-blueblue-
hey!
^ yeah but english tutors are hard to find ( someone that did most of your modules, you will probably need one tutor per module then it just gets chaotic n confusing etc, and you have toi make aure they are good)
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Vocabulary tips (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Abtari
- Start date
My Yr 12 friend gets this lady to come to school (we're boarders) and she teaches him for 50 bucks an hour. I must say, that's too much for me!
Can't you get teachers who know all the modules or who are in general really good at ENglish teaching?
Can't you get teachers who know all the modules or who are in general really good at ENglish teaching?
E
eling
Guest
Abtari said:
the average tutor charge $25 per hr but if u want to find a good one they're about $35/hr + but u can go tutoring with frends to lower the price
wrong_turn
the chosen one
you may not need a tutor all together. who cares about your vocab. it's how you use it.
like the author of animal farm, george something, well he once expressed that the it is how you word a sentence that makes a sentence effective. it is not how many long and complex words you use.
personally i agree. i might not ahve as strong a vocab as many people, like i know the meaning of a lot of words, but i hardly need to comprise my meaning throught ointless words of decoration.
like is said, it is not the quanity, but the quality.
that is why dickens sux and say for example stephen king is better!
like the author of animal farm, george something, well he once expressed that the it is how you word a sentence that makes a sentence effective. it is not how many long and complex words you use.
personally i agree. i might not ahve as strong a vocab as many people, like i know the meaning of a lot of words, but i hardly need to comprise my meaning throught ointless words of decoration.
like is said, it is not the quanity, but the quality.
that is why dickens sux and say for example stephen king is better!
tabularasa
Member
Yeah knowing all these great words doesn't help if you don't know how to use them.
HOT TIP=> Start reading novels...Did you notice I used the word "novel" opposed to "books"? To improve your english standards and henceforth your vocabulary, you need to start reading stimuli that challenge what you already know. When you come across words/ phrases that don't make sense pull out your dictionary and work it out. Also whilst reading, in the back of your mind you should be questioning what the author is trying to convey to you through language and other techniques.
i don't think people should really find an english tutor. unless they really need it, ie they shouldn't bother finding an english tutor unless they have trouble speaking english \=
i reckon you can just as well with an english tutor [or even better] by yourself. it's really upto you at how you wanna be good at vocab, and you can work at your own pace. when there's a will there's a way
i reckon you can just as well with an english tutor [or even better] by yourself. it's really upto you at how you wanna be good at vocab, and you can work at your own pace. when there's a will there's a way
wrong_turn
the chosen one
novels in general is just incorrect. to attain a higher vocab, one has to be able to be able to understand all types of texts. therefore one has to read a variety of books to account for a higher vocab level.fi_babezy said:
it is the same with watching television. you might not want to watch the same type of tv shows. so you switch to something else.
and think when you talk to your friends about what you saw on tv. you might be able to talk about a variety of shows instead of a conformed group where you only talk about the one show. therefore you would watch a variety such as reality shows, dramas or comedies.
:uhhuh:
-blueblue-
hey!
^^ engage yourself in literature may have been what the person was trying to say. anything that comes your way that can be read, read it! even if it is a televsion guide, a brouchure whatever, make yourself read
Slidey
But pieces of what?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 6,585
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
I, myself, have not watched television for over 3 years.
It is not necessary. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the shows on television, no matter how much you might think they stimulate your brain, "destimulate" it.
Of course, that's neither here, nor there... or is it? Perhaps we need to face hard cold facts sometimes, no matter how much we may revile those facts.
Still, it's a pointless cause. Television is here to stay due of two factors:
Money/power.
Laziness.
Touching briefly on both of these factors: money/power because advertisement is an extremely powerful money-making and brain-washing tool, and because almost all people perceive that they have a measure of omniscience and hence omnipotence when they have control of a television set, especially if they are gaining informatino from it, such as from the news. The big question is the relevency of this inofrmation. 99.95% of it is garbage because it doesn't effect our lives in any way whatsoever, aside from influencing our societal discourses. People's brains become chock-a-block full of information so quickly and they can't remember which piece goes where, or even where they learnt it from.
Then there is laziness. How bad can watching television be? You sit down for a few hours (maybe 8 if you're American-or, heaven forfend, Australian), you may drink a few beverages, you "relax". You are content. This is the poisonous mistake you are making. Contentment is not happiness, though the two aren't mutually exclusive (as when one is in love). When one is content, they are not doing much to affect their environment. They essentially switch off. This is perhaps the worst possible state to be in whilst watching TV, as it just lets that flow of junk information flow from the T.V. into your head like there's no tomorrow. And so, people perceive that they are "happy". And from this, a defence-mechanism evolves. To preserve this state, and their ability to experience this state, they convince themselves that this state is both healthy and good, and accordingly defend it like mad when it comes under question. Combining this factor of laziness with the factor of money/power, you get an unstoppable addictive combination; which i can't see being overthrown any time soon. But, who knows. It was managed that smoking became socially unacceptable, and so to may it one day be true for television. But by the same token, drinking oneself into oblivion is still deemed generally acceptable, so it follows that television may always be acceptable to the majority.
It is not necessary. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the shows on television, no matter how much you might think they stimulate your brain, "destimulate" it.
Of course, that's neither here, nor there... or is it? Perhaps we need to face hard cold facts sometimes, no matter how much we may revile those facts.
Still, it's a pointless cause. Television is here to stay due of two factors:
Money/power.
Laziness.
Touching briefly on both of these factors: money/power because advertisement is an extremely powerful money-making and brain-washing tool, and because almost all people perceive that they have a measure of omniscience and hence omnipotence when they have control of a television set, especially if they are gaining informatino from it, such as from the news. The big question is the relevency of this inofrmation. 99.95% of it is garbage because it doesn't effect our lives in any way whatsoever, aside from influencing our societal discourses. People's brains become chock-a-block full of information so quickly and they can't remember which piece goes where, or even where they learnt it from.
Then there is laziness. How bad can watching television be? You sit down for a few hours (maybe 8 if you're American-or, heaven forfend, Australian), you may drink a few beverages, you "relax". You are content. This is the poisonous mistake you are making. Contentment is not happiness, though the two aren't mutually exclusive (as when one is in love). When one is content, they are not doing much to affect their environment. They essentially switch off. This is perhaps the worst possible state to be in whilst watching TV, as it just lets that flow of junk information flow from the T.V. into your head like there's no tomorrow. And so, people perceive that they are "happy". And from this, a defence-mechanism evolves. To preserve this state, and their ability to experience this state, they convince themselves that this state is both healthy and good, and accordingly defend it like mad when it comes under question. Combining this factor of laziness with the factor of money/power, you get an unstoppable addictive combination; which i can't see being overthrown any time soon. But, who knows. It was managed that smoking became socially unacceptable, and so to may it one day be true for television. But by the same token, drinking oneself into oblivion is still deemed generally acceptable, so it follows that television may always be acceptable to the majority.
-blueblue-
hey!
television ( althoug i dont actually watch much of it!) is amusing, engaging and enterratining and there is evidence to support ( this was once a debating topic for me .. lol if i still had the debate speech i would post it up but i dont)
wrong_turn
the chosen one
to be slide_rule in short, there must be a balance of television and literature. how the hell did it get to tv anyway. i was using tv programs as an example?!
hyperbole
i LURRVE to exaggerate.
Read A Lot.
And invest in an all-in-one Dictionary/Theasuarus. That way, when you look up a word, you not only find the meaning of the word, but also the synonyms.
And invest in an all-in-one Dictionary/Theasuarus. That way, when you look up a word, you not only find the meaning of the word, but also the synonyms.
What you all are saying all bear gravity in thier own separate ways.
When I was a kid, I used to watch TV excessively... I watched silly programs like cartoons, reality tv, sitcoms, soaps, you name it... I was a twelve-year old TV tycoon glued to the TV by an adhesive addiction! Now when I reminisce about it, I think how obtuse and profoundly illiterate I was! I should have been filing my blunt brain reading intellectual didactic novels, exploring the worlds of Shakespeare, Picasso and learning about our world and current affairs, not slumbering in a couch diminishing my intellect and insulting my own intelligence watching Homer say 'D'oh' a hundred times. The harder I tried to make excuses that one day the Simpsons will help me in writing my satire essay, the more it became apparent...who was I kidding?
I am now basically trying to recoup those lost childhood years by trying to improve my English and vocabulary. Ok enough yakking... Thanks for all your views guys!!!
When I was a kid, I used to watch TV excessively... I watched silly programs like cartoons, reality tv, sitcoms, soaps, you name it... I was a twelve-year old TV tycoon glued to the TV by an adhesive addiction! Now when I reminisce about it, I think how obtuse and profoundly illiterate I was! I should have been filing my blunt brain reading intellectual didactic novels, exploring the worlds of Shakespeare, Picasso and learning about our world and current affairs, not slumbering in a couch diminishing my intellect and insulting my own intelligence watching Homer say 'D'oh' a hundred times. The harder I tried to make excuses that one day the Simpsons will help me in writing my satire essay, the more it became apparent...who was I kidding?
I am now basically trying to recoup those lost childhood years by trying to improve my English and vocabulary. Ok enough yakking... Thanks for all your views guys!!!
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
the best way to be able to interpret or understand anythin...is to do it yourself
i wrote poetry so now i know that emotions and messages are hard to express with words especially in poetry format...
its like trying to code a program the needs c++ and only knowing c+...
very difficult so the words that symbolise something are obviouslty there main tool
(same with english, music & any other subject including vocab)
i wrote poetry so now i know that emotions and messages are hard to express with words especially in poetry format...
its like trying to code a program the needs c++ and only knowing c+...
very difficult so the words that symbolise something are obviouslty there main tool
(same with english, music & any other subject including vocab)