Is the student grant funding fair?

Not at all. I know several farmers' kids who got the grant, after having been bought new cars for their 18th birthdays, having their own horses etc. It's ridiculous. One of my friends in college was getting nearly as much in maintenance grants for living at home as I was getting in student loans to live away. She was always buying new clothes and going out. It's really unfair.

steddyeddy

Victor Happy Disc wrote: »

Not at all. I know several farmers' kids who got the grant, after having been bought new cars for their 18th birthdays, having their own horses etc. It's ridiculous. One of my friends in college was getting nearly as much in maintenance grants for living at home as I was getting in student loans to live away. She was always buying new clothes and going out. It's really unfair.

It would be impossible for me not to agree with this. The ag science dept in UCD is a showcase for this. My problem is the fact that some of these people dont even try and hide it. Have they no shame that their getting new cars and Ipads and getting the grants, while some people in college can barely afford food?

phoenix999

Lets face it, whatever the UK implements, we usually follow. It's only a matter of time before fees are reintroduced with an accompanying student loan scheme at much higher rates of interest.

jam_mac_jam

They should take assets into consideration, as usual its the paye worker who gets screwed. Its a bit of a coincidence that most people who get grants have parents who are self employed or farmers. As usual though all the back backbenchers would be up in arms about this because country folk wouldn't be happy. 40 per cent of farmers and 50 per cent of the self employed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0814/1224322139129.html

steddyeddy

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

They should take assets into consideration, as usual its the paye worker who gets screwed. Its a bit of a coincidence that most people who get grants have parents who are self employed or farmers. As usual though all the back backbenchers would be up in arms about this because country folk wouldn't be happy. 40 per cent of farmers and 50 per cent of the self employed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0814/1224322139129.html

I saw that last night on frontline. Considering paye workers are funding a large part of it things should change.

jam_mac_jam

steddyeddy wrote: »

I saw that last night on frontline. Considering paye workers are funding a large part of it things should change.

It will take years to change if ever as those who pay the most tax get shafted as usual.

steddyeddy

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It will take years to change if ever as those who pay the most tax get shafted as usual.

Especially considering that the farming industry in Ireland is doing very well.

gutenberg

randylonghorn wrote: »

I see your argument, gutenberg, but bear in mind that the same government which has cut postgraduate funding regularly mouths pious and empty platitudes about the "knowledge economy" and how essential it is that we increase our output of people educated to postgraduate level, indeed, preferably to doctoral level.

I absolutely agree, which is why I said we should definitely have funding in place for postgraduate study, via grants or other scholarships etc; I think that this funding, however, should be distributed according to merit at this level, rather than 'means', as we should be encouraging the best & brightest to continue. From my purely personal & anecdotal experience, I have seen people I was in college with going on to pursue postgrad, being funded by the grant, who frankly were not cut out for it and were continuing cos they would be supported; I also had more than one friend, then, who were very very bright who were unable to continue cos they weren't eligible for the grant, but equally couldn't afford the fees at postgrad level. That in my opinion isn't fair. We should definitely help people get to college who want to go, and to achieve their bachelors degree, and this is helped enormously by the grant system. However, I think at postgrad level it should be organised according to merit (this of course is in a mythical utopia where the govt has money for anything!).

randylonghorn

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

They should take assets into consideration, as usual its the paye worker who gets screwed. Its a bit of a coincidence that most people who get grants have parents who are self employed or farmers. As usual though all the back backbenchers would be up in arms about this because country folk wouldn't be happy. 40 per cent of farmers and 50 per cent of the self employed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0814/1224322139129.html

I love the way people talk about "farmers" as if farmer was a homogenous job description with a set pay-scale!

For Dublin people in particular, their perceptions of farming are often set by the areas of Louth / North Dublin / parts of Meath and Kildare, with a fair proportion of large farms, with the land quality and weather fairly conducive to tillage and to large-scale stock, and the size and economies of scale and proximity to a large market (Dublin) to make relatively high profits. This proximity also allowed many of them to profit from selling sites for the housing boom during the Celtic Tiger.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the area is an aberration in Irish farming, but it certainly doesn't reflect the norm around the country, and especially in the western half of the country, though I would agree that there are other pockets of large farmers with good land in other parts of the country with different specialisms who also make good money.

And there's the middle group, reasonable land, reasonably sized farms, reasonable income, but they'll never be rich in the cash sense.

And the third group, the small farmers, or those with decent enough sized farms but poor enough soil, or a portion of the farm is hill or marsh or bog or whatever. If they're reliant entirely on the farm income they're scraping by at best, and often not even that. In most cases, they're not entirely reliant on the farm income any more, because they can't afford to be: they're part-time farmers, with a full-time or part-time job during the day and they farm part-time, i.e. in the early mornings, the evenings and the weekends. Or they farm full-time and their partner has a job. Or given the current economic mess, they *had* a job, they don't any more, and they're in trouble.

I don't have stats for each group, and tbh I cba going mining for them among Teagasc and DAF reports, but I would estimate that that first group is <10% of Irish farmers (though they certainly represent / own a fair bit more than 10% of Irish farm *land*).

And there are also a small group of outliers, many of them now ex-farmers, who were lucky enough to have land on the edge of cities / large towns during the housing boom and in a position to realise their assets / sell up completely for very large sums indeed. But it's a very small group who made the huge profits. Hopefully, they invested it wisely. Despite all the media attention they got from time to time, they no more represent the average farmer than Fitzpatrick or Quinn or Drumm represent the average private sector worker.

I would agree though that farmers are doing better overall than they were 5 / 10 years ago, relatively speaking. This is partly due to an upsurge in agriculture and agricultural prices (which is probably cyclical and transient, it usually is) but mostly ... and here's the kick in the tail ... because 5 / 10 years ago most people in the PAYE sector were doing much better than they are now (because that's who that "relatively" is usually measured against). It doesn't really represent that big a jump in the average income of the small to medium farmer; it represents a serious fall in the average income of the rest of us!


(p.s. I'm not a farmer by the way, nor are any of my immediate family involved in farming)

mikemac1

Farmers have to pay the accountant to do a full set of accounts and then submit them to the VEC.

A PAYE worker completes a form and hands in a P60.

You'd think there was all sorts of fiddling going on by farmers going by a few of these posts.

The accounts are there to be reviewed, if it's approved or rejected that's up to the VEC who judge the PAYE applications too

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

As usual though all the back backbenchers would be up in arms about this because country folk wouldn't be happy.

Country folk. :pac:

The farmers with the most intensive operations in Ireland are in North county Dublin.

Acres and acres of intensive vegetable growing, take a drive one day, back of Dublin airport and you're almost there!

randylonghorn

gutenberg wrote: »

I absolutely agree, which is why I said we should definitely have funding in place for postgraduate study, via grants or other scholarships etc; I think that this funding, however, should be distributed according to merit at this level, rather than 'means', as we should be encouraging the best & brightest to continue. From my purely personal & anecdotal experience, I have seen people I was in college with going on to pursue postgrad, being funded by the grant, who frankly were not cut out for it and were continuing cos they would be supported; I also had more than one friend, then, who were very very bright who were unable to continue cos they weren't eligible for the grant, but equally couldn't afford the fees at postgrad level. That in my opinion isn't fair. We should definitely help people get to college who want to go, and to achieve their bachelors degree, and this is helped enormously by the grant system. However, I think at postgrad level it should be organised according to merit (this of course is in a mythical utopia where the govt has money for anything!).

Ah, now we're much more on the same page.

Yes, I could certainly support a postgraduate grant / scholarship scheme which prioritised and rewarded the brightest and the hardest working.

I think I would argue for some kind of means threshold though, albeit a relatively generous one. I'm not sure I want my taxes paying for the heirs of Tony O'Leary or Denis O'Brien or Dermot Desmond to undertake postgraduate study, no matter how bright they are!

gutenberg

randylonghorn wrote: »

Ah, now we're much more on the same page.

Yes, I could certainly support a postgraduate grant / scholarship scheme which prioritised and rewarded the brightest and the hardest working.

I think I would argue for some kind of means threshold though, albeit a relatively generous one. I'm not sure I want my taxes paying for the heirs of Tony O'Leary or Denis O'Brien or Dermot Desmond to undertake postgraduate study, no matter how bright they are!

Where would you set the limit, out of interest? I passionately believe that at postgraduate level it should be as meritocratic as possible when it comes to funding, having seen myself some of the people who continued onto Master's (or even PhD!) 'cos the grant was paying, with others left behind.

And the heirs of Desmond, O'Leary et al surely wouldn't need a postgrad qualification, they can just walk straight into Daddy's business right?

steddyeddy

mikemac1 wrote: »

Farmers have to pay the accountant to do a full set of accounts and then submit them to the VEC.

A PAYE worker completes a form and hands in a P60.

You'd think there was all sorts of fiddling going on by farmers going by a few of these posts.

The accounts are there to be reviewed, if it's approved or rejected that's up to the VEC who judge the PAYE applications too



Country folk. :pac:

The farmers with the most intensive operations in Ireland are in North county Dublin.

Acres and acres of intensive vegetable growing, take a drive one day, back of Dublin airport and you're almost there!

