Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Sensationalist Journalism Again
Read more about: Education
Yet again we have sensationalist journalism blowing statistics out of proportion. From the Indo:
Fee-paying students three times more likely to attend university. A huge class division in Irish education is confirmed in the 2006 college entry figures, published for the first time today. They show students from the fee-paying and grind school sector are three times more likely to go to university than to an Institute of Technology.
The article goes on about educational divides and probably is trying to make out that this shows that private schools are better, &c., &c., but you can draw very little from these stats for one simple reason. If you are not planning to go to a university, you are not going to pay for private schools, hence why private schools have higher enrolments in universities. All their students want to go to university, in the public schools this is not the case so obviously they are going to have higher percentages. So comparing the two schools on this league system is in fact totally stupid. The only thing it tells you about the school is what kind of people your kids will mix with, which may, of course, interest some parents but that is not about education.
Update: Labour don’t quite seem able to see beyond the spin of the numbers either: Cherry-picking phenomenon fuelling education divide.
I agree that the stats don’t show what the Indo thinks it does, but I disagree with your break-down of it.
Kids don’t decide that they’re going to go to a private school, their parents though… for the most part the kids do decide if they want to go to college, however. That’s not always the case, but I’d say it is in most situations.
However, families that pay for private schooling are, by nature, wealthier… wealthier people in society tend to be the ones that were given the opportunity to go further through the education process when they grow up (to get good qualifications and jobs). So the idea of further education is a natural one within that family unit; it’s a given that you’d go further simply because it’s what your parent(s) did. This is not always the case in the average/lower income home, where the current generation are often the first in their family’s history to pursue 3rd level (and in some cases to even complete 2nd).
Obviously people will buck the trend laid out by their families on both sides of the “divide” but it’s far more likely for people not to go to college where no-one has before (they don’t feel like they’re the only ones without that level of education, they feel more pressure to start earning faster and would have to rely on bank-loans even if they did take that route etc.)
My point is that money is, of course, an issue, but I think the family culture is also a major player in deciding what step a teenager makes after or during school.
My 2c anyway
I think the family culture is also a major player in deciding what step a teenager makes after or during school.
True but the family that is going to send a kid to private school is going to instil the university culture into them. Put it this way how many plumbers have gone to private school.
This whole business of school league tables brings out the worst in journalists it seems. I’ve written about a similar article in The Sunday Times over on the Cedar Lounge: The brainiest journalists don’t come from The Sunday Times
True but the family that is going to send a kid to private school is going to instil the university culture into them. Put it this way how many plumbers have gone to private school.
That’s kind of my point; it’s about the culture of the family… kids don’t decide to go to a private school, that decision is made for them… when it comes around to college, it’s a natural step because of the culture of the family (educated to a higher level/standard).
Take the son/daughter of a tradesman (who, generally, are not exactly poor), and the culture would dictate that they go into the family business or into a trade of some description, but the culture would not encourage them to go to college (that’s not to say they wouldn’t, of course they do, but it’s a bigger step because they’re walking a new path)
I have to totally disagree with you on that one Adam.
There is many people who’s parents would not have a higher standard of education and send kids to college and lot of parents with education whos kids don’t go.
Also I am not sure how many people go into their parents trades anymore. Certainly not that commman in the village where I am from. Indeed college is not that much of a big step for people really as it is generally the thing that is done now. Parents just take it in their sdride that although they didn’t finish school little johnny is going to go get a degree. It is natural due to free education. I don’t know maybe it is different in Dublin
It depends entirely what empathise parents put on education in the home. That is not a class thing at all.
AS for the stats above. If you took the kids in any school that were obviously geared to going to college (i.e. half decent at academic subjects) I don’t think the difference in likelihood of going to college would be that great between them.
There is many people who’s parents would not have a higher standard of education and send kids to college and lot of parents with education whos kids don’t go.
Yes, I come from a family where my generation is the first to go as far as 3rd level education, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that… likewise there are plenty who don’t go just because their parents did.
That said, there is a circle effect here. People of the previous generation in good jobs are often the ones who were able to obtain the highest available level of education in their chosen field… in turn they get good paying jobs and in turn can afford to send their kids to private school. In this family it’s normal for the kid to also go to 3rd level; why wouldn’t they?
On the other hand, the less well off families, the ones where the parents had to work in badly paid jobs during the economic slump, are the ones who couldn’t afford to go to college and had to go straight into the workplace to keep themselves going (and their families). They’re less likely to have had much money when their kids were born, certainly not enough to think about private education and while many of their kids now go onto 3rd level, they’re bucking the trend laid out before them.
Also I am not sure how many people go into their parents trades anymore. Certainly not that commman in the village where I am from. Indeed college is not that much of a big step for people really as it is generally the thing that is done now. Parents just take it in their sdride that although they didn’t finish school little johnny is going to go get a degree. It is natural due to free education. I don’t know maybe it is different in Dublin
It depends entirely what empathise parents put on education in the home. That is not a class thing at all.
Well it is a wealth thing anyway, once you’re using private v. public education as a comparison. Yes, it is all on the emphasis put on education in the home, but where a well educated, wealthy person who put their kids through 3rd level would just assume their kids would want further education (and could even be shocked at the suggestion otherwise) a family where there is no tradition of further education wouldn’t really be all that surprised if their kid decided to go working in a trade or manual labour job or whatever.
AS for the stats above. If you took the kids in any school that were obviously geared to going to college (i.e. half decent at academic subjects) I don’t think the difference in likelihood of going to college would be that great between them.
If you’re basing it on specific subjects taken then you’d have to do the same in private education too… after all, you can take up further education is any subject available in secondary, and hundreds more that aren’t, so it’s not like me doing Latin makes me any less likely a candidate for 3rd level than someone doing Maths.
i think we are not going to agree on this but just one thing I would like to point out. By academic subjects I meant subjects that you can go on to do in University not woodwork metalwork etc.
Just to clarify as I’m confusing myself in the way I’m wording this; I agree that what your parents did isn’t the be-all and end-all, but I do think it’s important in creating the right atmosphere for good education… in that regard a parent who is familiar with the advantages of 3rd level first hand, and who paid to have their child taught privately will be generally more encouraging, even passively, than those who have no experience of further education and do not see it as quite as essential as others might.
We probably won’t agree on that though, but while I appreciate what your point was on academic subjects, my point was that all subjects in 2nd level can be done in University in some shape or form, or at least I am unaware of any 2nd level subject that cannot be taken any further.