College Fees

thebman

Al O'Peica wrote: »

So what alternative do you propose?

You have to accept the sad reality that in this day and age, the country can't afford free fees for all.

Unfair? Very, but instead of sitting back and bitching and moaning in your best txt speak, propose an alternative.

An alternative. How about we abolish fee's and put up registration costs to unacceptable levels?

What the government want is thousand euro registration fee's and college fee's on top of that.

Sure we can have the most expensive education in Europe in no time but at what expense?

Crucifix

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/okeeffe-to-end-free--thirdlevel-education-1679714.html

Speaks for itself really

mahamageehad

melekalikimaka wrote: »

fees need to be brought back in, its a strain on the government, free fees is a luxury we have had for a few years now, same as medical cards, the country would be in a better financial situation if these celtic tiger luxuries were revoked...even for the duration of the economic crisis, sure the amount of money wasted on drop ots is vast, pay yourself and i'm sure we'd see a drop in drop out rates

It's a strange argument to call the medical card and free fees a "luxury". There are some people who depend on these things. I doubt tat you are one of them. Of course there would be a decreases in drop out rates... there would also be a massive decrease in registration rates.

joey54 wrote: »

If/When they bring in fees I think it should be a loan system similar to that of Australia's. The fee's should fall on us the students head and not that of our parents.

For this reason I don't think it should be means tested. The Irish system is scammed too easily. So many people I know in college are receiving grants and student aid and I know for a fact they're scamming the system in order to do this. What kills me most is they brag about it while the rest of us poor suckers have to pay for every little thing.

Let the government bring in fees, but let everybody pay, no matter what their family status. The loans system would mean the burden would not fall on our parents but us the people actually receiving the education.

Let everybody pay?? What of those who can't afford to pay?? Slap a big debt on their heads for trying to better their lives?? The people who would be hit hard by these fees are middle and lower class families, a great percentage of the parents in these families wouldn't have had the chance to go to college as they had to leave school to work. A very small percentage of pupils 30 years ago had the chance to sit a leaving cert, not to mind a college education.

sr. kila wrote: »

loan system would be the biggest joke ever.. so when we are out of college we would have a huge loan to repay and probably no job because of the state of this country..

Very fair point. Also how would this loan system deal with people who may have to emigrate he country in order to find a job.

IMHO there are many other ways the government could gain some extra money without the introduction of student fees. Some great arguments were put forward last night on the Late Late for the abolition of the Seanad. What about the number of TDs and the ridiculous expenses we, the taxpayer, are paying for??

Students are already being hit with a crazy "registration" fee. Leave the students alone for once, its about time this government started hitting the people who are scamming the system (eg the crazy artists exemption tax) and the fatcats.

melekalikimaka

mahamageehad wrote: »

It's a strange argument to call the medical card and free fees a "luxury". There are some people who depend on these things. I doubt tat you are one of them. Of course there would be a decreases in drop out rates... there would also be a massive decrease in registration rates.

we survived without them before... we can survive again, we as a nation have been spoilt by our own governemnt and the eu for too long, eu have stopped pumping us with cash and the government cant afford to be giving free medical care and free education to the masses, in all fairness, your education and your health shouldnt need to be government funded, these are basic things, we should be able to sort ourselves, too many in this country have been spoon fed for too long... and the way we are all acting like spoilt brats cos these things are being taken back, proves that

melekalikimaka

mahamageehad wrote: »

Students are already being hit with a crazy "registration" fee. Leave the students alone for once, its about time this government started hitting the people who are scamming the system (eg the crazy artists exemption tax) and the fatcats.

i'm fairly sure with the disgustingly high drop out rates in college...the students are in fact scamming the country... also i think the ol arts degrees are a bit of a scam... but thats another issue....

thebman

A system where people who drop out at the end of first year pay fees for that year might be more appreciated by the public. It would keep people who are going for a one year party away from college and there are a significant number that seem to turn up, get p*ssed until their grant is gone and then fook off. Those are legitimate targets.

