Should Irish be an optional subject not a cumpulsory one

Wibbs

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Why is it that there seemed to be no negative attitudes towards Irish during British rule, and at the time of the state's foundation, but there are so many now?

Actually G contrary to popular belief it appears negative attitudes to the language were in place before the foundation of the state. It had been in decline since the 18th century.

bananarama22

I agree with the consensus that it should be optional and that forcing people to do something they don't want will only instill a hate for the topic. Ramming pointless depressing poetry down the throats of the young as a means of teaching the language will only create further apathy on the topic. I am of the opinion, that Irish should be an option for children in primary schools (if their parents so choose) to be an extra cirricular subject outside of school hours, taught voluntarily by the people who are "so keen to keep it alive" :rolleyes: just like "Sunday School" in America. In this day and age of growing metropolitanism and ever expanding multiculturalism, I believe that starting day 1 in Junior Infants, a child should be learning Spanish, German, French, etc, and upon seeing the other side of Secondary schol, should be almost 100 % conversant in all of the aforementioned languages. Now in saying that you can't compare the level of English spoken in the likes of Germany for example to the level of German spoken in the likes of Ireland, that is a straw man comparison and doesn't really stand to scrutiny because they over there are exposed to much more Americanism than we are to "Germanism" for lack of a better word.

But to clarify my pooint, NO Irish should not be compulsary

bananarama22

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually G contrary to popular belief it appears negative attitudes to the language were in place before the foundation of the state. It had been in decline since the 18th century.

Plus one to that .. People stopped speaking Irish and moved to English, it was nothing to do with opression as some people might say. Imagine a small area like Euskadi (Basque Region), only speaking Basque, being separate from the rest of Spain and Europe, and not speaking any other language. They'd be pretty fukced too !!

Wibbs

bananarama22 wrote: »

They'd be pretty fukced too !!

Funny enough that region is one of the wealthiest in Spain.

bananarama22

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough that region is one of the wealthiest in Spain.

Learn something everyday .. boards certainly is a fountain of knowledge :P

GaryIrv93

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually G contrary to popular belief it appears negative attitudes to the language were in place before the foundation of the state. It had been in decline since the 18th century.

Well I did mention that emigration was another factor than negative attitudes, as bananamara said. But I agree you're probably right, sorry.

deise go deo

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Don't just read Boards posts, read the RTE page as well - it says ''Like "compulsory" redundancy, compulsory Irish is an extraordinary unwelcome and blunt instrument. Unquestionably, for many students, its continued retention (forced on students without giving them a choice) can only serve to evoke and sustain a long-lasting resentment and antagonism towards the language.'' Well? That's a fair way to put it. Why would someone just make this up? If it's been mentioned in the country's news, then that's enough proof that it is a problem.

If you do think this (the percentages) then please link where you got it. Combine hatred towards the language itself and hatred towards it's compulsory position. I prefer not to link census's and statistics - you have no idea whether they're actually true or not. Boards is a good example - I prefer actually reading people's own opinions. It's far more accurate.

There is no doubt whatsoever that there's a link between hatred and compulsion - take another person, or yourself for example. Think of an activity, let it be anything and then think to yourself ''would I like it if this was forced upon me?'' No, I wouldn't either. Did you ever like being forced to go to school? I didn't. Would you like the army if you were forced to join and stay in the army? I wouldn't. Would you like being forced to sit in a cage all day? Nope. Would you like being forced to watch a TV show or film that you hated? No again. Would you like... well you get the point. The list would never end. If something was forced on you, of course you'd hate it. I would, and so would anyone else. Of course there's a link, it's human nature - resenting being forced to do something you don't want to do.

So a journalist wrote an article that agrees with your point of view so it must be true? The words paper never refeused ink spring to mind, to be fair I have no doubt that Tomás does believe that Compulsory Irish fosters resentment, but neither you nor he have actually shown that it does, nor that there is widespread resentment/hatered of Irish.

So lets take a look at your argument again, going to school is compulsory, have you a long-lasting resentment and antagonism twords school?
The vast majority of people who have gone through the Irish education system has been forced to do Maths, English, History, Science, Geography, CSPE and depending on the school you could have been forced to do a language, Art, Home Ec, Tech Drawing, Metal/Woodwork etc at some point, why no resentment/hatred for these subjects?
If compulsion is the causal factor in resentment/hatred, then anything that is compulsory will be resented/hated, this is clearly not the case as far as I can see.


The Irish Language and the Irish People

Main Points to note:
93% in favour of Preserving/Promoting Irish in the future
7% believe it should be disgarded in the future.

It also asked about peoples attutide to the Language both when they were in school and now.

In school:
43% either Somewhat or strongly in Favor
22% either somewhat or strongly opposed.

Now:
56% either somewhat or strongly in Favor
11% either somewhat or strongly opposed.

It is worth noting that those in the youngest age group 18-25 were in all cases more in favor and less opposed than the average.
Another Point worth noting that those who never went to secondary school were much more opposed to compulsary Irish than those who did, and that those who went on to third level were much less opposed than any other group.


