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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dan_d

Podge_irl makes a good point. The current course is huge, and should probably be broken down a bit better.

There's a couple of points to consider in this whole debate. First and foremost, you are trying to create a system that caters to a vast quantity of people with many different abilities - one that will try and suit the difference of abilities yet equip with as much of a chance as possible to get the best they can for a career. Not an easy feat.

Secondly, everyone seems to be in favour of less rote learning and more "useful" and "interactive" learning. Can someone tell me exactly what is proposed to achieve this? Start with the tinies - how interactive can you be while teaching children the concepts behind adding and subtracting. They already count beads, colour pictures, watch videos, play games....it's fairly interactive. Then go higher...9 and ten years olds. Teaching tables....how else do they memorise them? And make no mistake, they have to be memorised. You have to be able to crawl before you can walk. You can be as interactive as you like, but at some point a child has to sit down and learn the stuff. Then secondary school - to me, up to the JC there is no reason why teenagers shouldn't continue in the current course. The emphasis should however be more on the level of teaching. Some maths teachers are deplorable, and with the the best will in the world, regardless of how gifted a child is, they will struggle under such teachers. So focus on the quality of teaching rather than how many computer games can be used to teach the stuff. I'd scrap the calculator thing too...they don't really need them, and it actually acts against them knowing what they are doing in some cases.

The Leaving Cert could be rearranged better. Looking at other countries, there are different systems - the French system test kids at about age 14, and decides whether they are more science/maths inclined, or linguistically inclined. Based on that they direct them into subjects and subsequently a career based on those subjects. While that seems good, I myself would have been pushed in a totally different direction career-wise under that system, therefore I see it's disadvantages. The UK obviously does something similar, although I think they are allowed choose the 3 subjects for the A-levels, rather than the system choosing for them.

Our system aims to give a very all-round education which is quite a good approach in it's way, as it allows students the best possible choice of career. There is however a huge amount of work in the LC maths course. That to me is the bigger problem - that puts people off it. I have heard fellow students/friends/relations say so many times "I dropped to pass maths because the honours took so much time and I didn't need it".These are all people that are totally capable of hons maths, they just wanted to spend more time on other subjects. A suggested, a tiered system of some sort is probably better, and possibly a reduction of the volume of work involved.

The idea that maths should be taught as a " real world" subject at that level - how so??? You need the basic concepts to understand the "real world" stuff. And the basic concepts are boring,dry, and have to be learned. And I did engineering - I do maths in about as "real world" as you can get it. The other thing is that you try to implement this kind of system, and then you arrive into first year in college in a course such as engineering and you realise - you're learning off the graphs and the formulae and the methods. No real world until about 2nd or 3rd year, when you understand the concepts. Again, crawling before walking.

I hate to say it, but the extra points approach is probably the most viable to get more people to hons maths. It's bribery of a sort, but fairly effective! As to the people who are talented in other ways - there is no doubt that a more effective system needs to be in place for those who's talents are more creative than academic. The thing is that these people are in the minority. You need to create a seperate system, rather than altering the existing one to suit a minority. One that offers as much chance to these people in their chosen career paths.

To me, the main parts of our maths problems are an element of laziness on behalf of students, a major lack of emphasis on the quality of maths teachers and too large a volume of work in the maths course. I don't think the actual course content is a problem (besides it's size), or the methods in which it is taught.

Sorry for the long post! I will point out that these are only my personal opinions, but I have had numerous maths and advanced maths teachers through the last 10-15 years through school and college, and it's something I do feel quite strongly about.

D-Generate

Project maths will be an absolute disaster for our university education system due to the absence of Calculus on the course. It will mean first year will either be spent teaching them what they should already know or even more probable, first year courses won't change and students will just be left behind.

I remember in my time of education that I always felt jilted that I was mathematically minded and not linguistically minded. I always thought that those who are good at languages are usually good at other volume subjects such as History and Geography. Therefore the number of subjects available to these students was much greater than the few maths based courses.

The course should be split in to two but students have to do at least one of the modules. The first option would be Probability and Statistics and Linear Algebra/Matrices. This is similar to Project Maths but without the Trig and Geometry. To account for this the length of the course would be increased.
The second maths option would be Calculus and Trig and Geometry. This would be targeted towards students wishing to pursue a university education in engineering/physics/maths etc.

I don't understand why people are saying they should teach the students real world stuff. It is all real world stuff! I apply what I learnt towards real world situations every day that I work/study. To say that calculus is not real world because you had no need for it after leaving school is the same as me saying that learning Balance Sheets in Business Studies wasn't real world because I don't use them anymore.
My main pet peeve is how maths is regarded as irrelevant and only for nerds. This has led to it becoming acceptable for someone at a dinner table after a meal to say "oh you calculate the bill, I am no good at maths". To me this should be no more acceptable than saying "oh you read the menu, I am no good at English". Maths needs to become cool again and the media should at least stop stereotyping it as for nerds.

amen

The current course is huge

Really ? I did my Leaving Cert in 1990 and on the old Honours Maths course and if you think the current course is huge you should see the old course. Not only was it high but it appears to be more in depth. It also wasn't unusual to get strange questions on the maths papers that did not produce results similar to previous years. If you knew the maths though you were fairly ok. A lot of the course was explained form first principles and was hard but fair.

I did physics in University and first year maths was basically leaving Cert Honours in first year but more rigours and you had to prove everything from first principles.

Interesting that anothere poster mentioned statistics and probability. I did those options foy leaving certs maths. Are they gone now?

If calculus is removed then leaving cert then there will be a lot of unhappy first year science/engineering students!

The way I see we have a small population and not everyone is cut out to go college/university and of those that do not everyone is cut out to be a scientist/engineer etc.

Keeping that in mind we should actually make the science/maths course for leaving cert harded in that you are now required to know why/how things work from first principles thus interesting those we want to know instead of dumbing down the subjects.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

D-Generate wrote: »

Project maths will be an absolute disaster for our university education system due to the absence of Calculus on the course. It will mean first year will either be spent teaching them what they should already know or even more probable, first year courses won't change and students will just be left behind...

Are you suggesting that calculus is such a major field that it would be impracticable for universities to teach it to first year students? And yet that it is okay to impose it on Leaving Certificate students, including those who will not be entering university or other third level courses, or who will be taking third level courses in humanities or law or medicine or other disciplines that are not based on science?

Calculus is one of the few things I learned about in school that never served me later, either in professional or in personal life.

It is my non-expert opinion that school mathematics goes further than necessary into realms of pure mathematics and mathematical techniques, and that the issue of mathematicisation is given insufficient attention. I don't have any particular knowledge of Project Maths, but I have gleaned the impression that it might attempt to redress the balance somewhat.

D-Generate

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you suggesting that calculus is such a major field that it would be impracticable for universities to teach it to first year students?

There is absolutely no question about whether calculus is a major field in maths/engineering/physics/econometrics etc. In university it is already a struggle to impart a rudimentary knowledge of say electronic engineering within the 4 years alloted for the degree. One of the reasons that they can accomplish such a feat is that they understand the students have already a grasp on key techniques such as calculus. By having to teach calc in first year it pushes back the progress of every single module. I think first year out of my 8 or so modules, I would estimate that around 4 modules at least used calculus besides the already compulsory Mathematics for Engineers. If my class hadn't already understood calculus then we would either have been lost in the other modules or else the department would have to wait about 3/4 months before we finally caught up and they could start teaching again. Its just not practical to go in to first year without calc.

I guess the government are just playing their own figures game, dumb down the maths course to artificially increase numbers doing honours when really its not honours level at all. It looks like they solved our worrying trend of 16% of people only doing honours when all they did was make it more like pass level.

Lu Tze

D-Generate wrote: »

I guess the government are just playing their own figures game, dumb down the maths course to artificially increase numbers doing honours when really its not honours level at all. It looks like they solved our worrying trend of 16% of people only doing honours when all they did was make it more like pass level.

This is probably why in the coming years engineering will become a masters degree course. I know during my time in school they had already dumbed down the physics and chemistry courses. I think the extra year in college will be mainly spent bringing the students up to standard, as opposed to giving them an opportunity to go into depth in specialised areas (renewable energy etc.)

Podge_irl

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you suggesting that calculus is such a major field that it would be impracticable for universities to teach it to first year students? And yet that it is okay to impose it on Leaving Certificate students, including those who will not be entering university or other third level courses, or who will be taking third level courses in humanities or law or medicine or other disciplines that are not based on science?

It is, to a degree, somewhat beside the point as to whether you have used calculus since leaving school. There is a reason that a wide range of employers are so fond of maths and physics graduates, and it has nothing to do with their ability to solve differential equations, but rather the problem solving abilities they learn along the way. The whole point of Maths isn't so much learning individual techniques (though they are obviously important if you go on to do things that require maths) but learning skills and then learning when and how to apply them to different situations/problems. It's one of the few subjects in school that gives this opportunity and conversely also why it's viewed as so hard by so many people.

The level of maths that students have going into university is already poor. Removing calculus from the LC syllabus and requiring universities to teach it from the very start would be catastrophic. They have enough to do to bring students up to speed as it is.

It is my non-expert opinion that school mathematics goes further than necessary into realms of pure mathematics and mathematical techniques, and that the issue of mathematicisation is given insufficient attention. I don't have any particular knowledge of Project Maths, but I have gleaned the impression that it might attempt to redress the balance somewhat.

And what exactly do you define mathematicisation to be? It's my opinion that the course doesn't go far enough into most techniques and areas. Too many of them are introduced in only a brief way without proper indication of their use or why they're important.

Project Maths is woeful from what I've seen of it. It will also completely negate any argument about bonus points for maths though, as it appears to be a smaller and easier course. The OP is right, no one seems to have any idea what the approach to get more people into HL Maths should be and the whole thing is ridiculously haphazard.

Sleepy

Podge_irl wrote: »

It's my opinion that the course doesn't go far enough into most techniques and areas. Too many of them are introduced in only a brief way without proper indication of their use or why they're important.

An idication of how mathematics could be applied to real world problems would have certainly helped me do better in it as a subject. Having a real world situation to visualise is a great aid in logical problem solving. I know when doing IQ tests in school, I'd frequently end up visuallising Lego Technic in order to figure out which way a cog would turn in a given situation or for spatial relations reasoning.

Eliot Rosewater

D-Generate wrote: »

Project maths will be an absolute disaster for our university education system due to the absence of Calculus on the course.

Just to clarify, calculus will be on the Project Maths course. There are 5 streams in Project Maths, 4 of which have been published by now. The final stream is called "functions" (to be published this September) and will include calculus, though presumably a tiny amount compared to the current system. As it stands there are 3 calculus questions on Paper 1 of the current Maths course (2 differentiation; 1 integration); just shy of 20% of the marks available. When you factor in functions it pushes the percentage above the one fifth allocated in Project Maths.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you suggesting that calculus is such a major field that it would be impracticable for universities to teach it to first year students?

Why can't they have learned it by the time they reach college? They're 18 years of age going into University, and those 18 years could hardly be described as academically intense. Shouldn't they have something to show for it?

dan_d wrote: »

Looking at other countries, there are different systems - the French system test kids at about age 14, and decides whether they are more science/maths inclined, or linguistically inclined.

I wouldn't be for that kind of categorization at such an early age. The science/humanities divide is not some gigantic chasm whereby you're either on one side or the other. At Leaving Cert level I got A's in all of Maths and Applied Maths (science) and English and History (humanities). I wouldn't have been pleased if I could only do one or the other.

P. Breathnach

Podge_irl wrote: »

... And what exactly do you define mathematicisation to be? ...

Here is a good indicator:

Sleepy wrote: »

An idication of how mathematics could be applied to real world problems would have certainly helped me do better in it as a subject. Having a real world situation to visualise is a great aid in logical problem solving...

One way (not the only one) of seeing mathematics is as a toolkit for solving problems. If you are faced with a real problem, you need to know which tool to reach for. Very often in school mathematics, students learn only how to manipulate the tool, not how and when to use it. If you are given a set of variables to plug into a formula, you are not doing much mathematics.

Podge_irl

P. Breathnach wrote: »

One way (not the only one) of seeing mathematics is as a toolkit for solving problems. If you are faced with a real problem, you need to know which tool to reach for. Very often in school mathematics, students learn only how to manipulate the tool, not how and when to use it. If you are given a set of variables to plug into a formula, you are not doing much mathematics.

There is also the element of learning to walk before you can run. You can't do the above without going into the level of detail that they do with regards formulae and techniques. As I said, the problem is that it cuts off too early without giving the necessary situations in which these techniques are useful, it is certainly not a case of going too far into any realm.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I doubt you even have any idea how bad it's gotten.

PeterIanStaker

I didn't read the previous pages, so apologies if someone's mentioned this:

http://www.asti.ie/news/latest-news/news-article/article/re-training-engineers-as-maths-teachers//back_to/press-releases/


Speaking as one who struggled with maths all the way through school, I think it'd make maths relevant and applicable to the real world, i.e. interesting.

pljudge321

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I didn't read the previous pages, so apologies if someone's mentioned this:

http://www.asti.ie/news/latest-news/news-article/article/re-training-engineers-as-maths-teachers//back_to/press-releases/


Speaking as one who struggled with maths all the way through school, I think it'd make maths relevant and applicable to the real world, i.e. interesting.

It is quite a good idea, doing an engineering course really gives you a proper appreciation for how useful most of the stuff thats on the LC actually stuff.

amen

Calculus is one of the few things I learned about in school that never served me later, either in professional or in personal life

what do you do in your professsional life? as for personal integration can be useful. Say you have need to but some hose pip for a garden hose say 25metres, you go to the garden centre and they sell hose pip on drums of 100m and some of a drum is gone. You could integrate the across the diameters of a cyclinder taking the thickeness of the hose and get an accurate idea how much is left (in fact there is shorthand trick to do this that is based on integration but can't remember it at the moment)

Speaking as one who struggled with maths all the way through school, I think it'd make maths relevant and applicable to the real world, i.e. interesting.

You could do this today. Problem is a lot of maths teacher got to university get a degrees in Maths/Science and then a H Dip and have never worked outside of education so don't know what maths is used for.

There are loads of examples why theorems, sets, vectors, probability etc are thought.

The other thing to consider is that "society" considers knowledge of literature, history, geography etc to be required and we need to switch to ensure a knowledge of maths, science is required etc.

What a lot of the humanities forget is that if it were not of the science/maths/engineering making their life easier there wouldn't be time for the humanities.

P. Breathnach

amen wrote: »

what do you do in your professsional life?

Nothing now. I hang about on boards to pass the time between pension cheques.

as for personal integration can be useful. Say you have need to but some hose pip for a garden hose say 25metres, you go to the garden centre and they sell hose pip on drums of 100m and some of a drum is gone. You could integrate the across the diameters of a cyclinder taking the thickeness of the hose and get an accurate idea how much is left (in fact there is shorthand trick to do this that is based on integration but can't remember it at the moment)

I'd wager it is faster to uncoil the hose and measure its length. Your example seems to me to be even less practical than the last f'rinstance I heard: calculating how much central heating oil remains in a cylindrical tank. People just don't do things like that except for motives like amusement, showing off, or to make the point that it is possible.

You could do this today. Problem is a lot of maths teacher got to university get a degrees in Maths/Science and then a H Dip and have never worked outside of education so don't know what maths is used for.

More to the point, and it is a point that I have been trying to make, students don't get a useful handle on what maths is used for -- not so much because of teacher shortcomings, but because the school programme does not seem to give much prominence to applications.

The other thing to consider is that "society" considers knowledge of literature, history, geography etc to be required and we need to switch to ensure a knowledge of maths, science is required etc.

Are we discussing schools here, or wider society? Everybody meets mathematics at school, usually every day.

What a lot of the humanities forget is that if it were not of the science/maths/engineering making their life easier there wouldn't be time for the humanities.

Let's not get into that kind of discussion. It's what I describe as the leg of the chair argument: which one is the most important?