"Technological Universities" - window dressing?

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

Because in order to create "degree courses" for sub-300-points students, and especially sub-200-points students, you have to resort to all manner of shenanigans — Mickey Mouse courses, rampant grade inflation, etc. — to keep up the pretense to students, employers, and the taypaying public that something of value is being created with the enterprise of trying to send academically challenged students down an academic path.

If a student can't get over 200 points in the Leaving Cert, what exactly is wrong with saying that that student shouldn't be going along an academic career path that most likely will be a complete waste of time and money?

Instead, create viable career tracks for those who are not academically oriented, have a smaller cohort of students going to university and pursuing degrees, and make sure that the degrees that are granted are not eroded by grade inflation.

I dont think your view on this is fair or balanced. The leaving cert is not a good indication of ones academic prowess or intelligence. Its a learning by rote system that will suit some and not suit others. I understand we need some form of system and thats ok but dont put too much stock in the leaving certificate. Some students are simply not mature enough, have had terrible teachers or have not been taught how to study in secondary school, or unfortunately had difficult home lifes which impact their ability to perform.



You would do well to remember that many college courses are externally audited, my course for example had Engineers Ireland in auditing every 2 years and students were interviewed and quized on exams they had taken, the difficulty of the course content etc. The course was held to the same standard irregardless or it being a IT or a Uni. So grade inflation and mickey mouse courses wouldnt be tolerated or accepted.



I think the 2nd half of your post ties in very much with my own thinking but i may be a bit more extreme. I would completely ban the publishing of stats on how many students secondary schools feed to third level , that stat is not a metric of success. In fact i would say a school that has fed 100% students to third level has badly failed a few of those students.



Secondly we need to shake up Solas, and make it fit for purpose introduce more apprenticeship types , promote them better and ensure that every type of apprenticeship has a route to follow on to further specialist training, or degrees.



I mentioned it in a previous post but the apprenticeship system in Germany is a thing of beauty, with routes for all from apprenticeship to 3rd level and beyond.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Th They have also pushed for research to take a key role and expect lecturers to be publishing papers and research.

Yes, this is so as to make a successful application for TU status.

But is this any help to the students?

Not really.

Geuze wrote: »

That is not a correct comparison.

An IoT here should be compared with a community college in the USA.

That is not a valid comparison at all . A community college in the USA generally only goes as high as an undergraduate degree.


The ITs in Ireland can go to masters and phds . If you think these are Mickey Mouse masters or phds in science, engineering etc then clearly you have never had much contact with them. If you are doing a masters or phd you will be publishing material for peer review, and be held to a very high standard be it IT or Uni.



Not all ITs are equal either , for example UCC and CIT do joint degrees in Architecture and Biomedical Science and these are highly respected courses internationally.

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, this is so as to make a successful application for TU status.

But is this any help to the students?

Not really.

I would say for students to have contact with lecturers that are capable of carrying out meaningful research and publishing in peer reviewed journals etc. is beneficial to the students as it shows them what is possible and that their institution is contributing at a global level.

Margot Miniature Slugger wrote: »

You genuinely believe that there are no Mickey Mouse courses in ITs? Or that there has been no grade inflation?
.

I think areas like engineering and science are less prone to it because they are held to standards by independent bodies such as engineers ireland and they are pretty decent at auditing courses, and you must reapply for them to be recognised every few years. They have withheld certification from some courses if they did not feel the content being taught was at the appropriate level.



However business, arts and social sciences i would have my suspicions about some of the courses. I am sure most people would agree that there is an agrument to be made that these courses shouldnt be under the remit of the ITs anyway.

Geuze wrote: »

That is not a correct comparison.

An IoT here should be compared with a community college in the USA.

I wasn't directly comparing the two. More disparaging the purely cosmetic vain name change.

Marcusm wrote: »

So you’d attribute little value to an MIT degree because it is not called a university?

