The leaving cert a measure of intelligence or hard work?

steddyeddy

I made sure to include no negatives in the title but some of the articles in the Times and Indo go along the lines of "surprise as (insert topic here) didn't come up in (insert subject here)".

So basically the they're saying that the students were told something would come up and studied for that and it didn't and so that's unfair. Isn't the leaving cert meant to determine who's fit for college and who can remember the most? Is this what the leaving cert should be about?

TallGlass

Its more of a memory test been honest, but if your smart you wouldnt leave yourself wide open to a topic not showing up on the test IMO. Then again I only got around 160 points !

steddyeddy

TallGlass wrote: »

Its more of a memory test been honest, but if your smart you wouldnt leave yourself wide open to a topic not showing up on the test IMO. Then again I only got around 160 points !

A friend of mine entered engineering as a mature student without a leaving cert/ You'll be fine. It's not a measure of your intelligence.

thelad95

Some subjects like history and geography are definitely little other than memory tests but Maths and the Science Subjects require intelligence in those subjects to do well in.

steddyeddy

thelad95 wrote: »

Some subjects like history and geography are definitely little other than memory tests but Maths and the Science Subjects require intelligence in those subjects to do well in.

I don't agree with the science subjects to be honest.

thelad95

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't agree with the science subjects to be honest.

Why not?

Zillah

TallGlass wrote: »

Its more of a memory test been honest, but if your smart you wouldnt leave yourself wide open to a topic not showing up on the test IMO. Then again I only got around 160 points !

Big difference between smart and diligent. And smart and motivated.

Personally I think the Leaving is a horrible exam, focused entirely on short term memorisation, over too many subjects to too shallow a level, with all the exams done in far too condensed a schedule, depending far too much on one individual performance rather than work contributed over the preceding two years.

Anyone who knows anything about the real world knows that a person who is quick on their feet, is good at learning new things, can conceive and execute a plan, and make good, detailed assessments of novel situations, is going to be very useful. The berk sitting at the back that memorised the words of the manual is about a useful as the manual. Which we're able to use any time we need it, by the way. No one locks the manual in a drawer in work and demands that you accomplish your tasks with only the information currently in your brain.

I don't like the Leaving Cert. Countless bright and creative people left behind because they were forced into a rigid system antithetical to their development for six years.

agent graves

TallGlass wrote:

I only got around 160 points !

Leaving cert is a load of tripe. My rote learning is pretty crap.. and because that's basically what the leaving is I done ****e (kinda didnt care either becausecof this).. got less then 50 points.. but now as a mature im studying pharmaceutical chemistry and doing realy well in it..

boobar

A pal of mine (who wasn't into the academic way of life) was asked how he got on in the Leaving Cert, the day the results came out.

Two honours, he said.

The honour of doing it...and the honour of failing it miserably.

I met him recently, happy as Larry.

Bubbaclaus

If you're doing badly in the leaving cert on the back of 13/14 years of state funded education then you're doing something wrong.

Taco Chips

These threads always bring out people who say "blah blah the LC is rubbish because ______ and now I/my son/daughter/cat is studying _____ and sure weren't their points useless!"

The LC is a test of a culmination of knowledge at the end of secondary school. It's purpose is not to equip people with skills to enter a job or to slip seamlessly into a third level course in theoretical physics. It's a general examination of general education. Yes it relies a lot on rote learning, because rote learning is actually a large contributor to a persons intelligence. You need to be able to rote learn, it's important! When you get to college you'll spend a lot of time rote learning too.

People want soft exams and the department of education wants to be able to show they examine on "real world problems". Whats the result of this? Look at the current project maths syllabus. Its an utter joke. In order to make the exam more "relevant" they've gutted the course of calculus, matrices etc... The very topics that are a cornerstone of maths at third level. I personally do not like the direction that this new Leaving Cert is heading in and it's all as a result of making it more "relevant to the real world" and cow towing to what some MNCs based in Ireland want. Rewind to about 5-10 years ago and we actually have a very robust, fair set of exams. We should be very careful about where the education system is heading.

_Kaiser_

The LC is a test of how well you can regurgitate information.. comprehension of that information is not important.
It's why some people who do very well in the leaving find themselves unable to function in college or the working world and why those who supposedly failed go on to be very successful thereafter.

Far too much emphasis is put on the big exams at the end of the year leading to teenagers worrying themselves sick (or worse ) that their lives and opportunities will be over if they don't hit whatever "magic" number is needed for some course they may not be suited for anyway.

I'm not saying that we should abolish the idea of a LC, but far more emphasis on continuous assessment is the way forward IMO, as well as a restructuring of the subjects offered to favour topics that are of far more value in the real world

steddyeddy

Taco Chips wrote: »

These threads always bring out people who say "blah blah the LC is rubbish because ______ and now I/my son/daughter/cat is studying _____ and sure weren't their points useless!"

The LC is a test of a culmination of knowledge at the end of secondary school. It's purpose is not to equip people with skills to enter a job or to slip seamlessly into a third level course in theoretical physics. It's a general examination of general education. Yes it relies a lot on rote learning, because rote learning is actually a large contributor to a persons intelligence. You need to be able to rote learn, it's important! When you get to college you'll spend a lot of time rote learning too.

People want soft exams and the department of education wants to be able to show they examine on "real world problems". Whats the result of this? Look at the current project maths syllabus. Its an utter joke. In order to make the exam more "relevant" they've gutted the course of calculus, matrices etc... The very topics that are a cornerstone of maths at third level. I personally do not like the direction that this new Leaving Cert is heading in and it's all as a result of making it more "relevant to the real world" and cow towing to what some MNCs based in Ireland want. Rewind to about 5-10 years ago and we actually have a very robust, fair set of exams. We should be very careful about where the education system is heading.

But the point is it's not being treated as a culmination of knowledge. The papers are bemoaning the fact that predicted topics aren't coming up. It's largely studying what you need to pass.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

But the point is it's not being treated as a culmination of knowledge. The papers are bemoaning the fact that predicted topics aren't coming up. It's largely studying what you need to pass.

Yeah thats the newspapers. They're just printing what will get the most interactions on Facebook and the most traffic on their websites. Posting a load of articles sympathetic to students is going to get that. I wouldn't look to the media in Ireland as a good gauge of anything in particular, they have their own agenda.

Ultimately it is a test of culmination of knowledge. The fact that questions come up that aren't predicted, that aren't extensively prepared for or hinted at in a definite pattern is excellent.

steddyeddy

Taco Chips wrote: »

Yeah thats the newspapers. They're just printing what will get the most interactions on Facebook and the most traffic on their websites. Posting a load of articles sympathetic to students is going to get that. I wouldn't look to the media in Ireland as a good gauge of anything in particular, they have their own agenda.

Ultimately it is a test of culmination of knowledge. The fact that questions come up that aren't predicted, that aren't extensively prepared for or hinted at in a definite pattern is excellent.

I think that's rubbish TBH. Most students don't see it that way. Selective studying is applied again and again by students. It happens at undergraduate level too.

jjC123

It is very much dependent on how well you can rote learn things. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Every third level medical/science/veterinary/law student is going to spend 3+ years rote learning reams of information for exams too.

I do thing it's unfair that the leaving cert isn't suited to students who aren't academically inclined but can you really make an academic system that is fair to everyone? Far better would be if Ireland got over its snobbery towards apprenticeships/PLCs/training schemes and saw them as an equal rather than lesser alternative to university.

TallGlass

Taco Chips wrote: »

These threads always bring out people who say "blah blah the LC is rubbish because ______ and now I/my son/daughter/cat is studying _____ and sure weren't their points useless!"

Hold up there, I don't excuse the fact I done rubbish on my leaving cert. I got 160 because I didn't give a flying hoot about it! I'm 25 now things are different, I see the bigger picture. I'm looking at someday resiting the entire thing, because people that think like you define me by it. Which is fair, I can see your point. But its not a clear cut view of someone's intelligence.

When I was 17 doing the LC all I cared about was finishing school and getting a job and sure that would tie me over.

Little did I know about how much it costs to live, buy a house finding an enjoyable joy you like. If I could go back to then armed with the knowledge I have now I would be turning out 500+ points.

I don't agree with one big test at the end to be fairly honest, continuous assessment is the way to go and a final test at the end and a way to tally the two into one final score.

But the main problem with the LC is such a serious exam for people who are young and teenagers, most don't understand what a good LC can unlock for them down the line.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think that's rubbish TBH. Most students don't see it that way. Selective studying is applied again and again by students. It happens at undergraduate level too.

Yeah it absolutely does. Students have to selectively study some topics and leave others out in undergraduate too. It either pays off or it doesn't. The best students will still have a broad enough base of knowledge to be able to answer questions on anything to some level. The weaker students will gamble entirely on predictions. It's down to people's own preparedness too. The whole purpose of throwing curveballs into exams is to discriminate between the better students whole will be able to handle adapting the information they've learned as opposed. Whats the problem with that?

steddyeddy

jjC123 wrote: »

It is very much dependent on how well you can rote learn things. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Every third level medical/science/veterinary/law student is going to spend 3+ years rote learning reams of information for exams too.

I do thing it's unfair that the leaving cert isn't suited to students who aren't academically inclined but can you really make an academic system that is fair to everyone? Far better would be if Ireland got over its snobbery towards apprenticeships/PLCs/training schemes and saw them as an equal rather than lesser alternative to university.

I don't think we can define those who rote learn as academically gifted. In my undergrad it was the people with 2.1s who went on to do well in PhDs and self directed learning. The people with firsts couldn't handle the lab because they couldn't handle not knowing what to do.

Taco Chips

TallGlass wrote: »

Hold up there, I don't excuse the fact I done rubbish on my leaving cert. I got 160 because I didn't give a flying hoot about it! I'm 25 now things are different, I see the bigger picture. I'm looking at someday resiting the entire thing, because people that think like you define me by it. Which is fair, I can see your point. But its not a clear cut view of someone's intelligence.

When I was 17 doing the LC all I cared about was finishing school and getting a job and sure that would tie me over.

Little did I know about how much it costs to live, buy a house finding an enjoyable joy you like. If I could go back to then armed with the knowledge I have now I would be turning out 500+ points.

I don't agree with one big test at the end to be fairly honest, continuous assessment is the way to go and a final test at the end and a way to tally the two into one final score.

But the main problem with the LC is such a serious exam for people who are young and teenagers, most don't understand what a good LC can unlock for them down the line.

Well that was your case, your outlook at the time and your decision in life that took you to where you are now. For the very vast majority of people your age at the time the Leaving Cert completely served its purpose as most people saw the importance of higher education and used it as a springboard to pursue their goals. Is your n=1 experience supposed to make a special circumstance for changing the whole system versus the 60,000+ other kids who sat the exams and moved on happily to whatever path they chose after?

I certainly think theres a place for continuous assessment and it works very well across many subjects currently. I did projects for DCG (worth 40%), orals for Spanish, Irish (worth 15-20% I think) and similar assessments exist for many other courses. It's still vital to have a terminal exam that everyone sits at the end to maintain a fair standard across the board.

Midkemia

Plenty of people looking down on high achievers in the leaving cert here. I'm sure if you compared those who got 500+ points to those who got less then a 100 points the 500ers will always be more successful on average.

jjC123

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think we can define those who rote learn as academically gifted. In my undergrad it was the people with 2.1s who went on to do well in PhDs and self directed learning. The people with firsts couldn't handle the lab because they couldn't handle not knowing what to do.

No, it doesn't make you academically gifted, but it gives students who are only average a chance to pursue academia. The highly intellectual students should be able to rote learn to a certain degree anyway if they want to make it into any high skill job, requiring a specific degree. Its in the nature of learning.
You can't make the system suit everyone, sometimes you just have to make yourself suit the system.

ThinkProgress

It's a measure of society's grip on our lives... and the neat little boxes they want to put us all into! And it's a fine indoctrination tool of our zombie culture.

It doesn't teach life long learning. Or the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake.

It teaches us how to pass a test and how to conform to required standards. Something most of us spend the rest of our lives doing like zombie robots - and then wonder why we get that strange feeling of emptiness in our soul!

Oh and hard work...

TallGlass

jjC123 wrote: »

It is very much dependent on how well you can rote learn things. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Every third level medical/science/veterinary/law student is going to spend 3+ years rote learning reams of information for exams too.

Its like learning to drive a car, we can read all day long about how it functions and how to drive it. But until your in control of it, all that reading means nothing. Experience is important. I am more a visual learner, explain some medical term to me show me a few pictures or a video hell even let me see it been done and I won't forget it. I failed maths, but yet in college I excelled in binary maths as I understood the logic clearly and its function, passed Biology with flying colours be it pass as I could relate to it, same with English, History, Geog and Wood. Irish I couldn't grasp as I never had a use for it or used it. I passed all my subjects bar Maths and done Foundation Irish with little or no effort, imagine if I put some work in back then what I could get? I think there should be some lifestyle class in secondary school to plan your future and that type of stuff so students know to take the test seriously.

TallGlass

Midkemia wrote: »

Plenty of people looking down on high achievers in the leaving cert here. I'm sure if you compared those who got 500+ points to those who got less then a 100 points the 500ers will always be more successful on average.

I would never look down my nose at someone that gets 500/600 point or all A1s, personally I think it is absolutely excellent we as a country have young people as intelligent. But there is no reason we can't have this as the norm. If your begrudging someone doing well its quite shallow.

steddyeddy

jjC123 wrote: »

No, it doesn't make you academically gifted, but it gives students who are only average a chance to pursue academia. The highly intellectual students should be able to rote learn to a certain degree anyway if they want to make it into any high skill job, requiring a specific degree. Its in the nature of learning.
You can't make the system suit everyone, sometimes you just have to make yourself suit the system.

Actually at undergraduate level anyway the more intelligent students find rote learning harder.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually at undergraduate level anyway the more intelligent students find rote learning harder.

Any evidence/studies to back this up? In my experience the vast majority of guys who got on great in their LC got on great in university as well if they were interested in their course!

jjC123

TallGlass wrote: »

Its like learning to drive a car, we can read all day long about how it functions and how to drive it. But until your in control of it, all that reading means nothing. Experience is important. I am more a visual learner, explain some medical term to me show me a few pictures or a video hell even let me see it been done and I won't forget it. I failed maths, but yet in college I excelled in binary maths as I understood the logic clearly and its function, passed Biology with flying colours be it pass as I could relate to it, same with English, History, Geog and Wood. Irish I couldn't grasp as I never had a use for it or used it. I passed all my subjects bar Maths and done Foundation Irish with little or no effort, imagine if I put some work in back then what I could get? I think there should be some lifestyle class in secondary school to plan your future and that type of stuff so students know to take the test seriously.

I absolutely see where you're coming from but shouldn't students who, like yourself (my brother would be in the same category as you), learn through seeing and doing be able to pursue a different avenue than an 'academic' university course without it being seen as a lesser option. For example, in Germany, trade schools and apprenticeships in virtually every industry are available and are highly regarded. But you can't take away from the fact that medical students/science students/law students need to be able to look at a textbook and learn the information off by heart. It won't make them amazing workers, they need experience fro that but still, you don't give someone a provisional licence before they do the theory test.

Knasher

Taco Chips wrote: »

When you get to college you'll spend a lot of time rote learning too.

Varies by course perhaps, personally I found very little rote learning in my course. Perhaps that is simply because I have a passion for the subject and it didn't feel rote.

I don't know if the English system is better, but I am certain that I would have gotten a better result under it. Our system covers too many subjects, and theirs forces students to specialize at a younger age, it would have suited me as what I wanted to do was never a question, but I know that it would have actively worked against others.

All behind me now though.

jjC123

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually at undergraduate level anyway the more intelligent students find rote learning harder.

I've never seen any real evidence of this. I think it comes down to motivation, how you adapt to a new environment etc. More a personality thing, than an intelligence thing (in my opinion)

Taco Chips

Knasher wrote: »

Varies by course perhaps, personally I found very little rote learning in my course. Perhaps that is simply because I have a passion for the subject and it didn't feel rote.

I don't know if the English system is better, but I am certain that I would have gotten a better result under it. Our system covers too many subjects, and theirs forces students to specialize at a younger age, it would have suited me as what I wanted to do was never a question, but I know that it would have actively worked against others.

All behind me now though.

Well interesting enough in the UK they are beginning to row away from so much continuous assessment and soft "real world" problems on exams because standards were dropping so low. Now they are returning to the more robust exam formats that were in place before, just as Ireland is beginning to go the other way. Silly

TallGlass

jjC123 wrote: »

I absolutely see where you're coming from but shouldn't students who, like yourself (my brother would be in the same category as you), learn through seeing and doing be able to pursue a different avenue than an 'academic' university course without it being seen as a lesser option. For example, in Germany, trade schools and apprenticeships in virtually every industry are available and are highly regarded. But you can't take away from the fact that medical students/science students/law students need to be able to look at a textbook and learn the information off by heart. It won't make them amazing workers, they need experience fro that but still, you don't give someone a provisional licence before they do the theory test.

I agree with the medical stuff as new medicines or changes are happening nearly all the time. I do like reading, once I feel it serves a purpose I am self studying for the CCNA so a lot of learning stuff of commands and concepts etc.. So I guess its in all exams so best not to soften exams to much. As I said it was a different time back then but I can study in my own and am good at it but I am stronger at visual learning. There's a concept called mind mapping, mapping visual references to text references works quite well.

I suppose if I was to go back and do my LC I would use more than one source of information, more visual, videos, audio etc.. Then the typical book information.

_Whimsical_

I think it's a measure of the skills that are necessary for an academic future, no one who gets over 500 points let's say will be objectively unintelligent or the sort of person who is unwilling to put in some degree of conscientious effort into their work.

However people who get poor grades do so for many reasons and not being intelligent enough for the material they're confronted with is rarely top of that list. Having a crappy home life that year, having a really bad teacher or being in a bad class/school, not having the maturity to apply yourself, lack of encouragement in home and peer group are only a few factors that can scupper you.

The leaving cert and academic intelligence are definitely not a measure of likelihood to succeed in life though, there are so many other more important types of intelligence that determine that I think.

Just a little Samba

I got over 500 points in my LC, not because I'm particularly smart or because I knew the curriculum inside out, but because I had teachers who were able to guess with astounding accuracy which topics would come up in the usual suspect subjects. I also learned to retain masses of information which I could regurgitate at will when needed without really understanding it.
The LC is a massively flawed system and I'm extremely grateful that my undergraduate degree had a lot of continuous assessment instead of bull**** rote learning because I was actually forced to understand the data I retained. instead of just being able to recall it I had to critically discuss it, defend positions, argue against others and actually show awareness of the subjects.

diomed

The man said you need to hire people with intelligence, drive, and honesty. Two out of three and you have trouble.
If we had a test for honesty our economy would not have tanked. Instead we got dishonest people who went along with *Groupthink because that was where they got their money.
The Leaving Cert proves the people with the points had a combination of intelligence and drive.

* also called brown-nosing

_Whimsical_

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I got over 500 points in my LC, not because I'm particularly smart or because I knew the curriculum inside out, but because I had teachers who were able to guess with astounding accuracy which topics would come up in the usual suspect subjects. I also learned to retain masses of information which I could regurgitate at will when needed without really understanding it.
The LC is a massively flawed system and I'm extremely grateful that my undergraduate degree had a lot of continuous assessment instead of bull**** rote learning because I was actually forced to understand the data I retained. instead of just being able to recall it I had to critically discuss it, defend positions, argue against others and actually show awareness of the subjects.

If you were able to understand the information and process it successfully than maybe you are academic as reflected in your LC results?

I totally agree with you though that having a really good school makes a massive difference and pretty much anyone in that environment will succeed. If you have someone telling you where to prioritise your learning every step and creating an environment where you're encouraged to get good results that makes a massive difference.

Just a little Samba

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

If you were able to understand the information and process it successfully than maybe you are academic as reflected in your LC results?

I totally agree with you though that having a really good school makes a massive difference and pretty much anyone in that environment will succeed. If you have someone telling you where to prioritise your learning every step and creating an environment where you're encouraged to get good results that makes a massive difference.

I didn't understand it though. I hadn't a notion what I was doing in physics but I could spew retained information on a page. I'd no interest in geography but I knew what I needed to write, more or less, before going into the exam. I can't speak a word of Irish but I remembered audio queues to respond to with the right string of syllables in the oral exam to get good grades.

In my undergraduate I struggled in first and second year to hold a 2.2 and had to break my balls to get a first through going to extra classes, never missing tutorials and labs, attending first year lectures again to try understand stuff better. I thought I could use the rote learning tricks from LC in university but that was actually what held my grades back. There was no depth to my writing or analyses of topics and it's was painfully obvious to my lecturers.

FreaksAndGeeks

Its more of a memory test at this stage especially with subjects with Geography History etc.
But subejcts like Maths and English take certain talent and natural flair to get very high grades.

After going to third level this year i was expecting a fully different learning experience and testing experience where i would have to actually learn the fundamentals and build up from there and not regurgitate information but found it pretty much exactly the same.

