Would you drop English? (1 Viewer)

[Futuremedstudent]

No. But I do disagree with the exam structure of English. 3 essays in a row? Yeah right. Creative writings? Haha. Need more discussion panels that actually require critical thinking.

English is great. You'll have fun if you have a good teacher. But BoS goes about it in the wrong way.

I agree with this english is a great subject but the way bos has structured is a bit different.

 

[laura-jayne14]

I like English itself, I just don't like being told what to read!

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Tapatalk

 

[Kymren]

I love reading and read more than any other person In my school, especially proper literature, but I hate English. if possible I would drop it in a heartbeat.
I believe that if English is to be compulsory that it should not be tested externally and used in your atar unless you want it to. I also believe that general maths should be compulsory in the same way. these subjects are important and useful, but how does it help students if they really het the subject and are really bad at it, but they are really good at other subjects. The structure of the English course should also be changed from the media studies based course to a more language and literature based course.
I would drop English, but I do see some value in it.

 

[ebbygoo]

I would do it as a NON ATAR subject

 

[Soulful]

hell yes
its not even real "english" (i.e. studying sentence structures or whatever)
its literature studies
aint nobody got time foh dat

but if they made english extension 1 a separate subject (critical thinking or something) i would take that

I would immigrate to another country if English was taught the same way LOTE is taught. Learning about syntax, grammar etc is useful to some extent but not at all exciting. I'd rather be able to analyse literature than to know what the perfect progressive tense is.

 

[rumbleroar]

I would immigrate to another country if English was taught the same way LOTE is taught. Learning about syntax, grammar etc is useful to some extent but not at all exciting. I'd rather be able to analyse literature than to know what the perfect progressive tense is.

ugh sorry
analysing literature is a no go for me hahah
im afraid we must agree to disagree on this one

 

[aDimitri]

I'm with rumble on this. Analysing literature is one of the most painstaking and useless tasks that has ever been required of me. I would have no problem with English being compulsory if it achieved it's purpose (teaching students to write and communicate ideas), but it doesn't. I can write a mean essay/report for legal studies and engineering, but consistently do poorly in EA because I hate it (haven't read a text yet). If the idea is to teach us to write, then we should be able to choose what we write about.

 

[hecticated]

100% yes it is my worst subject.

 

[dim-sims]

I absolutely hate the amount of time English takes away from other subjects and I really don't enjoy it but at the moment it's one of my better subjects in terms of marks. Don't think I would have chosen it in year 11 though.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Fiction]

Nope, lots of people seem to have the misconception that Eng marking is more subjective. IMO maths working out and eng marking are pretty much the same thing. You see how it's structured, if it meets the criteria then you get a tick.

Besides, Eng is great in that there's no real ans, if you can prove it, it's right. C:

 

[Fiction]

The only problem with this is that if you cannot express your ideas coherently and prove them in the most concise way, you're not gonna get marks. It's all about the communication factor - one of which some of my peers struggle with the most (not in the speaking sense, moreso writing ability).

o3o Most people don't seem to realise that analysis is simply technique, quote, effect, link. It's like a formula - as long as you can form a somewhat logical argument with substantial evidence you're set People exaggerate eng. I mean if you compare an Eng essay with history, normally the Eng one is "prettied up" with heaps of unnecessary sophisticated words and complex sentences which are quite unnecessary IMO.

 

[QZP]

My teacher has always told me to approach English with a mathematical mindset (a good essay is analogous to an elegant proof). Nowadays I don't mind English because of this mindset but I would have dropped it if I had the choice because I'd prefer doing something I want to learn and find interesting. And for those who says English gives important skill sets in life (communication, forming an argument, etc.), a whole subject is not worth minimal benefits that could be obtained elsewhere e.g. SRC.

 

[Fiction]

My teacher has always told me to approach English with a mathematical mindset (a good essay is analogous to an elegant proof). Nowadays I don't mind English because of this mindset but I would have dropped it if I had the choice because I'd prefer doing something I want to learn and find interesting. And for those who says English gives important skill sets in life (communication, forming an argument, etc.), a whole subject is not worth minimal benefits that could be obtained elsewhere e.g. SRC.

True. I don't believe in forcing someone to do something they don't enjoy (with reason ofc) On the other hand, communication is kinda vital for pretty much any forms in our society and honestly, how much would a 15/16/17 year old know about life skills enough to make a choice that may impact on 'x' career path, relation, role?

