Is the leaving cert system adequate

opinion guy · 05-06-2012 12:54PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

As an engineer I'm extremely glad that I did English for the Leaving.
I actually wish there had been some sort of a writing course in every year in college. Communication is key, and the ability to communicate your thoughts in writing is extremely important. It's a skill that needs to be taught to everyone regardless of their future career plans. It's also a skill you need to practice to maintain. There are far too many excellent engineers out there who are forced to sit and watch poor engineers get promoted above them simply because the poor engineers can get a message across, sell a product or convince someone else to do something.

I get where you are coming from as someone who has learned to write properly only as an adult and out of necessity. I would say however, that I found the leaving cert syllabus of Elizabethan English and abstract poetry didn't inspire me at all whatsoever to learn how to express myself - which is what an English course should do. I found it all very tedious I must say.

opinion guy · 05-06-2012 12:56PM

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

As for the 'Forklift' people above, they can do LCA or drop-out. Critical thinking should be for those serious about advancing their future studies and prospects rather than retiring in a forklift.

A touch elitist don't you think ?

And there are critical thinking courses. They're called, math, science, physics, chemistry etc.

Anita Blow · 05-06-2012 01:03PM

The Leaving Cert is grand as it stands. As has been said, it leaves everybody on an equal playing field as it's completely anonymous.

The academic person who studies Physics, Chemistry, Applied Maths, Latin etc. has just as much of a chance at 600 points as the not so academic person who is much better at practical work and studies engineering, construction, design & communication graphics and technology.
They both have the opportunity to translate their own strengths into a common form of recognising those strengths (points)

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 01:07PM

Teaching critical thinking might be like teaching "cool". On average, people are average, and will be averagely able to critical think.

NTMK · 05-06-2012 01:19PM

Monkey61 wrote: »

As a final thought: the idea of college places being allocated based on specific subjects alone rather than points across all subjects is all well and good, but how on earth do you differentiate between the 1000 students who have the same grades in 3 relevant subjects? Interviews and entrance exams would be the only choice but I don't know if I am entirely comfortable with introducing the level of human bias that interviews bring into play at such an early level.

the current system allows people who are completely unsuitable for certain courses to gain entry at the expense of more suitable people

if a student gets say
A1's in english,Art,Irish
and
C3's in Bio, Chem and maths

it gives them 480points and they scrape the requirements for a science course

while another student goin for the same course gets
A1's in bio, chem, maths
and
C3's in english and art and a d1 in irish

which gives them 475points

if the points are set to 480 for this science course
the student most suitable for this course is excluded

the points system needs to change to introduce weighting for relevant subjects

the tie breaker can be the other lower weighted subjects

there is no need for interviews and it should stay that way

GaryIrv93 · 05-06-2012 01:31PM

Personally I don't think having all students memorize and do an exam at the end is fair. It rewards those who are able to study and who are able to bury themselves in books for hours on end, and punishes those who either hate studying, can't study due to learning difficulties, problems at home etc or who are simply never in the mood to study. It would be much fairer to give every student a choice whether to finish their Leaving Certs by continuous assessment or by being examined. Some students such as myself like to express the quality of their work and effort by putting time into projects, and using their skills on Microsoft Word to make their work look professional, not by memorizing mostly irrelevant information in the hope that it'll come up in the exam, and spitting it back out and then forgetting about it. That suits some students, wheras it doesn't suit others. Everyone works in different way, either by assessment or exams. Choice would be the fairest option.

Lollipops23 · 05-06-2012 01:33PM

I agree- the idea of studying subjects that will have absolutely no influence or value in your adult life is archaic. I've been of the mind that Irish should be an optional subject after primary for years now.

To the poster who talked about staying til 8pm every day and coming in to study on weekends etc- that's great if you have a school that fosters and encourages academic success. I'd hazard a guess that most schools in Ireland wouldn't be nearly that organised/funded. To ask a 17 year old to handle the workload expected but not provide them with the tools/support/encouragement needed is torture.

Scanlas The 2nd · 05-06-2012 01:36PM

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Personally I don't think having all students memorize and do an exam at the end is fair. It rewards those who are able to study and who are able to bury themselves in books for hours on end, and punishes those who either hate studying, can't study due to learning difficulties, problems at home etc or who are simply never in the mood to study. It would be much fairer to give every student a choice whether to finish their Leaving Certs by continuous assessment or by being examined. Some students such as myself like to express the quality of their work and effort by putting time into projects, and using their skills on Microsoft Word to make their work look professional, not by memorizing mostly irrelevant information in the hope that it'll come up in the exam, and spitting it back out and then forgetting about it. That suits some students, wheras it doesn't suit others. Everyone works in different way, either by assessment or exams. Choice would be the fairest option.

I thought you were taking the pi$$ at first. Anyone who doesn't study because they aren't "in the mood" doesn't deserve a place in university. Since when is everything supposed to be easy.

digzy · 05-06-2012 01:43PM

look, it's the ultimate meritrocacy. while there's an argument for numerous alterations, it's the 'least worst' option.

for most people sitting the lc, it's used as a gate into third level. you're anonymous so who your folks are or know or what school you attended or your accent etc are not taken into account.

one drawback to continuous assessment is the practicalities. does your teacher grade you? is it a randomer like the invigilaters? bias vs cost!
i like the way it sits on a few exams in june. as someone who got the runs before college exams the less often you've this stress the better.

Taco Chips · 05-06-2012 01:43PM

'Critical thinking' seems to be a buzz word in this topic. Actually there are plenty of leaving cert subjects that incorporate critical thinking and different types of analysis that people seem to be over looking. Design & Communication Graphics, Applied Maths (to an extent), normal Maths, some parts of Physics.

What people mean by critical thinking I think in the majority of cases is common sense. The fact is that school isn't there for churning out teenagers going straight into the labour force. It's been said already in this thread but the best kind of education is a well rounded one, which is what the LC offers. You learn cop on and good work practices in *wait for it*.... a job.

The best summary of the situation in this thread was actually posted by someone doing their Junior Cert a few posts up.

I haven't done the LC yet (in third year) and I've barely flicked through this thread but I like the our LC system..
Feel free to call me ''ignorant'' or shout at me or tell me I'm wrong but if every person in the world got an escalator to the top of Mount Everest then reaching the top wouldn't be very special, would it? And the guy who's trained to get there, looks no better than everyone else .. The guy who worked his ass of for two years is rewarded with his results and looks great, while other (jealous) people say it's a ****ed up system.
I don't think there should be continual assessment just because people seem to lose their calenders until the month before the exams.

Definitely the most sensible post that I've read so far.

MisterEpicurus · 05-06-2012 01:44PM

opinion guy wrote: »

A touch elitist don't you think ?

And there are critical thinking courses. They're called, math, science, physics, chemistry etc.

No, it's fact.

Many students who can't hack the 'academic' side of things usually go for LCA or drop-out anyway. If they want to perform well at LC, then they should do more than rote learning which is useless and learns you next to nothing.

You're wrong again. Science does not teach you critical thinking, most of the people in my class learned it all of by heart and didn't know the significance. They even learned off all the 'maths proofs' without understanding the logic behind any of them.

It's true that some students don't do this - but more rote learn than apply critical thinking.

So yes, a separate strand which focussed on thinking rather than memorizing is the way to go.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Teaching critical thinking might be like teaching "cool". On average, people are average, and will be averagely able to critical think.

A touch pessimistic don't you think?

opinion guy · 05-06-2012 01:45PM

opinion guy wrote: »

A touch elitist don't you think ?

And there are critical thinking courses. They're called, math, science, physics, chemistry etc.

Although I will say this - there should be a bit more focus on the scientific method and on what makes science science, as opposed to religion say. And also included with this should be stuff like how clinical trials work etc etc.

But it can be worked into the existing subjects - no need for a new subject

GaryIrv93 · 05-06-2012 01:51PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I thought you were taking the pi$$ at first. Anyone who doesn't study because they aren't "in the mood" doesn't deserve a place in university. Since when is everything supposed to be easy.

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 01:51PM

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

No, it's fact.

Many students who can't hack the 'academic' side of things usually go for LCA or drop-out anyway. If they want to perform well at LC, then they should do more than rote learning which is useless and learns you next to nothing.

You're wrong again. Science does not teach you critical thinking, most of the people in my class learned it all of by heart and didn't know the significance. They even learned off all the 'maths proofs' without understanding the logic behind any of them.

It's true that some students don't do this - but more rote learn than apply critical thinking.

So yes, a separate strand which focussed on thinking rather than memorizing is the way to go.

Some of science - how to do physics experiments, and some of maths - theorems, are open to rote. The rest is application of what you have learned to a new problem which presents itself for the first time on the paper. This can be quite hard under exam conditions, but it certainly tests thought, not rote.

A touch pessimistic don't you think?

Nope, the numbers doing higher maths would bear this out. Also I think that even mathematicians would find it hard to apply logic in all parts of life, nor would we want to.

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 01:53PM

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

You think there won't be a need for studying in university? How would you propose we get doctors from this system?

I do get the impression that in Ireland, some courses in university are considered easier than the leaving cert, you are basically asking for a dumbing down of the leaving to allow access to courses which requite little or no work.

opinion guy · 05-06-2012 01:53PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Nope, the numbers doing higher maths would bear this out. Also I think that even mathematicians would find it hard to apply logic in all parts of life, nor would we want to.

Unless you are Sheldon Cooper!

Taco Chips · 05-06-2012 01:58PM

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

Oh come on now. As someone who did their leaving recently that's rubbish. If you went around schools in the morning and asked everyone who liked studying to raise their hands you'd get a tumbleweed. Very few to no 17/18 year olds actively enjoy studying for the leaving cert. Same in college. Studying for exams is just something you have to suck up and get done. None of this "I'm not suited for it" crap. It's 8 months of solid work. Nothing to kill you. Do your homework in 5th and 6th year, study for an hour or two every night, gradually ramping it up towards the end and there is nothing stopping anyone from hitting their full potential.

flyswatter · 05-06-2012 01:58PM

Don't agree with the dumbing down of Maths at all and I was an average Maths student at best. It's essential for problem solving and one of the key subjects in terms of life skills.

Also, I'd probably introduce more CA and have less of the memory test system which it mostly is at the moment.

EuropeanSon · 05-06-2012 01:59PM

I like the system, but dislike much of the content of the courses. Maths and English are not taught to anything approaching a high enough standard, and I feel that they should be made to be more difficult and be weighted significantly more heavily than other courses. The maths situation has only gotten worse in recent years. Some form of programming course should be introduced, too.

Overall, I think the system (ie. the CAO system) is a good one, but the standard of teaching, and the difficulty of material covered, are both far too low.

Ms.M · 05-06-2012 02:03PM

I do think the LC is a good marker for some things. If you're naturally "academic" and have analytic skills you'll do well. If you don't mind putting in the hours (although it is rote learning) you'll also do well.
There are capabilities it doesn't measure. If you're an extremely weak kid academically all you get at the end of it is "hey, you're a D/ E/ F". Seems a bit pointless for some.
I think the CAO system is flawed too. For example, if you fail Maths but got an A1 in honours English you should be able to get into a journalism degree. If you are gifted at Maths and Science subjects you should be able to get into Science
over someone who is ok at everything. In a lot of countries universities do look for grades in particular subjects.
That said, I'd hate to be teaching a class of kids who didn't need a grade in my subject to get into college. I suppose your general academic performance should be taken into account for competition among students of similar ability in a particular field maybe?

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 02:07PM

Ms.M wrote: »

I do think the LC is a good marker for some things. If you're naturally "academic" and have analytic skills you'll do well. If you don't mind putting in the hours (although it is rote learning) you'll also do well.
There are capabilities it doesn't measure. If you're an extremely weak kid academically all you get at the end of it is "hey, you're a D/ E/ F". Seems a bit pointless for some.
I think the CAO system is flawed too. For example, if you fail Maths but got an A1 in honours English you should be able to get into a journalism degree. If you are gifted at Maths and Science subjects you should be able to get into Science
over someone who is ok at everything. In a lot of countries universities do look for grades in particular subjects.
That said, I'd hate to be teaching a class of kids who didn't need a grade in my subject to get into college. I suppose your general academic performance should be taken into account for competition among students of similar ability in a particular field maybe?

Again with the rote, we've knocked that back tens of times in this thread. As for the rest, you can fail maths and get into journalism as far as I know. The Irish points system used to allow the different universities to weight the numbers, as in an engineering course would give you more points for mathematics, but it still worked through the CAO. The same issues with "rote" and studying were still there.

CruelCoin · 05-06-2012 02:10PM

Taco Chips wrote: »

You learn cop on and good work practices in *wait for it*.... a job.

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

Anita Blow · 05-06-2012 02:15PM

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Maths and English are not taught to anything approaching a high enough standard

Can't speak for maths, but English is far and away one of the hardest LC subjects.
Paper 2 requires you to know a Shakespearean text essentially off by heart (As you're required to write about 4-5 pages. Any aspect of the play can come up so you need to know it inside out), then you need to study a play, novel and movie and be able to write 5 pages comparing/contrasting them under a certain mode and then need to know at least 4-5 poets in detail.

All that in a 3 and a half hour exam that's only worth 50% of your overall grade.
I did my LC last year and found English incredibly difficult, to the point that it was detracting from my other subjects.

Scanlas The 2nd · 05-06-2012 02:16PM

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I thought you were taking the pi$$ at first. Anyone who doesn't study because they aren't "in the mood" doesn't deserve a place in university. Since when is everything supposed to be easy.

If they don't like studying then that's probably part of their personality, and should be allowed to choose an alternative working method, such as assessement if they wish. So because of their personality - they're a nice person, good with people around them etc, but because studying for hours on end just isin't their thing, they don't deserve a place in university? I never said everything was supposed to be easy, but everything should be fair - don't punish those who's personality isin't suited for studying, but for quality of work. It hardly makes that kind of student somehow less intelligent, lazy, less suitable or worth less than another student who can study and memorize better than they can, does it?

Ok then let's make things fair by giving easier exams to the less intelligent students. How about that?

opinion guy · 05-06-2012 02:17PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

Since always. Since the village carpenter/blacksmith/butcher needed a helper and a helper need a trade.
Every job has a learning curve, every employee needs to start somewhere. Its part of business.

Taco Chips · 05-06-2012 02:17PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

Well it is the responsibility of the employer to allow for a learning curve in any job. It is often their responsibility to account for on the job training, absolutely it is. It's not a school's responsibility to show someone how to work well in employment. That's something that people learn as they go through life. A gradual process taught through experiences. Good working practices come from working in a job. Life teaches common sense. That's just the way it is and always has been. School has never taught people otherwise, and yet people leave, get jobs and function just fine.

Anita Blow · 05-06-2012 02:18PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

It's not the job of our education system to make it easier for employers to choose candidates. It's job is to provide a broad-based education for students.

PhoenixParker · 05-06-2012 02:19PM

Ms.M wrote: »

I do think the LC is a good marker for some things. If you're naturally "academic" and have analytic skills you'll do well. If you don't mind putting in the hours (although it is rote learning) you'll also do well.
There are capabilities it doesn't measure. If you're an extremely weak kid academically all you get at the end of it is "hey, you're a D/ E/ F". Seems a bit pointless for some.
I think the CAO system is flawed too. For example, if you fail Maths but got an A1 in honours English you should be able to get into a journalism degree. If you are gifted at Maths and Science subjects you should be able to get into Science
over someone who is ok at everything. In a lot of countries universities do look for grades in particular subjects.
That said, I'd hate to be teaching a class of kids who didn't need a grade in my subject to get into college. I suppose your general academic performance should be taken into account for competition among students of similar ability in a particular field maybe?

Gotta disagree, have you seen what journalists do to numbers?
They seem to think you can add percentages together randomly.

Duggys Housemate · 05-06-2012 02:20PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

And since when was it the responsibility of the employer to complete the students education?

It's not. It is up to the employer to complete their training, which is not the same. If this guy - or you - needs fork lift drivers he can train them, or expect them to have done a course on fork lifts. For lift driving not education.

I expect any potential employee to already have good work practices and cop-on from the get-go.

School teaches you to pass exams, not how to function as a productive part of the workforce.
College/Uni teaches much the same thing, except there is then more emphasis on references.

We are not using the general secondary education system to subsidise your business. Education has more than one role

1) It passes on cultural knowledge - the much maligned "rote" learning.
2) It opens peoples minds to as wide a range of topics as possible, hence French, English, History etc.
3) it should teach people to think, particularly in the science subjects.
4) It teaches study, which is a good example as any of application in a young age - there are others, like sporting success. If it takes effort, it proves the ability to apply yourself.

To say that "college" teaches people to pass exams is a useless truism, it does teach doctors to "pass exams" about doctoring, which also teaches them to be doctors ( along with on the job training).

What the education system to secondary level is not deigned to do is to provide you with cheap trained labour.

GaryIrv93 · 05-06-2012 02:23PM

Taco Chips wrote: »

None of this "I'm not suited for it" crap. It's 8 months of solid work. Nothing to kill you. Do your homework in 5th and 6th year, study for an hour or two every night, gradually ramping it up towards the end and there is nothing stopping anyone from hitting their full potential.

The thing is though is that if a student downright hates studying, which many do, then it's going to be far more difficult for them to concentrate, do their homework, and work for two years. Some students just can't deal with that, and that's they way it is, especially if they're not very motivated. Telling them 'suck it up, ahhhh sure it won't kill you' does nothing to help them. Students like that need proper encouragement and a promise of a good reward if they're going to have any chance of overcoming their hate of putting their head down to study.

Is the leaving cert system adequate

Comments