English is stupid (2 Viewers)

[JINOUGA]

You can "bullshit" in any essay really (bullshit is in italics because an essay presents an opinion, not objective truth) - but an essay isnt really marked on its argument, but rather the way in which that argument is presented (is it sustained, logical and supported by evidence).

Agreed.

 

[2xL]

No, it wasn't. Simply because you can't appreciate that literature is a way of conveying ideas relevant to society doesn't mean, it's "bs", it just means you're too simple to understand it.

I'm sorry in advance, but to stress my point, are you fucking kidding me? Look at this. "Analysis of society is important to build your own character up". What the flying fuck does this even mean?

 

[ArguablyMitch]

That was the biggest load of "bs" I've seen in my life. Deadset. That's what I mean.

No, you are wrong. Literature is, amongst other things, work that critiques and analyses society; namely ideas, social structures, values etc. You are either trolling, or invested in wilful ignorance. I do hope it is the former.

 

[Sy123]

That was the biggest load of "bs" I've seen in my life. Deadset. That's what I mean.

Ok so are you going to believe the crapload of information that comes from media personality? I don't mean from celebrities, I mean the stupidity coming off people who call themselves educated. Being able to analyse what your seeing, the information people tell you, its important to form your own view.

Therefore saying that English is useless for society is the same thing as saying Maths is useless for society
And then by process of Mathematical Induction
Then we can say that every other subject is useless for society with this logic

The analysing skills we develop in English is just as important as the logical reasoning skills we learn in Maths.

 

[JINOUGA]

I'm sorry in advance, but to stress my point, are you fucking kidding me? Look at this. "Analysis of society is important to build your own character up". What the flying fuck does this even mean?

Ok let me try to explain this as simply as possible.

Literature conveys ideas and views on society. In turn, the reader shapes their own opinions of these ideas and views. As such, the reader perceives society in a manner that is partially shaped or influenced by what they have read/seen etc. As such, the reader has grown to have a new or reinforced understanding of society.

 

[soloooooo]

Instead of needing to 'bullshit' in English, just become good at it and let the talent flow naturally.

 

[Absolutezero]

Civility guys...

 

[Sy123]

Instead of needing to 'bullshit' in English, just become good at it and let the talent flow naturally.

Agreed.

 

[Fawun]

You know why because kids like you talk so much smack then when you get into the real world you get smashed and then go why is this world so unfair, You live your pathetic life on BOS 24/7 your always on, grow some balls buddy, Go to gym lift some weights do something with your life keyboard warrior

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=288084

your argument is invalid.

 

[Atar Hater]

I honestly have no qualms with english apart from the fact that it is compulsory.

The skills of logical analysis i believe can easily be developed in other subjects and the content (even though i have some interests in philosophy, ideologies etc) is not really of my liking.

 

[JINOUGA]

I also do not really have much to complain about in English apart from the fact that the marking at times seems really rigid. I don't see much flexibility in terms of analysis in essays, which can partially be attributed to the fact that it is difficult to discuss a text to it's full extent in an exam situation with time constraints, but that isn't really a problem with the sub.

I do however, question it being compulsory, simply because in my view mathematics is just as important and yet is not compulsory.

 

[Atar Hater]

I also do not really have much to complain about in English apart from the fact that the marking at times seems really rigid. I don't see much flexibility in terms of analysis in essays, which can partially be attributed to the fact that it is difficult to discuss a text to it's full extent in an exam situation with time constraints, but that isn't really a problem with the sub.

+1. You can be creative... as long as it's in the syllabus (which is neccesary ofc for structure)

 

[aphorae]

To get an excellent English mark, you really do need to be ideas and values-focused in your essays. In my opinion, the subject is supposed to be focused upon general aspects of human nature that will be eternally relevant (belonging, conflicting perspectives), and then the use of a wide range of texts is merely to support those ideas, or provide proof. If you or your teacher view English as being all about the analysis of a text, then either or both of you are focusing too narrowly on the subject. Just because you have a shit tennis coach, or you hate tennis, or the specific rules of a certain competition don't appeal to you, or you take no pleasure in sport whether for leisure or for health reasons, does that mean the entire notion of tennis is stupid?

