Government warned about Leaving Cert grade inflation

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Byron85

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just to be slightly pedantic, foreign companies seem happy enough with some of our graduates.

The meeting was told that while some companies were delighted with the calibre of graduates from UCD, TCD and UCC, they had concerns about other colleges.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0303/1224265501148.html

There won't be any major reform in education, at least for the foreseeable future, because there are too many vested interests. Most people going into third level are too worried about the next party and if they can afford it rather than their exams. The whole mentality needs to be changed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Seloth

Doing to Leaving Cert myself I belive it should be broken down more,with more project work added in a questions in tests asking how to go about somthing((Such as in Business establishing one))...Obviouslythis should exclude English and History as they are both anaylsing more so and are already put to this way.

There is far too much pressure put on Leaving Cert students,especially this year with the supposed rise in points.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Byron85

Actually I think that this year will be a good indication of the problem of grade inflation in the leaving certificate. If points for courses continue to go up, which they will, and the same amount of people are getting in to the same courses as years gone by, then there is a much more serious problem than originally thought.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

There is no grade inflation, students are achieving higher grades due to a system of competition introduced by the C.A.O. Students are constantly in competition with each other to secure greater marks then their peers to be accepted into their desired third level course.

The exams haven't gotten any easier. But the competition is constantly growing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not saying they are any smarter but the principal of competition makes them work harder.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually that would be quite interesting.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't have it with me now, but I saw an English Higher level paper from the 1980s and my god it was a hell of a lot tougher than the ones I'll be doing on Wednesday and Thursday.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There were fewer places but less people went. You admit that yourself.

P. Breathnach

Did our summers become cooler when we switched from Fahrenheit to Celsius?

highlydebased

If it were me I'd be in favour of a continual assessment system.

Far less stress on the student throughout, makes provision for an area of the course they find difficult and to that extent it would prevent people from having a "bad day" in the exam, which is unfair on them. Also prevents people from doing nothing for 2 years then studying like hell in the run up to the exam and getting similar grades to someone who has worked consistantly.

PeterIanStaker

It's not going to matter how many points they get, they'll be straight on the dole anyways, thanks Fianna Failure.

Iwasfrozen

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It's not going to matter how many points they get, they'll be straight on the dole anyways, thanks Fianna Failure.

No we won't. We'll be in Uni.

PeterIanStaker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No we won't. We'll be in Uni.

Dont ever vote for the ***** runnin the show now. Please. (I never did but some other people are just dumb)

Iwasfrozen

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Dont ever vote for the ***** runnin the show now. Please. (I never did but some other people are just dumb)

What? I'm not being funny I actually didn't understand your post.

Chuchoter

I have to say I think its really unfair to say that all the students who worked so hard to get A's and B's are actually crap and didn't deserve them. Just because the percentages went up doesn't mean the grades were easier to get. Curricula changed, teaching methods improved, people had more money to spend on education. On top of that, as the number of higher maths students decreased, only the cream of the crop who really loved maths were left, so of course more of them got As and Bs. There are several other explanations than we're all idiots.

I wouldn't be in favour of continuous assessment, as it doesn't allow for improvement. From the end of second year to the Junior cert I went from a bad C student in higher maths to an A because I worked my ass off. Had I been tested since the beginning of second year, my average would have worked out to have been about 70%, though my ability by the end of it all would have been that of an A student.

I would however appreciate more project work to reward innovation, research skills and it would give students with a real love of the subject a chance to shine. For example in science, I hate learning things by rote, but I can do really good in depth projects/experiments, but that is not rewarded or in fact encouraged by teachers.

DJDC

If it were me I'd be in favour of a continual assessment system.

Far less stress on the student throughout, makes provision for an area of the course they find difficult and to that extent it would prevent people from having a "bad day" in the exam, which is unfair on them. Also prevents people from doing nothing for 2 years then studying like hell in the run up to the exam and getting similar grades to someone who has worked consistantly.

