The problems of student binge drinking and the question of tuition fees

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

INP; first sentence complaining at the declining standards and comparative worthlessness of Irish degrees. NExt sentence bemoans that many Irish students are a bunch of grant recieving, heavy drinkers.

I really don't see my paraphrase as a stretch. Unless you're attempting to claim that they didn't explicitly state that (which I fully accept), although my argument was obviously a paraphrase (no quotation marks etc) Also, your own quotation of me is also a paraphrase so that's that gone.

AlekSmart

It`s somewhat apposite that the reports from Bondi Beach,Australia appear to underline at least some of the sentiment of this thread.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/frustrated-oz-locals-lash-out-at-backpackers-from-the-wild-county-bondi-2007236.html

The article does refer to a general level of anti-social behaviour but it`s telling that a small country such as ours is able to match the UK in the Gobbshyte stakes.

I`d be prepared to wager that substantial number of my former Student customers are working on their tan`s down-under whilst roaring and shouting their way through "The Fields of Athenry" outside some unfortunate Aussies house at 3am of a morning.....every moring.

I`m kinda hoping that the German,French,Italian,or Luxemburg media can find enough of their anti-social,knowledge based economy thicko`s to write an article about....but somehow or other I reckon they`ll struggle.....

AlekSmart

Its good to see this very real problem is getting SOME attention.....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/grantaided-students-buying-more-booze-than-books-2017471.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/a-new-breed-of-shewolf-is-prowling-for-nostrings-sex-2017383.html

Taken together these articles represent an accurate indicator of why the "Knowledge Economy" stuff ain`t goin to cut us any slack in a 21st Century world.

Yet again my nights work (Monday) was dominated by carting around plenty of the "Student Bodies" as referenced by the Indo articles.

Substantial amounts of alcohol already consumed plus the rest to be downed on the Bus journey into town.... nobody appears to have taught these "lads" during their 2nd level days that their hand to mouth co-oridination on a moving bus is shyte....so all I`m left with is empty bottles rolling around (The average "lad" appears to have left the Home place only partially toilet-trained) and rivulets of smelly sticky cheap rotgut for everybody else to deal with.

I can only watch and wonder what my other regulars,mainly Eastern European and Filipino WORKERS make of this mass demonstration of employment potential by our Knowledge Based Economy "lads"

They don`t generally say much,but I would forgive them a certain self-satisfaction at their ability to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country,get a job,become contributors to that foreign society only for them to be exposed to such hideousness on the part of the élite top percentage of that society.....:)

Guess we`ll be waiting a wee bit longer than most for that recovery....:rolleyes:

Laminations

I dont understand the point of this thread. Is it highlighting that Ireland has a drinking problem, and young people drink more than old people? Or are we saying students cant drink because we are paying for their education?

I dont see the link between the scrapping of student fees and drinking. If standards have dropped in college then it needs to be assessed as to why. I drank while attending college and i'm educated to the 4th level. I paid for my social life through part time work and scholarships. Should I have paid fees? Because I dont think I could have afforded college then. Or are you suggesting fees should only be introduced for students who drink so much that it affects their attendance and grades? What about the students who get free education and just underperform? The drinking issue is a completely separate thing. It should be as simple as this- Record attendance, if someone is failing their course or getting below a 2:1 check their attendance. If their attendance is poor then they are obviously taking their free education for granted. I dont see how a students drinking with money that they earned is any business of yours if it is not affecting their performance.

Spending grant money on drink is a separate and legitimate problem and could be discussed alongside the broader issue of paying out social welfare for recipients to spend it in the pub

Sleepy

College was certainly too easy while I was there (1998 - 2003) and if reports that standards have dropped since then are true, many of the courses are useless pieces of parchment. I doubt I even attended half of my lectures over my time there and still graduated with a 2:1.

A lecturer of mine had an interesting (though practically horrific) idea that your entire degree should rest on being able to answer one question from any part of any subject you studied. i.e. if you didn't know everything you were taught, you wouldn't graduate. Now, while that's extreme, there's merit to the logic.

Simple measures like removing choice from exam papers (i.e. do 5 questions out of 5, not 5 out of 7), forbidding 'tips' as to what will be on the exam, using more continuous assesment (might be a personal thing - I learnt far more from my projects than my lecture attendance/reading), encouraging harder marking by having a maximum percentage of 1:1's 2:1's available etc. would all improve standards. Students aren't idiots, if they can get by through college by coasting they will if it's not going to affect their degree. What's the incentive to really dedicate yourself to your studies if a first class honour is achievable by cramming 2/3rds of each of your subjects for the month prior to your exams?

