Third-level fees have to come back

mickstupp

Without getting into the nitty gritty financial details etc. ... and just to make the point that not all students think in the same way.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

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).

I've just finished second year, and at the moment it's touch and go whether I'll be able to afford another year. I would happily, in a heartbeat, sign up for a loan system if it would help me finish not only my degree, but a Masters too. Happily. For some people an education is worth more than practically anything else. If they opened up applications on Monday I'd be first in line. I'm not the only one who feels like this.

Even if graduates manage to find a job in Ireland, they will take
years to repay the debt.

Some of us genuinely don't care. A good education is worth it. If I could get what I wanted out of an education, I wouldn't care if I left college 50, 60, 100 grand in debt. Anything. Seriously, it's priceless to me. I'll live the rest of my life in debt in return for an education. Gladly. Because right now I can't afford it. With a loan system I could.

You say introducing fees will restrict access, and maybe it will, but I can't see why if it's in the form of a tax or loan you pay back once qualified and working. Right now it's already hugely expensive for some people. The opportunity to get an education and pay back your debt later would be a genuine incentive for some people. Maybe not many, I don't know. But some. Personally it wouldn't make me feel like skipping the country afterwards. If anything it'd make me feel like my country gives enough of a damn about me to train me and let me repay when I can. Next time the reg fee increases I for one, and a bunch of my friends, will have to drop out. There's no two ways about it, because there's a lot of people already at the limits of budgeting and so on. The means testing system in this country is broken. There's a lot of people getting money they don't need, and a lot who need it and don't get it. For those people, do you not think the prospect of getting an education that you can repay later, would be an incentive to go and get qualified? If nothing else, prospective income and ability to repay loans right now is an awful lot lower than it'll be with qualifications. I have faith that the country will get better eventually. When it does, I'd like to be in a position to get a good job, rather than where I am now. If that means paying back in tax or whatever, great. Bring it on. And besides... the benefits of an education go a lot further than simply job prospects. Bring it on I say. I'll sign up in a heartbeat.

I'm a student who's clearly in the minority. I genuinely don't understand why accepting some financial responsibility for one's education is a problem. Pardon my lack of any sort of decent argumentation here, it's an emotional subject for me because I can't afford the education I want. If the government bring in fees in the form of a later tax or loan, then that would enable me to get the education I want. That's how I look at it. Why would I turn that down? Or protest against fees if that's a possibility? As it stands we don't have a free fees system except in a nominal sense. It's an illusion.

sponsoredwalk

I get where your coming from. If you want me to get more specific in what you've said I'll reply line by line but I think I can explain it easier than that


Why should you have to get into massive debt to acquire the skills that are required to perpetuate the society you were born into?

We, the people, set the way things are to be done & if the people did not attempt to get an education then society would drastically suffer, if not collapse.

Do you not realise that society needs you?

I unerstand an education is priceless, I think so too. However, why is selling yourself into economic slavery in order to make a sector of society richer something you would happily agree to?

In America they take out huge loans, huge! in order to pay for college & then if they do not instantly repay them back the interest accumulates rapidly. I heard on the radio that some people were paying like $40,000 in interest to the banks, wtf...

There have been numerous protests to amend this gross system. Theses are things people have a choice over, if you remember last year they were planning to reintroduce college fees & there were massive protests against it. When the people speak loud enough then the system has to follow suit.



You are waiting on a whim for the economy to get better, why would you want to pledge so much money to a system that you can't depend on?

You are willing to get into hge debt to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer. As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money.

Depending on your job you are making X amount of money for society while giving them a smaller repayment of Y, while gaining a comparitively meagre salary of Z, unless you become a captain of industry...

If education is so valuable then there is no reason you can't autodidactically teach yourself.

There's obviously more to it than that, already you're getting qualified to look attractive to society & to guarantee some form of wage yet look at the system around you, it can't guarantee stability yet your required to have X,Y,Z qualification that can only be provided by accredited course X, Y, Z, i.e. be a stable/model employee.

Also, why is it that the public will bail out the banks no problem with public money but when the people, who society is supposed to be there for, want something there's uproar...

Now, I'm extremely confused with the last part of your post.

How would government fees enable you to attend the course you currently can't afford :pac:

Who is stopping you from going to A.I.B. of B.O.I. & getting a student loan which you can happily pay back in the future???

mickstupp

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.

Now, I'm extremely confused with the last part of your post.

How would government fees enable you to attend the course you currently can't afford :pac:

Note, I said 'If the government bring in fees in the form of a later tax or loan'. Obviously if it were just straight up fees, I'd just be screwed, but straight up fees are not what was being proposed.

Who is stopping you from going to A.I.B. of B.O.I. & getting a student loan which you can happily pay back in the future???

All I can say to that is the only people in the way of AIB or BOI loans, are people in the AIB or BOI, specifically the ones who approve loans. Some people don't have regular income, collateral, people to go guarantor, or indeed grants or other subsidies etc. I had to beg for a loan last year. I'm hoping I won't have to this year. And I'm hoping they'll say yes. So what, right? My point is everyone has different financial issues.

The promise of an education now which you have to pay for later doesn't actually restrict access as such. Everyone gets access, and everyone pays later, after the fact. It wouldn't affect access in any way whatsoever, except in the sense of it turning some people off with the prospect of paying later. But that's still not restricting access because they could still go if they wanted to. Anyway, if later on, you're paying back that fee with 5% or whatever of your wages every month, taken out before it gets to you, I fail to see any problem with that. I have zero issue with that prospect. Like I said, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

sponsoredwalk

Look if A.I.B. or B.O.I. have given you a loan for these past 2 years, (you're going into third, right?) then I doubt they're going to leave you in the lurch after all of that.

You've pretty much got your chance to take a big loan on your head, that doesn't mean we have to implement plans that will end up doing more damage than good for a lot of people.

Of that 5 point list I quoted from the link, points 2, 3 & 4 apply to you exactly in the manner published;

2: you'll be in massive debt & you've mentioned that emigration would be on the cards...

3: you would be paying the loan back over a long period of time, albeit happily, but you'd still pay more on the accumulated interest than someone richer who paid off the loan quicker. In America that is the kicker, here it would assume that position. The fact that you wouldn't even know or think about it is scary because there would be many like you paying extra unnecessarily.

4: If fees are re-introduced & no loan scheme then you don't go.

I'm just a bit confused still.

You know most courses would be in excess of 13,000 (euro) a year if fees were reintroduced.

I'm probably assuming/asking too much but the main fee is 1500e is it not, with the rest for living purposes?

I don't see how you wouldn't come off extremely worse with a fees, extremely worse.

Also, there would be no state benefit, the meagre money saved would be diverted into paying off the governments cock-ups in other area's.

Why should the populations education suffer???

Seeing as you still don't see any problem, I'll ask you to read this just once more;

You are willing to get into huge debt to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer. As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money.

Take time to think about that concept. I apologise for personalizing society like that, but it just made the typing easier. Still though, think about it.

mickstupp

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Of that 5 point list I quoted from the link, points 2, 3 & 4 apply to you exactly in the manner published;

I really don't agree at all.

