College fees

Dudess

snyper wrote: »

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

That's the problem.

bleg wrote: »

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.

All very well, but full-time students don't make that kind of money.

bleg

Dudess wrote: »

That's the problem.

All very well, but full-time students don't make that kind of money.

Yup. So make them pay when they have an income above a certain threshold.

AckwelFoley

bleg wrote: »

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.

Well in reality Sam (girl with a boys name) from portmarnock wont pay.. mommy ond doddy will (and no my "a" button isnt broken), while Jimmy from clondalkins parents cant afford to, so he works inorder to pay for his accomadation and food because he has to go to a college down the bog somewhere outside the pale, becaue the points were lower for the same course but didnt get a private education in secondary school.

Agent J

Ah the fees debate.

1) Colleges will not end up with more money

This is a plan to cut costs. They arent even trying to pretend that they are "Reallocating funds" or some other bs like it. Government takes away the funding and it is to be replaced with the money directly from the student.
Best case senario is that the college breaks even. However supply and demand tells us that less people will go to college when fees are brought in so the college actually stands to loose money. Unless they try and increase their fees to bridge this gap which will only make the whole thing worse

2) People should pay for their college education.

They do. Its called the higher tax bracket. The PRSI, PAYE, VAT and various other indirect taxes. If you have a 3rd level education you will earn much more over your life then someone who doesnt on average. This pays for multiple times over the couple of grand it costs for college. It is a long term investment with an upfront cost of about 20k which pays for itself repeatly in a steady income stream over the persons life. Short term benifit, long term major loss.

3)But at least means test it right?

Take a good look at the grants system and come back to me and make that claim. 2 parents earning just over min wage are too rich to have kids get grants. Introduce a means test and you end up with more administration to go through and still have a drop off of people who miss the cut. Considering the government have presided over the current grants sytem for the last 12 years does anyone trust them to do it? And why not extend it to 2nd level? Or primary?

4)Smart economy-Dumb government.

We want to have an economy which is knowledge driven with highly educated and trained people. At least the government claims they do.
Guess what. It costs. 300m or so for free fees is a drop in the ocean and will pay for itself. If you can borrow the tens of billions for Nama you can slap on 300m for fees.

5)What do we do with the people who dont go to college because of fees?

There will be a sizeable group who will not be able to go to college with fees.
Fas is a joke,
There are no jobs, apprientce ships, training etc..
Emigration isnt an option.
So dole queue then?

So we put what ever % of people who get caught out of the means test or dont want to take a 20k debt on in their teens on the dole.

Say 20% of people to be conservative. You take the money you save on their fees from college and given them more back in the dole.
Dole per year is about 10k(5k if under 20)
Fees are between 5-8k.


In summary.
Colleges loose money
Student looses education
State looses more money long term.

bleg

1) You cited supply and demand. Well if demand drops then so too will supply. The 3rd level institutions then become completely independent of the government and are free to govern themselves (look at the recent diktat from the government saying that wages and recruitment must be capped if they want to continue receiving state funding).

2) The higher tax bracket is part of the taxation system and is for 3rd level graduates and others alike. It existed before 1997, it will continue to exist once fees are brought back in.

3)No means testing. Everybody pays. You pay back the loan when you earn above a certain threshold.

4)Every 300 million helps!

5) Same as always. Remember only about 40% of school leavers go to 3rd level. There are plenty of people who don't go to 3rd level every year. Jobs for graduates are few and far between and there are plenty of recent graduates on the dole.

mahamageehad

ceannair06 wrote: »

Bring them in - why should you get a free ride to do bloody Media Studies etc ?

Do Law, Med etc - then we'll box you off for free. You'll be helping the country.

Indulge your Tarantino fantasy and it should cost you.

People who do law and medicine may "help the country" but after using your taxes to get a free ride through college, they will charge you ridiculously high fees.

DoireNod wrote: »

... Also, does studying Law and Medicine make you a better person or more deserving of an education? No.


... Some people are interested in a career in Media, just as some people are interested in a career in Medicine or Law. What's wrong with that? Penalising people that don't want to do so-called 'real' subjects is a ridiculous suggestion.

Thank you. I hate the way most people only consider medicine law and science as real subjects. If there's a third level course for it, then it's a real subject*. Thats why there's no degree level course in watching soaps, sitting on your backside, or queuing.

