The Australian Education System

Masada · Apr 1, 2009

A continuation of a discussion about the Australian Education System.

PiMan said:
In NT perhaps, but Victoria doesn't have that subject.
Although passing year 12 English is still very easy. I don't think I wrote more than a page in total for the final exam (3 hours), and I passed. Although my mark was well below average, since I got a 23 and the median score is 30 on a (imperfect) bell curve that goes up to 50.

1 page for year 12 English... :eek:

. I wrote 12 for the top English here.

taillesskangaru said:
Mainstream English in Vic is ridiculously easy. You can totally neglect sentence structure, punctuations and grammar and still easily pass the exam. We also have this abomination called "English Language" - an epic fail of an attempt to discuss language use in society in more detail but ended up as an even more dumb down Mainstream English with a few pieces of primary school grammar thrown in.

I call Victoria.

Camikaze said:
This may be true. However, you referred to passing with flying colours, which is exceptionally difficult, due to the obtuse English course. Maybe it's not the same in other states/territories, but it is in NSW.

Obtuse?

Camikaze said:
Poor literacy is frowned upon, but is not the main object of the idiotic course. The main object of the course is seeing what you can infer, and twist, from a range of texts, not including Dan Brown books, or Harry Potter, if you want to pass with 'flting colours'.

Not true. You are not required to read any literary pieces. My standards are anything above 'Night' which is a populist piece in the educational establishment it is not a quality literary piece.

Camikaze said:
In NSW, the course is made up of three modules and an area of study. The area of study contains assessment tasks on comprehension and shorter answers (visual, auditory, or the conventional reading types), creative writing, which is just writing a short story responding to a stimulus material, and a text type response (invariably always an essay) about a set text and at least two texts of the students own choosing. The first of the three modules is purely an essay topic. It relates to context in texts, and the connections between texts. These texts being set by the NSW Board of Studies (BOS), and not containing such works as Angels & Demons, or The Goblet of Fire, but John Donne's poetry, Jane Austen,and the W;t, for example. These are, I imagine, by any measure, reasonably accepted literary works. The second module is a critical study of text, and can be comprised of one of a number of options chosen by the school, such as the study of famous speeches, poetry, prose fiction, drama, or film (which I will come to in a moment). The third module is a study of conflicting perspectives. It, similarly, involves the study of set, and reputable, texts by the BOS, eliminating any ability to fudge the exam with a poorly selected text, which would invariably gain lower marks anyway.

Read my post,

The middle tier of English in Australia is generally called "Communications English" or some such derivative

That is what we are discussing.

If an essay response consists of a synopsis, or mere description to the plot, without frequent reference to techniques used, followed by examples of those techniques, and showing their relation to the question and the module, or area of study theme, then they will not gain many marks at all. They would be Band 2 or Band 3 responses. There are six bands. This is hardly, as you put it, passing with flying colours.

No. This is, "this happened, then this, then this, then this" essays can simply be written as retelling of the text with one or two techniques bought in (usually by accident). That is sufficient to reach or exceed 80%.

Now I have no idea where this came from. But it is blatantly incorrect. Advanced English has, in fact, two HSC exams, compared to the standard one for every other subject (excluding subjects with both practical and theory components).

Not what we are discussing.

Camikaze said:
In 2008, 10% of candidates received a Band 6 in Advanced English, whilst 40% of students received a Band 4 (not a flying colours mark). This can be compared to 17% of candidates receiving a Band 6 in Advanced Mathematics in the same year. This is clear evidence that English is not a subject in which marks are given away. It has a reputation of being the hardest 2 unit subject in the HSC, and for good reason.

You're comparing applies to oranges, you cannot infer the comparative difficulty of the subject from the end results (most states use a bell curve). Not what we are discussing.

Camikaze said:
If you were illiterate, you would not be in the Advanced English course. You would either be in the Standard English course, or the ESL course. And this doesn't mean they take pity on you. In Standard English last year, less than 1% of candidates received a Band 6, and just over 3% in ESL.

