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

southsiderosie

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

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.

No, Yale and Harvard are related to my point: the old established universities that dominate academic publishing will always have the top slots. But public funding of universities, and in particular research universities, provides huge benefits to both students (through the availability of more slots) and to industry.

On your ranking list:

8 of the top 100 were old Ivy League institutions. Three of these, Princeton Harvard and Yale, appear in the top 10.

9 were private universities, most of which are less than 150 years old. Three of these - MIT, Chicago, and Cal Tech - appear in the top 10.

12 were fee-paying publicly funded research universities

Notably schools like Emory and Duke used to be considered primarily regional universities where rich people sent their kids if they couldn't get into Princeton. And NYU was basically a commuter college. But over the last 30 years, these schools have raised fees, attracted huge private and corporate donors, and dramatically raised their national and international profiles. California wasn't even a state until 1850, and today hosts five of the top 100 universities, and three out of the five are public: UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UC-San Diego, Cal Tech and Stanford.

pickarooney

What's a private, as opposed to a public, university?

steddyeddy

I really hope this is not true as the standard of our countries educated could drop significantly. Its the cream of the crop we would be looking to attract.

southsiderosie

pickarooney wrote: »

What's a private, as opposed to a public, university?

Private universities are independent of the state. Many of the older ones were originally founded by religious orders (for example, Brown was founded by Baptists; Georgetown by Jesuits). They set their own fees, and tuition is often double or triple the rate of public universities, but because they get a lot of alumni support and build their endowments, they offer lots of financial aid to poorer students. Most private colleges and universities tend to be smaller than state schools with a much lower student to faculty ratio, although there are exceptions.

Public universities are part of a state university system, and each of the 50 states in the US have them. State legislatures have a say in setting fees, and sometimes in setting staff wages as well. Many were founded as federal "land grant" colleges in the 1860s, meaning that the national government gave the states land to develop colleges and technical schools that were specifically meant to further research in agriculture and industry. Therefore, state universities often have a strong reputation for engineering and science, especially in mechanical and electrical engineering. They also tend to have close ties to local and state industries, both via their research labs and through their job placement and alumni networks. However, they are generally very large; most flagship campuses have upwards of 30,000 students, and some schools have close to 50,000. Lecture halls are huge, and most sections will be taught by graduate students, not faculty. Individual states heavily subsidize tuition for residents; out of state students pay up to double the tuition rate. They don't tend to give out as many scholarships because they are funded by taxpayers, but some have special programs where the top 10% of every graduating class in the state will be guaranteed a slot (Texas does this).

Now that I think about it, this public/private divide is what makes the US system really different from the European system, and why we (ok, I) seem to be speaking a different language in this thread. The older, private traditional colleges and universities were basically built on the classic German or British university model, and traditionally had a special focus on the humanities. By and large, the government has let them be, and for most of their history, only the wealthy and elite sent their children there. I think for a lot of Europeans, this is the face of the American university system: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other well-known schools that can cost upwards of $40,000 a year.

But the public university system - where most American students are educated - was specifically set up to not only educate the population, but to drive advancement in critical industries, which in turn would further economic development and national security. They also came to be seen as an emblem of American social mobility, because although they charged fees, there were generally quite affordable for most families (and offered means-tested financial support). Therefore, the organizing ethos and mission of public universities has always emphasized their economic in addition to their social role, and state schools are seen as a natural partner for government and industry - and this is not necessarily to the detriment of students, who quite often benefit from these relationships when it comes time to find a job.

steddyeddy

This reminds me of America before they brought in the access courses, ie intelligence was not the dominating factor in college entry.

steddyeddy

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.


Why, you have a back button on your browser.


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.


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.

+ 1000 well done its a pity that you have to explain to some people that a government should have a vested interest in education but you did it well.

And by the way your right about social Darwinism not being the way forward and if it really were social Darwinism then it would be the intelligent people who progress, money would be independent of the process.

southsiderosie

steddyeddy wrote: »

+ 1000 well done its a pity that you have to explain to some people that a government should have a vested interest in education but you did it well.

