Dept Of Education - New Students May Be Liable For Fees Next Year.

RandolphEsq

I like the idea of a student loan, obviously it doesn't have to be paid back for a while. But it finances the universities (god knows this financing is desperately needed) and does not restrict those going to college as the loan can be paid back many years into the future. It is not the end of the world, money simply does not grow on trees and one does not get something for nothing. ''Education should be a right'' blah blah argument; sure it would be nice for free education but society being the way it is means that education cannot be provided for free at the moment. The bottom line is that the loan will not prevent a person from going to college

errlloyd

Sarn wrote: »

I imagine that the drop-off in lecture attendance (partly attributable to BB) and number of repeats would decrease.

Hmm atm repeat students have to pay fees, so I can't imagine it having a massive effect.

I guess I am the only one really annoyed by the way this was handled by our government, they could have said it back in June or earlier. Really sucks for people who maybe worked really hard to get into college and now possibly won't be able to finish it. (I am not one of those people it must be said).

lemon_sherbert

I think this was very badly handled, and I would think this year's first years could certainly have a legal case based on legitimate expectation, though a badly-timed, vague announcement is just what is to be expected from the latest pack of Irish politicians.

I can certainly see the arguments for the introduction of fees, particularly as budget cuts become more and more apparent. At the same time, I'm concerned that fees students pay for undergraduate education will be channelled into other areas of the university and students won't see the return on their payments. I'd also be worried by the inevitable rise in the fee amounts as the government opt to foot less of the bill.

I've great respect for anyone who can hold down a job on to top of college, I don't know how I would manage it, I spent up to 40 hours a week studying last semester on top of lectures.

Loans would be a much more reasonable alternative, but I'd be worried that universities would become purely steps towards employment. There should be a place for students learning subjects they truly enjoy, not merely thinking of their place in the economy.

gerbilgranny

dajaffa wrote: »

a) I don't think this would hold up in court if someone (ie any decent student union) got a decent lawyer who could argue that acceptance of the offer was the initiation of some sort of "learning contract", as against said happening when you paid your reg fee having being given a warning.

I only heard about these shenanigans tonight - after my daughter had accepted her place on Monday, and we'd paid the registration fee online this evening.

Had this been common knowledge - if, for instance, notification had been put in with the CAO offer - online and on paper - then while it would still be lousy timing, at least people would have been fully aware of the implications of choosing to study in the 'free' Third Level institutions here in Ireland.

As it is, we were not given the full facts in time to make informed decisions.

If I had a friendly lawyer in the cupboard under the stairs, I'd be dragging them out and consulting with them, about how this might pan out in a court of law.

Also - I wonder what implications this might have had on people's feeling about the private Colleges. I mean, if you knew you were going to have to pay for tuition, it's possible that you might have chosen a different college for logistical reasons. 4 years paying fees in Posh College Ltd might be preferable to paying 3 years fees in an institution which involved living away from home, more travel, etc.

(I'm a parent - be gentle with me. 2nd offspring is starting in UCD this year, and tomorrow I have to attempt to register 1st offspring for Stage 2, as she is In A Far Off Place, away from an internet connection. Me nerves are shredded as it is, with the stress of it all - even without bring tuition fees into it).

errlloyd

+1 to lemonsherbert.

And as for Gerbil I also agree. Any of us could have skipped the extra school classes, done nothing for the LC and gone to good ole DBS if we had known.

Pride Fighter

The disgusting right wing nature of some of the posters on here is disgraceful.

Why should students pay for the incompetence of this current government?

Also according to the Universal declaration of human rights
"technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".

It seems the government is flying in the face of that particular declaration. If people are good enough to get their course they should not be discriminated for their lack of a healthy bank balance.

Time Magazine

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The disgusting right wing nature of some of the posters on here is disgraceful.

Lol. Disgraceful to think there are better places for that money than the pocket of D4 rich kids? Strange sense of equality of opportunity you have.

Why should students pay for the incompetence of this current government?

