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

The Junior/Leaving Certificate state exams are rubbish

karaokeman

I am only starting university now but there is no question in my mind that the two state exams in secondary school are useless and misleading for young students.

What you learn in secondary school for most subjects is completely irrelevant. In university, what you learn is thought from a different perspective, its thought a different way. I know a girl who hated plants in Biology for the LC and then loved it in university because she had a great lecturer.

And all work you put in for the JC/LC is really not worth the stress of end-of-year exams really. In university marks in second year account to your degree and even for first year what you make out of it accredits to studying abroad in third year.

Secondary school really doesn't prepare you for life in any way or other. It only teaches you how to learn information, cram and pass an exam. What you achieve in university is a gift for life.

If you asked me the British have a much better system with the A-levels. In their system they are "pre-degree" courses, something the LC could never qualify for.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GLaDOS

karaokeman wrote: »

I am only starting university now but there is no question in my mind that the two state exams in secondary school are useless and misleading for young students.

What you learn in secondary school for most subjects is completely irrelevant. In university, what you learn is thought from a different perspective, its thought a different way. I know a girl who hated plants in Biology for the LC and then loved it in university because she had a great lecturer.

And all work you put in for the JC/LC is really not worth the stress of end-of-year exams really. In university marks in second year account to your degree and even for first year what you make out of it accredits to studying abroad in third year.

Secondary school really doesn't preper you for life in any way or other. It only teaches you how to learn information, cram and pass an exam. What you achieve in university is a gift for life.

If you asked me the British have a much better system with the A-levels. In their system they are "pre-degree" courses, something the LC could never qualify for.

How can you possibly know that if you're only starting college now?

Anyway, as someone going into 4th year of a degree, I've done plenty of cramming just to pass exams. As has loads of other people.

Liam Byrne

karaokeman wrote: »

Secondary school really doesn't preper you for life in any way or other.

Obviously.

rounding tattenham Corner

well when you get into the real world and start working you may find what you learned in uni to be useless to, i did four years of computers and never used one thing in my work and my work is computers

anhedonia

rounding tattenham Corner wrote: »

well when you get into the real world and start working you may find what you learned in uni to be useless to, i did four years of computers and never used one thing in my work and my work is computers

Horse****.

I did a four year computer science degree, now working in IT, and low and behold some of the stuff we did in college is vaguely related to working in the IT sector.

languagenerd

karaokeman wrote: »

Secondary school really doesn't preper you for life in any way or other. It only teaches you how to learn information, cram and pass an exam.

I disagree. I think you get out what you put in. If you spend 6 years rote-learning, then yes, you're going to have an issue with the way of learning in university. But if you put effort into understanding what you're learning, then it's not so different.

Example: languages. I did four language subjects for LC - and I never once learned off an essay. I studied the grammar & vocab, I practised, I read etc. I'm now studying languages in university (going into 3rd year), and I find it's the same methods, just up a level. What I learned at LC level stood to me.

My other subjects were Maths, Chemistry and Accounting - and I still know how to do most of the calculations etc. Were I to start a course in any of those, I think I'd have a good (or at least adequate) grasp of the basics.

Anyway, as already pointed out, people still cram and pass exams in university too. Depends on the person and your outlook!

If you asked me the British have a much better system with the A-levels. In their system they are "pre-degree" courses, something the LC could never qualify for.

I think the Irish system produces more well-rounded people, actually. If you do all higher-level subjects, you leave with seven Level 5 qualifications in subjects that could be as wide-ranging as from French to Home Ec to Agricultural Science. The English system forces you to specialize a lot earlier. Many people at age 16 don't know what they want to do with their lives. At least with the LC, you have the option of changing course to something completely different; you're not restricted to a certain faculty or field.

phasers

.....duuuuuuuh

Snowie

ScienceNerd wrote: »

How can you possibly know that if you're only starting college now?

Anyway, as someone going into 4th year of a degree, I've done plenty of cramming just to pass exams. As has loads of other people.

Hes got more vision then you Unlearn that stoopid irish mentality they teach you at school to you dont have to keep the same job for your hole life
there is a thing called progression

Being able to think for your self is vital...

and jesous shaged a woman called mary

just sayin.....

Snowie

phasers wrote: »

.....duuuuuuuh

i like her can we keep her ?

Computer Sci

karaokeman wrote: »

I am only starting university now but there is no question in my mind that the two state exams in secondary school are useless and misleading for young students.

What you learn in secondary school for most subjects is completely irrelevant. In university, what you learn is thought from a different perspective, its thought a different way. I know a girl who hated plants in Biology for the LC and then loved it in university because she had a great lecturer.

And all work you put in for the JC/LC is really not worth the stress of end-of-year exams really. In university marks in second year account to your degree and even for first year what you make out of it accredits to studying abroad in third year.

Secondary school really doesn't preper you for life in any way or other. It only teaches you how to learn information, cram and pass an exam. What you achieve in university is a gift for life.

If you asked me the British have a much better system with the A-levels. In their system they are "pre-degree" courses, something the LC could never qualify for.

One thing I will say is to not get the idea of college as more laid-back academically than secondary school. It is in fact a lot more intense and harder in academic terms than anything you’ll ever have encountered in secondary school. What might appear to be the laid back atmosphere and approach to work is nothing more than the simple fact that you’ve no teacher standing over you to ensure that you are studying and doing your work.

To be frank with you, most of the lecturers, academics and professors in universities couldn’t give a stuff if you are studying or not, they are there to teach – not to stand over you and mother you like secondary and primary school teachers. They are there to teach you the material, and that’s it – it is up to you to do the studying and work yourself. College requires self-discipline, because if you do not acquire this attribute during your time at university, you will not get far.

And lastly, keep in mind that most of the first few classes are only introductory, most courses get a hell of a lot harder as time goes on.

mackg

karaokeman wrote: »

I am only starting university now but there is no question in my mind that the two state exams in secondary school are useless and misleading for young students.

What you learn in secondary school for most subjects is completely irrelevant. In university, what you learn is thought from a different perspective, its thought a different way. I know a girl who hated plants in Biology for the LC and then loved it in university because she had a great lecturer.

And all work you put in for the JC/LC is really not worth the stress of end-of-year exams really. In university marks in second year account to your degree and even for first year what you make out of it accredits to studying abroad in third year.

Secondary school really doesn't preper you for life in any way or other. It only teaches you how to learn information, cram and pass an exam. What you achieve in university is a gift for life.

If you asked me the British have a much better system with the A-levels. In their system they are "pre-degree" courses, something the LC could never qualify for.

The first year of some 3rd level science courses is 70+% stuff you would have seen at leaving cert level. I know people who have 1st class honours degrees through cramming. Projects can be done essentially in extended cramming sessions.

[Deleted User]

karaokeman wrote: »

What you learn in secondary school for most subjects is completely irrelevant. In university, what you learn is thought from a different perspective, its thought a different way..

I certainly hope they teach English a different way

tony 2 tone

Awww bless! A first year college student who thinks he knows every thing

[Deleted User]

languagenerd wrote: »

I disagree. I think you get out what you put in. If you spend 6 years rote-learning, then yes, you're going to have an issue with the way of learning in university. But if you put effort into understanding what you're learning, then it's not so different.

+1. I think this goes for both school and university, you get out what you put in. If someone chooses to spend 4 years going to the pub every night and cramming for their exams every year, that's their choice, but that's not the fault of the university. I was a bit lazy during my undergrad, but did all the reading and plenty of extra reading for my MA and enjoyed it a million times more.

I think the Irish system produces more well-rounded people, actually. If you do all higher-level subjects, you leave with seven Level 5 qualifications in subjects that could be as wide-ranging as from French to Home Ec to Agricultural Science. The English system forces you to specialize a lot earlier. Many people at age 16 don't know what they want to do with their lives. At least with the LC, you have the option of changing course to something completely different; you're not restricted to a certain faculty or field.

I agree. We have to specialise even earlier than 16, actually. I had to decide whether to drop Home Ec forever and take up an extra language at 12, I had to decide on my GCSE choices at 13, which meant dropping Art, Music and Geography (which I loved) and a few other subjects as well. It's absolutely ridiculous that such young kids are required to make such lifechanging decisions. I picked my A-Levels at 15, and dropped Maths because I'd done badly at GCSE (you needed to have a B in a subject to do it at A-Level), which meant that hundreds and hundreds of degree courses and careers were closed off to me because I didn't have the required Maths skills and had no further opportunities to improve. I'm 26 now and it still affects me today. I've lost out on quite a few grad schemes and jobs because I don't have the Maths A-Level and/or the skills to pass the entrance tests. Crazy. The Irish system may be flawed, but the less specialization at a young age, the better, IMO.

