"Third-level fees being considered"

turgon

genericgoon wrote: »

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

Too true

Delphi91

square_igloo wrote: »

...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...

There's no evidence for that.

I went through University at a time when there was fees. Being able to get a grant was means tested, pretty much like you suggest. That whole system is WIDE open to abuse - just look at the tribunals that are going on in this country. I know of a situation where the father owned THREE farms which put him way over the limit for a grant. But the farms were conveniently registered under his sister's names, thus making him out to be far less "wealthy". His sons studied medicine, dentistry and vetinary medicine. And the same would happen today if a means tested system was introduced.

Let's not forget, fees do exist already. Ask any postgraduate who isn't fortunate enough to have gotten a grant, etc - they pay full fees. I've done three postgraduate courses in the last 15 years and paid full fees each time.

I might be in the minority but I don't have a problem with fees being introduced. Universities are short of cash and to be fair to them they're doing trojan work with what they have. Don't give me this nonsense about a recession - ok, I know things have turned, but it's not like it's been that way for the last number of years. We've had it brilliant for the last 15 years or so. I went to university in the early 80's when everyone else was emigrating. I was fortunate enough that I could just about afford to go.

Time Magazine

UCD_Econ wrote: »

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%.

I'm holding up the Institute for personification. I suspect grind schools' CED in general is far more sensitive than your post suggests.

Piste

Antithetic wrote: »

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.

That's all well and good, but it's a hypothetical situation. Here's my hypothetical situation: what if we woke up tomorrow and our economy was back to booming, inflation had decreased and there was lots of money to throw at universities? No point discussing that because it's hypothetical so we have no way of knowing it will happen. (ok it's far more outrageous than your suggestion, but I was only making it ridiculous to prove my point). It's all very well coming up with ideas of what could be done, but I was asking what will be done. I know the plan is to have money left over, but is the government planning on only reducing the cost of the fees to universities and having them paid by students, or will they have the fees paid by students and then give more money than they had been doing towards research etc.?

Ok maybe no one can answer that because they're only merely suggesting bringing in free fees and no plans have been put forward yet. But it's an important question.

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.

Ok fair enough that does make sense. There will still be people on the threshold like that poster with three college-going kids who is above the maintenance grant but still struggles to send them to college. I don't know if we can trust our government not to end up screwing over thousands of people who are in the middle as it were.

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."

Ok I buy that, I did look for statistics on participation on third-level education after free fees were reintriduced but I didn't come accross that.

Your claim of "oh noes, people will leave grind schools!" is actually one objective of a more equitable education policy.

Not once have I mentioned grind schools, I did mention private schools that people wont be able to afford anymore, and I'm not saying that in itself is bad, private education isn't that much better than publiceducation (I'm in a very good public school) But I just see it putting a massive strain on already over-crowded public schools. I'm sure it's possible that the government can invest some of the money saved from the fees in secondary schools, but with so much money needed in different areas this might not necessarily happen so we could end up with an influx of sudents into public schools that simply can't take them.

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

Again we have that issue of people on the threshold. It might be all well and good to say families earning more than €100,000 a year should have to pay fees, but that's not ery fair if there are 6 or 7 kids in that family. Again I'm not quite sure I trust the government enough to decide who is entitled to what.



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. [/QUOTE]

It took me far too long to realise that's not a real acronym >.<

Économiste Monétaire

Antithetic wrote: »

I'm holding up the Institute for personification. I suspect grind schools' CED in general is far more sensitive than your post suggests.

I doubt their CED is little more than that of the regular fee paying school - the difference in fees amounts to very little.

stepbar

All very well and good reintroducing college fees but TBH means testing is a very crude way of deciding who qualifies for same and so on. I think if fees are reintroduced there will have to be a more scientific method of deciding same. For example someone from the country and going to college in Dublin will have significantly more expenses / other issues to contend (e.g travel, part time work) with than someone from Dublin / surrounding counties. The maintence grant is pretty pityful from someone from North Mayo (for example) and going to college in Dublin. Just as a family being asset rich but cash poor (e.g farmers with good land but limited ability to make a living from same). It's unrealisitic to expect a farmer to have to sell part of his land to send his kids to college when his own livelyhood depends on it.

The reintroduction of fees will have to coinside with a raft of other measures / initiatives for example:

- Government sponsored student loans
- Flexible college fee payment methods for students / parents alike
- Increased co-operation with employers (opening up the possibility for students to get paid work experience whilst going to college).
- Increased support for parents (tax breaks for those who start saving early for their kids education).

fonpokno

I haven't read this whole thread but I know that if they introduced fees anytime soon I would be right fúcked.


I did first year of college this year but I've dropped out and I want to start over next year. I'm working full time for the next year and I'm gonna have enough trouble covering the cost of first year and my family are pretty average.


Fees = crappy.

PurpleFistMixer

Antithetic wrote: »

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%.

Thank you, that's all I wanted.

Antithetic wrote: »

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

I know the first thing about economics, but I don't know the second thing. This wasn't a wading motion so much as a "we are LC students, this affects us, we will discuss it, even if we're not experts like Antithetic"

Antithetic wrote: »

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.

Maybe we need to increase productivity in these various groups, so. : p
To say, "We can't increase productivity because idealists and trade unions won't let us" is extremely defeatist. Call me idealistic (oh wait you already did), but there must be some way around this. This isn't my field of expertise (unless quarks are the answer), so I'm not going to suggest anything, but I'm sure there's someone out there who might have an idea.
All I'm saying is, this government could manage its money a little better.

Antithetic wrote: »

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.

Actually I don't agree with that at all, my hypothetical rich kid complaining about having to pay more for his education was just that, a possible argument, that I don't happen to agree with. Everyone should get equal benefit from the taxes, but those who are on higher income have to pay more tax.
Assuming salaries aren't being distributed in an underhanded fashion (which of course some will, but hopefully not too many), they'll go through the tax system without too much scope for abuse. The grants system, as people have pointed out, seems very open for abuse. I certainly think it's a good idea, as you may have gathered by now I'm all for distributing the wealth, but I know people are going to abuse it, so I'd prefer if it was done in the system which is least likely to be abused. Maybe I'm wrong in placing my trust in tax, though.

Antithetic wrote: »

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.

I'm all for getting rid of grind schools, but there's other ways to do it.

brianthebard

fonpokno wrote: »

I haven't read this whole thread but I know that if they introduced fees anytime soon I would be right fúcked.


I did first year of college this year but I've dropped out and I want to start over next year. I'm working full time for the next year and I'm gonna have enough trouble covering the cost of first year and my family are pretty average.


Fees = crappy.

im sure it sucks having to pay the full fees but you were given a free chance and didn't make the most of it.Making repeats pay fees is a v.good idea imo.Btw you might be able to repeat externally which wouldn't cost as much but you don't attend tutorials or lectures(unless they don't take a role)

Piste

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0812/breaking88.htm


It seems that if third level fees are to be reintroduced they would only be applicable to people earning well in excess of €100,000, which seems quite fair to me. Though there is always the possibility that you could have a very well off family that happens to have a lot of kids going on to third-level education.

That article also says that it'll be about two years before any decisions are made, so that's something at least for us!

brianthebard

Hmm,it would just be based on earnings and not assets though?

Piste

The article didn't specify. I would imagine earnings.

rainbow kirby

Piste wrote: »

That article also says that it'll be about two years before any decisions are made, so that's something at least for us!

Good, my final year is safe.