Home
_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Ireland's big school secret: how a year off-curriculum changes teenage lives
tumblrinaowned wrote 1 hour 53 min ago:
Great. Let's model a failed country.
If they were smart they would start with adding more and reducing it.
musicale wrote 2 hours 48 min ago:
This seems to disprove the idea that a year off from school will
necessarily be a serious setback.
Closing schools during covid might seem to support it, but there was
also a global pandemic going on at the time.
It would be interesting to compare TY during the pandemic vs.
non-pandemic years.
h_tbob wrote 4 hours 5 min ago:
Everybody mocks me when I say this. But the most productive people in
the world spent their time doing what they thought was fun.
Itâs like our biology is smarter than us. If itâs fun our brains
are telling us thereâs something about it we need. Itâs like when
you think a girl is cute for the first time. Thereâs no logic in it
to you, but itâs the most logical thing in the world, thatâs why
itâs fun.
Hans Zimmer used to just like play with all kinds of stuff when he was
young just to see what it would sound like.
I listened to an intel exec (after pat came back) and he talked about
how he was disassembling and reassembling the house electronics as a
kid.
Or me - I would just code for fun and my dad got me some books on it. I
hardly ever did any school on it.
If we let kids just do what they want and have fun, I think they would
get good at what they love and have fulfilling careers.
If you have to do what your told your whole life - who even wants to
live it?
So maybe we just let kids have their freedom. I know it sounds crazy
but what if we applied the rights to life liberty and pursuit of
happiness to them? I think they would amaze us. Kids are so clever, I
think we would have so much creativity our minds would be blown!
To conclude I think that we have a dearth of people who know what to
do. So many employees and fewer small businesses. I think if we give
kids freedom, the chance to figure out what they like doing, and how to
do it, as adults they will be able to start businesses better and
manage them.
Just my thoughts!
roenxi wrote 3 hours 54 min ago:
You haven't accounted for selection bias there. It is quite likely
most people don't find a productive activity fun and it is a much
better plan to try and be somewhat wealthy doing something that
inspires a neutral feeling rather than poor. Much like the girl you
find cute on first glance, if you change your mind later then it'd
have been a real mistake to over-commit on first impressions.
If there are 10 people who want to be plumbers but the economy is
signalling it needs 20 plumbers then it'd be best if 10 people who
don't enjoy plumbing all that much do it for the money. If there are
100 people who want to make a living as an artist and only demand for
1 it'd be better if most of them overruled their instincts and found
something more useful to do. Paint as a hobby and live as something
else.
left-struck wrote 3 hours 30 min ago:
More succinctly, yes, most successful people do what they love but
that doesnât mean that most people who do what they love will be
successful.
kaycebasques wrote 6 hours 34 min ago:
Are there any US parents here who strongly nudged their children to
take a transition year? When my girl grows up I'm leaning towards that
direction because I really wish someone would have suggested it for me
when I was that age.
talideon wrote 7 hours 29 min ago:
I was in one of the first years that did transition year, and it was
almost nothing but good for me. It got me much more out of my shell and
I was able to do subjects I wouldn't have been able to do otherwise.
Art, in particular, thought there weren't enough subsequently in the
senior cycle for me to continue with it, sadly. My work placements were
fun in different ways: I worked in a electronics repair shop and
learned to solder and basic electronics (I already had a healthy
respect for high voltage), worked with some architects, and also in a
music studio and got an understanding of music production.
I've heard reasons for not doing it, but it's so good for broadening
the horizons of who you think you are that almost all of those reasons
are almost moot.
colmmacc wrote 7 hours 17 min ago:
I did transition year in 1996/1997, and I think we were only the
second class to do it in my school. We took another European language
for a year, and I did Art, Home Economics, Metalwork, and Woodworking
classes that had no aptitude for and never would have picked for my
leaving cert years. They were great and I learned skills that I still
use.
For my work placement, I worked in a folk instrument store and
learned a lot about acoustic instruments, but also the basics of
showing up on time, getting things done, and more. It was invaluable.
The reduced pressure meant I could also work at the local McDonald's,
and the income from 6 months of shift-work there made a big
difference for me and my family. It was a start of some modest
savings that allowed me to even consider going to college later (I
still had to work through college, but at least it was doable).
