Introduction of University Fees

SerialComplaint

Antithetic wrote: »

I said a good reason, not one that fails to distinguish the differences between single-payer systems from user-payer systems.

Perhaps you'd like to come out from behind the cloak of jargon and explain in simple terms why you don't believe that someone earning €200k has already paid enough tax to cover college fees?

philologos

If they were going to introduce university fees before September they would have definitely made an official announcement by now.

cocoa

Antithetic wrote: »

Can anyone give me a good reason why somebody whose parents are on €200,000 a year should have his fees paid by government revenue, for which there are far greater uses?

I think the assumption that parents should pay for university fees is interesting, despite the fact that the person in question is more than likely over 18 and in every other aspect of life recognized as an adult, any and all attempts to get a grant or extra funding will be based off their parents earnings, whether the parents feel inclined to share these earnings or not.

Simply put, he should have his fees paid by government revenue because so does everyone else and it would be unfair to single him out simply because of where he came from.

And to be honest I don't like the sound of this 'far greater uses', sounds an awful lot like you're simply looking down on students and feel your money is being wasted, awfully elitist for someone talking about equality in fees...

JC 2K3

If colleges feel they are underfunded, then the solution is simple: charge fees to those who fail to achieve high enough grades in college.

There are far too many wasters in college who do little or no work and scrape though each year with a low pass grade.

Newaglish

Antithetic is correct - surely a household with an income of €100,000 or €200,000 or €50,000,000 can afford to pay fees.

While you are all correct in saying the person will have already paid for their education in the form of other taxes, a progressive tax system would require a higher level of tax to be levied on those with a greater income.

In essence, reintroduction of fees would be in the following format:

If your family can afford to pay fees, they do
If your family can't afford to pay fees, they get a means-tested grant to cover it

Nobody would suggest charging a low income family €10,000 in fees per annum, it wouldn't work.

The_Conductor

The abolition of fees 11 years ago was an attempt to bring more equality into universities- as tuition fees were seen as a stumbling block for the lesser advantaged (those with a household income of below the average industrial wage). Prior to the abolition of tuition fees- fees varied considerably from college to college, and from faculty to faculty- those courses which involved a large degree of laboratory or studio work were far and away the most expensive.

It was tough for families- particularly when there were several kids in college simultaneously. Almost everyone worked part-time, sometimes multiple jobs. We all managed somehow. It was difficult- very very hard- even for those who would have been considered reasonably well off.

What did the abolition of fees achieve- not an awful lot actually. Did the demographic profile at 3rd level change? Were more people from disadvantaged backgrounds encouraged into college? Nope. Its remained pretty constant. Inclusion programmes did result in many more disabled students attending college for the first time- but disadvantaged- pretty constant levels.......

Now that tuition didn't have to be paid by students (other than postgrads or those who enrolled in a subsequent undergrad degree)- colleges were free to compete against each other- for the most part in research programmes. They actually became quite vulturous- poaching staff and denigrating each other's research- TCD and UCD were attrocious towards each other in particular.

Decisions- such as the setting up of the Vice-Presidents Fund, the Offices of Postgraduate Research, Presidents for Innovation etc- served to add red tape to the whole shenanigans. Scientific research which earned vital funds for colleges and universities was appropriated by authorities to cross fund non-finance generating research for postgrads particularly in the arts arena...... Faculties lost all enthusiasm for actively chasing research- why would they- when they didn't see any direct benefit? Look at UCD.....

What would the reintroduction of tuition fees mean- it would mean the 3rd level institutions regaining control of their own finances. It would mean students having to pay fees of between 3,500 and 10,000 depending on their faculties and chosen courses of study. It would not discourage those on lower incomes from college- they would continue to have their fees waived and their grants paid.

Education is a public service- yes, but to imagine that all public services are free is simply not true- even those that there is not a financial cost associated with often have opportunity costs vastly exceeding any monetary value that might be associated with them.

