New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (2 Viewers)

[stormstealer27]

Agree with marcquelle LOL

 

[InaudibleMelody]

I will be pretty disappointed if the Board of Studies favor those who did two texts because they cant read specific instructions which were written in capital letters. I used my initiative in the exam (imagine that) and decided which text i could better relate to the question. I have no sympathy for those who were 'caught by suprise' as their was only one text, and did two.

I had COMPLETELY prepared myself for two. When I saw that it specified ONE in capital letters than I knew I could only write about one so I just chose which one was better for me as well. IF the Board decides that students who did two should be marked the same as those that did one than I would be so pissed off! Screw the kids who did two for not reading the question properly- and I bet there would be people out there that did see it said one and still wrote about two.

 

[Cinnamonster]

Obviously, you shouldn't try to second guess the exam. Just know your stuff, not just the bits you THINK are going to pop up in the exam in the exact format you expect.

I agree with this.

 

[icedabz]

Their second text will not be marked at all... If they compared or related two of their related text, that relation is not marked. There is a certain criteria that needs to be met when marking the exam papers. If they asked students to write about a dog and a cat...Students who write about a dog, a cat and a cow will look like they got no idea what the question was asking from them and they will not mark the section about the cow or any relation that it includes with it, what so ever. If students wasted their time writing their 2nd text, that is their fault. I'm not a top student so I'm not trying to sound like a dick... It just is what it is and it will not be marked... Other then that, it was a huge eye opener for students who tried to memorize essays. That method is an effective way to study and many top students do use it. Although, they adapt their memorized essay towards the question, not just write exactly what they wrote before.

 

[mirakon]

I personally think that BoS did a good thing having accepting questions that 'surprised' students who solely relied on simply regurgitating information such as essays they had memorised (and probably consulted others over) prior to the exam. It weeds out students who prepare essays, receive personal feedback on improvements, improve their essay and simply past these ideas into the exam.True intelligence is not just about how much you can remember, but higher order thinking skills that require understanding and ability to assess any issue. If students were bothered to use these higher order thinking skills, they would have been able to cope with such changes.

 

[elliegrace]

+1, it's true. the only subjects that have improved my analytical skills have been maths, modern history and history extension because i don't do any sciences. english is a ridiculous waste of time.

+1. English is garbage!i agree histories provide analytical skills, understanding and free thinking. what does english do. nothing. it shouldnt be compulsory. how is being able to write a creative story improve analytical skills??

 

[acemusic415]

You do realise that before the 2001 English wasn't a compulsory subject (in the sense of calculation of the formally known TER). That is BS. How the hell does English give you analytical skills? Problem solving in maths on the other hand would give you more of such skills.

English is probably the most significant subject in terms of being able to analyse, rationalise and reason. There is a strong reason in why you learn various perspectives. Being able to analyse and explore concepts in a feminist perspective (for example), teaches you to interpret differently and understand inconspicuous notions. IMO, you don't write essays accordingly for the sake of it. Your ability to analyse and rationalise reinforces your ability to reason and argue.

 

[mirakon]

'English is garbage!i agree histories provide analytical skills, understanding and free thinking. what does english do. nothing. it shouldnt be compulsory. how is being able to write a creative story improve analytical skills??' In response, I would like to defend English. Initially, writing a story gives markers an insight into how creative you are. Creativity is a higher form of intelligence, without creativity there would be no new ideas to make the world a better place. Furthermore, there is more to english than just writing stories. Essays in English improve analytical skills and practice is English essays also helps you structure your responses and improve your vocabulary for exams such as the histories.Although I do agree it should not be compulsory for those who don't want to do it. Also, the first paragraph is from the post by elliegrace, but the site's screwed on my computer, and I can't seem to get the quotation box.

 

[Arsey-Darcy]

Very spot-on response. I totally agree with Board of Studies this time. HSC is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.

hey guys if you thought memorising an entire fucking syllabus worth of shit and spending a year of your life (and need I remind you that you're young NOW, you don't get a second go, but here you are spending a year of your youth) focussing your knowledge and doing past papers as the fucking BoS reccommend themselves wasn't fun enough, guess what? the exams are designed to focus on completely obscure aspects of that syllabus and not the shit you've spent a year screwing your blood and guts over to memorise so that in the end you get fucked in the arse! how about that?

 

[Arsey-Darcy]

also guys i forgot to mention that when we're not making you write essays on hamlet, a 3-hour long play and one of the most complex and significant works of theatre in the history of the language that has has scholars stumped for centuries in just 40 minutes or making you write essays on texts that are just basically "hi my name is raimond gaita lemmee tell you bout my dad" in just 40 fucking minutes we're complaining that you're not getting a broad enough knowledge of the stuff you're studying. wtf why don't you love the Bos you must be retarded

 

[mirakon]

'hey guys if you thought memorising an entire fucking syllabus worth 'Later on in your post...'what? the exams are designed to focus on completely obscure aspects of that syllabus and not the shit you've spent a year screwing your blood and guts over to memorise 'The obsure points in the syllabus are still part of the syllabus. Perhaps people did not memorise the entire syllabus effectively then as you claim they did. Also, as the same exam is sat by everyone, everyone's on the same level, so students who beat others do it because they had better preparation, not because the question necessarily screwed some people up and deliberately favored others. If the question was truly that obscure virtually noone would have gotten it and your rank would still be about reasonably good so don't worry.

 

[Arsey-Darcy]

'hey guys if you thought memorising an entire fucking syllabus worth 'Later on in your post...'what? the exams are designed to focus on completely obscure aspects of that syllabus and not the shit you've spent a year screwing your blood and guts over to memorise 'The obsure points in the syllabus are still part of the syllabus. Perhaps people did not memorise the entire syllabus effectively then as you claim they did. Also, as the same exam is sat by everyone, everyone's on the same level, so students who beat others do it because they had better preparation, not because the question necessarily screwed some people up and deliberately favored others. If the question was truly that obscure virtually noone would have gotten it and your rank would still be about reasonably good so don't worry.

sorry, i dont take orders from a guy who hasn't learned how to click the "reply with quote burrom"

 

[Fluorescent]

This is what I've been saying all along

Belonging is such a broad concept - I knew the paper was going to try to throw people off a little

I am in no way angry at BOS for asking for one and only one related text and I think the only reason you WOULD be angry is because you can't read and you magically attached "at least" to the front

It's an easy mistake to make, true - but people should stop getting so worked up about it. It's your fault and your fault ALONE for not reading the question properly

I've been taught since I was like in year 7 to circle directives and whatever
end.

 

[mirakon]

sorry, i dont take orders from a guy who hasn't learned how to click the "reply with quote burrom"

Yes! I finally figured out how to do it!

 

[cutemouse]

English is probably the most significant subject in terms of being able to analyse, rationalise and reason. There is a strong reason in why you learn various perspectives. Being able to analyse and explore concepts in a feminist perspective (for example)

And where exactly would you use that in life?

Also explain why most high positions (eg. CEOs) are filled by people with science backgrounds? Why aren't they filled by people who have background in studying literature?

 

[mirakon]

And where exactly would you use that in life?

Also explain why most high positions (eg. CEOs) are filled by people with science backgrounds? Why aren't they filled by people who have background in studying literature?

Initially, science is a very broad subject, whereas studying literature as youi call it, is very specific, hence your comparison is somewhat invalid in the sense that it does not prove English is useless. If you take the broader humanities (the arts) and compare them to the sciences, you can see either field is equally successful. Also, the amount someone earns is not necessarily the only measurement of success

 

[acemusic415]

And where exactly would you use that in life?

Also explain why most high positions (eg. CEOs) are filled by people with science backgrounds? Why aren't they filled by people who have background in studying literature?

You obviously have been mistaken. HSC English isn't there to cater those who would like to pursue Literature, Arts etc. The common argument is that Mathematics and Science are used daily - for medicine, astronomy etc. However, you have failed to realise the intentions of HSC English. HSC English is the foundation for communication, and more specifically, demonstrating your ability to articulate. Mind you, we reside in a country, where English is the dominant language. HSC English establishes the ability of communication. Communication is an endless factor of humanity, and the course is there to reinforce it. The course is not there to assist the finding of an occupation including that of CEOs, Doctors, Lawyers etc. In saying that, writing essays and various other text types further reinforce your competency in communication. Establishing various ideas and arguments within essays or even introducing a creative concept in a short story, is a form of communication. Thus, these are the reasons why English is compulsory. You may not see it, but HSC English teaches and establishes the significance of communication. The highest positions in terms of occupations bear no relevance. Having a science background or a science degree is ultimately up to their discretion. As such, I can't answer that question for you, however, it is most likely the belief that science is imperative and relevant.

 

[thebrightside]

Exams aren't supposed to be full of questions that students expect. It's an exam, they're seeing if we know our stuff well enough to apply it to questions we don't expect or state it different.

Ffs. Of course the exam isn't going to be as we expect it. I can't believe a school was held up for ten minutes while they actually called the BOS about the question. Those exams are written several months before the actual date and checked over god knows how many times.

Like that Smallhorn guy said, smarter students can think on their feet. The BOS have to distinguish between all the students somehow. Whether its because of an apparently trickier religion question or saying ONE related text for Paper 1. Part of the stuff they're testing is your exam technique. That includes how you apply knowledge to questions and whether or not you READ the question.

 

[Arsey-Darcy]

Yes! I finally figured out how to do it!

LOL!!!!!!!!!srsly though you deserve a trophy

 

[cutemouse]

You obviously have been mistaken. HSC English isn't there to cater those who would like to pursue Literature, Arts etc. The common argument is that Mathematics and Science are used daily - for medicine, astronomy etc. However, you have failed to realise the intentions of HSC English. HSC English is the foundation for communication, and more specifically, demonstrating your ability to articulate. Mind you, we reside in a country, where English is the dominant language. HSC English establishes the ability of communication. Communication is an endless factor of humanity, and the course is there to reinforce it.

Did you read what I said before?

Doing HSC English will not help me become a better communicator. How do you then explain the numerous amount of top students in the course that make vital grammatical errors? To me that isn't very good communication, in fact it adds to the idea that it is unfair for those who are not orientated in the area of humanities.

The course is not there to assist the finding of an occupation including that of CEOs, Doctors, Lawyers etc. In saying that, writing essays and various other text types further reinforce your competency in communication.

Didn't you just say this before?

Establishing various ideas and arguments within essays or even introducing a creative concept in a short story, is a form of communication. Thus, these are the reasons why English is compulsory.

And where exactly would I use that in life? I hope that you do know that scientific journals and publications are usually in dot form giving the relevant information, if you're trying to say that it applies to writing essays in science courses

You may not see it, but HSC English teaches and establishes the significance of communication.

Right... you've stated this the third time now?

The highest positions in terms of occupations bear no relevance.

Actually it does. The truth of the matter is that science orientated people don't get into high positions because for instance they know how to find the forces on an object, or how to differentiate or integrate functions. No, it's because they usually have great analytical and research skills that help advance the company that has employed them. HSC English clearly does not help with this.