Is the leaving cert the best way to determine if a student is right for college?

thunderdog

Science in UCD was exactly 270 points when I did my lc 11 years ago. How times have changed.

TallGlass

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're suggesting we identify good scientists by their ability to think like scientists/researchers. That's well and good but you can't be a good scientist without good scientific knowledge and experience.

So confused by this on so many levels. But carry on.

partyatmygaff

TallGlass wrote: »

So confused by this on so many levels. But carry on.

What's confusing you?

You can't easily demonstrate that you have the ability to conduct research through the scientific method if you lack the fundamental knowledge and understanding and experience required.

To use steddyeddy's example, it's difficult if not impossible to critique the evidence supporting the serotonin theory of depression without first knowing and understanding human physiology and at least some basic pharmacology.

steddyeddy, I think you're a biochemist and with so many years in the field, i'm sure doing a literature review with a title like that seems fairly trivial.

Let's leave the life sciences for a moment and go to something that (might) be out of your comfort zone? What if someone asked you to write a literature review on "Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravitation and Dark Energy"? Personally, I know next to nothing about theoretical physics and being given such a specific topic in TP would mean i'd have to teach myself nearly all the fundamentals, hope i've got it right and then critically assess the evidence and theories presented by people who've actually been educated in the field.

Squeedily Spooch

What the LC teaches kids is to basically be average at everything. You should be allowed to concentrate on 2-3 subjects tops in 5th and 6th year. Excel at those instead of wasting time learning dead languages and poetry. Does knowing the ins and outs of higher level English poetry make you better scientist?

One eyed Jack

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

What the LC teaches kids is to basically be average at everything. You should be allowed to concentrate on 2-3 subjects tops in 5th and 6th year. Excel at those instead of wasting time learning dead languages and poetry. Does knowing the ins and outs of higher level English poetry make you better scientist?

It can do, in many cases, such as the social sciences -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_sciences

Even the ability to understand many of those dead languages you speak of can be useful. It's not as if the human brain has a limited capacity, and would it not be better to give students MORE choices after they have completed their secondary education, than effectively pigeon holing them into career choices which they feel might suit them at that stage in their lives, but may not suit them at a later stage should they choose to change careers?

Do we not teach children the basics of reading, writing and mathematics before they even begin school? Why would we seek to restrict human beings natural ability to learn and grow and develop by encouraging them to limit themselves?

You don't have to teach people to become average when you can teach them that they have the ability within themselves to become exceptional in whatever they choose to do.

stealinhorses

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

What the LC teaches kids is to basically be average at everything. You should be allowed to concentrate on 2-3 subjects tops in 5th and 6th year. Excel at those instead of wasting time learning dead languages and poetry. Does knowing the ins and outs of higher level English poetry make you better scientist?

No, but it demonstrates your ability to take on a lot of information, remember it, interpret it and communicate your understanding of it using the written word. I think people here misunderstand what it is to be a scientist. Your life doesn't just consist of endless algebra and creating graphs. You learn all these mathematical and scientific concepts to the point where they become second nature, and upon achieving results in the lab you need to know how to visualise them, interpret them and communicate them. Just like you are taught in LC English and History, rather than in LC Chemistry for example.

Also, people need to understand that not everyone who does the LC plans on going to college. For some people that is the end of the road when it comes to their education, and the state needs to provide a general level of knowledge about the world to the Average Joe. Teaching them how to review scientific literature is pointless, in comparison with making them learn off names of chemical elements.

Inspector Coptoor

sugarman wrote: »

Its terrible, I don't see why its not a continuous assessment system. What's the initiative to do anything up until a few weeks before the junior/leaving? And even at that, it was all about memorising things to repeat as opposed to actually learn anything.

I knew what I wanted to do in college, and I knew what I needed to do to get in from an early stage. To say I done the absolute minimum for leaving cert was an understatement.

I was smart about it, I made sure I got close to maximum marks in my projects and practical subjects as possible, and focused on the exams for which I knew I would do well in. I also dropped a subject I had no interest in and was terrible at anyway, to focus on another. (French for Irish) My course only required 1 or the other.

So to break it down.

I done Engineering, Construction studies, History and English as my higher level subjects.

I got close to Max grades in projects/practicals for engineering/construction/history. So come exam time to get B's I only needed 50% or less on the final exams. And for English it was all about memorising a few poems, a novel, film etc..

Got an A something and 3 B something's there.

Irish and maths were my hardest subjects despite being ordinary level.

There was no easy way around maths, could only learn formula's.

Irish, much like English was just leaning off a few poems and vocab, memorising a few stories etc.. But I always had a difficult time with languages. Done poorly on the oral, and only OK on the listening.

Here I barely got what I needed and was quite lucky. ( C in both)

But point I'm trying to make is, with planning it can be all sussed out and you can come out having not really learned a thing.

It should be similar to the states, where its year on year continuous assessment. If you don't put the work in, you fail the year and have to repeat it. It would quickly get a lot of people in gear in no time.

As for college requirements, it should be based on individual cases and with interviews I reckon. As already mentioned, someone who might be bad at languages like myself but excellent at a science or engineering subject etc and can't get in is a little mental.

The states??

Where SAT scores & 200,000 dollar a year Ivy League colleges reign supreme?

Are you telling me you "learned" nothing from doing all those subjects for your LC at all?

Part of the problem here is the cynicism of people in general & the "it should all be continuous assessment" brigade.
What are they basing this idea on?
Research?
Sound bites from Ruair Quinn?
Personal experience with a sample size of n=1?
It's absolute bull shïtę

I'll have some job in January & February facilitating the continuous assessment of 2 groups of students with a CA project.
In the same way a 3 hour terminal exam is not 1 size fits all, neither is CA and people need to realise that.

The current model isn't perfect but it's not the steaming pile of crap a lot of you are making it out to be either.

Paddy Cow

Pherekydes wrote: »

No, you don't. Apply as a mature student. No one asks about languages, or the leaving.

You have to be 23 to apply as a mature student. That's not very helpful to an 18 yr old who might be good at maths and science but rubbish at languages.

looking_around

Paddy Cow wrote: »

You have to be 23 to apply as a mature student. That's not very helpful to an 18 yr old who might be good at maths and science but rubbish at languages.

well there are other options, like fetac, the UK(VEC does cover studying in the UK, ontop of that currently, health studies uni fees are covered by the NHS).

