Do you think the LC is fair?

TMJM96

Every point I'm about to make has been made but I think I want to focus on the fact we do 6+ subjects.

I'm so glad we do, if we didn't I would not be studying what I am now studying in college. When I was 15/16 I thought I wanted to pursue Arts/Humanities in college so I chose History, German and Music. Since I needed a fourth subject I chose Physics on a whim. If I was to choose 3/4 subjects I wouldn't have done Maths and Physics (bad experiences with JC teachers who made me hate the subjects).

I ended up really enjoying and getting good grades in Physics and I was doing alright at Maths, so I decided to study Physics in college (and going into my second year!). This wouldn't have happened if we followed the A-Level system. It's great if you know what you want to do at 15/16 but a lot of people don't. Also, just because they go more in depth at A-Levels doesn't mean they understand it fully. My friend is doing Maths & Physics in England and although her classmates studied stuff more in depth, they're not necessarily that good at it. That's where the bell curve comes in again.

The LC is important but not that important. I scraped into my course and ended up doing as well as those who got 110+ points more than me. I know people who after the LC went to work and are working their way up in companies. My friend is currently interning in a journalism company based just off the work he did during a gap year.

IMO, the system is as fair as it can be. We can pick at it all we want but I can't see it being reformed for a while.

TSMGUY

spurious wrote: »

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.

Jeez, that's pretty devious spamming.

As for your point about redrawing grade boundaries and adjusting marking schemes, Spurious, I don't really know. On one hand there are fluctuations in difficulty from one year to the next but on the other hand we spend 2 years doing past papers and class exams under the assumption that a 90% is a 90% with no exceptions so it's a massive inconvenience to us when we do the real thing only to find out it doesn't work that way practically. It'd be odd if you did a class test, got the 90% but then had your grade downgraded to a C because everyone worked hard and got a 90% average!

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

You've just posted a random sentence there. Also, it seems to relate to America, which is a different country. Looking back at boards, here's people saying a typical PhD in Ireland is 3-4 years. It can be longer if it's part-time of course. But there's no evidence that the average time is 8.2 years.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

Well that's just not true, and I don't know what your basis for suggesting otherwise is. I outlined at length why I think there's important similarities, and you've not made any counter-argument here.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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?

A defeatist mentality? Not at all. You're studying, say, economics for four hours a week for 26 weeks a year by the time you come to Leaving Cert - if you include Business Studies to JC level and ignore TY. What on earth makes you think you'll have some important original contribution after that when the area has been studied in depth over hundreds of years by a huge number of people, some of whom have spent a whole lifetime working in and researching the area?

TSMGUY wrote: »

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?

Not contradicting myself at all. I'm saying the workplace is important, but not the be all and end all, as you've previously implied I'm saying. Elsewhere, just calling my comment "idiotic" and "silly" doesn't really constitute a valid point, so not much else I can respond to here.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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

Ummm...your comment here doesn't even reach the level of anecdotal experience. In any event, "thousands" isn't actually that many when you're looking at 60,000 a year sitting the LC. And it's less still when you take out those who thought they knew what they wanted to study, but later changed their mind.

TSMGUY wrote: »

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

And if you actually read my point, I said all the languages were exceptions - Irish, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Latin, whatever.

TSMGUY wrote: »

So encouraging independent thought = bad.

I didn't say that. I said that when you're only starting off the study of an area - be it economics, or physics or German or maths or tech graphics or whatever - you're not likely to be at a level where you can have an original contribution to make.

TSMGUY wrote: »

Teaching us how to deal with stress = good?

Do you disagree with this?

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

Here you're just attacking me rather than my comments, so I'll leave it at that unless you want to actually address the points I've made.

Elliott S

spurious wrote: »

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.

I also think that the CAO process could be improved by a weighting system where subjects related to the course you want to do count for more when calculating points for admission to that course. It would be complicated but I reckon it's doable. I think some country does this already. France, I think? It might mean someone doesn't miss on that high points science course because they got a mediocre English grade, for example.

Mr Rhode Island Red

In fairness, it's not a great time to be running this poll. People have just gotten results and are going to be understandably bitter against the system if the exams didn't go their way, in the same way that people who have got the results they wanted are going to sing its praises (or at very least be a bit biased in its favour)

spurious

TSMGUY wrote: »

It'd be odd if you did a class test, got the 90% but then had your grade downgraded to a C because everyone worked hard and got a 90% average!

