Third-level fees have to come back

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

amen wrote: »

a dreadful idea. There is a big difference between a University and an IT offering certs/diplomas.

As for each campus specialising a lot of research is cross discipline and it can be an advantage to have everyone on the same campus.

Even at undergrad level you may be taught the basics about other courses with lecturers from those courses.

I can see the point that IT or Engineering students benefit from a grounding course in management theory etc. but given the level those courses need to be taught at is effectively '101' using the best available lecturers to teach them is a misallocation of resources.

Perhaps using visiting lecturers from the 'average' universities or the local I.T. to provide these course modules would make more sense than each university having it's own Commerce Department etc.

PeakOutput

granturismo wrote: »

but when has one research project from Ireland benefitted a single cancer patient or saved a region's crops from infestation using natural predators instead of pesticides.

ucd / trinity / ul / ucc have made very significant contributions to science and health. much as i think they can be imroved over all there are some outstanding researchers in departments across the country

trinity in particular played a huge roll in the mapping of the human genome

trinity also researched and built parts for some of the nasa satallites(i think it was the sattellites i cant remember exactly)

PeakOutput

Sleepy wrote: »

I can see the point that IT or Engineering students benefit from a grounding course in management theory etc. but given the level those courses need to be taught at is effectively '101' using the best available lecturers to teach them is a misallocation of resources.

Perhaps using visiting lecturers from the 'average' universities or the local I.T. to provide these course modules would make more sense than each university having it's own Commerce Department etc.

you misunderstand the difference

universities are charged with the advancement of knowledge(ie research)

it's are charged with the teaching of current knowledge(basically)

and while the lines are blurring those are the two fundamental ideas that each comes from

a computer course is equally at home in a university as an it but the approaches to teaching it will generally be very different

Flamed Diving

PeakOutput wrote: »

ucd / trinity / ul / ucc have made very significant contributions to science and health. much as i think they can be imroved over all there are some outstanding researchers in departments across the country

trinity in particular played a huge roll in the mapping of the human genome

trinity also researched and built parts for some of the nasa satallites(i think it was the sattellites i cant remember exactly)

AFAIK, UCC has one of the world's top biochemistry departments/research.

Sleepy

Nope, get the difference, in fact suggesting an extra tier!

I don't see that a university student requires top level researchers to educate them in the 'add-on' modules to their course. An engineering undergrad is well served by getting an understanding of some project management theory, an IT student does well to learn the basics of accounting etc. They don't require high level instruction in either of these in order to gain a world class degree in their core discipline. It makes sense to me that having a university (such as MIT) focusing on a single area will lead to a greater grouping of academic talent in that university, this should lead to better research (through collaboration) being done AND students in those discipline having a better standard of lecturers / phd advisors available to them within that institution.

PeakOutput

Sleepy wrote: »

It makes sense to me that having a university (such as MIT) focusing on a single area will lead to a greater grouping of academic talent in that university

mit has a business school ranked in the top 5 in the world

im not closed to the idea of specialisation necessarily i just dont think its necessary and in some cases(my course for example) courses must be multidisciplinary.

in the design of user interfaces for example understanding psychology is just as important as programming ability

Sleepy

Might we be better served by consolidating all our universities into a single location? We could base it in Leitrim and use the NAMA over-stock to provide housing for the students

The main thrust of my argument is that we currently have lots of small, underfunded, average universities and IT's. Given our size as a nation (and economic reality) we can't hope to turn all of these into glittering beacons of academia. By focusing our efforts and resources on one or two of them, I think we could realistically hope to have one institution in the top 20, develop our best and brightest to their full potential and, by focusing on the more montisable areas of research and study (i.e. science and technology, business, etc. rather than the humanities), provide graduates capable of attracting the high-end FDI and (perhaps in association with the IDA) creating our own native industries in the much touted 'knowledge economy'.

I take your point that there's a danger in over-specialising but right now we have 7 universities, 13 IT's (and DIT which seems to fall somewhere between the two) trying to be all things to all people in a country of less than 4.5 million people. Looking briefly at http://www.cao.ie/courses.php for level 8 business courses (and removing things like 'equine business', 'bar management' or courses that are primarily law / engineering etc. I count 136 different business degrees open to applicants in 25 different institutions! I think we can afford a little specialisation of campuses!

Kiwi_knock

If fees were introduced I would be able to afford them (albeit with a curbing of leisure and giving up any hope I had of moving out) but I do not agree with those who argued that students whose parents earn under a certain amount should not have to pay. This is distinctly unfair and I do not believe it would bring an end to students giving a go at first year but spending most of the time partying and then dropping out. If we are to pay everyone should pay, no matter their background. Of course we would not all have to pay at the same time but everyone should have to pay back for their education.
There should be an increase in scholarships, colleges should be going into secondary schools and looking for the brightest talents that this country has to offer.

Sandvich

rightwingdub wrote: »

They can work for a few years, save up quite a bit of money and then go to college say when they are 21 or 23, mature students tend to have more appreciation for the courses they are doing than a lot of 17 or 18 year old kids.

I don't understand the right wing obsession with pushing people into crappy jobs when it's not necessary. I wouldn't have have been able to work at that age, due to a number of issues(I even found college difficult). A lot of people who end up working to save up to college end up staying put there and miss out.

Also your ageism is ridiculous. I've met plenty of 21 or 23 year olds who are just as immature. I hated most other students when I was in college but the only reason the "Older" ones were any better was because they were in 4th year and dead busy.

IrishTonyO

Sandvich wrote: »

Also your ageism is ridiculous. I've met plenty of 21 or 23 year olds who are just as immature. I hated most other students when I was in college but the only reason the "Older" ones were any better was because they were in 4th year and dead busy.

well it looks like it is you, that is the one with problem if you hated most other students.

Byron85

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

If fees were introduced I would be able to afford them (albeit with a curbing of leisure and giving up any hope I had of moving out) but I do not agree with those who argued that students whose parents earn under a certain amount should not have to pay. This is distinctly unfair and I do not believe it would bring an end to students giving a go at first year but spending most of the time partying and then dropping out. If we are to pay everyone should pay, no matter their background. Of course we would not all have to pay at the same time but everyone should have to pay back for their education.
There should be an increase in scholarships, colleges should be going into secondary schools and looking for the brightest talents that this country has to offer.

No matter what way you look at it, someone from a middle to upper middle class background is going to be less straddled with debt compared to someone from a poorer working class background.

The whole education system needs shaking up; especially second level education. I concur with a previous poster that people should not be going on to third level education until they are at least 20 or 21. Kids, and that's what they are, should not be rushing into an education system that is so keen to spew out people who never actually "learn" anything and merely remember everything without thinking critically. Even at 20 or 21, your priorities and outlook on life are different compared to the 2 or 3 year previous.

PeakOutput

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

No matter what way you look at it, someone from a middle to upper middle class background is going to be less straddled with debt compared to someone from a poorer working class background.

no they wont

student loans can be used in conjunction with grants and scholarships to balance things out

everyone gets a student loan

people whose parents cant afford to contribute anything can get grants to cover some of the expenses

people who are very smart or gifted in other areas can get scholarships to cover some of the cost

their loans will not be as high as an average middle class student going to an average college

Byron85

PeakOutput wrote: »

no they wont

student loans can be used in conjunction with grants and scholarships to balance things out

everyone gets a student loan

people whose parents cant afford to contribute anything can get grants to cover some of the expenses

people who are very smart or gifted in other areas can get scholarships to cover some of the cost

their loans will not be as high as an average middle class student going to an average college

That's a good point and a good idea. Kudos.

monosharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The top three are; University of Cambridge (61), Harvard University (48) and Columbia University (37).

And never did I suggest Harvard didn't belong up there, my point was that the list as a whole is nonsense. Sure Harvard might very well be the 'best' University in the world. But the top 19 are most certainly not all American and British institutions.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_college_and_university_rankings_(North_America) for a small insight into this.

You might also like to check the list of nobel recipients carefully and note how many of the people receiving such awards in the US and the UK are from other countries. A huge draw to these people is the name of the university and the English language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

Take a look at the USA's list and see how many are immigrants.

I'm currently living in an Asian country where to be a professor in a University, having a PhD from an English speaking country's University is almost a requirement. A large part of that is simply to do with the English language itself.

My simple point which you dismissed is that the current rankings are corrupted and are nowhere near a true indicator of the 'best' institutions in the world. Your automatically putting non-English speaking countries universities at a disadvantage right away.

Are you honestly going to say that there isn't a single German, French or other University in the world that deserves to be in the top 19 ? Only the USA and the UK deserve it ?

PeakOutput

monosharp wrote: »

The top three are; University of Cambridge (61), Harvard University (48) and Columbia University (37).

And never did I suggest Harvard didn't belong up there, my point was that the list as a whole is nonsense. Sure Harvard might very well be the 'best' University in the world. But the top 19 are most certainly not all American and British institutions.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_college_and_university_rankings_(North_America) for a small insight into this.

You might also like to check the list of nobel recipients carefully and note how many of the people receiving such awards in the US and the UK are from other countries. A huge draw to these people is the name of the university and the English language.

I'm currently living in an Asian country where to be a professor in a University, having a PhD from an English speaking country's University is almost a requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

Take a look at the USA's list and see how many are immigrants.

so they attract the best talent,

they graduate the best talent,

their graduates are sought out all over the world,

but they arent the best universities on the planet?

Flamed Diving

Ok, let's look at an Asian ranking system then:

http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Third level fees should be brought back in some form or another. Though a government sponsored loans system would be a step in the right direction, I would also favour a situation where those who can pay up front should have to do so. .
.

and who (beside a very select few, even then read on to my bit about grants) can do that at the moment?

