The Protest

amacachi

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

No no no no no!
I cannot get my head around why people want fee's reintroduced (I'm guessing with an Australian style system where you pay back the money through extra taxes) for "well off" students but not for the poor auld "disadvantaged" students. If I can pay back a loan then why can't they?

I honestly don't get it. We'll all end up with the same degree's/jobs in the end.

Either fee's for none or fee's for all. We need a level playing field in this country. It's time "disadvantaged" people starting doing something for themselves.

Should be fees for all, let the colleges grant scholarships where they see fit. Have the state and universities properly separate. Get rid of the registration fee, it's just a bureaucratic job creation tool that has caused me a lot of hassle this year (:pac:). If students/their parents can pay the fees straight-off, let them, if not then have a loans system in place.
I'll not be attending the protest, I think should be reintroduced and not by the convoluted and highly unfair method of the so-called registration fee. I also have no interest in student politics where it seems most describe themselves as liberal, which makes me laugh because they seem to think that means the state should interfere as much as possible.

Also the main reason I want fees introduced is because I'd like in a few years to be have a choice in whether I stay here or leave.

RandolphEsq

The fact that the standard of our college has decreased hugely is evidence of the lack of funding available. I'll take law as an example; not turning up to lectures and studying the 2 weeks before exams and coming out with a solid 2.1 is ridiculous! All it requires is learning off and then some regurgitation. No continuous assessment or discussion type lectures. A lecture should involve a discussion of a particularly tedious issue in a topic of law as the students have read up on the topic in the days before the lecture. Not the case though. One lecturer just recites his notes off Blackboard; pointless to attend! Around 40 people went abroad to other universities on Erasmus last year, only 10 passed the year. When they were in colleges with more thorough assessment they just could not handle it. It's embarrassing for the college

parker kent

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

No no no no no!
I cannot get my head around why people want fee's reintroduced (I'm guessing with an Australian style system where you pay back the money through extra taxes) for "well off" students but not for the poor auld "disadvantaged" students. If I can pay back a loan then why can't they?

I honestly don't get it. We'll all end up with the same degree's/jobs in the end.

Either fee's for none or fee's for all. We need a level playing field in this country. It's time "disadvantaged" people starting doing something for themselves.

You obviously have zero appreciation for the difference between a truly disadvantaged student and somebody who can easily afford to pay for fees. I was about to launch into a rant at another post you made about disadvantaged students a few days ago.

The massive difference in students from fee paying schools attending college when compared with disadvantaged students is enormous. The reason why people like me advocate free fees for disadvantaged kids (not the correct term of course, they would be getting grants/scholarships, not free fees) is that they simply will not go to college otherwise. You need to research the schools where the majority of UCD students have come from. They are not coming from the kind of schools I attended, nor are they from disadvantaged areas.

There are enough barriers already there for such kids. Society can afford to create a situation where a small percentage of the income of the wealthy helps subsidize th creation of a more equal society. What I am describing is a completely overhauled system. There would be various levels of fees and a much improved grant system. It is difficult to describe in a post on Boards but I am not talking about people outside the current grant threshold all having to pay fees. That would be lunacy. I am talking about people who have something like over €100,000 a year in income in their household. The people who have simply banked the money they would have paid for 3rd Level fees and put it towards an improved secondary education, thus making 3rd level an even more closed circle than it currently is in Ireland.

I am astounded at the arrogance of your last few lines. I really wish you grew up disadvantaged so you could appreciate how difficult it can be.

Edit: I'll just add that as a student or staff member of UCD since 2004, I know exactly how much the college needs fees re-introduced. So many vital services and supports are being cut. The library budget is shrinking all the time. Not that the cutbacks are affecting Hugh Brady et al.

Sierra Oscar

parker kent wrote: »

I am talking about people who have something like over €100,000 a year in income in their household. The people who have simply banked the money they would have paid for 3rd Level fees and put it towards an improved secondary education, thus making 3rd level an even more closed circle than it currently is in Ireland.

I dont want to come across as arrogant myself or anything, but there are two sides to every story. Lets not forget that anyone making over €100,000 are afterall paying at least 41 cent on every euro they make to fund things such as free education for all.

The reason I would advocate for fees to be re-introduced (if I was to) would be to make students appreciate their third level education more - no matter what their parents job is.

parker kent

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I dont want to come across as arrogant myself or anything, but there are two sides to every story. Lets not forget that anyone making over €100,000 are afterall paying at least 41 cent on every euro they make to fund things such as free education for all.

The reason I would advocate for fees to be re-introduced (if I was to) would be to make students appreciate their third level education more - no matter what their parents job is.

You don't pay tax on every cent you earn. But your point is valid. I would also state that we are a low tax country, so education is not getting the same funds as in other countries. So the shortfall has to be made somewhere.

I am not having an anti-wealth rant. I am in favour of people making money and have no problem with that. I hope to earn as much myself one day. I am as far removed from Labour, Unions, lefties as you can be, but universities need greater representation from all areas.

There is a middle ground and I see myself being in there. But certain people are clueless to the issues faced by some students.

parker kent

parker kent wrote: »

You obviously have zero appreciation for the difference between a truly disadvantaged student and somebody who can easily afford to pay for fees. I was about to launch into a rant at another post you made about disadvantaged students a few days ago.

The massive difference in students from fee paying schools attending college when compared with disadvantaged students is enormous. The reason why people like me advocate free fees for disadvantaged kids (not the correct term of course, they would be getting grants/scholarships, not free fees) is that they simply will not go to college otherwise. You need to research the schools where the majority of UCD students have come from. They are not coming from the kind of schools I attended, nor are they from disadvantaged areas.

There are enough barriers already there for such kids. Society can afford to create a situation where a small percentage of the income of the wealthy helps subsidize th creation of a more equal society. What I am describing is a completely overhauled system. There would be various levels of fees and a much improved grant system. It is difficult to describe in a post on Boards but I am not talking about people outside the current grant threshold all having to pay fees. That would be lunacy. I am talking about people who have something like over €100,000 a year in income in their household. The people who have simply banked the money they would have paid for 3rd Level fees and put it towards an improved secondary education, thus making 3rd level an even more closed circle than it currently is in Ireland.

I am astounded at the arrogance of your last few lines. I really wish you grew up disadvantaged so you could appreciate how difficult it can be.

Edit: I'll just add that as a student or staff member of UCD since 2004, I know exactly how much the college needs fees re-introduced. So many vital services and supports are being cut. The library budget is shrinking all the time. Not that the cutbacks are affecting Hugh Brady et al.

You never answered my question. If I have to get a loan to go to college (i.e. I can't afford to pay it off before I go) then why can't a "disadvantaged" person do the same? We will both end up with the same degree/job prospects after all.

EduKate

If a section of society can afford to pay tuition fees at second level, then they can afford to pay a higher level of taxation to fund third level.

The reason the ‘free’ fees scheme didn’t dramatically increase the ratio of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds entering HE is because the barriers are erected long before a student receives their CAO offer.

Social and economic policy in areas such as housing and welfare are arguably more important. Equality in these areas could be improved by a more redistributive system of taxation. In addition to helping level-out inequality and providing further resources for 3rd level, it would provide extra funding for retention initiatives and early intervention schemes.

Since the business sector benefits enormously from a plentiful supply of graduates (and a reduction in costs associated with employee education, training and research), it should contribute more through taxation.

EduKate

EduKate wrote: »

If a section of society can afford to pay tuition fees at second level, then they can afford to pay a higher level of taxation to fund third level.

The reason the ‘free’ fees scheme didn’t dramatically increase the ratio of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds entering HE is because the barriers are erected long before a student receives their CAO offer.

Social and economic policy in areas such as housing and welfare are arguably more important. Equality in these areas could be improved by a more redistributive system of taxation. In addition to helping level-out inequality and providing further resources for 3rd level, it would provide extra funding for retention initiatives and early intervention schemes.

Since the business sector benefits enormously from a plentiful supply of graduates (and a reduction in costs associated with employee education, training and research), it should contribute more through taxation.

One: These same people are in the tiny percentage that pay the majority of taxes in this country. Why should they be taxed even more when 50% of workers don't even pay any income tax?

