Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
VILLAGEApril/May
is also a plethora of institutions in the pri-
vate sector, operating on a for-profit basis
where shareholder benefit is at least a domi-
nant factor (some would say the overriding
factor).
A University is a Higher Education
Institution (HEI) which focuses on pro-
ducing graduates at primary-degree and
postgraduate levels and on independent/
academic research frequently
for its own sake though increas-
ingly for industry. An Institute of
Technology (IOT) is a HEI which
produces graduates sub-de-
gree, primary and postgraduate
levels. IOTs support research
both at student level and by aca-
demic staff and while fewer in
quantity than the Universities
some of the research units in
IOTs are at a very high level and
highly regarded. This is gen-
erally “Applied Research” and
frequently funded by industry or
with targeted grants.
While the University typically
has as its basic unit of currency
the primary Degree (BA, BSc, B
Comm. etc), the IOT has tradi-
tionally produced graduates with
a range of non-degree level qual-
ifications. Formerly these were National
Certificates, National Diplomas, apprentice-
ship trade qualifications and qualifications
in the tourism/hospitality area. These are
T
he number of universities needed;
the number of places needed in uni-
versities as opposed to in other
third-level institutions; the proportion of
the population which should have a univer-
sity education as opposed to another type
of third-level education, either directly on
leaving school or at some time later in life.
These issues loom over the announcement
last May of the intention to establish three
new “Technological Universities” and the
more recent publication (January )
of the Heads of the Bill to establish these
institutions.
Nothing in the announcement or in the
published Heads of the Bill gives any indica-
tion that there will be an overall growth in
the number of third-level places. It is another
debate as to whether such an increase is nec-
essary. It is clear however that the trend is
to provide more “University Graduates”
than heretofore. Why do they need to be
university graduates as opposed to gradu-
ates from other types of higher education
institutions? The technological university
concept as announced seems to consist of
little more than Institutes of Technology
(IOTs) merging and being given a new sta-
tus or maybe just a new name.
At present there are seven Universities,
fourteen IOTs, five specialist teacher train-
ing colleges and a range of other institutions
providing higher education in the public sec-
tor under the jurisdiction in some manner of
the Minister for Education and Skills. There
POLITICS EDUCATION
The Technological Universities Bill is motivated by the pursuit, by our excellent
Institutes of Technology, of spiffier names. By Peter MacMenamin
Devaluing degrees
doesn’t
need a
name
change
The current
World
University
rankings list
five of the
top twenty
universities in
the world as
not containing
the work
‘University’ in
their title
“
April/May VILLAGE
now classified in accordance with their place
on the National Qualifications grid ranging
from levels to . Academic qualifications
are categorised from to in accordance
with the qualifications framework as set out
by the National Qualifications Authority.
to are regarded as first and second level,
to are considered as Higher Education;
being sub-degree, pass degree, honours
degree, masters and is PhD.
Included in this provision is the vast range
of qualifications in the building trade, the
engineering trades, technician qualifica-
tions, the arts, the catering and hospitality
and tourism trades, and others of enormous
importance to our economy such as the nec-
essary graduates for the electronic, IT and
medical/pharmaceutical industries.
Both IOTs and Universities enjoy a meas-
ure of autonomy; universities are believed to
have more, though the strictures of budgets
and employment control frameworks curtail
this considerably for both. They both also
enjoy that undefined concept of academic
freedom so essential in a democratic society,
by statute in the case of universities.
Universities and IOTs do have distinctive
roles and must complement one another. The
distinctive role of the IOT is to take in stu-
dents onto courses which have a lesser entry
requirement and to bring the student to an
academic level appropriate to their needs
and abilities, be that at sub-degree, degree
or postgraduate level.
It is a given that every educationalist
would wish to see every student have access
to the highest level of academic achieve-
ment that s/he is capable of and willing to
work towards. Access should be opened up
as far as possible without regard to income,
wealth, social class, parental occupation,
postal address or other irrelevant factors.
That does not mean that every student or
indeed every child/young person should
reach any stated standard. Not every student
is capable of obtaining a primary degree.
Not every student needs or wants to obtain
a primary degree or indeed to participate in
third-level education at all.
We should allow and facilitate students
to reach their own appropriate level of
qualification. There is a normal distribu-
tion of ability levels in society and without
artificially pushing target percentages
of graduates this normal distribution of
abilities will necessarily lead to a range of
qualification levels throughout the popula-
tion based on ability levels and aptitudes.
The aim must be to ensure access to the level
most suited to ability of each individual
while at the same time retaining the aca-
demic value of the qualification.
The present proposal is to merge and to
re-grade some Institutes of Technology to
“Technological University” status. I use the
term re-grade rather that upgrade because
I am not convinced that there is a hierarchy
of HEI types. Who says that a University is
a better HEI than an IOT? It produces more
graduates to a higher level but does that
make it a better institution?
The fact that some IOTs have for twenty
years or more been pursuing this goal to
become Universities is not in any way con-
vincing. If the IOTs drift upwards, as there
is every danger they will with
their new titles, they will leave
behind the less attractive task of
producing the necessary quali-
fied graduates at sub-degree
level. Who then will fill that vac-
uum? In the s when the DIT,
newly established on a statutory
basis, sought University status
the Teachers’ Union of Ireland
(TUI) responded that if the DIT
were to move into the university
space then the role of the DIT
would have to be reallocated.
In effect the DIT would have to
be reinvented. There was later
a suggestion in the DIT that it
would be renamed as the “DIT
University”.
The original proposer of
the concept of a Technological
University is the Hunt
r e p o r t e n t i t l e d “ N a t i o n a l S tr a te g y
for Higher Education to ”.
This has a somewhat confusing
description of a Technological
University. According to Hunt a
Technological University: “will
be distinguished from existing universities
by a mission and ethos that are faithful to
and safeguard the current ethos and mission
focus of the institutes of technology. In addi-
tion, in a technological university, the fields
of learning will be closely related to labour
market skill needs with a particular focus
on programmes at levels to in science,
engineering and technology and including
an emphasis on workplace learning”.
This appears to be saying that a
Technological University is not within the
overall world of universities as we know
them and is a form of HEI that differs from
a conventional university. What it also clari-
fies is that Hunt is commending the mission
of the IOTs and is saying that this must con-
tinue. This is of huge importance.
IOTs have been among the real success
stories in Irish education. They can enrol a
student onto a technician course or provide
the educational component of apprentice-
ship and, depending on the aptitude and
interest of the student, provide the progres-
sion ladder to the highest level and with a
regional focus. Hunt, however, seems to be
seeking to limit them by reference to them as
levels to institutions. It is difficult to see
how an IOT can both maintain its existing
role and ethos, and become a university.
So why is there a need to rebrand an
already successful formula: surely it is not
just about a name? Some in the IOTs say
that the term Insitute of Technology is not
understood internationally. The current
World University rankings list five of the
top twenty universities in the world as not
containing the work ‘University’ in their
title. This includes the one ranked as world
number one, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). There seems to be no lack
of understanding there.
The IOTs have provided the country with
well-qualified graduates at all levels, from
PhDs to technicians to apprentices, needed
by industry. They have been a positive factor
in the industrial development of the coun-
try with their focus on industrial needs. The
Heads of the Technological University Bill
does make some of this in that it requires
Technological Universities to provide pro-
grammes at all levels of higher education.
However, it seems to make an excessive ref-
erence to the higher levels, both in terms
of students and of staff qualifications. This
emphasis is worrying.
The balance of graduate type and level is
vital. A concern is that, in the drive for re-
grading, this balance will be lost. If there
is to be a loss it is without doubt that the
less attractive courses academically (the
sub-degree courses) are the ones that will
suffer. This would
be disastrous both
for the students and
for the development
of the country. We
do need well quali-
fied graduates at the
appropriate levels
and the graduates do need qualifications
that employers recognise and have a use
for.
However, we do not need a flood of grad-
uates at inappropriate levels. We do not
need a flood of students holding qualifica-
tions called degrees but which are perhaps
seriously devalued from the universally
understood meaning of a degree. I fear that
a move towards the concept of Technological
University may well be a move which will
bring about such a devaluation. What a hor-
rendous price to pay for a name change. •
Peter MacMenamin is
the retired General
Secretary of the
Teachers Union of
Ireland.
The distinctive
role of the
IOT is to take
in students
onto courses
which have a
lesser entry
requirement
and to bring
them to an
academic level
appropriate
to their needs
and abilities,
be that at sub-
degree, degree
or postgraduate
level
“
