More Student Protests Over Fees? Hmph.

southsiderosie

Apparently students are planning another protest against fees.

I have to say, I think this is stupid and pointless.

As laudable as the sentiment behind no-fees university was (in some quarters anyway), the lack of fees has not increased enrollment among working class and poor students, and has essentially been a subsidy to families who could afford to send their kids to uni already. Many of these families used the extra savings to enroll their children in grinds and prep schools, raising their likelihood of outperforming other students on placement exams. In the meantime, Ireland's top university rankings have stagnated or fallen on average. So it is hard to see how no-fees has had any kind of broader benefit, from either a social mobility perspective or from a competitiveness perspective.

In addition, third-level faculty are quite overpaid compared to their counterparts in peer institutions outside of Ireland, and the administrative overhead is ridiculous. There is a lot of fat that could be cut out of the system, and this could help at least keep fees relatively low. Yet that does not seem to be on the table. Hm.

Finally, if there is going to be investment in education, it should target primary and secondary level - many graduates are woefully under-prepared for university, much less the working world. And if people are really interested in the educational attainment of poor kids, there needs to be more resources put into high-quality early childhood education, since it is almost too late by the time children start school at age 5 or 6. The "pipeline" issues into university do not start at the leaving certificate, they are already in motion at age 2.

Frankly, I don't think the introduction of fees is problematic, as long as there is a financial aid system in place to provide loans and means-tested grants for very low income students. I don't see why students should not have some 'skin in the game' and take on some of the financial risk of third-level education, especially since there are clear lifetime financial rewards for uni graduates.

Ultimately, I think these no-fee protests are misguided and myopic. But if anyone can make a case for them, I'd love to hear it.

hatrickpatrick

If our government refuses to cut the money paid to failed bank gamblers who have absolutely no claim to it whatsoever, they certainly have no business introducing college fees.

How many college educations could have been paid for with the €700m odd our government just handed over to gamblers it had absolutely no obligation or logical excuse whatsoever for paying?

Most students are too young to have directly helped to cause the crash, it's a disgrace that those who did directly cause it are being compensated in full by taking money away from people who had nothing to do with it. :mad:

The Outside Agency

southsiderrosie wrote:

In addition, third-level faculty are quite overpaid compared to their counterparts in peer institutions outside of Ireland

Care to give some examples?

southsiderosie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If our government refuses to cut the money paid to failed bank gamblers who have absolutely no claim to it whatsoever, they certainly have no business introducing college fees.

How many college educations could have been paid for with the €700m odd our government just handed over to gamblers it had absolutely no obligation or logical excuse whatsoever for paying?

Most students are too young to have directly helped to cause the crash, it's a disgrace that those who did directly cause it are being compensated in full by taking money away from people who had nothing to do with it. :mad:

Even if Kenny announced tomorrow that they were not going to repay the banks, the Irish government would still be running a large deficit that was created largely by over-promising on social services while cutting tax revenues. So some correction in government spending would be needed regardless.

Also, even if there was no deficit, and no bank bailout, why do you think that students should not pay at least some of the cost of their education? Especially considering that the cuts to higher education funding are hurting the international rankings of key universities?

Somalion

nivekd wrote: »

Care to give some examples?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66763618

As for the protests there are two sides to it. I don't agree that people who are struggling to stay in college should be forced out since they can't afford it. It's not fair nor is it ethical.
However, there is a deeper issue here. Irish students are getting lazier and lazier. I'm in SF in TCD. You wouldn't believe the amount of people I know who aren't bothered at all. It's actually concerning. It isn't just TCD either. I know a couple of people in Science in UCD who have decided not to go to their labs (mandatory and contributes to final year score) the past week or two since it's a bit of, and I quote, "effort". Most of my year would be disgusted at the thought of actual study. It's insanity. The reason behind it is to them they don't have to pay too much for their course so it doesn't matter yet they'd gladly give up a day for protesting (it's just another day they can take off anyways sure it's only college). If they had to pay would they take it more seriously?
I think the solution might lie in a different form of means testing. 1st we take people's financial situations into account and measure their contribution fee from that. 2nd we use college performance as a system to determine how much someone has to pay. People who flat out fail with no excuse pay the full amount for their selected financial situation. Someone gaining 1st class honours should pay a reduced amount. People struggling to pay as it is should be exempt. Sorry about that rant, just been fed up with the laziness in college lately

I might just add that I don't think the college system is the only thing in need of reform by the government.

hatrickpatrick

southsiderosie wrote: »

Even if Kenny announced tomorrow that they were not going to repay the banks, the Irish government would still be running a large deficit that was created largely by over-promising on social services while cutting tax revenues. So some correction in government spending would be needed regardless.

Yes, but it wouldn't be quite so hideously unjust and unfair if failed gamblers weren't being bailed out using money taken from ordinary people.