But testing like this along with continuous assessment is the best option we have for assessing people's ability to learn whats being taught.

delaad

Regardless of whether it is a test of intelligence or hard work, the Leaving Cert is examined on the basis that intelligence is normally distributed throughout the population in any year, meaning that intelligence levels dont change from year to year, so the same percentage, give or take, will achieve the various grades in any year. Marking Schemes will be adjusted to produce the predetermined spread of grades, year on year.

Xenji

Its a memory test, a person could get 600 points, but ask them 10 general knowledge questions and see how they do, its not what you know, its what you have been told to know.

_Whimsical_

Xenji wrote: »

Its a memory test, a person Coul either.. 600 points, but ask them 10 general knowledge questions and see how they do, its not what you know, improbably bbc s what you have been told to know.

General knowledge isn't really a test of intelligence either. By the time you get 600 points to be honest you can nearly speak two languages other than English, have probably mastered some dense enough English literature, know the fundamentals ofa science subject very well and yes have probably learned a lot of history and geography off by heart . To say it doesn't require definite intelligence to all of that to a 90% accuracy is just not logical. And yes you can get lucky on the day and have a question you learned off come up but that definitely doesn't happen for everyone. It definitely doesn't happen across the board in every subject.

The idea that memorising isn't an important part of education isn't true either. You really can't do anything in so many fields without learning the basics off by heart so you can then apply them at a later date to problems. The is no way around some rote learning abd basic memorising for everything from law to science.

Robsweezie

I think from an employers point of view (not an employer myself) the leaving cert on the CV is a measure of commitment and dedication, that you lasted the whole course of your education and stuck it out despite maybe wanting to leave or having difficulties. I think the lack of a Leaving Cert on the CV is a red flag to employers that perhaps you're a 'quitter'. which is why at least an LC is a requirement for a lot of employers when applying.

to answer the question, no, it's not a measure of intelligence or hard work, maybe academically, but not true to someone's character. You could have a hard working forklift driver who works overtime, never takes sick days or holidays, but was useless at school and barely lifted a finger. the education system just disillusions some people. I feel its dominated by memory retention and rote learning. success in this area means the part of your brain responsible for memory is working to an excellent standard, and im sure these individuals are intelligent too

Overheal

At the end of the day, it's a standardized test, which always lend themselves to this whole concept of just teaching students what they need to know to pass it.

Its actually bizarre in retrospect: accessing past tests is an honor code violation at my University, yet back when I took the Leaving Cert you could go into the bookshop and get a published copy of past tests. People are making money off that. 2 different worlds.

Test questions at the University aren't standardized though I suppose that depends on the specific college (Engineering and Science for example); instead, there is an accreditation system where auditing bodies like ABET verify the competencies are being correctly taught and tested. You take 4-5 courses a semester (Sep - Dec; Jan - May; etc) and each has multiple tests, usually 60-75% continuous assessment with a final making up 35-40% of your grade; some syllabi drop your lowest test score, others allow you to shift your exam weights (eg. weigh the final at 30% or 40% in your favor). If you need to retake a course, they usually cycle every semester, including summer minimesters.

In contrast, the LC is your assessment of 2 full years of education in a subject (4 semesters), is usually 3 or 6 hours long, and is 100% of your grade. If you fail or need to retake, you have to wait 12 full months.

Yeah, having experienced both systems, one is largely more ****ed up than the other and usually involves a higher rate of teen suicide.

Minderbinder

FreaksAndGeeks wrote: »

Its more of a memory test at this stage especially with subjects with Geography History etc.
But subejcts like Maths and English take certain talent and natural flair to get very high grades.

I don't know about English. My one gripe with the leaving cert was the English exam. I had a natural flair for writing stories. Every week my story was read out in class and it felt great. But in the exam I found it impossible to get into a creative mindset and ended up with a C. A friend of mine who is a poor speller and has no imagination by his own admission got an A because he learned off everything. I'm still pissed off about that.

There needs to be ongoing assessment over the course of the two years in my opinion. If subjects like art take into account the work of two years, then English should be the same.

Hulk Hands

I generally found the people who worked their ass off memorizing and studying etc were ahead at mocks time and expected to do well, but generally the lazier and more naturally gifted people found their way of catching up. People who treat it as a memory test, or are told to do so, go about it completely the wrong way.

