The leaving cert a measure of intelligence or hard work?

Peregrine

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.

Ehh..biology wasn't my favourite science, I found it taxing but if ATP (Phophate??) is created from photosynthesis then should it not be used in respiration to release energy?

Or am I oversimplifying it?

Moyo

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 agree with everything you just said here

Samaris

My own experience, coming on ten years ago now.

I aced my eight subjects in the pre-exams. I collapsed in the actual LC. My scores were abysmal, particularly English - English! My best subject! I barely scraped around the 300 mark, and was very fortunate to get into the course of my choice, where I eventually graduated through a hell of a lot of hard work and despite a run of appalling luck with illness, with a First Hons BSc.

Now, during the first year, in my course, there was a -massive- drop out rate in the first year. First Year is basically a catch-up year for the "hard sciences" - chemistry, physics, biology (*cough*), pure Maths, etc. And it has a huge drop out rate. I don't know specifically what it was for my year, but a couple of years before it was 75%. That is demented.

Alright, so why is this happening?

Firstly, I think that Maths, Chem, Bio (to a lesser extent) and Physics -cannot- be taught to an exam. You know it or you don't. The traps of teaching it to an exam are cramming formulae and only having a very hazy idea of how to apply them. Fortunately, the SAME DAMN QUESTIONS are asked!

At best, they should be taught in a way that you have to apply it practically in some way or another. At medium, if you're going to have exams on particular topics, KEEP asking the older questions too. Make sure that students are remembering them for longer than a month. Maths is not just a series of unrelated sections and it cannot be taught that way successfully.

I'm not going to even get into the subject of teaching languages to an exam, else I might actually cry with rage.

Secondly, this idea of university being the first route once you get out of school and anything else being for dumb people has to stop. Not everyone is suited for academia and that is perfectly normal. It does NOT mean that academics are "better". Have you tried to get a decent plumber? Also, degrees are now next to worthless. Everyone has one and marking systems are being dumbed down to ensure a good proportion of people pass rather than people being brought up to the standard of passing. You are absolutely not guaranteed a job or career from a degree, and you are on dodgy ground with a Masters as well. Technical schools, practical jobs need to be lauded, not looked down on. And please update the damned FETAC courses too. I did a course in Computers a few years back and it was stone-age stuff. Tell me please how being able to send a fax and understand Windows XP will get me anywhere when computers are now 10+ years from XP?

/rant, before this turns into even more of an essay.

xLisaBx

Am I one of the few people who believe the leaving cert is fair? I sat mine last year, and due to personal circumstances couldn't study that much. I found the exams relatively easy and scored well over 500 points. This was required for my course.
I enjoyed some subjects, not all. However everyone seems to be complaining about the whole grade being decided on one exam, bar orals and practicals. This suits lots of people. They were the subjects I got A1s in. Then ones with orals/projects were more A2s or the odd B1.
I just think the fact that I got my course with minimal effort shows that the papers are designed to have something for everyone and that a lot of the material is quite easy.

anncoates

Your take on it generally depends on how you do. If you do well, it's down to intelligence. If you completely bomb it, it's a ridiculous and unfair memory test for automatons.

Samaris

anncoates wrote: »

Your take on it generally depends on how you do. If you do well, it's down to intelligence. If you completely bomb it, it's a ridiculous and unfair memory test for automatons.

Not true. I aced my prees and I generally do rather well in exams. I still don't agree that this is the best way of learning. Continuous assessment and practical work is far more ..well, practical, than memorization and regurgitation. Memorisation and regurgitation is absolutely built to have people cramming specific facts and trying to play the exam with just having esoteric bits of information that they think they'll need, rather than truly understanding what, why and how that goes on around it.

It's like teaching UK history (for example) by reign, as used to happen. A political movement or a social movement that ultimately shapes the modern day may stretch over several reigns, and is ultimately more important than whose head was on the coin.


To succeed in exams, you need to be good at taking exams. To succeed after the exams and university is done requires fully and deeply understanding your subject.

Dempsey

I think its more a measure of hard work and rote learning tbh and will give you access to more 'prestigious' Universities & Colleges earlier in life but thats all it will do for you.

