High School

[Bopop4]

That movie was painful to watch. Was it the one with DiCaprio?

 

[Ross]

We're reading a :censored:ty book called 'Stone Cold' at the moment.

We have just finished this book. The rest I'm putting in spoilers because it contains stuff about the ending:

Spoiler

In the End Gail turns out to be a reporter named Louise and Link nearly gets killed by Shelter. Shelter gets arrested and put in jail. Gail dumps Link by the way. There are no Daily Routine orders after either 15 or 16. Ginger was killed by Shelter as well. So was Toyia. Overall, not the best ending ever.

 

[ilikewaffles11]

We're reading a :censored:ty book called 'Stone Cold' at the moment.

And in Yr7 I had to watch an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet where everyone looked like a pimp and drove riced cars and had shootouts at petrol stations but talked like they were from Shakespeare's time.

I had to watch that last year. It sucked really badly.

 

[LancerEvo7]

^That was terrible, I had it last year (9th grade).

 

[E28]

We have just finished this book. The rest I'm putting in spoilers because it contains stuff about the ending:

Don't worry, I've read the end. 3 times.

I had to watch that last year. It sucked really badly.

It was so bad it was almost good!

 

[otakukid96]

I hate required language classes. My school doesn't even have the language I want to learn available.

 

[Patrick]

I just got an English project assigned that's due next Friday. We have to memorize 20-30 lines from Much Ado About Nothing and present it in front of the class.

 

[hawkeye122]

Shot myself in the foot today. I WAS going to ask a girl from the year below to my 11th year-only-except-guests dance. Turns out she'll be counseling at a Environmental camp for 5th graders that day.

And on the same day? My Mock Trial team lost.

Monday, minimum day, which means a 2 hour gap between school getting out and Track & Field practice starting.
"what to do..."
"I know!"
"What?"
"We can see who can set the fastest lap time around campus!"
"Oh, yes!"

I managed a 2:38 before getting told off by the Security guard...

 

[jcm]

I just got an English project assigned that's due next Friday. We have to memorize 20-30 lines from Much Ado About Nothing and present it in front of the class.

It's not that hard. I'll tell you what's hard. Last year we had to do a book report in French, and do a long presentation explaining what it was about.

The problem was that I hadn't read a book, and I sucked at French (I'm fluent, but my grammer is beyond horrible). Luckily this projecr was oral, so I was able to improvise.

I made up a story about a man in Italy. He promised his now passed mother that he would never tell anyone the secret recipe of the pasta sauce. However one day he gives up the secret for a million dollars to two businessmen. Those businessmen would go on to create Boston's Pizza. I forget what happened to the Italian, but I know he got very sad and depressed and guilty. I said this in front of the class for over 10 minutes, and everyone was laughing the whole way through, including me (which is probably why it lasted so long).

Long story short, if I can pass (52%) a french oral book report without even reading a book, you can memorise a couple of lines

 

[Patrick]

That's funny. You're right, I'll probably be fine.

 

[mattythedog]

I just got an English project assigned that's due next Friday. We have to memorize 20-30 lines from Much Ado About Nothing and present it in front of the class.

That's a great play, I performed it last year. I was an extra though. My English teacher hated me...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And in Yr7 I had to watch an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet where everyone looked like a pimp and drove riced cars and had shootouts at petrol stations but talked like they were from Shakespeare's time.

It's called Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, and it is an excellent adaptation of the play. Believe me, I know - I've taught it before, and a lot of students respond very positively to it. Unlike Ten Things I Hate About You (which is an adaptaion of The Taming of the Shrew), Luhrman's film is written almost entirely in iambic pentameter, and it really does give you a sense of how Shakespeare is supposed to be performed.

 

[lbsf1]

It's called Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, and it is an excellent adaptation of the play. Believe me, I know - I've taught it before, and a lot of students respond very positively to it. Unlike Ten Things I Hate About You (which is an adaptaion of The Taming of the Shrew), Luhrman's film is written almost entirely in iambic pentameter, and it really does give you a sense of how Shakespeare is supposed to be performed.

It is the best rendition that you will be able to get of Shakespeare. I have just spent the last term studying it, however even though it is the best version it is still far from good. IMO all of shakespeare is pretty bad, the plots are simple,guessable and sometimes very strange. He may have been a good writer at the time, however compared to modern writers then there are much better texts we could be learning from. And last of all it is impossible to read so much so that you have to actually work at trying to decode the plot from his maze of Thy's and Thoust's.

I wish schools would stop acting as if Shakespeare was the be all and end all of english writing, he's not.