Sorry Mikemac but some farmers do fiddle. Not all but some do. Some of the sons and daughters of farmers do get it where they shouldnt. There was one case reported by the Irish times where the son of a farm worker didnt get the grant yet the farm owner did. Its quite easy to make you'r income appear low.

mikemac1

If there's fiddling then the accountant was in on it too

steddyeddy

mikemac1 wrote: »

If there's fiddling then the accountant was in on it too

Thats what goes on alright. Again I'm not putting all farmers in the same bracket. Most farmers I know are very decent people but decent people still can claim falsley.

randylonghorn

gutenberg wrote: »

Where would you set the limit, out of interest? I passionately believe that at postgraduate level it should be as meritocratic as possible when it comes to funding, having seen myself some of the people who continued onto Master's (or even PhD!) 'cos the grant was paying, with others left behind.

I'd have to think about that one, but fairly high certainly ... as pointed out on this thread already, many who don't qualify for the grant struggle to get through college as it is, let alone try to face into additional years.

And I definitely agree re: a meritocratic emphasis, I just think there should be some cap on it in terms of means.

gutenberg wrote: »

And the heirs of Desmond, O'Leary et al surely wouldn't need a postgrad qualification, they can just walk straight into Daddy's business right?

They mightn't need it, but I'll guarantee you most of them have degrees, probably in business or law, and MBAs or Ll.B.s or whatever, and that many of them took at least one of those qualifications in Ireland and benefited from the "Free Fees Initiative".

As, in fairness, they were perfectly entitled to do, but it still sticks in my craw a little.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry Mikemac but some farmers do fiddle. Not all but some do. Some of the sons and daughters of farmers do get it where they shouldnt. There was one case reported by the Irish times where the son of a farm worker didnt get the grant yet the farm owner did. Its quite easy to make you'r income appear low.

Definitely, some farmers fiddle. And some self-employed people fiddle. And even some PAYE workers fiddle, though admittedly it can be hard to do.

There seems to be something in the Irish psyche and culture that makes it acceptable to fiddle ... some would argue that it's a hang-on from colonial culture and an "agin' the government" attitude which still survives deep in our society.

Mind you, could we say that all our political leaders over the last few decades have set us a better example?

steddyeddy

randylonghorn wrote: »

I'd have to think about that one, but fairly high certainly ... as pointed out on this thread already, many who don't qualify for the grant struggle to get through college as it is, let alone try to face into additional years.

And I definitely agree re: a meritocratic emphasis, I just think there should be some cap on it in terms of means.

They mightn't need it, but I'll guarantee you most of them have degrees, probably in business or law, and MBAs or Ll.B.s or whatever, and that many of them took at least one of those qualifications in Ireland and benefited from the "Free Fees Initiative".

As, in fairness, they were perfectly entitled to do, but it still sticks in my craw a little.

Definitely, some farmers fiddle. And some self-employed people fiddle. And even some PAYE workers fiddle, though admittedly it can be hard to do.

There seems to be something in the Irish psyche and culture that makes it acceptable to fiddle ... some would argue that it's a hang-on from colonial culture and an "agin' the government" attitude which still survives deep in our society.

Mind you, could we say that all our political leaders over the last few decades have set us a better example?

In fairness it goes on in every culture but our culture makes it easier to fiddle!

randylonghorn

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness it goes on in every culture but our culture makes it easier to fiddle!

I agree completely, but some cultures both make it easier to fiddle, as you say, and also seem to find it more acceptable. Contrast here with Switzerland, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, with Greece, where the prevailing attitude is that income tax is a voluntary contribution unless you're actually forced to pay it!

Shryke

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness it goes on in every culture but our culture makes it easier to fiddle!

We do love a ceili.

Bowlardo

Some asked what was the grant was for there a few post back?
My understanding is that it was introduced to give the people with low income a fighting chance of going to college.

There was a lot of people going the college for the sake of going to college.
There was in my day anyway.people doing pointless **** courses and availing of the grant.

I have an idea.
Say for example you child is born this year 2012 they will be going to college in 2030.
The parent (if either or both is working)must be responsible and agree to save 10-20 euro a week for the students college fund(automatically taken from wages)
€20 x 52 weeks by 18 years = €18,720 the government agree to double this to €37,440 which will be divide by the four years so €9,360.
They will receive the 9,360 at the start of the year.
This will pay the years rent and bills immediately if they fail or drop out they are returned the savings only ( no double amount but interest included)

If you child is five year of age then you should begin saving the money now. it should be enforced!

If you are in a cushy free council house and living on the dole then your kids should get four time your savings!!!! this would be a massive incentive for lower economic people to get there kids to go to college....

had a bottle of wine...think this is kinda fair ...obviously a few holes in my theory but would love people to discuss it

Fiery biscuits

I think with the current climate taking another tax/levy off people would not go down well with people. I think you are correct that people need to have better foresight when it comes to this and should have during the Celtic tiger years especially. If it means having to take more taxes off people because of their lack of planning/foresight for the future of their children then maybe it could be done but I personally don't like the idea of a nanny state. Speaking anecdotally, when I was in college there were people who were on the grant that I couldn't believe were on it. One guy spent all his grant money on going to gigs during the week, he missed out on the grant one of the years because of some mix up but did he have to drop out of college..no he managed just fine. I went to his twenty first when I was in college and his house was huge and very nice on the inside too. My understanding of the grant system is to give it to people who without it, would not be able to afford to go to college. I worked a part time job during my college years, as is my sister now who is almost finished college. My brother just started college and he got a part time job(his first ever) three weeks ago so it can still be done. The grant in theory is a great mechanism to allow people better themselves and their futures but from my experience it was used by a lot of people as a substitute for a part time job.

Azures

You have obviously never seen the SUSI application form, they demand every cent for the last 4 years be accounted for. I sent back 40 separate documents. No one who gets it ( not that anyone has this year) is undeserving of it. I'm a mature student, you should see the dedication of the younger students, they work hard, they are always I'm the library, they run clubs and societies, they have a night out on Fridays, they are an impressive bunch of young people. Don't condemn them en masse, they deserve a chance to get on in life and the country needs graduates. The current funding system doesn't work, and it needs to change in my opinion. I think it's time to address it head on.. But for this ytear, the present system we are all stuck with needs to start paying out before mire people lose tbe Uni place they worked so hard to achieve.

123 LC

I know a student whose parents bought a car for (and the students other siblings), they also pay the insurance, petrol etc... but this student gets the grant! they can clearly pay for tuition fees (also have a fine house). maybe it's due to a parent having an illness or something? but at the same time i think if their parents have plenty of money they shouldn't abuse the grant system. I know another student, whose parents in no way could buy a car for, who live in tiny living conditions, yet the student gets no grant?? and both parents work very hard, doesnt seem fair. whoever is in charge of giving grants should look deeper into the financial situation IMO...it's just costing the state too much money....

Celly Smunt

the grant should be replaced with a loan system that's not means tested.

birthday1

I work in a local authority assessing applications.
It is TOTALLY UNFAIR. We always refer to it as 'welfare for the wealthy'. All you need is a good accountant to work out your figures. The accountants actually phone us before they send the the accounts to make sure they come below the threshold. We also have a bunch of students whose parents live exclusively on interest on their savings. I had an applicant last week whose mother could show me 360,000 in her An Post Savings!! Needless to say I had to give the applicant the full grant cos assets or savings are not reckonable income - broke my heart. I could give you loads of other examples.

birthday1

birthday1 wrote: »

I work in a local authority assessing applications.
It is TOTALLY UNFAIR. We always refer to it as 'welfare for the wealthy'. All you need is a good accountant to work out your figures. The accountants actually phone us before they send the the accounts to make sure they come below the threshold. We also have a bunch of students whose parents live exclusively on interest on their savings. I had an applicant last week whose mother could show me 360,000 in her An Post Savings!! Needless to say I had to give the applicant the full grant cos assets or savings are not reckonable income - broke my heart. I could give you loads of other examples.

That's sickening, but not surprising. Why don't savings count? That's ridiculous.

Snowie

try this on for size

Unemployed 3 years applied for funding and grant to go back to college, I had to pay my own tuition fees out of my bte allowance, and my rent and live on no more the €186.00 a week, while 18 years olds with a job support from there parents were working nearly full time hours were buying brand new mac book pros, cars i phone 4s drinking and ironically failing college.

The only reason i couldn't obtain a tuition fees was because I didn't have a headed letter with my name on such as a bill. as in eircom, esb, board gais, yet a bank statement would not do.
The grant is nothing short of flawed..

Snowie

Snowie wrote: »

try this on for size

Unemployed 3 years applied for funding and grant to go back to college, I had to pay my own tuition fees out of my bte allowance, and my rent and live on no more the €186.00 a week, while 18 years olds with a job support from there parents were working nearly full time hours were buying brand new mac book pros, cars i phone 4s drinking and ironically failing college.

The only reason i couldn't obtain a tuition fees was because I didn't have a headed letter with my name on such as a bill. as in eircom, esb, board gais, yet a bank statement would not do.
The grant is nothing short of flawed..

I've also had issues with that. Why can't people understand that not everyone gets bills in their name? I move around fairly often, so I prefer to rent places where the landlord takes care of the bills.

Snowie

Victor Happy Disc wrote: »

I've also had issues with that. Why can't people understand that not everyone gets bills in their name? I move around fairly often, so I prefer to rent places where the landlord takes care of the bills.

If your still stuck for a grant there is one known as the spidous grant, which will give you a vauge contribution to the fees. But don't hold your breath.

I've no idea but it really does boil my piss. Apparently a social welfare document will not carry, because apparently i could be living some were else ...

Is it any wonder this country's in such a state?

CruelCoin

Savings do not equal income, two completely different things.

The grant was given legitimately, move on.

pmcmahon

pmcmahon wrote: »

the grant should be replaced with a loan system that's not means tested.

