NUI to be dissolved

brianthebard

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0121/1224262782579.html

For the sake of 3 million the government has decided to dissolve this organisation, which oversees a number of the biggest universities in Ireland. It seems to me a pointless move which attempts to use smoke and mirrors as economic policy, since the NUI will obviously have to be replaced with something else, either by each individual university or collectively, effectively meaning there will be little to no real savings made. It seems pointlessly disruptive and damaging to Ireland's university system. thoughts?

P. Breathnach

The NUI has a relationship with some of our universities but not with others. Is there a discernible benefit from that relationship?

Why does the NUI have to be replaced by something else? We already have the HEA.

brianthebard

I think there is a benefit to knowing there is a similar standard in the degrees awarded between universities in the nui. Many of them work together on interuniversity projects, made easier by the nui framework. There are funding and scholarship programmes run by the nui.

The article I linked to states that the workers at the nui will most likely be redeployed to a new agency which does much the same thing anyways.

If the HEA took the place of the nui it would still have to fulfill the duties of the nui, such as paying external examiners as mentioned in the article, making the dissolution fairly pointless.

Red_Marauder

For the sake of 3 million the government has decided to dissolve this organisation, which oversees a number of the biggest universities in Ireland. It seems to me a pointless move which attempts to use smoke and mirrors as economic policy, since the NUI will obviously have to be replaced with something else, either by each individual university or collectively

Three million euro, in terms of figures that usually get discussed in economic debate, is not an enormous sum. But it is a significant amount of money that could be put to far greater use.
It costs €187,500 per bed in building a new hospital wing. Perhaps that is better use for the money, for example. Or how about increasing the budget for psychiatric services?

In this period of economic downturn, it is time to re-evaluate how we spend our money and where; yes, even down to the paltry sum of €3 million.
Failure to spend wisely in the past was been a symptom of our financial mania and has put us in a very tough situation that we should be careful to avoid repeating.

I'm not really sure why you suggest the NUI needs to be replaced by anything at all resembling that, or any, union?

johnnyskeleton

Does that mean that degrees issued by NUI will now be worthless?

Sulmac

I'd rather they merge all third level institutes outside Dublin into a "University of Ireland" and all those in Dublin into a new "University of Dublin" (yes, I know that's Trinity's official name as it stands, before anyone starts).

That would save a good bit of money in terms of administration but still allow for ease of cooperation between the colleges.

edit: Also, has any thought been given into the three senators elected from the NUI graduates? What happens to them now - will all graduates of all third level colleges be given a vote?

I'd still prefer they abolish the entire Seanad, though.

brianthebard

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not really sure why you suggest the NUI needs to be replaced by anything at all resembling that, or any, union?

Because the role of the NUI will still have to be fulfilled, and the costs that running universities have such as the aforementioned external examiners will still have to be met. There will be a significantly smaller saving available in the end than suggested. Out of the numerous suggestions of the McCarthy report this is the one which is being pushed through quickly, because it only concerns 15 employees (afaik) and is an easy way of appearing to be rationalising costs when in reality its just a soft target. As for the money being spent on beds, the HSE had to return several tens of millions to the exchequer a year or two ago because they failed to spend it all-an extra 3 million is not about to fix the health system in Ireland.

TJJP

brianthebard wrote: »

For the sake of 3 million the government has decided to dissolve this organisation, which oversees a number of the biggest universities in Ireland.

Which ones? There are only 7, and the NUI covers UCC, NUIG and NUIM and a few others. All can (and probably should) stand on their own feet.

brianthebard wrote: »

I think there is a benefit to knowing there is a similar standard in the degrees awarded between universities in the nui.

There is, it's called the IUQB and covers all the Uni's and their constituent colleges.

brianthebard wrote: »

Many of them work together on interuniversity projects, made easier by the nui framework. There are funding and scholarship programmes run by the nui.

Many of of them collaborate on SFI, SIF and PRTLI projects too. Others don't. NUI has run its course (pardon the pun).

brianthebard wrote: »

There are funding and scholarship programmes run by the nui.

There are also less 'selective' programmes ran by SFI and the Research Councils.

brianthebard wrote: »

If the HEA took the place of the nui it would still have to fulfill the duties of the nui, such as paying external examiners as mentioned in the article, making the dissolution fairly pointless.[/

It's likely NUI functions will transfer to a new 'QAA' replacing IUQB, NQAI, HETAC and FETAC rather than the HEA. Quality is an IUQB, NQAI, HETAC and FETAC area of expertise, the NUI was a camel, and an old mangey one...

