The way forward for LC2021

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.

The risk in maths is mad to take though. You could get completely screwed with the paper, it does actually vary and, though there are preparable bits, you'd need some understanding to know what they were asking. In my other subject anyone with enough time on their hands could get a excellent grade at Higher Level, it's work in, work out with an allowance for your memory and general intelligence making it easier or harder.......I've seen good kids kill themselves in HL maths and fail or be lucky and scrape a pass (luck should not dictate this really). Failure rate at HL maths is steady at over 7%....1 in 14 student who sit it! Very few of those students, I'd guess, weren't told to drop

I hope all they are doing in discussing the details about the way the exams will run as opposed to half assing it like last year and being forced into cancelling last minute.

Anything to be said for orals over zoom etc.....I know broadband varies but even recordings etc.??

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.

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 of saints and scholars really values education.

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.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin opinion is about as valuable as yours or mine considering he is not in government.

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!!

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.

I would say the only valid interview type would be based on ability, such as music and art are currently, portfolio or performance. Given the country we are living it, any interviews or personal statements would be wide open to abuse and I would say within a couple of years we would see a far lower number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds getting into the 'prestige courses' etc, not to mind offerings for courses on 'how to write an admissions essay that will guarantee you access to the course you desire'.

I do agree with the minimum standards. When I applied for my course 25 odd years ago, you had to get a HC3 in a science subject.

Now it is a H5 in a HL science or maths and the other one ...

EDIT: Actually I just looked up the course:eek::eek::eek:

General entry requirements are 2H5s and 4O6s OR 4H7s.

Specific requirements Maths: O3/H7 and an O4/H7 in a lab science.

Fcuk me I don't want science teachers barely able to scrape a H7 in a science teaching the subject.

Granted the people who got into the course probably got higher than that, but that's not the point. Some of the people who will get a H7 for me, have spent the last two years looking out the window and would prefer to spend the day scrolling through Done Deal. :mad:

All science courses should have a minimum of one lab science with a particular grade (H5etc) and a maths restriction! Every secondary offers one lab science. We are a tiny secondary, probably one of the smallest in the country and we offer two lab sciences becauses thats what the kids wanted. It wouldnt be a raft of requirements but it might help kids focus in on what they are good at or what like earlier. I am a better science teacher and was a better scientist because I did all three sciences, I recognise that's unusual and my school was huge but nothing I learned in those 2 years was pointless and I knew that at the time.

Really wondering what the 'modified LC' could be. Really hope it's not this nonsense of sitting only 3 papers etc.

I've an LC in the house, she's pretty drama free 95% of the time, probably because she doesn't even bother to watch the news :rolleyes:. Anyway, even she is beginning to 'What if' every possible scenario.

She's doing 8 subjects due to not getting an option that's a mandatory requirement for the course she wants. Honestly, wish she had a few she wanted and at least she/we/the whole house would have the same pressure.

I wish they'd just tell them all to shut up about it, LC is definitely happening, keep the head down and we'll get back to you when this particular **** storm passes, at least then we might have some answers'.


I'm finding it really crazy trying to balance teaching FT online with all the admin duties I have, and constant cooking/feeding time at the zoo also. Whole situation seems pretty relentless right now.

Rosita wrote: »

Well, I suppose nothing is high stakes if there is in fact nothing at stake. If it's not needed at all then it loses its relevance. Would be interesting to consider the impact on schools if the LC was no longer necessary. Big drop in numbers presumably for a start.

You'd probably end up with something like the American system in that case.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Fcuk me I don't want science teachers barely able to scrape a H7 in a science teaching the subject.

I totally get that, but.............not everyone is in the right headspace at 17/18 either, and a few years of a college degree might be of more relevance to teach a subject that a LC grade. After studying for a degree they'd likely give the LC a far better stab if they did it again. I'd hate to be judged too harshly on everything I did at 18.