If you could change the LC or course content what...

SarcasticFairy

MathsManiac wrote: »

I think that it is worth pointing out that maths is NOT a compulsory subject for leaving certificate.

Many schools choose to make it part of their core provision. Many universities require it for entry to many of their courses.

So, k4t, if you're certain you want to proceed to a course in university that doesn't require maths, you can happily drop it and do another language instead. The Dept. would have no objection - your issue is with your school, not with the government.

:eek:

Are you sure? We've always been told that you HAD to pass ENglish & Maths or you failed the Leaving, regardless of how well you did in any other subjects?!

spurious

The usual standard for having 'passed' the Established Leaving is grade D or better in 5 subjects. Doesn't really matter which subjects.

In the dark recesses of history, it definitely was the case that if you failed to pass Irish, you were deemed to have failed the Leaving, regardless of your other results.

JSK 252

JSK 252 wrote: »

There is hardly any marks going for answering through Irish. You get an extra 10% if you score less than 75% in an exam and the bonus mark is reduced significantly after 75% in accordance with your final mark.

My issue isn't with the quantity of the bonus marks, it's with the present idea of giving bonus points. I just can't understand the idea of giving bonus points to someone studying Physics, for example, when the subject isn't anything to do with the Irish language.

If any sort of bonus points were to be given I'd be marginally in favour of related project work or assignment work in a subject (as someone mentioned earlier about linking maths + computers).

ZorbaTehZ

A total revamp of second level education, I would get rid of the Junior certificate altogether though I would keep the Leaving certificate in some shape or form. I would introduce regular end-of-year assessments and university applications - getting into college should not be about the quantity of points, it should be about the quality of education and the charachter of the person in question. The aplication procedure would put the emphasis on what the student has spent the last 6 years doing both as part of a prescribed curriculum and also as extracurriculur activity - the emphasis should be on this, with the results of some final exam only serving as some kind of 'overview' of the quality of the student, no actual specific requirement of points/grade etc.

As has been said by a number of people already, the emphasis in science and mathematics should be on understanding - I don't know if it's cause of bad teaching or because teachers feel as though they may confuse (irony!) the students by attempting to explain to them as opposed to just feeding them full of random and strange formulae. I recall a number occasions when giving maths grinds, actually explaining what differentiation was and its usefullness kind of surprised some of the students - apart from making it so much easier for them to solve problems.

And this tendency the DOE has to dumb down courses is shocking... I mean the amount of people who I know who just could not cope with basic 3rd level physics for example was astounding - typical irish thinking to simply make it easier even if it will work to a massive disadvantage in the long run.

Maybe as an aside, I think this current trend of anti-intellectualism amongst 2nd level students is something worth talking about. It's almost cool to be ignorant on things like technology or science and particularly maths. I believe the DOE should be trying to do something about this - what exactly I've no idea, this is something that I've seen described about in US particularly in regard to mathematics, some students who have an interest in maths not even bothering to study it because it mightn't fit well with friends or classmates etc. I'd see this is potentially a factor in why currently student's performances are dropping, though I've no proof of this of course :pac:.

Twinkle-star15

SligoBrewer wrote: »

We've the course finished twice already, by December. Too much to learn? I think not.

I would agree with what your saying though about splitting up English into English lit and English lan. The same should be done with Irish though. With Language being compulsory in both. The Irish course certainly is too broad for non-native speakers

What school are you in? We still haven't any of our courses finished! Except Music, but we haven't started revision on that yet.

The English course on its own isn't big, but the problem is doing it with 6 or 7 other subjects. I way prefer the English system to the one we have here.

The CAO system is ridiculous too- I think we should have interviews with the unis and stuff rather than just points.

Fad

Twinkle-star15 wrote: »

The CAO system is ridiculous too- I think we should have interviews with the unis and stuff rather than just points.

The CAO system is completely unbiased, either you meet the requirements or you dont..........Interviews can go wrong, You could come across all wrong if there's a personal statement (As with UCAS) and say the English application system, (UCAS again!) is quite restrictive, say if you have a strong interest in both English and Math, you should make the decision on the form what you wanna do, or you will come across as someone who doesnt really know what they want and might not offer you a place.

Podge_irl

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

When I was in TY, I asked my physics teacher why is it that the left hand rule actually works, his reply was "as far as you're concerned, it's magic". Another question I asked in chemistry in TY about why atoms really bond together to form molecules resulted in the answer "don't bother asking questions like that, just learn what's in front of you and it'll get you your A". I think both of those responses epitomize what's wrong with leaving cert physics and chemistry, if not all subjects. I know now that even if the teachers had answered me, I wouldn't have understood the answers, but that's not the point.

In physics and chemistry, especially chemistry, all you learn is definitions and the names of things. You don't actually learn anything about the subject. That's where things have to change. I dispise doing chemistry for that reason, it's just a memory subject. Doing it doesn't teach me anything about chemistry, it teaches me the names of things that describe what really happens with real chemistry.

None of that is anything inherently wrong with the course, its largely to do with bad teaching. I think the distinction needs to be made - there is scope for explaining the reasons and uses behind calculus or atomic interaction or whatever is being taught, but very few teachers will do it as it is "unnecessary" and could confuse the less-capable students. I don't think either of these is a good enough excuse and feel the blame in this area does lie a lot with the teachers.

As regards the courses - I have massive problems with the Physics course (and to a lesser degree the maths course). There seems to be some kind of pathological hatred of maths running through the course. Learning physics through explanations and metaphors is all well and good to a point, but ultimately a certain level of mathematical ability is necessary. The low level of mathematical ability shown by a fair proportion of the experimental physics class when I was a first year undergrad was shocking. They were all capable of catching up (eventually) to the required standard, but they were starting from a poor position. If it results in fewer people taking the subject, so be it, the current course is omitting an integral part of physics education. Explaining things like the right-hand rule can most easily be done (can only be done really...) through vectors, a mathematical object which is not that complicated! There is a healthy experimental segment to the course, there should be an equivalent theoretical element.

As regards maths, while it is also somewhat a teaching issue, the way the material is presented leaves a lot to be desired. Someone previously in the thread suggested eliminating matrices from the course - yet they are one of the most important things covered in it! They are just not explained as such at the time. Would it really be that complicated to explain that something as simple as rotations and translations don't commute and so the fact that matrices don't commute is important. Is the fact that rotations can be expressed as matrices even covered in the syllabus? They are used in physics, engineering, computing, yet their importance is not emphasised. As it stands the maths course is really not extensive or challenging enough for a student intent on taking a mathematics-heavy subject in third-level.

Twinkle-star15

Fad wrote: »

The CAO system is completely unbiased, either you meet the requirements or you dont..........Interviews can go wrong, You could come across all wrong if there's a personal statement (As with UCAS) and say the English application system, (UCAS again!) is quite restrictive, say if you have a strong interest in both English and Math, you should make the decision on the form what you wanna do, or you will come across as someone who doesnt really know what they want and might not offer you a place.

I get your points about the English system, but I don't think the CAO is unbiased. It doesn't take aptitude into account- like, colleges may say that a C is required or whatever, but the points could still be crazy high- like, for my course I was told I needed C's in higher level subjects, but I actually need all B1's to get the 480 points.

PurpleFistMixer

Twinkle-star15 wrote: »

I get your points about the English system, but I don't think the CAO is unbiased. It doesn't take aptitude into account- like, colleges may say that a C is required or whatever, but the points could still be crazy high- like, for my course I was told I needed C's in higher level subjects, but I actually need all B1's to get the 480 points.

That's down to the popularity of the course. Once you have your Cs you have the grades necessary to be able to handle the course, grand. The getting 480 points is "competing" for a place on the course - where the competition is an academic one ie the Leaving Cert.

My problem with that is if you were beaten by someone who had loads of points in subjects that had nothing to do with the course, (ie they had their C in say biology, and then the rest were A1s in languages or business or something, for a science course) while you may not have had as many A1s, but had decent scores in relevant subjects (ie chemistry, assuming you were applying for some science course). Of course, it's so messy because if you rewarded people for having relevant subjects, you're punishing people with varied interests (ie I did music and art for LC, neither of which have anything to do with theoretical physics, I would have been pissed off if my A1 in Music didn't contribute to my overall points or whatever). Giant mess!

unknown13

Cokehead Mother wrote: »

I would make it compulsary to study Maths, English, a foreign language, a science and a humanity/social science. I'm all for forcing a broad education on people. I don't buy the suggestion that someone who studies physics at third level gains nothing from studying Chaucer at second level. Transferrable skills and whatnot.