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does that mean that degrees issued by NUI will now be worthless?

Of course not, why would anyone even suggest such a thing?

Red_Marauder

Sulmac wrote: »

edit: Also, has any thought been given into the three senators elected from the NUI graduates? What happens to them now - will all graduates of all third level colleges be given a vote?

I'd still prefer they abolish the entire Seanad, though.

The NUI rule can be changed by govt. legislation ever since the 1979 amendment to the Constitution, and certainly the wording will be changed now; though whether the situation itself changes remains to be seen. I hope it does.

Because the role of the NUI will still have to be fulfilled, and the costs that running universities have such as the aforementioned external examiners will still have to be met.

I'm not very familiar with how it's going to work, but are we not just basically repealing the 1908 Universities Act? And won't the Universities just operate independently, meaning that there is no role to be fulfilled on a collective basis anymore?

TJJP

Sulmac wrote: »

edit: Also, has any thought been given into the three senators elected from the NUI graduates? What happens to them now - will all graduates of all third level colleges be given a vote?

Would anyone really notice?.... (sorry.... I mean, I'd miss Norris <oops TCD so not affected?> but after that....)

TJJP

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not very familiar with how it's going to work, but are we not just basically repealing the 1908 Universities Act? And won't the Universities just operate independently, meaning that there is no role to be fulfilled on a collective basis anymore?

More like an update to the 1997 Universities Act, 2006 IOT's act, 1974 HEA Act and then all the NQAI stuff. There are a few historical hangovers and there would need to be knock-on legislative reform, but it won't be the end of the civilised world I'd reckon.

Sulmac

TJJP wrote: »

Would anyone really notice?.... (sorry.... I mean, I'd miss Norris but after that....)

True, most people couldn't care less! Though, to be pedantic for a second, Norris is elected from Trinity graduates, so he's safe for the time being. :P

TJJP

Sulmac wrote: »

True, most people couldn't care less! Though, to be pedantic for a second, Norris is elected from Trinity graduates, so he's safe for the time being. :P

Yup, realised that about 2 mins too late! (-:

johnnyskeleton

TJJP wrote: »

Of course not, why would anyone even suggest such a thing?

I'm thinking that to explain how the university that gave you your degree was dissolved but it's still just as good as it was before would be a hard sell to an American employer.

What happens when they look for this "NUI" or "Universitas Hiberniae Nationalis" to discover that there is no such thing anymore. They might keep an office for a year or two to clarify this for US firms, but after that how do they enquire as to the validity of the degree?

I know that if someone applied for a job with me and said they had a degree from the National University of New Zealand which no longer exists I would assume it must be some two bit college in the back end of nowhere. For them to explain that it had devolved into the Universities of Wellington, Aukland and Christchurch would sound a bit made up to me.

At best, the degrees will have been diminished from being from the biggest university in Ireland to being from the third, fourth and (what's UCG, fifth or sixth) and whatever Maynooth is biggest universities in Ireland and that would in my view diminish them.

Don't forget as well that one of the few things in Trinity, Oxford etc that actually do date back to the 16th century or whenever is the existence of the university body. The buildings, the colleges, the degree programmes have come and gone over the years.

TJJP

http://www.qualificationsrecognition.ie/recognition/

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

I think there is a benefit to knowing there is a similar standard in the degrees awarded between universities in the nui.

This isn't at all the case. There is considerable difference in the quality of undergraduate degrees across the NUI from an academic standpoint. The different colleges have varying levels of strength across their departments which is very understandable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TJJP

nesf wrote: »

This isn't at all the case. There is considerable difference in the quality of undergraduate degrees across the NUI from an academic standpoint. The different colleges have varying levels of strength across their departments which is very understandable.

Which likely defeats the purpose of the NUI. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Likely an unfair comparison. Rumours of grade inflation abound, with little proof (this is an NUI discussion <not UCD, TCD, UL & DCU isn't it?). The make-up of the undergraduate population has changed utterly over the period (98-08), as has quality of life. Perhaps the college going population has changed and their standards at entry have also varied.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They may (pardon the NUIM pun), but it's likely they won't. Both are NUIG and NUIM are excellent at what they do. Names change, standards only improve. Any NUIG or NUIM grad should (and will) be well able to hold their place in any jobs market.

Pride Fighter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Post 1994 more people have been able to go to University that could not before due to it being too expensive. These people worked hard for their first class degrees, the statistics you posted proves that the current system of free fees works.

That's really not the case. The institutions that awarded the degrees will continue to exist. Some of them may have to be renamed (I'm thinking of NUI Galway and NUI Maynooth, in particular) but they aren't disappearing.

That may be true but if one has a degree from what some might consider a small town of 10-20,000 or small city of 80-100,000 it does not sound as impressive as having a degree from the National University of Ireland, Ireland being a population of millions. The abolition of the NUI will diminish degrees from NUIG/NUIM and the smaller colleges affiliated. UCC and UCD will survive due to a large student body but the abolition of the NUI is a retrograde step. It will also have to be replaced with another body, that will need to hire a new CEO, that will have to brand itself. Why rebrand a 102 year old brand that has prestige all over the world? Its madness.

nesf

TJJP wrote: »

Which likely defeats the purpose of the NUI. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Yeah but a lot of it is historical reasons plus varying levels of research achievement in different departments. Departments will be heterogeneous, it's not like (and should never become) like the secondary school system.

nesf

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Post 1994 more people have been able to go to University that could not before due to it being too expensive. These people worked hard for their first class degrees, the statistics you posted proves that the current system of free fees works.

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FlutterinBantam

brianthebard wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0121/1224262782579.html

For the sake of 3 million the government has decided to dissolve this organisation, which oversees a number of the biggest universities in Ireland. It seems to me a pointless move which attempts to use smoke and mirrors as economic policy, since the NUI will obviously have to be replaced with something else, either by each individual university or collectively, effectively meaning there will be little to no real savings made. It seems pointlessly disruptive and damaging to Ireland's university system. thoughts?

Anything that saves taxpayers money and cuts the comfort blanket from the waffling pompous drones who like to think they are contributing anything other than bulldust and theoretical tosh gets my vote.

Red_Marauder

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There was a whole different thread about this an I'm wary of opening up that can of worms again, but since you do bring it up it should be commented upon.
You cannot say that grades have improved, therefore standards have fallen. To make that assertion, there must be evidence of falling standards. Falling standards is one element in a whole pool of possibilities to explain grade improvements, including access to information, increased funding and university facilities, improvements in the quality of academic appointments, an so on.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of grade inflation, I'm just saying that the corroboratory evidence has not been produced.
To prove grade inflation you need to prove more than just an increase in the proportion of honours and higher honours degrees awarded.

I think you're overestimating the global "prestige" of the NUI. Most of its constituent institutions are pedestrian by international standards. Having studied in the USA, I know that even internationally renowned, well-connected academics have never heard of the NUI.

Totally agree with this. The argument that the NUI carries some sort of international prestige is completely legless, as is another claim made that this step will devalue the recognition of these degrees by prospective employers.

I am a UCD graduate and I never thought of alluding to the NUI on my CV, and my parchment is in a defunct language which none of my employers or potential employers understood to my knowledge (ie Latin). I'm glad to say these issues have never been relevant factors in my considerable failures to gain employment!

They will have heard of Trinity, and maybe UCD, but that's it. If you asked them, "What is the national university of Ireland?" I'm betting most would reflexively respond "Trinity College." Ironically.

Perhaps, but it largely depends on the inividuals. Many well known academics in the respective fields of Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine and the Bio-sciences will have heard of UCD, medical and dental science experts may be more familiar with UCC, and researchers in the physical sciences may be very familiar with Trinity. It's quite a broad spectrum in fairness.
I don't know how it all works in the humanities, maybe they all revere All Hallows or something.

The Corinthian

Financially I don't think it makes a lot of a difference to the government. There will be savings, but as has been pointed out, they will be offset by the additional costs that the colleges will have to incur to carry out things that the NUI did - which, when you come down to it, was not all that much.

The main difference will likely be for the colleges themselves. The big winner will be UCD, that has long felt that it was being dragged down by the 'lesser' NUI colleges. This naturally will mean that with degrees and other qualifications no longer coming from the NUI, each college will have to seek individual recognition for those degrees and other qualifications it confers.

Within Ireland, this will have limited to no impact, I suspect.

Outside, is another matter. NUI degrees are recognised internationally, and degrees from UCD, UCC and others will continue to be recognised. But some of the smaller, more obscure, colleges will have greater difficulty - a bachelors degree from the Shannon College of Hotel Management is going to lose a fair whack of its sell-ability when it is no longer 'the same' as one from UCD, for example, and when it loses that it'll lose the foreign students and the fee income they generate.

