Why are points so low?

Tom Dunne

oRGY takes a holiday, and Jocksy will follow soon if he doesn't cop on.

Ibid wrote:

Do you think that ITs offer the same worth to a potential student as the likes of Trinity?

Admittedly not, but ITs can certainly set up the high achieving students to progress even further. ITs don't have the facilities, resources nor the research ethic that universities do, though the latter is changing somewhat.

Ibid wrote:

I know one of the things I love about TCD is that everyone is so smart, and hard-working thus there's a lot of competition which makes me work hard. The reputation also instils a hard-working ethic.

The last class I lectured in IT Tallaght had around 100 students in it. They too were a bright, dedicated and hard-working bunch. I was genuinely taken aback at their attitude. Instead of competition, there was a palpable sense of co-operation, working together on assignments and projects. That too instills a hard-working ethic.

Ibid wrote:

As you say they're primarily for those who don't come from "traditional" third-level backgrounds, would it instill the same sense of competition and all that?

On the contrary, as above, I would say it would instill a sense of belonging, or working together to achieve a common goal.

Ibid wrote:

Would it be fair to say that there would be more of a focus on enjoying your student years and going for a pint more often than in "traditional" third-level institutions?

No, I wouldn't say that. Looking at my 19 year old sister who is attending one of the universities, herself and her fellow students appear to be perpetually drunk and having a good time. So from that perspective, I'd say ITs and universities are a match for one another.

Ibid wrote:

What I'm getting at is that employers often look not just at your education but at your personality and approaches to life etc etc. Also the piece of paper might be the same, the person could be different. Could this perception by employers be a cause for lower points?

There is no denying that there is a difference in attitude of employers towards ITs and universities. I do not feel that this has specifically an effect on IT Tallaght itself, more so on ITs as a whole.

FionnMatthew

Before I start, I'm an alumnus of the Dublin Institute of Technology, and I'm currently finishing the final year of an undergraduate degree in the Arts at UCD.

JC2k3 wrote:

What actually is the difference between an IT and a "normal" university?

I think this is really the most operative question here, and tends to address some of the misapprehensions going on. For the most part, ITs are career oriented. That's not just my opinion. That tends to be how these institutions describe themselves. Look!
"At ITT Dublin we offer career relevant courses,..."

"...(DIT have) combined the academic excellence of a traditional university with career-focused learning and preparation for productive leadership roles...."
Hence the predominant focus on skill-oriented disciplines. There's nothing wrong with approaching third level education with a view to employment. But to judge a university by that standard is a grave mistake. Traditionally, Universities have a commitment to culture, and learning for its own ends.

There is a view of learning as something that is positively enriching, something that does not need exterior justification, that is not simply of utilitarian value. The academy is the form this ideal takes. This is not to say that the same ideals cannot be present in an Institute for Technology, but the very fact that ITs have a commitment to employability means that there is a dual goal, and practicality tends to win out.

Have a look at this page for prospective students in UCD. Not much mention is made of careers. Instead, it makes reference to academic excellence, long standing tradition, prestige, etc. Granted, the current restructuring of both UCD and Trinity is actually making this kind of talk empty rhetoric, but that is the traditional, and quite correct way of looking at universities.

That's why both of these quotes demonstrate a lack of awareness of the role of the university.

comer wrote:

And prestige doesn't mean a thing when you are looking for work does it?

Naikon wrote:

As much as people like to think otherwise, the whole University vs IOT thing is a bit of a sham really.
You need the theory and the practical emphises, as theory is useless without it being applicable to the "real world"

To start with, prestige very well might mean something if you're looking for work. I don't know whether it should. In my opinion, one should be employed on merit, but, to be honest, a university doesn't become prestigious by accident, and a prestigious university will tend to award distinctions less often, so a good degree from a prestigious university does probably pack some punch with people who are looking out for that sort of thing.

As to whether practical emphasis is better than theory, this only applies where the practical emphasis is the criterion on which you are employable. If you're going for a job in researching theoretical physics, theory has a certain practical aspect to it!

