Reg Fee Increased

papajimsmooth

So looks like they increased the registration fee again. Got an email saying its 2000e now. Up every year ffs!

Killer Pigeon

I wonder if our former SU Campaigns and Communications Officer turned SU President is will to campaign to keep it at €1500.

Isn't UCD the most expensive non-private third level institution in the country at this stage?

graduate

ot an email saying its 2000e now. Up every year ffs!

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?

Isn't UCD the most expensive non-private third level institution in the country at this stage?

Does UCD charge a different registration fee than other third level institutions in the State? It certainly charges a fraction of those in the North for undergrads.

Killer Pigeon

graduate wrote: »

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?

What exactly does that have to do with free-education. The overarching amount of sovereign debt of this state came about after the nationalisation of toxic banks and the overpopulated public service - not from the likes of free education, etc.. which will come as an asset to the revival of economy.

graduate wrote: »

Does UCD charge a different registration fee than other third level institutions in the State?

I'm talking mainly about all UCD services combined and their costs on the average student.

parker kent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What exactly does that have to do with free-education. The overarching amount of sovereign debt of this state came about after the nationalisation of toxic banks and the overpopulated public service - not from the likes of free education, etc.. which will come as an asset to the revival of economy.

To be fair to him, "free" fees have caused enormous problems in third level education and have led to a greater divide between better off and disadvantaged students. I know nobody wants to be the unlucky set and be there when full fees are brought back, but something has to be done.

Killer Pigeon

parker kent wrote: »

To be fair to him, "free" fees have caused enormous problems in third level education and have led to a greater divide between better off and disadvantaged students. I know nobody wants to be the unlucky set and be there when full fees are brought back, but something has to be done.

Right, so we'll have students from less well off backgrounds who pass the points threshold yet cannot attend university because they can't afford it - then we'll have students from well off backgrounds being able to go to university because their fees are being paid out of their daddy's back pocket. Huge division would arise between students who have to work their ass off and students who get everything paid for them by their parents.

My mother (back in the 70's) had to drop out of university because she wasn't able to pay for it and didn't qualify for a scholarship. Are you suggesting that this sort of inequality would decrease this "divide" you speak off? - I don't see your logic.

I haven't seen any division based on students being better off or from disadvantaged backgrounds in my year. I would attribute this to free education.

parker kent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Right, so we'll have students from less well off backgrounds who pass the points threshold yet cannot attend university because they can't afford it - then we'll have students from well off backgrounds being able to go to university because their fees are being paid out of their daddy's back pocket. Huge division would arise between students who have to work their ass off and students who get everything paid for them by their parents.

My mother (back in the 70's) had to drop out of university because she wasn't able to pay for it and didn't qualify for a scholarship. Are you suggesting that this sort of inequality would decrease this "divide" you speak off? - I don't see your logic.

I haven't seen any division based on students being better off or from disadvantaged backgrounds in my year. I would attribute this to free education.

I really don't think you are aware of the statistics about third level since free fees were introduced. Free fees has essentially been a tax break for the wealthy. I'm not talking about introducing fees across the board, there should be mechanisms in place by means of an improved grants system were fees re-introduced. But I think it is just wrong that the wealthy benefit from free fees and use that money to subsidise their secondary education.

I don't think comparisons with the 1970s are valid either. My sister didn't go to college in 1990 either due to fees, but that is not relevant to 2011.

Also, so I don't have to write all this out again, these are my wider view on fees, third level etc.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71398453&postcount=114
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71403656&postcount=118

You should read opinions such as those of Ferdinand von Prondzynski. He pretty clearly expalins why free fees has been a social disaster in Irish education. He has many, many articles like this on. He also wrote a regular column in the University Observer.

Free fees' were a disaster for society and the third-level system

LEFTFIELD: To offer globally competitive third-level education, we need some level of student contribution by those who can afford it, writes FERDINAND VON PRONDZYNSKI

EVER SINCE tuition fees for third-level were abolished in the mid-1990s their return has never been far off the national agenda. When “free fees” were introduced it was predicted with some accuracy that pressures on the exchequer would, from time to time, tempt or force governments to cut higher education funding. Over time the cumulative effect of this would call into question the ability of universities and colleges to resource programmes of world class quality. And so it has proved.