Also, even if there was no deficit, and no bank bailout, why do you think that students should not pay at least some of the cost of their education? Especially considering that the cuts to higher education funding are hurting the international rankings of key universities?

Simple. Ruairi Quinn signed a pre election pledge not to introduced them. He categorically stated that he would vote against such an increase if it came up.
If he didn't know for sure that this was achievable, he should have kept his mouth shut. If he reneges on that promise, he will have defrauded anyone who voted for him on that manifesto, of their vote for their representative.

I find it farcical that on Prime Time the other night he said "We've signed an agreement, the croke park agreement" when pushed on pay levels and waste in the education sector, but changed the subject when USI president hit back with "Well you also signed this agreement, I have your signature here on it"

You should know by now that I have no time for politicians who lie to steal votes from the public. It makes an utter farce of the democratic concept. Accountability, anyone?

dashboard_hula

I am a mature student who is very grateful for for the State aid and assistance given to me to allow me to return to education. However, I plan on repaying the State for it's generosity by attending class, studying hard, getting my degree, and returning to the workplace at a higher salary than before and paying higher tax. Everyone wins.
In saying that, I am attending college with students who have been given free fees and grants and aren't seen from one end of the day to the next. I hear all about their exploits in nightclubs during the week on Facebook, but somehow they're managing to miss exams and assignment deadlines.
Call me old, resentful or miserly, but I don't appreciate my 14 years of tax contribution to the Exchequer being used to fund someones first adventure away from Mammy and Daddy. By all means, college is supposed to be where you learn to cut your hair short if you can't hold it back when vomiting, but that's supposed to be balanced with learning and achievement, not the main focus.
If the system changed in the morning and I was obliged to pay a higher rate of tax upon graduation, or apply for a government loan instead of my current assistance, I would have no issue with it. A degree is a precious and unattainable thing to a lot of people, and as far as I'm concerned the attitude shown by student unions of "Quinn signed a pledge, so he has to stick to it" absolutely stinks. Any 3rd level student in any discipline should be keeping up with current news and affairs as a matter of common sense, and if they can't see that Ireland cannot afford to keep paying for people to discover their tolerance to Jager Bombs, then they have no business anywhere near any protest.
If students were going to protest lack of transparency in college financial decisions, or lack of proper management in some institutions then I'd be right there with them. But this smacks of fear of a free ride being taken away.

brendanL

.. Sorry but I just don't agree with it being pointless to protest about this OP

Yes some students do run around the place enjoy the free year then drop out but that's there choice. I wouldn't be in my 4th year of college if it wasn't for the lack of fees and my grant covering the registration fee. My background isn't great but I'm doing my best to make something of myself your username tells me enough about your background -_-.

I'm more pissed at the grant being cut. It wasn't enough in the first place and now they tightened up on it so I get 1/3rd of what I used too. It's rediculous. Make life hard for the poor who are trying to better themselves and leave little mr job seekers on his couch all comfy. Absolute pain in the arse.

Now they want to put us under even more financial pressure.... and most of us who haven't got mammy and daddy paying the way are already swamped with it.

I do agree more should be done at secondary. Not to prepair you for a course as such but more to show you what you'd be happy doing. I'm not talking about an extra session with a careers advisor.. they are terrible. It needs a different approach. That and telling people not to do buisness because your mates are lol. A mistake I didn't make incase your wondering. Having said that... taking money from college's to make better secondary schools just doesn't make any sense in this economy. We need qualified people with degrees and lots of them to keep the nations worth to multinational corporations up not some kids with good leaving certificate results.

I think this countrys free education is amazing, but I don't think it'll last long either. Only have to look at england to see a broken college loans system. Australia's one seems fine though. If fee's come along with a loan system I'll have no choice then to take out a loan and I will. But I know 4 years ago I wouldn't even have considered taking on gigantic debt and I'd be stuck in tesco's packing your shopping away for you.

Just to make it clear. I know how lucky I am to be in for free and I'll hate to see how it fecks up our society. If there's one thing that deserves money it's education. I hate to see how much some make on jobseekers compared to the average student.

You guys seem to think every student is some beer toting alco who is about to drop out. This is not the case. Only the ones who are loud annoying and about to drop our are like that. Have you even attended a college OP? I'm going to assume it was buisness if that's the behaviour your used to from people. Most serious course's -puts up fire shield- are much harder then the average 9-5 job. How do I know? because I've worked nearly every summer in the crappiest jobs to save up for the college year for transport. So take your opinion of what the average student is out of the argument because you clearly have no idea what the average is.

/rant

I just don't understand why students are the main targets at the moment. There's so many other sections of the government that need adjusting that I've already mentioned.
Also the whole problem with fees is "clear lifetime financial rewards for uni graduates." that cannot be guaranteed for any degree.. Especially not business.. why people still doing that course XXXDDDD

southsiderosie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You should know by now that I have no time for politicians who lie to steal votes from the public. It makes an utter farce of the democratic concept. Accountability, anyone?

