Do you think the LC is fair?

TSMGUY

I'm a bit disillusioned with the whole LC even though I got a good score, or perhaps because I got a good score. The whole thing just consisted of massive amounts of rote learning, huge amounts of stress due to the unpredictability of the exams and the sprawling nature of the LC textbooks. 7 subjects is far too much and we should really be allowed to specialize in the subjects we intend to study at Uni. I think it's deeply unfair that someone who's brilliant at say Physics and Maths can't get his course because he's not great at languages or vice versa. Also, the points system is idiotic. An A should be 80% and up, not 85% and there should't be a 10 point jump from an A2 to an A1.

The only exam where I felt I could be a bit creative and apply intelligence rather than learned off facts was English. The bio, history, business, economics and even physics course just felt like rote memorization with all the derivations and STS and definitions and experiment q's.

I'm glad the scoring system is being reformed but honestly I think the LC is a joke. We should do 3-4 subjects and really get to shine in our best subjects instead of scrambling to memorize huge amounts of disparate info in 6-8 different subjects to achieve these elusive points everyone values so much. I got 560 and yet I can barely remember a thing from any of my courses because of the nature of the LC (non-modular, just one big marathon of exams compressed into 2 weeks that makes you hate learning.) I actually have a mental block in my most of my subjects because of how stressful it was.

Tell me how

I think the leaving cert (in principle) is a decent model of education which both gives a variety of exposure and the ability for assessors to benchmark participants. I do believe people get tunnel vision wrt points available aside from thinking what are they interested in which is not exactly the fault of the model in my view.

Very few 15/16 year olds (age they select leaving certain subjects) know exactly what they will end up studying in Uni so the 7 subjects gives a variety which can be focused after the leaving.
It also allows potential to identify a secondary career choice possibly if that Uni place isn't what they thought bit would be.

I've no idea why you would make an A start from 80%, this would lessen the merit of it.

Have you an alternative suggestion?

Avatar MIA

The question asked is the LC fair.

It is fair, it's the same exam(s) for everyone, everyone is treated the same.

As for the quality of the exam - I'm in agreement that the broad subject choice is a positive.

What I find archaic is the requirement for a foreign language for non mature students to get into university, but that's something that needs to be tackled at third level.

dudara

The LC is an incredibly fair exam. A core set of common subjects for all, and a good choice of chosen subjects. The 6 minimum subjects spreads the scoring, while also giving you a broader education. Anonymous scoring removes bias and gives everyone an equal shot at college (with the exception of courses that require portfolios etc).

Yes, is stressful, but life is also stressful. To be honest, I've been through far worse since my LC. For me, the viva voce for my PhD was far worse, and that was just one single exam. Completing 6+ exams demonstrates time management and prioritisation plus other skills.

I think you're feeling it all right now, but give it time.

evolving_doors

It's like asking "is climbing Killimonjaro fair?"

Hana98

In my opinion it isn't fair. There are other countries who have different education systems which work much better. But at the moment there's nothing really that students can do to change it. I can't see the government doing any beneficial changes. It's just the way it is sadly.

endacl

It's fair in that it applies to everyone. It's also unfair, in that the playing field isn't level. For the same reason it wouldn't be level no matter what system was in place.

eet fuk

You are rewarded for hard work. It's fair.

Also, it's not as if your life is over if you get bad results. We are lucky to live in a country where 3rd level education isn't prohibitively expensive - I don't care what anyone says, a part-time job along with a loan and some budgeting will get you through college.

TSMGUY

Gebgbegb wrote: »

It's like asking "is climbing Killimonjaro fair?"

Worst analogy I've ever seen:rolleyes:

dudara wrote: »

The LC is an incredibly fair exam. A core set of common subjects for all, and a good choice of chosen subjects. The 6 minimum subjects spreads the scoring, while also giving you a broader education. Anonymous scoring removes bias and gives everyone an equal shot at college (with the exception of courses that require portfolios etc).

Yes, is stressful, but life is also stressful. To be honest, I've been through far worse since my LC. For me, the viva voce for my PhD was far worse, and that was just one single exam. Completing 6+ exams demonstrates time management and prioritisation plus other skills.

I think you're feeling it all right now, but give it time.

There isn't even a good choice of subjects. If you look at A-Levels, there are FAR MORE options (law, psychology, politics, philosophy, computer science, drama etc.). We actually have a very limited amount of subjects. Well of course your PhD was harder! The LC and a PhD aren't even comparable. I'm talking about the LC in the context of high school leaving exams so that's not really pertinent to the discussion. Well done on the doctorate though.

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the leaving cert (in principle) is a decent model of education which both gives a variety of exposure and the ability for assessors to benchmark participants. I do believe people get tunnel vision wrt points available aside from thinking what are they interested in which is not exactly the fault of the model in my view.

Very few 15/16 year olds (age they select leaving certain subjects) know exactly what they will end up studying in Uni so the 7 subjects gives a variety which can be focused after the leaving.
It also allows potential to identify a secondary career choice possibly if that Uni place isn't what they thought bit would be.

I've no idea why you would make an A start from 80%, this would lessen the merit of it.

Have you an alternative suggestion?

If you don't know what to specialize in do transition year. It's certainly a lot harder doing 3 subjects you hate for 2 years than it is to pick what you want to at college and most students broadly know if they're interested in humanities/sciences by the age of 16.
"No idea why I'd want to make an A 80%" Because an A is 80% in A-Levels and in the Scottish Highers. 85% is needlessly high. Why have C3, B3, D3 but not A3? It's silly that a score of 84.5% would just be a "B."

ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION: A level style system, International Baccalaureate, even the SAT system.
Non modular exams in loads of different subjects is just plain stupid and the points system is flawed. 6 A1's = 600 points. 6 A2's = 540 points. Theoretically you could have someone who got one mark extra in 6 exams getting 60 more points. Even the SEC acknowledges the bands are too narrow.

eet fuk

TSMGUY wrote: »

If you don't know what to specialize in do transition year. It's certainly a lot harder doing 3 subjects you hate for 2 years than it is to pick what you want to at college and most students broadly know if they're interested in humanities/sciences by the age of 16.

I disagree with that sentiment. I wanted to be a musician or work in the music industry when I was 16. I was totally focused on that one path in life and nothing would stop me.

Then I went to college and hated it. I lost interest in that career/lifestyle and had to reconsider.

Lucky for me, I studied physics for my leaving cert. At the time didn't really like it - I was only put into the course as I was good at maths. Never in a million years did I think I'd get a degree in physics, a masters in electrical engineering and work in laser development.
Yet here I am, happy as a clam - all because I didn't choose my life path at 16 and kept an open mind.

ConorDon97

"Fair" is probably the wrong word. What I would say is that the leaving cert is very far from a test of intelligence or talent. It is just almost completely testing your ability to memorise and regurgitate. I did the leaving cert this year and I was happy with my result, but I will never judge anyone else's intelligence based on it.

I know I'm probably not answering the "fair" aspect to it, but those are my thoughts on the leaving.

And yeah, forcing people to do subjects like maths and irish that many people simply dislike is unfair. I hated these subjects but I more or less had to do them, which put me at a disadvantage as others love languages and maths. Also the extra 25 points is very unfair and this is coming from someone who did higher level.

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

Well of course your PhD was harder! The LC and a PhD aren't even comparable.

They are comparable, though. The LC isn't just about learning subjects; it's about learning how to learn. In that context, being able to discipline yourself to do a good LC - to put aside time to study, to be able to focus on something for an extended period of time, to be able to work things out in your mind that you mayn't fully understand at the start - these are all important life skills, which can be applied to future tasks such as undertaking a PhD.

Even learning by rote is an important life skill. For sure, with the internet and google searches now, it's easy to look something up if you don't know the answer - but try doing that in an important meeting with a client and see how professional you look. Much better to know, say, the relevant accounting standard or the relevant engineering guidelines and be able to refer to them there and then.

TSMGUY wrote: »

If you don't know what to specialize in do transition year.

Transition Year is too young for everyone to know for sure what you want to specialise in. Some people know by then for sure, but the idea that if you don't know by then, that TY will answer everything, simply doesn't follow.

TSMGUY wrote: »

Because an A is 80% in A-Levels and in the Scottish Highers. 85% is needlessly high. Why have C3, B3, D3 but not A3?

Why is 85% needlessly high? Lots of people can manage it. Do you think this sort of attitude carries on into work? Ah sure I did the audit/built the bridge/carried out the operation 80% correctly - to do any better is just needlessly high?

And don't forget exams have been made consistenly easier over the past couple of decades - an A2 standard now might only have gotten you a B2 back in the mid 90s.

What difference would an A3 grade achieve? It'd just be 85-89%, and an A2 would become 90-94%.

TSMGUY wrote: »

It's silly that a score of 84.5% would just be a "B."

No-one will actually score 84½%. If you end on that score, the examiner will look back over their paper to see if they can give you an extra mark to bring you up to 85%. In fact, that goes for all the grades. It's why so few re-checks are successful, and why your point about the "small" difference between six A1s and six A2s isn't really all that relevant. If you got an A2, it means the examiner saw no way of bringing you up to an A1 - there's no chance you missed out by a fraction of a percent, and certainly not six times.

TSMGUY wrote: »

ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION: A level style system, International Baccalaureate, even the SAT system.

If you're going to make a suggestion, you should at least back it up with a couple of reasons. This is the kind of stuff I thought you would have learned doing the Leaving Cert.

Sorry, the LC is quite fair, and is markedly better than, say, the English system where you can do just maths, applied maths and physics as a Leaving Cert, or even than the American system which is often just an MCQ.

I also don't think, with respect, that you've got the requisite life experience to comment on how fair (or not) the LC is.

goz83

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The question asked is the LC fair.

It is fair, it's the same exam(s) for everyone, everyone is treated the same.

As for the quality of the exam - I'm in agreement that the broad subject choice is a positive.

What I find archaic is the requirement for a foreign language for non mature students to get into university, but that's something that needs to be tackled at third level.

endacl wrote: »

It's fair in that it applies to everyone. It's also unfair, in that the playing field isn't level. For the same reason it wouldn't be level no matter what system was in place.

I never sat the LC, so my opinion on it may not hold much weight in some peoples eyes. My wife is a teacher in Second Level, so I have had plenty of conversations on this very subject over the years.

To get on point, I think it's unfair, because it is not taught the same across the board. A student might want to get into a school where they believe they will excel and they like the optional subjects, but they may not meet the enrolment criteria. This in itself makes the LC unfair.

Another issue I have is the language aspect. In particular, Irish....wow, what a joke. Correct me if I am wrong here, but don't you get extra points for sitting LC in Irish? So, those who are from a certain catchment area attending an Irish language school are availing of a big advantage over those who are not.

To diversify on this point, consider two students Adam and Paul. Adam and Paul are mostly equal when it comes to school. The only areas they differ is that Adam always gets an A in his English exams where Paul gets a C, but Paul always gets an A in his Irish exams, where Adam gets a C. Both subjects are core LC subjects. Both students essentially dis as well as the other across the board, but Paul got extra marks because he sat honours level Irish and had higher marks than Adam. Adams higher marks in English are better in the real world....for most applications, but Adam was beaten to the course they both wanted to attend, because Paul got more points, due to the unequal playing field and the steroid effect of Irish.

I was pretty good at English when attending school, always getting top marks, but I hated Irish and also had trouble with languages in general. To be made feel stupid for over an hour per day (Irish & Spanish) was a mild form of torture.

