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

Is the leaving cert the best way to determine if a student is right for college?

steddyeddy

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science. Therefore according to our college entry testing system you wouldn't make a good scientist. F%$ off.

You might think if it aint broke then why fix it? Well I think it is broke. The proof in the pudding is performance. As the points for science has risen we should expect to see an increase in test scores in science? We don't in fact what we get is students who are good at learning facts. The real evidence is in the science 4th year project. You basically have to find something out. E.G some students might have to determine the serotonin levels in certain cells for example. This project involves creativity, thinking outside the box and the application of facts. This is were many brilliant leaving cert students fail the module.

The leaving cert doesn't correctly match a student's talents to the correct course IMHO. This isn't just the case for science IMHO. It applies to all disciplines.

The leaving cert puts too much pressure on students to learn irrelevant facts and develop irrelevant skills IMHO.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kevin McCloud

We wont solve it tonight anyway op.

steddyeddy

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

We wont solve it tonight anyway op.

You've got to dream McCloud, you've got to hold onto the dream!

Cantremember

Think I'll service my angle grinder.

Holsten

It's a glorified memory test.

steddyeddy

Holsten wrote: »

It's a glorified memory test.

Bingo. Are great scientists glorified memorisers?

Kevin McCloud

Cantremember wrote: »

Think I'll service my angle grinder.

Safety first remember to plug it out.

Chocolate Lions

Any alternative would be progressive (good!) and more expensive, (bad), both to implement and to maintain. Then there would be difficulty with the unions and the fact we have no metric to even assess a teachers quality. There's no QC at all there, and it's notoriously difficult to get rid of a crap one.
There are a lot of problems to massage out before a better system could be put in place and that starts with teachers good enough and prepared for such.
But are you telling me the words of Mahogany Gaspipe don't help prepare our youth for the world?

SEPT 23 1989

Scrap the whole thing and let them run wild and free

Duck's hoop

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science. Therefore according to our college entry testing system you wouldn't make a good scientist. F%$ off.

You might think if it aint broke then why fix it? Well I think it is broke. The proof in the pudding is performance. As the points for science has risen we should expect to see an increase in test scores in science? We don't in fact what we get is students who are good at learning facts. The real evidence is in the science 4th year project. You basically have to find something out. E.G some students might have to determine the serotonin levels in certain cells for example. This project involves creativity, thinking outside the box and the application of facts. This is were many brilliant leaving cert students fail the module.

The leaving cert doesn't correctly match a student's talents to the correct course IMHO. This isn't just the case for science IMHO. It applies to all disciplines.

The leaving cert puts too much pressure on students to learn irrelevant facts and develop irrelevant skills IMHO.

No offence boss. But do you never think of anything else?

steddyeddy

Chocolate Lions wrote: »

Any alternative would be progressive (good!) and more expensive, (bad), both to implement and to maintain. Then there would be difficulty with the unions and the fact we have no metric to even assess a teachers quality. There's no QC at all there, and it's notoriously difficult to get rid of a crap one.
There are a lot of problems to massage out before a better system could be put in place and that starts with teachers good enough and prepared for such.
But are you telling me the words of Mahogany Gaspipe don't help prepare our youth for the world?

Get students to do a literature review for science. Basically something like "assess the evidence for the serotonin model of depression" for instance. That's not memorising facts that's using intelligence.

steddyeddy

Duck's hoop wrote: »

No offence boss. But do you never think of anything else?

No man I'm a scientist. By glad there's people like me who think of nothing else.

alias no.9

The leaving cert is brutal but it's fair. Science courses usually have minimum requirements including having done Science subjects at LC so it's not like people aceing Greek and Art History are getting in based on that alone.

Duck's hoop

steddyeddy wrote: »

No man I'm a scientist. By glad there's people like me who think of nothing else.

Thanks very much. Just stop talking about it all the time please.

KatW4

It doesn't give you any indication that you will be good at the course or the career associated with the course. I can't see it being changed in the near future!

steddyeddy

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Thanks very much. Just stop talking about it all the time please.

The clever thing to do would be to stop reading it?

steddyeddy

alias no.9 wrote: »

The leaving cert is brutal but it's fair. Science courses usually have minimum requirements including having done Science subjects at LC so it's not like people aceing Greek and Art History are getting in based on that alone.

How is it fair. Someone who's better at science could be crap at two other non science related subjects and miss out on science. Getting an A in chemistry does not make you a great chemist.

Basically it's a memory test.

Aidric

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

We wont solve it tonight anyway op.

When you were doing your leaving did you ever imagine that one day you would be extolling the virtues of new builds through the medium of television?

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is it fair. Someone who's better at science could be crap at two other non science related subjects and miss out on science. Getting an A in chemistry does not make you a great chemist.

