English syllabuses, new and old - what're your thoughts? (2 Viewers)

[SgtSlick]

English blows!! Sorry but that is the sad fact of the matter, I studied 3 unit english, this year, found both 3u and advanced easy, was very good at both (not that i want to toot my own horn) yet had a bonfire upon the conclusion of my english exams to burn every last piece of english material. HSC English is merely an excuse for the board of studies to issue students with "stimulus material" which is in truth, just subversive reading material that attempts to position us as readers to unquestiongly accept a liberalist viewpoint of current events..... ie. reconciliation, environmentalism...its all a load of liberal/idealist "control-shit" (yes thats right i formed a word by adjoining two others!) and I particularly hate it when people try to manipulate me because they think I am too stupid to notice..GOD DAMN who does the BOS think they/her/he/it/they are? And also, maybe I'm just anal, but I hate the fact that the subject is called "English" BECAUSE The word "English" itself implies the study of the Angles, a Germanic race of pre-christian origin from whence the term "English" is derived...In its most useful and practical sense, the study of "English" should be divided not into Advanced and Standard classes, but into the study of "English Literature" or "Creative applications of the contemporary English lanugage"
God damnit, how can you people honestly say that HSC was "good"..pfff...the mind boggles....

-SgtSlick

 

[mjor]

ah, english...

I'm also a student who did very well at english but hated every moment of it.

I wasn't around for the 'old' HSC so i'm in no position to comment on it or take part in the poll!

However, i may as well give my opinion of the english course as it is at the moment, its always fun to bag out the board of studies (and rightly so mind u)

ok my greatest fear with the current english syllabus is that marks are becoming a fuction of memory just like every other subject. I was very disapointed to find all the questions in the advanced exam so general! basically anyone who memorised one general essay for each of the modules and for the area of study was set! So basically what u are going to see in the future is each person spends a year writing a total of 4 essays and then memorising them in the days before the exam!! This is clearly a terrible experience that any student should have to go through. And what have they achieved at the end of it? They have become "bullshit generators" and know 4 essays word-for-word. And the essays are so shit they have no actual practical meaning in the world, and the VAST majority of students will find their content boring and pointless! This is where i fear english is heading with the new HSC. Along with all the other subjects into tests of memory and not intellect/ability.
i'm just so glad I never have to do it again.

mind you - the course does provide scope for some interesting and challenging school assessment tasks.

 

[Ozz^E]

Didnt do old syllabus...though i like the new one. Looks pretty starightforward to me. Work hard and ull get the marks. Obv, if ur naturally talented at eng then itll be easier.

 

[SgtSlick]

Yes @ mjpr, the syllabus did offer scope, but it was still imperfect

 

[SgtSlick]

but being a BOS developed course, should i have xpected any different?

 

[SgtSlick]

maybe i am too harsh on the BOS, they do have to develop a shitload of courses, so who can blame them for doing a half arsed rush job of all the important ones and spending lots of time developing fun courses like modern patchworking... ha go figure!

 

[cpd]

SgtSlick has hit upon the crux of the matter. The BOS gives us set material, and forces us to study it, and respond in our answers positively to what we are asked, becasue as we all know, thinking differently is a bad thing, right?

Wrong.

I did Standard English because I've struggled throughout high school with English, and even with the assistance of teachers and other helpers, the course outlines are still as ambiguous as we're ever going to face in the real world. Let's look at it this way:

Say for instance, we were all to become journalists, yes, we will need to know how to dissect and analyse information and texts, to further our own interests in our field. How many of you plan to be a journalist/critic? Hands up people.

That's right, not that many.

Standard English is made to do the same Paper 1 as Advanced, Extension, and Extension 2, yet we get no consideration that we'll be killed by people with a greater grasp of "hidden meanings" in the texts, no, we get scaled down. What's the go there? Am I supposed to be apologetic that I can't rip apart a text as well as the BOS feels I should? Should I feel sorry because I can't write 10 page essays on metaphorical meanings behind simple quotes? No.

The purpose of the English course should be set our minds into not thinking as another conformist, but to gently guide us to our own liberation and freedom of thinking. As opposed to rewarding those that can see things that the author may have just put in his/her story/poem because it sounds good, we should be rewarded for being individual. As you can probably see from the post I've just randomly spouted off the top of my head, I actually do have command of the english language, I can put forward my opinion with proof, I can speak coherently and carry on a normal conversation, and do all the little things that the English language requires to get along in the world after school finishes. But no. Sorry cpd, 35% for you every assessment or less.

Thank God it's all over, and I'll never have to dissect a book again.

Phew! That's my $0.02.

 

[Lazarus]

as a small sidenote (and without this thread being converted into one detailing how marks are adjusted), standard and advanced english are combined before scaling, and so are scaled in the same way.

