Sacking Teachers

johnfás wrote:

Yea I play a bit for Trinity 2nd's in cricket when they are in need of players.

But the thing is that it isn't actually called the Trinity team, it's something like DUCAC which is the Dublin University Cricket Association or something.

Well of course the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth Near Dublin (as it is actually called) is merely a constituent part of the Dublin University. There had been a plan at the time to create a university city akin to Oxford or Cambridge and Trinity was merely to be the first constituent college, it was of course also the last. There were various moves in the latter twentieth century to take UCD out of the NUI and merge it and Trinity into a reformed Dublin University - it met with resistance from both sides.

johnfás wrote:

Well of course the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth Near Dublin (as it is actually called) is merely a constituent part of the Dublin University. There had been a plan at the time to create a university city akin to Oxford or Cambridge and Trinity was merely to be the first constituent college, it was of course also the last. There were various moves in the latter twentieth century to take UCD out of the NUI and merge it and Trinity into a reformed Dublin University - it met with resistance from both sides.

I knew the stuff in the first half of your post but I didn't know that there was a plan to merge UCD and Trinity into one university. It'd be interesting to see, but whither the famous colours clashes if such a situation came to pass?

I think it was first proposed by Donagh O'Malley in the 1960s but there were other proposals thereafter. I suppose such a move would have good points and bad points. Such coordination would however be more likely to bring great academics etc etc. There would of course be the cons as well, as the Americans say.

johnfás wrote:

I think it was first proposed by Donagh O'Malley in the 1960s but there were other proposals thereafter. I suppose such a move would have good points and bad points. Such coordination would however be more likely to bring great academics etc etc. There would of course be the cons as well, as the Americans say.

They'd have to seriously work out how to blend the two management structures, would there be parity of esteem or would Trinity dominate? The Hist and Phil combined with the L&H of UCD would perhaps be too much of the same thing in one university. Hmm...perhaps it's best that Trinity and UCD are fairly separate.

Well I would imagine the proposals envisaged that the colleges would exist as separate colleges, much as they do in Oxford and Cambridge. What you would see is less competition between them and more emphasis on their own strengths. For instance, you might see a scaling down of study of a certain period of history and Trinity and an increase in UCD and vice versa, same in Sciences etc etc. That could be a good thing in some ways but also it would be bad for the vitality for the individual colleges. Then again, we think of the colleges as they are now in such assumptions whereas they would be entirely different beasts under such a structure.

johnfás wrote:

Well I would imagine the proposals envisaged that the colleges would exist as separate colleges, much as they do in Oxford and Cambridge. What you would see is less competition between them and more emphasis on their own strengths. For instance, you might see a scaling down of study of a certain period of history and Trinity and an increase in UCD and vice versa, same in Sciences etc etc. That could be a good thing in some ways but also it would be bad for the vitality for the individual colleges. Then again, we think of the colleges as they are now in such assumptions whereas they would be entirely different beasts under such a structure.

It might be good in that together they would have the economies of scale to take on the very best in the world and put an Irish university in the top 20 of the world. That could be the target of a strategy to bring the two universities together. It's also achievable.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Well I would imagine the proposals envisaged that the colleges would exist as separate colleges, much as they do in Oxford and Cambridge. What you would see is less competition between them and more emphasis on their own strengths. For instance, you might see a scaling down of study of a certain period of history and Trinity and an increase in UCD and vice versa, same in Sciences etc etc. That could be a good thing in some ways but also it would be bad for the vitality for the individual colleges. Then again, we think of the colleges as they are now in such assumptions whereas they would be entirely different beasts under such a structure.

It might be good in that together they would have the economies of scale to take on the very best in the world and put an Irish university in the top 20 of the world. That could be the target of a strategy to bring the two universities together. It's also achievable.

*shudders at the prospect*

But going back to the idea of sacking teachers - what about sacking lecturers?

I had some pretty awful ones while I was in college - one or two in particular while I was doing a post grad.

It's unfortunate that lecturers get zilch training in how to present a decent lecture. I remember being interested in Paddy Kavanagh since I ever heard of him - but I slept through every single one of Antoinette Quinn's lectures on him and through no other lectures ever. Contrast that with David Norris - whose lectures were packed out, and Brendan Kenneally's, the man who could jam a theatre at 4 on a Friday.

Bad lecturing is a huge problem although I was fortunate that alot of my teachers were really good. Brendan Kenneally is great - not that I studied English at Trinity but I have been to lectures he has given! Richard Alduous is a very good lecturer as were most in the History Department in UCD.

As I understand it, university lecturers in the USA have to undertake a teaching diploma similar to the H Dip Ed. I think this would make alot of sense here. There are some lecturers who view their lecturing as merely an annoying distraction from their real job - research. There are of course also those who relish it.

johnfás wrote:

As I understand it, university lecturers in the USA have to undertake a teaching diploma similar to the H Dip Ed. I think this would make alot of sense here. There are some lecturers who view their lecturing as merely an annoying distraction from their real job - research. There are of course also those who relish it.

That would be another excellent move which would improve the standard of education provided in our third-level institutions and contribute further to their upward ascent in international rankings.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

As I understand it, university lecturers in the USA have to undertake a teaching diploma similar to the H Dip Ed. I think this would make alot of sense here. There are some lecturers who view their lecturing as merely an annoying distraction from their real job - research. There are of course also those who relish it.

That would be another excellent move which would improve the standard of education provided in our third-level institutions and contribute further to their upward ascent in international rankings.

It has started here. Trinity, Ul, DIT, Cork and others have programmes in Teaching and Learning as it's called. Voluntary and available to all staff. UL has a Grad Dip /Masters in Academic Practice as well. Difference is they are not compulsory. Nor, to my knowledge, are they universally compulsory in the US either and I am not sure it's a good idea in the culture of Irish universities at present. The UK has a PGCHE now a post-graduate certificate in Higher Education.

Teachers aren't picked off the street at random at the beginning of the school day you know. They go through training, assessment etc. Notbeing able to teach is not on that list because they are able to teach.

evercloserunion wrote:

Teachers aren't picked off the street at random at the beginning of the school day you know. They go through training, assessment etc. Notbeing able to teach is not on that list because they are able to teach.

I agree. Teachers are professionals. Their training includes a practicum and I assume one cannot actually get a teacher education qualification without achieving in classroom performance. However, the ability to teach and continue teaching well does not then become some trait of the individual that persists through all circumstances, no more than a qualified doctor continues to be competent without commitment and professional development and a level of peer review and accountability. I agree the unions have simplified things with that list and School Boards will still be left dealing with complaints that are more ill-defined but just as serious for students.

Some of the worst teachers are also the best. They may drift off curriculum, peddle off beat ideas, use unconventional means of transport and sometimes have facial hair, but this type of teacher likes the pupils and leaves room for speculation and messing. They always get top ranking in rate my teachers.