Free college fees? Should they be scrapped?

ToddyDoody

I'm all for it. No more pressure to do well in the leaving, no more college etc. Only problem, would need to bring in conscription as a means of getting some youngsters out into the world.

steddyeddy

K-9 wrote: »

Just on the free fees thing, as somebody who the grant system and the free fee system meant little too, it meant no difference, I'm still stunned at this total belief that the new system is so much better.

Can anybody explain to me how the free fees system benefits the disadvantaged more than a grant system, the disadvantaged still get free frees anyway?

I meant to reply to you ealrier so sorry about that. I was arguing on the other thread with someone linking free fees to a drop in standard. The free fees idea I dont actually feel strongly about. If free fees remained for those in disadvantaged areas then I have no problem getting rid of them. It might even improve things.

twinQuins

melekalikimaka wrote: »

because its not needed by anyone to survive. irish people just THINK its a right, especially student activists

Neither is second level education - if we're going by the strict definition of 'survival' you use here - and yet you believe that is a right, if my reading of your earlier post is correct.

Am I missing something?

steddyeddy

Social mobility in my view is a right for everybody.

melekalikimaka

twinQuins wrote: »

Neither is second level education - if we're going by the strict definition of 'survival' you use here - and yet you believe that is a right, if my reading of your earlier post is correct.

Am I missing something?

no i guess second level isnt a right either. Third level education is something that in most countries is not covered by the state, no one is going to die from not having a degree, you can have a great quality of life without a degree. i fail to see how anyone can justify third level education being covered fully or partially by the state as a right

Muir

melekalikimaka wrote: »

no i guess second level isnt a right either. Third level education is something that in most countries is not covered by the state, no one is going to die from not having a degree, you can have a great quality of life without a degree. i fail to see how anyone can justify third level education being covered fully or partially by the state as a right

Many in Europe do. Our "free" fees are €2500 I think now? More expensive than most of Europe.

melekalikimaka

Muir wrote: »

Many in Europe do. Our "free" fees are €2500 I think now? More expensive than most of Europe.

2500 is more expensive than most of europe? Some european countries have free frees yes, but do they also have crippling debt hanging over them, I supported fees when we as a country could afford it... not anymore, likewise with healthcare

magicherbs

melekalikimaka wrote: »

2500 is more expensive than most of europe? Some european countries have free frees yes, but do they also have crippling debt hanging over them, I supported fees when we as a country could afford it... not anymore, likewise with healthcare

what exactly do you think paye taxes should be spent on? other than roads and police?

you seem to be highly influenced by american dogma with your regards to healthcare and education. are you also in favour of more liberal gun laws?

Muir

Yes, it is. But we don't actually have free fees, and as I said earlier, if people can't afford to go to college then they go on the dole. Which is more expensive. Fees get paid back when the graduate gets a job.

Podgerz

Boombastic wrote: »

University tuition fees for undergraduates were abolished in Ireland in 1996


I think she did her undergraduate long before this so probably had to pay fees:)

Whelan studied politics and sociology at University College Galway, before switching to law,[2] and gained a Masters Degree from the University of London.[3] She was called to the bar in 1985, and was appointed as senior counsel in 2005.

Fair point, but if someone similar was in her shoes today, you get the idea

hatrickpatrick

melekalikimaka wrote: »

not third level. and not for free

I've never actually seen anyone explain this: On what basis and by what criteria are you differentiating between second and third level? Why should the former be free and not the latter, exactly?

Annasopra

MadYaker wrote: »

This free fees thing is misleading. Its not free my parents pay €2750 registration per year for me and the same for my sister. That €5500 per year to put us through college and were both doing 4 year degrees. I know it would be a lot more if the government didn't chip in about €8000 per year on top of that but its still not free.

I have a part time job and don't live at home so I'm not as much of a drain on their income as my sister is but its still a lot. And neither of us qualify for any grants from anywhere.

Your parents can claim tax relief on the fees.

Annasopra

K-9 wrote: »

Also under the old system those who paid could get a tax rebate through the covenant system so that takes care of the "I pay a fortune in tax" argument, yep, you'll get a tax refund based on your marginal rate of tax, we actually still have something similar for certain courses.

Free fees saved the taxpayer an absolute fortune because we were no longer subsidising that covenant system.

When I went to college first the registration fees were £150

jank

mango salsa wrote: »

Free fees saved the taxpayer an absolute fortune because we were no longer subsidising that covenant system.
When I went to college first the registration fees were £150

Can you expand on that?

jank

magicherbs wrote: »

what exactly do you think paye taxes should be spent on? other than roads and police?

you seem to be highly influenced by american dogma with your regards to healthcare and education. are you also in favour of more liberal gun laws?

