The "free fees and books and stuff" thread.

rainbow kirby

Closest 3rd level college to me would have been Tallaght IT, apart from that Trinity is more easily accesible... and I live at home too. And fees are still a pain in the arse.

Blush_01

Sangre wrote:

Well then you'll probably go into the OTHER caterogy of paying off your loans when out of college. See how that works?

It's hard enough to manage that without the fees, never mind adding another €15,000+ to the debt a lot of people already have simply to afford being here. Can you please try to realise what people are saying to you here, rather than theoretically proving how easy it would be? Most things that are lovely and convenient in theory suck donkey balls in practice. Communism, anyone?

Sangre

Of course its hard, of course its inconvient. But people make do. They make a sacrifice for college to further their education or secure better employment. People manage all over the developed world, so why is here so different?

Ernie Ball

Blush_01 wrote:

Sorry, this post just stuck out, so I'll deal with it first, then read the rest while I'm still a little irate.

You obviously have no idea what life is like for a lot of people if you can hold that opinion. When I go out, I drink water. Not because I'm adverse to alcohol, but because if I want to be able to afford my rent, food and transport, despite having a loan that I'll be paying off until I'm selling my soul for a mortgage and a keeping up a part time job. Now, the average student might have enough money to drink, but you're not dealing with averages in UCD - the range varies from the very wealthy to the not so well-off. So add everyone up and divide by 22,000 and sure, you might get a nice healthy average. But please do not condescend to tell me and those like me that if we spent less on alcohol we could easily afford books.

Sorry, but you're missing the point. My statement wasn't directed at you personally. I'm sure your life is nothing but a misery. But that is not the case for the average UCD student, as you yourself admit. The average UCD student is richer than the average taxpayer who is, effectively, subsidising that UCD student's education. Those are facts. And it's a scandal. Have you looked at the car parks lately? Free fees is a giant money siphon from the poor to the rich. It's socialism in reverse.

Here's another fact: UCD is underfunded. The education offered there is second-rate because of that. You want it for free? You get what you pay for.

And here's a final fact: UCD students spend more on drink per year than they do on books. It's not even close. And that doesn't count ball tickets, etc. etc.

singingstranger

Ernie Ball wrote:

I'm sure your life is nothing but a misery. But that is not the case for the average UCD student, as you yourself admit. The average UCD student is richer than the average taxpayer
[...]
And here's a final fact: UCD students spend more on drink per year than they do on books. It's not even close. And that doesn't count ball tickets, etc. etc.

*sings to Blur* Yeah, there must be more to life, than stereotypes...

Ernie Ball

singingstranger wrote:

*sings to Blur* Yeah, there must be more to life, than stereotypes...

It's not a stereotype. It's a fact, taken from a student survey conducted a year or two ago by the College Tribune.

And one need look no further than this very forum to find endless talk about the dossing that the students do: how they can't be bothered to go to the classes that Joe Taxpayer is paying for, how their only concern is passing the courses by whatever means necessary and not whether they've learned anything... Absenteeism is an epidemic at UCD. But not at the balls: those are filled to capacity...

These attitudes are rampant among the student body. They bespeak an attitude of extreme entitlement. Fees are a way of focussing their minds on the true costs of the service they are taking for granted.

singingstranger

You've taken me up wrong - I'm well aware that stereotypes are usually earned with merit. But unless the survey found that this was the case 100% then I guess I'm just not personally comfortable being tarred with the same brush as everyone else.

Blush_01

God Ernie, what's with the sarcasm? And more of the condesention -is it really necessary? Some people are lucky enough to have parental support - as individuals they probably couldn't afford education themselves. Yes, things seem unfair in relation to the blanket inclusion across all levels of students under free fees. But likewise it's unfair that people can find ways around the grants system and get support from home and the state when they aren't entitled to both. Not everything in this life is fair, we get that. But dude, you need to relax. We'll be paying for your medical card when you retire - you'll get your money back then, ok? Call it an investment. And should you have kids in UCD, maybe you'll appreciate that things are not as simple as it says on the tin most of the time. Life isn't made by Ronseal.

singingstranger

Supplimentary point to this: any studies or surveys on the subject will tell you that the life of a full-time student is equally stressful as that of a full-time PAYE worker. Fact.

Blush_01

Also: dossing a class does not necessarily mean you're not working. I've missed three classes this semester - one was spent preparing for a more important seminar as the lecture in question was on something irrelevant to what I'm covering for the exam. 19th Century Irish poetry how are ya! One I missed because of transport difficulties and the other I missed because I was writing an essay and the lecture was also not on my to-do list for my exams. Hey, I know I'm a-typical, but I can only give you a personal example. I appreciate how much goes into keeping me here. I'm not alone in that, I can guarantee you that much!

Dave!

Blush_01 wrote:

Dave, if you care so little then why are you cluttering up the system? That space could have been offered to someone else who didn't get in to your course on the relevant round and may currently be repeating their leaving. There's a difference between knowing you want to do something but aren't sure on the nitty gritty specifics of what you want to specialise in and just going to college for the sake of it because hey, it's "free" after all.

Because a degree would benefit me in the long-run. If I take a job in the Gardai or army or something, I'll start on more money than an uneducated recruit. That'd be handy; but it's not enough benefit to cripple myself finantially for years in order to achieve it.

And you seem to be of the opinion that if you don't go into a career in the area of your degree that it's in some way "wasted", and I don't agree. It's nobody's business what I do or don't do with my degree. TD's often have degrees and don't necessarily end up working in the area they studied. It's not important, the economy has functioned and continues to function perfectly with this.

And the taxes I pay for the next 50 years are going to be paying for my education, so it's not "free". I'm sure people working in trades will end up doing something that my taxes will pay for, much as their taxes contribute to my education -- such is society.

This actually brings up the topic of 3rd level education -- right or priviledge? Wonder if there's a thread on that in humanities already... ¬_¬

Ernie Ball wrote:

Joe Taxpayer

I think you're under the illusion that students are gonna be evading tax for the rest of their lives.... In fact they'll probably pay more tax than people with no 3rd level education because they'll be earning more.

scop

An interesting thread by all means. Personally my family is a good example of how fees can change the life of the average student. My older sister went to UCD way back, back when my dad didnt earn much and my mother was still a stay at home mother. My sister worked two jobs, one near UCD and one at home in the Square. She always said she suffered a lot from it, being stressed out and after a while getting sick of the workload, she managed to end up doing an Archeaology MA but it put her in enough debt with fees and so on that she couldnt continue.

Thing is she was considered a perfect candidate for a Phd, had the support of most of teh Dept but in the end, even with potential scholarships didnt bother applying due to the pressure it might lead her into. In the end she left Dublin and hasnt come back! The funny thing as well is when they were looking for an Archeaology speaker in Tallaght a few years back they asked for her because there was nobody else, I felt that was insane.

Then theres me, both parents now work, dad promoted and were certainly the kind of family who can afford to do a few things after the Celtic Tiger hit, my dad spent a lot of time on the dole in the 80's so he has a kind of obsession with education having left when he was 13 or so.

He's always insists he will pay for my sister to go back but she refuses which is grand for me since he has paid my fees, even for my MA, pretty much made it so I never had to work except in the summer (where he actually makes me do a lot on sites to make up for the year) and encourages me to go on.

The only difference between my sister and myself is the financial strain, there are probably less capable people doing phd's than her, she is certainly more capable than me yet its quite likely that its me who'll get the chance to go on.

One of the main benefits for a rich country like ours is being able to get rid of fees, to be able to support a large academic community, to value knowledge for its own sake because we can afford to.

In other words, what is the point of having so much money is we cant splash it out on one of our most valued fields (valued on its own terms not on moneys terms)?

Hermione*

Blush, your posts are extremely well argued!

I'd have to agree with scop, I'm in a pretty similar situation. My parents paid a lot of money for my sister to do her degree back when there were fees. They had two small children, were saving for the next two rounds of university fees staring them in the face in ten years time, had a huge mortgage, and worked about 90+ hours a week between them. Dad alone would often do 60/70 hours for the overtime.

