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

Inspector Coptoor

Eddy, I'm a teacher of biology and chemistry and while there is a syllabus to be covered, I rarely, if ever utter the phrase, "you need to learn that off by heart".

For me, it's all about understanding the material, thinking about the material and being able to answer questions asked in a lot of different ways, ie teaching he students how to think.

Science in trinity was 400 points when I went to college, it was 350 in UCD and 330 in NUI Galway.

What you have to understand is that CAO points are based purely on supply and demand.
They fluctuate based on economics.

I agree that an A1 chemistry student might make a terrible graduate chemist though.

You've brought this up a lot.

What's your alternative?

Portfolios for science students?
Interviews?
Science orals?
who's gonna pay?

steddyeddy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That sounds very idealistic.

At LC level, students won't even know what a neurotransmitter is let alone anything about Serotonin or its role in mood disorders. Yes, they can teach that to themselves but that's quite a huge undertaking for someone who has only been taught the very fundamentals of chemistry and biology.

There's also the huge issue that some university students (even though specifically taught how to do a lit review) struggle. I shudder to think of the quality of a literature review written by a completely inexperienced 5th/6th year with only a very basic knowledge and understanding of chemistry and biology.

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.

Do you know what. You illustrated my point perfectly. At the end of your post you said you can't be a good researcher without scientific knowledge and experience. How do you get knowledge? By finding things out. How do you get experience? By finding things out.

Everyone is inexperienced starting off and what you have said to me is exactly what fourth years say to me when it comes time to do the project. "If I don't know exactly what to study how can I do it". We're sending really pathetically trained people out in the workplace.

steddyeddy

alias no.9 wrote: »

Your OP



It ignores the fact that the person who got the offer of a place in Science will also have demonstrated competence in Science as well as other subjects.
Getting 500 points, regardless of subjects requires a breadth of knowledge, combining this with meeting the minimum requirements for a Science degree absolutely makes the candidate well rounded.
I'd argue in fact that since all entrants to a Science degree must meet a minimum competence in Science, it's the other things that are more likely to lead to them building a successful career in Science. Some people watch too much Big Bang Theory.

You're confusing an ability to perform well in science with memorising science facts in a subject. I've met people who got A's in biology but were crap at college biology.

El_Duderino 09

School isn't just about making scientists. It's also about making complete morons capable of functioning in life.

The skills to survive in life are different to the scientific method. On boards, how often do you read 'prove it'? As a scientist you know proof only exists in maths but in real life people use heuristics. So the leaving cert isn't about creating scientists, it's about creating citizens.

DarkPassenger

School was horrible enough without actually having to learn stuff, I loved the whole memorize and regurgitate system.

partyatmygaff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you know what. You illustrated my point perfectly. At the end of your post you said you can't be a good researcher without scientific knowledge and experience. How do you get knowledge? By finding things out. How do you get experience by finding things out.

Everyone is inexperienced starting off and what you have said to me is exactly what fourth years say to me when it comes time to do the project. "If I don't know exactly what to study how can I do it". We're sending really pathetically trained people out in the workplace.

It's not reasonable to expect the average 16-17 year old who just about knows how to draw very simple organic molecules and the basics of cell/human biology to delve in to and teach themselves a topic as complex as neurobiology.

Not only that but you then expect them to use this self-taught knowledge and understanding (which will hopefully be correct as no one will have examined the soundness of their knowledge/understanding) to critically discuss a complex model that in itself also requires at the very minimum a basic understanding of many other topics in physiology and pharmacology.

For example, you can't assess someone's ability to write a week after teaching them their first few words. They need time to build their knowledge and gain experience before you can tell if they have the aptitude.

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're confusing an ability to perform well in science with memorising science facts in a subject. I've met people who got A's in biology but were crap at college biology.

You opine that people aceing Chemistry, Physics and Maths, seemingly unfairly lose out on a place in a Science degree course by virtue of getting D's in,Geography and French and when called on the fact that the people who actully got the place also performed at Science subjects as well as others, you're now questioning the relevance of every Scientific grade, clearly including those of the student who missed out?
A good leaving cert requires dedication and discipline, factors that will also be common with scientific discovery. One doesn't guarantee another but someone who'll work for one will likely work for the other and no amount of natural aptitude will make up for willingness to work when things get a bit more complex.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

School isn't just about making scientists. It's also about making complete morons capable of functioning in life.

The skills to survive in life are different to the scientific method. On boards, how often do you read 'prove it'? As a scientist you know proof only exists in maths but in real life people use heuristics. So the leaving cert isn't about creating scientists, it's about creating citizens.

But science is about making scientists. The leaving cert is not a good way to determine who gets into science (history, law or whatever).

TheBegotten

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.

It actually works pretty well, as long as people know what they want. I knew I wanted to study chemistry, so I filled my CAO with chemistry and general science courses. I was going to work hard for what I wanted. I dragged my French grades from D's and low C's to B's (can't speak plus qu'un mot now, but it served its purpose) and memorised what felt like half of Macbeth for the chance to learn about statistical thermodynamics and organic chemistry.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote: »

But science is about making scientists. The leaving cert is not a good way to determine who gets into science (history, law or whatever).

Agreed. Like I was getting at, the LC has a pretty broad remit. Those who get into science and pass are probably good at science. Those who get in and fail are probably less good.

Pherekydes

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that you need to have Irish and a another language to get into university.

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

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

But science is about making scientists.