The study also raised an interesting point, ''It has been known for a very long time (UNESCO 1958) that aquiring only a nodding aquaintance with a language can lead to frustration, Frustration of course can lead to agression. It is possible that schools which provide a lesser standard of Irish teaching could have built up (unwittingly) a degree of resentment against the language''.

Dammo

All the talk of us learning French, Spanish, etc. in place of a language unique to us is amusing to me.

Why should we? I reckon the vast majority of us who learned these languages in school have done little or nothing with them, apart from order a couple of deochanna on holiday.

Slán

Wibbs

That study is so slanted it's beyond laughable. For a start the sample groups tend to be tiny and the demographics chosen somewhat vague. I'd put as much store in most of that "study" as I would the studies backing up an ad for wrinkle reduction cream. Even then their conclusions are equally dubious. When you look at the overall picture, it's not as definitive as you suggest.

EG Irish language as a basis for Irish unity/identity. The figures break down overall to 30% agree it is. OK, but ranged against that are the cumulative figures for neither agree/disagree, don't know and disagree come to 66 odd per cent. Basically "Meh". This is pretty consistent throughout the various results with a few outliers.

On the aspirations for preservation of the language a tiny amount want Irish only. Naturally as that would be eye swivelingly daft. An equally tiny amount want it bilingual with Irish as the main language. Between them near 10% mind you. The real hardcore. People you don't want to hem you in on a bus seat. Bilingual with English as principle is a third. That makes more sense. The largest group at over 50% want it preserved in the Gaelthact and for cultural type stuff, no bilingual there. 7% want it discarded. Equal in scale to the nutters that might ruin your bus trip. That 50% seem happy to keep it alive, but not quite in their backyard. In their backyard again we have the "meh" factor. So your "93% in favour of Preserving/Promoting Irish in the future" is a nice bit of statistical massaging, but on further analysis doesn't quite break down that way. And this is a clearly biased and small sample group "study". Though for a change that sample group is larger. A full(well nearly) thousand people. I know. Tickle me with a feather and colour me impressed. Not. A couple are literally in the range of eyelash enhancements "surveys" with sample groups of 200 odd and the like.

On the "Now:
56% either somewhat or strongly in Favor
11% either somewhat or strongly opposed.". Cool and the gang, but what about the 33%? More "meh"? Add them to the opposed we get Meh with a hint of feck off at 44%. Now look at the questions themselves. Of that 56% how many are "somewhat" in favour? More "Meh, but yea I suppose so"? If that's a large chunk of that cohort it makes a difference. Slanted questions tend to get you slanted answers.

If that's what passes for scholarship into the Irish language, it's in trouble. It's about as one sided as a one legged man in a leaning contest and just as crap standing up as conclusive proof of anything.

Wibbs

Dammo wrote: »

All the talk of us learning French, Spanish, etc. in place of a language unique to us is amusing to me.

Why should we? I reckon the vast majority of us who learned these languages in school have done little or nothing with them, apart from order a couple of deochanna on holiday.

Which is likely more than most have used Irish. If you have to ask "why should we[learn a world language]" then any further debate is likely to be fruitless. Learn French/Spanish and you have just opened your options to converse with many millions of people in many cultures. Learn Irish and the world is very much narrower and local.

Jess16

Wibbs wrote: »

On the "Now:
56% either somewhat or strongly in Favor
11% either somewhat or strongly opposed.". Cool and the gang, but what about the 33%? More "meh"? Add them to the opposed we get Meh with a hint of feck off at 44%. Now look at the questions themselves. Of that 56% how many are "somewhat" in favour? More "Meh, but yea I suppose so"? If that's a large chunk of that cohort it makes a difference. Slanted questions tend to get you slanted answers.

If that's what passes for scholarship into the Irish language, it's in trouble. It's about as one sided as a one legged man in a leaning contest and just as crap standing up as conclusive proof of anything.

56% in favour is still more than 44% ambivalent or against. For such an ancient language to yield those results in this modern age, I wouldn't call that in trouble at all -pretty ironic though that you're implying the stats are skewed when you're coming out with biased comments like that

Dammo

I'm not saying that kids shouldn't learn a foreign language, come on. What I meant is that the argument that these languages, in practice, are more useful to the average student is thin.

As I said in an earlier post, I suspect that there will be much lamenting the loss of the language once it's finally gone. The language and it's supporters generally haven't a great image out there, but it is unique to us and we may regret losing it for once and for all at a later stage.

I do believe that education has a role to play in keeping languages alive, even Gaeilge. Many people I suspect don't want txt spk to become the written communication of the future and education is likely to be their way of preventing this and keeping 'proper' English alive. Of course I acknowledge the evolution of all languages in saying that.

Slán

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

The Irish Language and the Irish People

Main Points to note:
93% in favour of Preserving/Promoting Irish in the future
7% believe it should be disgarded in the future.

It also asked about peoples attutide to the Language both when they were in school and now.

In school:
43% either Somewhat or strongly in Favor
22% either somewhat or strongly opposed.

