Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Circular Number: 0037/2020
Comments
-
So if you'd typicslly get one or two H1s and this year you'd predict 3 H1s do you think the department will weild the axe?
You might get away with one extra but if your results are noticeably higher than your schools typical subject average they’ll look into your results and ‘correct’ them to suit their system. They’ll want this years results to be as close as possible to the last 3 years. 2021s results will follow the usual grades so they don’t want this year to show grade inflation.....it will let Dept say to parents and media that this years grades were in line with the last 3 years so nothing to see here.
At the end of the day I’m only an old cynic so think the Dept will do whatever they think is necessary to get this done and out of the way. I could be totally wrong and doing them a disservice of course.....and hope I am.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »They'll have to if every teacher in the country did that, otherwise the rate of H1s will skyrocket in every subject.
But on a case by case basis, will your extra H1 be likely to be bumped down.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »They'll have to if every teacher in the country did that, otherwise the rate of H1s will skyrocket in every subject.
They've certainly no issue with the stem subjects H1's skyrocketing off the curve for the last few years anyway! How standardised is that....And I don't want a 'subject-off' where people claim that science people are generally more intelligent or whatever, the curve should have bee ln adjusted and exams / marking scheme made more difficult, that's a simple fix, and based on science, but it's been going on for years now and you need to ask why.
Biology H1s jumped up a crazy amount around 2 years ago (will have to check on the exact details). Nothing done.
If they are going to bump down a sizeable majority of teachers predictions I think it will compromise the validity of the thing overall. Maybe it will suit them for the blame to go back on the teachers no matter what happens.0 -
They've certainly no issue with the stem subjects H1's skyrocketing off the curve for the last few years anyway! How standardised is that....And I don't want a 'subject-off' where people claim that science people are generally more intelligent or whatever, the curve should have bee ln adjusted and exams / marking scheme made more difficult, that's a simple fix, and based on science, but it's been going on for years now and you need to ask why.
Biology H1s jumped up a crazy amount around 2 years ago (will have to check on the exact details). Nothing done.
If they are going to bump down a sizeable majority of teachers predictions I think it will compromise the validity of the thing overall. Maybe it will suit them for the blame to go back on the teachers no matter what happens.
And it came back down the following it, it was an anomaly.
Physics, Chemistry, Applied Maths have a high rate of H1s because they are niche subjects. Students see them as difficult and choose them because they like them/are good at them/need them for college. Nobody chooses physics for the craic or because they think it will be a doss subject. That's not to say there are doss subjects. All subjects require work, but some are a lot more accessible than others.
The vast majority of my physics students would also be doing HL Maths, and the ones that don't generally are the weakest in the class, and often end up doing OL Physics.
Biology on the other hand is the most popular subject after the core subjects as far as I know. So you get a greater spread of ability doing it and therefore a more 'regular curve'.
It doesn't compromise the validity of calculated grades if teachers grades are bumped down. The only thing you should be questioning is why there were so many H1s in the first place.
If every school in the country offering French typically only got one H1, and this year almost every teacher entered two H1s, then the H1 rate will double. That's not typical of any year and it would need to be rectified.0 -
But on a case by case basis, will your extra H1 be likely to be bumped down.
Anecdotally, a lot of teachers gave students the benefit of the doubt (despite being told not to) so it is vital that the department are militaristic about sticking to previous results otherwise the teachers that at least tried to follow the instructions are not penalised even further.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm coming from the individual teacher perspective and 'applying a curve' to 20 students , as opposed to the above macro perspectives of applying a curve to 20odd thousand students.
But yes I agree there will probably be mass downgrading.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »And it came back down the following it, it was an anomaly.
Physics, Chemistry, Applied Maths have a high rate of H1s because they are niche subjects. Students see them as difficult and choose them because they like them/are good at them/need them for college. Nobody chooses physics for the craic or because they think it will be a doss subject. That's not to say there are doss subjects. All subjects require work, but some are a lot more accessible than others.
I'd disagree , all non-core subjects could be described as niche, and you don't choose them for the craic.
You have to admit that it's not fair that ONLY the STEM subjects get consistently the most H1s.
It's a piece of cake to set a marginally harder exam, but yet the curve is ignored year on year, while other niche subjects suffer (with constant threat to the teacher of killing off a subject too, because students go points hunting starting 5th year).
I'm probably veering off topic but my point is that the curve is ignored when it suits. The SEC aren't bursting with the integrity they'd have us believe.0 -
The curve is ignored year on year.
I'm probably veering off topic but my point is that the curve is ignored when it suits. The SEC aren't bursting with the integrity they'd have us believe.
This is nonsense. With the exception of the H1 rate in HL Biology in 2018, grades in the science subjects are extraordinarily stable, through the deliberate actions of the SEC and the examining teams.
The "curve" is not ignored year on year. Look at the stats on the SEC website.0 -
I'd disagree , all non-core subjects could be described as niche, and you don't choose them for the craic.
You have to admit that it's not fair that ONLY the STEM subjects get consistently the most H1s.
It's a piece of cake to set a marginally harder exam, but yet the curve is ignored year on year, while other niche subjects suffer (with constant threat to the teacher of killing off a subject too, because students go points hunting starting 5th year).
I'm probably veering off topic but my point is that the curve is ignored when it suits. The SEC aren't bursting with the integrity they'd have us believe.
I don't have to admit anything.
34k people sat Biology last year, when there were 54k sitting English and Maths. 23k sat Geography. Many students find these two subjects fairly accessible in terms of understanding and being able to learn the material.
Year on year I have people in Ag Science who are there because they didn't like any other subjects on the line so 'it will do'. It's not because they are wildly interested in farming.
I have yet to have a student turn up for Physics in fifth year because it was the best of a bad lot. Same for Chemistry when I used to teach it. That automatically skews the data. Students who are weaker academically avoid Physics and Chemistry like the plague for the most part, to the point that it's not unusual to have a group of students sitting in front of me who are taking all subjects at Higher Level, maybe with the exception of Irish for one or two. I would say that is repeated across the country and if you have the top end of the students in a school taking those subjects year in year out, they are going to do well in them.
You can't just make two or three subjects more difficult because they attract a particular cohort. The students that do these subjects tend to do well across the board, they just are more concentrated in STEM subjects. Also if you were to make it overly difficult then you are marking it out as a subject that only very high achievers should take and excluding the average student.
Have a look at the stats for Applied Maths. 55% of candidates last year got H1-H3 grades. Less than 2000 sat the exam. The vast majority of applied maths students are already doing HL Maths and HL Physics so it's seen as a nice fit with those and many do it outside school.
Interestingly, the breakdown of grades by gender for Applied Maths almost mirrors that of Physics where the majority of candidates by a long way are boys in both. 25% of App Maths students are girls and it's 28% for Physics.0 -
I'm coming from the individual teacher perspective and 'applying a curve' to 20 students , as opposed to the above macro perspectives of applying a curve to 20odd thousand students.
But yes I agree there will probably be mass downgrading.
It should be applied to the year group rather than class if possible.0 -
Advertisement
-
Purefrank128 wrote: »This is nonsense. With the exception of the H1 rate in HL Biology in 2018, grades in the science subjects are extraordinarily stable, through the deliberate actions of the SEC and the examining teams.
The "curve" is not ignored year on year. Look at the stats on the SEC website.
I agree, they are stable and that's the problem. Stable because they maintain the high H1s, if it were a fair normal distribution you wouldn't have >10% getting H1s Year on year.
Is it just a coincidence that they are the sciences.
If the SEC wanted to they could correct these outliers. But year on year other subjects are given the mantra "we must adhere to the curve".
2018 stats.jpg
2019 Stats.JPG0 -
It should be applied to the year group rather than class if possible.
Ideally, but that's where it gets messy. One teacher might have put in one H1 and it was the real deal and the other teacher put in 3 H1s which were given the benefit of the doubt, or bumped up to avoid being on the borderline , all of a higher percentage, so the one in the first teacher's class loses out if the school typically get 3H1s in a normal year.
On the other hand, one group could be really weak and the other really strong because of the way the blocks fell and a student could be pulled down from the stronger class that deserved the grade more. That bit is going to be messy no doubt.0 -
It's worth noting the STEM subjects generally have the highest failure rate, you either know the information or you don't. I would echo the sentiments of the above commenter. I have frequently seen classes of 10/12 in physics where every student is in HL across the board and almost all and sometime all get above 500 points. The perception of the difficultly of the subject also makes it self selecting.
The curve is applied primarily to the centre and the focus is on the bulk of the students on the bellcurve. If that adjustment leaves 10% with H1s then so be it, these students know the information required by the curriculum. Asking for more difficult exams in the subjects with the highest failure rates would push more students away from STEM subjects, certainly not what we want.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »Ideally, but that's where it gets messy. One teacher might have put in one H1 and it was the real deal and the other teacher put in 3 H1s which were given the benefit of the doubt, or bumped up to avoid being on the borderline , all of a higher percentage, so the one in the first teacher's class loses out if the school typically get 3H1s in a normal year.
On the other hand, one group could be really weak and the other really strong because of the way the blocks fell and a student could be pulled down from the stronger class that deserved the grade more. That bit is going to be messy no doubt.
This was what the alignment meeting was meant to prevent but realistically the big personalities get their way.0 -
-
am_zarathustra wrote: »It's worth noting the STEM subjects generally have the highest failure rate, you either know the information or you don't. I would echo the sentiments of the above commenter. I have frequently seen classes of 10/12 in physics where every student is in HL across the board and almost all and sometime all get above 500 points. The perception of the difficultly of the subject also makes it self selecting.
The curve is applied primarily to the centre and the focus is on the bulk of the students on the bellcurve. If that adjustment leaves 10% with H1s then so be it, these students know the information required by the curriculum. Asking for more difficult exams in the subjects with the highest failure rates would push more students away from STEM subjects, certainly not what we want.
This is a little off topic but it’s something I follow.
Music a similarly niche subject to physics with exceptionally talented students has a consistently low H1 rate comparatively. But it’s not a bell curve at all, either at the bottom or the top. However they rigidly hold to that year after year. Why shouldn’t our curve match physics for example? And if the argument is that the physics students are all exceptional students then why is our failure rate so much lower than theirs?
Realistically some students should fail music if this bell curve is supposed to be followed. There is no reason why we should have far less people failing music and half the H1 rate compared to biology for example considering the size of their cohort (I’m ignoring the outlier of 2018 which was outrageous)
This all annoys me. It’s like these spreads were just set up and are rigidly stuck to every year regardless of whether they are fair. I shouldn’t have students passing HL music who are failing every subject (and can barely play) but I do. Equally I have students who are capable and deserve the H1 not getting it. But our spread never changes. Having said that thank god our failure rate is low because it’s hard enough to get students to take the subject when the world and it’s mother are pushing kids to stem even if it isn’t their forte0 -
mirrorwall14 wrote: »This is a little off topic but it’s something I follow.
Music a similarly niche subject to physics with exceptionally talented students has a consistently low H1 rate comparatively. But it’s not a bell curve at all, either at the bottom or the top. However they rigidly hold to that year after year. Why shouldn’t our curve match physics for example? And if the argument is that the physics students are all exceptional students then why is our failure rate so much lower than theirs?
Realistically some students should fail music if this bell curve is supposed to be followed. There is no reason why we should have far less people failing music and half the H1 rate compared to biology for example considering the size of their cohort (I’m ignoring the outlier of 2018 which was outrageous)
This all annoys me. It’s like these spreads were just set up and are rigidly stuck to every year regardless of whether they are fair. I shouldn’t have students passing HL music who are failing every subject (and can barely play) but I do. Equally I have students who are capable and deserve the H1 not getting it. But our spread never changes. Having said that thank god our failure rate is low because it’s hard enough to get students to take the subject when the world and it’s mother are pushing kids to stem even if it isn’t their forte
There's a 50% practical in music. I would imagine that the vast majority of students taking music already play a musical instrument/sing, so even an average student taking music should manage 30/50 in the practical unless they make a complete balls of it. Very hard to fail music if you do a decent practical.
No practical in physics, chemistry or biology.0 -
am_zarathustra wrote: »The perception of the difficultly of the subject also makes it self selecting.
I disagree, I think it's the perception of ease to get the H1 which makes it self selecting for those students. I find those students have good potential across many subjects, manys the time I've had definite 100% students in my subject say they're not going to do it for leaving cert, because it's easier to get the H1 in the other subject.
It shouldn't be easier to get a H1 in one subject over anotheram_zarathustra wrote: »The curve is applied primarily to the centre and the focus is on the bulk of the students on the bellcurve. If that adjustment leaves 10% with H1s then so be it,
No not so be it, sounds like it suits your subject and everyone else can get stuffed. 10% with H1s year in year out is not a fair curve. Especially when you hear from subject association 'leaders' in your subject say year in year out that it must be fair and we must stick to the curve... also I've consistently heard that the H1 is only for the exceptional rare student who is 'above expectations', meanwhile over the fence the stem subjects get preferential treatment.am_zarathustra wrote: »these students know the information required by the curriculum. Asking for more difficult exams in the subjects with the highest failure rates would push more students away from STEM subjects, certainly not what we want.
I don't think they're being challenged enough. I'm not asking for overall 'more difficult exam' , all it takes could be a tweek in one question to more open ended response which would test comprehension (as opposed to recall knowledge). It's easy take care of fails at the other end.am_zarathustra wrote: »...Asking for more difficult exams in the subjects with the highest failure rates would push more students away from STEM subjects, certainly not what we want.
So how do you push more students toward stem?
How do you make it more attractive?
Points points points
H1s H1s H1s
That's already happening.
I just had a look at the 2019 physics paper and it's pretty much all recall information. Sad really that it hasn't changed much since I sat it over 25 years ago. Now I remember why I found the subject easy ( Except maybe for the Hadron leaving question which must be 'new'). I'm not taking about a change in content, I'm talking about a change in questioning technique. There's very little open ended questions/. For example in the A levels they make a statement and you're required to 'criticise this statement'.
It can be done in the sciences, but they fall back on recall rather than higher order testing.
For the sciences saying that you either 'know it or you don't' is a sad indictment on risk and exploration. You may as well send a memo to universities to tell them down tools it's all been done.
Probably more an area for projects and conjectures in the new leaving cert.0 -
I disagree, I think it's the perception of ease to get the H1 which makes it self selecting for those students. I find those students have good potential across many subjects, manys the time I've had definite 100% students in my subject say they're not going to do it for leaving cert, because it's easier to get the H1 in the other subject.
It shouldn't be easier to get a H1 in one subject over another
No not so be it, sounds like it suits your subject and everyone else can get stuffed. 10% with H1s year in year out is not a fair curve. Especially when you hear from subject association 'leaders' in your subject say year in year out that it must be fair and we must stick to the curve... also I've consistently heard that the H1 is only for the exceptional rare student who is 'above expectations', meanwhile over the fence the stem subjects get preferential treatment.
I don't think they're being challenged enough. I'm not asking for overall 'more difficult exam' , all it takes could be a tweek in one question to more open ended response which would test comprehension (as opposed to recall knowledge). It's easy take care of fails at the other end.
So how do you push more students toward stem?
How do you make it more attractive?
Points points points
H1s H1s H1s
That's already happening.
I just had a look at the 2019 physics paper and it's pretty much all recall information. Sad really that it hasn't changed much since I sat it over 25 years ago. Now I remember why I found the subject easy ( Except maybe for the Hadron leaving question which must be 'new'). I'm not taking about a change in content, I'm talking about a change in questioning technique. There's very little open ended questions/. For example in the A levels they make a statement and you're required to 'criticise this statement'.
It can be done in the sciences, but they fall back on recall rather than higher order testing.
For the sciences saying that you either 'know it or you don't' is a sad indictment on risk and exploration. You may as well send a memo to universities to tell them down tools it's all been done.
Probably more an area for projects and conjectures in the new leaving cert.
The exceptional students are doing physics. 500 points and higher is their normal. You cannot set a syllabus based on the cohort who might take it, it has to be accessible to all. In the same way that you can't set a music syllabus based on the fact that a lot of Grade 8 music students might take the exam. It has to be accessible to the student who is studying music for the first time when they enter secondary school.
A lot of students do find physics challenging, they have to figure out how to solve problems and manipulate different formulas. It's not always obvious which formula they should use.
There's only about 6500 doing Physics every year. It's the least popular of the science subjects. Ag Science bypassed it years ago. I don't see much evidence of students being pushed towards Physics. I have double figures for the first time going into fifth year this September coming. Part of that is because we have a way bigger fifth year than normal and part is me pulling out all the stops in TY for the last three years since it was established in my school to get students to engage with Physics. The Chemistry teacher has the same problem. If we get 8-9 each we are doing very well. On the other hand they're falling out the door in Biology and the new PE course is doing very well in my school also.0 -
I don't think they're being challenged enough. I'm not asking for overall 'more difficult exam' , all it takes could be a tweek in one question to more open ended response which would test comprehension (as opposed to recall knowledge).
I just had a look at the 2019 physics paper and it's pretty much all recall information. Sad really that it hasn't changed much since I sat it over 25 years ago. There's very little open ended questions/. For example in the A levels they make a statement and you're required to 'criticise this statement'.
I'm just going to end up repeating what was said above really. In general, the most academically able students in my school end up doing physics, chemistry and higher level maths. They do well across the board in their subjects. Many go on to do courses such as medicine and engineering so they really focus on their science subjects. We always get a few that end up in the classes due to subject choices and having no other options. They struggle massively with the content because it is difficult and some always fail.
I totally disagree with you saying that the physics paper is pretty much all recall. There are definitions which are recall. There is a massive amount of understanding involved in physics and chemistry. Its a not a case of being given a formula and plugging in numbers. The marking schemes for these subjects are also really specific.
This is why the weaker kids struggle with them - because you can't just learn off the information. You have to understand whats going on and apply logic in different scenarios. They'd probably have a better chance in business or geography or biology where there would be more recall involved.
I think we've gone fairly off topic at this stage0 -
Advertisement
-
Alex86Eire wrote: »I'm just going to end up repeating what was said above really. In general, the most academically able students in my school end up doing physics, chemistry and higher level maths.
The most academically able students are equally able for other subjects (I think we're in agreement in there).
But the stats show it
Physics- higher chance of H1
Chemistry- Also up there
Higher maths- bonus points
You just can't have 10% of a group of thousands all being exceptional all the time in just those few stem subjects. Any normal distribution will tell you that.
If it were a level playing field would they stay with those choices?
I'd still stand over the point that physics is mostly recall so feel free to post a more open question from the 2019 paper0 -
You are very focused on H1s and far more focused on your subject than I am. I don't teach Physics, I am focused on attainment though so I am aware of the general ability level of students in each cohort in my own school and, as above, would say if you have a student studying 2 or 3 sciences they are focused on their future career and generally will score above average across every subject. I did all three Sciences and I can honestly say my As in english and my foreign language were easier to get.
With regards to high attainment, it's actually easier to get above a H2 in music than any of the sciences, if we are playing the points game.
Music 36% of students got H1/2...from a quick glance that actually mades music the easiest subject to get over 80% in 2019
Physics 27.1%
Chemistry 31.1%
Biology 23.5%
This actually becomes more stark if you drop to H3 level or above.
The issue I imagine is the subjective nature of parts of the music course. An excellent composition gets 9 out of 10.....a perfect pieces of calculus gets 10/10.
But regardless of why the general argument you are making is not borne out by any of the other statistics bar the H1s....at every other level the science are less generous than Music and have a significant;y higher failure rate. I would hope any student proficient in maths would be able to see this themselves. I have rarely heard students discuss the number of people getting H1s in a subject but I have frequently had kids tell me they would do any other subject rather than physics or chemistry. Chemistry is also a requirement for any student even considering medicine and they need another science too.
I would love to see more open ended and challenging questions on the papers but equally to critically think about issues we must have information to critically think about. Either way that is not the current syllabus so its not relevant until the inevitable Leaving Cert reform.0 -
The most academically able students are equally able for other subjects (I think we're in agreement in there).
But the stats show it
Physics- higher chance of H1
Chemistry- Also up there
Higher maths- bonus points
You just can't have 10% of a group of thousands all being exceptional all the time in just those few stem subjects. Any normal distribution will tell you that.
If it were a level playing field would they stay with those choices?
I'd still stand over the point that physics is mostly recall so feel free to post a more open question from the 2019 paper
Science subjects are not subjective which means it is easier to achieve highly. In the same way, getting over 80% in a maths module in college is not unheard of whereas getting over 80% in an English or History essay is exceptionally unusual and held for publishable work by and large.
There was a study (I think by Denise Burns) recently which noted that recall was very prominent in chemistry, biology and geography in contrast with English, music and art which were viewed as demanding a much greater level of understanding. Unsurprisingly, English, art and music have low numbers attaining over 90. In ways it is no surprise when one considers the PISA results. Science lags behind literacy. Therefore there is a higher standard at leaving certificate.0 -
The most academically able students are equally able for other subjects (I think we're in agreement in there).
But the stats show it
Physics- higher chance of H1
Chemistry- Also up there
Higher maths- bonus points
You just can't have 10% of a group of thousands all being exceptional all the time in just those few stem subjects. Any normal distribution will tell you that.
If it were a level playing field would they stay with those choices?
I'd still stand over the point that physics is mostly recall so feel free to post a more open question from the 2019 paper
And all the courses that are at the top end of the points scale - medicine, dentistry, veterinary, pharmacy have students scoring 550+. Those students are all taking multiple sciences both as course requirements and because it's common sense to take subjects you will have to study in college. They are the students who are getting 6H1/2 grades no matter what the subject.
Last year for the first time the 600 point barrier was breached for Economics and Finance in UCD with a course cutoff of 601 points. Imagine getting 601 in your Leaving Cert and being the 'weakest' in your class??
You'll find a glut of those students in physics and chemistry classes which will skew the curve.
Look at the stats for Physics last year H7: 9.1%, H8: 7.4%
and for Chemistry H7: 6.5%, H8 7.5%
Now look at Geography: H7: 4.6 %, H8: 1%
and French H7: 3.7%, H8: 0.6%
The more academically able students choose physics and chemistry, they are able for the concepts in these subjects and for many of them aiming for high points courses, they are requirements or a major component of the course.
Before you mention the push for STEM, the courses I listed above were the same high points courses that were at the top of the scale 30 years ago before the term STEM was ever invented.
On the other hand, the weaker/average student stays away from those subjects and picks what they see as more accessible, they choose biology, geography, french, business etc.
If you are an average student you have a better chance of passing higher level in a subject with a project/oral component etc than one with a straight exam.
Not sure why you're having such a problem with it when plenty of people here can give evidence that the kids in their physics and chemistry classes are by and large are at the top end of the ability spectrum.
If physics became a mandatory subject for all the universities tomorrow and you had the numbers taking it like you see for biology and geography you would see a more regular curve on the exact same exam papers because you would be getting a more typical representation of the population.0 -
The most academically able students are equally able for other subjects (I think we're in agreement in there).
But the stats show it
Physics- higher chance of H1
Chemistry- Also up there
Higher maths- bonus points
You just can't have 10% of a group of thousands all being exceptional all the time in just those few stem subjects. Any normal distribution will tell you that.
If it were a level playing field would they stay with those choices?
I'd still stand over the point that physics is mostly recall so feel free to post a more open question from the 2019 paper
OK then... HL Physics 2019, Q5c: "A book is decelerating as it moves to the right on a horizontal table. Draw a labelled diagram to show the forces acting on the book as it moves on the table."
And that's just one of the short questions. Have a look at, for example, question 6 from that paper, which is full of difficult calculations on the motion of satellites.
If Physics is so easy, why do relatively few students study it? Also, if it is so easy, why do almost 20% of students get a H7 or H8 in it?
So in 2019 10.8% of HL Physics students got a H1 but only 3.7% of HL Geography students got a H1. So Physics is easier, right? Not right!
A proper analysis of how "easy" or "difficult" a subject is cannot rely on headline figures like H1 % (or, indeed, H8 %) because, as has been pointed out by rainbowtrout and others here, the cohorts for different subjects are very different from each other.
A proper analysis of the relative difficulty of subjects involves a statistical technique called "subject pairs analysis", which compares the exam performances of students doing various pairs of subjects.
What if you examine the results of students who study both Physics and Geography, and on average their grade in Geography was significantly higher. So which subject is easier now?
This kind of analysis has been carried out on a number of occasions by the Education Research Centre. The results of their most recent study (2018) was that subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics are harder subjects (technically, they have a higher severity of grading index) than subjects like Construction Studies, Art and History. This is based on statistics, on numbers, on actual exam results, not on opinions.
See https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/study-no-evidence-of-students-gaming-leaving-cert-system-873759.html for a partial account of this research. The key quote from the article is as follows:As with some previous studies, students were more likely to get a lower grade in maths, chemistry, physics, and accounting than in other higher-level subjects they took in the Leaving Certificate in 2013. Higher-level French, English, German and biology also emerged as more difficult, but those found to be relatively easier at higher level were construction studies, design and communication graphics, home economics, art, geography, history, and business.0 -
Thanks PureFrank,
I had sen the paired analysis but couldn't find it. Statistically it certainly carries the most weight. I remember a study comparing Maths and English grades to other subjects finding similar, important as they are the best indicators of success in college.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a student who did geography and chemistry and would say the former was easier than the latter!0 -
am_zarathustra wrote: »You are very focused on H1s and far more focused on your subject than I am. I don't teach Physics, I am focused on attainment though so I am aware of the general ability level of students in each cohort in my own school and, as above, would say if you have a student studying 2 or 3 sciences they are focused on their future career and generally will score above average across every subject. I did all three Sciences and I can honestly say my As in english and my foreign language were easier to get.
With regards to high attainment, it's actually easier to get above a H2 in music than any of the sciences, if we are playing the points game.
Music 36% of students got H1/2...from a quick glance that actually mades music the easiest subject to get over 80% in 2019
Physics 27.1%
Chemistry 31.1%
Biology 23.5%
This actually becomes more stark if you drop to H3 level or above.
The issue I imagine is the subjective nature of parts of the music course. An excellent composition gets 9 out of 10.....a perfect pieces of calculus gets 10/10.
But regardless of why the general argument you are making is not borne out by any of the other statistics bar the H1s....at every other level the science are less generous than Music and have a significant;y higher failure rate. I would hope any student proficient in maths would be able to see this themselves. I have rarely heard students discuss the number of people getting H1s in a subject but I have frequently had kids tell me they would do any other subject rather than physics or chemistry. Chemistry is also a requirement for any student even considering medicine and they need another science too.
I would love to see more open ended and challenging questions on the papers but equally to critically think about issues we must have information to critically think about. Either way that is not the current syllabus so its not relevant until the inevitable Leaving Cert reform.
Your 100% right I'm focused on the H1s, and yes Music has crazy amount of H2s. This is reason enough for many excellent students to reject music in favour of the easier H1s.... and of course there's many who go to music because of the easier H2s (I'm not referring to them though).
Neither are fair and neither are a normal distribution which we are being told is being applied.0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »And all the courses that are at the top end of the points scale - medicine, dentistry, veterinary, pharmacy have students scoring 550+. Those students are all taking multiple sciences both as course requirements and because it's common sense to take subjects you will have to study in college. They are the students who are getting 6H1/2 grades no matter what the subject.
Last year for the first time the 600 point barrier was breached for Economics and Finance in UCD with a course cutoff of 601 points. Imagine getting 601 in your Leaving Cert and being the 'weakest' in your class??
You'll find a glut of those students in physics and chemistry classes which will skew the curve.
Look at the stats for Physics last year H7: 9.1%, H8: 7.4%
and for Chemistry H7: 6.5%, H8 7.5%
Now look at Geography: H7: 4.6 %, H8: 1%
and French H7: 3.7%, H8: 0.6%
The more academically able students choose physics and chemistry, they are able for the concepts in these subjects and for many of them aiming for high points courses, they are requirements or a major component of the course.
Before you mention the push for STEM, the courses I listed above were the same high points courses that were at the top of the scale 30 years ago before the term STEM was ever invented.
On the other hand, the weaker/average student stays away from those subjects and picks what they see as more accessible, they choose biology, geography, french, business etc.
If you are an average student you have a better chance of passing higher level in a subject with a project/oral component etc than one with a straight exam.
Not sure why you're having such a problem with it when plenty of people here can give evidence that the kids in their physics and chemistry classes are by and large are at the top end of the ability spectrum.
If physics became a mandatory subject for all the universities tomorrow and you had the numbers taking it like you see for biology and geography you would see a more regular curve on the exact same exam papers because you would be getting a more typical representation of the population.
You keep neglecting the fact that these students are very often equally capable across all subjects. Their ability spectrum goes across all subjects. But that's equal ability going in, but the outcome at the other end isn't equal.
As I mentioned I have had excellent students who outright say that their chances of getting a H1 is easier in another subject so they won't be choosing mine. The exams are easier.0 -
Purefrank128 wrote: »OK then... HL Physics 2019, Q5c: "A book is decelerating as it moves to the right on a horizontal table. Draw a labelled diagram to show the forces acting on the book as it moves on the table."
And that's just one of the short questions. Have a look at, for example, question 6 from that paper, which is full of difficult calculations on the motion of satellites.
If Physics is so easy, why do relatively few students study it? Also, if it is so easy, why do almost 20% of students get a H7 or H8 in it?
So in 2019 10.8% of HL Physics students got a H1 but only 3.7% of HL Geography students got a H1. So Physics is easier, right? Not right!
A proper analysis of how "easy" or "difficult" a subject is cannot rely on headline figures like H1 % (or, indeed, H8 %) because, as has been pointed out by rainbowtrout and others here, the cohorts for different subjects are very different from each other.
A proper analysis of the relative difficulty of subjects involves a statistical technique called "subject pairs analysis", which compares the exam performances of students doing various pairs of subjects.
What if you examine the results of students who study both Physics and Geography, and on average their grade in Geography was significantly higher. So which subject is easier now?
This kind of analysis has been carried out on a number of occasions by the Education Research Centre. The results of their most recent study (2018) was that subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics are harder subjects (technically, they have a higher severity of grading index) than subjects like Construction Studies, Art and History. This is based on statistics, on numbers, on actual exam results, not on opinions.
See https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/study-no-evidence-of-students-gaming-leaving-cert-system-873759.html for a partial account of this research. The key quote from the article is as follows:As with some previous studies, students were more likely to get a lower grade in maths, chemistry, physics, and accounting than in other higher-level subjects they took in the Leaving Certificate in 2013. Higher-level French, English, German and biology also emerged as more difficult, but those found to be relatively easier at higher level were construction studies, design and communication graphics, home economics, art, geography, history, and business.
Sorry I had a detailed reply but deleted it by mistake when trying to kill a fly.
Tl;dr
Physics...
Simple recall that I could even remember... gravity acting down, table keeping it up and friction to the left.
The satellite one... not exactly rocket science is it. Similar to 2015 and previous years. Read the Irish Times review of the paper, predictable as hell if you've done your past papers. (Notice they mentioned 'Hard Working Students', I think they're talking about the H1s there)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/leaving-cert-physics-students-delighted-with-questions-on-the-right-wavelength-1.3930779Anticipated questions from previous exam papers appear in higher level exam
Hard-working students were rewarded by a higher level physics paper that included questions which appeared on previous exam papers, according to Pat Doyle, a physics teacher at the Institute of Education in Dublin.
“Students that practiced with past papers, going right back to the introduction of the new syllabus in 2002, were rewarded in this exam,” he said.
“All the questions based on the experiments have appeared before. Even the little trick parts of the questions had been asked before. Students will be very pleased with question one on acceleration due to gravity, which was widely anticipated, as it has not appeared since 2009.”
Difficult calculations for Q6 , definitely not, simple substitution into the appropriate formula at best. If it went to Logs, Trig or Calculus then I might say students would find it difficult.
In terms of the Subject paired analysis i'd have to read the paper before commenting so... good point... I'll have to get back to you on that (when teacher doesn't know the answer).0 -
Advertisement
-
You keep neglecting the fact that these students are very often equally capable across all subjects. Their ability spectrum goes across all subjects. But that's equal ability going in, but the outcome at the other end isn't equal.
As I mentioned I have had excellent students who outright say that their chances of getting a H1 is easier in another subject so they won't be choosing mine. The exams are easier.
I haven’t neglected it at all actually if you read my posts correctly. Students that choose physics are largely capable of doing well at most subjects. The problem is that weaker students do not choose physics so you don’t get a representation of the population as a whole doing the subject.0
Advertisement