It's not always because of working hard though, sometimes it is because of an easier paper and that's what the bellcurve tackles.

What did you think of the standard of the old Group and Inter. Cert papers I posted?

http://www.dublin1850.com/oldexams/oldpapers.html

endacl

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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.

Here's a thought. Perhaps most people are happy to do what most people do? Or, be 'worker drones', if you prefer? Interesting to note that every person I know, and of course I'm speaking anecdotally again, who would not be described as a 'worker drone', also came through the same system as everybody else...

TSMGUY

Mr Rhode Island Red wrote: »

In fairness, it's not a great time to be running this poll. People have just gotten results and are going to be understandably bitter against the system if the exams didn't go their way, in the same way that people who have got the results they wanted are going to sing its praises (or at very least be a bit biased in its favour)

I got 560 and I think the exam is a pile of ****e and a terrible measure of scholastic ability, but point taken. One of the smartest guys I know has like 250 points and is locked out of the courses he wants while someone I know to be an absolute moron has more than double his points. I think a lot of people will feel vindicated by this thread tbh.

TSMGUY

spurious wrote: »

It's not always because of working hard though, sometimes it is because of an easier paper and that's what the bellcurve tackles.

What did you think of the standard of the old Group and Inter. Cert papers I posted?

http://www.dublin1850.com/oldexams/oldpapers.html

The papers look pretty rigorous and certainly more difficult than GCSE'S but I couldn't really say anything meaningful about the Inter Cert as I didn't do the Junior Cert. I imagine the junior cert is easier now than it was then, though.

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

One of the smartest guys I know has like 250 points and is locked out of the courses he wants while someone I know to be an absolute moron has more than double his points.

Sounds like the smart guy didn't apply himself so, whereas the "moron" did.

Guess which approach is going to deliver more in the coming years?

The alternative to consider is that you're not a very good judge of people.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

Sounds like the smart guy didn't apply himself so, whereas the "moron" did.

Guess which approach is going to deliver more in the coming years?

The alternative to consider is that you're not a very good judge of people.

No, the Leaving Cert isn't a very good judge of people.....

cdeb

Ignoring the point being made again. Good stuff.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

Ignoring the point being made again. Good stuff.

You keep making things personal, which is odd given you're a mod. I've addressed your points, stop being so sensitive.

TMJM96

TSMGUY wrote: »

[/B]
No, the Leaving Cert isn't a very good judge of people.....

It's never been stated the LC judges people as a whole. It judges them in their ability to apply themselves to 6+ subjects over a two year period and learn off information. Rote learning is a problem but it's also a problem in college so it's not a point to complain about.

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

You keep making things personal, which is odd given you're a mod. I've addressed your points, stop being so sensitive.

No I haven't. You've called my points idiotic, silly and sensitive (with no back-up whatsoever), told me to stop making stuff up (even though I could show I wasn't) and then started ignoring the point I made so you could answer something I didn't even say. You also haven't addressed my points. I've been very clear in outlining my arguments in contrast.

No harm, but a bit of maturity on your behalf would go a long way. I think another poster on this thread suggested you take other views on board and stop dismissing then because they don't agree with your view. I agree with that poster.

TSMGUY

TMJM96 wrote: »

It's never been stated the LC judges people as a whole. It judges them in their ability to apply themselves to 6+ subjects over a two year period and learn off information. Rote learning is a problem but it's also a problem in college so it's not a point to complain about.

But the way parents/papers/tv goes on about it you'd think the LC was a bona-fide measure of someone's worth. I feel uncomfortable with the whole points system being used a quantifier of ability to well in college. I knew a guy who was an absolute genius at physics/maths but being a recent emigrant from Nigeria wasn't too strong at languages and as a result had to study physics at a mediocre college. That's not fair at all, if you ask me.

cdeb wrote: »

No I haven't. You've called my points idiotic, silly and sensitive (with no back-up whatsoever), told me to stop making stuff up (even though I could show I wasn't) and then started ignoring the point I made so you could answer something I didn't even say. You also haven't addressed my points. I've been very clear in outlining my arguments in contrast.

