Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Junior Cert to be abolished
Options
Comments
-
Schools will also have the option of being able to award marks for activities currently regarded as extra curricular, such as putting on a school musical or participating in a book club.
It's this part that worries me. In theory, it sounds like it'll help produce more well-rounded people, but it sounds like it'll give some kids an unfair advantage over others:
1) What if a student lives (relatively) far away from the school and has to get the bus home at 4pm? They can't attend extra-curricular stuff because they'd have no way of getting home afterwards so less marks for them.
2) There are kids who are more talented than others in terms of singing, dancing, acting, debating, sports etc. These kids can take part in more clubs/activities than the others.
3) If it's anything like my old school and/or college societies, some clubs will take off, others will dwindle due to lack of interest/lack of funding etc. Is it fair that someone would get less marks just because their chosen activity ended up not working?
4) There'll always be scroungers who'll join a club/sign up to do sth and then do as little as humanly possible, but still get the marks cause the rest of the group worked hard.
Maybe there could be separate certificates, handed out at the same time as the JC, to acknowledge extra-curricular activities/achievements?0 -
languagenerd wrote: »It's this part that worries me. In theory, it sounds like it'll help produce more well-rounded people, but it sounds like it'll give some kids an unfair advantage over others:
1) What if a student lives (relatively) far away from the school and has to get the bus home at 4pm? They can't attend extra-curricular stuff because they'd have no way of getting home afterwards so less marks for them.
2) There are kids who are more talented than others in terms of singing, dancing, acting, debating, sports etc. These kids can take part in more clubs/activities than the others.
3) If it's anything like my old school and/or college societies, some clubs will take off, others will dwindle due to lack of interest/lack of funding etc. Is it fair that someone would get less marks just because their chosen activity ended up not working?
4) There'll always be scroungers who'll join a club/sign up to do sth and then do as little as humanly possible, but still get the marks cause the rest of the group worked hard.
Maybe there could be separate certificates, handed out at the same time as the JC, to acknowledge extra-curricular activities/achievements?
Did you even read the proposal to see how it would work? Going by your post you didn't. No one is obliged to do these extra courses and the maximum number a student can do is four it seems - four short courses in place of two regular subjects. Read the proposal and then have an informed whinge.0 -
until they get rid of English, Irish and Maths from it, it's still a complete waste of time0
-
-
I *kinda* like the idea and I know there's mention of external supervision, but I would NOT trust teachers to give fair and unbiased assessments of their students. So, there is a certain benefit to the somewhat anonymous system that's currently in place. I know I had teachers who loved me and teachers who wudda like to have ripped me head off
0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a fair point.languagenerd wrote: »1) What if a student lives (relatively) far away from the school and has to get the bus home at 4pm? They can't attend extra-curricular stuff because they'd have no way of getting home afterwards so less marks for them.
It takes probably around 20 people or more to get that good singer in front of an audience. They won't shine unless everyone is doing their jobs.2) There are kids who are more talented than others in terms of singing, dancing, acting, debating, sports etc. These kids can take part in more clubs/activities than the others.0 -
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Not to toot my own horn but I'm a very intelligent person.
It's like the driving test, pure thick lads will spend their years at secondary school failing and slacking but pass the driving test no bother and show up every morning in their Honda Civics.
I'm an intelligent person who didn't fit in well with the system in place in Ireland. I've got a 3.5 GPA (out of a possible 4.0) at my college.
260 was me failing Accounting and French (subjects I was horrible at and got grinds in but to no avail). I couldn't drop them cause a) I needed French to get into college and b) there was no other option for me but accounting at the time.
Plenty of teachers will tell you about perfectly smart and intelligent people who are let down by the system.
I'm sorry but no matter what spin you try to put on it, you are not an intelligent person.
Out of a maximum of 600 in the Leaving Cert you got 260.This shows that in 6 diverse subjects you failed to excel or prove your intelligence. Presumably you have no mathematic, scientific or linguistic ability.
You have a good GPA in college - this proves you are good at this subject. Having reasonable competency in one area does not demonstrate intelligence; being proficient in several areas does. The LC proved that you could not do this.
I am sorry if I sound like an ass, I'm just stating my views. Not everybody is intelligent, and that's a harsh reality.0 -
candlegrease wrote: »Out of a maximum of 600 in the Leaving Cert you got 260.This shows that in 6 diverse subjects you failed to excel or prove your intelligence. Presumably you have no mathematic, scientific or linguistic ability.
The Leaving Cert is not something that allows for diversity. Regardless of the subject matter, it comes down to rote learning. Despite this, it is also possible to narrow your studies in many schools to those best suited to high points or those best suited to your talents (i.e somebody extremely numerate doing maths, applied maths, accounting etc).
The exams do not allow people to demonstrate the diversity of the subject matter. It rewards rote learning and mass regurgitation of information. Even Art has this with Art History. I was terrible at actual Art, but remembered vast amounts of Art History information and did better than many people far more talented at Art than I am.
I also say this as somebody that did well in the Leaving Cert, so it is not sour grapes on my part.
Plus how somebody on an internet forum can categorically declare somebody else as "not intelligent" is amusing. There are far more forms of intelligence than those examined in the Leaving Cert.0 -
parker kent wrote: »The Leaving Cert is not something that allows for diversity. Regardless of the subject matter, it comes down to rote learning. Despite this, it is also possible to narrow your studies in many schools to those best suited to high points or those best suited to your talents (i.e somebody extremely numerate doing maths, applied maths, accounting etc).
The exams do not allow people to demonstrate the diversity of the subject matter. It rewards rote learning and mass regurgitation of information. Even Art has this with Art History. I was terrible at actual Art, but remembered vast amounts of Art History information and did better than many people far more talented at Art than I am.
I also say this as somebody that did well in the Leaving Cert, so it is not sour grapes on my part.
Plus how somebody on an internet forum can categorically declare somebody else as "not intelligent" is amusing. There are far more forms of intelligence than those examined in the Leaving Cert.
You cannot rote learn maths.
I went to school with people who, no matter how long they studied, could never figure out German grammar or syntax. Others understood it intuitively. The former group lacked the linguistic intelligence, the latter group had it.
Same goes for science, some people will never just understand it, others understand it immediately. If you understand it you still have to revise it to know it for the exam, but if you don't understand it learning will do you no good.
The poster above said himself no amount of grinds in French and Accounting helped, so how does rote learning help? He just proved it doesn't.
Tell me what forms of intelligence aren't examined on the LC? I want actual documented forms of intelligence, not just skills which people try to classify as intelligence.0 -
That's utter nonsense, most humans are highly intelligent they just don't all express it in the same way. humans vary their skills so that we can work as a society, one guys a farmer so another can be artist.candlegrease wrote: »I'm sorry but no matter what spin you try to put on it, you are not an intelligent person.
Out of a maximum of 600 in the Leaving Cert you got 260.This shows that in 6 diverse subjects you failed to excel or prove your intelligence. Presumably you have no mathematic, scientific or linguistic ability.
Intelligence varies hugely and there's plenty of evidence of people doing terribly in school but still turning out to be geniuses in the real world. School isn't a good way to gauge intelligence, it's just not. Many students just can't engage with the system and just can't learn in that type of system but then excel in the real world. You can't just say you failed this test you must be an idiot. Only an idiot would think hat's true.0 -
Advertisement
-
candlegrease wrote: »I'm sorry but no matter what spin you try to put on it, you are not an intelligent person.
Out of a maximum of 600 in the Leaving Cert you got 260.This shows that in 6 diverse subjects you failed to excel or prove your intelligence. Presumably you have no mathematic, scientific or linguistic ability.
You have a good GPA in college - this proves you are good at this subject. Having reasonable competency in one area does not demonstrate intelligence; being proficient in several areas does. The LC proved that you could not do this.
I am sorry if I sound like an ass, I'm just stating my views. Not everybody is intelligent, and that's a harsh reality.
You're mixing up intelligence with intellectual.
Using a state exam to prove you're intelligent is like jumping in a puddle to prove you can swim.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
You can't completely deny that the Leaving Cert shows intelligence to a certain extent. It does. Its far from perfect, but if you're saying the average person who gets 400 points is of the same intelligence than the average person who gets 250 then you are quite simply wrong.0
-
You can't completely deny that the Leaving Cert shows intelligence to a certain extent. It does. Its far from perfect, but if you're saying the average person who gets 400 points is of the same intelligence than the average person who gets 250 then you are quite simply wrong.
To okay certain extent, yes, and that extend is intellectual ability.
There are however, a number of very good reasosn why the person who got 250 points could be more intelligent than the person who got 400. Motiviation, effort, conditions on the day of the exam, even luck could determine such a result.
