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

[mjgeneral]

Well, in my school adv. english is compulsory

 

[Tulipa]

Well, in my school adv. english is compulsory

Advanced is compulsory?

There are no standard classes? Which school is that?

 

[watatank]

yeah, a few schools are like that. my old one for one.

 

[mjgeneral]

most selective skools r like that

 

[Tulipa]

yeah, a few schools are like that. my old one for one.

Selective?

EDIT: Ah, interesting situation.

 

[mjgeneral]

selective high schools??

 

[Fish Sauce]

Well one main point i think raised b4, is that, is to prevent the further domination of fobs, which is true to an extent. The majority of students wont need to analyse texts in the future. So...answer this for me: Is it fair for a student to have his UAI pulled down because he could not decrypt shakespearian literature or poetry?? And we assume that he has fluent speaking skills and knows how to write essays.

Like me

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Well one main point i think raised b4, is that, is to prevent the further domination of fobs, which is true to an extent. The majority of students wont need to analyse texts in the future. So...answer this for me: Is it fair for a student to have his UAI pulled down because he could not decrypt shakespearian literature or poetry?? And we assume that he has fluent speaking skills and knows how to write essays.

Yes, I think so. We ought to be able to expect a certain level of literacy in tertiary students, and isn't that what a UAI is for?

 

[mjgeneral]

Note how i said: he can speak fluently and can write essays. I think that passes the certain level of literacy. If u raise the standards where u MUST decrypt shakespeare and poetry, then system is a failure (more than it already is, i hope the next head of the BOS has the sense to make educational reforms). A UAI is for determining ur intelligence, it doesnt exactly test the student if they know what a metaphor is.

 

[Tulipa]

Note how i said: he can speak fluently and can write essays. I think that passes the certain level of literacy. If u raise the standards where u MUST decrypt shakespeare and poetry, then system is a failure (more than it already is, i hope the next head of the BOS has the sense to make educational reforms). A UAI is for determining ur intelligence, it doesnt exactly test the student if they know what a metaphor is.

It's not that hard though, especially if you have a good teacher.

There are key concepts to learn and from there if you are a fairly literate person it's not that difficult to construct an essay around it.

And you are dead wrong, a UAI is not for measuring intelligence. An aptitude test measures intelligence, the UAI is the result of your stamina in relation to a number of subjects that require rote memorisation instead of actual learning.

 

[mjgeneral]

true to a certain extent, even for english, sum people memorise essays for their hsc, they dont actually understand what they write, yet they still get high marks

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Note how i said: he can speak fluently and can write essays. I think that passes the certain level of literacy. If u raise the standards where u MUST decrypt shakespeare and poetry, then system is a failure (more than it already is, i hope the next head of the BOS has the sense to make educational reforms). A UAI is for determining ur intelligence, it doesnt exactly test the student if they know what a metaphor is.

Yes I was able to comprehend your post. I have to wonder what it is this hypothetical fellow writes essays about, though. I should make clear what I mean by literacy. In kindergarten, literacy is being able to recognise individual letters, eg. this is an "a". Then we move on to words, which have meanings. Then we move on to sentences, which give us the opportunity to communicate more meaning than individual words. Fast forward 10 years, is it not reasonable that there's a difference in the level of meaning we extract from texts in Year 10 and the level of meaning we extract from texts in Year 12?

As it turns out, the type of thinking you learn in HSC English is essential for use at University (trust me) because to put it simply, tertiary study is supposed to be about going beyond the concrete thinking we use in every day life to more abstract things.

For me, the point of HSC English is to get students doing that type of thinking more than the specific meanings in the particular texts. As Tulipa said, Shakespearean language and poetry really aren't that hard to understand. I think peoples' hatred of Shakespeare comes from the same source as other peoples' hatred of Maths, usually bad teachers and bad experiences with the subject early on.

UAI is the result of your stamina in relation to a number of subjects that require rote memorisation instead of actual learning.

That's a fairly grim view of education. I think those that study for understanding will generally perform better than those who only aim for memorisation.

