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.

spurious

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

How would you allow for differences in exam papers then?

Say 2017 has very straightforward papers and then 2018 has much more difficult ones? Are all the top points in the 'easy' year to be considered the same as those in the difficult year? Which year would you rather be in? What about repeats? Would you give more credence to top grades from one year than another?
Say an exam was so easy that 50% of the candidates got an A grade? What then? The points for courses would rocket.

The way it is at the moment, the top x% in a group get the top grade, year after year. Is that not fair?

LC2016

spurious wrote: »

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.

I find it amazing how some people think it doesn't. If somebody is origanly awarded 90% in an exam than that person should get a A1. The examiner shouldn't have to then ensure that that person isn't altering the 7% of people that get an A1 every year. Each candidate should be examined individually and not be graded based on comparison to how other people perform.

spurious

LC2016 wrote: »

I find it amazing how some people think it doesn't. If somebody is origanly awarded 90% in an exam than that person should get a A1. The examiner shouldn't have to then ensure that that person isn't altering the 7% of people that get an A1 every year. Each candidate should be examined individually and not be graded based on comparison to how other people perform.

How do you then allow for differences in exam papers, or do you propose to give the same exam every year, so that you have a level playing field?

LC2016

spurious wrote: »

How do you then allow for differences in exam papers, or do you propose to give the same exam every year, so that you have a level playing field?

As long as exam standards are consistent year by year than it shouldn't be a real problem? For maths as an example, I don't understand why some years the SEC decide to give extremely challenging exams and other years give very easy ones.

Oisin4

goz83 wrote: »

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.

I think you may have mixed up the "Bonus points" offered in higher level maths and the bonus marks achieved through sitting an exam in Irish. No such points exist for sitting the Irish exam but for sitting any other exam through the medium of Irish you can get a small percentage bonus (of the grade you've already gotten) added on. It sounds easy but in truth much more work is required due to the lack of having books available in Irish and having to translate complex definitions and such. Some fluent speakers may even struggle due to the obscure vocabulary that they would never have heard except in English.

endacl

TSMGUY wrote: »

The LC isn't a standardized test like the SAT.

It's not. On the other hand, I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of LC students could point to Canada on a map...

lcfree

I have to say I strongly agree with the original poster and share a lot of the same sentiments discussed in their post.

While I can certainly see why one may argue that the LC is fair - I mean everyone sits the same paper in each subject according to their personal level (higher, ordinary, foundation), so as a means of standardised testing, the playing field doesn't seem to get more level than that! Before 6th Year this definitely would have been my mindset, but as the year progressed and after mulling over my results since Wednesday, I have come to understand how deeply flawed the system truly is.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, problem I have with the LC as an exam structure is that it all comes down to what happens on the day. Sure, many people work hard all year and then are well able to show off the full extent of their knowledge in the exam, coming out with a true reflection of their ability. However, this is not the case for everyone. Take someone who has maybe gotten A's and B's in English all year but on or just before the day finds out that a relative has died, or they become unwell, or the stress of actually doing the Leaving Cert just gets to them and they come out with a D. How is that a true reflection of this particular person's ability?

However, perhaps the biggest issue I have with the LC is rote learning. Take, for example, Geography. We had an awful Geography teacher for LC. He did try, but we were his first Leaving Cert class and he just didn't know what he was doing, bless him. So, for the last maybe two months of school he let us come to class and just study while he walked around the room, or went on the computer or just generally did nothing. You know something, though? I think it worked. I actually ended up with an A2, simply because I basically absorbed pages and pages of notes I had made and then spat them out in the exam. Now, just two months after finishing school I would be hard pressed to come up with something substantial that I actually learned in that class.
I took the same approach in both Irish and French, whereby I just learned off phrases and sometimes even full essays and regurgitated them in the exam. I have friends whom I did better than in these subjects who have a far greater aptitude for these two languages than I do and could actually hold a fluid and cohesive conversation without having to have previously learned off phrases, as I would have had to do. Especially in French, whenever our teacher sprung a surprise oral on us, friends that I actually ended up doing better than could talk confidently and clearly while I would sometimes stutter and stumble my way through. Is it necessarily fair that I achieved a higher mark than them as a result of rote learning phrases and grammar points?

I'd like to point out that I'm actually really happy with my results, I just feel that for what is, in a lot of subjects, essentially a memory test, the LC puts far too much pressure on students.

eet fuk

endacl wrote: »

It's not. On the other hand, I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of LC students could point to Canada on a map...

And people taking the SAT couldn't?

endacl

eet fuk wrote: »

And people taking the SAT couldn't?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

goz83

purplecow1977 wrote: »

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 wouldn't like it thrown by the wayside. And I don't want to come across as hating the language, because I don't. The way it's taught may leave alot to be desired, but the real issue is the compulsory nature and the elite status the subject is given. It is unfair to be given extra points for sitting an exam in Irish.

And yes, I happen to believe that it is more beneficial to learn something like Spanish over Irish, as you are more likely to benefit from having it. Anyone who speaks Irish can speak English. Plenty of Spanish speakers have no English and Spanish is one of the most spoken languages. where is Irish useful? Oh yes, you can have drink driving charges quashed when you don't get a charge sheet in English AND Irish....even if you haven't a word of Irish! And more to the point of this thread....why should Irish be (a) Compulsory (b) a way of getting bonus points?

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!

I don't agree with bonus points for anything in an exam, but Maths is useful and has many uses. I use it daily for my work. I think most people use maths in their daily/weekly lives.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

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.

Extra points are given for taking exams in Irish. Or at least this used to be the case. Am I wrong? The fact that Irish is a compulsory subject is a joke imo. How many people use it outside of school? What about the other complulsory subjects? In comparison, how many people use thise outside of school?

Oisin4 wrote: »

I think you may have mixed up the "Bonus points" offered in higher level maths and the bonus marks achieved through sitting an exam in Irish. No such points exist for sitting the Irish exam but for sitting any other exam through the medium of Irish you can get a small percentage bonus (of the grade you've already gotten) added on. It sounds easy but in truth much more work is required due to the lack of having books available in Irish and having to translate complex definitions and such. Some fluent speakers may even struggle due to the obscure vocabulary that they would never have heard except in English.

LOL, I made a hames of that didn't I. Yes, that is what I meant. You see, I believe it is unfair to be given higher points to sit an exam in Irish. By the same token, a Polish kid should be given extra points for sitting the LC in English. They too might struggle with the vocabulary, so why not start dishing out bonuses to them too?

endacl

This topic comes around every year. The fact is, the LC is grand. It's flawed, and could be changed and improved, but so could every standardised end-of secondary-cycle assessment. I whinged about it too after I'd done it. Not so much as I did while I was doing it, mind you...

The point I'd make, I suppose, is that it works for most people most of the time. Anecdotally, most people I know went through it. Most did fine. Most went on to do at least pretty well at whatever they did. I know a few who did brilliantly. They're now doing pretty well too. A few friends did abysmally. One actually still doesn't know (at 44) how he did at all. Never collected his results. How's he doing now? Grand. What you'll come to realise a year or two after you've done the exam is that, while it is 'important', it's really not 'that important'. It's a system. There needs to be a system, and the LC is grand. Does what it says on the tin, and ultimately doesn't matter a fiddler's fart. I can't remember how I did. I've no idea how to go about finding out, and I don't care. I've three post grads under the belt at this stage and the LC has not mattered one whit since the day I finished it. As is the case for most people. Most of the time.

eet fuk

endacl wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

Well thanks for the link from 2002.

There is a nice paragraph in there:

"Young adults worldwide are not markedly more literate about geography than the Americans.

On average, fewer than 25 percent of young people worldwide could locate Israel on the map. Only about 20 percent could identify hotspots like Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq."

It mentions nothing about an inability to locate Canada on a map.

I know it's trendy to say that Americans are dumb and they don't know anything about the world, but you will find that there are inexplicably ignorant people in every country (more than you think).
That study also mentions that the best way to improve your knowledge of the world is to travel. That's not so easy when you live in a country as vast as the USA.

endacl

eet fuk wrote: »

Well thanks for the link from 2002.

There is a nice paragraph in there:

"Young adults worldwide are not markedly more literate about geography than the Americans.

On average, fewer than 25 percent of young people worldwide could locate Israel on the map. Only about 20 percent could identify hotspots like Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq."

It mentions nothing about an inability to locate Canada on a map.

I know it's trendy to say that Americans are dumb and they don't know anything about the world, but you will find that there are inexplicably ignorant people in every country (more than you think).
That study also mentions that the best way to improve your knowledge of the world is to travel. That's not so easy when you live in a country as vast as the USA.

T'was a light hearted post. You really didn't need to go to so much trouble...

Anita Blow

To be honest, this is a thought that goes through everybody's mind once they get their LC results. You're not the first person who will think it and you're not the last. But as you get older and progress through college you'll come to realise that the LC isn't as unfair as you do now. It's actually a much fairer system than many others out there for admission to college.

Like for example the bell curve. For many of you it's probably the first time you've encountered one, but you'll be in for a shock once you hit college. A bell curve is a standard and necessary part of examination. It accounts for variations in the difficulty of a paper from year to year and means that the value of the LC in any particular year holds no more value than the LC in any other year.