And, again, this is all assuming that you want to get out into the "real world". If you intend to pursue a course of academic study, then the "real world" isn't really an option. You really should acknowledge a diversity of aspirations with regard to third level education. Not all of us are clamouring to get into the "real world". The "real world" is, let me assure you, quite overrated anyway, and, I'll warrant, there are as many "real worlds" as there are people that live in one.

comer_97 wrote:

I think there is a myth out there that people will pick UCD or Trinity graduates over others. From what I can see it is not true.

Again, that depends on what people are doing the picking, and where the people who want to get picked want to go. For instance, holyrood wanted to go to a prestigious UK university:

holyrood87 wrote:

I went to U.C.D and am now a postgrad at a world leading university in the U.K.

The chances of getting into a prestigious UK university are greatly amplified by having attended one of Ireland's universities first.

The idea that prestige is simply a by-word for snobbery is really nuts. Prestige isn't empty. A university is prestigious because it's a GOOD university. Cambridge University, for instance, is a VERY GOOD university. That's not big talk and bull****. You'll really be put through your paces there. A good PhD from there will make you employable in any university in the world. There's nothing snobbish about wanting to go to a university; not if the job you have your eye on is an academic one.

For this reason, I think, remarks like the following...

weedhead wrote:

universities do have a more prestigious view for certain people which in my view accounts for some form of snobbery.

Zillah wrote:

Cos they have their heads stuck up their asses and really want to be able to impress other people who have their asses stuck even further up their asses?

...reveal a tacit lack of appreciation for what university is about, which, I might say, could be seen as coincident with having not attended university.

So third level institutions are not all about getting employed. In fact, it isn't really healthy that third level institutions have any one purpose. One can have many reasons for studying something, hence it is a little premature to say things like this:

tom dunne wrote:

And holyrood85, with his superiority complex and inability to recognise third level institutions for what they are, is banned for trolling.

... because it isn't yet certain that what you recognise third level institutions to be is in fact what they are.

comer_97 wrote:

Colleges are businesses after all. Althought sometimes they don't act like them.

Ahem. Colleges are expressly not businesses. At least, colleges should never be businesses. That bears repeating. Colleges should never be businesses. That goes for universities, ITs and every other type of institution that claims education to be its sole purpose. If an educational institution is also a business, then as a business it is obliged to make money. Moneymaking and education are not always compatible goals, and a great deal of the time they are goals that lie at opposite ends of a sliding scale. The business model for educational institutions makes an educational institution merely an institution that tries very hard to appear as if it is a very good institution for education. Appearance over reality. And that is not a good thing. So let's just nip that in the bud right there.

Lemming wrote:

Funnily enough, UCD doesn't have much in the way of "international prestige" either. Trinity College is about the only one known world wide in academia.

comer_97 wrote:

I always laugh quietly to myself when people talk about the prestige (not the movie) of other universities in Ireland.
Trinity is the only one that appears in the top college lists in the world and in Europe, the rest don't.

Well, comer_97, for someone who seems to deride in others that unpleasant vice called "up-one's-own-arseness", you could certainly better spend your time than "laughing quietly to yourself".

League tables ARE gauges of prestige, yes. But you have to know how to read them. To start with, some league tables are regulated on the basis of how many Nobel prizes alumni have won. Nobel prizes are almost exclusively awarded in the sciences. Hence, if you're not looking to study in the sciences, that particular league table may not be a good indicator of whether or not this or that college would be a good choice for you.

holyrood85 wrote:

...the best lecturers are going to be attracted to the best universities with the biggest budgets i.e ucd, trinity. Thus the best students will want to go there and the points will be higher.

No prestige attached to attending tallaght i.t. It has little or no international reputation.

