Finally theres a move for equality in education!

Dyr

steddyeddy wrote: »

As most of you will have seen Cao points have raised massively this in part is because of the extra points afforded to maths. This has prompted Trinity College Dublin's Dr Patrick Geoghegan to announce the new way Trinity is looking at admissions to Trinity. For years Patrick Geoghegan has maintained that the current system puts the wrong student in the wrong course and that the points system is currently unfair. Coming for the students sitting the leaving cert in 2014 as well as being assessed on their leaving cert results they will also have to submit personal statements regarding their chosen course.

[/B]

How dare he? We're not sending little Sneachta and Griffin to exclusive, expensive fee paying schools just so the riff raff can go and be treated in an equitable manner when it comes to college places :mad::mad:

ManMade

Bambi wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

As most of you will have seen Cao points have raised massively this in part is because of the extra points afforded to maths. This has prompted Trinity College Dublin's Dr Patrick Geoghegan to announce the new way Trinity is looking at admissions to Trinity. For years Patrick Geoghegan has maintained that the current system puts the wrong student in the wrong course and that the points system is currently unfair. Coming for the students sitting the leaving cert in 2014 as well as being assessed on their leaving cert results they will also have to submit personal statements regarding their chosen course.

[/B]

How dare he? We're not sending little Sneachta and Griffin to exclusive, expensive fee paying schools just so the riff raff can go and be treated in an equitable manner when it comes to college places :mad::mad:

IMHO they can't really do much seeing as it's public money. Nothings really going to massively change. Every time results come out people are going to bash the system because apparently those with less points should somehow have away of jeumping the queue.

marnie d

I did my 3rd level studies in the north, and for every course, I had to do an interview, and I think I had to do a personal statement too. I don't think it's a bad idea, as you have to research the course and the area of study, so you have more of an idea for that particular course, as well as the fact that during the interview you get to visit the university, see the general area and there's the option for asking questions.

I know that the move is just for a personal statement, but if a student can't express their interest in a particular course on one page, they shouldn't be planning on spending the next 3 or 4 years doing that course.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

As most of you will have seen Cao points have raised massively this in part is because of the extra points afforded to maths. This has prompted Trinity College Dublin's Dr Patrick Geoghegan to announce the new way Trinity is looking at admissions to Trinity. For years Patrick Geoghegan has maintained that the current system puts the wrong student in the wrong course and that the points system is currently unfair. Coming for the students sitting the leaving cert in 2014 as well as being assessed on their leaving cert results they will also have to submit personal statements regarding their chosen course.

[/B]

How dare he? We're not sending little Sneachta and Griffin to exclusive, expensive fee paying schools just so the riff raff can go and be treated in an equitable manner when it comes to college places :mad::mad:

IMHO they can't really do much seeing as it's public money. Nothings really going to massively change. Every time results come out people are going to bash the system because apparently those with less points should somehow have away of jeumping the queue.

Because those with wealth are cu.rrently paying for more points (grinds ect) and have been jumping ahead of the queue

ManMade

steddyeddy wrote: »

ManMade wrote: »

Bambi wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

As most of you will have seen Cao points have raised massively this in part is because of the extra points afforded to maths. This has prompted Trinity College Dublin's Dr Patrick Geoghegan to announce the new way Trinity is looking at admissions to Trinity. For years Patrick Geoghegan has maintained that the current system puts the wrong student in the wrong course and that the points system is currently unfair. Coming for the students sitting the leaving cert in 2014 as well as being assessed on their leaving cert results they will also have to submit personal statements regarding their chosen course.

[/B]

How dare he? We're not sending little Sneachta and Griffin to exclusive, expensive fee paying schools just so the riff raff can go and be treated in an equitable manner when it comes to college places :mad::mad:

IMHO they can't really do much seeing as it's public money. Nothings really going to massively change. Every time results come out people are going to bash the system because apparently those with less points should somehow have away of jeumping the queue.

