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

Ave Sodalis

eternal wrote: »

English definitely isn't memory based as it is interpretive and Art also, how can you learn off how to draw? Maths is something you have to do practically, there is no way you can learn off a Maths exam. What about the Aurals and Oral tests, nobody knows what is coming up and you have to listen and speak in a different language which is, one again, interpretive. It's cognitive and the reason there is a LC is to whittle down the people early on in society who are willing to learn and reform in some way. Then you have PLC courses for those who did not have the ability in school and they still get into university. You can always learn a trade if you aren't academic. Stuff like catering which allows creativity for those who did not have the means to become doctors and what not. We are all different people but exams have to start somewhere and when people tell me they couldn't even manage a LC I wonder as to where this person will end up. I suppose someone has to clean the streets and sell fags in shops.

That's thing though, they're not meant to be but unless you can learn off a huge amount, it is rote learning. English- you can't get an A1 unless you learn off a huge amount of quotes. Maths- I don't know about you, but I just learned off the methods rather than being taught how to use the methods. Half the time, I had no idea why I was doing something, I had just learned that that's what I had to do. Aurals and orals have a set amount of subjects to talk about and you just keep going over those, especially orals.
In terms of college, the points system is ridiculous.

elefant

For all its flaws, which have been discussed here in detail already, I am a supporter of the Irish LC system for accessing third-level study. It's a level playing field. It doesn't matter how much money you have or who your parents work with or whether you look good in an interview; if you put the work in and get your points you can access third-level education. It's not a perfect assessment system, but it is fair.

I can say with certainty that when I did the Leaving Certificate I was not surprised in any case about how many points someone in my year achieved, and that to me is the great vindication of the system. Everyone I studied alongside gained the points that they, in my opinion, deserved with regards to their quality as a student. Whether it was by memory or by academic flair, they achieved the points they deserved.

Maybe more controversially, and perhaps I'm being naive in thinking this, but if you can get an A in Chemistry or Phys/Chem but can only manage a D in English, it doesn't suggest to me that you are naturally poor at English as a subject. Doing so badly in one subject when you can perform so well in another is a reflection on your application (or lack thereof) to those subjects. In my opinion there is no excuse for not being able to pass a subject when you can get an A1 in another. If you are looking to point the finger of blame at something in that situation, it is back to yourself it should be facing.

Magnate

sup_dude wrote: »

That's thing though, they're not meant to be but unless you can learn off a huge amount, it is rote learning. English- you can't get an A1 unless you learn off a huge amount of quotes. Maths- I don't know about you, but I just learned off the methods rather than being taught how to use the methods. Half the time, I had no idea why I was doing something, I had just learned that that's what I had to do. Aurals and orals have a set amount of subjects to talk about and you just keep going over those, especially orals.
In terms of college, the points system is ridiculous.

Agreed but it's not all rote learning either. With english you can get a solid B by learning quotes/themes etc. and having a good general knowledge of your course along with learning off how best to structure your answers - But to get the A1 it's just a whole different level, you need to be able to articulate your ideas and have a certain flow and eloquence that can only be attained by lots of practise. English is most definitely a skill.

The old maths syllabus was definitely open to rote learning but now with project maths you need to be able to understand the reasoning behind everything.

As for orals, yep very easy to memorise different subjects although it'd be preferable to have a good enough grasp of the language that you'd feel confident enough to have a natural conversation.

hairybelly

and what about people with dyslexia and dyscalculia? Not all of them receive any extra support, and even then it might not be enough to help them get up to scratch with everybody else.
It doesnt mean they're any less capable than the rest at all.

Magnate

hairybelly wrote: »

and what about people with dyslexia and dyscalculia? Not all of them receive any extra support, and even then it might not be enough to help them get up to scratch with everybody else.
It doesnt mean they're any less capable than the rest at all.

That's what the DARE scheme is for.

CelticRambler

Magnate wrote: »

While I do agree with this to some extent, I think the ability to rote learn is losing its value in todays society. Why memorise facts that are a click away?

