The leaving cert a measure of intelligence or hard work?

steddyeddy

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

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

What intelligence does it take into account?

valoren

The really intelligent students realise that the exam itself is a memorisation/regurgitation marathon. They then plan this accordingly, the diligent one's as far back as 5th year. For example, preparing sample answers to exam questions.

They have the smarts to distunguish between those teachers who are exam-centric and those who are not. With the teachers who are not, they will source the required material in order to master the exam for that particular subject going so far as to attend grinds if necessary for areas not fully grasped. It is intelligent to understand your weaknesses and confront them.

The intelligent student studies marking schemes and understands how the exam papers are marked i.e. what it takes to get the marks for each area of the exam paper. For this they will even attend seminars to get the edge where they can.

In essence, it is playing the system, putting the effort in to generate the required material to get the marks, commiting that material to memory and having the endurance to vomit it out under pressure on exam day. All that in itself requires intelligence.

BrianBoru00

The LC is horrible because of all the pressures levelled by media and parents.
Is it a measure of intelligence ? YES.

BUT it does not measure all types of intelligence.

what about the intelligence to propel a small leather bound ball with a wooden stick between two upright posts 60 yards away (Thats hurling or the uninitiated) - We don't examine that.

It DOES take intelligence to come up with an imaginative solution to questions on your English paper.
It DOES take intelligence to work out angles based on given information in the Maths paper.
It DOES take intelligence to talk about Geographical features and how they've influenced to locality.

This Get rid of rote learning rubbish is over used.

Whatever someone is good at - its because of rote learning.
Henry Shefflin is a master at hurling because hes worked hard at it all his life.
Seamus Heaney was a master of the English language because he read and wrote millions of words throughout his life.
A farmer can tell when an animal is sick and how best to deal with it because hes been doing it all his life.

Over the past twenty years - huge strides have been made -leaving cert applied / Transition Year expansion / new Junior Cert subjects/YouthReach centres for "difficult" kids.

There is no perfect system but by and large, the leaving cert is fair.
I've friends who got 190 points or so (Thats 2 D3s in higher level papers and 2, 4 c2s in a pass paper) and went back in their late 20s and got a very good deree having worked first as an apprentice)

If parents and the media stopped putting the pressure on then there would be less pressure.

Vandango

Zillah wrote: »

Countless bright and creative people left behind because they were forced into a rigid system antithetical to their development for six years.

I completely agree.

Roquentin

its a test of memory. you learn something 20 times so you can write it our the 21st time in the exam. even maths is systematic in how you answer. you have to understand they have to make it a learning test because you have a time constraint of three hours. if it were an exam of creativity you simply would fail with that amount of pressure.

the other thing as well is that the LC isnt the only thing that a student is required to be good at. when you go to work, one must have great interpersonal skills. the LC and college are the only times you can work alone cause in the real world you are liaising with people daily

elefant

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

I think the point is that students who perform best in class over their 5 or 6 years of secondary education very strongly tend to score highest in their Leaving Certs. And I'm sure that students taking the test right now could very closely predict the eventual highest scorers from their classmates.

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the students considered the most academically capable (instead of intelligent, because that's a bit fuzzy) by their peers and teachers definitely tend to score highest in the leaving cert (of course, this perception of worth can also be an influencing factor).
In my experience, any student who received points totals that seemed below their academic capabilities got there through a lack of application, and not through the LC failing them.

valoren

I did Geography for the Leaving.
Our teacher was the worst teacher I had during school.
We covered literally nothing of the course work necessary to do well in the exam.
He was more interested in having people read from the course book for the class while he perused the daily papers. The only reason he wasn't sacked was because he was Mr Maths. He taught the higher Maths class and that kep him in the job.

Now wouldn't it take some social intelligence to understand from early on that I could not rely on him to do well in Geography? That I would need to get a fabulous book called Focus on Geography, devour it and get an A1?

If I didn't I would have scraped a D3 I'm sure by trusting the Geography teacher.

On the other hand there was the Accounting teacher, who essentially taught the course like one giant game of Sudoku, who never really explained the concepts of Accounting as far as I can recall. We just learned to trudge out the answers to exam questions like trained monkeys. It took the same type of intelligence to understand that while his method of 'teaching' was complete cack that the wise thing to do was to just trot out those answers like a trained seal as his record for exam results was second to none.

mariaalice

The best way to answer this is to look at the education of the 'brightest' in the world at the moment cutting edge cancer research, bio technology ect and see what their secondary education was like, did it consist of measuring other types of intelligence or was it your straight forward academic education that involved studying and applying yourself, I am not talking about their third level education you have to look at their secondary education because most of the time each level builds on each other level.

The second thing is higher level maths correlates to all sort of things in the education sphere including completing third level so therefore the sort of conceptual thing involved in higher level math must equate to the sort of intelligence required to do well in the world we have evolved today. If we lived in a different culture a different type of intelligence would be required, after all higher level math would possibly not be much use to a tribe living in Borno. We live in a world where maths and science are valued.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

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?

Its no different to undergrad though as you know yourself.

Almost every exam I sat in undergrad was mostly made up of exact questions or very similar questions from the previous number of years papers, that's how it worked in almost every course right up to final year.

I was setting an undergrad exam myself this year and like everyone else did the same picked out a mix of previous years and questions I'd given them in problem sheets. Do any different and fail people will only make hassle for yourself which I'm sure you know from working in a college.

Roquentin

valoren wrote: »

I did Geography for the Leaving.
Our teacher was the worst teacher I had during school.
We covered literally nothing of the course work necessary to do well in the exam.
He was more interested in having people read from the course book for the class while he perused the daily papers. The only reason he wasn't sacked was because he was Mr Maths. He taught the higher Maths class and that kep him in the job.

Now wouldn't it take some social intelligence to understand from early on that I could not rely on him to do well in Geography? That I would need to get a fabulous book called Focus on Geography, devour it and get an A1?

If I didn't I would have scraped a D3 I'm sure by trusting the Geography teacher.

a teacher doesnt learn it for you. you have to learn it yourself. i hear this excuse all the time. The teacher wasnt good etc. at the end of the day you study alone and that is where you learn. so one can always study in their private time even if the teacher is not directing them to.

mariaalice

My sister is a teacher and she says their is dumbing down gong and their is an expectation that every one can do well academically, their seem to be a refusal to accept that not everyone has the same level of ability no matter what teaching they get.

steddyeddy

Here's higher level leaving cert biology in relation to photosynthesis.

ENERGY FOR PHOTOSYNTHESIS

The energy needed for photosynthesis is obtained from sunlight (or artificial light). The green plant stores this energy in the form of ATP (Adenosine TriPhophate) and then uses the energy to carry out photosynthesis.


That to be fair to it is absolute bollox. Can anyone spot the mistake there? Apart from how brain numbingly dumbed down it is.

mikeym

Its a measure of how much crap you can remember.

challengemaster

Samaris wrote: »

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?

Unfortunately, as steddyeddy has pointed out, what's taught at LC level is either pure bollocks, or just so dumbed down that it's useless. I remember my first year Biology lectures. First thing that was said was "Forget everything you think you know, most of it is wrong"

That's the reason the entire maths syllabus was changed - too many people were arriving at 3rd level incapable of doing maths in a practical manner. They knew theorems off by heart, but couldn't apply their "knowledge" to anything.

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 points race is the problem here. If you put two people, one who knew what would come up and the other who had a better all-round understanding of a subject against each other in an exam - you know who would come out on top every time.

The fact that the LC (more specifically points) is seen as the deciding factor in what path your life will take means any attempt to create a well-rounded education goes out the window.

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.

Rote learning as a scientist is next to useless, as things can change on a daily basis. Being able to understand how/why something happens is much more useful, as is extracting new information from scientific literature.

However, many doctors require rote learning skills to function properly. They don't have the time to go looking things up. That's why they know the name/dose/function/etc of tens or hundreds of drugs off by heart - yet have no clue of the biological processes behind them. Needs must and all that.

I think the introduction of the HPAT for medicine applications is almost self-admission that the system is flawed. For years, medicine became the 600 club - but clearly you ended up with people who had no capability to process information, rational thought, or even have a personality.

Dughorm

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.

What subjects did you do that enabled you to achieve such high scores without really understanding it?

LadyFenghuang

For some it's both for some it's neither. Some people breeze through it others need to work at it. And many fiercely intelligent people don't do well in it.

You never know what else is going on in another person's life during it. It depends on your strengths weaknesses and support network. Do you have educated parents etc.

Also things like illness or mental illness (depression stress).

Some don't learn that way very well others do.

It is a measure that you should not judge anyone by.

I did just fine in my leaving by the way. I had to work at it. No I don't find it a good measure of how smart I am or how hard I worked. I did though. Meh...I wouldn't really even think anything either way if someone told me they hadn't.

I did the uni degree. Again I wouldn't even think it means more than I know about that topic.

Just a little Samba

Dughorm wrote: »

What subjects did you do that enabled you to achieve such high scores without really understanding it?

I did 9 and my aggregated score from my best 6 subjects was a shade over 500.

Irish, English, Math, History, Geography, Business, Spanish, Home Economics and Physics.

Dughorm

challengemaster wrote: »

That's the reason the entire maths syllabus was changed - too many people were arriving at 3rd level incapable of doing maths in a practical manner. They knew theorems off by heart, but couldn't apply their "knowledge" to anything. .

But why the whole process dumbed down? I had a flick through this year's paper 1 HL paper and was shocked at how easy it was compared to only a few years ago! It's like every part (c) question in the last syllabus has been done away with!

As someone who did the old honours maths course, I can tell you learning theorems wouldn't get you even a pass grade.

To see descriptive statistics and basic plotting of functions on graphs as questions on an honours maths paper was quite surprising to be honest! Where's the matrices and proper calculus, topics that anyone in an applied maths discipline will encounter in their college courses in their first year?

Dughorm

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I did 9 and my aggregated score from my best 6 subjects was a shade over 500.

Irish, English, Math, History, Geography, Business, Spanish, Home Economics and Physics.

Fair play - anyone who does 9 subjects is still pretty damn smart in my book!

How did you not fully understand the history, geography, business or home economics you were rote learning?!

medicine12345

challengemaster wrote: »

Unfortunately, as steddyeddy has pointed out, what's taught at LC level is either pure bollocks, or just so dumbed down that it's useless. I remember my first year Biology lectures. First thing that was said was "Forget everything you think you know, most of it is wrong"

That's the reason the entire maths syllabus was changed - too many people were arriving at 3rd level incapable of doing maths in a practical manner. They knew theorems off by heart, but couldn't apply their "knowledge" to anything.

The points race is the problem here. If you put two people, one who knew what would come up and the other who had a better all-round understanding of a subject against each other in an exam - you know who would come out on top every time.

The fact that the LC (more specifically points) is seen as the deciding factor in what path your life will take means any attempt to create a well-rounded education goes out the window.

Rote learning as a scientist is next to useless, as things can change on a daily basis. Being able to understand how/why something happens is much more useful, as is extracting new information from scientific literature.

However, many doctors require rote learning skills to function properly. They don't have the time to go looking things up. That's why they know the name/dose/function/etc of tens or hundreds of drugs off by heart - yet have no clue of the biological processes behind them. Needs must and all that.

I think the introduction of the HPAT for medicine applications is almost self-admission that the system is flawed. For years, medicine became the 600 club - but clearly you ended up with people who had no capability to process information, rational thought, or even have a personality.

Some ridiculous comments here
Why would someone who got 600 points have no capability to process information, rational thought or personality?? Do you think your leaving cert points are inversely correlated with these things? Can you explain how someone with 200 points would have better ability to process information, rational thought, etc to justify that statement

Just a little Samba

Dughorm wrote: »

Fair play - anyone who does 9 subjects is still pretty damn smart in my book!

How did you not fully understand the history, geography, business or home economics you were rote learning?!

History and Geography is knew what to write, I had essays prepared, everyone does. I didn't understand the context of the topics at all, but I could write the essays I'd memorised which cosponsored to whatever question came up in the paper.

Business ditto, I was just told "memorise this" and I did. Home ec is a little different as I could cook anyway so the practical was a piece of pish, but the written exam was just memorising things as well without even really thinking about it's context.

Roquentin

medicine12345 wrote: »

Some ridiculous comments here
Why would someone who got 600 points have no capability to process information, rational thought or personality?? Do you think your leaving cert points are inversely correlated with these things? Can you explain how someone with 200 points would have better ability to process information, rational thought, etc to justify that statement

i think the poster is trying to say that people can study too much and know everything about certain subjects, but fall down when it comes to their interpersonal skills, which is something i would agree with.

some people think that they can study five hours a night and life will be set up for them. Its not like that in real world because you are dealing with people. The LC teaches one how to solve third order differential equations and other stuff, but it doesnt teach you how to deal with other people, which is a vital part of life.

Now having said that its only some students that have this extreme narrow view. My doctor is very sociable as a person. but the social aspect of life is vital. One has to be able to almost seduce people daily. Most people grow up through life with an unconscious understanding of what is demanded, but some slip through the net and then when they go out to work in the real world, dealing with stress and all sorts of problems and find it hard.

i was reading recently how a school in england was banning homework (see link) and encouraging socializing because so many students were becoming so stressed out over exams that they were suffering from depression. at that young age one should be enjoying life IMO whilst also planning for the future. Knowing your subject matter is vital no question, but so is being able to handle the stress that daily existence carries with it. and all the study will count for nothing if you cant handle the stress of life.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0606/706273-homework-ban-depression/

jamesbere

What about teachers, I had a terrible physics teacher, learned more off the fella sitting next to me then him. He made little effort to help students. He taught me maths as well for the leaving cert but thankfully I was some way decent at maths.

If you have a poor teacher you lose interest in a subject I think.

Dughorm

Roquentin wrote: »

The LC teaches one how to solve third order differential equations and other stuff,

Not any more

And once the applied maths course is ruined the first and second order differential equations will go by the board as well :mad:

The Diabolical Monocle

they stuck me in a crowded room headed by a public servant who was getting paid in any case, and surrounded me with guys a foot and a half bigger who wanted to kick my ass, and teen school girls at a time in my life of countless boners, Im just lucky to have not come out permanently damaged 333.333.333. they're all meat and bone.

Grayson

Dughorm wrote: »

Fair play - anyone who does 9 subjects is still pretty damn smart in my book!

How did you not fully understand the history, geography, business or home economics you were rote learning?!

I would have said they were the easiest to rote learn. I did history and although I had a passion for it, it is rote learning. Pick an era and then pick your topics. Write out essays. Summarise them and memorise the summaries.

It's harder, although still possible to do it in maths and physics.

I had a friend who did science in college with me. In second year she did out every single previous maths paper multiple times. Then she memorised every question. The reason she did this was because she struggled at maths (although she excelled at biology and chemistry). So she memorised every single question. She knew exactly what to do when a question came up although she didn't actually understand what she was doing.

She gave up maths after second year and is now lecturing biology in a very large university in Dublin

spurious

Taco Chips wrote: »

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

That is how the Irish education system works. We ape Britain, but too late, taking up things just as they are dropping them.

AdamD

By and large I think it shows where people are at. Of course everybody knows that 500+ points person who isn't that bright and somebody who got low points who is but on average its a reasonable indicator of intelligence.

Polka_Dot

steddyeddy wrote: »

Here's higher level leaving cert biology in relation to photosynthesis.

ENERGY FOR PHOTOSYNTHESIS

The energy needed for photosynthesis is obtained from sunlight (or artificial light). The green plant stores this energy in the form of ATP (Adenosine TriPhophate) and then uses the energy to carry out photosynthesis.


That to be fair to it is absolute bollox. Can anyone spot the mistake there? Apart from how brain numbingly dumbed down it is.

Is it that energy is stored as ADP and not ATP? (biochemistry isn't my forte)

LadyFenghuang

Polka_Dot wrote: »

Is it that energy is stored as ADP and not ATP? (biochemistry isn't my forte)

Converted from ADP to ATP phosphorylation..then back to ADP its a cycle think of it like that stored as ATP energy released from converting ATP to ADP