 

[Bambul]

I can really emapthise with cpd. Especially after doing Modern History, in which you need the same skills as English, but have more interesting topics to study (with no poetry!) and can agree or disagree with the question whilst still getting a good mark.

 

[runcible]

i also think the fact that english is a compulsory suject should be negotiable - we get told that the reason is because good communication skills are essential and that we need to learn to express ourselves, but hey, wait a minute, isn't that what we have to do in most of our other subjects (apart from maths and sciences) anyway? The only difference seems to me to be that in the other subjects, the things we discuss while "communicating" and "expressing ourselves" actually have a point to them, whilst in english we have to just bullshit aimlessly. Some people like (and are good at) that kind of thing, and that's fair enough, but wouldn't it be fairer if those kind of people could CHOOSE to study english, while those who weren't so keen on the idea could CHOOSE not to?

 

[BlackJack]

Um... Lazarus, no one's actually come out and said it, but the wording in your poll looks a bit skewed...
We've been taught that variety and different stuff is good D), and on first inspection, since we don't know much about the old syllabus, but the 'same texts in the same ways' sounds so very boring... there'd be more people who vote without proper considration.

Or is it really a just description of theold syllabus?

 

[!meeee!]

i don't have personal experience with the old syllabus but our teacher said the thing with the old syllabus was you would learn say king lear and when you went into the exam you could be asked anything, like a specific character, language, themes, setting... anything!
which personally i find ridiculous and thus i'm in favour of the new syllabus

 

[McLake]

Originally posted by !meeee!
i don't have personal experience with the old syllabus but our teacher said the thing with the old syllabus was you would learn say king lear and when you went into the exam you could be asked anything, like a specific character, language, themes, setting... anything!
which personally i find ridiculous and thus i'm in favour of the new syllabus

More rediculous than having to know themes, plot, productions, critics, and readings? If you say so ...

 

[MiuMiu]

I think the real problem with English is the fact that nothing in years 7-10 prepares you for year 11 and 12. You do minute (almost non-existant) amounts of analysis in yr 10 and then all of a sudden hit yr 11 where everything is analyse, analyse, analyse. It was extremely rude shock from coasting along in year 10 to hitting advanced in year 11

 

[eviltama]

uh... for my say...which i hope will be less long winded than most.

As with most i don't know the old syllabus and cna only talk abt the new one. So here we go.

Its boring, point number one.
Its made more random word generators more than anything, point two.
The texts are uninterresting and in the case of Emma, for some ppl unreadable, point three.
The teachers don't know what they are teaching and don't often understand the syllabus themselves, point four.

Now to the beefy bits.
Being a creative person, i found the Advanced course thoroughly boring. Lear was a small light on the horizon otherwise speaking everything else sucked. I'm great at english, i have little to no concept of metaphors, similies or what not and yet i get through based on the amount of bull shit i can spew out at test time. And im not the only one... the girl at the top of our class is the same, she can impress a teacher by sprouting absolute crap.

Which leads to point two, if u cram an essay ur set. Or ur stuffed, depending on the actual exam question. A catch 22 indeed. But the problem is, is English becoming more theory than anything else? My answer is yes. In the HSC there is one part for creative ppl, and this year we didnt even get that. English used to be where we learnt how to expand our horizons... write stories, poems, read new interesting books which were meant to encourage us to better our literacy skills. Now english can be learnt out of study books. Who needs the teacher? Buy a study guide and you've got all the answers. And what is the point of english now? We dont need a teacher we can go and sleep for a year and a half and still manage quite well. (speaking from experience)

Point three, if u gave out Emma by Jane Austen to normal ppl on the street most of them would throw it back at you and swear...quite loudly. Who in their right minds wants to sit down for days on end and read Emma? Out of my adv class only 3 ppl read the book... everyone else got study notes or a summary of sparknotes. Other than the fact its long and boring, most ppl wont understand the intricate nature of the plot nor less the nature of early english society. I spose that is y we are forced to study clueless at the same time, otherwise no one would do that option. I also can't stand clueless... a poor modernisation of a half decent book. Either way no one (i know) likes that option...its too complex for most to deal with satisfactorily. ie they usually understand Clueless but have no working knowledge of Emma.

Point four....this is long isnt it? damn...
MY teacher for example....has taught the new syllabus since its introduction... and still she understands nothing of wat is wanted. We can't ask her for help because she can't tell us anything more than what we already have. This is above and beyond the fact that she is an idiot. One minute we are told one thing next minute we are told another, its totally confusing. And from what i've heard its just not my teacher who knows crap all. It seems the Board (BOS) has been keeping its teachers in the dark most of the time. Hell our teacher can't pronounce Skrzynecki yet alone describe what we need to know for our exams. This may be just her but the syllabus is very iffy....even for the so called "english" teachers.

