***The Official CAO Offers Thread*** [R1 points linked in first post]

grapefruit_1

Cydoniac wrote: »

Not sure if I'd call the points system exactly fair - many courses at high points for the sake of elitism, it's abused in various ways, the likes of grind schools giving the impression that people with extra money are more likely to succeed, etc. I personally feel the Leaving Cert is too broad of a course, I lost out on points because of the likes of having to do Irish when it could have been spent on a specialist subject.


n.

I don't think points are high for the sake of elitism, I believe its more to do with supply and demand ??

The high points courses are hugely popular, demand for them far exceeds number of places available.

You can't just increase places to bring down the points. You would be left with a saturated market of graduates resulting in none of them getting jobs.

What would be the point in having 1000 doctors/dentists graduating then not enough jobs for them? This is already beginning to happen in some professions such as physiotherapy.

The number of places on these courses needs to drop in line with the need for graduates.

EmzBoBo

TooMuchStudy wrote: »

Hey guys I'm 5 points off my course at the moment, is there a likelyhood of points dropping by 5 in second round offers? Or is it highly unlikely and should just accept what I have atm?

Accept what you have been given for the moment (unless you're sure that you'd absolutely hate the course!), and if your 1st choice drops in the 2nd round, and you qualify for it, you will then be offered that course instead!

randylonghorn

Please read.

MWick94 wrote: »

coming from someone who started in trinity last year, don't be expecting much communication from them for a while. they're known for being fairly laid back about registration/communication etc :pac:

Partly because they start later than most colleges.

You're quite right tho.

Hotfail.com

Cydoniac wrote: »

Class sizes have been manipulated to artificially increase/decrease demand, it absolutely goes on in some college courses. Being academically gifted based on a compound sit-down exam (a lot still based on rote rather than coursework) shouldn't be the sole criteria for taking/being taken on for a course. Again, there are many expensive grind schools that give kids an edge over those who don't take them. Of course, anyone has the potential to do well or badly, but there is still a lot of unfair bias in the system.

Less places means they get more high-scoring students in their courses, why would they let in twenty students, risking that fifteen of them weren't up to the job, when they could offer five places to the highest-scoring applicants and increase the likelihood of them doing extremely well?

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your grinds school argument, don't agree at all that they give a significant advantage over people attending non fee-paying schools. A lot of the people attention grinds schools get found out in college anyway where there's no one to spoonfeed you information to make sure they do well.

Look here:

Those stats are completely misleading, everyone(or as good as everyone) in Bruce College is there because they want to go on to ITs or University, whilst in normal schools this isn't the case. Those stats are just there to fool people into thinking that students nearly always perform better in private education than public education, but if they just copped onto themselves and did their study they'd do just as well in their public school and save themselves a lot of money.

Peregrine

Anyone who's going to DCU, if you could please make your way to this thread, that'd be great. Thank you.

Shamelessly plugging my thread, I know :pac:

rainbowtrout

Cydoniac wrote: »

Class sizes have been manipulated to artificially increase/decrease demand, it absolutely goes on in some college courses. Being academically gifted based on a compound sit-down exam (a lot still based on rote rather than coursework) shouldn't be the sole criteria for taking/being taken on for a course. Again, there are many expensive grind schools that give kids an edge over those who don't take them. Of course, anyone has the potential to do well or badly, but there is still a lot of unfair bias in the system.

Yes it totally does, but.....

Hotfail.com wrote: »

Less places means they get more high-scoring students in their courses, why would they let in twenty students, risking that fifteen of them weren't up to the job, when they could offer five places to the highest-scoring applicants and increase the likelihood of them doing extremely well?

I agree with Hotfail.


I returned to collge on a part time basis this year to do some module for work. I'm in an NUI college and I was in with second year science students. The day I went up for registration the first lecture of the year was on in my subject so I went along so I could speak to the lecturer afterwards (annoying mature student alert!!). I was amazed to see him give the introductory lecture of the year and break down how people should be spending their hours, on study, on lab reports, on assignments. It was total spoon feeding, but I also got the impression that if he didn't spell it out to this level that the work he was handed would be atrocious.

He brought up a scatterplot showing results in first year v results in second year and it was no surprise that if your results in first year were poor, they were also poor in second year.

