Finally theres a move for equality in education!

steddyeddy

Rocket19 wrote: »

Yes, there's probably a better student/teacher ratio, but I still firmly believe that success in the leaving cert is mainly down to independent study. The way the system IS right now, rote learning works (not saying this is a good thing). If students can sit down and study, they will do well. You can do this in your own room. You don't need a fancy school, you just need discipline.

While I agree that a student coming from a bad school/area, working his ass off, and getting 600 points is admirable, I don't agree that they are more worthy of a place in university than a privileged student. They're both equally entitled imo.
If you're going to include "life obstacles" into the mix of university admissions, why not take into account personal crises, etc? What if a student from a private school lost his mother the year of the leaving cert? What if a girl's boyfriend broke up with her? What if they had depression or something? It's just so implausible.

Without delving into people personal lives, it is impossible to pick the 'right' student. How on earth could they decipher this looking at something as trivial as the school they attended or a kiss-ass admission letter. As it stands, everyone is on a level playing field, and that's how I believe it should be.

Theres other posts I want to address but Ill get to this first. Unfortunatly not everyone is on a level playing field some are in private schools with a better student to teacher ratio. Some can afford grinds and some can not.

You dont have to take into account personal circumstances (graduate courses sometimes do) but I think its right you take into account educational circumstances. Its not about rich or poor but grind school or not, poor teacher-student ratio or good student teacher ratio. I wouldnt judge by the school alone either. I would however think that someone who achieved a certain mark without grind school a better student than someone who achieved the same mark with grinds and a better student teacher ratio.

Anyway context is only half of the proposal. Theres also an interview to see if your right for the course.

ManMade

Kids don't choose the family they are born into. Discriminating against those with resources is wrong.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

Kids don't choose the family they are born into. Discriminating against those with resources is wrong.

I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.

Grimebox

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I honestly can't fathom why they give extra points for maths, but not for extra subjects. What about people who excel at languages, but aren't mathematically minded?

I found maths impossible at school. I was pretty good at languages, especially Irish.

My best friend found Irish/English hard. She got spelling exemptions and a scribe to help her write out her answers in the LC, and I'd like to stress that she has NO learning disability of any sort, such as dyslexia, etc.

There is absolutely no type of exemption for those who find maths difficult, and on top of that, if your good at it, they'll now give you 25 extra points to boot. So unfair.

Because they emphasise and reward those who excel at maths, those who are strong in other subjects lose out. How is this even allowed?

I'm glad they're sorting the system out because at the moment its an absolute farce.

The idea is to encourage young people to give maths a chance rather than dismissing it as too hard. Once they realise it isn't as impossible as they once perceived, they might choose a more scientific path through college and their career. There has a drop off in young Irish people going into those sectors of late and they want to stimulate it. It is unfortunate for someone in your situation but there is a good chance you won't be competing for the same college places as more maths oriented people anyway. When I sat my leaving there was no extra points for maths, apparently in my dad's day they got double points!

Conversely, I would have hated to write a personal statement. I found english to be my toughest subject in school. I ended up getting a D2 and being delighted with it because failing that would have meant failing the whole damn thing. Writing a statement to supplement my hard work at maths related subjects would have been a huge crutch to me. At least in maths there is a right answer!

shruikan2553

Like someone else said it is just making them look like they see it is a problem and they have a "solution" that just covers it up. I did honours maths and think it's stupid. If they made it only in engineering and physics courses it would make a bit of sense but already you need a HC3 for engineering so it already means that only people with the 25 points get in. (theres a test if you dont get this but it is meant to be higher level standard)

I dont think courses should be based on what subjects you did for the leaving cert as it means that you have to have known what you wanted to do in third year. Courses like physics or chemistry could give more points to the related leaving cert subjects but I dont see anyone going on to do physics without already having done it.

Extra points for maths just gets people that can do it with a lot of work but dont think the time is worth it compared to dropping to pass and focusing on their other subjects. It will increase the numbers taking it a bit but overall the amount of people taking higher level will be a fraction of the total students. They need to change how the course is done, they are trying with project maths but I dont think it has been a huge success yet (could be wrong, when I did the leaving only a few schools did one of the project maths exams)

Their is no perfect solution. Points means we are anonymous with the best results getting places but people who have no interest in something can get in over someone who has always wanted to do the course. Interviews and letters means there can be bias but the people who want the course get in.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.

By how much? Or is it only to be used as a tiebreaker? What about the huge grinds market that may not be completely legitimate for tax purposes?

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

By how much? Or is it only to be used as a tiebreaker? What about the huge grinds market that may not be completely legitimate for tax purposes?

I would only bring grinds into account if two students got the same points. Theres no other fair way to do it. We cant do anything about the grinds market but we can affect grind schools.

ManMade

steddyeddy wrote: »

ManMade wrote: »

Kids don't choose the family they are born into. Discriminating against those with resources is wrong.

I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.

Probably but this is a capitalist country so people who spend resources deserve to see results . I myself will be going for multiple grinds in 2 weeks time to prepare for my leaving cert. Let's say I get 500 points and so does another person without grinds. Is he a better student? Yes. Are his points worth more than mine? No. These points affects my future so spending money on grinds a tuition is a small investment to secure the course I want and live the life I want. Just cause the other person spent less or went to a different school does not mean I should be discriminated going for a university course.

Rocket19

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would only bring grinds into account if two students got the same points. Theres no other fair way to do it. We cant do anything about the grinds market but we can affect grind schools.

I just can't fathom how you think going to a grinds school implies you didn't work as hard. I have lots of friends who went to the institute, and they worked so, so hard. You would actually penalise a student for attending a grinds school (in a 'tie-break' situation)? There is just no way of deciphering which students are the most 'hard-working', you're just making assumptions based on schools/areas/grinds. Who says the kids attending grinds schools have an easier time? In reality the students having the easiest time are the academically gifted, and they can come from any background.
What if the student who went to the 'bad' school (and didn't attend a grinds school) was just really smart, but didn't really work hard at all? There are just far too many irregularities.

I get what you're saying about it being a combination of factors for admission, but at the same time, the only one I can see as being any way feasible (and fair) is continuous assessment.

ManMade

I repeat people will work any system put in place. People getting 550-600 will still get what they want no matter what means testing is put in place. Anyone so innocent they don't work the system doesn't deserve a college place. Dog eat dog world I guess.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

Probably but this is a capitalist country so people who spend resources deserve to see results . I myself will be going for multiple grinds in 2 weeks time to prepare for my leaving cert. Let's say I get 500 points and so does another person without grinds. Is he a better student? Yes. Are his points worth more than mine? No. These points affects my future so spending money on grinds a tuition is a small investment to secure the course I want and live the life I want. Just cause the other person spent less or went to a different school does not mean I should be discriminated going for a university course.

Im a captalist to the bone as I keep explaining to people. But a child recieving the benifits of his parents money in order to further his own lifestyle isnt a capitalist idea I subscirbe too. I want to see each child earn his course on his own merits and not his parents wallet.

Your sort of answering your own question there. I hope to be a lecturer in an american university eventually (and maybe at an irish uni later in life) and I simply would want the better student. Ie those who did it without grind school and a in spite of a terrible student teacher ratio. Thats the point trinity have been making for years. The points system doesnt always tell you whos the best student. Students in this country are not at an equal footing. In the states and uk this is taken into account so I dont see why It cant be done here.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

I repeat people will work any system put in place. People getting 550-600 will still get what they want no matter what means testing is put in place. Anyone so innocent they don't work the system doesn't deserve a college place. Dog eat dog world I guess.

Well people who work the system in my experience do crap in college or just get a 2.2 degree. To do really well in most college course you cant "work the system" so I dont see how learning to do so in school will help.

ManMade

steddyeddy wrote: »

ManMade wrote: »

Probably but this is a capitalist country so people who spend resources deserve to see results . I myself will be going for multiple grinds in 2 weeks time to prepare for my leaving cert. Let's say I get 500 points and so does another person without grinds. Is he a better student? Yes. Are his points worth more than mine? No. These points affects my future so spending money on grinds a tuition is a small investment to secure the course I want and live the life I want. Just cause the other person spent less or went to a different school does not mean I should be discriminated going for a university course.

Im a captalist to the bone as I keep explaining to people. But a child recieving the benifits of his parents money in order to further his own lifestyle isnt a capitalist idea I subscirbe too. I want to see each child earn his course on his own merits and not his parents wallet.

Your sort of answering your own question there. I hope to be a lecturer in an american university eventually (and maybe at an irish uni later in life) and I simply would want the better student. Ie those who did it without grind school and a in spite of a terrible student teacher ratio. Thats the point trinity have been making for years. The points system doesnt always tell you whos the best student. Students in this country are not at an equal footing. In the states and uk this is taken into account so I dont see why It cant be done here.

But it is not as if going to grinds means the points are guaranteed. Im just saying many students work hard. I am not good at languages but excel at maths and science yet I must pass Irish, French and English(I think) to get where I want to get. I could probably get a good grade with an insane amount of work but grinds lay it out good. I dunno. What your saying seems to be gifted students should get an unfair advantage. I am a good student and I don't see what's wrong with me doing what I can to get the best possible so I can study what I want. *Sigh* Am gonna do it anyway.. law in trinity here I come!

donegal11

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I honestly can't fathom why they give extra points for maths, but not for extra subjects. What about people who excel at languages, but aren't mathematically minded?

.....

Because they emphasise and reward those who excel at maths, those who are strong in other subjects lose out. How is this even allowed?

You could argue if your good at English you are at an advantage in all written subjects because you can phrase/word answers better for subjects such as history. Being forced to chose three language based subjects to get into university(English, Irish and French/German etc) is very unfair on those mathematically minded. Giving 25 extra points is only fair, as someone who is poor at maths can avoid counting it in there leaving cert while someone poor at language has to struggle along with 3 language based subjects, having to rely on those for points.

randylonghorn

ManMade wrote: »

But it is not as if going to grinds means the points are guaranteed. Im just saying many students work hard.

No, it doesn't, and yes, they do.

ManMade wrote: »

I am a good student and I don't see what's wrong with me doing what I can to get the best possible so I can study what I want.

There's nothing wrong with it, and the best of luck to you in your LC.

But would you not accept that life has given you an advantage over someone who is equally bright and equally hard-working, but whose parents can't afford grinds?

That doesn't mean that you have done anything wrong, and I for one am not trying to make you feel guilty.

Is it wrong of the state though to look at ways of acknowledging that some people have advantages that others haven't? ... and to attempt to level the playing field in other ways?

bnt

If you look at the American system, by comparison, you'll see that students aren't forced to choose a career path before they start university. They can, but even if they do it's not an irrevocable choice. There's a strong "general education" track that everyone has to take. This is how the Wikipedia page for Harvard College (the model for much US tertiary education) puts it:

Midway through the second year, most undergraduates join one of fifty standard fields of concentration (what most schools call an academic major); many also declare a secondary field (called minors elsewhere). Joint concentrations (combining the requirements of two standard concentrations) and special concentrations (of the student's own design) are also possible.

Undergraduates must also fulfill the General Education requirement of coursework in eight designated fields:
- Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding
- Culture and Belief
- Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning
- Ethical Reasoning
- Science of Living Systems
- Science of the Physical Universe
- Societies of the World
- United States in the World

Compare that to UCD, where students going in must at least choose between Arts, Science, Engineering, etc. - and if they choose Arts, it's a massive hassle switching to e.g. Engineering after just one year.

It can be said that the "real" US education doesn't start until you start Graduate school e.g. Harvard University. This was the premise of the film Legally Blonde, for example: the main character did not study Law at undergraduate level at all, yet she was admitted to Harvard Law (the graduate school) and did OK.

ManMade

randylonghorn wrote: »

ManMade wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with it, and the best of luck to you in your LC.

But would you not accept that life has given you an advantage over someone who is equally bright and equally hard-working, but whose parents can't afford grinds?



Is it wrong of the state though to look at ways of acknowledging that some people have advantages that others haven't? ... and to attempt to level the playing field in other ways?

I know where your coming from but is there really anyway to level this playing field for everyone? I hate that other students who's parents send them to gaelscoils get an easy A1 in Irish and an extra 10% on every exam just because they speak a language where jobs are held up by gov grants or legislation? Im not naturally great at laniages yet it will hinder me goin for maths and science type course. If I could I would study chemistry, physics, maths, business, accounting and ag science but I can't, I'm stuck with French, English, Irish, maths , physics, chemistry and business. The system quite literally is crippling me. I'd love a fair system but only if it's 100%.
Why is it that a student good at linguistics can study more subjects that suit them and apply for the same courses as a maths, science or business minded person, the extra 25 marks but help 10% for Irish speakers!! Come On! There are many levels in our system and and as with all systems those with the least resources are at the bottom.

ManMade

bnt wrote: »

If you look at the American system, by comparison, you'll see that students aren't forced to choose a career path before they start university. They can, but even if they do it's not an irrevocable choice. There's a strong "general education" track that everyone has to take. This is how the Wikipedia page for Harvard College (the model for much US tertiary education) puts it:

Midway through the second year, most undergraduates join one of fifty standard fields of concentration (what most schools call an academic major); many also declare a secondary field (called minors elsewhere). Joint concentrations (combining the requirements of two standard concentrations) and special concentrations (of the student's own design) are also possible.

Undergraduates must also fulfill the General Education requirement of coursework in eight designated fields:
- Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding
- Culture and Belief
- Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning
- Ethical Reasoning
- Science of Living Systems
- Science of the Physical Universe
- Societies of the World
- United States in the World

Compare that to UCD, where students going in must at least choose between Arts, Science, Engineering, etc. - and if they choose Arts, it's a massive hassle switching to e.g. Engineering after just one year.

It can be said that the "real" US education doesn't start until you start Graduate school e.g. Harvard University. This was the premise of the film Legally Blonde, for example: the main character did not study Law at undergraduate level at all, yet she was admitted to Harvard Law (the graduate school) and did OK.

I've a feeling those with money for grind schools and private grinds would have no problem with American style fees but that would be the unfairest of all.

starbelgrade

randylonghorn wrote: »

Is it wrong of the state though to look at ways of acknowledging that some people have advantages that others haven't? ... and to attempt to level the playing field in other ways?

I think that it is fundamentally wrong for the state not to even attempt to provide a balanced system of second level education for all.

That's the only real way that you create a level playing field.

bleepp

People with money will always get what is perceived to be a "better" education to everyone else. Fee paying private schools to cater for the minds of the elite will always exist and they will continue to educate thousands across the country.
The government should put effort into allowing kids from ordinary secondary schools gain easier access to university either through bonus points or a complete over haul of the leaving cert. Better to focus attention on this rather than whining about the wealthy who can afford the posh boarding schools.

Fee paying private schools will always be around, but as long as the current 3rd level entry route system exists, so too will the belief that the wealthy are afforded much much easier access to university.
More effort should be made by government into getting the larger majority of students from ordinary middle/working class backgrounds into college. That will level the playing field, and let the fat cats with plenty of money continue to privately educate, as is their right to do so.

sock puppet

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree but their not. What they are taking into account is resources and that will weight into their decision. If two pupils get the same mark surely the one who did it without grindschool is the better student.

Education doesn't start at 18, nor does it begin and end in school. The one who did it without grindschools could have had lots of advantages early on in life.

Barney92

In a scenario with 2 getting the same points with only one having done grinds why is the non-grind student better? He could be naturally smarter but the other person by getting grinds as acknowledged a 'weakness' and has worked hard to overcome it. I didn't get any grinds but I wouldn't consider myself a better student than someone with the same points who had gotten grinds. There is also the possibility of there being too many 600 point students for one course, who is to say who is better? I realise it's an extremely unlikely situation but it is something that must be considered. I don't think background should be taken into account when looking at points, however some sort of aptitude test could be implemented in some way. It's not perfect but I feel it would be better than bonus points for maths etc.. The system in France is good where certain subjects count for more subjects depending on the course you want to do, but the problem with that is it's unlikely you will really know what you want to do in college and for the rest of your life when you are in 3/4th year. Anyway, the current system is not perfect but I do agree with many others that the anonymity is a big plus.

steddyeddy

starbelgrade wrote: »

You can dress it up whatever way you want and call it "complex way of dealing with socio economic problems", but in essence, it's nothing more than throwing a few points at the poor.

It's a form of charity and like most charities, it does little to address the underlying causes of the problem & only serves to mask the real issues.

The only real way to level the playing field in access to third level education is to eliminate an education system that allows "disadvantaged" schools to exist and to provide an equal and balanced system of second level education for all.

