Admit students who fail honours maths, says Coughlan

Eliot Rosewater · 11-05-2010 8:55pm

I think all this story tells us is that government is losing interest in having an education system that is actually producing students of quality. This story ties in with the grade inflation debacle and apparent loss of standards across all levels. But you see, once third level institutions are seen to accepting more undergraduates on paper, the government is doing its job.

It now seems to me that we can no longer look to the government for education, but that we will have to start providing for it at least partly ourselves.

Of course, in a competitive education system, different schools could apply different standards, and parents would soon be sending their kids to schools that teach more material. But in the one-size-fits-all Irish system this cannot be done. We must have our children give up 6 hours a day for government ordained curricula, and even if this 6 hours is being used less and less productively, nothing can be done.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 11-05-2010 11:49pm

Does anyone know what percentage of people do higher maths in the rest of europe?

I only know the UK and German systems, and in their equivelents you don't even have to do maths.

I'm just wondering why this is such a big deal to Coughlan

thebman · 12-05-2010 12:30am

Anyone that reads my posts on education knows that my posts are for free third level.

I'll pay more taxes to keep free third level.

However, I will not accept measures such as this. The standards must be maintained and strengthened if anything. Any attempt at grade inflation should basically be seen as an argument for private education much as I believe everyone deserves the right to at least attempt to get a third level education.

dan_d · 12-05-2010 8:12am

Imposter wrote: »

There are many problems with the whole education sector in Ireland regarding educating people and Leaving Cert and entry to further studies.

A system that exists purely to get points to determine what you study cannot turn out well-rounded individuals. It is also almost impossible to be a fair system!

I personally think almost all university courses should have an interview/aptitude test system like what Medicine now has. Up to 600 points for your leaving and 300 for the interview/aptitude test for the course you wish to do. That would obviously mean that the CAO system would need to be reviewed to see how this could work too.

Schooling up to Junior Cert should be the 9 or 10 subjects as it is now with emphasis on life skills, silly things like Nutrition, Exercise, budgeting, civics and such things as well as the more traditional subjects and learning why you do something - an education if you like and not just a means to pass a test.

Then Leaving Cert should be geared towards either further study or a career. Every course of further study should have LC course requirements, like honours maths, or Irish or a foreign language or whatever, but it should be for each course and college/uni to decide and should be done on a course by course basis and not on a general basis. This combined with an interview and aptitude test for most courses would mean that the most suitable people would be doing the courses and that the points race that exists now is largely scrapped for a system where people actually get an education and develop their life skills as well as their interests.

The current system is very sick and the product of the system is in fairness well marketed by the government as a well-educated workforce when in reality isn't really.
....and that's not even discussing the standard of teachers!

I agree with some of this....the French I believe have a system where after the age of 14, you are channeled into studying subjects that you're "good" at with a view to a career in certain fields. As in, if you excel at mathematical subjects, you go on after the age of 14 to only do science/maths subjects. In theory this is a good idea, but that's assuming you have good teachers giving everyone a fair chance to excel at something prior to the age of 14. I don't believe it would work here however, as you may be quite good at a subject, but not do well in exams due to a poor teacher not covering coursework/not covering exams methods.That, of course, brings us back to the subject of training our teachers, and their standards.

The thing about the points system is that it is fair. Fairer that what went before, where you only got your 3rd level education through who you knew or the amount of money your parents had.When the system was first introduced it worked well. The reason (to me) that it seems have descended into a ridiculous race to the bottom is that firstly standards have been dropped- I would assume to improve statistics for both the Gov and the colleges - and secondly, oversupply of 3rd level institutes. Does a country this small really need a 3rd level institute in every small-to-medium size town?

The system certainly needs a lot of tweaking but I think the basics of it are not bad. Standards need to go up, with a review of the content - less rote learning. Of course, there will be endless complaining because grades will reduce - A's won't be so "easy" to come by, and unfortunately a large proportion of today's youth feel they should get things on a plate.And I know people will say that makes no sense becuase it makes the system look bad, but it means that over a period of time students need to reach higher standards to get the higher grades, therefore bringing the level back up.

Obviously all this would take time. It's not going to happen over the space of a year, and would involve courses changing.And letters like Mary Coughlan's definitely do not help matters at all.

Permabear · 12-05-2010 10:45am

This post has been deleted.

Imposter · 12-05-2010 11:56am

dan_d wrote: »

The thing about the points system is that it is fair. Fairer that what went before, where you only got your 3rd level education through who you knew or the amount of money your parents had.When the system was first introduced it worked well. The reason (to me) that it seems have descended into a ridiculous race to the bottom is that firstly standards have been dropped- I would assume to improve statistics for both the Gov and the colleges - and secondly, oversupply of 3rd level institutes. Does a country this small really need a 3rd level institute in every small-to-medium size town?

Fairer than what went before possibly but not really fair. Certain subjects are known to be easier to get points in than others. The effort that goes into honours maths (even for good students) and a few other subjects in comparison to say something like history or geography is ridiculous, yet both are worth 100 points in the points race.

I knew a lot of health science students when I was in Uni. Almost all of the courses were over 500 points. Most of them did more than 6 or 7 subjects in order to get the points they needed. This involved doing enough to meet the requirements for courses and then pick a load of easy subjects to get points. In a similar way I gambled and did pass Irish for the leaving as it as a subject didn't interest me one bit and then concentrated on the other 6 subjects even though 2 were ridiculously time consuming in comparison to the others.

Now if you devalue the points system (by means of additional assessment) then students can/could give honours maths the time it needs as points will not be the overriding concern at the end of the exams.

thebman · 12-05-2010 12:47pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More like because the students from the system will be dumb :pac:

If they can't do the maths and try to go into a field that requires, its only a matter of time before they are found out.

Raiser · 12-05-2010 1:00pm

This was a natural assumption for Mary Coughlan since failing at everything she has ever taken on has only in turn lead to fame, reward, career progress and great riches

dan_d · 12-05-2010 1:03pm

Imposter wrote: »

Fairer than what went before possibly but not really fair. Certain subjects are known to be easier to get points in than others. The effort that goes into honours maths (even for good students) and a few other subjects in comparison to say something like history or geography is ridiculous, yet both are worth 100 points in the points race.

I knew a lot of health science students when I was in Uni. Almost all of the courses were over 500 points. Most of them did more than 6 or 7 subjects in order to get the points they needed. This involved doing enough to meet the requirements for courses and then pick a load of easy subjects to get points. In a similar way I gambled and did pass Irish for the leaving as it as a subject didn't interest me one bit and then concentrated on the other 6 subjects even though 2 were ridiculously time consuming in comparison to the others.

Now if you devalue the points system (by means of additional assessment) then students can/could give honours maths the time it needs as points will not be the overriding concern at the end of the exams.

True, as long as we can implement a fair system to assess people. There will have to be some reliance on academia...exams...to assess people, along with interviews/assessment tests. If you reduce the amount of subjects required to be studied, then you either increase the course content or raise the standard much higher. Which essentially leads you back to the same problem as you have now. As for an A in geography being less work than an A in maths....you can't really weight the system against the content of the subjects, I think it would probably be disastrous.

HAving said that, I still don't think that system will encourage more hons maths students.Again we're back to methods of teaching, and course content. Students have this idea that "maths is so hard". If taught properly, the majority of halfway intelligent students would pass the exam just fine. It's not taught properly. It's pot luck as to whether or not you get a good teacher. You'll always have those who are lucky enough to be naturally gifted at maths, and then a majority who are fair, and then those who have serious problems with it. It's the "fair" majority where the problem lies. Give them a good teacher and many of them would do just fine.Much less attention is paid to the fact that those who ARE very good at maths, frequently drop levels in languages etc, just because they couldn't be bothered or don't feel it's necessary for them to do as well in. I did engineering and people seemed to think that I was some kind of superperson because I must be good at maths. Truth be told, languages come to me far easier, yet it was always the maths that people focused on. There's this concept of huge difficulty out there with maths which also needs to be changed, and I think a large part is due to the teaching.

