Making the leaving harder??

klose

I was thinking today with collage points rising a considerate amount and places limited have they made this years leaving cert harder? I think they may have well not exactly making it harder but getting rid of trends and all that jazz?

I think everyone knows about the boland fiasco, they were perfectly right to do what they did but logic dictated shed come up and trends and all that were follwed other years and not this one.

In geography they decided to trow in a question on metamorphic rocks in ireland which i dont even think is in our book

Today in art history newgrange didnt come up!! the last decade it comes up every 2nd year and was almost cert but again they didnt put it up?

I know difficulties change from year to year and what not but the fact they did these 3 this year i thought was odd?
anyone know of any other strange/irregular things that happened in their exams?
I know i could be jumping the gun but i thought it was a bit strange and was curious if anyone else thought the same:rolleyes:

Sophsxxx

This years LC was definitely harder than last years anyway I think. I actually think I did worse than last year!

BarnhallBull

Definitely a conspiracy against the class of oh-ten

Aoifey!

And don't forget no Picture Essay option in English Paper 1.

And Biology the way they sort of threw all the experiments into one in Question 8.

It's not harder, it's just really different and awkward.

Mwah

that question 8 in bio was so nice
repeating iaa wasnt!

straight_As

Q7 part b in paper 2 of HL maths set out the SEC's new approach to gambling on what to study. It was almost like a warning to future years :P

LCgonnakillme

They are definitly making the papers more awkward and unpredictable.

ummtea

And the Cos squared tithe question in OL math pII.

johnmcdnl

no there not - this years leaving is nearly easier tbh... boland didn't come up boo hoo.. 3 other poets were tipped just as much and by the same trends and they came up.. true no picture essay was a change but hardly a monumental change and was just there to stop the flood of learned off essays being submitted with only a very very very vague reference to the picture...

maths was the easiest paper in years.. irish was fair.. french was fair as well imo...

i can't see where people are coming from saying it's so much harder this year tbh


maybe it's from all these teachers pets who get an A in every class test and the mocks because miss "teacher" gave us helpful hints for the mocks but her predictions and my only learning the "tipped" poet came up...


people seriously need to get over boland at this stage... ffs - you learned one poet and expected to get away with it one poet.. in fairness

Orlaladuck

I think they're purposely making it harder this year tbh. Surely last year they still knew how bad a recession had hit yet they didn't make the papers as bad as this years have been. I don't know what next year will be like because many of the syllabuses don't change so I reckon it could be just our year to shake things up a bit.

I'm in with the conspiracy they just don't want us to go to college :cool:

stainluss

I did feel this way with Biology and Maths, however, I cant help but think we might be just thinking its more unpredictable. Sure unpredictable stuff will come up every year, surprises happen.

If we all got harder tests this year, wont points for most courses go down because we'll all do worse?

It wont make it any harder to get into a course, because we're all in the same boat with these tests.. (In my course anyway, which doesnt appear to be one of the ones which these 'hoardes' of matures seem to be flocking into. I dont think its fair that some of my fellow students may have their places taken by those who didnt bother going when they were meant to, but thats life.)

Professional Griefer

Harder, I wouldn't really say so. It seems like they're trying to eliminate predictions, so as students actually know the stuff if they get good marks.

randylonghorn

I suspect that every year thinks their particular year is "harder" tbh.

There's a big difference between looking at past exam papers in class, or at home in the evening, and actually facing them in a high-stress restricted-time RL situation.

I do agree that there is a move towards less predictability though, and rightly so.

_Chaos

fair enough, cant blame them for trying to shake things up a little bit, I mean things like art history were getting SO easy to perdict, therefore students only learning the stuff tipped....
they were hardly gonna tell us all 'hey, I know boland is tipped, but were gonna forget that and throw in Rich, just to see who diserves the good grades!'
horrible to have it happen to us, but I really can't blame them

randylonghorn

stainluss wrote: »

I dont think its fair that some of my fellow students may have their places taken by those who didnt bother going when they were meant to, but thats life.

Who dictates when people are "meant to" go to college?

Is it in the constitution? ... in some law?

I'm not trying to be sarky, but just because most people in this country have traditionally gone to college immediately after secondary school doesn't mean that pattern is divinely ordained in any way.

