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

partyatmygaff

N64 wrote: »

It would be great If the Irish government could scrap the LC and go for a system of continuous assessment like what some of the Scandinavian states have implemented.

Most of my teachers are totally against the LC system as well so its not just the students.

Continuous assessment is very vague. What exactly do you mean?

Maths for example? All I can see working is splitting the exam in four. One around Christmas and one in June in 5th and 6th year. Something like that would make the course a lot easier but the costs involved are too huge to make it feasible.

GaryIrv93

I don't know why, but it was my gut feeling that this year's Leaving Cert would be changed around entirely, and that the patterns would be completely derailed. I spent the past entire week looking over Maths P1 Q's and notes, and guess what? For all that effort I ended up with getting by far the worst and complicated Paper One I've ever seen, and I'm in OL. Normally I'm alright when it comes to P1, but this one just took me by complete surprise. Call me a drama queen, but I was sitting there, in total shock looking at Friday's Maths paper. The entire thing went sh1te for me - 90% of the whole thing was letters, unlike other years. I didn't even get the 6 questions done, I got about 5 of them done, which all went sh1te for me anyway. I'm fully sure failed that paper, and because of that I'm going to have to get close to top marks in P2, which luckily is also a much easier paper, however I'm worried about it turning out the same way as P1, and I'm dreading having to repeat Maths next year because of how badly it might go. The sheer amount of students whose Leavings are going horribly so far this year isin't even funny. It must have reached a record peak.

I think a whole army of LC students needs to march on the DoE / SEC because seriously, only a few exams have passed, and already countless people are feeling the same way I am at the moment, more than ever. The SEC simply couldn't resist doing what they just did to our Leaving Certs.

randylonghorn

lorrieq wrote: »

Nah, here I'm kidding.

Good ... because I was very tempted to tell you something else!

meesh140 wrote: »

Also another f*ck up is the introduction of bonus points...
There will be a higher failure rate this year because there will be so many students hoping to just pass to get the extra points
The sec are gambling with people's futures
Obviously it's that persons choice what paper they sit, but still it's not a good idea. It's risky

Just for clarity, the SEC have nothing to do with the introduction of bonus points.

The SEC simply run the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert, and provide the results to the CAO.

It was the Minister's bright idea to introduce bonus points, under pressure from employer organisations etc., and the Universities somewhat reluctantly agreed under pressure from him.

Personally, while I have no problem at all with the what they are trying to achieve, I think bonus points are a two-edged sword; I'm not sure they will achieve the original aim to any significant extent, and it would not surprise me if they have some negative effects which the Minister did not foresee.

randylonghorn

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

The sheer amount of students whose Leavings are going horribly so far this year isin't even funny. It must have reached a record peak.

I think a whole army of LC students needs to march on the DoE / SEC because seriously, only a few exams have passed, and already countless people are feeling the same way I am at the moment, more than ever.

Gary, I don't in any way mean to diminish what was obviously an upsetting and confidence-bashing experience with Maths Paper I, but I actually don't get a sense from this forum or in real life that there are more people who feel they did badly or who feel hard done by than any other year. Last year, it was an unexpected twist on one of the HL Maths papers, and there was uproar! ... people up 'til 3 in the morning organising facebook petitions to the SEC (coz they work!); people emailing the SEC, getting their parents to email the SEC; threatening protest marches; threatening to publicly burn their bras ... oh wait, actually, I think that latter might have been wishful thinking on some of the lads' parts! But seriously, there was uproar, much more so than this year, so far anyway.

And in the end, most of those people got on absolutely fine when it came to results. A paper which is generally perceived as difficult will always be marked that bit easier.

The trick is to keep your head, forget about the one which you feel didn't go well (and which may well have gone better than you think) and get on with the rest of them and see what happens.

Best of luck for Paper II!

partyatmygaff

That reminds me... people were saying almost exactly the same thing last year. I distinctly remember myself and other people talking about how the SEC was shaking things up and were moving away from predictable papers. Many of the exams were different from previous years.

As for Maths... nearly the entire LC forum (Myself included) were raging last year after Maths Paper I. If you remember, last year's paper I was such an upset that it made the news.

Long story short, we all survived. The exam was a major upset but when it came to the results we all did a lot better than our performance in the exam would have suggested.

