Leaving Cert 2020 arrangements due to COVID-19

hairyprincess

It’sa horrible situation but I don’t believe the exams can go ahead with this virus. Predicted grades aren’t the panacea either but no matter what choice is made there are students, teachers and parents who aren’t going to be happy.
I don’t envy the government ministers , they are in uncharted waters.

Peregrine

Interesting times. I wonder how this will work with paid schools. Will parents expect good grades for the €25-35k they've given the schools?

stephenjmcd

Can't imagine what students feel like tonight, all that work over the last few years for it to end like this.

I dont know what the answer is but predictive grades aren't it.

Personally I'd be quite annoyed, Christmas and summer exams being factored in just isn't the same especially when it comes to college places.
Hopefully its cleared up quite quickly

cena

Sounds like they are thinking of going the leaving cert applied system route

Choochtown

Apologies if this has been mentioned but I think there may be a way to make predicted grades only applicable to a small percentage of students.
I'm open to correction on anything I write below as this is just off the top of my head.

The main reason LC results are needed are for 3rd level places. Therefore get the 3rd level institutes involved. The vast vast majority of students who want to go on to 3rd level get to go on. We just need to be a little bit clever with how places are allocated.

Some courses are oversubscribed and some are under-subscribed so lets start with the under-subscribed.

Example: A particular Chemistry degree in UCC has 50 places. 43 students have it as 1st choice on their CAO form. Therefore those 43 are automatically given a place. Straight away we have 43 students who don't need predicted grades and there's 7 places spare to offer during "round 2".
This process is repeated with every single under-subscribed 3rd level course in the country. Those students who had the course down as their 1st choice are not required to obtain predicted grades.
There are also quite a few courses who have interviews and portfolios as part of their entry requirements. Based on these, Colleges should be able to identify some students who have been exceptional in this regard and offer them places regardless of their leaving cert grades.

So that's round 1 done and a few thousand students who don't need LC grades.

Now on to round 2: The over-subscribed courses. Example: A particular Chemistry degree in UL is oversubscribed. Every student who has Chemistry in UL as their 1st choice is made aware that there are places available in (for example) UCC. An individual student may elect to take one of these guaranteed places or may decide to "risk" getting their predicted grades and holding out for their 1st choice.

Now after round 1 and round 2 the students who have decided not to take a course and stick it out can take their chances and apply for predicted grades.

Not a perfect system but much better than teachers having to give every single LC student in the country predicted grades.

randylonghorn

This is the answer to uncertainty?

Far more uncertainty for LC students if this is the plan.

They have my genuine sympathies.

rainbowtrout

Choochtown wrote: »

Apologies if this has been mentioned but I think there may be a way to make predicted grades only applicable to a small percentage of students.
I'm open to correction on anything I write below as this is just off the top of my head.

The main reason LC results are needed are for 3rd level places. Therefore get the 3rd level institutes involved. The vast vast majority of students who want to go on to 3rd level get to go on. We just need to be a little bit clever with how places are allocated.

Some courses are oversubscribed and some are under-subscribed so lets start with the under-subscribed.

Example: A particular Chemistry degree in UCC has 50 places. 43 students have it as 1st choice on their CAO form. Therefore those 43 are automatically given a place. Straight away we have 43 students who don't need predicted grades and there's 7 places spare to offer during "round 2".
This process is repeated with every single under-subscribed 3rd level course in the country. Those students who had the course down as their 1st choice are not required to obtain predicted grades.
There are also quite a few courses who have interviews and portfolios as part of their entry requirements. Based on these, Colleges should be able to identify some students who have been exceptional in this regard and offer them places regardless of their leaving cert grades.

So that's round 1 done and a few thousand students who don't need LC grades.

Now on to round 2: The over-subscribed courses. Example: A particular Chemistry degree in UL is oversubscribed. Every student who has Chemistry in UL as their 1st choice is made aware that there are places available in (for example) UCC. An individual student may elect to take one of these guaranteed places or may decide to "risk" getting their predicted grades and holding out for their 1st choice.

Now after round 1 and round 2 the students who have decided not to take a course and stick it out can take their chances and apply for predicted grades.

Not a perfect system but much better than teachers having to give every single LC student in the country predicted grades.

And if that student drops out of their course next year for whatever reason, where do they go with no Leaving Cert?

You can’t create even more inequality by only giving grades to a certain cohort.

You also can’t just allow students to enter courses because they are undersubscribed. They have to meet requirements. Those requirements are there for a reason.

spaceHopper

This is totally wrong, I did my leaving in 1991, I'm dyslexic and then there was very little support for students with dyslexia, I was lucky my exam papers were corrected by examiners who took it into account, they excused my bad spelling and more time to decrypt me appalling hand writing.