The ones who turn up, get their grant and work hard are not legitimate targets IMO. They are hard working and tryin to better themselves and should be allowed to do so.

mahamageehad

melekalikimaka wrote: »

we survived without them before... we can survive again, we as a nation have been spoilt by our own governemnt and the eu for too long, eu have stopped pumping us with cash and the government cant afford to be giving free medical care and free education to the masses, in all fairness, your education and your health shouldnt need to be government funded, these are basic things, we should be able to sort ourselves, too many in this country have been spoon fed for too long... and the way we are all acting like spoilt brats cos these things are being taken back, proves that

Education and Health are basic human rights in a country like Ireland and the system we have in place at the moment is extortionate. Free healthcare for some, not the masses as its means tested, ensures everyone can access basic health care. I had a cousin home from London recently and she was shocked at the cost of healthcare here, from doctors fees to medication prices.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i'm fairly sure with the disgustingly high drop out rates in college...the students are in fact scamming the country... also i think the ol arts degrees are a bit of a scam... but thats another issue....

Agreed! But don't forget the fact that these students are future taxpayers.

thebman wrote: »

A system where people who drop out at the end of first year pay fees for that year might be more appreciated by the public. It would keep people who are going for a one year party away from college and there are a significant number that seem to turn up, get p*ssed until their grant is gone and then fook off. Those are legitimate targets.

The ones who turn up, get their grant and work hard are not legitimate targets IMO. They are hard working and tryin to better themselves and should be allowed to do so.

You may have something there alright. Also students who go to college for the year for the party could possibly be asked to pay back a % of their maintenance grant if they're getting one??

veryangryman

sr. kila wrote: »

Your gas.. im sure da country could survive without an educated workforce:mad::mad::mad:
wuld u prefer poor people to die bcoz dey cant afford medicine....
ur prob da stuck up d4 type r u..?:mad:

u can keep those comments to urself

Im sorry - I stopped listening after you typed "da" instead of "the". Can you repeat in English please?

Clearly, you are in need of further education, certainly in the english language.

fourfiveone

I am a grateful recipient of a State-funded university education. I was the beneficiary of a grant and free fees for three years of a primary degree course and a one year post graduate.
I whole-heartedly support the re-introduction of fees.
Nearly two thirds of Leaving Cert students enter higher education. As of 2004, the adjusted figures for entrants from the children of semi-skilled/non-skilled workers are 33%. The children of higher professionals have a 100% entry rate, farmers 89%, employers and managers 65%, lower professionals 65%, own account workers 65%, skilled workers 50% and non-manual workers 27%. These figures are from the National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education. I would think access from lower socio-economic groups to universities and to courses in the more lucrative professions is even less.

The funding of second level education sees private fee-paying schools subsidized by €100,000,000 p/a.
Many of the top feeder schools to Third level charge fees to fund facilities but have teaching staff paid by the State.
In non fee-paying schools many students can afford to have grinds in specific subjects.

Now, I fully support a parent's right to invest in their child's education but I cannot agree with a Third level system with universal funding but with limited access because of gross inequality at Second level. I can afford to pay for my children's education, I would prefer not to have to but I cannot, in good conscience, demand that someone who cannot have access to higher education because of socio-economic factors should have to pay for those who do.

thebman

thebman wrote: »

A system where people who drop out at the end of first year pay fees for that year might be more appreciated by the public. It would keep people who are going for a one year party away from college and there are a significant number that seem to turn up, get p*ssed until their grant is gone and then fook off. Those are legitimate targets.

The ones who turn up, get their grant and work hard are not legitimate targets IMO. They are hard working and tryin to better themselves and
should be allowed to do so.

This is already the case somewhat. These people are liable for full fees in their first year, in the event that they return to college at a later stage.

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

thebman wrote: »

A system where people who drop out at the end of first year pay fees for that year might be more appreciated by the public.

