all grants and funds for students are finished this year (maybe)

XxMCRxBabyxX

bnt wrote: »

No, the €1,600 is only the "student service fee" + a few more things - while tuition fees are much more depending on the course. Then there's accommodation, food, and other living expenses. I'd like to see e.g. 20,000 DIT, DCU, UCD and TCD students all trying to find jobs in Dublin, all at once. :rolleyes:

They could always get jobs in their hometowns either?

I'm studying and living up in Maynooth but work in a newsagents in Wicklow Town every weekend, not to mention the Aviva Stadium during matches!

P.S. The Aviva are currently hiring for those of you claiming there aren't student friendly jobs out there atm!

Sardonicat

prinz wrote: »

Get a job, work for a few years, save up and return to college when you can afford it, armed with maturity and life experience.

Had on of those, once. Used the money I saved form it to pay for my degree (didn't qualify for a grant) Took another **** job for a year to pay for my masters as well as living expenses (you know, food, rent, travel.) Now I don't have a job and no prospect of one either. So how do you think somone without a degree will get one?

Amhran Nua

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes my actual experience working with both undergraduate and graduate programs in both Ireland and the US is "no evidence". :rolleyes:

You could be Mickey Joe Monaghan, Cavan turnip farmer for all I know.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I am saying two things. First, people are going to go into high-earning fields like law or medicine whether the government pays for them or not, so why would the government pay for it? They can get the tax benefit without paying for the cost of that education.

Believe it or not, not everyone is stridently confident that they will pass their exams from the time they leave school. The very fact that a five figure loan needs to be taken out will dissuade a lot of people who might otherwise have gone in, found out they had what it takes after all, and passed with flying colours. Added to which you're straight off putting a financial burden on young graduates at a time when they least need it. And if someone does take the loan and washes out, they are burdened with a huge debt and no qualification, which is a ridiculous way to run an educational system. Not to mention such a system is weighed heavily in favour of people who already have plenty of money, they can take courses without any risk at all.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Second, if the overall concern is the long-term well being of the government's finances, then it would be better served investing in R&D, which is good for attracting both financial and human capital - i.e. high-earners from other countries whose educations the governments did not pay a nickel for (a la Google).

Why not do both?

southsiderosie wrote: »

American universities have been at the forefront of innovation for the last 50 years, and it is a pay-to-play system.

Government funding plays a huge part in that, cf DARPA, or why did you think embryonic stem cell research has gone nowhere there.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Proper funding of the universities is far more important that proper funding of the students, because top universities will attract students regardless of the cost.

Sorry, what exactly do you think is going to happen if the government allows fees to be introduced? They are going to cut the government contributions by the amount of fees that are charged. So you might end up paying €15,000 a year for NO tax reduction and the exact same service you were getting before. If you think the government is going to reduce taxes by the amount they stopped spending on education you are sorely mistaken.

southsiderosie wrote: »

So why aren't Irish graduates donating to the universities that they got to attend FOR FREE? How is it that in the US, where people pay to go to school, schools still get very generous contributions from alumni?

Maybe they need to be encouraged, I have no idea. I know a lot of Unis in Ireland have a big plaque of past alumni who contributed. Perhaps the difference is the capital isn't being invested. I do think Irish universities need an investment portfolio. I wonder how much of a return you could get from a once off investment of several billion, and how much that might reduce the burden on the Irish taxpayer in the mid term...

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'd say very 21st century. If a small country like Ireland wants to remain competitive, it better start using its scarce resources wisely.

No, its 19th century. The 21st century is modern European socialised democracies, something the US is slowly going to have to drag itself around to. I get the feeling I'm more arguing some sort of ideological issue here than the realities as they apply to Ireland, but suffice it to say that without education, all the resources in the world won't make a bit of difference, see Africa for reference.

Amhran Nua

bnt wrote: »

Though, now I think of it, I fail to see why the profit motive should never be a factor in tertiary education or its funding

Because not all research is immediately profitable, or ever profitable. Boolean algebra was a minor mathematical curiosity for over a century until computers made it vital to civilisation as we know it.

bnt wrote: »

Oh, and by the way: the Internet arose from research by DARPA (and its predecessors) in to reliable military communications in the event of nuclear war.

And also the first example at hand. Another one would be NASA or any of a thousand others. The computer you're typing on was assembled and probably made in China, home of the government-owned corporation.

scientific1982

Duggy747 wrote: »

Get a job, I couldn't get grants of any kind and paid my own way through college in Sligo for 3 years.............I worked brutal hours at Lidl in my town in Roscommon but, dammit, it paid for everything.

Just stop going out binging on Thursday nights and doing whatever hoodlum things you pesky students do nowadays :pac:

I had a job all through college too but i would have been ****ed without the grant. A lot of people were in the same position as me.

desertcircus

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes my actual experience working with both undergraduate and graduate programs in both Ireland and the US is "no evidence". :rolleyes:

That rolleyes emoticon bugs the hell out of me. But that's just personal preference. What does bother me, though, is that someone with considerable experience in university environments doesn't seem to understand that an assertion made without independent evidence can be equally easily dismissed without independent evidence. What's to stop me saying "I've met loads of Irish and American students, and Irish ones work harder, so there"? Surely it's abundantly obvious that a single possibly skewed perspective is a poor basis upon which to build a policy position?

Next thing that annoys me: can anyone explain, simply and clearly, why people should be made to pay for undergraduate education but not for the Leaving Certificate? It's strictly optional after the age of sixteen, after all, and there's a serious difference in lifetime earnings, so surely we should be telling those kids to knuckle down, find jobs and work their way through the Leaving Cert?

Thirdly: either people need to be made to work harder in college, or they need to be sent to do part-time work. You can't have it both ways, kids. Demand both and the quality of the education they're paying for drops dramatically. If you want them to bust their balls studying, then don't expect them to be able to turn in 25 hours a week in a part-time job.

Fourthly: 25 hours of part-time work is not going to net you 16-18k. Assuming you can actually do the 25 hours, it'll net you a little over 11k, which won't get you far if some of the posters here have their way and charge the full whack for, say, a science degree.

Fifthly: perhaps the reason that numbers of college applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds didn't go up when fees were abolished had something to do with the fact that the economy boomed at the same time, and it became far easier to get a decent job straight from school. Maybe without free fees we'd have seen a collapse.

Sixthly: charge people for third level and you'll ensure less people from poorer backgrounds apply, especially for the expensive stuff. College debts of sixty thousand are a big deal for someone whose parents are both top-rate taxpayers; the same amount is insane for someone with two parents on the dole. What does that mean? It means that we select applicants based on their ability to pay rather than their ability to learn - and it means that in twenty years, there's a chance you'll be hospitalised and face a doctor who would never have been good enough to get into a white coat until the talented poor kids were scared off by the fees.

Seventhly: the graduate income gap. Increased earning power for graduates isn't all it's cracked up to be - it might be a big gap in the US, where just over a quarter of the population have a degree, but Ireland has one of the highest proportions of college-educated people in the EU, so the earning premium is probably a good deal lower - there are more graduates to go around, so you can command less of a bonus.

Deep breath...

Killer Pigeon

flas wrote: »

just got a text from my girlfriend, she was in class and some faculity member from her college came into the lecture and told them all that the grants, which they are about to recieve the first payment of, has been cut so they will not be getting what they were originally told.

he then proceeded to explain that this is the last year of grants and funds for students as they are being totally done away with.

what is anyone who wants a 3rd level education but is not rolling in money ment to do now?

Well I got the first installment of my grant but that's because I'm special.

Amhran Nua

desertcircus wrote: »

That rolleyes emoticon bugs the hell out of me. But that's just personal preference. What does bother me, though, is that someone with considerable experience in university environments doesn't seem to understand that an assertion made without independent evidence can be equally easily dismissed without independent evidence. What's to stop me saying "I've met loads of Irish and American students, and Irish ones work harder, so there"? Surely it's abundantly obvious that a single possibly skewed perspective is a poor basis upon which to build a policy position?

Next thing that annoys me: can anyone explain, simply and clearly, why people should be made to pay for undergraduate education but not for the Leaving Certificate? It's strictly optional after the age of sixteen, after all, and there's a serious difference in lifetime earnings, so surely we should be telling those kids to knuckle down, find jobs and work their way through the Leaving Cert?

Thirdly: either people need to be made to work harder in college, or they need to be sent to do part-time work. You can't have it both ways, kids. Demand both and the quality of the education they're paying for drops dramatically. If you want them to bust their balls studying, then don't expect them to be able to turn in 25 hours a week in a part-time job.

Fourthly: 25 hours of part-time work is not going to net you 16-18k. Assuming you can actually do the 25 hours, it'll net you a little over 11k, which won't get you far if some of the posters here have their way and charge the full whack for, say, a science degree.

Fifthly: perhaps the reason that numbers of college applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds didn't go up when fees were abolished had something to do with the fact that the economy boomed at the same time, and it became far easier to get a decent job straight from school. Maybe without free fees we'd have seen a collapse.

Sixthly: charge people for third level and you'll ensure less people from poorer backgrounds apply, especially for the expensive stuff. College debts of sixty thousand are a big deal for someone whose parents are both top-rate taxpayers; the same amount is insane for someone with two parents on the dole. What does that mean? It means that we select applicants based on their ability to pay rather than their ability to learn - and it means that in twenty years, there's a chance you'll be hospitalised and face a doctor who would never have been good enough to get into a white coat until the talented poor kids were scared off by the fees.

Seventhly: the graduate income gap. Increased earning power for graduates isn't all it's cracked up to be - it might be a big gap in the US, where just over a quarter of the population have a degree, but Ireland has one of the highest proportions of college-educated people in the EU, so the earning premium is probably a good deal lower - there are more graduates to go around, so you can command less of a bonus.

Deep breath...

Well said sir, good shot.

desertcircus

I forgot number eight: charging significant fees makes it even more of a sure thing that the good grades will go to the kids whose parents can afford to pay the fees for them, because they don't have to work during term time and can spend more time studying. So they get better grades, and the bulk of the earning premium, while paying less (given the effect of interest on your college loans) than the kids who had to bust a nut to keep their heads above water.

And last: what if the college doesn't want its students working in term time? If I remember correctly, Cambridge bars its undergraduates from working in term time; what do people do if they want to study something available only in Trinity, which then institutes a similar policy?

southsiderosie

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You could be Mickey Joe Monaghan, Cavan turnip farmer for all I know.

And you could be some lazy punk undergrad for all I know.

In Ireland, undergraduate coursework is much more exam-oriented, whereas in the US, there is more of a focus on constantly producing work, being assessed and re-assessed, and building up what you know over the term. It's more difficult to cram at the end of the term and pass. I think the US approach means that learning "sticks" more, and that the students are more engaged over the course of the semester.

At a graduate level, US programs given their students much more time and money to learn the literature, develop their own research, and get publications out. Given that academics are judged on their research output, this is important. In my area of study at least, the final products tend to involve more original research (and less theory or piggybacking on a tutor's work), and are much more careful methodologically. I should note that this has nothing to do with the nationality of the students themselves (international students are heavily represented), and everything to do with how programs are structured.

At a faculty level, the resources are not even comparable: the US system comes out waaay ahead., although from what I can tell (not having seen a detailed breakdown), some lecturers' salaries in Ireland look very very high based on where they are at and what they are expected to do.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Believe it or not, not everyone is stridently confident that they will pass their exams from the time they leave school. The very fact that a five figure loan needs to be taken out will dissuade a lot of people who might otherwise have gone in, found out they had what it takes after all, and passed with flying colours.

Well then someone else will take their slot who is willing to take the risk.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Added to which you're straight off putting a financial burden on young graduates at a time when they least need it. And if someone does take the loan and washes out, they are burdened with a huge debt and no qualification, which is a ridiculous way to run an educational system. Not to mention such a system is weighed heavily in favour of people who already have plenty of money, they can take courses without any risk at all.

So then taxpayers should absorb the drop-out risk?

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why not do both?

Because Ireland has no money.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Government funding plays a huge part in that, cf DARPA, or why did you think embryonic stem cell research has gone nowhere there.

I think you are helping my point here: more government funding goes to research in the US because they are not subsidizing the individual tuition for students.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Sorry, what exactly do you think is going to happen if the government allows fees to be introduced? They are going to cut the government contributions by the amount of fees that are charged. So you might end up paying €15,000 a year for NO tax reduction and the exact same service you were getting before. If you think the government is going to reduce taxes by the amount they stopped spending on education you are sorely mistaken.

If fees are reintroduced, then the students who want to get a degree so they can significantly increase their lifetime earnings will work, take out loans, or do whatever they need to do to get a degree. The students who balk at taking out 20K in loans will have to resign themselves to earning 20K or less a year.

In addition, the government can shift its educational resources to maintaining faculty-student ratios and funding research, although it is obvious that there will still need to be cuts.

Nowhere have I said anything about tax reduction, which would only make the situation worse. The government has no money.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Maybe they need to be encouraged, I have no idea. I know a lot of Unis in Ireland have a big plaque of past alumni who contributed. Perhaps the difference is the capital isn't being invested. I do think Irish universities need an investment portfolio. I wonder how much of a return you could get from a once off investment of several billion, and how much that might reduce the burden on the Irish taxpayer in the mid term...

Well I think one of the main reasons is that because a university education isn't seen as an entitlement, but rather a privilege, many people feel grateful for the opportunities they were given, and want to give back.