I love it when someone interjects a bit of pragmatism (its not like we are bankrupt or anything..) and they get labelled as an extreme right-wing nut job. So, how is Pol Pot these days? :cool:

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not complaining about anything. I come from a disadvantaged area and I'm in college so I have nothing to complain about. A poster on another thread was complaining about free fees and I thought some of his points warrented discussion.

My last post is here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82955135&postcount=273

But like K-9 I will copy it here to make it easier to continue the discussion in once place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy
. I’m not anti-rich (I’ll be one of them one day)I just think it’seasier for a rich dumb kid to get into college than a poor dumb kid.

Why would either be going to college? Free fees has helped the middle class kids go to college when they shouldn't be there anyway. That doesn't mean that we should send working class dumb kids to college to "balance" it all up! Dumb is dumb no matter what your economic status or class.

The rest of the post is mute as I said numerous times that free fees should be scraped and replaced with a scholarship scheme for those that cannot pay. Invest the rest in primary education. Free fees does nothing for people in disadvantaged areas when they struggle to learn how to read, never mind get a good leaving cert.

K-9 has posted a link which gives an insight to what I have been saying all along. Free fees is a middle class tax break and does nothing for those in disadvantaged areas, which was my point from day one.

K-9

Muir wrote: »

Means tested grant system wasn't any use to me. And no, my family is not on a good income. 50-100 over the limit (when the insane amounts of tax paid aren't even considered). I had to seek help from other sources or I would have ended up needing to drop out.

If you pay high tax you'll get 41% tax relief on fees paid, that was the old system.

You get zilch on the €2,500 registration fee and more to come. Other courses do get tax relief for some God knows what reason, they thought it up 15 years ago and never updated it.

K-9

Muir wrote: »

Yes, it is. But we don't actually have free fees, and as I said earlier, if people can't afford to go to college then they go on the dole. Which is more expensive. Fees get paid back when the graduate gets a job.

Nope, you still get a grant, there is little difference in what the disadvantaged got under the old system to the old. I wish middle and upper class posters who've no clue about what the system was 20 years ago would stop pretending this is in the interest of the disadvantaged.

mango salsa wrote: »

Your parents can claim tax relief on the fees.

Nope they can't.

mango salsa wrote: »

Free fees saved the taxpayer an absolute fortune because we were no longer subsidising that covenant system.

When I went to college first the registration fees were £150

I paid that too.

So a 48% or so Tax relief deduction is now cheaper than a 100% deduction?

Scruffles

in own view,courses shoud be free for foundation education or employment courses for learning disabled,& mainstream basic adult education and life skills,however there shoud be a course loan available for anything else,make it interest free and paid back after the person is making x amount of money.

higher education is a choice it isnt needed for people to have a great quality of life assuming the jobs are there, and today so many people have degrees but have never actualy had use for them because so many are doing them it has raised the threshold for quality.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Listen Larraine dealt with this perfectly but I have to add my two cents because this lack of thought is very hurtful and insulting to some people. The attitude also is part of what convinces kids from disadvantaged areas that they don’t deserve college. People coming from disadvantaged areas have a completely different run up to the leaving cert than other most other people do. Some people in these areas also have terrible home lives and are sometimes criticised for aspiring for college by their families!

What Larraine says regarding schools in these areas are bang on the money. I went to one. We had maybe one teacher that cared and she was a substitute teacher. The rest didn’t give two fecks about the kids in the school. We had no chance, confidence or education other than the ones we gave ourselves by extra-curricular reading. Several students came from rough homes and had to study at friends or at the library every daylight hour. Myself and a few others made it because we did a lot or extra-curricular reading but a lot of more intelligent people than me didn’t. Too boil it down to the leaving cert being the only decider as to whether people get into college is frankly very stupid.


Environment plays the most important part in deciding academic ability. A person who gets into college coming from a school in the worst area of Dublin is after making a far greater achievement than someone who comes from the top school in the country. If you doubt that environment plays a role in ability to do well academically I would be happy to send you some neuroscience papers that back it up. I’m sorry to bring science into things again but I find it dispels stigma beautifully.

You target the fees saved from giving the Michael O'Learys and McDowell's free fees, and instead target it at schools in Kilbarrack, Coolock etc.

This is a perfect example of putting down the political rhetoric, put that political ideology away, nothing to see here folks.

