Third Level Fees

nesf

astrofool wrote: »

Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.

Surely that should be up to each individual parent to decide? I know that if I have the money when my son is old enough that I wouldn't begrudge paying college fees for him so long as he took his education seriously and in fact it is something that I would motivate me to work harder and get a good salary so I could provide for him in this fashion.

ateam

astrofool wrote: »

Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.

Fair point, then I presume you would be against grants for those people whose parents are on low incomes.

lucideer

astrofool wrote: »

Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.

What exactly are you suggesting?

Should it be illegal for parents to support their over 18 children? How many students would make it to 3rd level if that were the case?

astrofool

That we should not be discriminating against a student's ability to pay based on what their parents earn.

Children of higher earners may find they don't have to work part time (no student should have to work at all while in college to pay the way, most courses are designed for a 40 hour+ work including lectures, assignments and study time), or that they can enjoy a better lifestyle while in college, they should not however be indebted to their parents in order to go to college, they are an adult, and at this stage, should be indebted to no one.

Bringing back fee's, if only for high earning parents, means that child's education is at the whim of a parent.

lucideer

Sorry astrofool, but you seem to be assuming that wealthy parents don't assist their children in any way on their path through college. The ideal of 18 year olds becoming instantaneously autonomous is nice and all, but here in the real world, parents do pay for their childrens' education if they can afford it, and if they can't (at the moment) the students either work or skip 3rd level altogether. It doesn't sound too ideal to me.

My ideal would be not wasting money handing out freebies to those with wealthy parents to rely on, and redirecting funds to the currently grossly deficient maintenance grants system, or to revive the student assistance fund they're currently cutting lumps out of each semester. Saving students the horror of a "feeling of indebtedness" is not a worthy cause when compared to spending the same money getting more students into further education.

MrMiyagi

Look its quiet simple.

Everyone should have to repay the fees over time once they complete their college course and start working.

So there should be a special graduate tax introduced where you pay back back a percentage of your fees every year until they are paid. Obviously this has to be linked to inflation.

newby09

MrMiyagi wrote: »

Look its quiet simple.

Everyone should have to repay the fees over time once they complete their college course and start working.

So there should be a special graduate tax introduced where you pay back back a percentage of your fees every year until they are paid. Obviously this has to be linked to inflation.

who would it apply to then? graduates from this year on or backdated to the times fees aboished. I would be more in favour of the latter.

its not fair to make people pay fees if their parents earn over 100k - they pay more tax than lower incomes and are effectively punished for having a good job. Maybe 200k should have to pay but 100k isn't very high a threshold for families nowadays.

those who live near university have it easier - no bills for shopping etc, accomadation. mammy and daddy to look after them and cook their meals every evening.....

Godge

Fees will return. The financial problems that universities have walked themselves into demand it even if the public finances weren't so bad.

The debate needs to be about what form the fees should take

- student loans?
- deferred payment with early discounts?
- exemptions for disadvantaged?
- graduate tax?
- means tested and how (asset or income)?
- level, full cost recovery for some?
- income up front for third level institutions to take the pressure off central funding?

nesf

Godge wrote: »

Fees will return. The financial problems that universities have walked themselves into demand it even if the public finances weren't so bad.

The debate needs to be about what form the fees should take

- student loans?
- deferred payment with early discounts?
- exemptions for disadvantaged?
- graduate tax?
- means tested and how (asset or income)?
- level, full cost recovery for some?
- income up front for third level institutions to take the pressure off central funding?

Any tax they introduce has to go straight to the "awarding" institution rather than a general fund. Part of what's needed is for colleges to be able to invest and then reap the rewards of that investment (i.e. if tie funding to future wages of graduates then you give an excellent incentive for universities to produce as marketable and talented graduates that it can).

lucideer

newby09 wrote: »

are effectively punished for having a good job.

This is about as far right as a you can get, and while you're entirely entitled to your views I doubt there's really a huge number of Sarah Palin fans in this country. If there are, I doubt it's because of her "Joe the Plumber" politics.

newby09 wrote: »

100k isn't very high a threshold for families nowadays.