This is already the case somewhat. These people are liable for full fees in their first year, in the event that they return to college at a later stage.

I'm aware of that but I know plenty of people who turned up for a free booze fest who never had any intention of going to college, they just went to get drunk for a few months at the tax payers expense and somewhat their parents.

Then they go off and work in a shop or whatever they actually wanted to do. Many ended up in construction I guess.

This raises an interesting question then. If someone is liable for fees if they go back and fees are introduced, do they owe two year fees or do they just pay like everyone else will have to pay? Otherwise your essentially canceling the penalty.

fourfiveone

fourfiveone wrote: »

I am a grateful recipient of a State-funded university education. I was the beneficiary of a grant and free fees for three years of a primary degree course and a one year post graduate.
I whole-heartedly support the re-introduction of fees.
Nearly two thirds of Leaving Cert students enter higher education. As of 2004, the adjusted figures for entrants from the children of semi-skilled/non-skilled workers are 33%. The children of higher professionals have a 100% entry rate, farmers 89%, employers and managers 65%, lower professionals 65%, own account workers 65%, skilled workers 50% and non-manual workers 27%. These figures are from the National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education. I would think access from lower socio-economic groups to universities and to courses in the more lucrative professions is even less.

The funding of second level education sees private fee-paying schools subsidized by €100,000,000 p/a.
Many of the top feeder schools to Third level charge fees to fund facilities but have teaching staff paid by the State.
In non fee-paying schools many students can afford to have grinds in specific subjects.

Now, I fully support a parent's right to invest in their child's education but I cannot agree with a Third level system with universal funding but with limited access because of gross inequality at Second level. I can afford to pay for my children's education, I would prefer not to have to but I cannot, in good conscience, demand that someone who cannot have access to higher education because of socio-economic factors should have to pay for those who do.

I am so sick of people saying how the children of lower socio-economic groups have a lower rate of participation in third level education. It is there own choice if they don't want to go to college and therefore they're own fault. First of all these people can get into any course with fewer points than standard applicants can. And then they get grants. I don't see what is stopping them to be honest.

thebman

thebman wrote: »

I'm aware of that but I know plenty of people who turned up for a free booze fest who never had any intention of going to college, they just went to get drunk for a few months at the tax payers expense and somewhat their parents.

Then they go off and work in a shop or whatever they actually wanted to do. Many ended up in construction I guess.

This raises an interesting question then. If someone is liable for fees if they go back and fees are introduced, do they owe two year fees or do they just pay like everyone else will have to pay? Otherwise your essentially canceling the penalty.

Yes I know what you mean and who you mean. Thats actually a good suggestion.

As for the second question, it would be ridiculous to charge them twice. This is the case I am actually in. I am going back to college in September after taking this year out (to work to pay for my fees in my first year). Now I just have to wait and see what the hell happens!!

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I know what you mean and who you mean. Thats actually a good suggestion.

As for the second question, it would be ridiculous to charge them twice. This is the case I am actually in. I am going back to college in September after taking this year out (to work to pay for my fees in my first year). Now I just have to wait and see what the hell happens!!

I know that would be ridiculous but it is a problem to let people off who had a free year and are liable for fees as their penalty that they will have to look at IMO or at least should look at.

Personally I'm against the re-introduction of fees altogether. I think my system above for first years and the current system for other years combined with fee's acquired through foreign students would pay for third level education in the country. If not a part-fees system would be preferable to a return to full fees.

veryangryman

thebman wrote: »

I'm aware of that but I know plenty of people who turned up for a free booze fest who never had any intention of going to college, they just went to get drunk for a few months at the tax payers expense and somewhat their parents.

Very true. And the college will do all they can to get them back the next year, knowing full well that they get "easy money" from having the numbers in the courses. Its a viscious circle no doubt.

I think the proposed system of giving people free fees so long as they pass their exams is flawed, albeit better than the current system.

Here is my proposal...