GaryIrv93

randylonghorn wrote: »

Gary, I don't in any way mean to diminish what was obviously an upsetting and confidence-bashing experience with Maths Paper I, but I actually don't get a sense from this forum or in real life that there are more people who feel they did badly or who feel hard done by than any other year. Last year, it was an unexpected twist on one of the HL Maths papers, and there was uproar! ... people up 'til 3 in the morning organising facebook petitions to the SEC (coz they work!); people emailing the SEC, getting their parents to email the SEC; threatening protest marches; threatening to publicly burn their bras ... oh wait, actually, I think that latter might have been wishful thinking on some of the lads' parts! But seriously, there was uproar, much more so than this year, so far anyway.

And in the end, most of those people got on absolutely fine when it came to results. A paper which is generally perceived as difficult will always be marked that bit easier.

The trick is to keep your head, forget about the one which you feel didn't go well (and which may well have gone better than you think) and get on with the rest of them and see what happens.

Best of luck for Paper II!

Thanks Randy for wishing me luck. My belief that this LC was the worst in years may partly have been due to me not being an LC students at the time. Back then I'd ignore almost any news in the media regarding students unhappy with certain papers or what not. Even if i had known about last years so called ''uproar'' against the Maths Paper one, that was HL, not OL like I'm doing and I would also have expected it to be bad for just that year, and back to normal again this year...

Luckily my best subjects are coming up next week, hopefully they'll go my way!

finality

meesh140 wrote: »

This whole project maths thing is a joke...
It really is
I sat my leaving back in 09 and I got an A2 in maths
I then went to college, level 8 in computer studies and maths was a core module, came out of 1st year with 74% and it was not easy
So many are saying that project maths is about logic and preparing students for 3rd level maths, but that is not the reality
This year I'm sitting the leaving again, and because of this project maths crap there is no way in hell I'm gona get that A again, and paper 2 will be my downfall
I am so angry because maths was my favourite subject, this 'experiment' maths course has not only made me hate maths now but my grade thus my points is going to be lower this year
I firmly believe that project maths was the typical Irish lazy way out of a problem
There was never anything wrong with the ordinary level paper
It was very do able
Sad part is there are so many struggling at higher level needing points, there should really be nearly a middle level between higher and ordinary level because the gap is far too big
Also another f*ck up is the introduction of bonus points...
There will be a higher failure rate this year because there will be so many students hoping to just pass to get the extra points
The sec are gambling with people's futures
Obviously it's that persons choice what paper they sit, but still it's not a good idea. It's risky
I can see the arguement that more time is spent working on higher maths, but not if your naturally good at maths? Why get the bonus points then? What's the difference then for someone that's bad at languages but needs honours Irish for teaching? All their time will go into that and no bonus points
Again like I said it is the lazy way out which is so typical of this country at the moment

When I get my maths result in August I really am going to want to wave it in one of the secs faces and say PROJECT MATHS DOESN'T HELP ANYONE
A2 to B2, there's your proof....

Rant over

I don't think the failure rate will be significantly higher this year at all, in fact it's likely to be lower. It's VERY easy to pass the project maths paper from the looks of things. I had a good look through the marking scheme for the mock, and it was generally giving over half the marks for each question for the very basic first few steps. While the mock marking scheme might not be perfect, I would say it's likely to be fairly close to the way the real paper is marked.

Also, the concepts and skills questions are extremely basic, and they're worth 50% of the paper.

The thing is, it's very easy to pass, but at the same time it's also very difficult to get an A. The 75 mark questions seem to be quite hard in general. I'm hoping for an A1 and I have worked very hard at project maths as I find probability and statistics very difficult. I've done all the questions in my book and all the sample papers (some multiple times, I did the 2012 one for the fourth time today) and I think you have to be prepared to put that level of work in if you find the new course difficult. I know the old paper 2 would have suited me much better, but sadly this is the way it is and complaining about it won't get you anywhere.

I'm naturally good at problem solving but I hate rote learning, and honestly project maths has made it so that rote learning is necessary to get a good grade- you have to learn theorems, proofs, derivations, definitions... it's now easier to pass but harder for people with an aptitude for maths to get an A. That's frustrating for me as it's working against me, for example trying to remember the differences between simple random sampling, stratified sampling, cluster sampling...etc. out of context and without even an adequate explanation of the advantages of each type in the book, it's supposed to be easy but I'd honestly prefer one of the most difficult trig questions instead.

PictureFrame

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.

^ Perfect explanation of what is happening to us Leaving Certs. this year. We're under enough pressure as it is with exams, money worries for next year and everything. So what do they do? Make the exams harder. Thanks Irish Government, it's no wonder the emigration rate is so high :rolleyes:. Keep going the way you're going and there might be no one left to do the Leaving Cert. Idiots :mad:

anBoMor

leaveiton wrote: »

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.

Don't know about you, but I had to choose my subjects at 15/16. I had to choose a broad range of subjects because I wasn't sure what I wanted to go on to do, but I still had my top 4 subjects. No matter what, I would have done English, Spanish and History, and I think others would feel the same about their favourite subjects.

Mysteriouschic

I know I felt confident going into the OL paper certain I'd do well. Even the A parts were tricky. And that electric bill I hadn't got a clue what it was asking me specifically. I already failed maths last year but the paper looking back wasn't too bad. This paper seemed worse and the Q6 I don't think I've done a question anything like it and Q8 was horrendous. Functions and first principles my two other questions I could actually do weren't on it. Paper 2 is worse as I'm not always sure what they're asking me. There isn't anyway to know if you are right as they don't have the sample answers online. I had to learn the project maths in one year which hasn't helped. I've spent my weekend practising project maths. I'd hate to think that I could possibly fail a second time and I spent so much effort practising and getting grinds. To think it could be a waste and I could be repeating again . If I fail maths then all I have is my insurance choice in England which I really hope I make the ucas points for. All my other courses I won't get into as they all need at least a pass or c3. I was actually passing paper 1 in all the past papers I've been practising. I probably only got about 2/3 questions and a bit right.

coldwood92

The exams are tough this year

K_1

N64 wrote: »

It would be great If the Irish government could scrap the LC and go for a system of continuous assessment like what some of the Scandinavian states have implemented.

Most of my teachers are totally against the LC system as well so its not just the students.

Half the country seems to have an attitude that if scandinavians are doing it, it must be right. THEY'RE NOT INFALLIBLE! Continuous assessment would encourage 'rte learning' even more, because the amount to be learned would be less at a time, so teachers would teach entirely to remember facts and answers instead of teaching to understand.

Edit: @coldwood92: They're tough every year,it's always easier practice papers not in exam conditions, when we actually do them they seem tougher.

coldwood92

Martin_94 wrote: »

Ruairi Quinn's username on boards= K_1

I doubt hes on boards

coldwood92

Biscuits. wrote: »

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?

Fair play to you you spoke your mnid as as a concerned parent and many other things
fair play to sir/madam

coldwood92

K_1 wrote: »

@coldwood92: They're tough every year,it's always easier practice papers not in exam conditions, when we actually do them they seem tougher.

TOO TRUE

Purple_Delish

Hilarious tears

_LilyRose_

Just out of curiosity, how would a maths paper be graded easier? More attempt marks than usual or something?

Bears and Vodka

_LilyRose_ wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, how would a maths paper be graded easier? More attempt marks than usual or something?

More marks in for the first few steps in the right direction of solving the question I would imagine.

RedTexan

K_1 wrote: »

Half the country seems to have an attitude that if scandinavians are doing it, it must be right. THEY'RE NOT INFALLIBLE! Continuous assessment would encourage 'rte learning' even more, because the amount to be learned would be less at a time, so teachers would teach entirely to remember facts and answers instead of teaching to understand.

Edit: @coldwood92: They're tough every year,it's always easier practice papers not in exam conditions, when we actually do them they seem tougher.

Damn RTÉ learning, capitalist propaganda is all it is

K_1

subz3r0 wrote: »

More marks in for the first few steps in the right direction of solving the question I would imagine.

That, and a normal question is 10,20,20 for a,b,c, if the c part is ridiculous hard it goes to 15,20,15 or even 15,25,10.

biohaiid

K_1 wrote: »

That, and a normal question is 10,20,20 for a,b,c, if the c part is ridiculous hard it goes to 15,20,15 or even 15,25,10.

For pass maths all the marks are headed towards the a and b parts already, as far as I know.

RedTexan

K_1 wrote: »

That, and a normal question is 10,20,20 for a,b,c, if the c part is ridiculous hard it goes to 15,20,15 or even 15,25,10.

That rarely happens, doubt it will happen this year

unreggd

The whole idea of secondary school education in Ireland is a bleedin joke

Forcing people to learn too many subjects they have no interest in, in the most obscure areas, in the worst way possible

ZERO life skills, anything practical has to be done as an extra curricular

I finished school 6 years ago and it still makes me livid

partyatmygaff

unreggd wrote: »

The whole idea of secondary school education in Ireland is a bleedin joke

Forcing people to learn too many subjects they have no interest in

How do you know *everybody* isn't interested by their subjects?

in the most obscure areas, in the worst way possible

There's nothing obscure about any of the subjects on the LC course. It's all very basic.

