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

UnholyGregor

Unfair? everyone in the country does the EXACT same exam. That the exact opposite of unfair.

English paper 2 was perfectly reasonable, anyone who disputes this is just venting frustration for not doing sufficient work. I did the rich question, i personally was glad it was a more pointed question as it allows you to stand out better from the crowd.

didnt do cao properly? drop to foundation after seeing what you think is a difficult exam?
The irony of your post is painful. Really, the system isnt the problem here......

''our mistakes caused by theirs'' what does that even mean?.....
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Stalin and rugby

Lol Irish tweeps are so emotional. You people don't realize how lucky you are. Ireland is heaven on earth, the leaving cert exam is heaven on earth. In Russia people study school maths day and night for years and still fail. Be grateful tweeps project maths and all that jazz is a piece of cake if you've done even the tiniest amount of work

Monsieur Folie

I have a question for you guys, as you seem more knowledgeable about this than I am. How does this Bell Curve work? Like in the completely impossible and unlikely scenario that say, a huge proportion of people scored very highly and deserved an A, would they mark the lower ones down to fill their quota of A's, B's, C's etc? Or is it only the people on the fence between two grades that they'll throw one way or the other?

Or is it marked like the DAT's, with percentiles rather than percentages? That surely wouldn't make sense either though. I always assumed that you get whatever mark you get and that's your grade for a subject..

Stalin and rugby

I love the system!!! To everyone who hates it

Come at me bro

Cruel Sun

Stalin and rugby wrote: »

Lol Irish tweeps are so emotional. You people don't realize how lucky you are. Ireland is heaven on earth, the leaving cert exam is heaven on earth. In Russia people study school maths day and night for years and still fail. Be grateful tweeps

In Ireland you will end exam.
In Soviet Russia exam will end you.

Stalin and rugby

Martin_94 wrote: »

In Ireland you will end exam.
In Soviet Russia exam will end you.

Lol in Ireland syllabus make exam, In soviet Russia whatever comes up on exam is automatically on syllabus. You complain you fail. end of

leaveiton

I really think people are overreacting a bit to be honest. However, I can only talk for English and maths paper 1 - I don't do geography, or any other subject that was on last week.

English paper 2 was not unfair. It was unfortunate for the people who didn't study enough poets, but it really wasn't anything awful. I personally thought the 70marker GV&V question was very difficult, but the Literary Genre questions seemed perfectly fine to me. I just didn't do them because I hadn't covered LG. That was my own fault, though, I took the risk at having a limited choice.

As I said, I don't do geography so I can't comment on that paper. But if it really was as bad as I'm hearing, then there's really no need for such panic. The marking scheme will be adjusted, and even if people don't do as well as they'd hoped, it's only one exam. Most people here have only a few exams done yet. It's very early to start calling the whole LC this year ridiculous and unfair when a lot of people have only done 4 papers or so.

Also, I'm sure there have been unpredictable and difficult exams in other years too. We just don't realise it because we have a handy book of past papers that we can look at with hindsight. There have been years where things didn't come up that might have been expected to - look at English paper 2 in 2010, or maths paper 1 last year. We're not the first year to ever have a hard or unpredictable paper in anything, and if things continue on this way, we won't be the last. Not to sound harsh, but just get over the papers that you've done, and focus on the next ones. Complaining about the papers isn't going to get you anywhere. Sitting down and focusing on what's left to do, especially if you have in mind that the rest of the papers might be a little odd this year, is.

DepoProvera

randylonghorn wrote: »

Except that people did learn the course much more in the past, before the invasion of the grind school culture in the past decade or so. Of course there was always a focus on the exams, but not to the same extent.

Then you had this rash of grind schools spring up which focussed totally on the exams and on predictions, and cut out large swathes of the course, and gurus who analysed every full stop on every paper for years and said "I predict X, Y and Z will come up this year!" ... and in fairness, the best of them at least were often right because the SEC had become too predictable.

Then students and parents started putting pressure on ordinary schools and teachers to teach the same way, i.e. totally focussed on the exams, and many eventually gave in to the pressure to some extent at least.

So the SEC started noticing this, and have been sending out broad hints for the last ~5 years that they intended to gradually make the papers less predictable ... long before Quinn ever became minister. And each year of the last 2 or 3 certainly there have been some small moves in that direction, and students and teachers complaining that X or Y was unfair because it didn't fit the predictions.

So when are people going to start reading the writing on the wall rather than blissfully ignoring it?

I'll be honest, I didn't think there was anything unfair or horrendous about English PII. I'm sorry for those students who banked heavily on Plath or / and Heaney, and who are upset, but the fact that they didn't come up doesn't make the exam unfair. Nor do I ascribe to the conspiracy theories about how the SEC took note of the predictions and changed the paper, that's not how the paper-setting works, it's a very long-drawn out process which has been going on since well before Christmas. The predictions were wrong, it's that simple.

I won't comment on geography because I don't have the background to do so, but I do acknowledge that many people seem to feel that there were a lot of unexpected twists in that one. That said, I see at least one geography teacher above disagreeing.

Well this has done nothing to impact the effectiveness of so called grind schools. My 'grind school' is one of the minority of schools(so it seems from reading the boards) who cover the ENTIRE course in the likes of English and Maths. So everyone was grand here with the choice of 8 questions in Maths, and most had at least a choice of 2 for poetry.

'Grind schools' who 'teach to the exam' are a myth, at least in my experience. They cover the entire course extensively and THEN make predictions. The only people who got caught out this year were those who made predictions instead of covering the course. To say that 'grind schools' do this is simply untrue.

Btw, the Hamlet questions were predicted on the money

Cruel Sun

leaveiton wrote: »

I personally thought the 70marker GV&V question was very difficult, but the Literary Genre questions seemed perfectly fine to me. I just didn't do them because I hadn't covered LG.

Literary Genre was very difficult, I'm not complaining I answered it well and it'll be marked easy, but in comparison to other years it was very very hard.

delta_bravo

Monsieur Folie wrote: »

I have a question for you guys, as you seem more knowledgeable about this than I am. How does this Bell Curve work? Like in the completely impossible and unlikely scenario that say, a huge proportion of people scored very highly and deserved an A, would they mark the lower ones down to fill their quota of A's, B's, C's etc? Or is it only the people on the fence between two grades that they'll throw one way or the other?

Or is it marked like the DAT's, with percentiles rather than percentages? That surely wouldn't make sense either though. I always assumed that you get whatever mark you get and that's your grade for a subject..

No they don't do percentiles.

Generally 10-13% get A grades. 5% or less usually fail and everyone else is in the middle. Its basically to maintain standards. This generally happens naturally but in some cases if a corrector is seen to be failing too many or giving too many A grades their papers will be given to another marker or they will be asked themselves to recorrect them.

I myself was a victim of this as a student. Some mad corrector gave me 95% in English Paper 2 and 100% in English paper 1 when I viewed my scripts. They were later recorrected and I was given a B1. Its all about keeping the integrity of the process really. I wouldn't worry about it, you will get the score your paper deserves.

leaveiton

Martin_94 wrote: »

Literary Genre was very difficult, I'm not complaining I answered it well and it'll be marked easy, but in comparison to other years it was very very hard.

The question on characters was almost exactly the same as one that came up in 2008.

afc4life

Stalin and rugby wrote: »

Lol Irish tweeps are so emotional. You people don't realize how lucky you are. Ireland is heaven on earth, the leaving cert exam is heaven on earth. In Russia people study school maths day and night for years and still fail. Be grateful tweeps project maths and all that jazz is a piece of cake if you've done even the tiniest amount of work

Trust me project maths isn't easy! this 'tiniest amount of work' is bull****, Im one of the 'lucky' Pilot schools for Paper 1 and that paper was ridiculous! I got a B1 in the mocks and was hoping for the same or an A2 in the real thing, but that paper was completing different to the books, the mocks and the ONE sample paper they gave us! I have worked very hard in maths and that paper really screwed me Id be lucky to get a C (complete contrast to what I was looking for) If I do REALLY well in Paper 2 Ill hopefully scrape a C1 if Im lucky. In my opinion this Projject Maths stuff is bullish!t, dumping it on leaving certs, when really they should slowly introduce it into first year! I know Im being 'pessimistic' but it really could cost me college spot because of project maths, i NEEDED those points and being used as a guinea pig for a poorly thought exam could literally cost me my future!

Thanks you so much SEC.... :rolleyes:

afc4life

Also I think that English was a tough exam but there really is no point complaining if its a hard exam, it will be marked easier! can't comment on geography because I didn't personally do it myself!

I just think Project Maths is a TOTAL farce!

randylonghorn

Martin_94 wrote: »

In Ireland you will end exam.
In Soviet Russia exam will end you.

Stalin and rugby wrote: »

Lol in Ireland syllabus make exam, In soviet Russia whatever comes up on exam is automatically on syllabus. You complain you fail. end of

I hope neither of you are doing history!

Soviet Russia's dead and gone, it's with Joe Stalin in the grave! :pac:

Togepi

randylonghorn wrote: »

Soviet Russia's dead and gone, it's with Joe Stalin in the grave! :pac:

Yeats. <3

finality

Monsieur Folie wrote: »

I have a question for you guys, as you seem more knowledgeable about this than I am. How does this Bell Curve work? Like in the completely impossible and unlikely scenario that say, a huge proportion of people scored very highly and deserved an A, would they mark the lower ones down to fill their quota of A's, B's, C's etc? Or is it only the people on the fence between two grades that they'll throw one way or the other?

Or is it marked like the DAT's, with percentiles rather than percentages? That surely wouldn't make sense either though. I always assumed that you get whatever mark you get and that's your grade for a subject..

The DATs isn't 'marked' with percentiles, you get your actual scores as well as the percentiles you happen to fall into.

Percentiles don't come into the leaving cert at all. If 88% is say, 93rd percentile, it's still an A2, your grade has nothing to do with what percentile you fall into.

The results fall into a bell curve because anything involving large numbers of people will be normally distributed. Heights, weights, test scores... it's just the way it naturally works out, people have natural differences. If too many people fail an exam, that means it was too hard and the marking scheme will be changed to balance things out, but it's never going to be a huge departure from the bell curve because of the way the leaving cert is structured. For example, say 50% fail. The only way that could ever happen would be if the SEC decided to randomly ask a ton of material that wasn't on the syllabus.

So it's basically pretty pointless complaining that an exam is unfair, when the results come out in August I can guarantee there will be effectively the same number of people getting each grade as every other year.

Of course, the way that 2 years of work is tested in only two weeks IS unfair. It is easy for someone to be ill or have something happen in their lives which will affect their performance during those two weeks. The structure is unfair. But the actual material to be covered and exams themselves, are not unfair.

tacofries

K_1 wrote: »

Hence the bell curve.

More like the bellend curve :P

finality

afc4life wrote: »

Trust me project maths isn't easy! this 'tiniest amount of work' is bull****, Im one of the 'lucky' Pilot schools for Paper 1 and that paper was ridiculous! I got a B1 in the mocks and was hoping for the same or an A2 in the real thing, but that paper was completing different to the books, the mocks and the ONE sample paper they gave us! I have worked very hard in maths and that paper really screwed me Id be lucky to get a C (complete contrast to what I was looking for) If I do REALLY well in Paper 2 Ill hopefully scrape a C1 if Im lucky. In my opinion this Projject Maths stuff is bullish!t, dumping it on leaving certs, when really they should slowly introduce it into first year! I know Im being 'pessimistic' but it really could cost me college spot because of project maths, i NEEDED those points and being used as a guinea pig for a poorly thought exam could literally cost me my future!

Thanks you so much SEC.... :rolleyes:

It isn't unfair that the paper was different to what you were used to. That's what maths is about, and an A student should be able to deal with unfamiliar questions. I'm presuming they were all based on the syllabus.

It IS unfair that the pilot schools sit a different exam to the rest of the country, and it is unfair that they shoved project maths at us in fifth year instead of starting with first year. It's unfair that the books hadn't even come out at the start of fifth year and that there's this huge ambiguity about what's on the actual course.

Project maths itself is unfair, but an unpredictable paper is not.

RedTexan

It's logical to suggest maths was going to be corrected easier this year anyway, with arguably all the extra candidates this year, those who would have previously occupied the purgatory between honours and pass, the curve would probably be furthered skewed. So to prevent a mass failure (which may occur due to the extra numbers of lower ability students) it must be corrected easier. By the way I'm a LC student and to be honest I don't think it's ever a walk in the park, buck up and move on.

mcpaddington

finality wrote: »

It isn't unfair that the paper was different to what you were used to. That's what maths is about, and an A student should be able to deal with unfamiliar questions. I'm presuming they were all based on the syllabus.

It IS unfair that the pilot schools sit a different exam to the rest of the country, and it is unfair that they shoved project maths at us in fifth year instead of starting with first year. It's unfair that the books hadn't even come out at the start of fifth year and that there's this huge ambiguity about what's on the actual course.

Project maths itself is unfair, but an unpredictable paper is not.

