Third-level fees have to come back

anymore

PeakOutput wrote: »

its not a subsidy we dont pay them anything we simply dont tax certain parts of their business, that is not subsidising them. in return they set up large business's here, bring in foreign investment and hire hundreds of workers who pay millions in taxes. as far as i know there is no tax break for the gambling industry so i dont know what your talking about there. paddy power pays the same taxes on his profits as any other company afaik



well you clearly have something against artists so i dont know if there is much point debating the point with you, but for every bono and u2 there are thousands of artists on the poverty line and people who make art for the love of it rather than monetary reward. again is it only the artist who dosnt pay tax dealers / galleries /auction houses all pay the same taxes as everyone and they wouldnt be there without the artists and there wouldnt be anywere near as many artists if they were taxed the same way as other employees. and thats just talking about strict monetary benefit of the break the social and cultural benefits are far greater

Well if you are going to debate points with me, could you try to equip yourself with some facts ?
Try this: from a paper by UCC on Government support for horse racing.
http://www.ucc.ie/en/economics/.. Conclusion

HRI receives a considerable amount of public revenue each year. The industry does
unquestionably play an important role in the economic and social aspects of Irish life
however so do many other sports, which fall under the remit of the ISC, and do not get a
fraction of the government support that horse racing gets. More importantly, this paper
has sought to highlight the fact that the distribution of funding by HRI is centred on
current expenditure, particularly in the form of prize money. Expenditure on capital
project would fit better with the goals of the Department of Arts, Sports & Tourism.
This paper has also sought to highlight the conflicting reality of the Department of Arts,
Sports and Tourism’s objective and HRI actions. The objective of “promoting of sport
and recreation, particularly in disadvantaged communities” is not being met by HRI,
instead the racing authorities are redistributing public monies towards well-off
individuals and wealthy foreign nationals. Either the Department’s objectives need to be

clarified or the subsidisation of HRI needs to be considerable reduced.


Now even if you were right that Government does not subsidise the racing industry ( and you are not right) refraing from taxing income on which tax would otherwise be payable is in itself a subsidy.

As for artis/writers on the breadline : read this slowly: there is no artist /writer on the breadline who would be paying income tax if there were no exemption. Low income people do not pay income tax regardess of thier occupation. Is that clear ?
I do a number of things for the love of them as do many citiznens - we do not ask other people to subsidise our pursuits - neither should artists/writers. They are not the very special people thay and thier supporters presume themselves to be
Subsidies tend to encourage crap art and writing - of the buying public isnt interested in buying the output of these people, there is probably a reason for it !
I note that the majority of artists.writers when and if they do start to make big money very quickly turn into geredy little capitalists !

anymore

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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

Meanwhile back in the real world...... Where were all the graphs before the recession ?

PeakOutput

is horse racing ireland a goverment body?

either way i take it back i thought you were talking about us giving money to breeders and other people in the industry just to be here

anymore wrote: »

Now even if you were right that Government does not subsidise the racing industry ( and you are not right) refraing from taxing income on which tax would otherwise be payable is in itself a subsidy.

you need to look up the definition of subsidy i think

As for artis/writers on the breadline : read this slowly: there is no artist /writer on the breadline who would be paying income tax if there were no exemption. Low income people do not pay income tax regardess of thier occupation. Is that clear ?
I do a number of things for the love of them as do many citiznens - we do not ask other people to subsidise our pursuits - neither should artists/writers. They are not the very special people thay and thier supporters presume themselves to be
Subsidies tend to encourage crap art and writing - of the buying public isnt interested in buying the output of these people, there is probably a reason for it !
I note that the majority of artists.writers when and if they do start to make big money very quickly turn into geredy little capitalists !

[/FONT]

wow someone is bitter

fair enough if you really think that the goverment is better of with the couple of mill extra it would get in taxes and without the thriving community of artists we have in the country thats your right. its still completely wrong

I do a number of things for the love of them as do many citiznens - we do not ask other people to subsidise our pursuits - neither should artists/writers. They are not the very special people thay and thier supporters presume themselves to be

what about sports people? do they deserve to be supported?

Einhard

Originally Posted by Eliot Rosewater
Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem.

And there I was thinking Lisbeth Salander solved that one. Just before she drove an ax into her father's head. Silly me...

monosharp

PeakOutput wrote: »

so they attract the best talent,

Undoubtedly they attract a quite substantial number of the best talent because of the factors that have been highlighted numerous times here. Their reputation and in the case of non-English speakers, the fact they use the English language.

Please note again I am not suggesting that Universities like Harvard, Cambridge etc don't belong in the top tier. My point is that there are plenty of highly reputable institutions from non-English speaking countries that are as deserving of their place in the top tier as many on that list.

they graduate the best talent

Please see my previous point about this. Yes you are right but the reasoning behind this is flawed. They graduate the best talent because the best talent comes to them for a number of reasons.

On a side note, like George W from Yale ? One of the best talents in business in the world ? A mind as sharp as a razor ?

These universities graduate the rich for been rich. Nothing to do with their talent.

their graduates are sought out all over the world

Of course they are, for the reasons already highlighted. Most of them, Harvard, Cambridge etc fully deserve it.

but they arent the best universities on the planet?

I didn't say they weren't the best institutions, I said the list was complete nonsense. I cannot argue with Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, MIT been up there in the top tier. What I am arguing is that there are plenty of Universities from other countries which deserve to be in the top tier as well. The list is completely biased in favour of English speaking (Western) Universities.

Or are you saying that theres not a single German, French, Swiss, Swedish etc University that belongs in the top 19 in the world ? I have asked this question many times and no one has answered it.

Do you think people who speak English as their native language are simply smarter then other people ?

Do you think someone who gains a science degree from Harvard or Cambridge is more talented then someone who gains one from Technical University of Munich or Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris ? Are they smarter ? Is their course 'better' ?

I'm currently studying for my PhD in a non-English speaking country, is it worthless ? Am I wasting my time ?

I had the chance to study in Ireland or the UK (in a University not far down this list) but I choose to study further afield, mostly for personal reasons but thats besides the point. How much lower is my PhD worth then someone with one from the US or the UK ? Am I wasting my time according to you ?

monosharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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

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

Whats your point ? I'm the one who provided that link previously.

PeakOutput

monosharp wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't the best institutions, I said the list was complete nonsense. I cannot argue with Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, MIT been up there in the top tier. What I am arguing is that there are plenty of Universities from other countries which deserve to be in the top tier as well. The list is completely biased in favour of English speaking (Western) Universities.

their criteria may well be biased but going by their criteria this is the list, i know there is a top business school in paris and a top it that rivals mit in india but overall? yes i believe overall these are pretty much the best univerisities in the world, thats not to say other ones arent good and other ones dont have great departments that would compare to departments in some of these schools but as a general rule i would say that yes this list represents reality, and for all the reasons we both listed.

Or are you saying that theres not a single German, French, Swiss, Swedish etc University that belongs in the top 19 in the world ? I have asked this question many times and no one has answered it.

wel i know that there is a french and a spanish school in the list of top business schools so i would say that if they were good enough by the criteria outlined by the people who make the list then they would get in, i dont believe there is a big conspiracy to keep non english speaking colleges out

Do you think people who speak English as their native language are simply smarter then other people ?

what has that got to do with anything? no1 has infered anything of the sort

Do you think someone who gains a science degree from Harvard or Cambridge is more talented then someone who gains one from Technical University of Munich or Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris ? Are they smarter ? Is their course 'better' ?

depends on the person and the degree obviously

I'm currently studying for my PhD in a non-English speaking country, is it worthless ? Am I wasting my time ?

no1 said that either jsut like no1 said that studying in trinity or ucd or ul is worthless

I had the chance to study in Ireland or the UK (in a University not far down this list) but I choose to study further afield, mostly for personal reasons but thats besides the point. How much lower is my PhD worth then someone with one from the US or the UK ? Am I wasting my time according to you ?

just because its not from the uk or us is not what would make it worth less

there are plenty of valid reasons that would make it worth more or less

either way i doubt your wasting your time and i dont even know why your bringing it up tbh as no1 said you were

the fact of the matter is universities are only as good as the people there and these universities attract the best people and are known for it and as a result no matter what country you are from or what language you speak the smart people are attracted to these colleges. it dosnt make the other colleges worthless it just makes it harder for them to compete

PeakOutput

monosharp wrote: »

Whats your point ? I'm the one who provided that link previously.

i assume his point is that your argument that the lists are biased is 100% wrong as the asians themselves rank the colleges just the same way and they have no reason to be biased towards them, quite the opposite in fact

anymore

PeakOutput wrote: »

is horse racing ireland a goverment body?

either way i take it back i thought you were talking about us giving money to breeders and other people in the industry just to be here




you need to look up the definition of subsidy i think



wow someone is bitter

fair enough if you really think that the goverment is better of with the couple of mill extra it would get in taxes and without the thriving community of artists we have in the country thats your right. its still completely wrong



what about sports people? do they deserve to be supported?

Bitter ?
Is there anything more stomach churning than artists writing to newspapers complaining about cutbacks when they have a tax exemption and previously paid no taxes at all ?
Well that is the morality of Irish artists -!
Thriving community of artists ? What does that mean ? Does it mean that if they paud tax at the same rate as others, they would no longer be productive or suffer ' creative blocks' ?
If that is so, you have little respect for them ! How much real art is produced in this country and how much is just poor quality pastiche of whatever Emin, Hirst etc are churning out for the gullible art collectors in the UK and Europe ?
A friend is having a clear out of his house next week, maybe there are artistic gems in there - a rusty old bedstead, crappy matresses, some old Action man toys - should be worth a fortune if some artists gather them into an intersting meaningful work of Art.

IrishTonyO

anymore wrote: »

Bitter ?
Is there anything more stomach churning than artists writing to newspapers complaining about cutbacks when they have a tax exemption and previously paid no taxes at all ?
Well that is the morality of Irish artists -!
Thriving community of artists ? What does that mean ? Does it mean that if they paud tax at the same rate as others, they would no longer be productive or suffer ' creative blocks' ?
If that is so, you have little respect for them ! How much real art is produced in this country and how much is just poor quality pastiche of whatever Emin, Hirst etc are churning out for the gullible art collectors in the UK and Europe ?
A friend is having a clear out of his house next week, maybe there are artistic gems in there - a rusty old bedstead, crappy matresses, some old Action man toys - should be worth a fortune if some artists gather them into an intersting meaningful work of Art.

and this has what to do with third level fees?

anymore

IrishTonyO wrote: »

and this has what to do with third level fees?

I though yiou werent replying to my posts anymore ?

Read back a little and you will see the connection.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why ? Many Colleges carry academic courses who's value is questionable, dont you think ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mickstupp

freyners wrote: »

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 sort of thing would make me very happy indeed. I have no problem with the idea of leaving college any amount of money in debt, as long as I have the opportunity to actually get the education I want.

PeakOutput

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes but for many of these athletes sport is the only way for them to get any sort of decent education as their academic results wouldnt get them in alone

i have certain issues with the ncaa but on the whole i think its a great system that helps alot of people and gives people a brilliant chance to compete at the top level(indeed it appears that peopel rpefer the amateur version of the sports as this years basketball ncaa finals had twice the viewing figures of last years nba final according to espn

also im not saying that the money from fees should be spent improving sports teams, at least not util the academics is sorted

Flamed Diving

anymore wrote: »

Meanwhile back in the real world...... Where were all the graphs before the recession ?

1) I knew that such thinking could not reach all people...

2) They were being produced by people you never heard of, and the government suggested should "take a swim". What was the term called... oh, that's right, "doom and gloom merchants".

Doom indeed.

freyners

mickstupp wrote: »

This sort of thing would make me very happy indeed. I have no problem with the idea of leaving college any amount of money in debt, as long as I have the opportunity to actually get the education I want.

Its the best alternative to what is existing at the moment but whether the government follow this idea or not is another issue. The rumours ive heard (and ill stress that rumours only) is that the bit about the should you wages fall below the threshold bit could be left out.
dont see why they would though, they australian system has been adopted by new zealand and other countries too.

Sleepy

freyners wrote: »

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.

So we should maintain a system of mediocre colleges/universities competing against each other instead of raising a handful of them to the standard where they could compete internationally?

I wouldn't be in favour of merging all our colleges but I'd imagine there's definitely some scope for economies of scale benefits from merging institutions that are currently operating within a stone's throw of each other e.g. DIT, DCU.

I'd be more in favour of having universities specialise, grouping the best talent we have in each area into the university that specialises in the field should, imho, improve the standard of research and lecturing.

anymore

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1) I knew that such thinking could not reach all people...

2) They were being produced by people you never heard of, and the government suggested should "take a swim". What was the term called... oh, that's right, "doom and gloom merchants".

Doom indeed.

And how was this information reflected in the benchmarking process and the very unseemly scramble by the heads of 3rd level colleges for ever more and more money to satisfy their greedy remuneration demands ?

Flamed Diving

anymore wrote: »

And how was this information reflected in the benchmarking process and the very unseemly scramble by the heads of 3rd level colleges for ever more and more money to satisfy their greedy remuneration demands ?

You're really not making any sense. At all.

anymore

Sleepy wrote: »

So we should maintain a system of mediocre colleges/universities competing against each other instead of raising a handful of them to the standard where they could compete internationally?

I wouldn't be in favour of merging all our colleges but I'd imagine there's definitely some scope for economies of scale benefits from merging institutions that are currently operating within a stone's throw of each other e.g. DIT, DCU.

I'd be more in favour of having universities specialise, grouping the best talent we have in each area into the university that specialises in the field should, imho, improve the standard of research and lecturing.

the real problem with mergers in 3rd level colleges is that it would diminish the number of top level positions such as presidents of College etc and our academics guard their positions and priviliges very jealousily and in this they will be supported by local TDS and Councillors.

hmm... where to start?

I'm completing a postgrad in Business Studies in one of Irelands IT's. I came back to Ireland just before the bubble crashed and was unable to find work. I'm also 33, a qualified credit controller, with over a decade in experience. I went on social welfare for three months, and then got a job, which ultimately paid less that the welfare payments would have provided (€160). But, hey, at least I had something to do. Then that job ended due to lack of business, and I was back to applying for welfare. And then I got admitted to college, which was rather nice.

I'm not from a poor family. We're what some of you would call middle class. Both my parents are retired teachers, and I'm lucky to be able to live at home while I go to college. So rent isn't a problem. And they're happy to have me at home, so feeding me isn't an issue.

I wasn't eligible for any grants. None at all. I could get paid to be unemployed but not to go to college. When the administration fee of €1500 came to be paid, I seriously considered not doing the course, because simply put, i didn't have the money. My parents came through in the end, because in their eyes, education is worth it. I got a part time job for the first semester, which brought in €50 a week, which helped for dinners, photocopying, etc. And then that job disappeared when the company went out of business. And the parents have picked up the tab and have since given me €50 a week to cover stuff.

Now a few points to make:
1) College is expensive. The living costs and education costs don't stop at the admin fee paid so you can sit the exams. Even 5 cups of coffee a week amounts to €9. Subsidized canteens are great, but dinner still costs €5-€7 a day. I haven't been drinking, or had much of any social activity since I started college since thats an unnecessary expense. (€50 a week doesn't last long, even when you ignore the weekends, and any transport)
2) My family might be middle class, but the money still has to come from somewhere. Its not just the poorer families that have issues with money, especially in the current economic climate.
3) I went back into welfare to sign up again since I figured it would be difficult to find work again when I graduated. (I've sent out resumes, had 4 interviews, and nothing.) They told me I wouldn't be receiving the full jobseekers, since it was 2 years since I had worked in Ireland. Never mind that I had worked and paid taxes for the previous 13 years prior to 2008... Those are the rules. (I had plenty of contributions prior to going back to college)
4) I have never received any welfare with the exception of those three months. I have also never received any medical care that my own private insurance didn't pay for. And I wasn't eligible for any grants when I first graduated 10 years ago. Simply put, I've paid a hell of a lot in taxes already in this country.

If fees had been instigated when I started college last year, I definitely wouldn't have gone back. Way too expensive when everything is factored in.

I Would be inclined for the fees to be applied against your PRSI contributions either in the past, or for those who haven't worked into the future. A portion of the total contributions spread over a period of years. At least then, both people who have been paying taxes could get some benefit, and those that haven't worked, can pay the fees back without their salaries being demolished by some "loan". - However, I still feel that Fees are a bad idea. This country is expensive enough as it is for just about everything else. Why make it even worse?

And just a interesting question to all those shouting loudly for the fees to be reintroduced.... Who paid for yours? Likely a lot of the people returning to college..

Two Last Points; if you really were concerned about the numbers going to college, and the costs involved, perhaps you should be calling for a tightening on the requirements needed to get into courses? The points needed to get into courses has continuously dropped across the board (my course is over a 100 points lower than when i did the LC), and the level of students being accepted into courses is shocking. Frankly, I was appalled at the level of English (written and spoken) of some of the students I participated in projects with this year.

And lastly.... The college I'm in spent a fortune in putting up buildings and sports facilities over the previous three years. They built a massive engineering block with major investment, and guess what? The building is too dangerous to use. The builders used crappy materials and the ceiling is raining blocks making it... useless. Looks nice on the outside though. :rolleyes: Perhaps a look at what colleges are spending their money on, how they're spending the money, and why.... [My college also recently replaced all the chairs in the canteen with more "stylish" ones. I'm saying sylish since they're uncomfortable, which the old cheap ones weren't. - I wonder how much they cost?]

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

So we should maintain a system of mediocre colleges/universities competing against each other instead of raising a handful of them to the standard where they could compete internationally?

Why not apply exacting standards towards them all?

I wouldn't be in favour of merging all our colleges but I'd imagine there's definitely some scope for economies of scale benefits from merging institutions that are currently operating within a stone's throw of each other e.g. DIT, DCU.

Agreed. If they're that close to each other, then its just bureaucracy and the love of administration that keeps them separate. It would be more cost effective if under one administration, and wouldn't require much in the way of changes to the actual courses themselves.

I'd be more in favour of having universities specialise, grouping the best talent we have in each area into the university that specialises in the field should, imho, improve the standard of research and lecturing.

My course is apparently a "Honors" course. I say apparently, since 10 years ago it was just a 4 year degree. My 3 year diploma which I graduated in is now considered a "pass" degree. In any case, I have found the quality of lecturers to be rather dismal considering the type of course. I have a Strategic Marketing lecturer who was an accountant before becoming a lecturer. He has zero experience of marketing (and zero experience of management or strategy)except from an academic aspect (He has his Masters). And yet, he's also lecturing two subjects on one of the masters programs here. (Neither being accounting)

And he's not the exception to the rule considering the other lecturers in my course, the comments of friends in other courses, and even friends in other colleges.

There seems to be a general lack of decent lecturers in this country outside of the main universities. And even then, they're purely academic in nature. Very few of them have any practical experience to back them up. Personally, I think this country should seek lecturers who have worked in their respective fields, and can lecture with both their qualifications and their experience. If this country is indeed going to become competitive, then our students need more than a piece of paper thats essentially useless. (considering the very real perception that our degrees are worth less considering the quality of students graduating).

ardmacha

This thread seems to have drifted off course, it started with the proposition that more or less free third level education could not be afforded by the State and has drifted into discussion of merging colleges. In fact merging two relatively large colleges would only lead to very modest administrative savings, the benefits would be in the capability of the merged institution to offer advanced specialised courses effectively. The point is that Ireland has a relatively large number of people at the age who go to Third Level and a high proportion of these who do so. It also presently has a substantial structural budget deficit and an increasingly underfunded Third Level system. Rather than the public at large borrowing money to pay for students some sort of of loans to the beneficiaries of Third Level is needed. People who end up paying high taxes find them a disincentive and they quickly forget the tens of thousands spent by the State on their degree. If taxes are a bit lower and you have to repay a loan then you know where it goes and that you chose the course yourself.

anymore

ardmacha wrote: »

This thread seems to have drifted off course, it started with the proposition that more or less free third level education could not be afforded by the State and has drifted into discussion of merging colleges. In fact merging two relatively large colleges would only lead to very modest administrative savings, the benefits would be in the capability of the merged institution to offer advanced specialised courses effectively. The point is that Ireland has a relatively large number of people at the age who go to Third Level and a high proportion of these who do so. It also presently has a substantial structural budget deficit and an increasingly underfunded Third Level system. Rather than the public at large borrowing money to pay for students some sort of of loans to the beneficiaries of Third Level is needed. People who end up paying high taxes find them a disincentive and they quickly forget the tens of thousands spent by the State on their degree. If taxes are a bit lower and you have to repay a loan then you know where it goes and that you chose the course yourself.

Fair points but if we and the other EU countires can afford to massively subsidise inefficient farmers then we moost certainly can afford to pay to have kids educated to third level.
The slackers can be weeded out in the first year by expelling all who fail to meet minimum standards in first year without possibility of reating unless full fees are paid.

danbohan

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Seconded, with grants provided to those from low-income families.

not necessarily , this country needs get away from its hand out mentality

Flamed Diving

danbohan wrote: »

not necessarily , this country needs get away from its hand out mentality

Then a heavily polarised society is the outcome.

danbohan

danbohan wrote: »

not necessarily , this country needs get away from its hand out mentality

No. This country needs to get smart about how it hands out its money.... There's still quite a bit of favoritism regarding how the state gives money to those "needing" the help. For example, I know two students the son & daughter of a farmer who are on the full grant, yet drive to college separately in two 2009 land-rovers.

Removing aid to those that need it (regardless of their backgrounds) should never be removed. Instead a more balanced, and careful approach to spending money.

Think about all the crappy initiatives our government has spent money in the past. Even take the ones that succeeded. How many of those projects could have been managed better, with savings which could be spent to cover those that need the help to go to college or to see a doctor...

ardmacha

How many of those projects could have been managed better,

The deficit is 14% of GDP, all these savings are needed, but would not make any difference other than at the margin. Third level education warrents government subsidy, but not to the extent that it can be free for everyone, as the State cannot afford this.

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

The deficit is 14% of GDP, all these savings are needed, but would not make any difference other than at the margin. Third level education warrents government subsidy, but not to the extent that it can be free for everyone, as the State cannot afford this.