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.

The government will be making more than the money they'll make with this scheme by waiting until the graduates find jobs, then reaping the benefits with current taxes. It's just being greedy by wanting it now.

bleg wrote: »

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

In Australia a high % of graduates get jobs that will keep them just below the minimum threshold. Employer gets a qualified person for cheaper, student doesn't have to pay crippling debt. Everybody wins... except the government. And they're kinda the issue here.... right??

Riamfada

+1 for free education. I think an extra tax on the everyperson in the country is a good idea to cover the cost. A education tax. 2 euro PAYE per week increase?

Because the government cannot afford to maintain free fees and the populace want it. Tax the populace? Everyone is happy?

Odats

It is a known fact that there was an increase in parents sending their children to private secondary schools when free fees were first introduced. Now what was the problem with the Government saying ok you were able to afford 5-10K for 6 years tuition why another 4 years won't hurt.
I have benefitted from the free fees and got a university education out of it from a disadvantaged school and I am sitting my chartered accountancy finals in 2 weeks.
What will happen with families who have a couple of children going to college together how will they be able to afford it. I know back in the 80's when my parents had the choice to send my sister or brother to college (brother was year after sister) they chose the brother as couldn't afford to send 2 to college and men were seen as breadwinners at the time. Same scenario as recession was on then.
I know the UK have a student loan system where you pay it back through the taxation system but it's more administration and pen pushing.
Realistically it's not going to turn out like the US where tuition can run into hundreds of thousands.
If they were to implement something fees after graduation would be the most sensible if administered correctly.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Education for the rich... not a good idea.

Munsterforever

<rant>

What sickens me is that I'll be going to uni in September, and I am going to get a degree in Science and become part of what the government hopes to make a knowledge economy, and I'm gonna have to pay. Yet for the last 10 years there have been showers of c**** going to university FOR FREE only to crash our economy with their f****** degrees in f****** Construction Management etc etc.

And this annoys me even more that they got to go to uni for free, but their insolence has left them with NO job, on the dole, sucking up the tax money needed for me and many other to go to uni.

To be honest, had there been no fee's I would of felt an obligation to work here in Ireland and pay it back. But now that I'm going to be paying for it I'm gonna emmigrate and not contribute a single cent.

Put it shortly, I am wholly against fees.

<rant/>

Emmsy

peepeep wrote: »

Well if you don't qualify for the grant, that means you have enough money not to need it - which would also suggest you could afford to pay fees.

Well I don't qualify for the grant as my father is employed by the government. Oh and not only do we not qualify for grants but he has also had 200 euro a week cut from his wages again due to the fact that he is a government employee.
If fees were to be reinstated there is no way we could afford college.

bleg

mahamageehad wrote: »

People who do law and medicine may "help the country" but after using your taxes to get a free ride through college, they will charge you ridiculously high fees.

Yup, so stop the free ride!

mahamageehad wrote: »

Thank you. I hate the way most people only consider medicine law and science as real subjects. If there's a third level course for it, then it's a real subject*. Thats why there's no degree level course in watching soaps, sitting on your backside, or queuing.

Agreed, however there are a certain number of wasters out there who just go to college because it's seen as a natural extension, they're not there for the career, they're there because it's the done thing. I've seen plenty of these people in my 4 years in college. They need to be cut out.

mahamageehad wrote: »

The government will be making more than the money they'll make with this scheme by waiting until the graduates find jobs, then reaping the benefits with current taxes. It's just being greedy by wanting it now.

Yup, they'll definitely have to do a loan scheme. Bringing in upfront fees isn't realistic.

mahamageehad wrote: »

In Australia a high % of graduates get jobs that will keep them just below the minimum threshold. Employer gets a qualified person for cheaper, student doesn't have to pay crippling debt. Everybody wins... except the government. And they're kinda the issue here.... right??

So graduates stay at a low pay from their early 20s to their mid 60s. Cop on.


Anyway I even said that we shouldn't copy the Australian model as is. We should take the good parts and look at the bad parts and try to ensure the system isn't abused!


Can you provide an alternative to fees when 1. Universities need more funding and 2. The State cannot provide additional funding and cannot continue to fund 3rd level fees for students.