Prestige can sometimes move around with the academics in the employ of the school. For example, the philosophy department in UCD is quite prestigious, and a degree here does mean something in "world wide... academia". For instance, I was recently having a discussion with a bunch of canadian philosophy students, and a couple of lecturers from MIT in Boston, about Phenomenology, and they told me to read Prof. Dermot Moran's textbook on the subject. Apparently it's become the world standard textbook on the subject. I just finished his course in UCD at Christmas. He's my teacher. Another of my lecturers, Prof. Maria Baghramian, recently convened the Hilary Putnam conference at UCD, and is well known to Putnam, Saul Kripke, Jerry Fodor and Noam Chomsky. I sat on some of Putnam's postgraduate seminars this year. Putnam! He's a name out the history books. You'll probably have heard of Richard Kearney. If not, google his name. He's an internationally renowned academic, who you have to go to UCD, where he's a visiting professor, to get anywhere near. These are connections you can't smirk at. A good word about you from one good professor to another can get you a long way in the world. There is a REAL, PRACTICALLY APPRECIABLE reason to recognise prestige as an operative concern in 3rd level education. Here's the department's website, in case you want to investigate.

comer_97 wrote:

There are some great lecturers with great experience (academic and professional) in IT Tallaght, you know some people like to work near home, or on a course they enjoy, it's not Trinity or nothing.

Lemming wrote:

I did indeed have a lecturer who had NASA on his resume and is (or was last I heard at any rate) a leading world expert in UNIX system design.... Got another lecturer now who is obscenely talented and smart with a rather impressive resume and publication list to his name.

There are a few others I can think of as well, but it's neither here nor there. I'm not going to throw names out there.

I'm sure there are good lecturers in the ITs, but the way you just described that lecturer with the publication list as if he was an exception is quite telling. Just about every lecturer in my departments have a publication list. All UCD's PhD students have publication lists. Some Masters students have publication lists. When I was in DIT, a great many of my teachers had a load of practical experience, and many of them were graduates, but a minority of them held PhDs. It's the minority of teachers who don't hold PhDs in UCD.

Lemming wrote:

If you want to have a look at how _not_ to use CAO points as an indicator of how good a course/college is, look at arts vs. science requirements in UCD. I don't know what they're like now, but when I did my L.C., Science was 415 points and Arts 395. Yeahhhh ..... good indicator alright ...

Oh, snigger snigger. How ingenious! The points differential you mention reflects... what exactly? In what way is that not a good indicator of how good either of those courses are?

Let me take a guess. Arts, presumably, doesn't rank highly on your hierarchical list of good courses. If this is the point you are trying to make, it only reflects on your assumptions about what does or does not constitute a good course.

Consider this statement, which will hopefully orient your rather blithe judgement to a fairer, more relative attitude, by the simple addition of an hypothetical premise: "If I want to get a job in Informations Technology, an Arts course will probably not be a good course in lieu of my respective ends."

But you are performing the heroically short-sighted mistake of assuming that everybody wants a career in Informations Technology. Please, do everyone a favour, have a little respect for the heterogeneity of people's aspirations, and don't make that mistake again.

tom dunne wrote:

ITs can certainly set up the high achieving students to progress even further. ITs don't have the facilities, resources nor the research ethic that universities do, though the latter is changing somewhat.

I'd dispute that. Having finished a three-year diploma in the applied arts in DIT, I left college with a whole lot of practical knowledge about how to approach my discipline. DIT focused on employability, and tended to remain sceptical about anyone's being "further study material". There simply wasn't a tendency to regard further study as a realistic goal. I was given no more than a paltry appreciation for the theoretical side of my discipline - where it fit in in the broader scheme of things. I felt like I could do things, but I didn't really know what I was doing, or why I was doing it. I felt like an impostor, with skills but no understanding. For me, that's the Institute of Technology sector in a nutshell: practical know-how in a relative theoretical vacuum.

I'm a high achieving student, academically, but I didn't have nearly enough of a theoretical grounding in the arts to know what I was doing, let alone feel comfortable among people who did. There was no way I could have done further study in the arts - it would have been unconscionable, even if I had gotten through the interview process. So I started another undergraduate course, this time in the arts proper. And it is only now that I feel confident enough to proceed. Sometimes the theory has VERY practical benefits.

So I wouldn't say that the Institute of Technology sector is always a good stepping stone. Sometimes I wish I'd chosen UCD the first time around. I learned a lot in DIT, but I also had to "unlearn" a lot too - a lot of cynical, depressive things about how crap the world was, and how relatively petty were the interests and aspirations of a great deal of my colleagues. I learned how to communicate with my peers in DIT, but I never found people I truly identified with until I went to a university.

tom dunne wrote:

The vast majority of people attend a college because it is near home, not because of prestige.