I got 210 points in my leaving certificate, failed 2 subjects (didnt try my hardest tbh), but I still went to college on a course I wanted to do and in the end I've 2.1 in a Masters Degree in Engineering. Identifying what you want to do with your life is more important than leaving certificate points

KomradeBishop

Zillah wrote: »

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.

Good points - I learned more useful abilities screwing around with games in my secondary school years, than I did with school itself (taught myself programming - and had started getting work in it before even leaving school, which I'm still at now), though school did give me a useful interest in a wide variety of topics - it was just useless itself at promoting those interests.

I think that if school doesn't work out for a person socially, it can really fúck things up for them academically, socially and professionally down the line - it's a cookie-cutter type system, where if it doesn't suit you or something goes wrong for you during those years (years which are an extremely important period of self development), then you can be setback in quite a big way, through no fault of your own, and with little-to-no aid thereafter.


Rote learning is an utter waste of time and the perfect way to kill dead, any persons desire to learn or foster an interest in a topic - indeed it's often likely to foster a hatred of the topic, as can be seen by teaching of the Irish language.

Learning how to think for yourself, how to teach yourself, and how to develop and foster your own interests (rather than having those interests killed-off/discouraged by dysfunctional teaching methods), is a far greater and more useful skill.


I think also, that the problems with the education system and methods of teaching, also reflect many of the problems with the wider job sector as well: Teaching/studying shouldn't be a rote/dreary experience for anyone, where they have to learn to fit a particular role, and neither should work/jobs be either - everyone deserves personally fulfilling education, and personally fulfilling work (or absent that: high pay, since not all necessary jobs can be fulfilling), and there are practical reforms in both areas, that can help make this happen.

steddyeddy

There's a reason I started this thread. I'm involved with biochemistry in UCD. We had a huge surge in the amount of people wanting to do science over the last few years. This could be due to the fact that science is generally good for jobs. This has resulted in the entry points for science increasing to 500.

Hypothesis: If leaving cert points correlate positively with intelligence we should see an increase in test scores from when science entry was approximately 300 points.

Results: We don't. In fact students are getting worse at problem solving.

As Nox said there is a huge amount of rote learning at undergraduate level. Where the real test in science comes is when you do your fourth year project.

This is a three month project that you conduct under an academic supervisor/scientist and his PhDs (me). You will have a general goal and a set of aims with a fairly good idea of what tools to use.

My supervisor is a real scientist. He throws people into the deep end and gets them to design their own experiments. Science doesn't always go to plan and some people can't handle being told exactly what to do. One girl who was on a first had a breakdown in the lab because we wouldn't show her exactly what to do next. There was no manual for it since was she was trying to do hadn't been done yet.

So I think rote learning is not the way to go. I don't think it gives transferable skills.

Canard

Really though, no matter how you spin it, the LC is more than rote learning -- languages/maths/English for example. And how else could you even teach something like geography? It is what it is.

It's fine to complain about the detrimental effects it has on science, but honestly, with languages for example while you should never ever ever rote learn or learn to an exam, you need to have a good memory for verbs, words and general rules. Even the skills I learned while rote learning geography stand to me when I need to memorize a lot of new words or anything in general. The problems with other subjects would probably need to be addressed in another way.

AdamD

Samaris wrote: »

My own experience, coming on ten years ago now.

I aced my eight subjects in the pre-exams. I collapsed in the actual LC. My scores were abysmal, particularly English - English! My best subject! I barely scraped around the 300 mark, and was very fortunate to get into the course of my choice, where I eventually graduated through a hell of a lot of hard work and despite a run of appalling luck with illness, with a First Hons BSc.

Now, during the first year, in my course, there was a -massive- drop out rate in the first year. First Year is basically a catch-up year for the "hard sciences" - chemistry, physics, biology (*cough*), pure Maths, etc. And it has a huge drop out rate. I don't know specifically what it was for my year, but a couple of years before it was 75%. That is demented.

Alright, so why is this happening?

