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

Red_Marauder

Sleepy wrote: »

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?

There are many examples. You look down a slide, and name what you see. Get it right, +1. Get it wrong, -1. Same process for one line answers in short questions. It's a common enough exam practice.

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

You seem to be ignoring the most significant aspects of this publication (text emboldened for my emphasis)

The Academic Secretary commented that use of ‘inflation’ to describe the increase in the award of a first class honours degree is probably too pejorative as the increase could be explained by many factors including increased student participation, greater assessment transparency, greater focus on learning outcomes, greater student and parental expectations, and lower standards. The proliferation of Master level degrees with admission requirements of a 2.1 honours grade in the primary degree is also likely to be a significant factor in grade inflation at this level.
Council welcomed the Report on Grade Inflation in Irish Universities and the following comments were made. While on the surface the statistics would give rise for concern about grade inflation, it is important to understand global developments in education. External Examiners for Trinity’s examinations repeatedly comment on the high standards and on the relatively low number of 1st class degrees awarded relative to, for example, similar courses in UK universities.

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).

I think worried is the wrong term here. On the contrary, the discussion that took place appears quite reassuring. Particularly since UCC and UCD now currently use GPA scoring as discussed in that document. I'm not sure if other universities do too.

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.

So the fact that a medical doctor doesn't need her degree to be a mother is irrelevant, while the fact that a historian doesn't need her degree to be a banker is relevant? Explain.
I don't have any experience of studying for a BA, but I would imagine that employers do appreciate that skills garnered in studying something like psychology can be used in sales and marketing.
Skills are transferable. If we were to only offer free tuition to people who were only valuable for their fact-specific knowledge as opposed to their logistical, language or reasoning skills, I imagine this country would be a much poorer prospect for employers.

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.

O don't disagree that grades have been risen. I just think that if you are proposing that standards have slipped, there must be some evidence of this. If there is no evidence that standards of slipped, and no evidence of employers finding fault with teaching quality at university level, then where on Earth does the assertion come from.
Don't you understand how this works? You can't just open with a bland proposal with no evidence and then say "disprove it". What I am saying is that there is no such evidence. Implying that improving results mean standards are falling is a logical non sequitur and cannot be taken seriously just by mere suggestion.

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

I'm not sure what sort of an overall insight you had into marking standards back then based on anecdotal experience. If you want to discuss evidence, fine.

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.

Firstly, I think that any link between student drinking habits and subsidising tuition fees is complete nonsense.
Suggesting that standards must increase at university is fine in itself, once there is demonstrable need based on facts. Otheriwse you are just creating more lecture hours and paying for extra resources without factual merit. As it is, I don't see any evidence that employers, universities, or taxpayers have a problem with the system that is in place currently.
Are you suggesting we increase module numbers, lecture, laboratory and class hours just for the sake of it with no evidential need?

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.

So a student who gets an A1 in LC chemistry, and just passes in the humanities, could leave school with 350 points based on six varied subjects. If such a student gets a 1:1 in Chemistry at UCD, you're really suggesting that this indicates poor exam standards at UCD? Don't you see how students will obviously do better at third level because of the fact that they typically study in a field of interest and talent?

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.

Nobody disagrees with that. It has nothing, however, to do with examination standards and grade inflation within a university.

Herbal Deity

[

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course, I just think that 5 or 6 standard drinks is far too low a limit to define as "binge drinking" for reasons outlined earlier.

People aren't going to be shocked by a study that says 61% of males drink 3 or more pints in one sitting at least once a week. They might take notice of a study saying 40% of males drink over 6 pints in one sitting at least once a week, however. In terms of cultural perceptions, "3 or more pints" doesn't sound problematic in the slightest.

Just in regards to the actual degrees. I graduated with a Diploma in Business Studies in 2000, and have gone back to finish it off by getting an Honors Degree. (This being from a Business pov) In the last 10 years I would have thought that the course would have changed, but judging from my old notes, and from talking with friends, the subject matter & application are virtually identical. The only real difference is that we're using MsProject instead of an accounting package. I'm also rather disappointed at the quality and focus of the subjects. There's all this hype by college lecturers about this being an honors degree but I've yet to see any subject matter that deserves such a distinction. (The other thing I find funny, is that its still only a 4 year degree despite the hype, and being classified as a postgrad...)

The other thing I'm really disappointed about is that its still the college learning Mill. I'd be hard pressed to find anything particularly useful in the real world to use. Sure, elements like Risk Management are useful, but for the most part we're told extremely basic/general information. For example, Strategic Marketing is compulsory, and as far as I can tell its identical to the same marketing info we would have done in 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, etc. There is some corporate & top management focus in other subjects, but they're still mostly theory rather than practical information.

The point I'm making is that there is a rather large distinction between what is learned/taught in college, and what is used in work. I have had to unlearn all the practicalities and in-work training I've received just to be able to absorb the stuff the lecturers throw out. Many of whom acknowledge the lack of use in the workplace, but say they have to teach it. :rolleyes:

The point I'm making is that the current college standard is... well.. not particularly useful beyond having a piece of paper to say "honors degree"..

I had actually thought that in roughly 10 years they would have changed the system so that they actually taught useful coursework. Its no wonder so many students take the piss, when they can cram for the exams, and still pass. There's a basic need for understanding, but you can still more than just pass without it. Just memorize large chunks of data, and throw it down on a page at the right time.

So this thing about making degree's worthless is a bit lame since they never were particularly realistic in the first place. Always a piece of paper to show you can learn off huge chunks of crap.

[Note: I don't include the courses like BioTech, science's or such which have a heavier practical usage in colleges, and is useful outside of college]

Herbal Deity

Herbal Deity wrote: »

[
People aren't going to be shocked by a study that says 61% of males drink 3 or more pints in one sitting at least once a week. They might take notice of a study saying 40% of males drink over 6 pints in one sitting at least once a week, however. In terms of cultural perceptions, "3 or more pints" doesn't sound problematic in the slightest.

In all honesty... most people I know fall into this category simply from having 3-4 pints on a Friday night, followed by a few drinks on Saturday night. And that covers people with ages from 17 - 40..

My parents (aged mid-60's) are more than likely to put away two - three bottles of wine a week, and a few hot whiskeys.. Which would be more than 6 pints in one setting, wouldn't it?

Pride Fighter

Without the abolition of tuition fees I would have never attended University. The abolition of tuition fees is a good thing, it ensures that bright people from poor backgrounds like myself can study in a premier third level institution.

As for talking about binge drinking so what. Students have been binge drinking more or less since the foundation of Universities. Read any diaries of students that survive from earlier centuries and you will read about students going on grand tours, getting wasted with some local viscount and scoring some ho's. Some things will never change.