Is the Leaving Certificate more of a memory test than intelligence or aptitude?

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Much of the Leaving Certificate is based on rote learning, prose and poetry for Irish and learning off blocks of essays in the hope that one of those themes might come up, even for the oral exam you were already given several cards with text, one of which was guaranteed to come up in the oral when I did my LC in 2008.

Since I did my LC in 2008, I have checked some of the chemistry, physics and maths papers from subsequent years and in my opinion, they are massively dumbed down from when I did the exams in 2008. Project Maths is a disaster btw.

I went to college (where I did physics and chemistry and a lot of mathematics modules). I remember a girl in our first year who got over 500 points with a B3 or something like that in Physics which gained her entry to the course, the requirements at the time were 300 ish points and a C3 in HL in any science.

I remember her being all smug that she could cram for the exams weeks before and sail through them. Our exams were open book for many of the modules, our lecturers and tutors focused on our understanding of the material rather than rote memorisation. Unfortunately, this girl, even though she did swimmingly in her LC, had to repeat her first year and failed it again and eventually dropped out to change courses and did psychology instead. I still keep in touch with her, she's excelling in her career and now is a social worker.

The LC failed her and led her to believe that because she achieved such good results that she could automatically do any course. I barely met my minimum requirements and I was constantly put down by my teachers telling me I won't amount to anything. Now I work in a niche science field happy as a pig in sh1t.

The LC is not fit for purpose IMO.

SEPT 23 1989

Seems to be dumbed down to sh1t

Compare last years leaving cert papers to the mid 90's and before

today's stuff is more like the junior cert we sat

JasonStatham

Agree

Incidentally, does your niche science career involve shyte? *Serious question

Andrewf20

If its dumbed down that would imply leaving cert points are going up year to year. This would then lead to points requirements for courses going up as a result.

You will still be in competition for college places with other students who got the same dumbed down leaving cert.

These bigs exams basically prove you have a brain and are willing to use it.

Porklife

I've thought this ever since getting a B1 in my higher level economics exam by reciting memorised past papers that may as well have been Japanese. I didn't have a clue what I was writing but I've a good memory and got lucky with the questions.

I also learned my English essay off by heart and got an A2 in honours. I made sure my essay could be adapted to fit any title.

I don't think it's entirely down to memory but it is to a large extent. It's a flawed system. I've a friend who was excellent throughout the year but panicked during a couple of exams and didn't do well overall. She deserved to do way better and it always seemed unfair to me.

Galwayguy35

Did it in 1992, I'd agree back then it was a memory test.

Roger the cabin boy

The current education system is nothing of the sort. Its a gateway throwback to medieval times when he who could read had power.

The higher education system is a Ponzi scheme which has the singular function of lining the pockets of those who reside within it.
It is a societal disgrace.

MerlinSouthDub

I did the leaving cert in the 1990s. It was certainly a memory test then. I am blessed with an excellent memory. I could literally regurgitate entire pages of the textbooks from memory with little effort. I sailed through the leaving cert, but consider myself of average intelligence.

Smacruairi

People think memorising things is easy. It's not. Try it, especially with 7 or so different subjects at the same time over 2 weeks.

It puts people under pressure, and tests memory and skills to a certain degree. After that you get results. I've rarely heard of anyone getting 625 who went on to be a waster.

However I've heard of people who did only ok then identify that different educational advantages, such as grinds, would have helped them work more efficiently. This is the real issue with the leaving. The memory argument is too facile and simplistic,but education and achievement is far too personal and dependent on social inequality, and thus people like to find something more trite to blame... In my opinion!

Ipso

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

The current education system is nothing of the sort. Its a gateway throwback to medieval times when he who could read had power.

The higher education system is a Ponzi scheme which has the singular function of lining the pockets of those who reside within it.
It is a societal disgrace.

Sounds interesting. Do you have a pamphlet?

Kaizer Sosa

Even if the LC is as the OP describes, you still need to do demonstrate some capacity to work hard and apply yourself in order to get serious points. I think this ability to work hard is a far better indicator of future success than just intelligence.