During my tenure as president of DCU, I experienced an almost constant contraction of the amount of money available to teach each student. This reduction in real terms was for many years obscured by the overall volume increase in student numbers, which produced year-on-year increases in the taxpayer’s investment in higher education, but steady reductions in the money available per student.

Faced with this, we had to start cutting certain services some time ago, and long before the recession set in. Any institution that did not do so (often for understandable reasons) found itself recording increasing deficits. Taken per student and adjusted for inflation, today’s funding, through the recurrent grant and fees paid by the Government on behalf of students, is roughly the same as the recurrent grant element alone was in the mid-1990s. In other words, since the introduction of free fees the universities have been asked to “absorb” or fund from other means what was once the student fee; over time the Government simply withdrew it. And as we know, the cuts are nowhere near finished.

The idea of “free” higher education is an attractive one. It suggests that we live in an egalitarian society in which access to this vital stage of personal formation is free and available to everyone, regardless of background or means. That’s a beguiling notion, and it still influences many people.

But it never really reflected reality. For years all the available statistics have shown that social exclusion from higher education has remained stubbornly high. For example, while some areas of (mainly south) Dublin have more or less 100 per cent participation rates in higher education, others (many close to DCU) continue to have rates well below 10 per cent, and these have hardly changed at all over the 15 years of “free fees”.

Recent statistics from the Higher Education Authority show a deterioration in this participation. Partly the reason is that fees are not the major issue for these groups anyway, as even before their abolition people from disadvantaged backgrounds qualified for free access and grants. What changed in the 1990s was that the rich no longer needed to pay and, to be fair, that some middle income groups now found it easier to afford college.

But the socially deprived remained deprived, and in some ways their position worsened because some well-meaning people thought that “free fees” had solved all social disadvantage problems and that no further resources were needed. In fact, access for the disadvantaged requires careful nurturing, from primary school onwards, and is expensive. But as we have been giving wads of money to wealthier families, we didn’t have enough resources to promote access programmes to the level required. These access programmes were in any case largely funded by private philanthropy.

It is maybe a harsh thing to say, but “free fees” have amounted to a major redistribution of resources from the poor to the rich. It is a scheme that is now both morally and financially unsustainable.

So, in their protest march last week organised by the Union of Students in Ireland, were the students wrong?

One can understand the anxieties and fears felt by students at times of growing economic hardship. And, I confess, I have some sympathy with their objection to rising registration charges, which provide money for services other than tuition. That’s not what we need now. We need a proper system resourcing higher education that doesn’t asset strip teaching on a continuing basis.

But we must face up to the fact that we simply cannot continue to offer third-level programmes that claim to be globally competitive on the back of such meagre resources. And however hard this may be for many people, whether on grounds of principle or because of their concerns and fears, we must also face up to the fact that, whatever we might wish in an ideal world, the Government cannot provide the resources needed.

There is no way to go, absolutely none, that will not involve some level of student contribution by those who can afford it, whether in the form of fees or graduate payments, together with proper financial support for access programmes. If we reject that, we will signal that Irish higher education no longer aims to be internationally excellent, and that it will play no serious role in our recovery from gloom and recession.

Is that what we want?

Ferdinand von Prondzynski is a former president of DCU

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/1109/1224282950460.html

kev9100

I consider myself distinctly left-of-centre and I'm a strong supporter of free fees but one thing I've never understood and that really annoys me is when people who went to private secondary schools pay the same fees as those who went to public school. Surely if you went to a private secondary school the State shouldn't subsidise your college education.

LUPE

Oh great, this again.

delta_bravo

kev9100 wrote: »

I consider myself distinctly left-of-centre and I'm a strong supporter of free fees but one thing I've never understood and that really annoys me is when people who went to private secondary schools pay the same fees as those who went to public school. Surely if you went to a private secondary school the State shouldn't subsidise your college education.

A counter opinion to that would be that those people may earn higher incomes and therefore pay more tax so they should be as entitled to it as much as people who didn't go to private school. Not my opinion but it is often the argument against that.

parker kent

kev9100 wrote: »

I consider myself distinctly left-of-centre and I'm a strong supporter of free fees but one thing I've never understood and that really annoys me is when people who went to private secondary schools pay the same fees as those who went to public school. Surely if you went to a private secondary school the State shouldn't subsidise your college education.

