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
Finally theres a move for equality in education!
Options
Comments
-
-
starbelgrade wrote: »Straight from the horse's mouth..
In Patrick Geoghegan’s own words “If a student who got four hundred and fifty points, where they were top of their class and the school didn’t have a tradition of sending people to college. Then that would be a greater more significant achievement than a student from an elite fee paying school who got over 500 points.”
I may have paraphrased him slightly, but the sentiment is essentially the same.
I wouldnt call that paraphrasing, rather turning a complex statement about how socio economic factors affects progress to third level into an opinion about taking into account a students circumstances.If a student who got four hundred and fifty points, where they were top of their class and the school didn’t have a tradition of sending people to college. Then that would be a greater more significant achievement than a student from an elite fee paying school who got over 500 points.
This is no way saying people who are poor will get preference. Its saying a person from a certain disadvantaged school getting 450 points is more of an achievment than someone from a elite school getting 500 points and hes right. It is a greater achievment. One student got high points in spite of disadvantage while another got high marks despite advantage. Universities around the world (particularly America) take socio economic factors and advantages into account. Its just a matter of reality and taking in the harder working student.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »I wouldnt call that paraphrasing, rather turning a complex statement about how socio economic factors affects progress to third level into an opinion about taking into account a students circumstances.
This is no way saying people who are poor will get preference. Its saying a person from a certain disadvantaged school getting 450 points is more of an achievment than someone from a elite school getting 500 points and hes right. It is a greater achievment. One student got high points in spite of disadvantage while another got high marks despite advantage. Universities around the world (particularly America) take socio economic factors and advantages into account. Its just a matter of reality and taking in the harder working student.
You can dress it up whatever way you want and call it "complex way of dealing with socio economic problems", but in essence, it's nothing more than throwing a few points at the poor.
It's a form of charity and like most charities, it does little to address the underlying causes of the problem & only serves to mask the real issues.
The only real way to level the playing field in access to third level education is to eliminate an education system that allows "disadvantaged" schools to exist and to provide an equal and balanced system of second level education for all.
That would truly be a complex way of dealing with the socio economic problem. But for that to happen, it would most likely involve the elimination of a system that allows the children of the wealthy to attend fee paying schools & get the best of the best in terms of teaching and learning facilities.
But that - I have no doubt - is not something that he is suggesting or even hinting towards. A much simpler and rather token gesture is to throw a few points at the poor kids & appear to be doing the "right thing".0 -
As regards the "old boys club" thing. I cant think of one of my lecturers who would give me a job because they know me personally. Most of them arent even Irish. They have names like Malthouse or Frickle.0
-
I honestly can't fathom why they give extra points for maths, but not for extra subjects. What about people who excel at languages, but aren't mathematically minded?
I found maths impossible at school. I was pretty good at languages, especially Irish.
My best friend found Irish/English hard. She got spelling exemptions and a scribe to help her write out her answers in the LC, and I'd like to stress that she has NO learning disability of any sort, such as dyslexia, etc.
There is absolutely no type of exemption for those who find maths difficult, and on top of that, if your good at it, they'll now give you 25 extra points to boot. So unfair.
Because they emphasise and reward those who excel at maths, those who are strong in other subjects lose out. How is this even allowed?
I'm glad they're sorting the system out because at the moment its an absolute farce.0 -
Advertisement
-
steddyeddy wrote: »I dont think you understand the proposal.
Oh sorry, my reply was in jest, sorry that wasn't clear. My bad.0 -
TheBegotten wrote: »This is a GODSEND. The course I am planing to do rose to 515 today, with no sign of declining. There's 12 places for the course, no other university in Ireland does it. I was terrified that the one of the only courses in Ireland I was passionate about would be taken up by some apatethic genius whose mammy thought that nanoscience sounded nice.
Perhaps therein lies the real stupidity, when popular courses like this, and medicine etc, have an absolutely minimal number of places available?0 -
Balls I'm doing my exam in 2014 this means I'm going to have to get my English grind teacher to help me write a flattering letter. People will ALWAYS work the system and so will I , get over it.0
-
confusticated wrote: »I really don't think that's a good thing. Anonymity in applying is one of the few things the CAO system has got right tbh. Knowing someone's school leaves the system wide open to discrimination, whether in an "old boys' club" sort of way or as mentioned above, someone possibly getting in just because they were in a disadvantaged school. The interview system in the UK works better than it would here because the population is so much bigger, so the chances of knowing someone involved in the application process are much smaller.
The bonus points for applicable subjects kind of makes sense, but for a lot it's pointless. eg. maths for an engineering course - lots of eng courses need a HC3 in maths anyway, so everybody getting in would get them. You could argue for bonus points for physics I suppose, but then that's not fair on someone from a small school which didn't have enough students to offer physics for LC.
+1
I don't see how taking the schools into account does anyone any justice. What good would it do? You're basically begging for discrimination! You'll either get "oh he went to Blackrock College? So did I, he's in!", OR you'll get "oh look, this guy managed to get 600 points despite living in a bad area/attending a bad school, lets admit him". Bias is absolutely guaranteed if they implement this kind of system.
Your parents income (rich or poor) really shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you are "worthy" of getting into university.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Well then you better write a letter to the parents of those in private shcool telling them their wasting their money. Your forgetting that private schools also have a better student teacher ratio. I also dont think that they are just going to judge on points and what school you go to. People will have to prove that they are right for that the course their aiming for.
Back to your original point though. Im sorry but someone who went to a school in a rough area, with high teacher to student ratio, where teachers who dont care and still got 500 points had a better achievment than someone who went to private school, grind school and had every other advantage in life. Im glad Trinity are recognising that.
Its not reverse discrimination its simply asking what advantages one student had over another in getting those points. Ie who worked harder. The points system didnt detail all the advantages one student had over another.
Yes, there's probably a better student/teacher ratio, but I still firmly believe that success in the leaving cert is mainly down to independent study. The way the system IS right now, rote learning works (not saying this is a good thing). If students can sit down and study, they will do well. You can do this in your own room. You don't need a fancy school, you just need discipline.
While I agree that a student coming from a bad school/area, working his ass off, and getting 600 points is admirable, I don't agree that they are more worthy of a place in university than a privileged student. They're both equally entitled imo.
If you're going to include "life obstacles" into the mix of university admissions, why not take into account personal crises, etc? What if a student from a private school lost his mother the year of the leaving cert? What if a girl's boyfriend broke up with her? What if they had depression or something? It's just so implausible.
Without delving into people personal lives, it is impossible to pick the 'right' student. How on earth could they decipher this looking at something as trivial as the school they attended or a kiss-ass admission letter. As it stands, everyone is on a level playing field, and that's how I believe it should be.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, there's probably a better student/teacher ratio, but I still firmly believe that success in the leaving cert is mainly down to independent study. The way the system IS right now, rote learning works (not saying this is a good thing). If students can sit down and study, they will do well. You can do this in your own room. You don't need a fancy school, you just need discipline.
While I agree that a student coming from a bad school/area, working his ass off, and getting 600 points is admirable, I don't agree that they are more worthy of a place in university than a privileged student. They're both equally entitled imo.
If you're going to include "life obstacles" into the mix of university admissions, why not take into account personal crises, etc? What if a student from a private school lost his mother the year of the leaving cert? What if a girl's boyfriend broke up with her? What if they had depression or something? It's just so implausible.
Without delving into people personal lives, it is impossible to pick the 'right' student. How on earth could they decipher this looking at something as trivial as the school they attended or a kiss-ass admission letter. As it stands, everyone is on a level playing field, and that's how I believe it should be.
Theres other posts I want to address but Ill get to this first. Unfortunatly not everyone is on a level playing field some are in private schools with a better student to teacher ratio. Some can afford grinds and some can not.
You dont have to take into account personal circumstances (graduate courses sometimes do) but I think its right you take into account educational circumstances. Its not about rich or poor but grind school or not, poor teacher-student ratio or good student teacher ratio. I wouldnt judge by the school alone either. I would however think that someone who achieved a certain mark without grind school a better student than someone who achieved the same mark with grinds and a better student teacher ratio.
Anyway context is only half of the proposal. Theres also an interview to see if your right for the course.0 -
Kids don't choose the family they are born into. Discriminating against those with resources is wrong.0
-
Kids don't choose the family they are born into. Discriminating against those with resources is wrong.
I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.0 -
WhiteRoses wrote: »I honestly can't fathom why they give extra points for maths, but not for extra subjects. What about people who excel at languages, but aren't mathematically minded?
I found maths impossible at school. I was pretty good at languages, especially Irish.
