Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fees Protest on Wednesday
Options
Comments
-
+1IndigoStarr wrote: »I think all of the people on here who are in favour of fees need to realise that some people, like myself, would simply have to drop out of college with the reintroduction of fees. My sister won't be able to go to college if fees are introduced, and she's incredibly bright. I can't afford to be saddled with 5k per year of debt either.
Education should not be something that is solely the preserve of the wealthy. Its just not fair.
Fees for me could easily mean having to leave. Plus it gives the rich yet another unfair advantage in education. We should be trying to close off avenues for people to succeed ahead of those brighter than them by virtue of Daddy's wallet, not open new ones.
I was kind of disappointed at the turn out today to be honest. If they do announce a reintroduction I'd hope more people would show up. Irish Ferries got around 100,0000 -
IndigoStarr wrote: »Education should not be something that is solely the preserve of the wealthy. Its just not fair.
Just out of curiosity, what should be the preserve of the wealthy?0 -
LimepitsKaptain Redeye wrote: »Just out of curiosity, what should be the preserve of the wealthy?
0 -
Luxuries. The whole reason there's a debate here is because society at large can't decide if 3rd level education is a luxury or a neccisity like 1st and 2nd level.0
-
In today's Ireland, if you want almost any kind of R & D or skilled job, you need an undergraduate degree at the very least. Since these are the jobs which are going to drive our economy forward (if it ever gets back into a forward gear at all), free 3rd level education benefits society as well as the individual.Luxuries. The whole reason there's a debate here is because society at large can't decide if 3rd level education is a luxury or a neccisity like 1st and 2nd level.
On the other hand, those in lower-paid manufacturing or unskilled jobs pay less tax in the short term, and will lose their jobs in the long term as more companies relocate to cheaper labour markets. It is now cheaper for a San Jose-based company to employ an unskilled labourer in San Jose (never mind Poland or India) than it is in Ireland, which just serves to illustrate how uncompetitive we have become. Lengthening Dole queues do not help our economy.
Therefore, it is, in my opinion anyway, perfectly clear that a 3rd level education has ceased to be a luxury and is in fact a necessity not only for the individual but for Irish society as a whole.
But never mind that. Batt O'Keeffe is on a crusade to reclaim the Holy Land and no amount of logic or reason will convince him that saving €130 million a year now will destroy our economy all over again in the long term.0 -
Advertisement
-
In today's Ireland, if you want almost any kind of R & D or skilled job, you need an undergraduate degree at the very least. Since these are the jobs which are going to drive our economy forward (if it ever gets back into a forward gear at all), free 3rd level education benefits society as well as the individual.
On the other hand, those in lower-paid manufacturing or unskilled jobs pay less tax in the short term, and will lose their jobs in the long term as more companies relocate to cheaper labour markets. It is now cheaper for a San Jose-based company to employ an unskilled labourer in San Jose (never mind Poland or India) than it is in Ireland, which just serves to illustrate how uncompetitive we have become. Lengthening Dole queues do not help our economy.
Therefore, it is, in my opinion anyway, perfectly clear that a 3rd level education has ceased to be a luxury and is in fact a necessity not only for the individual but for Irish society as a whole.
But never mind that. O'Keeffe is on a crusade to reclaim the Holy Land and no amount of logic or reason will convince him that saving €130 million a year now will destroy our economy all over again in the long term.
well said0 -
Free education up to and including 3rd/4th level should be a universal right. I hope the government see a huge backlash from students if they even think about trying to impose tuition fees. Any increase in stealth fees like registration fees would have to be ringfenced due to the clear waste and vanity projects that colleges use it for.0
-
-
The_Minister wrote: »
Secondly, we can't send everyone to college. We just can't.
and we don't, but the option is there0 -
The problem with sending "everyone" to college is: that then becomes the new baseline requirement for employment. We're seeing this already, with job specs nearly always having "a degree" on them, even when that's not always required for them to do the job. How about sending half the kids to college, the half that is above average? At least, that way, the idea of a university degree won't be cheapened to the point of near-worthlessness. Meanwhile, those without degrees - for whatever reason - become unemployable.
