I think it's a good idea.
A students ability to study and study environment at 15 or 16 (and before then) determines how they will do at 18 in their leaving cert. Their family circumstances, the education level of their parents, and the parents interest in supporting their child, and the level of grinds and other supports the student gets as well as the peer group within their school will have a massive and fundamental impact on the results they get in their leaving cert. Their innate intelligence is of course a factor but it is secondary to their environment.
The idea that a student who is supported in that way at 15 or 16 will in some way make a better engineer or doctor or psychologist than someone who didn’t get that support at 15 or 16 is in itself elitist.
What Trinity is doing is a good idea and, if administered properly, will make it more inclusive for people from more deprived social backgrounds.
As for a person who headed up the CAO thinking moving away from the CAO based admission system is a bad idea, well there’s a strong element of “he would say that, wouldn’t he”.
The college can take the social and personal circumstances of the individual into account when assessing their essay and social achievements.I fail to understand how you come to this conclusion. A person supported as you outline is much more likely to do well on at least 2 of the 4 alternative criteria, the essay (they can pay to have it written professionally) and the social achievements, (music lessons anyone)
What about the college of surgeons?The CAO is one of our few public bodies that has never been tainted by corruption. No one gets into college In Ireland based on personal contacts, this is mostly due to the professionalism of John McAvoy. And quite different from the system in the US and Britain. And could not be maintained in a situation where an essay or personal statement or interview forms part of the admission criteria.
The college can take the social and personal circumstances of the individual into account when assessing their essay and social achievements.
Anyway, because something is not corrupt it does not follow that it is necessarily fair.
Welfare will never create a more socially or economically fair and equal society. Only education will do that.
If education isn't challenging it won't function as a force for fairness in society either.
Why? What's wrong with the subjective opinion of a professional educator?That's fine in theory, but it must be measured by objective criteria that cannot be gamed.
You seem to be approaching this from the stance that this admission process is designed for the posh thickies (undoubtedly connected to the admissions people) to circumvent the CAO process - that they will pay for their essay to be written, get through their Grade 8 in piano and do social good deeds to pad out their CV - all to avoid studying hard enough to get into Trinity the CAO route. Would you be happier if Trinity explicitly said that this was a social inclusion program deliberately targetting disadvantaged areas? I have no problem with some level (and this is a very limited experiment) of positive discrimination towards students who don't have access to the best schools, a positive study environment or limitless grinds....Judging a personal statement is very subjective and kids will get involved in "achievements" just to improve their chances of admission.....
It is far easier for a student with well educated parents who value education to be "worthy" than a student with uneducated parent s who don't value education. That doesn't mean that one is more intelligent than the other.Whilst I can see some merit in the argument that better second level schools offer a chance of better points and wealthier parents do likewise (via grinds and such), ultimately if a student really wants to progress to 3rd level they can achieve a certain level through hard work and dedication. The approach by Trinity seems far too open for unworthy students to be admitted imho.
Exactly; this is a programme to get students from socially disadvantaged areas into college. It is not some backdoor system for exploitation by some old-boy network.You seem to be approaching this from the stance that this admission process is designed for the posh thickies (undoubtedly connected to the admissions people) to circumvent the CAO process - that they will pay for their essay to be written, get through their Grade 8 in piano and do social good deeds to pad out their CV - all to avoid studying hard enough to get into Trinity the CAO route. Would you be happier if Trinity explicitly said that this was a social inclusion program deliberately targetting disadvantaged areas? I have no problem with some level (and this is a very limited experiment) of positive discrimination towards students who don't have access to the best schools, a positive study environment or limitless grinds.
My point is that some students have a bigger hill to climb in order to get to 3rd level. By the time people are 18 or 19 they have a better idea of what they want to do in life and, more importantly, what they don't want to be.
the sons or daughters of lawyers or doctors or company directors are not more "worthy" of access to university than the sons or daughters of the long term unemployed simply because they received more points in their Leaving Cert.
Why? What's wrong with the subjective opinion of a professional educator?
Exactly; this is a programme to get students from socially disadvantaged areas into college. It is not some backdoor system for exploitation by some old-boy network.
All of those points can be made in relation to the same educators when they are correcting the exams of students who are already in college. And yet the sky has not fallen in.Many things;
Professional educators are no less biased in their judgements than other people.
They are as susceptible to outside influence as other people. Anyone with the power to accept some candidates and reject others WILL get phone calls from government ministers telling them to admit certain candidates.
They are no less susceptible that other people to outright bribery.
No matter how excellently and honestly and perhaps courageously they do their job, their subjective opinion, cannot be more than that, a subjective opinion.
In my opinion it is not good enough to reject someones application for a place at college because some admissions person thinks subjectively that some other candidate is more deserving.
All of those points can be made in relation to the same educators when they are correcting the exams of students who are already in college. And yet the sky has not fallen in.
The sky has not fallen in, but TCD, and other Irish colleges have plummeted in the world education rankings.
letting a few students in from West Finglas or the rough parts of Tallaght who didn't get the necessary COA points
Except that the "Special circumstances" criteria listed in Mr McAvoy's article on the topic don't include any mention of disadvantaged geographic backgrounds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?