They shouldn't. But the disgusting left wing nature of posters on here blinds them from seeing that Ireland does not have endless pockets. Cutting back on free fees for Doddy's boys is about as fair as you're going to get. Introducing fees for household incomes above, say €70k, would save about €200m. €200m every year would go a long way to addressing serious social imbalances that take root long before kids turn 18. Or it could keep a hospital open.

Pride Fighter, we're borrowing €400m every single week. Which would you rather, shut a hospital or introduce fees?

Also according to the Universal declaration of human rights
"technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".

It seems the government is flying in the face of that particular declaration. If people are good enough to get their course they should not be discriminated for their lack of a healthy bank balance.

That line is so disengenous without referencing the bit, immediately prior to what you quoted, that says basic education should be made freely accessible as opposed to "generally available". It is not a mother-fuckin' human right to get free fees. Why do you think the wording was changed the wording for professional education?

Zuffer

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The disgusting right wing nature of some of the posters on here is disgraceful.

Leaving aside that I don't like the label, is it that all things that are right wing are disgusting? Maybe all things that are disgusting are right wing. Could something that is right wing be not disgusting?

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Why should students pay for the incompetence of this current government?

First, accepting the premise here: Why should students pay any less than any other member of society for the incompetence of the government?
Second, rejecting the premise. The idea that if we had a competent government then we would not have to make hard choices is false. The debate about how to fund higher education is a global one.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Also according to the Universal declaration of human rights
"technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".

Asking people to pay is not incompatible with that provision. Loans plus graduate tax, for example, mean that people can go to university, and only have to repay if they are subsequently successful.

Here is part of Article 25 from the same document: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food...".

I went to the shops today, and got myself a nice salad and some veg for dinner (ok, that's a lie, it was a pizza and chocolate). Shockingly, I was made to pay for my food. My question to you is, should I call in Amnesty International?

GodlikeRed

The question is not whether we should have to pay or not, its is why they are putting the possibility out there that 09/10 students might have to pay fees next year, having already started a course.

Personally I think it will be challanged if push comes to shove.
It wont stand up in court either.
Fine if they make the next years LC students pay, but this yeras "threat" lacks what this government lacks as a whole, precision!


Look at it this way, it cost the government 8k a year for a students course in college. It would cost much more to pay that person their dole for a year. As we all know there are insufficient jobs out there in the big bad Eire.

Germany and France have posted economic growth. This fianna fáil arguement that "Everyone developed country is feeling the same effect" is total B$.

I will be leaving this country after getting my degree, im only 18 years old and I even find the leaders of this country unbearable.

Économiste Monétaire

GodlikeRed wrote: »

Germany and France have posted economic growth. This fianna fáil arguement that "Everyone developed country is feeling the same effect" is total B$.

A flash estimate of 0.3% q/q growth in GDP volume for both France and Germany, with negative investment numbers for France. Want to know something amusing? Ireland posted 0.6% q/q GDP growth in Q3: 2008, after the technical recession started. Yet here we are, still in the ****.

GodlikeRed

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

A flash estimate of 0.3% q/q growth in GDP volume for both France and Germany, with negative investment numbers for France. Want to know something amusing? Ireland posted 0.6% q/q GDP growth in Q3: 2008, after the technical recession started. Yet here we are, still in the ****.

Well yes the recession was anounced at the end of Q2 :2008 im sure that q/q growth in Q3:2008 was as I would put it "lag".

France and germany have growth coming well after the recession was announced. Some light at the end of the tunnel maybe?

I am sure with a name like Économiste Monétaire, that this subject is your forté but I am also sure you cannot deny that we are worse off than most.

Économiste Monétaire

GodlikeRed wrote: »

Well yes the recession was anounced at the end of Q2 :2008 im sure that q/q growth in Q3:2008 was as I would put it "lag".

France and germany have growth coming well after the recession was announced. Some light at the end of the tunnel maybe?

I am sure with a name like Économiste Monétaire, that this subject is your forté but I am also sure you cannot deny that we are worse off than most.

Announced after 2 quarters of negative growth. A drop in imports and a jump in personnel consumption expenditures, mirroring the French numbers last week. Those numbers may be revised up or down. Just because you hear of 'growth', it doesn't necessarily imply everything is hunky dory, the annual rate of decline in GDP is still rising for both Germany and France, it's easy to find numbers that look nice. Example: Our latest industrial production numbers jumped 9.3%, while France posted 0.5% and Germany was at zero.