The loan system is a terrible idea, being is massive debt the minute you leave college.

Snowie

Sloan Proud Mourner wrote: »

The loan system is a terrible idea, being is massive debt the minute you leave college.

How many people drop out of college every year and waste how much money on funding? :rolleyes:

Snowie

Snowie wrote: »

How many people drop out of college every year and waste how much money on funding? :rolleyes:

Not that many people actually drop out. Having been in the University system for almost 8 years from undergrad to nearing the end of my PhD now, I have seen and heard of very few people actually dropping out.

TheDoc

My girlfriend lives in council housing which is rented, there is no one of employment in the household and the only income is two social welfare from herself and the younger brother, and the two parents state pensions.

She was not able to attend college when she left school, as she had to work to provide income to the household when her father was forced to retire after a third heart attack.

She picked her course and we went to the open day, and she had her heart set on it. We gathered the relevant forms, filled them in, and attended a meeting to discuss the grant.

The course fee's were €4000 and a further €280 for materials required ( books etc.)

I thought it was a dead cert, you couldn't find someone more needing, who sacrified her opportunity to go to college the first time to ensure the family kept their council house.

The application was rejected, without explanation. Needless to say we were gob smacked. I objected the decision and appealed on behalf on my girlfriend and when we attended the hearing they agreed to reverse the decision, to cover the cost of materials and part of the fee, in total providing €750.

I announced how this was a disgrace, and my utter disgust at the decision, rejected their offer and left. I wrote a strongly worded letter to the department that oversees grant allocation along with the local elected TD, both of which replied sympathetically, but still could not get us an explanation as to why the grant was rejected.

I went through college for five years and can 100% confirm there is absolute abuse of this system, and not just a stereotype. I took a part time job through college to pay for my fees, with some assistance from my parents who provided what the could. During my time, students availing of large grants were receiving payments per week from their parents, and were receiving grants for ridiculous reasons.

While some were getting them due to having to relocate from the country, their grants were being spent on high end laptops, trips abroad, nights out and furnishing their apartment with unneccasry equipment and furniture. A fella who lives in the same area as me, Swords, received a grant because he lived " X " distance away from the college, and received funding to assist his travel. When I applied, mine was rejected due to me living "within" the boundary limit to qualify.

My initial grant application was rejected based of both my parents working, so them assuming that my parents would be funding my college attendance, which was anything but the case.

In the end I took out short term loan with my bank, who, organised the whole thing in lightening fast speed, and my girlfriend went through college for her first year, and I was able to fund her second year aswell. But this has literally obliterated my savings. I know its a good investment longterm, we are together a long time and will be going forward, so its money well spent.

But when I hear of the ****e talk about grants, the excuses made by the department and officials that organise them, the bragging by students who get them, it makes me sick to the stomach.

This was a massive failure in the system, a system that for anyone who has ever attending college or a university, can clearly see its broken beyond belief.

steddyeddy

CruelCoin wrote: »

Savings do not equal income, two completely different things.

The grant was given legitimately, move on.

Savings equals means. Income equals means. Low income does not equal low means. Yet the current grant system (pending reform) does not take savings and or assets as means. Understand the problem?

TheDoc

1ZRed wrote: »

For the majority it really helps out and means they can get into 3rd level education, but I'm sick of people getting refused on the bases that 'on paper' you should be grand and don't need a grant, while never looking at other expenses or circumstances.

This rings so true for me. I was the first of my family (including extended) to attend and complete college. My parents never had the opportunity when they were young.

My Father was insistent I go through college to so that I could have a standard of living he could not. My parents are both employed, but work overtime that between the two of them amounts to over 100 hours a week.

Understanding the effort my parents were going through I got a part time job to assist in paying for my first year fees, and saved money through that first year so I could pay my second year fees, and subsequently every year after.

Thankfully my fathers hard work earned him a well earned promotion which has made things easier.

But the fact remains my grant was rejected on the basis of my parents income, assuming that they would be paying my fees. They did not take into account that without my parents overtime work ( looking at the income from base salary) there was barely any chance for me to go to college.

On a seperate point, I raised a query during my girlfriends appeal as to what procedures the State undertake when a citizen provided with a grant, fails to complete their year or course, and drops out due to disliking the course or preferring a more social able lifestyle. The appeals committee refused to answer the query indicating the panel was not conveined to discuss department procedures.

I raised this query with my local elected TD who brought the question up in the Dáil, to which the question was dodged and not directly answered.

This led to the assumption, that in the event of the state providing financial aid for a citizen to complete third level education, in the scenario where that citizen removes themselves from the course on the grounds of "dislike" or "lack of effort through external activities or influences" (i.e not bothering to get up for class) the state does not seek reimbursement for monies paid.