Neither my sister or I could go to the local university, they don't do pure law, which she wanted, and their history department is tiny in comparison to UCD's. So we had to move. We've both been extremely fortunate in the level of financial support given to us by our parents, rent, allowance, etc. But my parents worked extremely hard for that money, and if you consider how little we saw our parents at times, we made our own sacrifices as well. Both my parents are in their sixties and still working full-time to pay for our education. In their view, it's their choice to do so and we certainly let them know how much we appreciate it. Having said that, since most of our income is derived from our parents, there's not that much money available for drinking ... which is we save in the summer for our 'fun' money

Not everybody can take the cheapest education option. There's not much point going to college to study something just because it's cheap.

I'm not even going to begin to add up how much I spend in an academic year, I coudn't take the guilt

Samos

I don't think I would have chosen to come to college if it were prohibitively expensive. Even now I don't ever eat in college, but go home in the middle of every day to cook my own food to save money. I buy only second-hand clothes and eschew as many luxuries as possible. I don't understand the people who can afford laptops and mp3 players and yet complain about fees and the cost of books. As to this day I've not to set foot in the campus bookshop; the library is more than adequate and certainly has improved extensively over the years. Cycling has saved me a fortune on bus fares, not to mention the cost of driving. It's much faster too.

My point is not that you have to sacrifice everything to come to college, but that you don't need to spend much in order to get the most out of your education. I don't feel that I have suffered any disadvantage by being thrifty.

The_Minister

I agree somewhat with Ernie, people don't appreciate whats free. Today, at our last tutorial in sociology out of twelve people only I turned up. I had the whole tutor to myself. In quants 4 times I've been the only person who came. It is disgraceful.

Sangre

I haven't been lectures in ages because I've been in the library. Does that make me a dosser?

The_Minister

Sangre wrote:

I haven't been lectures in ages because I've been in the library. Does that make me a dosser?

If they are lectures summing up the course and giving vital exam hints, answering all questions that you have in the process, while you stare at pert D4 ass wiggle by juicily and fail to do anything then yes.

Chinafoot

Firespinner wrote:

If they are lectures summing up the course and giving vital exam hints, answering all questions that you have in the process, while you stare at pert D4 ass wiggle by juicily and fail to do anything then yes.

Ok but what if they are lectures summing up the course and giving vital exams hints, answering all questions that you have in the process, while he sits in the library and studies his own ass off instead of perving on someone elses?

Not everyone needs exam hints and not every course/lecturer provides them.

Doesn't make us dossers.

pigeonbutler

Interesting thread. There's been lots of individual quotes I'd like to reply to and address but haven't got the time right now. But I'll throw out a few thoughts and my opinions on the topic at hand.

I don't think a choice between "free-fees" and "fees" is much of one as the status quo exists. If the choice is between current "free-fees" and the pre-Rainbow gov fee system I'd pick the current system all the way. However we ought to remember the choice isn't that simple and that the current system is far from perfect.

If I had carte blanche* to change the 3rd level system around in the morning there's a few things I'd do:

Firstly the problem with grants is not so much thresholds being too low, firstly its the way they are means-tested. We all have wealthy friends who get the grant because parents are farmers/self-employed. This is wrong. We need to change means-testing so it's fairer to the PAYE worker.

Second, (the controversial one) we should charge fees (but uniform fees rather than depending on course, e.g. 5-7,000 a year) to those from the very wealthy backgrounds. I'm talking earnings of 80-100K a year. My own parents hate this idea because they'd be scraping the bottom of that threshold but they acknowledge I'd still be going to college whereever I wanted and not struggling financially.

Thirdly, when all this is done thresholds for grants can raise. And grant levels themselves for the least well-off should raise dramatically (maybe even double).

Fees aren't popular. But the free-fees system does cause a siphoning of money from the PAYE worker to some of the wealthiest people in the state.

I have to end this prematurely but hopefully I'll address whatever I missed later on.



*which even government doesn't really have. They might know what needs changing but changing it without gov collapsing or being exiled to opposition is the problem

Ernie Ball

DaveMcG wrote:

I think you're under the illusion that students are gonna be evading tax for the rest of their lives.... In fact they'll probably pay more tax than people with no 3rd level education because they'll be earning more.

That is true. But earning more is its own reward. They need not be rewarded a second time with free fees, given their socioeconomic backgrounds. All this does is perpetuate the vast inequality in Irish society.

scop wrote:

One of the main benefits for a rich country like ours is being able to get rid of fees, to be able to support a large academic community, to value knowledge for its own sake because we can afford to.

Would that that were the case. Unfortunately, getting rid of fees hasn't led to much of anyone valuing knowledge for its own sake (other than the lecturers): not the UCD administration (who are all about the money) and certainly not the students who are as mercenary as they ever were (more, actually) when there were fees. Look at the instrumental way students think about their classes: they don't see education as a process they have to participate in and contribute to; instead, it's all about "absorbing" or "ingurgitating" the "material" so that, in the end, it doesn't matter whether you go to lectures or cram everything in April. If that's what valuing knowledge look like...

Blush_01

Would you like a burger to go with that chip on your shoulder?

I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't be studying my course if I didn't love it, feel passionate about it and want to know what I can about the parts that I will actually use.

Pigeonbutler, are you from a farming background? I am sick to death of people thinking that because you come from an agricultural background that you obviously get a grant and your parents are also loaded. My mother is a PHN, working a 60 hour week for 40 hours pay, as all rural PHNs are required to do in order to cover their workload. My father is a farmer. When I was born he earned more for his produce than he currently does, because that's the way the economy has gone. Tertiary industry is yer only man. The volume of paperwork involved in farming is unnecessarily large and convoluted. Dad makes approximately €12,000 on a very good year after running costs are taken into account. Last year winter was early and animals had to be kept in from October. This year spring was so late that the farming community were thrust into a position where their potentially excess fodder was not only used up, but extra fodder to feed animals was so scarce it tripled in price. We had to buy bales from 100 miles away because that was the closest source we could find. The result - most farmers are going to be pushed to the pin of their collar to cope this year. The only farmer's children I know of who get grants are a single single income family with 5 children, three of whom are currently in university, two who're in secondary school, and they're single income solely because their mother is physically and mentally incapacitated as the result of a car crash. Believe me, I know plenty of farmer's children, this lack of grant thing is not unique.

People have an obscene idea that the land a farmer owns should be taken into consideration in means testing. That land is necessary for the business, it's like a factory building. It's not lying idle to be sold at the nearest opportunity. Neither should a farmer be expected to sell land to finance his child's education merely because he possesses said land. Would you expect any other business person to sell part of their business to finance their child's education? From what I've heard in conversation with some urbanites, only the rural, agriculturally self employed should sell their fixed assets in order to educate the next generation. It's ridiculous to expect a business person to sell part of their business for the same purpose, but hey, farming's not a real business, is it. I mean, you don't need qualifications to farm, right? :rolleyes: Green Cert anybody?

If both of your parents work minumum wage jobs and are together, then you won't get a grant. Seperated - you can work it. It's that simple!

pretty*monster

Ernie Ball wrote:

Would that that were the case. Unfortunately, getting rid of fees hasn't led to much of anyone valuing knowledge for its own sake (other than the lecturers): not the UCD administration (who are all about the money) and certainly not the students who are as mercenary as they ever were (more, actually) when there were fees. Look at the instrumental way students think about their classes: they don't see education as a process they have to participate in and contribute to; instead, it's all about "absorbing" or "ingurgitating" the "material" so that, in the end, it doesn't matter whether you go to lectures or cram everything in April. If that's what valuing knowledge look like...

I don't really want to get stuck into this thread (have to study and so forth) but you are living in La-La land if you think the comersialisation of education and the emphasis on performativity over knowledge can be roled back with a return of fees.

The_Minister

Three obvious but important questions blush:
1) Whats a PHN?
2) Does the CAP not help?
3) Could you not use the land as collateral for a small loan?

elmyra

Public Health Nurse afaik.

Ernie Ball

pretty*monster wrote:

I don't really want to get stuck into this thread (have to study and so forth) but you are living in La-La land if you think the comersialisation of education and the emphasis on performativity over knowledge can be roled back with a return of fees.

I never said or implied that. Someone suggested the abolition of fees would lead to a valorisation of knowledge for its own sake. I argued that it wouldn't. That does not in the least imply that I think bringing back fees would lead to such a valorisation.

blush_01 wrote:

People have an obscene idea that the land a farmer owns should be taken into consideration in means testing. That land is necessary for the business, it's like a factory building. It's not lying idle to be sold at the nearest opportunity. Neither should a farmer be expected to sell land to finance his child's education merely because he possesses said land. Would you expect any other business person to sell part of their business to finance their child's education?

There are lots of ways for someone who has valuable property to release the equity in it without selling it: home equity loans, second mortgages, etc.

Assets are assets. There is no argument for not taking them into account when evaluating someone's ability to pay. Otherwise, people who want to appear poor can just put all their money into relatively illiquid assets.

This is how it is done in the US, by the way.

Samos

Sangre wrote:

I haven't been lectures in ages because I've been in the library. Does that make me a dosser?

If you're spending all your time on boards, then yes, you are a dosser.

Blush_01

Firespinner wrote:

Three obvious but important questions blush:
1) Whats a PHN?
2) Does the CAP not help?
3) Could you not use the land as collateral for a small loan?

1) Public Health Nurse
2) CAP has been radically changed over the past few years. Thanks to rforms within the EU and world economies Third World trade is being exploited under the guise of fair trade and we'll all suffer for it. Look at the Greencore debacle. The actions of paper-pushing idiots puts us all at a very real risk of famines in the developed world within our lifetime. And no, I'm not being melodramatic, talk to an Ag student studying actual Agriculture if you don't believe me.
3) Why should people working in agriculture have to use their business as collateral for a loan when a) student loans exist and b) the same is not expected of alternately employed parents?

Ernie, I think that once again you're deliberately missing the point I was making - look comparatively at the situation. Besides, what makes you think that the land farmers work on isn't mortgaged to within an inch of its life as is? Any idea how much agricultural land retails at? As in land that is zoned for agricultural use and therefore useless in a residentally or commercially developmental capacity. *sighs and leaves*

Ernie Ball

Blush_01 wrote:

Ernie, I think that once again you're deliberately missing the point I was making - look comparatively at the situation. Besides, what makes you think that the land farmers work on isn't mortgaged to within an inch of its life as is?

This is a red herring. You make it sound like determining someone's net worth is some sort of occult process. It isn't. It's comparatively easy and it is also the only fair way to judge someone's ability to pay.

Land that is already mortgaged isn't an asset. Only the equity built up in it is an asset

Any idea how much agricultural land retails at? As in land that is zoned for agricultural use and therefore useless in a residentally or commercially developmental capacity. *sighs and leaves*

If it is not worth much, then a farmer who owns it will be judged not to be wealthy and will not have anything to worry about. But none of this is an argument against taking families' net worths into account and assessing fees on that basis.

pigeonbutler

To be honest farmers weren't my main focus. There are many farming families struggling financially, however because of the nature of the means test the wealthy farming families can get the grant very easily.

I have more personal knowledge of the self-employed and those who are directors of their own companies being able to profit greatly from the means-testing system. This is very easy for them to do due to the seperate legal personality of an incorporated company (ah you gotta love studying company law;) ) which means that the companys profits are totally separate to the families income even if the parents are the sole shareholders. This part of our law is what causes the inequality between PAYE workers and self-employed. Asset valuation is a very blunt tool but one of the few ways of ensuring better equity in the grant system.

Byrno

Free fees work for the reason that they were introduced - to increase the number of students coming from poorer backgrounds. Since it was brought in here studies have shown an increase.

In Australia they had free fees and then brought in a loan system whereby you could either pay up-front and get a 25% discount or pay it off after your degree. Since the re-introduction of fees fewer students from poorer backgrounds have attended college where before the numbers were rising.

Also whenever secondary school fees were abolished many of the same arguements that are thrown around against free third level education were used. But the benefit to society of universal secondary eduction is plain to see now. I reckon in 20 years time if free fees remain we will see the benefit of it here.

Finally studies have shown that for every euro invested into education by a government 7 euro is returned. Where else do you get returns like that?