My best friend found Irish/English hard. She got spelling exemptions and a scribe to help her write out her answers in the LC, and I'd like to stress that she has NO learning disability of any sort, such as dyslexia, etc.
There is absolutely no type of exemption for those who find maths difficult, and on top of that, if your good at it, they'll now give you 25 extra points to boot. So unfair.
Because they emphasise and reward those who excel at maths, those who are strong in other subjects lose out. How is this even allowed?
I'm glad they're sorting the system out because at the moment its an absolute farce.
The idea is to encourage young people to give maths a chance rather than dismissing it as too hard. Once they realise it isn't as impossible as they once perceived, they might choose a more scientific path through college and their career. There has a drop off in young Irish people going into those sectors of late and they want to stimulate it. It is unfortunate for someone in your situation but there is a good chance you won't be competing for the same college places as more maths oriented people anyway. When I sat my leaving there was no extra points for maths, apparently in my dad's day they got double points!
Conversely, I would have hated to write a personal statement. I found english to be my toughest subject in school. I ended up getting a D2 and being delighted with it because failing that would have meant failing the whole damn thing. Writing a statement to supplement my hard work at maths related subjects would have been a huge crutch to me. At least in maths there is a right answer!0 -
Like someone else said it is just making them look like they see it is a problem and they have a "solution" that just covers it up. I did honours maths and think it's stupid. If they made it only in engineering and physics courses it would make a bit of sense but already you need a HC3 for engineering so it already means that only people with the 25 points get in. (theres a test if you dont get this but it is meant to be higher level standard)
I dont think courses should be based on what subjects you did for the leaving cert as it means that you have to have known what you wanted to do in third year. Courses like physics or chemistry could give more points to the related leaving cert subjects but I dont see anyone going on to do physics without already having done it.
Extra points for maths just gets people that can do it with a lot of work but dont think the time is worth it compared to dropping to pass and focusing on their other subjects. It will increase the numbers taking it a bit but overall the amount of people taking higher level will be a fraction of the total students. They need to change how the course is done, they are trying with project maths but I dont think it has been a huge success yet (could be wrong, when I did the leaving only a few schools did one of the project maths exams)
Their is no perfect solution. Points means we are anonymous with the best results getting places but people who have no interest in something can get in over someone who has always wanted to do the course. Interviews and letters means there can be bias but the people who want the course get in.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.
By how much? Or is it only to be used as a tiebreaker? What about the huge grinds market that may not be completely legitimate for tax purposes?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »By how much? Or is it only to be used as a tiebreaker? What about the huge grinds market that may not be completely legitimate for tax purposes?
I would only bring grinds into account if two students got the same points. Theres no other fair way to do it. We cant do anything about the grinds market but we can affect grind schools.0 -
Probably but this is a capitalist country so people who spend resources deserve to see results . I myself will be going for multiple grinds in 2 weeks time to prepare for my leaving cert. Let's say I get 500 points and so does another person without grinds. Is he a better student? Yes. Are his points worth more than mine? No. These points affects my future so spending money on grinds a tuition is a small investment to secure the course I want and live the life I want. Just cause the other person spent less or went to a different school does not mean I should be discriminated going for a university course.steddyeddy wrote: »Kids don't choose the family they are born into. Discriminating against those with resources is wrong.
I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »I would only bring grinds into account if two students got the same points. Theres no other fair way to do it. We cant do anything about the grinds market but we can affect grind schools.
I just can't fathom how you think going to a grinds school implies you didn't work as hard. I have lots of friends who went to the institute, and they worked so, so hard. You would actually penalise a student for attending a grinds school (in a 'tie-break' situation)? There is just no way of deciphering which students are the most 'hard-working', you're just making assumptions based on schools/areas/grinds. Who says the kids attending grinds schools have an easier time? In reality the students having the easiest time are the academically gifted, and they can come from any background.
What if the student who went to the 'bad' school (and didn't attend a grinds school) was just really smart, but didn't really work hard at all? There are just far too many irregularities.
I get what you're saying about it being a combination of factors for admission, but at the same time, the only one I can see as being any way feasible (and fair) is continuous assessment.0 -
I repeat people will work any system put in place. People getting 550-600 will still get what they want no matter what means testing is put in place. Anyone so innocent they don't work the system doesn't deserve a college place. Dog eat dog world I guess.0
-
Advertisement
-
Probably but this is a capitalist country so people who spend resources deserve to see results . I myself will be going for multiple grinds in 2 weeks time to prepare for my leaving cert. Let's say I get 500 points and so does another person without grinds. Is he a better student? Yes. Are his points worth more than mine? No. These points affects my future so spending money on grinds a tuition is a small investment to secure the course I want and live the life I want. Just cause the other person spent less or went to a different school does not mean I should be discriminated going for a university course.
