should english be compsory (2 Viewers)

[mattchan]

As much as i hate english, it should still be compulsory. The course should focus more on skills work, like spelling, writing different forms, improving vocabulary etc. Currently, it's too focused on learning the content of the modules. I mean, i cant see myself using Shakespeare for the rest of my life after the HSC, but for some, you may.

 

[volition]

I agree with all of Rench's points. This is Australia, and you should learn English, however the course as it is could do with a bit of change.

 

[heybraham]

albeit the fact that english is a tad hard, for me anyway, my expression has improved over the months, an effect which has spread to my other courses. english is the foundation of all communication in Australia, not Thailand, and should be compulsory for all HSC candidates. if you suck, do esl.

however, the course is too post-modernist in my opinion. focus less on the modules and technical themes, values, concepts etc. the standard course should test solely on English as a LANGUAGE, not as a medium of literary, artistic expression which only tests/benefits how we enjoy english literature. unnecessary.

 

[Rafy]

As much as i hate english, it should still be compulsory. The course should focus more on skills work, like spelling, writing different forms, improving vocabulary etc.

Hmmm i dont know about that......just thikning about it, that seems kind of boring. That sort of stuff should be fundamental (i.e IMPROVE the teaching of that stuff in primary school). I doubt Year 12 students will be overly excited over spelling tests.....

 

[kami]

2. Yes, it should count towards one's UAI because otherwise there'd be no incentive to do well and making it compulsory would then be pointless.

My main disagreements with this point are:
1. Not everyone who does the HSC is seeking a UAI, and even of those that do seek a UAI many end up at TAFE or another sector, rendering the UAI moot and the idea of UAI induced incentive meaningless.
2. If they did want a UAI - a decent one at that, they would have to try in English or take up extra units. Not everyone can handle 12 or more units, and there is still the chance it could count if you bombed out in another 2 unit subject so incentive would likely still exist for a large amount of people.
3. You could likely say the same for those schools that require their students to do maths or religious subjects but there is likely still incentive to do well in something that may impact your future for these people.
4. The majority of university preparation programs do have a core english component which requires a certain standard of performance, but this subject does not influence the university entry score these students recieve and they don't seem to have large problems because of this factor.

As for your point about the English courses being too technical, I agree though I think this applies to the majority of the non extension HSC courses - too many rules, too little innovation.

 

[Rafy]

isnt that what Fundamentals of English is for?

exactly.

I looked at a fundamentals textbook a few weeks back "What is a sentence?" "What is a verb" etc etc

 

[taco man]

i can write a proper sentence. but really, do we need to know the underlying issues that are present in an obscure poem, cartoon, advertisement etc. you just really need to do the basics of english; when will a cleaner read a whole essay on the ethics of chemical impact on the environment?

As much as i hate english, it should still be compulsory. The course should focus more on skills work, like spelling, writing different forms, improving vocabulary etc. Currently, it's too focused on learning the content of the modules. I mean, i cant see myself using Shakespeare for the rest of my life after the HSC, but for some, you may.

isnt that what Fundamentals of English is for?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

It should be compulsory. However, we spend far too much time on topics that are really not that useful, except to teach some skills of analysis and interpretation. Which is fine, but they delve too deeply into texts and rip all the goodness out of them. I really really liked "The Merchant of Venice" until we deconstructed it word for word in year 8. That really ruined it for me, and the same goes for all the poetry we have studied. Which brings me to ask, WHY do we have to analyse these things in so much detail when concentrating more on the practical side of things eg grammar, spelling, vocabulary would be so much more useful? I think that to some extent, studying texts and techniques in English is good, if only to give us a better understanding of the texts we read and enable us to apply that skill of analysis to other things we read or see, and hence be able to question and critically evaluate them for ourselves. Without English, how will we learn to question and examine the world around us? Having said that though - they really should teach more of the "fundamentals" course content in the other courses. Even in the extension class there are people who can't spell "vernacular", or even "technique" - wtf?

 

[elisabeth]

I bet a lot of people who study languages will notice that their knowledge of English grammar has improved because to learn their chosen language, you have to understand how sentance structure, spelling, rules and other grammatical features work in your own language.

Without trying to generalise, there are a lot of people who I speak to who have little knowledge of our of language. Not just literature, which is also important, but I think we should be taught more about the way our language works. Not the extremely basic things taught in fundamentals, but other grammatical things. I dunno. Widening our vocabularies, writing in different forms (no, not generic essays on literature in different forms), more debating and creative writing.

Having said all that, I think it's extremely important to have a good ability in your own language. It's all very good and well saying, "oh, you only need the basics", but I think we learn to be a lot more coherant and sophisticated through our study, for when we need to be.

 

[klaw]

I reckon that instead of the current english course, there should be a compulsory english course that tests everyday english abilities, not the subjective and useless crap that we learn in english now. The english course should test your everyday speaking, writing and reading skills, not skills that you would not use in everyday life (e.g. deconstructing a text and writing an essay on it). If people wish to have an english course similar to the one now, they should go in an additional english course.

 

[LostAuzzie]

I believe English should be optional in counting towards the UAI and the analysis rubbish that makes up almost 100% of the course should be a seperate subject for students that want to take up a career in something like journalism which would require some of these skills.
The fundamentals of english like reading, writing and speaking should be compulsory however, as a 1 unit subject.
Ill admit im coming from the bias of a Science/Maths person

 

[Rafy]

The fundamentals of english like reading, writing and speaking should be compulsory however, as a 1 unit subject.

Hmm i personally would find myself falling asleep in such a subject. There are many (I would say the majority) people who can use language, grammar etc effectively already....Most people DO have the fundamentals covered

 

[baby_pea]

It is not as though i cannot think critically and cannot spell. I just believe it is non-sensical to make english have to be counted as 2 units of your UAI. Yes, it is the primary language of Australia, but how is that the reason it has more relevance than another subject say maths. Other countries force all their students to do every subject. Who says english helps vocabulary and spelling? The top people our school have ridiculous handwriting and spelling.
btw, i wasn't allowed to do fundamentals anyway, i was in adv english
and you can't just do esl because you suck at it, you have to be relatively new to australia

 

[Jago]

YES, english is important. But so is at least 2 units of mathematics, awareness of the law, and to some degree, the sciences. Each of these other subjects are JUST as vital to the development of individuals, why aren't they compulsory? I think either make BOTH english and maths compulsory or neither. (the law bit is subject to quite a bit of bias )

 

[Insouciance]

The amount of illiterate adults in the world scares me; I believe that yes, an English course should be compulsary but I don't feel the current syllabus is beneficial in many ways.

 

[Rafy]

A few of my HSC marker teachers have commented on the many people who write in shortform in the HSC exams. Things like writing to as "2" and like as "lyk".

Quite disturbing it is.

 

[AntiHyper]

I think it should only be compulsory for years 11&12 for people who didn't do quite well in year 10 school certificate.
OR
We can choose to do only 1 unit of English only if our past English results are excellent.

 

[pLuvia]

i reckon it shouldnt be compulsory

 

[goan_crazy]

A few of my HSC marker teachers have commented on the many people who write in shortform in the HSC exams. Things like writing to as "2" and like as "lyk".

Quite disturbing it is.

r u lyk serz?
Yeah I know...as if you would write like that in an english essay but

 

[Jago]

for some people it's just a force of habit. back in year 8 i always had to urge to write people as ppl in ESSAYS.