Because those with wealth are cu.rrently paying for more points (grinds ect) and have been jumping ahead of the queue

How can you implement a system that takes grinds into account? Most, including mine, are cash in hand there's no real record. Any system penalizing grind schools would a) give those with cash in hand grids a huge advantage b) send all grinds underground with no real records. I'm sure those with more would prefer fees of around €10000 a year if they didn't have to get the points and spend as much time studying or paying for such grinds but balance has to be found so as many people of all socio economic backgrounds can attend.

bren2001

ManMade wrote: »

How can you implement a system that takes grinds into account? Most, including mine, are cash in hand there's no real record. Any system penalizing grind schools would a) give those with cash in hand grids a huge advantage b) send all grinds underground with no real records. I'm sure those with more would prefer fees of around €10000 a year if they didn't have to get the points and spend as much time studying or paying for such grinds but balance has to be found so as many people of all socio economic backgrounds can attend.

Thats a fair point. There would be no legal way to obtain who had attended these grinds school either.

If I was asked in an interview or anything had I attended a grinds school then I would just say no. It may be lying but it would boost my chances.

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because those with wealth are cu.rrently paying for more points (grinds ect) and have been jumping ahead of the queue

But I don't think that's necessarily the case.
You can't "pay" for points really. The student still has to work hard to do well. I think the effect that grinds schools have on points distortion is being overstated.
A parent can pay all they want for their child to go to a private school or a grind school, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get high points. They need to work just as hard as those in public schools.I sat the LC last year (Went to a public school) and of the people I know that went to a grind/private school, they all did worse than myself and my friends that were in a public school. Of course they'd be in the minority, but they were of the mindset like most that simply going to a private school will get you better points.

I'd wager that for the majority of those that do well after going to a grinds/private school, it's not because just being in a private/grind school has conferred some advantage on them over those in the public system, but it's generally because those who go to those schools do so because they know what they want, they know they want to do well and are determined to get their course. That attitude unfortunately isn't as prevalent among those in more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds.
To introduce a system where nothing is done to address the problem, but instead stick a plaster over it by giving course places to those who score lower just because they're poorer is really backwards. All it does is acknowledge that we have young people who are going to poorer-quality schools, but do nothing to fix that by improving the quality.

I completely agree with the support schemes (HEAR, TAP etc.) that we have in place already and I don't think any more should be done at a University-level, otherwise you're just punishing a student just because they don't come from a disadvantaged background. I've already seen abuse of this system in my course and I just don't think it's fair when someone is given such a good opportunity as HEAR or TAP and then ends up abusing it, when someone else who did get the points worked hard missed out on that place.
Instead, work needs to be done at second level and even primary level to address the problem before it even becomes a problem.
I really think LCVP should be made a compulsory subject, whether it's examined or not. In LCVP you must undertake work experience, carry out career investigations and visit work places. If a person does that in 5th year, and finds a career they like, then they'll work harder to get there.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bren2001 wrote: »

Well when I finished 6th year, I didn't have a clue what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I went into Engineering because I like mathematics and there was no other CAO course that I wanted to do. Could I have written an honest letter with a series of reasons I wanted to do the course? No. Because I didnt really want to do it....

I'm in 4th year, I'm top of my class, got 540 in the Leaving and find Engineering interesting. So should I would of been weeded out? Going by this I would have and someone "more deserving" would of got the place even tho I am extremely suited.

I could just as easily present the case for someone who had the same attitude and dropped out before Chirstmas, whereas someone who genuinely would have worked harder and apprecatied the place should have gotten it.

You got lucky. You had no idea. You said it yourself.

If you genuinely have no idea, why not take soem tiem off and go back a year later when you do know?

steddyeddy

Anita Blow wrote: »

Why should that be the case at all?
Should people not be accepted on academic merit, rather than colleges accepting people based on their socio-economic background just so they can get equal numbers of rich and poor people?



A person entering General Science this year will have got the equivalent of 5 A1s, including a Higher Level Honours grade in at least 2 Science subjects. If they have chosen science and got it, then who is anybody else to tell them that they can't?

The points system we have is one of the most objective ways out there for determining entry to college.
1)The points system doesn't tie you down to a certain area like the A-Levels in the UK. A person in 5th year who wants to do Physics and chooses subjects to reflect that, can decide in 6th year that they want to do Psychology instead there are no repercussions. Their equivalent in the UK would find it a lot harder to do the same. In a country like ours, aswell as others in Europe, we need to give students that opportunity to change considering they're being made choose their careers so young.

