"The Knowledge Economy" - A Political Myth?

jmayo

RichardAnd wrote: »

The knowledge economy, or smart economy is, in my opinion, something fabricated to give people hope, or at least the illusion of it.

The idea that Ireland can be a nation of scientists and engineers is, frankly, laughable. Putting aside the sub standard education children receive in maths and linguistics and our graduates being sub par with the US and europe, the Irish lack the dedication as a whole to excell at something like this.

Don't get me wrong, there are some seriously clever people in this country but they are the minority. Most people can just no commit to something seriously enough to become good at it unless it involves drink.

So yeah, we can have our smart economy, and it will happen the week after we all stop drinking.

Ohh how true.

The whole knowledge economy is a fabrication as some other posters have mentioned to make us feel better about the fact we were loosing massive amount sof core manufacturing jobs.
Sure the cry went up "we are better than that", shure look at how many graduates we have, we are a knowledge economy.

Pity then that most of the the ones issuing these statements are donkeys who couldn't get a job cleaning the labs that they claim we will all be working in.

donegalfella wrote: »

Arguably we had some success in creating a knowledge economy in the 1990s. But over the past decade the concept has come to exist more in the fanciful imaginations of politicians than in reality.

In 2009, only 16 percent of Leaving Cert students took honours maths, an all-time low. Ten percent took honours chemistry, and 8 percent took honours physics. The points for university courses in science, technology, maths, and engineering have been plummeting for a decade—it now takes just 300 points to gain entry to a computer science degree in UCD, as compared to 445 points in 1999.

Moreover, the dropout rates for science and technology courses in this country are very high—almost 40 percent of students in sci/tech courses in DCU do not progress to their second year.

Until such statistics improve, we simply should stop dreaming of a "knowledge economy."

That really is scary and honours maths has become easier to the best of my knowledge.

I can see how the points vary depending on where the new batch of applicants believe the jobs are.
Circa 2002/2003 points for computer/electronic related courses probably fell as the ar** fell out of the real celtic tiger as the dotcom/telecoms bubble fell apart.

Simarly civil engineerings/quantity surveyor/architecture course points probably climbed post 2002 until 2008.

One argument I do have about this whole diverting the economy towards one area is I believe it does not work.
Look at UK post thatcher where manufacturing and heavy industry was obliterated.
BTW it wasn't just thatcher, the unions wrecked British industry in the 1970s.

The country lost a huge chunk of it's manufacturing companies that provied employment for normal workers, the ones who will never become scientists, chemists, engineers, etc.
For a country that led the world in engineering to abandon most of it was criminal.
UK decided that financials were the future, but look at them now.

The likes of France, Germany, Italy have hung onto engineering, manufacturing industry and these countries will probably have better long term futures than the UK.

We can't suddenly become an overnight knowledge economy or smart economy.
We need to start from scratch where we don't have the background, the dept of graduates or the real will to make the necessary short term sacrifices.

AARRRGH

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

the knowledge economy

The problem with "the knowledge economy" is the fact that is is unachievable. Most people are not capable of doing jobs which require a high level of academic ability.

For example, most people are not capable of being computer programmers.

What we need is a diverse economy with a decent education system and tax breaks for employers.

p1akuw47h5r3it

jmayo wrote: »

That really is scary and honours maths has become easier to the best of my knowledge.

Your right in saying this. I probably could have done honours Maths for the leaving Cert but didn't because there was no real point. I didn't need to do it. The course I wanted only needed pass maths and I was fine with all my other subjects so doing honours Maths would have been a waste of my time.

I know there are many students who aren't good at maths but most don't do honours because they have no real need to do it.

cleremy jarkson

I think the reason more students sat higher maths in their Leaving Cert 20 years ago, let's say, is because they had a better work ethic instilled in them growing up than the generation who sat the exam in 2009. The class of 1989 would have grown up not expecting to have any opportunities in this country unless they got the head down and worked their arses off to gain a place on one of the much more limited number college courses and hope that they could scrape by in college, hopefully with the help of a grant.


The mentality of school-aged kids in this country has become flabby; life has simply been too easy for them and they have simply been so many opportunities for them that everything about being alive just got easier.
And no, I'm not talking about extremely individual cases of family problems or whatever, which I can't possibly anticipate...I mean on average.
They get lunch money, for starts. There are lower numbers sitting the exam than there were back in 1989 as far as I know. So many bullshít pointless courses sprung up during the boom years that the points levels for every course dropped. Kids got their parents to fork out 30 quid an hour for grinds...the spoilt bastards. Leeson street easter courses...parents were happy to pay. The difficulty of hte exams have dropped enormously in recent years to accomidate for this flabby lazy attitude from students.

And before the exception case comes in (and they probably know they are the exception) yes, even for those whose parents are/ were on social welfare during the boom, they are/were much better off than their 1989 counterparts in terms of opportunities...the government practically bended over backwards to allow them access to third level education....their fees were payed, grants were given, part time jobs were plentiful....all they had to do was get a good leaving cert and bingo, sorted.

When I was in secondary a few years back only about 10% of my year sat the higher maths paper. When my brother sat it maybe a decade before, it would have been more like 30%. And the physcis and chemistry classes were packed, whereas in my time they were the emptiest 6th year classes, while biology had about 4 classes to accomidate all the stupid spoillt lazy arses not wanting to put in the effort needed to learn technical subjects.

Once again....not every single student had a bad work ethic, but 90% of them did.

maninasia

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem with "the knowledge economy" is the fact that is is unachievable. Most people are not capable of doing jobs which require a high level of academic ability.

For example, most people are not capable of being computer programmers.

What we need is a diverse economy with a decent education system and tax breaks for employers.

I agree with this. It needs to be easier to open a business, it's not easy when tax is going up and up and the regulatory requirements increase annually.
Education needs to be sorted also, more ability testing.

There are knowledge based economies in Asia, supported by large cohorts of skilled engineers, technicians and programmers. But a lot of people don't know there are also very capable business people, logistics, planners, project managers, sales and marketing managers etc. The successful companies always have a team approach. However even in 'knowledge economies' such as Korea, Singapore, Taiwan etc. a large sector of the population does not work directly in the economy and does not benefit. There is discussion on how the economies can be made more diverse to encourage tourism and services etc.

So a diverse economy e.g. Switzerland or US (if it wasn't mismanaged) would be the ideal. These countries are more stable and give more equal chances to all members of society.

Ireland has a great tourism sector. Huge potential for developing food sectod. Education for foreign students. Services sector including online services could grow immensely in coming years due to Irish people's natural affinity with this sector. Manufacturing and new enterprise need to be in there too of course....

Ireland is a small country though, if you are good at what you do there is a high chance you could do better elsewhere or have better opportunities for advancement.
Diversity is key.


A comment on the Leeson St grinds things, I took an Easter course, it was a revelation. The teaching style and explanations were 300% ahead of anything I had learned at my local CBS. It allowed people like me to get just a touch of what many private students get everyday.
I also took honours maths and remember spending 30% of my time studying it. Incredibly difficult and time consuming yet only a very minor boost to points . No wonder students soured on it. In addition it was taught in a way that had no insight into questions such as 'Why calculus was invented'. When I went to college I could have used these equations but I had no idea they had been invented for the study of movement and gravity , speed and acceleration. I didn't know how to apply what I had learned. Pity.....

RichardAnd

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem with "the knowledge economy" is the fact that is is unachievable. Most people are not capable of doing jobs which require a high level of academic ability.

For example, most people are not capable of being computer programmers.

What we need is a diverse economy with a decent education system and tax breaks for employers.

Agreed. Something the government and people in general fail to grasp is that a person can't really learn to be an engineering or scientist as some people are just not cut to fit that area.

I'm not saying they're stupid at all. I know a guy who is a wonderful piano player and a great musician in general but he has no grasp on maths. Is he less intelligent than a mathematician? Of course not, and that mathematician probably sucks at other, non -math subjects.

So when the government want people studying science and technology they should understand that sending 500 people out of school into software engineering will probably only produce a hand full of people who ever will become good programmers. Hence, the fatal flaw in the points system.