And by the way your right about social Darwinism not being the way forward and if it really were social Darwinism then it would be the intelligent people who progress, money would be independent of the process.

As I noted in my above post (which you thanked, by the way), governments can have a HUGE vested interest in tertiary education. But having an interest does not necessarily mean that they pay the fees. My argument through this entire thread has been that government should be investing in education, but by investing in the institutions, not by paying individual student's fees. This is the essence of the public university system in the US: keep fees low enough to be affordable for most middle class families, but high enough to maintain the facilities and research standards that drive innovation and employment. Unfortunately, this is coming apart at the seams right now because states are underfunding their universities, in part due to populist anti-tax measures that are slowly destroying our educational (and transport) infrastructure.

El Siglo

So did the ****ing op start a bull**** thread about some rubbish they heard then? That's made my evening then...

Personally, I'd murder every td if they scrapped the grant. I'm doing a PhD in Queen's and this is the only funding I have. I'm just lucky that my supervisor is sound out.

MrMatisse

Just dont pay out to farmers kids, who are all loaded but are too tight to sell off an oul field or two.

steddyeddy

southsiderosie wrote: »

As I noted in my above post (which you thanked, by the way), governments can have a HUGE vested interest in tertiary education. But having an interest does not necessarily mean that they pay the fees. My argument through this entire thread has been that government should be investing in education, but by investing in the institutions, not by paying individual student's fees. This is the essence of the public university system in the US: keep fees low enough to be affordable for most middle class families, but high enough to maintain the facilities and research standards that drive innovation and employment. Unfortunately, this is coming apart at the seams right now because states are underfunding their universities, in part due to populist anti-tax measures that are slowly destroying our educational (and transport) infrastructure.

yes I thanked your post because I agree with most of your issues. I do however think the government should pay the fees of those who genuinly cant afford them, ie the socailly disadvanteged. By socially disadvantged I dont mean everyone on the dole im talking like 5 per cent of the country if that (people who are helped from st.vincent de paul for instance.) and people who are trying to break out of their socail disadvantage but finding it hard. I do think the government has no place funding the vast majority of students. I agree with you essentially but were we might differ (let me know) is the governments role in helping the socially disadvantaged to get educated.

steddyeddy

southsiderosie wrote: »

As I noted in my above post (which you thanked, by the way), governments can have a HUGE vested interest in tertiary education. But having an interest does not necessarily mean that they pay the fees. My argument through this entire thread has been that government should be investing in education, but by investing in the institutions, not by paying individual student's fees. This is the essence of the public university system in the US: keep fees low enough to be affordable for most middle class families, but high enough to maintain the facilities and research standards that drive innovation and employment. Unfortunately, this is coming apart at the seams right now because states are underfunding their universities, in part due to populist anti-tax measures that are slowly destroying our educational (and transport) infrastructure.

by the way were do you stand on measures to aid the lower class in paying their fees? By the way some states have excellent services to help certain people who cant afford to pay fees, I myself was educated in idaho state.

By investing in the middle and higher class alone and expecting a skills return you are not maximising your investment.

southsiderosie

steddyeddy wrote: »

by the way were do you stand on measures to aid the lower class in paying their fees? By the way some states have excellent services to help certain people who cant afford to pay fees, I myself was educated in idaho state.

By investing in the middle and higher class alone and expecting a skills return you are not maximising your investment.

I completely agree that aid should be means tested. But the sad truth is, there are just not that many children from very poor families who make it to university - they get lost in the education system long before they reach that point. I thought that the Texas experiment with guaranteeing a space at university for anyone finishing in the top 10% of their high school class was an interesting attempt to get more "first in the family to go to college" kids in the mix. But I don't know how this has panned out long term.

Another thing that just came to mind that is a big difference in the US public university system is the fact that many of them are so large, and so many students live on campus that they kind of create their own mini-economies that in turn create job opportunities for students trying to work their way through school part-time. I had friends who were bartenders 2 nights a week, and that paid their rent and personal expenses. And there is nothing like a cushy library job where you basically get paid to study.

steddyeddy

southsiderosie wrote: »

I completely agree that aid should be means tested. But the sad truth is, there are just not that many children from very poor families who make it to university - they get lost in the education system long before they reach that point. I thought that the Texas experiment with guaranteeing a space at university for anyone finishing in the top 10% of their high school class was an interesting attempt to get more "first in the family to go to college" kids in the mix. But I don't know how this has panned out long term.

Another thing that just came to mind that is a big difference in the US public university system is the fact that many of them are so large, and so many students live on campus that they kind of create their own mini-economies that in turn create job opportunities for students trying to work their way through school part-time. I had friends who were bartenders 2 nights a week, and that paid their rent and personal expenses. And there is nothing like a cushy library job where you basically get paid to study.

Well then I think were in agreement if you have nothing against kids who wrok hard going to university even if they are from poor families. I think as long as they work hard they should be rewarded. your right about the mini economics of university. At the time I think idaho state was the biggest in america and the amount of money that generated was huge! the texas thing turned out to be a model system for education around the world!

gbee

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Just dont pay out to farmers kids, who are all loaded but are too tight to sell off an oul field or two.

To be fair, this is like asking you, personally, to cut off your hand or a foot and sell it for money.

gbee

southsiderosie wrote: »

I had friends who were bartenders 2 nights a week, and that paid their rent and personal expenses. And there is nothing like a cushy library job where you basically get paid to study.

This raises another point, do you think a student in Cork, doing two nights in Reardan's could cover his rent and personal expenses today, Oct 2010?

prinz

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Just dont pay out to farmers kids, who are all loaded but are too tight to sell off an oul field or two.

This is an important point often overlooked tbh. I remember going for grants in 2002 and getting rejected on the basis that one parent was a civil servant, the other stay at home. A friend of mine qualified, although his old fella was a builder/developer millionaire, but because he was down as 'self employed' grant was approved. Stupidity.

XxMCRxBabyxX

prinz wrote: »

This is an important point often overlooked tbh. I remember going for grants in 2002 and getting rejected on the basis that one parent was a civil servant, the other stay at home. A friend of mine qualified, although his old fella was a builder/developer millionaire, but because he was down as 'self employed' grant was approved. Stupidity.

Yet one of my parents is self-employed and the other is jobless. I get no grant at all! And we have NO money at home at all! So that system just gets more and more stupid

southsiderosie

gbee wrote: »

This raises another point, do you think a student in Cork, doing two nights in Reardan's could cover his rent and personal expenses today, Oct 2010?

Did you miss the rest of the post about how American universities were structurally different?

gbee

southsiderosie wrote: »

Did you miss the rest of the post about how American universities were structurally different?

And this has to do with my query, how? It's a valid question, for a Cork student of CIT or UCC today. I did ask about 'paying rent and personal expenses' actually, not about the university fee aspect.

Not a friend who knew .... and for that matter we don't really know if two nights legitimate bar work did realise the required amount of cash necessary.

A five bed student apartment in Cork is over €5,000 a month.

gingelion

gbee wrote: »

And this has to do with my query, how? It's a valid question, for a Cork student of CIT or UCC today. I did ask about 'paying rent and personal expenses' actually, not about the university fee aspect.

Not a friend who knew .... and for that matter we don't really know if two nights legitimate bar work did realise the required amount of cash necessary.

A five bed student apartment in Cork is over €5,000 a month.

Thats mental! There's gotta be cheaper than that around

prinz

gbee wrote: »

A five bed student apartment in Cork is over €5,000 a month.

:pac: BS for one. Secondly, how much per bed per month? Plus how much is on campus accommodation in Cork, I'd guess a hell of a lot less than €1000 per student per month, and off-campus is generally cheaper. Pull the other one.

gbee

gingelion wrote: »

Thats mental! There's gotta be cheaper than that around

Of course, but that's the quote from a prominent website hosting student accommodation in Cork. I'm not looking for accommodation, just threw it in for a reference.

southsiderosie

gbee wrote: »

And this has to do with my query, how? It's a valid question, for a Cork student of CIT or UCC today. I did ask about 'paying rent and personal expenses' actually, not about the university fee aspect.

Not a friend who knew .... and for that matter we don't really know if two nights legitimate bar work did realise the required amount of cash necessary.

A five bed student apartment in Cork is over €5,000 a month.

Because in my post I noted that large public universities in the US basically create their own mini-economies. Part-time jobs are part and parcel of a broader structure that would include cheap housing, dive bars, and lots of bicycle racks and scooters.

American bartenders take home a lot of money in cash because the minimum wages are low and there is a tipping culture. I used to work in a small bar, and you could clear $300-400 on the weekend - and that on top of the hourly wage. That is enough to provide for basic living expenses, even in a large city.

5,000 seems excessive; I lived in a four-bedroom house in Ranelagh in Dublin (which is a very nice area), and the rent was 2,000/month. I also lived in a 5-bedroom in Terenure, and the rent was only 2400.

optogirl

Bogger77 wrote: »

USI has always had march in November, had them in 1994,95,96 and 97 when I was in college, and after I'd left.

but it's amazing, middle of a downturn, loads of unemployed people, and new graduates surprised that there's no jobs for them.

I'm not sure if they're surprised but rather angry at how the government has allowed the economic situation to get so bad. We should strive to be a country that supports and encourages study. Instead we have to listen to the wafflers in the Dáil through the windows of their chauffeur driven cars telling us they have what is best for the country in mind when making savage cuts - all the while they live the high life claiming expenses every time they fart and squandering cash on foreign trips. It's just a little sickening when they expect 18 year olds to commit themselves to a life of debt because they want to go to University/College.

southsiderosie

optogirl wrote: »

I'm not sure if they're surprised but rather angry at how the government has allowed the economic situation to get so bad. We should strive to be a country that supports and encourages study. Instead we have to listen to the wafflers in the Dáil through the windows of their chauffeur driven cars telling us they have what is best for the country in mind when making savage cuts - all the while they live the high life claiming expenses every time they fart and squandering cash on foreign trips. It's just a little sickening when they expect 18 year olds to commit themselves to a life of debt because they want to go to University/College.

But why weren't people protesting before? The wheels came off this cart two years ago.

The_Conductor

optogirl wrote: »

It's just a little sickening when they expect 18 year olds to commit themselves to a life of debt because they want to go to University/College.

Its always been the case that students incurred debts as a result of pursuing third level education. Even in the era of 'free fees', living expenses would have been a multiple of whatever legitimate fees might have come to. Why should the taxpayer incur additional expenses as a result of someone deciding to pursue third level education- why not the person themselves, or their parents? Even in the UK- student loans were considered the normal manner of paying for courses (aside from the fees aspect).

You are not condemning yourself to a life of debt as a result of attending 3rd level education- a couple of years of debt perhaps- which is the same as anywhere else- and was considered to be the norm before this country went crazy.......

southsiderosie

optogirl wrote: »

I'm not sure if they're surprised but rather angry at how the government has allowed the economic situation to get so bad. We should strive to be a country that supports and encourages study. Instead we have to listen to the wafflers in the Dáil through the windows of their chauffeur driven cars telling us they have what is best for the country in mind when making savage cuts - all the while they live the high life claiming expenses every time they fart and squandering cash on foreign trips. It's just a little sickening when they expect 18 year olds to commit themselves to a life of debt because they want to go to University/College.

As smccarrick pointed out, it is not a lifetime of debt. In addition, 18 year olds who commit to going to college are on average committing themselves to a lifetime of higher earnings than their non-college educated peers.

Education is an investment, and like any investment you take a risk and pay up front with the expectation of greater rewards in the future. If yoru time horizon is only five years, then fees seem dreadful. But over a forty-year period, it's nothing.

I would agree that the behavior of TDs is sickening, but this is nothing new, and nobody could be arsed to complain before as long as they were getting their payout as well. And now that people are mad, they are still focusing on their own individual entitlements, rather that the all-encompassing culture of entitlement in Irish politics, and the utter rot at the heart of the system.