Firstly, I think that Maths, Chem, Bio (to a lesser extent) and Physics -cannot- be taught to an exam. You know it or you don't. The traps of teaching it to an exam are cramming formulae and only having a very hazy idea of how to apply them. Fortunately, the SAME DAMN QUESTIONS are asked!

At best, they should be taught in a way that you have to apply it practically in some way or another. At medium, if you're going to have exams on particular topics, KEEP asking the older questions too. Make sure that students are remembering them for longer than a month. Maths is not just a series of unrelated sections and it cannot be taught that way successfully.

I'm not going to even get into the subject of teaching languages to an exam, else I might actually cry with rage.

Secondly, this idea of university being the first route once you get out of school and anything else being for dumb people has to stop. Not everyone is suited for academia and that is perfectly normal. It does NOT mean that academics are "better". Have you tried to get a decent plumber? Also, degrees are now next to worthless. Everyone has one and marking systems are being dumbed down to ensure a good proportion of people pass rather than people being brought up to the standard of passing. You are absolutely not guaranteed a job or career from a degree, and you are on dodgy ground with a Masters as well. Technical schools, practical jobs need to be lauded, not looked down on. And please update the damned FETAC courses too. I did a course in Computers a few years back and it was stone-age stuff. Tell me please how being able to send a fax and understand Windows XP will get me anywhere when computers are now 10+ years from XP?

/rant, before this turns into even more of an essay.

Degrees aren't next to worthless...you only ever hear this from people with crap degrees

Samaris

AdamD wrote: »

Degrees aren't next to worthless...you only ever hear this from people with crap degrees

I have a BSc First Class Hons in Environmental Science, which, no matter how you look at it, is actually a pretty decent and relevant degree. In the time I was job-hunting, any academic routes REQUIRED a Masters to put you at all over the crowd. Even lecturers and careers people told me as much - the competition is fierce and it only got the more so during the recession. Now that we're coming out of it, there's five, six years of graduates still coming up behind those that graduated at the start, and still only a limited number of jobs.

Your comment is clever and pithy, but in my experience, not quite true.

coffee_cake

Canard wrote: »

Really though, no matter how you spin it, the LC is more than rote learning -- languages/maths/English for example. And how else could you even teach something like geography? It is what it is.

It's fine to complain about the detrimental effects it has on science, but honestly, with languages for example while you should never ever ever rote learn or learn to an exam, you need to have a good memory for verbs, words and general rules. Even the skills I learned while rote learning geography stand to me when I need to memorize a lot of new words or anything in general. The problems with other subjects would probably need to be addressed in another way.

I think the LC is what you make it.
If you decide that you absolutely have to learn off essays, you can't then turn around and complain that's what the exam is about. It's what you (hypothetical person) did. I don't think anyone in my english class learned off essays, the teacher didn't like the idea. I was pretty taken aback when I first heard about it on boards.
Our physics teacher kept refusing to let us take stuff down verbatim and insisted we understand it first then write it down in our own words.
French sure you need to learn off some of your verbs - there's no way around some rote learning. Practice and reading and writing is what we did for the rest.
Maths and applied maths is practice, practice, practice.
I didn't do history or geography now, so I can't speak for those

Course, maybe there are teachers out there who only teach it as rote learning ... and if that's the case it's them I would be looking at rather than the exam itself

AdamD

Samaris wrote: »

I have a BSc First Class Hons in Environmental Science, which, no matter how you look at it, is actually a pretty decent and relevant degree. In the time I was job-hunting, any academic routes REQUIRED a Masters to put you at all over the crowd. Even lecturers and careers people told me as much - the competition is fierce and it only got the more so during the recession. Now that we're coming out of it, there's five, six years of graduates still coming up behind those that graduated at the start, and still only a limited number of jobs.

Your comment is clever and pithy, but in my experience, not quite true.

That doesn't make it worthless. It just means that in the very particular route of going into academia you required a masters along with your degree. Its nonsense to dismiss degrees as worthless because you needed more in your specific scenario.

steddyeddy

Canard wrote: »

Really though, no matter how you spin it, the LC is more than rote learning -- languages/maths/English for example. And how else could you even teach something like geography? It is what it is.

