Universities left to pick up slack from project maths

loudona

Hi All,

Just trying to get a bit of a debate going here. I'm a PhD student in chemistry and have quite a bit of interaction with undergraduate teaching. However I am very scared for the future generation of scientists coming into university because of project maths. They have completely removed all linear algebra: Vectors, matrices and also integration. These are pretty much the pillars of scientific maths. Even if there are exceptional students sitting project maths, they are limited by the curriculum. So do universities now have to provide remedial maths classes to bring students up to a standard where they can study physics/chemistry/maths, or is there scope for the SEC to renege on project maths and bring up the maths standard at a secondary level?

Alex

flump_master

As a student just finished her leaving cert and looking to study science (specifically chemistry/physics) the absence of any in depth algebra and calculus on the leaving cert course was something that genuinely frustrated me. I studied a course that has in no way prepared me for my prospective course and I feel somewhat hard done by, having been left at such a disadvantage.

In the hope of increasing the numbers studying higher level maths the Department of Education and Project Maths team have limited many students. The project maths syllabus may benefit the department when they speak of their much lauded 30% doing higher level maths and the supposed "practical skills" it teaches, but it is truly at the detriment of the "exceptional student" as you said.

The department need to stop trying to be "nice" in short. Their new syllabus is vague, overly reliant on problem solving and does not provide the basis that our future scientists need. They have prioritized those students who are not inclined towards pure maths and have little desire to continue studying it despite their wish to be viewed as a strong contender in the STEM fields.

I believe the fears I feel are mirrored at 3rd level institutions and can be seen in the remedial classes. I don't believe the responsibility lies wholly with either the Department or HEAs. We do need to increase the numbers doing higher level maths as well as foster a real appreciation and passion for the subject. We absolutely need to make the course more accessible and approachable and remove the fear that maths strikes into the souls of so many teenagers.

I would be in favour of a return to the old syllabus but with a broad range of measures to improve it. TY maths courses, more specialised teacher training programmes that are subject focused, and a greater emphasis on understanding over rote learning would help students massively (this is one area in which project maths somewhat succeeded) . I believe an ideal syllabus is one that lays the groundwork and provides a basis in the pillars of scientific maths so that those who continue on to study science in college have a solid foundation and those that do otherwise have at the very least some mathematical literacy.

College remedial classes shouldn't be a way to right the wrongs of project maths but rather a way to bridge the gap between 2nd and 3rd level. I look forward to September, to being challenged in a way I never truly was by Project Maths but I do fear it will be like being thrown in at the deep end only knowing the doggy paddle and for that I have only Project Maths to thank.

loudona

Thanks for your reply,
Firstly I just want to reassure anyone reading this that as long as you can put in the extra effort. Doing science at 3rd level is perfectly manageable, you'll just start on the back foot.

I think the point about bringing up the % of people doing higher level is quite odd as "higher" and "lower" are just arbitrary terms. Surely the goal should be to increase the standard of maths across the board regardless of what we call it. Making higher maths easier is going to have devastating consequences on the future generations. I also think that project maths is hiding behind a very thin veneer of "problem solving" to justify it's existence. In real life problems are solved using real maths based on theory, which has unfortunately been omitted from the leaving cert course now.

Furthermore the fact that students now get 25 extra points for doing project maths is astounding. Again it seems that the SEC is using cheap tactics to bolster higher level maths numbers. I would understand possibly giving 25 extra points to the old syllabus if it was made slightly more difficult, but even then it would be treating the symptom and not the cause, which is really sub-standard maths teaching in Ireland.

I would completely agree with you about the necessity to drive people to want to do maths, but making it easier as they have done is not the answer. I feel there is such a large disconnect between how maths is taught and why we need it in reality so that students don't understand it's importance in the real world. Even if you study psychology/economics/commerce there are substantial mathematical elements to these subjects which LC students are unaware of and unprepared for.

Apologies for ranting, I just can't believe that the Irish education system is willing to cripple itself in order to boost ratings so to speak. At the end of the day, the real world relies on good maths skills, not the # number of people doing an arbitrarily named "higher" maths.

Best of luck with your scientific career, I loved my undergraduate in chemistry and feel that science is a fantastic way to appreciate the world we live in!

flump_master

I have to say, I agree absolutely with all that you say. It seems we're just ranting at a non-existent opposition!