 

[watatank]

Selective?

EDIT: Ah, interesting situation.

yeah selective school.

 

[mjgeneral]

For maths, they say, its stupid coz u just apply formula, and for english, people say: its so freaking useless wen the hell r we gonna apply this.
And this hypothetical fellow (i quite a few) went to baulkham hills got 96 in his 2u adv. english, he regurgitated essays. (he does optom, achieved a UAI of 99.45). Another frnd (james ruse, yr12 this yr) has lost 2 marks in his english advanced the entire year for his HSC, even also agrees that english will never be used. "its all about how wel you can bullsht in high skool" (his estimate UAI was 99.5), so as you can see...its quite

 

[Tulipa]

That's a fairly grim view of education. I think those that study for understanding will generally perform better than those who only aim for memorisation.

It depends on the person. It's a grim view of the UAI system but it's not a system that really encourages learning. I learnt concepts and ideals and didn't fare as well as the memorisation kiddies in the end even if I did beat them at things that required creative thinking throughout the year.

The current system isn't perfect but it could be a lot better. That's not quite on topic here though so I'll keep it to myself.

 

[Lumbargo]

While the system will let you get through with just memorisation (My Maths teacher admitted that in class today; it's how he got through, apparently) I agree; understanding what you are doing is in my experience supported much much better.

And for the most part, understanding is encouraged.

I agree that perhaps the Adv. English course is a waste of time for people who don't intend to go to tertiary education, or intend to go to more science/maths-based tertiary education. But for others, it is not. If it was a true waste of time, I wouldn't have gotten anything out of it.

Adv. English is compulsary in my school, btw.

 

[S1M0]

The current English course requires nothing more than to state language/visual features and to relate them to examples in whatever text you happen to be studying.

Boring.

Extension English on the other hand, requires you to analyse the hidden meaning behind the text, and the context to which the text was written in.

Which isn't boring.

 

[woho]

The current English course requires nothing more than to state language/visual features and to relate them to examples in whatever text you happen to be studying.

Boring.

Extension English on the other hand, requires you to analyse the hidden meaning behind the text, and the context to which the text was written in.

Which isn't boring.

Hmm... so why is there a HSC Advanced english module that is specifically titled "Comparitive study of Text and Context"? pretty sure context is somewhere in there...

Slightly off topic... I guess it depends on what electives u do, but I found preliminary extension english to be very useful for HSC advanced, due to the fact that a lot of these "hidden meaning" and context issues come up a lot in the HSC course (Same with postmodernism).

But yeh, hang in there- HSC advanced english is so more than techniques, despite how "boring" or not it is.

 

[samuel slack]

I'd have to agree with Tulipa here. The Advanced course is set out so that people can memorise a response for every section of the paper. There's no real need for understanding, not that its that hard to understand anyway, really.

 

[Georgegeorge]

I disagree
To people who think the Adv Eng course should be changed...
1. Show some empathy for the English teachers. I’m sure that they would much rather be teaching the English they enjoy rather than something directly related to real-life situations just to cater for the math/science people who think Shakespeare etc. is a waste of time, when his plays etc. are works of genius. I think reading plays etc. are fun

2. Show some sympathy for the people who actually want to study arts etc. at uni. Math science people can easily get away with math/phys/chem/eng/bio – and get away with every course excluding English being quite relevant to studies at university, whereas arts people may only have a couple of units that will really mean anything post uai (e.g. the fine arts)

3. Techniques etc. – this is definitely relevant – we don’t want to be deluded by the media, do we? People who can see through ways of persuasion in advertising etc. would be more likely to be smarter consumers, no? (Also, this is my strength)

Perhaps there should be a further 2 unit English course e.g. English (std), English (adv), English (1 unit) – like in SOR which unfortunately is compulsory at my school. I mean, there should at least be enough people to make up a class in the vast majority of schools.

But to the original question is it a waste of time? The oversimplified answer is yes, but the course isn’t THAT bad, is it?

p.s. I’m a math/science person