Went a bit off subject there, sorry! But the point I'm trying to make is that teaching is hugely important,regardless of what way you assess people. If you don't have a good standard of across the board teaching in a subject, then all your efforts to improve things are not going to do much good.

goat2 · 12-05-2010 1:34pm

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Knowledge economy eh?

we have three R,s
reading
rithmitic
wRiting

she may admit them to college now after primary
does not matter the student who worked hard to get there
the fellow who did not work will get there too
this woman is not thinking properly

Permabear · 12-05-2010 1:40pm

This post has been deleted.

irelandrover · 12-05-2010 2:05pm

I honestly think that this is a good idea.
I know when I did my leaving about 20% of the class of honours dropped down just before the leaving. If i didnt need honours level maths to do my course I probably would have as well.
The risk of failing if you are borderline is high. It leads to people doing ordinary level maths just to be sure even if they are capable of passing honours level maths. Take away that risk of people not making it to university and more people would attempt honours maths. Obviously limit it to an E to ensure it is borderline people doing it and not just people doing honours to get around needing to pass maths.
Also courses that require maths can restrict it to a C being the minimum requirement exactly as it is now so nothing would really change except more people would be willing to try honours level maths.

sponsoredwalk · 12-05-2010 2:33pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dont know if you have it handy but would you have a source for that? Them figures are scary seeing as they are such exciting subjects once you leave school

Permabear · 12-05-2010 2:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Raiser · 12-05-2010 3:00pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The rebuilding of our great State will be carried on the broad shoulders of those who know their Oxbow Lake.

sock puppet · 12-05-2010 4:37pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I dont know if you have it handy but would you have a source for that? Them figures are scary seeing as they are such exciting subjects once you leave school

The Physics and Chemistry numbers are so low because not many students are inclined to take them up in the first place. A lot of the weaker students at Junior Cert level are drawn towards Biology as many want to keep their options for third level open by studying a science, but think that Physics or Chemistry might be too difficult or boring. In my school the standard subject choice was Biology, Geography and Business. The majority of students who take Physics and Chemistry already do honours level so the only way to get more students to do honours is to try to get more students to take these subjects going into fifth year.

Byron85 · 12-05-2010 4:50pm

Teaching standards need to be improved upon big time. The qualifying criteria for becoming a teacher needs to be raised. It shouldn't just be seen as an easy role to fall into as you simply end up with people teaching children who themselves aren't exactly up to scratch academically.

For example I have a friend who's training to be a P.E teacher and their level of written English, put simply, is atrocious. It always has been. Here's an example of it on a good day:

definatly a fail I worte haslf a page for one of those and I was like 10 mins late and left atleast an hour early oh god.
hey will some body tell me the exam 2moro is that just pe lec or have we any aine on it thanku

Granted, she's going to be a P.E teacher and not an English teacher but surely someone with that bad a level of English shouldn't be teaching kids? Say what you want about not needing Maths for P.E, but English?

Something needs to be done with the Science curriculum also. In secondary school it just isn't made exciting or as interesting as something like History for example. I've had a genuine love for Science since early childhood yet when I got into secondary school, it was effectively killed for a few years and I have no idea why. Now in more recent years i've developed a love for it again, especially in Biology, which neatly ties in with the fact i'm studying Psychology, Physics and Astronomy. I got excited over the Large Hadron Collider; that's how much of a nerd I am. We're breeding "graduates" of secondary school who are so ignorant of basic concepts in Science that it beggars belief.

Admit students who fail honours maths, says Coughlan

Comments