The dumbed-down Leaving Cert

BabyCheeses

Looking at some of the older papers compared to this years it becomes pretty clear that most of the people complaining aren't working in scientific or engineering areas.

Students were given a big scary equation, told x is 5, solve it. Now they are given a problem and have to put together an equation instead. For all the talk of getting them ready for the big mean world, you should probably consider we have computers to solve equations. The reason older exams look harder to you is because you have no idea what the equations mean, neither do the students, now it is more based on reasoning which you should be able to do as someone over 10 years older.

evolving_doors

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What are the other fundamental aspects of learning apart from memory?

It is up to the questions on the paper to be sufficiently difficult to make the student think, rather than simply regurgitate, which in the last few years, at higher level, they have done.

Have you looked at a LC exam recently?

Hear hear! Im sick of this lazy myth being trotted out by folk who haven't been in education in yonks.

Show me an exam where the substantive requirement is regurgitation of facts and learned off essays.

Go to examinations.ie / exam material archive / select level/ year/ subject

Come back again then with those lazy claims learned off from Marion Finnucan or Some other such talking head ignoramus.

mohawk

mohawk wrote: »

As a parent I don't particularly like this change. Life isn't always easy sometimes you fail. If they want to make an actual positive change to the LC then they need to think about project work as part of the course. We take on quite a few college grads in our company every year and boy do they struggle with team work, working on initiative etc.
I am increasingly starting to feel kids are sons age are going to really struggle once they become adults. They are living in bubbles.

I might be wrong here, and I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected if I am, but doesn't the 30% pass Mark only apply to Higher Level?

The point is that a pass at Higher Level should not be the same as a pass at Ordinary Level. This way, you encourage students to opt for Higher Level papers, without worrying that if they only score 39% in Honours Maths, they'd have been better off doing Ordinary Level.

Back when I was doing the Leaving, there were maybe 15 students in my Honours Maths class, and at least two of them opted for the Ordinary Level paper on the day, for fear that they were skirting too close to a D, and it might mess up their entire leaving cert if they failed.

At least one of them might have been a C student, she certainly wasn't the worst in the class, but she was afraid of she had a bad day, she'd lose everything she'd worked for.

This is an aim to correct that problem, and to encourage students to opt for Honours papers. I think it's a pretty smart idea.

Many of these students will be C students, and this is a good safety threshold for them to be confident in taking the Honours paper.

It has nothing to do with snowflakes or mollycoddling kids, or anything similar that has been implied.

evolving_doors

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I might be wrong here, and I'm sure I'll be quickly corrected if I am, but doesn't the 30% pass Mark only apply to Higher Level?

The point is that a pass at Higher Level should not be the same as a pass at Ordinary Level. This way, you encourage students to opt for Higher Level papers, without worrying that if they only score 39% in Honours Maths, they'd have been better off doing Ordinary Level.

Back when I was doing the Leaving, there were maybe 15 students in my Honours Maths class, and at least two of them opted for the Ordinary Level paper on the day, for fear that they were skirting too close to a D, and it might mess up their entire leaving cert if they failed.

At least one of them might have been a C student, she certainly wasn't the worst in the class, but she was afraid of she had a bad day, she'd lose everything she'd worked for.

This is an aim to correct that problem, and to encourage students to opt for Honours papers. I think it's a pretty smart idea.

Many of these students will be C students, and this is a good safety threshold for them to be confident in taking the Honours paper.

It has nothing to do with snowflakes or mollycoddling kids, or anything similar that has been implied.

But have you actually talked to maths teachers as to what has transpired?

Gebgbegb

Gebgbegb wrote: »

But have you actually talked to maths teachers as to what has transpired?

Not in the last few days since the first results emerged, no.

I am the sibling of a maths teacher but I haven't overheard of any carnage, to be honest.

r93kaey5p2izun

The bonus points encouraged the C students to keep at it rather than take the easy route in OL. The points for a H7 encouraged those completely incapable of doing HL to take a chance. The ridiculous marking scheme means they can get 30% for drawing a decent graph and writing down formulas. But many have failed completely and now have ruled out lots of courses. They sat in class for two years, against all advice, understood very little and have more or less no mathematical skills. An O4 student at OL almost certainly has better mathematical knowledge and understanding than one getting <35% at HL.

The chief examiner's report had already specifically highlighted concerns about numbers taking HL who clearly lacked basic skills - in that context the decision to reward those getting 30% is crazy. Personally I think accepting H7 for matriculation but not awarding points, or perhaps giving the equivalent of an O6, would be preferable.

_Dara_

Are Am Eye wrote: »

However this the point at which they are leaving school. And for many the point at which they are leaving the education system. At what age in their lives are they going to train their minds in verbal reasoning and in logic etc.

That's why some people can't adjust into college. They're being asked to then be independent and given vast numbers of sources and asked to prepare papers with critical thinking and coherant structure.
They're no longer being babysat through largely memory tests.

I don't get this. With anything new someone learns, there will be large amounts of memorisation involved, including college courses. In fact, you won't progress through the course if you don't do this. I don't know why people view memorisation negatively and assume that it means that the student doesn't understand what they memorise. Personally, I can't memorise something if I don't understand it. Comprehension and memorisation go hand in hand for me. I simply cannot commit something to memory unless I fully understand it. And the time I take to understand it before memorising it really makes it stay in my head. I wouldn't think I'm in any way unique here.

In college, a combination of memorisation and development of critical thinking is what happens. You have a bedrock of information from your schooling and college memorisation to use as a springboard for the development of critical thinking skills.

Skylinehead

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you believe that someone who gets 39% isn't educated, and someone who gets 40% is? There's almost no difference. CAO points might as well be linear from 0, and universities can scale their requirements from there.

Fourier

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Average age of mathematically important work (I would not include relativity here, which is more to do with physics, there's no mathematical insight in Special Relativity as proposed by Einstein) has increased significantly in the past century, essentially due to the amount of groundwork now required. I'm not genuinely sure if age is of significant importance. For instance in Galois' case he created group theory from playing around with quintics, the only prerequisite was his genius and he is a very special case. The founders of major areas tend to be very young, again because they really have little to learn, only the genius to make the conceptual insight. Also there are several cases of people coming to mathematics late and making massive insights, innate/genetic genius is the greatest factor.

Also across the globe most of the significant mathematics is taught at a similar age. In the USA, graduate level mathematics is encountered later than here in Ireland or Britain or most of Continental Europe. However the United States has a better mathematical history. It is joint only with France, where again topics are taught later than most other countries.

Those who are good at mathematics are often also autodidacts, making timing of formal education somewhat irrelevant.

I think by not challenging people at an early age we do more harm to the 70%-80% group, people who could use the boost.

mirrorwall14

Phillip Enough Fumble wrote: »

The bonus points encouraged the C students to keep at it rather than take the easy route in OL. The points for a H7 encouraged those completely incapable of doing HL to take a chance. The ridiculous marking scheme means they can get 30% for drawing a decent graph and writing down formulas. But many have failed completely and now have ruled out lots of courses. They sat in class for two years, against all advice, understood very little and have more or less no mathematical skills. An O4 student at OL almost certainly has better mathematical knowledge and understanding than one getting <35% at HL.

The chief examiner's report had already specifically highlighted concerns about numbers taking HL who clearly lacked basic skills - in that context the decision to reward those getting 30% is crazy. Personally I think accepting H7 for matriculation but not awarding points, or perhaps giving the equivalent of an O6, would be preferable.

I think there's definitely a case for the removal of bonus points now tbh. If students are getting marks for the 30%

Fourier

Fourier wrote: »

I think by not challenging people at an early age we do more harm to the 70%-80% group, people who could use the boost.

