Trinity is considering choosing this year’s new Scholars based on a quota system – in which each faculty is allocated a certain number of scholarships – rather than the current system in which any student who receives a previously set overall grade in the exams will get a scholarship.
The changes come as a result of fears that students are more likely to cheat in the Schols examinations if they have shifted online, thus increasing the number of scholarships handed out and placing a financial burden on Trinity.
The moves have outraged representatives of the Scholars, who fear that the changes will damage the reputation of Schols, shift it away from it being centred around academics and “ensure that only the best cheaters are elected Scholars”.
The representatives also say that it is in breach of the statutes and that they would consider bringing the proposal to the Visitors, who have the final say on appeals of decisions made by College Board.
Trinity has two Visitors – Chancellor Mary McAleese and Judiciary Chancellor Maureen Harding Clark – and, among a number of duties, they decide on appeals against College Board decisions.
The proposal was made in a confidential memorandum, seen by The University Times, that stated that a shift to real-time online exams raises “serious concern about possible grade inflation as a result of the changed exam format”.
“This could expose the college to a large financial burden if many more students than normal achieve the criteria for award of scholarship, and it would also devalue the nature of scholarship.”
“It would be extremely difficult to try and recalibrate the criteria for scholarship in advance of the examinations, given the absence of information on which to base any such changes.”
The memorandum – which was brought before College Board and University Council by Senior Lecturer Kevin Mitchell and Associate Dean of Undergraduate Common Architecture Graeme Murdock – recommends that a quota system be introduced for this year based on the historical numbers of scholarships given to each faculty.
College did not respond to a request for comment on the proposed changes to this year’s Schols exams by time of publication.
This switch to a quota-based system and away from the current merit-based system raises questions about whether or not the Board has the power to limit the number of scholarships awarded per faculty– a power which the Scholar’s Committee refutes and says it will bring to the Visitors if necessary.
In an email statement to The University Times, Eoin O’Dell, an associate professor in the Law School who chaired the four-year period of revision by the Statutes Review Working Party, said that “if there were to be a challenge on quotas before Visitors, I think it would have a strong chance of success”.
“On the question of whether Board can impose quotas, there is no express statutory prohibition on them, but there is no express power relating to them either”, he said.
O’Dell said that while one subsection of the statutes gives Board a “very wide general power” to decide how scholarships are allocated, another subsection strongly throws into question whether Board is able to introduce quotas.
For example, according to the subsection, Scholars are meant to be elected “on the basis of their academic ability and learning”, which, according to O’Dell, contradicts the quota system.
Moreover, there is only one mention of the number of Scholars elected – in subsection three, section five of the chapter on Scholars – and O’Dell said that this implies as a matter of statutory interpretation that “this is the only numbers consideration that Board can take into account”.
“If Board were to have a power about quotas, this is a logical place for it”, O’Dell said. “If it’s not there, its absence from a clause about numbers raises very serious questions about whether Board has such a power.”
In an email statement to The University Times, the Scholar’s Committee criticised other elements of a quota system, saying that Schols is currently “awarded to students who attain a high standard of performance” and their “own individual merit”.
“By introducing quotas, students will no longer be judged merely on the basis of their own performance, but ranked against their peers”, they said. “This risks discouraging academic cooperation among students, an important skill that should instead be fostered. Furthermore, in a time when students are already feeling isolated in the absence of in-person teaching, pitting students directly against each other will only serve to further this isolation.”
The committee said that the quota system indicated that “the College does not trust academics’ ability to make academic decisions objectively and fairly”, adding that “prospective Scholars should not be the victims of this distrust”.
Furthermore, they stated “the introduction of the quota appears to indicate that, as grades will increase on account of cheating, a quota will ensure that only the best cheaters are elected Scholars”.
“This risks huge reputational damage to Schols and the College at large, and could be averted through properly conducted and invigilated exams.”
Finally, they expressed their disappointment “that we were only informed of these changes through the circulation of the Council documents”.
“We have long sought clarification of any changes to the Schol exams, reaching out to the College Secretary, Vice-Provost and Senior Lecturer as early as July. Both the Provost and the Senior-Lecturer assured us that no changes would be made to Schol examinations without prior engagement with us as stakeholders. This has not happened”, the committee added.
Schols exams have been moved to the week beginning January 25th.
At present, students going for Schols do three to four exam papers. Some 25 per cent of the overall mark must be general questions.
To win a scholarship, candidates must achieve an overall first-class result, 70 per cent in two out of three papers and no lower than 65 per cent in the remaining papers.
The proposal is expected to return to College Board to be voted on. The memorandum was first brought to Board and then Council, in contrast to the usual practise of proposals coming to Council first.
