Student protest to stop fee increases and protect the grant

Duke Leonal Felmet

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Wow, you really are delusional

Whatever you think, must be true. What a wonderful world view. Glad to see my taxes are being well spent...

steve_kav

Anita Blow wrote: »

Jesus the generalisations in this thread are amazing. I love being referred to as a wanker just because I'm getting a "free" 3rd Level education like anyone who's gone to college in the past 15 years.
I worked my ass off to get into my course. I'm not rich or poor but my parents have enough to get me through college now. If there is €5000 fees then I really can't see how I can continue. I don't go out every night of the week like some know-it-alls here like to assume. Infact the ironic thing is that those who don't do much in college and go out every night, are the ones who can well afford to stay in college. They're the ones with the money to be going to clubs multiple nights a week.
Convenient for those who've already gotten their free college education to preach about the need for fees from their high horse. We spend something like €1.6 billion on college education every year. Surely that's the best investment we can make?

I agree, If these people walked into a college in the weeks leading up to exams they'd realise that generally people are like you and me and care about our education the minority that sponge off parents and drink every night give all students a bad image.

People like yourself paid €2000 euro this year. people in my course paid 1500 last year. First years who paid the €2000 this year that is clearly what you expected to pay for 4 years thats €8000. That means they planned to make an €8000 investment in there education. They've paid €2000 for year 1 and have laid the loss of that €2000. If the fee goes up to €5000 then they will pay €15000 euro for the next 3 years bringing there total fees up to €17000 having planned to pay €8000 I dont know where the government expect these students to find the extra €9000.

The point im making is that they can't set a fee for first year students and then hike the fee for second year and expect the students to pay it. The fee that a student pays in first year should be sustained and this should be the fee they pay for the 4 years of their course.

The fee should not go up 1 cent more from the €2000 currently charged and I strongly feel there should be no fee at all for the financially deprived which at the moment is most of the population of the country.

The current government lied in the run up to the election they said that the fee's wouldn't go up anymore and that the grant wouldn't come down. A lot of students' went to college in the hope that these promises would be maintained and if its not maintained then they can't be expected to pay it. Contrary to popular belief students do plan there finances and can't afford to pay double what they expected to pay and will have to drop out of college. The government think that by hiking the fees they will get more money out of people. In reality they will get less money because people that would have paid €2000 will instead be paying nothing and will not be paying high taxes in the future because they wont have the qualifications to get a good job.

steve_kav

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I would have expected more use of social media is all. Last year's "education not emigration" protest had a massive viral tweet hashtag campaign and everyone supporting it changed their profile photos on Facebook, there were t shirts, and so on. Haven't seen any of that this year.

I'm in quite a small college though (the new BIMM in Francis Street) so maybe it hasn't got that far yet.

Theres t shirts this year as well they're red

Stev_o

So wait we should tell thousands of students to take loans from Banks that have no money to give out and any money they do take out is tax payers money? Riiigghhtt okay.

DB21

Yeah, funny thing about jobs. I don't know if you noticed, but this country has currently got a 14.4% unemployment rate. Jobs are a bit scarce on the ground, never mind a job that has to be worked around college hours. I've said it hundreds of times; if it wasn't for the free fees scheme, I wouldn't be anywhere near college. I want to see all those from backgrounds like mine being able to achieve what they want to achieve in life. Putting fees back in will make college a rich boys club again.

steve_kav

histories wrote: »

At the end of the day you are not entitled (I am stressing this as there are far too many people who seem to think the world owes them every little fu*king thing just because they happened to be born) to anything beyond 2nd level education. If you wish to avail of 3rd level then work and save, apply for loans or grants. And I say that as someone who was raised very close to the breadline.

If thats the attitude you have what makes you think we should be entitled to second level?

The reason is that that's what has always been given, if third level education was given for free for years and years and your parents/ grandparents/ great grandparents had been given free third level education then that is what youd expect every person to be entitled to and thats the way it should be. If they abolish the fees now then it wont be long before it will become the generally accepted way of society.

steve_kav

Your Text Here wrote: »

I must say, you seem to see a type of student that I don't tend to see that many of. I must be even blinder than I thought.

If fees were to be re-introduced, which hopefully won't happen, then I do think people who can afford it should obviously have to pay a lot more than those who can't. But we all know that if fees are brought in it won't turn out like that.

