Are there benefits to charging fees?

canned_ulkc

Outside of the SU discussion.....I think it's a bit blinkered to label anyone who has a personal pro fees stance as an enemy of education....

There ARE benefits to charging fees.

SarahBeep!

canned_ulkc wrote: »

Outside of the SU discussion.....I think it's a bit blinkered to label anyone who has a personal pro fees stance as an enemy of education....

There ARE benefits to charging fees.

Exactly. Sure its the study abroad students that pay fees that are paying for our education.

constantg

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Exactly. Sure its the study abroad students that pay fees that are paying for our education.

To be Machiavellian about it, I really don't have the big a problem with foreign students paying Irish fees....

Also I'm fairly sure its not students on exchange programmes but students from outside the EU who're here studying fulltime who're being charged fees.

daithi_lacha

I've said it before and I'll agree with the last few posts. Protesting for no fees is really not the way to go. I've yet to see these protesters come up with any real long term solution. Everyone has to take cuts and that's that. There were plenty of proposals surrounding 'loan' type fees whereby one pays back their fees once they start earning over a certain amount of money, eg get a job out of their degree. Sounds good to me!

The attitude that we are obliged to get a degree without it costing us a penny, ever, is a bit selfish in my opinion. This country has come an awful long way in terms of the quality of peoples education in the last 50 years, but we're not entitled to everything.

TheTownie

daithi_lacha wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll agree with the last few posts. Protesting for no fees is really not the way to go. I've yet to see these protesters come up with any real long term solution. Everyone has to take cuts and that's that. There were plenty of proposals surrounding 'loan' type fees whereby one pays back their fees once they start earning over a certain amount of money, eg get a job out of their degree. Sounds good to me!

The attitude that we are obliged to get a degree without it costing us a penny, ever, is a bit selfish in my opinion. This country has come an awful long way in terms of the quality of peoples education in the last 50 years, but we're not entitled to everything.

This is off topic but to hell with it!

First of all, one benefit of no fees is you have more people in college. This results in more educated people. It has been said & proven by analysts that people with degrees will pay more tax than those who don't because they are in higher paying jobs. Thus over a lifetime, paying the equivalent of fees many times over.

Why forced people to become indebted before they are even 18!? (in a lot of cases) Then they finish college, get a job for which they have to pay tax as well as service their debt.

Why have less people getting educated?? Which means less people getting degrees, which means people paying less tax as they are working for less wages.

Now some people argue that students get degrees and then leave the country. Well the key to success there is having jobs to give them! There are not many students who when given the choice of a job in Ireland or abroad would not choose the Irish job.

Who is going to give these loans?? It won't be the government. It could only be the banks. Why fill their pockets with money that could be given in taxes or spent in our economy? (Thats of course working on the big presumption the banks would even give the loans. There is more liquidity in a rock than in a bank at the moment.)

How can you say the degrees don't cost a penny?? €2000 in registration fees (As of next September) isn't exactly pocket money!

You say that protesters have no alternative solutions? I have yet to see a credible practical solution for pro fees.

sceptre

Worthy of its own thread from a UL perspective. There have been various discussions in regard to fees on the Politics forum in particular which are worth reading but there's nowt wrong with having a discussion on the UL board about it. So it's been split off into its own thread.

cson

TheTownie wrote: »

This is off topic but to hell with it!

First of all, one benefit of no fees is you have more people in college. This results in more educated people. It has been said & proven by analysts that people with degrees will pay more tax than those who don't because they are in higher paying jobs. Thus over a lifetime, paying the equivalent of fees many times over.

Why forced people to become indebted before they are even 18!? (in a lot of cases) Then they finish college, get a job for which they have to pay tax as well as service their debt.

Why have less people getting educated?? Which means less people getting degrees, which means people paying less tax as they are working for less wages.

Now some people argue that students get degrees and then leave the country. Well the key to success there is having jobs to give them! There are not many students who when given the choice of a job in Ireland or abroad would not choose the Irish job.

Who is going to give these loans?? It won't be the government. It could only be the banks. Why fill their pockets with money that could be given in taxes or spent in our economy? (Thats of course working on the big presumption the banks would even give the loans. There is more liquidity in a rock than in a bank at the moment.)