For the half that is below average - what is wrong with apprenticeships, clerical jobs, service work, etc.? You know, all those things that can get you making money straight away, instead of four more years spending your parents' money? I agree that the prospects are not what they used to be, since Manufacturing used to be where many below-average kids went to work - but no-one makes anything any more. You'd rather import someone from Poland or China to clean offices or work at Tesco, while we go to university. But you can't all be above average: Ireland is not Lake Wobegon.
Death has this much to be said for it:
You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
Wherever you happen to be
They bring it to you—free.— Kingsley Amis
0 -
Advertisement
-
I won't get into a rant, but it costs less to have 1,000 people in college than on the dole queue, and I don't think being on the dole is an investment in our economic future...
I'm not sure you're right about that. According to this, in 1997/1998 the average cost per student was nearly €6,700 (£5,264) per annum. I haven't been able to find more recent data, but we've had close to 5% annual inflation since then and even higher inflation in the higher education sector. It's likely to be significantly cheaper to have someone on the dole for a year than it is to have them in university. That is not the only consideration, but that is how you've framed the question.
Mind, the alternative for those going to university is not likely to be the dole queue. It's more likely some sort of work, whether in Ireland or elsewhere.0 -
IndigoStarr wrote: »I think all of the people on here who are in favour of fees need to realise that some people, like myself, would simply have to drop out of college with the reintroduction of fees. My sister won't be able to go to college if fees are introduced, and she's incredibly bright. I can't afford to be saddled with 5k per year of debt either.
Education should not be something that is solely the preserve of the wealthy. Its just not fair.
You wouldn't be able to get student loans? Why not?
Why wouldn't you be able to pay a loan of €15,000 or even more back?0 -
In today's Ireland, if you want almost any kind of R & D or skilled job, you need an undergraduate degree at the very least. Since these are the jobs which are going to drive our economy forward (if it ever gets back into a forward gear at all), free 3rd level education benefits society as well as the individual.
This argument is bogus. It benefits the individual far more than it benefits society. The state has some interest in seeing citizens get third-level degrees, but that interest isn't such that it would be worth subsidizing students 100% no matter what the price. On the other hand, a university degree is worth quite a lot in future earnings to the individual who acquires it. Why should that person not pay something for it? Or, to put it another way: why should that person expect to be subsidized by other taxpayers who, in the majority, do not benefit? This question becomes acute in a time of economic crisis.0 -
Eoin Macollamh wrote: »I'm not sure you're right about that. According to this, in 1997/1998 the average cost per student was nearly €6,700 (£5,264) per annum. I haven't been able to find more recent data, but we've had close to 5% annual inflation since then and even higher inflation in the higher education sector. It's likely to be significantly cheaper to have someone on the dole for a year than it is to have them in university. That is not the only consideration, but that is how you've framed the question.
Mind, the alternative for those going to university is not likely to be the dole queue. It's more likely some sort of work, whether in Ireland or elsewhere.
One of the government ministers (can't remember who, just heard a sound bite on the radio) said that it costs the government over €25,000 for every lost job (tax + €200 weekly on the dole) and that's for the lower end of the scale0 -
Putting more people into college is madness, there should be far less people in college and far more competition for places.
With a huge lack of funding and resources, the lowest common denominator attitude has devalued Irish degrees with a massively deleterious effect on graduate employment prospects in other countries. Not everyone has a right to go to college. Equality is artificial and an a completely unnatural concept; the need to raise standards in our educational institutions means that many of those currently in the system should simply not be there.
In a way it's quite like the housing bubble; increasing the number of incoming students is like increasing house prices; the standard of student drops and ultimately the whole system is over-valued, its real value, in terms of international competitiveness and global standards far lower than it would be with a more selective base of students.
Marching against the reintroduction of fees is infantile. The money is not there to pay the bills anymore, and its time to realise that. Students have to pay. Whether it be loan based or not is immaterial on this point, once the exchequer is not footing the whole cost. Unfortunately this means it will be more difficult for some people to attend college. Ultimately, it should be. A college education should not be handed out on a plate to anyone who wants it. It should be earned and with the effort, hopefully respected.0 -
-
Putting more people into college is madness, there should be far less people in college and far more competition for places.
With a huge lack of funding and resources, the lowest common denominator attitude has devalued Irish degrees with a massively deleterious effect on graduate employment prospects in other countries. Not everyone has a right to go to college. Equality is artificial and an a completely unnatural concept; the need to raise standards in our educational institutions means that many of those currently in the system should simply not be there.
In a way it's quite like the housing bubble; increasing the number of incoming students is like increasing house prices; the standard of student drops and ultimately the whole system is over-valued, its real value, in terms of international competitiveness and global standards far lower than it would be with a more selective base of students.
Marching against the reintroduction of fees is infantile. The money is not there to pay the bills anymore, and its time to realise that. Students have to pay. Whether it be loan based or not is immaterial on this point, once the exchequer is not footing the whole cost. Unfortunately this means it will be more difficult for some people to attend college. Ultimately, it should be. A college education should not be handed out on a plate to anyone who wants it. It should be earned and with the effort, hopefully respected.
So really university and all forms of third level education is a privilege of the few then? The whole idea of having free third level education is to create a better educated work force, now quality issues aside how many people have come out of Irish universities with degrees in the last 10 years, now compare that figure to the 10 years previous? Now fees will probably be introduced, known the way our government continues to work, but the level of highly educated people will drop like a stone and from the most vulnerable and disadvantaged parts of society. I don't like the current situation of the universities being taken the piss of with messers who just come in, piss about for 3 or 4 years, get their 'whatever' class degree and take a job in daddy's firm or piss about for another few years, but that's their loss. With free education there have been people from the poorest areas of country that have got something that their parents not so long ago were told to never contemplate. Even myself, from a fairly rough background, crap secondary school, did okay-ish in the Leaving Cert, I ended up in Belfield, and now I'm getting two awards for getting the highest results. Now this wouldn't have been possible 15 years ago. You can argue that the quality of our degrees has become diluted etc... I don't think so, because maybe if you were to journey to the midlands, or South Hill in Limerick, or anyother disadvantaged area, you will find scores of people who barely finished secondary school, let alone have a degree from one of the best universities in the country. A degree hasn't lost it's weight, it's not a matter of just having a degree like it was in the 70's or 80's, it's the quality of your degree. More people with degrees should be a driver not a deterrent of quality, if more people have degrees, how many of them have good, solid degrees, how many have 1st's, how many have degrees in really tricky subjects (Actuary, Theoretical Physics, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Law, Radiography etc...). If you want to see crap degrees in stupid subjects, go to britain a good few of their 'universities' run ridiculous courses, an Irish graduate would run rings around a british graduate!
Protesting fees is not infantile, protesting means that people wont allow themselves to be walked on, if you think protesting against the government doesn't work, have a look at France. The reason why people see this protest as more of a publicity campaign by su hacks, is that it is being done by the wrong people, representing the wrong group. It's a middle-class affair for middle-class people. Rich people don't care, 5 years of grind schools or Blackrock, what's another 3 or 4 years at Belfield? Poor people won't protest, just yet as they're more concerned with day-to-day issues like, having the children's allowance payment, or having enough money to get through the week.
I think the only way that students will ever 'mobilise' (terrible word, I know!) to this issue, is if the government actually goes through with reintroducing fees, then you'll see the uproar, give it another year and things might be a lot different.
A degree that is earned shouldn't be judged on how much you're willing to pay for it, a degree is earned by the work you put into it.
