Why is HL maths so ridiculously hard?

TSMGUY

I was actually an excellent maths student back in the day but even as a guy with reasonable maths aptitude I'm bowled over by how much harder it is than every other subject. If I only had to do maths for the next 5 weeks I could get an A1 but being realistic I don't see myself getting above a B3 without messing up in other subjects.

How do you guys balance your maths with everything else?

emersyn

I don't think it would be as bad if it weren't for the sheer length of the course. My teacher has been giving us extra classes since the start of 5th year as well as coming in over Easter and we're still struggling to get the course finished, as is the situation with a lot of other people I know. I was an A student during the junior cert but I'm aiming for an optimistic C3 now - I know that I'm capable of getting a higher grade but there simply isn't enough time to get all of the material properly studied and practised without neglecting my other subjects

skippy1977

The old maths course had great structure and allowed students to really demonstrate what they were capable of.
Students knew what topic each question was and each question had an (a), (b) and (c) part. (a) parts were very routine and tested students basics. (b) parts were more challenging but still very doable. (c) parts were very difficult (more so than project maths I would say) but they didn't have big long stories attached to them, they allowed students to get to the meat of the maths.....There was choice on the paper and thus it was more forgiving. It allowed students to show what they could do...and it was fair....they didn't throw marks at you...attempts were given 3 out 10 rather than the 4,6 or 8 you might get now (for very little understanding).

I'm not attacking Project Maths as such but the assessment of it has tried to be too clever for its own good. The questions are often asked in an over complicated way, with poor wording and many students haven't a notion what they are being asked. Students open the paper and first have to try and get their head around what topic the question is...they then have to work through each and every question until the end of the paper). What other subject on the Leaving Cert is like this?? Open a Geography or Business paper and there is huge choice....and students know what they are being asked. This is a subject that many find very difficult in the first place, and I just don't believe the added complication is necessary.

I don't mind the content of the course. I wish they hadn't removed vectors, matrices, huge amounts of calculus (universities would agree) but I don't have a problem with the size of the course. I just don't believe that students are being given an opportunity to show what they can do given the structure of the paper and the sometimes very abstract way the questions are being asked. A maths inspector to our school says that this will only get worse (though he sold it as a positive)....that they hope to have less 'scaffolding' in questions...and a greater mix of topics within questions.

The only advice I could give to someone trying to maximise their mark is to see as many types of question as possible but as TSMGUY has said that requires throwing more time at it. At least there is the 25 bonus points!!

Manufan123

Honours maths is worth more points than any other subject so therefore you should spend more time at it. Thats what i was told anyway.

rainbowtrout

Manufan123 wrote: »

Honours maths is worth more points than any other subject so therefore you should spend more time at it. Thats what i was told anyway.

Not necessarily. Anyone who is confident of passing it like the other posters in this thread are getting the bonus points regardless of getting a D3 or an A1. Aside from that the points are the same as every other subject.

It's hard because it's one of the few subjects that can't be learned off and the paper lacks choice so you have to be able to understand everything. Questions require practice and if there is a topic you don't particularly like you can't leave it out like other subjects.

thetalker

I'm lucky to have a high aptitude in math so I'm able to deal with the problems quite well but looking at the exam papers I agree the questions are often asked in a confusing and poorly phrased manner, I'm sure if more people understood what the problem was asking they could have an idea of how to get the solution.

daveytheravey

I think the whole idea of 25 points for maths is ridiculous! If thats the case they should be offering 25 points for irish and English as well. Especially considering English has such a massive work load.

I managed to get an A in the Junior Cert and was very capable. Now I'm looking at a low C. I just don't see how that could have happened, there is absolutely no comparison in JC and LC standards.

I particular think not giving us choice is horrible. Every other leaving cert subject has a choice in some aspect of the course apart from maths. Project maths was the biggest fail by the department of education ever.

rainbowtrout

daveytheravey wrote: »

I think the whole idea of 25 points for maths is ridiculous! If thats the case they should be offering 25 points for irish and English as well. Especially considering English has such a massive work load.

I managed to get an A in the Junior Cert and was very capable. Now I'm looking at a low C. I just don't see how that could have happened, there is absolutely no comparison in JC and LC standards.