2)The CAO system is very transparent and fair in my opinion. Someone said it in another thread a few days ago that if an Irish person is calling it unfair, then it must be very fair, because in an Irish context "unfair" means you can't bend it or manipulate it to benefit themselves. Introducing interviews makes the application process very subjective and opens the door to discrimination, especially in a small country like ours. I wouldn't be opposed to personal statements which can be submitted through your anonymous CAO Number.

3)Supports are already in place for those from disadvantaged areas. Whether it's the HEAR Scheme which pays for student's reg fees and offers them courses at reduced points, or college-specific schemes like Trinity Access Programme which disadvantaged students can apply to and undertake a foundation year in certain subjects and if they pass, they're allowed in to their course.

I'm all for some reform of the system. I'd advocate maybe bonus points for subjects relevant to the course for which you're applying. I know that would somewhat go against my first point, but it might make the system somewhat fairer.
The colleges however shouldn't be discriminating against any student. Just because it's discrimination against the rich/middle-class doesn't make it any fairer. There's plenty of people, especially those going to high-points courses, who will do anything to get there. Their parents will also do anything for them to get there, even if it means putting money away to attend a grind school or get grinds. Why should they be discriminated against for being ambitious and determined? 600 points is 600 points and whether a person who gets that is from a rich background or poor background, they deserve to be recognised for their hard work. In the current system, if 2 people got 550 for a course thats 550, they either both get in or it goes to random selection which is fair. In the proposed system, the poorer person would get it?

Sorry for the rant. I'm not having a go at you or anything, but I just don't think a system where students are so openly discriminated against based on non-academic factors is fair. They should be made submit an anonymous personal statement, and maybe bonus points attached to relevant subjects. That should be it in my opinion.

Hey Anita sorry for the delay. When I said the following:

I would wager an equal number from poor and well off backgrounds would be right for any particular course when it boils down to it.

I meant that if you find a system that selects students based on their suitability for a particular course chances are your demographic will be a mix of rich and poor. What I am saying is If I took any group of people and selected them for academic ability alone you would get a mixed demographic. Im passionate about education and for education to work at all we need eqaulity. I dont think you can get eqaulity by taking quotas from rich and poor demographics. So I would be against that.


All that is needed to bring equality into education is to allow the smartest, hardest working and most passionate about their course into college. Thats why I think an interview and personal statement are needed. This is exactly what mature students do to go to college and mature students as a group are over represented in terms of being extremely high achievers. People say that a personal statement and intwerview could promote discrimination but why isnt that happening with the mature students? Or students from other countries where a personal statement is required.

As we both agree selecting from the rich or poor is a really bad system but I think the points system are currently ensuring that. If you go to a private school you are more likely to go to college and if you come from a disadvantaged school you are probrably less likely to go to college. So already we are drawing from socio economic groups. The way to combat this wouldnt be to ask about grind schools ect but for each student to put his or her case forward in an interview and if they want to include that they come from a disadvantaged school then they should do that.

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't like the idea of the interview having anything to do with career direction etc., leave that to the ITs. University education is supposed to be about education, not grooming for a career. Even accepting that whole thing I still don't see why a keen idiot should get a place ahead of a somewhat apathetic but far more competent individual.

Well my background is biochemistry and I could promise that I would be able discern keen from competent and If I could do it a lecturer certainly could. The career direction doesnt have to come into it but knowledge and research of the area should.

steddyeddy

bren2001 wrote: »

Well when I finished 6th year, I didn't have a clue what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I went into Engineering because I like mathematics and there was no other CAO course that I wanted to do. Could I have written an honest letter with a series of reasons I wanted to do the course? No. Because I didnt really want to do it....

I'm in 4th year, I'm top of my class, got 540 in the Leaving and find Engineering interesting. So should I would of been weeded out? Going by this I would have and someone "more deserving" would of got the place even tho I am extremely suited.

If you couldnt put into writing why you would benifit over some other student at engineering than yes you should be weeded out. I was reading biochem books before I did biochem and there are a lot more like me. I could certainly sell myself in an interview over someone who wasnt to sure.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

How can you implement a system that takes grinds into account? Most, including mine, are cash in hand there's no real record. Any system penalizing grind schools would a) give those with cash in hand grids a huge advantage b) send all grinds underground with no real records. I'm sure those with more would prefer fees of around €10000 a year if they didn't have to get the points and spend as much time studying or paying for such grinds but balance has to be found so as many people of all socio economic backgrounds can attend.