Transition Year, the introduction of Free Third Level Education, and
the blinded CAO application process for universities were all game
changers for me. I grew up in Ballyfermot, a working class part of
Dublin, and when I went to college I found out there was still only a
tiny handful of people from there who'd had that opportunity. Still
so thankful.
talideon wrote 6 hours 44 min ago:
That period of the '90s and early 2000s were a bit of a golden age
when it came to education. I very much doubt I'd have been able to
afford third level if it wasn't for when I went. The full grant and
the fact that fees were abolished meant I could actually make ends
meet. Didn't hurt that Cork was a pretty inexpensive place to go to
college at the time! Second year was more of a struggle with money,
but doable. If I could do anything regarding education, it'd be
guaranteeing that same chance to people now that we had then.
kayo_20211030 wrote 9 hours 3 min ago:
The Cillian Murphy reference seems off. He might have been too old when
it was mandated in 1994, even though it was available earlier. Anyone
know for sure?
talideon wrote 7 hours 6 min ago:
He was born in '76, so it's possible his school was a trial school a
few years earlier, but doesn't seem likely.
TRiG_Ireland wrote 9 hours 8 min ago:
TY was good to me, but I think it could have been better. As the
article says, each school does it differently. We did a mini company,
where we created knick knacks and tried to sell them. But the entire
class of 30 students was one company, which was therefore quite badly
organised. I remember the teachers saying that they wouldn't do it that
way in future years. There was also orienteering.
And we still did some academic classes. Maths, anyway. And I think some
others.
In my school, most of the kids didn't do TY, so there was just one
class in TY, which meant that the maths, in particular, was fairly
basic: there weren't enough of us for streaming. And jumping back into
higher level maths in Fifth Year was, frankly, a bit of a shock to the
system.
asdasdsddd wrote 9 hours 9 min ago:
I think a lot of the mental illness for young boys is that the
education ladder deprives them of responsibility until way past
maturity.
acjohnson55 wrote 8 hours 48 min ago:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that's a problem for boys, in
particular?
justonenote wrote 7 hours 39 min ago:
can't answer for GP but most likely because he is male himself and
so speaking to what he knows.
Your question sounds like you are baiting, like you are pretending
to be so naive that you are not aware that men and women face
different expectations and circumstances growing up, and moreso
there is something wrong with expressing concern for boys without
also including girls.
Maybe, hopefully, I'm reading you wrong.
asdasdsddd wrote 1 hour 49 min ago:
Thank you, leftist universalism is really annoying to engage
with. You could say, "its important to wash your hands" and they
will ask you why you are being ableist and excluding people
without hands.
tadhgpearson wrote 9 hours 59 min ago:
It works on the other end of the spectrum too. Much of my class just
wanted to leave school at 16 to work on the family farm. TY gave them
practical experience of running a business, stripping an engine, how to
use an manage credit etc. before they went out in the world.
cmcconomy wrote 10 hours 38 min ago:
In Quebec you find a similar program; elementary school is K-6, and
high school is 7-11. Following this you can optionally attend an
interstitial educational system called "CEGEP".
It's government funded and costs next to nothing.
CEGEP has two streams, pre-university or professional. For the latter,
you learn skills like aircraft mechanics. For the former, you pick a
stream that bulks up what would normally be first-year university
courses like calculus, biology etc for a science stream.
However, you are required to take approx 15-20% of your courses in an
"opposite" stream to force you to get acquainted with other
alternatives before you commit to university. In addition, the
structure is much like university (you pick your classes & schedule,
class sizes are increased compared to HS, your responsibility is
increased) which is a good transition for university if that's where
you're headed.
I think it's a wonderful system and I wish it was more widespread.
lackstein wrote 4 hours 10 min ago:
I went through the CEGEP system in Quebec and honestly credit it with
giving me the skills necessary to be successful in university. My
high school was very lenient and gave me a lot of flexibility to work
on personal projects, and overall that worked out great but I was
definitely lacking the grit necessary to dive deep into topics I
couldnât quickly understand.
CEGEP provided an excellent transitionary structure where you had
both more responsibility for your actions and results, and also a
forgiving safety net. Youâre forced to do near-university-level
study of subjects in an environment where the professors are able to
hold your hand a bit more, will tolerate late assignments, and if you
screw up it wonât permanently tank your future academic prospects.
The tuition at CEGEP was free. You just paid a few fees to the school
and the student union, which added up to about $120/semester at the
time. This made it a lot more palatable to try out a math- or
science-heavy stream and switch out of it if you decided it wasnât
something youâd want to continue in university. The gen ed classes
were also great.
l2silver wrote 4 hours 23 min ago:
I'm very jealous of the cegep program, as a resident of neighbouring
Ontario. For all my Quebec friends, it just seemed like an amazing
way to test different experiences before committing to a degree. In
addition, the work you do in cegep counts towards a bachelor's
degree, so french students end up finishing their degrees without
losing a year.
WorkerBee28474 wrote 10 hours 7 min ago:
.
hluska wrote 9 hours 56 min ago:
Stats Canada data disagrees with this. Do you have a source?
Hello71 wrote 9 hours 57 min ago:
I googled "quebec educational attainment" and found [1] , which
says that "Québec has the highest proportion of people aged 25 to
64 with any postsecondary certificate, diploma or degree (71.2%).".
According to [2] , Quebec's median annual family income in 2021 was
96,910, almost the same as the median 98,390. The top "provinces"
are Northwest Territories and Yukon, whose ways of doing things,
for better or worse, cannot be easily copied to other provinces.
HTML [1]: https://statistique.quebec.ca/en/communique/university-gra...
HTML [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/467078/median-annual-f...
Eumenes wrote 10 hours 51 min ago:
My child is too young for school but my partner and I expect to
homeschool. We've talked about gap years in the childs early/mid teens
for travel/backpacking/nature excursions. I wish fellowship and
apprentice work was more commonplace in the younger years too. Get out
of the classroom and experience the real world.
dyauspitr wrote 10 hours 39 min ago:
How do you plan on your child building out their social skills?
Surely a couple of playdates a week with a few other kids isnât
going to cut it.
BeetleB wrote 8 hours 36 min ago:
From what I've seen, surely going to school doesn't cut it either
:-)
Let's not cherry pick. Plenty of people have adverse social
outcomes due to school.
Eumenes wrote 9 hours 47 min ago:
Plenty of family/friends nearby with young families. I'm in a rural
area with a tradition of homeschooling so there's weekly/biweekly
events/classes. Not really worried about the socialization. Over
socializing can be bad too.
AnimalMuppet wrote 10 hours 18 min ago:
We homeschooled. When we worried about our kids' socialization, we
yanked them into the bathroom and beat them up for their lunch
money.
I'm kidding, but... you want school to build your kids' social
skills? Apart from all the pathologies common in schools, you want
your kids to grow up to live in an adult world, which is almost
completely unlike school.
Yeah, homeschooling can be done where the kids are isolated and
never interact with anyone outside the family. It doesn't have to
be, though.
squigz wrote 9 hours 48 min ago:
> I'm kidding, but... you want school to build your kids' social
skills? Apart from all the pathologies common in schools, you
want your kids to grow up to live in an adult world, which is
almost completely unlike school.
I mean... yes, it seems reasonable to learn social skills from a
school setting? Interacting with other people, some of whom
dislike/disagree with each other, interacting with other adults,
etc. This seems like a reasonable step toward what you describe
as 'the adult world' - which, yes, is rather different from
school, but that seems a good thing; throwing a child into 'the
adult world' without preparation would be crazy, right?
(I'm not trying to deny that one can learn the necessary social
skills while being homeschooled, just disagree with the
implication that school is not also a good place to develop them)
Eumenes wrote 9 hours 43 min ago:
âChildren learn what they live. Put kids in a class and they
will live out their lives in an invisible cage, isolated from
their chance at community; interrupt kids with bells and horns
all the time and they will learn that nothing is important or
worth finishing; ridicule them and they will retreat from human
association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to
get even. The habits taught in large-scale organizations are
deadly.â
â John Taylor Gatto
yongjik wrote 9 hours 37 min ago:
And put those children in an invisible cage with two adults
who will tell them when to get up, what to wear, what to eat,
what to read, and when to go to bed, and these kids will
learn...... what?
I think homeschooling could work for some combinations of
parents and kids, but so many discussion sounds like "Of
course it's going to work for my kids because I'm different!"
