stormstealer27
Tashii the mentalrunaway
Agree with marcquelle LOL
I had COMPLETELY prepared myself for two. When I saw that it specified ONE in capital letters than I knew I could only write about one so I just chose which one was better for me as well. IF the Board decides that students who did two should be marked the same as those that did one than I would be so pissed off! Screw the kids who did two for not reading the question properly- and I bet there would be people out there that did see it said one and still wrote about two.I will be pretty disappointed if the Board of Studies favor those who did two texts because they cant read specific instructions which were written in capital letters. I used my initiative in the exam (imagine that) and decided which text i could better relate to the question. I have no sympathy for those who were 'caught by suprise' as their was only one text, and did two.
I agree with this.Obviously, you shouldn't try to second guess the exam. Just know your stuff, not just the bits you THINK are going to pop up in the exam in the exact format you expect.
+1. English is garbage!i agree histories provide analytical skills, understanding and free thinking. what does english do. nothing. it shouldnt be compulsory. how is being able to write a creative story improve analytical skills??+1, it's true. the only subjects that have improved my analytical skills have been maths, modern history and history extension because i don't do any sciences. english is a ridiculous waste of time.
English is probably the most significant subject in terms of being able to analyse, rationalise and reason. There is a strong reason in why you learn various perspectives. Being able to analyse and explore concepts in a feminist perspective (for example), teaches you to interpret differently and understand inconspicuous notions. IMO, you don't write essays accordingly for the sake of it. Your ability to analyse and rationalise reinforces your ability to reason and argue.You do realise that before the 2001 English wasn't a compulsory subject (in the sense of calculation of the formally known TER). That is BS. How the hell does English give you analytical skills? Problem solving in maths on the other hand would give you more of such skills.
hey guys if you thought memorising an entire fucking syllabus worth of shit and spending a year of your life (and need I remind you that you're young NOW, you don't get a second go, but here you are spending a year of your youth) focussing your knowledge and doing past papers as the fucking BoS reccommend themselves wasn't fun enough, guess what? the exams are designed to focus on completely obscure aspects of that syllabus and not the shit you've spent a year screwing your blood and guts over to memorise so that in the end you get fucked in the arse! how about that?Very spot-on response. I totally agree with Board of Studies this time. HSC is truly about applying knowledge and students must learn to read the question seriously.
sorry, i dont take orders from a guy who hasn't learned how to click the "reply with quote burrom"'hey guys if you thought memorising an entire fucking syllabus worth 'Later on in your post...'what? the exams are designed to focus on completely obscure aspects of that syllabus and not the shit you've spent a year screwing your blood and guts over to memorise 'The obsure points in the syllabus are still part of the syllabus. Perhaps people did not memorise the entire syllabus effectively then as you claim they did. Also, as the same exam is sat by everyone, everyone's on the same level, so students who beat others do it because they had better preparation, not because the question necessarily screwed some people up and deliberately favored others. If the question was truly that obscure virtually noone would have gotten it and your rank would still be about reasonably good so don't worry.
Yes! I finally figured out how to do it!sorry, i dont take orders from a guy who hasn't learned how to click the "reply with quote burrom"
And where exactly would you use that in life?English is probably the most significant subject in terms of being able to analyse, rationalise and reason. There is a strong reason in why you learn various perspectives. Being able to analyse and explore concepts in a feminist perspective (for example)
Initially, science is a very broad subject, whereas studying literature as youi call it, is very specific, hence your comparison is somewhat invalid in the sense that it does not prove English is useless. If you take the broader humanities (the arts) and compare them to the sciences, you can see either field is equally successful. Also, the amount someone earns is not necessarily the only measurement of successAnd where exactly would you use that in life?
Also explain why most high positions (eg. CEOs) are filled by people with science backgrounds? Why aren't they filled by people who have background in studying literature?
You obviously have been mistaken. HSC English isn't there to cater those who would like to pursue Literature, Arts etc. The common argument is that Mathematics and Science are used daily - for medicine, astronomy etc. However, you have failed to realise the intentions of HSC English. HSC English is the foundation for communication, and more specifically, demonstrating your ability to articulate. Mind you, we reside in a country, where English is the dominant language. HSC English establishes the ability of communication. Communication is an endless factor of humanity, and the course is there to reinforce it. The course is not there to assist the finding of an occupation including that of CEOs, Doctors, Lawyers etc. In saying that, writing essays and various other text types further reinforce your competency in communication. Establishing various ideas and arguments within essays or even introducing a creative concept in a short story, is a form of communication. Thus, these are the reasons why English is compulsory. You may not see it, but HSC English teaches and establishes the significance of communication. The highest positions in terms of occupations bear no relevance. Having a science background or a science degree is ultimately up to their discretion. As such, I can't answer that question for you, however, it is most likely the belief that science is imperative and relevant.And where exactly would you use that in life?
Also explain why most high positions (eg. CEOs) are filled by people with science backgrounds? Why aren't they filled by people who have background in studying literature?
LOL!!!!!!!!!srsly though you deserve a trophyYes! I finally figured out how to do it!
Did you read what I said before?You obviously have been mistaken. HSC English isn't there to cater those who would like to pursue Literature, Arts etc. The common argument is that Mathematics and Science are used daily - for medicine, astronomy etc. However, you have failed to realise the intentions of HSC English. HSC English is the foundation for communication, and more specifically, demonstrating your ability to articulate. Mind you, we reside in a country, where English is the dominant language. HSC English establishes the ability of communication. Communication is an endless factor of humanity, and the course is there to reinforce it.
Didn't you just say this before?The course is not there to assist the finding of an occupation including that of CEOs, Doctors, Lawyers etc. In saying that, writing essays and various other text types further reinforce your competency in communication.
And where exactly would I use that in life? I hope that you do know that scientific journals and publications are usually in dot form giving the relevant information, if you're trying to say that it applies to writing essays in science coursesEstablishing various ideas and arguments within essays or even introducing a creative concept in a short story, is a form of communication. Thus, these are the reasons why English is compulsory.
Right... you've stated this the third time now?You may not see it, but HSC English teaches and establishes the significance of communication.
Actually it does. The truth of the matter is that science orientated people don't get into high positions because for instance they know how to find the forces on an object, or how to differentiate or integrate functions. No, it's because they usually have great analytical and research skills that help advance the company that has employed them. HSC English clearly does not help with this.The highest positions in terms of occupations bear no relevance.