MIT is not an IT in the sense in which it is used in this country. I'd be very surprised to see someone with a trunk in his car in here, since elephant poaching is frowned upon. MIT is a university. Galway/Mayo IT is not.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I think areas like engineering and science are less prone to it because they are held to standards by independent bodies such as engineers ireland and they are pretty decent at auditing courses, and you must reapply for them to be recognised every few years. They have withheld certification from some courses if they did not feel the content being taught was at the appropriate level.

However business, arts and social sciences i would have my suspicions about some of the courses. I am sure most people would agree that there is an agrument to be made that these courses shouldnt be under the remit of the ITs anyway.

Have to agree with this 100%. I went to DIT, and did a course that was certified by Engineers Ireland. After the recession, the points for the course we're relatively low for all "engineering" type courses.

The problem for many ITs is that due to low points numbers (allowing people in who just aren't able for it) and a requirement for student numbers in second year onwards.

When the students fail, the smaller IT's are under severe pressure to keep on students who just aren't able for the course.

I have to say for DIT, under no circumstances would they lower standards of the course to allow people to pass. They were big enough to ride out a couple of years of low points and lower quality students, and were very well aware that allowing poor students would cause untold reputational damage in the long term.

o1s1n wrote: »

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.

Depends. Several people who studied 'computers' in DIT and have told me when looking for a Job in the USA, they think Dublin Institute of Technology is the Irish version of MIT.

GarIT wrote: »

Fromthe ones I've been to ITs tended to have lower quality facilities, poorer student unions, less intellectually/accademically focused. I've attended NCI and the quality of lecturers was shockingly bad compared to Maynooth. I wouldn't have even said Maynooth was great either.

1st The NCI is not an IT. In fact I would argue that many of its course offerings, particularly the "arts" type courses have no place in an IT.

2nd Personally I couldn't care less about the student union and its perceived quality. I suspect the vast majority of students do either and I struggle to see how it would impact on the quality a course.

3rd IT's are not universities, (nor in my mind should they be) they were never meant to be purely academic institutions. They provided a very different, but no less valid, type of education. (from an industry point of view actually in many cases more valid). They are \ were supposed to be more flexible, and adaptable to the needs of industry and be able to adapt their courses to suit the current and future needs of industry,

GarIT wrote: »

To phrase the question differently then, when they all have to be academically and theory focused to meet the standards of universities who will provide practical skills?

Here we are closer to agreement. Practical skills can be taught on the factory floor or via apprenticeships. its the unique blend of practical and theoretical skills that the old RTC's provided that Industry craved..

In the old days of RTC's they were primarily engineering geared institutes with IT courses and some business. It all started to change as they introduced more of the non "technology" courses and became "universities lite.."

knipex wrote: »

I agree it has little or no relevance to ones intelligence but to be fair it is a decent indicator of ones academic aptitude.

A university degree is a purely academic route.

IT's should provide an alternative route, through a mix of more practical and academic learning.. At a later stage you may decide to progress down the academic route and the training \ education gained from the IT should give you a good foundation on which to build.

All education paths do not need to be isolated and there should be (and to be fair are now far more) links between them to allow people to transfer between paths..

At the moment all apprenticeships are considered a level 6 qualification. There is no reason why some of these could not with additional academic study (either by night during the apprenticeship or after the apprenticeship) be upgraded to level 7 with a path to level 8. Once there its wide open to level 9 and up.

The issue with that is that despite the level 6 being the qualifications for the job it will become by default leven 7 or 8, the level 6 has to be valued in and of its self first so while it should be possible to go on to any level there should be a defined brake between the level 6 and any progression.

mariaalice wrote: »

The issue with that is that despite the level 6 being the qualifications for the job it will become by default level 7 or 8, the level 6 has to be valued in and of its self first so while it should be possible to go on to any level there should be a defined brake between the level 6 and any progression.

An apprenticeship is a defined qualification in its own right with strong recognition in Ireland and Internationally. Indeed I (and many others) would argue far more so than a level 7.

In 90% of applications that level 7 qualification would bring nothing additional to the role and certainly not warrant a pay premium.

The level 7 would \ should open up new career paths in the 5 to 10% of roles where it does bring something or is worth a premium and also open the option of progressing to level 8 IF desired..