I wouldnt take grinds into consideration personally or even private shcool. Neither of them can make you more suitable for a course they only help you in the leaving. Once you get to college everybodies on an equal footing. My point is that an interview rather than points alone could assess course suitability.

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

I meant that if you find a system that selects students based on their suitability for a particular course chances are your demographic will be a mix of rich and poor. What I am saying is If I took any group of people and selected them for academic ability alone you would get a mixed demographic.

I think though that this occurs already in that the disadvantaged class is a minority so really you're never going to get even near the amount of places the middle-class/upper-class would take up simply due to the fact that they form a much larger part of society.

steddyeddy wrote: »

All that is needed to bring equality into education is to allow the smartest, hardest working and most passionate about their course into college. Thats why I think an interview and personal statement are needed. This is exactly what mature students do to go to college and mature students as a group are over represented in terms of being extremely high achievers. People say that a personal statement and intwerview could promote discrimination but why isnt that happening with the mature students? Or students from other countries where a personal statement is required.

I don't think it's practical to bring in mature-student type entry to undergrads. ~60,000 students sit the Leaving Cert every year. There is no way all 60,000 would be able to find work experience in their area and it just couldn't be operated on such a big scale. It works with mature students because they make up such a small proportion of the total student intake each year. It also raises so many problems.
-What if a person from Longford (for example) wants to get into IT or software development? All the big IT Companies are in Dublin so is it fair that such an advantage is conferred to Dublin students?
-Plenty of careers are very difficult to get work experience in. For example it'd be near impossible for hospitals to be flooded with thousands of students looking for work experience so that closes off many aspects of Medicine, aswell as any of the therapies.
-Once again it's subjective and favours people with connections. Plenty of places would not accept students for work experience, but what if my uncle or a friend of the family worked in such a place and I could shadow them? That is an advantage more likely to occur in the upper and middle-class, further putting lower-class at a disadvantage.
-Everyone puts 10 options on their CAO. Are they to do an interview and work experience for all of them? On top of 6th year which is arguably one of the most stressful years they will have encountered so far in their lives?

It works with students from other countries because they more than likely do not know any of the college staff. In a country as small as Ireland however, it's very likely that those interviewing may know a few applicants and this can lead to them having an advantage over others.

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you go to a private school you are more likely to go to college and if you come from a disadvantaged school you are probrably less likely to go to college. So already we are drawing from socio economic groups. The way to combat this wouldnt be to ask about grind schools ect but for each student to put his or her case forward in an interview and if they want to include that they come from a disadvantaged school then they should do that.

I honestly think bringing in an interview would do nothing to change that. The problem with those from disadvantaged groups not progressing to college doesn't lie in the fact that they apply but don't get it, it's that the majority of people in these groups traditionally don't want to go to college. It's an issue with their attitude towards education.
Those from middle and upper class however, whether they go to private school or not, accept that they will go to college from a young age.
IE- In lower economic groups, the desire to go to college is the exception, whereas in higher groups, the desire to go to college is the rule.

To address the problem at college-entry level is too late and all it does is put a plaster over the wound.

steddyeddy

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'd wager that for the majority of those that do well after going to a grinds/private school, it's not because just being in a private/grind school has conferred some advantage on them over those in the public system, but it's generally because those who go to those schools do so because they know what they want, they know they want to do well and are determined to get their course. That attitude unfortunately isn't as prevalent among those in more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds.

Hey Anita I’ll deal with the points you made in order of posting. Private schools have traditionally sent more people to college on average than public schools and that’s true. However I have to disagree that private schools are made up of ultra-dedicated people who "
they know what they want, they know they want to do well and are determined to get their course". Private schools are made up of one demographic that is those who can afford the fees. I’m in college with private school people I can pick out one who’s very dedicated but she defiantly doesn’t know what course she wants exactly.

You say private school students don’t do better because of some advantage conferred? Then why do people pay the fees involved? Of course a better student teacher ratio confers an advantage, its just common sense. If a student is in a school with 40 pupils to a teacher and some of the class are disruptive hes going to have a less of a chance than a student in a class with a better student teacher ratio.