My teaches had written me off for the intercert, they didn't know then about the arrangement for correcting papers I came out with 1 A, 7 B's and a C. They were floored. Even so I still had a hard time with the leaving one teacher told me I could do a computer coding class at lunch time because of my dyslexia, now I'm a electronics design engineer, I can code in more than 6 computer languages.

Predicted grades carry to much bias on the part of the teaches it can't be done fairly or normalissed to curve

randylonghorn

See, we're all human and fallible.

Teachers too, despite the rumours.

They don't always get it right, and that's a hell of a problem when they're asked to set a student's grade for LC.

In fairness to them, they know this ... which is why they don't want to do it. Not coz they're lazy bastards, but because they are neither stupid nor have they God-delusions. The vast majority of them anyway.

Btw, space, fair fks to ya, man!

zeebre12

A teacher is surely going to give a better mark to their students now? Why wouldn't they? Also what about private schools/teacher is your neighbour/teacher is your parent? What teacher is really going to fail anyone especially honours Maths?

Hrududu

zeebre12 wrote: »

A teacher is surely going to give a better mark to their students now? Why wouldn't they? Also what about private schools/teacher is your neighbour/teacher is your parent? What teacher is really going to fail anyone especially honours Maths?

I think we all saw teachers in school play favourites. There were some great and fair teachers, but plenty of petty teachers.

Aside from that there are students who put in the big push towards the end and get much better marks than the mocks. They would have likely gotten better results in the real exams than they'll get now. If they knew in advance this was coming that would be one thing. But to retroactively say they're going to base results of stuff you can't go back and change is very unfair.

With no JC there will be a lot of empty classrooms in schools. Couldn't they just split everyone up so that there are much smaller numbers in the rooms? Hire more invigilators and have everyone wear a mask for the duration of the exam?

Tristan_

So very crestfallen by this. I don't honestly mind repeating but it's just the broader idea of why this happened, the circumstances under which it happened and the proof that incessant whining gets you what you want from the government. I hope all those students who like to conflate a sense of personal responsibility with genuine mental health issues enjoy their few months off.

I will not be in contact with any one of my teachers even though I'd like to thank them for their tremendous support the last two months. Last thing I want to do is look like I'm grovelling for a grade. My sheet of predicted grades will mean nothing to me whether or not it gets me where I want to be. I normally find it annoying when people reduce the LC as "letters on a sheet of paper", but in this case it genuinely will be just that. Substanceless.

randylonghorn

Hrududu wrote: »

With no JC there will be a lot of empty classrooms in schools. Couldn't they just split everyone up so that there are much smaller numbers in the rooms? Hire more invigilators and have everyone wear a mask for the duration of the exam?

ZOMG FU!!

You DARE to spout common sense in the middle of JoeDuffyVille?

Off with His Head!!!!



Seriously ... maybe it would have come to this point anyway.

There were no guarantees. But if this is the way they go to-day ... it's about 4-6 weeks premature.

At least IMHO.

And I'm not suggesting I have crystal balls, any more than the next guy.



Edit: Tris? You know something lad, you have a head on your shoulders, from what I've seen over last few months, and the connections between the two work.

Don't matter what that list says, that "head on your shoulders" will carry you through in the long run.

Come back to me in 30 years and tell me I'm wrong!

(Won't happen!)

Tristan_

randylonghorn wrote: »

ZOMG FU!!

Tris? You know something lad, you have a head on your shoulders, from what I've seen over last few months, and the connections between the two work.

Don't matter what that list says, that "head on your shoulders" will carry you through in the long run.

Come back to me in 30 years and tell me I'm wrong!

(Won't happen!)

You're too kind randy - will try have something to show for those 30 years

c_f_p99

It is absolutely unfair. But I'm at such an advantage as I did so well in the mocks (although I didn't cheat to be fair). Managed to maintain a consistent average throughout the year too.

Sitting the exams is obviously much fairer, but muh, study. Like, I seriously can't be arsed with that anymore.

Choochtown

rainbowtrout wrote: »

And if that student drops out of their course next year for whatever reason, where do they go with no Leaving Cert?

You can’t create even more inequality by only giving grades to a certain cohort.

You also can’t just allow students to enter courses because they are undersubscribed. They have to meet requirements. Those requirements are there for a reason.

The credits for doing 1 year at 3rd level are (admittedly not in all cases) worth more than the Leaving Cert anyway.