If you didn't take the project maths paper 1 then you shouldn't talk like that to the students who did it. I would barely count some of the stuff on that paper as maths in the first place.

reznov

Project Maths = Unpredictable paper for Pilot schools. Very few samples available for practice. Such an initiative requires better coordination.

Stalin and rugby

Ventstep

Consider this. What if all students wrote Ordinary papers, and people who want to do Higher level would write it as a second exam?
Points from both papers would be added at the end.
That way if you fail Honours, you still keep your points and get a pass in ordinary. Of course alot would have to be changed to support the new system, but for me it would be much better.

I can't believe people are complaining about not knowing what is going to come up
that's kind of the point of the exam
And complaining that learning off isn't working anymore? Well, good, I'm glad to hear it. Plenty of people complain that it's always just been a memorisation test instead of a thinking test
You take a gamble in only learning off one or two poets or areas of the syllabus, it doesn't pay off - that's not the fault of the SEC and that doesn't make it unfair or illogical

biohaiid

Yeah the systems ****, people have realised that for years, but what can ya do like?
I dont see much wrong with the exams this year.
Iv'e learnt all I'm meant to learn and got on fine.
Basically you learn whats on the syllabus, they can ask whatevers on the syllabus, there ya go.
If there was less time spent complaining about the papers the last few days and more time spent revising maybe people wouldnt feel so crappy.

I dont support the system or anything. I think its completely corrupt and exerts way too much pressure on students.
But like, get over it and get on with it. Positive thinking.

A lot more people in a lot poorer places don;t even get the chance to have an education ...

Bears and Vodka

Ventstep wrote: »

Consider this. What if all students wrote Ordinary papers, and people who want to do Higher level would write it as a second exam?
Points from both papers would be added at the end.
That way if you fail Honours, you still keep your points and get a pass in ordinary. Of course alot would have to be changed to support the new system, but for me it would be much better.

Then everyone will be chancing their arm in Higher Level, feeding off part As and attempt marks knowing that they are safe either way.

reznov

All in all, it's the SECs fault.

This thread may now be closed as a consensus has been reached.

Epsi

Ventstep wrote: »

Consider this. What if all students wrote Ordinary papers, and people who want to do Higher level would write it as a second exam?
Points from both papers would be added at the end.
That way if you fail Honours, you still keep your points and get a pass in ordinary. Of course alot would have to be changed to support the new system, but for me it would be much better.

it would result in a huge gap between students capable of doing higher level and students only sitting the ordinary exam. Making the competition for those aiming for college places more difficult for students who only sat the ordinary paper.

Biscuits.

I learned my five poets, I'm not even talking about those who gambled. I'm talking about an awful contradiction: "we don't want people to predict and only learn one thing....but we don't want rote learning either!". I would consider learning everything on every course for every subject just a bit of a rote learn. But anyway, my reference to the English Paper 2 was about the awfully phrased questions, to assure we hadn't learned essays off, they asked very specific questions that hardly made sense.

Does someone want to explain this to me? I want a satisfactory translation of this question:

"The general vision and viewpoint of a text can be shaped by the reader's attitude to a central character".

Could you write an essay about that, an A1 essay? I doubt it. I'll only believe it when I see it. I've also never seen a question like that before. If you've seen a similar one, by all means post it.

The answers in these Project Maths books are wrong. My otherwise quite good maths teacher taught it horribly. The teachers are as confused as the students.

Also, I'm able to post long rants because I don't have to worry about all this any more :P. I have my college place.

And for me seeing the ordinary paper, I left the exam hall after having a look at the paper, I've used all the resources I could find, I tried to study the whole (VERY LONG) course, especially calculus. Calculus didn't even come up. I spotted my vice principal, she saw me panicking and went back in with me and had me sit the foundation paper.

It's all grand and good if we're marked up because everyone's done ****, but that's going to result in grade inflation eventually. And then some poor ****ers in a couple of years sitting their leaving, will have someone attempting to make questions harder because people were complaining about grade inflation and then exams will be marked easier etc. etc. etc. :P.

Ventstep

subz3r0 wrote: »

Then everyone will be chancing their arm in Higher Level, feeding off part As and attempt marks knowing that they are safe either way.

This is why HL would be made up of hard, real HL questions, like part c's.
I mean, you already got your 60 points from 100% in OL - you dont need the easy questions - you would be fighting for 40 marks from the hardest HL questions.

This is why weaker OL students wouldnt even waste their time HL course, cause they wouldn't be able to answer the hard questions.