The Australian Education System

[Masada]

Well, firstly, in my previous post I had subtly suggested just that. I admitted to seeing it from a different context, before explaining that viewpoint, asking what you actually thought about that viewpoint (OMG! I deviated from your sacred argument! How could I possibly have done that!), which you haven't yet done, before stating that a different argument would be more beneficial. And that sounds like it's slightly bordering on confirmation bias to me.

It can't be a confirmation bias if I'm right, like you've more or less admitted that below.

My erroneous arguments were admitted repeatedly as not being applicable to what you had said your clarification was. They have instead addressed the points which my 'confirmation bias' caused me to see as flagrantly wrong. And I have been meaning to address those points, and have stated that I agree that there is a lower standard of literacy in Australia.

*

It would not have generated much discussion if I addressed your second post of 'low level English courses require low levels of English skills, and low levels and standards of literature, and knowledge about literature, no pass'. A simple 'yes' would not have brought about a conversation fully discussing the pros and cons of the English courses of Australia.

You could just have admitted I was in the right in the first instance, then redirected the debate to something else instead of effectively thread jacking.

As for Standard English, the Area of Study used is the same as Advanced English, but with slightly varying texts. It is obviously at a lower standard, but still requires a reasonable use of techniques, not just plot regurgitation. It does have a lower level of texts, that's a given, but as stated in previous posts, this does not lead to passing with flying colours. And why are you wanting to know about the Standard English course of NSW when you are so fixated with the comparatively small NT & SA system representing a thread, and a post, referring to the 'Australian' system?

I have experience in other systems. I've actually tutored people from a variety of systems, the net result is seldom different, I make money from these systems and I've also studied them.

This is one of those things I agree with. But it seems more like dodgy marking, and a dodgy course, than obligatory illiteracy. And my point was not to comment on the NT & SA system, but the NSW one, which is the largest one in Australia (I assume), and therefore is a better representation of your comments regarding the Australian system.

Irregardless, we've anecdotal confirmation by a number of people posting in this forum, everyone basically, except you really, who has backed up my claim to a greater or lesser extent.

Band 6 refers to a mark of over 90. I don't know how you regard the statement 'passing with flying colours', but a mark of 70%, whilst being regarded as excellent by some people, would not be regarded as passing with flying colours on a general scale, unless you insist that over half the population does, in fact, pass with flying colours. But, that, of course, would mean that marks are relative anyway. Getting in the top 10% could possibly be considered passing with flying colours, and for that, as previously outline, you would need a Band 6.

Marks are relative, I've been arguing for those doing Communications English, who overwhelmingly have lower skills in English and lower expectations, the two go hand in hand. I've admitted to getting relatively high marks for High School but I'm aware that the standards others apply to themselves for success are significantly below mine.

Of which NT is not a state.

It's a Federation of States and Territories. You can't possibly be saying that the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are not members of the Federation?

I am by no means trying to elevate NSW to the supreme and onely worthy state. I am not saying that it has most influence on government. I am not saying that NSW is the best state in which to live. I am saying that, as it has the largest population and the biggest education system, when referring to the Australian education system, it is more applicable to talk about the NSW system, like I am, than the SA & NT system, like you are.

That's what you were implying, dominant seems to be implying something. You also manifestly do not have the most influence on government, that honor currently belongs to Queensland and the states which have the independents who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Yes! And that is what I have been saying, what you have been saying I should say, and what I am now telling you I have already said!

Then politely stop arguing at parallels. Resolve my first point and then we can continue on with advanced English.

But I was only trying to argue the point I saw, not you. By arguing that first point of yours, or what I saw in it, I did not automatically bind myself to compulsory argue all of your points. I bound myself to argue that one point I saw, and you have obviously bound yourself not to argue that one point. You are only arguing things from your perspective, and are refusing to see mine.

Because your point was not part of the argument I posited. I'm not obliged or compelled to even humor your argument if you've misrepresented my position and argument to begin with. This was not a case of natural progression, this was a case of misdirection.

To summarise this post: I am trying to not argue this anymore, but you have sustained the argument. Besides, the SA & NT system aren't really representative of the Australian system that you referred to, and you have continued in your refusal to listen my arguments about the largest education system in the country.

I've refused to listen arguments which were not relevant to the case I put forward. You've continued to ignore my repeat qualifications about the subject. That alone is reason enough for me to contest your points.

*

Nevertheless drop your line of argument, discuss the point and hand then we can re-direct to your argument.

I just realised it doesn't actually matter what people study in English in high school. Most of what people study in HS doesn't matter cos the majority gets forgotten very very quickly. I guess what matters is the bullshitting and writing and analytical skills that get taught, not the content.

