LC DEBATING: MOTION #2: Should the LC, as it currently stands,be abolished

HugsiePie

Quote:

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."
-Ghandi

_____________________________________________________

Second Motion:
The motion for our second debate will be:

Should the current form of the Leaving cert be abolished.

(This motion is open to creative interpretation but certain aspects you can discuss if you so wish to do so includes: Subjects, format, pressure, learning style, etc)
_____________________________________________________

Please analyse the motion carefully before posting, how it's worded and what is included etc. for example this topic is about abolishing the leaving cert as it currently stands, eg. whilst you may justify your point suggesting a replacement your speech should only discuss as to why the LC itself in its current form should be or not be abolished.
Also, this debate ends after my Irish oral, so date is yet to be confirmed, approximately 2 weeks, this date can be extended should a majority of the debaters wish so.

I do not take part in the debate but I will oversee it and in the end make a neutral decision on which side won the argument. You shall refer to me as the chairwoman of the debate. The next chairman will be the poster who accumulates the most 'thanks' in this thread.

Regular rules apply:
Rules(by Indiego):
1) The first person to start the thread picks the motion
2) Topic is open for discussion for a set time period
3) Posts most be clearly labelled as proposition or opposition
4) People must be civil, we don't want to make extra work for mods
5) Thanks are taken to be a kind of 'I like your argument here/I agree'
6) The individual post with the most thanks can choose the next topic for discussion (or if they don't want to, they can let the second person voluteer)
7) The winning side overall is decided by the topic poster (they should consider not only the strongest arguments, but how many of the arguments stayed intact, not tackled down by the opposite side)
8) Don't take it too seriously, bitta banter like


And we are live people!

*Sincerest thanks to Nimrod for allowing me the opportunity to host this debate.

Peregrine

I didn't even see this until now :pac:

I oppose the motion

The Leaving Certificate as it currently stands should not be abolished because it provides a way of differentiating students with different abilities and ensuring only people who are capable get into certain courses in third level. The demand for many courses is also increasing, having a state exam where every student is tested fairly is the only way of ensuring that the people who are willing to work hardest receive the courses they worked for. State exams mean that same grades are of the same value regardless of which school you come from, which unfortunately cannot be said for the new Junior Cert they are introducing.

Furthermore, even if it was abolished there would be no other alternative to it. It would take way too much time to conduct portfolio interviews for the 57,000(and rising) students that graduate every year. It would also be impossible to have portfolio interviews or some other similar form of entry for Science, Business, Engineering, Health courses etc. It is only practical in Arts.

maughantourig

In its current state, the LC is a narrow-minded and ineffective means of assessing student abilities.

Abolishment might be a harsh term, but in this case I would interpret it as replacement of the current system, (not completely removing examination of this form).

Firstly, students who are not academically gifted are placed under severe pressure and probably will suffer in relation to their own personal confidence. Although it may seem as academic development is the whole point of 2nd level education, to prepare students for 3rd level, other forms of mental ability, such as physical dexterity and interpersonal skills, (in English, not just the carefully rehearsed conversation that you planned out word for word for Irish/French/etc) are somewhat neglected.

This could be rectified with several large changes. The formation of PE as an exam subject would be a start. By promoting student health now, we would reduce pressure on our health system later on. Fitness, muscular development and physical speed would be obvious components, but what about including education in physical skills as well. Learning how to drive, (theory test in school?), CPR, theory in exercise + anatomy, (more applied than biology. This could be of benefit to future medicine students).

Not only are the above mental faculties ignored by the LC, but the forms of intelligence that are currently being examined are done so ineffectively.

For example, the English exam favours students who learn off large paragraphs/essays that they may not have even prepared themselves. Rather than answering on a range of predetermined poets, how about giving students half an hour to read through a multiple poems from one poet that they have never heard of, then give them the answer booklet.

Education of Irish is in a sorry state indeed. It needs to be examined in the same way as a foreign language, ie, does the student actually understand individual words, phrases, etc. The idea of learning off essays and answers to poems is pathetic. I believe that the French exam would be a perfect model to mimic.