Or it could be that the person who scores 250 points is simply far more intelligent in other ways that the Leaving/Junior cert takes into account. It's these factors that the new course is presumably designed to take into account.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
I did my Junior Cert a few years ago and what I noticed was that in 2nd year, no one bothered with schoolwork, but there was a lot of ~drama and bullying etc. As soon as 3rd year started everyone copped on a bit and and all of that stuff stopped.
So maybe having something to focus on is a good thing, although I think a lot of people take the JC way too seriously.0 -
You can't completely deny that the Leaving Cert shows intelligence to a certain extent. It does. Its far from perfect, but if you're saying the average person who gets 400 points is of the same intelligence than the average person who gets 250 then you are quite simply wrong.
To a very small extent.
All it shows is that the person who gets 400 points is great at memorising things out of a book, that doesn't mean you can actually do anything.0 -
You can't completely deny that the Leaving Cert shows intelligence to a certain extent. It does. Its far from perfect, but if you're saying the average person who gets 400 points is of the same intelligence than the average person who gets 250 then you are quite simply wrong.
Nobody has denied that it does not show intelligence to a certain extent. I have explicitly said so in this thread, as have others. The issue is that people are declaring it to be the only method of deciding whether somebody with 250 points is intelligent or not.
As for the 400/250 comment, no we are not "simply wrong". Nobody has said that the "aaverage person who gets 400 points is of the same intelligence than the average person who gets 250". Aside from the sentence not really making sense, nobody was talking about the average person. We were talking about one specific poster and the moronic, ignorant posts directed towards him. There are all sorts of outside influences that need to be accounted for when deciding intelligence. Performance in one set of state exams where illness, background, teachers, extenuating circumstances etc etc etc are not taken into account is not a way to find out if one person is more intelligent than the other. The poster could (note the use of the word could) be more intelligent than many with higher points tallies. That is all I have been saying.candlegrease wrote: »You cannot rote learn maths.
You can to a certain extent. Most years the paper is largely similar. Hence the success of grind schools who can teach people the best methods to pass the exam (obviously there are other reasons, but that is one large reason for grind schools).
Your friends are not indicative of the entire country. Just because you happened to know some people that felt that way, does not make it universal. There will always be strong and weak students. Nobody is denying that. However, much of Leaving Cert language subjects are about rote learning. Learn this letter, learn these verbs, learn this essay etc.candlegrease wrote: »I went to school with people who, no matter how long they studied, could never figure out German grammar or syntax. Others understood it intuitively. The former group lacked the linguistic intelligence, the latter group had it.
Same goes for science, some people will never just understand it, others understand it immediately. If you understand it you still have to revise it to know it for the exam, but if you don't understand it learning will do you no good.
Look at the amount of people that will go in with half a Less Stress, More Success book learned off. They then regurgitate that material. There is no critical thinking, no engagement with the language. They just write down the material they learned. Ditto oral exams. You know in advance the questions and you lead the conversation to the topics learned off beforehand. That is not teaching people to be fluent in a language.candlegrease wrote: »Tell me what forms of intelligence aren't examined on the LC? I want actual documented forms of intelligence, not just skills which people try to classify as intelligence.
Read the theory of multiple intelligences by Howard Gardiner and show me where all of the below are examined:
Spatial
Linguistic
Logical-mathematical
Bodily-kinesthetic
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic0 -
parker kent wrote: »Nobody has denied that it does not show intelligence to a certain extent. I have explicitly said so in this thread, as have others. The issue is that people are declaring it to be the only method of deciding whether somebody with 250 points is intelligent or not.
As for the 400/250 comment, no we are not "simply wrong". Nobody has said that the "aaverage person who gets 400 points is of the same intelligence than the average person who gets 250". Aside from the sentence not really making sense, nobody was talking about the average person. We were talking about one specific poster and the moronic, ignorant posts directed towards him. There are all sorts of outside influences that need to be accounted for when deciding intelligence. Performance in one set of state exams where illness, background, teachers, extenuating circumstances etc etc etc are not taken into account is not a way to find out if one person is more intelligent than the other. The poster could (note the use of the word could) be more intelligent than many with higher points tallies. That is all I have been saying.
You can to a certain extent. Most years the paper is largely similar. Hence the success of grind schools who can teach people the best methods to pass the exam (obviously there are other reasons, but that is one large reason for grind schools).
