Is the leaving cert the best way to determine if a student is right for college?

steddyeddy

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science. Therefore according to our college entry testing system you wouldn't make a good scientist. F%$ off.

You might think if it aint broke then why fix it? Well I think it is broke. The proof in the pudding is performance. As the points for science has risen we should expect to see an increase in test scores in science? We don't in fact what we get is students who are good at learning facts. The real evidence is in the science 4th year project. You basically have to find something out. E.G some students might have to determine the serotonin levels in certain cells for example. This project involves creativity, thinking outside the box and the application of facts. This is were many brilliant leaving cert students fail the module.

The leaving cert doesn't correctly match a student's talents to the correct course IMHO. This isn't just the case for science IMHO. It applies to all disciplines.

The leaving cert puts too much pressure on students to learn irrelevant facts and develop irrelevant skills IMHO.

Kevin McCloud

We wont solve it tonight anyway op.

steddyeddy

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

We wont solve it tonight anyway op.

You've got to dream McCloud, you've got to hold onto the dream!

Cantremember

Think I'll service my angle grinder.

Holsten

It's a glorified memory test.

steddyeddy

Holsten wrote: »

It's a glorified memory test.

Bingo. Are great scientists glorified memorisers?

Kevin McCloud

Cantremember wrote: »

Think I'll service my angle grinder.

Safety first remember to plug it out.

Chocolate Lions

Any alternative would be progressive (good!) and more expensive, (bad), both to implement and to maintain. Then there would be difficulty with the unions and the fact we have no metric to even assess a teachers quality. There's no QC at all there, and it's notoriously difficult to get rid of a crap one.
There are a lot of problems to massage out before a better system could be put in place and that starts with teachers good enough and prepared for such.
But are you telling me the words of Mahogany Gaspipe don't help prepare our youth for the world?

SEPT 23 1989

Scrap the whole thing and let them run wild and free

Duck's hoop

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science. Therefore according to our college entry testing system you wouldn't make a good scientist. F%$ off.

You might think if it aint broke then why fix it? Well I think it is broke. The proof in the pudding is performance. As the points for science has risen we should expect to see an increase in test scores in science? We don't in fact what we get is students who are good at learning facts. The real evidence is in the science 4th year project. You basically have to find something out. E.G some students might have to determine the serotonin levels in certain cells for example. This project involves creativity, thinking outside the box and the application of facts. This is were many brilliant leaving cert students fail the module.

The leaving cert doesn't correctly match a student's talents to the correct course IMHO. This isn't just the case for science IMHO. It applies to all disciplines.

The leaving cert puts too much pressure on students to learn irrelevant facts and develop irrelevant skills IMHO.

No offence boss. But do you never think of anything else?

steddyeddy

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

Any alternative would be progressive (good!) and more expensive, (bad), both to implement and to maintain. Then there would be difficulty with the unions and the fact we have no metric to even assess a teachers quality. There's no QC at all there, and it's notoriously difficult to get rid of a crap one.
There are a lot of problems to massage out before a better system could be put in place and that starts with teachers good enough and prepared for such.
But are you telling me the words of Mahogany Gaspipe don't help prepare our youth for the world?

Get students to do a literature review for science. Basically something like "assess the evidence for the serotonin model of depression" for instance. That's not memorising facts that's using intelligence.

steddyeddy

Duck's hoop wrote: »

No offence boss. But do you never think of anything else?

No man I'm a scientist. By glad there's people like me who think of nothing else.

alias no.9

The leaving cert is brutal but it's fair. Science courses usually have minimum requirements including having done Science subjects at LC so it's not like people aceing Greek and Art History are getting in based on that alone.

Duck's hoop

steddyeddy wrote: »

No man I'm a scientist. By glad there's people like me who think of nothing else.

Thanks very much. Just stop talking about it all the time please.

KatW4

It doesn't give you any indication that you will be good at the course or the career associated with the course. I can't see it being changed in the near future!

steddyeddy

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Thanks very much. Just stop talking about it all the time please.

The clever thing to do would be to stop reading it?

steddyeddy

alias no.9 wrote: »

The leaving cert is brutal but it's fair. Science courses usually have minimum requirements including having done Science subjects at LC so it's not like people aceing Greek and Art History are getting in based on that alone.