2: you'll be in massive debt & you've mentioned that emigration would be on the cards...

I don't remember saying emigration would be on the cards. I remember you saying that... "we are giving our graduates an incentive to emigrate and never come back". I remember me saying: "The opportunity to get an education and pay back your debt later would be a genuine incentive for some people. Maybe not many, I don't know. But some. Personally it wouldn't make me feel like skipping the country afterwards." Maybe I should have been clearer. When I used the word 'incentive' I meant that being able to pay back fees later would be an incentive to go to college now, for free. As it stands right now, there are people who don't go to college because of the expense incurred now. The expenses as they stand today are a disincentive. Being able to put off that expense until afterwards doesn't restrict access in any way as far as I'm concerned. The massive debt part doesn't matter to me once I have the education I want. It literally has no bearing on what I want. I'm willing to put up with someone taking part of my wages for however many years. And even so, the massive debt wouldn't be all at once, it'd over a long time. Big deal? Doesn't bother me.

3: you would be paying the loan back over a long period of time, albeit happily, but you'd still pay more on the accumulated interest than someone richer who paid off the loan quicker. In America that is the kicker, here it would assume that position. The fact that you wouldn't even know or think about it is scary because there would be many like you paying extra unnecessarily.

It's not that I wouldn't even know or think about it... it's that it's a price that I'm more than willing to pay. So this is also a point that doesn't actually apply to me as far as I'm concerned.

4: If fees are re-introduced & no loan scheme then you don't go.

Very true. And if the reg fee increases before I'm done, same deal. But I disagree with your fourth point when you say students 'will be encouraged to not enter third-level education as they will face massive debts or graduate taxes'. If you're saying people, be they teachers/parents/whoever will discourage students, I can't see how you'd ever think such a thing. Who in their right mind would convince an able person to not go to college? If you're saying the price would put them off, I disagree again. That debt is smaller than many other debts, like a mortgage that many people will voluntarily sign up for, not being in the least bit discouraged due to the heavy debt etc. etc. Hell I've heard of people (fools in my opinion) paying over 32000 on their weddings. I don't think it's a realistic argument. And I think suggesting that '[f]amilies from lower-income backgrounds will be especially discouraged from taking on such debts' is a little disingenuous. The families wouldn't be taking on the debt in a tax/loan system. The person who's just earned the nice qualification is the person with the debt. What a statement like that does is make families who are finding it difficult assume that things will instantly get more difficult, which isn't the case if they're getting a loan or the promise that they'll only have to repay the costs through tax once they're earning. There's no increased outlay restricting them from attending college. The fee is at the other end, after the fact, when they've qualified and are in a job where they can afford to repay the debt. Now... if the students in question don't bother their behinds to work hard and get their qualification... then I'd say tough to whatever penalties are incurred. But my point is, I don't agree that the prospect of paying fees after the fact is or would be a serious disincentive to going to college and getting a qualification.

You know most courses would be in excess of 13,000 (euro) a year if fees were reintroduced.

No, I didn't know that. I know mine as it stands would be about five grand over the reg fee, plus travel and book expenses. Less than 10 basically. Which is an awful lot as things stand now. But if I can put off that cost until after the fact, then I do not care.

I'm probably assuming/asking too much but the main fee is 1500e is it not, with the rest for living purposes? I don't see how you wouldn't come off extremely worse with a fees, extremely worse.

With straight up fees, absolutely, I agree, we'd all be a lot worse off. But not with a tax/loan system, on that I don't agree. You wouldn't be paying the fees there and then, wouldn't be extremely worse off. You're not paying anything back until after the fact. What you would have is the certainty that as long as you uphold your part of the bargain, i.e. working hard and not screwing around enough to have to repeat whole years etc. and whatever other restrictions were required, like showing up an overall percentage of classes, whatever... what you would have is the certainty that money to pay for your education is not an issue. It will be your problem, but only later when you've qualified and have a job and can afford it. While you're in college... that particular financial stress and worry is gone.

Also, there would be no state benefit, the meagre money saved would be diverted into paying off the governments cock-ups in other area's.

I don't know what this means.

Why should the populations education suffer???

I don't see why it would. People in the system would know they're responsible for their own education and would hopefully work harder because of it. People not in the system... well I don't get how it would affect them. And the guaranteed revenue, granted eventually and not for the first bunch of years, would hopefully help to increase the standards and facilities.

Seeing as you still don't see any problem, I'll ask you to read this just once more;

You are willing to get into huge debt to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer. As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money.

Well, there's a couple of things here. Yes, I'm willing to get into huge debt... to acquire the skills I want. It's nothing to do with what society wants or needs. That might be a byproduct, sure, although I doubt society necessarily needs the skills I want. But essentially I'm doing it for me, not for anyone else, and certainly not for society. It's a personal thing. I didn't choose my course with the aim of bettering society, of making other people money. I chose it because it's a subject I'm interested in, and I'd like to do something with my life that I enjoy. You're suggesting I'm doing this explicitly for someone else's benefit and I'm not. And I don't really think many people decide they want "to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer". I can't look at it like that, that point of view doesn't make sense to me. And besides that... "As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money." - Firstly, what is wrong with repaying society the loan they gave me? Secondly, whether they're making money off me in the meantime is irrelevant to me paying back a loan. They're two different points that you're making into one. I don't see them as one point.

Why is it an issue for me to a) pay back a loan, b) while I'm working in the society that loaned me cash in the first place? Essentially, why should I get it for free? That'd be a handout, I don't want a handout. I want to earn what I get. And that's why I would have zero problem owing a tonne of money after the fact. It still stands that if straight up fees are introduced I and many many others will be instantly screwed. But fees to be repaid afterwards, as in a tax/loan system? I still see no problem with it whatsoever.

I don't have the time for more posts like this. What I'm trying to say is, not all students are opposed to fees being reintroduced. But other things need to be considered. The means testing system needs an overhaul. Fees need to be after the fact, in my opinion taking a percentage from monthly wages is the best way to go, but either way the method of paying back the cash needs to be discussed properly. If fees are straight up front, that would restrict access. After the fact, I don't think fees would restrict access at all. I know I'm in a minority, but that's essentially what I want to say, not all of us are opposed to fees full stop.

the groutch

there needs to be some sort of college fees imo, too many students don't take college serious enough

the groutch

the groutch wrote: »

there needs to be some sort of college fees imo, too many students don't take college serious enough

Interesting... In my postgrad course which finished this year there were 90 students.. and they all (with a few exceptions) worked their asses off to get good results. I knew most through meeting them in the Library or in the computer labs. I got my results on Wednesday and came out with a 69% average. Not bad at all in an honors degree course. I know of three individuals who failed one exam, and the rest passed or came out with distinctions of some variety.

These sort of comments make me think that everyone believes that all college students are first years..

XxMCRxBabyxX

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting... In my postgrad course which finished this year there were 90 students.. and they all (with a few exceptions) worked their asses off to get good results. I knew most through meeting them in the Library or in the computer labs. I got my results on Wednesday and came out with a 69% average. Not bad at all in an honors degree course. I know of three individuals who failed one exam, and the rest passed or came out with distinctions of some variety.

