The problems of student binge drinking and the question of tuition fees

Gurgle

aurelius79 wrote: »

Anyone who fails to maintain a minimum level of success should be dropped from the grant scheme.

Thats exactly how its always been done.
If you fail a year, you get no grant for repeating. If you pass on repeats, you can re-apply for the grant as you progress.

Taxipete29

aurelius79 wrote: »

Yes, because lower income families shouldn't be allowed to attend third level education. Believe it or not, there are people in disadvantaged areas that would love to go to university. I'm getting so sick of the attitude in this country that low income families just don't matter.

Higher education should remain available to anyone who wishes to attend. The progress of grant recipients should be monitored. Anyone who fails to maintain a minimum level of success should be dropped from the grant scheme. Cash should not be given to students receiving state aid. A program of rent allowance/dorms, food/clothing vouchers or credits, meals provided by the schools, etc. should be introduced. All books and supplies should be provided by the state. Any cash given out will be for emergency expenses only.

As far as drinking goes, we need to raise the legal age to 21 as they have done in the U.S. This should be strictly enforced. Any shopkeeper caught selling to minors will should have their license temporarily revoked. Tax on alcohol should be increased substantially to put it out of reach of young adults. The overall problem with drinking in this country needs to be addressed immediately.

I agree with the first part of your post but the second wont work.

First of all, raising the legal age will create any even bigger black market demand than exists already.

Alcohol is one of the most heavily taxed items you can buy. Taxing it further would also put it out of the reach of mnay responsible adults who do enjoy a social drink and dont have a problem.

We need to tackle the drink culture, agreed, but I dispute that the best way to do this is go even further down the route of the nanny state.

Cannibal Ox

I'd always suspected that previously upstanding, tee-totaling, punctual members of society become lazy, alcoholic, work shy whores the moment they start studenting. If only people never became students, they'd never binge drink, always be on time, and would be productive members of the economy :P

I think there's a false correlation (<- I learnt that in College!) between being a student and binge drinking. It seems to me that students don't drink more then other members of society because they're students. The culture within universities and colleges might engender binge drinking, the pubs and clubs that offer student nights with cheap drink might engender binge drinking, peer pressure might engender binge drinking, being in a country and culture thoroughly soaked in alcohol might engender binge drinking, but being a student doesn't engender binge drinking.

Which is why I don't think you can dismiss the other statistics on average drinking for non-students in Ireland. There are high levels of binge drinking in Ireland, it's a cultural phenomena and isn't limited to universities. Cutting fees as some people in this thread have suggested isn't going to change that. Yes there are problems with the proliferation of degrees, and yes people who can afford to pay for university should pay for it in one form or another, but cutting fees based on the very loose claims of a fringe, far right party is probably not such a good idea.

aurelius79

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I agree with the first part of your post but the second wont work.

First of all, raising the legal age will create any even bigger black market demand than exists already.

Alcohol is one of the most heavily taxed items you can buy. Taxing it further would also put it out of the reach of mnay responsible adults who do enjoy a social drink and dont have a problem.

We need to tackle the drink culture, agreed, but I dispute that the best way to do this is go even further down the route of the nanny state.

I really hate when people refer to this mythical "nanny state", especially during a discussion about adults and their behavior in society.

This country has a massive problem with alcohol abuse. People are either unable or unwilling to regulate their own destructive drinking. Alcohol abuse never just affects the person doing the drinking. Families are torn apart, children are neglected or abused, society as a whole suffers. The government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all residents in Ireland.

If the government should not heavily regulate the drinks industry then who should? Diageo? Pub/club owners? No, this problem needs to be officially addressed by the government and much stricter controls and penalties need to be introduced. Maybe then the country as a whole will realize the destruction caused by widespread alcohol abuse.

Edit: You agree that we need to tackle this issue but do not agree with government intervention. What would you propose we do instead?

ninty9er

I think a two tier tax system for alcohol would be beneficial. Most students who end up plastered do so on a tenner and then head to a pub. Responsible pub drinking in a social environment needs to be encouraged, while sitting at home, drinking and smoking saying **** all to anybody is damaging.

If excise on off-sales were to be doubled and pub sales cut by 10% it would allow pubs to compete and encourage drinking in controlled environment.

Although I mentioned the Swedish model above negatively, it does warrant discussion.

Nodin

Gurgle wrote: »

Binge drinking is defined as 5 units of alcohol for a male, 4 for a female.
Thats 2.5 and 2 pints respectively.

'At least once per week'

Wow, shocking behaviour.

Indeed. Faux alarm over an arbitrary standard.

ninty9er

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I did plenty of research on the subject seeking advice from both the welfare office and the college itself. I guess I was naive enough at 32 to assume that they would judge me on my income and my financial status rather than that of my parents. Go figure. :rolleyes:

It wasn't the subject I was talking about, it was mature students, in particular thiose with kids and mortgages, being suddenly surprised that it costs money to go to college. Food, travel, books etc. Many of those who come to me seeking help NEVER thought of the €6-7k expense involved with all of that. The time committment also hits many of them.

I'm not hitting out at your particular case. It seems to be particularly prevalent amongst those who are doing it because they lost a job, rather than those who are doing it out of choice.

