Do you think the LC is fair?

Elliott S

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Seven Myths About Education written by Daisy Christodoulou.

What if everything you knew about education was wrong? By David Didau

The Knowledge Deficit by Ed Hirsch

Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown

The above is a small reading list that will help you understand more about the nature of education and learning and what is involved in both.

It will not only give you a better insight into education, education systems and learning in general but it will also help you in college. Making it stick would be especially useful.

Learning things by memory is absolutely vital in order to be successful in any field. We can only keep 7 things in our working memory and the rest is stored in our long term memory (This is split into a number of different sections but I am not going to go into that). If you have not learned things off will struggle with day to day tasks in work as you will suffer from cognitive overloading.

Tanx for dis list, luv. Look like interesting reading.

spurious

Noodle1 wrote: »

The main reason I don't think it's fair is that it's very obvious that if you send your kids to a very good school or tuition centre then your kids have the edge over others in other schools with teachers who don't have the same incentive to achieve results. Motivation and support are so important in the leaving cert.

Can't let this go.
Look at the list of schools that produced the 8 and 7 A1 people. They come from a range of schools.
There is not any 'edge' unless you are the marketing person for the 'tuition centres'.
Teachers help candidates to get good results in all sorts of schools.

I have personal knowledge of a child in an ETB school in an educational blackspot (possibly the lowest access to Higher Ed. in the country) who got 5A1s. You don't have to pay fees or go to grinds businesses to do well.

TSMGUY

spurious wrote: »

Can't let this go.
Look at the list of schools that produced the 8 and 7 A1 people. They come from a range of schools.
There is not any 'edge' unless you are the marketing person for the 'tuition centres'.
Teachers help candidates to get good results in all sorts of schools.

my school sucked and very few people got above 500 points. There's no denying that a crappy all boys' school like the one I attended is at a significant disadvantage compared to a good, fee-paying all girls' school.

Elliott S

spurious wrote: »

Can't let this go.
Look at the list of schools that produced the 8 and 7 A1 people. They come from a range of schools.
There is not any 'edge' unless you are the marketing person for the 'tuition centres'.
Teachers help candidates to get good results in all sorts of schools.

Yeah, Galway City has no fee-paying schools outside of the few grinds schools, and some of those free schools are consistently among the best in the country.

randylonghorn

spurious wrote: »

I think one easy and helpful change they could make within only a few years would be to have an English Literature exam separate from the Creative/persuasive/more 'everyday' writing exam.

The same might work well with Irish as well.

spurious wrote: »

Likewise there could be a 'college' Maths exam (doesn't matter what they call it) which the colleges would agree is acceptable for Matriculation, but another Maths exam for those leaning towards applying for Maths/Science courses at third level which would obviously be of a higher standard.

Another thing I've often thought might solve a lot of the "issues" around Hons Maths, and encourage people to take it without having to resort to bonus points which skew the system, would be to set a state exam in Maths around February of LC year which would be easier than the main LC Hons Maths exam / more akin to the standard of OL. Those passing this would be adjudged to have passed maths for LC at OL at the equivalent grade to that which they scored in this exam.

Not alone would it be good exam prep, but it would take a lot of the stress and nervousness out of attempting Hons Maths in the main exam, and encourage a lot more people to give it a go, given they had a safety net.

It would cost a bit to do it ofc, so it's easier to just blast out bonus points at no extra cost.



Re: PhDs, different countries (and studies) count differently, which is what is causing the confusion.

Some will look at years after completing Masters, so the answer will normally be 3-4.

Some count all postgraduate years, so the answer will be 5-6

Some count all years at third-level, so it would probably end up being 9 in most countries.


And can we avoid making arguments personal, please. TSM, you're not the only one at fault at this stage, but I really don't want to see words like silly or idiotic being slung around just because you disagree with someone!

spurious

TSMGUY wrote: »

my school sucked and very few people got above 500 points. There's no denying that a crappy all boys' school like the one I attended is at a significant disadvantage compared to a good, fee-paying all girls' school.

But people in your 'crappy' school still got over 500 points, as I'm sure there were plenty in private schools got under 350. The contacts made in private schools are undeniable.
Girls do better on the current system of exams across the board.

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

I called your arguments "moronic", "idiotic" and "silly", not you. I did call you sensitive. If calling you sensitive offended you then I'd say you are indeed sensitive.

Where did I say it offended me?

I was just showing those examples to show that you've been the angry one.

I'll ask again - where have I been angry?

And I'll ask again - can you acknowledge my point about the PhDs, given you asked for my back up?

Elliott S

randylonghorn wrote: »

Re: PhDs, different countries (and studies) count differently, which is what is causing the confusion.

Some will look at years after completing Masters, so the answer will normally be 3-4.

For the sciences in the UK and Ireland, many if not most people go straight from their undergrad to their PhD and the length is generally 4-4.5 years total postgrad study.

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

And can we avoid making arguments personal, please. TSM, you're not the only one at fault at this stage, but I really don't want to see words like silly or idiotic being slung around just because you disagree with someone!

For you Randy, anything:D

spurious wrote: »

But people in your 'crappy' school still got over 500 points, as I'm sure there were plenty in private schools got under 350. The contacts made in private schools are undeniable.
Girls do better on the current system of exams across the board.

The exceptions don't disprove the rule, Spurious! There are a few lads who grew up drinking milk and didn't reach 5 foot, but I wouldn't tell parents that their kids weren't at a disadvantage not drinking milk.

cdeb wrote: »

Where did I say it offended me?

I was just showing those examples to show that you've been the angry one.

I'll ask again - where have I been angry?

And I'll ask again - can you acknowledge my point about the PhDs, given you asked for my back up?

My overlord randy has spoken, my lips are sealed.

randylonghorn

Elliott S wrote: »

For the sciences in the UK and Ireland, many if not most people go straight from their undergrad to their PhD and the length is generally 4-4.5 years total postgrad study.

And most science degrees are 4 years, so total years at third level would then be 8-8.5, so not that far off the figure of 9 which is pretty much accepted internationally as the norm (not the minimum, the norm )

Annnd can I ask, most respectfully, what this argument has to do with the topic of the thread anyway?

Noodle1

spurious wrote: »

Can't let this go.
Look at the list of schools that produced the 8 and 7 A1 people. They come from a range of schools.
There is not any 'edge' unless you are the marketing person for the 'tuition centres'.
Teachers help candidates to get good results in all sorts of schools.



I have personal knowledge of a child in an ETB school in an educational blackspot (possibly the lowest access to Higher Ed. in the country) who got 5A1s. You don't have to pay fees or go to grinds businesses to do well.

I agree that you don't have to pay fees or go to grinds to do well. As I said many clever young people do well in regular schools. But imagine if those same young people went to the schools that produce high scores year after year. Those young people would then do even better.
My husband for example repeated his leaving cert in a fee paying school. His result was significantly higher than the previous year even though he was still a messer ). I didn't have that luxury, I had to take the course I was offered and tough luck. I went to UCG and enjoyed it and met many people there on my course who got very good points in their leaving cert. Many of these same people then struggled with college exams which made me wonder how these same people got these points. I genuinely wonder about this. Why is this? Is it that the LC is a measure of ability to memorize rather than a level of intelligence? I would love to hear people's opinions on this

TSMGUY wrote: »

my school sucked and very few people got above 500 points. There's no denying that a crappy all boys' school like the one I attended is at a significant disadvantage compared to a good, fee-paying all girls' school.

I have to agree with this

Elliott S

randylonghorn wrote: »

Annnd can I ask, most respectfully, what this argument has to do with the topic of the thread anyway?

You responded to it, much like everyone else! If it was off-topic why not say, and why respond yourself? Don't be citing it as off-topic only after someone picks up on one of your points.

cdeb

Noodle1 wrote: »

I went to UCG and enjoyed it and met many people there on my course who got very good points in their leaving cert. Many of these same people then struggled with college exams which made me wonder how these same people got these points. I genuinely wonder about this. Why is this? Is it that the LC is a measure of ability to memorize rather than a level of intelligence? I would love to hear people's opinions on this

I think some people struggle with the relative freedom and distractions of college. Do I study or go for a pint kind of stuff. Part of college is learning to apply what you've picked up at LC in terms of application and planning, and applying it outside the rigidly supervised school environment - doing it for yourself, basically. And some people just struggle with that. But generally they learn and rebound. That was my experience anyway.

Gallagher1

randylonghorn wrote: »

The same might work well with Irish as well.

I think it would be ideal for Irish. Having gone to the Gaeltacht for a couple of summers I absolutely loved the conversational side of Irish and actually using the language but when it came to the literature side of things, I wanted to pull my eyes/ears/vital organs out and this was the general consensus with everyone in my class in school.

Why they don't split Irish into Irish(Conversational) and Irish(Literature) as different subjects where you have to pick at least 1 is beyond me. Beatha teanga í a labhairt as the proverb says.

randylonghorn

Noodle1 wrote: »

I went to UCG and enjoyed it and met many people there on my course who got very good points in their leaving cert. Many of these same people then struggled with college exams which made me wonder how these same people got these points. I genuinely wonder about this. Why is this? Is it that the LC is a measure of ability to memorize rather than a level of intelligence? I would love to hear people's opinions on this

IMO, it has moved more in that direction in the last decade or so.

There are books of notes on sale, teachers give notes, grind schools give notes, they all amount to the provision of ready-made homogenous answers for students to rote-learn and regurgitate (not so bad in something like biology, for example, but a real nightmare for, say, English).

As spurious mentioned earlier, the publishing of marking schemes is a definite contributor to this.

So, in my opinion, are the proliferation of grind schools, and the idea that the notes they provide are some kind of manna from heaven.

When they move on to third-level, those students who were brilliant at rote-learning often find themselves struggling when asked to actually read in depth, and develop, articulate and defend their own opinions. For some, even being asked to give their own opinion and back it up makes their head go pop! They are accustomed to being told what to think, and they sorely miss that security blanket.

Elliott S wrote: »

You responded to it, much like everyone else! If it was off-topic why not say, and why respond yourself? Don't be citing it as off-topic only after someone picks up on one of your points.

I hoped and presumed that some clarification / facts might finish the argument without having to be heavy-handed about it.

I'm an eternal optimist, I guess! :rolleyes:

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

IMO, it has moved more in that direction in the last decade or so.

There are books of notes on sale, teachers give notes, grind schools give notes, they all amount to the provision of ready-made homogenous answers for students to rote-learn and regurgitate (not so bad in something like biology, for example, but a real nightmare for, say, English).

As spurious mentioned earlier, the publishing of marking schemes is a definite contributor to this.

So, in my opinion, are the proliferation of grind schools, and the idea that the notes they provide are some kind of manna from heaven.

When they move on to third-level, those students who were brilliant at rote-learning often find themselves struggling when asked to actually read in depth, and develop, articulate and defend their own opinions. For some, even being asked to give their own opinion and back it up makes their head go pop! They are accustomed to being told what to think, and they sorely miss that security blanket.

I hoped and presumed that some clarification / facts might finish the argument without having to be heavy-handed about it.

I'm an eternal optimist, I guess! :rolleyes:

That was exactly my point! Key Notes is the devil.

An eternal optimist on boards? Don't be so silly and idiotic, Randy;)

randylonghorn

TSMGUY wrote: »

An eternal optimist on boards? Don't be so silly and idiotic, Randy;)

Gallagher1

cdeb wrote: »

I think some people struggle with the relative freedom and distractions of college. Do I study or go for a pint kind of stuff. Part of college is learning to apply what you've picked up at LC in terms of application and planning, and applying it outside the rigidly supervised school environment - doing it for yourself, basically. And some people just struggle with that. But generally they learn and rebound. That was my experience anyway.

This This This. The amount of 600 pointers in my year who scraped by exams by the skin of their teeth is mental. It is so ridiculously easy to get caught up in the crazy social scene of college and forget that you actually have to put it on hold occasionally and study. In school you have a set enforced routine in which you have no option but to study..this does not happen in college.

LC is based for the most part on regurgitation of knowledge whereas college is more based on application of knowledge(Especially the case in Medicine and Engineering) and some students excel at the former but are not quite as excellent in the latter. 2 smartest guys I've ever met by far got low 500s in their leaving which is still fantastic but not quite the "9A1" standard in the court of public opinion.

TSMGUY

randylonghorn wrote: »

those actually look like the brown chinos I wear almost everyday:D

randylonghorn

cdeb wrote: »

I think some people struggle with the relative freedom and distractions of college. Do I study or go for a pint kind of stuff. Part of college is learning to apply what you've picked up at LC in terms of application and planning, and applying it outside the rigidly supervised school environment - doing it for yourself, basically. And some people just struggle with that. But generally they learn and rebound. That was my experience anyway.

Gallagher1 wrote: »

This This This. The amount of 600 pointers in my year who scraped by exams by the skin of their teeth is mental. It is so ridiculously easy to get caught up in the crazy social scene of college and forget that you actually have to put it on hold occasionally and study. In school you have a set enforced routine in which you have no option but to study..this does not happen in college.

This is true too, but as cdeb says, generally these people rebound, most of them after first year gives them a shock!

cdeb

randylonghorn wrote: »

I hoped and presumed that some clarification / facts might finish the argument without having to be heavy-handed about it.

I'm an eternal optimist, I guess! :rolleyes:

If (If! ) you do really want to know, the issue was whether the Leaving Cert helps towards a PhD. The nay side said it couldn't as a PhD was at least six years and an average of 8, and so had no connection to the Leaving at all. The yay side said that simply wasn't the timeframe here at all, and the study skills learned doing the Leaving were very helpful at future exams like a PhD (among others)

And from which the question of PhD length arose, and which country was this anyway, and was an American PhD (8+ years) really relevant in this context.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

If (If! ) you do really want to know, the issue was whether the Leaving Cert helps towards a PhD. The nay side said it couldn't as a PhD was at least six years and an average of 8, and so had no connection to the Leaving at all. The yay side said that simply wasn't the timeframe here at all, and the study skills learned doing the Leaving were very helpful at future exams like a PhD (among others)

And from which the question of PhD length arose, and which country was this anyway, and was an American PhD (8+ years) really relevant in this context.

Pretty accurate summary lol

Noodle1

Gallagher1 wrote: »

This This This. The amount of 600 pointers in my year who scraped by exams by the skin of their teeth is mental. It is so ridiculously easy to get caught up in the crazy social scene of college and forget that you actually have to put it on hold occasionally and study. In school you have a set enforced routine in which you have no option but to study..this does not happen in college.

LC is based for the most part on regurgitation of knowledge whereas college is more based on application of knowledge(Especially the case in Medicine and Engineering) and some students excel at the former but are not quite as excellent in the latter. 2 smartest guys I've ever met by far got low 500s in their leaving which is still fantastic but not quite the "9A1" standard in the court of public opinion.

Yes! I agree. Some of the most intelligent people that I met in college weren't mad high points scorers. But brilliant at getting things straight away and didn't seem to have to learn, just got it (I did science in case anyone wondering). And not just specific subjects, just a broad intelligence. Made me wonder all of the time about people rating other people on their points in LC. I still know people who rate themselves and other people on their LC score. Makes me cringe especially when it was a long time ago.

pumpkin4life

Always thought it was kind of a bit of a waste of time tbh.

Close to 99% of things I've learned during the Leaving Cert I never used again/could have taught myself in a very quick period of time anyway.

And this is coming from someone who veered towards the technical STEM subjects in L.C. In terms of preparing you in terms of raw information to use in the real world/or at a more advanced level in university, its pretty piss poor.

I also dislike the "create scared worker drone" aspect/feel of it as well.

Having said that, the points system is brutally fair. You get the points, you get in. You don't get the points, you don't, doesn't matter who you are.

Still think its more of a holding area for teenagers though. Sides, if you have to learn something, for most skills, you will learn it if you can go off on your own.

matthew1998

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Having said that, the points system is brutally fair. You get the points, you get in. You don't get the points, you don't, doesn't matter who you are.

I agree with this, it's black and white! If we could only chose 4 or 5 subjects and study them in more detail (little bit like the A level system) and not be forced to take core subjects as they aren't for everybody.

Although I definitely do think we should be forced to take them to a Junior Certificate level where people can learn how to use basic grammar and basic financial maths.

seavill

Apologies if this has been dealt with I have only read pages 1-5 of this thread so far but something stood out to me from reading it.

TSMGUY you mention in your original post that "huge amounts of stress due to the unpredictability of the exams", however in other posts the fact that the LC is based around huge amounts of wrote learning is criticized by you.
I feel that you are countering your own point here.

Surely if the exam is unpredictable that means you need to have a more in-depth knowledge of the topics and be able to apply them in more difficult circumstances, thus taking away the wrote learning aspect.
I feel you have been giving out that there is huge amounts of wrote learning required but also giving out when that wrote learning doesn't fit nicely into a question you have prepared for in the exam.

I teach DCG. Before DCG came in it was known as Technical Drawing. The TD exam was so predictable it was silly. You knew exactly what question was going to come up where and just prepare for the ones you were good at.
The DCG exam is completely different, there is no pattern to the exam each year, the topics change each year so no way of predicting what will come up.
On top of that the "c" parts to each question are very difficult for your standard student, you really need to have a proper understanding of the subject to be able to answer these parts of the questions.

So nothing is predictable in that, it really tests who understands the DCG course rather than those who learned off how to answer drawing questions, however based on your point in the original post, this is to be criticised for causing extra stress, but at the same time it should be celebrated for challenging critical thinking and not allowing people get away with passing a memory test.

Would be interested to see if I picked up your points incorrectly or was that the point you were trying to make

TheBiz

I think the Leaving Cert is as fair as any large scale exam could be.
Hard work is rewarded, but so is general ability.
I personally found the 2 weeks (or so) of exams manageable, others found it near impossible.
I think keeping calm is a huge factor. I saw 500 points + students come out in the 300s because they were crippled with the fear of failing and as a result they didn't achieve results that reflected not only their work but also their own natural ability.
It is a fair exam but it is by no means perfect.

TSMGUY

seavill wrote: »

Apologies if this has been dealt with I have only read pages 1-5 of this thread so far but something stood out to me from reading it.

TSMGUY you mention in your original post that "huge amounts of stress due to the unpredictability of the exams", however in other posts the fact that the LC is based around huge amounts of wrote learning is criticized by you.
I feel that you are countering your own point here.

Surely if the exam is unpredictable that means you need to have a more in-depth knowledge of the topics and be able to apply them in more difficult circumstances, thus taking away the wrote learning aspect.
I feel you have been giving out that there is huge amounts of wrote learning required but also giving out when that wrote learning doesn't fit nicely into a question you have prepared for in the exam.

I teach DCG. Before DCG came in it was known as Technical Drawing. The TD exam was so predictable it was silly. You knew exactly what question was going to come up where and just prepare for the ones you were good at.
The DCG exam is completely different, there is no pattern to the exam each year, the topics change each year so no way of predicting what will come up.
On top of that the "c" parts to each question are very difficult for your standard student, you really need to have a proper understanding of the subject to be able to answer these parts of the questions.

So nothing is predictable in that, it really tests who understands the DCG course rather than those who learned off how to answer drawing questions, however based on your point in the original post, this is to be criticised for causing extra stress, but at the same time it should be celebrated for challenging critical thinking and not allowing people get away with passing a memory test.

Would be interested to see if I picked up your points incorrectly or was that the point you were trying to make

Some good points, some of which I'm simply too lazy to rebut, but many of which are very difficult to argue. Thanks for the contribution!

Mardy Bum

As somebody lamented "there is too much rote learning in the English Education system. The Chinese are thinking critically (what does this really mean, the definition is far to superfluous and it should just be split into its constituent parts which can actually be defined) and not doing this rote learning."

The reason the Chinese/whoever or whatever utopia is chosen, can think critically is because they have a vast repository of background knowledge in all their subjects which is drummed into them from the moment they can get to school. This allows them to engage with a topic at a level above reaming off facts.

Ireland is similar in perpetuating this belief that critical thinking is possible without a repository of background knowledge. How can someone critique a certain historians' take on WW2 if they don't know a large amount of facts about it already. How can a student engage with a complicated Maths problem in a new way if they don't understand the principles? How can someone critique a poem/poet if they don't know what the poem is about?

You can only think critically (again I don't like writing this word as the concept itself is diffuse - reasoning, making judgements and decisions and problem solving) if you have learned a lot of background information or facts.

An historian can critique a secondary source however they would be terrible at critiquing/analysing a mammogram and you would be much wiser in going to an expert in that field. The point is if you do not have a vast repository of background knowledge you will not be able to think "critically".

The LC at higher level tries to encourage students to engage with material and gain a deeper understanding however most students have no interest in engaging with material like this as it is difficult and a lot of students think learning should be "fun" and "easy" when learning is actually the complete opposite. Teachers are at fault here and parents also for not making it clear to students that this is not how learning occurs (through ignorance themselves). It is difficult, frustrating, tiring and occurs over a long period of time.

The one thing I would say is that the LC should be 5 subjects maximum with Irish being an option. This would allow students the time to dig deeper in their subjects.

To put this lack of background knowledge into context look at this entrance exam from 1913 for St. Eunans. Students were expected to have a lot of background knowledge BEFORE secondary school.

seavill

TSMGUY wrote: »

Some good points, some of which I'm simply too lazy to rebut, but many of which are very difficult to argue. Thanks for the contribution!

I'm not sure what to take from that to be honest