Prof.Badass

The reason 3rd level fees are up for debate is because of the recession. Otherwise it would be political suicide to bring up the issue.

Fine gael have hi-jacked this for their own populist agenda. Making it look as if they have found a nice go-between that suits everyone. Truth is they haven't.

With a graduate tax we won't get to see a cent of the money for at least another 4 years, when it'll very slowly start trickling back over the next 9 years. During this time we'll have shelled out just as much money on college fees. By the time we start making any savings we should be well out of the reccession (unless the government do an absolutely shit job).

I'm not saying the graduate tax is a bad idea (although i do prefer universal 3rd level), but to use the economy as an excuse to bring it in is dishonest.

Dudess wrote: »

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

Do you not think the tax system is equitable enough as it is?

Rich people pay a hell of a lot more tax because a)they earn more money and b) the tax they pay on this money is at a far higher rate. They are just as entitled to benifit from public services as anyone else because they pay their fair share. If you honestly think rich people (we're not talking multi-millionaires here) don't pay their fair share in taxes then raise the higher band of tax. Don't remove their right to benifit from the services they practically fund for us.

And btw, there's a massive difference between providing financial assistance to the genuinely disadvantaged and denying a whole section of society what they pay for.

Finally, people ≠ their parents. Even if 98% of people above a certain income would pay for their children's college fees it is blatantly unfair to assume they all will.

bleg

Grimes wrote: »

+1 for free education. I think an extra tax on the everyperson in the country is a good idea to cover the cost. A education tax. 2 euro PAYE per week increase?

Because the government cannot afford to maintain free fees and the populace want it. Tax the populace? Everyone is happy?

Well raising taxes is another option open to us. However why not just impose an extra tax on graduates once they are above a certain threshold until the cost of their education has been re payed.

bleg

vinylmesh wrote: »

The reason 3rd level fees are up for debate is because of the recession. Otherwise it would be political suicide to bring up the issue.

Fine gael have hi-jacked this for their own populist agenda. Making it look as if they have found a nice go-between that suits everyone. Truth is they haven't.

With a graduate tax we won't get to see a cent of the money for at least another 4 years, when it'll very slowly start trickling back over the next 9 years. During this time we'll have shelled out just as much money on college fees and we should be out of the worst of it.

I'm not saying the graduate tax is a bad idea (although i do dissagree with it), but to use the economy as an excuse to bring it in is dishonest.

Dishonest with a capital D, still doesn't negate the fact that they should be brought back in. Selling it the way they are is just a way for the populace to swallow it when fees are eventually introduced. Like I said earlier though, politicians will lie, spin and manipulate when they think it will be advantageous to them.

Agent J

bleg wrote: »

1) You cited supply and demand. Well if demand drops then so too will supply. The 3rd level institutions then become completely independent of the government and are free to govern themselves (look at the recent diktat from the government saying that wages and recruitment must be capped if they want to continue receiving state funding).

And prey tell how long will it take for supply to catch up to the demand levels?
What happens to the people in the mean time?
How many emigrate and go on the dole?
What does it do the numbers of gradauates we were producing?

bleg wrote: »

2) The higher tax bracket is part of the taxation system and is for 3rd level graduates and others alike. It existed before 1997, it will continue to exist once fees are brought back in.

Yes it will but the overall number of people paying will be less over a greater period of time because they have less earning ability.

Not to mention the knock on effects in consumption spending.

bleg wrote: »

3)No means testing. Everybody pays. You pay back the loan when you earn above a certain threshold.

See poing about people burdening teenagers with tens of thousands worth of debt.
Then emigrating the second they can. HAve you seen the proposed limit? As soon as people earn over the min wage pretty much.
You will discourage people going to 3rd level based on ability to pay rather than ability. This is not smart.

bleg wrote: »

4)Every 300 million helps!

Percieved short term gain vs major long term loss.

Penny wise but pound foolish.

bleg wrote: »

5) Same as always. Remember only about 40% of school leavers go to 3rd level. There are plenty of people who don't go to 3rd level every year. Jobs for graduates are few and far between and there are plenty of recent graduates on the dole.

Not the same as always. We havent had the level of unemployment for the last 15 years. More people going right on the dole instead of to college.
As for the graduates. When things pick up, Who will pay more overall tax?

bleg

Agent J wrote: »

And prey tell how long will it take for supply to catch up to the demand levels?
What happens to the people in the mean time?
How many emigrate and go on the dole?
What does it do the numbers of gradauates we were producing?

Well IF and it's a very big if, the numbers plummet in university as you suggest then the supply and demand will kick in again. Yes it is likely that entry to universities will drop within the first few years (bringing us in line with most other countries, remember we have one of the highest % of graduates in the EU) and yes people will continue to emigrate. We currently have an over supply of many many graduates who were expected to get jobs in our exponentially increasing economy. The initial cull might bring us back in line with a more sustainable output of graduates from 3rd level institutions.

Agent J wrote: »

Yes it will but the overall number of people paying will be less over a greater period of time because they have less earning ability.

Not to mention the knock on effects in consumption spending.

Again, we're going to have to realise that the days of the Celtic Tiger are gone. We will all be earning less money, taxes will go up, the economy will grow more slowly when we get back to growth and 3rd level charges will be paid.

Agent J wrote: »

See poing about people burdening teenagers with tens of thousands worth of debt.
Then emigrating the second they can.

Well we'd have to put some system in place so they can't slip through the cracks won't we. Just because a system might be abused by a dishonest few doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented to the benefit of the majority.

Agent J wrote: »

HAve you seen the proposed limit? As soon as people earn over the min wage pretty much.
You will discourage people going to 3rd level based on ability to pay rather than ability. This is not smart.

I haven't seen the proposed limit any chance you could throw it up there?


In fairness, the determined students are still going to go to university. The same eligibility for grants will exist with/without the introduction of fees. In fact it might take pressure off the grant scheme, allowing modestly increased grants. Some kind of political jostling like this is will probably be key to getting the fees through.



Anyway regardless of what we say and do 3rd level fees are coming back. If you're unwise you'll keep saying no way José stick your head in the sand and protest.

If you're wise you'll start preparing for their reintroduction.

Pride Fighter

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.

bleg

Pride Fighter wrote: »

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.

Which is why a loan scheme is perfect.

tolosenc

Pride Fighter wrote: »

"technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit".

"merit" and "higher education" aren't defined in what you quoted.

Merit could be having earned enough money to afford it, higher education could be secondary school.

SeaFields

Both perspectives here.

I went through the free education of undergraduate and then spent several years as a postgraduate where I paid fees. Its certainly possible to get through university having to pay fees. I worked part time all through undergraduate and postgraduate and have most of my debts repaid at this stage (without having gotten a "proper" job yet - I only finished university this week! :cool:). I didn't put the burden of that debt on my parents but got student loans which I started repaying immediately and saved on the summers off.

How plausible it is to work part time in the current economic climate is debatable I suppose with employers letting staff go rather than hiring. However, in all but the most demanding courses (I'm thinking medicine), its certainly possible to work to fund your way through third level. All of my friends worked while at college and we all did different courses in different faculties.

The quality of the education graduates are getting also needs to be considered. If the government funds the bare minimum the universities and IT's are not going to have the funding to put into the students. Facilities and resources will be stretched. I have seen growing evidence of this over the years. In that situation if paying for your education means the quality of that education results in you being a better all round graduate entering the labour market, with better prospects, then fees may be needed.

Furthermore there is all this political talk of us needed to be world leaders in area such as IT, green technologies and the like, to get us out of this economic mess. Third level fees are certainly not a good start in going about this.

Finally, as somebody will probably point out, would I have been in a position to enter third level if fees applied from day one, at undergraduate? I don't know.

Popple3

I somewhat agree with with the whole pay the college fees once you're earning a certain amount, even though we would be paying more tax anyway...

But one problem that I don't think has been addressed here, is what happens when someone does half their course, but drops out, and never returns to college, and never reaches that income ceiling for paying back fees? In that case, those of us that work hard in college would essentially be paying for the drop-outs... I don't mind if they've worked hard and just had a weak subject they couldn't pass, but let's face it, the majority of those are probably wasters...