No harm, but a bit of maturity on your behalf would go a long way. I think another poster on this thread suggested you take other views on board and stop dismissing then because they don't agree with your view. I agree with that poster.

You dismissed my point because I don't have "requisite experience", starting the personal remarks instead of sticking to the topic at hand, so you have no grounds to complain about that. You were the one who was making strawman arguments which are very easy to rip apart, so you can't complain about being misquoted either. I have addressed your points. And your claim that PhD's on average take less than 6 years is demonstrably false.

Stop pulling the "maturity" and "age" card whenever you don't get your way. You swanned into this thread complacent and eager to dismiss me because of my age and once again you're playing that very cheap hand. I'm quite shocked that you're conducting yourself the way you are as a mod. If you feel like I'm not answering your posts, that isn't a reason to hound me across the thread. I just find talking to you tedious given how obtuse you're being.

Elliott S

OP, there's been lots of good counter points made on this thread, none of which you appear to have taken on board or properly considered. What's the point?

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

You dismissed my point because I don't have "requisite experience", starting the personal remarks instead of sticking to the topic at hand, so you have no grounds to complain about that. You were the one who was making strawman arguments which are very easy to rip apart, so you can't complain about being misquoted either. I have addressed your points. And your claim that PhD's on average take less than 6 years is demonstrably false.

My claim on PhDs is not false, and I proved it. I think your figure is American, and so hardly relevant. (I'd confirm that but you didn't give any back-up to your figure)

Where are my strawman arguments?

I clearly explained the life experience issue (twice actually) and others have agreed.

TSMGUY

Elliott S wrote: »

OP, there's been lots of good counter points made on this thread, none of which you appear to have taken on board or properly considered. What's the point?

Elliot, you stirred the pot on After Hours and you're stirring the pot here. I won't be stupid enough to rise to your provocation this time so you're better off quitting while you're ahead. Feel free to discuss the topic, but stop trying to bait me into an argument.

BrianBoru00

TSMGUY wrote: »

But the way parents/papers/tv goes on about it you'd think the LC was a bona-fide measure of someone's worth. I feel uncomfortable with the whole points system being used a quantifier of ability to well in college. I knew a guy who was an absolute genius at physics/maths but being a recent emigrant from Nigeria wasn't too strong at languages and as a result had to study physics at a mediocre college. That's not fair at all, if you ask me.

Fair point and I think nearly all the contributors here would agree with that (I assume its time for the annual "Uniforms are so expensive" thread).

What do you consider a mediocre college?

Elliott S

TSMGUY wrote: »

Elliot, you stirred the pot on After Hours and you're stirring the pot here. I won't be stupid enough to rise to your provocation this time so you're better off quitting while you're ahead. Feel free to discuss the topic, but stop trying to bait me into an argument.

Jeez, overwrought much?

But anyway, tis a convenient reason not to take my point on board. Suit yourself. There's sticking to your guns and then there's obduracy. Your choice if you wish to be the latter.

I'll continue to read the interesting additions to the thread.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

My claim on PhDs is not false, and I proved it. I think your figure is American, and so hardly relevant. (I'd confirm that but you didn't give any back-up to your figure)
most Structured PhD programmes last for at least four years full-time.4 years is the absolute minimum according to this Irish specific site. https://www.findaphd.com/study-abroad/europe/phd-study-in-ireland.aspx
Where are my strawman arguments?
You said "Not everyone can get an A", which is both a strawman and a false dichotomy. I never said everyone could get an A or should get an A. I said more people should be getting A's, especially in comparison to other countries' rates.
I clearly explained the life experience issue (twice actually) and others have agreed.

Others have agreed with my point about life experience being irrelevant, what's your point? Thanks don't really speak to the validity of an argument.

Elliott S wrote: »

Jeez, overwrought much?

But anyway, tis a convenient reason not to take my point on board. Suit yourself. There's sticking to your guns and then there's obduracy. Your choice if you wish to be the latter.

I think I can live with you calling me obdurate:D

And yes, you are "hard to get used to."

@BrianBoru00

I wouldn't say here because it'd probably offend quite a few people given the small number of colleges in Ireland. Suffice it so say this guy had a first-rate mind for science and he deserved a place at TCD/UCD. Given his first language was Yoruba, it's moronic that his performance in English/French stopped him from getting the science course he wanted.

cdeb

That link does not say four years is the absolute minimum. It says "Most Irish PhDs last between three and four years", and then also looks at structured PhDs. So you've proved my point. It certainly doesn't say a minimum of six and average of 8.2 years, which was your initial point. So you're wrong here.

