Do you think the LC is fair?

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

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.

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.

It says a minimum of four years FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF PHD. It says 3-4 Yates FOR ANOTHER TYPE. Another poster has said 3.5-5 years in their actual experience. None of this backs up your figures of 6 years minimum and 8.2 years average. It doesn't even back up your subtle change to 6 years average.

You don't have to reply to every point made, but if you actually want an answer to your original question, then you should read all the replies, quietly acknowledge when some disprove a view you held, and then not keep repeating that view.

Your strawman comment is back to attacking me rather than my post, so I'll ignore that.

TMJM96

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.

Parents to in about it because back then the LC was much more important than it is now. They didn't really have PLCs and all that. My parents went abroad for training because it wasn't really there for them here. Papers go on about it because it will get them sales in shops and views on sites.

"Mediocre college" is a bit much tbf. After 3/4 years you end up with the same knowledge. I know people who go to TCD/UCD who after a year have the same knowledge as me. Plus I was able to complete an internship this summer on my own terms in my college, they weren't able to do that. Yeah it'd be great if all colleges had the prestige but they don't, it's what you do with your time in college. What societies you get involved with and whether or not you complete work placements etc.

If the guy was a genius at Maths and Physics then he will be a genius at Maths and Physics in college, no matter what institution. Yeah it'd be nice to have a TCD stamp on your degree after four years but just because you don't go to a college like that doesn't mean you won't be successful.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

It says a minimum of four years FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF PHD. It says 3-4 Yates FOR ANOTHER TYPE. Another poster has said 3.5-5 years in their actual experience. None of this backs up your figures of 6 years minimum and 8.2 years average. It doesn't even back up your subtle change to 6 years average.

You don't have to reply to every point made, but if you actually want an answer to your original question, then you should read all the replies, quietly acknowledge when some disprove a view you held, and then not keep repeating that view.

Your strawman comment is back to attacking me rather than my post, so I'll ignore that.

My god, your arrogance is astonishing."Disprove", are you sure you did Latin because you can't seem to delineate the humanities from the sciences? There is no empirical, objective truth about which exam system is better. Nobody has either proved or disproved any of my points ITT because it's topic that's subjective and subject to everyone's individual criteria. You seem to think your side has some sort of monopoly on truth, It's a shame that the education system is run by regressive, status quo obsessed traditionalists like yourself. I guess everyone will have to keep learning Irish and spreading themselves too thin to become rote-learning workhorses because that's your ideal......

Elliott S

A general point. A few people have defended rote learning and I'd like to back that up. There will always be a certain amount of rote learning required in life. As long as the theories underpinning it are understood, I don't see the issue with it.

TSMGUY

TMJM96 wrote: »

Parents to in about it because back then the LC was much more important than it is now. They didn't really have PLCs and all that. My parents went abroad for training because it wasn't really there for them here. Papers go on about it because it will get them sales in shops and views on sites.

"Mediocre college" is a bit much tbf. After 3/4 years you end up with the same knowledge. I know people who go to TCD/UCD who after a year have the same knowledge as me. Plus I was able to complete an internship this summer on my own terms in my college, they weren't able to do that. Yeah it'd be great if all colleges had the prestige but they don't, it's what you do with your time in college. What societies you get involved with and whether or not you complete work placements etc.

If the guy was a genius at Maths and Physics then he will be a genius at Maths and Physics in college, no matter what institution. Yeah it'd be nice to have a TCD stamp on your degree after four years but just because you don't go to a college like that doesn't mean you won't be successful.

the guy wanted to be a petrochemical engineer so he's at a massive disadvantage as international companies would give his applications less weight as he's attending a lesser-known university,

cdeb

I disproved your suggestion that a PhD takes an average of 8.2 years and a minimum of 6 years. That's not open to debate. Heck, even you disproved it yourself, and you're still trying to say you're right!

I didn't claim to have disproved anything else.

TSMGUY

Elliott S wrote: »

A general point. A few people have defended rote learning and I'd like to back that up. There will always be a certain amount of rote learning required in life. As long as the theories underpinning it are understood, I don't see the issue with it.

they're not, that's the problem.

cdeb wrote: »

I disproved your suggestion that a PhD takes an average of 8.2 years and an average of 6 years.