Sure, things are bad (and going to get worse), but look at Lithuania. Their economy is down 12.3% in a single quarter.

GodlikeRed

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

look at Lithuania. Their economy is down 12.3% in a single quarter.

I A-lol'd* at that.

*actually laughed out loud

Lucet

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Announced after 2 quarters of negative growth. A drop in imports and a jump in personnel consumption expenditures, mirroring the French numbers last week. Those numbers may be revised up or down. Just because you hear of 'growth', it doesn't necessarily imply everything is hunky dory, the annual rate of decline in GDP is still rising for both Germany and France, it's easy to find numbers that look nice. Example: Our latest industrial production numbers jumped 9.3%, while France posted 0.5% and Germany was at zero.

Sure, things are bad (and going to get worse), but look at Lithuania. Their economy is down 12.3% in a single quarter.

Say thanks to our "lovely" government for that :pac:

Économiste Monétaire

No more Lithuania bashing, they have enough problems at the moment (consider that their q/q growth was -10.2% before the -12.3% figure). My point being: don't run off to a country because you read a headline GDP growth figure in a paper and think you can get a job :pac:.

Pride Fighter

The Economist wrote: »

Lol. Disgraceful to think there are better places for that money than the pocket of D4 rich kids? Strange sense of equality of opportunity you have.

Well if the money keeps them off the dole why not.

They shouldn't. But the disgusting left wing nature of posters on here blinds them from seeing that Ireland does not have endless pockets. Cutting back on free fees for Doddy's boys is about as fair as you're going to get. Introducing fees for household incomes above, say €70k, would save about €200m. €200m every year would go a long way to addressing serious social imbalances that take root long before kids turn 18. Or it could keep a hospital open.

The best way of addressing social imbalance is by education. Educated people will earn more than those who are not. As a result the tax take will be higher in the medium to long term.

Pride Fighter, we're borrowing €400m every single week. Which would you rather, shut a hospital or introduce fees?

The hospitals will have to be shut anyway if there are no graduate nurses and doctors to staff them.

That line is so disengenous without referencing the bit, immediately prior to what you quoted, that says basic education should be made freely accessible as opposed to "generally available". It is not a mother-fuckin' human right to get free fees. Why do you think the wording was changed the wording for professional education?

Its not disingenuous. It is disingenuous to state third level education should only be for those who can afford it, while people of ability can not.

Pride Fighter

GodlikeRed wrote: »

The question is not whether we should have to pay or not, its is why they are putting the possibility out there that 09/10 students might have to pay fees next year, having already started a course.

Personally I think it will be challanged if push comes to shove.
It wont stand up in court either.
Fine if they make the next years LC students pay, but this yeras "threat" lacks what this government lacks as a whole, precision!


Look at it this way, it cost the government 8k a year for a students course in college. It would cost much more to pay that person their dole for a year. As we all know there are insufficient jobs out there in the big bad Eire.

Germany and France have posted economic growth. This fianna fáil arguement that "Everyone developed country is feeling the same effect" is total B$.

I will be leaving this country after getting my degree, im only 18 years old and I even find the leaders of this country unbearable.

If you leave this country you wont have to pay your fees, which will be deferred in the shape of a graduate tax when you are older. Good for you, I would encourage all students to do this. Hopefully then the government would stop this scheme when they see their coffers going down not up. The fees the government are going to introduce will lead to a brain drain in Irish society. As a result our economy will be bereft of entrepreneurs and other professionals down the line. The economy will be dead.

RandolphEsq

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The fees the government are going to introduce will lead to a brain drain in Irish society. As a result our economy will be bereft of entrepreneurs and other professionals down the line. The economy will be dead.