How can you say the degrees don't cost a penny?? €2000 in registration fees (As of next September) isn't exactly pocket money!

You say that protesters have no alternative solutions? I have yet to see a credible practical solution for pro fees.

Broadly speaking I would agree with what you've said. However I do think as it stands our system coerces a lot of people into 3rd level that really shouldn't be there - I've seen it from people I went to school with who went to 3rd level because it was the done thing and then drank for the year before dropping out. There has to be in my mind an incentive to want to go and do well there - i.e. not primarily for the craic. Typically this will have to be a financial incentive for it to make any significant impact.

In other words; I'm in favour of some kind of student contribution with the condition that it is not overbearing. I don't want UK style graduates laboured with £20-30k of debt but I do want the system incentivised so that they are earned so to speak.

daithi_lacha

A 20 or 30 grand debt isn't desirable, naturally. However something simple like 2% of your wages once you start earning above lets say 30 grand per year. That way the people who in theory benefit the most from their education, eg earn the most, contribute the most back into the system. Those who aren't so lucky to get a job straight away, don't contribute, or if they do contribute.

It seems to me to be one of the fairest ways to do it, provided to monies collected go straight back into the education system and not into a big government kitty....

However the problem does arise of people getting a degree and then heading overseas... but then the same can be said for those who get a leaving cert and then leave the country no?

TheTownie

cson wrote: »

Broadly speaking I would agree with what you've said. However I do think as it stands our system coerces a lot of people into 3rd level that really shouldn't be there - I've seen it from people I went to school with who went to 3rd level because it was the done thing and then drank for the year before dropping out. There has to be in my mind an incentive to want to go and do well there - i.e. not primarily for the craic. Typically this will have to be a financial incentive for it to make any significant impact.

In other words; I'm in favour of some kind of student contribution with the condition that it is not overbearing. I don't want UK style graduates laboured with £20-30k of debt but I do want the system incentivised so that they are earned so to speak.

Unfortunately there are huge problems with second level education as well as the transition from second to third level but thats a whole discussion of it own. So the "it in for the craic" theory is just the tip of the iceberg there.

daithi_lacha wrote: »

However the problem does arise of people getting a degree and then heading overseas... but then the same can be said for those who get a leaving cert and then leave the country no?

I don't think it the same as those who leave after leaving cert will do so without a degree. If they go to college abroad they will have to pay for the privilege. If they look for a job it would be very hard to earn above minimum wage without a degree. The issue with people leaving with degrees is the likes of doctors leaving and earning a fortune abroad without paying one iota of tax in ireland.

daithi_lacha wrote: »

A 20 or 30 grand debt isn't desirable, naturally. However something simple like 2% of your wages once you start earning above lets say 30 grand per year. That way the people who in theory benefit the most from their education, eg earn the most, contribute the most back into the system. Those who aren't so lucky to get a job straight away, don't contribute, or if they do contribute.

It seems to me to be one of the fairest ways to do it, provided to monies collected go straight back into the education system and not into a big government kitty....

Well you seem to be suggesting a tax or a "levy" rather than a loan, in which case the government would have to implement that.

TBH if there is going to be serious logical reform of third level, it should coincide with a reform of second level but I'm sure there is very few with the desire to take on both.

SarahBeep!

constantg wrote: »

To be Machiavellian about it, I really don't have the big a problem with foreign students paying Irish fees....

Also I'm fairly sure its not students on exchange programmes but students from outside the EU who're here studying fulltime who're being charged fees.

That's what i meant by study abroad, apologies!

As a second year i don't expect to pay fees as ill be over half way through my degree by the time the next government gives its first budget.
If expected to pay fees upfront, student numbers Will drop. To be honest the start of year reg fee is already a joke. It'd be nice to have a breakdown of exactly where it goes.

Id have no problem paying back fees when Im earning enough to do so as long as i knew it went straight to the colleges, so ny kids could at least benefit from the money Im spending, hopefully it'd set off some sort of domino effect.

daithi_lacha

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Id have no problem paying back fees when Im earning enough to do so as long as i knew it went straight to the colleges,

Again, my point, as outlined above. The 'no fees' campaign, protests and hooliganism that was displayed in Dublin seems to have all been in vain. Surely a campaign such as what some of the main opposition parties have put forward with regard to long term loan to pay for fees is feesable after all?

