Why do we study English? (2 Viewers)

[camsmith]

I'm sure not everyone talks like their written essay

Probably not haha. I don't know what your saying though, is it a bad thing or something? I'm just not a massive fan of mediocrity, and if I can speak at a certain level, I'm not going to play myself down just so I don't conform to the classic Aussie "that's good enough" and our culture of the glorification of the under-achiever. Personal preference there dude, either way you are a prime example of what I was speaking about

 

[buriza]

Probably not haha. I don't know what your saying though, is it a bad thing or something? I'm just not a massive fan of mediocrity, and if I can speak at a certain level, I'm not going to play myself down just so I don't conform to the classic Aussie "that's good enough" and our culture of the glorification of the under-achiever. Personal preference there dude, either way you are a prime example of what I was speaking about

He's trying to say that what you stated might not necessarily be what is offered for some people. Rote learning essays might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. Reading texts people don't enjoy might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. It's got nothing to do with whether someone prefers to express themselves better. Of course most people would prefer to express themselves better. English, and how it is in the current syllabus, might just not be the vehicle. And frankly I'm inclined to mostly agree.

 

[camsmith]

He's trying to say that what you stated might not necessarily be what is offered for some people. Rote learning essays might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. Reading texts people don't enjoy might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. It's got nothing to do with whether someone prefers to express themselves better. Of course most people would prefer to express themselves better. English, and how it is in the current syllabus, might just not be the vehicle. And frankly I'm inclined to mostly agree.

Quite a good point. I think my opinion is probably somewhat biased considering that my teacher has a degree in sociology and a degree in philosophy so he tends to actually make the class interesting and meaningful. I have also had him for year 9,10,11 and 12. A good point

 

[teridax]

Probably not haha. I don't know what your saying though, is it a bad thing or something? I'm just not a massive fan of mediocrity, and if I can speak at a certain level, I'm not going to play myself down just so I don't conform to the classic Aussie "that's good enough" and our culture of the glorification of the under-achiever. Personal preference there dude, either way you are a prime example of what I was speaking about

What I think he's trying to say is that your way of speaking (which was speaking like an essay) in a social context depends entirely on the subject matter. If you're amongst english/artsy students from an academic field, sure, I can accept that. But when you're talking with the average person, discussing the human condition and that sort of thing becomes really tacky and pretentious and it just deters them away from you.

He's trying to say that what you stated might not necessarily be what is offered for some people. Rote learning essays might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. Reading texts people don't enjoy might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. It's got nothing to do with whether someone prefers to express themselves better. Of course most people would prefer to express themselves better. English, and how it is in the current syllabus, might just not be the vehicle. And frankly I'm inclined to mostly agree.

But there's always the possibility that by refining your generic responses, your use of language becomes more fluid, thereby increasing your expression to compete with other students who are probably naturally talented in writing. But of course, memorising essays doesn't really develop the skills of English (and by English, I'm talking things like rhetoric, not literature), it is just a guarantee for some marks.

 

[buriza]

What I think he's trying to say is that your way of speaking (which was speaking like an essay) in a social context depends entirely on the subject matter. If you're amongst english/artsy students from an academic field, sure, I can accept that. But when you're talking with the average person, discussing the human condition and that sort of thing becomes really tacky and pretentious and it just deters them away from you.



But there's always the possibility that by refining your generic responses, your use of language becomes more fluid, thereby increasing your expression to compete with other students who are probably naturally talented in writing. But of course, memorising essays doesn't really develop the skills of English (and by English, I'm talking things like rhetoric, not literature), it is just a guarantee for some marks.

Still a pretty limited form of expression to be honest, as you highlighted above yourself. Like OzKo already said, learning to write essays should probably extend across many different areas. Research reports would be good too, since there's a fair few of them in university, and they are generally different from essays as HSC students would know them.

 

[sy37]

to keep english teachers employed thus increase the employment rate and sustain economic growth so savings can increase so australia's CAD doesn't deteriorate and hence, maintain low crime rates

you do english to minimise crime

does that make sense? No? Neither does english. get at it.


^{i agree with you}

 

[Kiraken]

.

not only to write analytically but to think analytically

of course people can game the system and rote learn essays written by their tutors etc. but that doesn't take away from the point that in English you're supposed to analyse texts and derive meaning from them. It's honestly one of the more helpful school subjects in terms of applicability to my uni course, though I was also lucky enough to have a really good teacher and I imagine how it's taught can vastly change how people perceive it

 

[teridax]

not only to write analytically but to think analytically

of course people can game the system and rote learn essays written by their tutors etc. but that doesn't take away from the point that in English you're supposed to analyse texts and derive meaning from them. It's honestly one of the more helpful school subjects in terms of applicability to my uni course, though I was also lucky enough to have a really good teacher and I imagine how it's taught can vastly change how people perceive it

i sorta get that it's not necessarily the content that's relevant, but idk how literary language which to me is very narrow, can be applied universally to any uni degree. i guess it depends on what course you want to do; if you want to do arts or english at uni, then yes, i agree that hsc english can be applied in the terms of the "skills" acquired

as for other uni courses, no i completely disagree and whoever says that hsc english can be applied to courses like commerce or engineering is plain wrong

 

[OzKo]

not only to write analytically but to think analytically

of course people can game the system and rote learn essays written by their tutors etc. but that doesn't take away from the point that in English you're supposed to analyse texts and derive meaning from them. It's honestly one of the more helpful school subjects in terms of applicability to my uni course, though I was also lucky enough to have a really good teacher and I imagine how it's taught can vastly change how people perceive it

Yes, the assumption is that the two go together.

The sad thing is that higher education, especially in Year 11 and 12, is so marks-centric that it's encouraging incredibly risk-averse behaviour. It's that fear of being 'wrong' which is ironically stopping people from thinking independently.

I'm pleased to say that this often stops during university, but I still think that education shouldn't be wasted on rote learning where possible.

 

[EspeciallyNotWeird]

Probably not haha. I don't know what your saying though, is it a bad thing or something? I'm just not a massive fan of mediocrity, and if I can speak at a certain level, I'm not going to play myself down just so I don't conform to the classic Aussie "that's good enough" and our culture of the glorification of the under-achiever. Personal preference there dude, either way you are a prime example of what I was speaking about

What I said is not saying you are a walking essay speaker because you are confusing upfront talking to the written form. Mainly I think effective communication is directly using speech and my quote

I'm sure not everyone talks like their written essay

is to say that in everyday life no one is going to speak like how they write in their essays

We are limited in the way we can compose our thoughts. The more control we have over language and our thoughts, the better human beings we are.

When you are talking about human beings I think you are referring about written language and communication isn't only in that form

He's trying to say that what you stated might not necessarily be what is offered for some people. Rote learning essays might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. Reading texts people don't enjoy might not necessarily teach people to express themselves better. It's got nothing to do with whether someone prefers to express themselves better. Of course most people would prefer to express themselves better. English, and how it is in the current syllabus, might just not be the vehicle. And frankly I'm inclined to mostly agree.

I guess they are trying to make the change by advising kids to write straight to the point but contrarily they actually don't like 'simplistic writing'

Quite a good point. I think my opinion is probably somewhat biased considering that my teacher has a degree in sociology and a degree in philosophy so he tends to actually make the class interesting and meaningful. I have also had him for year 9,10,11 and 12. A good point

I would rather have a teacher specialising in those but majorily english teachers associate with history

Another thought: professional blog posts, philosophy novels, book/ movie reviews don't follow what we learn in the english course
The skills i learn in english aren't transferable in my humanity courses as well

 

[Kaido]

Doing English is like going to hell and back but for 2 years.

Some people dont come back doe

 

[Kaido]

This subject matter is quite trivial.
Although from my perspective, I believe it teaches you to think about the triviality of the things and determine your standpoint.
Much like how this post has probably enabled you to question your own standpoint
And much like how my post may enable you to realise the triviality of my perspective
And so forth and so on until you realise that you're gonna be dead soon

 

[Absolutezero]

The question says it all. Why do we have to study English?

I mean, I understand why about grammar and s*** but why do we need to analyse some stupid text from 400 years ago and discuss how some idiot dies or whatever. How would this help you guys in the future? Do the BOS just like to piss people off because they make you guys study irrelevant stuff?

Also, what the teacher says about a poem or text may be wrong. For example, a teacher may talk about Robert Frost's poetry and discuss how the persona connects with nature. Well, what if the poet actually wasn't admiring nature? What if he just wrote some crap or whatever?

Think about it you English lovers...

WASTE OF TIME

It doesn't matter what Robert Frost thought. You're missing the point if you think it does.

