LEAVING Cert students should feel reasonably content with the opportunities offered by this year's papers to display what they have learned.
Mr John O'Sullivan, ASTI subject representative and a teacher In Templeogue College, Dublin, said section A perhaps omitted some of the great themes from Irish history which might have been expected to appear in some form. He said the absence of such themes might be seen to represent an "imbalance", given the huge effort involved on the part of students and teachers to cover them.
Section B, which included questions on the Northern Ireland parliament, the inter war economy and the Irish language, offered a "reasonably good choice", Mr O'Sullivan said though the choice in section C was more restricted. Question 4, on the Balkan crises from 1870 to 11914, should have been expected.
Mr O'Sullivan welcomed the choice of questions offered in section E to students who did not have a research topic prepared, since students in some parts of the State do not have access to the library facilities required to complete a special study.
Mr Bill Bailey, a teacher at Colaiste Dhulaigh in Coolock, Dublin, described the higher level paper as "very good in general". Section B, he felt, was perhaps the most difficult, with the period from 1916 to 1922 not covered in the questions.
At ordinary level, Mr O'Sullivan complimented the framework offered to students in sections C and F, in which students are required to write on two selected subjects from each section.
Mr Bailey described the ordinary level paper as harder, comparatively speaking, than the higher level paper. Section A was "just about all right", he said, while section B, which included questions on the Pigott forgeries, the Shannon Scheme 1924-1929 and Dr. Noel Browne's "Mother and Child Scheme", had some very exact rather than general questions. "A weak student could miss the whole lot easily."
Economic history
In economic history, seemingly awkward wording marred both higher and ordinary level papers. Ordinary level students in particular received a paper that Mr Des Cowman, ASTI subject representative and a teacher in CBS Tramore, Co Waterford, described as "carelessly put together".
At higher level, part 1 of the paper was "a model of what a good examination paper should be", Mr Cowman said.
This made part 2, on international economic history, all the more astounding, he said. Question 15 asked students to identify the main reasons for the success of the German economy in the 19th century but, as Mr Cowman pointed out, there wasn't even a Germany until 1870. "The students couldn't, and I couldn't, write about the German economy up to 1870," he said. "What was probably intended was 1870 to 1914."
Question 16 asked students to compare politics and economics in Russia in any period from 1861 to 1934. Such politics are not a part of the course, Mr Cowman said, suggesting that it was policy that was meant rather than politics.
On the ordinary level paper, question 5, on the railway system in Ireland from the 1830s as both a response to and a cause of economic change, required a level of analysis which it was unreasonable to expect of students at this level, Mr Cowman said. Similar problems arose with questions 11 and 12.
Question 16, which asked students to assess the contribution to the Russian economy of Sergei Witte, Tsar Nicholas II's finance minister, was "so narrow as to be ludicrous", Mr Cowman said.
"In fairness to those who are doing the subject at ordinary level, their aspirations are as valid as those taking it at higher level and the exam paper should be taken as seriously for them and should cater for them" he said.