New SMH Article: Changes to English/SOR leaving students vulnerable (1 Viewer)

[Aerath]

I love how this thread has turned into another one of those Maths v English threads.

 

[acemusic415]

There you have it, you've stated exactly what I am complaining about and the unfairness of the course. And yes I do have evidence, there's this thing called Facebook for instance, and these people tend to write in it, which proves alot of things.

Uhh.. I think you can.

And what direct evidence do you have that this is a skill learned from HSC English? You're proving my point that has a weak HSC English student that I am still able to make written arguments, showing that the course unnecessary in the sense of giving people the skills that it claims to, as most people would have them regardless.

I assure you that I would've been able to prove these 'arguments' without the aid of HSC English.

So you're telling me that students before 2001 (ie. when HSC English was not compulsory, in the sense of calculation to the TER) aren't good communicators?

You clearly fail to understand simple logic. You're telling me, your debating and communicating abilities are exactly the same, even before you started the course itself. I'd highly doubt that. Evidently, like I said in my previous post, the course aims for articulation in a student. A student who actually completes the course will find that their analytical, critical and communicative abilities have steadily increased. If it hasn't improved, it shows your lack of commitment to the course and ultimately it defeats the purpose of learning and simple logic. Well, if it's in your case, its pure hubris and ignorance... Also, I never emphasised that without HSC English, you wouldn't have an argument. If you read between the lines, you would have been able to comprehend that, the shape and form of your argument has been aided through your completion of the English Course.

Similarly, you've also reinforced a model example - that is Facebook. Facebook's communication is predominantly based on colloquial language. Many of my friends and family members who use Facebook score top marks in essays and ultimately English itself. It is learning how to distinguish both in today's society and it's not that hard. Those supposed 'vital grammatical errors' are frequently on purpose - well if your talking about the use of colloquialism in everyday life. In saying that, how is colloquialism relevant to occupations today - unless your occupation is to analyse internet colloquialism? Occupations today including that of Doctors, Businessmen, Lawyers, Teachers - you could say are based on formal language or language which is not necessarily colloquial. Even communicating with your colleuges at work, you don't communicate ALL in colloquial language.

Notwithstanding, those who did English in TER, probably came out as better communicators, in terms of comprehension, understanding of ideas etc. And you know what is hilarious? I haven't even started the HSC Course, and from the implications of your argument, you think my communication skills are equivalent to what it was like in year 6? ROFL!

 

[M3riJaan]

Ah yes, i was told that the questions were super vague XD

Isn't having a vague question a good thing? Doesn't it just mean that you now have a better opportunity to twiss the question to your own advantage? Because i did the exam, the Christianity question, and it asked to show how it is a 'living religious tradition'. I just used that as an opportunity to pretty much show that through each of the three major topics, the statement was true, which i loved by the way, because there is no way i could have done an entire essay on one topic.

 

[annabackwards]

I love how this thread has turned into another one of those Maths v English threads.

Aha i know, i can't help arguing though because i've just got back on BoS XD

You clearly fail to understand simple logic. You're telling me, your debating and communicating abilities are exactly the same, even before you started the course itself.I'd highly doubt that. Evidently, like I said in my previous post, the course aims for articulation in a student. A student who actually completes the course will find that their analytical, critical and communicative abilities have steadily increased. If it hasn't improved, it shows your lack of commitment to the course and ultimately it defeats the purpose of learning and simple logic. Well, if it's in your case, its pure hubris and ignorance... Also, I never emphasised that without HSC English, you wouldn't have an argument. If you read between the lines, you would have been able to comprehend that, the shape and form of your argument has been aided through your completion of the English Course.

Notwithstanding, those who did English in TER, probably came out as better communicators, in terms of comprehension, understanding of ideas etc. And you know what is hilarious? I haven't even started the HSC Course, and from the implications of your argument, you think my communication skills are equivalent to what it was like in year 6? ROFL!

Actually, my skills are the same for me. I just found my year 6 public speaking debate and i form sentences and arguments the same way.

Isn't having a vague question a good thing? Doesn't it just mean that you now have a better opportunity to twiss the question to your own advantage? Because i did the exam, the Christianity question, and it asked to show how it is a 'living religious tradition'. I just used that as an opportunity to pretty much show that through each of the three major topics, the statement was true, which i loved by the way, because there is no way i could have done an entire essay on one topic.