Argubably ECs can encompass anyone with the skills a subject may give. E.g chem olympiad (depending on grade/age/level) = things they teach in high school and some uni stuff (I think? It may just be harder year 11 & 12 questions)

 

[rumbleroar]

Let's be honest though... most HSC english markers are impressed with sophisticated language. To get into the mid-high A range, you need to be writing with a flourish. Just make sure that you're not using that language incorrectly or awkwardly, or else you'll sound like an idiot and it'll cost you marks instead.

the sophistication of your language will elevate your essay, but it won't pull you through if your ideas aren't complex and well argued
if you want to strike mid-high A range you want really good ideas and substantial argument to carry your essay through. you can have the most brilliant vocab and get high b because your idea is shit

 

[alphabetafeta96]

Yes i would drop it.

 

[Fiction]

True, but mastering this structure invariably takes time with many students often struggling to maintain a coherent argument for the duration of their essay.

As inevitably with pretty much all subjects :c I just feel Eng has a particularly bad reputation among subjects when it's not all that bad.

Let's be honest though... most HSC english markers are impressed with sophisticated language. To get into the mid-high A range, you need to be writing with a flourish. Just make sure that you're not using that language incorrectly or awkwardly, or else you'll sound like an idiot and it'll cost you marks instead.

I disagree. A HSC marker as sometime between 30 seconds to 2 min 30 secs to look over an essay. If they can't understand a single thing a student is trying to say that student may not even get high bs. There's a misconception among students that you have to have an extensive vocab when you don't. It's just that a lot of students who enjoy english and are good at it, have read extensively and have thus build up a broad vocab and implemented it in their essay. It's not necessary if it does not aid in expressing or aiding your argument.
There's also the concern that if you use alot of sophisticated words, you're likely to start waffling and/or start to lose clarity. IMO complex sentences are only really useful in aiding word count (ik it's a narrow perception xD)

 

[gaylord1]

eat shit english turds

 

[Fiction]

Look at the two examples below:

1) This denunciation of materialistic pleasures invoked by the ever-expanding Industrial Age was a constituent of Transcendentalism, a philosophical movement concurrent with the second wave of Romanticism, which culminated in a similar esteeming of nature's prowess and anti-collectivism.

2) This denunciation of materialistic pleasures provoked by the Industrial Age was linked to Transcendentalism, a movement concurrent with the second wave of Romanticism which privileged nature's prowess and anti-collectivism.

The principle idea of these two sentences is the same, but the first sentence is filled with unnecessary vocabulary. The second sentence is far more succinct, but is by no means minimal and unsophisticated. It strikes a balance between clarity of expression and salient language use.

So really, it's all about utilising complex language appropriately.

And of course, it's important that you write much more simplistically in terms of language but still answering the question well with sound textual analysis and structure, however if you nail that aspect, flair will definitely assist you. But even then, as I pointed out in my previous post, if your writing is all over the place and the point you are trying to make is either wrong or simplistic then throwing in large words probably will not save you. You also need to realise that when it comes to essays, most people will have roughly similar arguments depending on the texts they're given. In that case, to differentiate yourself it becomes necessary, to some extent, to not just make a clear point that the vast majority of people of making, but to make it with some sophistication and nuance which may or may not come from language.

Exactly what I was saying, except the bit that flair will assist you. If you've answered a question in a clear sophisticated manner, flair is unnecessary. Generally Logic > flair. Flair can lead to waffling which is a big no-no.

In a single given text, the same ideas will circulate. It's inevitable. But rather than language being the differentiating factor, the strength of your analysis/ supporting evidence should be the defining feature. Language only acts as a means of communication (obviously)c:

 

[APABLD]

2 years ago, when I did the 2012 HSC, I would have said yes.

But it ended up being my second best result, so that may have been a bad idea.

 

[maddy_til]

Absolutely, in a heartbeat. Which is a real shame because up until halfway through Year 11 I really enjoyed English and was good at it. I ranked in the top ten in advanced English for year 11. As the time wore on however, it began to feel more like a chore and my teacher has not helped at all. There is a big sense of favouritism coming from my English teacher - who favours a select few over anyone else in the class and is frequently quite rude to many people in my class. I have tried my best to gain extra help from her but eventually gave up and was basically teaching myself and to no avail when I got essays back filled with pink scribble and criticism. I've since started with a tutor, who I have learnt more from than I have from my actual teacher in the past two years. I and the majority of my classmates do not agree with the teaching methods from our English teacher and in a recent assessment task felt vastly underprepared compared to the other two advanced classes. Most of the time, I feel like me and my tutor are doing all of the work that should be covered in class time, and it is really quite unfair. I know independent work should be undertaken, but only to a certain extent. I am not doing as great as I was (top twenty) but I realise it could be worse. Maybe if I had a different teacher, I may have still enjoyed English this year, but a lot of the time it feels like so much effort for so little return. So yes, unfortunately I would drop English if I had the chance. If you had asked me two years ago, I would have said no way. Now, I wouldn't even have a second thought.