The leaving cert a measure of intelligence or hard work?

TallGlass

jjC123 wrote: »

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.

I agree with the medical stuff as new medicines or changes are happening nearly all the time. I do like reading, once I feel it serves a purpose I am self studying for the CCNA so a lot of learning stuff of commands and concepts etc.. So I guess its in all exams so best not to soften exams to much. As I said it was a different time back then but I can study in my own and am good at it but I am stronger at visual learning. There's a concept called mind mapping, mapping visual references to text references works quite well.

I suppose if I was to go back and do my LC I would use more than one source of information, more visual, videos, audio etc.. Then the typical book information.

_Whimsical_

I think it's a measure of the skills that are necessary for an academic future, no one who gets over 500 points let's say will be objectively unintelligent or the sort of person who is unwilling to put in some degree of conscientious effort into their work.

However people who get poor grades do so for many reasons and not being intelligent enough for the material they're confronted with is rarely top of that list. Having a crappy home life that year, having a really bad teacher or being in a bad class/school, not having the maturity to apply yourself, lack of encouragement in home and peer group are only a few factors that can scupper you.

The leaving cert and academic intelligence are definitely not a measure of likelihood to succeed in life though, there are so many other more important types of intelligence that determine that I think.

Just a little Samba

I got over 500 points in my LC, not because I'm particularly smart or because I knew the curriculum inside out, but because I had teachers who were able to guess with astounding accuracy which topics would come up in the usual suspect subjects. I also learned to retain masses of information which I could regurgitate at will when needed without really understanding it.
The LC is a massively flawed system and I'm extremely grateful that my undergraduate degree had a lot of continuous assessment instead of bull**** rote learning because I was actually forced to understand the data I retained. instead of just being able to recall it I had to critically discuss it, defend positions, argue against others and actually show awareness of the subjects.

diomed

The man said you need to hire people with intelligence, drive, and honesty. Two out of three and you have trouble.
If we had a test for honesty our economy would not have tanked. Instead we got dishonest people who went along with *Groupthink because that was where they got their money.
The Leaving Cert proves the people with the points had a combination of intelligence and drive.

* also called brown-nosing

_Whimsical_

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I got over 500 points in my LC, not because I'm particularly smart or because I knew the curriculum inside out, but because I had teachers who were able to guess with astounding accuracy which topics would come up in the usual suspect subjects. I also learned to retain masses of information which I could regurgitate at will when needed without really understanding it.
The LC is a massively flawed system and I'm extremely grateful that my undergraduate degree had a lot of continuous assessment instead of bull**** rote learning because I was actually forced to understand the data I retained. instead of just being able to recall it I had to critically discuss it, defend positions, argue against others and actually show awareness of the subjects.

If you were able to understand the information and process it successfully than maybe you are academic as reflected in your LC results?

I totally agree with you though that having a really good school makes a massive difference and pretty much anyone in that environment will succeed. If you have someone telling you where to prioritise your learning every step and creating an environment where you're encouraged to get good results that makes a massive difference.

Just a little Samba

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

If you were able to understand the information and process it successfully than maybe you are academic as reflected in your LC results?

I totally agree with you though that having a really good school makes a massive difference and pretty much anyone in that environment will succeed. If you have someone telling you where to prioritise your learning every step and creating an environment where you're encouraged to get good results that makes a massive difference.

I didn't understand it though. I hadn't a notion what I was doing in physics but I could spew retained information on a page. I'd no interest in geography but I knew what I needed to write, more or less, before going into the exam. I can't speak a word of Irish but I remembered audio queues to respond to with the right string of syllables in the oral exam to get good grades.

In my undergraduate I struggled in first and second year to hold a 2.2 and had to break my balls to get a first through going to extra classes, never missing tutorials and labs, attending first year lectures again to try understand stuff better. I thought I could use the rote learning tricks from LC in university but that was actually what held my grades back. There was no depth to my writing or analyses of topics and it's was painfully obvious to my lecturers.

FreaksAndGeeks

Its more of a memory test at this stage especially with subjects with Geography History etc.
But subejcts like Maths and English take certain talent and natural flair to get very high grades.

After going to third level this year i was expecting a fully different learning experience and testing experience where i would have to actually learn the fundamentals and build up from there and not regurgitate information but found it pretty much exactly the same.

But testing like this along with continuous assessment is the best option we have for assessing people's ability to learn whats being taught.

delaad

Regardless of whether it is a test of intelligence or hard work, the Leaving Cert is examined on the basis that intelligence is normally distributed throughout the population in any year, meaning that intelligence levels dont change from year to year, so the same percentage, give or take, will achieve the various grades in any year. Marking Schemes will be adjusted to produce the predetermined spread of grades, year on year.

Xenji

Its a memory test, a person could get 600 points, but ask them 10 general knowledge questions and see how they do, its not what you know, its what you have been told to know.

_Whimsical_

Xenji wrote: »

Its a memory test, a person Coul either.. 600 points, but ask them 10 general knowledge questions and see how they do, its not what you know, improbably bbc s what you have been told to know.

General knowledge isn't really a test of intelligence either. By the time you get 600 points to be honest you can nearly speak two languages other than English, have probably mastered some dense enough English literature, know the fundamentals ofa science subject very well and yes have probably learned a lot of history and geography off by heart . To say it doesn't require definite intelligence to all of that to a 90% accuracy is just not logical. And yes you can get lucky on the day and have a question you learned off come up but that definitely doesn't happen for everyone. It definitely doesn't happen across the board in every subject.

The idea that memorising isn't an important part of education isn't true either. You really can't do anything in so many fields without learning the basics off by heart so you can then apply them at a later date to problems. The is no way around some rote learning abd basic memorising for everything from law to science.

Robsweezie

I think from an employers point of view (not an employer myself) the leaving cert on the CV is a measure of commitment and dedication, that you lasted the whole course of your education and stuck it out despite maybe wanting to leave or having difficulties. I think the lack of a Leaving Cert on the CV is a red flag to employers that perhaps you're a 'quitter'. which is why at least an LC is a requirement for a lot of employers when applying.

to answer the question, no, it's not a measure of intelligence or hard work, maybe academically, but not true to someone's character. You could have a hard working forklift driver who works overtime, never takes sick days or holidays, but was useless at school and barely lifted a finger. the education system just disillusions some people. I feel its dominated by memory retention and rote learning. success in this area means the part of your brain responsible for memory is working to an excellent standard, and im sure these individuals are intelligent too

Overheal

At the end of the day, it's a standardized test, which always lend themselves to this whole concept of just teaching students what they need to know to pass it.

Its actually bizarre in retrospect: accessing past tests is an honor code violation at my University, yet back when I took the Leaving Cert you could go into the bookshop and get a published copy of past tests. People are making money off that. 2 different worlds.

Test questions at the University aren't standardized though I suppose that depends on the specific college (Engineering and Science for example); instead, there is an accreditation system where auditing bodies like ABET verify the competencies are being correctly taught and tested. You take 4-5 courses a semester (Sep - Dec; Jan - May; etc) and each has multiple tests, usually 60-75% continuous assessment with a final making up 35-40% of your grade; some syllabi drop your lowest test score, others allow you to shift your exam weights (eg. weigh the final at 30% or 40% in your favor). If you need to retake a course, they usually cycle every semester, including summer minimesters.

In contrast, the LC is your assessment of 2 full years of education in a subject (4 semesters), is usually 3 or 6 hours long, and is 100% of your grade. If you fail or need to retake, you have to wait 12 full months.

Yeah, having experienced both systems, one is largely more ****ed up than the other and usually involves a higher rate of teen suicide.

Minderbinder

FreaksAndGeeks wrote: »

Its more of a memory test at this stage especially with subjects with Geography History etc.
But subejcts like Maths and English take certain talent and natural flair to get very high grades.

I don't know about English. My one gripe with the leaving cert was the English exam. I had a natural flair for writing stories. Every week my story was read out in class and it felt great. But in the exam I found it impossible to get into a creative mindset and ended up with a C. A friend of mine who is a poor speller and has no imagination by his own admission got an A because he learned off everything. I'm still pissed off about that.

There needs to be ongoing assessment over the course of the two years in my opinion. If subjects like art take into account the work of two years, then English should be the same.

Hulk Hands

I generally found the people who worked their ass off memorizing and studying etc were ahead at mocks time and expected to do well, but generally the lazier and more naturally gifted people found their way of catching up. People who treat it as a memory test, or are told to do so, go about it completely the wrong way.

