Is the leaving cert system adequate

insua

They just need to continuous assessment that ****

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mikemac1 wrote: »

Well he thinks twenty years ago is relatively recent and the points system didn't exist in nineties

What it was like twenty years ago is fairly irrelevant. What it's like for students NOW is what should be asked.

St.Spodo

Ficheall wrote: »

The same could be said of college...

I can only refer to my own experience here, but college term essays require personal analysis and critical thinking. With regards to the end of term exams, I'd be inclined to agree.

opinion guy

Confab wrote: »

The stress is caused by students believing the hype about the consequences of getting less than 1000 points.

and more importantly their parents believing that or that little Johnny just has to be a doctor even though he wants to be a sound engineer. He's just young he'll grow out of that bless him. :rolleyes:

Martin_94 wrote: »

In all seriousness- Continuous Assessment.

See everyone says that but think about it. If you have continuous assessment instead of having one year of stressssss!!!!!>!?!?!?! you will have 5. It will be like the US - you will have to maintain your grades all the way through - because if you don't some other guy will. I'm reminded of the Simpson's scene where Lisa gets a bad grade and is spotted by the Harvard satellite and taken off their potential admissions list or something

The problem isn't really the assessment. Its the lack of places at third level for popular stuff (which in turn may reflect lack of jobs in those sectors). Its also the crazy expectations students and parents have.

The other problem - which is a bigger problem if you ask me - is the gradual slide away from understanding and thinking and problem solving towards rote learning and regurgitation. I actually blame the rise of grind schools for this in the 90's. They killed off what was left of scholarship and completed the transformation into the rat-race it has become.

If you ask me the solution isn't so much continuous assessment in its usually understood form, but perhaps students should be made do projects at various points. Problem solving stuff kind of like the Young Scientists competition. Engage they auld noggin in some sort of real world problem. Maybe one big project in transition year or something.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact is universities require a lot more than hard work. A person with a natural aptitude for science is far better to science than someone who just works hard.

Rubbish. Science is all about hard work - the guy/gal dedicated to the cause in the lab til midnight is the guy/gal who gets things done - not the genius who knocks off at five to go drinking.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Would I be alone in wanting my doctor to have got say 400 points in their leaving cert and had to work through alternative channels to become a doctor, rather than someone who got 600 points and then just did medicine because they could.

I thought they did introduce such altenrative assessment for medicine now and it wasn't jsut about points anymore or did that not go ahead ?

GaryIrv93

mikemac1 wrote: »

But you know about the difficulty of the exams back then

There I was referring to my parents, and certain teachers who did Leaving Certificates who didn't require both grades and points to get into their courses. That's what I meant by their Leaving Certs being ''easier'' - all they needed was the right grades. Hell, it was perfectly acceptable back then to simply leave school after the Junior Cert and start working. My point was that parents and teachers place immense pressure on their kids to achieve both high grades and to get enough points, something that they didn't have to worry about when they did their Leavings over 25 years ago. It's hard for people who left school all those years ago to understand what it's like to be a student nowadays, under huge pressure to be the best of the best and to score higher than they actually need to.

Owen_S

Right now, amongst other things, I have to study Hamlet, a Maeve Binchy novel and the poetry of Patrick Kavanagh, Thomas Kinsella and Sylvia Plath. Then I have to study Irish and French.

All this is required because I want to become an engineer

FloatingVoter

Owen_S wrote: »

Right now, amongst other things, I have to study Hamlet, a Maeve Binchy novel and the poetry of Patrick Kavanagh, Thomas Kinsella and Sylvia Plath. Then I have to study Irish and French.

All this is required because I want to become an engineer

They need engineers in France. You may drop out of college and write romantic fiction in the form of rhyming couplets.
As for the Irish, no idea why you'd need that.

Duggys Housemate

Jester252 wrote: »

I would prefer something like the A-levels in England. Not only would you have a system that gives a high level of education. In the first year of college most for the subjects are to make sure everyone is on the same level as most people would have done bad on the LC in subjects important to their course now because they were spending time doing work for a subject that they are never going to use again outside the LC. While 5th year won't know what they what to do in the future. They will have some sense of what areas they do what to work in.

