Reaction to 2025 Leaving Certificate English Paper 2 (Higher Level) by Clodagh Havel, English teacher at The Institute of Education.
- “Duality” seems to have been a hidden theme throughout.
- Some unusual vocabulary will have caused some to pause or feel disconcerted in their approach.
This was a testing paper, not necessarily an arduous one but nevertheless students will feel a lot more pushed to react and grapple with the exam than they did yesterday. Between densely phrased questions and some peculiar vocabulary, some students will be worried that they weren’t on the right path. While many will have been relieved with the range of questions available. Each question was precise in its scope – they had a wide selection, but a narrow focus. Reading the first King Lear question, many will have paused and caught their breath on the mention of “duality” (two-ness) within the text’s characters. For those who gave themselves a moment to fully read the question they will have found lots of choice in who to discuss: Lear, Gloucester, Edmund are all very comfortable candidates for discussions and only two were required. The second question was gorgeous in its exploration of justice, order, chaos and cruelty but again the way the question was phrased was dense. In the cauldron of the exam hall, composure and a level head are easier said than done. Everyone would have material to bring to fulfil these prompts, they just might not glide through it.
Moving onto Comparative the “one-size-fits-all” approach of this section will mean that students will need to bend and twist their material to fit the particulars of the questions. Again, the duality theme appeared in the inclusive and exclusive behaviors for the 70-mark Theme question. Generally, students who chose to prepare the full three texts will be happiest as the 30/40 split questions will have given them some nice options, particularly in Cultural Context. Students aiming for the top marks will need to pick up on the nuances of texts in order to truly incorporate the elements of the “subtle”, “contradictory” or “paradoxical” elements mentioned.
The unseen poetry was nice, neat and uncomplicated – students will have been able to accrue some marks here without much strain or fuss. For prescribed poetry, many will breathe a sigh of relief to see the expected names appear but disappointed by the occasional sting in the tail. Boland will have been welcome by many, but the focus on “nature of powerlessness” will be a momentary bump for those who cannot quickly recontextualize their work. The word “parochial” in the Kavanagh question may have prompted some to quickly disregard it as an option, but those most familiar with his emphasis on the extraordinary in the ordinary would at the very least been able to make an educated guess. The Eliot question was probably the nicest question on this paper as it was so uncomplicated, so those who had prepared him could launch right in. Again, the duality of the question setter reappears as Eliot is followed by one of the most unusual Mahon questions for some years. It almost reads as a throwback to the style of questions from 15 years ago. But as always, a student who is ready to adapt rather than regurgitate will have found themselves with the scope to negotiate the peculiar focus on “read aloud”. Finally, the awaited appearance of Smith will be a cause for celebration in many. The question would have fitted neatly into the prepared material and so even though this is her first appearance in the exam, it will feel more familiar than many of the other questions.
Many will leave the exam hall feeling that it was a long slog, particularly in comparison to the much more amenable Paper 1. Yet underneath the sometimes excessively worded questions, there was something for everyone. Students who allowed themselves the composure to peel away the layers of the onion will find themselves tired but satisfied.