Im a captalist to the bone as I keep explaining to people. But a child recieving the benifits of his parents money in order to further his own lifestyle isnt a capitalist idea I subscirbe too. I want to see each child earn his course on his own merits and not his parents wallet.
Your sort of answering your own question there. I hope to be a lecturer in an american university eventually (and maybe at an irish uni later in life) and I simply would want the better student. Ie those who did it without grind school and a in spite of a terrible student teacher ratio. Thats the point trinity have been making for years. The points system doesnt always tell you whos the best student. Students in this country are not at an equal footing. In the states and uk this is taken into account so I dont see why It cant be done here.0 -
I repeat people will work any system put in place. People getting 550-600 will still get what they want no matter what means testing is put in place. Anyone so innocent they don't work the system doesn't deserve a college place. Dog eat dog world I guess.
Well people who work the system in my experience do crap in college or just get a 2.2 degree. To do really well in most college course you cant "work the system" so I dont see how learning to do so in school will help.0 -
But it is not as if going to grinds means the points are guaranteed. Im just saying many students work hard. I am not good at languages but excel at maths and science yet I must pass Irish, French and English(I think) to get where I want to get. I could probably get a good grade with an insane amount of work but grinds lay it out good. I dunno. What your saying seems to be gifted students should get an unfair advantage. I am a good student and I don't see what's wrong with me doing what I can to get the best possible so I can study what I want. *Sigh* Am gonna do it anyway.. law in trinity here I come!steddyeddy wrote: »Probably but this is a capitalist country so people who spend resources deserve to see results . I myself will be going for multiple grinds in 2 weeks time to prepare for my leaving cert. Let's say I get 500 points and so does another person without grinds. Is he a better student? Yes. Are his points worth more than mine? No. These points affects my future so spending money on grinds a tuition is a small investment to secure the course I want and live the life I want. Just cause the other person spent less or went to a different school does not mean I should be discriminated going for a university course.
Im a captalist to the bone as I keep explaining to people. But a child recieving the benifits of his parents money in order to further his own lifestyle isnt a capitalist idea I subscirbe too. I want to see each child earn his course on his own merits and not his parents wallet.
Your sort of answering your own question there. I hope to be a lecturer in an american university eventually (and maybe at an irish uni later in life) and I simply would want the better student. Ie those who did it without grind school and a in spite of a terrible student teacher ratio. Thats the point trinity have been making for years. The points system doesnt always tell you whos the best student. Students in this country are not at an equal footing. In the states and uk this is taken into account so I dont see why It cant be done here.0 -
WhiteRoses wrote: »I honestly can't fathom why they give extra points for maths, but not for extra subjects. What about people who excel at languages, but aren't mathematically minded?
.....
Because they emphasise and reward those who excel at maths, those who are strong in other subjects lose out. How is this even allowed?
You could argue if your good at English you are at an advantage in all written subjects because you can phrase/word answers better for subjects such as history. Being forced to chose three language based subjects to get into university(English, Irish and French/German etc) is very unfair on those mathematically minded. Giving 25 extra points is only fair, as someone who is poor at maths can avoid counting it in there leaving cert while someone poor at language has to struggle along with 3 language based subjects, having to rely on those for points.0 -
No, it doesn't, and yes, they do.But it is not as if going to grinds means the points are guaranteed. Im just saying many students work hard.
There's nothing wrong with it, and the best of luck to you in your LC.I am a good student and I don't see what's wrong with me doing what I can to get the best possible so I can study what I want.
But would you not accept that life has given you an advantage over someone who is equally bright and equally hard-working, but whose parents can't afford grinds?
That doesn't mean that you have done anything wrong, and I for one am not trying to make you feel guilty.