Thats a pretty narrow point of view

steddyeddy wrote: »

The leaving cert is not a good way to determine who gets into science (history, law or whatever).

Compared to what? You talk about a project, something like that at secondary level can be plagiarised and coached. I don't see any clear advantage unless you expect every LC student to make brand new discoverys, in which case, they should be getting a PhD.

Tombi!

I had rant typed out and looked up something.
I remember when I read this years ago, it was something around 400+ points.

http://www.qualifax.ie/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=15?Mainsec=courses&Subsec=course_details&ID=29215

Someone who's well knowledgeable about the current LC explain this. Is it me or does that college (Waterford Institute of Technology) not demand a minimum points requirement?

Because if so, it's changed from when I took it.

FrStone

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

we have no metric to even assess a teachers quality. There's no QC at all there, and it's notoriously difficult to get rid of a crap?

Do you want to introduce metrics to test teachers? It's been found time and time again that the countries that use metrics to test their teachers do worse in standardised tests.In Finland (the system that seems to work so well), there is no testing of teachers, no inspectors etc.


It's very annoying to hear the misinformed give their opinions on teachers and how they believe it should work. We will end up going down the route of the UK, which has failed miserably and is not the system we should strive to use.

Chocolate Lions

FrStone wrote: »

Do you want to introduce metrics to test teachers? It's been found time and time again that the countries that use metrics to test their teachers do worse in standardised tests.In Finland (the system that seems to work so well), there is no testing of teachers, no inspectors etc.


It's very annoying to hear the misinformed give their opinions on teachers and how they believe it should work. We will end up going down the route of the UK, which has failed miserably and is not the system we should strive to use.

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 explain 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?

Boskowski

I'm not Irish and I haven't done an LC, but I've done the equivalent to the LC and 3rd level in my country.

From the other half's nieces and nephews and sons and daughters of friends and colleagues I got a little insight in how it works in Ireland and from that admittedly limited experience I tend to agree with the OP.

It seems that for some subjects a ridiculous number of points is required to get a shot at it. And you have to be a very straight, hard working student to have any chance at all.
How people do it I don't know. The few Irish students I know seem to be much more disciplined than anyone I remember from my 2nd level days including myself. They seem to have that real understanding that they're shaping their later life and seem to work diligently towards it.

Which makes the whole thing - at least for those I know - very much career driven from an early point in their lives. Like get as many points as you possibly can to get the best course you can to get the best career you can (most financially rewarding, basically). Whether they feel that career is actually their thing, their vocation, seems secondary.
And on the other hand it seems to leave a lot of people behind who for example might make terrific doctors and would love to be doctors, but they haven't a hope 'cos they suck at languages.

Basically full on rat race from an early age on. A bit sad really.

When I left 2nd level I passed but I had a hopeless points score. I basically wouldn't qualify for anything in an Irish system. Mostly down to immaturity and not giving a **** about certain subjects, but I was a smart guy, really good at the stuff I was interested in.
I was lucky I liked IT and electronics and nobody else did, so the demand was low and I got into university anyway.
But if I really really wanted to become a doctor I would have got a chance, too. I might have to spend a year or two on a waiting list and score heavily in an aptitude test, but it would have been a medicine aptitude test and not some language or history. I would have got a chance.

Maybe, like in my country, there should be a limited number of places, guarded by aptitude test or whatever, for people who are really passionate about a subject regardless whether they have the points or not.

Super-Rush

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.

stealinhorses

What is with this idea of people being maths geniuses but not being able to write a coherent paragraph? Throughout my science undergrad, I've only met people who are knowledgeable in all areas of life, often are able to speak more than one language and have no problem formulating their thoughts in lab reports or other assignments which require the use of skills that aren't necessarily "scientific".

If you want to become a good scientist, you need to be able to communicate the results of your research and need to be able to analyse the work of others and draw conclusions. If you're getting a D in LC English, and an A in physics and biology, then I'm sorry to tell you, you will not make a good scientist and it's better that you don't enter the field at all.

Yes, the LC curriculum could be altered to not favour rote learning so much, but this can only be achieved to a certain degree. Unfortunately, before entering 3rd level education you need to have a grasp of basic scientific concepts, and for better or for worse, this sometimes entails learning off definitions, schemes and simply remembering Newton's third law off by heart, rather than deriving it from first principles every time you need to apply it.

Science is such a massive field, that in order to have a good coverage of the basics, you need to learn some things and just remember them. Problem solving and mathematical intuition will only get you so far, if you never learned to avoid mixing certain chemicals together.

Also, the curriculum is varied enough that you can assure enough points for science/history whatever, by picking subjects in that area, be it engineering, business, geography, etc. It would be difficult to find yourself in a situation where you are bad at more than half of your LC subjects and excellent at less than half. Also, extra points for maths in recent years help you out tremendously in that case.

Laura Palmer

Getting a C or D in English doesn't always mean being a bad writer though. English is about a lot more than writing skills. By leaving cert it's about critiquing poetry and prose - not everyone is competent at same. There is some subjectivity to the above for sure, but there are also certain skills.

Boskowski

There is a bit of a difference between ability to write a coherent paragraph and getting straight A's all over the place. Its widely acknowledged that some people are talented at one thing but not so much at another. I don't believe in order to become a good scientist you need straight A English. You need to communicate but sorry you don't need to be excellent at that. And someone could very easily be a terrific doctor and suck at maths.

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.