Should English Be Compulsary Poll (1 Viewer)

[AnandDNA]

i rkn all we need is the basic english like how to write and sentence construction or vocabulary and comprehension. Not evry1 uses essay writing or feature article, newspaper reports in their lives. And if the majority of ppl dont need it den why shud it be counted towards ur UAI. English shud be compulsory until yr 11 and afta that u can choose to do english or not. Cause we have been doing the same things since yr 7 like writing feature articles or essays on stuff we'll never need in life or remember.

 

[selablad]

English should be compulsory because too many idiots are running around with atrocious spelling and grammar let alone reading comprehension. English is the foundation on which we are able to understand the world, and that is why it is absolutely neccessary that English be compulsory.

But by year 11/12, it is far too late to be teaching English foundations. The problem in my opinion is in the younger grades - primary school. I went to most of primary school (up to grade 6) overseas (in Africa) and we learned everything we needed to know re foundations of English: spelling, grammar, comprehension, composition, etc. Then I moved to Australia for grade 7, and the standards in these areas were terrible. People just had to fill out worksheets, and the answers were in the back and everything.

The problem lies with English in the lower grades. English in year 11/12 should be elective subject with texts/essays whatever, not a subject to teach basic grammar, because by then it is *far* too late.

 

[SamChenDeagle]

I have to say that the only thing I have learnt in the Advanced English course is how to manipulate and combine the meanings of various texts. All of the essays I wrote in the exams were just a load of bull that I personally didn't think that made much sense. All I did was combining and summarised the notes and interpretations given to me by my English teacher.


I WOULD HAVE TO CONFESS THAT I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND LIKE UP TO 20% OF SHAKESPEARE AND COLERIDGE, AND I WAS STILL ABLE TO GET 85 IN ENGLISH. I THINK MY ENGLISH DID NOT IMPROVE MUCH SINCE YEAR 10 BECAUSE THE HSC COURSE TAUGHT NOTHING ON WRITING(GOOD ESSAYS AND STORIES) AND SPEAKING(AS IN PRESENTATION)- THEY JUST TELL YOUR THAT YOU WILL BE ASSESSED ON THOSE BUT TEACHERS ONLY SPEND LIKE 2 LESSONS ON THEM BEFORE YOU START DOING THE ASSESSMENT/EXAM.

I think subjects like History, Geography, and Economics are actually better in improving one's English skills.

 

[henderific]

lol.
kiiiiiiiiiinda sexist, yet it is kiiiiiinda true...
the majority of our class are dumbasses, myself included, but the ones that aren't, are women.
all the guys in my english class(standard, lol) are unmotivated, lazy, and annoying in general. they dont understand that if they dont want to learn, they can stfu.

wow, i cant believe i had so much fun doing that...

lol

 

[bored of sc]

It should but it is highly disadvantageous to those who are average at it (particularly me)!

But nonetheless, it is a vital part of our lives - language, communication, it comes into alot.

I will probably change the above view when I get my 75.65 UAI solely cause of english !!!

 

[henderific]

lol.
kiiiiiiiiiinda sexist, yet it is kiiiiiinda true...
the majority of our class are dumbasses, myself included, but the ones that aren't, are women.
all the guys in my english class(standard, lol) are unmotivated, lazy, and annoying in general. they dont understand that if they dont want to learn, they can stfu.

wow, i cant believe i had so much fun doing that...

lol

 

[selablad]

i have not read previous posts, but i think half of the English subject should be compulsory.

I think it is important to have a good grasp on the English language and be able to to read/write well. I also think that language devices, punctuation, formats (such as narratives, essays, speeches, etc) should be known.

I don't think it is important however to be able to interpret deeply texts and reproduce the meanings the author intended.

does that make sense?

Yeah that makes sense, that's pretty much what I think

 

[SamChenDeagle]

i have not read previous posts, but i think half of the English subject should be compulsory.

I think it is important to have a good grasp on the English language and be able to to read/write well. I also think that language devices, punctuation, formats (such as narratives, essays, speeches, etc) should be known.

I don't think it is important however to be able to interpret deeply texts and reproduce the meanings the author intended.

does that make sense?

But the language skills is only like less than 10% of the course. The rest of the course involves writing meaningless essays based on the interpretations on the texts prescribed by the Board of Studies.

 

[Continuum]

The majority of people who vote english to be compulsary are women.

Umm... what?

As for whether English should be compulsary or not, I don't think it should be - atleast for the current syllabus. Although I quite like English right now, much of what I'm learning seems irrelevant to some extent - I just do it because I have to and after it's done, I simply forget about it for all eternity.