Two: We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world! If anything, I would argue that it's too generous in that people from 'disadvantaged' backgrounds can happily live their lives without ever working or evening applying themselves to school work etc

parker kent

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You never answered my question. If I have to get a loan to go to college (i.e. I can't afford to pay it off before I go) then why can't a "disadvantaged" person do the same? We will both end up with the same degree/job prospects after all.

I don't agree with the graduate tax, so that is a non-starter for me.

Why exactly do you keep putting inverted commas around disadvantaged? Do you not accept that there are disadvantaged people in Ireland?

EduKate sums up a lot of what I think in relation to that question. Much more effort is needed on a wider level to help disadvantaged areas. The JCSP programme is a good example of what can be achieved when investment is made in education. Ditto for the higher access schemes like New Era. These programmes need to be expanded and similar programmes initiated at earlier stages in education. The reasons people don't make it to college start in the family home and in Junior Infants.

EduKate

One: These same people are in the tiny percentage that pay the majority of taxes in this country. Why should they be taxed even more when 50% of workers don't even pay any income tax?

Because of section of them can afford to. If a family can pay several thousand a year in private fees, it could pay a higher rate of general taxation to fund all public services , of which tertiary education is just one. The burden of additional taxation shouldn't just be left to indiviuals, the business sector should contribute more for the system which helps create a pool of educated employees.

Two: We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world! If anything, I would argue that it's too generous in that people from 'disadvantaged' backgrounds can happily live their lives without ever working or evening applying themselves to school work etc

Equality should be at the centre of social and economic policy. In the leaving cert:

• If your father is a professional, count on getting about 90 points more than if your father is a manual worker.
• If your father is “other white collar” count on getting about 50 points more.
• If your father is unemployed that “costs” you about 30 points.
• If a student’s father is disabled, their points are about 50 points lower.
• If one of their parents is deceased, their points are about 40 points lower.

parker kent

parker kent wrote: »

I don't agree with the graduate tax, so that is a non-starter for me.

Why exactly do you keep putting inverted commas around disadvantaged? Do you not accept that there are disadvantaged people in Ireland?

EduKate sums up a lot of what I think in relation to that question. Much more effort is needed on a wider level to help disadvantaged areas. The JCSP programme is a good example of what can be achieved when investment is made in education. Ditto for the higher access schemes like New Era. These programmes need to be expanded and similar programmes initiated at earlier stages in education. The reasons people don't make it to college start in the family home and in Junior Infants.

Because any 'disadvantaged' people I've come across in college, i.e. getting the grant etc weren't disadvantaged at all but were just better able to manipulate the system.

Ok so you disagree with the graduate tax. What if your parents earn over 100k but won't or can't pay your fees? Does this person become disadvantaged? Or should they just take out a loan?

EduKate

EduKate wrote: »

Because of section of them can afford to. If a family can pay several thousand a year in private fees, it could pay a higher rate of general taxation to fund all public services , of which tertiary education is just one. The burden of additional shouldn't be left to indiviuals, the business sector should contribute more for the system which helps create a pool of educated employees.

OR, we could encourage a society which believes in hard work and pays you well for your hard work and skills/knowledge. Basically what you're saying is that the rich should pay for everything. Sounds good, comrade.

Equality should be at the centre of social and economic policy. In the leaving cert:

• If your father is a professional, count on getting about 90 points more than if your father is a manual worker.
• If your father is “other white collar” count on getting about 50 points more.
• If your father is unemployed that “costs” you about 30 points.
• If a student’s father is disabled, their points are about 50 points lower.
• If one of their parents is deceased, their points are about 40 points lower.

So basically, besides the last 2 points, if your da's a knacker then you'll be one too (not to be taken literally). How exactly do you think this could be sorted out by the state when the problem seems to be down to parenting?

misslt

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

No no no no no!
I cannot get my head around why people want fee's reintroduced (I'm guessing with an Australian style system where you pay back the money through extra taxes) for "well off" students but not for the poor auld "disadvantaged" students. If I can pay back a loan then why can't they?

I honestly don't get it. We'll all end up with the same degree's/jobs in the end.

Either fee's for none or fee's for all. We need a level playing field in this country. It's time "disadvantaged" people starting doing something for themselves.

