SMH article on how shit is HSC English (1 Viewer)

[iMiraj]

compare that to pre 2001 courses of chem and phys, where it was pretty 85% calculations (where you cant just regurgitate facts out like that, u have to work with wat u got + actually think about justifying ur calculations)

anyways im not gonna hijack this thread, so good day to all

yes the course is more focused on safety and awareness in science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but maths is a subject, 4 units of it, just to do calculations. That counteracts the 4 units of chem and phys.

And then look at bio papers, pre 2001, the questions were just generic questions asking for a simple answer.

Also, 85% calculations = spewing out a horrendous amount of bs. They give you a formula sheet (pretty sure they did that back then too), all you gotta do is know how to apply them :/

i shall leave too

 

[lemonandlime]

people put alot of shit on prepared essays which i fully understand but my point is this, 40 minutes is not alot of time to prove your english abilities that is shape an entire text with planning and then writing. Particularly creative writing how many writers can produce their best work in such a time frame after being randomly thrown an abstract idea? Isnt english writing a process of editing and re-shaping? Do journalists throw together articles in 40 minutes?

Plus people who have written exemporary responses have put considerable time and effort into them, they have 'prepared'. Its the really smart students who practice alot of prepared responses (this does aide in learning the material) and then shape them to the question. Alot of people dont shape to question and that is where they get caught out. Besides these 'prepared responses' are just practice of learning how to write good sentences and considering different stuctures. I dont think there is anything wrong with prepared responses as they are just 'practice'. Besides every student has the same oppotunities to 'practice' and refine throughout the year. And every student is in the same position in the exam room when they take their response and re shape it to the question. If they arent smart enough to change/adapt thats tough for them.

So damn true.
I've attempted going into an English exam just knowing the ideas instead of a memorised essay, and it didn't work. Memorising is the only way I reached 8th rank in the Advanced course. There's just not enough time to think of proper, cohesive ideas and translate that to paper in such a short period of time.
To conclude, English is crap.

 

[evilflic]

I disagree. Personally, I know people who memorise quotes, techniques, effects, and links that perform 'relatively' well. I use to learn quotes/evidence as points too back in Year 10. Since adopting the method of preparing a full generic response and cutting out the unncessary bits whilst adapting it to the question, I have improved from a 68th rank in Year 10 to 7th in Year 12. Not to sound arrogant or anything, but the people who simply learn/quotes evidence and walk into the exam room are pressured due to time constraints and "most" of them don't do as well I'd expect them to (since they have an excellent understanding of the text by debating in class).

If there was a study on whether the student who adapted quotes/evidence has an "effective" chance of scoring higher marks than a prepared generic response, then I'd endorse your comment. Otherwise, I don't believe that learning quotes as "dotpoints" is as helpful as preparing a generic response. But in light of your comment, people have their methods and ways that work for them.

Maybe that's just because it works for you. Most people that I know who I'd expect to get 95+ for Advanced in the HSC memorise points and not essays, myself included. Those who I'd predict would do 'relatively' well, meaning low band 6s, memorise essays.

 

[evilflic]

So damn true.
I've attempted going into an English exam just knowing the ideas instead of a memorised essay, and it didn't work. Memorising is the only way I reached 8th rank in the Advanced course. There's just not enough time to think of proper, cohesive ideas and translate that to paper in such a short period of time.
To conclude, English is crap.

Okay, so it worked for you. I'm ranked third and yet I just 'know the ideas', so how do you explain that? From experience, and from observation of people I know, I believe it's better to learn quotes/evidence and not memorise a generic essay. I don't find myself pressed for time in coming up with cohesive ideas and a well-structured essay. However, you might think differently.

I just don't like it when people totally assert that there's only ONE (note: when I capitalise one, I mean one and only one coughpapertwocough) way to prepare for an exam.
It puts others off because they think "oh well I wanted to learn ideas, but everyone says just memorise an essay" or "memorising an essay seems like the way to go, but people make it out to be 'dumb'".
Different things work for different people. Everyone should just pick a style that works for them.

