New Grading System

Bazinga_N

What do you guys think about the new grading system? I like the sounds of it Too bad it's the year after my LC!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/new-leaving-cert-grading-system-for-students-sitting-2017-exam-31181823.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0429/697536-education/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/leaving-cert-overhaul-out-with-a-b-c-in-with-1-2-3-1.2193430

Consonata

I'm skeptical that it takes any "heat" from the points race. I haven't seen anything to tell me it will anyway. Won't increasing the points difference between grade levels, subsequently increase the heat also?

Taking this from the Department Website:
Higher level |Sample CAO points (HL) |Ordinary level |Sample CAO points (OL)
H1 (90-100)| 120 |O1 (90-100)| 73
H2 (80-89)| 106 |O2 (80-89) |60
H3 (70-79)| 93 |O3 (70-79) |47
H4 (60-69)| 81 |O4 (60-69) |34
H5 (50-59)| 70 |O5 (50-59) |21
H6 (40-49)| 60 |O6 (40-49) |8
H7 (30-39)| 45 |O7 (30-39) |0
H8 (0-29)| 0 |O8 (0-29)| 0


So from H1 to H2 there's a 14 point difference, compared to A1 to A2 which is ten. Won't this enlarge the gap that a few percentage points make in an exam. It gets crazier when you compare 39% and 40%, 15 point difference! That's huge is it not. Is there any benefit to this new system that isn't just renaming the bands, because it isn't like that points for courses aren't going to change accordingly with the new 720/745 top point bracket.

pitapattern

As a fourth year student I am absolutely disgusted and outraged by these changes. This is my education, where is my say? I have made subject choices in recent months without being informed of the crackpot scheme to liberate those who fail and further repress those who are the intellectuals. Having made subject choice, I'm now told that a high grade in a subject may benefit my prospects of being accepted into a course. Wonderful. What courses? What subjects? The imbeciles who are the intolerable Jan O'Sullivan's lackeys have not thought this through as I nor no one can be held responsible for a decision we made without being properly informed by those simpletons. As for the new college courses? Meh. I desire a very specific career, which falls under no area and cannot be generalized. Primary teachers, nurses, architects, actuaries, all require specific and exclusive training! I am absolutely in favour of more generalized, broad courses but for those who feel headstrong and are confident in their own sensibilities, I don't think this should be the case. More variety, more choice, liberation for the indecisive, clueless and those who are sure of themselves. As for claims that this is less pressure? Whatever idiot told poor Jan that a 5% difference between grades was less pressure to improve by than 10 needs a full psych eval! I'm not absolutely anti the new grading system but not for those who have already made subject choice and with all due respect, it could result in more pressure. I'm very sad UCD have already signed and sealed on the new course structure, thought they were more than considered enough not to be bullied into such nonsense, so long as it's not outright and absolute, I'll survive I suppose.

Bazinga_N

From the Irish Times Article:

This group is to review the effect of bonus points in maths, as well as examine the possibility of introducing subject-specific bonus points to reward students who are continuing a Leaving Cert subject at third level.

I like this idea. If you're hoping to study Physics in University but you don't get enough points because English is letting you down, you'll get bonus points from Physics since that's what you want to do and you've a better chance of getting in.

I see a lot of pros and cons to it really. I prefer less grades but I agree that the points allocated to each band in this is a little ridiculous. Why can't they go up and down in 5s and 10s? It's much simpler and would take away some pressure. The 15 point gap between a H7 and H6 is outrageous.

Anonymagician

I love the idea of subjects carrying more weight if they're relevant to your college course but 1% losing 15 points is sort of insane.

Mr Rhode Island Red

I'm in TY, so I'll be doing the first LC with this grading system. Thought this would make a shambles of my Leaving Cert grading when heard about it briefly on the radio.

Seeing it on paper and it doesn't seem like much of a change at all.

Consonata

According to the radio, it will reduce stress because students will gain to accept that they are H1 H2 or H3 level etc. This seems insane to me. This doesn't encourage improvement and the motivation to strive for more. We already have a huge problem with that in schools at the moment and this will seemingly exacerbate the problem

Gallagher1

If the number of grading bands is reduced from 14 to 8, surely the amount of people losing out on college places due to random selection on the CAO will be astronomically higher than it is now?
The higher the number of grading bands, the greater the potential point differentiation between students. If you lower the amount of grading bands there will be an awful lot of students who will end up on the same amount of points and this will become a nightmare in the future if/when this is all rolled out.
Losing your college place by getting a B3 instead of a B2 is one thing, losing it on random selection would be in a different league of injustice and with this system it will only get a hell of a lot more frequent!

emersyn

Apart from anything else I'm quite confused about their logic in deciding which grades are worth which points - the numbers seem extremely random? I'm so glad I skipped transition year now

Chancer3001

If they are redoing the points they should just go completely on percentages.

This idea that 40 is somehow the same as 45 or 90 is the same as 100 should be done away with.

Add up all your total percentages. Score out of 600% then

Consonata

Chancer3001 wrote: »

If they are redoing the points they should just go completely on percentages.

This idea that 40 is somehow the same as 45 or 90 is the same as 100 should be done away with.

Add up all your total percentages. Score out of 600% then

Interesting so 78% equals 78 points

However I feel like that would push grind schools further into mainstream societies than they already are. Instead of learning for life, you study the marking scheme like the bible to find where those percentage points are.

emersyn

The whole thing seems pretty pointless in my view

Consonata

emersyn wrote: »

The whole thing seems pretty pointless in my view

*Cue audience groan*

Gallagher1

pitapattern wrote: »

As a fourth year student I am absolutely disgusted and outraged by these changes. This is my education, where is my say? I have made subject choices in recent months without being informed of the crackpot scheme to liberate those who fail and further repress those who are the intellectuals. Having made subject choice, I'm now told that a high grade in a subject may benefit my prospects of being accepted into a course. Wonderful. What courses? What subjects? The imbeciles who are the intolerable Jan O'Sullivan's lackeys have not thought this through as I nor no one can be held responsible for a decision we made without being properly informed by those simpletons. As for the new college courses? Meh. I desire a very specific career, which falls under no area and cannot be generalized. Primary teachers, nurses, architects, actuaries, all require specific and exclusive training! I am absolutely in favour of more generalized, broad courses but for those who feel headstrong and are confident in their own sensibilities, I don't think this should be the case. More variety, more choice, liberation for the indecisive, clueless and those who are sure of themselves. As for claims that this is less pressure? Whatever idiot told poor Jan that a 5% difference between grades was less pressure to improve by than 10 needs a full psych eval! I'm not absolutely anti the new grading system but not for those who have already made subject choice and with all due respect, it could result in more pressure. I'm very sad UCD have already signed and sealed on the new course structure, thought they were more than considered enough not to be bullied into such nonsense, so long as it's not outright and absolute, I'll survive I suppose.

1) This proposed points scheme doesn't 'repress intellectuals'. These 'intellectuals' will still score very high points so I don't know where you're getting that from.

2) You will never get a say in how the Education system in run, you're in TY for crying out loud. Should first years get to dictate the course of the JC? How do you know what's best for the entire education system in this country? You may disagree with certain parts but any system put forward will have someone who is against it.

3)There is absolutely zero need to call people 'idiots', 'imbeciles', 'simpletons', 'clueless' and 'lackeys' just because you clearly disagree with something they put forward in the interest of every student in the country. Grow up.

4)'Liberate those who fail'..some kids genuinely find certain subjects hard. Maths is a prime example. Some kids slave away for hours upon hours to pass the HL paper and to get those lucrative points. A bit less of the disparaging and a bit more empathy towards students who aren't 'intellectuals' wouldn't go amiss.

At the end of the day, worry about your leaving cert when it comes around. If you're good enough you'll get your points and your course regardless of the system employed by that stage.

pitapattern

Gallagher1 wrote: »

1) This proposed points scheme doesn't 'repress intellectuals'. These 'intellectuals' will still score very high points so I don't know where you're getting that from.

2) You will never get a say in how the Education system in run, you're in TY for crying out loud. Should first years get to dictate the course of the JC? How do you know what's best for the entire education system in this country? You may disagree with certain parts but any system put forward will have someone who is against it.

3)There is absolutely zero need to call people 'idiots', 'imbeciles', 'simpletons', 'clueless' and 'lackeys' just because you clearly disagree with something they put forward in the interest of every student in the country. Grow up.

4)'Liberate those who fail'..some kids genuinely find certain subjects hard. Maths is a prime example. Some kids slave away for hours upon hours to pass the HL paper and to get those lucrative points. A bit less of the disparaging and a bit more empathy towards students who aren't 'intellectuals' wouldn't go amiss.

At the end of the day, worry about your leaving cert when it comes around. If you're good enough you'll get your points and your course regardless of the system employed by that stage.

You've listened to nothing I've said, try listen to what Marie-Louise O'Donnell had to say, she makes some great points. To say I'm "in TY for crying out loud"? I'm not quite sure if you've missed a trick but I'm the year being burdened with this gobbledygook before it can be improved on. I'm also the year that has no idea what to work towards or what college courses are open to me. It's an absolute disgrace, given that TY is often taken to consider course choice, I think it's a bit much to swoop in at the end and pull the rug from under us, what I'm working towards from September on? It's a vague and naive scheme. Okay, I may very well get my points but what about if I'm on the borderline and miss out in a lottery behind people who got 10% lower than me in all their exams. Hardly fair? It is absolutely repressing intellectuals and believe me I don't consider myself one but if I were capable of 625 points in today's system I'd been fairly peeved if I was told that someone capable of 570 in today's system could get the same as me and compete for the very same college places. As someone who this affects, I'm more than within my rights to want to take action and speak about it so please don't try and take some highground just because you disagree. I certainly haven't.

randylonghorn

Pita, stop ranting and tone it down. This is a discussion forum, not your personal corner of Hyde Park.

And do learn to use paragraphs, please.

Slow Show

I haven't done any research into it other than a few articles but if I got 89% in an exam, receiving the same points as someone who just scraped 80%, and missed out on my course by random selection (which will increase hugely unless they come up with a solution to that problem), I would be pretty annoyed. I'd be very for making certain grades worth more depending on the relevance of the subject to your course, but I don't understand the reason for changing the grade brackets at all.

qweerty

Consonata wrote: »

I'm skeptical that it takes any "heat" from the points race. I haven't seen anything to tell me it will anyway. Won't increasing the points difference between grade levels, subsequently increase the heat also?

Taking this from the Department Website:
Higher level |Sample CAO points (HL) |Ordinary level |Sample CAO points (OL)
H1 (90-100)| 120 |O1 (90-100)| 73
H2 (80-89)| 106 |O2 (80-89) |60
H3 (70-79)| 93 |O3 (70-79) |47
H4 (60-69)| 81 |O4 (60-69) |34
H5 (50-59)| 70 |O5 (50-59) |21
H6 (40-49)| 60 |O6 (40-49) |8
H7 (30-39)| 45 |O7 (30-39) |0
H8 (0-29)| 0 |O8 (0-29)| 0


So from H1 to H2 there's a 14 point difference, compared to A1 to A2 which is ten. Won't this enlarge the gap that a few percentage points make in an exam. It gets crazier when you compare 39% and 40%, 15 point difference! That's huge is it not. Is there any benefit to this new system that isn't just renaming the bands, because it isn't like that points for courses aren't going to change accordingly with the new 720/745 top point bracket.

I think the rationale is that, as increasing the number of grade-bands increased the prevalence of teaching-to-the-test, reverting will probably have (to some extent) the reverse effect.

I agree that the change a number of percentage points could have on points total is quite startling, especially, as you say, down by the H6/H7 boundary - one pp increase leading to a 33% points increase! The IB Diploma, which also has seven (points-scoring) grade bands, has a maximum score of 45; that would seem more sensible to me - although I think that such a move would give the impression of it being a much bigger departure than it actually is.

But I think there is a level of arbitrariness at all boundaries. By widening the boundaries, those clustering at them should decrease. Yes, it would be a very bitter pill for someone who was just below a grade boundary in every subject to swallow, but it would be a very rare occurrence. For most people, the majority of their test scores will fall between n1% and n9%. And combined with the proposed broad entry routes to third level - UCD Arts had a points range of 335-575 in 2013; only a small percentage of the 1,200 or so people on the course would have been close to the minimum - I think those understandable qualms seem less worrying.

pitapattern wrote: »

As a fourth year student I am absolutely disgusted and outraged by these changes. This is my education, where is my say? I have made subject choices in recent months without being informed of the crackpot scheme to liberate those who fail and further repress those who are the intellectuals. Having made subject choice, I'm now told that a high grade in a subject may benefit my prospects of being accepted into a course. Wonderful. What courses? What subjects? The imbeciles who are the intolerable Jan O'Sullivan's lackeys have not thought this through as I nor no one can be held responsible for a decision we made without being properly informed by those simpletons. As for the new college courses? Meh. I desire a very specific career, which falls under no area and cannot be generalized. Primary teachers, nurses, architects, actuaries, all require specific and exclusive training! I am absolutely in favour of more generalized, broad courses but for those who feel headstrong and are confident in their own sensibilities, I don't think this should be the case. More variety, more choice, liberation for the indecisive, clueless and those who are sure of themselves. As for claims that this is less pressure? Whatever idiot told poor Jan that a 5% difference between grades was less pressure to improve by than 10 needs a full psych eval! I'm not absolutely anti the new grading system but not for those who have already made subject choice and with all due respect, it could result in more pressure. I'm very sad UCD have already signed and sealed on the new course structure, thought they were more than considered enough not to be bullied into such nonsense, so long as it's not outright and absolute, I'll survive I suppose.

A lot of points already been made in response. I'll add a few:

While it may be worthy to consult with students on some issues, I don't think there is in this situation: they don't have any special circumstances that give them a better position than technocrats to contribute, and, in fact, are almost all likely to be in a worse position to do so. However, they did consult with students! (See Link.)

As can be seen from the link in the previous paragraph, while certainly not evidence that their policy is correct, significant work has gone into the proposal, meaning all the pejoratives are likely undeserved.

The scheme has been in the works for over a year (the proposed broader-entry routes for even longer), so pitapattern's school deserves the blame for not informing students, if blame is warranted. I know pitapattern was also referring to certain subjects receiving weightings. But I think those will be very conservatively introduced, so I think it very unlikely that it would be announced mid-way through fifth year that certain subjects will be favoured.

A trap that many of those in opposition fall into is a belief that standards are being lowered. They argue that giving points to those who score below forty percent is dumbing down. Pitapattern refers to liberating those who "fail". The problem with that is that "failure" and the "Fail" grade are only arbitrarily linked. What is it about the forty percent horizon that means those above it are worthy of a certain amount of points (under the current system: 45) and those only a few percentage points lower are worthy of nothing?!

Not having been to third level, Pitapattern won't be aware of the extent to which there is cross-over between the foundation stage of courses. Engineering, physics and maths will do the same mechanics; physiotherapy, veterinary and medicine will do the same anatomy; many of the social sciences will share introductory economics or politics courses: someone doing Sociology and Philosophy in Trinity (450 points) will attend the lectures of 4/5 of their modules with those who do PPES (540 points). Effectively they're saying, If students are going to be doing the same modules anyway, why not judge their abilities at the end of those modules than before they've even done them: it benefits the intellectual. Courses will remain just as specialised by the end.

Maynooth University has already introduced a single-entry curriculum without being "bullied" into it. UCD had already taken many of the steps in the process: Commerce and a language merged into Commerce International; Law and an additional social science (e.g. Law and Economics) merged into a single-entry; as is the case for Engineering which used to have distinct Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, etc, courses; Arts and Science already resemble what the DoE intends. To be honest, the biggest culprit is Trinity with its hugely-complex Two Subject Moderatorship and myriad of other Arts/Humanities courses.

Addressing Pitapattern, I sympathise with your obvious unease with the uncertain. But I strongly encourage that you have more trust in the DoE, schools and universities who are, primarily the latter two, historically very conservative and averse to uncertain change.

randylonghorn

qweerty wrote: »

The problem with that is that "failure" and the "Fail" grade are only arbitrarily linked. What is it about the forty percent horizon that means those above it are worthy of a certain amount of points (under the current system: 45) and those only a few percentage points lower are worthy of nothing?!

And remember, it's only in the HL papers that it applies.

I haven't read it myself, but apparently there's a fair bit of research indicating that the level of knowledge displayed by those in the 30-40% bracket at HL would equate roughly to a B/C grade at OL.

So then you have a lot of people who are actually capable of doing / at least passing Honours level playing safe and taking OL, or dropping levels at the last moment, for fear of being just under the 40 and getting nothing in terms of points. At least this should alleviate that issue, and reduce stress for a lot of people.

I do understand the reaction of those saying "wait, you get points even if you fail?!", though in fact it's only for those at HL with what one might call a "high" fail grade, but there is actually some valid thinking behind it, whether one agrees with their solution or not.

coolerboy

Does the bonus maths points still apply??

Consonata

coolerboy wrote: »

Does the bonus maths points still apply??

I think the bonus points for maths is probably going to be replaced with these "course specific subject points" i.e if you are doing a course in Biology, you will get extra points for the subject because you are taking it to third level. However, as you can imagine, it place people who do say Com. Sci. or want to start Japanese at a severe disadvantage.

qweerty

Consonata wrote: »

I think the bonus points for maths is probably going to be replaced with these "course specific subject points" i.e if you are doing a course in Biology, you will get extra points for the subject because you are taking it to third level. However, as you can imagine, it place people who do say Com. Sci. or want to start Japanese at a severe disadvantage.

I suspect it'll be even less substantial than that. Something along the lines of: if one wants to do Law, there'll be an increased weighting for a student's top one or two literary/comprehension subjects. I very much doubt that there'll be a ranking within subject areas. We all know that an A1 (H1!) in History is more impressive than the same in Geography, but what about a C1 in each? And A1 in Business is obviously more impressive than C1 in History, but would the bonus points effectively make them equivalent? So, as well as avoiding the controversy of universities determining which subject they think more worthy than others, I expect Business in this example would remain on par with History.

The changes might even be as limited as only giving the increased points to subjects that are already specific entry requirement for a course - e.g. for two sciences for Medicine. (Tbh, it's a bit ridiculous that one need not have the subject that satisfies a course's entry requirement as one of their top six.)


Edit: I think bonus points for maths will remain until there has been a plateauing of uptake. For whatever reason, JC uptake in higher maths has increased over the last few years, which may very well be due to the points. I don't think uptake will revert to where it was if the bonus is removed; I think the culture of encouraging students to do HM will remain.

randylonghorn

Consonata wrote: »

However, as you can imagine, it place people who do say Com. Sci. or want to start Japanese at a severe disadvantage.

I'm probably being stupid, but you've lost me there?

qweerty wrote: »

We all know that an A1 (H1!) in History is more impressive than the same in Geography

Ohhhh, controversial!!

qweerty wrote: »

The changes might even be as limited as only giving the increased points to subjects that are already specific entry requirement for a course - e.g. for two sciences for Medicine. (Tbh, it's a bit ridiculous that one need not have the subject that satisfies a course's entry requirement as one of their top six.)

Yep, I would expect it to be roughly along those lines.

E.g. Omnibus Arts might simply be "no bonus for any subject; all treated equally" while Omnibus Science might give a bonus for Maths / Chem / Bio / Phys / maybe AgSci, and Med would have something similar.

Just to take Med as an example, I do recall students on this board over the years pointing out quite often that it was unfair in their opinion that someone could get the bare honour in their sciences, and get an A1 say in French and Latin, yet pip someone to the post who worked really hard and got a B1 in all 3 sciences ... and one can see their point.

qweerty wrote: »

Edit: I think bonus points for maths will remain until there has been a plateauing of uptake. For whatever reason, JC uptake in higher maths has increased over the last few years, which may very well be due to the points. I don't think uptake will revert to where it was if the bonus is removed; I think the culture of encouraging students to do HM will remain.

I actually think the "points for 30-39 at HL" might balance this out to an extent, even if the "bonus points for HL Maths for EVERY course" goes.

One reason (not the only one, but a pretty significant one) why people fight shy of Honours Maths is the "what if I just fail, and end up with no points at all from it?!" one. Maths is probably the one subject where I would be 100% in favour of the "points for 30-39 at HL" clause; I'm somewhat more ambiguous as to the others.

Consonata

randylonghorn wrote: »

I'm probably being stupid, but you've lost me there?

I'm just meaning that if someone wanted to do that course, there's no actual subject in school being taught that's related to that course, so no bonus points.

randylonghorn

Consonata wrote: »

I'm just meaning that if someone wanted to do that course, there's no actual subject in school being taught that's related to that course, so no bonus points.

Oh right ... but then there would be no bonus points for anyone applying for that course, so everyone actually applying for that one / competing with each other for places would still be on a level playing field?

I would expect that's the way it will work out anyway.

The more difficult one would be if they gave bonus points for LC Japanese to those applying to study Japanese, given how few schools actually offer it, but my gut feeling is that they simply wouldn't until it's more generally available.

rainbowtrout

Chancer3001 wrote: »

If they are redoing the points they should just go completely on percentages.

This idea that 40 is somehow the same as 45 or 90 is the same as 100 should be done away with.

Add up all your total percentages. Score out of 600% then

That would be a total disaster because if points were allocated based on your percentage in each subject then getting into a course could be based on the difference of 1 point. Students would be sending back their papers in droves for appeals, whether they were entitled to more marks or not. As it is a substantial number of students appeal. If a student is on 89, they will appeal to see if they can get 90 and get the A1. However they are far less likely to do this on 85-88 unless there is a very obvious discrepancy. However if there was a chance of an extra point in every subject based on each extra percentage point awarded the floodgates would well and truly be opened.


I did a rough calculation there earlier based on the proposed CAO points posted. When I did my LC way back when I got B1/3 x B3/ C1/ C3 as my 6 best subjects. All HL, ignoring bonus points. That totals 440 out of a possible 600. Thats 73% of the maximum possible points total.

If I take the same six grades and slot them into the new grading system I get 536 out of a possible 720. That's 74% of the max possible points total. That's pretty consistent.

I can see there being a slight rise for students who count a couple of HL D grades (in the 40-49 range) but overall points totals will rise but the ranking of students will stay pretty much the same I reckon.



I don't have a major issue with the 30-39% points award at HL. I agree with randy, all of those students would have passed the ordinary level paper in the same subject. Also colleges are not going to suddenly change course requirements, you might get points for having an E (30-39) in biology, but if the course entry is still C3, you still aren't being offered the place.

Actually on that, the traditional minimum grade for many subjects was a HC3, will colleges now accept the H4 (60-69) or the H5 (50-59) in place of the HC3???


Incidentally there was a discussion about this on the Last Word yesterday evening and there was a lecturer on from DCU speaking in opposition to the change. She was outraged at the notion of a pass being lowered to 30. However due to grading on a curve and giving students a pass if their overall average is above 40 in college, many students pass modules by compensation in college with grades in the 30s. I didn't think she was really in a position to complain when this is common across the third level sector.

qweerty

randylonghorn wrote: »

Ohhhh, controversial!!

Sorry if it is; I hadn't intended it to be. What I meant was that, while some subjects may be considered more difficult than others at the top end of scoring, that gap decreases as you go down the grades, so it's not as easy as saying that one subject is linearly 15% more deserving of merit than another.

Another problem with ranking subjects is that some are more similar to their third level equivalents than others. Applied Maths is a really good preparation for first year university mechanics, so, in theory, there's a strong argument for giving increased weighting to it for such courses. Whereas others offer almost no unique preparation: the various comprehension and writing skills learnt from studying Business are likely to be no different from studying History, so is there really justification for Business course admissions to reward studying the first?

I actually think the "points for 30-39 at HL" might balance this out to an extent, even if the "bonus points for HL Maths for EVERY course" goes.

One reason (not the only one, but a pretty significant one) why people fight shy of Honours Maths is the "what if I just fail, and end up with no points at all from it?!" one. Maths is probably the one subject where I would be 100% in favour of the "points for 30-39 at HL" clause; I'm somewhat more ambiguous as to the others.

Good point. At the same time, though, I think the principal reason people drop down is so they get the all-important pass in maths to matriculate for college - I imagine the majority of people at risk of failing Higher Maths wouldn't intend to use it for points.

randylonghorn wrote: »

The more difficult one would be if they gave bonus points for LC Japanese to those applying to study Japanese, given how few schools actually offer it, but my gut feeling is that they simply wouldn't until it's more generally available.

Yeah, definitely one of the biggest problems with rewarding certain subjects above others. Already the problem exists with Classics at Trinity, for which one of Latin and Greek is an entry requirement. Only about 100-150 sit Latin every year and 15 or so Greek, resulting in it being taught in very few places. (I am conscious that it's probably self-reinforcing: few people want to study them, so few schools offer them, causing even fewer people to study them...)

spurious

Until the Department can guarantee schools where everyone can study the full range of subjects at the full range of levels, it's unfair to offer extra points to people for doing particular subjects.

I've said it before here, but this could be done if we stopped the nonsense of having lots of small schools in the one area/town and had large schools which could offer more facilities and more choice. Give everyone the same chance. Do away with good school/bad school nonsense.

A school does not necessarily have to be in the one building, it could be spread over existing buildings in a town/area.

Magnate

qweerty wrote: »

We all know that an A1 (H1!) in History is more impressive than the same in Geography,

Do we?

Anonymagician

Magnate wrote: »

Do we?

These figures depend on a few things. Mainly that history students generally have an interest in the subject while a lot (but not all of course) of geography students take it for points purposes or because there's nothing more appealing to them. Not trying to be contentious but that's the experience I've had.

Magnate

Anonymagician wrote: »

These figures depend on a few things. Mainly that history students generally have an interest in the subject while a lot (but not all of course) of geography students take it for points purposes or because there's nothing more appealing to them. Not trying to be contentious but that's the experience I've had.

Actually yeah now that I think about it I would agree that that's probably the case. Especially considering that double the amount of students sit geography.

ShoulderChip

Anonymagician wrote: »

I love the idea of subjects carrying more weight if they're relevant to your college course but 1% losing 15 points is sort of insane.

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points.

CAO courses based on total points and certain criteria exampel a B2 in maths or whatever.

rainbowtrout

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points.

CAO courses based on total points and certain criteria exampel a B2 in maths or whatever.

Because everyone in the country would appeal every single one of their exams.

Anonymagician

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points.

CAO courses based on total points and certain criteria exampel a B2 in maths or whatever.

The bands are superior imo. As others have said it places far more competition/stress etc on the student. Imagine not getting your course by 1 point - in a lot of subjects that's just two marks.

No system will ever be perfect unfortunately, but I can see what they're trying to do.

EoghanIRL

I don't really think a new grading system is needed. One of the main points for it is that it will give points to people in the 30-40 % band.

What would be a better use of resources would be developing new subjects such as computer science , physiology , behavioral science
etc..
Remodel the existing curriculums to be more relevant to the times we live in.

Midkemia

Just going to leave this here.

I and about 100 other secondary school students (I was in 5th year at the time) were invited to the department of education to discuss new grading proposals. There was three different new grading bands proposed including this one, and also we could pick the existing grading bands .

This new grading band was by far the most popular choice, and it's nice to see that they listened to us. Don't presume they didn't get student feedback when you don't know all the facts.

EoghanIRL

Midkemia wrote: »

Just going to leave this here.

I and about 100 other secondary school students (I was in 5th year at the time) were invited to the department of education to discuss new grading proposals. There was three different new grading bands proposed including this one, and also we could pick the existing grading bands .

This new grading band was by far the most popular choice, and it's nice to see that they listened to us. Don't presume they didn't get student feedback when you don't know all the facts.

What were the other grading options?

qweerty

Magnate wrote: »

Do we?

As I said, I regret if that claim is contentious, and further explained in a previous post what I meant. However, I don't think the stats you present are evidence either way. More people got an A1 in Higher Maths, last year, than in either of those, despite the fact that a high grade in Higher Maths, if only by dint of being a two-paper exam, is generally considered more impressive than a similar grade in many of the option subjects. Even more compelling, Higher Maths is unquestionably more difficult than Ordinary Maths yet more people got A1's in the former.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

I don't really think a new grading system is needed. One of the main points for it is that it will give points to people in the 30-40 % band.

What would be a better use of resources would be developing new subjects such as computer science , physiology , behavioral science
etc..
Remodel the existing curriculums to be more relevant to the times we live in.

Giving points to people below 40% (technically 39%!) could be easily done under the current system by redefining an E-grade as 30%-40%. So I don't think that was part of the rationale. Introducing and changing curriculums is far more complex than adjusting the grading system, so while I agree that new subjects would be very welcome, I don't think it's a case of prioritising one over the other.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

What were the other grading options?

Here's the report: Link.

MathsManiac

qweerty wrote: »

Here's the report: Link.

Actually, that's the report on a different consultation - one about asking teachers what grading and feedback practices they currently use.

The report on the consultation that EoghanIRL referred to is here:
http://ncca.ie/en/file/post_primary/T_1.pdf

evolving_doors

Midkemia wrote: »

Just going to leave this here.

I and about 100 other secondary school students (I was in 5th year at the time) were invited to the department of education to discuss new grading proposals. There was three different new grading bands proposed including this one, and also we could pick the existing grading bands .

This new grading band was by far the most popular choice, and it's nice to see that they listened to us. Don't presume they didn't get student feedback when you don't know all the facts.

Interesting,

Did they offer the option of discussing the merits of the current system compared to the three new options?

spurious

It looks from the report that there were no Leaving Cert. Applied people involved? All the stuff about not being prepared for life (work, tax, mortgages etc.) would indicate that they were not there, or kept very quiet, as all that is a major part of the LCA.

qweerty

There was an opinion piece in the Irish Times on Thursday about this: Link.

Edit: it's quite a poor article. I doubt it'll assuage many fears.

MathsManiac wrote: »

Actually, that's the report on a different consultation - one about asking teachers what grading and feedback practices they currently use.

The report on the consultation that EoghanIRL referred to is here:
http://ncca.ie/en/file/post_primary/T_1.pdf

Sh1t, sorry, I had both of them saved as bookmarks and just linked the first one I saw that had grading in the title!

Midkemia

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Interesting,

Did they offer the option of discussing the merits of the current system compared to the three new options?

While I'm nearly sure they did, it doesn't appear to be in the report. The day definitely began with discussing the positives and negatives of the current system.

spurious wrote: »

It looks from the report that there were no Leaving Cert. Applied people involved? All the stuff about not being prepared for life (work, tax, mortgages etc.) would indicate that they were not there, or kept very quiet, as all that is a major part of the LCA.

There was no Leaving Cert Applied students at the student consultation.

randylonghorn

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Why can they not just do a point per percent?
You get your result in the form
92% A1, 92 points..

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Because everyone in the country would appeal every single one of their exams.

+1000

Plus people would be having nervous breakdowns after every exam over every single tiny possible error, as it might cost them a percentage point and therefore a CAO point and therefore a place.

It's bad enough under the current band system, and that's part of the rationale for widening the bands. Whether people agree or disagree with broadening the bands, in my opinion narrowing them still further would be hugely counter-productive. I accept that there's an argument in maths / logic for it, but the emotional fallout on students in terms of pressure / stress would be horrendous imo.

EoghanIRL

Is there actually anything wrong with the current system?
It doesn't suit everyone fine, but no system will suit everyone.
Is it as simple as giving points for an E grade? I can't see any reason to change the grading.
Most people who have problems with the leaving cert don't seem to be giving out about the grading bands but instead the fact that everything depends on one exam at the end of the year etc.

Midkemia

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Is there actually anything wrong with the current system?
It doesn't suit everyone fine, but no system will suit everyone.
Is it as simple as giving points for an E grade? I can't see any reason to change the grading.
Most people who have problems with the leaving cert don't seem to be giving out about the grading bands but instead the fact that everything depends on one exam at the end of the year etc.

Everything doesn't depend on one exam though. I did music for the leaving which was 50% done before I did the leaving, German and Irish orals, geography project and a history project. I also did LCVP the only subjects I had that depended entirely on the leaving cert exams were maths and English.

Obviously I was slightly different compared to those who did other subjects like chemistry and physics but I do feel there is a lot of subjects already that have additional work before the exam. Broadening the grading bands will reduce the pressure because if you make a mistake and lose out on a few marks you won't lose 5 points and drop from an A2 to a B1.

robman60

Midkemia wrote: »

Broadening the grading bands will reduce the pressure because if you make a mistake and lose out on a few marks you won't lose 5 points and drop from an A2 to a B1.

But you'll lose 14 points if you make a mistake bringing you from 90% to 89%! That argument is a complete non-runner.

The whole overhaul seems quite needless to me. The only thing I'd be in favour of mentioned is colleges giving more weight to subjects relevant to the course, but again I wouldn't like it to be too weighted because I don't think most people have any great idea what they'll do in college at the time they're picking their subjects (bear in mind most people are 15/16 when picking subjects). I know I was happy to be able to keep my options open when choosing subjects.

Magnate

robman60 wrote: »

But you'll lose 14 points if you make a mistake bringing you from 90% to 89%! That argument is a complete non-runner.

The whole overhaul seems quite needless to me. The only thing I'd be in favour of mentioned is colleges giving more weight to subjects relevant to the course, but again I wouldn't like it to be too weighted because I don't think most people have any great idea what they'll do in college at the time they're picking their subjects (bear in mind most people are 15/16 when picking subjects). I know I was happy to be able to keep my options open when choosing subjects.

Exactly, plus there would be increased competition because people would be within the same points range as a result of having less bands.

The overhaul does nothing to reduce the stress on those going for very high points. If anything it makes it worse because now instead of losing 10 points by going from an A1 to an A2 you'd lose 14. If anything it only serves to reduce the number of appeals the SEC gets because people won't get rechecks unless they're very close to the next band.

The only benefit I see is reducing the honours pass rate to 30 percent, taking the pressure off those who might have dropped to ordinary level on the day instead.

rainbowtrout

Magnate wrote: »

Exactly, plus there would be increased competition because people would be within the same points range as a result of having less bands.

I'd presume the CAO have run a few simulations of how the new points would work for a variety of grade combinations. Given that the gap between points is 14 - 13- 12 - 11 - 10 - 15 at HL level, I'd imagine that this will lead to a variety of points totals rather than everything in multiples of 5.


E.g.
6 H1 = 720
5 H1 + 1 H2 = 706
5 H1 +1 H3 = 693
4 H1 + 1 H2 + 1 H3 = 679
3H1 + 3H2 = 678

Magnate

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I'd presume the CAO have run a few simulations of how the new points would work for a variety of grade combinations. Given that the gap between points is 14 - 13- 12 - 11 - 10 - 15 at HL level, I'd imagine that this will lead to a variety of points totals rather than everything in multiples of 5.


E.g.
6 H1 = 720
5 H1 + 1 H2 = 706
5 H1 +1 H3 = 693
4 H1 + 1 H2 + 1 H3 = 679
3H1 + 3H2 = 678

I see what you're saying, but take 6 H2s for example

That's 636 for everyone with the new system, but with the current system that could be anywhere from 510 (6 B1s) to 540 (6 A2s) going up in multiples of 5.

I'm not sure if it's fair how it's skewed either.

Take 510 points under the current system,

That's the same as 6 B1s or say 2 A1s, an A2, a B2 and 2 C1s. Now convert that to the new system and you get either 6 H2s or 2 H1s, 1 H2, 1 H3 and 2 H4s.

6 H2s = 636
2 H1s, 1 H2, 1 H3 and 2 H4 = 601

It seems to favour the "all-rounder" student as opposed to one with clear strengths and weaknesses. X amount of lower grades should equal x amount of higher grades and that's just not the case. Eg. 6 B2s = 480 which is the same as 4 A1s and a B2. Under the proposed system the A1s are worth significantly more.

qweerty

I'm starting to have reservations.

Here's the relevant extract from the glossy promotional report, recently released:

"A second direction set out by the Minister in the Directions report was a commitment to reduce the number of grading bands used in them Leaving Certificate examination. This was in response to concerns as to whether the 14 grade points (at each of two levels) in the Leaving Certificate examination might, over time, have had unintended consequences for the nature of the examination, and forthe student experience ofsenior cycle education. More specifically, the use of narrow grade bands may put pressure on students to achieve marginal gains in examination performance and as a consequence focus excessive attention on the detail of the assessment process rather than the achievement of broader learning objectives.

Ireland’s use of such a high number of grade bands (28 grade bands over Ordinary and Higher Level) is unique internationally and was introduced in 1992 at the request of higher education institutions amid concerns about the increasing use of random selection for third level places. Scotland operates five grade points, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (A levels) use six, Finland has seven, the International Baccalaureate uses seven and New Zealand has four. The Netherlands has ten grade points but the very high and very low bands are rarely awarded with most of the grading around the middle six points.

Discussions have taken place as part of the broader collaborative reform process by partners on the Transition Reform Group and more focussed discussion has occurred in the National Council forCurriculum andAssessment and the State Examinations Commission. Several models were considered in detail at a themed workshop as part of the second Transitions Conference held in Maynooth University in June 2013 and at a consultation with second level students in October 2013. Following these consultations and discussions, a new eight point grading scale based on 10% grading bands has been agreed."


First, it's so frustrating that there is so little technical information given. Without giving the basis on which they came to their decisions - research, etc - they're just encouraging the speculation that we've engaged in on this thread.

So, the decision to change the grade bands came out of a process aimed at improving the "transition" from second to third level. There are three outcomes from it:

• The prompting of a discussion with regard to improving learning - by reducing predictability, increasing recognition of "higher order" thinking, and others. (This one is very vague: the end of that section says, "The DE has now formally requested the advice of the SEC on how the issues identified in the independent research report should be addressed.)
  
• The new grading system we're discussing, which includes not having even point increments so as to increase the variation of points scores.
  
• A reduction in the number of third level courses.

(It seems to me that it's quite a tame effort. While the transition may be positively affected, it's not directly altered: things like harmonising of curriculums and teaching-methods, etc, aren't being considered.)


Ignoring the first outcome, the rationale behind the grading reform is to decrease the tendency to "focus excessive attention on the detail of the assessment process" which they suggest is caused by the motivation to move up a sub-grade. While there is a logic to that argument, there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence. And I can think of an argument that says that the scrambling for points to move up a grade will be replaced with a similar scrambling (caused by the big points drop) to avoid dropping to a lower one.

I think the biggest cause of that focus on marginal gains is the Points Race. And if the changes to the number of courses has its intended effect, the changes to the grading system may be unnecessary. And possibly detrimental.

One of the only bits of empirical evidence given is from an earlier report: "On an 11 point scale, 93.9% of students would get a points score within 10 points of what they score on the 14 point scale. On the 8 point scale (A1, A2, B,C,D,E,F,NG), it’s 82.6%." (Based on an examination of the 2012 cohort). 17% getting a different score of more than ten points seems a lot to me. And within that percentage, we don't know the range; might some score as much as, say, thirty points lower or higher?

While I think Magante's examples are somewhat selective for the conclusions s/he draws (another example would be: A1, B1, B1, B3, C1, C2 = B2 x6 but translates to 587 vs 558), it certainly demonstrates the potential for high variations in points scores between sets of grades that are currently equal.

Here's a table showing what the distribution of the new grades looks like based on the average of the past three years in a selection of Higher Level subjects. It's not possible to infer the H7 percentage. The overall average is somewhat crude as is doesn't weight the subjects by uptake.


Subject (Higher)|H1|H2|H3|H4|H5|H6
Irish|6.2|9.5|27.1|24.9|5.9|4.7
English|3.7|11.3|21.4|26.5|24.0|11.5
Maths|4.3|14.4|22.1|24.7|19.5|11.6
History|6.7|15.3|22.6|23.2|17.1|11.5
Geography|3.4|12.8|22.2|25.0|20.7|13.0
French|6.1|12.3|19.7|22.5|20.9|12.9
Chemistry|10.2|19.7|18.9|15.7|14.3|12.6
Biology|6.4|16.2|19.3|18.2|17.5|14.6
Buusiness|3.7|15.3|21.9|19.5|17.7|14.7
Music|3.3|28.3|36.2|21.6|8.2|2.0
Home Ec|2.4|13.6|23.8|26.1|20.0|11.3
Average|5.1|15.6|23.2|22.5|16.9|11.0


So, as much as 40-50% of students in a subject will be separated by two grades, whereas before they would have been separated by four.


They compare the number of grading bands with European equivalents, but don't acknowledge that our terminal-exam combined with points system is highly unusual, too: most third level systems do not rely on only grades (they usually also include one or more of admission exams, aptitude tests, personal statements, etc); ALevels have several papers per subject, are taken in two or three sittings and include the percentage score on results; IB subjects have several exams per subject and a greater amount of internal assessment. Plus, the German equivalent is one example of the leaving certs's number of bands.

There may be favourable outcomes, but the process seems ill considered and may be unnecessary. I can't help but feel that many of the causes of detrimental practices at second level are caused by the points system and that these measures are just a patch for that.