Fees

Muir

Butterface wrote: »

[HTML]http://educatetogethertramore.com/content/pdf/fg-policy.pdf[/HTML]Skip to page 5 about Third Level education. It was in Fine Gael's election manifesto. It was also brought up in last December's budget, think they set up a think tank to examine different possibilities/alternatives to the current system.

I know they were talking about it, it was one of the reasons I liked them before the election. But it seems to have gone out the window in favour of the €250 a year increase which gets them more money more quickly. That's been in the papers the past few days but I've heard nothing about a taxation or loan system in a long time.

Butterface

Deleted User wrote: »

I started college first in 2004 - back then, fees were around €750, up until 2006 at least, when I dropped out. When I returned to do a new course in 2007, they had increased to €900. So in three years, they only increased by €150. Then, in either 2008 or 2009, they increased to €1500. Effectively doubling from previous years.

Genuinely think introducing full fees is the wrong thing to do; if anything it will massively hamper the education system in this country, as most will not be able to afford it. As for student loans, it's so easy to say that now, where a person has finished college and won't have to face it, but what of those that do, that will have to finish college crippled by loans for the majority of their lives?

We're talking about a student loans system that's backed by the government. The government are already paying for your education here, and then you're being saddled with a registration or contribution fee up front. If there was a loan system in place similar to the one in the UK, then you wouldn't be leaving university crippled with debt. You'd have debt for sure, but it wouldn't be as burdensome as trying to immediately pay off a bank loan.

It's an income contingent loan, that's repaid through PAYE. Also, the conditions of my loan stipulate that the loan will be written off 25 years after it has become eligable to be repaid.

Muir

bubblypop wrote: »

b****x, all students think about where they will be in college.

true when i was a student, true now when my best friends daughter and all her friends are going to college.

I didn't say they don't think about it, but I don't know anyone who chose based on it. They pick the course, then location might come into play. Who decides they want to go to a certain city and then just picks some random course on offer in that city? I picked my course and then picked what college I thought would be the best place to study it. I stayed in Dublin because it was convenient but if I had wanted to study something that they only offered in Cork I would have figured something out to get there. I personally have never heard of anyone choosing location over the course. If the course is offered in many places then location comes into consideration.

Anita Blow

starbelgrade wrote: »

The link you provided actually disproves your own argument, because according to the website, Ireland only charges tuition fees to some students who don't meet the specific requirements.

I'm talking about the Student Contribution.
IE- How much it costs an EU citizen to attend college here versus how much it costs to attend college in another EU country.
I don't see how my own link contradicts what I said?

starbelgrade wrote: »

According to a recent OECD report, Ireland ranks among the top countries in the world for having low or negligible levels of tuition fees.

Your OECD report refers to actual tuition fees, not the student contribution. It's my fault for using the phrase 'tuition fees' in the first place when I was actually referring to the cost borne by the student, not the government, in each country. (IE- The Student Contribution)
The OECD report shows EU countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark Czech Republic as having 0 tuition fees, and makes specific note to include Ireland with them because, in it's own words, "Ireland could also be included in this category as tuition fees charged by public institutions (for full-time undergraduate students from the European Union) are paid directly by the government". However we have the Student Contribution which is higher than anything a student would have to pay upfront for their college education in those countries and would actually put us above Netherlands in that Table.

Some of the countries I listed the costs that the student pays:
Austria- No tuition or reg fees. Pay €16 per term to the Student's Union (Interestingly they had fees of €366 per term until 2008 when they abolished them)
Netherlands- Tuition fees of €1835 and that is all you have to pay.
Denmark- Completely free, and on top of that all students can even receive financial aid, with the amount they get varying from the government depending on their situation.
Sweden- No Tuition or other fees
Norway- No tuition fees. Student contribution to their Student's Union is the only fee they pay which is €30-70 per term.
France- €150-€700

pennypocket

Confab wrote: »

Students should have to pay to go to college like in every other civilised country. Develop a loan system. Free education was a boom thing.

