the current english course is a waste of time, true or false (1 Viewer)

[cs01001]

...because it was filled with information about how to set a test that was compatible with computer marking.

Stop using sources dishonestly

But I did the right thing, I quoted

 

[Captain Gh3y]

selectively!

haven't you done module c?

 

[slzybanana]

the fag who wrote the syllabus 35 years ago can stfu. we're in the year 2007 now, no one cares about what some old sack of crap has to say about the current english syllabus. maybe the DoE changed the syllabus to the current one because the previous syllabuses including the 1972 one were shit?

 

[beentherdunthat]

:wave: ^^^ Please rephrase. I can't even fathom what you are trying to say.

 

[S1M0]

:wave: ^^^ Please rephrase. I can't even fathom what you are trying to say.

Its comprehensible. It just needs a little bit of effort.

 

[Charity F]

I ate fathom for breakfast =)

Well you'd expect DET to update the syllabus, at least every 4-5 years, because otherwise it would get outdated.

It's like learning that buckminster fuellerene comes only as C60, when it can come in C85 and C37(?) can't remember exactly, but that was discovered in 2005 or something. But that is science

however i still wouldn't want to be learning what my parents were 35 years ago.

 

[simonloo]

Its comprehensible. It just needs a little bit of effort.

So's yr blog

 

[Marzaa]

I couldn't agree more with the people who stated along the lines that the English "course" is useless. Afterall, what use is writing a thesis on journeys and memorising lines from Shakespear's 'The Tempest' and analysing what on earth he was trying to say about journeys going to be once I walk out the exam room? (except having enough paper to burn in the fireplace for all of next winter from all the bs i've written in the past yr)

 

[midifile]

I totally agree.
Every essay I hand in to my teacher i get critisism saying "this is too off the topic".
I just hate writting essays with no flow, just techniques and crap like that, but thats all they want.

Whatever happened to the days when you could not even read the text and get away with a good mark by bullshitting it and writing it well?

 

[Charity F]

Incredibly relevent.

 

[cccclaire]

I totally agree.
Every essay I hand in to my teacher i get critisism saying "this is too off the topic".
I just hate writting essays with no flow, just techniques and crap like that, but thats all they want.

Whatever happened to the days when you could not even read the text and get away with a good mark by bullshitting it and writing it well?

hi mel =]

you realise like half our teachers snoop round these forums right? I'm pretty sure the english staff don't or they would know that i never even picked up 'heart of darkness' and only got about 20 pages into 'Copenhagen', but still be careful.

+ get on msn. i want to talk to you about the last maths test.

 

[mjgeneral]

I sure as hell hope they snoop around, realize the crap ther teaching at the skools =S To the teachers: u realize that half ur star students make up their essays, and have absolutely no idea what ther talkn about right?

By the way, just outta curiosity fellas, if u went back in time into shakespeares era, and he was standing right in front of u while u had a shotgun, would you kill him?

Yes or No

 

[Raaaaaay]

Most defintely yes, the advantages of doing that would seriously out weight the disadvantage of a guilty concience.

The senior english course is honestly Garbage.

 

[DownInFlames]

English is a joke at the moment. All we seem to do is memorise techniques in texts and apply them to essays. The best thing we've done is study speeches: that was useful, fun and enlightening. This is no way of developing english students' skills to their maximum potential. We never have time to discuss the text properly and debate over them, etc. a few weeks ago a sub ran our class more like a university history lecture, actually discussing everything as we went. Trouble was, we only got through half a page of the speech we were reading. This is what I want out of english lessons though. Not the bullshit they make our teachers teach at the moment.

To mjgeneral, no I would not kill Shakespeare. He's way cool. The crap plays are the ones he was commissioned to write, like Antony and Cleopatra (I think) and other than that, and the Merchant of Venice, he's done some fairly decent work.

I wouldn't shoot David Malouf either, but I'd break both his hands so no 'An Imaginary Life' could ever be created.

 

[mjgeneral]

Yeh i spose ur right in a sense, I dont hate shakespeare for his work, i just hate the fact how hes in the syllabus and we hafta analyse all his non-applicable work. But the english syllabus has lost its cause, and the news article was right, uni students are actually quite poor in grammar and sentence structure, we shud b aiming to promote that instead of analytical skills of poetry and literature, which we will never apply

 

[simonloo]

By the way, just outta curiosity fellas, if u went back in time into shakespeares era, and he was standing right in front of u while u had a shotgun, would you kill him?

Yes or No

No. Instead, I would track down your ancestors at that time, and shoot the male instead.

That's what you get for asking such stupid questions.

