SMH article on how shit is HSC English (1 Viewer)

[stressmonster]

I actually wrote a letter in to the SMH about this (not sure if they'll publish it though). I completely agree that writing decent responses 'off the cuff' is more or less impossible due to the time constraints involved.

If I had 15 minutes, I would probably be fine to write a spontaneous essay. However, I don't have 15 minutes - I have more like 3 in the reading time. That is not enough to concoct something that is going to be of quality and will reflect the bitchload of work I have done. Under exam conditions, with the pressure of the circumstances, it is just too much to ask.

.

I agree that it is hard to write a well structured essay on the fly so preparation is essential. However I think the assumption that needs to be challenged is that the student is preparing their own essays and hence their writing in the exam is a direct reflection of their own skill/knowledge. How many people do you know who have had their tutor/parent/relative prepare the work for them and their input was just regurgitating and minor tweaking in the exam?

 

[evilflic]

lol yeah I see what your point is, I just thought that it was a bit of a generalisation to make. Mine's a top 20 school too, and so making comparisons with my own cohort is always a bit different to making them with the state as a whole. Most people at my school, as far as I'm aware, just rote learn essays and it seems to work for them. I just do a couple of practice ones, and rote learn some quotes/techniques/themes etc. It's true that everyone would be writing better essays if given more time to plan and write, but I think part of having that time restraint is to separate out the people who have done a bit of planning beforehand and have kinda worked out what they'll write.
But whatever, either way, HSC english is still fucked. Sure, it teaches you analytical skills, but so do the sciences and humanities. Yes, it ensures you're literate, but who isn't (okay, slight generalisation) by the end of year 10 anyway?

And yes, GT03, I'm aware that I don't know my actual internal mark, but I'm ranked 3rd, so I don't think it'll go down. Well, hopefully it won't...

 

[murphyad]

I agree that it is hard to write a well structured essay on the fly so preparation is essential. However I think the assumption that needs to be challenged is that the student is preparing their own essays and hence their writing in the exam is a direct reflection of their own skill/knowledge. How many people do you know who have had their tutor/parent/relative prepare the work for them and their input was just regurgitating and minor tweaking in the exam?

I totally agree. You've just hit upon the big 'what if' of my argument: what if tutors etc prepare the responses?

When this happens it should be frowned upon, and I think this is mostly what complicates the issue.

 

[jellybelly59]

wow this article and some of its comments demonises tutoring institutions... my tutor and all the ones i've been to before refuse to write an essay (in saying that i've never asked them ) - they always outline that they can check your essay and see where it is inadequate and you fix it up yourself.

A large section of the student body doing the hsc rote learns their essays and tailors it to the question - like Clintmyster said it's a skill in itself and mastering it is dead hard requiring heaps of practice - the system is set up to push students towards that direction. I myself had a pre prepared essay. What i just strongly dislike is that the board of studies failed to have the conviction to crackdown on the system they set out to beat. There are 3 type of people who didn't answer the question:

1. those who foolishly decided not to read the question,
2. those who decided i have two related and i cbf to change my essay (and trust me there are these people)
3. those who said hey im going to do two related texts cause i have extra time and i don't really care about the requirements of the question - and please don't give me this 'they didn't use a restricting adverb' shit cause you can't beat something that's in capital letters.

All of the people regardless did not follow implicit and explicit instructions - again like i've posted on a previous thread. I'm not even up for penalising them, just don't read the second related text. If it's as indepth as a person with one related text by all means give them full marks and if it lacks cohesiveness or depth because of this by all means don't let them into the 16-20 range.

From the poll on this forum approximately a 1/3 of the student body did two related texts but the board is saying screw the other 2/3 of the people let's read both related texts. If they are going to mark two related texts then next time in 2010 don't set a criterion, don't give us this self righteous bullshit that we are cracking down on pre prepared essays - come on board of studies have a bit of a spine.

 

[Arsey-Darcy]

Ahahahaha the best bit is when anyone suggests our education system has become "postmodern," what does that mean, postmodernism was a movement in art, in particular architecture, literature and theatre, how the fuck canyou say our education system is "postmodern."

 

[x.Exhaust.x]

The average students pay lip service to the question in the introduction and conclusion of their essay while blithely sticking to the original script for the rest.

