Have we too many third level students?

[Brendan Burgess]

An interesting article by Cormac Lucey in the Sunday Times yesterday:

Ireland has too many students - Discuss.

Some extracts:

Ireland has the highest proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who have completed third-level education in the EU. Almost half, 47%, of young adults in Ireland have completed third-level education, compared with 39% across the developed world (of OECD members).

according to ESRI researchers [broken link removed], Seamus McGuinness and [broken link removed], one in three Irish workers is over-educated for their job. That’s the highest proportion in Europe.

The earnings advantage that a degree appears to confer may just be a consequence of the fact that the better and brighter students go on from school to further study. They would be the best and brightest anyway, even if we had no universities. But, largely because they converge on our colleges, we risk conflating the earnings advantage they would have secured anyway with an advantage conferred by a university education.

The proliferation of third-level education also risks infantilising our youth well into what should be their most productive years. Instead of being encouraged to strike out on their own they are encouraged to follow pre-school, primary education and secondary education with yet more education where their focus is less the acquisition of their own experience than regurgitating what teacher says obeying teacher.

 

[thedaddyman]

I have a friend of mine who lectures in construction studies in one of the IT's. He found that after the Tiger went belly-up, the demand for his courses and the points required to get it dropped significantly. However the nature of the course and the difficulty factor of that course didn't change. As a result, he ended up lecturing to people who frankly did not have the ability to complete the course and had massive drop out's in the first year as a result. That was a waste of a year for the students and a waste of resources for the college. There seems to be a view that everyone who does the leaving cert should go to college and if you don't you are a failure and that view is wrong.

 

[odyssey06]

I think there's a few different issues...

• Colleges are relying on the points system as entry criteria to ensure they get students capable of passing the course, but in lean years they are getting people on low points.
  They should be able to set more specific minimum entries e.g. a B in certain relevant subjects
  
  
• Too many people are going to college, and not just college, there's a proliferation of post secondary places.
  Is it a deliberate attempt to massage youth unemployment figures?

• We have high demand courses like medicine, where taxpayers subsidise students to the tune of hundreds of thousands of euros. A large number of these students promptly emigrate. They should either have to pay those back or work for X years in public sector - I think this is done in Canada. Which leads me to my next point.

• I would be in favour of fees, but not while it's subject to the same means tests as grants etc which are totally biased against PAYE sector. I think everyone should have to pay back fees in one form or another (public sector work, income tax for X years, working in high demand sectors for X years)
  and there should be no exemptions (i.e. even if the student is from a poor background - it is future earnings that should be considered not current parental income).
  This is the only fair system as the state is incapable of properly means testing, as they have proved for last 30 years.
  This would reduce the number of people doing courses for the sake of it, and direct students to where we think they need to go.

 

[Jetblue]

Could anyone tell me how much the Government/Dept of Education fund each college per student? I
think this money is called a capitation grant?

I see hundreds of third level students at a local IT I occasionally work in, they breeze in and out sometimes attending lectures, more often not! At the end of the term the pressure seems to be on the staff to "retain" the highest possible number of students into next year. Every effort is made to "pass" as many students as possible. Insufficient numbers retained questions the viability of the course.

 

[STEINER]

Compared to 30 years ago, when I entered 3rd level, the country is awash with 3rd level institutions. It certainly can be described as a major industry from the employment perspective, with many courses and fields available to thousands of school leavers each year. Up to 20% of students here are non-Irish also.

What would Irish young people do instead of college? Employment here is limited. Everyone can't be wunderkinds like the Collison brothers. School leavers certainly could study or work abroad as an alternative to Ireland, ie emigrate.

At age 18/19 how many teenagers know what they would like to do in life? Most people go to college hoping to get a job out of it. Some courses have mandatory job placements as part of their degrees, the two NIHEs (now UL and DCU) were providing these degrees in the 1980's.

The focus on 2nd level education needs to shift from the exam to continuous assessment. I understand that group projects, reflective of work situations are standard in certain 3rd level courses and this element should be incorporated into the 2nd level system. Is the points' race which I used 30 years ago still the way to go?

It is a good thing that everyone has a chance to go to 3rd level now. Hopefully the old snobbishness is gone, ie you didn't have a university degree in pharmacy for example as opposed to catering from DIT or you want to be a carpenter. A school leaver should do whatever they want. They can change focus or mind later. How many people's primary degrees are relevant to their work?

 

[muinteoir]

I think this is a very interesting topic and it is one that has come up in discussions at home. I have to agree about colleges depending too much on the points system. When I went for teaching I did an interview where we had to play a musical instrument, sing songs, do an Irish interview and possibly an interview in English (I'm afraid I can't remember. It was a long time ago!). The whole thing took all day. There was a girl at the interview who did not get in despite her excellent results because obviously she wasn't cut out for the job. Getting the best results does not necessarily make you the best teacher. The interview should be brought back.

I also agree that there is that perception that it is not good enough to get a Leaving cert. There could be nothing more humiliating that dropping out of a course because you couldn't cut it. Instead of choosing a career that is suited to your abilities you have started your adult life by failing. That can't be good for your self-esteem. I have worked in all kinds of jobs. I have greatest respect for people who do them particularly physical jobs as I am not very strong myself. It is time that this obsession with going to university changed. Some people are just not academic but have other excellent skills. To be honest I don't understand why things changed so much. Nursing for example. Nurses began by working on the wards and then did their degree. There are some excellent nurses around who might not get in based on the new points system. Nursing is as much about your people skills as it is about your medicinal skills.

I have to agree with the poster who said everyone should pay fees in some shape or form. We all did it. It was difficult and I struggled. If you pay something it makes you appreciate the opportunities you have been given and you put more of an effort into it. You've nothing to loose if you don't pay anything. As well as that you appreciate the money you get when you start working because often your first job is very difficult but at least you have some money in your pocket.

I have to disagree with the poster who said that the focus on 2nd level education needs to shift to continuous assessment. I've seen that in action abroad and the staff in the school have had to chase and mollycoddle students into doing the work for the continuous assessment. Who monitors how much help they get? How does nagging them into doing the work prepare them for university? In an exam situation at least everyone is clear. You cannot cheat and no one can help you. I think that the Leaving Cert is a fair system though I would suggest having a re-sit for the end of August in order for students who have been sick, failed etc. to have a chance to repeat the exam without having to repeat a full year. They could then apply for college based on new results rather than resitting the Leaving and often struggling with an entirely new syllabus. In the mean time they could get a job to fund themselves and get some life experience.

 

[Sophrosyne]

It is time that this obsession with going to university changed. Some people are just not academic but have other excellent skills. To be honest I don't understand why things changed so much. Nursing for example. Nurses began by working on the wards and then did their degree. There are some excellent nurses around who might not get in based on the new points system. Nursing is as much about your people skills as it is about your medicinal skills.

Could not agree more!

In particular, regarding nursing.

 

[Protocol]

• I would be in favour of fees, but not while it's subject to the same means tests as grants etc which are totally biased against PAYE sector. I think everyone should have to pay back fees in one form or another (public sector work, income tax for X years, working in high demand sectors for X years)
  and there should be no exemptions (i.e. even if the student is from a poor background - it is future earnings that should be considered not current parental income).
  This is the only fair system as the state is incapable of properly means testing, as they have proved for last 30 years.
  This would reduce the number of people doing courses for the sake of it, and direct students to where we think they need to go.

You seem to speak as if fees don't exist.

The "registration fee" has been massively increased from 900 to 1500, to now 3000, so in effect we now have fees.

Though they are called "student contribution"

 

[Branz]

The proliferation of third-level education also risks infantilising our youth well into what should be their most productive years. Instead of being encouraged to strike out on their own they are encouraged to follow pre-school, primary education and secondary education with yet more education where their focus is less the acquisition of their own experience than regurgitating what teacher says obeying teacher.

So blame the youth for the crap educational system on offer.
In relation to infantilising, look at the German model where they are still learning at 24, 25 etc

Most productive after secondary school? reproductive maybe but not productive.

From 30 or so years ago when U of L was set up, each and every student who has enrolled has been made do the the SAT test.

Since then, homo sapiens' general intelligence level has not changed that much, AI is making a lot of progress but not HI.

The SAT results have declined over the intervening 30 years while the points required for entry has gone up.

The result is that the Irish educated teachers in the educational system now have lower SAT grades than their predecessors so the whole educational system is slowly decaying.

As for Universities here: today they have no interest in the students, all they want is the funds from Government so as they can build their little dynasties and get Alumni, from UCD, such as O'Reilly, Sunderland and the ubiquitous Redacted One to fund buildings for their research, but only if the buildings are named after them.

Re the trades, the apprentices are exploited by the different industries.
Look at the Nordic model: trades at the outset get paid same as the young Uni graduates so trades are equally attractive money wise at the start.

 

[thedaddyman]

From 30 or so years ago when U of L was set up, each and every student who has enrolled has been made do the the SAT test.
.

I'm a UL grad within the last 20 years and never sat or was asked to sit a SAT test

 

[T McGibney]

So blame the youth for the crap educational system on offer.
Re the trades, the apprentices are exploited by the different industries.
Look at the Nordic model: trades at the outset get paid same as the young Uni graduates so trades are equally attractive money wise at the start.

How on earth can a builder's apprentice just out of school justify a graduate salary? If apprenticeships are to work there has to be something in it too for the tradesman who hires and trains the apprentice.

 

[Firefly]

I think most people would agree that we have too many people at 3rd level than are needed.

Having said that most of us would continue to send our children to 3rd level.

A 2:1 is the new 2:2
A degree is the new diploma
A masters degree is the first degree

 

[Leo]

Perhaps one aspect of the issue is more too many in courses that don't really prepare students for careers, or at least careers where there are sufficient openings at graduate level. IT is facing significant shortfalls at the moment, with a significant amount of open roles being filled from abroad.