Any question of the coffers being empty well the money is there alright, it's just being spent on rubbish, like recapitalising Anglo-Irish and bailing out developers. Really though why should students take the hit because of our government's ineptitude and lack of serendipity? End of Rant!0 -
I wouldn't see "my Daddy can pay for it and your Daddy can't" as "earned"
I strikes me that most of the anti-fee side is harbouring some sort of class driven chip on thier shoulders with all this talk of "daddy" paying for things and public/private schools etc.
The reality is, for anyone who actually looks at the figures, the introduction of so called free fees has made a negligable impact on college attendance by those in lower income brackets. The real drivers behind increased attendance are higher competitiveness in the job market, vastly decreased academic standards (i.e. less academic students can get places) and a higher quality of life simply meaning more people have funds to pay for the non-fees side of college attendance.
I am aware of several individuals, my own father and uncle included, who went to university coming from what would be described as a very low income household at the time. My uncle now is probably the leading academic in his field worldwide and it was has hard work and commitment to academia, not handouts, that got him where he is. To say poorer individuals did, or could not, go to college before the introduction of free fees is absurd. The change comes from a cultural change in peoples attitudes and aspirations towards a college education.0 -
A fact that a lot of people have to get over is that free fees is not just an economic policy, it's a form of social policy that the lower middle class probably see the most benefit of.
If you don't directly feel the benefits of free fees, it's easy to dismiss them and ask for their reintroduction.
I don't benefit from free medical cards for over 70s, I don't really care a whole lot about them, but a lot of pensioners do. They protested and won to keep their social benefit, like a lot of students are now.
Free third level is not a right, but it's certainly something I want to see present in my country.0 -
It's not a class issue. The fact is that if fees are reintroduced my attendance at this university might be forced to end, depending on the way that they are brought in. My family are struggling to send me here as it is even without an extra few grand in tuition. We simply don't have the money and I don't feel that I should punished for not coming from a wealthy family. Why should that have anything to do with my access to education? Surely achievement should be the ONLY criteria.I strikes me that most of the anti-fee side is harbouring some sort of class driven chip on thier shoulders with all this talk of "daddy" paying for things and public/private schools etc.
The reality is, for anyone who actually looks at the figures, the introduction of so called free fees has made a negligable impact on college attendance by those in lower income brackets. The real drivers behind increased attendance are higher competitiveness in the job market, vastly decreased academic standards (i.e. less academic students can get places) and a higher quality of life simply meaning more people have funds to pay for the non-fees side of college attendance.
I am aware of several individuals, my own father and uncle included, who went to university coming from what would be described as a very low income household at the time. My uncle now is probably the leading academic in his field worldwide and it was has hard work and commitment to academia, not handouts, that got him where he is. To say poorer individuals did, or could not, go to college before the introduction of free fees is absurd. The change comes from a cultural change in peoples attitudes and aspirations towards a college education.
Your family were lucky that they could do that. My father couldn't go to university till after I was born and he want as a mature student (when fees were abolished). He simply couldn't afford to. His family couldn't even afford the opportunity cost of him going to university even if he could have supported himself independently. While there were people from poorer families who managed to go it was much harder for them, and it shouldn't be. There were plenty more who just couldn't go.0 -
Advertisement
-
I strikes me that most of the anti-fee side is harbouring some sort of class driven chip on thier shoulders with all this talk of "daddy" paying for things and public/private schools etc.
The reality is, for anyone who actually looks at the figures, the introduction of so called free fees has made a negligable impact on college attendance by those in lower income brackets. The real drivers behind increased attendance are higher competitiveness in the job market, vastly decreased academic standards (i.e. less academic students can get places) and a higher quality of life simply meaning more people have funds to pay for the non-fees side of college attendance.
I am aware of several individuals, my own father and uncle included, who went to university coming from what would be described as a very low income household at the time. My uncle now is probably the leading academic in his field worldwide and it was has hard work and commitment to academia, not handouts, that got him where he is. To say poorer individuals did, or could not, go to college before the introduction of free fees is absurd. The change comes from a cultural change in peoples attitudes and aspirations towards a college education.
Well then we'll introduce fees, but what happens then? Say you're an 18-year-old, school was okay, did okay in the leaving cert, now with fees you ask yourself, do I want to be lumped with a 15-20k debt or wouldn't it not be easier to go on the dole, piss about, try and get some kind of a job or better still emigrate.
Fair play to your uncle and father, they did something that very few people did at that time. And I do agree with the point that there is no such thing as free handouts. Now what I would argue is that why would you add more burden onto that 18-year-old and his/her family? Why should only a few people have access based on their bank accounts? If fees come in, it will especially now destroy access to third level, we'll be back in the 1960's. Thrid level education may not be a right, universal health care may not be a right, but either way it's good to see a doctor for free if you're sick just as it is a good thing to develop a skill base, it makes you more employable.To say poorer individuals did, or could not, go to college before the introduction of free fees is absurd.
It's not absurd, it's fact, if you were poor in the 1980s, or 1970s or 1960s etc... like many people in this country once or in a lot of cases still are, then the furthest you could really realistically go was your intercert, maybe the leaving cert, before the burden of trying to get a job came in. The other option was trying to win a scholarship from the county council or joining the priesthood and these were not easy things to do, especially if you're from a poor background. Remember these were the pre-grind school days, so you really had to sink or swim. Now would you like to see young people faced with:
>>Crippling debt
>>Winning a scholarship (four honours in the 1980s, I'd say that's at least 550+ points now)
>>Joining the clergy (the less said about this one the better)
Listen you can live in your Fianna Fail Fairy Land for all you want, but for those of us from the real world, middle-class, poor etc... we're in the same sinking ship, that if you bring back fees then you will do irreperable damage to the future students, it'll kill our universities, and no increase in academic standards or higher quality academic students will make up for that, I'd sooner have 10 fools, scraping passes, than to have one future Kevin Myers!;)0 -
What many people are neglecting (probably as we're UCD folk) is that the re-introduction of fees will result in a slightly lower caliber of student in universities (the main hit they'll feel is a lack of people willing to continue to 4th level as they'll have debts to pay off), institutes of technology will suffer greatly and I think some of them will end up closing. What that will mean is a huge reduction in the number of graduates Ireland produces and we will be both less attractive to foreign investment and less capable of starting new indigenous industries.
Also fees will come back in the form of direct fees, not a graduate tax. The government is looking to cu costs now, not in 4-5 years time. With the banking situation what it is in Ireland it'll be extremely difficult for those without most of the money readily available to be able to come up with the money to pay for college at all, never mind being saddled with a huge debt afterwards.0 -
Eoin Macollamh wrote: »This argument is bogus. It benefits the individual far more than it benefits society. The state has some interest in seeing citizens get third-level degrees, but that interest isn't such that it would be worth subsidizing students 100% no matter what the price. On the other hand, a university degree is worth quite a lot in future earnings to the individual who acquires it. Why should that person not pay something for it? Or, to put it another way: why should that person expect to be subsidized by other taxpayers who, in the majority, do not benefit? This question becomes acute in a time of economic crisis.
No, the argument is not bogus. If an individual is more successful financially, he or she pays more tax, and the State benefits. If the population as a whole is well-educated, foreign companies are more likely to continue to invest here, and the State benefits. If a large number of people have access to education, more of them will go on to run successful businesses in this country, providing employment, services and exporting goods - again, the State benefits.
Yes, of course the individual benefits too, but the collective benefit cannot be denied.
As for why other taxpayers should fund this, the answer is twofold:
1) Because 'taxpayers' and 'students' are not distinct groups; students become taxpayers and taxpayers can go to college. Many people work and pay tax while attending college. In other words, the system is there for everyone, not for some elite group.