Basically it's a memory test.

The people getting in still have to perform in a Science subject to get 500 points and meet the minimum requirements. The more rounded candidates are getting in.

steddyeddy

alias no.9 wrote: »

The people getting in still have to perform in a Science subject to get 500 points and meet the minimum requirements. The more rounded candidates are getting in.

Sorry but the science subjects are memorising science facts. Well rounded? Fantastic but that has nothing to do with science.

partyatmygaff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Get students to do a literature review for science. Basically something like "assess the evidence for the serotonin model of depression" for instance. That's not memorising facts that's using intelligence.

That sounds very idealistic.

At LC level, students won't even know what a neurotransmitter is let alone anything about Serotonin or its role in mood disorders. Yes, they can teach that to themselves but that's quite a huge undertaking for someone who has only been taught the very fundamentals of chemistry and biology.

There's also the huge issue that some university students (even though specifically taught how to do a lit review) struggle. I shudder to think of the quality of a literature review written by a completely inexperienced 5th/6th year with only a very basic knowledge and understanding of chemistry and biology.

You're suggesting we identify good scientists by their ability to think like scientists/researchers. That's well and good but you can't be a good scientist without a good base of scientific knowledge and experience.

braddun

getting a shows a good student getting c shows an average student who might drop out

steddyeddy

braddun wrote: »

getting a shows a good student getting c shows an average student who might drop out

Wish it worked like that but science has one of the highest drop out rates.

SparkySpitfire

steddyeddy wrote: »

No man I'm a scientist. By glad there's people like me who think of nothing else.

You're a scientist, that's nice.

But by gad, there's people like me with something of an aptitude for letters instead of numbers!

Sorry, couldn't let that one slide...

Paddy Cow

I think it's ridiculous that you need to have Irish and a another language to get into university. Last time I checked, all courses are thought through English, so unless you are doing a language, where's the relevance?

Chocolate Lions

I think the problem can only be addressed by better teaching science at a secondary level, and by that I mean increasing the difficulty somewhat to maybe the level of 1st year university and throwing in some trickier questions that involve critical thinking.

This allows people who are more intuitive and have a genuine understanding to do better while getting rid of the chaff, and this would ideally be reflected in applications to courses.
Lower points for what would be seen as a more awkward field as those not suited are less inclined to apply, balanced with maybe slightly higher average marks for those who are able for it.

steddyeddy

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

You're a scientist, that's nice.

But by gad, there's people like me with something of an aptitude for letters instead of numbers!

Sorry, couldn't let that one slide...

That's true and I'm glad there are people out there that make less typos than me.

[Deleted User]

A general knowledge quiz would probably be a good indicator of who would do well im university.

DoYouEvenLift

I dunno, I do think we should have a similar setup to the UK with school -> college -> uni though so people get a better idea of what they actually want to do in life and what courses they need to do to work towards it. Career guidance with counsellors should also be mandatory for all students in all schools also

alias no.9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry but the science subjects are memorising science facts. Well rounded? Fantastic but that has nothing to do with science.

Your OP

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it is. Lets illustrate the current situation. Right now entry into science in UCD is around 500 points. So basically you want to be able to do well in each subject to to get the required points. So lets say you get an A plus in chemistry, physics and maths but get a c or D in Geography or French you might miss out on science.

It ignores the fact that the person who got the offer of a place in Science will also have demonstrated competence in Science as well as other subjects.
Getting 500 points, regardless of subjects requires a breadth of knowledge, combining this with meeting the minimum requirements for a Science degree absolutely makes the candidate well rounded.
I'd argue in fact that since all entrants to a Science degree must meet a minimum competence in Science, it's the other things that are more likely to lead to them building a successful career in Science. Some people watch too much Big Bang Theory.

[Deleted User]

I can kind of see where the OP is coming from. I was almost always top of my class throughout secondary school because I had a good memory, I got the highest points in my year - obviously I did study hard but it was mostly rote learning facts, throwing them down on the exam paper and then heading away thinking I was smart.

3rd level was largely a horrible experience for me - I did get a degree and a Master's in scientific/mathematical disciplines but they were both huge personal struggles, and my grades were not great. I felt completely out of my depth and would convince myself that I was too stupid to be there, when in reality it was most likely the approach to study that 2nd level had imparted on me that was the problem. Leaving Cert had convinced me that rote learning was all that was needed to be academically successful, and not being able to replicate that method in college with any success did a lot of damage to me. I ended up losing interest in my course and confidence in myself, and I had once wanted a PhD but now there's no way in hell I'd ever be able to do one.

Leaving Cert definitely needs to impart more critical thinking and problem solving skills. I've no idea how one would do that though - as his post demonstrates, I ain't the sharpest.