BeetleB wrote 8 hours 32 min ago:
> And put those children in an invisible cage with two
adults who will tell them when to get up, what to wear,
what to eat, what to read, and when to go to bed, and these
kids will learn...... what?
Sounds like a typical day for a regular school kid. Most
school kids up to a certain age need a parent to wake them
up, and don't get to pick their clothes or their food. And
get shepherded into the bed.
Not sure what any of this has to do with homeschooling.
It's just basic life.
In fact, from the parents I know who home school, the kids
actually have more freedoms than school kids do. Their work
is tailored to their skill level, so no BS tedious
homework. As long as the parents have time, the schedule is
flexible as well. If your kid performs better at noon -
great! Start then.
squigz wrote 9 hours 40 min ago:
> cage
> isolation
> interruptions
> ridicule
> shame
I wonder if this person's view on schools is at all biased.
Eumenes wrote 9 hours 37 min ago:
I'd say someone who taught in NYC public schools for 30
years and won teacher of the year award is a good resource
to learn from?
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto
squigz wrote 9 hours 35 min ago:
So biased toward American public education, in New York
City of all places.
For what it's worth, I look back on my time in school
with relative fondness. Certainly I don't agree with
anything like it 'being a cage' or feeling isolated from
other people (????)
TinkersW wrote 1 hour 14 min ago:
I very much found it to be a cage.
sollewitt wrote 10 hours 54 min ago:
In TY in 1998 I:
worked at an architect's, an archeologist's, a hospital, an
epidemiological research institute where I got to use _my own computer_
all day - decided I needed to work with computers, got a summer job
there.
earned the President's Award medal
had one class where we stripped an engine over the term
got my first aid certificate
learned how to develop film
took night classes touch typing (on an electric typewriter)
took part in the Irish language school music competition
took German
was in a play
got an award at the Young Scientist
I really developed as a person. I hadn't ever really stopped to think
what my life would be like without that development but I suspect it
was very beneficial. It certainly wasn't a "doss" - and it started to
grow a self determination muscle - find your own work experience, find
projects you want to try etc.
jan_Inkepa wrote 9 hours 33 min ago:
School for me (in Ireland) was more or less a race to get out of
school (+ concomitant bullying) and into university to study what I
was interested in (maths - at that point I wasn't able to advance any
further on my own and there was nobody who could help/guide me
further where I lived) - the idea of adding a year on felt like it
would be a waste. In retrospect, yeah I think I made a good call.
Happy to see other people getting benefit from it though.
kiliantics wrote 4 hours 43 min ago:
I think OP must have grown up in a pretty affluent neighbourhood.
(How many schools have programmes with epidemiological institutes?)
If I had done TY in the school I went to with the others in my
cohort that did, my experience would have likely been much closer
to theirs than to OP's: rarely attending school, drinking, smoking
weed, and in some cases not returning back to school at all to
finish the leaving cert.
I was much happier getting out of school as soon as I possibly
could like yourself.
dotnet00 wrote 10 hours 0 min ago:
I often mention to people that graduate research helped me mature for
this same reason. Prior to grad school, I just followed the strict
well-defined path modern schooling tends to have - spend most time
studying, very limited investment in hobbies and out-of-school
friendships, get good grades, focus only on moving to the next year.
My grades were great, but it left me as an underdeveloped anxious
mess of a person who was incapable of being independent.
Having a few years where I had to do things mostly on my own while
still being somewhat 'sheltered' (because a research advisor doesn't
have time to babysit, but also won't exploit you the way an employer
can) helped me a lot to become my own person and to stop having panic
attacks over trivial decisions. At a younger age, the same effect
could've been achieved with one year.
Plus, while everyone used to act like missing a year of ~high school
would be a permanent blemish on a career, having gone through all
this education, I feel that high school was the least consequential
part of it. It could easily be replaced with a year of professional
'exploration' with no loss. Especially nowadays, where undergraduate
degrees are very common (high school grades can already be entirely
forgotten after obtaining a degree), and undergrad programs spend
much of the first year redoing a lot of high school material to bring
everyone up to the same level.
As a result, when I have children of my own, I plan to emphasize this
sort of exploration a lot more.
BeetleB wrote 8 hours 40 min ago:
> but also won't exploit you the way an employer can
Eh, my experience is the opposite. A lot more exploitation in grad
school than in industry. It's a lot easier to change jobs than
change professors/universities.
I recall multiple cases of formal/semi-formal interventions where
other professors or the department had to force an advisor to let
the person graduate (they wanted to keep milking them for more
papers).
And then when you do graduate, forget a career in research if you
can't get recommendation letters from him.
But otherwise, I agree. A ton of benefits if you go to graduate
school and don't have an abusive advisor.
(I also took a year off after high school. Never understood why
everyone said I was making a big mistake...).
dotnet00 wrote 8 hours 16 min ago:
>Eh, my experience is the opposite. A lot more exploitation in
grad school than in industry. It's a lot easier to change jobs
than change professors/universities.
>I recall multiple cases of formal/semi-formal interventions
where other professors or the department had to force an advisor
to let the person graduate (they wanted to keep milking them for
more papers).
That's kind of what I mean though. In grad school other
professors you've worked with might still keep an eye out for
you. Under an exploitative employer, the way I was previously, I
wouldn't know any better, I had no sense for the value of my
time/work and I used to panic about having to send simple emails
to people, quitting a job used to sound equivalent to suicide.
For me there's also the factor that as an international student,
it's a lot easier for employers to exploit me than a school.
Edit: Although, come to think of it, I do know of other
departments at my uni where even other professors can't be relied
on to help in such cases. So I guess you're right.
BeetleB wrote 7 hours 51 min ago:
> Under an exploitative employer, the way I was previously, I
wouldn't know any better, I had no sense for the value of my
time/work and I used to panic about having to send simple
emails to people, quitting a job used to sound equivalent to
suicide.
Seems the lessons you learned as a grad student are the lessons
I learned as an employee :-)
My first job was exploitative. I eventually gave them the
middle finger and left. Everyone told me I was crazy: "All jobs
are like this. You have to suck it up"
Eh, no. None of my jobs since then have been that bad. Half of
them I actually enjoyed.
This is very relevant:
HTML [1]: https://xkcd.com/1768/
petesergeant wrote 10 hours 54 min ago:
> What he really wanted to close was the cultural gap between rich and
poor
This sounds great!
> Then there is the financial aspect of TY: some parents just canât
afford it.
oh for fuck's sake
talideon wrote 7 hours 1 min ago:
It's an extra year of your kids at home, and potentially trips
abroad. We couldn't afford the trip to France during my TY, so I
skipped the trip, but did TY. While this was the '90s and my parents
didn't earn enough to pay income tax, they were able to afford it for
both myself and my sister, and I don't think they regret it for
either of us.
alephnerd wrote 10 hours 39 min ago:
Yep! Good extracurriculars are expensive.
I remember taking part in Debate, MUN, XC, DECA, Wrestling, Quiz
Bowl, Volunteering (NHS/CSF), and a bunch of Olympiads in HS and
there was always a cost associated with participating (either a fee
or the need to travel to the place hosting the EC).
Unsurprisingly, this meant ECs would skew upper middle class and
upper class. Sadly, these same ECs are also blockers for college
admissions.
I might get hate for this on HN, but this is why I support unweighted
GPA, relative class ranking, and SAT/ACT for college admissions -
sort of like what the UCs do. It's the least bad option out of the
other options. Alternatively, going open entry with university
admissions and then ramping up the difficulty with weedout classes is
a good option as well.
talideon wrote 6 hours 57 min ago:
That's not really how TY works in Ireland. It's about broadening
horizons, not "extracurriculars".
Third level admissions have been done via a points system based on
your top six Leaving Certificate (final second level exam) results
for decades. It's an impersonal system, but at least fairer than
most.
rahimnathwani wrote 9 hours 44 min ago:
unweighted GPA, relative class ranking, and SAT/ACT for college
admissions - sort of like what the UCs do
UC admissions decisions don't use SAT or ACT scores.
Relative class ranking is a poor measure for students who gained
entry (by merit) to a selective high school.
Like if you do well in middle school and get into Lowell by the
skin of your teeth, should you be penalized for being in the bottom
10%?
alephnerd wrote 9 hours 20 min ago:
> UC admissions decisions don't use SAT or ACT scores.