It's fine to complain about the detrimental effects it has on science, but honestly, with languages for example while you should never ever ever rote learn or learn to an exam, you need to have a good memory for verbs, words and general rules. Even the skills I learned while rote learning geography stand to me when I need to memorize a lot of new words or anything in general. The problems with other subjects would probably need to be addressed in another way.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to learn off facts. I'm saying fact learning isn't a sign of intelligence. I also think languages are thought completely wrong.

Iwasfrozen

The LC is not a measure of intelligence but it is a measure of hard work and those who work hard in the LC tend to work hard in uni and real life too.

Not always mind but tend to.

Samaris

AdamD wrote: »

That doesn't make it worthless. It just means that in the very particular route of going into academia you required a masters along with your degree. Its nonsense to dismiss degrees as worthless because you needed more in your specific scenario.

Hm, alright, I'll explain what I mean more thoroughly.

In times gone yon, a BSc was considered to be a rare thing, and someone holding one was given preference when it came to employment - it was very valuable.

In 2011, 48%, a hair under one in two people hold an undergraduate degree. That is an astounding number, and the highest in Europe and one of the highest in the OECD. On top of that, 20% of young Irish people hold a Masters. That is also a fairly astonishing number. Can you see where I'd be coming from in that an undergraduate degree, in a tight economy and with a saturation of fellow graduates (including a several year backlog), just isn't such a useful thing anymore on its own?

Many many jobs I looked at and/or applied to required not just a graduate degree, and often not just a masters degree at minimum, but ALSO 2 years minimum experience. For a graduate. You know, those innocent little college-leavers that don't have experience? Most annoying, that. The graduate catch-22. That's a little off my point though.

This chap explains much of what I'm getting at rather well though:
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/devaluing-of-third-level-education-1845296-Dec2014/

I termed it rather flippantly with "worthless", true, but it's a problem many people face.

steddyeddy

Depending on the course masters are complete BS. Some of them are simply money making schemes for the college.

steddyeddy

Samaris wrote: »

Hm, alright, I'll explain what I mean more thoroughly.

In times gone yon, a BSc was considered to be a rare thing, and someone holding one was given preference when it came to employment - it was very valuable.

In 2011, 48%, a hair under one in two people hold an undergraduate degree. That is an astounding number, and the highest in Europe and one of the highest in the OECD. On top of that, 20% of young Irish people hold a Masters. That is also a fairly astonishing number. Can you see where I'd be coming from in that an undergraduate degree, in a tight economy and with a saturation of fellow graduates (including a several year backlog), just isn't such a useful thing anymore on its own?

Many many jobs I looked at and/or applied to required not just a graduate degree, and often not just a masters degree at minimum, but ALSO 2 years minimum experience. For a graduate. You know, those innocent little college-leavers that don't have experience? Most annoying, that. The graduate catch-22. That's a little off my point though.

This chap explains much of what I'm getting at rather well though:
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/devaluing-of-third-level-education-1845296-Dec2014/

I termed it rather flippantly with "worthless", true, but it's a problem many people face.

Hey dude/dudette is it a PhD you're looking to do?

Samaris

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hey dude/dudette is it a PhD you're looking to do?

Eventually, I would like to do a PhD, yeah, but I want a good solid few years under my belt in the workplace first, practical RL experience before I retreat to the ivory tower again :P. Also need to pay off my MSc first too. But someday!

Canard

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to learn off facts. I'm saying fact learning isn't a sign of intelligence. I also think languages are thought completely wrong.

I agree, it isn't necessarily, but how you consolidate and break down those facts can be. As bluewolf said, learning off entire English essays is ridiculous (I don't know how people could actually manage to do that), whereas someone who can break it down into an easy to remember abbreviation, keywords etc is clearly being more efficient and smart about it.

As for languages, again it depends. I think Irish is for sure, and I had one teacher who literally made us rote learn entire pages by making us read them every night and getting a sheet signed to say we'd done so -- shameful on her part. That said, my LC teacher taught us the cases and grammar, and the European languages are about as well taught as they could be in my opinion, though I think the roleplays and picture sequences are a bit iffy. They do give you "real world" practice though. No system is perfect, but I quite like the European languages system, especially now that they're making the questions more narrow.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not saying you shouldn't have to learn off facts. I'm saying fact learning isn't a sign of intelligence.

