nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Technological Universities" - window dressing?

veryangryman

This rebranding of the I.T's seems a bit desperate and likely a huge waste of money. Alot of wishy washy language about strategic this and momentum that.

I guess the same when they became I.Ts from RTCs.

Are you fed up with new buzzwords which effectively becomes the same aul same aul? Agile/Lean I'm looking at you!:eek:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

banie01

I 100% agree with you regarding the rebranding of I.Ts.
Without any meaningful merger of institutions, move to 4 year degrees or indeed a concurrent rise in the expected standard of education that additional resources will allow, it is putting lipstick on a pig.

On to your lean/agile point, if it's your experience that those tools have led to similar outcomes and talking shops.
They weren't implemented correctly. Agile I don't have huge experience of as software isn't my bag.
But lean/6 sigma when implemented correctly really have the potential to drive huge initial improvement and allow it to be maintained and incrementally improved.

Quite often however it's a case of companies hiring in an external consultant and using a buzzword for a few months of meetings and faux enthusiasm before they leave and everything stays pretty much the same.
For any improvement strategy to work it has to become embedded and that can't be done the way most Irish companies approach it.

topper75

I never understood the rebranding attempts in any context.

They are just as meaningless in the corporate world. Eircom is now Eir. No idea what that was supposed to achieve.

Lots of money spent on them so the assorted recipients won't complain about that.

Can anybody recall a rebranding that was in any way meaningful or successful?

Bob Harris

topper75 wrote: »

Can anybody recall a rebranding that was in any way meaningful or successful?

Marathon => Snickers.

o1s1n

Bit of a difference in being able to say your degree came from an 'I.T' and an institution with university status.

If I were a student, I know which I would rather.

gctest50

Hospitals be at that old trick too

Windscale

>> Sellafield

Bob Harris

o1s1n wrote: »

Bit of a difference in being able to say your degree came from an 'I.T' and an institution with university status.

As a student, I know which I would rather.

Students would rather cheap booze, getting up in the afternoons and playing Xbox in their jocks living off tea and toast.

ted1

veryangryman wrote: »

This rebranding of the I.T's seems a bit desperate and likely a huge waste of money. Alot of wishy washy language about strategic this and momentum that.

I guess the same when they became I.Ts from RTCs.

Are you fed up with new buzzwords which effectively becomes the same aul same aul? Agile/Lean I'm looking at you!:eek:

There’s some differences rather just a branding. In Ireland only universities can award degrees.

So UCD can give a degree, but an degree from an IT is issued by QQI.

Your Face

Like the above poster said - this is more than just a rebranding.

https://hea.ie/policy/he-reform/technological-universities/

super_furry

It’s much, much more than just a rebranding exercise.

Harry Palmr

These technological universities are a swizz - a university requires a level of investment in teaching and facilities that are a quantum above the current I.T's. I see nothing to suggest that funding will be forthcoming.

biko

super_furry wrote: »

It’s much, much more than just a rebranding exercise.

Like....?

nkl12xtw5goz70

Like it or not, only a certain proportion of people leave school equipped for university-level study.

For instance, the State Examinations Commission has found that even among the roughly one-third of students who sit the higher-level maths paper, a significant minority don't have basic maths skills and have difficulty completing even simple procedures. Given this, how many students overall are equipped to attend a "technological university"?

It's also worth noting that some courses in computer science and engineering already have an drop-out rate of 80 percent, indicating that many students just aren't prepared for the kind of rigorous study that a technological university would offer. Predictably, students who enter with lower CAO points — frankly, the kind of students who often end up in an IT — are more likely to drop out of their course.

Institutes of Technology offer a valuable avenue for students who want a more practically or vocationally oriented education. Their value, in other words, stems from the very fact that they are not universities. Trying to turn them into universities has obvious benefits for education insiders — academics will always lobby hard for anything that has prestige or funding attached — but it doesn't seem to serve the needs of students.

Raconteuse

biko wrote: »

Like....?

I suppose read Your Face's link.

Why do people always have to say "This is bad" about anything new without researching it?