I was forgetting stuff as I went forward. You rapidly learn that anything at Uni you have been taught will be largely irrelevant to anything you do in the workplace. I don't think I've ever written anything at work except memos, briefs and reviews. None of which were covered at Uni.

We don't do linguistics in HS, we start from zero at uni.

You had linguistics?

 

[gangleri2001]

We don't do linguistics in HS, we start from zero at uni.

WTH! I thought that the spanish educative system was bad, but the australian one beats it!

 

[Camikaze]

It can't be a confirmation bias if I'm right, like you've more or less admitted that below.

You were right, to a degree, from your point of view (although I sure you would even see that your statement is very dramatised and exaggerated). Which isn't difficult, seeing as the post was written by you. Yet I fail how it cannot be confirmation bias just because you are right. I'm right from my perspective of the argument (as in, what I'm arguing), and you have screamed confirmation bias at me over and over again.

You could just have admitted I was in the right in the first instance, then redirected the debate to something else instead of effectively thread jacking.

Saying 'I beg to differ' was hardly threadjacking. Your response, if anything, could be considered threadjacking, as it was what initiated the argument. But I wouldn't call that threadjacking, because I think that implies intent, which you obviously didn't have, shown by the fact we aren't still in the 'most ignorant statements' thread (no smart arse comments about that). As for in this thread, I don't think arguing about a major segment of the Australian education system could be called threadjacking.

I have experience in other systems. I've actually tutored people from a variety of systems, the net result is seldom different, I make money from these systems and I've also studied them.

Your point being? I doesn't change the fact that you refuse to argue anything but what your perception, and therefore, technically, the correct perception, of your original post was. Please, please, please stop refusing to argue anything but that point. I assumed when you created a thread about 'The Australian Education System', you actually wanted to discuss it, instead of just expounding your views on a particular aspect of it, refusing to deviate from that one aspect. I have said that my perception of your first post is different to what you intended it to mean, and have said that although I know nothing about the NT educational system, you are right that there is a level of functional illiteracy in Australia (although I disagree on other points that I assume are comparable to the Standard English course of NSW), therefore concluded the discussion on your intended meaning, and opening up the path to discussion on my perspective of what was written. But you keep bringing up that old perspective of yours, and keep refusing to address my argument.

Irregardless, we've anecdotal confirmation by a number of people posting in this forum, everyone basically, except you really, who has backed up my claim to a greater or lesser extent.

I have agreed that. What I haven't agreed is the flying colours part, pertaining to Advanced English, and for that matter, Standard English, which no one has contradicted.

Marks are relative, I've been arguing for those doing Communications English, who overwhelmingly have lower skills in English and lower expectations, the two go hand in hand. I've admitted to getting relatively high marks for High School but I'm aware that the standards others apply to themselves for success are significantly below mine.

My definition of 'passing with flying colours' is an absolute, not a relative. As such, its definition does not change with your expectations and wishes. So, I maintain that, and left this be a sign of what I am now arguing, or posting about, or whatever, YOU CANNOT BE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE AND PASS ADVANCED ENGLISH IN NSW WITH FLYING COLOURS. Okay? That is what I am arguing.

It's a Federation of States and Territories. You can't possibly be saying that the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are not members of the Federation?

No, but I am pointing out that it is a territory for a reason- it isn't as important. Just as it's education system is not as important to the Australian Education System, and therefore, this thread.

That's what you were implying, dominant seems to be implying something. You also manifestly do not have the most influence on government, that honor currently belongs to Queensland and the states which have the independents who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote:

I am not saying that it has most influence on government.

I clearly and undeniably stated that I am not arguing your point that NSW doesn't have the most bearing on government. But that it entirely irrelevant to the thread. As the rest of the quote the above is contained in emphatically implies.

Then politely stop arguing at parallels. Resolve my first point and then we can continue on with advanced English.

THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU!
You have finally seen that we should move on. But I already had when you posted it. In fact, the above quote was responding to my response saying that I had resolved that point and moved on.

Because your point was not part of the argument I posited. I'm not obliged or compelled to even humor your argument if you've misrepresented my position and argument to begin with. This was not a case of natural progression, this was a case of misdirection.

Well, no, you aren't obliged to do that, but I people only posted what they were 'obliged' to post, it would be a very uninteresting forum, wouldn't it?

When you explained what you have meant, I explained what I thought you have meant, and in the next posts, agreed with some, and disagreed with some, resolving the argument. And as you say, after that, and even before that, you are not obliged to reply, but it would probably have been a good idea, for the sake of argument, and this thread.

I've refused to listen arguments which were not relevant to the case I put forward. You've continued to ignore my repeat qualifications about the subject. That alone is reason enough for me to contest your points.

