"Third-level fees being considered"

Time Magazine

challengemaster wrote: »

Wait, they got the idea from the fact that we're in a recession..where nobody can afford things? Yet they want people to pay for college fees aswell?

I'm thinking they didn't go to third level.

No offence, but you're clearly the one lacking third-level education with posts like that. "Nobody can afford things" creates a stupid, illogical disconnect between government spending and tax revenue.

We are already paying for third-level education, the current system simply provides an equal subsidy to the rich as to the poor.

Piste wrote: »

We should all had over to the college fora and make a plea to all members of clubs and socs not to be wasters and have these huge pissups at the college's expense because it means we'll have to pay fees :pac:

Student societies are funded by the registration fee. Professors earn in excess of €100,00 a year. Trinity's budget is c. €250m a yaer. TCD's Central Societies Committee had a budget of about €0.3m the year I sat on its committee. Get some perspective.

If people have to pay fees for third-level education it means that parents will start sending their kids to public school instead of private so that they can afford college.

Wonderful, in my opinion. That's far fairer.

This will put a huge strain on already overcrowded public schools and then we'll have the college problem all over again with underfunded secondary schools.

Bullsh*t. You're forgetting about the hundreds of millions of revenue that free fees cost. That can be spent elsewhere. My first recommendation is primary schools. Next up is second level infrastructure. Then with what's left over we can fund a reasonable grant system that actually provides liveable sustenance to those that could not otherwise afford to go to university. I was on a grant all through college and had to work part-time for the first three years. I went into debt for fourth year. I worked hard and get a well-paying summer job that has already paid off all of my debt. And even at that I really don't think that's an optimal level of investment, given the fact that we have so many other things to spend our yuros on. It is unfair that my education was funded by the secretary down stairs' taxes, and that her taxes also provide free fees for my friends whose parents earn more than €200,000 a year.

brianthebard wrote: »

Its been shown time and again that free fees has benefitted the better off families more than those they were intended to help-why not even the playing field a bit?

+1

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Bastards. Bastards! Let's just go and rename ourselves "America Lite", we're half way there already.

Because "America" is synonymous with bad?

Their students pay fees, but their universities dominate world rankings. It's world-class R&D that will provide economic growth, not establishing another university in Waterford.

Oh and by the way my buddy is heading to Harvard next year for his PhD. He has his fees and grant set up for the next five years.

If only IRCSET were that cash-rich. Hmm, if only we could direct funding appropriately.

ciaranajl wrote: »

If we want to survive this recession we need to have a superb education system

Bullsh*t. There is absolutely no chance that this recession will last longer than a decade. The effects of introducing fees next year would not be felt that soon.

and if the Irish population is seen on the "international stage" as being well-educated, in come the multinationals -- or at least that's one factor that attracts them. I agree that if they universities need more funding then fees should be increased, but nowhere near what you have to pay in the US.

Nobody is suggesting US levels. The cost of study there is ridiculous. That's not an excuse to provide free fees for those earning €100,000 a year.

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

As. If fees were brought in at a level comparable to those in other countries, I would definitely consider applying to somewhere like Cambridge, etc. If we have to pay for it for the sake of international standings, may as well go for the best available.

Trinity was ranked 13th in Europe last year. John Hegarty and Hugh Brady are calling for fees so we can compete with Cambridge. Not languish in mediocrity.

Piste wrote: »

I've spoken to people on committees of clubs and socs not nearly as together as yerselves who throw money around on nights out and "refreshments".

Then it must be true?

Nanaki wrote: »

Surely the ridiculous wages for the Dail should be first to fall? Lead by example, or somesuch thing. People would be more likely to accept cut backs if these talkers were getting paid less for doing what they do best - talk.

I agree that ministerial pay-rises should not go ahead. And so does the cabinet, it's already been shelved and will not pass through social partnership talks.

And please get some perspective. There are 15 departments, each headed by a minister. Their combined wages cost about €1 per citizen per year. It costs as much to keep a prisoner in Portlaoise.