How is it fair. Someone who's better at science could be crap at two other non science related subjects and miss out on science. Getting an A in chemistry does not make you a great chemist.

Basically it's a memory test.

Aidric

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

We wont solve it tonight anyway op.

When you were doing your leaving did you ever imagine that one day you would be extolling the virtues of new builds through the medium of television?

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is it fair. Someone who's better at science could be crap at two other non science related subjects and miss out on science. Getting an A in chemistry does not make you a great chemist.

Basically it's a memory test.

The people getting in still have to perform in a Science subject to get 500 points and meet the minimum requirements. The more rounded candidates are getting in.

steddyeddy

alias no.9 wrote: »

The people getting in still have to perform in a Science subject to get 500 points and meet the minimum requirements. The more rounded candidates are getting in.

Sorry but the science subjects are memorising science facts. Well rounded? Fantastic but that has nothing to do with science.

partyatmygaff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Get students to do a literature review for science. Basically something like "assess the evidence for the serotonin model of depression" for instance. That's not memorising facts that's using intelligence.

That sounds very idealistic.

At LC level, students won't even know what a neurotransmitter is let alone anything about Serotonin or its role in mood disorders. Yes, they can teach that to themselves but that's quite a huge undertaking for someone who has only been taught the very fundamentals of chemistry and biology.

There's also the huge issue that some university students (even though specifically taught how to do a lit review) struggle. I shudder to think of the quality of a literature review written by a completely inexperienced 5th/6th year with only a very basic knowledge and understanding of chemistry and biology.

You're suggesting we identify good scientists by their ability to think like scientists/researchers. That's well and good but you can't be a good scientist without a good base of scientific knowledge and experience.

braddun

getting a shows a good student getting c shows an average student who might drop out

steddyeddy

braddun wrote: »

getting a shows a good student getting c shows an average student who might drop out

Wish it worked like that but science has one of the highest drop out rates.

SparkySpitfire

steddyeddy wrote: »

No man I'm a scientist. By glad there's people like me who think of nothing else.

You're a scientist, that's nice.

But by gad, there's people like me with something of an aptitude for letters instead of numbers!

Sorry, couldn't let that one slide...

Paddy Cow

I think it's ridiculous that you need to have Irish and a another language to get into university. Last time I checked, all courses are thought through English, so unless you are doing a language, where's the relevance?

Chocolate Lions

I think the problem can only be addressed by better teaching science at a secondary level, and by that I mean increasing the difficulty somewhat to maybe the level of 1st year university and throwing in some trickier questions that involve critical thinking.

This allows people who are more intuitive and have a genuine understanding to do better while getting rid of the chaff, and this would ideally be reflected in applications to courses.
Lower points for what would be seen as a more awkward field as those not suited are less inclined to apply, balanced with maybe slightly higher average marks for those who are able for it.

steddyeddy

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

You're a scientist, that's nice.

But by gad, there's people like me with something of an aptitude for letters instead of numbers!

Sorry, couldn't let that one slide...

That's true and I'm glad there are people out there that make less typos than me.

A general knowledge quiz would probably be a good indicator of who would do well im university.

DoYouEvenLift

I dunno, I do think we should have a similar setup to the UK with school -> college -> uni though so people get a better idea of what they actually want to do in life and what courses they need to do to work towards it. Career guidance with counsellors should also be mandatory for all students in all schools also

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but the science subjects are memorising science facts. Well rounded? Fantastic but that has nothing to do with science.

Your OP

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science.

It ignores the fact that the person who got the offer of a place in Science will also have demonstrated competence in Science as well as other subjects.
Getting 500 points, regardless of subjects requires a breadth of knowledge, combining this with meeting the minimum requirements for a Science degree absolutely makes the candidate well rounded.
I'd argue in fact that since all entrants to a Science degree must meet a minimum competence in Science, it's the other things that are more likely to lead to them building a successful career in Science. Some people watch too much Big Bang Theory.

I can kind of see where the OP is coming from. I was almost always top of my class throughout secondary school because I had a good memory, I got the highest points in my year - obviously I did study hard but it was mostly rote learning facts, throwing them down on the exam paper and then heading away thinking I was smart.

3rd level was largely a horrible experience for me - I did get a degree and a Master's in scientific/mathematical disciplines but they were both huge personal struggles, and my grades were not great. I felt completely out of my depth and would convince myself that I was too stupid to be there, when in reality it was most likely the approach to study that 2nd level had imparted on me that was the problem. Leaving Cert had convinced me that rote learning was all that was needed to be academically successful, and not being able to replicate that method in college with any success did a lot of damage to me. I ended up losing interest in my course and confidence in myself, and I had once wanted a PhD but now there's no way in hell I'd ever be able to do one.

Leaving Cert definitely needs to impart more critical thinking and problem solving skills. I've no idea how one would do that though - as his post demonstrates, I ain't the sharpest.

Inspector Coptoor

Eddy, I'm a teacher of biology and chemistry and while there is a syllabus to be covered, I rarely, if ever utter the phrase, "you need to learn that off by heart".

For me, it's all about understanding the material, thinking about the material and being able to answer questions asked in a lot of different ways, ie teaching he students how to think.

Science in trinity was 400 points when I went to college, it was 350 in UCD and 330 in NUI Galway.

What you have to understand is that CAO points are based purely on supply and demand.
They fluctuate based on economics.

I agree that an A1 chemistry student might make a terrible graduate chemist though.

You've brought this up a lot.

What's your alternative?

Portfolios for science students?
Interviews?
Science orals?
who's gonna pay?

steddyeddy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That sounds very idealistic.

At LC level, students won't even know what a neurotransmitter is let alone anything about Serotonin or its role in mood disorders. Yes, they can teach that to themselves but that's quite a huge undertaking for someone who has only been taught the very fundamentals of chemistry and biology.

There's also the huge issue that some university students (even though specifically taught how to do a lit review) struggle. I shudder to think of the quality of a literature review written by a completely inexperienced 5th/6th year with only a very basic knowledge and understanding of chemistry and biology.

You're suggesting we identify good scientists by their ability to think like scientists/researchers. That's well and good but you can't be a good scientist without good scientific knowledge and experience.

Do you know what. You illustrated my point perfectly. At the end of your post you said you can't be a good researcher without scientific knowledge and experience. How do you get knowledge? By finding things out. How do you get experience? By finding things out.

Everyone is inexperienced starting off and what you have said to me is exactly what fourth years say to me when it comes time to do the project. "If I don't know exactly what to study how can I do it". We're sending really pathetically trained people out in the workplace.

steddyeddy

alias no.9 wrote: »

Your OP



It ignores the fact that the person who got the offer of a place in Science will also have demonstrated competence in Science as well as other subjects.
Getting 500 points, regardless of subjects requires a breadth of knowledge, combining this with meeting the minimum requirements for a Science degree absolutely makes the candidate well rounded.
I'd argue in fact that since all entrants to a Science degree must meet a minimum competence in Science, it's the other things that are more likely to lead to them building a successful career in Science. Some people watch too much Big Bang Theory.

You're confusing an ability to perform well in science with memorising science facts in a subject. I've met people who got A's in biology but were crap at college biology.

El_Duderino 09

School isn't just about making scientists. It's also about making complete morons capable of functioning in life.

The skills to survive in life are different to the scientific method. On boards, how often do you read 'prove it'? As a scientist you know proof only exists in maths but in real life people use heuristics. So the leaving cert isn't about creating scientists, it's about creating citizens.

DarkPassenger

School was horrible enough without actually having to learn stuff, I loved the whole memorize and regurgitate system.

partyatmygaff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you know what. You illustrated my point perfectly. At the end of your post you said you can't be a good researcher without scientific knowledge and experience. How do you get knowledge? By finding things out. How do you get experience by finding things out.

Everyone is inexperienced starting off and what you have said to me is exactly what fourth years say to me when it comes time to do the project. "If I don't know exactly what to study how can I do it". We're sending really pathetically trained people out in the workplace.

It's not reasonable to expect the average 16-17 year old who just about knows how to draw very simple organic molecules and the basics of cell/human biology to delve in to and teach themselves a topic as complex as neurobiology.

Not only that but you then expect them to use this self-taught knowledge and understanding (which will hopefully be correct as no one will have examined the soundness of their knowledge/understanding) to critically discuss a complex model that in itself also requires at the very minimum a basic understanding of many other topics in physiology and pharmacology.

For example, you can't assess someone's ability to write a week after teaching them their first few words. They need time to build their knowledge and gain experience before you can tell if they have the aptitude.

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're confusing an ability to perform well in science with memorising science facts in a subject. I've met people who got A's in biology but were crap at college biology.

You opine that people aceing Chemistry, Physics and Maths, seemingly unfairly lose out on a place in a Science degree course by virtue of getting D's in,Geography and French and when called on the fact that the people who actully got the place also performed at Science subjects as well as others, you're now questioning the relevance of every Scientific grade, clearly including those of the student who missed out?
A good leaving cert requires dedication and discipline, factors that will also be common with scientific discovery. One doesn't guarantee another but someone who'll work for one will likely work for the other and no amount of natural aptitude will make up for willingness to work when things get a bit more complex.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

School isn't just about making scientists. It's also about making complete morons capable of functioning in life.

The skills to survive in life are different to the scientific method. On boards, how often do you read 'prove it'? As a scientist you know proof only exists in maths but in real life people use heuristics. So the leaving cert isn't about creating scientists, it's about creating citizens.

But science is about making scientists. The leaving cert is not a good way to determine who gets into science (history, law or whatever).

TheBegotten

The Leaving Cert is a good way to determine if someone is right for further education in general. As was drilled into me during my months of study leading up to June, the LC rewards hard work and initiative far more than it rewards intelligence or bent towards a particular subject. The CAO points system is based on demand; irrespective of a course's perceived difficulty or the intelligence expected of the students.

It actually works pretty well, as long as people know what they want. I knew I wanted to study chemistry, so I filled my CAO with chemistry and general science courses. I was going to work hard for what I wanted. I dragged my French grades from D's and low C's to B's (can't speak plus qu'un mot now, but it served its purpose) and memorised what felt like half of Macbeth for the chance to learn about statistical thermodynamics and organic chemistry.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote: »

But science is about making scientists. The leaving cert is not a good way to determine who gets into science (history, law or whatever).

Agreed. Like I was getting at, the LC has a pretty broad remit. Those who get into science and pass are probably good at science. Those who get in and fail are probably less good.

Pherekydes

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that you need to have Irish and a another language to get into university.

No, you don't. Apply as a mature student. No one asks about languages, or the leaving.

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

But science is about making scientists.

Thats a pretty narrow point of view

steddyeddy wrote: »

The leaving cert is not a good way to determine who gets into science (history, law or whatever).

Compared to what? You talk about a project, something like that at secondary level can be plagiarised and coached. I don't see any clear advantage unless you expect every LC student to make brand new discoverys, in which case, they should be getting a PhD.

Tombi!

I had rant typed out and looked up something.
I remember when I read this years ago, it was something around 400+ points.

http://www.qualifax.ie/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=15?Mainsec=courses&Subsec=course_details&ID=29215

Someone who's well knowledgeable about the current LC explain this. Is it me or does that college (Waterford Institute of Technology) not demand a minimum points requirement?

Because if so, it's changed from when I took it.

FrStone

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

we have no metric to even assess a teachers quality. There's no QC at all there, and it's notoriously difficult to get rid of a crap?

Do you want to introduce metrics to test teachers? It's been found time and time again that the countries that use metrics to test their teachers do worse in standardised tests.In Finland (the system that seems to work so well), there is no testing of teachers, no inspectors etc.


It's very annoying to hear the misinformed give their opinions on teachers and how they believe it should work. We will end up going down the route of the UK, which has failed miserably and is not the system we should strive to use.

Chocolate Lions

FrStone wrote: »

Do you want to introduce metrics to test teachers? It's been found time and time again that the countries that use metrics to test their teachers do worse in standardised tests.In Finland (the system that seems to work so well), there is no testing of teachers, no inspectors etc.


It's very annoying to hear the misinformed give their opinions on teachers and how they believe it should work. We will end up going down the route of the UK, which has failed miserably and is not the system we should strive to use.

They have a good system and a good attitude to education. And because of that they produce good teachers and it's a respected profession. Good teachers make good students, and it's cyclical, but the Scandinavian countries are pretty unique in all sorts of ways.