Advanced English not what we are discussing. Standard English is what we are discussing (bell curve?).

Camikaze said:
As for passing, to be functionally illiterate means that you cannot read or write. If you cannot read the exam questions, you are not going to pass. If you cannot write the answers, you are not going to pass.

Look up the definition of functionally illiterate in an educational sense.

Camikaze said:
Well, this point does hold some water. Yes, there is a lack of emphasis on the basics of English in the English courses now, which can lead to a certain level of illiteracy. But it is still, on the grand scale of things, not exceptionally widespread.

Your also dismissing a serious defect in the Australian education system that there is a complete failure to educate people in the use of grammar, punctuation, spelling and basic communicative English. I've found this in my tutoring, Asian students on exchange or studying here, write and communicate overwhelmingly better than Australian students fresh out of high school. If it were up to me I would fail up to half the Australian students I deal with for poor English.

Camikaze said:
And the dumbing down of the syllabus is probably not the best description. I would call it more of an abstraction, and a ridiculous one.

The syllabus has been dumbed down. Hold a decades worth of essays drawn from education department files with top marks and you will see the difference. Compare the exams themselves, you will see the degradation that has taken place. Ask old-hand examiners in private their opinions on the state of the education system and you will find overwhelmingly that they believe that there has been a systematic failure to maintain standards on the part of education departments.

Camikaze said:
The point of this post was not to defend the moronic, eccentric and mindless NSW English syllabus, but to point out that it is not, as you said, a case of passing with 'flying colours' through the use of populist texts, and with illiteracy.

You've made my point for me (bolded). You have also noted some of the most serious problems that exists in Australian education (italics). It's quite simple, education departments are grades driven, they focus on the short term results, if the grades are falling they make the exam easier, if the grades are rising, they keep it constant and put it down to teaching improvements and not the previous dumbing down of the syllabus. Quality teaching is not measurable, well rounded experience with English is not measurable and because the system is results driven education departments are quite happy to fudge the results.

Camikaze said:
And if you're going to use the argument that everyone technically passes, because the HSC isn't something that you fail, as such, then I mean it more in the way that a bad mark is what I would consider a fail.

To be honest your definition of success and failure is probably significantly above most peoples, keep that in mind.

Arwon · Apr 1, 2009

Meh, I did Advanced English at a mediocre regional public high school. King Lear was fun.

Masada · Apr 1, 2009

Arwon said:
Meh, I did Advanced English at a mediocre regional public high school. King Lear was fun.

Meh I did much the same. I did fairly well... but I was far more satisfied with getting perfect marks in history and breaking one of the private girls schools dream run (top 10 for a few years running).

Camikaze · Apr 1, 2009

Masada said:
Obtuse?

An example. The poem The Relique, by John Donne. If you were to look at it from a normal point of view, you would see it as dealing with the miracle of pure love. But, alas, in English classes, you could twist it to be that the central themes of the poem is the role of women. So, while this can feasibly be construed, it is quite clearly not the main feature of the poem. Yet, due to the way in which essays are marked, or texts analysed, any farfetched interpretation can be, and is encouraged, to be taken, so long as it can be logically construed.

Not true. You are not required to read any literary pieces. My standards are anything above 'Night' which is a populist piece in the educational establishment it is not a quality literary piece.

Students are strongly discouraged from choosing populist additional texts. This is more to do with the psychology of markers, but it still leads to more, although less well known, more technically proficient texts, or what could be regarded as better quality literature.

On a brief side note to highlight the absurdity of the English marking, there are Sydney private schools that make it compulsory for students to use a foreign language film as an additional text. This is because the markers would probably not have seen it before, and would therefore not be as likely to be able to pick up any mistakes in essays, or be subject to bias through differing textual interpretations.

But that doesn't make it any easier to pass, as you would still have to analyse the text well.