Read any neurological view of learning from those in that field and you will find that learning facts is the critical and foundational. Daniel Willingham, Daisy Christodolou and many many more current educational researchers all argue against your hypothesis steddy.

steddyeddy

Samaris wrote: »

Eventually, I would like to do a PhD, yeah, but I want a good solid few years under my belt in the workplace first, practical RL experience before I retreat to the ivory tower again :P. Also need to pay off my MSc first too. But someday!

A lot of PhD applications say a masters is an advantage but apply anyway! Don't always apply to advertised positions. Write to a lecturer who may have funding available. The primary thing they are looking for is an interest in the area! If you got on with your fourth year project supervisor then ask him/her for a reference.

Another thing to consider is applying to unis in England. They might say a masters is required but their bachelor of science is a 3 year course as opposed to our 4 year course. PM me if you need further advice.

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Read any neurological view of learning from those in that field and you will find that learning facts is the critical and foundational. Daniel Willingham, Daisy Christodolou and many many more current educational researchers all argue against your hypothesis steddy.

You can learn facts without understanding them Mardy. Look at photosynthesis as taught in the LC.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

You can learn facts without understanding them Mardy. Look at photosynthesis as taught in the LC.

That is a straw man. My argument is that fact based learning is vital. If the fact is incorrect it is not a fact and therefore has nothing to do with my argument.

Your problem here is with content rather than the learning itself.

steddyeddy

Mardy Bum wrote: »

That is a straw man. My argument is that fact based learning is vital. If the fact is incorrect it is not a fact and therefore has nothing to do with my argument.

Your problem here is with content rather than the learning itself.

Here's a the top line from an article in the Irish Times. It's just strategy and rote learning.

While the Eucharistic Congress made an appearance instead of an anticipated question on the Treaty, higher level Leaving Cert history students would have been reasonably pleased with their afternoon exam, according to teachers.

Mardy Bum

steddyeddy wrote: »

Here's a the top line from an article in the Irish Times. It's just strategy and rote learning.

Steddy do you read research papers on education specifically current research on memory and neurological underpinnings of successful learning?

Ironically you seem oblivious that the "anticipated" topic didn't come up therefore negating your point and regardless of this fact based learning is the foundation of learning. If you are a scientist you will at least read some of the research I have alluded to before repeating yourself.

ChaosIsOrder

I did my LC in 2012. For both PreLeaving & Leaving I did zero work, before that I did classwork but rarely homework, still did well in J.C. Due to learning disabilities & mental health issues, I received no special help, or any help for that matter, even though I complained LOUDLY.
I just passed 3 subjects; Irish, French & Maths. I would have passed English if I hadnt lost points for terrible handwriting. Maths was a funny one, because I didnt actually get any of the questions right, but I did attempt each one and used lots of theorems etc. I left the exam as soon as was allowed. Same for the rest.
So I technically didnt pass my Leaving Cert.

As to intelligence, I have been told by every teacher I have ever had that I am a ridiculous under-achiever and if I applied myself, I would do exceptionally well. The problem with that is, the system doesnt suit me because of my L.Ds and M.H. issues.

I have not had a job since the little part-timer I did while I was in school. I cant get one without an L.C or experience. I have attempted P.L.Cs etc, but I cant finish them because of my problems, so even though I am not stupid, I am irrevocably ****ed.

Just my two cents

captainfrost

To me is more or less a measure of hardwork, if you can read and cram very well, you will surely do well. But being intelligent is more of an added advantage.

Blue giant

I don't get all the people who say if they had worked they would have got over 500 points. I also find it weird that people claim to be intelligent and smart yet did fairly bad in the leaving cert. Surely if you're as smart as you say you would realise that sitting down and learning stuff off is required. There almost seems to be a certain amount of pride in saying you did bad in your leaving cert and went on to do a degree a few years later or eventually ended up in a decent job. Surely an intelligent and smart person would be able to work harder during the leaving cert and get that degree or job much earlier and easier.