And that's just ignorant. 17% of the population were on under €12,000 in '07.

Godge wrote: »

The debate needs to be about what form the fees should take

Exactly, and the direct action should be taking this to the government and public, not silly demands for a utopian society where funding is infinite. Personally I'd say means tested by some manner of accounting for both asset and income.

nesf wrote: »

if tie funding to future wages of graduates then you give an excellent incentive for universities to produce as marketable and talented graduates that it can

As sensible as this does at first sound, I would be wary of putting excess emphasis on the money making ability of a 3rd level degree. I'm an engineering student myself, and even I am concerned at the effect of corporate funding on the direction of the degree. I'd hate to think of the effect a system like this would have on subjects such as philosophy. On the other hand, it's nowhere near as bad an idea as direct corporate sponsorship to pay for free-fees, as some are suggesting elsewhere.

Grudaire

newby09 wrote: »

its not fair to make people pay fees if their parents earn over 100k - they pay more tax than lower incomes and are effectively punished for having a good job. Maybe 200k should have to pay but 100k isn't very high a threshold for families nowadays.

How many families are on over 200k?

There's a reason that pay cuts aren't being put only only the very-high earners - there's not enough of them. Unless you suggest charging them 100k to make up for all the other families

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

Any tax they introduce has to go straight to the "awarding" institution rather than a general fund. Part of what's needed is for colleges to be able to invest and then reap the rewards of that investment (i.e. if tie funding to future wages of graduates then you give an excellent incentive for universities to produce as marketable and talented graduates that it can).

Heaven forbid that people go to University to learn....

Bye bye arts, classics, languages, hello business courses.

nesf

lucideer wrote: »

As sensible as this does at first sound, I would be wary of putting excess emphasis on the money making ability of a 3rd level degree. I'm an engineering student myself, and even I am concerned at the effect of corporate funding on the direction of the degree. I'd hate to think of the effect a system like this would have on subjects such as philosophy. On the other hand, it's nowhere near as bad an idea as direct corporate sponsorship to pay for free-fees, as some are suggesting elsewhere.

Philosophy classes are small anyway, I know because I was in one, I'm not sure if this would change things much in that regard. Already funding is tied to number of students (for undergraduate) and anyone who is in college would tell you that the numbers for things like Classics and Philosophy are small compared other more marketable courses.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Heaven forbid that people go to University to learn....

Bye bye arts, classics, languages, hello business courses.

I don't think you would see that, you'd just see smaller departments for things like Philosophy which has already happened. Languages are very different to Classics since, bluntly it's quite marketable to have such a degree be it for teaching or business. This of course comes down to why we want to fund third level study in the first place and (regrettably) it isn't so everyone can study Philosophy and Classics.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

I don't think you would see that, you'd just see smaller departments for things like Philosophy which has already happened. Languages are very different to Classics since, bluntly it's quite marketable to have such a degree be it for teaching or business. This of course comes down to why we want to fund third level study in the first place and (regrettably) it isn't so everyone can study Philosophy and Classics.

The day we solely judge our third level institutions on what graduates earn is the day the barbarians are truely at the gates.

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The day we solely judge our third level institutions on what graduates earn is the day the barbarians are truely at the gates.

Sure but we're talking about funding not judgement here. The funding from the business courses can subsidise the lack of funding from other courses etc. As it is, we "judge" our third level institutions by how many students they have in the class, this is how funding is granted to departments.

Are you saying that this is a better way to do it?

lucideer

nesf wrote: »

As it is, we "judge" our third level institutions by how many students they have in the class

As it is we "judge" our third level institutions on how many graduates get "immediate employment in their field of study" - this generates "reputation" at least which leads to more students and more corporate funding of research (where colleges recoup much of their losses from underfunding and administrative mismanagement). This is already I believe career-centric enough without further focus on the earnings of the same "employment in their field of study".

You also mentioned the dwindling numbers studying non-career centric disciplines. This would be their death knoll.

nesf

lucideer wrote: »

As it is we "judge" our third level institutions on how many graduates get "immediate employment in their field of study" - this generates "reputation" at least which leads to more students and more corporate funding of research (where colleges recoup much of their losses from underfunding and administrative mismanagement). This is already I believe career-centric enough without further focus on the earnings of the same "employment in their field of study".

You also mentioned the dwindling numbers studying non-career centric disciplines. This would be their death knoll.

I don't disagree but our present funding system specifically rewards quantity over quality of graduates. A department that grants degrees to 50 idiots will get more money than a department who grants degrees to 10 exceptional students so the incentive is for departments to dumb down courses and pass as many people as possible. Philosophy in UCC for instance is a small course precisely because they've maintained a high academic standard and the initial class of 150ish in First Year Arts is down to about 15 in Second Year because a) the material is tough and b) the exams are tough. They get screwed over for maintaining a high standard though by getting less funding.

I don't necessarily think that a tax on future earnings is the best option by the way, my original point was that funding should go back to the awarding institution for each student rather than a central fund.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sully

Im not pushed as long as the grant system is overhauled and easier to apply for. Its a bloody disastor. A lot of students dont trust the government to bring in a fair solution so that people who actually have the money to pay fees easily will and those on lower bracket will be better assisted.

At present the government savings are not hitting the high earners enough so whats to stop them doing the same with the fees?

nhughes100

Fees have to come back in, like another Poster I work in 3rd level and the amount of cars & new laptops that students have is unbelieveable. A lot of them will freely admit to using a year or two in college while they wait for the army, gardai or other emergancy service. That or they're on a waiting list for something else. Attendance is shocking. Most of your "registration" fee goes to providing services such as the students union, clubs+socs and subsidising printing/photocopying/library books.

I don't believe in flat fees for all but everyone should make a contribution once they hit a certain salary. Like a lot of students in the early 90's I had nothing in college, got 60quid a month as a grant and probably went to about 2 socials a year and didn't get a crappy car till I was 3 years in the workforce. It'll teach todays students the value of earning something. Colleges don't run on fresh air, if real fees came in, ie to come close to the actual cost of running the college I'd hazard a guess would be around 10-15k a year.

lucideer

Sully wrote: »

Im not pushed as long as the grant system is overhauled and easier to apply for. Its a bloody disastor...

In an ideal world, they would take the money they're currently using to pay rich students' fees and redirect it into maintenance grants and the dying "student assistance fund". We don't live in an ideal world, and I'm sure Batt O'Keefe's motivation is to cut the education budget by introducing fees rather than to redirect funds, but I still believe there's a far better chance of getting something close to that with fees for the rich than there would be in the current system without any hint of extra cash coming from anywhere.

Hillel

Sully wrote: »

Im not pushed as long as the grant system is overhauled and easier to apply for. Its a bloody disastor. A lot of students dont trust the government to bring in a fair solution so that people who actually have the money to pay fees easily will and those on lower bracket will be better assisted.

The grant system needs to be radically overhauled. So, make some noise about it!. Letters to the paper, EMail TD's .......

Sully wrote: »

At present the government savings are not hitting the high earners enough so whats to stop them doing the same with the fees?

I'm not sure that this is a high earners issue. Many high earners are up to their necks in debt and cannot afford to send their children to college, particularly in another city. What if you don't get along with your parents?

Agent J

Ok here we go again with the fees ( and here is a post i prepared earlier...)

1)Fees are back already

Ask anyone paying the student services charge of 1k and going up to 1.5k.
It has been done by the back door already.

2)Money saving

We want to take money now out of higher education which produces higher rate paying tax earners later.
Penny wise but pound foolish.

3)"But the rich peoples kids"

Uh-huh. So we extend that logic to 2nd level or how about primary?
If not then why not?

Child benifit as well? We can go right down the list with the "They can afford to pay" arguement.

3)Knoweldge based/Smart/Buzzword Economy.

If we are go move away from manufactoring etc we need graduates not people going right into the factories once they finish school.(Not that there is anywrong with it on a personal level but as the closures are showing we cant compete there anymore)
I thought we were aiming to trade up the value chain.