I disagree with that crock. If anything, when people pay for their education they will truly appreciate the opportunity and magnitude of what they are doing. How can you not see that people in college at the moment completely take the whole free education for granted and do not give two ****s about immersing themselves in the academics of college? Just one day in college lets you see how apathetic and poorly motivated a huge amount of the students are when it comes to lectures, coursework, labs etc. Too much spoiling from the parents has lead to young people becoming so lazy and taking for granted EVERYTHING they get. This is not just the 'D4 types', it is all young people whether from the bog or the big smoke. Those that appreciate their education already can understand that you don't get something for nothing, those that take their education for granted need a kick up the arse

GodlikeRed wrote: »

I will be leaving this country after getting my degree, im only 18 years old and I even find the leaders of this country unbearable.

That's exactly why there should be at least a loan system for fees; people will ride the free university education boat as much as possible (even though it isn't ever 'free' as the rest of the country pays for their education) and then these people will desert without ever having contributed or acknowledging what they have been given. At least with a loan, once it is paid back then they can fook off wherever they want

Time Magazine

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Well if the money keeps them off the dole why not.

Portraying the choice as one of D4 kids getting free fees or going on the dole is disingenuous.

The best way of addressing social imbalance is by education. Educated people will earn more than those who are not. As a result the tax take will be higher in the medium to long term.

All serious research suggests that providing what is essentially a parental tax break at aged 18 is not the best way to address this social imbalance. I agree that the best way to tackle social inequality is education. But education from age 2. Kids from Ballymun, by and large, have not been given the development opportunities to give the Leaving Cert a reasonable shot, never mind continue to college.

Moreoever, the tax take will be higher in the medium- to long-term anyway. People want higher incomes and will make investments all by themselves to achieve that. The government does not need to get involved in every tax creation scheme. It is disingenuous to suggest so.

You're simultaneously arguing that (i) providing fees will pay for itself in the long-run; (ii) free fees will eradicate social inequality; (iii) the government can afford to keep providing the scheme. If that were true, I'd fully support free fees. But unfortunately it is not true and I think, deep down, you know it. They may not like it, but I fully expect the readers of this forum know it to be true, too. You have, after all, provided no evidence to back up your claims.

The hospitals will have to be shut anyway if there are no graduate nurses and doctors to staff them.

It is disengenuous to suggest that we will have no nurses or doctors if drop fees. There were plenty of people wanting to be nurses and doctors prior to free fees.

Its not disingenuous.

Yes, yes it is. It is an insult to the sanctity of human rights to suggest the abolition of the free fees scheme somehow infringes on them.

It is disingenuous to state third level education should only be for those who can afford it, while people of ability can not.

That's not disingenuous, it's down right stupid. Thankfully I don't think anybody is suggesting that should be the approach. Nobody is suggesting the abolition of the maintenance grant, and most would agree that in turn needs considerable improvement in both coverage and level.

What people are suggesting is that the children of middle-income families should be given only a 75% subsidy of the best investment they'll ever make rather than 95% they currently receive. By middle-income most mean a cut-off of about €70,000. A third of the world live on less than $2 a day, and we're cutting our Overseas Development Aid budget by €160m. A household earning €70,000 are among the richest 5% of households in the world.

Get some perspective.

El Siglo

+ 1 for the Economist, always like reading his posts! Do you know what's funny about all of this, who's protesting the abolition of free fees the most? Middle-income groups, do you see poverty stricken people from Jobstown or Clondalkin giving out about free fees being abolished? No, because they don't even get that far, and with the cuts in education expenditure, they're problems will be compounded further.

mloc

We need to get real. Our colleges are underfunded, underperfoming and churning out more and more useless graduates. Our government is broke and there is no money left in the communal kitty.

We NEED fees to ensure people get a proper education, not the other way around. If we want a knowledge based economy, we need the kind of graduates that can actually provide that, not hordes of just-about-pass wasters. I'm 110% in favour of fees, with a grant system that works for those who simply can't afford them.

errlloyd

I still think many of you are missing the point. Its not why but how. What the Government did was a pre-meditated trick to force us to pay fees, but try to avoid the massive drop out rate. It was a cheeky move that I have very little respect for.

Sad Professor

Agreed. We can argue over whether third-level should "free" all day. This year's new students deserved better warning than this.