Even some of the larger colleges will suffer because of international lack of recognition; Maynooth and UCG are good colleges, for example - but they're not UCD. From an international perspective, as has been pointed out, there is Trinity and, maybe, UCD. That's it. The outside World neither knows nor cares about the rest. That too will affect foreign admissions.

As such UCD is the only major winner, as are (ironically) colleges who get their degrees accredited by either UCD or Trinity. The value of every one else's degree will diminish abroad.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even some of the larger colleges will suffer because of international lack of recognition; Maynooth and UCG are good colleges, for example - but they're not UCD. From an international perspective, as has been pointed out, there is Trinity and, maybe, UCD. That's it. The outside World neither knows nor cares about the rest. That too will affect foreign admissions.

Untrue really. While parts of UCC languish in obscurity, some departments have good international reputations and many links formed with departments in major US universities. In overall rankings UCC lags behind UCD most certainly but that applies more to some departments than others.

ei.sdraob

hmm wtf

NUI colleges must have spend millions on branding alone

and what will happen to websites then? it took them years to get that right here in galways nuig.ie

Queens College > UCG > NUIG > ???

The Corinthian

nesf wrote: »

Untrue really. While parts of UCC languish in obscurity, some departments have good international reputations and many links formed with departments in major US universities. In overall rankings UCC lags behind UCD most certainly but that applies more to some departments than others.

In some circles many of the lesser know colleges are respected, I don't depute that. UCC and Maynooth are both respected academically for some of their departments. But I am not talking about how good some, or even all, of their academic standards are - only their (name) recognition abroad.

For your average graduate going for a commercial job abroad, it'll make a difference as in most areas no one will have heard of UCC, much less UCG or Maynooth. The Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy? Forget it.

In a World where employers get endless CV's from graduates of the Bangagistan Institute of Business, recognition goes a long way. NUI gave that to those Irish colleges that had limited international visibility.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

In some circles many of the lesser know colleges are respected, I don't depute that. UCC and Maynooth are both respected academically for some of their departments. But I am not talking about how good some, or even all, of their academic standards are - only their (name) recognition abroad.

For your average graduate going for a commercial job abroad, it'll make a difference as in most areas no one will have heard of UCC, much less UCG or Maynooth. The Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy? Forget it.

In a World where employers get endless CV's from graduates of the Bangagistan Institute of Business, recognition goes a long way. NUI gave that to those Irish colleges that had limited international visibility.

I accept your point on that.

Pride Fighter

nesf wrote: »

That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

It does not make sense to people of the right. But post 1994 the Irish University system has been a meritocracy not a closed shop for those who can afford it. The abolition of fees means that smarter people can do degrees when they never could before, hence Donegalfella's stat of an increase in first class degrees.

nesf

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It does not make sense to people of the right. But post 1994 the Irish University system has been a meritocracy not a closed shop for those who can afford it. The abolition of fees means that smarter people can do degrees when they never could before, hence Donegalfella's stat of an increase in first class degrees.

A meritocracy? A blind monkey with a hangover could get into an Irish university these days.

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

A meritocracy? A blind monkey with a hangover could get into an Irish university these days.

Yes they could if they got the appropriate points. They wouldn't get a first degree though which was the issue in question.

Can we please get back to the original issues of whether or not it is a good idea to dissolve the NUI system, whether people believe the cost savings predicted are accurate, and whether this particular aspect of the McCarthy report should be implemented ahead of many bigger saving ideas?

The Corinthian

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It does not make sense to people of the right. But post 1994 the Irish University system has been a meritocracy not a closed shop for those who can afford it. The abolition of fees means that smarter people can do degrees when they never could before, hence Donegalfella's stat of an increase in first class degrees.

LOL. Love your post, if only for it's silliness.

Firstly you make the assumption that cost was the primary reason for people from poorer backgrounds not going to university. In reality, even before 1994 there were numerous means tested grants available that allowed people from underprivileged backgrounds to go to college - three of my closest friends availed of them.

I did not come from such a background myself, but was repeatedly told that going to college was the exception rather than the rule where they lived, not because of cost, but because of peer pressure - if there's one thing that is classless in Ireland it's begrudgery.

Secondly you assume that this opened the door to smarter students. Then why, in that case, did the CAO points drop for entry into those courses post 1994?

When the abolition of fees came in it was considered a bit of a cynical joke by Labour, if I remember correctly, by many in USI and the various student unions. In reality the biggest winners were, ironically, the PAYE middle classes.

Red_Marauder

nesf wrote: »

A meritocracy? A blind monkey with a hangover could get into an Irish university these days.

