A chara, – Peter Molloy (August 21st), makes two very valid points. First, that girls outperform boys at Leaving Cert level; second, that later in life men outperform women in business.
But he makes a very strange proposal: to “rebalance” the system for the benefit of the economy, he suggests “creating a bias in favour of male students would be the logical, if politically unacceptable, solution”. Would it not be a better idea to look at why women do not excel later in life – with a view to improving the educational base of the country as a whole, rather than just 50 per cent? Lack of ability is not the issue, as established girls are proving themselves at Leaving Cert level, so what’s the problem?
That gender balance is required in politics, and in business, is a fact few would dispute. We women are undoubtedly late arrivers in these fields, and there is no doubt we struggle more than men, as it stands, to balance home and working lives. But I beg of Mr Molloy the chance for women to catch up – perhaps even offering some constructive encouragement to his “underachieving” female peers! – Is mise,
Madam, – Ed Brennan’s idea (August 21st) that poor standards of maths would be solved by not “wasting time on the teaching of Irish” is absurd in the extreme.
Why not blame Leaving Cert English, art and classical studies while we’re at it? Every Leaving Cert subject has its own merits and deserves to be properly supported and facilitated; no subject is superior to another, though some may be more useful in the real world. There’s no substance in this notion that one can make excuses for maths by creating a scapegoat of Irish – it’s not the place of an education system to judge a subject to be a waste of our time!
There is no reason why Irish and maths cannot be equally promoted. As a Leaving Cert pupil of 2010, my belief is that the Leaving Cert is already a highly flawed system and that this is exacerbated by poor teaching methods and an over-reliance on textbooks and learnt-off material. It doesn’t take millions of euros to tackle these problems – just fresh and innovative thinking. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The suggestion was made some time ago that those intending to take Leaving Cert maths at higher level, sit the ordinary level paper at the end of fifth year. This is an excellent suggestion and would give students the confidence to attempt the higher paper knowing they have already passed maths, and failing the higher paper would not be the disaster it is currently. Surely this would be worth a try for a couple of years? It would require some tweaking of the curriculum, but it would be easy to see if the percentages attempting higher maths increase. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Why are the results in Leaving Certificate Maths so bad? I suggest it is not (purely) because of poor teaching of the subject or a lack of bonus points.
The answer, I suggest, lies not in maths but in the majority of other Leaving Certificate subjects. With the exception of the practical subjects, students require only one skill – the ability to memorise information and then to regurgitate it on the exam paper. Maths is a rare breed in the Leaving Certificate in that it requires students to demonstrate a different type of skill and methodology. Maths is almost unique in requiring that students demonstrate a degree of intelligence other that rote-learning.
How can a student ever be expected to develop the skills of logic, independent thinking and problem-solving when every other subject remains committed to stifling such development? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I undertook my second level education in Belfast in the 1980s where the A-level system obliged me to study three or four subjects either in the general arts or, separately, the sciences including mathematics.
One of the positive aspects of seeing my own children progress through their second-level education in Dublin is that they have the opportunity – denied to me – of continuing their exploration of a much broader range of subjects right up to the point that they leave school. As they have yet to make decisions on potential career paths, such an opportunity provides them with great flexibility when it comes to choosing a third- level course. In this regard, I am very supportive of the baccalaureate education system in place.
However, there is clearly a need to raise our game in subjects that are intrinsic to our future economic development. Therefore, if the standards in maths and the sciences are to be raised, then more time needs to be spent within the curriculum on these subjects (the point I thought was being made by John P O’Sullivan, August 19th). An obvious way would seem to be to have pupils study for the full six years that they are in second-level education.
The Transition Year has many attractions for the broader educational development of our young people and I am, in general, favourably disposed towards most parts of it. But it is also a wasted opportunity to strengthen the academic basics and maintain the intensity of study that is required throughout the time spent in full-time education. I, for one, would advocate the formal start to teaching of Leaving Cert core subjects – especially maths – in this “gap” year, thus making the effective teaching period for matriculating subjects three years rather than two. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – So poor John P O’Sullivan (August 23rd) cringed and his family had a cheap laugh at his expense because of the inadvertent use of “A chara” and “Is mise” in his letter of August 19th.
Does he not realise that while his family were emitting the cheap laugh the remainder of Irish Times readers were heartily guffawing at his ludicrous contention that the teaching of Irish had contributed to the drop in mathematics results? Thanks for the laughs, Mr O’Sullivan. – Is mise,