I feel it would lead to alot of pressure for some children especially those children that may not have the backing of a stable home environment. Environment issues are one of the biggest obsticles in my opinion, children tend to do as the see done.Working towards this may take over from study time. I think an introduction of a specific fitness aware certificate would be much better, something that would be recognised by employers or colleges to show a persons dedication to a programme. Taking away the pressure that a child has to have this for points.

I heard Eamonn Coghlan last week talking about fitness in school children. He was very passionate and interesting. I didn't hear it all and so don't know if he was advocating leaving cert points or not for fitness. But he definitely wants it as a very active part of every childs schooling and I don't think he would be happy with a passive-sounding "fitness aware" cert. When it comes to fitness the only real measure and benefit is through action, and not awareness. The point is that being fit will help maximise the potential for a sucessful life, in term of health and happiness, which in turn will increase the chances of being more productive to society. Surely this is the core purpose of education. Of course I am not saying that the more traditional education should suffer. I think the idea of points for fitness has merit and should be considered and at this point I would be a supporter.

Depends...should athletes be allowed easier try-outs if they score higher in academic exams?

Some form of merit system rather than points would work better I think. You can't have a situation were the more intelligent and more suited to certain college courses are losing out on places to fitter students that scored lower in the actual exams.

Drago/Buzz I would not be advocating that the fundamental education should take a back seat to fitness. However, I think that we all agree that the points system often requires points from students that are not necessary to be sucessful at the chosen course. The high points are often due to supply and demand for a course rather than actual academic need. Take a person who was fitter and had the points required (which included points gathered under a fitness points system) and also had the basic academic requiremenst (for example honours maths would be a fundamental academic requirement for engineering). A person who is fitter, will clearly generally be healthier and happier person. A happier healthier person will be more likely to be a more productive person in society and therefore society in general will be a better place by putting in place such encouraging measures.

True, good point but then surely each course should tailor its own specific entrance exam that seeks to select the best candidates for that course. This would not necessarily mean someone who is fit will have an automatic advantage over everyone else. A fit person does not necessarily make a better astrophysicist. I see your point regarding productivity but the same could be said for a myriad of other factors that are reflected in studies, such as married people being happier etc - this does not mean that preference should be given to those in long term relationships on the basis that they will be "happier and therefore more productive".

Possibly some form of certificate is the way to go. When I was in second level we had PE 4 times per week - does this not still happen? Wouldn't surprise me in this nanny state if PE has been banned because of claims against schools for student injuries.

Buzz over the course of a working lifetime, it is likely that a fit person will in fact make a better astrophysicist (providing they have the other basic requirements such as honours maths and physics). They are more likely to be healthy and therefore less likely to need sick leave and also in terms of general mental well being when we look after our bodies. True what you say about other potential similar factors also being beneficial to productivity. However while marriage might potentially make a lot of people happier, it is not for everyone. However, there is no reason that fitness should be for everyone, and no reason not to encourage it with positive benefits such as leaving cert points. Nobody is saying you can get into college purely on the basis of fitness; you must still have the basic educational requirements for the course. (The points system could still continue to be the method of selection with this new nuance of some points being available for fitness) Whatever way we look at it western society is facing a long-term health crisis with obesity, diabetes etc and new outside-the-box ideas need to be considered. The more we are debating this idea of leaving cert points for fitness, the clearer it is becoming that there are no real downsides if we are open-minded to its long-term benefits and looking for a way to make it work.

JamesH the marriage thing was but one example. I fear that this would be as they say the thin edge of the wedge. Another nail in the coffin that is the nanny state we are all privelleged to live in. It may be good for us, but when do we draw the line between welfare and free will? Some people simply may not LIKE exercising. Are they to be punished? Are we to view every potential student and employee on the basis of their health potential down the line? Like some kind of worker ants in a colony that will be rejected if they are not up to scratch? If someone wishes to study instead of running on the track and they are happy to be an overweight, unhealty but intellectually brilliant astrophysicist then let them. Also, what about those who have physical disabilities? Or children who come from families where they have lots of younger siblings to mind after school and therefore cannot spent hours becomming more fit at extra curricular sports etc? This idea of "give them more points for being fit" is far too idealistic. It would need an awful lot of work before it was brought into effect. If we are to extend the "logic" in this suggestion then we could also put an embargo on employing drinkers, smokers or those who like adrenaline activities that may put their lives in danger. And sadly, this country being what it is, eventually we will not be able to breathe without being victimised.

Buzz, you say that some people may not like exercising and wonder if they are to be punished. The answer is no they will just not get the points available for fitness. However they may have enough points anyway without the fitness points. Nobody is talking about rejecting anybody, but merely giving credit for fitness. Yes of course you can have an overweight, unhealthy but intellectually brilliant astrophyscist. This would still happen even in the environment of fitness points. However, if you have the carrot of fitness points, society may garner the benefit of having an increased proportion of healthy astrophysicists who will be able to continue working longer more productive and happier lives. What would be so wrong with that? Disability legislation is common in the western world to prevent discrimination and I certainly would not be advocating any such discrimination. A disabled person can still get their points in the exact same way they would now. Children from big families would also have the same challenges when it comes to study as well as fitness, Yes I agree that it is idealist and would require work to make fitness points work. Your approach seems to be to find as many obstacles as possible to not make it work. My approach is to see if it would be a benefit (and I think there is no doubt it would be) and then see how it can be done. The question is about encouraging fitness by providing an incentive with fitness points, there is no mention of any employment embargo. I am not sure how you see encouraging fitness as being in any way victimisation. It is not about punishing anybody, it is about rewarding fitness with points. Maybe the benchmark for fitness points would be fairly low such that a reasonably fit and healthy person gets them without too much effort; we are not talking about trying to encourage Olympic athletes, we are talking about getting to basic levels of fitness that we would all benefit from.

James, my issue is not that I want everyone to be unhealty and overweight (and I can assure you I am not trying to find obstacles for the sake of it but rather, trying to point out that it's not a cut and dry issue and there will be exceptions) but that I think we are becomming too much of a nanny state. If you give fit people credit points and dont give unfit people credit points then it IS a discrimination (we call it "positive discrimination" I think) - the fit people are at an advantage so by default, the unfit people will be at a disadvantage. If a course is oversubscribed, and two people with similar academic scores are vying for the last place, the person with the credit points for being fit will get the place (presumably, or otherwise what is the point of extra credits if they have no value) - this is discrimination against the unfit person on the grounds that they are unfit, is it not?

Buzz, giving fit people points is no more discrimination than giving points to people who score well in the exams. The people who are not fit do not get the points and the people who have lower exam results do not get the points; same thing. Yes you are correct that the fit people are at an advantage in the same way as the clever people or the studious people are. It is a points system and you earn the points. The fit points need not necessarily be extra points, but could just be a different way to earn points. At present points are counted from your six best subjects, but in most cases all six subjects are not directly related to the course that you are applying for. So in your example the unfit person might use their music points as their sixth subject points to get into the astrophysics course, whereas the fit person might use their fit points. So again with the astrophysicist, this might encourage more astrophysicists who are also fit. If you are fit these points might be easy to get, but likewise a musical astrophysicist might find getting their sixth subject points from music to be easy. Would you call that being discriminatory to non-musical astrophysicists?