Madam, – At our recent annual general meeting, the Irish Mathematical Society (which represents over 300 mathematicians, most of whom work in Irish third-level institutions) voted to endorse the introduction of bonus points for higher level mathematics. With that in mind, I would like to respond to some of Prof Kathleen Lynch’s points (Opinion, September 24th).
Her point that policy decisions should be evidence-based is not in dispute. However, gathering some of the appropriate evidence is only part of the picture. Once the quantitative evidence is assembled, it must be interpreted correctly, and further, the ensuing policy decisions should be based on correct inference and sound logic.
Further, I would argue Prof Lynch has only presented evidence that, in her view, supports her case. There is other evidence that should also be considered, which, in my view at least, weighs heavily in favour of some form of bonus points scheme.
Prof Lynch argues bonus points would be unfair because it would disadvantage certain students based on their social background or gender.
First, this misunderstands the intention of the introduction of bonus points. It is almost universally acknowledged that a better level of general mathematical and scientific knowledge is important for our economy and society. Bonus points are intended to incentivise students towards taking higher level maths. Thus, all of the percentages and numbers to which Prof Lynch refers would undoubtedly change were bonus points to be introduced. A proper analysis would try to factor in this predicted change.
It seems clear bonus points will result in significantly more people taking higher level maths.
A survey by Engineers Ireland (reported in The Irish Times, August 12th), indicated that up to one-third of ordinary level students would consider higher level if bonus points were offered. Interestingly, at the time, this survey was reported in a negative light with respect to bonus points. However, given that 84 per cent of students took ordinary level maths last year versus 16 per cent taking higher level, if one-third of ordinary level students were to change to higher level, this would mean that 44 per cent of students would be taking higher level. This is surely more than even the most optimistic mathematical educator would hope for. At the very least, it indicates that bonus points would have a substantial effect on the numbers taking higher level.
My other major criticism of Prof Lynch’s article is that her analysis of existing inequalities in mathematical education ignores the biggest inequality that our students face. It is well established that higher level mathematics requires more hours of study and more effort that most other subjects in order to achieve a good grade. Thus, students with an interest in mathematics are faced with an unfair disadvantage versus students with an interest in languages, for example. Why should the mathematically inclined student have to work harder for the same number of points as compared to her linguistically inclined counterpart? Prof Lynch’s analysis ignores this aspect of the points system.
Her analysis seems to proceed from the assumption that it is just as easy to obtain points in mathematics as it is in all other subjects. I believe most prospective Leaving Cert students would beg to differ.
As a mathematician, I welcome an evidence-based approach to decision-making. However, I encourage our policy-makers to make sure that they have all the appropriate evidence and that they base their decisions on sound analysis of that evidence. – Yours, etc,