Read my post,

The middle tier of English in Australia is generally called "Communications English" or some such derivative

That is what we are discussing.

Well, 40% of students in NSW did Advanced English last year, so it is a reasonable middle tier. I don't really know what 'Communications English' is, although I assume it would be the equivalent of Standard English in NSW. Which is exceptionally difficult to pass with flying colours (less than 1%), contrary to your statement saying that you could be illiterate and pass in this exceptional way.

No. This is, "this happened, then this, then this, then this" essays can simply be written as retelling of the text with one or two techniques bought in (usually by accident). That is sufficient to reach or exceed 80%.

This is certainly not sufficient for 80%. Essays in Advanced English (what I am talking about) contain no plot overview, or story outline. They are written assuming the marker knows the text inside out, and you are informing them on the thematic and technical details, depending on what the essay question is. Every point you make must be backed up by a technique, and an example of the use of that technique. For instance, if the question was asking you to outline how the author conveys belonging through their text, you would say how, or what idea in the text does this, before finding a technique that emphasises, supports, or creates this, before finding a relevant example. Nowhere in there would you simply narrate the plot of the story. Those that do would be likely to get a Band 2, or Band 3 at most, if they did.

Not what we are discussing.

What did you mean then by saying that it has no exam? How can you judge whether someone has passed or not without an exam? I originally argued your point that you could be illiterate and still pass English with flying colours. You then said that English in fact had no exam, before I stated how the English I was talking about did, and two.

You're comparing applies to oranges, you cannot infer the comparative difficulty of the subject from the end results (most states use a bell curve). Not what we are discussing.

They were meant to be two separate statements. The first was showing that they don't just try and give good marks to however many people than can, and the second was asserting that Advanced English is often viewed as the most challenging 2 unit course in which to obtain a Band 6, or a pass with flying colours.

Advanced English not what we are discussing. Standard English is what we are discussing (bell curve?).

Which goes to show that it is even harder to pass the type of English you are discussing, with flying colours, judging by the stats.

Look up the definition of functionally illiterate in an educational sense.

If your reading and writing skills are not sufficient enough to deal with everyday life, then you certainly will not be able to pass English exams, especially not with flying colours.

Your also dismissing a serious defect in the Australian education system that there is a complete failure to educate people in the use of grammar, punctuation, spelling and basic communicative English. I've found this in my tutoring, Asian students on exchange or studying here, write and communicate overwhelmingly better than Australian students fresh out of high school. If it were up to me I would fail up to half the Australian students I deal with for poor English.

This certainly is a problem, but does not imply that you can pass English courses with flying colours if you are illiterate. And most people I've meet can use basic communicative English. And those that cannot are probably a lot less likely to be affected by syllabus changes.

The syllabus has been dumbed down. Hold a decades worth of essays drawn from education department files with top marks and you will see the difference. Compare the exams themselves, you will see the degradation that has taken place. Ask old-hand examiners in private their opinions on the state of the education system and you will find overwhelmingly that they believe that there has been a systematic failure to maintain standards on the part of education departments.

Well, it has been dumbed down in terms of literacy, grammar, etc. But not in terms of intellect needed to pass, or pass well, as the case may be. It is hard to provide evidence of this, but my mum says that she would dread doing today's exams. And a lot of it probably comes from the attitude in what teachers were taught about, and learnt in their years. If they were of the old style (likely for old-hand examiners), they would probably view changes as negative, purely for the reason that they are teaching a different style of English. They would be comparing the focus on grammar years ago to the focus on grammar nowadays, or something like that, instead of the overall difficulty of the courses, in comparison to one another.

You've made my point for me (bolded). You have also noted some of the most serious problems that exists in Australian education (italics). It's quite simple, education departments are grades driven, they focus on the short term results, if the grades are falling they make the exam easier, if the grades are rising, they keep it constant and put it down to teaching improvements and not the previous dumbing down of the syllabus. Quality teaching is not measurable, well rounded experience with English is not measurable and because the system is results driven education departments are quite happy to fudge the results.