So really, no matter what the government do, it's still gonna be flawed. Either people get into college that don't deserve to be, people can't get into college coz of the cost barrier, or people who work hard and finish their degree essentially pay for the drop-outs... It's really a lose-lose situation, unless there's something else they could do

friendface

Was wondering where all the posts were about todays fees announcement I already posted this in the college section but this is where the discussion seems to be:

I suppose it was inevitable that fees would be re-introduced at some stage. I was surprised the announcement didn't seem to make any any major news headlines today, just got a mention under another topic on the 9 o'clock news tonight and it was only on the Irish Times website for a small while today. I really expected much more outcry about this.

Am I correct in saying that this will not affect grant holders, even new students this year as the grant already covers course fees. As far I know, the government are currently looking into a more rigorous means-testing for higher education grants including the introduction of an asset assessment. To be honest, I can't see the current grant regime remaining too much longer in its current form with the mounting national debt. I expect maintenance rates will be cut severely in the next budget an well as income limits for eligibility. In effect I think those eligible for the grant in the future will basically just get their course fees covered and receive a minimal level of financial support.

Also, I don't think this is going to increase the income of individual colleges as mentioned previously. It just removed the financial burden of paying for course fees from the government and places them on the individual. The universities will still receive the same income.

In fairness the free fees system which existed up until now was a bit of a joke. The government were subsidising education costs for rich and poor as long as you were an Irish or EU citizen. Hopefully it will make those who do pay for college appreciate that bit more and help raise the expectations we place on our colleges in terms of quality of lecturing and facilities.

Resi12

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.

Oh my fee's will ONLY amount to 40,000 euro in debt. And there's me worrying they will be too high.

Harpie

NBB Bohs wrote: »

they should be reintroduced. college culture in ireland is a farce. its all about consuming your bodyweight in alochol every weekend.

Sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one. A lot of people I met in college rarely indulged in the drinking culture that a minority of the immature student body do enjoy.

Besides, the weekends are for bringin' the washing home to mammy and watching DVDs in bed, they drink their body weight in alcohol Monday- Thursday. :P

Novella

I dunno, everything in life can't be free. If it was we'd have a great ole time!

Resi12

NBB Bohs wrote: »

they should be reintroduced. college culture in ireland is a farce. its all about consuming your bodyweight in alochol every weekend.

So we should pay 10,000 euro a year because we go out and have a laugh at the weekend? In that case everyone from 16/17 up should pay 10 grand a year too.

Well done, I think you have just found a solution to the recession.. :rolleyes:

bleg

Harpie wrote: »

Sweeping generalisation if ever I saw one. A lot of people I met in college rarely indulged in the drinking culture that a minority of the immature student body do enjoy.

I met a lot of people who rarely indulged too. They were in the huge minority though.

Purple Gorilla

As a person going into 5th year in secondary school, I'm dreading this. Before I'm even like 25 I'll already have €40,000 debt to pay off?! That's scary. I wish they just wouldn't cut back on education. If we could afford it in the 90s or whatever when free college education was introduced, then why can't we afford it now. I'm really against cutbacks in Health & Education...All this NAMA Lark will ensure that taxes are kept high for my generation so am I right in thinking that over half of my wage when I'm older will be taken away in taxes (PAYE, PRSI, Levies, Paying off Student loan)?

Pride Fighter

bleg wrote: »

Which is why a loan scheme is perfect.

A loan scheme is a disgusting right wing idea. It will only lead to students leaving the country to avoid paying the fees. The resulting brain drain will mean our economy will be bereft of entrepreneurs and our society lacking in teachers and doctors.

Try look at the bigger picture for once.

Pride Fighter

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

As a person going into 5th year in secondary school, I'm dreading this. Before I'm even like 25 I'll already have €40,000 debt to pay off?! That's scary. I wish they just wouldn't cut back on education. If we could afford it in the 90s or whatever when free college education was introduced, then why can't we afford it now. I'm really against cutbacks in Health & Education...All this NAMA Lark will ensure that taxes are kept high for my generation so am I right in thinking that over half of my wage when I'm older will be taken away in taxes (PAYE, PRSI, Levies, Paying off Student loan)?

If you want to pay off your loan quicker I'd say about 3/4 of your income would be gone, thats before rent and food etc.

This government has no clue, hitting people in the pocket gives them less disposable income, and as a result the economy is in tatters.

andrew

1)
I'm not sure exactly what the figures are, but in the majority of cases, a Graduate will earn more over their life than a non-graduate. The people who are worried about being €40,000 in debt when they leave college are ignoring the fact that, on average, over the their lifetime they will easily recoup that €40,000 and earn a nice profit. Balking at the debt with which you will be saddled when you leave college ignores the longer term picture. If fees prevent someone from going to college, when they could've gotten a loan, then they're just being stupid.

2)
Considering the government wants to encourage people to go into science & engineering courses, fees are probably a good thing, seeing as these courses have higher returns than courses from other faculties. As much as I hate to admit it (I'm not doing science or engineering), these courses contribute most to the knowledge economy. And so while there may be an overall decrese in those going to university, the incentive to get a science degree will become stronger. Less people will be going to college, but when they do go to college more people will be doing science/engineering. The result: we maintain our economic stance as a country with a skilled workforce; we'll still be a knowledge based society, if not moreso.

3)
To those saying that the college will just break even/not make money from this: If it means they break even rather than losing money than thats a good thing. If the government ends up with more money in the long term, even after the recession is over, thats a good thing. We have a giant defecit that will last a lot longer than the recession.

Handsome Bob

Toulousain wrote: »

I'm going in to 3rd year and believe that they should be reintroduced.

The quality of the Universities in Ireland has been greatly diminished by the fees remission scheme. The entire system would be far better off with fees.

People who wish to go to college should pay for it themselves and not expect other people to pay for them. 3rd level education is a privelage, not a right. Nothing in life is free.

Yeah, lets continue keeping society stratified by pricing people deserving of a college education out of the equation.

papajimsmooth wrote: »

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

And I'm sick of watching posh wasters barely lifting a finger in college, while Daddy funds their party lifestyle and their resits so they can continue the facade of their degree.

Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with means tested fees if you could trust the government to implement the system correctly. However I can't see them doing that because in the current system, I know of people who have a retired father (from a modest job) and mothers who don't have an income, who still get denied even the most BASIC grant (150 euro every 3 months).

I would rather not see fees introduced but if they must be, I'd prefer to see the fees only being paid once the person is out of college and is earning an income. College graduate tax if you will.

Baird

Fees being introduced is a good thing in my opinion. I have done 8 years in college at this stage (2 undergraduate degrees). First was free and the second i paid for. Recieved no grant for either course and im far from rich but you know what i got by. I now have 15k+ in student debts from my second degree as i was lucky enough to get part time jobs which helped me etch away at the loans throughout college. Looking back if i had to do it all again and put myself 20 or 30k in debt just to retool myself to get a better job i would again in a heartbeat. A degree is not a right, it should be a privilage for the 10% - 20% of the people in the country who are capable of getting a good one. Education for the masses is something i dont buy into. If you get 250 points in your leaving cert then in my opinion the state funding 4 years in equine science or media studies is a farce and a waste of money. Anyone not capable of getting a 2.2 in college should not be there and if you have the burden of 40k of debt on your shoulders i guarantee the number of repeat exams will drop through the floor. College has far far too many people there for 4 years to idle their way through a degree by doing the least possible amount of work. College should be about pressure and stress and learning to cope and strive under it coming out the other side much more employable and able to contribute to the economy. College has been seriously dumbed down and its impossible to have a knowledge economy when half the degrees in the country can be passed with 2 days study before each exam (this is certainly true before anyone contradicts me)

Fees are a good thing, it will stop people who are going to college for the sake of it
It will stop people who lets face it are not capable of doing a degree yet head off after secondary school to make a go of it.
It will increase the pressure on students and make them more serious about their chosen discipline which can only be a good thing in terms of the standard of graduate produced.

Oh and to people who say this is something in reponse to NAMA and bankers blowing all the money in the country, wake up and smell the roses. Everyone who bought a house in the past 10 years or paid 80k + for a few square meters of land to build a house is just as culpabile as any banker in the country.

Thats my 2c...

tatabubbly

Baird wrote: »

A degree is not a right, it should be a privilage for the 10% - 20% of the people in the country who are capable of getting a good one.

If i hadn't got my fees paid for i couldn't afford to go to college, i've younger siblings who won't be able to go to college due to the sheer price of fees. Coming from a lower class family, it was hard enough to scrape the registration fee, let alone forking out for fees as well

Baird wrote: »

College has far far too many people there for 4 years to idle their way through a degree by doing the least possible amount of work.

College has been seriously dumbed down and its impossible to have a knowledge economy when half the degrees in the country can be passed with 2 days study before each exam (this is certainly true before anyone contradicts me)

Ah, not my degree mate, i would have loved for someone to taken half of my Chemistry classes and exams.. They're hard work and i'm proud to have achieved my 2.1.

Baird

tatabubbly wrote: »

If i hadn't got my fees paid for i couldn't afford to go to college

Why not?
Interest free loan that you begin to repay after you graduate, how could you not afford that for example? Wouldnt cost a cent until you got a job
Big difference between not wanting to pay and not being able to pay.

Piste

I'm not sure how loans work in banks, but I think you can't just emigrate and not pay them off...am I right? So maybe the fees could be paid by the government through the banks and you pay back the bank when you graduate, which means you have to pay back your fees whether you emigrate or not.

At the moment free fees are just unsustainable, and introducing a system whereby everybody pays fees, but everybody can still avail of a college education is the best way to go about it. Perhaps even more people would be able to go to college if registration fees were integrated with the deferred loans system.

Cookie_Monster

Baird wrote: »

Why not?
Interest free loan that you begin to repay after you graduate, how could you not afford that for example? Wouldnt cost a cent until you got a job
Big difference between not wanting to pay and not being able to pay.

Never mind that, a part time job for starters would go a long way to funding college.

deisedude

Baird wrote: »

Oh and to people who say this is something in reponse to NAMA and bankers blowing all the money in the country, wake up and smell the roses. Everyone who bought a house in the past 10 years or paid 80k + for a few square meters of land to build a house is just as culpabile as any banker in the country.

Thats my 2c...

I know this is going off topic but you are completely wrong. People overpaying for a house isnt going to break the country, having to nationalise banks is going to mean our credit rating is downgraded and the country will have to pay more back on what we borrow which means it will take us longer to come out of the recession. But if you wont to ignore the facts by all means go ahead

Baird

deisedude wrote: »

I know this is going off topic but you are completely wrong. People overpaying for a house isnt going to break the country, having to nationalise banks is going to mean our credit rating is downgraded and the country will have to pay more back on what we borrow which means it will take us longer to come out of the recession. But if you wont to ignore the facts by all means go ahead

You are completely wrong, property bubble was almost the sole reason we are in this mess. This is not the place to discuss it, i sent you a pm to explain why.

Renegade_Archer

Having an income levy on graduates is just going to increase the brain drain. Like, what are you going to do, stay in Ireland and get x% of your cash taken, or feck off to warmer climes?

Johnnnybravo

Just wondering are these fees on top of the registration fees, or is it that people on grants will have to pay registartion fees from next year? Im just unsure of what the fees relate to, does it mean next year people pay reg fees and college fees like almost 3k sort of fees???

deisedude

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Just wondering are these fees on top of the registration fees, or is it that people on grants will have to pay registartion fees from next year? Im just unsure of what the fees relate to, does it mean next year people pay reg fees and college fees like almost 3k sort of fees???

Registration fees have been increased to €1500 this year. You will have to pay this at the start of every year. The proposed loan scheme wont require you pay any more money while you are in college but once you get a job after you graduate you start paying the fees back

Johnnnybravo

deisedude wrote: »

Registration fees have been increased to €1500 this year. You will have to pay this at the start of every year. The proposed loan scheme wont require you pay any more money while you are in college but once you get a job after you graduate you start paying the fees back

Thanks for that deise dude! The parents asked me about this last night as the sisters reg fees were 1200e or something and they were unsure whether this was a further 1500e theyd have to pay next year or what the story was.

Cheers!

laugh

The system as it stands means you can make it even if you have loser parents, any change will hinder this.

friendface

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Just wondering are these fees on top of the registration fees, or is it that people on grants will have to pay registartion fees from next year? Im just unsure of what the fees relate to, does it mean next year people pay reg fees and college fees like almost 3k sort of fees???

This new fees system will just apply to those that are not currently on grants. Up until now, all Irish and EU students had their course fees paid by the government but those starting college from this September will now be liable for full course fees. The exact amount can be found here: http://www.studentfinance.ie/mp9377/course-fees/index.html

The current fees for a PLC course is €3,563 and for a Degree Course they are around €5,000 but it depends on the college and course you are attending. These fees must be paid along with the existing registration charge which varies but is generally around €1500.