I wouldn't put it as strongly as holyrood did:

holyrood87 wrote:

Another point is that anyone who picks their choice of college just because its close to them is an idiot.

...but it seems to me that if you are at all interested in career prospects, or the personal enrichments afforded you by education, the institute's relative proximity shouldn't be an operative factor. I travel 5 hours a day to and from college, and have done for the last 6 years. If I had chosen based on proximity, I wouldn't have the future I can now expect.

Steve01

^holy shít! Was that a response or a college thesis?

Lemming

FionnMatthew wrote:

Oh, snigger snigger. How ingenious! The points differential you mention reflects... what exactly? In what way is that not a good indicator of how good either of those courses are?

Let me take a guess. Arts, presumably, doesn't rank highly on your hierarchical list of good courses. If this is the point you are trying to make, it only reflects on your assumptions about what does or does not constitute a good course.

My my, somebody's getting defensive about their arts degree and trying to justify it. Ah, sweet, sweet irony. Only earlier you referred to not tryign to justify your course because UCD isn't structured that way. So, excuse me whilst I go "snigger snigger" as you so aptly put it.

My reason for mentioning arts vs. science in the first place was nothing to do with commenting on arts, or science, but on the initial topic of this thread - namely points. The example was an easy one to make considering how artificial the points system is. Thinking back to when I did my L.C., almost everyone put down arts in UCD on their CAO form as a kind of 'catch all' in case they didn't get what they wanted elsewhere. So for that reason, the points for arts are (or were at the time) misleading if one wants to hold up some sort of yardstick.

But to clarify, I was not "having a go" at arts degrees. They serve a purpose and the choice of material available to pursue is quite diverse. Regrettably they [arts degrees] have become stereotyped as some sort of parody of the concept of learning, where they are seen as 'lesser' courses for people who haven't a clue what they want to do but just want to go to college.

Consider this statement, which will hopefully orient your rather blithe judgement to a fairer, more relative attitude, by the simple addition of an hypothetical premise: "If I want to get a job in Informations Technology, an Arts course will probably not be a good course in lieu of my respective ends."

But you are performing the heroically short-sighted mistake of assuming that everybody wants a career in Informations Technology. Please, do everyone a favour, have a little respect for the heterogeneity of people's aspirations, and don't make that mistake again.

You don't know me, I don't know you. And you speak of me performing short-sighted mistakes of assumption. You have _no_ idea of what my background in the arts is. Suffice to say it is extensive and something I have pursued for much of my life. Now, why did I not pursue it at 3rd level? Because it is a hobby. Something I enjoy. Something I do not want to "become my day job". I also like and have an aptitude for computers. Regrettably the particular discipline of arts that I like is also not particularly conducive to being able to finance oneself in this country - which tends to be a problem ....

I'd dispute that. Having finished a three-year diploma in the applied arts in DIT, I left college with a whole lot of practical knowledge about how to approach my discipline. DIT focused on employability, and tended to remain sceptical about anyone's being "further study material". There simply wasn't a tendency to regard further study as a realistic goal. I was given no more than a paltry appreciation for the theoretical side of my discipline - where it fit in in the broader scheme of things. I felt like I could do things, but I didn't really know what I was doing, or why I was doing it. I felt like an impostor, with skills but no understanding. For me, that's the Institute of Technology sector in a nutshell: practical know-how in a relative theoretical vacuum.

So you are using your own personal insecurities to make judgement calls? I could write a paragraph pretty much refuting what you've said, or at least showing you that what you experienced is perhaps not indicative of the IoT sector as a whole. But, why bother? You speak of the evils of cynicism and yet here you are practising it in spades.

So I wouldn't say that the Institute of Technology sector is always a good stepping stone. Sometimes I wish I'd chosen UCD the first time around. I learned a lot in DIT, but I also had to "unlearn" a lot too - a lot of cynical, depressive things about how crap the world was, and how relatively petty were the interests and aspirations of a great deal of my colleagues. I learned how to communicate with my peers in DIT, but I never found people I truly identified with until I went to a university.