Can you imagine the protests if this was introduced? :P heh

Unfortunately. "We want higher taxes!" is so appealing.

Anyone got rough numbers of third level students nationwide?

Have you any idea how much this is costing the state every year?

If not, why do you feel so sure that it represents value for money?

mikemac

square_igloo wrote: »

I am against the introduction of fees but tbh it wouldn't affect me personally.
While free education is obviously the ideal situation, introducing fees on a means tested basis is certainly better than expecting all students to pay equal fees.

.

Agreed but means testing means a raft of bureaucracy and public servants have been assigned to manage these means tests. And people won't be slow to appeal decisions which means an appeals boards needs to be setup with senior staff. All this costs money.
Sometimes it's cheaper to just give schemes for free then introducing these tests. I don't know what the costs are so don't flame me, you can see what I'm getting at.

Sure Brian Cowan said something similar a few years ago on some other scheme when talking about his budget.

genericgoon

Firstly, isn't there a thread on this subject already? You know theres a recession on we should be more efficient with our thread creation. :P

Also, I'm interested to see what kind of system would be introduced if fees were brought in. A state-backed loan system, a graduation tax, or just a simple straight up payment before the academic year?

Also, the Irish Unis could never hope to compete with the Harvards and Cambridges of the world. We're simply aiming to get most of our Unis in the upper end of the table with maybe one of the Dublin Unis moving into the very highest echelons of the table.

Axwell

chat2joe wrote: »

Clubs and Socs don't get funding for "pissups". It's a common misconception. Clubs and Socs regularly have parties but they're usually either paid for by the members (bulk order split amoung the members) or it's in a venue that'll do special promotions. All receipts and budgets are carefully monitored - there's not just a big tub of cash to play with.

The only cases I know of free "pissups" is with the youth political parties' societies - and the money for this is pumped in from the main party, nothing to do with college.

So there

Hate to inform you joe but this isnt always the case, while maybe their isnt funding given to a club or soc for booze its not always true that the receipts given in match the costs i know for a fact when i was in college in a certain society there was an event ran where a lot of money was saved from stuff given for free in the end yet receipts were just put in for the stuff at cost leaving free money for beer, it was done back then and im sure its been done right now still. Where theres a will theres a way - and where theres a way theres beer.

brianthebard

chat2joe wrote: »

Yep sure, was on committee of both clubs and socs - NUI Galway.

fair enough but i think thats the exception rather than the rule.

Peyton Manning

Im in the Queen's University in Belfast, and I thought 'ah fees, sure they're not so bad...'. Then I found out you have to pay them every year. Between fees and accomodation alone last year, I spent €10k. That doesnt take into account books, food, travel or my alcoholism. I cant wait until Im earning money.

Nanaki

Antithetic wrote: »

Have you any idea how much this is costing the state every year?

If not, why do you feel so sure that it represents value for money?

sorry, I meant that last question with regard to student protests, nothing else

A.Partridge

gaeilgegrinds wrote: »

It will only be for those who can well afford it, it's been mentioned time & time again. Don't let it worry any of you for whom it may be a problem. And, as with everything in this country, it'll take time!

As a fortysomething year-old on a less than brilliant salary and with 3 college going students at home I would just like to say that:

1. I have to pay out €2,500 per annum as it stands (€800+ by 3) for my sons to have a so-called 'free college education'. I am already paying enough through taxation to cover such basic needs as education. Now they are talking about making it even more unaffordable!

2. "It will only be for those who can welll afford it"....ehhhh yeah right. I've lived long enough to know that my parents - who weren't poor enough to get a grant to send me to college but who weren't rich enough to send me either - were caught in the middle. Result?....Neither I or my siblings ever got to go to college. I had to get my qualifications by night and work full time to pay my tuition fees. I'll be damned if my kids will e forced to do the same. It's always the people in the middle who get stung for everything...healthcare, education etc.