None of those options above would involve the cost or effort invovled in overhauls of curriculums though this could be worthwhile in many cases too.

An off the cuff idea here: how about linking funding available to the hireability of a candidate on graduation? E.g. a med student gets a free ride as their course effectively guarantees them work, whereas an Arts student studying History and Soc & Pol has to contribute towards their degree as it's done as a pursuit of knowledge in an area of personal interest which doesn't make them any more employable in the 'real world'.

97i9y3941

im glad the paper did point all that out,and as some other posters said it,those that need the grant most arent entilted to it,those who might get it piss it away but their rich daddy will pay for another year for them..

Laminations

This thread is trying to connect student drinking and tuition fees. If we are just talking about the dumbing down in our education system I fully agree it is happening. Its a separate topic tho

Sleepy

Not really Laminations. Students as a group drink to excess because they can get away with it. If standards were higher, those drinking too much wouldn't be able to keep up and would fail out, saving the taxpayer the cost of their further years of 'education'.

I certainly wouldn't argue to raise standards to the point where there's no room to have fun at college. Participation in clubs and societies possibly taught me more than I ever learned in a lecture hall.

Sometimes two birds can be killed with one stone.

Laminations

Sleepy wrote: »

Not really Laminations. Students as a group drink to excess because they can get away with it. If standards were higher, those drinking too much wouldn't be able to keep up and would fail out, saving the taxpayer the cost of their further years of 'education'.

I certainly wouldn't argue to raise standards to the point where there's no room to have fun at college. Participation in clubs and societies possibly taught me more than I ever learned in a lecture hall.

Sometimes two birds can be killed with one stone.

Students should be allowed do whatever they want in their spare time as long as its not affecting their college work, the same way we can go drinking as long as we aren't taking mondays off with a hangover. If students are drinking copious amounts of alcohol and are disgraceing themselves on our city streets then thats an area for the gardai and justice system. If they are spending grants on booze then thats a case to revise the grants system.

Standards should be raised for the sake of raising standards and turning out better graduates, not as a mechanism to curb young peoples drinking.

AlekSmart

Students should be allowed do whatever they want in their spare time as long as its not affecting their college work, the same way we can go drinking as long as we aren't taking mondays off with a hangover. If students are drinking copious amounts of alcohol and are disgraceing themselves on our city streets then thats an area for the gardai and justice system. If they are spending grants on booze then thats a case to revise the grants system.

Laminations has it in one here.

Most folks would only come-up agin this stuff occasionally during a visit to a City Centre on a Students Promo night and therefore would tend to dismiss it as a bit of exuberance or letting-off-steam as the UCD Students Union president described it last summer.

However,there are sectors where one can get a far more detailed picture based upon the repeated and close interaction with the Student Body as it goes about it`s REGULAR recreational business and this is where the seriousness of the thing is revealed.

On a personal level I really could not give a flying FCUK what these individuals do with their time and money as long as it remains within their own little world.

It is one thing to read about and see the effects of chronic alcoholism on the deadbeats or panhandlers who now make up an increasing amount of our street-population.
People who,with limited basic education and no employment records who really did see theior salvation in the bottle.

However,my concern is the sheer weight of numbers involved in the Student Drinking "Game" and worse still the fact of these individuals being the very best of what our Educational System can produce.

Whether it`s down to the Grant or not,the reality for me is of a large scale and certainly educationally fatal disease abroad within the 3rd Level sector.

What is to be done about it is open for discussion and debate,but a good starting point would be to admit to the problem in the first place.

Sleepy

Laminations wrote: »

Students should be allowed do whatever they want in their spare time as long as its not affecting their college work, the same way we can go drinking as long as we aren't taking mondays off with a hangover. If students are drinking copious amounts of alcohol and are disgraceing themselves on our city streets then thats an area for the gardai and justice system. If they are spending grants on booze then thats a case to revise the grants system.

Standards should be raised for the sake of raising standards and turning out better graduates, not as a mechanism to curb young peoples drinking.

Oh I agree, the motivation should be to raise standards.