I was with you until this point.

Doesn't the previous part of your post imply that countries whose students perform better at mathematics also introduce mathematical concepts at a later stage?

Ive often found in my own education that I was introduced to some topics far too early in relation to my cognitive capacity. I only began to enjoy mathematics at aged 16 ... the same age I finally found fluency with concepts Id previously struggled with in other subjects.

One other example is the Tuiseal Ginideach in Irish, which was originally taught in primary school, and which almost caused me to hate Irish until, in my teens, i was old enough to finally grasp it.

Today, like many maths concepts, the The Tuiseal Ginideach is second nature. I'd be very wary of overfacing students with concepts before they are ready. Slow and steady is a useful philosophy, especially with boys, perhaps.

Fourier

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Doesn't the previous part of your post imply that countries whose students perform better at mathematics also introduce mathematical concepts at a later stage?

Yes it does, you are correct and I'd largely agree with your reasoning. For instance the Part III in Cambridge has "mathematical maturity" as a prerequisite for many courses, a sort of "old enough to get it". So I'll retract what I said.

Are Am Eye

_Dara_ wrote: »

I don't get this. With anything new someone learns, there will be large amounts of memorisation involved, including college courses. In fact, you won't progress through the course if you don't do this. I don't know why people view memorisation negatively and assume that it means that the student doesn't understand what they memorise. Personally, I can't memorise something if I don't understand it. Comprehension and memorisation go hand in hand for me. I simply cannot commit something to memory unless I fully understand it. And the time I take to understand it before memorising it really makes it stay in my head. I wouldn't think I'm in any way unique here.

In college, a combination of memorisation and development of critical thinking is what happens. You have a bedrock of information from your schooling and college memorisation to use as a springboard for the development of critical thinking skills.

You can learn a poem off by heart.
Can you interpret it?
You could learn the cliff notes by heart. Regurgitate some professor's or some writers interpretation of the poem.
All the above is LC in essence. And of no benefit to you.
Being presented with new poems having learned the skills to recognise and criticise the language used, the themes explored, now that's educational. Learning to write your own poem- better again.

jeonahr

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I think there's definitely a case for the removal of bonus points now tbh. If students are getting marks for the 30%

The 25 bonus points for HL maths is only awarded to those with 40% and above.

Mardy Bum

Are Am Eye wrote: »

Sorry, not understanding you.
Are you talking about a mental skill that assists one in learning?
Or what types of mental skill can be learned or developed?

To reason about anything you must have background knowledge on the topic. If you do not have background knowledge it is impossible to reason. This resides in your memory.

Logical reasoning is taught. Deductive and inductive reasoning is taught and both these relies on memory.

I think what people seem to be angry with is exam cramming where something is crammed into one's short term memory and this leaves it following the exam because it was never consolidated. Students can take advantage of exams that are overly repetitive but very few exams are that repetitive that they are not a fair reflection of long term memory.

The other misconception people have about learning is that they believe if you learned something you don't forget it and if you do that shows you never learned it at all. This is incorrect. Forgetting is a natural part of learning and that is why it has to be consolidated over and over and that is why you don't remember your Shakespeare quotes today but you did learn them in school. If you had consolidated them over time you would but you did learn them initially.

evolving_doors

jeonahr wrote: »

The 25 bonus points for HL maths is only awarded to those with 40% and above.

Aye, but the point was that they were still getting 34 points for 30-39% so it's worth the risk clinging on... scrape up to a 40% and you've nearly doubled your points to 71. Definitely wort the risk.

you have to ask... what are you learning if you're getting 30% in an exam... also, and more importantly I think, how does this impact on the rest of the class' learning. Think about how a teacher can plan for a mixed ability of high achievers in maths and those that repeatedly say "I don't get it miss can you explain it again". And then there's the constant battle with the student that they are going to fail and they should change, it's a difficult situation once a teacher spells out to a student that they ain't going to do as well as they think:
'My teacher told me not to get my hopes of an A in the Junior Cert up - now I'm on the syllabus' (Keep in mind she didn't actually get the A either!)

