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

imelle

Biscuits. wrote: »

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".

general vision and viewpoint is the author/playwright/director's view on life, ie negative or positive.

if we interpret a character negatively we get a feeling of dark vision of life.
if we like a character because they're nice and do heroic things we'll have an optimistic view of life.
that's the way i'd do it anyway. it's actually quite a nice question..

Ventstep

Epsi wrote: »

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.

I disagree.
People doing only OL would still get the same marks.
People who get A and B in HL would also get the same marks.
I would benefit people who are in the middle, who are too good for OL, but might fail HL. This way they still keep the points they deserve (for being able to do OL) and have a chance to earn extra from HL is they are good enough.

SeanMadd

That would have made a good English Paper 1 essay :pac:

Lago

When talking about a subject like this, it usually comes down to those who are doing poorly say the system is unfair and those doing well say the opposite, so it's hard to be objective here.

However, I will try to make a point. The fact that the whole country was expecting Heaney or Plath to come up in English Paper 2 only for the SEC to leave both off just goes to show that, despite what they claim, they are trying to catch people out. In English over the last two years, my work rate was, at best, below average. In the night and morning before the exam, I crammed Plath, Larkin and Heaney, and not very well. However, I had learned Kavanagh a few weeks before hand by pure chance, because he was the first poet in the textbook. He was the poet I knew best so therefore I was given the tools to write an essay just as good as someone who learned 6 poets. (whether it was as good as them remains to be seen.) Where's the fairness in that?

By playing against predictions and trying to catch people out (which they clearly are) you're not punishing those who predict and cram, you're punishing those who aren't natural geniuses but have put huge effort in all through the course and tried to predict so they could specialise and keep up with those naturally smart.

But sure, who cares if you **** over the individual, as long as the statistics look fine

Wanchor

The reason this never changes is because once everyone is done the leaving cert, they so glad to be finished they don't give a **** about the next poor year to have to go through it and hence the people over it continue on their ways. We need people to take a stand after the leaving cert and show that it is unfair.

Biscuits.

imelle wrote: »

general vision and viewpoint is the author/playwright/director's view on life, ie negative or positive.

if we interpret a character negatively we get a feeling of dark vision of life.
if we like a character because they're nice and do heroic things we'll have an optimistic view of life.
that's the way i'd do it anyway. it's actually quite a nice question..

That's actually how I approached it and wasn't satisfied with it at all.

I've never seen one like it before either. If it's so nice, why don't you try and write about it? It's easy to say it's a nice question if it supports your stance.

Remember it's a comparative essay and you're marked for every comparison you make, you'll have to compare each character. In my texts the characters were quite different. I had an extra text from last year which was on the course this year (Purple Hibiscus) which I had to resort to using.

The texts I learned were Sive, Wurthering Heights and Casablanca. What do Heathcliff, Sive and Rick have in common? I was pointing out more of what made them different from each other.

RedTexan

Biscuits. wrote: »

That's actually how I approached it and wasn't satisfied with it at all.

I've never seen one like it before either. If it's so nice, why don't you try and write about it? It's easy to say it's a nice question if it supports your stance.

Remember it's a comparative essay and you're marked for every comparison you make, you'll have to compare each character. In my texts the characters were quite different. I had an extra text from last year which was on the course this year (Purple Hibiscus) which I had to resort to using.

The texts I learned were Sive, Wurthering Heights and Casablanca. What do Heathcliff, Sive and Rick have in common? I was pointing out more of what made them different from each other.

Yeah that's what I wrote, with Nora (A Doll's House), Justin (The Constant Gardener) and Alec (How Many Miles To Babylon) all showing gallantry in the face of oppression (bodes well for mankind).

Biscuits.

Lago wrote: »

When talking about a subject like this, it usually comes down to those who are doing poorly say the system is unfair and those doing well say the opposite, so it's hard to be objective here.