Thing is I was amazed to learn that a passing grade in first year was 30%, and to take a subject into second year you had to score 40% in it in first year. It was something like that anyway. So there was a rake of people who had scraped 40% in maths and physics who were intending on taking these subjects to degree level but were barely able to pass first year. And to be honest a large portion of the first year course in any general science degree in college is a rehash of the LC course, maybe with a bit more detail, but it's to get everyone up to speed if they haven't taken all the subjects in second level.

I'd be questioning the ability of a student to get through a four year degree if they are barely scraping through first year, which is not that much more advanced that LC level. The other thing is to get into this degree you need at least 400 points which is a decent score, so it's not like these people should be struggling but they are.

So to go back to the original point: yes colleges do increase and decrease the number of places on courses. Some of it could be to do with internal politics and funding within departments. But I would say a lot of it is to do with the difficulty of the course. If you have 50 places on a course and the last person gets in with the bare minimum requirements a lot of the time they will struggle with the material because they are simply not able for it. The universities have to have a minimum requirement or lots of people who be excluded from attending. The minimum is 2HC3 and 4OD3 which (ignoring the bonus maths points for now) (2 x 60 ) + ( 4 x 5) = 140. I've seen a lot of students get in that region points wise over the years and know that they wouldn't survive university. They wouldn't have the academic ability, and wouldn't have the skills for self directed learning which is so much of third level.
Before all the protests about 'I know a guy that got 25 points in the LC and now has a PhD', there are exceptions to every rule, if a course was proving to be unpopular with CAO applicants and students were getting in as AQA or close to it and not surviving the course because it was just beyond their ability, then nobody benefits, colleges have large dropout numbers. Reducing the numbers a course takes in means that the points do go up, which is unfortunate for some, but does make it more realistic that the students that enrol will be able for the course and actually make it through.


I went to UL, when i was going there the enrolment for Computer Systems was about 300 places every year. Points were always in and around 300 give or take 15 points. Year after year people I knew on the course said that there was a 30% dropout/failure rate in first year. Because there was so many dropouts, and people repeating years that if you made it to fourth year there was typically no more than 100 left at graduation and only 20% of the original class made it through the four years without repeating a year. The remainder of the year were made up of repeats.

A few years down the line they were only taking 80 into the course and they had restructured it. Now I'm not an expert but it would suggest to me that large numbers were not working and there were plenty that had met the points and requirements but were simply not able.

randylonghorn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Thing is I was amazed to learn that a passing grade in first year was 30%,

A passing grade in first year isn't 30%, but in some systems you can pass a module by compensation at 30% if your average marks over all your other modules is above a certain point (different colleges do it slightly differently, but that's the general principle).

It's meant to deal with the student who generally does well, but fecks up a particular module for whatever reason.

It's a bit like in LC, pass is 40% but there's a "tolerance" by which those with at least 38% get a D3. In LC it's not linked to your other subjects though.

rainbowtrout

randylonghorn wrote: »

A passing grade in first year isn't 30%, but in some systems you can pass a module by compensation at 30% if your average marks over all your other modules is above a certain point (different colleges do it slightly differently, but that's the general principle).

It's meant to deal with the student who generally does well, but fecks up a particular module for whatever reason.

It's a bit like in LC, pass is 40% but there's a "tolerance" by which those with at least 38% get a D3. In LC it's not linked to your other subjects though.

Ya I know, but still it's very low from students with 'good' Leaving Certs, and having to be spoonfed in second year. After the Christmas exams, the marks for the written exams were posted up. They didn't not include marks for practicals etc, 35 out of 70-75 had failed the exam. Now some would have passed when the practical was included but it's still a huge failure rate, which suggests that a lot of those students were coming into second year with low passing grade.

randylonghorn

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Ya I know, but still it's very low from students with 'good' Leaving Certs, and having to be spoonfed in second year.

Oh, I'm not arguing with your basic point, I just don't want people getting the idea that they can pass if they get 30% in all their modules, and coming back to tell you off later in the year!