Flamed Diving wrote:

I strongly disagree. This is such a lazy attitude. I worked 27 hours a week, part-time at one stage during college.
I just don't get this kind of "I'm entitled" attitude.

fair play to ya for that, if you dont mind me asking though, how many hours of college did you have per week or did you miss some to do this amount of part time work

PeakOutput wrote:

indeed i can get a degree failing 4 modules a year for 4 years as long as my average is still a c

where exactly is this in practice? sounds bad in theory, but how many students can afford to fail 4 modules and still have c average? as far as i know in ul, where im studying, you fail the module, you get a 2nd chance in repeats, after that, tough luck.

Sulmac wrote:

Another thing I would do to reduce costs would be merge all universities/instituties of technology/colleges of further education/etc. in Dublin into a new "University of Dublin" and all those outside Dublin into a "University of Ireland" (or maybe a provincial basis - "University of Munster", etc.). Something similar to the current NUI set-up (even though NUI has been/is being abolished?), but with each campus specialising in a different field.

terrible terrible idea, what would happen to the inter college rivalrys, stuff like the sigerson cup/fitzgibbon would die as a result.
also, if you only had one college doing each area, standards would slip, not rise, competition to be considered the best in a field leads to improved standards


@people who say the lower class families will be protected by grants. the grant system is abused like hell, my neighbour gets a full maintenance grant while hes parents drive a 10 vw and himself in a bmw. Meanwhile, thanks to the inspiration in lowering the bands needed for a grant, i now miss out on a part maintanance grant by the princely sum of 300 or so euro. :mad:

PeakOutput

freyners wrote: »

where exactly is this in practice? sounds bad in theory, but how many students can afford to fail 4 modules and still have c average? as far as i know in ul, where im studying, you fail the module, you get a 2nd chance in repeats, after that, tough luck.

im in ul

less than 40% is a fail but you dont have to repeat if your average is a c or over

if you get less then 30% you have to repeat

you can have up to 2 compensations a semesters as long as your average is still above a c

this is ridicolous

PeakOutput

freyners wrote: »

@people who say the lower class families will be protected by grants. the grant system is abused like hell, my neighbour gets a full maintenance grant while hes parents drive a 10 vw and himself in a bmw. Meanwhile, thanks to the inspiration in lowering the bands needed for a grant, i now miss out on a part maintanance grant by the princely sum of 300 or so euro. :mad:

its been repeated over and over that with the introduction of fees would have to come a massive overhaul of the grants system

having said that there will always be people just under and just over the cut off points and thats just tough im afraid

freyners

PeakOutput wrote: »

im in ul

less than 40% is a fail but you dont have to repeat if your average is a c or over

if you get less then 30% you have to repeat

you can have up to 2 compensations a semesters as long as your average is still above a c

this is ridicolous

ah i thought something different sorry and thanks

freyners

PeakOutput wrote: »

its been repeated over and over that with the introduction of fees would have to come a massive overhaul of the grants system

having said that there will always be people just under and just over the cut off points and thats just tough im afraid

aye but really, will both happen at the same time or will they press ahead with fees and not reform it untill several years later.
as regards to my own situation, while i dont like the way im just about cut off, i can live with that, still galling when you see people like my neighbour abusing the sytem like that.
oh ya, just to put my own views out there, of course id love to see free fees continuing, but im practical, it cant continue. The deferred laon system could work, to saddle 20-40k on someone just leaving college is pretty hard to take.
One point id like to make. to those who bleat the "im paying taxes for your education". im guessing that many of ye also benefited from free fees or that your children have? if you/them were in college now would you still support it?

ilovemybrick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The simple fact is that if I could have gone to an Oxbridge college for the same cost as going to University in Ireland then I would have gone. I would have spent time out of the country and I would have developed an attachment to that country.

I agree that paying for an education makes sense, but why not be smart about it, and instead do so through a tax on graduates. To avoid the obvious scheme of simply emigrating post University, why not then offer a tax break over 20 years after serving a period of "graduate taxation" for 4. It will never pay for the education completely, but it will provide an incentive to remain here if graduates can see a benefit to remaining and being part of a much needed tax base.

The fees argument is short sighted in the extreme. What needs to happen is an investment in the quality of the universities and a move towards getting rid of the ridiculous assumption that everyone HAS to go to University and HAS to have a degree despite the fact very few will use that degree in the rest of their life.

In a country starved of an indigenous industry that can and will compete on the global stage the last thing this country needs to do is further alienate the generation who can innovate and establish these sort of industries.

In famine, the last thing you eat is your seeds.

mahamageehad

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Not all of us are eligible for grants despite the fact that daddy has barely any money! And there aren't that many jobs around for those not eligible for a grant to make money so what are we meant to do?! We have no choice but to take daddy's money.