Note: I am not showing any sort of public support for any particular party above - I don't expect this post to be quoted years down the line

TheTownie

daithi_lacha wrote: »

A 20 or 30 grand debt isn't desirable, naturally. However something simple like 2% of your wages once you start earning above lets say 30 grand per year.

daithi_lacha wrote: »

Surely a campaign such as what some of the main opposition parties have put forward with regard to long term loan to pay for fees is feesable after all?

Daithi,

Are you in favor of a loan which would obviously be based on a set amount + interest?

Or a tax / levy which is paid if you earn over a certain wage?

Or either one as your not pushy?

There is a big difference between the two so I'm interested to know...

daithi_lacha

I'm very much in favour of a levy, which will go directly back to the college.

EG I'm in UL, once i earn above lets say 30,000 per year, I pay 2% (for examples sake) of my wages to pay off this 'loan' that I have got for my education. The 2% 'levy' goes straight back into UL.

I don't have a business mind by any token, however this is what I would be in favour of going along with!

I understand I've used the word 'loan' before, again - not a business mind

TheTownie

Ok, but just to be clear;

A loan by definition will come to an end at some point in time i.e. when the principal (amount borrowed) and interest has been repaid.

Whereas a tax / levy would continue until such time as the government decides to remove it from law (which could be never or next time the system is reformed).

Just trying to avoid any confusion of opinions.

SarahBeep!

I don't think loan is the right word. And id like to be making a whole lot more than thirty grand before the levy (is that the word Im looking for?) would be applied. Id only be willing to pay it if i knew where it was going.
Id want assurance my money was improving the counselling service or making a 24hr library happen. I don't want my wages plugging the financial black hole.

ninty9er

SarahBeep! wrote: »

I don't think loan is the right word. And id like to be making a whole lot more than thirty grand before the levy (is that the word Im looking for?) would be applied. Id only be willing to pay it if i knew where it was going.
Id want assurance my money was improving the counselling service or making a 24hr library happen. I don't want my wages plugging the financial black hole.

You'd be paying for the running of a university the same way as the state is currently failing to. Nothing is concrete which is why I would encourage students to view this constructively and not go for the default "no I'm not paying" bull.

Tails142

I'll say this about fees, as soon as I graduated and got a job, I took out a big whopper of a loan and bought a fancy car, which 4 years later is now worthless

I'd be in favour of a loan system to support universities, which is state managed, low interest, interest free until you take up employment, and is repaid by taking a small percentage out of your wage spread over say 5 years. I think about 8,000 euro is a reasonable amount. You'd be paying back about €30 a week.

I always thought the UK system worked well, they graduate with a debt but its manageable and everyone is on the same footing. However I don't agree with the fees which are being put to UK students now.

Everyone still has to get paid when they graduate, the end result with the loan system is that the employer just ends up paying graduates more.

TheTownie

SarahBeep! wrote: »

I don't think loan is the right word. And id like to be making a whole lot more than thirty grand before the levy (is that the word Im looking for?)

Yes you levy a tax i.e. impose or collect a tax. Hence why the income levy was so called (recently replaced with the USC (Universal Social Charge) ).

SarahBeep!

ninty9er wrote: »

You'd be paying for the running of a university the same way as the state is currently failing to. Nothing is concrete which is why I would encourage students to view this constructively and not go for the default "no I'm not paying" bull.

Running is a very broad term though. Any money we pay back should be seen as an investment for future students as opposed to a Bandage for the education system that's unfortunately bleeding to death.
Id want a breakdown and a guarantee of where my money was being spent before they'd get a penny.

cson

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Id want a breakdown and a guarantee of where my money was being spent before they'd get a penny.

To play Devils Advocate here; how would you feel about the taxpayer asking you for the same?

thats not gone well

In the interests of fairness and equality the “graduate levy” is probably the way to go.
However as pointed out earlier it’s possible that there will be a high level of “defaulting” because of people leaving. In Australia at present there is ~5-15% default on the student loans. That’s money their education system is never going to see again. It’s quite possible something similar could happen here.


As things stand only some are paying fees while others receive full/partial grants (generalisation for simplicity).
Why penalise one person for being better off over another?