Should fees be re-introduced? Personally I think they should be. First and foremost they would put new responsibilities on students to actually accept some of the burden associated with their decision to undertake a particular course of study. It would encourage universities to actually compete on a level playing field- and allow the individual faculties, particularly in the humanities, to generate their own income and stop leeching off the other faculties.

Will people have to take out loans? Yes. Did we in the past? Yes. Did we survive- yes, we did.......

SerialComplaint

Newaglish wrote: »

Antithetic is correct - surely a household with an income of €100,000 or €200,000 or €50,000,000 can afford to pay fees.

While you are all correct in saying the person will have already paid for their education in the form of other taxes, a progressive tax system would require a higher level of tax to be levied on those with a greater income.

In essence, reintroduction of fees would be in the following format:

If your family can afford to pay fees, they do
If your family can't afford to pay fees, they get a means-tested grant to cover it

Nobody would suggest charging a low income family €10,000 in fees per annum, it wouldn't work.

So why stop at university fees? If this approach makes sense, then we should be charging some people for secondary fees too -right? [Let's just ignore the overwhelming evidence that free secondary schooling transformed Ireland] And the same principle would apply to primary schools too? And why stop at education - let's charge some people for joining their library, or for taking a walk in Stephen's Green.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

If colleges feel they are underfunded, then the solution is simple: charge fees to those who fail to achieve high enough grades in college.

There are far too many wasters in college who do little or no work and scrape though each year with a low pass grade.

Some people genuinely struggle in college, and as such I don't see this as a reasonable or fair solution.

The_Conductor

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So why stop at university fees? If this approach makes sense, then we should be charging some people for secondary fees too -right? [Let's just ignore the overwhelming evidence that free secondary schooling transformed Ireland] And the same principle would apply to primary schools too? And why stop at education - let's charge some people for joining their library, or for taking a walk in Stephen's Green.

Funny that you should say just that. Private schools are making a massive resurgence in the country- and it is the middle classes who are at the front of the brigade extolling their virtues. While there may not be fee paying primary schools- the ridiculous lengths people must go to, to ensure their kids can attend particular schools means they may as well be private. Look at St. Killians in Clonskeagh as an example- if I have kids I'd be thrilled if they were admitted there- and would drive for hours a day to facilitate it. Thats as good as paying extremely high fees. As for joining the library- while there are all the public libraries- there are also a number of private libraries which do have annual membership fees. I've paid fees to use the libraries at UCD and Trinity- and undertook low-level postgraduate research in another institute just to gain access to their library- which is as good as paying. As for walking in Stephen's Green- its not going to happen- but just remember that Dartry Square isn't all that far away.........

SerialComplaint

smccarrick wrote: »

Private schools are making a massive resurgence in the country- and it is the middle classes who are at the front of the brigade extolling their virtues.

Indeed. One of the unexpected side-effects of the cutting of 3rd level fees was the diversion of funds into paying for private secondary schools. The obvious solution to this is to cut the subsidy paid to private secondary schools which is paid as teachers salaries. We don't expect the state to pay the salaries of staff in Mount Carmel Hospital, or the Beacon Clinic, or Griffith College, so why does the state pay the staff in Belvo or 'Rock?

Cutting this subsidy would make those who want a private secondary education pay the full economic cost. This will presumably put private secondary schools beyond the reach of many of their current customers, so the state can pay those salaries to additional teachers in the public schools instead. There will still be a net saving to the state on the assumption that some will still be prepared to fork out to ensure that their little darlings mix with the 'right' sort of people.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Some people genuinely struggle in college

Well there has to be a point where you have to say they shouldn't really be there....

regob

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well there has to be a point where you have to say they shouldn't really be there....

thats not true, you might not be good at something, but because you arnt do you think you should give up?

The_Conductor

regob wrote: »

thats not true, you might not be good at something, but because you arnt do you think you should give up?

Yes- and move onto something you have an aptitude for- do you really advocate struggling with something, just for the sake of not giving up? Life is full of struggles- its up to people to make choices that make their passage through life more easy. We're not all into masachism........

genericgoon

JC 2K3 wrote: »

If colleges feel they are underfunded, then the solution is simple: charge fees to those who fail to achieve high enough grades in college.

There are far too many wasters in college who do little or no work and scrape though each year with a low pass grade.

Well that kind of happens already since you have to pay if you fail your exams. Thus all you really need to do is raise the grades needed to pass or just make exams harder. Of course, since Universitie's funding criteria take the number of students they have into account, they're hardly going to shut out large swathes of students by doing that.

RuggieBear

i think fees should be reintroduced with a complete overhaul of the grants system (actually making the grant decent money).

My parents saved for years for a college fund for me but once fees were abolished they then spent that money buying a Mercedes instead.

If fees were reintroduced the vast majority of those who were going to go would still go....and those few who would genuinely be put off by the costs could benefit from a proper scholarship/grant system (using just a fraction of the present fees money)

SerialComplaint

RuggieBear wrote: »

i think fees should be reintroduced with a complete overhaul of the grants system (actually making the grant decent money).

My parents saved for years for a college fund for me but once fees were abolished they then spent that money buying a Mercedes instead.

If fees were reintroduced the vast majority of those who were going to go would still go....and those few who would genuinely be put off by the costs could benefit from a proper scholarship/grant system (using just a fraction of the present fees money)

There is no doubt that the grant system needs improvement, and indeed the failure to even inflation-proof the grant means that it has effectively been cut this year.

However, there is no reason to reintroduce fees to support this. The govt has many, many other opportunities to raise income without creating barriers to education, such as eliminating the subsidies to private secondary schools, and the subsidies to private medical clinics, and the subsidies to horseracing, and the subsidies to the building industry etc etc.

Education was one of the basic building blocks of the Celtic Tiger, and you won't get us out of recession by putting up barriers to education.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well there has to be a point where you have to say they shouldn't really be there....

Just because someone struggles does not mean that they cannot continue to do it and achieve better grades the next year. Do you think charging fees to them is really going to make them want to finish their degree course? It would be a deterrent rather than a help.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because someone struggles does not mean that they cannot continue to do it and achieve better grades the next year. Do you think charging fees to them is really going to make them want to finish their degree course? It would be a deterrent rather than a help.

More often than not, "struggles" means "doesn't work hard enough". Unless of course they have a learning difficulty, which would be a different situation altogether.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

More often than not, "struggles" means "doesn't work hard enough". Unless of course they have a learning difficulty, which would be a different situation altogether.

That's irrelevant if people are genuinely having a bit of difficulty. No, I'm not referring to a "learning difficulty", people can have issues in understanding elements of their course etc, I think it's highly unfair to suggest they all don't work "hard enough".

Roxy.Randrome

I have to say that there are some interesting points in this thread on the subject of re-instating fees.

I must say I completely disagree with the idea. If the government can waste tons of money housing completely useless e-voting machines year after year, surely money could be found somewhere to properly fund third level education and the atrocious health system in this country.

Either way, all I can gather is that the government are hiking the registration fee for colleges by €70 this year using a stealth tax which means the money will go straight to the government not the colleges.

The_Conductor

Roxy.Randrome wrote: »

the government are hiking the registration fee for colleges by €70 this year using a stealth tax which means the money will go straight to the government not the colleges.

Its the colleges who levy the registration fee and the fee in its entirety goes to the particular colleges. The level the fee is set at, is a matter for the college, however they do need sanction to increase it. If you know otherwise- please post a link to your information.

While I don't think anyone can disagree with you regarding the voting machines- 20 million is still an awful lot shy of the over 4.7 billion annually spent on subsidising 3rd level, further education and training courses. The amount of pet projects in the educational system would astound you. Even the likes of IBEC, the employers organisation, manage to earn well over a million a year from holding courses for students (they actually compete with ICTU for an interesting course on conflict resolution)..........

If someone were to sit down and properly take account of how public finances are spent (as the C&AGs office are supposed to) there is a shocking amount of expenditure that could be cut without anyone noticing......

Roxy.Randrome

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/thirdlevel-fees-back-on-the-agenda-1432092.html

That's where I got my information from, specifically the last 3 paragraphs.

somethingwitty

Apparently it was on the radio again this morning that it would be introduced soon...

Crania

We have to decide what kind of a system we want. We cannot continue having a US style low-taxation system while trying to also have a European style social system where services are free and efficient. The money is simply not there to run these services with our low taxation base.

Our universities are case in point of this predicament. We continue to pay low taxes but yet everyone wants their kids to be able to go to college for free(I know it's far from free as it is, but no tuition fees at least). This means our universities and colleges are severly under-funded.

So I think we have two choices, and it comes back to Mary Harney's infamous Boston or Berlin speech. Do we a want a US style system with low taxes where everyone has to pay for their own servies when they want them or do we want a European system where all services are paid for so with high taxes so that those who need it most don't run into financial hardship, like what happens to millions of Americans. We currently think we can do both, let's make one thing clear, we can't. To break it down more simply, where would you rather live, Sweden or Alabama? I know where I'd choose anyway.

I would definitely favour retaining the 'free fees' scheme and instead properly funding our universities and colleges through the tax system to a level where they can compete internationally, because we're failing desperately in that sector. For all this guff about the 'knowledge economy', we have just one university in Top 100. I know we're a small country but for where we are economically we should definitely have more than one university in the Top 100.

However, I cannot see taxes ever being raised to Scandivanian levels here in Ireland simply because of the political backlash. Yes, everyone moans about the state of the hospitals and the lack of public transport and the high student-teacher ratio in our schools, etc etc etc but the majority of Irish people would not be willing to pay significantly higher taxes to fund these services.

So that means we have two choices, bring back college fees(possibly for families who earn a combined income of, maybe, over 100k) or continue with the present system and see our colleges and universities continue to be underfunded and let the farce of the 'knowledge economy' continue.

I firmly believe that neither taxes will be raised nor fess re-introduced due to the fears of a political backlash. And that is the root of many problems in Ireland, the parish-pump politics and the constituents who drive this mentality, leading to a complete lack of vision and forward-planning. Colleges and universities will be left to fight for funding in an effort to try(not remain) become competitive with leading world unviersites, and no matter how good the faculty and administration are in our colleges and unversities, without sufficient funding, they are not going to succeed. And you can apply the same rationale to all of our other services in Ireland, transport, health, etc. We just need higher taxes in my opinion.

Ah I'm probabaly just a Swedish wannabe!

The_Conductor

Well- if you consider that the average industrial wage here is now stated by the CSO as 38,750- any family on a combined salary under 80k would very possibly consider themselves deprived.........

We do have to make a choice as CoolCiaran says. Are you willing to pay 50-60% tax starting at very low levels? Our policies here in Ireland are a total contradiction in terms.

Ok- so we only have one university in the Top100 in the world- however we have less than 1/1000 of the worlds population- does that imply that we're actually punching up to 10 times above our weight on the world stage rankings?

The idea of "Free Fees" was to make universities more inclusive and get greater numbers of socially deprived people into third level education. When you consider this fact alone- the Free Fees experiment has been an unmitigated failure.

While I know its not easy to study and work at the same time- it is a right of passage in many ways, and does help focus the mind when it comes to choosing a particular course to study. We always had that system in place before- and though it was tough- most of us survived it. No- we didn't have money to spend on overpriced concert tickets, and a lot of us survived on instant noodles and mushy peas- it was far from ideal- but it worked. The current system quite simply is not working, period.

S.

PurpleFistMixer

I'd be happy to pay high taxes if I felt that money was going to be used effectively. As it is, giving more money to the government would lead to more pocket-lining and just maybe some of it being diverted to things that actually matter. Even then, it'd probably be absorbed by the sponge that is poor administration and planning before it did any good. Bah humbug!