Previously, before Project maths, the classes were much smaller and teachers could get into stuff a bit more. After a lot of school maths inspection I've heard of, the inspector has reprimanded schools for not pushing the O1 students into higher level. Essentially they don't want any students getting top marks in ordinary level. Hence the claim can be made that project maths is a success as more students are taking honours.

This argument is leaving aside the actual course content changes, but the very fact that it's constantly an issue (in terms of borderlines and points) goes to show that teachers WILL be forced to teach towards an exam as the stakes are so high and the chance of failure is higher.

PistolsAtDawn

jonnycivic wrote: »

They changed how they grade it nothing else so they didnt "Dumb down" the leaving cert its the same standard it was.

Your completely wrong. To illustrate; look at the new project maths material versus the maths material covered in the previous format. It has been dumbed down.

Fourier

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Your completely wrong. To illustrate; look at the new project maths material versus the maths material covered in the previous format. It has been dumbed down.

How so? Can you give explicit examples.

I agree that the syllabus from the 80s was significantly more difficult. However the exams immediately prior to Project Maths vs Project Maths don't have a major gap I think.

reason vs religion

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Your completely wrong. To illustrate; look at the new project maths material versus the maths material covered in the previous format. It has been dumbed down.

Before Project Maths, 15% sat Higher Maths, with 40% getting A or B - i.e. six percent nationally got what would be considered a good grade. Imagine if English were so difficult that only six per cent of people got an A or B, the remaining 94% contained within C-F... We'd think it overly difficult and in need of being recalibrated to match the ability of students. Well, same was true of maths. What's more, there was much reason to think that students were blindly rote-learning methods without being comfortable with the concepts. Drop-out rates from mathematical courses at third level were very high and a ten year study of UL entrants found mathematical ability steadily declining. Project Maths was conceived as solution to these structural problems, not as a regressive dumbing down, as so many who don't know what they're talking about characterise it as.

BabyCheeses

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Your completely wrong. To illustrate; look at the new project maths material versus the maths material covered in the previous format. It has been dumbed down.

I did, it isn't dumbed down, it might look it to people with little understanding of maths but it is quite clear they moved from solving equations to developing them. You don't need to be vague with me, I'll understand the big math words so you can be very specific.

mirrorwall14

reason vs religion wrote: »

Before Project Maths, 15% sat Higher Maths, with 40% getting A or B - i.e. six percent nationally got what would be considered a good grade. Imagine if English were so difficult that only six per cent of people got an A or B, the remaining 94% contained within C-F... We'd think it overly difficult and in need of being recalibrated to match the ability of students. Well, same was true of maths. What's more, there was much reason to think that students were blindly rote-learning methods without being comfortable with the concepts. Drop-out rates from mathematical courses at third level were very high and a ten year study of UL entrants found mathematical ability steadily declining. Project Maths was conceived as solution to these structural problems, not as a regressive dumbing down, as so many who don't know what they're talking about characterise it as.

I think all the universities would now say that students maths ability is worse again judging by the media coverage. Oddly I was tutoring in the year that the first group of JCs with calculators came through and the change was so extreme new tutorials and support classes were brought in to deal with the drop in ability

reason vs religion

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I think all the universities would now say that students maths ability is worse again judging by the media coverage. Oddly I was tutoring in the year that the first group of JCs with calculators came through and the change was so extreme new tutorials and support classes were brought in to deal with the drop in ability

The media coverage of Project Maths (and education more generally) is very superficial and often misleading. This study is portrayed as bringing about a decline in maths ability among college entrants. Yet the old syllabus was in place for eight out of the ten years of the decline. Also, university maths academics are often astoundingly out of touch with secondary level realities. They call for the inclusion of advanced topics with no regard for students who don't intend to pursue maths in college (i.e. almost all).

judeboy101

reason vs religion wrote: »

Before Project Maths, 15% sat Higher Maths, with 40% getting A or B - i.e. six percent nationally got what would be considered a good grade. Imagine if English were so difficult that only six per cent of people got an A or B, the remaining 94% contained within C-F... We'd think it overly difficult and in need of being recalibrated to match the ability of students. Well, same was true of maths. What's more, there was much reason to think that students were blindly rote-learning methods without being comfortable with the concepts. Drop-out rates from mathematical courses at third level were very high and a ten year study of UL entrants found mathematical ability steadily declining. Project Maths was conceived as solution to these structural problems, not as a regressive dumbing down, as so many who don't know what they're talking about characterise it as.

The same UL that have produced reports showing the deficiencies of project maths in 1st yr uni students?

reason vs religion

judeboy101 wrote: »

The same UL that have produced reports showing the deficiencies of project maths in 1st yr uni students?

You don't know what you're talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself.

mikhail

BabyCheeses wrote: »

... it might look it to people with little understanding of maths ...

I have a PhD and teach a technical subject at university. The students entering now lack fundamental skills, and Project Maths is reviled by university educators as a spectacular failure. Do I get to patronise you now?

judeboy101

reason vs religion wrote: »

You don't know what you're talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself.

God, that has to be the most insightful response in the history of mankind. I doff my fedora to your rapier-like wit.

reason vs religion

mikhail wrote: »

I have a PhD and teach a technical subject at university. The students entering now lack fundamental skills, and Project Maths is reviled by university educators as a spectacular failure. Do I get to patronise you now?

Well, no, because your appeal to authority carries no weight with me, a first class graduate of philosophy. It seems utterly obvious to me why maths academics, who excelled at secondary school (meaning they faced none of the challenges of most), spent all eight or so years of their higher education studying maths that is significantly detached in nature from that taught at secondary and who are now biased in wanting as much advanced material as possible taught to the students they will have to teach, do not have a preferential perspective when it comes to evaluating the secondary curriculum, studied by the majority who won't continue maths in college.

Spectacular failure? What hysterical nonsense!

University "educators" have always bemoaned the standard of their incoming class, seemingly without considering that it's their curriculum that should change to meet the standard of secondary, rather than secondary that should change to meet theirs.

The omissions from Project Maths they invariably lament when they refer to something specific are matrices and linear algebra. But these were tiny topics and were seen as among the easiest on the paper. Before switching to philosophy, I did a year of physics. In our first maths class, we did Guass-Jordan elimination on a 3x3 matrix: first day and we had already advanced beyond the 2x2 matrix that used to be covered at LC, whose omission, it is claimed, is of grave concern.

BabyCheeses

mikhail wrote: »

I have a PhD and teach a technical subject at university. The students entering now lack fundamental skills, and Project Maths is reviled by university educators as a spectacular failure. Do I get to patronise you now?

Dont you have the students to patronise?

The old system was clearly a failure, you have yet to actually detail any problems, again vague as always.

judeboy101

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Dont you have the students to patronise?

The old system was clearly a failure, you have yet to actually detail any problems, again vague as always.

Our economic and cultural blossoming over the last 50 years is a result of the "old system". I would not call it a failure. We Irish spend too much time looking over our neighbours fences when we forget we have the fairest matriculation system in the oecd. Every other country in the oecd either filters students at 15/16 out of school or uses money/who you know to filter.

Ficheall

reason vs religion wrote: »

Also, university maths academics are often astoundingly out of touch with secondary level realities. They call for the inclusion of advanced topics with no regard for students who don't intend to pursue maths in college (i.e. almost all).

Maths academics are keenly aware of incoming students' inabilities. What would you have them do? Spend half the year revising stuff students should already know, meaning they don't have time to learn as much new mathematics as they otherwise would have? How little mathematics do you want maths students to graduate with?