Institute of Education - Revision Notes

**katie**

randomfella wrote:

Why? I was just adding another point. And felt it warranted another post instead of an edit just to emphasise it.

Oh God, you don't even know the mistake you made. To avoid making a fool of yourself in the future, it's either
"I've just seen this now"
or
"I saw this just now"

randomfella

Yeah ur right it did go over my head. In fairness i was correcting somebody on a fact not grammar. I think i corrected somebody on their grammar because they tried to tell me something about the english lanugage ... blah blah blah.

Great to see everybody pointing out simple grammatical errors. Great.

Only Human

randomfella wrote:

Yeah ur right it did go over my head. In fairness i was correcting somebody on a fact not grammar. I think i corrected somebody on their grammar because they tried to tell me something about the english lanugage ... blah blah blah.

Great to see everybody pointing out simple grammatical errors. Great.

'Ur' should be 'Your' and 'i' should be 'I'

Rredwell

the smiley one wrote:

The truth is, that it is hard to find the same amount of facilities as I have in my school in any community school, and it was one of the main resaons why my parents sent me there.

Yes, I know it's not an ideal world. In an ideal world every school would have good facilities, but until then, why should good facilities be the preserve of those who can afford them, and of them alone?

the smiley one wrote:

For example, my family is not incredibly rich, ok granted we're not hard-up, just fairly comfortable, however my parents chose to spend the extra money on my education because they value it and realise I can't get anywhere without a good one. So perhaps the attitudes of the parents has to figure in somewhere.

So what you're saying is that poor people don't value education? You seem to be missing my point: that is, that a good education should be available to everyone, regardless of income. What about those who cannot afford provate school fees for their kids; should they just have to put up with low standards and poor facilities? Provision of education is the role of central government, not private bodies who only profit from inequality.

Happy May Day!

Cannibal Ox

So what you're saying is that poor people don't value education?

There's whole thesis based on education in disadvantaged communities, in some cases yes education isn't valued by parents. It's more important that the kid goes out and gets a job in a trade and provide income to the house.

a good education should be available to everyone, regardless of income. What about those who cannot afford provate school fees for their kids; should they just have to put up with low standards and poor facilities?

You think a Socialist Government could do better? In order to come up with the funds to create an equal education system they'd have to tax the living b'jasus out of every worker in the country and cut funding in other areas, which simply wouldn't be tolerated.
A good education is avalible in public schools, just not in every area. It's not an ideal world, and it's not an ideal system. Yes, if you live in a disadvantaged, or lower class, family then the chances are your education will not have the standards of a place like the IoE but as you yourself pointed out with the Maynooth example that doesn't mean you can't succeed.
Teachers aren't going to take the test for you, in the end it comes down to wheter you've done the work or not.

The 'tute does provide top class notes that in almost all cases are better then any book I've read. The teachers are top class, they better be for the money they get, and they facilitate students as much as is humanly possible. Plus, alot of the teachers are really decent people who'll give you all the help you want if your having trouble with a subject. Saying it's "wheels for rich hamsters" is ridiculous. Like I've already said, and you yourself pointed out, in the end it comes down to your ability and the amount of preparation you've done for the LC. You can go to the Institute and still get 100 points.

Rredwell

Cannibal Ox wrote:

There's whole thesis based on education in disadvantaged communities, in some cases yes education isn't valued by parents. It's more important that the kid goes out and gets a job in a trade and provide income to the house.

Right....In some cases! That sounds like a dangerous idea to me. It's as if you are saying the lower classes should not attempt to better themselves. And since when did a college degree not guarantee an income, not to mention better and longer-lasting employment prospects? And I know that not everyone is suited to acadaemia: but why should those who are not get the chance to go to college?

Cannibal Ox wrote:

You think a Socialist Government could do better? In order to come up with the funds to create an equal education system they'd have to tax the living b'jasus out of every worker in the country and cut funding in other areas, which simply wouldn't be tolerated.

Yes I do think a Socialist government could do better. Just because the present government has let public spending go through the roof with little value for money, doesn't mean Labour in government couldn't do better. Our taxes in this country are too low, but still don't manage to pay for the basics: instead they fund Government jets and useless Commissions and Boards. And you think people would not "tolerate" education spending, roperly directed and taxed? As if.

Cannibal Ox wrote:

A good education is avalible in public schools, just not in every area. It's not an ideal world, and it's not an ideal system. Yes, if you live in a disadvantaged, or lower class, family then the chances are your education will not have the standards of a place like the IoE but as you yourself pointed out with the Maynooth example that doesn't mean you can't succeed.
Teachers aren't going to take the test for you, in the end it comes down to wheter you've done the work or not.

So basically we should all just throw up our hands and lament this, because we can do absolutely nothing about it? That's rubbish and you know it. Sure, a lot of it comes down to the student, but the teacher makes a huge impact too. Otherwise every clever pupil in the country would get 600 points, even if they had crap teachers -- but that doesn't happen because schools in disadvantaged areas have worse teaching resources.

The 'tute does provide top class notes that in almost all cases are better then any book I've read. The teachers are top class, they better be for the money they get, and they facilitate students as much as is humanly possible. Plus, alot of the teachers are really decent people who'll give you all the help you want if your having trouble with a subject. Saying it's "wheels for rich hamsters" is ridiculous.

You are contradicting yourself here. You say the teachers are great, and help students out a lot, but earlier on you said it all comes down to the student?! Make your mind up! The fact is it's harder to get on in school if you have rubbish teachers and poor facilities - and why should you have to get this lot in life because of your family's income?

I passionately believe that education is society's great equalizer, and an equal education for all gives everyone the chance to reach their full potential and break down the barriers imposed by income. Certainly, we live in an un-ideal world, but that shouldn't stop us having a vision that we can work towards.

the smiley one

Rredwell

You have made a couple of good points, but unfortunatly, as Cannibal OX commented, we don't live in ideal world, and despite how much you want to believe that perfection is achievable, the best we can ever reach is faulted.

Rredwell wrote:

Yes I do think a Socialist government could do better. Just because the present government has let public spending go through the roof with little value for money, doesn't mean Labour in government couldn't do better. Our taxes in this country are too low, but still don't manage to pay for the basics: instead they fund Government jets and useless Commissions and Boards. And you think people would not "tolerate" education spending, roperly directed and taxed? As if.

Yes, they wouldn't, and I would say the majority of the tax-paying public would agree with me. If we were to raise tax rates, to lets say, those of our Scandinavian counter-parts, there would be uproar. With constant inflation, how do you think the average Joe would react to another 20% being taken out of his pay-packet? People don't care about the future (as can be illustrated by the state of the health-service at the moment), they care about the here and now

Cannibal Ox

It's as if you are saying the lower classes should not attempt to better themselves. And since when did a college degree not guarantee an income, not to mention better and longer-lasting employment prospects? And I know that not everyone is suited to acadaemia: but why should those who are not get the chance to go to college?

No, I'm saying because of their circumstances it's not viable for parents to send their kids off to finish their leaving cert and go on to college.
It's more important for the family to have their children working and providing an income for the house/flat, therefore yes it is more important for some families for their children to work then get their education.

Our taxes in this country are too low, but still don't manage to pay for the basics: instead they fund Government jets and useless Commissions and Boards. And you think people would not "tolerate" education spending, roperly directed and taxed? As if.

No, I don't think people would tolerate higher taxes.
Look at Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats. There promising a better, and fairer standard of living across the UK but will have to raise taxes for it. Will they get into power? The polls would suggest no.

Sure, a lot of it comes down to the student, but the teacher makes a huge impact too. Otherwise every clever pupil in the country would get 600 points, even if they had crap teachers -- but that doesn't happen because schools in disadvantaged areas have worse teaching resources.

Granted, teachers do have an impact but in the end it comes down to you.
If you feel your teacher is sh!t, move class. If you can't move class, get grinds. If you can't afford grinds, get a book and teach your self. If you can't afford that, drop out of the subject and take up another.

You say the teachers are great, and help students out a lot, but earlier on you said it all comes down to the student?! Make your mind up! The fact is it's harder to get on in school if you have rubbish teachers and poor facilities - and why should you have to get this lot in life because of your family's income?

I said the teachers are willing to help students with any problems they have, as you would expect any teacher to do. They are, mostly, nice people who are willing to give you the time if you have a problem with their subject. These are people who are payed very well, and enjoy the job they do and that is shown in their work. Any teacher who doesn't, is usually gotten rid of right quick.
However as I said, and will still say, the teacher isn't going to take your exam for you. They can do everything in the world but it comes down in the end to wheter you do the work or not.

I do like a lot of the things your saying, but I guess I've turned into a bit of a cynical bastard over the past year

Next election I'll probably vote for Labour, and would love to see a system as your saying working but as it is, it's just not possible and I've come to the belief that it's better to deal with what's in front of you then what you wish was in front of you.