college fees

aequinoctium

so, they (presidents of the various universities) now want all of us to pay fees!

any thoughts?

remember, minister hanafin said before G.E. that university fees would not return in the forseeable future!

aequinoctium

here we are:

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/10849127?view=Eircomnet&cat=Top%20Stories

PeakOutput

the free 3rd level education should be means tested if it is to be truly fair i think.

for example if your combined income is up to 50K you pay nothing 50K-65k you should pay full fees for one student at a time 65k-80K 2students at once 80K plus should pay full fees for all their children................figures debateable but it should work something like that.

the government should still give the colleges the same amount as they do now per student regardless of weather the families are paying the fees or not

mikemac

But a graduate will pay their free fees back many, many times over.
It's likely they will be earning more and paying more tax and spend less time unemployed than someone without a college education with the obvious exception of people with trades.

There are plenty of other things that can be taxed if money needs to be raised but I think college education should be left alone until the next election at least.

Jonny Arson

aequinoctium wrote:

remember, minister hanafin said before G.E. that university fees would not return in the forseeable future!

believe any words that come out any Fianna Fáil minister's mouth at your peril..........

if our economy goes to sh!t for the next 5+ years (which i'm afraid is looking very likely) I expect 3rd level fees will return in some shape or form, they brought it back on the agenda in 2002 after that year's election and I fully expect fees will be back on the agenda by end of this year or next year.

for the record i believe education is a right and i believe in free 3rd levels fees for all

PeakOutput

micmclo wrote:

But a graduate will pay their free fees back many, many times over.
It's likely they will be earning more and paying more tax and spend less time unemployed than someone without a college education with the obvious exception of people with trades.

There are plenty of other things that can be taxed if money needs to be raised but I think college education should be left alone until the next election at least.

its not about getting money back its about the colleges getting more money. the colleges get something like 8-11 grand per student per year from taxes plus the registration fee (not really sure what this goes towards) this is compared to in america where the best colleges and even the middle of the range colleges can cost anything up to 40K a year.

Jonny Arson wrote:

if our economy goes to sh!t for the next 5+ years (which i'm afraid is looking very likely)

any economists iv spoken to or heard speak have suggested no reason as to why our economy would crash it might level off but there is nothing to suggest it will crash

aequinoctium

colleges get 6000 a year per student - a third i think of what is allocated for each student in the rest of europe

pretty*monster

Is anyone really suprised?
Universities need more money. Neither the government nor the tax payer are willing to cough up.
Sincee we have nothing like the US's culture of wealthy graduates giving universities huge endowments there are two options for funding: Students and industry.

While there are arguments in favour of industry funding, I would hope that most would agree that it would be unwise for universities to be overly dependent on it.

So... student's are going to have to pay. And it will almost certainly result in a better quality education and will have the meciful up shot of getting the government to back off from meddeling too much in higher education.

Fees needn't be a disaster for low-income families either (and free fees never helped them as much as they were supposed to anyway). A good system of grants and scholarships could ease the burden, so too could very early warning from the government allowing threshold families to start saving (think of Americans who start college funds when their kids are still in nappies)

Fluther

Universities do need more funding...but introducing fees will only discourage people going to third level...the more people who go into further education the better our economy will be. Higher eduaction gives us a diversely skilled workforce and keeps it steady. Personally i think that Alumni should donate money to their universities in some sort of Pay it back scheme rather than introducing fees.

Pride Fighter

aequinoctium wrote:

colleges get 6000 a year per student - a third i think of what is allocated for each student in the rest of europe

Thats right and also their students pay fees as well. The European average is 18k per student, they get an additional 5-10k off the fees the students pay thats between 23-28 k per student! Fees should be brought in for those that can afford them. Millionaires like Eddie Jordan and Michael Smurfit kids' get free education, thats not right.

delta_bravo

I understand that fees may be needed to cover financial shortfalls but the Universtity spending must be examined. How does Hugh Brady expect to transform the campus and life at UCD if he is unable to balance the books before there is any of this major spending and change?

mcauley

pretty*monster wrote:

Is anyone really suprised? . . .