As for the data about 40% of people dropping out of science in DCU, I'd actually believe it to be larger. When I started in DCU in the not so distance past, there was 120(ish) people on my course; a computer science degree. Of those, only about 50 made it into second year and that, apparently, was high when compared to other years.

maninasia

IMHO, the government should not get too involved in things. The less they interfere the better. That means they don't charge as much tax and we can use our own money to spend as we wish.

Pay for our education so that it is valued and earned. Create a situation where working for yourself is better. Now it is indeed the situation where there is no govt. option for many jobs, but because of the way the casino economy has been operated taxes will increase thereby discouraging investment at the time when people are more willing to open new businesses and go for it themselves.
It's more likely people will emigrate instead...at least at the moment.

Mapsis

Thank God people are highlighting the fact that Ireland is the furthest thing from a Knowledge Economy that there is out there.
Its a front to make people feel like they are more important than they are. If we were a true knowledge economy we wouldnt have new so many people in construction- who are unemployed now and wont even go back to work cause they wont be paid what they feel they are deserved.
(Not a pot shot at people who work in this sector as, like many, I do myself) What other country could a bricky become one of Irelands richest men (gerry gannon )..of course now hes in NAMA!

All one needs to do is take a good look at Ireland. Ireland is a country of chancers. Not calculated risk takers. CHANCERS. Just think about any irish people you know who've moved to any other English speaking country and who's doing well for themselves...probably cause they are a fecking gangster. Ireland should do whats its good at. Pissising people off and still coming out smelling of roses. (I'm thinking of our 12.5% corp rate and our IFSC & Shannon free zones) Ireland should become the gaming centre of Europe for the likes of Paddy Power as gaming markets online are opening up all over the world.....but again, look at the public sector...all the nursing managers that we have..1 for ever 5 workers..and they are doing SFA and creaming the money for it....Ireland is maybe the dumbest country in Europe....all over central europe and Northern Europe people are way smarter and way nicer.

This country is ****ed! I'm, paying Ryanair an extra € 5.00 on baggage to check out of this **** pit!

MysticFred

ntlbell wrote: »

The problem is not just the studenets.

I went back to do a course at night recently and the standard of lecturing was a disgrace.

Can you name the college?

AlekSmart

All one needs to do is take a good look at Ireland. Ireland is a country of chancers. Not calculated risk takers. CHANCERS. Just think about any irish people you know who've moved to any other English speaking country and who's doing well for themselves...probably cause they are a fecking gangster. Ireland should do whats its good at. Pissising people off and still coming out smelling of roses. (I'm thinking of our 12.5% corp rate and our IFSC & Shannon free zones) Ireland should become the gaming centre of Europe for the likes of Paddy Power as gaming markets online are opening up all over the world.....but again, look at the public sector...all the nursing managers that we have..1 for ever 5 workers..and they are doing SFA and creaming the money for it....Ireland is maybe the dumbest country in Europe....all over central europe and Northern Europe people are way smarter and way nicer.

Surely worth a sticky ?

Mapsis has got it in ONE


Ans as for ......What other country could a bricky become one of Irelands richest men (Gerry Gannon ).

True Mapsis....cue the M&S theme music......."Not just any ordinary Bricklayer.....an M&S bricklayer......"

InReality

Yes it was a political myth. We had inward investment because if the tax rate. End of story. But no-one could say that so the KE myth was born...

Ok there may have been some good graduates in the 90's and we spend more on Uni's R&D now.
But the recent noises about grade inflation prove that the KE is complete bollox as a solution.

Welease

It's not a political myth.. it exists and many companies in Ireland are heavily involved in the knowledge economy.. The problem is the knowledge economy in Ireland has the same issues as our other industries... they vast majority of them are foreign companies, and continuing to expand in Ireland doesn't make financial sense due to our high cost.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

“The reintroduction of bonus points will send a clear signal to national and international industry leaders that Ireland is serious about developing a smart economy."