Because that "click" is one of the greatest over-sold concepts of this century. Connection problems, data caps, broken links, outdated information, etc ... Yes, the data in someone's head can also be outdated, but in general the person you go to for information will have a particular interest in the subject and will keep themselves up-to-date.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that when you're dealing with real people (customers/consumers/those-in-need-of-an-answer), the person who does not need to click has a huge advantage in terms of time and when it comes to inspiring confidence. "Hang on, I'll look it up" is one of the fastest ways to look less competent when your colleague/competitor has already answered "Form 1042 and 1042C-Pro" or "1.030 +/-0.005" or "7.5% until the 31st December, then it goes up to 9%"

hairybelly

Magnate wrote: »

That's what the DARE scheme is for.

The DARE scheme only accepts a small number of applicants, and the only thing is does is give you extra points. It does not waiver the subject requirements or the requirements to have higher level or ordinary level subjects.

Not a single IT or university in Ireland will accept you if you have foundation subjects in either.

rahmalec

I'm one of those people who has benefited from the current LC system. I got top marks in my class. I didn't have to do a crazy amount of rote-learning because I was good at math, so any of those kind of subjects were no problem. I already spoke a second language fluently so another easy subject there. Then I got a D in English and a C in pass Irish.

I think English is probably the most important subject. Not so much learning all the poetry and stuff, but to be able to speak well, write well and communicate easily is so important, even for us more mathsy people. I know it would benefit me to no end to be able to do these things better and not need an hour to write some simple thing that can be done by someone else in 2 minutes! Also the ability to blag your way through, very important life skill (and IMO is part of the same skillset).

Maybe reading more as a child is the key.

Magnate

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because that "click" is one of the greatest over-sold concepts of this century. Connection problems, data caps, broken links, outdated information, etc ... Yes, the data in someone's head can also be outdated, but in general the person you go to for information will have a particular interest in the subject and will keep themselves up-to-date.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that when you're dealing with real people (customers/consumers/those-in-need-of-an-answer), the person who does not need to click has a huge advantage in terms of time and when it comes to inspiring confidence. "Hang on, I'll look it up" is one of the fastest ways to look less competent when your colleague/competitor has already answered "Form 1042 and 1042C-Pro" or "1.030 +/-0.005" or "7.5% until the 31st December, then it goes up to 9%"

Jesus christ I said it was useful to an extent. Obviously you need to be knowledgable about whatever your job requires/area of expertise - that's a given.

What isn't as useful is memorising random facts on a leaving cert syllabus.

Besides, memorization is overrated, according to Sparrow. "Obviously we need some baseline skill in memorizing things, but I personally have never seen all that much intellectual value in memorizing things," she says, adding that it is far more important to understand information on a conceptual level. As an instructor, she has seen how some students struggle with cognition related to the things she teaches, whereas they would do much better if they simply had to memorize a bunch of answers. "Memorizing is the easier thing to do, which is why students do it," she says.

Sparrow continues to research the impact on learning if instructors remove the expectation of memorization. "Will students better be able to learn focusing on conceptualizing and understanding information rather than simply remembering it?" she asks. "More likely, if a person does not think the information will be available later, they will try to memorize it, often at the expense of understanding the concepts."

thelad95

I think one thing that could be done is the following:

At the moment, there are three compulsory subjects: English, Irish and Maths. Most people would agree English and Maths should be kept compulsory, Irish should be ditched as a compulsory subject but kept on as an optional subject. You'd be surprised how many students would still pick it.

English should be split into two seperate subjects. One would be testing basic reading and writing skills (compulsory, think English paper 1) and the other would be an optional subject, studying poetry, plays etc. (English paper 2) as well as creative writing.

Maths could also be split into two seperate subjects. One would test real world applicable skills eg. Algebra, financial maths, trigonometry (basic) and geometry. The other, optional maths subject could be more along the lines of applied maths and include other concepts such as probability, complex numbers as well as more advanced forms of the concepts in the compulsory subject.

