Is the leaving cert system adequate

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-06-2012 11:23PM

Leaving cert is a load of balls.

Getting good grades in the Leavign and thinking you're intelligent is like jumping in a puddle and thinking you can swim.

Battered Mars Bar · 04-06-2012 11:23PM

It's too easy is the problem. 2 years build up to an exam for 6 subjects ffs we're soft. Reality is, no one really does anything in 5th year and the first 6 months of 6th year is spent getting pissed then the sh*t hits the fan for these lazy students.

The problem apart from it being too easy is you learn nothing about researching or thinking and thinking is important. :pac: Instead you're given 2 years to learn a few things off by heart pfft, throw enough sh*t up against the wall and some of it will stick then just vomit it onto an exam paper and hey presto 500+ points.

and it's the students that are complaining??

sock puppet · 04-06-2012 11:26PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Get rid of calculus and matrices in project maths...?

That's just hysterical nonsense. There's no way calculus will ever be taken off the course. And under the old course matrices were half a question which was pointless. Imo the best thing would have been either to remove them entirely, which they've done, or else have introduced an entire question or two on linear algebra.

Novella · 04-06-2012 11:27PM

To be perfectly honest, I found sixth year immensely stressful. I wanted to get high points and I always felt the pressure of knowing that I needed to perform pretty much perfectly in each exam I did.

I don't think it's a great way of determining college places. Just because someone isn't an A grade student in Irish, French etc., doesn't mean that they wouldn't be a good dentist or whatever.

*I think there should be college entrance exams relating to the area the student is interested in.

*I haven't actually thought this through, might be crazy!

04-06-2012 11:28PM

sock puppet wrote: »

That's just hysterical nonsense. There's no way calculus will ever be taken off the course. And under the old course matrices were half a question which was pointless. Imo the best thing would have been either to remove them entirely, which they've done, or else have introduced an entire question or two on linear algebra.

So matrices were taken off the course and that's hysterical nonsense?

On calculus:

What disappears is most material on calculus – a lot of differentiation, almost all integration, as well as all vectors, all matrices, discrete maths and much more

http://www.projectmaths.com/index.php/2012/05/ul-maths-lecturer-saysthis-dumbed-down-syllabus-is-a-distortion-of-the-mathematics-required-to-equip-our-students-for-third-level/

Sir, – If you look at the papers for project mathematics on the Department of Education website, and this is a very worthwhile exercise, you will notice a huge reduction in areas such as calculus

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0316/1224313392768.html

steddyeddy · 04-06-2012 11:34PM

Well for me the problem is that You could be a brilliant scientist in the making and because of a poor result in Irish you wont get into science. The same goes for any other potential career. As bluewolf said aswell the subjects are being dumbed down to a massive level. Biology in the leaving cert is nothing like biology in college. Our lecturers told us from day one that we should forget every bit of leaving cert biology we have learned.

04-06-2012 11:36PM

Rocket19 wrote: »

Really? How so?

Well as I said in my initial reply, because the exams count for so much. Certain circumstances that may arise directly before an exam can leave someone with a bad result through no wrong doing of their own. While my reply to your post may have been a bit, sharp, it comes from you saying stuff like "but it's not that bloody hard!" and "If you can't handle the leaving cert, you sure as hell won't handle college" and especially "but it's only as stressful as you make it for yourself." Too many sweeping statements with little or no consideration for people that didn't have things go as smoothly as it did for you.

The Leaving Cert didn't go well for me because certain non-school related things happened, but I still went to college and got my degree. This discredits some of the points you made IMO. Also, overall you came across as looking down on people that find the leaving cert especially stressful or dismissing college from their future if they were "unable to handle the leaving cert".

sock puppet · 04-06-2012 11:37PM

bluewolf wrote: »

So matrices were taken off the course and that's hysterical nonsense?

On calculus:

http://www.projectmaths.com/index.php/2012/05/ul-maths-lecturer-saysthis-dumbed-down-syllabus-is-a-distortion-of-the-mathematics-required-to-equip-our-students-for-third-level/

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0316/1224313392768.html

I just don't think the matrice or vector sections were useful at all. For starters I think it would have been better not to have them in two separate questions on different papers.

On the old syllabus calculus was worth a potential 25% of the exam (think there is an option for more on paper 2). Under project maths calculus is worth 17% of the exam. The questions are the exact same as those in the old syllabus.

GaryIrv93 · 04-06-2012 11:37PM

I'm starting my LC on Wednesday, and agree that continuous assessment should have been implemented instead of exams. Because the LC the way it is now is a memory test, not an intelligence test. Getting 500+ points in the LC, - yeah it proves you can memorize the information and spit it back out on the paper correctly, but does it test actual intelligence? No, it doesn't. Exams stress students out, and lower their self-esteem if they do worse than others. What disgusts me is that the academic students are rewarded for their good grades just because an exam-oriented education system suits them. It doesn't suit everyone though. Exams only reward the more academic students. Just because I fail a maths exam, and the guy next to me gets top marks, is he automatically more intelligent or worth more than I am? I don't think so.

I support continuous assessment because it actually shows the quality of your work, and that's what's required in the workplace, and what's done in the workplace, not exams. I've completed class projects in 4th year for example that were much better than even the top students in my class, because I was given time to do them, didn't have to rush them like you have to rush an exam and they didn't stress me either. I'd say though that students should be allowed to choose between continuous assessment and exams - CA suit some students, and exams suit others, whichever you're more confident with.

Get rid of the points system or grades system also, seriously. To get into the right course, it should either be one or the other; The right points or the right grades, not both. Let's say you get enough points for your desired course, then you realise that you didn't get the right grades, so basically it says ''Tough sh*t.'' :mad: That's what annoys me most.

steddyeddy · 04-06-2012 11:38PM

Novella wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, I found sixth year immensely stressful. I wanted to get high points and I always felt the pressure of knowing that I needed to perform pretty much perfectly in each exam I did.

I don't think it's a great way of determining college places. Just because someone isn't an A grade student in Irish, French etc., doesn't mean that they wouldn't be a good dentist or whatever.

*I think there should be college entrance exams relating to the area the student is interested in.

*I haven't actually thought this through, might be crazy!

This is an excellent idea. I would love to see this come in.

GaryIrv93 · 04-06-2012 11:45PM

Also for most students I don't think the LC is actually half as important as parents and teachers make it out to be. They need to let up on the pressure they put on their students - nowadays the LC is far more stressful than it was years ago. So what if you do badly anyway? Doesn't make you an idiot, worthless, nor a failure. My guidance counseller has told me of people who took it easy in their Leaving Certs, didn't really study, and ended up with 70 or less points in their Leavings, and still found countless courses that they enjoyed, especially practical ones. Wheras the the most academic students have worked their arses off for the whole 2 years for high-points courses, and either fell short of just a few points in the end, or ended up hating their courses. I say don't stress yourselves out too much. If people are achieving higher than you in memory tests, don't worry about them making you look bad. We all lose in one way, but gain in another. Someone might be far more academic than I am, but I for example could produce a work of art that person never could in a million years. We're all unique in one way or another. There's more to life than school, academics or exams.

guitarzero · 04-06-2012 11:54PM

The school system is ridiculous thus the leaving is ridiculous. Its not about knowledge or thought but drilling ones head relentlessly without the ability to integrate this info. I could write a thesis on how school is the maker of our eventual destruction.

Rocket19 · 05-06-2012 12:01AM

Sacramento wrote: »

Well as I said in my initial reply, because the exams count for so much. Certain circumstances that may arise directly before an exam can leave someone with a bad result through no wrong doing of their own. While my reply to your post may have been a bit, sharp, it comes from you saying stuff like "but it's not that bloody hard!" and "If you can't handle the leaving cert, you sure as hell won't handle college" and especially "but it's only as stressful as you make it for yourself." Too many sweeping statements with little or no consideration for people that didn't have things go as smoothly as it did for you.

The Leaving Cert didn't go well for me because certain non-school related things happened, but I still went to college and got my degree. This discredits some of the points you made IMO. Also, overall you came across as looking down on people that find the leaving cert especially stressful or dismissing college from their future if they were "unable to handle the leaving cert".

Oh no, I totally understand that there is pressure, I certainly didn't mean to totally undermine that. When you're aiming for a certain course (particularly one with high points), obviously much is centred on "the day", and god forbid you fcuk up on "the day".
In my case, I wanted an A1 in honours English, totally ballsed it, and ended up with a B1. Not bad you might say, but I was absolutely banking on the A, and it really was a case of a bad paper for me. I really didn't mean to be snotty or insensitive.

I will stand by what I said somewhat though, because I do believe too much emphasis IS placed on just how stressful it is, and students feed into this to a certain extent (albeit not intentionally). There seems to a media worship of "the leaving cert student". It seems they're actively encouraged to stress out ffs.
My sister is doing the LC at the moment and the amount of times she has said "the leaving is sooo much harder than college". This is sh*t that they tell them in schools, and we wonder why it stresses them out!
There seems to be an over-whelming consensus in schools that if you fcuk up the leaving cert, your life is basically over. Of course, if students believe this (and I don't really blame them for it), they're going to be stressed, but it's simply not a realistic view. There's always another way, a way of doing it again, a way of managing your stress. To an otherwise great student who messes up on the day, that's really unfortunate, but tbh, I'd just call that bad luck, it's not something I feel happens to the majority. A national system just can't cater for the individual, it just doesn't work like that. The reality is that in most cases, if you genuinely work hard for the 2 years, it will show.