The A-levels is exactly the model not to follow. In fact England and Wales are the only countries to do something like that. Its too narrow and makes people decide what college courses they want at 16. Its designed for when most students left school at 16 there.

The leaving cert is not a college enterance exam, despite what was said here it was harder when less people went to college, its designed to give a broad education and you can choose to use it for points, or not. I am a scientist now, with good results in English and history in my LC. And glad of it for I continue to read a book a week, often histories. I also did music in the junior cert and I play the piano. Long live a broad education. I notice the "yes" side is winning in the vote but they have no solutions.

Duggys Housemate

Owen_S wrote: »

Right now, amongst other things, I have to study Hamlet, a Maeve Binchy novel and the poetry of Patrick Kavanagh, Thomas Kinsella and Sylvia Plath. Then I have to study Irish and French.

All this is required because I want to become an engineer

It's required because the LC is educating you, not training you.

Duggys Housemate

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

mikemac1 wrote: »

But you know about the difficulty of the exams back then

There I was referring to my parents, and certain teachers who did Leaving Certificates who didn't require both grades and points to get into their courses. That's what I meant by their Leaving Certs being ''easier'' - all they needed was the right grades. Hell, it was perfectly acceptable back then to simply leave school after the Junior Cert and start working. My point was that parents and teachers place immense pressure on their kids to achieve both high grades and to get enough points, something that they didn't have to worry about when they did their Leavings over 25 years ago. It's hard for people who left school all those years ago to understand what it's like to be a student nowadays, under huge pressure to be the best of the best and to score higher than they actually need to.

That's rubbish. The points system existed when I entered secondary school in the 1989 and I am pretty sure it was there a decade. My older siblings had it tougher You are not the first generation to come out into a recession either, and I bet the competition was more intense for the fewer courses available back then and the leaving cert had as many people doing it. Very few people left school for a job with 20% unemployment, lots emigrated. You should look back a decade, not 25 years, for when it was relatively easy.

EDIT: cao founded in 1976, first students used points system in 1978.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Applications_Office#section_2

elefant

There are problems with the leaving cert, but I think the same could be said about state examinations in every country on the planet. For me, the main issue is with the lack of critical thinking that is necessary in exams- memorising is, as everyone has been saying, a major part of many exams. It is also quite stressful having so many exams packed into a short space of time.

However, I think the Leaving Cert is a solid method of evaluation. It might not be perfect, but I can't think of any better, and most importantly ,objective alternatives. The Leaving is the same for everyone, and speaking from my experiences, the smartest students in my year all got the best results in their exams (without any exceptions that I can recall).

If the best students are receiving the best results I don't think much needs changing.

CruelCoin

As an employer, i can confidently say that the education system as it stands is beyond useless in preparing kids for life outside school.

Children are able to memorise by rote huge volumes of material, but lack the critical thinking skills to ever put it into practice.

The system rewards those who get high amounts of points, punishes those who score bably.

I couldn't give a toss if someone with 600 points tried to argue he was better for a job than someone with 200 points. Employers will hire who they feel is best able to perform at a task set to them.


I would suggest a replacement system, that placed more emphasis on individual skills and ranked them accordingly,.

e.g: Clerical speed, mathematical reasoning, logical thinking, spacial reasoning, etc etc. So, i would hire someone for an office job with clerical speed skill of 80 sooner than someone with clerical speed skill of 50, Forklift drivers with spacial reasoning skills of 90 sooner than someone with spacial reasoning of 40, etc etc,.

Long story short, give employers a more usefull way to assess how someone will perform at specific tasks. The current system fails to define that.

Scanlas The 2nd

St.Spodo wrote: »

The main problem with the Leaving Cert is that it doesn't distinguish between learning and memorising. The skills of critical thinking and challenging ideas aren't honed by exams which encourage students to learn by rote, regurgitate and then forget most of it forever by the time they're on holidays. I think the system needs to be significantly altered.

