Your stance on fees

pisslips

barleybooley wrote: »

Silly banquo posting off topic again

I'm totally for the reintroducing fees. Like, so many people drink away their grant, f**k up in exams, end up going in to some so-called counselor in the college and claims they're depressed, wham, bam have another drink fuelled year courtesy of the college and state. I think some people use college for a bit of craic. Fair enough, some people don't have the sponds to send their sprogs to third level. So many people get grants and they totally don't deserve it, tbh, in my experience some of the best off people in college tend to be ones on a full grant...

There used to be ways and means around the whole fees

1) Work hard academically and earn a scholarship, I know everyone can't but then again not everyone needs their fees paid

2) Take out a loan. I believe, and am open to correction on this, that in England, people are taxed when they start earning to pay back for being in college, apparently it goes on for a few years.

3) GET A JOB! You're 17/18 for crying out loud, time is definitely on your side

I'm lucky enough that my parents pay for everything for me, like, I really don't have to do anything but they factored this into their budget and there are FIVE of us, two gone through the system, one still there (me) and two coming up who are twins so it's a bit of a double whammy for them for when the time comes.

Point I'm making is where there's a will there's a way.

Suck it up, the money has to come form somewhere

The money does not have to come from somewhere. There are people ,surprisingly(not me), who work 40 hours a week and attend full-time education and then get stuck in the viscious loop of failing, repeating and working more to pay for fees.

If you think a little bit about it, obviously ,you're 'experience' is wrong, that the most well off people get grants, in fact I would say you are completely wrong and the opposite is true in fact. There are always some exceptions of course.

The scholarships? Where are they?
I know people who entered college with 600 points in their CAO, finished top of their class every year and never ahieved less than a first in an exam. They didn't recieve scholarhips, just a few prizes. Don't they deserve a free education?
Wouldn't it make economic sense to give them scholarships?

17/18......why is this a reason to put off education?
More importantly why does someone should someone with money have better access to education than someone without?

Finally as previous posters have said, jobs are not easy to get.

pisslips

barleybooley wrote: »

Ergo, get a loan, be it from a bank or family member or whatever. It CAN be done. Maynooth gives out thousands in loans, you just apply for one and state your reasons why I believe. Point is it can be done.

The loans the college give out, I think are emergency loans and definitely are not near enough to get someone through one year let alone 3-4 that are required to complete a degree.

The bank will give you a loan if you can get a person with good credit history to gaurantore(sp?) it I think.

Sure it's doable everythings doable but should people attempting to improve their potential contribution to society and Ireland be treated like that.
I mean we don't need motorways either or libraries.

mp3guy

barleybooley wrote: »

Ergo, get a loan, be it from a bank or family member or whatever. It CAN be done. Maynooth gives out thousands in loans, you just apply for one and state your reasons why I believe. Point is it can be done.

Loans suck. I don't know why people are happy having something like that looming over them.

Beau

mp3guy wrote: »

Loans suck. I don't know why people are happy having something like that looming over them.

+1

nothing

Am I right in thinking that when the fees were originally aboloished, there was an agreement struck that students would get free fees but would not be able to get the dole? Surely if this is the case, then if they bring back fees, then they would have to allow students to get the dole again?? Esp considering how hard it is to get a job these days.

I'm kind of on the fence on this issue, I can see why the gov think it would be a good idea to reintroduce fees, but it won't do the colleges any good, since they won't gain any other monies, just replace fees paid by the gov with fees paid by the students, and probably less students, so in actuality they'll have less incoming funds...

banquo

mp3guy wrote: »

Loans suck. I don't know why people are happy having something like that looming over them.

Best of luck getting a car/mortgage.

mp3guy

banquo wrote: »

Best of luck getting a car/mortgage.

Do you genuinely think that I didn't know the average working class person needs a loan for those?

banquo

I think most people need a loan at some stage or another to invest in something, be it a car, property or - in many countries - advanced education.

Not just working class or average people either. Who the hell buys a house in cash.

Some countries have great student loan schemes. Country is out of money, we may have to bring them in. Also, you'd know what you were getting into so you'd be able to plan for it. Very few 17/18yos are going to have a bad credit record.

If a mature student with a few dings on their credit rating wants to apply then they can work for a few years - as they probably already are doing - and save the money, or most of it and get a small loan.

Mature students with a terrible credit history probably wouldn't get the loan they'd need for college, which is no different from not getting a car or a house that they can't afford.

Having said that, the credit crunch is upon us. If banks can't give out more loans then the Govt might have to do it, which I wouldn't be wild about. Though it works well enough in Canada.

I still don't think that having to pay more for college is entirely a bad thing. It could make students think twice about what they want to do - the state pays a lot for all the first-year dropouts who manage to swing a free year in another course. I think that it could also raise the standard of education by attracting students who really and genuinely want to do the course. As I've said I'm in music here and there are a lot of people who had the attitude of 'I've loads of CDs, reckon I'll do music', but who have no real heart in it. Friends in DIT tell me the same thing about their course. With fees come scholarships, and we can start rewarding hard work and brains from a younger age.