How do you square being left of centre with being in favour of free fees? Free fees=more wealthy third level students

unpeumad

graduate wrote: »

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?




Does UCD charge a different registration fee than other third level institutions in the State? It certainly charges a fraction of those in the North for undergrads.

I don't go to UCD but my reg fee will be increased to 2000 aswell , I thought most fees will be increased to that amount ?
Also wondering how UCD is most expensive non private college in the country?

parker kent

unpeumad wrote: »

Also wondering how UCD is most expensive non private college in the country?

They are presumably talking about resit fees and other services around campus. Fair enough about the resit fees, they are pretty expensive compared to other third level institutions (even allowing for higher fees due to greater expenses by having the largest student body in the country).

But the other services could be argued and not many of them are charges that absolutely must be paid.

kev9100

parker kent wrote: »

How do you square being left of centre with being in favour of free fees? Free fees=more wealthy third level students

Because free fees also help kids from middle class and lower middle class families go to college. However, I do take your point that they also benefit the wealthy so maybe we should move to a system where the wealthy pay fees and the rest don't?

Also, if we want to increase the amount of poorer students going to college we should have reduced the points for students who come from poorer backgrounds. When you compare certain schools on the Southside to some schools in my area its just not a level-playing field.

Crow92

kev9100 wrote: »

Also, if we want to increase the amount of poorer students going to college we should have reduced the points for students who come from poorer backgrounds. When you compare certain schools on the Southside to some schools in my area its just not a level-playing field.

We do have a system for that, it's called H.E.A.R. The Higher Education Access Route, it basically allows students from poor socio-economic backgrounds to gain access to courses with reduced points, really good system.

Sadly even with this system it doesn't really help the problem of poorer students not going to college. Out of 60 people in my 6th year class only 3 of us went to college, it's the lack of drive and importance of college that cause this, very hard to change a mindset.(Though possible)

LUPE

kev9100 wrote: »

Because free fees also help kids from middle class and lower middle class families go to college. However, I do take your point that they also benefit the wealthy so maybe we should move to a system where the wealthy pay fees and the rest don't?

Also, if we want to increase the amount of poorer students going to college we should have reduced the points for students who come from poorer backgrounds. When you compare certain schools on the Southside to some schools in my area its just not a level-playing field.

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

parker kent

LUPE wrote: »

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

I could get into a long reply to this, but there are clear advantages to coming from such a background. There are also clear negatives to being from a poorer background. You can't just throw out BS like "hard work". If you actually researched the area or had personal experience in it, you would reach the same conclusion.

LUPE

Go on then...

parker kent

What's the point? You'll still disagree no matter what I say. Also I have given my opinions in my above post, including giving links to two other posts of mine. Plus I did say if YOU did your research.

LUPE

parker kent wrote: »

What's the point? You'll still disagree no matter what I say. Also I have given my opinions in my above post, including giving links to two other posts of mine. Plus I did say if YOU did your research.

Well that's an awfully defensive attitude to take, I'd like to know which parts of my post you take issue with and what the inherent advantages and disadvantages that you referred to are. That's all.

WeeBushy

LUPE wrote: »

Well that's an awfully defensive attitude to take, I'd like to know which parts of my post you take issue with and what the inherent advantages and disadvantages that you referred to are. That's all.

Go back and read post 7. He gives his thorough (and very well written I might add) opinion in two links of the disparity of third level education, including the issues of fees.

LUPE

WeeBushy wrote: »

Go back and read post 7. He gives his thorough (and very well written I might add) opinion in two links of the disparity of third level education, including the issues of fees.

Well I wasn't asking you...

Post 7 does not directly address what I said, yet he/she took issue with what I said yet refuses to elaborate further than merely that, and in doing so is adopting a very defensive, chip-on-shoulder attitude.

parker kent

LUPE wrote: »

Well I wasn't asking you...

Post 7 does not directly address what I said, yet he/she took issue with what I said yet refuses to elaborate further than merely that, and in doing so is adopting a very defensive, chip-on-shoulder attitude.

Did you read the posts that I linked? They specifically address what you are talking about.

dyl10

LUPE wrote: »

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

I really hope you're trolling.

