Schools want to drop LC physics, chemistry, economics

wonderfulname

prinz wrote: »

You made remarks about some people's experiences and are drawing conclusions. Others make remarks about their experiences and draw conclusions and then you tell them to "You shouldn't let your own experience numb you to common sense".. Where's the ridiculous assumption?

The poster made the point that their non examinable religion class was beneficial, implying there was no problem with any such class across the board, seen as this conversation is tangential to one on the sciences I would assume you appreciate the problems in such a position. I have drawn no conclusions based on individuals, further back I offered a suggestion based on the consistent uptake of science subjects in an individual school but that was across many students over many years and in comparison to schools which do not place such emphasis on science in the junior cycle. I fail to see what you're getting jumpy about.

Mardy Bum

BackScrub wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

It's like having "Daddy fell into the pond" on the LC honours English paper.

That is why its on the LC Applied syllabus. Generally students who do this exam come from either disadvantaged areas or are not fully capable of making a proper effort at the standard leaving cert for whatever reason.

partyatmygaff

BackScrub wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

It's like having "Daddy fell into the pond" on the LC honours English paper.

In the LCA, an acceptable education in Mathematics for a 17/18 year old can mean being able to answer the likes of:

a)Add 340 g, 2 kg and 23 g.
Give your answer in grammes.

b)The length of a side of a square is 4·5 cm.
Calculate the area of the square.

Bear in mind that calculators are allowed in this exam.

Now I know Maths isn't for everybody but that's the kind of thing you'd have been expected to be able to do at the age of 10.

Mountainlad

amacachi wrote: »

A quick glance at examinations.ie stats:

Subject|2003|2009|2010|2011
Physics:|8806|6924|6745|6516
Chemistry:|6698|7403|7548|7677
P&C:|933|519|425|472
Biology:|22671|28101|29249|30349
Economics:|4843|4578|4975|4796

Just stuck in 2003 for comparison purposes, not bothered going through every year. Biology has grown quite a bit, physics and physics and chemistry are way down while economics and chemistry are steady. 51,055 students sat the LC in 2003 while last year it was 55,550 so that increase for chemistry is from 13.1% of students to 13.8%, not exactly a huge increase.

Physics is way down alright. I think it's a neccessity that the government promote the subjects. I guess I can understand why the schools want to get rid of them now, but it's not for the benefit of young people in Ireland's education, which should be what drives these decisions.

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What?

wonderfulname

aidan24326 wrote: »

Though a lot of the poetry and Shakespeare stuff could be done away with.

I don't know if they should be done away with, the use of language in paper 2 is the kind of thing that can get a student to think, and I quite like the idea that you can draw any conclusion you want on the texts so long as you can back it up. If the subject were taught in the right manner it would easily be the most beneficial for independent thought.

At the same time for most students it's a memory exercise, you have to feel sorry for the examiners, how awful must it be to read lord knows how many rewordings of the "less stress more success" interpretation of Macbeth?

cocoshovel

Our school kids are already fúcking retarded enough as it is, this country gets beter and better by the day.

Doctor_Socks

My religion subject in school was never examined, I really enjoyed everything about it though! My teacher was a devout Christian, but was always open to debate about topics in the bible in order for him to learn more about the world as he never got a chance to when he was younger.

We had a lot of debates about the origins of the universe, creationism and dystopian futures like 1984 and Brave New World. A lot of those debates are what made me love physics and maths when I seen that almost everything in existence can be modeled and understood with science. I owe a lot of the path in life to my 'religion' teacher.

However, going by other posters experiences with religion in school I can see why a lot of you feel that it should be gotten rid of in the curriculum. I think it should be kept, mainly just to show teenagers that other religions exist and that they don't follow the negative stereotypes portrayed by media, (Muslims are terrorists, Christian priests are perverts, etc ) Could be a good subject to teach the philosophy of 'Education, not discrimination'.

amacachi

Mountainlad wrote: »

Physics is way down alright. I think it's a neccessity that the government promote the subjects. I guess I can understand why the schools want to get rid of them now, but it's not for the benefit of young people in Ireland's education, which should be what drives these decisions.