In general, Americans have a more DIY culture than Europeans. The first response for us traditionally has not been to look to the government. I think Ireland has lost some of this ethos in the last 15 years, but it is goign to have to come back in a hurry. In addition, because living on campus is the norm at large state schools, I think students end up having much deeper ties to the school, and alumni offices do a lot to maintain those ties. Finally, I think there is a culture of philanthropy among American wealthy people that is somewhat different than that in Ireland - especially since Ireland was not traditionally a wealthy country, and going to uni wasn't the norm until relatively recently. Given that Irish people do donate pretty regularly to individual charities, it will be interesting to see if universities can groom a similar kind of donor culture across its new crop of alumni.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

No, its 19th century. The 21st century is modern European socialised democracies, something the US is slowly going to have to drag itself around to. I get the feeling I'm more arguing some sort of ideological issue here than the realities as they apply to Ireland, but suffice it to say that without education, all the resources in the world won't make a bit of difference, see Africa for reference.

Mmm, I think Europe is going to have to drag itself around to the fact that it cannot afford the welfare state promissory note that it has written for itself. And my view of 21st century competition actually has very little to do with Europe and everything to do with Asia, where competition for university slots are cutthroat, and people take school much much more seriously.

southsiderosie

desertcircus wrote: »

I forgot number eight: charging significant fees makes it even more of a sure thing that the good grades will go to the kids whose parents can afford to pay the fees for them, because they don't have to work during term time and can spend more time studying. So they get better grades, and the bulk of the earning premium, while paying less (given the effect of interest on your college loans) than the kids who had to bust a nut to keep their heads above water.

Why would that be the case? There are plenty of lazy rich kids whose parents send them to top universities where they barely pass their classes and then dick around most of the time. Who do you think works harder and gets better grades at a place like Harvard: the kid who is the first in his family to go to college and works part-tie in the cafeteria to pay his rent, or the rich kid types whose parents pay all of their bills and who have a cushy job waiting for them at daddy's firm when they graduate?

desertcircus wrote: »

And last: what if the college doesn't want its students working in term time? If I remember correctly, Cambridge bars its undergraduates from working in term time; what do people do if they want to study something available only in Trinity, which then institutes a similar policy?

Then they will have to take out a loan, which I believe is the system in the UK.

Sardonicat

southsiderosie wrote: »

If fees are reintroduced, then the students who want to get a degree so they can significantly increase their lifetime earnings will work, take out loans, or do whatever they need to do to get a degree. The students who balk at taking out 20K in loans will have to resign themselves to earning 20K or less a year.

I paid my way through uni as a mature student. If I could now get a job for 20K I would be delighted. There are very few jobs out there. BTW, not everyone, including those of us with an education are entirely motivated by money.

southsiderosie

desertcircus wrote: »

That rolleyes emoticon bugs the hell out of me. But that's just personal preference. What does bother me, though, is that someone with considerable experience in university environments doesn't seem to understand that an assertion made without independent evidence can be equally easily dismissed without independent evidence. What's to stop me saying "I've met loads of Irish and American students, and Irish ones work harder, so there"? Surely it's abundantly obvious that a single possibly skewed perspective is a poor basis upon which to build a policy position?

Because it's late, I have other **** to do, and I'm not posting my CV on boards.

desertcircus wrote: »

Next thing that annoys me: can anyone explain, simply and clearly, why people should be made to pay for undergraduate education but not for the Leaving Certificate? It's strictly optional after the age of sixteen, after all, and there's a serious difference in lifetime earnings, so surely we should be telling those kids to knuckle down, find jobs and work their way through the Leaving Cert?

Can't help you here; I still don't understand how all of that works. SAT for the win!

desertcircus wrote: »

Thirdly: either people need to be made to work harder in college, or they need to be sent to do part-time work. You can't have it both ways, kids. Demand both and the quality of the education they're paying for drops dramatically. If you want them to bust their balls studying, then don't expect them to be able to turn in 25 hours a week in a part-time job.

My parents did not have the money to send me to private university. I worked my ass off in high school and got a scholarship. To keep my scholarship, I had to maintain a B/B+ average (3.2 out of 4.0). To have any kind of pocket money, I had to work 20 hours a week, as my scholarship only covered basic school costs and dormitory housing. I also volunteer tutored on the weekend. I even threw the occasional kick-ass BBQ.

My friends did the same. And we all graduated in four years with no debt.

Oh, and I also walked barefoot in the snow 3 miles uphill each way to class. EVERY. DAY.

desertcircus wrote: »

Fourthly: 25 hours of part-time work is not going to net you 16-18k. Assuming you can actually do the 25 hours, it'll net you a little over 11k, which won't get you far if some of the posters here have their way and charge the full whack for, say, a science degree.

No, but 25 hours/week will cover rent, food, and the occasional 6-pack.

desertcircus wrote: »

Fifthly: perhaps the reason that numbers of college applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds didn't go up when fees were abolished had something to do with the fact that the economy boomed at the same time, and it became far easier to get a decent job straight from school. Maybe without free fees we'd have seen a collapse.

I agree with you there: the short-term money was very good then. Imagine what people could do now if they had actually saved it!

desertcircus wrote: »

Sixthly: charge people for third level and you'll ensure less people from poorer backgrounds apply, especially for the expensive stuff. College debts of sixty thousand are a big deal for someone whose parents are both top-rate taxpayers; the same amount is insane for someone with two parents on the dole. What does that mean? It means that we select applicants based on their ability to pay rather than their ability to learn - and it means that in twenty years, there's a chance you'll be hospitalised and face a doctor who would never have been good enough to get into a white coat until the talented poor kids were scared off by the fees.

I think there should be outreach to poorer and first--to-go-to-uni families that emphasize the benefits of getting a degree and make it clear that repayment of loans is contingent on income after completing school. However, one lesson of the push to get everyone to college in the US has been that pushing kids who aren't ready or committed is actually worse in the long run because they end up dropping out. Junior Colleges/City Colleges play a 'bridging' function in the US (credit hours are very cheap), and that might be worth looking into for Ireland (or linking through technical/vocational programs or something).

desertcircus wrote: »

Seventhly: the graduate income gap. Increased earning power for graduates isn't all it's cracked up to be - it might be a big gap in the US, where just over a quarter of the population have a degree, but Ireland has one of the highest proportions of college-educated people in the EU, so the earning premium is probably a good deal lower - there are more graduates to go around, so you can command less of a bonus.

If there are more graduates, and the value of a degree is diluted, why would you want to make it easier to add more students to the pool?

southsiderosie

Sardonicat wrote: »

I paid my way through uni as a mature student. If I could now get a job for 20K I would be delighted. There are very few jobs out there. BTW, not everyone, including those of us with an education are entirely motivated by money.

There are few jobs (in Ireland) now. But do you really think that your having a degree will not have an impact on your earnings for the next 20 years?

And yes, knowledge for knowledge's sake is great, and third-level education can be an awesome, mind-bending experience. But the Irish government can no longer afford to pay for everyone's mind-bending experiences, and I doubt it every could in the first place.

Amhran Nua

southsiderosie wrote: »

And you could be some lazy punk undergrad for all I know.