These sort of comments make me think that everyone believes that all college students are first years..

In all fairness that's postgrad, the people who get as far as postgrad are the ones who want to work!

XxMCRxBabyxX

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

In all fairness that's postgrad, the people who get as far as postgrad are the ones who want to work!

I know quite a few people who worked hard throughout their time in university and didn't make it into postgrad... When I first went through Uni over 12 years ago, I didn't get the marks to get into the 4th year, and went working instead. I came back this year to finally finish the circle.

In all Fairness, there are plenty of extremely hard working students out there in 2nd, and 3rd years of their courses who deserve not to be thrown in with the party addicts and alcoholics. They spent their time studying, working to support their studies, or just at home. Thats probably why they don't make as much of an impact on peoples minds as the binge drinkers.

(The only reason I don't include 1st years is because I've been a 1st year twice and very rarely met a hard working student, not that they don't exist, of course)

Chuchoter

I have to say I disagree. I am from a middle class family, and though we're not 'poor', I would never be able to pay 13 grand a year for 5 years in the course I want to do. It would just be impossible. I really don't think bringing in fees would do anyone any favors, the problem is we have an insane number of third level institutions which frankly, are unnecessary. I mean its like more than 38. Having so many only decreases the value of having a degree, because everyone has one. The problem isn't fees, its that the money that is there is stretched too thinly.

thebman

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

In all fairness that's postgrad, the people who get as far as postgrad are the ones who want to work!

Its a few degree courses that are giving our colleges a bad name IMO.

When I was in college and said I was doing Computer Science, most responses were oh your getting a real degree.

90% of those people were doing arts which passes way too many people and then you have to be really good to go any further.

But arts degrees are pretty much worthless now IMO and many other degrees that weren't updated by colleges are worthless too.

I as lucky in that my college updated the courses all the time to more modern technologies. A lot of colleges were still teaching Pascal when I went to college because lecturers and the department and probably the college didn't really give a crap.

sponsoredwalk

I must say I'm quite suspicious at this stage, your full of trade off's.

If you're going to argue for something, why don't you argue for something that is for the benefit of you and, consequentially, everybody else.

Why wouldn't you ask your government for a fee paying scheme that just covers the cost of fees as they stand now, without the added 13,000 a year (or whatever one it is).


Estimated Undergraduate Unit Costs Per Annum for Universities 2008/2009 (Source: HEA)
Arts €9,446
Business €8,688
Science €13,615
Engineering €14,247
Medicine €12,675
Dentistry €38,621
Veterinary €28,844
Part-time Arts €5,717
Part-time Science €7,344
Nursing €7,451

This was posted earlier in the thread.

Why haven't you argued that maybe the banks need to reform their student loan system?



There are many viable options that wont lead to chaos for ordinary people.

Also, if you all had read the arguments I posted from the NUI website you'd see that re-introducing fees will help nobody. We're already struggling with a smaller budget on education as it is.

Also, all of you people insulting first years for being lazy etc... Maybe in some courses, but funnily enough - that's their choice - why the hell should they be penalized because they want to take it easier than some in college?

And judging be the intelligence level of these comments, I'd wonder about those making them. They are so idiotic, so foolish. I actually feel obliged to ask how a student of law or theoretical physics could possiblt waste away first year with those heavy workloads...
Not everybody does arts... And funnily enough, not everyone who does arts just dosses around... (I only say arts for it's reputation of first year dropouts)

What's stranger is that you are all arguing for fees with the air of vengance as a reason, shameful...

If you'd bothered to read the 5 points in the list I quoted you'd see how ridiculous this would all be.

Look, I'm sorry if you can't understand how society works, but society is made up of people whose skills are required to perpetuate society as it stands & to improve it. If you don't believe me look at the west of Ireland. Due to recession & emigration what could have been a thriving part of the country has lost out enormously to what it could have been had people stayed.
There were crazy schemes in place just to pay farmers to make produce & then to just dump it, a handout (that word you don't like), & if there wasn't so much brain drain then things could have been better for that part of the country.

Now, look at the way emigration is handled in Dublin, nobody wants this to go on because society needs these people to stay here to make money.
What is difficult about that to understand?
If you could get past your personal situation, there are other people in this country.

Education isn't a privelidge, it's a right. There's no justifiable reason I've read, still (after actually reading the whole thread), that can show me why our country should pay crazy fees that will be diverted to covering up areas of the economy mismanaged over the past few years.

Funnily enough, nobody wants to argue in favour of taking away subsidies to private secondary schools, a comparable amount of money would be saved.

It's very relevant to the topic too, we subsidize private education with around a €100 million a year but we're willing to take away public education. If we took it away, most of the money saved would go into subsidizing private education (not directly I'm sure, but you can see what I mean).

You people sicken me with your lack of awareness, you fight to take away money from ordinary people so ignorantly while allow things like the above to go on without batting an eyelid.

People can't even afford to go to free primary and secondary schools, they are asking for 2-3 hundred million a year to get back to school allowances as it is.

Jesus christ you need to wake up

ardmacha

Also, if you all had read the arguments I posted from the NUI website you'd see that re-introducing fees will help nobody. We're already struggling with a smaller budget on education as it is.

The standard of argument on this thread makes me wonder if the problems with third level education are worse than we thought. People post statements that third level education in Ireland had less spent on it than other countries during the boom and complain about libraries having short hours. Some contribution from those who benefit from this education would allow the same amount of money be spent as in other countries and libraries would then be able to open on Sundays. Full fees are not needed, UK level fees would be appropriate. For all of the reasons quoted as to the overall benefits of education the government should set up a loan scheme to allow people meet these fees and ensure that loans are available regardless of the deficiencies of commercial banks.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think the British system is the fairest.

Your fees are only paid back when you're receiving your salary after graduation.

Anyone can also take out maintenance loans which are paid back in the same way. There's also grants if you qualify for them.

I think we should have exactly the same system

Also will people please wake up. We already have fees which we have to f*cking pay up front. Putting the word registration before them doesn't stop them being fees:rolleyes:

Sulmac

From today's Irish Times:

Report to support return of tuition fees

SEÁN FLYNN, Education Editor

Tue, Jun 22, 2010

A LANDMARK report on higher education is set to back the return of student tuition charges as colleges face unprecedented financial pressures.

The recommendation from the Hunt report will put the issue of student fees back on the agenda – even though the Green Party vetoed any change to the free fees scheme in the revised programme for Government.

The expert group, chaired by economist Dr Colin Hunt, is working on a long-term national strategy for higher education. Publication of the much-anticipated report, which was expected this month, is now set to be delayed until the autumn.

Sources say the group will now begin a full review of its work in an effort to resolve several key issues.

The strategy group is working on a revised final draft of its proposals.

An earlier draft that made no firm proposals on several key issues was circulated last month.

However, Dr Hunt has agreed to present a revised “toughened-up’’ draft after a meeting with the heads of universities and the institutes of technology last week.

Sources say the Hunt group now accepts the case put forward by college bosses that “there is no alternative” to tuition charges.

Third-level colleges are coming to terms with a looming financial crisis as they struggle to cope with a forecast additional 55,000 students over the next decade.

