The HSC - A series of driving tests... (1 Viewer)

[Matrocksmysocks]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the outcomes-based system for the HSC... and how it stinks.
Our Headmaster described the HSC as being like 'a series of driving tests' - where if you say what they want to hear, you get marks.
It's not a test of excellence, where they best essay gets 50 (or lower if the quality isn't there), and all others are judged off that one.
For example, a guy in my English class wrote an exceptionally good essay for Critical Study of Texts, pulling to pieces certain critics crtiques whilst espousing his own view.
And yet, because he did not write that the views he dismissed were still worthy as critiques (BOS requirement) - because that would be entirely contradictory to his exceptional argument - he was docked about 4 marks.
I mean seriously, get a grip.
I understand that the outcomes-based system promotes equality - ie, it lets more than one person attain full marks, and I can understand the point of this - but it means that you have to learn to 'play the game' - not writing to your full potential, not writing interestingly - but writing so that people who sit on the BOS hear what they want to.

Discuss.

 

[yoakim]

yeah, it is about your full potential in a way, but i don't understand the fact that 'we want to hear what we want to hear"

 

[littlewing69]

The HSC is a whole load of bullshit and bureaucracy which is designed to prepare us for the enormous quantities of the same which exists in the corporate world.

 

[Matrocksmysocks]

When I say we have to say what they want to hear, it's not about writing what you want to on a certain topic. Take Critical Study of Texts. It's not 'write an essay discussing the views espoused by several critics', it's 'write an essay discussing why the views of critics are valid'.
Take English as a whole. It's about inferring meaning that the BOS says is there and telling them about it. In my past couple of exams, it's not about writing about the actual poem, or the actual play, or the actual novel - it's about what things can be inferred from the text - not the text itself. I can bullshit an essay and talk about a critic's view on Othello, whilst barely referring to the play being an archetypal Shakesperean Tragedy - and get full marks. What happened to close examination of the text? What happened to looking at how language features explore and develop tone and mood?
Take French. According to the syllabus, you should be able to speak fluently, aurally understand, write clearly and read comprehensively. That's all well and good. When you come to sit an exam, it's not about being fluent at French, it's about rote learning off the types of question the BOS set. It's not about being able to do in French what, theoretically, you shoudl be doing in English and analysing texts, not about being able to write something as polished as an essay, or being able to hold a solid, intellectual conversation.
Take Latin. Rote learn off 400 lines of literature and be able to rechurn it in the exam. Tiny percentage of Unseen Translation. No English - Latin.
Take Art. The artwork to get 50/50 isn't the artwork which displays the most technical skill, isn't the artwork which creates the most vibrant aesthesis within the viewer - it's being able to appropriate someone else's artwork, or do something entirely avant garde.
Everything comes down to dotting the 'Is' and crossing the 'Ts' - the certain 'Is' and 'Ts' that the BOS wants you to dot and cross.

 

[airie]

^I don't think that we should do whatever we do in English in foreign languages too, except maybe the Extension courses. You can't be expected to be able to critically analyse a piece of text to the level that you do for English, when it's in a language that you've only learnt for the past four years or so.

 

[littlewing69]

^I don't think that we should do whatever we do in English in foreign languages too, except maybe the Extension courses. You can't be expected to be able to critically analyse a piece of text to the level that you do for English, when it's in a language that you've only learnt for the past four years or so.

It's very possible to critically analyse a foreign text (to a less sophisticated degree), but it shouldn't be the focus of the assessment because that isn't what's being studied. In German, German skills should be assessed. Simple as that.

 

[Matrocksmysocks]

This is the point - you're right, for German, German skills should be assessed.
In English, how do you assess your English skills?
The same should be for German or French or any foreign language.
We should be assessed on our ability to do the same things we do in English, in those other languages. You're learning to speak (speak referring to all facets of communication) German, or French, or whatever language you choose. How do you deign whether you can speak that foreign language? You do the same things in that language as you do in your mother tongue. You should not be learning to pass an exam.
Naturally I'm referring to Continuers courses.

 

[littlewing69]

This is the point - you're right, for German, German skills should be assessed.
In English, how do you assess your English skills?
The same should be for German or French or any foreign language.
We should be assessed on our ability to do the same things we do in English, in those other languages. You're learning to speak (speak referring to all facets of communication) German, or French, or whatever language you choose. How do you deign whether you can speak that foreign language? You do the same things in that language as you do in your mother tongue. You should not be learning to pass an exam.
Naturally I'm referring to Continuers courses.

And this is why I learn 500x more German speaking to German chicks on exchange at our school. And the scenery isn't bad either heheh.

 

[Matrocksmysocks]

You see, doing things properly has its kicks!
It comes down to the purity of the subject. Having a rubric telling you what you have to say to get all the points is vocational assessment - not pure.

 

[littlewing69]

You see, doing things properly has its kicks!
It comes down to the purity of the subject. Having a rubric telling you what you have to say to get all the points is vocational assessment - not pure.

indeed. if anything, i learn useful stuff at school not because of HSC, but in spite of it.

 

[K8lovesthabeach]

Yeah... I foud that.. A lot of "what's your opinion on..." questions are given lower marks if you disagree on what you have learnt. Even if its a good piece marks seem to be deducted because you show ideas different to that of what the marker thinks.

 

[basketcase89]

Yeah... I foud that.. A lot of "what's your opinion on..." questions are given lower marks if you disagree on what you have learnt. Even if its a good piece marks seem to be deducted because you show ideas different to that of what the marker thinks.

Not really. If you can back up your opinion with relevant quotes from the texts you studied there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[jackono]

I guess it all depends on how strict the teacher wants to be. We had an assignment about the validity of "The Quest" as explained by Campbell, and it was a requirement that we supported it. However, I thought it was utter bullshit and decided to compose an argument against the theory. Luckily, my teacher loved it and rewarded me for going against the requirement, despite not achieving any of the outcomes. Lucky for me eh?

 

[m0ofin]

I don't understand what this thread is about. Guess it is a bit late. lol.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Playing the HSC, write what the markers want to read, and you'll get the marks, that sort of thing. And stop being invisible m0ofin, I want to know when you're on

 

[m0ofin]

Or you could somehow bribe the marker. Sounds good, mind you don't get caught.

 

[FranzFerdinand]

Playing the HSC, write what the markers want to read, and you'll get the marks, that sort of thing. And stop being invisible m0ofin, I want to know when you're on

such a poor system. well, we got to give the markers credit because it does get boring marking a thousand papers which all look the same.