My workplace is full of intelligent but ill disciplined types in junior roles while the senior staff tend to be school swot types. Prepared and briefed in professional matters but if you had a conversation with them about anything other than work, you may not be blown away. Obviously, there are some people that are both intelligent and hard working but hard work and discipline gets you far enough in life.

Wanderer78

Rote learning is truly only a memory test, if you have memory issues, you're kinna fcuked

Nexytus

Andrewf20 wrote: »

If its dumbed down that would imply leaving cert points are going up year to year. This would then lead to points requirements for courses going up as a result.

You will still be in competition for college places with other students who got the same dumbed down leaving cert.

These bigs exams basically prove you have a brain and are willing to use it.

Regardless of how hard or easy the questions, or the level of quality of answers or lack thereof, there is the same spread of grades every year. Or at least there is supposed to be and I think they stick pretty close with very little drift.

You can't have 10% of students getting an 'A' one year and then 30% the next. Would affect college entry requirements and generally make it difficult to get a handle on the relative values of the different grades.

So answer papers may indeed be getting 'dumber' (I have no idea whether they are) but the year on year grades won't reveal theat

"marking up, marking down" is the process of fitting the set of results to fit a preordained grade spread.

spurious

Learning to pass exams tends to be rote learning, learning to become educated less so.

In the 70s, you learned what you could about your subject, went in and sat the paper. No studying past papers, or marking schemes, or looking for rechecks.We knew we had to answer x from section A and y from the other sections. No learned off answers etc.. It may have become a memory test, but it was not intended to be.

Church on Tuesday

It's essentially rote learning and no real measurement of one's academic ability.

It needs a massive overhaul and more practical elements.

Wanderer78

Church on Tuesday wrote:

It needs a massive overhaul and more practical elements.

Thankfully the trades are being slowly intigrated into the system, but it ll probably be done half arsed

PsychoPete

Heard some young lad on the radio saying "nobody can call us snowflakes, we done something incredible"

Man, you didn't even sit the exam and got a free pass

Icsics

If ye think the LC has been dumbed down take a look at the disaster of a new JC, a hamster could do it!

Wanderer78

Icsics wrote:

If ye think the LC has been dumbed down take a look at the disaster of a new JC, a hamster could do it!

I'm sure I'd fcuk it up

Smacruairi

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Rote learning is truly only a memory test, if you have memory issues, you're kinna fcuked

But where is the rote learning though. Its presence is vastly overstated. That might get you 35% but you need to apply the knowledge in most cases.

Errashareesh

Depends on your subjects I suppose. I did no sciency/mathsy/accountsy subjects - all humanities, arts and languages, and have a good memory, so I didn't have to work hard at all.

Crazy though that a hard working kid doesn't get medicine or law due to doing a poor Irish exam.

ILoveYourVibes

Maths is about aptitude ...certain parts of physics and biology are too.

Things like history English etc ....a combo of creativity and memory.

The rest is all memory....pretty short term memory too ...not even remembering how to do something ...but just writing it down. You dont understand what you write.

So its mostly memory.

And i did really well in my leaving. Its not sour grapes.

I always do well academically. Not sure i know much!

dulceetdecorum

Definitely. Got top marks in unseen poetry, off-the-cuff Irish essays but fell down on studied material every time because I couldn't remember bloody quotes. My Irish teacher once said in a report he enjoyed my essay but I had completely made up some characters and a whole storyline. Maybe that makes me an eejit though so maybe it does work as an intelligence test

Didn't find it was down to memory on mine, didn't bother learning off any essays. do agree it seemed easier than in the past.
Still, you can't apply the material eventually if you don't know it

BrianD3

I did my LC in the mid 90s and in my school at least there was no such thing as "learning off English essays". No doubt there was still a strong memory element to most exams but I never got the sense that spewing out regurgitated material was a good strategy for doing well.

IME there is a fairly good correlation between LC points, good scores in IQ tests and doing well in college exams. Also some correlation with career success.