It's not like there's only one entry, one chance and if you blow it, you're fcuked. One can also repeat the leaving cert, putting more focus into the subjects they struggled at.

__
I'm not saying I agree with L.C, from my own experience, it's an insane amount of pressure and stress. I would've preferred continuous assessment, but it is what it is. And there are opportunities.

CelticRambler

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I dunno, I do think we should have a similar setup to the UK with school -> college -> uni though so people get a better idea of what they actually want to do in life and what courses they need to do to work towards it.

Beware of the faraway hills looking greener. That system in the UK has led to the creation of more mickey-mouse universities and university degrees than any where else. Also ...

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

You should be allowed to concentrate on 2-3 subjects tops in 5th and 6th year. Excel at those instead of wasting time learning dead languages and poetry.

... that's pretty much the way it is in the UK: most teenagers take 3 A-levels that closely match their third-level plans. And guess what? A the age of 18/19, thousands of them still don't really know what they want to do and they're stuffed when they get to uni and realise that actually they would have been better off doing History&French because they put all their time into studying Biology, Chemistry and Maths.

We had A-level students in our class in uni. Yes, they had an 'academic' advantage over us Leaving Cert time-wasters. That advatage lasted about one trimester, by the end of which the level at which we were studying was so much higher than even the 'in-depth' A-level standard that it didn't matter. What was obvious, though, was that the Leaving Cert students were way out in front in terms of general (universal ) knowledge and able to incorporate that wider knowledge into ... yep, you've guessed it: our scientific discipline.

TheBegotten wrote: »

The Leaving Cert is a good way to determine if someone is right for further education in general. As was drilled into me during my months of study leading up to June, the LC rewards hard work and initiative far more than it rewards intelligence or bent towards a particular subject. The CAO points system is based on demand; irrespective of a course's perceived difficulty or the intelligence expected of the students.

I filled in my CAO form nearly thirty years ago, with guidance counsellors and the CAO warning students to put their course choices down in the order of their preference Last year, the first of my children chose to opt out of his local system and fill in the CAO form, and I heard a guy on the radio giving out that same message. A whole generation later: are the Mammies of Ireland are still telling their children to put Pharmacy in Trinity or Veterinary in UCD at the top of the list? Yeah, it seems they are. That's not a 'Leaving Cert' problem.

FrStone

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

They have a good system and a good attitude to education. And because of that they produce good teachers and it's a respected profession. Good teachers make good students, and it's cyclical, but the Scandinavian countries are pretty unique in all sorts of ways.

No, I think the UK is a mess. But, there are some woeful excuses for teachers out there that don't understand the math or science etc. that they're teaching. Your attitude seems to be to ignore that fact completely, there should be some recourse there, but not inspectors, no.
That an educator should pass a test and have concepts involved in the subjects they teach. I don't think that should be too much to ask, maybe every 2 or 3 years even. No standard questions but to give account for whatever is in their area, with room for appeal and everything else. I think a good few would struggle. How is my suggestion?

I have to apologise, your suggestion is probably one of the best I've heard in awhile.

playedalive

As somebody who has somewhat recently finished in the Education system (did my LC in 2009), I felt the LC did not determine well whether I was cut out for college. I was always very good at languages in school (my top subjects), teachers and families strongly encouraged me to study these subjects in college, but the gap between Secondary and University was huge. Especially going into second/third year. I wasn't expecting that, to do well and engage with the course, I needed to strongly understand literary theory and to know how to write essays. To give you context, I went to an all boys school and my classmates hated English. My teacher just basically forcefed us essays to rehash in the exam. As a result, I had no understanding of writing an essay going to college and what was expected of me.

Granted, I got through the system ok. I have a degree in languages (with a high emphasis on literature, which wasn't my strong point in school). But rote learning in school really did not help me and it did not teach me how to think for myself.

Funnily enough, I work in the French Secondary school system as a classroom assistant. It is hard encouraging students at times to critically think about things. But the teachers do try with studying movies in English to get their critical juices going. Makes the language relevant to them.

In a way, I'd recommend elements of the French system for Leaving Cert (Bacalauréat). Students study a wide range of subjects but their stronger subjects are weighed higher (by coefficients). If students, say for example, like Science. They can do the Scientific Option in school and have a higher concentration on their LC in the sciences or maths. They have a greater percentage of their 'CAO points' as a result of their stronger subjects, yet at the same time, they still study Literature, Languages but to a lower concentration. They get a general Education but they can work to their strengths. Ireland is too small and parochial in nature to adopt a 'continuous assessment' method. Weighing stronger subjects for CAO points (by consultation with the student, teachers...) would make things a lot easier.

MRnotlob606

The Finnish education system is something we should aspired to. No points crap like a ****ing Mario cart game.A lot more egalitarian and empowering system than what we have got in Ireland.

Tin Foil Hat

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science. Therefore according to our college entry testing system you wouldn't make a good scientist. F%$ off.

You might think if it aint broke then why fix it? Well I think it is broke. The proof in the pudding is performance. As the points for science has risen we should expect to see an increase in test scores in science? We don't in fact what we get is students who are good at learning facts. The real evidence is in the science 4th year project. You basically have to find something out. E.G some students might have to determine the serotonin levels in certain cells for example. This project involves creativity, thinking outside the box and the application of facts. This is were many brilliant leaving cert students fail the module.

The leaving cert doesn't correctly match a student's talents to the correct course IMHO. This isn't just the case for science IMHO. It applies to all disciplines.

The leaving cert puts too much pressure on students to learn irrelevant facts and develop irrelevant skills IMHO.

The leaving cert is fine. The points system is bullsh1t.

Deenie123

Yeah OP I think you're conflating the LC and the CAO.

Nothing much wrong with the leaving cert. The very best thing it has going for it is anonymity. Every other method is either subjective or open to abuse (other people writing entrance essays and so on).

Here's a better idea: Science (for example, seeing as the OP used it) requiring for matriculation purposes a minimum of a B2 in the first science subject and a C2 in a further science subject, plus a minimum of a C3 in maths - all at higher level. For competition for places purposes, science subjects (incl. maths, applied maths and geography) are weighted twice as heavily as non-science subjects for points calculation.
Each course on offer through the CAO decides their matriculation requirements and submits them to the CAO. They also decide their subject weightings. Another example would be someone deciding to study German and History. German, History and English might get double weighting (and before the gaelfacists get upset, university essays are written through English so a good standard of written English ought to be required).