That would truly be a complex way of dealing with the socio economic problem. But for that to happen, it would most likely involve the elimination of a system that allows the children of the wealthy to attend fee paying schools & get the best of the best in terms of teaching and learning facilities.

But that - I have no doubt - is not something that he is suggesting or even hinting towards. A much simpler and rather token gesture is to throw a few points at the poor kids & appear to be doing the "right thing".

First of all Im going to have to say I find your use of "throwing points at the poor" a bit offensive. I was one of those poor students and no modesty about it Im an asset to the college and to society. My intelligence is not tied in with my socio economic group despite my financial background. Im am also not a charity case nor is anyone else who was poor and gets into college.

Improving access for those who would be in college if not for some economic circumstance isnt about "throwing money at the poor". Its about improving access from all areas. Currently some people have far more advantage than most and this removes the point of something like the points system which is supposed to select the best student. Take the advantages and disadvatnages into account and that way you get the best student into a course.

Its not about dealing with social issues. It is simply to do with getting the best student. The points system does not currently detail who is the best student and picking students from one socio economic group doesnt guarantee the best students. Minimise the gene pool you minimise the allelles for intelligence.

Back to your charity thing. Do you seriously think that a college would change the points system for something like charity towards the poor? You seem to be operating from a belief about socio economic classes rising from some scientific (mostly biological) illiteracy. You dont seem to think enviroment can affect performance. Some people on boards have this bizarre view that people with less money are less capable of college. Again im putting this down to scientific illiteracy.

steddyeddy

sock puppet wrote: »

Education doesn't start at 18, nor does it begin and end in school. The one who did it without grindschools could have had lots of advantages early on in life.

Indeed but the proposed changes are more than context of education. The changes are also about putting the right student in the right course. That to me is the most important thing.

steddyeddy

Rocket19 wrote: »

+1

I don't see how taking the schools into account does anyone any justice. What good would it do? You're basically begging for discrimination! You'll either get "oh he went to Blackrock College? So did I, he's in!", OR you'll get "oh look, this guy managed to get 600 points despite living in a bad area/attending a bad school, lets admit him". Bias is absolutely guaranteed if they implement this kind of system.

Your parents income (rich or poor) really shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you are "worthy" of getting into university.

I agree but for years it had a massive impact on whether a student got into college. Private and fee schools being a case in point.

Rocket19

Rocket19 wrote: »

You haven't worded this very eloquently, but I agree with you! :P

What TCD is basically saying is that, if two students get 500 points, one disadvantaged, and one not, they will give the place to the disadvantaged student????
Why?? It's ridiculous. Being from an "elite fee paying school" does not get you 500 or 600 points. Fee paying schools do NOT have better teachers, and they certainly cannot guarantee you points. They may have better facilities, sports, etc, but does that really matter in the end?? The expectation is high in fee-paying schools, study/hard work is very much encouraged, probably more so than some other schools. HOWEVER, only hard word, dedication, and many hours of hitting the books will get you the points in the end.

While I completely agree with giving disadvantaged students the platform and help they need to enter college (they have just as much right as anyone, obviously), this is on a whole other level. It's reverse discrimination. While the current system has it's flaws, at least it's anonymous. Whether the student is from Blackrock or Ballymun, it is virtually impossibly for them to get fcucked over, they are just a number to the examiner.

Couldn't agree more. I lost out on my dream college place in England because of reverse discrimination. They decided that year to give most of their places to state school students and not private school students, including grammar schools like mine. It was so, so unfair, especially considering that my school wasn't fee-paying - you had to pass a test to get in. I certainly wasn't privileged - I never had grinds, extra tuition or study materials bought for me and most of the teachers at my school were rubbish. I worked my ass off to get my grades and I was devastated that I didn't get in. Ended up going to Trinity, so my life took a totally different path. I always wonder if I'd have been much happier if I'd been able to go to England like I wanted.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

But it is not as if going to grinds means the points are guaranteed. Im just saying many students work hard. I am not good at languages but excel at maths and science yet I must pass Irish, French and English(I think) to get where I want to get. I could probably get a good grade with an insane amount of work but grinds lay it out good. I dunno. What your saying seems to be gifted students should get an unfair advantage. I am a good student and I don't see what's wrong with me doing what I can to get the best possible so I can study what I want. *Sigh* Am gonna do it anyway.. law in trinity here I come!

Listen I dont think someone who does well and went to grind or private school didnt work hard. That wouldnt make any sense. I just think some students have disadvantages that would impact their performance.

steddyeddy

Noa Chubby Hailstorm wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. I lost out on my dream college place in England because of reverse discrimination. They decided that year to give most of their places to state school students and not private school students, including grammar schools like mine. It was so, so unfair, especially considering that my school wasn't fee-paying - you had to pass a test to get in. I certainly wasn't privileged - I never had grinds, extra tuition or study materials bought for me and most of the teachers at my school were rubbish. I worked my ass off to get my grades and I was devastated that I didn't get in. Ended up going to Trinity, so my life took a totally different path. I always wonder if I'd have been much happier if I'd been able to go to England like I wanted.

Well that was wrong but its not reverse discrimination its plain discrimination.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well that was wrong but its not reverse discrimination its plain discrimination.

How isn't it reverse discrimination? By opening up places to 'disadvantaged' students, they had to take them away from more 'privileged' ones. I think the Irish system of points only is a really good idea.

ManMade

The idea of colleges discriminating on places because of parents level of wealth (rich or poor) or the school of the person is quite a backward idea. College fees are the biggest threat to the playing field and I've a funny feeling that there current fee is not enough for our government and an increase similar to the UK could destroy the field.

steddyeddy

ManMade wrote: »

The idea of colleges discriminating on places because of parents level of wealth (rich or poor) or the school of the person is quite a backward idea. College fees are the biggest threat to the playing field and I've a funny feeling that there current fee is not enough for our government and an increase similar to the UK could destroy the field.