Aaaaargh this makes my blood boil.

I am not from a wealthy background, I get nothing from my family to go to college.

The grants/support available are not enough for me to live on alone.

I pay €350 per month in rent. That's 3500 over the college period, say ten months. (I have my apt leased for a year but lets talk college only). Campus is something similar, if not more.

The maintenance grant is ~3300. Already I can't afford to pay all my rent and I haven't even got to food, books, travel etc.

I have to work about 22 hours a week on top of college (and I'm doing Actuary so it's not like I have 10 hours class a week) and can just about make ends meet. I leave at 7am, i'm lucky if I'm home before 7pm. I do that Monday - Friday, 9-6 on a Saturday and study on a Sunday.

Credit is damn near impossible for people to get a hold of these days unless daddy can guarantee it or whatever. People like me whose family can't? Forget about it.

You have no idea how hard I, and people like me, work to get a decent education. If someone will give me the loan, I'll pay it back. But what do you do when they won't?

Don't ever tell me ''it's time disadvantaged people started doing something for themselves.''

Rant over.

EduKate

OR, we could encourage a society which believes in hard work and pays you well for your hard work and skills/knowledge. Basically what you're saying is that the rich should pay for everything. Sounds good, comrade

No, I'm saying that everyone in a society should pay for a public service which benefits that society.

This should be done on the basis that those who can afford to contribute more, do so.

The most equitable way of doing this is through taxation.

For the record, everyone pays tax. People from lower socio-economic backgrounds are adversely hit by indirect taxes based on consumption rather income.

So basically, besides the last 2 points, if your da's a knacker then you'll be one too (not to be taken literally). How exactly do you think this could be sorted out by the state?

You want me to outline a whole alternative system of public taxation and spending in a few short lines? Naturally anything I say is going to be inadequate.

Looking purely at education, funding (from taxation) should be directed towards early childcare, truancy programmes, retention initiatives and other early intervention schemes. The benefits are increased if the issues are addressed early rather than when you get a CAO offer. A centralised grant system with levels similar to JA would be a start.

Expectational climates amongst peer groups has a role to play. This isn't an excuse to pathologize and stigmitize a whole section of society, as you do.

Fear of debt associated with fees will only add to the perception that entry to the likes of UCD are beyond people from certain backgrounds .

amacachi

parker kent wrote: »

You obviously have zero appreciation for the difference between a truly disadvantaged student and somebody who can easily afford to pay for fees. I was about to launch into a rant at another post you made about disadvantaged students a few days ago.

Oh please, don't hold back.

The massive difference in students from fee paying schools attending college when compared with disadvantaged students is enormous. The reason why people like me advocate free fees for disadvantaged kids (not the correct term of course, they would be getting grants/scholarships, not free fees) is that they simply will not go to college otherwise. You need to research the schools where the majority of UCD students have come from. They are not coming from the kind of schools I attended, nor are they from disadvantaged areas.

Should I yeah? I went to a "disadvantaged" school as it happens, and got into DCU, left and a year later got into TCD. My parents haven't worked in years and neither have. I've a loan out to pay the fees I incurred for doing 1st year again. I have a disposable income of about 25-30 quid a week and spend about 14 hours a week travelling to and from college because I can't afford to get accomodation. Also because of the so-called "free fees" Bull**** and there being no loans in place I haven't been able to register yet this year because I haven't got the money to pay the registration fee and the local county council are taking the piss.

There are enough barriers already there for such kids. Society can afford to create a situation where a small percentage of the income of the wealthy helps subsidize th creation of a more equal society. What I am describing is a completely overhauled system. There would be various levels of fees and a much improved grant system. It is difficult to describe in a post on Boards but I am not talking about people outside the current grant threshold all having to pay fees. That would be lunacy. I am talking about people who have something like over €100,000 a year in income in their household. The people who have simply banked the money they would have paid for 3rd Level fees and put it towards an improved secondary education, thus making 3rd level an even more closed circle than it currently is in Ireland.

So put a threshold where not many people will be affected, yeah, sound like a good idea. Few million more spent on coming up with a new system and people hired to work it out and then to work out the kinks should be covered with enough change for a ream of paper. How dare people use their money to benefit themselves or their families!?

I am astounded at the arrogance of your last few lines. I really wish you grew up disadvantaged so you could appreciate how difficult it can be.

Arrogant? Why, because I don't want to be associated with people who have no idea what they're talking about but have read a newspaper article somewhere? I'm fairly sure that I grew up "disadvantaged", and I've family who were dragged up rather than raised and most of them did really well for themselves because they knew they had to work hard for what they wanted. Some made stupid choices and some made really stupid choices, but they made them.

Edit: I'll just add that as a student or staff member of UCD since 2004, I know exactly how much the college needs fees re-introduced. So many vital services and supports are being cut. The library budget is shrinking all the time. Not that the cutbacks are affecting Hugh Brady et al.

Just out of interest, would you want fees being raised? Because if fees are just brought in at current levels then there'd be no increase in income for the college would there?

I'd also appreciate a link to my other offensive post you mentioned, just to see how terrible a person I am.

parker kent

EduKate wrote: »

Fear of debt associated with fees will only add to the perception that entry to the likes of UCD are beyond people from certain backgrounds .

This is one of many reasons why I'm against graduate tax/loans. Barriers to entry for such people should be withdrawn, not increased. You also suggest many social welfare reforms that I would be strongly in favour of introducing. We are a low tax country and this needs to change if better public services are to be introduced.

Equality should be at the centre of social and economic policy. In the leaving cert:
If your father is a professional, count on getting about 90 points more than if your father is a manual worker.
If your father is “other white collar” count on getting about 50 points more.
If your father is unemployed that “costs” you about 30 points.
If a student’s father is disabled, their points are about 50 points lower.
If one of their parents is deceased, their points are about 40 points lower.

These reasons are behind the higher access programmes such as the New Era scheme. Social issues can make a major difference to a student's performance in school. But with the right initiatives, this can be tackled and more of these people can make it to 3rd Level. I have first hand experience of how useful the JCSP and New Era Programmes can be.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Because any 'disadvantaged' people I've come across in college, i.e. getting the grant etc weren't disadvantaged at all but were just better able to manipulate the system.

I am clearly talking about demographics that tend not make it to college. So of course you are not going to end up sitting in the Arts cafe with too many of them. That is one of my main points that I keep restating, a large proportion of UCD and Trinity students come from a minority of schools.

You are talking about get the current grant, something that I have stated many times needs to be changed. It favours people with parents who are self employed and ignores many other crucial factors. Also, the application procedure can be manipulated if you are clever or crafty enough. But this has little to do with my points. I am in favour (as I have said before) of an overhaul of the grants and scholarships schemes. I would also raise the bands if fees were to come back. But it is difficult to give exact figures here as they would be pure conjecture.

Ok so you disagree with the graduate tax. What if your parents earn over 100k but won't or can't pay your fees? Does this person become disadvantaged? Or should they just take out a loan?

There should obviously be some mechanism to deal with specific situations. This comes under the remit of a restructured grants and scholarship scheme. There would be obvious difficulties in these situations that you give, I freely admit that. No one system can solve every possible problem. But that particular situation is much, much less frequent than the many people who are actually disadvantaged from a young age.

parker kent

amacachi wrote: »

I'd also appreciate a link to my other offensive post you mentioned, just to see how terrible a person I am.

I am confused as to why you think anything I posted is about you. I actually thanked your post.

Edit: Just re-read the thread and you'll see we were making very similar points.

amacachi

parker kent wrote: »

I am confused as to why you think anything I posted is about you. I actually thanked your post.

Edit: Just re-read the thread and you'll see we were making very similar points.

This mainly:

You obviously have zero appreciation for the difference between a truly disadvantaged student and somebody who can easily afford to pay for fees. I was about to launch into a rant at another post you made about disadvantaged students a few days ago.

I just honestly can't see the problem with paying fees afterwards. If someone can't see that it's worth it then I don't know if they should be in college.

parker kent

amacachi wrote: »

This mainly:

I just honestly can't see the problem with paying fees afterwards. If someone can't see that it's worth it then I don't know if they should be in college.

But that line was not directed at you. I was responding to Rojomcdojo, not you. Read my post again, I have not quoted you nor have I made any remark about you. If anybody should be giving out to me for being too blunt, it is Rojomcdojo

Also, the the graduate tax/loan issue. My point is similar to EduKate's in that many from disadvantaged backgrounds would simply not go to college because of the fear of entering long-term debt. Look at what happens English students or American students. They end up with tens of thousands of debt, sometimes nearing $100,000. That is not what I am advocating. I am saying that there are people in Ireland who can afford to pay the current rate of fees.

Almost everybody that needs to get a loan to pay the fees, cannot afford to pay them. I am not saying that those people pay fees. I have been consistent in stating that an improved grant/scholarship programme be introduced. A sliding scale of fees would be another solution.

amacachi

Ah, must've skipped a screen too far from my post to yours, didn't see the quote or the post in between.

On your sliding scale would you care to talk in percentage terms who should have to pay? There's no money in state coffers to pump into education, any fees will mainly be replacing the current revenue the colleges are getting. So if you take the wealthiest 5% and charge them the full fees and then charge the next well-off 45% on a sliding scale down to say half the current fees, a quick totting up in my head says that would cover about 38% of the current fees. Unfortunately you would also be including a LOT of the middle class that way.

I can only speak from what I've seen in TCD really, but TCD certainly seems like if it lost maybe 10% of its budget it would run a lot better than it currently does.

Again, and I'll leave it at this, I don't see why anyone should be required to support anyone else's ambition through taxation. Obviously a huge difference of opinion between you and I on that particular matter I think. :pac:

mloc

The 3rd level sector in Ireland needs major reform if we are to remain competitive with other countries.

a) People's parents income should not matter when it comes to fees. No free fees for anyone.

b) Grants on a personal basis, where there is a reasonable need for one.

c) Scrap repeats except in cases of personal tragedy or other unusual circumstances. You fail, you fail. Allow students the opportunity to defer exams they are unprepared for, at their own expense. If you sit, and fail it, tough sh*t. Goodbye.

d) Raise the bar academically. Ensure a 2.1 or a 2.2 here is of comparable quality to the same degree from top international universities. Leave the rest, and the flexibility it comes with, to the ITs. There has to be tiering; you can't make every college the best in the country.

e) No 2.1, no masters. Some entry criteria are far too low. Makes our masters laughable.

f) Reform the entry criteria for colleges to be more in line with international standards. I don't buy the whole "leaving cert points is the fairest system". We don't want the fairest applicants, we want the best for the course.

ironclaw

a) People's parents income should not matter when it comes to fees. No free fees for anyone.

Who in this day and age has that amount of spare income to provide for or underwrite fee's? What if a family has three aspiring students? Thats three times the hit for one family. I'm not saying free fee's are a good thing but seriously, full fee's are not the way to go.

b) Grants on a personal basis, where there is a reasonable need for one.

Define reasonable? Disposable or gross income? You cannot measure a family's ability to pay for fee's by a wallet. What if Mr. €250,000 a year has seriously ill parents who he's kindly decided to support? Sorry, but you earn €250,000 last year, its your discretion to spend that money. If you earned €50,000 a year, just say, and full fee's where, say, €10,000. Can you afford fee's? Some say you can, but take away the remaining €40,000 and spread it over a year.... Thats €109 a day. Who can support a family on €110 a day?

c) Scrap repeats except in cases of personal tragedy or other unusual circumstances. You fail, you fail. Allow students the opportunity to defer exams they are unprepared for, at their own expense. If you sit, and fail it, tough sh*t. Goodbye.

Utter rubbish. Just because you fail a test doesn't mean you were unprepared. Tests are failed outside the final exam as well as during it. What if you got a roaring throat infection the night before? Does that count? A stumble on the way into the exam hall and you break your writing hand? Why can't you just pay a small fee to resit?

d) Raise the bar academically. Ensure a 2.1 or a 2.2 here is of comparable quality to the same degree from top international universities. Leave the rest, and the flexibility it comes with, to the ITs. There has to be tiering; you can't make every college the best in the country.

Somewhat agree with that. However, I don't agree with a tiering system. Many of my friends go to IT's, does that make their level 8 degree rubbish? No, it doesn't and shouldn't either. They put in the same amount of effort.

e) No 2.1, no masters. Some entry criteria are far too low. Makes our masters laughable.

Agree but don't make a glass ceiling. Remember you still have to do the same amount of work to earn a masters. In addition any employer can see your GPA, just get employers to set a bar not universitys. If an employer wants a 2.1 GPA, thats fine.

f) Reform the entry criteria for colleges to be more in line with international standards. I don't buy the whole "leaving cert points is the fairest system". We don't want the fairest applicants, we want the best for the course.

Agree. The Leaving Cert isn't a great measure. But naturally some students lean towards certain courses. Good at maths and physics, you'll probably lean to Eng. Good at business, the Quinn school most likely. I presume your thinking of a HPAT on a grander scale? Yeah, could work. But again aptitude tests are known to take the good with the bad. Its not exactly a fair marker to decide someone's future.

CokaColumbo

The fees should be the same for everybody in my opinion. The whole point of going to college is that you get a good, well paid job sometime after graduation. There should be a college loan system.

So, when a person gets their degree, regardless of their background, and gets a job, they then begin to pay back what they owe instead of thinking that they have some sort of inherent right to force somebody else to pay for their education.

And people's circumstances change also. Just because a student went to a private secondary school it does not mean that it was easy for his/her family to send them there. And in 2010 that student may be just as, if not more, penniless than a student who went to a public secondary school.

mloc

ironclaw wrote: »

Who in this day and age has that amount of spare income to provide for or underwrite fee's? What if a family has three aspiring students? Thats three times the hit for one family. I'm not saying free fee's are a good thing but seriously, full fee's are not the way to go.

Student loans. It should be the student's responsibility to pay the cost back after and the family should not be involved beyond what they wish to contribute.

Define reasonable? Disposable or gross income? You cannot measure a family's ability to pay for fee's by a wallet. What if Mr. €250,000 a year has seriously ill parents who he's kindly decided to support? Sorry, but you earn €250,000 last year, its your discretion to spend that money. If you earned €50,000 a year, just say, and full fee's where, say, €10,000. Can you afford fee's? Some say you can, but take away the remaining €40,000 and spread it over a year.... Thats €109 a day. Who can support a family on €110 a day?

See above.

Utter rubbish. Just because you fail a test doesn't mean you were unprepared. Tests are failed outside the final exam as well as during it. What if you got a roaring throat infection the night before? Does that count? A stumble on the way into the exam hall and you break your writing hand? Why can't you just pay a small fee to resit?

Read my point. Unusual situations, resit ok. Fail it due to non-medical reasons, tough ****.

Somewhat agree with that. However, I don't agree with a tiering system. Many of my friends go to IT's, does that make their level 8 degree rubbish? No, it doesn't and shouldn't either. They put in the same amount of effort.

Noone said rubbush. Not all universities are created the same, and if we want our best to compete with the UK/beyonds best, we have to make our best universities our best, with the entry qualifications, academic standards and prestige that goes with that.

Agree but don't make a glass ceiling. Remember you still have to do the same amount of work to earn a masters. In addition any employer can see your GPA, just get employers to set a bar not universitys. If an employer wants a 2.1 GPA, thats fine.

I agree to a certain extent, but I think entrance standards to masters courses in top tier universities need to be high. If you don't have the requisite grade, adequate work experience of suitable and related nature maybe a way to make up for that.

Agree. The Leaving Cert isn't a great measure. But naturally some students lean towards certain courses. Good at maths and physics, you'll probably lean to Eng. Good at business, the Quinn school most likely. I presume your thinking of a HPAT on a grander scale? Yeah, could work. But again aptitude tests are known to take the good with the bad. Its not exactly a fair marker to decide someone's future.

Also interviews, life experience, personal statements. The works. A four year degree is a major investment of time and money and the CAO system makes it seem more like you're just buying something at Argos.

the explorer

has anyone heard the figure €3000 mentioned by government or anywhere else, or are the SU just using it to fearmonger?

I think while students should have access to college regardless of financial ability, there should be some kind of fee, with a zero interest rate gov loan system. This implies that a degree has value and is worth putting in effort for. and in reality theres little point lowering fees if it means lower standards in the college.