Is it wrong of the state though to look at ways of acknowledging that some people have advantages that others haven't? ... and to attempt to level the playing field in other ways?0 -
If you look at the American system, by comparison, you'll see that students aren't forced to choose a career path before they start university. They can, but even if they do it's not an irrevocable choice. There's a strong "general education" track that everyone has to take. This is how the Wikipedia page for Harvard College (the model for much US tertiary education) puts it:
Compare that to UCD, where students going in must at least choose between Arts, Science, Engineering, etc. - and if they choose Arts, it's a massive hassle switching to e.g. Engineering after just one year.Midway through the second year, most undergraduates join one of fifty standard fields of concentration (what most schools call an academic major); many also declare a secondary field (called minors elsewhere). Joint concentrations (combining the requirements of two standard concentrations) and special concentrations (of the student's own design) are also possible.
Undergraduates must also fulfill the General Education requirement of coursework in eight designated fields:
- Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding
- Culture and Belief
- Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning
- Ethical Reasoning
- Science of Living Systems
- Science of the Physical Universe
- Societies of the World
- United States in the World
It can be said that the "real" US education doesn't start until you start Graduate school e.g. Harvard University. This was the premise of the film Legally Blonde, for example: the main character did not study Law at undergraduate level at all, yet she was admitted to Harvard Law (the graduate school) and did OK.From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.
— Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
0 -
randylonghorn wrote: »
I know where your coming from but is there really anyway to level this playing field for everyone? I hate that other students who's parents send them to gaelscoils get an easy A1 in Irish and an extra 10% on every exam just because they speak a language where jobs are held up by gov grants or legislation? Im not naturally great at laniages yet it will hinder me goin for maths and science type course. If I could I would study chemistry, physics, maths, business, accounting and ag science but I can't, I'm stuck with French, English, Irish, maths , physics, chemistry and business. The system quite literally is crippling me. I'd love a fair system but only if it's 100%.There's nothing wrong with it, and the best of luck to you in your LC.
But would you not accept that life has given you an advantage over someone who is equally bright and equally hard-working, but whose parents can't afford grinds?
Is it wrong of the state though to look at ways of acknowledging that some people have advantages that others haven't? ... and to attempt to level the playing field in other ways?
Why is it that a student good at linguistics can study more subjects that suit them and apply for the same courses as a maths, science or business minded person, the extra 25 marks but help 10% for Irish speakers!! Come On! There are many levels in our system and and as with all systems those with the least resources are at the bottom.0 -
I've a feeling those with money for grind schools and private grinds would have no problem with American style fees but that would be the unfairest of all.If you look at the American system, by comparison, you'll see that students aren't forced to choose a career path before they start university. They can, but even if they do it's not an irrevocable choice. There's a strong "general education" track that everyone has to take. This is how the Wikipedia page for Harvard College (the model for much US tertiary education) puts it:
Compare that to UCD, where students going in must at least choose between Arts, Science, Engineering, etc. - and if they choose Arts, it's a massive hassle switching to e.g. Engineering after just one year.Midway through the second year, most undergraduates join one of fifty standard fields of concentration (what most schools call an academic major); many also declare a secondary field (called minors elsewhere). Joint concentrations (combining the requirements of two standard concentrations) and special concentrations (of the student's own design) are also possible.
Undergraduates must also fulfill the General Education requirement of coursework in eight designated fields:
- Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding
- Culture and Belief
- Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning
- Ethical Reasoning
- Science of Living Systems
- Science of the Physical Universe
- Societies of the World
- United States in the World
It can be said that the "real" US education doesn't start until you start Graduate school e.g. Harvard University. This was the premise of the film Legally Blonde, for example: the main character did not study Law at undergraduate level at all, yet she was admitted to Harvard Law (the graduate school) and did OK.0 -
randylonghorn wrote: »
Is it wrong of the state though to look at ways of acknowledging that some people have advantages that others haven't? ... and to attempt to level the playing field in other ways?
I think that it is fundamentally wrong for the state not to even attempt to provide a balanced system of second level education for all.
That's the only real way that you create a level playing field.0 -
Advertisement
-
People with money will always get what is perceived to be a "better" education to everyone else. Fee paying private schools to cater for the minds of the elite will always exist and they will continue to educate thousands across the country.
The government should put effort into allowing kids from ordinary secondary schools gain easier access to university either through bonus points or a complete over haul of the leaving cert. Better to focus attention on this rather than whining about the wealthy who can afford the posh boarding schools.
Fee paying private schools will always be around, but as long as the current 3rd level entry route system exists, so too will the belief that the wealthy are afforded much much easier access to university.
More effort should be made by government into getting the larger majority of students from ordinary middle/working class backgrounds into college. That will level the playing field, and let the fat cats with plenty of money continue to privately educate, as is their right to do so.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement