Dáil debates
Tuesday, 25 October 2005
Adjournment Debate.
Third Level Education.
9:00 pm
Mae Sexton (Longford-Roscommon, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is difficult in five minutes to cover adequately an issue of such importance to all second level students who make very significant sacrifices at a relatively young age to study hard to ensure they get the required points to pursue a career of their choice.
When I tabled this matter on the Adjournment I did not expect that on the same day The Irish Times would carry the moving story of Katie Murphy from Wexford. Her story, told so expressively, encapsulates in a way I could never have done the hope when she applied for a re-check, the joy when she got her additional points, the utter disbelief when no place was available to her, the subsequent disappointment of attempting to access a place and finally the resignation she experienced when she realised that her hopes and dreams were to be dashed, for this year at least. She now must watch helplessly while her friends and contemporaries start their first year in their chosen career without her. None of us can fully understand the impact such a disappointment will have on Katie and the other students whom she, perhaps unintentionally, represents.
I will confine my contribution to the faculty of medicine although it could equally apply to several disciplines. The number of re-checks of papers this year and the percentage of students upgraded were the largest ever, while the number of qualifying students refused places in the faculty of medicine was at an all-time high. I understand, however, that the Minister for Education and Science will address this soon.
Information has come into my possession which suggests that rules governing the allocation of places are not equally applied. University College Cork had four such cases and all four were offered places. Why is there not a universal and common approach between the Central Applications Office and all State universities? This would ensure that no student would feel victimised by a flawed system of allocation.
Natural justice suggests that if a wrong has been perpetrated by any Department, in this case in the correction of papers under the Department of Education and Science, that Department bears responsibility and is morally obliged to right that wrong by ensuring places are made available immediately. The decision must be made for this year and not deferred until next.
A system must be introduced from next year to ensure the results of re-checks are available in time to allow the final CAO offers to take those re-check results into consideration in the allocation of places. I appeal to the Minister to ensure the students who have been treated so unjustly by our system are accommodated this year.
The letter sent to the students concerned from University College Dublin advising that the course was fully subscribed, also stated:
Although students are not usually permitted to defer and attend another third level institution in the intervening year, in your circumstances this would be permitted. We have also been instructed that choosing this option of deferral will have no bearing on any current entitlement to 'free fees' with respect to next year.
As a result 16 students are allowed into a course which is not of their first choice and which must be extremely costly to the State with the knock-on effect this will have in the following year. I appeal to the Minister to ask the Higher Education Authority to conclude its report immediately to allow places to be found this year for the students who so richly deserve them.
Batt O'Keeffe (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Deputy for raising this pertinent and important matter on the Adjournment. Each year leaving certificate students submit applications to the Central Applications Office for admission to courses of third level education. The principal object of the CAO is to process these applications for admission to courses.
The function of admission or rejection of applicants to institutions remains the strict preserve of the participating institutions. Neither the CAO nor the Department of Education and Science has any involvement in this process in line with the autonomy of the universities in this regard under the provisions of the Universities Act 1997.
Following the issuing of the results of the leaving certificate examination in August, students are offered places on college courses on the basis of the provisional grades achieved by them. The State Examinations Commission is responsible for the development, assessment, accreditation and certification of the second-level examinations, namely, the junior certificate and the leaving certificate. This is a non-departmental public body under the aegis of the Department of Education and Science. On 17 August 2005 the State Examinations Commission issued almost 375,000 provisional leaving certificate grades, marked by some 3,000 examiners, to in excess of 57,000 candidates.
The objective of the State Examinations Commission is to ensure the processing of results is as free from error as possible. Recognising the inevitable problems which can arise in a system of this size, a transparent, easily accessible and effective appeals process is available to all candidates unhappy with their results.
As a first step, candidates, on receipt of their results, are given the facility of viewing their marked scripts to see how the marking schemes were applied in their case. This year the viewing of marked scripts occurred on 2 and 3 September. The appeals system involves a full re-marking of papers by sometimes up to three examiners. The closing date for the receipt of appeal applications this year was 7 September. The results of the appeals issued on 12 October, some five weeks later, during which time the physical re-marking of the appeal scripts took place. During this limited timeframe, examination scripts had to be retrieved from schools, distributed to examiners, fully re-marked by appeal examiners, monitored in at least 20% of cases by appeal advisers and returned to the State Examinations Commission for results processing.
The relationship between the examinations system and entry to third level education is largely beyond the control of the State Examinations Commission. As I have said, offers of third level places are made by the CAO on the basis of the provisional results issued in August. There are good reasons for this. To delay offering places until the appeals process was completed would impact upon the start date for the academic year and as a result disadvantage the overwhelming majority of candidates whose provisional results are their final results.
The State Examinations Commission makes every effort to process the results of appeals as quickly as possible to facilitate the college entry process. This is balanced with the need to allow the appeal examiners sufficient time to carry out a thorough re-marking of candidates' work.
I understand that more than 80 students in total who applied to UCD this year received leaving certificate upgrades. More than 60 of these students have now been offered places on the basis of their upgraded results. An unprecedented number of students, 16 in total, were entitled to places in medicine at UCD this year as a consequence of leaving certificate upgrades. This has presented logistical and capacity issues for the university which cannot at this stage accommodate an additional 16 students on year one of the six-year medicine programme. In previous years it has been possible to accommodate additional students as the numbers have been much smaller, usually fewer than five.
UCD has now contacted all medicine upgrades to notify them that it is its intention that they will be offered a place in the first year of the accelerated five-year medicine programme in 2006. Most of the students are in the first year of a science related programme, so it is not envisaged that there will be any difficulty with this transition. A small number of students are not studying science related programmes and UCD is looking into mechanisms whereby their entry into the first year of the five-year programme may be facilitated.
In normal circumstances, all of these 16 students would have been entering a six-year programme this year. The alternative option of entry to the five-year programme next year ensures that they will not lose out in terms of the length of time to graduation. It is also the case that, on an exceptional basis, the eligibility of these students under the free fees scheme will not be affected as a result of the necessary transfer of programmes next year.
I thank the Deputy for providing this opportunity to clarify the position relating to the 16 upgraded applicants for medicine in UCD. It has been the normal practice of universities and institutes of technology to make every effort to accommodate students affected in this way. The Minister is satisfied that UCD has dealt sympathetically with the students involved having regard to the logistical difficulties they faced in these particular circumstances.