These days? My Grandfather used to tell the story of how he saw an agricultural science paper the first time for the morning of his exams, scraped by, and ended up with a place studying in the Veterinary College. That was in the 1930s.

Ask any graduate who studied at an irish university the 1980s or 1990s how difficult it was to gain a place at university and you will see that simply gaining a place has never in itself been an extraordinary challenge. Nothing has changed there, it is nothing new.

Like it or not, for areas such as the professions, at least, we can now be certain that it is the brightest students who are in the top few percentage points nationally gaining places at university, not quite blind monkeys with hangovers. That is new.
Having said that, the points system is a system that admits students in terms of supply and demand, not academic merit per se, and doesn't pretend to do so.

FlutterinBantam

Anything which wipes out the Michael D Higgins school of waffleage has my vote.

Our universities a chock full of fat bloated academics who earn a king's ransom for spouting rubbish to the dullards who partake in the pseudo academia so prevalent in out third level courses today.

Flush out these gimps who pontificate their obtuse unworkable dogma, and allow people better versed in the day to day social intercourse and commercial practice to avail of the funds these profligate people throw like chaff to the winds.


Wise up John Q Taxpayer, you are being plundered by these mealy mouthed chalk dusted straw men, who draw their support from those of us afraid to tell them to pay their way or start earning their keep.:mad:

brianthebard

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Anything which wipes out the Michael D Higgins school of waffleage has my vote.

Our universities a chock full of fat bloated academics who earn a king's ransom for spouting rubbish to the dullards who partake in the pseudo academia so prevalent in our third level courses today.

Flush out these gimps who pontificate their obtuse unworkable dogma, and allow people better versed in the day to day social intercourse and commercial practice to avail of the funds these profligate people throw like chaff to the winds.


Wise up John Q Taxpayer, you are being plundered by these mealy mouthed chalk dusted straw men, who draw their support from those of us afraid to tell them to pay their way or start earning their keep.:mad:

Did you read my op or the link? The proposal has nothing to do with anything you mentioned above, so supporting the dissolution of the NUI will do nothing.

Red_Marauder

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Our universities a chock full of fat bloated academics who earn a king's ransom for spouting rubbish to the dullards who partake in the pseudo academia so prevalent in out third level courses today.

Academic salaries are not King's ransoms, lecturers start on €35k, and that is typically after about seven years of training which includes a PhD and is all pretty expensive and underfunded.
Given their qualifications, many could earn more in the private sector, especially in science and technology.

I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing, abolishing entire faculties because their area of research doesn't interest you or isn't all about "day to day" activities? because it seems to me that people are just using any excuse whatsover (in this case a news piece about the NUI) to simply knock everything to do with university education for no clear or proven reasons.

FlutterinBantam

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0320/1224243125234.html


These are the punters I refer to friend, and there are plenty of them:cool:

Red_Marauder

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

These are the punters I refer to friend, and there are plenty of them:cool:

I think those salaries are very high, probably too high in many cases. But no, there are not plenty of them, those people are heads of Universities. There are a very limited number

Also, it's interesting to note that the President of UCDs salary is only comparable to the salary paid to a Medical Consultant (which he happens to be, from a previous life) and he is receiving no increase for being the President of a University like UCD with all of the responsibility and influence for Irish third level education that holds.

I do think those particularly high salaries need to fall, but then so do most very high salaries. These are certainly the exception rather than the rule when it comes to academic pay, though. Most people earn considerably less.

FlutterinBantam

:eek:

50 million in salaries, and there is not plenty of them!!!

200 at .25m. a year seems plenty to me.

Time someone gave these people a shoe in the rear end and suggested that instead of indulging themselves in obscure and arcain reshearch, that they try and justify their salaries, rather than becoming talking heads for the many radio stations who condone,and can't see through their output.:mad:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red_Marauder

The Corinthian wrote: »

you assume that this opened the door to smarter students. Then why, in that case, did the CAO points drop for entry into those courses post 1994?

No no no. That isn't how the CAO works. CAO points drop when supply of places increases. If I know I only need 300 points to get a place studying arts, I'm going to go out on weekends, still go to training, and only put in a few hours study per week. It's about meeting the demand based on popularity, nothing acadmic about it at all

That's the key point. We now have lesser qualified students going to college, but emerging with a seemingly higher standard of degree

This has been done to death. If you get an A1 in English, and barely pass everything else (getting about 300 points), you could still get an honours degree in English because you are an exceptional English student. It doesn't mean your degree is worthless at all.

