The Points Game: How Colleges Are Manipulating Student Perceptions
There’s a quiet scandal brewing in higher education, and it’s not about grade inflation or tuition fees. It’s about the points system—a mechanism that’s supposed to measure academic merit but has instead become a tool for institutions to manufacture prestige. Personally, I think this is one of the most underreported issues in education today. What makes this particularly fascinating is how colleges have turned a simple scoring system into a high-stakes game of perception, where high points are equated with quality, even when there’s no real basis for it.
The Illusion of Exclusivity
Former Maynooth University President Philip Nolan recently called out this practice, accusing colleges of ‘gaming’ the points system. In my opinion, his critique hits the nail on the head. Institutions are creating courses with limited places and attractive titles, ensuring high points that signal exclusivity. But here’s the kicker: these high points aren’t necessarily a reflection of the course’s quality. They’re often just a marketing tactic. What many people don’t realize is that this strategy preys on students’ insecurities, making them believe that a high-points course is inherently better.
If you take a step back and think about it, this is a classic case of supply and demand manipulation. By restricting access, colleges artificially inflate the perceived value of their courses. This raises a deeper question: Are we teaching students to chase prestige over substance?
The Proliferation of Courses
Another detail that I find especially interesting is the explosion in the number of courses offered. In the 1980s, students had 75 options. Today, they’re faced with over 1,100. From my perspective, this isn’t progress—it’s chaos. The sheer volume of choices overwhelms students and dilutes the educational experience. What this really suggests is that institutions are prioritizing quantity over quality, creating niche courses to maintain high points rather than focusing on broad, accessible education.
Take, for example, the course ‘Global Business’ at DCU, which requires 617 points. Why not just call it ‘Business’? The specificity here isn’t about academic rigor—it’s about creating an illusion of uniqueness. This is a trend that needs to be called out.
The Role of Perception
What’s truly alarming is how deeply this system has embedded itself into students’ psyches. High points are seen as a proxy for quality, even though the reality is far more nuanced. A detail that I find especially troubling is that 80% of students receive a first-round offer for one of their top three choices, yet the perception persists that the system is impossibly competitive. This disconnect between perception and reality is a real hazard, as Prof. Nolan rightly pointed out.
Assistant Secretary General Aoife Conduit added another layer to this critique, suggesting that high points feed into global rankings. This is a critical point: institutions aren’t just gaming the system for domestic prestige—they’re doing it to boost their international standing. If you ask me, this is a dangerous game that undermines the very purpose of education.
The Way Forward
So, what’s the solution? Personally, I think we need a radical rethink of how we measure academic merit. Broad entry routes, as Prof. Nolan suggested, could be a starting point. Limiting the number of courses and increasing transparency around points calculations would also go a long way. But here’s the thing: change won’t come easily. Institutions have too much to lose in terms of prestige and rankings.
One thing that immediately stands out is the need for accountability. If a system is fair, it should be transparent. Yet, as the NAPD pointed out, universities have been reluctant to share data on student offers and retention rates. This lack of openness only fuels suspicion.
Final Thoughts
If you take a step back and think about it, the points system is a symptom of a larger issue: the commodification of education. High points have become a status symbol, both for students and institutions. But what does that say about our priorities? Are we educating the next generation, or are we selling them a brand?
In my opinion, the points game is a distraction from the real purpose of higher education—to foster learning, critical thinking, and personal growth. Until we address this, we’re doing a disservice to students and society as a whole. What this really suggests is that the system isn’t broken—it’s been deliberately manipulated. And it’s time we called it out.