That's not open to debate. Heck, even you disproved it yourself, and you're still trying to say you're right!

I didn't claim to have disproved anything else.

You're not capable of following a coherent line of thought, are you? You said others had disproved me, not you. And you keep banging on about this 8.2 years even though it's from a source, certainly at least as, if not more credible than yours.
http://www.gradschoolhub.com/faqs/what-is-the-average-time-to-obtain-a-ph-d/

cdeb

You're aware America is a different country, yeah?

The stats there are utterly irrelevant.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

You're aware America is a different country, yeah?

The stats there are utterly irrelevant.

So the LC and PhD's are comparable but Irish PhD's and American PhD's aren't?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... good logic!

PM me nudes

Regarding the PhD length

I'm starting a PhD next month and the college has given a timeline of 3-4 years. If I'm not finished by the end of year 4, I'll be brought in and given a kick up the arse to finish it

cdeb

Irish PhDs last 3-5 years.

I said the leaving cert teaches useful skills for doing a PhD.

You said it didn't because a PhD takes 8 years on average, when it doesn't.

So your point there was wrong.

Elliott S

TSMGUY wrote: »

they're not, that's the problem.

Speak for yourself. How do you know "they" are not? My college degree was a mix of understanding the theories and experimental findings AND rote learning. And I found that my LC stood to me in many ways, both educationally and in the skills it embued in me. The idea that all is forgotten once the LC in over does not ring true to me. Only a while back, my sister and I successfully translated a plaque written in French based only on our LC knowledge of the language. If I ever wanted to learn the language, I'd have a very good foundation to work off.

PM me nudes

And in relation to American PhDs vs PhDs in Ireland and the UK

You are generally expected to have a Masters here, not so much the case in the US. A PhD in the US also has a lot of taught components for the first number of years, which is not the case here as you are already expected to have research experience. So they aren't really comparable.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

TSMGUY wrote: »

So the LC and PhD's are comparable but Irish PhD's and American PhD's aren't?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... good logic!

American and Irish phds aren't comparable. The yanks spend at least the first two years doing assigned classes and also do a lot more teaching than the Irish. Phds typically take about 6 years. Irish don't do so many classes and the teaching is (semi) optional. Typically take about 4 years.

TMJM96

TSMGUY wrote: »

the guy wanted to be a petrochemical engineer so he's at a massive disadvantage as international companies would give his applications less weight as he's attending a lesser-known university,

He can still be a petrochemical engineer. As long as he has the right qualifications, relevant experience, good references and so on he will be fine.

Obviously if they're against people from places like MIT, Caltech and so on je hasn't a chance but no Irish college can compare.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

Irish PhDs last 3-5 years.

I said the leaving cert teaches useful skills for doing a PhD.

You said it didn't because a PhD takes 8 years on average, when it doesn't.

So your point there was wrong.

No, I said PhD's on average take 6 years and then I posted a quote citing the NYT that said 8.2 years. If you want to give me a proper source with median time taken for Irish PhD's feel free. If you wanna keep googling vague 3-5 year quotes from websites that don't given sources (unlike mine, which actually had a citation), there's not really much of a point. Learning how to think is a much better preparation for university than learning how to rote learn. I can't even seriously engage in discussion with someone who genuinely believes rote learning is the proper foundation for third level education.

Elliott S

PM me nudes wrote: »

And in relation to American PhDs vs PhDs in Ireland and the UK

You are generally expected to have a Masters here, not so much the case in the US.

Not at all, most of my friends and acquaintances who did PhDs went straight into them from their undergrads.

TSMGUY

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

American and Irish phds aren't comparable. The yanks spend at least the first two years doing assigned classes and also do a lot more teaching than the Irish. Phds typically take about 6 years. Irish don't do so many classes and the teaching is (semi) optional. Typically take about 4 years.

But the LC and a PhD are?

Not to mention, the vast majority of LC students won't go on to complete a PhD, so the original comparison was irrelevant in the first place.

PM me nudes

Elliott S wrote: »

Not at all, most of my friends and acquaintances who did PhDs went straight into them from their undergrads.

