Who cares about the Leaving Cert?

CavanCrew

Better than the system in the UK, we have a higher rate of students going onto 3rd level education. JS.

Ficheall

CavanCrew wrote: »

Better than the system in the UK, we have a higher rate of students going onto 3rd level education. JS.

Only because our third-level education system is a bit of a joke...

somefeen

Well I didnt do any leaving cert but still managed to get onto a science degree course at age 20 with my D in JC science and a barely relevant FETAC course.
No way was I prepared for university level study so in that regard the LC has its uses. Apart from that I don't see the point tbh.

Owen_S

I care since I got my results today, but one thing I have to say is that the media focus on 'points' is disgusting. The endless education features in the broadsheets around the exams and results are just a gimmick to sell more papers to over-expectant parents, and somehow they buy into it each year.

Do they really think that a story about a grind-school educated student who repeated and then achieved 600 points is going to help? The features focus on developing systems to succeed in a system, neglecting true education and understanding.

CavanCrew

Ficheall wrote: »

Only because our third-level education system is a bit of a joke...

How so?

Eoin247

Ficheall wrote: »

Only because our third-level education system is a bit of a joke...

CavanCrew wrote: »

How so?

Am interested as to why you feel this way too. I always thought that out of the three levels it was run the best in general.

Ficheall

Eoin247 wrote: »

Am interested as to why you feel this way too. I always thought that out of the three levels it was run the best in general.

The best run as a business, yes. This probably isn't the place for the discussion, but third-level education in Ireland seems to be largely like a big vending machine into which you put your money and receive an end-product with a generic "quality certificate" which doesn't really reflect the actual quality of the product. Colleges' aim is to process as many students as possible. Quantity over quality ftw.

randylonghorn

blakfact wrote: »

It's a joke of an exam. None of the material is audited by international standards

How many countries have their final second-level exams audited "by (sic) international standards"?

How were these international standards agreed? By whom?

blakfact wrote: »

and the people who design and implement these exams, aka, overpaid work shy public sector workers, are unaccountable to the other citizens of this country.

In what way should they be accountable? Should those who set the LC exams be publicly named after the results to give parents and students an opportunity to give them feedback? Can you not see the obvious problem that would cause?

blakfact wrote: »

In short when you consider project maths, Union strikes, holidays and everything else associated to the Leaving Cert, the whole thing is a bloody joke.

Actually ... what union strikes?!

blakfact wrote: »

Good luck trying to get into a real University with a Leaving Cert. You think Cambridge and Oxford let people with 600 Irish points into their courses? Think again.

What?

A large number of Irish students each year access universities outside the country, most commonly in the UK for obvious geographical reasons, and including Oxford, Cambridge, Andrews etc.

And how do you define a "real" university? I'm really interested to know tbh!

blakfact wrote: »

What Ireland needs to do, is abolish all state exams, and give the responsibility of exams at the end of school to an internationally recognised body capable of actually designing a proper system. The teachers then simply teach to that system. The public sector does not deserve the ability to actually create their own exams, because they aren't properly audited:mad:

Again, what "internationally recognised body" has been designated and agreed internationally as a standard-setter for end-of-second-level exams? There are many "internationally recognised bodies" in education and training, but none of them fit this profile. Even the International Baccalaureate Organisation, an admirable organisation, does not claim any such thing: it is an international foundation originally set up to provide flexible education for the children of diplomats and others whose high level of international mobility made it difficult for their children to have a consistent educational experience without shoving them into a boarding school for years on end, separated from their parents, and it has developed from there.

There are aspects of the LC system which I would be quite critical of myself, but tbh this just comes across as an unresearched and ill-thought-out rant, I'm afraid.

blakfact wrote: »

The worlds most respected Education systems like Finland and South Korea, outlaw CA for good measure.

Evidence that South Korea has one of the world's most respected education systems, please?

Carson10 wrote: »

The teachers were rubbish tbh and spent most of their time disciplining students from town who were out of control ...

Perhaps the first factor was at least partly determined by the second? If parents took on the responsibility of parents, disciplined their children or better yet, brought them up to be self-disciplined, perhaps fewer teachers would be required to be a combination of policeman and prison warder?

Owen_S wrote: »

I care since I got my results today, but one thing I have to say is that the media focus on 'points' is disgusting. The endless education features in the broadsheets around the exams and results are just a gimmick to sell more papers to over-expectant parents, and somehow they buy into it each year.