Memorising and regurgitating are hugely important skills too, plenty of subjects teach critical thinking such as maths, physics, tech drawing.

Yalu

The current system clearly isn't ideal, but if I were to highlight a few problems around this "complete overhaul" being suggested it would be these:

1. The current system is completely anonymous. In a country this small, this could be more important than you think. In some countries as I understand it you're basically marked by your teacher. The idea that this could not, at least sometimes, create a conflict of interest beggars belief.

2. All other things being equal (and I realise they're not), the Leaving does reward hard work. Take the hypothetical situation of two students, both of equal ability/aptitude, both from similar backgrounds, having been afforded similar opportunities throughout their childhoods etc etc. The Leaving will reward the one who works over the one who isn't bothered getting off their tod.

3. Continuous assessment is stressful too. As someone mentioned, there will always be people inclined to stress, and people inclined to take it easy. For the ones inclined to stress (and I should know, I'm one of them) continuous assessment just means you're stressing all the time. I do genuinely feel for anyone who falls ill, or has a death in the family or whatever during exams though; at university level this tends to be mitigated by having autumn repeats.

4. Reducing the number of subjects or specialising early isn't necessarily a good idea. Not all schools offer all subjects, and you could actually end up with people even MORE unsuited to the university course going in than at present, simply because that was what their schools specialised in. Also I think it's a pretty big ask of 15/16-year-olds to know what they want to do in university, or indeed for the rest of their career, because that's what this would amount to.

What we have at the moment isn't great. But I think some of the proposals being suggested could overlook some of the things it IS doing right (even if only by accident).

0000879k

I haven't done the LC yet (in third year) and I've barely flicked through this thread but I like the our LC system..
Feel free to call me ''ignorant'' or shout at me or tell me I'm wrong but if every person in the world got an escalator to the top of Mount Everest then reaching the top wouldn't be very special, would it? And the guy who's trained to get there, looks no better than everyone else .. The guy who worked his ass of for two years is rewarded with his results and looks great, while other (jealous) people say it's a ****ed up system.
I don't think there should be continual assessment just because people seem to lose their calenders until the month before the exams.

PhoenixParker

As an engineer I'm extremely glad that I did English for the Leaving.
I actually wish there had been some sort of a writing course in every year in college. Communication is key, and the ability to communicate your thoughts in writing is extremely important. It's a skill that needs to be taught to everyone regardless of their future career plans. It's also a skill you need to practice to maintain. There are far too many excellent engineers out there who are forced to sit and watch poor engineers get promoted above them simply because the poor engineers can get a message across, sell a product or convince someone else to do something.

If you can analyse Hamlet and write a three page essay on it, then you can analyse other difficult texts/problems and explain your thoughts to whoever needs to know.

As for the Leaving Cert being all about rote learning. I found it offered a choice. Learn everything by rote or understand what was happening, learn the key points and write then answer the question on the paper. I went the second way, and tbh it was far easier and far less hard work then trying to memorise five or ten English answers. For all the bad press rote learning gets, if you want to test students understanding, they have to start by actually learning the material in the first place. You won't learn a language without some rote learning of vocabulary, or pass a science exam without rote learning of a few definitions. You certainly can't understand a scientific definition if you haven't learned it off.

As for changing the Leaving Cert. I happen to think it's pretty good. The best part about it are that it is utterly fair. Everyone sits the same exam, rich or poor, connected or not.

It is too focused on a final exam, but I don't think a huge volume of continuous assessment is the answer. I'm utterly opposed to anything that involves teacher grading. I've seen far too many biased teachers over the years. Exams at the end of 5th year worth maybe 30%, an (optional?) project introduced in certain subjects worth 20% and a 50% final exam maybe. There should also be an option for resits in August, but if you resit, it should only be with a doctors certificate, and you don't get your first results at all.

In terms of a larger scale reform, I think moves closer to the International Bac would probably be the way to go. Neither the American System (Too much continuous assessment) or the UK System (far too narrow) are good options.

