? moreover, what does the board of studies expect me to get out of this? The only thing that ever drove me to pay attention in class is the fear of a bad ATAR at the end.
I'm currently doing the replacement subject for catholic studies, studies in catholic thought (SICT). It's a compulsory board endorsed course for those who don't do SOR and doesn't count towards my ATAR, all I need to do is pass and to be fair I'm not that religious but it's 'fun'. I'm curious as to why English standard isn't done the same way, where English advanced is for those who actually want to do English and change the English standard course to something kids will actually enjoy instead of drag themselves through like they were wounded on the beaches of Normandy.
People who say we need it for literacy and an 'appreciation for media' go screw yourselves. The literacy problem has already been solved with the written modules and reports into every single other subject (Science comes to mind). I've got a 15 mark extended response question at the end of my industrial technology paper for crying out loud. If they want us to appreciate a diverse range of media actually make us appreciate it, not tear it apart with meaningless analysis that band 6 students pull out of thin air only for it to be marked differently by every teacher that sees it. If I wanted to be that person, I'd be in advanced.
They discourage the memorisation of cookie cutter essays but expect a student to memorise an essays worth of quotes, WHY. IF YOU WANT TO TEST THE ABILITY TO ANALYSE THEN JUST DO THAT! over 50% of the marks rely on the fact that you chose the right quotes and remembered them with context! (This isn't thaaat bad but still, why would It be necessary?)
What skills am I to gain that a more engaging course, supplemented by the written work I already am doing for other subjects wouldn't give me? I sure as hell didn't write this with the skills gained from endlessly analysing mod C texts. A funny little anecdote, my dad writes for a living, working in film and television. I asked him "did essay writing ever help you at work?" He told me that year 12 was the last time he ever analysed a text. Which to be fair was totally expected. I'm glad that in a few moths time I'll never have to do it again either.
TLDR
English standard is "English advanced but with two questions that are different asking about texts that will bore you to death, oh and It count's towards your ATAR good luck
". Why can't it be "We understand that you are not interested in wasting your life away on something that will never be relevant to you so have some fun and learn some useful things related to English while you're at it". i.e make English standard like SICT
I'm currently doing the replacement subject for catholic studies, studies in catholic thought (SICT). It's a compulsory board endorsed course for those who don't do SOR and doesn't count towards my ATAR, all I need to do is pass and to be fair I'm not that religious but it's 'fun'. I'm curious as to why English standard isn't done the same way, where English advanced is for those who actually want to do English and change the English standard course to something kids will actually enjoy instead of drag themselves through like they were wounded on the beaches of Normandy.
People who say we need it for literacy and an 'appreciation for media' go screw yourselves. The literacy problem has already been solved with the written modules and reports into every single other subject (Science comes to mind). I've got a 15 mark extended response question at the end of my industrial technology paper for crying out loud. If they want us to appreciate a diverse range of media actually make us appreciate it, not tear it apart with meaningless analysis that band 6 students pull out of thin air only for it to be marked differently by every teacher that sees it. If I wanted to be that person, I'd be in advanced.
They discourage the memorisation of cookie cutter essays but expect a student to memorise an essays worth of quotes, WHY. IF YOU WANT TO TEST THE ABILITY TO ANALYSE THEN JUST DO THAT! over 50% of the marks rely on the fact that you chose the right quotes and remembered them with context! (This isn't thaaat bad but still, why would It be necessary?)
What skills am I to gain that a more engaging course, supplemented by the written work I already am doing for other subjects wouldn't give me? I sure as hell didn't write this with the skills gained from endlessly analysing mod C texts. A funny little anecdote, my dad writes for a living, working in film and television. I asked him "did essay writing ever help you at work?" He told me that year 12 was the last time he ever analysed a text. Which to be fair was totally expected. I'm glad that in a few moths time I'll never have to do it again either.
TLDR
English standard is "English advanced but with two questions that are different asking about texts that will bore you to death, oh and It count's towards your ATAR good luck
". Why can't it be "We understand that you are not interested in wasting your life away on something that will never be relevant to you so have some fun and learn some useful things related to English while you're at it". i.e make English standard like SICT