Are college entrants expected to peruse the broadsheets to find out about their future fee liability? Well that's what I've been doing all year and there was f**k all warning. Lots of assurances from O'Keefe that existing students would be safe and that fees weren't coming in until 2010. But very little about this year's students.

Now he comes out with this two weeks before many of us start.

Mardy Bum

Sad Professor wrote: »

Lots of assurances from O'Keefe that existing students would be safe and that fees weren't coming in until 2010. But very little about this year's students.

Now he comes out with this two weeks before many of us start.

Hes one quite hoar.

Juxta Dublin

Sad Professor wrote: »

Agreed. We can argue over whether third-level should "free" all day. This year's new students deserved better warning than this.

Are college entrants expected to peruse the broadsheets to find out about their future fee liability? Well that's what I've been doing all year and there was f**k all warning. Lots of assurances from O'Keefe that existing students would be safe and that fees weren't coming in until 2010. But very little about this year's students.

Now he comes out with this two weeks before many of us start.

Didn't they watch the news at all over the past six months. The whole country has known fees to be a foregone conclusion for at least that period of time.

Anybody who started this year, not thinking the likelihood of fees coming in in the very near future was very high, was either thick or so optimistic as to border on fantasy.

errlloyd

Lolwut... I dunno about your class but class of 2009 were very sure we were safe. In fact I know of a lot of people who put extra effort in to avoid repeating so they would be ok.

bnt

I'm not going to repeat what I've said on other threads, except my general opinion that a) the corporate / industrial sector may want to get involved in supporting students in their studies, but b) if they do, they will expect value for money. In other words: the right students (on merit) studying the right things. For example, AIB currently say that they will consider graduates who have taken courses in financial services, even if the degree programme is in Arts.

I'm all for "art for art's sake", and of course people have the right to study what they want, but the question on the table is about who is going to pay for it, and what the bill-payer gets in return. We need the Humanities, but what concerns me are the sheer numbers involved, and (in my opinion), far too many students do Arts because it's "the done thing", as an extension of school, and not because it's going to lead anywhere. I think that is what has broken the "free fees" system. As the government pulls back, there is an opportunity for the corporate / industrial sector to get involved, but they will expect results if they do. The UCD Arts Sandbox is shrinking ...

Fad

Sad Professor wrote: »

Agreed. We can argue over whether third-level should "free" all day. This year's new students deserved better warning than this.

Are college entrants expected to peruse the broadsheets to find out about their future fee liability? Well that's what I've been doing all year and there was f**k all warning. Lots of assurances from O'Keefe that existing students would be safe and that fees weren't coming in until 2010. But very little about this year's students.

Now he comes out with this two weeks before many of us start.

I honestly believe that keeping existing college students out of the whole fees issue is to curb uproar, I honestly believe that (most) students who aren't affected by fees just wont care about those who are.

My main issue with this whole thing is, that they didnt tell us earlier, they fúcked around all last year (As in school term) saying there'll be an announcement soon, or we cant say anything until the local elections are over (Like hell they effect the state of college fees in ANY capacity), that is what irritates me the most.

The Department of Education should have just been upfront and told us straight out, rather than leaving us in limbo like they did.

Sad Professor

Fad wrote: »

I honestly believe that keeping existing college students out of the whole fees issue is to curb uproar, I honestly believe that (most) students who aren't affected by fees just wont care about those who are.

The reason existing students aren't included is because they could successfully challenge it in court under the legal doctrine of legitimate expectation. Incoming students may be able to do the same but the Minister obviously hopes that he got this warning in just in time. But we are still entering under the current "free fees" arrangement and are pretty clueless about our future liability except that we might have to pay it. So I think there might be some hope for this year's students.

Fad

Sad Professor wrote: »

The reason existing students aren't included is because they could successfully challenge it in court under the legal doctrine of legitimate expectation. Incoming students may be able to do the same but the Minister obviously hopes that he got this warning in just in time. But we are still entering under the current "free fees" arrangement and are pretty clueless about our future liability except that we might have to pay it. So I think there might be some hope for this year's students.

Well there's that, but I really think that if the government really wanted to include existing students, they could/would, but they understand the difference between having first years and a few concerned existing students and having almost the entire 3 rd community protesting.