Is the LC "Dumbed Down" ?

Corruptedmorals

No

Yes definitely. Getting an A used to such an achievement. Not that I'm complaining.

Suppose it's all part and parcel of grinds/grind schools/revision books, and they really did have to get rid of the high failure rates in some subjects. The old history course was EVIL, I don't think history has been dumbed down, it's more a case of a reasonable amount of stuff to cover in the time given.

Same with english and irish lierature, it's swapped around, so it's harder to predict. A1 grades in English have gone down. But in general, yeah, dumbed down. Especially biology.

JC 2K3

No

E92 wrote:

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.

You said LC grades were higher because the points for courses were higher. However, the grades have to go up before the points can go up.

E92

Higher grades isn't necessarily proportional to higher CAO points. Like what about all the people, like me who do 8 subjects instead of the usual 7? I'm not doin an extra subject for the "pleasure" of having to do 8/7s of the work that most other people will do. I'm doing it so that I dont have to worry about my weakest subjects, English and Business, and also because I really like Maths, and doing Applied Maths is basically more Maths(and Physics). Most people would run a mile from it.
I think that some subjects are being 'dumbed down', but only to some people. Physics being the obvious example. No Calculus (a big part of Physics in universitry is doing questions involving Calculus, apparantly Physics lectureres/professors in Universities are outraged by how much the Maths requirement has declined for LC Physics, in the same way that plenty of Maths teachers detest the fact that calculators can now be used for JC Maths), apart from the straight line motion formulae which can be done by integration! The number of calculations on paper are way less than before the new course, and easier, no SHM or circular motion q's for instance. But I think that makes Physics harder for me, having less and easier calculations than before, because there is more learning, and I hate that. I prefer subjects where there isnt a lot of learning, where you have to just understand concepts, formulae etc and apply them to different situations, which you wont have seen before. It is supposed to be a subject with Maths in it, and a Pass Student could easily handle the vast majority of the calculations in honours Physics, once they understand scientific notation, because its all done on the calculator, and I'm sorry, but I don't see anything difficult about typing a couple of numbers into a calculator. Different strokes for different folks. It makes it easier for those who dont like Maths, but lets be honest, its very difficult to like Physics if you dont like Maths or at the very least are good at Maths, so I cant see the point.

Its like doing an English exam without Shakespeare, a pain in the ass for those who love English, but a dream come true for the rest of us. But you have to appeal to the target group. Getting rid of Macbeth would make me like English more, but its still a subject I dislike, and I'm never gonna like it. If English were not complusory, I still wouldnt do it just because theres no Shakespeare.

Basically, its swings and roundabouts. Making a subject more accessable dumbes it down for some, but not for others, hence why on balance I dont see how it is.

JC 2K3

No

E92 wrote:

Higher grades isn't necessarily proportional to higher CAO points. Like what about all the people, like me who do 8 subjects instead of the usual 7? I'm not doin an extra subject for the "pleasure" of having to do 8/7s of the work that most other people will do. I'm doing it so that I dont have to worry about my weakest subjects, English and Business, and also because I really like Maths, and doing Applied Maths is basically more Maths(and Physics).

What are you talking about?

my point is: dumbed down LC = Higher grades = higher points = higher entry level points for uni.

your point was: higher entry level points for uni = higher points = higher grades.

You've gone off on a tangent there talking about extra subjects....

EDIT: People good at maths and understanding are a minority. Taking maths and understanding away from LC subjects IS dumbing them down. Anyone can learn definitions etc.

2Scoops

No

Yeah, it's dumbed down.

Some people may not want to believe that, especially teachers, but it's almost beyond question. Innate intelligence of a population is relatively stable, but the grades just keep going up. Say all you want about being better prepared but the nature of the tests means that this can only have a limited influence - oh, and that's not really true anyway! And what's this I hear of falling literacy standards in 3rd level?

There's only limited evidence that the actual questions are getting harder. Certainly the syllabus of each exam has evolved somewhat over the years, maybe dropping some challenging aspects, but introducing new ones as well.

I think the real issue is that students are getting a better grade from the same quality of work as before i.e. grade inflation and not just the exam getting easier. The fault for this lies squarely with the teachers (they set and grade the exams) and that's why they're fighting it.

No worries though, the process of 'dumbening' happens everywhere. If I had to pinpoint the start of it here, I would say mid-to-late nineties.

JC 2K3

No

Of course if the exams got harder, teachers would be slated for "not being good enough".

cocoa

No

Myth wrote:

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.

i didn't say it was less, i said it was worth less. Take a simple example. You have a group of people, let's say 100 people. Only one person in the group can handle quadratic equations, this is the smartest person in the group. You assess the abilities of the group with an exam, here is the exam:
Question 1. what is 1 + 1?
Blank Page
Everyone gets 100% and the guy who can do quadratic equations has been fúcked over by the system. That's why it's worth less.

DaXiS

No

Biology and Chemistry course is way too easy and basic. Chemistry wasn't really dumbed down, it was never that hard. Chemistry, post leaving cert, is a tough subject and the leaving cert lets you believe its easy(speaking from experience)
Stuff like maths, english and Irish are about right level

JC 2K3

No

DaXiS wrote:

Biology and Chemistry course is way too easy and basic. Chemistry wasn't really dumbed down, it was never that hard.

In fairness, it has been dumbed down a bit since the last syllabus(pre-2002).

From what I can see by looking at old exam papers, in the old syllabus it was presumed that you knew the rules for bonding etc. and they could ask you about any kind of molecule that fitted the rules you knew. Now they only ask questions on molecules that have been specifically defined in the course.