Honours maths and political U-turns

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

The bonus points or some other incentive is necessary to encourage greater uptake of maths but the curriculum needs an overhaul.

Arthur Benjamin talks a lot of sense, and I think adopting his approach to secondary maths education focusing on statistics and probability would lead to a 'smarter' economy.

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

The bonus points or some other incentive is necessary to encourage greater uptake of maths but the curriculum needs an overhaul.

I don't actually agree with this. Why do you think the curriculum needs changing ?

ei.sdraob

Sure if people want to do architecture, arts, commerce etc you name

let them its their choice, who are we to tell anyone what to do?

but they better STFU when they graduate and realize there's few or no jobs, and none of this pontificate on frontline to Pat Kenny craic (what has that ever accomplished?)

Lu Tze

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't actually agree with this. Why do you think the curriculum needs changing ?

Seconded, the curriculum doesn't need to be changed, the exams do.

Learning by rote appears to be the order of the day, the exam papers should be far more varied, as fundamentall y maths is problems solving, releasing rehashes of previous papers at exam time does not test this ability.

Sleepy

You post that in a fashion that indicates you're surprised our government are incompetent donegalfella...

It's arse about tit, just like virtually every other department.

WIth regards to the curriculum, I'm not sure how it's changed since 1998 when I did the LC but I'd certainly have done better if the maths were taught from first principles as I was never good at just accepting 'we do it this way because that's the way it's done' and would have benefited more from having the principles of why cos A etc. was used in a particular forum / calculation.

Honours Maths was a real challenge for me as a result of this means of teaching and I required grinds (despite having a good teacher in school) in order to scrape a C2 which, despite being lower than the A's and B's I got in my other real* subjects was the result I was proudest of because it had been by far the most work for me having been recommended to do the pass paper by my teacher.

(*I took pass Irish regarding it as worthless to me even then)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't actually agree with this. Why do you think the curriculum needs changing ?

Did you watch the video in the link?

I think we'd be better off as a country/economy if everyone had a decent education in probability and statistics and then bonus points were given for advanced electives, or for these areas to be thought in first year of college depending on the course.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Lu Tze wrote: »

Seconded, the curriculum doesn't need to be changed, the exams do.

Learning by rote appears to be the order of the day, the exam papers should be far more varied, as fundamentall y maths is problems solving, releasing rehashes of previous papers at exam time does not test this ability.

I agree. I did pass maths in Sec. school. I literally learned of how to do a question without actually knowing/understanding what I was doing.

I now do maths and stats in Uni as part of my Bus. degree and I find it very hard as I am in the habit of just trying to learn how to do questions instead of actually trying to understand what I am doing, however I am getting better at this.

I also feel the points system worsens the problem of people choosing not to do honours maths. I know people who could have but simply didn't do it cos it took to much effort and their course didn't need honours maths if maths at all.

Our lecturer for stats is foreign and has said himself how easy, too easy, pass maths is. So i feel pass maths also has to be looked at.

Sleepy

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I also feel the points system worsens the problem of people choosing not to do honours maths. I know people who could have but simply didn't do it cos it took to much effort and their course didn't need honours maths if maths at all.

Seconded. I did honours out of stubborness and an academic arrogance which wouldn't let me "drop down" to the lower level. It used up more study time than any other subject, at least twice the time I had to put into economics, bus org or accounting and had I been aiming for medicine/veterinary etc, I'd have dropped to pass and picked up home ec or something like that.

silverharp

I think looking for a "great" system will not be possible when its designed to be average at best. For starters there should be at least 3 completely different curricula, a vocational one, the current "vanilla" one and a much more academically geared one. Then the schools should be geared to which ever one suits. At the moment we have the crazy notion that an elite school is just there to keep little Fiachra away from the Hoi polloi.

mickstupp

Is giving bonus points to incentivize higher level maths not the same as government sanctioned grade inflation?

jmayo

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I think looking for a "great" system will not be possible when its designed to be average at best. For starters there should be at least 3 completely different curricula, a vocational one, the current "vanilla" one and a much more academically geared one. Then the schools should be geared to which ever one suits. At the moment we have the crazy notion that an elite school is just there to keep little Fiachra away from the Hoi polloi.

No no to that.
That is all well and fine if you live in major city where there are multitude of schools which cater for more affluent, and often more academic kids while others probably in less affluent areas cater for the vocational aspect.

What the f88k happens if you live in the sticks (as I did) and by your definition the only school nearby only fits into the vocational curriculum ?

It should not really be done by school, except where there are nearby alternatives, it also has to be done per students.
Our education system often does not cater for those who are not going to third level at all.

Actually after looking at the mess some people made of their personal finances, the lack of any teaching of basic personal finance budgeting is abmisal. This together with any decent depth of understanding of our political and civic society I believe points to the needs to have compulsory courses introduced on these topics.
Hell it doesn't have to be to leaving cert level in civics or examinable by the state exams, but there needs to be something done about it.

Hell in the states they manage to have driver ed courses, even if some of them appear to think we have only been around for 5,000 years or so.

If schools can waste IMHO and hour a week teaching fables from some books written millenia ago and distorted over the years by a self serving institution then they can damm well spend some time teaching students somethings benefical that can be used everyday for the rest of their lives.

Chuchoter

I think they will definitely have to bring in bonus points (if not double points!) for honours maths if they want anyone to take it. I am heading into 5th year soon and I have no qualms about dropping HL maths if its taking up too much time (the course is huge and time consuming) even though with work I would be well able to get a good B or even an A in it. Its just not worth the amount of work that goes into it for only 100 points.

Also I would agree with Silverharp2. We need a system like all the other European countries like UK Germany where there are different schools for different people. I get the previous posters point as to what if the only school in your area was vocational, but we would have to bring back in the Primary Cert and get rid of catchment areas. The current system where we have a boy with aims to do an apprenticeship having to learn poetry, science and Irish is stupid and serves no-one. The higher ability people are held back and the lower ability people are lost

silverharp

jmayo wrote: »

No no to that.
That is all well and fine if you live in major city where there are multitude of schools which cater for more affluent, and often more academic kids while others probably in less affluent areas cater for the vocational aspect.

What the f88k happens if you live in the sticks (as I did) and by your definition the only school nearby only fits into the vocational curriculum ?

It should not really be done by school, except where there are nearby alternatives, it also has to be done per students.
Our education system often does not cater for those who are not going to third level at all.

I dont see a problem, your average small town school could possibly be split between 2 strands and all 3 if they can muster the facilities. If there isnt a critical mass then so be it. However the whole point is to foster excellence so by definition the system needs elite schools that attract the best teachers, students and have state of art facilities.

jmayo wrote: »

Actually after looking at the mess some people made of their personal finances, the lack of any teaching of basic personal finance budgeting is abmisal. This together with any decent depth of understanding of our political and civic society I believe points to the needs to have compulsory courses introduced on these topics.
Hell it doesn't have to be to leaving cert level in civics or examinable by the state exams, but there needs to be something done about it.

Hell in the states they manage to have driver ed courses, even if some of them appear to think we have only been around for 5,000 years or so.

If schools can waste IMHO and hour a week teaching fables from some books written millenia ago and distorted over the years by a self serving institution then they can damm well spend some time teaching students somethings benefical that can be used everyday for the rest of their lives.

no problem there, the average person doesnt appear to have grasped the awesomeness that is compund interest

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'm glad if they're going to be re-introduced.

I kind of hate the use of the term "u-turn" in politics.

If a government realises they were wrong, why should we have a go at them for admitting same and amending decisions accordingly. Though I acknowledge the point df is making in that the to-ing and fro-ing in the government is pushing it.

Perhaps O'Keefe was under more pressure from the gaelige lobby to offer bonus points for the subject higher Irish in itself, he knew that was silly but also knew it would bring more pressure on him if he gave it to maths.

...or something along those lines. I have no reason to believe the above its just an example

P. Breathnach

Silverharp2 wrote: »

... However the whole point is to foster excellence so by definition the system needs elite schools that attract the best teachers, students and have state of art facilities...

So what you want is that those who already have advantages (whether due to inherent intelligence, favourable upbringing, or the purchase of grinds) to be given further advantage in the form of better-resourced schools.

Does the word "fairness" resonate with you?

Podge_irl

Laminations wrote: »

Arthur Benjamin talks a lot of sense, and I think adopting his approach to secondary maths education focusing on statistics and probability would lead to a 'smarter' economy.

Except that's not maths, it's statistics. There should probably be two maths courses in school, they try and ram too much into one course and it's not a great course overall. Instead of the vast difference in the OL and HL maths courses, there should be a statistics and "day-to-day" maths course and a calculus/algebra type maths course.

Proposing bonus points for Maths seems to be rather glossing over the problems (I'm not a fan of Project Maths either).

Maths needs to be incentivised, but the right kind of maths for the right people. I can't see such a radical change happening any time soon though. Rather ironically given their crowing about poor maths education, I do sometimes wonder who exactly is advising the govt. about maths and the need for reform in it.

ressem

I'd be for the increased points as it discourages schools and parents from treating honours maths as an overexpensive expendable subject.

You'd wonder what advice and statistics are presented to these ministers though.

I was looking through a report on examinations.ie which suggested that the curriculums for foundation, ordinary and higher level have been designed to try and get a pupil ratio of 25:50:25 respectively. As opposed to 10.7:70.5:18.9 in '05.

This would suggest to a suspicious person like me that this is about getting convenient class sizes.

http://www.examinations.ie/archive/examiners_reports/cer_2009/LCMathematics.pdf

This means that hardly any of those who were intended to be the A and B grade candidates at this [foundation] level are actually present in the de facto candidature. Here again, this leads to inevitable tensions between the intended standards and the need to have a reasonable grade distribution for the examination.

Why is there a 'need to have a reasonable grade distribution' for the foundation examination? Question 1 is 'using your calculator'. Shouldn't some degree of ambition be encouraged?

The same report mentions the 'welcome development' of numbers taking higher level maths having increased from 11.2 to 18.9% between '93 and '05. Without seeing further figures you'd wonder about the influence of the new transition year on this, jumping from 11.2% to 16.8% in 2 years.
It appeared to have an influence on our class of '94, giving 3 years rather than 2 to study a 180 hour maths course.

Sleepy wrote:

I did honours out of stubborness and an academic arrogance ...

Did the same with Irish myself. Nothing the dept can do about this I think...

'Fair' would probably be allowing 3rd level department heads weigh each exam according to it's relevence to a course?
Or a maths program which has everyone studying maths modules (Calculus, Geometry, Statistics) to the level they can manage, and choosing the module's question level between mock and exam time.
But this would require teaching the subject rather than how to solve a particular brand of problem. Which might be infeasible.

mickstupp wrote:

Is giving bonus points to incentivize higher level maths not the same as government sanctioned grade inflation?

Idea is to get ~3000 people currently sitting the ordinary to take the honours exam. So if that happens would those on the ordinary get higher grades/points to fit the curve?
For the higher level students, it would be points inflation rather than grade inflation. Depending on the ability of the added students, it could push some higher level candidates down a grade.

The project Maths stuff on the other hand...
http://www.examinations.ie/schools/Higher_level_Paper_2.pdf
I really doubt that I'm getting better at this stuff as I grow senile but... it seems like a pass could be achieved in that paper with inter-cert maths?

Iwasfrozen

Laminations wrote: »

Did you watch the video in the link?

Of course I didn't watch the video in the link.

Laminations wrote: »

I think we'd be better off as a country/economy if everyone had a decent education in probability and statistics and then bonus points were given for advanced electives, or for these areas to be thought in first year of college depending on the course.

You mention only probability and statistics, would you assume geometry to be an advanced elective ? Surely it is more important then probability and statistics.

What about Algebra ? Should that be an advanced elective considering one cannot do any other area of Mathamatics without first knowing basic Algebra ?

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So what you want is that those who already have advantages (whether due to inherent intelligence, favourable upbringing, or the purchase of grinds) to be given further advantage in the form of better-resourced schools.

Does the word "fairness" resonate with you?

Absolutely, everyone should have the opportunity to make the best of the resources available to them. It would be unfair to hold kids back in an arbitrary manner.
I'd wager there is a slight inconsistancy here. If someone suggested setting up a sports academy or music school "everybody" would generally be in favour of it, however once you mention schools, everyone gets precious about it.?

Also given that the thread is about what would make Ireland a more competitve country, if there is talent out there it needs to be encouraged. You can either have the best research jobs filled by Irish scientists or German, your choice?

P. Breathnach

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Absolutely, everyone should have the opportunity to make the best of the resources available to them. It would be unfair to hold kids back in an arbitrary manner.

But it's not unfair to promote them in an arbitrary manner?

I'd wager there is a slight inconsistancy here. If someone suggested setting up a sports academy or music school "everybody" would generally be in favour of it, however once you mention schools, everyone gets precious about it.?

Another of the army of strawmen that march through this forum. Don't presume that you know my mind on things on which I have said nothing.

Also given that the thread is about what would make Ireland a more competitve country, if there is talent out there it needs to be encouraged. You can either have the best research jobs filled by Irish scientists or German, your choice?

I'm going back decades, to recall a boy in my primary school class who seemed to have a gift for mathematics -- certainly in comparison with the rest of us, and some of us were not at all bad. He never got into second level education because of family circumstances. Yes, I am precious about giving opportunity to everybody, and not rationing it to elites.

My path through life was made easier for me because of the family into which I was born. Is that the model you desire?

I.Am.A.Panda

The first problem is that Maths focuses on Trigonometry, Geometry, etc. which while useful for some sectors, namely Physics and Engineering, it is not useful for much else. If it should be compulsory, it should focus in on real world application of the subject. The concepts which aren't practical, such as the aforementioned Geometry and Trigonometry, should be consolidated into Advanced Maths, a completely different subject. The only problem is that I'd say each school would have about 1 class, and barely a class with that.

The second problem is that it is mandatory without being practical. I'm sure foreign companies love the idea that the labour force has a good grasp on Maths on paper, but in reality it's then non-applicable stuff. If the course focused on Statistics, Arithmetic, etc. then it would be justified to be mandatory, but only at 3 - 4 (At most classes per week).

However I would favour a system whereby following your JC you took some form of Standardised Maths Test which tested your ability to work with basic maths concepts (E.g. Arithmetic) and should you pass, you should not be required to take Maths. I think this would be great for students and employers, but not for the couple hundred of Maths teacher out of a job.The same should go for English (I.e. that you are fluent in English, which should be a straight pass for all but foreign nationals) but not Irish.

However, that is a mere distant fantasy, in a world where complacency, die hard tradition, and of course Eamonn De Valera didn't exist.

However, being that I'm in 3rd year and was 4th best in my class at Higher maths, I hope to reap the benefits off the points inflation and new Maths Paper 2 rolled out next year .

Lu Tze

I.Am.A.Panda wrote: »

The first problem is that Maths focuses on Trigonometry, Geometry, etc. which while useful for some sectors, namely Physics and Engineering, it is not useful for much else.

You can add every other type of maths to that as well if thats your opinion. All the various sections of maths are there to solve problems in many subjects, not just those you listed.

Accountancy, actuaries, economics programming etc. all require a base, and i think the curriculum is fairly well rounded that you will end up looking at something you cover in leaving cert in more detail in any technical course.

Any where you deal with rates of change differentiation comes into play.

You are junior cert? In two years time when you are doing differentiation/integration have a look back at your log book (is it still blue!?) and see if you notice anything about the formulas for a circle, cirumference, area, and then volume of a sphere.

I know you aren't going to be looking at these things on a daily basis in any thing you work at, but having the knowledge these methods exist and what they can be used for can open up opportunities to improve how you work etc.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it's not unfair to promote them in an arbitrary manner?

what is arbitrary about it, the economy is based on people with different skillsets and kids have different abilities, surely the educational system should match this.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Another of the army of strawmen that march through this forum. Don't presume that you know my mind on things on which I have said nothing.

it was a genuine question, should not any sports organisation in this country try to find and develop excpetional talent ? does the act of doing this oppress anyone else?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm going back decades, to recall a boy in my primary school class who seemed to have a gift for mathematics -- certainly in comparison with the rest of us, and some of us were not at all bad. He never got into second level education because of family circumstances. Yes, I am precious about giving opportunity to everybody, and not rationing it to elites.

My path through life was made easier for me because of the family into which I was born. Is that the model you desire?

I've heard similar stories before for that era but dont see the relevance. One act did not affect the outcome of the other. Also more importantly I never mentioned that they be private only. I started by saying that I wanted a choice of carricula. The main objective would be to match talented students with better teachers and teaching methods. The flip side is of course to save the 1000's of students annually who have to suffer Peig yet still leave school barely literate or numerate. The "vanilla" system we have at the moment might suit the 1/3th in the middle but I put it too you it fails in acedemic terms the top 1/3 and bottom 1/3 thereabouts?

hallelujajordan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As mentioned by another poster, political u-turns are a positive thing. . . I want politicians who are able to adjust their thinking and change their mind as circumstances change . . this is what happens in any well run company . . It's also a positive thing when individuals have different ideas and different policies. Again, something that will happen in any well run company and should be encouraged in cabinet.

If our politicians were narrow minded and resistant to change we would (rightly) criticise them even more. . .

. . so give Mary a break, this is a positive move that will hopefully create better, more mathematically gifted students.

P. Breathnach

Silverharp2 wrote: »

what is arbitrary about it, the economy is based on people with different skillsets and kids have different abilities, surely the educational system should match this.

The arbitrary element is that kids differ in more than their innate abilities; they differ in their upbringing -- things like parental interest and support, access to educational opportunity outside the school system, and much else (including, I believe, diet). So some kids get considerable advantage from their families, and that is an arbitrary variable that has little to do with innate ability. And you suggest that we further advantage those kids by directing more resources their way.

it was a genuine question, should not any sports organisation in this country try to find and develop excpetional talent ? does the act of doing this oppress anyone else?

The strawman has morphed into a red herring.

I've heard similar stories before for that era but dont see the relevance.

There are none so blind ...

One act did not affect the outcome of the other.

Limited resources, distributed unequally and, arguably, inefficiently.

Also more importantly I never mentioned that they be private only.

See previous point.

I started by saying that I wanted a choice of carricula. The main objective would be to match talented students with better teachers and teaching methods.

The most talented have probably the least need of the best teachers, and I don't see any sense in rationing teaching methods.

The flip side is of course to save the 1000's of students annually who have to suffer Peig yet still leave school barely literate or numerate.

What has Peig got to do with this? [She was, by the way, probably not very literate, possibly illiterate -- but I don't see any connection between her, the book Maidhc File wrote, and the state of mathematical education in Ireland.]

The "vanilla" system we have at the moment might suit the 1/3th in the middle but I put it too you it fails in acedemic terms the top 1/3 and bottom 1/3 thereabouts?

If you want me to believe such a big claim, you had better start adducing some proper evidence.

I don't know whether you should first make the case that the population falls into three equally sized groups that are generically distinct: the vocational group at the bottom; the nondescript group in the middle; and the academic group at the top.

And should you be asked to work out how to deal with people of academic quality in mathematics and physics, nondescript quality in biology and economics, and vocational quality in English and French?

I.Am.A.Panda

Lu Tze wrote: »

You can add every other type of maths to that as well if thats your opinion. All the various sections of maths are there to solve problems in many subjects, not just those you listed.

Accountancy, actuaries, economics programming etc. all require a base, and i think the curriculum is fairly well rounded that you will end up looking at something you cover in leaving cert in more detail in any technical course.

Any where you deal with rates of change differentiation comes into play.

You are junior cert? In two years time when you are doing differentiation/integration have a look back at your log book (is it still blue!?) and see if you notice anything about the formulas for a circle, cirumference, area, and then volume of a sphere.

I know you aren't going to be looking at these things on a daily basis in any thing you work at, but having the knowledge these methods exist and what they can be used for can open up opportunities to improve how you work etc.

Whirl I understand that each aspect of the course has difficult and less-applicable parts, I would think these should be part of the aforementioned 'Advanced Maths'. And the log book has changed, and contains even more information !

Also, @ your last paragraph. While I do understand that you took Area and Volume as an example, only an engineer, or a job in that region, would probably need such knowledge. To be completely honest your avergae worker isn't going to (Unfortunately) need the level of Maths that is taught in life.

Lu Tze

I.Am.A.Panda wrote: »

Whirl I understand that each aspect of the course has difficult and less-applicable parts, I would think these should be part of the aforementioned 'Advanced Maths'. And the log book has changed, and contains even more information !

Also, @ your last paragraph. While I do understand that you took Area and Volume as an example, only an engineer, or a job in that region, would probably need such knowledge. To be completely honest your avergae worker isn't going to (Unfortunately) need the level of Maths that is taught in life.

Enjoy your life as an average worker then.

Under your interpretation then i imagine the average worker will also not be using french, irish, german, chemistry, business, accounting, economics, ag-science, physics, tech drawing, geography, history, art, wood work, technology, and an in depth knowledge of Shakespearian plays/sonnets will prove equally useless.

In fact the only examinable subject for leaving cert should obviously be Home Ec. which is most likely to prove the most useful for everybody in day to day living

I.Am.A.Panda

Lu Tze wrote: »

Enjoy your life as an average worker then.

Under your interpretation then i imagine the average worker will also not be using french, irish, german, chemistry, business, accounting, economics, ag-science, physics, tech drawing, geography, history, art, wood work, technology, and an in depth knowledge of Shakespearian plays/sonnets will prove equally useless.

In fact the only examinable subject for leaving cert should obviously be Home Ec. which is most likely to prove the most useful for everybody in day to day living

I agree with Irish, and I think English shouldn't be compulsory once you are fluent in it\ do not have a difficulty like Dyslexia. I think some courses need a bit of an overhaul for modern times, but lets consider some subjects.

Geography - We become aware of the world around us

Economics - We become aware of economics, and can understand economic terms, and of course understand why X happens in the economy.

Biology - Gives us a greater understanding of how our body works

If every subject is optional, and of course school at that stage is optional it's up to the student to fidn what suits them best, not the other way around.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you want me to believe such a big claim, you had better start adducing some proper evidence.

only anicdotal I am afraid, my own school streamed a year group of 90 into 3 at the start of the junior cycle. It was pretty obvious that the bottom third were getting very little out of school, they tended to be the disruptive one, and I doubt I would have found it fun getting a constant set of D's and E's all though ones school life. The middle group got on ok with alot of hard work, yet the best in the year still had to "play the game" of rote learning and learning how to game the exams instead of being given the opportunity to "dig deep" . I'd be pretty sure that this is replicated around the country, streaming or not.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't know whether you should first make the case that the population falls into three equally sized groups that are generically distinct: the vocational group at the bottom; the nondescript group in the middle; and the academic group at the top.

And should you be asked to work out how to deal with people of academic quality in mathematics and physics, nondescript quality in biology and economics, and vocational quality in English and French?

I'd sum this up with my parent's hat on, let parents choose. If I knew that my kids were not going to be bright in a strict academic sense I would be finding other ways for them to be educated, it may be technical, artistic or even sports focused. I would honestly break my heart for them to to be chewed up under the the present system
The current syllibus with improvements appears to be acceptable to anyone entering the job market or university however if there is damand for a more focused and detailed syllibus this should be entertained.
A simple way to move this forward would be to give every parent a cheque with their share of the educational budget which they can use in the educational institution of their choice.