The DOBlog

Category: Irish Education

  • An open letter to Orna Mulcahy and Leaving Cert Class of 2010

    Today’s Irish Times has an article by Orna Mulcahy where she bemoans the fact that the points for college courses will be higher this autumn due to the increase in applications from mature students who have recently found themselves unemployed/between jobs/time advantaged (pick your own term).

    After more than a decade of falling points and expanding career options, all signs were that getting into a reasonably fulfilling college course would be just a matter of filling in the forms. But the great recession has put paid to that. Certain courses are no longer attractive at all, such as those leading towards a career in property or construction. The inevitable swing towards the sciences or any course that might feed into Brian Cowen’s beloved “smart economy” will increase competition for places. This year more people will sit the Leaving Cert than ever before. And now there’s talk of a wave of the newly unemployed going back to college.

    Oh. To put that another way:

    Over reliance on the benign nature of an economic model in which effectively turning up and having a pulse assured you of a foot on the entry level (at least) rungs of an asset acquisition ladder has resulted in a shock adjustment when the dynamics of that economic model change due to external factors and internal market forces.

    To me, this sounds a lot like what happened in the property bubble and crash in Ireland, when lots of people chased moderate amounts of property with apparently bottomless pots of mortgage money available from banks, resulting in prices rocketing. A lot of people over stretched themselves financially to buy a property and then found themselves in a state of shock when the arse dropped out of prices and they were left paying a gallon sized mortgage on a half-pint asset value. Which is interesting, given that she is the Property Editor of the Irish Times. (more…)

  • The Leaving Cert exam fiasco

    So. The Irish Government (in the form of the Dept. of Education and the State Exams Commission [SEC]) are faced with a €1million bill because an exam Superintendent inadvertently distributed the wrong exam paper earlier this week.

    An avoidable root cause for this now unavoidable expenditure seems to be that the packaging that exam papers comes in is too similar. The SEC issued a reminder to Superintendents about this very issue. 

    Reminders and warnings are ultimately reactive in nature. They scream “we know there is a risk of a screw up here, so be careful now”. They do not, unfortunately, in themselves reduce the risk of the screw up happening – that requires the person receiving the warning to remember in all cases to act on it.

    Warnings just give the people who issue the warnings the scope to say “we told you to be careful” as they fire the person who made the error. They are, in effect, a verbal (or written) form of inspecting a defect out of a process before it reaches the customer. They do not improve the process.

    So, what might process improvement here be that actually contributes to a reduction in the risk of significant financial loss to the State because one person in one exam centre makes one mistake?

    When assessing whether it is worth changing a process, we need to assess the cost, impacts and risks involved. The risk of the wrong exam papers being given out is not that high. However, the cost and impact when it does happen is proving to be significant.

    If we assume that the risk of it happening is no more than five times in 100 years then that is a 5% risk each year that something will go wrong (remember – we are dealing with probablity, not a schedule).  We can assume that in any year it happens, as soon as it does everyone involved will be acting on every warning given to make sure it only happens once – the survial instinct kicks in.

     If we assume that the basic financial cost each time will be in the region of €1 million, that means that, prudently, we should see what sort of change can be implemented for an ‘insurance premium’ of €50,ooo  per year. This does not, of course, factor in the reputational damage to government agencies, the PR damage for the elected Minister, the stress impacts on students and their families as exams are rescheduled etc and any potential legal liabilities that might arise. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the monetary equivalent of those risks is  €20,000.

    So. What change can we implement for up to  €70,000 per year that would prevent unintentional and indavertent confusion of exam papers because of similarities in their packaging?

    One option would be to colour code the packaging with distinct colours (i.e. avoiding orange and brown and sticking with strong bold colours that definitely look different). Use different coloured packaging for each subject for example, or put a coloured line or cross on the packaging. Print a logo on the front of the packaging that illustrates the subject (a book for English, a globe for Geography, Einstein’s head for Physics, a picture of Peig for Irish). Anything to provide a standardised visual clue as to what the subject is.

    My preference is for totally colour coded envelopes… If it is Red it is English, Green Irish, Blue French etc. 

    Of course, to do it for ALL the subjects offered in the Leaving Cert in ALL centres might prove more costly than the notional €70,000 we’ve set aside as our insurance premium.

    This is where we would need to further refine our view of the impact of the risk per subject. For example, investing in coloured wrapping for English is a no-brainer. It is a core subject that everyone does.  Accidentally leaking that paper affects ALL students in EVERY exam centre. That’s what costs the €1million we are trying to avoid paying out 5 out of every 100 years.

    Colour coding Classical Studies however might be harder to cost justify. It’s not taken by that many students, it’s not examined in that many exam centres. The cost of colour coding the exam script envelopes for subjects like this could possibly be more than the cost of rescheduling the exam. Also, many of these less taken subjects are examined towards the end of the exams window… further reducing the risk of confusion as the box of exam scripts will be emptying fast.

