Who cares about the Leaving Cert?

blakfact wrote: »

It's a joke of an exam. None of the material is audited by international standards, and the people who design and implement these exams, aka, overpaid work shy public sector workers, are unaccountable to the other citizens of this country. In short when you consider project maths, Union strikes, holidays and everything else associated to the Leaving Cert, the whole thing is a bloody joke.

People like to pretend it's important, but the moment you step outside of Ireland, it has little to no meaning. Good luck trying to get into a real University with a Leaving Cert. You think Cambridge and Oxford let people with 600 Irish points into their courses? Think again. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and the Unions know this.

What Ireland needs to do, is abolish all state exams, and give the responsibility of exams at the end of school to an internationally recognised body capable of actually designing a proper system. The teachers then simply teach to that system. The public sector does not deserve the ability to actually create their own exams, because they aren't properly audited:mad:

I take it you're repeating then.

In all seriousness everyone knows the LC isn't a measure of intelligence. It's a measure of how hard you can work and a test to see if you can apply yourself.

That, in my opinion, counts for a whole lot more in life.

We get it, it's mostly a memory test with a "how fast can you write before you hand gives out" test. With a bit of maths.

Dean0088 wrote: »

In all seriousness everyone knows the LC isn't a measure of intelligence..

Agreed.

That, in my opinion, counts for a whole lot more in life.

Could not disagree more. I fail to see why a complete idiot who manages to wing four years in college deserves a well paid management position that they are ill equipped for when a bloke who had better things to be doing in their teen years than cramming for exams but who has a vastly superior intellect in terms of literature, history, politics, general knowledge, common sense, organisational skills etc etc etc would not be considered because they do not have an irrelevant piece of paper stating that on a few particular days of their life one managed to memorise a certain amount of life- irrelevant information. I have met complete idiots with degrees who are thick as two planks and yet somehow wrangle a well paid job. Likewise I have met complete geniuses doing menial or low paid work. The UK in particular seems to be pretty bad for this. I have met some college graduates, some of whom were destined for the teaching profession, who knew absoloutely sh1te all about anything.

Nobody is saying Joe Public off the street should be allowed a crack at medicine, law or IT with no training whatsoever, but the Americanised shift in this country from the 80s on to demand a ualification for well paid but ultimately intelligent decision making work, the type of job that 50 years ago was given to the smartest school leaver rather than the luckiest 3rd level graduate, is frankly ridiculous. Here in Australia there is much less emphasis on 3rd level education and it is a better system IMO.

The LC only affect the length of time and amount of money needed to get the job you what. If you don't get what you what there is always a way around.

I did all my schooling in the UK, and got my mind blown when I learned about the point system. It's dumb, especially when the points needed for a course in University are based on popularity, not how hard they are. That's the first thing that needs to be sorted, but it never will.

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I did all my schooling in the UK, and got my mind blown when I learned about the point system. It's dumb...

Aspects of it are perhaps, but in an Ireland with a reputation of a "who you know" culture, it's at least transparent. When I was growing up and not part of the right set, that was important to me. I knew if I did well enough in the LC I'd get the college place I wanted, no if, ands or buts.

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

especially when the points needed for a course in University are based on popularity, not how hard they are. That's the first thing that needs to be sorted, but it never will.

I agree with you there, and I think the biggest failing of the CAO system is that there's very little regard paid to getting the "right" people on the "right" college courses. I don't have an answer to that, but I agree it should be addressed.

blakfact wrote: »

You think Cambridge and Oxford let people with 600 Irish points into their courses? Think again. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and the Unions know this.

Cambridge Medicine Entry Requirements

^^^^ Hey look they do! And I have a friend studying there so now that we've shown that this point is bull****...

Father Damo wrote: »

Agreed.




Could not disagree more. I fail to see why a complete idiot who manages to wing four years in college deserves a well paid management position that they are ill equipped for when a bloke who had better things to be doing in their teen years than cramming for exams but who has a vastly superior intellect in terms of literature, history, politics, general knowledge, common sense, organisational skills etc etc etc would not be considered because they do not have an irrelevant piece of paper stating that on a few particular days of their life one managed to memorise a certain amount of life- irrelevant information. I have met complete idiots with degrees who are thick as two planks and yet somehow wrangle a well paid job. Likewise I have met complete geniuses doing menial or low paid work. The UK in particular seems to be pretty bad for this. I have met some college graduates, some of whom were destined for the teaching profession, who knew absoloutely sh1te all about anything.

Nobody is saying Joe Public off the street should be allowed a crack at medicine, law or IT with no training whatsoever, but the Americanised shift in this country from the 80s on to demand a ualification for well paid but ultimately intelligent decision making work, the type of job that 50 years ago was given to the smartest school leaver rather than the luckiest 3rd level graduate, is frankly ridiculous. Here in Australia there is much less emphasis on 3rd level education and it is a better system IMO.

But if a genius is lazy then he's useless to an employer.

Hard workers with smarts don't need formal education. Look at Richard Branson. He left school at 15.

Pedantic note: there is no "passing" or "failing" the LC any more. You just get marks.

Dean0088 wrote: »

But if a genius is lazy then he's useless to an employer. [/quotes]

Alot of graduates are criminally lazy.

Hard workers with smarts don't need formal education. Look at Richard Branson. He left school at 15.

Exactly. The amount of self made millionaires/ billionaires of working class background who have any type of business, managing or marketing qualification is near zero. Mainly because successfully identifying an untapped market niche, acquiring capital, and putting your business brand out there requires intellect, not a piece of paper saying you read a few irrelevant books on the subject.

Father Damo wrote: »

Exactly. The amount of self made millionaires/ billionaires of working class background who have any type of business, managing or marketing qualification is near zero.

That's fair enough, but I don't know many self-made millionaires. I know lots of people who didn't give a sh*t about the Leaving Cert, who performed below their ability, and who now feel trapped in dead-end jobs, though. There are always outliers in the tails of the distribution, but they're not so meaningful to the rest of the population.

It's obviously true to say that if you work hard you might be able to attain success no matter what your educational background. Of course that's true, but that's not the same as saying the Leaving Cert doesn't matter. The sorry truth is that for lots of people it really *does* matter.