Monkey61

I'm a big fan of the Leaving personally. It may not be perfect, but I cannot think of a fairer and more objective system for allocating college places. Continuous assessment fails for me because anybody could be doing the work. What's to stop your sister/father/friend etc doing the work for you? Plus, it is easy. Anyone can produce a piece of work to a high standard at home given a huge amount of time. Exams are down to the individual alone.

I also appreciate the sheer breadth of the exposure to learning and information that is inherent in studying 7+ subjects and feel that we get a fairly well rounded education because of it.

I hate the concept of A-Levels, which require choosing what college course you want to aim for much earlier and then being essentially stuck if you haven't picked the right subjects. Living in England at the moment, what I have also noticed is that certain postgrad/doctorate courses and employers actually care about what subjects you did for A-Level, to the extent that I have heard of people with MScs in their chosen field doing A-Level subjects in their spare time just to meet minimum requirements. Frequently I see jobs advertised in certain sectors that don't have a specific degree as a requirement but do request specific A-Level subjects. I'm currently doing a job that asked for an A-Level in a particular subject that bears absolutely no relation to actual ability to do the work. Thus people's subject choices at the age of 16 can have even longer lasting consequences than just acceptance onto a college course.

As a final thought: the idea of college places being allocated based on specific subjects alone rather than points across all subjects is all well and good, but how on earth do you differentiate between the 1000 students who have the same grades in 3 relevant subjects? Interviews and entrance exams would be the only choice but I don't know if I am entirely comfortable with introducing the level of human bias that interviews bring into play at such an early level.

Duggys Housemate

CruelCoin wrote: »

As an employer, i can confidently say that the education system as it stands is beyond useless in preparing kids for life outside school.

Children are able to memorise by rote huge volumes of material, but lack the critical thinking skills to ever put it into practice.

The system rewards those who get high amounts of points, punishes those who score bably.

I couldn't give a toss if someone with 600 points tried to argue he was better for a job than someone with 200 points. Employers will hire who they feel is best able to perform at a task set to them.


I would suggest a replacement system, that placed more emphasis on individual skills and ranked them accordingly,.

e.g: Clerical speed, mathematical reasoning, logical thinking, spacial reasoning, etc etc. So, i would hire someone for an office job with clerical speed skill of 80 sooner than someone with clerical speed skill of 50, Forklift drivers with spacial reasoning skills of 90 sooner than someone with spacial reasoning of 40, etc etc,.

Long story short, give employers a more usefull way to assess how someone will perform at specific tasks. The current system fails to define that.

That's not an education system, it's a trivial vocational system. Spatial awareness my arse. And you don't actually need " critical thinkers" for your forklift company.

MisterEpicurus

I think that instead of having compulsory Irish etc. we should have a compulsive 'Critical Thinking' class. If done effectively, it would involve teaching students how to think rather than 'what to learn'. This is far more valuable a skill than anything learned in college, whether it be in mathematics, business or science. Applying logical thinking to scenarios is the key to conquering them. If students were actually taught this then they may improve their understanding of other subjects they find more difficult. Moreover, as said previously, it's a better skill than anything rote learned in the current Leaving Certificate syllabus.

As for the 'Forklift' people above, they can do LCA or drop-out. Critical thinking should be for those serious about advancing their future studies and prospects rather than retiring in a forklift.

mikemac1

You're just a number

If entry into high demand courses was any other way it would be connections and those in the right schools who get in.

CAO don't care about you, they process you and that's all

opinion guy

PhoenixParker wrote: »

As an engineer I'm extremely glad that I did English for the Leaving.
I actually wish there had been some sort of a writing course in every year in college. Communication is key, and the ability to communicate your thoughts in writing is extremely important. It's a skill that needs to be taught to everyone regardless of their future career plans. It's also a skill you need to practice to maintain. There are far too many excellent engineers out there who are forced to sit and watch poor engineers get promoted above them simply because the poor engineers can get a message across, sell a product or convince someone else to do something.

I get where you are coming from as someone who has learned to write properly only as an adult and out of necessity. I would say however, that I found the leaving cert syllabus of Elizabethan English and abstract poetry didn't inspire me at all whatsoever to learn how to express myself - which is what an English course should do. I found it all very tedious I must say.

opinion guy

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

As for the 'Forklift' people above, they can do LCA or drop-out. Critical thinking should be for those serious about advancing their future studies and prospects rather than retiring in a forklift.

A touch elitist don't you think ?

And there are critical thinking courses. They're called, math, science, physics, chemistry etc.

Anita Blow

The Leaving Cert is grand as it stands. As has been said, it leaves everybody on an equal playing field as it's completely anonymous.

The academic person who studies Physics, Chemistry, Applied Maths, Latin etc. has just as much of a chance at 600 points as the not so academic person who is much better at practical work and studies engineering, construction, design & communication graphics and technology.
They both have the opportunity to translate their own strengths into a common form of recognising those strengths (points)

Duggys Housemate

Teaching critical thinking might be like teaching "cool". On average, people are average, and will be averagely able to critical think.

NTMK

Monkey61 wrote: »

As a final thought: the idea of college places being allocated based on specific subjects alone rather than points across all subjects is all well and good, but how on earth do you differentiate between the 1000 students who have the same grades in 3 relevant subjects? Interviews and entrance exams would be the only choice but I don't know if I am entirely comfortable with introducing the level of human bias that interviews bring into play at such an early level.

the current system allows people who are completely unsuitable for certain courses to gain entry at the expense of more suitable people

if a student gets say
A1's in english,Art,Irish
and
C3's in Bio, Chem and maths

it gives them 480points and they scrape the requirements for a science course

while another student goin for the same course gets
A1's in bio, chem, maths
and
C3's in english and art and a d1 in irish

which gives them 475points

if the points are set to 480 for this science course
the student most suitable for this course is excluded

the points system needs to change to introduce weighting for relevant subjects

the tie breaker can be the other lower weighted subjects

there is no need for interviews and it should stay that way

GaryIrv93

Personally I don't think having all students memorize and do an exam at the end is fair. It rewards those who are able to study and who are able to bury themselves in books for hours on end, and punishes those who either hate studying, can't study due to learning difficulties, problems at home etc or who are simply never in the mood to study. It would be much fairer to give every student a choice whether to finish their Leaving Certs by continuous assessment or by being examined. Some students such as myself like to express the quality of their work and effort by putting time into projects, and using their skills on Microsoft Word to make their work look professional, not by memorizing mostly irrelevant information in the hope that it'll come up in the exam, and spitting it back out and then forgetting about it. That suits some students, wheras it doesn't suit others. Everyone works in different way, either by assessment or exams. Choice would be the fairest option.

Lollipops23

I agree- the idea of studying subjects that will have absolutely no influence or value in your adult life is archaic. I've been of the mind that Irish should be an optional subject after primary for years now.

To the poster who talked about staying til 8pm every day and coming in to study on weekends etc- that's great if you have a school that fosters and encourages academic success. I'd hazard a guess that most schools in Ireland wouldn't be nearly that organised/funded. To ask a 17 year old to handle the workload expected but not provide them with the tools/support/encouragement needed is torture.

Scanlas The 2nd

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Personally I don't think having all students memorize and do an exam at the end is fair. It rewards those who are able to study and who are able to bury themselves in books for hours on end, and punishes those who either hate studying, can't study due to learning difficulties, problems at home etc or who are simply never in the mood to study. It would be much fairer to give every student a choice whether to finish their Leaving Certs by continuous assessment or by being examined. Some students such as myself like to express the quality of their work and effort by putting time into projects, and using their skills on Microsoft Word to make their work look professional, not by memorizing mostly irrelevant information in the hope that it'll come up in the exam, and spitting it back out and then forgetting about it. That suits some students, wheras it doesn't suit others. Everyone works in different way, either by assessment or exams. Choice would be the fairest option.

I thought you were taking the pi$$ at first. Anyone who doesn't study because they aren't "in the mood" doesn't deserve a place in university. Since when is everything supposed to be easy.

digzy

look, it's the ultimate meritrocacy. while there's an argument for numerous alterations, it's the 'least worst' option.

for most people sitting the lc, it's used as a gate into third level. you're anonymous so who your folks are or know or what school you attended or your accent etc are not taken into account.

one drawback to continuous assessment is the practicalities. does your teacher grade you? is it a randomer like the invigilaters? bias vs cost!
i like the way it sits on a few exams in june. as someone who got the runs before college exams the less often you've this stress the better.

Taco Chips

'Critical thinking' seems to be a buzz word in this topic. Actually there are plenty of leaving cert subjects that incorporate critical thinking and different types of analysis that people seem to be over looking. Design & Communication Graphics, Applied Maths (to an extent), normal Maths, some parts of Physics.

What people mean by critical thinking I think in the majority of cases is common sense. The fact is that school isn't there for churning out teenagers going straight into the labour force. It's been said already in this thread but the best kind of education is a well rounded one, which is what the LC offers. You learn cop on and good work practices in *wait for it*.... a job.

The best summary of the situation in this thread was actually posted by someone doing their Junior Cert a few posts up.

I haven't done the LC yet (in third year) and I've barely flicked through this thread but I like the our LC system..
Feel free to call me ''ignorant'' or shout at me or tell me I'm wrong but if every person in the world got an escalator to the top of Mount Everest then reaching the top wouldn't be very special, would it? And the guy who's trained to get there, looks no better than everyone else .. The guy who worked his ass of for two years is rewarded with his results and looks great, while other (jealous) people say it's a ****ed up system.
I don't think there should be continual assessment just because people seem to lose their calenders until the month before the exams.

Definitely the most sensible post that I've read so far.

MisterEpicurus

opinion guy wrote: »

A touch elitist don't you think ?

And there are critical thinking courses. They're called, math, science, physics, chemistry etc.

No, it's fact.

Many students who can't hack the 'academic' side of things usually go for LCA or drop-out anyway. If they want to perform well at LC, then they should do more than rote learning which is useless and learns you next to nothing.

You're wrong again. Science does not teach you critical thinking, most of the people in my class learned it all of by heart and didn't know the significance. They even learned off all the 'maths proofs' without understanding the logic behind any of them.

It's true that some students don't do this - but more rote learn than apply critical thinking.

So yes, a separate strand which focussed on thinking rather than memorizing is the way to go.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Teaching critical thinking might be like teaching "cool". On average, people are average, and will be averagely able to critical think.

A touch pessimistic don't you think?

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

A touch elitist don't you think ?

And there are critical thinking courses. They're called, math, science, physics, chemistry etc.

Although I will say this - there should be a bit more focus on the scientific method and on what makes science science, as opposed to religion say. And also included with this should be stuff like how clinical trials work etc etc.

But it can be worked into the existing subjects - no need for a new subject

GaryIrv93

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I thought you were taking the pi$$ at first. Anyone who doesn't study because they aren't "in the mood" doesn't deserve a place in university. Since when is everything supposed to be easy.

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

Duggys Housemate

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

No, it's fact.

Many students who can't hack the 'academic' side of things usually go for LCA or drop-out anyway. If they want to perform well at LC, then they should do more than rote learning which is useless and learns you next to nothing.

You're wrong again. Science does not teach you critical thinking, most of the people in my class learned it all of by heart and didn't know the significance. They even learned off all the 'maths proofs' without understanding the logic behind any of them.

It's true that some students don't do this - but more rote learn than apply critical thinking.

So yes, a separate strand which focussed on thinking rather than memorizing is the way to go.

Some of science - how to do physics experiments, and some of maths - theorems, are open to rote. The rest is application of what you have learned to a new problem which presents itself for the first time on the paper. This can be quite hard under exam conditions, but it certainly tests thought, not rote.

A touch pessimistic don't you think?

Nope, the numbers doing higher maths would bear this out. Also I think that even mathematicians would find it hard to apply logic in all parts of life, nor would we want to.

Duggys Housemate

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

You think there won't be a need for studying in university? How would you propose we get doctors from this system?

I do get the impression that in Ireland, some courses in university are considered easier than the leaving cert, you are basically asking for a dumbing down of the leaving to allow access to courses which requite little or no work.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nope, the numbers doing higher maths would bear this out. Also I think that even mathematicians would find it hard to apply logic in all parts of life, nor would we want to.

Unless you are Sheldon Cooper!

Taco Chips

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

Oh come on now. As someone who did their leaving recently that's rubbish. If you went around schools in the morning and asked everyone who liked studying to raise their hands you'd get a tumbleweed. Very few to no 17/18 year olds actively enjoy studying for the leaving cert. Same in college. Studying for exams is just something you have to suck up and get done. None of this "I'm not suited for it" crap. It's 8 months of solid work. Nothing to kill you. Do your homework in 5th and 6th year, study for an hour or two every night, gradually ramping it up towards the end and there is nothing stopping anyone from hitting their full potential.

flyswatter

Don't agree with the dumbing down of Maths at all and I was an average Maths student at best. It's essential for problem solving and one of the key subjects in terms of life skills.

Also, I'd probably introduce more CA and have less of the memory test system which it mostly is at the moment.

EuropeanSon

I like the system, but dislike much of the content of the courses. Maths and English are not taught to anything approaching a high enough standard, and I feel that they should be made to be more difficult and be weighted significantly more heavily than other courses. The maths situation has only gotten worse in recent years. Some form of programming course should be introduced, too.

Overall, I think the system (ie. the CAO system) is a good one, but the standard of teaching, and the difficulty of material covered, are both far too low.

Ms.M

I do think the LC is a good marker for some things. If you're naturally "academic" and have analytic skills you'll do well. If you don't mind putting in the hours (although it is rote learning) you'll also do well.
There are capabilities it doesn't measure. If you're an extremely weak kid academically all you get at the end of it is "hey, you're a D/ E/ F". Seems a bit pointless for some.
I think the CAO system is flawed too. For example, if you fail Maths but got an A1 in honours English you should be able to get into a journalism degree. If you are gifted at Maths and Science subjects you should be able to get into Science
over someone who is ok at everything. In a lot of countries universities do look for grades in particular subjects.
That said, I'd hate to be teaching a class of kids who didn't need a grade in my subject to get into college. I suppose your general academic performance should be taken into account for competition among students of similar ability in a particular field maybe?

Duggys Housemate

Ms.M wrote: »

I do think the LC is a good marker for some things. If you're naturally "academic" and have analytic skills you'll do well. If you don't mind putting in the hours (although it is rote learning) you'll also do well.
There are capabilities it doesn't measure. If you're an extremely weak kid academically all you get at the end of it is "hey, you're a D/ E/ F". Seems a bit pointless for some.
I think the CAO system is flawed too. For example, if you fail Maths but got an A1 in honours English you should be able to get into a journalism degree. If you are gifted at Maths and Science subjects you should be able to get into Science
over someone who is ok at everything. In a lot of countries universities do look for grades in particular subjects.
That said, I'd hate to be teaching a class of kids who didn't need a grade in my subject to get into college. I suppose your general academic performance should be taken into account for competition among students of similar ability in a particular field maybe?

Again with the rote, we've knocked that back tens of times in this thread. As for the rest, you can fail maths and get into journalism as far as I know. The Irish points system used to allow the different universities to weight the numbers, as in an engineering course would give you more points for mathematics, but it still worked through the CAO. The same issues with "rote" and studying were still there.

CruelCoin

Taco Chips wrote: »

You learn cop on and good work practices in *wait for it*.... a job.