Also...does anyone honestly think that the student who wrote into the Irish Times describing it as "torture" was not taking the biscuit a little bit? She'll do well in creative writing anyway...

Chavways · 05-06-2012 12:04AM

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

It's too easy is the problem. 2 years build up to an exam for 6 subjects ffs we're soft. Reality is, no one really does anything in 5th year and the first 6 months of 6th year is spent getting pissed then the sh*t hits the fan for these lazy students.

I don't know where you're getting this from.

AngeGal · 05-06-2012 12:12AM

In my opinion, it's a fair method. Once you have a certain level of intelligence, it really stops being so important how naturally gifted you are and comes down to work.

Malcolm Gladwell previously wrote about this, I think his example was the difference between an iq of 90 and an iq of 110 is a much more significant one that that of between an iq of 110 and an iq of 130.

I think you need a minimum amount of intelligence to get 500 plus. My point being, if you're smart enough to get into medicine/law/etc., you're smart enough to get through it and do well.

Ultimately, success usually boils down to hard work. In that regard, the leaving cert prepares students reasonably well to succeed I would suggest. Another advantage is that it's a blind system, there can be no suggestion of favouritism.

Battered Mars Bar · 05-06-2012 12:19AM

Chavways wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting this from.

Must've just been my LC year then :rolleyes:

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 12:23AM

Continuous assessment is a load of old horlicks - some courses excepted - and it would probably be examined by the teacher in the school, who has no incentive to fail anybody. Even if external examiners examined, whats to stop students getting help from teachers or parents before submitting to the externals? What if a teacher is biased?

It won't work. As for rote, I am not sure how rote the leaving certificate is these days, it wasn't so much in my day. Some subjects lend themselves to rote, and some don't. Critics of "rote" learning tend to compare the leaving cert unfavourably with college courses, but law, biology, medicine and many other college courses are rote. Learning is learning, knowing the names of plants is rote, the symptoms of a disease is rote, the result in the supreme court case No" Vxiii, Johnson Vs O'Sullivan is rote.

Applying this is not rote, but the leaving cert will be - on average - less rote than some college courses.

05-06-2012 12:27AM

I do think the LC is faulted and needs a lot of changes.

I think there should be a broader choice of subjects and less compulsory subjects (in particular subjects like Irish). This would be very difficult to implement though. I honestly believe it would be worth shortening the school day if it meant more classes could be run.

There are many other changes which should be made. Some subjects are far too easy, while others are too hard, which is what has led to tactical learning and gambling on being able to predict questions.

However, the whole thing about stress is silly. Some students will get stressed out, and others wont, and no matter how difficult or easy the course is, the stressy students will always stress about it and the laid back ones will always be laid back. It's nothing to do with the curriculum.

Cruel Sun · 05-06-2012 12:30AM

In all seriousness- Continuous Assessment.

steddyeddy · 05-06-2012 12:35AM

AngeGal wrote: »

In my opinion, it's a fair method. Once you have a certain level of intelligence, it really stops being so important how naturally gifted you are and comes down to work.

Malcolm Gladwell previously wrote about this, I think his example was the difference between an iq of 90 and an iq of 110 is a much more significant one that that of between an iq of 110 and an iq of 130.

I think you need a minimum amount of intelligence to get 500 plus. My point being, if you're smart enough to get into medicine/law/etc., you're smart enough to get through it and do well.

Ultimately, success usually boils down to hard work. In that regard, the leaving cert prepares students reasonably well to succeed I would suggest.

I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can get 600 points with a lot of hard work. Those six hundred points grant entry into any course regardless of the suitability of the student for the course. The leaving cert should be more tailored for the universities needs.

05-06-2012 12:37AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can get 600 points with a lot of hard work. Those six hundred points grant entry into any course regardless of the suitability of the student for the course. The leaving cert should be more tailored for the universities needs.

But surely the universities' needs are people who are able to put in a lot of hard work?

riclad · 05-06-2012 12:39AM

most people dont want to be a lawyer or doctor.IT S fair in that ,everyone has a chance to get the points they need.
IT would be great to make an exam system that rewards creative thinking
or logical thinking, more than memorisation of facts.I think it would be better to let people choose 5 or 6 subjects ,for the leaving.
But when you go to college ,you ,ll still need to do exams .IT seems
like the leaving is designed to give you x amount of points ,not very
relevant if you have no intention of going to university.
theres plenty of successful people out there who, didnt get good leaving certs results.

steddyeddy · 05-06-2012 12:42AM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Continuous assessment is a load of old horlicks - some courses excepted - and it would probably be examined by the teacher in the school, who has no incentive to fail anybody. Even if external examiners examined, whats to stop students getting help from teachers or parents before submitting to the externals? What if a teacher is biased?