ZERO life skills, anything practical has to be done as an extra curricular

What are "life skills"? Being able to communicate effectively is an important life skill and that's catered for by English. Being able to work with numbers is catered for by Maths. Moving on to optional subjects, many "life skills" are catered for. An example is someone who wants to learn how to solve problems and design and fabricate solutions. Engineering/DCG/Technology would be perfect for them.

Scarlett Scout

K_1 wrote: »

That, and a normal question is 10,20,20 for a,b,c, if the c part is ridiculous hard it goes to 15,20,15 or even 15,25,10.

For project maths the marking scheme last year was ridiculous 22 marks for one part of a question with 3 marks for the next:rolleyes:

K_1

RedTexan wrote: »

That rarely happens, doubt it will happen this year

HL maths paper 1 last year.

Q1 - 15,15,20 - the b part was too hard.
Q2 - 15,20,15 - c part too hard.
Q3 - 15,15,20 - b too hard
Q4,5 - normal
Q6 - 15,20,15- c too hard
Q7 - 10,25,15 - c too hard
Q8 - 15,25,10 - c too hard

I know last years was exceptionally hard,but thats not ''rarely happens''.

I would say q1 c, q6 c and q8 c will be marked down this year.

Bears and Vodka

unreggd wrote: »

Forcing people to learn too many subjects they have no interest in, in the most obscure areas, in the worst way possible

ZERO life skills, anything practical has to be done as an extra curricular

I chose Economics and Physics and I loved both subjects. In fact, I'm applying for an Economics course purely because I developed such an interest in it while doing Economics in secondary school.

As for being obscure and providing zero life skills, well, the secondary school Economics course is almost the same as the First Year Economics course in Trinity College, so it does have some value.

All depends on your interests and aims for the future. If youre doing Classical Studies and want to be a plumber, then excuse me, what "life skills" did you expect?

RedTexan

K_1 wrote: »

HL maths paper 1 last year.

Q1 - 15,15,20 - the b part was too hard.
Q2 - 15,20,15 - c part too hard.
Q3 - 15,15,20 - b too hard
Q4,5 - normal
Q6 - 15,20,15- c too hard
Q7 - 10,25,15 - c too hard
Q8 - 15,25,10 - c too hard

I know last years was exceptionally hard,but thats not ''rarely happens''.

I would say q1 c, q6 c and q8 c will be marked down this year.

That would make me, didn't get the last part of 1 (c) and the last part of 6 (c). To be honest though I don't think they'll be making too many changes to the norm this year. Unless there's an exceptional high failure rate due to the number of extra candidates, not how difficult the paper was!

unreggd

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How do you know *everybody* isn't interested by their subjects?

I didnt say everybody, but I was speaking in terms of the compulsory subjects, and the minimum amount of subjects you study. The idea of studying 8, but only getting graded on 7 is stupid

The Irish syllabus is a sham. Its all built on the assumption that every student is fluent. It should be taught as a foreign, spoken language.

There's nothing obscure about any of the subjects on the LC course. It's all very basic.

Geography for example, is obsessed with volcanoes and plate tectonics, yet many graduates still have a poor knowledge of populations, cities etc

What are "life skills"? Being able to communicate effectively is an important life skill and that's catered for by English. Being able to work with numbers is catered for by Maths. Moving on to optional subjects, many "life skills" are catered for. An example is someone who wants to learn how to solve problems and design and fabricate solutions. Engineering/DCG/Technology would be perfect for them.

Something that you can use long term in a non-work situation, such as actually speaking a new language, cooking, driving, proper first aid [not the TY crash-course]. English certainly does not cater for strong communication, as the assignments are so restricted, its difficult for the learner to give a proper opinion. and grammar is left in primary school. I remember our higher level irish teacher had to teach the class what verbs and adjectives were before she could teach the same in Irish. More assumptions.

The obvious necessity is Fitness and Nutrition. It should be a staple right through the 6 years of school, again, not just a quick article read from a magazine in Religion/SPHE class.

Yes, but if you want a career in engineering, you'll most likely need a degree, where you'll learn the subject from scratch. I was terrible at maths all through the LC, but passed OL. Then when I studied IT, I studied maths that was relevant to the career, stuff I never did in school, and I learned it much easier.

reznov

The learning of languages in the LC is a joke. Rote memorisation of essays to display what a skilled speaker you are. If you want an A, that is. They should have more realistic requirements instead to encourage people to study them.

Yeah no grammar or technical aspects of English are taught. Once more, mainly rote memorisation which is a paradox in itself.
Only English my teachers have taught me are their own typed essays!