Examination methods that favour 'rote learning' rather than properly developing intelligence and skills should be avoided. In the case of some subjects, (eg biology), rote learning is core to the subject even outside of the LC, but in the case of languages, this is appalling.

I'll be back tomorrow about how the LC points system could be replaced by the acquisition of positions in HEI's solely by achievement in subjects relevant to whatever 3rd level course is in question.:pac:

peekachoo

I think the LC as it stands is the best way to do it. Having said that a broader range of subjects like media and computers should be introduced.
What I mean by "as it stands" is I don't agree with the continuous assessment idea. As a whole, C.A. makes exams much easier and may end in more people obtaining much higher points. Students may aim for courses like medicine etc, and may not be able for it. Or very difficult physics/maths courses...well you get my point.
I know the LC is a burden with thoughts like "what if I'm not on form on the day?" but I guess this is what separates the good students from the exceptional students.

I also think all subjects bar maths should be optional.

Peregrine

maughantourig wrote: »

This could be rectified with several large changes. The formation of PE as an exam subject would be a start. By promoting student health now, we would reduce pressure on our health system later on. Fitness, muscular development and physical speed would be obvious components, but what about including education in physical skills as well. Learning how to drive, (theory test in school?), CPR, theory in exercise + anatomy, (more applied than biology. This could be of benefit to future medicine students).

I disagree with you on the PE bit, there will always be people who hate playing sports in school, no amount of reform is going to change that. I think schools should focus more on it's academic responsibilities on child's life rather than taking a physical one. People who want to do sports/work out will continue to do so outside school.

Out of my class of 27, only around 10 people actually do PE on a given day(Bear in mind that the punishment for not doing PE is 8:00 detention). The people who sit out include footballers, basketball players and your everyday benchpresser. Most people don't like it, despite all the new equipment brought it for PE.

In my school we all do a 3 day CPR course in TY so a majority of seniors are actually trained in CPR. It doesn't take much time and therefore can't really be seen as a major part of secondary school. Most schools do it I think.

We also had people from the RSA in to encourage young people to take the theory test, we all went to mess around with driving simulators too. I don't really see how a school can do anything more than encourage students to take the test. You can't force students to do it. I know I'll be doing my theory test before I turn 17 so I can get my provisional on my birthday but I know people who just don't want to drive, they say there's no need for it where they live and they are kind of right. They say they'll learn to drive should they require it one day. It's a choice after all.

maughantourig wrote: »

For example, the English exam favours students who learn off large paragraphs/essays that they may not have even prepared themselves. Rather than answering on a range of predetermined poets, how about giving students half an hour to read through a multiple poems from one poet that they have never heard of, then give them the answer booklet.

I agree with the the above poster, all subjects except Maths should be optional. But I think everything should be compulsory up until Junior Cert, like now. But I can see this causing trouble with small schools and their time tables, you could end up with 3 different English classes with 10 people in each.

Glee_GG

Oppose the motion.

No system is perfect, theres always going to be a problem with every method of assessing students. While the Leaving Cert does without a doubt put a huge amount of stress on people, its still one of the best systems in my opinion. Your not judged on the things you've done in secondary school or how well you get on with certain teachers, its all about you and an exam paper. Its complete anonymity is its major advantage, the person correcting your script has no idea of who you are. Everyone sits the same exam under the same conditions and gets marked the exact same way, If you get your points, you get your college place. Systems like continous assessment have major flaws in the sense of who marks the work? If its your teachers, then prejudices could be held against you or you'll be marked easier simply because a teacher like you and when you might miss out on a college place because of this, thats just not acceptable, plus many of the subjects currently have projects beforehand that you do so its not like everything is depending on the one day - history, geo, ag science, home ec, orals in the languages, - even if we did have continous assesssment it shouldn't be worth more than 30% imo so its no big difference.

End of the day, this system certainly has its flaws but its one of the best imo. You get a well rounded education in a lot of subjects, secondary education is not the time for specialisation, thats what college is for, and you do the exact same exam as everyone else and get treated the exact same way.

aimzLc2

eh..no.