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

Anita Blow

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Maths and English are not taught to anything approaching a high enough standard

Can't speak for maths, but English is far and away one of the hardest LC subjects.
Paper 2 requires you to know a Shakespearean text essentially off by heart (As you're required to write about 4-5 pages. Any aspect of the play can come up so you need to know it inside out), then you need to study a play, novel and movie and be able to write 5 pages comparing/contrasting them under a certain mode and then need to know at least 4-5 poets in detail.

All that in a 3 and a half hour exam that's only worth 50% of your overall grade.
I did my LC last year and found English incredibly difficult, to the point that it was detracting from my other subjects.

Scanlas The 2nd

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I thought you were taking the pi$$ at first. Anyone who doesn't study because they aren't "in the mood" doesn't deserve a place in university. Since when is everything supposed to be easy.

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

Ok then let's make things fair by giving easier exams to the less intelligent students. How about that?

opinion guy

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

Since always. Since the village carpenter/blacksmith/butcher needed a helper and a helper need a trade.
Every job has a learning curve, every employee needs to start somewhere. Its part of business.

Taco Chips

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

Well it is the responsibility of the employer to allow for a learning curve in any job. It is often their responsibility to account for on the job training, absolutely it is. It's not a school's responsibility to show someone how to work well in employment. That's something that people learn as they go through life. A gradual process taught through experiences. Good working practices come from working in a job. Life teaches common sense. That's just the way it is and always has been. School has never taught people otherwise, and yet people leave, get jobs and function just fine.

Anita Blow

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

It's not the job of our education system to make it easier for employers to choose candidates. It's job is to provide a broad-based education for students.

PhoenixParker

Ms.M wrote: »

I do think the LC is a good marker for some things. If you're naturally "academic" and have analytic skills you'll do well. If you don't mind putting in the hours (although it is rote learning) you'll also do well.
There are capabilities it doesn't measure. If you're an extremely weak kid academically all you get at the end of it is "hey, you're a D/ E/ F". Seems a bit pointless for some.
I think the CAO system is flawed too. For example, if you fail Maths but got an A1 in honours English you should be able to get into a journalism degree. If you are gifted at Maths and Science subjects you should be able to get into Science
over someone who is ok at everything. In a lot of countries universities do look for grades in particular subjects.
That said, I'd hate to be teaching a class of kids who didn't need a grade in my subject to get into college. I suppose your general academic performance should be taken into account for competition among students of similar ability in a particular field maybe?

Gotta disagree, have you seen what journalists do to numbers?
They seem to think you can add percentages together randomly.

Duggys Housemate

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

It's not. It is up to the employer to complete their training, which is not the same. If this guy - or you - needs fork lift drivers he can train them, or expect them to have done a course on fork lifts. For lift driving not education.

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

We are not using the general secondary education system to subsidise your business. Education has more than one role

1) It passes on cultural knowledge - the much maligned "rote" learning.
2) It opens peoples minds to as wide a range of topics as possible, hence French, English, History etc.
3) it should teach people to think, particularly in the science subjects.
4) It teaches study, which is a good example as any of application in a young age - there are others, like sporting success. If it takes effort, it proves the ability to apply yourself.

To say that "college" teaches people to pass exams is a useless truism, it does teach doctors to "pass exams" about doctoring, which also teaches them to be doctors ( along with on the job training).

What the education system to secondary level is not deigned to do is to provide you with cheap trained labour.

GaryIrv93

Taco Chips wrote: »

None of this "I'm not suited for it" crap. It's 8 months of solid work. Nothing to kill you. Do your homework in 5th and 6th year, study for an hour or two every night, gradually ramping it up towards the end and there is nothing stopping anyone from hitting their full potential.

The thing is though is that if a student downright hates studying, which many do, then it's going to be far more difficult for them to concentrate, do their homework, and work for two years. Some students just can't deal with that, and that's they way it is, especially if they're not very motivated. Telling them 'suck it up, ahhhh sure it won't kill you' does nothing to help them. Students like that need proper encouragement and a promise of a good reward if they're going to have any chance of overcoming their hate of putting their head down to study.