Yes, a composer may not say to herself, "I am employing the use of emotive language here to evoke sympathy from the audience" - that is absolutely ridiculous. However, she is probably feeling overwhelmed, wanting sympathy, and subconsciously inclined to speak in such a way that others will pity her. Of course, no writer would consider, "Should I use morbid imagery here to convey ideas of death and mortality, or barbaric connotations to provoke disgust?". Instead, it will probably come naturally to him, just like it is natural for you to:

Sitting here in english and im about to shoot myself in the head. English is without doubt the biggest fuckery to have ever been created straight out of Satan's arsehole.

employ the use of crude, vulgar language in order to convey your strong disgust of the subject.

That is exactly the same as being like:
A: "I fucking hate this shit excuse for a subject." - (Composer)
B: 'Hey C, why is A swearing so much?' - (Essay question/marker)
C: 'He mad.' - (Your interpretation, response/answer to the question)

- except that you're attempting to convey it appropriately in an essay format, just like how you can't just say 'The answer is 35cm because it just fucking is' in a maths test, and instead need to convey it appropriately with logical reasoning and working out.

In English, the markers want us to do several things - understand common themes and values and develop complexity of ideas, convey this understanding appropriately and effectively, and develop personal expression and fluidity of language. Yeah, you can get away with a half-decent mark without actually doing any of these things properly, but you can get away with a half-decent mark in any subject even if you don't learn everything properly.

 

[enoilgam]

I know this is going to sound harsh, but people need to stop whining about english being compulsory. The fact is, in all likelyhood, you will probably have quite a few compulsory subjects at uni which are a complete waste of time, some which are even worse with english. Its just a part of education.

 

[JINOUGA]

To get an excellent English mark, you really do need to be ideas and values-focused in your essays. In my opinion, the subject is supposed to be focused upon general aspects of human nature that will be eternally relevant (belonging, conflicting perspectives), and then the use of a wide range of texts is merely to support those ideas, or provide proof. If you or your teacher view English as being all about the analysis of a text, then either or both of you are focusing too narrowly on the subject. Just because you have a shit tennis coach, or you hate tennis, or the specific rules of a certain competition don't appeal to you, or you take no pleasure in sport whether for leisure or for health reasons, does that mean the entire notion of tennis is stupid?

Yes, a composer may not say to herself, "I am employing the use of emotive language here to evoke sympathy from the audience" - that is absolutely ridiculous. However, she is probably feeling overwhelmed, wanting sympathy, and subconsciously inclined to speak in such a way that others will pity him. Of course, no writer would consider, "Should I use morbid imagery here to convey ideas of death and mortality, or barbaric connotations to provoke disgust?". Instead, it will probably come naturally to him, just like it is natural for you to:



employ the use of crude, vulgar language in order to convey your strong disgust of the subject.

That is exactly the same as being like:
A: "I fucking hate this shit excuse for a subject." - (Composer)
B: 'Hey C, why is A swearing so much?' - (Essay question/marker)
C: 'He mad.' - (Your interpretation, response/answer to the question)

- except that you're attempting to convey it appropriately in an essay format, just like how you can't just say 'The answer is 35cm because it just fucking is' in a maths test, and instead need to convey it appropriately with logical reasoning and working out.

In English, the markers want us to do several things - understand common themes and values and develop complexity of ideas, convey this understanding appropriately and effectively, and develop personal expression and fluidity of language. Yeah, you can get away with a half-decent mark without actually doing any of these things properly, but you can get away with a half-decent mark in any subject even if you don't learn everything properly.

excellent post

 

[wildchild666]

That is exactly the same as being like:
A: "I fucking hate this shit excuse for a subject." - (Composer)
B: 'Hey C, why is A swearing so much?' - (Essay question/marker)
C: 'He mad.' - (Your interpretation, response/answer to the question)

Gold.

I actually enjoy English. Probably my favourite subject.

 

[RealiseNothing]

English is great.

I've experience so many different perspectives from it.

Out of all my subjects it's one of the most valuable to me imo.

 

[wildchild666]

English is great.

I've experience so many different perspectives from it.

Out of all my subjects it's one of the most valuable to me imo.

Strong English right there.

