These OAP marches

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

Having said that, I would be opposed to their reintroduction without a major overhaul of the grant system.

That sounds like what we have in America. If so...it doesn't work.

podge79

djpbarry wrote: »

All walks of life? Probably. But which “walk of life” do you suppose most of them come from? You’d have a hard time convincing me that the majority of students cannot afford to pay fees. Having said that, I would be opposed to their reintroduction without a major overhaul of the grant system.

and how are they supposed to pay for these fees? most fees are at uni are at least 4k add in the accomodation and the basics ie food,travel costs and its easily 10-15k a year. I presume that you think that a loan system should be setup so that students will pay back when they are earning.. despitethe fact that many already take out loans to help pay for college... so we should basically throw them out into the world already saddled with debt.... do we want to follow americas lead?

djpbarry

podge79 wrote: »

and how are they supposed to pay for these fees? most fees are at uni are at least 4k add in the accomodation and the basics ie food,travel costs and its easily 10-15k a year.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents. I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time. Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

The same was true when I was in college. I was one of a handful of people in my class who had a part-time job, yet virtually all of my class-mates could afford to live on campus, spend half their time in the student bar and regularly attend balls and socials.

Personally, I don't think it is right that taxpayers are paying for these people to attend university.

podge79 wrote: »

I presume that you think that a loan system should be setup so that students will pay back when they are earning.. despitethe fact that many already take out loans to help pay for college... so we should basically throw them out into the world already saddled with debt.... do we want to follow americas lead?

You'll note that I said that I would not approve the re-introduction of fees without an overhaul of the grant system in such a way as to allow anyone to avail of third-level education without incurring significant debt.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents. I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time. Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

Do you think someone in their early 20's always going to spend their money wisely.
I remember being in college and instead of a healthy lunch and dinner I would eat ramen noodles. The house I lived in always had a case of beer though and there was always the Thurs night drink specials.
However I went to what is known as a "junior college" because my parents could not afford to send me to a University (even a state one).
Oh and I also had to work part time.
I know people that are still paying off their student loans and getting made redundant a decade after leaving college.
That's what happens when you don't make 3rd level free for all.

Personally, I don't think it is right that taxpayers are paying for these people to attend university.

If they have hundreds of billions for the bankers then they surely have enough to make sure everyone has free access to higher education.

podge79

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents. I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time. Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

The same was true when I was in college. I was one of a handful of people in my class who had a part-time job, yet virtually all of my class-mates could afford to live on campus, spend half their time in the student bar and regularly attend balls and socials.

Personally, I don't think it is right that taxpayers are paying for these people to attend university.
You'll note that I said that I would not approve the re-introduction of fees without an overhaul of the grant system in such a way as to allow anyone to avail of third-level education without incurring significant debt.

i never said they didnt get financial assistance from their parents.... newsflash not all the students who attend college in dublin are from dublin - cant exactly live with parents then can they? and last time i looked dublin isnt that cheap

dont the unis encourage them not to work part-time as it'll affect their studies?

laptops are cheap enough these days and seeing as most unis have substandard computing equipment not to say not enough to meet demand.

so they cant have a social life either? if their doing whats required of them and passing the course i have no problem....

their parents are part of those taxpayers... as they will be in a few years

old boy

youth always had its fling, the present setup is outdated, if it is changed it should be student friendly, not every student has a banker, developer or bloodstock dependant parent, why not hit the high rollers and their ilk, why does it have to be the little guy that gets hit.
the future of this and every country is its children and youth. yet they are on the chopping block.
the recent marches seem to say the little guy has enough of being hit, the present and next generation of o.a.p.s. have worked and lived thro the late 70s, 80s, and 90s, they payed enormous taxes, long hours, nothing in material comforts, they watched as the polititians, and industary fat cats got fatter, while they got no thanks for their efforts

jill_valentine

Evidently, I didn't win the Luck Lottery, I don't get any financial assistance from my parents.

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required. Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

nesf

jill_valentine wrote: »

Evidently, I didn't win the Luck Lottery, I don't get any financial assistance from my parents.

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required. Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

I'd disagree for UCC students anyway. It was that way a few years ago but they've improved the IT situation drastically and someone could do all their coursework on the undergraduate access machines if they needed to.

djpbarry

sovtek wrote: »

That's what happens when you don't make 3rd level free for all.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no grant system for third-level students in the US, is there?

podge79 wrote: »

newsflash not all the students who attend college in dublin are from dublin

Did I say they were?

podge79 wrote: »

dont the unis encourage them not to work part-time as it'll affect their studies?