It seems to be that people that have walked into a college sometime in the past year don't see these type of students and people who havn't been in the colleges see them strange

Shane L

DB21 wrote: »

Yeah, funny thing about jobs. I don't know if you noticed, but this country has currently got a 14.4% unemployment rate. Jobs are a bit scarce on the ground, never mind a job that has to be worked around college hours. I've said it hundreds of times; if it wasn't for the free fees scheme, I wouldn't be anywhere near college. I want to see all those from backgrounds like mine being able to achieve what they want to achieve in life. Putting fees back in will make college a rich boys club again.

And its only at 14.4% due to emigration! I remember somebody quoting on boards that there is roughly 100 people leaving a day? Correct me if I'm wrong.

St.Spodo

As a university student from what would be considered a working class background, I think it's unbelievably arrogant for the student unions to think they're entitled to free third-level education. The country has to pay the guts of four billion euro; college fees should be increased ahead of the reduction of things like social welfare and pensions.

In addition, the unions should realise that the country is in the depths of a recession, we cannot be so naive to think that the people on the bread-line should have to subsidise our further education.

southsiderosie

DB21 wrote: »

Yeah, funny thing about jobs. I don't know if you noticed, but this country has currently got a 14.4% unemployment rate. Jobs are a bit scarce on the ground, never mind a job that has to be worked around college hours. I've said it hundreds of times; if it wasn't for the free fees scheme, I wouldn't be anywhere near college. I want to see all those from backgrounds like mine being able to achieve what they want to achieve in life. Putting fees back in will make college a rich boys club again.

But there is no evidence that free fees have changed the socio-economic makeup of who goes to college. It is still a predominately middle and upper-middle class enterprise.

And why would a student loan program stop people from going to college?

Hank_Jones

People giving out about this, for shame.

I see people on here saying that people should be protesting against government cuts the whole time,
but because the cuts relate to people trying to attain the best education they can, people are negative...

Support something when it suits you, give out when it doesn't, or just give out in general.

It's the Irish way. :pac:

Shane L

southsiderosie wrote: »

But there is no evidence that free fees have changed the socio-economic makeup of who goes to college. It is still a predominately middle and upper-middle class enterprise.

And why would a student loan program stop people from going to college?

I really want to see this report about the socio-economic make up of who goes to college. I was the first in my family ever to go to third level and there are a lot of 3 rd level institutions other than Universities.Nearly every reasonably sized town has an institute of technology I really doubt there isn't a significant portion who could be considered from "working class" backgrounds.Going from 2000 to 5000 is a massive leap and in the socio-economic climate a lot of "middle class" families who have massive strains on mortgages, unemployment or may have several kids going to college won't be able to fund it.

southsiderosie

Shane L wrote: »

I really want to see this report about the socio-economic make up of who goes to college. I was the first in my family ever to go to third level and there are a lot of 3 rd level institutions other than Universities.Nearly every reasonably sized town has an institute of technology I really doubt there isn't a significant portion who could be considered from "working class" backgrounds.Going from 2000 to 5000 is a massive leap and in the socio-economic climate a lot of "middle class" families who have massive strains on mortgages, unemployment or may have several kids going to college won't be able to fund it.

Here you go: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201026.pdf

Here is the abstract:

University tuition fees for undergraduates were abolished in Ireland in 1996. This paper examines the effect of this reform on the socioeconomic gradient (SES) to determine whether the reform was successful in achieving its objective of promoting educational equality. It finds that the reform clearly did not have that effect. It is also shown that the university/SES gradient can be explained by differential performance at second level which also explains the gap between the sexes. Students from white collar backgrounds do significantly better in their final second level exams than the children of blue-collar workers. The results are very similar to recent findings for the UK. I also find that certain demographic characteristics have large negative effects on school performance i.e. having a disabled or deceased parent. The results show that the effect of SES on school performance is generally stronger for those at the lower end of the conditional distribution of academic attainment

.

Einhard

dlofnep wrote: »

I know alot of people who got out of a hole, away from the streets through education. The grant enabled them to do it. I know alot of friends from a poor background who would not have been able to afford college without the grant. It has bettered the lives of so many.

What's happening now is that there is going to be a gap created, where those who genuinely can't afford it will not be able to go to college.

I think most people would accept that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are facilitated financially (and otherwise) in accessing third levvel education. Indeed, despite your antipathy for the Labour Party, I'm pretty sure that they'd be of the same opinion.

However, the free fees system is not that mechanism. It simply has not done enough to open up education for disadvantaged young people. True, the numbers of students has increased dramatically since the abolition of fees, but middle- and upper-classes account for the vast bulk of this increase. There has been a concomitant rise in disaadvantaged students accesing third level, but it is small indeed relative to other, more affluent sectors of socitey.

Wealthy and middle-class who could well afford fees and would have gone to college anyway, get free higher education. Many invest that saving in private education and grinds, increasing the chances of their chldren getting into university, and thus squeezing out poorer students who don't have the money to take advantage of the points system. So the system which is lauded by students as a boon to the disadvantaged is actually a boon for the better off, and in some ways actively militates against the poor.

Furthermore, I don't see why a return of fees should necessarily mean that poorer students will effectively be excluded from third level. I can envisage a system where fees for the better off are used, in part, to fund access opportunities for the financially less fortunate. Instead of Anto from Ballymun subsidising Jay from Blackrock through his taxes, Jay from Blackrock would subsidise the education of Anto's son through his fees. Extra funds could mean higher grants and better supports for the disadvantaged- and the only downside is that families who can afford to pay, do so (incidentally reducing the monies avalible for expensive private schools and grinds which have such a distorting and exclusatory effect on education access).

I fail to see how someone could reasonably object to such a scenario. Instead of the poor subsiding the wealthy and thus perpetuating the education and income gap, the wealthy would help fund education opportunities for the poor. Surely that is the more social, the more equitable mechanism- the one most appropriate for any party which seeks social justce and equity?

PS: I'm not a Labour Party member or supporter.

Einhard

southsiderosie wrote: »

Here you go: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201026.pdf

Here is the abstract:

.

This is Ireland. Surely you don't expect argument or policy proposals to proceed from reasoned analysis of empirical evidence?? :eek:

dillo2k10

Free fees does not just benefit those that attend University/College!

A better educated population means that better quality and bigger company's will be basing themselves in Ireland. This does mean that those with degrees will get themselves a good job, but it also means that those who didn't go to college will get jobs as those companys who move into the country will need people that don't have degrees i.e Receptionists, Assistants, Cleaners etc. So the whole country benefits from more people attending college. The will bring in a lot extra money into the country that it would cost to fund them through college.

If there were fees and students couldn't go to college, they would then most likley end up on the dole with all of the extra people that would also be on the dole because of the jobs they didnt create (if they aint educated then the companys wont come).

So not only will they not have jobs, neither will the people they helped create jobs for. So there will be a lot less money coming into the country but a lot lot more people claiming state benefits.

As you can see it is much more economically productive to provide free 3rd level education!

Einhard

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Free fees does not just benefit those that attend University/College!

A better educated population means that better quality and bigger company's will be basing themselves in Ireland. This does mean that those with degrees will get themselves a good job, but it also means that those who didn't go to college will get jobs as those companys who move into the country will need people that don't have degrees i.e Receptionists, Assistants, Cleaners etc. So the whole country benefits from more people attending college. The will bring in a lot extra money into the country that it would cost to fund them through college.

If there were fees and students couldn't go to college, they would then most likley end up on the dole with all of the extra people that would also be on the dole because of the jobs they didnt create (if they aint educated then the companys wont come).

So not only will they not have jobs, neither will the people they helped create jobs for. So there will be a lot less money coming into the country but a lot lot more people claiming state benefits.

As you can see it is much more economically productive to provide free 3rd level education!

Nobody benefits if the education a student receives is of poor quality. Who would you rather work on your teeth- a dentist from the University of Ulan Bator, or from Harvard? A third level qualification in e=itself is meaningless; it's the recognition that comes with that qualification. And that's all down to the quality and rigour of the awarding college, and of the specific course. The standards in Irish tertiary education are slipping, and it is mostly due to funding levels. If this persists, Irish qualifications will become progressively less valued, nationally and internationally, directly affecting the types of companies we attract, and the types of job irish students can realistically seek. Something has to give. Either we accept declining standards or we seek to reverse the trend. if it's the latter, we need to fund third level properly. And that involves either fees on those who benefit directly, or taxes on the general populace. Is it equitible that Ballymun Anto funds the college education of Blackrock Jay? I don't think so.

Shane L

Einhard wrote: »

This is Ireland. Surely you don't expect argument or policy proposals to proceed from reasoned analysis of empirical evidence?? :eek:

Ah but I will :P I've read through a good portion of the report.What are the the yearly wages for the white collar worker and the blue collar worker ...I can't see them anywhere I didn't read everything closely just got a general idea of the results.

The report emphasises the lack of any study by the government in how free fees would benefit the lower income families before being implemented.In the same light no study has been done to determine the effect of raising the fees but the author of the report cites "a more recent study finds for Canada found that increases in tuition costs has substantial negative effects on enrolment, see Neill (2009)".So....where do we go from here? Unless of course they do have a report?Correct me if I'm wrong.Do we want to see less people in third level?

southsiderosie

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Free fees does not just benefit those that attend University/College!