This is the problem with this country and its mindset. Every solution has to be big, and revolutionary. Cut corners at the edges of a lot of little areas, and it'll add up to a rather large chunk of cheese.

The state can afford the college fees. Hell, they can afford double pensions. One year of Berties double pension would put... how many people through college? roughly 80k? hmm... 40 people perhaps? And thats just mentioning pensions... what about all the other perks they receive across the board?

There's plenty of areas which this country can look at to costs, and frankly, in a lot of cases, those costs shouldn't have been there in the first place. This countrys only chance of being successful in Europe and the rest of the world is through a skilled/educated population, and by cutting out the bull**** costs which our politicians, and bureaucracy have been wallowing in. (Its also worth considering that most answers to social disorder and violence points to education, and giving people options for the future. What happens when you take away those options?)

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Then a heavily polarised society is the outcome.

thats debatable , it presumes that university is the only way to get on in life, not true. Many well/high paying jobs have alternate routes in to them, sounds like a bit of a bogey man. Also I guess we will never know how many working class or lower middle class people could afford to send their kids to college if the state wasnt taxing them so heavily.

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

thats debatable , it presumes that university is the only way to get on in life, not true. Many well/high paying jobs have alternate routes in to them, sounds like a bit of a bogey man. Also I guess we will never know how many working class or lower middle class people could afford to send their kids to college if the state wasnt taxing them so heavily.

I guess. But polarisation isn't the exclusive domain of wealth, you know.

Secondly, how much is heavily?

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I guess. But polarisation isn't the exclusive domain of wealth, you know.

Secondly, how much is heavily?

In the round if we are talking about social mobility then wealth would be the most important driver combined with the ambitions of the parents involved. I dont think the government should be in the job of social engineering and even if they are the evidence if true that woking class kids dont attend college due to peer pressure, then they are failing.

as for you second point, given that parents have 18 years "warning" it is perfectly reasonable to expect parents to save for this future cost, what are we talking about €1K to €2K per year invested with an insurance company. I'm sure the average working class family forks out this amount every year and then some in indirect taxes alone.

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

In the round if we are talking about social mobility then wealth would be the most important driver combined with the ambitions of the parents involved. I dont think the government should be in the job of social engineering and even if they are the evidence if true that woking class kids dont attend college due to peer pressure, then they are failing.

If the government were involved in social engineering then that would entail forcing people to go to college. My attitude is more about addressing imbalances. Offering the opportunity to go is not social engineering.

If you prefer, we could just have a society where only the wealthy go to college, and work in white-collar jobs, and the working-class remain ignorant, yet still earning decent money as plumbers, etc.

But it's not just about 'Y', is it?

silverharp wrote: »

as for you second point, given that parents have 18 years "warning" it is perfectly reasonable to expect parents to save for this future cost, what are we talking about €1K to €2K per year invested with an insurance company. I'm sure the average working class family forks out this amount every year and then some in indirect taxes alone.

Assuming rationality. You should know very well that humans aren't very rational when it comes to long-term decision-making. This is the biggest failing of (economic) right-wing thinking.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If the government were involved in social engineering then that would entail forcing people to go to college. My attitude is more about addressing imbalances. Offering the opportunity to go is not social engineering.

If you prefer, we could just have a society where only the wealthy go to college, and work in white-collar jobs, and the working-class remain ignorant, yet still earning decent money as plumbers, etc.

But it's not just about 'Y', is it?

social engineering does not have to be coercive. But the question back might be where is the justice in appropriating money from one group who will not be availing of university to give an opportunity to another group?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Assuming rationality. You should know very well that humans aren't very rational when it comes to long-term decision-making. This is the biggest failing of (economic) right-wing thinking.

Its not a matter of assuming, I know x% will save and y% will not or will save for other goals. If the parents and or the local community do not respect third level education for "good" or erroneous reasons then I'd guess this will give a good guide to outcomes regardless of gov. supports. To gear the whole system to offer opportunities for people to access a particular path in life is expensive and unjust to those who have to fund it.

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

social engineering does not have to be coercive. But the question back might be where is the justice in appropriating money from one group who will not be availing of university to give an opportunity to another group?

Where is the justice in someone being unable to afford to attend 3rd level, simply because they were born on the wrong side of the river, yet someone has it handed to them on a plate, for another geographical roll of die?

We could come up with these questions all day, I'm sure.

silverharp wrote: »

Its not a matter of assuming, I know x% will save and y% will not or will save for other goals. If the parents and or the local community do not respect third level education for "good" or erroneous reasons then I'd guess this will give a good guide to outcomes regardless of gov. supports. To gear the whole system to offer opportunities for people to access a particular path in life is expensive and unjust to those who have to fund it.

It's just about creating a level playing field, which the current system is not. People are born into communities that don't respect education, for sure. So that means anyone born in that position should just accept their lot? Should they be punished for their parents apathy towards education?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

To gear the whole system to offer opportunities for people to access a particular path in life is expensive and unjust to those who have to fund it.

The catch is that now the very people that funded it for other people over the last 10,15,20 years have come back in the hopes of gaining something useful from their previous payments. And even if they haven't returned to college or gone on welfare, they've provided for their children to do so in the future.

Nobody was crying out that the lack of fees was unjust when I was working.. :rolleyes:

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Where is the justice in someone being unable to afford to attend 3rd level, simply because they were born on the wrong side of the river, yet someone has it handed to them on a plate, for another geographical roll of die?

We could come up with these questions all day, I'm sure.

Its a very myopic question, you might as well ask why sons of farmers get to inherit their parents farms or why is it fair that Africans have a lower standand of living then Europeans. They are not questions of Justice. Clearily Anthony Foley's lectures went in one ear and out the other in my case:pac:

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's just about creating a level playing field, which the current system is not. People are born into communities that don't respect education, for sure. So that means anyone born in that position should just accept their lot? Should they be punished for their parents apathy towards education?

I'd say nobody should accept their lot, if anyone grows up with dysfunctional or shortseighted parents then their off spring are best served getting out of there fast and doing something completely differnent. My question is are you using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and or is it a solvable problem? I dont have the numbers but for example I assume only a tiny fraction of Ballymun kids go to DCU which is just down the road after being the recipient of state aid all though their lives. If you could demonstrate that a high % of kids from a deprived area would attend university as opposed to a life on the dole or menial manual jobs I'd write a personal cheque myself and spport the effort. It doesnt pass the justice test and I doubt it would even pass a utilitiarian audit

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

Its a very myopic question, you might as well ask why sons of farmers get to inherit their parents farms or why is it fair that Africans have a lower standand of living then Europeans. They are not questions of Justice. Clearily Anthony Foley's lectures went in one ear and out the other in my case:pac:





I'd say nobody should accept their lot, if anyone grows up with dysfunctional or shortseighted parents then their off spring are best served getting out of there fast and doing something completely differnent. My question is are you using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and or is it a solvable problem? I dont have the numbers but for example I assume only a tiny fraction of Ballymun kids go to DCU which is just down the road after being the recipient of state aid all though their lives. If you could demonstrate that a high % of kids from a deprived area would attend university as opposed to a life on the dole or menial manual jobs I'd write a personal cheque myself and spport the effort. It doesnt pass the justice test and I doubt it would even pass a utilitiarian audit

Alright, I am weary. So weary.

ardmacha

The problem is becoming more urgent. It seems easier for the government to cut a relatively efficient sector which is actually experiencing an increase in demand than to cut Quangos etc.

---

from Indepdent.ie

MORE than 1,000 jobs have been lost in higher education over the past two years -- at a time when student numbers are rising rapidly.

New figures show that at the end of March this year, the third-level colleges had a full-time staffing quota of 20,084, down from 21,149 at the end of December 2008.

But over the same period the number of full-time students went up from around 145,000 to 155,000, and is still rising amid warnings of further cuts in staffing levels.

The Higher Education Authority has written to the heads of third-level colleges, alerting them to the possibility of more staff reductions next year. Chief executive Tom Boland said they can also expect further reductions in core allocations from the State.

His letter prompted an angry reaction from the Irish Federation of University Teachers, which said that it beggared belief that the Department of Education and Skills could even be considering more cuts.

General Secretary Mike Jennings warned that the union would not agree to any compulsory job losses.

Dublin City University President Ferdinand von Prondzynski said that the letter came at a time when universities had already lost 6pc of total staff numbers over two years while admitting additional students.

Pressure

"We will be under further pressure to add to the student numbers while losing yet more money and having fewer staff to teach them," he said.

Meanwhile, an international study has shown that universities in Ireland and Latvia were suffering the worst cuts in government funding in Europe.

This year's reduction of 9.4pc in state aid followed cuts of 5.4pc last year in Ireland.

Only Latvia, where the IMF and the World Bank demanded drastic cuts in education, suffered a worse fate, with cuts of 48pc in 2009 and 18pc this year.

thebman

We are building a smart economy by not investing in BB and letting the most educated minds in the country go and ensuring there are not enough places in our colleges for our bright students.

Certainly seems like a well thought out plan :-/

the_syco

rightwingdub wrote: »

the quality of courses will improve if fees are brought back.

How? There were crap lectures back then, there are crap lectures now. The course that a lecturer can take to show them how to teach is optional, and many douches out there may be brilliant in their field, but still can't teach for sh|t.

=-=

You want to bring back fee's, sure. For everyone. Because otherwise those who got grants before the fees will be the only ones able to attend college after the fees come back.

graduate

There were crap lectures back then, there are crap lectures now.

The quality of the course is not only a function of the lecturer spoon feeding it to the students. It also requires a lecturer who is up to speed with current developments and their relative importance.

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

mickstupp

graduate wrote: »

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

I assume when you say that you mean some people, not all, since that would be just a little bit completely wrong. There are plenty of reasons why some people cannot afford college now, let alone if full fees are reintroduced. I'm not saying they shouldn't be reintroduced, since clearly they should, but when full fees are eventually reintroduced I think the means testing system needs to be given a thorough overhaul at the same time, since the current system is at the root of some people's reasons for not being able to afford it right now, nevermind the prospect of an extra four to six grand a year. Even an increase of a couple of hundred on the registration fee would be kicking some people out.

graduate

graduate wrote: »

The quality of the course is not only a function of the lecturer spoon feeding it to the students. It also requires a lecturer who is up to speed with current developments and their relative importance.

Which is sadly lacking in many of the lecturers in our colleges/universities. Having more money is not going to solve that problem. Instead it will only encourage colleges to hire regardless of the quality of service. Its not a matter of spoon feeding students. Its the problem that while many lecturers are experts in their fields (and many aren't) they're incapable of communicating effectively with students.

Take my course for example. A honors degree in Business Studies (Post Grad). This last semester I had four subjects. All mandatory. Strategic Implementation, Strategic Marketing, Financial Management, Systems & Project Management.

The Strategic Implementation and Systems lecturers were quite good, although the Systems lecturer used the old format of speaking through the whole lecturer at breakneck speed, and having everyone write down his notes. (since they weren't available anywhere else except from his own notes). But otherwise a reasonably good lecturer willing to explain aspects in the canteen later.

The Financial Management lecturer was incapable or unwilling to write questions/answers on the board, preferring to use excel the whole time. Which is a bit odd considering none of us would have such an opportunity. But that aside, he was incapable of explaining the reasons behind certain formula's and ratios. A very intelligent man, but not a very good communicator. Has written dozens of papers and journal entries for accounting magazines. Also quite rigid in his thinking, despite evidence showing his examples to be false in the real world.

And lastly Strategic Marketing, which I figure is a rather useless subject in itself. Since the course material was essentially the marketing that was taught every year previously in the course. All the lecturers notes were taken directly from Wiki. Exactly. He read from his notes in lectures. Exactly. And his examples were off the wall, many of which were filled with logical (and marketing) holes. Oh, his masters is in Accounting, not Marketing.

The reason I'm giving these examples is to show the level of quality for a post grad course. Not a university admittedly, but there's a rather large chunk of the population that goes through the "Institute of Technology" route. 50% decent lecturers? And these were long standing lecturers having all been there a decade. I should know... I finished the undergraduate there 10 years ago with those same lecturers.. :rolleyes:

There is a problem with our Third level education system. More or less money isn't the root problem. Its the inability to hire on ability rather than some vague reference or some piece of paper (Phd).

The main issue here is not that Lecturers will lose their jobs... The government is going to cut corners in education regardless of what anyone says. The issue is that they're cutting across the board, rather than seeking to retain those lecturers who are capable. So instead we'll probably have institutionalized lecturers who have been there 20 years, and are so removed from the practical aspects of the real world that they're incapable of teaching anything worthwhile. Except for pure theory, of course.

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

And many couldn't. And many more people these days have more debts than before. And many of those very people with these debts are younger than previous generations. The situation is not static. We can't just look to the 80's, say things were terrible, and then point to our period and say we can do the same. Circumstances were vastly different across the board.

I've asked this before of people advocating the return of the fees but few have responded directly. Did they themselves pay fees when they were in before? So, did you?

Mal-Adjusted

graduate wrote: »

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

i can think of about 450, 000 reasons why they can't :rolleyes:

vonnie10

Bringing back third level education fees would be a major step backwards, Free fees has allowed so many people to enter 3rd level education who originally would not have had the opportunity. I say this as a middle class student at UCD. I would not qualify for any grants but would certainly struggle to pay full fees especially as i have siblings who would also be attending college. It would not be the low income families that would suffer the most as they would receive maintenance grants, but would more likely be the middle income families like myself and most of my friends, that are not in the high income bracket but earn too much to qualify for any grants. I already pay a 1650 euro reg fee every year and as i am not from dublin i have rent and living expenses to pay. As it stands it already costs approximately 10K to put me through college every year, if you add fees of say approx 6K , there is not a chance i could afford that. We already pay fees through our reg fee and student services fee (despite the fact that this has risen in recent years, student services have been cut) . The library service at UCD has been considered a student service, sorry excuse me for thinking that a library was an essential service at a third level institution:rolleyes: Also there is currently no library service in UCD at all on a sunday which is disgraceful !!! I'm sure its a similar story in other colleges and universities around the country.I'd like to start seeing some value for the money we already pay before people start mouthing off that students should be paying fees. Also most students take their studies very seriously and are incredibly ambitious and want to leave with the best degree, especially now with the state of the economy. Do not blame 3rd level students for the state of the country now, they should not be punished for the failings and inadequate management of our corrupt government, bankers and university presidents!!! Hugh Brady president of UCD randomly gives himself bonuses of 12K (he may have given it back ), TD's all over the country are claiming expenses left right and centre for no reason and bankers like sean fitzpatrick and fingleton are claiming massive pensions for screwing the country over and you're seriously telling me OP that you want to reduce the countries deficit by alienating vulnerable members of our society from a 3rd level education...

sponsoredwalk

IrishTonyO wrote: »

That's why grants or loans should be available to people who need them. I have never been able to understand why the taxpayer has to pay for a solicitors education or any other profession for that matter. If they cannot afford the fees a loan should be made available that would be repaid on a monthly basis as soon as the person starts earning.

With respect, isn't this the American way of life that has made slaves out of it's students & a system with which the people are extremely unhappy and fight for reforming...

Why do people deserve to pay back the system that required them in the first place in order to continue along?

If these people were not educated then things would collapse, why should someone have to pay this back for years and years?

We need you, but you're going to pay for helping us...

One party definitely requires the other more.

Regardless of all the promises & assurances, this will, as history can easily demonstrate, rapidly backfire on the poor & aid the wealthy.

There are better ways to get money than to take away money from the public sectors...

John Lynch Ph.D wrote: »

Terrible idea.

And why are people so for the idea of providing free education to students from only low income family's? again after again these students have proven to be the under performers in college, and that is FACT, the basic reality is they come from low income family's for a reason and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.


I'm aware this isn't always the case, but it is 90% of the time. So for applications grants would have to be heavily scrutinized and also availible to middle class students aswell.

However I feel that the approach to third level needs to completely reworked, employers aren't looking for a general piss in the pan Irish college degree because they know they're worth.

Oh no, I remember you...

The latest piece of hatred coming from your keyboard is to insult poor people with a form of economic determinism...

rightwingdub wrote: »

There's far too much of an entitlement culture in this country, if adults want to pay for third level education then they should pay for it pure and simple, although I would certainly support a grant system for people from more modest backgrounds.

Who are the modest classes? The ones who can't afford bread or the ones who barely buy school books & uniforms at the start of the year for their kids?

These aren't fantasies, these are people & these things happen year round, how many recessions will it take all of you to patriotically call for high fees for primary schools while allowing people to misrule your economy & alternately get you richer, poorer & more scared of the word public...

Why do you people fall for the fallacy of tightening the economic belt during recessions?
do you know how many have happened over the years?

Do you know that they are an integral part of the system?

Do you not notice how every time it comes around everyone goes straight for the public sector? Even the banks went for the public sector for a bailout after partially creating this mess, yet you want to penalize ordinary people...

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Third level fees do not have to come back. I've benefited from free fees, I'd never be able to afford a university education without free fees. There is a desperate lack of funding in the third level sector. Re-introducing fees and forcing people from poor backgrounds away from University is not the way to go.

It falls on deaf ears when we're in a recession

People start looking out for No.1...

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 felt proud of this because I clearly had a hunger that others didn't. It seems like some people just want their whole lives subsidised. I will only take money when I really need it. But I will always choose to pay my own way, whenever I can.

I just don't get this kind of "I'm entitled" attitude.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but it's my opinion.

Tell me, how does one who has to travel everyday also work while studying somoething like medicine, or theoretical physics, or math & physics concurrently, or any of these crazy courses?

If you aren't lucky enough to get night security then you're going to have a hell of a time getting by just living & studying, and that says nothing of having a normal life outside of school.

Throw on top of that expenses such as being a vegetarian for medical reasons, (I'm sure moral reasons wont resonate with anyone when discussing money), or suffering from some form of sleep sickness, or any other little imaginative feasible spanners & what happens?

Not everyone is as lucky as you & it's not fair to judge all accordingly.

Please don't forget that people are educated to benefit their country, why should they suffer in the process of trying to better their country?

This is what happens when a population that was taught by a society whose math teachers were grossly, grossly uneducated: their former pupils get their chance to change things & they just repeat history by attacking the public that they exist among :rolleyes:

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)

This is crazy...

So, in other words we reintroduce fees so that the rich who can afford it get to party at their leisure in college, (not saying that many of them want to, but they have the economic freedom to choose), while those from more meagre backgrounds, (i.e. the majority of people) will be slaving away serving those lucky people who get to go out on Friday nights, or Tuesday morning etc...

This is craziness, yet somehow people accept it :eek:

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.

I think Harvard's credibility has been severely damaged after their support of Alan Derschowitz

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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.

There's no y on that graph

Your plan looks great theoretically, except for the fact that in reality we all know it will not work that way.

There's no reason not to be highly skeptical, blanket assurances are not good enough anymore, I have plenty of historical instances of this type of blanket assurance that ended up disastrous for the poor...

It's things like the G.I. bill in America that aided the growth of the economy greatly, it greatly aided African Americans who, due to stigma, certainly would have benefited much less so.

When it comes to education, it doesn't pay to stigmatize people, even the richer people.

Again, why should the rich have to pay for their education when it is their educated persons that perpetuate society & better it?


We need you, but you're going to pay dearly for helping us...

sponsoredwalk

FIVE REASONS TO OPPOSE COLLEGE FEES

1. Fees won’t cut costs during the recession

The government has indicated its intention
to introduce some sort of fees for third-level education, with the
most likely model being a graduate tax, or a graduate loan system
(as favoured by Education Minister Batt O’Keeffe). The timing of such
proposals shows the government is attempting to quickly eliminate
some state spending to balance the books.

Neither a graduate tax or graduate loan system
will save the exchequer any significant monies for up to a decade.
Even if graduates manage to find a job in Ireland, they will take
years to repay the debt. Fees will not help us cut state
spending during the recession.


2. Fees will increase government debt and emigration

The government is closely looking at
Australia’s graduate tax system, known as the Higher
Education Contribution Scheme (HECS).
This system is currently owed some $10billion (€5.8billion)
by graduates who are unable to pay and chose to leave the
country. The Australian government has admitted that up
to 30% of this debt will never be repaid by graduates.
New Zealand’s loan system, with a population similar to
Ireland’s, has a collective debt of over €5billion after
20 years in operation.

With the economy likely to struggle for years
to come, we are giving our graduates an incentive to emigrate
and never come back. The choice for them will be to
emigrate debt-free or stay and owe and average
of €32,000. If graduates emigrate, which they are likely to,
the government will have to pick up the cost.


3. Fees will be cheaper for the rich and dearer for the poor

Batt O’Keefe has hinted his support for a scheme
whereby those who can afford to pay fees up-front rather than through
a tax or loan system will get a significant discount on their fees.
It has also been proposed that interest rates will be applicable to any
loans system, increasing the debt even further for those who cannot
pay fees up-front.

The system favoured by the Minister is unfair
on those working families who are already struggling to make
ends meet. The rich will pay far less for their education than
those on ordinary incomes.


4. Fees will restrict access to third-level education

The government has signalled its intention
to increase third-level participation rates to 72% by the year 2020,
in order to create a knowledge economy workforce that can dig us
out of recession. Forcing €32,000 of debt for a science or
technology degree on potential students is no way to encourage participation,
but instead is a recipe for a generation of emigration.

Secondary school students will be encouraged
to not enter third-level education as they will face massive debts
or graduate taxes. Families from lower-income backgrounds will be
especially discouraged from taking on such debts.


5. Third-level education is already underfunded

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) has found that in 2005
Ireland was spending 1.2% of our national income on
third-level education, a decrease from 1.5% in the year 2000.
They also found that our euro-for-euro spending was below the international average.
As for the pitiful Student Grant, which is aimed at helping ordinary families send their children to college, it doesn’t even cover the cost of rent in the main university towns.

The government is attempting to create a world-class third-level education system without funding it properly.
Instead, it wants 18 year old Leaving Cert students to take on the
funding issue and spend years repaying graduate loans or taxes.

FYP

A nice, concise addendum to my rant above, for your collective perusal