The leaving cert system is not only unfair, it's illogical and it's getting worse.

Biscuits.

And now they're punishing the hard workers to catch out the chancers, they're experimenting with us for the sake of seeing what makes for better statistics, it seems. And I hope we all do worse and make them look like idiots because of it. Unless they'll have to mark easier to prevent that and put us into college, ergo.....GRADE INFLATION! And that's what makes it necessary. We can’t all fail our exams.

"Rote learning's the worse, so we're going to make sure what you predict doesn't come up so you learn everything instead!" - A most logical conclusion to eliminating the hard work that goes into learning everything off.

Before I go on, let me tell you how proud I am of the young people in this country, for their wit and humour, for their brains and their perseverance. I respect my peers. But this country? It's in an awful state and now this system is failing us as well. I've never been so ashamed. We're being let down from every corner. Regarding education, I'm fed up of seeing the blame put on even the hard workers who sacrifice their time and pieces of their sanity only to be told they're being marked too easy, they're lazy, from everyone and anyone who isn't actually sitting the leaving. The SEC? They bend at will to these opinions, mess up entire exams for us, but they're rigid with everything else.

No system is perfect, but this one is deeply flawed, messy and confused. They suffer the backlash of the media for their mistakes; we suffer losing pathways into our dreamed futures for our mistakes caused by theirs. If they want to prepare us for college they should slowly introduce similar ways of learning, not tinker with how we're used to doing things while we're on the way of doing them. It's our teachers that teach us this way, the whole sixth year is mainly revision, learning things off. Slowly introducing change is the way to go, not bombarding us randomly at the end of our secondary school careers with your great ideas (e.g. PROJECT MATHS).

Let's not forget the examiners may not see this "critical" and "analytical" side of the student when correcting nonsensical exam questions, and instead focus on the lack of detail and facts missing from the question. These awkwardly phrased questions don't even make sense any more! (E.g. English Paper 2 of this year). If you're asking such narrowly focused questions so we don't learn off essays, then expect the student to have enough knowledge on the topic to answer with an essay, thus, learning things off. In fact, learning more things off. Don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that these exams are largely anonymous (college, however, is not). But examiners aren't on the same level of our newly enlightened SEC and NCCA. They're the teachers who teach us to rote learn and predict and are subject to bias.

I was in college for a month, studying European Studies. This isn't the direction I wanted to go in, I didn't do my CAO properly. So, it was either stay in college or go back and repeat, according to my parents. I chose to repeat, so I didn't waste my grant and got my tuition back and could go back on the track I wanted. So, we’d sit in lectures and take notes, we’d be given assignments, narrow ones we’d have to research (see how that works? We had all the resources we needed writing them at home, time to structure our essays and consider what we’re saying, we didn’t have to memorise specific facts that would otherwise mean nothing to lodge in our brains). We also learned a group of facts about Germany and had to regurgitate them in an exam the next day. We were encouraged to pay particular attention to the current affairs in Germany in the news and then were asked questions on them. Anyone who’s done honours History is prepared for college, I’d say, based on what I know and my small experience. And you know that means learning essays off and painfully researching specific topics.

Let's not forget the great things in this country pertaining to education, the cost of third level education compared to other countries and PLC courses! What a logical solution to so many problems! But we're facing serious employment problems. Employers are looking for qualified and experienced workers and we're up against the most experienced and qualified workers. They’re rigid in this assessment. Why is our system so similar to America’s? Are we going to continue in that direction until we’re as badly off as them? In England you’re qualified if you’ve done your A levels, they’re not just a means to reach University like the leaving cert. They also study relevant topics for their A levels. Meaning no mandatory subjects. Like maths and Irish. I don’t want to repeat why this is a horrible idea, but I will come back to project maths and describe a predicament many of us find ourselves in.