Also there should be a reform of the grant system. Ive witnessed people who actually need it being declined, while people who live at home and have few expenses getting it and spending most of it on drink.

With regards to the protest, while i dont agree with every aim of the organisers, i do hope it is a success ( if only to put pressure on this terrible govt). I remember 2 years ago photos in the paper of students marching against fees in abercrombie etc, and one girl holding a sign saying "f~ck fees". This sort of thing turns the general public against us, with them thinking that all students are spoilt and dossing for 3 years.

dyl10

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The whole point of going to college is that you get a good, well paid job sometime after graduation. There should be a college loan system.

Highly debatable.

So, when a person gets their degree, regardless of their background, and gets a job, they then begin to pay back what they owe instead of thinking that they have some sort of inherent right to force somebody else to pay for their education.

Consider one person pursuing a career that is beneficial to more than his/her self, as in a rewarding career that has wholistic benefits for the state but doesn't pay a whole lot and another person that has purely monetaristic values at heart. If both courses cost the same, should they pay back the same amount?

On another note, who are they forcing to pay for their education? you mean themselves, through their taxes?

And people's circumstances change also. Just because a student went to a private secondary school it does not mean that it was easy for his/her family to send them there. And in 2010 that student may be just as, if not more, penniless than a student who went to a public secondary school.

Questionable. Statistically you are getting a leg up by going to most private schools, in the race to get into college. You could afford to pay for the leg up, but the exchequer has to make up the bill after you've skipped the queue?
The question of changing circumstances is a completely different ball game.

My view; I don't care if the bring back fees, assuming they fix the grants system and provide, to the best degree they possibly can, for the people who actually need the assistance.

Sierra Oscar

the explorer wrote: »

has anyone heard the figure €3000 mentioned by government or anywhere else, or are the SU just using it to fearmonger?

As far as I am aware no such figures have been mentioned by the government. I would not worry about this curren government introducing fees as the Green Party have guaranteed they will not be introduced during the lifetime of the government. Although no one can really see this government lasting much longer . . .

HavingCrack

Did anyone have Pat de Brun come into their lectures today telling everyone to support the march tomorrow??

I really felt like standing up and asking why the USI are advising taking a day off lectures (paid for by the taxpayer) in order to go and protest. If they feel that strongly they should have organised it for Saturday. But you know, I don't like drawing attention to myself .

EduKate

would not worry about this curren government introducing fees as the Green Party have guaranteed they will not be introduced during the lifetime of the government.

It's more likely that the government will hike the registration fee. The largest % hike so far has been 69%.

From the governments perspective, it's preferable to a loan scheme on a number of fronts, primarily because of the instant effect on finances - the registration fee has to be paid up front, and most students will have to pay it.

I really felt like standing up and asking why the USI are advising taking a day off lectures (paid for by the taxpayer) in order to go and protest. If they feel that strongly they should have organised it for Saturday. But you know, I don't like drawing attention to myself .

A large number of students have to work weekends to fund their way through college and would be unable to attend.

No matter when you hold it, there will always be a group ready to bitch about it. You can't please everyone.

ironclaw

mloc wrote: »

Student loans. It should be the student's responsibility to pay the cost back after and the family should not be involved beyond what they wish to contribute.

Just on that point, because it came up today with a mate. The current college and school system is paid for by the exchequer, of which a large part of its reserves comes from the tax payer. Now, most of these tax payers have gone through college, so arn't we already paying for the education of those behind us when we leave to work? Isn't that enough? I had my education, now to pay for someone else's because the people ahead of me did. Money just doesn't come from nowhere.

Also, in relation to loans, there are well documented cases of people unable to pay these back in the UK. Many students can't budget for a week, imagine trying to budget a 10 year loan repayment? This in addition to an uncertain economic future for Ireland coupled with that fact that most of us will shoulder NAMA, and all that brings, how much more money do you want us to shell out? Add to that the eventual mortgage and 2.3 kids. When are we suppose to live debt free? I'm not an idiot but life isn't about paying back til your in your 60's.

I'm sorry, but there are better ways to go about this that full on fee's for all.