SarahBeep!

cson wrote: »

To play Devils Advocate here; how would you feel about the taxpayer asking you for the same?

Asking me what exactly?
(Not dismissing the question,just after clarification cson)

thats not gone well wrote: »

In the interests of fairness and equality the “graduate levy” is probably the way to go.
However as pointed out earlier it’s possible that there will be a high level of “defaulting” because of people leaving. In Australia at present there is ~5-15% default on the student loans. That’s money their education system is never going to see again. It’s quite possible something similar could happen here.


As things stand only some are paying fees while others receive full/partial grants (generalisation for simplicity).
Why penalise one person for being better off over another?

its not exactly a penalty is it? nobody is 'owed' a degree from this country.

TheTownie

cson wrote: »

To play Devils Advocate here; how would you feel about the taxpayer asking you for the same?

Well considering the wastage (thats an understatement) that occurred in FAS, its hardly a surprise that someone would want assurances that any contribution made would be spent wisely & efficiently.

daithi_lacha

SarahBeep! wrote: »

its not exactly a penalty is it? nobody is 'owed' a degree from this country.

if nobody is owed a degree, why such a determined involvement in the no fees campaign?

SarahBeep!

daithi_lacha wrote: »

if nobody is owed a degree, why such a determined involvement in the no fees campaign?

Because full upfront fees aren't the way to go.

TheTownie

daithi_lacha wrote: »

if nobody is owed a degree, why such a determined involvement in the no fees campaign?

Simply because your financial background should not hinder you when deciding "Do I aspire to get myself a degree?".

ninty9er

TheTownie wrote: »

Simply because your financial background should not hinder you when deciding "Do I aspire to get myself a degree?".

There's a caveat to this. You can argue reasonably that the State pays for the education, but there's no way of arguing that you don't need a sizeable chunk of money to support yourself while you're in college. That is already keeping a lot of people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds out of college and causing a lot of people to drop out at the moment having not thought the whole thing through. It's an extremely unfortunate situation, but whether there are fees or not, your financial background does and always has impacted peoples ability to get a degree.

TheTownie

ninty9er wrote: »

There's a caveat to this. You can argue reasonably that the State pays for the education, but there's no way of arguing that you don't need a sizeable chunk of money to support yourself while you're in college. That is already keeping a lot of people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds out of college and causing a lot of people to drop out at the moment having not thought the whole thing through. It's an extremely unfortunate situation, but whether there are fees or not, your financial background does and always has impacted peoples ability to get a degree.

Sure wasn't the grant system implemented to combat that very problem??

I know many people who avail of this. Without it they wouldn't be in UL, with it they are comfortably able to attend.

Edit: Also if you know such a problem exist, why exacerbate it by introducing fees?

Trying to give everyone the choice of college might be unachievable to some but surely we should make the college "umbrella", so to speak, as far reaching as possible... Not retracting it.

ninty9er

TheTownie wrote: »

Sure wasn't the grant system implemented to combat that very problem??

I know many people who avail of this. Without it they wouldn't be in UL, with it they are comfortably able to attend.

Edit: Also if you know such a problem exist, why exacerbate it by introducing fees?

A grant will only go so far, but mature students in particular don't seem to understand the costs involved, simple stuff like books, food, cost of petrol etc.

Fees is a separate issues as I don't believe any system should exclude anyone, any system should re-enforce access for all.

TheTownie

ninty9er wrote: »

A grant will only go so far, but mature students in particular don't seem to understand the costs involved, simple stuff like books, food, cost of petrol etc.

Fees is a separate issues as I don't believe any system should exclude anyone, any system should re-enforce access for all.

Not being able to afford it and running out of money are two different things. People have to be responsible and managed their money wisely.

There are a lot of variables when it comes to cost of living...

CiaranMT

To answer the topic, yes there are benefits to introducing fees for colleges.

Personally, I would favour a loan system akin to Britain, with the money going straight to universities.

However, with things they way they are here, many graduates will have no choice but to emigrate, given that there's such poor job prospects in the country atm, and will be for a few years to come. This will inevitably lead to defaults, with some people deciding to stay abroad and live their lives abroad.

Financially, we're f**ked like, unlike other places around, which will lure a good number of graduates away.