Free Fees vs Means Testing

armada104

From the male non-disabled person of no fixed abode thread...

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Once again: Means testing. Fees should only be payed by those who can afford to pay them. The only group that free fees benefitted has been the middle classes who had a tradition of sending their sons and daughters to 3rd level anyway. Free fees has just allowed those parents to spend the money they would have spent on College tuition on expensive private secondary schooling instead.

I understand your opinion and agree to some extent, but really it's just too general and Dublin-centric. The incidences of parents spending money on private school that would otherwise be spent on third level are, I would guess, much lower in the rest of the country.

There are thousands of parents sending their kids to third level who could probably afford the fees (disqualifying them from a grant), but just barely. It would probably be a huge sacrifice on their part and could cause tension and guilt within a family, and eventually result in a disinclination to attend third level.

Of course those who could always afford to go to college are continuing to do so; free fees don't really affect them. And of course free fees realistically have little effect on lower socioeconomic groups, who aren't attending college in much greater numbers.

The people who benefit from free fees are those in the middle, who I described above. Free fees have made going to college the norm, where it might not otherwise have been.

All of the above is anecdotal, and I make no claims to be an expert on this so I'm open to correction.

Stepherunie

I actually agree with teh idea of means testing.

I applied to the UK to study where means tested fees are in place. I think it's a vastly superior system because at least we're not dealing with this whole facade of free fees.

Fees are not free when your registration fee is close to 1,000e. The max fees you pay in the UK is around 2,500e a year and at least they're a lot more upfront about it all.

The UK government also offer low interest student loans to students to pay there fees, rather than relying on the banking sector to do so. Students who undertake heathcare courses, and thus would put in hours in the hospitals as part of there training also receive free fees as it's felt that they're contributing back to warrent free fees.

Then you have the Scottish Model, which is that you do not pay fees whilst at college but if you income goes above a certain level (I can't remember what) when you start working you have to pay around 5,000 pounds sterling to cover the cost of your education. To be honest that's probably one of the fairest models.

As for the borderline issue with grants, I think a big problem is a lack of knowledge and issuing of information that would help people who are borderline for grants to get the grant.

Simple things can make a big difference:

1) If your income is only a couple of hundred euro over the limits, putting that money into a pension plan instead will actually qualify you for the grant as the income limit is actually taken from the amount after pension deductions.

2) People are wrongly denied the grant based on the 'as the crow flies system'. I know of people who don't qualify as they are within distances that are deemed to close. Which is true if they were able to cross Dublin bay every morning.

Handsome Bob

Stepherunie wrote: »

Fees are not free when your registration fee is close to 1,000e.

Spot on.

Originally posted by armada104
Of course those who could always afford to go to college are continuing to do so; free fees don't really affect them. And of course free fees realistically have little effect on lower socioeconomic groups, who aren't attending college in much greater numbers.

I see what you're getting at. But there is still a decent amount of students from lower socio-economics attending college. If you take away "free fees" then the only option people from lower socio-economic groups will have of attending college is through programs such as ACCESS. And these programs are heavily mean tested and there are very few places available. I just think that it's a fallacy to say that UCD is badly in need of increased finance when they are getting basically a grand from each entrance fee.

Tayto2000

Hmmm, so call it about 24,000 students @ €1000 a head... so 24 mil p.a. purely on the 'registration' fee. Sounds like a lot alright.

On the other hand, what does it cost to run the place? I'm guessing the wage bill probably makes up the bulk of the cost as even an extremely conservative (and extremely rough!) estimate of 300 staff at 30,000k pa would cost 9 mil. There's a lot more staff than that and many senior staff are on much higher pay as well. On top of that, UCD must have a monstrous energy bill and that doesn't even take into account basic maintenance and servicing, never mind upgrading of existing facilities... And all his without even addressing academic, social or teaching activities! Without knowing what the costs are I don't think it's right to say that €1000 a student will pay for everything...

I've never heard of the Scottish system before, I think that really sounds inspired... plus you pay when you can most afford it. Very clever.

