I've read a lot of the posts in this thread, and I thought it was about time I registered and contributed my own opinion to this discussion.
Firstly, in my view, the short answer is no. English should not be compulsory in Year 11 or 12, and it should not count towards a student's ATAR.
I have no problem with the way English works up to and including Year 10, and I think it is fine that English is compulsory in those years, because maths, history, geography and science are too, and this gives a student a broad base of subjects to base their selections on for the HSC and ultimately at university (if they choose to go there). The marks achieved in these years have no bearing on your final HSC mark, so I don't have a problem with it being compulsory up to the end of Year 10.
However, I don't think it is fair for students in Year 11 and 12 to be forced to do a subject that they may not necessarily be good at and that may not be relevant to their future. The whole point of being able to choose your subjects is that you can specialise in areas that you are good at and can maximise your mark this way. English being compulsory completely undermines this objective.
English has always struck me as being a very subjectively marked course. This becomes very clear when it is compared to something like Chemistry or Physics. In these subjects, there are clear marking guidelines that show EXACTLY what a student needs to write in order to gain a certain number of marks. When marking the HSC, markers use these guidelines to ensure marking is done fairly and objectively. However, this kind of certainty never exists in English. As a student, I never have much of an idea of how I will go in an English exam, because there are no exact guidelines and no objective marking criteria governing how many marks I get. It is purely a subjective judgement that relies on the marker's opinion and impression of a student's work based on their idea of what a good or bad response is.
I have many classmates who say they struggle with English because they find it difficult to write quickly. While writing that sentence I noticed just how insanely unfair that sounds! How can an exam be a judgement of what a student knows if success is dependent on the ability to write quickly? English exams are notorious for their extremely strict time limits that make it difficult for students to show the marker what they know, and while time limits do exist in other subjects, they don't impose the same urgency on students and are generally more lenient.
I find it difficult to understand how the Board of Studies can justify making English compulsory when so much of a student's success relies on subjective marking and the ability to write quickly.
Many students struggle with English because it often lacks logical conclusions. In Maths, for example, there are rules and laws that have been proven to be true, and cannot be broken. These logical 'building blocks' allow students to answer questions with certainty and show conclusively that something is or is not true. In English, conclusions are drawn much more freely and without the rigidity that is present in a lot of other subjects, making it difficult to show that something is or is not true. Two people can have an entirely different idea of what is actually true, and again, this makes the marking process very subjective, as a marker may not agree with what a student says and therefore not award as many marks for it.
I understand that some students prefer this method and find it easier to do well in English than in maths and science subjects. However, an unfair situation arises from this, because while these students can simply elect not to do subjects such as Maths and Science, students who find the lack of logic in English baffling cannot simply elect to drop it. How is it fair that some students are immediately advantaged over others because they prefer one subject over another? It is just not fair to force students to do a subject that may compromise the mark they get at the end of the course, which ultimately will influence the path they take after leaving school. What is the point of being able to choose your subjects if you can't maximise your mark by dropping subjects you are not good at?
I have heard the argument that English is compulsory because it serves as a benchmark for comparing students. Firstly, this is unfair, for the reasons I have already mentioned, but secondly it is flawed and does not provide an accurate assessment of a student's ability. This system assumes that the same set of students doing English and Physics (for example) will perform in a similar way. This is not true, because they are completely different subjects and success in one does not mean success in the other, and vice versa.
As you can see I feel very strongly about this issue, but I have tried not to assert things without backing them up in this post. I would be interested to hear some rebuttals to my points from someone who disagrees with me - but if you're going to do this, please provide a reason for your view. It would be great to have an informed debate on this.
Thankyou for reading this if you got this far!
