Afraid to Fail - Why are we getting rid of exam grades?

Cheese Wagstaff wrote: »

www.examinations.ie

Has all papers over the last 15-20 years.

Just had a look at Higher Maths Paper 1, Jaysus I wouldn't have a clue about any of that stuff now, tis like Double Dutch!

Dughorm wrote: »

So on the education section of the Irish times there are two articles next to each other featuring at the moment:

1. A new move to let students who score 20% in exams "pass" and

2. 1 in 6 teenagers low performers at maths

I don't think it's a coincidence. Standards are dropping, courses are being made easier (see Project Maths) and all that's being done about it is a move to cover up low standards by removing a grading system and replacing it with a fuzzy "partially achieved" approach.

Are we afraid to actually grade subjects so that students feel better about performing poorly in exams?

Would you be happy having a teacher who "partially achieved" teaching the course to you?

Should we be demanding higher standards, more resources and more transparency instead accepting that 1 in 6 teens can't do maths and creating a fudge to gloss over it?

Are they? I constantly hear middle aged people say this but Im almost sure its not true, teenagers of today study longer hours than they ever did. Unless you have some information to back up your statement

wakka12 wrote: »

teenagers of today study longer hours than they ever did. Unless you have some information to back up your statement

I'm almost certain that in the majority of cases this is not true. Unless you have statistics to prove it?

Pick a subject you were/are good at in school. Look up last year's LC paper. Then look up a paper from the 90s.

There's a huge difference in level of difficulty.

mariaalice wrote: »

There was a research scientist replying to a thread about cures for cancer, now that person is probably young maybe under 35/40 and a lot of there team would be the same so how come they have the ability to undertake cutting edge research if they are the products of of such a terrible education systme?

If they're 40 then it's not applicable. And people curing cancer are doubtless unfathomably brilliant, self motivating high achievers.

Lu Tze wrote: »

There were constant changes to the curriculum down through the years, not just recently. Did the leaving cert in 2002 (I think), and looking at my brothers physics and chemistry books and papers (5 years previous) there was large sections dropped, seemed to be the reasoning and logic based elements (most of the electrical section in physics for instance) replaced by stuff suited to learning by rote or memorising (without necessarily understanding).

Great if you have a good memory, not so great if you have an aptitude for the subject but not so good a memory.

Don't know if it holds true for non science/maths subjects.

I know that when the history curriculum changed (new syllabus was first examined in 2006), the shift was heavily away from rote learning & towards analysis/argument. The old history curriculum basically required you to learn everything about a given topic, and then regurgitate it in the exam. The new paper asks people to analyse previously-unseen documents, and the questions in the essay sections have a more argumentative slant to them.

I remember it well because there was some degree of shock when people got their LC grades back - many people had done poorly in history because their teachers still taught them in the 'old' method, which isn't what is being examined any more.

Don't know much about any other subjects, just thought I'd chip that in.

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

That one absolutely needed to be changed, I was one of the last people to do the old one and it was more of an endurance test than an exam.

I probably lost points because I'm fairly sure my handwriting was completely illegible by the end of it.

If I recall correctly Higher Level History in the leaving cert was also one of the longest exams I had to sit.

Totally agree. It's still a long exam with a lot of writing (nearly 3 hours), but compared with the older exam I think it's a big improvement.

Monetary inflation.
Grades inflation.
Ego inflation (narcissism/Facebook etc).
Women's sexuality (porn etc).

Not anything new really. Very fitting with the age. Cheapening/commodifying of everything.

Dughorm wrote: »

Comparing an honours level maths paper today with a ordinary level maths paper from 40 years ago would be quite an eyeopener.

It's the opposite of increasing the level of education!

Go on, show us. It must have been about then that I did it. Would love to see!