5)Student loans/ Grants etc
2 parents working full time at mcdonalds are considered too rich for their kids to get grants.
Does anyone really trust any sort of fair system from the people who have been in charge for the last 10 years?
This is not going to be a zero sum game. If they take money from the fees section it will not go back into the education system least of all anywhere near the univeristy directly.

6)On a much more practical level.

50-60k people do the leaving cert each year(I am very much open to correct on the exact figure). Assume the same for this year whatever the figure is.
A good deal go right into 3rd level because of the "free" fees . Given that we are losing jobs left right and centre does it seem in anyway smart to be introducing a barrier that WILL stop people going on to 3rd level.
Where are these people going to go if they cant afford it?
Get an apprenticeship? Where?
Emmergrate? To where?
Get a job? Where?
Go on the dole? Bingo.

Pay student fees for a few years so at least they have a degree or end up paying the dole for a few years until the economy picks up.

3rd level fees should be looked upon as a long term investment such as infrastructure otherwise we will end with another brain drain on the economy when the rest of the worlds economy picks up in a few years.


7)Where will we get the money?

Kill the Home choice loan scheme dead immediatly.

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

Ok here we go again with the fees ( and here is a post i prepared earlier...)

1)Fees are back already

Ask anyone paying the student services charge of 1k and going up to 1.5k.
It has been done by the back door already.

And this is my point, these fees will rise again. The same people will moan about increasing Registration fees and still want free fees. It makes no sense.

lucideer

Agent J wrote: »

( and here is a post i prepared earlier...)

And it certainly tells as your post doesn't even attempt to counter/address any of the points raised in previous posts and has for the most part already been countered/addressed by people above. Let me recap for you in the order of your points (skipping point 1 because as K-9 has pointed out it supports the case for fees).


2. - Firstly, secondary is mostly compulsory. 3rd level is not. That's one point that has been made by many.
However personally (not sure all would agree), I would say yes. Why not "go right down the list with the "They can afford to pay" arguement"? I mean you don't see government ministers/CEOs of large companies turning up at the dole office do you?

3. - This point is useless as it assumes fees for the rich would somehow result in less people going through 3rd level. I see no justification for this view.

4. - whoops

5. - " If they take money from the fees section it will not go back into the education system" - it probably won't, it might even go into a bankers pocket via "recapitalisation" at this rate. But how is that any different from it going towards paying that same bankers childrens' college fees? What's the difference. At least if fees are introduced there's some slim chance the money may go towards something worthwhile within the governments budget, in education or otherwise, instead of the current situation where we KNOW it's being wasted on subsidising the rich.

6. - Again (like point 3) you are jumping to the wild conclusion that this will decrease access to 3rd level. And still no attempt to justify this.

7. - Sorry I don't understand your last point.

nhughes100

On point one, anyone in receipt of a grant gets their reg fees refunded via their local VEC. So fees aren't back for everyone.

newby09

nhughes100 wrote: »

On point one, anyone in receipt of a grant gets their reg fees refunded via their local VEC. So fees aren't back for everyone.

How do you go about getting this back? is it at the start or end of the academic year?

mikemac

You pay and then you claim back
So if you pay in September/October with typical VEC efficency you'll get the money back by January. 2-3 months of a wait usually

lucideer

mikemac wrote: »

You pay and then you claim back
So if you pay in September/October with typical VEC efficency you'll get the money back by January. 2-3 months of a wait usually

I don't know about the VECs, but with county councils the registration is paid directly to the college by the council. You never have to pay the registration fee unless there's a very significant delay with the grant being awarded (which happens obviously sometimes, but not in most cases)

cavedave

Agent J
3)"But the rich peoples kids"

Uh-huh. So we extend that logic to 2nd level or how about primary?
If not then why not?

Why not just extent the logic to other 18 year olds. If my parents are rich do i get taxed at a higher rate? Certainly rich parents do (usually) help their adult children but why only charge the 18 year olds who go to university based on their parents income? Why not also those who work?