 

[DAFUQ]

To get an excellent English mark, you really do need to be ideas and values-focused in your essays. In my opinion, the subject is supposed to be focused upon general aspects of human nature that will be eternally relevant (belonging, conflicting perspectives), and then the use of a wide range of texts is merely to support those ideas, or provide proof. If you or your teacher view English as being all about the analysis of a text, then either or both of you are focusing too narrowly on the subject. Just because you have a shit tennis coach, or you hate tennis, or the specific rules of a certain competition don't appeal to you, or you take no pleasure in sport whether for leisure or for health reasons, does that mean the entire notion of tennis is stupid?

Yes, a composer may not say to herself, "I am employing the use of emotive language here to evoke sympathy from the audience" - that is absolutely ridiculous. However, she is probably feeling overwhelmed, wanting sympathy, and subconsciously inclined to speak in such a way that others will pity her. Of course, no writer would consider, "Should I use morbid imagery here to convey ideas of death and mortality, or barbaric connotations to provoke disgust?". Instead, it will probably come naturally to him, just like it is natural for you to:



employ the use of crude, vulgar language in order to convey your strong disgust of the subject.

That is exactly the same as being like:
A: "I fucking hate this shit excuse for a subject." - (Composer)
B: 'Hey C, why is A swearing so much?' - (Essay question/marker)
C: 'He mad.' - (Your interpretation, response/answer to the question)

- except that you're attempting to convey it appropriately in an essay format, just like how you can't just say 'The answer is 35cm because it just fucking is' in a maths test, and instead need to convey it appropriately with logical reasoning and working out.

In English, the markers want us to do several things - understand common themes and values and develop complexity of ideas, convey this understanding appropriately and effectively, and develop personal expression and fluidity of language. Yeah, you can get away with a half-decent mark without actually doing any of these things properly, but you can get away with a half-decent mark in any subject even if you don't learn everything properly.

cool story bro. English is still shit and a complete waste of time.
However, nice 98. i got 96.

 

[Amleops]

I love English, and I certainly don't find it "stupid" as has been said. But despite this, I don't think it should be compulsory. I appreciate that English develops critical thinking skills which are important in day to day life, but I feel that these skills are limited through the exploration of literature alone. I like literature, and thus I enjoy the subject, but for those who don't, being forced to do it just amplifies their hate for it. I don't like Visual Arts for instance, yet I can appreciate the workmanship behind certain artworks, and the complex philosophical ideas behind art theory. But if I was forced to study it in depth, I would be bored out of my mind, and while I may still acknowledge its aesthetic integrity (so far as my passions don't cloud my reason), my experiences with Art would forever be tainted by the experiences I had with it in high school. Same applies for English. As the Board of Studies has prescribed in the syllabus:

The aim of English Stage 6 is to enable students to understand, use, enjoy and value the English language in its various textual forms and to become thoughtful, imaginative and effective communicators in a diverse and changing society.

Well I'm sure most people would be able to value literature and the English language if it wasn't forced down their throats. For those who don't, there's nothing you can do to change them anyway. And personally, I think the idea of aiming to make students "enjoy" literature, is quite silly. Let's face it, if you're not a reader, you're not a reader. Simple as that. No amount of HSC English is going to make you enjoy it more (unless of course what you read causes you to have a major revelation on your perspectives of life, in which case, good for you).

The importance of using the English language in various textual forms and forming effective communication skills is important, fair enough, but in order to become more effective communicators, I think we need to expand beyond drawing our ideas solely from literature, or the occasional film. So back to my original point, I think a compulsory critical thinking subject needs to be developed that is relevant to a wide range of academic and social contexts; this will negate student's common sentiments of distaste and sense of redundancy about the activities they are partaking in. A general Philosophy course would be more beneficial in fostering these critical thinking skills, plus you can apply that knowledge to many areas across both the arts and sciences, which I think would appeal to a greater audience. It may still have its skeptics, but at least it widens its scope. Plus it would still test your essay skills and what not.

Really, I don't think there's anything that HSC English can do which a study of Philosophy cannot. Keep English as an elective subject, sure, bookworms like me would enjoy the specialised study. But in terms of satisfying what the Board of Studies aims to achieve through the compulsory study of English, I think expanding our analysis into the philosophical aspects of technology, science, business and other real world applications, when used in cohesion with the philosophy of literature and the Arts, will allow these aims to be achieved with much higher success.