New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (2 Viewers)

[chingyloke]

i still dont think it would be fair, that in a year 12 paper, a person is advantaged by writing two texts because they one, cant follow instructions, or two, cant read given instructions. The second related material and any links established with that related material should be ignored and not marked.

+1

 

[lyounamu]

You neglect to mention that 1) English must be compulsory to allow scaling to occur and 2) English skills are really essential in Australia, and the analytical skills you learn from English help in almost any profession in training your mind. Maths, while also important, is not as crucial. At the least people should have to do ESL imo, if their English isn't good enough to string a few sentences together. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that English no longer develops analytical skills where prepared answers apply; hence what the board decided to do this year.

Wow! I didn't know doing English allowed for scaling to occur. Can someone explain how that is?

 

[hosay]

imo, english is the biggest piece of shit that exists, if someone did a shit, and then ate that shit, and then crapped that shit out again, youll get english. In fact, they shouldnt have the right to call it english, instead call it literature. The only part of the whole course that tests english skills is the short answer questions as you really have to be able to apply knowledge. Also, unlike other subjects where your taught stuff (physics, chem, eco etc..), english you have to do most of the work, and its your opinion that matters, and how well your support that opinion. Yes, english skills are neccesay, but studying shakespeare or having an opinion about a book doesnt build them.

 

[helper]

You neglect to mention that 1) English must be compulsory to allow scaling to occur

That is wrong. It does help but it isn't required. Up until the 90s Maths was compulsory in the HSC

 

[hosay]

i agree with the bos.the sor exam wasnt that difficult, just required a little more thinking.and why the hell would you complain about 1 related text?? Its 1 less thing to write about!!

+1

 

[roar84eighty]

The question explicity mentioned (in case of Judaism) that we should make connection with the daily practice + the sources of truth.

although you have to admit some of the questions for religious traditions other than judaism/budhism and hinduism i think it was were more straight forward

 

[ekoolish]

Wow! I didn't know doing English allowed for scaling to occur. Can someone explain how that is?

You need english to add the numbers. Oh no wait.

 

[cutemouse]

Up until the 90s Maths was compulsory in the HSC

No, Maths itself was never compulsory. However, one subject in the KLA (or w/e it was called) was compulsory, ie. Maths or the sciences (ie. Bio, Chem or Physics).

 

[helper]

No, Maths itself was never compulsory. However, one subject in the KLA (or w/e it was called) was compulsory, ie. Maths or the sciences (ie. Bio, Chem or Physics).

Looking for a source to quote but it was compulsory to complete but not compulsory for your UAI. I'm not sure if the change was for the NEW HSC or just before,

 

[cutemouse]

You neglect to mention that 1) English must be compulsory to allow scaling to occur

You do realise that before the 2001 English wasn't a compulsory subject (in the sense of calculation of the formally known TER).

2) English skills are really essential in Australia, and the analytical skills you learn from English help in almost any profession in training your mind. Maths, while also important, is not as crucial.

That is BS. How the hell does English give you analytical skills? Problem solving in maths on the other hand would give you more of such skills.

 

[roar84eighty]

How the hell does English give you analytical skills?

+1, it's true. the only subjects that have improved my analytical skills have been maths, modern history and history extension because i don't do any sciences. english is a ridiculous waste of time.

 

[Bdogz]

I agree, the English that people of today study is a piece of garbage, it is all opinon based, there is never one clear cut answer to an english question unlike maths, and also the marking is biased. Maths is so more important in contemporary society, you use it everywhere, English should be more comprehension based like the good old days back in year 5, 6

 

[ekoolish]

I agree, the English that people of today study is a piece of garbage, it is all opinon based, there is never one clear cut answer to an english question unlike maths, and also the marking is biased. Maths is so more important in contemporary society, you use it everywhere, English should be more comprehension based like the good old days back in year 5, 6

That makes no sense. That would mean that the people that study more would benefit, nonsense.

 

[verdades]

I'm going to ignore the direction the last few posts have taken, and give my thoughts on the English paper, as that's the one I actually did.

I honestly hope that anyone who wrote two texts does lose marks, as they did not read the question. While I believe they've established this won't be the case, I still hope they do. It's the same as being told to write in a specific form, such as "reflections" in my trial in a modules question. Don't do it, and you're not answering the question.
Anyone who believes/d only one related text would make the exam too short probably didn't have a highly in-depth knowledge of at least one of their related texts. Obviously, that's what the question wanted. If they chose to disregard the question, then they shouldn't get full marks on the question.
And for those who didn't read it correctly... I'll lose marks on any maths question I don't read correctly and thus don't answer correctly, so why shouldn't the same apply for English?

 

[we0426]

I'm going to ignore the direction the last few posts have taken, and give my thoughts on the English paper, as that's the one I actually did.

I honestly hope that anyone who wrote two texts does lose marks, as they did not read the question. While I believe they've established this won't be the case, I still hope they do. It's the same as being told to write in a specific form, such as "reflections" in my trial in a modules question. Don't do it, and you're not answering the question.
Anyone who believes/d only one related text would make the exam too short probably didn't have a highly in-depth knowledge of at least one of their related texts. Obviously, that's what the question wanted. If they chose to disregard the question, then they shouldn't get full marks on the question.
And for those who didn't read it correctly... I'll lose marks on any maths question I don't read correctly and thus don't answer correctly, so why shouldn't the same apply for English?

