Batt O'Keefe indicates possibility of re-introducing third level fees

Bottle_of_Smoke

Article wrote:

Education Minister Batt O'Keefe has revealed that third-level fees may be reintroduced despite the Government's previous promises to the contrary.

The Programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil, the Greens and the PDs vowed that college fees would not be reintroduced.

However, reports this morning say Mr O'Keefe has indicated that the promise may be abandoned due to the economic downturn.

He says his department will be conducting a "forensic audit" of third-level spending before making any decision on the matter.

The minister also says any changes will specifically target better-off families and those with incomes well above the national average.

Mr O’Keefe’s comments follow an intense lobbying campaign by university heads calling for the return of fees to help them compete internationally.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlmhkfgbey/

Obviously it initially sounds bad but if the governement offered a student finance system like in Britain I think the reintroduction of fees would be a great idea.

In Britain the government lends you the cost of the fees, then when you enter employment earning a certain amount repayments are deducted from your salary. I can't see a fairer way than this.

Supposedly the greens would be well against any introduction, and if no suitable student finance was made available so would I/

What do others think?

brianthebard

Seeing as the greens and pd's are against it,it could be interesting to see if they will put their foot down or turn over again.Almost more interested in what it means for the coalition tbh.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i've always wondered why other people had to pay for my education. I enjoyed it, but it never really made sense.
Then I dropped out, so I don't really have a dog in this race any more.

The_Minister

brianthebard wrote: »

Seeing as the greens and pd's are against it,it could be interesting to see if they will put their foot down or turn over again.Almost more interested in what it means for the coalition tbh.

It was the Progressive Democrats who killed it last time, if they work with the greens there's no reason that they can't stop it again.

Fianna Fail need the Progressive Democrats and the Greens to stay in government. If they co-operate, they can get their way.

leninbenjamin

free fees did little to make 3rd level more accessible to those in the low income bracket as the vast majority of the expense of education is from living costs. coupled with the free rider problem they've been a failure really. so i'm all for their reintroduction (as long as there is a significant improvement in the grants system to those in low income brackets and the universities use the extra revenue to increase the overall standards and deal with overcrowding).

although having said that i'm glad i've me degree finished.

manicmonoliths

leninbenjamin wrote: »

free fees did little to make 3rd level more accessible to those in the low income bracket as the vast majority of the expense of education is from living costs. coupled with the free rider problem they've been a failure really. so i'm all for their reintroduction (as long as there is a significant improvement in the grants system to those in low income brackets and the universities use the extra revenue to increase the overall standards and deal with overcrowding).

although having said that i'm glad i've me degree finished.

I agree it hasn't had the massive benefits that it was intended to bring, but there are signigicant amount of people(myself included) who wouldn't have otherwise got the opportunity to go on to third level. From what O'Keeffe said, it was implied that fees would only be paid by those who could afford it, but that will be very difficult to accurately assess imo.

Well recently grant levels have been frozen, so you get the same amount for the 3/4/5 years you're in college as to when you first applied. I think the system before was that the level was raised to compensate for inflation but I'm not 100% on that. With or without fees, the grant system needs a massive overhaul anyway.

Dudess

leninbenjamin wrote: »

free fees did little to make 3rd level more accessible to those in the low income bracket

I don't know. I started UCC in 1996 (the year the fees were abolished - sweet ) and dropped out, then went back in 2002. I noticed a marked difference in terms of diversity of backgrounds.

HouseHippo

I myself am horrified. I can't afford to go to college and my human rights say I have the right to an education.
Why should I be deprived of furthering myself because our governement want money for their cars etc...
they seem to be sucking money from our health and eduction services but can spend something like 13 billion on public transport.No matter how much money they sepnd their are still gonna be junkies and un-desirables hanging out around luas stops and on the back of the bus.

Amirani

HouseHippo wrote: »

I myself am horrified. I can't afford to go to college and my human rights say I have the right to an education.
Why should I be deprived of furthering myself because our governement want money for their cars etc...
they seem to be sucking money from our health and eduction services but can spend something like 13 billion on public transport.No matter how much money they sepnd their are still gonna be junkies and un-desirables hanging out around luas stops and on the back of the bus.

There would likely be a means-based grant system put in place. You have nothing to worry about so...

Time Magazine

HouseHippo wrote: »

I myself am horrified. I can't afford to go to college and my human rights say I have the right to an education.
Why should I be deprived of furthering myself because our governement want money for their cars etc...
they seem to be sucking money from our health and eduction services but can spend something like 13 billion on public transport.No matter how much money they sepnd their are still gonna be junkies and un-desirables hanging out around luas stops and on the back of the bus.

You're talking shit. Free university education is not a human right.

steveone

leninbenjamin wrote: »

free fees did little to make 3rd level more accessible to those in the low income bracket as the vast majority of the expense of education is from living costs. coupled with the free rider problem they've been a failure really. so i'm all for their reintroduction (as long as there is a significant improvement in the grants system to those in low income brackets and the universities use the extra revenue to increase the overall standards and deal with overcrowding).

although having said that i'm glad i've me degree finished.

not with you there.... I'm going to third level as a mature this year, there's no way in hell i'd be going to college if it wasn't free for me.. i just don't have the money.. i got in through an access course and scored high in my exams...
I agree tho' that free loaders should be dealt with.... maybe if you get your degree you go free. if you don't, or you drop out- you then have a bill on your hands.. just like some workplace arrangements??

GuanYin

Antithetic wrote: »

You're talking shit. Free university education is not a human right.

Antithetic, if you don't have a slightly more cerebral contribution to make to the forum, perhaps you should consider taking your "points" to AH?

Kama

Well, I know quite a few people who wouldn't have gone to college without free fees, it just wouldn't have been an option, even with loan availability; at the same time, the relatively affluent middle classes are a main beneficiary, as they make most use of it, which is a strong equity argument for reintroduction. But would be a very unpopular move, for sure.

HouseHippo

Antithetic wrote: »

You're talking shit. Free university education is not a human right.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free

Apparently the universal declaration of human Rights is talking ****

The_Minister

Dudess wrote: »

I don't know. I started UCC in 1996 (the year the fees were abolished - sweet ) and dropped out, then went back in 2002. I noticed a marked difference in terms of diversity of backgrounds.

Statistically, it really didn't. The overall numbers going rose, especially in rural areas, but the proportion from disadvantaged backgrounds only went up by a few percent (and most of that was accounted for by the Boom).

The_Minister

HouseHippo wrote: »

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free

Apparently the universal declaration of human Rights is talking ****

That refers to basic literacy. Third level education can never be rolled out to all of humanity, people's rights are to a basic education.

Do you really think that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have been adopted if it called for free fees in all countries?

steveone

HouseHippo wrote: »

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free

Apparently the universal declaration of human Rights is talking ****

yes but does it define "education"? I think the point was ; to what level are we to be educated for free??

i love seeing these boomerang announcements, it's classic
fianna bertie ...throw this one out into the open and while the rabble are up in arms quickly mention and bury something of huge concern before they realise it.....

Kama

Well, I know quite a few people (self included) who wouldn't have gone to college without free fees, it just wouldn't have been an option, even with loan availability; at the same time, the relatively affluent middle classes are a main beneficiary, as they make most use of it, which is a strong equity argument for reintroduction. Regressive taxation tbh.

Time Magazine

HouseHippo wrote: »

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free

Apparently the universal declaration of human Rights is talking ****

How about you quote the whole thing and stop being disingenuous?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 wrote:

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

University education is professional education. It is to be made "accessible", not "freely available", on the basis of merit. Ireland satisfies this criterion with flying colours.

hussey

I live in Australia and they have a HECS system. Which is pretty much a long term loan for your education.

Although the system is relatively fair, it still stops a vast majority of students from going to Uni. As it is restricted on working conditions (a limited number of hours per week).

Irish Education system is fantastic (I am serious) you really don't know what you got till it's gone.

Irish workers seemed to be highly skilled and highly regarded over here.
If fees were introduced (even as a loan) it would prevent people from going on to educate themselves.

I know I wouldn't have gone to college if there were fees

Dr_Teeth

I wouldn't have gone to college without free fees. My parents made just enough that I couldn't get a grant, but little enough that with 3 kids around the same age, fees wouldn't have been affordable.

If free fees haven't helped more lower income families send their kids to college, then there should be better grants for living expenses. If that doesn't help, then perhaps people ought to "think the unthinkable" - that for many families there is simply no culture of education or achievement and no amount of money will change that.

Either way, free fees should remain. It's one of the best investments the government has ever made imo.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but the government isn't making it, every tax payer in the country is paying for other peoples children to ger a free education. And alot of them just fart about drinking on campus instead of actually learning anything.

Tim Robbins

HouseHippo wrote: »

I myself am horrified. I can't afford to go to college and my human rights say I have the right to an education.
Why should I be deprived of furthering myself because our governement want money for their cars etc...

You get primary and secondary for free. You should pay something for third level. Right now, people who do not have the academic ability to go on to third level, and begin working paying tax at 18, are paying for the priviledge for others to go third level. That ain't fair.

brianthebard

I imagine there are also a lot of people who go to university for a semester or a year or whatever, then drop out, get a job, whatever. The net result of their time there is they pushed up the points for future students who genuinely want to study. Fees may make some people think twice about what they are doing, and choose a fetec course or some other training option that will benefit then and others in the long term.

Tim Robbins

brianthebard wrote: »

I imagine there are also a lot of people who go to university for a semester or a year or whatever, then drop out, get a job, whatever. The net result of their time there is they pushed up the points for future students who genuinely want to study. Fees may make some people think twice about what they are doing, and choose a fetec course or some other training option that will benefit then and others in the long term.

Academics also get some very long holidays :-)
Basically our exchequer, because of some clever tax scams, was getting huge surpluses the last 10 years. One tax scam consisted of multinationals wiring money through our tax system, for work produced in other countries. So let's say good were manufactured in Holland but the accounts and customer service was done in Ireland. The company would claim its profits under the Irish tax system, so that it paid less tax. This is why there is a huge difference between our GNP and GDP whereas in most countries the two are usually very similar. It is also why we really annoy other countries with our low tax. It's not just because we are more attractive for companies but because even if the company does work in their country it pays tax in our system.

The laws which enabled this accounting scam, are changing or are going to change even if our rate never changes. The US want them changed as do the French as do most other countries that are adversly affected by them. This means, the Multinationals can only wire money through our tax system if the work which produced the money was actually done here. Which means far less yoyos for our exchequer. This is a very important fact. Our economy is also on a downturn so the surpluses of the last 10+ years are over. We are looking at deficits more than likely from now on. This means less handouts which is what free fees for all, effectively are.

You don't get in many other Western democracies.

Some policies I'd agree with:
1. Your parents earn over 150K between them, you pay fees
2. A student must pay more tax, for example an extra 2% for the first five years they work.

What I would hate to see would be populist politics, borrowing more money so that we could keep the free fees. That's not sustainable.

Bottle_of_Smoke

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

but the government isn't making it, every tax payer in the country is paying for other peoples children to ger a free education. And alot of them just fart about drinking on campus instead of actually learning anything.

exactly, this is why I think we should pay but finance options should be there so ANYONE can go and it's *free* at the time, like in the UK

The_Minister

I think that we should go with the Australian system.

Just throwing that out there.

Overheal

HouseHippo wrote: »

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free

Apparently the universal declaration of human Rights is talking ****

your educated from the time you can walk and talk till you reach adulthood at 18. In America this is also dumbed down to K-12. Your further education as an adult I see as being entirely up to yourself.

ninty9er

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some policies I'd agree with:
1. Your parents earn over 150K between them, you pay fees
2. A student must pay more tax, for example an extra 2% for the first five years they work.

What I would hate to see would be populist politics, borrowing more money so that we could keep the free fees. That's not sustainable.

Exactly. Plus the typical FF support base wouldn't be affected at €150k, €100k or even €70k-€80k, so political damage doesn't come into it for FF

The grant could also be increased for those who need it meaning that free fees as provided by Labour to benefit those who already went, would become free fees for those who couldn't go to college without them.

Also considering fees in Ireland at €5k-€7k per year doesn't exactly break the bank for families earning over €100k with one or 2 children at college. A lot of those people get subsidised private second level education, so it would really only be payback time, and there's tax benefits to paying fees too.

SkepticOne

If they reintroduce fees with a grant system for the less well off it should be a sliding scale with the subsidy gradually running out as you move up the salary scale rather than a sudden cut off. The previous system worked against PAYE workers.

genericgoon

I knew the amount of people in University from fee paying schools was high but 20%!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0815/1218747922281.html

Money which is being taken out of the public schools at that level and yet these people still enjoy free fees? Plus the tax payer is footing the bill for teachers in the private schools but most already knew of that joke of a policy. If you can afford to pay fees at second level, shoudn't you be able to do so at third level? At the very least these places could be made to make a contribution to the public second level or third level system.