FG education proposals

TheVan

A major problem I have with this is the fact that the amount you pay is based on the cost of your degree.

Inevitably, high-tech degrees, and those based around medicine, science, biotech are going to be the most expensive, thus creating a disincentive to engage in the kind of degrees we actually need in Ireland.

On the other hand, a law degree would (I presume) be quite cheap, despite the generally high rewards that a law graduate gets on the marketplace.

Time Magazine

TheVan wrote: »

A major problem I have with this is the fact that the amount you pay is based on the cost of your degree.

Inevitably, high-tech degrees, and those based around medicine, science, biotech are going to be the most expensive, thus creating a disincentive to engage in the kind of degrees we actually need in Ireland.

On the other hand, a law degree would (I presume) be quite cheap, despite the generally high rewards that a law graduate gets on the marketplace.

Okay this really is my last post on this until I don't have friends bugging me to go out

1. More expensive courses (engineering, medicine, etc.) typically have higher salaries attached
2. If they don't command high salaries, then we generally don't really need them
3. Law does not have high rewards at all when you enter the market
4. If somebody makes a high return on a cheap course (Go Team Economics!) then all the better - it's a good investment.

eoinbn

Are we back to worrying about not having enough graduates to fill the jobs instead of worrying about not having enough jobs for graduates?

If the jobs are here people will stay, saying otherwise is nonsense. How many people would leave their current job and move aboard for an extra ~€1500 per annum?

Time Magazine

Just to further back up my point, I stumbled across this today:

A key aim of the introduction of free tuition fees was to help bring more equality into participation in third level education in Ireland. However, studies conducted both before and after the introduction of this initiative highlight the social inequality of higher education participation in Ireland. Clancy (1997 and 2001) using data on college entrants shows that those going on to third level education come predominantly from areas of higher social classes such as professional and managerial areas. O’Connell et al. (2006) use a similar methodology to arrive at the same conclusion with higher social group populations having a disproportionate percentage of third level admissions relevant to their population size.

That's the polite way to say "free fees haven't work so far".

We find no evidence that the existence of tuition fees reduces the probability of participating in higher education.
...
While this paper cannot comprehensively comment on the possible participation impact of changing the current higher education system of free tuition, the insignificance of credit constraints on the participation decision may suggest that the reintroduction of tuition fees or any other higher education system that places more financial burden on the household may not impact enormously on the decision to go to third level education.

Don't read too much into the "cannot comprehensively comment" bit, that's pointing out that they averages for fees out rather than took them for each individual course. Again, that's the polite way to say "bringing fees back won't hurt much."

This paper from the ESRI is also cited in the one above. I believe this paper may be one I was referred to earlier.

There's really a consensus here...

dlofnep

Breezer wrote: »

Yes, a person who is starting their career, has many years of earning potential (over and above that of a non-graduate) ahead of them, is in most cases single and childless, and can afford to pay a proportion of their income, over a period of several years, towards recouping part of the benefit that has been imparted to them.

Aren't they already contributing greatly to this via high tax? I'm all about the wealthy giving their fair share to society; But it should be funded through general tax - and not additional tax.

Here's the problem - You could have 2 people who earn the exact same amount, live in similar conditions, have similar family setups - but one pays more tax than the other because they opted to further their education.

Secondly - it won't actually fund the education system because it creates a brain drain environment, leading to skilled workers moving abroad, and thus taking their tax with them - be it general tax, or FG's new educational tax.

Breezer wrote: »

Yes, it's a fee. It's a fairer and better thought-out fee.

Better thought out? Well, you're comparing fees with fees. It may be the lesser of two evils in your eyes - But it isn't fair, and isn't well thought out.

Breezer wrote: »

Education funded through general taxation is also a fee.

No, it's not. It covers all areas of taxation. Introducing "educational tax" is categorically specific to third-level education, and because it is only applicable to those who use the service - it could be considered a fee.

Breezer wrote: »

Somewhere along the line, services have to be paid for. Now, if you'd care to look at the thread I linked to in my last post, you'd discover that in an ideal world I would actually agree with you. But there remains the unfortunate fact that this has been tried and it has not worked.

Tried and not worked, for whom? I know many people who are in college today because there are no fees. It seems to have worked for them just fine. So when you say "it has not worked" - Who exactly has it not worked for? The over-payed politicians?

Breezer wrote: »

I'm not Australian and I have no experience of their education system. I do know that in 2008, Australia had 8 universities in the World Top 200, 6 of which ranked above Trinity and all of which ranked above UCD. By all means, enlighten me as to the damage you say has been done though (preferably on that other thread as we've now gone way off the point of this one).

Well, - For someone who is all in favour of graduate tax, perhaps it might have benefitted you to study where graduate tax has been used elsewhere where you could examine it's merits before jumping on the bandwagon of your party.

In brief - Graduate tax in Australia has lead to the emmigration of many of it's skilled, high-tax paying workers to other countries where there is less tax strain. Now, if you can't see the obvious cons of this such as redistribution of wealth outside of the country, and a categoric failure in the Graduate tax system - then I'm afraid, there's not much more I can say.

Moreover - when you refer to lack of funds in education, even when funds were there - there was lack of investment. Now under the current economic climate, this temporary shift will not be resolved with period-over-time investment, as by the time the funds are received - the recession will be well and truly gone. So Graduate tax really won't resolve the issue IMO.

Breezer

dlofnep wrote: »

Aren't they already contributing greatly to this via high tax?

Yes, and I previously took this line myself. However, despite this, the universities remain underfunded, and I've become convinced that a new solution is needed.

one pays more tax than the other because they opted to further their education.

For a limited time. They will still earn far more overall.

Secondly - it won't actually fund the education system because it creates a brain drain environment

I acknowledged this as a potential flaw earlier in the thread. I'm not convinced that it will happen though. I pointed out 100% mortgages as an example of people opting to stay here despite much crazier charges.

Tried and not worked, for whom?

The chronically underfunded third level colleges, who are now having to slash student services and in some cases entire courses. Who does this benefit?

In brief - Graduate tax in Australia has lead to the emmigration of many of it's skilled, high-tax paying workers to other countries where there is less tax strain.

I remain to be convinced. How many is 'many'? What other factors were at play? I'll certainly look into this though, thank you.

even when funds were there - there was lack of investment.

You're preaching to the choir. But we have to live in the present now. Playing the blame game and not offering practical solutions is akin to saying the bankers should give up all their money to fix the economy. It might make people feel better, it might be right, but it won't solve anything.

by the time the funds are received - the recession will be well and truly gone. So Graduate tax really won't resolve the issue IMO.

Read the policy again. The initial cash injection will come from borrowing on the strength of guaranteed return when the students begin working and paying the tax.

lostexpectation

for how long will they freeze course prices for?

jank

What is it with FG coming out with some really good ideas all of a sudden.:pac:
Fees should never have been scraped in the first place.

However, I would favour the lowering of these fees where there would be a strategic emphasis of the economy of Ireland. Engineering, Medical, IT, Science etc should have be less expensive to encourage people into these sectors. These are the sectors where Ireland's future lies.

I am a great fan of the Arts, the Classics etc but too many 2 bit students are doing courses like these just for the sake of getting a degree.
If someone loves history or Irish I would never stop them, the best and the people who love these subjects will do them anyway. But we need to push the technology centric courses.