Fees

Muir

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

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 ith people ho actually want o learn as opposed to those who are going just or the Craic.

I appreciate that some people may not afford it which is why thy should bring in a student loan system where you can potto pay our fees back brought our salary in future. Irish colleges and universities are or the most part very overcrowded and the failure rate is stunninglyhigh. Something is fundamentally wrong with the system.

I don't understand people thinking that. It might take out some of those people, but you have people with that attitude coming in from backgrounds where they have money & so the fees don't deter them from going in just to have the craic or whatever.
Many people from lower/middle class backgrounds who want to go to college do so to better themselves & their financial situation.

It reminds me of a year or two ago, there was a discussion going on about fees, it could even have been on boards. But there were a few people who had well off parents who said that they wanted full fees brought back in because they could afford it and it would mean loads of people couldn't afford it and so the points would drop for them. Those were people who didn't give a **** about putting the work in to get themselves there, and think that money should give you a right to education more than a willingness to work hard and learn should.

Muir

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

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.

It's not a bad idea. It gets people who have been made redundant off the dole & doing something with themselves. What's wrong with that? You'd probably complain if these people say on their ass and got money for doing nothing so why in the world shouldn't they be helped reskill? Many of them probably come from construction related trades and we will never again have jobs in that sector like we did in the boom years so many of them need to learn something new in order to get back to the workplace. Also, most of them would have worked at some point and contributed to the tax pool & deserve something back.

ahnowbrowncow

Muir wrote: »

It's not a bad idea. It gets people who have been made redundant off the dole & doing something with themselves. What's wrong with that? You'd probably complain if these people say on their ass and got money for doing nothing so why in the world shouldn't they be helped reskill? Many of them probably come from construction related trades and we will never again have jobs in that sector like we did in the boom years so many of them need to learn something new in order to get back to the workplace. Also, most of them would have worked at some point and contributed to the tax pool & deserve something back.

I'd probably complain? They shouldn't be helped? You like jumping to conclusions.

Nothing wrong with helping someone go to college, maybe help them secure a loan or give them a grant but as I said paying someone €20,000 a year to go to college is ridiculous, which works out as €60,000 - €80,000 for the duration of the course. It should have been as it is now, one or the other, not a grant AND back to education.

The government were just plain stupid with money but as always there is never anyone held accountable.

2ndcoming

It's important for people to protest in regard to fees, because if nobody complained over these relatively small increases, people could find themselves paying €10k per year, per student, knowing this government.

But the reality of it is that, even at €3k per student, €12,000 for an Honours degree recognised around the world that can open so many doors to a better quality of life has to be one of the best bargains you will ever get.

The current problem is a major Catch 22, of people getting a degree that might have cost them $100k in the US for under €10k here, then heading over to the US or Australia or Canada and making a life for themselves over there.

It's not their fault there's no jobs, so you can't blame them, but it's not exactly economically prudent to provide the world with an educated workforce while taking relatively nothing back into the coffers, meaning lecturers are on rolling temporary contracts, and cut where possible, research and tutor places are slashed, until the third level education system in this country becomes so weakened the esteem and value of an Irish degree will be worth nowt anyway.

Ficheall

My sister started her Masters, which she's paying 6k for, this week. Presentation on "Why do bouncers work?" for next week. One could view this as "Why do people choose to work as bouncers?", I guess - but another group have the presentation "Why do Polish people work?".
The mind boggles at our wonderful education system.

I'll grant, I suppose, that practice giving idiotic presentations might be of benefit in the real world, but it certainly does not inspire confidence. Or perhaps they are hoping for a discussion on the finer details of the social welfare system.

Muir

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I'd probably complain? They shouldn't be helped? You like jumping to conclusions.

Nothing wrong with helping someone go to college, maybe help them secure a loan or give them a grant but as I said paying someone €20,000 a year to go to college is ridiculous, which works out as €60,000 - €80,000 for the duration of the course. It should have been as it is now, one or the other, not a grant AND back to education.

The government were just plain stupid with money but as always there is never anyone held accountable.

Not jumping to conclusions, you said it was ridiculous to give them that help, I asked why. I didn't say you would complain, I said you probably would (maybe you wouldn't) as most people do if people are being paid the dole and unwilling to actually do something with themselves.

They're people who were probably earning decent money once, dropped down to a social welfare payment and it would be very hard to go from being financially independent back to being a student with no money. So in that situation I think they need that extra bit of help. Some might have children that need childcare which is costly, transport to college, books etc. can be very expensive. €188 a week isn't a lot of money when you have to pay bills, food, transport, books & so on.

I do agree that they should bring in a loan system but that just doesn't look likely at all. It's horrible for people to lose their job and depressing to spend hours searching for work to no avail. Helping them out means that they can become productive again and contribute back to society. You pay hundreds of thousands in tax over your lifetime so you would contribute that money back.

Dave!

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?

You mean, from an objective and disinterested perspective? Yep, because people who are personally affected by budget cuts are not very likely to want them implemented, and every representative group in the country feels that they're the ones who should be looked after before everyone else.

Teyla Emmagan

I'm totally in favour of a loan system. One possibly combined with a graduate tax, but definitely more loan based. It shouldn't be that complicated to put in an equitable system which is easily acessible by all and which has controls in to stop the universities jacking up the fees as they see fit. We should be able to completely level the playing field so that anyone who wants to go to college has the same chance to, regardless of their background.

Third level education is not an automatic right, we need to stop pretending that it is. The country just can't afford to pay for people's entire primary, secondary and tertiary education any more. If you want to go to college you should be prepared to pay for it yourself, and retrospectively if needs be.

pennypocket

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.

Well, despite the nomenclature, motor tax receipts end up in the general tax revenue pot for the government.
I would continue to argue that a free education system (with minimal contributions from those who can afford, alá the German way), is the best guarantee of general prosperity for this country into the future. A better educated populace is good for the country on all levels. We would be able to position ourselves as a 'fourth-level' research economy, and differentiate from the manufacturing powerhouses that is most of Asia. I would certainly not like to see a situation as in the US currently, where they are facing a student debt bubble that will in its enormity dwarf the sub-prime crisis.

pennypocket

bluewolf wrote: »

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

That is absolutely true, and I believe that those who can afford to (above a well-considered threshold) should contribute according to their means. But this is no reason to scrap the free fees system in its entirety; certainly it needs to be reviewed, and supports, such as fee waivers and grant allowances, should be enhanced for those who rely on them to complete their education to third level.

Tackling the problem of third-level participation by those from disadvantaged backgrounds is a whole other issue, and arguably begins from the moment they enter the Junior School gates.

partyatmygaff

Dave! wrote: »

You mean, from an objective and disinterested perspective? Yep, because people who are personally affected by budget cuts are not very likely to want them implemented, and every representative group in the country feels that they're the ones who should be looked after before everyone else.

So basically "Tax everyone but me, myself and I."

Do the so-called "objective and disinterested" former students advocating college fees mind said fees being introduced retrospectively for everyone who benefited from the free fees initiative? Somehow I don't think they'd be too happy with the idea.

Also, forgive me if I am being a bit cynical but aren't these "objective and disinterested" people not just looking to deflect financial pain from themselves by advocating financial pain for others? Cuts are inevitable, groups look out for themselves and whichever group makes it case the best avoids the worst of the cuts.

pennypocket

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Third level education is not an automatic right, we need to stop pretending that it is. The country just can't afford to pay for people's entire primary, secondary and tertiary education any more. If you want to go to college you should be prepared to pay for it yourself, and retrospectively if needs be.

Why shouldn't it be a right? Why shouldn't we aspire as a nation to such a thing, as universal education? What diktat indicates otherwise? Why can't the country afford it? We can afford a lot of things apparently, like periodically transferring billions of our country's wealth into the hands of private spectators since 2008. None of those things just 'has to be'.

Dave!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So basically "Tax everyone but me, myself and I."

Do the so-called "objective and disinterested" former students advocating college fees mind said fees being introduced retrospectively for everyone who benefited from the free fees initiative? Somehow I don't think they'd be too happy with the idea.

I would think they'd be unhappy about it too, yes, cos it's a retarded notion. They mightn't have opted to go to college if they knew they would end up having to pay so much, so you'd be saddling them with a debt they didn't know about, so they wouldn't have been able to make an informed decision. Where would that logic extend to also? If income tax gets raised, then we might go back and retrieve back-taxes since the foundation of the state? If social welfare payments are reduced, then we chase prior recipients to get back the money? That'd sort out our deficit problem for sure.

No, I think we would just do what we do any time a tax goes up or a benefit goes down, and apply it to the present and future, and not propose silly red herrings :rolleyes: I'm sure we could exempt students who have already started their degrees.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Also, forgive me if I am being a bit cynical but aren't these "objective and disinterested" people not just looking to deflect financial pain from themselves by advocating financial pain for others? Cuts are inevitable, groups look out for themselves and whichever group makes it case the best avoids the worst of the cuts.

Or maybe they're just pointing out sensible measures that might help get the country back on a sustainable path? Third-level fees are debatable, but I assume your argument extends to people who are audacious enough to suggest that we might no longer be able to afford the most generous social welfare program in Europe, or that public sector workers might be able to do without their shoe allowances and salary increments, or that people who can afford it might not automatically be entitled to children's allowance or free bus passes -- crazy ideas like that.

My family, and eventually myself too, will all have to pay 1k or thereabouts once the property tax comes in, but I support that nevertheless, cos it's a sensible measure which is standard in most developed nations.

kowloon

Ficheall wrote: »

My sister started her Masters, which she's paying 6k for, this week. Presentation on "Why do bouncers work?" for next week.

Out of curiosity, what's the Masters in?

hatrickpatrick

Whenever we have a thread like this it inevitably turns into a student bashing thread. Jesus, the number of people in here who are talking absolute bullsh!t about students in the most condescending manner imaginable is just unbelievable. It's practically a form of racism at this stage, all we ever get are stereotypes and accusations of all of us being wasters, not caring about college, only going because of where we'll be, spending the whole year drinking, whatever.

When you've removed the sticks from up your own holes I'll come back to the thread. :mad:

Butterface

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Whenever we have a thread like this it inevitably turns into a student bashing thread. Jesus, the number of people in here who are talking absolute bullsh!t about students in the most condescending manner imaginable is just unbelievable. It's practically a form of racism at this stage, all we ever get are stereotypes and accusations of all of us being wasters, not caring about college, only going because of where we'll be, spending the whole year drinking, whatever.

When you've removed the sticks from up your own holes I'll come back to the thread. :mad:

Speaking as a student, I don't think it's a student bashing thread at all. What are you being particularly offended by?

pennypocket

Dave! wrote: »

Or maybe they're just pointing out sensible measures that might help get the country back on a sustainable path? Third-level fees are debatable, but I assume your argument extends to people who are audacious enough to suggest that we might no longer be able to afford the most generous social welfare program in Europe, or that public sector workers might be able to do without their shoe allowances and salary increments, or that people who can afford it might not automatically be entitled to children's allowance or free bus passes -- crazy ideas like that.

My family, and eventually myself too, will all have to pay 1k or thereabouts once the property tax comes in, but I support that nevertheless, cos it's a sensible measure which is standard in most developed nations.

Sources for 'the most generous social welfare program [sic] in Europe', I would argue very much the contrary.

pennypocket

Ranked 18 out of 31 countries in the OECD for social justice scales.http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf Not great at all.

Muir

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Whenever we have a thread like this it inevitably turns into a student bashing thread. Jesus, the number of people in here who are talking absolute bullsh!t about students in the most condescending manner imaginable is just unbelievable. It's practically a form of racism at this stage, all we ever get are stereotypes and accusations of all of us being wasters, not caring about college, only going because of where we'll be, spending the whole year drinking, whatever.

When you've removed the sticks from up your own holes I'll come back to the thread. :mad:

I haven't seen anyone even mention students drinking on this thread or calling them wasters & I am one of the students disagreeing with other posters. A few people have said that higher fees might keep out the people who do just go for the hell of it and don't bother working, but no one has implied that all students are like that. for the most part people are being civil & not bashing anyone really.

I know someone did mention about only going because of where they'll be, but that was the experience they had themselves as a student. I totally disagreed with them but if that's what they experienced they have every right to say so, same as I had every right to say that wasn't my experience at all & I couldn't see why anyone would do that.

The only thing I found a bit condescending was someone telling me that next year I wont be able to find work and I'll be claiming some sense of entitlement to a job because I went to college, but that comment was directed at me really.

It's a debate about fees really. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I think maybe you are taking things a little too personally.

steddyeddy

Ficheall wrote: »

My sister started her Masters, which she's paying 6k for, this week. Presentation on "Why do bouncers work?" for next week. One could view this as "Why do people choose to work as bouncers?", I guess - but another group have the presentation "Why do Polish people work?".
The mind boggles at our wonderful education system.

I'll grant, I suppose, that practice giving idiotic presentations might be of benefit in the real world, but it certainly does not inspire confidence. Or perhaps they are hoping for a discussion on the finer details of the social welfare system.

In fairness it really depends on what masters she is doing.

Wompa1

Scortho wrote: »

As a student, the best solution has to be a graduate tax once you start earning over a certain amount. The problem with loans is that not everyone will be able to get one.

What about little John and Mary that get on the first plane out of the country and go to the UK, Canada, Australia etc.

They'd get educated for free and then contribute only to the other countries economy

twinytwo

To sum it up in a nut shell, take a look at the pay grades/structures for the likes of ucc/ucd, its ****ing hilarious the wages they are paying, all of these go up every single year so the money has to come from somewhere.

steddyeddy

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Now there is a good idea. Lets make it impossible for people from lower class backgrounds to get a degree...

Or in other words lets severely reduce the intelligence of graduates as a whole be selecting students irrespective of academic potential. I always harp on about people from less fortunate backgrounds getting to college but its not just about eqaulity. For decades a certain class of students have been getting into college and frankly there are plenty of people who shouldnt be. We were basically selecting students from certain backgrounds and that hasnt worked. In undergraduate science for example every year there are mature students some of who are form disadvantaged backgrounds and as a group they blow the competition away.

Now the reason for their delay into education wasnt the college fees but the schools they went to. I think fees are the least of a students problems if he comes from a disadvantaged background. If you increase fees too much you change the problem. You prevent both disadvantaged students and middle class students from entering college. Clearly a balance has to be struck.

oppenheimer1

There are only 11 institutions from those countries in the top 100 world universities. So you get what you pay for in terms of quality I guess.

Wompa1

twinytwo wrote: »

To sum it up in a nut shell, take a look at the pay grades/structures for the likes of ucc/ucd, its ****ing hilarious the wages they are paying, all of these go up every single year so the money has to come from somewhere.

I kind of agree. Seems all of the Universities are spending a lot of money for research, guest lecturers, conferences etc. They'd claim it's to up the rep of the college and you need to stay competetive to attract the best students. I think we can take the hit to our image. We're pumping so much money in and the Universities are still ranked behind much poorer countries. I'd say have a couple of Marquee Universities like Trinity and maybe one of the other ones in Dublin. I don't think we need NUIG, Maynooth and UCC to be world beaters.

The current system is a cluster f**k the Uni's are run like a mafia. Very closed off, protective, throwing money at things.

I always had to wonder when in Galway when the Uni was having a producer from the Simpsons guest lecturing, a Historian from Berkely guest lecturing, conferences on pure ****e, millions spent on rennovations, wages, expenses etc. Then right across the road is the Hospital with 40+ people waiting on trolleys in A&E left to wait because there's not enough staff and not enough beds. The whole damn system is wrong!

Ficheall

pennypocket wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be a right? Why shouldn't we aspire as a nation to such a thing, as universal education? What diktat indicates otherwise? Why can't the country afford it? We can afford a lot of things apparently, like periodically transferring billions of our country's wealth into the hands of private spectators since 2008. None of those things just 'has to be'.

I want a boat. Just sayin'.

steddyeddy

Ficheall wrote: »

I want a boat. Just sayin'.

Top class scientists, engineers, doctors, historians and other academics are the right of scoeity and those who work hard and have the academic ability have the right to fufill their potential.

Ficheall

steddyeddy wrote: »

Top class scientists, engineers, doctors, historians and other academics are the right of scoeity and those who work hard and have the academic ability have the right to fufill their potential.

I could be the greatest fisherman the world has ever seen!

steddyeddy

Ficheall wrote: »

I could be the greatest fisherman the world has ever seen!

Then why are you posting here about it? Go out and do it!

Ficheall

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then why are you posting here about it? Go out and do it!

I can't afford it. I need the taxpayer to buy me a boat so I can fulfill my potential. Obviously.

steddyeddy

Ficheall wrote: »

I can't afford it. I need the taxpayer to buy me a boat so I can fulfill my potential. Obviously.

So basically the strongest argument we have about producing top class doctors and scientists is that if we fund them people who want to go fishing will want a boat?

Ficheall

steddyeddy wrote: »

So basically the strongest argument we have about producing top class doctors and scientists is that if we fund them people who want to go fishing will want a boat?

I think a person's right to a boat is as valid as their right to a college "education", yes. For argument's sake, we can ignore the fourteen years of education they have already been provided with, if you so wish.

languagenerd

Considering how little work there is out there for students at the moment, if full fees were implemented, then a large number of students would end up dropping out and going on the dole, as well as school-leavers having to do nothing for years too (also collecting social welfare money).

Jobseekers Allowance for 18-22 year olds is €100 a week. That's €5200 a year. My course costs €5,766 (incl the reg fee, so really €3,413) for EU students. Does it not make more sense for the government to spend that €5200 (or part thereof) on a degree for someone, rather than giving it to them as social welfare? If they're spending the same amount of money, they may as well use it for university costs, so that at the end of 3 or 4 years, the recipient has a qualification and may be able to get a useful job in society.

It's all well and good saying "get a job!" but in practice, it's almost impossible. All but two of my friends are unemployed, because most of them have no experience and nowhere will hire them! Even those of us who have experience find it tough to get work, because for every one vacancy there are hundreds of applicants - and people who've graduated hang onto part-time work because they can't get anything else, meaning that there are very few positions open for new students.

partyatmygaff

Ficheall wrote: »

I think a person's right to a boat is as valid as their right to a college "education", yes. For argument's sake, we can ignore the fourteen years of education they have already been provided with, if you so wish.

Someone who wants to open and run a business is educated so that they can run and grow their business, they're not provided with assets and capital by the government. Someone who wants to be a music teacher is educated in music and teaching but isn't given a free instrument. Your fishing boat analogy is terribly flawed.

pennypocket

Ficheall wrote: »

I want a boat. Just sayin'.

In all fairness, you are a funny fúcker. In other news, I am still waiting for the tide that rises all boats.

Ficheall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Someone who wants to open and run a business is educated so that they can run and grow their business, they're not provided with assets and capital by the government. Someone who wants to be a music teacher is educated in music and teaching but isn't given a free instrument. Your fishing boat analogy is terribly flawed.

So... you're saying I should ask the government to teach me how to fish?

steddyeddy

Ficheall wrote: »

So... you're saying I should ask the government to teach me how to fish?

Actually I take it back education is not for everyone.........

partyatmygaff

Ficheall wrote: »

So... you're saying I should ask the government to teach me how to fish?

Yes.

http://www.bim.ie/training/aquaculture/

Have fun. If marine farming isn't your thing, there's always the "Learn to fish" course offered in some community schools and colleges of further education.

Good luck and may you fill all your non-government subsidised boats with all the fish of the seas.

Wompa1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Top class scientists, engineers, doctors, historians and other academics are the right of scoeity and those who work hard and have the academic ability have the right to fufill their potential.

They have the right to fulfill their potential in anything. Once they are born they have all the opportunities they could ask for. It's up to them to earn it. Just because you are born, doesn't mean you get handed stuff for the rest of your life.

Also why do we need top class Historians?

Most of our doctors leave as it is, so what's the Return on Investment there? From what I understand with our current health system it's not attractive place for a doctor to practice so lets invest in the Health system as a priority rather than education. We have lots of skilled people already.

Do you think Engineering courses are poor? I thought Ireland had pretty good Engineering courses...

Ficheall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes.

http://www.bim.ie/training/aquaculture/

Have fun. If marine farming isn't your thing, there's always the "Learn to fish" course offered in some community schools and colleges of further education.

Good luck and may you fill all your non-government subsidised boats with all the fish of the seas.

Much obliged. Now, all I need to do to be able to afford a boat is to get a job. Good thing that I'll have a piece of paper that says I know how to fish - otherwise the company I go and work for would have had to spend a full couple of hours instructing me on how to cast a line or drop a net, or whatever it is I have to do.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually I take it back education is not for everyone.........

You're a smarter man than I. It took me a phd's worth of college to realise that I've learned very little in my time here. Still, the title might fool prospective employers, and sure isn't that the best anyone can hope for?

Teyla Emmagan

pennypocket wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be a right? Why shouldn't we aspire as a nation to such a thing, as universal education? What diktat indicates otherwise? Why can't the country afford it? We can afford a lot of things apparently, like periodically transferring billions of our country's wealth into the hands of private spectators since 2008. None of those things just 'has to be'.

We already have universal education, bar a few unfortunates who drop out of school early and end up as adults with literacy problems. And we can aspire to all we want to, but we need to find someway of paying for it. And free third level education for the entire country obviously isn't currently one of the things we can afford as a nation. In case you haven't noticed, we're broke. The fact we piddled billions away in the past doesn't change our current situation. And I for one would rather see our scant resources going somewhere more deserving than paying for the optional college education of people who would be well able to get there under their own steam if we had a decent loan system. This isn't a socialist utopia.

Dave!

pennypocket wrote: »

Ranked 18 out of 31 countries in the OECD for social justice scales.http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf Not great at all.

Just had a glance at that report and it doesn't seem to mention social welfare payments at all, it's primarily about discrimination, income inequality, access to education, etc I see that our long-term unemployment rate is higher than Greece, however. We may or may not spend more on social welfare relative to our GDP than other countries, but it's pretty obvious that there are savings to be made there by modifying universal entitlement programs, means-testing everything, gradually reducing payment for long-term (able-bodied) unemployed, etc. Maybe then the Minister for Health wouldn't have to take benefits away from the people who actually need it, e.g. the physically and mentally disabled.

This bears little relevance to the point I was making in my post above, but has been a fun tangent.

pennypocket

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

We already have universal education, bar a few unfortunates who drop out of school early and end up as adults with literacy problems. And we can aspire to all we want to, but we need to find someway of paying for it. And free third level education for the entire country obviously isn't currently one of the things we can afford as a nation. In case you haven't noticed, we're broke. The fact we piddled billions away in the past doesn't change our current situation. And I for one would rather see our scant resources going somewhere more deserving than paying for the optional college education of people who would be well able to get there under their own steam if we had a decent loan system. This isn't a socialist utopia.

No we don't have universal education. And please, leave off the clichés, such as 'socialist utopia'. How about a pragmatic realism in which we educate every one of our citizens to the best of their ability? And how about throwing in universal, free at the point of access health care along with that also? You think that is a 'socialist utopia'? It has been on the agenda since independence in the early 1920s. The main opposition has been the Catholic Church and their wealthy confessors.

Such a thing has always been within our grasp and very achievable with all the wealth in this country. Contrary to mainstream (pro-Washington Consensus / IMF) reports, we as a small country on the periphery of Europe have always had the resources to offer our citizens the same lifestyle as those in Scandinavian countries.

Again, we can, and we should have all the nice things. (Are people still buying the ****e about how we as a nation incurred the massive costs of private and globalised banking debt? Thankfully others are starting to pick apart the circumstances that lead to a small country such as Ireland being forced to pay back debts that were never ours in the first place).

SusieBlue

I'm not sure how the system could be improved. I don't think anyone should get a free ride but I also don't think that graduating with €10k+ of debt is a good thing either.

I don't think the grant should be based on parents earnings. I know plenty of people who don't qualify for a grant whose parents have no interest in funding (or even partially funding) their education. What are they supposed to do?

As for part time jobs, even some of the lowest ranked jobs require 3-4 years experience these days, just because the employer can get away with it, Your average college student doesn't have this.

There's also JSA which you aren't entitled to if you are a full time student. I worked in the same department store for over 4 years, got let go recently and am entitled to absolutely nothing because I'm still in full time education. Because I was employed I wasn't entitled to a grant and now I'm honestly really struggling to make ends meet each week, I'm currently living off of the savings I built up. I won't be able to support myself like this much longer.

Graduates are leaving in flocks because there are no opportunities. Again, I think the main reason being its so hard to get on the career ladder when almost all employers demand the candidate have relevant experience in their field, which your average graduate doesn't have.

I don't know what could be done to solve the issue but increasing fees will not help at all, most people my age are struggling as it is.

Cookie_Monster

mariaalice wrote: »

Will parents soon have to choose which child to send to college.

At the moment registration fees are about 2300 euro each year so if you had two children in college its going to cost you nearly 5000 euro a year which for most family's is a lot of money.

why would your parents pay for you to go to college anyway, never udnerstood this attitude. If you want to go pay for it yourself with either summer work or part time job.

Gov need to setup a student loan programme like the UK or NZ. Comes straight off your wages at source in NZ until paid off. But it's only 3-4% of weekly pay so you don't even notice it.

Wompa1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why would your parents pay for you to go to college anyway, never udnerstood this attitude. If you want to go pay for it yourself with either summer work or part time job.

Gov need to setup a student loan programme like the UK or NZ. Comes straight off your wages at source in NZ until paid off. But it's only 3-4% of weekly pay so you don't even notice it.

What do they do if you leave New Zealand right after you graduate?

melekalikimaka

i'll be glad to see fees back, cull the herd, alot of wasters in there these days milking the system

Cookie_Monster

Wompa1 wrote: »

What do they do if you leave New Zealand right after you graduate?

dunno, must ask someone. I presume they have some form of contract when you start college and get the funding. I'm only here a year and not something I've needed to look at tbh apart from doing wages for people

Handsome Bob

Some people seem to be basing their advocacy on the re-introduction of fees on the maintenance grant, but the reality is that it is a very inconsistent and easily manipulated system.

I've seen people with a retired father (who didn't exactly make the greatest wage beforehand) and a housewife for a mother being rejected for a grant, while I've seen the children of a certain self employed profession that can doctor their own books getting the full grant (fees paid, plus €1,500).

The sad reality is that not every individual who is in need, and indeed, deserves (cue the herp derp education isn't a privilege brigade) the maintenance grant will qualify for it.

And that's from a 25 year old who benefited from free education. The thought of a loan system, where if I take brummytom's case for an example, where I would owe £24,000 before I've even started in life, is an absolute horrific one. Some of you might say tough ****, but what are the likes of brummytom supposed to do if he can't afford to go to uni? Oh yes, that's right, get a job.....because that is so easy in the current climate, especially for young lads who have no work experience.

People will have very few choices so, jump on the dole for fcuk knows how long (and oh yes, you'll be getting your dig in for that too) or emigrate. But what did an Irish politician whose name escapes me once say...sure we're only a little island, we all can't live here, and going by the kind of responses in this thread, this kind of snobby elitist tough **** attitude is still alive and well.

Scortho

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Some people seem to be basing their advocacy on the re-introduction of fees on the maintenance grant, but the reality is that it is a very inconsistent and easily manipulated system.

I've seen people with a retired father (who didn't exactly make the greatest wage beforehand) and a housewife for a mother being rejected for a grant, while I've seen the children of a certain self employed profession that can doctor their own books getting the full grant (fees paid, plus €1,500).

The sad reality is that not every individual who is in need, and indeed, deserves (cue the herp derp education isn't a privilege brigade) the maintenance grant will qualify for it.

And that's from a 25 year old who benefited from free education. The thought of a loan system, where if I take brummytom's case for an example, where I would owe £24,000 before I've even started in life, is an absolute horrific one. Some of you might say tough ****, but what are the likes of brummytom supposed to do if he can't afford to go to uni? Oh yes, that's right, get a job.....because that is so easy in the current climate, especially for young lads who have no work experience.

People will have very few choices so, jump on the dole for fcuk knows how long (and oh yes, you'll be getting your dig in for that too) or emigrate. But what did an Irish politician whose name escapes me once say...sure we're only a little island, we all can't live here, and going by the kind of responses in this thread, this kind of snobby elitist tough **** attitude is still alive and well.

How about a graduate tax though as I mentioned earlier on.

It self funds third level education for all and doesn't matter who mammy or daddy is.

I mightn't be able to pay for my education up front. Very few people would be.

However if an extra tax was slapped on my wages to fund the next generation of university students I'd have no problem with that.

After all my wages will be a hell of a lot higher with a degree than without so its only fair that I pay a little back