Économiste Monétaire

30'000? The only academic position anywhere near that is assistant lecturer and they're on 36'000 starting.

http://www.ucd.ie/hr/html/info_for_staff/salary_scales/scales.htm

Tayto2000

Yup, 30k a head would be extremely conservative... It's more likely that the entire reg fee would be swallowed whole by the wage bill, but I don't know for sure so didn't want to claim that...

seraphimvc

UCD_Econ wrote: »

30'000? The only academic position anywhere near that is assistant lecturer and they're on 36'000 starting.

http://www.ucd.ie/hr/html/info_for_staff/salary_scales/scales.htm

thanks for the link :pac:

librarian 100+k p.a.........anyone in service desk has at least 30k pa?and yet people want a pay raise?and yet the expenses in campus is laughably expensive?worst joke ever.

college is indeed business.

ardmacha

I just think that it's a fallacy to say that UCD is badly in need of increased finance when they are getting basically a grand from each entrance fee.

Not an economics student, I expect.

Yup, 30k a head would be extremely conservative...

People working in these kinds of jobs are themselves graduates, at least Masters graduates in most cases and graduate salaries are up there.

college is indeed business.

You can argue about that, but it does exist in the real world where money is need to pay for people, fuel etc.

Stabshauptmann

Stepherunie wrote: »

Then you have the Scottish Model, which is that you do not pay fees whilst at college but if you income goes above a certain level (I can't remember what) when you start working you have to pay around 5,000 pounds sterling to cover the cost of your education. To be honest that's probably one of the fairest models.

So if you penalise those who make the most use of their time in college, that makes it fairer?

We have three students.
Ann studies arts, fights the power, goes all hippy, gets an STI and barely passes her finals. (I'm not picking on arts students, its a random example).

Barry studies Medicine, he was a 600 point LC student, but started smoking dope in college and has no ambition in life. If earns 30K p.a now (the average industrial wage is €33k to €38k edit:the former is the CSO figure for 2006 and the latter the trade unions claim for 2008).

Ciaran is from a disadvantaged background, he works hard and pays his way through college by means of a loan just to pay basic expenses live food and rent. He becomes a qualified engineer and earns 100K a year.

So you're saying that the fairest system would be to make Ciaran pay for college but not the other two because he made a career from what he learned in college? Thats not fair at all.

Everyone has the same opportunity once in college to do well and have fun and to strike the balance between the two that suits them. Its not fair to expect those who choose to go down one route to pay fees but not others.

Being successful often takes sacrifice, an economic system that penalises those who work hard is not just ridiculous, its dangerous

GusherING

I am wary of means testing because in Ireland, that's generally a good excuse to cut government funding. If fees are re-introduced, you can bet your house the funds raised won't go on a well-funded grants system as say, the one in England. The universities will be told to survive on fees while central government money will be cut back. So basically, we will return to the status quo where the colleges are skint but with less people from poorer backgrounds. Where is the equality of opportunity in that eh?

Higher income taxation for the richer in society is the best way to levy a sort of graduate tax (which all the wingnuts on here are so keen about!) and to fund a better third level system, while keeping it open to all.

Handsome Bob

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

So if you penalise those who make the most use of their time in college, that makes it fairer?

We have three students.
Ann studies arts, fights the power, goes all hippy, gets an STI and barely passes her finals. (I'm not picking on arts students, its a random example).

Barry studies Medicine, he was a 600 point LC student, but started smoking dope in college and has no ambition in life. If earns 30K p.a now (the average industrial wage is 35K).

Ciaran is from a disadvantaged background, he works hard and pays his way through college by means of a loan just to pay basic expenses live food and rent. He becomes a qualified engineer and earns 100K a year.

So you're saying that the fairest system would be to make Ciaran pay for college but not the other two because he made a career from what he learned in college? Thats not fair at all.

Everyone has the same opportunity once in college to do well and have fun and to strike the balance between the two that suits them. Its not fair to expect those who choose to go down one route to pay fees but not others.