I particular think not giving us choice is horrible. Every other leaving cert subject has a choice in some aspect of the course apart from maths. Project maths was the biggest fail by the department of education ever.

It's nothing to do with the workload in Maths, English or any other subject. It was to do with the low numbers doing HL maths. There are already a night number people doing HL Irish and English so no need to incentivise those subjects

daveytheravey

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the workload in Maths, English or any other subject. It was to do with the low numbers doing HL maths. There are already a night number people doing HL Irish and English so no need to incentivise those subjects

Well i would disagree that its all about numbers as 23,000 people did ordinary level irish last year and 16,000 did honours. Its more that the government care more about people having good maths than protecting their own culture.

Either way maths has too big of a course and those students who are good at maths based subjects already have an advantage of performing well in a number of subjects and on top of that they have 25 points.

Bazinga_N

daveytheravey wrote: »

Well i would disagree that its all about numbers as 23,000 people did ordinary level irish last year and 16,000 did honours. Its more that the government care more about people having good maths than protecting their own culture.

Either way maths has too big of a course and those students who are good at maths based subjects already have an advantage of performing well in a number of subjects and on top of that they have 25 points.

In 2011 only 15.8% of all candidates sat HL Maths compared to a 27.4% of candidates in 2015. The bonus points really was about more people taking honours maths and that's it.

In 2011 37.1% of candidates sat HL Irish so I'm sure you can see their logic in giving bonus points to one and not the other.

Skatedude

daveytheravey wrote: »

I think the whole idea of 25 points for maths is ridiculous! If thats the case they should be offering 25 points for irish and English as well. Especially considering English has such a massive work load.

I managed to get an A in the Junior Cert and was very capable. Now I'm looking at a low C. I just don't see how that could have happened, there is absolutely no comparison in JC and LC standards.

I particular think not giving us choice is horrible. Every other leaving cert subject has a choice in some aspect of the course apart from maths. Project maths was the biggest fail by the department of education ever.

Irish is basically useless for most jobs and you just really need to be able to read and write english whereas maths is essential for many jobs and collage courses

daveytheravey

Bazinga_N wrote: »

In 2011 only 15.8% of all candidates sat HL Maths compared to a 27.4% of candidates in 2015. The bonus points really was about more people taking honours maths and that's it.

In 2011 37.1% of candidates sat HL Irish so I'm sure you can see their logic in giving bonus points to one and not the other.

Along with that increase in candidates the failure rate has increased from 2.1% up to 5% last year. 5% of maths students couldn't attend a university last year from failing maths! that is a crazy statistic. I agree it might be a good idea to encourage borderline people but it is also encouraging people not able for maths!

luftmensch

daveytheravey wrote: »

Well i would disagree that its all about numbers as 23,000 people did ordinary level irish last year and 16,000 did honours. Its more that the government care more about people having good maths than protecting their own culture.

Either way maths has too big of a course and those students who are good at maths based subjects already have an advantage of performing well in a number of subjects and on top of that they have 25 points.

It is about the numbers. Technology related industries are among the most important for our economy. The 25 extra points is to incentivise more students to take HL maths and to encourage more people to pursue careers in STEM related fields, where there are growing skills shortages. The implementation of bonus points was encouraged by universities and businesses. I no doubt think, that they would care a lot more about someone's math literacy, than their ability to speak a dying language.

It is hard, but the bonus points offer a reward for the workload involved. If you aren't able, then I suggest you take the pass paper.

daveytheravey

luftmensch wrote: »

It is about the numbers. Technology related industries are among the most important for our economy. The 25 extra points is to incentivise more students to take HL maths and to encourage more people to pursue careers in STEM related fields, where there are growing skills shortages. The implementation of bonus points was encouraged by universities and businesses. I no doubt think, that they would care a lot more about someone's math literacy, than their ability to speak a dying language.

It is hard, but the bonus points offer a reward for the workload involved. If you aren't able, then I suggest you take the pass paper.

I feel like im taking over from the OP was just offering my point of view! The current paper and syllabus is too much in my opinion that is all

DublinArnie

Didn't know the department of education was aiming to encourage maths!

By the looks of it, project maths is 80% reading the question and 20% actual calculation.

legocrazy505

daveytheravey wrote: »

Well i would disagree that its all about numbers as 23,000 people did ordinary level irish last year and 16,000 did honours. Its more that the government care more about people having good maths than protecting their own culture.