Possibly; depends on the course I suppose.

podge79 wrote: »

...seeing as most unis have substandard computing equipment not to say not enough to meet demand.

I wonder why that is? Could it be that the numbers attending third-level institutions has gone up and funding for said institutions has not kept pace? In other words, spending per student has decreased in recent years.

podge79 wrote: »

so they cant have a social life either? if their doing whats required of them and passing the course i have no problem....

So, a guy/girl gets her college fees paid for him/her and during his/her 4 years at university, he/she manages to spend, say, €10,000 on alcohol (and maybe a little coke). You’re ok with that as long as he/she passes the course? That makes little sense.

podge79 wrote: »

their parents are part of those taxpayers... as they will be in a few years

So?

jill_valentine wrote: »

Evidently, I didn't win the Luck Lottery, I don't get any financial assistance from my parents.

Neither did I, evidently.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required.

As far as I am aware, they cannot do that. If a computer is a requirement for a particular course, the onus is on the university/IT to provide it.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

Without access to a PC maybe, but that doesn’t mean you have to own one. I got through an electronic engineering degree without owning a computer and several of my classmates did too.

podge79

djpbarry wrote: »

I wonder why that is? Could it be that the numbers attending third-level institutions has gone up and funding for said institutions has not kept pace? In other words, spending per student has decreased in recent years.

So, a guy/girl gets her college fees paid for him/her and during his/her 4 years at university, he/she manages to spend, say, €10,000 on alcohol (and maybe a little coke). You’re ok with that as long as he/she passes the course? That makes little sense.

where the guarantee that spending per student would have increased even if numbers attending third level hadnt gone up? its not as if an increase in students couldnt be planned for... they know the amount of children already in the system so they can hardly go "where they all come from?" and that in a changing economy that more people will want to go to college... colleges are spending millions on these lovely to look at buildings and paying uni presidents 6 figure sums... hmm l how better could that money could be sent??!!

I have no problem with the exchequer picking up the tab for free fees... in fact we need to increase spending on education at all levels.... its about giving everyone an equal chance and not saying well you cant go because you wont be able to afford it oh and you ya you can go but you'll have to pay fees.... if the cost of salaries perks and pensions of the politicians were slashed by 50% how many would that pay for?

Fionnanc

I think students should work during college, maybe something related to their career. I had the luck to work in a position, that was mainly staffed with non-EU nationals, which had direct relevance to my current profession. The employer would have preferentially employed many part-time EU citizens rather than go through the hassle of the work permit system. For example an engineering student could work a day a week as a laborer on a building site( in previous economic climate), would get paid and gain valuable experience too.
An economics or business student could work as a contract cleaner or caterer in the (for eg) IFSC, see the place in action, meet people/make contacts , plus regular work will give you a good work ethic making passage to your future career easier./

I would also like to add a 10 year old computer will handle the applications required for any undergraduate undertaking, if you can resist the temptation to fill your powerpoint presentations with fancy graphics to hide the lack of content. If you find the college computer room crowded at 1pm to 6pm, get up at 7am to be in the comp room at 7:30am. Ye are meant to be in "fulltime" education.

Crash

Jill Valentine wrote:

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required. Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

I'd definitely question that. I just finished a computer science degree, and while I had a laptop for most of the time in college, looking back on it, for periods where laptops broke etc. I could quite easily have managed four years doing comp sci using only college computers. It wouldn't have been quite as easy, but to say everyone needs a computer is a tiny bit of an overstatement. For instance in second year doing a film course as part of a broad curriculum course, all my essays were done in college, on college computers.

Granted this is only one universities situation, but Nesf has vouched for UCC, I can vouch for Trinity on this one.

Breezer

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents.

Perhaps that is because college is already expensive enough, and if renting their own place is not a necessity then why would anyone in their right mind do so?

I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time.

Jobs aren't exactly ten a penny these days. Especially when you have no qualifications and aren't available a lot of the time due to college and study commitments.

Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

Laptops cost a few hundred euro and will last several years; fees would be a few thousand euro every year. First years aside, I've met very few students who go drinking every other night. My faculty has a night out roughly once every three weeks to a month, and not everyone goes. The high attendance at 9am starts would suggest the majority aren't out at private parties every night either.

You'll note that I said that I would not approve the re-introduction of fees without an overhaul of the grant system in such a way as to allow anyone to avail of third-level education without incurring significant debt.

Would you care to suggest such a scheme? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just wondering what you have in mind. Whatever it is, I very much doubt Batt O'Keeffe has anything like it planned. It's easier to talk about a handful of millionaires. The result will be another shambles like the medical card issue.

Fionanc wrote:

I think students should work during college

Ye are meant to be in "fulltime" education.

Which is it?

For example an engineering student could work a day a week as a laborer on a building site... An economics or business student could work as a contract cleaner or caterer in the (for eg) IFSC

You find me a company that's willing to hire a student for one day a week. In fact, since you'd like all students to be doing this, find me several thousand. The jobs don't exist and didn't even during the Celtic Tiger. You were lucky to get a summer job.

jill_valentine

Going Forward wrote: »

Granted this is only one universities situation, but Nesf has vouched for UCC, I can vouch for Trinity on this one.

I'm not gonna do my university the disloyalty of naming it so, but we have a fairly serious computer and lab shortage. Students are regularly turned away from their own scheduled lab just for lack of machines, and told to go do it on their laptops. It's the norm. My laptop cost €399.

djpbarry

podge79 wrote: »

where the guarantee that spending per student would have increased even if numbers attending third level hadnt gone up? its not as if an increase in students couldnt be planned for... they know the amount of children already in the system so they can hardly go "where they all come from?"

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.

podge79 wrote: »

.... its about giving everyone an equal chance…

I’d say it’s also about getting value for money.

Breezer wrote: »

Perhaps that is because college is already expensive enough, and if renting their own place is not a necessity then why would anyone in their right mind do so?

I was responding to another poster who included “accommodation” in the list of costs associated with attending college.

Breezer wrote: »

Jobs aren't exactly ten a penny these days. Especially when you have no qualifications and aren't available a lot of the time due to college and study commitments.

I guarantee that I could pop out this lunchtime and get myself a part-time job in a shop, café, bar, or whatever. There’s actually quite a few of them out there. Besides, I’m not just talking about the last few months. As I said, when I was doing my degree, the vast majority of my class-mates didn’t work.

Breezer wrote: »

Laptops cost a few hundred euro and will last several years…

The point is they are a luxury for most students.

Breezer wrote: »

First years aside, I've met very few students who go drinking every other night. My faculty has a night out roughly once every three weeks to a month, and not everyone goes. The high attendance at 9am starts would suggest the majority aren't out at private parties every night either.

Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. But it ain’t too difficult to find drunk/high students on the streets of Dublin on a weeknight. I work with students on a regular basis who blame their lack of punctuality on a late night, hangover, etc. I should stress that I am not tarring all students with the same brush and I apologise if I’ve offended anyone. But, I do not like the idea that taxpayers are paying for some students to attend college when all the student is interested in is getting pissed every night for 3 or 4 years – they do not appreciate the value of what they are receiving.

Breezer wrote: »

Would you care to suggest such a scheme? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just wondering what you have in mind.

Well, how about I suggest how it should not work? I was not considered for a grant because both my parents worked full-time – apparently this results in immediate disqualification (or at least it did at the time) regardless of income levels. Now, I know of people whose parents were seemingly making far more than mine (I’m guessing based on the size of houses, cars, etc.) but they received grants. In their cases, the mother did not work or maybe worked part-time. Now, I’m not sure about the detail in this, but on the surface, it seemed ridiculous to me that these people were entitled to grants (both attended the Institute of Education at the weekends) and I was not.

Breezer wrote: »

The jobs don't exist and didn't even during the Celtic Tiger. You were lucky to get a summer job.

That’s absolute nonsense. I was finding full-time summer jobs BEFORE the Celtic Tiger came roaring along.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no grant system for third-level students in the US, is there?

There is but it's poor.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

I’d say it’s also about getting value for money.

I'd say that you would get your value for money if everyone was given free 3rd level education.
Besides I would value giving everyone an equal opportunity over value for money.

djpbarry

sovtek wrote: »

I'd say that you would get your value for money if everyone was given free 3rd level education.

Would we? Does everyone who begins third-level education see it through to it's conclusion? Does everyone who does complete third-level obtain a degree that is of use to society (both in subject area and grade)?

sovtek wrote: »

Besides I would value giving everyone an equal opportunity over value for money.

But equal opportunity is precisely what I'm talking about too. At present, the grant system does not work; people who shouldn't be receiving grants are receiving them and vice versa. I don't think the solution is to give everyone a free ride, because there are (in my experience) far too many people who do not appreciate it. At the end of the day, the whole point of providing free third-level education is to get a return on the investment, in an economic sense. At present, it doesn't seem to be working.

podge79

Quote:
Originally Posted by podge79 View Post
where the guarantee that spending per student would have increased even if numbers attending third level hadnt gone up? its not as if an increase in students couldnt be planned for... they know the amount of children already in the system so they can hardly go "where they all come from?"

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.

... that the excuse of all the extra students attending third level is the reason funding per head has reduced.... they knew that the kids were already in the system ... why didnt they make allowances for that? plan ahead?

djpbarry

podge79 wrote: »

... that the excuse of all the extra students attending third level is the reason funding per head has reduced....

I never said it was an excuse, I just said that that is the reality. Now maybe if we strip away the excess, lack of funding won't be a problem. But I think it would also help if access to third level was restricted to those who actually want to be there to learn, rather than those who just want to piss around for a year or two before dropping out.

Breezer

djpbarry wrote: »

I was responding to another poster who included “accommodation” in the list of costs associated with attending college.

Yes, and I was responding to you. You appeared to be countering the suggestion that accommodation expenses were a factor by saying that many students live at home. This does not necessarily suggest that they are rich, merely that they are lucky enough to live close to college. Fees could still be crippling for these people.

I guarantee that I could pop out this lunchtime and get myself a part-time job in a shop, café, bar, or whatever.

Well I would love to know your secret, because I've been searching myself, and despite having previously worked in a very wide range of settings and having multiple glowing references, no one is interested in me because I can't give the hours. Bar work is particularly hard to find because I haven't worked in a bar before.

The point is they are a luxury for most students.

The point is that simply because you can afford to buy a luxury item once every few years does not mean you are rich enough to fork out much larger amounts on a regular basis.

Well, how about I suggest how it should not work?

I'm sure FF are perfectly capable of coming up with a system that doesn't work all by themselves. They've shown on multiple occasions that they're very good at that. This is the point I'm making.

That’s absolute nonsense. I was finding full-time summer jobs BEFORE the Celtic Tiger came roaring along.

I phrased that very badly, sorry. My point was that whatever about summer jobs in a field completely unrelated to your degree, you are not going to find many companies willing to hire a student for one day a week. As I've said, what employers want from employees without qualifications is a commitment to work a hefty amount of hours.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

I'd say that you would get your value for money if everyone was given free 3rd level education.

Only if the funding is kept up per student though. Given that we have a limited amount of money, we might be forced to choose between education and health or some similar really difficult decision. It's all well and good to talk about ideals like education for all but it does have to be paid for and you can't escape from the fact that you can only tax the people so much before you start creating more problems than are being solved the provision of extra services. We can't have it all, etc.

djpbarry

Breezer wrote: »

You appeared to be countering the suggestion that accommodation expenses were a factor by saying that many students live at home.

Indeed I was.

Breezer wrote: »

This does not necessarily suggest that they are rich, merely that they are lucky enough to live close to college.

I never said otherwise.

Breezer wrote: »

Fees could still be crippling for these people.

In which case they should be entitled to a grant.

Breezer wrote: »

The point is that simply because you can afford to buy a luxury item once every few years does not mean you are rich enough to fork out much larger amounts on a regular basis.

No, it doesn't. However, I find it very hard to believe that someone who can afford to buy a laptop, when they have free access to PC's with all the software they need, is struggling financially. I was certainly in no position to afford such luxuries (even at today’s prices) when I was at university.

Breezer wrote: »

My point was that whatever about summer jobs in a field completely unrelated to your degree, you are not going to find many companies willing to hire a student for one day a week.

Probably true - fair enough.

sovtek

nesf wrote: »

Only if the funding is kept up per student though. Given that we have a limited amount of money, we might be forced to choose between education and health or some similar really difficult decision. It's all well and good to talk about ideals like education for all but it does have to be paid for and you can't escape from the fact that you can only tax the people so much before you start creating more problems than are being solved the provision of extra services. We can't have it all, etc.

Obviously there is enough money if the government can throw a few hundred billion at a few very rich and corrupt people that will not solve the serious financial crisis that the very same people caused then they can come up with the money.
We are already taxed heavily yet compared to other countries in Europe we get very little in return. The latter that countries like France and Germany are able to provide.
The money is going somewhere...however it isn't obviously going towards the benefit of society as a whole...such as 3rd level education for all...or health for that matter.

djpbarry

sovtek wrote: »

Obviously there is enough money if the government can throw a few hundred billion at a few very rich and corrupt people...

The government have done no such thing.

sovtek wrote: »

We are already taxed heavily yet compared to other countries in Europe we get very little in return. The latter that countries like France and Germany are able to provide.

We are not taxed heavily at all. Our tax rates are similar to Germany and lower than France. Most European countries have higher tax rates than us, the Nordic countries in particular:

Country | Income Tax % | VAT %
Ireland | 20-41 | 21.5
Denmark | 48 | 25
Finland | 53 | 22
Iceland | 46 | 24.5
Norway | 54.3 | 25
Sweden | 55 | 25

Not to mention our knock-down corporation tax rate...

Breezer

djpbarry wrote: »

The government have done no such thing.

I assume he's talking about the bank guarantee. And while no money has yet been spent, a very large amount potentially could be. However it's getting a bit ridiculous throwing this around as an anti-government argument. There's plenty of others people could be using.

We are not taxed heavily at all. Our tax rates are similar to Germany and lower than France. Most European countries have higher tax rates than us, the Nordic countries in particular

And for years that was apparently what people (FF and PD voters anyway) wanted: low tax, mediocre public services. It'll be interesting to see whether there's a shift in attitude over the next while as the reality of how fleeting our wealth was hits home. There was an interesting debate on this in the Times yesterday: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1027/1224838873985.html.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

The government have done no such thing.
We are not taxed heavily at all. Our tax rates are similar to Germany and lower than France. Most European countries have higher tax rates than us, the Nordic countries in particular:

Country | Income Tax % | VAT %
Ireland | 20-41 | 21.5
Denmark | 48 | 25
Finland | 53 | 22
Iceland | 46 | 24.5
Norway | 54.3 | 25
Sweden | 55 | 25

Not to mention our knock-down corporation tax rate...

And there is the crux of the problem, you've just highlighted what is monetarily wrong with the public finances.

The money from the housing boom which did consist of about 17%(from finfacts) of govt revenues at its peak was used for public sector pay increases as well as some new services.

To sum up, it was grossly unstable and based on a housing boom.

Income taxes do need to go higher to raise that €13bn+ to balance the books or the public sector needs to be cut back, take your pick

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

The government have done no such thing.
We are not taxed heavily at all. Our tax rates are similar to Germany and lower than France. Most European countries have higher tax rates than us, the Nordic countries in particular:

Country | Income Tax % | VAT %
Ireland | 20-41 | 21.5
Denmark | 48 | 25
Finland | 53 | 22
Iceland | 46 | 24.5
Norway | 54.3 | 25
Sweden | 55 | 25

That doesn't really prove that you have lower tax. What are the cut off points? Does France have tax on a credit card/ATM? What does Germany charge for the TV license? Do they just buy American sitcoms with it and "produce" copies of other countries reality TV?
Anyway wether you have lower taxes or not my point was that you don't get anything in return for the tax you do pay. I heard recently that Ireland has about the lowest standard of living in western Europe. You probably have the worst public transport system, the worst health system, the roads are about the most dangerous in western europe ...etc etc

Not to mention our knock-down corporation tax rate...

There's a big ol' fat chunk of the problem. One trick pony that doesn't really work anymore.

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Income taxes do need to go higher to raise that €13bn+ to balance the books or the public sector needs to be cut back, take your pick

That would be fine if the morons that run this place would do it from the top down. They won't though! They will cut things that don't need to be cut...like services.
Otherwise they could borrow it...just like the €400 billion.

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Income taxes do need to go higher to raise that €13bn+ to balance the books or the public sector needs to be cut back, take your pick

That would be fine if the morons that run this place would do it from the top down. They won't though! They will cut things that don't need to be cut...like services.