Orlaladuck

I agree with elimination of predictabilty to some extent -but is it really fair to change a course that has been the same for a decade, longer even? That's what happened with art history today and while sure it was grand for me and many other students, there's still some students probably relying on that section to bring the marks up, same with every subject.
Yes yes Boland was a fiasco on all levels but people do have a point - if you were relying on just the one it's your own fault.
But even the wording has changed.. the word 'roots' hasn't appeared on a OL Maths paper since 2002. At the end of the day you are studying Minimum of 6 subjects in quite a lot of detail, you can't expect every student to be capable of doing that let alone actually doing it. We do have lives too you know that are important as well :cool:

klose

johnmcdnl wrote: »

no there not - this years leaving is nearly easier tbh... boland didn't come up boo hoo.. 3 other poets were tipped just as much and by the same trends and they came up.. true no picture essay was a change but hardly a monumental change and was just there to stop the flood of learned off essays being submitted with only a very very very vague reference to the picture...

maths was the easiest paper in years.. irish was fair.. french was fair as well imo...

i can't see where people are coming from saying it's so much harder this year tbh


maybe it's from all these teachers pets who get an A in every class test and the mocks because miss "teacher" gave us helpful hints for the mocks but her predictions and my only learning the "tipped" poet came up...


people seriously need to get over boland at this stage... ffs - you learned one poet and expected to get away with it one poet.. in fairness

id just like to say i wasent caught out by any of these...but just said id see what other people thought

I believe there starting to get rid of predictions IMO

Ruski

Orlaladuck wrote: »

I'm in with the conspiracy they just don't want us to go to college :cool:

You're wrong. The department wants MORE people to go to college. Only they want less idiots in college.

klose

Aoifey! wrote: »

And don't forget no Picture Essay option in English Paper 1.



It's not harder, it's just really different and awkward.

Forgot that, i loved that question now i thought that was farely unfair to exclude it..

spurious

Part of the trouble is book companies not publishing books that reflect the syllabus fully, coupled with over-reliance on text books.
Metamorphic rocks in Ireland might not be in the book, but it's on the syllabus and a 'good' teacher (not one who hands out notes) should have covered it.

Personally, I would have expected an LC student with a bit of cop on to have asked in class while doing metamorphic rocks 'what would an Irish example be?' or taken the miniscule steps involved to find out themselves.

watevertrevor

Sophsxxx wrote: »

This years LC was definitely harder than last years anyway I think. I actually think I did worse than last year!

know a friend who feels the exact same way.. feel for you

Bob the Builder

The papers were not harder. Just less predictable.

English Paper 1 - Questions were more future based, laid out differently and no picture round.
English Paper 2 - Questions weren't harder, but Boland didn't come up.
Maths - You just had to use your head far more than depending on repitition from previous years, but generally the same.
Irish - no difference really? I am in OL and in fact while Paper 1 was harder, paper 2 was far easier.
Geography - Good Short answer questions - but things like the biome were predictable.
History - Lenin didn't come up, but Stalin did. Questions changed slightly but fundamentally the same.
Business - Easier paper, but predictions were a no-no.

johnmcdnl

Orlaladuck wrote: »

I agree with elimination of predictabilty to some extent -but is it really fair to change a course that has been the same for a decade, longer even? That's what happened with art history today and while sure it was grand for me and many other students, there's still some students probably relying on that section to bring the marks up, same with every subject.
Yes yes Boland was a fiasco on all levels but people do have a point - if you were relying on just the one it's your own fault.
But even the wording has changed.. the word 'roots' hasn't appeared on a OL Maths paper since 2002. At the end of the day you are studying Minimum of 6 subjects in quite a lot of detail, you can't expect every student to be capable of doing that let alone actually doing it. We do have lives too you know that are important as well :cool:

haven't the colleges been complaining that too many people are getting the 450s 500s 600 points recently because of dumbing down and people being able to predict what's coming up...

how many people were relying on boland to come up for there A1.. exactly.. not too many.. how many poeple may have been relying on boland for say a B2.. a good few more..

then by removing the essay title which in fairness was the "i have a essay learned off and i'm going to put the picture vaguely into it" option for essays they've also managed to cut the number of A1s that don't fully deserve an A1.. people who really deserve the A1 will still get the A1 but people who took the easy way out will struggle to get the top marks that they in truth don't deserve...

learning stuff off is great isn't it.. then you go to college with your A1 in english to do journalism and soon realise that you can't actually learn an essay off and present it to a newspaper to publish.. uh oh..

