Schools want to drop LC physics, chemistry, economics

BASHIR

I can't believe ye are discussing the merits of one subject over another. It makes no sense what so ever. Each subject has as much importance as each other , depending on what I want to choose as my career. To say economics is more important than technical drawing is daft, what if I want to be an architect. I could make up plenty more examples with more professions but you get the point.

What should be discussed is ways of readdressing the funds provided to schools so no subject should be dropped. It's such a pity I didn't choose accountancy, and economics

Seachmall

Zab wrote: »

Well, by my possibly incorrect calculations the average points gained from Irish is less than 40, which makes your 50 or 60 for the ordinary level A above average. The fact that you got the max that you could have from ordinary also leaves the possibility that you under-achieved.

I suspect most TY students would come out of TY Japanese with virtually no Japanese at all, having simply spent the year not paying any attention. Where would you rank yourself in your Japanese class? Apart from that, you said you can translate an essay into Esperanto. The fact that you learned any Esperanto leads me to believe that you at least like languages, and then you stuck with it long enough to at least gain some proficiency in it. Learning Esperanto is very far from the average person's mind.

Of course, all of that is just the feeling I get from your posts. If you're still going to say you're only average at languages then I'm not going to argue with you as I know very little about you in reality.

In any case, I agree with you about Irish.

I do have a vague interest languages, I guess. It's more something that's done to kill boredom and fulfill fantasies of travelling. Those languages, like any language, are easy once you get the basics down. Once you understand the structure of the language everything else is just improving vocabulary.

The problem I always had with Irish was not knowing the basics. Not knowing how to construct a sentence properly and not knowing the fundamental prepositions or verbs or what-have-you made practicing it impossible. That's the stuff done in Primary School, but aside from basic math and English there's not much I carried over from Primary School. Had my Irish not been assumed to be at the level of, or close to, my English coming into Secondary School I'm sure I'd be half-way decent at it. And I'd wager by the link I posted earlier that that's true for a lot of people.

Aside from a vague interest my abilities with language are average.

baltimore sun

Can someone explain something to me.
If you want to be a doctor/dentist/vet then you need the 3 science subjects yea?
How the hell can they close this door on potential doctors/dentist/vets/....do nurses need the 3 too?

And I would presume you cannot study to become accountant without studying that and economics.

Blind leading the fecking blind.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

And for the record I got an A in Irish (albeit Ordinary level).

And I need to know this because..............?

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

And I need to know this because..............?

To demonstrate my failings at Irish weren't from lack of effort or interest.


Maybe a little lack of interest.

Powerhouse

RMD wrote: »

the curriculum focuses on stories / poems / short films.

Nonsense. People study Irish for 13 years in school. It is only during the last two years taht they encounter literature. The do 5 poems and 5 stories - hardly overload in fairness. And certainly not what could be desribed as a 'focus' on stories, poems, short films. In the context of the overall presentation of Irish throughout one's school life the factors you mention are extremely marginal, though it's quite the cliché at this stage so often is it suggested as a reason for incompetence in the language.

Incidentally, the percentage getting As and Bs in Higher Level Leaving Cert Irish is far higher than the equivalent in French. (And no part of the Irish paper can be answered in English unlike the Frnech equivalent) The situation may be different for weaker students but the experience of your class cannot be generalised if that is what you are insinuating.

Owen_S

Why not drop Home Economics and revise the English syllabus? Neither have much relevance anymore.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

To demonstrate my failings at Irish weren't from lack of effort or interest.


Maybe a little lack of interest.

An 'A' in any exam irrespective of the level is hardly a failing in fairness.

rkeano5

starbelgrade wrote: »

Religion isn't taught in Irish schools as a humanities study - what is taught in the vast majority of schools is Catholicism which is an entirely different subject.

Perhaps have a look at the LC religion curriculum before posting unsubstantiated rubbish...

