Leaving Cert Points System - Thoughts?

jainer

Does anybody have any thoughts on the current method of assessment in the Leaving Cert?
Do you think that the points system is an unfair representation of your capabilities? What do you think should change if anything..?

Im just doing some research for a project, and it would be great to see what leaving cert students think.

Chuchoter

Its a terrible representation of ability, promotes rote learning and kills any semblance of individual thought that a student might have. In English, you give the answer in the book or you are wrong. In any of the sciences (as much as I love them) its learn the book and write it down. Irish is go learn reams of crap off. If ever you gave any original ideas not only would you not be rewarded you would in fact be penalized.

RHunce

I like English paper 1. Paper 2 is a ball of rote learning and for the amount of marks going for the amount of poems you have to learn is a joke! P1 allows you to express yourself. Geography is a pile of sh!te tbh, >100 essays to learn! Irish is just brutal! Totally ridiculous! More emphasis should be place on the oral. 60% of the exam in my view should be based on oral work. The projects for the likes of Construction and DCG give way for some creativity which is good I think.

ApeLove

I think it's ridiculous. It's all about who can doggedly learn off the most information and then vomit it back into the exam booklet on the day. I personally hate Irish, but I think if we're going to be forced to do it then we should at least be learning something more useful than how Muiris and Tomas got pissed out of their heads and went to the mainland. I know someone who got an A2 in honours, but can't even have a short conversation with her Irish grandparents!
English is the same, if you offer up an interpretation of a poem that isn't in the book then you're wrong. We're told that whichever poet we write about is going to be named as our favourite.
Same goes for basically every subject, except for French/German, which I think are quite useful courses.
I have a cousin living in Italy, where in every subject there's a written exam and a sort of oral in front of a panel of examiners. You just sort of discuss the subject and they question you a bit. Makes much more sense to me than this rote learning crap.

Dannnnn

The entire system favours individual memory capability, rather than intellectual capability.

A person who gets 600 points isn't necessarily better suited for a career say in Medicine, than someone who attained 200 points.

GoldRush4821

Dannnnn wrote: »

The entire system favours individual memory capability, rather than intellectual capability.

A person who gets 600 points isn't necessarily better suited for a career say in Medicine, than someone who attained 200 points.

I would say they are tbh.. I know it's hypothetical but if the person with 600 points is doing medicine, he/she clearly has a natural aptitude for the sciences, and learning, which is a prerequisite for the course while the same cannot be said about the person with 200 points. Say what you like about rote learning, if you don't have the ability in science(especially Chemistry), you just don't have the ability, full stop. If the case is that the 200 points person does have this aptitude, but was just too lazy to get the correct points, then they are not suited for a career in medicine in any case, considering their apathy. I can't see any case where a 200 point person would be more suited to a career in medicine than someone who attained 600 points. You say "career" but at the same time, it takes 5 years of hard work to even reach this stage and of course you could argue that the 200 points person, if lazy, would have gotten his act together by this time and perhaps made a better doctor, but this is speculative and it is more about who is more suited to the course at the time. This is where the CAO comes in.

I agree that the emphasis of the LC is not on creative and critical thinking as it should be, but the points system, which is after all what the OP asked about, seems to me to be a good way of judging who is fit for a course. Of course there are countless people who prove unworthy of the course they struggle for 2 years to get and end up dropping out, whereas someone who made their way up through a FAS course may prove better at it, but that's life. You cannot change the LC to a stage where the exams are just critical thinking but I agree that more exams should be 50/50 to the point of English paper 1/paper 2. Then again, I know people who learnt off entire stories to secure the A1 in paper 1 composition... defeats the purpose doesn't it?

Way too long of a response, I know, but I feel it merited it...

ride-the-spiral

Well that fact that somebody who rote learns everything and get's A's in 6 rote learning or humanity type subjects is considered a better potential doctor than somebody who get's A's in all the science subjects is ridiculous.