Well, I'm definitely not trying to say that the education system is not screwed, but making the point that you cannot be illiterate and pass English exams with flying colours, as you stated.

To be honest your definition of success and failure is probably significantly above most peoples, keep that in mind.

Perhaps. Although it probably isn't fair to use the word 'pass' in a different sense to the way it is being applied to English courses, or the ones I'm talking about, anyway.

azzaman333 · Apr 1, 2009

I don't know how it is for the rest of the country, but the English exam I did at the end of last year was passable if you could write at least 1 paragraph that was vaguely relevant on each of the three topics. You'd have to deliberately try to fail, to actually fail.

Camikaze · Apr 1, 2009

My varying definition of 'fail' seems to be the main problem here. But I'm not arguing that it is easy to pass, in that you can only fail, as such, if you don't turn up for the exam. I'm arguing that this statement:

Masada said:
They would pass high-school with flying colours in Australia with that advanced literary knowledge (using texts such as Harry Potter and Dan Brown drivel)!

is incorrect. The red bit I added in for context.

PiMan · Apr 1, 2009

Masada said:
1 page for year 12 English... . I wrote 12 for the top English here.

I simply cannot write fast enough. I think most people did at least half a dozen pages, but I've never managed even half that in a single sitting before.

If someone were to see the stuff I did for English and all my other subjects with essay components before meeting me, you might have guessed that English is my second language, but this isn't the case. I'm an eighth generation Australian.

classical_hero · Apr 1, 2009

That is your problem.

PiMan · Apr 1, 2009

I wish being an eighth gen Aussie was my problem, it would have meant the bell curve would be more favourable and I would have gotten a better mark.

Masada · Apr 1, 2009

I will repeat again, I do not care about Advanced English. In any case lets examine the context which I posted my first comment in.

Aelf said:
Friend: "I study English Literature."
Various fools: "Oh, you mean like Shakespeare?"
(the conversations were in English)

Earthling said:
I don't see that last one as being all that bad. I mean, you couldn't well be an English major without studying some Shakespeare? Seems like a valid question on what he/she focuses on - is it any worse than asking, say "Do you mean like Dickens? or Hemmingway?" Now when you call him Julius Shakespeare, then we're into silly territory.

aelf said:
Exactly.

Coupled with the fact that "Shakespeare" is the only name they can think of when talking about literature, other than Harry Potter and Dan Brown.

I've bolded the "advanced literary knowledge"

Masada said:
They would pass high-school with flying colours in Australia with that advanced literary knowledge! (I wish I wasn't being serious).

Note the comedic use of juxtaposition, "Shakespeare... Harry Potter and Dan Brown". It was intended for comic effect. I've also de-emphasized the seriousness of the second part by putting brackets around it, that could be called a partial qualification.

Camikaze said:
I beg to differ.

You interject.

Masada said:
The middle tier of English in Australia is generally called "Communications English" or some such derivative

I then qualified my statement.

Camikaze said:
This may be true. However, you referred to passing with flying colours, which is exceptionally difficult, due to the obtuse English course. Maybe it's not the same in other states/territories, but it is in NSW.

You then ignored my qualification for the whole rest of that post.

Camikaze said:
Well, 40% of students in NSW did Advanced English last year, so it is a reasonable middle tier. I don't really know what 'Communications English' is, although I assume it would be the equivalent of Standard English in NSW. Which is exceptionally difficult to pass with flying colours (less than 1%), contrary to your statement saying that you could be illiterate and pass in this exceptional way.