Your friends are not indicative of the entire country. Just because you happened to know some people that felt that way, does not make it universal. There will always be strong and weak students. Nobody is denying that. However, much of Leaving Cert language subjects are about rote learning. Learn this letter, learn these verbs, learn this essay etc.
Look at the amount of people that will go in with half a Less Stress, More Success book learned off. They then regurgitate that material. There is no critical thinking, no engagement with the language. They just write down the material they learned. Ditto oral exams. You know in advance the questions and you lead the conversation to the topics learned off beforehand. That is not teaching people to be fluent in a language.
Read the theory of multiple intelligences by Howard Gardiner and show me where all of the below are examined:
Spatial Engineering/Metalwork/MTW/Technology/DCG etc
Linguistic Languages
Logical-mathematical Maths/Applied Maths etc
Bodily-kinesthetic surely this is a skill rather than intelligence?
Musical Music
Interpersonal Skill
Intrapersonal Skill
Naturalistic Skill
The sentence was fine, I'm not going to bother trying to perfect my grammar on an internet forum. You know what I meant and that's good enough for me.
The obvious issue with my examples is that there are theory parts to the exams but those intelligences are still tested to a certain extent.0 -
The sentence was fine, I'm not going to bother trying to perfect my grammar on an internet forum. You know what I meant and that's good enough for me.
The obvious issue with my examples is that there are theory parts to the exams but those intelligences are still tested to a certain extent.
So let's see. You're 18 and have started college so you think you know everything and have just written off most of the intelligences because you don't agree with them.
Nice.
So beside Musical you write Music. You can't even decide if it's a skill or an intelligence. Many people take music lessons, and learn to read music or write music or play an instrument and have varying success. Skill will take you so far. How many of them can write original music?0 -
rainbowtrout wrote: »So let's see. You're 18 and have started college so you think you know everything and have just written off most of the intelligences because you don't agree with them.
Nice.
So beside Musical you write Music. You can't even decide if it's a skill or an intelligence. Many people take music lessons, and learn to read music or write music or play an instrument and have varying success. Skill will take you so far. How many of them can write original music?
I wrote Music beside Musical because that is the subject which tests that particular intelligence. If you couldn't figure that out from my post....
Also: That is a theory on intelligences. Key word there being theory.0 -
0
-
Advertisement
-
I wrote Music beside Musical because that is the subject which tests that particular intelligence. If you couldn't figure that out from my post....
Also: That is a theory on intelligences. Key word there being theory.
You really are pretty oblivious to the obvious. Intelligence is not defined as learning words off. Intelligence varies. One can be creative. One can be scientifically astute. One can be extremely intelligent when it comes to everything regarding computers. One can be an excellent dancer, writer, film maker all these require different forms of intelligence. One can be a excellent teacher and have the abilities to communicate lessons to those younger in a suitable and educational manner. These are a few different forms of intelligence and there is plenty more that don't require learning something off and writing it out on Wednesday in June for the Leaving Cert.0 -
What about the countless amount of people more qualified than I am who disagree with his theory?parker kent wrote: »OK to whom should we give more credence?:
AdamD: 18 year old on Boards.ie
or
Howard Gardner: Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education at Harvard University.
Hmm...tricky alright.You really are pretty oblivious to the obvious. Intelligence is not defined as learning words off. Intelligence varies. One can be creative. One can be scientifically astute. One can be extremely intelligent when it comes to everything regarding computers. One can be an excellent dancer, writer, film maker all these require different forms of intelligence. One can be a excellent teacher and have the abilities to communicate lessons to those younger in a suitable and educational manner. These are a few different forms of intelligence and there is plenty more that don't require learning something off and writing it out on Wednesday in June for the Leaving Cert.
And you are pretty oblivious to the fact that the Leaving Cert examines more than just one form of intelligence.0 -
The sentence was fine, I'm not going to bother trying to perfect my grammar on an internet forum. You know what I meant and that's good enough for me.
The obvious issue with my examples is that there are theory parts to the exams but those intelligences are still tested to a certain extent.
No, they aren't - they're a byproduct of the exam. For example, there is a difference between learning to speak French and developing good linguisitic abilities. Besides, things like debating, public-speaking and non-written communication are not value to the same level as written communication.
Regarding skills, isn't that the same thing? Should skills be taught as well as books, surely, if you're going to create a system of education that caters for everybody? In what way is being intellectual NOT a skill?