I base this opinion both on myself and people I've known. I remember doing a "differential aptitude test" in 5th year and scored in the 99th percentile in it. LC points were in about the 97th percentile. Was at or near top of my class (STEM subject) every year in university. Did an online IQ test recently - queendom.com which is apparently one of the only reasonably reliable ones, 99th percentile.

The LC was tough - even though I did well in it the subject I disliked the most was English. Very boring and far too subjective for my liking IIRC.

Smacruairi

Errashareesh wrote: »

Depends on your subjects I suppose. I did no sciency/mathsy/accountsy subjects - all humanities, arts and languages, and have a good memory, so I didn't have to work hard at all.

Crazy though that a hard working kid doesn't get medicine or law due to doing a poor Irish exam.

Why would Irish hold them back? You normally do 7 subjects?

Errashareesh

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why would Irish hold them back? You normally do 7 subjects?

Yeah true. Replace Irish with languages though.

Church on Tuesday

Smacruairi wrote: »

But where is the rote learning though. Its presence is vastly overstated. That might get you 35% but you need to apply the knowledge in most cases.

It gets you a lot more than that.

take everything

BrianD3 wrote: »

I did my LC in the mid 90s and in my school at least there was no such thing as "learning off English essays". No doubt there was still a strong memory element to most exams but I never got the sense that spewing out regurgitated material was a good strategy for doing well.

IME there is a fairly good correlation between LC points, good scores in IQ tests and doing well in college exams. Also some correlation with career success.

I base this opinion both on myself and people I've known. I remember doing a "differential aptitude test" in 5th year and scored in the 99th percentile in it. LC points were in about the 97th percentile. Was at or near top of my class (STEM subject) every year in university. Did an online IQ test recently - queendom.com which is apparently one of the only reasonably reliable ones, 99th percentile.

The LC was tough - even though I did well in it the subject I disliked the most was English. Very boring and far too subjective for my liking IIRC.

This is interesting.
When you say you got 99% in the DATs surely you don't mean you got 99% in every one of the 7 aptitudes. Or do you.

I did it in fifth year and got the highest in my school (average across 7 aptitudes of 95%) with a few 99%s in numerical, verbal etc. And I've never seen anyone with a higher score (the guy who came second went on to get gold medals in college for example).

Despite this, I failed a lot in college.
For some reason I hate the past paper bull**** and deliberately avoid it at the cost of knowing I'll get a worse grade by not doing them.

I'm only interested in deeply understanding things and I have consistently seen that college does not foster this at all.
Many people who get firsts literally do not have a clue when you probe with any depth about what they understand.
I've seen it time and time again in college.

Anyway, can you confirm 99% across all aptitudes. If so that is extraordinary. I've never seen it.

Wanderer78

Smacruairi wrote:

But where is the rote learning though. Its presence is vastly overstated. That might get you 35% but you need to apply the knowledge in most cases.

The truth is, the majority of people truly don't, particularly when they enter the workforce, very little of the knowledge learned in our educational system is actually used during people's working careers, our educational system is also acedemically biased, it's ultimately geared towards further education. Don't get me wrong, we need people who have been acedemically prepared for the work force, but society in fact equally needs non acedemically trained people, such as trades people, who generally are treated atrociously in our educational system, by being largely ignored and even sometimes ridiculed.

Our educational system is long outdated, it rarely, if ever, prepares most for adulthood and the workforce, drop out rates at the very early stages of third level, is actually very high, it's very likely due to pupils not having the necessary life skills to deal with such a dramatic life change, this can deeply overwhelm many, leading to early drop out. Many, if not most, have very poor understanding of what their chosen courses are even truly about, only truly discovering this upon beginning it, potentially also leading to early drop out.

There's a possibility the idea of homework should be banned, as it's effectively telling kids, not only do you have to go to school (work) all day, you must also bring that work home with you, and if you don't, there's a good chance you ll be a failure in life.