So why are they continually dumbing down the honours Maths course with schemes like "Project Maths"? Is that not sending out the opposite signal?

I think it would be interesting if the CAO system was scrapped. Then the Universities would effectively dictate the Leaving Cert curriculum. Instead of accepting a blanket "you need HC3 Maths" the Universities could say "you need a Maths course that has covered the following topics..." Then the secondary schools would have to provide a course that included those topics. No more dropping the difficult topics to increase the pass rate.

daithicarr

As i mentioned on another thread, we have and will have a huge number of unemployed for the next few years at the very least and we are going to have to pay social welfare payments for them anyway. why not extend back to education in a limited way, allow them to take up third level education courses and continue to recieve their social welfare payments so they can survive while they are retrained.

Granted not all of them can become programers etc, but a significant number could develp more relevant and more up to date skills which we will need if we are to have a knowledge economy.

Others such as gasfitter electricians etc could be reskilled in order to help design and make the sort of products they used to fit, for example gas fires, a lot of the ones i have come across from the continent have almost idiotic flaws, which some one with experiance with them could recognise and improve upon. we could use the experiance in the building industry to make and export products related to it ?

The whole education system could do with a radical overhall, i learned more in one year in a cramming school than i did the previous 5 in normal secondary schools. there should be more continual assesment for both secondary and third level , which would mean your whole academic career wouldnt be decided on a couple of hours and you wouldnt be able to fob off till the end and hope to scrape past.

RichardAnd

daithicarr wrote: »

As i mentioned on another thread, we have and will have a huge number of unemployed for the next few years at the very least and we are going to have to pay social welfare payments for them anyway. why not extend back to education in a limited way, allow them to take up third level education courses and continue to recieve their social welfare payments so they can survive while they are retrained.

Granted not all of them can become programers etc, but a significant number could develp more relevant and more up to date skills which we will need if we are to have a knowledge economy.

Others such as gasfitter electricians etc could be reskilled in order to help design and make the sort of products they used to fit, for example gas fires, a lot of the ones i have come across from the continent have almost idiotic flaws, which some one with experiance with them could recognise and improve upon. we could use the experiance in the building industry to make and export products related to it ?

The whole education system could do with a radical overhall, i learned more in one year in a cramming school than i did the previous 5 in normal secondary schools. there should be more continual assesment for both secondary and third level , which would mean your whole academic career wouldnt be decided on a couple of hours and you wouldnt be able to fob off till the end and hope to scrape past.

That's already happening, some people have been allowed to go to college and stay on the dole. There also is training available through FAS but the problem is that alot of people won't do it. Also, and this is my opinion, FAS with the WPP scheme probably keep people out of real work more than they get them into it.

daithicarr

the FAS courses dont really seem that great they are a good starting point , but a lot of the ones i have seen seem to still be geared towards the building trade

jmayo

One of the problems with Ireland and Irish society, which manifested itself massively during the construction bubble is we have always moved towards construction as a means of making it.

Most of the so called successful emigrants that went to the US and UK in particular became successful through construction.

This mindset was taken home, readily adopted by the ffer politicans in particular and even worse the bankers.

Our nations idea of an entrepreneur has become someone that builds housing estates and shopping centres.
Take out the likes of Micheal O'Leary, Tony Ryan, michael smurfit, Dermot Desmond, denis o'brien, Denis Brosnan and who do we have ?
Even then some of the above have always had a very cushy connected relationship with politicans and some of their deals would be questioned a lot more in other more regulated countries.

sean quinn made his money out of the construction industry (sand, cement and later radiators) and then moved into what is considered the lesser idea of an Irish entrepreneur, being a publican.
His foray into Insurance was somewhat successful until his abismal banking failures ruined that.

Still we have people talking about construction and rehiring the multitudes that work in the area in reconfiguring out houses for energy efficiency.
This is somehting that could be done but can people let go the idea of once again relying on this one industry.

This country needs a huge mindset change before we become a smart anything.

daithicarr

hmm maybe we can knock all the houses we built the last 15 years and just start all over again . 90% of the are **** and will be even worse 40 years down the road

_tony_

Am not too sure about a 'knowledge economy' - what we need is an 'accountable economy', where people of all ages will not have automatic endless 'entitlements'.