I don't know who your lecturers were, or your frame of mind when you attended DIT, but on the whole it sounds like a negative experience. I had the exact opposite. But that's just you, me, our circle of friends, frame of mind, lecturers, etc in the mix.

FionnMatthew

My apologies, but I'm afraid I don't see your point.

Lemming wrote:

My my, somebody's getting defensive about their arts degree and trying to justify it.

I'm not trying to justify the study of the arts. The study of the arts doesn't need justification. One's own preference is enough. That was my point.

Lemming wrote:

Ah, sweet, sweet irony. Only earlier you referred to not tryign to justify your course because UCD isn't structured that way. So, excuse me whilst I go "snigger snigger" as you so aptly put it.

What do you mean by this? I didn't refer to "not trying to justify [my] course because UCD isn't structured that way". I think you're referring to this section:

Me wrote:

Instead, [UCD] makes reference to academic excellence, long standing tradition, prestige, etc. Granted, the current restructuring of both UCD and Trinity is actually making this kind of talk empty rhetoric, but that is the traditional, and quite correct way of looking at universities.

I was talking about how current restructuring and "businessification" of our universities is perverting their ethos and alienating them from what made them universities in the first place. How economic models for educational institutions are moving them away from such things as tradition, true academic excellence, etc., and making them more akin to facilities for producing employable graduates to fill certain roles in society. That isn't the role a university should be filling. As an arts student, I have found this process to be most worrying, because the arts should not be asked to justify themselves in material terms. That isn't the kind of goods these disciplines deal in. It doesn't really have anything to do with my "justifying" my course. It certainly doesn't undermine me. Can you clarify it a bit?

Lemming wrote:

My reason for mentioning arts vs. science in the first place was nothing to do with commenting on arts, or science, but on the initial topic of this thread - namely points. The example was an easy one to make considering how artificial the points system is. Thinking back to when I did my L.C., almost everyone put down arts in UCD on their CAO form as a kind of 'catch all' in case they didn't get what they wanted elsewhere. So for that reason, the points for arts are (or were at the time) misleading if one wants to hold up some sort of yardstick.

But to clarify, I was not "having a go" at arts degrees. They serve a purpose and the choice of material available to pursue is quite diverse. Regrettably they [arts degrees] have become stereotyped as some sort of parody of the concept of learning, where they are seen as 'lesser' courses for people who haven't a clue what they want to do but just want to go to college.

But you weren't very clear about what you were saying. You mentioned a small points differential between arts and sciences as somehow indicative of the fact that points requirements are not a good indicator of the "goodness" of a course.

All it does indicate is that both the sciences and the arts are in moderate to high demand. The demand for each course tells us only that: the demand for it. It is more or less opaque to the individual motivations behind that demand. Speculation as to what that motive might be is just that: speculation. It would be a mistake to assume that the points quotient for arts is indicative only of it being the default choice for a great number of procrastinating students. You could as easily claim that it represents the number of people who wished to pursue an initial general education in the discipline before specialising, or as indicative of the (let me assure you) relatively high quality of a good arts degree in UCD, and the calibre of the people working there.

I agree with you nearly as far as you go. I agree that points aren't a good indicator of how good a course is. But I take exception to how you demonstrate it.

Your example shows how the sciences and the arts in UCD have a similarly upper-average points requirement. You take this as demonstrating that the points system is not a good indicator of course quality, since, and here's where you allow in an assumption, "everyone knows that the UCD arts programme isn't as 'good' as the science programme." Your whole example rests on that assumption, because if it were the general assumption that the arts and science programmes were on equal footing, the points ratio you quoted would tell us nothing.

Lemming wrote:

You don't know me, I don't know you. And you speak of me performing short-sighted mistakes of assumption. You have _no_ idea of what my background in the arts is.

I have no need of knowing you, or your attitude towards the arts in general, to determine from the example you laid before us and the assumptions that were required in order to reach the conclusions that you did reach, that, whatever your attitude to the arts in general, your attitude towards the Arts programme in UCD is unflattering, or at least such that you expect other people's attitudes towards it to be unflattering, at least in instances where judgements are made relative to other disciplines.