Our educational system should reflect societies actual needs, not just simply prepare what I call 'worker drones'. complex social and psychological issues are on the rise, people are becoming more and more unhappy, disillusioned, disenfranchised and disconnected, our educational systems are playing a critical role in these issues, but it could play an even more critical role, in trying to rectify them, it just needs our will to change it.

Wibbs

Kaizer Sosa wrote: »

Even if the LC is as the OP describes, you still need to do demonstrate some capacity to work hard and apply yourself in order to get serious points. I think this ability to work hard is a far better indicator of future success than just intelligence.

My workplace is full of intelligent but ill disciplined types in junior roles while the senior staff tend to be school swot types. Prepared and briefed in professional matters but if you had a conversation with them about anything other than work, you may not be blown away. Obviously, there are some people that are both intelligent and hard working but hard work and discipline gets you far enough in life.

Pretty much my experience of people in general alright. 90% of getting ahead in most office type careers is showing up and being consistent, rather than being highly intelligent. I've even seen this in creative type careers, where they're more corporate/office based anyway. People who are so so in talent and creativity but always show up and put in the hours. Such people are never the top in their careers, but few are and the consistent types stay comfortably in the high middle. I suspect because management like the type. They know the work gets done and most work is of the slog kind and driven by the small minority at the top who actually make the hard thinking choices.

Education is not designed to make you think or live life itself. It's designed to get you up to speed with What We Know To be Correct(now)(c) in a wide enough set of fields, to show the students who are the most consistent and hard working and responsive to instruction to prepare you for various everyday careers. University focuses that further. And the fact is that suits both the vast majority of students and the vast majority of employers and careers.

I've also noticed that while you certainly get the "school swots" in the mix, those who plough their own path and start their own businesses and the like or the very creative types are much more likely to have gone through school squarely in the middle, even a few come from the bottom. Ditto with actual mind plasticity and intelligence. In my school kids were streamed into A1/A2/A3/B1/B2 in order of academic excellence and when aptitude tests were passed around in fifth year the highest scores clustered in the A3 stream, with a few from A1 and B2. The highest score was a lad in B2. Last I heard of him he retired before he turned 40 to pursue his own interests.

Smacruairi

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The truth is, the majority of people truly don't, particularly when they enter the workforce, very little of the knowledge learned in our educational system is actually used during people's working careers, our educational system is also acedemically biased, it's ultimately geared towards further education. Don't get me wrong, we need people who have been acedemically prepared for the work force, but society in fact equally needs non acedemically trained people, such as trades people, who generally are treated atrociously in our educational system, by being largely ignored and even sometimes ridiculed.

Our educational system is long outdated, it rarely, if ever, prepares most for adulthood and the workforce, drop out rates at the very early stages of third level, is actually very high, it's very likely due to pupils not having the necessary life skills to deal with such a dramatic life change, this can deeply overwhelm many, leading to early drop out. Many, if not most, have very poor understanding of what their chosen courses are even truly about, only truly discovering this upon beginning it, potentially also leading to early drop out.

There's a possibility the idea of homework should be banned, as it's effectively telling kids, not only do you have to go to school (work) all day, you must also bring that work home with you, and if you don't, there's a good chance you ll be a failure in life.

Our educational system should reflect societies actual needs, not just simply prepare what I call 'worker drones'. complex social and psychological issues are on the rise, people are becoming more and more unhappy, disillusioned, disenfranchised and disconnected, our educational systems are playing a critical role in these issues, but it could play an even more critical role, in trying to rectify them, it just needs our will to change it.

Theres a whole other thread on the the purpose of Schools. Your point is well made, but we share different ideas of what the purpose of schooling is. I don't believe, as you say, that school is to prepare students for the work force. The disillusionment you point towards, I also agree with, but again, not the fault of Schools in my opinion, but a general ennui in Western society built on immediate gratification.

_Brian

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Much of the Leaving Certificate is based on rote learning, prose and poetry for Irish and learning off blocks of essays in the hope that one of those themes might come up, even for the oral exam you were already given several cards with text, one of which was guaranteed to come up in the oral when I did my LC in 2008.

