DCU president Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski's criticism of the points system was misguided. It's still doing its job fairly and transparently, argues guidance counsellor Brian Mooney
The president of DCU Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski made a series of points at the university's annual conferring ceremony last week regarding the CAO system, students' course choices, the needs of the economy and the method by which places are allocated by higher-education institutions. I would like to respond to the DCU president's observations and take issue with him on a number of points.
Following growing pressure from competitive admissions, the points system, as operated in Ireland, was developed in 1969 in UCD to place students in order of merit for entry to the faculties of architecture and medicine. Since 1978 the CAO has been based in Galway. In 1991 the institutes of technology joined the system, followed in 1992 by the colleges of education. In 2001 the nursing courses joined the system, leading to a situation where the entire undergraduate allocation of nursing places now takes place through the CAO.
In a world of tribunals, where the perception that influence based on social or political position can affect outcomes, it is fair to state that the CAO method of allocating places to applicants has widespread trust across all sectors of Irish society. As a guidance counsellor and former president of the Institute of Guidance Counsellors (IGC), I can state that the process is totally fair and transparent and has the support of my professional colleagues. Yes, there have been problems, most notably the fiasco of the long delays experienced by applicants last January, but the CAO, having initially responded badly to the crisis, have made a major investment in server technology this year, to ensure this problem cannot arise again.
As president of one of our seven universities, Prof von Prondzynski would be very familiar with the workings of the CAO system, so to call for its abolition seems to me to be somewhat short-sighted. A system that has the support of applicants, parents, and all education providers should not be so summarily dismissed without discussions with all the partners involved.
One of the weaknesses of the points system is that the points have taken on a currency value of their own, and some students, a very small percentage I believe, have tended to seek out courses that require entry points close to their expected Leaving Certificate result. Who or what is responsible for this situation? The colleges themselves have contributed hugely to this phenomenon, by artificially creating hundreds of courses that have tiny numbers of places - 10 or less in the case of over 170 courses.
When a course has only 10 places, the last person offered a place - and this determines the published points - is highly likely to have over 500 points, thus establishing this course as a high-points course in the minds of students and parents alike. As The Irish Times reported the day college places were offered by the CAO in August this year, there are only 30 courses in the State offering more that 120 places. This is out of almost 1,200 courses offered by colleges through the CAO.
Only one of those courses - medicine in UCD, which offers 133 places - requires more that 500 points. A representative of one of our major universities indicated to me recently that all colleges could, if they wished, offer all students eight or nine basic choices and allow then to make choices within their area of specialisation, be it arts, science, law, engineering etc, upon registration or gradually as they progress through the early years of their studies.
This system would have the advantage of allowing students to select their subjects or their specialisations gradually as their interests and aptitudes manifest themselves. The reason this will not happen is that such choices would lead to hundreds of places being available under each faculty code, and the last person offered a place would probably have points in the 350-450 range. Under current circumstances, this would mean the course would not be regarded as a prestige course.
If Prof von Prondzynski wants to help us to move away from a system where points are cashed in for the highest points course available, he should persuade his colleagues in all the other third-level institutions to stop artificially creating a market in high-points courses by creating courses that are subsets of existing programmes with tiny numbers of places.
Von Prondzynski's comments regarding how guidance counsellors carry out their work with students is wholly inaccurate. To suggest that a guidance counsellor, having assessed a student's interest, aptitudes and previous academic attainments would then turn around and advise the student to ignore the outcome of this assessment and apply for the highest-points course available to him or her is deeply offensive to my professional colleague and is, in fact, wholly inaccurate.
Guidance counsellors have but one aim when advising and supporting students in making the next appropriate academic or career decision prior to making a college application through the CAO application system. It is that the student assesses all of the information available to him or her at that time and takes the next appropriate decision based on that information. This decision should give them the widest range of choices to make further decisions a few years down the road.
Most CAO applicants do not make career choices at Leaving Certificate level, they simply take the subjects they enjoy in school on to a higher level of study in an environment of independent learning. Here they learn the skills of academic success in a more independent way, that is without the supports and regulations in our second-level school system.
Employment options or the academic programmes required to make the first step into a career of a student's choice is most often addressed through a postgraduate academic programme, which directly relates to the entry requirements for one of our professional bodies. Over 50 per cent of undergraduates now progress directly onto postgraduate programmes following the completion of their undergraduate degree.
If DCU and other third-level colleges are experiencing a dearth of applicants in the sciences, engineering and technology, they need to ask themselves what it is about student experiences of these subjects in second-level schools that is turning off student interest.
In recent years, through the summer works scheme, the Minister for Education and Science, Mary Hanafin, has invested hugely - to the tune of millions of euros - , in updating the physical infrastructure of our science laboratory facilities. She has introduceD new highly-interactive curricula in the physical sciences at both Junior and Leaving Certificate level, as well as introducing science into the primary school curriculum. She has, this year, introduced the subject of technology into Leaving Certificate programme for the first time and is making funds available to schools to put in place the laboratories required to teach this subject effectively.
It has been my experience that these changes are having a very positive effect on students' experiences of the science and technology subjects.
It is the job of Prof von Prondzynski and his colleagues to demonstrate to students through their interactions with students at open days or through their promotional literature how the programmes on offer at third level can build on the current positive experiences today's second-level students are experiencing in these subject areas. It is the role and responsibility of the potential employers of graduates of these programmes to provide second-level students with a clear understanding of the opportunities and career paths available in their industries.
It has been the phenomenal success and growth of the Irish economy over the past 15 years which has created the problem that is causing Prof von Prondzynski such anxiety. Recently-published international comparisons of second-level student uptake of third-level programmes in science, technology and engineering show that Ireland is attracting an above average percentage of applicants into these disciplines. Our problem is that we need far more that the average international uptake to feed the growth in employment opportunities which our economy now requires.
The answer to this problem is to be found in a continuation of our current investment strategy at second level, plus ensuring that prospective students have high-quality academic and labour market information available in an integrated format which is easily accessible through a single national portal internet site. A major untapped source of potential students for science and technology programmes also lies in the existing workforce, who, with the right incentives, including supports from government and industry, can be attracted to upskill their existing levels of education and training.
Prof von Prondzynski has opened up a debate on some very important issues. Unfortunately, his suggestions that the solution to our current shortfall in applicants in a range of disciplines lies in abolition of the current CAO application system or in criticising parents and guidance counsellors for how they are carrying out their respective roles is unhelpful and misguided.
As a society we are addressing the problems arising from our success over the past 15 years. Let us all, be we in education, government or industry, work together in the years ahead to build the better Ireland that we all aspire to be part of.