I don't agree. A continous assessment system in Ireland with its deep culture of corruption would just lead to everyone trying to fiddle the system and massive grade inflation as a result. The current exam format while admittedly overly based on rote learning is fair, transparent and has good grade granularity.

Also it teaches students to deal with pressure and lets face it lots of important things in life are decided in one event/a space of a few hours. A crucial promotion interview, a keynote speech to clients etc etc. Life isn't fair in the sense than work over a space of time isn't always rewarded unless the preformance in a key stage is sufficient. The LC is a great introduction to this basic premise of the modern capitalist system.

PeterIanStaker

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What? I'm not being funny I actually didn't understand your post.

Me being cynical in my old age, thinking that the class of 2010 would be straight onto the dole because of how sh!t things are right now. Hope you'll be grand by the time you graduate. Best of luck on Wednesday.

Iwasfrozen

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Me being cynical in my old age, thinking that the class of 2010 would be straight onto the dole because of how sh!t things are right now. Hope you'll be grand by the time you graduate. Best of luck on Wednesday.

Thank you.

aDeener

Neon-Circles wrote: »

If it were me I'd be in favour of a continual assessment system.

Far less stress on the student throughout, makes provision for an area of the course they find difficult and to that extent it would prevent people from having a "bad day" in the exam, which is unfair on them. Also prevents people from doing nothing for 2 years then studying like hell in the run up to the exam and getting similar grades to someone who has worked consistantly.

whats the problem there? some people can do that and fair play to them

Iwasfrozen

aDeener wrote: »

whats the problem there? some people can do that and fair play to them

It is unfair to those who have worked from the get go.

Byron85

aDeener wrote: »

whats the problem there? some people can do that and fair play to them

Because it means that they don't actually understand the concepts that they are supposedly learning. Why should someone who didn't turn up for most of their lectures, as was the case with my Sociology lectures this year, be able to sit an exam and get better marks than say someone who has been dedicated to the subject from the start? I wouldn't say it's unfair but it is a rather disingenuous system. How is someone suppose to actually "learn" when they're leaving it all until the last minute.

Overheal

Am I the only one confused at the concept that its a problem that students are getting better grades? Is there a quota for Failure or something

goose2005

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no grade inflation, students are achieving higher grades due to a system of competition introduced by the C.A.O. Students are constantly in competition with each other to secure greater marks then their peers to be accepted into their desired third level course.

The exams haven't gotten any easier. But the competition is constantly growing.

From doing past papers I know that maths and French, at least, have been getting consistently easier.

P. Breathnach

Overheal wrote: »

Am I the only one confused at the concept that its a problem that students are getting better grades? ...

What an interesting to put a question! Can I answer either "yes" or "no" and be understood?

It's not necessarily a problem if students are getting higher grades at secondary school level because, for the most part, students' performance is compared with their peers. Nobody gives a damn about how a 2010 Leaving Certificate candidate's results compares with those I got when I did the Leaving, before the parents of some of them were born.

As the whether actual accomplishment is better or worse, who can say? I got a respectable result in French. My reading comprehension was very good; I could translate material into and from French reasonably well; and I actually knew some grammar. Then I went to France and was lost for aural comprehension and for speech.

[It's a different matter with degrees, where there is an expectation of comparability intra- and inter-nationally.]

Nijmegen

Higher grades because students are doing better on exams of the same or compatible difficulty as those in the past, indicating that they are better educated, is excellent news.

But I think we all have the inkling, which these sorts of reports tend to confirm, that grades are being inflated and the general standards required to get certain degrees - from leaving certain up - is diminished, and the quality of our overall workforce called into question for it.

Byron hit the nail on the head early on in this thread - there are too many vested interests involved to have an effective change in our education system.

Vested interests bar those of the students.

aDeener

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is unfair to those who have worked from the get go.

if they truly "worked" from the get go, there is no way a 2 week cramming session would result in higher marks

Zambia

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No we won't. We'll be in Uni.

I think that is a class attitude to have.

I would be with Donegal fella if I understand him correctly. If the amount of people are achieving the highest marks is ever increasing then we have to set the bar a bit higher. Thus pushing the students to go the extra mile.

