Sir, – Given the importance attached to critical thinking by Seán Flynn in his article on Leaving Certificate reform (Opinion, December 23rd), I am astonished at the lack of it in the response to Dr Michael Murphy’s comments in relation to support for academically talented students (Dr Martin J Power et al, December 23rd). It is quite clear that Dr Murphy does not wish to restrict access for disadvantaged students; rather he wants to critically consider what ought to be the priorities of a university.
“Higher education” is about educating students to the highest academic level, and in order to succeed at the highest level in any field a certain amount of talent is required. No one would question a sporting club’s decision to prioritise the coaching of its most talented players and to give them more playing time. Similarly a university operating in a competitive environment must prioritise appropriate support for its most talented students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds – the “rebalancing” to which Dr Murphy referred.
I find the attitude toward those of us who succeed in the Leaving Certificate expressed in the letter highly insulting. I attended a public school in Cork where four students in my year, myself included, received 600 points; none of us received “private tuition”. While I acknowledge that the Leaving Certificate is not perfect, the suggestion that money and a good memory will guarantee success is wrong. In any case, who is to say that memory is not as important a component of intelligence as critical thinking? We need only look at the US, where universities increasingly look for tests involving memory, such as the SAT II Subject Tests, as well as the traditional SAT or other aptitude tests.
Could we please see a more nuanced debate on the Leaving Certificate and higher education, and one that is a little less begrudging of the academically talented? – Yours, etc,