 

[supamatt3112]

Many students, it seems, simply reproduced their prepared essays regardless, using two additional texts, one of which will have to be disregarded by the markers.

The end of all arguments as to what the BOS will do about the second related text?

 

[Patar]

Too true, this article. All we needed to do to master this subject was have 5 rote-learned responses. Or at least, certain memorised ideas and paragraphs and links. You couldn't do this if you got old HSC-esque questions on random tangents (which I believe should be brought back). Mind you, building these essays and ideas up was a bit of a challenge.

I guess that's why we do have Extension 1 English for students who appreciate the subject. Even then though, it was a longer rote essay and a longer rote creative writing - but coming to these works was more fun and challenging and had to incorporate a number of extra things.

The trouble is revising it to our parents' day would cause outrage - WHAT IS THIS WE GOT A RANDOM QUESTION ON THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE CHARACTER IAGO IN OTHELLO AS OPPOSED TO A BROAD GENERIC QUESTION WHERE WE COULD FIT IN OUR PLANNED RESPONSE?

My advice would be 'suck it up kids' (if they revised it). But I doubt parents, BOS, and students would share that view.

P.S Taking out creative writing is a bad idea.

 

[Patar]

The end of all arguments as to what the BOS will do about the second related text?

Disregard it as they should.

The question asked for and highlighted ONE text, if they did two they did not answer the question. They will still get marks but the depth of their response will mean less marks.

 

[Clifford]

I can see where you're coming from, but I think that English would fall flat if it didn't have the techniques component. Wouldn't it just be an "identify" course? Identify these themes, identify links to context. Basically anyone in the state can do that, and, bar fluency and contextual depth, I think everyone would be writing basically the same essay. How many people didn't walk into Paper 2 knowing they'd write about humanity and/or nature and/or science for Frankenstein/Blade Runner.

I completely agree though, that little snippets of example shouldn't be construed as some whole hearted response to the intense blend of social, economic, political concerns of the time, and personally, I found myself never writing about "emotive language" or "simile" or "metaphor" because they were flimsy little aesthetic pieces of nothing that should go without saying. But I don't think anyone can deny the significance of say, Shelley's epistolary form, the chiastic structure, Scott's reliance on noir, etc. So (for me at least) to get rid of techniques completely would make it feel really incomplete. Also, now that the culture of memorisation has been established, I think it'll be really hard to get rid of. I would've memorised stuff anyway if we didn't have to care about techniques, and actually, I probably would've talked about techniques anyway too (but structural ones).

Although the techniques thing is as bad as it is, maybe it should just stay. I think Duchamp was right. Art's only half there. The other half is what the individual audience member brings to it. We'll never know what someone intended with some phrase that we can identify a technique in, but maybe that's the point. I enjoyed not knowing things, I enjoyed trying to figure them out. In any case, it's all over for us now, and although it was a bitch alot of the time, I don't think I would've had it any other way. I took alot out of it (and it was too fun complaining about English all the time). I'll miss it.

Also, Extension 1, though still a memorise-fest, was pretty cool. I used to think sci-fi was a bullshit joke, but now I kinda like it. (Regret not doing Ext. 2.) Memorising comes down to a time issue. Constructing good sentences means thinking, and thinking means taking time. BOS should totally do an Ext. 2 style thing (maybe not as intense) for Adv. (yes, for essays) because that way, people get to really exhibit their best writing abilities. How many first drafts are written in 40 mins? How many authors publish their first drafts? How the fuck can the Board of Fuck expect us to write something amazing in 40 mins!?

(Plagiarism is quite easily discovered, isn't it?)

Yeah, I think you're right in regards to the 'broader' techniques, but the issue with that is that once again, if you say 'Shelley uses the epistolary form to...' it's all well and good, except they expect you to QUOTE the form, which is, of course, ridiculous. For films, it's better, in that you have more leeway to talk about the broader features of the text, rather than minute details. That being said, things such as 'high shots' and so on are equally bull; the metaphor of the film world.