It's not just down to raw numbers either, mid-higher achievers would be more likely to go for the sciences which tilts it towards certain schools. Even in subjects where numbers are holding steady I wouldn't be surprised if in "free" schools numbers are falling.
I don't see a simple solution to it unfortunately, it's the impression people get of subjects when growing up that makes up their minds mostly. Parents "don't know" about maths or science and the air of difficulty surrounding them gets passed on then the herd mentality in school multiplies it. The solution for fewer people doing higher level maths was to make it easier. Are we to do similar with the science subjects? Kids (who do choose the subjects) see something on TV and ask a teacher about it only to be told it's not on the syllabus anymore. As more discoveries are made we actually remove things from the syllabus.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In the LCA, an acceptable education in Mathematics for a 17/18 year old can mean being able to answer the likes of:

a)Add 340 g, 2 kg and 23 g.
Give your answer in grammes.

b)The length of a side of a square is 4·5 cm.
Calculate the area of the square.

Bear in mind that calculators are allowed in this exam.

Now I know Maths isn't for everybody but that's the kind of thing you'd have been expected to be able to do at the age of 10.

Best one was 2009 Higher Level Biology exam,

Read the following passage about foxes and answer the questions that follow:

Red foxes are found in many ecosystems. A pair of foxes will occupy a territory and will defend it from other foxes in the breeding season. Territory boundaries are marked with scent and urine. Red foxes are usually solitary and hunt alone except during the breeding season, when they hunt in family groups. The young accompany the parents while hunting and foraging in order to learn skills. Red foxes do not hibernate and are active all year round though they are nocturnal in habit. They are omnivores but they prefer animals such as small rodents, frogs, insects and birds. Preferred plant foods include acorns, grasses, fruits and berries. In urban areas they scavenge for discarded human food. They also eat roadkill whether in a rural or urban setting. (Adapted from: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources fact sheet: Red fox ecology, 6th June 2007)

Followed by questions like,

• How is the territorial boundary marked?
• How do young foxes learn to hunt?

Primary school level reading comprehension in a higher level Biology exam. Genius.

amacachi

Seachmall wrote: »

Best one was 2009 Higher Level Biology exam,



Followed by questions like,



Primary school level reading comprehension in a higher level Biology exam. Genius.

I re-sat the Leaving Cert that year 2 years after the first time I did it and cursed that I bothered studying anything for Biology when I saw that question. Joke of a question.

Jimoslimos

token56 wrote: »

Many of the areas within economics have strong underlying mathematical foundations and principles. Many of these are applicable not only in economics but in other disciplines such as engineering. It's far from pseudo-science, to call it that is an insult really.

Social-science certainly, with many flaws and IMO heavily dependent on political opinion - still an essential subject and one which more people should study, regardless of whether they intend on becoming economists. If I were to compare it to another discipline within science I'd say meteorology, predictions based on models then transferred to the real world - for the most part sound but impossible to account for all variables - and the public only notice when you're wrong!

but anytime people talk about the purity of the respective sciences I'm reminded of this sketch

http://xkcd.com/435/

jester77

Dropping subjects is ludicrous.

The only thing they should be dropping is the CPA and bringing salaries into line with the real world. Then they wouldn't need to cut any subjects. Dropping science subjects would be detrimental to Irelands future.

dlofnep

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Preserving a language" doesn't make much sense to me.

It might not make much sense to you, but it does to many people.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Hundreds of thousands of languages have existed over time. Those that were the best (As in easiest to use and most importantly most universally understood) survived and those that didn't meet the mark eventually died out.

Millions of different species of animals have also existed. 99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct. That doesn't stop the animal conservation being critically important. In the same respect - preservation of language, which has a deep rooted history - enabling us to understand our landscape, place names and family names - is also important. But for more than that - Irish is unique to Ireland - which is all the reason we really need to affirm our will to keep it alive.

The majority of the world's population is bilingual. And a huge portion of those speak languages in similar positions to the Irish language.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A language is only a means to an end. It is a tool used in communication.

More the reason to revamp the curriculum to focus more on spoken Irish. You've already adopted a defeatist approach.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dropping chemistry when one of our biggest industries is pharmacology???

wonderfulname

amacachi wrote: »

Kids (who do choose the subjects) see something on TV and ask a teacher about it only to be told it's not on the syllabus anymore. As more discoveries are made we actually remove things from the syllabus.

What annoys me is not what we've taken away, it's how we've done it. For example in maths, you still have differentiation from first principles, but there are only 6 questions on the course, so instead of understanding the underlying concept people just learn off the 6 answers at most. Or in physics the course does still cover decibels, but apparently logs are too hard, so again, instead of understanding what's actually going on students just learn that where power doubles add 3dB, yes there are leaving cert physics questions based on multiples of 3. I don't get what the purpose of these kind of questions is.