I'm sick of people implying that the only people with money issues in college are those low income families on grants. there are plenty of us not eligible for various reasons that find it hard to survive and we don't have the benefit of the government's pockets. Not that i have an issue with people getting grants! i'm just sick of the insinuation that if you're not getting a grant you're getting daddys money and lots of it!



This is why the PRSI/tax system is being introduced. if we pay out of our wages, it's not a debt that is placed on us but a system in which we pay back for our education out of our salaries. It's less pressure for a start and has been successful in other countries

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you like that. What I meant is that there are a fair proportion of people who haven't earned a cent of their own, despite being in their 20's because the family is well off. I have a serious issue with the idea of "o your family made €200 too much last year, no grant for you". I know quite a few people in this situation. The bands should be higher and people with exceptional circumstances should be able to appeal. There is a guy in my class who's dad is quite well off. However he's gone from the family and doesn't contribute anything. He was turned down as his dad makes too much money, despite the fact that he isn't getting any of it.

In another twist I also know a few people who have had their accountants twiddle the books to get a grant for their kids. Despite the fact that they're loaded. The current grant system needs changing, i've never denied that.

PeakOutput wrote: »

the universities dont see that money the point is the universities need more money, much more, increasing taxes or talking about taxes at all dosnt address this.



most people in this thread, including myself, have specifically
explained ways that fees can be introduced without affecting the 'vulnerable' in anyway. there are very good reasons for providing tax breaks to the industries you have mentioned but thats an argument for another thread




if you get the grant there is no excuse for not being able to survive on your own. i work between 22 and 24 hours a week on minimum and that takes care of everything accept rent, if i was entitled to a grant i would probably not have to work at all and i could pay my rent. and by the way even while working i average a's and b's, i also have plenty of time for going out getting drunk and having the craic in the words of a 30 year old self made millionare 'make the time STOP WATCHING ****ING LOST'




thats a good idea to start with, it dosnt go nearly far enough though

People pay more taxes -> the country has more money -> more money can be spent on education.

There are very good reasons for providing tax reliefs to those industries?
There are also very good reasons behind free third level education

If i get the grant there's no excuse for not being able to survive? Lets do some quick sums:

The college term is Sept to May- roughly 30 weeks excluding holidays.
However your rent doesn't take a holiday, rent has to be paid all 40 weeks. So if we count the grant as a wage thats €85.50 a week.

Now my rent is €105 a week. And I do this funny little thing as well- I like to eat things sometimes. And I occasionally socialize. Now factor in bills, and college equipment (my course is pretty expensive). Of course, I'm not living near the college so there's the addition €20 travel money each week.

You work 22-24 hours a week? Must have very little hours in your course. Fair play to you though. You just need to understand that not everyone can do it. Sure some students don't want to. But what about those that can't find work? In first year college I worked 20 hours part time. This year however there is only 8 hours a week available. I haven't been able to get another job during term time. I don't appreciate being lectured about work when I haven't been out of a job since I was 15. I've always paid my own way, and sure I'm in a little debt now, but nothing major. However tuition fees? That would sink a lot of people including me.

Eliot Rosewater

freyners wrote: »

and who (beside a very select few, even then read on to my bit about grants) can do that at the moment?:

Besides those who can't pay up front, a fees system will encourage parents to save (shock horror!). Loans systems can be created either through the private banking system or the government.

freyners wrote: »

terrible terrible idea, what would happen to the inter college rivalrys, stuff like the sigerson cup/fitzgibbon would die as a result.

You know what? You're so right. Forget about wanting to create universities that are the best in the world. Forget science, engineering, technology and the rest of the future. Forget academics. What matters most in our third level education system is the Fitzgibbon hurling cup. The cornerstone. All else should be sacrificed for it.

Bang on the money.

Eliot Rosewater

ilovemybrick wrote: »

The simple fact is that if I could have gone to an Oxbridge college for the same cost as going to University in Ireland then I would have gone. I would have spent time out of the country and I would have developed an attachment to that country.

So clearly you don't value your third level education enough to pay a significant amount for it. But some of us do! And under the current system there's no opportunity for one university to "take the bull by the horns", charge large fees, and invest in its future with the goal of having a sterling international recognition.

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

People pay more taxes -> the country has more money -> more money can be spent on education.

i think its pretty obvious that taxes dont go were they are needed in the proportion they are needed

There are also very good reasons behind free third level education

not anymore there isnt

If i get the grant there's no excuse for not being able to survive? Lets do some quick sums:

The college term is Sept to May- roughly 30 weeks excluding holidays.
However your rent doesn't take a holiday, rent has to be paid all 40 weeks. So if we count the grant as a wage thats €85.50 a week.