Another poster answered your issue on comparisons with England very well, pointing out you'd expect higher grades where a subject isn't compulsory. You seem to not like taking on board things that don't agree with your view.

I don't see how my comment on the matter is a strawman. You argued it would be fairer if more people got As, and if the grade to get an A was lower (80%) as higher than that wasn't really necessary. I noted that an A grade should set a high standard, and your implication of giving out lots of As, and for lower marks, would cheapen the grade and be less fair to the genuinely excellent students.

Elliott S

cdeb wrote: »

That link does not say four years is the absolute minimum. It says "Most Irish PhDs last between three and four years", and then also looks at structured PhDs. So you've proved my point. It certainly doesn't say a minimum of six and average of 8.2 years, which was your initial point. So you're wrong here.

Yes, everyone I know who completed PhDs in the UK and Ireland finished them in 3.5 - 5 years.

BrianBoru00

TSMGUY wrote: »

@BrianBoru00

I wouldn't say here because it'd probably offend quite a few people given the small number of colleges in Ireland. Suffice it so say this guy had a first-rate mind for science and he deserved a place at TCD/UCD. Given his first language was Yoruba, it's moronic that his performance in English/French stopped him from getting the science course he wanted.

Well fortunately in Ireland we don't have the same snobbish attidute that exists in the UK and USA in particular with regard the education.
Getting good results is far more important than the name of the college. Your college assuming it is one of the Institutes of Education or universities is not going to determine your fate in 99% of cases .

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

Suffice it so say this guy had a first-rate mind for science and he deserved a place at TCD/UCD.

As before, given the smartest person you know got 260 points and a "moron" got twice that, you'll appreciate if we reserve some judgement on your evaluation of this person.

matthew1998

We need to follow the A level system in England... Where you are not forced to take subjects you are bad at and will not use! Like English irish and maths. If you are scraping a D in pass maths... Why continue to study it?

As they go into more detail in the A level system people don't have to do foundation courses in university (for example engineering)...

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

That link does not say four years is the absolute minimum. It says "Most Irish PhDs last between three and four years", and then also looks at structured PhDs. So you've proved my point. It certainly doesn't say a minimum of six and average of 8.2 years, which was your initial point. So you're wrong here.
It does say a minimum of 4 years and the 8.2 was from an American source. You knew that because it mentioned the New York Times. I'm not wrong and my figure of 6 years is very close to the average length of doctorates. 3 years is a ridiculously low figure and you know it.
Another poster answered your issue on comparisons with England very well, pointing out you'd expect higher grades where a subject isn't compulsory. You seem to not like taking on board things that don't agree with your view.
I'm by far the most prolific poster ITT. Sorry that I haven't answered literally every single post as you'd like me to. I'm the OP of a thread on boards.ie, not an editor of a novel. I've answered very many opposing views.
I don't see how my comment on the matter is a strawman. You argued it would be fairer if more people got As, and if the grade to get an A was lower (80%) as higher than that wasn't really necessary. I noted that an A grade should set a high standard, and your implication of giving out lots of As, and for lower marks, would cheapen the grade and be less fair to the genuinely excellent students. If you don't see how that was a strawman argument, allow me to use your own snide line against you and suggest that's something you would've thought the Leaving Cert taught you.

In bold, again. I'm tired of responding to the same points, so I'll stop here.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

As before, given the smartest person you know got 260 points and a "moron" got twice that, you'll appreciate if we reserve some judgement on your evaluation of this person.

I didn't say he's the smartest person I know, I said he was one of the smartest people I know. The smartest guy I know got 625 points and 8 A1's in the mocks. You really can't post without a) misquoting me and b) being snide, can you?

Elliott S

matthew1998 wrote: »

We need to follow the A level system in England... Where you are not forced to take subjects you are bad at and will not use! Like English irish and maths. If you are scraping a D in pass maths... Why continue to study it?

As they go into more detail in the A level system people don't have to do foundation courses in university (for example engineering)...

The A Level system is not one that is looked up to. And, as said before, LC graduates quickly catch up on once in college. After the first year of college, the playing field is level.