How is it fair when the very area you reside can have such a big impact on the end result? Irish being a compulsory (brownie points) subject makes a mockery of the whole system. It's not balanced and therefore not fair.

Kevin1220

I believe that the leaving cert should be more like the A level, 3 or 4 subjects to study

cdeb

goz83 wrote: »

Adams higher marks in English are better in the real world....for most applications,

I'd actually argue that the real-world relevance of English is overstated. Trace the development of this storyline through the metaphor of the window - wtf? Analyse the meter of this poem - again, not relevant in the real world. And I say that as someone who reads a lot and writes a little bit as well, but wh ohated English in school and eventually dropped down to pass.

You'll find many people who, years after leaving school, say they wish they'd made more of an effort at learning Irish - because it's an interesting part of our culture. I think there's every place for it in the school curriculum for that reason - and indeed, for that reason, I think the "real-world" gap between the two isn't as big as you make out. Though the way it's taught could be changed (again, ditch the poetry for starters)

I'd agree with your comments on giving extra marks for doing the LC through Irish. But I don't agree on being forced to do a subject you don't like. Life is like that at times - you have to learn to cope unfortunately.

Tell me how

Kevin1220 wrote:

I believe that the leaving cert should be more like the A level, 3 or 4 subjects to study

I completely disagree with this approach mostly because of the reasons already outlined in detail above with respect to options created due to more subjects and the likely inability for most mid-teens to accurately know what they want to do for their career.

eet fuk

Nothing in the world is truly 'fair'. There is always someone who has a better teacher or who is given an easier path to success.

So despite the fact that I think the LC is as fair as it can be (given the resources available), I also think that it helps to prepare people for the real world (which isn't fair).

You will have to do things that you don't enjoy and force yourself to learn things that you don't have an aptitude for. Some people will never be stuck for an excuse as to why things didn't go their way, but the reality is that nobody really cares!

goz83

eet fuk wrote: »

Nothing in the world is truly 'fair'. There is always someone who has a better teacher or who is given an easier path to success.

So despite the fact that I think the LC is as fair as it can be (given the resources available), I also think that it helps to prepare people for the real world (which isn't fair).

You will have to do things that you don't enjoy and force yourself to learn things that you don't have an aptitude for. Some people will never be stuck for an excuse as to why things didn't go their way, but the reality is that nobody really cares!

Life is inherently unfair, but our educational system shouldn't be designed to reward someone who speaks good Irish more so than someone who has, lets say fluent Spanish for example. In the real world, even basic Spanish would serve most people better than someone with fluent Irish. And I don't speak either.....my Irish is limited to a few words and my Spanish is similar. It has been done to death on here, but Irish is given way too much clout.

eet fuk

goz83 wrote: »

Life is inherently unfair, but our educational system shouldn't be designed to reward someone who speaks good Irish more so than someone who has, lets say fluent Spanish for example. In the real world, even basic Spanish would serve most people better than someone with fluent Irish. And I don't speak either.....my Irish is limited to a few words and my Spanish is similar. It has been done to death on here, but Irish is given way too much clout.

Well, we are in Ireland.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

They are comparable, though. The LC isn't just about learning subjects; it's about learning how to learn. In that context, being able to discipline yourself to do a good LC - to put aside time to study, to be able to focus on something for an extended period of time, to be able to work things out in your mind that you mayn't fully understand at the start - these are all important life skills, which can be applied to future tasks such as undertaking a PhD.They aren't comparable. PhD's take about 6 years and are done in a very specific topic that the candidate has picked. They couldn't be more different. The Primary School cert has more in common with the LC than the PhD so the comparison is facile Why is discipline constantly praised as the highest attribute one can aspire to have? You never hear reformers wanting to reward intelligence, originality or deep understanding. So long as you're capable of mindlessly absorbing facts and spewing them out in a way that adheres to the marking scheme, you deserve success. If not, you're screwed..

