[finality]

Originally Posted by smeal

The points system in this country is disgusting though, like students last year making their points target on Results day only to find the following Monday that their course has increased by 40+ points in some colleges. How are students meant to even begin to prepare for this? "Oh I need 400 points in my course but I'll probably need to aim towards 500 JUST INCASE the points go up", like its an outrage, students have no sense of security gearing towards exams!

I agree with most of the rest of your post but the points system is supply and demand. The points aren't randomly increased for arbitrary reasons, and students know that past points for courses are just a rough indication of what they could be the next year.

Students go into exams and do their best, I certainly hope nobody thinks "oh I only need a D for my course so I'll answer half the questions and leave after an hour".

There can only be so many places in a course, and while the points system isn't ideal and could be improved in several ways, the fact of the matter is that not everyone can get their first choice.

[JeaicMaG]

Life's too good to dwell on these things. Try your best and that's all you can ask of yourself.

[partyatmygaff]

People don't seem to realise that it's neither the colleges nor the SEC that set the points. The points are set by the standard of people applying for the course.

The colleges give a set of matriculation requirements and a number of available places to the CAO. The CAO then goes through the list of people who applied for the course. It narrows down the list to those who meet the matriculation requirements and then picks the X highest scoring candidates. The lowest scoring successful candidate's points are the "CAO Points" you see quoted in the newspapers and on Qualifax.

[reznov]

I know we are all in the same boat and etc., however it doesn't justify the situation or the exam. Maths has always been rewarding for me. I love the subject and it is my favourite in school and I am planning to do it in college. But with project Maths I feel my time was wasted. I decided to be a diligent student and memorise all of the notes in the book, along with accompanying geometric corollaries, axioms and theorems. I could have refreshed my knowledge of bBio and Business instead.

[randylonghorn]

Originally Posted by partyatmygaff

Then that isn't really a failing of the exam as much as it is a failing of your teacher.

In fairness to teachers, I don't think there was a lot invested in in-service / re-training for them either, especially for those not involved in the original pilot project.

If students are finding it hard to adapt, it's obviously not going to be that easy either for people who have been teaching to a certain approach for 10 / 20 / 30 years (and who were taught that way themselves) to change their mindset. Some will find it easy to adapt; others won't.

[GaryIrv93]

Originally Posted by smeal

I'm not disagreeing with anyone on this who claims the Leaving Cert is getting harder and is becoming increasingly unfair on students as it is HOWEVER, everyone knows this year had a record number of students applying to CAO. This year will see more mature students, more British students due to an increase in their fees and more degree-holding students returning to undergraduate degrees. I think the SEC has definitely recognised this in respect of making the papers. College places are becoming increasingly competitive especially in the sciences

I think that the latest students coming out of 6th year this year should be placed ahead of other ''more mature students'' coming back to these undergraduate degrees and foreign students. I'm saying the priority should be on the 6th year students due to the huge amount of people who've applied to CAO this year. Because as you said, the Leaving Cert is getting more tough on students. The 6th year graduates should be given as much a chance as possible due to this. What confuses me though is that why is there such a limited number of college places on almost every course, like Medicaine and Sciences? Is it just they can't or won't make more places available? This really needs to be sorted out.

[partyatmygaff]

Originally Posted by GaryIrv93

I think that the latest students coming out of 6th year this year should be placed ahead of other ''more mature students'' coming back to these undergraduate degrees and foreign students.

No one is ahead of anyone. Mature students (And I think international students too) have a set allocation of places in every course. The same goes for DARE/HEAR. You're only competing with people in your own application category.

What confuses me though is that why is there such a limited number of college places on almost every course, like Medicaine and Sciences? Is it just they can't or won't make more places available? This really needs to be sorted out.

Simply because there won't be enough jobs for them at the end. The government isn't going to fund people's educations only for the majority of them to end up being forced to leave and not pay any tax.

[darryl2010]

at long ****ing last someone who talks sense in this country!!!!

[GaryIrv93]

Sorry for posting on an old thread first of all.

I was thinking about the LC results, CAO offers and the system a good bit after getting the results back this year. I've never liked the system I've got to admit, and many people see it as unfair, I did too, but I noticed that the vast majority of friends and (seemingly) most LC posters here on boards and also most of the country from what I saw did actually get their first choices, or at least got some choice. So I was sort of thinking is it really as unfair as people say? My results this year weren't enough for any of my choices, off course I was disapointed but I can't really blame the system for that. It was because I didn't study enough. Had I worked for just a few weeks more than I did, which I easily could have done, I'd have got what I wanted, definitley. Instead I'm doing a PLC at the moment which I absolutely love.

I honestly can only blame myself for not doing enough work for the leaving, and not the system itself. Looking back on it, it wasn't that bad as I thought. I had a whole year to study which I wasted by not studying enough - again, completely my own fault, not my school's, not the system's or anyone else's. The way I see it now, students like myself who didn't put in the work can't blame the system, call it unfair or claim they were screwed over by it when it was them who didn't work enough.

Back to unfairness, it could certainly be called unfair any day for a student who worked their hole off for the LC, did as much as they possibly could and lost out on a college place due to random selection for example, or any other factor(s) that were out of their control. So again, is the system really as unfair as many people claim, or does it just a simple matter of putting in effort and study (which we all can) that determines whether a student gets a college place or not? Again, from what I saw, most students who I know got their choices because they got the points because they put in the effort. Sorry for the long post.

[Cruel Sun]

Oh God not this again.

[Canard]

I still think it's a bit unfair. I remember how pissed I was after geography and I ended up getting an A2, but I still stand by the fact that the exam was atrociously unfair and not really because it was unpredictable, but because it had previously been so predictable that it was unfair to turn it on its head like that. There's meant to be some thing of the bell curve keeping all the years equally valuable, but it's so obvious when one year was easier than another - the patterns in geography past papers were an absolute joke, you couldn't do that by accident.

I think the whole thing of people getting caught out be Pleaney was fair though...I'd have been annoyed at first too but really that was a 25% chance they took. It's not that hard to cover yourself properly for it. I neglected 99% of the history course and I went into that exam knowing failing was a huge possibility but I got extremely lucky on the day, and if I'd gotten a D or something, I would have deserved it.

I do think Maths P2 was unfair with how much the format was messed with, but I don't really care too much for maths.

I know people say that every year is unpredictable/hard for the year that have to do it, but teachers don't go around saying that this or that year was hard for no reason, and I think exams like geography (and apparently biology) this year are good proof that this year was a little unfair - yes they are viewed as the easier of the sciences/social sciences compared to history or chemistry, but from what I heard chemistry was fine, and I experienced the beauty that was history.

It all seems to even itself out with the bell curve anyway.

[spurious]

Let's not dig up the zombie threads.
Thread closed.