You then continued to ignore my qualification and an earlier portion of a post of mine. You also don't seem to quite understand what tier means in the context:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tier said:
Main Entry:
1tier Listen to the pronunciation of 1tier
Pronunciation:
\ˈtir\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French tire rank, from Old French — more at attire
Date:
1569

1 a: a row, rank, or layer of articles ; especially : one of two or more rows, levels, or ranks arranged one above another b: a group of political or geographic divisions that form a row across the map <the southern tier of states>

At no stage did I purport to be speaking about Advanced English, I disavowed that when I qualified my statement in the second post. I also never expressed a great deal of care for what the '40% of students in NSW [who] did Advanced English last year' the percentage is not what interested me. In any case it's manifestly not what we are discussing, I suggest you read what everyone else has been saying.

Camikaze said:
is incorrect. The red bit I added in for context.

It isn't. I've provided an example of a text that is used, 'Night'. The text is not significantly more difficult than Dan Brown's or JK Rowling's work. It's almost amusing that most people don't read the text, don't understand it, google it and write rambling incoherant crap. You would probably get better results with Harry Potter.

*

Camikaze said:
What did you mean then by saying that it has no exam? How can you judge whether someone has passed or not without an exam? I originally argued your point that you could be illiterate and still pass English with flying colours. You then said that English in fact had no exam, before I stated how the English I was talking about did, and two.

Because it wasn't the English I was talking about. I made that clear.

Camikaze said:
Which goes to show that it is even harder to pass the type of English you are discussing, with flying colours, judging by the stats.

It doesn't, the bell curve is free floating, it isn't tied to marks before hand, 50% of people do not fail. If everyone does well, then the mean will be further up the number line. If everyone gets scores relatively closely together, then the standard deviation will be quite small. The statistics behind it are quite technically challenging. Other data is also recorded, including how students did in other classes, how this compares to historical data and if their is a deviation from the norm.

Camikaze said:
If your reading and writing skills are not sufficient enough to deal with everyday life, then you certainly will not be able to pass English exams, especially not with flying colours.

I stated before, that exams do not happen in Communications English, which you have since admitted, you don't know a wit about.

Camikaze said:
This certainly is a problem, but does not imply that you can pass English courses with flying colours if you are illiterate. And most people I've meet can use basic communicative English. And those that cannot are probably a lot less likely to be affected by syllabus changes.

Don't you go to a grammar school?

Camikaze said:
Well, it has been dumbed down in terms of literacy, grammar, etc. But not in terms of intellect needed to pass, or pass well, as the case may be. It is hard to provide evidence of this, but my mum says that she would dread doing today's exams. And a lot of it probably comes from the attitude in what teachers were taught about, and learnt in their years. If they were of the old style (likely for old-hand examiners), they would probably view changes as negative, purely for the reason that they are teaching a different style of English. They would be comparing the focus on grammar years ago to the focus on grammar nowadays, or something like that, instead of the overall difficulty of the courses, in comparison to one another.

They don't tend to care about grammar, that is a small niggle, like spelling, it's a product of the times. However they do admit to seeing a falling standard in the intellectual rigor being applied to the subject and the materials being used. It wasn't all that long ago that Chaucer was being used for instance (not the most brilliant example but nothing is springing to mind at this hour). Nowadays its "The Kiterunner" which isn't a bad read... but isn't brilliant for literary purposes (I'm of the opinion that it was written to be a movie).

Camikaze said:
Well, I'm definitely not trying to say that the education system is not screwed, but making the point that you cannot be illiterate and pass English exams with flying colours, as you stated.

You added English exams in there not me.

Camikaze said:
My varying definition of 'fail' seems to be the main problem here. But I'm not arguing that it is easy to pass, in that you can only fail, as such, if you don't turn up for the exam. I'm arguing that this statement:

Most people don't aspire to get 99%. I got 95% for my English which sounds fairly similar to yours (I didn't do communications I did Literary English). Most people were content with 70% or more and simply did it because it looked better on a University application. Overall I ended up with 93% or something when I finished high-school, I was surprised (it worked out to be just shy of 99% when I added in the extra points I got at most Universities for studying in a rural area in the Northern Territory

).

