Is english pointless? (2 Viewers)

[A l]

I would say that School Certificate level English and Mathematics is enough to survive society. The Higher School Certificate courses extend from the corresponding School Certificate course for those who wish to take their interest in studying particular courses further, and this is generally used for tertiary study and in many executive jobs.

 

[Gangels]

Any fucken retard could count without taking hsc maths....

You would be that retard if you didnt have maths. And you sound like a retard anyway. And if you knew anything a reatard would not be doind the HSC. Matematics
is the sort of thing that you need for a job. General is day to day shit. Its even used in history and english. Fukin retard

 

[Captain Gh3y]

A compulsory politics course you say?

If that course were written by the same academics who devised English, I would fear for our future.

 

[pLuvia]

English should be compulsory for the HSC but should not have to count towards the UAI

 

[sam04u]

English should be compulsory for the HSC but should not have to count towards the UAI

I agreee 100%!!!!!!!!!!!
So should this history/politics course im talking about... or count for 1 unit the combined course...

 

[Darkening]

might aswell make it all the subjects dont count to HSC, that would make school more fun.

On a side note English should be done in HSC but not journeies!, i agree with Mountian.Due
"english, i agree, must be compulsory. but, the current cirriculum for it is rubbish. it should be more based upon grammar, comprehension, listening...the fundamentals. get those right before launching into those 'journeys' and wacky analytical things."

Journeys is rubbish!!! Grammar, comprehension and listing should be the major dot points we do!

 

[chocolate_lover]

Hold on, is this thread supposed to be about: a) the subject English which we do in the HSC course, or b) the language?? It seems that people are posting in this thread with a different meaning of the word "English".

 

[Rekkusu]

Whoa ok, I just skim read all the replies here...and there's alot of thought into it.

I would definitely agree that English is a pretty crappy and annoying subject, one which is not bound by a 'syllabus' nor stable points, BUT the thing is that you need this crappy subject in university in order to submit reports/essays, it's in a way a road to writing professionally in your future career, unless if the job that you're heading into won't have anything to do with submitting reports/essays or even articles.

As for Year 12 Maths, yes it does seem abit useless in uni, but amusingly you do revisit basic stuff like trigonometry, etc in the most basic Maths course, so although it's not compulsory, it's good to do at least 2unit.

@chocolate_lover: Whoa...you definitely sound like an English-student guy...because what you stated just then will be covered in a way in Module C: Truth and Representation.

Anyways, just a general message to all, you may find English hard and the hardest subject to understand...but by the time you get to your HSC, I mean your actual HSC, you'll find that your essays would have improved dramatically. Even for English Extension ppl.

As for English counting towards your UAI mark, you would actually want to keep it...because for most people in 2005 hsc, that's what earnt them high UAIs. It helps you alot, plus I reckon it was close to the 'easiest' exam that I did [not like really easy, but good to gain marks], in comparison to chem/phys/maths...

 

[FranzFerdinand]

Towards UAI, mathematics is highly underrated. It is a valuable subject to learn for anyone who wants to get anywhere in life through tertiary studies, therefore, should really scale way higher than other courses. It should definately be compulsory if you want to receive your HSC.

On English, there is some shit which you don't really need to know about for future references in life. For example, understanding Elizabethan language, but then again, every subject tends to have otiose rubbish. Standard English, ESL should be the least.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

Maths compulsory? why? which profession uses maths.... physics... maybe... but not maths?

lets see...mathematician, actuaries, accountants, scientists, managers, engineers, entrepenuers, trades people (e.g. carpenter, bricklayer, plumber, electrician, mechanic..) teachers, lawyers (yes, even lawyers)...the list goes on...

Besides... i don't believe in the current system as it is... the whole 7-10 teaching method... its stupid... really...

now, what proof do u that the yr 7-10 history course is stupid? facts? figures? statistics? please dont make too many conclusions before having a look at facts or other people's comments.

Maybe its different in selective or private schools.. but in regular schools the curriculum is roughly followed... the course is mainly covered by copying of a overhead or from a text book... and alot of the time none of it is consumed....

then how exactly should we teach the history cirriculum effectively? build time machines so that we go back in time to look at primary sources? u havent taken into account other things like group work, discussions, other secondary sources, excursions(e.g. war memorials, museums, etc...)

Again... making maths compulsory is stupid...

why so? u might not havent considered that 2U maths is also another avenue for teaching a bit of logical thinking and reasoning. in this sense, it lends itself to its more humanities side, where a certain question can be answered via numerous methods - the challenge is to either make ur method logically sound, and/or to find the most efficient method to tackle the question. and this, is a microcosm of the real world - a much much more realistic reflection of reality than HSC English.