But people from disadvataged areas havent been getting in because they are from a poor family. I dont think this new system will be against those from wealthy backgrounds and If it is then thats wrong. Intelligence isnt confined to an economic group.

steddyeddy

Noa Chubby Hailstorm wrote: »

How isn't it reverse discrimination? By opening up places to 'disadvantaged' students, they had to take them away from more 'privileged' ones. I think the Irish system of points only is a really good idea.

Because theres no such thing as reverse discrimination. Its like when people say reverse racisim when referring to an incident where a black man is racist against a white man. To discriminate against people who have wealthy parents is discrimination not reverse discrimination.

steddyeddy

If the points system werent a glorified memory test then grinds and private school wouldnt mean anything. We need drastic reform to the points system. I dont agree with discrimnation against rich or poor but untill we have a level playing field we have to take disadvatage into account.

starbelgrade

steddyeddy wrote: »

First of all Im going to have to say I find your use of "throwing points at the poor" a bit offensive. I was one of those poor students and no modesty about it Im an asset to the college and to society. My intelligence is not tied in with my socio economic group despite my financial background. Im am also not a charity case nor is anyone else who was poor and gets into college.

Improving access for those who would be in college if not for some economic circumstance isnt about "throwing money at the poor". Its about improving access from all areas. Currently some people have far more advantage than most and this removes the point of something like the points system which is supposed to select the best student. Take the advantages and disadvatnages into account and that way you get the best student into a course.

Its not about dealing with social issues. It is simply to do with getting the best student. The points system does not currently detail who is the best student and picking students from one socio economic group doesnt guarantee the best students. Minimise the gene pool you minimise the allelles for intelligence.

Back to your charity thing. Do you seriously think that a college would change the points system for something like charity towards the poor? You seem to be operating from a belief about socio economic classes rising from some scientific (mostly biological) illiteracy. You dont seem to think enviroment can affect performance. Some people on boards have this bizarre view that people with less money are less capable of college. Again im putting this down to scientific illiteracy.

The system as it stands tends to benefit more the children of the well off and this is an unfair system.

However, deducting or adding points to students exam results based on the postcode of the school they went to is also unfair system.

If the point of the exercise is actually to find the best students, then this is not the way to do it as the only true way of finding out who the best students are at any level of education is to give them the same standards of teaching and facilities and then judge them on their performance.

If you don't address the fundamentals, then you are simply masking the problem rather than finding a way to solve it.

You can try and disregard my point of view as ignorance, but this is not "scientific illteracy" on my behalf - I understand your argument but I also disagree with it.

I also know that you don't win a debate simply by calling the other debater an idiot, so maybe you should take that on board the next time you try to get your viewpoint across.

steddyeddy

starbelgrade wrote: »

The system as it stands tends to benefit more the children of the well off and this is an unfair system.

However, deducting or adding points to students exam results based on the postcode of the school they went to is also unfair system.

If the point of the exercise is actually to find the best students, then this is not the way to do it as the only true way of finding out who the best students are at any level of education is to give them the same standards of teaching and facilities and then judge them on their performance.

If you don't address the fundamentals, then you are simply masking the problem rather than finding a way to solve it.

You can try and disregard my point of view as ignorance, but this is not "scientific illteracy" on my behalf - I understand your argument but I also disagree with it.

I also know that you don't win a debate simply by calling the other debater an idiot, so maybe you should take that on board the next time you try to get your viewpoint across.

Im not trying to win a debate. I didnt call you an idiot either sorry If it came across like that. But your describing the consideration of disadvantage as charity and extra points. Yet you dont see how grind schools and private schools are essentially extra points based on wealth. As Patrick Geoghegan says some disadvantaged schools dont even have the option of higher maths. How can you not take that into account.

As regards changing the standards to match at every level I agree but I dont see it happening any time soon. As you say the system is unfair and needs to change but thats only half of the problem. Fairness aside If we have a situation were only the rich or only the poor are getting into third level then thats not reflective of intelligence but economics.

When poor students get through the unfair system and into uni they do brilliantly in my experience. University is an even playing field for both rich and for poor. We all have the same lecturers, the same labs, the same tutorials. If both rich and poor do well in uni yet differ in secondary level then cleary economics is the reason. This needs to be addressed but in the meantime we cant have an unfair system.

That aside, context is only a small part of the new proposals. Theres also the personal statement and interview. I think this will help both rich and poor get the course they deserve.

Canard

I have to say I'm in favour of it, but HEAR already gives disadvantaged people a points boost, so I do think there's a tiny element of "positive discrimination". I know a guy who got into general science in trinity with none of the "real" sciences (geography should not be counted as one imo) and under 400 points after going to a grinds school (with HEAR and DARE), and has now dropped out. Definitely not fair on someone who got 460 with physics and chemistry and would have loved to have his place, so the interview would be good.

If you really want the course, you should know why. I knew why I wanted my course and if you can't tell someone definitively what's enticing you...well, why are you applying for it?

Though I don't know how I feel about discriminating against grinds schools in particular. I know for a fact if I had had better teachers in certain subjects I'd have gotten higher points (I had a pretty huge gap between business and geography, despite them both being fairly easy and working hard at both). My school isn't viewed as disadvantaged as far as I know but a teacher can definitely impact on your grades. I'd be in favour of weighting too - if you don't have the aptitude for the course, again, you probably shouldn't be in it. I could've done engineering because I got a HC3 in maths and sufficient points, but I know I'd have been hopeless at it - and an interview would have shown that.

All in all, I think it's a good idea.

steddyeddy

Patchy~ wrote: »

I have to say I'm in favour of it, but HEAR already gives disadvantaged people a points boost, so I do think there's a tiny element of "positive discrimination". I know a guy who got into general science in trinity with none of the "real" sciences (geography should not be counted as one imo) and under 400 points after going to a grinds school (with HEAR and DARE), and has now dropped out. Definitely not fair on someone who got 460 with physics and chemistry and would have loved to have his place, so the interview would be good.

If you really want the course, you should know why. I knew why I wanted my course and if you can't tell someone definitively what's enticing you...well, why are you applying for it?

Though I don't know how I feel about discriminating against grinds schools in particular. I know for a fact if I had had better teachers in certain subjects I'd have gotten higher points (I had a pretty huge gap between business and geography, despite them both being fairly easy and working hard at both). My school isn't viewed as disadvantaged as far as I know but a teacher can definitely impact on your grades. I'd be in favour of weighting too - if you don't have the aptitude for the course, again, you probably shouldn't be in it. I could've done engineering because I got a HC3 in maths and sufficient points, but I know I'd have been hopeless at it - and an interview would have shown that.

All in all, I think it's a good idea.

Well the interview for me is the most important proposal this will ensure equality more than asking what school the child went to. Its by far the most important change in my opinion. theres people, both private school and hear students who go into the wrong course at the expense of someone better suited.

With the interview I think we will find and equal measure of rich and poor enter the system not just the rich and not just the poor. Theres a lot of people in science for example who shouldnt be there. One girl was forced into it by her mother when the girl herself wanted to do arts. Thats not fair on her and the student she got in over.

Larianne

I think it should boil down to whether the student is suited to the course/wants to do the course. They'll have to show some academic ability, but also that they've researched the course and the career direction afterwards and prove its what they want to do, not what they think they should do or what their parents want them to do.

If they brought in a system similar to the mature entry route - show academic ability, work experience/knowledge of the course, with an interview or apptitude test, you are more likely to have the student most suited and deserving of the place on the course.

I don't think whether or not they went to a grind school should matter *if* colleges start doing something similar to the UK and accept students via access courses. So if a student doesn't meet a certain grade in the core subjects for the course, they could complete a one year course geared to that area - science or arts for example and then apply the following year.

The points system is extremely unfair to kids that have the ability but just go to a shít school or have bad teachers for certain subjects. I was one of two students doing higher Biology for L.C. in my year. There was no way either myself or the other girl was going to get an A grade when the teacher had to teach us the honours course while trying to control 20+ other students in the class.

I got 390 points in my leaving. I went back to do the course I wanted to do 10 years later. The points required are 550+ but I'm well able for the course, its just most of my classmates went to private schools or went to grinds to learn how to reel off essays.

steddyeddy

Larianne wrote: »

I think it should boil down to whether the student is suited to the course/wants to do the course. They'll have to show some academic ability, but also that they've researched the course and the career direction afterwards and prove its what they want to do, not what they think they should do or what their parents want them to do.

If they brought in a system similar to the mature entry route - show academic ability, work experience/knowledge of the course, with an interview or apptitude test, you are more likely to have the student most suited and deserving of the place on the course.

I don't think whether or not they went to a grind school should matter *if* colleges start doing something similar to the UK and accept students via access courses. So if a student doesn't meet a certain grade in the core subjects for the course, they could complete a one year course geared to that area - science or arts for example and then apply the following year.

The points system is extremely unfair to kids that have the ability but just go to a shít school or have bad teachers for certain subjects. I was one of two students doing higher Biology for L.C. in my year. There was no way either myself or the other girl was going to get an A grade when the teacher had to teach us the honours course while trying to control 20+ other students in the class.

I got 390 points in my leaving. I went back to do the course I wanted to do 10 years later. The points required are 550+ but I'm well able for the course, its just most of my classmates went to private schools or went to grinds to learn how to reel off essays.

The best way in my opinion to improve eqaulity is simply to suit the student to the course. I would wager an equal number from poor and well off backgrounds would be right for any particular course when it boils down to it.

From the looks of things the mature student entry is being brought in and in my humble opinion I think it is the most effective way to determine aptitude and suitability for the course.

The points for science have gone up this year and I guarantee there will be people coming in who arent suited for the course but are suited to getting high points. Unfortunatly getting high points through whatever means doesnt go hand in hand with your ability to do any given course. Ill echo your statement and say it doesnt take 500 plus points to do well in science. In my opinion the points system do not accuratly indicate a students ability for a particular course but this is a step in the right direction.

ManMade

Larianne wrote: »

I think it should boil down to whether the student is suited to the course/wants to do the course. They'll have to show some academic ability, but also that they've researched the course and the career direction afterwards and prove its what they want to do, not what they think they should do or what their parents want them to do.

If they brought in a system similar to the mature entry route - show academic ability, work experience/knowledge of the course, with an interview or apptitude test, you are more likely to have the student most suited and deserving of the place on the course.

I don't think whether or not they went to a grind school should matter *if* colleges start doing something similar to the UK and accept students via access courses. So if a student doesn't meet a certain grade in the core subjects for the course, they could complete a one year course geared to that area - science or arts for example and then apply the following year.

The points system is extremely unfair to kids that have the ability but just go to a shít school or have bad teachers for certain subjects. I was one of two students doing higher Biology for L.C. in my year. There was no way either myself or the other girl was going to get an A grade when the teacher had to teach us the honours course while trying to control 20+ other students in the class.

