Has the Leaving cert been 'dumbed down'?

[Left sceptical]

Ah lads ye might have been on the right track for a second, only to be derailed by again worrying about comparing students, categorising them and packing them off to college. A problem even then is most students haven't a clue what to expect of their college courses and that the exam results LC students take to employers aren't even a very useful guide to their abilities. (edit; and potential)

Again, focusing on upholding the status quo of the system takes precedence over considerations on the actual development of the youth in the "education system". Sigh....

[LDF]

I don't think the History exam has been dumbed down.

I did a five page essay on Hitler after he became king of England. It was a terrific piece of work and I only got a C2.

[HighInBandon]

We are only given information about relief of a symptom not about healing.

A & B specifically exclude both products as the cause of this relief therefore we have no information on which to distinguish between them.

Even in the absence of a control, A and B are not equivalent statements.

We do have information that allows us to distinguish between them. Here is an equivalent example.

Mary and Lisa both have a spot on their nose.
Mary eats an apple. Mary's twin, Lisa eats an orange.
Mary's spot heals more quickly than Lisa's.
Mary wins the lottery. Lisa does not.

Which one of the following statements is consistent with the above statements.

(a) Neither eating oranges or apples heals spots. People who eat apples win the lottery.
(b) Neither eating oranges or apples heals spots. People who eat oranges
win the lottery.
(c) Both oranges and apples heal spots. Oranges heal them better than apples.
(d) Both oranges and apples heal spots to the same degree.

Only (b) is consistent with the information given.
The question is identical to the esi/pine question if you replace

pine - orange
esi -apple
healing insect bites = healing spots
delaying recovery of bites = winning the lottery

If it helps, imagine you are an alien who knows nothing about planet earth. You have this information only and no other information. Then see what statement is the only conclusion that you can come to.

[Baron von Biffo]

Even in the absence of a control, A and B are not equivalent statements.

We do have information that allows us to distinguish between them. Here is an equivalent example.

Mary and Lisa both have a spot on their nose.
Mary eats an apple. Mary's twin, Lisa eats an orange.
Mary's spot heals more quickly than Lisa's.
Mary wins the lottery. Lisa does not.

Which one of the following statements is consistent with the above statements.

(a) Neither eating oranges or apples heals spots. People who eat apples win the lottery.
(b) Neither eating oranges or apples heals spots. People who eat oranges
win the lottery.
(c) Both oranges and apples heal spots. Oranges heal them better than apples.
(d) Both oranges and apples heal spots to the same degree.

Only (b) is consistent with the information given.
The question is identical to the esi/pine question if you replace

pine - orange
esi -apple
healing insect bites = healing spots
delaying recovery of bites = winning the lottery

If it helps, imagine you are an alien who knows nothing about planet earth. You have this information only and no other information. Then see what statement is the only conclusion that you can come to.

Hi HighInBandon, lets stick to the actual sample question.

A & B exclude both products as the cause of the observed effects.

Since you cannot use the observed effects, what criteria are you using to distinguish between A and B?

[HighInBandon]

Hi HighInBandon, lets stick to the actual sample question.

A & B exclude both products as the cause of the observed effects.

Since you cannot use the observed effects what criteria are you using to distinguish between A and B?

You're not reading it carefully enough.
A&B do not exclude both products as the cause of the observed effects.
The observed effect is that one side heals more quickly than the other. It is possible that this is because both creams delay recovery, one less so than the other.

As I said earlier ......

If the test conditions are the same in both cases, then the difference in the healing rate must be caused by the difference in the creams which were applied. Hence, Pine delays recovery more than esi.

[Baron von Biffo]

You're not reading it carefully enough.
A&B do not exclude both products as the cause of the observed effects.
The observed effect is that one side heals more quickly than the other. It is possible that this is because both creams delay recovery, one less so than the other.

As I said earlier ......

If the test conditions are the same in both cases, then the difference in the healing rate must be caused by the difference in the creams which were applied. Hence, Pine delays recovery more than esi.

Sorry my friend, I fear it's you who isn't careful enough in reading it.

Here's the paragraph again with the observed effects highlighted.

Delia goes bushwalking, and afterwards finds that she has painful insect bites over most of her body. She is told that both Esi-oil and Pine-elix are good for easing the pain of these bites. To test whether there is any difference, she applies Esi-oil to the bites on her left side, and Pine-elix to those on her right side. The next day, the bites on her left side feel considerably better, while those on her right side feel only a little better.