I personally hate english but i hope you can see the point i'm trying to make... too many people were getting seriously high marks that they probably in truth didn't deserve giving them an inflated points total just because they were good at learning tipped stuff off and rewriting it in an exam..

Orlaladuck

Ruski wrote: »

You're wrong. The department wants MORE people to go to college. Only they want less idiots in college.

But how can you define who's an idiot and who's not? At the end of the day most LC subjects are learn off and regurgitate onto paper. I've never seen someone who gets 600 points as smart, they just have a good memory to absorb information. And if you have 6-8 subjects to do and say 'okay i'll limit it down to this' can you blame them? Also college isn't free - the more students who go, the more they still have to pay. And if they don't go, they have a chance of ending up on the dole queue, costing the govt. still - what difference does it make if they're intelligent or not? Some rich kid who does sweet F.A could be pushed through grinds in every subject, get into their course and Still be an idiot likewise a kid could work their ass off and still not get in. The LC doesn't separate the idiots from the genius by any means.

Orlaladuck

johnmcdnl wrote: »

haven't the colleges been complaining that too many people are getting the 450s 500s 600 points recently because of dumbing down and people being able to predict what's coming up...

how many people were relying on boland to come up for there A1.. exactly.. not too many.. how many poeple may have been relying on boland for say a B2.. a good few more..

then by removing the essay title which in fairness was the "i have a essay learned off and i'm going to put the picture vaguely into it" option for essays they've also managed to cut the number of A1s that don't fully deserve an A1.. people who really deserve the A1 will still get the A1 but people who took the easy way out will struggle to get the top marks that they in truth don't deserve...

learning stuff off is great isn't it.. then you go to college with your A1 in english to do journalism and soon realise that you can't actually learn an essay off and present it to a newspaper to publish.. uh oh..

I personally hate english but i hope you can see the point i'm trying to make... too many people were getting seriously high marks that they probably in truth didn't deserve giving them an inflated points total just because they were good at learning tipped stuff off and rewriting it in an exam..

You have a good point there actually. I salute you.

klose

johnmcdnl wrote: »

haven't the colleges been complaining that too many people are getting the 450s 500s 600 points recently because of dumbing down and people being able to predict what's coming up...

how many people were relying on boland to come up for there A1.. exactly.. not too many.. how many poeple may have been relying on boland for say a B2.. a good few more..

then by removing the essay title which in fairness was the "i have a essay learned off and i'm going to put the picture vaguely into it" option for essays they've also managed to cut the number of A1s that don't fully deserve an A1.. people who really deserve the A1 will still get the A1 but people who took the easy way out will struggle to get the top marks that they in truth don't deserve...

learning stuff off is great isn't it.. then you go to college with your A1 in english to do journalism and soon realise that you can't actually learn an essay off and present it to a newspaper to publish.. uh oh..

I personally hate english but i hope you can see the point i'm trying to make... too many people were getting seriously high marks that they probably in truth didn't deserve giving them an inflated points total just because they were good at learning tipped stuff off and rewriting it in an exam..

always been my attitude to people who go to grinds school...they'll get in but wont be able to cope with the courses they end up in as there way above there heads...what goes around comes around:rolleyes:

Bob the Builder

whippedcream wrote: »

always been my attitude to people who go to grinds school...they'll get in but wont be able to cope with the courses they end up in as there way above there heads...what goes around comes around:rolleyes:

Yeah, if you need grinds to suceed, then you may get a good LC but by the same token struggle to succeed in third level.

randylonghorn

spurious wrote: »

Part of the trouble is book companies not publishing books that reflect the syllabus fully, coupled with over-reliance on text books.
Metamorphic rocks in Ireland might not be in the book, but it's on the syllabus and a 'good' teacher (not one who hands out notes) should have covered it.

Spot on.

Students sometimes forget that the textbooks are based on the syllabus (and that they're not always perfect!), not the syllabus on the textbooks.

While I fully understand the frustration of a student who (accurately) says "It's not even in my textbook", this is not actually the SEC's responsibility.

If it's on the syllabus, it should be in the text.