Now my rent is €105 a week. And I do this funny little thing as well- I like to eat things sometimes. And I occasionally socialize. Now factor in bills, and college equipment (my course is pretty expensive). Of course, I'm not living near the college so there's the addition €20 travel money each week.

i meant working as well as taking the grant obviously. 285 a week is easy to live on even with expensive dublin rents and even if you half how much you work and you earn 100 a week you can survive on 185 a week no bother(i know i do some weeks)

Must have very little hours in your course. Fair play to you though.

i have more than most and less than some

PeakOutput

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Besides those who can't pay up front, a fees system will encourage parents to save (shock horror!). Loans systems can be created either through the private banking system or the government.



You know what? You're so right. Forget about wanting to create universities that are the best in the world. Forget science, engineering, technology and the rest of the future. Forget academics. What matters most in our third level education system is the Fitzgibbon hurling cup. The cornerstone. All else should be sacrificed for it.

Bang on the money.

in fairness the colleges atmosphere is a pretty important part of the overall thing aswell

mahamageehad

PeakOutput wrote: »

i think its pretty obvious that taxes dont go were they are needed in the proportion they are needed




not anymore there isnt



i meant working as well as taking the grant obviously. 285 a week is easy to live on even with expensive dublin rents and even if you half how much you work and you earn 100 a week you can survive on 185 a week no bother(i know i do some weeks)



i have more than most and less than some

Where did you pull €285 from??

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

Where did you pull €285 from??

85 a week from the grant

100 a week if you work 13 hours

200 a week if you work 26 odd hours(bang out a 10 hour day on a saturday or sunday on top of your 13 hours and you almost have it)

add up the amount of time you spend procrastinating and you will be amazed(if you come out of denial long enough)

its all about how much you want it

mahamageehad

PeakOutput wrote: »

85 a week from the grant

100 a week if you work 13 hours

200 a week if you work 26 odd hours(bang out a 10 hour day on a saturday or sunday on top of your 13 hours and you almost have it)

add up the amount of time you spend procrastinating and you will be amazed(if you come out of denial long enough)

its all about how much you want it

Ya!
You're right!!!
Thats exactly why people can't get jobs in the current climate.....
They don't want it enough!!!
It all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

I've already stated that I've been cut back to 8 hours a week. And haven't been able to find another job. Thats about €66. The grant comes in 3 chunks, not per week. And a sizeable chunk is paid on deposits for the house at the start of the year.

Nope I just have to want it more.

**Goes into back yard to plant €2 and waits for her money tree to grow, because she wants it**

I'm sorry but nobody seems to have any particular REASON why a well off family should not just pay for their own kids tuition, but also for 'Johnno's' down the road. Now I'm fine with well of people having to pay their fee's if it comes down to it, but lower income families should have to BORROW the money from the government to be paid back after college/university is completed.

Fees for ALL or fees for NONE is the only fair way.



edit: Sorry this reads like an article in The Sun, but you get the point :P

ilovemybrick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So clearly you don't value your third level education enough to pay a significant amount for it. But some of us do! And under the current system there's no opportunity for one university to "take the bull by the horns", charge large fees, and invest in its future with the goal of having a sterling international recognition.

Now, now, let not make assumptions. I studied what I wanted to study, where I wanted to study it and am more than happy about it both personally and from a career point of view.

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

Ya!
You're right!!!
Thats exactly why people can't get jobs in the current climate.....
They don't want it enough!!!
It all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

I've already stated that I've been cut back to 8 hours a week. And haven't been able to find another job. Thats about €66. The grant comes in 3 chunks, not per week. And a sizeable chunk is paid on deposits for the house at the start of the year.

Nope I just have to want it more.

**Goes into back yard to plant €2 and waits for her money tree to grow, because she wants it**

dont take things so personally none of what i said is aimed at you as an individual, you could be a medical student from a single parent family with 10 brothers for all i know

im talking about people in general

i still believe there are jobs out there but then i dont live in dublin anymore maybe id find things harder if i did

either way its irrelevant my solutions disadvantages no1 and improves education for everyone and if i can come up with it in 10 mins imagine how good a properly thought out one by experts will be

PeakOutput

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

iv suggested a completely workable alternative because the argument for free frees of 'just cause' dosnt cut it anymore

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Besides those who can't pay up front, a fees system will encourage parents to save (shock horror!). Loans systems can be created either through the private banking system or the government.



You know what? You're so right. Forget about wanting to create universities that are the best in the world. Forget science, engineering, technology and the rest of the future. Forget academics. What matters most in our third level education system is the Fitzgibbon hurling cup. The cornerstone. All else should be sacrificed for it.

Bang on the money.

Ya its soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to get a loan off the banks at the moment. great idea
And sorry if i dont trrust a government to have the ability to provide my loans for education when they couldnt find 10 million to provides shots against cancer:mad:

And sorry do you realise how much college costs. If we introduced fees on parents, 6-10k for fees, 3-5k per year for accomm, 1.5k per year on the reg fee, 2k+ per year on expenses. 1K for books, equipment etc. and you can definately put in another 1k in there for general things. at the lowest then, thats 14k per year PER CHILD. So my family, in practise,has to pay that for 12 years (3 children). Of course, it even isnt over 12 years as there is only 4 years between my and my two brothers. yup, thats easily attainable for all those familys saddled with a mortgage, and other loans, maybe if they dont feed themselves.(Note:All these are my own rough estimates)
(this is just my own pride here, luckily for my parents, they dont have to pay all of this, my brothers and i have been working since we have been able to and have the savings to pay for all but the hypothetical fees in this case):rolleyes:

so no, paying up front fees will not work, personally i would love to see free frees continue, so would most, but its not working.
a deferred loan scheme would work better than this up front nonsense, but would have major problems. Before anything needs to be done, as peakoutput said, the grant system needs major reforms.

Re: fitzgibbon. ill going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you just read what i said there and didnt read what it was in reply to. Here it is ..again.

Sulmac wrote:

Another thing I would do to reduce costs would be merge all universities/instituties of technology/colleges of further education/etc. in Dublin into a new "University of Dublin" and all those outside Dublin into a "University of Ireland" (or maybe a provincial basis - "University of Munster", etc.). Something similar to the current NUI set-up (even though NUI has been/is being abolished?), but with each campus specialising in a different field

I posted that as just one of the many points against the idea of merging all our universities/ITs into 2/3 ones. You would lose so much under that plan, not least the traditions like the fitzgibbon cup.
You would lose fresh ideas too, competition breeds efficiency and forward thinking as we try to outdo our rivals. You go on about the loss in science, engineering etc. Bullsh1t, the rivalry between the colleges creates advances in these fields as they try and outdo one another.
also

PeakOutput wrote:

in fairness the colleges atmosphere is a pretty important part of the overall thing aswell

hes right, college isnt just learning, one way to guarantee loss in your fields of excellence is to make it all about academic and no social outlets

Flamed Diving

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm sorry but nobody seems to have any particular REASON why a well off family should not just pay for their own kids tuition, but also for 'Johnno's' down the road. Now I'm fine with well of people having to pay their fee's if it comes down to it, but lower income families should have to BORROW the money from the government to be paid back after college/university is completed.

Fees for ALL or fees for NONE is the only fair way.



edit: Sorry this reads like an article in The Sun, but you get the point :P

It seems like people nattering on is not enough, and I agree. So I will offer a brief theoretical reason why it is a good idea.

I refer to a paper called "Income Distribution and Macroeconomics" by Oded Galor & Joseph Zeira (link below). I will spare you all the waffle and break it down. I must state that the authors were seeking to model income inequality through educational investment.

Ok, see this graph from the paper:



So, let's pick a few points and discuss them. The x-axis is wealth today, and the y-axis is wealth tomorrow.

1) Those individuals who inherit less than 'f' (poor parents) cannot afford to pay for new skills and nor can they pay for their children and on to infinity, thus we converge over time to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

2) Those individuals that inherit greater than 'f' but less than 'g' may have enough capital to invest in skills, but in the long-run their descendent also converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

3) 'g' is the critical point. Those who begin with an inheritance greater than 'g' will be able to invest in skills and see their descendants converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex].

In the long-run, you will have complete polarisation. But the important point is this. The higher the population of [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex] people, the poorer the entire economy is. So, by raising more people above 'g', you will make the whole country better off, in the long-run.

Remember, that 'g' is an endowment, so how do you achieve this? Well, transfers from [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex] (via government) is an option which we currently have in an extreme case, where all skills are paid for via transfer.

So remove the blanket fees, let those above 'g' pay for themselves and offer transfers to those below 'g' only.

Cheers.

http://www.isid.ac.in/~tridip/Teaching/DevEco/Readings/05Inequality/04Galor&Zeira-ReStud1993.pdf

quietsailor

PeakOutput wrote: »

wrong, they dont cherry pick individuals in general.

they set standards and if you meet those standards you can get in this benefits everyone int he college by keeping the standard of your fellow students high

they then cherry pick the best to give scholarships and grants to so no matter were you are from if you are smart enough you can get in

i dont see any problem with this

you are being judged completely on academic ability do you think there should be any other criteria examined for entry?
edit; i will say that there are times when people get in cause of who they know and being related to an alumni is a huge advantage. i dont believe that a brilliant student would lose their place because of this though.

There are/were other criteria being pushed on colleges in the US - see here http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm
Colleges were forced to admit nonwhite students over white students regardless of ability.

PeakOutput

quietsailor wrote: »

There are/were other criteria being pushed on colleges in the US - see here http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm
Colleges were forced to admit nonwhite students over white students regardless of ability.

yes but this unfair practice has rightly been stopped iirc

Einhard

If someone can afford it, I see no reason why fees should not be charged. Agree with the poster regarding the entitlement culture in this country, and as a dole scrounger I have first hand experience of it! :pac:

Seriously, from each according to their means, to each according to their needs and all that. If you can afford fees, you should expect to pay them. If you can't, then they should be waived. Personally, I think some form of loan system would be the most sustainable and equitable solution.

thebman

I think a graduation tax for people that have come from our universities makes sense TBH.

The only real difference between that and a student loan for fee's is the time over which it must be repaid.

I would have no problem paying a graduate tax to fund less well off students getting free third level education subject to penalties upon failure. I think if you fail a year, you should have to pay fees for that year and not for the repeat year which I believe would get rid of the college tourists who are there to get drunk and drop out. If they would owe the fee's for the first year and have an additional fee to pay to repeat they are less likely to take the risk and more likely to put in the work. This would either result in better students, less students and more income for colleges.

A graduation tax also has the benefit of the people that really can't get to college not paying for those that can afford the extra college fees etc...

Those that use the system pay. But I would require that colleges be more free from political interference which I think would come from graduates who are paying their extra taxes refusing to allow their qualifications become devalued by the state meddling and if it does occur, the state will then have to remove the tax and lose the graduate vote for screwing with their qualification and the votes of parents with kids going to college and the college students themselves which is a significant part of the electorate.

Eliot Rosewater

ilovemybrick wrote: »

Now, now, let not make assumptions.

I was only working off what you said:

ilovemybrick wrote: »

The simple fact is that if I could have gone to an Oxbridge college for the same cost as going to University in Ireland then I would have gone.

I interpreted that as meaning you didn't value your third level education enough to shell out the extra money to get a better degree. In retrospect, my mentioning of that was pretty pointless: I'm also studying in Ireland. My argument was that the system of free fees reduces choice as every student attends a "one-size-fits-all" university. In a system of paid fees certain universities can charge more and invest more, thus students who want a better education can pay for that.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

It's hard to say really. I think a major problem with this country is culture: parents don't save up for their child's education. This makes it very hard to revamp the system as you risk creating a "lost generation" who's parents didn't save up but who also didn't get state support.

I think some kind of loans system might be good, but if it's run by the government it will invariably be inefficient, what with people high-tailing to Australia etc. My ideal would be a full up front fees system, with private banks providing loans which obviously would have to be paid back. The government could become a "lender of last resort" for students from families with bad credit ratings.

The feasibility o that plan really depends on the banks. Would the banks be willing to loan €100,000 to students over 4 years?

Eliot Rosewater

freyners wrote: »

And sorry if i dont trrust a government to have the ability to provide my loans for education when they couldnt find 10 million to provides shots against cancer

But yet you do trust them to give you a degree for free. How very convenient.

freyners wrote: »

And sorry do you realise how much college costs

Yes, I'm attending university. College costs a lot because it takes a lot of resources to provide it; I don't think people should get a free ride. They should have pay for what society has given them. I understand that people are often not in a position to do this, which is why I would support giving everyone the opportunity to do it for free in the short term, once they pay back the government/bank later.

freyners wrote: »

Re: fitzgibbon. ill going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you just read what i said there and didnt read what it was in reply to.

I did read what it was in reply to. Sulmac made a pretty good suggestion regarding specialization and the meeting of minds. In the worldwide scale, the ability of our graduates to make a real impression on the various fields they are in trumps the Fitzgibbon hurling cup by a country mile.

freyners wrote: »

the rivalry between the colleges creates advances in these fields as they try and outdo one another.

And yet, Irish universities are doing awful on the international rankings. Would you care to explain why this is?

freyners wrote: »

hes right, college isnt just learning, one way to guarantee loss in your fields of excellence is to make it all about academic and no social outlets

Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem. Mr Wiles spent 7 years working on the proof in effective reclusion, and this is hardly uncommon in the field on mathematics (if you disagree I suggest you visit a maths department and try and talk to the people there).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

sounds enlightened. I'd be more nervous about selecting a pool of medical students for instance based purely on their ability to ace the leaving cert.

PeakOutput

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem. Mr Wiles spent 7 years working on the proof in effective reclusion, and this is hardly uncommon in the field on mathematics (if you disagree I suggest you visit a maths department and try and talk to the people there).

i agree with everything else you said but not with this completely

while you dont have to have great extra curricular activities it is preferable and the rivalries improve community

from the colours debates to the oxford cambridge boat race to some of the top colleges in the states also having top basketball and football teams it adds to the general 'health' of the college. even mit and harvard and the very top teams have extensive extra curricular activities

a happy balance if you will

also the reason i dont htink it should be a graduation tax is i dont trust the goverment to give all the extra money to the colleges. a loan were the payments are related to how much you eanr and you dont pay if you unemployed is the better answer i think as the colleges are guaranteed the money and not reliant on the moods of different goverments

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem. Mr Wiles spent 7 years working on the proof in effective reclusion, and this is hardly uncommon in the field on mathematics (if you disagree I suggest you visit a maths department and try and talk to the people there).

tbh ive never heard of him/or his law. Fair play to him for living years as a recluse but how many can manage it? simple fact is that most need a social outlet, or they'd crack up.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

But yet you do trust them to give you a degree for free. How very convenient.

they will make a shambles of it, anyways, read my view in that post, i would support the deferred loans scheme, if it was done right and not half-arsed as is there tendency.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

In the worldwide scale, the ability of our graduates to make a real impression on the various fields they are in trumps the Fitzgibbon hurling cup by a country mile.