This way, the compulsory subjects would be sufficient for matriculation purposes for most courses and obviously if a student wanted to do journalism, the more advanced, optional English subject would be requested or if a student wanted to enter the STEM sector they would need the advanced, optional Maths subject.

However, my gut tells me the NUI's would probably still request Irish for matriculation purposes.

Also, students are becoming more savvy in finding ways of getting around entry requirements and subject choices. Some students now register to sit OL French and Irish at the end of 5th year, and then sit 7 subjects the following year. Similarly, it's not unknown for students to do pass English and avoid the annual muppetry journalism surrounding English paper 2.

Yarf Yarf

CelticRambler wrote: »

Beware of the faraway hills looking greener. That system in the UK has led to the creation of more mickey-mouse universities and university degrees than any where else. Also ...



... that's pretty much the way it is in the UK: most teenagers take 3 A-levels that closely match their third-level plans. And guess what? A the age of 18/19, thousands of them still don't really know what they want to do and they're stuffed when they get to uni and realise that actually they would have been better off doing History&French because they put all their time into studying Biology, Chemistry and Maths.

We had A-level students in our class in uni. Yes, they had an 'academic' advantage over us Leaving Cert time-wasters. That advatage lasted about one trimester, by the end of which the level at which we were studying was so much higher than even the 'in-depth' A-level standard that it didn't matter. What was obvious, though, was that the Leaving Cert students were way out in front in terms of general (universal ) knowledge and able to incorporate that wider knowledge into ... yep, you've guessed it: our scientific discipline.

I'm doing a Masters in the UK at the moment and I was really worried about being out if my depth at the beginning of the year. What I've come to realize is that I actually have a much more rounded education than most of the British students in my class and am actually more familiar with a lot of the material we're studying than most of the class. I don't really know where this love for the British system comes from, because from what I can see it's not better than ours. I don't think the Irish education system could have done a better job in preparing me for further education.

Also, setting aside all the science talk, one thing I did find peculiar when applying for the CAO years ago was that creative writing courses didn't require a sample of work as part of the application. Maybe it has changed since, but I think courses for aspiring writers should at least have the prerequisite of being able to actually write.

losthorizon

I may have got this wrong but years ago i remember reading about the French equivalent (or Belgian) of the Leaving Cert and entry into University.

In their Leaving Cert you had to answer one question I think ( or maybe it was more) in each subject you were doing. No marks were given - you just passed or failed.

If you passed all your subjects you could do whatever you wanted to do in College. The reasoning is because students would pick subjects they were best at and really liked not what results in totally unrelated subjects say like Latin or Physics if you wanted to go and say be a social worker had thrown up.

It did mean some classes were hugely over subscribed but they found out that by Christmas in the first year in College those not suited to College life had dropped out.

There was a different system for those wanting to do Medicine or go to the Sorbonne or indeed train for more hands on jobs like Plumbers, electricians etc.


Its a long time since I remember reading that article so I may have got It slightly wrong but it does seem to have stuck in my head.

megadodge

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.

While I agree with the old sentiment that 'intelligence is what enables you to get by without an education and education enables you to get by without intelligence', I'm not sure that's exactly what you're getting at. You seem to think that this rote-learning of utterly useless facts (virtually none of which the vast majority of people will ever use again) makes you a good citizen. How?

What life skills does the LC give anybody?

There is no doubt that the LC does NOTHING to develop creativity, curiosity, critical thinking or individuality. In fact IMO it just strives to churn out subservient, non-thinking little robots who will continue to do what they're told for the rest of their lives. There are huge amounts of people out there who spent most of their secondary school years bored to tears and who became completely disillusioned with the learning process by the infliction of this awful, awful exam.

Whenever the LC is mentioned it never fails to bring to mind the reaction of the teacher in 'The Simpsons' to Lisa's intelligent, thought-provoking question. She reaches under her desk and frantically starts pressing the 'Independent Thought Alarm', whereupon Principal Skinner says "Uh oh, two independent thought alarms in one day. The children are overstimulated. Willie, remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms."

IvyTheTerrible

losthorizon wrote: »

I may have got this wrong but years ago i remember reading about the French equivalent (or Belgian) of the Leaving Cert and entry into University.

In their Leaving Cert you had to answer one question I think ( or maybe it was more) in each subject you were doing. No marks were given - you just passed or failed.

If you passed all your subjects you could do whatever you wanted to do in College. The reasoning is because students would pick subjects they were best at and really liked not what results in totally unrelated subjects say like Latin or Physics if you wanted to go and say be a social worker had thrown up.

It did mean some classes were hugely over subscribed but they found out that by Christmas in the first year in College those not suited to College life had dropped out.

There was a different system for those wanting to do Medicine or go to the Sorbonne or indeed train for more hands on jobs like Plumbers, electricians etc.


Its a long time since I remember reading that article so I may have got It slightly wrong but it does seem to have stuck in my head.

There certainly are marks in the French Leaving Cert (the Baccalaureat), actually a huge emphasis on someone's "moyenne" out of 20.

Yes to go to university you can go to whatever course you like (except for the Ecoles Normales Superior - you have to do a competition), but actually it's not that different from the points system, it's usually just at the end of first year uni that they filter out the best students, only a certain number can go through to the next year.

branie2

Belgian version sounds like a great idea

Ave Sodalis

Magnate wrote: »

Agreed but it's not all rote learning either. With english you can get a solid B by learning quotes/themes etc. and having a good general knowledge of your course along with learning off how best to structure your answers - But to get the A1 it's just a whole different level, you need to be able to articulate your ideas and have a certain flow and eloquence that can only be attained by lots of practise. English is most definitely a skill.

The old maths syllabus was definitely open to rote learning but now with project maths you need to be able to understand the reasoning behind everything.

As for orals, yep very easy to memorise different subjects although it'd be preferable to have a good enough grasp of the language that you'd feel confident enough to have a natural conversation.

English is definitely a skill for the most part but a B won't be good enough if you want to do something like veterinary.

Yeah but even their way of introducing project maths. We were one of the test schools and my year was the first to do both papers as project maths for LC. We were completely thrown into it and had to learn a completely different way of doing math within two years, which was hard when the teachers had to learn a completely different way of teaching whilst still trying to teach it.

It would be preferable, but realistically, how often does that happen?

Rubberchikken

Imo all the leaving cert does is show who's capable of rote learning .

Magnate

hairybelly wrote: »

The DARE scheme only accepts a small number of applicants, and the only thing is does is give you extra points. It does not waiver the subject requirements or the requirements to have higher level or ordinary level subjects.

Not a single IT or university in Ireland will accept you if you have foundation subjects in either.

The DARE scheme accepts applicants who are eligible.

In terms of dyslexia, it has nothing to zero to do with intelligence. I know personally of an A1 english student who is able to get that grade because she has a spelling waiver. She's not good at other languages so she picked other subjects which she excels at. The requirement to have higher level subjects should not have much of an impact on people with dyslexia - and if it does, there's always DARE.

It's funny, you say that "It doesn't mean they're any less capable than the rest at all." (which is absolutely true) and then go on to imply that higher/ordinary level subjects are too difficult for them.

The majority of universities accept foundation level maths for matriculation purposes. The courses that don't tend to involve a lot of maths which a person with dyscalculia probably wouldn't apply for in the place.

It's not a perfect system but it does a lot to address the issue and it's far better than the alternative of having no support. I don't think you can really complain about it. I know people dyscalculia and others with dyslexia and they're all happy with the support the receive.

Shrap

elefant wrote: »

For all its flaws, which have been discussed here in detail already, I am a supporter of the Irish LC system for accessing third-level study. It's a level playing field. It doesn't matter how much money you have or who your parents work with or whether you look good in an interview; if you put the work in and get your points you can access third-level education. It's not a perfect assessment system, but it is fair.

It's far from a level playing field. My LC year son wasn't able to take the three science subjects last year as the school is too small (300 approx), although it's the biggest school within an hour's drive. Chemistry wasn't an option for 2014. Also, in order for him to continue with engineering, the lack of staff meant he had to drop his second language, meaning that at age 15 he had already had to make choices on his potential 3rd level courses.