Do they really think that a story about a grind-school educated student who repeated and then achieved 600 points is going to help? The features focus on developing systems to succeed in a system, neglecting true education and understanding.

I agree, and I think you've shifted the focus to the bigger problem: the points system and in particular the hysteria which surrounds it. Schools are more and more forced to teach to maximise points (insofar as they can do so) rather than to maximise educational development and attainment.

The big issue however remains to identify a better system than the points system ... and, at the moment, one which doesn't involve huge extra cost, which unfortunately more or less strangles that discussion before it begins.

Miss Lockhart

God OP, what a load of tripe.

Personally I think the LC is simply a means to an end - an attempt to objectively measure academic ability and commitment for colleges and employers. It's not the be all and end all - there are many ways around it - but it serves a purpose. It's not without its faults but plenty of fairly important people/institutions care about it.

Btw, I was accepted to Oxford on the back of my LC results (turned it down as I got my first choice in a different subject area here and also on financial grounds) and was offered post grad study in Cornell, who as it happens, were also interested in my LC and not just my degree.

Good luck and congrats to all the LCs today. Don't give up if you didn't get what you hoped.

partyatmygaff

blakfact wrote: »

It's a joke of an exam. None of the material is audited by international standards, and the people who design and implement these exams, aka, overpaid work shy public sector workers, are unaccountable to the other citizens of this country.

What international standards? Second-level exams only really have one purpose and that is college admission. The exams are of a certain difficulty and both domestic and foreign colleges inspect the exams and set a minimum standard for admission. No international standards exist because they aren't required.

People like to pretend it's important, but the moment you step outside of Ireland, it has little to no meaning. Good luck trying to get into a real University with a Leaving Cert. You think Cambridge and Oxford let people with 600 Irish points into their courses? Think again. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and the Unions know this.

You seem to be completely clueless about the Leaving Cert and college admissions. A huge amount of universities in the world accept the LC as an entry requirement including most of the Top 50 universities in the world.

What Ireland needs to do, is abolish all state exams, and give the responsibility of exams at the end of school to an internationally recognised body capable of actually designing a proper system. The teachers then simply teach to that system. The public sector does not deserve the ability to actually create their own exams, because they aren't properly audited:mad:

No other country in the world needs foreign auditing of their state exams. Our LC/CAO system isn't perfect but it's far better than a lot of other systems.

languagenerd

blakfact wrote: »

It's a joke of an exam. None of the material is audited by international standards, and the people who design and implement these exams, aka, overpaid work shy public sector workers, are unaccountable to the other citizens of this country. In short when you consider project maths, Union strikes, holidays and everything else associated to the Leaving Cert, the whole thing is a bloody joke.

It may be a joke of an exam in your opinion, but not everyone shares that view. It has its flaws (many of them), but that doesn't mean it's not useful - it tests the commitment, endurance and dedication of students, for one thing, and believe it or not, not every subject is just a memory test.

Who would you like to audit it? Most countries don't have "internationally audited" exams, and they get on just fine.
Also, what union strikes and what holidays are specifically associated with the Leaving Certificate?

People like to pretend it's important, but the moment you step outside of Ireland, it has little to no meaning. Good luck trying to get into a real University with a Leaving Cert. You think Cambridge and Oxford let people with 600 Irish points into their courses? Think again. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and the Unions know this.

What are you talking about? It's accepted in practically every Western country. Lots of Irish students get into Cambridge and Oxford (and many other UK universities) on the basis of the L.C. each year and often with a lot less than 600 points. In fact, it's so widely respected internationally that students in an international school in Libya have been sitting it for years (instead of the International Baccalaureat).

And what, pray tell, is a "real university"? Do you think the seven universities in this country are figments of our collective imagination?

What Ireland needs to do, is abolish all state exams, and give the responsibility of exams at the end of school to an internationally recognised body capable of actually designing a proper system. The teachers then simply teach to that system. The public sector does not deserve the ability to actually create their own exams, because they aren't properly audited:mad:

State exams are actually a good way to measure students' aptitude because they are standardised. Continuous assessment could vary wildly from school to school, from region to region. State exams are a least a fair test of each student's ability relative to their peers. While I think the Leaving Cert needs to be tweaked a bit, it definitely doesn't need to be abolished.

BornToKill

blakfact wrote: »

People like to pretend it's important, but the moment you step outside of Ireland, it has little to no meaning.