Conclusion (arent u all glad?!)
The new syllabus is a shocker. The concepts in most cases are much to complex for ordinary ppl to comprehend and even if we could understand what they were talking about the rest of the work is too boring. English used to be fun, used to be creative, used to allow freedom of thoughts and ideas and encourage new ideas, thoughts and different views. Now we are told not to express your own ideas, they are wrong, they wont get you marks. Learn the study guides and repeat word for word what is required. What a way to learn? Then again most ppl have given up on english, its now just another time to sleep.

 

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by BlackJack
Um... Lazarus, no one's actually come out and said it, but the wording in your poll looks a bit skewed...

Or is it really a just description of theold syllabus?

Yeh, I suppose it is very slightly skewed - I only had a limited number of words available. But from what I can gather, the descriptions are, for the most part, reasonably accurate.

I'll post my actual thoughts on the matter soonish... don't want to influence what other people post at this stage.

 

[SgtSlick]

well this thred is becoming lenghty, here i am bitching about english and reading mini essays about the legitimacy of english..ha

 

[!meeee!]

i think a lot of ppl give the new syllabus heaps of crap, mostly because they believe it prevents creativity or allows it in tokenistic ways such as write a feature article instead of an essay
However, personally, i think that's ok. cause it is only 2 unit english. if you want to be challenged and creative do 3 unit and 4 unit.
at least with 2 unit if you know what the markers are looking for and know your stuff you stand a chance of doing well. and that's what 2 unit courses should be about

 

[SgtSlick]

Originally posted by cpd
SgtSlick has hit upon the crux of the matter. The BOS gives us set material, and forces us to study it, and respond in our answers positively to what we are asked, becasue as we all know, thinking differently is a bad thing, right?

Wrong.

I did Standard English because I've struggled throughout high school with English, and even with the assistance of teachers and other helpers, the course outlines are still as ambiguous as we're ever going to face in the real world. Let's look at it this way:

Say for instance, we were all to become journalists, yes, we will need to know how to dissect and analyse information and texts, to further our own interests in our field. How many of you plan to be a journalist/critic? Hands up people.

That's right, not that many.

Standard English is made to do the same Paper 1 as Advanced, Extension, and Extension 2, yet we get no consideration that we'll be killed by people with a greater grasp of "hidden meanings" in the texts, no, we get scaled down. What's the go there? Am I supposed to be apologetic that I can't rip apart a text as well as the BOS feels I should? Should I feel sorry because I can't write 10 page essays on metaphorical meanings behind simple quotes? No.

The purpose of the English course should be set our minds into not thinking as another conformist, but to gently guide us to our own liberation and freedom of thinking. As opposed to rewarding those that can see things that the author may have just put in his/her story/poem because it sounds good, we should be rewarded for being individual. As you can probably see from the post I've just randomly spouted off the top of my head, I actually do have command of the english language, I can put forward my opinion with proof, I can speak coherently and carry on a normal conversation, and do all the little things that the English language requires to get along in the world after school finishes. But no. Sorry cpd, 35% for you every assessment or less.

Thank God it's all over, and I'll never have to dissect a book again.

Phew! That's my $0.02.

Mate, i can honestly say i feel for u... the people who do standard english may have no problem doing all the things required of them by the daily use of the english language, yet u r considered inferior students... not cool

 

[Mr Chicken]

The new english syllabus is one of THE worst things i have ever come across in 13 years of schooling.
Not only is it devoid of anything vaguely useful for people who don't want to sit around pontifcating about shite all day, they seem to have forgotten a very important point.

2 units of english are the ONLY compulsory units for achieving your higher school certificate. However, it just so happens that the advanced syllabus (and lets face it, ppl chasing a good UAI would have to be mad to do standard), contains so much stuff which just has no use for someone not doing a highly english related degree in uni. And lets not forget, that's most people.

Different readings?
Critical analysis?
Views on change?

Jeez, given the last one there maybe it should just be compulsory to do philosophy instead...

For the bulk of us non-english degree people, we leave school with a load of "knowledge" from english which we'll be lucky to EVER use again, and very little that may be useful in everyday life. The entire point of the 2 unit english syllabus should be to develop people's communication skills.
These are skills that every single person requires, hence it would be fitting if the only compulsory course actually taught something that is useful to everyone!
And by communicate i mean speaches, essays, letters, formal and informal reports ect. - but not ones based on senseless shite better left for the "academics" studying english at uni.

The BOS should consider a few options
- make the suggested changes to the english syllabus
or
- Make it that whilst you're 2 units of english are compulsory, they do not have to count towards your uai
or
- the evener-uper, tho i think this is a poor solution, is to make 2 units of maths compulsory for your uai

The beauty of the last suggestion is that if they do it, the BOS buildings will probably be totally obliterated, removing any trace of that shocking english syllabus

anyways... they're not going to fix it, no matter how much we bitch
but that's just how i rekon they could try to improve it