Personally, I think it comes down to the need to directly quote to get textual detail. It's an absurd test, because memorising techniques and knowledge are completley seperate ideas, and I fail to see how they think that is useful. If students were able to speak about themes, ideas, and make reference to the generation structure/recurring features it'd be grand. But they dont. They expect quotes and deconstruction of those quotes in a very superficial, tenous way.

That being said, I went in with virtually memorised phrases for all modules + belonging, including quotes and their deconstruction. My creatives were both memorised and workshopped constantly, as said above. In extension 1 however, I found Romanticism to be quite specific in what it could ask and you had to respond to, so for that reason I never had a definitive essay, but just knew my texts well, and it felt better in the exam having all 3 prescribed and 5 related up my sleeve to keep it completley centered on the question. Should have done that for modules, I was so thrown by the whole justice thing - dammit Atwood...

By the way kid above, I'm pretty sure it's best 2 units of english...

 

[annabackwards]

Hmm on the debate of whether generic essays or dot points are better, at my school we should get at leats 15 band 6s this year.

Out of the top 15, all 15 memorise generic essays. But, there a few people ranked a bit lower who might get a band 6 memorise quotes/dot points.

btw clifford are u sure about only ext 1 and 2 counting as ur best 2 units of english? i thought advanced/standard/esl would count regardless cause that would be the levelling ground for ATAR calculations and wat not

I'm not clifford, but that's true. They take your top 2 english - which may or may not include advanced english.

 

[LordPc]

I'm not clifford, but that's true. They take your top 2 english - which may or may not include advanced english.

I can confirm this, since I did english extension 1 and 2 and my advanced mark didnt count

 

[HailSatan]

Peter Skzsmklajfaswhfj

wat

 

[Ethanescence]

What I've found is that preparing responses is satisfactory practice, but if the question is going to be unadaptable (most were adaptable in the HSC Paper 2 2009), you're 100 times better off just knowing themes, quotes, and how to apply them to different kinds of theses - instead of spewing out a prepared response.

For Advanced English trials, I wrote about 3,000 + word fully developed essays for each different module. From my essay I then learnt all these techniques and quotes off by heart. Then in the exam, I would cut this down to 800 - 1000 words, with the techniques, themes and quotes that were best suited to the question. Most of the time I always had more information than necessary, but it helped me achieve the marks I wanted.

Plus the only in-class essay I ever got full marks for was Hamlet, and that was one of the first exams I went into without preparing essay beforehand. I had a quotes/techniques and an overall understanding of the themes, but I didn't have any clue about what each paragraph was going to include (unlike a prepared response).

So for me, two approaches that worked were:

* Prepare responses that are at least triple the content you could manage in the exam
* Learning various ideas, techniques, and quotes (without preparing any response).

Personally, I think preparing only a 1,000 word essay would be risky (if not detrimental in exams).

 

[jess39]

Scrapping the creative section is a stupid idea. I look forward to doing my creative and always leave it 'till last for this reason.

But apart from that, it's pretty true.

 

[gutzeit]

Okay, so it worked for you. I'm ranked third and yet I just 'know the ideas', so how do you explain that? From experience, and from observation of people I know, I believe it's better to learn quotes/evidence and not memorise a generic essay.

Damn, girl! You're a memoriser at heart. The difference is you memorise 3 pages of quotes/evidence per text, whereas everybody else memorises 3 pages of essay in which their quotes/evidence is hidden in the rubble of structure and formality.

If you were to cut that down, they'd have less than 1 page of quotes/evidence. So the only reason you're performing better is that you're effectively memorising 3 pages of quotes/evidence and they're only memorising 1.

p.s. Your school is nice - I've played waterpolo there a few times.

