Points Inflation

MementoMori

I was wondering what people's opinion/experience is of points inflation. Does it exist in Ireland and is it a bad thing?

The reason I ask was I was talking to my dad (a teacher for over thirty years) and he mentioned that he thinks there has been quite a lot of points inflation particularly in the past ten years. I was saying that I didn't see much harm in it, but he was saying that he thinks if it continues the way it has been going it will inevitably lead to poorer standards of education. I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with this but I suppose he does have greater experience than myself in the educational field. He used to correct LC papers but hasn't in about 15 to 20 years. However he was saying that it would be a common enough feeling especially among experienced teachers. He said that in English the feeling would be that it is a lot easier to get an A1 for example nowadays compared to ten years ago and he said that talking to a colleague who would be very involved in respect to higher levels of mathematics (on the syllabus committee, involved in setting the marking schemes) they would have to fight the Dept of Education in order to maintain standards of toughness, which kinda surprised me.

So I was mainly wondering does anyone know of any actual hard data that would seem to indicate the case as to whether or not grade inflation does exist in the Leaving Cert one way of another?

I was also wondering if people think there is any major harm in this. Does grade inflation lead to a drop in education standards?

whadabouchasir

If you go on to the cao website you can see the points statistics for the past few years and the number of people acieving over 500 has increased dramatically over the past few years

rainbowtrout

MementoMori wrote: »

I was wondering what people's opinion/experience is of points inflation. Does it exist in Ireland and is it a bad thing?

The reason I ask was I was talking to my dad (a teacher for over thirty years) and he mentioned that he thinks there has been quite a lot of points inflation particularly in the past ten years. I was saying that I didn't see much harm in it, but he was saying that he thinks if it continues the way it has been going it will inevitably lead to poorer standards of education. I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with this but I suppose he does have greater experience than myself in the educational field. He used to correct LC papers but hasn't in about 15 to 20 years. However he was saying that it would be a common enough feeling especially among experienced teachers. He said that in English the feeling would be that it is a lot easier to get an A1 for example nowadays compared to ten years ago and he said that talking to a colleague who would be very involved in respect to higher levels of mathematics (on the syllabus committee, involved in setting the marking schemes) they would have to fight the Dept of Education in order to maintain standards of toughness, which kinda surprised me.

So I was mainly wondering does anyone know of any actual hard data that would seem to indicate the case as to whether or not grade inflation does exist in the Leaving Cert one way of another?

I was also wondering if people think there is any major harm in this. Does grade inflation lead to a drop in education standards?

Grades in Leaving Cert subjects are fitted to the Bell Curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve some adjustments will occur from year to year to standardise results as such as some papers may be more difficult than others.

On the point of the maths guy, he may well be on the syllabus committee but it would hardly be common knowledge if he was setting the marking schemes for LC papers. each paper is different and so the scheme is different. It's also confidential

As a teacher myself I compare this years class to perhaps a class from 7 or 8 years ago and I can see differences. Levels of intelligence have not changed but attitudes towards learning have. Written English is perhaps poorer with the advent of the internet and texting. Most LC projects handed into me back then were handwritten, most are typed now, but students up and down the country are copying and pasting from the internet for their projects. It's very hard to maintain a standard (and I'm not saying it shouldn't be maintained) when everyone is doing this at some level. Students today know how to access information and put it to use rather than learning it off. You could compare it to the use of log tables in maths exams. Why are all the area and volume formulas provided where as the student has to learn off the formulas for the line and circle? Does it make their learning more comprehensive or would they still perform as well or better if the formulas were provided. They still have to understand how to use them.

The other post mentioned that more students are achieving 500+ points in the leaving cert. I don't think this can be soley attributed to easy marks and slipping standards. Free third level education came in in 1996 and the average family who would have had to put money aside for college fees were now able to channel that money elsewhere. So it's going to variety of places - private fee paying schools, grind schools, one-to-one tuition/grinds. So students are able to improve their grades with extra tuition. Marking schemes are freely available on the internet to teachers and students and both are becoming more savvy in how to approach exam questions. Answering an exam question often involves as much skill in your exam technique as it does in giving the right information. I did my leaving cert in 1996 and knew nothing of exam marking schemes.

Take the ordinary level leaving cert maths student who may not be doing very well and is sitting the LC exam. So they are answering a question on trigonometry, they don't really know how to get the answer but they know from the marking scheme that if they right down the correct formula and slot in some of the values that they will get attempt marks for it. All those marks add up. While a teacher will often give the advice (and I do it myself) attempt everything, don't leave blank spaces, even knowing what is needed to get marks at a basic attempt helps.

