Fees Protest on Wednesday

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

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.

Oh come off it Kaptain, I don't want to go around picking fights with mods (or you, or anyone else) but The Minister picked up on the 'universal' part and asked if it should apply to Africa, when it's clear we're discussing Ireland here. And I do believe that free 3rd level education should be a right, for all the reasons I have outlined above.

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.

Of course economic background has an impact (although year in, year out, some of the best performing schools academically are non-fee paying). No one's suggesting that we can solve all of society's problems and create some sort of utopia by keeping fees off the agenda. But that's no reason to dump another stumbling block in the path of those from poorer backgrounds.

Oh and why should loans from banks be avoided?

Because a relatively large number of people taking out those loans will not have jobs when they leave college and will be unable to pay them back. Or, they will leave college, get a job well below their qualification, and therefore be delayed or discouraged from pursuing 4th level education, which in turn will weaken Ireland's competitiveness.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

Oh come off it Kaptain, I don't want to go around picking fights with mods (or you, or anyone else) but The Minister picked up on the 'universal' part and asked if it should apply to Africa, when it's clear we're discussing Ireland here. And I do believe that free 3rd level education should be a right, for all the reasons I have outlined above.

Are you referring to these reasons: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58956095&postcount=55

I can see why you might think its a good idea, but I dont see why you think it should be a right.
And I disagree with your point anyway.

Yes we need a section of the work force with specialised knowledge and research skills, but fundamentally wealth is created in the primary sector and secondary sectors of the economy. I think that we are over dependant on both tertiary sectors and foreign investment. The IFSC was little more than a tax haven for foreign companies.

Rather than making sure every Irish citizen receives free 3rd level education , I think the government should be fostering manufacturing, mining and farming. And before someone pipes out that these can be done cheaper abroad, so can fund accounting and we're seeing that at the moment.

The problem with free education is that it adversely alters the decision making process. Prospective students dont consider the cost/benefit of 3rd level, or how certain courses will effect future earnings. We are not producing graduates with the skills the market wants, so the argument of a skilled work force falls flat on its face.

IMO 3rd level education is not a basic need, it is not a right, and far too many people do it only because it is free, dont appreciate it and squander the opportunity.


I dont think people should have a right to free 3rd level education. I think rights are very fundamental things and I disagree with the idea that rights apply ro certain people but not others. eg. Nurses have a right to 45k pa minimum or Irish people have a right to free 3rd level education.

Everyone has the right to freedom of choice, everyone has the right to life.

Because a relatively large number of people taking out those loans will not have jobs when they leave college and will be unable to pay them back. Or, they will leave college, get a job well below their qualification

Then perhaps they shouldnt go to college.

and therefore be delayed or discouraged from pursuing 4th level education, which in turn will weaken Ireland's competitiveness.

Is 4th level a universal right too?

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Are you referring to these reasons: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58956095&postcount=55

I can see why you might think its a good idea, but I dont see why you think it should be a right.
And I disagree with your point anyway.

Yes we need a section of the work force with specialised knowledge and research skills, but fundamentally wealth is created in the primary sector of the economy. I think that we are over dependant on both tertiary sectors and foreign investment. The IFSC was little more than a tax haven for foreign companies.

Rather than making sure every Irish citizen receives free 3rd level education , I think the government should be fostering manufacturing, mining and farming. And before someone pipes out that these can be done cheaper abroad, so can fund accounting and we're seeing that at the moment.

The problem with free education is that it adversely alters the decision making process. Prospective students dont consider the cost/benefit of 3rd level, or how certain courses will effect future earnings. We are not producing graduates with the skills the market wants, so the argument of a skilled work force falls flat on its face.

IMO 3rd level education is not a basic need, it is not a right, and far too many people do it only because it is free, dont appreciate it and squander the opportunity.


I dont think people should have a right to free 3rd level education. I think rights are very fundamental things and I disagree with the idea that rights apply ro certain people but not others. eg. Nurses have a right to 45k pa minimum or Irish people have a right to free 3rd level education.

Everyone has the right to freedom of choice, everyone has the right to life.



Then perhaps they shouldnt go to college.