The most prepared group of mature students are undergrad nursing students in my experience. They've thought it all through. Many others just don't think about the financial consequences at all.

On the grant, the terms and conditions state CLEARLY what means are tested. The system isn't great, but it's very transparent.

Taxipete29

aurelius79 wrote: »

I really hate when people refer to this mythical "nanny state", especially during a discussion about adults and their behavior in society.

This country has a massive problem with alcohol abuse. People are either unable or unwilling to regulate their own destructive drinking. Alcohol abuse never just affects the person doing the drinking. Families are torn apart, children are neglected or abused, society as a whole suffers. The government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of all residents in Ireland.

If the government should not heavily regulate the drinks industry then who should? Diageo? Pub/club owners? No, this problem needs to be officially addressed by the government and much stricter controls and penalties need to be introduced. Maybe then the country as a whole will realize the destruction caused by widespread alcohol abuse.

Edit: You agree that we need to tackle this issue but do not agree with government intervention. What would you propose we do instead?

How does heavier regulation change a culture within society??. It may surprise you to learn that alcoholics exist in societies where alcohol is not generally a problem.

What legislation will stop an alcoholic buying drink and getting off their face and causing devestation in whatever manner??? The answer is none. The attitude of people to alcohol has to be changed and that can only occur through education.

Valmont

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

educations drives the economy

I had a good laugh at this one.

I spent 10,000 euro for the opportunity to study in a private institution and my parents paid the other half. As my education had a very real and tangible cost to both me and my family, I had an understandably more vested interest in my education than some of the grant sucking boozers who occupy many of the nation's universities. Does it seem that unreasonable that the cost of education should be shifted more onto those who actually benefit from it? I'm shocked that is even a question to be honest.

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

Yes, because lower income families shouldn't be allowed to attend third level education. Believe it or not, there are people in disadvantaged areas that would love to go to university. I'm getting so sick of the attitude in this country that low income families just don't matter.

Higher education should remain available to anyone who wishes to attend. The progress of grant recipients should be monitored. Anyone who fails to maintain a minimum level of success should be dropped from the grant scheme. Cash should not be given to students receiving state aid. A program of rent allowance/dorms, food/clothing vouchers or credits, meals provided by the schools, etc. should be introduced. All books and supplies should be provided by the state. Any cash given out will be for emergency expenses only.

As far as drinking goes, we need to raise the legal age to 21 as they have done in the U.S. This should be strictly enforced. Any shopkeeper caught selling to minors will should have their license temporarily revoked. Tax on alcohol should be increased substantially to put it out of reach of young adults. The overall problem with drinking in this country needs to be addressed immediately.

Very good post.

Valmont

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My theory is this. Students don't have respect for their education because they're not paying for it. Even I have this attitude of a time. I wake up at half 7, Im tired, look Ill take the morning off. If I was paying for it I would have a different mindframe. My money (or my parents money or the banks money) is being used to pay for my Uni so I better make the most of it. Would ye disagree with this train of thought?

The binge drinking culture merely accentuates this attitude. Friday morning lectures are a joke. My one usually hangs around 35% - 50% attendance. I know this because on the day to hand up our assignment the theater was full; usually its less than half full.

So some lame statistics to back it up. This morning we started a new module, which is taken with a variety of different course such as Chemistry and Physics. The lecture wanted to know who was who and asked the latter to raise there hands. His "quick count" gave a result of 15; according to him there should have been 30. No matter what kind of margin of error you throw on that its still silly.

My solution is to get students to pay fees. It will make them appreciate their education. They will presumably try to study more, lest they waste 7 grand by failing a year. We will have less people doing crap "for the sake of it" courses such as Celtic Civilization. And my opinion is that were there fees there would be a huge demand for student loans, and as such a supply of loans from the bank.

Spot on Eliot. Having paid for my education I can assure you that you are 100% correct. In my case anyway. Whenever I felt like a day off, I just remembered that I was burning the equivalent of 150 euro. I'm telling you, that gets you out of bed very quickly:D

Taxipete29

Taxipete29 wrote: »

How does heavier regulation change a culture within society??. It may surprise you to learn that alcoholics exist in societies where alcohol is not generally a problem.

What legislation will stop an alcoholic buying drink and getting off their face and causing devestation in whatever manner??? The answer is none. The attitude of people to alcohol has to be changed and that can only occur through education.

So now students are alcoholics? We've moved from binge drinking to Alcoholism? Bit of a reach don't you think?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah in fairness now DF; I was clearly paraphrasing. Unless you feel that referring to many heavy drinking/grant recieving students at a time of declining academic standards is really that different to calling them "drink addicted, workshy freeloaders"

Taxipete29

Deleted User wrote: »

So now students are alcoholics? We've moved from binge drinking to Alcoholism? Bit of a reach don't you think?

I was responding to remarks about the drink culture in general. I never said students were alcoholics

Taxipete29

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I was responding to remarks about the drink culture in general. I never said students were alcoholics

Ok. My mistake.