I've had disagreements on private education and other stuff with posters on this thread that agree with me, amazing we all still see the benefit in scrapping advantages for the wealthy on this specific issue and help the disadvantaged. We disagree strongly on other education issues, I don't see the benefit in the state subsidising private education, others do.

But still they see the stupidity of subsidising high wealth individuals childrens third level education and pretending it benefits the disadvantaged.

melekalikimaka

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've never actually seen anyone explain this: On what basis and by what criteria are you differentiating between second and third level? Why should the former be free and not the latter, exactly?

I have explained this, and Scruffles has already covered this too.

animaal

I come at this from a slightly different angle.

Ideally, there should be no third level fees for anybody. If public funding of third level isn't available (i.e. like now), the next best solution is a loan system where all students will pay later, when they're earning. The income tax system exists to redistribute people's incomes. After paying their taxes, people should be treated equally by the state.

Give the student the best possible opportunity to succeed in whatever course they're in. If somebody's in third-level "full time", then it should be full time. Having to work a part time job as well as attending a course and studying is counter productive. I know there are plenty of people who do it and succeed. I admire them. But even then, it can make the difference between getting through the course, and excelling at it. Society is investing in third-level education, whether there are fees or not. We should maximise what we get from the investment; i.e. the quality of the graduates.

I speak as somebody whose parents made big sacrifices back in the day, so that I could attend third level without needing a job to pay fees. I was lucky in that regard, and I benefited from it. And now I'd like to think that society benefits through my taxes etc.

Muir

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, you still get a grant, there is little difference in what the disadvantaged got under the old system to the old. I wish middle and upper class posters who've no clue about what the system was 20 years ago would stop pretending this is in the interest of the disadvantaged.



Nope they can't.



I paid that too.

So a 48% or so Tax relief deduction is now cheaper than a 100% deduction?

20 years ago my parents couldn't afford to send my older siblings to college. Now they can't afford to help me. So there's never been any system that helps people in a similar situation to my own family.

And mango salsa is correct, the person they quoted could get their parents to claim tax relief. If you pay more than the 2500 registration fee (eg. 2 children in college) then you can claim tax relief.

Boombastic

Children are not born ready to go to college. Parents have 18 years to save for this event. In or around €41,000 is the cut off for receiving the basic grant (fees paid only). If parents on this wage can not afford to send their children to college, it's because they have prioritised other things over their childs education.

Even with free fees, housing and living expenses need to be paid and they should have budgeted for this over the years

Nothing wrong with taking a year or two out to work and save for college, if it's really your goal
Nothing wrong with having a part time job to fund your college yourself


Disadvantaged children are not included in this. I linked to study earlier and there are others out there that indicate that free fees do not encourage more disadvantaged children in to college - this work needs to be done in Secondary school.

Boombastic

Boombastic wrote: »

Nothing wrong with taking a year or two out to work and save for college, if it's really your goal

Indeed, work for a few years and go back to college later with a few euro saved up. Don't need to go to college straight away at 16/17/18 etc

jjbrien

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I dont think 1st year should be free as it has the highest amount of drop outs. People out of school can try and get a job for a year and save up. Plus they will be more matured by an extra year and might have more of an idea in what they want to do. If people had to pay for it themselves then they would be more likely not to take it for granted and work harder.

I would say about 40% of my course has already virtually dropped out and a lot of them are just going through the motions, keeping their parents happy etc.

The university i went to gave us incentives to stay in past year one. In year one they gave us a bursary of 300, year 2 they gave us 1000 and year 3 1300

jjbrien

bluewolf wrote: »

Indeed, work for a few years and go back to college later with a few euro saved up. Don't need to go to college straight away at 16/17/18 etc

What jobs are there to do that?

If you have no skills then theres little or no work to be had in this country. If your suggesting to go outside the state to Australia or Canada for a few years you loose entitlements to free fees and other benefits that are available so the students would be in a very bad position and would end up paying non EU fees which are very high

Boombastic

jjbrien wrote: »

What jobs are there to do that?

If you have no skills then theres little or no work to be had in this country. If your suggesting to go outside the state to Australia or Canada for a few years you loose entitlements to free fees and other benefits that are available so the students would be in a very bad position and would end up paying non EU fees which are very high

Stay within the EU, Australia and Canada aren't the only options

Iwasfrozen

bluewolf wrote: »

Indeed, work for a few years and go back to college later with a few euro saved up. Don't need to go to college straight away at 16/17/18 etc

What work? You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Kinski

Fees should definitely be brought back for Arts courses. Like what does studying say music for four years contribute to the economy? Students need to study tech courses, and seek jobs at top multinationals like Apple, where they can work on products like the iPod and never mind about frivolous stuff like music.:pac:

Volvic12

Apologies if this has been sent before but I believe the following should happen:

Fees should not be free. It's simply bad Economics. I 100% understand that it's very easy for me to say Students should pay fees considering I got pretty much free fees when I was in college 5 years ago.