So we should give up sport in the pursuit of academia? Which ties people closer together, theorums or matchs?
Im not saying that sport has a greater status than learning but i dont think such a drastic measure is workable, that only being one reason. What happens when someone wants to do....lets say medicine from donegal and the only place in ireland to do this in cork. some might do it but alot wont due to the geograhy, how many good minds are lost there?

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

And yet, Irish universities are doing awful on the international rankings. Would you care to explain why this is?

i can't, but ive learned long ago not to take them as serious as some people do. Im guessing they only take academic standards into account, very important, yes, but not the be all and end all.
according to rankings china is the most productive country in the world, does that mean we should follow there example in labour laws etc.

Eliot Rosewater

Yes I think social activity does contribute positively; I'm heavily involved in one society here in UCC and it has definitely improved my experience. However I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, and I don't think it should be the focus of university policy. freyner's comment was something to the effect of "Amalgamating colleges to concentrate like-minded academics together is bad because inter-college rivalries in GAA championships would be negatively impacted upon", and I was responding to that comment more so than yours.


I share the skepticism of government policy. The alternative is that banks would provide loans. Perhaps forum members more familiar with foreign educational setups with a private system could expand upon how funding works there.

Eliot Rosewater

freyners wrote: »

tbh ive never heard of him/or his law.

[LATEX]\displaystyle a^n \neq b^n+c^n[/LATEX] for any n, a natural number, bigger than 2. Whilst not of immediate apparent use, it was a maths question posed nearly 360 years before it was proved and it was probably the biggest deal in maths at the time. Wiki.

freyners wrote: »

Fair play to him for living years as a recluse but how many can manage it?

I was only using it to show that the generalization doesn't always hold true. There are other examples of recluses, such as author JD Salinger, but I suppose they certainly aren't the norm.

freyners wrote: »

So we should give up sport in the pursuit of academia? Which ties people closer together, theorums or matchs?

In fairness freyners, your post was to the effect that sport should be prioritized over academic pursuits in universities.

As regards tying people together, mathematics forms the backbone of engineering and has been used in the construction of everything from the first horse carts to the space shuttle, including all the normal kinds of transport in between. So I think that mathematicians win on that one.

freyners wrote: »

according to rankings china is the most productive country in the world, does that mean we should follow there example in labour laws etc.

Apples and oranges, to be honest. I think the rankings are important, and even if you don't, companies, other universities and job providers certainly do, and that's what matters at the end of the day.

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes I think social activity does contribute positively; I'm heavily involved in one society here in UCC and it has definitely improved my experience. However I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, and I don't think it should be the focus of university policy. freyner's comment was something to the effect of "Amalgamating colleges to concentrate like-minded academics together is bad because inter-college rivalries in GAA championships would be negatively impacted upon", and I was responding to that comment more so than yours.


I share the skepticism of government policy. The alternative is that banks would provide loans. Perhaps forum members more familiar with foreign educational setups with a private system could expand upon how funding works there.

dude i make no apology for saying that i value things like inter college rivalry but just read on after that point in my post, i believe that merging colleges would decrease standards, not increase them. Competition generally = improvements. It worked wonders in for things like transport, why wouldnt it work in education?

Australia has a type of deferred loan scheme in place, called the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, students borrow the money to pay for the tuition or if they are extremely lucky, they pay it up front.
The loans they get are called income contingent loans, which loans that are not repayed until your income passes a certain theshold, so if someone graduates and is unemployed for the first half year or so, there is no liability, when they find a job that pays below the income threshold, there is no liability either (as an example, lets say the threshold is 25k, and our hypothetical is earning 22k= no liability)
Say then the graduate gets promoted to a salary of 30k, this is passed the threshold and the repayments of the loan kick in, the graduate now pays a % of her income as repayment. Should her income drop below the 25k threshold again, the repayments are postponed.
this is different to the us style of student loans, where the graduate pays off the loan no matter hat her income is
The disadvantage to Australias loan system is that a % of earners never cross the income threshold and the debts are saddled by the lender.
A good examination of the us and oz style loans is here http://http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/10/02/the-us-college-loan-system-looks-odd-from-down-under/