Hahaha average student? Fucking lol. It's more so the smarter students who "pay lip service" to memorise a slab of evidence of quotes, effects and links to belonging in the body, topic sentences, key syllabus rubric terms and a conclusion. That's all you need for a decent result high band 5/low band 6 result, not some critical 'thinking-on-the-spot' bullshit about the text whilst being "imaginative".

In summary, prepared responses adapted to the question ftw.

 

[LordPc]

wow this article and some of its comments demonises tutoring institutions... my tutor and all the ones i've been to before refuse to write an essay (in saying that i've never asked them ) - they always outline that they can check your essay and see where it is inadequate and you fix it up yourself.

A large section of the student body doing the hsc rote learns their essays and tailors it to the question - like Clintmyster said it's a skill in itself and mastering it is dead hard requiring heaps of practice - the system is set up to push students towards that direction. I myself had a pre prepared essay. What i just strongly dislike is that the board of studies failed to have the conviction to crackdown on the system they set out to beat. There are 3 type of people who didn't answer the question:

1. those who foolishly decided not to read the question,
2. those who decided i have two related and i cbf to change my essay (and trust me there are these people)
3. those who said hey im going to do two related texts cause i have extra time and i don't really care about the requirements of the question - and please don't give me this 'they didn't use a restricting adverb' shit cause you can't beat something that's in capital letters.

All of the people regardless did not follow implicit and explicit instructions - again like i've posted on a previous thread. I'm not even up for penalising them, just don't read the second related text. If it's as indepth as a person with one related text by all means give them full marks and if it lacks cohesiveness or depth because of this by all means don't let them into the 16-20 range.

From the poll on this forum approximately a 1/3 of the student body did two related texts but the board is saying screw the other 2/3 of the people let's read both related texts. If they are going to mark two related texts then next time in 2010 don't set a criterion, don't give us this self righteous bullshit that we are cracking down on pre prepared essays - come on board of studies have a bit of a spine.

I agree with this, particularly the part in bold

being asked to only refer to one related text was clearly an attempt by the BoS to bring down those who dont know enough and are simply going to write out a pre prepared essay. but if then dont mark this section strictly, then they are not only failing to follow through, but encouraging the wrong type of behaviour.

if those people who just wrote down a pre prepared essay with 2/3 related texts do just as well as those who only used 1 related text then all it will do is tell the next cohort of hsc students that the BoS is weak and that you can ignore the question, throw out a pre prepared essay and ace the subject.

 

[waller]

fuck they're gonna pull some shifty shit for 2010 hsc i bet

 

[evilflic]

Hahaha average student? Fucking lol. It's more so the smarter students who "pay lip service" to memorise a slab of evidence of quotes, effects and links to belonging in the body, topic sentences, key syllabus rubric terms and a conclusion. That's all you need for a decent result high band 5/low band 6 result, not some critical 'thinking-on-the-spot' bullshit about the text whilst being "imaginative".

In summary, prepared responses adapted to the question ftw.

I disagree. Prepared responses aren't as effective as learning quotes/evidence etc. as points and then, during the exam, specifically mentally selecting ones which contribute to a solid answer to the question.

 

[evilflic]

I agree with this, particularly the part in bold

being asked to only refer to one related text was clearly an attempt by the BoS to bring down those who dont know enough and are simply going to write out a pre prepared essay. but if then dont mark this section strictly, then they are not only failing to follow through, but encouraging the wrong type of behaviour.

if those people who just wrote down a pre prepared essay with 2/3 related texts do just as well as those who only used 1 related text then all it will do is tell the next cohort of hsc students that the BoS is weak and that you can ignore the question, throw out a pre prepared essay and ace the subject.

+1 for supporting common sense and fairness. And seeing the actuality of the BOS's fucked-up-ness.

 

[jellybelly59]

I disagree. Prepared responses aren't as effective as learning quotes/evidence etc. as points and then, during the exam, specifically mentally selecting ones which contribute to a solid answer to the question.

Technically a pre-prepared essay does exactly what a person who has quotes/evidence has - quotes, effect and link to a theme/idea. Well for the majority of people who have a prepared essay they just cut out the sections of their essays that don't have anything to do with the question. Hence doing the exact same thing as you're suggesting - providing a solid answer to the question by mentally selecting quotes/evidence.