That there is such a focus on Higher level maths is disgraceful. Our obsession with improving only the top x percent of maths students is indicative of an education system that fails to be all-inclusive, one that prefers to indulge in self appreciating statistics rather than look any deeper.

And as for the bonus points! They don't reward those who do higher level maths but rather punish those who don't. The introduction of bonus points led to a corresponding increase in points for the majority of courses, forcing many students who simply are not capable of doing honours maths to come under undue strain to gain those 25 points.

I legitimately adore maths, it has always been my favourite subject and because of that passion I found it easy to excel. There is a beauty in maths that is unappreciated.But, as you said, making it easier does not suddenly show that beauty to everyone. "Dumbing" maths down does nobody any favours whatsoever, it just speaks to our own naivety.

The department seems to have crippled itself and the students, both those who have a talent for maths and those who do not. But its own hubris will mean it will continue to make adjustments instead of ripping up Project Maths and starting afresh

Oh and thank you! I'm really excited to start studying science, it's such an eye opening area in a lot of ways

spurious

Universities have to teach students something new.

Is this such an issue?

Many subjects at university bear little resemblance to their LC incarnation.

I'm afraid like it or not, Project Maths is here. Moaning about it won't do any good.

flump_master

I suppose it's not so much that it's new but rather that there is such a disparity between Leaving Cert maths and Project Maths. When revising I could do about 30/40% of pre project maths papers, a syllabus that was more in line with 3rd level maths. Surely there should be a better foundation than that? Questions on this years paper included one that asked you to speculate on those not in the workforce but barely any integration, something that is vital in scientific maths.

Moaning may not get anything done but it is good to see that the opposition to project maths is substantiated and not merely another incarnation of "I hate maths, ugh". Healthy debate spreads, we could see yet another syllabus change if there is enough of it- especially if 3rd level institutions become involved.


But hey, I never have to navigate another pesky wordy question again, hooray for that!

spurious

flump_master wrote: »

But hey, I never have to navigate another pesky wordy question again, hooray for that!

For 50 marks, explain how you feel about that.:D

The trouble is, noone in recent years has listened to anyone at the coalface in education, at any level.

Third level lecturers have bemoaned for years the standard of English, written and oral, of a large proportion of each year's intake. Gone are the days where getting an 'honours' grade in HL English meant you could clearly express ideas. Rather than addressing this in a properly examined and moderated exam system, the powers that be are rushing headlong into an 'assess your own classes, sure it will be grand' mess, which mark my words, once they see how much they save doing it at JC will follow on to LC.

If the DES think they can ignore the NCCA, lecturers and teachers in 'planning' future assessment, they certainly won't listen to sense, about any subject.

flump_master

spurious for the next Minister for Education and Skills!

The disconnect really is shocking. In response to the new JC teachers in my school staged a brief protest (I think it was an across the country esque thing) and the response by my peers and adults in the community was "Would they stop moaning. That won't get anything done." Sadly they're probably right, but what is the alternative?

As a nation we allow passivity to reign and then come on to boards to moan about it. We care more about Garth Brooks than the mess of CA, when any student with half a brain could point out the flaws.

...Too late to change the CAO to law and poli sci? :P

loudona

spurious wrote: »

Universities have to teach students something new.

Is this such an issue?

I have no problem with this concept, however universities are internationally critiqued and inspected. So if our tertiary system is to stay competitive, the education students receive must enable them to compete internationally. So regardless of how little/much the secondary system decides to teach, the tertiary must pick up the slack, or become discredited.

My issue in a more immediate setting, is what the SEC have omitted from project maths. Without any basis in scientific maths, our country which claims to be a technology based economy, will inevitably suffer.

spurious

Sure aren't we the e-hub of Europe.

AtomicKoala

I really don't get this furore over the bonus points. Whether one likes it or not, HL Maths requires more work than other subjects. With an unadjusted points system, it is wise for a C student to drop to OL in Maths.

The introduction of bonus points has altered this dynamic, helping address this flaw. If one talks to students, it is obvious that those extra 25 points have encouraged many students to work harder on their maths skills.