Now:
56% either somewhat or strongly in Favor
11% either somewhat or strongly opposed.

The question asked is ridiculous.

1. Do you want to see the language revived?
2. Do you want to see the language preserved?
3. Do you want to see the language discarded and forgotton?

Of course 93% are going to choose the first two because they have this wishy washy sense of nationalism. A more balanced question would be:

• Are you willing to learn irish to a fluent level?

Yes or no, if no then they obviously are not going to want to see it made the de facto language or the republic.

On a side note and even better question would be:

• Are you willing to spend copious amounts of time and energy learning a language with little purpose outside the academic sphere?

Phrase the question what ever way you want but don't tell them it's irish and see how many say yes.

Jess16

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The question asked is ridiculous. Of course 93% are going to choose the first two because they have this wishy washy sense of nationalism.

Your response is ridiculous. How on earth would you know how nationalistic people are or aren't?

Iwasfrozen

Jess16 wrote: »

Your response is ridiculous. How on earth would you know how nationalistic people are or aren't?

Emm, because they say they're in favour of the language but don't learn it? So they see no value in irish beyond the misty eyed nationalistic notion of a gaelic Ireland. Which in the 21st century is just daft basically.

Ever hear of duckspeak? It's an Orwellian term that just means quacking the party line without even thinking about it.

Jess16

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

they see no value in irish beyond the misty eyed nationalistic notion of a gaelic Ireland. Which in the 21st century is just daft basically

Says who -you? Again with the large-scale assumptions. It may come as a shock to all you trend-driven 20 year olds but lots of us actually value a bit of history and are proud to be Irish and all it entails.

Also, do you have anything that you hold on to for sentimental reasons but never really use and would still hate to be without? Exactly

Iwasfrozen

Jess16 wrote: »

Says who -you? Again with the large-scale assumptions.

Do you have anything that you hold on to for sentimental reasons but never really use and would still hate to be without? Exactly

Ok let me go through this with you.

The data shows a large proportion of people in favour of the language.

Yet there is a very few speakers of irish. Which tells me people are willing to shout their support for the language but are not bothered to actually learn it.

Which means there is another reason they are in favour of the language. Since they don't want to speak it. This can only be nationalism.

Nationalism can lead to some very silly outcomes and people will quack their support for irish language funding without actually thinking about what it means.

Do you follow me now?

Dostoevsky

bananarama22 wrote: »

Plus one to that .. People stopped speaking Irish and moved to English, it was nothing to do with opression as some people might say.

Yeah, there is absolutely no connection between control of power in this state by the biggest empire in world history and the decline of the Irish language during that crucial period. None, at all. It was the amazing grammar of English which won the people of Ireland over. Nothing to do with power dynamics. Nope.

Well done.

Jess16

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok let me go through this with you.

The data shows a large proportion of people in favour of the language.

Yet there is a very few speakers of irish. Which tells me people are willing to shout their support for the language but are not bothered to actually learn it.

Which means there is another reason they are in favour of the language. Since they don't want to speak it. This can only be nationalism.

Nationalism can lead to some very silly outcomes and people will quack their support for irish language funding without actually thinking about what it means.

Do you follow me now?

You're funny My point clearly sailed right over your head yet you're arrogant enough to take my refuting your point as not comprehending it.

Ní fiú bheith ag caint sa comhrá gan ciall

Iwasfrozen

Jess16 wrote: »

You're funny My point clearly sailed right over your head yet you're arrogant enough to take my refuting your point as not comprehending it.

Ní fiú bheith ag caint sa comhrá gan ciall

Ok then. Care to iterate your point for poor unfortunates such as myself who cannot comprehend your posts?

As an aside you can't post in irish without giving a translation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jess16 wrote: »

Says who -you? Again with the large-scale assumptions. It may come as a shock to all you trend-driven 20 year olds but lots of us actually value a bit of history and are proud to be Irish and all it entails.

It may also come as a shock to you hard-ass conservative 40 year olds that lots of is actually don't give a monkey's.

Wibbs

Jess16 wrote: »

56% in favour is still more than 44% ambivalent or against.

As I pointed out; "Now look at the questions themselves. Of that 56% how many are "somewhat" in favour? More "Meh, but yea I suppose so"? If that's a large chunk of that cohort it makes a difference. Slanted questions tend to get you slanted answers.". How does one define "somewhat"? Lumping in somewhat with fervently for is not good practice. You mention ambivalence? Somewhat is a very close approximation to ambivalent.

For such an ancient language to yield those results in this modern age, I wouldn't call that in trouble at all

The results, nay the methodology are biased and flawed and that bias and flawed thinking sets out it's stall in their introduction. Annnd we're back to mascara ads on telly. Ancient language? The Irish language today is a very different and arguably much contracted version of the old Irish it claims an unbroken connection with. I can pretty much guarantee that your grasp of Irish today will leave you floundering when faced with the complexity of that ancient tongue. If you were for it's reintroduction you'd more likely find a fellow compadre in me on that score. "Oirish" pidgin I can do without.

pretty ironic though that you're implying the stats are skewed when you're coming out with biased comments like that

Hardly. I'm reading the same "stats" (based on minute statistical groups) as they are.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As an aside you can't post in irish without giving a translation.