Ruski

Orlaladuck wrote: »

But how can you define who's an idiot and who's not? At the end of the day most LC subjects are learn off and regurgitate onto paper. I've never seen someone who gets 600 points as smart, they just have a good memory to absorb information. And if you have 6-8 subjects to do and say 'okay i'll limit it down to this' can you blame them? Also college isn't free - the more students who go, the more they still have to pay. And if they don't go, they have a chance of ending up on the dole queue, costing the govt. still - what difference does it make if they're intelligent or not? Some rich kid who does sweet F.A could be pushed through grinds in every subject, get into their course and Still be an idiot likewise a kid could work their ass off and still not get in. The LC doesn't separate the idiots from the genius by any means.

In the sense that they actually plan to get their degree and not drop out at the end of their first year. The diligent worker will continue working in college and get to the end of it, rather than only going to like one lecture a week. Since we know that the rich kid is likely to just go into Computer Science or something because he would expect it to be just playing computer games all day.

I'm not talking about the Leaving Cert creating an intelligence barrier, I'm talking about what sort of people the department wants in college. And also, if the kid who worked his ass off all year worked so hard, how has he any excuse to not do well in his leaving? Because since grinds only teach kids to learn off questions from past papers but not cope with new challenges? Regurgitating information is only good for so many subjects.

EuropeanSon

No. Not at all. Maths were the easiest (HL) papers there's ever been, English had lovely easy questions, with Boland's omission the only big deal, my History topics had fairly nice questions, and Irish was an OK paper, with a tough Aural. If anything, I've been surprised by how nice it's been.

bubblz

i think the papers were harder but doable this yr...
i did the leaving cert as well last yr & thought it was much easier then this year and the year before that (08) but i do agree that there is so much work to cover i mean a min of 6 subjects? my cousins in eng couldnt get over this they do about 3/4 subjects.. & they must know how hard the irish course is for example if they are cutting it down...

Orlaladuck

Hmm how about this angle : This is the argument's sake but what about the actual day itself? Things might not go well for you - questions you might struggle with even if expected. I know a friend of mine who got constant A's through 6th year in english then got a C in the real thing despite working and she just had a bad day on the exam.
Take today for example on art history, the gallery questioned appeared as always but said 'compare a small scale museum to a large one'. Noone I know (with exceptions on the forum) saw that or prepared for it - Sure there's other questions but I went to 4 different galleries in the last 2 years, one on my own to see half the paintings we study to get a better grasp on them and then that happened and I was gutted for the first few minutes I read that. Loads of other people I know were as well and that wasn't just down to prediction, it was just down to the question. See what I'm getting at? Just saying though

klose

spurious wrote: »

Part of the trouble is book companies not publishing books that reflect the syllabus fully, coupled with over-reliance on text books.
Metamorphic rocks in Ireland might not be in the book, but it's on the syllabus and a 'good' teacher (not one who hands out notes) should have covered it.

Personally, I would have expected an LC student with a bit of cop on to have asked in class while doing metamorphic rocks 'what would an Irish example be?' or taken the miniscule steps involved to find out themselves.

True, but i think students should have confidence in their text books and say to themselves 'thisn is all i need to know' not 'ill ask everything thats not in the book' my art histroy book was particularly bad so my teacher, who is excellent, though us by powerpoints and handouts of them..so

bubblz

Orlaladuck wrote: »

Hmm how about this angle : This is the argument's sake but what about the actual day itself? Things might not go well for you - questions you might struggle with even if expected. I know a friend of mine who got constant A's through 6th year in english then got a C in the real thing despite working and she just had a bad day on the exam.

Totally agree... last year i was an A/B student.. teacher said she expected me not to get lower then a B.. but then the exam just didnt go right for me on the day I ended up with a C3.. while another lad in the class who did nothing all year got a B3

EuropeanSon

whippedcream wrote: »

True, but i think students should have confidence in their text books and say to themselves 'thisn is all i need to know' not 'ill ask everything thats not in the book' my art histroy book was particularly bad so my teacher, who is excellent, though us by powerpoints and handouts of them..so

Our chemistry teacher does that. I've never even opened the textbook.

Bob the Builder

I agree with Spurious that a lot depends on the teacher.

However, I think the Leaving Certificate is too small a scope to base anyone's ability on.

I spent the last two years of my life working diligently on every committee in my school, travelling the length and breadth of Mayo doing committee work and singing the praises of my school and then got suspended because I went on a Lunch Break early, my first offence ever basically. Two days suspension without warning or anything. I got shafted by my own school who I did nothing but work for. And the amount of lost ground I had to make up for in the last month before LC as well as keeping up with a six-days-a-week job, did not help me in anyway in my Leaving Cert.