Being successful often takes sacrifice, an economic system that penalises those who work hard is not just ridiculous, its dangerous

I agree with your assessment Redeye.

But if fees are reintroduced here, I fear it will restrict the likes of "Ciaran" from getting a crack at 3rd Level. My eldest brother went to Trinity back in the day when fees were not free. My parents were paying thousands of pounds every year for 5 years. Now, I don't know how loans work, but if Ciaran decided that he wasn't going to depend on his parents and wanted to pay his own way, would he be able to get loans of thousands of euro every year? And that is just for fees. What about living expenses, books, etc etc?

As I mentioned the ACCESS program gives disadvantaged students a chance at 3rd Level. But that is heavily means tested, very very few spaces are available on that program.

Fees worth thousands of euro every year will force many to shelve hopes of going to 3rd Level. The likes of the ACCESS Program will only help very few.

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

So you're saying that the fairest system would be to make Ciaran pay for college but not the other two because he made a career from what he learned in college? Thats not fair at all.

I accept your point, but you could also argue that Ciaran is now in a position where, earning 100,000 a year, he can easily afford the 5,000 given to him by the Government. The possibility of having to pay 5,000 is not going to deter anyone with ambition from doing well in college and building a successful career for themselves. It's 5% of Ciaran's income for a single year, over the course of 30+ years in the workforce (and I seriously doubt it would have to be paid back in a single year).

Regarding Barry, I don't believe too many of these people exist. Very few people would achieve 600 points in the Leaving Cert., put themselves through 6 years of an intensive course like Medicine, and wind up a bum at the end of it all. I'm sure there's some, but they'd be in the minority.

Again I accept your point with Ann. On the other hand, Ann could study Arts, go into teaching, devote herself to special needs teaching where she would not be earning huge money but would be making a valuable contribution to society. Yes, I'm sure Ciaran is also contributing hugely, but the fact remains that he has a larger disposable income than the Ann I've described.

There is no perfect system. A graduate tax, paid over a number of years, on those who can afford it, is a fair system IMO. It's an extension of the system we already use where those on higher wages pay a higher rate of tax. No one is leaving the country over that, and no one will see having to pay back a percentage of your college fees as a disincentive to working here.

testybits

Tayto2000 wrote: »

On the other hand, what does it cost to run the place? I'm guessing the wage bill probably makes up the bulk of the cost as even an extremely conservative (and extremely rough!) estimate of 300 staff at 30,000k pa would cost 9 mil. There's a lot more staff than that and many senior staff are on much higher pay as well. On top of that, UCD must have a monstrous energy bill and that doesn't even take into account basic maintenance and servicing, never mind upgrading of existing facilities... And all his without even addressing academic, social or teaching activities! Without knowing what the costs are I don't think it's right to say that €1000 a student will pay for everything...

Tayto2000 hit the nail on the head. UCD spent €5.0m on energy alone in 2005 (http://energy32.ucd.ie/). Add the massive increase to fuel costs since then. To reiterate Tayto's point, the place wont run on thin air.

Countless students fail the majority of their exams every year and seem to be able to cover the cost of resits. Reintroduction of fees would inevitably produce a better student at the end of the day because their parents wont be as willing to bail them out if they're already covering their tuition fees.

The amount of people bitching and moaning on this site about how unfair any reintroduction of fees would be yet the fact of the matter is that the only difference it'll make will be whether or not people will be in a position to afford their J1 summer, and lets face it the majority of us have either gone on a J1 or are planning to in subsequent years.

Im not from a wealthy backround by any means but I believe that any means tested system would absolutely have to take into account for any major expenses of families e.g. other children already in 3rd level and mortgages.

I should probably mention too that means tested systems based on the various European social models already in place are generally designed to be inclusive of the most vunerable members of society, i.e. children, the elderly and those from lower socio-economic backrounds so chances are, those coming from low income households will probably not be affected by this.