Also, what about emotional intelligence, social intelligeence, create intelligence et al?
The general point being that there is no point in having all this information if the person in question has no idea how to use it or what to do with it.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
And you are pretty oblivious to the fact that the Leaving Cert examines more than just one form of intelligence.
Being able to recite a few text books is not intelligence.
I think a better way of putting the arguement is that, you might get an A in Chemistry in your LC, but really all you did was learn off someone else's work.
I'm in 6th year at the moment and to be honest the Leaving Cert is a load of crap. So far the only subjects I've come across where you're not copying someone else's work but are using your own mind and 'intelligence' and where you actually have a good understanding of the subject are Art and English. They require you to come up with something yourself. (Obviously some people have ways to around that in the exams though)
Also what about people who just mess up on the day? One day of the entire year shouldn't determine how 'intelligent' a person is. Only something like continuous assessment could indicate that.0 -
-
Pretty sure I pointed out that there are plenty of subjects where part of the subject examines different intelligencesBeing able to recite a few text books is not intelligence.
.Are you denying the label of intelligence to the list of things I've mentioned?
No, apart from Dancing.
Out of Gardner's theory:
Spatial - yes
Linguistic Languages - yes
Logical- yes
Bodily-kinesthetic - no
Musical - yes
Interpersonal Skill - no
Intrapersonal Skill - no
Naturalistic Skill - no
That is my opinion. Pretty sure this has long been off-topic so we should just leave it..0 -
I'm a bit conflicted by the whole debate.
Obviously the LC does not measure all forms of intelligence. But doing well in exams surely does demonstrate an ability to 'to learn', a skill invaluable in life.
Some people 'learn' by memorising others by understanding. Both methods can be useful.
Anyway, much like democracy, it's a terrible system until you consider the alternatives.0 -
For what it's worth I got 6 B's and 5 C's on the Junior Cert, with me only really putting effort into studying math before hand. I did TY after that and it was A's and B's all round, as well as numerous certificates for various programs we did (I got a distinction in a food health and safety course).
My parents separated when I went into the senior cycle and I can tell you it had a serious detrimental affect on me and my work. However, I didn't want people feeling sorry for me or thinking I was seeking attention so I kept it from my (almost all) of my friends and all of my teachers, but it had a very negative impact on me. I can tell you those years were very, very difficult for me and school was the last place I wanted or needed to be at that time. Even now I feel like I'm just looking for pity. I'm not, I just cluing you in. Thankfully things have been resolved now and family life is much better, as is my personal life.
My GPA in college involves none film subjects including English, history, math and science (I'm struggling in my science class, but then it has never been a strong point for me).
As for the definition of intelligence:from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
Ever heard of Mensa? It's an international organisation for people with above average intelligence. The only way to become a member is to sit an IQ test. How does an IQ test work? It has nothing to do with how well you remember poetry, theorems or how a balance sheet works. It measures the speed at which your brain operates and figures out problems.
My feeling on the JC and LC is that they are not the best way in which we can help students along. Continuous assessment is a much better idea, and a curriculum with a broader spread of subjects. Things like math, English, history and science are important. I also think that computer classes, government/political classes, home ec and perhaps classes on parenthood are very important. All the Irish system does now is (try) and teach people to remember things rather than trying to make them into adults and teach them life skills.
It is ridiculous that someone's future comes down to how they do over a few hours a day over a two week period at 17/18. There is a better system out there.0 -
black francis wrote: »I'm a bit conflicted by the whole debate.
Obviously the LC does not measure all forms of intelligence. But doing well in exams surely does demonstrate an ability to 'to learn', a skill invaluable in life.
Some people 'learn' by memorising others by understanding. Both methods can be useful.
Anyway, much like democracy, it's a terrible system until you consider the alternatives.
Your problem there is application. I want to work with or hire the guy who might not have as much knowledge, but knows how to apply it and use it and knows how to adapt it to solve a problem or create an idea. The guy who can just sit there and can write down everything is useless.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Your problem there is application. I want to work with or hire the guy who might not have as much knowledge, but knows how to apply it and use it and knows how to adapt it to solve a problem or create an idea. The guy who can just sit there and can write down everything is useless.
Maybe in your industry he's 'useless', but that's a pretty self- centred view to adopt.
There's plenty of jobs which require application more than inspiration.0
Advertisement