Decline in standard of UCD's incoming class

Mr Pseudonym

A suitably emotive title!

The proportion of LC students nationally getting above four hundred points increased from 19% in 1999 to 30% 2007 (an increase of ~60%). Over that period, the percentage of the incoming year scoring 400+ declined from 82% to 68%. The intake increased by an insignificant ~5%.

Explain yourselves!


Leaving Cert Points Statistics | CAO

A Study of Student Retention - UCD Entrants 1999-2007 | UCD Registry

ironclaw

Without sounding high and might, the leaving cert is getting easier as more kids are being ground to answer questions and perhaps most incoming students just taking lower point courses? e.g. Arts etc? From an Engineering perspective, its well established within the school that the standard of Math has dropped considerably and those taking Eng would be in the top tier. So you can only imagine what is happening lower down.

Mr Pseudonym

ironclaw wrote: »

Without sounding high and might, the leaving cert is getting easier as more kids are being ground to answer questions and perhaps most incoming students just taking lower point courses? e.g. Arts etc? From an Engineering perspective, its well established within the school that the standard of Math has dropped considerably and those taking Eng would be in the top tier. So you can only imagine what is happening lower down.

I am inclined to agree that the LC is getter easier - certainly that it is easier to score higher points, as evidenced by the ~60% increase in those scoring 400+. I don't understand what you mean by "taking lower-points courses", though.

AdamD

I imagine most of it is down to increased class sizes

steddyeddy

Science is now 500 points and there seems to be more people dropping out. We don't have an increase in the test scores correlating with an increase in LC entry points requirements because they're totally different courses. The LC is rote learning. Science is understanding. You cannot necessarily predict a good science student by their LC points.

Powerhouse

AdamD wrote: »

I imagine most of it is down to increased class sizes

I think that always explains a lot. There's a lot of nonsense spouted about 'high points courses' but it is simply about numbers - Arts in UCD has 1,230 places so lowest points in 2013 were 350.

A middle of the road course like Engineering has 250 places so lowest points were 475. Higher points courses like Economics and Finance has just 40 places so points are at 575 minimum. Swap the numbers on those courses and the points required could also be swapped. That's not to say that every candidate would be suitable for any course but the correlation between places and points is clear. If intake on courses is increasing points will inevitably drop all other things being equal.

Incdientally, someone mentioned Science at 500 points - Science was just 300 points in 2008 and 305 in 2009 - would be interesting to know how those classes coped. With the sort of spoon-feeding of material that has crept into the University scene in recent years they probably did fine. It's not just the LC that has been dumbed down.

steddyeddy

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think that always explains a lot. There's a lot of nonsense spouted about 'high points courses' but it is simply about numbers - Arts in UCD has 1,230 places so lowest points in 2013 were 350.

A middle of the road course like Engineering has 250 places so lowest points were 475. Higher points courses like Economics and Finance has just 40 places so points are at 575 minimum. Swap the numbers on those courses and the points required could also be swapped. That's not to say that every candidate would be suitable for any course but the correlation between places and points is clear. If intake on courses is increasing points will inevitably drop all other things being equal.

Incdientally, someone mentioned Science at 500 points - Science was just 300 points in 2008 and 305 in 2009 - would be interesting to know how those classes coped. With the sort of spoon-feeding of material that has crept into the University scene in recent years they probably did fine. It's not just the LC that has been dumbed down.

Well science had an extremely high drop out rate and still does. The leaving cert does not prepare students to be great scientists.

Mr Pseudonym

Powerhouse wrote: »

I think that always explains a lot. There's a lot of nonsense spouted about 'high points courses' but it is simply about numbers - Arts in UCD has 1,230 places so lowest points in 2013 were 350.

A middle of the road course like Engineering has 250 places so lowest points were 475. Higher points courses like Economics and Finance has just 40 places so points are at 575 minimum. Swap the numbers on those courses and the points required could also be swapped. That's not to say that every candidate would be suitable for any course but the correlation between places and points is clear. If intake on courses is increasing points will inevitably drop all other things being equal.

