Are we sending too many students to third level?

irishrebe

CrabRevolution wrote: »

It's a bit of a disincentive to work hard at your LC if you could just have months/years of your hard work undone by a once off interview.

That's pretty much how it works in the UK. Not everyone is interviewed, but the personal statement is a big part of the application process and they can also see the school you go to and other information which lets them make biased decisions. 

A friend of mind didn't get into Bristol university because they went out of the way that year to accept mostly state school students, and she was at a grammar school in Northern Ireland (not a privileged person at all, grew up on a council estate and worked her arse off, but the applications officers were too stupid to understand that, just thought 'grammar school = posh'), so she missed out on a place despite being predicted 4As at A Level and having straight As in her GCSEs. Grossly unfair. That can't happen in Ireland - if you get the points, you get the place, and if there are too many applicants, then it's a lottery. Nobody should lose out on a third level place because of discrimination on any grounds.

pumpkin4life

Yes.

University should be for the top 10-20% at most of people in terms of intelligence and moreso, with the internet, bar medicine or using some complex scientific machinery , you can pretty much learn whatever you want all by yourself for a fraction of the cost. You learn most things on the job anyway in addition to this as well, or at least that has been my experience. Pissing away 4 years of your life to pay public sector academic cùnts and administrators obscene amounts of money is not fair to young people at all. They really are getting fùcked over with this.

If you are going to go to university though, go for STEM. The rest is a waste of time.

irishrebe

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Yes.

University should be for the top 10-20% at most of people in terms of intelligence and moreso, with the internet, bar medicine or using some complex scientific machinery , you can pretty much learn whatever you want all by yourself for a fraction of the cost. You learn most things on the job anyway in addition to this as well, or at least that has been my experience. Pissing away 4 years of your life to pay public sector academic cùnts and administrators obscene amounts of money is not fair to young people at all. They really are getting fùcked over with this.

If you are going to go to university though, go for STEM. The rest is a waste of time.

I can't stand when people trot this out. STEM isn't the be-all and end-all and not everyone is cut out for it. If every single student going to university picked STEM then that job market would also soon be flooded. I'm a translator and needed my degree (and Master's, in several cases) for jobs I've had. I agree that fewer students should be pushed into third level (plenty of people in my class weren't able for it at all), but disagree that only STEM is worth doing there.

jonon9

I believe were heading in a direction where youths of today and the next generation wont know how to do things with their hands. For the past year or so iv been teaching my daughter how to do things like recently how to service a lawnmower, change out old taps for new taps, how to change a flat tire etc I know it doesnt sound like much but teaching kids early about working with your hands isnt the worst and if she decides she doesnt want to go to college im not gonna force her something she doesnt want to do.

No shame in working with your hands for a living.

pumpkin4life

irishrebe wrote: »

I can't stand when people trot this out. STEM isn't the be-all and end-all and not everyone is cut out for it. If every single student going to university picked STEM then that job market would also soon be flooded. I'm a translator and needed my degree (and Master's, in several cases) for jobs I've had. I agree that fewer students should be pushed into third level (plenty of people in my class weren't able for it at all), but disagree that only STEM is worth doing there.

So you needed 4 to 5 years of education to translate documents/books/people speaking?

Honest question. If you used the internet/practiced yourself/lived in another country for a bit or whatever combination could you have not learned that in half the time, rather than use up all that time and money listening to some lecturer drone on about some random shìte?

BTW, I know that to be even considered for a lot of jobs, you need a degree. It's just the impracticality of it that is a scam/funny out.

Geuze

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jack third level fees are paid for by the state no matter how well off your parents are. Registration fees aren't covered but they're not large.

The 3,000 student contribution is fees.

You can call it what you like, but it's fees.

Mrs OBumble

pumpkin4life wrote: »

So you needed 4 to 5 years of education to translate documents/books/people speaking?

You pretty much do. (And I say that as a monolingual.)

Translation isn't about the easy bits of language, it's about the hard bits: technical documents, legal stuff, complex medical stuff etc.


IMHO the problem is also with 2nd level, which produces kids who aren't mature enough to start apprenticeships or entry level jobs.