A better educated population means that better quality and bigger company's will be basing themselves in Ireland. This does mean that those with degrees will get themselves a good job, but it also means that those who didn't go to college will get jobs as those companys who move into the country will need people that don't have degrees i.e Receptionists, Assistants, Cleaners etc. So the whole country benefits from more people attending college. The will bring in a lot extra money into the country that it would cost to fund them through college.

If there were fees and students couldn't go to college, they would then most likley end up on the dole with all of the extra people that would also be on the dole because of the jobs they didnt create (if they aint educated then the companys wont come).

So not only will they not have jobs, neither will the people they helped create jobs for. So there will be a lot less money coming into the country but a lot lot more people claiming state benefits.

As you can see it is much more economically productive to provide free 3rd level education!

No, you have made several leaps in logic.

First, there is no correlation between the existence of fees and university attendance. If that were the case, college attendance rates would be much lower in the US, UK, and Australia than they are today.

Second, why are the choices here binary: fees or the dole? Why can't students take out loans?

Finally, foreign investors have complained about how under-prepared many Irish students are - the secondary and tertiary educational rankings have fallen significantly over the last decade. This is in part due to the fact that universities are being underfunded - in part because money is going into providing universal grants rather than into research. And it is the latter that drives investment and growth; people who have an ounce of common sense will go to university whether there are fees or not as long as a semi-decent loan system is in place. The long-term employment and financial benefits are too great not to.

Einhard

Shane L wrote: »

Ah but I will :P I've read through a good portion of the report.What are the the yearly wages for the white collar worker and the blue collar worker ...I can't see them anywhere I didn't read everything closely just got a general idea of the results.

The report emphasises the lack of any study by the government in how free fees would benefit the lower income families before being implemented.In the same light no study has been done to determine the effect of raising the fees but the author of the report cites "a more recent study finds for Canada found that increases in tuition costs has substantial negative effects on enrolment, see Neill (2009)".So....where do we go from here? Unless of course they do have a report?Correct me if I'm wrong.Do we want to see less people in third level?

The Canadian study stated there was a negative impact on enrolment...which would be a good thing as long as the impact wasn't on the enrolment of disadvantaged students. There seems to be a misapprehension that increased numbers= increased lower socio-economic access, and that's patently not the case.

Curlyhatescurls

Aghhh this makes me so angry, those who actually CANNOT pay for college get the grant, those who get the grant do NOT have to pay the student contribution. Therefore only those who can afford it pay the student contribution. The cut off to get the grant is a joint earning of around 55,000 euro a year so DON'T tell me students can't afford to pay it.

This is an investment in your future, I worked my ass off in a ****ty kitchen all summer to save for college and I can tell you if people actually valued their education than they would understand raising the student contribution.

Shane L

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, you have made several leaps in logic.

First, there is no correlation between the existence of fees and university attendance. If that were the case, college attendance rates would be much lower in the US, UK, and Australia than they are today.

Second, why are the choices here binary: fees or the dole? Why can't students take out loans?

Finally, foreign investors have complained about how under-prepared many Irish students are - the secondary and tertiary educational rankings have fallen significantly over the last decade. This is in part due to the fact that universities are being underfunded - in part because money is going into providing universal grants rather than into research. And it is the latter that drives investment and growth; people who have an ounce of common sense will go to university whether there are fees or not as long as a semi-decent loan system is in place. The long-term employment and financial benefits are too great not to.

But will students be able to get loans with the current state of the banks?

southsiderosie

Shane L wrote: »

Ah but I will :P I've read through a good portion of the report.What are the the yearly wages for the white collar worker and the blue collar worker ...I can't see them anywhere I didn't read everything closely just got a general idea of the results.

The report emphasises the lack of any study by the government in how free fees would benefit the lower income families before being implemented.In the same light no study has been done to determine the effect of raising the fees but the author of the report cites "a more recent study finds for Canada found that increases in tuition costs has substantial negative effects on enrolment, see Neill (2009)".So....where do we go from here? Unless of course they do have a report?Correct me if I'm wrong.Do we want to see less people in third level?

The report uses survey data from before and after fees were introduced to see if they made any impact on university attendance among poorer students. It controls for a variety of factors, such as socioeconomic status (as determined by parental employment), gender, etc. The results show that the abolition of fees did not have a significant impact on low-income university attendance. This was in part to be expected, as low-income students did not pay fees before they were abolished, so it is difficult to understand why people thought this would change afterwards.

The paper also notes that the core impediment to low-income university attendance is really about secondary school performance, not about finances. Hence, "policies that do not directly address the underperformance at secondary level (i.e. high school) are unlikely to have a major impact on the problem."

Basically, kids from a less privileged background are less prepared for the Leaving Cert, and therefore less likely to continue on to third level education. This is why many have argued that free fees have exacerbated this problem: middle class families who no longer have to pay university fees can put those savings towards grinds, etc, thus further disadvantaging less well off students who do not have access to good LC preparation resources.

southsiderosie

Shane L wrote: »

But will students be able to get loans with the current state of the banks?

Hence why I noted in my original post on this thread that the government should not re-introduce fees unless there is a viable loan system in place. Frankly it shouldn't be that complicated, especially since the government owns the banks, and there are plenty of models that can be imported from elsewhere to build it from.

mackg

facemelter wrote: »

thats a very good point i never even considered ! , i completely forgot that one day i will be paying for someone elses fees !!

Nice to see someone actually take someone elses opinion on board

southsiderosie wrote: »

Hence why I noted in my original post on this thread that the government should not re-introduce fees unless there is a viable loan system in place. Frankly it shouldn't be that complicated, especially since the government owns the banks, and there are plenty of models that can be imported from elsewhere to build it from.

I was going to write a big long post but I won't bother, the above is probably the way things are going to go and in fairness is probably the most fair and logical compromise but I would still have some system of financial aid availible for people who are struggling eg.the student assistance fund.

DB21

Incidentally, if someone is looking for another reason to get angry at the government, that raw cost of the grants themselves is €440m. A cheque was signed off to Anglo Irish for €700m. Which one would have been the better investment?

raah!

Shane L wrote: »

I actually know a postman who had many kids who all have gone to college and would not have been able to do so without the grant and the burden of future debt. A lot of people on the dole have degrees these days ( or have emigrated). I highly doubt doctors , engineers etc remember nothing from their studies.

Again, doctors and engineers do not make up the majority of the student body. Broad science and broad arts students do, amongst those disciplines then the passers to 2:1ers predominate again.

As i said, there are many people for whom a grant is suitable, for most others they may as well be one the dole, except they don't have to look for work for at least 3 years.

OkayWhatever

I don't think the whole grant should be cut but I do think the extra money should. I think the registration fee should be paid and that's it.

I get a grant so I get my reg fee paid, but I also get an extra €430 (give or take a few quid) every 3 months. It's completely unnecessary. That extra money could nearly cover someone else's reg fee.

My friend gets the extra €430 and she works 20hours outside college, so she doesn't need the money at all, think it's just sitting in her bank and when she gets low on money she'll probably use it to buy vodka.

Fair enough people need to travel, but I think they should be given bus tickets or train tickets instead of cash.

KittyeeTrix

In my final year of a science degree and my grant was slashed.
Spent the summer working for free in a laboratory 50km from my home which cost me a small fortune in petrol.........

Back to college (4,500e less in my pocket) and by god I'm relieved it's my last year.

My eldest son is headed to college next year and I'm dreading how bad the situation will get.
I've completely lost faith in the Govt. as I've been affected firsthand by their cuts.
I've met many of the mature students in NUIG who have had the rug pulled out from under them financially!!! They've targeted the smaller group and taken the most from them..... Absolute shower of (not allowed say or will be permabanned:mad:)


I've told my older sons to get to college and then pack up ta fcuk and get out of this

KittyeeTrix

*sh1thole*...............

On the mobile, wouldn't let me add the last word!!)

LaFlammeRouge

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

In my final year of a science degree and my grant was slashed.
Spent the summer working for free in a laboratory 50km from my home which cost me a small fortune in petrol.........

Back to college (4,500e less in my pocket) and by god I'm relieved it's my last year.

My eldest son is headed to college next year and I'm dreading how bad the situation will get.
I've completely lost faith in the Govt. as I've been affected firsthand by their cuts.
I've met many of the mature students in NUIG who have had the rug pulled out from under them financially!!! They've targeted the smaller group and taken the most from them..... Absolute shower of (not allowed say or will be permabanned:mad:)


I've told my older sons to get to college and then pack up ta fcuk and get out of this

The state doesn't owe you anything. Why do you expect someone else to pay for your 3rd level education? Especially since your going to abuse that generosity and piss off out of the country and not contribute back in any way.

KittyeeTrix

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

The state doesn't owe you anything. Why do you expect someone else to pay for your 3rd level education? Especially since your going to abuse that generosity and piss off out of the country and not contribute back in any way.

I started back in college 4 years ago and my grant was a certain amount!!! It was cut by almost 70%.........
To say it crippled me this year would be an understatement:(

Read my post carefully and you'll see that I'm not leaving but have urged my sons to get out and check out other parts of the world. I don't trust the Govt. or anything they come out with.

I understand there has to be cuts. I'm not blind to that but can I not be fcukin aggrieved that my badly needed fund to finish my last year in college was slashed by 70% while the banks were funded and I'm left screwed


What am I missing here??

Anita Blow

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

The state doesn't owe you anything. Why do you expect someone else to pay for your 3rd level education?

I don't really agree with this argument. Yes, initially the taxpayer foots the bill for the degree, but once that person graduates and gets a job, they are paying (on average) 70% more in tax than a person who doesn't have 3rd level qualifications. This benefits the whole country as it leads to a higher tax take per person, allowing a higher level of services. A person who completes college and gets a job here will pay back the fees the taxpayer initially paid many times over.

Ireland has no huge manufacturing industry left for high numbers of people without 3rd level education to work. Our high labour costs mean that all we really have left to compete in is R&D and jobs which generally require a college education.

I still think that college should be free, like our European neighbours. I think the government needs to look more into finding other savings in education first. Like one thing that I don't see the point of, is how the free fees scheme is open to anyone in the EU? Why can it not be restricted to just Irish residents? It was said a few months ago that college numbers were increasing here because UK Students were coming here due to their fees being so high. A person from a different country coming here to go to college will have their education paid for by us, even though the likelihood is they'll just take their degree back to their own country and not pay their education back in tax.

I'm grateful for the fact that I'm getting a relatively free college education here and I'd have no problem paying for another person's education in the future through my taxes.

Doc Ruby

Anita Blow wrote: »

is how the free fees scheme is open to anyone in the EU? Why can it not be restricted to just Irish residents?

I'm fairly sure it is? I've a couple of Polish women renting out from me here and they can't get into college without paying full fees.

Anyway yeah, pumping billions into the likes of Anglo and cutting grant aid is just another fine example of the government shooting their own foot off. In other news, sky still blue and sun still rises in the east.

Anita Blow

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm fairly sure it is? I've a couple of Polish women renting out from me here and they can't get into college without paying full fees.

Anyway yeah, pumping billions into the likes of Anglo and cutting grant aid is just another fine example of the government shooting their own foot off. In other news, sky still blue and sun still rises in the east.

In order to qualify for free fees you must have been living in an EEA member state or Switzerland for at least 3 of the 5 years before starting your course. The members of the EEA (the European Economic Area) are the 27 members of the EU, along with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.
You must also fulfil one of the following 6 criteria as regards citizenship and rights of residence in Ireland:
You must:

1. Be a citizen of an EEA member state (see above) or Switzerland or
2. Have official refugee status or
3. Be a family member of a refugee and have been granted permission to live in the State or
4. Be a family member of an EU national and have permission to live in the State, with a stamp “4EUFAM” on your residence card or
5. Have been granted humanitarian leave to remain in the State or
6. Have been granted permission to remain in the State by the Minister for Justice and Equality, following a determination by the Minister not to make a deportation order under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/third_level_education/fees_and_supports_for_third_level_education/fees.html

IsMiseLisa

Without the grant, I'm pretty sure I couldn't go to college.

I'm 20, and in my second year. My Dad doesn't make enough money to be taxed. My mother can't work due to illness. I have three brothers in college too, and one in secondary school. There's not a chance in hell all four of us could have gone to college if not for the grant.

Jobs aren't exactly the easiest of things to come by these days either. :P

I wouldn't mind if I had to pay a 1000 euro reg fee. I could stretch to that, but there are whispers of 5000 fees. FIVE THOUSAND EURO. That'd be 20,000 euros of fees paid yearly from my house alone. That's crazy.

saa

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm grateful for the fact that I'm getting a relatively free college education here and I'd have no problem paying for another person's education in the future through my taxes.

Agreed, what happens if they don't pay for lower class- middle class' education, unlike time gone by you can't walk into a job cleaning, labour, retail, farming. And yes I've heard they're jobs if you look but not for the majourity.

So if the gov doesn't want to pay for education for a few years I'm sure they'll end up paying out the dole for them and getting nothing back for that.

hatrickpatrick

Stinicker wrote: »

I suggest the students direct their protest to this address;

Fianna Fáil Headquarters
65-66 Lower Mount Street
Dublin 2

and also do a small bit of reading into what has happened to the country since 2008, the current government are not to blame for this

The current government has just chosen of their own free will to pay almost a BILLION euro to unguaranteed, unsecured senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank - people who chose to gamble of their own free will and knew perfectly well that "investments may fall as well as rise in value".

That billion euro would pay the college fees of several thousand students at least.
It's a f*cking disgrace. Priorities? Bleeeeeh. :mad:

LaFlammeRouge

Anita Blow wrote: »

I don't really agree with this argument. Yes, initially the taxpayer foots the bill for the degree, but once that person graduates and gets a job, they are paying (on average) 70% more in tax than a person who doesn't have 3rd level qualifications. This benefits the whole country as it leads to a higher tax take per person, allowing a higher level of services. A person who completes college and gets a job here will pay back the fees the taxpayer initially paid many times over.

I would advocate a system like the UK and the US, the government provides a interest free loan and you then repay this loan when you start earning.

The Irish system is a farce. For instance, the state has pumped 10,000's into each Irish student who earns a medical degree. These qualified students then feck off to Australia and NZ when they graduate and we are left with 2nd rate Indian and Pakistan doctors to fill the void. Other countries are benefiting at Ireland's expense.

Anita Blow

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

I would advocate a system like the UK and the US, the government provides a interest free loan and you then repay this loan when you start earning.

The Irish system is a farce. For instance, the state has pumped 10,000's into each Irish student who earns a medical degree. These qualified students then feck off to Australia and NZ when they graduate and we are left with 2nd rate Indian and Pakistan doctors to fill the void. Other countries are benefiting at Ireland's expense.

I also wouldn't be against a loan system, but the government has ruled that out due to objections from the IMF.

As regards medical students, wheres the evidence? Besides hearsay? We wouldn't have to get junior doctors from abroad to fill spaces if the HEA would just allow more medical places in colleges.

If you want a system that eliminates both of the above problems, then why not support one of the suggests in this thread. A person can get a free education if they stay in the country after and complete X number of years in their profession (So that they've paid back their education in tax). If they move abroad, then they have to repay the tuition in full.

LaFlammeRouge

Anita Blow wrote: »

I also wouldn't be against a loan system, but the government has ruled that out due to objections from the IMF.

As regards medical students, wheres the evidence? Besides hearsay? We wouldn't have to get junior doctors from abroad to fill spaces if the HEA would just allow more medical places in colleges.

If you want a system that eliminates both of the above problems, then why not support one of the suggests in this thread. A person can get a free education if they stay in the country after and complete X number of years in their profession (So that they've paid back their education in tax). If they move abroad, then they have to repay the tuition in full.

Shirley Coulter, assistant director of the Irish Medical Organisation, said the shortage of junior doctors was “a retention rather than a recruitment issue”.

There was a crisis of morale among non-consultant doctors, she said, and many were choosing to work abroad. In Ireland, they were experiencing “unilateral” breaches of the terms and conditions of their contracts, they were working excessively long hours and were finding it difficult to meet their training needs.

No I wouldn't go with that suggestion. That would mean higher taxes for everyone. So a taxpayer who opts not to attend 3rd level has to pay higher taxes because of this system. The loan system is the most equitable.

Anyway, we need to change something. Irish universities are strapped for cash and none are in the Top 100 now.

southsiderosie

Anita Blow wrote: »

Ireland has no huge manufacturing industry left for high numbers of people without 3rd level education to work. Our high labour costs mean that all we really have left to compete in is R&D and jobs which generally require a college education.

Anita Blow wrote: »

I still think that college should be free, like our European neighbours.

These two statements are in competition with with other. Not only does Ireland rely on services, but they rely on foreign investment in creating employment for high-end services. The international competitiveness of Ireland's universities has already declined due to underinvestment in research, and sinking standards - in part because so much money is going into subsidizing students instead of investing in the institutions. The latter is what drives investment, not the former. And as I noted earlier in the thread, Ireland's universities (and the UK's) are generally ranked much higher than those of their European neighbors - for now, anyway.

In addition, given that the best-paying jobs in Ireland require a college degree, there will always be those willing to take on the the short-term financial risk of a loan (a 'risk' which is minimal) because of the clear long-term economic benefits of having a degree. So I see no reason why re-introducing fees will significantly impact college enrollment, especially in degree programs where the financial rewards are higher. If people are not willing to take out loans in order to make more money in the long-term, it is they who are being unreasonable, not the government.

Anita Blow wrote: »

I also wouldn't be against a loan system, but the government has ruled that out due to objections from the IMF.

Do you have a link for that? Because generally the IMF is the first to advocate for cutting government subsidies, so this seems counter-intuitive to me.

IHeartChemistry

We just can't win here. We go to college, we occasionally want to blow off some steam (like any other working individual may I add) and are considered wasters. If we don't go to college and we don't have a job, people are still considered as wasters. I can't get a job anywhere. Not by choice either. Regardless there seems to be a huge stigma against students here. I live away from home for college and I rarely go out. I get money for food each week and thats it.

I couldnt go to college in UL because I couldnt find a course to suit me so I had no choice but to leave Limerick. My parents would not be able to afford fees on top of me living away from home. Maybe the best solution would be to cut the crazy ass university Presidents wages in half. Cut some of these politicans wages in half.

The state may not owe us anything, but it seems we owe them a hell of a lot :rolleyes: I think our taxes say it all.

/rant

Eric Cartman

steve_kav wrote: »

The bottom line this year and we've been stressing it to students throughout the campaign we don't want voilence this time.

if you can manage to keep the youth Sin Feinn, SWP, Socialist Party and all the other left wing nutters away ill be amazed

Anita Blow

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you have a link for that? Because generally the IMF is the first to advocate for cutting government subsidies, so this seems counter-intuitive to me.

Before typing it I went looking for the link but couldn't find it. A post on boards had a link to it a while back. I think the jist of it was that the government doesn't actually have the money to lend to people. A loan system would mean the government (through the banks) would be paying for people's full tuition, including the student contribution, until that person has a job with sufficient income to pay it back. The banks currently don't have the power to create that much money to lend to people.

May be wrong though!
Like I said, I don't oppose a loan system. I support a graduate tax more though. As in a small tax applied to a person's income over X number of years. Pretty much the exact same but it'd be interest fee so banks don't profit off somebody educating themselves through interest rates. It could start generating income as soon as the next 4th years graduate next year.

I just don't think this is something we should rush into because of all this anti-student sentiment which is pretty apparent in this thread.
It's almost like this government wants to lose votes. Completely idiotic. Weeks after pumping €700 million into a dead bank to pay gamblers, they want to cut education funding. Does that sound right? Is that the way to a smart economy? Either my maths is completely off, or we could put 87,500 people through 4 years of college at at the current fee with that.
We spend €1.1 billion per year on higher education. That is miniscule compared to Welfare which is a dead weight.

languagenerd

Being realistic, there's just no way we could have 3rd-level education completely free, considering the state of the country. Graduate tax, or loans could be the way forward, if done right. But raising the "student contribution" now is a very bad idea.

In particular, think of students currently in their second-last year who are just getting by as it is. They started college when the fee was €1500 (so they allowed €6000 for that at the start). If it went up to €3000 or the €5000 that's being bandied about, they wouldn't be able to pay for the last year - they've done 75% of the work, passed all their exams, done everything right - but can't get a degree. Had they known the fees would jump by €3000+, they could have taken a gap year before starting to work and raise the money, but now they've just wasted 3 years and there's no jobs to be had anymore! (This is not my own situation, btw, but I know a lot of people who will be stuck in this position if the fee rises again).

I know no-one is entitled to 3rd-level education, but society needs graduates - it needs doctors, teachers, engineers, architects, lawyers etc. - and high fees will lead to lower standards across the board as many of the brightest and most interested students won't be able to afford it.

As an aside, there are very few part-time jobs available for students right now to pay for these fees. Anyone who didn't work while they were at school (and my school seriously discouraged it because "it negatively affects your education" so lots of people didn't) and has no experience is fecked now. Out of the group of people I hung around with at school, I'm the only one who's been able to get a part-time job since we left, even though the others have been applying relentlessly for anything that comes up.

TL;DR - yes, we need to come up with some new form of funding for 3rd-level, but not through the reg fee/contribution - and we all have no jobs :P

starlit

Inevitable it happen.

mackg

raah! wrote: »

Again, doctors and engineers do not make up the majority of the student body. Broad science and broad arts students do, amongst those disciplines then the passers to 2:1ers predominate again.

As i said, there are many people for whom a grant is suitable, for most others they may as well be one the dole, except they don't have to look for work for at least 3 years.

What makes up broad science?

raah!

Broad science as in courses where there is a choice of different science subjects, like in arts. Where they can do like "japanese and philosophy" in arts, or "geology and zoology" in science. And these courses are traditionally comprised of the less dedicated proportions of the student body.

mackg

raah! wrote: »

Broad science as in courses where there is a choice of different science subjects, like in arts. Where they can do like "japanese and philosophy" in arts, or "geology and zoology" in science. And these courses are traditionally comprised of the less dedicated proportions of the student body.

Never heard of courses like this til now Very surprised they are so common, maybe I'm just out of the loop.