3. I note that IBEC think it is a great idea...well they would wouldn't they.

It's amazing that just as we seem to have things going in the rigtht direction in terms of equality of access to education that the old brigade (i.e. FF) decide to try and tinker with the re-introduction of societal inequality by suggesting the possible reinstatement of college fees.:mad:

MIM-104

A proposal like this will need to be backed by the whole goverment and already the Green's and PD's have rejected this it will probably never happen and if it does I'm off to MIT

genericgoon

A.Partridge wrote: »

As a fortysomething year-old on a less than brilliant salary and with 3 college going students at home I would just like to say that:

1. I have to pay out €2,500 per annum as it stands (€800+ by 3) for my sons to have a so-called 'free college education'. I am already paying enough through taxation to cover such basic needs as education. Now they are talking about making it even more unaffordable!

2. "It will only be for those who can welll afford it"....ehhhh yeah right. I've lived long enough to know that my parents - who weren't poor enough to get a grant to send me to college but who weren't rich enough to send me either - were caught in the middle. Result?....Neither I or my siblings ever got to go to college. I had to get my qualifications by night and work full time to pay my tuition fees. I'll be damned if my kids will e forced to do the same. It's always the people in the middle who get stung for everything...healthcare, education etc.

3. I note that IBEC think it is a great idea...well they would wouldn't they.

It's amazing that just as we seem to have things going in the rigtht direction in terms of equality of access to education that the old brigade (i.e. FF) decide to try and tinker with the re-introduction of societal inequality by suggesting the possible reinstatement of college fees.:mad:

This is true. It will invariably be people on the threshold who will really suffer, if the amount to be garnered from fees is to be suitable to bridge the gap.

PurpleFistMixer

Antithetic wrote: »

Because "America" is synonymous with bad?

Their students pay fees, but their universities dominate world rankings. It's world-class R&D that will provide economic growth, not establishing another university in Waterford.

I never said America was synonymous with bad. I only suggested that we're becoming more like America. Paying for education, increasingly privatised healthcare, etc. It's up to the individual to judge whether or not they support these things.

To be honest, world rankings are nice, but I'd be more concerned that education be freely available to all who seek it.

Time Magazine

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I never said America was synonymous with bad. I only suggested that we're becoming more like America. Paying for education, increasingly privatised healthcare, etc.

You reckon? State expenditure on health increased 235.1% between 1997-2006. Who gives a flying fuck if half a ward in Mullingar is private? Get some perspective.

To be honest, world rankings are nice,

They are. And the fact that Irish universities are so poorly funded is the main reason I'm thinking of leaving the country in twelve months' time.

but I'd be more concerned that education be freely available to all who seek it.

So am I. Free fees doesn't achieve that though. The impact on attendance of the lower socio-economic groups has been negligible.

If you really want education to be available, support a complete overhaul of the grants system. I'm not quite sure you're aware just how ludicrous it is. We don't have any more money to spend, so to fund this system we have to stop spending money on other things.

I suggest we stop paying fees for families earning more than €80,000 a year (increasing with number of dependent children etc., of course).

What do you suggest we cut back on?

PurpleFistMixer

An increase in one thing with respect to nothing else is a meaningless statistic, so don't tell me to get perspective.
I do care about consultants being too busy to see public patients because they're too busy attending to private patients, though. In fact, I can't say I'm too fond of the way consultants seem to work in general. That's primarily based on my own experiences though, rather than any detailed understanding of the system.

At the end of the day, I acknowledge that the universities are underfunded. I see that in fact, a lot of things could do with more money. However, I think there's quite a lot of inefficiency in the way things are run in this country, and I would be lax to bail the government out of facing up to that fact, by "solving" the underfunding issue by paying for it again, after taxes.
Also there's that part of me that believes everyone, regardless of their income, should be entitled to free education.

Davidius

MIM-104 wrote: »

A proposal like this will need to be backed by the whole goverment and already the Green's and PD's have rejected this it will probably never happen and if it does I'm off to MIT

Just like Iron Man, Gordon Freeman and Dilbert*?