2) Because that is simply how a tax system works. It is the same reason why people in Kerry pay for the M50 upgrade, and young healthy people pay for operations for sick elderly people. Individuals do not only pay for the services they themselves use or directly benefit from. Some people believe that should be the case, but it is not the system we have in this country, and I don't believe the majority of people want such a system.0 -
I'll preface this by saying that I'm wholly in favour of a selective, means tested fees process - something like a combined income of 150k+ (which is all too common in UCD tbh, but thats another issue).In a way it's quite like the housing bubble; increasing the number of incoming students is like increasing house prices; the standard of student drops and ultimately the whole system is over-valued, its real value, in terms of international competitiveness and global standards far lower than it would be with a more selective base of students.
It may be recession-chic to make analogies to the housing market in relation to any area of government expenditure, but ultimately a lot of these arguments are erroneous. I certainly agree with you that a decreasing education standard in any country's education system is a massive issue, but I can't really see the validity of your argument.
The CAO system (which is internationally lauded) goes a long way to rectify such issues by making application to 3rd level institutions a completely transparent competitive process. The courses with higher income prospects and often, but not always, greater academic challenges are harder to get into.
If you can't hack the work, you're out (Science, a comparatively low points CAO option, has one of the highest drop out rates in the country; e.g. about 40% in UCD 1st year. Ditto Computer Science etc...) If you want the opportunity to repeat, you pay for it. Even if a certain course highly challenging course becomes 'unfashionable' and the points look like they're going to drop, 3rd level Institutions cut class sizes to keep the standard up.
The argument you make regarding the international employment market; we're a tinycountry. Of our miniscule population only about 30% have a 3rd level degree. Our education system overall is still far far superior to many European countries, not to mention the US - I can't really see how we're diluting it to the extent you make outThe reality is, for anyone who actually looks at the figures, the introduction of so called free fees has made a negligable impact on college attendance by those in lower income brackets.
Link(s)?
The gist of my argument (very similar to dajaffa btw) is that a unilateral re-introduction of fees will make a bad situation worse.What that will mean is a huge reduction in the number of graduates Ireland produces and we will be both less attractive to foreign investment and less capable of starting new indigenous industries.
+1 to this. Seriously though, those advocating the introduction of fees (equating to less graduates), where's the employment going to come from? The Building Industry? Our abundance of natural resources? Fishing and Farming?
We are wholly dependent on other countries for our survival and need to incentivise ourselves as good prospects for employment - this is almost wholly the preserve of the educated and results in a better standard of living for all. Complacency in this matter will only lead to mass emigration. At the risk of sounding faceitious, a severe lack of education on both the part of the government and the voting population got us into this mess and the only thing thats going to get us out of it is education.0 -
That's being pedantic; it's perfectly clear that he meant it should be accessible to all Irish citizens, provided for by the Irish state.The_Minister wrote: »A universal right?
Firstly, that would mean that people in African countries would have a right to it.
And we don't. We have a system in place that precludes the less academically gifted, or the plain lazy: it's called the CAO, and I do not believe, especially in a time when jobs are hard to come by (you yourself appear to still be searching for one), and loans from banks are to be avoided if possible, that the CAO should be replaced by the wallet.Secondly, we can't send everyone to college. We just can't.0 -
That's being pedantic; it's perfectly clear that he meant it should be accessible to all Irish citizens, provided for by the Irish state.
Actually Id agree with The Minister, there was an obvious mis understanding of what should and should not be a "right", its something bandied about all too carelessly.
I think its naive to think that the leaving cert performance isnt influences by economic backgrounds. Access to study material, grinds, private school, study time free of part time work etc.And we don't. We have a system in place that precludes the less academically gifted, or the plain lazy: it's called the CAO, and I do not believe, especially in a time when jobs are hard to come by (you yourself appear to still be searching for one), and loans from banks are to be avoided if possible, that the CAO should be replaced by the wallet.