Ní fiú bheith ag caint sa comhrá gan ciall = "no point having this talk if [you're/we're] not talking sense". I think. My Gaelige aint great, but that seems to be the gist, if a little awkward in the original.

Jess16

Wibbs wrote: »

Ancient language? The Irish language today is a very different and arguably much contracted version of the old Irish it claims an unbroken connection with. I can pretty much guarantee that your grasp of Irish today will leave you floundering when faced with the complexity of that ancient tongue. If you were for it's reintroduction you'd more likely find a fellow compadre in me on that score. "Oirish" pidgin I can do without.

The arrogance on this forum really knows no bounds. Not that it's any of your business but I am a fluent Irish speaker Wibbs and have also studied Sean-Ghaeilge extensively at university to degree level, in addition to writing essays on 17th Century Old Irish Syllabic Bardic poetry, trí mhéan na Gaeilge -so you can leave out the sneering "Oirish pidgin" references please.

Your argument might appear more substantial if it wasn't primordially based on biased assumptions about things you clearly know nothing about so save your rudeness for those who deserve it.

Wibbs

Hence I said "pretty much". It's called a qualification.

Wibbs

More to the point, your background marks you out as an interested party. Hardly representative of the whole you claim to speak for is it? Just as I would call bias in a Latin scholar for suggesting a return to that language, I call bias for you.

In any event the link provided earlier is still lacking regardless of your claimed erudition in the subject. A claim to authority is usually associated with both arrogance and assumption so I think we're even.

Dostoevsky

Wibbs wrote: »

More to the point, your background marks you out as an interested party. Hardly representative of the whole you claim to speak for is it? Just as I would call bias in a Latin scholar for suggesting a return to that language, I call bias for you.

Coming from the poster who has regularly called Irish speakers "Nazis" your personal attack on somebody else for allegedly being an "interested party" and having "bias" is comical.

gimme5minutes

I said it before and Ill say it again. Irish is a complete an utter pain in the hole. Any secondary school students out there reading this I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.

deise go deo

Wibbs wrote: »

That study is so slanted it's beyond laughable. For a start the sample groups tend to be tiny and the demographics chosen somewhat vague. I'd put as much store in most of that "study" as I would the studies backing up an ad for wrinkle reduction cream. Even then their conclusions are equally dubious. When you look at the overall picture, it's not as definitive as you suggest.

EG Irish language as a basis for Irish unity/identity. The figures break down overall to 30% agree it is. OK, but ranged against that are the cumulative figures for neither agree/disagree, don't know and disagree come to 66 odd per cent. Basically "Meh". This is pretty consistent throughout the various results with a few outliers.

On the aspirations for preservation of the language a tiny amount want Irish only. Naturally as that would be eye swivelingly daft. An equally tiny amount want it bilingual with Irish as the main language. Between them near 10% mind you. The real hardcore. People you don't want to hem you in on a bus seat. Bilingual with English as principle is a third. That makes more sense. The largest group at over 50% want it preserved in the Gaelthact and for cultural type stuff, no bilingual there. 7% want it discarded. Equal in scale to the nutters that might ruin your bus trip. That 50% seem happy to keep it alive, but not quite in their backyard. In their backyard again we have the "meh" factor. So your "93% in favour of Preserving/Promoting Irish in the future" is a nice bit of statistical massaging, but on further analysis doesn't quite break down that way. And this is a clearly biased and small sample group "study". Though for a change that sample group is larger. A full(well nearly) thousand people. I know. Tickle me with a feather and colour me impressed. Not. A couple are literally in the range of eyelash enhancements "surveys" with sample groups of 200 odd and the like.

On the "Now:
56% either somewhat or strongly in Favor
11% either somewhat or strongly opposed.". Cool and the gang, but what about the 33%? More "meh"? Add them to the opposed we get Meh with a hint of feck off at 44%. Now look at the questions themselves. Of that 56% how many are "somewhat" in favour? More "Meh, but yea I suppose so"? If that's a large chunk of that cohort it makes a difference. Slanted questions tend to get you slanted answers.

If that's what passes for scholarship into the Irish language, it's in trouble. It's about as one sided as a one legged man in a leaning contest and just as crap standing up as conclusive proof of anything.

I fully understand where you are comming from, but my use of that survey is not to try to claim that 93% or anything like it give two shíts about the language.

Please bear in mind the context I used the survey in.

I was challenging the claim that compulsion is a causal factor in the decline of Irish because it invariably/in most cases/in many cases causes resentment to the subject that is compulsory, and that resentment of Irish is widespread.

I post a source that supports my position when asked, a source which also happens to be the most relevant piece of research there is on the topic which shows that 93% don't seem to hold any resentment/hatred for Irish.
Someone who is 'meh' about the language can not be said to resent/hate it it, so adding them to the total said to resent/hate the language would be nonsense.