It is the curse of the younger generation that they have to learn more in order to enter a society that is running at a much higher skill level. Its the price you pay for having a PS3 while you had the time to play it.

dan_d

When I did the LC in 2001, we used to do past papers (as all LC students do).
There was - what - 10 years worth of past papers in the books we had? Some had more. And as a whole our teachers always told us not to bother doing questions back past about 1994ish because there was no point. Obviously there was a slight difference in the curriculum, but also because the questions were harder and there was no point giving them to us as it was time spent on questions that we'd never be asked. Our maths teacher who was excellent, was the one exception...he kept going back as far as possible to "challenge" us. Worked too.

Papers are easier. Standards have dropped. We have a lovely softly softly approach to education, that means you never criticise or suggest that a pupil might not be doing enough work or have a problem. Great in small amounts - moderation, as with everything else. But we've gone to the opposite extreme now.

Funnily enough, I come from a family of teachers, and during a discussion the other day, I was telling a story about a row I had had with my boss, and what had been said. Following that, my sister was talking about her boss, and how he sends out general emails, addressing individuals comments/work and either criticising or commending depending on the situation and telling them to speak to him for help. It sounds strange - we were laughing about it, it's not bullying or anything, just standard practice in 2 big private companies. My aunt (a teacher) was shocked...her point was the amount of time teachers spend in courses being told to treat schoolkids as individuals, never to criticise or put them down in public, or suggest their work might not be good enough, always encourage and tell them they're great - and that's what goes on in the real world of work???She was honestly horrified, as were other family members involved in education. What's the point in treating schoolkids with kid gloves all their lives and then they can't deal with what goes on in the real world?

To get back on the point, I know that even 3 years ago, certain depts in UCD were very, very concerned about the level of maths and other subjects that LC students had coming into certain courses. It was generally acknowledged that the standard was too low, and the gap between the college course and the relevant LC subjects was huge, getting bigger.....and they had no idea how to tackle it. Understandably, because why should they devote time in an already packed timetable (for this particular course) to teaching stuff that should be covered by the LC?

We've somehow managed to drop standards, raise grades and in general cater to those in the population who don't do as well. Now don't get me wrong, to achieve good grades in the LC takes a lot of work and is very impressive. But instead of creating a different system for those with problems, we dumbed down the existing course to create the idea that people were benefitting. Normalising results has an impact also.

The odd thing in all of this is that inches and inches of column space are wasted on how stressful the Leaving is, and how much work has to be covered and how awful it is that people have to learn stuff off. Not a thing is said about how people manage in University. You still have to learn stuff, in a totally different environment, where you don't usually have homework given on a regular basis to reinforce the learning. For me, the LC was a walk in the park compared to my final year exams, which were probably the most stressful set of exams I have ever done. As per usual the media plays a massive part in creating hype whipping people into a frenzy, while publishing various statistics that mean very little but serve to focus even more on the how "awful" the LC is an exam.

To finish my never-ending rant (:D), we should focus more on raising the bar standards-wise and altering the courses. The basis of the LC is not bad, there could be less focus on rote-learning...but there still has to be learning. Some courses could do with a reduction in the volume of work involved. Bonus points for honours maths - it's bribery, it's ridiculous that it's necessary, but it works. We need more maths students, bottom line. A lot more emphasis needs to be placed on the quality of teaching and the qualifications a teacher has, with this idea that you can't get rid of a teacher being abolished. And a lot more work needs to be put into creating one or 2 different systems for people who have academic problems and are struggling in the current system with no other options. It's unfair on these people, they should have as much chance as anybody. Higher grades are all very well, but if you gave the 1985 LC paper to current students the majority would struggle very badly. The problem that now exists is the gap between the LC and the University courses, which in turn has the potential to affect the level of graduates from our colleges - which is comparable internationally.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in some subjects there is no escaping learning off stuff. how could this be changed?

my choice subjects for the LC were biology, geography and accounting. the first 2, there is no avoiding learning off i dont think its just the nature of the subjects. the accounting subject is largely irrelevant if you go on to study it in 3rd level, which i have done. 2/3s of the stuff you do in it for the LC is wrong when you do the same thing in college - our teacher even said this to us in school "now lads what you are doing here is completely wrong, but you are just going to have to do it anyway!"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no grade inflation, students are achieving higher grades due to a system of competition introduced by the C.A.O. Students are constantly in competition with each other to secure greater marks then their peers to be accepted into their desired third level course.

The exams haven't gotten any easier. But the competition is constantly growing.

Frankly I think that is BS deserving of an A.
Some of us that did the LC back in the 80s had to work hard because there were less college course and you either got into college, left the country, went on dole or if lucky enough used connections to get you a job.
Funny thing was college was only preparing you for emigration in most cases, but at least you were better prepared.

BTW by most accounts LC courses such as Maths are now way easier than back 20 odd years ago.

kev9100 wrote: »

I don't have it with me now, but I saw an English Higher level paper from the 1980s and my god it was a hell of a lot tougher than the ones I'll be doing on Wednesday and Thursday.

Shure back then we had to write a play and write at least two sonnets during the exam

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No we won't. We'll be in Uni.

And what will you do when you finish Uni ?
Sorry to say but welcome to the real Ireland, forget the last 15 years they were an aberation.

Overheal wrote: »

Am I the only one confused at the concept that its a problem that students are getting better grades? Is there a quota for Failure or something

It is a problem if they are getting better grades because the standards are being lowered.
It doesn't mean they are brighter or harder working, it just means the exams are getting easier and being marked easier.

It is also unfair to the really bright hardworking students because their achievements are being tarnished and lessened.

The whole system started being distorted back in early 90s.
I knew at least one junior lecturer who was was being told to up grades of entire classes.
The first idea was to make sure students did not drop out and go on the dole.
Then I believe the overiding goal in Irish education became to get as many people into third level courses and qualified with thidd level diplomas/degrees as possible.
Then the state could brag about it's brilliant educational achievements and how many graduates we were knocking out.

I believe everyone should not get into third level education, but in some circles you get criticised as being elitist for such statements.

C.D.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Because it means that they don't actually understand the concepts that they are supposedly learning. Why should someone who didn't turn up for most of their lectures, as was the case with my Sociology lectures this year, be able to sit an exam and get better marks than say someone who has been dedicated to the subject from the start? I wouldn't say it's unfair but it is a rather disingenuous system. How is someone suppose to actually "learn" when they're leaving it all until the last minute.

Lecture attendance ~= Understanding material

Lack of lecture attendance ~= No understanding (though it can generally be a good indication)


It depends entirely on the student. Three examples:

Some students are like sponges and soak up material in lectures, understanding everything as it is taught. As a result, they can get excellent marks with much less work outside of the classroom. My best friend is like this- goes out a lot, did not do serious hours in the library and graduated top of her class from TCD and got a scholarship to a Phd in Cambridge, absolute genius of a girl. For her, going to lectures really pays off.

For me however, I was like a monkey frantically scribbling to get things down and struggling to pay attention as lecturers droned on. As a result I didn't go to a lot of lectures and the ones I did go I went simply because it was the only way to get the notes. For me to understand something and to master it, I need to do it myself and play around with it- whatever way I'm wired, I simply cannot learn by watching someone else doing something. I spent a lot of time in the library and not so much in lectures in my final years in TCD and came second in my class with one of the highest averages in my department.

Another person in my class was religious about attendance, missing less than 3 days over 4 years (sickness, bereavement etc.) but she simply did not grasp the underlying concepts and could only regurgitate material. New problems, new materials- not a chance.

What I am trying to illustrate, is that it all comes down to the student. Sure some people can put less work/effort in due to natural ability, but that's life. You play the cards you are dealt- Your grade should be a function of your ability, the time you put in (lectures or otherwise) and a little bit of luck. Any fool can attend lectures- it proves nothing.

Byron85

C.D. wrote: »

Any fool can attend lectures- it proves nothing.

It proves dedication to your education.

I agree completely with the rest of your post though.

Iwasfrozen

Zambia232 wrote: »

I think that is a class attitude to have.

What are you talking about?

C.D.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

It proves dedication to your education.

I agree completely with the rest of your post though.

You're right as does time put it outside the classroom, which we all know can be hard to measure- I'm sure we all know that guy who always says he has done "no study" or started "last night" :rolleyes: Why say it? We all know it's not true Mr. Genius!

highlydebased

aDeener wrote: »

if they truly "worked" from the get go, there is no way a 2 week cramming session would result in higher marks

Its not the ones who worked from the get go who are doing the cramming.


Its the people who have never done a tap that work hell for leather in the immediate few days before the exams and get similar grades and get similar/close results.

Byron85

C.D. wrote: »

You're right as does time put it outside the classroom, which we all know can be hard to measure- I'm sure we all know that guy who always says he has done "no study" or started "last night" :rolleyes: Why say it? We all know it's not true Mr. Genius!

Those people do nothing but infuriate me.

Byron85

This is just retarded.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0610/breaking62.html

They want all of the poets that are studied to come up in the English exam, so that the students can pick their best four. Why don't we spoon feed them at the same time?? If it goes ahead, then how are these "students" supposed to manage at third level?? Simple answer is that they won't. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Byron85

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it was over a semester, as in third level, you could somewhat sympathise but the fact it's over 2 years gives them no excuses. These people are going to completely drown when or if they reach University. I really don't know what to think anymore. I shall have to prepare myself for a further influx of spoon-fed morons into third level come September.

ardmacha

the accounting subject is largely irrelevant if you go on to study it in 3rd level, which i have done. 2/3s of the stuff you do in it for the LC is wrong when you do the same thing in college - our teacher even said this to us in school "now lads what you are doing here is completely wrong, but you are just going to have to do it anyway!"

Yet you get the same points for this as doing Maths, which although less rigorous than in the past, remains of academic value.

Absolutely. It's a media set piece every June, when they profile various students dealing with the stress of the Leaving as they desperately struggle to get the supremely high points required for their desired courses. This is all underwritten by a tone of tut-tut-tut—it's not fair to make students work so hard, or place them under such stress, or even have expectations of them at all.

The whole media thing is ridiculous, apart from anything else it winds the students up. If you watch UTV or BBC NI you'd hardly know when school exams were on, what dates are A levels in NI?

Eliot Rosewater

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like many things, it's a completely self-serving system. Once any hint of predictability emerges, teachers start teaching for the exam only. Then the department comes under pressure to make sure that those students who have been taught only with some predictable LC in mind don't fail.

I can personally attest to the poor quality education that is delivered by this kind of tactic. For my own LC I did a one year applied maths course that was focused entirely on the exam. When I started my maths degree in college I had a module, mechanics, that was nearly identical in content to LC applied maths. Despite this, it was one of the hardest subjects for me simply because my one year applied maths course didn't actually teach me an understanding of applied maths: it only taught me how to sit a specific leaving certificate exam.

Demands like the ones emerging now for an easier English LC exam should be dismissed out of hand. The problem is those involved are probably in support of such a demand: students want higher grades and teachers want easier material, and introducing such choice will satisfy both these.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

John Keats came up last year.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Knowing stuff about Shakespeare isn't really that big of a deal. I knew the story and major themes of King Lear the first time I/we read the play in TY. The plays aren't hard, the majority of our time is spent doing bloody questions.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again there is no problem with the actual literature. It is the questions covered that trips up most people.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are joking, right?

Byron85

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Another thing to consider about the leaving cert is that you are told how to answer the question, when it comes to English anyway i.e this is your opinion and this is what you see. Third level exams will be a completely alien concept to these people.

Iwasfrozen

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Another thing to consider about the leaving cert is that you are told how to answer the question, when it comes to English anyway i.e this is your opinion and this is what you see. Third level exams will be a completely alien concept to these people.

So, rather then criticizing the current system system. How would you improve it?