The OECD Report and Teacher Bashing

The most recent OECD report on educational indicators received some coverage in the media but one would think from that coverage that the only issue of concern to the OECD was teachers’ pay. The report showed that Irish Teachers are paid better than the average and this was the focus of nearly every radio discussion I heard and every online discussion that I read. High profile radio shows like Matt Cooper’s ‘The Last Word’ focused exclusively on this issue. Given that Matt and most other commentators neglected to mention that Irish teachers spend longer in the classroom and teach bigger classes, one has to conclude that coverage was deliberately slanted so as to generate controversy – it was simple populism in the pursuit of ratings.

Indeed, the coverage raises the question as to why teachers seem to be held in such low regard in this country. I think there are three reasons. First, many people, especially those over the age of 40 will have had some pretty negative experiences of secondary school in particular. These may have involved only a small minority of teachers but I suspect that a negative experience at a young, impressionable age tends to stick with you.

Second, many people have an issue with the length of teachers’ holidays. There is perhaps an argument to be made that the school year should be extended, meaning that teachers would spend less time per week in the classroom, perhaps making their job less stressful in the process. However, I think the person in the street does not quite appreciate how stressful being a teacher must be. At the end of the university year, I and my colleagues always find ourselves mentally exhausted; and our job is nowhere near as demanding as that of the secondary school teacher. There is something uniquely stressful about having to stand up in front of a class day after day and that point needs to be made more forcefully by teachers. They need a decent chunk of time out of the classroom to remain sane in my view.

Thirdly, teachers do themselves no favours every year when they hold their annual conferences. While it is only a minority of teachers who attend these (union) conferences, the attendees come across as somewhat unprofessional. They really need to rethink how they run these annual events. Indeed, teachers would get a lot of kudos if they ran high profile conferences dealing with substantive pedagogical issues, somewhat like the ResearchEd conferences started by Tom Bennett in the UK.

Anyway, back to the OECD report. It’s gigantic (750 pages) so realistically all you can do is flick through it and pick out statistics that catch your eye. One of the things that emerge from the data is that acquiring a good education pays a greater dividend in Ireland than the OECD average. What that means I’m not sure but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Anyway, here are some eye-catchers. I’ll return to the report and dig out some more at a later date, time permitting.

  1. Ireland is tenth in terms of third level participation rates and along with South Korea has experienced especially large growth in this sector in the period 2000-2012.
  2. Taking all levels of education into account, our mean levels of literacy are below average.
  3. Our IT skills are nowhere near where they need to be. 23% of our 25-64 age group have ‘good’ ICT and problem solving skills. This compares with 34% in the UK. Top of the pile is Sweden with a rate of 41%.
  4. Our third level graduates are young – below the OECD average. (Somewhat surprisingly, Germans are even younger.)
  5. We are below the average for the percentage of third level students whose parents also have a third level education, not surprising perhaps given the huge growth in this sector in the last couple of decades. This is reflected in our high ranking (6th) in terms of upward educational mobility.
  6. In terms of employment rates and earning power, the value of a third level education in Ireland is better than the OECD average.
  7. The full-time employment rates of Irish female graduates is below the OECD average. Interestingly the Netherlands is the lowest. Obviously there are all kinds of issues here related to child care.
  8. There is a strong correlation between literacy levels and earning power and in that regard the value of literacy in Ireland is greater than the OECD average.
  9. Across the OECD, educational attainment correlates with good health (as self-reported), engagement with the democratic process, volunteering and levels of trust.
  10. Over all levels of education, our spend per student (2011 figures) is above the OECD average, even higher than mighty Finland. But Finland spends more on third level.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Ideologues and Principled Pragmatists

Every now and then I fall into the trap of getting into an argument with an ideologue – I did so the other night on Twitter. While it’s not the quite a case of “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”, it can be a very frustrating experience indeed. One of the characteristics of ideologues is that they seem to exhibit very little doubt about whatever their pet cause is. People at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, whether it be socialists, conservatives or libertarians, always seem to be very sure of their own particular political philosophy.

The opposite of the ideologue is the pragmatist but many pragmatists are actually better described as principled pragmatists. They want to do the right thing but recognise that if the right thing is ever to be done, it has to be achievable. Indeed, one could argue that the only moral approach to many of life’s problems is to adopt the philosophy of the principled pragmatist.