Donald Trump

Owryan wrote: »

I think there is too much pressure on young people to go to college and enter a profession, esp if they are still trying to find out what they want to do.

I'm 43 and a mature student, just finished my honours year, it was obvious from 1st year that many "kids" on the course had no idea what they wanted to do, what the course was about and were only there's because it was expected of them.

First up, fair play to you for finishing your course.


While I understand the point about not knowing what you want, a student will still learn a lot and they don't have to work in the "field" in which they studied. Most students don't.




Those "kids" may not know what they want to do, but when they figure out what that is, they'll already have a degree under their belt and the knowledge that they can get through the system. Nothing prevents them from going back to study in that other field at a later date if they wish to. It's a massive headstart

A Pint of Goo

wexie wrote: »

Also I'd love to know what the hell we're going to do with all these gender studies graduates

Umm, where do you think the recruits for the Privilege Inspectors are going to come from?

Gravelly

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Umm, where do you think the recruits for the Privilege Inspectors are going to come from?

Or the future Irish Times columnists.

irishrebe

pumpkin4life wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I can't stand when people trot this out. STEM isn't the be-all and end-all and not everyone is cut out for it. If every single student going to university picked STEM then that job market would also soon be flooded. I'm a translator and needed my degree (and Master's, in several cases) for jobs I've had. I agree that fewer students should be pushed into third level (plenty of people in my class weren't able for it at all), but disagree that only STEM is worth doing there.

So you needed 4 to 5 years of education to translate documents/books/people speaking?

Honest question. If you used the internet/practiced yourself/lived in another country for a bit or whatever combination could you have not learned that in half the time, rather than use up all that time and money listening to some lecturer drone on about some random shìte?

BTW, I know that to be even considered for a lot of jobs, you need a degree. It's just the impracticality of it that is a scam/funny out.

Did you actually engage your brain before you wrote that patronising, disrespectful and downright moronic comment? Professional translators deal with complex texts, including legal, technical and medical ones. Mistranslate the contents of a leaflet in a bottle of pills and you could end up killing someone.  Omit or mistranslate an important warning in a technical manual, same result, someone killed or seriously injured. Make a mistake in a legal document and you could end up costing a company millions of euros. It takes years of practice and focused study to become proficient enough in a language to be a professional translator. Using your logic, I can say architects 'just' draw a few pictures and scientists 'just' mix things together and see what happens. 

Translation is a specialised career for educated professionals, not people who picked up a bit of Spanish when they worked in a bar in Magaluf, or even those who grew up speaking two or more languages fluently. Hence all translation jobs requiring a degree, at the very minimum. I needed a law degree plus a translation Master's for mine. Easy to p1ss on other people's careers and education without knowing anything about it, isn't it?

steddyeddy

irishrebe wrote: »

That's pretty much how it works in the UK. Not everyone is interviewed, but the personal statement is a big part of the application process and they can also see the school you go to and other information which lets them make biased decisions. 

A friend of mind didn't get into Bristol university because they went out of the way that year to accept mostly state school students, and she was at a grammar school in Northern Ireland (not a privileged person at all, grew up on a council estate and worked her arse off, but the applications officers were too stupid to understand that, just thought 'grammar school = posh'), so she missed out on a place despite being predicted 4As at A Level and having straight As in her GCSEs. Grossly unfair. That can't happen in Ireland - if you get the points, you get the place, and if there are too many applicants, then it's a lottery. Nobody should lose out on a third level place because of discrimination on any grounds.

How exactly did your friend acquire this information? They told her at the interview I presume? I suspect it may just be a case of sour grapes.

irishrebe

steddyeddy wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

That's pretty much how it works in the UK. Not everyone is interviewed, but the personal statement is a big part of the application process and they can also see the school you go to and other information which lets them make biased decisions. 