There are certain parts of the LC that are memory tests, however they are also the parts that everyone focuses all their energy on. The seen poetry for example for Honors English (Kavanagh etc). I recently got a shocked response from a parent when I told their child to forget about this section altogether, and scribble something together on it if they have time at the end. My reasoning being that students spend about 50% of their time (and teachers with the curriculum) studying this section, which is worth about 5% of the total English grade. It'll be really well answered with little chance to make up marks on other students, whereas most students will spend no time studying things like writing techniques for the unseen stories which are worth about 4 times more marks than the poetry. The whole thing is marked on a curve, so making up marks where others wont should be one of the main objectives.

Anyone who isnt a complete natural at Maths or doesnt essentially need it for the course they want, shouldn't be doing Higher level Maths. It takes up far far too much study time. Drop it and spend about 1/5th of that time studying an easy subject that goes into little depth like Economics and easily achieve the high grade in that, that you would slave to achieve in Maths, and leaving you with far more time and much less stress/worrying. It's reasons like this that the Maths thing certainly needs a big reform. All in all though the LC does reward people who think outside the box and tactically, which can only be a good thing.

gramar

I read this headline the other day....

Leaving Cert: 'Very student friendly' Irish papers kick off another exam day'

If they weren't friendly to students then who in the name of jaysus would they be friendly to?

As for the intellgence/hard work debate: The leaving is mostly about hard work and being intelligent enough to know that hard work is what it takes.

Alf Veedersane

Your results in the LC are largely a measure of how good you are at the LC.

Some people get by by learning massive amounts of stuff and pouring it onto the pages in the exam without really knowing what they were doing.

Others can do well by understanding what they are doing without having to spend copious amounts of time memorising stuff their teachers have given them.

I wanted to do really well but I didn't want to spend lots of time doing it.

I don't know to what degree it has changes in the intervening years but I don't think it's a straightforward answer like saying it's a measure of either hard work or intelligence.

Some people do well/well enough through hard work. Some through intelligence. Some through a little from column A and a little from column B.

Samaris

I do think it's problematic that Science undergraduate courses in uni now seem to need a "foundation year" to teach all the maths, chemistry, biology and physics that should have been taught in school. And it's desperately needed. So what exactly are we coming out of school with?

I don't agree with being taught to an exam. It's useful in some regards - jobs often require numerical/logical online tests that see how you deal with working under time constraints, so yes, there's no harm in some testing of how you do under pressure. But learning towards an exam, or working out what's going to come up and making your gamble on that...is that really useful?

The current generation is not a generation of rote-learners; our society no longer really values rote-learning. What is more important for us is to know how to access the information, distill the parts needed quickly and efficiently, and apply them to the problem at hand. For better or worse, that's how the world is evolving. I don't, of course, believe that we should eliminate rote-learning entirely, but we shouldn't stratify our society on who has the best short-term cramming memory.

For science subjects, I believe it is far more important to show, don't tell. In university, every science course should include a year in industry. Learn how to use knowledge in a practical way.

And for heaven's sake, include practicalities in school too! Civics should not just be about how the president is elected, it should include how to look up the information needed for voting in referendums, why it's important to vote, how to deal with bills, how to register for a medical card, how to get health insurance. How a mortgage works! Practical things that people need getting out of school!

gramar

Samaris wrote: »

And for heaven's sake, include practicalities in school too! Civics should not just be about how the president is elected, it should include how to look up the information needed for voting in referendums, why it's important to vote, how to deal with bills, how to register for a medical card, how to get health insurance. How a mortgage works! Practical things that people need getting out of school!

I certainly agree with the last part. People really need to learn about managing personal issues such as finance and health etc

elefant

I've said on here before and I'll say it again: all the students I would consider to have been the most intelligent in my final year in secondary school got, almost without exception (I can't think of any anyway), the most points in our year in the Leaving Cert.

For me that's the biggest vindication of the examinations. Regardless of how they got there- whether it was hard-work, memory, talent or a mixture of those- the best students did get there, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case in most schools. I've rarely been very surprised on hearing how well/poorly someone did in their Leaving.

smash

Saw something on TV there a while ago where the guy who got 900 points was interviewed. He was great at memorisation for the exams but after the LC he didn't have a clue what do to with his life and he isn't in a lucrative career. There's plenty of articles to show how under achievers in school can become more successful than over achievers, what the country needs to do a lot more is to help students develop the skills and interests they actually have in order to help them become successful and gain a career from it.