Powerhouse

thecornflake wrote: »

I have a way of cutting the school budget by ~ 1/6. Get this, we kill the transition year.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Transition Year. That years encompasses a variety of activities such as projects, work experience etc. which involves less contact time with individual teachers. The idea that a one-sixth less teachers would be needed in a school without Transition Year is wrong. There would be a saving on capitation alright (unless schools took in higher numbers elsewhere of course) but even that would not be one-sixth of that total as TY groups are smaller than other years.

kincsem

Powerhouse wrote: »

Nine compulsory subjects? The failure rates at Leaving Cert level would be astonishing given the narrow aptitude those subjects appear to be gearing towards. Students with strong verbal reasoning need not apply and while students would be fairly strong on their square roots and the temperature various liquids freeze at, it seems they'd have little knowledge of many aspects of the world. So presumably it would gain a lot of support.

Though it would be folly to think that people made bad decisions because of not studying enough Business at school. Many bankers were highly trained in finance and they made the worst mistakes in recent years.

I did nine subjects.

You seem to favour the wooly subjects, and also think that ability in one area prevents ability in another.

I do not think that people made bad decisions through not studying enough business.
I think people of little ability wormed their way into positions of power and then were not up to the job.

Fitzpatrick of Anglo Irish had a one honour leaving cert indicating either a lack of ability or a lack of application.
The Bank Of Ireland head man when the 5hit hit the fan was in the B class in the year behind me at school.
Bertie Ahern was an accounts clerk in the Mater hospital.

I'm not a fan of media studies and similar subjects. The major economy in Europe, Germany, is noted for its engineering.

Tough subject require hard work and ability.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

An 'A' in any exam irrespective of the level is hardly a failing in fairness.

No, but I can't speak a word of Irish. I could (for the leaving cert) quote dozens of prepackaged lines and then deliver them where appropriate (either using the little Irish I understood, or just matching like with like, or even copying the question verbatim with some minor alterations [even being graded for doing this is a joke tbh, for all languages]).

Powerhouse wrote: »

Incidentally, the percentage getting As and Bs in Higher Level Leaving Cert Irish is far higher than the equivalent in French. (And no part of the Irish paper can be answered in English unlike the Frnech equivalent) The situation may be different for weaker students but the experience of your class cannot be generalised if that is what you are insinuating.

But the percentage of people doing Honours French is far higher than those doing Honours Irish.

~85% of those doing Honours Irish get an Honours grade.
~75% of those doing Honours French get an Honours grade.

~40% of those doing Irish at a level above foundation are doing Honours.
~50% of those doing French at a level above foundation are doing Honours.

It's higher for German, Spanish, etc.

Powerhouse

kincsem wrote: »

1) I did nine subjects.

2) You seem to favour the wooly subjects, and also think that ability in one area prevents ability in another.

1) Unless they were all compulsory (as the poster to whom I replied suggested in their model for Leaving Cert) the number of subjects you did is irrelevant. Lots of people do nine subjects.

2) Woolly subjects...like knitting? What on earth did I do to give you that impression? And where on earth did I say that ability in one area prevents ability in another?

My view is that is someone was to argue that there should be no choice whatsoever (as that poster was doing) then maybe it would be worth considering that there are some people with talents outside Maths (a subject where the numbers sitting Foundation Level in Leaving Cert are not a million miles off the number sitting Honours) who might have some contribution to make and whose intelligence/talent might lie in other areas and maybe if a compulsory set of subjects were to be employed then perhaps less overlap in aptitudes would be good?

Just a thought.

Zab

Kincsem,

Nine compulsory subjects is a terrible idea, although it'd solve the budget problem to be sure. Also, the subjects you've picked in particular are far too bias towards the science/engineering end of the spectrum.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

1) No, but I can't speak a word of Irish. I could (for the leaving cert) quote dozens of prepackaged lines and then deliver them were appropriate (either using the little Irish I understood, or just matching like with like).


2) But the percentage of people doing Honours French is far higher than those doing Honours Irish.

1) Never said you could speak it. After all it was pass Irish, which is largely receptive rather than productive. Quoting pre-packaged lines is a legitimate way to learn a language - look at French...when someone learns how to ask someone's name they don't do so by parsing every word in the sentence and understanding every possible use of the word; they simply learn the phrase. Why people get so bolshie when it happens with Irish is baffling.

Frankly, if you language was at the level that had the ability to extemporise to a small degree with un-prepackaged lines you'd probably have been doing Honours Irish as many thousands do every year. But believe me there are many students who cannot quote even prepackaged lines.

2) Of course it is but you're not comparing like with like. French is a choice subject so the students who are really really weak at it - and/or don't need it for third level entry - are very unlikely to be still in the mix at senior cycle. If they were they'd skew the numbers doing ordinary level.

Still compared to other choice subjects and other languages the uptake of French at higher level is relatively weak, probably because French is the most widely taught of all choice subjects barring Geography. Once you get into higher numbers (especially with a language) average standards drop as you're carrying more relatively weak/uninterested people - which is why your observation, while statistically accurate, is meaningless because of this distortion. Same goes for German and Spanish - you simply either don't understand the figures you are quoting or are seeking to deliberately misinterpret them.

evolving_doors

rkeano5 wrote: »

Perhaps have a look at the LC religion curriculum before posting unsubstantiated rubbish...

Hmm Perhaps have a look at this first and tell me its not biased towards catholicism...here

I think he actually has a point if you consider that in 2007 the dept of education asked the NCCA to design a new religion curriculum, the NCCA refused to agree to the seperation of children during religious education so the dept cancelled the comission , citing that it would "upset key players"and it handed the curriculum design contract to the Catholic Marino institute of education.

Seems like substantiated non-rubbish to me.

recylingbin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Scaremongering tbf.
If they said they had to drop art or music, noone would give a continental sh*te.
Say subjects that actually ave practical applications and you create a debate which highlights the plight of the education system.

Seomra Mushie

Lots of schools already don't carry those subjects and didn't back in the day either. My school (LC 2001) didn't carry single Physics or Economics. And this was a mixed school.

EDIT: Actually, Physics was offered in the year ahead of me for LC and barely anyone chose it. Perhaps cutting these subjects comes down to their lack of popularity not being worth the cost of keeping them going? Not saying I agree if this is the case, just reasoning that that might be their thinking.

languagenerd

My school (LC 2009, so not so long ago) couldn't provide Physics or Economics classes for my year because the numbers who chose them weren't sufficient to warrant a class. Chemistry got a class put on, with 11 people - and it ended up being 5 of us in the end as most changed subjects after a couple of weeks. Accounting did alright with us, we had one full class of 25. It was an all-girls school, if that's relevant.

I think this is probably the reason schools would consider dropping them - not because they don't think they're worthwhile subjects, but because they don't have sufficient numbers. With funding they way it is, they probably can't justify having three classes with less than 10 people each when they could have one class of 30 instead. I don't think it's a good idea, by the way, I'm just saying I can see where they might be coming from.

With regards to Religion: I didn't really like it as a subject, and only did it for Junior Cert. But we didn't study catechism or Catholic propaganda or anything like that. We did learn about its history, but we also studied all 5 world religions in detail, did a project on Islam (including visiting a mosque), learned about different visions of morality and reasons why people turn to religion. I'll give it this though - it did make me and some of my class more tolerant (or at least more understanding) of people of different religions. Whether we like it or not, religion forms a big part of society internationally and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to teach kids about religious and cultural differences, especially with the amount of immigration these days. Should it reformed? Should it be an exam subject? Maybe not. But school is supposed to prepare you for life, not just for a career...
*BTW, I'm not religious, just open-minded.

Seomra Mushie

Sergeant wrote: »

Lack of funding? We had an 83% increase in government spending over the past 15 years across all three levels of education. The issue isn't the amount of taxpayers money that we throw at it, it's the very system itself. 8 billion as opposed to 8.6 billion is still very bad value for money. We've an increasing number of teenage males who are functionally illiterate, and a LC system that emphasises rote learning over critical thought and analysis.

Bring any of this up to your average teacher and you'll likely get a lofty, pompous, uppity response about how they have a very important job educating young minds. :rolleyes: Well, going by the stats, they're not doing a very good job. Some teachers seem to feel they are above criticism just because they chose a vocation.

recylingbin

Genuine question: Is there an exam for religion at LC?
If so, when did this happen?
Also, WTF?

Seomra Mushie

pickarooney wrote: »

I believe they should stop trying to teach subjects altogether and instead encourage children to learn, discover and investigate.

Get a haircut, you filthy hippy! :P

languagenerd

Powerhouse wrote: »

Nonsense. People study Irish for 13 years in school. It is only during the last two years taht they encounter literature. The do 5 poems and 5 stories - hardly overload in fairness. And certainly not what could be desribed as a 'focus' on stories, poems, short films. In the context of the overall presentation of Irish throughout one's school life the factors you mention are extremely marginal, though it's quite the cliché at this stage so often is it suggested as a reason for incompetence in the language.

You do literature for Junior Cert too... short stories and poems. And then on the paper, there's unseen prose and unseen poetry too.

You're talking about the new LC course that came in this year, right? That has drama as well, you study one full-length play. I did it three years ago and we had 11 poems, 4 short stories, a full-length play and a short film. That was overload in 2 years, considering we also had Irish language exams and the history of Irish to do!

Edit: that was the Higher Level course, Ordinary did less.

Duggys Housemate

Armelodie wrote: »

rkeano5 wrote: »

Perhaps have a look at the LC religion curriculum before posting unsubstantiated rubbish...

Hmm Perhaps have a look at this first and tell me its not biased towards catholicism...here

I think he actually has a point if you consider that in 2007 the dept of education asked the NCCA to design a new religion curriculum, the NCCA refused to agree to the seperation of children during religious education so the dept cancelled the comission , citing that it would "upset key players"and it handed the curriculum design contract to the Catholic Marino institute of education.

Seems like substantiated non-rubbish to me.

Sounds like you can't even read the thread title. This thread is about the leaving cert and therefore about the leaving cert religious curriculum. Your post was about infant multiple faith schools. Start another thread if that gets your goat ( I personally would defend the dept. ). This thread has posted the link to the 2011 religious exam already. Read the thread, the exam was not christo centric and was fairly impressive.

Duggys Housemate

recylingbin wrote: »

Genuine question: Is there an exam for religion at LC?
If so, when did this happen?
Also, WTF?

Genuine response. Read the thread.

Powerhouse

languagenerd wrote: »

You do literature for Junior Cert too... short stories and poems. And then on the paper, there's unseen prose and unseen poetry too.

You're talking about the new LC course that came in this year, right? That has drama as well, you study one full-length play. I did it three years ago and we had 11 poems, 4 short stories, a full-length play and a short film. That was overload in 2 years, considering we also had Irish language exams and the history of Irish to do!

Edit: that was the Higher Level course, Ordinary did less.

The literature on the JC course (new syllabus 2010) is so negligible as to hardly matter.

And of course I'm talking about the new LC course - what's the point in talking about what was there in 1975? What you are talking about is not the case any longer.

I should stress that I teach the subject so I don't need to be spoon-fed the syllabus. Even the old one.

Sleepy

/facepalm

languagenerd

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.

Sorry, I know this is going back a few pages, but this is categorically not true.

The languages that have survived are the ones spoken by the relevant authority - for example, today's Standard French was the particular variety spoken in Paris where the court was. That doesn't make them better than any other language, it was just circumstance that they were chosen by the ruling elite, and hence given a prestigious status.

Think about English. It's hardly one of "the easiest to use" as you suggest - it's got so many irregularities. There is a large amount of irregular verbs, there are words that are spelled similarly but pronounced completely differently, words that look similar but follow completely different rules, words that can be left out of a sentence with no consequence whatsoever...

Learning ANY second language (even Irish) is useful. It leads you to think differently, to express yourself in a new way, to understand different cultures and ideas, and makes it easier to learn further languages down the line. It also encourages analytical thinking and communication skills.

(Yes, I may be biased, as a language student. However, I see the merit in all subjects, not just my own!)

languagenerd

Powerhouse wrote: »

The literature on the JC course (new syllabus 2010) is so negligible as to hardly matter.

And of course I'm talking about the new LC course - what's the point in talking about what was there in 1975? What you are talking about is not the case any longer.

I should stress that I teach the subject so I don't need to be spoon-fed the syllabus. Even the old one.

1975? What? I'm talking about what I did in 2009! The course partially changed this year (2012). You quoted my post which specifically says "I did it three years ago" And if you know the syllabus as you state, you'd know what I listed was the norm until last year, not 1975.

recylingbin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Genuine response. Read the thread.

I'm not reading 230 odd posts to find out whether the LC has been so dumbed down that there is religion on it now.

partyatmygaff

recylingbin wrote: »

I'm not reading 230 odd posts to find out whether the LC has been so dumbed down that there is religion on it now.

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.

Far from dumbing down, it appears to be one of the few subjects that encourages critical thought rather than rote learning. (Shock horror)

K-9

BASHIR wrote: »

I can't believe ye are discussing the merits of one subject over another. It makes no sense what so ever. Each subject has as much importance as each other , depending on what I want to choose as my career. To say economics is more important than technical drawing is daft, what if I want to be an architect. I could make up plenty more examples with more professions but you get the point.

What should be discussed is ways of readdressing the funds provided to schools so no subject should be dropped. It's such a pity I didn't choose accountancy, and economics

I chose both back in the day, and many did pick one, maybe played a part in the business and money infatuation we had?

A big criticism of education is that it is too business driven? That you become a product for multi nationals to use, hence the disregard for History, Geography and Home Economics, all pretty useful subjects. Maybe expand Accountancy to include basic tax stuff like tax credits, everyday stuff and leave the intricacies and sexiness of debits and credits to third level or Honours.

I do not think that people made bad decisions through not studying enough business.
I think people of little ability wormed their way into positions of power and then were not up to the job.

Fitzpatrick of Anglo Irish had a one honour leaving cert indicating either a lack of ability or a lack of application.
The Bank Of Ireland head man when the 5hit hit the fan was in the B class in the year behind me at school.
Bertie Ahern was an accounts clerk in the Mater hospital.

I'm not a fan of media studies and similar subjects. The major economy in Europe, Germany, is noted for its engineering.

We can't all do engineering or pharmaceutical stuff. The problem is you get a big rush of people into the new "in" area, preferably well paid. Things like catering get looked down on.

Ray McSharry never had a leaving cert, had a haulier business, and in many ways the boom that Ireland messed up, comes down to him, just basic common sense.

TheBegotten

In my TY (4th year) Chemistry class there are only 10 students. I can easily see it being cut next year. I'll probably end up doing it either with the school next door or studying it by myself. However, the idea of it being axed entirely is horrifying. Axe mandatory english or irish or pe or the mandatory non-examined religion. The last thing we need now is LESS people who can make or sell high end products. People don't appriciate the vast amount of work that goes into things as basic as paint, fabrics or even fertiliser. Support Irish sh/te!

Esoteric_

When I was doing my LC (2006), my school never offered Physics, Chem, Accounting or Economics as subjects. It also didn't offer History or Religion.

I ended up petitioning the school to get Chemistry introduced as I needed two science subjects for college and I wasn't great at Geography (got a B in my JC as opposed to As in everything else).

It took a lot of fighting, but we got Chemistry in.

Plenty of schools don't offer accounting or Economics as subjects, though. It all depends on what area you live in. I live in a 'deprived' area, so resources were scarce and education took a hit. Thankfully, I still got great results, but other people were not so fortunate because we were given an extremely small range of subjects to choose from. It came down to us having no choice but to do Irish, German or French and either Music or Business just for points. We didn't have choices to do anything else, and this was a hindrance for some students, who may have been fantastic at science subjects, but not great at languages. I was just lucky in that I was a decent student so was good in most subjects. The less choices students have, the more their results will suffer.

Cookie_Monster

Schools have always dropped these subject based on demand. Our school had a 5 student minimum for each subject each year in the senoir cycle, reviewed every year based on demand.

But if you want to cull subjects religion and art would be good places to start. Art in particular as the associated costs for materials are far higher than any other subject for school and student.

nommm

Drop ****e like Home Ec. etc. I found in school that we were really discouraged from doing those 3 subjects, teachers would always go on and on about how hard they were.

I also think the level of difficulty required for the subjects should be leveled out. There was a lot of subjects that were easy in comparison to Chem and Physics.

Cookie_Monster

nommm wrote: »

Drop ****e like Home Ec. etc.

a modernised and properly taught Home Ec (call it somthing else though) class would easily be the most useful subject you could teach kids. Bit of DIY, bit of cookery, personal finance controls, nutrition and diet and exercise and health issues. Really important stuff to be able to function as an adult in the real world, far more so in general the Sin & Cos & Tan and poetry and religion IMO

texidub

Irish language lobbyists prove yet again that they don't give a f*ck about the opinions, free will and future of the Irish people as long as their precious language remains compulsory.

Ardent Irish language lobbyists are one of the most anti-Irish sections of the Irish population. They want to force their minority, crippled tongue on a disinterested majority.

They have undue influence in the Irish establishment, across media, education and politics (enabled by the State, originally in an attempt to forge a new Irish identity as we threw off the shackles of British imperialism.)

Guess what you anti-Irish Irish language lobbyists (and the State)? You don't *own* Irish identity. The Irish people ALREADY HAVE an identity, based on shared historical experience. And we already have a language to communicate with each other.

Irish language lobbyists strive to refashion Ireland in their own image. Their aims and goals are directly opposed to those of the majority of the people of Ireland. Is that what we want in our schools? We live in a democracy.

Understand the depth of anti-Irishness among Irish language lobbyists and their intransigence makes sense. They are like northern Unionists --they know they are on to a loser but they keep holding on to their similarly culturally fascistic worldview.

Underestimate their lack of loyalty to Ireland and the majority Irish people at your peril. These people are dangerous, anti-Irish zealots living in another century. And it's all dressed up in some faux patriotism.. when English is even the de facto language of Irish republicanism. They are dangerous idiots.

Where are the great Irish novels that are translated and sold in millions around the globe? Where are the irish language scientific papers respected around the world? What exactly has Irish done to bring glory and respect to Ireland? Nothing. It is a crippled tongue, for culturally crippled people.

They just want to drag Irish schoolchildren into the same cultural abyss that they are in.

But it's not for any one of us to decide what should and shouldn't be taught (within reason). So, I wouldn't ban it altogether.

Make Irish voluntary.

We shouldn't allow these people to eat away at Irish culture from the inside. They should be happy with voluntary Irish.. and it might even bring a rise in the numbers taking it. (I would hope so, for their sake, as it would teach them that cultural totalitarianism doesn't work.. something they have yet to learn.)

Powerhouse

languagenerd wrote: »

1975? What? I'm talking about what I did in 2009! The course partially changed this year (2012). You quoted my post which specifically says "I did it three years ago" And if you know the syllabus as you state, you'd know what I listed was the norm until last year, not 1975.

You missed the fact that I used 1975 figuratively. The year is irrelevant. My point is that you are providing broken-down detail on a course you studied which does not exist anymore - either an JC or LC level. That is simply inaccurate and misleading. There are enough poorly qualified and substantiated opinions about here without adducing something as 'fact' when it is old hat.

2009 is a foreign country in terms of the Irish course and the course far more than partially changed - it changed significantly. None of the poems or prose that were on a course a few years ago are there now, and there are far less of both. Half the exam is now non-writing.

If you are, for whatever reason, trying to keep abreast of developments in relation to syllabi you need to be more sure of your sources. But please accept that your own experience of the course is now irrelevant. For the same reason I choose not to talk about what I studied when I did the LC - it's not relevant anymore; outside of a nostalgia-fest anyway.

Powerhouse

texidub wrote: »

They should be happy with voluntary Irish.. and it might even bring a rise in the numbers taking it.

You gotta love this in fairness. The language is compulsory (i.e. it cannot be avoided...apparently...even though far greater number do other 'compulsory' subjects) but making it voluntary (that is to say giving people the option to not do it) might increase the numbers taking it!

How does that work - is there a latent demand among the population of Moldava with an innate desire to learn Irish but with an knee-jerk objection to compulsion who will swell the ranks immediately if it becomes voluntary!!! How do you get higher than 100 per cent? :D *

The most laughable argument of the anti-Irish lobby is that voluntarism would increase interest in the language. This doesn't happen with any other subject - why should Irish be different? Other than that I enjoyed the rant although it would have benefitted from mentioning Fianna Fáil, the GAA and the Catholic Church too.

*(Thsi question is rhetorical by the way - I really don't need to know:rolleyes:)

texidub

ha yes.. that was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was that making Irish voluntary might increase the proportion of Irish language students who actually enjoy the language.

Yes, you can laugh away because it is compulsory for the time being, and you and your ilk can continue to force your crippled language on the rest of the country. I don't expect you to give up.. just as I don't expect the other enemies of Irish culture (northern Unionists) to give up their cause. But just as I don't want Unionism forced down my throat. I don't want your language forced down my throat either... or down the throats of Irish children.

I've no bone to pick with the GAA. Most GAA players have about as much Irish as your Moldovans.

languagenerd

Powerhouse wrote: »

2009 is a foreign country in terms of the Irish course and the course far more than partially changed - it changed significantly. None of the poems or prose that were on a course a few years ago are there now, and there are far less of both. Half the exam is now non-writing.

Actually, I think it is relevant, because no-one has actually set the exam in the new course yet, so what I was talking about is what everyone who's done the LC in recent years has done.

You said that the current course only has 5 poems and 5 short stories - there's also a full-length play or novel.

I'm not arguing that Irish should be gotten rid of (on the contrary, I'm very much for it remaining compulsory!), but you can't deny that the course has historically been literature-based, and that that is what may have turned people off it. I'm glad that they've taken some of the weight of literature off it, but the whole course needs an overhaul. That people spend 14 years learning it and come out not speaking it is nothing short of disgraceful, tbh.

texidub

The Minister for Education has his eyes on the Irish language lobbyists (and about time too).

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0405/1224314388617.html

THE AMOUNT of class time devoted to Irish and religion in primary schools has been questioned by Minister for Education, Ruairí Quinn.

He said teachers had told him how up to 30 per cent of all contact time in some primary classes was taken up by these two subjects. “If we are worried about literacy and numeracy and this figure is close to being correct . . . then we have to ask ourselves questions.”

Teachers have made a killing pushing this crippled language down the throats of Irish children... but for how long?

Duggys Housemate

texidub wrote: »

ha yes.. that was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was that making Irish voluntary might increase the proportion of Irish language students who actually enjoy the language.

Yes, you can laugh away because it is compulsory for the time being, and you and your ilk can continue to force your crippled language on the rest of the country. I don't expect you to give up.. just as I don't expect the other enemies of Irish culture (northern Unionists) to give up their cause. But just as I don't want Unionism forced down my throat. I don't want your language forced down my throat either... or down the throats of Irish children.

I've no bone to pick with the GAA. Most GAA players have about as much Irish as your Moldovans.

It's compulsory because it is a national language, historically it preceded English. I imagine that a national referendum would be needed to remove the status of Irish and good luck with that one.

Nothingbetter2d

the IT sector are complaining they cant find suitable staff due to lack of euro lingustic skills here, yet our schools still waste resources teaching Irish and religion both of which are useless for finding suitable employment with multinational companies.

drop both of the above subjects and replace them with the sciences and european languages because that is where the jobs are.

churches & focus groups are there for people that want religion

irish should be taught in centres where those that want to learn it can pay for it and those that don't want it won't have to pay for it.

Duggys Housemate

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

the IT sector are complaining they cant find suitable staff due to lack of euro lingustic skills here, yet our schools still waste resources teaching Irish and religion both of which are useless for finding suitable employment with multinational companies.

drop both of the above subjects and replace them with the sciences and european languages because that is where the jobs are.

Thats absurd. the IT sector can hire from 400 million people across Europe, and the idea that if we get rid of Irish we get brilliant IT engineers is ridiculous. YOu either can, or can't.

texidub

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It's compulsory because it is a national language, historically it preceded English. I imagine that a national referendum would be needed to remove the status of Irish and good luck with that one.

National in name only. It is about as national as croquet.

Historically, lots of things preceded other things, should we teach them all too? It's called evolution and change.

I am not talking about removing the status of Irish... as someone who respects cultural freedom --something the Irish language lobbyists should consider from time to time-- I wouldn't actively seek to have the language downgraded out of existence.

In essence, if a handful of anti-Irish people want to live their lives through Gaelic --a language foreign to the majority of Irish people-- that's fine with me.

Just remove the compulsory status and we can start having a conversation on a level playing field.

Nothingbetter2d

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Thats absurd. the IT sector can hire from 400 million people across Europe, and the idea that if we get rid of Irish we get brilliant IT engineers is ridiculous. YOu either can, or can't.

no the main reason why the IT sector cant find suitable irish people is cos most of the jobs require a fluency in a foreign language.... just look up the many jobs there and you'll see that they require someone that speaks nordic, german, french, or italian languages.

the majority of our schools dont really teach any of those other than french.

this is why we see more n more europeans coming here, and more n more irish leaving for australia, uk, and canada.

Duggys Housemate

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

no the main reason why the IT sector cant find suitable irish people is cos most of the jobs require a fluency in a foreign language.... just look up the many jobs there and you'll see that they require someone that speaks nordic, german, french, or italian languages.

the majority of our schools dont really teach any of those other than french.

this is why we see more n more europeans coming here, and more n more irish leaving for australia, uk, and canada.

It depends on the IT apparently, you can work in IT in germany with English only because German companies have meetings in English, some French companies do too.

My guess is these are call centre roles. In which case fluent French is needed, but they will hire French people.

Duggys Housemate

texidub wrote: »

National in name only. It is about as national as croquet.

Historically, lots of things preceded other things, should we teach them all too? It's called evolution and change.

I am not talking about removing the status of Irish... as someone who respects cultural freedom --something the Irish language lobbyists should consider from time to time-- I wouldn't actively seek to have the language downgraded out of existence.

In essence, if a handful of anti-Irish people want to live their lives through Gaelic --a language foreign to the majority of Irish people-- that's fine with me.

Just remove the compulsory status and we can start having a conversation on a level playing field.

Ignoring the laughable "anti-Irish" rant against Irish speakers, let me repeat. It is an official language. So is English. If you want to remove it from the curriculum it would face a constitutional challenge, either English and Irish - both official languages - would be made non-compulsory, or one would be. I am pretty sure that the Supreme court would make that ruling. Both languages have equal constitutional status.

If the anti-Irish language activists want "cultural freedom" they would remove the constitutional mention of two languages, and Polish would take pride of place in certain schools. That would be madness for any nation, certainly the French wouldn't do it.

However, no point whining on the internet. Set up an outside campaign to make Irish non-compulsory, and then lead the constitutional referendum. While you may get support on the first one, it would evaporate come a referendum.