EoghanIRL

Finally got a pm from someone else doing dentistry . I'm so popular

kb98

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Finally got a pm from someone else doing dentistry . I'm so popular

Trinity or ucc?

clolor14

Hi, would anyone be able to tell me what the points for Law with Social Justice and also Law with Politics are for this year? Can't seem to find it anywhere on the internet, so frustrating !

randylonghorn

clolor14 wrote: »

Hi, would anyone be able to tell me what the points for Law with Social Justice and also Law with Politics are for this year? Can't seem to find it anywhere on the internet, so frustrating !

Should be here?

Btw, people are always more likely to answer if you tell them what college you're on about! :pac:

ABreal

ITT ANYONE

EoghanIRL

kb98 wrote: »

Trinity or ucc?

Ucc

Ompala

randylonghorn wrote: »

A passing grade in first year isn't 30%, but in some systems you can pass a module by compensation at 30% if your average marks over all your other modules is above a certain point (different colleges do it slightly differently, but that's the general principle).

It's meant to deal with the student who generally does well, but fecks up a particular module for whatever reason.

It's a bit like in LC, pass is 40% but there's a "tolerance" by which those with at least 38% get a D3. In LC it's not linked to your other subjects though.

This confuses so many people when they start offcollege

D2 and D1 grades are compensating fails, I had one module where 20% was a D2

They are the lowest grades that can allow you to pass

Grading schemes will differ depending on what you are studying

C3 is the lowest grade that will guarantee you a pass

clolor14

randylonghorn wrote: »

Btw, people are always more likely to answer if you tell them what college you're on about! :

meant to say UCD thanks!

randylonghorn

Ompala wrote: »

This confuses so many people when they start off college

Yep, they can differ not only from college to college, but from faculty to faculty and from course to course. And then you get core modules sometimes which you must pass outright and can't compensate.

It's way too complicated to get into here tbh, but people would be well advised to make sure they know the rules for their own course once they get their feet under them.

Ompala

randylonghorn wrote: »

Yep, they can differ not only from college to college, but from faculty to faculty and from course to course. And then you get core modules sometimes which you must pass outright and can't compensate.

It's way too complicated to get into here tbh, but people would be well advised to make sure they know the rules for their own course once they get their feet under them.

Yes, then there comes weighting your score to determine a 1.1, 2.1..... thank god someone does these things for you

Sorry for dragging this thread a bit off topic, but it is something that people should take a little bit of time to understand, just to save themselves a lot of bother in the future..... but thats for another time!

LaughingOwl

clolor14 wrote: »

meant to say UCD thanks!

DN600 is 510 I think

EDIT: Both degrees have the same CAO course code as Law, that's why you couldn't find them.

mcinabox

Anyone have any idea even UCD "make contact" with you?

Striving470

Hi,
I missed my first course by 10 points,a accepted my second course.Im fairly set on my second course now,but heard that I may still be offered the first one in second round.
My question is,do I have to take the first choice one if it's offered in second round?

Hotfail.com

Striving470 wrote: »

Hi,
I missed my first course by 10 points,a accepted my second course.Im fairly set on my second course now,but heard that I may still be offered the first one in second round.
My question is,do I have to take the first choice one if it's offered in second round?

Hello again Striving.

No, you can stick with your second choice if you want.

Beechfiled

My daughter didnt get her first choice, missed it by 5 points but got offered her 2nd choice which she is happy about after letting it sink in but the points for her 2nd choice were 45 more than she got and 40 more that her 1st choice.
Can anyone explain this ?

SORRY...... scrap that, I was looking at the wrong list, it dropped by 50 points this year, apologies.

spurious

Beechfiled wrote: »

My daughter didnt get her first choice, missed it by 5 points but got offered her 2nd choice which she is happy about after letting it sink in but the points for her 2nd choice were 45 more than she got and 40 more that her 1st choice.
Can anyone explain this ?

Did she apply for HEAR or DARE?

Beechfiled

Nope.

Peregrine

What was the course and what did she get?

Beechfiled

Wanted English and History in UCD and got DNA and forensic analysis in ITT

spurious

Beechfiled wrote: »

Wanted English and History in UCD and got DNA and forensic analysis in ITT

Was there any course specific requirements she didn't meet? It's unusual for the CAO computers to make an error.

Beechfiled

No she met all the requirements.

1st was a L8 and 2nd is L7.

She has accepted ITT.

SORRY...... scrap that, I was looking at the wrong list, it dropped by 50 points this year, apologies.