A friend of mind didn't get into Bristol university because they went out of the way that year to accept mostly state school students, and she was at a grammar school in Northern Ireland (not a privileged person at all, grew up on a council estate and worked her arse off, but the applications officers were too stupid to understand that, just thought 'grammar school = posh'), so she missed out on a place despite being predicted 4As at A Level and having straight As in her GCSEs. Grossly unfair. That can't happen in Ireland - if you get the points, you get the place, and if there are too many applicants, then it's a lottery. Nobody should lose out on a third level place because of discrimination on any grounds.

How exactly did your friend acquire this information? They told her at the interview I presume? I suspect it may just be a case of sour grapes.

I believe they admitted it. It was quite a scandal at the time.  Of course she had 'sour grapes', she exceeded all the entry criteria, and they should have had no way to discriminate. In Ireland, you get the points, you get the course, full stop. Nobody judges you on your interview skills or personal statement writing skills or where you went to school. That's my entire point.

My own degree course at Trinity had several English and Northern Irish students who had been rejected from Bristol. Made me appreciate the anonymity of the Irish university application process. Doesn't matter what your name is, what school you went to or how personable you are. If you get the points, you're in. No reverse discrimination nonsense, which in the case of my friend, actually worked against the very type of person they were trying to 'help'.

A Pint of Goo

pumpkin4life wrote: »

So you needed 4 to 5 years of education to translate documents/books/people speaking?

Honest question. If you used the internet/practiced yourself/lived in another country for a bit or whatever combination could you have not learned that in half the time, rather than use up all that time and money listening to some lecturer drone on about some random shìte?

BTW, I know that to be even considered for a lot of jobs, you need a degree. It's just the impracticality of it that is a scam/funny out.

Well in fairness you could say why study IT when you could just it all from YouTube videos?

jackofalltrades

We're definitely sending to many students to third level.
I'd also argue that we're sending too many people on mickey mouse FAS courses as well.
IT's are the worse for this, opening the doors to students who are destined to fail.
Companies, espcially US comapnies, need to share some of the blame though with their "degree essential" recruitment policies.
There needs to be more high quality apprenticeships that lead to decent jobs at the end of them.

I disagree with this part of the article that the OP quoted as well.

Students from disadvantaged schools are almost twice as likely to fail to make it past their first year in college compared to those from fee-paying schools.

For all our talk of promoting access and equality, it is clear that students from more affluent backgrounds have a significant advantage over those from less-well-off homes.

We're promoting equality of opportunity, not equality of results.
We can get you a place on a course, throw loads of funding at you to make it financially easy as possible.
But at the end of the day your an adult and you have to put in the work yourself.

Rikand

A good friend of mine was an absolute genius in secondary school but had no idea what he wanted to do, so he went and did arts just to do something. The course was boring for him so he slept and drank his way through the whole thing without attending a single lecture and because he's so clever, he still passed.

He could get no job from it afterwards (cause arts is a useless degree unless you have a proper set plan for it) and has basically wasted the best years of working life doing nothing jobs because he didn't know what he wanted to do in college and he doesn't want to start all over again

He was pushed into going onto third level but he would have been far better off taking a couple of years out doing something hands on, until he at least realised what he might have wanted to do

A Pint of Goo

Rikand wrote: »

A good friend of mine was an absolute genius in secondary school but had no idea what he wanted to do, so he went and did arts just to do something. The course was boring for him so he slept and drank his way through the whole thing without attending a single lecture and because he's so clever, he still passed.

He could get no job from it afterwards (cause arts is a useless degree unless you have a proper set plan for it) and has basically wasted the best years of working life doing nothing jobs because he didn't know what he wanted to do in college and he doesn't want to start all over again

He was pushed into going onto third level but he would have been far better off taking a couple of years out doing something hands on, until he at least realised what he might have wanted to do

How old is your friend? I'm 30 and spent most of my 20s a complete loser on the doss. I now have a good job and am happy. It might not be too late for him.

irishrebe

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Rikand wrote: »

A good friend of mine was an absolute genius in secondary school but had no idea what he wanted to do, so he went and did arts just to do something. The course was boring for him so he slept and drank his way through the whole thing without attending a single lecture and because he's so clever, he still passed.

