Sir, – John McAvoy, former general manager of the CAO, strikes an inflammatory note in his condemnation of TCD's foray into "alternative" entry assessment criteria ("Students are the guinea pigs in Trinity's experiment", Education Opinion, October 14th). But he's right.
The Leaving Cert points race certainly has a lot of problems, but it is better than alternatives involving subjective judgment. Human judgment in entry selection has been shown to have very little ability to select students who will perform better (even when the judges are very confident in their own judgement).
Instead, it has been shown to increase social selectivity – you inevitably identify more with someone who resembles you. I don’t think for a moment it is TCD’s intention, but this scheme will increase the social exclusivity of their student body, benefiting the academically underperforming child of well-networked, affluent parents much more than the bright kid who needs a break.
There is one good element in TCD’s criteria, which is to rate students relative to their school. A student from an elite fee-charging school (or grind college) who gets 500 points is probably quite average, and you will see it in his or her university performance, but a student from a struggling school who gets 500 points is probably exceptional. A fair implementation would, of course, be very difficult. – Yours, etc,
Dr BRENDAN HALPIN,
Department of Sociology,
University of Limerick.
Sir, – John McAvoy’s recent piece on Trinity College Dublin’s new admissions experiment displayed an appalling refusal to consider alternatives to a challenging problem. Third-level education and admissions ought to acknowledge that students are not only being academically trained, but are also being prepared to enter into industry, government, or other careers. Basing admission solely on the Leaving Certificate ignores alternative skills and experiences that may be valuable for those end goals.
As an alumnus of both Trinity College Dublin and American universities, I find it striking that Mr McAvoy felt the need to belittle elements of Trinity’s experiment without considering their effective use, for decades, in other countries. Those systems may not be perfect, but neither is the Irish model.
Changing the system may impact some students, but it may also allow for engaged students to enter third-level education – students who previously may have been left on the outside looking in due to the Leaving Cert. Broadening the basis of admission may also encourage students to be engaged in elements of their community outside of academics.
I am often critical of Trinity College Dublin’s unwillingness to experiment and change. On this subject, however, I can only hope that their newfound institutional flexibility is replicated elsewhere in Ireland. – Yours, etc,
JOSEPH STRANIX,
Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago,
Illinois.
Sir, – John McAvoy describes Trinity College’s experiment with alternative entry requirements as “outrageous”. As director of a third-level course, I keep an eye on the extent to which Leaving Cert results are predictive of first-year grades at university. While admittedly based on a small sample, my experience has shown that total Leaving Cert points is a far better predictor of third-level performance than any single Leaving Cert result taken in isolation. For example, total points are a better predictor of university maths grades than is a student’s actual Leaving Cert maths grade. This phenomenon may be related to the central limit theorem, which implies that a well-diversified outcome, such as performance at third level, is best predicted by a well-diversified set of tests. Relying strongly on any single component, such as the HPAT, or an essay, reduces predictive accuracy because it lowers the overall diversification of the measure. John McAvoy is right. – Yours, etc,
PHIL MAGUIRE,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.