Brian Lenihan (Min. for Finance) is visiting UCD.

mad lad

eh, do you know how it works in Scotland? The Scottish government pays all tuition fees. In Scotland you previously had to pay a once off endowment once you'd graduated (which was about £2000) but they've scrapped that now too.

Their student loan sysytem is designed to help students afford free tuition. The Scottish governments give students loans, in Ireland we're forced to go to AIB & BOI etchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Awards_Agency_for_Scotland

Where will the money come from? More taxes? Oh yes of course, tax the well off; putting a tax on being successful is a fantastic way to stimulate the economy.

Yes, theres a return of €1.25 for every €1 invested in education.

mloc

May I ask, before I go further, what you would have Ireland do?

Dave!

mad lad wrote: »

I'm deadly serious. We're giving out leaflets up until monday - if you can come up with something better, by all means, go ahead.

You can use this one if ye like mate

mad lad

mloc wrote: »

May I ask, before I go further, what you would have Ireland do?

According to the OECD's Education at a Glance report, "only two countries, Greece and The Slovak Republic invest less as a percentage of GDP in education than Ireland". I'd have them up total spending on education to the EU average.

The government doesn't fund education out of the goodness of its heart - it does it because of the 'rate of return on investment'.

Graduates produce more, on average for the economy, than non-graduates. The government expects to make a long term profit on all graduates because education and earnings are positively linked. If it wasn't economically beneficial, if there was no rate of return on investment, they simply wouldn't bother doing it at all.

Breezer

mad lad wrote: »

I don't believe that the government should be contributing financially to something that promotes inequality.

It isn't. Myself and The Minister have both pointed this out. I detest this government but I acknowledge fact.

vote4pedro

if you disagree with Lenihan, engage in debate, nothing else. Then vote against him afterwards.

What a sad time it is for students when a peaceful protest against a huge increase in fees such as the one we've witnessed is considered radical, lefty, anarchist and reflecting poorly on UCD. Pathetic.

anonymous_joe

vote4pedro wrote: »

What a sad time it is for students when a peaceful protest against a huge increase in fees such as the one we've witnessed is considered radical, lefty, anarchist and reflecting poorly on UCD. Pathetic.

Ok, first things first, it's a blockade not a peaceful protest.

I like the idea of coming across as some kind of far right nutcase. It really makes me feel good about myself. I blame studying commerce.

I just think that blockading someone from going to a prior engagement is rude, childish and pointless.

Much as I dislike the notion of increased fees, education in Ireland at third level is vastly underfunded. The only source of revenue is the government. That's sadly not working. Increased fees were inevitable, and to be honest, while it's a hefty increase, it's a long way short of paying the actual fees are courses would entail.

Given that the world's economies are in retreat, and money has suddenly become scarce, a reduction in government spending was inevitable, money has to come from somewhere else, and we're the obvious source of revenue. I fully appreciate the fact that this will place hardship on some people, and I hope to God that there are provisions made for those struggling already, because I think everyone should have the chance to go to college. I know people from other countries with debts of 30 or 40k hanging over there heads, so I'm glad we don't have to deal with that.

We got off lightly to be honest. What would we prefer, that we get spared a fee increase at the expense of primary education or secondary education? Or the Health Service...?

33% God

mloc wrote: »

The system seems to be working in Scotland, which is much more similar to Ireland than Australia. The fact is colleges are running into huge deficits, despite cutbacks. Where will the money come from? More taxes? Oh yes of course, tax the well off; putting a tax on being successful is a fantastic way to stimulate the economy.

Two things are certain in colleges in Ireland; too many people (well off and not so well off) are going to college when they should be in other disciplines and there is simply not enough money to fund courses properly. Sure, everyone has a "right" to education; but this right does not neccessarily stretch to 3rd level education for those who are unable, uninterested or those who expect it to come for free. A payback loan scheme for fees is fairer; those from well off backgrounds and those from poorer are both given a chance to make a career for themselves before paying money back.

Loans are incredibly discouraging. If someone comes from a genuinely disadvantaged background he/she is going to look at University and see the opportunity cost in loss of earnings and now also a risky loan (what happens if you fail, you still have all this money to pay back). I'd imagine that many will opt for the safe option of a trade (not that there is anything wrong with trades, but there is something wrong with possibly forcing more able candidates into plumbing or carpentry while our next batch of cancer researchers are there because Daddy has deep pockets)
Furthermore someone who is embarking upon a 7 year course like myself is not likely to be bothered. Why would I pay extra to do my current degree when I could simply become a teacher and be out before I'm 21. There is very little difference in salary. The difference for the government is that rather than a highly qualified graduate in a vital field they'll have someone who got there because daddy could afford it.

We want a meritocratic society, not a plutocracy

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I just think that blockading someone from going to a prior engagement is rude, childish and pointless.

He's going to stop me from coming to UCD, I'm going to stop him from doing the same.

Mr.Nice Guy

Good luck to those involved with the protest I say.

Stabshauptmann

mad lad wrote: »

Absolutley. Why should the parents of a kid in public school subsidse private education for wealthier kids to gain an advantage?

That statement would lead one to believe you are either lazy or stupid. Either you didnt read his post, or you lack the ability to comprehend what he said.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

I've no problem if people want to heckle Brian Lenihan. Students won't be the only ones. But don't prevent him speaking at debates, make your views known outside, then argue the point with him in the debate. And when the time comes, for the love of god vote him out

QFT

Stabshauptmann

mad lad wrote: »

Graduates produce more, on average for the economy, than non-graduates. The government expects to make a long term profit on all graduates because education and earnings are positively linked. If it wasn't economically beneficial, if there was no rate of return on investment, they simply wouldn't bother doing it at all.

There is nothing from history or the current political climate that has led me to believe that governments make purely rational economic decisions.

Decisions will always have social and tribal dimensions, though (but not always :rolleyes:) bound by economic restraints.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

It isn't. Myself and The Minister have both pointed this out. I detest this government but I acknowledge fact.

Ive a question for both yourself and The Minister to ponder though.

I agree with you in principal, and am thankful for The Minister's post which saved me the time and effort as he said all I wanted to say.

However, how do you reconcile the fact that these schools are not open to the public?

Ive no problem with public finances pay the basic cost and anything extra is at the parents discretion, but these schools are not open to everyone. And I think its when you start doing things like that that the issue of whether or not you can then claim public funding should be addressed.

If the schools are first come first serve, but by the way theres fees, then fine. Thats the way the Institute works afaik. But correct me if Im wrong, dont Mary's, Blackrock, Gonzagga etc choose who to admit?

And no I dont accept that those who choose not to avail of free education (or any other state service) should then be entitled to a tax break. The state makes these services available to all, how you choose to use them is your prerogative. Those who pay tax at the higher rate will in variably use less public services than others.

The_Minister

[Mod-hat]Kaptain Redeye, we have a multi-quote function, in general its preferred if you use one post, as opposed to four posts in a row. That said, you aren't as bad as this guy. I know its easy to do when you read through a thread and keep seeing posts that you want to respond to, but just try multi-quoting them. [/mod-hat]


To answer your question, I don't mind. Most private schools (and a good bunch of public ones) favour those families who have had other children in the school before. This is to keep siblings together, and give the family an investment in the school (as in its their school, and they take an interest in it as such). I know that in recent times this has discriminated against immigrants, but that was never the intention of this tradition (they predate the tradition by decades).

Or are you referring to the ability tests that some schools make their pupils take?

1968

33% God wrote: »

He's going to stop me from coming to UCD, I'm going to stop him from doing the same.

here here.

all out! join the UCDSU and FEE on monday. 5.50pm outside Quinn.

Stabshauptmann

The_Minister wrote: »

[Mod-hat]Kaptain Redeye, we have a multi-quote function, in general its preferred if you use one post, as opposed to four posts in a row. That said, you aren't as bad as this guy. I know its easy to do when you read through a thread and keep seeing posts that you want to respond to, but just try multi-quoting them. [/mod-hat]


To answer your question, I don't mind. Most private schools (and a good bunch of public ones) favour those families who have had other children in the school before. This is to keep siblings together, and give the family an investment in the school (as in its their school, and they take an interest in it as such). I know that in recent times this has discriminated against immigrants, but that was never the intention of this tradition (they predate the tradition by decades).

Or are you referring to the ability tests that some schools make their pupils take?

None of the schools in my locality, and I thought it was the same with all public schools, have any say who goes there. You let them know you're coming and thats about it. If they're full, its a first come first served basis (the primary schools did actually get full and you might have to wait until the next year).

For private schools on the other hand I thought you had to apply and the school choose whether or not you could attend. Right there is the problem with public funding, its not open to all.

gubbie

mad lad wrote:

Absolutley. Why should the parents of a kid in public school subsidse private education for wealthier kids to gain an advantage?

If you're gonna think like that then why should the parents of wealthier kids pay for poorer kids to go to school?

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I agree with you in principal, and am thankful for The Minister's post which saved me the time and effort as he said all I wanted to say.

However, how do you reconcile the fact that these schools are not open to the public?

Ive no problem with public finances pay the basic cost and anything extra is at the parents discretion, but these schools are not open to everyone. And I think its when you start doing things like that that the issue of whether or not you can then claim public funding should be addressed.

If the schools are first come first serve, but by the way theres fees, then fine. Thats the way the Institute works afaik. But correct me if Im wrong, dont Mary's, Blackrock, Gonzagga etc choose who to admit?

AFAIK yes, they do, although this is breaking down to some extent. They are no longer allowed choose on the basis of religion, for example (but can still promote whatever religious ethos they choose to in the school, which is a whole other discussion). The secondary school I went to, if I remember correctly, gave priority to pupils of the attached primary school, followed by brothers of current pupils, then sons of past pupils. I was none of these and still got in, and I wasn't the exception either. This was in a small enough school when compared to the likes of Blackrock. While I can see the logic in the policy as explained by The Minister, I also accept your argument, and would have no major problem if schools were required to drop these admission policies to keep State funding. I went to an Educate Together primary school, which by definition has absolutely no such restrictions on admission, and I think in an ideal world it's by far the best education model, and one I'd love to see extended to secondary schools.

And no I dont accept that those who choose not to avail of free education (or any other state service) should then be entitled to a tax break. The state makes these services available to all, how you choose to use them is your prerogative. Those who pay tax at the higher rate will in variably use less public services than others.

Not sure if this was directed at me or not. If so, I wasn't suggesting that parents of children in private schools should get a tax break, rather that they should not be penalised for sending their children there by automatically receiving no State assistance of any description on the basis that "they're rich."

anonymous_joe wrote:

We got off lightly to be honest. What would we prefer, that we get spared a fee increase at the expense of primary education or secondary education? Or the Health Service...?

O'Keeffe isn't finished yet, fees are still on the agenda for next year. Primary and secondary education also got hit hard, with pupil:teacher ratios going up and cutbacks in grants for schools. As did the Health Service: I have mixed feelings on the withdrawal of the over 70's medical card, but the increase in A & E is not on when people often have few primary care alternatives, and the higher cut off rate for monthly prescription medicines hits people suffering from chronic disease. This budget made no effort to tackle bureocracy, and instead lashed out at ordinary people.

mad lad

If you're gonna think like that then why should the parents of wealthier kids pay for poorer kids to go to school?

Because this promotes greater equality.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

Not sure if this was directed at me or not.

It was in response to anonymous_joe

Breezer

mad lad wrote: »

Because this promotes greater equality.

Yes, that's how it should be, and this is already the case: higher earners pay much higher taxes on larger sums of money, thereby subsidising those who earn less.

ardmacha

rather that they should not be penalised for sending their children there by automatically receiving no State assistance of any description on the basis that "they're rich."

If I drive around and never use the bus, should I receive a part of the subsidy that would otherwise go to CIE?

Breezer

ardmacha wrote: »

If I drive around and never use the bus, should I receive a part of the subsidy that would otherwise go to CIE?

If you drive around, your taxes pay for road improvements, which everyone, including those who use the bus, pays. This is the "subsidy" in this case. You then pay extra for what you perceive to be an advantage: petrol and the associated taxes, motor tax, insurance, motorway tolls. These are the "private fees." So yes, I suppose, you should and do. With the caveat that it wouldn't "otherwise go to CIE" because the buses need roads as well.

mloc

mad lad wrote: »

Because this promotes greater equality.

What is all this BS with equality? Some people earn more money than others. If you think that even-ing everything out by taxing the wealthy so much that their income equates to those who are poor is a good idea, maybe you should look at the "successes" of communism.

33% God

gubbie wrote: »

If you're gonna think like that then why should the parents of wealthier kids pay for poorer kids to go to school?

Because otherwise they don't get to go. Enjoy your social problems then.

Breezer

mloc wrote: »

What is all this BS with equality? Some people earn more money than others. If you think that even-ing everything out by taxing the wealthy so much that their income equates to those who are poor is a good idea, maybe you should look at the "successes" of communism.

In a just society, the State should ensure that the basic needs of all its citizens are met, and strive for equality of opportunity (not necessarily equality of outcome, that depends on what you do with the opportunities you're given). This is particularly relevant in the case of children, who shouldn't be made pay for mistakes their parents made. In order to get the money to do this, the State needs to generate revenue through taxation. There's not much point in taxing low earners to pay for low earners, so the State taxes higher earners. Any beef I (and I believe most sane people) have with this system is with its implementation, not its principle.

33% God

mloc wrote: »

What is all this BS with equality? Some people earn more money than others. If you think that even-ing everything out by taxing the wealthy so much that their income equates to those who are poor is a good idea, maybe you should look at the "successes" of communism.

So because some people have less money their children shouldn't recieve as good an education.
Way to trap people in a spiral of poverty.

Your success in school should be based solely on your own merits, not on the depth of your parents pockets.

Stabshauptmann

33% God wrote: »

So because some people have less money their children shouldn't recieve as good an education.
Way to trap people in a spiral of poverty.

Your success in school should be based solely on your own merits, not on the depth of your parents pockets.

So what should people be allowed to spend their surplus income on?

A just and equitable society gives everyone a fair chance imo, thats not neccessarily an equal chance.

The state provides free, comprehensive education. Now, perhaps with extensive grinds the average person would see a better result relative to effort come exam time, but theres no obstacle to a normal [sic] student doing just as well.

The state provides good public transport networks. Is it as good as having a car? Not by a look shot, but its adequate.

You cant stop people spending their money in ways that improve their (and their families) standard of living. I wouldnt want to live in a country that dictated how I could spend my income, or that had a punitive tax system that eroded the incentive to work hard.

Remove obstacles, create opportunities, protect the vulnerable, and treat everyone equal in the eyes of the law; but leave it at that. At the end of the day, people have to be free to live their own lives, achieve their own success and make their own mistakes.

Breezer

33% God wrote: »

Your success in school should be based solely on your own merits, not on the depth of your parents pockets.

True, but I see nothing wrong with parents choosing to send their children to a school that promotes a particular ethos, offers a wide range of sports, or that they know provides a caring atmosphere. At the end of the day, every school, fee paying or otherwise, has a mixture of good and bad teachers (teachers with a high success rate may not suit every student, so even the Institute and other grind schools are included IMO). The student still has to do the work.

33% God

Breezer wrote: »

True, but I see nothing wrong with parents choosing to send their children to a school that promotes a particular ethos, offers a wide range of sports, or that they know provides a caring atmosphere. At the end of the day, every school, fee paying or otherwise, has a mixture of good and bad teachers (teachers with a high success rate may not suit every student, so even the Institute and other grind schools are included IMO). The student still has to do the work.

I didn't say I wanted to ban all private educational institutions.