He could get no job from it afterwards (cause arts is a useless degree unless you have a proper set plan for it) and has basically wasted the best years of working life doing nothing jobs because he didn't know what he wanted to do in college and he doesn't want to start all over again

He was pushed into going onto third level but he would have been far better off taking a couple of years out doing something hands on, until he at least realised what he might have wanted to do

How old is your friend? I'm 30 and spent most of 20s a complete loser on the doss. I now have a good job and am happy. It might not be too late for him.

Indeed. I'm 32 and am retraining and know people who changed jobs in their forties! I don't know how old this friend is, but I regularly meet people of 25-29 who talk as if they have no options in life and it's baffling.

Rikand

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

How old is your friend? I'm 30 and spent most of 20s a complete loser on the doss. I now have a good job and am happy. It might not be too late for him.

Mid 30's

I'm in a similar boat to you. I had a great time in my 20's. I finished off my degree when I was 30 and did a masters straight afterwards. I work not too far from my field of study and I enjoy it though I'm not on near the dollars I could be on had I not dossed for so long in my 20's heh.

I think my friend feels like he cant go back to college especially when it didn't work for him the first time around. It might have been a different story if he'd waited to go to college when he was ready

irishrebe

Rikand wrote: »

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

How old is your friend? I'm 30 and spent most of 20s a complete loser on the doss. I now have a good job and am happy. It might not be too late for him.

Mid 30's

I'm in a similar boat to you. I had a great time in my 20's. I finished off my degree when I was 30 and did a masters straight afterwards. I work not too far from my field of study and I enjoy it though I'm not on near the dollars I could be on had I not dossed for so long in my 20's heh.

I think my friend feels like he cant go back to college especially when it didn't work for him the first time around. It might have been a different story if he'd waited to go to college when he was ready

Mid 30s is way too young to give up. He easily has another 30 or even 40 years of work ahead of him. Far more than he has behind him. It was this realisation that sparked my career change, as well as spending some time living in Spain, where people are only just starting to stand on their own two feet around 30 (when I first came here at 27, people were shocked that I had a full-time job and was renting a flat on my own - 27 is still a normal student/intern age here!) 

I don't know why Northern European culture pushes young people so hard to be independent and working in their dream career by 25 - in this day and age it's unrealistic and IMO leads to massive self esteem and mental health problems for those many people who haven't got it figured out at a young age. I look back to when I was 24 and worried that I was 'too old' to be starting a Master's and laugh. There were southern European students older than me on the course who had never had a job and were coming straight out of undergrad, at 25, 26, 27 years old. Rushing to complete a degree + Master's by 21 and be established in a career by 25 is often counterproductive.

Donald Trump

Rikand wrote: »

A good friend of mine was an absolute genius in secondary school but had no idea what he wanted to do, so he went and did arts just to do something. The course was boring for him so he slept and drank his way through the whole thing without attending a single lecture and because he's so clever, he still passed.

He could get no job from it afterwards (cause arts is a useless degree unless you have a proper set plan for it) and has basically wasted the best years of working life doing nothing jobs because he didn't know what he wanted to do in college and he doesn't want to start all over again

He was pushed into going onto third level but he would have been far better off taking a couple of years out doing something hands on, until he at least realised what he might have wanted to do

Sounds like he's making excuses to be honest. Went to college, got a bit of freedom and went a little bit off the rails. Coasted by and passed on some natural ability but wasted a great opportunity. Could have put in a small bit of effort and maybe got near the top of his class. Would have gotten a decent job then



If he did Arts, then he was at a larger university. I'm not sure how Arts is structured, but if he found out after one month it was boring, why not switch to try something else? Another subject within the Arts program? Repeat the year and go back and try something else. Switch after a year. Consider the first year/term as a write off but use that time to drop into other lectures to see what they are about



It's likely that if sleeping and drinking was his reaction to having a bit of freedom, that that would have been the same reaction, but on a larger scale, if he had had an income at 18/19 from a basic low-paying job but with no responsibilities.

Rikand

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's likely that if sleeping and drinking was his reaction to having a bit of freedom, that that would have been the same reaction, but on a larger scale, if he had had an income at 18/19 from a basic low-paying job but with no responsibilities.