And we all know someone who was getting grant money and dropped out because they preferred getting lashed out of it every second night, didnt like getting up early, or didnt like the course.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

The course fee's were €4000 and a further €280 for materials required ( books etc.)

How were the course fees €4000? The registration fee is not €4000. Unless your girlfriend was charged full tuition fees for some reason?

Lone Stone

grants should be given out on performance based assessment every few months to cut out the wasters and people who abuse the system, but that would probably cost to much money to set up.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

How were the course fees €4000? The registration fee is not €4000. Unless your girlfriend was charged full tuition fees for some reason?

She was not applying through the CAO. She did not go straight into college from secondary school and is not of the age where she is defined as a mature student.

I don't get what you mean by "some reason"?

If I just decided to go back to college tomorrow, I'd have to pay full the course fee, which would be in the high thousands.

I completed my level 8 in NCI, who then offered me a place in a Masters programme with a PHD opportunity afterwards.

The cost for the year was €10,000 for the Masters and then a further €10,00 for the PHD. The course was not eligible for government subsidy due to it being outside some specific time of the year, and I couldn't qualify for a grant, mentioned above.

Not all courses and colleges and subsidised by the government, and the "mainstream" universities and colleges provide broad generic courses in order to maintain student numbers, they don't offer special niché courses specific people may want to undertake for specific careers.

a5y

If grant abuse was reportable like insurance fraud, the whole system would start working better overnight.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

She was not applying through the CAO. She did not go straight into college from secondary school and is not of the age where she is defined as a mature student.

I don't get what you mean by "some reason"?

If I just decided to go back to college tomorrow, I'd have to pay full the course fee, which would be in the high thousands.

I completed my level 8 in NCI, who then offered me a place in a Masters programme with a PHD opportunity afterwards.

The cost for the year was €10,000 for the Masters and then a further €10,00 for the PHD. The course was not eligible for government subsidy due to it being outside some specific time of the year, and I couldn't qualify for a grant, mentioned above.

Not all courses and colleges and subsidised by the government, and the "mainstream" universities and colleges provide broad generic courses in order to maintain student numbers, they don't offer special niché courses specific people may want to undertake for specific careers.

Well I'm wondering why she didn't qualify for the free-fees initiative? And by 'some reason', I was thinking she either did a course before and dropped out or else she is studying at a private 3rd-level college. If she does study at a private 3rd -level college, that was her choice and she would of been fully aware that she couldn't get public support with paying her private tuition fees. Your comment about universities not providing niché courses is untrue, what about Biomedical Science, Pharmacy, etc? Private 3rd-level colleges may have niché courses but have absolutely no reputation.

TheDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I'm wondering why she didn't qualify for the free-fees initiative? And by 'some reason', I was thinking she either did a course before and dropped out or else she is studying at a private 3rd-level college. If she does study at a private 3rd -level college, that was her choice and she would of been fully aware that she couldn't get public support with paying her private tuition fees. Your comment about universities not providing niché courses is untrue, what about Biomedical Science, Pharmacy, etc? Private 3rd-level colleges may have niché courses but have absolutely no reputation.

The university in question was included within the scheme, otherwise they would have just said at the first port of call " This university isnt covered under government grants". The university saw fit to hand over the paperwork, and the department saw fit to process it for review.

And I stand by my comment on course provisions y major institutions, as many independant studies and reports have indicated in the last 7 years, that our mainstream universities offer broad courses for "high employment" industries, with it being sighted that course material is most often then not out of date, requiring an 18 month industry consulted review, not the current 3 year review performed by academics only, but that is changing.

For the record, she studied theatrical makeup and special effects. Its pretty niche...

miss no stars

Louthdrog wrote: »

Was at a 21st Saturday night and a friend arrived to the table with €170 worth of shots. I later found out that his new found wealth was due the student grant coming through for him the day before.
Made me fairly angry. My family lies just above the line for the grant "on paper" but it has taken an almighty effort from my parents, my granny and myself to get me into my final year of college. A grant would go a seriously long way.
Also remember a girl in my class proudly boasting that her grant in first year was used to pay off the remainder of the loan on her brand new volkswagon golf. Something really needs to change about it all.

I lost it at one of the girls in college once over something similar. Well, maybe not lost it but certainly got snappy. She was going on about how great the grant was and it paid for her car and her parents were paying her accommodation and food so any money she made from her weekend job could just go on her. It was sickening, I actually said to her "you do know that the taxes of parents like mine, whose children don't get grants, parents like mine who can't afford to pay for accommodation so 3-4 hour daily commutes are the only option for their children, who are technically above the grant line but clearly have nowhere near the spending power of your parents, they're the people funding your grant, and you spent it on a car?". I had to ask her never to mention her fcuking grant near me again.

No, the grant system is not fair.

I don't think I should have gotten a grant, sure I got through without one didn't I?

I don't think that most students who get grants should get them as, with the exception of a very small number, most from my class pissed it away on nights out.

If we're going to assess students on their parents' means, then of course the parents' savings should be accounted for. I actually thought they were, a friend of mine was denied a grant and was told it was because his mother had too much in the bank. The state says that parents are assumed to be responsible for their kids until they leave education or hit 23, in that case the parents' ability to pay for college, savings and all, should be assessed.

This would be so much better if we could get a student loan system like in the UK, then there'd be no need for grants as students could get their own funding and pay it back once they're earning.

jam_mac_jam

randylonghorn wrote: »

I love the way people talk about "farmers" as if farmer was a homogenous job description with a set pay-scale!

For Dublin people in particular, their perceptions of farming are often set by the areas of Louth / North Dublin / parts of Meath and Kildare, with a fair proportion of large farms, with the land quality and weather fairly conducive to tillage and to large-scale stock, and the size and economies of scale and proximity to a large market (Dublin) to make relatively high profits. This proximity also allowed many of them to profit from selling sites for the housing boom during the Celtic Tiger.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the area is an aberration in Irish farming, but it certainly doesn't reflect the norm around the country, and especially in the western half of the country, though I would agree that there are other pockets of large farmers with good land in other parts of the country with different specialisms who also make good money.

And there's the middle group, reasonable land, reasonably sized farms, reasonable income, but they'll never be rich in the cash sense.

And the third group, the small farmers, or those with decent enough sized farms but poor enough soil, or a portion of the farm is hill or marsh or bog or whatever. If they're reliant entirely on the farm income they're scraping by at best, and often not even that. In most cases, they're not entirely reliant on the farm income any more, because they can't afford to be: they're part-time farmers, with a full-time or part-time job during the day and they farm part-time, i.e. in the early mornings, the evenings and the weekends. Or they farm full-time and their partner has a job. Or given the current economic mess, they *had* a job, they don't any more, and they're in trouble.

I don't have stats for each group, and tbh I cba going mining for them among Teagasc and DAF reports, but I would estimate that that first group is <10% of Irish farmers (though they certainly represent / own a fair bit more than 10% of Irish farm *land*).

And there are also a small group of outliers, many of them now ex-farmers, who were lucky enough to have land on the edge of cities / large towns during the housing boom and in a position to realise their assets / sell up completely for very large sums indeed. But it's a very small group who made the huge profits. Hopefully, they invested it wisely. Despite all the media attention they got from time to time, they no more represent the average farmer than Fitzpatrick or Quinn or Drumm represent the average private sector worker.

I would agree though that farmers are doing better overall than they were 5 / 10 years ago, relatively speaking. This is partly due to an upsurge in agriculture and agricultural prices (which is probably cyclical and transient, it usually is) but mostly ... and here's the kick in the tail ... because 5 / 10 years ago most people in the PAYE sector were doing much better than they are now (because that's who that "relatively" is usually measured against). It doesn't really represent that big a jump in the average income of the small to medium farmer; it represents a serious fall in the average income of the rest of us!


(p.s. I'm not a farmer by the way, nor are any of my immediate family involved in farming)

Sorry, I don't mean to sound as if I am focusing on farmers, I actually think that the self employed probubly have more money than most farmers. I am well aware that there are small farmers or medium who are in need of the grant.

miss no stars

miss no stars wrote: »

She was going on about how great the grant was and it paid for her car and her parents were paying her accommodation and food so any money she made from her weekend job could just go on her. It was sickening, I actually said to her "you do know that the taxes of parents like mine, whose children don't get grants, parents like mine who can't afford to pay for accommodation so 3-4 hour daily commutes are the only option for their children, who are technically above the grant line but clearly have nowhere near the spending power of your parents, they're the people funding your grant, and you spent it on a car?". I had to ask her never to mention her fcuking grant near me again.

What ever about anything else I would strongly disagree with bringing money students earned from summer/part-time work into it. This is money they are earning themselves to spend and it should have nothing to do with whether they get the grant a not. Its also not guaranteed income as the job could be lost or may have to be given up for exams/final year etc.

miss no stars

Sloan Proud Mourner wrote: »

What ever about anything else I would strongly disagree with bringing money students earned from summer/part-time work into it. This is money they are earning themselves to spend and it should have nothing to do with whether they get the grant a not. Its also not guaranteed income as the job could be lost or may have to be given up for exams/final year etc.

Em, I was just recounting what she was saying? Why it angered me was as follows: Her parents were paying for all her college related expenses. A car is a luxury, not a necessity and so, just like living the high life, the grant should not be funding it. She wanted a car and if the weekend job was funding it, happy days. But the weekend job was funding her drinking whilst the grant funded her car. Or in other words, the grant was facilitating her having the luxury of a car so that any other money could be spent on drink and other luxuries. Like, what a nice lifestyle to have at the expense of the state.


Here's an idea. Audit students in receipt of the grant. Stipulate that grant money is to be used only in payment of rent (or commuting costs, where renting is not necessary), food, books and photocopying & stationary and may not be used to facilitate spending on luxuries such as holidays and cars. Before the start of the next academic year, audit them. If they've managed to keep cars running and go away on trips and the like then I'm sorry, they don't need the grant. Give it to someone who does. Would potentially be difficult to catch those who drank the money, but it'd be a start to get those buying cars with it :mad:

Cian92

TheDoc wrote: »

For the record, she studied theatrical makeup and special effects. Its pretty niche...

I agreed with you 100% untill this point. The government really shouldn't be funding a wishy washy course such as theatrical makeup and special effects...

Sloan Proud Mourner wrote: »

What ever about anything else I would strongly disagree with bringing money students earned from summer/part-time work into it. This is money they are earning themselves to spend and it should have nothing to do with whether they get the grant a not. Its also not guaranteed income as the job could be lost or may have to be given up for exams/final year etc.

Why the hell shouldn't it be included? Those of us who don't get the grant have to work dam hard and don't have the luxury of being able to give up our job for exams :rolleyes:

On top of this why should the money be for them to spend, I work to pay my fees and expenses related to getting to college buying books etc. I don't think because somebody on the grant works that they should be allowed use their job to finance nights out in the pub and holidays....

Really the grant should be cut further to encourage people to actually get part-time jobs (you can't expect taxpayers like myself and my parents to finance your life).

miss no stars

miss no stars wrote: »

Em, I was just recounting what she was saying? Why it angered me was as follows: Her parents were paying for all her college related expenses. A car is a luxury, not a necessity


Here's an idea. Audit students in receipt of the grant. Stipulate that grant money is to be used only in payment of rent (or commuting costs, where renting is not necessary),

Paying for a car in order to commute to college is no different to paying rent in my opinion. A car is not a luxury any more, it is a necessity for a lot of people who commute into college from the country where there is in most cases no other form of transport or if its there its totally inadequate.

Cian92 wrote: »

Why the hell shouldn't it be included? Those of us who don't get the grant have to work dam hard and don't have the luxury of being able to give up our job for exams :rolleyes:

On top of this why should the money be for them to spend, I work to pay my fees and expenses related to getting to college buying books etc. I don't think because somebody on the grant works that they should be allowed use their job to finance nights out in the pub and holidays....

Really the grant should be cut further to encourage people to actually get part-time jobs (you can't expect taxpayers like myself and my parents to finance your life).

Where did I say that I got the grant? I never even applied for a grant as I wouldn't have got it in a fit. I worked summers and weekends, but my parents wouldn't allow me to use my own money to pay for registration fees and other college expenses (which there were very few) as they were of the opinion that this was my money to live a relatively comfortable and enjoyable life while in university. I paid for running my car as I commuted, food while at college clothes and nights out etc out of my wages.

I also didn't work around exam time and almost totally stopped working during final year to concentrate on my studies and as I said never got a sniff of a grant.

It would be almost impossible to use what students earn in part time work against them anyway as most work cash in hand with no record of it.

miss no stars

Sloan Proud Mourner wrote: »

Paying for a car in order to commute to college is no different to paying rent in my opinion. A car is not a luxury any more, it is a necessity for a lot of people who commute into college from the country where there is in most cases no other form of transport or if its there its totally inadequate.

I'm gonna just assume you didn't see it so I'll repeat. Her parents paid for her accommodation and food. She wasn't commuting. She was living in Dublin. Clear? So yes, in those circumstances, a car is a luxury. And most people I know who commuted did NOT use a car as without a grant they couldn't afford one. They took public transport and spent an age each morning and evening getting to and from college. Oh and it doesn't count as commuting when you go home for the weekend, that's going home for the weekend. Again, a huge chunk of people who do that do so by public transport or getting lifts with friends. Not by using your grant to pay for a car. (Oh, what makes it more ridiculous is that she took the bus up and down from Dublin. The car was a complete unnecessary luxury and that's what the grant was spent on).

miss no stars

miss no stars wrote: »

I'm gonna just assume you didn't see it so I'll repeat. Her parents paid for her accommodation and food. She wasn't commuting. She was living in Dublin. Clear? So yes, in those circumstances, a car is a luxury. And most people I know who commuted did NOT use a car as without a grant they couldn't afford one. They took public transport and spent an age each morning and evening getting to and from college. Oh and it doesn't count as commuting when you go home for the weekend, that's going home for the weekend. Again, a huge chunk of people who do that do so by public transport or getting lifts with friends. Not by using your grant to pay for a car. (Oh, what makes it more ridiculous is that she took the bus up and down from Dublin. The car was a complete unnecessary luxury and that's what the grant was spent on).

Apologies, I missed the bit where you said she had accommodation also, I assumed she was commuting.