You get a loan from government for the college fees. This loan MUST be paid back unless you pass your exams and declare that you will return for the next year. Perhaps the government charge a small amount of interest (~1%) which the student pays win lose or draw...just to make it worth the governments while. After second year, the fees are paid by the government based on the theory that once the student establishes himself/herself in college, the chances are they do give a sh1t and want to finish the course and work hard for it. Witness the lack of 3rd/4th years out on the beer most college nights

Thus, anyone who drops out pays back every penny and a little more. Anyone who works hard and makes it through will have made some money for the state AND pay higher taxes when they gain skilled employment

"Man, Veryangryman" (James Bond style greeting)

*Penbo*

I should hopefully be starting first year in ucd this sept and i know that id have to pay the first year fees anyway because i already completed a year in a different college. Is it true if youre in the system before the fees are brought back then i'd just have the pay the reg fee for the last 3 years?? Thats what the fella from ucd said but he didnt seem too sure. Because theres no way id be able to afford nearly 7000 a year for 4 years....

Under the present system if you do first year again (either same course or different) within 5 years you've to pay the fees for the first year, and for second year onwards you'd just pay Reg Fee. But there's no way to saying how it'll pan out under the proposals being mooted, since they haven't completely come out yet!

veryangryman

On a mroe speculative note, what do you guys think will happen?

The government have indicated "pain". How much "pain" do you think?

I predict student paying ~25-30% of fees along with registration. Very painful but not AS painful as could be

I dont think they can introduce them back in full straight away. Too huge an adjustment for a very vulnerable area of society. Next few years it will deffo creep in though

Perhaps having the cop to raise the higher level of tax back to 42% would be a decent step too but thats another story

RedXIV

This is sore subject in the RedXIV household. I'm in my final year of college, my brother is in his 2nd year and my sister is entering in september. Couple that with the fact my parents are both civil servants and have been getting destroyed with governement levies, I've been given the hint at home that they really need my help next year helping pay for my sister's fees.

Am getting an insight into what hardship parents are coming up against and i do feel sorry for them. I was looking into the Austrailian scheme and i personally favour this one. I worked in college up until janurary of this year just to cover costs and i'd like to think it was a character building experience and i do appreciate my degree all the more.

On a final note, i know an awful lot of people getting the grant for stupid reasons that simply don't need it. It's really soul destroying when other students who need it can't get it, and students who blatently don't need it will be able to buy cars in college, big tvs, computers, whenever it suits :mad:

sr. kila

veryangryman wrote: »

Im sorry - I stopped listening after you typed "da" instead of "the". Can you repeat in English please?

Clearly, you are in need of further education, certainly in the english language.

You clearly dont own a mobile phone..
get with the times....... this is the new language..

fourfiveone

Deleted User wrote: »

I am so sick of people saying how the children of lower socio-economic groups have a lower rate of participation in third level education. It is there own choice if they don't want to go to college and therefore they're own fault. First of all these people can get into any course with fewer points than standard applicants can. And then they get grants. I don't see what is stopping them to be honest.

If they don't want to go to college it is certainly their choice but why do they have to pay for anyone else to go? People who complete college courses will be in a position to have lucrative careers. Why can't those who will benefit pay a small amount per year after they graduate? Why do people expect Mammy and Daddy or The State to fund this choice?
'These people' (call us plebs if it makes you feel better) may have slightly lower points, usually within 10% but this is not for 'any course' and usually in exceptional circumstances.
What's stopping 'these people' is that although they're as bright and enthusiastic as their more affluent counterparts, they may have to work throughout their second level education to contribute to their household, they may have to take care of family members, they may have no one at home who has done an Inter Cert, never mind someone there who can help with their HL Maths, or Irish etc, they may have no history of educational completion in their family don't get encouraged to persevere at school.

Despite all this I'll bet most of 'these people' can differentiate between there, their and they're but some dumbo who can't will end up in college having their taxes pay for his/her education!

Lump

sr. kila wrote: »

You clearly dont own a mobile phone..
get with the times....... this is the new language..

Sr. Kila, let me point you towards the rules of this forum. The only specific rule I've made for the forum covers the use of txt speak.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=144576

A. Stop using it, I've already warned you.
B. Stop trying to get a rise out of people who pick you up on it.
C. TXT Spk isn't the new language, it's the language of people who are too lazy to type a full sentance.
D. If your posts are reported again, I'll ban you for a week. I'm being nice not banning you now, 3 people have already complained.

Thanks,

John - Forum moderator.

fourfiveone

fourfiveone wrote: »

If they don't want to go to college it is certainly their choice but why do they have to pay for anyone else to go? People who complete college courses will be in a position to have lucrative careers. Why can't those who will benefit pay a small amount per year after they graduate? Why do people expect Mammy and Daddy or The State to fund this choice?
'These people' (call us plebs if it makes you feel better) may have slightly lower points, usually within 10% but this is not for 'any course' and usually in exceptional circumstances.
What's stopping 'these people' is that although they're as bright and enthusiastic as their more affluent counterparts, they may have to work throughout their second level education to contribute to their household, they may have to take care of family members, they may have no one at home who has done an Inter Cert, never mind someone there who can help with their HL Maths, or Irish etc, they may have no history of educational completion in their family don't get encouraged to persevere at school.

Despite all this I'll bet most of 'these people' can differentiate between there, their and they're but some dumbo who can't will end up in college having their taxes pay for his/her education!

OK I made serious grammatical errors in my last post, but that rarely happens me, so if you are implying that I am some 'dumbo' that cannot differentiate between there, their and they're, you are seriously mistaken. At least I don't make up words such as 'dumbo', which you will find, is not an actual word.

And who said they (the children of lower socio economic groups) were going to be paying for other children to go to college? They might not even earn enough to be paying taxes or they might even be drawing the dole. Actually I do think third level students should pay some amount of money towards their third level education. I don't expect the state to pay the full cost. I also don't expect the state to pay money to young people, who after secondary school, start to claim unemployment benefits. While it might or might not be in exceptional circumstances, the fact is that the advantage exists (getting into courses on a lower points requirement). And as for your story about the barriers facing 'these people', life can be like that for anybody, not just them.

I might seem very anti-lower socio-economic groups here, but I am not.
All my opinions are based on what I have seen in school, college, etc. and from what I have heard from other people in the last few years.

veryangryman

sr. kila wrote: »

You clearly dont own a mobile phone..
get with the times....... this is the new language..

You may have noticed that this thing your looking at is a computer monitor - not a mobile phone.

"New language"? It was "new" 10-15 years ago. And the only reason people used it was because the phones wouold only let you jam 128 characters into a text message, so people abbreviated back then.

Since the advent of longer space in texts, as well as the invention of predictive text, there is no need for it. Incidentally,there NEVER was a need for it on a computer.

I hope that your imminent graduation teaches you this lesson, but sadly i doubt it. The spread of moronism in this country has become more and more rampant due to the social networking scene. I cant even bring myself to reply to messages on my own page that are written in this "language"

*Cringe*

joey54

On another point I think that students who go to fee paying second level schools should automatically have to pay third level fees.

If their parents are willing to pay for their children's second level education then they can pay for their third level education.

Fact is a huge number of parents who send their children to fee paying secondary schools would not be able to afford the full fee's these schools would have to charge if they were not subsidised by the Government.

I have no problem with with parents wanting to send their children to private secondary schools but then let them also pay for their child's college education.

This is surely something which would save the government money? I mean it really is ridiculous that the government in this day and age are still putting money towards private secondary schools, surely this money should and could be going towards third level education.

injured365

Sorting out the grants scheme should be looked at first really. I mean i don't get it, yet i know plenty of people who do get it who live a far more comfortable life at college than i do. I can accept not getting due to my parents earnings. The fact that if they wanted they could "fudge" their earnings lets say but choose not to because it would be wrong while others, in full knowledge that they don't need it, happily accept the grant and proceed to pi$$ it away.
As for the fees, bringing them in completely is just stupid. If peoples parents are in a position to pay them then fair enough let them. But the fees will make college impossible for many. There are so many other less controversial ways for the government to save/make money but they just see students as easy targets

fourfiveone

Deleted User wrote: »

OK I made serious grammatical errors in my last post, but that rarely happens me, so if you are implying that I am some 'dumbo' that cannot differentiate between there, their and they're, you are seriously mistaken. At least I don't make up words such as 'dumbo', which you will find, is not an actual word.

And who said they (the children of lower socio economic groups) were going to be paying for other children to go to college? They might not even earn enough to be paying taxes or they might even be drawing the dole. Actually I do think third level students should pay some amount of money towards their third level education. I don't expect the state to pay the full cost. I also don't expect the state to pay money to young people, who after secondary school, start to claim unemployment benefits. While it might or might not be in exceptional circumstances, the fact is that the advantage exists (getting into courses on a lower points requirement). And as for your story about the barriers facing 'these people', life can be like that for anybody, not just them.

I might seem very anti-lower socio-economic groups here, but I am not.
All my opinions are based on what I have seen in school, college, etc. and from what I have heard from other people in the last few years.

I'd better get on to Disney they must owe me a fortune for copyright infringement on that word I made up.

Your implication about the dole is either intellectually dishonest or inept.
Families in lower socio-economic groups are a significant proportion of this country. These are the people who have/had jobs in manufacturing, construction or retail. They pay income tax at the lower rate and their overtime at the higher rate. They have no accountants helping them to avoid tax. Their spending raises huge VAT revenue. Why should they pay for the education of children from families who can well afford to pay for themselves when 2/3rds of 'these people' won't see their children or families benefit? The present system allows inequality to be perpetuated.

'These people' probably had to go working after Primary or during Secondary school. Their kids don't attend the State funded fee-paying Secondary schools that are the top feeder schools for university. For them €30 is the cost of a week of school lunches, or shoes for a child or a winter coat so grinds are not on the agenda.
My 'story' uses the word have. Some kids are obliged to work part-time to contribute to their family's finances. This is different from Daddy and Mammy saying you have to work because they don't want to give you pocket money. Some kids are obliged to take care of younger siblings while a parent/parents work because the family cannot afford the cost of childcare.

The universities look at highly motivated kids in these circumstances. They take the view that someone who got 450 points despite disadvantage is a better prospect than someone who needed grinds or revision courses or a private school to get 460.
Fair play to you for suggesting the disadvantaged have an advantage, you probably reckon the Simon Community's soup is far more tasty than yours as well.

People who leave school do not receive unemployment benefit. What is now known as Jobseekers benefit is paid for 12 months to people out of work with over 260 PRSI contributions and 9 months to those with less than 260. The jobseekers allowance is means tested and parents' income is a factor for those under 24 living at home.

I have never seen oxygen but I don't doubt that it exists. There are other schools, other colleges other experiences than those that you (or I) have witnessed.
I'm basing this last opinion on what people have told me in the last few years: I'm right and you are wrong

PS how 'rarely' do you begin a sentence with a conjunction?

fourfiveone

fourfiveone wrote: »

I'd better get on to Disney they must owe me a fortune for copyright infringement on that word I made up.

Your implication about the dole is either intellectually dishonest or inept.
Families in lower socio-economic groups are a significant proportion of this country. These are the people who have/had jobs in manufacturing, construction or retail. They pay income tax at the lower rate and their overtime at the higher rate. They have no accountants helping them to avoid tax. Their spending raises huge VAT revenue. Why should they pay for the education of children from families who can well afford to pay for themselves when 2/3rds of 'these people' won't see their children or families benefit? The present system allows inequality to be perpetuated.

'These people' probably had to go working after Primary or during Secondary school. Their kids don't attend the State funded fee-paying Secondary schools that are the top feeder schools for university. For them €30 is the cost of a week of school lunches, or shoes for a child or a winter coat so grinds are not on the agenda.
My 'story' uses the word have. Some kids are obliged to work part-time to contribute to their family's finances. This is different from Daddy and Mammy saying you have to work because they don't want to give you pocket money. Some kids are obliged to take care of younger siblings while a parent/parents work because the family cannot afford the cost of childcare.

The universities look at highly motivated kids in these circumstances. They take the view that someone who got 450 points despite disadvantage is a better prospect than someone who needed grinds or revision courses or a private school to get 460.
Fair play to you for suggesting the disadvantaged have an advantage, you probably reckon the Simon Community's soup is far more tasty than yours as well.

People who leave school do not receive unemployment benefit. What is now known as Jobseekers benefit is paid for 12 months to people out of work with over 260 PRSI contributions and 9 months to those with less than 260. The jobseekers allowance is means tested and parents' income is a factor for those under 24 living at home.

I have never seen oxygen but I don't doubt that it exists. There are other schools, other colleges other experiences than those that you (or I) have witnessed.
I'm basing this last opinion on what people have told me in the last few years: I'm right and you are wrong

PS how 'rarely' do you begin a sentence with a conjunction?

I don't actually count how many times I begin a sentence with a conjunction. I would say I do it rarely as I was taught not to in school. You must be reminded it is not grammatically incorrect to begin a sentence with a conjunction. How often do you forget to use commas in your sentences? For your information I was a straight A English student in secondary school, so I don’t have to and no longer will, justify myself to you.


My implication about the dole is not either intellectually dishonest or inept. I know perfectly well that the families of lower socio-economic groups contribute to the exchequer. I never contradicted this. I was referring to the children of families of lower socio-economic groups when I said they might not earn enough to pay taxes. If you are going to bring VAT into this, remember everybody pays VAT. One could argue their VAT contributions fund their third level education. That would not be my personal view. Maybe some parents would like to see the taxes they pay, invested in their child’s third level education. Why should parents who have worked so hard to get where they are, pay for other peoples children to go to college and not their own?


So ‘these people’ are entitled to a lower points requirement because they cannot afford grinds. Maybe they can’t afford them because their parents don’t believe they are necessary. They might spend their income on less important things. I would have to do further research into this, but I still feel this is unfair. What about the student with financially comfortable parents, who worked their ass off for their Leaving Cert, but didn’t get grinds? They too might be highly motivated and a better prospect than someone who needed grinds, but they weren’t entitled to a lower points requirement. There is nothing wrong with getting grinds. Students can get one to one attention in an area they find difficult. They too might be highly motivated and could be excellent at the career they are after. But they might not get their chosen course because the last place went to someone with lower points. As for your Simon Community remark, please don’t use unwanted sarcasm when you don't know me. Obviously I don't think their soup is more tastier than mine.


Some people who leave school do receive unemployment benefit. While it may not officially be called unemployment benefit, they are getting benefits because they are unemployed. That is why I called it unemployment benefit. Some people scam this system. They don’t actually look for work until their benefits are taken away. There must be some way around the PRSI contribution condition because I know of people who claim the benefit, but have not contributed much, if any PRSI.


I reject your last opinion. How dare you say I am wrong! You are not right and I am not wrong. We both have conflicting opinions and believe we are right.

melekalikimaka

joey54 wrote: »

On another point I think that students who go to fee paying second level schools should automatically have to pay third level fees.

are you having a laugh...

i'd agree if they made the best colleges fee paying and the worst free...

joey54

melekalikimaka wrote: »

are you having a laugh...

i'd agree if they made the best colleges fee paying and the worst free...

Don't see how this would be having a laugh. It's simple really, if parents are willing to pay for their child's 2nd level education then let them pay for their child's 3rd level education.

I suppose in a way what I'm trying to say is that its not right that the government subsidise the fee paying secondary schools.