I got 390 points in my leaving. I went back to do the course I wanted to do 10 years later. The points required are 550+ but I'm well able for the course, its just most of my classmates went to private schools or went to grinds to learn how to reel off essays.

Once you get the points you should be allowed to do whatever you want. Some people say it's just learning off essays which it is thankfully in some subjects for my sake, bloody terrible at essays. Learning off texts isn't just about memory it's about a work ethic sitting down and memorizing pieces for English, French History Irish and so on day after day for 2 years to achieve what the current system calls excellence is numbing. But for those who hate the idea of just memorizing stuff there is Physics, Chemistry, DCG , Applied Maths and believe me the new maths course makes me want to bang my head of the table, just open up the probabilty chapter in it ffs you'll kill yourself trying to memorize that sh1t. Rant over. I feel I'm losing this battle but any system brought in those at the top of the current one will be right at the top of the new one. Unless high fees are brought in there won't be course places for everyone. But ye can do whatever the hell you like with the system for all I care after the 2014 exams because the current system suits me down to the bone. Forcing people to do what suits them and not what doesn't suit them sounds a bit communist era and deprives people of the choice to choose. Get the points do the course simply and the same for everyone.

Anita Blow

steddyeddy wrote: »

The best way in my opinion to improve eqaulity is simply to suit the student to the course. I would wager an equal number from poor and well off backgrounds would be right for any particular course when it boils down to it.

Why should that be the case at all?
Should people not be accepted on academic merit, rather than colleges accepting people based on their socio-economic background just so they can get equal numbers of rich and poor people?

steddyeddy wrote: »

The points for science have gone up this year and I guarantee there will be people coming in who arent suited for the course but are suited to getting high points. Unfortunatly getting high points through whatever means doesnt go hand in hand with your ability to do any given course. Ill echo your statement and say it doesnt take 500 plus points to do well in science. In my opinion the points system do not accuratly indicate a students ability for a particular course but this is a step in the right direction.

A person entering General Science this year will have got the equivalent of 5 A1s, including a Higher Level Honours grade in at least 2 Science subjects. If they have chosen science and got it, then who is anybody else to tell them that they can't?

The points system we have is one of the most objective ways out there for determining entry to college.
1)The points system doesn't tie you down to a certain area like the A-Levels in the UK. A person in 5th year who wants to do Physics and chooses subjects to reflect that, can decide in 6th year that they want to do Psychology instead there are no repercussions. Their equivalent in the UK would find it a lot harder to do the same. In a country like ours, aswell as others in Europe, we need to give students that opportunity to change considering they're being made choose their careers so young.

2)The CAO system is very transparent and fair in my opinion. Someone said it in another thread a few days ago that if an Irish person is calling it unfair, then it must be very fair, because in an Irish context "unfair" means you can't bend it or manipulate it to benefit themselves. Introducing interviews makes the application process very subjective and opens the door to discrimination, especially in a small country like ours. I wouldn't be opposed to personal statements which can be submitted through your anonymous CAO Number.

3)Supports are already in place for those from disadvantaged areas. Whether it's the HEAR Scheme which pays for student's reg fees and offers them courses at reduced points, or college-specific schemes like Trinity Access Programme which disadvantaged students can apply to and undertake a foundation year in certain subjects and if they pass, they're allowed in to their course.

I'm all for some reform of the system. I'd advocate maybe bonus points for subjects relevant to the course for which you're applying. I know that would somewhat go against my first point, but it might make the system somewhat fairer.
The colleges however shouldn't be discriminating against any student. Just because it's discrimination against the rich/middle-class doesn't make it any fairer. There's plenty of people, especially those going to high-points courses, who will do anything to get there. Their parents will also do anything for them to get there, even if it means putting money away to attend a grind school or get grinds. Why should they be discriminated against for being ambitious and determined? 600 points is 600 points and whether a person who gets that is from a rich background or poor background, they deserve to be recognised for their hard work. In the current system, if 2 people got 550 for a course thats 550, they either both get in or it goes to random selection which is fair. In the proposed system, the poorer person would get it?

Sorry for the rant. I'm not having a go at you or anything, but I just don't think a system where students are so openly discriminated against based on non-academic factors is fair. They should be made submit an anonymous personal statement, and maybe bonus points attached to relevant subjects. That should be it in my opinion.

Larianne

ManMade wrote: »

Forcing people to do what suits them and not what doesn't suit them sounds a bit communist era and deprives people of the choice to choose. Get the points do the course simply and the same for everyone.

I didn't mention 'forcing' in my post. If entry to college became like the way I described in my previous post, it will cause the student to think about the course they are applying for - research it, maybe get some shadow experience in the area, think about what career they will have afterwards and then decide if it is the course for them.

It's just a way to help people think about the course they are going to do for 3 or 4 years rather than focus on points and a course with 500+ points means its a better course to do etc.

It would benefit the majority because you will end up doing a course you'll have an interest in and will want to do well in.

ManMade

Larianne wrote: »

ManMade wrote: »

Forcing people to do what suits them and not what doesn't suit them sounds a bit communist era and deprives people of the choice to choose. Get the points do the course simply and the same for everyone.

I didn't mention 'forcing' in my post. If entry to college became like the way I described in my previous post, it will cause the student to think about the course they are applying for - research it, maybe get some shadow experience in the area, think about what career they will have afterwards and then decide if it is the course for them.

It's just a way to help people think about the course they are going to do for 3 or 4 years rather than focus on points and a course with 500+ points means its a better course to do etc.

It would benefit the majority because you will end up doing a course you'll have an interest in and will want to do well in.