So a student may have different points depending on which course they apply to. A student who applies for Science as one option and German and History as another option, may have sat higher level exams in English (B3 - 75), German (B3 - 75), Maths (C2 - 65 + 25), Physics (A2 - 90), Biology (A1 - 100) and History (B1 - 85), and an ordinary level Irish exam (B1 - 45).

Their points for science might look like:

English - 75
German - 75
Maths - (90x2) - 180
Physics - (90x2) - 180
Biology - (100x2) - 200
History - 85
Total - 795 points

Whereas their points for German and History might look like:

English - (75x2) = 150
German - (75 x 2) = 150
Maths - 90
Physics - 90
Biology - 100
History - (85x2) = 170
Total - 750 points

It would pretty much ensure that a good student who does well in subjects relevant to their college choice will not be outgunned in the points race by someone who gets high points in a load of (potentially "easy-points") subjects that have no relevance to their chosen college course.

Sure, it'd require a little bit extra effort on the CAO's behalf but I think it would solve a lot of the gripes that people have with the current Leaving Cert - CAO points combination that's used to determine college entry.

Capt'n Midnight

Leaving Cert isn't fair.

But it's the fairest thing we have. Even with the interviews for medicine you still need to show basic competence.

If you are a thicko can still buy your way into the College of Surgeons


Also one reason why LC isn't a good predictor is that for the sciences the level of maths people have is abysmal. A lot of first year is spent re-learning stuff students should already have known before being admitted on the course.

the old Matriculation was another exam to give students a second bite of the cherry if they fluffed the LC on the day


Perhaps we should have a thunderdome system ??


Then again the entry requirements for Mature Students are relaxed if you can show you've a bit of cop on so while the LC is flawed I have yet to see a more practical approach.

CelticRambler

Deenie123 wrote: »

Sure, it'd require a little bit extra effort on the CAO's behalf but I think it would solve a lot of the gripes that people have with the current Leaving Cert - CAO points combination that's used to determine college entry.

Very little effort, in fact, as that's already the way they evaluate scores from the French Bac (and probably other exams).

As playedalive has made a case for the French system, and others are talking about continuous assessment, I'd like to point out that the French system has all the flaws that people cite in arguing for change to the LC. My son "negotiated" a 100% score in English with his prof (basically along the lines of "I'll stop interrupting the class and arguing with you over every contentious word or prononciation if you give me 100% and let me get on with my maths homework") Do I care? No, because it was only "English as a second language" so pretty basic.

As for French, however, well that's taught in the same way as LC Irish/English and my son had absolutely no interest in critical analysis of the works of Molière and other dead people. Having taken the "Scientific" stream, he dropped French in his second-last year (the Bac exam is split over two years) having barely scraped a pass. Come the CAO application, that score was too low to be considered as "another language" ... so this fluent French speaker had to fall back on his (good) German marks to get a place in UCD.

Meanwhile, his girlfriend of the time had finally made up her mind that she wanted to do computer graphics. She's great at Art and knows her way around the Minecraft landscape, but she took the Bac "L" (emphasis on literature) which sees those students drop Maths the same way my son dropped French. Computer anything with the equivalent of Junior Cert pass maths? Not gonna happen, and it didn't.

There are very few children who, at the age of 14-15-16 have had enough time and exposure to the real world of work to be able to make a good decision about a third level course, and too many of them think that they'll be inspired when they get to uni. The government - and the schools - should put way more emphasis on delivering good career guidance. They should also make time out/gap years much more normal and socially acceptable. As it is, a lot of 18-19 year olds are using 1st Yr in uni as their 'gap year' which is a huge waste of resources, and unnecessarily raises the points required through Mammy's Boys (and Girls) applying for and taking places on courses that never inspired them.

looking_around

CelticRambler wrote: »

As it is, a lot of 18-19 year olds are using 1st Yr in uni as their 'gap year' which is a huge waste of resources, and unnecessarily raises the points required through Mammy's Boys (and Girls) applying for and taking places on courses that never inspired them.

This, is very true, gap years should be encouraged, fetac thats a bit more uni level. (as it stands, fetac courses can be very disappointing for anyone wanting to get experience in a subject.

Maybe make the 1st year of uni, more rounded and less specific. Like changing the application from say, all the types of nursing you could choose, to just "first year medical". Students can then focus on which division they want the year later or 2 later.

So more general, ladder roots (I understand IT's have this somewhat, I think uni's should too). This way, students (hopefully), are less likely to drop out just to restart another 4 year course.

Perhaps more emphasis on fetac courses, and less on uni, for leaving students, why the rush to uni anyway?

Magnate

I don't see the issue with CAO at all.

The leaving cert may be flawed and inadequate preparation for college however it is fair, and it does reward hard work equally as much as natural ability.

Say for example a student wants to study science in college and is good at science-y subjects.

They can study

Maths
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Agricultural Science

That's close to 525 points in the bag in subjects which they probably have a great aptitude for. Now lets say they have to study english and irish too. They can either put a bit of effort into them and improve, or drop to ordinary level and study more than 6 subjects.

If they were so inclined they could do pure rote learning subjects which require only effort (eg. business) and pick up the points that way.

It's a good determination of a person's work ethic at the very least.

FrStone

Magnate wrote: »

I don't see the issue with CAO at all.

The leaving cert may be flawed and inadequate preparation for college however it is fair, and it does reward hard work equally as much as natural ability.

Say for example a student wants to study science in college and is good at science-y subjects.

They can study

Maths
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Agricultural Science

That's close to 525 points in the bag in subjects which they probably have a great aptitude for. Now lets say they have to study english and irish too. They can either put a bit of effort into them and improve, or drop to ordinary level and study more than 6 subjects.

If they were so inclined they could do pure rote learning subjects which require only effort (eg. business) and pick up the points that way.

It's a good determination of a person's work ethic at the very least.

You've hit the nail on the head. If you want to do something sciencey you have a huge range of subjects available to you, that often complement each other. It's similar enough if you wanted to do architecture, you can focus on;

Technical Drawing (or whatever fancy name they put on it now
Physics
Art
Maths.

If you have an aptitude for it that's close to 425 points in the bag.