Course "points" are generally only an indication of how much demand there is for a course. Courses don't tend to have minimum requirements. A college or university will try to fill every course regardless. Exceptions of course are there. If a student wants to do study French then it should be expected that they have a certain minimum standard of French. However it would be extremely unlikely that someone who struggles at French would have put a French degree down on their CAO form.

My point is that the LC is generally just a points race for most students to get them onto a 3rd level course. If we can minimise the number of students that need to go down the predicted grades route then it's better for all concerned.

rainbowtrout

Choochtown wrote: »

The credits for doing 1 year at 3rd level are (admittedly not in all cases) worth more than the Leaving Cert anyway.

Course "points" are generally only an indication of how much demand there is for a course. Courses don't tend to have minimum requirements. A college or university will try to fill every course regardless. Exceptions of course are there. If a student wants to do study French then it should be expected that they have a certain minimum standard of French. However it would be extremely unlikely that someone who struggles at French would have put a French degree down on their CAO form.

My point is that the LC is generally just a points race for most students to get them onto a 3rd level course. If we can minimise the number of students that need to go down the predicted grades route then it's better for all concerned.

Loads of courses have minimum requirements reflecting the nature or difficulty of the course, e.g. get at least a H5 in a science subject for a science course, get a H5 in Maths for some engineering courses.

You might find it hard to believe but some students base their choices in college on what looks handy in terms of points or what might seem like a cool job, i.e. the countless number of students every year who put down computer science thinking they'll spend their time playing an X-box and not realising that they have to have a decent maths capability, or 10 years ago the students who thought having a job as a forensic scientist involved going around in sunglasses with a CSI jacket on them, without considering the heap of chemistry they would need to study.

Course requirements are there so the colleges get students into their courses who will have the ability for the material they will be studying.

randylonghorn

c_f_p99 wrote: »

... but muh, study. Like, I seriously can't be arsed with that anymore.

In fairness, if I was 17-18 right now, and facing into my LC, and pretty confident that my teachers' idea of my PG was pretty accurate, I'd prob feel like you do.

And actually it was (accurate, that is) ... my Maths teacher was cranky as hell I didn't get the A, my Irish teacher pretty much fainted when I got a B not a D (my mother, a native speaker, agreed! :rolleyes:) ... but even allowing for that I would have been one grade off overall.

And I had about 150 spare points for what I wanted so who gave a fk anyway!

But ...

... I was in a safe position, lots of my mates would have been in line to get ball-busted by this.

Choochtown

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Loads of courses have minimum requirements reflecting the nature or difficulty of the course, e.g. get at least a H5 in a science subject for a science course, get a H5 in Maths for some engineering courses.

You might find it hard to believe but some students base their choices in college on what looks handy in terms of points or what might seem like a cool job, i.e. the countless number of students every year who put down computer science thinking they'll spend their time playing an X-box and not realising that they have to have a decent maths capability, or 10 years ago the students who thought having a job as a forensic scientist involved going around in sunglasses with a CSI jacket on them, without considering the heap of chemistry they would need to study.

Course requirements are there so the colleges get students into their courses who will have the ability for the material they will be studying.

Very true but then the points requirement goes up for that course. The points system is not an indication of quality of course, it's an indication of places available which is a very different thing. A course that requires 500 points is not a "harder" or "better" course than one which requires 350 points. The 500 points is just an indication of the ratio of students applying to places available. If for example there were loads of students this year who wanted to study Chemistry then the points required for a Chemistry course might rise from 470 to 550. It doesn't mean that the course has got more difficult.

rainbowtrout

Choochtown wrote: »

Very true but then the points requirement goes up for that course. The points system is not an indication of quality of course, it's an indication of places available which is a very different thing. A course that requires 500 points is not a "harder" or "better" course than one which requires 350 points. The 500 points is just an indication of the ratio of students applying to places available. If for example there were loads of students this year who wanted to study Chemistry then the points required for a Chemistry course might rise from 470 to 550. It doesn't mean that the course has got more difficult.

I am completely aware of that.

It doesn't negate the fact that a person needs to meet minimum requirements in certain subjects to enter a course.

You can get 500 points in your LC, but if you fail maths and maths is a course requirement you will not be offered a place.

Choochtown

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I am completely aware of that.

It doesn't negate the fact that a person needs to meet minimum requirements in certain subjects to enter a course.

You can get 500 points in your LC, but if you fail maths and maths is a course requirement you will not be offered a place.

I would imagine that the number of students who are weak at Maths who apply for a course where Maths is a course requirement would be very low. We should also bear in mind that being weak at Maths and failing LC Maths are not necessarily the same thing.

