Munster ITs propose united "Munster Technological University"

Eliot Rosewater

CIT, LIT and Tralee IT want to unite as a large "technological" university. The new university status must be granted by the government.

This seems to me to be just a PR strategy. In an Examiner article the President of CIT said that institutes of technology had, as a title, a poor reputation in people's minds. It's worth emphasizing that this is an Irish phenomenon. The latest world QS rankings have MIT third, Caltech 12th and the Swiss Federal IT, ETH, 18th. For comparison, Trinity College is 65th. So, if not the label, what are peoples' real concerns about Irish ITs?

I think that there's nothing stopping CIT, LIT and Tralee IT merging into a South Muster IT and doing exactly what they want to do less the MTU label. The whole thing seems to be aimed at the label itself. Is this designed to brush criticisms that have been leveled at them under the carpet with a new title?

Then, what affect will this have on the other universities in Ireland? The standards in ITs aren't going to change with a new label, and the average standard of universities in Ireland will necessarily decrease. Will this affect the reputation of Irish universites abroad?

Brussels Sprout

The sad fact is that yes absolutely this will make a difference. I remember in secondary school otherwise intelligent people in my class thought that a degree obtained from an institute of technology was technically inferior to a degree obtained from a university (as in they were different NFQ levels). You also have to remember that some 17 and 18 years olds aren't very mature and they will take perceived prestige into account.

From my own observations I think that people from cities tend to look down on the ITs more so than people from rural areas. In the case of Cork many people from the city simply refuse to entertain the idea of going to CIT even if there are courses there that might otherwise interest them. I chose to go to CIT and in my class of 30 only 3 of us were from the city and none of the others were from urban areas. I later did a Masters in UCC and the majority of the class were from cities.

Godge

If we want an informed discussion on this rather than a unintelligble discussion, people should probably read some of the background material. Here is a page on the Higher Education Authority website that has some information.

http://www.hea.ie/strategy


Below is a link to the Higher Education Strategy itself. Plenty of explanation in both links for the reasons for a change in status/name/terminology/institution/whatever



http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1303

nesf

This makes little to no sense to me when we already have funding cuts and falling standards in our current universities.

Eliot Rosewater

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The sad fact is that yes absolutely this will make a difference. I remember in secondary school otherwise intelligent people in my class thought that a degree obtained from an institute of technology was technically inferior to a degree obtained from a university (as in they were different NFQ levels). You also have to remember that some 17 and 18 years olds aren't very mature and they will take perceived prestige into account.

In fairness, the quality of the institution you go to can make a difference. There were rumors circulating a while back that some companies had put ITs on blacklists and refused to hire their graduates as they were concerned about standards. If you want to go abroad, it helps if you have attended a better known institution.

One can also make arguments that universities do have better standards than ITs. For one thing, their points requirements are typically much higher. This means that they can teach courses at a higher level as entering students are better prepared for such academic work. The engineering courses in UCC provide anecdotal evidence of this (and given the sizes of the courses, strong evidence). Undergraduate engineers in UCC have to go through a grueling mathematics course in first year that has simply has no analogue in CIT. In fact, CIT sometimes admit UCC students who failed their first year in UCC to go straight into second year in CIT. This obviously shows that the standards are lower.

That's not a criticism of CIT, per se. It is necessary that there exist higher education institutions to cater to different needs and ability levels.


But one of the things I dislike about the MTU move is that it seeks to brush this under the carpet by insinuating that the newly re-branded ITs will somehow be better than they were.

Brussels Sprout

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness, the quality of the institution you go to can make a difference. ..... If you want to go abroad, it helps if you have attended a better known institution.

Unless you've gone to Trinity chances are your university or institution won't be known abroad.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

One can also make arguments that universities do have better standards than ITs. For one thing, their points requirements are typically much higher. This means that they can teach courses at a higher level as entering students are better prepared for such academic work. The engineering courses in UCC provide anecdotal evidence of this (and given the sizes of the courses, strong evidence). Undergraduate engineers in UCC have to go through a grueling mathematics course in first year that has simply has no analogue in CIT. In fact, CIT sometimes admit UCC students who failed their first year in UCC to go straight into second year in CIT. This obviously shows that the standards are lower.

That's not a criticism of CIT, per se. It is necessary that there exist higher education institutions to cater to different needs and ability levels.

I think is entirely dependent on the course that you choose. In the institutions of technologies there are many courses that involve the student first studying for what used to be known as certs and diplomas. These will obviously be of a lower standard.
There are however also many 4 year degree programs where the standards are at least the equivalent of their university equivalents. I studied process engineering over 10 years ago which, at the time, had a better reputation than the equivalent course in UCC.

From my own experience of going to both CIT and UCC, I found that since CIT is not really a research facility the courses tend to be more "hands-on" in nature thus preparing the student to enter the workplace. In UCC by contrast there was a greater emphasis placed on the theoretical side of topics so as to cater for the possibility of the student going on to do further research.

So I guess what it comes down to really is what is the function of a university? If it's to train up students so that they gain marketable skills to enter the workplace then the institutes of technology can carry out this function. If however a university is to be a place for research and innovation then perhaps they should not be considered given they are limited in this area.

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

This makes little to no sense to me when we already have funding cuts and falling standards in our current universities.

Feckin hell for once I am in complete agreement with you. :eek:

If anything the universities and ITs should be gearing to target specific areas of expertise/research and bloody up their standards and not mickeying about with creating multi campus universities.

Let me guess they amalgamate creating another layer of hierarchial administration to govern the multiple sites/colleges, but due to union constraint no duplication of effort across the sites gets removed.
Hey lets have another HSE. :mad:

To me this smacks of the same sh**e where for instance the Regional Hospital in Galway became a University Hospital Galway, which some cynics reckon had something to do with fact some doctors wanted to become professors.

This idea was recently first floated about dragging all the Border, Midlands and Western ITs into one so called BMW IT.
Maybe they thought they could get a corporate deal with BMW automotive ?:rolleyes:

RichardAnd

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In fairness, the quality of the institution you go to can make a difference. There were rumors circulating a while back that some companies had put ITs on blacklists and refused to hire their graduates as they were concerned about standards. If you want to go abroad, it helps if you have attended a better known institution.

I've heard this before. I can't say if it's true or not but I did once hear a rumor (from a co-worker) that several MNCs regard Carlow IT as something to be avoided.

RubyRoss

I was in a conversation about universities when a smug git declared Oxford was the greatest university in the world, I suggested MIT was the most important. He coughed on his pint and said ‘MIT what’s that an institute of technology?’ The stupidity surrounding the names of universities is astounding.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That maybe true in a general sense but there are exceptions out there. I know that when I was in college that computer degrees from CIT were better regarded than computer science degrees from UCC. Chemical and structural engineering degrees from CIT where well regarded too. Med lab too is another one, that was a monster of a course to do in CIT, very demanding.

I would agree in general that your average course in IT is worse than your average course in a university but it depends on the course and the IT/University. I dont know anything about LIT.

Foghladh

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ouch! As a former product of Cork RTC I feel wounded by that

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

jank wrote: »

I know that when I was in college that computer degrees from CIT were better regarded than computer science degrees from UCC.

That was being said in my day too, that the UCC grads might have had more theory but the CIT grads knew more about the practical side of computing and companies were hiring for the latter not the former usually. That said, I never knew one of my friends from either course to have problems getting a job afterwards with their degree (assuming a decent grade etc).

Foghladh

Well I suppose the grounding of the old RTC's, and the IT's that they became, was originally that 'technical' aspect. I did the civil engineering diploma in 3 years and it served me very well for the career in construction that I followed. The quality of the diploma was such however that a lot of people used it to transfer to the universities to follow the design route. As I developed in industry later we would generally have had a preference for students from certain IT's as the practical nature suited site based work very well. Having said that I'd agree that certain colleges produced slightly weaker graduates than others. I think this was as much a result of the fact that within the RTC/IT system there was a certain pecking list. Cork and Dundalk, in my day, were seen as superior to some of the other colleges for Civil and commanded higher points for entry. I myself chose the RTC route purely as a result of having dropped honours maths in fourth year, and was therefore ineligible for any university engineering degree, and a good many people in my year were in the same position.