Lemming wrote:

Suffice to say [my interest in the arts] is extensive and something I have pursued for much of my life.

Good. Let me offer you my congratulations.

Lemming wrote:

Now, why did I not pursue it at 3rd level? Because it is a hobby. Something I enjoy. Something I do not want to "become my day job". I also like and have an aptitude for computers. Regrettably the particular discipline of arts that I like is also not particularly conducive to being able to finance oneself in this country - which tends to be a problem ....

That is regrettable. Now let me offer you my condolences.

Lemming wrote:

So you are using your own personal insecurities to make judgement calls?

This is a complicated matter. To a certain extent, where one can arrive at an objective POV on their own insecurities, which I, with the benefit of hindsight, believe I have, it can become quite possible to make a "judgement call" on the basis of one's analysis of one's own personal insecurities.

It is my opinion that in an educational course where the prime objective is to create employable graduates, it is probably contrary to the ethos of the course to produce graduates who are so unsure of their own abilities that they feel unemployable.

As someone who has grown to a subsequent security and confidence, having recieved what I am happy to call good tuition elsewhere, I think my own past personal insecurities, in hindsight, and from a purely subjective point of view, can be traced, at least in part, to elements of the course I undertook which, without going into detail here, I am going to pronounce substandard.

Thankfully, my personal insecurities are not isolated occurences. What I am talking about would appear to have been widespread, a conclusion to which my colleagues will be testament. Out of 25 initial students in my course, most with whom I have remained in contact, 3 dropped out within a month of completing their three years study. 3 pursued further study in that discipline. 4 are currently seeking employment in the discipline, and 1 has regular employment in it. All of them, at one time or another, have spoken to me about similar feelings, and all of them remember our DIT years with ambiguous fondness.

Lemming wrote:

I could write a paragraph pretty much refuting what you've said

The word "refute" admits rather too much of the sense of conclusivity than I would imagine you want here. Besides which it would be not a little fruitless to "refute" the mere (honest) opinions of a graduate. I'm simply professing my experience.

Lemming wrote:

, or at least showing you that what you experienced is perhaps not indicative of the IoT sector as a whole.

I wouldn't support generalising from it any more than you do. My point was to avoid a generalisation in the opposite direction: that "ITs will, without exception, support academically talented students in the pursuit of further study."

Lemming wrote:

But, why bother? You speak of the evils of cynicism and yet here you are practising it in spades.

No. I'm not practising any type of cynicism. I've reached a point where I don't need that to survive anymore. I recognise the valuable skills I learned in DIT. It wasn't all bad. But I'm under no illusions about why I didn't enjoy my experience, and why it wasn't a good education in most senses of the term. The treatment of the arts courses in DIT tended to transcend the realm of neglect and enter the register of contempt.

It was that :
1) the IT philosophy of education was not compatible with either the arts or the applied arts, in that technical skills do not make a practitioner of the arts without parallel experience in a whole world of intellect and culture that simply cannot be "taught" but must instead be learnt.
2) DIT management was disdainful of the applied arts as disciplines. From a managerial point of view, valuable types of tuition were disregarded weighed against other disciplines, because they weren't able to account for themselves in practical, career-oriented, immediate terms. Hence, they were given low priority.
3) DIT's business philosophy made much use of the fact that 25 students in a dark and remote satellite DIT campus don't tend to have a much of a voice. Academic entrapment was practised with exquisite skill. Bells and whistles promised on the prospectus were never even remotely in danger of being fulfilled. Every year, 25 more students came in, and went through three years of dysfunctional education, where missing (let go) teachers, classrooms and disappearing modules became commonplace.

(If you want my conclusions from this, partial though they may be, here they are: If anyone is considering studying the arts, I would thoroughly advise them to give DIT a miss. It isn't the right place for it.)

Looking back now, I know I wasn't delusional. I know I wasn't imagining it. I've been through a proper course now. There's nothing contemptuous or cynical about it. That's an educated judgement.

Lemming wrote:

I don't know who your lecturers were, or your frame of mind when you attended DIT, but on the whole it sounds like a negative experience. I had the exact opposite. But that's just you, me, our circle of friends, frame of mind, lecturers, etc in the mix.

As I've said, I wouldn't care to generalise about it to assertions about the wider Tech sector. You'll notice I haven't done that. But my experience does count for something - my experience. And that suffices to acheive what I was trying to do - simply to provide a counter-example to Tom Dunne's supposition that ITs will (and the implicit premise is: "without exception") encourage academically talented students to pursue their studies further. In my experience, that is not true. And that it is not true in one instance suggests that there may be further instances in which it is not true either. That's all I was trying to suggest.

Time Magazine

Well done on adding some very valid points to the thread FionnMatthew. I had completely forgotten about this thread and I have to go to bed now so forgive me for only having time to add this little bit of playful trolling..

tom dunne wrote:

Looking at my 19 year old sister who is attending one of the universities, herself and her fellow students appear to be perpetually drunk.

You Oaklawn bunch do have that rep though...

Tom Dunne

Before I dive into a reply, I have to call a spade a spade here and state that in my opinion, ITs were never intended to compete with the Universities. With the notable exception of DIT and arguably Waterford IT, all the other ITs are not on a par with any of the Universities.

Taking a cursory look at the courses offered, how many ITs offer qualifications in the Arts? Very few, apart from the two mentioned above. That to me speaks volumes about the focus of ITs. The focus is not on higher education for the love of it, it is higher eduction for the necessity of obtaining a recognised qualification to secure employment. They are institutes of technology, and technology, by it's very nature, is practical.

FionnMatthew wrote:

Hence the predominant focus on skill-oriented disciplines. There's nothing wrong with approaching third level education with a view to employment. But to judge a university by that standard is a grave mistake.

Couldn't agree more.

FionnMatthew wrote:

This is not to say that the same ideals cannot be present in an Institute for Technology, but the very fact that ITs have a commitment to employability means that there is a dual goal, and practicality tends to win out.

But that is the purpose of ITs - the practical, marketable skills. ITs are teaching institutions, universities are organisations that seek to further knowledge.

FionnMatthew wrote:

To start with, prestige very well might mean something if you're looking for work. I don't know whether it should. In my opinion, one should be employed on merit, but, to be honest, a university doesn't become prestigious by accident, and a prestigious university will tend to award distinctions less often, so a good degree from a prestigious university does probably pack some punch with people who are looking out for that sort of thing.

I'm sorry, I have to call a spade a spade here again - prestige is not relevant when discussing IT Tallaght. The vast majority of students attending IT Tallaght are there to get a third level qualification. They want a piece of paper that will enhance their prospects of getting a job.

FionnMatthew wrote:

You really should acknowledge a diversity of aspirations with regard to third level education. Not all of us are clamouring to get into the "real world". The "real world" is, let me assure you, quite overrated anyway, and, I'll warrant, there are as many "real worlds" as there are people that live in one.

I'm not sure what you crazy kids are smoking over in the Arts Faculty, but I want some of it.

FionnMatthew wrote:

The idea that prestige is simply a by-word for snobbery is really nuts. Prestige isn't empty. A university is prestigious because it's a GOOD university. Cambridge University, for instance, is a VERY GOOD university. That's not big talk and bull****. You'll really be put through your paces there. A good PhD from there will make you employable in any university in the world. There's nothing snobbish about wanting to go to a university; not if the job you have your eye on is an academic one.

Couldn't agree more, but I still feel we are talking a level above IT Tallaght here.

FionnMatthew wrote:

Ahem. Colleges are expressly not businesses. At least, colleges should never be businesses. That bears repeating. Colleges should never be businesses. That goes for universities, ITs and every other type of institution that claims education to be its sole purpose.

Put down that stuff you are smoking for just a minute and accept a fact - colleges should never be businesses, but they are. Their currency of choice is the student. If they don't have students flowing through their doors each and every year, they will fail. We are now at a stage where there are more college places (both ITs and universities) than there are students. So like every good economy where there is healthy competition, colleges have to compete to get the students.

FionnMatthew wrote:

If an educational institution is also a business, then as a business it is obliged to make money. Moneymaking and education are not always compatible goals

Agreed, except for publicly funded colleges, the increase in profits is measured in the increase in student numbers.

FionnMatthew wrote:

I'm sure there are good lecturers in the ITs, but the way you just described that lecturer with the publication list as if he was an exception is quite telling. Just about every lecturer in my departments have a publication list.

But you are missing the point - ITs do not have a research ethic. They are not designed to. The intention is to churn out qualified graduates. They look for staff with solid industry experience, a list of publications is desirable, though not required. In fact, there was not one PhD in the department I worked in at IT Tallaght.

FionnMatthew wrote:

I'd dispute that. Having finished a three-year diploma in the applied arts in DIT, I left college with a whole lot of practical knowledge about how to approach my discipline. DIT focused on employability, and tended to remain sceptical about anyone's being "further study material". There simply wasn't a tendency to regard further study as a realistic goal.

And I'd dispute that.

Any institution worth it salt would encourage students to further their studies, especially if they are still at undergraduate stage. Ideally, students would be encouraged to stay on at their current institution, but surely staff would give every encouragement to a high-achieving student to better themselves? I know I have done, and will continue to.

FionnMatthew wrote:

I'm a high achieving student, academically, but I didn't have nearly enough of a theoretical grounding in the arts to know what I was doing, let alone feel comfortable among people who did. There was no way I could have done further study in the arts - it would have been unconscionable, even if I had gotten through the interview process. So I started another undergraduate course, this time in the arts proper. And it is only now that I feel confident enough to proceed. Sometimes the theory has VERY practical benefits.

Does this convince you that ITs and universities are different beasts? I think it should.

FionnMatthew wrote:

So I wouldn't say that the Institute of Technology sector is always a good stepping stone. Sometimes I wish I'd chosen UCD the first time around. I learned a lot in DIT, but I also had to "unlearn" a lot too - a lot of cynical, depressive things about how crap the world was, and how relatively petty were the interests and aspirations of a great deal of my colleagues.

Again, it's back to horses for courses. Let's put the focus back on IT Tallaght and the area in which it is located. I think it would be fair to say that there would not be a tradition of third level education in an area such as this. As I have said in previous posts, the location of IT Tallaght where it is has opened doors for those that would not normally consider third level education. There is a gradual approach of a diploma, ordinary degree and honours degree of awards. A student can pull out after two years with a qualification, or can progress either within IT Tallaght, or to another third level institution. The point is not whether a student does utilise the college as a stepping stone, the point is that the option is there.

FionnMatthew wrote:

...but it seems to me that if you are at all interested in career prospects, or the personal enrichments afforded you by education, the institute's relative proximity shouldn't be an operative factor. I travel 5 hours a day to and from college, and have done for the last 6 years. If I had chosen based on proximity, I wouldn't have the future I can now expect.

I still argue proximity is a factor for the residents of Tallaght, and dare I say it, IT Blanchardstown, for the reasons I have outlined above.

comer_97

I could get into a long winded rebuttal of Fionn's post but I'm in work so I will keep it short.

Putting an third level institute in an area of some deprivation is a good thing and the majority of students coming out of IT Tallaght get jobs and further themselves.

Does it matter that the campus is small? No!

Does it matter that it is not as research focused? No!

Does it matter that I have come from a place with high levels of unemployment and now I have a pretty sweet job, and a very nice life? YES!

Do I have IT Tallaght to thank? Yes.

Should I thank myself for making the most of the oppurtunity? Yes, well done comer_97.

Does my publication list (oh yes, I've been published from time to time) make me any happier than I was before I had it? No!

We live in an era of high employment, it was not always the way. Remeber the 1980s. Remember, working pays the bills and helps your self respect.

Some people use IT Tallaght as a lauch pad to go other places . Some people use it to get a job.

Who is right? Who is wrong? I say well done to both.

Oirthir

This boils down to a pretty simple scenario.

Are Universities and ITs the same thing? No.

Is one better than another? No.

Tom Dunne

I think these two last posts are a fitting end to this discussion.

It has veered completely off course, and I hold my hand up as partly responsible for that happening.