The leaving cert a measure of intelligence or hard work?

steddyeddy

I made sure to include no negatives in the title but some of the articles in the Times and Indo go along the lines of "surprise as (insert topic here) didn't come up in (insert subject here)".

So basically the they're saying that the students were told something would come up and studied for that and it didn't and so that's unfair. Isn't the leaving cert meant to determine who's fit for college and who can remember the most? Is this what the leaving cert should be about?

TallGlass

Its more of a memory test been honest, but if your smart you wouldnt leave yourself wide open to a topic not showing up on the test IMO. Then again I only got around 160 points !

steddyeddy

TallGlass wrote: »

Its more of a memory test been honest, but if your smart you wouldnt leave yourself wide open to a topic not showing up on the test IMO. Then again I only got around 160 points !

A friend of mine entered engineering as a mature student without a leaving cert/ You'll be fine. It's not a measure of your intelligence.

thelad95

Some subjects like history and geography are definitely little other than memory tests but Maths and the Science Subjects require intelligence in those subjects to do well in.

steddyeddy

thelad95 wrote: »

Some subjects like history and geography are definitely little other than memory tests but Maths and the Science Subjects require intelligence in those subjects to do well in.

I don't agree with the science subjects to be honest.

thelad95

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't agree with the science subjects to be honest.

Why not?

Zillah

TallGlass wrote: »

Its more of a memory test been honest, but if your smart you wouldnt leave yourself wide open to a topic not showing up on the test IMO. Then again I only got around 160 points !

Big difference between smart and diligent. And smart and motivated.

Personally I think the Leaving is a horrible exam, focused entirely on short term memorisation, over too many subjects to too shallow a level, with all the exams done in far too condensed a schedule, depending far too much on one individual performance rather than work contributed over the preceding two years.

Anyone who knows anything about the real world knows that a person who is quick on their feet, is good at learning new things, can conceive and execute a plan, and make good, detailed assessments of novel situations, is going to be very useful. The berk sitting at the back that memorised the words of the manual is about a useful as the manual. Which we're able to use any time we need it, by the way. No one locks the manual in a drawer in work and demands that you accomplish your tasks with only the information currently in your brain.

I don't like the Leaving Cert. Countless bright and creative people left behind because they were forced into a rigid system antithetical to their development for six years.

agent graves

TallGlass wrote:

I only got around 160 points !

Leaving cert is a load of tripe. My rote learning is pretty crap.. and because that's basically what the leaving is I done ****e (kinda didnt care either becausecof this).. got less then 50 points.. but now as a mature im studying pharmaceutical chemistry and doing realy well in it..

boobar

A pal of mine (who wasn't into the academic way of life) was asked how he got on in the Leaving Cert, the day the results came out.

Two honours, he said.

The honour of doing it...and the honour of failing it miserably.

I met him recently, happy as Larry.

Bubbaclaus

If you're doing badly in the leaving cert on the back of 13/14 years of state funded education then you're doing something wrong.

Taco Chips

These threads always bring out people who say "blah blah the LC is rubbish because ______ and now I/my son/daughter/cat is studying _____ and sure weren't their points useless!"

The LC is a test of a culmination of knowledge at the end of secondary school. It's purpose is not to equip people with skills to enter a job or to slip seamlessly into a third level course in theoretical physics. It's a general examination of general education. Yes it relies a lot on rote learning, because rote learning is actually a large contributor to a persons intelligence. You need to be able to rote learn, it's important! When you get to college you'll spend a lot of time rote learning too.

People want soft exams and the department of education wants to be able to show they examine on "real world problems". Whats the result of this? Look at the current project maths syllabus. Its an utter joke. In order to make the exam more "relevant" they've gutted the course of calculus, matrices etc... The very topics that are a cornerstone of maths at third level. I personally do not like the direction that this new Leaving Cert is heading in and it's all as a result of making it more "relevant to the real world" and cow towing to what some MNCs based in Ireland want. Rewind to about 5-10 years ago and we actually have a very robust, fair set of exams. We should be very careful about where the education system is heading.

_Kaiser_

The LC is a test of how well you can regurgitate information.. comprehension of that information is not important.
It's why some people who do very well in the leaving find themselves unable to function in college or the working world and why those who supposedly failed go on to be very successful thereafter.

Far too much emphasis is put on the big exams at the end of the year leading to teenagers worrying themselves sick (or worse ) that their lives and opportunities will be over if they don't hit whatever "magic" number is needed for some course they may not be suited for anyway.

I'm not saying that we should abolish the idea of a LC, but far more emphasis on continuous assessment is the way forward IMO, as well as a restructuring of the subjects offered to favour topics that are of far more value in the real world

steddyeddy

Taco Chips wrote: »

These threads always bring out people who say "blah blah the LC is rubbish because ______ and now I/my son/daughter/cat is studying _____ and sure weren't their points useless!"

The LC is a test of a culmination of knowledge at the end of secondary school. It's purpose is not to equip people with skills to enter a job or to slip seamlessly into a third level course in theoretical physics. It's a general examination of general education. Yes it relies a lot on rote learning, because rote learning is actually a large contributor to a persons intelligence. You need to be able to rote learn, it's important! When you get to college you'll spend a lot of time rote learning too.

People want soft exams and the department of education wants to be able to show they examine on "real world problems". Whats the result of this? Look at the current project maths syllabus. Its an utter joke. In order to make the exam more "relevant" they've gutted the course of calculus, matrices etc... The very topics that are a cornerstone of maths at third level. I personally do not like the direction that this new Leaving Cert is heading in and it's all as a result of making it more "relevant to the real world" and cow towing to what some MNCs based in Ireland want. Rewind to about 5-10 years ago and we actually have a very robust, fair set of exams. We should be very careful about where the education system is heading.

But the point is it's not being treated as a culmination of knowledge. The papers are bemoaning the fact that predicted topics aren't coming up. It's largely studying what you need to pass.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

But the point is it's not being treated as a culmination of knowledge. The papers are bemoaning the fact that predicted topics aren't coming up. It's largely studying what you need to pass.

Yeah thats the newspapers. They're just printing what will get the most interactions on Facebook and the most traffic on their websites. Posting a load of articles sympathetic to students is going to get that. I wouldn't look to the media in Ireland as a good gauge of anything in particular, they have their own agenda.

Ultimately it is a test of culmination of knowledge. The fact that questions come up that aren't predicted, that aren't extensively prepared for or hinted at in a definite pattern is excellent.

steddyeddy

Taco Chips wrote: »

Yeah thats the newspapers. They're just printing what will get the most interactions on Facebook and the most traffic on their websites. Posting a load of articles sympathetic to students is going to get that. I wouldn't look to the media in Ireland as a good gauge of anything in particular, they have their own agenda.

Ultimately it is a test of culmination of knowledge. The fact that questions come up that aren't predicted, that aren't extensively prepared for or hinted at in a definite pattern is excellent.

I think that's rubbish TBH. Most students don't see it that way. Selective studying is applied again and again by students. It happens at undergraduate level too.

jjC123

It is very much dependent on how well you can rote learn things. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Every third level medical/science/veterinary/law student is going to spend 3+ years rote learning reams of information for exams too.

I do thing it's unfair that the leaving cert isn't suited to students who aren't academically inclined but can you really make an academic system that is fair to everyone? Far better would be if Ireland got over its snobbery towards apprenticeships/PLCs/training schemes and saw them as an equal rather than lesser alternative to university.

TallGlass

Taco Chips wrote: »

These threads always bring out people who say "blah blah the LC is rubbish because ______ and now I/my son/daughter/cat is studying _____ and sure weren't their points useless!"

Hold up there, I don't excuse the fact I done rubbish on my leaving cert. I got 160 because I didn't give a flying hoot about it! I'm 25 now things are different, I see the bigger picture. I'm looking at someday resiting the entire thing, because people that think like you define me by it. Which is fair, I can see your point. But its not a clear cut view of someone's intelligence.

When I was 17 doing the LC all I cared about was finishing school and getting a job and sure that would tie me over.

Little did I know about how much it costs to live, buy a house finding an enjoyable joy you like. If I could go back to then armed with the knowledge I have now I would be turning out 500+ points.

I don't agree with one big test at the end to be fairly honest, continuous assessment is the way to go and a final test at the end and a way to tally the two into one final score.

But the main problem with the LC is such a serious exam for people who are young and teenagers, most don't understand what a good LC can unlock for them down the line.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think that's rubbish TBH. Most students don't see it that way. Selective studying is applied again and again by students. It happens at undergraduate level too.

Yeah it absolutely does. Students have to selectively study some topics and leave others out in undergraduate too. It either pays off or it doesn't. The best students will still have a broad enough base of knowledge to be able to answer questions on anything to some level. The weaker students will gamble entirely on predictions. It's down to people's own preparedness too. The whole purpose of throwing curveballs into exams is to discriminate between the better students whole will be able to handle adapting the information they've learned as opposed. Whats the problem with that?

steddyeddy

jjC123 wrote: »

It is very much dependent on how well you can rote learn things. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Every third level medical/science/veterinary/law student is going to spend 3+ years rote learning reams of information for exams too.

I do thing it's unfair that the leaving cert isn't suited to students who aren't academically inclined but can you really make an academic system that is fair to everyone? Far better would be if Ireland got over its snobbery towards apprenticeships/PLCs/training schemes and saw them as an equal rather than lesser alternative to university.

I don't think we can define those who rote learn as academically gifted. In my undergrad it was the people with 2.1s who went on to do well in PhDs and self directed learning. The people with firsts couldn't handle the lab because they couldn't handle not knowing what to do.

Taco Chips

TallGlass wrote: »

Hold up there, I don't excuse the fact I done rubbish on my leaving cert. I got 160 because I didn't give a flying hoot about it! I'm 25 now things are different, I see the bigger picture. I'm looking at someday resiting the entire thing, because people that think like you define me by it. Which is fair, I can see your point. But its not a clear cut view of someone's intelligence.

When I was 17 doing the LC all I cared about was finishing school and getting a job and sure that would tie me over.

Little did I know about how much it costs to live, buy a house finding an enjoyable joy you like. If I could go back to then armed with the knowledge I have now I would be turning out 500+ points.

I don't agree with one big test at the end to be fairly honest, continuous assessment is the way to go and a final test at the end and a way to tally the two into one final score.

But the main problem with the LC is such a serious exam for people who are young and teenagers, most don't understand what a good LC can unlock for them down the line.

Well that was your case, your outlook at the time and your decision in life that took you to where you are now. For the very vast majority of people your age at the time the Leaving Cert completely served its purpose as most people saw the importance of higher education and used it as a springboard to pursue their goals. Is your n=1 experience supposed to make a special circumstance for changing the whole system versus the 60,000+ other kids who sat the exams and moved on happily to whatever path they chose after?

I certainly think theres a place for continuous assessment and it works very well across many subjects currently. I did projects for DCG (worth 40%), orals for Spanish, Irish (worth 15-20% I think) and similar assessments exist for many other courses. It's still vital to have a terminal exam that everyone sits at the end to maintain a fair standard across the board.

Midkemia

Plenty of people looking down on high achievers in the leaving cert here. I'm sure if you compared those who got 500+ points to those who got less then a 100 points the 500ers will always be more successful on average.

jjC123

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think we can define those who rote learn as academically gifted. In my undergrad it was the people with 2.1s who went on to do well in PhDs and self directed learning. The people with firsts couldn't handle the lab because they couldn't handle not knowing what to do.

No, it doesn't make you academically gifted, but it gives students who are only average a chance to pursue academia. The highly intellectual students should be able to rote learn to a certain degree anyway if they want to make it into any high skill job, requiring a specific degree. Its in the nature of learning.
You can't make the system suit everyone, sometimes you just have to make yourself suit the system.

ThinkProgress

It's a measure of society's grip on our lives... and the neat little boxes they want to put us all into! And it's a fine indoctrination tool of our zombie culture.

It doesn't teach life long learning. Or the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake.

It teaches us how to pass a test and how to conform to required standards. Something most of us spend the rest of our lives doing like zombie robots - and then wonder why we get that strange feeling of emptiness in our soul!

Oh and hard work...

TallGlass

jjC123 wrote: »

It is very much dependent on how well you can rote learn things. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Every third level medical/science/veterinary/law student is going to spend 3+ years rote learning reams of information for exams too.

