We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
DESPITE THE ACKNOWLEDGED weaknesses of the Leaving Cert, the CAO points system for third level entry is often lauded for being a fair system. The admissions process is supposedly meritocratic, with exam performance being the sole determinant for earning a place at a third level institution. Family connections, status, power or wealth play no role in deciding who is accepted. Everyone has equal opportunity.
It sounds convincing in theory, but just how fair is the system in practice? At Maynooth University, myself and a final year Computer Science and Software Engineering student, David Kelly, decided to investigate. School rankings are announced by the media each year, based on third level progression statistics. This information is usually presented in a raw data format which is difficult to interpret. To make it more accessible, we decided to superimpose the historical data on a map. The resulting app can be viewed here.
As soon as the data are plotted geographically it becomes obvious that the CAO points system does not distribute university admissions evenly. People living in any area of the country should have, in general, the same level of innate aptitude as those living in any other. Yet the visual display reveals remarkable disparities in third level access across certain urban areas. For example, the north side of Dublin, inner city and west city are generally red (indicating low access) while the south side is consistently green (indicating high access).
Using school locations and third level admissions data from 2006 to 2013, we designed a simple algorithm to calculate the probability of a student living at a particular address going on to third level education. It should be noted that this algorithm makes great simplifications and ignores contextual details, offering only a crude approximation of underlying trends.
According to these calculations, a child living in Crumlin has only a 12% chance of going to university, while a child living in the Dublin 4 area has a 71% chance. For example, in 2013 a group of four schools in the Crumlin area sent between them only four students to university, out of a total of 117 who sat the Leaving Cert. In contrast, another school in Ranelagh sent more students to university last year (86) than it had students sitting the Leaving Cert (85). These statistics form part of a broad pattern which is consistently repeated in the respective surrounding areas.
As well as an association between CAO points and home address, there is also a strong association with the payment of schools fees. For example, a student living in Dundrum whose parents cannot afford to pay school fees has a 26% chance of going to university, while one attending a private school has more than double the probability, at 58%.
Although university admissions do not provide a complete picture, they suggest that the CAO points system might be perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage in certain parts of the country. The system can clearly be gamed, by paying private school fees, by paying for grinds and by sending children to schools that are culturally geared towards maximizing exam performance. The result is that students living in affluent areas are virtually assured of a place at third level. In contrast, students from disadvantaged areas, who cannot avail of the same resources, have restricted opportunities. Given how the odds are stacked against them, it is no surprise that many young people in these areas disengage from the education system at an early age.
Within a given school, CAO points has a strong correlation with student aptitude. Those with greatest academic ability will tend to achieve the highest points totals. Between schools, however, CAO points are less reliable as an indicator of aptitude. Different schools present completely different learning environments, meaning that comparing CAO points for students in Crumlin and Dublin 4 is like comparing apples and oranges. The data suggest that the strongest single predictor of CAO points between schools is not innate talent, but home address. Students are being accepted into university largely on account of where they live.
Our education system should strive to eliminate academic disadvantage in society, not perpetuate and amplify it. Inequality is expensive. Research has shown that levels of inequality are correlated with lower physical and mental health, as well as greater drug abuse, imprisonment, obesity and violence. Inequality harms everyone by weakening innovation, investment and wealth production. As a consequence, the role that education systems play in facilitating social mobility and equality of opportunity may be just as valuable for economic growth as the act of teaching itself. Arguably, the single most important thing we can do to ensure the future prosperity of our nation is to act now and reduce educational inequality to the greatest extent possible.
In light of this, we propose that student performance should be evaluated within schools rather than between schools. University places should be awarded to students based on the ranking they achieved within their school, not their national ranking. For example, a student finishing in the top 10% of their cohort should be afforded the same opportunities, whether they attended a school in Crumlin or one in Ranelagh. A within-school evaluation system of this nature would encourage high achieving students to attend their local school, supporting a more equal distribution of resources.