I know how important a wholesome education is, the synergy between the subjects, but that’s not how students treat them at all and we don’t remember half the stuff we learn anyway! Look, we have a whole web of information now most of us aren’t willing to explore and libraries filled with books. Not everyone’s knowledge hungry. You can’t force it and forcing it makes it worse. That’s not what it means to get by in the world today, now you need specialised knowledge, unless you want to be good at pub quizzes…..if you’re that determined in your life. Times have changed; if we’re going to be so hung up on the idea of college education we should be willing to accept this. If we want to prepare young adults for college, then we have to accept this.

Now, now, now…..project maths. How many people claim to be awful at maths? A good many people. Failure rates are high for that reason. Introducing a horribly thought out subject isn’t the solution, I don’t know who exactly proposed the idea of introducing it to fifth years last year but they obviously weren’t using their head….or heart. I’ve never been good at maths, but I worked so that I could stay in the highest class. Then I slacked a bit and got moved to a pass class and forever stopped caring. But I was never bad enough to fail every exam. For those who are excellent at maths, Project Maths keeps them from having a subject they can rely on for points, for those who are bad, forget college! You can’t get in with a fail and you certainly can’t get in if you’ve had to resort to foundation level. I’m one of the lucky guinea pigs attending a pilot school. Last year, 80% of students failed maths in their mocks in my school. This year, we got an exam in OL that we could never be prepared for, worse than the one last year. This concerned mother summarises my thoughts and the anguish inflicted on us and our parents:

“My Daughter is in one of the so-called PILOT schools and sat the higher level Paper yesterday. She was devestated. Having got straight A's in Junior Cert and an A1 in maths in mocks, she was expecting to sail through maths. The pressure of the UNKNOWN was too much. Not having a choice, lack of sample papers, vagueness from Dept, no textbook, inept handouts, all contributed to my daughter nearly having a nervous breakdown. Is there anyone OUT THERE?

I am inarticulate with upset that THEY would subject our kids to this kind of experimentation and all under the guise of PROGRESS.
Parents voice your concern at this carry on.”

Why isn’t anything being done about this? This is a serious problem! Is it a case of pride? You don’t want to look like idiots after introducing this to us, SEC, NCCA? Too full to swallow your pride? I dropped tp foundation on the day after seeing the ordinary paper. Luckily I’m only doing these exams because my parents don’t want me to give up and paid the extra amount to repeat before I got my place in the course I want based on my points from last year, an interview and my portfolio. I’m sorted. I’m writing this from sympathy, concern and frustration for others, not my own bitterness. No, I’m not someone who’s good at rote learning and I certainly don’t think it’s a good way to learn, but this is not the solution! If you want to introduce change make sure it’s a whole reform of the whole god damn thing, or keep it as it is, amirite?

Canard

Ugh its like you've taken all my pent-up anger and written it out perfectly. THANK YOU. These exams are ridiculous, especially this year.

HowAreWe

nothing will be changed at this stage, less people going to college suits the country.

Dwellingdweller

All of this juggling by the SEC has made me realise that people giving out sh*te about how the rote learning system is crap have forgotten how hard the exams are even when you know exactly what's coming up. Obviously the rose tinted glasses are being worn with pride there. Exams are hard enough when you're 50-60% certain of what's going to be on the paper, never mind when you work your ass off to learn a certain topic and it doesn't come up. If the LC is supposed to be more of an exam on work ethic than intelligence, then screwing people over for not learning the most unlikely stuff on the course isn't a very good way to test their 'work ethic'. Do an exam every year where the same stuff comes up without fail, or do an exam every year where the stuff is totally different, but get it out of this horrible middle ground where nobody knows what they're doing. Please.

K_1

HowAreWe wrote: »

nothing will be changed at this stage, less people going to college suits the country.

It supply and demand, there are the same number of places regardless of the difficulty of the exams, its just the points that will chage.

And OP, did you really waste the time writing that out when you have maths and irish on monday?!

mcpaddington

Too much stressing is done over the leaving, you have to remember it's only a level 5 course. Any PLC level 6 course is better than it even if you got 625 points in the leaving.

reznov

Excellent summary of a devastating experience.

reznov

K_1 wrote: »

It supply and demand, there are the same number of places regardless of the difficulty of the exams, its just the points that will chage.

And OP, did you really waste the time writing that out when you have maths and irish on monday?!

Yes because it takes so long to write several paragraphs. :rolleyes:

K_1

Dwellingdweller wrote: »

All of this juggling by the SEC has made me realise that people giving out sh*te about how the rote learning system is crap have forgotten how hard the exams are even when you know exactly what's coming up. Obviously the rose tinted glasses are being worn with pride there. Exams are hard enough when you're 50-60% certain of what's going to be on the paper, never mind when you work your ass off to learn a certain topic and it doesn't come up. If the LC is supposed to be more of an exam on work ethic than intelligence, then screwing people over for not learning the most unlikely stuff on the course isn't a very good way to test their 'work ethic'. Do an exam every year where the same stuff comes up without fail, or do an exam every year where the stuff is totally different, but get it out of this horrible middle ground where nobody knows what they're doing. Please.

There is a prescribed course for each subject, you're supposed to study the course, it's not that hard we have 2 years to do it. If we knew what was coming up then most of the course would be ignored.

If you're insisting on being examined on everything in the course, then the only solution is to have exams that examine every single item on the course. i.e. instead of 1 poet, 8 poets.

The system works, and it's fair. Its not supposed to determine how much you know, it determines where your knowledge is in relation to the other 50000 doing the exam. Hence the bell curve.

Zomg Okay

I think the main problem the SEC have is that we don't learn the course, we learn "the exams" and they want to change that.

For fúck sake, the Leaving Cert. is completely vital to our futures and they want us to put it aside in favour of the course? Get real...

finality

HowAreWe wrote: »

nothing will be changed at this stage, less people going to college suits the country.

But that doesn't make sense, the same amount of people will be going to college as the entry points are determined by the points of the people applying. The points might drop but places will be filled.

Canard

K_1 wrote: »

There is a prescribed course for each subject, you're supposed to study the course, it's not that hard we have 2 years to do it. If we knew what was coming up then most of the course would be ignored.

If you're insisting on being examined on everything in the course, then the only solution is to have exams that examine every single item on the course. i.e. instead of 1 poet, 8 poets.

The system works, and it's fair. Its not supposed to determine how much you know, it determines where your knowledge is in relation to the other 50000 doing the exam. Hence the bell curve.

So you think it makes sense to ignore obvious patterns (which no doubt got thousands of people into college) because its a good idea to cover everything, even when its never been asked and never seems it will be?

With 7 subjects that just isnt doable. No one could be blamed for predicting - I'd bet a lot of people in college right now would not be there had their exams been "less predictable". 8 poets is ridiculous, we covered 6 and thats plenty, there is no need for the volume of information we're expected to know.

Not only that, they went out of their way to make this year hell. Hardly determining how much you know - its just pointing out what you dont know.

reznov

K_1 wrote: »

There is a prescribed course for each subject, you're supposed to study the course, it's not that hard we have 2 years to do it. If we knew what was coming up then most of the course would be ignored.

If you're insisting on being examined on everything in the course, then the only solution is to have exams that examine every single item on the course. i.e. instead of 1 poet, 8 poets.

The system works, and it's fair. Its not supposed to determine how much you know, it determines where your knowledge is in relation to the other 50000 doing the exam. Hence the bell curve.

Ah it doesn't determine how much you know, but tests your knowledge.

reznov

Fact of the matter is, previous years exam papers were piss easy.

My English teacher was shocked about the specificity of questions in the English P2 exam.

Oh well.

K_1

Patchy~ wrote: »

So you think it makes sense to ignore obvious patterns (which no doubt got thousands of people into college) because its a good idea to cover everything, even when its never been asked and never seems it will be?

With 7 subjects that just isnt doable. No one could be blamed for predicting - I'd bet a lot of people in college right now would not be there had their exams been "less predictable". 8 poets is ridiculous, we covered 6 and thats plenty, there is no need for the volume of information we're expected to know.

Not only that, they went out of their way to make this year hell. Hardly determining how much you know - its just pointing out what you dont know.

It makes sense to cover the course if you want to do well. If you don't cover the course, tough sh!t if something comes up that you haven't done.

Take the english for example, had Plath come up, then the people who did one poet would have done as well as those who actually did the work and studied 5 poets. Unpredictability makes the exams fairer.

_LilyRose_

mcpaddington wrote: »

Too much stressing is done over the leaving, you have to remember it's only a level 5 course. Any PLC level 6 course is better than it even if you got 625 points in the leaving.

That's a bit unfair to say in front of all these leaving certs! It's the equivalent to a level 5; an actual level 5 would be handy compared to sitting between 7 and 9 subjects in depth like the leaving cert requires.

Not stressing over it is easier said than done- it does determine your future in that 625, as you said, can get you into a level 8 from which levels 9 and 10 can be achieved. This is better than "any PLC level 6 course" no? So a good leaving, imo, is much better than a plc...

reznov

K_1 wrote: »

It makes sense to cover the course if you want to do well. If you don't cover the course, tough sh!t if something comes up that you haven't done.

Take the english for example, had Plath come up, then the people who did one poet would have done as well as those who actually did the work and studied 5 poets. Unpredictability makes the exams fairer.

Yeah tough **** to those who covered the course and still got caught out.
Numerous of my classmates who were predicted to obtain A1s in Geog have struggled and are fearing that they may not even get an A2.

I'm assuming the exams have thus far have been favourable to you?

Togepi

mcpaddington wrote: »

Too much stressing is done over the leaving, you have to remember it's only a level 5 course. Any PLC level 6 course is better than it even if you got 625 points in the leaving.

What??

I thought there was only a maximum number of points you could get from a PLC.

Epsi

Patchy~ wrote: »

So you think it makes sense to ignore obvious patterns (which no doubt got thousands of people into college) because its a good idea to cover everything, even when its never been asked and never seems it will be?

I'm sure that for the thousands who entered college based on what they predicted coming up on the day of the exam , there were also equally as many people caught out by various questions. In the end I see the leaving cert as a game of rock paper scissors. You'd better hope you have the scissors to that paper on the day , or you'll be smashed by a rock. Whether that makes it an effective system is debatable

Zomg Okay

K_1 wrote: »

It makes sense to cover the course if you want to do well. If you don't cover the course, tough sh!t if something comes up that you haven't done.

Take the english for example, had Plath come up, then the people who did one poet would have done as well as those who actually did the work and studied 5 poets. Unpredictability makes the exams fairer.

But the people who studied 5 poets didn't cover the course either, the course says 8 poets. :rolleyes:

Covering the entire course in 6+ subjects, especially at HL, isn't possible. Or, rather, it is possible. Remembering it all? Nah.

reznov

Zomg Okay wrote: »

But the people who studied 5 poets didn't cover the course either, the course says 8 poets. :rolleyes:

Covering the entire course in 6+ subjects, especially at HL, isn't possible. Or, rather, it is possible. Remembering it all? Nah.

Tough sh!t. :cool:

mcpaddington

Togepi wrote: »

What??

I thought there was only a maximum number of points you could get from a PLC.

I meant in the way that a level 6 or 7 certificate is held in higher esteem than a level 5.

imelle

at the end of the day we all know that 4 poets are gonna come up, so study 5 you have yourself covered. you can get an A1 answer on a poet with 3 poems (i did in my mock)
you may find it unfair you didn't get to write about what you know but would it have been fair if you had only studied Plath, she came up and wrote a better answer than someone else who studied 5 poets because you had 1 in detail? no.
you win some you loose some

nothing

Biscuits. wrote: »

“My Daughter is in one of the so-called PILOT schools and sat the higher level Paper yesterday. She was devestated. Having got straight A's in Junior Cert and an A1 in maths in mocks, she was expecting to sail through maths. The pressure of the UNKNOWN was too much. Not having a choice, lack of sample papers, vagueness from Dept, no textbook, inept handouts, all contributed to my daughter nearly having a nervous breakdown. Is there anyone OUT THERE?

I am inarticulate with upset that THEY would subject our kids to this kind of experimentation and all under the guise of PROGRESS.
Parents voice your concern at this carry on.”

Why isn’t anything being done about this? This is a serious problem! Is it a case of pride? You don’t want to look like idiots after introducing this to us, SEC, NCCA? Too full to swallow your pride? I dropped tp foundation on the day after seeing the ordinary paper. Luckily I’m only doing these exams because my parents don’t want me to give up and paid the extra amount to repeat before I got my place in the course I want based on my points from last year, an interview and my portfolio. I’m sorted. I’m writing this from sympathy, concern and frustration for others, not my own bitterness. No, I’m not someone who’s good at rote learning and I certainly don’t think it’s a good way to learn, but this is not the solution! If you want to introduce change make sure it’s a whole reform of the whole god damn thing, or keep it as it is, amirite?

Just a little thing; there are 3 different text books for the new project maths course (New Concise, Text and Tests and Active Maths... there also might be a 4th), and there are a few example papers online, as well as the entire curriculum. Maths is not a subject that should ever be taught in the rote learning style, and it is certainly not taught in that style in university. In fact the Project Maths course is much better at preparing any student for university maths (or indeed any science based subject as there tends to be at least some maths in each), and for life. It teaches in a way that you have to think logically, and use your knowledge, rather than learning by heart and never understanding.

TBH, the leaving is tough, and especially if your subjects suddenly change and you haven't had the 2 years to do the course (the year I did it they had changed Chemistry and Physics, as well as English, Irish, German and Music all being reasonably new changes, maybe a year or two into the new courses). The thing is, you're being examined on the whole course, which are generally designed to be taught within the 2 year cycle, including time to revise. Exams are not about being able to pick and choose 25% of the course to learn off, they *should* be about having a good understanding of the entire course.

Overall, you have a point, the system is not a great one, it does need a certain amount of reform, but project maths is actually a step in the right direction as far as maths goes. It's not something that would work in many subjects, but it definitely does for maths.

(btw, I'm not a teacher, or an examiner, I have given some grinds in project maths, and I have a degree in maths)

_LilyRose_

imelle wrote: »

you can get an A1 answer on a poet with 3 poems (i did in my mock)

I thought you had to refer to 6?? Are you sure??

imelle

at the end of the day the fact that other years papers were easier makes no difference. there is a bell curve every year that means a certain number must get As,Bs,Cs etc, so the fact the paper was harder means it'll just be marked a little easier!

Cruel Sun

Ruairi Quinn's username on boards= K_1

imelle

_LilyRose_ wrote: »

I thought you had to refer to 6?? Are you sure??

yep it was a Plath essay in the mock and i only wrote about Elm, Black Rook in Rainy Weather and Morning Song. and i only wrote a tiny bit on Morning Song at that. I got 47/50 for it.
We had the chief examiner in and he told us you can get A1 answers with 3 poems.
It's about answering the question and being relevant and quality. not how many you know

Darren.993

At the end of the day the Leaving Cert is though enough as it is. We are expected to do eight subjects within the space of two or so weeks.

Learning an entire course just simply isn't possible. Consider History for example, you have 4 massive books crammed with information. Are you really expected to learn everything off on top of another 6 courses full of information?

I absolutely despise the way the SEC have handled this. People say the Leaving Cert isn't there to catch you out, but that's EXACTLY what they've done this year. People have worked hard and spent hours learning off information on topics that came up every single year just to have them suddenly vanish. Not even teachers, in fact even the books in some cases haven't covered certain topics that have come up in this years exams. I just think it's really unfair that they sprang it on us without a warning.

Obviously change is good, but why do it on the final countdown? These exams mean a lot to so many over the country and people have worked hard for them, just to be caught out by the SEC and their 'experimenting'. :rolleyes:

AnnaKin

_LilyRose_ wrote: »

I thought you had to refer to 6?? Are you sure??

Yeah i've never referred to more than three in an essay, and I got good marks!

imelle

if it's on the syllabus you're meant to know it guys. . just because it never came up before doesn't mean it won't