Not surprising the marking would have some kind of heuristic quantitative dimension. But as described, even an idiosyncratic response, provided it were sufficiently culturally contextualized, would be liable to get as good a mark as a "standard" one. I.e. better practice than looking for "correct".
I mean, that’s how it *should* be
In my school, our English teacher didn't communicate any fixed interpretations, not for poems or plays. Class was all about finding and, above all, defending interpretations. And was a very high performing school in terms of marks (not me, I was a slacker until I went back to university in my 20s🙂)
Mmm I'll remember to ask my English Teacher friend who corrects exams next time I see her.
Sound. I've a genuine interest in it from an education science perspective, not just splitting hairs.
Be interesting. My main memory of 90s history marking (and having to try to metaphorically beat it out of first year third level students) was that students were told there were marks for "making points", which meant you'd get essays that were a sort of laundry list of points with no argument.
(may have changed since, obviously, and as I have a 15yo who's interested in doing history for LC I will find out soon enough)
I was never told what examiners were looking for or how to answer exam questions properly according to a method. I was mostly being taught a subject, not an exam
Oh, the teach to the test teachers were around even back in my day (did the Leaving in 1989).
Sure, but they didn't teach me humanities
We definitely had "what to write in your English exam" teachers.
But *I* did not.
Oh yeah, just saying that I don't think there was a more general era of teachers "just teaching the subject, not the exam", you were just lucky (or unlucky from some people's perspective).
I'm generally wary of people who make pronouncements on education experiences as though they're universal anyway
I think the rise in Grind Schools really pushed "this is the fastest way to marks" approach to things.
We didn't even have English textbooks! Just the books themselves! It was a more innocent time (I had to repeat my Leaving though)
Oh yeah. My English teacher (who I loved) was disliked by some students because she wasn't prescriptive enough about how to get marks and didn't "give notes" (aka summaries of what to write in the exam).
It’s interesting to compare A Level and LC English. Former much closer to 3rd level approach. And the difference comes down imo to trade offs which become inevitable when you make a subject compulsory for all.
Pedagogy in Ireland could be improved in several ways, notably in terms of evaluation (something that's true pretty much globally), but maintaining as broad as possible a common educational baseline for as long as possible is imo a genuine strength, on the whole worth potential trade-off losses.
Yes, I'm genuinely glad I didn't have to specialize that early, not least because I went into senior cycle convinced I was going to go down the science route for third level and came out wanting to do an arts degree. Of course, I now work in IT....
Yeah, though history isn't a compulsory subject and still - back then at least - could have a "learn to the test" quality. I think it's probably more "you can dig into the subject in more depth and with a more 3rd level approach if you're specializing in three or four subjects".
(I ended up studying English and history, loved school English and my English teacher but was constantly being told "don't do that in the exam", didn't particularly like school history but had a perceptive teacher who said she thought I'd really like it in college)
The fewer subjects thing is also a factor as is the huge weight placed on CAO points, which means that even teachers who would like to take a less exam-oriented approach have a moral obligation to their students to teach to the exam to some extent
It is a funny trade off. My brother in England said once about it being more fair as it's more qauntative than getting into a top university there where it's mostly interviews which uh is easily abused
I have a couple of friends who do admissions interviews at Oxford and they’d argue it allows them to admit students who would never get in if it were a purely grades-based system.
...which is great in principle, and presumably often in practice, but is also in itself the open door to abuse (e.g. if privileged kids who don't have the grades are being admitted at a higher proportion to less privileged kids).
I remember sb telling me they admitted a kid cos she told them she cries whenever she reads de profundis 😂
Interviews introduce huge potential weaknesses in terms of bias though, even with what I presume are checks and balances in place. Plus, well-off kids get coached for the interviews.
It's far from perfect but I do genuinely think it's a very fair system (there is also a case to be made for pure random selection but that'd be a pretty hard sell) in comparison to the other possible options.
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
Oh yeah, I was definitely told "don't do that in the exam" a whole bunch of times. Which was wise to be fair.
I was prone to doing weird short stories for the essay question so yeah, fair.
I actually found one of my old short stories and put in my book to get the authentic Teenage Writer experience and my god, rereading my old stuff, I was comically grimdark.
I have a dim memory of a mad "By His Bootstraps"-style time travel one. And one where Shakespeare was enslaving teenagers to write his plays.