SMH article on how shit is HSC English (2 Viewers)

[gingerwitch28]

Aren't we technically meant to have 4...? Is that what you're pointing out?

 

[jellybelly59]

from what I've heard from friends and hear say is this.
the 'good students' 90-92 hsc mark tend to rote learn memorise essays
from 93-95 the 'excellent' students tend towards having long prepared essays, but they have an extensive knowledge of their texts in regards to quotes, techniques, rubric, and a strong ability to construct an essay to cover pretty much any question.
the 96-99 students, the top 1% or so, well they're damn good at what they do- i only know of a few of them; most of them seem to have a genuine appreciation of english (not lolregurgitate band 6), and although there essays are often prepared in the same manner as the 93-95'ers, stylistically they're writing is so fluent and nuanced, that they don't come across as prepared; which is rather contradictory but there you go
my 0.02

lol dp624 got a 96 in advanced english lol and he had pre prepared essays

 

[Riffy Raffy]

I think that's the simple pinpoint problem with HSC english: Techniques. We twist meaning into them that simply doesn't exist. More often than not, alliteration/assonance/images even are about the aesthetic, and have little to do with 'linking ideas' or 'responding to socio-economic conundrums' of the day.

What? What do you mean it 'simply doesn't exist'? What objective criteria are you balancing this against? Reading into techniques may not give us certitude in the author's intentions, but its not ABOUT that. This isn't science, we aren't proving something as fact. We are giving our argument about something. We are communicating our ideas through the essay format. We might not be persuading the marker - i.e. our mark isn't based on how persuasive we are - but we are demonstrating our ability to persuade. For example, if we say Shelley's epistolary form is used to show the concept of the 'Other' by juxtaposing different narrative voices, this can be persuasive. If we say the epistolary form is used to show how Shelley believed in slavery, this isn't as persuasive, because there isn't a link between themes and techniques. But in the end, it is up to the reader of your essay to decide whether they believe in what you're saying. But depending on how great your argument is, the likelihood of them believing you increases or decreases.

And I think it's a really simplistic view to take, to say that its simply aesthetic and not deeper. Literature is never simply aesthetic. Neither is art, which is a far more aesthetics-based medium. A good artist/writer will always use techniques to demonstrate meaning...

Which is where the creative writing component comes up! Creative writing is meant to show you how powerful techniques are. Having great themes is all well and good, but until you can use proper literary techniques to express these themes in a meaningful manner, you're pretty much fucked.

 

[Clifford]

What? What do you mean it 'simply doesn't exist'? What objective criteria are you balancing this against? Reading into techniques may not give us certitude in the author's intentions, but its not ABOUT that. This isn't science, we aren't proving something as fact. We are giving our argument about something. We are communicating our ideas through the essay format. We might not be persuading the marker - i.e. our mark isn't based on how persuasive we are - but we are demonstrating our ability to persuade. For example, if we say Shelley's epistolary form is used to show the concept of the 'Other' by juxtaposing different narrative voices, this can be persuasive. If we say the epistolary form is used to show how Shelley believed in slavery, this isn't as persuasive, because there isn't a link between themes and techniques. But in the end, it is up to the reader of your essay to decide whether they believe in what you're saying. But depending on how great your argument is, the likelihood of them believing you increases or decreases.

And I think it's a really simplistic view to take, to say that its simply aesthetic and not deeper. Literature is never simply aesthetic. Neither is art, which is a far more aesthetics-based medium. A good artist/writer will always use techniques to demonstrate meaning...

Which is where the creative writing component comes up! Creative writing is meant to show you how powerful techniques are. Having great themes is all well and good, but until you can use proper literary techniques to express these themes in a meaningful manner, you're pretty much fucked.

Yes, of course literature is more than aesthetics. But the point is that writers, although certainly driving home a theme and whatnot, are not (at least the good ones) deliberately scratching their heads over which bitsy simile to use to make some grand statement. I said this before, I don't know if you read the post, but for major things, such as Shelley's epistolary form, it's valid (although I doubt she sat, perched over Bryon in Geneva going "hmm, what's the best way to express the "Other"?) but for many of the techniques extracted by teachers/tutors/markers, it's so often incidental things. For example, Bladerunner, one of my school's teachers goes "See kids, the blue light, that represents consumerism". Come on. Actually, I hate to say this, but to back my point up I'm going to harken back to old Peter Skrzynecki who spoke at our school, and upon someone asking whether "stomach bulging with strawberries" (clearly already forgotten) was a symbol for assimilation, he stared at her and said, "no, of course not, you silly girl, he had eaten many a strawberry. Someone needs to stop spiking your kielbasa"

But that's the thing, that you said about creative writing too. When someone self-consciously jams it with offically, the A-Z Handbook sanctioned techniques; it shows. It really shows. It's just like pretenious, allusion-bulging writing which you can tell the writer is sitting there, rubbing his hands together, feeling fantastically witty.