No, I think the UK is a mess. But, there are some woeful excuses for teachers out there that don't understand the math or science etc. that they're teaching. Your attitude seems to be to ignore that fact completely, there should be some recourse there, but not inspectors, no.
That an educator should pass a test and explain concepts involved in the subjects they teach. I don't think that should be too much to ask, maybe every 2 or 3 years even. No standard questions but to give account for whatever is in their area, with room for appeal and everything else. I think a good few would struggle. How is my suggestion?

Boskowski

I'm not Irish and I haven't done an LC, but I've done the equivalent to the LC and 3rd level in my country.

From the other half's nieces and nephews and sons and daughters of friends and colleagues I got a little insight in how it works in Ireland and from that admittedly limited experience I tend to agree with the OP.

It seems that for some subjects a ridiculous number of points is required to get a shot at it. And you have to be a very straight, hard working student to have any chance at all.
How people do it I don't know. The few Irish students I know seem to be much more disciplined than anyone I remember from my 2nd level days including myself. They seem to have that real understanding that they're shaping their later life and seem to work diligently towards it.

Which makes the whole thing - at least for those I know - very much career driven from an early point in their lives. Like get as many points as you possibly can to get the best course you can to get the best career you can (most financially rewarding, basically). Whether they feel that career is actually their thing, their vocation, seems secondary.
And on the other hand it seems to leave a lot of people behind who for example might make terrific doctors and would love to be doctors, but they haven't a hope 'cos they suck at languages.

Basically full on rat race from an early age on. A bit sad really.

When I left 2nd level I passed but I had a hopeless points score. I basically wouldn't qualify for anything in an Irish system. Mostly down to immaturity and not giving a **** about certain subjects, but I was a smart guy, really good at the stuff I was interested in.
I was lucky I liked IT and electronics and nobody else did, so the demand was low and I got into university anyway.
But if I really really wanted to become a doctor I would have got a chance, too. I might have to spend a year or two on a waiting list and score heavily in an aptitude test, but it would have been a medicine aptitude test and not some language or history. I would have got a chance.

Maybe, like in my country, there should be a limited number of places, guarded by aptitude test or whatever, for people who are really passionate about a subject regardless whether they have the points or not.

Super-Rush

If you wanted to get into software development, what use is Irish, French, history, geography to you? The subjects being done presently in the first year of computer science programs should be taught in LC level.

stealinhorses

What is with this idea of people being maths geniuses but not being able to write a coherent paragraph? Throughout my science undergrad, I've only met people who are knowledgeable in all areas of life, often are able to speak more than one language and have no problem formulating their thoughts in lab reports or other assignments which require the use of skills that aren't necessarily "scientific".

If you want to become a good scientist, you need to be able to communicate the results of your research and need to be able to analyse the work of others and draw conclusions. If you're getting a D in LC English, and an A in physics and biology, then I'm sorry to tell you, you will not make a good scientist and it's better that you don't enter the field at all.

Yes, the LC curriculum could be altered to not favour rote learning so much, but this can only be achieved to a certain degree. Unfortunately, before entering 3rd level education you need to have a grasp of basic scientific concepts, and for better or for worse, this sometimes entails learning off definitions, schemes and simply remembering Newton's third law off by heart, rather than deriving it from first principles every time you need to apply it.

Science is such a massive field, that in order to have a good coverage of the basics, you need to learn some things and just remember them. Problem solving and mathematical intuition will only get you so far, if you never learned to avoid mixing certain chemicals together.

Also, the curriculum is varied enough that you can assure enough points for science/history whatever, by picking subjects in that area, be it engineering, business, geography, etc. It would be difficult to find yourself in a situation where you are bad at more than half of your LC subjects and excellent at less than half. Also, extra points for maths in recent years help you out tremendously in that case.

Laura Palmer

Getting a C or D in English doesn't always mean being a bad writer though. English is about a lot more than writing skills. By leaving cert it's about critiquing poetry and prose - not everyone is competent at same. There is some subjectivity to the above for sure, but there are also certain skills.

Boskowski

There is a bit of a difference between ability to write a coherent paragraph and getting straight A's all over the place. Its widely acknowledged that some people are talented at one thing but not so much at another. I don't believe in order to become a good scientist you need straight A English. You need to communicate but sorry you don't need to be excellent at that. And someone could very easily be a terrific doctor and suck at maths.