Far better to do that and not waste time doing a college course that one has no interest in.

Anyways, the point of my post was that people are being pushed into third level education whether their ready for it or not and doing courses that are not necessarily suited to them. Often to the detriment of the individual.

Far better off to do what I and other posters above did and take those early years to doss and drink and then qualify with something you actually want to do at a later date

Rikand

Rikand wrote: »

A good friend of mine was an absolute genius in secondary school but had no idea what he wanted to do, so he went and did arts just to do something. The course was boring for him so he slept and drank his way through the whole thing without attending a single lecture and because he's so clever, he still passed.

He could get no job from it afterwards (cause arts is a useless degree unless you have a proper set plan for it) and has basically wasted the best years of working life doing nothing jobs because he didn't know what he wanted to do in college and he doesn't want to start all over again

He was pushed into going onto third level but he would have been far better off taking a couple of years out doing something hands on, until he at least realised what he might have wanted to do

He he ignores his great intelligence he sounds ideal to be a CO or EO.

Donald Trump

Rikand wrote: »

Far better to do that and not waste time doing a college course that one has no interest in.

Anyways, the point of my post was that people are being pushed into third level education whether their ready for it or not and doing courses that are not necessarily suited to them. Often to the detriment of the individual.

Far better off to do what I and other posters above did and take those early years to doss and drink and then qualify with something you actually want to do at a later date

Come back to us in 10 years. It is likely that what you want to do then is not what you want to do now. Because the full pros-and-cons of what you want to do now are probably unknown to you as of today. But doing your course now will help you get to wherever you want to be at that stage.


Advising people to go dossing and drinking is a bit silly. I assume though that you are being facetious

diomed

It keeps them out of the unemployment numbers, and also makes work for lecturers.
You make it, the will come, and graduate.

quadrifoglio verde

As a pharmacist looking back on my pharmacy degree I do struggle to pinpoint exactly how much of it was relevant to being a pharmacist? Perhaps 6 months out of the 4 years of the course. Everything was learned on the job during the intern year.

diomed

I think qualifications only prove you have ability and can apply yourself.
Employers can try to assess candidates at interview, but how can you know if they will overcome difficulties and see work to a conclusion, or place the employer's interests first.
Intelligence, application, honesty - you need all three.
Two out of three and there is trouble.
Very tricky.

SilverPenney

I've been encouraged by some of the replies here by people older than myself who are now doing well for themselves. I suppose I might qualify as someone who counts as 'making up the numbers' in a third level sense. I'm 23, went straight from school to the dole (no idea what I wanted to do with my life, although in hindsight anything would have been better than the scratcher), in the few years after school did a useless Fetac level 5 and worked in a couple of jobs. I did a Tus scheme last year, made me realize that working with my hands doesn't suit me at all, and wanted to give third level education a shot. Was lucky enough to get the grant, and just finished up the first year of a BBS in an IT. I find myself very well suited to academia, have achieved great results (for me anyway!).


I'd be lying if I said that I don't worry that it was too late to start, or even now that I'm wasting my time, but I hope that the degree will stand me well from a life and career point of view.


Perhaps more befitting of the theme of the thread, I do notice a stark difference in the attitude, work ethic and concentration levels of my peers my age and upwards and school-leavers. A lot of the younger people lack focus, and probably won't see the course out.

Sleepy

The fact my sixty something Mother in Law got the Back to Education Allowance to read for a degree in social studies would indicate to me that we as taxpayers certainly are paying for too many people to study at 3rd Level but perhaps the cost of not doing so would be higher...

The sad reality is that the least useful courses of study are usually the cheapest for a university to provide: while a single social studies lecturer could "teach" 300 students in a lecture hall, a class of medical students learning anatomy from cadavers would, by logical necessity, have to be much smaller.