It most certainly does matter how much money a school has, whatever about the parents, and rural Ireland is disadvantaged as usual. As you can see, even if you put the work in and get your points, your LC subject options may have already held you back.

Magnate

Shrap wrote: »

It's far from a level playing field. My LC year son wasn't able to take the three science subjects last year as the school is too small (300 approx), although it's the biggest school within an hour's drive. Chemistry wasn't an option for 2014. Also, in order for him to continue with engineering, the lack of staff meant he had to drop his second language, meaning that at age 15 he had already had to make choices on his potential 3rd level courses.

It most certainly does matter how much money a school has, whatever about the parents, and rural Ireland is disadvantaged as usual. As you can see, even if you put the work in and get your points, your LC subject options may have already held you back.

That's unfortunate but hardly the fault of the leaving cert system as a whole. Also there was nothing stopping him from taking up subjects outside of school. I know a girl who taught herself Spanish all on her own and ended up with a B1. With sciences it's even easier, all you need is the textbook and bit of self directed learning.

Magnate

sup_dude wrote: »

English is definitely a skill for the most part but a B won't be good enough if you want to do something like veterinary.

Yeah but even their way of introducing project maths. We were one of the test schools and my year was the first to do both papers as project maths for LC. We were completely thrown into it and had to learn a completely different way of doing math within two years, which was hard when the teachers had to learn a completely different way of teaching whilst still trying to teach it.

It would be preferable, but realistically, how often does that happen?

You've lost me?

I think we're agreeing that you can't get an A1 in English by rote learning alone? If so great, but what has that got to to do with getting 600 points? You don't have to count it if it's not in your top 6, so it's not holding you back from getting high points. I know I certainly won't be counting it, it's far too subjective to rely on.

As for maths, I'm not really sure what you mean but I still don't think it's possible to get an A1 without a deep understanding of the subject, whatever about scraping a C/B. If you did otherwise, fair play to you!

Orals - I'm not denying that rote learning doesn't work. It's what I'll be using to maximise my marks. I feel I could get by without but I'd be a lot more relax going into the exam knowing that I had everything prepared.

hairybelly

Magnate wrote: »

The DARE scheme accepts applicants who are eligible.

In terms of dyslexia, it has nothing to zero to do with intelligence. I know personally of an A1 english student who is able to get that grade because she has a spelling waiver. She's not good at other languages so she picked other subjects which she excels at. The requirement to have higher level subjects should not have much of an impact on people with dyslexia - and if it does, there's always DARE.

It's funny, you say that "It doesn't mean they're any less capable than the rest at all." (which is absolutely true) and then go on to imply that higher/ordinary level subjects are too difficult for them.

The majority of universities accept foundation level maths for matriculation purposes. The courses that don't tend to involve a lot of maths which a person with dyscalculia probably wouldn't apply for in the place.

It's not a perfect system but it does a lot to address the issue and it's far better than the alternative of having no support. I don't think you can really complain about it. I know people dyscalculia and others with dyslexia and they're all happy with the support the receive.

Thats not my experience of the system unfortunately. I'm pretty bitter about the whole thing. Fair me hole.

Magnate

hairybelly wrote: »

Thats not my experience of the system unfortunately. I'm pretty bitter about the whole thing. Fair me hole.

Ah right, I don't know your circumstances so maybe the people I know that are happy with it are the exception to the rule. In that case I may be a little biased.

looking_around

rahmalec wrote: »

I'm one of those people who has benefited from the current LC system. I got top marks in my class. I didn't have to do a crazy amount of rote-learning because I was good at math, so any of those kind of subjects were no problem. I already spoke a second language fluently so another easy subject there. Then I got a D in English and a C in pass Irish.

I think English is probably the most important subject. Not so much learning all the poetry and stuff, but to be able to speak well, write well and communicate easily is so important, even for us more mathsy people. I know it would benefit me to no end to be able to do these things better and not need an hour to write some simple thing that can be done by someone else in 2 minutes! Also the ability to blag your way through, very important life skill (and IMO is part of the same skillset).