Even learning by rote is an important life skill. For sure, with the internet and google searches now, it's easy to look something up if you don't know the answer - but try doing that in an important meeting with a client and see how professional you look. Much better to know, say, the relevant accounting standard or the relevant engineering guidelines and be able to refer to them there and then.
Again, academia shouldn't be deferential to vocational life. It's silly of you to keep drawing parallels between the workplace and the classroom. The goal of education should be to get educated, not employable.

Transition Year is too young for everyone to know for sure what you want to specialise in. Some people know by then for sure, but the idea that if you don't know by then, that TY will answer everything, simply doesn't follow.
And 17/18 is too old to not have a specialism. We're at an unfair disadvantage compared to our international counterparts who are well equpt for their undergraduate courses because they've learned their preferred subjects in depth.


Why is 85% needlessly high? Lots of people can manage it. Do you think this sort of attitude carries on into work? Ah sure I did the audit/built the bridge/carried out the operation 80% correctly - to do any better is just needlessly high?

And don't forget exams have been made consistenly easier over the past couple of decades - an A2 standard now might only have gotten you a B2 back in the mid 90s.

What difference would an A3 grade achieve? It'd just be 85-89%, and an A2 would become 90-94%.


No-one will actually score 84½%. If you end on that score, the examiner will look back over their paper to see if they can give you an extra mark to bring you up to 85%. In fact, that goes for all the grades. It's why so few re-checks are successful, and why your point about the "small" difference between six A1s and six A2s isn't really all that relevant. If you got an A2, it means the examiner saw no way of bringing you up to an A1 - there's no chance you missed out by a fraction of a percent, and certainly not six times.

Rubbish, not "lots of people can manage it" Only 11.2% of higher level maths students get an A2 or above compared to 33.3% of maths students doing A-Levels. 16.5% of LC HL students get A's or above in Spanish compared to 56% of A-Level students. While I'd say there's rampant grade inflation in the UK, we have an inordinately harsh system and the numbers don't lie.
If you're going to make a suggestion, you should at least back it up with a couple of reasons. This is the kind of stuff I thought you would have learned doing the Leaving Cert.
That's a pretty snide thing to say, although no, funnily enough the LC never demanded that I substantiate my opinions or ask "why?" It was much more apt at making me cram diagrams and lists that meant very little.
Sorry, the LC is quite fair, and is markedly better than, say, the English system where you can do just maths, applied maths and physics as a Leaving Cert, or even than the American system which is often just an MCQ.

I also don't think, with respect, that you've got the requisite life experience to comment on how fair (or not) the LC is.
I haven't got the requisite life experience to comment on an exam I just took? That's an appallingly blatant argument by authority and there are many people far older and wiser than both of us who have critiqued the LC exam.
I resent having my opinion dismissed on the basis of my age. With respect, "I'm older so I know better" is the oldest and weakest argument of the mindless authoritarian.

My answer is bolded.

Tell me how

TSMGUY wrote: »

My answer is bolded.

I suggest you don't start a thread if you are not open to alternative opinions. Your tone strikes me as very opinionated and dismissive.

purplecow1977

It's been a while since I did the LC, but I think it's fair.
It's a pathway to college, no more and no less.
If you don't get the points you need for your desired course,there are always alternatives

I would hate to see Irish thrown by the wayside and think it's such a pity that people have such a dislike for it but I assume this comes down to the way they were taught it in school
Imagine thinking that we'd be better off learning basic Spanish over basic Irish!! Imagine!! Italian isn't much "use" outside of Italy, but imagine telling them their language is useless?!

I think there's a wide variety of subjects available for study - just look at the exam timetable! But all subjects cannot be offered in ALL schools, so if a pupil has an interest or flair for a subject not offered by their school, they will need to find an alternative.

One change that could be made to the current exam format is to take other tests etc into account, like we did for some subjects in college.
But I know secondary teachers have an issue with marking their own students work in such a manner.

Higher level Maths was given extra points because it is so damn time consuming! Or at least it was for me! Many students opted to drop to ordinary level because of this!

endacl

Tell me how wrote: »

I suggest you don't start a thread if you are not open to alternative opinions. Your tone strikes me as very opinionated and dismissive.

Just done his leaving. Give the young fella a break. He's supposed to be opinionated and dismissive at his age.

Avatar MIA

goz83 wrote: »

To diversify on this point, consider two students Adam and Paul. Adam and Paul are mostly equal when it comes to school. The only areas they differ is that Adam always gets an A in his English exams where Paul gets a C, but Paul always gets an A in his Irish exams, where Adam gets a C. Both subjects are core LC subjects. Both students essentially dis as well as the other across the board, but Paul got extra marks because he sat honours level Irish and had higher marks than Adam. Adams higher marks in English are better in the real world....for most applications, but Adam was beaten to the course they both wanted to attend, because Paul got more points, due to the unequal playing field and the steroid effect of Irish.

Not 100% sure the point you're trying to make, but would you still be making it if you knew there are no bonus marks when taking the Irish exam.

LC2016

The fact that certain grades and marking schemes have to be altered to fit a bell shape curve for all grades given makes it clear that it isn't fair. If too many students work hard and get an A in an exam, the SEC examiners must find a way to take away those A's from those students who put the effort required for an A grade and award them a B to fit their curve.

spurious

It's not about an A grade, it's about giving the top x% the top grade. Unless you give the same exam every year you have to use the bell curve. I find it amazing so many people think it somehow does deserving cases out of grades.

TSMGUY

endacl wrote: »

Just done his leaving. Give the young fella a break. He's supposed to be opinionated and dismissive at his age.

Opinionated teenagers! Somebody ring the Independent, this could be a juicy one!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

DublinArnie

LC2016 wrote: »

The fact that certain grades and marking schemes have to be altered to fit a bell shape curve for all grades given makes it clear that it isn't fair. If too many students work hard and get an A in an exam, the SEC examiners must find a way to take away those A's from those students who put the effort required for an A grade and award them a B to fit their curve.

Exactly.

siebey123

ConorDon97 wrote: »

"Fair" is probably the wrong word. What I would say is that the leaving cert is very far from a test of intelligence or talent. It is just almost completely testing your ability to memorise and regurgitate. I did the leaving cert this year and I was happy with my result, but I will never judge anyone else's intelligence based on it.

I know I'm probably not answering the "fair" aspect to it, but those are my thoughts on the leaving.

And yeah, forcing people to do subjects like maths and irish that many people simply dislike is unfair. I hated these subjects but I more or less had to do them, which put me at a disadvantage as others love languages and maths. Also the extra 25 points is very unfair and this is coming from someone who did higher level.

I agree with this, but I did OL maths :rolleyes: I don't know, sometimes I just felt punished for not being naturally mathematically-minded and losing out on 25 points because of that. I appreciate how the SEC are considering bringing in bonus points for subjects that are related to your course of choice, though. Eg: if you want to do French and Law in college you'd get extra points for doing LC French.

TSMGUY

DublinArnie wrote: »

Exactly.

you're too young and inexperienced to have an opinion!!!!:rolleyes:

On a serious note, the bell curve is deeply screwed up. The LC isn't a standardized test like the SAT- if you get 80% you got 80% and the marking scheme shouldn't be amended to adhere to previous years' points distributions.

siebey123

LC2016 wrote: »

The fact that certain grades and marking schemes have to be altered to fit a bell shape curve for all grades given makes it clear that it isn't fair. If too many students work hard and get an A in an exam, the SEC examiners must find a way to take away those A's from those students who put the effort required for an A grade and award them a B to fit their curve.

This +1000.