I think it would be more tolerable if you proclaimed that you think third level education should be an exclusive institution. Instead, it just appears that you have no understanding of the world you live in.

dyl10

Also, on the reg fee increase; as the fee comes closer and closer to the level of some tuition fees (i.e. the standard 6k for Arts, Social Science, Computer Science), I assume students in those disciplines will eventually say "**** this, I am not paying the same fees as a med or vet student so they can earn four times my salary"

LUPE

parker kent wrote: »

Did you read the posts that I linked? They specifically address what you are talking about.

Just read them there.

The first link has no real relevance to my post.

The second one has more relevance yet so you seem to make the same point that I do that it is the environment which makes the difference rather than the fact that they pay for education, so I don't understand why you took such issue with what I had to say

LUPE

dyl10 wrote: »

I really hope you're trolling.

I think it would be more tolerable if you proclaimed that you think third level education should be an exclusive institution. Instead, it just appears that you have no understanding of the world you live in.

Before you make such claims, I'd prefer if actually made a point of your own or, at the very least, refuted one of mine.

dyl10

Ok, I'll make some short points and try make them simple as it really would be a case of being here all day explaining the roots of the issues you are missing. I have to try not make generalisations here myself. There are a lot of different layers to this.

There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

In the scheme of this debate, this point is very small but to let you know, as it is a very basic one, this is not true. There are only so many hours in the day and to let you know; there are smart, working-class people who study flat out for the leaving cert also. You won't see them strolling around medicine.

If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

People from the areas you are talking about don't have that mindset at all. I can guarantee you, many of them don't particularly think about schools or education at all after the age of 12 probably.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers)

Correct. Why are they more motivated?
People who live in poor places don't live there because they are poor at the moment. Generally, they live there because they have been born into a family that has always been poor. Despite what some people may think, there's no natural law to who is rich and who is poor, the system is as it is because it is designed that way.

it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner

Then why hand them over, so?

If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work

Genius, all we have to do is inform people why they should work harder and when they understand, we will have solved our issue with the smart economy!?
(and if I wanted to go marxist on it, I'd ask "but wait, who's going to collect your bins?")

They are some short ones, there's plenty of things to refute for someone who wants to.

kkumk

LUPE wrote: »

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

What an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant statement. I went to a public secondary school for 5 years (before moving to The Institute for 6th year) and there's no way you can argue that teaching is universal and therefore every student has an equal chance at education.

Firstly, from the day we began school in 1st year we were never taught about going to University. What I mean by that is that it was never presupposed that that's what one is meant to do after finishing school. The majority of pupils older brothers and sisters were hairdressers or electricians or plumbers and it was assumed that's the route most others would take. Teachers didn't tell us about it, infact to be completely honest, most of my friends who went to that school to this day don't even know what college is about. They couldn't tell you what the word Fresher means or what a Soc is or what subjects an Arts student might take or what a 2.1 is. I find this shocking as it's as if they grew up thinking it wasn't for people like them.

Out of 200 students taking the Junior Cert in my school in 2005, the highest result was 4 A's, 5 B's and a C. Similarly, for the Leaving Cert in 2007 the highest result was 470. This could not be the fault of 200 students. Were every one of them too lazy to work? I'm not saying that every public school has terrible teachers, or that every private school has excellent ones, there's always a mix, but overall I've personally found that the teachers in the Institute were much more dedicated to their subject and had proper lesson plans and aimed to get the course covered, which is more than can be said for the teachers in my old school. (I know that the Institute is an exaggerated form of private school, but at the same time many of my teachers there also taught in Belvedere and Blackrock etc.)

My sister (who still attends the public school, she is in 5th year) was recently asked by her Career Guidance teacher what she wants to do when she leaves school. She said that she'd like to study midwifery in Trinity College. (She's really smart, got 6 A's in her Junior Cert and studies loads) He replied with ".....well... you can always do a PLC."
It is this kind of attitude, rather than a "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside" that prevents so many pupils entering third level education.
This is also the reason why free fee's have made very little difference to the number of working class students attending uni, many don't actually understand what it means to get a degree, most of their parents didn't and so they aren't in a position to tell them about it and some even discourage it(btw I am not making assumptions about working class people and their education, I'm relaying personal experiences), furthermore their teachers do very little to inform them of their options. This is why scheme's such as H.E.A.R and UCD New Era are so important, because its not intelligence that's holding lower income families back, its their perception of third level education combined with the poor teaching efforts in many public schools.
I was by no means the best student in the class in my old school, but I gained higher results in my LC than any of those who had previously been "smarter" than me, and it saddens me to think that my friends have been held back and have not reached their full potential due to what I consider an inadequate education.

parker kent

LUPE wrote: »

Just read them there.