However, I see a lot of the student drinking culture as being related to their having so much free time due to the lack of effort required to achieve their degrees. If you've only got to turn up for a few hours a week and spend the month of April studying to get through a year that leaves you with vast amounts of time to kill. And, whether we like it or not, drugs (both legal and illegal) are a great way of killing time.

Laminations

I agree theres a drinking problem, and I agree there is a standards problem but saying that drinking is lowering standards or lower standards is encouraging drinking needs evidence to back it up and both problems should be tackled separately. Standards in universities are generally higher than ITs (degrees versus diplomas). Is there a difference in the level of drinking done by the students of these institutions? Drinking is a societal problem, standards in education is less generalised.

Sleepy

From my experience IT's generally actually have higher attendence rates than Universities and course hours are often longer.

Even if I'm wrong about the correlation, wouldn't it make sense to tackle the problem of low standards first as it's the more serious of the two? If I'm right, we don't need to focus on the issue of student binge drinking (or have to deal with it at a lower level). If I'm wrong, it can be focused on after the more important issue.

Red_Marauder

Sleepy wrote: »

College was certainly too easy while I was there (1998 - 2003) and if reports that standards have dropped since then are true, many of the courses are useless pieces of parchment.

Talk of such "reports" is completely useless. As I'm sure you noticed in your course, dynamics change from year to year. Some first years are known to be 'studious', the next year someone could describe them as the opposite. This is reflected on an inter-faculty and inter-college basis within a university. There is no such thing as students magically and uniformly changing in outlook from year to year.

simple measures like removing choice from exam papers (i.e. do 5 questions out of 5, not 5 out of 7), forbidding 'tips' as to what will be on the exam, using more continuous assesment (might be a personal thing - I learnt far more from my projects than my lecture attendance/reading), encouraging harder marking by having a maximum percentage of 1:1's 2:1's available etc. would all improve standards.

Many of those measures are already in place. For my finals, there were zero options, the pass rate was 50%, there was negative marking, and continuous assessment.
Most faculties do operate a bell curve system where there is a specific number of firsts, seconds, passes and failures, certainly in the University that I attended. I'm sure it isn't very different elsewhere, even if it's a principle I think is totally wrong.

An off the cuff idea here: how about linking funding available to the hireability of a candidate on graduation? E.g. a med student gets a free ride as their course effectively guarantees them work, whereas an Arts student studying History and Soc & Pol has to contribute towards their degree as it's done as a pursuit of knowledge in an area of personal interest which doesn't make them any more employable in the 'real world'.

My sister studied medicine and now works 16 hours in a private UK clinic and is a stay at home mum for the rest of the week. By your basis, she would have got a free education (and had a ball by all accounts) whereas somebody working as a researcher for an overseas aid and development fund, for example, would have had to pay his or her fees. That makes absolutely no sense.
A far more sensible option would be linked to income tax upon graduation. The more you earn, the more you pay back in college fees. That used to be the Australian model and is worth consideration.

I see a lot of the student drinking culture as being related to their having so much free time... If you've only got to turn up for a few hours a week and spend the month of April studying to get through a year that leaves you with vast amounts of time to kill... drugs (both legal and illegal) are a great way of killing time.

It's hard to see the logic behind this. Do you also think that employed people should be given longer working days and early mornings to ensure that they don't end up in Coppers on a Thursday night? After all, the less productive the worker, the more the state loses out. I consider myself politically conservative, but there is a touch of a 1950s Late Late show audience about this.
If a student isn't productive enough as laid down in our HEA institutions, they get the boot. It's the same for workers in business.

There are huge questions to be answered for the failure of this Government to re-introduce 3rd level fees. But you cannot blame students for that. And trying to link third level fees to the fact that there are students who drink too much (as if this were a new thing) is totally simplistic and fails to understand either issue.
If anything, standards have improved enormously in our eucational system. Both of my own parents attended the first few months of their second year in university, and took the rest of the year off without fear of failing. We have a highly respected educational system at an international level, a huge component of international specialists in the academic staff of our universities, and a highly educated workforce. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the real problems facing Ireland's third level educational system whatever; it comes across largely as just a 'back-in-the-day', pointless rant about students.