Making history...(properly done, not the bullshit we have now would be good) and a politics course...

well, how exactly do we make it done properly then? what is ur supposedly fantastic, infallible methods?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

If you need any more proof of English's importance, please have a conversation with a plumber, electrician or mechanic, and you will see just how important Stage 6 English is. Year 10 level english is appauling.

So make offensive generalisations about it. I'd rather speak to most plumbers, electricians and mechanics than someone whose conversational speech resembled a post doctoral humanities thesis.

Towards UAI, mathematics is highly underrated. It is a valuable subject to learn for anyone who wants to get anywhere in life through tertiary studies, therefore, should really scale way higher than other courses. It should definately be compulsory if you want to receive your HSC.

Useful, yes. It already scales higher. Compulsory? No. Some people just can't do it, and that would be unfair for them to a greater extent than English being compulsory for those who are poor at it, is.

On English, there is some shit which you don't really need to know about for future references in life. For example, understanding Elizabethan language, but then again, every subject tends to have otiose rubbish. Standard English, ESL should be the least.

On the other hand, I liked reading Shakespeare, because I (personally) had to concentrate and think about each word and what it might mean to figure out what the scene was about. That's a useful thing to do for any number of reasons. I didn't care for reading post-modernist interpretations into it though.

why so? u might not havent considered that 2U maths is also another avenue for teaching a bit of logical thinking and reasoning. in this sense, it lends itself to its more humanities side, where a certain question can be answered via numerous methods - the challenge is to either make ur method logically sound, and/or to find the most efficient method to tackle the question. and this, is a microcosm of the real world - a much much more realistic reflection of reality than HSC English.

Unfortunately much of 2 Unit is memorising formulas or straightforward methods (eg. differentiate, plug in numbers, the end). On the whole though, Mathematics is useful because it teaches us not to make assumptions, and indeed to think logically about anything. The current English course, as I already mentioned, is almost the opposite, as you simply need to have the "right thoughts" and practise cramming them all into forty minute essays, and you're set. Module C particularly is supreme hypocrisy.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

Unfortunately much of 2 Unit is memorising formulas or straightforward methods (eg. differentiate, plug in numbers, the end).

hmmmmmm i suppose so. i was more talking about 3U and 4U maths, where u do have more methods to play around with.

however, one good thing about 2U maths is that it does lend itself to ask questions that involve real situations. e.g. calculating interest, superannuation, time payments, geometry involving calculation of the quickest routes towards destinations, navigation (particularly naval navigation, in both 2D and 3D), finding the maximum volume of certain dimensions of a tin can (so that the manfacturers can maximise profits), etc...indeed a reflection of the real world.

On the whole though, Mathematics is useful because it teaches us not to make assumptions, and indeed to think logically about anything. The current English course, as I already mentioned, is almost the opposite, as you simply need to have the "right thoughts" and practise cramming them all into forty minute essays, and you're set. Module C particularly is supreme hypocrisy.

agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[silvermoon]

Now, the chances of a return to the older style of teaching English is quite impossible within this generation.

I agree - however, the reason it is an impossible task is that, on a whole, our generation is full of the laziest people yet. We want everything and we want it now - yet no-one is willing to work to get what they want, they just expect things to happen overnight, as if the some magical study fairy will swoop down on them in the night, wave a magic wand and somehow communicate by osmosis all the knowledge that they were too lazy or apathetic to learn themselves.

As you may know there is currently the trend of the people "In Charge" having to periodically introduce new, trendy ways of teaching to make sure it appears to voting parents that they're "Doing Something (tm)".

Do you actually know any of the people who are behind the constant pedagodgic changes? I do - and I think it's incrediably unfair that you wish to somehow shift the blame for the state of your learning onto them. Yes, there are always people doing new studies to try and find new ways of learning. teacher's have a job that extends usually around 16-18 hours per day, 7 hours a week and between 48 and 52 weeks a year. their day doesn't end when the end-of-school bell rings. they are constantly trying to find new and 'exciting' ways to present material to get student's to learn. Someone commented on the '50 years' story - well, 50 years ago people went to school and just accepted that they had to learn things whether or not they were interested in them - and they respected the people who tried to teach them the skills they would utilise throughout life. nowadays you can give the questions to students before the exams and go over the material and they still don't bother to bloody learn it - and then blame the teacher and the educational system when they fail!

so, to all of those who responded with variants of "english is friggin useless and we shouldn't have to do it" or "I can't see how it's relevant"...
* first, who asked for your opinion. I don't mean that to come out rudely, but really, who are the student's here - if you knew the value of everything already you wouldn't need to be at school.
* second, I'm assuming you are all at least in yr 11. in that case, if you don't like it, don't stay. no law requires you to be in school past the age of 15. so have the guts to face up to your parents and say that school isn't for you, leave and go out and get a job - because really, what are you staying for? things don't magically change at university - the expectation is that you do your HSC and you go to university because you want to learn. Otherwise it's just a waste of your time and money.
* thridly, even if you can't "see the point" of it all, the education system has not been designed by some sadistic bastard whose only joy in life is making yours miserable. there is a point, perhaps you just haven't learnt enough yet to see it. school - and in this case the study of english - is what you make it. there's only so much your teacher can do for you. there comes the point where you have to take responsibility for your own learning and just make an effort whether or not you like what you're studying.

 

[silvermoon]

lets see...mathematician, actuaries, accountants, scientists, managers, engineers, entrepenuers, trades people (e.g. carpenter, bricklayer, plumber, electrician, mechanic..) teachers, lawyers (yes, even lawyers)...the list goes on...

all those professions may come into contact with maths at some point - and I'm sure there are valid reasons for maths being intorduced as a compulsory subject. However, I would still maintain that English is more important to have as a compulsory subject than maths - after all, what good is knowing the answer to a maths dilemma if you do not have the skills to effectively communicate the logic behind your process? remembering of course that the majority of concepts in maths needed logic quite abstract and complex in their reasoning and conception, even if not in their final formulaic expression

 

[Gangels]

OK, i got a class change the other day, I'm now under the control of "MRS WARR" and english has become so much more interesting. I'm learning things, and have just moved, yjanks to our latest assesment, in to rank 1st of the class.

I never knew it could be this good

 

[Mountain.Dew]

all those professions may come into contact with maths at some point - and I'm sure there are valid reasons for maths being intorduced as a compulsory subject. However, I would still maintain that English is more important to have as a compulsory subject than maths - after all, what good is knowing the answer to a maths dilemma if you do not have the skills to effectively communicate the logic behind your process? remembering of course that the majority of concepts in maths needed logic quite abstract and complex in their reasoning and conception, even if not in their final formulaic expression

sure, i agree wholeheartedly with that. its just that the english cirriculum needs a bit of a face lift. even if it is going back to the boring old grammar, comprehension, listening, etc...

 

[omar273]

really, maths should be compulsory? that wouldn't be a good idea. Although I'm not saying that the current English syllabus is any useful (especially advanced, although the extensions are highly useful and enjoyable), how many people ( as a percentage), would really ever need to differentiate, or integrate, or use projectile motion, or even (gasp) calculate velocities of moving objects around banked tracks undergoing circular motion??

And yes 2 u does have some "useful" applications, but again, I did Extension 2 maths, and I can barely remember how to calculate superannuation. I know it can be done, but I don't really care. Anyway, most superannuation and annuities in the real world are far more complex than the ones we learn in 2 unit (QMA anyone?)

Also the quote about the "ching chongs" not trying in english who want to be doctors, is very cruel but also hilarious

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Do you actually know any of the people who are behind the constant pedagodgic changes? I do - and I think it's incrediably unfair that you wish to somehow shift the blame for the state of your learning onto them. Yes, there are always people doing new studies to try and find new ways of learning. teacher's have a job that extends usually around 16-18 hours per day, 7 hours a week and between 48 and 52 weeks a year. their day doesn't end when the end-of-school bell rings. they are constantly trying to find new and 'exciting' ways to present material to get student's to learn.

Woah, I wasn't bagging out teachers. I feel sorry for them too, for having to teach the stuff! I've heard they're also largely treated by those in charge as though they're not capable of teaching anything without having it spelt out to them, too. I am also well aware their profession is one that is heavily criticised without justification in a way that would be impermissable (or illegal) if done to doctors, lawyers, etc...

 

[Gangels]

I understand that teachers have it hard, my step dads a school principal. But saying that they work 16-18 hrs a day is a bit extreme. He gets there at around 8:30 and finishes at around 5-6 (occasionally 7). Thats just iver your average day. The rest of the teachers go home, Have dinner, go outside, do some marking. I've spoken to all my teachers about this and thats what they do.

 

[Graham Trevor]

I agree that HSC english is pointless. All we're doing - in my school, at least - is producing countless hollow essays, submitting them for marking, re-writing, re-submitting, then committing them to memory and reproducing them in the exam. I'm not exactly sure what's being tested - we're told what to write and how to write it; not original ideas, but, rather, what the examiners want to see. What will get us the marks.
I think that something is terribly wrong with the system when a teacher says to a student, "well, you COULD write that, but I wouldn't suggest it -- what the examiners really want to see is THIS."
I realise, of course, that teachers are only trying to ensure that the students do as well as they can. But when original thought is compromised . . .
I just think that the commitment is not to fostering intelligent human beings who think for themselves, but creating people sensitive to the wishes of teachers, examiners, and, later, employers . . .
For the time being, we've finished our learning and have begun our training.


To leave you with a quote:
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." -- George Bernard Shaw.