Is the LC "Dumbed Down" ?

Lucas10101

There has been media talks as of late that the Leaving Certificate is being dumbed down and not as difficult as once was. Minister Hanafin blocked the idea after telling the media that she plans on definitely moving English and Irish Paper 1 to May.

She claims " The standard of the results is higher because young people these days are more open to education and really want to do well for themselves".

I've added a poll, do you believe it's being dumbed down??

mathias

No

Absolutely , I still have my leaving cert papers , and the questions compared to todays paper were of a considerably more difficult nature.

Its easy to compare also , as past papers are available from a number of sources.

brianthebard

Yes boyles law isn't even on the physics paper.

colm-ccfc84

Certainly not the case for every subject.

genericgoon

No

Yes some subjects are still about the same especially marginal subjects which havent had a recent syllabus change. For example my phys/chem will only be slightly easier then one 10 years ago and thats mainly due to the maths tables.

AdMMM

I don't think that it's being "dumbed down" per say, but it's certainly being made more accessible with questions offering more scope for flexibility. Also, teachers are also now in a better position than ever to exploit and manipulate the system. Even simple things like the changeover to white boards allow teachers to write what they want to, faster, and spend the saved time improving the standard of their classes.

Lucas10101

No

colm-ccfc84 wrote:

Certainly not the case for every subject.

Well subject by subject, here's my 2 cents worth:

English -> I think it's pretty standard and constant. Any Poetry or Comparative question is nearly in the same ball park...only the Single Text is different mostly. Paper 1 can have bad ones and good ones...overall...I don't think it's gotten easier although this year we got what seemed a nice paper.

Maths -> Personally I found 2006-2002 harder than 1994-1998, but that's just me. Like before, we happened to get a very easy paper 1, however the same material is being covered since 1994 so no syllabus change recently.

Irish -> The Ordinary was recently changed and seems easier, actually a joke.

Geography -> A joke as well. Far too easy as explained on the Geography thread. Any introduction of a project makes the subject more accessible and simpler to pass. A lot more work before syllabus change.

History -> The workload is reduced significantly from the previous syllabus and the introduction of the project as said before.

Biology -> I think this is too simple and could be made a lot more difficult, I don't know why it's this simple. The older syllabus had a lot more work however difficult the teachers failed in completing it.

Even though with syllabus changes and the introduction of projects, from that perspective it's easier alone. The older syllabus had a lot more work, thus was way more difficult. And with Hanafin reducing stress by moving forwards Paper 1 for eng and irish, this is a step closer to being easier in terms of stress there.

JC 2K3

No

Yup, it's been very dumbed down and covered up with this "students have more resources" and "the paper's are just more accessable" crap.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with this, all the LC is about is getting CAO points and learning a broad range of random information. The exams themselves need not be any harder than they currently are.

Lucas10101

No

Does it matter that it's being dumbed down though. After all, more will be able to go to college due to getting higher points, thus the course they want.

This might not affect college though but a certain standard may be lost as Uni's expect a certain grade in certain subjects for a reason and introducing simplification, would this matter????

colm-ccfc84

Lucas10101 wrote:

Well subject by subject, here's my 2 cents worth:

English -> I think it's pretty standard and constant. Any Poetry or Comparative question is nearly in the same ball park...only the Single Text is different mostly. Paper 1 can have bad ones and good ones...overall...I don't think it's gotten easier although this year we got what seemed a nice paper.

Maths -> Personally I found 2006-2002 harder than 1994-1998, but that's just me. Like before, we happened to get a very easy paper 1, however the same material is being covered since 1994 so no syllabus change recently.

Irish -> The Ordinary was recently changed and seems easier, actually a joke.

Geography -> A joke as well. Far too easy as explained on the Geography thread. Any introduction of a project makes the subject more accessible and simpler to pass. A lot more work before syllabus change.

History -> The workload is reduced significantly from the previous syllabus and the introduction of the project as said before.

Biology -> I think this is too simple and could be made a lot more difficult, I don't know why it's this simple. The older syllabus had a lot more work however difficult the teachers failed in completing it.

Even though with syllabus changes and the introduction of projects, from that perspective it's easier alone. The older syllabus had a lot more work, thus was way more difficult. And with Hanafin reducing stress by moving forwards Paper 1 for eng and irish, this is a step closer to being easier in terms of stress there.

I would agree with you on English, Geography , Maths and OL Irish. However I do not do bio or history. From an accounting perspective (myself being an A1 student) the exam is not getting easier. A few years ago it was easier because theory was almost absent, now it is coming on more and more so they can control it more. I don't feel business will be any easier than previous years, paper is normally of a very similar level (again I would be an A1 student).

JC 2K3

No

Lucas10101 wrote:

Does it matter that it's being dumbed down though. After all, more will be able to go to college due to getting higher points, thus the course they want.

Lol, that's not how the points system works at all!

Lucas10101 wrote:

This might not affect college though but a certain standard may be lost as Uni's expect a certain grade in certain subjects for a reason and introducing simplification, would this matter????

