College fees

Harpie

I'm just finished undergrad, so won't be affected- but what makes me laugh is the attitude of some of the other graduates on here who are quick to say 'Let 'em pay'. The rationale seems to be 'fúck the new generation, I got mine so who cares about the current batch of undergrads'

I'm delighted I got to do my degree 'for free'- still had to pay the registration fee every year- and would hate to see fees being brought in now. I can only imagine the financial burden it will create for students who fall short of eligibility for the grant.

mobius42

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Thats because of your choice of college though and nothing to do with the "cost of college". You could live at home and not pay all of that if you went somewhere local. (obviously not always possible)

Yes, it is part of the cost of college. There is no 3rd-level institution where I live and commuting is not practical (1.5 hours each way), so I have no choice. I also know someone who tried the commuting to college thing and it just doesn't work. The commute is horrible and you often need to stay on late working in college. Having to travel home after being in college from 9:00 until 22:00 is not practical.

Also, not everyone can live at home and not everyone has their college paid for them by their parents.

Tom1991

could someone tell me if this is the same as the means tested scheme that was rumoured last year?

Elessar

Leave college free. One of the things that attracts investment into this country is the highly educated workforce. Made possible only by allowing all citizens get a third level education for free. Bringing back fees is shooting ourselves in the foot long term.

bleg

Orla K wrote: »

I just realised that it probably won't be the student loan, pay when you get a job kind of thing. The government want money now, they're not going to wait 3,4,5 years to get it.

No, the student loan is the favoured option. Sure the government want it now but imagine the drop out rates and the subsequent dole queues if fees were payable upfront. They'd lose 3,4,5 times the money they recouped.

Cookie_Monster

mobius42 wrote: »

Yes, it is part of the cost of college. There is no 3rd-level institution where I live and commuting is not practical (1.5 hours each way), so I have no choice. I also know someone who tried the commuting to college thing and it just doesn't work. The commute is horrible and you often need to stay on late working in college. Having to travel home after being in college from 9:00 until 22:00 is not practical.

But it is doable isin't it. A lot of people working have longer commutes than that

papajimsmooth

If fees are introduced they better be for everybody, im sick of watching "disadvantaged" kids on a free ride through college.

bleg

Elessar wrote: »

Leave college free. One of the things that attracts investment into this country is the highly educated workforce. Made possible only by allowing all citizens get a third level education for free. Bringing back fees is shooting ourselves in the foot long term.

The country isn't going to go thick over night because fees are re introduced.

The alternative to fees is this: The Irish 3rd level institutions (particularly our universities) remain underfunded with facilities and quality beginning to deteriorate because they can't afford to stay at the current level. The state continues to pay college fees which it can't afford to pay and subsequently has to take out loans to pay. Government deficit increases.


So, long term we end up with worse off 3rd level education (because of under funding) along with an increased deficit. I'd call that shooting us in both feet.

DigiGal

papajimsmooth wrote: »

If fees are introduced they better be for everybody, im sick of watching "disadvantaged" kids on a free ride through college.

Wow.....not nice

Cookie_Monster

DigiGal wrote: »

Wow.....not nice

Well we are going to need someone back in the coal mines

Orla K

bleg wrote: »

No, the student loan is the favoured option. Sure the government want it now but imagine the drop out rates and the subsequent dole queues if fees were payable upfront. They'd lose 3,4,5 times the money they recouped.

I still wouldn't put it past them.

deisedude

bleg wrote: »

The country isn't going to go thick over night because fees are re introduced.

The alternative to fees is this: The Irish 3rd level institutions (particularly our universities) remain underfunded with facilities and quality beginning to deteriorate because they can't afford to stay at the current level. The state continues to pay college fees which it can't afford to pay and subsequently has to take out loans to pay. Government deficit increases.


So, long term we end up with worse off 3rd level education (because of under funding) along with an increased deficit. I'd call that shooting us in both feet.

Will the money go to the colleges or will it go to pay for the mess created by bankers and property developers?

DigiGal

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Well we are going to need someone back in the coal mines

Good Point

tolosenc

Secoundrow wrote: »

Just saying, dont get all high and mighty saying we should be paying fees when your going to continue getting your tuition fees payed by the irish tax payer

I'd offer to pay them, but the amount of Dept. of Ed. beaurocracy that that would create would nullify the contribution. I have no issue with paying my way. In fact, I'd prefer to.

DigiGal wrote: »

Wow.....not nice

What exactly is nice about dictating who should and shouldn't get something?

bleg

deisedude wrote: »

Will the money go to the colleges or will it go to pay for the mess created by bankers and property developers?

Well the 3rd level institution won't let anybody that hasn't paid to be registered at the institution. Do you get the loan scheme?

The Dept of education (or most likely a quango) pays the money up front to the institution then when qualified and when earning a certain level of income the graduate pays back the money.

stovelid

Poll needs another option for fair, means-tested fees and a provision to ensure that people from poorer backgrounds are encourage to go to third-level.

And a lol at whining students option too.

bleg

Orla K wrote: »

I still wouldn't put it past them.

Me neither. However if they brought in upfront fees it would political suicide. That's what they really care about.

tolosenc

deisedude wrote: »

Will the money go to the colleges or will it go to pay for the mess created by bankers and property developers?

1) The colleges. Minus tax.
2) Can we get a Godwin'ts Law type thing for the bankers.
3) My 2c: It wasn't just the bankers or property developers. It was also the ordinary Joe on the street who wanted a mortgage he couldn't afford, so he could buy a house 100 miles from work, rather than rent 5 miles away. No-one is blameless in this recession.

tolosenc

stovelid wrote: »

fair, means-tested fees

Oxymoron, imo.

blow69

How much is it going to net the government each year anyway? I think I read 100 million Euro+ somewhere. They are not getting that much out of it, but making thousands of others suffer for it in the long term.

But then again, who's going to pay for Mary Harney's hairdos and manicures?! Maybe a threadmill would be a better investment.

stovelid

Toulousain wrote: »

Oxymoron, imo.

moron imo

papajimsmooth

stovelid wrote: »

Poll needs another option for fair, means-tested fees and a provision to ensure that people from poorer backgrounds are encourage to go to third-level.

And a lol at whining students option too.

If fees are introduced i would have an extra 7-8000e on top of my college expenses. I dont get a grant but there is no way i could expect my parents to pay for this, my only option would be a college loan that i would have to repay when i graduate. I have no problem with this as a college education is not a right but something you have to work for. Why should someone who gets accommodation and living expenses paid for by the government be exempt for this loan as well?

tolosenc

stovelid wrote: »

moron imo

Is that a personal attack?

And no, it is oxymoronic. Discrimination against one group of people, on any grounds is fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally unfair.

Cookie_Monster

Toulousain wrote: »

Discrimination against one group of people, on any grounds is fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally unfair.

But it's fun

DigiGal

Toulousain wrote: »

I'd offer to pay them, but the amount of Dept. of Ed. beaurocracy that that would create would nullify the contribution. I have no issue with paying my way. In fact, I'd prefer to.



What exactly is nice about dictating who should and shouldn't get something?

What? I wasn't doing that

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think we should do what the UK does. Around 4K(euro) per year which you pay back when you're earning above a specific level.

No "registration" fees. €1500 is a huge amount to have to come up with at the end of the summer. Everything should be deferred until the student is benefiting financially from their education.

Bottle_of_Smoke

stovelid wrote: »

Poll needs another option for fair, means-tested fees and a provision to ensure that people from poorer backgrounds are encourage to go to third-level.

And a lol at whining students option too.

Nah, I say screw means tested. Everyone pays the same and its paid back when you're in employment is fairest. Grants are there for people from poorer areas.

pickarooney

It's time to give up on the oul' computher shtudies and head back to the farms. In a few years fresh water and organic vegetables will be the new oil/diamonds/gold and Ireland will be better off than ever before.

stovelid

Toulousain wrote: »

Is that a personal attack?

Nah, I just couldn't resist the pun.


Seriously though: I don't have much opposition to families, that can afford third-level, paying for it. Obviously, the income ceiling would have to decided.

The problem here is that a lot of people who afford it will oppose it purely on grounds of self-interest.

In many countries, college fees require some financial sacrifice and forward planning.

It seems unfair that the majority of taxpayers (most of whom don't go to college) should completely fund third-level educations that will, on the whole at least, ensure that people eventually never find themselves in low-paid jobs.

Low (or non) interest loans, repayable when income reaches a certain level, are probably the way forward.

Piste

I think if one person pays, everybody snould pay. Why should wealthier people pay for someone else's child's education? Also why should it be the parents? I'd be in favour of a graduate tax system, though I'm not sure how to get round the emigration dilemma. There was talk a while ago of letting people pay upfront at a reduced rate instead of paying the fees + interest later, which I would be in favour of as people who are putting money into the exchequer right now would be rewarded

bleg

Piste wrote: »

I'd be in favour of a graduate tax system, though I'm not sure how to get round the emigration dilemma.

Australians seem to be able to make it work. Don't know the ins and outs of it yet though.

jape

I already have my degree so.. yea bring back fees!

phasers

I think that the graduate tax system is probably the fairest way to have fees for everyone, because since it only taxes a person after they reach a certain income level, it creates a more level field.

If upfront fees were to come in, then it should be on a means-tested basis.

Piste wrote: »

There was talk a while ago of letting people pay upfront at a reduced rate instead of paying the fees + interest later, which I would be in favour of as people who are putting money into the exchequer right now would be rewarded

I think doing this would be completely unfair on regular families who haven't got that kind of cash.

j1smithy

mobius42 wrote: »

I love how some people think that at the moment we are getting a "free ride" through college and that we're a bunch of freeloaders. College, as it is, is not free. I have to pay a registration fee of €1500 this year and money for rent, ESB, heating & food on top of that. I know loads of people who can barely afford to attend college as it is; introducing fees would prevent many deserving people from attending.

I'm sure that there are many people who don't deserve to go to college, but I would rather see someone undeserving get through than see someone turned away because they can't afford it.

I don't see how introducing fees will have an effect on the affordability of College. The expenses you mention are all current expenses, they have always existed and will continue to exist. If the banks have a product that allows you to borrow the cost of the fees and start repay on graduation I don't see what the problem is. It is likely you'd be earning more than a non graduate. One should think of a university education as a capital investment in ones self. People need to be thinking in the medium to long term, not the short term.

The amount of debt one could almost say is irrelevant, its the terms of the repayment which is important. If the student was required to make repayments while still in college then there would be a problem, but no one is suggesting that.

j1smithy

blow69 wrote: »

Maybe a threadmill would be a better investment.

We already have a threadmill... its called AH

deisedude

bleg wrote: »

Australians seem to be able to make it work. Don't know the ins and outs of it yet though.

They don't. Its predicted that $2.9 billion of the 10.2 billion dollars owed will go unpaid. Thats an awful load of bad debt. I cant understand why we are hell bent on copying the Australian system if they cant get it right

bleg

Well then obviously we need to take a look at their system, take the good points and try to thrash out the bad points. The current situation is completely untenable. Can anybody who is against fees tell me 1. Where the Universities are going to get the funding they need and have been calling out for for years and 2. Where the State is going to get the money to cover the fees of people that enter 3rd level education.

cul-2008

deisedude wrote: »

I cant understand why we are hell bent on copying the Australian system if they cant get it right

This is Fianna Fáil - common sense is on a 365 day yearly holiday :rolleyes:

Tom1991

People dont seem to realise that not everyone got rich out of the celtic tiger or the fact everyone has the money to pay these.its completely fair that someone who hasnt got the money to go to college but has worked hard to get there should be funded by the state

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

Nope, introduction of fees creates a barrier and only allows those who can afford education to go. This creates inequality in society, which will see families who barely make the grade miss out on education opportunities because they can't afford to send their kids to college.

I think college should be available for everyone, to give everyone a shot at education. The said educated workforce will be contributing to the economy once they are out in the work-place, on high-earning jobs - which creates real wealth in the economy. To say that education is a complete drain on the economy is a fallacy.

Every family should be able to give their children a shot at third level education.

+1
An educated workforce is all we have to offer. Our electrical costs, insurance and rent are all listed as factors that cause companies to relocated abroad. Wages are coming down already. But if the workforce is "dumbed down" then that negates the wage deflation.

I went back to college as a mature student after working for over 7 years. I paid more in taxes than my time in college cost. Those who go to college will have their whole lives to pay taxes.

Anyway this is only a side issue on the entire reduction in opportunities and quality of life in Ireland as we redirect resources to bail out developers and banks. Without a national employment plan graduates will have no opportunities. Its quite possible that the Govt simply want to reduce the number of graduates. Or at least stop spending money on people who will have no opportunities here and will move abroad with their skills.

This is why things like NAMA are bad. Instead of directing resources towards improving peoples employment prospects we are ruining the country for potentially 20 years+ for an elite few.

bleg

bleg wrote: »

The top idea being thrashed out at the moment is the loan scheme whereby after graduation, when a graduate reaches a certain level of income they pay a levy to pay for their third level education. Stops the parents from paying. Nothing has been ruled out though.

You`ll have no problem so backdating everything since tuition fees were paid for by the state?

bleg

Deleted User wrote: »

You`ll have no problem so backdating everything since tuition fees were paid for by the state?

I'd have no problem paying a levy once my income reached a certain threshold. I did a useful degree in university.


Do you suggest we backdate to 1997?

randypriest

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As a forth year student, I think fees should be introduced. Not upfront of course; they should be paid after you graduate and only when you have a job.

Even the most liberal estimates claim that fees will amount to no more than 40,000 euros. People with degrees usually earn at least 10,000 a year more than those who don't have them, so after four years you're making a profit. College isn't free, and we'll be paying for it sooner or later, either ourselves or for others through our taxes when we're older, and the current system is extremely wasteful. I'd say fewer than 40% of my original 1st year class is still here. Making people pay themselves will reduce waste, encourage better performance and will enable to colleges to provide a better education.

Spot on.

bleg

Anyway the real barrier preventing people from lower socio economic background is their primary and secondary level education. If the State redistributes even half the money saved to primary and second level education for kids from lower socio economic backgrounds it would help their education and job prospects far far more than a free ride in 3rd level.

Dudess

I think fees should be reintroduced but rigorously means-tested.

deisedude

bleg wrote: »

Well then obviously we need to take a look at their system, take the good points and try to thrash out the bad points. The current situation is completely untenable. Can anybody who is against fees tell me 1. Where the Universities are going to get the funding they need and have been calling out for for years and 2. Where the State is going to get the money to cover the fees of people that enter 3rd level education.

Ah but what can be done. If a graduate emigrates what can you do? Make them pay at the airport on their way out!:eek: Its not that simple to fix, the Australian system has become so compicated it would require $5 billion to overhaul it. I'l make no bones about it, i'm against fees. The government bull****ted on about how free fees boosted our "knowledge based economy" when times were good and now they are trying to rewrite history when times are bad. It will be ten years before any money is recouped from the proposed system and will probably cost millions if not billions in the short term implementing it. In that time i cant see colleges improving that much, most of the money they get will probably go to paying off debt. I cant really answer your questions as there is no easy answer but i just think its foolish rushing into implementing a system that is so fundamentally flawed

AckwelFoley

you want something? You pay for it.

Pretty simple logic.

If the state can afford to pay toward 3rd level.. sure. If they cant..well there are more pressing issues like where my next months sky subscription is going to come from.

bleg

deisedude wrote: »

Ah but what can be done. If a graduate emigrates what can you do? Make them pay at the airport on their way out!:eek: Its not that simple to fix, the Australian system has become so compicated it would require $5 billion to overhaul it.

I honestly don't know but on the basis of the proposals the loan scheme seems to me to be the fairest option.

deisedude wrote: »

I'l make no bones about it, i'm against fees. The government bull****ted on about how free fees boosted our "knowledge based economy" when times were good and now they are trying to rewrite history when times are bad.

Yeah I know, but sure what can you do? Politicians will **** on your head and then ask you to thank them for the hat as well.

deisedude wrote: »

It will be ten years before any money is recouped from the proposed system and will probably cost millions if not billions in the short term implementing it. In that time i cant see colleges improving that much, most of the money they get will probably go to paying off debt. I cant really answer your questions as there is no easy answer but i just think its foolish rushing into implementing a system that is so fundamentally flawed

There is no easy answer, that's definite. However doing nothing is not an option. The current situation has to change.

AckwelFoley

Dudess wrote: »

I think fees should be reintroduced but rigorously means-tested.

whick knowing this country, would cost more to administer the means testing than money saved

bleg

Dudess wrote: »

I think fees should be reintroduced but rigorously means-tested.

Why means tested? Most people are 18 when they go to college. Legally adults. They should be responsible for themselves and get a bit of independence. Mammy and Daddy shouldn't be forced to foot the bill.