LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYes but (sadly) not vast stores of understanding or insight.Originally Posted by Akrasia
Remember a couple of years ago LC H Maths students were asked to calculate volume of a pyramid given a *photo* and the relevant lengths etc.
There was war...
Yes but (sadly) not vast stores of understanding or insight.
Remember a couple of years ago LC H Maths students were asked to calculate volume of a pyramid given a *photo* and the relevant lengths etc.
There was war...
Mr Gormley described calls for the resignation of his cabinet colleague as "absolute nonsense". He said Mr Lenihan was doing "a very good job under exceptionally difficult circumstances".
It has almost certainly been "dumbed down", however the questions are; how much of that "dumbing down" was getting rid of crap that was useless and when seen like that how much more "dumbing down" needs to be done?
So the amount of work required for an A1 now might be the same as the work required for a B1 back then, however if you actually want to use that (in this case) maths for something then the current A1 is probably as good as an A1 back then.
An example of this is natural display calculators, they "dumb down" some maths and mean you need the tables less (in trig for example) but would anyone seriously want to ban the use of those calculators for that reason? (natural display calculators display fractions as fractions and squared roots as squared roots rather than change everything to decimals like other calculators, which is especially handy for trig functions)
Another example of "dumbing down" in maths is that the number of proofs for formulas that have to be learned off by heart has decreased, which is no great loss for actual mathematical ability.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
Maths results can be measured and compared. Its perfect scores in subjects like English that I can't understand - what is a perfect essay?
Have a go at the maths papers and see if they're dumbed down or not. Can't get more scientific than that.
The leaving cert is a politicised baccalaureat examination. There's something for everyone in the audience. Average pupils get their little 250 points or so and a course somewhere. Meanwhile the state recruits its doctors and other professionals from the 550 plus level.
It's not classical education, but it works.
Seos, I know a little about mathematics.Seos: It has almost certainly been "dumbed down", however the questions are; how much of that "dumbing down" was getting rid of crap that was useless and when seen like that how much more "dumbing down" needs to be done?
So the amount of work required for an A1 now might be the same as the work required for a B1 back then, however if you actually want to use that (in this case) maths for something then the current A1 is probably as good as an A1 back then.
An example of this is natural display calculators, they "dumb down" some maths and mean you need the tables less (in trig for example) but would anyone seriously want to ban the use of those calculators for that reason? (natural display calculators display fractions as fractions and squared roots as squared roots rather than change everything to decimals like other calculators, which is especially handy for trig functions)
Another example of "dumbing down" in maths is that the number of proofs for formulas that have to be learned off by heart has decreased, which is no great loss for actual mathematical ability.
Mathematical ability is a combination of problem-solving ability, knowledge of the field and (I'm sorry if this seems elitist) cleverness.
Calculators, square roots, etc are baby stuff.
You won't get part week one of term one unless you are smart...
Mr Gormley described calls for the resignation of his cabinet colleague as "absolute nonsense". He said Mr Lenihan was doing "a very good job under exceptionally difficult circumstances".
I was talking to a teacher who corrects english papers and I asked him about this - apparently they correct to a kind of template of what is being asked in the question - tick all the boxes and you can get full marks - that is why I suggested earlier that students are now being taught not so much the subject as how to pass a particular exam in the particular subject. Guess it helps too if the teacher is an examiner who is fully up-to-date with the marking system.
I'd agree with that, I did honours maths in 95, and I think it was shortly before that time that its curriculum was changed. (is that the right word?)
Anyway, the honours maths from the early 90's and before was significantly tougher than what we had to learn. I can't comment on any other subjects.
My experience is different, I had 12 exams per year in university and the LC was much easier and more narrow in scope. Almost nothing I learned in secondary school was relevant, and the topics were much more abstract and fast moving in University. You could 'game' the LC using past papers, you could reduce the odds in your favour, and the teachers even encouraged you do it.
I think that has a lot to do with the increase in higher grades from the LC, students are being taught how to beat the exam, not learn the subject.
However, that didn't work in university where the results were graded on a curve and the variety of possible questions much larger. You never knew how well you did as it was all relevant to the best and worst performers and there were no 'guaranteed' questions, or even a guaranteed format. You didn't even know what percentage of your final result came from the exam, or tutorials, or lab sessions, or term papers. It was a nightmare lol.
This is where I think the Points race fails the students. You do your Grinds, given by people who know what is required as answers, you get your points, go to college without having really studied the subject to the extent that your marks indicate and fail 1st year.
Maths was my favourite subject in school and I am good at it. (even though I only get to do maths for economics now)
I think the needing to be as you're suggesting smarter to do well at maths then other subjects is a load of bollocks. It isn't possible to let on that you are better at maths then you are, that is the only difference.
You won't get far in History without being smart
You won't get far in English without being smart
You might get far in Economics without being smart but God help all the people who will listen to you.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
I wouldn't say that, I did an engineering degree, and comparing the leaving cert and University maths, chemistry and physics, I would say that LC honours maths is a far broader course than we studied in 1st year. Some stuff we covered in the LC didn't come up in four years of advanced maths. The stuff we did cover went several levels above honours maths, but if you could hack LC maths, you had a solid preparation for this. Same thing with 1st year university chemistry and physics - no major sweat if you'd taken them at leaving cert level, and a solid intro to the next level, but in a year or so, it got a lot more complicated and in depth. Practising past papers was still the No. 1 way of studying for college exams, however, and predicting what would come up most definitely came into it.
My college finals made the LC look like a complete walk in the park, but that's partly because I was not struggling for the points to get into my course, but I most definitely struggling to get the best degree I could at the end.
Reply With Quote