"Steal votes"? Are you serious?

Election pledges are not legally binding contracts; union contracts are. If the government had signed a contract with the USI, that would be a somewhat different matter.

Politicians are held accountable through voting. Young people vote in lower numbers than other demographics, hence why union members and seniors are not seeing their benefits being cut.

Honestly, this all seems a bit precious to me.

southsiderosie

brendanL wrote: »

.. Sorry but I just don't agree with it being pointless to protest about this OP

Yes some students do run around the place enjoy the free year then drop out but that's there choice. I wouldn't be in my 4th year of college if it wasn't for the lack of fees and my grant covering the registration fee. My background isn't great but I'm doing my best to make something of myself your username tells me enough about your background -_-.

I am not Irish. Dublin is not the only city with a south side. Perhaps you should not make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

brendanL wrote: »

I'm more pissed at the grant being cut. It wasn't enough in the first place and now they tightened up on it so I get 1/3rd of what I used too. It's rediculous. Make life hard for the poor who are trying to better themselves and leave little mr job seekers on his couch all comfy. Absolute pain in the arse.

Now they want to put us under even more financial pressure.... and most of us who haven't got mammy and daddy paying the way are already swamped with it.

Again, I don't understand why means tested grants and student loans would somehow impede people from going to university.

brendanL wrote: »

Having said that... taking money from college's to make better secondary schools just doesn't make any sense in this economy. We need qualified people with degrees and lots of them to keep the nations worth to multinational corporations up not some kids with good leaving certificate results.

What percentage of the population needs to have a degree for the economy to do well? There has been a great deal of 'credentials inflation' in Ireland (and the US) over the last two decades, yet in the meantime, neither country does particularly well in math, science and reading compared to their OECD peers. Having a better primary and secondary system would not only lessen the imperative for everyone to go to college, but could also insure that more economically disadvantaged kids are actually academically prepared enough to go to college - the free fees scheme has not increase their enrollment in university, and this was one of the main political justifications for its implementation.

brendanL wrote: »

I think this countrys free education is amazing, but I don't think it'll last long either. Only have to look at england to see a broken college loans system. Australia's one seems fine though.

What do you think is wrong with the English loan system?

nesf

Somalion wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66763618

That thread has plenty ranting about salary levels but little discussion of peers in other countries.

There was also a lot of misunderstanding with people confusing senior lecturer scales (earned by the minority in most departments) with what the average lecturer gets.

Somalion

nesf wrote: »

That thread has plenty ranting about salary levels but little discussion of peers in other countries.

There was also a lot of misunderstanding with people confusing senior lecturer scales (earned by the minority in most departments) with what the average lecturer gets.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/irish-academics-earning-up-to-double-uk-counterparts-1693272.html

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/academic-pay-of-euro113000plus-far-outstrips-worldwide-average-2418520.html

There was another site with the actually salary comparisons but it's being a pain to find, I'm looking though.

Here's another one (by a university professor I think.)

http://universitydiary.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/are-we-over-paid/

hatrickpatrick

southsiderosie wrote: »

"Steal votes"? Are you serious?

Election pledges are not legally binding contracts; union contracts are. If the government had signed a contract with the USI, that would be a somewhat different matter.

Politicians are held accountable through voting. Young people vote in lower numbers than other demographics, hence why union members and seniors are not seeing their benefits being cut.

Honestly, this all seems a bit precious to me.

I voted Labour #2 in the last election, and this was one of my reasons for doing so. I can't "hold them accountable by voting" for another five years.

If they don't intend to keep their promises they shouldn't open their mouths in the first place. I can't in all honesty believe that things have changed enough since then to warrant such a dramatic increase. They knew the funding shortfalls prior to the election. Sorry if I'm being too cynical, but it honestly looks to me like a deliberate case of "I know I won't keep this one but I'll trick people into voting for me and there's nothing they can do about it".

Real democratic.

nesf

Somalion wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/irish-academics-earning-up-to-double-uk-counterparts-1693272.html

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/academic-pay-of-euro113000plus-far-outstrips-worldwide-average-2418520.html

There was another site with the actually salary comparisons but it's being a pain to find, I'm looking though.

The UK is a bit of a weird one, the cost of living difference isn't reflected in the exchange rate (similar to how 40K a year in the UK is considered to be a far better wage in the UK than 40K over here).

From here (use the second table it accounts for cost of living differences): http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx

We in 2006 paid less than Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria and fit into the band for the richer EU countries which is between the mid 50K and mid 60K a year on average with us on 60K a year exactly. Initially, from the first table, we look to be heavily overpaying academics but once you take cost of living into account it is much more reasonable. All of this of course is before the recent substantial cuts to academics' salaries.


We pay our lecturers well but not disproportionately so compared to similar EU countries.

