The points system does not treat all children equally - a better way of nurturing intellectual development must be found, writes Dr Philip Nolan.
It is extraordinary that one of the essential rites of passage in the lives of young citizens - the end of their school career - is now essentially defined by a simple score. Students no longer discuss their A1 in English or C2 in biology, and what their grades say about their interests, aptitudes and ambitions.
They are forced to focus on whether they obtain 450 or 525 CAO points, and whether this is sufficient to meet the arbitrary and variable points score required to gain entry to the course of their choice.
The points system arose in a laudable attempt to prevent cronyism in the allocation of places in the university system. It has the great advantage, essential in a small country, of being objective and incorruptible. It is frequently defended as flawed but fair. This fails to acknowledge that a selection process can be objective, incorruptible but still be unfair.
The points system does not, in fact, treat all children of the nation equally. Extra or superior tuition buys advantage in the competition. A variety of social and economic factors interact to enhance the performance of the privileged.
The outcome of the Leaving Certificate is based not just on ability, but also on drive and preparation. Those with greater internal or external motivation, or with better opportunities at primary and secondary school, have an advantage. Research studies have suggested the exam system favours the better off. The indications are that, on average, students from a higher professional background obtain significantly more points than students whose parents are middle managers, and vastly more points than those whose parents are semi-skilled or unskilled workers. The drive to obtain high points scores profoundly affects the educational experience at second level, especially the senior cycle. The attempt to achieve high (in some cases almost perfect) scores leads to a tactical approach to learning.
The objective is to maximise the mark awarded. The best - or should I say the only viable - approach is to determine what the examiner wants, learn it (preferably by rote to minimise the risk of errors) and to deliver the perfect answer. This annihilates intellectual curiosity and rewards rote learning over analysis and understanding.
This is the wrong preparation for higher education - or for life - where there are rarely single, definitive or perfect solutions to the questions and problems we encounter.
I am not dismissing or diminishing the achievement of those who have obtained high points scores; their success requires exceptional ability and very high levels of discipline. Nonetheless, we all lose out in a system where education is distorted by the process of selecting candidates for higher education.
Reform is urgent and inevitable. One way to alleviate upward pressure on points is by providing more than one way to enter a course. Those who are disappointed at Leaving Certificate, but later demonstrate potential, should have opportunities to move into their area of interest. The proposal that graduates with an honours degree could apply for an accelerated course in medicine is a specific example.
However, throughout the third-level sector, we need to expand the numbers of mature learners, and encourage the movement of students between different subject areas and between further education colleges, institutes of technology and universities. These second-chance opportunities will not only reduce the pressure at second level, but will also open new pathways for late developers and late vocations. The proposals regarding entry to medical school are most welcome, not only for their impact in this specific area, but also because they will facilitate a wider reform of the points system.
We need to accept that the Leaving Certificate need not be the only means to match students to courses of study. Prof Pat Fottrell's working group has proposed that undergraduate admission to medical school should be based on a combination of CAO points and an aptitude test.
The aptitude test is not an attempt to select people who are "more suitable" for medicine: this is neither desirable nor possible. It will assess general intellectual skill and ability in a way that is not directly linked to the second-level curriculum, liberating the second-level teacher from the tyranny of the perfect answer, and positively encouraging students to develop their creative problem-solving skills.
This proposal is food for thought with regard to how we assess students in our educational system. I believe that, over time, we will have the confidence to move towards a system where the early years of a third-level education are marked by a broad and liberal curriculum, preparing our students to be questioning citizens.
The definitive decision to specialise in a subject or train for a profession would, for the majority, be postponed and informed by maturity and experience. The greatest benefit of a third-level education depends little on the subject studied. The inquiring mind, the critical intellect, the ability to assess and assimilate new ideas are equally developed through the study of philosophy, law, biology, or engineering.
The knowledge and skills acquired during a course of study may change, but the trained mind is an asset capable of dealing with a lifetime of change. When educational leaders demonstrate greater capacity to change themselves and their institutions, that in itself provides a valuable lesson for students.
Dr Philip Nolan is registrar and vice-president for academic affairs at University College Dublin. He can be contacted at philip.nolan@ucd.ie