I wouldn't class the proposed change to technical university status as a PR strategy however, as much as a survival strategy. The previous upgrade to IT's was essentially a political decision. Waterford RTC was being upgraded to satisfy the lack of a university in the south-east back in the 90's and Cork protested. As a result Cork was upgraded. Then everybody protested and overnight they basically changed the name of the system as a fop and with no thought as to what an institute of technology should be. Suddenly everybody was an IT, from Letterkenny to Tralee. In regard to this latest proposal at least there seems to be a strategy of sorts, with requirements for 45% doctorate level staff and definitive research quotas. It doesn't appear to be a name plate operation. In fairness to the IT's they are being forced to adapt and are acting. The Hunt report envisages more streamlining (read proposed funding cuts) of centres and unless they band together and amalgamate they will suffer. The Connacht TU will be the next proposal to appear I'd imagine with Sligo, Galway and likely Athlone being forced to cooperate. It's not feasible that these colleges can run the full spectrum of courses that do into the future. In engineering and construction, numbers have dropped through the floor and put together they could probably run a decent course, but at present there are engineering lecturers in all three institutes. That won't be allowed to continue. Various disciplines will probably be concentated on regional campuses similar to some of the universities in the UK. I for one don't see the threat to universities from this proposal and I'd hope that it will truly benefit the IT system

nesf

Foghladh wrote: »

Well I suppose the grounding of the old RTC's, and the IT's that they became, was originally that 'technical' aspect. I did the civil engineering diploma in 3 years and it served me very well for the career in construction that I followed. The quality of the diploma was such however that a lot of people used it to transfer to the universities to follow the design route. As I developed in industry later we would generally have had a preference for students from certain IT's as the practical nature suited site based work very well. Having said that I'd agree that certain colleges produced slightly weaker graduates than others. I think this was as much a result of the fact that within the RTC/IT system there was a certain pecking list. Cork and Dundalk, in my day, were seen as superior to some of the other colleges for Civil and commanded higher points for entry. I myself chose the RTC route purely as a result of having dropped honours maths in fourth year, and was therefore ineligible for any university engineering degree, and a good many people in my year were in the same position.

I wouldn't class the proposed change to technical university status as a PR strategy however, as much as a survival strategy. The previous upgrade to IT's was essentially a political decision. Waterford RTC was being upgraded to satisfy the lack of a university in the south-east back in the 90's and Cork protested. As a result Cork was upgraded. Then everybody protested and overnight they basically changed the name of the system as a fop and with no thought as to what an institute of technology should be. Suddenly everybody was an IT, from Letterkenny to Tralee. In regard to this latest proposal at least there seems to be a strategy of sorts, with requirements for 45% doctorate level staff and definitive research quotas. It doesn't appear to be a name plate operation. In fairness to the IT's they are being forced to adapt and are acting. The Hunt report envisages more streamlining (read proposed funding cuts) of centres and unless they band together and amalgamate they will suffer. The Connacht TU will be the next proposal to appear I'd imagine with Sligo, Galway and likely Athlone being forced to cooperate. It's not feasible that these colleges can run the full spectrum of courses that do into the future. In engineering and construction, numbers have dropped through the floor and put together they could probably run a decent course, but at present there are engineering lecturers in all three institutes. That won't be allowed to continue. Various disciplines will probably be concentated on regional campuses similar to some of the universities in the UK. I for one don't see the threat to universities from this proposal and I'd hope that it will truly benefit the IT system

You think it won't be fudged to protect existing staff? Remember, existing staff in these places weren't picked based on ability to produce research, you can't click your fingers and turn them all into university staff (though granted some would adjust fine to the change). I'd be far more cynical about it to be honest.

Foghladh

nesf wrote: »

You think it won't be fudged to protect existing staff? Remember, existing staff in these places weren't picked based on ability to produce research, you can't click your fingers and turn them all into university staff (though granted some would adjust fine to the change). I'd be far more cynical about it to be honest.

Believe you me, I'm the most cynical creature you could find! There may very well be an attempt to protect existing staff but in essence the whole restructuring is an attempt to protect existing staff and the institutions. It'll fall under the remit of HETAC to ensure that those standards are met and adhered to. Given the current policy of natural wastage I don't see this as being an overnight transformation either. There were dinosaurs in the system when I went through and some of those creatures are resident there even now. I'd agree that most of the current staff fall outside of the doctorate/research standard but not working in the sector I can't quote figures outside of the one or institutions I'd have close contact with. With those I'd place it around 10% currently.

