The Leaving Cert, said one teacher last week, is a bit like democracy: it's not perfect but it is probably the best available option.

In essence, the comment represents the general attitude of the education community towards the exam. Few teachers - and certainly few students or parents - view the exam with enthusiasm or affection, but there is widespread concern that any alternative might even be worse.

There is a great deal wrong with the Leaving Cert. There is still too little reward for practical experience and creative thinking, too little account taken of personal qualities and too much emphasis on the written word. For all that, the operation of the Leaving Cert exams are transparent, impartial and efficient; no small claims given the political cronyism in this State.

The work of every Leaving Cert student from Bohola to Ballsbridge is assessed in the same objective way. Political or business connections count for nothing.

In its report last year, the Points Commission, which assessed the university entry system, said the Leaving Certificate should be retained as the main selection method for third level. The various alternatives, it said, were "more problematic" and incapable of finding support with the public.

These included the use of aptitude tests, school references, personal statements and interview tests as selection methods. The commission also stressed the need to broaden significantly the skills and talents measured by the exam.

It would like the standard Leaving Cert to build on what it terms the beneficial impact of transition year and the new, more practical Leaving Certificate applied and vocational programmes. This might include growth in interpersonal skills, the fostering of an entrepreneurial spirit and "becoming a more self-reliant learner".

In truth, the Leaving Cert does little to develop some of these skills. It remains very much a test best suited to the academically orientated student who can perform well in a (very long) written exam against the clock. In many subjects, it tends to reward students who can slavishly regurgitate pages and pages of notes rather than those who might be more creative or expansive.

One secondary teacher complains: "Most of the successful students are very pragmatic in their approach. They don't bother with all this stuff about the joy of learning. They learn off the notes and recycle them. There is little left to the imagination."

Students expect familiar questions and subject areas to resurface in exams. There was considerable controversy last year when the honours history paper deviated from the well-worn path. In his report on the exam published recently, the chief examiner for history saw clear evidence of students homing in on selected sections of the course, rather than taking the wider view of the subject.

That would be fine in an ideal world. The reality, however, is that the pressure for points forces students to seek out the best exam results in the most pragmatic and ruthlessly efficient way. Caught in the points treadmill, few students have time to dwell on the joy of learning history, or any other subject, for its own sake.

A similar pragmatism is evident in the choice of subjects. The Leaving is supposed to be a level playingfield where each subject provides a similar test, but students and teachers will tell you a different story. According to a recent report from the National Council of Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), the chances of a student gaining an A1 in higher-level accounting was double that of higher-level Irish in one year examined.

Among students, geography is seen by students an "easier" subject option than history. This year more than 31,000 will be examined in geography, while only 13,000 will be examined in history. Similarly, home economics (22,000 candidates this year) is seen as offering better "points potential" for fewer hours of study than subjects such as physics (8,900 entries) or chemistry (6,900 entries).

We should not be unduly surprised by the pragmatic approach of students. The Leaving Cert has a similar brutal efficiency.

After years of learning, students are expected to regurgitate all they know about a subject in a few hours and tackle a huge range of different subjects, often on consecutive days.

The solution to much of what is wrong with the Leaving Cert seems obvious; some form of continuous assessment where teachers could assess their own pupils as they move through senior cycle. However, the main secondary teachers' union, the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland, will not countenance such a move.

In its view, teachers would come under considerable pressure from parents and others to "look after" Johnny or Mary, especially in small rural communities. It is not an unreasonable viewpoint given the degree of clientelism in other aspects of public life.

For all that, other teaching professionals, notably university lecturers, regularly assess the work of their students without any suggestion that their independence is being compromised. There are risks in a move towards continuous assessment, but there are also rewards. It would help to reduce the exam hysteria in June and might provide a more balanced appraisal of a student's work during his/her entire second-level schooling.

It would be good to see a remodelled Leaving where students were rewarded for personal skills, sporting ability, drama etc, and which would be more in line with the demands of this State's high-tech sector. School references and interview tests could be used to build up a more reliable picture of a student as he/she leaves second level.

However, there are real difficulties in framing a system which would be immune from external pressures. The Points Commission, for example, noted that undue influence could be brought to bear on any interview board system used as a selection process for third level.

The NCCA, which advises the Minister on curriculum issues, is exploring how the Leaving Cert might reward a wider range of skills and achievements, but it will be some time before its proposals are published, let alone implemented.

For all its faults, the Leaving is well regarded by the public and by prospective employers; it is meritocratic, objective and transparent. In the next decade, there may be some tinkering at the edges, but the Leaving will probably continue much as before . . . in all its imperfect beauty.