 

[odyssey06]

You seem to speak as if fees don't exist.

The "registration fee" has been massively increased from 900 to 1500, to now 3000, so in effect we now have fees.

Though they are called "student contribution"

Without in any way defending the "registration fee", you must realise that if tuition fees were being charged you could add another 0 to the amounts quoted above.

 

[Branz]

The German and UK position
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34132664
This much more balanced and less judgemental article does deal with the plight of the lower skill cohort, which is now being exploited by the part-time work/ZHC's and the like which allow folk like Tesco, Dunnes, Aldi, Lidl, etc all claim to be employing 4 or 5 times the FTE number of employees, and telling us folk that their employees "love" the flexibility of ZCHs etc.
[ Open rant:
Then roll in the self employed employee PRSI scam and the fact that Burton et al, in cahoots with the aforementioned employers supports 20 hrs over 5 days, with no dole, as opposed to the old model of 21hrs over 3 days and a bit of dole for 2. Close rant ]

 

[Purple]

How on earth can a builder's apprentice just out of school justify a graduate salary? If apprenticeships are to work there has to be something in it too for the tradesman who hires and trains the apprentice.

I agree completely.
I've been an apprentice and I've trained apprentices in engineering trades. I can say for certain that if they worked for nothing for the first year they would still cost their employer money. That's if their employer was actually training them properly.
A newly qualified tradesperson in my industry is nowhere near being able to work unsupervised or control a project or job on their own. That takes another 4 or 5 years at a minimum.
If we want tradespeople to get comparative Nordic pay differentials then we need to train them to Nordic skill levels. The training our tradespeople get is nowhere near adequate. We are miles behind Germany, Poland and most other European countries.

 

[Purple]

The German and UK position
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34132664
This much more balanced and less judgemental article does deal with the plight of the lower skill cohort, which is now being exploited by the part-time work/ZHC's and the like which allow folk like Tesco, Dunnes, Aldi, Lidl, etc all claim to be employing 4 or 5 times the FTE number of employees, and telling us folk that their employees "love" the flexibility of ZCHs etc.
[ Open rant:
Then roll in the self employed employee PRSI scam and the fact that Burton et al, in cahoots with the aforementioned employers supports 20 hrs over 5 days, with no dole, as opposed to the old model of 21hrs over 3 days and a bit of dole for 2. Close rant ]

Part time contracts and low pay do not mean exploitation.

I am against zero hour contracts, especially without visibility a few weeks out but low skills will always result in low pay. That’s the way it is and that’s the way it should be.

 

[Branz]

More grist for the mill:
Rewarding failure yet again:
to paraphrase the great Larry Gogan: the questions didn't suit you today
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...icate-in-2017-has-been-unveiled-31499601.html

Part time contracts and low pay do not mean exploitation.

In my view they do when 4 part-time contacts are being used to do the work of a what should be a FT position: it allows companies pay lower PRSI etc, meaning less benefits for the 4 employees and say they are employing 4 times as many people: e.g. Tesco AFAIR 16,000.

Its exploitation supported by the blue shirts and the labour party and by FF before them

 

[Purple]

In my view they do when 4 part-time contacts are being used to do the work of a what should be a FT position: it allows companies pay lower PRSI etc, meaning less benefits for the 4 employees and say they are employing 4 times as many people: e.g. Tesco AFAIR 16,000.

Its exploitation supported by the blue shirts and the labour party and by FF before them

Employing 4 people on 10 hours a week to do 1 persons job?

That sounds like a really stupid idea;

4 times as much payroll costs

4 times as many people to manage and schedule

4 times as many tax returns

4 times as much training (even if it’s only HS&E induction etc)

4 times as many chances of sick leave, shifts not being covered etc.


...and for what? The Employer will pay the same rate whether a person on the minimum wage works 10, 20 or 39 hours a week. It is only the Employee who pays less.


What’s the etc.? What else do you think the employer can avoid paying?

Why do you think employers are less ethical than employees? What evidence do you have to support such an idea?

 

[Jetblue]

PPPPPURPLE:
"If we want tradespeople to get comparative Nordic pay differentials then we need to train them to Nordic skill levels. The training our tradespeople get is nowhere near adequate. We are miles behind Germany, Poland and most other European countries."

Would you mind expanding on this please? I was under the impression that Irish apprentices spent longer training and were far better and "broader" trained than any others?

IRCOHA:
"As for Universities here: today they have no interest in the students, all they want is the funds from Government so as they can build their little dynasties and get Alumni, from UCD, such as O'Reilly, Sunderland and the ubiquitous Redacted One to fund buildings for their research, but only if the buildings are named after them."

"Spot on!" also you can add research and research grant money to this!

ANYBODY PLEASE? BRENDAN?
"
Could anyone tell me how much the Government/Dept of Education fund each college per student? I
think this money is called a capitation grant?"

I'd really appreciate an answer to this question? or can anyone point me in the right direction as to where/whom to inquire from?
This goes to the heart of the costs involved in running third level colleges.

JB