Well said..... I agree whole-heartedly

PeakOutput

delta_bravo wrote:

I understand that fees may be needed to cover financial shortfalls but the Universtity spending must be examined. How does Hugh Brady expect to transform the campus and life at UCD if he is unable to balance the books before there is any of this major spending and change?

there is a lot of patronage(correct word) that goes on if not on the scal of in america........but for example ul has an amazing campus and apparently it has been mostly/hugely funded by irish ex pats in america

Ado86

The funny thing is with our government, anything that is of any benefit to the people they always seem to dilly-dally with and it will never be done but when it involves money and screwing us over they seem to manage to do it really quickly... Im only finished first yr vet med and have another 4 yrs, the thoughts of having to pay nearly 10,000 euros a year is killing me...!!! :eek:

Red Alert

How about making the universities more efficient - i.e. by removing a lot of the cruft that the 'new image' has brought?

Riamfada

didnt il'presidentes just give themselves a large pay increase last year? I know its completely seperate from college funds, i just think its funny....


.... sure those wages are putting their kids through college :rolleyes:

aequinoctium

aequinoctium wrote:

remember, minister hanafin said before G.E. that university fees would not return in the forseeable future!

Was it 'the foreseeable future' or 'the lifetime of this government' that she said?

aequinoctium

Was it 'the foreseeable future' or 'the lifetime of this government' that she said?

forseeable future

delta_bravo

aequinoctium wrote:

forseeable future

According to the times Hanafin said till the end of the government

aequinoctium

According to the times Hanafin said till the end of the government

maybe so at another time, but from the link in the 1st reply it says forseeable future

aequinoctium

aequinoctium wrote:

maybe so at another time, but from the link in the 1st reply it says forseeable future

Which could be 1 day or 15 years. I mentioned 'the lifetime of this government' because that's what I remember from the GE.

Honestly, back in 2002 there was a push to bring fees back in after the GE. Would anyone really be surprised if such a move was planned again?

And in relation to the Presidents/Provosts calling for fees to come back in, as I've said in other threads on this matter I assume that it's really their way of getting a bit of publicity to say how underfunded the colleges are, and that they don't care where the money comes from as long as it comes.

aequinoctium

it's really their way of getting a bit of publicity to say how underfunded the colleges are, and that they don't care where the money comes from as long as it comes.

true

tywy

A good majority of students who start college are over 18. This means that they're an adult. This means their parents no longer have to support them. The children's allowance stops shortly after children turn 18. Why should adults be means tested on what their parents earn. Once a child turns 18, anything a parent gives them after this is out of generosity. It is not fair that students are means tested on their parents wages.

If one student has to get a loan then all students should have to get a loan. After all when students graduate from the different degree courses they have essentially the same earning power. So if they want to introduce fees, they should do what they do in Canada and let the students pay back their loans when they finish college rather than during it. This means that there won't be as many scholorships and grants needed because few people coming out of college will be considered 'disadvantaged', as they will have a degree and more earning power than their parents had when they started college.

PeakOutput

tywy wrote:

A good majority of students who start college are over 18. This means that they're an adult. This means their parents no longer have to support them. The children's allowance stops shortly after children turn 18. Why should adults be means tested on what their parents earn. Once a child turns 18, anything a parent gives them after this is out of generosity. It is not fair that students are means tested on their parents wages.

students are means tested on their parents for loads of things its not a new concept and in general it works fairly well(even though it means im not entitled to one)

If one student has to get a loan then all students should have to get a loan.

why should they all be the same first of all and secondly the point is the people who should have to pay fees are able to afford it so they would not be getting loans in general

After all when students graduate from the different degree courses they have essentially the same earning power.

thats simply not true

So if they want to introduce fees, they should do what they do in Canada and let the students pay back their loans when they finish college rather than during it.

canada is a good system but they should not be forced to take a loan

This means that there won't be as many scholorships and grants needed because few people coming out of college will be considered 'disadvantaged',

this wont change the scholarships and most of the grants are given to support living during colleges not fees so unless these loans include living and fees the grants wont change..........if they do include living then after a four year degree you are stuck for probably 50K+ depending on what the fees are(in ul the fees are 14k a year i think)

aequinoctium

The children's allowance stops shortly after children turn 18

19 actually if you can prove you're in 3rd level education

tywy

You're parents are means tested, this seems stupid as you're an adult in the eyes of the law.

My parents may earn such and such a year and that means that I have to pay college fees even though I'M not earning anything... what if you're parents are the kind of people who say, once you're finished secondary school, that's it, we've done our bit. You have to be living away from home 6 months before you become eligible for a grant or something. Seems stupid to me seeing as you're an adult.

PeakOutput

tywy wrote:

You're parents are means tested, this seems stupid as you're an adult in the eyes of the law.

My parents may earn such and such a year and that means that I have to pay college fees even though I'M not earning anything... what if you're parents are the kind of people who say, once you're finished secondary school, that's it, we've done our bit. You have to be living away from home 6 months before you become eligible for a grant or something. Seems stupid to me seeing as you're an adult.

well its how the grants scheme works with not much problems and i believe that if your family can afford it they should pay for it simple as that............there may be a few parents who cut the person off and refuse to pay but i would imagine it would be a tiny minority seen as it is clearly a way to a better future for their child.

as for the grant thing it would be very easy for everyone to get a grant if it did not matter if your parents were supporting you or not and you did not have to be independant for a certain time.

i see no reason why a well off family should not pay for their own childs third level education or at least contribute to it.

themole

PeakOutput wrote:

well its how the grants scheme works with not much problems and i believe that if your family can afford it they should pay for it simple as that............there may be a few parents who cut the person off and refuse to pay but i would imagine it would be a tiny minority seen as it is clearly a way to a better future for their child.

as for the grant thing it would be very easy for everyone to get a grant if it did not matter if your parents were supporting you or not and you did not have to be independant for a certain time.

i see no reason why a well off family should not pay for their own childs third level education or at least contribute to it.

Agreed.

Even when claiming the dole its taken into account if you are living with your parents. It makes sense.

If i live in my mate daves house and he charges me no rent and also gives me money then that should be taken into account as part of my income for means testing reasons.

As far as fees go, there are a lot of people who go to college just becasue it is free and not because they are actually interested in the course. I personally know loads of people who did the same course as me and are now working in completely unrelated jobs. Maybe if there were fees to pay they would appreciate it more.

themole

themole wrote:

Maybe if there were fees to pay they would appreciate it more.

Couldn't you say the same about Secondary School? Of course, you might find less people going simply because there's a barrier in the way.

themole wrote:

If i live in my mate daves house and he charges me no rent and also gives me money then that should be taken into account as part of my income for means testing reasons.

Incidentally, in order to qualify for a grant (if you're an 'independent mature' student) you need to provide proof of living independently, such as names on the gas/electricity/phone bill, or lease agreements etc. So Dave mightn't be able to cover for you.

themole

Myth wrote:

Couldn't you say the same about Secondary School? Of course, you might find less people going simply because there's a barrier in the way.

But you have much less choices in secondary school, so what subjects you take has much less of a impact on future job prospects than say which course you do in college. I did electronic and computer engineering and i know people who did the same course as me are now doing accountancy.

Myth wrote:

Incidentally, in order to qualify for a grant (if you're an 'independent mature' student) you need to provide proof of living independently, such as names on the gas/electricity/phone bill, or lease agreements etc. So Dave mightn't be able to cover for you.

My point is that there is no difference between living with dave and living with my parents. If someone, anyone that is, is willing to house you for free then thats a form of income and no different than getting money for nothing and then spending that on rent and living expenses. The only difference that the adult situation makes is that your parents are obliged to house you until you are an adult.

franny1

quick question:
im have a degree under my belt and now im gona start a h dip in actuarial science in ucd, im eligible for a grant, does this mean im eligible for free fees?