Ope. I forgot that changed after COVID.
Pre-COVID SAT/ACT was required.
> Like if you do well in middle school and get into Lowell by the
skin of your teeth, should you be penalized for being in the
bottom 10%?
Someone is always going to be penalized no matter what. Most
schools in California as well as nationally are not specialized
or gatekept via entrance exams like Lowell was.
rahimnathwani wrote 9 hours 4 min ago:
Most schools in California as well as nationally are not
specialized or gatekept via entrance exams like Lowell was.
Right, but 'school' is not the relevant unit. 'Student' is the
relevant unit.
Imagine the top 10% of middle school students in SF go to
Lowell. Half of those will be in the bottom half of the
graduating class.
So 5% of students in SF (half of the best 10%) might not get
into their UC of choice, just because they managed to get into
Lowell.
That's a lot of students' futures we're talking about. Why
penalize half of the best students in SF?
sodality2 wrote 10 hours 33 min ago:
Open entry would change a lot of things - lots of schools and
rankings use drop out rate as a proxy for how useful attending
there is, because of the assumption that if the dropout rate is
higher, there's a worse education. It would at least upend the old
saying about the hardest part about some colleges is getting in.
I agree with the SAT/ACT part - they pushed "holistic review"
during Covid but ultimately SAT prep is way lower barrier (Khan
Academy) than gobs of ECs.
heisenzombie wrote 9 hours 18 min ago:
Open admission is an interesting way to do things. I spent a bit
of time in Belgium where the main universities will accept anyone
who has a high-school level education. The first year dropout
rate can be 70% in some courses. This system seemed to be very
well loved by Belgians. [1] Notably the US has the lowest dropout
rate, so obviously they are pre-filtering students hard. That
necessarily means that there are lots of people who /could/ have
succeeded but were excluded at the admissions stage. The degree
to which that's the right choice probably depends on whether you
think doing a year of university and then leaving is a huge
waste, a horrible failure, or a worthwhile experiment.
(The unique economics of US universities obviously interact with
this calculus in pretty major ways.)
HTML [1]: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/eag_highlights-2...
jamesblonde wrote 10 hours 55 min ago:
Patrick Collison (Stripe) credits the Transition Year in Ireland for
his computer interest
" Ireland actually has this interesting thing called âtransition
year,â this year between two major exams of high school or at least
Irelandâs high school equivalent.Transition year is a formally
designated year thatâs optional, where you can go and pursue things
that you might not otherwise naturally tend to pursue, and the school
tends to be much more permissive of going and spending three months
abroad or going and doing some work experience in this area or whatever
the case may be. And so, in that year, I basically decided to spend as
much of it as possible programming, and so I did that.â"
HTML [1]: https://networkcapital.beehiiv.com/p/stripe-ceo-patrick-collis...
aj7 wrote 11 hours 5 min ago:
Folklore?
wiredfool wrote 11 hours 7 min ago:
In Ireland -- with one kid in Junior Cert and one who did Junior Cert,
then had an external Transition Year, then self studied for A levels,
and one who's done home school/self study through GCSE and now doing A
levels.
It's an optional, definitely not universal thing. Not all schools offer
it, and even then I get the impression that it's well less than half
the students take the opportunity. The implementation is also highly
school dependent, which is either totally expected or a complete
surprise, given that the rest of the curriculum and tests are all
national level standards.
This article paints a far rosier picture than I've really seen from the
local experiences, but that's probably as much the lack of drive at the
school than anything else.
My eldest's TY experience with us was great -- we took the opportunity
to AirB&B around Europe, at least till Covid hit. But we were totally
comfortable with dealing with the home schooling part of that for the
three of them.
Loughla wrote 7 hours 29 min ago:
What are A levels, by the way? I hear this a lot on British
television but have no context.
SamBam wrote 4 hours 52 min ago:
Kind of like APs, except that you typically study only 3, sometimes
4 subjects for the final two years of high school and then take
final exams.
So for my final two years of high school, I only studies math,
physics and bio.
In the same way that an AP can sometimes give you a semester's
credit at a university, an A-Level can sometimes give you a full
year's credit. (Only in US universities, though. In the UK you're
expected to have done them, so you don't get extra credit. Though,
for the same reason, a bachelors degree in the UK is typically only
three years, not four.)
marcus_holmes wrote 5 hours 5 min ago:
Britain used to have "Ordinary level" (O levels) at age ~16 and
"Advanced level" exams (A levels) at ~18. Students usually studied
5-8 O levels and then either left school to pursue a career or went
on to study (usually) 3 A levels and go to university.
O levels got replaced back in the 80's. A levels never got renamed.
giobox wrote 4 hours 43 min ago:
This was certainly the case in most of Britain. Scotland has a
separate education system from England and has today and
historically offered different high school level qualifications
("Highers" etc).
nicoburns wrote 6 hours 49 min ago:
The highest qualification you'll get from a school in the UK.
Typically studied for between ages 16-18. They are the most common
qualification used for university entry by students who go through
the UK school system.
Unlike some other systems where students stud a broad spectrum of
subjects (with core subjects like maths, english and science being
compulsory), students typically only study 3 (or maybe 4) subjects
a A level (with subjects being things like "maths", "geography",
"chemistry", etc), with no compulsory subjects.
grej wrote 11 hours 13 min ago:
HTML [1]: https://archive.is/duzFR
anotherhue wrote 11 hours 15 min ago:
20 years ago it was considered a 'doss year' (waste/screw-around etc.),
and the general perception was that it was for those that require a
little more time in the oven developmentally before proceeding to the
next stage. I was a child then so I don't know if that was true, but
certainly the majority of people who took it were not academically
inclined.
abrookewood wrote 6 hours 39 min ago:
So the article suggests that has changed - people who take the YT
year get significantly higher results in their senior years.
anotherhue wrote 6 hours 8 min ago:
Hard to split that from just age based improved performance though.
talideon wrote 7 hours 20 min ago:
Not in my school: the vast majority who took it (this was the '90s,
when it started) were the ones doing almost all honours.
It heavily depends on the school, I would guess, however, but often
those who need "more time in the oven" come just as much from the
academically inclined side as from the less academically inclined
side. For both, it allows them a broader window on who they might be.
Macha wrote 9 hours 11 min ago:
It was both extremes when I did it 15 years ago. Those who needed it
just to catch up on what they were supposed to have learned in junior
cycle and those who wanted a bunch of extra curriculars for whatever
reason. Note that admission to college/university in Ireland is not a
motivator for extra curriculars - for school leavers the only things
that matter are your overall grades, and for some courses, grades in
specific subjects. (For foreign students, over 25s, those with
special needs etc. there's a 10% or so allocation for an alternative
process which is more subjective application based. But the 90% go
through the purely grades based CAO)
Think it varies a lot school to school and sometimes even year to
year.
Filligree wrote 11 hours 11 min ago:
Which seems fair enough. Thereâs already a year difference between
the youngest and oldest student in any given class; if you want your
children to do well, make sure theyâre among the oldest.
The problem is it might come too late to change their
self-perception. A year is a lot of time when youâre nine
wiredfool wrote 11 hours 4 min ago:
TY is typically at 15ish.
Filligree wrote 3 hours 17 min ago:
That's the problem â it might well be far too late.
SoftTalker wrote 9 hours 20 min ago:
A year is still a lot then. You can do a lot in a year if you
don't have to worry about earning a living and have the time to
engage in things that are interesting.
datadrivenangel wrote 11 hours 31 min ago:
I took a year off after high school in the US to work part time and
take welding and accounting courses at the local community college.
Great experience that convinced me that I did actually want to go to
university.
SoftTalker wrote 9 hours 15 min ago:
I'm pretty sure that if I had taken auto shop or welding in high
school (it was still offered, but I was "college-bound" and steered
away from anything in that wing of the building) or in a "gap year" I
would have ended up doing something in that field. I love making
stuff and repairing stuff. I also was interested in computers and
programming them, I think there's a lot of overlap there in terms of
motivations.
MattPalmer1086 wrote 11 hours 40 min ago:
Sounds like a great idea.
In England, I've seen education get consistently more rigid and
inflexible over the years. All about tests, tests and more tests.
Teachers leave the profession, children turn off. And as it
consistently fails to produce better results, the answer is always to
do more of what has failed.
Bring something like this to England, please!
SoftTalker wrote 9 hours 18 min ago:
> tests, tests and more tests
Same in the USA. The old student question "will this be on the test?"
is now also asked by teachers and administrators. If the answer is
"no" they skip it.
spywaregorilla wrote 5 hours 33 min ago:
That's not unreasonable if you have good tests that hit the right
elements. My experience about 10 years ago with the AP exams were
very positive. The tests were good, and even though the classes
were taught to the test, they were some of the best classes I ever
took.
bobthepanda wrote 3 hours 53 min ago:
the problem, at least in the US, is that the tests and standards
have tightened up without necessarily giving the teachers better
training or better productivity tools to teach them, and now
their job evaluations also depend on it, so now everybody is
optimizing for the test. Usually to the detriment of subjects not
on standardized testing like the arts or physical education or
anything resembling a break time.
Throw in the fact that in much of the country, teachers have to
do things like pull second jobs to get by and beg parents for
basic supplies like scissors and paper towels, and it's no wonder
everything is falling apart.
timthorn wrote 9 hours 56 min ago:
> it consistently fails to produce better results
The performance of the English education system has improved markedly
over the past couple of decades. At least, as measured by tests!
dijksterhuis wrote 9 hours 18 min ago:
my physics A level teacher did something really interesting with
us.
we spent a whole class looking at an old O Level question from an
exam.
all of us, including the boffins in the class, were completely
stumped by it.
he explained it to us at the end, but it did solidify an
appreciation in me that, at least 20ish years ago, we definitely
had it easier than folks before us.
wiredfool wrote 11 hours 5 min ago:
The other 5 years of schooling at that level is all about the tests.
illwrks wrote 11 hours 18 min ago:
Is this not the same as a gap year?
Iâm Irish but unfortunately never bothered with TY. I live in the
UK now so Iâve a limited understanding of TY and the âGap
yearâ.
aussiegreenie wrote 9 hours 0 min ago:
The Gap Year is a year-long deferral from university or college.
Sometimes, it occurs directly after finishing High School, and
other times, it occurs in the middle of your course.
Many countries allow young people (under 30) to live and work
in-country under a Working Holiday visa. Both are effectively Young
People travelling (aka backpacking).
Macha wrote 9 hours 9 min ago:
A gap year is normally between the end of secondary school and
starting college (so 18-20 or so). TY is between junior cycle
(junior cert, or inter cert if you're older) and senior cycle
(leaving cert). So 14-16 year olds (who couldn't legally take a gap
year)
MattPalmer1086 wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
The article says it is like a gap year, but during secondary
school.
Clearly not the same as taking time off before university when you
are already an adult though. Participation in some activities is
required, so it's a bit more structured - and I don't think you can
take off on your own to travel the world!
talideon wrote 7 hours 18 min ago:
It's nothing like a gap year. It's just less academically
focused.
soperj wrote 11 hours 28 min ago:
Sounds like Bill Gates has gotten a hold of your school system as
well.
talideon wrote 6 hours 43 min ago:
The world doesn't revolve around the US, you know...
sixo wrote 11 hours 21 min ago:
sounds like you have something to say but can't be bothered to say
it
soperj wrote 8 hours 41 min ago:
Gates Foundation put an outsized amount of money into getting
support for Common Core, standardized testing and merit pay for
teachers.
-
HTML [1]: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/got-dough-how-bi...
snozolli wrote 10 hours 27 min ago:
I was curious, so I googled it. I'm guessing GP is talking about
this: [1] The aim was to create teacher evaluation systems that
depended on student standardized test scores and observations by
âpeer evaluators.â These systems, it was conjectured, could
identify the teachers who were most effective in improving
student academic performance.
(it's not clear to me if this created any standardized tests for
students, or just depended on existing ones)
Sounds like it ran from 2009-2015ish. If Bill Gates is going to
be brought up, then I guess George W. Bush should be, too, with
No Child Left Behind. AFAIK that's what kicked off the trend of
standardized testing for students in the U.S.
HTML [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018...
SketchySeaBeast wrote 11 hours 41 min ago:
It seems like such a year could be either revelatory or totally
miserable, depending what you got and what type of person you are.
Just the thought of many of those activities brings me back to all my
school year anxieties.
DIR <- back to front page