Now as regards your assessment of the less fortunate

I honestly think bringing in an interview would do nothing to change that. The problem with those from disadvantaged groups not progressing to college doesn't lie in the fact that they apply but don't get it, it's that the majority of people in these groups traditionally don't want to go to college. It's an issue with their attitude towards education.
Those from middle and upper class however, whether they go to private school or not, accept that they will go to college from a young age.
IE- In lower economic groups, the desire to go to college is the exception, whereas in higher groups, the desire to go to college is the rule.

To address the problem at college-entry level is too late and all it does is put a plaster over the wound.

Different socio economic groups carry one definite trait and that is their level of income. Any other perceived difference is simply opinion. Some place biological traits to each group. One such poster suggested that performance was the realm of middle class minds (the journal of neuroscience would love to get their hand on that research I’m sure). To say that those in less well-off socio economic groups simply don’t aspire to college is wrong. There’s no point elaborating other than saying that I was born into a less well-off socio economic class and not to wax messianic but I was a scientist in mind then and I’m a scientist in mind now. Many in my class wanted to have good jobs in careers they were interested in which would have entailed going to college. All in our entire school atmosphere was woeful and most didn’t make it to college until they went back as a mature student. In our school like many some subjects weren’t offered at a higher level so of course the school context matters.
As regards the inequality in our system I think that an interview can and will improve access to third level for those who really should be there. I.e. the natural scientists, engineers, artists and historians. Equal numbers from rich and poor contain these classes of people. It would be ludicrous to suggest that income levels also tie to biological traits like intelligence.

The interview isn’t just a method of introducing equality. Its function is to put the right person in the right course. There are rich people in college who are in the wrong course and there are also poor people in college who are in the wrong course. An interview should reduce those types of people in college. You talk about work experience and I agree that for some people work experience would be practically impossible to get in some careers. Work experience wasn’t what I had in mind however. Research and motive should come into play as reasoning for wanting to do be in a course.

It works with students from other countries because they more than likely do not know any of the college staff. In a country as small as Ireland however, it's very likely that those interviewing may know a few applicants and this can lead to them having an advantage over others.

You didn’t address why mature students don’t have an advantage because they know someone? My lecturers are Belgium, Singaporean, English, American and Finnish so as regards science knowing people wouldn’t be a major issue. They are also professional. This isn’t the civil service where knowing someone helps, this is decided purely on suitability for the course at hand.

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

Private schools have traditionally sent more people to college on average than public schools and that’s true. However I have to disagree that private schools are made up of ultra-dedicated people who "they know what they want, they know they want to do well and are determined to get their course". Private schools are made up of one demographic that is those who can afford the fees. I’m in college with private school people I can pick out one who’s very dedicated but she defiantly doesn’t know what course she wants exactly.

I agree with the above no doubt. I didn't mean that everyone in Private School's are ultra-dedicated. What I do think though, is that those who go to private schools come from a middle-class/upper-class background where from a young age it is ingrained into them that they will be going to college and that the Leaving Cert is very important in that. This actually even applies to public schools too as really I'm speaking of my own experience and that of everyone I know really.
While obviously private schools are for those who can afford fees, that doesn't imply that the student's family is in any way hugely wealthy. My own parents were prepared to make sacrifices for me if I had wanted to go to a private school and even though it's only anecdotal, of the people that I know who went to private schools, none of them were rich. Their parents scrimped and saved and cut back to be able to afford it. Obviously that itself doesn't mean that their children will know what they want to do, but it's hard to imagine that it isn't at least a motivating factor to do well.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You say private school students don’t do better because of some advantage conferred? Then why do people pay the fees involved? Of course a better student teacher ratio confers an advantage, its just common sense. If a student is in a school with 40 pupils to a teacher and some of the class are disruptive hes going to have a less of a chance than a student in a class with a better student teacher ratio.

Yea I was wrong to say that it doesn't confer some advantage but I don't think that the advantage it gives is big enough to distort points given that fee-paying students make up such a small percentage of the total student intake. Parents pay fees because they think, like others, that by simply going to a private school their son/daughter will automatically do well. No matter how good their student:teacher ratio is, the student is the one that has to put in the work.
These days though I'd find it hard to believe that there's any class that has as many as 40 people in it. None of my classes were anywhere near that and it would seem even less likely in disadvantaged areas which benefit from the DEIS schemes and would receive extra resources.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Different socio economic groups carry one definite trait and that is their level of income. Any other perceived difference is simply opinion. Some place biological traits to each group. One such poster suggested that performance was the realm of middle class minds (the journal of neuroscience would love to get their hand on that research I’m sure). To say that those in less well-off socio economic groups simply don’t aspire to college is wrong. There’s no point elaborating other than saying that I was born into a less well-off socio economic class and not to wax messianic but I was a scientist in mind then and I’m a scientist in mind now. Many in my class wanted to have good jobs in careers they were interested in which would have entailed going to college. All in our entire school atmosphere was woeful and most didn’t make it to college until they went back as a mature student. In our school like many some subjects weren’t offered at a higher level so of course the school context matters.

I don't think there's anything inherently different between a person from a disadvantaged group and a wealthy group. There is no doubt though that there is a difference in attitude towards education between the two and there's studies to support that. I think the one most cited during threads here about college fees is that the free fees initiative has done nothing to increase participation from those in disadvantaged areas which generally shows that finances was not the issue holding them back from attending college.
Poor quality teaching is not something that's exclusive to disadvantaged areas and infact seems less likely than other areas because of the DEIS schemes and extra resources allocated to those areas.
A poor area does not equal poorer quality teaching. Their teachers are no different from any other teachers. The atmosphere you describe is created by the students who generally in such areas have a lack of respect for authority and education. A person can say that they want to be a scientist, engineer etc. all they want, but it doesn't mean much if the person doesn't care much for education and isn't prepared to put in the work. Obviously this isn't true of many people in those areas, and there's obviously huge amounts that want to go to college but there is no doubt that teenagers in those areas have higher drop-out rates from schools and less respect for authority/education. This isn't a problem that's going to be fixed by allowing them into a course simply because they're disadvantaged, ahead of someone who's worked a lot harder.

The problems you're describing like subjects not being available at higher level are exactly the problems I'm talking about! The issue needs to be addressed at second level. Would you not prefer for resources to be given to have these subjects offered at that level instead of the students continuing to miss out on them, but instead be given some extra points as a consolation? Because the latter only serves to put a plaster on the real problem and does nothing to get rid of the disadvantage.

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regards the inequality in our system I think that an interview can and will improve access to third level for those who really should be there. I.e. the natural scientists, engineers, artists and historians. Equal numbers from rich and poor contain these classes of people.

I just don't think I would support an interview. I see where you're coming from and in theory it'd be great but in practice I think it could be abused and misused. It was either this thread or another where someone pointed out in the UK, a member of the royal family was given a place in History in Cambridge even though the highest grade he got was a C. Stuff like this would be even more likely to happen in Ireland given how small it is. The CAO as it stands would not let this happen.
A personal statement for me is the only compromise. It can be kept anonymous while still distinguishing between those who have a true desire for the course and those that don't.

steddyeddy wrote: »

The interview isn’t just a method of introducing equality. Its function is to put the right person in the right course. There are rich people in college who are in the wrong course and there are also poor people in college who are in the wrong course. An interview should reduce those types of people in college. You talk about work experience and I agree that for some people work experience would be practically impossible to get in some careers. Work experience wasn’t what I had in mind however. Research and motive should come into play as reasoning for wanting to do be in a course.

Again I agree in theory but in practice I think interviews are too subjective and introduce too much human error.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You didn’t address why mature students don’t have an advantage because they know someone? My lecturers are Belgium, Singaporean, English, American and Finnish so as regards science knowing people wouldn’t be a major issue. They are also professional. This isn’t the civil service where knowing someone helps, this is decided purely on suitability for the course at hand.

And all my lecturers are Irish! Mature Students are such a small sample of the population that it makes it less likely for them to be given an advantage through knowing someone. But who's to say it doesn't happen?

RandomName2

steddyeddy wrote: »

There has been some objections to this but what does everyone else think. Should other universities pick up this?

So um student 1 who gets 70% should be given 90% because his class mates do badly whilst student 2 who gets 85% but has class mates who get 100% should be down graded to 70%.

That.. that doesn't seem terribly fair.

steddyeddy

RandomName2 wrote: »

So um student 1 who gets 70% should be given 90% because his class mates do badly whilst student 2 who gets 85% but has class mates who get 100% should be down graded to 70%.

That.. that doesn't seem terribly fair.

Thats only a very small part of the solution. Its simply a matter of looking at the students points in combination with an interview with the student and a proposal letter. At the moment were not getting the right people into the right courses.

We already have a system thats not fair so we need to make moves to change it.

steddyeddy

Ill put it this way. The leaving cert and the assignment of students to courses based is affected by the economic situation of the student and his parent. Not only that its based on a students memory and not in anyway an indication of his suitability for that course.

In college imo opinion a students economic circumstance means feck all. You are either right for the course or your not. Grinds wont get you a first in science and everyone has the same lecturer and student-lecturer ratio.

So the only problem imo is the leaving cert and how we get studnets into college. Once we get there economics is meaningless and every has an equal chance but unfortunatly we have to get to that fair system (college) through a system where different variables can confer an advantage and hide a students through worth or ineptitude.

pennypocket

randylonghorn wrote: »

Well, for years before the famous Free Fees Initiative we gave "bonus points" for being rich (not literally, but in practical terms). In fact we never quite stopped doing that in a number of ways; it's difficult to avoid, in fairness, and Ireland isn't the worst example in that respect ... but it's probably becoming more of an issue again in the last few years.

Don't you mean the Matric?

pennypocket

Rocket19 wrote: »

You haven't worded this very eloquently, but I agree with you! :P

What TCD is basically saying is that, if two students get 500 points, one disadvantaged, and one not, they will give the place to the disadvantaged student????
Why?? It's ridiculous. Being from an "elite fee paying school" does not get you 500 or 600 points. Fee paying schools do NOT have better teachers, and they certainly cannot guarantee you points. They may have better facilities, sports, etc, but does that really matter in the end?? The expectation is high in fee-paying schools, study/hard work is very much encouraged, probably more so than some other schools. HOWEVER, only hard word, dedication, and many hours of hitting the books will get you the points in the end.

While I completely agree with giving disadvantaged students the platform and help they need to enter college (they have just as much right as anyone, obviously), this is on a whole other level. It's reverse discrimination. While the current system has it's flaws, at least it's anonymous. Whether the student is from Blackrock or Ballymun, it is virtually impossibly for them to get fcucked over, they are just a number to the examiner.

The clue is in the word 'disadvantaged'. They get '****ed over' from the minute they enter the Junior School gates.

Anyway I don't think the personal statement and interview route is necessarily a better one, if there's an advantage to be had, money will buy it anyway. The points system needs to be reviewed, as does the entire education system but that's another argument altogether (don't get on me started on church patronage and subsidies to fee-paying schools or even childcare places). The funny thing is that the CAO is a limited company in the hands of the universities. They have had the ability to reform the system for many years but chose not to. Every year we get kite-flying on results day from attention-seeking provosts, but little in the real substance of reform.

steddyeddy

pennypocket wrote: »

The clue is in the word 'disadvantaged'. They get '****ed over' from the minute they enter the Junior School gates.

Anyway I don't think the personal statement and interview route is necessarily a better one, if there's an advantage to be had, money will buy it anyway. The points system needs to be reviewed, as does the entire education system but that's another argument altogether (don't get on me started on church patronage and subsidies to fee-paying schools or even childcare places). The funny thing is that the CAO is a limited company in the hands of the universities. They have had the ability to reform the system for many years but chose not to. Every year we get kite-flying on results day from attention-seeking provosts, but little in the real substance of reform.

But thats the thing for years ucd and trinty have been fighting the department of education for real changes in the system. In the words of my lecturer "the unions fight real changes every step of the way". The unions want things to stay the exact same for the teachers regardless of the students.

The clue is in the word 'disadvantaged'. They get '****ed over' from the minute they enter the Junior School gates.

Finally someone who knows what the word disadvantaged means. Some of the posters who talk about disadvantage like its no big deal went to private school and havent a clue. To me a disadvantaged school is one which fosters a belief that you dont deserve the same education as everyone else. That attitude could be fostered through teachers or lack of facilities or both!