It's a funny thing, when I was at school (the first time, that is) English was actually my favourite subject. It was easy, poetry, writing, analysis, speaking, it all came so naturally. Fast forward 5 years and the tables could not be anymore turned without tunneling into higher-dimensional space. A fresh start coupled with a new found respect has seen mathematics rapidly and without contest ascend into the position of my favourite subject, while my love of English (only the subject, not the language) has withered over the course of the last 4 months. But, I am still an English student, so I feel compelled to find something to talk about on the subject.
So, on Monday night, the maths student, lucky bugger that he is, was enjoying calculations and demonstrations while deliberatin' and a-conjugatin' the emancipation proclamation (South Park reference, don't ask me why, I don't even watch the show) in preparation as our train keeps a-thunderin' inevitably on towards examination station on Monday. In that same spirit, last night our class was doing some last minute preparation for our English exam, also on Monday. The general format of the exam is essentially the following. Question 1 asks one to elucidate the meaning of certain phrases that are proliferated throughout the passage that we have been given to analyze. Nothing too difficult, although it did lead to something of a comedic moment when my friend Katrina and I translated "generally considered to die" to "widely believed to expire". Replacing words with their direct synonyms is probably not an unsound strategy, although I have no difficulty imagining an examiner having a particularly bad day would dock a few marks for it as their is an undercurrent of tongue-in-cheek to the answer. Safest practice if one is truly lost is to try and grasp the context the words are spoken in, target the words that you do know the meaning of and make an educated assessment on the balance of probability regarding the meaning of the rest of the words. Also this has already been stressed by our tutor Rodney, but I would hope it is fairly obvious not to use words already found in the phrase, other perhaps than conjunctives ("and, but, of, because, so, is" for example). So far so obvious.
Question 2 allows a little more freedom, in the case of the practice paper we were given, we were told to outline the three principle findings of the passage. Not too much time spent on any of them, just an outline and a little exposition, not too much, no need to go overboard, but it is a chance to demonstrate some flair, I would take it, partly to show off and partly for the sake of my own sanity that has been locked in mortal combat with the rigid structure of the subject as a whole.
Question 3 seems to be the one that trips a lot of people up. Essentially we are given a part of the passage and asked to boil the information down to it's most important, concise points and present it as a condensed summery, in the case of last night it was a 45 word summery for a passage lasting a few hundred words. This is where having an expansive vocabulary can be very useful, being able to condense a phrase down to a word or two is an invaluable asset for this, but it's not essentially that you be a walking thesaurus. Patience is key, take the time to plan the summery out, make a few rough drafts, be careful with how you use your language. One thing that was working really well for me was to strip the passage down to it's absolute bare essentials, to as few words as possible and then add bits of information in, rather than trying to take bits out after finding it was too long. If you can't, you can't, but if you can, then as I say, I found it helpful. One thing I can say for definite is that summaries are not as difficult as you think they are, just be careful with your language and don't be afraid to make rough drafts and tweak it until you're happy.
Question 4 is where the fun really begins, because this is the essay question. Usually, as was the case last night, the question posed is pretty vague and gives you a wide scope of material and arguments to work with. Last night it was "Does a longer life lead to happiness?". A question like that is money, there is so much you can do with it, there are so many arguments for and against, points to follow up on, analysis to be given, observations to be made, that you could very easily go on for a good 5-6 pages and only scratch the surface. As it is, 2 pages is probably as far as you should go, maybe 2 and a half, so it's important to be concise, but at the same time, for the sake of the quality of your work, and for the sake of your own sanity, try as far as possible to enjoy it, really try and get inside the mindset of the question, and of the sides arguing for and against it, and if you can't enjoy the question it's self, try, as with question 2, to at least enjoy the freedom that an essay format can give you to put your own stamp on your work, to imbue it with your own character and flair in a way you really couldn't when faced with the rigidity of questions 1 and 3.
So, we have passed our last stop, the exams are on the horizon and inching closer all the time. 0930 at examination station. Until then, I've been the English student, and wherefore (as in "wherefore art thou Romeo") does not mean where, it means why.
No comments:
Post a Comment