HugsiePie

loudona wrote: »

Hi All,

Just trying to get a bit of a debate going here. I'm a PhD student in chemistry and have quite a bit of interaction with undergraduate teaching. However I am very scared for the future generation of scientists coming into university because of project maths. They have completely removed all linear algebra: Vectors, matrices and also integration. These are pretty much the pillars of scientific maths. Even if there are exceptional students sitting project maths, they are limited by the curriculum. So do universities now have to provide remedial maths classes to bring students up to a standard where they can study physics/chemistry/maths, or is there scope for the SEC to renege on project maths and bring up the maths standard at a secondary level?

Alex

I studied project maths as part of my LC last year and have just completed my first year of a general science course that involved taking a year long module in mathematical studies. Our course had not changed in accordance to project maths (i.e we the students were going into this long established course with less mathematical knowledge than people the years previous to us had entering the course, but were expected to pick up from the same place and do the same work). This made it incredibly difficult for the students, we had been told mathematical studies would be very easy to pass with our LC knowledge, the truth was in fact very different. May students failed unable to cope with the large jump from secondary school maths to college maths. M college provided a mathematical center where tutors were to help students with their maths study however resources were limited and students often did not gt the attention they needed to understand topics fully. PM me if you wish to ask me any further questions in relation to going from Project maths to science in college. I hope I was of some help.

EoghanIRL

spurious wrote: »

Universities have to teach students something new.

Is this such an issue?

Many subjects at university bear little resemblance to their LC incarnation.

I'm afraid like it or not, Project Maths is here. Moaning about it won't do any good.

I think it is the limitation of the curriculum rather than project maths which is the problem here.

Also universities are a business at the end of the day . It costs money to pay lecturers to teach undergraduate students skills which they should have acquired during their second level education .

If they included the areas suggested by the op but kept the project maths style paper would this still be a problem .

Peregrine

I have my disagreements with certain changes in Project Maths but I do think that, overall, it's a step in the right direction. I'll have to wait 'til next year to properly assess the difficulties while transitioning between PM and third level maths.

spurious wrote: »

The trouble is, noone in recent years has listened to anyone at the coalface in education, at any level.

Sad but true

flump_master wrote: »

spurious for the next Minister for Education and Skills!

Should've got spurious into government for next week's reshuffle then

professore

Am I missing something here? What % of the population uses integration on a daily basis? I would be in favour of slimming down maths but making the topics that are covered impossible to pass without a really good understanding of it. If we get more people to "know what they know" and get into the mathematical way of thinking this will be of much greater benefit than a huge course that people fail or drop out of due to the relatively high workload. The rest can be learned. This from someone who did pass maths many years ago and ultimately ended up with a maths / physics degree from a top Irish uni.

MegGustaa

professore wrote: »

Am I missing something here? What % of the population uses integration on a daily basis? I would be in favour of slimming down maths but making the topics that are covered impossible to pass without a really good understanding of it. If we get more people to "know what they know" and get into the mathematical way of thinking this will be of much greater benefit than a huge course that people fail or drop out of due to the relatively high workload. The rest can be learned. This from someone who did pass maths many years ago and ultimately ended up with a maths / physics degree from a top Irish uni.

I'm all for raising the standard of Maths that the majority of students are attaining, but the fact that second level students in Ireland, studying the highest level of mathematics available to them, are only exposed to a bare minimum of differential and integral calculus (and no linear algebra, really) is a joke.

If the government were really serious about STEM fields they'd invest in Maths education and make it possible to offer several streams of Maths in schools. Other countries have "further" Maths available to the top students, for example. A level beyond Higher Level for those that are most capable. But either way, more levels would mean more students achieving their potential. Here, it's like if you can't handle HL, you drop all the way down to OL. There's a massive spectrum of ability in OL classes by the time you reach 6th Year. Plus I can't imagine those struggling to get Ds in HL are getting the most out of their Maths education. Irish schools are probably too small to make smaller but more focused streams for Maths a reality, though.

There's just no need for 30% (or whatever it was this year, I think I heard that was the long term target) of the country's LC students to be studying the highest level of Maths available. In fact, if 30% can pass the highest level of Maths, it probably means that course/exam is not rigorous enough to compete internationally. Probably sounds elitist, but I'm genuinely concerned about the limitations of how we're teaching Maths - both for the most capable, but also for the average student. It doesn't mean much if a whole load of students sit HL Maths if that curriculum leaves out a bunch of really important (but traditionally less "accessible" or "useful", which of course is a matter of perspective...) topics.

Badwulf

Controversial view over here buuuutttt....