The Leaving Cert is there to educate every one, including those who will never again enter formal education, so it makes sense that we learn a broad range of subjects. Anyway a broad education creates more rounded individuals, who realise there is more to life than the subset of a subject they decide to study at third level.

TheBegotten

TheBegotten wrote: »

The Leaving Cert is a good way to determine if someone is right for further education in general. .....

It actually works pretty well, as long as people know what they want.......

How many CAO applicants really know what they want to do though? I will fully admit to being personally biased against the Leaving Cert system due to my own experiences; I did my Leaving Cert as a hopelessly naive 17 year old who didn't have a clue what he wanted from life. Got close to 600 points (at a school with very little tradition of further academic progression) by pretty much rote learning everything. I got accolades (even got a scholarship!) and a sense that I was somehow cleverer than average. 4 years later I had a 2.2 degree that came after a lot of sleepless nights, self hatred and intense regret. I found myself gone from being a star pupil to one of life's losers - every "we require a 2.1 or higher" job advertisement was like a punch to the face. I felt like a total failure, even after getting a Masters (which was also an intense struggle)

A lot of Leaving Cert students don't know where their strengths lie or what they want from life. To put them through an intense supply-and-demand system that demands a lot of work, for a "reward" that may turn out to not suit them at all, seems kind of cruel. Once again, I reiterate that I have my own personal and entirely not-objective reasons for bitterness towards the Leaving Cert system, but I think that steddyeddy (even if he does tend to put science on a pedestal over all other disciplines) does have a point that the Leaving Cert doesn't necessarily determine if a student is right for the huge commitment that signing up to third level involves.

eternal

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is it fair. Someone who's better at science could be crap at two other non science related subjects and miss out on science. Getting an A in chemistry does not make you a great chemist.

Basically it's a memory test.

Chemistry is the LC includes equations and what not, it is not a memory based exam.

DEFTLEFTHAND

eternal wrote: »

Chemistry is the LC includes equations and what not, it is not a memory based exam.

Even some of the Arts subjects like History while requiring the candidate to recall facts and dates also looks for opinion and understanding of what they're reciting, it's the difference between an A and a B grade.

eternal

English definitely isn't memory based as it is interpretive and Art also, how can you learn off how to draw? Maths is something you have to do practically, there is no way you can learn off a Maths exam. What about the Aurals and Oral tests, nobody knows what is coming up and you have to listen and speak in a different language which is, one again, interpretive. It's cognitive and the reason there is a LC is to whittle down the people early on in society who are willing to learn and reform in some way. Then you have PLC courses for those who did not have the ability in school and they still get into university. You can always learn a trade if you aren't academic. Stuff like catering which allows creativity for those who did not have the means to become doctors and what not. We are all different people but exams have to start somewhere and when people tell me they couldn't even manage a LC I wonder as to where this person will end up. I suppose someone has to clean the streets and sell fags in shops.

looking_around

eternal wrote: »

English definitely isn't memory based as it is interpretive and Art also, how can you learn off how to draw? Maths is something you have to do practically, there is no way you can learn off a Maths exam. What about the Aurals and Oral tests, nobody knows what is coming up and you have to listen and speak in a different language which is, one again, interpretive. It's cognitive and the reason there is a LC is to whittle down the people early on in society who are willing to learn and reform in some way. Then you have PLC courses for those who did not have the ability in school and they still get into university. You can always learn a trade if you aren't academic. Stuff like catering which allows creativity for those who did not have the means to become doctors and what not. We are all different people but exams have to start somewhere and when people tell me they couldn't even manage a LC I wonder as to where this person will end up. I suppose someone has to clean the streets and sell fags in shops.

Oral exam IS rote learning.
At least for german, yo learn various scenes off, one of which the examiner will ask.

You also learn off all the questions the examiner could ask.

You don't really learn how to answer, just what to answer.
_______

maths too, I remember helping people struggle greatly with maths, because the teacher would think "learning the method" = "understanding the method".

Students who would spend hours writing out these steps, with no understanding as to WHY they are doing it. I would try and then show them why. Once you understand what's going on, maths is a blast. But too many teachers cannot teach.

This is the real issue of course. Too many teachers can't teach.

Deenie123

looking_around wrote: »

maths too, I remember helping people struggle greatly with maths, because the teacher would think "learning the method" = "understanding the method".

Students who would spend hours writing out these steps, with no understanding as to WHY they are doing it. I would try and then show them why. Once you understand what's going on, maths is a blast. But too many teachers cannot teach.

This is the real issue of course. Too many teachers can't teach.

That's not a problem with the leaving cert, that's a problem with the teaching methods used.

When you look at what it takes to get an A1 in any leaving cert higher level paper, I'm sorry but it's not all rote learning. You just won't get the A1 if you're going to rely on rote learning, there has to actually be quite a bit of understanding and ability to apply knowledge. Hey and guess what? Real life has rote learning in it, too. Sometimes you just have to learn off certain things. Does a doctor learn how to synthesize a drug to treat a specific infection, or do they just learn off which drug is appropriate for which type of infection?

The leaving cert isn't bad. There are some problems with how college applications are handled, and many problems with how subjects are taught (problems mostly related to certain under-qualified teachers who don't understand the subject themselves), but regarding the syllabus I think it's fair. I'd ideally like to see repeat sittings made available at the end of August for those who fail an exam (similar to college students) where the result is capped at a pass. But I've yet to see a wholly better system that is flawless or fairer than an entirely anonymous procedure.

looking_around

Deenie123 wrote: »

That's not a problem with the leaving cert, that's a problem with the teaching methods used.

When you look at what it takes to get an A1 in any leaving cert higher level paper, I'm sorry but it's not all rote learning. You just won't get the A1 if you're going to rely on rote learning, there has to actually be quite a bit of understanding and ability to apply knowledge. Hey and guess what? Real life has rote learning in it, too. Sometimes you just have to learn off certain things. Does a doctor learn how to synthesize a drug to treat a specific infection, or do they just learn off which drug is appropriate for which type of infection?

The leaving cert isn't bad. There are some problems with how college applications are handled, and many problems with how subjects are taught (problems mostly related to certain under-qualified teachers who don't understand the subject themselves), but regarding the syllabus I think it's fair. I'd ideally like to see repeat sittings made available at the end of August for those who fail an exam (similar to college students) where the result is capped at a pass. But I've yet to see a wholly better system that is flawless or fairer than an entirely anonymous procedure.