And to a lesser extent, bagging out English to death.

 

[123erykb]

I absolutely agree with you. Honestly, don't argue with the "you wouldn't be able to write", so you people are telling me that you couldn't write in yr7-10? The top student in our school (which is selective) got 60/60 for his 3unit english, and he's a state speaker. He's dropping extension english and picking up 4u Maths. His reason? "English is useless". In selectie schools, advanced english his compulsory, and its just riduculous. All of you who support English, I want you to answer this question:

Is it fair for a student to have his UAI pulled down because he couldn't understand what Shakespeare was talking about and he could not deconstruct poetry?

They should be teaching us grammar and spelling, because a lot of tertiary students have trouble in that, instead of the crap were getting now eg analysing films. Did you that around half of the techniques we observe were actually done by accident (directors say this when people bombard them about the techniques they used)

I do 4unit maths and my subjects are all science, so although I can be biased, I come from a very logical point of view. Not to mention, people should really stop thinking maths is just "apply the formula". In yr10, maybe that was it, but in 3u onwards, the people who think that will perform poorly due to their lack of understanding. Doing that in 4unit is just impossible, and from my point of view, i rekon that requires a higher level of thinking. There is no such thing as a prodigy in english (or at least i have never heard of one), but there are prodigies in mathematics and music, because THEY are subjects that require higher level minds when it comes to thinking and understanding.

Mjgeneral, your entire argument here is flawed with hypocrisy. It is only English that has enabled you to deconstruct and analyse the current syllabus. English teaches one to evaluate and discuss from all different points of view, not always the "logical" one. Whilst I agree, 4U maths keeps us warm at night, it is only 4U English that provides the innovation and enterprise to fuel "prodigys" .

However, at the same time I agree with your point that the current HSC disadvantages those with "science" minds. Consequently, English should not be compulsory for year 12.

At the same time, you seem to claim the intellectual superiority of Maths over English, this assumption could not be more wrong. The ability to critically analyse texts from a multiplicitous array of literary theories is just as intellectually demanding as any Mathematical formula. English allows people to ask why we are the way we are, Maths and science gives us the answers, these answers would never have eventuated without the philosophical predispositions of English.

None of these arguments are black and white, so try to avoid having such a concrete view on the "usefulness of English'".

 

[Cookie182]

nicely argued. those words will probably never crop up again in our life but to say it is a complete waste of time is not quite true.

english is an appreciation of the language we speak and write - what we speak. sure, we might not sprout shakespearean sonnets to our friends (i did when i was watching the lunar eclipse tonight and they all looked at me weirdly), the 'delights' of verse may not be apparent in our everyday speech, but the english course is also a display of the versatility and the range of english. yeah sure, maybe still useless. i say we overanalyse. i seriously don't think the authors themselves put that much meaning into their writing (eg. in jane eyre, i'm not sure bronte wrote in the 'phallic' imagery intentionally) and film studies - i remember doing transformations and filmic techniques earlier this year and before, and if the directors put that much effort into every scene as we were trying to drain from it... i think they should all be knighted. note sarcasm.

as for the name i certainly agree there. i was talking to some friends in mid-stream classes and they say, no matter how hard they try and no matter how well they write, there is an immediate bias against them. at my school top and mid stream classes do different texts so as soon as the marker sees the text, the little mechanism in their head kicks in and says, 'this person will not get above 10 out of 20'. and as for those who have the 'name', i agree but i think that there's often merit in their achievements.

i think i've dissed the english course more than i've defended it. lol, i guess i'll have to say that i enjoy it so i don't think it's a waste of time. then again, that's me personally but i can see where you are coming from. i was going to write something more in its defense but my friend is about to attack me.

lol i thought i was the only one that quoted shakespeare when i saw the lunar eclipse-

"These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us...Love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide. In cities mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son and father. This villian of mine comes under the prediction: there's son against father. the king falls from bias of nature, there's father against child." (King Lear, Act 1, Scene 2)

 

[cccclaire]

By the way, just outta curiosity fellas, if u went back in time into shakespeares era, and he was standing right in front of u while u had a shotgun, would you kill him?

Yes or No

Of course I wouldn't.

I don't get what the big problem is with shakespeare, sure it's a little harder to understand than other material, but the plays are so easy to write about. There's about 100 techniques on every page of shakespeare, the context is the same for every play so it's easy to remember and generally they all have similar themes and ideas.

 

[iEdd]

Shakespeare is pretty good if you just read it, without trying to read too much into it. Trust me, if you did your favourite movie or book in english, I'd imagine the subject would kill its entertainment value.