Maybe reading more as a child is the key.

I read lots as a child..............English was easily one of my worst subjects. Maths one of my best.

Tarzana2

megadodge wrote: »

What life skills does the LC give anybody?

Well, I personally think it gives *some* as outlined in this post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93250713&postcount=83

Just my own 2c, others will undoubtedly disagree.

One thing though, I think people are very quick to put down people's excellent LC results, like it couldn't POSSIBLY be because they are very clever and have an aptitude for many subjects, OBVIOUSLY they learned everything off by rote. It's a bit sneery.

Ave Sodalis

Magnate wrote: »

You've lost me?

I think we're agreeing that you can't get an A1 in English by rote learning alone? If so great, but what has that got to to do with getting 600 points? You don't have to count it if it's not in your top 6, so it's not holding you back from getting high points. I know I certainly won't be counting it, it's far too subjective to rely on.

As for maths, I'm not really sure what you mean but I still don't think it's possible to get an A1 without a deep understanding of the subject, whatever about scraping a C/B. If you did otherwise, fair play to you!

Orals - I'm not denying that rote learning doesn't work. It's what I'll be using to maximise my marks. I feel I could get by without but I'd be a lot more relax going into the exam knowing that I had everything prepared.

Take someone who's gifted at writing but not at memorising. English could be their best subject and they could write great essays but because they couldn't learn off 20 or so quotes, they only got a B, which isn't exactly fair.
It is with the old system.
Whereas some people may not be at all prepared and couldn't get by without rote learning. You can pass an oral on rote learning alone.

IvyTheTerrible

sup_dude wrote: »

Take someone who's gifted at writing but not at memorising. English could be their best subject and they could write great essays but because they couldn't learn off 20 or so quotes, they only got a B, which isn't exactly fair.
It is with the old system.
Whereas some people may not be at all prepared and couldn't get by without rote learning. You can pass an oral on rote learning alone.

English isn't just about being good at writing essays, it's about learning how to critically analyse literature, you have to learn quotes in context to illustrate your point.

Ave Sodalis

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

English isn't just about being good at writing essays, it's about learning how to critically analyse literature, you have to learn quotes in context to illustrate your point.

But learn exact quotes? If you were able to say the gist of something, that should be enough rather than losing marks because you didn't say the quote word for word

looking_around

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

English isn't just about being good at writing essays, it's about learning how to critically analyse literature, you have to learn quotes in context to illustrate your point.

English should be 2 subjects.

The poetry/ literature subject and a more practical day to day subject. (CV's/Letters, basic understanding of what you read, perhaps learning how to research and write college style essays.)

There's no reason to have these together, wrapped up in the one subject.

IME of English, it was too much on the literature and "creative" writing, and lacking in actual practical use.

Magnate

sup_dude wrote: »

Take someone who's gifted at writing but not at memorising. English could be their best subject and they could write great essays but because they couldn't learn off 20 or so quotes, they only got a B, which isn't exactly fair.

If they're not able to memorise 20 quotes they wouldn't have a hope with some of the other subjects. The little that you need to learn off for english is easily within everyones grasp. If english was their best subject then that would imply they have a great knowledge of their texts, and so would be able to make suitable reference to their texts without quotations and still get an A. You're presented a very unlikely hypothetical situation.

sup_dude wrote: »

It is with the old system.

I know, I did say that.

Magnate wrote: »

The old maths syllabus was definitely open to rote learning but now with project maths you need to be able to understand the reasoning behind everything.

sup_dude wrote: »

Whereas some people may not be at all prepared and couldn't get by without rote learning. You can pass an oral on rote learning alone.

I agreed, several times? I even said you could get get an A in orals by rote learning, not just a pass.

It seems like you're arguing for the sake of it .

I agree that a lot of the leaving cert is rote learning but a good understanding is required additionally, in many subjects. It's not fair to say it's just one or the other.