 

[camsmith]

This subject matter is quite trivial.
Although from my perspective, I believe it teaches you to think about the triviality of the things and determine your standpoint.
Much like how this post has probably enabled you to question your own standpoint
And much like how my post may enable you to realise the triviality of my perspective
And so forth and so on until you realise that you're gonna be dead soon

I like this and think it is pretty relevant...At the end of the day I believe knowing everything and being open to everything, and then forming your opinion on it. This eliminates biased judgement. Also a good observation, life is absurd and we will be dead eventually

 

[CandyCupcake]

Because stupid idiots from the board of studies says we have to. The analysis of text is completely irrelevant, and pointless. unless it making some important contribution to society i.e. To Kill a Mockingbird. We should be learning about punctation, grammar and parts of speech. Often I think we have to pull things from the texts that aren't even there in the first place. Just someones spontaneous creativity. Shakespeare used interesting language that he probably heard of the streets somewhere and stole a lot of other people ideas (Romeo and Juliet taken from a roman legend) his stuff was only ever meant be a bit a light weight entertainment, like a soap opera (think Neighbours).

 

[enigma_1]

why are we made to analyse texts when ppl still struggle to differentiate between you're and your and could have and could of

ffs

 

[EarthSci34]

I'll give my 2 cents (or is it pence?) worth on this topic. I strongly believe that English (literature) helps enrich the mind. However, HSC English stops the original purpose of self-expression emphasised in english. The overriding concern for marks and the belief of the binary right vs. wrong in a world with lots of grey areas inhibits a genuine understanding of these texts, much to the dismay of many HSC students.

How does it help enrich the mind? For starters, the various textual forms we study in English are supposed to embody the best (or arguably the worst) in the human condition. These texts are a reflection of the ideas, feelings, thoughts or popular issues in the context of which the authors wrote. I think studying English is like studying history (to an extent). We learn about the dominant concerns of the text's zeitgeist and ultimately, giving texts the capacity to be didactic in someway.

I think the most important reason we study english is so that we do not feel alone. It's easy to become alienated in a society where strict social conformity and expectations are enforced (tell that to Holden Caulfield). An analysis of an eclectic range of texts may lead individuals to foster a renewed understand of themselves or maybe even broader society through the range of discourses encountered in the course of Literature studies.

I'm not saying that the English syllabus is divine, untarnished and perfect. I'm just saying is that maybe studying various textual forms preserves the humanity in all of us. It doesn't matter what the author thinks nor what the author intended to do. What matters is how the texts makes us feel, and a gentle reminder that irregardless of our experiences, we are all "human, all too human."

 

[BLIT2014]

Even Maths and Science deserve to be at least compulsory as they have way more relevance to our world as a whole than English.

I was quite keen on taking up ESL but I was off by a year or two. Now I am being compelled to take up Advanced English, as it scales considerably higher than standard and not much difference in difficulty.

Overall English seems to really piss me off. I have no problem with speaking and writing it, but learning and going into depth and studying some centuries old irrelevant literature really annoys me.

Aligns not scales.

 

[Evertone]

The purpose is to expose you to culture and values. If you bother to read the annotations that people from the Board write, you'll see they make note of the cultural significance of the texts and what value students will see in that text to enlighten their own understanding of their own culture - their own world.

My view is - the Board's intention does not come to fruition because teachers fail to bring this idea to life out apathy - either for their job or classes. It may just come down to incompetence. Usually, it's the teacher who chose the text and a select few who share their interest in the text that most successfully expose their students to these values and ideas.

The syllabus' purpose is not a titular or idealistic philosophical standpoint. It may sound absurd, but if we've got a generation of students who are not aware of these values, or their own culture, the notion of a cultural and sociological dystopia becomes a real prospect. It is one I actually find quite perturbing.

With that said - it is increasingly clear a dissonance exists between the syllabus' naive intentions and what actually occurs in classrooms across NSW. The texts aren't appreciated for what they are.

The point is lost when these texts are drowned in the miasma of competition and the sort of mechanical, robotic studying that has to go into preparing for exams.

I haven't had the time to read through posts - so I'm not sure if I've just repeated a view similar to mine.

 

[PhysicsMaths]

We are limited in the way we can compose our thoughts. The more control we have over language and our thoughts, the better human beings we are.

I think what you're referring to is "Linguistic relativity" which is basically about the idea that language shapes the way that we think; expanding one's vocabulary would in turn enable for deeper modes of thought