Spudmonkey

southsiderosie wrote: »

In addition, third-level faculty are quite overpaid compared to their counterparts in peer institutions outside of Ireland, and the administrative overhead is ridiculous. There is a lot of fat that could be cut out of the system, and this could help at least keep fees relatively low. Yet that does not seem to be on the table. Hm.

Students might be better served directing their ire at their faculties staff, many who are payed inflated wages and are protected by Croke park.

Somalion

nesf wrote: »

The UK is a bit of a weird one, the cost of living difference isn't reflected in the exchange rate (similar to how 40K a year in the UK is considered to be a far better wage in the UK than 40K over here).

From here (use the second table it accounts for cost of living differences): http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx

We in 2006 paid less than Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria and fit into the band for the richer EU countries which is between the mid 50K and mid 60K a year on average with us on 60K a year exactly. Initially, from the first table, we look to be heavily overpaying academics but once you take cost of living into account it is much more reasonable. All of this of course is before the recent substantial cuts to academics' salaries.


We pay our lecturers well but not disproportionately so compared to similar EU countries.

I do know cost of living changes it a lot and you're certainly correct on that front. I'm absolutely raging because I had a comparison a few months back (of more recent salaries) and it did show a wider gap between counterparts in Europe and the US however I will admit that it didn't take into account the Danes, Austria, Lux or the Swiss (although Switzerland is strange in it's own right plus it was more indicative of the overpaying of many careers here). My real issue stems from the work ethic I'm seeing among students right now. I don't like being that guy since I do go out a bit with the gang and enjoy college life but the laziness is incredible. Celtic Tiger Cubs.

nesf

Somalion wrote: »

I do know cost of living changes it a lot and you're certainly correct on that front. I'm absolutely raging because I had a comparison a few months back (of more recent salaries) and it did show a wider gap between counterparts in Europe and the US however I will admit that it didn't take into account the Danes, Austria, Lux or the Swiss (although Switzerland is strange in it's own right plus it was more indicative of the overpaying of many careers here). My real issue stems from the work ethic I'm seeing among students right now. I don't like being that guy since I do go out a bit with the gang and enjoy college life but the laziness is incredible. Celtic Tiger Cubs.

Students have been lazy since forever. The idea that their parents paying fees will somehow make them all work hard is a fallacy. Unfortunately. There's also the problem with idea that we can take anyone who turns up in college and turn them into a world class student. Idiot in, idiot out and so on.

I've found too long spent in third level will make you woefully cynical about this stuff.

Somalion

nesf wrote: »

Students have been lazy since forever. The idea that their parents paying fees will somehow make them all work hard is a fallacy. Unfortunately. There's also the problem with idea that we can take anyone who turns up in college and turn them into a world class student. Idiot in, idiot out and so on.

I've found too long spent in third level will make you woefully cynical about this stuff.

Ha I'm inclined to agree, I'm only in second year and I already sound like Jeremy Clarkson!

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

The UK is a bit of a weird one, the cost of living difference isn't reflected in the exchange rate (similar to how 40K a year in the UK is considered to be a far better wage in the UK than 40K over here).

From here (use the second table it accounts for cost of living differences): http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx

We in 2006 paid less than Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria and fit into the band for the richer EU countries which is between the mid 50K and mid 60K a year on average with us on 60K a year exactly. Initially, from the first table, we look to be heavily overpaying academics but once you take cost of living into account it is much more reasonable. All of this of course is before the recent substantial cuts to academics' salaries.


We pay our lecturers well but not disproportionately so compared to similar EU countries.

But at the time it seems they were overpaid relative to their UK and American counterparts, and I think that is the more accurate comparison, both in terms of university rankings, and in terms of the Anglophone job market. It's harder to tell with the cost of living adjustment, but when I was comparing actual starting salaries at universities in Ireland and the US, I was amazed at the wage differences, even when the cost of living was taken into account. It was especially stark since Irish universities are public, whereas the big-salary unis in the US tend to be private. I know that things have certainly changed now, but even in 2009 the starting salary for an assistant professor was pretty generous by US standards (and Trinity and UCD recruit in the US)

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

But at the time it seems they were overpaid relative to their UK and American counterparts, and I think that is the more accurate comparison, both in terms of university rankings, and in terms of the Anglophone job market. It's harder to tell with the cost of living adjustment, but when I was comparing actual starting salaries at universities in Ireland and the US, I was amazed at the wage differences, even when the cost of living was taken into account. It was especially stark since Irish universities are public, whereas the big-salary unis in the US tend to be private. I know that things have certainly changed now, but even in 2009 the starting salary for an assistant professor was pretty generous by US standards (and Trinity and UCD recruit in the US)

See is it overpaid or is it reasonable given that we want to attract talent from the UK and the US and beyond to Irish universities? I mean the money definitely helped attract some world class talent to Irish universities. Is this a bad thing?

Ignoring for the moment the blatant overpaying of IT lecturers.