OneArt

With regards to language learning secondary school is utterly hopeless. I include Irish in that.

fontanalis

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Hes got more vision then you Unlearn that stoopid irish mentality they teach you at school to you dont have to keep the same job for your hole life
there is a thing called progression

Being able to think for your self is vital...

and jesous shaged a woman called mary

just sayin.....

And you have to start somewhere.
My main problem with the Irish system is that you have to pick exactly what you do at the very begining which is very difficult to know when you're 17.

orourkeda

If I was 17 again and I knew what I know now, thre isn;t a f*cking hope in hell i'd go to college

St.Spodo

Rote-learning doesn't bring out the best in anyone.Also, I could never understand why my apptitude for Irish and maths or lack thereof would determine what I'd study in college.

It is a very, very flawed system and you only have to look at the course content of some subjects/exams to realise that.

karaokeman

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Awww bless! A first year college student who thinks he knows every thing

I know, isn't it great to be young?

Niles

Well, it probably depends on the course, but I'm not convinced that some University courses prepare you any more than the Leaving Cert does. Ok, so obviously an Engineering course gives you the knowledge to become an engineer, but when it comes to Arts courses they don't really give you much more grounding for life than the Junior or Leaving would. Just a more detailed knowledge of a particular subject area. Some might say that they encourage you to think more critically, but that is there to an extent in the Leaving Cert anyway. Many rote learn, but you can use critical thinking when answering say, a Leaving Cert History question just as you can at University level. In my experience rote learning occurs in college exams just as it does at second level. Some might say that there's more of an emphasis on pre-submitted work in college, but in fairness the Leaving is gradually leaning towards that area, with Geography and History already having 20% of their mark devoted towards a pre-submitted project.

As for lecturers being more interesting, well I think that's down to the individual rather than a reflection on the 2nd or 3rd level systems themselves. I had one History lecturer who literally just read from a manuscript for 60 (it was meant to be 50!) minutes straight twice a week, without stopping! In contrast my History teachers in secondary school always attempted to make the subject interesting, discussing it with us, etc... Neither was necessarily a reflection on the level of education but just an example of how it really comes down to the individual doing the teaching rather than what level it is being taught at.

Certainly the Leaving Cert could do with more tweaking, but I don't think college necessarily prepares you for life anymore than the Leaving and Junior Certs do.

Adamantium

orourkeda wrote: »

If I was 17 again and I knew what I know now, thre isn;t a f*cking hope in hell i'd go to college

out of curiosity, why not?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Awww bless! A first year college student who thinks he knows every thing

Are you referring to the OP or to Rauri Quinn???

djcervi

I think the Leaving Cert could be improved a fair bit. It has always surprised me that, in many other EU countries (UK, France, Spain, Italy), you can study subjects like Politics, Psychology and Philosophy. In Ireland, these are not offered for LC. Well, there is CSPE (Junior Cert.), but the main part of that exam is drawing a campaign poster :pac:. You do not analyse Political concepts, or ideas of what makes a good political leader. Likewise, Psychology or Philosophy are not offered, which are interesting subjects to study. Sadly, It's only through studying Languages and Cultural Studies in University, that I've managed to show an appreciation for diverse subjects like Philosophy, etc.

Also I think the main problem is that we can get overwhelmed with the CAO points race, that we can forget about the pleasure of learning. For example, I was not a big fan of LC English. Most of those classes were learning to write essays with a vague idea of what was going on. Since then, I have an urge to read the likes of James Joyce and Oscar Wilde. I don't think my 18 year old self could have imagined that.

Just my two cents.

starlit

It's been ten years since I did my Junior Cert and got the results this day ten years ago. I would make adjustments to the Junior Cert, might be better to scrap it but think its worth doing to prep before the Leaving Cert you are better able to handle State exams by having gone through the system before.

Though it be better if the Junior Cert contributed towards the Leaving Cert in some way regarding assessment or results. Maybe limit the number of Junior Cert subjects be more feasible than scrapping it. I agree the British system is a way better as what you study contributes to qualifying for College courses.

Orando Broom

OneArt wrote: »

With regards to language learning secondary school is utterly hopeless. I include Irish in that.

Irish is for the most part a useless language outside a very focused number of career paths, mainly in the perpetuation of itself.

I think the language should be taught as a non examined subject save for an Oral exam. It should be removed from the junior cert as an examined subject.