Questions after a period of time, especially in factual type subjects like science and maths, repeat themselves. So a student can go back and learn how a question should be answered in order to maximise their marks. can we blame students for trying to get the best grade possible while perhaps sometimes cutting a few corners?

WolfForager

Take Physics for example, that subject has been dummed down to almost general knowledge so that it can attract more people to it, which i think is complete bull****. I'm doing physics now and i could probably get a easy C1 without even studying. Maths has also been been made easier. My teacher is always telling us that if we were to take the LC 15 years ago in maths we'd all fail.

There is no question that the standard of irish eduaction is falling rapidly.

Fad

I fail to see the problem.

Points are going up yet it is easier to get the points.......

rainbowtrout

WolfForager wrote: »

Take Physics for example, that subject has been dummed down to almost general knowledge so that it can attract more people to it, which i think is complete bull****. I'm doing physics now and i could probably get a easy C1 without even studying. Maths has also been been made easier. My teacher is always telling us that if we were to take the LC 15 years ago in maths we'd all fail.

There is no question that the standard of irish eduaction is falling rapidly.

Dumbed down even?

The other thing to consider is the value of certain types of knowledge. Some topics especially in science are now considered more relevant than others. Environmental science in chemistry and particle physics , genetics in biology. Does it make the subject easier? I don't think so. On the old biology course I had to learn off the life cycle of seaweed, liverfluke,amoeba, spirogyra, the internal physiology of an earthworm, cockroach etc etc. None of this information is on the current course (and none of it particularly relevant to the application of biology in everyday life) and i don't think students are any worse off for it, however they are studying a lot of detailed information on DNA and genetics which is where biology is heading at the moment. Different information, yes, easier? not necessarily.

whadabouchasir

Im going to have to disagree with you , first of all i dont believe that grind schools help you to improve your grade at all secondly to echo what the other guy says about physics it is undeniably getting easier i mean we finished the course in september and also our teacher constantly says things such as "this used to be on the course ".

WolfForager

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Dumbed down even?

Shh :P

MementoMori

Some interesting and prompt answers.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

On the point of the maths guy, he may well be on the syllabus committee but it would hardly be common knowledge if he was setting the marking schemes for LC papers. each paper is different and so the scheme is different. It's also confidential

I may have been slightly inaccurate here - the teacher in question has definately been involved with the syllabus committee and I'm pretty sure he has had some involvement with the marking scheme at some time in the past. The main point was that he was saying that the maths teachers were having to battle the Dept of Education in order to maintain standards, which I felt was very disappointing.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

The other post mentioned that more students are achieving 500+ points in the leaving cert. I don't think this can be soley attributed to easy marks and slipping standards. Free third level education came in in 1996 and the average family who would have had to put money aside for college fees were now able to channel that money elsewhere. So it's going to variety of places - private fee paying schools, grind schools, one-to-one tuition/grinds. So students are able to improve their grades with extra tuition. Marking schemes are freely available on the internet to teachers and students and both are becoming more savvy in how to approach exam questions. Answering an exam question often involves as much skill in your exam technique as it does in giving the right information. I did my leaving cert in 1996 and knew nothing of exam marking schemes.

This is very interesting especially the bit about money from college fees being diverted to other educational avenues. If this is the case then one could argue that the rise in points is at least due to improved levels of education being available. If money is being spent on activites such as one-to-one grinds one can understand where the points rises are coming from.

The whole issue of marking schemes is definately an interesting one. Clearly the fact that they are widely available should automatically lead to increased points. I can understand the case for making them available but surely if they are available every year it makes it too easy for a student to simply study the previous answers and cough that up without having any understanding of the relevant topic.[Maybe I'm just slightly bitter that these weren't available back in my day ]

Clearly the data seems to support the assertion that getting points nowadays is easier than it was. This leads inevitably on to the question as to what is responsible for this. It seems that the consenus so far is that it's due to a combination of easier marking along with better exam techniques (due to marking schemes being available) plus the fact that college fees are being diverted to other educational resources e.g. increased use of grinds.

The next question would be is there any major harm being caused by this ? My dad thinks it will lead to a drop in standards but I don't know if i'd totally agree. Surely it's better if more students end up taking subjects like Physics and Higher Maths if they feel the subject isn't unreasonably difficult. The major potential problem would seem to be at third-level where students might end up in courses above their level as a result of getting a result in a particular subject i.e someone doing a degree in Engineering as a result of what they achieved in Maths and/or Physics. However this clearly falls into the realm of the hypothetical and I don't know if it can be given much weight.
So to conclude - is there any major harm to grade inflation?

K4t

You only have to compare exam papers from the 90's to the most recent ones to see the gulf in difference. The LC has become easier but imo competition is also fiercer.