 

[Fish Tank]

My english teacher told me this at the beginning of Year 11 and repeated it beginning of this term: "There is education, and there is the HSC. Give them what they want, and you will get the marks".

fuck they're gonna pull some shifty shit for 2010 hsc i bet

Yeh it's not looking good for 2010 HSC people

 

[jellybelly59]

fuck they're gonna pull some shifty shit for 2010 hsc i bet

nah if they keep going the way they are now you can write four related texts when they ask for one and you'll still be marked in the same manner.

 

[daveboy]

To be honest, I think the best part of english advanced is the creative writing because it's the only part where you needn't regurgitate techniques.

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.

Personally, I did 4 unit. I hated english advanced - the only good module was Bladerunner/Frankenstein because you were talking about THEMES. I think texts are written around themes, deep, personal thought from the composer - not little specific examples of a metaphor etc. to encompass a whole text.

If they simply moved away from technique based/quote vomiting, the whole course would be much more tolerable. There would be less need for memorising and more for taking a question as it comes with a deep knowledge of the text. I love reading, writing and language, but HSC english really does crucify it. Just look at 'Conflicting Perspectives' - I've never inferred so much that wasn't there in my life.

Honestly, to those who only do advanced and despise it, you should have done 4 unit, then just allowed advanced not to count. Both extension 1 english and especially, especially extension 2 (although the marking's a little po-mo) allow you much more free reign to think and respond to a question. It enabled you to appreciate the texts, most of which are actually quite good (except for Peter Skryznecki poetry; how is it fair that some suffer through that, whilst others get Dickinson?)

TO THE BOARD OF STUDIES - Throw out techniques, get us to respond to themes/ideas and actual thought!

I can see where you're coming from, but I think that English would fall flat if it didn't have the techniques component. Wouldn't it just be an "identify" course? Identify these themes, identify links to context. Basically anyone in the state can do that, and, bar fluency and contextual depth, I think everyone would be writing basically the same essay. How many people didn't walk into Paper 2 knowing they'd write about humanity and/or nature and/or science for Frankenstein/Blade Runner.

I completely agree though, that little snippets of example shouldn't be construed as some whole hearted response to the intense blend of social, economic, political concerns of the time, and personally, I found myself never writing about "emotive language" or "simile" or "metaphor" because they were flimsy little aesthetic pieces of nothing that should go without saying. But I don't think anyone can deny the significance of say, Shelley's epistolary form, the chiastic structure, Scott's reliance on noir, etc. So (for me at least) to get rid of techniques completely would make it feel really incomplete. Also, now that the culture of memorisation has been established, I think it'll be really hard to get rid of. I would've memorised stuff anyway if we didn't have to care about techniques, and actually, I probably would've talked about techniques anyway too (but structural ones).

Although the techniques thing is as bad as it is, maybe it should just stay. I think Duchamp was right. Art's only half there. The other half is what the individual audience member brings to it. We'll never know what someone intended with some phrase that we can identify a technique in, but maybe that's the point. I enjoyed not knowing things, I enjoyed trying to figure them out. In any case, it's all over for us now, and although it was a bitch alot of the time, I don't think I would've had it any other way. I took alot out of it (and it was too fun complaining about English all the time). I'll miss it.

Also, Extension 1, though still a memorise-fest, was pretty cool. I used to think sci-fi was a bullshit joke, but now I kinda like it. (Regret not doing Ext. 2.) Memorising comes down to a time issue. Constructing good sentences means thinking, and thinking means taking time. BOS should totally do an Ext. 2 style thing (maybe not as intense) for Adv. (yes, for essays) because that way, people get to really exhibit their best writing abilities. How many first drafts are written in 40 mins? How many authors publish their first drafts? How the fuck can the Board of Fuck expect us to write something amazing in 40 mins!?

(Plagiarism is quite easily discovered, isn't it?)

 

[evilflic]

Technically a pre-prepared essay does exactly what a person who has quotes/evidence has - quotes, effect and link to a theme/idea. Well for the majority of people who have a prepared essay they just cut out the sections of their essays that don't have anything to do with the question. Hence doing the exact same thing as you're suggesting - providing a solid answer to the question by mentally selecting quotes/evidence.

But if you write a pre-prepared essay, you're restricting yourself in terms of depth. When I say 'evidence' and 'quotes', I mean 2-3 pages worth per text.

 

[zaefr]

Also, if you don't learn your prepared essays and everyone else does, lets face it you're going to be left behind. There are very few people that just go with quotes memorised as opposed to an essay and get the best mark.
Then again, whats wrong with adapting a memorised essay to questions? Thats a skill in itself that is darn hard to master at first. Provided that the question has some element of a personal response, I don't see much of an issue with that.

To be honest, I think the best part of english advanced is the creative writing because it's the only part where you needn't regurgitate techniques.

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.

Personally, I did 4 unit. I hated english advanced - the only good module was Bladerunner/Frankenstein because you were talking about THEMES. I think texts are written around themes, deep, personal thought from the composer - not little specific examples of a metaphor etc. to encompass a whole text.

Honestly, to those who only do advanced and despise it, you should have done 4 unit, then just allowed advanced not to count. Both extension 1 english and especially, especially extension 2 (although the marking's a little po-mo) allow you much more free reign to think and respond to a question. It enabled you to appreciate the texts, most of which are actually quite good (except for Peter Skryznecki poetry; how is it fair that some suffer through that, whilst others get Dickinson?)

TO THE BOARD OF STUDIES - Throw out techniques, get us to respond to themes/ideas and actual thought!

plus fkn 1000000000 to u both + repped

btw clifford are u sure about only ext 1 and 2 counting as ur best 2 units of english? i thought advanced/standard/esl would count regardless cause that would be the levelling ground for ATAR calculations and wat not

but yea, i totally agree with you both. and clint is def right, i mean if we were to get a random off the street who's read hamlet only once, how the hell would he be able to synthesise a 20/20 response on the spot in 40 mins, or write a beautifully structured creative in that same amount of time

compared to...
people who get the essay question in class and write/type the generic essay/creative
send it to their teacher/tutor/other ppl to check
receive feedback on what to improve/what works
take most of the comments into consideration and implement corrections
send it to ppl again to check
use it in the assessment
send it to more ppl again + prob ask more questions
use it in the trials
get more feedback
use it in the hsc

that would imply you've spent close to maybe 10 hours editing time, and thats just for one piece of work
i dont do 3u english, but i cant begin to imagine or fathom how much work goes into top students' works.....

TL;DR:

In response to the recent controversy, its president, Tom Alegounarias, said the HSC was ''not a memorising test. The HSC is about applying knowledge.

no, its both whether you like it or not. and it always will be. go water down the chem/physics/maths/other subject syllabuses even more from 2002, and then tell us to "apply knowledge"

/rant

 

[chantszhin]

Man who cares, english is over! My life has just begun : ]

 

[iMiraj]

I love what BoS has done here. For lateral thinkers like me, a prepared essay doesnt work as well as something I've got ideas for, but haven't shaped it into a response (yet).

The whole "prepared essay" thing is bs.. seriously, a year 7 could rewrite an essay from the top of their head, just let them do excellerated English and 1/5th of their hsc is done, in year 7 :|

Pulling ideas from your sources and amending them to suit the question is so much more effective both as a learning process, and measure of your capability.

Weeds out the shit schools that give easy assesment tasks and get their students to spend all year memorising an essay

And to the guy that said water down the science subjects, well sadly there isnt really any other way to make the science questions work.
Discuss the ethics associated with biomass. Include contextual references to famous scientists and refer to an aspect of ONE core topic that relates to fossil fuels. (20 Marks)

 

[x.Exhaust.x]

I disagree. Prepared responses aren't as effective as learning quotes/evidence etc. as points and then, during the exam, specifically mentally selecting ones which contribute to a solid answer to the question.

I disagree. Personally, I know people who memorise quotes, techniques, effects, and links that perform 'relatively' well. I use to learn quotes/evidence as points too back in Year 10. Since adopting the method of preparing a full generic response and cutting out the unncessary bits whilst adapting it to the question, I have improved from a 68th rank in Year 10 to 7th in Year 12. Not to sound arrogant or anything, but the people who simply learn/quotes evidence and walk into the exam room are pressured due to time constraints and "most" of them don't do as well I'd expect them to (since they have an excellent understanding of the text by debating in class).

If there was a study on whether the student who adapted quotes/evidence has an "effective" chance of scoring higher marks than a prepared generic response, then I'd endorse your comment. Otherwise, I don't believe that learning quotes as "dotpoints" is as helpful as preparing a generic response. But in light of your comment, people have their methods and ways that work for them.

 

[Amogh]

spend all year memorising an essay

Wth?