Ordo Ab Chao

The Sunday TImes ran an interesting feature today on the performance of secondary schools in Ireland. However, I must admit I found the ranking system wanting. They ordered schools based on the percentage of their pupils who went to "university" and then to "third level". This produces the absolutely shocking result that the schools in the richest areas where parents are more likely to be able to afford to send their kids to college are ranked best. Let's ignore the governmental myth of free education. It's extremely expensive to put any child through college regardless of the means tested grant. I'm not sure where they got their figures but movetoireland's estimate of living expenses exceeding 7k per year in Dublin seems quite modest.

According to the survey the top secondary school in the country is the private and Jesuit-run Gonzaga, which has a fine reputation. I'm sure it's deserved based on a long and proud tradition of learning but ... children who are sent to Gonzaga are being sent there with the expectation of going to university. This is emphasised in an application process which I find a little idiosyncratic. Like many of the top 10 schools in the survey a student who is disinclined to continue to third level appears the exception rather than the rule. This is not intended as criticism of the top ranked schools nor am I suggesting this is a bad thing. I'm merely reflecting on the nature of a survey which, in my opinion, doesn't effectively recognise schools which handle a broader demographic while still getting excellent results.

It was with little surprise that I read the latest broadside from a senior staff member of an Irish University against WIT's bid become a University. So let's consider what he said.

"Giving more narrowly specialised and less academically resourced institutions of higher learning a status of University will lead to further devaluation of bachelors, masters and PHD level degrees awarded in this country in the future. Ireland's education system is already oversaturated with Universities, all of which, with exception of just three, fail to rank internationally as institutions of academic research and or higher learning. However, having so many Universities leads to dispersion of state and private funding for science and education, resulting in an absurd situation where our flagship Universities – TCD, UCD and UCC – are starved of funds and unable to attract world class researchers, while our potentially competitive Universities – such as U of L and NUI Maynooth – are forced to short-change their ambitious research agendas to allow the politicised and economically infeasible strategies for regional development to go on."

WIT's more narrow range of subjects stems from their original funding and need to attract students. It is hardly our fault that Trinity, with many years of University funding from the HEA far exceeding that of the IT's, still finds it difficult to improve its ranking in the world table of academic institutions. In consideration of their lack of funds then perhaps TCD should consider revising its strategies to increase the breadth of their funding sources. However, I acknolwedge that he and many of his colleagues may feel industry is beneath them but you never know. It's easier to engage in ad hominem attacks against competitors than introspection.

At any rate, if he discussed the matter with his colleague in UCD Morgan Kelly, he'd probably find out that the difficulty in attracting world class researchers has a lot to do with the living costs of Ireland and the obscene ones of Dubiln in particular. Perhaps these "infeasible strategies for regional development" are warranted after all.

Having helped create a research group with a budget equivalent to the complete research budget of Maynooth, within 10 years, I'm quite confident that we can compete nationally and Europe-wide for research tenders. I think that Dr. Gurdgiev does identify a serious problem of over-competition within a small country where collaboration would be better. Unfortunately, this manifesto would be better served by less dismissive language.

As an economist he should be familiar with the concept of a vested interest and their inherent need to spin all information to their own end.

An extract from Jim Port's report which has finally been released by the Department of Education.

"We therefore conclude that, in terms of its profile and plans against the criteria that might be expected to be used in a Section 9 examination, WIT has made a serious case that would deserve to be investigated on the merits of the case. However, broader national policy factors have to be considered and we review these in the next chapter."

This paragraph neatly sums up the dilemna facing Jim Port and indeed WIT. The government have been unclear about whether an application for University status from an IoT under section 9 of the Universities Act 1997 could be entertained on policy grounds. The policy is unclear which means it's very much down to the minister du jour to set the agenda for reconciliation of a strong application with an unclear policy.

Would a redesignation have highly negative repercussions on the IoT sector, notably reducing the technical and sub-degree education provided within this sector?

"There are several assumptions being made by those who express these concerns – for example, we do not believe that all 14 IoTs would seek or gain university status, and nor do we believe that undesirable mission drift is an inevitable consequence of university status – this has not been the case in the UK, for example"

However, it's saddening to see the Irish Times publish yet another attack on WIT's application under the headline "University status report on Waterford sceptical". Madam, let's be clear the report is most sceptical about the rationale behind section 9 when he has himself been informed that “Ireland does not need additional universities” Unfortunately, the Ireland under consideration is the Ireland of ministers, senators and little else beyond the pale & the people's republic.

Noel Whelan's article in The Irish TImes on March 22nd provides a fair view of the contents of the Port report on WIT's section 9 application for redesignation as the University of the South East. There's nothing in the way bar an ambiguous government policy. We don't need another report, another review; more time, money and effort wasted. We especially don't need the government to pander to a glut of me-too applications when groups in the region have been calling for a university SINCE 1969. As Jim Power illustrated so well in his recent Irish Examiner article, the South East is lagging behind economically and the government has to power to change that.

I sincerely hope the government don't decide they can buy off the 450,000 + citizens of the South East with a cut-price Technical University name change together with a placatory upgrading of any other IoT. Critical mass is needed here and that means 20-25 million euro / year for USE in addition to the redesignation.

If the government pay lip service to regional development, if they insult our intelligence with a derisory gesture, if they cling on to a favourable paragraph in the OECD 2004 report and if they fail the citizens of the South East, I sincerely hope those same citizens remember on voting day.