If you have a problem with the survey, you might like to get in touch with NUI Maynouth about their research methodology, I am sure they will be happy to explain/defend it.

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The question asked is ridiculous.

If you want to find out how people felt about about the language when they were in school and how they feel about it now, is this not a balanced question:

'Which of the following best describe the way you felt about Irish when in school and the way you feel now?'
-Strongly in favour
-Somewhat in favor
-No particular feelings
-Somewhat opposed
-Strongley opposed

If not, why?

GaryIrv93

deise go deo wrote: »

So lets take a look at your argument again, going to school is compulsory, have you a long-lasting resentment and antagonism twords school?
The vast majority of people who have gone through the Irish education system has been forced to do Maths, English, History, Science, Geography, CSPE and depending on the school you could have been forced to do a language, Art, Home Ec, Tech Drawing, Metal/Woodwork etc at some point, why no resentment/hatred for these subjects?
If compulsion is the causal factor in resentment/hatred, then anything that is compulsory will be resented/hated, this is clearly not the case as far as I can see.

You're missing the point. Other subjects like Maths, Sciences, Foreign Languages, Home Ec, History, English, Geography and Practical Subjects are all relevant and have a good reason to be compulsory. Why?

.Maths - teaches basic addition, subtraction, division, teaches calculations, arithmitic, graphs. Maths skills will also help you manage your money. Maths has helped bring technology to where it is today and will continue to do so, as long as each generation is taught it. Maths is involved in almost everything in this world.

.Sciences - give you an understanding of life, biology, physics, chemistry. Every object, solid, liquid or gas is created through biology, physics, or chemistry. Biology for example has helped me understand viruses better - I won't waste money on antibiotics when I have a bad cold, because antibiotics don't help cure viral illnesses. That's useful knowledge.

.Foreign Languages - are very useful if planning to visit non-English-speaking countries, which most of us will do at some point in our lives.

.English - teaches letter-writing skills, debating skills, how to spell, read and write and teaches you countless new words, as well as how to write stories. Vital skills we'll all need.

.History - teaches us of events of the past which influence the world we live in today. eg how Ireland got it's independence, WW1, WW2, the Cold War.

.Geography - for example teaches you how to read maps. A very useful and potentially a life-saving skill if lost. Geography teaches us how the world works, both physically and economically. We do live on Earth after all, it would make sense to know how it works, by learning about it's physical features, how weather works, it's effects and a bit of economics too.

.Home Ec - teaches cooking skills, which are useful around the house and can let you decrease reliance on parents a bit.

.Art - can make you money.

.Practical Subjects, eg Wood - very useful for DIY skills if let's say I want to build my own furniture at home then I can with a bit of knowledge and experience with joinery methods, using power tools, measurements, etc. Construction studies also teaches you how houses are built, foundations, how roofs are made, Planning Permission, Site Safety, Insulation, how building materials are made, etc. These I know will be extremely useful to me in the future.

Irish on the other hand will never be relevant enough to justify it being compulsory. It's taught badly, a small minority only actually use it for day-to-day communication. Note ''small minority''. If no one else you know can speak it back to you, never speaks it, or don't know how to speak it, then there's no real reason for it being compulsory. It's a huge waste of money and an even bigger waste of time for those who will not use it. If the government actually cared about Irish, then they would've reformed it's teaching and also likely would have removed it as a mandatory subject a long time ago. If it's worth teaching, it's worth teaching right. Irish is more of a hobby language and should be optional to suit both those who have shown interest and commitment to the language, and those who don't take the same interest and would rather spend their time and resources learning something they actually value. Then everyone's happy in this case.

I've explained this link between compulsion and resentment before. I'll use more examples. Car insurance is compulsory for all drivers - no one likes being forced to pay car insurance. If Mandarin was compulsory for example, even if you knew you were never going to visit China, wouldn't you resent being forced to learn Mandarin? There certainly is a link.

Wibbs

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Coming from the poster who has regularly called Irish speakers "Nazis" your personal attack on somebody else for allegedly being an "interested party" and having "bias" is comical.

Find me one post where I called Irish speakers Nazis. Let the Search be your friend. For extra points and the prize of a fun packed all expenses paid holiday abroad find regular examples of it. I'll save you the trouble, you won't, but maybe it would be polite to hold back on the accusations and fibs until you do?

I was simply making the point that someone whose primary educational interest to degree level is the study of a subject is unlikely to be exactly unbiased towards that subject. If their future or current employment is dependent on said subject in the context of the OP then they're clearly "biased" in both opinion and practical terms. Turkeys won't vote for Xmas. Put it another way, would you frame a survey asking for independent opinions on the value of the sciences among science teachers and then claim it representative?

Wibbs

deise go deo wrote: »

Someone who is 'meh' about the language can not be said to resent/hate it it, so adding them to the total said to resent/hate the language would be nonsense.

Yet adding them to the total of "in favour" is not nonsense?

deise go deo wrote: »

If you want to find out how people felt about about the language when they were in school and how they feel about it now, is this not a balanced question:

'Which of the following best describe the way you felt about Irish when in school and the way you feel now?'
-Strongly in favour
-Somewhat in favor
-No particular feelings
-Somewhat opposed
-Strongley opposed

If not, why?

Oh the questions are not the issue, however the breakdown of the answers is. It's all about the interpretation of the results and IMHO those results(and the tiny numbers involved) are interpreted with an element of bias.

senordingdong

Who knows, maybe the possibility of cutting it, will be examined, as a cost saving option.

deise go deo

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet adding them to the total of "in favour" is not nonsense?

Wibbs, please stop trying to twist things to suit your argument, its compleatly dishonnest.

There were two seperate questions, one on future aspirations for the language, the other on how people felt about the language when they were in school and now.

Only one of those questions identified a group that were 'meh' about the language, for that question I said:

56% either somewhat or strongly in Favor
11% either somewhat or strongly opposed.

Note, I did not in fact try to add the 'Meh group' to the total for in Favor.

However you on the other hand did try to add it to the opposed section to try and scew the result from 11% opposed to 44%

Cool and the gang, but what about the 33%? More "meh"? Add them to the opposed we get Meh with a hint of feck off at 44%.

I did not try to add the 'meh' group to those identified as either somewhat or strongly in favor.

Cop on.

deise go deo

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

You're missing the point. Other subjects like Maths, Sciences, Foreign Languages, Home Ec, History, English, Geography and Practical Subjects are all relevant and have a good reason to be compulsory. Why?

.Maths - teaches basic addition, subtraction, division, teaches calculations, arithmitic, graphs. Maths skills will also help you manage your money. Maths has helped bring technology to where it is today and will continue to do so, as long as each generation is taught it. Maths is involved in almost everything in this world.

.Sciences - give you an understanding of life, biology, physics, chemistry. Every object, solid, liquid or gas is created through biology, physics, or chemistry. Biology for example has helped me understand viruses better - I won't waste money on antibiotics when I have a bad cold, because antibiotics don't help cure viral illnesses. That's useful knowledge.

.Foreign Languages - are very useful if planning to visit non-English-speaking countries, which most of us will do at some point in our lives.

.English - teaches letter-writing skills, debating skills, how to spell, read and write and teaches you countless new words, as well as how to write stories. Vital skills we'll all need.

.History - teaches us of events of the past which influence the world we live in today. eg how Ireland got it's independence, WW1, WW2, the Cold War.

.Geography - for example teaches you how to read maps. A very useful and potentially a life-saving skill if lost. Geography teaches us how the world works, both physically and economically. We do live on Earth after all, it would make sense to know how it works, by learning about it's physical features, how weather works, it's effects and a bit of economics too.

.Home Ec - teaches cooking skills, which are useful around the house and can let you decrease reliance on parents a bit.

.Art - can make you money.

.Practical Subjects, eg Wood - very useful for DIY skills if let's say I want to build my own furniture at home then I can with a bit of knowledge and experience with joinery methods, using power tools, measurements, etc. Construction studies also teaches you how houses are built, foundations, how roofs are made, Planning Permission, Site Safety, Insulation, how building materials are made, etc. These I know will be extremely useful to me in the future.

Irish on the other hand will never be relevant enough to justify it being compulsory. It's taught badly, a small minority only actually use it for day-to-day communication. Note ''small minority''. If no one else you know can speak it back to you, never speaks it, or don't know how to speak it, then there's no real reason for it being compulsory. It's a huge waste of money and an even bigger waste of time for those who will not use it. If the government actually cared about Irish, then they would've reformed it's teaching and also likely would have removed it as a mandatory subject a long time ago. If it's worth teaching, it's worth teaching right. Irish is more of a hobby language and should be optional to suit both those who have shown interest and commitment to the language, and those who don't take the same interest and would rather spend their time and resources learning something they actually value. Then everyone's happy in this case.

I've explained this link between compulsion and resentment before. I'll use more examples. Car insurance is compulsory for all drivers - no one likes being forced to pay car insurance. If Mandarin was compulsory for example, even if you knew you were never going to visit China, wouldn't you resent being forced to learn Mandarin? There certainly is a link.

This is hilarious, seriously, you claimed Compulsion will cause resentment/hatred, plain and simple, now is this the case or not, obviously not because you have been backtracking since you said it, including giving a justification as to why it won't apply to just about every school subject I could think of, so why can't you just admit it?

You have not shown a link between resentment and compulsion, you have said there is ad infinatum, but you have not show it.



You claimed that compulsion is the main reason for widespread resentment/hatred of Irish and is the main factor in its decline. For your argument to hold true you first have to back up your claim that there is widespread resentment/hatred of Irish, and then show that the cause is compulsion, you have done neither of these things.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

Wibbs, please stop trying to twist things to suit your argument, its compleatly dishonnest.

Eh, hello? Pot? Kettle...? You're not white you know.

There were two seperate questions, one on future aspirations for the language, the other on how people felt about the language when they were in school and now.