However, I will try to make a point. The fact that the whole country was expecting Heaney or Plath to come up in English Paper 2 only for the SEC to leave both off just goes to show that, despite what they claim, they are trying to catch people out. In English over the last two years, my work rate was, at best, below average. In the night and morning before the exam, I crammed Plath, Larkin and Heaney, and not very well. However, I had learned Kavanagh a few weeks before hand by pure chance, because he was the first poet in the textbook. He was the poet I knew best so therefore I was given the tools to write an essay just as good as someone who learned 6 poets. (whether it was as good as them remains to be seen.) Where's the fairness in that?

By playing against predictions and trying to catch people out (which they clearly are) you're not punishing those who predict and cram, you're punishing those who aren't natural geniuses but have put huge effort in all through the course and tried to predict so they could specialise and keep up with those naturally smart.

But sure, who cares if you **** over the individual, as long as the statistics look fine

I couldn't agree more with this. Particularly your comment on bias and the individual.

As for bias, I think it's a matter of empathy. I feel very laxed about all this, I even feel I'm doing better than last year, so I'm able to focus on others and my friends and seeing their reactions has really affected me. As I said, my response to all this isn't me complaining because I believe I've done badly. I'm no genius, I'm just good on my feet. I know I tried my hardest too. But I just feel so awful for everyone else right now.

QueenOfLeon

Lago wrote: »

However, I will try to make a point. The fact that the whole country was expecting Heaney or Plath to come up in English Paper 2 only for the SEC to leave both off just goes to show that, despite what they claim, they are trying to catch people out.

There was nothing obvious to point to Plath or Heaney being certainties on the paper. It wasn't like the recession/unemployment which are topical at the moment, and so are usually predicted to be seen on the Irish paper, for example. There is no obvious pattern in the poetry section as they change most of the poets every year, so they can't deliberately catch people out by not sticking to the pattern.

imelle

Biscuits. wrote: »

That's actually how I approached it and wasn't satisfied with it at all.

I've never seen one like it before either. If it's so nice, why don't you try and write about it? It's easy to say it's a nice question if it supports your stance.

Remember it's a comparative essay and you're marked for every comparison you make, you'll have to compare each character. In my texts the characters were quite different. I had an extra text from last year which was on the course this year (Purple Hibiscus) which I had to resort to using.

The texts I learned were Sive, Wurthering Heights and Casablanca. What do Heathcliff, Sive and Rick have in common? I was pointing out more of what made them different from each other.

i'm not going to write an essay on it because i'm finished english, i did the question on literary genre and i'd say had around 23 comparing phrases. my texts were Casablanca, How many miles to Babylon? and Dancing at Lughnasa.
and if you said that they were different that is making a comparison. for example if you were saying family members affected characters that made them appear dark (like Alicia, Alec's mother in How Many Miles to Babylon?), you could compare this with Rick in Casablanca by saying he had no family to affect him negatively or positively.
you don't have to write about what they have in common, acknowledging their differences is making a comparison! so don't be so worried!

RedTexan

Wanchor wrote: »

The reason this never changes is because once everyone is done the leaving cert, they so glad to be finished they don't give a **** about the next poor year to have to go through it and hence the people over it continue on their ways. We need people to take a stand after the leaving cert and show that it is unfair.

You really think that's going to happen? Look the LC for good or bad is here for the foreseeable future, everyone does it and once I finish on the 22th it will be the least of my worries (for a month anyway)

Biscuits.

RedTexan wrote: »

Yeah that's what I wrote, with Nora (A Doll's House), Justin (The Constant Gardener) and Alec (How Many Miles To Babylon) all showing gallantry in the face of oppression (bodes well for mankind).

That's exactly what I had to do! haha

Except I said they buckled under oppression, they all gave into their surroundings and gave up on life and there wasn't much hope in the end for them.

QueenOfLeon

Biscuits. wrote: »

Remember it's a comparative essay and you're marked for every comparison you make, you'll have to compare each character. In my texts the characters were quite different. I had an extra text from last year which was on the course this year (Purple Hibiscus) which I had to resort to using.

The texts I learned were Sive, Wurthering Heights and Casablanca. What do Heathcliff, Sive and Rick have in common? I was pointing out more of what made them different from each other.

Your teacher should probably have put more emphasis on the characters in your stories, if you weren't comfortable with writing about them. Also, you're allowed to compare and contrast afaik, so pointing out differences still count as comparisons.

partyatmygaff

Biscuits. wrote: »

"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.

The above makes no sense. How is ensuring that people do all the work expected of them by trying to go against predictions "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.

Are you translating this from an Irish aiste you prepared? The tone is very similar to my old Irish aistes.

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.

The LC is challenging but tackled right it's not insurmountable. Two years for 6, 7 or even 8 subjects is more than sufficient to thoroughly prepare for the exams.

As for the SEC "messing up" the exams (I.e. not being predictable) they're well within their rights to do so. Relying on predictions for a high stakes exam is nothing short of stupid. I'd never feel "ready" for an exam if all I had prepared was a small section of the course that some random "expert" predicted would come up.

Case in point, this year in college I had an exam where the essay asked had been the exact same (Word for word) for the past seven years. Nearly every single person in my class prepared a top class essay to suit the title. To our great surprise, we had two essay titles on completely different sections of the module. No one could complain because the lecturers explicitly advised us not to rely on predictions.

No system is perfect, but this one is deeply flawed, messy and confused.

Flawed? Yes, in some areas.
Messy and confused? Not really. Credit where credit is due, the "exam experience" is straightforward most of the time considering they have ~60,000 candidates to exam.

They suffer the backlash of the media for their mistakes; we suffer losing pathways into our dreamed futures for our mistakes caused by theirs.

How? If everyone's getting the same paper you're all on a level playing field.

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.

Funny you should mention college. This year, we were told two weeks in advance of an exam that the past papers for the module were more or less worthless as they were changing the style of the paper. It's annoying but we all managed to survive. Seeing as everyone who sat the exam this year were aware well in advance about Project Maths I don't see any reason for complaint.

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.

Without knowledge, what is there for you to critique or analyse? You need knowledge just as much as you do skills.

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).

That's all well and good in a college environment but not very feasible if you expand it state-wide for an exam like the LC. The only exam that I could see would benefit from change is LC English. If they provided everyone with the relevant texts and poetry in the exam (And made the questions a lot more specific) that would discourage people from memorising reams of quotes or entire essays.

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.

Qualified to do what exactly? The Leaving Cert and A-Levels are technically "qualifications" but nowadays with third level education being so prevalent they're insufficient for anything other than unskilled jobs.

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 don't agree with compulsory Irish but there are many good reasons for keeping Maths compulsory.

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!

Speak for yourself. Personally, although I thought differently at the time, even the "useless facts" I learned in the likes of JC History and JC Geography still remain with me to this day. A broad education at secondary level is worth its weight in gold. There's plenty of time in your life to specialise.

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,

As I said before, there is plenty of time to specialise at third level (Ever read the title of a P.hD thesis?). Primary and secondary education should be as broad as is feasibly possible.

unless you want to be good at pub quizzes…..if you’re that determined in your life.

Having a broad knowledgebase is useful for much more than quizzes.

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.

Accept what? You haven't actually specified what "this/that" is.

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.

Lovely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Oh I'm terrible at Maths. I'll just give up on it." is far too common of an attitude and it's the main reason (IMO) for the high failure rate in Maths.

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.

It's not *that* bad. I've looked at the paper that those in the pilot schools had to sit and being honest there's nothing about it that strikes me as over the top difficult.

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!

No and no. For those who are excellent at Maths, an exam like this is trivial. For those who aren't so excellent at Maths, an exam like this isn't any more difficult than the old syllabus.

“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.”

What she's describing is the norm at third-level. Confusion, "the unknown", no textbooks or at best huge textbooks filled with irrelevant information and no sample/past papers.

It's difficult but considering that the marking scheme for the pilot schools will more than likely be slightly more generous it still remains more or less fair.

Darren.993 wrote: »

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.

How does ten exams in two weeks sound? For those moving on to third level, the LC won't be the last difficult, high-stakes exam they'll sit

Learning an entire course just simply isn't possible.

It is possible but unnecessary for most subjects. Take English for example and the infamous seen poetry question. You technically should have studied 8 poets but in reality all you need is 5+. Learning all 8 poets is difficult. Learning just 5 poets on the other hand isn't.

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.

Their fault, not the SEC's. For every few students who cutted corners with their study, there'll be others whose more thorough work will stand to them.

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.

Do you have any concrete examples of that happening? Every single question on a LC exam must come from the subject's syllabus.

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'.

When and how else can they change things? They're taking it very slowly as it is.

Edit: Now that's what I call a massive post...

leaveiton

Biscuits. wrote: »

That's actually how I approached it and wasn't satisfied with it at all.

I've never seen one like it before either. If it's so nice, why don't you try and write about it? It's easy to say it's a nice question if it supports your stance.

Remember it's a comparative essay and you're marked for every comparison you make, you'll have to compare each character. In my texts the characters were quite different. I had an extra text from last year which was on the course this year (Purple Hibiscus) which I had to resort to using.

The texts I learned were Sive, Wurthering Heights and Casablanca. What do Heathcliff, Sive and Rick have in common? I was pointing out more of what made them different from each other.

To be fair, it wasn't the only option on the paper. You had 4 possible essay titles. Pointing out differences still counts as a comparison though, so don't worry about that.

anBoMor

I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that the leaving cert is a good system is getting a paddlin'.
I think we should adapt a system similar to A levels where you do 3/4 subjects in a lot more detail, less nonsense involved and students would enjoy it more.

leaveiton

anBoMor wrote: »

I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that the leaving cert is a good system is getting a paddlin'.
I think we should adapt a system similar to A levels where you do 3/4 subjects in a lot more detail, less nonsense involved and students would enjoy it more.

And they would also pretty much have to know what they want to do at 15, when it's hard enough as it is to have an idea at 17/18.

reznov

I'd prefer to specialise and have wanted to do so after my JC instead of doing 3 subjects which are irrelevant and only serve to consume my time.

Owen_S

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 results for most subjects tend to just naturally create a bell curve(as do a lot of things when you are talking about a lot of people).

The scenario you mentioned is unlikely, but happens to an extent in some subjects. The marks would be 'negatively skewed'(google image search).
Applied maths would be an example of such a subject(most people that take it would have an interest in maths/physics).

Lago

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

There was nothing obvious to point to Plath or Heaney being certainties on the paper. It wasn't like the recession/unemployment which are topical at the moment, and so are usually predicted to be seen on the Irish paper, for example. There is no obvious pattern in the poetry section as they change most of the poets every year, so they can't deliberately catch people out by not sticking to the pattern.

I'm not saying Heaney or Plath were certainties on the paper. I'm just saying that they were the smart prediction to come (most of the country believed either one would come up). And that's just the thing, the smart prediction. People try to use intelligent choice to increase their grade got screwed over so that someone who crammed the night before with that smart prediction doesn't benefit.

Do we really have to say we have an education system that thinks it's better to punish a hard working, organised student to catch out a lazy, cramming student than it is to let the lazy, crammer benefit slightly so that the hard working student gets a deserving grade?

hollingr

Best not to over-think or get upset about exams that have come and passed, or fret over how sh**ty the system is.

It was sh**ty when I did the leaving cert initially 10 years ago, it'll be sh**ty when I do it this year, and in another 10 years it'll be sh**ty too. You are only competing with other people sitting the exact same papers so the injustices will by and large be distributed fairly equally across all those who sit next to you in the many exam halls across the lands.

Concentrate on what you can do from here.. listen to this song, take a few deep breaths, relax, and stop giving a toss about things you cannot change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdb_3H-28dE

Biscuits.

leaveiton wrote: »

To be fair, it wasn't the only option on the paper. You had 4 possible essay titles. Pointing out differences still counts as a comparison though, so don't worry about that.

My English teacher said I would've gotten an A in my mocks essay had I mentioned more similarities. It's much easier to point out differences.

Also, I learned Theme and Issue and GVVP. Neither options were great in GVVP. I don't know much about Literary Genre. I knew Plath wouldn't come up, I just did (but I thought at least Heaney would come up), I knew they'd try and make this unpredictable, so I assumed that maybe they might not even have LG and GVVP up. So my options weren't four essays, but two. The poetry questions were the only decent questions on the exam, the Hamlet questions were also quite narrow (without some manipulation). Last year's paper was much more reasonable, and I'm saying that after I didn't do as well as I could've (I got a C1).

I am not replying to that long-ass quote lol. partyatmygaf obviously misunderstood me on many levels and was quite presumptuous about my own character. Not worth arguing.

RedTexan

Life's unfair, get over it

Dapics

May I add my voice to this argument.

I truly sympathize with those hard workers who have worked for the past year as if there is no tomorrow, who truly put in the effort.

The fact of the matter is that the Leaving cert was a memory contest yet this year and from now on it will be different, I would think this is in a way a good thing but in light of some other aspects not a good thing, for instance I hate seeing a person who studied 4 hours a day for the past year not get their points for their course because of the level of the exams this year.

The problem is the system, The LC is a diabolical shambles that ruins many young bright peoples lives, look at Germany. They are the smartest nation in Europe. Why?? Because they only study 4 subjects.... 4 subjects.... and these subjects are not based on memory, based on actual interest in the subject and intelligence.

The LC is now in a conflict of interests... it is stupid to make the exams this year so hard when the core system is so damn broke. The fact is that the SEC shouldn't have done what they did this year and never should until the LC is gone and thrown in a skip.

I must say I am a person who puts intelligence over hard work. I feel the questions this year actually benefit people who are anayltical in their abilities and have good intuition with regards to subjects.

HOWEVER.

Those people who learn off essays for the past year shouldn't suffer due to this years exams..... the fact is, why do this when the whole system is inherently based on rote learning???? why is Ireland's education system among the worst in Europe??? Because of the foundations of the Leaving Cert.
The SEC shouldn't punish hard workers under this current LC system.... its idiotic and hypocritical.

However to summarize, the change in direction is a good one, it puts intelligence over Rote-learning, yet to change the direction whilst still using this damn LC system is futile.... why go against a system thats the worst in Europe? Why stop rote-learning on a system thats based on rote learning?

I sympathise with those hard workers who are suffering due to this change in direction.
As much as I feel the SEC is moving in the right direction in terms of truly investigating the students abilities by the nature of these exams... to do so under the current LC system is stupid.

Just My opinion, I didn't learn off essays this year, merely had a good background on every aspect of the course, i stand to win from this change in direction, yet ultimately we all stand to lose under this system. Until its fixed we will all suffer.

finality

Biscuits. wrote: »

That's actually how I approached it and wasn't satisfied with it at all.

I've never seen one like it before either. If it's so nice, why don't you try and write about it? It's easy to say it's a nice question if it supports your stance.

Remember it's a comparative essay and you're marked for every comparison you make, you'll have to compare each character. In my texts the characters were quite different. I had an extra text from last year which was on the course this year (Purple Hibiscus) which I had to resort to using.

The texts I learned were Sive, Wurthering Heights and Casablanca. What do Heathcliff, Sive and Rick have in common? I was pointing out more of what made them different from each other.

You don't necessarily have to compare the characters themselves. You compare how your attitude towards the characters affected your perception of the overall general vision and viewpoint.

The part in quotation marks in the question is certainly horrifically phrased and inaccurate. The general vision and viewpoint of a text is shaped by the author, NOT the reader's response. However the clarification underneath makes sense.