The UK has been suggested above as an example to follow with their fewer subjects but more in-depth content. But if you read into any articles on college admission exams you will see that the A-levels are near universally derided as the exact system not to follow. A person may think they want to do Medicine in the August before 5th year, so they pick biology, chemistry, physics and physiology (for example). What happens when they decide at the end of 5th year that they don't want to do Medicine but in fact want to do Music? Well they can't, because Music has specific subjects requirements so that person has now in effect locked themselves into science-related careers. A person is just too young at 16/17 to be making that decision.

The LC/CAO lets a person change their course choices right up until the end of June and beyond some basic requirements, the points system lets them enter any course with almost any combination of subjects.

rainbowtrout

TSMGUY wrote: »

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..

The marking scheme thing has come about mainly because students now have access to marking schemes. I did my LC in 1996 and we had no access to marking schemes. The concept of a marking scheme didn't even cross our minds. I don't even know if teachers had access to them back then. Also if you wanted to appeal a grade, it was something you heard chinese whispers about, we were given no information about it, you didn't get to view your paper, you applied for appeal and the appeal happened. You come on here in two weeks. People will be dissecting the marking schemes and the way their papers were correcting after the viewing and you know down to the day when you will get your appeal result back.

Students, and teachers, started modifying the way they answered in exams once schemes became available, the smart ones cottoned on quickly, and once people started giving more precise answers, then that raised the standard of information required, which leads to a situation where very specific answers need to be provided to gain marks.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

Nice in an ideal world, but if that was the case, everyone would be learning stuff for the craic and perhaps lacking in some of the skills and information needed in the workplace.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

No it isn't. I deal with students every year who haven't a clue what they want to do and have kept their options open subject wise for that precise reason. 17-18 isn't a magical cut off where a lightbulb goes on above a person's head and they figure out what they want to do in life, for some it takes longer. It's very easy to criticise the Irish system because you've been in it, but I suspect if you were to interview a wide range of students from other educational systems, they would be complaining about their own systems and would possibly have praise for our one.


Also in terms of the comparison with our international counterparts, taking the UK as an example: most degree in the UK are 3 years, and the depth of information covered in A levels is higher than that of the LC, understandably so given the number of subjects they do. We do 4 year degrees typically where first year brings everyone up to the same speed. It all works out the same in the end.

Which reminds me, in your earlier post you said there weren't enough subjects on offer again comparing with A-levels: 850,000 students sat A-levels in the UK last year. 60,000 students typically sit LC in Ireland annually. We do not have the population to support an even wider range of subjects. Even if schools were to offer the subjects you listed, other subjects would be dropped as a result, and you would then be complaining you had no access to physics or accounting or whatever.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

Not a fair comparison. Students in the UK get to specialised in 3 or 4 subjects. One of the examples given was maths, applied maths and physics. Students who are going to specialise for A-levels are going to pick subjects they are interested in and that they are good at. They are self selective. Nobody picks maths for the craic. So a larger cohort will get a higher grade in comparison to Ireland where everyone has to do it whether they are good at it or not.

It's actually very easy to see how that works just looking at subjects in Ireland which are optional and where students are self selective. Applied Maths and Physics are obvious examples. Few schools offer applied maths, often it is an extra done after school. Many of the students doing it are already doing physics or higher level maths or both. No one is doing any of those subjects for the craic. Students who pick app maths and physics tend to be interested in them and good at them. Something like 50% of students in App Maths get an A or B grade in the Leaving Cert. Do you think that would happen if it was a compulsory subject?????

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

You can critique the LC because you've sat it, but can you honestly compare it with exams at third level? From a teaching point of view? Experiences in the workplace? I think that is the point here.

spurious

I think as an examination for college entry it's OK.
I despise what the free access to marking schemes has done. Where previously teachers could (and did) teach a subject in depth, now it's all about the exam.

I don't think the LC as it stands (or the poor relation the LCA which has been treated disgracefully by the powers that be since it started) suits a small but substantial minority of those that sit it.

If I am child who is not an academic, what choice do I have?
I don't want to do LCA because some people call it things like Let's Count Apples etc., so I park myself in a standard LC class. I did everything at OL for JC. For LC, I do two subjects at Foundation Level and the rest at OL. I end up with a smattering of D grades and fails.
What use is that to me for anything? What use is it for my self-esteem?

