CAO and lottery system

[T McGibney]

It doesn't really have to do with social/professional contacts either. As I say, it has to do with having money.

More to do with priorities than money. I can never understand parents spending fortunes on sending children off to the Gaeltacht on the pretence that they'll be speaking only Irish when there, when the same money can be targeted much better on grinds tailored to each child's specific academic needs.

 

[Fortune]

I’ve looked at university entry systems in five or six countries over the years and the CAO is by far the best.

It’s cheap to run. The rules are clear. It’s almost incorruptible. It’s as fair as you can get.

I've found the UK's UCAS to place less stress on students

 

[misemoi]

More to do with priorities than money. I can never understand parents spending fortunes on sending children off to the Gaeltacht on the pretence that they'll be speaking only Irish when there, when the same money can be targeted much better on grinds tailored to each child's specific academic needs.

Probably for the social experience of it, might be their first time away from home for an extended period. They are probably doing both Gaeltacht and grinds in other subjects as needed.

 

[SquirrelChaser]

You mightn't have used the word, but you certainly inferred corruption of the process. Someone in a position of power seeking to alter the fair outcome of a selection process, it fits the definition rather well.

This is splitting hairs, but I'd consider corruption to require money (or money's worth) going in both directions. Of which there's no suggestion here in fairness.

The OP is talking more about potential favouritism/nepotism, which is far more common than actual corruption. And often involves gaming the system rather than breaking the rules- that may simply be teaching to the test or interpreting one candidate more positively than another within the wide boundaries of allowable subjectivity.

• An example I'd have heard complained about a number of times would be internal promotion processes where senior managers basically write their favourite candidate's CV/ application for them and prepare them extensively for the interview itself. Less favoured candidates are left to their own devices; the predictable result is that the favourites are much more successful than the randomers because they submit better applications and perform better in interviews. But importantly, no rules are broken and I would think that nothing unfair has occurred- after all, every manager should be actively supporting their staff in their career development, so it's more a failing of the managers that don't do (or at least offer) this than the ones who do.
• More rarely you have the favourite who is interviewed by the senior manager who favours them and then comes out top of the pile to the surprise of absolutely nobody. The paperwork shows a fair process, even though everyone knows it wasn't.

In conversation with a colleague recently they mentioned their child was interested in a field of study which is generally over subscribed & results in a lottery system to allocate places.

Could you clarify (if you can) the field of study?

There's generally more than one way to skin a cat in terms of accessing any particular field of study these days. Some of the the ones which are over-subscribed and use a lottery system (eg getting a psychology degree accredited by PSI via a general entry Arts degree) are absolutely vulnerable to nepotism etc while others (Medicine etc) are absolutely not.

There's also plenty of options in terms of access for most fields of study these days, including (but not limited to) graduate conversion courses and studying outside Ireland.

 

[Annieindublin]

While the CAO is pretty equitable in many respects it is useful for the colleges more than the students

My Uk friends found it very useful to be able to apply directly to the colleges of their choice. They had 2 or 3 lined up and had conditional acceptances before they sat their exams.

Plus clearing in the event that they didn’t get their earlier choices.

But it is more centralised now.

 

[DannyBoyD]

To suggest the CAO system is open to such influence is to suggest the process is corruptibl

Again.

I did not say that.

I reported what was said to me & I'm equally clear that I was shocked at the comment.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Leo]

This is splitting hairs, but I'd consider corruption to require money (or money's worth) going in both directions. Of which there's no suggestion here in fairness.

The dictionary definition of corruption is clear in that while money or value is often involved it it not required. Transparency.org defines it as 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain'.

 

[T McGibney]

Transparency.org defines it as 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain'.

This outfit of course has a vested interest in adherence to a maximalist definition of corruption.

 

[Leo]

This outfit of course has a vested interest in adherence to a maximalist definition of corruption.

Quite the opposite here, they are actually narrowing their focus to a more limited definition of the word. For instance, they don't concern themselves with electromagnetic interference causing corruption of your hard drive, or with the corruption of language, decay, etc..

 

[mtk]

I know of a case where a girl was called by a college directly and asked if she was offered a place on a v high points course in the cao second round ( Which officialiy was supposed to be by lottery ) would she take it ! She said yes and was offered it . Had No connection to college in anyway ! By bizarre imho!

 

[SquirrelChaser]

The dictionary definition of corruption is clear in that while money or value is often involved it it not required. Transparency.org defines it as 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain'.

What dictionary definition? It's certainly not any of the first several results when I google for a definition of corruption.

I'd consider "private gain" per Transparency.org's definition to be basically money or money's worth. The thing being gained would otherwise need to be paid for directly or indirectly.

Even assuming the story the OP was told wasn't pub talk and the student in question has a 100% guaranteed route into a high points course due entirely to their family connection (highly doubtful but marginally possible), how exactly does this differ from (for example) the various other routes to the same course outside of the CAO process which are almost certainly available? Sports scholarships, DARE, HEAR, non-EU students, PLCs, mature students, transfer from another course or college after first year, etc etc. I'd be surprised for example if there's anything legally prohibiting an EU student from applying as a non-EU student and sacrificing reduced fees for increased probability of getting a place.

Sometimes it's not about who you know, but what the person you know knows. Including alternate but perfectly legitimate pathways into certain college courses which just aren't as well travelled as the CAO.