Your erroneous assumption not mine. Why would I in the Northern Territory be talking about a New South Wales specific course?
I don't mean I thought you were talking about NSW, but naturally assumed that what you were talking about was the equivalent of it, due to your invocation of that sacred word, advanced. And when you say Australia, as a whole, I don't usually think you are just referring to just the small and insignificant part, but more the whole in general.
You've misinterpreted what I wrote and placed it in the wrong context.
So, your original statement, saying that you could pass high school with flying colours in Australia with the 'advanced literary knowledge' of Harry Potter and Dan Brown, was in fact not referring to passing with flying colours, any sort of high school examination, or anything remotely pertaining to the word advanced (despite its ironic connotation, it's use invoked advanced English). Was I meant to interpret it as 'I left the fishcakes in the freezer, Moses'? Because from your attempted comedic use of 'advanced literary knowledge', meaning in fact, the opposite to just that, combined with the proclamation, and later clarification, that high-school English could be passed without a grasp of the language, would imply this statement about as much as the one you say it does.
It wasn't a fallacy, when properly contextualized. Confirmation bias ftw!
What can I say? I target insignificant details of what is intended to be meaningless passing comments.
Your trying to construe an argument I presented as something it is manifestly not. Confirmation bias ftw!
I still maintain that, from by context, your post was obviously stating that in passing Advanced English with a very high mark, you can employee JK Rowling, and be functionally illiterate (later added). Whether you were saying this or not, that is what my brain saw. And when my brain sees, it argues.
... your assuming that the advanced part of advanced English had a specific connotation for me. When it doesn't. "Advanced English" is called English Studies, or simply Studies in SSABSA, I was not aware that NSW used "Advanced Studies" as a course title. Confirmation bias ftw!
See above.
Again I don't care, it was superfluous to my argument.
I apologise. I should instantly know and interpret your every desire and preference in what I add to my post.
From my argument's point of view, though, it was quite relevant, which is all that matters. To me.
Markers are overwhelmingly populist in inclination when it comes to marking, they read from a limited pool of literary sources and tend to be fairly conformist in mindset. It's common practice in private schools to choose obscure texts which the markers have not read on the same logic as your film example. I know I choose Dante Alighieri's, Divina Commedia: Inferno for my final year analysis specifically for that reason on the advisement of a former English exam marker and well regarded English teacher to choose something obscure. The same texts overwhelmingly crop up in English essays, including The Great Gatsby, 1984, A Brave New World for instance, which are populist classics and say Khaled Hosseni's works which are topical and populist at this present moment. The same poetry and films also overwhelmingly crop up, simply because it is easy for teachers to help students with works they are familiar with. Teachers tend to have a rotation of poetry and texts they will cover, they switch every year, but come back to the same texts in a few years with minor modifications.
This. I can't really remember what I'm arguing about that drew this response, but I gather it was somewhere along the lines of 'you can't use populist texts, firstly because they are generally of a lesser level, and secondly, because they are well known by markers'. Was that it? I think it was. But anyway, I concur with, and declare valid, the above.
But, you still need to do less popular and familiar texts well, or at least sound like you are. Which would require functional literacy, and long words. You get extra marks for using long words. For example, in my last essay, instead of the saying something like, 'the desire to learn stuff was central to Bearing's life, due to Edson's context, in which the human was most important, compared to Donne's more religious context, creating religious like themes', I wrote, 'the inherent anthropocentricism of Edson's era and surroundings, caused the portrayal of Bearing's epistemological lifestyle, in comparison to Donne's antidisestablishmentarianist sentiments, causing his theocentric portrayal of thematic concerns in his works' This is needed to get a good mark, and is above and beyond what I would call the level of functional literacy. My favourite phrase in an essay was 'extemporaneous perspicacity', which one of my friends used to describe Duke Senior's role in a scene of
As You Like It. Again, this shows that some importance is, in fact, put on language, and the good use of it, despite its use as padding, and its essential wanky-ness.
But that's not what we're discussing, right?
It is also eminently possible to pass English at a middle tier level with a very simplistic understanding of the texts. Most of which is derived from the teachers themselves dropping unsubtle hints or even sitting down and hammering out prepared notes.
Well, I'm not arguing that you can't pass, but arguing that you can't pass
with flying colours, like you initially stated.
It would help if you understood how the system operates, adjusted your expectations to fit everyone else and understood that your just being a fool (I've bolded the reason why).
Well, in life, it would help if you understood how everything operates, but that cannot happen. And I don't like the idea of only posting on a forum in subjects that I have a large fount of knowledge in. I would never have got far past 0 posts. But, I can add my thoughts to the argument, and understand how my system, the largest system in Australia, which is what you were referring to, works.
And...a fool? Perhaps a naive, stubborn and ignorant child, but a fool?
Contextually where do you think I was talking about? Because if you think I was talking about NSW specifically or anything aside from Australia in a broad contextual statement then you have issues. Bolded, confirmation bias ftw!
Sure I have issues. Issues with a statement saying that in Australia (with NSW being the dominant state (and NT not being)), you can pass (with flying colours, no less) English courses (with the word advanced invoked) if you are functionally illiterate, or resort to simplicity in your work.
Your also ignorant of the fact that the Territory operates under the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia (SSABSA).
Okay then. Well, SA is small too.
You argued it because you were caught in a confirmation bias and ignored my repeated qualifications.
Do you not expect me to see statements from my own contextual perspective? I mean, come on, everything in life is seen from your own contextual viewpoint, and from mine, your statement was something that was completely wrong and was begging to be argued.
I'm actually quite stuck as to whether I actually agree with what I now think you are saying or not. You still haven't straight out said that what I assumed you were saying, was something that you disagree with, although I have (perhaps only in this post) stated that I don't really have a problem with your statement that the education system sucks, and that generally, literacy standards have decreased. That would possibly be a more beneficial argument, as, quite frankly, I don't know what I think you think I think you think I'm arguing about, or something like that.
and I'm ignoring the whole rest of the books not in a pile on my desk which are patiently awaiting my attentions nicely stacked against the wall.
