Mr. Eamon Dennehy:

There are currently frameworks such as FETAC and so on that cater for people with skills that are not encompassed within being what might be referred to as an academic bent or way of looking at the world. Those pathways should be more available because being academically very bright does not define a person. That is true of students in schools. There are other traits, which are very difficult to measure, however, which is the other aspect that must be considered.

There should be more pathways. That is one of the things that can be done to take some of the pressure off the points system. Possibly one of the worst things about the points system is that a student can now define himself or herself as 437 points. Previously, one had to go to the trouble of saying one got three Bs and 4 Cs or whatever it was. One had to at least go to the trouble of explaining the marks one received and one might be asked in what subject one received the marks. Now it is all about just getting the Holy Grail of 625 points, which did not even work this year. There is something wrong with the points system.

I completely agree that there is something wrong with making schools be totally about access to third level. There need to be other paths available. It is not just at the end of second level education that change should happen. It may be the case that change should also happen at the start of third level to make it more accessible and generic. It may be the case that if first-year university examinations were more generic, such that students would get another half term or even a year to study generally before specialising in second year, it would make third level more accessible. All the doors should not be closed to students until they go into second year.