 

[Skython]

It's called Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, and it is an excellent adaptation of the play. Believe me, I know - I've taught it before, and a lot of students respond very positively to it. Unlike Ten Things I Hate About You (which is an adaptaion of The Taming of the Shrew), Luhrman's film is written almost entirely in iambic pentameter, and it really does give you a sense of how Shakespeare is supposed to be performed.

Really? Students here all hated it.

 

[disinfected]

We loved it when I watched it in high school...but of course, times have changed since 12 years ago. If you look at it from that perspective, it was awesome. It's nothing on the current generation though.

 

[cullenand]

It's called Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet, and it is an excellent adaptation of the play. Believe me, I know - I've taught it before, and a lot of students respond very positively to it. Unlike Ten Things I Hate About You (which is an adaptaion of The Taming of the Shrew), Luhrman's film is written almost entirely in iambic pentameter, and it really does give you a sense of how Shakespeare is supposed to be performed.

I absolutely hated it. The only good thing about it was that I got to take an hour and a half nap.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

IMO all of shakespeare is pretty bad, the plots are simple,guessable and sometimes very strange.

Shakespeare was incredibly unconventional for his time, particularly in his comedies. Take, for example, The Taming of the Shrew - it is presented as a play within a play (which no other playwright did), and had a multi-layered plot as several suitors are forced to work together to find a husband for Katarina, but sabotage one another in their pursuit of Bianca.

I wish schools would stop acting as if Shakespeare was the be all and end all of english writing, he's not.

Shakespeare is incredibly highly-regarded, simply because he lived four hundred years ago, and yet his works are still relevant today. Romeo and Juliet is particularly relevant to young people, because of the age of the protagonists and the themes within the story.

That said, as popular as the play is, it's not particularly well-written. Shakespeare killed his most-interesting character - Tybalt - to stop him dominating the story, characters (particularly Romeo) have a tendency to say twenty words when two will suffice, and too much of the plot hinges on precise and incredibly unlucky timing. Romeo and Juliet is largely experimental, mostly because it was a departure from the popular revenge tragedies of the time; his first tragedy, Titus Andronicus was incredibly brutal and gory in places, and modern audiences find it almost impossible to sit through. Romeo and Juliet, however, is a tragedy without the revenge, which is perhaps the source of the problems with the plot; the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet lies in the way fate seemingly conspires to keep the two people who deserve happiness the most from actually acheiving it. He says as much in the chorus, which gives away the ending about ten lines into the play (though by spoiling the ending, it forces the audience's attention onto the characters rather than the events). If you want a much more refined tragedy, then I suggest you read either Macbeth, Othello or Hamlet.

As for the attitude of schools towards Shakespeare, the first thing I do with any class is discuss why we're studying Shakepseare at all.

Really? Students here all hated it.

I absolutely hated it. The only good thing about it was that I got to take an hour and a half nap.

Dare I say it, but you probably weren't taught it properly. In order to fully understand Shakespeare, you need to both see it performed and read the text. Just doing one or the other isn't enough.

 

[Matej]

Just wanted to point out that presenting something in front of 20-30 people can only be frustrating if you're type of person that hates public appearance (like me for instance). When I was a high school kid I got an assignment to prepare presentation from biology about prahistoric animals and their sequels today. I think I got lower grade than I really deserved and only because I was nervous and forgot to say most important things.

However, now when I look at that it seems like a piece of cake since I'm currently preparing for presentation about banking and system of payment in Croatia. There might be around 80-100 people in classroom but that's fine because on economic college you get chance to present in front of 300-500 people too and presentations are more frequent assignments.

It would be also very interesting to compare Croatia high school system with one in USA or England. If someone can come up with daily students schedule it would be good point to start from.

 

[E28]

Dare I say it, but you probably weren't taught it properly. In order to fully understand Shakespeare, you need to both see it performed and read the text. Just doing one or the other isn't enough.

I hated it to. Mind you, it probably was my teacher. No one really liked her and we didn't learn much, she just stuck on the DVD one lesson and told us to watch it...

 

[LancerEvo7]

Dare I say it, but you probably weren't taught it properly. In order to fully understand Shakespeare, you need to both see it performed and read the text. Just doing one or the other isn't enough.

My teacher left halfway through to have a kid, so we had a substitute for the rest of it. So you're probably right in my case.

 

[lbsf1]

I hated it to. Mind you, it probably was my teacher. No one really liked her and we didn't learn much, she just stuck on the DVD one lesson and told us to watch it...

We had a half decent teacher, she was kinda weird and that itself made us pay attention, she sometimes gave out exotic fruit to people who worked well??? but then she left to go travellling and the teacher we got instead (and who did romea and juliet)makes every lesson the same (read chapter then answer PEE questions on it (prisonermonkeys will get what that means.)) she also speaks in the worlds most monotonous voice. She isn't a bad teacher, if you could stay awake during her lessons you would get a good grade.

However when teaching 35 students who are some of the most intelligent in the school, however 95% of which have no need for more than a B in english at GCSE to do what they want to in life, so therefore everything else takes priority.
We have finished doing english language which is a gcse in itself and only have literature to do. I got an A in language so even if I didn't even do the exam at the end of this year (which is literature) then I would still be apsolutely fine to go to a top uni for mechanical engineering.

 

[PeterJB]

We had a half decent teacher, she was kinda weird and that itself made us pay attention, she sometimes gave out exotic fruit to people who worked well??? but then she left to go travellling and the teacher we got instead (and who did romea and juliet)makes every lesson the same (read chapter then answer PEE questions on it (prisonermonkeys will get what that means.)) she also speaks in the worlds most monotonous voice. She isn't a bad teacher, if you could stay awake during her lessons you would get a good grade.

Ugh. The PEE chain. Don't remind me.

 

[Ross]

We had a half decent teacher, she was kinda weird and that itself made us pay attention, she sometimes gave out exotic fruit to people who worked well??? but then she left to go travellling and the teacher we got instead (and who did romea and juliet)makes every lesson the same (read chapter then answer PEE questions on it (prisonermonkeys will get what that means.)) she also speaks in the worlds most monotonous voice. She isn't a bad teacher, if you could stay awake during her lessons you would get a good grade.

Ugh. The PEE chain. Don't remind me.

As long as you're good at finding quotes then you should have no problem. Trust me. I was rubbish at first but then a I finally mastered it my work was getting level 7.

 

[lbsf1]

As long as you're good at finding quotes then you should have no problem. Trust me. I was rubbish at first but then a I finally mastered it my work was getting level 7.

Finding quotes is ok, but level 7 is only a C at gcse. To do well at GCSE you need to master the art of over analysis, eg."The man went took his red car into the forest to do some woodcutting."

Analysis our teacher would do for that quote. The writer chose the man to have a red car to show his anger, and this is backed up by the fact that he goes woodcutting to possibly get away from his problems at home and take his anger out. The woodcutting also suggest that he lives in a rural area, and/or is poor since that he uses wood for fuel.

The above isn't an exajuration, that is pretty much what we are told to write. Most teachers have never thought that a writer might just write something, every word has to be deeply thought out with some deeper reason behind its existance.

 

[Ross]

Finding quotes is ok, but level 7 is only a C at gcse. To do well at GCSE you need to master the art of over analysis, eg."The man went took his red car into the forest to do some woodcutting."

Analysis our teacher would do for that quote. The writer chose the man to have a red car to show his anger, and this is backed up by the fact that he goes woodcutting to possibly get away from his problems at home and take his anger out. The woodcutting also suggest that he lives in a rural area, and/or is poor since that he uses wood for fuel.

The above isn't an exajuration, that is pretty much what we are told to write. Most teachers have never thought that a writer might just write something, every word has to be deeply thought out with some deeper reason behind its existance.

I know, I am only in Year 9 and I am in Top set for English

 

[mattythedog]

I know, I am only in Year 9 and I am in Top set for English

I fail in English. I'm good in the lessons, getting top grades throughout the year, but in our end of year tests I always flop. Usually it's a comprehension and a creative writing task, last year I got 67%.

 

[Ross]

I fail in English. I'm good in the lessons, getting top grades throughout the year, but in our end of year tests I always flop. Usually it's a comprehension and a creative writing task, last year I got 67%.

It's my creative skills holding me back as well. When we are analysing something or writing a report on a book, I am one of the top in the class but when we have to do anything creative my levels drop right down.

 

[rb26x]

Creative writing is a bad place for me, too. I'm more of a math/science type person, but my best grades were always history; I just find it so easy. Anyway, that version of Romeo and Juliet was correct, the iambic pentameter was there, but I absolutely loathed the cheesy neon hair styles and cheesy actors that said everything so emotionless or melodramatic. If a few things were changed about it, I may have liked it.

Right now, school is bad. There have been three bomb/gun threats in the last two weeks. The one was found to be false, and the other two are calling for "blood drawn" on the 15th of March. I really doubt anything will happen, but for obvious reasons the school is really playing it safe. This means no non-mesh backpacks, no walking to the bathroom or locker without a signed pass, and all-around security crack-downs on everything. The mesh bag rule is dumb; if someone wanted to bring in a gun or small bomb they could use pants, or still hide it in a mesh bag. There have been randomly-selected students every morning walking in that get searched as well, but the profiling done by the administrators is so evident. If any kid is wearing athletic clothing or looks rich or clean, they won't be searched. I wear flannels and Clint Eastwood shirts with jeans and Vans, so I usually get searched with all the other kids that wear Carhartt jackets and look a little scruffy. It's just stressful.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Finding quotes is ok, but level 7 is only a C at gcse. To do well at GCSE you need to master the art of over analysis, eg."The man went took his red car into the forest to do some woodcutting."

Analysis our teacher would do for that quote. The writer chose the man to have a red car to show his anger, and this is backed up by the fact that he goes woodcutting to possibly get away from his problems at home and take his anger out. The woodcutting also suggest that he lives in a rural area, and/or is poor since that he uses wood for fuel.

The above isn't an exajuration, that is pretty much what we are told to write. Most teachers have never thought that a writer might just write something, every word has to be deeply thought out with some deeper reason behind its existance.

Yeah, that's not English. English is about meaning - the meaning that you get from a text, and more importantly, how you get it. You need to be able to show your understanding of the text, particularly the theme of the text. Extapolation, insinuation and implication don't come into it.

the teacher we got instead (and who did romea and juliet)makes every lesson the same (read chapter then answer PEE questions on it (prisonermonkeys will get what that means.))

I have no idea what PEE is. But I suspect it's similar (if not the same) as QTE - Quote, Technique, Effect. You find a quote in the text, name the technique used, and describe the effect on the audience. Though I personally think TQE would be a better way of arranging it.

For example, I've been doing crime fiction with one of my classes of late. I found a short story by Jeffrey Deaver called Together that has a very clever use of the unreliable narrator.

Spoiler

The story starts out with a man recounting his time with the woman he loved. He was an under-educated former Marine who struggled to find work once he was discharged. After a workplace accident, he met a young woman working at the hospital emergency room and started a relationship with her - but her powerful father didn't approve. The rest of the story is about their flight from him and his influence.

However, the twist ending reveals that they were not actually in a relationship at all. The narrator was dumped after two dates, at which point he started stalking the girl, and ultimately kidnapped her. When the FBI got involved and started closing in on him, he killed the girl and buried her body. He is now on death row and is about to be executed, and the story is a last-ditch effort by a priest to get him to reveal the location of the girl's body.

The unreliable narrator is the technique. The quotes would be an extract of dialogue from the narrator, compared to dialogue from a secondary character. The effect is that this use of the unreliable narrator changes everything that has happened within the story, and we are forced to review the events in a new light. I literally went back and re-read the story as soon as I finished it, looking at all the clever set-ups that the author had scattered through the story.

we didn't learn much, she just stuck on the DVD one lesson and told us to watch it...

Well, that's no way to teach ...

 

[lbsf1]

Yeah, that's not English. English is about meaning - the meaning that you get from a text, and more importantly, how you get it. You need to be able to show your understanding of the text, particularly the theme of the text. Extapolation, insinuation and implication don't come into it.

Yeah thats what it should be like, however that seems to be missed in translation for our teachers.

I have no idea what PEE is. But I suspect it's similar (if not the same) as QTE - Quote, Technique, Effect. You find a quote in the text, name the technique used, and describe the effect on the audience. Though I personally think TQE would be a better way of arranging it.

Yeah thats pretty much what it is, for us PEE stands for Point Evidence Explanation.

For example, I've been doing crime fiction with one of my classes of late. I found a short story by Jeffrey Deaver called Together that has a very clever use of the unreliable narrator.

Spoiler

The story starts out with a man recounting his time with the woman he loved. He was an under-educated former Marine who struggled to find work once he was discharged. After a workplace accident, he met a young woman working at the hospital emergency room and started a relationship with her - but her powerful father didn't approve. The rest of the story is about their flight from him and his influence.

However, the twist ending reveals that they were not actually in a relationship at all. The narrator was dumped after two dates, at which point he started stalking the girl, and ultimately kidnapped her. When the FBI got involved and started closing in on him, he killed the girl and buried her body. He is now on death row and is about to be executed, and the story is a last-ditch effort by a priest to get him to reveal the location of the girl's body.

The unreliable narrator is the technique. The quotes would be an extract of dialogue from the narrator, compared to dialogue from a secondary character. The effect is that this use of the unreliable narrator changes everything that has happened within the story, and we are forced to review the events in a new light. I literally went back and re-read the story as soon as I finished it, looking at all the clever set-ups that the author had scattered through the story.

Damn I wish I had a teacher like you.