do you rather a d in higher or a in ordinary

GERMAN ROCKS

lets say the student is coming out in the higher level paper with a D throughout. Now the same student really isn't in danger of falling but isn't at the c level, would you suggest the ordinary where they will probably come out with the a grade or stick with the higher.

on re-reading the title came out poorly

gaeilgebeo

I would stick with the HL if the student is anyway capable.

It can be difficult to get an A at OL and they'll get more points for the HL paper.

spurious

Highest level possible - always.
Hate to see As where there is a higher level available.

bearhugs

Higher level as long as they are definitely not in danger of failing.

Powerhouse

GERMAN ROCKS wrote: »

lets say the student is coming out in the higher level paper with a D throughout. Now the same student really isn't in danger of falling but isn't at the c level, would you suggest the ordinary where they will probably come out with the a grade or stick with the higher.

on re-reading the title came out poorly

In theory, OL would make sense as an A1 is worth 60 points while a D1 in HL is worth only 55. However, a D at HL is probably easier to achieve than a guaranteed A1 at OL. A lot depends on the subject and the ability of the student e.g. is there a real possibility that they could have a bad day and fail at HL. There's also the opportunity cost - is HL taking a lot out of them in terms of their engagement with other subjects? And at LC are they really counting on the points for the subject? There's also the question of whether failure to get a C at HL is really down to motivation levels - if that is so they will struggle to score very highly at OL.

spurious

I rarely found myself in the dizzying heights of HL LC with my gang. This year as usual at JC, they were asking me was there a JC Foundation Level and could they do that. I told them all they were doing HL and that 'The Department' had said they had to. Much grumbling ensued, but onwards we went.

Now, there were a couple of them were probably going to be a bit borderline on the HL, so in February, I contacted the school and said to move them to OL. The message went astray somewhere and in June they all traipsed in for the HL paper.

In September they all traipsed back out with at least a D. No As, but a couple of Bs. They were delighted and kept pointing out to others, 'But that's a D in Higher'.

If I had my way HL JC would be compulsory for all but the very very weak. It opens them to a whole different way of being asked and answering questions.

aunt aggie

Depends if its JC or LC. I would advise students to stick with JCHL for as long as possible as it guarantees a better basis for LCOL. But if a student is in a HL class and 90% of the work is going over their heads then its a waste of their time. They might actually begin to lose key skills that are required at LCOL but brushed over by the higher level course.

I'll agree with another poster, very difficult to get an A at ordinary level. Students shouldn't be focused on points when choosing their levels as they often have no clue what grade they could realistically get in an exam. I've seen instances of students over and under estimating their own ability.

RealJohn

HL always unless you're thinking about points and even then, if you're sure you'll get a D you might surprise yourself and do better.

Also some people see the decision to do ordinary level (rightly or wrongly) as the lazy option whereas sticking with HL shows ambition and confidence. If you're talking about the impression it gives, a higher level D is definitely better than an ordinary level A.

Meangadh

Totally depends on the individual student. Although I would say for Junior Cert I'd be getting them to stick to higher so long as they were in no danger of failing. And unless they're really really struggling, chances are they won't fail. And the higher the level they do for as long as possible, the more focused I find they are.

But Leaving Cert is a whole other ball game. I teach Irish and I would have a huge amount of students that get Cs and Ds in Junior Cert (and I'd imagine they're barely getting them in some cases) and they think they'll be able to get the same in Leaving Cert with not much more effort. The gulf between Junior Cert and Leaving Cert Higher level is huge- and you have to look at the bigger picture, in that their other subjects may start to suffer because they're putting all their eggs into your subject basket.

As I said though, depends on the individual- if I thought they'd put in the work, I'd keep them at higher level. If they're only wanting to do higher level because it sounds/looks better but aren't willing to put in the work, I'd be advising them that I feel higher level is not for them. A conversation I fear I may have to have with some of my own Leaving Certs one of these days unfortunately...

rainbowtrout

spurious wrote: »

I rarely found myself in the dizzying heights of HL LC with my gang. This year as usual at JC, they were asking me was there a JC Foundation Level and could they do that. I told them all they were doing HL and that 'The Department' had said they had to. Much grumbling ensued, but onwards we went.

Now, there were a couple of them were probably going to be a bit borderline on the HL, so in February, I contacted the school and said to move them to OL. The message went astray somewhere and in June they all traipsed in for the HL paper.

In September they all traipsed back out with at least a D. No As, but a couple of Bs. They were delighted and kept pointing out to others, 'But that's a D in Higher'.

If I had my way HL JC would be compulsory for all but the very very weak. It opens them to a whole different way of being asked and answering questions.

I'd agree, I try and get as many as possible to do HL Science when I have a JC class. Funny enough, when we had a science inspection a few years ago, the inspector had gone through our grade stats and commented on the high proportion of students we had with special needs.

He then commented on the fact that the percentage of A grades we had was lower than national average. I then pointed out to him that the number of students we had doing OL Science was practically non-existent and we were way above average for numbers doing HL. We had a huge number of D grades, but I also pointed out that if we made all of those students do OL for JC in keeping with the national average then our percentage of As would be far higher as a proportion of the remaining HL cohort.

In the end he conceded my point but it was all about the As and nothing about the fact that we were getting students to achieve at a level higher than many of them thought they were capable of and that was an achievement in itself. It also meant that as many of them chose a science for LC, typically Ag Science or Biology they were going into it with a better foundation, and were more willing to work towards a HL paper in either of those subjects, because they saw that they could do it at JC.