I remember once asking a group of very weak JC students what their dream job would be - leaving out nonsense like playing for United etc.. What one guy said to me I never forgot. He said he would love to be the man in the Community Centre who fixed the tiles, changed bulbs, fixed windows and locks etc. - a handyman, I suppose. He didn't want a high paying job, he wanted something rooted in his community, close to home. I know he would have been great at such a job. He was one of the first into the school every day and he took pride in his own work. He just wasn't suited to writing essays about things he had no interest in. However, he didn't slot into any type of Leaving Cert. class, so he left school early. He may never work.

malnurtured

cdeb wrote: »

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.

Agree totally about English. Just got an A1 in it there this year (HL), and I honestly feel my paper was full of meaningless BS that won't serve me in my course.

I spent about a grand total of 2 days pre-LC cramming English quotes and that apparently puts me in the top one percent or whatever of English students in the country. The exam is clearly wonky and I say that as someone who took advantage of it.

I didn't really enjoy the course and felt like a lot of it was a waste of time, and it seems like being over-pretentious rather than intelligent in your English exam is the way to go, which is wrong for obvious reasons. I'll take the points and run though!

cdeb

lcfree wrote: »

Take someone who has maybe gotten A's and B's in English all year but on or just before the day finds out that a relative has died, or they become unwell, or the stress of actually doing the Leaving Cert just gets to them and they come out with a D. How is that a true reflection of this particular person's ability?

Fairly sure there are allowances made for illnesses/deaths. Not sure what, but the exam board do what they can to help in that situation.

But you know what - there's a thread here in After Hours about people going into job interviews, and the stress of it gets to them and they don't get the job. The interview they gave wasn't a true reflection of their ability - but tough. You have to learn to deal with stress.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

6 years is a long PhD. Most are shorter.

But you're missing the point. Of course they're different exams - and even "exams" is the wrong word for a PhD. But the method of being able to structure your time to study for them is something you take from the LC and apply to the PhD. So there definitely are similarities.

TSMGUY wrote: »

You never hear reformers wanting to reward intelligence, originality or deep understanding.

At the level you're studying - which ultimately is just a basic grounding - if youi're coming up with something original, you're probably wrong.

TSMGUY wrote: »

It's silly of you to keep drawing parallels between the workplace and the classroom.

I don't actually. On this thread, I've supported compulsory Irish for purely cultural reasons. I did Latin for my Leaving largely because it was interesting, if ultimately useless in the workplace. But ultimately, work is a rather important thing in life, and it's very important that the LC work towards that.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

The first part is nonsense. I didn't really know what I wanted to do at 17/18 - I just did a generic Commerce degree. I know people who dropped out of courses for wildly different courses - one changed from architecture to nursing, for example. It happens quite a lot. And so if your first sentence here simply doesn't stand up, the second part has to be nonsense. Our system is actually very good precisely because it gives you the flexibility of a broader education.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

You answered your own point there.

I'd argue that 11.2% of people getting As in maths is a lot. Everyone can't get an A - that would kind of defeat the point of a marking system, and would be more unfair.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

Not true - the languages regularly ask you to back up your opinion with an example from the text; English in particular of course.

TSMGUY wrote: »

I haven't got the requisite life experience to comment on an exam I just took?

Yes - because you've missed the point I've made. The structure of the LC helps you study through college exams (where you don't have teachers looking over your shoulder all the time), through professional exams (where you can get sacked from your job if you don't pass - so being able to deal with stress is a help there), to stuff like Masters and PhDs, even to preparing work reports. You've obviously done none of that as yet, hence my comment that you don't have the requisite life experience to comment on the full implications of how the exam you just took well continue to help you in the years to come as well.

spurious

I think one easy and helpful change they could make within only a few years would be to have an English Literature exam separate from the Creative/persuasive/more 'everyday' writing exam.

Likewise there could be a 'college' Maths exam (doesn't matter what they call it) which the colleges would agree is acceptable for Matriculation, but another Maths exam for those leaning towards applying for Maths/Science courses at third level which would obviously be of a higher standard.

mirrorwall14

I think the leaving cert is very very fair for a terminal exam. Every student taking the same paper etc.

However I do think the percentage bands for top grades in particular that are maintained year on year by the bell curve should be closer to each other. It's not fair on students if the standards are significantly different. For example Art in 2014 had only 0.8% of candidates on an A1 whereas history had 7.3%. With those percentages remaining fairly static it isn't fair on students in relation to points. Pick the subject you love and should be good at but be very unlikely to get an A1 or pick the subject that you can learn off and be nearly 10 times more likely to get an A1? For example in Music one of the subjects I teach I always warn students that while it is statistically the easiest subject to pass a lot of the time for LC, getting the A1 is traditionally very difficult (although it did reach 4% this year it was 2.9% in 2014)

Note I have no issue whatsoever with the bell curve, those setting the papers are only human. I would just like the playing field to be more level to start with