The International School of Martyrs in Libya reportedly chose the Leaving Cert above the International Baccalaureateand the GCSE systems. So it has meaning outside Ireland.

Cheer up, OP. You'll do grand on the repeats.

csi vegas

My take on it (and I will say now that I haven't actually done the leaving cert) is that it puts the kids under undue immense pressure and the dept. education make like it's the be-all and end-all of life.

What they are looking for is formulae. Robotic repitition in ALL the students papers, answers identical to the next. Any kid who 'deviates' from this set 'menu' will possibly lose many marks - beacause some people don't like to have to spend time thinking...

What they don't tell them that if the points are not enough for their chosen college course that there are community colleges in which to spend one or two years which then lead to direct entry of (usually) a second year programme in mainstream college.

^^^
I'll probably be shot for this...

partyatmygaff

csi vegas wrote: »

What they are looking for is formulae. Robotic repitition in ALL the students papers, answers identical to the next. Any kid who 'deviates' from this set 'menu' will possibly lose many marks - beacause some people don't like to have to spend time thinking...

This all sounds very cliché and befitting of an LC Irish aiste complaining about "fadhbanna an coras oideachas".

In some subjects such as Chemistry or Biology there are only very few correct answers. In those subjects, formulaic answers that stick to the facts are to be expected and at second level are quite reasonable. In other subjects such as English or any of the design/technology subjects, the reality is that there is no strict marking scheme. Stock answers are no longer feasible thanks to the changing question styles and contrary to popular opinion creativity is rewarded in subjects like English. All that the examiners require is that that creativity is expressed in such a way that they can see your technical competency in the language. The same goes for a design subject like Engineering or DCG. Creative ideas are encouraged but they won't get the marks unless they showcase your technical ability in the subject.

What they don't tell them that if the points are not enough for their chosen college course that there are community colleges in which to spend one or two years which then lead to direct entry of (usually) a second year programme in mainstream college.

That's not always the case for everyone. Certain courses, namely Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Law and others have no "back door". It's either the LC or very costly and daunting alternatives like graduate entry.

For a lot of courses, success in the leaving cert isn't an option but an absolute necessity and for people applying to those courses the whole ordeal of the LC is a stressful nightmare.

Star18

I honestly believe there should be more than one way of getting into college, not just the leaving cert as that doesn't suit everybody , others would be better with continuous assessment. They're are plcs many do not have enough courses that you could do. I did the leaving cert twice the first time I made a few mistakes the second I worked very hard and still didn't get what I wanted. Many others who repeated still didn't get what they wanted , whilst some others still did others end up in the same situation and even getting less points.
I once did a webdesign course 6weeks and continuous assessment the results were great in that and I worked hard . I didn't extend it for the full year .
What do people do who have no other way of getting to college if they didn't get the results they wanted a second time?
Do they repeat a 3rd time? when the leaving cert subjects have no relation to anything you will be studying or somehow find a way into a private college or go to the UK/Abroad and find a course there? go on the dole?change career path?

I've researched what they have in the UK they have much more options educational wise. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/QualificationsExplained/index.htm

randylonghorn

csi vegas wrote: »

My take on it (and I will say now that I haven't actually done the leaving cert) is that it puts the kids under undue immense pressure and the dept. education make like it's the be-all and end-all of life.

Actually, I think it's the "points race" which puts on most of the pressure, not DES. But you're right, it has become over-hyped and to a great extent for the wrong reasons.

csi vegas wrote: »

What they are looking for is formulae. Robotic repitition in ALL the students papers, answers identical to the next. Any kid who 'deviates' from this set 'menu' will possibly lose many marks - because some people don't like to have to spend time thinking...

While I wouldn't totally disagree, the pre-eminence of the almighty marking scheme has more to do with efforts to assure consistency and transparency than it does with people not wanting to have to think.

And the biggest pressure group for this type of tight, formulaic but transparent marking system are, it seems to me, the students themselves, even if they're not really aware sometimes of the full consequences / repercussions of what they're seeking.

What really worries me is that the same pressures are starting to come in at third level; and university really has to value and encourage independent thought or, well, it's not a university.

csi vegas wrote: »

What they don't tell them that if the points are not enough for their chosen college course that there are community colleges in which to spend one or two years which then lead to direct entry of (usually) a second year programme in mainstream college.

The 2+2 system so common in the states is much less common here, though, csi ... there definitely have been moves towards offering that kind of alternative model, but it's pretty much in its infancy still. There are a bigger number of alternative courses which will facilitate *admission* to third level; those which offer entry with advanced standing are scarce enough as yet though.

csi vegas

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This all sounds very cliché and befitting of an LC Irish aiste complaining about "fadhbanna an coras oideachas".

A

In some subjects such as Chemistry or Biology there are only very few correct answers. In those subjects, formulaic answers that stick to the facts are to be expected and at second level are quite reasonable. In other subjects such as English or any of the design/technology subjects, the reality is that there is no strict marking scheme. Stock answers are no longer feasible thanks to the changing question styles and contrary to popular opinion creativity is rewarded in subjects like English. All that the examiners require is that that creativity is expressed in such a way that they can see your technical competency in the language. The same goes for a design subject like Engineering or DCG. Creative ideas are encouraged but they won't get the marks unless they showcase your technical ability in the subject.

B

That's not always the case for everyone. Certain courses, namely Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry, Law and others have no "back door". It's either the LC or very costly and daunting alternatives like graduate entry.

For a lot of courses, success in the leaving cert isn't an option but an absolute necessity and for people applying to those courses the whole ordeal of the LC is a stressful nightmare.

A Thanks for clearing that up for me. I understand now.

B I know that for medicine etc how precise the results of all LC subjects must be. Students who aspire to these professions however do have above average intelligence and know fully what is expected of them during preparation and come the sitting. They generally know from childhood what they will study at uni, are aware of their abilities...

...and to agree with you again - students wanting to study I.T./management/marketing/trades/services and countless other diciplines however I believe should be made well informed enough to know that there are (slightly) longer routes towards their goal should they not obtain the full points. Teachers should take some of the pressure off and the dept. education could do with setting up information centres which assist students with automatic entry to non-CAO courses etc.

dyl10

We all just need to sit down and listen to Ken Robinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

csi vegas

randylonghorn wrote: »

Actually, I think it's the "points race" which puts on most of the pressure, not DES. But you're right, it has become over-hyped and to a great extent for the wrong reasons.

While I wouldn't totally disagree, the pre-eminence of the almighty marking scheme has more to do with efforts to assure consistency and transparency than it does with people not wanting to have to think.

And the biggest pressure group for this type of tight, formulaic but transparent marking system are, it seems to me, the students themselves, even if they're not really aware sometimes of the full consequences / repercussions of what they're seeking.

What really worries me is that the same pressures are starting to come in at third level; and university really has to value and encourage independent thought or, well, it's not a university.

The 2+2 system so common in the states is much less common here, though, csi ... there definitely have been moves towards offering that kind of alternative model, but it's pretty much in its infancy still. There are a bigger number of alternative courses which will facilitate *admission* to third level; those which offer entry with advanced standing are scarce enough as yet though.

Agreed. If the current and successive (dare I use that word in the same vein as government) parties are to repair the damage done by their failing strategies they absolutely must go back to basics and hit re-boot at the very heart of fledgling prosperity - education.
And invest, invest, invest in the launch and expansion of new and current further education/PLC/adult education facilities to coincide with national campaigning on these 'extra' options.
But hey, the perfect world, right?

I know that the NDP and The EU part funded one of my local PLC's and I wonder just how much of this funding is now coming from Europe?
The courses on offer were vast, now when I check their web there has been a fair amount of downsizing and when I applied to do another (after a couple of years had passed) the one I had chosen did not go ahead due to low demand - in International Tourism with a language of all things as well as others...makes you wonder, doesn't it?

When I first applied for my PLC course (as a mature student without a LC) I was surprised to learn that not only would I be exempt from having a formal education but also on researching my local I.T. and Uni the same applied. Once you're over 23.

I know 18/19 is a fair way from 23 but for all the thousands of LC kids out there (and no, this is not a radio dedication!) who didn't do so well, repeated, didn't do so well there either, spent 1/2 years in PLC (aged 19/20-21 then), found a local job/went abroad for a working/'gap' year then enrolled in college aged...23, if they were so inclined to persue their dream degree. That's the advice I would give anyway, it's a good option for those who refuse to give up and 23 is still very young, isn't it?

Star18 wrote: »

They're are plcs many do not have enough courses that you could do.

What do people do who have no other way of getting to college if they didn't get the results they wanted a second time?