MementoMori

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Im going to have to disagree with you , first of all i dont believe that grind schools help you to improve your grade at all secondly to echo what the other guy says about physics it is undeniably getting easier i mean we finished the course in september and also our teacher constantly says things such as "this used to be on the course ".

I would find it hard to agree that grind schools don't help improve grades. Of course they are not going to improve a pupil's grade by simplying turning up. However given there extreme focus on points, I would assume in most cases that if a pupil puts in the effort in a grind school their points totals would most likely be higher than if they had remained in a non-grind school and put in the same level of effort. Also the fact that they tend to charge expensive fees compared to non-grind shcools would lead one to believe that people wouldn't pay these fees unless they felt they were getting some added-value for their buck. However this takes away from the main thrust of the thread, which currently seems to be is there any major harm in grade inflation?

xOxSinéadxOx

It depends on the subject, I find in economics all the older papers are waaay easier

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

postalservice

Times have changed.

Now the best students are getting grinds to guarantee their A1 when before it would be a very bad sign if you needed grinds.

And all that talk about D's in 91 being as hard to get as A's now. Bull.

There is way more pressure being put on students, forcing them to put the work in

whadabouchasir

I do believe that this increase in high grades is having a negative impact on the educational system, just look at the failure an dropout rates in third level.I also have to take isue with the point of grind schools being better than non fee paying scools. The reason why more people in grind schools get higher grades is because many are repeat students also many are aiming for high points in the LC.

postalservice

whadabouchasir wrote: »

The reason why more people in grind schools get higher grades is because many are repeat students also many are aiming for high points in the LC.

+ the fact that they are in there for over 12 hours a day.....6 days a week:P

whadabouchasir

Personally i dont believe that going to a fee paying school gives a student any significant advantage. I mean one private shcool near me teaches its students creationism as fact. Also if you were to spend 12 hours a day 6 days a week studying you would probably get near 600 points anyway

PurpleFistMixer

As far as money being redirected... well, it may simply be a case that due to free university, more people are going, thus competition is higher, thus points are higher. I don't know if this is the case or not, but it seems reasonable enough.

Courses are being dumbed down though, from what I can see. Apparently the proper kinetic energy explanation of temperature used to the in LC physics. Now we have "temperature is a measure of the level of heat in a body" and that's it. I don't see how removing this explanation has made the course more "relevant", however. Also, it'd be lovely if LC Physics had the laws of thermodynamics in it, it might stop people abusing the concept of entropy. Bah humbug.

rainbowtrout

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I do believe that this increase in high grades is having a negative impact on the educational system, just look at the failure an dropout rates in third level.I also have to take isue with the point of grind schools being better than non fee paying scools. The reason why more people in grind schools get higher grades is because many are repeat students also many are aiming for high points in the LC.

i made the point about grind schools and I didn't say that they were better than non fee paying schools. I wouldn't send a child to a grind school in a fit. however because of the way those schools work and again the cohort of students they take in are there for a reason, students do get good results for them. I would argue that those same students would be able to attain those results in a regular school.

The point I was making was that parents now have more income available to them to spend on second level education for their children and if that includes attending grind schools the more help a student can get the better chance they have of getting a good grade. Many families could not afford this when third level fees existed.

rainbowtrout

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I do believe that this increase in high grades is having a negative impact on the educational system, just look at the failure an dropout rates in third level.I also have to take isue with the point of grind schools being better than non fee paying scools. The reason why more people in grind schools get higher grades is because many are repeat students also many are aiming for high points in the LC.

What also has to be considered is the fact that the numbers doing the LC are dropping. Approx 65000 were sitting the LC in the late 90s. Now it's around the 56-57000 mark. There are more courses available with more places on them and there are more colleges. So colleges are fighting to keep up their numbers as like anywhere else government funding is based on headage.

To allow as many as possible to be eligible some colleges have changed(lowered) their entry requirements. Personally i don't agree with this. It doesn't affect most students but some of the minimum entry requirements now are ridiculous. To give an example : I did the Science Teaching degree in UL. Minimum entry requirement was 2 honours including an honour (C3 or above) in a science and a pass in maths or an honour in maths and a pass in science. Now the entry requirement is 2 honours with minimum science requirement as an OL C3. Now tell me how someone who can barely scrape through a LC science subject science subject is going to do a degree in it and teach it. It's unlikely it will happen but the facility is there for it to happen. there are plenty more courses with requirements like it. Anyway my point being colleges are trying to get in the numbers, students see the requirements, don't think it's going to be that hard, and then when they get there can't cope with the course and drop out....

postalservice

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Personally i dont believe that going to a fee paying school gives a student any significant advantage.Also if you were to spend 12 hours a day 6 days a week studying you would probably get near 600 points anyway

If you agree that 12 hrs a day 6 days a week leads to better results how can you say going to a grinds school isnt an advantage?

They force the students to go to afterschool study and to all those revision seminars.

whadabouchasir

Yes but there is a difference between going to afterschool study and actually studying during afterschool study.

Fad

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Personally i dont believe that going to a fee paying school gives a student any significant advantage. I mean one private shcool near me teaches its students creationism as fact. Also if you were to spend 12 hours a day 6 days a week studying you would probably get near 600 points anyway

Hopefully this is the last time im going to have to say it. Grind schools are typically private schools yes, but not all private schools are grind schools.
So, if you go to the institute you have a totally exam focused education, if you go to an "Average" private school you wont.

As for teaching Creationism, I dont see any problem........I mean I believe its wrong, but I dont KNOW its wrong. (Also theres a few other sides to Creation in the world built in 7 days story). But if a school has a Catholic Ethos, it'd be their responsibility to teach what the CC teach, and the CC teaches Creation, so..................it'd be a bit wrong to say, wel we're gonna teach you something, we dont think its the truth but HEY humour us!

Jammyc

WolfForager wrote: »

There is no question that the standard of irish eduaction is falling rapidly.

Very sadly true...
Its a question of attitudes toward the Language and peoples heritage more than anything methinks!

spurious

Fad wrote: »

So, if you go to the institute you have a totally exam focused education

The distorted focus on exams, arguably started by the grind schools, is not a progressive influence in Irish education.

I may be one of the oul' ones (Leaving Cert. 1980), but in my day, you went into an Irish/English/German/French exam and thought up and wrote your essay there and then. There was no question of learning off an essay suitable to adapt to a number of titles. Equally there was no question of learning off History or Geography answers, with the exception in the olden days of the Field Study question in Geography, if you were considering doing that question.

The lack of depth of knowledge of some graduates coming through the Irish university system is frightening. Everything from a limited vocabulary to out and out ignorance of anything outside the subjects they did for the Leaving.

Scary.

K4t

A motivated student is obviously going to do better in the LC attending somewhere like the Institute rather than an ordinary public school. There's no denying that. They don't have to put up with all the wasters, mixed ability classes, inept teachers that us ordinary folk do.

But on the other side of the coin, I would argue that total concentration at school on the LC exam is no good either (if that is what they do at these grind schools.)

PurpleFistMixer

K4t wrote: »

A motivated student is obviously going to do better in the LC attending somewhere like the Institute rather than an ordinary public school.

I imagine a motivated student will do well regardless. (Provided the teachers in their school are even half-qualified, of course.)

K4t

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I imagine a motivated student will do well regardless. (Provided the teachers in their school are even half-qualified, of course.)

That's what I'm saying. A motivated student in Leeson street doesn't have to put up with the crap a motivated student in an average school does. I see it everyday PFM! Teachers devoting half the class handing out punishments (yes in 6th year!) and papers, bottles flying all over the place.

Fad

spurious wrote: »

The distorted focus on exams, arguably started by the grind schools, is not a progressive influence in Irish education.

I may be one of the oul' ones (Leaving Cert. 1980), but in my day, you went into an Irish/English/German/French exam and thought up and wrote your essay there and then. There was no question of learning off an essay suitable to adapt to a number of titles. Equally there was no question of learning off History or Geography answers, with the exception in the olden days of the Field Study question in Geography, if you were considering doing that question.

The lack of depth of knowledge of some graduates coming through the Irish university system is frightening. Everything from a limited vocabulary to out and out ignorance of anything outside the subjects they did for the Leaving.

By pointing out the exam focus I was in no way condoning it btw!

Especially with Irish, I'm half expected to learn off an Essay for the exam, but here I am thinking does that not kinda defeat the purpose?

That said, not point trying to fight the system, whatever gets me the points!

PurpleFistMixer

K4t wrote: »

That's what I'm saying. A motivated student in Leeson street doesn't have to put up with the crap a motivated student in an average school does. I see it everyday PFM! Teachers devoting half the class handing out punishments (yes in 6th year!) and papers, bottles flying all over the place.

It seems to be the opposite of what you're saying... My point is a motivated student will get over these distractions, because they're motivated. The people who are losing out in distracting environments (a lot down to the teacher's control of the class imo, rather than it being a "good" school or not), are those who aren't motivated, and who need to be encouraged/pushed by teachers.

K4t

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

It seems to be the opposite of what you're saying... My point is a motivated student will get over these distractions, because they're motivated. The people who are losing out in distracting environments (a lot down to the teacher's control of the class imo, rather than it being a "good" school or not), are those who aren't motivated, and who need to be encouraged/pushed by teachers.

Keep believing that.