There is no mention of healing.

The only observed effect is relief of the pain.

We are told that neither product caused this pain relief.

There is no way, on the basis of the information given, to distinguish between A and B

[Seos]

I wouldn't worry too much about the taking a year out brigade. They are already taking a chance, even in the current system.

For the non 3rd level people, you could provide two scores for each exam - the normal one for points, and a normalised score (percentile) which shows how you did relative to everyone else that year.

That's a very good suggestion.

which raises another point about exams. I think, in principle, there shouldn't be a time limit, for exams. You should be allowed take as long as you like.A lot of the pressure-cooker atmosphere is caused by not having enough time to think.

Since that is my main problem in exams I agree completely. I do worst in exams where you have 3 hours to do 4 essays. There might be some cases where you want to encourage speed that would be exceptions but I can't really think of any in the leaving cert.

[orbit]

Ah lads ye might have been on the right track for a second, only to be derailed by again worrying about comparing students, categorising them and packing them off to college. A problem even then is most students haven't a clue what to expect of their college courses and that the exam results LC students take to employers aren't even a very useful guide to their abilities. (edit; and potential)

Again, focusing on upholding the status quo of the system takes precedence over considerations on the actual development of the youth in the "education system". Sigh....

But would you not accept that if the exam system was less "exploitable", then that might give teachers more opportunity to go back to teaching the curriculum?

And, I think your beef is really with universities and employers. Because they are the ones who are setting the expectations that the 2nd level system is jumping to.

At the end of the day, people have to be categorised for some purposes in life. I'm making a case that instead of using a single variable (points) we should at least make a lot more information available from the exam system. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of letting people take as long as they like for exams. Just record the time taken, and include that with the results. Some walks of life require quick-thinking. Other times it's better to take longer and be right.

[riven]

It really is a good question!
Here is one way of arriving at the right answer.

Option C: Both products relieve insect bite pain, Pine-elix more so than Esi-oil.

This is not consistent with the results. If C was true, the bites treated with Pine-elix would feel better than the bites treated with Esi-elix. This is not what the results state.

Option D: Pine-elix and Esi-oil are equally effective products for relieving insect bite pain.

This is not consistent with the results. If D was true, the bites treated with Pine-elix would feel the same as the bites treated with Esi-elix. This is not what the results state.

Option A: Neither product relieves insect bite pain; Esi-oil actually delays recovery considerably, and Pine-elix delays recovery somewhat less.

This is not consistent with the results. If A were true, the recovery of the skin treated with Esi-oil would be delayed more considerably than the recovery of the skin treated with Pine-elix i.e. the skin treated with Esi would not heal as quickly as the skin treated with Pine. This is not what the results state.

Option B: Neither product relieves insect bite pain; Pine-elix actually delays recovery considerably and Esi-oil delays recovery somewhat less

This is consistent with the results. The healing of the skin is delayed in both cases but Pine-elix delays the recovery more than Esi-oil. The skin treated with Esi-oil feel better (it would feel even better if it had not been treated at all). The skin treated with Pine-elix also improves, but not as much as the skin on the other side.

You are assuming that the bites are 'healable' under normal circumstances or at least heal quicker than with treatment. We do not have a control so no indication of how quickly the wounds heal without medication. Therefore it most certainly cannot be 'delayed' scenarios as we have nothingto compare it with.

[HighInBandon]

Sorry my friend, I fear it's you who isn't careful enough in reading it.

Here's the paragraph again with the observed effects highlighted.



There is no mention of healing.

The only observed effect is relief of the pain.

We are told that neither product caused this pain relief.

There is no way, on the basis of the information given, to distinguish between A and B

I didn't realise this was the problem you had with it.

Yes ... I agree. You must assume that the patient will feel better as the bites heal. They do not specifically tell you this. You must assume it. (I said this in an earlier post by the way). To be picky ..... you must assume that the patients newfound wellbeing is not the result of a new boyfriend or winning the lottery ! but is actually the result of the healing of her insect bites! To be fair to the examiners though, surely it wasn't necessary to say this.

Anyway ... it's a pity it had to go on this long. I actually thought you were having problems with the reasoning behind the question. I'm all pine-exed out now anyway. It was a good question though. Good to get the brain working.

Speaking of good puzzles.
Murderous maths: The EIGHT QUEENS Puzzle
This should keep anyone busy for a few years. I can't find a solution.