No, I couldn't. Click the link in the sig there, find my phone number in the representatives, and let your fingers do the walking, you can decide for yourself who I am. Preferably in the daylight hours of course.

southsiderosie wrote: »

In Ireland, undergraduate coursework is much more exam-oriented, whereas in the US, there is more of a focus on constantly producing work, being assessed and re-assessed, and building up what you know over the term. It's more difficult to cram at the end of the term and pass. I think the US approach means that learning "sticks" more, and that the students are more engaged over the course of the semester.

At a graduate level, US programs given their students much more time and money to learn the literature, develop their own research, and get publications out. Given that academics are judged on their research output, this is important. In my area of study at least, the final products tend to involve more original research (and less theory or piggybacking on a tutor's work), and are much more careful methodologically. I should note that this has nothing to do with the nationality of the students themselves (international students are heavily represented), and everything to do with how programs are structured.

At a faculty level, the resources are not even comparable: the US system comes out waaay ahead., although from what I can tell (not having seen a detailed breakdown), some lecturers' salaries in Ireland look very very high based on where they are at and what they are expected to do.

So no evidence, then.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well then someone else will take their slot who is willing to take the risk.

And of course because you have fewer students applying, the cost per student goes up, along with everything else.

southsiderosie wrote: »

So then taxpayers should absorb the drop-out risk?

Yes, the benefits far outweight the risks. The vast majority of dropouts are in first year, which not coincidentally are the cheapest, since class sizes are much larger. In fact it could almost be said that third level institutions would have an incentive to wash students out in first year to maximise profits.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because Ireland has no money.

Savaging the future isn't going to help that. I can think of a couple score quangos that could be axed long before you'd even need to look at education, never mind fees.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think you are helping my point here: more government funding goes to research in the US because they are not subsidizing the individual tuition for students.

And if the US cut military expenditure they could subsidise several continents worth of students, while we're on the subject of where government funding goes. So if there were a few less aircraft carriers perhaps there would be a lot more high earning taxpaying students?

southsiderosie wrote: »

If fees are reintroduced, then the students who want to get a degree so they can significantly increase their lifetime earnings will work, take out loans, or do whatever they need to do to get a degree. The students who balk at taking out 20K in loans will have to resign themselves to earning 20K or less a year.

In addition, the government can shift its educational resources to maintaining faculty-student ratios and funding research, although it is obvious that there will still need to be cuts.

You keep running around the indisputable fact that third level education is the best investment any government can make. If anything we need to completely remove any fees which currently exist.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Nowhere have I said anything about tax reduction, which would only make the situation worse. The government has no money.

And here you betray a lack of understanding of the Irish situation. If expenditure was even at 2004 levels we'd be breaking even. Were fees charged in 2004?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well I think one of the main reasons is that because a university education isn't seen as an entitlement, but rather a privilege, many people feel grateful for the opportunities they were given, and want to give back.

On an equal level of credibility I could say that Uni in the US is where the rich people get together and make contacts, ensuring a glass ceiling for everyone else, and therefore have plenty of spare change to hand out.

southsiderosie wrote: »

In general, Americans have a more DIY culture than Europeans.

Europe is not a country.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Mmm, I think Europe is going to have to drag itself around to the fact that it cannot afford the welfare state promissory note that it has written for itself. And my view of 21st century competition actually has very little to do with Europe and everything to do with Asia, where competition for university slots are cutthroat, and people take school much much more seriously.

Europe is not a country, and plenty of European countries are doing just fine, free education and all.

I don't know, the more that we talk about this, the more I become convinced your objections are ideological, not logical, so I don't really see much point in carrying on. Dogma is someone else's problem as far as I'm concerned.

Sardonicat

Which bank do you think will give undergrads loans to pay for an education which will not get them a job here? Unless you have been living under a stone, the banks aren't exactly throwing money at people at the moment.

Amhran Nua

And while we're on the subject of Asia, google "China research fraud" for a few eye openers on the results of a cut throat system.

Sardonicat

southsiderosie wrote: »

There are few jobs (in Ireland) now. But do you really think that your having a degree will not have an impact on your earnings for the next 20 years?

And yes, knowledge for knowledge's sake is great, and third-level education can be an awesome, mind-bending experience. But the Irish government can no longer afford to pay for everyone's mind-bending experiences, and I doubt it every could in the first place.

For the last time, I PAID FOR MY OWN EDUCATION! My point being, that despite the myth, not every student here gets free education.
As I am nearly 40, I seriously doubt I'll be able to earn much more than 20K now, as I have not been able to find any kind of work for 12 months. My degree, is, in effect, dead, along with the money I put into it. Based on that, it's unlikely any bank will dish out any loans they are unlikely to be repaid any time soon.

entropi

It's amazing how a rumour can fuel a debate like this...good reading so far but it does concern me, being one of those students who just started a BSc.

I knew already that the government wanted to cut grant payments (I do not qualify for one as I had one at lvl6 last year only, despite being a mature student from a "socially deprived" and financially unstable background) but somehow managed to pay my registration fee this year through the only savings I had. Now I just about manage to travel two counties away to college each morning, and back home at evenings on public transport (which is not fun, and leaves me no time to work even IF I could find work) and pay for rent, bills and food on under 200euro a week...I mean barely as in I cant really afford a lunch most days and do not piss any money away in bars.

The unfortunate thing for students these days is, although so many of you can go ahead and say "go get a job, because I did", the reality is that a large proportion of us are simply unable to due to uncontrolled circumstances yet you still remain stubborn and unable to listen due to using unopened eyes and seeing only what you want to.

Going back to employment and study hours, I myself cannot fathom being able to do both with the amount of travel and study I do in a week...my Saturday is spent trying to actually get some sleep because of my long days and trying to be social and my Sunday is more study and sleep. Most of my own course is CA, so I gotta be in for every lecture, alot of emphasis on hands on learning and lectures with alot of anatomical/physiological information. How am I, or anyone else in a similar situation to mine, able to work?

I would be able to see the logic behind the system they have in England whereby they pay back the course fees back over time once employed, and would accept it even though my own fees would amount to around 6k a year without reg fees on top. Doubling that reg fee would kill 3rd level education for too many people who are unable to find work anyway, so would be either left in limbo, get work through family or join the dole queue. I know a few people who have already left, or plan to leave this country very soon due to prospects of being unemployed in Ireland and really fancy their chances elsewhere, fair play to them...as with the useless government we have here spending funding for much needed sectors like health and education on their own salaries, too many civil servants doing too little work and simply stunning abuses of finances by bailing out banks and developers who crashed them in the first place, they would be better off outta here.

Doubtful I'll post in this thread again, but I've said my piece...and yes I will be at that march on Nov 3rd, along with around 700 students from where I study.

DB10

Its alright all the old students from the Celtic tiger years saying get a job, well here is some news brains, there are very little jobs going these days, especially student jobs.

And from my experience of applying, these low level jobs that require little qualification are just awarded to people with the right connections. As in they know employer/interviewer etc. Or else they are just in the right place at the right time.

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why would that be the case? There are plenty of lazy rich kids whose parents send them to top universities where they barely pass their classes and then dick around most of the time. Who do you think works harder and gets better grades at a place like Harvard: the kid who is the first in his family to go to college and works part-tie in the cafeteria to pay his rent, or the rich kid types whose parents pay all of their bills and who have a cushy job waiting for them at daddy's firm when they graduate?



Then they will have to take out a loan, which I believe is the system in the UK.

In Ireland we have a system called the CAO and basically you need points to get into the top Irish universities, not interviews or anything like that, you you're just a number. Even the rich kids have to work in Ireland to get into places like Trinity or UCD. This isn't always the case as the parents might pay for grinds, etc.. to do better in the LC.

southsiderosie

My position on university funding is not because I am some kind of free market fundamentalist. I actually supported government-sponsored tuition until I moved to Europe and saw the effect it had on the quality of its universities. The most exciting places to do research in Europe today are NOT in universities, but rather in free-standing think tanks that do not teach students, but rather solely focus on research. I think this is a shame, and it only hurts students, who now do not have access to some of the best faculty in the world, nor have the opportunity to work on these kinds of projects.

EU Universities lag behing American and increasingly Asian institutions, even when rankings are adjusted. European universities are not as competitive largely because they are underfunded and oversubscribed; in addition, graduates are generally not as well prepared academically. Beyond student performance, EU universities lag significantly behind American universities in terms of technology transfers; i.e. commercializing knowledge. Clearly Ireland is not Greece (or even France), but several decades of not paying fees will get you there.

So, again, please explain to me why governments should pay for students to go to university, but underfund the institutions, rather than funding the institutions, and underfunding students. Ultimately, the broad social benefits in terms of job creation, innovation, research money, commercial opportunities and collective brainpower come from having strong, well-funded research institutions, not from funding individual students. Ireland needs to reinstate fees, and focus on keeping its universities as centers of innovation and research that are attractive to students, faculty, and firms, or it risks going the way of its continental counterparts.


(And, yes, I am very aware of Chinese research fraud, as are most researchers, who are increasingly breaking off relationships with their Chinese counterparts because the data is not reliable, and they have no respect for intellectual property rights or norms of proper citation. But institutions in Singapore, Japan, and South Korea are far better in this regard, and the vast majority of top-notch Chinese researchers work in the US anyway.)

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

My position on university funding is not because I am some kind of free market fundamentalist. I actually supported government-sponsored tuition until I moved to Europe and saw the effect it had on the quality of its universities. The most exciting places to do research in Europe today are NOT in universities, but rather in free-standing think tanks that do not teach students, but rather solely focus on research. I think this is a shame, and it only hurts students, who now do not have access to some of the best faculty in the world, nor have the opportunity to work on these kinds of projects.

EU Universities lag behing American and increasingly Asian institutions, even when rankings are adjusted. European universities are not as competitive largely because they are underfunded and oversubscribed; in addition, graduates are generally not as well prepared academically. Beyond student performance, EU universities lag significantly behind American universities in terms of technology transfers; i.e. commercializing knowledge. Clearly Ireland is not Greece (or even France), but several decades of not paying fees will get you there.

So, again, please explain to me why governments should pay for students to go to university, but underfund the institutions, rather than funding the institutions, and underfunding students. Ultimately, the broad social benefits in terms of job creation, innovation, research money, commercial opportunities and collective brainpower come from having strong, well-funded research institutions, not from funding individual students. Ireland needs to reinstate fees, and focus on keeping its universities as centers of innovation and research that are attractive to students, faculty, and firms, or it risks going the way of its continental counterparts.


(And, yes, I am very aware of Chinese research fraud, as are most researchers, who are increasingly breaking off relationships with their Chinese counterparts because the data is not reliable, and they have no respect for intellectual property rights or norms of proper citation. But institutions in Singapore, Japan, and South Korea are far better in this regard, and the vast majority of top-notch Chinese researchers work in the US anyway.)

I'm gonna say this in a nice way but your posts reek of the stench of capitalism. In fairness, you really don't know about the state of other Irish professions excluding those in the field of economics (I assume you work in economics/finance). You mention law earlier as a profession that would be able to pay back all those students loans but in all honestly the state of the legal profession in Ireland is quite different from the state of the legal profession in the States. Many law graduates have found it extremely hard to get even apprenticeships. You might as well be studying Art History unless you plan to use your law degree to get into business.

The only professions in Ireland when graduates would be hired with good salaries after college to pay off their student loans would be medicine (obviously) and other professions within the health-care industry or finance (actuary especially).

Also you mention that the workload in American universities is greater than European universities. Well I beg to differ. I know an exchange student from UCSD studying engineering taking a maths module, she said she hadn't touched on the groundwork needed for that class in first year. (yes this was a second year maths module)

I often hear people saying that the standard of American science degrees too isn't as advanced (in terms of material covered) as European ones.

Amhran Nua

southsiderosie wrote: »

EU Universities lag behing American and increasingly Asian institutions, even when rankings are adjusted. European universities are not as competitive largely because they are underfunded and oversubscribed; in addition, graduates are generally not as well prepared academically. Beyond student performance, EU universities lag significantly behind American universities in terms of technology transfers; i.e. commercializing knowledge. Clearly Ireland is not Greece (or even France), but several decades of not paying fees will get you there.

And again, Ireland put billions into SFI and got nothing out of it. Its not the lack of funding, its the general lackadaisical attitude to government pork. Quoting the CSM isn't much help either.

southsiderosie wrote: »

So, again, please explain to me why governments should pay for students to go to university

Why, you have a back button on your browser.

southsiderosie wrote: »

but underfund the institutions, rather than funding the institutions, and underfunding students. Ultimately, the broad social benefits in terms of job creation, innovation, research money, commercial opportunities and collective brainpower come from having strong, well-funded research institutions, not from funding individual students. Ireland needs to reinstate fees, and focus on keeping its universities as centers of innovation and research that are attractive to students, faculty, and firms, or it risks going the way of its continental counterparts.

Worthless dogma. Once again, if government expenditure were at 2004 levels, we'd be breaking even. Were there fees in 2004? Just because the Irish government did research wrong, as they have done so much else wrong, doesn't mean it can't be done right.

southsiderosie wrote: »

(And, yes, I am very aware of Chinese research fraud, as are most researchers, who are increasingly breaking off relationships with their Chinese counterparts because the data is not reliable, and they have no respect for intellectual property rights or norms of proper citation. But institutions in Singapore, Japan, and South Korea are far better in this regard, and the vast majority of top-notch Chinese researchers work in the US anyway.)

No, you are not aware of the problems with Chinese research fraud. You specifically stated that Asian educational institutions were better because of their cut throat admission and advancement practices, yet it is for that exact reason that Chinese researchers are resorting to fraud to keep their jobs. And do we really need to talk about Korean research fraud? Yet another victim of pressure. Or Japanese? So yes, I would say that high pressure commercial research institutions are completely self defeating.

This is pointless. You've already stated that social darwinism is the way forward, and been proven inescapably wrong, therefore this is an ideological position for you, and one which is not supportable, so there is no point in continuing.