PiMan said:
I wish being an eighth gen Aussie was my problem, it would have meant the bell curve would be more favourable and I would have gotten a better mark.

You speak Australian, that's your problem

azzaman333 · Apr 1, 2009

Didn't you get the memo?

It's spelt Straya now, Australia was too long, too hard to pronounce, and too hard to spell.

Masada · Apr 1, 2009

azzaman333 said:
Didn't you get the memo?

It's spelt Straya now, Australia was too long, too hard to pronounce, and too hard to spell.

I dafted that memo didn't ya now?

PiMan · Apr 1, 2009

That must have been my problem. I've been pronouncing it Astraya this whole time.

GoodGame · Apr 1, 2009

"Australian Education System"?

April Fools, right?

Camikaze · Apr 2, 2009

Masada said:
I've bolded the "advanced literary knowledge"

And from this, I assumed you were talking about advanced English, pertaining the course of the same name.

Note the comedic use of juxtaposition, "Shakespeare... Harry Potter and Dan Brown".

The use of juxtaposition in this 'humorous' way, coupled with your subsequent statement, was used to make the point that 'advanced literary knowledge', in Australian English courses (assumed to be Advanced English courses through the invocation of the word advanced), included the latter grouping of works stated. The juxtaposition was used to show the stupidity, yet connection, between the two groups. However, this subsequent statement of yours would be false, as shown in previous posts, as passing the Advanced English course invoked, as explained above, with flying colours, could not be achieved through the use of such texts.

It was intended for comic effect. I've also de-emphasized the seriousness of the second part by putting brackets around it, that could be called a partial qualification.

And yet this partial qualification qualified the whole post as a factual statement. Which it isn't.

To add a new point regarding your statement. The only compulsory subject in the HSC is English, which must count towards your UAI. Now, you can either do, as previously explained, Advanced English, Standard English, or ESL. So, if you don't gain a good mark, then you won't pass school with flying colours. It is, therefore, in fact the only subject that will always have a bearing on your overall high-school performance.

You interject.

I then qualified my statement.

You then ignored my qualification for the whole rest of that post.

By this stage, we were past the point of requalification. My brain had locked on to the fallacy/fallacies of your original statement, and had become inextricably attached to arguing the point.

You then continued to ignore my qualification and an earlier portion of a post of mine. You also don't seem to quite understand what tier means in the context:

It's was kind of hard to continue an argument against your original statement, pertaining to advanced English, established through the aforementioned invocation of the word, when you requalified to basic English. It is possible to pass basic English with, well, basic English skills, I am not arguing that. I am arguing your initial statement, due to the fixation of my brain against such falsities presented in that post.

At no stage did I purport to be speaking about Advanced English, I disavowed that when I qualified my statement in the second post.

As explained, the invocation of advanced, despite its seemingly ironic connotation, forced your statement to become one regarding Advanced English. Your disavowal of said qualification, in your subsequent post, was made past the stage at which my brain is capable of detaching itself from the horrendously atrocious fallaciousness of the former proclamation.

I also never expressed a great deal of care for what the '40% of students in NSW [who] did Advanced English last year' the percentage is not what interested me.

'Twas merely to inform you that Advanced English was not the elite and remote stratum that you seemed to deem it as. Those tiers would be English Extension 1, and English Extension 2.

In any case it's manifestly not what we are discussing, I suggest you read what everyone else has been saying.

As mentioned briefly in passing, I was initially responding to your initial assertion. I was not intending to argue the point that some people have poor English skills. That is a given.

It isn't. I've provided an example of a text that is used, 'Night'. The text is not significantly more difficult than Dan Brown's or JK Rowling's work. It's almost amusing that most people don't read the text, don't understand it, google it and write rambling incoherant crap. You would probably get better results with Harry Potter.

It would most likely not. Unless you analysed Harry Potter spectacularly, then you would get a horrible mark for it, not the kind of mark that would be considered one to boast about. I can't comment on the example you have provided, other than to say it could not possibly be as remotely popular as Harry Potter, and as such, would be marked in an easier fashion, due to the psychology, or at least, knowledge, of the markers, and their bias against populist text choices. However, despite this, students would still need an analysis of the text, in terms of the essay question, above and beyond the mere synopsis you suggest.

Essentially, if the text is easier to analyse, a far greater depth of analysis would be required to obtain equal marks, levelling out the playing field, in regards to people who choose easier, and more populist texts, than those that choose more technically proficient works.

Because it wasn't the English I was talking about. I made that clear.

Was I meant to assume that for a seven syllable sentence, you have switched from talking about high school English, to not? You clearly stated, 'in the final year of high school...there is also no exam.' I apologise if I didn't quite catch the invisible and momentary subject change. So what exactly were you referring to?

It doesn't, the bell curve is free floating, it isn't tied to marks before hand, 50% of people do not fail. If everyone does well, then the mean will be further up the number line. If everyone gets scores relatively closely together, then the standard deviation will be quite small. The statistics behind it are quite technically challenging. Other data is also recorded, including how students did in other classes, how this compares to historical data and if their is a deviation from the norm.

And this bell curve is shifted more towards the lower end of the scale than in other subjects, due to the difficulty in obtaining an equivalent mark. Which is clearly against your initial statement (the one you apparently aren't arguing, but which I am), which stated that you could pass high-school English (implied) with flying colours very very easily. Which, as the comparative statistics show, you cannot.

I stated before, that exams do not happen in Communications English, which you have since admitted, you don't know a wit about.

Ah. Now I see! Communications English doesn't have an exam! That clears it up a bit. Well, seeing as I don't exactly know the NT, or NZ, education system (what I'm assuming you're referring to) back to front, I automatically assumed that this was comparable to Standard English (which I think was a fair enough leap), which does have an exam (or two, IIRC (just including the final external exams, not the numerous internal assessments)). So, from this, it seems your original statement can be applied to the NT (a very small percentage of Australia). But the NT is like a foreign country, they do things differently there.

And if you were referring to NZ, as much as it is a de facto part of Australia, it technically isn't, making your statement regarding English standards in Australia unrelated.

Don't you go to a grammar school?

Erm...no.

They don't tend to care about grammar, that is a small niggle, like spelling, it's a product of the times. However they do admit to seeing a falling standard in the intellectual rigor being applied to the subject and the materials being used. It wasn't all that long ago that Chaucer was being used for instance (not the most brilliant example but nothing is springing to mind at this hour). Nowadays its "The Kiterunner" which isn't a bad read... but isn't brilliant for literary purposes (I'm of the opinion that it was written to be a movie).

Perhaps this is more changing perspectives as to what good literature is. A shift from the old, archaic classics, to more modern and socially applicable texts.

You added English exams in there not me.

Okay. Okay. When you said that you could pass high-school, I assumed you were referring to the measure of whether someone passes or not, which to me, instantly meant an exam of some sorts, which, as already established, is compulsory in NSW.

Most people don't aspire to get 99%. I got 95% for my English which sounds fairly similar to yours (I didn't do communications I did Literary English). Most people were content with 70% or more and simply did it because it looked better on a University application.

Still, this wouldn't be considered passing with flying colours, but passing reasonably well.

Overall I ended up with 93% or something when I finished high-school, I was surprised (it worked out to be just shy of 99% when I added in the extra points I got at most Universities for studying in a rural area in the Northern Territory ).

I would be very happy with above 90, or a Band 6. That's because of my school, which is dodgy at English. Whereas we get ~100 Band 6's every year in Maths courses (including me last year, 'cause the school teaches it better, and focuses on it more), we get ~10 Band 6's in English every year. So, I would be quite happy with a Band 6. This also explains why I argued your original statement, that it was exceptionally easy to pass English with flying colours, even if you are functionally illiterate.

