As third-level hopefuls fill out CAO forms, it's time to reassess the system, argues Ferdinand von Prondzynski.
In 1999 the Commission on the Points System issued its report. It had been asked to assess whether the system met a number of specific objectives, which could broadly be summarised in the following two questions: (a) does the system promote a good third-level education? And (b) is it fair, particularly to the disadvantaged?
The commission concluded the system was transparent and fair in allocating university places to school leavers, but special measures might be needed to address questions of disadvantage. On the whole it favoured the use of quotas to increase access.
Last month, at a Dublin City University graduation ceremony, I suggested that the time might be right to have another look at this, and expressed some doubt as to whether the influence of the points system on social, economic and educational trends was necessarily a beneficial one. My main objective in raising this was to encourage a debate, and in this respect at least, I may have succeeded, although it would also be fair to say that some reactions to my comments were sceptical.
It may be useful to describe briefly what the points system is. In order to be admitted to the third-level programme of her or his choice, a student needs to have the points required for that programme.
The points themselves are, it could be said, a market currency. There is a minimum number for each programme, reflecting the educational attainment thought necessary to succeed in that programme; but the actual points required are the product of supply and demand: where there are more applicants for a programme than there are places - ie where there is strong demand for a scarce product - then you will have higher points. Therefore if a subject becomes particularly popular, the points go through the roof. This does not reflect the intellectual demands of the programme, just its popularity; and the points can go up and down dramatically from year to year without the syllabus changing at all. If you want to buy a scarce product, you need to pay a high price; and if few want it, you can get it very cheaply.
So what is the effect of that in practice? Let us take the case of points required for entry to various subjects in University College Dublin last September.
A student wanting to study architecture or law, for example, would have to have between 500 and 600 points. But if the same student wanted to study chemical engineering, food science or biochemistry, she would need only 300-400 points.
What does that tell us? Nothing at all about the intellectual demands of the subjects concerned; in fact arguably the more difficult ones seem to require the lower points in the above examples (though all third-level studies require intellectual application). Maybe these points reflect national priorities? Certainly not, as the country's needs in technological studies and life sciences are much greater than its need for more lawyers, for example.
It could be argued that points are a beauty parade of college programmes, reflecting current fashions rather than any assessment of need. But my worry is that they don't reflect student preferences and aptitudes either. A student with 550 points will tend to look at programmes that require these.
Disproportionately few students with 550 points apply for programmes requiring 300, so that the brightest often shun the less popular programmes, though these in turn often reflect real national needs.
It is also arguable that some of the most popular subjects provide training for the professions, such as the law, accountancy, architecture, the Civil Service, and so on. Social pressures may be pushing students into those professions, influencing the points. But national needs don't necessarily point in the same direction, since the biggest need for more graduates is not in areas like law and architecture, but arguably in technology-related subjects and life sciences.
If the points system is a market, then it should be assessed like any other market - is it a good distribution mechanism for the resources being traded? I would find the evidence on that count to be fairly damning, and I would fear that we are institutionalising a set of trends that are not particularly good for the colleges, the students and the country.
This is not a criticism of those people or professionals who support students in these processes. I know many teachers and guidance counsellors and they are dedicated and conscientious, but they have to work with what they are given; they too face the almost irresistible pressures that are now part of an out-of-date system.
The current points system was a necessary innovation when it was introduced. But the country has moved on, and now has different and more complex needs.
There are alternatives. We might look at a system of weighted lotteries - which has been used with some success in the Netherlands. But whatever method we use, we need to ensure we give students access to higher education in a manner that provides them with good choices, that allows key subjects to benefit from talented young people with both aptitude and passion for what they are doing, and that gives the country the skilled people it needs in the areas where they are needed.
I doubt we are doing that right now.
Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski is president of DCU