Some educators raise the point that, if more students from disadvantaged areas were allowed into third level, they would struggle to catch up. Initially, that might well be the case. But overcoming these disparities is exactly what our education system should be aiming to achieve. Contrary to its perception as fair, the CAO points system might actually be playing a key role in sustaining academic inequality.
Ten closest schools to selected locations in Crumlin and Dublin 4, with red indicating low university access (<10% percentile) and green indicating high access (>90% percentile).
Click here to try the app for yourself…
Dr Phil Maguire is co-director of Computational Thinking at Maynooth University.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I see the point but there are many flaws with this proposed method also. If, for example, a student in D4 ranks higher than a student in Crumlin does that mean the student in crumlin earns the place in college just because they ranked higher in their school? I don’t think so. There is one key to succeeding academically and that’s simply to work hard. Regardless of where you reside.
I think some of the data you can collate from their research is saying that some people have to work less hard than others.
6 months studying for 3 hours a night with a short tea break, is exactly the same amount of hard work in Crumlin as it is in Dublin 4.
I think you’re missing the point that, when evaluated on a school by school basis, higher points mean higher aptitude. When evaluated nationwide higher points don’t necessarily mean that. So, no, 6 hours of work each day is not the same in Crumlin as it is in D4, because the D4 students have greater tools and support at there disposal. In other words a thicko in D4 could get higher points than a bra inbox in Crumlin. I’d prefer that the brainbox in Crumlin to be engineering bridges than the thicko who happened to go to a good school.
Exactly!
That exactly is aimed @Michael OConnor
I wonder if those expressing an opinion here on this topic put down the details of their location would it reveal yet another bias?
Awful awful idea. It is not a simple as one location versus another location. Apples versus oranges. Whole range of socio economic issues have to be factored in. Overly simplified and lazy solution to a complicated issue.
shocking badly thought-out article, conflating the CAO with broader barriers to academic progress.
Unbelievable Tom. It would actually be discriminatory, unjust and unfair too. That PhD must’ve been in fly by the seat of your pants codology.
To suggest the CAO system is at fault for inequitable access to higher education is just false. The reason people from lower income backgrounds don’t access higher education as often as those from higher income backgrounds comes down to differing expectations, different levels of value placed on getting higher level education & cost. It’s a well described sociological phenomenon: schooling perpetuates educational inequality, but the cultural background will be the major determinant on if an individual will take up third level education
Different admission rates are a result of societal/environmental/parental factors.. not the CAO system.
what an idiot! there is so much wrong with article I dont know where to start. Universities should select the best students they can and social engineering doesnt work. This article seeks to undermine the role of good parenting so is bunkum
It is scary that such an accomplished academic as Phil can post such extremist social engineering ideas like this. According to his logic, an extremely bright and/or hard working child in D4 would lose out to kids not as hard working or bright just because of some twisted liberal guilt. I though academics were supposed to use logic and reason instead of ideology?
I agree, what is even more funny is the basic lack of understanding about how schools in “D4″ operate. here is a hint, most kids in D4 schools dont live in D4. Fee paying schools in “D4″ or even free ones like Mucross draw in students from all over south Dublin so the basis of their data is a nonsense
Back in ’95 when I did the Leaving Cert down in Clonmel, the offer of a third level place meant nothing if your parents weren’t well off enough to help with the rent etc., meaning that Dublin was out of the question for a lot of people. I was offered a place on the architecture course in DIT but turned it down – I ended up in Limerick instead because rents were cheaper and it was easier for me to get home at weekends to work in the local supermarket, otherwise I wouldn’t have gone anywhere! I realise that I’m talking about issues affecting those outside Dublin and this has no bearing on the Crumlin/D4 example given, but at the same time the article seems to be dealing with country-wide issues in third level uptake… Can’t see this article really having considered all relevant factors.
Parental attitudes to education differ according to the parents highest level of education.
This manifests itself in some kids assuming they will go to college and others never considering it.
It’s not a stretch to suggest parental attitudes to education differ, broadly speaking, based on socio economic status and even location.
Basically if your parents don’t push, you at eighty unlikely to achieve all your potential. The attitude and discipline of your kids begins and ends in your home. Check that 6 year old’s homework. It’s not enough to drop them at the gate with a sandwich and collect them at 3. Buy them cheap second hand books and get them reading above their age level.
Which brings me to the and article, which is nothing but a positive discrimination program, wholly unfair to the children of parents who break their holes to live in an area with a good school. Who already work two jobs to pay for some of the most expensive childcare in the world, then spend their exhausted evenings focusing on developing their kids socially and academically.
Disadvantaged kids get full grants, medical cards and plenty of other leg ups for college. By academically means level the playing field financially, but let them compete academically on their own two feet.
It’s hard for all parents, money is only one problem – and having money only gives you the ability to spoil. Using your brain is free
Completely agree Ronan, this is a poorly thought out “study” that makes sweeping claims attributing education issues to the system of exam results based on “research” into postcode only.
Multiple socioeconomic factors are far more likely to impact admission than the points system.
And this nonsense of giving top performing kids in bottom performing schools likely ahead of many kids in better schools who have scored better is social engineering at its worst.
Instead of fiddling with the system at the access point to higher education time (and money) would be better spent working on improving the educational aspiration and attainment of students at poorer performing schools much much earlier in life.
Then you get a level playing field when it comes to their leaving cert scores!
Interesting idea but it will cause massive drop out rates in first year or a drop in standards of our graduates.
Oh, and should we make employers hire disadvantaged graduates with a pass degree over kids with honours degrees?
Where’s the line?
It’s hard to please everyone no matter what system is in place.
The proposed solution would result in kids getting places just because they were the best of the worst in their schools, when they’d be mediocre in better schools.
So were punishing well to do in school dublin 4 kids to make room for mediocre crumlin kids ?
Smells of some left wing bull…..
Whilst I agree that there are major flaws in the article, one point that should be highlighted in social inequality and access to third level is that of grinds. Parents who can afford to are paying up to €35 per grind. Therefore those who can afford extra, intensive exam training are at a considerable advantage to those who can’t afford it. Grinds are endemic here and that approach to learning is of little use at 3rd level when the emphasis should be on autonomy and interpretation. High points in the cao are not always an indication of a person’s academic potential. How we assess has to change if there is to be a level playing field for those who wish to go on to 3rd level.
Mmh. Interesting theory but I do t see the gasification aspect of it. Gamifying the system would be easier in your proposed scheme; students could transfer to a lower scoring school to get up the rankings. In any case the argument here is in a grey area; you are introducing a handicap whereby if your your school doesn’t fare well as a whole then by default if you do moderately well you get placed in the top percentile, whereas a student with the same abilities in a school that does well is at a disadvantage as that percentile is filled by students who do well.
That doesn’t sound fair to me. What the leaving cert should be doing is using the French Baccalaureat system; you study the subjects (2 or 3) that you like and you specialize your leaving cert, plus you have continuous assessment throughout the year.
How does that work? Say you choose to do a Bac L (Baccalaureat Litteraire) which is a humanities based Baccalaureat. As a sub stream of that Bac, you pick Spanish, Art and English (in that order) as your strong subjects. In those subjects, you get marked out of 100 but your result is multiplied by the importance of the subject; so you picked Spanish as your first. Your result gets multiplied by 8. If you pass, you get 400 points (50 * 8) and you don’t have a point deficit. Subjects likeaths carry a coefficient of 1, so even if you flunk you can make it up by getting more points in the subject you do well in. I’m probably confusing everyone here.
In addition to conducting a research based upon observable outcomes, did the researchers interview students , their parents and students peers on aspirations towards going to and completing Third Level?
I would imagine that the hypothesis that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to go to a fee paying third level institution is replicated beyond the Republic of Ireland and is more to do with the sociological concept of deferred gratification instilled ( and provided for) by parents, peers and schools
“According to these calculations, a child living in Crumlin has only a 12% chance of going to university, while a child living in the Dublin 4 area has a 71% chance.”
That proves that Niamh Breathnach’s decision to abolish tuition fees for first-time third-level students has been futile. It would be better to revert to the way it was before she made that decision.
It is obvious that the current model of funding for third-level education does not work.
She was trying to save her own seat with a vote buying gimmick for the leafy suburbs of DLR.
It is back to the way it was before The registration fee is circa 2500 and going up to cost 3000 next year.
@David O Brien
It is called the student contribution charge, not a registration fee, because the charge doesn’t just fund registration.
There is merit tinthe suggestion. In Texas 5 white students missed out on a college place because of affirmative action policies. They took a legal challenge and won. The state of Texas then changed the system to guarantee the top x% of students would be guaranteed a place in a state college. It was still working well last I heard. Perhaps if half your points were based on the school and half on the National average. However I read once and am open to correction but the leading indicator of if a child will go to college is if their parents did
As an average earning south side parent why do I feel under attack for doing what I was ment to do for my child. This counrty can’t afford for all parents to do a half arsed job. Every year we hear a variation of this crap. Is there no concept of personal responsibility at all??? Prahapps a map of paye income tax sources might be worth a look also
I hope you were drunk when you wrote this.
This is simply liberal bleeding heart rubbish. The cao race is ‘gamed’ by parents investing in their kids future not just financial but also in time and effort.
What I don’t get is why they don’t just train kids in 1st year for 6 months on memory games and systems- because that is all the leaving cert is for the most part- a memory game.
I think the idea has some merit, if we accept the fact that some schools are better than others. The top student in one school may do a lot better than the top student of another school and yet have the same ability and work ethic. This system would account for the unfairness that comes from having different facilities and teachers provided to different students. Obviously a student is going to do better if they are in a school that is more conducive towards learning and places more emphasis on third level education, than the student who is in a school which possibly lacks support structures or the same level of teaching. This student loses out due to the school they attend.
It’s the old chicken and egg conundrum: Are they not very bright because they are poor or are they poor because they are not very bright?
you do realise people can be both bright and poor right ??
Very poor thought out idea, based on very poor assumptions. If this was submitted to be as an academic journal piece it would be rejected quickly. On a side note this article is a symptom of a wider error on education policy. The presumption is that the problem of differences across education groups at 18 years of age can be solved at 16 years of age. At 16 there has already been 12 or more years of education disadvantage. The solution is at the age of 4 or earlier. Even then you can’t equalise the situation where one set of parents say do your homework and another does not. That is not to say all the disparity in education is based on parents motivation but to say it is more complicated than address at the age of 17.
There are plenty of intelligent and capable students in “disadvantaged areas” who unfortunately do not aspire to do well academically. They have very good teachers and ample opportunities to study should they choose to do so. They often don’t. Their social circles influence their decisions to study and many do not realise their potential or care enough. Neither do many ( not all) of their parents. I saw this first hand growing up in a not so affluent area, but I studied hard and gained a university place with no leg ups/ free access points. Having gone on to be a teacher and worked in a range of schools of differing social backgrounds, I can contest that you’ve really got to change the attitudes of young learners from socially deprived areas before you change the system. Give them more support and guidance but don’t given them free places for simply attending a disadvantaged school. Your article suggests we dumb down the system to paint a prettier picture of the situation. Third level education is not a given right, in the same way premiership league football is not suitable for every kid who kicks a ball and wears his favourite jersey. And it’s only the very best who make it, regardless of class. Top places in third level education should go to those who are the most academically able across the country and not per school. Ensure more funding and guidance is available for those who need it but keep it a fair game when it comes to exam success. This is a class issue and not simply a systematic flaw in the education system. If every school could be content in the knowledge that they were guaranteed to see their best students gain access to third level then what’s the point in teaching beyond the curriculum or in motivating middle achievers? You would simply be stealing chances from genuine hardworking kids because they happen to come from middle class backgrounds. Your theory is founded on a desire for a fair system, but applying a mathematical solution won’t do, not when we’re dealing with young peoples’ futures.
have your say