Laminations

I'm not sure i agree that tackling standards is more important than tackling bingeing but i do agree that tackling one may have positive effects on the other. However we've both moved off the OPs original point to find this agreement. Argueing that reintroducing tuition fees to stop students getting paralytically drunk is absurd. I drank at college and still do (sometimes even now more than is sensible) but my drinking didnt cost tax payers money that they paid for my free education. I didn't waste my education. I fully agree if people are taking the p1ss at college with very low attendances and very poor performance then yes, kick em out or make them pay. If people are trying their best then no fees thank you. Its again a separate debate as to whether fees should be means tested.

Sleepy

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Talk of such "reports" is completely useless. As I'm sure you noticed in your course, dynamics change from year to year. Some first years are known to be 'studious', the next year someone could describe them as the opposite. This is reflected on an inter-faculty and inter-college basis within a university. There is no such thing as students magically and uniformly changing in outlook from year to year.

Many of those measures are already in place. For my finals, there were zero options, the pass rate was 50%, there was negative marking, and continuous assessment.
Most faculties do operate a bell curve system where there is a specific number of firsts, seconds, passes and failures, certainly in the University that I attended. I'm sure it isn't very different elsewhere, even if it's a principle I think is totally wrong.

So you had options on your papers up until your finals? Negative marking implies MCQ's, is that really the most accurate means of examining understanding of a topic?

There have been consistent reports in the media of grade inflation. Here's an Irish campaign related to it's research papers which provides you with the raw data if you'd like to refute their analysis of the data: http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie/papers.html

My sister studied medicine and now works 16 hours in a private UK clinic and is a stay at home mum for the rest of the week. By your basis, she would have got a free education (and had a ball by all accounts) whereas somebody working as a researcher for an overseas aid and development fund, for example, would have had to pay his or her fees. That makes absolutely no sense.

Does one really need a degree to become a researcher for an overseas aid and development fund? If so, I'd have thought statistical analysis the more relevant topics than a general B.A. and can't see the need for a degree level qualification in that area in order to pursue the career. Nor, to be dispassionate, do I see the benefit of such a role to the economy as being worth paying for a third level education

A far more sensible option would be linked to income tax upon graduation. The more you earn, the more you pay back in college fees. That used to be the Australian model and is worth consideration.

Certainly a model worth examining though it still incentivises people taking college degrees out of interest than out of self-improvement. Not that there's anything wrong with learning for learning's sake, but I don't see the benefit to the state that would justify spending tax revenues on it.

It's hard to see the logic behind this. Do you also think that employed people should be given longer working days and early mornings to ensure that they don't end up in Coppers on a Thursday night? After all, the less productive the worker, the more the state loses out. I consider myself politically conservative, but there is a touch of a 1950s Late Late show audience about this.
If a student isn't productive enough as laid down in our HEA institutions, they get the boot. It's the same for workers in business.

Completely inacurrate analogy. a) There's rather a difference between a full work day and a couple of hours of lectures. b) The state only benefits from a worker's productivityif and when the worker benefits (i.e. is paid and promoted to higher tax brackets) whereas the state is paying for the student's education regardless of the productivity of that student. Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not saying that college should be a straight 9 to 6 slog but it should require more than 10/20 hours attendance a week and a bit of cramming in April.

There are huge questions to be answered for the failure of this Government to re-introduce 3rd level fees. But you cannot blame students for that. And trying to link third level fees to the fact that there are students who drink too much (as if this were a new thing) is totally simplistic and fails to understand either issue.

I don't agree with the re-introduction of fees unless it were partnered with a huge overhaul of the student grant which would negate those fees for those pursuing education in marketable skills. I believe in state support for third level education. I'd just rather see the education received on this basis as being of benefit to the state i.e. something that's value for money rather than simply paying to indulge people's interests.

If anything, standards have improved enormously in our eucational system. Both of my own parents attended the first few months of their second year in university, and took the rest of the year off without fear of failing. We have a highly respected educational system at an international level, a huge component of international specialists in the academic staff of our universities, and a highly educated workforce. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the real problems facing Ireland's third level educational system whatever; it comes across largely as just a 'back-in-the-day', pointless rant about students.

Standards have improved? Maybe in terms of how the subjects studied have progressed. I certainly took most of second year off without any fear of failing back in 99 so things haven't changed that much there...

Most international rankings of top universities put ours way down the list. We have a government that spout rhetoric about a highly resepected educational system, not a world-class educational system. Look to the irish economy forum and you'll see a current discussion of a call from the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland to get to grips with a decline in standards of our education system, hardly a ringing endorsement!

I loved being a student. I started saving for my daughter's college education before she was even born. I know our education system could have been better 'back-in-the-day', I know it should be better today and I really want it to be better in the future.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Sleepy wrote: »

Certainly a model worth examining though it still incentivises people taking college degrees out of interest than out of self-improvement. Not that there's anything wrong with learning for learning's sake, but I don't see the benefit to the state that would justify spending tax revenues on it.

Sorry I have to call you on this. Education is not merely an exercise for the state to make money. There is an overall benefit of having educated citizens in all areas and fields - even one's as antiquated as Classics. I don't see the benefit to the state that justifies spending tax revenues on keeping those over 65 alive but I see the moral imperative that the state fulfills this obligation with a state pension or with resources for an elderly person to be treated in hospital. People who are making an active attempt to better themselves, even if its in an area that you scoff at should be encouraged all the way. It should only come down to whether you are trying or just taking the piss.

Laminations

Sleepy wrote: »

Most international rankings of top universities put ours way down the list. We have a government that spout rhetoric about a highly resepected educational system, not a world-class educational system. Look to the irish economy forum and you'll see a current discussion of a call from the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland to get to grips with a decline in standards of our education system, hardly a ringing endorsement!

I loved being a student. I started saving for my daughter's college education before she was even born. I know our education system could have been better 'back-in-the-day', I know it should be better today and I really want it to be better in the future.

University League tables are based most often on research output - do I think the government need to invest more here to improve things? Yes. College should never be allowed become a Human Resources factory. Are you suggesting only the children of rich people be allowed pursur their interests?

The most important thing kids are told when choosing a college course is to pick something they have an interest in.

I think its a case of you, now as an adult with responsibilities, having sour grapes with students who have a relatively care free life at the moment, but everyone needs to wake up to reality when they finish college and the reality for most of them will be no jobs and emigration. It annoys me seeing students having fun sometimes but then I remember when I was a student, it was a lot of fun too.

Laminations

Saying all that I do agree that standards are falling. Donegalfella gives some good data on that. There are a cohort of kids today that are just plain dumb. Maybe its the fact they know they can google whatever they need and retain nothing in their heads but the dumbing down of standards is happening from primary and secondary school up.

Sleepy

Laminations wrote: »

University League tables are based most often on research output - do I think the government need to invest more here to improve things? Yes. College should never be allowed become a Human Resources factory. Are you suggesting only the children of rich people be allowed pursur their interests?

I hadn't thought of that element, as stated, I'm posting off the cuff here.

The most important thing kids are told when choosing a college course is to pick something they have an interest in.

To an extent I agree. However there's no point for the state to pay for someone to study something they're interested in but have no talent for and / or have no prospect of ever using productively.

Perhaps a strict limiting of numbers on courses of this nature would be desirable? With over a 1000 Arts students a year in NUI, Galway alone I'm assuming roughly a fifth of all entrants to third level pursue BA's or similar courses. Now it's fair to say that some of these will be pursuing law, economics, maths etc. so let's say we halve that number and you're still looking at a country producing almost 5,000 graduates with degrees in courses of questionable use to society / employability.

I think its a case of you, now as an adult with responsibilities, having sour grapes with students who have a relatively care free life at the moment, but everyone needs to wake up to reality when they finish college and the reality for most of them will be no jobs and emigration. It annoys me seeing students having fun sometimes but then I remember when I was a student, it was a lot of fun too.

If anything it's more looking back on my own time in college and wishing I'd gotten better service from my university. I couldn've been provided with my B.Comm inside a year and would wager that if I still had funding for an extra two years, I could have topped that off with either a BSc in IT or a Masters in Software Development (instead I did a one year higher dip at my own expense).

It doesn't annoy me to see students having fun at all. I actually saddened me that my younger brother was experiencing such a baron period during his time in NUI, Galway. The place seemed like all sense of fun had been drained out of it with drink and drugs being the main interest rather than merely fuel for the madness... I could see a deterioration in the quality and participation levels in student activities not only during my own time there but also throughout his.

(Ironically, much of the cause of this in NUIG was an attempt by the university to curb student drinking which just drove students to 'knacker drinking' or pubs outside the influence of the university which would cater to the lowest common denominator of cheap drink).

Laminations

Sleepy wrote: »

However there's no point for the state to pay for someone to study something they're interested in but have no talent for and / or have no prospect of ever using productively.

I agree with you here but you are simply saying universities shouldn't tolerate failure, its not really an argument against the legitimate pursuit of your interests at the tax payers expense but that taxes shouldn't continue to pay if you cannot cope or aren't suited. I've seen plenty of students progress to second year of a degree that is already obviously beyond their ability based on their first year performance.

Without having to pick a subject with obvious economic value, all college qualifications show (or should show) that you have certain skills - time management, deductive reasoning etc. I agree that the lowering of standards is reducing the currency of a college education but its still not an argument for the reintroduction of fees (IMHO).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

I agree with your post but I see it as an argument for strengthening standards and halting grade inflation rather than a case to reintroduce fees. This way tax money will only go to those who complete a college course and have a certain level of attendance. Education needs to be available to all but weed out the wasters in first year.

Herbal Deity

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Drinking is unhealthy full stop.

However, the definition of "binge drinking" as a constant figure of more than 4/5 standard drinks is ridiculous, because:

- It doesn't account for tolerance - some people get drunk and have killer hangovers after 4 pints, others are fine after 7 or 8.

- It's very conservative, and bears no relation to people's experiences.

- It's not constructive to have a definition so alien to what's socially acceptable. Maybe a max of 2 pints in one sitting is an optimum goal, but you're not going to get people who routinely drink anywhere from 4 to 10 pints in one sitting to find such statistics anything other than laughable.

I really don't think 3 or 4 pints in one sitting one night a week before college is a huge problem, and wouldn't consider it binge drinking in the slightest. Perhaps this is ignorant of me, but it's a view which would be extremely common.

I think university courses should have much higher pass grades and would be in favour of a system where college courses were subsidised by the government based on the relative usefulness to the state of doing these courses. A course which is nothing more than an indulgence in a personal interest, generally arts courses, should receive no funding, whereas courses which would actually contribute to the "knowledge economy", generally science and technology courses, should be more or less free.

Excessive boozing is the product of college being too easy to get by in, not the cause of declining standards.

Red_Marauder

Sleepy wrote: »

So you had options on your papers up until your finals? Negative marking implies MCQ's, is that really the most accurate means of examining understanding of a topic?

No, I don't mean MCQs, I didn't do an MCQ that carried examination weight after first year, which is as it should be. I studied about 30 modules in my time at undergraduate level in university, most with at least two of written, viva, and practical exams.

There have been consistent reports in the media of grade inflation. Here's an Irish campaign related to it's research papers which provides you with the raw data if you'd like to refute their analysis of the data: http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie/papers.html

"Campaign" is the word. How many of those papers got published? I have spent more time going over those papers than in reflection I should have had. They only succeed in demonstrating that grades in general have risen. There are only three researchers, all from the same Institute of Technology in Kerry, all quoting one anothers' papers, and none quoting another single Irish researcher who agrees with their conclusions.
But this is the real problem I have with those pamphlets. While they do show a general increase in student grades from 1994 - 2004 they fail to really grasp the possible reasons. They focus far too heavily on the leaving certificate and CAO points, which has no real significance to students' third level results for three very important reasons:
1) Facilities in Institutes of technology, including resource facilities (IT, library, and access to experts in the field) far outweigh secondary school facilities. Furthermore, these reference facilities, particularly internet and journal resources, have improved massively year on year since 1994 so grade increases are no surprise.
2) Students at Leaving Certificate level are examined on an acerage of seven broad subjects, of which maybe only two or three really interest them. At third and fourth level, one ideally embarks on a course of study that one is interested in, and the student is typically willing to put in a far greater effort, or be more 'naturally gifted' for the range of examinations at third level for that reason.
CAO points cannot be used (as the authors do) to define a students ability, they are an overall marker for intelligence over six varied subjects. You cannot compare such a broad examinations result with the very specific subjects studied at third level, where typically the student is academically stronger. The reports never take this into account.
3) Effort in school is not directly proportionally to the study input at third level. I worked an awful lot harder for my leaving cert to gain a place on my course, than I did when I reached third level. For others, there is no reason whatsover why the opposite should not apply, given that they are usually more interested in the topic. Again, this is not taken into account.

Does one really need a degree to become a researcher for an overseas aid and development fund? If so, I'd have thought statistical analysis the more relevant topics than a general B.A. and can't see the need for a degree level qualification in that area in order to pursue the career. Nor, to be dispassionate, do I see the benefit of such a role to the economy as being worth paying for a third level education

You've missed the point completely. I'm talking about value for money. You think medical graduates should get a free ride because they are very employable. But there is nothing to stop a medical graduate going on the dole or working as a stay at home Mother, costing the state a lot of investment for very little return, whereas a BA graduate could well end up in a full time career, contributing more income to the state and being a stronger asset generally.

You simply cannot charge fees or not depending solely on the course studied. the tax payback scheme is far more ideal to deal with this issue.

Completely inacurrate analogy. a) There's rather a difference between a full work day and a couple of hours of lectures. b) The state only benefits from a worker's productivityif and when the worker benefits (i.e. is paid and promoted to higher tax brackets) whereas the state is paying for the student's education regardless of the productivity of that student.

Wrong. If a student is not productive enough, he or she fails to pass. I would like to see you provide some impartial proof that grading standards have demonstrably slipped as opposed to the rubbish you posted from that three-man-campaign in your earlier post. If you're going to make such an assertion you need proof.

Most international rankings of top universities put ours way down the list.

As others have since said, these are not related to undergraduate teaching and results, and relate largely to research funding and papers published in particular journals, not undergraduate teaching standards. By the way, rankings for Irish universities, like undergraduate grades, have been improving year on year.

Look to the irish economy forum and you'll see a current discussion of a call from the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland to get to grips with a decline in standards of our education system, hardly a ringing endorsement!

Read this article
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/us-firms-call-for-overhaul-of-irish-education-1999084.html
What you are talking about related to the Leaving Certificate and the mathematical aptitude of fifteen year olds. It has nothing at all to do with grade fluctuations across all of the disciplines at University level which is being discussed here. The Leaving Cert is a totally different isue and most people agree that it requires complete overhaul.
The Chamber of Commerce has not said anything about 3rd level grade inflation or student drinking, or I am mistaken?

P. Breathnach

Herbal Deity wrote: »

... Excessive boozing is the product of college being too easy to get by in, not the cause of declining standards.

I don't think there is a strong causal relationship either way. In those long-ago days when I was in college (before any alleged decline in standards) it was normal for students to drink as much as they could manage to get their hands on. It was, and still is, part of the culture.

That said, I don't think that it is a good thing that some people develop alcohol problems at such a young age -- or, for that matter, at any age.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whynotwhycanti

I would like to just give my own experience. I went to a private school and then to UCD. I had my first part time job when i was in fourth year and worked part time throughout school. I then went onto university where i worked in a bar part time averaging 25 hours work a week. I went away each summer in college and received no money from my parents. I graduated from college in 2006 and have been working since and have only paid my final installment last month on my loans that got me through college. I am very grateful that i do not have loans to pay on tuition fees as i would forever be in debt. I would fall into the category of the person who poeple may think should have to pay tuition fees and is a binge drinker but we are not all like that. I knew and was friends with many people in university who didnt work through college, got loads of money from their parents and also just drank the whole time but not all people from the same socio-economic backround were able to ack like that. I believe any fees for college should be means tested. And then there is the issue, i.e. person wants a carreer as something noble like a social worker or nursing, and they will have the same amount of debt as somebdoy who has become a banker etc who will find it easier once qualified to repay the tuition debt.

Sleepy

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No, I don't mean MCQs, I didn't do an MCQ that carried examination weight after first year, which is as it should be. I studied about 30 modules in my time at undergraduate level in university, most with at least two of written, viva, and practical exams.

I've never seen negative marking used outside of MCQ's. How did it work on a real exam? Marks deducted for a failure to attempt a question?

"Campaign" is the word. How many of those papers got published? I have spent more time going over those papers than in reflection I should have had. They only succeed in demonstrating that grades in general have risen. There are only three researchers, all from the same Institute of Technology in Kerry, all quoting one anothers' papers, and none quoting another single Irish researcher who agrees with their conclusions.
But this is the real problem I have with those pamphlets. While they do show a general increase in student grades from 1994 - 2004 they fail to really grasp the possible reasons. They focus far too heavily on the leaving certificate and CAO points, which has no real significance to students' third level results for three very important reasons:
1) Facilities in Institutes of technology, including resource facilities (IT, library, and access to experts in the field) far outweigh secondary school facilities. Furthermore, these reference facilities, particularly internet and journal resources, have improved massively year on year since 1994 so grade increases are no surprise.
2) Students at Leaving Certificate level are examined on an acerage of seven broad subjects, of which maybe only two or three really interest them. At third and fourth level, one ideally embarks on a course of study that one is interested in, and the student is typically willing to put in a far greater effort, or be more 'naturally gifted' for the range of examinations at third level for that reason.
CAO points cannot be used (as the authors do) to define a students ability, they are an overall marker for intelligence over six varied subjects. You cannot compare such a broad examinations result with the very specific subjects studied at third level, where typically the student is academically stronger. The reports never take this into account.
3) Effort in school is not directly proportionally to the study input at third level. I worked an awful lot harder for my leaving cert to gain a place on my course, than I did when I reached third level. For others, there is no reason whatsover why the opposite should not apply, given that they are usually more interested in the topic. Again, this is not taken into account.

Trinity are clearly nervous about grade inflation as referenced in minutes from their University Council meetings: http://www.tcd.ie/committeepapers/council/download/UniversityCouncil_minutes_20091125.pdf

If the head of Trinity is worried about it, and I think it's fair to say he's in a beter position to judge than you or I, I feel there's grounds for concern. From my reading of that site, the CAO results were looked at in an effort to discover if the increasing test scores were related to 'smarter students' (an unlikely proposition).

It's easy to get a 2:1 in an Irish university. That's a problem. Higher level education should be just that - a higher level, not just.

You've missed the point completely. I'm talking about value for money. You think medical graduates should get a free ride because they are very employable. But there is nothing to stop a medical graduate going on the dole or working as a stay at home Mother, costing the state a lot of investment for very little return, whereas a BA graduate could well end up in a full time career, contributing more income to the state and being a stronger asset generally.

You simply cannot charge fees or not depending solely on the course studied. the tax payback scheme is far more ideal to deal with this issue.

No, I got your point - some people won't use the qualifications we give them for nothing. That the doctor doesn't use her degree as much as she could does not invalidate the point that the BA graduate most likely has no need of her degree to do her job.

Wrong. If a student is not productive enough, he or she fails to pass. I would like to see you provide some impartial proof that grading standards have demonstrably slipped as opposed to the rubbish you posted from that three-man-campaign in your earlier post. If you're going to make such an assertion you need proof.

But you can just say 'Wrong.' and you're automatically right? :rolleyes:

I've posted corroborating research to back up my point. That you don't like it's source doesn't invalidate it. Post up some of your own to show that grades haven't been inflated and I'll take a look.

Whatsmore, even if grading standards haven't slipped since my time in university 7 - 12 years ago, they were still too low then.

You're building a nonsense of an argument on this point. You liken a suggestion that increased standards in university would most likely lead to less binge drinking by students and less wastage of state resources to a plan to make workers stay in their workplaces to avoid the possibility of them going to a night club midweek?! Seriously? One of these people is earning a living and contributing to the state. The other is having their life subsidised by the state.

As others have since said, these are not related to undergraduate teaching and results, and relate largely to research funding and papers published in particular journals, not undergraduate teaching standards. By the way, rankings for Irish universities, like undergraduate grades, have been improving year on year.

Read this article
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/us-firms-call-for-overhaul-of-irish-education-1999084.html
What you are talking about related to the Leaving Certificate and the mathematical aptitude of fifteen year olds. It has nothing at all to do with grade fluctuations across all of the disciplines at University level which is being discussed here. The Leaving Cert is a totally different isue and most people agree that it requires complete overhaul.
The Chamber of Commerce has not said anything about 3rd level grade inflation or student drinking, or I am mistaken?

There's an adage in my line of work: garbage in, garbage out. If we send under-educated second level students to colleges which are incentivised against failing them, we can pretty much expect to see under-educated graduates emerge at the other end of the process.

The Leaving Cert is also quite relavent in terms of matriculation. Falling numbers of those sitting the LC without honours maths or science reduces the numbers of those applying for courses which would provide them with the skills that those American multi-nationals (that our economy is so dependent upon), means we have less to offer these companies. Never mind the lower chances of us growing our own global players in the tech / pharm / IP industries. But sure, it's alright, they can all study soc & pol and classics and work as researchers or civil servants