I have no idea, don't do SOR. But apparently it shouldn't be so vague that you have no idea what to say/know what the markers want. Usually the question should give at least some direction to what the markers are looking for but apparently this time it gave none at all.

I'm not bothered digging through this entire thread, but could someone who has a problem with the section 3 question(s) post it up and highlight what's wrong with it?

 

[possessionless]

To be honest, I hate this "We're completely innocent and the students are imbeciles" stance that the BOS is taking on this matter. We're preparing too "narrowly" for the exams, you say? Well you arrogant, retarded people up at the BOS - who the hell wrote the last ~8 years worth of papers so narrowly? If you didn't want us to prepare "narrowly" you shouldnt've fucking lead us on all these years with the past papers. What did you want us to do? Study for shit that traditionally you haven't even asked? How about a bit of warning? Huh? How about the release of questions along the same sort of lines as what you want to spring on us? It's not our fault you idiots. You don't train an athelete for a fucking marathon run then shove him in a pool at the last minute telling him he's got to swim 5000m and that it was his fault he didn't prepare for the possibility that he needed to swim as well. God, Shut up you BOS Pricks. Two more exams and one more fucking ATAR mark and I'll never speak of you guys again.

i literally loled at this post.for its lame stupidity. get a life. its a FUCKING EXAM!!! seriously everyone whinging about the sor1 exam honestly must have no life. ok whinge the afternoon after the exam but still whinging now?? WTF?? move on with your lives!

 

[Uncle]

To be honest, I hate this "We're completely innocent and the students are imbeciles" stance that the BOS is taking on this matter. We're preparing too "narrowly" for the exams, you say? Well you arrogant, retarded people up at the BOS - who the hell wrote the last ~8 years worth of papers so narrowly? If you didn't want us to prepare "narrowly" you shouldnt've fucking lead us on all these years with the past papers. What did you want us to do? Study for shit that traditionally you haven't even asked? How about a bit of warning? Huh? How about the release of questions along the same sort of lines as what you want to spring on us? It's not our fault you idiots. You don't train an athelete for a fucking marathon run then shove him in a pool at the last minute telling him he's got to swim 5000m and that it was his fault he didn't prepare for the possibility that he needed to swim as well. God, Shut up you BOS Pricks. Two more exams and one more fucking ATAR mark and I'll never speak of you guys again.

haha

HAHA

AHAHAHAHAHA.

The HSC is easy because it's easy to beat people like this one who are incredibly ignorant.

 

[jet]

I'm not bothered digging through this entire thread, but could someone who has a problem with the section 3 question(s) post it up and highlight what's wrong with it?

Ok, I only studied Christianity and Islam, so here they are:

Question 2: Christianity
"Now it came to pass, as he sat at the table with them, that he took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew him; and he vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, 'Did not our heart burn within us while he talked with us on the road, and while he opened the Scriptures to us?" -- Luke 24: 30-32, New King James Bible.

With reference to Luke's post resurrection account in the quotation, assess Christianity as a living religious tradition in the life of its adherents.

Question 4: Islam
"The ultimate guidance is the Qur'an given by God through Muhammad... The Qur'an enables humans to see and understand the guidance God has inbuilt in creation." -- H. Coward

With reference to the quotation, analyse the role played by the revelation through the Prophet in the life of Muslims.


Now, basically the syllabus is divided into 3 main subsections for each tradition: A significant person, a significant practice, and ethics. In the past, the main trend has been to either:
- assess the person's impact,
- to discuss ethical principles/teachings in the tradition (Either environmental, sexual or bioethics),
- or to analyse the impact of the practice on its adherents (or show how it demonstrates that tradition's beliefs).

You can see how vague these questions were. I have never been confident with Christianity responses (even though I'm catholic) and so I did the Islam response. I honestly am not complaining; these questions seem like excellent methods of distinguishing between the bands (i.e. Band 2 - Band 6) and will certainly place people where they belong.

 

[absorber]

You might want to check facts. Eg in the top 5 companies in Australia it is a balance of economics and science

5 companies don't prove your point mate. A balance of economics and science? Are you talking about the areas they cover, or the qualification of the CEOs? Have you actually bothered to check their qualifications? Don't think I don't realise that maths is important, but maths =/= science in my context

 

[tommykins]

i think i weep because noobs like duffman can get into uni. WAHH GIVE US WARNING WAHHHHHH

 

[tommykins]

To be honest, I hate this "We're completely innocent and the students are imbeciles" stance that the BOS is taking on this matter. We're preparing too "narrowly" for the exams, you say? Well you arrogant, retarded people up at the BOS - who the hell wrote the last ~8 years worth of papers so narrowly? If you didn't want us to prepare "narrowly" you shouldnt've fucking lead us on all these years with the past papers. What did you want us to do? Study for shit that traditionally you haven't even asked? How about a bit of warning? Huh? How about the release of questions along the same sort of lines as what you want to spring on us? It's not our fault you idiots. You don't train an athelete for a fucking marathon run then shove him in a pool at the last minute telling him he's got to swim 5000m and that it was his fault he didn't prepare for the possibility that he needed to swim as well. God, Shut up you BOS Pricks. Two more exams and one more fucking ATAR mark and I'll never speak of you guys again.

Yeah but I'm pretty sure an athelete won't whinge about the surface of the track being abit too wet/dry or there being too much wind would they? See I can smash your shit analogy too.

 

[sam5]

Lol, thanks for the offer, but I'm not doing any sciences for the HSC. Hope you get the band six you want though : )

well if u dont do any science, how can u call chemistry "as real as santa clause". Sure, some of the concepts are a little simplified, but its not as if when u go to uni and do chem u will go "holy shit, thats wrong, cos thats not what i learned in hsc chem".

 

[annabackwards]

Ok, I only studied Christianity and Islam, so here they are:

Question 2: Christianity
"Now it came to pass, as he sat at the table with them, that he took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew him; and he vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, 'Did not our heart burn within us while he talked with us on the road, and while he opened the Scriptures to us?" -- Luke 24: 30-32, New King James Bible.

With reference to Luke's post resurrection account in the quotation, assess Christianity as a living religious tradition in the life of its adherents.

Question 4: Islam
"The ultimate guidance is the Qur'an given by God through Muhammad... The Qur'an enables humans to see and understand the guidance God has inbuilt in creation." -- H. Coward

With reference to the quotation, analyse the role played by the revelation through the Prophet in the life of Muslims.


Now, basically the syllabus is divided into 3 main subsections for each tradition: A significant person, a significant practice, and ethics. In the past, the main trend has been to either:
- assess the person's impact,
- to discuss ethical principles/teachings in the tradition (Either environmental, sexual or bioethics),
- or to analyse the impact of the practice on its adherents (or show how it demonstrates that tradition's beliefs).

You can see how vague these questions were. I have never been confident with Christianity responses (even though I'm catholic) and so I did the Islam response. I honestly am not complaining; these questions seem like excellent methods of distinguishing between the bands (i.e. Band 2 - Band 6) and will certainly place people where they belong.

Ah, everything is much clearer. Thanks for taking the time to type all that up, Jetblack

From what i see, the SOR course/questions is somewhat like modern. Sure there is a trend to ask general questions in modern (or in SOR's case specific questions) but they sometimes may ask specific questions in modern (or general questions for SOR).

As such, I see no reason to whinge about the questions, they seem fine to me. There's always a trend, but that doesn't mean BoS has to follow it so long as it sticks to the syllabus which it appeared to do in this case.

People who are still complaining should get a life; you obviously didn't know your stuff. Sure everyone including the smart kids at my school complained that the question was vague unlike other exams etc etc but they still attempted the question. Those idiots who just got up and refused to do the exam deserve a 0 for not even trying.

 

[cutemouse]

You clearly fail to understand simple logic. You're telling me, your debating and communicating abilities are exactly the same, even before you started the course itself. I'd highly doubt that.

Indeed they are more or less the same.

Okay, there may be a subtle difference. But the difference is so insignificant that it's like weighing yourself and then cutting off your eyebrow and weighing yourself again.

A student who actually completes the course will find that their analytical, critical and communicative abilities have steadily increased. If it hasn't improved, it shows your lack of commitment to the course and ultimately it defeats the purpose of learning and simple logic. Well, if it's in your case, its pure hubris and ignorance...

Excuse me? But do you know who I am, or are you in a position to be commenting on my academic progress in the course? Have you ever seen my actual marks? Who are you trying to convince?

Also, I never emphasised that without HSC English, you wouldn't have an argument. If you read between the lines, you would have been able to comprehend that, the shape and form of your argument has been aided through your completion of the English Course.