The leaving cert. is fairly stupid in general. I'm one of the people who don't believe that my progression of education of something I find interesting (Example: Computer Science) should be judged on six subjects I was given two years to study, and about 4 of those subjects I would never use in my life again and, or find interesting in the slightest. When I was talking to a college teacher during an open day about mechanical engineering I told him I wasn't the best at maths and was worried It would affect the course for me and he basically said "The maths we teach you will be coherient, no twists or trick questions so don't worry what result you get in your leaving cert. as in college we teach you everything you need to know" . Now I'm not saying DOWN WIV LEAVING CERT!!!, I just personally believe there must be a better alternative to getting into something we have an interest in than being tested on six dusty subjects a lot of us may not care about in the least. Like why do we need French for some colleges or Irish? Why do some courses that do not involve a single bit of maths need a pass in maths? The constant regurgitation of knowledge by saying/reading/singing various definitions until you know them off by heart in your head does not show some bodies intelligence. Hell, I knew a girl who was dumb as a wet sack of hammers who legit thought that apples were made in factories out of substances and actually asked our Biology teacher before "Miss can fish smoke? and can they get lung cancer if they do?" out of the blue. Is she an idiot? My god yes, but I know for her mocks she studied nine and a half hours a day for three weeks and managed to bring home 430 points. Like I said, I'll probably get a lot of hate for this comment but it's just how I feel, I just think there should be a better way for most of us to get into college.



I also agree with how you think maths is being "Dumbed Down" too much. But there is a good reason for that. A while ago all nearly all colleges needed a pass in both Irish AND maths but nowdays basically all ITs dont need a pass in irish, but almost every course needs a pass in maths which puts at lot of stress on many students and makes most of them do pass level. Because at the end of the day, whether or not you get 600 points, It wont matter unless you pass maths, it causes a lot of stress for students and makes them panic during the actual exam itself so the course will usually be dumbed down and the marking scheme will be easier.

EoghanIRL

Badwulf wrote: »

Controversial view over here buuuutttt....

The leaving cert. is fairly stupid in general. I'm one of the people who don't believe that my progression of education of something I find interesting (Example: Computer Science) should be judged on six subjects I was given two years to study, and about 4 of those subjects I would never use in my life again and, or find interesting in the slightest. When I was talking to a college teacher during an open day about mechanical engineering I told him I wasn't the best at maths and was worried It would affect the course for me and he basically said "The maths we teach you will be coherient, no twists or trick questions so don't worry what result you get in your leaving cert. as in college we teach you everything you need to know" . Now I'm not saying DOWN WIV LEAVING CERT!!!, I just personally believe there must be a better alternative to getting into something we have an interest in than being tested on six dusty subjects a lot of us may not care about in the least. Like why do we need French for some colleges or Irish? Why do some courses that do not involve a single bit of maths need a pass in maths? The constant regurgitation of knowledge by saying/reading/singing various definitions until you know them off by heart in your head does not show some bodies intelligence. Hell, I knew a girl who was dumb as a wet sack of hammers who legit thought that apples were made in factories out of substances and actually asked our Biology teacher before "Miss can fish smoke? and can they get lung cancer if they do?" out of the blue. Is she an idiot? My god yes, but I know for her mocks she studied nine and a half hours a day for three weeks and managed to bring home 430 points. Like I said, I'll probably get a lot of hate for this comment but it's just how I feel, I just think there should be a better way for most of us to get into college.

The American style system of continuous assessment and aptitude testing is another method of examination .

Or possibly like the a levels where you do less subjects but you study them more in depth .

Secondly the fact that Ireland has grind schools , in itself shows how schools and the leaving cert are failing irish students .

Badwulf

EoghanIRL wrote: »

The American style system of continuous assessment and aptitude testing is another method of examination .

Or possibly like the a levels where you do less subjects but you study them more in depth .

Secondly the fact that Ireland has grind schools , in itself shows how schools and the leaving cert are failing irish students .

I kinda like the idea of A levels but I just don't know tbh, I have such negative and mixed feelings about the leaving cert since my friend who was the best in the class at higher english got a 55 (he usually gets 80+), and two of the students in the class who usually get in the 40-50 range both got 70+ just really peed me and him off, I got my usually grade average of about 70 but still, the examiner even wrote on his paper that some of his opinions were "far fetched" and that he didn't agree with them and thats why he was marked so low

randylonghorn

Badwulf wrote: »

A while ago all nearly all colleges needed a pass in both Irish AND maths but nowdays basically all ITs dont need a pass in irish, but almost every course needs a pass in maths which puts at lot of stress on many students and makes most of them do pass level. Because at the end of the day, whether or not you get 600 points, It wont matter unless you pass maths, it causes a lot of stress for students ...

Here's a mad idea I have thrown out here before a couple of times.

Offer students doing HL Maths an opportunity to sit an OL-standard paper before Christmas in 6th year. (It mightn't look exactly like an OL paper as we know it, if some topics on for HL aren't covered in the OL course ... I'm not familiar enough with the new course to be sure on that ... but it would be of an equivalent standard).

Assuming they pass it, they carry their grade into the LC; if they pass HL in June, they get their HL grade, if not, their OL grade stays in place.

Would ...

... take a lot of the stress you speak of out of maths.

... encourage many people who are too scared to try HL to take it on.

... obviate (to a great extent anyway, probably entirely) the need for colleges to put on special "second chance" courses / exams in late summer.

In my opinion, such a system would have done a lot more to encourage people to take Higher Maths than the bonus points, and without introducing an advantage for those taking Hons. in one subject, maths, regardless of whether the course the student wanted to do in college even had any particular maths content.

But of course throwing bonus points at people doesn't cost anything, and feck tackling the real problem ... >_>

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Secondly the fact that Ireland has grind schools, in itself shows how schools and the leaving cert are failing irish students.

I would be inclined to argue that it shows more how much the points race has come to dominate all "educational" thinking around the LC, how much stress it puts on students and their parents, and how there are savvy business people out there who saw their opportunity to make big money off that stress, and in order to do so not only hype up their own product, but happily ramp up the hype (and in turn the stress) about points as well. Vicious circle.

And the whole grinds mentality has permeated Irish culture and is ending up retro-engineering actual schools who have in the last decade or so been increasingly been forced to "teach to the exams" rather than to the curriculum. I know teachers who have been chewed up and spat out by irate parents for teaching what was on the curriculum (and therefore what they're supposed to teach") because "but sure that never comes up in the exam!!".

Admittedly, the cutbacks in funding and in particular in teacher / student ratios have put a lot of schools under pressure over the last few years, and that would gel with the point of view you were arguing.

gctest50

randylonghorn wrote: »

And the whole grinds mentality has permeated Irish culture and is ending up retro-engineering actual schools who have in the last decade or so been increasingly been forced to "teach to the exams" rather than to the curriculum. I know teachers who have been chewed up and spat out by irate parents for teaching what was on the curriculum (and therefore what they're supposed to teach") because "but sure that never comes up in the exam!!".
.

For sure - who will be there with "the inside track" when they are out in real life - its just breeding little robots at the minute

AtomicKoala

MegGustaa wrote: »

If the government were really serious about STEM fields they'd invest in Maths education and make it possible to offer several streams of Maths in schools. Other countries have "further" Maths available to the top students, for example. A level beyond Higher Level for those that are most capable. But either way, more levels would mean more students achieving their potential. Here, it's like if you can't handle HL, you drop all the way down to OL. There's a massive spectrum of ability in OL classes by the time you reach 6th Year. Plus I can't imagine those struggling to get Ds in HL are getting the most out of their Maths education. Irish schools are probably too small to make smaller but more focused streams for Maths a reality, though.

There's just no need for 30% (or whatever it was this year, I think I heard that was the long term target) of the country's LC students to be studying the highest level of Maths available. In fact, if 30% can pass the highest level of Maths, it probably means that course/exam is not rigorous enough to compete internationally. Probably sounds elitist, but I'm genuinely concerned about the limitations of how we're teaching Maths - both for the most capable, but also for the average student. It doesn't mean much if a whole load of students sit HL Maths if that curriculum leaves out a bunch of really important (but traditionally less "accessible" or "useful", which of course is a matter of perspective...) topics.

Yeah this is a fair point - perhaps it's time to move Maths away from simple 'Higher' and 'Ordinary' basis. For example the top 15% could take an exam where say, 135 points was the max, the bottom 45% one where 50 points ws the max, and the middle 40% an exam where say, 90 points was the max.

These would be graded as usual, but allow the top cohort to explore more advanced topics.

spurious

AtomicKoala wrote: »

Yeah this is a fair point - perhaps it's time to move Maths away from simple 'Higher' and 'Ordinary' basis. For example the top 15% could take an exam where say, 135 points was the max, the bottom 45% one where 50 points ws the max, and the middle 40% an exam where say, 90 points was the max.

These would be graded as usual, but allow the top cohort to explore more advanced topics.

Or design a number of different Maths courses and exams. One much more 'day to day' use - percentages, basic geometry, arithmetic etc. which would suffice for non-Science/Maths/Accounting courses, and others like the ones you describe plus perhaps a more 'Scientific' Maths course for those aiming for courses for which a high level of Maths is needed.

AtomicKoala

spurious wrote: »

Or design a number of different Maths courses and exams. One much more 'day to day' use - percentages, basic geometry, arithmetic etc. which would suffice for non-Science/Maths/Accounting courses, and others like the ones you describe plus perhaps a more 'Scientific' Maths course for those aiming for courses for which a high level of Maths is needed.

Perhaps, there is already Applied Maths I suppose. There certainly needs to be some sort of core maths course anyhow.

EoghanIRL

spurious wrote: »

Or design a number of different Maths courses and exams. One much more 'day to day' use - percentages, basic geometry, arithmetic etc. which would suffice for non-Science/Maths/Accounting courses, and others like the ones you describe plus perhaps a more 'Scientific' Maths course for those aiming for courses for which a high level of Maths is needed.

Good idea. Like how in USA you have calculus as a separate subject.

Also some type of aptitude test similar to the SATS wouldn't be so bad. They would test intelligence rather than recall . Then again look at the mess they made with the hpat giving repeat students an advantage etc.
I still think aptitude testing could be more beneficial , but not as the sole method of selecting canidates for courses.


Also I think they should limit the amount of times you can repeat the leaving cert and if you do repeat they should look for higher points to give first timers a fairer chance.

loudona

AtomicKoala wrote: »

Perhaps, there is already Applied Maths I suppose. There certainly needs to be some sort of core maths course anyhow.

I hadn't even considered that applied maths would be thought of as a lot tougher now because HL maths doesn't deal with the vectors/integration anymore.

It was hard enough back when vectors were on the normal syllabus.

MegGustaa

loudona wrote: »

I hadn't even considered that applied maths would be thought of as a lot tougher now because HL maths doesn't deal with the vectors/integration anymore.

It was hard enough back when vectors were on the normal syllabus.

Vectors are still quite straightforward, and they removed all of the integration from Applied Maths that isn't covered in Maths, so actually they made Q10 much easier in the past three years.

I would love to see a proper "scientific" Maths curriculum available to the top Maths students. A proper preparation in Calculus and Linear Algebra, perhaps going further than the old HL course did, would be a great asset to students progressing to STEM fields in university.

Raspberry Fileds

It's not enough to say that certain topics are useful/essential at third level and therefore should be taught at second level; it needs to be the case that they can be taught without compromising other more essential topics. I think that, for the majority, learning exotic topics like those has that effect (full disclosure: I advocate removing Calculus from the core maths subject).

The vectors and matrices on the course were very basic. I cannot stress that enough! Integration was more substantial, but still considerably less so than Differentiation.

PM is often misrepresented as having just removed. But, while there may have been a net reduction in content, there is now more Geometry and Statistics than there was previously.

Of all subjects, maths almost certainly has the widest spread of abilities, and because of that and the nature of the subject it's not possible to adequately accommodate all students with two streams. And that's before you consider the constraints that that has on the content of the curriculum. Internationally, it is entirely atypical not to have a specialist maths subject: ww*w.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89625421&postcount=16 (without asterisk).

But a subject in the mould of the Further Maths A-Level introduces several problems: impossibility of universal provision (because of cost and supply of qualified teachers); the oddity of a university-level maths course receiving the same points-weighting as, say, Geography; the question of whether it should be a mandatory subject for STEM degrees: if yes, the problem of provision may prevent many students from such courses, and considering that as recently as five years ago the premier Engineering degree in Ireland (UCD) required only 400 points - surely, in large part due to the ostensibly measly HC3 Maths requirement - it may very well kill demand; if no, it would create a divide in STEM courses between those who did the subject and those who didn't - potentially one which unexceptional students would never bridge; and the sentimental reason that many potentially brilliant scientists/engineers likely under perform at second level.