All the possible OWLS

[Hannah]

No: HPFGUIDX 125954


> > Amy wrote:
 I have often asked myself this same question.  I mean if anyone 
> isgoing to get 12 OWLs it will be Hermione.
 
> > > > I like your[Hannah's] idea that maybe there are different 
types  of OWLs within each subject.  I truly believe that this would 
make the most  since  and would simulate our own educational 
testing.  > 
 
> Brent replied:
> > I always assumed the practical and written were considered 2 
> separate  OWLs.  In the book they are worded that way.  I remember 
it  sounding 
> > like they were described as the Written OWL and practical OWL 
like  they are 2 different things.  
<snip>

> Sandy replied:
<snip>
> I've previously posted several  
> pieces of canon that support the one-subject, one-OWL position 
<snip>; but briefly, in their talks to classes about OWLs, 
> both Snape and McGonagall tell the students "I expect you to earn 
an  OWL" in this subject, and those are both subjects that would 
break 
> down into 2 OWLs is you beleive practical earns a second OWL. I 
don't  think either Snape or MM would be settle for their students 
only  earning one OWL when 2 are possible. Also, 
> Parvati says "Isn't there a practical bit on our DADA OWL?" 
clearly  indicating practical and theory are combined.

Hannah now:  Yes, I agree with you Sandy (some good arguments 
there), and I'll add on my own favourite arguments against 
the 'separate OWLs for practical and theory' hypothesis. Firstly, it 
makes no sense from an academic point of view.  OK, I know that is 
true of quite a few things about Hogwarts that are canon, but I 
still think it stands.

If OWLs were awarded separately for practical and theory, then what 
would be the incentive for a lot of kids who don't like memorising 
things, writing essays, etc. to bother with the theory side?  If you 
can get your practical Charms OWL and perform the magic you want, 
why would you bother to do all the book learning if you don't enjoy 
it?  And likewise, what would be the use of a Charms theory OWL if 
you were actually incapable of performing any of the Charms?  In 
fact, if this were the case, a Muggle could go in and pass the 
theory OWLs if they were taught the facts.

I think the theory and the practical for magic are inextricably 
linked, rather like science in the RL.  You don't have two separate 
GCSEs (RL OWL equivalent) for 'practical science' and 'theoretical 
science.'  Rather the science exam is made up of both a theoretical 
and a practical element.  If you understand the theory but cannot 
actually design and perform experiments, you can't be an effective 
scientist (I left the profession for that very reason - too clumsy), 
but likewise it's no good being able to perform the practical parts 
without any understanding of the theory behind what you're trying to 
do.  The same goes for other subjects, like music, PE, drama etc. I 
see magic in the same way.

My other argument, in addition to those given already by other 
posters, is when McGonagall talks to Harry about the grades needed 
to be an Auror.  She is talking about Transfiguration, Charms, 
Potions, DADA - all the subjects that are most often suggested as 
being separated into two elements.  But she doesn't say 'and that 
means both parts, practical and theory' and nor does Harry ask if it 
has to be for both parts, or either part, or one part more than the 
other.  

Just my opinion.  Roll on July...

Hannah