HugsiePie

aimzLc2 wrote: »

eh..no.

This is a debate, so it would be appreciated if you justify your response.

maughantourig

there will always be people who hate playing sports in school

There will always be people who hate maths or English or Irish, etc. I detest a lot of my subjects. It sucks, but I deal with it.

However, apparently I completely failed to communicate my idea What I was proposing was replacing sports and games, (inefficient use of school time), with learning physical skills and relevant knowledge about their bodies. I gave CPR and the theory test as examples, of course there would be more. Whereas a biology student might need to study DNA replication and Ecology, this subject could inform students about more applicable facts, such as cancer symptoms and its effects.

In my school we all do a 3 day CPR course in TY

TY isn't compulsory, and it does not have a curriculum; not everyone will have had the privilege.

You can't force students to do it.

Why not? We have to study Irish, a dying celtic language. We have to study the poetry of Shakespeare or Sylvia Plath. We have to be able to find the 2nd derivative of a function. Tell me, is being able to drive or writing an essay on themes of Gerard Manley Hopkins more relevant to your life?

It's a choice after all.

We might not choose to drive now, but can you imagine the benefits of having it being drilled into your head from 1st year? That would surely reduce the amount of twats on the road. That's more useful than CSPE or SPHE.

all subjects except Maths should be optional.

Whilst maths is certainly important, studying at least one language has a huge impact on your communication skills. Perhaps students could be made to study English + maths + my new awesome PE subject + options.

But I think everything should be compulsory up until Junior Cert, like now.

I agree with this completely.

As for the points system: :mad:
Counting points earned from classical studies when applying for theoretical physics seems counter-intuitive. How about ensuring that the students achieved a minimum grade in the relevant subjects, and a minimum number of other passes, (as is currently sometimes the case), and scrap the points system. Meow.

The LC has its virtues and we are lucky to have such an education system, but why settle for that when major improvements can be made? Just because a system is in place does not mean it is ideal.

Peregrine

maughantourig wrote: »

There will always be people who hate maths or English or Irish, etc. I detest a lot of my subjects. It sucks, but I deal with it.

Yes but Maths,English and Irish are academic subjects, the fundamental purpose of education is to teach these subjects. The people who are interested in school will ore than likely know these things already. CSPE and SPHE is seen as a joke subject throughout JC by 1) The student who doesn't care and 2) The student who already knows this and finds it a waste of time. Even if you introduce a mandatory subject about the basics of the human body etc. Most of it will be too easy for people who care and the others won't care. I don't think there are students who care a lot about these things but yet knows nothing about it. People get these kind of information through their life and I don't think doing it through school is going to reduce dangerous drivers, reduce obesity or anything. And to be honest, most of these things were addressed by my teachers but it didn't change anything, went in through one ear and out the other.

maughantourig wrote: »

Whereas a biology student might need to study DNA replication and Ecology, this subject could inform students about more applicable facts, such as cancer symptoms and its effects.

That's part of biology along with healthy eating, effects of exercise and most common diseases. I've studied it.

maughantourig wrote: »

Why not? We have to study Irish, a dying celtic language. We have to study the poetry of Shakespeare or Sylvia Plath. We have to be able to find the 2nd derivative of a function. Tell me, is being able to drive or writing an essay on themes of Gerard Manley Hopkins more relevant to your life?

I don't believe in teaching Irish after Junior Cert or English. People should just be able to pick what subjects they want along with Maths after TY.

maughantourig wrote: »

We might not choose to drive now, but can you imagine the benefits of having it being drilled into your head from 1st year? That would surely reduce the amount of twats on the road. That's more useful than CSPE or SPHE.

Teaching first years to slow down on the road won't do anything, if you've seen the first years these days you'll know that they'll kindly tell you to piss off.
You're kind of suggesting changing the whole academic goals of second level, these are the kind of things you learn through life..I say let be, let be

HugsiePie

Winner is the side in opposition to the motion although this is because only 1 person was in favour of the motion ( I honestly thought there would be more) but great job guys! :D :Dnext chairperson:
Maughantourig, CONGRATS!