I agree with Efla too. It could make Universities much more accountable as to where they spend their money. To get the students and their money, they've to offer better facilities and do better by word of mouth. A little competition never hurt any industry.

banquo

pisslips wrote: »

There are people ,surprisingly(not me), who work 40 hours a week and attend full-time education and then get stuck in the viscious loop of failing, repeating and working more to pay for fees.

I worked 40 hours a week in Tesco last year. Worked my ****ing ass off. I had a massive chart on my kitchen wall with every lecture and marks gotten in assignments so I always knew exactly where I was. I couldn't even afford to take time off work to do my christmas exams, so I had to repeat them in autumn. I was paying 105 a week rent, 100 on food and other expenses and 100 for my two bank loans (one for full tuition fees, one for a piano).

On top of that, I study music. The music dept here doesn't 'do' moodle. Almost no notes, or even assignments or essay dates. We had 16 lectures a week in 2nd year - I was at 22 in the whole year and still got a 2:1. So even though it's tough if you really want it you can put in the work somehow.

If you think a little bit about it, obviously ,you're 'experience' is wrong, that the most well off people get grants, in fact I would say you are completely wrong and the opposite is true in fact. There are always some exceptions of course.

pisslips wrote:

If you think a little bit about it, obviously ,you're 'experience' is wrong, that the most well off people get grants, in fact I would say you are completely wrong and the opposite is true in fact. There are always some exceptions of course.

I don't think she was saying that the most well off people get grants, but rather those who get grants are the most well off!

Also, what are you basing your opinion on when you say that she's completely wrong? She has some experience with it. I can also vouch that she knows at least one student who gets the full whack grant of 6,700e *points rapidly at self* and doesn't waste it on booze. I'm grateful for my grant - I wouldn't be here today without it, and the same is true of a lot of people reading this - but the truth is there are so many who abuse it openly.

pisslips wrote:

The scholarships? Where are they?
I know people who entered college with 600 points in their CAO, finished top of their class every year and never ahieved less than a first in an exam. They didn't recieve scholarhips, just a few prizes. Don't they deserve a free education?
Wouldn't it make economic sense to give them scholarships?

AFAIK there aren't any real scholarships since education is already free. A few colleges give out a few treats and prizes in return for CAO points. I know DCU give out free accommodation for athletic scholarships.

pisslips wrote: »

17/18......why is this a reason to put off education?
More importantly why does someone should someone with money have better access to education than someone without
Finally as previous posters have said, jobs are not easy to get.

Best thing I ever did was not go to college straight away. Got a full time job in a crummy little newsagents instead to save the money. Also, I got all the partying, drink and random sex that would have happened in college out of my system. I was a responsible little bugger in 1st year

17/18 is so so young, and a lot of people don't know what they want to do in life. They might have a vague idea but yet they feel like they ''should'' go to college straight away because it's the safe thing to do. Also they're so young that they're not ready for it yet. Not everyone, a large minority. That's why the first year drop out rate is so high.

pisslips wrote:

The money does not have to come from somewhere.

Heh. I'll, eh, assume that was a typo

tomister

ok i decided to give my two cents on this,

first off i get half a grant from my county council a year because my dad is permanently out of work due to illness, my sister has a disability and there are a total of 9 in my family. i currently hold down a job and have one loan (for my car), if fees were introduced i would have to either;

• sell the car (which is requird to get to work)
• take on another job
• take money off my parents (my mother works a ton of overtime as it is)
• drop out

i think that if fees were introduced then it should be done by paying it back once we start earning enough to pay it back through tax but once its paid that tax should be stopped because we all pay for our own but thats it.

I know its hard to get a job at the moment but if people could get one and save what they earn because i can see the fees being reintroduced in 2010 as forecasted and it would mean that some people wouldn't have to drop out!

P.S. sorry about the elections Banquo i voted for you

pisslips

banquo wrote: »

I worked 40 hours a week in Tesco last year. Worked my ****ing ass off. I had a massive chart on my kitchen wall with every lecture and marks gotten in assignments so I always knew exactly where I was. I couldn't even afford to take time off work to do my christmas exams, so I had to repeat them in autumn. I was paying 105 a week rent, 100 on food and other expenses and 100 for my two bank loans (one for full tuition fees, one for a piano).

On top of that, I study music. The music dept here doesn't 'do' moodle. Almost no notes, or even assignments or essay dates. We had 16 lectures a week in 2nd year - I was at 22 in the whole year and still got a 2:1. So even though it's tough if you really want it you can put in the work somehow.

If you think a little bit about it, obviously ,you're 'experience' is wrong, that the most well off people get grants, in fact I would say you are completely wrong and the opposite is true in fact. There are always some exceptions of course.




I don't think she was saying that the most well off people get grants, but rather those who get grants are the most well off!

Also, what are you basing your opinion on when you say that she's completely wrong? She has some experience with it. I can also vouch that she knows at least one student who gets the full whack grant of 6,700e *points rapidly at self* and doesn't waste it on booze. I'm grateful for my grant - I wouldn't be here today without it, and the same is true of a lot of people reading this - but the truth is there are so many who abuse it openly.




AFAIK there aren't any real scholarships since education is already free. A few colleges give out a few treats and prizes in return for CAO points. I know DCU give out free accommodation for athletic scholarships.



Best thing I ever did was not go to college straight away. Got a full time job in a crummy little newsagents instead to save the money. Also, I got all the partying, drink and random sex that would have happened in college out of my system. I was a responsible little bugger in 1st year

17/18 is so so young, and a lot of people don't know what they want to do in life. They might have a vague idea but yet they feel like they ''should'' go to college straight away because it's the safe thing to do. Also they're so young that they're not ready for it yet. Not everyone, a large minority. That's why the first year drop out rate is so high.



Heh. I'll, eh, assume that was a typo

First of all, I'd like to point out that eventually you will reach a point where you find your academic limitations where things are no longer mostly intuitive(probably in final year or postgrad) and then working 40 hours a week won't be viable anymore.

By, 'the money does not have to come from somewhere', I meant that, this confident attitude is not well-founded anymore. It is entirely possible that ,surprisingly, someone will not have access to funds not even through a loan or a family member or a job. Surprisingly, it is possible to be genuinly broke and only have enough money to eat and sleep and not be elligible for a loan, therefore,''the money does not have to come from somewhere".

As far as your personal experience goes, well done etc...

However, it should not be the case that 17/18 yr olds should take a couple of years out to work before college. It must be remembered here that we are in competition with every other country in the world in a global knowledge economy. This more than anything else will make Ireland prosper.

So, John Godel and John Hamilton and John Dirac, go to Princeton, Trinity and Cambridge respectively. Unfortunately young hamilton has to go and work in a shop for 3 years because he can't afford to go to college and there's no scholarships either. Who loses out?......Ireland.

Why should a 17/18 year old have to go out and see what it's like to work, to start at the bottom. This is archaic in my opinion, it's not nessasary at all.

hypersquirrel

If they don't introduce fees then they will have to make cut backs in the quality of the courses. Personally I would prefer to pay for a degree that is of a high quality then go through a course that has made cut backs in quality leaving me with a degree that is completely worthless. My fees were €5,000 this year and I've coped by working my ass off in a dreadful job. I got held up in three aremd robberies but I did it because I needed the money. My Dad is self-employed and has found himself with no work anymore but I'm just above grant level. They can't afford to bail me out but I want to keep my education going and I will find a way regardless. It's not as hard as everyone makes out. You just can't afford to go out and get hammered, you buy whatever food you can get on budget.

PrivateEye

If they don't introduce fees then they will have to make cut backs in the quality of the courses

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/bestpaid-university-president-gets-836460000-more-than-others-1428003.html

^Money problems....
*Old report, in some cases things have changed (By which I mean Presidents, not practices)

They keep raising the registration fee and at the same time they cutback services. They've got huge rises in recent years, its no secret theres backroom mayhem at the minute across the board. UCD workers going on strike shows this (Along with TCD, NCAD and DCU) Money is going to the wrong places.

They can't afford to bail me out

Three armed robberies? Maybe if you were a bank instead of working in one (just presuming :pac:) , Fianna Fail might be nicer on the bail out front. I understand completely where you're coming from on the Dad front too. My Da is 20 years in the Fire Service and instead of seeing a single pay rise, he's actually losing 10% of his income to an unfair levy. Saying 'they dont want to bail me out' doesn't justify it at all though. Its unfair that why should pay for the mistakes of others. Making it harder for families like yours (JUST above a grant) is not the solution, these are the families already under attack.

...and as for paying it back, when you work- you pay tax. The more you earn, the more you pay (Not a Leaving Cert economics lesson,promise) A well educated workforce pays for itself over time. Paying a graduate tax ON TOP of the tax I'm paying on my income from the job I got/am doing as a result of my third level degree? No thanks.



----

Fair play to you though, I see where you're coming at it from and I've great respect for anybody like yourself who works their way through (currently doing it myself!)

PrivateEye

On a sidenote, USI are actually 'doing stuff'

"The advice states clearly that students who have already applied for and accepted a place this coming September are deemed to be doing so under the existing free-fees policy" said USI president Shane Kelly.


"We will take legal action if necessary to ensure that students enrolling in September will not be penalised."

This would take the form of an injunction or, if necessary, a test case in the courts next year.

In the meantime, the union is stepping up its campaign against the ending of free third-level education for all. Further demonstrations are expected.

-Indo.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ideygbeygb/
^USI occupation at Dept. of Environment.

The USI stepping things is a more than welcome development me thinks. Was nice to see their banner on the ICTU march too.

hypersquirrel

PrivateEye wrote: »

Three armed robberies? Maybe if you were a bank instead of working in one (just presuming :pac:) , )

God I wish. No I just work in a corner shop. But we have a reputation for being an easy target.