Seachmall

dlofnep wrote: »

In the same respect - preservation of language, which has a deep rooted history - enabling us to understand our landscape, place names and family names - is also important. But for more than that - Irish is unique to Ireland - which is all the reason we really need to affirm our will to keep it alive.

Entirely debatable and subjective (that is: it's importance is debatable and subjective).

Mandatory subjects should be ones that are required in the real world or provide a solid foundation for a wide number of subjects the students may go on to study.

The Irish language has no practical application except for those few people who are interested enough in Irish culture to apply themselves to learning it. Those people should have the option to learn it, the rest of us should have the option not to.

Paddy Samurai

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We got the letter today from my sons school.
Due to cuts he will now only be in half a day on friday instead of a full one. He will start 15 min s earlier on the other days ,and will lose two classes per week.They have told him it will be English and French,that will be cut.

partyatmygaff

dlofnep wrote: »

Millions of different species of animals have also existed. 99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct. That doesn't stop the animal conservation being critically important. In the same respect - preservation of language, which has a deep rooted history - enabling us to understand our landscape, place names and family names - is also important. But for more than that - Irish is unique to Ireland - which is all the reason we really need to affirm our will to keep it alive.

The majority of the world's population is bilingual. And a huge portion of those speak languages in similar positions to the Irish language.

Why do they speak them? Two words. They're useful. Why is Irish a better language for us to communicate in and why is it better than English? What's the benefit in learning a language that only a few thousand can understand let alone use?

It has a lot of history and it's culturally significant, that much I agree with you on but I still don't see why that means resources should be taken away from more worthy subjects to keep it propped up and promoted as a day-to-day language.

More the reason to revamp the curriculum to focus more on spoken Irish. You've already adopted a defeatist approach.

Why? With regard to communication, Irish offers nothing over English. In fact, it's extremely limited in comparison to English. All that it has over English is history and cultural significance. If you take that away and try and push it purely as a language of communication studying it will be of no value whatsoever.

It's like any other "old" language. Take Ancient Greek for example. People don't learn Ancient Greek to communicate with each other. They learn Ancient Greek to study Greek history and culture.

68Murph68

In an ideal world every student would be able to study whatever subjects they wanted for the Leaving Cert.

However tis far from an ideal world and in the world of education we have allocate resources to where they will benefit society to the greatest degree.

To a large extent this means placing an emphasis on those subjects which will equip students with knowledge that will be useful over the course of their lives.

Looking at the subjects that were available in my day, I'd rank subjects on the following basis. This is all my own opinion and based on subjects I studied and stuff that 15 years on has been useful to me.

Essential
English : - To be human is to communicate.
Maths : - Teaches you how to think logically.
Economics :- This might seem an odd one to rank so high up but as most people will be working in a business or economic organisation, a better understanding of economics is invaluable to everyone, imo. Also economics as a subject deals with concepts, theories and ideas and doesn't really concentrate on detailed specialised information in the way that accounting and to a lesser extent business organisation. This means that the information learned and concepts studied are applicable . Chances are if you study economics in ten years time the syllabus will be the same as it was ten years ago. This might be looked at as a negative but it shows that the information learnt remains relavant long-term.


Sciences All important I'd rank them in the following order probably die to personal preference
Physics -
Chemistry -
Biology -

Low-Priority
History - The vast majority of the course was hard data/facts ; looks rather pointless looking back.
Geography - A very specialised area that while nice to know contains very little in the way of content that will be of use in the student's actual existence.
Accounting - Extremely specialised subject ; vast majority of the course is of little use in the real world. If you go on to study further accounting most courses will cover the information covered again. Did accounting for the leaving, meant that I didnt need to turn up for any intro to accounting lectures in my college course.
Mechanical Drawing - Extremely specialised subject ; vast majority of the course is of little use in the real world.

Languages (excluding English)
This is a tricky area because of the whole Irish issue. The whole compulsory Irish thing is a massive waste of time imo. Spent 14 years learning Irish ; got an A2 Honours - in 15 years all I've used Irish for is watching occasional GAA matches on TG4. Did 5 years German did 3 years French. Served me far better.

People say Irish is part of our history and our culture and to be honest this just strikes me as a weak argument. My grandfather was from the Gaelthacht and spoke only Irish until he was 12 when he went off to boarding school on a scholarship. My other 3 grandparents had not one word of Irish between them. I know one person who uses Irish in everyday life and shes from the Gaelthacht(obviously she just uses it when talking it with her family). People say we should be proud of our language and to be honest I just want to use a language to communicate. At the very least I would say give more choice. The reason the Irish language enjoys more prominence is largely down to historic reasons related to nationalism.

Religion - The only potentially useful part of the religious syllabus would be the part that deal with morality and I would have serious worries if someone between the age of 15 to 18 is learning the difference between right and wrong. Joke-shop stuff.

I put increased emphasis on the essentials (possibly bonus points in the LC)
I'd make at least one science subject obligatory.
I'd say make one non English languages at second level compulsory for 5/6 years. Five years of at least one of the following Irish, Chinese, Spanish, German, French.
Less priority to those more specialised subjects.
Kill Religion all together - shouldn't be in schools in the first place, and is pointless in my opinion.
For any other subjects you should be able to figure out where I'd rate them on the importance/priority level.

Duggys Housemate

68Murph68 wrote: »

too long to quote

Thats a functional list. Despite what you and OP think, education is not just about providing fodder for multinationals, but more rounded education.

This

History - The vast majority of the course was hard data/facts ; looks rather pointless looking back.

Is the most important subject of all in terms of education, rather than training. Humans need to be taught that ( and English, or the native spoken language) and maths as compulsory subjects.

We are born into a world and we need to know what happened before hand. Its natural human curiosity, knowing our past seperates us from the animals.

Deus Ex Machina

Get rid of economics, fine, but chemistry and physics? Wild wild wild wild wild. They are the two subjects I would have to keep if I had to choose two.

krudler

I always enjoyed history, got an A in it, but it was all "remember these dates and this event" without much discussion into why things happened as they did. you could just bullet point your way though something like WWII and get top marks.

shizz

Merge religion with History.

GaryIrv93

I'd drop Irish, Languages, and Religion.

Dostoevsky

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...

You can complete the entire exam without so much as mentioning Christianity if you so desired.

I know having a popular rant and getting thanked for it is great... but sometimes knowing what you're talking about can save a lot of embarrassment.

Excellent link, and post. The amount of nonsense written here about the secondary school religion syllabus being essentially a study of Catholicism is embarrassing, as a look at that Leaving Cert Religion exam paper from 2011 you linked to makes clear.

Perhaps they could rename the subject from religion to ethics, philosophy or something, but studying religions and philosophies of the world, as the current "Religion" syllabus does, is to most open-minded people a worthy pursuit. Or, rather, as worthy as anything else studied in secondary school.

Seachmall

shizz wrote: »

Merge religion with History.

While there's a lot of cross over they're too distinct subjects.

vamos!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In the LCA, an acceptable education in Mathematics for a 17/18 year old can mean being able to answer the likes of:

a)Add 340 g, 2 kg and 23 g.
Give your answer in grammes.

b)The length of a side of a square is 4·5 cm.
Calculate the area of the square.

Bear in mind that calculators are allowed in this exam.

Now I know Maths isn't for everybody but that's the kind of thing you'd have been expected to be able to do at the age of 10.

What you seem to have omitted here is that some (not all) LCA and JCSP students would not have been in mainstream education 15 years ago. This is a perfectly acceptable standard relative to ones ability. Bearing in mind that calculators are permitted does not assume that every student has the ability to use the calculator, no matter how obvious it seems and how many times they have been shown. Our education system is about facilitating every child.

As for cutting subjects: no school in the country WANTS to cut subjects. It is a question of funding. German has been cut from a number of schools as it is no longer in vogue and schools cannot justify having a class with 18 students in German and 11 in the French overflow class, when all 29 could just do French. I have been in the position of explaining to 1st year students who applied to do Ger man for many different reasons that 'French isn't so bad'. Who cares that your big brother has the German books and your cousins live in Germany? . The same is true for 'popular' subjects like Business and Geography. From a funding point of view all classes now have to be as close to full as possible, regardless of what the students or teaching staff actually want to do.

Allowing funding issues to force cuts in the sciences and European languages is short-sighted and irrational. Lets not forget that they are the same Government who watch our multinationals import staff from abroad to work in language-based roles as they cut funding for MFL in primary schools. Idiocy at its best!

MagicSean

68Murph68 wrote: »

In an ideal world every student would be able to study whatever subjects they wanted for the Leaving Cert.

However tis far from an ideal world and in the world of education we have allocate resources to where they will benefit society to the greatest degree.

To a large extent this means placing an emphasis on those subjects which will equip students with knowledge that will be useful over the course of their lives.

Looking at the subjects that were available in my day, I'd rank subjects on the following basis. This is all my own opinion and based on subjects I studied and stuff that 15 years on has been useful to me.

Essential
English : - To be human is to communicate.
Maths : - Teaches you how to think logically.
Economics :- This might seem an odd one to rank so high up but as most people will be working in a business or economic organisation, a better understanding of economics is invaluable to everyone, imo. Also economics as a subject deals with concepts, theories and ideas and doesn't really concentrate on detailed specialised information in the way that accounting and to a lesser extent business organisation. This means that the information learned and concepts studied are applicable . Chances are if you study economics in ten years time the syllabus will be the same as it was ten years ago. This might be looked at as a negative but it shows that the information learnt remains relavant long-term.


Sciences All important I'd rank them in the following order probably die to personal preference
Physics -
Chemistry -
Biology -

Low-Priority
History - The vast majority of the course was hard data/facts ; looks rather pointless looking back.
Geography - A very specialised area that while nice to know contains very little in the way of content that will be of use in the student's actual existence.
Accounting - Extremely specialised subject ; vast majority of the course is of little use in the real world. If you go on to study further accounting most courses will cover the information covered again. Did accounting for the leaving, meant that I didnt need to turn up for any intro to accounting lectures in my college course.
Mechanical Drawing - Extremely specialised subject ; vast majority of the course is of little use in the real world.

Languages (excluding English)
This is a tricky area because of the whole Irish issue. The whole compulsory Irish thing is a massive waste of time imo. Spent 14 years learning Irish ; got an A2 Honours - in 15 years all I've used Irish for is watching occasional GAA matches on TG4. Did 5 years German did 3 years French. Served me far better.

People say Irish is part of our history and our culture and to be honest this just strikes me as a weak argument. My grandfather was from the Gaelthacht and spoke only Irish until he was 12 when he went off to boarding school on a scholarship. My other 3 grandparents had not one word of Irish between them. I know one person who uses Irish in everyday life and shes from the Gaelthacht(obviously she just uses it when talking it with her family). People say we should be proud of our language and to be honest I just want to use a language to communicate. At the very least I would say give more choice. The reason the Irish language enjoys more prominence is largely down to historic reasons related to nationalism.

Religion - The only potentially useful part of the religious syllabus would be the part that deal with morality and I would have serious worries if someone between the age of 15 to 18 is learning the difference between right and wrong. Joke-shop stuff.

I put increased emphasis on the essentials (possibly bonus points in the LC)
I'd make at least one science subject obligatory.
I'd say make one non English languages at second level compulsory for 5/6 years. Five years of at least one of the following Irish, Chinese, Spanish, German, French.
Less priority to those more specialised subjects.
Kill Religion all together - shouldn't be in schools in the first place, and is pointless in my opinion.
For any other subjects you should be able to figure out where I'd rate them on the importance/priority level.

I'd rank accounting over economics. It's more important for people to be able to manage their own finances than know how the economy works.

vamos!

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

I'd drop Irish, Languages, and Religion.

I have seen arguments for the removal of Irish and Religion (not that I agree with them for the most part). Why should languages be removed? It makes no sense to me? Surely lack of FL skills is an area in which Ireland falls down? We have an economy where multinationals play an important role and fairly poor language skills.

shizz

Seachmall wrote: »

While there's a lot of cross over they're too distinct subjects.

I would be of the opinion that learning of religion should be kept within the church.

wonderfulname

MagicSean wrote: »

I'd rank accounting over economics. It's more important for people to be able to manage their own finances than know how the economy works.

And I'd rank Design and Communication Graphics, the subject that replaced Mechanical Drawing, above either. It's highly subjective really. The Junior Cert covers everything truly necessary; basic Maths, English, C.S.P.E and Business (encompassing Accounting and Economics), after that it all ties in with aptitude and intended progression.

Seachmall

shizz wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that learning of religion should be kept within the church.

Learning about faith should be kept to the church, learning about religions in general, and the impact they've had, could be done in the classroom. Perhaps in a broader topic like "Cultural Studies" or something, as the only relevant impact is has had worth discussing in schools as far as I see it is cultural (as oppose to the moral impact or the psuedo-scientific impact, etc. it has had).

amacachi

vamos! wrote: »

What you seem to have omitted here is that some (not all) LCA and JCSP students would not have been in mainstream education 15 years ago. This is a perfectly acceptable standard relative to ones ability. Bearing in mind that calculators are permitted does not assume that every student has the ability to use the calculator, no matter how obvious it seems and how many times they have been shown. Our education system is about facilitating every child.

Great, we're keeping them in school longer. That doesn't address the fact that that subject is easier than ECDL and that there's no full-on subject for the Leaving Cert in it.

cynder

having left school at age 11, i went back to education at 22 and did the LCA and yes it was the same maths i was doing when i left school i could have passed the LCA at 11. It was very easy for me, however there were others in the class who had done the junior cert and they didnt do that well in the LCA, i got 196 points out of 200, most got pass not pass with distinction, most had trouble with maths and computers.



My daughter wants to do forensics and that would require her to do the science subjects in secondary school. She starts secondary in September. I really hope they keep the science subjects.

Mardy Bum

MagicSean wrote: »

I'd rank accounting over economics. It's more important for people to be able to manage their own finances than know how the economy works.

Pity people didn't take a few microeconomic lessons in supply and demand a few years ago.

Dostoevsky

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If anything, i'd say the strongest case can be made for making LC Irish optional. At present, tens of thousands of students are forced to take the subject and of them very few will actually use the language after they leave the exam hall.

As one of the tens of thousands of students who annually have been forced to learn about Shakespeare, Keats, Austen, quadratic equations, calculus and a wide array of pointless stuff for the Leaving Cert which I, and hundreds of thousands of other students have never used since we left school, I don't see how rationally and in all honesty you can single out Irish in your rage against "forced learning" of "useless" subjects.

forfuxsake

we really should be teaching

Filling in welfare forms (JSA, RA,Fuel Allowance & Communion money)
How to to get a visa for Australia Canada and New Zealand
How to enter the USA illegally and remain hidden for years
German
Chinese
IT
Physical Education & Nutrition
Begrudgery

Seachmall

Dostoevsky wrote: »

As one of the tens of thousands of students who were forced to learn about Shakespeare, Keats, Austen, quadratic equations, calculus and a wide array of pointless stuff which I, and hundreds of thousands of other students have never used since we left school, I don't see how rationally and in all honesty you can single out Irish in your rage against "forced learning" of "useless" subjects.

Because English and Maths aren't subjects based entirely on useless information.

There's useless information in every subject, that doesn't mean we should dump them all.



Also, quadratic equations and calculus and other topics in math provide foundations for many important 3rd level subjects we're trying to promote (e.g. Computers and Sciences).

steddyeddy

68Murph68 wrote: »

In an ideal world every student would be able to study whatever subjects they wanted for the Leaving Cert.

However tis far from an ideal world and in the world of education we have allocate resources to where they will benefit society to the greatest degree.

To a large extent this means placing an emphasis on those subjects which will equip students with knowledge that will be useful over the course of their lives.

Looking at the subjects that were available in my day, I'd rank subjects on the following basis. This is all my own opinion and based on subjects I studied and stuff that 15 years on has been useful to me.

Essential
English : - To be human is to communicate.
Maths : - Teaches you how to think logically.
Economics :- This might seem an odd one to rank so high up but as most people will be working in a business or economic organisation, a better understanding of economics is invaluable to everyone, imo. Also economics as a subject deals with concepts, theories and ideas and doesn't really concentrate on detailed specialised information in the way that accounting and to a lesser extent business organisation. This means that the information learned and concepts studied are applicable . Chances are if you study economics in ten years time the syllabus will be the same as it was ten years ago. This might be looked at as a negative but it shows that the information learnt remains relavant long-term.


Sciences All important I'd rank them in the following order probably die to personal preference
Physics -
Chemistry -
Biology -

Low-Priority
History - The vast majority of the course was hard data/facts ; looks rather pointless looking back.
Geography - A very specialised area that while nice to know contains very little in the way of content that will be of use in the student's actual existence.
Accounting - Extremely specialised subject ; vast majority of the course is of little use in the real world. If you go on to study further accounting most courses will cover the information covered again. Did accounting for the leaving, meant that I didnt need to turn up for any intro to accounting lectures in my college course.
Mechanical Drawing - Extremely specialised subject ; vast majority of the course is of little use in the real world.

Languages (excluding English)
This is a tricky area because of the whole Irish issue. The whole compulsory Irish thing is a massive waste of time imo. Spent 14 years learning Irish ; got an A2 Honours - in 15 years all I've used Irish for is watching occasional GAA matches on TG4. Did 5 years German did 3 years French. Served me far better.

People say Irish is part of our history and our culture and to be honest this just strikes me as a weak argument. My grandfather was from the Gaelthacht and spoke only Irish until he was 12 when he went off to boarding school on a scholarship. My other 3 grandparents had not one word of Irish between them. I know one person who uses Irish in everyday life and shes from the Gaelthacht(obviously she just uses it when talking it with her family). People say we should be proud of our language and to be honest I just want to use a language to communicate. At the very least I would say give more choice. The reason the Irish language enjoys more prominence is largely down to historic reasons related to nationalism.

Religion - The only potentially useful part of the religious syllabus would be the part that deal with morality and I would have serious worries if someone between the age of 15 to 18 is learning the difference between right and wrong. Joke-shop stuff.

I put increased emphasis on the essentials (possibly bonus points in the LC)
I'd make at least one science subject obligatory.
I'd say make one non English languages at second level compulsory for 5/6 years. Five years of at least one of the following Irish, Chinese, Spanish, German, French.
Less priority to those more specialised subjects.
Kill Religion all together - shouldn't be in schools in the first place, and is pointless in my opinion.
For any other subjects you should be able to figure out where I'd rate them on the importance/priority level.

Sciences in a country dominated by chemical industries are essential in my opinion.

Dostoevsky

vamos! wrote: »

What you seem to have omitted here is that some (not all) LCA and JCSP students would not have been in mainstream education 15 years ago. This is a perfectly acceptable standard relative to ones ability. Bearing in mind that calculators are permitted does not assume that every student has the ability to use the calculator, no matter how obvious it seems and how many times they have been shown. Our education system is about facilitating every child.

Excellent post, written by somebody who is clearly aware that there is a sizeable number of students in mainstream education who would not be there if educational policy from 20 years ago were still in place. Then, I believe they would have been described as 'mentally retarded' or such like. They are in the mainstream system now, they have to be facilitated and, for them, the LCA is as much a challenge as the OL or HL are for other students. Everything is relative. Getting some kids to pass the LCA can be as great an achievement as getting an 'A' in HL from other students.

Not that these cursed annual "league tables" of school LC results would ever be honest or professional enough to recognise relative success.

vamos!

Seachmall wrote: »

Because English and Maths aren't subjects based entirely on useless information.

There's useless information in every subject, that doesn't mean we should dump them all.

Quadratic Equations and Calculus and other topics in math provide foundations for many important 3rd level subjects we're trying to promote (e.g. Computers and Sciences).

Irish encompasses language learning skills, basic grammar (every single first year group has to be taught what a verb, noun, adjective etc is), literacy, communication skills, literature, culture and heritage, as well as the language itself. If we were to be pedantic it also helps to teach information retrieval skills, dictionary use and lots more. The Irish education system has always offered a broad and varied education. Career-specific level education should be left to 3rd level.

We used to have to go to the local boys school to do chemistry. It was only when I was going into fifth year that Physics was offered as a subject but you had to choose between it and a language. I chose physics, chemistry, biology, and geography. So I guess I'm biased but science subjects really should be pushed, not pulled imo.

shizz

Seachmall wrote: »

Learning about faith should be kept to the church, learning about religions in general, and the impact they've had, could be done in the classroom. Perhaps in a broader topic like "Cultural Studies" or something, as the only relevant impact is has had worth discussing in schools as far as I see it is cultural (as oppose to the moral impact or the psuedo-scientific impact, etc. it has had).

Well from my experience with the "religion" class is that I'm told about the beliefs and teachings of Catholicism. Religion should teach about the idea of religion and where it came about. This is where I think it should be a module in history.

Duggys Housemate

shizz wrote: »

Well from my experience with the "religion" class is that I'm told about the beliefs and teachings of Catholicism. Religion should teach about the idea of religion and where it came about. This is where I think it should be a module in history.

Look back through the thread at the LC exam on religion.

foxyboxer

Once you can read, write and do basic arithmetic then you have all the education you need.

When you see something like the Code Dojo project for kids you see how an education system should actually be. The open sharing of ideas and opinions, access to tools, all in a moderated environment. The role of the teacher in society is to be a point of information.

However, the education system is simply a means of grooming young people to become employees, not employers in a "Do as you're told, ask for permission for everything and don't challenge anthing" way.

The exam system is based on rote learning. We see this in the specialised tuition colleges where students are prepared to incorporate the marking system. i.e. if you want full marks, learn X Y Z. No discussion, no debating, just learning off material and parroting it back on the day.

partyatmygaff

vamos! wrote: »

Irish encompasses language learning skills, basic grammar (every single first year group has to be taught what a verb, noun, adjective etc is), literacy, communication skills, literature, culture and heritage, as well as the language itself. If we were to be pedantic it also helps to teach information retrieval skills, dictionary use and lots more. The Irish education system has always offered a broad and varied education. Career-specific level education should be left to 3rd level.

English does all of that as well (Barring culture and heritage). The only difference is that English is actually useful for communication.

The recent change in LC Irish is ridiculous as far as i'm concerned. 40% for the oral exam, no more stáir and less literature has made studying LC Irish a complete and utter waste of time.

The only thing I valued in LC Irish was learning about the history of Ireland and reading Irish literature. The rest of it... writing essays about "Young people in Ireland", reading comprehensions, listening comprehensions and the oral exam were wastes of time as far as i'm concerned.

Nowadays, there are no advantages and many disadvantages involved in using Irish to communicate. With that in mind, trying to change the course to make it more communication-orientated and less heritage-orientated is a bad move.

shizz

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Look back through the thread at the LC exam on religion.

Ah yeah I see. I didn't do religion for the LC (thank god :pac:) but from my memory that's all I recall doing when we had a religion subject.

I still stand by my opinion of having it mixed with history.

Dostoevsky

Seachmall wrote: »

Also, quadratic equations and calculus and other topics in math provide foundations for many important 3rd level subjects we're trying to promote (e.g. Computers and Sciences).

Not for me, or hundreds of thousands of other former Irish students - all of whom were "forced" to learn what, for us, has been of no use to our careers. The only maths most of us need is an ability to calculate, which we've learned before the LC. The rest is not necessary and indeed things like trig, theorems etc are of no use to most people. Likewise with English, we were forced to learn it for LC when we all knew how to read and write before it, the two things which are useful to everybody. If people are going to single out Irish as being "useless" and "forced upon them", they'll have to do a lot better in terms of honesty in this argument.

partyatmygaff

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Not for me, or hundreds of thousands of other former Irish students - all of whom were "forced" to learn what, for us, has been of no use to our careers. The only maths most of us need is an ability to calculate, which we've learned before the LC. The rest is not necessary and indeed things like trig, theorems etc are of no use to most people. Likewise with English, we were forced to learn it for LC when we all knew how to read and write before it, the two things which are useful to everybody. If people are going to single out Irish as being "useless" and "forced upon them", they'll have to do a lot better in terms of honesty in this argument.

Being able to read and write in English is not necessarily the same as being able to read and write to a high standard.

Seachmall

vamos! wrote: »

Irish encompasses language learning skills, basic grammar (every single first year group has to be taught what a verb, noun, adjective etc is), literacy, communication skills, literature, culture and heritage, as well as the language itself. If we were to be pedantic it also helps to teach information retrieval skills, dictionary use and lots more. The Irish education system has always offered a broad and varied education. Career-specific level education should be left to 3rd level.

Basic grammar, literacy, and communication skills should all have been taught in primary school. If they haven't then English would be a more fitting subject for them.

For the "pedantic" skills (which I don't think are pedantic, people do need to know how to self-teach and research) a language like Esperanto would be more beneficial as it has all the benefits of learning Irish (like the grammar/literacy/communication skills you proposed, as well as the research ones) as well as providing a decent foundation for learning other European languages (on which it's based). It's also much easier, which is advantageous in all regards. In saying that I'm not recommending it be taught (as it is elsewhere) only that it better achieves the benefits that you suggest learning Irish has.


I don't rate it's culture and heritage values high enough to consider them justification for a mandatory class, it's more of a personal interest someone has as oppose to a required skill for further education or being in the real world.

shizz wrote: »

Well from my experience with the "religion" class is that I'm told about the beliefs and teachings of Catholicism. Religion should teach about the idea of religion and where it came about. This is where I think it should be a module in history.

But religion is still here, is still impacting our lives and still impacting our cultures. I do get your point that it falls under the domain of history but I think that's only part of the story.