Incdientally, someone mentioned Science at 500 points - Science was just 300 points in 2008 and 305 in 2009 - would be interesting to know how those classes coped. With the sort of spoon-feeding of material that has crept into the University scene in recent years they probably did fine. It's not just the LC that has been dumbed down.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the above to the thread. To clarify, irrespective of the minimum-points-requirements of courses, the average points score of students has decreased.

Powerhouse

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I'm not sure of the relevance of the above to the thread.

To be fair it was a reply to a specific point raised rather than an attempt to give a thorough analysis of initial topic of the thread.

But I am not surprised to hear that average scores have dropped as I see students on a daily basis often of very average ability and they have remarkable aspirations regarding third-level courses.

Mr Pseudonym

Powerhouse wrote: »

To be fair it was a reply to a specific point raised rather than an attempt to give a thorough analysis of initial topic of the thread.

But I am not surprised to hear that average scores have dropped as I see students on a daily basis often of very average ability and they have remarkable aspirations regarding third-level courses.

You might be interested in a comparison I did of UCD Arts and TCD TSM which I posted on another thread:

There are roughly two thirds the number of TSM students as Arts students. The median Arts score was 405. A TSM median isn't published. However, the minimum score for all but four of the TSM courses (together accounting for 10%) was still higher than the Arts median. It's likely, therefore, that the TSM median is substantially higher than that of Arts - especially considering TSM includes TCD's highest points course (Psychology: 580) and joint second highest (Maths: 575) - together accounting for 5%.

If TCD TSM courses were combined into an Arts equivalent without telling anyone (i.e. doing so didn't cause students to change their selection), collective points requirement (i.e. minimum) would likely still be substantially above Arts (you would be including high points courses like PPES and SH Psychology, as well). I think there are three obvious reasons for that: the perception is that TCD is better for Arts/Humanities, while UCD better for Engineering; some students may shirk at having to do four (?) subjects in first year (or is it first semester?); despite there being many LC high performers in Arts (the highest, in 2012, scored 600), the low minimum is off-putting.

However, if TCD TSM were combined into an Arts equivalent, TCD would be informing applicants (!), so they would likely be many who change their selection. Two friends in Trinity have told me that they prefer the Philosophy Dept of UCD; I've also heard somewhere that UCD Economics Dept is the largest and best in Ireland. If UCD and TCD both had single-entry Arts courses, and if, as my two really week pieces of evidence suggest, some of UCD's Arts/Humanities departments are superior to TCD's, we would obviously see the points for both come much more in line.

Powerhouse

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

You might be interested in a comparison I did of UCD Arts and TCD TSM which I posted on another thread:

There are roughly two thirds the number of TSM students as Arts students. The median Arts score was 405. A TSM median isn't published. However, the minimum score for all but four of the TSM courses (together accounting for 10%) was still higher than the Arts median. It's likely, therefore, that the TSM median is substantially higher than that of Arts - especially considering TSM includes TCD's highest points course (Psychology: 580) and joint second highest (Maths: 575) - together accounting for 5%.

If TCD TSM courses were combined into an Arts equivalent without telling anyone (i.e. doing so didn't cause students to change their selection), collective points requirement (i.e. minimum) would likely still be substantially above Arts (you would be including high points courses like PPES and SH Psychology, as well). I think there are three obvious reasons for that: the perception is that TCD is better for Arts/Humanities, while UCD better for Engineering; some students may shirk at having to do four (?) subjects in first year (or is it first semester?); despite there being many LC high performers in Arts (the highest, in 2012, scored 600), the low minimum is off-putting.

However, if TCD TSM were combined into an Arts equivalent, TCD would be informing applicants (!), so they would likely be many who change their selection. Two friends in Trinity have told me that they prefer the Philosophy Dept of UCD; I've also heard somewhere that UCD Economics Dept is the largest and best in Ireland. If UCD and TCD both had single-entry Arts courses, and if, as my two really week pieces of evidence suggest, some of UCD's Arts/Humanities departments are superior to TCD's, we would obviously see the points for both come much more in line.

That's interesting alright. Do you know how many places are available on TCD TSM courses? Just thinking that for completeness of comparison with UCD Arts it would be a important figure.

