CAO System

Boston

.

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

The CAO system is an equally unfair system, I fail to see how they would go about evening up things are why that would be desireable

How is the cao unfair?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Boston wrote: »

Massively off-topic but its hardly fair that someone's ability to do say engineering should be based on the grades they received in say classical studies. It's an example of something being non equally unfair to everyone, every system has it flaws.

The LC is Unfair but in my opinion it's better then other educational systems like,for example, the A-levels

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

Thats great dan, but nothing to do with the CAO system nor the gender equality society.

:rolleyes:

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

Do you have something to contribute to the thread Mark?

Yes

Jonathan

New thread created for discussion of the CAO System.

Boston and Mark200; quit the childish bickering.

Boston

I don't wish to engage in this discussion, could you lock the thread.

Thank you.

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

I don't wish to engage in this discussion, could you lock the thread.

.... what if other people do?



Eh I think the current CAO system is pretty fair at the moment

Jonathan

Boston wrote: »

I don't wish to engage in this discussion, could you lock the thread.

Thank you.

No problem. Click here to unsubscribe from the thread.

Jonathan

Mark200 wrote: »

Eh I think the current CAO system is pretty fair at the moment

What about the fact that encourages people to do "easy" subjects to get points?

shay_562

Jonathan wrote:

What about the fact that encourages people to do "easy" subjects to get points?

Define 'easy subjects'.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

Define 'easy subjects'.

Depends on what kind of brain people have.

I would probably have gotten higher points if I studied Business and Geography instead of Applied Maths and Economics.

Pet

Home Economics is pretty easy. As is English.

Mark200

Jonathan wrote: »

Depends on what kind of brain people have.

Ah well then :P They're only 'easy' because you're naturally good at them. Not much you can do about that

shay_562

Jonathan wrote: »

Depends on what kind of brain people have.

I would probably have gotten higher points if I studied Business and Geography instead of Applied Maths and Economics.

So...in other words, the CAO rewards people who put careful thought into their subject choices and heightens your chances of getting into college if you work intelligently to play to your strengths?

Yeah. Totally unfair. Don't know why we'd ever want that kind of logical thinking invading our colleges.

Pet wrote:

Home Economics is pretty easy. As is English.

English is taken by almost every student as a matter of course, so that's hardly a swing factor in CAO allocations. As for Home Ec, I didn't take it (my school was prohibited for religious reasons), but I've heard that it's less of an easy subject that its reputation suggests. From what I recall from this year's breakdown by subjects in the Irish Times (unfortunately doesn't seem to be online) Home Ec wasn't one of the subjects offering easy As; the most As were in specialised maths-y subjects like Applied Maths, which is consistent with college grading schemes. Basically, people with really good mathematical facilities will do slightly better in their subjects of choice than people doing humanities subjects; this is compensated for by the higher failure rates in similar subjects.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

So...in other words, the CAO rewards people who put careful thought into their subject choices and heightens your chances of getting into college if you work intelligently to play to your strengths?

Yeah. Totally unfair. Don't know why we'd ever want that kind of logical thinking invading our colleges.

I studied subjects that I thought to be beneficial to me in life or college. Had I been going for 600 Points, I probably would have had to choose other subjects.


What use would Classical Studies, Business and Geography be to me studying Engineering?

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

From what I recall from this year's breakdown by subjects in the Irish Times (unfortunately doesn't seem to be online)

examinations.ie

shay_562

Jonathan wrote:

http://examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2009/nat_stat_2009all.pdf

Cheers man! Kinda demonstrates what I'm trying to say - Russian seems to have had the highest % of A1s. Ergo, Russian must be an "easy" subject. Doesn't quite fit. Even leaving aside languages people might have an advantage in, Home Ec clearly isn't an easy A.

Jonathan wrote:

I studied subjects that I thought to be beneficial to me in life or college. Had I been going for 600 Points, I probably would have had to choose other subjects.


What use would Classical Studies, Business and Geography be to me studying Engineering?

Wrt the latter point, that's why many courses (particularly science or medicine-based ones) have matriculation requirements, i.e., you have to sit certain subjects and achieve certain grades in them to get into the course, presumably to prevent people from taking 'easy' subjects. If you think that those requirements should be more rigourous, that's a complaint about the college's own acceptance systems, not the CAO. I'd also point out, having sat it, that Classics is far from an easy subject to get an A1 in. Furthermore, if you're comparatively bad at Applied Maths, perhaps you should be studying History in college? I mean, your complaint seems to be "The CAO made it harder for me to get into engineering, because my strengths lie with subjects that are in a different discipline to engineering" - that's hardly a valid complaint.

