No Boland in 2010...how about in 2011?

brianw1

Well, seeing as so many people were caught out by banking on a question that was very obvious, I think that the SEC might leave Boland out of the 2011 exam altogether.

Will she make an appearance or not, your thoughts?

Davabo

Boland 100%....Oh wai

soccymonster

My teacher isn't doing boland so i'll be sticking with the male poets for next year, it seems (good thing, i guess)

stainluss

If that little fiasco taught us anything, its that predictions are useless.

It doesnt matter if they havent come up in 6 years or whatever, nothing is guaranteed.

The only advice I can give you is to study your 4 favorite. The 4 you find easiest and can write most about (If Boland is one of them, then go ahead). Also, dont forget to sugar coat everything when you do write a poetry essay. Act like the poet in question is a legend and praise eveything they have ever written. (Choose favorite images etc.)

**Timbuk2**

It isn't a fiasco. A likely poet didn't come up - it has happened many times before, and it isn't surprising. Most years there is one poet who is highly tipped that doesn't come up. Yeats was the most highly tipped for 2010, and he came up. In 2005, for example, everybody thought Emily Dickinson was coming up, and she didn't.

She probably is likely for 2011

zam

She's very likely for 2011. But you're an idiot if you learn her exclusively. Especially after yesterday! Predict with caution!

randylonghorn

Isn't there a third woman poet on for 2011? Sure wouldn't that make *her* a shoe-in?

Basically ... there are no guarantees!!

Cover enough poets to be able to walk into the exam confident that at least one of them HAS to appear.

Mmcd

Shes a dead cert, no way she wont come up. Dont bother with any of the others!

stevenfinnegan

In terms of predictions she "should" come up.
But, unfortunately you just cannot predict exams anymore, especially english poetry.
Just learn all the poets, you just don't know what the SEC will do. The english exam was too predictable this year, so they decided to throw in a few surprises. They'll do it again next year aswell.

yesno1234

Eh is Boland not off the course for 2011 and that was one of the reasons she was so hotly tipped as she wasnt on for 4 years and couldnt be on the next year?

stevenfinnegan

yesno1234 wrote: »

Eh is Boland not off the course for 2011 and that was one of the reasons she was so hotly tipped as she wasnt on for 4 years and couldnt be on the next year?

No she is on the list for 2011 :P

wonderfulname

what this year has taught us is that the SEC pays attention to the predictions too.

to answer your question though;
No factor theorem in Maths 2008 "guaranteed" 2009, did not appear
how about 2010 you ask? no again
first principles tipped for 2009? sinx/cosx, no question about it! did not appear..
i think you can guess what happened this year..

times are changing. now not only do we need to predict, we need to predict the SECs reaction to the predictions... or just learn everything we were supposed to in the first place, but wheres the fun in that?

bubblz

sure wasnt it longleys last yr this yr as well & he didnt come up last yr or this yr?
i could be wrong... is he on the course next year?

its stupid how they not bringing this stuff up... i mean take protein for instance in home ec..was tipped last yr... didnt come up.. tipped this yr didnt come up... people wont be bothered learning it next yr since it will be so tipped so come up?

wonderfulname

bubblz wrote: »

sure wasnt it longleys last yr this yr as well & he didnt come up last yr or this yr?
i could be wrong... is he on the course next year?

its stupid how they not bringing this stuff up... i mean take protein for instance in home ec..was tipped last yr... didnt come up.. tipped this yr didnt come up... people wont be bothered learning it next yr since it will be so tipped so come up?

he came up last year, thats why i didnt understand why people were bothering to study him.

bubblz

no longley didnt come up last yr... it was walcott,keats,montague nd bishop that came up!

wonderfulname

lol my bad i sat that paper and all.. funny a guy in my year claims he did longley last year.. explains so much!

randylonghorn

bubblz wrote: »

its stupid how they not bringing this stuff up...

Why should the SEC feel obliged to put something on any paper simply because it was "tipped"?

wonderfulname

randylonghorn wrote: »

Why should the SEC feel obliged to put something on any paper simply because it was "tipped"?

Why should they feel obliged not to because it was tipped? You have to admit thats whats been happening in recent years, their trying to show that you can't take chances.

randylonghorn

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why should they feel obliged not to because it was tipped? You have to admit thats whats been happening in recent years, their trying to show that you can't take chances.

Wasn't Yeats tipped?

In any case, my point was that the SEC defines the curriculum and give some guidelines on how it will be examined. They are bound by the curriculum and those guidelines, and only by those.

They are not bound by patterns or precedents, or by what is hotly tipped, or by anything else.

Students are supposed to have covered the curriculum as given. There are some places where short-cuts can be taken, yes ... there are 8 poets for LC Eng HL, and 4 will come up ... so anyone who has studied 5 knows they will have at least one to answer on. There are probably very few teachers who cover all 8, certainly in any detail, nor are they expected to.

But people complaining because they only studied Boland, because she was tipped, or that series and sequences came up in Maths question 1, and they have no right to be there, obviously don't actually understand the concept of a curriculum, or, indeed, of an examination.

FordieMUFC

Who gives a ****e about next year? I'm finished English for good!

wonderfulname

randylonghorn wrote: »

But people complaining because they only studied Boland, because she was tipped, or that series and sequences came up in Maths question 1, and they have no right to be there, obviously don't actually understand the concept of a curriculum, or, indeed, of an examination.

I am in my second leaving cert and third school, this year is the first I've actually seen an honors level math teacher intend to cover all the questions. If the SEC have issues with students covering the entire course the onus is on them and not the teachers or students, for creating a situation in which not only is that viewed as acceptable, but is actually seen as the correct way to fulfill the requirements set out in the curriculum. It is exactly the same scenario with English paper two, as it is in the vast majority of subjects. They have been, to some success, attempting to rectify this over the past three years or so but the damage has been done and everybody is still seeing odd questions over those years as a strange blip with no bearing on predictability at all.

For what its worth I was insanely happy to see that i would get 20marks for a question which in all honesty deserved 10, and had it been in q4 it would have been worth just that. It was an a part plane and simple.

Patri

**** I wanted Kavanagh in 2011:mad:

randylonghorn

wonderfulname wrote: »

I am in my second leaving cert and third school, this year is the first I've actually seen an honors level math teacher intend to cover all the questions.

And there, quite accurately, you have pin-pointed the change over the last few years. I'm ever so slightly older than you ... and when I did Hon Maths for LC we covered the whole course. I can remember our teacher deciding she was going to skip one chapter "because that never comes up!", and then feeling guilty, and deciding to run through it quickly anyway, "because we really should cover everything after all".

wonderfulname wrote: »

If the SEC have issues with students covering the entire course the onus is on them and not the teachers or students, for creating a situation in which not only is that viewed as acceptable, but is actually seen as the correct way to fulfill the requirements set out in the curriculum.

No, they didn't create that situation. They may have been slow to react to that situation, there we might agree, but they didn't cause it. As I said above, *certain* short-cuts were always allowed for, such as not covering all 8 poets in English ... in fact, to call them short-cuts is probably inaccurate in itself, in that they are pretty much built into the curriculum.

What created the situation was a whole culture which has grown up around the almighty illusive sparkling points. Grind schools and private grinds became fashionable, which focused only on what was most likely to "come up", rather than on following a curriculum or actually educating the student. Pundits and tipsters flourished. Teachers who "gave good tips" (gambled and got lucky, albeit based on close study of the patterns) were viewed as modern messiahs. Other teachers found themselves under pressure to conform to that attitude, under pressure from parents and from students themselves. I have had teachers tell me that they attempted to broach a new topic in the classroom only to be shouted at by students that "that never comes up, Miss!" Some persevered, others bowed to the pressure. Parents have been known to come into the schools to complain that teachers are attempting to teach the appropriate curriculum rather than focusing solely on the most likely topics for the exams. And teachers themselves have begun to feel that it's their duty to focus on the exams and nothing else ... after all, everyone tells them so every day. If they don't, they soon get a rep. as "bad teachers", and everyone wants to be transferred out of their classes.

I do think the SEC have been slow enough to react, especially the Setters, who are teachers themselves. They do seem to be doing so now, to some extent.

And lo and behold, the students are screaming, the parents are complaining, the tipsters are complaining.

But in truth, none of them have any right to do so. They're just fooling themselves.

Which brings me back to my original question: why should the SEC feel obliged to put something on any paper simply because it was "tipped"?

My maths teacher wouldn't dream of leaving out aspects of the course. They never said that questions can't overlap, and you're expected to know everything. The sequences part of Q1 was very basic and wouldn't have required you to have very much knowledge of the topic at all. Leaving out chunks of the course is irresponsible, and leaves you stuck for choice on the exam. Not to mention for anyone planning on studying maths at third level that it leaves you clueless on many of the topics that you'll meet.

Nicolala

I've Boland learned really well already, and Frost as well, so if they come up, then grand. I'll learn two more next year and I'll be set.

stevenfinnegan

Ok so heres the list of poets coming up in the next 2 years:
2011:

• Boland
• Dickinson
• Frost
• Hopkins
• Kavanagh
• Rich
• Wordsworth
• Yeats

2012:

• Boland
• Frost
• Heaney
• Kavanagh
• Kinsella
• Larkin
• Plath
• Rich

If you go onto the education.ie website you will get the list for up to 2014.

LadyGaga!

bubblz wrote: »

no longley didnt come up last yr... it was walcott,keats,montague nd bishop that came up!

Longley was on the leaked paper.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Wasn't Yeats tipped?

Yeats wasn't on the 2009 course :P

randylonghorn

LadyGaga! wrote: »

Yeats wasn't on the 2009 course :P

Whut?!!

For THIS year!

Victoria.

Longley was on the original last year and not the contingency paper.

GVNDNN

Longley was replaced with Montague

Jack Leahy

wonderfulname wrote: »

he came up last year, thats why i didnt understand why people were bothering to study him.

WRONG! Look at your past papers before posting, PLEEEEEEEASE! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: