David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is my opportunity to talk about the term "technological university", about which I expressed some concern, even though I have strongly supported Waterford Institute of Technology's wish to be recognised as a university. My reason is they are separate, distinct and equally valuable institutions. As the name implies, universities have traditionally covered a very wide range of subjects, from music to the humanities, Latin, Greek, the classics, archaeology, architecture and medicine, whereas technological universities tend to concentrate on technical subjects. They started off as regional technical colleges and then became institutes of technology and are now to become technological universities.

I received correspondence from somebody who taught in the institutions and is not hostile to them. He is concerned about the use of the term "technological university" and what will flow from recognition of this title. He maintains that the term implies that institutes of technology that will not join in the arrangement will be seen as second level and inferior to those that will engage in it. That is one difficulty.

The question then arises of who will go to the universities. He says he has seen more and more students go to universities not because it is the right choice but because it is expected, including by their parents. That reinforces the view that those that will remain as institutes of technology may be seen as second rate and that students may be drawn unnecessarily towards a university. Getting into university is seen as a badge of success or failure. If someone gets into university, he or she is seen as a success and if he or she does not, he or she is seen as a failure. That is not correct.

Another salient point made was that 99% of students in Dublin 6 went on to third level, whereas only 15% of students in Dublin 17 did. There is a catastrophic difference between the 99% of students in Dublin 6 and the 15% of students in Coolock and similar areas. This raises the question as to whether the 99% of students in Terenure need to go to universities? Is it their parents who are pushing them to do so? Would they be just as well off taking courses in woodwork or landscape gardening? Why would virtually 100% of students in a particular area go to university, when only 15% of students from area such as Coolock go there? That is a worry that I share with the gentleman in question.

Why not just call them institutes? Many of them are actually not universities but some are. Some are very close to being universities, while others by their ethos and nature are just technical. I am not sure they are universities, but I recognise at this stage of the game that it is highly unlikely that the title of the Bill will be changed. Howver, it is important that we raise these issues.