WELL TO BE HONEST..I DID USE 2 RELATED TEXTS CAME OUT SO HAPPY THEN GOT TOLD OFF BY MY TEACHER, HEAD TEACHER AND ALL MY NERDY FRIENDS,..see if i had just taken a minute to read da fucking question i would not have used 2 texts..i wrote like 11.5 pages which 2 pages were on a shit related text and the other 9.5 is a good related text plus the prescribed text.......NOW JUST WONDERING M I GONA LOSE MARKS..BY USING 2..coz i swear to god if i knew u had to use 1 related text..i would have used one....some how i dont feel confident in my work now..how fucking sad

 

[cem]

That is wrong. It does help but it isn't required. Up until the 90s Maths was compulsory in the HSC

Actually Maths has never been compulsory.

Up to the mid-90s English was compulsory but didn't necessarily count towards the TER/TES etc.

In the mid-90s it changed to 1 unit of English counting and at least 2 Units of either Maths or Science AND 2 Units of a humanities including English and then the next best units to 10. It meant that everyone had to do some Maths/Science and some humanities besides English - unlike today where students can do just humanities and no Maths or Science or only Maths and Science plus English. I can't remember which side Computers went (not being a computer teacher I simply don't remember).

It meant that even the most humanities oreinted student had to 2 units of either Maths or a Science and that kids could do 4 units of Maths and 4 units of Science along with 2 Units of English and 1 units of something (they had to do 11 units as well).

Now it is only English compulsory with 2 units counting towards ATAR.

 

[verdades]

WELL TO BE HONEST..I DID USE 2 RELATED TEXTS CAME OUT SO HAPPY THEN GOT TOLD OFF BY MY TEACHER, HEAD TEACHER AND ALL MY NERDY FRIENDS,..see if i had just taken a minute to read da fucking question i would not have used 2 texts..i wrote like 11.5 pages which 2 pages were on a shit related text and the other 9.5 is a good related text plus the prescribed text.......NOW JUST WONDERING M I GONA LOSE MARKS..BY USING 2..coz i swear to god if i knew u had to use 1 related text..i would have used one....some how i dont feel confident in my work now..how fucking sad

Yeah, some people would have misread it. It'd probably be like one mark if they even did. If you look in one of the "Hot Topic" threads on the front page about it, they apparently decided that you won't.
But like I said. If I misread, say, 5 questions on my maths paper, I'm liable to lose at least one mark for each. It'd be unfair to say in a different subject "It's okay, even though you obviously read the question wrong and didn't answer it properly, we won't take that into account".
Like I said, they came to the conclusion that it won't happen. I personally just with the markers would.
Though having said that... while it took me about a second glance to notice it didn't say "one or more", that's what they wanted. To trip people up and make sure they were reading the questions.

 

[helper]

Actually Maths has never been compulsory.

Up to the mid-90s English was compulsory but didn't necessarily count towards the TER/TES etc.

In the mid-90s it changed to 1 unit of English counting and at least 2 Units of either Maths or Science AND 2 Units of a humanities including English and then the next best units to 10. It meant that everyone had to do some Maths/Science and some humanities besides English - unlike today where students can do just humanities and no Maths or Science or only Maths and Science plus English. I can't remember which side Computers went (not being a computer teacher I simply don't remember).

I remember that change, I think that was removed in the HSC. I am trying to remember back to the pre-Metheral reforms that brought in the English compulsory in legislation. So looking at the early Wyndham years of the 60s through to 1989. Time goes too fast.

 

[Jeee]

I think it was unfair that the Board of Studies threw in an unanticipated 'twist', because if anything, it was the Board of Studies itself that made the HSC a word-vomiting rampage. Teacher's have been teaching specific content, and students have been following the syllabus to the bone...Also, a lot of what is being taught is incorrect. The chemistry taught in high school is as real as Santa Claus. It makes me wonder what it will be like when I sit the HSC next year...

 

[lolrofllol]

I'm going to ignore the direction the last few posts have taken, and give my thoughts on the English paper, as that's the one I actually did.

I honestly hope that anyone who wrote two texts does lose marks, as they did not read the question. While I believe they've established this won't be the case, I still hope they do. It's the same as being told to write in a specific form, such as "reflections" in my trial in a modules question. Don't do it, and you're not answering the question.
Anyone who believes/d only one related text would make the exam too short probably didn't have a highly in-depth knowledge of at least one of their related texts. Obviously, that's what the question wanted. If they chose to disregard the question, then they shouldn't get full marks on the question.
And for those who didn't read it correctly... I'll lose marks on any maths question I don't read correctly and thus don't answer correctly, so why shouldn't the same apply for English?

Have a massive cry, what's done is done. English is NOT maths, and reading a question in maths is NOT like reading a question in English you imbecile, there's interpretations of the question, no right answer etc. The Board is only dealing with a problem they themselves created. If you really wanted students to 'think and apply knowledge on their feet,' there are much better ways than screwing over half the state. Off the top of my god damn head: use unseen related material from section one to complete section three... tada?