The first link has no real relevance to my post.

The second one has more relevance yet so you seem to make the same point that I do that it is the environment which makes the difference rather than the fact that they pay for education, so I don't understand why you took such issue with what I had to say

Seemingly I do have to explain the boringly obvious.

The environment only exists because of a previous culture of fee paying students dominating third level. Increase the amount of students from poorer backgrounds in third level and you break the cycle, leading to a faired, more equitable society.

There are also numerous students from poorer areas intellectually capable of thriving in third level, yet they miss out for various reasons. That is a loss to society. We need to get those people into third level. There are pretty obvious areas where it would be beneficial to have people from diverse backgrounds working.

As for the difference between fee paying and "normal" schools in poorer places, there are obvious differences most notably in the quality of teachers. Of course there will be exceptions, but by and large fee paying students have better teachers. Better teachers lead to better results. It is such a basic premise that it should not have to be explained.

Fee paying students also tend to have better facilities (note I say tend, not always). I never had the use of a lab for any science classes for example. I never did any practicals. That is an obvious area where I suffered through no fault of my own. The learning experience was worse because of the school that I went to.

The general environment of the school also plays a role in a students success. The majority of my classes had people doing higher, ordinary and foundation level. That means the teacher divides their time between 3 sets of students, none of them getting appropriate attention.

Also higher level students have to try and strive for excellence in an environment where acting the díck is normal. That is difficult. Wanting to succeed in such a school is difficult. If I were in a different school, I would have been surrounded by peers who wanted to do well (for the most part). That makes a difference. Schools in poorer areas are far more likely to have such troubled environments. Environments where classes are hijacked by gob****es and the teacher spends more time disciplining people than teaching. Obviously I know private schools have discipline issues as well, but it is not to the same level.

I could go on and on, but it should be obvious why fee paying students have advantages. kkumk has explained many other reasons in the post above that I would otherwise explain to you (some points have already been alluded to earlier and I'm sure most other people implicitly understood those points anyway). You really seem either ignorant of other schools or are just being difficult. You speak of the environment issues as if students from poorer areas are just not putting in enough hard work. Which is such an insulting, ignorant opinion. If you seriously think like that, you really should try and educate yourself on these issues.

errlloyd

Dear OP. Outgoing Campaigns and Communications officer and incoming President Pat De Brun has already protested against this increase. It was the big **** off protest we had back in November. That said I imagine we will do it again.

As for me, I think we should target the protest more towards getting a working means testing system. Yes I know means testing has failed before, thats why I want a working system. Those who can afford (I would count myself in the group that should have to pay) should pay, but money should never be a barrier.

65% of UCD students come from above average income families. They can easily afford. As said before to lots of people the barrier to education is not money anymore its points. The barrier to points is money. As the poster above said he opted to leave his school in 5th year and go to the institute. I would suggest that at least a few of the people who used to be competitive with him in terms of points, couldn't afford that.

I think people who have to pay for their degree will value it more and work more highly for it. The average work hours by both American and British students are higher then Irish students. I believe its because they have paid for it.

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the university around us is giving us a good education these days. In law I have 11 hours a week, no more tutorials or seminars and a 2 hour paper at the end. For this years exam I studied two out of eleven topics for property law and got a B. More money needs to go into education, see the Hunt Report.

Lastly I think we are kidding ourselves if we think free is free. Its not free, the money comes from somewhere. In this case the money is coming from hospitals, from schools, from old men who have paid their tax all their lives and are having their nursing homes shut down. I know its incredibly frustrating ministers get paid so much and get pensions. But its unfair to assume that just because we deserve it more then them we should get it. There are people who deserve it more then us. If I was in a hospital lying on a trolley I'd be physically sick at the thought of middle class kids going to Dicey's every Monday, D2 every Wednesday and Palace every Thursday, while complaining they might have to pay fees.