Handsome Bob

testybits wrote: »

Countless students fail the majority of their exams every year and seem to be able to cover the cost of resits. Reintroduction of fees would inevitably produce a better student at the end of the day because their parents wont be as willing to bail them out if they're already covering their tuition fees.

I agree with the idea of students needing to know some responsibilty. I dropped out in 2005 and paid 3,000 to my current course in 2006, it certainly led to me becoming a better student. However, how can you assume that certain parents would be able to afford the tuition fee's?

testybits wrote: »

The amount of people bitching and moaning on this site about how unfair any reintroduction of fees would be yet the fact of the matter is that the only difference it'll make will be whether or not people will be in a position to afford their J1 summer, and lets face it the majority of us have either gone on a J1 or are planning to in subsequent years.

Fees would be a yearly thing, costing thousands of euro every year. It is more than the equivalent of a J1 Holiday.

Tom65

If I'd been asked a year or two ago whether I favourite fees or not, I'd be 100% against them, but having seen the cuts made just in the last year makes me think they're a necessary evil. I think it's very simplistic to be dry cut against them. The money has to come from somewhere, and there isn't enough at the moment. If the government do reintroduce fees, I'd want them to make sure they've a system which doesn't discourage people from a disadvantaged background going to college. I'm well off enough, I went to a private school. I would be okay with having to pay college fees (assuming they weren't extortionate ). I know I'm in a privileged position.

I think means testing is probably the best avenue to go, but with that they'd need an overhall of that grants system. Anyone who has to pay fees should be eligible for a loan from the government. Means testing assumes that the student's parents will pay, which isn't always the case.

Feel free to ridicule this suggestion, because I just thought of it now, but why can't they mix means testing and a graduate tax. Those able to pay for college now do so, while those who can't go into a graduate tax system? Just a ill-thought out, idea...

One question about graduate tax systems: does anyone know what happens if the graduate emigrates (which is more likely in coming years)?

Murphy(Cork)

I see a clear solution, Reduce the number taking Arts. There is too many doing arts and for what!
Obviously that alone is not going to stop the reintroduction of fees but it's a step in the positive direction.
Fair enough if someone wants to become a teacher and feels arts is the way to go but for most its just a way of going to college and a way of saying I went. Redirect the money else where.

GusherING

Murphy(Cork) wrote: »

I see a clear solution, Reduce the number taking Arts. There is too many doing arts and for what!
Obviously that alone is not going to stop the reintroduction of fees but it's a step in the positive direction.
Fair enough if someone wants to become a teacher and feels arts is the way to go but for most its just a way of going to college and a way of saying I went. Redirect the money else where.

Yeah, all we need are lawyers, doctors, commerce students and scientists. :rolleyes:

Économiste Monétaire

Murphy(Cork) wrote: »

I see a clear solution, Reduce the number taking Arts. There is too many doing arts and for what!
Obviously that alone is not going to stop the reintroduction of fees but it's a step in the positive direction.
Fair enough if someone wants to become a teacher and feels arts is the way to go but for most its just a way of going to college and a way of saying I went. Redirect the money else where.

And what gives you the right to judge courses on their merit? How is it a step in a positive direction?

testybits

Murphy(Cork) wrote: »

There is too many doing arts and for what!

Correction: There are too many people doing arts...Obviously the basic rules of grammar aren't a big feature in whatever course you're doing.

A degree is a degree at the end of the day and the skills which you gain from it will support any future job applications.

Murphy(Cork)

I didn't say scrap arts totally. I said reduce the numbers doing it. There is ( sorry, are) way too many doing it!
I didn't highlight Arts in a negative way and I don't intend too either.
Not judging arts on merit and not saying pick on arts cause it is meaningless and a waste of time.
I am just giving my opinion, that I feel that the places should be reduced in all colleges.

Breezer

testybits wrote: »

Correction: There are too many people doing arts...Obviously the basic rules of grammar aren't a big feature in whatever course you're doing.

A degree is a degree at the end of the day and the skills which you gain from it will support any future job applications.

QFT. I'm doing a very practical course but I see the benefit in furthering our knowledge of language, history, classics, etc. Not only are the general skills picked up in Arts degrees applicable to a wide range of careers and further studies, but culture and learning for learning's sake are incredibly important; without those, we become animals with a monetary system.

The graduate tax system is fairer than means testing, I think. While Kaptain Redeye definitely has a point about it being open to abuse and waste, the vast majority of people, particularly those who are bothered going to college in the first place, want to better themselves and would not waste an education. It also allows for students of all backgrounds to reap equal benefits, and removed the onus from parents to pay for their adult children (or for students to work during their college years, to the detriment of their education).

Handsome Bob

Breezer wrote: »

QFT. I'm doing a very practical course but I see the benefit in furthering our knowledge of language, history, classics, etc. Not only are the general skills picked up in Arts degrees applicable to a wide range of careers and further studies, but culture and learning for learning's sake are incredibly important; without those, we become animals with a monetary system.

The graduate tax system is fairer than means testing, I think. While Kaptain Redeye definitely has a point about it being open to abuse and waste, the vast majority of people, particularly those who are bothered going to college in the first place, want to better themselves and would not waste an education. It also allows for students of all backgrounds to reap equal benefits, and removed the onus from parents to pay for their adult children (or for students to work during their college years, to the detriment of their education).

That's a very fair post breezer.

My main concern with means testing and the idea of only having people who can afford it to pay full fees is that there is no guarentee that one who can't afford to pay will get a grant. If I may draw on my own exprience, I am not well off by any means. My father is a retired brewery man, my mother is a housewife. But I was refused a grant all together last year, I couldn't even qualify for the 1200 euro grant.

Now I really doubt someone in my position chances's of getting a grant excusing me from paying thousands every year for 3 years.

Murphy(Cork)

testybits wrote: »

Correction: There are too many people doing arts...Obviously the basic rules of grammar aren't a big feature in whatever course you're doing.

Correct

Murphy(Cork)

UCD_Econ wrote: »

And what gives you the right to judge courses on their merit? How is it a step in a positive direction?

Its a step in a positive direction ( a small step by the way). Something has to be done by the government, the only opinion facing them at the moment is reintroducing fees or coming up with some means testing system.
But the Gov should take a closer look at areas where money is being spent in the colleges and I feel the capacity of Art courses is one. Why can't Arts be the same as every other course. It would benefit people doing arts also, everyone understands the principal of supply and demand, the more graduates you have leaving every year the harder it is getting a job. Look at the teaching situation.
I have many friends in Arts or who have graduated from it and can't find jobs and this was before the so called "recession".
Redirect the money into other courses, allow more places to open up and give students the opinion of being able to do that course. Redirect the money into science and engineering where numbers are low. Graduates are needed from these areas at the moment if Ireland wants to recapture the Celtic tiger again.

Pride Fighter

I think some sort of fees should be reintroduced. The lesser off in society and most of the middle class should get free education but deciding the start point for fees is the problem. Something like 100,000 euro + to be given fees with the figure going up per number of child sent. They should tie it in with inflation as well as someones wages could be static for years and they end up losing money eventually. It is just an idea though, I have not run a feasibility study on it.

GusherING

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I think some sort of fees should be reintroduced. The lesser off in society and most of the middle class should get free education but deciding the start point for fees is the problem. Something like 100,000 euro + to be given fees with the figure going up per number of child sent. They should tie it in with inflation as well as someones wages could be static for years and they end up losing money eventually. It is just an idea though, I have not run a feasibility study on it.

Apparently when they last thought of introducing fees in 2003 the Dept did a calculation as to what a 100,000 threshold would raise in fees. The estimate was 14 million, hardly enough to cover the paperwork I dare say! I heard this on the todays One O'Clock news on RTE radio, if you want a source!

Pride Fighter

GusherING wrote: »

Apparently when they last thought of introducing fees in 2003 the Dept did a calculation as to what a 100,000 threshold would raise in fees. The estimate was 14 million, hardly enough to cover the paperwork I dare say! I heard this on the todays One O'Clock news on RTE radio, if you want a source!

Its better than a kick up the arse and would make a small difference. That combined with creative private funding could be just the ticket. ALthough I'd say more people earn over 100,000 euro now than did 5 years ago so that would boost it by a bit.

Économiste Monétaire

Murphy(Cork) wrote: »

Its a step in a positive direction ( a small step by the way). Something has to be done by the government, the only opinion facing them at the moment is reintroducing fees or coming up with some means testing system.
But the Gov should take a closer look at areas where money is being spent in the colleges and I feel the capacity of Art courses is one. Why can't Arts be the same as every other course. It would benefit people doing arts also, everyone understands the principal of supply and demand, the more graduates you have leaving every year the harder it is getting a job. Look at the teaching situation.
I have many friends in Arts or who have graduated from it and can't find jobs and this was before the so called "recession".
Redirect the money into other courses, allow more places to open up and give students the opinion of being able to do that course. Redirect the money into science and engineering where numbers are low. Graduates are needed from these areas at the moment if Ireland wants to recapture the Celtic tiger again.

I had a longer post written but this isn't a thread arguing about the viability of the Arts course. I'll just say your inherent assumption that Arts is oversubscribed (on demand terms) in comparison to Engineering & Science is wrong. You fail to see that more people apply for Arts/Social Science courses, in first preference, than Engineering (including any technology course) and Science, combined.

http://www2.cao.ie/dir_report/pdf/AppStats01Feb2008.pdf

Murphy(Cork)

UCD_Econ wrote: »

I had a longer post written but this isn't a thread arguing about the viability of the Arts course. I'll just say your inherent assumption that Arts is oversubscribed (on demand terms) in comparison to Engineering & Science is wrong. You fail to see that more people apply for Arts/Social Science courses, in first preference, than Engineering (including any technology course) and Science, combined.

http://www2.cao.ie/dir_report/pdf/AppStats01Feb2008.pdf

I agree, gone totally off the point.

Won't go down the road why more people apply for arts and the reason behind that. But i do see that more people apply for arts, that has always been the case. But isn't it obvious why, there's more places in Arts, Less points compared to other courses (not all), only 3 years and out the gap, and considered by most as a handy course to do. But every1 knows varies reasons for people picking arts.
The majority for the right reason

bnt

Tom65 wrote: »

One question about graduate tax systems: does anyone know what happens if the graduate emigrates (which is more likely in coming years)?

Do any such systems actually exist, or are you asking what would happen?

Well, within the EU, nothing could happen, because we have free movement - and I suspect that such a tax would not be permitted under European law, anyway. However, if the govt. did manage to implement such a thing, and a person wished to emigrate to a non-EU country such as Canada or Australia, their immigration procedures require you to supply written confirmation, from the tax office, that you've met all your tax obligations.

Sorry - I don't see the point of any kind of "graduate tax" as described here. The years I spend at university are years spent not earning money. Then, if my degree eventually leads to a higher income - which is not a certainty! - I will be taxed at a higher rate anyway.

I also don't get this sudden enthusiasm for means-testing. Do you like giving up wads of personal information to some petty bureaucrat at the local council, who can make your life a living hell at the touch of a key? He or she has a bad day, and you don't have a roof over your head for half a year? The government is not on your side - it exists to serve itself, not you. :eek:

armada104

Tom65 wrote: »

I think means testing is probably the best avenue to go, but with that they'd need an overhall of that grants system. Anyone who has to pay fees should be eligible for a loan from the government. Means testing assumes that the student's parents will pay, which isn't always the case.

Eligibility for a loan isn't good enough. I don't think it's overly idealistic to aim for equal rights to education. Having some go to college on their parents' coat-tails while others have to pay a loan afterwards is not equal. Call me a communist, call me unrealistic, but it's just not fair.