What I propose:
All students should be able to attain interest free loans from the bank / government which have to be paid in full within ten years of receiving the loan.

For example; if Arts course costs €4500 yearly, then students should be entitled to received this amount from Bank / Government to pay for course.
Obviously, richer people will be able to pay for courses straight off and will not require loan.
I understand that the low-middle class families will require these loans so some may say it puts them at a disadvantage - that is a fair point. My reply would be, they are receiving same opportunites to attend college albeit they will have a burden of debt hanging over them for a few years.

Positives:
It would reduce our budget deficit dramatically.
Increased Efficiency - students wouldn't be messing around in college and dropping out after a year. You would find if people are spending their own money, they will in general get their moneys worth.

Interested to hear anyones opinion on this?

jjbrien

Volvic12 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been sent before but I believe the following should happen:

Fees should not be free. It's simply bad Economics. I 100% understand that it's very easy for me to say Students should pay fees considering I got pretty much free fees when I was in college 5 years ago.

What I propose:
All students should be able to attain interest free loans from the bank / government which have to be paid in full within ten years of receiving the loan.

For example; if Arts course costs €4500 yearly, then students should be entitled to received this amount from Bank / Government to pay for course.
Obviously, richer people will be able to pay for courses straight off and will not require loan.
I understand that the low-middle class families will require these loans so some may say it puts them at a disadvantage - that is a fair point. My reply would be, they are receiving same opportunites to attend college albeit they will have a burden of debt hanging over them for a few years.

Positives:
It would reduce our budget deficit dramatically.
Increased Efficiency - students wouldn't be messing around in college and dropping out after a year. You would find if people are spending their own money, they will in general get their moneys worth.

Interested to hear anyones opinion on this?

Well it wont reduce our budget deficit by much at all. Look at the UK. I went to university in Liverpool so I know what im talking about here. When they brought in fees in the UK it didn't increase efficiency in the Universitys there. At first the fees when they brought them in were only 1000 per year now they are 9000 sterling which any student going into university now would be saddled with 27000 pounds of debt which would take a lifetime to pay back. There is no guarentees of them getting this money back either if a student emmigrates the country and doesnt come back then the goverment never gets the money back.

At the moment Ireland has a brain drain which is very harmful to the economy. I think there should not be fees. Its hard enough to get into college without having to pay fees. Education and skills are our only way out of the mess this country is in.

What the government should be doing is trying to get the ex builders etc who are on the dole back into full time education which will bring unemployment down produce more skilled people and then kick start the economy. When they come out of college there should be graduate programs available which companies can avail of these newly educated people and create jobs. The companies in turn should be given tax and prsi breaks for hiring someone on a scheme like this. It would be a win win for all then. Unemployment goes down means less dole and other benefits paid out.... Unemployed person has a degree, skills, a job and a sense of pride and the company wins also which in turn would get the economy going.

sock puppet

jjbrien wrote: »

Well it wont reduce our budget deficit by much at all. Look at the UK. I went to university in Liverpool so I know what im talking about here. When they brought in fees in the UK it didn't increase efficiency in the Universitys there. At first the fees when they brought them in were only 1000 per year now they are 9000 sterling which any student going into university now would be saddled with 27000 pounds of debt which would take a lifetime to pay back.

Every increase in tuition fees in the UK has been coupled with a reduction in government funding. Nothing to do with universities getting more expensive or less efficient

K-9

Muir wrote: »

20 years ago my parents couldn't afford to send my older siblings to college. Now they can't afford to help me. So there's never been any system that helps people in a similar situation to my own family.

And mango salsa is correct, the person they quoted could get their parents to claim tax relief. If you pay more than the 2500 registration fee (eg. 2 children in college) then you can claim tax relief.

Well that's a fair point and I wasn't saying the old system was perfect, just I don't accept this idea that scrapping free fees is some attack on the disadvantaged when we'd have free fees for them anyway. Wasn't aware about the €2,500, all of it should be tax deductible to me, it's just a sham way of introducing them if they keep on increasing.

CatEyed92

Another thing that should be done away with : PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS - they are the biggest joke going!!!