*He went to MIT, right?

Time Magazine

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

An increase in one thing with respect to nothing else is a meaningless statistic

WTF? If I said the murder rate increased by 250% over the past decade, you'd consider that "meaningless"? Do you want me to supply you with the rate of inflation over the period for a benchmark? If that's your reasoning, it's not perspective your posts need but rather a healthy dose of logic.

I do care about consultants being too busy to see public patients because they're too busy attending to private patients, though. In fact, I can't say I'm too fond of the way consultants seem to work in general. That's primarily based on my own experiences though, rather than any detailed understanding of the system.

I'm not a bit surprised it's not based on detailed understanding of the system but rather personal experience because so many of the posts on this thread are stymied with the same condition. Suffice to say there's no simple solution to the issue of busy consultants. Refusing them permission to operate privately if they're employed by the State will mean a large proportion of them will go fully private. Where are we then? I'd really like it if this nation lost its affection for impotent idealism and faced realities once in a while. Seriously, people's dedication to "causes" is nearly as myopic and damaging as the way the Church interfered in years gone by. This whole "free access, duuuude" thing is the analogous.

At the end of the day, I acknowledge that the universities are underfunded. I see that in fact, a lot of things could do with more money.

Hurrah, we have identified the problem!

However, I think there's quite a lot of inefficiency in the way things are run in this country, and I would be lax to bail the government out of facing up to that fact, by "solving" the underfunding issue by paying for it again, after taxes.

But, alas, the solution is "be more efficient." This is the equivalent of telling a kid he'll get better results in school by getting better results. If you'd like to take on the public service unions, I'll back you right up. But, as I said, this "free access, duuude" mindset we have in this country would consider any attempts to increase efficiency as a fundamentalist capitalist dogmatic Thatcherite Nazi NWO scheme.

In short: you're right, but there's no method of "improving productivity" in the public service. Trust me. Hey, let me give you an example from work today. I'm an economist in the public service. I called up a large state body today looking for information, probing for ways to make them better. I explain to Mr. Higher Executive Officer who I am, what I'm trying to do and how we could help me. The first thing he asks is "who gave you my name?" "Improving efficiency" isn't something that's going to be achieved easily. Changing public policy that is not adequately providing for the less well-off gets the Antithetic Big Thumbs Up, though.

Also there's that part of me that believes everyone, regardless of their income, should be entitled to free education.

Duuuuuuude.

That's stupid. Really. There are homeless teenagers in Dublin tonight. Why the hell should we spend that money on some rich kid's tuition fees? How are we actually going to redress the socioeconomic balance when the kid from Ballymun may have free third-level fees, but has to compete with the Instituter to get there in the first place?

Peleus

but we're students... if we have to pay fees we have no money for food

MIM-104

Davidius wrote: »

Just like Iron Man, Gordon Freeman and Dilbert*?

*He went to MIT, right?

yep and its the home of many Tiddlywinks world champions in the 80's:D

apparently since it was founded by one of my ancestors i only have to pay half fees but i want to stay in ireland and go to UL

spillit67

Personally speaking as a guy hopefully about to go to college the fees thing doesnt effect me that much. I'm lucky, I went to 'private' school and i know my parents could afford it. I also think that maybe people earning say over 100,000 a year could afford it. But then again at 18, we're adults-our parents shouldn't be burdoned with this cost, irrespective of wealth. Maybe a tax, say 1 or 2 percent for like 10 years on College graduates-pay for the next generations college.

But then it comes down to this. The Colleges need more money, will this help? Will the govt relocate the money they are currently spending on fees for bigger grants to colleges? I doubt it somehow tbh even though they should. I notice they said it was due to the recession-they hit this and cut education spending generally would be a big mistake.

ec18

Antithetic wrote: »

No offence, but you're clearly the one lacking third-level education with posts like that. "Nobody can afford things" creates a stupid, illogical disconnect between government spending and tax revenue.

We are already paying for third-level education, the current system simply provides an equal subsidy to the rich as to the poor.

Student societies are funded by the registration fee. Professors earn in excess of €100,00 a year. Trinity's budget is c. €250m a yaer. TCD's Central Societies Committee had a budget of about €0.3m the year I sat on its committee. Get some perspective.

Wonderful, in my opinion. That's far fairer.

Bullsh*t. You're forgetting about the hundreds of millions of revenue that free fees cost. That can be spent elsewhere. My first recommendation is primary schools. Next up is second level infrastructure. Then with what's left over we can fund a reasonable grant system that actually provides liveable sustenance to those that could not otherwise afford to go to university. I was on a grant all through college and had to work part-time for the first three years. I went into debt for fourth year. I worked hard and get a well-paying summer job that has already paid off all of my debt. And even at that I really don't think that's an optimal level of investment, given the fact that we have so many other things to spend our yuros on. It is unfair that my education was funded by the secretary down stairs' taxes, and that her taxes also provide free fees for my friends whose parents earn more than €200,000 a year.

+1

Because "America" is synonymous with bad?

Their students pay fees, but their universities dominate world rankings. It's world-class R&D that will provide economic growth, not establishing another university in Waterford.

Oh and by the way my buddy is heading to Harvard next year for his PhD. He has his fees and grant set up for the next five years.

If only IRCSET were that cash-rich. Hmm, if only we could direct funding appropriately.

Bullsh*t. There is absolutely no chance that this recession will last longer than a decade. The effects of introducing fees next year would not be felt that soon.

Nobody is suggesting US levels. The cost of study there is ridiculous. That's not an excuse to provide free fees for those earning €100,000 a year.

Trinity was ranked 13th in Europe last year. John Hegarty and Hugh Brady are calling for fees so we can compete with Cambridge. Not languish in mediocrity.

Then it must be true?

I agree that ministerial pay-rises should not go ahead. And so does the cabinet, it's already been shelved and will not pass through social partnership talks.

And please get some perspective. There are 15 departments, each headed by a minister. Their combined wages cost about €1 per citizen per year. It costs as much to keep a prisoner in Portlaoise.

Unfortunately. "We want higher taxes!" is so appealing.

Have you any idea how much this is costing the state every year?

If not, why do you feel so sure that it represents value for money?

Thats a surprisingly logical and well thought out reply for boards. I'm guessing you either did economics or politics?

straight_As

Guys,

From reading here, I've become a little confused.

Would the introduction of fees be to support a badly run grant system or to actually increase the adequacy of the universities?

Not to sound elitist or anything, but, if we're told by the government that the reintroduction of fees is to support the colleges, then surely that's what it must do. It can't simply be to uphold the same standards but at a higher price, can it?

I can't believe I'm actually contemplating this reintroduction, it just seems wrong.

brianthebard

Re-introduction of fees would be to increase funding for third level education, which is already being cut 3% this year. If it were introduced, it has been suggested that fees will be means tested. (All very up in the air at the minute).
What the government tells us and what we should do are two different things, but personally I'm have no quarrel with means tested fees. Probably because I know that we are poor enough to avoid them anyways.

Piste

Will the introduction of fees really mean more money for colleges though?


If the fees that had been paid by the government are now being paid by students then the same money is going into the colleges, so I can only see it benifiting the government.

Unless is the government planning on giving the same amount as it has been on top of the student-paid fees?

Antithetic wrote: »

.

Free fees doesn't achieve that though. The impact on attendance of the lower socio-economic groups has been negligible.

Leaving the lower socio-economic groups aside for a moment, the impact on students in ireland as a whole was dramatic. Now if the people fom middle-class homes were as able to afford the fees before the free-fees scheme was introduced then where did this increase come from?

As regards the lower socio-economic group, The Tribune says:

The Tribune wrote:

Between 1998 and 2004, for example, following the introduction of free fees for degrees, the number of children of skilled workers participating in third-level education jumped from 32% to 50%. The participation rate in Dublin's north inner city rose from nine percent to 23%.

This is quite a significant figure, especially seeing as we've only had free fees for 12 years and perhaps a lot of those people are only coming round to the idea that university is a possibility.

I'm not completely against the reintroduction of fees. When I first heard the news my initial reaction was "that's appalling". But if it were properly managed (very strict means testing) and perhaps if the fees were split 50-50 between the government and students then it mightn't be such a bad idea.

It's a pity that it's such a sore spot in the government and few members of government are willing to talk about it. Bat O'Keefe said he'd be analysing the situation over the next few days to see where everything stands and if introducing fees is really necessary, so we'll have to wait and see what the outcome of that is.

I guess it boils down to whether we want a very high standard of education or free education, it would be good if they could strike a balance, maybe some colleges you have to pay fees and others you don't.

brianthebard

I don't think a two tier uni system is the answer,theres already enough of a divide between i.t's and unis.As for fees replacing govt expenditure,thats a non runner tbh.

cHaTbOx

This could either be a good idea or a very bad one.
Yes,we are heading into a recession and this is a massive debt,but Ireland no longer has the celtic tiger or the housing market to fall back on.

We can no longer compete with countries in Asia and eastern europe for industry, where a worker will work for over ten times less than they will work for over here.

Ireland needs to have a specialised work force to be able to compete internationally.

I think the problem is the fees are available to every course. I think fees should apply to those courses which the government sees a need for in the future.This way there is more encouragement to go into these jobs and will be a large specified workforce in Ireland.

This way Ireland will be able to compete Internationally.

PurpleFistMixer

Antithetic wrote: »

WTF? If I said the murder rate increased by 250% over the past decade, you'd consider that "meaningless"? Do you want me to supply you with the rate of inflation over the period for a benchmark? If that's your reasoning, it's not perspective your posts need but rather a healthy dose of logic.

Murder rate is quite different to the amount spent on public healthcare. And yes, if you're going to be telling me things like "well the amount spent on this increased by so much over these years", I'd like to know how much spent on other things changed, and how much the money coming in changed, and all that. I don't see how demanding a point of reference is illogical. I don't study Economics, though, so maybe it's acceptable practice there.

Antithetic wrote: »

'm not a bit surprised it's not based on detailed understanding of the system but rather personal experience because so many of the posts on this thread are stymied with the same condition.

I'm not surprised either, because this is the Leaving Cert board, where most of the posters have just done their Leaving Cert, not a degree in Economics.

Antithetic wrote: »

But, alas, the solution is "be more efficient." This is the equivalent of telling a kid he'll get better results in school by getting better results.

No, it's the equivalent of telling a kid he'll get better results in school if he spends less time messing about organising his copybooks and more time studying.

Antithetic wrote: »

Duuuuuuude.

Do you regularly patronise the people you talk to, or only those on the internet?

Antithetic wrote: »

That's stupid. Really. There are homeless teenagers in Dublin tonight. Why the hell should we spend that money on some rich kid's tuition fees? How are we actually going to redress the socioeconomic balance when the kid from Ballymun may have free third-level fees, but has to compete with the Instituter to get there in the first place?

Some rich kid has had taxes taken out of his income to pay for someone else's fees, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those who earn more pay more tax (and if they don't then they should), so surely that rich kid should be giving out that his college education costs more.

And I have no love for private schools, so I'm not the best person at which to direct that question.
(Also, some colleges have access programs for students from "disadvantaged" schools to deal with that issue. I'm not sure how successful it is, but it is there.)

genericgoon

The point of reintroducing fees is to bridge the current budget deficit of the Universities. Unless the government guarantees to at least keep its funding the same as well, bringing in fees would be stupid. And it would also be foolish to create a flat fees system but rather a tiered system of fees similar to how the grant system is tiered.(which in effect already means theres a tiered fee system but I digress)

Free fees isn't a fair system by a long shot and this has been known for quite a while but keeping the middle class voters happy is obviously more important than the long term performance of our third-level system and by extension our economy. It is a damn shame the government has waited for a recession to do something which means their options fiscally are much more restrained.(although options are more open politically due to the recession card)

The British system of government backed loans is quite good but this requires an initial outlay from the government(unless done in partnership with a private body but I've never been too fond of public-private partnerships, usually the private body gets the profits while the public get the risk) and will they be willing to do that in these hard times or will they plump for the simpler but much more dangerous(in terms of getting the threshold levels right and in terms of not scaring potential students to foreign Unis with stupidly high fees) pay upfront system? If you coupled the former system with a scheme where the best % of undergrads have their debts wiped off (+ existing scholarships) if they continue to postgrad studies here we could hopefully stop the braindrain we're seeing aswell.

Editted for block o' textedness!

Time Magazine

ec18 wrote: »

Thats a surprisingly logical and well thought out reply for boards. I'm guessing you either did economics or politics?

Economics FTW.

Piste wrote: »

Will the introduction of fees really mean more money for colleges though?

Of course it will.

If the fees that had been paid by the government are now being paid by students then the same money is going into the colleges, so I can only see it benifiting the government.

Unless is the government planning on giving the same amount as it has been on top of the student-paid fees?

Here's a hypothetical situation. The government set the income threshold for fees at a level that will save them €200m a year. The means-testing costs €10m. €40m goes to the least well-off primary schools. €40m goes to the least well-off secondary schools. €75m goes to the best-performing universities. €35m goes on increasing grant payments.

Leaving the lower socio-economic groups aside for a moment, the impact on students in ireland as a whole was dramatic. Now if the people fom middle-class homes were as able to afford the fees before the free-fees scheme was introduced then where did this increase come from?

You're committing the ludic fallacy. The increase in attendance is not just due to free fees. As has already been stated on this thread, most of the variation can be explained by rising incomes.

As regards the lower socio-economic group, The Tribune says:



This is quite a significant figure, especially seeing as we've only had free fees for 12 years and perhaps a lot of those people are only coming round to the idea that university is a possibility.

Ludic fallacy again. Not to mention the fact the figures you quoted show a greater divergence in attendance rates since 1996.

More rigorous analysis contradicts what you're suggesting. The ESRI found that free fees "has had no noticeable effect on the equality of participation at third-level education." Your claim of "oh noes, people will leave grind schools!" is actually one objective of a more equitable education policy. The Department of Education acknowledged this in 2003, "[f]or tertiary education to be equitable, early childhood, primary and secondary education, too,
must be equitable –- otherwise the pool of students is not available." By subsidising third-level you just get a transferral of the inequity to second-level. This is a ludicrous policy to support.

I'm not completely against the reintroduction of fees. When I first heard the news my initial reaction was "that's appalling". But if it were properly managed (very strict means testing) and perhaps if the fees were split 50-50 between the government and students then it mightn't be such a bad idea.

Why should my friend whose parents earn €200,000 a year and will have increased his lifetime earning potential by hundreds of thousands get his fees split 50-50 when less that a quarter of Northsiders go to college?

I guess it boils down to whether we want a very high standard of education or free education, it would be good if they could strike a balance, maybe some colleges you have to pay fees and others you don't.

How about free education if you can't afford it? I think that's a good balance.

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Murder rate is quite different to the amount spent on public healthcare. And yes, if you're going to be telling me things like "well the amount spent on this increased by so much over these years", I'd like to know how much spent on other things changed, and how much the money coming in changed, and all that. I don't see how demanding a point of reference is illogical. I don't study Economics, though, so maybe it's acceptable practice there.

I assumed you had some grasp of the growth of the economy in the past decade. After all, this is a discussion on tax revenues. The economy grew by about 60% over the period. Health expenditure increased 250%.

I'm not surprised either, because this is the Leaving Cert board, where most of the posters have just done their Leaving Cert, not a degree in Economics.

I don't know the first thing about genetics. Consequently I tend not to be found wading into creationism debates.

Strange, that.

No, it's the equivalent of telling a kid he'll get better results in school if he spends less time messing about organising his copybooks and more time studying.

No it's not! "Spend less time messing" and "spend more time studying" are two clear, obtainable, measurable instruction that will help. "Increase productivity of the public sector" isn't a direct instruction. It's essentially saying "get better grades."

You're not the first person to suggest the public sector needs to be more efficient. I could list off reports the length of my arm by the OECD, by Forfás, by the NESC, by the NPPPU, by the Competition Authority, by the European Commission, by the ESRI, by the ABCDEFG demanding a more productive public sector. Some even give direct instructions akin to "study more". Few are implemented. Why? Because attempts to increase productivity - such as allowing some private practice in healthcare - is shot down on idealogical grounds. Giving universities more control over their budgets would give large unions less power and you'd see productivity gains there. Of course as soon as UCD try to lay off some admin the entire country is up in arms, though.

Do you regularly patronise the people you talk to, or only those on the internet?

Talk to me in work and I'll charm the pants off you. Talk to me at home and I'm polite. Online, I'm a sarcastic bastard . Don't take it personally.

Some rich kid has had taxes taken out of his income to pay for someone else's fees, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those who earn more pay more tax (and if they don't then they should), so surely that rich kid should be giving out that his college education costs more.

So you agree the wealthy should pay more in taxes. The logic behind this is effective re-distribution of income. I couldn't agree more with you.

But why do you stop at collection? There expenditure of taxation should be aimed at redressing inequalities, too. Why stop at collection? Just because they pay more taxes means nothing about if they deserve an equal share of the expenditure. In fact that logic extends itself to the thought that the gardaí should spend less time on crimes against poor people because they're paying less taxes.

The point of progressive taxation is to redress inequality. Simply because you pay more doesn't affect the worthiness of your claim to expenditure.

And I have no love for private schools, so I'm not the best person at which to direct that question.

The cost of abolishing free fees will not be poor people but the owners of grind schools. As far as I'm concerned, this is desirable. It would make things more equal.

(Also, some colleges have access programs for students from "disadvantaged" schools to deal with that issue. I'm not sure how successful it is, but it is there.)

I've volunteered with the Trinity Access Programme (TAP). In the first instance, none of the kids would pay fees under the €200m I hypothetically suggested above, so that's irrelevant. Next, their grants would be increased under such a scheme, too. Finally, their education up to Leaving Cert would be funded better as well.

The removal of free fees would hit the Institute hard and really benefit the type of people the TAP is aimed at. Sounds like an excellent plan to me.

Those who want to retain free fees: what you got against TAP?

turgon

Batt O'Keefe will be at Ballincollig Community School tomorrow from 9am to 9:30. All those unhappy with the reintroduction of fees should arm themselves with paint guns and murder him.

I mean, killing innocent people worked for the IRA and the UDA, so why cant it work for us?? :rolleyes:

genericgoon

turgon wrote: »

Batt O'Keefe will be at Ballincollig Community School tomorrow from 9am to 9:30. All those unhappy with the reintroduction of fees should arm themselves with paint guns and murder him.

I mean, killing innocent people worked for the IRA and the UDA, so why cant it work for us?? :rolleyes:

Hes a Fianna Failer(;)) and thus has no spine so a sufficiently large protest would suffice.

Économiste Monétaire

Antithetic wrote:

The removal of free fees would hit the Institute hard and really benefit the type of people the TAP is aimed at. Sounds like an excellent plan to me.

Negative. Places increased by about 150-200 after the 'free fees' initiative. How much the boom attributed to that over 'free fees' is anyone's guess. 1000 odd places were equally (pretty much) split between brown (I think that was the name) and the IOE. I'd doubt enrolment would dip by more than 5%.