As for the first part, "subjects that are benificial to you in life" is a hugely subjective criteria. I did History and found it to be hugely beneficial, in that I derive personal enjoyment from having a sense of the world around me and the struggles and conflicts that have shaped it. I'd have derived no personal enjoyment from Applied Maths, and while it may have helped a little with my undergrad, it'd be of no use in any future career I may have. It's a fair comment that people may choose between doing subjects that they're personally interested in and doing subjects that they think they can do well in (which I'd argue is more due to personal capacities than any subject being 'easy') and because it'll benefit them in a more tangible way, but surely that happens all over life? Do English in college because you love it, or do Radiation Therapy because it has a guaranteed job at the end. Work for a non-profit charity because you feel spiritually fulfilled or work for a big accounting firm because they'll pay you better. Life, regrettably, can't be all sunshine and roses, and choosing to build your education around sensible choices to get 600 points doesn't make you any less capable of doing well at college, so I don't see what that has to do with the CAO. Besides, the few subjects that might require 600 points either have matriculation requirements already (medicine) or have no real second-level subjects that provide any advantage or preparation (law, psychology), so I don't see that the system can distort people's choices all that much.

In fact, most of your complaints seem more related to the Leaving Cert and the concept of a second-level education that is focused on exam results rather than doing subjects that will help in your college degree. Yet that has nothing much to do with the CAO which, to my mind, is a reasonably good leveller that ignores race, class, creed and gender (something that university application systems in the USA and UK can never do) and simply gives the universities a list that says "Here's the exam results of everyone who applied, now pick the top 30". You can argue that the system from which those results are derived is flawed, but the CAO itself seems fine to me.

C.D.

shay_562 wrote: »

English is taken by almost every student as a matter of course, so that's hardly a swing factor in CAO allocations. As for Home Ec, I didn't take it (my school was prohibited for religious reasons), but I've heard that it's less of an easy subject that its reputation suggests. From what I recall from this year's breakdown by subjects in the Irish Times (unfortunately doesn't seem to be online) Home Ec wasn't one of the subjects offering easy As; the most As were in specialised maths-y subjects like Applied Maths, which is consistent with college grading schemes. Basically, people with really good mathematical facilities will do slightly better in their subjects of choice than people doing humanities subjects; this is compensated for by the higher failure rates in similar subjects.

...

Just because a subject has more or less A's does not make it easier (trivial relationship much?). Did it ever occur to you that very, very few people without strong mathematical aptitude take applied maths? I'd say there would be a higher proportion of people with a strong aptitude for maths in applied maths than people with a strong aptitude for HE in HE, hence the better grades.

Same for college, Theoretical Physics has one of the highest number of scholarships, not because it is easy but because it is very demanding and only a very high calibre of student takes it and gets past 1st year (see median points).

People who have very little knowledge of college level "maths-y" subject always have this misconception- usually based around that there is a "right" answer for every question, and that the "right" answer gets full marks, which is really not the case at all. Maybe in first year, but all science/maths/engineering courses move away from "question"/"answer" to "problem"/"solution".

shay_562

C.D. wrote:

Just because a subject has more or less A's does not make it easier (trivial relationship much?).

In a real sense, no, but the conversation was about 'easy' subjects that people can take to maximise their points, so in that sense, for people with a high mathematical aptitude Applied Maths could be considered an 'easier' subject, whereas Home Ec, for whatever reason, seems to have fewer students who get As.

People who have very little knowledge of college level "maths-y" subject always have this misconception- usually based around that there is a "right" answer for every question, and that the "right" answer gets full marks, which is really not the case at all. Maybe in first year, but all science/maths/engineering courses move away from "question"/"answer" to "problem"/"solution".

I don't doubt that college-level maths moves away from "here's a sum, now write down the solution", but analyse, say, the scholarship results from this year. Compare the highest results in humanities subjects to the highest results in TP. Now tell me that there's no difference in the way grades are given. Theoretically, it's possible in many (not all, but many) science/maths based 'objective' subjects to be completely right, and to be awarded full or close to full marks for that answer. In many humanities subjects, which are more subjective, you'll never get higher than an 80. Some lecturers have policies of not going past the low 70s, and only reaching those lofty heights for works of exceptional calibre. It's probably true that TP students who last the course are exceptionally smart, but when the best students of science-based subjects consistently do better than the best students of humanities-based subjects, it's not about the ability, it's about the subjects being different. The same applies at Leaving Cert level - it's a lot more achievable to get full marks on a question in Maths than it is to get full marks on a poetry essay.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

Wrt the latter point, that's why many courses (particularly science or medicine-based ones) have matriculation requirements, i.e., you have to sit certain subjects and achieve certain grades in them to get into the course, presumably to prevent people from taking 'easy' subjects. If you think that those requirements should be more rigourous, that's a complaint about the college's own acceptance systems, not the CAO. I'd also point out, having sat it, that Classics is far from an easy subject to get an A1 in. Furthermore, if you're comparatively bad at Applied Maths, perhaps you should be studying History in college? I mean, your complaint seems to be "The CAO made it harder for me to get into engineering, because my strengths lie with subjects that are in a different discipline to engineering" - that's hardly a valid complaint.

Not at all Shay, you seem to have missed my point. You seem to be linking the percentage A1 grades to how easy the subject is, which is not true at all. 50% of the people who sat the Romanian exam in 2009 got an A grade. I haven't heard of a big surge of people rushing to sit Romanian have you?

The return on study is not equal in each subject. For X hours study each in two subjects, I might get a A in one, and B in the other. I never was a big fan of study, and still not a fan. But paying attention in the class room is rather easy. Sitting in a class room and sponging the information from the teacher makes a subject easy for me. Little additional study is required. As opposed to a subject where people must go home and spend their own time in addition to the class time.

Does the fact that I had to work at applied maths mean that I should be doing Orts? Not at all.

Does the fact that I studied applied maths for LC mean that I was well ahead of my classmates in college who didn't study it? Very much so. Mechanics exam was a doddle.


Point I am making is, the CAO should reward people to study subjects relevant to their course, rather than simply the person with the highest points that meets the matriculation requirements.

Herbal Deity

Jonathan wrote: »

What use would Classical Studies, Business and Geography be to me studying Engineering?

It's analogous to 'Mens Sana in Corpore Sano'.

Pre 3rd level education should be broad and as unspecialized as possible IMO.

RexMundi

I just feel that people here have very little perception of Applied Maths for Leaving Cert at all.

It is the hardest and most complex subject (certainly that I have come across) on the Leaving Cert. Unless you are gifted mathematically, you could not stick the subject for two years. However if you are mathematically inclined enough to understand the course you will get the A as it is quite a short course.

It is in no way an easy course but people are only really bothered doing it if they expect an A1.

shay_562

Jonathan wrote:

The return on study is not equal in each subject. For X hours study each in two subjects, I might get a A in one, and B in the other. I never was a big fan of study, and still not a fan. But paying attention in the class room is rather easy. Sitting in a class room and sponging the information from the teacher makes a subject easy for me. Little additional study is required. As opposed to a subject where people must go home and spend their own time in addition to the class time.

That is utterly, utterly subjective. Whether a person learns better by sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher talk or by doing stuff on their own time is down to the individual; you cited Classical Studies as a subject where you could have done better with the same amount of effort, yet that clearly isn't the case for everyone, as evidenced by the fact that people who did sit it tended not to do spectacularly (which is where the grade comparisons come in - it's not that subjects are 'easy', it's that more people do well in them, suggesting that there may be more capacity to do well). Some people thrive in humanities-style "listen to the teacher talk and take good notes" style, some on the "go home and learn how to work out these problems" style. There's no subject that's automatically easier for everyone to learn - for example, I found French to be 'a doddle' and barely had to study it outside of the 2 hours a week of classes, others found it to be one of their hardest subjects and had to get grinds.

What I'm trying to say is, just because you would have performed better in some subjects than others doesn't mean that it holds true for everyone, and I don't think you can say that there's any subject that everyone, or even most people would automatically perform better in. So the concept of 'easy' subjects only applies on a personal level, rather than across the board. Given that, I don't think it's "unfair" for the CAO to reward people who chose sensibly and played to their strengths. If those people suffer in college because they didn't give themselves a good enough base in maths of whatever, surely that's their lookout? If the college thinks that people who haven't done well enough in certain subjects won't cope in the class at all, they should set it as a matriculation requirement. I really don't see where the problem lies.

Jonathan wrote:

Point I am making is, the CAO should reward people to study subjects relevant to their course, rather than simply the person with the highest points that meets the matriculation requirements.