"Cynicism for the sake of it is cool" should be something people leave behind in their early 20s.

loyatemu

banie01 wrote: »

I 100% agree with you regarding the rebranding of I.Ts.
Without any meaningful merger of institutions, move to 4 year degrees or indeed a concurrent rise in the expected standard of education that additional resources will allow, it is putting lipstick on a pig.

they are merging - ITB, ITTallaght and DIT have merged into TUD. Also merging:
Athlone+Limerick IT
WIT+ITCarlow
IT Tralee+CIT

I assume Sligo, Letterkenny and GMIT will probably merge as well, not sure where that leaves Dundalk.

veryangryman

Raconteuse wrote: »

I suppose read Your Face's link.

Why do people always have to say "This is bad" about anything new without researching it?

"Cynicism for the sake of it is cool" should be something people leave behind in their early 20s.

I did research it. Everywhere has wishy washy strategic language without specifics!

topper75

Raconteuse wrote: »

I suppose read Your Face's link.

Why do people always have to say "This is bad" about anything new without researching it?

"Cynicism for the sake of it is cool" should be something people leave behind in their early 20s.

But the burden is not on us (be we cynics or otherwise) to say why it isn't meaningful.

This is THEIR proposal.

mikhail

loyatemu wrote: »

they are merging - ITB, ITTallaght and DIT have merged into TUD. Also merging:
Athlone+Limerick IT
WIT+ITCarlow
IT Tralee+CIT

I assume Sligo, Letterkenny and GMIT will probably merge as well, not sure where that leaves Dundalk.

I think this is the point. We had a lot of low-grade institutions. This is a mechanism to merge a ****-load of them, which will save some money on replicated functions, allow a broader variety of courses to be offered, and focus capital investment. The "university" branding is just a sweetener to make this politically painless, though TU Dublin might have the scale to consolidate into something better than the sum of its constituent parts.

I actually think it's a good idea, for once. Usually these rebrandings are a complete waste of money.

ToddyDoody

Why bother with mergers though? How about just upgrade some of them as they stand.

banie01

loyatemu wrote: »

they are merging - ITB, ITTallaght and DIT have merged into TUD. Also merging:
Athlone+Limerick IT
WIT+ITCarlow
IT Tralee+CIT.

Sorry, I should have explained my thoughts a bit better.
That is my point, in this instance mergers, saving money and raising graduate standards is a good thing.

Rebranding solely for the sake of it, is a waste of course but in the example of the I.T's merging.
Its IMO well overdue.

nkl12xtw5goz70

banie01 wrote: »

That is my point, in this instance mergers, saving money and raising graduate standards is a good thing.

About raising graduate standards, it's worth asking what will become of Joe Bloggs who got 200 points in his Leaving and just wants to get onto some kind of a course that will lead to a job.

In other words, are the ITs abandoning a core constituency in their pursuit of higher standards?

Raconteuse

In the UK, the polytechs became universities. Here, the National Institutes of Higher Education became universities in the early 80s (UL and DCU). This seems like the same kinda thing.

banie01

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

About raising graduate standards, it's worth asking what will become of Joe Bloggs who got 200 points in his Leaving and just wants to get onto some kind of a course that will lead to a job.

In other words, are the ITs abandoning a core constituency in their pursuit of higher standards?

Barring some significant jump in foreign numbers the number of students Vs the number of places available is a known.

The CAO points system will allow course to be allocated in pretty much the same way as now, as demand drives the entry points total required.

That the I.Ts tended to offer lower points to enter isn't the issue IMO.
Its whether the final graduate, who has been through the education system of both IT and University is of a comparable standard.

If an employer knows the new UNI is now doing 4 yrs honours degrees and that it gives either co-op or comparable industry experience the new uni grad is just as employable and attractive a graduate as the established Uni's.

Raising the standard of graduates on an ongoing basis, is an admirable aim as is consolidation of support and management services to reduce costs and increase spend on research and actual student services.

nkl12xtw5goz70

banie01 wrote: »

If an employer knows the new UNI is now doing 4 yrs honours degrees and that it gives either co-op or comparable industry experience the new uni grad is just as employable and attractive a graduate as the established Uni's.

Yes, but that ignores that non-progression rates are already jaw-dropping at some ITs, up to 80 percent in some engineering and computer science courses. If the goal is to make courses even more difficult as part of the upgrade, surely even more people will drop out.

So what are the options for Joe Bloggs with his 200 CAO points? He doesn't have the ability to complete an honours degree at a "technological university." He just wants to do some vocational course so that he can get a job — but it seems to be these courses that the technological universities will move away from offering, in the interests of improving standards.

TallGlass2

topper75 wrote: »

They are just as meaningless in the corporate world. Eircom is now Eir. No idea what that was supposed to achieve.

Telecom Eireann, Eircom, Eir, few more years maybe just E.

banie01

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

Yes, but that ignores that non-progression rates are already jaw-dropping at some ITs, up to 80 percent in some engineering and computer science courses. If the goal is to make courses even more difficult as part of the upgrade, surely even more people will drop out.

So what are the options for Joe Bloggs with his 200 CAO points? He doesn't have the ability to complete an honours degree at a "technological university." He just wants to do some vocational course so that he can get a job — but it seems to be these courses that the technological universities will move away from offering, in the interests of improving standards.

But that to my mind is more a matter for career guidance and the Department
Vocational skills are a huge necessity and do need to be addressed.

The issue with the ITs IMO is that they have over the course of the last 30yrs moved more and more away from those core vocational competencies in hard engineering, mechanical, tool making and so on to offer more and more courses that directly compete with Uni offerings.

There are far more computing, business, tax and even law course on offer via IT's than the Uni's.
Is that an issue?
Yes of course, the very core of what the ITs were intended for is being subverted and that can be seen in the high 1st year drop out rates.

But even leaving the ITs as is doesn't address that, there needs to more focus paid to showing vocational educational paths as both progressive and worthwhile then affording those students a pathway to the attainment that is better than the quasi-university that many ITs are.

nkl12xtw5goz70

banie01 wrote: »

The issue with the ITs IMO is that they have over the course of the last 30yrs moved more and more away from those core vocational competencies in hard engineering, mechanical, tool making and so on to offer more and more courses that directly compete with Uni offerings.

Agreed.

However, only a certain proportion of school-leavers are equipped to go on to university-level study. In the 2019 Leaving Cert, for instance, 37 percent of students achieved over 400 points, but roughly the same number got under 200 points. Yet, it now seems that the goal of every university and IT/technological university is to attract more 400+ points students, but this will necessarily happen at the expense of students with lower points. There will be far too many courses aimed at the top-achieving students and too few options for others. The whole system seems entirely unbalanced.

LirW

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

Yes, but that ignores that non-progression rates are already jaw-dropping at some ITs, up to 80 percent in some engineering and computer science courses. If the goal is to make courses even more difficult as part of the upgrade, surely even more people will drop out.

So what are the options for Joe Bloggs with his 200 CAO points? He doesn't have the ability to complete an honours degree at a "technological university." He just wants to do some vocational course so that he can get a job — but it seems to be these courses that the technological universities will move away from offering, in the interests of improving standards.

I think the issue just simply stems from the fact that you need a degree in something, anything really to be deemed worthy to succeed.
Joe Bloggs clearly isn't someone who's doing particularly well in a rigid academic setting, the issue is though that many companies that have even remotely a name out there, have the requirement of a 3rd level education.
Doing a certificate, get a level 6 and go build your CV is a long outdated option that will see your CV binned by all these brilliant automated HR programs.

I believe ITs are simply answering this demand, it's companies demanding an educated workforce no matter the cost and it's students with the fear of being left behind and have limited options because they come from "just an IT" and not some fancy schmancy university.

[Deleted User]

TallGlass2 wrote: »

Telecom Eireann, Eircom, Eir, few more years maybe just E.

Department of Posts and Telegraphs first which is why you still see P⁊T on some telephone manhole covers.

Dravokivich

Tallaght, blanch and DIT merged with this "rebranding".

Some of the ITs have merged before. And I believe there's other merging in the works.

nkl12xtw5goz70

LirW wrote: »

I think the issue just simply stems from the fact that you need a degree in something, anything really to be deemed worthy to succeed.

Yes. You're absolutely right. And so we can't simultaneously raise the standard of all degrees while also expecting everyone to acquire a degree.

The powers-that-be won't accept the evident reality that a significant number of students simply are not oriented toward university-level academic study. If they do get onto a high-level course, they will only waste their time and money, drop out, and feel like failures. And what are they to do then?

We need to expand post-secondary opportunities for all students, not just the best and brightest.