Since I did my LC in 2008, I have checked some of the chemistry, physics and maths papers from subsequent years and in my opinion, they are massively dumbed down from when I did the exams in 2008. Project Maths is a disaster btw.

I went to college (where I did physics and chemistry and a lot of mathematics modules). I remember a girl in our first year who got over 500 points with a B3 or something like that in Physics which gained her entry to the course, the requirements at the time were 300 ish points and a C3 in HL in any science.

I remember her being all smug that she could cram for the exams weeks before and sail through them. Our exams were open book for many of the modules, our lecturers and tutors focused on our understanding of the material rather than rote memorisation. Unfortunately, this girl, even though she did swimmingly in her LC, had to repeat her first year and failed it again and eventually dropped out to change courses and did psychology instead. I still keep in touch with her, she's excelling in her career and now is a social worker.

The LC failed her and led her to believe that because she achieved such good results that she could automatically do any course. I barely met my minimum requirements and I was constantly put down by my teachers telling me I won't amount to anything. Now I work in a niche science field happy as a pig in sh1t.

The LC is not fit for purpose IMO.

From my own experience at school and those I know well completing it afterwards it accurately reflects the combination of intelligence and ability to apply one’s self to learning and completing tasks.

It’s a good system

StevenToast

The Leaving Cert is a good test of character...builds abit of resilience and toughness....whatever about the educational merits of it, it forces kids into abit of pressure for maybe the first (and only) time...

This years batch will forever be known as the ones that got away without doing the LC....the ones that sit it in November will have my respect

Wanderer78

Smacruairi wrote: »

Theres a whole other thread on the the purpose of Schools. Your point is well made, but we share different ideas of what the purpose of schooling is. I don't believe, as you say, that school is to prepare students for the work force. The disillusionment you point towards, I also agree with, but again, not the fault of Schools in my opinion, but a general ennui in Western society built on immediate gratification.

sadly, this is what it is, and its doing it extremely badly, as ive outlined, we desperately need to change it, so it reflects societies actual needs, we need to prioritize the well being of those that are involved in our educational system, including staff. our educational and training systems, are a critical component of our social structures. we enter these systems, shortly after birth, and remain there for a large proportion of our lives, particularly during critical life moments for self development etc, get things wrong here, could potentially spell disaster for certain individuals, for the rest of their lives. sadly many, possibly most of these individuals end up in long term unemployment situations, and/or regularly in and out of our prison systems, and sadly, some eventually take their own lives. never underestimate how critical our educational and training systems are, for these reasons

Wanderer78

StevenToast wrote: »

The Leaving Cert is a good test of character...builds abit of resilience and toughness....whatever about the educational merits of it, it forces kids into abit of pressure for maybe the first (and only) time...

This years batch will forever be known as the ones that got away without doing the LC....the ones that sit it in November will have my respect

the leaving cert is not fit for purpose, it creates unnecessary stresses and anxieties, 'failing' the leaving really isnt that important, as thankfully, we live in a part of the world that has alternative options, and access to third level is still possible, to a degree, even if failure occurs at second level.

you maybe putting the leaving on a pedestal, we ve no clue how or how not these individuals will be perceived in the future, but i suspect attempted shaming of them on the internets isnt exactly helpful nor productive

bb1234567

You speak as if memory and intelligence are mutually exclusive . Memory is an incredibly essential characteristic of an intelligent person. You are not intelligent if you have a bad memory.

Wanderer78

bb1234567 wrote: »

You speak as if memory and intelligence are mutually exclusive . Memory is an incredibly essential characteristic of an intelligent person. You are not intelligent if you have a bad memory.

so you are saying a person like myself, potential maybe unintelligent?

bb1234567

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so you are saying a person like myself, potential maybe unintelligent?

I'm saying that in some situations a poor memory will for sure mean your colleagues would consider you unintelligent. I'm just thinking about my job as an architect you've to remember hundreds of commands in software to complete and edit 3D models. If I forgot these commands everyday and have to be retrained do you think anyone in my office would consider me intelligent? In addition to that the merit of my 'design' is now completely useless as I don't have the memory to use software to display my design skill. Do you think I'd have the aptitude to hold down my job? The answer is everyone would consider me an idiot and the lacking element of memory meant other areas of my skills suffered and made my job impossible. I'm sure almost all jobs would be the same way when you boil it down.