So, so many problems with this. I assume you basically mean that people should get extra points for a relevant second-level course, like, scale up a person's Maths grade by 20% if they're applying for engineering? Aside from beign a logistical nightmare, it raises the question, what is a 'relevant' course for Law? Is Classics better than Maths because it teaches you to write essays and you'll pick up a few useful bits of Latin? Is History better than Classics because you'll learn some light elements of Irish legal history? How can you ever make those judgements? And what about Applied Maths being good for engineering? Plenty of schools don't offer that course, as it's relatively specialised. This is, unfortunately, particularly true of all-girls schools. Ditto Technical Graphics. Should you get a leg-up because your school was able to offer a wider subject choice? It seems like your system would end up being much more unfair, as it would take away the relative anonymity and the pure equality in favour of a hugely subjective 'rewards' system.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

you cited Classical Studies as a subject where you could have done better with the same amount of effort

Na, I never said I would have done better in it with the same amount of effort. I just went into the subject list and chose three 'useless for engineering' subjects. :pac:

shay_562 wrote: »

So, so many problems with this. I assume you basically mean that people should get extra points for a relevant second-level course, like, scale up a person's Maths grade by 20% if they're applying for engineering?

It is done in UL, and for Elec Eng in DIT.

shay_562 wrote: »

And what about Applied Maths being good for engineering? Plenty of schools don't offer that course, as it's relatively specialised.

I studied Applied Maths outside of School hours. While my school did offer it (also outside of school hours), the teacher was not the most motivated man, and I decided to go elsewhere.

Perhaps my view of the subject is distorted because I only had 1 hour a week tutition time, compared to 4-5 hours for the rest of the subjects.

I don't know.

Unregistered.

The CAO points system is also misleading regarding College Courses! Often the points do not reflect how difficult a course can be, e.g. a course with low points year on year (due to it not being full for example) actually being quite hard and requiring a lot of work. And the other arguement is that the points system reflects the demand for a course, i.e. the more people that want to do a course, the chances are you'll need more points to get in. However, using this as a guide alone can be very misleading - just look at the case for CSLF in Trinity this year, a course with very low take up - only 1 student this year - is up 120 points to 550!

Herbal Deity

Unregistered. wrote: »

However, using this as a guide alone can be very misleading - just look at the case for CSLF in Trinity this year, a course with very low take up - only 1 student this year - is up 120 points to 550!

If all spaces aren't filled, the points are 0.

They're usually artificially adjusted to something like 300, because said course doesn't want people with very low points applying.

Unregistered.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

They're usually artificially adjusted to something like 300, because said course doesn't want people with very low points applying.

That's all to do with the College itself though, not the CAO.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Pet wrote: »

Home Economics is pretty easy. As is English.

Home eco. is supposed to be pretty hard... Up to 3rd yr it's mainly cooking food but in 5th/6th it becomes mainly scientiic afaik

shay_562

Jonathan wrote:

Na, I never said I would have done better in it with the same amount of effort. I just went into the subject list and chose three 'useless for engineering' subjects

Apologies, it was Business and Geography you said you'd have gotten higher points in. My point stands; not everyone would do better in those subjects than others.

It is done in UL, and for Elec Eng in DIT.

Wow, that's vaguely worrying, for all the reasons I already outlined.

I studied Applied Maths outside of School hours. While my school did offer it (also outside of school hours), the teacher was not the most motivated man, and I decided to go elsewhere.

...which costs money, I assume? So bonus points go to the kids who can afford to take a particular set of subjects outside of school hours? Nice...

Unregistered. wrote:

The CAO points system is also misleading regarding College Courses! Often the points do not reflect how difficult a course can be, e.g. a course with low points year on year (due to it not being full for example) actually being quite hard and requiring a lot of work.

But the points aren't a benchmark for how smart you need to be to get in - at least, not in any real sense. They are, as you basically say, a measure of how relatively smart you need to be to get into a course. Should universities set minimum points bounds and say "Well, that does it - if people don't get over 500 points, they're clearly not cut out for engineering", so that if only half the would-be engineers get over 500, the class just sits half-empty? That'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't it? It's one thing to do what Herbal Deity said, and set the lower bound with the last student applying to avoid a "0 points" situation, but turning away the 20th smartest applicant to a course with 40 spaces because he got 495 instead of 500 seems mental.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

...which costs money, I assume? So bonus points go to the kids who can afford to take a particular set of subjects outside of school hours? Nice...

I would have had to pay for it whether I did it in my own school or whether I did it elsewhere.

What exactly is your point Shay?

shay_562

Jonathan wrote: »

I would have had to pay for it whether I did it in my own school or whether I did it elsewhere.

What exactly is your point Shay?

...that a system that offers bonus points for a subject that many students can't take would be hugely biased. Sorry, thought I had made that clear.

Herbal Deity

A lot of Applied Maths students do it on their own. The course is ridiculously short and easy enough if you're proficient at maths already.

I taught myself and got an A2. I suspect that Applied Maths has quite a high percentage of As from self taught pupils.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

...that a system that offers bonus points for a subject that many students can't take would be hugely biased. Sorry, thought I had made that clear.

You better get on to UL and DIT to complain then shouldn't you? :pac:

Brian

Jonathan wrote: »

Point I am making is, the CAO should reward people to study subjects relevant to their course, rather than simply the person with the highest points that meets the matriculation requirements.

That's very restrictive though, is it not? You choose your LC subjects when you're 15, and by and large you have to stick with them - despite this, I don't think many people know what course they want to do in university at that age. Their parents might, but anyway.

Jonathan

Baza210 wrote: »

That's very restrictive though, is it not? You choose your LC subjects when you're 15, and by and large you have to stick with them - despite this, I don't think many people know what course they want to do in university at that age. Their parents might, but anyway.

I suppose you are right. People could always keep their options open by doing two business and two science or something.

shay_562

Jonathan wrote: »

You better get on to UL and DIT to complain then shouldn't you? :pac:

Meh, tbh. If I were a leaving cert student applying for electrical engineering in DIT, though, faced with other people getting 20% extra onto one of their subjects because their school offered applied maths, I'd be straight onto them.

I suppose you are right. People could always keep their options open by doing two business and two science or something.

...and humanities? Also, do that many people sit 8 subjects? (Assuming English, Irish, Maths and a European language as standard)

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

Meh, tbh. If I were a leaving cert student applying for electrical engineering in DIT, though, faced with other people getting 20% extra onto one of their subjects because their school offered applied maths, I'd be straight onto them.

You must be going to a pretty crap school if it doesn't offer at least two of Physics, Chemisty, Maths, Applied Maths, Engineering and Technical Graphics.

shay_562

Jonathan wrote: »

You must be going to a pretty crap school if it doesn't offer at least two of Physics, Chemisty, Maths, Applied Maths, Engineering and Technical Graphics.

Mine offered the first three, but not the last three. Not a crap school, just a small one, with a high proportion of female students. Can't find anything in the prospectus for that course that says you can only take advantage of weighted points in two subjects - couldn't you theoretically take all or almost all of those and be aiming at a LC score out of 750 instead of 600? That's a pretty big leap...

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

Can't find anything in the prospectus for that course that says you can only take advantage of weighted points in two subjects - couldn't you theoretically take all or almost all of those and be aiming at a LC score out of 750 instead of 600? That's a pretty big leap...

I never mentioned that you can only count two of them.

You seem to be missing the point that these reward systems encourage students with a genuine interest in the subject. They are less likely to drop out than those who just throw a dart at the CAO course list, and subsequently drop out after 6 months.

shay_562

Jonathan wrote: »

I never mentioned that you can only count two of them.

You seem to be missing the point that these reward systems encourage students with a genuine interest in the subject. They are less likely to drop out than those who just throw a dart at the CAO course list, and subsequently drop out after 6 months.

When you said "at least two of..." I assumed there was some point to that?

And you seem to be missing the point that this reward system disproportionally helps students from particular schools (larger and more male-dominated, and thus more likely to offer the rewarding subjects), and that it's not a binary situation of "Either you're hugely interested and will choose, at 15, every single LC subject to help your with a given CAO course ('cause I'm sure that people lie awake at night in TY hoping against hope to get into the DIT elec eng programme), or you're a day-tripping dilletante who'll drop the course in a week and a half". You can be interested in doing Engineering but still want to do other stuff at LC level, either to broaden your horizons or simply because you're well-suited to it; that doesn't mean, by any stretch, that you're not going to be able to keep up with engineering at college level. I'm all for having a lower bound of maths grades to prevent people who don't have the basic mathematical capacity to sit a given course. My problem is that offering rewards for non-core subjects can very clearly end up disadvantaging certain students, which seems to deviate from the main benefit of the CAO, fully equal and anonymous treatment.