Taking the proposals at face value and within the guidelines I'd imagine many of the possible amalgamates will struggle to achieve those standards but if they do manage it I think that it could only be healthy for them. One would hope

libra02

I am not surprised that all the IT's are now loooking for Uni status by joining together. It all stems from the decision to consider upgrading WIT to a University.
Same as what happened back in the 90's when it was establlished that WRTC was the only RTC that should be upgraded which it was and then the parish pump politics kicked in lead by Cork and suddenly evey RTC in the country was upgarded to an IT.
So it only natural that now when WIT are looking for an upgrade to a technological uni that everyone else throws their hat into the ring. Despite all these regions having at least one University servicing the area whereas the South East doesn't.

I am not for giving Uni status out for the sake of it but WIT does have an excellent standard of eductation, high quality graduates and excellent research groups in area such as Pharamaceutical Research, PBMRc e.g. SEAM, in computers TSSG and others. Many of these have been recognised internationally and also have linked up with Uni the word over.
I am not sure of the exact but the number of lecturers who hold a PHd or are currently working on theirs has risen which would meet the level set.

It is the elitist attitude among the 7 uni in this county along with parish pump politics which is holding progress back. Yes I know that funding is scare and everyone Uni wants to hold on their piece of the cake but looking in the long term it would be better to upgrade one IT correctly rather than a cosmetic rebranding exercise of every IT in the country.

djpbarry

libra02 wrote: »

I am not for giving Uni status out for the sake of it but WIT does have an excellent standard of eductation, high quality graduates and excellent research groups...

The same could be said for DIT, for example, but I don't understand why it should necessarily be re-branded as a university? What's wrong with being an IT?

mike65

Everything it seems. Certainly no perceived prestige or "come hither" value for attracting private funding or link ups.

libra02

djpbarry wrote: »

The same could be said for DIT, for example, but I don't understand why it should necessarily be re-branded as a university? What's wrong with being an IT?

Nothing wrong with being an IT. However no one is talking about a rebranding exercise, it goes much deeper than that. It is about expanding the research - in areas such as Science and Computing all of which WIT are excelling at and have been internationally recognised for.
Expanding the range of Master, PHD's etc.
Never mind the economic impact that it can provide to an area. Having a University in an area does attract industry - another tick in the box shall we say when choosing an area to set up in. Snobbish as it is, industry still likes to see a University in an area.

The point I am making is when an area needs and should have a Universtity and there is an excellent IT in the area which can be upgraded then it should be granted.

DIT has no need to be a University - Dublin has multiple university's so there is no need for another one.

However Waterford or the surrounding area has no University and one is needed and this has been said for years and agreeded upon by various diffferent groups.
DIT can keep going along as a top class IT and it students will suffer no disdvantage. But throwing the toys out of the pram and having a fit because one IT is being upgraded and no-one else is one thing that is wrong in this country.

If it was the other way around and Waterford had the Uni's and Dublin needed one and wanted DIT upgraded the same agruments would be made

djpbarry

libra02 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being an IT. However no one is talking about a rebranding exercise, it goes much deeper than that. It is about expanding the research - in areas such as Science and Computing all of which WIT are excelling at and have been internationally recognised for.
Expanding the range of Master, PHD's etc.

But all this can be done while remaining an IT?

libra02 wrote: »

Never mind the economic impact that it can provide to an area. Having a University in an area does attract industry...

Does it? How much industry has London South Bank University attracted to London?

libra02 wrote: »

Snobbish as it is, industry still likes to see a University in an area.

I think industry is more likely to be interested in capable individuals.

libra02 wrote: »

The point I am making is when an area needs and should have a Universtity and there is an excellent IT in the area which can be upgraded then it should be granted.

I know that’s the point that you an others are making. However, the case for such an “upgrading” is a weak one. I fail to see why (a) Ireland needs another university and (b) why IT’s cannot focus on excelling as IT’s.

libra02 wrote: »

DIT has no need to be a University - Dublin has multiple university's so there is no need for another one.

However Waterford or the surrounding area has no University and one is needed and this has been said for years and agreeded upon by various diffferent groups.

So the argument for “upgrading” WIT to a university boils down to the fact that the South East doesn’t have a university? That’s a pretty weak argument.

libra02 wrote: »

DIT can keep going along as a top class IT and it students will suffer no disdvantage.

How is WIT any different in that regard?

Psychedelic

Just to clarify something here, this is not about creating new universities, it is about creating a new type of institution, a technological university. The criteria for IoTs to be upgraded to a TU have been recently published by the HEA. TU's will have a very close relationship with industry and research and won't be the same as our traditional universities.

djpbarry wrote: »

However, the case for such an “upgrading” is a weak one. I fail to see why (a) Ireland needs another university and (b) why IT’s cannot focus on excelling as IT’s.

(a) the South East region is lagging behind the rest of the country, a university could help the region (and thus the country). I heard the founder of Limerick University Dr Ed Walsh recently say that before LU was created the same argument that "Ireland doesn't need another university" was being put forward at that time, and we were also in a recession then too, but LU was created and Limerick has since prospered because of it. Ed Walsh also thinks a university should be created in Waterford.

(b) ITs can focus on being excellent but they will never get the same level of funding as universities, plus they can't offer things that universities can, and from an FDI point of view multinationals often look for a university in the area they want to set up in etc.

djpbarry wrote: »

So the argument for “upgrading” WIT to a university boils down to the fact that the South East doesn’t have a university? That’s a pretty weak argument.

There are lots of arguments for upgrading WIT, it's not just a regional thing.

libra02

djpbarry wrote: »

But all this can be done while remaining an IT?
Does it? How much industry has London South Bank University attracted to London?
I think industry is more likely to be interested in capable individuals.
I know that’s the point that you an others are making. However, the case for such an “upgrading” is a weak one. I fail to see why (a) Ireland needs another university and (b) why IT’s cannot focus on excelling as IT’s.
So the argument for “upgrading” WIT to a university boils down to the fact that the South East doesn’t have a university? That’s a pretty weak argument.
How is WIT any different in that regard?

No argument including mine is down to the fact that WIT should be upgraded just because they do not have one. It is a contributing factor but there are a number of more important factors such as educational, economic etc.

There is no "weak agrument" as you seem to have put it. In fact there has always been a pretty strong case made for a Uni but as per usual in Ireland parish politics and the rest of the University's have successful push it out and keep on doing so. This whole ploy of a technical Uni for Waterford is just another PR stunt to try to play the 2 sides.

Research and industry has said that where there is a Uni it leads to the area prospering due to influx of students, industry locating there for the graduates etc. Industry always refernce Uni graduates as a contributing factor in locating - here in Ireland anyway As the poster above said look at UL - there is a fine example.

Yes industry wants capable individuals, never said otherwise but they would like those to have Uni on the CV above a IT.


There are numerous uni's in London all of which help in attracting industry to the city so I see no real relevance in you picking one from a list and using it as an argument. How do you know they have not? Anyway London and Waterford can in no way be compared.

No offence but you are not living in the country so why should it matter if Ireland gets another Uni. I may think that London / Liverpool etc do not need another Uni but I certainly do not care if they do in the end. Those city's know what is best for them and what is needed so if the evidence is there that a certain region should get one well they should.

djpbarry

Psychedelic wrote: »

(a) the South East region is lagging behind the rest of the country, a university could help the region (and thus the country).

Well, that’s an argument for establishing a university pretty much anywhere really, isn’t it?

Psychedelic wrote: »

ITs can focus on being excellent but they will never get the same level of funding as universities...

Where might that funding come from?

Psychedelic wrote: »

...plus they can't offer things that universities can..

They’re not supposed to?

Psychedelic wrote: »

... and from an FDI point of view multinationals often look for a university in the area they want to set up in...

I think “third-level institution” is probably more accurate than “university”.

djpbarry

libra02 wrote: »

... there has always been a pretty strong case made for a Uni...

Let’s hear it then.

libra02 wrote: »

...anyway As the poster above said look at UL - there is a fine example.

A fine example of what?

libra02 wrote: »

Yes industry wants capable individuals, never said otherwise but they would like those to have Uni on the CV above a IT.

That’s nonsense. Generally speaking, employers don’t give a toss about what a piece of paper says – they want to know what prospective job applicants can actually do.

libra02 wrote: »

There are numerous uni's in London all of which help in attracting industry to the city...

There is virtually no “industry” in London – the economy is almost entirely based on financial services.

And you seem to have missed my point with regard to South Bank University – I was being facetious. There is scarcely a third-level institute in the UK that has not been awarded “university” status, but there are plenty of areas in the UK sorely lacking in employment opportunities for the graduates of such institutes.

jmayo

libra02 wrote: »

...
So it only natural that now when WIT are looking for an upgrade to a technological uni that everyone else throws their hat into the ring. Despite all these regions having at least one University servicing the area whereas the South East doesn't.

Well what about the North West then ?
It is farther from Northern Donegal to an Irish university than from any part of Waterford or Wexford.

Is this an extension of the every province/city/town must have an airport ?

libra02 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with being an IT. However no one is talking about a rebranding exercise, it goes much deeper than that. It is about expanding the research - in areas such as Science and Computing all of which WIT are excelling at and have been internationally recognised for.
Expanding the range of Master, PHD's etc.

Eh who exactly are going to be doing all these masters and PHDs ?
The calibre of our graduates has dropped it appears and yet you want to shovel out more PHDs.

Quantity does not equal Quality.

libra02 wrote: »

Never mind the economic impact that it can provide to an area. Having a University in an area does attract industry - another tick in the box shall we say when choosing an area to set up in. Snobbish as it is, industry still likes to see a University in an area.

Except all the areas that primarily grewth industrially were also larger cities and probably apart from Galway close to a major airport.
Do you want an international airport to go with the university ?

libra02 wrote: »

The point I am making is when an area needs and should have a Universtity and there is an excellent IT in the area which can be upgraded then it should be granted.

Again in that case why not upgrade Letterkenny or Sligo ?

libra02 wrote: »

DIT has no need to be a University - Dublin has multiple university's so there is no need for another one.

So the calibre of graduates or lecturers doesn't matter, it is down to location ?
So much for your argument about calibre of graduates and lecturers above. :rolleyes:

libra02 wrote: »

However Waterford or the surrounding area has no University and one is needed and this has been said for years and agreeded upon by various diffferent groups.

And Sligo/Donegal don't have a university either so lets hear it for them as well. :rolleyes:

Godge

jmayo wrote: »

Well what about the North West then ?
It is farther from Northern Donegal to an Irish university than from any part of Waterford or Wexford.

Is this an extension of the every province/city/town must have an airport ?



Eh who exactly are going to be doing all these masters and PHDs ?
The calibre of our graduates has dropped it appears and yet you want to shovel out more PHDs.

Quantity does not equal Quality.



Except all the areas that primarily grewth industrially were also larger cities and probably apart from Galway close to a major airport.
Do you want an international airport to go with the university ?



Again in that case why not upgrade Letterkenny or Sligo ?



So the calibre of graduates or lecturers doesn't matter, it is down to location ?
So much for your argument about calibre of graduates and lecturers above. :rolleyes:


And Sligo/Donegal don't have a university either so lets hear it for them as well. :rolleyes:

(1) Letterkenny and Sligo have cometogether with GMIT, Athlone and Dundalk with a proposal for a BMW Technological University
(2) There is also the University of Ulster in that region

Eliot Rosewater

I still don't see how the "merely a label change" argument is being addressed. People here are saying that companies like universities, that universities attract more funding, etc. The implication is that this is only because of the label itself; that once an IT changes its name to include "university" it will somehow become better in this regard. How does that work?


I'm also not sure if the UL comparison is apt. UL seems to be unique in Ireland. A lot of its development is attributable to the millions it has received from the philanthropy group of Charles Feeney.

femur61

Isn't an IT an option for third level where someone doesn't get into a university? If we have nothing but universitys in the country we'd have people missing out at a chance to gain a third level qualification.

djpbarry

femur61 wrote: »

Isn't an IT an option for third level where someone doesn't get into a university?

You've just highlighted the problem with the perception of IT's in Ireland. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to an IT - it shouldn't be viewed as being something you do if you miss out on university. An IT qualification is not inferior to a university qualification, it's just different.

femur61

djpbarry wrote: »

You've just highlighted the problem with the perception of IT's in Ireland. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to an IT - it shouldn't be viewed as being something you do if you miss out on university. An IT qualification is not inferior to a university qualification, it's just different.

Thats the point, I know my son is not going to get enough points to go to Trinity/UCC so I the alternative is WIT. Doesn't bother me where he goes and so be it if is WIT but if it is upgraded then I don't have that option.

Godge

http://www.hea.ie/en/node/1462


More information above from the HEA on the future of Irish higher education including details on the designation of technological universities. Well worth reading for an informed debate on this issue.


Try and avoid uniformed reporting such as the article below from Emer O'Kelly.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-minister-universities-are-for-the-intellectual-elite-3016989.html


Firstly she states:

"This is in spite of the findings of the report commissioned under Batt O'Keeffe's Ministry, published almost exactly a year ago. It was conducted by a team headed by Dr Colin Hunt, an economist and banker. It made recommendations for the education system up to the year 2030, and came down firmly, not to say vehemently, against the idea of establishing any more universities anywhere in Ireland during that period."

Actually the Hunt Report said that about making any new traditional universities but it then went on to say:

"However, there may be a case for facilitating the evolution of some existing institutes following a process of consolidation, into a form of university that is different in mission from the existing Irish universities."

Its recommendation no. 20 said "A process should be put in place to allow institutes of technology that have emerged from a process of consolidation to apply for designation as a technological university."

You wouldn't realise that from reading the Irish Independent. Further on in the article it is stated that

"These conditions read like a horror list of inadequacy. Most significantly, "at least 45 per cent of full-time academic staff will hold a doctorate level or the equivalence in professional experience, combined with a terminal degree appropriate to their profession".
In English, that means that less than half of all "academic" staff will have to be qualified in the subjects they will be teaching beyond primary degree level. Time was, and not so long ago, when an academic rightly knew that a PhD was effectively his or her union ticket: you didn't get on the lecturing staff unless you had it. And now they plan to allow a place with less than half the "academic" staff properly qualified to be designated a university? "

The statement in bold is inaccurate because there is an intermediate stage between degree holders at levels 7 or 8 and doctorates at level 10. That is masters and equivalents at level 9. On this the criteria say (they are in the documents on the HEA website):

"At the time of application for designation –
• 90% of full time, academic staff engaged in delivering higher education programmes in the applicant institution will hold a Level 9 qualification or higher. "


In English, that means that at least 90% of all "academic" staff will have to be qualified in the subjects they will be teaching beyond primary degree level.

Quite a difference from Ms. O'Kelly's piece in that regard.

To sum up, this is another example about how public policy issues in Ireland rarely get debated on an informed basis in the Irish media. Usually, the debate in our newspapers is poorly informed at best and designed just to make provocative headlines at worst. Always go back to the original source.

djpbarry

Godge wrote: »

To sum up, this is another example about how public policy issues in Ireland rarely get debated on an informed basis in the Irish media.

To be fair, you're referencing an opinion piece in the Indo - not exactly the first place I'd look for "informed debate". It would be kind of like pulling an article from the Daily Mail in support of a "British media is racist" argument.

Godge

djpbarry wrote: »

To be fair, you're referencing an opinion piece in the Indo - not exactly the first place I'd look for "informed debate". It would be kind of like pulling an article from the Daily Mail in support of a "British media is racist" argument.

It is not just the Indo. Look at this piece from the Examiner

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/institutes-face-high-standards-process-183593.html


While the text is reasonably good, the author can't make up his mind whether he is talking about technological universities or technical universities.

jmayo

Godge wrote: »

(1) Letterkenny and Sligo have cometogether with GMIT, Athlone and Dundalk with a proposal for a BMW Technological University
(2) There is also the University of Ulster in that region

I did already mention that earlier in the thread.
Guess who didn't read it. :cool:

BTW I think it is a joke amalgamating all those institutions into one university.

BTW University of Ulster in a different country, a different educational jurisdiction no matter how many people claim that we are one island and one nation under God.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I still don't see how the "merely a label change" argument is being addressed. People here are saying that companies like universities, that universities attract more funding, etc. The implication is that this is only because of the label itself; that once an IT changes its name to include "university" it will somehow become better in this regard. How does that work?

Ah but sure you see the idea by some in education/government in this country is that everyone, no matter how accademically smart or thick, deserves a piece of paper from some third level establishment and now all those establishments want to be called universities.

It is this daft idea that the way to attract inward investment is to knock out even more graduates with degrees/masters/PHDs, except actually to knock even more means dropping the standards. :rolleyes:

If anything we need to differentiate even more so that some graduates are very well thought of so that they actually attract the investment.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm also not sure if the UL comparison is apt. UL seems to be unique in Ireland. A lot of its development is attributable to the millions it has received from the philanthropy group of Charles Feeney.

UL I would say was a lot harder than any RTC, IT and even most universities.
Even after it became a university it still retained it's trimesters with exams every week 11 and no second chances for repeats.
You failed or like someone I knew could not do exams because of hospital you repeated the year.

That did eventually change and if anything it became a little easier and the standard or graduates coming out were worse.

femur61 wrote: »

Isn't an IT an option for third level where someone doesn't get into a university? If we have nothing but universitys in the country we'd have people missing out at a chance to gain a third level qualification.

Ah but sure everyone no matter how academically capable deserves to get a third level qualification and now it seems that qualification should be from a university.

Next thing you will discover people are getting degrees in hairdressing, welding, bricklaying and car mechinics.

By the way I am not looking down on those trades since I have indeed had close relatives in the business and neither am I saying that ITs give courses in those.
But if we keep going in the suggested direction then that is where we are heading.

Ostrom

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

CIT, LIT and Tralee IT want to unite as a large "technological" university. The new university status must be granted by the government.

This seems to me to be just a PR strategy. In an Examiner article the President of CIT said that institutes of technology had, as a title, a poor reputation in people's minds. It's worth emphasizing that this is an Irish phenomenon. The latest world QS rankings have MIT third, Caltech 12th and the Swiss Federal IT, ETH, 18th. For comparison, Trinity College is 65th. So, if not the label, what are peoples' real concerns about Irish ITs?

I think that there's nothing stopping CIT, LIT and Tralee IT merging into a South Muster IT and doing exactly what they want to do less the MTU label. The whole thing seems to be aimed at the label itself. Is this designed to brush criticisms that have been leveled at them under the carpet with a new title?

Then, what affect will this have on the other universities in Ireland? The standards in ITs aren't going to change with a new label, and the average standard of universities in Ireland will necessarily decrease. Will this affect the reputation of Irish universites abroad?

Quick response, as I've studied and worked in both. In my opinion, most of these debates are pitched in terms of a false expectation of regional growth, which ignores the critical functional role I.T.'s perform as a supplier of technical and vocational qualifications (both at and below level 7), and the role of FDI in structuring overall labour demand. In the context of previous growth in high-tech industries, manufacturing (in certain regions) and construction, I.T.'s played a critical role in supplying skilled labour, and maintaining industrial links through teaching and research.

I cant see this niche requirement abating under a mere change of title, (it does little to address existing regional and national shortfalls in labour demand anyway) and as you suggest, seems set to do little other than dilute our current definition of university.

Godge

efla wrote: »

Quick response, as I've studied and worked in both. In my opinion, most of these debates are pitched in terms of a false expectation of regional growth, which ignores the critical functional role I.T.'s perform as a supplier of technical and vocational qualifications (both at and below level 7), and the role of FDI in structuring overall labour demand. In the context of previous growth in high-tech industries, manufacturing (in certain regions) and construction, I.T.'s played a critical role in supplying skilled labour, and maintaining industrial links through teaching and research.

I cant see this niche requirement abating under a mere change of title, (it does little to address existing regional and national shortfalls in labour demand anyway) and as you suggest, seems set to do little other than dilute our current definition of university.

But IOTs have been supplying such qualifications across the whole spectrum of Levels 6-10 for many years.

As RTCs they mostly produced levels 6-7 but as the demand for more educated and more skilled graduates grew from industry, they responded to this demand and evolved into IOTs producing graduates up to and including level 10. In the context of further development of our knowledge society and future economic development, is there not a case that the evolution and development of the IOTs should mirror the economic developments and requirements?

HavingCrack

Is this whole issue not similar to what happened in the UK when they upgraded all the polytechnics to university status? To this day most former polytechnics remain very much the 3rd tier of 3rd level education in the UK. There was no real advantage gained as far as I can see.