Last month, an internal Higher Education Authority (HEA) report said an investment of over €4 billion would be required to upgrade dilapidated buildings and provide space for a surge in student numbers.

The report did concede that such investment was “highly unlikely” in the current economic climate.

Sources say the group can no longer ignore the issue of student charges. However, any decision to back new charges is set to be opposed by Shane Kelly, the student representative on the strategy group. Mr Kelly is a former head of the Union of Students in Ireland.

Other members of the strategy group include Brigid McManus, secretary general of the Department of Education; Michael Kelly, chairman of the HEA; Dr John Hegarty, Provost Trinity College Dublin, and Paul Rellis, managing director of Microsoft Ireland

Other proposals expected from the Hunt group include: closer collaboration between all third-level colleges with the development of clusters specialising in a smaller number of disciplines: an expanded role for the HEA in managing the sector and linking spending to national objectives and a new workload management process where the working hours of academic staff in both the universities and the institutes of technology (ITs) will be more closely monitored.

The group is also under pressure to establish a new umbrella body for the ITs, a national technological university, which would help to boost the status of the ITs. However, it has still to decide on this issue.

In a blow for parents, Minister for Education Mary Coughlan last month refused to rule out an increase in the €1,500 student registration charge from 2011.

The Minister made her comments during a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education which discussed the huge financial challenges that are now facing the higher-education sector.

© 2010 The Irish Times

imme

rightwingdub wrote: »

They should never have been abolished in 1995, thats what happens when Labour are in government, also third level students might begin to value their courses more and the quality of courses will improve if fees are brought back.

were the Labour Party not elected or something.
Do third level students not value their education at present?, considering the considerable registration fees (third level fees) that they have to pay.

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

ardmacha

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

Presumably this is based on the propostion that you get what you pay for, you cannot run Third Level institutions without money to fund libraries etc. You cannot have education comparable to other prosperous countries unless you spend a similar amount of money per student.

Eliot Rosewater

imme wrote: »

Do third level students not value their education at present?, considering the considerable registration fees (third level fees) that they have to pay.

€1,650 is not "considerable" for a full year in a thirdlevel institution. Students like to make a big deal of this number, conveniently forgetting that the costs of their education far exceed that. Additionally, not every student pays the registration fee. In UCC, where I attend, I think about one third don't. It's funny, then, that the free-fees campaign likes to hone in on fairness and opportunity, when in reality increasing fees won't actually affect the financially worst off. It's only for the middle classes.

As regards the valuing of ones education, it's only natural that if someone is not paying for something they will value it less. A lot of college students make a big deal about "golden weeks": weeks in which they attend all of their lectures. "OMG, I nearly had a golden week lol." Apparently actually attending all of your lectures is something strange, something you should be commended for.

imme wrote: »

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

More funding = better education. The university had hire better staff, and more staff. This year I had tutorials cut because of funding difficulties.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

€1,650 is not "considerable" for a full year in a thirdlevel institution. Students like to make a big deal of this number, conveniently forgetting that the costs of their education far exceed that. Additionally, not every student pays the registration fee. In UCC, where I attend, I think about one third don't. It's funny, then, that the free-fees campaign likes to hone in on fairness and opportunity, when in reality increasing fees won't actually affect the financially worst off. It's only for the middle classes.

Firstly, those that don't pay the existing fees aren't allowed to sit exams or even if they manage to sit them, to get the results.

Secondly, for all this talk about middle class, many of those contained in that bracket have a lot less disposable income to pay for university fee's.

As regards the valuing of ones education, it's only natural that if someone is not paying for something they will value it less. A lot of college students make a big deal about "golden weeks": weeks in which they attend all of their lectures. "OMG, I nearly had a golden week lol." Apparently actually attending all of your lectures is something strange, something you should be commended for.

Dunno about that. Never heard of these "Golden weeks" until you mentioned them. But if the college course was taught by good lecturers, was interesting, and actually sought to teach understanding (rather than just cramming and learning off chunks), there would be more people attending the lectures.

In my first seminar, I was in every one of my lectures, since the lecturers made the subject material interesting and well, even if it was a boring subject, they made it clear that understanding was needed to pass the exams. In the second semester I attended 4 lectures for this one subject. Why the drop off? It was the same material taught for the last 3 years, the lecturer was crap, and there was the obvious point that you could pass without going to lecturers. I got 79% in his exam from going to 4 lectures.

More funding = better education. The university had hire better staff, and more staff. This year I had tutorials cut because of funding difficulties.

More funding does not equate to better education or better staff. It just means they don't have to pay as much attention as they should. The problem is not just with the money given to education, but how it is spent, and also who it is spent on.

My college just before christmas replaced every chair in the canteen (old fashioned cheap plastic chairs) with new fancy aero-dynamically designed chairs, which I would guess cost quite a bit. This is an example of how the money is spent... :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

imme wrote: »

were the Labour Party not elected or something.
Do third level students not value their education at present?, considering the considerable registration fees (third level fees) that they have to pay.

No it's odd actually. Its almost as if something has caused them to take their education for granted.

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

More funding for universities/colleges.

Eliot Rosewater

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly, those that don't pay the existing fees aren't allowed to sit exams or even if they manage to sit them, to get the results.

Many students don't pay the reg fee due to grants. For example, if they're from a disadvantaged area. The percentage is quite high.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dunno about that. Never heard of these "Golden weeks" until you mentioned them.

Maybe it's only a UCC thing. In any case, attendance is pretty bad in general in my experience. My Arts friends tell me that lecture halls are packed out for the first lecture, then declines to about half for normal lectures in term.

Deleted User wrote: »

But if the college course was taught by good lecturers, was interesting, and actually sought to teach understanding (rather than just cramming and learning off chunks), there would be more people attending the lectures.

I don't see why that should matter. Students are getting a service for comparatively little; they should at least go to lectures. They're not there to be entertained; they're there to get an education.

Deleted User wrote: »

More funding does not equate to better education or better staff. It just means they don't have to pay as much attention as they should. The problem is not just with the money given to education, but how it is spent, and also who it is spent on.

You're taking a very pessimistic approach to the issue. How do you think universities improve, if not through extra funding? UCC recently build the new IT complex, which offers world-class facilities for a number of departments. It cost €13 million I think. For every story of chairs in the cafeteria I'm sure there are many more of money being invested for the good of the university. You need money to improve.

Irish universities are competing with universities with better funding.

wonderfulname

As it stands the system is horribly biased against all those living just above the poverty line, but below a standard of living where they can afford to drop 1,500 euro in a lump sum. This is even the case at second level to be honest (I myself have just finished my leaving cert so this might just be a tad anecdotal), where medical cards entitle people to a number of reductions on things they might be better placed to afford than others. As such I also believe that bringing in upfront fees is a bad idea, the rules will not be fair and grants and personal loans will not cover everybody who needs it.
The system proposed a while back, that all fees be emalgimated and the sum be paid as a government sponsered loan, to be repayed via increased tax, makes more sense to me. It does not hinder anyone, nor does it give anyone a free ride. It also allows for repeat fees etc.

The taxation element brought an interesting question to mind though:

The IMF paper says that an important trend in labour markets in the advanced economies has been a steady shift in demand away from the less skilled toward the more skilled. This is the case however skills are defined, whether in terms of education, experience, or job classification. This trend has produced dramatic rises in wage and income inequality between the more and the less skilled in some countries, as well as unemployment among the less skilled in other countries.
In the United States, for example, wages of less-skilled workers have fallen steeply since the late 1970s relative to those of the more skilled. Between 1979 and 1988 the average wage of a college graduate relative to the average wage of a high school graduate rose by 20 percent

Given this statement could you not say that through an increase in income and hence an increase in tax paid, graduates already more than pay for their education?

SkepticOne

Third level fees will probably come back, not with the aim of achieving higher standards but simply because, in a deteriorating economy, the money won't be there to subsidise universities to the same extent.

There have been some comparisons between Irish and US universities on this thread. Probably the most appropriate comparison would be between Irish universities and the US state system with it's combination of fees and subsidy. I don't think there'll ever be valid comparisons between any Irish university and the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford or whatever. We don't have the size of population from which these institutions draw. Private fee paying institutions already exist in Ireland but they will never develop into anything like the top US universities.

ardmacha

Third level fees will probably come back, not with the aim of achieving higher standards but simply because, in a deteriorating economy, the money won't be there to subsidise universities to the same extent.

Exactly it will be question of preventing a dangerous decline in standards rather than any expansion.

I don't think there'll ever be valid comparisons between any Irish university and the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford or whatever.

Was there not a statistic knocking around that Stanford's budget was about the same as all of the universities (or even all of third level) in the Republic of Ireland put together. Stanford has less students than UCD.

imme

Just found some remarkable figures on Indymedia website (the result of an internet search, for those interested) about the numbers of schoollesavers per postal district who proceed on to further education.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/91024 (the source isn't referenced and it's not clear if it's admission to universities or 3rd level in general)

Reminded me of the John Lonergan (Mountjoy Prison Governor) remark that he can predict by postal district who will enbd up in Mountjoy.


On pricipal I don't think 3rd Level fees should be reintroduced, but welcome a discussion at national level about it.

I can't see an unpopular government pushing such a measure, as well after former Minister O'Keeffe rowed back from it last year.

imme

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

€1,650 is not "considerable" for a full year in a thirdlevel institution. Students like to make a big deal of this number, (1) conveniently forgetting that the costs of their education far exceed that. Additionally, not every student pays the registration fee. In UCC, where I attend, (2) I think about one third don't. It's funny, then, that the free-fees campaign likes to hone in on fairness and opportunity, when in reality increasing fees won't actually affect the financially worst off. (3) It's only for the middle classes.

As regards the valuing of ones education, it's only natural that if someone is not paying for something they will value it less. A lot of college students make a big deal about "golden weeks": weeks in which they attend all of their lectures. "OMG, I nearly had a golden week lol." Apparently actually attending all of your lectures is something strange, something you should be commended for. (4)


(5) More funding = better education. The university had hire better staff, and more staff. This year I had tutorials cut because of funding difficulties.

(1) Registration fees are not fees for 3rd level education, remember 3rd level fees are free! How could a registration fee equate to the 'free' cost of education?
(2) Are there any other figures availavble from UCC other than anecdotal accounts?
(3) The return of fees will affect all.
(4) Do you think students whose parents pay for their 3rd level education (if fees were reintroduced) would have a different appreciation.
(5) Was 3rd level education of a better standard in Ireland when fees were payable. "Better staff"????? Do 3rd level institutions hire staff of a sub standard variety or something at the moment?
Were the funding difficulties that you mention part of government cut backs in general? If there hadn't been cutbacks would you have been happy with the level of tutorials available?

Tragedy

I'm against third level fees after seeing(personally) and hearing of so many examples of the squandering and wastage of money in universities/colleges in Ireland.

It's no different to any other public service, throw all the money you want at it and the quantative difference will be negligible and I don't trust individual institutions to manage and spend funds marked for infrastructural development.

The_B_Man

Having free fees or not can affect someones life. Its the difference between being able to afford college, and giving up college for a mediocre job. Just because some muppets decide they want a free ride, does not mean everyone does. For every muppet, theres at least 10 people who are serious, and I'd be interested to find out how many of these would not be able to attend college without some govt subsidisation.

Also, being 18-25, most people wouldnt have commitments, ie mortgage, kids, etc. This is the perfect time to go to college, but also the time when people will be broke! By the time they can afford college themselves, they have commitments and are accustomed to a certain quality of life. They'll be less likely, in my opinion, to leave that behind and go back. In saying that, I'm aware of all the mature students going back to college these days, but they're all availing of grants!

thebman

imme wrote: »

(1) Registration fees are not fees for 3rd level education, remember 3rd level fees are free! How could a registration fee equate to the 'free' cost of education?
(2) Are there any other figures availavble from UCC other than anecdotal accounts?
(3) The return of fees will affect all.
(4) Do you think students whose parents pay for their 3rd level education (if fees were reintroduced) would have a different appreciation.
(5) Was 3rd level education of a better standard in Ireland when fees were payable. "Better staff"????? Do 3rd level institutions hire staff of a sub standard variety or something at the moment?
Were the funding difficulties that you mention part of government cut backs in general? If there hadn't been cutbacks would you have been happy with the level of tutorials available?

Registration fees are massive though. If they reintroduce fees they will have to reduce registration fees to the actual level to cover cost of registration.

At the moment, it pays for many student facilities. Its like VRT, its not a registration fee, its a massive surcharge to screw you over.

Eliot Rosewater

imme wrote: »

(1) Registration fees are not fees for 3rd level education, remember 3rd level fees are free! How could a registration fee equate to the 'free' cost of education?

It costs €1,650 to attend a third level institution in Ireland per year. This is the amount people pay for their education. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still a fee to go to college. Even UCC student's union agree with me.

imme wrote: »

(2) Are there any other figures availavble from UCC other than anecdotal accounts?

A breakdown of the UCC registration fee shows that roughly €55 of it goes to the students union.

According to a students union officer, the union gets €400k from this.

€400k/€55 equals under 7,500. So presumably about 7,500 people pay the registration fee.

According to UCC there are 12,578 undergraduates. As you can see, there's quite a discrepancy.

The only issue with that reasoning is the €400k figure, ie whether that ignores certain USI deductions. Anyway, it's enough to show that a sizable chunk of the student body don't pay the reg fee.

imme wrote: »

(3) The return of fees will affect all.

No, it won't affect the poorest members of society, as per above.

imme wrote: »

(4) Do you think students whose parents pay for their 3rd level education (if fees were reintroduced) would have a different appreciation.

Probably. But fostering an appreciation of one's education is only a small argument for fees; there are many more.

imme wrote: »

"Better staff"????? Do 3rd level institutions hire staff of a sub standard variety or something at the moment?

There are different grades of staff, starting from Irish IT standard right up to Harvard. Staff higher up the scale demand higher compensations and greater amounts of funding for research, presumably.

imme wrote: »

Were the funding difficulties that you mention part of government cut backs in general? If there hadn't been cutbacks would you have been happy with the level of tutorials available?

No, the funding difficulties were always there. Most of UCC's debt comes from the construction of the new information technology building that opened last September. Certain students have taken a dim view of its construction, saying that UCC couldn't afford it. The point is that the building has improved the university. Some students appear willing to sacrifice the quality of the university in order to keep it free. I think that their priorities are wrong.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Many students don't pay the reg fee due to grants. For example, if they're from a disadvantaged area. The percentage is quite high.

And they're taken for an interview by the college/university to determine if the fees are waived because of their circumstances. Its not as if there's a lot of people joining colleges, attending classes, and getting away without paying. Its part of a system.

Maybe it's only a UCC thing. In any case, attendance is pretty bad in general in my experience. My Arts friends tell me that lecture halls are packed out for the first lecture, then declines to about half for normal lectures in term.

Perhaps its just me, but I'd be inclined to look for reasons from the college's responsibility for such low attendance. Its very easy to say that its typical students, but why are they not attending?

I don't see why that should matter. Students are getting a service for comparatively little; they should at least go to lectures. They're not there to be entertained; they're there to get an education.

They're there for a useful education. Something they can use in the real world. However, there is a rather large degree of education in colleges which is of no practical use. Either its outdated, or pure abstract theory. Or that the lecturers themselves are so long out of their respective fields they're teaching a focus which is of no real use.

I originally completed my degree over 10 years ago, and came back to college to get the honors postgrad of the same course. I was game on, dedicated & focused which lasted the first semester. The second semester drained that focus from me, simply because the lectures were awful.

This is not about entertainment. Its about making the course material interesting. If its not interesting then students will find it harder to understand/learn, and many will stop coming to lectures.

You're taking a very pessimistic approach to the issue. How do you think universities improve, if not through extra funding? UCC recently build the new IT complex, which offers world-class facilities for a number of departments. It cost €13 million I think. For every story of chairs in the cafeteria I'm sure there are many more of money being invested for the good of the university. You need money to improve.

I don't think I'm being pessimistic. I'm being practical. During the 9 odd months I attended that college I saw a number of projects which the college started/finished with the aim of improving the college. Most were mismanaged or useless compared to what the money could have been invested in.

And my point still stands. The problem is not the lack of funding. In the 10 years + that I was out working, the college added many facilities, but when i came back, I had my lectures in the same rooms as I had before, had mostly the same lecturers, and the content wasn't improved all that much. During the boom, money poured into the colleges and it was wasted in many case. Oh they did add some quality facilities and such, but for the most part it was wasted.

The problem is with how the colleges are managed, and the measures they must satisfy before approval on spending occurs. And the secondary problem is the quality of the lecturers.

The_B_Man

The_B_Man wrote: »

Having free fees or not can affect someones life. Its the difference between being able to afford college, and giving up college for a mediocre job. Just because some muppets decide they want a free ride, does not mean everyone does. For every muppet, theres at least 10 people who are serious, and I'd be interested to find out how many of these would not be able to attend college without some govt subsidisation.

Also, being 18-25, most people wouldnt have commitments, ie mortgage, kids, etc. This is the perfect time to go to college, but also the time when people will be broke! By the time they can afford college themselves, they have commitments and are accustomed to a certain quality of life. They'll be less likely, in my opinion, to leave that behind and go back. In saying that, I'm aware of all the mature students going back to college these days, but they're all availing of grants!

Actually they're not all. I wasn't eligible for a grant. And I knew quite a few of the other mature students who also didn't qualify for any grants. And these would be (myself included) people with a mortgage, or other such drains on income.

I've asked this a number of time, but never get an answer. How many of the people here calling for the reintroduction of the fees went through college without them? Now that they're past college, they favor the return of the fees. They're removed from the problem. I felt the same way when i was working, and had no intention of returning to college. But circumstances change... I did go back to college, and frankly it saved my sanity to have something useful to do when i couldn't find work. I've just graduated, and honestly, I'm against the reintroduction of the fees. I'm unlikely to go back to college again, but I see the value of the fees not being there.

Eliot Rosewater

Deleted User wrote: »

And they're taken for an interview by the college/university to determine if the fees are waived because of their circumstances. Its not as if there's a lot of people joining colleges, attending classes, and getting away without paying. Its part of a system.

Okay, so what's your point? I said that the poorest in society would be exempted if fees we re-introduced, a position that is supported by the fact that they already are.

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps its just me, but I'd be inclined to look for reasons from the college's responsibility for such low attendance.

Why? Once again, people aren't going to college to be entertained. If they believe a degree course has value then they decide to do it and they put in the work to attain good grades. Additionally, if you're going to try and "blame" colleges then you'll have to explain why some people go to most of their lecturers and why some people don't.

Deleted User wrote: »

They're there for a useful education. Something they can use in the real world. However, there is a rather large degree of education in colleges which is of no practical use.

So why are they doing that course?

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think I'm being pessimistic. I'm being practical. During the 9 odd months I attended that college I saw a number of projects which the college started/finished with the aim of improving the college. Most were mismanaged or useless compared to what the money could have been invested in.

So how do you think we should improve universities? Do you think that simply cutting down on waste is enough to enable Irish universities to compete on the world stage? And do you think they can do this without any extra funding?

invinciblePRSTV

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So how do you think we should improve universities? Do you think that simply cutting down on waste is enough to enable Irish universities to compete on the world stage? And do you think they can do this without any extra funding?

I'll field this one.

Simply put economies of scale need to be introduced. What messes up the Irish tertiary sector is that it's not just the universities that need cash, but all the other ITs and fetac colleges, Each requiring expensive administration.

Let's merge/shut all these no name colleges into bigger less complex units.
Guaranteed big savings.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can't wait for it to happen. Whats going to happen when rural institutes like LYIT & Carlow etc are proposed for the chop? along with the likes of the Tipp institute i can't see much reason for their existence beyond being the result of classic pork barrel politics.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Okay, so what's your point? I said that the poorest in society would be exempted if fees we re-introduced, a position that is supported by the fact that they already are.

You responded to my point that there weren't loads of people escaping the paying of the administration fee... it wasn't about poorer people being exempted from paying.

Why? Once again, people aren't going to college to be entertained. If they believe a degree course has value then they decide to do it and they put in the work to attain good grades. Additionally, if you're going to try and "blame" colleges then you'll have to explain why some people go to most of their lecturers and why some people don't.

Dunno, why this has to be about assigning blame. The system doesn't work. Doesn't make more sense to look at all factors, and seek a reasonable and workable solution, rather than just "blame" students or colleges?

So why are they doing that course?

Any number of reasons. But I'll give you a personal example. When i applied to my course in Business Studies, I checked the course program, had a look at the subjects, and browsed some of the recommended reading. The content of the course appealed to me, since it would provide an academic explanation to many of the areas of work I had performed over the previous 10 years. Sorted. However, when I started the course, I realised very quickly that the lecturers taught subject matter that was very different to what was advertised as being the course content. Sure, they covered them in broad strokes, but the meat of the course was completely up to them, and it changed depending on the area's they wished to cover at the time.

So, for me I was disappointed because the course didn't do what was advertised.... I was also extremely disappointed at the quality of the lecturers... But I've posted that before in this thread. Not going to repeat myself.

So how do you think we should improve universities? Do you think that simply cutting down on waste is enough to enable Irish universities to compete on the world stage? And do you think they can do this without any extra funding?

Well, I'd be inclined for a honest review of the lecturers taking input from the students that had done the course. If lecturers failed to measure up to the supposed standards of the course, then they would be forced to re-educate themselves with the skills needed to lecture properly, or to move on. I'd also love to see lecturers hired on proven past ability rather than some paper masters or phd with doesn't really show anything except their ability to study. It would also be nice if the respective qualifications/experience matched the subjects they were teaching.

The lecturers that were the most interesting, had the highest attendance, and the best exam results were those that had worked professionally in their respective areas. The lecturers with few practical examples, or held themselves apart had low attendance.

I'd also like to see a proper review of the guidelines by which colleges invested in buildings and facilities. The college I was in spent a fortune on a new engineering building contracted out to a local company. This company used cheap materials, and now the building which was finished last July, stands empty because its too dangerous to enter it. The blocks in the roof/ceiling have fallen inside the building at times, due to shoddy craftsmanship and cheap materials. Looks lovely on the outside, but a complete waste of money. Now the same contractor has the job of fixing it, and there isn't any money left to do it. So its standing there, empty, and no work is being done on it.

I'd also like to see a review of the periods of "holidays" and "study weeks". I was amazed at the amount of time that there were no lectures for one reason or another due to the college calendar. In spite of the long holidays the college got at summer, there were numerous long periods where the whole place was closed. What was just as annoying was that the Library was closed, as were other facilities, when the lecturers were off.. so we couldn't study there even if we wanted to.

And I could go on. And on. and on.

I came back to college after working for over a decade, and I was amazed at the amount of inefficiency and waste that happened there.

Spudmonkey

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I'll field this one.

Simply put economies of scale need to be introduced. What messes up the Irish tertiary sector is that it's not just the universities that need cash, but all the other ITs and fetac colleges, Each requiring expensive administration.

Let's merge/shut all these no name colleges into bigger less complex units.
Guaranteed big savings.

Don't know the details, but I've heard rumours about how the Tipperary IT (TippInst, heh like that's fooling anyone) was to be merged with the LIT, as was recommended in an bord snip. However someone kicked up a raucous over this, the recommendation was rescinded and some of those in the Tipp Institute managed to renegotiate contracts on similar rates, some higher than before, to those in the Limerick IT.

The net result being that the whole situation between both institutes is far more in-efficient now than it was previously. This was heard from a friend whose father is a top dog in one of the IT and therefore did not make the news. I don't have more details than that so unfortunately that's just going to go down as one of these hear-say arguments.

imme

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It costs €1,650 to attend a third level institution in Ireland per year. This is the amount people pay for their education. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still a fee to go to college. Even UCC student's union agree with me.



A breakdown of the UCC registration fee shows that roughly €55 of it goes to the students union.

According to a students union officer, the union gets €400k from this.

€400k/€55 equals under 7,500. So presumably about 7,500 people pay the registration fee.

According to UCC there are 12,578 undergraduates. As you can see, there's quite a discrepancy.

The only issue with that reasoning is the €400k figure, ie whether that ignores certain USI deductions. Anyway, it's enough to show that a sizable chunk of the student body don't pay the reg fee.



No, it won't affect the poorest members of society, as per above.



Probably. But fostering an appreciation of one's education is only a small argument for fees; there are many more.



There are different grades of staff, starting from Irish IT standard right up to Harvard. Staff higher up the scale demand higher compensations and greater amounts of funding for research, presumably.



No, the funding difficulties were always there. Most of UCC's debt comes from the construction of the new information technology building that opened last September. Certain students have taken a dim view of its construction, saying that UCC couldn't afford it. The point is that the building has improved the university. Some students appear willing to sacrifice the quality of the university in order to keep it free. I think that their priorities are wrong.

I´m not dressing up anything Eliot. A registration fee is one thing and college fees are another thing.
I wouldn´t like to presume that less than half the students in UCC are having their fees paid by the State.
I´d like to know the facts, not to assume them.

Different grades of staff? I`m not sure what this means. Did Irish third level institutions employ a greater number of these Harvard-standard staff when full fees were payable.

So, you`re saying that the capital costs of the new UCC IT facility are affecting current spending. Is the college being managed effectively?

Chuchoter

I'm just wondering, why do we have 38 third level institutions if they are all grossly underfunded? Would it not make sense to halve that number and just have a few really good ones? Then you wouldn't have to pay fees and you'd have a really good service. I know someone just posted a link about the Dublin ITs, but all these tiny ones, why were they ever set up?

Eliot Rosewater

Deleted User wrote: »

You responded to my point that there weren't loads of people escaping the paying of the administration fee... it wasn't about poorer people being exempted from paying.

But I think that's how it started. I said that if fees were introduced the worst off would not be affected.

Deleted User wrote: »

Any number of reasons. But I'll give you a personal example...

That sounds pretty unfortunate, and I obviously can't excuse the college.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I'd be inclined for a honest review of the lecturers taking input from the students that had done the course.

But the problem is, at least in UCC, that lecturers' primary responsibility is research. I don't know if it's the same in your place. So while terrible lecturers exist they won't be removed because the teaching is only secondary. It's unfortunate for undergrads, but I can see why the system is like that

It comes back eventually to student responsibility. University isn't secondary school: there is a huge onus on the student (now an adult) to work themselves. Hence the short hours.

So you think it's a managerial issue? From what you've said, I'd agree. The question is how we can improve that, especially within the context of the public service. And secondly, within the universities, is efficiency nearly enough?

imme wrote: »

I wouldn´t like to presume that less than half the students in UCC are having their fees paid by the State.
I´d like to know the facts, not to assume them.

Ditto. Which is why I outlined, above, a rough estimate, using facts, of how many students don't pay the reg fee.

imme wrote: »

Different grades of staff? I`m not sure what this means. Did Irish third level institutions employ a greater number of these Harvard-standard staff when full fees were payable.

I don't see why that matters. Quite simply, if fees were introduced then universities would have more money.

imme wrote: »

So, you`re saying that the capital costs of the new UCC IT facility are affecting current spending. Is the college being managed effectively?

That's what the student's union say, though they have a vested interest because claiming the college is badly run is their best tactic for ensuring free fees remain. But, as above, will improvements in efficiency be enough?

ardmacha

That's what the student's union say, though they have a vested interest because claiming the college is badly run is their best tactic for ensuring free fees remain. But, as above, will improvements in efficiency be enough?

Of course there is always some room for efficiency, but this has probably already been absorbed since 2008. Education generally is by no means the least efficient part of the PS in Ireland, while there are always examples from particular institutions the sector as a whole compares better with other countries than many public services.

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/our-excellent-universities-top-eu-league-table-for-efficiency-2112511.html

Tragedy

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course there is always some room for efficiency, but this has probably already been absorbed since 2008. Education generally is by no means the least efficient part of the PS in Ireland, while there are always examples from particular institutions the sector as a whole compares better with other countries than many public services.

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/our-excellent-universities-top-eu-league-table-for-efficiency-2112511.html

Dude, way to misrepresent a news article.

That's about efficiency of graduates, not efficiency of financial spending.

ardmacha

That's about efficiency of graduates, not efficiency of financial spending.

Well if the quality of outputs is higher than the European average, in the form of a large number of well educated graduates, and the financial inputs are not the highest in Europe then this is measure of efficiency.

gulf

What's the point in pumping money into education when graduates are leaving in their droves for London?

I know several PhDs who are doing very well in London thanks to the Irish exchequer. It costs €15k a year for 4 years to train an engineer, about €25k a year for 3 years at postgraduate level.

I guess the mediocre are left to compete against each other for the choice pickings of a failed state.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But I think that's how it started. I said that if fees were introduced the worst off would not be affected.

Lets leave it as a misunderstanding on both sides. We're arguing about completely different things.

That sounds pretty unfortunate, and I obviously can't excuse the college.

The point is that this is not unique. I experienced similar 10 years ago in the same college, and also in Sligo RTC before that. There is a rather large gap between what is advertised, what is planned and lastly what is actually performed in class.

But the problem is, at least in UCC, that lecturers' primary responsibility is research. I don't know if it's the same in your place. So while terrible lecturers exist they won't be removed because the teaching is only secondary. It's unfortunate for undergrads, but I can see why the system is like that

Ahh well, I think that's stupid. A university or college is a place of education first not research. The primary purpose of a lecturer is to impart both their own personal experience of a subject/discipline, and also the academic relationship. While lecturers may do research papers, perform experiments or write for journals, the main reason they have that position is to teach students. Regardless of whether its undergrad or postgrad.

The lecturer is there to provide a framework for research & study. Otherwise we might as well skip lectures, use the topics from the syllabus, and just grab information from the internet. What is the purpose of Lecturers then?

Why not just abolish all universities which don't have a practical aspect (Lab science, Crafts, etc), and send everyone else (Business, Social Sciences, etc) to study online?

Students hold responsibility to develop their own study and to complete their projects/assessments/etc. But that does not remove the requirement for lecturers (as being the experts in their field) to provide the building blocks, to be there for questions/explanations, and ultimately guide a student along the rocky path of the course objectives.

Take Strategic Implementation. A Business Subject. If I went off on my own I could spend the next 5 years studying theories about strategy, case studies of businesses implementing different strategics, and articles regarding those different areas. Without the framework provided by lecturers to regulate the flow of information, and also to provide clarity on many very abstract theories relevant to the course, most students would lose themselves.

It comes back eventually to student responsibility. University isn't secondary school: there is a huge onus on the student (now an adult) to work themselves. Hence the short hours.

No, the short hours is another example of the Public service in regards to education takes the piss. Seriously. The amount of time off that lecturers receive in formal holidays is bad enough, but through canceled classes, religious sessions, university events etc. makes the idea of it being a workplace a joke.

I worked 11 years doing various professional office type work. Monday to Friday. Average of 8am to 6pm officially. Unofficially add 1-3 hours each day. Often brought work home with me to do on the weekends. 14 Official days holidays a year. 4-6 sick holidays a year. You get the picture?

Now compare that with Lecturers being paid by the public service, the amount of holidays, free time, benefits, etc.

Now tell me again the reason for the short hours?

So you think it's a managerial issue? From what you've said, I'd agree. The question is how we can improve that, especially within the context of the public service. And secondly, within the universities, is efficiency nearly enough?

I believe that the public service gets away with a lot in this country simply because it is the public service. For too many decades, we've just shrugged our shoulders and said that inefficiencies and bureaucracy were the norm. We would just have to make do with the system and make minor changes. What is the difference between any Public service department/facility and a normal Private Business department?

Secondly, is inefficiency enough? Of course not, but its something to strive towards in addition to other values for a performance related organization.

Ditto. Which is why I outlined, above, a rough estimate, using facts, of how many students don't pay the reg fee.

In UCC.

I don't see why that matters. Quite simply, if fees were introduced then universities would have more money.

Not necessarily. They'd just have more money to spend on things/services. That doesn't necessarily translate into providing either a better service, or making it break even.

Nehaxak

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.

...because it's prejudiced attitudes like you have expressed that those from low income families encounter from both their professors and classmates that make them think, well really, wtf is the point of even trying, I've failed before I've even begun. Not to mention the generally crap secondary schooling they get from their local schools compared to that which higher income earning families would get from theirs (I'm being generalistic here but it would normally be the case).

For many low income earning area's of the country, schooling more or less ends or is pretty much pointless past primary education due to complete lack of funding, crap and unmotivated, prejudiced teachers teaching them and the constant and incessant notion being instilled into children from schools in these area's that the child is worthless and will amount to nothing anyway.
So many leave at the earliest legal opportunity (if not before) without even a passing thought put toward third level education - they've rarely if ever even been seriously encouraged to consider it as an option during secondary schooling.
For those that do follow the path, real pressing life matters due to their own circumstances can take over and interfere or hinder their progress.
Kids will be kids and teenagers especially coming of age will change as the few short years roll by, but there's a lot more crap to encounter and put up with in disadvantaged area's or disadvantaged families than there are in middle or higher "classed" area's and families, which weigh a lot more heavily on the outcome of their results, if they've even managed to drag themselves through it that far.
A little thought and consideration toward those less fortunate than your good self wouldn't go amiss sometimes, outside of your own fine upbringing and family life.

I also don't see why I as a taxpayer had to pay to fund or part fund your education - you personally or your family could probably well have afforded to pay for it themselves with no problems...whereas others in society need a helping hand both economicaly and encouragingly to fulfill and hopefully succeed at their desired profession, to pull themselves and their future family out and away from what they themselves had to put up with. A few thousand a year in grants to help them do that is well worth it imo.
I'd prefer also that more disadvantaged students were encouraged toward the health profession rather than it being what it is now, a more or less elitist profession reserved for those from more well off families - might help society coming to terms with the crap they seem to have produced from it all, what with all the scandals involving junior doctors recently who no matter how much they've learned nor how much they've educated themselves, can't even seem to grasp the basic principles of intelligence itself. Yeah, world class education system my arse.

Tragedy

ardmacha wrote: »

Well if the quality of outputs is higher than the European average, in the form of a large number of well educated graduates, and the financial inputs are not the highest in Europe then this is measure of efficiency.

Thats also bollocks.
Firstly; Efficiency has nothing to do with quality.
Secondly; Overall efficiency of graduates getting a job in Ireland has next to nothing to do with the quality of their education/degree.
Thirdly; The report you linked is pre-recession, so the 'efficiency' will have nose dived.

ardmacha

Firstly; Efficiency has nothing to do with quality.

Hardly. If you had no interest the quality of graduates you could have a student ratio of 100:1 and give everyone a first.
How else can you measure the performance of education than that people are well educated?

Secondly; Overall efficiency of graduates getting a job in Ireland has next to nothing to do with the quality of their education/degree.

Thirdly; The report you linked is pre-recession, so the 'efficiency' will have nose dived.

We are concerned with the perceived employability of Irish graduates, not whether they got a job in Ireland or elsewhere.