The good times made things too easy - and our current education system teaches people that they're entitled to free/cheap education, they're entitled to goto any Univeristy if they get enough CAO points, they're entitled to never turn up to lectures, they're entitled to slow down the lecturers pace as they missed classes...... Most of these people get a smack in the face when they finish college - they are not 'entitled' to get a job. Some who do get jobs go on thinking that they are 'entitled' to have a job for life, at a salary they deem to be fair, or they'll go on strike and hold the country to ransom.

Free/Cheap education is critical, but why shouldn't this be performance based? In University/College if a student got 60% or higher average for a year - give them free education! if someone averages 50% - let them pay a modest fee - maybe 1-2k. If someone just scrapes it by - with a 40% average - let them pay a bit more...3k or something. The people who really want to be there, won't have to pay. The people who are only half bothered can pay to show they want to be there.

Lecturers need to be evaluated based on their students. Currently publications and funding is how these people are evaluated. Students don't matter (thus the quality of lectures and supervision). Promotions are granted based on funding, publications and administrative tasks - surely the students are more important! I recently heard that some of the top US universities are starting to phone students ...if someone applies for a lecturing job the Uni will track down some of their past degree/ PhD students and phone them for comments on the teacher... great idea if you ask me. if an unusual amount of students fail a course, the lecturer should be asked why. if a PhD with tax-based funding takes 5 years and is not finished, the supervisor should have to answer for this.

Until our education system teaches students how to be responsible and accountable we are going to stay in the same place we're at now.

southsiderosie

_tony_ wrote: »

Lecturers need to be evaluated based on their students. Currently publications and funding is how these people are evaluated. Students don't matter (thus the quality of lectures and supervision). Promotions are granted based on funding, publications and administrative tasks - surely the students are more important! I recently heard that some of the top US universities are starting to phone students ...if someone applies for a lecturing job the Uni will track down some of their past degree/ PhD students and phone them for comments on the teacher... great idea if you ask me. if an unusual amount of students fail a course, the lecturer should be asked why. if a PhD with tax-based funding takes 5 years and is not finished, the supervisor should have to answer for this.

Until our education system teaches students how to be responsible and accountable we are going to stay in the same place we're at now.

Just a few points...

The reputation of a university is built on its research output, not if 19 year-olds "like" their professors. Some of the most popular profs with students are pretty lazy researchers. In the US, people have the option of attending liberal arts colleges like Amherst or Oberlin if they want small classes and attentive faculty for their undergraduate education (not sure if these exist in Europe?). Many of these are great schools - and have good placement records when it comes to jobs and/or getting into graduate school - but they are not research universities.

Research universities matter, especially those with an engineering or medical component, because they do a lot of the basic and secondary research that drives innovation. They also are increasingly critical economic actors, as they are a major source of jobs that range from highly technical, to clerical, to basic services. To be honest, this is why I think the "knowledge economy" is bull**** - there are very few high-flying, high paying jobs at the core, and an awful lot of ****ty service jobs that revolve around the needs of those at that core. Saskia Sassen writes about this in "Global Cities": basically these kinds of jobs end up concentrating in a few megacities like New York or London, and in the meantime, the middle-class base is driven out by high costs, and an underclass of poorly paid service workers live in near-poverty. In addition, these cities are a "talent suck": other areas lose their high-flyers to a few regional hubs (this is actually why there is a strong argument against small countries having fully publicly funded tertiary education: they lose a lot of their best educated to other countries whose taxpayers did not underwrite that fine education!).

Also, from this perspective, the opinions of undergraduates are of little importance. NO major research university in the US consults with undergraduates when making hiring decisions. And I say this having participated in discussions around search committees. MAYBE if there is a lateral hire the committee will ask former graduate students who worked under someone if they are a complete psychopath (or to clarify issues around sexual harassment, etc), but that's about it, and only in extreme cases.

Finally, as for students being responsible, they are more likely to be responsible when they are working on their own dime, and not on the taxpayers. I firmly believe that students should be responsible for shouldering a significant percentage of the cost of their education. Yes there should be means-tested aid, but having a financial stake in your education makes it more likely that you will a) graduate on time (whether an undergrad or graduate), and b) you will major in something that you care deeply about, or that will lead to a job upon graduation.

_tony_

southsiderosie wrote: »

Just a few points...
The reputation of a university is built on its research output, not if 19 year-olds "like" their professors.

Also, from this perspective, the opinions of undergraduates are of little importance. NO major research university in the US consults with undergraduates when making hiring decisions. And I say this having participated in discussions around search committees.

I agree with your comment about students would be better if working on the own dime.

At no point did I mention 19 year old students being consulted. I said people with degrees/PhD. Of course, if at the degree level I would only think the students opinion is important is if it was in a final-year supervisory role. I certainly do not think people should be asked if they "like" their supervisor, but they should be asked if the supervisor made time for them, and gave them advice. This of particular importance to PhD students who are funded by tax-based sources.

Under our current set up, there is little motivation for professors to meet with, or advise students. Instead, they are encouraged to deal with University administration and apply for bigger grants. Whether a prof actually meets with and advises their students is up to the prof. Some do it, some don't. The University and funding sources don't provide any motivation for them to do this.

I assume from your comment that you are staff in one of our Universities. While I'm certainly not trying to put you down, I do think that the fact that you argued the idea of past students being consulted, yet you did not argue against my other comment of "students don't matter" - re-enforces my beliefs.

southsiderosie

_tony_ wrote: »

I agree with your comment about students would be better if working on the own dime.

At no point did I mention 19 year old students being consulted. I said people with degrees/PhD. Of course, if at the degree level I would only think the students opinion is important is if it was in a final-year supervisory role. I certainly do not think people should be asked if they "like" their supervisor, but they should be asked if the supervisor made time for them, and gave them advice. This of particular importance to PhD students who are funded by tax-based sources.

Under our current set up, there is little motivation for professors to meet with, or advise students. Instead, they are encouraged to deal with University administration and apply for bigger grants. Whether a prof actually meets with and advises their students is up to the prof. Some do it, some don't. The University and funding sources don't provide any motivation for them to do this.

I assume from your comment that you are staff in one of our Universities. While I'm certainly not trying to put you down, I do think that the fact that you argued the idea of past students being consulted, yet you did not argue against my other comment of "students don't matter" - re-enforces my beliefs.

I'm not. I'm based at a major US research university, but am visiting an Irish university. So my comments are based on the US model, where, to put it frankly, students don't matter that much in the greater scheme of things. But there is a trade-off; the more prestigious the supervisor, the less time they will probably have for you, but the more likely you are to get a good job. The best researchers often get the best students, even if they aren't the nicest (or most punctual) people. Honestly, the most important thing about your relationship with your supervisor is did they help you get a job (or grants, or whatever). If they can do that, the fact that they don't return email, or forget about meetings is secondary (and here I am speaking from experience - I know for a fact my advisor and committee members opened doors for me by virtue of the power of their reputation, even though they were terrible about meetings, email, etc).

The bigger problem with the European university system, as I see it, is that they are severely underfunded, and the students act overly entitled yet are incredibly unfocused. I used to admire the "free uni" system until I saw it up close. You get what you pay for.

Spudmonkey

_tony_ wrote: »

Free/Cheap education is critical, but why shouldn't this be performance based? In University/College if a student got 60% or higher average for a year - give them free education! if someone averages 50% - let them pay a modest fee - maybe 1-2k. If someone just scrapes it by - with a 40% average - let them pay a bit more...3k or something. The people who really want to be there, won't have to pay. The people who are only half bothered can pay to show they want to be there.

Thats a great idea. Why should good students be lumped into the same group as dossers. And why should dossers be subsidised by the taxpayer. If they want to waste four years in college, let them do it on their own dime!