At this point the exact science of selecting students on the basis of points has to be at least a bit looser. Let's give the students a bit of credit for generally selecting courses that they are interested in or have an aptitude for. Many many students will have down as their 1st choice courses which are under-subscribed. What's the harm in accepting them onto that course?

My suggestion isn't perfect (no solution will be) but I think it's a start to reducing the madness that is about to be unleashed.

Choochtown

...and so it begins.

From the official statement on gov.ie https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2f07eb-leaving-cert-2020-information/

Direct quote below:

Will students be able to see a record of the percentage mark that the school has given?

Yes. Students will have access to the school-based data
In the detailed guidance that we are providing to schools and teachers we will be making it very clear that schools should not disclose the estimated marks or rank orders to students or to their parents/guardians.

randylonghorn

And so it begins.

Weeks ... a month or more? ... before we were forced to this point.

Honestly, LC students ... I hope you come out at the end with what you want / what is the best option for you.

Honestly, I can't find it in in me to piss all over Varadkar / McHugh / Martin / Byrne. Genuinely difficult times. Unprecedented in fact.

And yet ... I do feel that we're here TO-DAY / NOW because of a lack of .... cojones? Sorry, not being sexist, but that is the term that makes sense to me.

10000maniacs

When I did my Leaving Cert 30 years ago, I got two B's and two C's on higher papers, two B's and one C on lower papers and an F in lower Irish (LOL)
I would have not got into college if they accessed me on the Christmas and mock exams. I went up 30% on the Leaving cert results.
People tend to work their ass off in the month before their leaving cert. This should be taken into account.
And there is the bias aspect between teacher and student too.

_Godot_

Well, what about projects, like with history? I haven't actually handed mine in yet.

rainbowtrout

Choochtown wrote: »

I would imagine that the number of students who are weak at Maths who apply for a course where Maths is a course requirement would be very low. We should also bear in mind that being weak at Maths and failing LC Maths are not necessarily the same thing.

At this point the exact science of selecting students on the basis of points has to be at least a bit looser. Let's give the students a bit of credit for generally selecting courses that they are interested in or have an aptitude for. Many many students will have down as their 1st choice courses which are under-subscribed. What's the harm in accepting them onto that course?

My suggestion isn't perfect (no solution will be) but I think it's a start to reducing the madness that is about to be unleashed.

Passing maths in LC is a course requirement in almost every course in the country, except for some Arts courses.

11% of students sitting OL maths failed it last year. 7% failed at HL. That's a lot of people who, if they applied to the CAO, would not have been offered a place on the majority of courses regardless of how many points they had.

c_f_p99

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Passing maths in LC is a course requirement in almost every course in the country, except for some Arts courses.

11% of students sitting OL maths failed it last year. 7% failed at HL. That's a lot of people who, if they applied to the CAO, would not have been offered a place on the majority of courses regardless of how many points they had.

Are you counting H7s as fails, though? I swear the HL figures aren't nearly that high.

cena

As a person with both the Leaving cert applied and the normal leaving cert. don't sweat the exams. You could all aways repeat the year or there other ways around getting to college

Choochtown

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Passing maths in LC is a course requirement in almost every course in the country, except for some Arts courses.

11% of students sitting OL maths failed it last year. 7% failed at HL. That's a lot of people who, if they applied to the CAO, would not have been offered a place on the majority of courses regardless of how many points they had.

...and it will be 11% and 7% again this year. That really doesn't sit well with me.

Imagine a typical OL class of 28 students. Student A and Student B both struggle with Maths. Their teacher will have to grade the class from 1 to 28.
The teacher gives student A 41% O6 and student B 41% O6.
Now the teacher has to grade them 1 to 28. Student A is graded in 25th place and so gets the O6. Student B is graded in 26th place and so is relegated to O7 and doesn't get offered a course.
Just as bad is the fact that Student B at a higher achieving school will keep their O6!

History Queen

Choochtown wrote: »

...and it will be 11% and 7% again this year. That really doesn't sit well with me.

Imagine a typical OL class of 28 students. Student A and Student B both struggle with Maths. Their teacher will have to grade the class from 1 to 28.
The teacher gives student A 41% O6 and student B 41% O6.
Now the teacher has to grade them 1 to 28. Student A is graded in 25th place and so gets the O6. Student B is graded in 26th place and so is relegated to O7 and doesn't get offered a course.
Just as bad is the fact that Student B at a higher achieving school will keep their O6!

And no matter what anyone says that student will carry the thought that that teacher chose to fail them. And so the cycle of teacher bashing begins again.