Hence, I'm going back next year and I'm going to a different school. I feel so betrayed by my school and I have nobody to blame for it but myself. And whilst I know this is a rant, I see it as a reflection on any person, that the Leaving Cert is far too narrow to base anyone's intelligence on.

And my poor results that I will get in August, will not have been through laziness or lack of intelligence. But lack of income and lack of wisdom and for that reason, I'll be back next year...

Ruski

Orlaladuck wrote: »

Hmm how about this angle : This is the argument's sake but what about the actual day itself? Things might not go well for you - questions you might struggle with even if expected. I know a friend of mine who got constant A's through 6th year in english then got a C in the real thing despite working and she just had a bad day on the exam.
Take today for example on art history, the gallery questioned appeared as always but said 'compare a small scale museum to a large one'. Noone I know (with exceptions on the forum) saw that or prepared for it - Sure there's other questions but I went to 4 different galleries in the last 2 years, one on my own to see half the paintings we study to get a better grasp on them and then that happened and I was gutted for the first few minutes I read that. Loads of other people I know were as well and that wasn't just down to prediction, it was just down to the question. See what I'm getting at? Just saying though

There are always ways of overcoming problems of being unprepared. Like for English, I was one of those lazy eejits who only studied Boland. On the day I managed to rattle off five pages on Kavanagh. I made up half of my geography exam on the spot. Maths, I've been studying for the large majority of the past four months, after failing nearly every Maths class test over the past two years, I'm hoping I got a C in the exam.

What I'm babbling on about here is working a way around any hiccups that you may find on a question that you're unsure of. Observing the exam systematically and just going by what you can do to find some sort of solution to any question.

klose

Ruski wrote: »

There are always ways of overcoming problems of being unprepared. Like for English, I was one of those lazy eejits who old studied Boland. On the day I managed to rattle off five pages on Kavanagh. I made up half of my geography exam on the spot. Maths, I've been studying for the large majority of the past four months, after failing nearly every Maths class test over the past two years, I'm hoping I got a C in the exam.

What I'm babbling on about here is working a way around any hiccups that you may find on a question that you're unsure of. Observing the exam systematically and just going by what you can do to find some sort of solution to any question.

...ehh...ya must have studied some of kavanagh if thats the case, ya cant wing 5 pages on something yav never looked at..?

s0ur_cherry

I think they have gradually made English - particularly paper 2 - harder over the past few years. The questions on the poets are much more specific than they used to be, also the questions on the comparative have followed the same trend. As for Maths, I think it was actually a bit easier this year, probably trying to ease into the new course, instead of such a sudden dramatic decrease in difficulty. The rest seem to be more or less the same, although biology was a bit.. different this year.

loocas

johnmcdnl wrote: »

people seriously need to get over boland at this stage... ffs - you learned one poet and expected to get away with it one poet.. in fairness

Right you are! Don't put all your eggs in the one basket an' all that.

Orlaladuck

Ruski wrote: »

There are always ways of overcoming problems of being unprepared. Like for English, I was one of those lazy eejits who only studied Boland. On the day I managed to rattle off five pages on Kavanagh. I made up half of my geography exam on the spot. Maths, I've been studying for the large majority of the past four months, after failing nearly every Maths class test over the past two years, I'm hoping I got a C in the exam.

What I'm babbling on about here is working a way around any hiccups that you may find on a question that you're unsure of. Observing the exam systematically and just going by what you can do to find some sort of solution to any question.

I get exactly what you mean there and parts of the LC do challenge that like English Paper 1 and sure I like the challenge but people who want to just get by I feel sorry for in those cases.

Bob the Builder

whippedcream wrote: »

...ehh...ya must have studied some of kavanagh if thats the case, ya cant wing 5 pages on something yav never looked at..?

Kavanagh is an accessible poet. As long as you can quote a few lines out of Kavanagh, you can write about it. He isn't like Elliot where you are trying to get interpretations that aren't there. The question on Kavanagh was about transformation - Canal Bank Walk and/or Lines Written... I could have easily nailed 5 pages on him if I had longer than an hour to do it.