Do they repeat a 3rd time? when the leaving cert subjects have no relation to anything you will be studying or somehow find a way into a private college or go to the UK/Abroad and find a course there? go on the dole?change career path?

Agree with you there Star. My above theory/option to such people?
It's what I would have considered if I had done the leaving (which I didn't) and not gotten all the points I needed.
By the way (and excuse my ignorance) - repeating the LC: do they have to repeat a whole year of school or can they show up for the relevent subjects?
Or do they re-sit a couple of months later? (I have no clue about procedure).

Seanchai

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So you're saying people with Irish leaving certs can't go to Oxford or Cambridge? You're going to want to rethink that...

Or maybe he's saying that Irish people with good leaving certs wouldn't bother with Oxford or Cambridge when they have Harvard, Georgetown or, if they're really ambitious and want to do their entire degree in something more challenging than mere English, the Sorbonne.

Canard

I just feel like throwing in here (if it hasn't already been said) that students in Libya also sit our exams because they wanted a good, internationally recognized set of exams, so, um, yeah.

retroactive

I was asked for my Junior Certificate results in a recent job interview. While still in shock, I brought it up with a few mates of mine - turns out that Arthur Cox and some of the more noted financial institutions require your Junior Cert results within the first or second selection rounds.

Why is the leaving certificate important? because it is part of your academic history. It provides a part of the mosaic that allows you show potential employers your value.

Sure, you can argue about Ivy league colleges and the value of a post-graduate education, it's been done to death - the FT every year writes about the declining value in MBA's and Law degrees, sparking a flurry of articles and blog posts. But each year the analysis is confined to those courses themselves. The OP asserts that you wont get into oxford on 600 points.. no, you wont. But you stand a chance with 600 points, extra curricular activities, outside courses, sports and charity involvement. Again, an individual set of exams means very little but it is part of an overall picture of a person. A picture that you will carry with you for life.

Da Shins Kelly

I'm still interested to know what a "real" university is and how is it that Ireland doesn't have one??

Namlub

1ZRed wrote: »

I'm not the Leaving Cert's biggest fan but I honestly don't know how to improve it because it's never going to suit everyone whatever way they do it.

What I don't like though is how last year, before the syllabus was changed for a lot of subjects, the exams were marked harder and this year, with a much more revised and slimmed down curriculum, it had been marked less intensively.
I did my leaving last year and I felt a bit cheated because in a lot of regards, the biology, Maths and Irish were less difficult than what they were just a year ago.

That's my only complaint, and I know it has no real relevance in the thread, but I suppose I'm highlighting the inconsistencies of the exams more than anything.

The marking schemes haven't even been published yet so how do you know exams were marked ''less intensively'' this year? And how exactly was biology less difficult than last year?

Blisterman

The Leaving Cert really only tests one skill: How good you are at memorising set answers.

It's not really a measure of intelligence or how hard working you are, and it's not a particularly useful skill in most jobs.

It does worry me, that many kids who aren't good at that end up missing out on a good university place and discouraged from pursuing their chosen career paths, which they may be perfect for. To label kids at a young age as "stupid" or "clever" based on such a flawed premise is horrible.

OneArt

I got accepted into the Ruhr Universitat Bochum based on my Leaving Cert and an extra German proficiency test I had to do. Also, I got a part-time job teaching schoolkids English after school because the Leaving Cert is seen as the equivalent to the German Abitur.

On the other hand, a Belarusian friend of mine was studying in Minsk for a year then moved to Germany. Her secondary school leaving cert wasn't accepted and she had to take a year out to do the German Abitur.

So no, the Leaving Cert is not useless outside of Ireland.

Diapason

Blisterman wrote: »

The Leaving Cert really only tests one skill: How good you are at memorising set answers.

I see this written all the time, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. Maybe things have changed since I did the LC but this was definitely NOT the case for any of the subjects I studied. In fact, this describes college exams far more than the LC for my particular experience.

Some questions merely test knowledge, and that is as it should be. They're certainly a memory test, but that's a crucial part of expertise in any field. No matter what anyone says, you can't memorise your way to 600 points.

Mardy Bum

The bitterness in this thread is outstanding.

Those who did a bad LC prefer to blame the LC rather than more mitigating factors like lifestyle and up bringing, those who didn't go to college get their chance to take a stab at both second and third level in an effort to feel some sense of superiority, mainly arising from jealousy because for the most part the economic system is weighed much more towards highly qualified third level graduates.

