Admit students who fail honours maths, says Coughlan

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely. If someone is incapable of passing honours maths, they probably won't rank very highly in OL maths either - a C at best. It also creates a loophole whereby a student who knows they won't pass ordinary level maths can just go ahead and do a higher level paper to avoid matriculation requirements.

Between this and grade inflation, Coughlan is seeking to make our degree worthless by printing more of them.

Colonel Sanders

Knowledge economy eh?

t4k30

seamus wrote: »

Absolutely. If someone is incapable of passing honours maths, they probably won't rank very highly in OL maths either - a C at best. It also creates a loophole whereby a student who knows they won't pass ordinary level maths can just go ahead and do a higher level paper to avoid matriculation requirements.

Between this and grade inflation, Coughlan is seeking to make our degree worthless by printing more of them.

Thats a very broad and sweeping sweeping statement to make. There is no way you can compare ordinary and higher level maths. Many students who drop from Higher to ordinary average out on B's and A's. In saying that they should definetly shouldnt allow people who fail into degree's. Its the way it has always been, either you make the cut or you dont. If you dont make the cut go home and try again ! There is always next year !

P. Breathnach

There are third-level courses where mathematical ability is largely irrelevant, such as language studies. There are other courses where there is a requirement for arithmetic rather than mathematical skills, such as nursing and catering.

But let's not debate the question.

RonMexico

Grading Coughlan so far on her performance in Government I'd award her an F. She is the class dunce. Of course as an abject failure she is made Tanaiste and handed a nice department portfolio. I can see now why she thinks other failures should be awarded.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

TBH, he sounds like one of those f**ktards who thinks a fail in honours is better than a pass in ordinary...

A fail is a fail, muthaf**ker.

Sulmac

Maybe if we had more qualified maths teachers this wouldn't be an issue.

Half maths teachers 'not qualified'
GENEVIEVE CARBERY

Almost half of post-primary maths teachers are not qualified in that field, new research has shown.

IrishTimes.com

toiletduck

Unbelievable. Is this the best the Government can come up with to address this issue?

dan_d

Oh lord. She's totally missing the point of the entire problem here. And people usually drop to OL because they find HL too difficult, or they don't want to spend the time on it.

When can we get rid of her?

walshb

I dropped from Higher to Ordinary at the last minute and got an A2, so I don't think
the comparison between the two is accurate, as in, an E in higher equals a D or C at
lower, you cannot really compare.

cuculainn

We need to get this gimp out of the government (or just get the whole government out) before she runs the country into the ground. She is an absolute disgrace to the country and to the title of Minister.....She ran the depart of enterprise into the ground and now she is going to run the dept of education into the ground and make this country about as unattractive a place to set up any business (Not alone the high end knowledge based enterprise sh*ite the government like to spout on about) as she is.

After Craig Barret speaking about how Ireland no longer offers the type of skilled workforce most corporations are looking for, her response is to dumb down value of a degree further.

She is a fu*king joke.:mad::mad:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Once again you are correct in pointing out government ineptitude but (to link this with another thread) Coughlans f***ed up idea does not equal 'all government is bad'. It simply means Coughlan is sh1t at her job as per usual and this FF government need to be removed.

mickstupp

In her letter, Ms Coughlan asks college chiefs to accept students with a grade E in higher level for entry purposes.

If it's entry to a course which doesn't require any maths, I don't see why this is a problem. But then I also don't see why my course, which doesn't involve any foreign languages, required me to have a foreign language in my leaving cert...

She also wants them to back her plan to award bonus CAO points for those taking higher-level maths.

In my opinion, this is simply government sanctioned grade inflation.

Bottle_of_Smoke

To offer an opposing view.....

Anyone who got 25% in higher would easily pass (and prob get a C) in ordinary, which would be accepted for the vast vast maority of courses

Is there really much point keeping them out of college? Look at the UK most people don't even do maths. Shouldn't really be a requirement for it for most 3rd level courses

On the other hand, if she wants to encourage people to do higher maths I assume its so they can go on to do engineering/theoretical physics etc.... Well there's no way these courses would accept ordinary level maths or a failed higher level(they'd want at least a C in higher)

Perhaps the former is worthwhile in itself.

cuculainn

mickstupp wrote: »

If it's entry to a course which doesn't require any maths, I don't see why this is a problem. But then I also don't see why my course which doesn't involve any foreign languages, required me to a have foreign language in my leaving cert...



In my opinion, this is simply government sanctioned grade inflation.

Because it is part of getting a basic education. This is what the leaving cert is....if you didnt need maths to get into arts, for example, and you dropped out after 1 year, you are probably unemployable.....and unable to switch courses if you decided to move course.