As yerman said, a zealot is one who will change neither their opinion nor the topic.

southsiderosie

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And again, Ireland put billions into SFI and got nothing out of it. Its not the lack of funding, its the general lackadaisical attitude to government pork. Quoting the CSM isn't much help either....

No, you are not aware of the problems with Chinese research fraud....

This is pointless. You've already stated that social darwinism is the way forward, and been proven inescapably wrong, therefore this is an ideological position for you, and one which is not supportable, so there is no point in continuing.

As yerman said, a zealot is one who will change neither their opinion nor the topic.

Given that I spent two years living with Harvard-based biomedical researchers, I have heard and read plenty about Chinese research fraud, more than I ever wanted or needed to know, frankly. Research fraud has also been an issue in the United States, especially in medical research. No country is immune from renegade researchers who are more interested in glory or a fat payday than actual knowledge. But the controls in China are far more lax than in other parts of the world, and their lack of intellectual property protection doesn't help either.

I'm not an economist. But I do understand how the economics of universities works, having spent much of my adult life studying and working in them.

I can see this is going nowhere. All I will say is that any list of the top universities in the world will be dominated by US institutions. By any objective measures, American universities outperform those in other countries, and many have been able to do so at tuition rates that the average middle-class family could afford (Berkeley being the prime example...until recently, anyway). They are also able to pull the world's best graduate students and faculty/researchers; in top engineering schools like MIT up to half of all the graduate students are international students, and they are the best of the best. Lucky for us many of them stay after graduation; a third of tech start-up CEOs in Silicon Valley are Chinese or Indian. If this system is so horrible, why are students from around the world lining up to take part in it - and often paying a fortune to do so? Why are policymakers around the world trying to replicate the Silicon Valley/Route 128 model, rather than the state-controlled free-for-all French model? The proof is in the pudding; if this is social darwinism, I'm all for it.

Ireland has two universities that crack the top 100 in many international polls, and this despite the fact that it is a tiny country. That is a remarkable achievement. That said, the US-UK-Ireland model has historically been quite different than the continental European model, and today we can see that difference in both the quality of the institutions and of the graduates. But Ireland's decision to adopt a continental-style approach to funding higher ed has already had an effect on its system (and the entitlement mentality of its students) and it will only get worse if more funds are not injected into it.

southsiderosie

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I'm gonna say this in a nice way but your posts reek of the stench of capitalism. In fairness, you really don't know about the state of other Irish professions excluding those in the field of economics (I assume you work in economics/finance).

Not anymore. I'm in a warmer fuzzier field today. But I have done some research into Irish labor markets, as you will see below.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You mention law earlier as a profession that would be able to pay back all those students loans but in all honestly the state of the legal profession in Ireland is quite different from the state of the legal profession in the States. Many law graduates have found it extremely hard to get even apprenticeships. You might as well be studying Art History unless you plan to use your law degree to get into business.

The only professions in Ireland when graduates would be hired with good salaries after college to pay off their student loans would be medicine (obviously) and other professions within the health-care industry or finance (actuary especially).

Given historical patterns of Irish wages in the public sector and business services, even if wages fell back to 2000 levels (which they are going to have to do anyway in the public sector), loans would be feasible.

Here are a few examples (and remember, these are 2000 wages):

Primary teacher: 690/week
Civil service: 573/week
Computing/R&D: 563/week
Retail: 427/week

A 200/month repayment x 12 months x 10 years = 22,000

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Also you mention that the workload in American universities is greater than European universities. Well I beg to differ. I know an exchange student from UCSD studying engineering taking a maths module, she said she hadn't touched on the groundwork needed for that class in first year. (yes this was a second year maths module)

I often hear people saying that the standard of American science degrees too isn't as advanced (in terms of material covered) as European ones.

I think that is true at an undergraduate level, but definitely not at a graduate level. American undergraduates are just not that interested in math and science; the most popular major is business. But American professors tend to give out a lot more assignments during the semester (weekly problem sets, essays, etc), rather than focusing so much on the end of term exam/project.

sensibleken

desertcircus wrote: »

I forgot number eight: charging significant fees makes it even more of a sure thing that the good grades will go to the kids whose parents can afford to pay the fees for them, because they don't have to work during term time and can spend more time studying. So they get better grades, and the bulk of the earning premium, while paying less (given the effect of interest on your college loans) than the kids who had to bust a nut to keep their heads above water.

...in turn leading to the false assumption that poor people are both thick and lazy.

any chance i could vote for you?

Sardonicat

southsiderosie wrote: »

Not anymore. I'm in a warmer fuzzier field today. But I have done some research into Irish labor markets, as you will see below.



Given historical patterns of Irish wages in the public sector and business services, even if wages fell back to 2000 levels (which they are going to have to do anyway in the public sector), loans would be feasible.

Here are a few examples (and remember, these are 2000 wages):



A 200/month repayment x 12 months x 10 years = 22,000




I think that is true at an undergraduate level, but definitely not at a graduate level. American undergraduates are just not that interested in math and science; the most popular major is business. But American professors tend to give out a lot more assignments during the semester (weekly problem sets, essays, etc), rather than focusing so much on the end of term exam/project.

It's interesting that your research into the Irish Labour markets didn't throw up the fact that there is no labour market in Ireland at the moment, or that most of the public sector is not recruiting at all due to a moratorium on hiring.

And you have yet to address the question as to which bank would lend to a student who will only be able to find work abroad, given that even viable buisinesses are finding it difficult to access credit at the moment.

southsiderosie

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's interesting that your research into the Irish Labour markets didn't throw up the fact that there is no labour market in Ireland at the moment, or that most of the public sector is not recruiting at all due to a moratorium on hiring.

And you have yet to address the question as to which bank would lend to a student who will only be able to find work abroad, given that even viable buisinesses are finding it difficult to access credit at the moment.

If you read what I was actually responding to, I provided wage not employment rate information to show what a reasonable bandwith of debt could be. And that data is based on wages a decade ago.

Yes the job market stinks right now, so students are going to have to decide if they want to go to school and hope things improve by the time they leave, emigrate, or hustle to find work wherever they can.

In the US and UK, the governments run the main loan programs.

And speaking of addressing issues, you (or any of the free fee camp) have yet to address the question: if fee-paying systems are so awful, 1) why do US universities come out on top in any study, survey, or ranking, 2) why are people from all over the world banging on the doors to get in, and 3) why are so many governments trying to replicate the US model? And if Ireland is to keep a free system, how are they going to pay for it?

Tiddlypeeps

southsiderosie wrote: »

And speaking of addressing issues, you (or any of the free fee camp) have yet to address the question: if fee-paying systems are so awful, 1) why do US universities come out on top in any study, survey, or ranking, 2) why are people from all over the world banging on the doors to get in, and 3) why are so many governments trying to replicate the US model? And if Ireland is to keep a free system, how are they going to pay for it?

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/home

The UK have a very strong position in the top Universities in the world, given their population compared to the US I would say they must be doing something right. 4 out of the top 10 are UK universities. In fact their colleges have dropped in the ranks significantly since they have reintroduced fee's (this may be a coincidence, but probably not). In 2009 they had 4 out of the top 5 positions.

gbee

Just to keep yer knickers on, the richest men in the world never went to school.

But that lesson just sails over so many peoples heads, that BA's look like like zombies looking for brains ... [and that's not to eat].

Crasp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why not?

you study all day sat and sun and every evening do you?

how about the fact that the monthly, full time minimum wage is €265? I earn that in one weekend at home ffs


Being in college from 8am to 6pm every day leave those 25 hours of work solely for Saturday and Sunday. I'm sure that you don't need to be told that that equates to 12.5hrs per day. It's not about studying 25hours every weekend, that leaves no time for study.


Why are you so determined to make me out to be some sort of thief for wanting the measely ~€3000 that the grant entitles me to?


I suppose you work 12.5 hours every weekend too do you? you do in your hole.

Asphyxia

Time to start looking for jobs or if you can pay the weekly payments get a loan.

Asphyxia

Look for a job or if you can pay the weekly repayments you could get a loan.

southsiderosie

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/home

The UK have a very strong position in the top Universities in the world, given their population compared to the US I would say they must be doing something right. 4 out of the top 10 are UK universities. In fact their colleges have dropped in the ranks significantly since they have reintroduced fee's (this may be a coincidence, but probably not). In 2009 they had 4 out of the top 5 positions.

Yes, I noted that in an earlier post; the US/UK/Irish model has served these countries very well. The UK's experiment with trying to maintain high quality at low-to-no cost universities however is coming to a crashing end, as I suspect Ireland's fling with no fees will soon.

As for the rankings you cited, Oxford and UCL were tied for fifth last year, and slipped to 6th and 7th on decimal points. Cambridge moved up to #1 and UCL didn't move. So statistically, there was a miniscule change from last year.

To put it slightly differently, in 2005, two of the top 10 were UK universities (Cambridge and Oxford, which sit at the top of pretty much any international ranking). In 2010, four out of the top 10 were UK universities. So according to the rankings list that you cited, the performance of UK universities has actually improved over the past 5 years with fees.

brummytom

Crasp wrote: »

stfu?

6 years of tuition fees + books, rent + bills, food and travel expenses... there is no way that any unskilled job would allow me to earn that amount of money per year and attend college at the same time.


"Dear Mr bank manager, i need €60,000 to pay for 6 years of college, and associated rent, travel, food and educational materials. Obviously I'll pay it all back after I qualify. I'll be good for paying it back (in small amounts) in about 6 years time, I swear"

That's exactly what happens here

Crasp

brummytom wrote: »

That's exactly what happens here

i assume you're talking about the loan?

If I was offered that, I would take it in a heart beat! Take the loan now, pay it back when I'm earning,


it's a pity we don't have a system like the Norwegians have where the government lend them the money...

QuiteInterestin

I haven't read through this entire thread so apoloiges if I'm repeating a point. Fees have to come back in some shape or form, our colleges/universities can't afford for them not to. I'm not saying bring back fees for everyone, just those that can afford them. Continue with means testing students and giving the grant to those who meet the criteria but for children of higher earners, they should be expected to contribute to the cost of their third level education.

The abolishment of fees resulted in the expansion of private secondary schools as parents put their money into their childrens secondary education since college education was free. If parents are willing to pay €10,000+ a year for their children to attend a private secondary school, they can well afford to pay for their college years.

Tiddlypeeps

The means testing system they have in this country is terrible. Students are most often over 18 qualifying them as adults, yet they are still means tested based on there parents income. I know a lot of students do get money from there parents to help them, I couldn't have finished college without that help form my parents.

But i know a lot of students who don't qualify for the grants because their parents earn too much yet they don't get a penny from their parents. When I started college their were about 5/6 people out of 40 in my class who were in this situation, 1 of them finished and he barely passed his final year. This was because they had to work so many hours to get by each week.

I know working through college can be done, proven by many in this thread and the 1 guy in my class that did it but it makes it very difficult and most definitely compromises the quality of the degree you get at the end of it. This business of people who have to work hard just to stay in college will do better in college because of it is bull****, there is only so many hours in the day.

The head of the department from my college actually said to us last year that no student should be working during college, the sylabus is designed for a student who has the entire week available for study.

I had to work 70 to 80 hours per week in my 3rd and 4th year and I only came out the end with a 2:1. The people that got firsts worked more than that.

Cookie_Monster

Crasp wrote: »

I suppose you work 12.5 hours every weekend too do you? you do in your hole.

no, not anymore. just 37.5 during the week these days

However I somehow managed to balance a full time degree, 2 week nights in work and 17 hours in work over the weekend, every weekend for the 3 years I was in college, study and a social life. It's not hard.

The means testing system they have in this country is terrible. Students are most often over 18 qualifying them as adults, yet they are still means tested based on there parents income.
But i know a lot of students who don't qualify for the grants because their parents earn too much yet they don't get a penny from their parents

IMO its a major flaw in the system. For a lot of people what their parents earn has zero relevance to their own income and college life.

Tiddlypeeps

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, I noted that in an earlier post; the US/UK/Irish model has served these countries very well. The UK's experiment with trying to maintain high quality at low-to-no cost universities however is coming to a crashing end, as I suspect Ireland's fling with no fees will soon.

As for the rankings you cited, Oxford and UCL were tied for fifth last year, and slipped to 6th and 7th on decimal points. Cambridge moved up to #1 and UCL didn't move. So statistically, there was a miniscule change from last year.

To put it slightly differently, in 2005, two of the top 10 were UK universities (Cambridge and Oxford, which sit at the top of pretty much any international ranking). In 2010, four out of the top 10 were UK universities. So according to the rankings list that you cited, the performance of UK universities has actually improved over the past 5 years with fees.

Your missing the point, the point wasn't that the rankings dropped. The point was that you keep ranting about how amazing the American system is because the dominate the top 100, but the UK hold a very strong position up there (given its about the size of a about 1 state in the US) and until recently they didn't have fees.

So the crap you keep flinging about paying fees makes you work harder just cannot be backed up. The UK cannot afford free fee's anymore but I suspect once the economy picks back up they will bring it back.

pickarooney

prinz wrote: »

The standard of what is expected of students here in academic work terms is a joke by comparison to a lot of other developed countries where students are expected to stump up the cash to pay for the privilege. Talk to foreign Erasmus students here and 9 times out of 10 they will be having the easiest semester they've ever had.

I'd say that's true for all Erasmus students though. My year abroad was an absolute doddle.

prinz

pickarooney wrote: »

I'd say that's true for all Erasmus students though. My year abroad was an absolute doddle.

All I know is the Erasmus students I met when I was in college here all had a similar story, no comparison whatsoever in the workloads, expected research on your own time, projects, presentations, between what we do here, and what they do at home. I don't know about others, but where I was the workload was the same for Irish and Erasmus.

southsiderosie

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Your missing the point, the point wasn't that the rankings dropped. The point was that you keep ranting about how amazing the American system is because the dominate the top 100, but the UK hold a very strong position up there (given its about the size of a about 1 state in the US) and until recently they didn't have fees.

So the crap you keep flinging about paying fees makes you work harder just cannot be backed up. The UK cannot afford free fee's anymore but I suspect once the economy picks back up they will bring it back.

Cambridge and Oxford are two of the world's oldest universities, and have reputations that they have built up over centuries. They also have two of the most prestigious university presses in the world, and their faculty have a long history of contributing to English language academic journals. Because international rankings are heavily weighted by publications and citations of those publications, Cambridge and Oxford, because of their histories and their internal practices that generate hugely influential academic literature, have until recently not needed to rely on extensive government funding in order to maintain their international reputations.

I find it interesting that since the introduction of fees, universities besides Cambridge and Oxford have moved up in the rankings. What this says to me is that fees allow universities to build their research capacity and enhance their reputations. And I see this as good for British students as a whole: instead of the top options being limited to Oxbridge, the rising profile of a number of UK universities means that there are now more "elite", internationally-recognized seats for UK students. On the other side of the Atlantic, the development of world-class public universities like Berkeley, UCLA, Virginia, and Michigan means that there are more top-tier options - and relatively affordable ones - beyond the Ivy League, and arguably many state universities are just as good if not better than their more expensive private counterparts for their engineering programs.

However, developing science and technology research facilities is an expensive enterprise. So is conducting original surveys or large-N data collection. This is where most European universities fall behind North American ones, where more resources are put into developing research capacity, rather than subsidizing attendance. And this is exactly why UK unis are so worried about fees: most cannot keep up with North American schools, and are increasingly being bypassed by Asian universities as well (which, by the way, charge fees). When the UK economy picks up again, the government would be foolish to re-introduce fees, and should instead further invest in increasing their research output and building ties between universities, investors, and businesses.

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

However, developing science and technology research facilities is an expensive enterprise. So is conducting original surveys or large-N data collection. This is where most European universities fall behind North American ones, where more resources are put into developing research capacity, rather than subsidizing attendance. And this is exactly why UK unis are so worried about fees: most cannot keep up with North American schools, and are increasingly being bypassed by Asian universities as well (which, by the way, charge fees). When the UK economy picks up again, the government would be foolish to re-introduce fees, and should instead further invest in increasing their research output and building ties between universities, investors, and businesses.

So they end up only researching commercially viable stuff?
great plan

southsiderosie

bluewolf wrote: »

So they end up only researching commercially viable stuff?
great plan

It has worked quite well for the Bay Area, Boston, and Pittsburgh, to name a few. And they do far more than focus solely on commercially viable research. But having those relationships means that it makes it much easier to take commercially viable findings to market, which helps with the economy and job creation.

One of the key differences between the US and Europe (and there is a link I cited earlier in the thread) is that it is much harder for people with ideas in Europe to actually capitalize on them.

Yes universities are places where students are educated, but they are also places that can generate new products and new business. The expansion of universities, and in particular biomedical and technical research, has helped develop local and regional economies all over the US and beyond. Given that Ireland is a small country with an open economy and no major export commodities, it has to invest in research and technology in order to create some kind of niche for itself in the global marketplace, and to generate domestic employment and international exports. Unfortunately, for most of its modern history, Ireland's most valuable export has been its industrious young people, and that is a damn shame.

pickarooney

If Ireland were to follow a US model and introduce massive fees then give half the college places away to foreign students, does anyone really think this would have a positive effect on Ireland? It seems counterproductive to me, but there might be long-term benefits I'm not seeing.

Tiddlypeeps

southsiderosie wrote: »

Cambridge and Oxford are two of the world's oldest universities, and have reputations that they have built up over centuries. They also have two of the most prestigious university presses in the world, and their faculty have a long history of contributing to English language academic journals. Because international rankings are heavily weighted by publications and citations of those publications, Cambridge and Oxford, because of their histories and their internal practices that generate hugely influential academic literature, have until recently not needed to rely on extensive government funding in order to maintain their international reputations.

I find it interesting that since the introduction of fees, universities besides Cambridge and Oxford have moved up in the rankings. What this says to me is that fees allow universities to build their research capacity and enhance their reputations. And I see this as good for British students as a whole: instead of the top options being limited to Oxbridge, the rising profile of a number of UK universities means that there are now more "elite", internationally-recognized seats for UK students. On the other side of the Atlantic, the development of world-class public universities like Berkeley, UCLA, Virginia, and Michigan means that there are more top-tier options - and relatively affordable ones - beyond the Ivy League, and arguably many state universities are just as good if not better than their more expensive private counterparts for their engineering programs.

However, developing science and technology research facilities is an expensive enterprise. So is conducting original surveys or large-N data collection. This is where most European universities fall behind North American ones, where more resources are put into developing research capacity, rather than subsidizing attendance. And this is exactly why UK unis are so worried about fees: most cannot keep up with North American schools, and are increasingly being bypassed by Asian universities as well (which, by the way, charge fees). When the UK economy picks up again, the government would be foolish to re-introduce fees, and should instead further invest in increasing their research output and building ties between universities, investors, and businesses.

Yale and Harvard are hundreds of years old. Not quite as old as Oxford or Cambridge but still old enough for the same logic your applying to be the reason for their reputation. Imperial is only 100 years old, and UCL only 200 years old and they are both up there in the top 10 for last while.

I really think that you are just guessing and making **** up based on your own feelings from your own personal experience. You can't generalise like that, its just stupid.

southsiderosie

pickarooney wrote: »

If Ireland were to follow a US model and introduce massive fees then give half the college places away to foreign students, does anyone really think this would have a positive effect on Ireland? It seems counterproductive to me, but their might be long-term benefits I'm not seeing.

I think the view of the US system is skewed towards the Harvards and Yales, where annual tuition alone can reach upward of $30,000. Frankly I don't think this is viable long-term even in the US, although most students at schools as wealthy as Harvard do not pay anything near the set rate.

I think a better model may be the state university system. Although educational inflation has skyrocketed over the last decade, state university systems like the ones in California and Virginia have historically provided a high-quality education at tuition rates that middle-class families could afford. But as with any system, underfunding is deadly. Californians voted themselves lower taxes 30 years ago, and that has contributed to the decimation of its public school system. I also think their public sector unions are completely out of control, and are helping to further bankrupt the state. If this sounds suspiciously similar to what is happening with Ireland's public finances right now, that's because it is.

Finally, as for international students, most US universities put quotas on admitting foreign undergraduates (5-10%), but most graduate programs are wide open. And foreigners are very heavily represented in engineering, medicine and science graduate and post-graduate research programs. Given that so much entrepreneurship is driven by this population, I absolutely see it as a long-term benefit.

wild_cat

Grade A shit stirring OP, well done.