There are certain parts of the LC that are memory tests, however they are also the parts that everyone focuses all their energy on. The seen poetry for example for Honors English (Kavanagh etc). I recently got a shocked response from a parent when I told their child to forget about this section altogether, and scribble something together on it if they have time at the end. My reasoning being that students spend about 50% of their time (and teachers with the curriculum) studying this section, which is worth about 5% of the total English grade. It'll be really well answered with little chance to make up marks on other students, whereas most students will spend no time studying things like writing techniques for the unseen stories which are worth about 4 times more marks than the poetry. The whole thing is marked on a curve, so making up marks where others wont should be one of the main objectives.

Anyone who isnt a complete natural at Maths or doesnt essentially need it for the course they want, shouldn't be doing Higher level Maths. It takes up far far too much study time. Drop it and spend about 1/5th of that time studying an easy subject that goes into little depth like Economics and easily achieve the high grade in that, that you would slave to achieve in Maths, and leaving you with far more time and much less stress/worrying. It's reasons like this that the Maths thing certainly needs a big reform. All in all though the LC does reward people who think outside the box and tactically, which can only be a good thing.

gramar

I read this headline the other day....

Leaving Cert: 'Very student friendly' Irish papers kick off another exam day'

If they weren't friendly to students then who in the name of jaysus would they be friendly to?

As for the intellgence/hard work debate: The leaving is mostly about hard work and being intelligent enough to know that hard work is what it takes.

Alf Veedersane

Your results in the LC are largely a measure of how good you are at the LC.

Some people get by by learning massive amounts of stuff and pouring it onto the pages in the exam without really knowing what they were doing.

Others can do well by understanding what they are doing without having to spend copious amounts of time memorising stuff their teachers have given them.

I wanted to do really well but I didn't want to spend lots of time doing it.

I don't know to what degree it has changes in the intervening years but I don't think it's a straightforward answer like saying it's a measure of either hard work or intelligence.

Some people do well/well enough through hard work. Some through intelligence. Some through a little from column A and a little from column B.

Samaris

I do think it's problematic that Science undergraduate courses in uni now seem to need a "foundation year" to teach all the maths, chemistry, biology and physics that should have been taught in school. And it's desperately needed. So what exactly are we coming out of school with?

I don't agree with being taught to an exam. It's useful in some regards - jobs often require numerical/logical online tests that see how you deal with working under time constraints, so yes, there's no harm in some testing of how you do under pressure. But learning towards an exam, or working out what's going to come up and making your gamble on that...is that really useful?

The current generation is not a generation of rote-learners; our society no longer really values rote-learning. What is more important for us is to know how to access the information, distill the parts needed quickly and efficiently, and apply them to the problem at hand. For better or worse, that's how the world is evolving. I don't, of course, believe that we should eliminate rote-learning entirely, but we shouldn't stratify our society on who has the best short-term cramming memory.

For science subjects, I believe it is far more important to show, don't tell. In university, every science course should include a year in industry. Learn how to use knowledge in a practical way.

And for heaven's sake, include practicalities in school too! Civics should not just be about how the president is elected, it should include how to look up the information needed for voting in referendums, why it's important to vote, how to deal with bills, how to register for a medical card, how to get health insurance. How a mortgage works! Practical things that people need getting out of school!

gramar

Samaris wrote: »

And for heaven's sake, include practicalities in school too! Civics should not just be about how the president is elected, it should include how to look up the information needed for voting in referendums, why it's important to vote, how to deal with bills, how to register for a medical card, how to get health insurance. How a mortgage works! Practical things that people need getting out of school!

I certainly agree with the last part. People really need to learn about managing personal issues such as finance and health etc

elefant

I've said on here before and I'll say it again: all the students I would consider to have been the most intelligent in my final year in secondary school got, almost without exception (I can't think of any anyway), the most points in our year in the Leaving Cert.

For me that's the biggest vindication of the examinations. Regardless of how they got there- whether it was hard-work, memory, talent or a mixture of those- the best students did get there, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case in most schools. I've rarely been very surprised on hearing how well/poorly someone did in their Leaving.

smash

Saw something on TV there a while ago where the guy who got 900 points was interviewed. He was great at memorisation for the exams but after the LC he didn't have a clue what do to with his life and he isn't in a lucrative career. There's plenty of articles to show how under achievers in school can become more successful than over achievers, what the country needs to do a lot more is to help students develop the skills and interests they actually have in order to help them become successful and gain a career from it.