CAO and lottery system

[Dr Strangelove]

It doesn't tell anyone anything other than that, and it certainly doesn't tell the students filling in their CAO forms anything useful.

I would dispute that. I had a fair idea of my CAO points range and so did most of my classmates. Teachers do too.

 

[Premos]

Having gone through the system recently, I find it quite clear once you document yourself and understand the grading. Application to the CAO is straight forward. While really stressful if you are aiming for a challenging goal, what you need to achieve in terms of mark is relatively clear (though the post mark adjustments since covid muddle things). I believe the integrity of the leaving certificate is at risk with the multiplication of projects which would inevitably favor the students with the most resources. Currently students can access grinds, private education and receive help. However at the end of the day they are alone in front of their exam papers. They don't improve their knowledge by osmosis and have to put some kind of work to be able to get a high mark.

 

[TomEdison]

What the points tables tell you is the lowest scoring applicant who was accepted onto the course scored 426 points. It doesn't tell anyone anything other than that, and it certainly doesn't tell the students filling in their CAO forms anything useful.

And, to be fair, it's not supposed to do that. It's supposed to ensure that places on courses are allocated equitably, and it does that very well.

 

[TomEdison]

Okay, so to clarify.

The civil servant I spoke of regularly bypassed established protocols, designed to create transparency and to ensure impartiality in a competitive protocols, to create an outcome ensured that rewarded followers, sycophants and the offspring of friends. The person is far from alone in this approach.

I’m pretty sure that’s corrupt.

That's not corrupt (except for the appointment of the children of friends).

Corruption has a meaning. The fight against corruption is really not helped at all if every example of poor management, poor judgement or poor behaviour is labelled "corrupt".

 

[Fortune]

And, to be fair, it's not supposed to do that. It's supposed to ensure that places on courses are allocated equitably, and it does that very well.

They're always clear on saying to rank your choices by order of preference and that precious points aren't an indicator, but the whole LC culture has loads of people taking last years points into consideration for their choices and what they need to achieve on the exams.

 

[Dr Strangelove]

but the whole LC culture has loads of people taking last years points into consideration for their choices and what they need to achieve on the exams.

I mean that’s completely logical.

 

[Fortune]

I mean that’s completely logical.

It's logical in that there's no alternative, but it depends on the popularity of the course and the calibre of students on that one year who applied for it. If the points for a course one year are 600, might that put off people the next year or perhaps the number of places is expanded, or maybe there's a negative change in perception of that course in the meantime. I'm sure it's been said somewhere before, but last performance is not a reliable guide to future performance.

 

[Salvadore]

That's not corrupt (except for the appointment of the children of friends).

Corrupt can be defined in several ways, including being dishonest and acting without integrity.

The fight against corruption is really not helped at all if every example of poor management, poor judgement or poor behaviour is labelled "corrupt".

I was using an example to illustrate that not all occupiers of high office necessarily act with integrity. I wasn’t seeking to join the wider fight against corruption generally.