Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is this true?
-
11-09-2013 9:52pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
FameHungry wrote: »Okay, so my friend and I were talking about when we got our JC results last year and she was disappointed with her results (expected all A's, got all B's instead). She got History re-checked and actually got an A. But she said that the examiners give out certain amounts of A's, B's, C's etc. and said a teacher told her this.
But I think this is BS some teacher told her to make her feel better for not getting all A's. If that was the case then that means the whole thing is like the f*cking lotto. Has anyone heard anything like this before? I doubt that it is true tbh...
sadly.. you have just discovered the bell curve
so that results do not suddenly rise or decrease any one year the s.e.c will only give out a certain number of grades every year , if the first round of corrections have too many A's they will tighten the marking scheme ,if there are too little A's they will be more lenient with the marking scheme, thats just the way it goes!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I don't believe that idea at all. If you get high points you are somewhat intelligent and will do well in college somewhat proportionately (of course, that's not to say low points means low intelligence by any means), especially if you stick wih what you're good at and don't slack off. I'm so sick of people dismissing high points as "rote-learning/reeling off information", it's such a ridiculous thing to say. You're still learning and being examined, it's not a new way altogether By that logic nobody should graduate from high point courses because the learning styles are "too different". People can adapt how they learn. 0
-
Advertisement
-
-
From what I can gather it's not really about the grades a student gets but more about the level of success on each test.
I mean what if a Geography exam from 2011 had much easier questions than a Geography exam in 2013? That would be unfair for the 2013 students because the 2011 students would probably receive better grades than them. So what the bell curve is used for is to make sure that an A in the 2011 exam is the equivalent to an A in the 2013 exam by adjusting the marking schemes. If you're an A student you'll get an A grade regardless of when you sit the exam, but if you're not, than you won't and that's it?
At least that's how it works from what I can gather?
Doesn't seem so bad to me? 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
the LC is a load of horse sh*t if you ask me,
when it comes to College half of the high markers do trouble in Colleges, because the way School teach and the way students learn its by soaking every bit of detail into their heads, When it comes to something like the LC they are like monkeys spitting every thing out.
But in college the soaking information up like a sponge doesn't work, as you now are facing 50 % class work and 50 % end exam,
or even 100% class work, this is where the hole system comes crashing down on them, the lack of communication work done in schools where now Students are face with problems that a text book can not solve but the ability to think outside the box
and the facts don't lie, Communication, Innovation and Team Work Module or in some places Communication, has the highest amount of fails, in colleges, its one of the highest failing subjects in CIT
I done very poor in my LC, i wasn't LC materiel where i can soak every thing up so when it came to the LC i done very bad, but yet here i am BSc later and seen people with extremely high marks in the LC doing poor in college the ability of "Thinking" lacks in a lot of people.
Hmmm, do you two remember the story of the Blind Man and the Elephant? :pac:I don't believe that idea at all. If you get high points you are somewhat intelligent and will do well in college somewhat proportionately (of course, that's not to say low points means low intelligence by any means), especially if you stick with what you're good at and don't slack off. I'm so sick of people dismissing high points as "rote-learning/reeling off information", it's such a ridiculous thing to say. You're still learning and being examined, it's not a new way altogether By that logic nobody should graduate from high point courses because the learning styles are "too different". People can adapt how they learn.
I think most educators would agree that rote-learning has become much more a feature of students' approach to the LC over the last decade or so, and their expectations of schools and how schools will prepare them.
The emergence of the IoE and the grinds schools and the prevalence of grinds generally is a factor in this, and imho has almost retrofitted how schools do their business, and turned them into exam preparation establishments as well (i.e. grind schools, really) rather than actual schools (i.e. establishments where students are educated, and where while the exams at the end are important, the school sees itself as having a much broader role than exam preparation). Some schools have held the line on this one better than others, but they have to contend with constant pressure to conform from parents and students. The points race itself, and the pressure it puts students under, is of course another factor in this.
The information age, the Google generation, whatever you want to call it, is probably another factor here. Now, I'm writing this on Boards, an online forum, which is a part of that technological and cultural shift, so it should be pretty obvious that I'm not any kind of Neo-Luddite. But just because we use and appreciate many of the aspects of the new technologies of the information age doesn't mean we should blind ourselves to the downsides. One, the way I see it anyway, is that people are more and more attuned to getting all their information and "knowledge" in small, bite-sized chunks off the internet in summary form and without any great depth or, indeed, appreciation that some aspects of that "knowledge" may in fact be hotly contested. How many young people will sit down these days and actually read a book on the American Revolution, for example? ... actually immerse themselves in the detail, in the analysis, in the different theories that may be advanced, and think critically about them and the evidence supporting them and form their own opinion and position on them? For that matter, how many people will look at this post and subconsciously go tl;dr and skip it?
To come back to the point at hand, all of these factors have, I think, encouraged the proliferation and indeed promotion of rote-learning and the "magic fixes" of "good notes" over and above the actual in-depth understanding of material. (Admittedly, some subjects are and have always been more suited to rote learning than others ... I'm talking here more about general overall approach rather than say specific subjects like biology). Just look, as one small example, at the number of pleas for "good notes on X" you will see pop up on this forum!
I agree with Canard that it would be tough enough to get really high marks in most subjects just with rote-learning and unless the student has a reasonable level of intelligence as well. But I would agree with Cork22 too that the present system and emphasis advantages those who are good at rote-learning perhaps more than is healthy, especially as they make the transition to third level. Those who are intelligent, do a reasonable amount of work, and make the effort to understand will always do very well in most subjects. But in the present system, those who are reasonably intelligent and prepared to rote-learn and to cram like hell often do as well ... even better. And fair play to them for their hard work.
But ... the crunch often comes when they transfer to third level. It can be course-dependent to an extent, even at third level some courses lend themselves to and even require a fair bit of factual stuff which is amenable to rote-learning; languages, medicine, etc. But with most courses, analytical ability and critical thinking are much more important than they are at LC level (and so they should be, we're supposed to be educating people and producing people who can think, not parrots!) and the people who relied heavily on rote-learning for LC often struggle a lot with that, while those who underpinned their learning more with understanding the material adapt much better. And indeed, I have often seen people who struggled at LC and scraped into their chosen course find their feet at college and end up doing very well.0
Advertisement