My experience is with the humanities I should have added, where an applicant generally has an MA or at the very least transfers from an MPhil/MLitt to a PhD

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

No, I said PhD's on average take 6 years and then I posted a quote citing the NYT that said 8.2 years. If you want to give me a proper source with median time taken for Irish PhD's feel free. If you wanna keep googling vague 3-5 year quotes from websites that don't given sources

I gave you a quote from your own link!

People here are agreeing with me from their own experience!

They are also agreeing that US PhDs are very different and irrelevant in this context.

These are people who have guest-hand experience of the matter. But you still won't listen!

What more do you want here?!

I can't even seriously engage in discussion with someone who genuinely believes rote learning is the proper foundation for third level education.

I've done a third level degree. You haven't. Why should you know more than me about what's useful for it?

TSMGUY

PM me nudes wrote: »

Regarding the PhD length

I'm starting a PhD next month and the college has given a timeline of 3-4 years. If I'm not finished by the end of year 4, I'll be brought in and given a kick up the arse to finish it

Dr PM me nudes, it has a nice ring to it:pac:

cdeb wrote: »

I gave you a quote from your own link!

People here are agreeing from their own experience!

What more do you want here?!


I've done a third level degree. You haven't. Why should you know more than me about what's useful for it?

Because I have a mind of my own? You seem to use formal qualifications to compensate for your lack of critical thinking skills and age to compensate for your lack of insight. It's equivalent to me saying that if you got less than 560 points in the LC, you're not allowed to have an opinion on it because I did "better." Stop being so smug.

So far, you've defended your posts on the basis of these laughable grounds:
-People have thanked my posts
-I'm older than you
-I've gone to college
-A smattering of anecdotes confirm my opinion

Debating isn't your strong suit, which isn't surprising given you place such a premium on rote learning.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

TSMGUY wrote: »

But the LC and a PhD are?

Not to mention, the vast majority of LC students won't go on to complete a PhD, so the original comparison was irrelevant in the first place.

I didn't mention anything about comparing PhD and LC. I'm merely pointing out that the American and Irish phd systems are different and not comparable.

cdeb

TSMGUY wrote: »

Because I have a mind of my own? You seem to use formal qualifications to compensate for your lack of critical thinking skills and age to compensate for your lack of insight. It's equivalent to me saying that if you got less than 560 points in the LC, you're not allowed to have an opinion on it because I did "better." Stop being so smug.

So far, you've defended your posts on the basis of these laughable grounds:
-People have thanked my posts
-I'm older than you
-I've gone to college
-A smattering of anecdotes confirm my opinion

Debating isn't your strong suit, which isn't surprising given you place such a premium on rote learning.

Actually I've argued in detail against all your points, but you've ignored practically everything I and other posters have said if it disagrees with your own view.

You take simple facts (eg I know what's required to do a degree and you don't) and choose to take offence at that, and then start twisting my motivations (while bordering on the angrily abusive while you're at it)

But hey, if that's the attitude you want to take forward, off you go. Wouldn't bank on getting very far with it, but no doubt you think you know better.

PS - I note your post deflected from an acknowledgement that I was correct on the PhD issue.

Noodle1

I don't think the LC is fair. I did my leaving cert years ago, got on grand and luckily went to college. I didn't have any pressure, the school that I went to wasnt remotely results driven but luckily I scraped through. I'm now a mother and staying at home for a few years with my young kids.
The main reason I don't think it's fair is that it's very obvious that if you send your kids to a very good school or tuition centre then your kids have the edge over others in other schools with teachers who don't have the same incentive to achieve results. Motivation and support are so important in the leaving cert.
Also if you have the chance to make a clever choice with subjects you have the change to boost your points by possibly that critical amount. Some subjects are certainly much more difficult than others. Less choice in smaller schools.
Our kids are young and we live in the country (moved from Cork city) but yet we find ourselves already talking about secondary schools.
I can't wait for it to change for my kids sake but I think it will be a while. If things don't change I'll certainly be giving my children the best chance to get the best results that they can by choosing schools carefully. We will be in the position to pay for schooling but I'm not comfortable with this overall. I'd prefer for it to be a level
playing field for all as it currently is not fair.
Plus some people are doing courses just because they get the points, not because it's for them. This is complicated I know but some courses like medicine, veterinary, physio, teaching etc. need a different method for entry. Some amazing caring people out there are doctors etc but also some who are obviously in the wrong job. Sorry gone off topic there ☺️

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

Actually I've argued in detail against all your points, but you've ignored practically everything I and other posters have said if it disagrees with your own view.