I didn't do general vision and viewpoint, but the second question looks perfectly straightforward to me. Badly phrased also, but seems like a fairly standard question?

The literary genre question was specific to characters too, and also had nothing to do with comparing characters between texts.

christmas2012

six hundred and something points to be a vet or a doctor,i think the point system is wrong,it should be based on the subjects you pass that are relevant to become a doctor,ie biology,chemistry etc..thats what it should be based on what good is an a in irish and all subjects that are not relevant to becoming a doctor or a vet?

Canard

The second GV+V was the one I did. Phrased horribly, but it wasnt impossible. Actually, the only problem was the constant need I felt to refer to the question (I assumed the wording being different to previous years warranted some kind of acknowledgement).

The first one just wasnt possible for me though. We didnt do LG and I'm not defending that, I got on fine anyway, but imo it's a bit like asking about Eavan Boland and mythology - it wont fit for everyone and makes for a bad essay biased towards certain poems, or in the case of the comparative, it'll be biased towards certain texts.

Dapics

Patchy~ wrote: »

The second GV+V was the one I did. Phrased horribly, but it wasnt impossible. Actually, the only problem was the constant need I felt to refer to the question (I assumed the wording being different to previous years warranted some kind of acknowledgement).

The first one just wasnt possible for me though. We didnt do LG and I'm not defending that, I got on fine anyway, but imo it's a bit like asking about Eavan Boland and mythology - it wont fit for everyone and makes for a bad essay biased towards certain poems, or in the case of the comparative, it'll be biased towards certain texts.

I'm pretty sure i answered that question properly and constantly hit the marking scheme.... however the state of what i wrote nearly made me cry.... absolute dribble, was rushing and wasn't able to use great expression.
Hopefully though , the GV+V question was answered pretty badly by everyone else and i'l get a good grade in it.
The phrasing for the question was just disgusting, however i sware to god if the examiners allow and correct a pre-prepared essay thats A1 certified that dosen't hit the marking scheme in any way,that dosen't make one bit of reference to the question whatsoever: any way whatsoever i will go mad.

I would hope that the examiners correct it properly... they would want to.

Because any pre-prepared answer that dosen't make one bit of reference to the question should get 0/0.

finality

christmas2012 wrote: »

six hundred and something points to be a vet or a doctor,i think the point system is wrong,it should be based on the subjects you pass that are relevant to become a doctor,ie biology,chemistry etc..thats what it should be based on what good is an a in irish and all subjects that are not relevant to becoming a doctor or a vet?

The points in UCD last year for veterinary medicine were 560. It's possible to get medicine with around 550 with a very good hpat. "Six hundred and something" is a huge exaggeration.

But I agree that relevant subjects should be given more value when applying for college courses, it would make great sense.

Canard

Dapics wrote: »

I'm pretty sure i answered that question properly and constantly hit the marking scheme.... however the state of what i wrote nearly made me cry.... absolute dribble, was rushing and wasn't able to use great expression.
Hopefully though , the GV+V question was answered pretty badly by everyone else and i'l get a good grade in it.
The phrasing for the question was just disgusting, however i sware to god if the examiners allow and correct a pre-prepared essay thats A1 certified that dosen't hit the marking scheme in any way,that dosen't make one bit of reference to the question whatsoever: any way whatsoever i will go mad.

I would hope that the examiners correct it properly... they would want to.

Because any pre-prepared answer that dosen't make one bit of reference to the question should get 0/0.

In fairness the 30/40 one wasnt extremely different to the standard question, I dont think anyone should have been caught out by it unless they were literally planning to regurgitate an essay. Not gonna lie, I was planning that judging by how static the question had been, but it wasnt a shock: aspects? Fine. Emotional response? I never had one, I'm not too emotionally invested in my texts, but with the GV+V being bleak in my texts I just pretended I was left extremely upset. :pac:

I'd say they could tighten up on relevance though, and once purpose falls, everything falls with it.