Is 4th level a universal right too?

As a country we are far too small to culitvate a thriving industrial industry in respect of farmers, miners etc. However, even if such an industry was possible, then I dont believe that it should impact on the free fees initiative.

I must ask, what do you mean by "squander" ? Are you speaking in terms of degree level, or are you talking in terms of subject choice ? If the latter is the case, then maybe we should shut down the University sector, and focus 100% on IT's, while rooting out their departments focusing on the liberal arts.

Nobody has a right to go to college. If one performs poorly in their Leaving Certificate examination, then they will not get the oppotunity. The right is only activated once a certain level of academic achievement has been attained

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Are you referring to these reasons: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58956095&postcount=55

I can see why you might think its a good idea, but I dont see why you think it should be a right.
And I disagree with your point anyway.

Yep, plus points I've made in earlier posts and in other threads on this board. And fair enough, all this agreeing we were doing lately was starting to freak me out a little

Yes we need a section of the work force with specialised knowledge and research skills, but fundamentally wealth is created in the primary sector of the economy. I think that we are over dependant on both tertiary sectors and foreign investment. The IFSC was little more than a tax haven for foreign companies.

Rather than making sure every Irish citizen receives free 3rd level education , I think the government should be fostering manufacturing, mining and farming. And before someone pipes out that these can be done cheaper abroad, so can fund accounting and we're seeing that at the moment.

And why should that section be defined by the size of its members' wallets, rather than their academic ability?

I'm open to correction on this, but is beef not still our main export? I agree that we are over dependant on foreign investment, and that there is a need for more indigenous industry. However, due to wage costs, unless you had a lot of particularly philanthropic entrepreneurs running these companies, the manufacturing that we'd do here would have to be mainly high-skilled manufacturing, such as what we have at Intel (which isn't pulling out of Ireland for this very reason.)

The problem with free education is that it adversely alters the decision making process. Prospective students dont consider the cost/benefit of 3rd level, or how certain courses will effect future earnings. We are not producing graduates with the skills the market wants, so the argument of a skilled work force falls flat on its face.

Some don't. But I don't see that as a strong argument in favour of fees. Introducing a blanket return of fees in order to sort out this problem brings the words "baby" and "bathwater" to mind.

I also hold a strong belief that we are a society, not just an economy, and that Arts courses which promote culture etc. are just as important as more lucrative professions. I would be open to bending this thinking a bit in times of crisis however, but any measures taken should be short term. If fees come back in the way O'Keeffe is suggesting they will be here to stay.

I dont think people should have a right to free 3rd level education. I think rights are very fundamental things and I disagree with the idea that rights apply ro certain people but not others. eg. Nurses have a right to 45k pa minimum or Irish people have a right to free 3rd level education.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that Irish people have some sort of higher right to education than others. But the Irish government is responsible for providing education in Ireland, not in other countries. I expect it to run this country, not save the world.

Then perhaps they shouldnt go to college.

Are you seriously suggesting that where we have a situation where people are precluded from reaching their potential due to an insufficient bank balance, compounded by factors beyond their control that will prevent them from increasing that bank balance in the near future (i.e. no jobs), that we should simply accept this rather than looking at an alternative system? If so, then I'm sorry, I can't agree with that, it's completely beyond my comprehension how someone can think that way.

Is 4th level a universal right too?

No, not at this moment in time, because it is not necessary to have a workforce educated to that level, and there are far more opportunities for someone holding a 3rd level degree to finance a 4th level degree than would be the case for someone with a Leaving Cert. trying to finance 3rd level. At some point in time this might change - a few decades ago I wouldn't have said 3rd level was a right either. But at the moment, no.

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

As a country we are far too small to culitvate a thriving industrial industry in respect of farmers, miners etc.

Nonsense.
With regards farmers we have a very low population density. Fishing, we're an Island. Our small population is a reason why when one large factory opens its national news.
We were at one stage the second largest exporter of computer software behind only the US.

However, even if such an industry was possible, then I dont believe that it should impact on the free fees initiative.

We have only a finite amount of resources.

I must ask, what do you mean by "squander" ? Are you speaking in terms of degree level, or are you talking in terms of subject choice ? If the latter is the case, then maybe we should shut down the University sector, and focus 100% on IT's, while rooting out their departments focusing on the liberal arts.

Far too many people imo have no business in university. They have no interest in, or use for, what they study. Do the bear minimum and treat university like a 3 year holiday. They squander a fantastic opportunity.

Nobody has a right to go to college. If one performs poorly in their Leaving Certificate examination, then they will not get the oppotunity. The right is only activated once a certain level of academic achievement has been attained

Great, you dont understand what a right is - which was my point. The word "right" is being used incorrectly by many in this thread.

Tayto2000

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Yes we need a section of the work force with specialised knowledge and research skills, but fundamentally wealth is created in the primary sector of the economy. I think that we are over dependant on both tertiary sectors and foreign investment. The IFSC was little more than a tax haven for foreign companies.

This is unfortunately not the case here, the primary sector plays a comparatively minor part now in comparison to the tertiary sector. You said it yourself, we were once the largest exporter of computer software - this is not a primary sector product.

I know you said not to pipe up about cheaper overseas, but the fact remains that unless things change significantly, farming and mining in Ireland is just not viable in the face of significantly cheaper imports. The Irish sugar beet industry didn't close down from lack of demand, it closed because it was killed off by dirt cheap Brazillian cane sugar. Ditto the Arklow fertiliser factory, Tara mines are staggering, the list goes on.

As things stand, there isn't a way to build our primary industries without resorting to some form of protectionism. 'Buy Irish, buy local' campaigns help but as long as it's cheaper to fly lettuce in from Africa, the primaries are going to play a minor part.

Most of your other points I agree with. Especially the bandying about of 'rights' in relation to this matter. Free fees were a creation of the Irish government of 1996 in an ill-judged overture to the middle classes trumped only by the populist abolition of rates in 1977 (resulting in an electoral landslide and a hole in local authority funding which is only now slowly and painfully being clawed back via bin taxes), the right to free 3rd level education hasn't been written into the constitution!

RichTea

Anyone who is pro-fees needs their head and heart examined. Why should 3rd level education be the reserve of the rich?

Stabshauptmann

Tayto2000 wrote: »

This is unfortunately not the case here, the primary sector plays a comparatively minor part now in comparison to the tertiary sector. You said it yourself, we were once the largest exporter of computer software - this is not a primary sector product.

Sorry my post should read "fundamentally wealth is created in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy. I think that we are over dependant on both tertiary sectors and foreign investment."

The post however is too old to edit.

Mod Edit: Got it for you, is fixed now

Stabshauptmann

RichTea wrote: »

Anyone who is pro-fees needs their head and heart examined. Why should 3rd level education be the reserve of the rich?

Why should cars be only for those who can pay for them and not those who need them most. Or even better, be given to the best drivers. We should have driving competitions and the best drivers get free cars - that way we'll have safer roads.

People need to be able to get to and from work, if they cant the economy will suffer. Having a mobile workforce is what will attract employers here and get Ireland out of a recession. I have the right to a free car.

Also statistics show that having a BMW leads to having a higher quality of life, everyone should have the best possible quality of life. Why should we all just drive around in volkswagans. Yeah maybe a VW will get me from A to B, but some people prefer BMWs and that their choice!

Stabshauptmann

The argument that we need a highly educated workforce has a number of holes.
A number of jobs that currently need x, y or z qualification have been around for years without them. An MA in journalism is a new thing, nurses up until very recently did not have degrees.

Free fees weren’t introduced until 1995, by then the Celtic Tiger was already in full swing. Free fees wasn’t one of the causes of the Celtic Tiger, it was a tax break paid for by it.

There are also a number of false arguments about the effects of free fees.
Free fees has resulted in increased participation in 3rd level from the poorer sectors of society, however those sections of society still attend university in the same proportions as before. Free fees has resulted in an increase in the over-all numbers of those attending college, yet the proportions of different demographics in 3rd level has remained static. This suggests that fees are not the barrier some people claim, and we can say conclusively that free fees do not create equality of access/participation in 3rd level amongst all groups.

Secondly the notion that bringing back fees unfairly benefits a certain section of society is a very poor display of logic. Yes those people would go to college anyway, that’s why free fees benefits them more than any other group. Free fees is a tax break for those people.

I personally don’t think 3rd level should be free.

Its been my experience that the people with the most serious attitudes in college / apply themselves most are the mature students and the foreign students from certain countries – by in large the poorer non-english speaking ones.

When you remove the cost from 3rd level people don’t take it seriously enough (I'm not saying college isn’t also supposed to be fun – I had a blast).

I believe in market efficiency. By the Gov paying uni’s per student rather than students paying per course there is an inefficient shift in subject choices.

I believe that grade inflation is directly linked to free fees. If that’s true then free fees is doing the opposite of creating a highly skilled work force.

I definitely dont see 3rd level education as a "right".

Tayto2000

RichTea wrote: »

Anyone who is pro-fees needs their head and heart examined. Why should 3rd level education be the reserve of the rich?

This is not an argument you have put forward here, but I'll reply anyway anyway...

3rd level education shouldn't be the preserve of the rich, but blanket, one size fits all 'free' fees only benefit the rich. Fees need to be reintroduced along with means tested grants to ensure continued access for those on lower incomes. They should be on a sliding scale as well, not a full fees/no fees cut off point. A lot of the vox pops carried in the papers were from people who were saying that they couldn't afford to attend college without free fees - this is not true, based on their accounts, most of them would have been in receipt of grants under the old system.

As things stand with the profile of college entrants, the rich are effectively being subsidised by the poor to attend 3rd level via tax receipts. How is this fair?

The tough option in '96 would have been a radical overhaul of the means tested grants system. There was much dissatisfaction with this at the time as it was deeply flawed, allowing many high income earners to get free tuition. This was a source of extreme annoyance to middle income families who had to pay. The solution? Taxpayer subsidised fees for everyone instead...


And for the laugh, no-one is exempt from the need to seek funding it looks like...

passive

Tayto2000 wrote: »

And for the laugh, no-one is exempt from the need to seek funding it looks like...

haha, yeah, I saw that. Didn't have a pen on me at the time, but was going to write "why isn't this free? and with free drinks? whichever drinks I want, and as many of them as I want. It's my right to be drunk on a night out!" or something more concise...

El Siglo

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

The argument that we need a highly educated workforce has a number of holes.
A number of jobs that currently need x, y or z qualification have been around for years without them. An MA in journalism is a new thing, nurses up until very recently did not have degrees.

Although nurses having degrees is a new thing, the changing standards of medical education and changing role of nurses means that having a degree is necessary this can be seen in the debate over nurses prercribing drugs, which isn't done in this country but is done in the UK and US: http://www.whc.ie/publications/69

Free fees weren’t introduced until 1995, by then the Celtic Tiger was already in full swing. Free fees wasn’t one of the causes of the Celtic Tiger, it was a tax break paid for by it.

This isn't correct, because education was one of the key factors behind the economic growth and is now the key for future recovery: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200507/ai_n14716296

There are also a number of false arguments about the effects of free fees.
Free fees has resulted in increased participation in 3rd level from the poorer sectors of society, however those sections of society still attend university in the same proportions as before.

Where's your sources for this statement?

Free fees has resulted in an increase in the over-all numbers of those attending college, yet the proportions of different demographics in 3rd level has remained static.

Again, where's your sources for this statement and where are the statistics?
Is it fair to say that economic growth has resulted in former lower income groups taking advantage of the growth thus 'moving them up'. It's static because economic growth has increased household incomes thus during the boom in could be said that levels of poverty were in flux with the changing economy.

This suggests that fees are not the barrier some people claim, and we can say conclusively that free fees do not create equality of access/participation in 3rd level amongst all groups.

No they do create equality as if everyone does not pay, everyone on the basis of their intellect which for third level education is measured by the leaving cert will have an equal opportunity of access (all things being equal with regards second level education of course).

[/QUOTE]Secondly the notion that bringing back fees unfairly benefits a certain section of society is a very poor display of logic. Yes those people would go to college anyway, that’s why free fees benefits them more than any other group. Free fees is a tax break for those people.

I personally don’t think 3rd level should be free.[/QUOTE]

That's opinion, not an argument.

Its been my experience that the people with the most serious attitudes in college / apply themselves most are the mature students and the foreign students from certain countries – by in large the poorer non-english speaking ones.

Again your experience' isn't an argument, it's opinion which is highly sibjective.

When you remove the cost from 3rd level people don’t take it seriously enough (I'm not saying college isn’t also supposed to be fun – I had a blast).

I believe in market efficiency. By the Gov paying uni’s per student rather than students paying per course there is an inefficient shift in subject choices.

Is it possible that students are picking the courses that their interested in? Course choices are the domain of the CAO, so of there's inefficiency talk to them.

If you believe in market efficiency then you are only accounting for the marginal costs of education (i.e. cost of fees, loss of tax etc...) what about the social benfits of education, building up anthropogenic capital, is that not of value?

I believe that grade inflation is directly linked to free fees. If that’s true then free fees is doing the opposite of creating a highly skilled work force.

This is rubbish, if grade inflation is occuring then it's occuring throught the whole of the Irish education system, take the leaving cert there can be an argument made that certain subjects are being 'dumbed down', so if grade inflation is occuring then it's occuring everywhere and cannot be attributed to the lack of fees. Also, if fees were to be introduced wouldn't it not stimulate colleges to give certain grades given people are paying for their education? If a person is not paying, then the college has no benefit by aiding someone (e.g. "why should mr./ms. X get that 1st if their work wasn't enough...")

I definitely dont see 3rd level education as a "right".

By this logic, do you see second level as a "right", it's education that we don't have to pay for but is still free, why then should second level be free, if we see grade inflation, over sized class rooms etc... Education should be free because it is not only an economic asset but it also creates a better equipped electorate who won't be taken the piss of by their government, and if you think that's rubbish have a look at the French.

Chakar

Up to 40 students targeted the Green Party today as they stepped up their campaign against the possible reintroduction of fees.

The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) put pressure on party leader John Gormley by staging a sit-in protest at the Department of the Environment in Custom House, Dublin.

Protesters claimed the Greens secured more student and graduate votes than any other party in the general election, winning them a place in Government.

USI president Shane Kelly warned that students and their families would remember if the party continued to break its pre-election promises in the run-up to the upcoming local and European elections.

“John Gormley and the Green Party got elected to this Government on the platform that they were opposed to the re-introduction of third level fees,” said Mr Kelly.

“However, since their election they have been less than convincing in their stance on this important issue.

“The reason we are here today is to remind the minister of his party’s pre-election promises. We want Minister Gormley to issue a statement of intent reaffirming his commitment to these pre-election promises.”

Carrying banners, dozens of students from across Dublin filled the foyer of the Government building, where they vowed to remain overnight.

Despite a heavy garda presence and no sign of Mr Gormley, Mr Kelly said the atmosphere was good and positive with no tension between the sides.

“We are not here to cause trouble or get in anybody’s way and we are not asking for the world,” he continued.

“We are asking the minister to keep his word and remain committed to the promises he made prior to the last general election.”

The demonstration is the latest in a series of nationwide campaigns which students have staged to voice their opposition against the re-introduction of fees.

UCD’s Dan O’ Neill said it is also the first in a long line of direct actions which will be taken if Minister for Education Batt O’Keefe refuses demands for a fair and equitable third level education system.

The Department of Environment refused to comment on the protest, stating the subject of fees was an issue for the Department of Education.

PA

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0216/breaking60.htm

Tayto2000

El Siglo wrote: »

Where's your sources for this statement?

Interesting thread on this subject here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055400499

(Jump straight top page 8, before that it's mainly politics of protest etc. Kicked off after the Prime Time special...)

HEA report referenced is here:
http://www.hea.ie/files/files/file/archive/policy/2005/Access%20Action%20Plan%202005-2007.pdf

delta_bravo

Chakar wrote: »

The Department of Environment refused to comment on the protest, stating the subject of fees was an issue for the Department of Education.

