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

ChickenScratch

RandolphEsq wrote: »

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

Amen!

Bring on the loans! We're not freeloaders, right?

Mardy Bum

Fad wrote: »

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.

They couldn't have forced existing third level students to pay. We are in a 'contract' with the government which can't be broke.

ChickenScratch

El Siglo wrote: »

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.

:O Im from Clondalkin. Ouch, my friend. Ouch.

And the reason people from 'poverty stricken areas' like myself aren't complaining is cos most get a maintenance grant practically thrown at them, giving them up to a hundred euro a week in their pocket AS WELL as registration, fees and what have you paid for them. They don't need to complain - they're laughing, while hauling their poverty stricken bums all the way to the bank

(Judging by the bitterness of my tone, I think it's clear I don't think I'll be qualifying for said grant:P)

mad lad

mloc wrote: »

Our government is broke and there is no money left in the communal kitty.

Its a matter of how you get it - the governments aim is to shift the burden onto the individual, rather than using the taxation system. That creates a whole set of problems.

The benefits accrue almost exclusively to you

This is not factually accurate. The future employer benefits the most through extracting additional surplus value out out the labour process as a result of the employees producitvity being higher (basic profitability). Yes, graduates earn more but businesses make more. The distribution of the wealth created by an employee is key, the majority of whats created usually goes to the business, rtaher than to the employee in the form of wages.

Time Magazine

mad lad wrote: »

Its a matter of how you get it - the governments aim is to shift the burden onto the individual, rather than using the taxation system. That creates a whole set of problems.

And removes a whole set of other problems. Do you not see the benefits of "the polluter pays" approaches?

This is not factually accurate. The future employer benefits the most through extracting additional surplus value out out the labour process as a result of the employees producitvity being higher (basic profitability).

You speak as if higher employee productivity isn't matched with higher wages. If you're more productive, you can command higher wages. This is the reason why every year of education will increase your wages by 9%.

Yes, graduates earn more but businesses make more.

There's no contradiction here. We want graduates to earn more and also businesses to earn higher profits.

The distribution of the wealth created by an employee is key, the majority of whats created usually goes to the business, rtaher than to the employee in the form of wages.

Have you anything to back this up, or are you just waffling SWP nonsense?

El Siglo

errlloyd wrote: »

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.

So you know people who only worked hard this year in the leaving cert because they didn't want to get caught by fees if they repeated and started third level in 2010. So if there were no fees, they would take it easy thenm repeat the leaving cert as many times as they want? I'm glad fees are coming back in, education is an investment now, and if you think I'm wrong what's the feeder rate of private grind schools in comparison to state schools for university places? Education is a commodity now, free fees people argue this in their own way by spouting how a degree is needed for most jobs now (which it is), so when does a commodity become a free? Would you expect free cars? No, of course not. Fact is, free fees was the poll tax in reverse; there was benefits to be had by all concerned, but some had it better than others. If there's a brain drain in the economy, it won't be because of fees, it'll be because of jobs. If fees mean, that more money can be spent on health care and primary education and cushioning the blow on the most marginalised members of society, then it's worth it.

errlloyd

El Siglo wrote: »

So you know people who only worked hard this year in the leaving cert because they didn't want to get caught by fees if they repeated and started third level in 2010. So if there were no fees, they would take it easy thenm repeat the leaving cert as many times as they want?

That line actually has no relevance in any discussion whatsoever. Obviously if there were fees this year for sure they wouldn't have minded about repeating either. The only reason what you said has any point is because we are in the incredible circumstance of moving from one situation to another. So I must ask why the hell you decided to point that out.

Its grand though lads, it really doesn't make all that much of a difference, atm the school I went to has the highest university acceptance rate in Ireland (as a %). People pay for that, and its pretty much the same as Uni fees. Next year however points will drop, people won't need to invest in secondary anymore so they won't. State schools will probably become more sought after for places and the problem will just shift down.

I don't understand lads, if education is a commodity why not charge for Primary and Secondary too?

Anyway at the end of the day thats not what I care about. As Fad and others have already said its not the fees themself. Its the way they were announced on registration day by Batt O Keeffe a man with far too many double letters in his name to take seriously.

mad lad

Do you not see the benefits of "the polluter pays" approaches?

I wouldn't agree with that as an analagy. Higher education is not something negative which people should be financially punished for.

The problem I have with your narrow approach is that you view the attainment of credentialised knowledge purely in terms of a private return in the form of wages (human capital theory). There is a social return on investment in the form of positive externalities and spill-over effects.

But generally I'd agree that those that benefit should pay. Those that benefit are 1) the individual through higher earnings 2) the future employer through higher productivity 3) wider society in the form of a decline in unemployment, a decline in welfare supports and the cost of welfare benefits, lower crime rates etc. It's also been shown that the more people with higher education in the labour market, the higher the wages for everyone, including those without higher education. An increase in the supply of graduates to the labour market tends to the wages for all employees.

Since the beneficiaries are the individual, the employer and society in general - they should be the ones that pay. A mechanism for this is already in place - the taxation system.

The CSO has recently showed that the majority of people earning over 500,000 pay an effective tax rate of between 15-20%. Make of that what you will.

You speak as if higher employee productivity isn't matched with higher wages. If you're more productive, you can command higher wages. This is the reason why every year of education will increase your wages by 9%.

Productivity is linked to higher wages, it's not necessarily matched. The point I'm making is that the individual is not the sole beneficiary of higher education, the future employer also benefits through productivty. Since the business is also a beneficiary, it should also shoulder some of the costs.

There's no contradiction here. We want graduates to earn more and also businesses to earn higher profits.

Higher profits can be obtained by reducing the % of wealth generated by an employee returned to them in the form of wages. So for example, while an employee might be more productive, they may end up recieving a smaller % of the wealth they create in order to increase the rate of profit.

Essentially the human capital theory (where someone invests in themselves in return for higher future wages) can also be spun as the individual spending tens of thousands so that business can be more profitable (even in cases of increased productivity, employees can go on to recieve a smaller % of the wealth they create).

During the Celtic Tiger the rate of increase in wage share in Ireland was behind the rate of productivity increases. Productivity increases far outstripped wage increases. Real wages were rising but unit labour costs were falling, i.e. capital profits increased relative to labour costs.

The aim of Human Capital theory (and the introduction of fees) is to increase this gap between the wealth created by an employee, and the wealth returned to an employee in the form of wages, in order to improves 'competitiveness in a global market'. The pedagogical shift in Higher Education towards market needs is being paid for by the individual with share-holders in private companies being the main beneficiaries.

It's not simply a matter of growth for it's own sake, it's about how the proceeds of that growth are (re)distributed into public services such as health, early intervention schemes in education, decent levels of grants etc. During the Celtic Tiger public spending on health and education fell, relative to growth, look how that turned out.

are you just waffling SWP nonsense?

I hate the SWP. If anything I'm an anti-Marxist.

El Siglo

errlloyd wrote: »

That line actually has no relevance in any discussion whatsoever. Obviously if there were fees this year for sure they wouldn't have minded about repeating either. The only reason what you said has any point is because we are in the incredible circumstance of moving from one situation to another. So I must ask why the hell you decided to point that out.

I pointed that out because if one wants to attend university it should be for the value of the university course itself, not because of the cost incurred.

Its grand though lads, it really doesn't make all that much of a difference, atm the school I went to has the highest university acceptance rate in Ireland (as a %). People pay for that, and its pretty much the same as Uni fees. Next year however points will drop, people won't need to invest in secondary anymore so they won't. State schools will probably become more sought after for places and the problem will just shift down.

No, because state schools (if you've read the McCarthy Report or the employment section of the Indo and Times) are facing cuts in teaching staff, so pray tell who will face overcrowding and poor teaching conditions more, the private, fee paying grind schools or the public ones? Points will drop, but the situation you're predicting is silly. Do you think, honestly that public schools are going to take less of a brunt than private schools? Points, will never dictate an outright decline in private school attendance as you suggest, any growth in public school attendance will only ever be marginal and attributed to natural growth.

I don't understand lads, if education is a commodity why not charge for Primary and Secondary too?

Third level education is a commodity (I thought we were clear on this, evidently not it may seem), the other two are required for basic employment and university matriculation (i.e. these are the minimum accepted standards of any western democracy and the UN Charter for Human Rights, to put it simply the "Three Rs").

Anyway at the end of the day thats not what I care about. As Fad and others have already said its not the fees themself. Its the way they were announced on registration day by Batt O Keeffe a man with far too many double letters in his name to take seriously.

Does it really matter when they do it? It's like being told you're going to be hit with a baseball bat some time soon and then complaining about it once it occurs. They are doing it (the govn't), you just have to adapt to it. If you've been reading the papers etc... this has been on the cards for a while now, the govn't is planning a 60 billion gamble (NAMA), they have to cut 3 to 5 billion in public expenditure before we start seeing IMF intervention, which would you rather; the government reintroducing fees or the IMF doing it along with drastic public expenditure cuts on the most basic social welfare services.

errlloyd

No mate your completely wrong. Its like preparing for months for a long walk, getting to the start of the path, going through a one way turnstile, then getting told your going to get hit by a baseball bat halfway along.

This is not January of 2009, the perfect time for the government to make an announcement, this is the 19th of August, the last possible second for them to legally make the announcement.

Please stop being so ignorant to the problem and accept the simple fact that our government could have and should have made this announcement back in January. And yeah the IMF are going to come in and allow an independent company to supply our water and we will all die of thirst. This is Ireland, we're miles from IMF intervention.

Kelso

The loan idea is a very good one.
You are basically going to pay for your education either way. Either pay for it through higher income taxes when you start working or pay for it by paying back your loan after you start working.
Those without a third level education should not be forced to supplement others third level education through the income tax system

acm

gutted i deferred so if id actually went i would've avoided all fees