Oh and why should loans from banks be avoided?0 -
Putting more people into college is madness, there should be far less people in college and far more competition for places.
With a huge lack of funding and resources, the lowest common denominator attitude has devalued Irish degrees with a massively deleterious effect on graduate employment prospects in other countries. Not everyone has a right to go to college. Equality is artificial and an a completely unnatural concept; the need to raise standards in our educational institutions means that many of those currently in the system should simply not be there.
In a way it's quite like the housing bubble; increasing the number of incoming students is like increasing house prices; the standard of student drops and ultimately the whole system is over-valued, its real value, in terms of international competitiveness and global standards far lower than it would be with a more selective base of students.
Marching against the reintroduction of fees is infantile. The money is not there to pay the bills anymore, and its time to realise that. Students have to pay. Whether it be loan based or not is immaterial on this point, once the exchequer is not footing the whole cost. Unfortunately this means it will be more difficult for some people to attend college. Ultimately, it should be. A college education should not be handed out on a plate to anyone who wants it. It should be earned and with the effort, hopefully respected.
I agree that equality is an artificial right, and this is backed up by the Constitution. The document places an emphisis on equality of opportunity, without equality of outcome.
However, since the bubble burst, I have begun to realise the relevance of the Lisbon Agreement, and the "Knowledge Based Economy". Would you rather people emerge from University with a degree and a chance to enter a whole variety of jobs, or would you rather them to leave school and enter low skilled jobs where they can be the first for the chopping block if the organisation is no longer financially viable, or enter a trade, which is no longer lucrative. I would not like to be an apprentice joiner, or kitchen fitter at the moment.
As far as I am concerned, tuition fees and the CAO are predicate on one another. If one knows that they cannot afford to go to college, then whats the point in studying in school ? There is no intrinsic value to much of the partisan drivel which we are spoonfed at 2nd level, nor is their any latitude for one to think for themselves. As a result. Hence they emerge completely unequipped to be a useful member of the workforce, save for at the lowest level.
Incentivising second level study is key, and the college place can be the carrot. Returning fees would have to result in the abolition of the CAO. Whats the point in working for a set number of points, if it is of no value. In fact, this may only drive a very arbitrary wedge between the rich and the poor.0 -
Alot of crap here about bringing fee's back. I'd love to know some of the education levels and economic backgrounds of some of the people in this thread.
Why should only the children of well off parents pay fees? It hardly makes sense that because your parents earn more than most, and so *PAY FAR MORE IN TAX*, that they should be punished this way.
The facts are that in general people with degrees will in the end pay far more in tax than people without. Simple as. Do they not deserve free fees? Or is it only people with no drive and ambition who should reap the benefits of the tax that they pay?0 -
Incentivising second level study is key, and the college place can be the carrot. Returning fees would have to result in the abolition of the CAO. Whats the point in working for a set number of points, if it is of no value. In fact, this may only drive a very arbitrary wedge between the rich and the poor.
I agree on this point. The CAO is a mindless system of complacent studying with no real merit as a metric for entry to college. The "I can remember stuff, so therefore I qualify for a medicine course" or equally "My languages are poor, therefore I cannot study maths in college" effect of it simply serves to oversimplify the application process such that a candidate can be rated by one simple ultimately meaningless number, at the end of the day.
The CAO should be the first to go. Follow that by the re-introduction of fees and using some of this new income, the funding of an enhanced grant system for the financially deprived, together with more stringent academic standards within our colleges and our knowledge based economy will actually mean something other than throwing fools through a degree factory with a rapidly declining funding base and more so, academic reputation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Returning fees would have to result in the abolition of the CAO.
Why. The CAO operated perfectly well when fees were in use previously. The CAO is not a perfect system but it is transparent in a way that it is difficult a system to replace it.
Fees are like snow, it has all happened before, although people carry on as if it had not.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement