Do you think the LC is fair?

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

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

I'm not surprised that the op is disillusioned by the lc. We have a very poor educational system, it is designed to create 'worker drones'. It fails to show kids vital life skills, required to have a happy and fulfilling life. I call it a 'hyper competitive' system, these type of systems are actually counter productive for society as a whole. The drop out rate in the early stages of third level is extremely high, a sure sign that something is wrong with our system, not it's citizens! Our educational system is actually marginalizing a large number of people because of these design flaws.

Ursus Horribilis

It's not perfect but then again what assessment system is? There are always going to be people advantaged and disadvantaged by every system under the sun. Talk to anyone who works in an organisation where promotions are gained by interview and you'll hear some interesting thoughts on that.

Personally I'm happy it was the Leaving Cert I sat and not A-Levels. At 17-18, I still knew bugger all about my strengths and weaknesses, let alone what career to pursue. That took until my mid twenties. I'm glad I had to sit subjects I didn't like and struggled with (maths, take a bow!) because it was a good grounding for university and my later career.
Does it matter if you'll never use Irish again or geography or history or physics or chemistry? It's an exam that's a means to an end and a general snapshot of where you were academically at 18 or 19 years of age. Once you start to move on in college or your working life, most employers aren't going to be interested in what marks you got.

Elliott S

On the idea that A-Levels give an advantage once at third level due to knowing the subject more in-depth; from my experience that advantage is neutralised by the end of first year. Irish students just do that A-level learning in the first year of college instead. By second year, it's a level-playing field.

It's much better to learn a larger range of subjects at school than go more in-depth into a handful, in my opinion. Education should be broad at school to give a grounding in a number of fields and to keep the options of the student open until college.

I even wish we had the system here like in the US where you go undeclared for a year in college and use that year to figure out what you would like to major in, rather than the rigid system we have here. So many people end up in courses they hate because of it.

purplecow1977 wrote: »

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?!

Spanish is spoken in huge swathes of the world. Spain and most of Central and South American. It's also useful to have in parts of the US. To go to France or Italy, you need to have a grasp of those languages. Well, not need, but if you don't, communication will be difficult. Coming to Ireland, is any knowledge of Irish required?

rainbowtrout

cdeb wrote: »

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.

If a student is in hospital during their exams they can sit the exams under supervision in hospital. The same was allowed for a former student of mine whose mother was dying in hospital during her junior cert. The SEC set up a centre in the hospital where they were more or less living.

They can't make allowances for the grades or if a student misses an exam but they are very good when the above happens.

Mario852

For most people LC benchmarks their stupidity.
It shows how much time a person is prepared to waste doing non intellectually taxing memorization.
Its a very fair, non discriminatory exam system which in most cases only tells if a person is a good sheep.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

6 years is a long PhD. Most are shorter.
According to Joseph Berger of the New York Times, the average length of a dissertation program today is 8.2 years (2).] Most are actually far longer. Stop making stuff up as you along.[/B]
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.

There are similarities...... that's a cop out. I didn't say there aren't similarities, I said they are very dissimilar. There are similarities between Ulysses and a copy of heat magazine - but that doesn't mean one is a good reference point for the other.
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.
It's this antipathy towards students and contempt for original thought that's ruining the education system. Never mind learning how to think, you're probably wrong so just learn these facts off and you'll be grand. That's a rather defeatist mentality, no?

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.
Your support of compulsory Irish for cultural reasons is idiotic and it's silly that you'd take away someone else's choice because of your misguided patriotism. That subject would be better chosen by the person preparing for college/the workplace, surely? You're contradicting yourself. The workplace is important but students should be forced to take a course with no importance in the workplace?

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.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't negate the thousands of students who did know what they wanted to do and had to study useless subjects.
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.

11.2% isn't a lot. And "everyone can't get an A" is both a false dichotomy and a strawman argument.
Not true - the languages regularly ask you to back up your opinion with an example from the text; English in particular of course.

If you actually read my OP, I said English was the exception.
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.

So encouraging independent thought = bad. Teaching us how to deal with stress = good? Your points are all over the place and I feel like you're just making up all of your points as you go along to save face. Someone who's smart but bad at handling stress/anxiety should get low points whereas someone who's less intelligent but good at handling stress should be rewarded unduly?

Answer is bolded again.

Elliott S

lcfree wrote: »

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

Oh really? That's interesting, brand new poster.

TSMGUY

Elliott S wrote: »

Oh really? That's interesting, brand new poster.

Are you implying I'm LCfree? The mods will readily attest I'm not.

spurious

TSMGUY wrote: »

Are you implying I'm LCfree? The mods will readily attest I'm not.

This is true.
Our friend lcfree is much more likely to be a bot generated poster (see how they don't really say anything in the post?). I would think it's a test post from a future spammer.