Most of the time, it's incidental. The best of times, it's incidental. Emphasis on the most, and I'm referring to the minor techniques that people nitpick over. I mean, heck, Dickinson wrote her poetry in flashes, Kubla Khan on a drug trip. They're not thinking how best to express their pantheistic values and anti-industrial views...

 

[jiratic]

Yes, of course literature is more than aesthetics. But the point is that writers, although certainly driving home a theme and whatnot, are not (at least the good ones) deliberately scratching their heads over which bitsy simile to use to make some grand statement. I said this before, I don't know if you read the post, but for major things, such as Shelley's epistolary form, it's valid (although I doubt she sat, perched over Bryon in Geneva going "hmm, what's the best way to express the "Other"?) but for many of the techniques extracted by teachers/tutors/markers, it's so often incidental things. For example, Bladerunner, one of my school's teachers goes "See kids, the blue light, that represents consumerism". Come on. Actually, I hate to say this, but to back my point up I'm going to harken back to old Peter Skrzynecki who spoke at our school, and upon someone asking whether "stomach bulging with strawberries" (clearly already forgotten) was a symbol for assimilation, he stared at her and said, "no, of course not, you silly girl, he had eaten many a strawberry. Someone needs to stop spiking your kielbasa"

But that's the thing, that you said about creative writing too. When someone self-consciously jams it with offically, the A-Z Handbook sanctioned techniques; it shows. It really shows. It's just like pretenious, allusion-bulging writing which you can tell the writer is sitting there, rubbing his hands together, feeling fantastically witty.

Most of the time, it's incidental. The best of times, it's incidental. Emphasis on the most, and I'm referring to the minor techniques that people nitpick over. I mean, heck, Dickinson wrote her poetry in flashes, Kubla Khan on a drug trip. They're not thinking how best to express their pantheistic values and anti-industrial views...

I'm going to quote an English lecturer/teacher here.

"Hsc English is tying english to a chair and beating the meaning out of it"

All hsc english is inferring incidental techniques that the composer did really intend, and then using this to tie it to some vague themes of human condition/context/society, and the rubric.

Its extremely denigrating to the composers, and the students. English is NOT about reading a text, ignoring 99% of the text to insert your 'personal' interpretation of it that is coincidentally probably on a complete tangent to the original purpose, and of course, tied indelibly with the rubric.

Many of the brightest students I know, the ones who love literature/english extension, who live and breathe the language do not get results befitting of their ability in advanced english, because it is a monstrosity; an artificial construct designed to shove pre-approved 'literature' down our collective throats.

and on the theme of incidental techniques:
Shakespeare in his infinite wisdom did not have a thought process of 'Oh i'll insert some metonymy here, and I'll reinforce that with some antilabe in that next line or two. Hmm thats not complicated enough to be cool. lets add some assonance and pleonasm. Now my work is sufficiently witty and technique ridden so it will last 500 years and become part of hsc English"

 

[Asubmarine]

Yes, of course literature is more than aesthetics. But the point is that writers, although certainly driving home a theme and whatnot, are not (at least the good ones) deliberately scratching their heads over which bitsy simile to use to make some grand statement.

Most of the time, it's incidental. The best of times, it's incidental. Emphasis on the most, and I'm referring to the minor techniques that people nitpick over....

Just to play devils advocate clifford, although getting a reading close to the composer's intention is an admirable goal, i'd argue that reading is necessarily a form of translation. Between writing and reception a text gets broken entirely into its consituent parts (each letter) and then reformed as your own understanding. There's a necessary transformation, ie the work evolves. IMO what's important is personal reception above the writer's goals as that's really the only means we have of observing literature. Anyone that's going to say "but can't the author or experts tell u how to interpret?" - well yes, but that in itself has to come of one's own understanding/interpretation.

