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

Gregor Samsa

bb1234567 wrote: »

And that is based on memory. Which some are arguing is not important to be intelligent

There's different types of memory. I've a terrible memory for learning things off by rote. I can't read something and regurgitate it without understanding it.

However, I'm very good at analysing things - conceptual or mechanical, and once I understand its rules and how it works, then I have it forever, and I can instantly apply it in many standard or novel ways. So there must be some sort of memory that I use to remember the rules and my experience of them.

So in school, I did very well in the subjects that I either put the effort into understanding, or those that came naturally to me, and quite badly in the subjects that I didn't put the effort into understanding, or that involved a lot of rote learning.

I've also got a nearly photographic memory for scenes and situations. I can vividly recount the details in a room, where things are positioned, the layout of spaces, the colours, etc. But I have an absolutely appaling memory for names. There's people in my wife's family that I know for over 20 years, and I cannot remember their names. Actually, If I see a name written down, I remember it better, because I can vividly "see" the name in my head and then read it off the memory.

I had a colleague in work who was amazing at remembering phone numbers and dates. We had him go around the table one day at lunch, about 8 people, and he was able to recite everyone's phone number and birthday off the top of his head. And most of these people he would never have called or even had their number in his phone - he knew it from their email signatures. I have to think hard to remember my own phone number, and I often first confuse it with my wife's. I can't actually remember what day or even year I got married on either. I have a reminder in my calendar for that.

Wanderer78

Earthhorse wrote: »

People were saying that about the exams in the 90s compared to the exams in the 80s and 70s though. Everyone's convinced everything is degrading all the time and, heck, maybe it is. But I've yet to see these claims backed by any meaningful evidence.



How is that a ponzi scheme?

Like others, I never learnt off an essay I could adapt to any situation. Seems like some people had teachers who knew how to game the system and the truth is, no matter how you design a system there will always be ways to game it.

I got an A1 in English by showing familiarity with the material; I barely quoted from the texts at all. My mind went blank in that regard on the day. I also answered two questions from the poetry section when our teacher had prepared us to answer two questions from the plays section. So, I don't know, I still think the system accurately rewards individual ability but it can also be gamed.

I didn't find university much different to be honest. If anything, it was worse. Lecture halls are not conducive to discussing the material; you just show up, listen, take notes, read the text. I didn't think my course (Commerce) asked me to demonstrate an understanding of the material any more than the Leaving did. I managed to graduate with a an Honours degree having not put too much work in and certainly not relatively as much as I did into my Leaving.

...you probably have a near perfectly designed brain to succeed in our system

Earthhorse

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

There's people in my wife's family that I know for over 20 years, and I cannot remember their names. Actually, If I see a name written down, I remember it better, because I can vividly "see" the name in my head and then read it off the memory.

Why not get your wife's family to wear name badges?

Obviously your fancy degrees and qualifications never taught you that! :cool:

Wanderer78

Earthhorse wrote: »

Why not get your wife's family to wear name badges?

Obviously your fancy degrees and qualifications never taught you that! :cool:

i think its ignorant to try shame others in their short comings, its not productive for society as a whole

Earthhorse

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...you probably have a near perfectly designed brain to succeed in our system

Not sure about that. I had a pretty average leaving otherwise. Just trying to provide a counterpoint to those that say they achieved high marks from rote learning. I could never have done that. There are multiple ways to succeed in our system.

Getting an Honours degree is no great shakes either. My career has been fairly mediocre all told.

Earthhorse

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think its ignorant to try shame others in their short comings, its not productive for society as a whole

It's a joke. Relax.

Wanderer78

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not sure about that. I had a pretty average leaving otherwise. Just trying to provide a counterpoint to those that say they achieved high marks from rote learning. I could never have done that. There are multiple ways to succeed in our system.

Getting an Honours degree is no great shakes either. My career has been fairly mediocre all told.

and there are multiples of ways to also fail in our system, even if you overly exert yourself trying.

achieving an honors degree is extremely difficult for most, ive no idea how i achieved it, and beyond

Wanderer78

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's a joke. Relax.

apologies, being an aspie, i have a tendency to take things literally

listermint

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.

The upper management roles and board roles nationwide would entirely disagree with this sentiment

Academic ability is not the same as intelligence, having said that unless the whole of society changes academic ability matters a lot.

Earthhorse

Wanderer78 wrote: »

and there are multiples of ways to also fail in our system, even if you overly exert yourself trying.

achieving an honors degree is extremely difficult for most, ive no idea how i achieved it, and beyond

Sure, I've no doubt our system is imperfect. I just wouldn't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

I think there should be more alternatives, like the trades, and like continuous assessment, explored by our system. And I also think some subjects could be taught better.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

apologies, being an aspie, i have a tendency to take things literally

No worrries.

Wanderer78

Earthhorse wrote: »

Sure, I've no doubt our system is imperfect. I just wouldn't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

I think there should be more alternatives, like the trades, and like continuous assessment, explored by our system. And I also think some subjects could be taught better.



No worrries.

absolutely agree on all of the above, but system change isnt easy

The sought after apprenticeships look for the equivalent of a c in leaving cert maths and they required work and discipline, saying do an apprenticeship is not the answer to those who are not doing well in schools or who have zoned out of education by their teenage years.

Its also insulting to those who are doing an apprenticeship as well.

I often see people deriding the Leaving cert as being “just a memory test” and therefore achieving good grades in it is not indicative of any intelligence. Nonsense.

Memory is a fundamental component of intelligence.

Basically there are components that comprise our intelligence:
- Fluid intelligence: refers to raw processing and analytical ability, what you might deem “active” intelligence, think rapidly solving a maths problem or puzzle (in my experience people who give out about the Leaving cert consider this to be the only aspect of intelligence)

- Crystalised intelligence: this refers to your ability to absorb and retain information/data and faithfully recall it in the relevant context when necessary. Think quotes, dates, facts, general knowledge, ability to adapt knowledge acquired in the past and apply to new situations.
(This is the kind of intelligence that is perhaps more prominent in the LC, it is more easily acquired than fluid intelligence through regular practice and the learning environment in our schools).

Both these components of intelligence are then underpinned by what is known as the “G factor”, this can be regarded as simply “general intelligence” and accounts for the aspects of intelligence which are more difficult to define.


So basically yes memory is an important (but not the only) component in intelligence. It seems OP and the other detractors of the LC tend to be heavier on the fluid intelligence side than the crystalline side (most people lean towards one) and so feel hard done by in the LC - but were it to be reversed I think we’d see a lot more students struggling as fluid intelligence is more difficult to “train” (as you would in school) as opposed to crystalline intelligence.

BrianD3

take everything wrote: »

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.

You are right - I wasn't in (or in some cases even close to) the 99th percentile in all the individual aptitudes. 99th percentile for a few of them but only 42nd percentile in abstract reasoning.

The reason I mentioned 99th percentile in my first post is because that is what I was in for VR + NR which was the only overall percentile that I received. Also, according to the test documentation, VR + NR relates to "general scholastic aptitude" and "mental ability" on a traditional test of intelligence.

If you received a percentile that took account of all of the individual tests, you got something that i didn't.

If you didn't and just averaged your individual percentiles and got a percentile of 95, IMO that massively underestimates your performance.

E.g. if someone is in the 60th percentile in abstract and the 90th in verbal, it would be wrong to assume that they are in the 75th percentile for AR + VR. It is likely to be higher than that.

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

The sought after apprenticeships look for the equivalent of a c in leaving cert maths and they required work and discipline, saying do an apprenticeship is not the answer to those who are not doing well in schools or who have zoned out of education by their teenage years.

Its also insulting to those who are doing an apprenticeship as well.

but what if you dont have the type of brain to obtain such grades in such subjects, i know a chap that struggled in our system, tried an apprenticeship, couldnt manage that either, and it wasnt down to the lack of trying, he nearly killed himself trying both, hes now long term unemployed, is actually very intelligent, but has been effectively discarded by our systems

Wanderer78

Batrachotox wrote: »

I often see people deriding the Leaving cert as being “just a memory test” and therefore achieving good grades in it is not indicative of any intelligence. Nonsense.

Memory is a fundamental component of intelligence.

Basically there are components that comprise our intelligence:
- Fluid intelligence: refers to raw processing and analytical ability, what you might deem “active” intelligence, think rapidly solving a maths problem or puzzle (in my experience people who give out about the Leaving cert consider this to be the only aspect of intelligence)

- Crystalised intelligence: this refers to your ability to absorb and retain information/data and faithfully recall it in the relevant context when necessary. Think quotes, dates, facts, general knowledge, ability to adapt knowledge acquired in the past and apply to new situations.
(This is the kind of intelligence that is perhaps more prominent in the LC, it is more easily acquired than fluid intelligence through regular practice and the learning environment in our schools).