Memory is an essential characteristic you must have to work in most professions.

Damien360

bb1234567 wrote: »

You speak as if memory and intelligence are mutually exclusive . Memory is an incredibly essential characteristic of an intelligent person. You are not intelligent if you have a bad memory.

Strange comment. I have terrible memory for names of people and things. You could put a poem in front of me for 2 hours and I still couldn’t recite it. But in my job, understanding a problem and resolving it is more important. Memory would be useless as many problems are not in the manuals and need to be worked out to conclusion. I know plenty of people that I visit daily with degrees (as I have in chemistry) and pHD’s but they honestly have a terrible ability to understand the data they see in front of them. They could probably recite the data but genuinely don’t understand it. I would argue they lack that critical part of intelligence.

Wanderer78

bb1234567 wrote: »

I'm saying that in some situations a poor memory will for sure your colleagues would consider you unintelligent. I'm just thinking about my job as an architect you've to remember hundreds of commands in software to complete and edit 3D models. If I forgot these commands everyday and have to be retainer do you think anyone in my office would consider me intelligent? In addition to that the merit of my 'design' is now completely useless as I don't have the memory to use software to display my design skill. Do you think I'd have the intelligence to hold down my job? The answer is everyone would consider me an idiot and I wouldn't have the job

the idea of connecting intelligence and memory is deeply flawed, its a critical element of where our educational and training systems fail, and very badly, for some. im actually autistic and dyslexic, both of these disorders have complex memory issues, in all aspects, long term, short term and working memory. the stats of long term unemployment and amongst prison populations, for both disorders, is actually disturbingly high, for example, it is believed up to 80% of individuals on the spectrum end up in long term unemployment situations, and im aware of a research project within a Scottish prison, some years ago, showed, up to 60% of in mates had undiagnosed dyslexia. you ll find most, if not all of these individuals struggled within our educational and training systems, from a very early age, until the left these systems, if thats not enough proof.....

bb1234567

Damien360 wrote: »

Strange comment. I have terrible memory for names of people and things. You could put a poem in front of me for 2 hours and I still couldn’t recite it. But in my job, understanding a problem and resolving it is more important. Memory would be useless as many problems are not in the manuals and need to be worked out to conclusion. I know plenty of people that I visit daily with degrees (as I have in chemistry) and pHD’s but they honestly have a terrible ability to understand the data they see in front of them. They could probably recite the data but genuinely don’t understand it. I would argue they lack that critical part of intelligence.

You seem to be confusing rote learning ability with memory. I'm sure there are many essential formulae and methodology you would have learned over the time in your profession that you know so well they are second nature to you and not something you consciously remember , but still need a grasp of in order to implement solution within these varied situational problems.

You can have a good memory and be lacking in other areas of intelligence, sure, never said otherwise.

Also you say you're bad with names but what if your poor memory extended to grammar and vocabulary? If you had such a bad memory you couldn't form full coherent sentences and communicate properly, would you consider yourself less intelligent then if your communication skills were that impacted my your memory and also how do you think your intelligence would be rated by others? Most people in this thread funnily enough are assuming a moderately adequate level of memory recall in all of these scenarios. They aren't appreciating how crucial memory is to almost all other areas of intelligence, a really poor memory limits basically all other elements intelligence .Critical thinking doesn't exist in a vaccuum. How many Alzheimer's patients who used to be data analysts would be good at your job?

If somebody had such bad memory that they forgot we drive on the left of the road would you consider them intelligent? If somebody had such a bad memory that they left the cooker on all night and burned the house down would you consider them intelligent? If somebody forgot their dog needed to be fed everyday and it starved would you consider them intelligent?

Wanderer78

bb1234567 wrote: »

You seem to be confusing rote learning ability with memory. I'm sure there are many essential formulae and methodology you would have learned over the time in your profession and need a grasp of in order to implement solution within these varied situational problems.

You can have a good memory and be lacking in other areas of intelligence, sure, never said otherwise.

Also you say you're bad with names but what if your poor memory extended to grammar and vocabulary? If you had such a bad memory you couldn't form proper sentences and communicate properly, would you consider yourself less intelligent then if your communication skills were that impacted my your memory and also how do you think your intelligence would be rated by others? Most people in this thread funnily enough are assuming a moderately adequate level of memory recall in all of these scenarios.

i know a severely autistic man, his iq was measured as extremely high, much higher than my own, hes unable to realistically communicate his ideas to other humans, he had a major breakdown while moving through our educational system, he ll probably never complete his studies, and may never truly work in an environment that shows his true intelligence, this is our reality

Ficheall

I learned and understood (or at least thought about) stuff in my leaving cert, and remember more of it now than I do of what I "learned" in uni, where the stuff only stayed in my short term memory until I left the exam hall (or entered it, as the case may be).

Wanderer78

Ficheall wrote: »

I learned and understood (or at least thought about) stuff in my leaving cert, and remember more of it now than I do of what I "learned" in uni, where the stuff only stayed in my short term memory until I left the exam hall (or entered it, as the case may be).

maybe your memory was a lot stronger when you were younger, and older generations were effectively emotionally abused in our system, forcing them to recite work

chrissb8

It’s a memory test. Even down to the answers you have to curate to the questions in the heavier writing based subjects such as English, Geography, History etc.

I was taught how to answer the papers and make a series of makeshift answers that could be altered slightly, to fit a question I.e. one essay for 3 questions.

Everything about it for me was repetition and solidifying the knowledge. You could count Maths, Accounting and even business to an extent as the tests of problem solving. A real marker of intelligence.

But I think the LC is a great curriculum either way, compared to other nations the average person generally has better overall knowledge. I can still remember a lot of my biology, English and History from the LC and it has stood to me.

Wanderer78

chrissb8 wrote: »

It’s a memory test. It’s the answers you have to curate to the questions in the heavier writing based subjects such as English, Geography, History etc.

I was taught how to answer the papers and make a series of makeshift answers that could be altered slightly, to fit a questions I.e. one essay for 3 questions.

Everything about it for me was repetition and solidifying the knowledge. You could count Maths, Accounting and even business to an extent as the tests of problem solving. A real marker of intelligence.

But I think the LC is a great curriculum, compared to other nations we are generally at a base level without 3rd level a nation with better overall knowledge. I can still remember a lot of my biology, English and History from the LC and it has stood to me.

society still needs the other, more creative and expressive subjects, they are equally important, as the more logical subjects

chrissb8

Wanderer78 wrote: »

society still needs the other, more creative and expressive subjects, they are equally important, as the more logical subjects

Definitely, but I’m just talking mostly from my experience.

S.M.B.

Ficheall wrote: »

I learned and understood (or at least thought about) stuff in my leaving cert, and remember more of it now than I do of what I "learned" in uni, where the stuff only stayed in my short term memory until I left the exam hall (or entered it, as the case may be).

This, if the LC was one big memory test I certainly didn't realise it or have the intelligence to game the system back then (I would have been fairly young at 16 doing my LC).

Once in the University system I then became exceptionally good at doing exams as opposed to simply educating myself.

Ficheall

Yeah, the ponzi scheme aspect of education, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is far more evident in uni. Get them in, get the money, pass them by any means necessary, get more people in.

pwurple

chrissb8 wrote: »

I was taught how to answer the papers and make a series of makeshift answers that could be altered slightly, to fit a question I.e. one essay for 3 questions.

That in itself is a skill.

Taking the knowledge you already have and applying it to a new problem. It's what most people do every day in their jobs. Whether you are in business development, adapting an existing presentation to a new customer. In project planning, taking your experience of a previous job and applying it to the new one.

Even in creative jobs, like screenwriting, graphics, advertising. You base all of it on your previous experiences.