Oh i'm going to love correcting the misconceptions.
While i agree with both your comments that English (in particular standard) has increasingly become shall we say 'more reductive', i believe part of the reason for this can be traced to two things.
The first is that english is compulsory for all students: as a result there will inevitably be a backlash from the community, particularly immigrant families, as there is a perceived sense of 'prejudice' that has only been exaggerated by mass media. In answer to this, every developed nation with a strong educational system i know of (USA, UK et al) has english or the national language (ie French literature in France - correct me if i'm wrong, as i took this from the semi-reliable wiki site) as a compulsory program. So while analysing cereal boxes at texts, may appear base to literature aficionados, it does broaden the perspectives of others who may later appreciate / gain an understanding of for eg the 'powerplay' of advertisements (module c adv) or the propagation of 'images' (module a standard).
The second is that, as a result of its compulsory status, many students then lose interest in appreciating the intrinsic beauty of literature forcing teachers to encourage 'reductive' strategies of extracting any and all meaning from texts. They must do this, as it is the only way students will come to understand how text a speaks of issue b in society c. It gives the students a way of exercising their skills in coming up with an individual response that meshes syllabus understandings with philosophical (personal) insights.
While English (esp standard) does cater for the lowest common denominator, and alienates those of us looking on in horror as texts are now metaphorically strapped to chairs to have all meaning 'beaten' out of them, it at least means that elevated literature such as Shakespeare, drama and poetry are accessible to those who would not have picked it up otherwise.
And for those of us (like Zephyrio) who are strong English students with a passion that transcends the confines of the subject rubrics, then it provides further inspiration to continue with English studies at university. As the idiom goes: "absence makes the heart grow fonder" and being deprived of a suitable outlet in the HSC context can definitely inspire you to delve into postcolonial and formalist criticism in a rigorous academic tertiary-level context. The enthusiastic student cohorts (at UNSW, and from all accounts, USYD as well) foster a lifelong ambition in the field
I am actually indebted to the idiosyncratic concerns of HSC English Advanced and Extension, for without its limited focus i would not have seriously considered undertaking transcendental literature studies as a degree
***
In answer to OP's question, English Extension Two is far more prestigious. It is undertaken by a smaller student cohort ('prestige' is normally defined in economic / social / political terms as being restricted to a 'top tier' ie the most 'prestigious' universities in the world are the most difficult to enter) and while the percentage of E4s is pretty even between the two subjects, due to the inherent scaling and aligning, it is far more difficult to score a 'higher' mark in EE2 (that counts towards one's UAI) than MX2.
In any case, those who undertake MX2 (without a background in EE2) will find it difficult to develop a cogent argument that effectively supports their subjective viewpoint in relation to 'prestige' so i would argue that this thread is fairly discriminatory
Maybe all posters must incorporate a graph and complex numbers to make their point?
i* for one would be in support.
*Lulz, cwotididthar?