Both these components of intelligence are then underpinned by what is known as the “G factor”, this can be regarded as simply “general intelligence” and accounts for the aspects of intelligence which are more difficult to define.


So basically yes memory is an important (but not the only) component in intelligence. It seems OP and the other detractors of the LC tend to be heavier on the fluid intelligence side than the crystalline side (most people lean towards one) and so feel hard done by in the LC - but were it to be reversed I think we’d see a lot more students struggling as fluid intelligence is more difficult to “train” (as you would in school) as opposed to crystalline intelligence.

...ive actually had a similar experience to chomsky, some of the most intelligent people ive met have actually really struggled in our system, and are now long term unemployed

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

but what if you dont have the type of brain to obtain such grades in such subjects, i know a chap that struggled in our system, tried an apprenticeship, couldnt manage that either, and it wasnt down to the lack of trying, he nearly killed himself trying both, hes now long term unemployed, is actually very intelligent, but has been effectively discarded by our systems

I don't think anyone knows what the answer is.

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't think anyone knows what the answer is.

its a fair point, but we cant keep just accepting this, our system fails a lot of people, ive been meeting these people my whole life, they have things to offer to society, but since theyve effectively been rejected by our system, and ultimately by society, many just give up, and sit on the dole, or worse, get involved in criminality

kowloon

The people saying it's a measure of putting in hard work are forgetting that continuous assessment is a superior way of measuring that. When people are learning entire essays to just spew out in the exam it's a memory exercise and not much more. A good memory has its uses and is essential in some jobs, but it's not the only factor in figuring out things for yourself and it gets pretty ridiculous when it comes to something like appreciating literature.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its a fair point, but we cant keep just accepting this, our system fails a lot of people, ive been meeting these people my whole life, they have things to offer to society, but since theyve effectively been rejected by our system, and ultimately by society, many just give up, and sit on the dole, or worse, get involved in criminality

But there is no way around the fact that individuals have to earn a living and that means working for an employer unless self-employed, employers are there to make money and expect employees to work, it is not like school where the person was surrounded by supports of one sort or another.

Maybe self-employment it the only answer for some.

Wibbs

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

Yep society does, but the plain fact is those creatives are a minority of society and really good ones are a teeny tiny minority, hence they're lauded. I remember reading an interview with John Lennon and how school failed him(he was also dyslexic) and he shone after he left, but how many John Lennons are produced in a generation? No doubt there were a few like him even in his school, but didn't have the natural talent for music he had. Never mind the luck to be born in the right time as rock was kicking off and in the right place a port town that had a much wider seletion of imported records and the luck of bumping into another like him of his age and shared interests. His writing partner McCartney on the other hand was a good student, pretty "normal" across the board, who just happened to have a genius level latent talent.

Earthhorse wrote: »

People were saying that about the exams in the 90s compared to the exams in the 80s and 70s though. Everyone's convinced everything is degrading all the time and, heck, maybe it is. But I've yet to see these claims backed by any meaningful evidence.

Yep, the "In our day" vibe can be strong in such discussions. Another aspect is as you get older(to a certain point) the exams can seem easier compared to when you were 17 or whatever. You know more(or should). Having looked at recent papers a few years back I would be pretty sure I'd get a way better leaving cert than I actually did(mostly woeful, with some outliers). However I reckon I'd get a better leaving cert than I did if I did the papers of the 80's when I did it first.

My main problem was school bored me to tears most of the time. I didn't go to university and I suspect that would have been similar or worse just doing one subject. My head jumps all over the place and doesn't stay interested for very long. About six months per subject/interest, though I can revisit them.

I love learning new things and new stuff, but never wanted to make the additional effort to get exceptionally good or clued in on a particular thing. I learned very early on that if you pick a knowledge subject or skill the initial learning curve is very steep, then flattens out and stays quite shallow an angle for years until you get to a "master" level. However if you get over the hump of the initial learning curve and onto the shallow level of growth, yeah you'll never be a master, but you'll be pretty bloody good, or pretty bloody knowledgable on that subject or skill.

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

But there is no way around the fact that individuals have to earn a living and that means working for an employer unless self-employed, employers are there to make money and expect employees to work is not like school where the person was surrounded by supports of one sort or another.

Maybe self-employment it the only answer for some.

so what happens these individuals that simply need supports, in order to function in the workplace?

self-employment maybe an option for some, but may not be an option for all, as you know yourself, that game has its only challenges, and many times, serious challenges

ChikiChiki

I got a very average leaving and have done quite well. Career Guidance counsellor told me I'd never amount to much and spend much of the final year on report. Fast forward to 33 and I've worked Big4 amongst and other large companies and do consulting contracts. Never when I was being chased down the road by my year head in her car after ditching class for the umpteenth time did anyone believe I would amount to much.

I hated the whole rigmarole and discipline of school. Hated studying aswell although when I seen the point of it in my mid twenties I knuckled down and got a degree.

There was a girl in my year similar, not academic at all and now she is head of her department in EMEA for a major multi national which has over 100000 employees worldwide. She is a great social person tbf.

The LC is a load of nonsense, it does not define what you become and only tests a single type of intelligence. Memory. We are all different in our own unique ways. Do not let it define you. Ironically, I still have some of them rebellious character traits which work in my favour in the real world.

chrissb8

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

It's only as you get older that you realise how ridiculous the pressure put on students to perform in the LC is.

This is so true.

We’ve woken up as a nation to the reality of mental health. So all this undue pressure has to be taken for what it is, completely unfair and eroding of a series of 9 months leading up to the exams. As it increases over time.

One day you’re hanging with your friends going to the cinema, drinking warm cans in a field.

The next there’s this monster pressure to perform and make crucial decisions for your life. At least that’s how it feels at the time and for me, from every adult in my life this is what it felt like.

Kids need to understand that the LC does not define you and better yet, it is completely normal to not just magically know what you want to do career wise. As if you have even figured yourself out as a person by that age. Ridiculous.

Wanderer78

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep society does, but the plain fact is those creatives are a minority of society and really good ones are a teeny tiny minority, hence they're lauded. I remember reading an interview with John Lennon and how school failed him(he was also dyslexic) and he shone after he left, but how many John Lennons are produced in a generation? No doubt there were a few like him even in his school, but didn't have the natural talent for music he had. Never mind the luck to be born in the right time as rock was kicking off and in the right place a port town that had a much wider seletion of imported records and the luck of bumping into another like him of his age and shared interests. His writing partner McCartney on the other hand was a good student, pretty "normal" across the board, who just happened to have a genius level latent talent.
.

so what do we do with these minorities, because leaving them sit on the dole, or in a cell, isnt exactly working, or cheap?

ChikiChiki

Also another point the amount of career guidance counsellors that are absolutely useless is another thing. They literally hand you the CAO book and say pick a course.

This needs to change drastically - it should be a full time job in each school and these people need to be equipped an additional set of skills to identify the intelligences and character traits of each student and push them to be their best selves.

The whole education system could do with a revamp.

Wanderer78

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Also another point the amount of career guidance counsellors that are absolutely useless is another thing. They literally hand you the CAO book and say pick a course.

This needs to change drastically - it should be a full time job in each school and these people need to be equipped an additional set of skills to identify the intelligences and character traits of each student and push them to be there best selves.

The whole education system could do with a revamp.

they effectively have an impossible job, given limited abilities to figure their students out, then figure out what society needs in the future, the role is destined to fail from this alone

If this was true, very few people could function after 20,30,40 years but yet he we are managing to do so.

Yes you need memory skills but thankfully we all have them, some more than others but they exist or we couldn't pick up the phone and type this message.

Personally I find little pieces from school coming back all the time from biology to French even though neither are needed for my career. Some more daily / practical skills could well be fitted in because I think they are getting lost overall I think our education system is good. Better than some others at least.

I never considered it a test of intelligence, it's not. It's a test of retained knowledge.

Wanderer78

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If this was true, very few people could function after 20,30,40 years but yet he we are managing to do so.

Yes you need memory skills but thankfully we all have them, some more than others but they exist or we couldn't pick up the phone and type this message.

Personally I find little pieces from school coming back all the time from biology to French even though neither are needed for my career. Some more daily / practical skills could well be fitted in because I think they are getting lost overall I think our education system is good. Better than some others at least.

I never considered it a test of intelligence, it's not. It's a test of retained knowledge.

when the system fails, you ll find many of these individuals basically arent functioning very well, this is very evident with those on the dole and in the prison system, it manifests itself as complex social and psychological issues