Either way maths has too big of a course and those students who are good at maths based subjects already have an advantage of performing well in a number of subjects and on top of that they have 25 points.

Irish doesn't get you high paying jobs. It's more about what the people want. Maths is a universal language for STEM fields, it's the foundation of the modern world really. What's Irish good for?

You could argue that anyone in any subject has an advantage, anyone good at languages or people who speak Irish fluently are at an advantage already over people like myself who prefer the sciences and have to do Irish.

I really don't like the whole culture argument honestly, probably because I'm a British person brought up in the Irish education system. Encouraging Irish just to maintain the "culture" is exactly why so many hate the language.

The difference is the maths incentives give you something tangible and in the end something that can greatly help in advancing into careers that will only be required more in the next 50 years. It's a hard slog but that's always what maths is, the magic of maths is overcoming the slog.

TooMuchWork

Seriously considering just dropping to pass maths. I don't find the extra time needed for HL to be necessary unless you're aiming for extremely high points. Managed to get a D2 in the mock (Only took up HL this year), but I don't want to miss out on points because I was caught out on a question or two in the real thing and failed. With a lot of effort I could probably get a high C, but I think my other subjects would suffer over that.

EIREDriver

I did Higher Level and got a B3. Came to college then and started a business course. Any of the Maths/Statistics/Financial modules are very easy in comparison to the Leaving Cert. I could not believe how easy the maths was, especially in first year. I would advise students to keep going with higher level. I thought I did a really bad paper one and was full sure I had fecked up my leaving cert because of it. However if the paper is hard, they mark it easy, so if you have an aptitude for maths, try your best and go for the extra 25 points.

aon1998

Something I noticed from going through the mock marking schemes is that you'd get 4/10 or 2/5 on a question from doing something very basic. This is something to note if anybody is thinking of dropping down this close to the exam.
I also don't think that it's going to turn into a ridiculously hard exam this year because of the fact that it was so easy last year. The SEC & DES don't want bad press from a hard exam as they spent so much on developing the new course.

ricimaki

I sat honours maths in 2012, which was the last year of the old paper 1, and (I think) the first year of the new paper 2 (project maths). I went on to do electronic engineering afterwards, and just finished this year. Whilst honours maths is difficult, if you do any engineering degree, you quickly realise its a necessity, as most modules require the use of integrals, matrices, complex numbers or trigonometry. A few examples might hopefully show where and why some of this maths is used. I'll try and explain the module, but keep in mind some of this is fourth year electronic engineering, so don't worry if you can't fully understand it!

Most electronic modules: A good example is a battery charger (also know as a buck and boost converter ). This involves switching a circuit on and off rapidly, to slowly charge and discharge a capacitor and inductor, which gives the correct voltage to the battery.
Using basic algebra and integration, the times for switches can be found. These are used to get the size of the capacitor and inductor, and finally to build the circuit.

Circuit design modules: Building circuits that might remove signals above a certain frequency, found in audio filters.
This involves algebra, differentiation, and converting between exponents and logs.

Electro-magnetics: This is all about how electrical voltages and currents travel through different materials, and some of the weird effects that happen when the signals go to very high speeds. See here, here and here for some examples
You have to be able to integrate vectors with respect to 2 variables, add/multiply the answer to another vector, and differentiate that. Also involves lots of complex numbers.

In any engineering or science degree, you'll have to know HL leaving cert algebra as a bare minimum. Most of these degrees will probably use matrices, complex numbers, trigonometry, integration or differentiation. The leaving cert honours maths is difficult because it needs to be. Vectors were removed from the course a few years ago, and it really had a big impact on the electro-magnetics module. Before, it used cover much more topics, but now, the first 4 or 5 weeks are used to teach students the basics of vectors.

reason vs religion

One of the principal criticisms of Project Maths (when, I wonder, will it revert to just Maths?) is that the questions are verbose or needlessly wordy. Yet one of the most celebrated leaving cert subjects is Applied Maths and it has a similar style of question.

TMJM96

As a previous poster mentioned, HL Maths is hard because it needs to be. Most people who sit HL Maths are probably going into college to study Engineering or a Science.