Your repeated qualifications were accepted, and replied to with what I perceived as your original qualification. That would mean we were seeing two perspectives (radical concept, I know). You cannot have an argument without two perspectives. And again, if you only listen to arguments directly relevant to your interpretation, and your intended meaning, of your original post, and not the implied meaning stumbled upon by other people, then you aren't really going to generate much interesting conversation.

Nevertheless drop your line of argument, discuss the point and hand then we can re-direct to your argument.

Okay. Once more for the record.

I AGREE THAT:

1. There is a certain, and perhaps, rising, level of functional illiteracy in Australia.
2. The perceptions of what is classic literature have changed.
3. There is a lower emphasis on grammar and basic English skills.

I DISAGREE THAT:

1. You can pass the Standard English course, the NSW equivalent of Communications English, with 'flying colours', if you are functionally illiterate.

That would be three agrees, and one disagree. Which for all you mathematicians out there, is three times as many agrees as disagrees.

Now, move on.

 

[PiMan]

The Victorian system is similar to the NSW one, as PiMan, I think, has clarified.

I don't remember clarifying either way, so I will do so now.
In Victoria we have 3 (sort of 4) different English subjects to choose from in Year 12. Literature, English Language, English and ESL, but ESL is just English with lower standards, same texts to read and everything. The only one of those subjects that is specifically any easier or harder than the others is ESL. Everyone who intends to pass year 12, will pass at least one of these subjects.

As with all year 12 subjects, the final mark is on a bell curve, with roughly 30 being the median and 50 being the maximum (weird exceptions for Specialist Maths and all LOTE subjects).

 

[Camikaze]

Well, clarified, implied, same thing.

Is it compulsory also? The rest sounds pretty much the same, and from what I've heard elsewhere, it is.

 

[PiMan]

Doing one of the four English classes is compulsory. Until a few years ago (5-10), specifically English or ESL was compulsory.

EDIT: I might be wrong. It is possible that English Language is only taken in addition to another English.

 

[Masada]

You were right, to a degree, from your point of view (although I sure you would even see that your statement is very dramatised and exaggerated). Which isn't difficult, seeing as the post was written by you. Yet I fail how it cannot be confirmation bias just because you are right. I'm right from my perspective of the argument (as in, what I'm arguing), and you have screamed confirmation bias at me over and over again.

That's all that matters because it was my argument and my context that mattered for interpreting that argument not yours, not when I've shown that I meant otherwise two dozen times.

Saying 'I beg to differ' was hardly threadjacking. Your response, if anything, could be considered threadjacking, as it was what initiated the argument. But I wouldn't call that threadjacking, because I think that implies intent, which you obviously didn't have, shown by the fact we aren't still in the 'most ignorant statements' thread (no smart arse comments about that). As for in this thread, I don't think arguing about a major segment of the Australian education system could be called threadjacking.

A misunderstood B's argument, B clarifies that point with the next post, A then continues with the same misunderstanding of B's argument, at some point later in time A admits to understanding that he was indeed aware of the thrust of B's argument, A however continues to argue from his own contextual understanding despite B's constant entrees to the contrary and attempts to allow an honorable disengagement, A then maintains that B is actually at fault for provoking argument in the first place by ignoring A's personal contextual awareness!

You diverted the whole thread based on a faulty premise, you yourself constructed, despite repeated points made by me to iron out the issue.

Your point being? I doesn't change the fact that you refuse to argue anything but what your perception, and therefore, technically, the correct perception, of your original post was. Please, please, please stop refusing to argue anything but that point. I assumed when you created a thread about 'The Australian Education System', you actually wanted to discuss it, instead of just expounding your views on a particular aspect of it, refusing to deviate from that one aspect. I have said that my perception of your first post is different to what you intended it to mean, and have said that although I know nothing about the NT educational system, you are right that there is a level of functional illiteracy in Australia (although I disagree on other points that I assume are comparable to the Standard English course of NSW), therefore concluded the discussion on your intended meaning, and opening up the path to discussion on my perspective of what was written. But you keep bringing up that old perspective of yours, and keep refusing to address my argument.

Look up a straw man.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

I have agreed that. What I haven't agreed is the flying colours part, pertaining to Advanced English, and for that matter, Standard English, which no one has contradicted.

Not the subject of the argument. Re: Just about every post I've made thus far in this thread.

My definition of 'passing with flying colours' is an absolute, not a relative. As such, its definition does not change with your expectations and wishes. So, I maintain that, and left this be a sign of what I am now arguing, or posting about, or whatever, YOU CANNOT BE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE AND PASS ADVANCED ENGLISH IN NSW WITH FLYING COLOURS. Okay? That is what I am arguing.

