A continuation of a discussion about the Australian Education System.
1 page for year 12 English... . I wrote 12 for the top English here.
I call Victoria.
Obtuse?
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.
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.
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%.
Not what we are discussing.
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.
Advanced English not what we are discussing. Standard English is what we are discussing (bell curve?).
Look up the definition of functionally illiterate in an educational sense.
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.
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.
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.
To be honest your definition of success and failure is probably significantly above most peoples, keep that in mind.
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... . 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.