Government Funding for Students

djpbarry

The issue of student finances has been in the news a lot recently:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/escort-agencies-luring-students---into-prostitution-to-pay-for-college-1082362.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/students-pay-for-hotels-in-rent-crisis-1081754.html

What do people make of this? Is the government doing enough to fund third-level education? If so, why are so many students running into such difficulties?

Zambia

Hmm what does the Irish Goverment actually provide ?

There are unmarried mothers / immigrant families / homeless people /mentally challenged people.

Students are not exactly at the bottom of the food chain. They all opted to go to college . When that decision was made you really have to consider where the cash for those years is going to come from.

What this report didn't say is the added expenditure the naughties has added to a young persons life.

Cigarettes , booze , phone credit , Transport, fashion , ipods, Credit card re-payments(When I was in college I could never get or want one of these), Holiday loans , car payments , "essential laptops"

While not every student is guilty of living beyond there means I am sure several are at least guilty of some of these offences.

Part time jobs are plentiful other wise half of eastern europe and china would not be here. It seems the old student jobs are now filled by foriegn students or just foreign staff

The goverment should assist in college fees by either long term loans at little or no interest and leave it at that.

Colonel Sanders

Zambia232 wrote:

There are unmarried mothers / immigrant families / homeless people /mentally challenged people.

Students are not exactly at the bottom of the food chain. They all opted to go to college .

Many immigrants from outside Europe also opted to come here (as ireland is not the first EU country they land in after leaving home).

There also god only knows how many 'unmarried' mothers who claim every allowance know to man while blatantly having a live in lover in the house they get for half nothing.

Students, on average, will end up paying more tax etc as a result of obtaining higher qualifications and hopefully higher paid jobs.

Fair point what you say about some living above their means, this is undeniable. However I remember my last year in college. Student grants increased at the rate of CPI inflation. TCD students union did a study where they found that, among the students they surveyed, rent was their biggest monthly outgo and had increased by over 4 times the CPI rate of inflation from the year before.

djpbarry

Zambia232 wrote:

They all opted to go to college . When that decision was made you really have to consider where the cash for those years is going to come from.

Yes, that's a fair point. But, let's not forget that the economy needs a steady stream of qualified professionals.

Zambia232 wrote:

While not every student is guilty of living beyond there means I am sure several are at least guilty of some of these offences.

I would say that is a reasonable observation, but even if all of the excess is stripped away, Dublin (for example) is still a very expensive place to live these days, particularly if you're on a student budget.

The problem as I see it is that government grants are not going to the right people. For example, when I was doing my degree, I was not eligible for a grant because both my parents were in full-time employment. But, I knew of people who had maybe one self-employed parent (earning substantially more than my parents combined) and yet they found it quite easy to get a grant - even if they were living at home!

Zambia

True the economy does need high end people , we are actually buggered without them as we have little else to offer foriegn business. Its a whole hearted effort acroos the board though.

The immigration dept needs to properly assess the needs off incoming migrants , simple stuff like can you afford to live here.

The Social service dept needs to checks council housing is not being abused.

The same dept needs to ensure dole fraud is eradicted

Schools need to teach financial awareness and the results of un controllled spending.

All landlords should be registered , no exceptions. Standards must be met.

Goverment should loan money for college as metioned and the student pays this back on merit. Example if a guy/gal get the pionts for engineering and gets a job in same chances are he/ she will be able to pay that back over time easily enough. Grants should also be aimed at subjects in demand. Example sciences

silverharp

I think there was a big mistake made with getting rid of college fees in the 90's. The money saved by parents went to buy apartments in France. The grants system should have been focused to where it was needed and medical colleges in particular should have been expanded to deal with a growing older population, I gather that some of our medical colleges are at risk of not being recognised abroad in future due to low investment. This would seem a better use of taxpayers money as opposed to subsidising middle aged and middle class parents that were coining it anyway

simu

silverharp wrote:

I think there was a big mistake made with getting rid of college fees in the 90's. The money saved by parents went to buy apartments in France. The grants system should have been focused to where it was needed

I agree.

However, I don't think people are being forced into prostitution - there are plenty of other ways of making money - but of course, the Indo likes the scandalous angle.

ali.c

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Fair point what you say about some living above their means, this is undeniable. However I remember my last year in college. Student grants increased at the rate of CPI inflation. TCD students union did a study where they found that, among the students they surveyed, rent was their biggest monthly outgo and had increased by over 4 times the CPI rate of inflation from the year before.

Yeah i guess it is a fair point about some students living above their means but on the other hand eh let me see how
Rent is in the region of €100 a week
Food on a tight budget (not eating out) is 40-50euro a week
Transportation (as rent of €100 a week is unlikely to have you in walking distance of college) is around €17 euro a week
ESB and heating costs are say 20-30 euro a week

The full grant is €60 euro a week, to get a full grant your family income needs to be less than €30k AFAIK so support from a family on that income is unlikely to be available. Any higher than that and you are on a percentage scheme.

The amount it is recommend someone in full time education works is 10 hours a week which is €80-€90 euro depending on pay

It still leaves a deficit, esp when books and the odd extravagant extra expenditure of say buying a cup of tea or coffee or indeed lunch on campus (€6 euro in UCD) or phone credit or medical expenses and or the odd drink is not factored in.

Now i am not saying that college students shouldnt have to work, but when i did my degree it was approx 30 contact hours a week and alot of course work which does not leave a whole lot of time for work. I worked on average of 15-25hours a week in college to fund my non extravagant lifestyle and imo it did affect my academic performance.

our economy is based on skill labour, therefore it would make sense that college education should be funded to some extent by the goverment. I think that there are still alot of people who would like to go to college but cannot afford to do so.

Colonel Sanders

ali.c wrote:

our economy is based on skill labour, therefore it would make sense that college education should be funded to some extent by the goverment. I think that there are still alot of people who would like to go to college but cannot afford to do so.

Undeniably so and also there are others who under perform due to the pressure of part time jobs to fund their college education.

When I referred to students 'living beyond their means' I was referring to those who had everything handed to them on a plate or those (and I knew one or two of these) who were given money for maybe 4-5 weeks of living by their parents either from their parents own pockets, out of grant money or a combination of both. With this money bought mini disc players (when I was in college it was before the time of ipods and such!) or went on the lash for a week solid leaving them broke for 3-4 weeks and then complaining that the government weren't doing enough for them.

Pinker

silverharp wrote:

I think there was a big mistake made with getting rid of college fees in the 90's. The money saved by parents went to buy apartments in France. The grants system should have been focused to where it was needed and medical colleges in particular should have been expanded to deal with a growing older population, I gather that some of our medical colleges are at risk of not being recognised abroad in future due to low investment. This would seem a better use of taxpayers money as opposed to subsidising middle aged and middle class parents that were coining it anyway

No it was not a big mistake, third level should not be elitist, fees should be payable when your family earn above certian threshold, there is no sense in payinf fees for families who can comfortably afford it. Many students today would not be in college if they had large fees to pay. We need college graduates, and there is nothing worse than a wasted mind.

Mick86

djpbarry wrote:

Yes, that's a fair point. But, let's not forget that the economy needs a steady stream of qualified professionals.

How many of them actually make a contribution to the economy though. I may be wrong but it seems to me that many of them get their degree and head for the airport. We, not the government, aren't getting a return for our investment in those circumstances.

silverharp

Pinker wrote:

No it was not a big mistake, third level should not be elitist, fees should be payable when your family earn above certian threshold, there is no sense in payinf fees for families who can comfortably afford it. Many students today would not be in college if they had large fees to pay. We need college graduates, and there is nothing worse than a wasted mind.

If it wasn't a big mistake then you must think it is a good idea to let high earners kids have free college. there is only so much money money that can be spent on education and if you let someone off the hook the price is paid somewhere else. I said the grant system should have been extended and the bands could be extended as well, by def a middleclass family can afford to send their kids to college as the only trade off is how big your holiday house is or whether you have an 07 or an 03 car in your driveway.

djpbarry

silverharp wrote:

I think there was a big mistake made with getting rid of college fees in the 90's

I totally disagree. I for one would not have been able to afford to go to college if I had to pay full fees and I can think of several other people who would have been in the same position. Re-introducing fees would be hugely damaging in my opinion. I think ali c. gives a pretty good breakdown of what the financial situation is for the average student.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

With this money bought mini disc players … or went on the lash for a week solid leaving them broke for 3-4 weeks and then complaining that the government weren't doing enough for them.

I think these are the spoiled brats that everyone holds up as an example of the modern student. I’m not going to say they don’t exist, but they are certainly not the norm.

Mick86 wrote:

How many of them actually make a contribution to the economy though. I may be wrong but it seems to me that many of them get their degree and head for the airport.

I think it’s fair to say that most stay in the country (depending on their degree discipline). The majority of those who leave tend to be science and engineering graduates; they have to leave if they want to get a half-decent job (I’m not talking about pay) that’s even remotely related to what they studied.

silverharp wrote:

you must think it is a good idea to let high earners kids have free college

You seem to be assuming that all university/college students come from middle-class backgrounds?

silverharp

[QUOTE=djpbarryYou seem to be assuming that all university/college students come from middle-class backgrounds?[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but what blindspot do you have about means testing? To answer your question for the main universities I'm guessing it is skewed towards middle and high earners but that is not the point, if only 40% of families can "afford" to send their kids to college then let that 40% pay and divert the saving to either increase grants for poorer families or increasing places where their are shortages

djpbarry

silverharp wrote:

if only 40% of families can "afford" to send their kids to college then let that 40% pay and divert the saving to either increase grants for poorer families or increasing places where their are shortages

Well, I've already stated that the problem is with the system - far too many people get grants who do not need/deserve them. The provisions for what you are proposing are already in place - they are just not being implemented properly.

Dont be at yourself

The UK Student Loan system is the way to go. Let students pay back the money when they are qualified and are in jobs where they can do so.

mikemac

djpbarry wrote:

Well, I've already stated that the problem is with the system - far too many people get grants who do not need/deserve them. The provisions for what you are proposing are already in place - they are just not being implemented properly.

How so? I'm not taking about free fees here, only the grant.

A quick search shows an income limit of €37,000 for a family with <4 children to qualify. There are 2005 figures and were the only figures I could find.
Sure €37,000 is above the industrial wage but it's not exactly a huge sum to raise a family in these expensive times.

The grant is exactly generous either. Unless your parents are supporting you, most students need a part-time job.

I suppose you assume most self-employed people get grants for their children as accounts can be altered. I can tell you my own sisters file gets audited this year and will mean no grant money until 2008 until this completed.

I often hear the good example that few people from Ballymun go to DCU though it's right beside it. People from Ballymun are entitled to free fees and grants like anyone so I don't think they need even more support. If they wanted to go to college they would go instead of blaming the government for not spending even more in financial assistance.

If you're looking to save money to divert into education, why not look at the huge abuses going on in social welfare from single mothers with live-in partners or people with "bad backs" and haven't worked in years.
Millions to be saved there.

djpbarry

micmclo wrote:

Sure €37,000 is above the industrial wage but it's not exactly a huge sum to raise a family in these expensive times.

Agreed.

micmclo wrote:

The grant is exactly generous either. Unless your parents are supporting you, most students need a part-time job.

Agreed.

micmclo wrote:

I suppose you assume most self-employed people get grants for their children as accounts can be altered.

I did not say that. All I said was that I knew of people who’s parent(s) earned substantially more than the income limit and yet they successfully obtained grants. For example, I went to school with a girl whose father was a “freelance accountant”. Her parents’ house was twice the size of mine and the family owned 3 cars – no one in my household owned a car. This girl was successful in obtaining a grant and I was not.

micmclo wrote:

If you're looking to save money to divert into education, why not look at the huge abuses going on in social welfare from single mothers with live-in partners or people with "bad backs" and haven't worked in years.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be acknowledging the abuses in the social welfare system, but disputing the fact that abuses exist in the grant system?

brianthebard

Zambia232 wrote:

Part time jobs are plentiful other wise half of eastern europe and china would not be here. It seems the old student jobs are now filled by foriegn students or just foreign staff

One half of this statement negates the other. Yes there are part time jobs, yes they are increasingly being filled by foreign workers, which suggests that there are less positions left for Irish students. Having been unemployed for almost four months now I feel this is definitely the case.

Secondly, yes people OPT to go to college, but generally it is a necessity to go if you want a job that pays much more than minimum wage, so really if one wants to do well then you don't really have that much of a choice do you?

brianthebard

silverharp wrote:

If it wasn't a big mistake then you must think it is a good idea to let high earners kids have free college. there is only so much money money that can be spent on education and if you let someone off the hook the price is paid somewhere else. I said the grant system should have been extended and the bands could be extended as well, by def a middleclass family can afford to send their kids to college as the only trade off is how big your holiday house is or whether you have an 07 or an 03 car in your driveway.

Children from high earning families could afford to go to college, fees or no fees. The fees were taken away to benefit the less well off, and if that benefits the more well off then that is a slightly unwelcome side effect but it hardly makes the whole system flawed.

silverharp

brianthebard wrote:

The fees were taken away to benefit the less well off, and if that benefits the more well off then that is a slightly unwelcome side effect but it hardly makes the whole system flawed.

what's your logic? a billion here here a billion there it doesn't matter.

brianthebard

My "logic" is that you shouldn't bring back fees to punish the rich minority when the people you will really be punishing is the poorer majority. Obvious really.

silverharp

brianthebard wrote:

My "logic" is that you shouldn't bring back fees to punish the rich minority when the people you will really be punishing is the poorer majority. Obvious really.

So if I was to suggest a scheme where families with a income of say under 75K are exempt from fees and your average 50 something family with mortgage basically paid off and salaries between 75-150K (150K is my def of rich for this exercise) would pay fees, you would argue that they are “poor”, I would argue that this group are cash rich and it would not have to cut back on any essential expenditure. To use McWilliams terms getting rid of fees for everyone was another generational transfer of wealth from young workers to a middle aged landed class.

djpbarry

silverharp wrote:

So if I was to suggest a scheme where families with a income of say under 75K are exempt from fees and your average 50 something family with mortgage basically paid off and salaries between 75-150K (150K is my def of rich for this exercise) would pay fees, you would argue that they are “poor”, I would argue that this group are cash rich and it would not have to cut back on any essential expenditure. To use McWilliams terms getting rid of fees for everyone was another generational transfer of wealth from young workers to a middle aged landed class.

McWilliams is a classist, whereas this problem requires a universal solution. You cannot "punish" people for having money. People who earn more pay more tax and hence make their contribution to society - it is up to the government to spend these contributions wisely (which rarely happens, it would seem). Everyone has the right to an education, regardless of their background.

There's one area which always made me question about the return to fees. If I'm 18, and wishing to go to College but my parents do not wish to pay the fees since, for some reason, they don't want me to go to college (and they are above the threshold, thus they would pay fees), what options are there for me? I couldn't get any form of financial assistance since I've to be over 23 to be counted as independent from my parents (according to present situations). Perhaps they didn't want me to go to college, yet I had a desire to go? How would I be facilitated? And since I won't be supported by my parents, why should I be forced to pay fees while others do not?

silverharp

djpbarry wrote:

McWilliams is a classist, whereas this problem requires a universal solution. You cannot "punish" people for having money. People who earn more pay more tax and hence make their contribution to society - it is up to the government to spend these contributions wisely (which rarely happens, it would seem). Everyone has the right to an education, regardless of their background.

People have a right to a lot of things, travel, a just legal system, access to medical services. However just because there is a “universal” element to each of these it doesn’t dictate who provides the service and the payment mechanism involved. Ideally the mechanism should reduce waste and focus money to where it is most needed.

djpbarry

silverharp wrote:

People have a right to a lot of things, travel, a just legal system, access to medical services. However just because there is a “universal” element to each of these it doesn’t dictate who provides the service and the payment mechanism involved. Ideally the mechanism should reduce waste and focus money to where it is most needed.

Education is a basic human right. The Irish government has recognised this by signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As such, it is the Irish government who should be providing the service.

If we really want to "reduce waste" we should be concentrating on getting the "super-wealthy" to pay their taxes:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/one-in-eight-top-earners-paying-less-than-5pc-tax-1088031.html

Hotblack Desiato

djpbarry wrote:

McWilliams is a classist, whereas this problem requires a universal solution. You cannot "punish" people for having money. People who earn more pay more tax and hence make their contribution to society - it is up to the government to spend these contributions wisely (which rarely happens, it would seem). Everyone has the right to an education, regardless of their background.

This is complete nonsense. It makes perfect sense for the state to use means testing to target resources to where they're actually needed. Subsidising the well off, while giving inadequate grants to the poor, is hardly "spending wisely" now is it?

Free fees was a blatant attempt by the rainbow coalition to win upper-middle-class votes. It was sold to us as a way to improve equality of access to education, it does no such thing. Unfortunately it's now one of the sacred cows of Irish politics that no party dares to tackle for fear of losing votes (who cares about the poor, most of them don't vote anyway.)

The USI heads go on and on about how free fees must be maintained, yet in the same breath whinge about how low the grants are. If the well off were not getting free fees, a subsidy they don't need, then straight away the grant could be increased and eligibility for it extended.

djpbarry

ninja900 wrote:

The USI heads go on and on about how free fees must be maintained, yet in the same breath whinge about how low the grants are. If the well off were not getting free fees, a subsidy they don't need, then straight away the grant could be increased and eligibility for it extended.

Ok, seeing as I'm (apparently) talking nonsense, in your opinion, how do we determine who should be entitled to free fees / grants and who should not? What should the criteria be? How will this system be enforced? Who will be held accountable if it fails?

ali.c

Myth wrote:

There's one area which always made me question about the return to fees. If I'm 18, and wishing to go to College but my parents do not wish to pay the fees since, for some reason, they don't want me to go to college (and they are above the threshold, thus they would pay fees), what options are there for me? I couldn't get any form of financial assistance since I've to be over 23 to be counted as independent from my parents (according to present situations). Perhaps they didn't want me to go to college, yet I had a desire to go? How would I be facilitated? And since I won't be supported by my parents, why should I be forced to pay fees while others do not?

Yeah its ****ed alright, even if you are over 23 you need proof that you have not been living with either of your parent for at least one year. I know this because i applied for a mature student grant to do my masters and if anything the documentation required to avail of the grant was worse than if apply for it whilst living with you parent. One of the girls in my class came back from travelling and applied to do the masters, even though she was 25 she was not entitled to anything because she didnt have proof of residence as she was away.

There are other funding methods, though not gauranteed, the welfare office is colleges also provides some funding on a case by case basis. If you were in a position like this is what i would advise you to do, chat to the welfare officer in you college and see what you can avail off.

It should be noted that if you are doing an under-grad for the first time, you dont actually pay fees (my masters was 7k) you pay registration with is around 1k.

Also if you live in germany, your parents are legally obliged to fund you in college if they earn over a certain amount.

bonkey

djpbarry wrote:

Education is a basic human right. The Irish government has recognised this by signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I think you need to look at exactly what it is they signed up to.

Article 26(1) States the following (emphasis mine):


Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

As such, it is the Irish government who should be providing the service.

They are providing the service. The UDHR explicitly allows for higher education to be charged for.

You might like to argue that in this day and age a third-level degree is a "must", but you're wrong. Its not, nor was the intention of the UDHR to make it so that it was.

The UDHR is rather trying to establish a basic level of education in the face of cultures where children (often girls) were denied any formal education, or where limited availability of higher education was not decided on merit, but rather on gender, race, wealth, or some other criteria.

There's no better way to weaken yoru argument then to misrepresent your case. Don't bring the Right to an education into things, because it has no applicability here.