Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Aiming for 625 points? (600+25 from maths)
Comments
-
EuropeanSon wrote: »If you do that, it is your fault for picking the wrong course, not the system's. The points systems is one of the fairest 3rd level entry systems in the world. You get what you earn, and that is what you deserve, and favouritism is impossible.
Sorry, my last post wasnt accurate.
the main issus I have with the system is the leaving cert. It is an unfair assessment of a student. 2 years into 10-15 days of exams is crazy. Also, a lot of subjects are just memory tests rather than understanding the subject. students should be assessed over the two years.
I agree with the favouritism, its impossible.0 -
It's slightly scary that this is a probable classmate. *brain working overdrive*
You could take up Biology, it's a good one to do.0 -
-
-
EuropeanSon wrote: »If you do that, it is your fault for picking the wrong course, not the system's. The points systems is one of the fairest 3rd level entry systems in the world. You get what you earn, and that is what you deserve, and favouritism is impossible.
Yes but surely there are better ways of eliminating favouritism than disregarding everything about the college applicant that makes them a human being rather than a number? All the university sees are your grades from one examination in each of 6+ subjects that you've been studying for two years. Not your grade point average, your progress, your personality, your non-academic hobbies...
The points system is all based on supply and demand. It's used to rank students, to determine who 'deserves' a place more. But just consider 'English Studies' in Trinity for a second. The sole subject requirement is a HC3 in English, then about 475 points. Student A could be doing English, Irish, Maths, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Applied Maths and French and get 600 points from the latter 6 of those subjects, while only getting the bare minimum of a HC3 in English. But they'd have more points than Student B with, say, 480 points including an A1 in English. They're probably more deserving of a place on an English studies course, but the former student has way more points and will get a place before them. How is that fair?
You could apply this example to someone going for a Science course who has lower points than someone who was good at languages and got the bulk of their points from English, Irish, French, Spanish...0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes but surely there are better ways of eliminating favouritism than disregarding everything about the college applicant that makes them a human being rather than a number? All the university sees are your grades from one examination in each of 6+ subjects that you've been studying for two years. Not your grade point average, your progress, your personality, your non-academic hobbies...
The points system is all based on supply and demand. It's used to rank students, to determine who 'deserves' a place more. But just consider 'English Studies' in Trinity for a second. The sole subject requirement is a HC3 in English, then about 475 points. Student A could be doing English, Irish, Maths, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Applied Maths and French and get 600 points from the latter 6 of those subjects, while only getting the bare minimum of a HC3 in English. But they'd have more points than Student B with, say, 480 points including an A1 in English. They're probably more deserving of a place on an English studies course, but the former student has way more points and will get a place before them. How is that fair?
You could apply this example to someone going for a Science course who has lower points than someone who was good at languages and got the bulk of their points from English, Irish, French, Spanish...
The former is more deserving. The latter may have more aptitude (not necessarily though, as English in college is quite dissimilar to LC English) but the former is more deserving. If the Trinity authorities themselves disagreed with this, they could raise the required entry grade in English to a B or an A.
You need to distinguish between the points system and the Leaving Cert, too. The points system is operated by the CAO, who give you an appropriate number of points based on the State Examinations Commission's evaluation of your ability (ie. your grade). How the SEC chooses to evaluate your ability has nothing whatsoever to do with the CAO.
In addition, evaluating your personality is an entirely subjective process, and therefore open to corruption and favouritism. The value of any given hobby is similarly subjective.0 -
EuropeanSon wrote: »Yes but surely there are better ways of eliminating favouritism than disregarding everything about the college applicant that makes them a human being rather than a number? All the university sees are your grades from one examination in each of 6+ subjects that you've been studying for two years. Not your grade point average, your progress, your personality, your non-academic hobbies...
The points system is all based on supply and demand. It's used to rank students, to determine who 'deserves' a place more. But just consider 'English Studies' in Trinity for a second. The sole subject requirement is a HC3 in English, then about 475 points. Student A could be doing English, Irish, Maths, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Applied Maths and French and get 600 points from the latter 6 of those subjects, while only getting the bare minimum of a HC3 in English. But they'd have more points than Student B with, say, 480 points including an A1 in English. They're probably more deserving of a place on an English studies course, but the former student has way more points and will get a place before them. How is that fair?