I agree with you that HSC English gives a very methodised structure for reading, but for a great number of people this isn't necessarily a terrible thing. Understanding popular persuasive and informative techniques is always going to be important. Not necessarily as a means of appreciating literature but as an empowering skill. Being able to recognise when you're being manipulated with language is probably one of the most vital skills you can take from high school - consider the influence of the media and political/ideological/religious movements in modern society. As the only mandatory hsc subject English has some obligation to remain relevant beyond the spectrum of literary appreciation.

 

[Clifford]

Just to play devils advocate clifford, although getting a reading close to the composer's intention is an admirable goal, i'd argue that reading is necessarily a form of translation. Between writing and reception a text gets broken entirely into its consituent parts (each letter) and then reformed as your own understanding. There's a necessary transformation, ie the work evolves. IMO what's important is personal reception above the writer's goals as that's really the only means we have of observing literature. Anyone that's going to say "but can't the author or experts tell u how to interpret?" - well yes, but that in itself has to come of one's own understanding/interpretation.

I agree with you that HSC English gives a very methodised structure for reading, but for a great number of people this isn't necessarily a terrible thing. Understanding popular persuasive and informative techniques is always going to be important. Not necessarily as a means of appreciating literature but as an empowering skill. Being able to recognise when you're being manipulated with language is probably one of the most vital skills you can take from high school - consider the influence of the media and political/ideological/religious movements in modern society. As the only mandatory hsc subject English has some obligation to remain relevant beyond the spectrum of literary appreciation.

That's true, and I can definetly support that. Looking at the 2008 modules, they had one called 'telling the truth', which is essentially conflicting perspectives, only it seemed much more relevant and applicable. I don't know about you, but we did Julius Caesar, and while ultimately it did fit the whole representation/misrepresentation ideal, there was a lot of scrounging for meaning. I suppose it could be said that that's a sign of personal failing, not being able to percieve the texts relevance, but I think 'Frontline' was a much better example of it.

Also, although I hate conceding anything to a 'death of the author' viewpoint, I do believe reading undeniably involves translation. However, in the context of the HSC itself, I find this is more often than not less honest translation than deliberate misrepresentation (how conflicting perspectives is that? Relevance, whoa!) When we read through a text, and we've got our little A-range thesis snuggled warm in our minds, we reject techniques/ideas that disagree with it, and hunt and twist those that we could contort into compliance into our essays.

But this is getting wildly off topic. What I meant by my original post, is that memorisation wouldn't be such an issue, and english would become much less mechanical, if there wasnt such an emphasis on quoting directly from the text and needing to analyse it in that way. It would give free reign to the Board of Studies to ask more specific questions, as students wouldn't need in depth, copious references to access top marks, as they could respond more sincerly and thoughtfully, unhindered by the need to constantly refer to specific passages. This would also increase the capacity of intelligent students, those with a natural aptitude/appreciation of english to respond in a more varied way to a question. They wouldn't be confined by the 15 quotes they've got branded on their brain. A deeper knowledge of the texts would be required, but the memory, and thus regurgitation aspect, would be reduced.

Ultimately, I agree with you. We translate texts. Only, when answering a question, it is difficult to move beyond a narrow interpretation and only vauge engagement with the question when constained by quotes.

The obligation to study modern society and our contemporary textual landscape is also important. Apparently, wikipedia is a text next year. This is a good sign of general emphasis; if only it would be matched with a more flexible, less perscribed structure.

 

[Asubmarine]

The problem is that HSC English is not all about appreciating literature or making fair arguments. As everyone has to do it, it should be relevant to everyone. Even though I agree that most of the texts we do are strip mined and compacted into prepared essay form I think that this in itself equips students better to deal with the media manufactured society in which we live.

The fact is we not only observe crafty persuasive techniques but we utilise them ourselves to make our points seem artificially stronger. We're not forced to go through two years thinking that people construct language to suit their own agendas for no reason. As much as it may not agree with what everyone would want an idealistic English course to be, it sets students up to recognise bullshit when they see it. For discrimination based on intellect it's not ideal but for the purposes of mass education I think it's somewhat necessary.

 

[Kikkoman]

Wikipedia is already a text, in Standard and/or ESL.
Really, I like the idea of English in the classroom. I like the idea of being able to discuss texts, ideas within them, to look at what a composer does (I quite enjoy noticing filmic techniques), to see what relevance the ideas within may have in our world (or the world the text was composed in) and what it could potentially reflect on the composer. If the English exams were relaxed discussions on texts, or even viva voces, I think that would be more enjoyable.
What I don't like is having to write a 40 minute essay on that. I think textual appreciation in the classroom is great because it encourages appreciation of texts in society, then the societies themselves, and so on and so forth. Writing an essay on the text is a chore, and at best will only touch upon what it really means.
I didn't memorise anything for any English exams, simply because I found it more effective to remember a variety of examples and quotations, of which I could pick whatever was most suitable to the questions asked. I thought that this, if anything, would be better to talk about texts to the greatest extent possible, whilst still keeping true to the question.
Writing an essay itself is a valuable ability because it hones communication and expression skills. Writing essays about texts in 40 minutes, however, is horrible, because if anything, it forces you to limit your possible scope of communication regarding what you're writing about.

 

[jiratic]

I do think the exams could also be improved in structure.
its not a 'skill' to be able to write a creative wrting piece in 40 minutes. Did Edgar Allan Poe and others write their short story masterpieces in 40 minutes. No they didn't. 40 minutes forces a great deal of pre-meditation, because if you don't; then you wont have the rubric themes, and the stylistic features the markers demand to the level everyone else is preparing to.
What it SHOULD be is an extended exam-think 2 hours, with a word limit that encourages quality, and a set of criteria that makes it very difficult to pre-write. The word limit encourages quality, and reduces the pressure to write XX pages in the alloted time.

And i think having an AOS and 3 modules and 40 minute essays is too much to study in depth, and gain a rounded, appreciative understanding of literature.

I think it would be better to do TWO texts, but in great depth, exploring societal, context social, historical and personally, to gain broad insights.
These would then be tested in 1 1/2 hour exams X two, that would again have word counts to prevent pressure of regurgitation, perhaps say a word count of 1500.

The questions would be very in depth, specific, and test your understanding of the text and sort out rote learners, from people who put genuine effort in.

to re-iterate; a word counted, specific criteria creative, over a longer time period; would address rote learning, and encourage/facilitate higher learning of what should be an entertaining and rewarding subkect.

and two word counted extended essays, on two texts, that test in-depth , and broad discussion of texts, without being bogged down by the artifice of 'quote-technique-rubric; would GREATLY enhance the enjoyment of English, and sort the rote learners, from the sedulous workers.

 

[Jeee]

wat

Peter Skryznecki.
I think I spelt that correctly.
Yes. Yes, I did.

 

[Lothy]

I believe the entire High School English curriculum is a joke really.

So many novels and films have been killed to me, simply because of the monotonous deliberation and over-analysis that has been conducted. Half the time I seriously wonder why must we scrutinise every last word written. Is it just possible, just maybe, that the author didn't fill every second word with a special meaning, but rather formed their work as something to be enjoyed, not as a tool to torture (Lol)

I used to have difficulty in English from Years 8-10 as I wrote what I believed, and for some reason my marks were never too great. Going into Year 11 I changed my method of attack and just bs'd essay after essay and just wrote what the teacher's wanted to see rather then what I actually thought.

No subject which makes as conform to another's opinions or else fail should be acceptable in education.

 

[random-1005]

Just to play devils advocate clifford, although getting a reading close to the composer's intention is an admirable goal, i'd argue that reading is necessarily a form of translation. Between writing and reception a text gets broken entirely into its consituent parts (each letter) and then reformed as your own understanding. There's a necessary transformation, ie the work evolves. IMO what's important is personal reception above the writer's goals as that's really the only means we have of observing literature. Anyone that's going to say "but can't the author or experts tell u how to interpret?" - well yes, but that in itself has to come of one's own understanding/interpretation.

I agree with you that HSC English gives a very methodised structure for reading, but for a great number of people this isn't necessarily a terrible thing. Understanding popular persuasive and informative techniques is always going to be important. Not necessarily as a means of appreciating literature but as an empowering skill. Being able to recognise when you're being manipulated with language is probably one of the most vital skills you can take from high school - consider the influence of the media and political/ideological/religious movements in modern society. As the only mandatory hsc subject English has some obligation to remain relevant beyond the spectrum of literary appreciation.

it doesnt take 6 years of high school english for that, it takes 5 seconds of common sense, the one thing english should be teaching is actual writing, instead you get some massive book, read the first like 2 pages then give up cause its so shit, and then walk into the classroom and take down an essay that the teacher has put up on the board and try to memorise that, word for word, when they could actually go right back to the very basics of writing and "language theory", if there is such a thing.

lol, i went into the second top english class last year and they were wanking on about catcher and the rye, and they were saying all this shit about "post modern" crap or something, and at that time, i had never heard of it before, can someone tell me why this is??. At the time i thought it was just some fancy word that wankers use to make themselves feel important, is this still what it is used for??