The on-going conflict between the ideologue and the principled pragmatist is seen quite clearly in the world of education. There are still many academics and commentators who insist that the challenges facing education can be solved by simply pumping more resources (provided courtesy of the taxpayer) into education. There is never any attempt to engage with the realities of economics as currently constructed or with the precise mechanism by which providing more resources will actually make the system better. Indeed much of what those of a (very) left-wing persuasion propose seems to presume a political revolution of some kind. At the same time, there is an irritating tendency to claim the  moral high ground as if those with contrary views have some sort of amoral or even immoral agenda. The word ‘neoliberal’ is typically thrown about with abandon and not meant as a compliment.

This blog will continue to promote the idea of principled pragmatism. And the reader should realise that everything I write here is as much an internal discussion with myself as it is with the readership. If truth be told, I’m not sure of much because an awful lot of the challenges in the world today are just very complicated.

Don’t be fooled by the simplistic ‘solutions’ of the ideologue.

Posted in education | 1 Comment

We need to teach entrepeneurship

You can’t teach entrepreneurship! is the common response to this suggestion. It’s as if you were suggesting that everyone be taught to run as fast as Usain Bolt or play football like Lionel Messi. Entrepreneurs are born not made it’s claimed. Being an entrepreneur is in your blood!

Well, that all depends on what you mean by teaching entrepreneurship. It doesn’t have to mean reinventing people, turning them into another Steve Jobs or that Dyson guy who invents new hoovers every second week.

Business ideas are like books; just as everyone has an idea for a book, everyone has an idea for a business at some time. So why aren’t we all furiously setting up businesses? It’s not because we don’t have some sort of mysterious entrepreneurial mind-set, it’s because most of us haven’t the faintest idea about how one goes from an idea to a potentially profit-making company. We’re scared of it. How can anyone seriously consider setting up a business when they don’t even know where to start; when they have no capacity to assess the level of work and commitment involved and, crucially, when they cannot assess the challenges and risks in front of them. It is no mystery as to why entrepreneurs tend to be serial entrepreneurs. It’s not that being an entrepreneur is some sort of innate compulsion; it’s the fact that once you know how to do it, you are more likely to do it again. (A bit like murder apparently.) It’s also no mystery as to why entrepreneurship tends to run in families. It’s not that there is a gene for being an entrepreneur; it’s merely that if you grow up in a business-oriented family, you probably acquire a good deal of knowledge and wisdom about the business world, not to mention mentoring. The world of business will not scare you and you will be far more likely to take the plunge.

Expecting people to be entrepreneurial without their knowing anything about the actual process of creating a business is like expecting people to do a bungee jump in the pitch dark. So when I say that we should teach entrepreneurship, what I mean is that we need to ensure that students know and understand enough about the start-up process (and business generally) that they might seriously consider acting on their ideas rather than forgetting about them and opting for the devil they know.

A problem here is that many academics see the word ‘entrepreneurship’ as reflecting an ethos that is counter to the true spirit of academia, seeing it as merely serving the needs of capitalism. But if that is the way you think about it, you are not being logical in my view. Many accepted academic disciplines exist not because they represent the search for some sort of eternal truth, rather they owe their very existence to the fact that we human beings have created societies and cultures that need to be understood and managed. The raison d’etre of engineering or economics or food science  is that they, in some sense, arise from the activities of humanity and ultimately serve the needs of humanity. I develop membrane filtration design equations not because they have any innate value but because I hope they will be used by practicing engineers. I’m still doing valid academic work in my view. Likewise, somebody who might be teaching and researching in the area of entrepreneurship is doing work that is not inherently inferior to the person researching the works of Joyce or the physicist studying the earliest picoseconds of the universe. In fact, many fields that might not be seen as ‘academic’ actually pose hugely challenging, multidisciplinary problems that provide fantastic opportunities for study.

I have been sceptical about much of this entrepreneurial stuff for a long time but I’ve done an Eamon Dunphy and come around to the view that unless the country gets to a situation where the average citizen is familiar with the basic processes of business, we will always rely on others to do our job creation for us.  Pumping money into research might create more high tech ideas that sound amazing, but ideas are one thing and businesses are another.

We need to start teaching our students about how to be entrepreneurs and that is not the same as trying to teach them to be entrepreneurs. Hopefully, though, doing the former will result in the latter.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Academia and the Public v Private Debate

Tonight I had a civilised exchange of views on Twitter with economist and broadcaster, Marc Coleman. He had been raising the issue of academic salaries, suggesting essentially that we are overpaid.

Although I don’t agree with him, I have to say that I feel a little conflicted on this because, like many people, I have family who are self-employed (not the same as ‘working in the private sector’) and I think I understand the difference between working for your very financial survival and working for you own self esteem and ambition. I would much rather the latter than the former.

If you are a permanent member of academic staff, I think it is fair to say that the pressures on you are not comparable to those faced by the self-employed person who has to constantly hustle for work and the next pay cheque. I think we all would agree with that. And, working in academia – as a permanent employee – is a huge privilege. You get to do something really challenging and worthwhile and you get to do it to do it in a way that is very much on your own terms.

But that is not to say that there are no pressures. Let’s for the moment forget about all the academics who are employed on short term contacts these days and just focus on those who are in permanent positions. Are they working in a completely pressure-free environment? Do they have an easy life and are they grossly overpaid?

The first thing I would say is that I have always worked in a science faculty so I have no experience of the humanities or business where, I suspect, the working environment is slightly different. But a couple of things you have to remember about academics is the following: they have a very high level of intrinsic motivation and many also suffer from ‘best boy (or girl) in the class’ syndrome. Therefore, at least in my experience, they tend to work hard out of a sort of innate compulsion to do so – to be the best ‘in the class’ in effect.

In the laboratory sciences at least, reaching the ‘top’ means raising huge amounts of money to fund equipment and the salaries of postgraduate students and post doctoral researchers. This is a grueling process and is on top of teaching duties which are not necessarily stressful but which are important and time consuming. The academic who wants to progress in his or her career has to buy into this process – fundraising, graduating PhD students and publishing papers. Furthermore, there is increasing pressure to make ones research relevant to industry and to contribute to the innovation and job creation mission of most institutions.

Now, one can, of course, opt out, step off the treadmill and coast (some do), and in that sense academia is very different from the world of the self employed where no such option exists. So I have every sympathy for the self employed and fully recognise that they are under pressures that are far in excess of those of academics.

Nevertheless, and this may be a reflection of the academic mindset and the limited ability of your average academic to deal with pressure, I see stressed-out academics all around me. One of the main sources of pressure is the problem of keeping the ‘show on the road’. Academic generally take their responsibilities to their postgrads and their postdocs very seriously and many a sleepless night is spent worrying about where the next bunch of money is going to come – effectively to keep people in employment. It is pressures like this that stress academics far more than workload. It is in that sense that I have compared running a large research group to running an SME.

I think that a big problem in this whole debate is that many commentators have little or no experience of the sciences and engineering. I will stick my neck out and say that the pressures on the laboratory scientists exceed those of most other academics by a long way. (Hence I stick to mathematical stuff!) I think it is unfair to talk about academia as a homogenous entity and to take a bird’s eye view in which salaries that are averaged over the entire sector are compared with those in the private sector. A bit of digging is needed.

As a final note, there is no doubt in my mind that the way people are rewarded in academia is far from perfect. Promotion is often a reward for past achievement rather than reflecting an increase in responsibilities and I know many academics who simply refuse to take on duties that they should be obliged to take on. Saying ‘no’ is a bizarre aspect of the academic career that still baffles me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The TA Concept – A PhD Student’s perspective

My second guest post comes from Tríona O’Connell, a PhD student in the School of Biotechnology here in DCU. This is a reply to my recent post in which I suggested that Irish PhD students become more involved in undergraduate teaching, and in a more meaningful way (the TA concept). At this stage, I’m not going to get embroiled in the discussion other than to encourage you to re-read my post before reading Triona’s. However, it would be great if any PhD students out there would comment and give their opinion on all aspects of how they feel they are treated by the system.


Greg’s recent blog proposed using postgraduates to help relieve some of the workload of teaching first years. As a postgraduate, I am compelled to object to this, but outlining some of the likely objections is probably better than just saying “no” repeatedly on twitter.

The first objection is probably “where will we get the time?”. Whether or not you work in a group where publishing papers is an important part of the lab work, you still need to produce a thesis of some sort by the time (or close enough to the time) your funding runs out.