Re: Just about every post I've made thus far in this thread.

No, but I am pointing out that it is not a territory for a reason- it isn't as important. Just as it's education system is not as important to the Australian Education System, and therefore, this thread.

Incorrect, we were actually part of South Australia from 1863 to 1911, we were transferred to the Commonwealth for a variety or reasons, not least was our strategic importance in linking Australia to the rest of the Empire via the overland telegraph and its subsequent entry into the sea not far from where I live. South Australia was also having severe issues providing services to the Northern Territory, there was actually quite an active debate about if we should be transferred to Queensland or Western Australian control.

The Territory itself voted against statehood, we would have lost significant Commonwealth funding, in any case it was only narrowly defeated at the Territory polls, there is no reason to believe that referendum to make us a state would have failed. The economic argument no longer applies, the GST replaced Commonwealth SPPs as our major source of revenue.

(I'm assuming your saying its not a state because it isn't as important; a dose of history never hurt anyone in any case; the sentence itself is quite confusing; apologies if I've mistaken what you've said).

Bolded: It's the OP that is important, not the title of the thread.

THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU!
You have finally seen that we should move on. But I already had when you posted it. In fact, the above quote was responding to my response saying that I had resolved that point and moved on.

It's not like I didn't give you numerous points of extraction with honor intact.

Well, no, you aren't obliged to do that, but I people only posted what they were 'obliged' to post, it would be a very uninteresting forum, wouldn't it?

When you explained what you have meant, I explained what I thought you have meant, and in the next posts, agreed with some, and disagreed with some, resolving the argument. And as you say, after that, and even before that, you are not obliged to reply, but it would probably have been a good idea, for the sake of argument, and this thread.

You didn't you merely continued your argument along parallel lines. Re: some of the above.

Your repeated qualifications were accepted, and replied to with what I perceived as your original qualification. That would mean we were seeing two perspectives (radical concept, I know). You cannot have an argument without two perspectives. And again, if you only listen to arguments directly relevant to your interpretation, and your intended meaning, of your original post, and not the implied meaning stumbled upon by other people, then you aren't really going to generate much interesting conversation.

Simple, I won't have people misrepresenting what I'm arguing, working to a confirmation bias and attempting to straw-man me by self selecting a defensible point from which to contest a self implied meaning nobody else made.

1. You can pass the Standard English course, the NSW equivalent of Communications English, with 'flying colours', if you are functionally illiterate.

Perhaps we should change flying colors, to something more along the lines of "acceptable for the educational expectations of individual students" or something slightly more specific. I've argued that individual attainment is relative which it is, you've argued that for you personally individual attainment is absolute. I've bolded the key words.

That would be three agrees, and one disagree. Which for all you mathematicians out there, is three times as many agrees as disagrees.

I think we should redefine the argument.

 

[Camikaze]

I think we should redefine the argument.

I'll put this at the top. I'll allow you the honours, if you wish.

Stuff in between the above and the below.

I am not trying to say you are completely wrong. Without going back and looking at my posts, I think misunderstanding may have come from me not clarifying that I agree with you on most of the points. I think I did,but perhaps not in an obvious way. More in a way which could be affected by, say, confirmation bias, perhaps.

Also, I am not trying to say that my interpretation of your post is not correct, or less important to the overall argument (not the overall topic), but am trying to say what your original post was meaning from my perspective, and hence, how it was perceived as wrong. Or something like that.

apologies if I've mistaken what you've said.

Well, I accidently made that segment of my post mean the complete opposite from what it was intended to mean. Scrap the word 'not'. So no blame can be attached to you for mistaking what I've said, in this regard.

Perhaps we should change flying colors, to something more along the lines of "acceptable for the educational expectations of individual students" or something slightly more specific. I've argued that individual attainment is relative which it is, you've argued that for you personally individual attainment is absolute. I've bolded the key words.

This is the main sticking point, and to put it bluntly, I disagree with that definition. Wherein the problem lies.


To sum it all up. The root of the problem is confirmation bias. Neither of us know really what the other is saying. From your posts, I can see that you don't understand what I am saying, and I am really lost as to what you are trying to say. Which is why I may have appeared a little annoyed by what was seen to be, by me, in your replies, a lack of understanding of what I was saying, and trying to explain in my posts. I apologise if I have come across at all rude or deliberately ignorant, but these posts have just become such a mash of accusation and parallel argumentation, that I have no idea what you are arguing about, or trying to say to me, and hence maybe reply in a way which makes you not understand what I am trying to say to you. Sorry if this post is incoherent. It was hastily put together in a non-chronological fashion.