Its like learning to drive a car, we can read all day long about how it functions and how to drive it. But until your in control of it, all that reading means nothing. Experience is important. I am more a visual learner, explain some medical term to me show me a few pictures or a video hell even let me see it been done and I won't forget it. I failed maths, but yet in college I excelled in binary maths as I understood the logic clearly and its function, passed Biology with flying colours be it pass as I could relate to it, same with English, History, Geog and Wood. Irish I couldn't grasp as I never had a use for it or used it. I passed all my subjects bar Maths and done Foundation Irish with little or no effort, imagine if I put some work in back then what I could get? I think there should be some lifestyle class in secondary school to plan your future and that type of stuff so students know to take the test seriously.

TallGlass

Midkemia wrote: »

Plenty of people looking down on high achievers in the leaving cert here. I'm sure if you compared those who got 500+ points to those who got less then a 100 points the 500ers will always be more successful on average.

I would never look down my nose at someone that gets 500/600 point or all A1s, personally I think it is absolutely excellent we as a country have young people as intelligent. But there is no reason we can't have this as the norm. If your begrudging someone doing well its quite shallow.

steddyeddy

jjC123 wrote: »

No, it doesn't make you academically gifted, but it gives students who are only average a chance to pursue academia. The highly intellectual students should be able to rote learn to a certain degree anyway if they want to make it into any high skill job, requiring a specific degree. Its in the nature of learning.
You can't make the system suit everyone, sometimes you just have to make yourself suit the system.

Actually at undergraduate level anyway the more intelligent students find rote learning harder.

Taco Chips

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually at undergraduate level anyway the more intelligent students find rote learning harder.

Any evidence/studies to back this up? In my experience the vast majority of guys who got on great in their LC got on great in university as well if they were interested in their course!

jjC123

TallGlass wrote: »

Its like learning to drive a car, we can read all day long about how it functions and how to drive it. But until your in control of it, all that reading means nothing. Experience is important. I am more a visual learner, explain some medical term to me show me a few pictures or a video hell even let me see it been done and I won't forget it. I failed maths, but yet in college I excelled in binary maths as I understood the logic clearly and its function, passed Biology with flying colours be it pass as I could relate to it, same with English, History, Geog and Wood. Irish I couldn't grasp as I never had a use for it or used it. I passed all my subjects bar Maths and done Foundation Irish with little or no effort, imagine if I put some work in back then what I could get? I think there should be some lifestyle class in secondary school to plan your future and that type of stuff so students know to take the test seriously.

I absolutely see where you're coming from but shouldn't students who, like yourself (my brother would be in the same category as you), learn through seeing and doing be able to pursue a different avenue than an 'academic' university course without it being seen as a lesser option. For example, in Germany, trade schools and apprenticeships in virtually every industry are available and are highly regarded. But you can't take away from the fact that medical students/science students/law students need to be able to look at a textbook and learn the information off by heart. It won't make them amazing workers, they need experience fro that but still, you don't give someone a provisional licence before they do the theory test.

Knasher

Taco Chips wrote: »

When you get to college you'll spend a lot of time rote learning too.

Varies by course perhaps, personally I found very little rote learning in my course. Perhaps that is simply because I have a passion for the subject and it didn't feel rote.

I don't know if the English system is better, but I am certain that I would have gotten a better result under it. Our system covers too many subjects, and theirs forces students to specialize at a younger age, it would have suited me as what I wanted to do was never a question, but I know that it would have actively worked against others.

All behind me now though.

jjC123

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually at undergraduate level anyway the more intelligent students find rote learning harder.

I've never seen any real evidence of this. I think it comes down to motivation, how you adapt to a new environment etc. More a personality thing, than an intelligence thing (in my opinion)

Taco Chips

Knasher wrote: »

Varies by course perhaps, personally I found very little rote learning in my course. Perhaps that is simply because I have a passion for the subject and it didn't feel rote.

I don't know if the English system is better, but I am certain that I would have gotten a better result under it. Our system covers too many subjects, and theirs forces students to specialize at a younger age, it would have suited me as what I wanted to do was never a question, but I know that it would have actively worked against others.

All behind me now though.

Well interesting enough in the UK they are beginning to row away from so much continuous assessment and soft "real world" problems on exams because standards were dropping so low. Now they are returning to the more robust exam formats that were in place before, just as Ireland is beginning to go the other way. Silly