    So. How much would it cost the State Examinations Commission to colour code the top 10 subjects by number of students and number of exam centres? Would we even need 10 subjects coded in this way?

    While there is little that can be done to ‘risk proof’ against an intentional leaking of an exam paper other than to have a second (or third) version of the exam on stand-by and having criminal sanctions for people caught doing so, there are simple changes that could be made to risk-proof against accidental leaking.

    The only question is does the cost of introducing a preventative control that improves the quality of information presentation (by adding an additional cue – in this case colour) out weigh the risk and impact of having packages that are so similar that they can be accidentally confused. 

    What sort of insurance premium against that risk is the SEC willing to pay?

  • Free Fees (with every packet of cornflakes)

    So Batty O’Keefe is flying kites in the run up to the Leaving Cert results. Nice one centurion. He has proposed the reintroduction of college fees for students from families where people are earning an “excellent” salary. He defines this as being somewhere to the north of “anybody on €100,000” and “millionaires”. Mr O’Keefe seems to be living in Vague City here, flying an amorphous kite in what appears to be a painfully non-fictional episode of Yes Minister.

    Is it proposed that this will be the joint household income or the income of each earner in the family? What about a project manager in a utility company who is married to a civil servant at HEO level? Combined salaries here could encroach on the €100,000 level . These are not exactly high flying jobs however, particularly if you factor in costs related to commuting etc on top of normal day to day family costs.

    What happens if you have a windfall in a given year (like old uncle Davy popping his clogs and leaving you his prize collection of original Beano comics)? Would such unforseen windfalls be included in the calculations?

    What would the cost to the Exchequer be of administering the ‘Santa List’ of people who are Naughty (earn too much in Mr O’Keefe’s view) and Nice (earn what Mr O’Keefe thinks to be a reasonable salary)?

    Would Universities be required to gather information on parents earnings before awarding students places (so they know who to charge what and when)? How would the costs of capturing, analysing and securely storing this information be met? (Yes, I know.. from fees).

    Would families be able to earn full tax relief on the college fees paid (and if so, what would that cost the Exchequer and how would those costs be offset in the tax take)?

    Would there be exemptions of a household had more than one child at 3rd level at any given time? In a household of 3 students, with fees costing approximately €5k per year (based on the current costs of Masters degrees) would the family pay a flat €5k for the 3, €7500, €10,000 or the full €15k? Would the minister be suggesting a “buy 2 get 1 free” for degrees?

    When would this come into effect? Would families with students who started 3rd level last year or starting this year find themselves having to find a few grand more in the kitty in 2009 or 2010?

    What exactly is the Minister expressing here (other than expressing a need to have his name in the headlines during a dull August and a need to be seen to be doing things?)

    What Minister? What?

    Yes, 3rd level education requires more funding. I know, I teach there from time to time, and I was taught there from time to time. I was one of the ‘transition’ students who started their college career paying fees back in the early 1990s and were then set free.

    I’ll admit was skeptical about the Labour Party plan to bring in free fees and heartily opposed it as a student during debates in UCD – which lead to a few ‘discussions’ with my more left-wing friends. I felt at the time that there was bound to be a more equitable format which would not squeeze University funding unduly while still allowing for social equity and more open access to 3rd level for families from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    But the human face of free fees for me was my brother. He was 2 years behind me and, but for free fees, would have had to face the choice of deferring his 3rd level education for 2 years until I had finished my degree. And if I’d gone on to post-graduate study, his chance to shine as a student might perhaps have been put off longer. Free fees meant my mother was able to send her two eldest sons to University at the same time, paving the way for el guapo (the Third) to follow a few years after.

    Batt O’Keefe’s proposals (and it is worth noting that the Green Party are making it clear that this is NOT a government proposal, Mary Hanafin has likewise come out against it, as has the leader of the Progressive Democrats, Ciarán Cannon) have some merit if you look at the argument that those who can afford to spend thousands per year on private education at second level for their children might well be asked to foot the bill at 3rd level. However, one must as the question – why do people opt to send their children to fee paying private schools when there is competition for places at 3rd level? Might the apparent availability of better resources, teacher and student supports and other factors (like working toilets and roofs that don’t leak) when compared with state funded schools be a factor? Will the Minister’s proposals address those root causes?

    If the logic for bringing back in fees is to extract funding from people on “excellent salaries” (and we are I must remind you that we are living in Vague City with that term) why not just levy a tax on high earners to create an “Education Fund” to support 3rd level and state funded 2nd Level and Primary sectors? This tax could be levied on all earners of “excellent salaries”, not just those who have children of University going age. The amount levied per year could be smaller (as the pool affected would be larger and over an indefinite period). However, the taxes so collected MUST be ringfenced for education spending only at each level – and not on vanity projects for Ministers but on fundamental tools and resources such as flushing toilets that don’t double as class rooms, and funding research on broad issues rather than focussed industry sponsored research projects.

    The collection of this tax could be done through the normal taxation system (no additional costs). Exemptions could easily be given on grounds of social need through the existing system. Fees could be kept free; the 2008 equivalent of me and my brother would dodge the bullet and the guilt of one having to forego their place just because of costs.

    Ultimately, this would be more equitable as all “millionaires” in the country would be asked to chip in to fund education and learning – the very education and learning that helped develop the economy which allowed them to make their money. Millionaires would not be discriminated against simply because of they have kid or two with delusions of ‘edumication and learning’.

    Fairer for all, and certainly more structured than the vague and amporphous kite-like citizen of Vague City that Batt O’Keefe has floated on the rain-sodden air.

    Ultimately – investment in the training, development and intellectual capital of our country is a key element in developing future productivity and capability. That has to start at Primary level, be continued to Secondary level and then capped off at 3rd level. Minister O’Keefe has an opportunity to take a considered and courageous stand on funding for education in a way that is of benefit to most rather than punitive to many.

    Or he might bring down the government… either way a positive contribution.

  • Why do a law degree?

    My sister-in-law is currently deciding what she wants to do when she leaves school. She will be sitting the Leaving Certificate this year. She has decided she wants to pursue a career in law. The advice to her from friends of mine who are lawyers was “don’t study law in university if you want to be a solicitor or barrister – do something else that interests you and will give you extra skills”.

    As there are no longer any exemptions for law degree graduates on the professional qualifications for solicitor or barrister there is no advantage there.

    However, one might suspect that if you have studied Tort, Criminal law, Legal Systems and a raft of other subjects that are part of the core exams for professional qualification you would have some sort of advantage or ‘head start’ (I suspect this is the thinking behind my sister-in-law’s persistence at wanting to do a law degree first). This would seem to make sense and would be, as JK Galbraith put it, “Conventional Wisdom”.

    But interestingly, some research has been done on just this question (admittedly in the US) and the results were interesting enough for the Freaknomics guys to write about it on their blog on the New York Times.

    To quote from the article:

    no relationship existed between law school courseloads and the passage rate of students ranked in the first, second or fourth quarters of their law school class, while only a weak relationship existed for students who ranked in the third quarter.

    In other words, smart people with work ethics (the top 2 quarters of the class) passed the Bar exams regardless of the courses they studied in law school. The bottom tier failed regardless of what courses they took. The middle ground people… well for them it might have helped a little bit – but only a bit.

    My legal friends view was that given that you have to study for the professional exams anyway, it would be better to become a more rounded person with perspectives from other disciplines before embarking on the legal route. Many of the solicitors I know from college either didn’t study law or, for those that did, went into another career for a few years before returning to the law with a wider skillset.

    One of the most thoughtful and insightful legal minds I know doesn’t have a law degree from University. He studied classics and was a civil servant for a while. He took the professional qualification route to solicitor (as everyone has to). As a result he is an interesting fellow to talk to about things ranging from politics and social ethics to the campaigns of Philip of Macedon and the merits of the Kaiser Chiefs. He has been known to give pretty good legal advice too.

    That’s not to say that people with law degrees are dull and boring. Many of them are not. I must categorically state this… law degree holders are not boring (on average). (Disclosure… in my misspent youth I spent 4 years studying in UCD’s Law faculty to get my BBLS)

    So, the anecdotes from my lawyer friends are that if you want to be a lawyer you should spend three to four years studying something else that interests you before you embark on your professional qualification. That learning will round you out as a person, give you different perspectives on the law, it might give you contacts you can call on in the future (expert witnesses, plumbers, whatever) and at the very least it gives you time to be certain you want to be a lawyer.

    The scientific evidence is that what you study in law school doesn’t affect your ability to pass professional qualifications (and I know that the study relates to the US and Bar exams and similar studies might have different results here… but I doubt it). Add to that the fact that you can enter the legal profession here through a variety of routes and don’t need to have completed a law degree first and I am left with the question…

    Why study law if you want to be a lawyer?

    I’m not sure if anyone has done a similar study in Ireland but it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between pass grades in Solicitor FE1s or Kings Inns exams for people actually having completed a law degree versus those without.

  • An Irish Open University….

    Saw this on the Labour party website:

    Coughlan calls for the establishment of Irish Open University

    Interesting. What about:

    Oscail (www.oscail.ie) DCU’s distance learning school?

    What about UL’s courses in Project management that are offered over distance learning.

    And above all else… what about the Open University in Ireland?

    Perhaps what is needed is some funding to develop Irish universitites existing distance learning programmes?

    …

    …

    Oh, hang on.. the speech/press release was posted on 1st April 2006. I hope I’ve been sucked in by a prank. I really do.