My sister had a nightmare exam today and possibly wont get to go to Edinburgh coz of that dumb fecker in Louth.
That dumb fecker taught me maths for 3 years. You'd think he'd be able to tell the difference between 1 and 2.Originally Posted by Magicme
The only real difference between the original one and the backup was that Longley didn't come up. Then again he's the one I wanted to come up. Oh well.
The fact that an English exam was cancelled on these grounds just illustrates what's wrong with the examination system in this country.
A leading authority on League of Ireland football since 2003. You're probably wrong.
Sorry to hear that. I hope they take the added pressure and stress into account when marking it. My sister needs 1 A & 5 B's all at honours level to get into the course she wants in Edinburgh or Queens and despite busting her butt for years and being a smart cookie this is in jeopardy coz of this curve ball.
In all fairness while I feel sorry for her it's her own fault for taking a chance on what to learn, not because something didn't come up on the paper.
So you think it's ok that a lot of people knew what would be on the exam and have an unfair advantage over others who didn't?
The 2 Macbeth questions were easier yesterday than on the original paper, which was nice! Also Montague came up as one of the poets, which was also nice from my point of view!
Didn't think anyone would study Montague, he wasn't really tipped to come up.
This whole thing of predicting what will come up is a joke. If it's on the syllabus then you can't have any complaints.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Him or Bishop were my 2 preferences tbh. Was delighted when I saw his name!
Exactly, it's not the examiner's fault if she doesn't get the A/B she needs.
Life without Rovers, it makes no sense...it's a heartache...nothing but a fools game. S.R.F.C.
Not saying that it is, but its his fault that the added stress has put more pressure on her and made the whole process even harder.
If he had had the balls to admit his mistake early in the day and they had the problem sorted, there wouldnt have been this added pressure.
It makes the whole process harder for everyone. It's a level playing field.
Thats what I keep telling her but not sure if Edinburgh will take it into consideration.
But unfortunately that will only work if the LC is graded on a curve or if she wanted a place in an Irish uni. Her chances of progress are not in relation to the results of others - she has been set a specific set of criteria (1 A, 5 Bs) and regardless of what has happened. If the entirety of the county was stricken with smallpox, and all but four exams were cancelled, it isn't as though they'll say "Ah, sure you did better than the rest of them, come on anyhow" like under the CAO.
As it is, the damn thing is ungodly pressurised. The notion prevails that there is only one (two if you repeat the LC) to get your self in order and select a correct course to pursue a career for the rest of your life. That pressure at 16 or so, earlier if you want to take into account the selection of subjects for the LC, is ridiculous - most people I know had no idea of who they really are until their mid twenties or thereabouts, never mind what they want to do with that who. A moment like that last week increases the preposterous pressure though. Pearce referred to the "English" education system at the start of the 20th century as the Murder Machine. The current state of play in Ireland is much different, but is it any better?
It's a level playing field for anyone seeking admission to the Irish colleges and Unis now, alright. Anyone who is looking to Britain, or further afield, will have a few very nervous months ahead.
Last edited by Bluebeard; 08/06/2009 at 7:23 AM.
That question was less stupid, though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Help me, Arthur Murphy, you're my only hope!
Not really sure what you mean but.... Say an exam is really hard, and you need a B in the subject. That exam was hard for everyone, and you are marked in comparsion to others, (approximately the same amount of A's, B's, C's etc are given in each subject each year) so your end mark won't be worsened. That happened in the accounting exam last year for example (it still fecked me over as one grade higher in it and I would have been a richer man). Similarly the whole debacle with English Paper Two will have put the same amount of strain on all students, but should not affect their results. Well, that's my way of looking at it anyway, though I could be wrong!
But not everyone reacts to that kinda pressure the same way. Not everyone had History to look forward to a few days later and the saturday that was planned for last minute History revision was lost. This means that not only does she have the feeling that her English was a mess but now she is even more stressed about History where they have so many essays to learn off.
Anyways, as I keep reminding her, she can only do what she can in the exams and wherever she ends up going to college will be the best place for her. Fate always sends you where you are meant to go.
What you describe is marking on the curve. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, as it is quite a while since the LC was something in my daily diet, but I am pretty sure that it was not measured in this way in my time.
The curve marking basis is surely a very bad idea and will in the long run only ensure that every generation is only considered against itself, and the successful student cannot fairly be compared to any other student of a different year as the results were weighted differently owing to a sudden outbreak of swine flu, or particularly bad weather or whatever else has occurred to influence the mark. In this way, it makes itself redundant as a method by which you can examine the various development of the student body as a whole, and therefore the ability of their teachers and the education system, or of rating and comparing a student's academic performance with others down through the years. It also suggests that strong advice could be given to have a higher curve, giving the impression that the standards are improving when in reality they are not.
More damnably, should it be the case that there are a fixed number of As, Bs and Cs awarded, there are two problems: Firstly, the issue with Mathematics, and other such subjects where it is entirely possible to have a perfect paper - how can you mark up or down someone who has clearly got a specific empirically proveable mark to accommodate the curve; and secondly, what about a particularly gifted year, where more people are entitled to their A, but some poor saps have to miss out owing to the glut of those before them.
I'd also suspect that it is almost impossible to operate such a strategy, given the number of markers that are - would telling several dozen people that they may only hand out a maximum number of As each in Spanish work? How would you estimate the correct number per marker? Should that figure remain static between the different markers or should you weight the number in favour of markers who are receiving papers from a particularly good school known for good marks in recent years, for instance, or should you ensure that the papers are mixed? It also suggests that there would have to be either a cap or a minimum on the number of failures too, and that is just as bad, if not worse, depending which way they play it.
No, the only fair way of marking is to mark the paper, and not the school or the generation - if it is not possible for everyone to pass or everyone to fail, based on the merits of their work, it somewhere along the line creates an artificial chasm in society where merit is potentially punished by timing.
And as regards strain, while it does put everyone in that exam in the same boat, it doesn't allow for how people take to strain: some thrive, others fold. I have little doubt that it has made no real difference to some, indeed perhaps given an advantage as some people will feel it far harder than others, and it could be the proverbial last straw.
Furthermore, I would be quite interested in terms of the impact on the other subjects than the immediate exam at hand - while it may seem a little difference, a lie-in (on?) on the Saturday was removed from some people who are about to face into a particularly rough week, while others may not have the same intensity ahead, and benefit already from a more dispersed timetable, and have that added to as they compete with some who have had a possible rest or study period deprived.
Don't get me wrong - I do not think that the current system, or the one in my day is right: I quote Pearce once more, and label it a Murder Machine. As it is, it treats people inadequately and unfairly, and even an excellent academic student can lose out by having poor handwriting, a three day migraine, a bout of some kind of illness, poor location in the exam hall, etc. It fails to take account of any of the other six or seven intelligence types, it creates a hugely traumatic fuss at an incredibly inopportune time in a person's development. On top of this it fails signally as a Leaving Certificate designed to mark the departure from Secondary education, as it has become of little more worth than a glorified nationalised entry exam to a world that has significant financial costs to progress towards, meaning that for some, it isn't even worthwhile to make an effort for it, as there is absolutely no hope of progressing.
That question was less stupid, though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Help me, Arthur Murphy, you're my only hope!
ohh fcuk off, such a ridiculous statment to make!! there is no way you could learn everything off in subjects like english, cop on!!
The idea is meant to be that you get a general handle on things and then improvise rather than learn a bunch of stuff off.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
The failing is that the exam usually rewards people who don't do that.
I still believe that most people who complain because the exam brings up things which they didn't learn off need to die in a fire. You try to game the system and lose? Tough luck.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks