Alex86Eire wrote: » Oh I thought you had to have different percentages for a particular subject. What would happen if a school had 3 6th years (in 3 different classes) getting 92% in HL maths for example? How would the SEC decide between them if one was being brought down to a H2?
Random sample wrote: » If an exam is unfairly downgraded it will go back up on appeal. That process isn’t there for accredited grades.
Bobtheman wrote: » I applied for supervision. Late application date May 7th. Anybody heard back yet?
gaiscioch wrote: » The Examiner section said I could be called but as things stand they've a surplus of examiners in most subjects.
Proferoxa wrote: » I find it strange that the written examiner recruitment is still open if this is the case, given that it was due to close over a month ago? They usually have difficulties finding people to mark for MFLs, do you know if this is the case this year?
Leftwaffe wrote: » Do superintendents arrive the day before to set up centres or what does that work? Done superintendent myself before but can’t remember
Bobtheman wrote: » They will provide details in a letter but usually you drop papers to them the day before. The school. Collect and drop. Usually the exam secretary sets it up.
Leftwaffe wrote: » That’s right actually I collected papers and dropped them in the day before. Exam sec had room basically set up but I had to put labels on tables, signage, etc. So I should expect them on Tuesday the 8th then. Thanks.
derb12 wrote: » When you say exam secretary do you mean the person from the school who is paid by the dept specifically for state exams? I think it’s called examinations aide?
maynooth_rules wrote: » He probably isn't alone in that. Must say giving points to 30-40 at higher level seems a really bad move in my opinion. It's made it very difficult to encourage students who simply are not able for Higher level to drop down.
gaiscioch wrote: » Anybody get called back into school to fill in new forms for an OL student who decided to tick the Ardleibhéal box for all his subjects for accredited grades? One of my students had a permanent seat in an OL class and was adamant he would not be sitting the subject. So, he did nothing. I marked him accordingly at OL. Then, I get phoned to say he put HL down for all his subjects, even though he was mostly in OL classes. And we therefore have to give him a mark at his nominated level, no matter how unlikely it is. Incredible that this is the situation. So, I obviously failed him at HL, until somebody told me a grade of 30% or more at HL is worth 37 points! So I gave him a grade in the 20s, where he gets zero points. He's probably banking on the SEC looking at his JC result and deciding to raise his result due to Covid. Either way, he's trying to game the system.
jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: » Never under stood the drop to 30% for pts. Understand less than a 1/3 of what's going on? Well done, here's some pts for college.
rainbowtrout wrote: » No but a student from another school that I teach outside school was telling me that there was a student in her year who had moved to OL maths in fifth year, wasn’t able for HL and when this whole accredited grades thing kicked off wanted to move back to the HL class and the school said no. The student was getting grinds in OL maths outside school and then registered for Applied Maths for HL. I’m going to assume that there won’t be valid evidence to prove the student is capable of a high grade in AM given that they were getting grinds at OL, and also weren’t studying applied maths up to that point. It’s also disappointing to hear of teachers who are willing to sign off on stuff like this in a private capacity.
rainbowtrout wrote: » I think the thinking behind it was that a person who scored between 30-39 would have passed the OL paper so were given points equivalent to that so they could move on and not have to repeat the year. I don’t think it’s had the desired effect. Students who are not capable of HL and would score in the low to mid 20s are now aiming for 30 to ‘pass HL’ and then don’t pass it.
Treppen wrote: » Once teachers are willing to sign off then it's game over. I didn't think a school could refuse a student to sit in a higher level class though, parent as primary educator would have final say . Unless issues with class size or timetable!
RealJohn wrote: » This is it, and once again, it’s a decent idea, very badly implemented. I think it’s fair enough to give them some points for attempting higher level and falling a bit short, but the fact that the student did fail should also be reflected in the points they receive. A pass (H6) gets you the same points as an O2, and a fail (H7) then gets you the same points as an O3, sending the message “failing higher level is equivalent to 70%+ at ordinary level”. Of course they don’t drop down. I’m for giving them some points for 30%+ at higher level, but it should be more like the equivalent of an O5 or an O6, not an O3.
noplacehere wrote: » It should be ranked. 5 makes extra up to 25 marks for the H1. Not a blanket application. It’s completely crazy and these kids will fail any maths based course in college
RealJohn wrote: » I don’t agree with the sliding scale but I do think that the bonus points shouldn’t apply from 40% up. It should really be 60% up (the traditional “honours” cut off), or at least 50% (since 55% isn’t an option anymore). Getting 40-50% isn’t getting “honours”. It’s getting a pass at higher level. I get that there’s a rationale to changing the way things are stated but every time there’s a move from something like “honours” to something like “higher level”, some of the meaning is lost, in my opinion. In fact, as I grow older, I’m starting to think that the old system (which I never experienced - I’m not quite that old) where you got x honours and x passes and you got to third level based on that wasn’t actually a bad system. No points race, pressure greatly reduced, and if you weren’t good enough at third level, you failed. There’s a case of going back to that, in my opinion, and let the universities set more specific requirements if they like.
RealJohn wrote: » Oh I absolutely think that relevant subjects should count more too. Subjects like Irish, English and maths should always count for points because they benefit most if not all courses (to some extent at least), but then, relevant subjects should score more than ones that are less relevant.
Choochtown wrote: » Have to disagree regarding your opinion that Irish should always count. What is your reasoning for it benefitting "most if not all courses" ? Gaelscoil students already get a big advantage with Irish being a core subject. It's also notoriously difficult for students with dyslexia.