Balmed Out

There are lots of different aspects to intelligence some are tested by it others not.

What I cant understand is why arent students allowed to bring in notes, books, laptops with internet access etc...

Surely in this day and age its more important to know where to access accurate information quickly then to simply memorize everything. The student with little knowledge wont get any advantage as they would waste too much time looking things up so it wouldnt dumb anything down.

CruelCoin

steddyeddy wrote: »

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?

No.

Memory is only one part of what makes up intelligence. Mathmathical reasoning, spatial reasoning, memory, verbal reasoning, etc all combine to make up intelligence.

The first year of pretty much every college course available is spent breaking down kids bad habits from the leaving cert (rote learning, cram and regurgitate, etc).

The leaving cert does little to encourage origional/logical thought.

moycullen14

The LC is just a gateway. It doesn't really measure intelligence or predict success.

In my work (construction), I've come across lots of successful and not so successful people in all fields: Law, Accountancy, Contractors, Builders, Developers, subbies, etc.

Success - if it can be classified - seems to be determined by the ability to get things done, get others to do things for you (get your own way) and a clarity of vision. Maybe these are related to academic success but it's not a direct link.

One thing academic success does give you is a freedom to choose. It won't determine 'success' or failure but it will determine what you succeed/fail at.

That's what drives the points race. It's not about success, it's about failure. A crap Doctor/Lawyer will ALWAYS do much better than a crap bricklayer. It's not so clear when you're dealing with successful ones.

galwaylad14

Despite some flaws I would agree with the poster that said that the most intelligent students tend to do the best in the leaving cert in my experience of it. Through a combination of their intelligence, hard work and diligence. What's wrong with that?

I hate the argument about how it doesn't prepare people for college etc. college exams are exactly the same and I've an undergrad and a masters done at this stage.

For leaving cert and college exams you just basically work out the most likely questions/topics that will come up, put loads of work into preparing for these and then do a bit on a couple of less likely topics to cover yourself in case the paper isn't as it has been predicted.

College has a lot of continuous assessment too but in my experience this is often a bit of a joke in reality as we basically all copied a lot of the stuff off each other anyway and just messed around with it a bit to make it look different.

But again, it was usually the most intelligent and hard working students that did the best.

In short, both leaving cert exams and college exams have their flaws but they are basically the same and despite these flaws I still think they reward the best and most hard working students.

fin709

Personally I think many are becoming too obsessed with the obviously flawed leaving cert system and are ignoring the fact that the terrible standard of teachers, especially irish teachers is the downfall of many of our students

steddyeddy

The most intelligent person I know barely passed foundation maths in school. He's entered engineering via the mature student route and has excelled. There's another person who got six As in his leaving and 6 As in his undergraduate. However when he went to do his PhD he left with no publications and wasn't suited to thinking for himself.

He had no ability to form opinions on things other than what he read. He could just read, remember and regurgitate information. That's not intelligence.

The Dark Side

CruelCoin wrote: »

The first year of pretty much every college course available is spent breaking down kids bad habits from the leaving cert (rote learning, cram and regurgitate, etc).

No it's not.


Have you even been to college?

steddyeddy

In science it most definitely is Darkside. They rote learn information so dumbed down that it's basically wrong. Compare photosynthesis in leaving cert vs the actual thing.

steddyeddy

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Despite some flaws I would agree with the poster that said that the most intelligent students tend to do the best in the leaving cert in my experience of it. Through a combination of their intelligence, hard work and diligence. What's wrong with that?

I hate the argument about how it doesn't prepare people for college etc. college exams are exactly the same and I've an undergrad and a masters done at this stage.

For leaving cert and college exams you just basically work out the most likely questions/topics that will come up, put loads of work into preparing for these and then do a bit on a couple of less likely topics to cover yourself in case the paper isn't as it has been predicted.

College has a lot of continuous assessment too but in my experience this is often a bit of a joke in reality as we basically all copied a lot of the stuff off each other anyway and just messed around with it a bit to make it look different.

But again, it was usually the most intelligent and hard working students that did the best.

In short, both leaving cert exams and college exams have their flaws but they are basically the same and despite these flaws I still think they reward the best and most hard working students.

But you're basing that on a circular argument. I.e the most intelligent students get 600 points in the leaving therefore the leaving cert is a good test of intelligence.

byhookorbycrook

The LC does not take into account other forms of intelligence.