Anonymous, doesn't mean everything about it is perfect.

A1 students also don't equal able for university etc (I say this as an A1 student.)

It's insane that everything is put on this one, end of 5 years exam. Students are told that if they don't work hard this year, well i's pretty much over. there are very few places for repeats and fetac entry is next to impossible.
YES, students are told this.
Intense pressure is put on students to either do excellently, or give up/don't bother.

And a 3 hour exam of pure writing is crazy.

All the leaving cert is, is a pressure test...lets see who cracks.
and god forbid you're under the weather the day of your exam, go blank etc.... you'll lose time and be reduced to a dramatically lower grade because it's all in this end of year test!

And you can't repeat just one subject either..oh no, if you want it to count for points, repeat the lot. Forget about your social life, forget about having to care for family or home life, forget about having hobbies, forget about mental well being.

Rote learn everything you can, get a few things in there for brownie points, and by god you better do well, or you're utterly worthless.

(...perhaps I'm biased, I was an A student who had a nervous breakdown during leaving cert year. And I would never ever repeat that kind of pressure. I would emphasise to others doing their leaving cert that there ARE alternatives and not to forget their wellbeing for a few measly points.)

CelticRambler

There's a lot of negative criticism here (and elsewhere) about "rote learning" but there is a place for it, both in the exam system and in real life.

I see it (almost) every day: people who learnt their times tables off by heart have a tiny advantage over the ones who didn't; people who learnt all the different conjugations of the irregular French verbs have a tiny advantage over the ones who didn't; people who learnt the dates of this battle or that independence movement get their quiz answer in first; people who can remember whole chunks of poetry stand out amongst those who only remember the first (or last) line ...

In most of these situations, the actual incident is pretty trivial, but when you add up all these trivial incidents, it amounts to something significant and I've seen friends survive really tough times precisely because they've been able to fall back on stuff that was "hammered into them" without having to actively think about it all the time.

Magnate

Deenie123 wrote: »

That's not a problem with the leaving cert, that's a problem with the teaching methods used.

When you look at what it takes to get an A1 in any leaving cert higher level paper, I'm sorry but it's not all rote learning. You just won't get the A1 if you're going to rely on rote learning, there has to actually be quite a bit of understanding and ability to apply knowledge. Hey and guess what? Real life has rote learning in it, too. Sometimes you just have to learn off certain things. Does a doctor learn how to synthesize a drug to treat a specific infection, or do they just learn off which drug is appropriate for which type of infection?

The leaving cert isn't bad. There are some problems with how college applications are handled, and many problems with how subjects are taught (problems mostly related to certain under-qualified teachers who don't understand the subject themselves), but regarding the syllabus I think it's fair. I'd ideally like to see repeat sittings made available at the end of August for those who fail an exam (similar to college students) where the result is capped at a pass. But I've yet to see a wholly better system that is flawless or fairer than an entirely anonymous procedure.

As a current 6th year aiming for a course that requires very close to 600 points I have to disagree.

Yes, some subjects are more about understanding (eg. maths, some languages & sciences)

Others are skills that must be practised to be developed (eg. english, art, etc.)

Some are not supposed to be rote learned but rote learning works perfectly (eg. Irish, where if you want to get the A1 and you're not fluent and from a Gaeltacht area, it's time to memorise reams for both the written and the oral.)

Then other subjects are nothing but rote learning. (eg. business, history, geography) Now before you argue that these require you to give your opinion to get the A1, realise that opinions are not some seemingly unlearnable thing - they can be memorised. I even find that even the new textbooks have adapted to this. (Eg. Evaluation: This is good because X, Y, Z.)

I think that certain aspects of the leaving cert are great, like the anonymity of it all but it's far from a perfect system. I'm not really complaining either, as someone who excels at rote learning I know that my efforts will be rewarded in June and I'll get the course I want, and then proceed to fail miserably at college because of my inability to think critically. Oh well, :rolleyes:

Deenie123

Magnate wrote: »

As a current 6th year aiming for a course that requires very close to 600 points I have to disagree.

Yes, some subjects are more about understanding (eg. maths, some languages & sciences)

Others are skills that must be practised to be developed (eg. english, art, etc.)

Some are not supposed to be rote learned but rote learning works perfectly (eg. Irish, where if you want to get the A1 and you're not fluent and from a Gaeltacht area, it's time to memorise reams for both the written and the oral.)

Then other subjects are nothing but rote learning. (eg. business, history, geography) Now before you argue that these require you to give your opinion to get the A1, realise that opinions are not some seemingly unlearnable thing - they can be memorised. I even find that even the new textbooks have adapted to this. (Eg. Evaluation: This is good because X, Y, Z.)

I think that certain aspects of the leaving cert are great, like the anonymity of it all but it's far from a perfect system. I'm not really complaining either, as someone who excels at rote learning I know that my efforts will be rewarded in June and I'll get the course I want, and then proceed to fail miserably at college because of my inability to think critically. Oh well,

Here's the thing, people who get 600 points and go to college and do miserably... Do so because of other reasons - like being in a course they hate. Anyone will do poorly in a course they hate. If you can take one piece of advise from this thread, and I'm speaking as someone who did exactly this, if you start your course and within the first month or two don't like it - leave. Go back next year and start a new course with your free fees intact because you withdrew early enough. People also do poorly because they're too immature for college - school can't speed up maturity. That's what parents are supposed to do.

Students don't do poorly at third level simply because they did well at school. Think about it, to say so is an absurdity. You can say that you feel school didn't prepare the student emotionally or holistically, which can be fair criticisms. But I don't accept that the exams are a poor measure of a student's academic ability. If you have a maths teacher teaching a method to "learn off" without explaining it - that's poor teaching, not a poor syllabus or exam. Plus, sometimes a question comes up out of the blue (happened during my leaving cert) and nobody had seen anything like it before. Those who understood their work would have found it easy to get 100% on that question, those who didn't would have missed out on their A1 because of it. And the point has already been made - in life you will sometimes have to learn things off. The ability to just learn something off quickly is actually important in life and, I say this without intending to be condescending, students who complain about it probably just haven't been exposed to situations where you just have to know something. Example: what's the single person's tax credit? €1650. You just have to know it. Another example: What's the density of water? 1000kg/cubic metre. And THEN you need to know how to apply it. I don't accept that a student can get 600 points off the back of rote learning and rote learning only. Those students usually understand a good bit (maybe more than they will give credit for themselves), which can usually be determined when you ask them to explain something to you

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

The leaving cert puts too much pressure on students to learn irrelevant facts and develop irrelevant skills IMHO.