Neither of which is relevant to the topic. It's been twisted into an argument based on "future aspirations of the language" and "how people feel abotu the language at school and now" because you can't come up with a suitable argument for the argument in question.

deise go deo wrote: »

This is hilarious, seriously, you claimed Compulsion will cause resentment/hatred, plain and simple, now is this the case or not, obviously not because you have been backtracking since you said it, including giving a justification as to why it won't apply to just about every school subject I could think of, so why can't you just admit it?

And I anwered this with a post which, as usual, you convienantly ignored. Here it is again.

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Neither of which is relevant to the topic. It's been twisted into an argument based on "future aspirations of the language" and "how people feel abotu the language at school and now" because you can't come up with a suitable argument for the argument in question.

It is relevant to the claim that there is widespread resentment/hatred of Irish caused by compulsion.

And I anwered this with a post which, as usual, you convienantly ignored. Here it is again.

That does not show that compulsion is the causal factor in them disliking it, which is what the poster was trying to claim.
If compulsion is not making people people dislike the subject, making it optional is not a solution to that problem.

The argument you're making is that if someone dislikes the language, they should not be forced to do it, thats fair enough, I have no problem with that as an argument.
He is claiming that compulsion is causing people to dislike Irish and that that is a reason to make it optional, thats what I am challenging.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

It is relevant to the claim that there is widespread resentment/hatred of Irish caused by compulsion.

But not relvant to the thread, because it doesn't touch the pros and cons as it relates to Leaving Cert students or to the education system.

You're going down a side alley, here. FWIW, I think it's been a contributor (probably a main one), but not the sole cause. It certainly was the main cause in my case, but that's anecdotal.

That does not show that compulsion is the causal factor in them disliking it, which is what the poster was trying to claim.
If compulsion is not making people people dislike the subject, making it optional is not a solution to that problem.

You don't need statistical evidence to show that there is a lot of resentment amongst Leaving Cert students for the language. Nor do you need statistical evidence to show that, having shown a dislike for a subject or activity - not specific to Irish - that forcing them to continue is going to harbour further resentment. By the time they hit the leaving cert, they'll have done it for 9 or 10 years. They will know whether or not the like it.

Whether compulsion or not is the cause of said dislike is irrelvant. The question is, would they be better off, academically speaking, if they were allowed to choose something else for the last two years. No one has yet given me a good argument saying 'no'.

The problem is that you are arguing would the language be better off, when, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. The aim of the Leaving Cert is NOT to promote or preserve the language.

He is claiming that compulsion is causing people to dislike Irish and that that is a reason to make it optional, thats what I am challenging.

It is a cause, as I said at the top of this post, and a good reason for making it optional. Why would you disagree with this reason for making it optional? Or are you saying there is NO resentment at all?

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It is a cause, as I said at the top of this post, and a good reason for making it optional. Why would you disagree with this reason for making it optional? Or are you saying there is NO resentment at all?

I am not saying there is no resentment at all, just that there is little to show it is very widespread, and that I don't believe compulsion is a major factor in causing what there is of it, though if someone dislikes Irish for some reason, compulsion will play into that dislike.

In my opinion compulsion is only a side issue to the teaching of Irish and what causes some people to dislike it.


Put it this way, if you go out on the street and ask a people 'What is wrong with Irish in school'
I bet you the resounding answer you will get back is not 'Its compulsory' but 'How its taught'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

I am not saying there is no resentment at all, just that there is little to show it is very widespread, and that I don't believe compulsion is a major factor in causing what there is of it, though if someone dislikes Irish for some reason, compulsion will play into that dislike.

Fair enough.

In my opinion compulsion is only a side issue to the teaching of Irish and what causes some people to dislike it.

Put it this way, if you go out on the street and ask a people 'What is wrong with Irish in school'
I bet you the resounding answer you will get back is not 'Its compulsory' but 'How its taught'

I would have said lack of usage outside of school trumps both of them. Which is why, if the lanaguge were the issue, I would say that what happens outside of school should be of more concern to the Irish-language advocate than what happens in school.

But it still brings us back to square one: irrespective of what the cause is, and irresective of what the effect will be on the langauge, why should a dissatisfied student not be allowed to drop the subject (or any other subject, for that matter) in favour of something more relevant to them, having had 10 years experience of it?

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

But it still brings us back to square one: irrespective of what the cause is, and irresective of what the effect will be on the langauge, why should a dissatisfied student not be allowed to drop the subject (or any other subject, for that matter) in favour of something more relevant to them, having had 10 years experience of it?

Well the main issue is that if you are going to make Irish optional, you have to reform the curriculum, regardless of how good or bad the current one is, it is compleatly unsuitable for being optional. If you have to reform the curriculum (And you really really do) then it is better to do that while the subject is still compulsory, give it time to bed in, and then make it optional rather than make it optional and then run around trying to fix it.
This has the added benefit of buliding in time to develop a workable structure to replace compulsory Irish, and really these things need time to be developed if you want to do it right, no one wants problems poping up down the line because no one had time to plan out the reforms they were making properly.

KeithM89_old

This thread will be wrapping up soon, so final thoughts and all that.

Jess16

I think a lot of people here need to get over themselves and find something more constructive to get angry about -so bloody what if people are willing to learn or lend support to a language unique to our country?

This is Ireland, not some little mid-Atlantic stopoff that only exists to cater to whatever other nationality decides to drop by. We need to reclaim our country, start making our own rules and regulations and preserving our authenticity instead of pandering to other people's expectations.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

Well the main issue is that if you are going to make Irish optional, you have to reform the curriculum, regardless of how good or bad the current one is, it is compleatly unsuitable for being optional. If you have to reform the curriculum (And you really really do) then it is better to do that while the subject is still compulsory, give it time to bed in, and then make it optional rather than make it optional and then run around trying to fix it.
This has the added benefit of buliding in time to develop a workable structure to replace compulsory Irish, and really these things need time to be developed if you want to do it right, no one wants problems poping up down the line because no one had time to plan out the reforms they were making properly.

In what way is the current system "unsuitable for being optional"?

Again, this is what suits the language, not what suits the student and the education system.

For one thing, the key reforms (I would imagine) will be brought in at primary school level. It's a good 5 to 10 years before they do the leaving. How does this effect students that are going to do the leaving in the next five years or so?

Happyman42

Jess16 wrote: »

I think a lot of people here need to get over themselves and find something more constructive to get angry about -so bloody what if people are willing to learn or lend support to a language unique to our country?

This is Ireland, not some little mid-Atlantic stopoff that only exists to cater to whatever other nationality decides to drop by. We need to reclaim our country, start making our own rules and regulations and preserving our authenticity instead of pandering to other people's expectations.

Close the borders and chat as Gaelige to one another....good luck with that one! :rolleyes:
What seems to stick in the craw of Gaelgoers is the fact that we are seen as a unique culture despite the fact that we don't speak Irish anymore. How would all of us speaking Irish change or inform our cultural output? They ain't exactly parachuting in to read the nuggets of literary wisdom in Peig, are they?

deise go deo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In what way is the current system "unsuitable for being optional"?

LC Irish is a two paper exam with an oral exam included, do you really expect students to choose to do a subject that has two papers and an oral, and way more to learn for the same points over one of the existing optional subjects?

Not to mention that currently there is more class time for the Irish course than the existing optional courses, meaning that Irish will not fit as an interchangable option on a time table, square peg, round hole.

Again, this is what suits the language, not what suits the student and the education system.

Bad reforms to the education system are not in the students interest. Making Irish optional with out reforming its curriculum and havng a workable replacement for it is a bad reform that will damage the education system.

For one thing, the key reforms (I would imagine) will be brought in at primary school level. It's a good 5 to 10 years before they do the leaving. How does this effect students that are going to do the leaving in the next five years or so?

What would you suggest be done? Rush in and make Irish optional straight away? I don't think that is very praticle.

Jess16

Happyman42 wrote: »

Close the borders and chat as Gaelige to one another....good luck with that one! :rolleyes:
What seems to stick in the craw of Gaelgoers is the fact that we are seen as a unique culture despite the fact that we don't speak Irish anymore. How would all of us speaking Irish change or inform our cultural output? They ain't exactly parachuting in to read the nuggets of literary wisdom in Peig, are they?

No, they're parachuting in to pick up some free social welfare without caring less about making any contribution to this country, cultural or otherwise. Probably why we're in the midst of our biggest economic crisis to date right now.

Also, who said anything about 'all of us' speaking Irish? Or Peig? Or closing the borders? It seems that bitterness, sarcasm and ignorance are the only comeback for the anti-Irish warriors here -clearly a waste of time trying to have a constructive debate within this forum

Happyman42

Jess16 wrote: »

This is Ireland, not some little mid-Atlantic stopoff that only exists to cater to whatever other nationality decides to drop by. We need to reclaim our country, start making our own rules and regulations and preserving our authenticity instead of pandering to other people's expectations.

It was a very good debate until the above ^
If all else fails try a bit of fascism, i.e. WE know what's good for you, obey!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

deise go deo wrote: »

LC Irish is a two paper exam with an oral exam included, do you really expect students to choose to do a subject that has two papers and an oral, and way more to learn for the same points over one of the existing optional subjects?

Not to mention that currently there is more class time for the Irish course than the existing optional courses, meaning that Irish will not fit as an interchangable option on a time table, square peg, round hole.

First point, irrelvant. The reasons for choosing subjects are the students' own.
Second point, simple timetabling issue. Not hard to sort out. School redo timetables every year.

Bad reforms to the education system are not in the students interest. Making Irish optional with out reforming its curriculum and havng a workable replacement for it is a bad reform that will damage the education system.

How?

What would you suggest be done? Rush in and make Irish optional straight away? I don't think that is very praticle.

Again, I never suggested "rushing in".

suggested prioritising the students needs, not the langauge needs, which would mean prioritising amkign the langauge optinoal at leaving cert rather than reforming it at primary level.

Although, to be honest, I can't see why they can't happen simultaneously. Although reform will take a hell of a lot more time.