As it stands, postgraduates (in my department) are involved in assisting with practical demonstrations. This comes to about 100 hours per year, or roughly two to three weeks out of your PhD project work each year. These hours can be blocked in groups of a few days or they can be one afternoon a week for a semester, it depends on the lab in question. Generally the work involved in the practicals is confined to the practical, we don’t have to correct student’s work outside the lab hours. In other departments/universities, postgrads may have to do more or fewer hours and also do the corrections. There’s little prep for the demonstrations beyond being familiar with the protocol to be demonstrated and basic lab safety (aka common sense).

In addition to formally teaching in labs, postgrads often help supervise final year projects. Again, this could be confined to 8-12 weeks in the second semester or can be spread across the entire year. The first few weeks of the project will take a lot of the postgrad’s attention, making sure the undergrad knows the protocols/procedures and the basic lab safety.

Take the first year biology module in our Biotech degree programme. It has 36 hours of lectures and 11 tutorial hours. Preparing for each lecture hour will take at least an hour if given a prepared slide-deck and two to four hours if you have to devise the deck from scratch. So, if it’s been prepared you’re looking at (36+11)*2 = 94 hours, that’s another two-three weeks out of the potential project time. Swapping out the practical demonstration for such a module might work, but there aren’t unlimited people to provide demonstrating cover either (funding more postgrads would work here). Offering tutorial hours to postgrads (for some sort of compensation) might alleviate the pressure on lecturers with heavy first-year teaching loads.

The next objection “what sort of compensation will we get for our time?” Practical demonstrating is rewarded with cash money (into your bank account), theoretical money (into your supervisor’s account) and “it is a way of saying thanks to the department for hosting you“, depending on where you are. The latter is a great way to get students to resent taking time from their projects to teach. Practical demonstration gives the postgrad some experience in on-the-job style training that will be useful in a future technical position, lecturing experience won’t necessarily have the same utility. “It looks great on your CV” won’t cut it for those who don’t plan to teach in the future. Extra commitments should have some tangible reward, covering extra salary for a PhD student who has run past their stipend might be appreciated. The more experienced postgrads have limited time for non-project tasks as they’re running up against the end of their wages, but I’d imagine these are the sort of postgrads you’d prefer to give teaching responsibility to. Indeed, it might be a good idea to offer teaching hours (with payment) to postdocs who are interested in applying for lecturing positions in the future as much as to postgrads.

Of course “some people should not be allowed to teach anybody, especially not impressionable first years”. I’m pretty sure this would apply to a lot more than postgraduates though. Making first year lecturing obligatory for postgrads would capture some people who don’t like teaching for a variety of reasons. You can’t expect every lecture to be inspiring and insightful, but it would help. You’d probably need a certain amount of public speaking experience before you stand the postgrad in front of a few hundred bored faces. Some of my colleagues are intimidated by presenting their work to their lab group, not to mind to say larger, less familiar audiences.

I read those blogs that they have there in that America, and they basically use TA’s as cheap labo(u)r to shore up their education system”. The American PhD student has a very different experience to the Irish student. US stipends need to be supplemented with teaching, and their projects tend to run for five to seven years instead of three to four. There’s many blogs that view postgraduate teaching and adjunct teaching as a cheap way to run universities. You can pay them less and put them on short term contracts. Adjunct style positions might be a better solution than postgraduate teaching for relieving the pressures of first year teaching. It would certainly be a more expensive solution than using postgrads, especially if it was introduced in a fair fashion with stable contracts and reasonable pay.

Ultimately, I don’t think postgraduates will be of much use for first year teaching given their likely time commitments/goals. Any solution will cost money. Swapping out experienced lecturers for (almost) free labour devalues the cost of teaching, so bringing in dedicated teaching staff should probably have similar terms to existing staff. Most of the staff I interact with regularly love teaching, if you could rearrange time itself they’d probably be quite happy to lecture all the spare students you could find, but altering fundamental physics is probably a little more challenging than finding extra budget.

Posted in education, Research, structured PhD, teaching assistants, Third Level | 6 Comments

Hijacking Education

Recently the third level teachers’ union, IFUT, has been highlighting the high rates of emigration among graduates. At the same time it is calling for increased investment in education and a strategy to deal with the emigration problem. Maybe I’m being simplistic but isn’t there some sort of contradiction here? Doesn’t the high level of emigration imply that there is an over-supply of graduates in many areas? And surely those of us who work in education have to do more than simply call for more resources and more strategies. The idea that we should appeal to the ‘Government’ to fix everything is a cop out really. Who is the Government? It is career politicians with very little knowledge and experience of third level, and the permanent Civil Service who, to be fair, are there to implement and manage the policy of the politicians.

Philosopher, Nicholas Maxwell has repeatedly written about how, in its obsession with its role as a knowledge creator, the higher education system has neglected its role as a wisdom generator. In effect he is saying that academia has to engage more with the grand challenges confronting society and not just sit on the fence seeking ‘knowledge’.

You see, it is very easy to intone the “education, education, education” chant of Tony Blair. Calling for more education seems like the right thing to do. Education is good for us all and personally I owe nearly everything I have to my education but that does not mean that more and more education is necessary for the economy. A healthy economy is important to us all and one of the problems in this whole area is that many commentators seem to see education itself as a generator of economic activity and wealth. This is nowhere better seen than in the recent obsession with the German apprenticeship model where there seems to be an assumption that by training many more apprentices, we will somehow create demand for them! Further up the education ladder, the huge increase in PhD-level education is seen as a driver of economic growth in the ‘knowledge economy’. But the relationship between academic research and economic growth is tenuous and is more than likely a two-way process. Indeed, the entire relationship between the economy and the education system is a synergistic one and cannot be understood in cause-and-effect terms, something we need to bear in mind when the latest OECD analysis is released next week.

So how do you design an education system that meets the needs of the individual and the needs of the society and the economy? It’s difficult because even the economic aspects of education are complex; much of what happens in the economy seems to do so for intangible, poorly understood reasons, essentially because economics is subject to the vagaries of human nature.

And so, what will happen in Ireland is that as the economy improves, demand will be created for all sorts of untrained and trained individuals – from sales assistants to apprentices to graduates, many in areas that will not be cutting edge and many of which will surprise us. The improving economy will result in some heat being taken out of the education system because there will be greater opportunity for school leavers and less pressure to stay at college for years on end – often just for the sake of it. And as the budgetary situation improves once again, we will have an opportunity to do things rationally rather than lurching from crisis to crisis.

One of the problems with this country, however, is that we have no clear vision of what a sustainable Irish economy should look like and this is one of the reasons for our periodic dives into recession. Back in the 1980s when I was a student, there was a big emphasis on chemical processing, then electronic hardware (from VCRs to microchips to hard drives to PCs), then biopharma. Now politicians, not understanding that cutting edge science is often the most ephemeral, are talking (rather unconvincingly) about the new messiahs of cloud computing, big data and the like. And the “education, education, education” cry is part of that latest ‘lurch’ and all of these lurches seem to be hugely dependent on FDI by multinationals.

It is hard to say these things because education is such a wonderful thing. But one of the reasons I write what I do about education is that it has been hijacked by politicians and the uninformed: website commenters, texters and tweeters, Sindo columnists and basically everyone who has an axe to grind or a chip on their shoulder.

So what are we to do? If we are to come up with a functioning, relevant and responsive education system, one that meets the needs of the country and the individual, then we the academics need to actually contribute to finding solutions. But few academics, despite all their expertise, are engaging with these problems. I do it in my own small way and financial economist, Brian Lucey in Trinity, writes a lot on HE matters. David McWilliams occasionally dips his toe into education but, no disrespect to David, his experience of undergraduate education in particular is limited. But where is everyone else? The closest thing to a real campaign of ‘action’ was the Defend the University movement that originated in DCU but that has gone nowhere because it had nowhere to go.

Academics of all kinds need to get together on this. This is a classic multidisciplinary problem. All the ‘heavy-hitting’ academics out there need to prioritise this problem. We need to solve the grand challenge of designing an education system that offers equal access to all, meets the needs of the individual and works hand-in-hand with a sustainable economy.

That should keep us all busy for a while but we need to make sure that when the economy is functioning normally again we take the opportunity that will be afforded to us.

Posted in education, Third Level | 3 Comments

The Madness in the CAO System

When academics look at the CAO numbers at the end of August they are inevitably delighted when the points increase for their own particular course. Why? Because they know from experience that a CAO points score is a relatively good marker for basic intelligence and, crucially, work ethic and commitment. The course I teach on in DCU is now at 470 points but a few years ago it was down at 365. Teaching the 470-pointers is much more fulfilling because the students are far more engaged and committed. Anyone who says the CAO system is meaningless and a measure of nothing in particular is out of touch with the thinking of the vast majority of those who are actually doing the teaching at third level.

Notwithstanding all of that, it is interesting to look at 2014 numbers because if you do you will see some mad stuff. The sheer number of courses is extraordinary, something that has been well flagged for a number of years now and has been pretty much ‘outed’ as a reflection of cynical practices by the various institutions. But there is further madness in the detail:

  • The number of Law+ or Arts+ or Business+ courses is almost farcical.
  • The continued and excessive use of random selection in TCD, even for courses like English and Law, continues to go largely unnoticed.
  • The IoTs have huge problems in attracting students of sufficient calibre. There are about 120 Level 8 courses offered by the IoTs that have entry requirements below the 300 point mark. Indeed, the figures show very strongly that the idea of merging ITB and ITT with DIT in order to create a supposedly stronger Technological University makes absolutely no sense. ITB in particular cannot attract ‘good’ students and it will only weaken DIT’s case for TU status. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see the statistics on completion rates for the sub-300 courses.
  • There is huge disparity in the points required for similar courses in different institutions and this raises obvious questions about the standardisation of standards across the sector.
  • There is a huge amount of duplication in the system and this needs to be examined on a discipline-by-discipline basis. The teaching of engineering, for example, needs to be made much ‘tighter’. Every state-funded institution in Dublin has engineering courses of some kind.
  • There are some bizarre-sounding and ludicrously specific courses out there (Bar Studies, Nutraceuticals, Outdoor Education etc.) and an obsessive tendency to use the ‘bio’ prefix and ‘forensics’ in the title of programmes.
  • The supply and demand nature of the CAO system means that there is often a mismatch between the entry points and the difficulty of the degree programme. There are examples of maths and engineering courses where the entry points are such that I, for one, cannot see how the students can possibly survive if the subject is taught at the appropriate level.

 No doubt some of my comments will come across as a bit rich seeing that I am a DCU academic. It was DCU, along with UL, who pioneered the concept of denominated entry and multidisciplinary degree programs. But the difference in our case was that our programmes were very much focused on emerging sectors of the economy and were a response to a perceived need. Our programmes in Biotechnology, Analytical Science, Accounting and Finance, Applied Languages, Communications etc. were all based on a rational assessment of the needs of the economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They were deliberately designed to be different from the traditional programmes offered by the NUI and TCD. Nowadays, however, many degree programmes are designed simply to attract students with, I suspect, very little real assessment of whether they make pedagogical or economic sense. Hence we have ludicrously specific and ludicrously vague degree programmes throughout the system.

So what should we do? The current response is to suggest the effective merging of programmes and to go down the non-denominated entry route. This has a certain appeal as we all tend to be seduced by simplicity. We equate simple systems with good systems. But non-denominated entry has the potential to create a pressure cooker effect at the very time when students, perhaps away from home for the first time, are at their most vulnerable. For example, if my own faculty went completely non-dominated, I suspect we would have fierce competition to get into our Genetics and Cell Biology degree programme and many students would end up disappointed at the end of the year. So we need to do more than just going headlong towards generic entry. We have to do this carefully. Yes, get rid of many denominated programmes that have ‘with’ or ‘and’ in the title and eliminate courses for which there is little or no demand. But you do need to tread very carefully in some areas, notably the sciences. ‘Science’ is a very broad term (as is the acronym STEM) and physics, for example, is quite different from most of the biological sciences. It doesn’t make sense, in my view, to admit someone who is strong in mathematics and who has his/her heart set on a career in physics, into a class with students who are far less mathematically inclined and who want to study microbiology. In other words we shouldn’t become obsessed with non-denominated entry.

Of equal importance is the on-going problem of matching students’ interests and aptitudes with the course on which they embark. It is obvious that a supply and demand system is not going to do this. When you factor in all the various influences on school leavers it is not surprising that many end up in courses for which they are not suited. But that’s another day’s discussion.

Posted in education, Leaving Cert, Third Level | 3 Comments