Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NUI to be dissolved

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    Here is the facebook group opposing the abolition of the NUI.http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=267513299390&ref=nf Growing in momentum.


  • Options
    #63
    TJJP
    Registered Users Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭TJJP


    Between 1994 and 2004 the world changed. Ireland's demographic changed utterly, our economy more so. Our young people and their aspirations grew exponentially. People had a better quality of life, more time and (perhaps) money, greater opportunity to improve themselves.

    College demand, participation and places grew (38% to close to 72%, 54,000 to close on 147,000 to date). Things change, standards don’t. CAO points varied due to this expansion. Free fees came in 1996, but that wasn’t mentioned here yet (and shouldn’t be) but it did create opportunities for people regardless of the current impasse.

    Many in 1994 had the ability but not the means. Post 1996 and fees many more with brains and ability could go to college rather than being restricted to the working poor mire. Of course grades lifted; a massive untapped resource was offered a new opportunity – hence the (non-property) related celtic tiger. These people were not dumbos, they just never had the chance.

    All this has nothing to do with the NUI and this thread though.


  • Options
    #64
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    TJJP wrote: »
    Between 1994 and 2004 the world changed. Ireland's demographic changed utterly, our economy more so. Our young people and their aspirations grew exponentially. People had a better quality of life, more time and (perhaps) money, greater opportunity to improve themselves.

    College demand, participation and places grew (38% to close to 72%, 54,000 to close on 147,000 to date). Things change, standards don’t. CAO points varied due to this expansion. Free fees came in 1996, but that wasn’t mentioned here yet (and shouldn’t be) but it did create opportunities for people regardless of the current impasse.

    Many in 1994 had the ability but not the means. Post 1996 and fees many more with brains and ability could go to college rather than being restricted to the working poor mire. Of course grades lifted; a massive untapped resource was offered a new opportunity – hence the (non-property) related celtic tiger. These people were not dumbos, they just never had the chance.

    All this has nothing to do with the NUI and this thread though.

    Indeed it doesn't. Grade inflation was coming in already in the Eighties - I remember the other science departments in UCD coming under pressure to give the same proportion of Firsts as one particular department did. Over the next few years, they began to do so - but I'm afraid it was in no way indicative of a rise in academic standards. To be fair, though, it wasn't indicative of a decline either - the colleges taught the same course, but instead of 20 years between Firsts in my old department there was one nearly every year.

    Having gone back to college for a while since (and having also done some teaching there), I find the idea that the increase in Firsts reflects increased academic ability on the part of the students absolutely hilarious. It does represent a perfectly reasonable compromise with the reality of the job market for any given institution, and across the board it represents a very fine example of the erosion of a common resource (the reputability of a First Class degree), but the idea that modern students are somehow multiple times more competent than their forebears has nothing behind it but the wishful thinking of those same students.

    Those arguing that some special explanation applies to Irish/NUI grade inflation should bear in mind that grade inflation has happened in plenty of other places before Ireland, has nothing to do with increased academic abilities, and that special 'Irish' explanations of common phenomena like housing bubbles should be treated as the baloney they have always proven to be.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #65
    baalthor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭baalthor


    TJJP wrote: »

    Things change, standards don’t ......

    ....Many in 1994 had the ability but not the means. Post 1996 and fees many more with brains and ability could go to college rather than being restricted to the working poor mire. Of course grades lifted; a massive untapped resource was offered a new opportunity ..... These people were not dumbos, they just never had the chance.
    If your argument above is correct, the bolded line must be the understatement of the decade:D

    1994: 10,773 people graduated from university of which 796 (7.4%) got a first and 3018 (28%) got a 2.1 degree.
    In total, 3814 or 35.4% attained a 1 or 2.1 degree.

    2004: 15635 people graduated from university of which 2232(14.3%) got a first and 6536 (41.8%) got a 2.1
    In total, 8768 or 56% attained a 1 or 2.1 degree.

    The total number graduating increased by 4862 (45%) between 94 and 04.

    If the ability level of the additional graduates was the same and the standards didn't change (as you have argued) then the percentages getting firsts and 2.1s should be roughly the same for both years.

    But this is not what happened so this new "untapped resource" of students must have lifted the grades.
    This means that the additional students who entered since 94 must have had on average a much higher ability than previous students.

    If we assume that the additional 4862 have come from a previously under-represented demographic, then the other 10000 odd must come from the same population group that was present in 94.
    So the graduates from this "old" population must still average around 7% getting a 1st and 30% getting a 2.1

    To make the 2004 numbers add up, the "new" group would have around 30% of its number getting a first and all of the remainder getting a 2.1. Definitely not dumbos!!
    The "new" people are four times more likely to get a first class degree and twice as likely to get a 2.1 as the "old" students.
    Who are these people? What were they doing when they didn't go to university?

    And since average grades and numbers graduating increased each year between 94 and 04, it follows that each new 1st year class must be even more intelligent than the previous year. I am sure the posters here who work in 3rd level can confirm that this is the case ...

    The argument would also seem to imply that people in university may be on average less intelligent than the remainder of the population ...

    (All figures derived from the paper that donegalfella posted earlier
    @brianthebard: the paper and website also addresses all your arguments)


    From my own experience, I was at Maynooth in the late 80s/early 90s and as the stats imply, getting a first class honours degree was a rare achievement.
    We looked on the people who got firsts the way people today look at Olympic athletes; prodigious talents who have abilities way beyond those of ordinary people.
    No amount of hard work would get you a first, you really had to have an exceptional level of understanding of the material. (That was in science anyway, can't speak for the Arts students:D)


  • Options
    #66
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    As a matter of interest, is the "University of Dublin" - Trinity College's parent University - also going to be dissolved?

    It would seem odd if it isn't. The NUI, after all, has a number of constituent colleges, whereas the University of Dublin has always really been one college.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I don't see why this matters though, even if there were no restrictions on getting into university, it is what you leave with that is important.

    It matters because there is huge pressure on departments to pass students. This is further complicated because funding is distributed based on how many students you have, not how good the students you produce are. This results in a necessary dumbing down of degree courses to not fail the increased numbers of lower skilled students entering the systems.

    This varies department to department (some have refused to expand numbers for example) but from chatting to some lecturers there has been a large drop in the difficulty of exams and modules over the past 20 years in Irish universities.


  • Options
    #68
    Byron85
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    No matter how good your Degree is, be it a 2.2 or a 1.1, it is only as good as the person who has "achieved" said qualifications. A moron with a 1.1 is still a moron where as a hard worker and intelligent person with a 2.1 is still intelligent.


  • Options
    #69
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    T.W.H Byron wrote: »
    No matter how good your Degree is, be it a 2.2 or a 1.1, it is only as good as the person who has "achieved" said qualifications. A moron with a 1.1 is still a moron where as a hard worker and intelligent person with a 2.1 is still intelligent.
    Absolutely. And when you can add "hard worker and intelligent person" to your degree parchment and CV, I think everyone will take that home truth far more seriously.


  • Options
    #70
    Byron85
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Absolutely. And when you can add "hard worker and intelligent person" to your degree parchment and CV, I think everyone will take that home truth far more seriously.

    I'm getting at the fact that a potential employer will very quickly realise whether or not someone with a 1.1 is an idiot undeserving of their qualification. No need to be facetious.


  • Options
    #71
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Absolutely. And when you can add "hard worker and intelligent person" to your degree parchment and CV, I think everyone will take that home truth far more seriously.

    You can effectively by getting a glowing reference from a previous lecturer. It's very obvious to an employer when a lecturer has been genuinely impressed by the intellect, attitude or ability of a student.

    This is only useful at the start of your career as further along the line it'll be references from previous employers that start becoming the most valuable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #73
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes, it's why employers look for truly glowing references, not merely ones that say nice things. I've read quite a few and it's very obvious when a lecturer was genuinely very impressed by a student rather than the student merely being capable.


  • Options
    #74
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    T.W.H Byron wrote: »
    I'm getting at the fact that a potential employer will very quickly realise whether or not someone with a 1.1 is an idiot undeserving of their qualification. No need to be facetious.
    Again, I agree. However this is not much use to the person who was culled in the first round of scanning CV's.


  • Options
    #75
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Again, I agree. However this is not much use to the person who was culled in the first round of scanning CV's.

    It comes in though. The next time someone from that Degree course comes in with a 1H they won't be afforded the same respect and they'll tend to be tougher in the interview with them.

    Employers aren't stupid, they figure out very quickly if a degree course is handing out high marks too easily.


    College reputations are built up over time. You don't hand in your CV in a vacuum unless you're very far from your alma mater.


  • Options
    #76
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #77
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nesf wrote: »
    Employers aren't stupid, they figure out very quickly if a degree course is handing out high marks too easily.
    Eventually. It's not so easy to write off colleges in a country as small as Ireland - you'd run out of places you take seriously very quickly.
    College reputations are built up over time. You don't hand in your CV in a vacuum unless you're very far from your alma mater.
    That's the important thing though, and when you are very far from your alma mater you do worry about these things as only one bad experience from someone who did their degree twenty years after you and turned out to be not as good as the piece of paper claimed can have an affect on you with a HR department. Assuming they have ever heard of your college and trust the quality of your qualification in the first place - that your bits of paper are recognised and taken seriously is a big issue out there.


  • Options
    #78
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's the important thing though, and when you are very far from your alma mater you do worry about these things as only one bad experience from someone who did their degree twenty years after you and turned out to be not as good as the piece of paper claimed can have an affect on you with a HR department. Assuming they have ever heard of your college and trust the quality of your qualification in the first place - that your bits of paper are recognised and taken seriously is a big issue out there.

    Sure but it's a big problem for all small universities. Outside of the big names in the US, most HR departments have never seen or dealt with people from small community colleges. It's going to be the same for small Irish ones. I've never met anyone who's graduated from most third level institutions in this country outside my immediate geographical area outside of the bigger names: TCD, UCD, DCU, NUIG and so on. I know they exist but that's about it.


  • Options
    #79
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nesf wrote: »
    Sure but it's a big problem for all small universities.
    It's not a question of being a small university, it's of being a university - full stop. I've seen hundreds of CV's on my desk over the years, many from foreign applicants. In many cases they have studied in degree factories and the quality of their degrees (even though they are officially recognised in their country) is questionable. An Irish university may have the advantage of being in the EU, but outside of Trinity and, perhaps, UCD - you might as well have come from a degree factory in Mumbai.

    This was one of the advantages that the NUI gave the lesser known colleges.


  • Options
    #80
    Byron85
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It's not a question of being a small university, it's of being a university - full stop. I've seen hundreds of CV's on my desk over the years, many from foreign applicants. In many cases they have studied in degree factories and the quality of their degrees (even though they are officially recognised in their country) is questionable. An Irish university may have the advantage of being in the EU, but outside of Trinity and, perhaps, UCD - you might as well have come from a degree factory in Mumbai.

    This was one of the advantages that the NUI gave the lesser known colleges.


    Should I just drop out of UCC then?


  • Options
    #81
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually most of these were around 20 years ago. Even if not what is the relevance of these to people with lower scores getting into college?
    The CAO points requirement for any individual course signifies the points that the worst academically performing students in that course got. The median level of points of course participants is a far more reliable marker of trends than the lowest scores of entrants, which is what you keep referring to.
    If a course has ten places, nine people have 600 points and the tenth only got 200 points, then the entry requirement is listed as 200. You cannot use entry points as a reliable indicator of the intelligence of university entrants.
    I've supplied a link to the points requirements for the last ten years. I can also, from memory, estimate (as points were calculated differently in my day) that the requirements for courses such as commerce, engineering, science and even arts have dropped since the eighties.
    Of course they have. Back then, you could repeat you leaving cert to combine the points you got over two years! It was crazy, people did it to get artificially high points for commerce, engineering, science, and even arts. That's what i would have called grade inflation.
    Finally, there's no shortage of material on the Interweb that also comments on the drop in entry requirements over the last two decades.
    But there are many thousands more places available, it is common sense that this will lower the entry requirements in general. If you suddenly let the top 120,000 applicants study at third level when it used to be 20,000, what do you expect?
    Can you please explain how you think one can increase college places and prevent entry requirements from falling excatly?
    nesf wrote:
    there is huge pressure on departments to pass students. This is further complicated because funding is distributed based on how many students you have, not how good the students you produce are. This results in a necessary dumbing down of degree courses to not fail the increased numbers of lower skilled students entering the systems. .
    Firstly, funding for a particular department is not dependant on student numbers in itself - engineering departments need far more funding than theology departments. Student funds go to the University administrators, it has nothing to do with people marking exam papers.
    Furthermore, why would failing students cause a problem with funding? If you fail, the university gets an extra year of funding which you pay for yourself in a private capacity.
    donegalfella wrote:
    Increasingly, employers are instituting their own exams and tests, because they simply cannot trust academic evaluations to have any objective basis.
    What do you mean increasingly? I know a tiny minority of companies who have entrance exams. Where is this happening increasingly?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #83
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Can you please explain how you think one can increase college places and prevent entry requirements from falling excatly?

    Well, one could, for example, reduce or abolish fees, thereby opening the universities to an much larger pool of possible applicants. Indeed, someone has already given this as a reason why the proportion of higher degrees awarded has gone up...

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #84
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Employers don't treat grades as a meaningful measure any longer.

    Really, that ought to be the final nail in the coffin of the argument that grade inflation is actually a result of improvement in the student body.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #85
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Are you quite sure that this isn't because of a surge in demand of students with identically good degrees, who pre-bust would not have been so keen in their jobsearches?
    I know that a new graduate replaced me when I left my last job. My boss chose her because the applicants who got to interview had the same degree, the only difference with her was that she knew his wife. I'm sure if he ran a much larger business, he would have considered resorting to entrance exams.

    The most interesting aspect of that article you posted was this
    She insisted it was "quite an incorrect" assumption that standards had fallen -- particularly in the university sector, and contended that improvements in staff teaching had led to improved student learning.

    "If you examine the percentage of males in the medical field back in 1963, you find that 70pc of them had less than 300 points. In law 80pc had less than 300 points and in commerce 70pc had under 300 points."