The language should be preserved but as a fun, social thing, not in the mode as a points getter, rote learned essays and stock phrases to circumvent the learning process in exchange for points.

The critical thing here is the motivation of the teachers. I think a lot of teachers only teach to get points and results and not to instill a love in the subject. One of my favourite teachers (from purely the subject point of view) was an English teacher who I had to Junior Cert. I got a very disappointing result in the subject in relation to the expectations of me. However thanks to the grounding I got from him I went on to do English at University and my love of the language has always remained thanks to him.

Niles

doovdela wrote: »

It's been ten years since I did my Junior Cert and got the results this day ten years ago. I would make adjustments to the Junior Cert, might be better to scrap it but think its worth doing to prep before the Leaving Cert you are better able to handle State exams by having gone through the system before.

Though it be better if the Junior Cert contributed towards the Leaving Cert in some way regarding assessment or results. Maybe limit the number of Junior Cert subjects be more feasible than scrapping it. I agree the British system is a way better as what you study contributes to qualifying for College courses.

I also think it's worth keeping the Junior Cert as a "dry run" for the Leaving Cert. I see where you're coming from but not sure about making it contribute towards the final results, that's a lot of pressure towards something so "final" at a young age. Might be better to keep the JC as it is which may allow students to find out where their strengths and weaknesses lie before making a decision on Leaving Cert subjects, etc...

Orando Broom wrote: »

The language should be preserved but as a fun, social thing, not in the mode as a points getter, rote learned essays and stock phrases to circumvent the learning process in exchange for points.

+1. Completely agree with this. Ultimately this would probably do the language a lot of good. You could always have an optional "Irish Literature" subject for points on the Leaving, while perhaps retaining a mandatory, but non-examined, spoken language subject (similar to the way there is no PE exam, so far anyway). This way students with a strong aptitude for the language could study Gaelic poems and for points if they wanted to, while at the same time putting less emphasis on exam pressure and more emphasis on instilling a love for the language among those who might otherwise develop a resentment towards it.

KungPao

Slightly OT...but still relevant to the rubbishness of JC/LC...

Can a student at the beginning of 2nd level be exempt from "learning" Irish?

My nephew is Irish, born here, parents from here and all that....but any way he can ditch it?

And Religion for that matter...

??

languagenerd

KungPao wrote: »

Slightly OT...but still relevant to the rubbishness of JC/LC...

Can a student at the beginning of 2nd level be exempt from "learning" Irish?

My nephew is Irish, born here, parents from here and all that....but any way he can ditch it?

And Religion for that matter...

??

Irish - only if he has a certified learning disability like dyslexia, and if then he'd have to get a special exemption from the Dept of Education.

Religion isn't compulsory, so that depends on the school

Ficheall

karaokeman wrote: »

I am only starting university now but there is no question in my mind that the two state exams in secondary school are useless and misleading for young students.

I am only starting my eighth year of university now, but there is no question in my mind that the education received in college is useless for young students, and to claim that it is is often quite misleading.
I learned more and still remember more from my secondary school education than from my degree. What I have learned from my phd is largely useless to almost everyone, myself included.

Whilst I think I'd still go back, if I were 17 again, I would enjoy it, and not treat it as though the academia side of it mattered at all.

amacca

orourkeda wrote: »

If I was 17 again and I knew what I know now, thre isn;t a f*cking hope in hell i'd go to college

what would you do?

just curious..............................................

learn an in demand trade

take up bass guitar

get an audition for a prestigious theatre company and work your way up the thespian greasepole

take up pimping

start up a human trafficking ring

have reckless sex with multiple partners and write a tell all memoir for a well known redtop to be released in weekly excerpts

ghost write another roy keane autobiography

join the canadian airforce and become a merciless crack fighter pilot ace with at least 12 confirmed kills to your name

run away and join the circus and forge a lifelong friendship with an elephant called membabwe illunga babsisis

become a gourmand extraordinaire

what what...jeebus what?....the suspense is killing me man...dont leave me hanging:eek:? I cant take this!!!

KungPao

languagenerd wrote: »

Irish - only if he has a certified learning disability like dyslexia, and if then he'd have to get a special exemption from the Dept of Education.

Religion isn't compulsory, so that depends on the school

That's fucking outrageous. To think he could be learning a language that isn't a waste of time.

I must ask my sister if he can at least dump Religion...

The education system in this country saddens me.