Graces7 wrote: »

Are the two mutually exclusive? No way surely. Maybe the real problem is that we are valuing educational " achievements " far far too much above personal skills. I taught some years way back when very few went on to further education because they were not ACADEMICALLY gifted. They had real gifts elsewhere. I was once asked to "talk sense " to a 14 year old who was intent on leaving school as soon as she legally could. ie immediately! I chatted with her and a more level headed and happy girl you never met. She had a job lined up at the stables she helped at. It was her heart's desire and she loved it. She had fair literacy skills etc. I knew a farmer here with 4 grown sons. All greatly over educated and doing course after course and never working and refusing to help him on the farm. In my day ( says granny!!!) a degree was solely an academic work. Deep study. Then there were eg teacher training colleges. I was an academic and gained a very high honours degree but I think four of my year even went to university. Todays degrees sound pretty meaningless but is this not the US system. OF COURSE employers will know the reality. But this dumbing down will not work as it will disadvantage the real achievers and discourage excellence;; oh just seen that my local hospital is being renamed; no longer Kerry General but University Hospital!

i would be the first to say that education is important if little timmy is willing to work at it and be happy , we just knew that our lad had ambition but he just went off track a bit..However education is not the be all and end all either. .IF TOMMY [timmy's brother] has no interest in school and only gets poor exam results but is happy enough to work away at something and make a good honest living ,well in my opinion thats ok too .Nothing wrong with good honest grafting
Changing the system to suit lazy timmy or my' spoiled little pup with issues timmy ' , would have a huge knock on effect down the line with people shouting about their kid's 'right to go to collage even though they have neither the ability or the interest to knuckle down and do it
some of ireland's collages are held in very high esteem and i think it would have terrible consequences down the line if we start changing the system to suit people who can't hack it

by the way ; if timmy or tommy are reading , it's nothing personal

Dughorm wrote: »

Comparing an honours level maths paper today with a ordinary level maths paper from 40 years ago would be quite an eyeopener.

Jaysus, back in me day we had to walk across Mordor in our bare feet, with dragons and **** everywhere.

mariaalice wrote: »

So does that mean all the engineers, scientists ect who are entering the world of college/work/ research wont be able to produce to the same level as in the past because of the education they have received, because that would be the logical conclusion to what you are saying.

Funny, i was only talking with one of the lads about this the other day. He works in IT, and lately is focusing on setting up Networks in large companies. He has done his 4 years in college and forever updating himself. He said that there are lads coming out of the same college now with the same course, but because times have moved they haven't been thought as much about the older methods. He said that's grand, not very many people still use old systems. But he also said that this new lad was stuck at a company the other day because they were using hardware and software that was considered old. The lad knew about the systems, but didn't have a clue when a particular problem came up. My mate reckons this is because people are learning based on updated software, but not a lot of people are learning how that old software works.

I'd say it would be the same with people taking those IT courses to fix and maintain computers. Show them Windows XP and most wouldn't have a clue. Quite a lot of them would have little to no knowledge of DOS, resgistry files, etc. I even had one of them tell me that Alt+F4 was bad for shutting down a pc...

I know from personal experience that when i was in secondary, i was screwed over. In the Junior Cert, i was doing Honors Level Technical Graphcis. I loved every second of it. I got 98% in the JC exam. I went onto do Transition Year (highly recommended) and when i went into 5th year i had to drop Technical Graphics because it was clashing with French, and i HAD to do French (even thought i was terrible at it and haven't used it since).

Also, i did honors maths in the JC, but they wouldn't leave me do it in the leaving, because i was "too disruptive" for the "swots". All they had to do was ask my JC maths teacher (who was amazing) and she would have told them that maths was one of the few classes i paid attention in and didn't feck about in. I got full marks in my LC Ordinary Level maths, and i even flew through that exam. I loved maths, but the school didn't think i was suited for it. Christ, all they had to do again was ask my music, maths, TG or art teachers. (Don't ask the French teacher though, we came to an agreement in 6th year that i would sit up the front left by myself, and my partner in crime up the top right, we would sleep, she would teach - we didn't get on at all!).

This is something that, if not already sorted, needs to be. I could be god knows what, as i would have continued with studies along the lines of TG and maths. Schools need to be better at identifying someones strengths and weaknesses, and developing a curriculum around that, rather than forcing everyone to do the same subjects. I went on to do college for 2 years and got a cert in business and computer applications, because the school hadn't prepared me towards something i had genuine interests in (music, maths, computers). The teacher who was the guidance counselor, i believe he recommended i go do something in business, another subject i had little to no interest in. He saw that i was getting high grades in art, music and maths, and that i had a big interest in computers, but still recommended a path in life which relied on subjects i was not good at.

Those kids will have a rude awakening when they reach college where failure is a real thing.