Nor do I mean forecasting, something economists are both poor at and addicted to doing. I mean the specific way of thinking, the juxtaposing of scarce resources versus unlimited desires.
In higher education this week we see how useful it might be.
The points race, as it is so calmly described, is nothing of the sort. It is a price; simple supply and demand.
This year we have seen an unprecedented rise in the number of high-points courses. In general, students will need more points this year than before to get the course they wanted.
Why is that?
It’s really quite simple. First, we have an increase in demand; since 2013 we have had over 3,000 extra applicants through the CAO.
Places in universities and institutes of technology have not kept pace with this. So demand has increased faster than supply.
Second, the introduction of bonus points for mathematics, while having the desired effect of increasing the numbers taking higher-level mathematics, has acted like a form of quantitative easing in that injecting more points into the growing demand has exacerbated the supply-demand imbalance noted above.
Third, we see the usual hand wringing and finger pointing regarding “small number courses”.
Each university and some institutes of technology have responded over the years to government and industry demands for ever more specialised degrees.
We now have direct entry courses in herbal science; nanotechnology; actuarial mathematics and bio-forensics, for example.
Universities have also proliferated courses with direct entry to areas that might in the past have been specialisms within more general courses.
The consequence is that these “small number courses” will tend to have higher points.
There is also a fourth issue, namely that some courses are high in demand not because of student desire to undertake them but precisely because they are high in points.
They are positional, or Veblen, goods.
Positional goods have some, or all, of a triad of characteristics.
There can be a zero sum aspect in consumption where the consumption of the good (getting a place on a high points course) by one person locks out another; or the zero sum can be in the utility derived from the course; or alternatively, it can be a pricing mechanism to deter others.
The latter is where some people will pay a higher price for a good which is functionally equivalent to another.
This is where the “small number courses” arise.
From the perspective of the skills gained there is probably very little difference between Actuarial and Financial Mathematics in UCD at 575 points and Actuarial, Financial and Mathematical Sciences in DCU at 500 points.
It is important here to note that this is not to say that UCD are engaging in predatory pricing.
It is to note that people are willing to pay more for a course that is, in all essence, the same as another for social and other positional reasons. There is very little that can be done at the university level to counteract that.
One issue that has been discussed is to have much larger numbers of students entering into common entry courses, specialising later and reducing the pressure at the Leaving Cert points chokepoint.
While attractive this is not a panacea.
It would probably reduce points pressure but this would, however, come at the inevitable cost of increased pressure on students for entry to specialised courses in the later stages of college.
Massification of teaching is also not without cost.
Especially in lab and science courses we cannot expect that with static or slowly growing university resources we can provide the same skill set with 400 students in a first-year class than we can with 40 or 100.
In non-STEM courses the situation is as bad, as the key skills of critically arguing and analysing are far more difficult to transfer in a class of 500 than one of 50.
Overall, the points system is a decent system. However, it is also a pricing mechanism and should be understood as such.