The_Minister

spoofilyj wrote: »

I'm finished college two years now and did'nt have to pay fees. I could not have gone had there been fees but now have a job paying hugh tax back so in a way I'm helping the economy with my tax. If I had not gone I would no doubt be in a crap minimum wage job and not really contributing to the good of the country. So the government are once more proving to be the idiots we now know they are...:mad::mad:

Someone else would now be doing that job, you would be unemployed.

It only disadvantages the economy if NO-ONE or someone less talented than you does it. Even then it depends.

Johnnnybravo

laugh wrote: »

The system as it stands means you can make it even if you have loser parents, any change will hinder this.

what a bloody stupid comment to make! If somebodys parent does not have a job why the hell should they be denied an education and go on to better theirself?? "loser parents" what an ignorant comment to make:mad:

Some people genuinely cannot afford to go to college and 1500e is a huge amount of money to them. what are ya saying only rich people should be allowed an education is it?? Im all for grants to help out the kids thats parents cant afford to send them to college.

laugh

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Im all for grants to help out the kids thats parents cant afford to send them to college.

Me too. Re-read my post.

I feel if you need to borrow a big whack of cash to pay for college (e.g. 30 -40K) , people from poorer backgrounds will have difficulty.

procure11

Baird wrote: »

Fees being introduced is a good thing in my opinion. I have done 8 years in college at this stage (2 undergraduate degrees). First was free and the second i paid for. Recieved no grant for either course and im far from rich but you know what i got by. I now have 15k+ in student debts from my second degree as i was lucky enough to get part time jobs which helped me etch away at the loans throughout college. Looking back if i had to do it all again and put myself 20 or 30k in debt just to retool myself to get a better job i would again in a heartbeat. A degree is not a right, it should be a privilage for the 10% - 20% of the people in the country who are capable of getting a good one. Education for the masses is something i dont buy into. If you get 250 points in your leaving cert then in my opinion the state funding 4 years in equine science or media studies is a farce and a waste of money. Anyone not capable of getting a 2.2 in college should not be there and if you have the burden of 40k of debt on your shoulders i guarantee the number of repeat exams will drop through the floor. College has far far too many people there for 4 years to idle their way through a degree by doing the least possible amount of work. College should be about pressure and stress and learning to cope and strive under it coming out the other side much more employable and able to contribute to the economy. College has been seriously dumbed down and its impossible to have a knowledge economy when half the degrees in the country can be passed with 2 days study before each exam (this is certainly true before anyone contradicts me)

Fees are a good thing, it will stop people who are going to college for the sake of it
It will stop people who lets face it are not capable of doing a degree yet head off after secondary school to make a go of it.
It will increase the pressure on students and make them more serious about their chosen discipline which can only be a good thing in terms of the standard of graduate produced.

Oh and to people who say this is something in reponse to NAMA and bankers blowing all the money in the country, wake up and smell the roses. Everyone who bought a house in the past 10 years or paid 80k + for a few square meters of land to build a house is just as culpabile as any banker in the country.

Thats my 2c...

Excellent analysis...but you have to aware that there are still some geniune people who want to go to college and have the required talent to excel and cannot afford it .

I think it is inevitable in the current economic situation and otherwise really ..for the Government to introduce fees.The most important of all is how they intend to do this...if it is via a loan system from banks akin to the UK system then people could live with that but if it is an unfront payment of fees ...that would be diabolical.

If we look at the case of the US ..where folks have to pay fees ...it leads to a Classed based education where only the rich can afford to send their wards to the best schools...well except for the lucky bright pupils that get scholarships...on the darker side it leads to a proliferation of half baked institutions to cater for the less fortunate and in the long run that would be detrimental to a small country like Ireland.

My take on it is ...if the Govt can come to an arrangement with lending institutions to provide credits to students at a sensible rate to be paid after graduation..it leads to a symbiotic advantage for all parties.

> Govt...eases the monetary constraints having to pay for free fees.

> Universities/ITs...They get the required funding they need to function within reason.

>Student...gets the education he/she desires and most probably put in extra effort knowing fully well he/she bears the cost.

>Parents...Your child performs better at school,eases financial burden.


Easier said than done tho...