The literature on the English course kind of sucks. I'd love for all Irish literature that's on the course because it's Irish literature to be removed. The benchmark for this can be "Do they study it outside of Ireland? If not, remove it from our course". Yeats etc. - yay! Boland etc. - no thank you. It'd also be nice if we had to study the language properly, like actually learn grammar and stuff. I lack initiative and really wish it was shoved down my throat in secondary school.

The Maths syllabus is basically fine the way it is. YOU HEAR THAT DOE? FINE THE WAY IT IS. Maybe some of the dryer topics stuff could afford to go. The main problem with LC maths is the way it's taught and the way it's learnt ie. purely with the aim of performing well in the exam. I don't think there's a whole lot the department can do about this tbh.

I don't really support Irish being compulsary, but so long as it is, learning to read pretty poetry in an exotic-ish language is lot more fun than being able to drone on about your life in a language spoken by so few. I say more poetry and less "Dia duit, a Shíle! Ar bhfaca tú an scannán Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl?!" "Sea! Ó tá Johnny Depp dathiúl". If I ever have to listen to people called Síle and Ruarí talking about Hollywood movies ever again it will be to soon. Also it'd be nice if the exam had a section dedicated to grammar, because God knows it won't be taught if students don't need it to get the grade they want.

Physics and Chemistry have a lot of problems at LC level. The LC syllabi really do suck all the life out of the subjects.

French could perhaps do with a lot more essay writing. It seems odd that HL LC students are only expected to write 100 word compositions.

I have to disagree with the compulsory subjects issue and foreign language issue.

Forcing people to do science would just backfire on the government because everyone who is not fully interested in the course will not think about doing science in University other than Medicine and maybe Veterinary or Dentistry and those who are interested will want to do medicine, so that idea would backfire quickly. Science should be the last thing that is made compulsory for the LC.

Foreign language, how are people supposed to write at least 3 A4 pages in a language they have been studying for five or six years

Fad

unknown13 wrote: »

Foreign language, how are people supposed to write at least 3 A4 pages in a language they have been studying for five or six years

Yeah, I mean people who have been studying Irish for 12 odd years give out about writing that much

Davidius

Give everybody A1s.

Den wed al luk rely smret.

RandomIrl

i don't go to an Irish school and will be doing my leaving cert in English.
BUT i know a lot of people in irish schools and they wouldn't be native speakers and i firmly believe that the extra points they recieve are fully justified.....they have to do all subjects bar english and their modern language in irish..imagine how difficult it would be some having not gone to irish primary schools..some of us find it hard to remember equations for chemistry, biology, physics etc. imagine trying to remember it in irish..!! and anyway the points arent an automatic given and amount given varies on subject and result:

http://examinations.ie/index.php?l=en&mc=ca&sc=im


enough of that anyway...if i could change anything, it would be the introduction of a middle level maths between ordinary and higher level, a happy medium for those that are...good but not amazing at maths with an A1 maybe acheiving 70/80 marks....

Fad

RandomIrl wrote: »

i don't go to an Irish school and will be doing my leaving cert in English.
BUT i know a lot of people in irish schools and they wouldn't be native speakers and i firmly believe that the extra points they recieve are fully justified.....they have to do all subjects bar english and their modern language in irish..imagine how difficult it would be some having not gone to irish primary schools..some of us find it hard to remember equations for chemistry, biology, physics etc.

enough of that anyway...if i could change anything, it would be the introduction of a middle level maths between ordinary and higher level, a happy medium for those that are...good but not amazing at maths with an A1 maybe acheiving 70/80 marks....

But by about the October Mid Term in First Year everyone is at in or around the same level so its kind of a non issue.

That Middle Level Maths sounds interesting, but then the majority of people taking HL would just do that instead........

RandomIrl

Fad wrote: »

That Middle Level Maths sounds interesting, but then the majority of people taking HL would just do that instead........

i dont think that would be the case people who are naturally gifted and talented at maths would still do higher level (IMO)
but i think a middle level would decrease the number of people A) failing honours maths and b) doing ordinary level

i just think that the drop between HL and OL is too severe and there should be a happy medium.

Toto Wolfcastle

Speaking as an Irish teacher, I would rather less emphasis on prose and poetry and more on grammar and on the oral aspect of the language.

Certainly at Ordinary Level, students find the prose/poetry extremely difficult. (In some cases this is just due to pure laziness because poems like Gealt?, etc are pretty basic!)

K4t

janeybabe wrote: »

Speaking as an Irish teacher, I would rather less emphasis on prose and poetry and more on grammar and on the oral aspect of the language.

Certainly at Ordinary Level, students find the prose/poetry extremely difficult. (In some cases this is just due to pure laziness because poems like Gealt?, etc are pretty basic!)

Who wouldn't be bored trying to understand and analyse poetry in a language which they can't even speak?

Ordianry Irish should be 80% Oral, 10% Aural and 10% Written. Then we might have people who retain cupla focail after the LC and we could say the Irish cirriculum actually works.

Because presently Irish teachers (at least at ordinary level) are completely deluded if they think they are reviving the language. All they are doing is getting students to pass an exam in June and the honest ones will admit this.

ooPabsoo

ordinary irish is rediculous,alot of people in my school,well my class really struggle to pass tests, why give us POETRY and STORIES when we actually dont know irish at all

phenomenon

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Another question I asked in chemistry in TY about why atoms really bond together to form molecules resulted in the answer "don't bother asking questions like that, just learn what's in front of you and it'll get you your A".

Was just scanning throught the thread and wanted to address this. The whole atomic theory that you're taught in secondary school is exactly that - a theory. The whole idea of electrons orbiting a nucleus like the planets orbit the sun, and the orbits of different atoms exchanging electrons to form bonds and hence molecules doesn't necessarily physically happen. The theory is still taught because it explains and seems to "fit" all the experimental evidence scientists have gathered over time (You've learned this in the atomic history part of the physics course).
The truth is if some groundbreaking new evidence came to light tomorrow the present atomic theory would be dumped instantly. This is how science progresses. But that seems unlikely :P

So in short your teacher couldn't give you an answer because no one actually knows! If you go on to study physics in college you'll realise how simplified the LC course is

Piste

I think the only thing I'd change would be to make Universities have stricter matriculations, like for a history course you have to study history at LC level, or to study German you must have a certain grade in Irish (to show an ability to handle languages)

Basically I'd just make it so that people have to study a few LC courses in some way related to the college course they want to do.

This could backfire though as people might be only making up their mind towards the end of 6th year when it'd be too late.

Piste

Piste wrote: »

I think the only thing I'd change would be to make Universities have stricter matriculations, like for a history course you have to study history at LC level, or to study German you must have a certain grade in Irish (to show an ability to handle languages)

Basically I'd just make it so that people have to study a few LC courses in some way related to the college course they want to do.

This could backfire though as people might be only making up their mind towards the end of 6th year when it'd be too late.

Could be phased over a number of years. There are problems for some subjects though if you over specify what's required since not all schools have equal facilities (some don't have labs, for example, so specifying Chemistry as a requirement might be difficult). Vagueness is good though.

manicmonoliths

Piste wrote: »

I think the only thing I'd change would be to make Universities have stricter matriculations, like for a history course you have to study history at LC level, or to study German you must have a certain grade in Irish (to show an ability to handle languages)

Basically I'd just make it so that people have to study a few LC courses in some way related to the college course they want to do.

This could backfire though as people might be only making up their mind towards the end of 6th year when it'd be too late.

Myth wrote: »

Could be phased over a number of years. There are problems for some subjects though if you over specify what's required since not all schools have equal facilities (some don't have labs, for example, so specifying Chemistry as a requirement might be difficult). Vagueness is good though.

Would have to agree with Myth there. It's a good idea but some schools just don't have the capacity to offer all subjects. For example in my year our school couldn't offer Business at Leaving cert level, also you couldn't do both Phyiscs and Chemistry.

Personally when making my subject choices for 5th year I was about 15 and had no idea what I'd end up doing, so I'm glad that it's left open enough.

I'd argue that subjects like history at 3rd level don't really need a Leaving Cert level of history, you could go into that course and do just as well as anyone else. It'd different for things like Maths and Science though which is why you see the requirements in those courses.