 

[random-1005]

I believe the entire High School English curriculum is a joke really.

So many novels and films have been killed to me, simply because of the monotonous deliberation and over-analysis that has been conducted. Half the time I seriously wonder why must we scrutinise every last word written. Is it just possible, just maybe, that the author didn't fill every second word with a special meaning, but rather formed their work as something to be enjoyed, not as a tool to torture (Lol)

I used to have difficulty in English from Years 8-10 as I wrote what I believed, and for some reason my marks were never too great. Going into Year 11 I changed my method of attack and just bs'd essay after essay and just wrote what the teacher's wanted to see rather then what I actually thought.

No subject which makes as conform to another's opinions or else fail should be acceptable in education.

some nice alliteration there, and the sounds, they convey brutality lol

lol you cant exactly write "english is for wankers" on your exam paper, or else they give zero and an n award

 

[Asubmarine]

it doesnt take 6 years of high school english for that, it takes 5 seconds of common sense, the one thing english should be teaching is actual writing, instead you get some massive book, read the first like 2 pages then give up cause its so shit, and then walk into the classroom and take down an essay that the teacher has put up on the board and try to memorise that, word for word, when they could actually go right back to the very basics of writing and "language theory", if there is such a thing.

lol, i went into the second top english class last year and they were wanking on about catcher and the rye, and they were saying all this shit about "post modern" crap or something, and at that time, i had never heard of it before, can someone tell me why this is??. At the time i thought it was just some fancy word that wankers use to make themselves feel important, is this still what it is used for??

Everything is 5 seconds of common sense.

We do learn "language theory" it's just very narrow. This isn't really that bad though. Like how to you people discussing postmodernism was wanky, equally delving into other major literary movements would seem just as pretentious. As far as English goes we get 'the basics' in primary and early high school and then just do thematic deconstruction for the latter part of high school.

Once again being involved in memorising and sort of unethical ways of learning English has its own value in that you learn how easy it is to misinform and manipulate. Yes it's shit and annoying but there's something to learn there. But yea it's not great that you can get away with so much bs.

Also i'm struggling with what you consider "actual writing". If you mean writing essays on the spot then you really should have developed the language skills before year 12. Claiming that you haven't been taught how to develop a sentence/paragraph/essay is just fallacious, it's like doing 2u maths and demanding that they teach you how to write a simple line of working that makes sense. (5 seconds of common sense?). Beyond that I doubt that "language theory" would possibly be helpful or understandable to school kids.

 

[bored of sc]

The great irony is that by analysing the HSC English course in this much depth you are applying skills in analysis gained from the HSC English course.

 

[LordPc]

The great irony is that by analysing the HSC English course in this much depth you are applying skills in analysis gained from the HSC English course.

I'm not so sure. The reason we can talk about this situation in such depth is because we all have so much experience on the matter, 2 years of experience.

It would be equivalent to being a factory worker for 2 years. At the end of that 2 year period you talk with your fellow workers at lunch about the problems with the factory. the workers dont need to take a course in analysis for them to be able to talk about things they find wrong with the factory

 

[ronnknee]

I was just thinking the same thing when I was reading over some poems by Peter Skzsmklajfaswhfj.
The syllabus essentially destroys the text.

Peter Skrzynecki (haha haven't typed his name for over a year) himself supports the use of his poems in the HSC English course. How do I know this? He came to our school last year to discuss his poems and their relevance to Journeys. We each had to pay like $5 to listen to him in the hall. If he did this in every school each year, he would be a rich man.

However overall, I agree with the article. I myself believe that memorising a generic essay and replicating it in the exam is the way to go in the exam. It will guarantee you to get above average, and for sure, better than improvising.

 

[copeys]

However overall, I agree with the article. I myself believe that memorising a generic essay and replicating it in the exam is the way to go in the exam. It will guarantee you to get above average, and for sure, better than improvising.

I agree it will get you top marks, (I made a damn good creative story that I used from the 1/2 yearlies that has got me near top every time), but I disagree on the ability to just "dump" the essays into the exam. It is not a memorizing test, but all the generic questions do is allow the students to memorize an essay, and not create a response built on what they have learnt over the past year.

 

[untouchablecuz]

HSC English needs more critical theory. critical theory makes english interesting.

this