You take simple facts (eg I know what's required to do a degree and you don't) and choose to take offence at that, and then start twisting my motivations (while bordering on the angrily abusive while you're at it)

But hey, if that's the attitude you want to take forward, off you go. Wouldn't bank on getting very far with it, but no doubt you think you know better.

PS - I note your post deflected from an acknowledgement that I was correct on the PhD issue.

I'm not twisting anything. You make supremely condescending posts and then get angry when I call you out. You're the one with a bad attitude and you think your age/qualifications/"experience" makes your arguments infallible.

I've argued long enough and real life is beckoning, but in the future I recommend you don't enter an argument with the preconception that young people are all obsequious, inexperienced idiots who should treat your opinions with unquestioning reverence.

Noodle1

and just in case I haven't been clear in my other post....there are some amazing young people who are very motivated themselves and would do well no matter where they go to school. Fair play to those young people, I really think they are very special people. It's difficult to be motivated when you're so young. I know I wasn't!!

TSMGUY

Noodle1 wrote: »

I don't think the LC is fair. I did my leaving cert years ago, got on grand and luckily went to college. I didn't have any pressure, the school that I went to wasnt remotely results driven but luckily I scraped through. I'm now a mother and staying at home for a few years with my young kids.
The main reason I don't think it's fair is that it's very obvious that if you send your kids to a very good school or tuition centre then your kids have the edge over others in other schools with teachers who don't have the same incentive to achieve results. Motivation and support are so important in the leaving cert.
Also if you have the chance to make a clever choice with subjects you have the change to boost your points by possibly that critical amount. Some subjects are certainly much more difficult than others. Less choice in smaller schools.
Our kids are young and we live in the country (moved from Cork city) but yet we find ourselves already talking about secondary schools.
I can't wait for it to change for my kids sake but I think it will be a while. If things don't change I'll certainly be giving my children the best chance to get the best results that they can by choosing schools carefully. We will be in the position to pay for schooling but I'm not comfortable with this overall. I'd prefer for it to be a level
playing field for all as it currently is not fair.
Plus some people are doing courses just because they get the points, not because it's for them. This is complicated I know but some courses like medicine, veterinary, physio, teaching etc. need a different method for entry. Some amazing caring people out there are doctors etc but also some who are obviously in the wrong job. Sorry gone off topic there ☺️

No, that was a wonderful contribution amidst a sea of nitpicking and vitriol. The class problem and leaving cert results is also a huge, unaddressed problem that needs to be dealt with.

cdeb

Where have I gotten angry?

Have I called you idiotic, silly, sensitive or a moron for example?

You need to learn the difference between condescending and a relevant fact. Such as - I know how the Leaving Cert helps in future studies, and you don't. Yet.

Mardy Bum

TSMGUY wrote: »

they're not, that's the problem.

Seven Myths About Education written by Daisy Christodoulou.

What if everything you knew about education was wrong? By David Didau

The Knowledge Deficit by Ed Hirsch

Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown

The above is a small reading list that will help you understand more about the nature of education and learning and what is involved in both.

It will not only give you a better insight into education, education systems and learning in general but it will also help you in college. Making it stick would be especially useful.

Learning things by memory is absolutely vital in order to be successful in any field. We can only keep 7 things in our working memory and the rest is stored in our long term memory (This is split into a number of different sections but I am not going to go into that). If you have not learned things off will struggle with day to day tasks in work as you will suffer from cognitive overloading.

TSMGUY

cdeb wrote: »

Where have I gotten angry?

Have I called you idiotic, silly, sensitive or a moron for example?

You need to learn the difference between condescending and a relevant fact. Such as - I know how the Leaving Cert helps in future studies, and you don't. Yet.

I called your arguments "moronic", "idiotic" and "silly", not you. I did call you sensitive. If calling you sensitive offended you then I'd say you are indeed sensitive.

Again, you don't have to do something to understand it. You haven't done the 2016 LC any yet you're very opinionated about it, and rightly so. The world would be a very boring and uninformed place if we had to directly do and experience everything before we could proffer an opinion on it.