Yeah... writing about how Julius Caesar and analysing how different texts portray him has really affected by arguments... Similarly writing about the ideas about belonging in Romulus my father has really shaped my arguments. And we can say this about creative writing and the rest of the topics in the course.

Similarly, you've also reinforced a model example - that is Facebook. Facebook's communication is predominantly based on colloquial language.

I didn't base my argument just on FB. I also have seen their responses. I've even asked some of those people at one stage to write an article about some events to be published in a school magazine. It was so badly written that I had to basically rewrite it, incorperating what they were trying to express.

Also, I don't consider errors such as 'his blind in one eye' (an example of such person's FB comments) to be simple colloquial language. I don't really consider writing 'your' instead of 'you're' to be colloquial either, although that is subjective. It is just poor grammar.

Notwithstanding, those who did English in TER, probably came out as better communicators, in terms of comprehension, understanding of ideas etc.

Probably? And you were stating before that I should use real evidence?

And you know what is hilarious? I haven't even started the HSC Course, and from the implications of your argument, you think my communication skills are equivalent to what it was like in year 6? ROFL!

You know, you're communication skills aren't that great, so if I were you, I'd get off my high horse .

5 companies don't prove your point mate. A balance of economics and science? Are you talking about the areas they cover, or the qualification of the CEOs? Have you actually bothered to check their qualifications? Don't think I don't realise that maths is important, but maths =/= science in my context

As far as I know, in most university courses you usually do a science or two with your math degree as they're quite inter related. Science is also a broad subject, I believe that it covers Maths in a sense.

And, I think you fail to realise that it is a well known fact that high positions are indeed usually filled by those who have a science background.

Also, I'd like to ask this question for to both of you. Who do you think would be able to find a solution and the actual cause for global warning? (A) A HSC English Teacher (or say a student that achieved an extremely high mark in their course) (B) Someone who has done a science degree AND has not done HSC English (C) Someone who has done a science degree AND has done a HSC English. (D) (B) and (C)

 

[Aerath]

Excuse me? But do you know who I am, or are you in a position to be commenting on my academic progress in the course? Have you ever seen my actual marks? Who are you trying to convince?

I love how jm01 always finds a way to work his 'actual marks' and 'academic progress in the course' into any argument.

Edit: Not saying I agree/disagree with his views or anything. On the issue of Maths, Science, English, whatever being compulsory, I am staunchly 'on the fence'.

 

[tommykins]

love having jm01 on ignore list

 

[jet]

Also, I'd like to ask this question for to both of you. Who do you think would be able to find a solution and the actual cause for global warning? (A) A HSC English Teacher (or say a student that achieved an extremely high mark in their course) (B) Someone who has done a science degree AND has not done HSC English (C) Someone who has done a science degree AND has done a HSC English. (D) (B) and (C)

I'm not trying to enter this argument, because I just don't want to, but I thought it might be interesting to note that in terms of CSP funding for university degrees, Science, Maths and Statistics are now more heavily funded because they are considered 'National Priorities'.

 

[Duffman0]

You guys are fucking retarded and completely missed the point. I wasn't whinging about how the exam was hard - I was saying that if the board springs a question that is ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT to the ones it's written before, it should EXPECT people to go "WTF" in the exam.

Seriously? Fuck you guys. Learn to read.

 

[cutemouse]

I love how jm01 always finds a way to work his 'actual marks' and 'academic progress in the course' into any argument.

... When did I do this before?

 

[annabackwards]

You guys are fucking retarded and completely missed the point. I wasn't whinging about how the exam was hard - I was saying that if the board springs a question that is ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY DIFFERENT to the ones it's written before, it should EXPECT people to go "WTF" in the exam.

Seriously? Fuck you guys. Learn to read.

As i said before:

From what i see, the SOR course/questions is somewhat like modern. Sure there is a trend to ask general questions in modern (or in SOR's case specific questions) but they sometimes may ask specific questions in modern (or general questions for SOR).

BoS tells you that the exam will test you on the syllabus and never said we anything along the lines of the question will have these restrictions blah blah. The question was based on the syllabus.

Of course some people will be surprised if the questions are different to other years, but BoS were within their rights so you guys can stop with the complaining.

 

[jet]

BoS tells you that the exam will test you on the syllabus and never said we anything along the lines of the question will have these restrictions blah blah. The question was based on the syllabus.

Of course some people will be surprised if the questions are different to other years, but BoS were within their rights so you guys can stop with the complaining.

Must spread rep. Lol.