Mrsmum wrote: » A bit of common sense should come into chosing college courses, not going for Engineering if you are struggling at maths, not going for Science if the only Science you have done in LC is Biology. (Mind you, I know a guy that did theoretical physics having never done physics and loved it. )However students can be very restricted by what their school offers so if colleges insisted on college courses being matched to LC subjects, I think schools would be under pressure to provide more subject choices. Can be a very limited choice at the moment.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » I agree the LC is fundamentally fair as an external assessment. But I completely disagree with using it as the sole means of entry into college. I think it’s mental that the vast majority of courses don’t require a minimum standard in all relevant subjects. The only reason I mention the essay is to deal with the students who this year might not have chosen the correct combinations for their course. I would strongly argue that they shouldn’t be picking it but presumably it would leave it open to legal challenges as the students didn’t know the requirements when starting the course.
am_zarathustra wrote: » Far more courses should have particular subject requirements. If you want to do science in college, you should generally be doing more than 1 science option in senior cycle. In theory you could get your points in music, french, german and italian and get into a science degree. This makes no sense. Very few college courses push for mandatory grades in subjects. The number of people who fail engineering or barely struggle through because there maths isn't up to scratch is shocking. It would also stop the nonsense of choosing "soft" subjects for the Leaving and would hopefully increase the number of students dropping out. I don't hate the idea of your best 5 subjects for this year. Between that and the choice a decent student should be absolutely fine!!
indolent wrote: » If students cannot sit the exams with the myriad of supports and accommodations that have been made for them, something tells me they shouldn't be going to college. You want the LC overhauled but with the possibility of all sorts of shenanigans in the interview/personal statement crap, you'll soon realize the LC is a much fairer and objective portrayal of academic achievement. Strong opposition from the unions will put a stop to the populist nonsense coming from Mick Barry and the sort.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » I really would like to see the opportunity taken to decouple the LC from college entry a bit tbh. If we have to do predicted grades then there should also be some attempt to do a better job matching students to courses than points. It should be far more nuanced. They have the time this year to trial that Eg students can take 5 subjects of their choice for LC but every college course also has to list the subjects they feel would work best for their course. Students have to try and take those exams. If they don’t have the appropriate subjects then they write to the college explaining why they feel they are a good fit for the course Very back of the envelope but I really would hate to see us using points generated from basically no data tbh. I’d be massively concerned about the drop out rates in college. And that’s an expensive mistake to make
Wombatman wrote: » Aodhán Ó Ríordáin opinion is about as valuable as yours or mine considering he is not in government.
Rosita wrote: » I'd say the chances of this are pretty much zero because it assumes a quick, uncomplicated return to school, and essentially a decision deferred for quite some time if the variant strains continue to cause havoc. (Or at least the deferral of a final decision that might not have to be revisited) Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has said today (or at least reported today) that "it is clear that written exams cannot take place". It would be helpful if the information behind this was shared. Presumably the government doesn't want students to down tools and be given predicted grades even before they have even chosen their levels but it looks like there are rumblings behind the scenes. Had to laugh at Colm O'Rourke's (on the face of it reasonable and sensible) suggestion of vaccinating teachers so as to allow the exams to proceed. FFS the vaccination process is quite likely to become another elongated disorganised shambles. The idea that they would be capable of giving two shots of vaccines to thousands of teachers in quick time is a joke. And if it was attempted to bring teachers up the pecking order we'd soon find out how the land if saints and scholars really values education.
ascophyllum wrote: » One of the scenarios I see possibly being put forward is delayed exams in July say, and 2 weeks extra teaching being asked of LC teachers in June. With maybe a delayed return to school in September. How would people feel about that? The unions would have a difficult decision to make there.
Rosita wrote: » That may be true, but I think many students feel they almost cannot afford to take OL at a subject that gives nearly a 30% marks bonus for just passing. They might get little out of it and find it a time-consuming struggle but there's the fear that someone else in exactly the same boat who might not be great will get over the line for 40% and get that bonus. The rewards of the 'time spent' on other subjects is comparatively relatively abstract. It's a hideously exaggerated bonus and will always have a magnetic attraction for many.
rainbowtrout wrote: » Well what I've been saying to the my students and I've been saying it since September. Assume the LC is going ahead unless you are told otherwise. If it's going ahead the work has to be done, if it goes to predicted grades, I'll be judging you on the work done and the grades achieved in that work. If you are going to college next year at least some of your subjects will be relevant and the work needs to be done or you won't be able to keep up in college. Whatever the outcome, they do need to do the work.
Rosita wrote: » What you say would make sense but I really get the vibe that it's up for grabs at the moment. Look at the change in tone from the "I'm passionate about education" Taoiseach recently compared to recent months when schools were "the last thing to close", and even with a six-week Level 5 situation Varadker is giving us the waffly "phased basis" for going back to school. Now the Labour education spokesperson looking for estimated Orals and Practicals. All things considered I think it's getting increasingly doubtful.
History Queen wrote: » I see what you mean. God I hope you're wrong! (No offence!)
History Queen wrote: » Do you really think so? I would've thought that they are discussing orals/practicals/projects. How to run exam centres, what ifs for a student/invigilator getting Covid. Whether more changes to exam papers are needed and how to make that happen etc.
am_zarathustra wrote: » The time spend on other subjects might actually give more of a points lift than struggling through HL.
Rosita wrote: » I think if there is conversation taking place about the LC right now then I would expect that exams won't happen. If exams are expected to happen as normal what is there to discuss? I think we had assumed that 2021 would progress without the issues around variants and some sense that a vaccine would arrive and not at a glacial pace that looks like happening. The ground has shifted significantly. When you hear Varadker speculating about international travel for the rest of the year, and other people such as Luke O'Neill suggesting that all measures of restriction will have to remain in place even when the vaccine is widespread, Tomás Ryan talking about a 'fourth wave', the more debateable question might be the status of the 2022 or 2023 LC never mind the one that might have happened this June.
Wombatman wrote: » They keep saying the traditional LC exam will go ahead, but that and predicted grades are not mutually exclusive.