I've never been much of drinker. Made some mistakes in my early 20s while under the influence, and haven't been able to trust myself drunk ever since. So you might understand that I don't particularly enjoy the drink culture in Ireland. just about everything I have found revolves around drinking.

I left Ireland to live in Australia and then China. And since I returned I've been pleasantly surprised by the changes. Sure, there's still a major focus on drinking but the attitude to drink has changed. When I was younger there was no hesitation in driving with three or four pints in them, but now thats changed to at most one or two. And even that is slowly changing to none.

The Irish have had a thing about alcohol forever.. Its going to take time to change. But it is changing....

As for Alcoholics, that's not going to change until they seek help. legislation isn't really going to change that. Even culture isn't going to change that immediately, at least not until the underlying attitude to alcohol changes as well. Best to focus on the foundations first, before seeking to tackle the hardliners.

Gurgle

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A large proportion of people have a few pints once or twice a week.

A small proportion of people regularly drink themselves to oblivion, causing all sorts of problems for themselves and everyone around them.

So someone did a survey of students, and by the terms of this survey 'drinking at least four pints of beer or a bottle of wine or equivalent at one drinking occasion' off we go with the conclusion that all students are alcoholic wasters.

Show me a survey that shows that (by the same rules) labourers, plumbers, mechanics, factory workers, farmers and anyone else who doesn't spend their late teens / early twenties in college isn't as likely to be a 'regular binge drinker'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ninty9er

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The word student appears nowhere in that quote

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

THe policy maintained that academic standards had fallen amidst many students leading lives of grants and heavy drinking.
I fail to see how you can claim that students are not being referred to in the above manner aside from the fact it didn't use the exact terms I did. In which case your argument is semantical.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And that half of all Irish males engage in binge drinking.
DAMN THOSE DRINK ADDLED STUDENTS!

brianthebard

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My theory is this. Students don't have respect for their education because they're not paying for it. Even I have this attitude of a time. I wake up at half 7, Im tired, look Ill take the morning off. If I was paying for it I would have a different mindframe. My money (or my parents money or the banks money) is being used to pay for my Uni so I better make the most of it. Would ye disagree with this train of thought?

Students do pay for their education though. If they receive a full grant it will just about covers students accommodation based on a 9 month period in college. Meanwhile they still have to pay for books and registration fees, as well as generally keeping themselves alive. And if they don't have a grant the cost increases. The entire premise of this thread seems to be that college life is too cheap, so might as well bring back fees. But students obviously still have a financial burden, adding fees to that won't do anything except stop more people going to college.
Its been shown before that the people who benefited most from free fees were those who needed them least, ie the richer sections of the population. If you wanted to bring back a tiered system of fees which would still allow free fees for the less well off then I'm all for that, but connecting this issue with alcohol abuse is pretty laughable.

Eliot Rosewater

brianthebard wrote: »

The entire premise of this thread seems to be that college life is too cheap, so might as well bring back fees.

I think youve missed what I was trying to get at. Reintroducing fees so that students wont have money for alcohol is not was what I meant. I think they should be reintroduced so as to make students respect their education more. I dont think drink is the problem in isolation. I think that in general students dont have a high enough respect for their education.

My comments are probably misleading given that the main discussion on this thread concerns alcohol.

How would you feel about a system that had the student paying fees for the year previous if they failed? That is to say; one only gets free fees as long as one passes the end of year exams.

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

Students do pay for their education though. If they receive a full grant it will just about covers students accommodation based on a 9 month period in college. Meanwhile they still have to pay for books and registration fees, as well as generally keeping themselves alive. And if they don't have a grant the cost increases.

I would broadly agree, but having spoken to many overseas students (particularly US) - many leave third/fourth level with mortgage-sized debts. I find that those who genuinely struggle with costs (and I do agree an ineffective unregulated grant system is partly at fault) are the ones who come asking for help. Students without valid excuses (many of whom do fall into the 'borderline' category - one which recently has been made even more difficult to fall below due to changes in cross-module compensation) have a much easier time of it - there needs to be some middle ground.

brianthebard

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think youve missed what I was trying to get at. Reintroducing fees so that students wont have money for alcohol is not was what I meant. I think they should be reintroduced so as to make students respect their education more.

Fair enough but my point is still the same, students already have a financial burden so why should adding to it make a difference? You respect your education or you don't, there are many ways of improving students approach to their education but I don't think extra costs is the way.

How would you feel about a system that had the student paying fees for the year previous if they failed? That is to say; one only gets free fees as long as one passes the end of year exams.

This is already the case, if you fail you have to pay fees to repeat, or repeat externally, which means you only pay for exams but can't attend classes/lectures.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OldJay

Gurgle wrote: »

A large proportion of people have a few pints once or twice a week

Yes but anyone in receipt of any social assistance funding is to refrain from any sort of partying whatsoever. In fact, maybe they should just refrain from spending money on anything deemed to be a 'luxury' (according to some here)

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is it usual for a mod to start a thread with a quote from a poster other than themselves?
Donegalfella used a quote from kickoutthejams in the above OP. Is this usual.
Is this thread going anywhere, what's it trying to accomplish?

It's possible I might be ruled out of order for even posting this, but there you go:cool:.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.