It won't work. As for rote, I am not sure how rote the leaving certificate is these days, it wasn't so much in my day. Some subjects lend themselves to rote, and some don't. Critics of "rote" learning tend to compare the leaving cert unfavourably with college courses, but law, biology, medicine and many other college courses are rote. Learning is learning, knowing the names of plants is rote, the symptoms of a disease is rote, the result in the supreme court case No" Vxiii, Johnson Vs O'Sullivan is rote.

Applying this is not rote, but the leaving cert will be - on average - less rote than some college courses.

In fairness first year science is Continuously assessed and it works for that. I dont see why it cant work for the leaving cert.

Mardy Bum · 05-06-2012 12:43AM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Continuous assessment is a load of old horlicks - some courses excepted - and it would probably be examined by the teacher in the school, who has no incentive to fail anybody. Even if external examiners examined, whats to stop students getting help from teachers or parents before submitting to the externals? What if a teacher is biased?

It won't work. As for rote, I am not sure how rote the leaving certificate is these days, it wasn't so much in my day. Some subjects lend themselves to rote, and some don't. Critics of "rote" learning tend to compare the leaving cert unfavourably with college courses, but law, biology, medicine and many other college courses are rote. Learning is learning, knowing the names of plants is rote, the symptoms of a disease is rote, the result in the supreme court case No" Vxiii, Johnson Vs O'Sullivan is rote.

Applying this is not rote, but the leaving cert will be - on average - less rote than some college courses.

I agree entirely and would say all sit down exams in college no matter what the course is open to rote learning whether it be science business or the humanities.

steddyeddy · 05-06-2012 12:46AM

true-or-false wrote: »

But surely the universities' needs are people who are able to put in a lot of hard work?

The fact is universities require a lot more than hard work. A person with a natural aptitude for science is far better to science than someone who just works hard.

thebankers · 05-06-2012 12:46AM

The LC means nothing. I much prefer my ability to question bull**** through critical analysis any day of the week. Those 18 years of schooling where basically robbed from my life by technocrats and politicians. A total waste. Why not just skip school entirely, work for a few years, than apply as a mature student?

Wish I had of done that. In a country of only 4 million odd people, the Leaving cert is insignificant. Mother Nature does not give a toss about how many points you got in your leaving. This cesspit we call "community" will be tossed aside through evolution. This comforts me immensly.

The Leaving cert is only important, because politicians attribute meaning to pieces of carbon on a page. It's a pointless exercise, really. It's all about controlling the populace. Society is messed up.

tl;dr - The Leaving cert is a fictional abstraction, a figment of your imagination. Numbers on a page for the technocrats who wish to enslave you and your children.

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 12:47AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact is universities require a lot more than hard work. A person with a natural aptitude for science is far better to science than someone who just works hard.

Presumably this guy would have done mostly science in his leaving. He should also have to do other things, since the leaving cert is not just to guide people to university courses, it is more rounded.

05-06-2012 12:50AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact is universities require a lot more than hard work. A person with a natural aptitude for science is far better to science than someone who just works hard.

So if someone has a natural aptitude for science, and little aptitude for languages, but their dream is to get a degree in French and travel with it, and they're prepared to work their ass of for it, you don't think they should be accepted??

If someone has to work twice as hard, and is willing to, surely that makes them even more deserving of their place?? If they're passing their college exams then what does is matter whether or not they have a natural aptitude?

AngeGal · 05-06-2012 12:51AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can get 600 points with a lot of hard work. Those six hundred points grant entry into any course regardless of the suitability of the student for the course. The leaving cert should be more tailored for the universities needs.

I would disagree with 600, maybe 550 plus, but it would be a hell of a lot of hard work. Someone woth the discipline to work that hard will succeed in any course which they want to succeed in.

Hard work is far far more important for success than natural ability. Intelligence is all too often wasted.

BazDel · 05-06-2012 12:52AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact is universities require a lot more than hard work. A person with a natural aptitude for science is far better to science than someone who just works hard.

Some courses require certain grades in certain subjects already. That is the job of the university. However if all courses had strict requirements that would just cause an even bigger problem. E.g. If people who have done Accounting at LC would be the only ones allowed to do Accounting at 3rd level. That would mean students would have to decide on their college course in forth/fifth year so as to pick the relevant LC subjects.

Is the leaving cert system adequate

Comments