Have to say i agree with that but the d.o.e offices in Marlborough Street would be a lot harder to 'occupy' as it is walled and has several buildings whereas the Custom House is a public building. While I agree with the end of 'free fees', I do think the campaign has been very successful. It would be interesting to see if similar methods were employed within UCD

Red Alert

I think the arguments about students not realizing the reality of the situation are rubbish. Why shouldn't we stand up and defend ourselves when every other special interest group is? Should students stand by and watch others getting their pay and/or benefits ringfenced?

In reply to The_Minister, in Ireland I believe the right to go to university should be a universal right, available to all (once) for free.

Has the current SU president clarified his position either way on fees for the record?

El Siglo

The big problem with the fees protest is that:
1) Students (in general) are not as militant as they once were i.e. compare a 1969 student radical to a 2009 student 'radical'. Also there are way, way less radical students now.
2) The anti-fees campaign has been overshadowed by really (really super) left wing types (the usual Sinn Féin, Labour Youth etc...)

With these two points the anti-fees movement has turned the campaign into a kind of 'crusade' that if you're anti-fees you're with them and if you're not with them you're a pro-fees, rich, Fianna Fáil loving arse face!

The problem is both the SU and these left leaning groups have politicised the campaign, this then pushes moderate types (i.e. non-party affiliated people) away from the campaign and in some cases polarises people. Instead of politicising free fees, it should be an apolitical situation where free fees can be argued as for example both offering education to those that come from disadvantaged backgrounds but also can offer a stimulus to students to do well as competition for jobs will look not only at your degree but your degree classification (e.g. "it's better to get a 1st class hons than be one of 10,000 with a 2:1").
So depoliticising (I know this sounds kind of bullsh*tty) the free fees movement is what is needed instead of the SU being bedfellows with the political groups in the college. I know this might be impossible, but if anyone out there isn't inclined towards Labour, Socialists, Shinners etc... then look at the arguments in an unbiased, apolitical manner (i.e. stats of increases in third level attendance, developing a knowledge based economy etc...) and forget all of the political parties and their bullsh*t.:pac:

Stabshauptmann

El Siglo wrote: »

Although nurses having degrees is a new thing, the changing standards of medical education and changing role of nurses means that having a degree is necessary this can be seen in the debate over nurses prercribing drugs, which isn't done in this country but is done in the UK and US: http://www.whc.ie/publications/69

You gave an example of something that hasn’t changed to make your point. The point may be valid, but do you have any examples of how a nurses job has changed since nursing degrees were introduced.

This isn't correct, because education was one of the key factors behind the economic growth and is now the key for future recovery: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200507/ai_n14716296

Wow, I mean just hats off for terrible argument. You say a fact that I think disproves an opinion cant be true because the opinion is widely held. I mean bravo on the stupidity of that argument.
You could have tried to disagree with when the celtic tiger began, or correlated growth rates with the introduction of free fees or argued that the tiger was sustained by free fees. But no, your argument is that free fees weren’t introduced in 1995 because they were around before the celtic tiger. Why not bury your head in the sand a little further.

Where's your sources for this statement?

As Tayto2000 was so helpful to link, the HEA report in this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57655826&postcount=118

Again, where's your sources for this statement and where are the statistics?

Same HEA report.

Is it fair to say that economic growth has resulted in former lower income groups taking advantage of the growth thus 'moving them up'. It's static because economic growth has increased household incomes thus during the boom in could be said that levels of poverty were in flux with the changing economy.

No, because the statistics concerns the proportions of those groups.
only 25% of the relevant population of Unskilled Manual Workers and Semi-Skilled Manual Workers participate in higher level education. By contrast, one half of the relevant population of Salaried Employees and Lower Professionals and 75% of the Employers, Managers, Higher Professionals and Farmers participate in higher level education.
http://geary.ucd.ie/newera/images/Publications/gearynewerapaper1.pdf

No they do create equality as if everyone does not pay, everyone on the basis of their intellect which for third level education is measured by the leaving cert will have an equal opportunity of access (all things being equal with regards second level education of course).

So the reason that people from wealthier backgrounds make up a higher proportion of third level students is because they are naturally smarter, a better breed of people? You can take you ignorant, pretentious, short-sighted dribble and peddle it somewhere else.
Look at this logically. There was a theory, a perfectly sound and believable one, that free fees would create equality of access (I'm not saying whos theory this was). The facts, which are clear and readily available show that this did not happen. The numbers attending third level increased, but college demographics remained the same.
This is just like before with the free fees coming in after the celtic tiger, you wont win anyone over arguing what should have happened, if there are clear facts showing that that’s not what happened.

Secondly the notion that bringing back fees unfairly benefits a certain section of society is a very poor display of logic. Yes those people would go to college anyway, that’s why free fees benefits them more than any other group. Free fees is a tax break for those people.

I personally don’t think 3rd level should be free.

That's opinion, not an argument.

A)You’re ability to read is as poor as your ability to debate.

The sentence “I personally don’t think 3rd level should be free” is explained in the following sentences which dont appear in your quote, it is not a conclusion of the previous sentences.

b)An opinion can be argued, opinions are not set in stone and the whole point of debate is to challenge opinions.

Again your experience' isn't an argument, it's opinion which is highly sibjective.

Again, experience helps to form opinion, and opinion can be argued.

No doubt you’re thinking of a time someone told you what you were saying was opinion, not fact.

Its important not to present opinions or experience as fact alright; that’s why I make it clear I'm not making statements of fact and use phrases like “In my experience” and “I believe”.

That you cant tell the difference between opinion and fact has given me quite the chuckle.

Is it possible that students are picking the courses that their interested in? Course choices are the domain of the CAO, so of there's inefficiency talk to them.

That’s my point. Let me simplify it. If you take nutrition completely out of the equation and you offer the choice between a chocolate bar and brussel sprouts they’ll choose the chocolate. By removing the cost of education from the consumer they make inefficient choices. Please no childish what if they don’t like x or y rebuttles.

This market failure is worsened by universities attempting to maximise revenue through higher pass rates. It becomes a case of the pack moving at the pace of the slowest member rather than trying to overtake the fastest. Grade inflation has been documented and discussed at length over the past few years including articles in a number of national and student papers. I'm sure you can find sources if you google.

If you believe in market efficiency then you are only accounting for the marginal costs of education (i.e. cost of fees, loss of tax etc...)

Not true.

what about the social benfits of education, building up anthropogenic capital, is that not of value?

It is indeed. Im of the opinion thought that free fees has had an adverse effect on the arts. Sure there are more undergrads, but there is less funding for post grad work and judging by the worrying figures on grade inflation, poorer graduates.

This is rubbish, if grade inflation is occuring then it's occuring throught the whole of the Irish education system, take the leaving cert there can be an argument made that certain subjects are being 'dumbed down', so if grade inflation is occuring then it's occuring everywhere and cannot be attributed to the lack of fees.

There is an obvious direct link between the leaving cert and college admission, I'm amazed you cant see it.

Also, if fees were to be introduced wouldn't it not stimulate colleges to give certain grades given people are paying for their education? If a person is not paying, then the college has no benefit by aiding someone (e.g. "why should mr./ms. X get that 1st if their work wasn't enough...")

Colleges get paid per student, there is no reason to risk them dropping out if you fail them. If someone is paying for college they are more likely to pay to repeat a year than someone who doesn’t want to be in college and was only doing it because it was free.

That and also when choosing where to spend money on a degree, consumers looked at the brand. If a college was known for lax standards you wouldn’t want to go there.

By this logic, do you see second level as a "right", it's education that we don't have to pay for but is still free, why then should second level be free, if we see grade inflation, over sized class rooms etc... Education should be free because it is not only an economic asset but it also creates a better equipped electorate who won't be taken the piss of by their government,

Basically my logic is that rights should be fundamental, universal and essential.

Primary and Secondary education is the basic level of education people need to live productive lives, make decisions and have the skills necessary to choose careers. It is both fundamental and essential.

All sections of society need this basic level of education. We all need to be able to read and write. A carpenter or garda doesnt need to know how to calculate PV01s.

and if you think that's rubbish have a look at the French.

What do you mean by that?