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

Students have been lazy since forever. The idea that their parents paying fees will somehow make them all work hard is a fallacy. Unfortunately. There's also the problem with idea that we can take anyone who turns up in college and turn them into a world class student. Idiot in, idiot out and so on.

I've found too long spent in third level will make you woefully cynical about this stuff.

I agree with you here. the only difference is, the parents are on the hook for their lazy student, not taxpayers.

Personally I would prefer to see a government grant system that was merit-based, and then everyone else would have access to student loans. I like the Texas 10% model: the top 10% of the graduating class of every Texas high school gets a slot at a 'flagship' university. In Ireland, this could be adjusted to where the top 10% get a guaranteed grant. And perhaps there could be 3rd/4th year grants available for those who enter uni and do well. Ultimately public money should reward those who are high achievers, and or who have demonstrated that they are studious. This is far more meritocratic than the current system (cue gnashing and wailing)...

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

See is it overpaid or is it reasonable given that we want to attract talent from the UK and the US and beyond to Irish universities? I mean the money definitely helped attract some world class talent to Irish universities. Is this a bad thing?

Ignoring for the moment the blatant overpaying of IT lecturers.

Well, that's the thing - it seems like it spilled over into everything, rather than being focused. It's actually quite sensible to try and poach American-trained academics with high research output because it boosts the ranking of the university. However, in Ireland, the problem as I see it (and this extends way beyond higher ed) is that whenever you start with something that is supposed to be about merit pay, metrics, etc, it ends up being universalized, so there is an unsustainable across-the-board increase that does little to improve service delivery (whether in education or health) or raise standards.

Somalion

southsiderosie wrote: »

I agree with you here. the only difference is, the parents are on the hook for their lazy student, not taxpayers.

Personally I would prefer to see a government grant system that was merit-based, and then everyone else would have access to student loans. I like the Texas 10% model: the top 10% of the graduating class of every Texas high school gets a slot at a 'flagship' university. In Ireland, this could be adjusted to where the top 10% get a guaranteed grant. And perhaps there could be 3rd/4th year grants available for those who enter uni and do well. Ultimately public money should reward those who are high achievers, and or who have demonstrated that they are studious. This is far more meritocratic than the current system (cue gnashing and wailing)...

I agree completely actually. What makes it worse is the fact that my dad works an 80 hour week (he's self employed) so my family are relatively well off. So then I have to hear all these people giving out about paying fees, how it should only be people like my dad who should pay even though I work harder than a lot of them. It's the same with a number of my friends who really try hard in college. So I'm with you on this.

Soldie

In principle I agree that fees should be re-introduced. Having said that, I do think it's quite gutless of government (and the former government) to go for the politically convenient option of slowly hiking up registration fees year after year all the while university staff are insulated from the financial crisis by the Croke Park Agreement. The Croke Park Agreement stipulates that there can be no further cuts in pay and pensions in exchange for money-saving reforms. The last I heard, those money-saving reforms have saved utterly pitiful sums of money. Something like 80% of the Department of Education's budget is spent on wages and pensions, so when the government pledges to cut the education budget then it is the capital expenditure that suffers. The agreement already survived the EU/IMF intervention in spite of the final clause stating that it could be scrapped if there was an unforeseen budgetary deterioration, so I think the "in exchange for money-saving reforms" condition is equally meaningless. The elephant in the room really needs to be tackled.

brendanL

southsiderosie wrote: »

What do you think is wrong with the English loan system?

I'm sorry maybe the protests they're having quite a lot recently weren't evidence enough that the loan system just won't work for the majority of graduates they have at the moment.

I'll never rely on their being some proper means tested grants / student loans because you only have too look at how the grant has been clamped down on in these hard times before anything else to know that these grants polices have absolutely no long term security in them.

I know it might sound odd since I'm giving out about it all the time. But I'd almost prefer if there was no grant if it meant a decent loan system with proper thought put into how it was going to work / how many years or how high your wages need to be before you have to start paying it back.

I personally won't be protesting because the protests either get no where or some violent take over of a government building will happen.. some students will have some rightful sense bashed into them and that'll be the end of their credibility all over again. I'm too busy in class anyway... where I'm trying to learn things.

Most students = young people, young people are low in the voting numbers. So were an easy target, that's what really annoys me and that's why I support this protest.

I personally believe in 'can't beat em join em' so if it comes to it... later in my life I'll devote my life to one of politics so I can do what I think is right for students that's just my view on how to actually get a chance to change things fortunately democracy provides for such an idea.

I feel like people in this thread have this huge chip in their shoulder that students are all super elitists who loaf around doing nothing all day. That is in no way the case.

The problem really is... every course has different work loads and every student comes from a different background therefore they all have their own stuff to deal with all the way through college.

There's always some who are going to have it easy if their parents are well off. We shouldn't make life harder for those that weren't born with that luxury who are the majority.


Also a higher level of education is more important than a higher basic standard. The more highly educated people we have the more home-grown industries that will crop up. Attracting outside industries. I'm not saying a drop out won't achieve great things. It's just the odds are not in his/her favour.

Having said that... of course I believe secondary does need some changes. But I think it'll save money rather then cost.

I was an ordinary level student in Irish, anyone else who was in one of those classes probably knows what that means. There was absolutely no point ramming it down my throat... in a fashion in which I would never learn it. I also had to sit through double religion both those classes in no way helped me with my life up to now and even back then I knew they wouldn't. That's because I've a few older brothers and sisters and I had to grow up around them going to college / becoming successful people that they are now. That made me realise what was important.. and how much college was worth to me. In secondary all they do is slowly teach you that occasionally the system fails you. Instead of those classes that weren't worth my presence they should of put on things to talk about college reinforced how it was free and just how lucky we are that it is free. As well as reinforce the real world cost if it wasn't. The sheer dumb lack of doing that leaves half the students that dropped out of my course in first year thinking that A:it was ok to drop out and B: they automatically deserved that spot on the course paid and all for no apparent reason because no one has ever said otherwise.

southsiderosie

brendanL wrote: »

I'm sorry maybe the protests they're having quite a lot recently weren't evidence enough that the loan system just won't work for the majority of graduates they have at the moment.

The only thing that was clear to me was that they did not want it, not that it wouldn't actually work. Those are two separate issues.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

I agree with you here. the only difference is, the parents are on the hook for their lazy student, not taxpayers.

Personally I would prefer to see a government grant system that was merit-based, and then everyone else would have access to student loans. I like the Texas 10% model: the top 10% of the graduating class of every Texas high school gets a slot at a 'flagship' university. In Ireland, this could be adjusted to where the top 10% get a guaranteed grant. And perhaps there could be 3rd/4th year grants available for those who enter uni and do well. Ultimately public money should reward those who are high achievers, and or who have demonstrated that they are studious. This is far more meritocratic than the current system (cue gnashing and wailing)...

That Texas model seems sensible but it punishes kids who go to good schools and rewards kids who go to poor schools. Thus it has problems.

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

That Texas model seems sensible but it punishes kids who go to good schools and rewards kids who go to poor schools. Thus it has problems.

Well, at the extremes, yes. But for the other 80%, it's pretty straightforward.

There was also some consideration that this could help redistribute kids within school systems: instead of all crowding into two good schools, parents might be willing to send their kids to a more mediocre school to give them a better shot at a fellowship - something that would be seen as a spillover benefit for that school, as it would also mean more involved parents, better overall test scores, etc. Clearly there would have to be some kind of 'ringer rule' so kids couldn't just parachute into bad schools for their last semester before graduation. But I don't think that some distortion at the margins should detract from the overall benefit of such a program.

Overature

would they ever just abolish this registration fees and bring back fees that we pay back once we have a job after college....

Duke Leonal Felmet

dashboard_hula wrote: »

In saying that, I am attending college with students who have been given free fees and grants and aren't seen from one end of the day to the next. I hear all about their exploits in nightclubs during the week on Facebook, but somehow they're managing to miss exams and assignment deadlines.

I was also a mature student, 2005-2010, and I am now paying taxes to reimburse the state for my free education.

However, I must point out that your college experience is not a sole one. This type of student behaviour you described reflected the majority of my class, and I wondered that if they (their parents) had to pay fees, would they have made it past first year, or even be registered at all? I doubt it. It's sad to think that so much money is being ploughed into wasters. Such a waste of resources.

Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of young students who went on nights out and turned up to class every day, studied hard and took an active role in class. But the vast majority of my 200-strong (also a negative result of free fees) class didn't seem the slightest bit interested in the subject when I tried to bring it up in conversation, and just sat at the back of the class and slept, or tutted if someone asked a question.

It's clear that the system needs reform to get rid of these wasters, and retain the good students, irrespective of their families wealth. I reckon a graded fees system could work. If you family earns under X, the 0% fees. If they earn under Y, then 50% fees, etc, etc, etc.

snafuk35

If they don't intend to keep their promises they shouldn't open their mouths in the first place. I can't in all honesty believe that things have changed enough since then to warrant such a dramatic increase. They knew the funding shortfalls prior to the election. Sorry if I'm being too cynical, but it honestly looks to me like a deliberate case of "I know I won't keep this one but I'll trick people into voting for me and there's nothing they can do about it".

You mean to say that you didn't know you were being lied to?????

avalon68

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It's clear that the system needs reform to get rid of these wasters, and retain the good students, irrespective of their families wealth. I reckon a graded fees system could work. If you family earns under X, the 0% fees. If they earn under Y, then 50% fees, etc, etc, etc.

I agree with your analysis up to this point - I dont see how a graded fee system would cut the wasters. I would much rather see a loan system put in place, but say the people with the top 10% marks in the course get a reduced interest rate, or reduced fee rate, or scholarship....that would be some incentive to bright students. Wasters come from all walks of life, rich and poor alike - we need to get away from the idea that only rich people should pay for college. Everyone receives the same degree at the end of the course, it should have equal cost to all. Its the fairest way. At the age of entering college most individuals are 18 yrs old, or nearly 18 at least.....That is, they are legally adults, choosing to further their education and future employment prospects. The onus should not be on the parents to provide for them any longer, but on the student to assess what course they wish to study, the future prospects of the course, and how they will pay for it. A loan system available to everyone who attains the grades to go to university would be the best solution in my opinion. It gives everyone an equal opportunity to attend college. Another area that could be looked at to reduce overall costs is student accommodation - I realize a lot of people live in private rented accommodation, but the university owned accommodations are ridiculously expensive, and perhaps some sort of subsidy could be applied in that area to help reduce overall costs....just a thought. I recall when I was in college accommodation was the biggest cost to me.

The Volt

Whatever your stance is on third level funding, there's something disgusting about someone who earns that much money telling people to take their medicine. What's necessary is wiping that smug look off his face.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1112/breaking6.html

avalon68

Voltwad wrote: »

Whatever your stance is on third level funding, there's something disgusting about someone who earns that much money telling people to take their medicine. What's necessary is wiping that smug look off his face.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1112/breaking6.html

+100%. His argument is that he would earn more as a doctor......off you go I say. Sad reality is we will be paying his wages either way!

HavingCrack

Voltwad wrote: »

Whatever your stance is on third level funding, there's something disgusting about someone who earns that much money telling people to take their medicine. What's necessary is wiping that smug look off his face.

For someone whoose dying for fees the fact that he won't even consider reducing his salary is just repugnant. Even €60,000 lobbed off his earnings could fund 3 students for 4 years of study if his hoped for dream comes off, absolutely disgusting.

nesf

Voltwad wrote: »

Whatever your stance is on third level funding, there's something disgusting about someone who earns that much money telling people to take their medicine. What's necessary is wiping that smug look off his face.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1112/breaking6.html

We want high level people to run universities. They have to be very well paid. 250K a year is really not that much money for these kinds of people. It's pretty unimaginable for 99% of the country that this can be the case but it bluntly is. They also deal with a large amount of crap due to having to manage the politics across the university in all the departments and have to deal with plenty of big egos and long running grudges between different heads of departments and all that.

It's easy to take pot shots at these guys' pay but really, they exist in a different world financially to the rest of us and we just have to put up with that or accept lesser qualified people. Running a college is definitely not a trivial thing to do and really I can think of few more complicated things.


If anything be bloody glad that college's pick their heads and they're not political appointees. That would just create an unholy mess.

femur61

nivekd wrote: »

Care to give some examples?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thirdlevel-colleges-paying-191-staff-over-euro150000-2880149.html

Daniel Mc Connell wrote a piece highlighting the pay staff.

JustinDee

As with any nominal grant system, a donation (yes, that's what it is) should only be given on a case-by-case basis following an application.

My family pulled out every stop to pay my college fees in addition to the amount I paid by working (pub work etc).

Why does Paddy Typical always expect everything for nothing? The state assists in primary and secondary education if need be. University or any other third-level education is an optional addition, not an obligation.
If you want it, pay your own way.

My view anyway.

DB21

Once again, I love how the "back in my day" crowd, and the usual anti-anytingbutmyowninterests crowd are saying get a job. THERE IS A 14.4% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, AND THAT'S WITHOUT EMIGRATION. THERE ARE NO JOBS TO BE FOUND THAT CAN BE WORKED AROUND COLLEGE HOURS. I hope that was clear enough.

Dan_Solo

southsiderosie wrote: »

But at the time it seems they were overpaid relative to their UK and American counterparts, and I think that is the more accurate comparison, both in terms of university rankings, and in terms of the Anglophone job market.

What has Anglophone got to do with anything? Do you really think Irish students are incapable of moving to non-English speaking countries? They do it all the time!
I suppose you think the average wage in the Congo should be the same as in France then?

Dan_Solo

JustinDee wrote: »

My family pulled out every stop to pay my college fees in addition to the amount I paid by working (pub work etc).

Why does Paddy Typical always expect everything for nothing?

Right, so because your family could afford to put you through college every other family can afford likewise.
Now I know why our TDs think everything in the country is fine.:D

Dan_Solo

Voltwad wrote: »

Whatever your stance is on third level funding, there's something disgusting about someone who earns that much money telling people to take their medicine. What's necessary is wiping that smug look off his face.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1112/breaking6.html

Jaysus, so if Bill Gates took over as President of UCC we'd have to stump up €5 billion a year salary for him? What BS logic.

RMD

One of the Scandinavian countries has the best system I've heard of. It's a loan based system spread of 4 years of education, but if you pass your exams with a 2.1 I think it's reduced by 25% for said year. Pass all 4 years with a 2.1 or better and you pay no fees, provides a serious incentive to work.

Dan_Solo

RMD wrote: »

One of the Scandinavian countries has the best system I've heard of. It's a loan based system spread of 4 years of education, but if you pass your exams with a 2.1 I think it's reduced by 25% for said year. Pass all 4 years with a 2.1 or better and you pay no fees, provides a serious incentive to work.

But in Ireland that system would be shot to pieces with backhanders for grades.
You know it.

JustinDee

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Right, so because your family could afford to put you through college every other family can afford likewise.
Now I know why our TDs think everything in the country is fine.:D

You don't know what they can afford or not. I never said it was easy. Also take note that I worked too.

JustinDee

DB21 wrote: »

Once again, I love how the "back in my day" crowd, and the usual anti-anytingbutmyowninterests crowd are saying get a job. THERE IS A 14.4% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, AND THAT'S WITHOUT EMIGRATION. THERE ARE NO JOBS TO BE FOUND THAT CAN BE WORKED AROUND COLLEGE HOURS. I hope that was clear enough.

Unemployment rate the year I started University (1988) was according to the CSO, The Economist archives and The Irish Times more than 16%. In 1992 when I graduated it was around 15.5%.
Emigration was also very high. I myself left in '92 to live abroad but came back in 2005.
As for work, pubs and restaurants for example still opened "AROUND COLLEGE HOURS". In fact, thats when they were actually busiest, even in economic climes like then and now.

Ostrom

southsiderosie wrote: »

Apparently students are planning another protest against fees.

I have to say, I think this is stupid and pointless.

As laudable as the sentiment behind no-fees university was (in some quarters anyway), the lack of fees has not increased enrollment among working class and poor students, and has essentially been a subsidy to families who could afford to send their kids to uni already. Many of these families used the extra savings to enroll their children in grinds and prep schools, raising their likelihood of outperforming other students on placement exams. In the meantime, Ireland's top university rankings have stagnated or fallen on average. So it is hard to see how no-fees has had any kind of broader benefit, from either a social mobility perspective or from a competitiveness perspective.

In addition, third-level faculty are quite overpaid compared to their counterparts in peer institutions outside of Ireland, and the administrative overhead is ridiculous. There is a lot of fat that could be cut out of the system, and this could help at least keep fees relatively low. Yet that does not seem to be on the table. Hm.

Finally, if there is going to be investment in education, it should target primary and secondary level - many graduates are woefully under-prepared for university, much less the working world. And if people are really interested in the educational attainment of poor kids, there needs to be more resources put into high-quality early childhood education, since it is almost too late by the time children start school at age 5 or 6. The "pipeline" issues into university do not start at the leaving certificate, they are already in motion at age 2.

Frankly, I don't think the introduction of fees is problematic, as long as there is a financial aid system in place to provide loans and means-tested grants for very low income students. I don't see why students should not have some 'skin in the game' and take on some of the financial risk of third-level education, especially since there are clear lifetime financial rewards for uni graduates.

Ultimately, I think these no-fee protests are misguided and myopic. But if anyone can make a case for them, I'd love to hear it.

Would most of these issues not be addressed through reform of the grant system?

Dan_Solo

JustinDee wrote: »

You don't know what they can afford or not. I never said it was easy. Also take note that I worked too.

Wow, that didn't take long to convince you. Thank you for being so open-minded.
So you agree that nobody knows what the financial circumstances of a postgrad student are and whether they can afford a PhD or not...

HavingCrack

JustinDee wrote: »

As for work, pubs and restaurants for example still opened "AROUND COLLEGE HOURS". In fact, thats when they were actually busiest, even in economic climes like then and now.

To be fair, getting work in pubs/restaurants these days is nearly non-existent unless you have 2-3 years experience in many cases, an 18 year simply won't have this. I know this is the case, I spent the guts of a year looking for some form of employment to support me through college as I wasn't entitled to any form of grant whatsoever. Eventually I got office work which I actually really enjoy and suits my hours perfectly but there wasn't a glut of bars etc. needing staff.

I'm still a bit 50-50 on the fees issue ( I prefer a loan style form of repayment I think) but am pointing out that the mantra of 'get a job' is not as easy as most people make out.

JustinDee

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Wow, that didn't take long to convince you. Thank you for being so open-minded.
So you agree that nobody knows what the financial circumstances of a postgrad student are and whether they can afford a PhD or not...

I said that grants should depend on each case. Not some blanket no-frills entitlement to any old duffer for just going to flippin' college.

HavingCrack

efla wrote: »

Would most of these issues not be addressed through reform of the grant system?

No, none of them would from my reading of it. The grant system is outdated and unfair and needs to be abolished. What we replace it with is what needs to be discussed.