If the standard drops, the requirements will increase. So if you needed at B3 in a certain subject and the standard of people entering the course was too low they'd raise it to an A2. If this standard was too low they'd put pressure on the SEC to raise the difficulty level of the exam.

JC 2K3

No

colm-ccfc84 wrote:

I would agree with you on English, Geography , Maths and OL Irish. However I do not do bio or history. From an accounting perspective (myself being an A1 student) the exam is not getting easier. A few years ago it was easier because theory was almost absent, now it is coming on more and more so they can control it more. I don't feel business will be any easier than previous years, paper is normally of a very similar level (again I would be an A1 student).

Pfft, business and accounting aren't real subjects

Science subjects, maths, applied maths and a couple of other subjects have gotten clearly easier(ie. much more emphasis on rote learning). It's probably not the case for ALL subjects.

You say more theory is coming into accounting, does this mean more rote learning? If so then I would count that as getting easier.

colm-ccfc84

JC 2K3 wrote:

Pfft, business and accounting aren't real subjects

Science subjects, maths, applied maths and a couple of other subjects have gotten clearly easier(ie. much more emphasis on rote learning). It's probably not the case for ALL subjects.

You say more theory is coming into accounting, does this mean more rote learning? If so then I would count that as getting easier.

It isn't getting easier. The theory is being introduced to bring some people down.

JC 2K3

No

But is theory not just learning off stuff rather than having to understand the subject?

It's be like if they started to introduce definitions in Maths.....

colm-ccfc84

JC 2K3 wrote:

But is theory not just learning off stuff rather than having to understand the subject?

It's be like if they started to introduce definitions in Maths.....

You are missing the point. Eg for one of the 100m questions about 5 or 6 years ago the entire 100marks was for doing the actual accounting. Same question couple of years ago had 85marks for the accouting and 15m for the theory. This makes the question longer and more difficult.

E92

colm-ccfc84 wrote:

I would agree with you on English, Geography , Maths and OL Irish. However I do not do bio or history. From an accounting perspective (myself being an A1 student) the exam is not getting easier. A few years ago it was easier because theory was almost absent, now it is coming on more and more so they can control it more. I don't feel business will be any easier than previous years, paper is normally of a very similar level (again I would be an A1 student).

I think it is being dumbed down in the sense that whenever they introduce a new course the failure rates always seem to drop hugely. Making a paper more accessable to students by using colour for photos, removing the evil bits from an old syllabus doesnt mean that a paper is beinmg dumbed down. The reason why we're finding it easier is that many of us now go to grinds for certain subjects in places like Bruce College or the Institute of Education and of course a lot more people are going to grinds schools nowadays than before and those places usually have the best teachers in the area and sometimes in the country. The number of A's is higher because of this and also because the points for so many subjects has been going up and up a lot in recent years, meaning that for a lot of courses people have to work a lot harder than before.

Anyone who thinks that the exams are being dummbed down who hasnt done the Leaving Cert in recent years should go back and do it again, since "its now so easy".

nedward

I think it is just being made more accessible. In my view, the papers are no longer being made out to catch you out, but for you to show what you know. If that leads to grade inflation, well, it's worth it

EDIT: Agree with everything you've said there, E92. God, I hate those old columnists in the papers who swear blind their 300 points in 1986 are equal to 600 points today. It's daft.

Choc.Monster

brianthebard wrote:

Yes boyles law isn't even on the physics paper.

Yes it is!!

Enemy Of Fate

Well it depends on what subject you're talking about.For instance the economics exams back in the early 90's were laughable.LAUGHABLE.20 marks going for listing 5 things.LISTING.And the short questions only required a one (very short) sentence answer, with no further information or examples needed.Now the economics exams are still quite easy to this day, but nowhere near as easy as they were in the early 90s.

ninebeanrows

Am i the only one who has just finished 1/4 of their LC. Enough of this talk of things been easy, we haven't gone half way yet......;)

I have a feeling Maths PP2 will be a biatch.

EamonnKeane

No

" The standard of the results is higher because young people these days are more open to education and really want to do well for themselves"

That is the most retarded statement I have ever heard. It seems she was just stuck in politician-speak mode, tossing out a few standard phrases at any old question. I assume kids in the 80's and 90's really wanted to do badly for themselves and mistrusted education as a Protestant tool of oppression.

JC 2K3

No

E92 wrote:

I think it is being dumbed down in the sense that whenever they introduce a new course the failure rates always seem to drop hugely. Making a paper more accessable to students by using colour for photos, removing the evil bits from an old syllabus doesnt mean that a paper is beinmg dumbed down.

Removing evil bits from a syllabus IS dumbing down.

E92 wrote:

The reason why we're finding it easier is that many of us now go to grinds for certain subjects in places like Bruce College or the Institute of Education and of course a lot more people are going to grinds schools nowadays than before and those places usually have the best teachers in the area and sometimes in the country.

/me suggests there be a study done on those who don't do grinds and compare that to the past results.

/me asserts there would be higher grades these days

E92 wrote:

The number of A's is higher because of this and also because the points for so many subjects has been going up and up a lot in recent years, meaning that for a lot of courses people have to work a lot harder than before.

It amazes me how many students don't understand the points system.

E92 wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the exams are being dummbed down who hasnt done the Leaving Cert in recent years should go back and do it again, since "its now so easy".

I'm doing it now and think it's been dumbed down. Would you like to go back to the 80s/90s and sit it? Didn't think so.

JC 2K3

No

nedward wrote:

I think it is just being made more accessible. In my view, the papers are no longer being made out to catch you out, but for you to show what you know. If that leads to grade inflation, well, it's worth it

EDIT: Agree with everything you've said there, E92. God, I hate those old columnists in the papers who swear blind their 300 points in 1986 are equal to 600 points today. It's daft.

It's not daft, points are relative. A C is no longer the average grade. In terms of workload, the 300 points in 1986 could well be equal to 600 today. Back then, As were unheard of, let alone 6 As.

Naikon

No

Grade inflation FTW.

Mushy

JC 2K3 wrote:

But is theory not just learning off stuff rather than having to understand the subject?

It's be like if they started to introduce definitions in Maths.....

This in response to the accounting stuff you were saying. The theory is always different in Accounting, for some parts. Only bout half the theory can you learn off(Such as Incomplete Records). A few years back, one theory part was "Explain Principal Budget Factor?" That sort of stuff, something new, comes up most years, which you will more than likely not get, hence bringing you down. One question on the Accounting Paper is mostly theory(but not marks wise), which is blatantly rote learning...comes up every year, without fail. Thats the main exception

nedward

JC 2K3 wrote:

Back then, As were unheard of, let alone 6 As.

I've heard this being said so many times. Are there stats available to show this?

JC 2K3

No

Most likely.

genericgoon

No

For alot of the mainstream subjects its easier as the new syllabuses are nearly always more student friendly or more course work. However there is usually a better balance got in time but in recent years a lot of subjects have changed and are now only starting to get to the right level.

cocoa

No

yes, it is being dumbed down and from my perspective, no, it is not a good thing. When an exam is easy, more people get As, means my A is worth less than it would be if I was the only one who had one. From my point of view, the harder the exam is the better.

cocoa

cocoa wrote:

means my A is worth less than it would be if I was the only one who had one.

Well no, not really. 100 points are 100 points are 100 points. You don't get less due to more people getting 100 in one subject - though if your point reflected on more people getting higher points which would impact college places, I'd agree with it.

E92

JC 2K3 wrote:

Removing evil bits from a syllabus IS dumbing down.

It amazes me how many students don't understand the points system.

Well if youre directing that comment at me you're wrong,in my opinion. By the way, if what I'm about to say sounds like a rant or me being completely pissed off with you, a)I'm not or anything like it(for sounding pissed off), and b) I do apologise(for both), I'm just expressing my view;) . I very much understand the points system. The points system is determined by the number of students who applied for a course versus how many places are available. If 50 students apply for a course, and theres 20 places on that course, then the 20 best scoring students in the LC get the course. So the last person to get into courses's points are the 'cut off points'. So if the 20th person got 585 points, then that was the minimum number of points needed to get in.

I dont accept that it is dumbing down. All it does is change the perception of the course. Like getting rid of cloze tests in German got rid of the most hated part of the exam. Everyone hated them, but they were still only 10 marks out of 400. Getting rid of hard bits doesnt make it any ewasier, it justy simply means that when people talk about subjects they dont whinge about say German or french or whatever as much as they once would.
If the thing is so much easier, then why do they get the same results every year in terms of the number of A's, B's etc plus or minus 2-3 %? I guarantee you when they change the Irish course in 2012 that they will get very similar results to what they get now, except that people might actually be able to speak the supposed 1st language of the country, whereas at the moment everyone lears off answers at both levels on everything. I worked it out that if all you did was learn off answers, you could have 72 % of your Irish grade straight away(learn off answers to Paper 2, Essay in Paper 1, Oral, and you have 430 out the 600) A B3 or 75 points withoutbeing that good at Gaeilge in honours, and I'm sure that pass has a similar rate!Surley if it were so much easier then the A's should have shot up a lot more.
The numbers that fail Pass Maths are astonishing, despite complaints every single year that this happens, in fact the numbers failing Pass Maths are roughly half the number of students doing honours Maths, so much for it being 'dumbed down'.

Another reason why it might be perceived as being dumbed down is as I already mentioned all the people going to grinds schools leading to a perception of grade inflation, and people doing extra subjects etc, so they are studying morte intelligently, ie really dfocusing in on what subjects can we get extra points more easily from, what ones fdopnt we have to do well in etc, and people are more likely to be taking the correct level as well, what with all the advice we're given these days. If you do Applied Maths, have a look at the papers from the 80s/early 90's, some are a bit easier than last years paper and much easier than the 2005 paper. The old Accounting papers are in fact easier than the new ones, like 2 years ago there was that Incomplete Q with all those new adjustments, and last the Costing Question was stange as well, plus theory was non existant(and theory is a pain in the ar*e). The Honours Maths are no easier or harder now than they were back in 94 IMO, in fact they recycled the question on Arithmetico-Geometric Series from 1975!!