Free third level education in Ireland was not a 'boom thing'. It was introduced in 1996 during Niamh Bhreathnach's ministry, and was arguably the most revolutionary advancement in Irish education since Donagh O'Malley's introduction of free second level in 1967. Indeed, free secondary education was one of the most important advancements in twentieth century Irish history, and brought us to unprecedented levels of prosperity (pre-property-boom bank ****e after 2002)by the late 1990s. I see education as a basic right that should not be monetised, and a public good that in the long run benefits society as a whole.

pennypocket

Butterface wrote: »

We're talking about a student loans system that's backed by the government. The government are already paying for your education here, and then you're being saddled with a registration or contribution fee up front. If there was a loan system in place similar to the one in the UK, then you wouldn't be leaving university crippled with debt. You'd have debt for sure, but it wouldn't be as burdensome as trying to immediately pay off a bank loan.

It's an income contingent loan, that's repaid through PAYE. Also, the conditions of my loan stipulate that the loan will be written off 25 years after it has become eligable to be repaid.

Yeah. Repeat your pearls of wisdom to students in America who are facing a debt crisis worse than the sub-prime bubble of late 2008 to present. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/05/15/student-loan-crisis-new-york-times-catching-up-with-my-guest-posters/
There is an eerie prescient with the introduction of mortgages for the masses in Ireland in the 1960s.

Ficheall

1ZRed wrote: »

What annoys me though is with all the cuts to education, and the government pushing competitiveness and innovation, how will they extract the absolute best out of young people if they harshen barriers such as these in their way?

Ireland isn't known for having much talent but we do have our intelligence and and a heavy emphasis on education so why be so short sighted, hurt our greatest export and screw ourselves long term?

This particular argument always irritates me. The Irish student populace aren't a particularly intelligent bunch, despite the grand delusion.

Muir wrote: »

I will be paying that tax back when I get a job.

Nice of you, except that you keep harping on about the fact that there are no jobs.

B.A._Baracus

Muir wrote: »

No, Crumlin does PLC courses so they are far cheaper than Universities and ITs.

the fee is currently 2250 and set to rise by 250 a year until it reaches 3000.

Thanks Muir (I'm just not a college guy. forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject :P )

Its wrong tho isnt it. I mean how are we meant to create tomorrows work force if prices are sky-rocketing.

partyatmygaff

It's interesting to note that it's almost exclusively those who've finished college who support the idea of a graduate tax or student loan. I wonder would they be so enthusiastic for the idea if it was applied retrospectively?

The free fees initiative has been for the most part a fairly sound investment. A nation of educated people can do so much more.

Ficheall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A nation of educated people can do so much more.

It depends what you mean by educated, I suppose. I would place very little value on most of the degrees handed out by Irish colleges.

token101

Muir wrote: »

But how will people afford fees if the government don't put in a loan or taxation system for students? It's not people saying they aren't willing, they're saying it can't be afforded because there is no system like that in place in Ireland. Also, no point asking why should countries have free fees for education, we don't have free fees, we have some of he highest in Europe.

I hate the argument about other people using their tax to pay my fees. I will be paying that tax back when I get a job. My parents and siblings who didn't go to college have paid tax which I'm sure they would be delighted helped me go to college. People seem to forget that the families of the people going to college usually pay tax too, as will most of the people when they graduate.

I think it's totally unreasonable for any family to pay upfront, regardless of circumstances, which is why I'm saying it's what the government should do, not what they will do. I'd be reasonably confident that even if the government put in a graduate tax or pay later scheme people would still be against it.

You don't like the argument but that doesn't make it any less true. Why should people pay for services they will never directly benefit from? Some people can't get into or choose not to go to university for whatever reason, why should they have to pay for someone else to go to college? If it comes down to choice, which I'd say it probably does in financial terms, we should have universal free health care like the UK rather than free 3rd level education. One benefits some directly, the other will benefit everyone directly at some stage.

token101

Anita Blow wrote: »

It's silly to say "I don't avail of a government service, therefore why should I pay for it" because as a society we have agreed to pay a set rate of tax no matter how many government services you use and that we will benefit as a whole by doing that.

We have agreed a set rate of tax, that doesn't mean we have agreed how to spend it! And no, it's unlikely the guy sweeping the roads will ever benefit directly from your study in French Literature or Archaeology. They will however need a doctor or nurse or some form of medical treatment in their lives or their families' lives.

Anita Blow wrote: »

I always find it funny that there's some who would rather cut the ~€1.5 billion a year the government spends on covering Third Level tuition fees which provides a massive return on investment, rather than the ~€20 billion per year we spend on Social Welfare which is essential dead money.

It would provide the exact same return if it wasn't invested in though because people would still go to college despite what scaremongers would have you believe. SW is dead money? Yeah? So what should we do with all the old people? Make them fill out a CAO?

Anita Blow wrote: »

Why should I pay for other people to get their viagra on the medical card paid for by my tax money?
Why should I pay to subsidise infrastructure in rural Ireland when I've chosen to live in a city?
Why should I pay for rural airport/transport subventions when I live in a city and don't avail of them?
Why should I pay for extra resources to be allocated to disadvantaged schools when I've never attended one and have no need of one?

This is pretty much nonsense really. Is there really a parallel with any of these situations and free education? For the majority of these situations the people receiving the service would be unable to afford the service without government intervention. That's not true of 3rd level education if the country were to implement a pay later system. It's also fair to say that none of the things you have listed gives anyone a direct advantage over anyone who is actually paying for the system, it just puts them on a level playing field. That's not true of 3rd level which will usually mean you'll end up getting a higher wage on the back of taxpayers money.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's interesting to note that it's almost exclusively those who've finished college who support the idea of a graduate tax or student loan. I wonder would they be so enthusiastic for the idea if it was applied retrospectively?.

It's also interesting to note that there's two people here already subject to a UK graduate tax already supporting the idea of a graduate tax.

Naomi00

Irish people can't really complain when the fees in England were trebled last year. Lots of students couldn't finish their courses because they couldn't afford it, even with a loan.

pennypocket

token101 wrote: »

I think it's totally unreasonable for any family to pay upfront, regardless of circumstances, which is why I'm saying it's what the government should do, not what they will do. I'd be reasonably confident that even if the government put in a graduate tax or pay later scheme people would still be against it.

You don't like the argument but that doesn't make it any less true. Why should people pay for services they will never directly benefit from? Some people can't get into or choose not to go to university for whatever reason, why should they have to pay for someone else to go to college? If it comes down to choice, which I'd say it probably does in financial terms, we should have universal free health care like the UK rather than free 3rd level education. One benefits some directly, the other will benefit everyone directly at some stage.

Token, you are horribly confused. Everybody benefits from a universal education system, just as much as a healthcare one. Think of it like infrastructure, like the roads.

Ficheall wrote: »

It depends what you mean by educated, I suppose. I would place very little value on most of the degrees handed out by Irish colleges.

Ficheall, our university system is very well regarded internationally, long may it be so.

token101

pennypocket wrote: »

Token, you are horribly confused. Everybody benefits from a universal education system, just as much as a healthcare one. Think of it like infrastructure, like the roads.



Ficheall, our university system is very well regarded internationally, long may it be so.

Maybe you can alleviate my 'confusion' and explain to me how I'll benefit directly from an Arts graduate taking Film Studies or Boat Building over a free GP appointment?

pennypocket

token101 wrote: »

Maybe you can alleviate my 'confusion' and explain to me how I'll benefit directly from an Arts graduate taking Film Studies or Boat Building over a free GP appointment?

Alleviate my confusion and indicate where such a stark decision must be made. We can have all the nice things.

Ficheall

pennypocket wrote: »

our university system is very well regarded internationally...

Is that because our international compatriots have absolutely no idea what our universities are like, or because the standard of their universities is equally poor, do you think?

I know that there are some degree programmes which are very good, it's true, and I would have no problem with my taxes going towards those. However, the majority of our degrees are just something to entertain students with while they spend three to four years in what is, effectively, a big playschool to collect a certificate of attendance at the end.

Ficheall

pennypocket wrote: »

We can have all the nice things.

Spoken like a true Economics graduate.

pennypocket

Ficheall wrote: »

Is that because our international compatriots have absolutely no idea what our universities are like, or because the standard of their universities is equally poor, do you think?

I know that there are some degree programmes which are very good, it's true, and I would have no problem with my taxes going towards those. However, the majority of our degrees are just something to entertain students with while they spend three to four years in what is, effectively, a big playschool to collect a certificate of attendance at the end.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about in your opening question. Just to let you know, there are international league tables (which I don't agree with in principle because they don't take into account endowments, research and development contracts and other factors such as clustering), on which Ireland performs relatively well.

You don't have the option of picking and choosing what your taxes go towards. There is such a thing as public goods or the commons, in which investment by society as a whole contributes to the betterment of all. Education is one of those things.

Gavin "shels"

Too late for a big rant, but I'm a full time Computing student who's struggled to feck for the past few years trying to hold a part-time job while studying a fairly tough course.

My rant summary:
Students in NCAD get supplements to purchase supplies/Mac's, Computing students in ITT/DIT don't get supplements for laptops? Go figure!

Those NCAD students will, if they follow their degree paths will probably end up in non-tax paying jobs, Computing degree students if they follow their degree paths will.

Logic? This country is crying out for computing graduates, 5,000 people have to be drafted from abroad was the last figure I seen every year in the IT industry here!

Mate does 1st year marketing, again an over supplied job market atm, he got a grant for his fees to be paid and the money to "fund" his college life. His parents paid for all his weekly expenses, he got his grant at the start of the summer and p*ssed it away (literally).

Forgot he also had feck all hours in college a week, whereas my rough day could be say (get home at 11pm Sunday night from work) up 8.30am, hour commute, 7 hours in college, hour commute, quick dinner, straight to work, home from work, half an hour break, college work! Eventually my body would give in about 2 weeks into term, classes are missed so I can finished projects, etc... Joke of a system and it's why this county has a surplus of non-needed graduates while the fields that need filling are lacking!

There was about 30 people in my 3rd year, top of my head, about 5 worked part time. In 1st year we had near 100, a large amount of part time workers, guess who ended up dropping out?

Ficheall

pennypocket wrote: »

You don't have the option of picking and choosing what your taxes go towards. There is such a thing as public goods or the commons, in which investment by society as a whole contributes to the betterment of all. Education is one of those things.

Society invests in your education for about fourteen years - how much more do you want?
I would contend that subsidising certain students through college does not contribute to the betterment of all half so much as they would have you believe.

pennypocket

Ficheall wrote: »

Society invests in your education for about fourteen years - how much more do you want?
I would contend that subsidising certain students through college does not contribute to the betterment of all half so much as they would have you believe.

Many would contend otherwise.

gsxr1

I have my young lad of 8 put away a fiver each week in his credit union collage account. He has saved over 500 now and is well on his way to earning his ticket in.

Do a loan system or take a year or two off and go find work somewhere. You don't have to go to college asap. God knows you get stupid questions from prospective students wanting to defer college for a year because they can't drink yet. That's what they think the point is.

Wasn't it found that abolishing fees made very little difference in people from poorer backgrounds attending college anyway?

Blured

Anita Blow wrote: »

Austria
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
France

Here are the effective tax rates for someone earning €32k in those countries (couldnt find info for France because their tax system is crazy!)

Austria - 30%
Netherlands - 36%
Denmark - 33%
Sweden - 28-30%
Norway - 30%

And in Ireland its 18%

Could be a reason why fees are paid in those Countries

CruelCoin

1ZRed wrote: »

Ireland isn't known for having much talent but we do have our intelligence and and a heavy emphasis on education so why be so short sighted, hurt our greatest export and screw ourselves long term?

From this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations, and this: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/nationaliqs.aspx, Ireland is pretty consistent in having a lower average IQ than the majority of Europe.
(there are other examples, but go look at em yourself)

If you raise fees, then hopefully the quality of education in third level institutions will rise, and bump these figures up a bit over the long term.

crazy cabbage

CruelCoin wrote: »

From this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations, and this: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/nationaliqs.aspx, Ireland is pretty consistent in having a lower average IQ than the majority of Europe.
(there are other examples, but go look at em yourself)

If you raise fees, then hopefully the quality of education in third level institutions will rise, and bump these figures up a bit over the long term.

IQ is a crappy way to test intellegance imo.

Amsterdam got the highest IQ :eek:

Muir

Ficheall wrote: »

This particular argument always irritates me. The Irish student populace aren't a particularly intelligent bunch, despite the grand delusion.


Nice of you, except that you keep harping on about the fact that there are no jobs.

Apologies, there are no jobs for people who have no education/skills/experience. You can no longer walk into a job. Entry level jobs are practically non-existent now that employers can afford to expect 2-3 years experience for jobs you previously would not have required experience for. I chose a degree in an area where there are jobs, but I can't get those jobs until after I finish my degree.

CommanderC

mariaalice wrote: »

For the sake of argument you have two children ( young adults ) aged 18 and 20 you work as a team leader in Tesco and your wife drives a truck your income is over the limit for the grant, plus you live in rural Roscomm so the chance of you children getting a part time job is minimal, both of your children are in college you cant afford the nearly 5000 euro for the reg fees for both ot them. How do you choose.

When the kids start high school (or before that if you can), you say to yourself, 'there's a possibility that my kid might go to uni'. Then you set up a savings account and put a bit in each week, say 10 euro. Then by the time uni rolls around you've got enough to cover the reg fees.

That's what my parents did for me and my bro.

Alternatively, you can wait till the day college starts and then start screaming and rolling around on the floor.

Muir

token101 wrote: »

I think it's totally unreasonable for any family to pay upfront, regardless of circumstances, which is why I'm saying it's what the government should do, not what they will do. I'd be reasonably confident that even if the government put in a graduate tax or pay later scheme people would still be against it.

You don't like the argument but that doesn't make it any less true. Why should people pay for services they will never directly benefit from? Some people can't get into or choose not to go to university for whatever reason, why should they have to pay for someone else to go to college? If it comes down to choice, which I'd say it probably does in financial terms, we should have universal free health care like the UK rather than free 3rd level education. One benefits some directly, the other will benefit everyone directly at some stage.

People would be unhappy with a graduate tax/loan but once you didn't have to pay back until you're earning a certain amount, as in England, people will be able to afford it and will avail of it if they want to go to third level. But although the government told us this was the great plan before the election it's gone out the window in place of a 'give us more money you can't afford now' system. That's what I don't agree with and it seems we're on the same page in that respect. It's not fair to keep increasing fees on students & parents who can't afford it yet not offer some sort of system like a loan or tax that makes it affordable.

People do directly benefit from the higher taxes graduates pay, which go into the tax pool. A graduate usually earns more, hence pays more tax. They also usually have certain skills which you only obtain from going to college, eg. a doctor. At some point in life, or many points, you will need to see a doctor. So you benefit from the education they have received.

CruelCoin

crazy cabbage wrote: »

IQ is a crappy way to test intellegance imo.

Amsterdam got the highest IQ :eek:

You have a better way?

The majority of IQ tests measure: verbal reasoning, spatial reasoning, memory, language skills, reading/writing skills, logical reasoning and processing speed, among others.

The only thing it doesn't measure is "emotional intelligence", why the Irish have in spades. hence the rampant Cute Hoorism.

Muir

Naomi00 wrote: »

Irish people can't really complain when the fees in England were trebled last year. Lots of students couldn't finish their courses because they couldn't afford it, even with a loan.

They have a loan system though so they can pay it back after they finish once they earn enough, we don't have that here. It's horrible that the fees are gone up so much but at least there is a way for them to afford it if they really want to.

Grimebox

I don't see the problem. My parents paid for my way through college. I didn't have to get a part-time job because they just gave me money instead. I used to get 100 during the week for food and 100 for the weekends. The recession was tough on all of us as I briefly only got half that, after rent of course, ****ing ridiculous.

As someone pointed out, it's funny how many people are in favour of introducing full fees when they're not in education. Isn't it so easy to advocate increases in things that won't affect you in the slightest?

Muir

CommanderC wrote: »

When the kids start high school (or before that if you can), you say to yourself, 'there's a possibility that my kid might go to uni'. Then you set up a savings account and put a bit in each week, say 10 euro. Then by the time uni rolls around you've got enough to cover the reg fees.

That's what my parents did for me and my bro.

Alternatively, you can wait till the day college starts and then start screaming and rolling around on the floor.

Not everyone can afford that. I know it seems like very little but I had decided by the time I was four that I was going to college. It was my goal in life so my parents knew I wanted to go. But they didn't have money when I was growing up. My sister would love to do this for her children but does not have any spare income so it's just not possible. & 10 euro a week sounds like nothing but it's a lot of money if you don't have any spare.

Ficheall

pennypocket wrote: »

Many would contend otherwise.

That is some quality research and opinion formation. Would it not have been easier to direct me to the wiki page?

Muir wrote: »

Apologies, there are no jobs for people who have no education/skills/experience. You can no longer walk into a job. Entry level jobs are practically non-existent now that employers can afford to expect 2-3 years experience for jobs you previously would not have required experience for. I chose a degree in an area where there are jobs, but I can't get those jobs until after I finish my degree.

And when you finish your degree, you will no doubt find yourself complaining, alongside so many other graduates, that there are still no jobs, and that employers are all preposterously asking for work experience. You'll be a university graduate, goddamnit - why should you have to prove you can work? Don't they know who you are?! Etc.

Muir

Ficheall wrote: »

That is some quality research and opinion formation. Would it not have been easier to direct me to the wiki page?


And when you finish your degree, you will no doubt find yourself complaining, alongside so many other graduates, that there are still no jobs, and that employers are all preposterously asking for work experience. You'll be a university graduate, goddamnit - why should you have to prove you can work? Don't they know who you are?! Etc.

Seriously, you don't know me, so don't pass comments on what I will and wont go on like. I am aware of how the world works, I know people who are graduating this year & can't get work because there is no work in their degree area, there is work in my area. There are loads of graduate programmes where you do not require experience, the point is the jobs are tailored for graduates to get experience. I have a list of them ready so I can start applying within the next two months when the graduate application processes open for the year. I'm doing a professional degree, so you can't really gain the experience without having an educational background in the area. If I had to go work for free to gain the experience before I could get a job, I would do that.

Butterface

pennypocket wrote: »

Token, you are horribly confused. Everybody benefits from a universal education system, just as much as a healthcare one. Think of it like infrastructure, like the roads.



Ficheall, our university system is very well regarded internationally, long may it be so.

You're calling the education system infrastructure. Infrastructure, such as the roads, are paid for by hypothecated tax systems that go directly back into that infrastructure, like car tax.

So why not a graduate tax? I think the Irish government were looking at a graduate tax to go towards 30% of the student's education, which seems like a reasonable amount.

For the person who mentioned that students in the UK faced the trebling of fees, this is only being implemented this September and will not have any bearing on people who undertook degrees before then.

Muir

Butterface wrote: »

You're calling the education system infrastructure. Infrastructure, such as the roads, are paid for by hypothecated tax systems that go directly back into that infrastructure, like car tax.

So why not a graduate tax? I think the Irish government were looking at a graduate tax to go towards 30% of the student's education, which seems like a reasonable amount.

For the person who mentioned that students in the UK faced the trebling of fees, this is only being implemented this September and will not have any bearing on people who undertook degrees before then.

They were looking at it, I said earlier myself it was one of the reasons I liked them. But they most likely wont do it. It hasn't been discussed in ages & I imagine it's because us paying fees now gets them money now, they don't want to wait until people start paying a graduate tax because it wont get them money now. Also, I think what we pay now (student contribution) is probably around 30% anyway.

CruelCoin

Deleted User wrote: »

As someone pointed out, it's funny how many people are in favour of introducing full fees when they're not in education. Isn't it so easy to advocate increases in things that won't affect you in the slightest?

I went to a private college and paid fees of 4k a year.
Paid for it myself, and regarded it as an investment in my future. Has paid off.

The rise won't affect me, no, but it was hardly a back-breaking fee for a years fulltime education.

summerskin

Butterface wrote: »

I luckily started an undergrad in the UK last September, so I avoided the fee increase over there which is up to £9000 in many universities now. My course is costing me £3,275 a year.

I applied to the Student Loans Company in England, and they pay the university on my behalf every term.

I will not have to start paying the loan (which will amount to about 10 grand) until I am earning over £15,000 per annum. It will come out of my paycheck automatically, akin to a tax on my wages. It's worked out at a certain percentage, and won't be a major dent on my income.

I'm in a top university in the UK, and I'm not at all unhappy about having to pay fees for the quality of education I'm receiving.

Honestly, what put me off applying in Ireland was the registration fees.

I'm also from a low income background.

This is a system that actually works. My wife, who is Irish, studied in the UK, got the SLC (student loans company, a government ran body) to pay all her fees, along with loans of approximately £4000 p.a. for subsistence, throughout her 4 year degree course at UCL, one of the top 10 universities in the UK(there are 116 universities there).

After graduating she got a decent job, and the loans(about £22k total at a very low interest rate)) were paid off directly through her salary at an affordable amount.

The system works, why can't it be brought in here?

Muir

CruelCoin wrote: »

I went to a private college and paid fees of 4k a year.

Next?

If full fees are brought in private college is actually cheaper. Mine would be nearly double that. All well & good if you can afford it but many can't so there should be a system in place like a tax or loan system.

euddue

Blured wrote: »

Here are the effective tax rates for someone earning €32k in those countries (couldnt find info for France because their tax system is crazy!)

Austria - 30%
Netherlands - 36%
Denmark - 33%
Sweden - 28-30%
Norway - 30%

And in Ireland its 18%

Could be a reason why fees are paid in those Countries

But their standard of living is far far better than Ireland,especially in terms of public services.Imo i'd take the tax increase if i knew Ireland could be anything near a Scandinavian country.

Butterface

Muir wrote: »

They were looking at it, I said earlier myself it was one of the reasons I liked them. But they most likely wont do it. It hasn't been discussed in ages & I imagine it's because us paying fees now gets them money now, they don't want to wait until people start paying a graduate tax because it wont get them money now. Also, I think what we pay now (student contribution) is probably around 30% anyway.

I know, I'm just giving an opinion on how it would be a great idea if it was implemented. However, it seems that every time there's a mention of fees being reintroduced, the national student bodies get up in arms about paying fees, while ignoring the fact that yeah, they're already paying for 30% of their education up front in a cost that's disguised as a "registration charge" or something.

Also, that money isn't going to the government is it? It's going directly to the universities. The universities and other third level institutes are receiving that registration fee, on top of what the government is paying them on behalf of every student. So the universities are as compliant as the government in increasing the contribution fees every year.

The fact that Labour wanted completely free fees, and Fine Gael were talking about introducing a loan system/graduate tax means that as a coalition they probably reached an impasse on this subject.

starbelgrade

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm talking about the Student Contribution.
IE- How much it costs an EU citizen to attend college here versus how much it costs to attend college in another EU country.
I don't see how my own link contradicts what I said?

You said that "Ireland has the 2nd highest tuition fees in Europe". The link you provided states that for the majority of EU students wishing to study here, they are exempt from paying tuition fees.

This is a clear contradiction. The fact that you then tried to qualify your argument by saying that you were referring to something else doesn't mean that you didn't contradict your own argument.

Anita Blow wrote: »

Your OECD report refers to actual tuition fees, not the student contribution. It's my fault for using the phrase 'tuition fees' in the first place when I was actually referring to the cost borne by the student, not the government, in each country. (IE- The Student Contribution)

But as you said, it was your own fault, which is fair enough.

Muir

Butterface wrote: »

I know, I'm just giving an opinion on how it would be a great idea if it was implemented. However, it seems that every time there's a mention of fees being reintroduced, the national student bodies get up in arms about paying fees, while ignoring the fact that yeah, they're already paying for 30% of their education up front in a cost that's disguised as a "registration charge" or something.

Also, that money isn't going to the government is it? It's going directly to the universities. The universities and other third level institutes are receiving that registration fee, on top of what the government is paying them on behalf of every student. So the universities are as compliant as the government in increasing the contribution fees every year.

The fact that Labour wanted completely free fees, and Fine Gael were talking about introducing a loan system/graduate tax means that as a coalition they probably reached an impasse on this subject.

They get up in arms about increases because people can't afford them. They haven't got up in arms about taxation or loan system because it hasn't really been put on the table. I'm sure some people would still complain about it, but it would give people the option if they really want to get an education money (or lack of it) isn't creating a barrier. I know you agree with me anyway on it being brought in, just doesn't look like it'll happen.

The money isn't going to the government, but looking at my own fee statement since 2009, they pay the colleges less. Not just in line with the increases, but for instance when fees went up by €500 the government paid €750 less than the previous year. So of course the colleges have to charge students the maximum fees if they're having bigger funding cuts.

They didn't reach an impasse, they decided to increase fees year on year, they are set now to rise by €250 per year. That's nothing like what either of them proposed before the election.

Anita Blow

starbelgrade wrote: »

You said that "Ireland has the 2nd highest tuition fees in Europe". The link you provided states that for the majority of EU students wishing to study here, they are exempt from paying tuition fees.

This is a clear contradiction. The fact that you then tried to qualify your argument by saying that you were referring to something else doesn't mean that you didn't contradict your own argument.



But as you said, it was your own fault, which is fair enough.

Accidentally using the phrase "tuition fee" instead of Student Contribution doesn't really invalidate my argument though. The argument I was replying to originally was that we should pay like every other European country. I should've made it clearer that I was referring to upfront fees but the tuition/registration labels are one and the same. Netherlands pay ~€1850 upfront as a tuition fee whereas we pay €2250 upfront as a Student Contribution which is essentially just another name for covering a portion of the tuition fee.

token101 wrote: »

We have agreed a set rate of tax, that doesn't mean we have agreed how to spend it! And no, it's unlikely the guy sweeping the roads will ever benefit directly from your study in French Literature or Archaeology. They will however need a doctor or nurse or some form of medical treatment in their lives or their families' lives.

We we have agreed how to spend it when you elect a government who's initial manifesto is to maintain free fees.
Also, a University education is to promote betterment of the student, not to pump out worker bees for the labour market so the arts/medical divide is stupid. If we had funded students based on what the labour market needed over the past few years we'd have tons of estate agents, quantity surveyors etc.

token101 wrote: »

It would provide the exact same return if it wasn't invested in though because people would still go to college despite what scaremongers would have you believe. SW is dead money? Yeah? So what should we do with all the old people? Make them fill out a CAO?

People from lower classes are more debt-averse so there would likely be a drop-off from them. Also take a look at the US with their Student Loan/Debt problem. The problem there is that tuition fees have done nothing but go up and up and up to unreasonable levels, far outpacing inflation and yet they have not gone down in the past few years. Now they have hundreds of thousands of students who have graduated into a job market that is hugely different from what they were expecting when first started college, with little job prospects and hugely reduced salaries and yet their student debt has remained the same.

If we as a society can prevent a situation where our children graduate with tens of thousands of euro worth of debt before they're 22 then I'd be all for that. We managed well in the 90s with it before the boom and we saw huge economic return.
And yes SW is dead money. I never said old people should be hit but their very generous state benefits are being funded by the fruits of our free education. We're spending one twentieth of what we spend on Social Welfare, on 3rd level education. One is an investment, the other is not.
It costs the government ~€18000-€24000 to educate a person with a business degree here and that is something which will be paid back within a couple of years and after which, the government will benefit from decades of increased tax take from that person versus the tax they would've gotten if he did not have a degree.

It's not a question of whether we can implement a system which saddles future generations with debt, but it's a question of whether we should or not.

token101 wrote: »

This is pretty much nonsense really. Is there really a parallel with any of these situations and free education? For the majority of these situations the people receiving the service would be unable to afford the service without government intervention. That's not true of 3rd level education if the country were to implement a pay later system. It's also fair to say that none of the things you have listed gives anyone a direct advantage over anyone who is actually paying for the system, it just puts them on a level playing field. That's not true of 3rd level which will usually mean you'll end up getting a higher wage on the back of taxpayers money.

Nope it's not. I was replying to the person who's argument was "Why should a person who decided not to go to college pay for others to go to college" when really it happens all the time with other government services. The answer for most of them except maybe the medical card one is that they are an investment which pays themselves back and will benefit society as a whole.
Also the "you'll end up getting a higher wage on the back of taxpayers money" is a bit silly considering the return on (through increased tax-take) would be far greater than the initial taxpayer investment. You make it sound like the taxpayer won't get any benefit out of it.

Also if a loan system/graduate tax is to be introduced then I agree with partyatmygaff. Let it be applied retrospectively to anyone who has attended college since free fees were introduced and see how supportive they are of it then.

Neewbie_noob

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Guess this is the best place to ask this...

whats the craic with college fees these days? I keep hearing about costing going up, etc. But know two lads who went to crumlin college. One in 2007 and one in 2009. They only both paid around 200 each...

So that 200 is now 2300 each?! :eek:

That's a community college or plc course. Full university will cost much, much more. In a way I sort of agree with student fees as it takes the slackers out of the system and leaves it with people who actually want to learn as opposed to those who are going just or the Craic.

I appreciate that some people may not afford it which is why they should bring in a student loan system where you can opt to pay your fees back through your salary in future. Irish colleges and universities are for the most part very overcrowded and the failure rate is stunningly high. Something is fundamentally wrong with the system.

Sykk

Confab wrote: »

Students should have to pay to go to college like in every other civilised country. Develop a loan system. Free education was a boom thing.

My girlfriend is German and studies biology in a very high level university in Germany without paying a cent. So what arth thou blathering on about?

ahnowbrowncow

You used to be able to get back to education allowance, the maintenance grant, fees paid and rent allowance.

That comes close to €20,000 a year, who made these decisions? Paying someone €20,000 a year to go to college is ridiculous.