IMHO, we should be looking to limit access to certain courses e.g. we don't need more than a handful (if any) gender studies or political science graduates, or we can look at sectors where the government is the main employer to reasonably predict the numbers that we should be funding for a particular course of study. For example, if looking at the applicants for Higher Diploma in Education we should be reasonably able to ascertain how many teachers we'll need in 2 years time that have given combinations of subjects (e.g. we'd currently be crying out for those with the pre-requisite undergraduates to teach Maths or Science but are probably overwhelmed with those with the pre-requisites to teach Irish, English and History). A simple query against the skillsets of the currently employed teachers who'll be retiring within the next three years would provide the information.

Mr. CooL ICE

Dunno about other people's schools, but there was a definite stigma for not going to college/university after school. And my school was a crappy small town CBS. Our careers teacher was trying to push everyone into practically the same course at the same university. Apprenticeships and anything else non-academic was frowned upon. Even one of the rote lines our irish teacher gave us to practise for our oral exam was like "if you don't go to college, you will be unemployed and take trugs", as gaeilge.

One of my best friends was the biggest messer in school. I knew he was a smart guy, but he clearly didn't give a crap. Always in detention for minor stuff, did foundation level for irish and english and his LC was less than 200 points. He dossed at home for a year or two until his parents threatened to kick him out. He got into a basic tech support role and through his company, got a few basic certs. He worked his way up and is now CCNP qualified and living pretty comfortably in a posh area of London. Out of our school year of ~65, he'd be one of the most successful.

IMO, 17/18 is far too young to make huge career decisions with long lasting consequences. I think it's also too easy to blame colleges and universities for having silly courses that are too easy to pass. The problem is all across the system.

steddyeddy

irishrebe wrote: »

I believe they admitted it. It was quite a scandal at the time.  Of course she had 'sour grapes', she exceeded all the entry criteria, and they should have had no way to discriminate. In Ireland, you get the points, you get the course, full stop. Nobody judges you on your interview skills or personal statement writing skills or where you went to school. That's my entire point.

I don't feel comfortable with quotas to be honest. If you get the points then you should get in. Unfortunately the reality necessitates recognition that leaving cert or GCSE points aren't necessarily reflective of academic ability and are reflective of personal circumstance. People spend money on grinds for their students and enroll them in relatively better schools. So I disagree with discrimination at third level, but it happens at second level distorting the playing field.

I'm a member of the Athena Swan committee for my university. The Athena Swan deals with class, race and gender representation in STEM fields. Let's say we have a girl who is a chemistry genius. She might have attended a school that didn't offer science subjects to girls or had a teacher who didn't believe in science for girls (believe me they exist). If she gets to an interview stage at a university it would allow her to promote her STEM ability in a way her grades wouldn't.

steddyeddy

Dole Scrounging Vegan Crossfitter wrote: »

Dunno about other people's schools, but there was a definite stigma for not going to college/university after school. And my school was a crappy small town CBS. Our careers teacher was trying to push everyone into practically the same course at the same university. Apprenticeships and anything else non-academic was frowned upon. Even one of the rote lines our irish teacher gave us to practise for our oral exam was like "if you don't go to college, you will be unemployed and take trugs", as gaeilge.

One of my best friends was the biggest messer in school. I knew he was a smart guy, but he clearly didn't give a crap. Always in detention for minor stuff, did foundation level for irish and english and his LC was less than 200 points. He dossed at home for a year or two until his parents threatened to kick him out. He got into a basic tech support role and through his company, got a few basic certs. He worked his way up and is now CCNP qualified and living pretty comfortably in a posh area of London. Out of our school year of ~65, he'd be one of the most successful.

IMO, 17/18 is far too young to make huge career decisions with long lasting consequences. I think it's also too easy to blame colleges and universities for having silly courses that are too easy to pass. The problem is all across the system.

I agree completely. It's good that schools want to encourage children to go to college, but it should only do this if the student is up to the challenge. Tell this to the parents though. Particularly in the more middle class schools I might add. Imagine going to Glenstal Abbey and telling them some of you are better at carpentry than chemistry.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Far too many Mickey Mouse degree courses, far too many employers insisting on graduates for jobs that don't require any kind of degree, far too many non academic kids being pushed into doing college courses that don't suit them or made to feel like failures because they don't get the points to go to university, and a school system that is overly focussed on the acquisition of points, instead of teaching kids to think for themselves and to recognise the value of different skills and talents.

steddyeddy

Elianna Muscular Scotch wrote: »

Far too many Mickey Mouse degree courses, far too many employers insisting on graduates for jobs that don't require any kind of degree, far too many non academic kids being pushed into doing college courses that don't suit them or made to feel like failures because they don't get the points to go to university, and a school system that is overly focussed on the acquisition of points, instead of teaching kids to think for themselves and to recognise the value of different skills and talents.