A_Sober_Paddy

LostCorkGuy wrote: »

Nope , too many people graduating as it is , we need more people doing manual work / manufacturing work and not pencil pushers and until they can bring in a more just barrier to entry so that only the people who deserve to be in Uni are there we need the cost factor as a deterrent

People from disadvantaged area's already get grants ect
As for the statment that people just drink their way through college ? Well that's a load of bollox , you've to work your ass off in college just to pass in my experience (I'm a repeat student paying 6K this year , Granted I'm studying Mandarin and naturally will have to work harder than a English Lit major , but I can tell you I worked hard enough last year , only going out once a week and I didn't pass , this business of thinking college is a doss is just stupid )

Well i pretty much drank my way through college, did more study for my LC than for college, still came out with a 2.1

Siuin

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Well i pretty much drank my way through college, did more study for my LC than for college, still came out with a 2.1

Ironic username

Muir

K-9 wrote: »

Well that's a fair point and I wasn't saying the old system was perfect, just I don't accept this idea that scrapping free fees is some attack on the disadvantaged when we'd have free fees for them anyway. Wasn't aware about the €2,500, all of it should be tax deductible to me, it's just a sham way of introducing them if they keep on increasing.

I'm not even against something like a loan system, I actually voted for it when the Students Union asked students to vote on which system we thought would be best. But when in a country that can't even implement a grant system properly (I know people who haven't been paid until finishing college in the summer) how would they ever sort out a loan system.

I think if it's a grant system then it needs to be based on available income and not before considering taxes etc. I know people who get the grant because they live with a step parent who supports them but they don't have to include the income of the step parent. And then people like me who are 50-100 over the limit and get no grant.

& you're right, it is a sham way to introduce them again while still calling them free fees. Sometimes I wonder is it a way to cause conflict, like obviously some people paying tax don't want it to go to students and by saying students get free fees (implying they pay nothing) the people who don't like it get more annoyed. Or people paying a household charge getting annoyed at renters who might not have to pay. Just a divide and conquer sort of thing.

Also, people saying about getting jobs etc. Seriously? There aren't the jobs out there. It is also easier to remain within the education system. And on top of that, if you were going to take a few years out, you could go on the dole and get BTEA and possibly rent allowance, and then get a grant. If you encourage people not to go straight to college, and there are no jobs (which there aren't, 2 years experience to work as a waitress or in a coffee shop and a few hundred to do a barista course if you want to try & get the skills for the job) then they will take a few years out & get it paid for.

KamiKazeKitten

CatEyed92 wrote: »

Another thing that should be done away with : PRIVATE SECONDARY SCHOOLS - they are the biggest joke going!!!

Why should they be?

A_Sober_Paddy

Siuin wrote: »

Ironic username

Have since cut back my drinking, to like 10 times in 2012, and zero in 2013 thus far:P

Herb Powell

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i paid 5,500 fees for 4 years, myself, worked part time and saved in the summer, luckily I lived at home. Just bring in a loan system like the UK, then everyone is happy, we cant afford to be subsidising the luxuries of third level education, have a look at how many countries actually do.

A disgusting sense of self entitlement in this country still.

Some people will never learn

melekalikimaka wrote: »

tbh i think its irish peoples sense of entitlement thats banjaxed

You keep calling out the self-entitlement of people, but can you really be surprised when college is constantly pushed as the be-all and end-all from an early age?

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

My last post is here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82955135&postcount=273

But like K-9 I will copy it here to make it easier to continue the discussion in once place.

Hey Jank I owe you a reply. After seeing various points of view on this and the other thread I have no problem with the removal of free fees but I would be against removal of free fees for disadvatnaged groups. I'm not sure that free fees caused the drop in standard but you make an interesting argument.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hey Jank I owe you a reply. After seeing various points of view on this and the other thread I have no problem with the removal of free fees but I would be against removal of free fees for disadvatnaged groups. I'm not sure that free fees caused the drop in standard but you make an interesting argument.

As I said, scholarships for those that can and want to go.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

As I said, scholarships for those that can and want to go.

Well as long as the backgrounds and "help" recieved by some students is taken into account. You cannot judge people on the leaving cert alone. It would be like a 100 metre run where all the athletes had differing amount of help from coaches and access to training facilitites and then all ran the same 100 metres. You would not get an accurate representation of true ability.

steddyeddy

In defense of the arts I have to offer my two cents. They are not just for rich kids in search of an easy degree. Throughout my years I have taken 6 electives in total (2 each for the first three years and in fourth year we dont take electives). Arts is not something I could do. It takes a lot of work dedication and research to complete an arts degree.