Mr Pseudonym

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's interesting alright. Do you know how many places are available on TCD TSM courses? Just thinking that for completeness of comparison with UCD Arts it would be a important figure.

"Roughly two thirds" the number of UCD Arts students - iirc, somewhere around 850.

Powerhouse

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

"Roughly two thirds" the number of UCD Arts students - iirc, somewhere around 850.

Again, assuming other things to be equal that should mean that with less places TCD's points would be higher anyway. I cannot comment comparatively with authority across different universities but I have always assumed that the TSM course system probably raised points as different courses will have fairly small numbers.

I'm not sure how valid comparisons are with an all-comers Arts degree in another university. It's not just TCD Arts v UCD Arts - even within UCD the points for, say, a single honours BA History or BA Economics course -will be probably closer to 500 rather than the common entry Arts points. C

Comparisons between these courses and the TCD TSMs might be arguably more valid in terms of like vs like though I'm not sure it's possible to achgieve any real resolution on it anyway as there are so many other factors governing choice of college. There are some who would not dream of attending UCD because the location is awkward for them - while Trinity being so central in Dublin makes it a realistic and even attractive option for anybody who is happy to go to college in Dublin. That must surely count for something in consideration of points but is impossible to measure.

Mr Pseudonym

Powerhouse wrote: »

Again, assuming other things to be equal that should mean that with less places TCD's points would be higher anyway. I cannot comment comparatively with authority across different universities but I have always assumed that the TSM course system probably raised points as different courses will have fairly small numbers.

I'm not sure how valid comparisons are with an all-comers Arts degree in another university. It's not just TCD Arts v UCD Arts - even within UCD the points for, say, a single honours BA History or BA Economics course -will be probably closer to 500 rather than the common entry Arts points. C

Comparisons between these courses and the TCD TSMs might be arguably more valid in terms of like vs like though I'm not sure it's possible to achgieve any real resolution on it anyway as there are so many other factors governing choice of college. There are some who would not dream of attending UCD because the location is awkward for them - while Trinity being so central in Dublin makes it a realistic and even attractive option for anybody who is happy to go to college in Dublin. That must surely count for something in consideration of points but is impossible to measure.

Comparison is difficult, but I demonstrated that, given the Arts median is lower than the minimum for 90% of TSM places, despite there being more than half the number of Arts places (ie if TSM had half the places of Arts, the former's minimum should be directly comparable with UCD's median), a hypothetically amalgamated TCD Arts would have a premium over UCD Arts.

Because there are also single-honours TCD Arts/Humanities courses and because there are not many places on UCD's SH BAs, I thought it valid to ignore them.

Equally, UCD accommodation provision is much superior to TCD's which may affect a non-Dub applicant's choice.

Ruski

More people started doing the Leaving Cert, probably.

errlloyd

Lies damned lies and statistics OP.



Page 21 for anyone bothered to read. Average points haven't dropped significantly at all, 10 points which is like 1.8% versus a 5% increase in admissions.

What has increased significantly is both the students scoring under 400 and over 500. But at the bottom of the next page it says we increased admissions through Mature entry, Fetac, Hear and Dare (etc) from 6% to 15% which largely explains that.

And the graph on page 28 shows that the vast majority of the points difference was seen in science, which dropped during the economic boom to like ridiculous lows because people weren't bothered, but has now rallied up to being very high again, so I guess this study, (with stats from 7 years ago) would be different if done with 2014 numbers.

Mr Pseudonym

errlloyd wrote: »

Lies damned lies and statistics OP.

Page 21 for anyone bothered to read. Average points haven't dropped significantly at all, 10 points which is like 1.8% versus a 5% increase in admissions.

What has increased significantly is both the students scoring under 400 and over 500. But at the bottom of the next page it says we increased admissions through Mature entry, Fetac, Hear and Dare (etc) from 6% to 15% which largely explains that.

And the graph on page 28 shows that the vast majority of the points difference was seen in science, which dropped during the economic boom to like ridiculous lows because people weren't bothered, but has now rallied up to being very high again, so I guess this study, (with stats from 7 years ago) would be different if done with 2014 numbers.

I take gross exception to such an accusation.

Those admitted through "alternative routes" are not included in the statistics.

It is true that the stats are out of date, and that the large increase in Science will likely have a noticeable effect on the average. However, one should recognise that a more than significant percentage (perhaps a majority) were scoring above what is now the minimum. So, it's only a proportion of the places that will have been obtained with higher points (maybe as few as one-hundred). Also, the points minimum for Arts has declined over that period, and, given that it has about three times the number of places as Science, that will likely have had an equally significant reverse effect.

Sat nights don't get much better than this!

errlloyd

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I take gross exception to such an accusation.

Those admitted through "alternative routes" are not included in the statistics.

I'm not sure this is true, and I am not accusing you of lying or misleading, I think the report is poorly written. My knowledge of all of those schemes is that they apply the exact same way, just their points requirement is lowered.

In any case, there are lots of potential explanations. A huge amount of students scored higher on the CAO but had the money to study outside of Ireland, UCAS applications also rose in this period, quite significantly. DCU experienced pretty large growth as a university so I don't doubt that in certain courses it did cannibalise a lot of potential UCD students and UCD students.

An increase in the amount of students scoring above 400 isn't really a statistically important thing. CAO points breakdown is on a bell curve, the bulge is traditionally somewhere down near 350. The curve itself would only have to move a couple of % for a lot of students to shift from below 400 to above 400.

Finally, and I say this with some degree of concern. A small but measurable statistical drop in the average applicant to UCD doesn't worry me nearly as much as my own anecdotal experience of slipping educational standards for current students in UCD. And I've heard that is a pattern being repeated all around the country.

steddyeddy

Mr. P why are you correlating leaving cert with standard? Leaving cert is a memory test.

Mr Pseudonym

errlloyd wrote: »

I'm not sure this is true, and I am not accusing you of lying or misleading, I think the report is poorly written. My knowledge of all of those schemes is that they apply the exact same way, just their points requirement is lowered.

In any case, there are lots of potential explanations. A huge amount of students scored higher on the CAO but had the money to study outside of Ireland, UCAS applications also rose in this period, quite significantly. DCU experienced pretty large growth as a university so I don't doubt that in certain courses it did cannibalise a lot of potential UCD students and UCD students.

An increase in the amount of students scoring above 400 isn't really a statistically important thing. CAO points breakdown is on a bell curve, the bulge is traditionally somewhere down near 350. The curve itself would only have to move a couple of % for a lot of students to shift from below 400 to above 400.

Finally, and I say this with some degree of concern. A small but measurable statistical drop in the average applicant to UCD doesn't worry me nearly as much as my own anecdotal experience of slipping educational standards for current students in UCD. And I've heard that is a pattern being repeated all around the country.

I agree that there is a certain amount of ambiguity as to whether any type of non-traditional applicant is included in the statistics. As they are not assessed based on LC points, Mature and FETAC applicants certainly wouldn't be. I think it would be most irregular if HEAR/DARE applicants were included, however.

Median ≥400 (%) ≥500 (%)
2000 300 24.8 5.7
2013 335 43.4 9.7
% Increase 12 75 70


Can you please explain why you think what you said about a small curve-shift is relevant? The above table shows that the national average is increasing at all points bands, yet the UCD average remains static - whatever the reason for the LC grade-inflation, it's not affecting UCD.

Around 3,000 received UCAS acceptances (and didn't necessarily take up the their places). Given such a small amount, it could hardly be said to be the cause.

The thread title was purposely provocative; I've no doubt that the quality at the upper-levels is as high as ever.

It's quite possible that there is a reasonable explanation for the anomaly. But none you've so far given convinces.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Mr. P why are you correlating leaving cert with standard? Leaving cert is a memory test.

Research done for Cambridge Admissions Office found a high correlation between A-Level performance and degree performance. No similar research (that I'm aware of) has been done in Ireland, but I imagine the findings would be similar.

steddyeddy

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I agree that there is a certain amount of ambiguity as to whether any type of non-traditional applicant is included in the statistics. As they are not assessed based on LC points, Mature and FETAC applicants certainly wouldn't be. I think it would be most irregular if HEAR/DARE applicants were included, however.

Median ≥400 (%) ≥500 (%)
2000 300 24.8 5.7
2013 335 43.4 9.7
% Increase 12 75 70

Can you please explain why you think what you said about a small curve-shift is relevant? The above table shows that the national average is increasing at all points bands, yet the UCD average remains static - whatever the reason for the LC grade-inflation, it's not affecting UCD.

Around 3,000 received UCAS acceptances (and didn't necessarily take up the their places). Given such a small amount, it could hardly be said to be the cause.

The thread title was purposely provocative; I've no doubt that the quality at the upper-levels is as high as ever.

It's quite possible that there is a reasonable explanation for the anomaly. But none you've so far given convinces.




Research done for Cambridge Admissions Office found a high correlation between A-Level and degree performance. No similar research (that I'm aware of) has been done in Ireland, but I imagine the findings would be similar.

Really depends on the subject and the A level is completely different from the Irish leaving cert. The A level subjects allow people to go deeper in particular subjects of interest. The leaving certs gives a broad spread of rote learning.

Mr Pseudonym

steddyeddy wrote: »

Really depends on the subject and the A level is completely different from the Irish leaving cert. The A level subjects allow people to go deeper in particular subjects of interest. The leaving certs gives a broad spread of rote learning.

So, you are contending that there is no correlation between LC performance and degree success?

steddyeddy

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

So, you are contending that there is no correlation between LC performance and degree success?

Oh there is but Mature students are over represented in over achievers in UCD. Many don't have a leaving cert. That's one point. Mostly there is a correlation in success but only in degrees where rote learning is high.

Mr Pseudonym

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh there is but Mature students are over represented in over achievers in UCD. Many don't have a leaving cert. That's one point. Mostly there is a correlation in success but only in degrees where rote learning is high.

I don't think you can read much into the success of Mature Students. Those who return to education at an advanced age (ie 23+) are exceptional - you seem to be suggesting that were anyone who qualified as a Mature Student to return, they would be equally successful. I don't think you're right about the limited correlation. Much of success at university depends on how much one applies oneself (ie how much work they do), and that's something the LC rewards.

steddyeddy

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I don't think you can read much into the success of Mature Students. Those who return to education at an advanced age (ie 23+) are exceptional - you seem to be suggesting that were anyone who qualified as a Mature Student to return, they would be equally successful. I don't think you're right about the limited correlation. Much of success at university depends on how much one applies oneself (ie how much work they do), and that's something the LC rewards.

I agree there. I think were the leaving cert falls short is when people do postgraduates. The level of creative thinking required isn't fostered by the leaving.

Mr Pseudonym

errlloyd wrote: »

UCAS applications also rose in this period, quite significantly.

I'll have a look again tomorrow, but I'm confused: this seems to show that UCAS applications from RoI peaked in 2010, and have been on a downward trend since, which goes against what I had thought.

Mr Pseudonym

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree there. I think were the leaving cert falls short is when people do postgraduates. The level of creative thinking required isn't fostered by the leaving.

I don't understand how you think a deficient two-year LC would continue to impair someone after having done a three/four-year undergrad degree.

steddyeddy

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

I don't understand how you think a deficient two-year LC would continue to impair someone after having done a three/four-year undergrad degree.

Because they are apples and oranges. Learning facts and research do not go hand in hand.

Mr Pseudonym

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because they are apples and oranges. Learning facts and research do not go hand in hand.

But, how would the LC have had such a detrimental effect that it couldn't be overcome in an undergraduate degree.

steddyeddy

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

But, how would the LC have had such a detrimental effect that it couldn't be overcome in an undergraduate degree.

The undergraduate doesn't remedy anything really. That said it depends on the degree. Some degrees have more rote learning than others.

Mr Pseudonym

steddyeddy wrote: »

The undergraduate doesn't remedy anything really. That said it depends on the degree. Some degrees have more rote learning than others.

But, I don't understand how two years of learning comparatively-basic content could have an effect on postgraduate study. I would be somewhat sympathetic to the argument that the LC stymies development, which means students are under-prepared for their undergraduate degree, which has ramifications for those who then go on to postgrad. But, I can't understand how the effects of the LC would not make themselves known until a postgrad.