nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should people who got less than 500 points in the leaving even allowed to vote?

marcus001

How much more competent would our political class be if they were handpicked and held to account by the cognitive elite?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rezident

Assuming the OP got over 500 points in the LC, then the OP has proven that some people who get over 500 'points' in that are idiots. Well played OP.

Spider Web

Chuchote wrote: »

It's great to know that this generation is so superbly intelligent compared to mine, when most people left school at 12. I stand back and wonder - what geniuses they've become, compared to their forerunners, dopey eejits like Brendan Behan, Sean O'Casey, WB Yeats et al, who left school in or before their teens.

Yes, every single person who left school before the leaving cert went on to become a Behan/Yeats/O'Casey.

And the OP (whom nobody is agreeing with) is such a true reflection of his generation.

Chuchote

Spider Web wrote: »

Yes, every single person who left school before the leaving cert went on to become a Behan/Yeats/O'Casey.

Perhaps not, but their generation was certainly as intelligent as the current lot of phone-gazers, and I'd suspect would buy them and sell them.

pitifulgod

Chuchote wrote: »

Perhaps not, but their generation was certainly as intelligent as the current lot of phone-gazers, and I'd suspect would buy them and sell them.

Wouldn't say intelligence varies greatly in terms of generations. Eg abstract reasoning is more a modern skill but then previous generations would have applied complex practical skills. Just a different way of applying intelligence and building upon previous generations knowledge.

Chuchote

pitifulgod wrote: »

Wouldn't say intelligence varies greatly in terms of generations. Eg abstract reasoning is more a modern skill but then previous generations would have applied complex practical skills. Just a different way of applying intelligence and building upon previous generations knowledge.

Previous generations had to work things out for themselves. They were out playing all day and into the night after school. They built things. They did dangerous stuff that would have had their parents' hair on end if they'd known. They told each other wild stories, and played complex, rule-based games, with rhymes of many verses to accompany some of them. If they wanted to get somewhere they got on the bike and went, or walked. Or, when they were older, hitched a lift.

The current generation is given lifts everywhere by parents, every question they have is answered by a machine, their education consists of being told things and learning to repeat them back. After school they sit at home texting or playing computer games with no face-to-face interaction. Everything they learn is paid for - we are teaching them to be passive, flabby people.

pitifulgod

Chuchote wrote: »

Previous generations had to work things out for themselves. They were out playing all day and into the night after school. They built things. They did dangerous stuff that would have had their parents' hair on end if they'd known. They told each other wild stories, and played complex, rule-based games, with rhymes of many verses to accompany some of them. If they wanted to get somewhere they got on the bike and went, or walked. Or, when they were older, hitched a lift.

The current generation is given lifts everywhere by parents, every question they have is answered by a machine, their education consists of being told things and learning to repeat them back. After school they sit at home texting or playing computer games with no face-to-face interaction. Everything they learn is paid for - we are teaching them to be passive, flabby people.

I'm 26, I did loads of outdoors stuff, I was in the scouts. I generally cycle everywhere and did since I was a child. I learnt to program primarily from the Internet. I've built computers, I plan to build a weather station as soon as I'm in a position to buy a house.

Other interests include camping and beer brewing. I know plenty of people younger than me who live similar lives. We have a tendency of underestimating young people.

Funny how?

No Op, Just no. I have a very high I.Q and only got 445 in the leaving. Only subjects I studied were higher level Physics and higher level Maths and got an A1 in both. Did all honors in other subjects but only studied them two weeks before the leaving because I don't like learning pointless information I'm never going to use. Usually just went dossing for these classes.

Leaving cert is a joke really and your just learning off pointless information that your never going to use.

marcus001

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I was ****e at maths in the Leaving but waltzed through both Accountancy and Business Finance in University. Scored 1.1's in both. And this was University years ago before the grade inflation.

I didn't get 500 in the Leaving. Not even close.

I have a a couple of Masters Degrees and a Diploma in SQL programming as well.

Should I not be allowed vote?

I would include people with masters degrees but grade inflation at the university level is such that it wouldn't be as restrictive a standard as the leaving cert.

Like you said, you didn't get anywhere close to 500 yet somehow walzed through a degree with a first.

marcus001

Deleted User wrote: »

400 points is an excellent score on the leaving cert tbf but i know plenty who have got north of 400 that failed college the following year. I done quite shíte myself to be honest but ive now achieved a full degree and postgrad. Also such an absurd notion of needing 500 points on the leaving cert to vote is an insult to the many parents (some of whom never even went to secondary school) who worked hard all their lives to put their children in a position where they can get 500 points on the leaving cert

Intelligence is a more multi layered concept then the OP thinks.

No one fails college through lack of intelligence. College is piss easy, so easy that many people get into the habit of slacking off and end up failing.

pitifulgod

marcus001 wrote: »

I would include people with masters degrees but grade inflation at the university level is such that it wouldn't be as restrictive a standard as the leaving cert.

Like you said, you didn't get anywhere close to 500 yet somehow walzed through a degree with a first.

Perhaps it's because the Leaving Cert isn't particularly reflective of intelligence? Achieving a first isn't generally the easiest. Something like computer science for example has an incredibly high dropout rate and low points. It's not necessarily those with high points that remain in it. Some people also have intelligence that suits certain areas.

marcus001

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Higher income isn't what everybody wants. I did the Leaving 26 years ago, I think the second or third year a version of the current points system started, and I got in the 400s. I got a C in Pass English, even though I know I've a better grasp of the language than most friends who did well in Honours English.

I've also got an IQ in the 140s but an income in the higher €40,000s (but I don't live in Dublin so I've just paid off my mortgage a week ago). Money doesn't bother me. I'm not a superficial social climber who needs to show how great I am, and I don't want a career path that I have to follow. If I'm in the same position when I retire, that's grand. If I decide to change, that's grand too.

I've often been told in work that I'm wasted in the job I do, but I think part of my job is to educate others (and I'm very easy-going and tolerant with people, making it easier for them to learn). Isn't it a pity you don't deem me worthy of a vote? (I know you're just trolling, though.)

Have you had your IQ tested? It's interesting that it's 140 yet you got a C in pass English. Are you more mathematically minded? I knew a fella in school who got A's in his mathsy subjects but did very poorly in language and humanities based subjects.

[Deleted User]

Funny how? wrote: »

I have a very high I.Q and only got 445 in the leaving. all honors in other subjects but only studied them two weeks before the leaving because I don't like learning pointless information I'm never going to use. Usually just went dossing for these classes.

Leaving cert is a joke really and your just learning off pointless information that your never going to use.

Pity you went dossing for English class Mr 445 with the very high IQ.

marcus001

qwerty ui op wrote: »

So you'd have millionaires, CEOs, past and current ministers not quiet making the grade yet 16/17 year old boy and girls are best to decide for all of us.

I'd also raise the voting age to 25.

abbir

I must be a thicko, only got 485 points in my leaving cert almost 20 years ago. Got a first class honours degree in Maths and had the highest mark in the Science faculty that year. Also completed a PhD in Maths. But I got less than 500 points in the leaving so thicko.

Also, on the whole IQ thing:

WinnyThePoo

marcus001 wrote: »

No one fails college through lack of intelligence. College is piss easy, so easy that many people get into the habit of slacking off and end up failing.

You really are coming across poorly. This statement is as unintelligent as you can get.

marcus001

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

OP why set the threshold at 500 points? Why not 600, people who get 600 points have clearly worked harder and by your reasoning are more intelligent than those who get 500. Should the subjects one does be considered too? Are people who do Maths, Applied Maths, Physics or Chemistry more worthy than those from Art or Music?

However, you are falling into the same all trap almost everyone, which perhaps highlights you're not worthy to vote, you're coming with a solution to a problem, if it is a problem, without first clearly defining the problem. Perhaps that's simply the nature of the internet, and particularly AH, if you actually wanted a discussion on your idea you would have put this thread into the politics forum.

I think 500 is a reasonable cut-off point because those who get 600 are likely to all be very rich (no source for that just my intuition based on those I know who got 600), whereas a lot of teachers and nurses and ordinary folk get over 500. Therefore, I think 500 captures a reasonable cross section of society while at the same time demanding a fairly high level of intellect.

Would the responses I get be much different in the politics forum? I reckon this thread would get locked fairly quickly. At least on AH some people can have a dig at the OP and others can talk and the thread just continues.

marcus001

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You really are coming across poorly. This statement is as unintelligent as you can get.

Outside of STEM or healthcare related courses I think most people would agree. I know plenty of people who failed modules but none who actually struggled to pass. The main reasons for failing in my course was 9 o'clock lectures that were never attended and the lecturer changing the exam questions unexpectedly catching out people who only learned past papers.

pitifulgod

marcus001 wrote: »

I think 500 is a reasonable cut-off point because those who get 600 are likely to all be very rich (no source for that just my intuition based on those I know who got 600), whereas a lot of teachers and nurses and ordinary folk get over 500. Therefore, I think 500 captures a reasonable cross section of society while at the same time demanding a fairly high level of intellect.

Would the responses I get be much different in the politics forum? I reckon this thread would get locked fairly quickly. At least on AH some people can have a dig at the OP and others can talk and the thread just continues.

It's pretty ignorant of the various factors that can hold people back educationally which are backed up by research. It also ignores that there are plenty of issues with the leaving cert itself. Your entire argument is pretty silly and not in any way intelligent.

marcus001

pitifulgod wrote: »

Perhaps it's because the Leaving Cert isn't particularly reflective of intelligence? Achieving a first isn't generally the easiest. Something like computer science for example has an incredibly high dropout rate and low points. It's not necessarily those with high points that remain in it. Some people also have intelligence that suits certain areas.

The points for computer science are based on supply and demand. The high dropout rate is probably the result of the low barrier to entry.

Although I'm fairly sure the points have risen significantly. They were in the 300's when I did my leaving if I remember correctly.

marcus001

abbir wrote: »

I must be a thicko, only got 485 points in my leaving cert almost 20 years ago. Got a first class honours degree in Maths and had the highest mark in the Science faculty that year. Also completed a PhD in Maths. But I got less than 500 points in the leaving so thicko.

Also, on the whole IQ thing:

485 plus bonus points for maths would leave you with 500.

pitifulgod

marcus001 wrote: »

485 plus bonus points for maths would leave you with 500.

What are are you out of interest?

marcus001

pitifulgod wrote: »

What are are you out of interest?

I prefer to give as little personal info as possible online as a general rule, but I'm past college age if that's any help.

marcus001

Chuchote wrote: »

Perhaps not, but their generation was certainly as intelligent as the current lot of phone-gazers, and I'd suspect would buy them and sell them.

Have you heard of the Flynn effect?

marcus001

Chuchote wrote: »

Previous generations had to work things out for themselves. They were out playing all day and into the night after school. They built things. They did dangerous stuff that would have had their parents' hair on end if they'd known. They told each other wild stories, and played complex, rule-based games, with rhymes of many verses to accompany some of them. If they wanted to get somewhere they got on the bike and went, or walked. Or, when they were older, hitched a lift.

The current generation is given lifts everywhere by parents, every question they have is answered by a machine, their education consists of being told things and learning to repeat them back. After school they sit at home texting or playing computer games with no face-to-face interaction. Everything they learn is paid for - we are teaching them to be passive, flabby people.

Really? I look around at my peers and I compare them to my parents generation and it's clear to see that we're not the flabby ones. The generation you're talking about practically invented obesity :pac:

There's probably never been a generation so health conscious since perhaps Ancient Greece.

marcus001

abbir wrote: »

Also, on the whole IQ thing:

That video essentially says that IQ tests were originally biased, but says nothing about modern IQ tests which are used by clinical psychologists whom I'm fairly sure don't use them for fun. They didn't even come close to debunking IQ tests as a measure of intelligence.

Funny how?

marcus001 wrote: »

No one fails college through lack of intelligence. College is piss easy, so easy that many people get into the habit of slacking off and end up failing.

What course did you do? Every try electronic engineering and a masters in computer science.

Your embaressing yourself. A lot of college courses are piss easy where your just learning off stuff and doing simple projects. Most are not.

marcus001

Funny how? wrote: »

What course did you do? Every try electronic engineering and a masters in computer science.

Your embaressing yourself. A lot of college courses are piss easy where your just learning off stuff and doing simple projects. Most are not.

Read the post after where I mentioned STEM. I did a course that's hard to get into but not very hard once you're in it.

Funny how?

marcus001 wrote: »

Read the post after where I mentioned STEM. I did a course that's hard to get into but not very hard once you're in it.

Okay, but would you think you would sail through electronic engineering and a masters in computer science.

marcus001

Funny how? wrote: »

Okay, but would you think you would sail through electronic engineering and a masters in computer science.

I have no idea, why do you ask? Are you not satisfied that I already clarified I thought STEM was an exception to the rule that it's generally easier score highly in college than the leaving cert?

Funny how?

marcus001 wrote: »

I have no idea, why do you ask? Are you not satisfied that I already clarified I thought STEM was an exception to the rule that it's generally easier score highly in college than the leaving cert?

You mentioned that college courses are piss easy and no one fails through lack of intelligence, That's why I asked. You also mentioned that because computer science was only 300 points that's why there was/is a huge rate of failure and that is not simply the case.