For those unable to use proper vocabulary or comprehension however, English probably should be compulsary, but seriously... Shakespeare in the 21st Century seems abit pointless. I much prefer the study of more modern texts.

 

[lyounamu]

this point may/may not have come up before but I think English should be compulsory but not have to be counted in the 10 units if it's your worst subject.

Same as my point.

But I think everyone should at least get decent marks in it (at least a pass).

 

[Kujah]

The majority of people who vote english to be compulsary are women.

Wrong.

 

[aussie-boy]

I hate English because I hate rereading texts, memorising quotes and practising essays. I love doing creative pieces, and I find comprehension (written or aural) pretty easy as well.

So I think there is some merit in developing our interpretation skills, I think a subject that encourages rote learning and memorising of essays is bound to be hated by many.

Also, English is my weakest subject because I have an incredibly short attention span in class - you can learn every other subject from a textbook.

I see why it is compulsory, but why in addition to this does it have to be counted? It should be like every other subject and not be counted if you have better marks elsewhere.

 

[nayyarv]

Yeah, the argument is that at least one subject needs to be compulsory

a UAI would be impossible to calculate without a common subject

But it seems unfair that english is the common subject, especially to people who are crap at english, and it is an unfair advantage to those good at english but not maths. In most education systems, maths and english are compulsory subjects, and the rest are whatever u choose, but in the HSC, only English is a compulsory subject

If english is to be the only compulsory subject, there should be options similar to general maths. there is really very little difference between standard and advanced, but a huge difference between general and 2u

while general teaches all the basics, and not the theoretical stuff like calculus, such a course does not exist in english. Even standard teaches some random analysis of texts, and is not essentially the basics one needs to know.

I understand the arguments for a common subject, but both maths and english need to be compulsory, as well as a english course equivalent to the general maths course, simply fundamentals

 

[Kujah]

Lol. I agree that the current syllabus is completely impractical. I always though they should have two English subjects:

a) A generic 'English' which focuses on skills you actually need (reading, writing etc)

and b) English literature or English analysis (which includes analysing texts etc like we do in English currently).


People who just wanted the fundamentals do teh former, the people like me who actually enjoy analysis and shakespearian shit do the latter. And the former should be compulsary for the purposes of scaling and the UAI.

I like this idea

 

[ccc123]

Yeah, the argument is that at least one subject needs to be compulsory

a UAI would be impossible to calculate without a common subject

But it seems unfair that english is the common subject, especially to people who are crap at english, and it is an unfair advantage to those good at english but not maths. In most education systems, maths and english are compulsory subjects, and the rest are whatever u choose, but in the HSC, only English is a compulsory subject

If english is to be the only compulsory subject, there should be options similar to general maths. there is really very little difference between standard and advanced, but a huge difference between general and 2u

while general teaches all the basics, and not the theoretical stuff like calculus, such a course does not exist in english. Even standard teaches some random analysis of texts, and is not essentially the basics one needs to know.

I understand the arguments for a common subject, but both maths and english need to be compulsory, as well as a english course equivalent to the general maths course, simply fundamentals

Agreed that English needs to be more practical:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3403620&postcount=74

But disagree that maths should be compulsary

 

[ur_inner_child]

You might be bitching, but as far as the internet/media/autocorrect etc goes, you kids need all the education you can get.

LMAO r yew srs yew soun lyke a doochebag lol english iz stupid! zomg yew r so ghey lol dats so gross rofl

 

[Kujah]

I understand the arguments for a common subject, but both maths and english need to be compulsory, as well as a english course equivalent to the general maths course, simply fundamentals

Sure, but then the argument can be extended to situations where a person isn't good in both English nor Mathematics, but rather, his/her achievements lie in the Arts, Sciences or IT. For them, it means that they're going to be further disadvantaged when their UAI is calculated.

 

[selablad]

Why does there need to be a common subject for the UAI?

(legitimate question, not being sarcastic)

 

[Kujah]

Why does there need to be a common subject for the UAI?

(legitimate question, not being sarcastic)

I'm not sure if this helps at all, but:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=60687

 

[nayyarv]

Sure, but then the argument can be extended to situations where a person isn't good in both English nor Mathematics, but rather, his/her achievements lie in the Arts, Sciences or IT. For them, it means that they're going to be further disadvantaged when their UAI is calculated.

This is working on the assumption that most kids gud at science and IT are invariably gud at maths and those good at arts are invariably good at english. It is unlikely to extend the argument any further, coz the exceptions will be too few in number.

I mean, how many people u know are awesome at 10 units of subjects that do not include maths and english. Usually a person is gud at either or both, or just crap for all subjects (not just english and maths)