Just reread your earlier post completely misread it earlier very sorry. Completely agree with your points but surely there can't be many people doing courses there parents want them to do just cause there parents want them to do it. People not doing research into course can clearly seen in the high dropout rate in computer science and the points for that aren't to high if I recall rightly

I don't like the idea of the interview having anything to do with career direction etc., leave that to the ITs. University education is supposed to be about education, not grooming for a career. Even accepting that whole thing I still don't see why a keen idiot should get a place ahead of a somewhat apathetic but far more competent individual.

purplepapillon

Larianne wrote: »

They'll have to show some academic ability, but also that they've researched the course and the career direction afterwards and prove its what they want to do, not what they think they should do or what their parents want them to do.

How is an 18 year old supposed to know about their career direction? Some do, and are very focused on it. I had zilch career direction at that age. I had worked hard through school, not for two years, but for six. I was good at "learning-off" because that was what was asked of me for exam success. Why should I have to prove to some college professor what I want from life, when, in most cases, an 18 year old is still figuring that out?!

Larianne wrote: »

*if* colleges start doing something similar to the UK and accept students via access courses.

Colleges do this. Trinity and UCD do, as far as I know, but there must be some more. A friend of mine got a course in UCD after such a course this year.

Larianne wrote: »

The points system is extremely unfair to kids that have the ability but just go to a shít school or have bad teachers for certain subjects.

I don't agree with the concepts of "bad teacher" and "**** school" but certainly the idea here, I agree with. Disadvantaged schools are just that, they place students at a huge disadvantage. Very often, this is due to social problems within the local area, disruption of lessons and so on. It is grossly unfair, and the measures here vis-a-vis government policy are simply not good enough. Teachers are working as best they can, sometimes in an environment where students don't have access to the appropriate supports and thus act out. But all these schools get, cuts in budgets.[/QUOTE]

Anita Blow wrote: »

Someone said it in another thread a few days ago that if an Irish person is calling it unfair, then it must be very fair, because in an Irish context "unfair" means you can't bend it or manipulate it to benefit themselves. Introducing interviews makes the application process very subjective and opens the door to discrimination, especially in a small country like ours. I wouldn't be opposed to personal statements which can be submitted through your anonymous CAO Number.

Completely agreed here. Interviews are a fact of life, usually after college. Some teenagers are shy, lack confidence or social skills and would not perform well at an interview. However, if they did get their chosen course, they could flourish and gain confidence after a few years at college. Someone else pointed out discrimination could occur to people who cannot write well. Personal statements, if introduced, will probably create a new market, for students/parents to pay someone to "look over" the statement to check if it has a chance. There is no perfect solution.

A system where bonus points awarded in subjects relevant to the course would work better than the current system. But then we have to look at the fact that a small, rural school might not have Physics on offer, so that places X student at a disadvantage.

The best solution IMHO is to reform the way teaching and education is conceived in this country. Yes, I did rote-learn my way through school for weaker subjects such as Irish. I did not do so through college. I explored concepts, discussed philosophy, reflected on my political beliefs, read great literature, read literature I did school system. Everybody in education thinks in terms of Arts OR Science, when in fact the two are closely related. I had a lecture on botany in poetry, for example. I was good at both Maths and English in school (practical vs rote-learning some have said here, although I did not "rote-learn" English) and enjoyed both. Many people seem to think it's one or the other. Education should be about cognitive development as well as social, emotional, intellectual and cultural development of the child. The current system is all about the economy and where "jobs" are, IBEC and corporate sponsorship. Yes, a job is very important after education, but it seems to be the only issue discussed when education comes up in the media. Let's give Maths some points, employers say we need it. In 20 years, we may have a tonne of people qualified in Science and no Science industry. Government policy is being dictated by what industry/economy needs (i.e. worker bees) rather than the holistic development of the individual.

Forgive me for the lengthy/confusing rambling long post. What can I say, it's almost 3am and reflection time is on! I'm soon to start the HDip (don't crucify me...please!) and have some lofty ideals about education perhaps, but shouldn't we all aspire to ideals?

aaabbbb

Deleted User wrote: »

Giving bonus points for being poor is something that I think would be pretty ridiculous as well.

Already somewhat exists though its called a "points reduction" google the HEAR scheme and you'll find a bit more about it.

aaabbbb

aaabbbb wrote: »

Already somewhat exists though its called a "points reduction" google the HEAR scheme and you'll find a bit more about it.

If you read the rest of my posts you'd see I know about it. The implementation at student level is ridiculously haphazard.

aaabbbb

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read the rest of my posts you'd see I know about it. The implementation at student level is ridiculously haphazard.

Yeah I just discovered those there a few seconds after posting sorry!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bren2001 wrote: »

Waste of time, all thats going to happen is students are going to get taken away from their studies to write some ****ty letter. Ill be honest, I didnt have a clue what I wanted to do at the end of sixth year.

Students will still end up on the wrong courses. Waste of time!

That's exactly the kind of people this will get rid of - when your letter reads "I don't haved a clue what I want to do", they'll weed you out and hopefully gave the place to someone who genuinely wants it and who won't drop out after six months.

bren2001

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of people this will get rid of - when your letter reads "I don't haved a clue what I want to do", they'll weed you out and hopefully gave the place to someone who genuinely wants it and who won't drop out after six months.

Well when I finished 6th year, I didn't have a clue what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I went into Engineering because I like mathematics and there was no other CAO course that I wanted to do. Could I have written an honest letter with a series of reasons I wanted to do the course? No. Because I didnt really want to do it....

I'm in 4th year, I'm top of my class, got 540 in the Leaving and find Engineering interesting. So should I would of been weeded out? Going by this I would have and someone "more deserving" would of got the place even tho I am extremely suited.