The leaving cert and the curriculum are complete rubbish. Not fit for purpose and outdated.

irishrebe

steddyeddy wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I believe they admitted it. It was quite a scandal at the time.  Of course she had 'sour grapes', she exceeded all the entry criteria, and they should have had no way to discriminate. In Ireland, you get the points, you get the course, full stop. Nobody judges you on your interview skills or personal statement writing skills or where you went to school. That's my entire point.

I don't feel comfortable with quotas to be honest. If you get the points then you should get in. Unfortunately the reality necessitates recognition that leaving cert or GCSE points aren't necessarily reflective of academic ability and are reflective of personal circumstance. People spend money on grinds for their students and enroll them in relatively better schools. So I disagree with discrimination at third level, but it happens at second level distorting the playing field.

I'm a member of the Athena Swan committee for my university. The Athena Swan deals with class, race and gender representation in STEM fields. Let's say we have a girl who is a chemistry genius. She might have attended a school that didn't offer science subjects to girls or had a teacher who didn't believe in science for girls (believe me they exist). If she gets to an interview stage at a university it would allow her to promote her STEM ability in a way her grades wouldn't.

But then someone else who might be equally deserving of a place wouldn't get one. Bristol's blanket ban on what they saw as 'privileged students' ended up affecting plenty of people who came from very modest backgrounds, like my friend. She worked her ass off to get into a grammar school (no grinds for her) and continued working her ass off once she was there, only to have the door slammed in her face by Bristol, who took one look at the name of her school and decided she was privileged. And the place given to someone from a state school in the UK who may well have been less disadvantaged than my friend. I do understand that the Irish system benefits those who can afford grinds, but all in all, I think it works a lot better than the UK one.

irishrebe

Elianna Muscular Scotch wrote: »

Far too many Mickey Mouse degree courses, far too many employers insisting on graduates for jobs that don't require any kind of degree, far too many non academic kids being pushed into doing college courses that don't suit them or made to feel like failures because they don't get the points to go to university, and a school system that is overly focussed on the acquisition of points, instead of teaching kids to think for themselves and to recognise the value of different skills and talents.

So much of it is snobbery. There was a girl on my course who had obviously been pushed into it by her parents. She just wasn't able for it at all. Failed all her assignments, didn't understand the lectures, and then ending up not coming in because she found it all so hard, getting stuck in a vicious circle. She ended up dropping out after failing first year and is now a successful make-up artist and very happy. It just would have been so much better if that place had gone to someone who really wanted it instead of someone who just squandered it, and better for the girl herself to have gone into something she was suited to instead of something that made her feel thick and useless.

steddyeddy

irishrebe wrote: »

So much of it is snobbery. There was a girl on my course who had obviously been pushed into it by her parents. She just wasn't able for it at all. Failed all her assignments, didn't understand the lectures, and then ending up not coming in because she found it all so hard, getting stuck in a vicious circle. She ended up dropping out after failing first year and is now a successful make-up artist and very happy. It just would have been so much better if that place had gone to someone who really wanted it instead of someone who just squandered it, and better for the girl herself to have gone into something she was suited to instead of something that made her feel thick and useless.

I remember a very unhappy girl studying science. She wanted to study history and had a passion for it, but her parents pushed her into science. I don't think she survived first year. Her parent's insistence on doing a recently popular subject brought their daughter much happiness and wasted time.

AllForIt

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/no-irish-university-in-the-worlds-top-100-as-the-countrys-higher-education-sector-falls-further-in-global-rankings-36984680.html

No Irish universities in the worlds top 100. I think this supports the idea that quality of education doesn't matter any more as long as you can say you have a third level degree.