Eliot Rosewater

Some good suggestions here. Over in the UCC forum a fee for repeats was suggested. This would encourage students to attend classes and study lest they have to fork out some cash. You could also look into making the free fees conditional. If you fail x amount of modules in the Summer, the percentage of your fees paid for the rest of your degree is reduced by an amount proportional to x.

Of course the students unions would oppose this. In the UCC department of medicine, students have to attend a certain percentage of their lectures to pass. One of the candidates for the student union presidency this year wanted to reduce this percentage to 50%. I was thinking, why are you attending only 50% of your classes? But clearly this kind of slacking off is the sort of thing the unions want to protect.


The entitlement culture is, quite frankly, frightening. It's hard to even talk about fees with my fellow students. They are under the impression that the University is there for them and that they have some God given right to attend for free. When the college introduces some fee they take it as the college exploiting them or something (usually the word "profiteering" is thrown out) - "what gives the University the right to charge me?"

The priorities are all messed up. Their main goal is not getting a degree of good international standing. It's to get their degree for free.

_tony_

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The entitlement culture is, quite frankly, frightening. It's hard to even talk about fees with my fellow students. They are under the impression that the University is there for them and that they have some God given right to attend for free. When the college introduces some fee they take it as the college exploiting them or something (usually the word "profiteering" is thrown out) - "what gives the University the right to charge me?"

The priorities are all messed up. Their main goal is not getting a degree of good international standing. It's to get their degree for free.

I do think it is very important for there to be a free path through university. Regardless of how poor one's family is, it should be possible for them to attend uni (as long as they are there to apply themselves). What you say is spot on, the sense of entitlement is the real issue.

The sense of entitlement is so widespread. Finding the solution to it will play a major part in the recovery of the economy, and the growth of our universities. We need the attitude of students to change from 'Im doing uni cos i'm entitled to it' to be 'I want to go to uni and I want to achieve my goals', and when students are eager to learn, it's up to the lecturers to encourage them in absolutely every way possible.

I'm not too sure that such a change can happen quickly though. Most universities that have a significant amount of research see students as "something that doesn't matter much", meanwhile the students themselves are 'entitled' to go to uni to attend a minimum number of classes and collect their degree....(which they may also be entitled to).

Eliot Rosewater

_tony_ wrote: »

I do think it is very important for there to be a free path through university.

Agreed. At the moment there isn't a tradition in this country of saving up for one's child's education, and this lack of foresight could hurt the prospects of many children.

One solution often proposed is a graduate tax. People are taxed at a higher rate until a certain percentage of their fees are paid off. Fine Gael support this I think. It don't know if it's practical or not, but it strikes me as a good solution for people who can't pay up front.

I'm completely despondent about the culture of entitlement. I don't think it's going away at all. It is the single greatest factor in my current desire to move abroad. I feel it's holding me and this country back.

thebaldsoprano

It's funny, I was anti fees while studying for my first degree. I'm studying for degree #2 at the moment, working ~40 hours a week to pay for it and have completely changed my outlook. The drop out rate among the free fees group was around 40% last year, largely from people not giving much of a damn. Among those of us who are paying only one student dropped out - for some very legitimate family reasons and they plan to return. A couple of tutors commented the those of us paying are producing more work of a better quality than the free fees bunch, despite the time constraints we have.

I guess paying for a third level education reminds you of the privilege that it is, something that is completely lost on a lot of students. Some of these students might argue that they wouldn't be able to attend college if fees were introduced, but funding and accessibility are two different problems. Government or college sponsored student loans are one possibility, or even some form of subsidies, but asking students to cough up a reasonable amount towards their education might help focus their attention. At this stage, I'm getting a little tired of putting up with reduced library hours and the like so that a new bunch of first years can go on the piss for a year.

kuntboy

Might help if Irish students went to uni a little older. Then the partying is out of their system, they're more likely to pick the right course and work a bit harder. Compare the attitude of mature students to 1st years who did their leaving 6 months ago. The CAO system is a joke also and puts the wrong people in the wrong professions.

MisterAnarchy

Knowledge Economy = Myth
There is almost no R&D in Ireland .
As for the research carried on in Irish Universities,it is pathetic and shameful by International standards.