You could apply this example to someone going for a Science course who has lower points than someone who was good at languages and got the bulk of their points from English, Irish, French, Spanish...
The former is more deserving. The latter may have more aptitude (not necessarily though, as English in college is quite dissimilar to LC English) but the former is more deserving. If the Trinity authorities themselves disagreed with this, they could raise the required entry grade in English to a B or an A.
You need to distinguish between the points system and the Leaving Cert, too. The points system is operated by the CAO, who give you an appropriate number of points based on the State Examinations Commission's evaluation of your ability (ie. your grade). How the SEC chooses to evaluate your ability has nothing whatsoever to do with the CAO.
In addition, evaluating your personality is an entirely subjective process, and therefore open to corruption and favouritism. The value of any given hobby is similarly subjective.
More deserving how, though? Why should good grades in science subjects get you into a course that has nothing to do with science?
I think the points system is unfair because it is subject-blind. People take subjects for 'easy points' (they don't exist!) to play 'the points game' rather than really considering what subjects will benefit them in uni. I know History is unlikely to get me an A1 but it'll be useful for European Studies (my first choice). Honestly, of course, I think my decision is wiser however not in the context of the CAO.
I suggest in the place of CAO points as we know them, the introduction of something along the lines of an SAT in English and Maths. A recently-published HEA report showed that results in LC Maths and English were the greatest indicators of how a student would progress at third level. This would yield points that better correspond to the students' 'deservingness' of a place on any course, and would be a lot fairer because everyone would be tested on the same subjects.
AND the Leaving Cert would still be a mandatory requirement for entry into any third level institution. You would need your 'SAT' points in addition to specific subject grade requirements to enter any course. And this could still be a centralised process run by the CAO.
I think that something along these lines that took the points away from LC grades altogether would be a much fairer, more transparent system.
I am also well aware that the CAO operates 100% independently of the SEC. Nothing bothers me more than classmates who think their CAO points will be printed on their results cert...0 -
you said you've just finished 5th year in the institute, as have I.0 -
More deserving how, though? Why should good grades in science subjects get you into a course that has nothing to do with science?
I think the points system is unfair because it is subject-blind. People take subjects for 'easy points' (they don't exist!) to play 'the points game' rather than really considering what subjects will benefit them in uni. I know History is unlikely to get me an A1 but it'll be useful for European Studies (my first choice). Honestly, of course, I think my decision is wiser however not in the context of the CAO.
I suggest in the place of CAO points as we know them, the introduction of something along the lines of an SAT in English and Maths. A recently-published HEA report showed that results in LC Maths and English were the greatest indicators of how a student would progress at third level. This would yield points that better correspond to the students' 'deservingness' of a place on any course, and would be a lot fairer because everyone would be tested on the same subjects.
AND the Leaving Cert would still be a mandatory requirement for entry into any third level institution. You would need your 'SAT' points in addition to specific subject grade requirements to enter any course. And this could still be a centralised process run by the CAO.
I think that something along these lines that took the points away from LC grades altogether would be a much fairer, more transparent system.
I am also well aware that the CAO operates 100% independently of the SEC. Nothing bothers me more than classmates who think their CAO points will be printed on their results cert...
A reasonable proposal, but one which I think has a few flaws that mean I wouldn't support it. Firstly, some courses do not relate to any Leaving Cert subjects, and therefore there would be no incentives for a student to take other subjects other than Maths and English (or, if they had to take them, to work hard and do their best at them), severely reducing how much of and how broad of an education they would receive.
Secondly, your notion of "deservingness", as you put it, seems to be grossly different to mine. You cite a survey showing a correlation in future success, which in my mind has zero to do with being deserving of place. Those who have achieved the most are most deserving, not those who will achieve the most. As an example, had I not worked at all and gotten less than the ~460 my course in Mathematics required, I would still be significantly better at and more likely to succeed at Maths than most of the people who got my course. I would not have been as deserving, however. Also, I don't agree that testing less of a person's ability via your proposed SAT-like exams is more fair than the current broad curriculum which is tested.
Also, an A1 in History is as easy as any other. Why wouldn't it be?
Statistically, most subjects have similar mean grades, I imagine, so all subjects besides the core subjects, with their longer courses, are equally difficult.
I would support a system whereby English and Maths were worth a maximum of 150 points (or another number, greater than 100 but less than 160) each, however, given their longer and more challenging courses.0
Advertisement