I do Applied Physics and although HL Maths wasn't a requirement, everyone in the course achieved at least a C3 at HL. We need it and use it at high levels (well, higher than what you get at LC) . I shared two modules with Engineers (Maths and an Analogue Electonics) and a lot of what was on the old Maths LC course had to be taught to us at the beginning of each semester simply because we didn't do it in school (matrices and vectors come to mind immediately).

One thing I did like in Project Maths was that it made you think rather than just going "integrate this".

It needs to be hard because once you start a STEM degree you need to do Maths at high levels

daveytheravey

I think this whole idea of getting points next year for falling is ridiculous. The SEC is off its head. Constantly changing courses and content and marking schemes, often for the worse!

reason vs religion

It would seem that there is a wider spread of abilities for maths than any other type of subject. Devising a curriculum and setting a paper that engages those that excel at maths (though I know many would say PM doesn't do that adequately at the moment) as well as those who are average is bound to lead to it seeming difficult. In other countries there is often an advanced maths stream which allows for the curriculum of the ordinary stream to be designed to better suit the abilities of those who take it. In fact, something like that was intended for here when the curriculums were designed in the early 90's. Higher, Ordinary and Foundation were expected to be taken in the proportion 25:50:25. But, of course, requiring maths for college meant that very few would take Foundation.

daveytheravey wrote: »

I think this whole idea of getting points next year for falling is ridiculous. The SEC is off its head. Constantly changing courses and content and marking schemes, often for the worse!

Pass mark for many master's degrees is 50. By that comparison, LC students have been getting points for decades for "failing". The 40% Pass/Fail boundary is merely arbitrary - it's not the case that it was found that those scoring less than 40 are disproportionately worse. The rationale for lowering the boundary is that the standard required to get 30-40% on a Higher paper is estimated to be around the same as for a C at Ordinary. Little reason then not to give someone points that they were capable of achieving if they had just taken the other paper.

SEC doesn't dictate subject curriculums and they alter the marking schemes in an attempt to keep the standard of exams uniform across years.

Bazinga_N

reason vs religion wrote: »

It would seem that there is a wider spread of abilities for maths than any other type of subject. Devising a curriculum and setting a paper that engages those that excel at maths (though I know many would say PM doesn't do that adequately at the moment) as well as those who are average is bound to lead to it seeming difficult. In other countries there is often an advanced maths stream which allows for the curriculum of the ordinary stream to be designed to better suit the abilities of those who take it. In fact, something like that was intended for here when the curriculums were designed in the early 90's. Higher, Ordinary and Foundation were expected to be taken in the proportion 25:50:25. But, of course, requiring maths for college meant that very few would take Foundation.




Pass mark for many master's degrees is 50. By that comparison, LC students have been getting points for decades for "failing". The 40% Pass/Fail boundary is merely arbitrary - it's not the case that it was found that those scoring less than 40 are disproportionately worse. The rationale for lowering the boundary is that the standard required to get 30-40% on a Higher paper is estimated to be around the same as for a C at Ordinary. Little reason then not to give someone points that they were capable of achieving if they had just taken the other paper.

SEC doesn't dictate subject curriculums and they alter the marking schemes in an attempt to keep the standard of exams uniform across years.

It might be worth having a Maths course that's easier and compulsory for all students and an optional Further Maths course for those interested in pursuing STEM-heavy courses in the future that would be much more advanced than Maths and worth an extra possible 100 points.

reason vs religion

Bazinga_N wrote: »

It might be worth having a Maths course that's easier and compulsory for all students and an optional Further Maths course for those interested in pursuing STEM-heavy courses in the future that would be much more advanced than Maths and worth an extra possible 100 points.

Yep, there's definitely an argument for it. But it's not entirely straightforward. Could students take both subjects - if yes, then anyone who gets a C on the further maths paper would likely ace the ordinary one. If not, even fewer students would take the advanced option than took Higher before bonus points. Would it be a requirement for STEM courses? In previous years, the points requirements for engineering and comp sci courses were deflated partly by the Higher Maths requirement. That would be even more pronounced if FM were a requirement. If it's not a requirement, you would have one cohort of students entering college that is greatly ahead of another, and would be held back. Inevitably, more boys than girls would take it, and more middle class than disadvantaged leading to an imbalance. Would it get the same points as, say, Geography despite being very advanced and objectively more difficult? Getting qualified teachers and providing it nationwide would a very difficult and expensive task. Etc, etc.

For the moment, at least, I think the current syllabus is fine. Universities complain about now having to teach content that was on the old lc syllabus, but that's an insignificant consequence if the syllabus results in genuine improvements in the mathematical ability of the majority of students, encouraging understanding over rote-learning methods. (Universities used to complain about that too.) LC subjects aren't designed as direct preparation for third level study, and maths needn't be different.

TMJM96

Bazinga_N wrote: »

It might be worth having a Maths course that's easier and compulsory for all students and an optional Further Maths course for those interested in pursuing STEM-heavy courses in the future that would be much more advanced than Maths and worth an extra possible 100 points.

Instead of a further Maths course, I wish that Applied Maths was offered to more students or at least available to more students. How many people sit HL Maths and Physics every year but don't sit Applied Maths? I wouldn't say I'm at a disadvantage for not doing Applied Maths but it would have been a lot more useful for me.

In my year about 30 did Physics and out of those 30 I say 20 did HL Maths. 20 people who definitely could have given Applied Maths a go. The majority of the cohort who sit Applied Maths general can afford to do an eight subject or can go to a school that can afford to run another subject.

Bazinga_N

TMJM96 wrote: »

Instead of a further Maths course, I wish that Applied Maths was offered to more students or at least available to more students. How many people sit HL Maths and Physics every year but don't sit Applied Maths? I wouldn't say I'm at a disadvantage for not doing Applied Maths but it would have been a lot more useful for me.

In my year about 30 did Physics and out of those 30 I say 20 did HL Maths. 20 people who definitely could have given Applied Maths a go. The majority of the cohort who sit Applied Maths general can afford to do an eight subject or can go to a school that can afford to run another subject.

Tbh, I find Applied Maths to be very different from actual maths. If anything the course should be called Mechanics. It's a great subject to have, but what I'd imagine Further Maths would be would be a course that would have advanced calculus, algebra, geometry and the likes which you wouldn't get from Applied Maths either. AM should be more readily available though, I agree.

TMJM96

Bazinga_N wrote: »

Tbh, I find Applied Maths to be very different from actual maths. If anything the course should be called Mechanics. It's a great subject to have, but what I'd imagine Further Maths would be would be a course that would have advanced calculus, algebra, geometry and the likes which you wouldn't get from Applied Maths either. AM should be more readily available though, I agree.

The majority of Maths you do with Engineering is Mechanics (okay, it depends what discipline you choose. Aero, Mechanical, Biomedical, Civil and DMT have Maths that is mostly mechanics) whereas ECE doesn't, for obvious reasons.

reason vs religion

TMJM96 wrote: »

The majority of Maths you do with Engineering is Mechanics (okay, it depends what discipline you choose. Aero, Mechanical, Biomedical, Civil and DMT have Maths that is mostly mechanics) whereas ECE doesn't, for obvious reasons.

Much of Applied Maths is basically just fun with algebra. With the exception of Q10 and SHM, the topics all involve mathematical operations that a junior cert student would understand. Engineering obviously involves studying mechanics, but, afaik, beyond first year, it is done entirely through calculus, which is different from AM. I think if you asked an engineering professor whether they'd prefer students with advanced maths skills or the problem-solving skills developed through AM, they'd take the first and expect to develop the second themselves.

And, of course, there are more mathematical courses in college than just engineering. (And there are also, of course, more fields to which to apply maths than just classical mechanics, something that the AM curriculum review (which I can't link, but which can be seen on the national curriculum website) acknowledges, by proposing there being optional modules in computer science, business maths and economics.)

evolving_doors

Would I be wrong in guessing that a large portion of schools who do have App. Maths offer it outside school hours?

Bazinga_N

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Would I be wrong in guessing that a large portion of schools who do have App. Maths offer it outside school hours?

In my school it's offered as a subject across from Classical Studies, LCVP and extra French (for those who need a language for LCVP).

In my friends school it's just offered as another subject across a band like anything else. So personally the schools I'm aware of offer it in school hours.

TMJM96

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Would I be wrong in guessing that a large portion of schools who do have App. Maths offer it outside school hours?

Up until recently schools in my area didn't offer it at all, one school will have a full class for fifth years this August. I think another school tried offering it after school but that just didn't suit most people or some people couldn't take an extra subject so it fell apart.

Everyone I've met in college from large towns or cities had Applied Maths as a subject on offer. So obviously, the bigger the school the more likely it will be on offer.

reason vs religion

I would expect that most medium and large schools would offer it as part of the timetable. I have noticed one or two large girls schools not offering it, though, which is perhaps understandable considering girls make up only a quarter of takers.

AM uptake has increased quite significantly recently: +12% yoy and +40% on the average of 06-10. Possibility that Project Maths has been partly responsible. If that trend continues, it's probably likely that a "critical mass" will be reached allowing smaller schools to start offering it.

skippy1977

reason vs religion wrote: »

I would expect that most medium and large schools would offer it as part of the timetable. I have noticed one or two large girls schools not offering it, though, which is perhaps understandable considering girls make up only a quarter of takers.

AM uptake has increased quite significantly recently: +12% yoy and +40% on the average of 06-10. Possibility that Project Maths has been partly responsible. If that trend continues, it's probably likely that a "critical mass" will be reached allowing smaller schools to start offering it.

A lot of schools can't offer it due to the very small numbers interested (and capable) of taking the subject. I don't see that changing in smaller schools any time soon. I know of fairly large schools that are trying but struggling to justify it on the timetable. One offers it outside of school (teacher doing in their own time), one school has a class opposite PE, another opposite LCVP with half the class at the back studying and half the class trying to do the course. Both these scenarios are on a 2/3 class a week basis.

The Applied Maths course is one that is likely to change in the coming years and this may be what results in a greater number of schools catering for it. Whilst numbers might be on the rise....3 times as many people in the country are taking Foundation Maths as Applied Maths.

Teaching both I wouldn't say that Project Maths helps Applied Maths a whole lot but I would say that any student who can commit to Applied Maths would make improvements in Project Maths. If anything I think that Project Maths has resulted in students having a much poorer Algebra and Trigonometry skill set, vital skills for Applied Maths.

TMJM96

reason vs religion wrote: »

I would expect that most medium and large schools would offer it as part of the timetable. I have noticed one or two large girls schools not offering it, though, which is perhaps understandable considering girls make up only a quarter of takers.

AM uptake has increased quite significantly recently: +12% yoy and +40% on the average of 06-10. Possibility that Project Maths has been partly responsible. If that trend continues, it's probably likely that a "critical mass" will be reached allowing smaller schools to start offering it.

Funny you say that, the only schools who offer AM in my town and area are all girl schools.

emersyn

reason vs religion wrote: »

I would expect that most medium and large schools would offer it as part of the timetable. I have noticed one or two large girls schools not offering it, though, which is perhaps understandable considering girls make up only a quarter of takers.

I would say it's the other way round - far fewer girls take it because it's generally not offered in their schools.

reason vs religion

skippy1977 wrote: »

A lot of schools can't offer it due to the very small numbers interested (and capable) of taking the subject. I don't see that changing in smaller schools any time soon. I know of fairly large schools that are trying but struggling to justify it on the timetable. One offers it outside of school (teacher doing in their own time), one school has a class opposite PE, another opposite LCVP with half the class at the back studying and half the class trying to do the course. Both these scenarios are on a 2/3 class a week basis.

The Applied Maths course is one that is likely to change in the coming years and this may be what results in a greater number of schools catering for it. Whilst numbers might be on the rise....3 times as many people in the country are taking Foundation Maths as Applied Maths.

Teaching both I wouldn't say that Project Maths helps Applied Maths a whole lot but I would say that any student who can commit to Applied Maths would make improvements in Project Maths. If anything I think that Project Maths has resulted in students having a much poorer Algebra and Trigonometry skill set, vital skills for Applied Maths.

I mean, to be clear, I'm not suggesting Applied Maths is suddenly going to be rolled out across Ireland's rural schools. But increasing numbers could result in schools that currently have to make special arrangements being able to offer it as a timetabled subject. And once it's on the timetable, it will seem less daunting and specialist and hopefully further increase numbers.

Regarding the potential consequences of Project Maths on uptake, I wasn't so much suggesting that PM is helping with AM as that the contexts and applications aspect of the curriculum is encouraging more students to give AM a try. It's just speculation, though.

emersyn wrote: »

I would say it's the other way round - far fewer girls take it because it's generally not offered in their schools.

That's, no doubt, partly responsible. But the fact that the proportion of girls doing Higher Physics is almost exactly the same as doing AM suggests that girls are less interested in taking it (for whatever reason). Now, again, no doubt, there is reverse causality when it comes to Physics being offered in girls schools, but undoubtedly to a far lesser extent than AM.



Obviously we're going a little bit off topic here.

Robbiert

emersyn wrote: »

I would say it's the other way round - far fewer girls take it because it's generally not offered in their schools.

In my mixed school at least, only three out of the eighteen students are girls in 5th/6th year applied maths.

reason vs religion

Robbiert wrote: »

In my mixed school at least, only three out of the eighteen students are girls in 5th/6th year applied maths.

I don't really understand why that unsubstantiated claim got four Likes. In the same way that Home Ec's 9:1 gender split isn't likely to be the result of boys around Ireland being prevented from taking the subject, AM's 1:3 split is more likely to be the result of different preferences, which the Physics gender split would seem to support.

In the UK, only 23% of those taking A Level Physics and 27% of those taking Further Maths are girls.

Edit: and those A Level stats are actually uptake of part I of A Level; girls are less likely than boys to continue to part II in both.

skippy1977

reason vs religion wrote: »

I don't really understand why that unsubstantiated claim got four Likes. In the same way that Home Ec's 9:1 gender split isn't likely to be the result of boys around Ireland being prevented from taking the subject, AM's 1:3 split is more likely to be the result of different preferences, which the Physics gender split would seem to support.

In the UK, only 23% of those taking A Level Physics and 27% of those taking Further Maths are girls.

Edit: and those A Level stats are actually uptake of part I of A Level; girls are less likely than boys to continue to part II in both.

Well I clicked the thumbs up as it was the unsubstantiated claim that I liked the most. Truth is it's very hard to know whether the girls schools are not offering it as the girls don't want to do it or whether the girls aren't doing it because it is not being offered. I prefer to think the latter....but no idea. Not that it adds anything to this discussion but the best student in my class is a girl....better than me!!

It is a shame that all students can't do the exact subjects they want. I know in our school, we have to make difficult choices every year...some years we have no Accountancy, next year due to numbers we have no DCG...we may get it back the following year but then something else goes.

reason vs religion

skippy1977 wrote: »

Well I clicked the thumbs up as it was the unsubstantiated claim that I liked the most. Truth is it's very hard to know whether the girls schools are not offering it as the girls don't want to do it or whether the girls aren't doing it because it is not being offered. I prefer to think the latter....but no idea. Not that it adds anything to this discussion but the best student in my class is a girl....better than me!!

It is a shame that all students can't do the exact subjects they want. I know in our school, we have to make difficult choices every year...some years we have no Accountancy, next year due to numbers we have no DCG...we may get it back the following year but then something else goes.

But neither of my claims was unsubstantiated! 1) uptake of AM by girls is low: verifiable by looking at the stats. And, in response, 2) that, as Physics has a similarly low uptake by girls and is probably provided by most schools (at least, many more than AM), it's likely that much of the low uptake can be explained by low demand - which may be false, but is definitely a substantiation! The UK comparison points towards my conclusion, as well.

I'm not making any judgments about suitability or aptitude. My personal opinion is it relates to gender norms.

I agree, it is very regrettable. I repeated my lc, during which I took Applied Maths, but I had to take Business instead during my first attempt because of timetable restrictions. (I could have either taken my best subject from the JC, Accounting, or take a punt on a subject I was interested in but in which I was worried I wouldn't do well. I did the first.) It was very painful having to study something I didn't want to.

lostatsea

Anybody know where I could get the LC Maths solutions for SEC papers other than the Marking Schemes?

legocrazy505

lostatsea wrote: »

Anybody know where I could get the LC Maths solutions for SEC papers other than the Marking Schemes?

I have ones downloaded from educate.ie that are very good.

lostatsea

legocrazy505 wrote: »

I have ones downloaded from educate.ie that are very good.

Thank a million. They are brilliant - I never knew about them.