Continue on its a barrel of laughs.

partyatmygaff

Blisterman wrote: »

The Leaving Cert really only tests one skill: How good you are at memorising set answers.

It's not really a measure of intelligence or how hard working you are, and it's not a particularly useful skill in most jobs.

It does worry me, that many kids who aren't good at that end up missing out on a good university place and discouraged from pursuing their chosen career paths, which they may be perfect for. To label kids at a young age as "stupid" or "clever" based on such a flawed premise is horrible.

That's a popular opinion and like a lot of popular opinions is flawed.

In the languages, there's no way you can regurgitate set answers. With the changing question styles you absolutely need to be able to create an answer on the fly. For all languages barring English, people do learn set phrases but they do the exact same at third level as well. Learning set phrases and lists of verbs is part of learning a language.

In subjects like history, geography and business you need both a solid grounding in the facts contained in the textbooks and an ability to give an opinion on these facts. Regurgitating a set of facts will get you a pass but it certainly isn't going to get you an A1. Religion is a prime example of a subject that is almost impossible to pass by regurgitating set answers.

As for design/technology subjects like Engineering, Technology or DCG the examiners are looking for both your own ideas and your skills. They look for technical competency and your creativity in the practical element of the courses and in the theory they look for a certain standard of knowledge and creativity as well.

The only subjects that you can get away with regurgitating facts are the sciences. Although things are changing there's a big focus on regurgitating facts. Being honest, having completed the first year of a professional health sciences course I can't say things are that much different. A large proportion of my exams revolved around memorising set facts.

Blisterman

I did my leaving cert 8 years ago, so perhaps things have changed, but I remember at the time, most of our class time was spent learning off set answers for questions they expected to come up. Even in things like English, where you're asked to give your own interpretations.

This was true for english, geography, physics, irish, french and business, six of the seven subjects I did. And even maths was taught more about following a formula rather than any understanding of what you were actually doing. I'd imagine my experience isn't that far off other people's.

paperclip2

blakfact wrote: »

People like to pretend it's important, but the moment you step outside of Ireland, it has little to no meaning. Good luck trying to get into a real University with a Leaving Cert. You think Cambridge and Oxford let people with 600 Irish points into their courses? Think again. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and the Unions know this.

Actually according to their website Cambridge are happy with 500+ points:

Irish Leaving Certificate

Applicants from the Republic of Ireland who are studying towards the Irish Leaving Certificate are eligible to apply. A typical offer for the Irish Leaving Certificate is AAAAA at Higher Level.

http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/apply/requirements/#irish


Meanwhile Oxford will consider applications from people with the minimum grades AAAABB at Higher / Honours level. That adds up to approx 570 points
http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/international_applicants/international_qualifications/index.html

Blisterman

English Universities, particularly Cambridge and Oxford usually consider interviews and personal statements, as well as exam results when offering a place. They also look at what subjects you studied and whether they're relevant to the course.

This does bring its own biases and issues, but I do think it's a fairer way of assessing people and their suitability for a course.

paperclip2

Blisterman wrote: »

English Universities, particularly Cambridge and Oxford usually consider interviews and personal statements, as well as exam results when offering a place. They also look at what subjects you studied and whether they're relevant to the course.

This does bring its own biases and issues, but I do think it's a fairer way of assessing people and their suitability for a course.

True, and I agree that it is a much fairer route, but stating that the LC is not considered by those unis was inaccurate.

Martyn1989

Blisterman wrote: »

English Universities, particularly Cambridge and Oxford usually consider interviews and personal statements, as well as exam results when offering a place. They also look at what subjects you studied and whether they're relevant to the course.

This does bring its own biases and issues, but I do think it's a fairer way of assessing people and their suitability for a course.

For certain courses they have entrance exams too, I know someone who was trying to do a maths course but had difficulty as leaving cert maths is not as advanced as A levels.

I don't understand how people think the leaving cert is no reflection on peoples dedication or work ethic (academically), IMO the only thing it reflects is that.

Ficheall

Blisterman wrote: »

I did my leaving cert 8 years ago, so perhaps things have changed, but I remember at the time, most of our class time was spent learning off set answers for questions they expected to come up. Even in things like English, where you're asked to give your own interpretations.

This was true for english, geography, physics, irish, french and business, six of the seven subjects I did. And even maths was taught more about following a formula rather than any understanding of what you were actually doing. I'd imagine my experience isn't that far off other people's.

I did my LC 9 years ago. We didn't learn off any set answers. In college, however, the done thing was to simply memorise answers to past papers and regurgitate them in the exam, as, more often than not, the questions were simply repeated from year to year. I remember learning proof upon proof (for a certain series of maths modules) where I didn't even know what any of the symbols I was using stood for, or how one line equated to the next.
A ridiculous way to be carrying on, but that's what the college exams set one up for.

Blisterman

Martyn1989 wrote: »

For certain courses they have entrance exams too, I know someone who was trying to do a maths course but had difficulty as leaving cert maths is not as advanced as A levels.

I don't understand how people think the leaving cert is no reflection on peoples dedication or work ethic (academically), IMO the only thing it reflects is that.

I'd have to disagree. Some people can read something once and have it memorised. We all know somebody who didn't study until a week before the leaving cert and got 500 points.

On the other hand, some people have memories like a sieve, and can't even remember their own phone number, so no matter how hard they apply themselves, they're never going to excel.

Ficheall

Blisterman wrote: »

On the other hand, some people have memories like a sieve, and can't even remember their own phone number, so no matter how hard they apply themselves, they're never going to excel.

What jobs would you suggest such people would be good at?

Blisterman

Ficheall wrote: »

What jobs would you suggest such people would be good at?

It really depends on where their skills lie. They could be creative, good with figures, good with people etc.

Not many jobs actually require people to memorise large amounts of information. Particularly nowadays with so much information available at our fingertips.

allibastor

i have seen a good few people who were really good at school do poorly in an exam. I know a few people who would make excellent doctors not do well, as they had a fantastic knack of taking on board information and using it.

i know a few people who did very well in exams, spent every waking hour studying. one lad in particular did very well at our college final exams cause he studied for 10 hours a day, got a job and was sacked within 10 weeks as he was not able to make quick decisive decisions, he needed to be able to read everything to know what was going on.


they exams should be there, yes as it helps to identify who can put work into something, but it should not be a one and all deciding factor. too many people repeat their certs 2-3- times to become a doctor and get it. what doe that say, keep plugging away until you can remember the answers? and yes know it shows you can also work hard, but you don't get three chances at someones life if you are a doctor.

Martyn1989

Blisterman wrote: »

I'd have to disagree. Some people can read something once and have it memorised. We all know somebody who didn't study until a week before the leaving cert and got 500 points.

On the other hand, some people have memories like a sieve, and can't even remember their own phone number, so no matter how hard they apply themselves, they're never going to excel.

Well we all know a person who said they didn't study until the week before the exams, truth is people are always exaggerating how little or how much they actually put into things like the leaving cert and college.

Granted there are people with extremely good memories but these people are few and far between. Even for people who may find it easier to recall information it is not due to lack of effort, they paid attention in their classes, read over it before going in and got their answers right.

I know people who have excelled in both secondary school and college and graduated in the top of their classes but can't remember faces or peoples names or even incidences from a few weeks ago. I know thats just anecdotal but different people retain different information.

Daveysil15

There's plenty of college courses you can do which don't require a leaving cert. I got a diploma in I.T through a home learning course I did a few years ago. In school I only had one I.T class a week with computers so old they could have been in a museum. So I didn't learn much about the one subject I was really interested in, which in turn made the leaving cert a waste of time.

Gbear

The LC doesn't need to be **** in every single way to warrant a review.

Maths was dumbed down a few years ago.
The level of foreign language is atrocious.
There is an awful lot of teaching to the exam (rather than teaching because learning things is generally a good idea) which makes the entire exercise far less useful than it should be.

I'm not going to get much sympathy as a terminally lazy person who got about 30% fewer points than I should have but I'm not sure it's a good idea in general to be putting that much strain on what are ostensibly still children.

Ideally I'd like to see secondary school extend until later. I've been down the road of trying two separate courses in an IT and an NUI both of which I've chucked because I hated them.

I think the whole education system puts too little emphasis on teaching how to think (the standard of critical thinking skills in the general population are awful), useful practical skills (cooking, doing a budget, wiring a plug, driving, that sorta craic) and it makes people make tough decisions too early.

I'd like to see a gradual process of shepherding people towards areas they like. It's easy to see fairly early on how much people like basic things like Maths or if they have an aptitude for languages. As time goes on the choices could be refined further. Rather than having to choose something "out of the blue" I'd hope for a system that results in the course you want by default.

It kinda feels like we're using a dial to find a radio station. Our current system is wildly twisting backwards and forwards on the dial and hoping it'll land on the right station.
I'd prefer a system that slowly tweaks it one way or the other.

I think there's also definitely too strong an emphasis on people going to college. By itself, having a high number of people entering into 3rd level courses is not a good thing. Granted, quite a few people are doing so in what wouldn't have traditionally been college courses (cooking, beauty therapy and so on).

randylonghorn

Gbear wrote: »

The LC doesn't need to be **** in every single way to warrant a review.

Agreed.

People who start threads though claiming it is, and basically throwing out all kinds of ridiculous hyperbole which they can't back up, tend to lose the argument right there and then.

You on the other hand (and others in this thread) have raised interesting points which merit discussion.

For example, there is imo too much teaching to the exam. This though is partly enforced by the points system, and by the pressure it puts on students and at one remove their parents, and in turn the pressures they then put on schools and teachers to focus almost wholly on the exams. The approach taken by grind schools is lauded as ideal, and real schools are under pressure to adopt the same approach. In the more extreme cases, we get the scenario which Blisterman described above: an emphasis on learning off set answers to everything. Luckily, not all schools have capitulated to that extent, but that type of approach certainly has increased in recent years, and unfortunately all too often the pressure is from parents and students to hand out reams of ready-made notes and prepared answers, and if teachers don't do that, or insist students think for themselves, they're accused of not doing their jobs ... this being defined not as teaching but solely as preparing for the exams.

Madam_X

Thinly veiled public sector bashing first post.

I don't think it's an ideal mode of assessment. Actually I think it's pretty crap. But the stuff about it being worthless internationally and non Uxbridge universities not being real unis etc is just fallacy.

MaroonAndGreen

did alright so hoping its worth something :P

ordinary_girl

CavanCrew wrote: »

Better than the system in the UK, we have a higher rate of students going onto 3rd level education. JS.

That probably has more to do with the fact that college fees in the UK (except Scotland) are a lot higher than the ones in Ireland.

lorrieq

It is flawed in ways, but I don't believe in a perfect system. Somebody will always be annoyed and critical, like yourself.

It is not a measure of intelligence, but a measure of certain parts of your intelligence, work rate and of course, memory. This is what employers want right? Somebody who can apply themself to a task put before them, the leaving cert being an example.

But I was told the whole year you get out of it what you put into it. I don't believe this. Many people who worked far harder than me did worse. They deserved more.

I'm lucky to have a great memory. Personally this was very helpful for subjects like biology and geography. Ive just got my results and am happy. I'm keeping an open mind, not a biased one.
However, I don't agree with people who say that the leaving cert is a test of ones memory. Most people who argue this simply just don't apply themselves, with there of course being exceptions. And I feel it's also true to say that the majority of students who have this skill of remembering things also excel in areas such as maths, composition in English etc, which are not so memory based.

Sure, I can see why you're angry. There are imperfections, but also positives. For all we know with a different system it could be the 625 pointers complaining, or maybe even you again.

Quorum

Gbear wrote: »

Maths was dumbed down a few years ago.

TBH, it's been steadily getting dumbed for over 20 years. I did my LC in 2001. I had a booklet of LC Higher Level Maths papers going back to the late 80s. The ones from the late 80s/early 90s were WAY harder than those from 1998, 1999, 2000.

Gbear

Quorum wrote: »

TBH, it's been steadily getting dumbed for over 20 years. I did my LC in 2001. I had a booklet of LC Higher Level Maths papers going back to the late 80s. The ones from the late 80s/early 90s were WAY harder than those from 1998, 1999, 2000.

I just noticed it specifically from about 2 years ago because I knew a few people in that year and they had removed the teaching of calculus from the curriculum.

In 20 years time the entire exam will be reciting your times tables with the aid of your Log Book.:pac:

Quorum

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You seem to be completely clueless about the Leaving Cert and college admissions. A huge amount of universities in the world accept the LC as an entry requirement including most of the Top 50 universities in the world.

If an A-Level A grade is required for a course at a UK university, an A1 at honours level in the relevant LC subject WON'T suffice. The standard just isn't higher enough, an A-Level A grade is more advanced. I can vouch this, having studied biology in college. All the English students had already learned all the first year material for their A-Levels, while the LC students had a lot of new material to learn.