You speak Australian, that's your problem

Hmm. PiMan must live more than 5km from the coast.

Edit: Who are you and what did you do with Masada? Translation: 'Interesting' new avatar, and location.

PiMan · Apr 2, 2009

No exam? NT is really weird. Every year 12 subject in Victoria has at least an end of year exam, and usually a midyear exam too. Even all the arts subjects have exams.

Hmm. PiMan must live more than 5km from the coast.

Yes, I'm in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs, about 25km from the nearest coast.

Sharwood · Apr 2, 2009

The English system in NSW at least is pathetic. I learnt to write essays by reading essays, certainly not at school. Public speaking, literature, etc., are all taught very badly. The fact that I have people at university coming up to me asking how I avoid getting nervous when speaking in public - people that have been at uni far longer than I have - is evidence of the poor quality of teaching in this area, as is the amount of people who just flat-out can't spell.

I recently got asked to quiet down in the library at uni after spending a good fifteen minutes in absolute hysterics after reading one of my friends' presentation on the Fernch Revolution, which for some bizarre reason included a mention of King Herny IV. Many people, my bimbo cousin included, have taken to claiming to be dyslexic when they're just stupid. Now, I know people who are dyslexic, and I can tell the difference between someone who's dyslexic and someone who just can't spell. And most people I meet who routinely make mistakes can't spell.

Like Arwon, I went to a piss-poor regional public high school, where I studied such classics as Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, and some crappy play about Italian immigrants in Australia where I learnt that all Angloes are racist, because "dagoes" - the first time I or anyone in class had ever heard this word; way to go high school, that's exactly what we needed to learn, racist taunts - don't all carry knives. Then it was revealed the Italian kid really did do the stabbing. WTF? Apparently we were supposed to reach the conclusion that them Southern Mediterranean types are natural criminals. :dunno:

At least we got to watch Roots, but for a bunch of 14 year old boys it was basically just masturbation fodder, and I don't think we were actually asked any questions or studied anything about it. We just watched it. Oh, and we also watched Independence Day. Man, did we learn from that!

All-in-all, what I'm trying to say is that OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM SUCKS MORE THAN PARIS HILTON AT BADLY LIT NIGHTVISION CAMERA CONVENTION!

Camikaze · Apr 2, 2009

Sounds like a classy education.

And, yes, the system is absurd. From years 7-10 it is complete rubbish, but in years 11 and 12, you don't actually watch/read complete garbage, if you want to get a good mark. Some of the text choices can be a bit, eccentric (?), however, but never, in senior years, move into the most populist and well-known works (assuming good marks), unless you count Shakespeare as populist and well-known, which would actually be a fair enough call.

On an interesting side-note, daygoes has a completely different significance at my school. Daygoes are the students that aren't boarders (boarding students). I was quite surprised when my mum cracked up when I referred to all the daygoes at my school.

Sharwood · Apr 2, 2009

I wonder if I should start using the term daygoes to describe my bimbo cousin's friends? She goes to a boarding school, and I really wish they'd board her. Water, that is.

I didn't do 11 and 12 at school, I left and did my HSC-equivalency at TAFE. We read The Year of Living Dangerously. Mucho fantastico booko, far superior to anything I read at school, ever. Also watched the film and actually learnt skills which have proved useful at uni and in life, unlike all of my friends who did the HSC, the most successful of whom is now a second-rate baker. I am the only person from my year at school to attend university, and I dropped out. Says something, doesn't it?

Camikaze · Apr 2, 2009

English is often described by people as a subject that tests your ability to learn, more than actually teaching you anything.

The Australian Education System

Koi-san!

stop being water

Koi-san!

Administrator

meh

Administrator

Deity

In whom I trust

Deity

Koi-san!

meh

Koi-san!

Deity

Red, White, & Blue, baby!

Administrator

Deity

Rich, doctor nephew

Administrator

Rich, doctor nephew

Administrator

Similar threads