I don't agree that all the skills you learn are irrelevant.

It shows that to do well, you need to knuckle down, that working hard for what you want is important and you reap what you sow.

It teaches you to manage your time cleverly and effectively.

I think something like a PhD is as much slogging as thinking (90% perspiration, 10% inspiration) and it trains you well for this.

It's a huge undertaking and likely the first time in many teenagers' lives that they have to really apply problem-solving - how am I going to approach this?

As for what was learned - I still remember a lot of stuff I learned at LC level. Higher maths especially has been invaluble.

No system is perfect, but at least with the CAO, you are just a number.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but the science subjects are memorising science facts. Well rounded? Fantastic but that has nothing to do with science.

Nonsense. When I started my science degree, I was far from a biology neophyte thanks to what I had learned in the LC. I did biology and it was a great foundation. I didn't do LC Chemistry and had a LOT of catching up to do in first year of college.

Maybe for you it was just about learning stuff off, but I learned a lot in LC biology.

Magnate

Deenie123 wrote: »

Here's the thing, people who get 600 points and go to college and do miserably... Do so because of other reasons - like being in a course they hate. Anyone will do poorly in a course they hate. If you can take one piece of advise from this thread, and I'm speaking as someone who did exactly this, if you start your course and within the first month or two don't like it - leave. Go back next year and start a new course with your free fees intact because you withdrew early enough. People also do poorly because they're too immature for college - school can't speed up maturity. That's what parents are supposed to do.

Fair enough that may be true in some cases. I've been basing my assumptions mainly on this report which states

The Leaving Cert rewards rote learning and does not reward problem solving, critical thinking or self directed learning; therefore many students arrive in college with insufficient capacity for independent thinking or learning.

It's also congruent with many news columns, for example this one which says:

The Leaving Cert is an outdated, crude and brutal instrument. It is long overdue for fundamental reform. It perpetuates a system of learning that poorly prepares students for either the realities of third level education or modern life in general.

This high-stakes exam, taken at a particular stage of a student’s life, does not reflect their performance throughout their years in school. It only measures a small segment of an individual’s intellectual ability and completely ignores many human competencies that are crucial for personal success.
At its core, it is a test of memory and writing. It forces our young people to become adept at a two week long marathon of fast and legible hand writing – a skill that they will never ever need again and that has long become obsolete.

The ability to evaluate, research and critically assess

The exam is a test of knowledge of ‘the right answer’ rather than a test of the ability to evaluate, research and critically assess. When students do arrive at their first year in college they are required to sign a ‘non-plagiarism statement’ to affirm that the work submitted is their own. It beggars belief that our system actually drills students for six years to do precisely the opposite.

A much wider range of skills needs to be assessed in order to give young people an accurate picture of their capabilities and knowledge. This broader means of assessment is also necessary to ensure that students are properly prepared for third level education. Far too much of first year of college is devoted to changing the learning style of students and far too many students drop out when they find themselves unable to adjust

Along with that I know a friend who's doing nanoscience now. He got 615 points but is struggling with the course even though he loves it - But I suppose that's down to the difficulty of the course more than anything.

So while some high achievers may do miserably because of their aversion to their chosen courses, I think it's fair to say the leaving cert doesn't prepare students adequately for college.

Deenie123 wrote: »

And the point has already been made - in life you will sometimes have to learn things off. The ability to just learn something off quickly is actually important in life and, I say this without intending to be condescending, students who complain about it probably just haven't been exposed to situations where you just have to know something. Example: what's the single person's tax credit? €1650. You just have to know it. Another example: What's the density of water? 1000kg/cubic metre. And THEN you need to know how to apply it.

While I do agree with this to some extent, I think the ability to rote learn is losing its value in todays society. Why memorise facts that are a click away? I think the ability to quickly find these answers is more useful than actually rote learning them.

Deenie123 wrote: »

I don't accept that a student can get 600 points off the back of rote learning and rote learning only. Those students usually understand a good bit (maybe more than they will give credit for themselves), which can usually be determined when you ask them to explain something to you

This is absolutely true. While there are a good few subjects that you can rote learn, there's not enough to get 600 points. I think that rote learning goes hand in hand with understanding. Take something like biology for example. While this subject is criticised for its rote learning nature I find that it's far easier and more efficient to just try and understand the material as opposed to spending hours learning off marking schemes. Same goes for maths, you need to understand it - - simple as. In the past you may have been able to get away with just learning methods, but today with project maths you require a deep understanding of the material. It seems to be the exception to the rule though.

My main gripe is that the majority of subjects don't reward problem solving, critical thinking or independent thinking. This is very different from having an understanding of a subject.

Magnate

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I don't agree that all the skills you learn are irrelevant.

It shows that to do well, you need to knuckle down, that working hard for what you want is important and you reap what you sow.

It teaches you to manage your time cleverly and effectively.

I think something like a PhD is as much slogging as thinking (90% perspiration, 10% inspiration) and it trains you well for this.

Agree 100%, a strong work ethic is perhaps the no. 1 skill you can develop from the leaving cert and an invaluable life skill.

hairybelly

It's not one bit fair. Its a terrible system that screws hundreds of students over every year if they dont perform as well as others.

Deenie123

Magnate wrote: »

Why memorise facts that are a click away?

Are you actually kidding me?

Do you really need that explained?

evolving_doors

Super-Rush wrote: »

If you wanted to get into software development, what use is Irish, French, history, geography to you? The subjects being done presently in the first year of computer science programs should be taught in LC level.

Hear hear.... now get the money out and pay to get the teachers.

Vandango

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is the leaving cert the best way to determine if a student is right for college?

No and it's not even a good enough way of determining ones intelligence.

hairybelly

What I hate most about the LC is that if a schoolkid struggles and performs poorly in English or Maths then they can just kill university goodbye.

Sorry, you're not good enough at either of these, no uni for you. Enjoy your fair system.

Magnate

Deenie123 wrote: »

Are you actually kidding me?

Do you really need that explained?

Wow easy there. I said memorisation is useful to some extent but I still think intuition goes a long way.

Consider the Google effect

Has the Internet dumbed down society or simply become an external storage unit that enhances the human brain's memory capacity? With Google, Internet Movie Database and Wikipedia at our beck and call via smart phones, tablets and laptops, the once essential function of committing facts to memory has become little more than a flashback to flash cards. This shift is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it irreversible, according to a team of researchers whose study on search engines and learning appears in the July 15 issue of Science.

Led by Columbia University psychologist Betsy Sparrow, the researchers conducted a series of experiments whose results suggest that when people are faced with difficult questions, they are likely to think that the Internet will help them find the answers. In fact, those who expect to able to search for answers to difficult questions online are less likely to commit the information to memory. People tend to memorize answers if they believe that it is the only way they will have access to that information in the future. Regardless of whether they remember the facts, however, people tend to recall the Web sites that hold the answers they seek.

In this way, the Internet has become a primary form of external or "transactive" memory (a term coined by Sparrow's one-time academic advisor, social psychologist Daniel Wegner), where information is stored collectively outside the brain. This is not so different from the pre-Internet past, when people relied on books, libraries and one another—such as using a "lifeline" on the game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire?—for information. Now, however, besides oral and printed sources of information, a lion's share of our collective and institutional knowledge bases reside online and in data storage.

The idea for Sparrow's research sprang from a common occurrence in many homes—a few years ago she was watching a movie with her husband and saw an actress whose face she could not quite place. Using Internet Movie Database on her laptop, she quickly discovered that the actress was Angela Lansbury (debuting in 1944's Gaslight), who went on to star in dozens of movies and the popular Murder, She Wrote TV show of the 1980s and '90s.

What would Sparrow's alternatives have been if the Internet never existed? Most likely, if she could not eventually come up with the answer herself, she would have asked a friend or family member for help. Another option would have been to consult a cinema reference book. Or she would have simply had to live with that nagging curiosity and moved on.

The situation with the Internet is in many ways not all that different than it ever was, Sparrow says. "It's different in the sense that information is much more available than it was," she says. "In the past you would have to go through the filing system in your brain, maybe with the help of someone else to try to remember."

Some people are troubled that information gleaned online plays too large a role in their fact-access process, yet this reliance on external memory seems to bother them less if the information resides in the brain of another person. "It's not as salient to people that we do this with other people, but it's obvious to them that we do this with the Internet," Sparrow says.

Besides, memorization is overrated, according to Sparrow. "Obviously we need some baseline skill in memorizing things, but I personally have never seen all that much intellectual value in memorizing things," she says, adding that it is far more important to understand information on a conceptual level. As an instructor, she has seen how some students struggle with cognition related to the things she teaches, whereas they would do much better if they simply had to memorize a bunch of answers. "Memorizing is the easier thing to do, which is why students do it," she says.

Sparrow continues to research the impact on learning if instructors remove the expectation of memorization. "Will students better be able to learn focusing on conceptualizing and understanding information rather than simply remembering it?" she asks. "More likely, if a person does not think the information will be available later, they will try to memorize it, often at the expense of understanding the concepts."

And if our gadgets were to fail due to a planet-wide electromagnetic pulse tomorrow, we would still be all right. People may rely on their mobile phones to remember friends' and family members' phone numbers, for example, but the part of the brain responsible for such memorization has not been atrophied, she says. "It's not like we've lost the ability to do it."

John Suler, a psychology professor at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., and author of the online book The Psychology of Cyberspace, agrees. "I suspect that we're still going to remember information that's important to us, while relying on the Internet to verify what we think might be true or have forgotten, and to provide new information to which we were never exposed," he says.

Perhaps the more pressing issue is whether people will develop the ability to scrutinize online information. "If you look long and hard enough, you will find a Web site that validates almost anything you might want to believe, whether it's true or not," Suler says. "It's also clear that cyberspace is filled with differences of opinion, contradictory 'facts,' and the propagation of information from one site to another that gives the illusion of consensual validation."

In this respect, the Internet is just like any other memory system—the need for critical thinking does not diminish, regardless of where the information is stored.

Ave Sodalis

eternal wrote: »

English definitely isn't memory based as it is interpretive and Art also, how can you learn off how to draw? Maths is something you have to do practically, there is no way you can learn off a Maths exam. What about the Aurals and Oral tests, nobody knows what is coming up and you have to listen and speak in a different language which is, one again, interpretive. It's cognitive and the reason there is a LC is to whittle down the people early on in society who are willing to learn and reform in some way. Then you have PLC courses for those who did not have the ability in school and they still get into university. You can always learn a trade if you aren't academic. Stuff like catering which allows creativity for those who did not have the means to become doctors and what not. We are all different people but exams have to start somewhere and when people tell me they couldn't even manage a LC I wonder as to where this person will end up. I suppose someone has to clean the streets and sell fags in shops.

That's thing though, they're not meant to be but unless you can learn off a huge amount, it is rote learning. English- you can't get an A1 unless you learn off a huge amount of quotes. Maths- I don't know about you, but I just learned off the methods rather than being taught how to use the methods. Half the time, I had no idea why I was doing something, I had just learned that that's what I had to do. Aurals and orals have a set amount of subjects to talk about and you just keep going over those, especially orals.
In terms of college, the points system is ridiculous.

elefant

For all its flaws, which have been discussed here in detail already, I am a supporter of the Irish LC system for accessing third-level study. It's a level playing field. It doesn't matter how much money you have or who your parents work with or whether you look good in an interview; if you put the work in and get your points you can access third-level education. It's not a perfect assessment system, but it is fair.

I can say with certainty that when I did the Leaving Certificate I was not surprised in any case about how many points someone in my year achieved, and that to me is the great vindication of the system. Everyone I studied alongside gained the points that they, in my opinion, deserved with regards to their quality as a student. Whether it was by memory or by academic flair, they achieved the points they deserved.

Maybe more controversially, and perhaps I'm being naive in thinking this, but if you can get an A in Chemistry or Phys/Chem but can only manage a D in English, it doesn't suggest to me that you are naturally poor at English as a subject. Doing so badly in one subject when you can perform so well in another is a reflection on your application (or lack thereof) to those subjects. In my opinion there is no excuse for not being able to pass a subject when you can get an A1 in another. If you are looking to point the finger of blame at something in that situation, it is back to yourself it should be facing.

Magnate

sup_dude wrote: »

That's thing though, they're not meant to be but unless you can learn off a huge amount, it is rote learning. English- you can't get an A1 unless you learn off a huge amount of quotes. Maths- I don't know about you, but I just learned off the methods rather than being taught how to use the methods. Half the time, I had no idea why I was doing something, I had just learned that that's what I had to do. Aurals and orals have a set amount of subjects to talk about and you just keep going over those, especially orals.
In terms of college, the points system is ridiculous.

Agreed but it's not all rote learning either. With english you can get a solid B by learning quotes/themes etc. and having a good general knowledge of your course along with learning off how best to structure your answers - But to get the A1 it's just a whole different level, you need to be able to articulate your ideas and have a certain flow and eloquence that can only be attained by lots of practise. English is most definitely a skill.

The old maths syllabus was definitely open to rote learning but now with project maths you need to be able to understand the reasoning behind everything.

As for orals, yep very easy to memorise different subjects although it'd be preferable to have a good enough grasp of the language that you'd feel confident enough to have a natural conversation.

hairybelly

and what about people with dyslexia and dyscalculia? Not all of them receive any extra support, and even then it might not be enough to help them get up to scratch with everybody else.
It doesnt mean they're any less capable than the rest at all.

Magnate

hairybelly wrote: »

and what about people with dyslexia and dyscalculia? Not all of them receive any extra support, and even then it might not be enough to help them get up to scratch with everybody else.
It doesnt mean they're any less capable than the rest at all.

That's what the DARE scheme is for.

CelticRambler

Magnate wrote: »

While I do agree with this to some extent, I think the ability to rote learn is losing its value in todays society. Why memorise facts that are a click away?

Because that "click" is one of the greatest over-sold concepts of this century. Connection problems, data caps, broken links, outdated information, etc ... Yes, the data in someone's head can also be outdated, but in general the person you go to for information will have a particular interest in the subject and will keep themselves up-to-date.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that when you're dealing with real people (customers/consumers/those-in-need-of-an-answer), the person who does not need to click has a huge advantage in terms of time and when it comes to inspiring confidence. "Hang on, I'll look it up" is one of the fastest ways to look less competent when your colleague/competitor has already answered "Form 1042 and 1042C-Pro" or "1.030 +/-0.005" or "7.5% until the 31st December, then it goes up to 9%"

hairybelly

Magnate wrote: »

That's what the DARE scheme is for.

The DARE scheme only accepts a small number of applicants, and the only thing is does is give you extra points. It does not waiver the subject requirements or the requirements to have higher level or ordinary level subjects.

Not a single IT or university in Ireland will accept you if you have foundation subjects in either.

rahmalec

I'm one of those people who has benefited from the current LC system. I got top marks in my class. I didn't have to do a crazy amount of rote-learning because I was good at math, so any of those kind of subjects were no problem. I already spoke a second language fluently so another easy subject there. Then I got a D in English and a C in pass Irish.

I think English is probably the most important subject. Not so much learning all the poetry and stuff, but to be able to speak well, write well and communicate easily is so important, even for us more mathsy people. I know it would benefit me to no end to be able to do these things better and not need an hour to write some simple thing that can be done by someone else in 2 minutes! Also the ability to blag your way through, very important life skill (and IMO is part of the same skillset).

Maybe reading more as a child is the key.

Magnate

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because that "click" is one of the greatest over-sold concepts of this century. Connection problems, data caps, broken links, outdated information, etc ... Yes, the data in someone's head can also be outdated, but in general the person you go to for information will have a particular interest in the subject and will keep themselves up-to-date.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that when you're dealing with real people (customers/consumers/those-in-need-of-an-answer), the person who does not need to click has a huge advantage in terms of time and when it comes to inspiring confidence. "Hang on, I'll look it up" is one of the fastest ways to look less competent when your colleague/competitor has already answered "Form 1042 and 1042C-Pro" or "1.030 +/-0.005" or "7.5% until the 31st December, then it goes up to 9%"

Jesus christ I said it was useful to an extent. Obviously you need to be knowledgable about whatever your job requires/area of expertise - that's a given.

What isn't as useful is memorising random facts on a leaving cert syllabus.

Besides, memorization is overrated, according to Sparrow. "Obviously we need some baseline skill in memorizing things, but I personally have never seen all that much intellectual value in memorizing things," she says, adding that it is far more important to understand information on a conceptual level. As an instructor, she has seen how some students struggle with cognition related to the things she teaches, whereas they would do much better if they simply had to memorize a bunch of answers. "Memorizing is the easier thing to do, which is why students do it," she says.

Sparrow continues to research the impact on learning if instructors remove the expectation of memorization. "Will students better be able to learn focusing on conceptualizing and understanding information rather than simply remembering it?" she asks. "More likely, if a person does not think the information will be available later, they will try to memorize it, often at the expense of understanding the concepts."

thelad95

I think one thing that could be done is the following:

At the moment, there are three compulsory subjects: English, Irish and Maths. Most people would agree English and Maths should be kept compulsory, Irish should be ditched as a compulsory subject but kept on as an optional subject. You'd be surprised how many students would still pick it.

English should be split into two seperate subjects. One would be testing basic reading and writing skills (compulsory, think English paper 1) and the other would be an optional subject, studying poetry, plays etc. (English paper 2) as well as creative writing.

Maths could also be split into two seperate subjects. One would test real world applicable skills eg. Algebra, financial maths, trigonometry (basic) and geometry. The other, optional maths subject could be more along the lines of applied maths and include other concepts such as probability, complex numbers as well as more advanced forms of the concepts in the compulsory subject.

This way, the compulsory subjects would be sufficient for matriculation purposes for most courses and obviously if a student wanted to do journalism, the more advanced, optional English subject would be requested or if a student wanted to enter the STEM sector they would need the advanced, optional Maths subject.

However, my gut tells me the NUI's would probably still request Irish for matriculation purposes.

Also, students are becoming more savvy in finding ways of getting around entry requirements and subject choices. Some students now register to sit OL French and Irish at the end of 5th year, and then sit 7 subjects the following year. Similarly, it's not unknown for students to do pass English and avoid the annual muppetry journalism surrounding English paper 2.