To everybody else:

I think the English course needs to be reformed to feature controversial and engaging texts that are relevant to us! Indeed, the only text I found engaging was the Smithsonian 9/11 Memorial Website (Module C) as I found it a complete load of shit, hiding under the cover of a professional organisation. My supplementary text was a philosophical piece which pretty much said history should be free from editorial interference, and that it's up to responders to interpret it and determine its relevance and thus continuance. The set and supp. were really conflicting and it engaged me. It was entertaining to shit upon a set text (metaphorically... I treasure my laptop too much). I didn't even officially study for module C and it was my best performing module in the trials!

Interesting texts! Relevant texts! Free license to interpretation without being cut down by generic markers! That's what we need.

If we were allowed to think outside the box a bit more and not be penalised (meaning the markers took the time to consider our unique arguments) then perhaps we wouldn't all need to memorise the same crap.

 

[~aussiegirl!~]

I always love english, well that was year 7 - 10.
Year 11 and 12 came and boom it was a disaster ... it was difficult to grasp content that they required you to rote learn as you do in english, because i mean how else are you meant to make your own interpretations from the text? Especially with Journeys which i did last year, it was done for over 5 years already so it was easy to jump on here and grab bits and pieces of other people's ideas that they had come up with.

I think that they destroyed the English Course.. I dont even think it's english, its all about interpreting texts? I don't think that is all that english is about!! There's more to it, and if the marker disagrees it seems to lead to a shit mark.

To be honest, i absolutely hated my english teacher..i felt he was one of them ones who had his favourites! To be quite honest he sure as hell did, and it was seen with the trial exams for HSC last year, with Dux of school getting one mark below the girl in my class who forever has always been his competition but she was in his class. Pffttt! I really don't like English teachers as a fact because its pretty much if you write something they like, they will offer the marks, if you go on another train of thought you will be marked down because it isn't politically correct on what you have been taught. Honestly it was difficult for me to achieve about a mark of 13/20 on an essay i wrote during my HSC year, and to come out with 71 on my HSC i was shocked because my ranking was 10 from the bottom in my school, and my mark was about 58.

So i say revamp and remodernise this so called english course.

 

[yups]

Personally, I think they should "scrap" the creative writing section for the 2010 HSC . In English , we have so much to do . In one paper, we have 3 essays to do in 2 hours, then in the other paper we have questions on unseen texts then an essay and creative writing . That is way too much ! They should at least "scrap" something, if not the creative writing because imo it's way too much.

 

[jiratic]

from what I've heard from friends and hear say is this.
the 'good students' 90-92 hsc mark tend to rote learn memorise essays
from 93-95 the 'excellent' students tend towards having long prepared essays, but they have an extensive knowledge of their texts in regards to quotes, techniques, rubric, and a strong ability to construct an essay to cover pretty much any question.
the 96-99 students, the top 1% or so, well they're damn good at what they do- i only know of a few of them; most of them seem to have a genuine appreciation of english (not lolregurgitate band 6), and although there essays are often prepared in the same manner as the 93-95'ers, stylistically they're writing is so fluent and nuanced, that they don't come across as prepared; which is rather contradictory but there you go
my 0.02

 

[random-1005]

Comment by an English teacher:


Adele Horin

so happy i never have to do that shit ever again

 

[jiratic]

couldn't agree more: hsc english is not a reflection of your knowledge of english or literature, its for 90%+ of the candidature, a lesson in regurgitation.
If you've ever seen university lecturers notes for English, or English journals, or stuff written for post grad it isn't just a synthesis of quote-technique-rubric- a twisted, half assed, inferred link to human condition/context/societal values.

 

[dekimasu]

On the theme of "belonging", which has exercised the minds of tens of thousands of English students this year, teachers could choose from a grab-bag of different texts that range from Charles Dickens's Great Expectations to Baz Luhrmann's movie Strictly Ballroom. As well, students had to find and analyse two other pieces of related material - a newspaper article, even a painting - on belonging to incorporate into an essay.

Anyone else see this? haha