GoldRush4821

ride-the-spiral wrote: »

Well that fact that somebody who rote learns everything and get's A's in 6 rote learning or humanity type subjects is considered a better potential doctor than somebody who get's A's in all the science subjects is ridiculous.

Fast response, I like it .. The point about medicine is that you MUST take 2 Science subjects, and one of them has to be Chemistry, which as I already said you must have an aptitude for or you're pretty much screwed. So its not like someone can do geography, biology and business as option subjects and get medicine. This is where the filter actually works, and this isn't part of the CAO system, this is a prerequisite from colleges themselves. I'm sure there must have been people coming in just like you said with 6 HL A1s but in completely unrelated subjects, so they were forced to put restrictions on it. However, that's just a theory and I'm not sure that is the case.

So really, it's not the case that they are considered a better potential doctor because you cannot even attempt medicine without a strong understanding of at least chemistry, and of course biology too but that is more rote learning tbh...

Gordon Gecko

Dannnnn wrote: »

The entire system favours individual memory capability, rather than intellectual capability.

A person who gets 600 points isn't necessarily better suited for a career say in Medicine, than someone who attained 200 points.

If someone is too lazy/stupid to "learn off by rote" enough information, from finite Syllabi, to get more than 200 points in a set of exams in which the questions are rewordings/reworkings of past questions: Then I sure as hell don't want my health/life in their hands!

From reading all this whining and moaning about the system it seems to me that people regard "intelligence" as some sort of abstract concept being discriminated against by the Leaving Cert. Since when is being able to remember information and successfully using that knowledge to answer questions not a fair way to examine people?

If all the aggrieved intellectuals on this forum can't use their self-proclaimed intellectual ability to learn how to do questions that repeat themselves year after year (with the aids of marking schemes, revision guides etc.) and walk 600 points: then you need to seriously reconsider your definition of "intellectual ability" (and fill out the level 6/7 column on the CAO) :pac:

GoldRush4821

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

If someone is too lazy/stupid to "learn off by rote" enough information, from finite Syllabi, to get more than 200 points in a set of exams in which the questions are rewordings/reworkings of past questions: Then I sure as hell don't want my health/life in their hands!

From reading all this whining and moaning about the system it seems to me that people regard "intelligence" as some sort of abstract concept being discriminated against by the Leaving Cert. Since when is being able to remember information and successfully using that knowledge to answer questions not a fair way to examine people?

If all the aggrieved intellectuals on this forum can't use their self-proclaimed intellectual ability to learn how to do questions that repeat themselves year after year (with the aids of marking schemes, revision guides etc.) and walk 600 points: then you need to seriously reconsider your definition of "intellectual ability" (and fill out the level 6/7 column on the CAO) :pac:

Firstly, I agree with your point regarding so called "intelligence" and how the people feel the LC doesn't favourite it. I think too many people use the large amount of learning required for the LC as a scapegoat for their own under - achieving. Some people even consider the LC an affront to their intelligence when, like you say, it really is one of the fairest ways to examine knowledge and its applications. However, there are other ways in which certain aspects of topics could be graded such as discussions/interviews to show your understanding of a subject rather than just learning and writing. As they say, if you can explain a topic to someone then you must know it inside out. Perhaps this is something which could be considered in the future.

Overall, I think the LC is fair, but then again that is because it suits me, and I enjoy learning. Some people fail to accept that some people cannot learn in the school environment and simply do better with hands on, practical experience of a subject. I do feel that there is too much of an emphasis on getting the course covered, and not nearly enough time to veer off the syllabus to explore important issues. At the end of the day, teachers are geared towards producing results, so they are prone to spending absolutely no time discussing aspects of a subject which may be relevant to our times, and will spend even less time putting the topic in question up for debate/discussion. IMO more debates in class = better + reinforced learning. Unfortunately, the LC does not allow sufficient time for such things to take place.