Agree that unless it is done properly it is grade inflation.........but something has to be done to encourage student to take the maths and science subjects and not just the so called "easy" options to make up points

Bottle_of_Smoke

mickstupp wrote:

If it's entry to a course which doesn't require any maths, I don't see why this is a problem. But then I also don't see why my course which doesn't involve any foreign languages, required me to a have foreign language in my leaving cert...



In my opinion, this is simply government sanctioned grade inflation.

cuculainn wrote: »

Because it is part of getting a basic education. This is what the leaving cert is....if you didnt need maths to get into arts, for example, and you dropped out after 1 year, you are probably unemployable.....and unable to switch courses if you decided to move course.

Agree that unless it is done properly it is grade inflation.........but something has to be done to encourage student to take the maths and science subjects and not just the so called "easy" options to make up points

Kind of agree with both of you. More I think about it the more I think we should just copy the UK system. We have an obselete Junior Cert, they have GCSEs which can get you a job.

fontanalis

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Kind of agree with both of you. More I think about it the more I think we should just copy the UK system. We have an obselete Junior Cert, they have GCSEs which can get you a job.

Junior Cert? There are probably people still out there who call it the inter. But you're right, it's obsolete. If this was just an opinion she expressed off the cuff it would be bad enough but to write to universities is madness.

thebaldsoprano

t4k30 wrote: »

In saying that they should definetly shouldnt allow people who fail into degree's. Its the way it has always been, either you make the cut or you dont. If you dont make the cut go home and try again ! There is always next year !

Absolutely. One thing they could consider though is offering an Autumn 'repeat' exam in pass maths that such people could take. Any degree offers would be conditional on passing this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

astrofool

Well the problem is that people don't take honours as they risk failing their entire leaving cert. If the pass level was reduced to say, 30% and a minimum of points awarded, this increases the numbers that take the course, and may get a high mark, especially if they are floating in the 35-40 zone for mocks.

I for instance (for 6th year maths), failed my xmas exam and mocks, and then got a B2 in honours maths at leaving, I had a friend who dropped down at xmas, and didn't do a tap for OL maths and got an A2 in it.

Any Uni courses that require maths can just mandate a pass to get in, the ones that don't, don't.

Getting 30% in HL maths is a lot more work and harder than getting 60% at OL maths, why should one get you a course, and the other doesn't?

jimi_t2

That demented old biddy will be the ruin of our education system.

In fairness to us, up until now our second level education system and CAO process was looked on quite favourably on an international level - whatever about our issues in the tertiary sector.

As to the people talking about ''sure a B at ordinary is equivalent to a D/E at honours'' or ''my course doesn't need maths at all, why should I do it?''.

YOU ARE INTENDING GOING TO A UNIVERSITY.
NOT A ''COLLEGE''.
NOT AN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.
NOT A FETAC OR FAS CENTRE.
CERTAIN STANDARDS HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED.

This notion of ''everyone'' getting a degree or even just continuing on to Tertiary education because we're a relatively well-off country since the 60s/70s is complete nonsense.

Especially with the expansion of the middle classes, we're seeing a massive influx of people who simply are not capable of completing a degree, but can just about grind their way into a low-level course through a combination of private schooling and the institute.

Science has about a 40+% dropout rate after 1st year in UCD. About half of the Comp.Sci year will fail 20% or more of their modules in 1st year. Less than 60% of Arts entrants finish their degree in the 3 years. (Someone's going to ask me for citations - I don't have them to hand, but these are about right IIRC. Please point out any glaring discrepancies).


We're seeing a lot of colleges like UCD being run as businesses, with the emphasis being put on MA's in commerce and MBAs and their ilk. These are the qualifications that have the big companies wining and dining the staff and doing milk rounds and promotions on campus. You're on 25k+ a year from the outset and they'll probably pay for you to do your masters.

Compare that to this years final year science. Most of them are off to work for NGOs or interning for a year, zoologists are off with Project Wallacea (which they pay for) and the lucky ones have qualified for 3-9 years of a (self-funded) MA or PHd before they've any chance of employment.


Now one of these two groups have well-paid and ''respectable'' employment from the get-go, while the other has a hard and thankless slog and will probably never hit a 6 figure income. One group looks to enhance or supplement human-kind with new technologies and medicines. The other seeks new and innovative ways to sell off bad loans and hike up your mortgage. Which group needs honours maths?

(I know I'm being pedantic here, but the political football of ''honours maths'' is an incredibly complex and important matter with a lot of wide reaching consequences).

jimi_t2

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Kind of agree with both of you. More I think about it the more I think we should just copy the UK system. We have an obselete Junior Cert, they have GCSEs which can get you a job.

Fair enough, they're vocationally orientated to a degree that the GCSE's aren't, but they don't offer much in way of an ''education''.

Ask an Irish student and an English student of the appropriate age and of similar background basic enough questions about the location and capitals of countries of the world, basic years for WWII and an idea as to who was fighting who, to name a few famous poets and authors, who the prime minister/taoiseach is etc...

I saw a report where this was done and while the Irish students didn't acquit themselves well, the UK equivalent was absolutely ****ing appalling. About 1 in 5 couldn't definitively tell you who Hitler or Churchill were. The notion that some of these kids went on to do 'O' levels, never mind 'A' levels is mind boggling.

There's the somewhat saccharine smell of the autodidcat about the GCSEs and their nature of specialisation - people doing things like Nature Studies, Drama and PE as their sum-total exams. Whats that, three to four exams compared to the NINE TO ELEVEN sat during the junior cert? Behave.

gizmo555

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Is there really much point keeping them out of college? Look at the UK most people don't even do maths.

This is not the UK. Irish second level education doesn't narrowly specialise the way they do in the UK for A-levels, and I believe it's right not to.

jimi_t2 wrote: »

Ask an Irish student and an English student of the appropriate age and of similar background basic enough questions about the location and capitals of countries of the world, basic years for WWII and an idea as to who was fighting who, to name a few famous poets and authors, who the prime minister/taoiseach is etc...

Reminds me of a story a Spanish friend of mine told me from his time teaching in a Scottish university. He had a student whose doctoral(!) studies he was supervising. They were chatting in the lab one day and for some reason the name of Christopher Columbus came up in the course of the conversation. To his amazement, my friend realised his student had no idea who Columbus was. As he rightly put it, "when he finishes his PhD, he'll be very highly trained, but you couldn't call him educated."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dan_d

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/17860483/
Are we actually living in a country of idiots? What are we trying to do to ourselves here?? If this is considered as a viable option, I think we'll have undone any good work with regard to standards in education in the last year or so in one fell swoop.

cypharius

Funny how she isn't suggesting that students who fail higher level English or who fail Irish should get into college. Irish education is allready unfair upon those who are scientificly minded yet no talk so good, this will continue our problem with teaching maths to the youth.

jimi_t2

cypharius wrote: »

Funny how she isn't suggesting that students who fail higher level English or who fail Irish should get into college. Irish education is allready unfair upon those who are scientificly minded yet no talk so good, this will continue our problem with teaching maths to the youth.

Well like, this would go back to a deeper resentment I have with tertiary education from the 80s onwards. The concept of a ''university'' was the ultimate posterboy for social mobility at a time when the church ran the show.

Universities, at their most base, are set up to teach the trivium and quadrivium. In my opinion they should teach the Arts and Law and nothing else. This is often the case in the states where you have liberal arts colleges contrasted with high-end vocationally orientated institutions like MIT (which decries itself as a ''research university'' :rolleyes:).

Business colleges should be private ventures, as most of their qualifications are moving towards a standardised European framework - one which will be defined by the corporations they cater for.

Bottle_of_Smoke

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah you're completely right there. I guess what I was saying about higher E = Ordinary C is pretty much off topic. Coughlan's going about this in a really stupid way.

jimi_t2 wrote:

Fair enough, they're vocationally orientated to a degree that the GCSE's aren't, but they don't offer much in way of an ''education''.

Not exactly. GCSEs is kind of like doing leaving cert ordinary level. You know the way if you apply for an office job they say "must have basic leaving cert 5 passes at ordinary level including math/english" - well here in northern ireland they have a similar line but its in reference to GCSE example

The inter/unior cert was prob set up as people went into trades and I think it may even have been acceptable for nursing at one point(might be wrong on that) And nowadays many trades won't accept it so its basically nothing more than state acknoledged summer tests.

GCSEs are also done about a year later than junior cert

Ask an Irish student and an English student of the appropriate age and of similar background basic enough questions about the location and capitals of countries of the world, basic years for WWII and an idea as to who was fighting who, to name a few famous poets and authors, who the prime minister/taoiseach is etc...

I saw a report where this was done and while the Irish students didn't acquit themselves well, the UK equivalent was absolutely ****ing appalling. About 1 in 5 couldn't definitively tell you who Hitler or Churchill were. The notion that some of these kids went on to do 'O' levels, never mind 'A' levels is mind boggling.

Do you know if the details are online, would like to havea read of that. To be honest find it somewhat difficult to believe given I'm in college in NI and the people here don't seem to have any worse general knowledge than people I grew up with in Dublin. Other than the fact Catholics and Protestants have completely different versions of history:D

There's the somewhat saccharine smell of the autodidcat about the GCSEs and their nature of specialisation - people doing things like Nature Studies, Drama and PE as their sum-total exams. Whats that, three to four exams compared to the NINE TO ELEVEN sat during the junior cert? Behave.

You don't have the correct information. In GCSEs you usually take 10 subjects. I think you're thinking of A levels which are the equivelent of our higher leaving cert.