NUI to be dissolved

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.

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This does not relate to the topic at hand, or the post I was responding to.

The Corinthian

Red_Marauder wrote: »

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

Academic ability and results - I would be careful about a direct correlation between leaving cert points and intellect, or whether intelligence alone entitles one to go to college.

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.

Irrelevant. It does not matter why the points have gone up or down, only that they have, allowing people with lower academic scores to enter college.

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

Points for entry into courses? Looking briefly at the figures for the last ten or so years, they've decreased. Overall LC standards may have improved and more students may be getting more points in general, but that is not what we're addressing.

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.

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?

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.

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. Finally, there's no shortage of material on the Interweb that also comments on the drop in entry requirements over the last two decades.

As to taking 'the above' into account, how is any of that relevant to lower entry points into courses?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

brianthebard wrote: »

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.

Sorry, but that's not how statistics work. You think there are plenty of students who not happy with secondary level education who improve at third level, but how many are they? 90%? 10%?

We're not discussing the exception when measuring overall standard, we're measuring the rule.

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.

No I'm not suggesting that bad students are inflating grades. My original post on the lower entry points was refuting that the abolition of fees had magically created a meritocracy where students were suddenly smarter or more academically gifted.

We do know that a) entry points in general (not in all cases) have dropped over the last two decades. We also know that final degree grades awarded have substantially increased over the same period.

As such, if there has been no change in quality of degree, then we would have to conclude that the quality of teaching has improved to the level that it has been able to improve these academically weaker students. The only other possibility is that the quality of degree has dropped.

Which do you think is the more likely?

TJJP

The Corinthian wrote: »

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).

+ 1, honary NUI Degree for you.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Read the thread, as I pointed out a day ago, NUI have little role in this space. The Unis and HEA ceeded responsibility to the IUQB (www.iuqb.ie). Soon to merge with HETAC, FETAC and NQAI.

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but that's not how statistics work. You think there are plenty of students who not happy with secondary level education who improve at third level, but how many are they? 90%? 10%?

We're not discussing the exception when measuring overall standard, we're measuring the rule.

I didn't think you were discussing statistics either, you asked what the possibilities of a student improving at third level was, the answer which I'm sure you know is far more complex than whether they got a lot of points or not, for reasons I mentioned and others.

The Corinthian

brianthebard wrote: »

I didn't think you were discussing statistics either, you asked what the possibilities of a student improving at third level was, the answer which I'm sure you know is far more complex than whether they got a lot of points or not, for reasons I mentioned and others.

You're not making sense. You mentioned numerous facilities that should improve students prior to third level, for their LC. And most of these have been around for decades, so either way their citing is irrelevant.

Even if students changing their academic level in college does happen, it is the exception rather than the rule - mediocre students do become brilliant ones, but generally they don't. You seem to want to rely upon these exceptions to prove your point, and that too makes no sense when discussing trends.

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're not making sense. You mentioned numerous facilities that should improve students prior to third level, for their LC. And most of these have been around for decades, so either way their citing is irrelevant.

What facilities? I think you're referring to a different poster.

Even if students changing their academic level in college does happen, it is the exception rather than the rule - mediocre students do become brilliant ones, but generally they don't. You seem to want to rely upon these exceptions to prove your point, and that too makes no sense when discussing trends.

I don't know how you can make that assertion without a study to back it up? I'm not being smart, I genuinely don't know how you can suggest, much less prove that a majority of students who were mediocre at LC level did or did not improve at 3rd level without some sort of study.

Again I fail to see how this relates to the issue of the dissolution of the NUI.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.