    By the way, Martin O'Grady who made the comments you have posted is that same person who you (or I think it was you) quoted before. He is the most quoted person in this thread by people who believe in grade inflation - he's the guy who works in Tralee IT and runs that website. His articles on grade inflation have not been published in any journal based on the higher education database journals I've searched on.
    He, and the other two members of his campaign, rely totally on the fact grades have risen to attempt to prove that standards have fallen.

    He also provides zero evidence to show that what he says is true about employers not having the same regard for Irish degrees anymore. Where is his evidence of this?

    Look, I'm not dismissing the possibility that grade inflation exists. I am entirely open to the idea. I just think that saying "grades are up, therefore standards are falling" is as clear a logical non sequitur as you can have. You need to provide a clear link to show there is a relationship.

    Rising grades are not enough.


  • Options
    #86
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    T.W.H Byron wrote: »
    Should I just drop out of UCC then?


    How old are you??

    Suggest if you are in UCC ,you might be in a position to make a decision yourself:cool:

    Do you have to ask your mother for everything?


  • Options
    #87
    Byron85
    Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    How old are you??

    Suggest if you are in UCC ,you might be in a position to make a decision yourself:cool:

    Do you have to ask your mother for everything?

    It was meant to be rhetorical but alas, tone and inflection in the human voice does not translate into text on a forum. :D

    It came across and it comes across that if you're not Trinity or the very least UCD, your Degree will be worthless.


  • Options
    #88
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    Are you quite sure that this isn't because of a surge in demand of students with identically good degrees, who pre-bust would not have been so keen in their jobsearches?
    I know that a new graduate replaced me when I left my last job. My boss chose her because the applicants who got to interview had the same degree, the only difference with her was that she knew his wife. I'm sure if he ran a much larger business, he would have considered resorting to entrance exams.

    The most interesting aspect of that article you posted was this



    By the way, Martin O'Grady who made the comments you have posted is that same person who you (or I think it was you) quoted before. He is the most quoted person in this thread by people who believe in grade inflation - he's the guy who works in Tralee IT and runs that website. His articles on grade inflation have not been published in any journal based on the higher education database journals I've searched on.
    He, and the other two members of his campaign, rely totally on the fact grades have risen to attempt to prove that standards have fallen.

    He also provides zero evidence to show that what he says is true about employers not having the same regard for Irish degrees anymore. Where is his evidence of this?

    Look, I'm not dismissing the possibility that grade inflation exists. I am entirely open to the idea. I just think that saying "grades are up, therefore standards are falling" is as clear a logical non sequitur as you can have. You need to provide a clear link to show there is a relationship.

    Rising grades are not enough.

    That's a very good point, but does cut both ways - one cannot assume that standards are either rising or falling, although evidently something has changed. My view would be that in the absence of other evidence, we should look (a) at the quite well-reported grade inflation elsewhere (such as the US), and not assume that Ireland constitutes some kind of sui generis which bucks yet another global trend; and (b) motive - is there a clear motive for universities to engage in grade inflation without any corresponding increase in academic ability?

    Both of those factors point to the view that Irish grade inflation is most likely the same phenomenon as elsewhere - once a degree is seen primarily in terms of its job market potential, and potential entrants and sponsors begin to look at universities in the light of post-graduation employment prospects, there is a competitive advantage to be gained for each institution in giving better grades to their graduates, followed by pressure for other institutions to 'keep up'.

    The last generation or so has seen a progressive change in the social attitude to university in exactly such a job market oriented direction, and that there is, over that same period, also a progressive rise in "good" grades, suggests the phenomena are linked.

    That suggests, in turn, that anyone claiming the rise in good grades reflects better pedagogic methods or a brighter/harder-working student body, should really be required to demonstrate this by rather more than mere reference to the rising grades themselves. Regrettably, it's difficult to take the official pronouncements of the institutions themselves at face value here, since any internal suggestion that a university has indeed turned itself into a degree mill will do that institution - and its graduates and staff - untold damage.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #89
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #90
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Also, if the standard of the student body has genuinely risen dramatically, why do the institutions not set harder exams? A 2009 graduate is not in the same job market as a 1989 graduate, so 'fairness' across the years doesn't apply.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    Firstly, funding for a particular department is not dependant on student numbers in itself - engineering departments need far more funding than theology departments. Student funds go to the University administrators, it has nothing to do with people marking exam papers.
    Furthermore, why would failing students cause a problem with funding? If you fail, the university gets an extra year of funding which you pay for yourself in a private capacity.

    Base funding is student numbers based, additional claims can be made for lab equipment etc. Failing students is a problem because pressure is put on lecturers to pass them from further up the chain of command. The prevailing view seems to be if that a substantial number of students failed then it's the lecturer's fault not the students'.


Advertisement