Ruski wrote: »

What I'm babbling on about here is working a way around any hiccups that you may find on a question that you're unsure of. Observing the exam systematically and just going by what you can do to find some sort of solution to any question.

Thats a good attitude to have. It will serve you well

randylonghorn

Bob the Builder wrote: »

I spent the last two years of my life working diligently on every committee in my school, travelling the length and breadth of Mayo doing committee work and singing the praises of my school and then got suspended because I went on a Lunch Break early, my first offence ever basically. Two days suspension without warning or anything.

That's a bit ... well, sh1t, tbh.

Ok, break the rules, take the consequences ... but still, if the picture you paint is accurate, sounds like a little bit of leeway would have been in order.

Ruski

whippedcream wrote: »

...ehh...ya must have studied some of kavanagh if thats the case, ya cant wing 5 pages on something yav never looked at..?

What do you mean, never looked at? Of course I covered a variety of poets in class but I was banking on Boland. Kavanagh was fresh in my mind from a recent revision class that my teacher organised.

Bob the Builder

randylonghorn wrote: »

That's a bit ... well, sh1t, tbh.

Ok, break the rules, take the consequences ... but still, if the picture you paint is accurate, sounds like a little bit of leeway would have been in order.

Ah really, like I know I broke the rules and I know there are penalties in place for breaking the rules but that demoralised me completely.

Either way, on the last week of school I vented my anger at the management of the school, and I can only hope that they will try and cop on, but I don't see that happening. I'm awaiting what the result of a Whole School Evaluation has to say. Report will be published in the next few weeks and I'll decide what I am doing then. If this years graduating students don't speak up, then nobody will, which I really pity...

EvilLlamaThingy

I didn't think it was harder in English, just more unpredictable. Whether that was intentional or not I don't know.. though imo Yeats was as heavily predicted as Boland.

Irish... haven't a clue. Switched on the day.

Maths was harder. Some people are saying it was the easiest in years.. I really strongly disagree. I had no trouble doing any of the papers in exam papers a few days before, and did abysmal on that paper..

French.. Tapework seemed harder unless you know archaeology terms..

Biology wasn't harder, but it was very very badly phrased in multiple questions, which gave the impression that it was harder..

All imo of course.

fauxshow

I do think there's an element of it's harder being in the exam room than looking at past papers at home, but even comparing some of my papers to the past ones now, in some instances there are a few nasty questions on the 2010 lot. A tougher paper will have an easier marking scheme... like last year's French paper and especially listening was very easy, but they put a horrendous marking scheme that was changed about fifty times at the conferences so that they could eventually reflect the bell curve and the national average... they seem to want results to remain roughly the same each year.

It seems like they are trying to stop grade inflation, and also making questions quite specific to stop people vomiting learnt off material onto the page... it also really seems like the SEC are out to get grind schools. Don't blame the Institute, they're just working with the idiotic education and college applications system that's been put in place... we really need to adopt a model similar to the UCAS, which is the British CAO, or change our education system with a model similar to England/Wales A Levels or the International Bac

randylonghorn

fauxshow wrote: »

... it also really seems like the SEC are out to get grind schools.

Out to get the grind schools?

Or anxious to discourage the culture they represent?

stainluss

randylonghorn wrote: »

Who dictates when people are "meant to" go to college?

Is it in the constitution? ... in some law?

I'm not trying to be sarky, but just because most people in this country have traditionally gone to college immediately after secondary school doesn't mean that pattern is divinely ordained in any way.

But many people are going just because they have have nothing to do, they will get social welfare and grants as mature students, afaik its around the same as they get on the dole, so of course they're going to think "might aswell get a qualification while Im at it".

For many of them, it isnt as important as it is to someone coming out of school who really wants this for their life.

Of course this doesnt apply to all mature students, but the recent increases arent due to all these extra people having an epiphany about their true calling in life:rolleyes:

Bob the Builder

To be honest with you, the SEC attitude of actually putting some element of natural intelligence rather than regurgitated crap into the exam papers is certainly a welcome one.

klose

randylonghorn wrote: »

Out to get the grind schools?

Or anxious to discourage the culture they represent?

Interesting way to look at it,

I credit the people who came up with the concept of grinds schools which was essentially exploiting the system perhaps this will bring about a decline which i would welcome because as a student i seemed to have developed a natural hatred of grind school students who i dont even know hahahah:rolleyes: