In the last week of January the Central Applications Office (CAO) system ground to a halt at a crucial time in the applications process. Students must never be left in this situation again - they certainly shouldn't be punished financially for it, argues Brian Mooney.
The purpose of a central application system is to facilitate access to and engagement with third-level courses for young people and adults. In my view, the system here, run by the Central Applications Office (CAO), is failing to carry out this remit for three specific reasons.
First, it has not utilised the technological advances of the last 20 years to make it easier for the right student to end up on the right course.
Second, it has not taken advantage of the flexibility that semesterisation and modularisation - offered by the colleges it represents - can provide i.e. to ensure that all available course places are filled at all times.
Third, it has failed to change its procedures to take account of the fact that many prospective students are now adults over 23 years of age, and need a very different application procedure to that used by second-level students.
The debacle of the last week of January, when, as a result of inadequate technological capacity, anxious students, their parents and guidance counsellors found themselves sitting looking at frozen screens for hours on end as thousands of students attempted to register their course choices before the February 1st deadline, shows the extent of the CAO's failure. In conversation with the CAO, I advised that the office simply announce that due to the obvious incapacity of their servers to handle the volumes of attempted registrations that applicants could simply pop the CAO form in the post along with their already completed Bank Giro up to and including February.
I was shocked when I realised that the CAO appeared blase about the fact that applicants could not make their applications in the five minutes it should take. Their view was that the fault lay ultimately with the applicant, who could have made the application earlier in the month. Given this view, it was entirely logical to penalise the applicant, who was now becoming increasingly distressed by the incapacity of the CAO's systems to handle the volume of applications, by insisting that any postal application would have to be accompanied by a further €10 bank draft or postal order. Failing to do so, would lead to a fine of a further €10 being levied on the unfortunate applicant.
The situation could also have been resolved instantly, by announcing that the doubling of the application fee to €70 (this is normally levied on applications received between February 1st and May 1st) would be delayed by one week. Yet again, the CAO accepted no liability for their ultimate responsibility for the problem, and refused to forego the additional income for one week.
The events of last month show that the CAO seems to be far more concerned with their own rules and procedures than the effectiveness of our college-entry system. In 2006, their systems failed on the night of June 22nd, when many students were registering their change of mind concerning their course choices. The CAO did not publicise this, causing huge distress to many students who were offered the wrong courses in August. The CAO attempted to ignore the consequences of this until forced to face up to this by the media.
The colleges, which established the CAO, and are ultimately responsible for its actions, need to restructure their rules and procedures to re-establish the CAO's central role in facilitating access to appropriate courses by prospective applicants of all ages.
The technological advances of recent years, along with the greater flexibility in the way academic programmes are delivered, in addition to the changing profile of the student body should inform this restructuring. Change is needed - now.