The leaving cert is too broad to be compared with a specific degree subject. It's chalk and cheese, you cannot expect a serious correlation!
Students will always do better in subjects they are good at as opposed to the mandatory nature of the Leaving cert.

The Corinthian

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is it their job though? I have a vague recolection of a new body that was created about ten years ago to oversee degree quality. I could be wrong, but if not it does beg the question of what the NUI actually do (apart from charge silly money for replacement degree parchments).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No no no. That isn't how the CAO works. CAO points drop when supply of places increases. If I know I only need 300 points to get a place studying arts, I'm going to go out on weekends, still go to training, and only put in a few hours study per week. It's about meeting the demand based on popularity, nothing acadmic about it at all

How does that invalidate my point? Regardless of whether the mechanism for falling points was supply and demand or the tooth fairy, the end result remains - students with lower LC grades getting into university.

The leaving cert is too broad to be compared with a specific degree subject. It's chalk and cheese, you cannot expect a serious correlation!
Students will always do better than what they are good at.

Actually we are comparing like with like - LC results over the last twenty years. Unless you want to suggest that there has been a significant shift towards specialization in LC subjects, then the data would indicate a general decline in overall academic results, at the LC level, over the last two decades.

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote: »

How does that invalidate my point? Regardless of whether the mechanism for falling points was supply and demand or the tooth fairy, the end result remains - students with lower LC grades getting into university.

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.

Red_Marauder

The Corinthian wrote: »

How does that invalidate my point? Regardless of whether the mechanism for falling points was supply and demand or the tooth fairy, the end result remains - students with lower LC grades getting into university.

But if there are thousands more university places than twenty years ago, then of course, it is inevitable. It is simple sypply and demand logic.

However, you made a direct correlation between smart students and leaving cert points. That just can't be done with any degree of confidence.

The reasons are twofold. Firstly, the leaving cert is an incredibly broad exam that spans at least six subjects for the purposes of the CAO. Someone who is very strong in European languages could end up with only 2 A1s and fail everything in Maths and Science, that doesn't make them less smart. It makes them less of an all rounder.
Secondly, the problem with the CAO is that people are using it as a marker for how hard they need to study. Choosing to study a course that requires minimum points does not motivate students to perform at their best. If I only had to get half the points I did in my exam, I would never have attended evening study, weekend study, grinds, or revision courses. It would have been totally pointless.

While you are correct to say that points required to gain entry to University have not risen, this is because of a huge increase in availability - a flood in the market of available places, if you will.

Actually we are comparing like with like - LC results over the last twenty years. Unless you want to suggest that there has been a significant shift towards specialization in LC subjects, then the data would indicate a general decline in overall academic results, at the LC level, over the last two decades.

Lets be clear here, points have, after all, risen. That has been the trend.

You cannot ignore the possibilities of revision courses, a huge variety of new publications, the increasing availability of past papers, the formation of a very user friendly SEC which now provides teachers and students with sample 'ideal' answers for exams, detailed marking schemes, and so on. Then there has been the rise in availability of specialist preparatory schools for maximising points, such as The Institute of Education, increased funding for schools generally, and increased access to information resources such as science multimedia and internet resources that were not around 20 years ago.

I'm not saying that I know for a fact that standards have changed. I just think it is interesting that you provide no such evidence, and do not seem to take the above into account.

The Corinthian

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.

Naturally, but is the standard of what enters not a good metre, for large groups, of what will leave?

If a mediocre student enters college, what do you think are their chances of coming out as a brilliant one? Better than a student who was brilliant going in?

FlutterinBantam

Beg to differ buddy, what you leave with and is important to the general advantage of human endeavour and advancement, is what's important to me.

To leave with the stale whiff of the entrails of of some disparaged philosophy and failed philosopher, to me brings no reward for the investement in education.

Rather indulges the selfish and self righteous nature of the student, and quite frankly is about as much use to the human race as a chocolate fireguard.

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote: »

Naturally, but is the standard of what enters not a good metre, for large groups, of what will leave?

If a mediocre student enters college, what do you think are their chances of coming out as a brilliant one? Better than a student who was brilliant going in?

I think there are plenty of students who are not happy with secondary level education who improve at third level, so there is a chance. Likewise there are lots of people who are great at memorising and get 500+ points but have problems at uni level because they are no longer rewarded for the same things.

But again that's not the point, the context was grade inflation, you can't suggest that bad students are inflating grades, they're the ones leaving with 2.2's and lower.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.