Third level: Is it a privellege or a right?

Chemical Burn

A lot of my friends are very left wing and see a third level education as a God-Given right, even if the course that they are choosing will have no economic benefit whatsoever. Some of them are doing arts degrees, that will not get a job afterwards, namely, religion and literature (or some equally non beneficial course). OK, you can get good teaching job from it.

A rudimentary standard of education, up to Leaving Cert level is a right, but after that it isn't. Why is there such a sense of entitlement? Why should people who leave school / college and work their fingers to the bone to build up a nice empire / business fund someone to go to college and live off the grand / get pissed off it.

Leaving cert and school will give you a head start in life and make sure you are not exploited and get decent work, but I don't think that college should be a right. You can afford it, or you can't end of.

galwayrush

So simple,:rolleyes: So if we can't fill college places with intelligent rich kids, the thicker rich kids can fill the remaining places because they can afford it.

orestes

You don't consider studying arts/humanities to be of benefit? Education, in any form, is always a good thing and is always beneficial.

Access to colleges/universities should be available to everybody and anybody, to study whatever they want to study. Obviously it's not possible to do that for free, but I think the current system is a very good one that makes further education for almost anybody who wants to pursue it (of course other factors can affect people, I'm just talking generally).

Why should a person be denied an education purely because their family can't afford it? The days of rich kids swanning off to college while poor kids are chucked into the workforce are thankfully behind us. The vast majority of people are going to spend the rest of their lives paying back in taxes many times the cost of their education.

vetinari

See how many jobs you're qualified for these days without a third level degree and come back with your answer.

Right

I think that in Ireland at this point in time, everyone should get one shot at college, even if it's a course they're doing purely for personal development.

That said, I do see it as a privilege, not a right. It's just that it's a privilege that's beneficial to society which I think we can afford if you weigh up the pros and cons.

I certainly think it's a good idea that if you want to go back a second or third time you have to pay full fees though.

southsiderosie

I wouldn't call it a right, but it shouldn't be limited to those who can afford it. Just because you have money doesn't mean you are smart.

Peregrine

It's a right earned in school, not bought with money, not born with it and it's definitely not for anyone to walk in and claim with feck all second level achievements.

Bears and Vodka

Right

Chemical Burn wrote: »

A lot of my friends are very left wing and see a third level education as a God-Given right, even if the course that they are choosing will have no economic benefit whatsoever. Some of them are doing arts degrees, that will not get a job afterwards, namely, religion and literature (or some equally non beneficial course). OK, you can get good teaching job from it.

You're looking at the issue from a purely economic perspective. I don't think that's right, because if we were to follow your logic, hundreds of courses would be discontinued. Every academic discipline, whether it's philosophy, literature, or theology benefits society in its own way.

Jack Lumber

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

It's a right earned in school, not bought with money, not born with it and it's definitely not for anyone to walk in and claim with feck all second level achievements.

What are you on about?

Plenty of people that did poorly in secondary school have gone on and got themselves degrees. What a utterly stupid thing to say.

Czarcasm

It's a privilege, and IMO should be considered a privilege, a third level education should be the reward for having put in the work to get there if you're passionate and determined enough and interested enough in the subjects you want to pursue.

Having it as a "right" means all too often that too many people just see it as a rite of passage, and therefore pursue courses they have little or no interest in, which ultimately leads to failure from having been allowed to take their right for granted.

Bears and Vodka

Right

Jack Lumber wrote: »

What are you on about?

Plenty of people that did poorly in secondary school have gone on and got themselves degrees. What a utterly stupid thing to say.

Well under the de facto system there is certain meritocracy over admissions to third-level. The most typical is CAO points - you need so many points to go to a certain course and fulfill some subject requirements. If you're going through the mature student route, you still have to show some aptitude before being allowed in.

Frank Black

Nobody should be prevented from accessing third level education because they can't afford it.
But people who access that education should contribute towards it, either through fees or additional taxation for a period after qualification.

super_furry

It should be available and open to everyone who proves they have the ability to benefit from it.

Pilotdude5

The problem is these days people go to college just to get a degree in "something"

They couldn't give a flying **** what its in just as long as they get their level 8.

When people with sales experience but no 4 year degree cant apply for graduate sales positions and Zoology grads with no sale experience can you know you have a broken system.

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

Peregrine

Jack Lumber wrote: »

What are you on about?

Plenty of people that did poorly in secondary school have gone on and got themselves degrees. What a utterly stupid thing to say.

Define "poorly"

Obviously if they did well enough for the certain degree, that's fair enough. But I don't think one can do nothing in secondary school and still be allowed to claim third level as a "right" which can't happen at the moment and that's good.

Laura_lolly87

in 2004 it was €750 to go to college for a year, in September it will be €2,500. I work my ass off to put myself through college but how many people can afford to pay €2,500+, without even taking in living expenses. Not everyone gets a grant and for those of us who don't its hard to afford.

hatrickpatrick

A rudimentary standard of education, up to Leaving Cert level is a right, but after that it isn't.

Why not, exactly? What's the difference? Never understood this argument to be honest, either education is a right or it isn't.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Right

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not, exactly? What's the difference? Never understood this argument to be honest, either education is a right or it isn't.

are masters and phd's a right too?

Catkins407

It's not exactly a right. You have to have a certain level of academic achievement to get in and you have to maintain it to continue. That's true for mature students too. You have to maintain a high level of academic achievement to continue and progress. Art and literature are very valid degrees and I for one love new artists work and new novels. I like the people with literature degrees who proffered read and ghost write too. Plus many people actually go into it to teach. Just because you are ignorant of certain subjects doesn't mean they are worthless. No my degrees are not in either of those areas before you ask . Just because you deem a leaving cert to be good enough for poor or low income families doesn't mean it's a fact. Imagine a world where all our people in areas of power all come from the same wealthy backgrounds with no other perspective in life but that. No diversity or knowing what it's like to be hungry or cold or what it's like to loose your home. This same world would be pretty short on artists or novels or understanding of the works of the masters like Rubens. Maybe we should deny healthcare too unless you can afford it. Why not keep everything in the hands of the rich for now and future generations .

Peregrine

Laura_lolly87 wrote: »

in 2004 it was €750 to go to college for a year, in September it will be €2,500. I work my ass off to put myself through college but how many people can afford to pay €2,500+, without even taking in living expenses. Not everyone gets a grant and for those of us who don't its hard to afford.

I know non EU citizens who had been living here for 6 or 7 years with one working parent bringing in under 35 grand a year and managed to pay €7000+ a year for bachelor's degrees. Considering the government is still paying the massive tuition fees for EU students every year, the other €2,500 is the least people could do.

Bears and Vodka

Right

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

That's lunacy. Have you ever attended college yourself? What about the whole academic hierarchy of Bachelor degrees, MDs, phDs?

Just Like Heaven

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

If you're going through the mature student route, you still have to show some aptitude before being allowed in.

And so you should, but they were replying to somebody saying that third level ''definitely'' isn't for people if they don't have second level achievements, which is nonsense.

Frank Black

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

Sometimes I get disillusioned with life on Boards, seems like it's full of cranks and crazies.
Then, I read something like your post.
A considered, reasoned and unarguably presented proposal, that turns the last few millennia's thinking on education, on it's head!
Sir, I salute you.

Pilotdude5

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

That's lunacy. Have you ever attended college yourself? What about the whole academic hierarchy of Bachelor degrees, MDs, phDs?

I have. Get rid of all of them. Tomorrow.

Bears and Vodka

Right

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

I have. Get rid of all of them. Tomorrow.

What about the people who stay in college to do research and expand the academic frontiers? How do they distinguish among themselves? Not everyone goes to college to get a degree that will get them a job.

Peregrine

fewtinsoffroth wrote: »

And so you should, but they were replying to somebody saying that third level ''definitely'' isn't for people if they don't have second level achievements, which is nonsense.

Ah I wasn't really talking about mature students, I mean students who don't want to work in school and think they're getting into college next year cos it's a right.

Sorry I should have specified

Pilotdude5

Frank Black wrote: »

Sometimes I get disillusioned with life on Boards, seems like it's full of cranks and crazies.
Then, I read something like your post.
A considered, reasoned and unarguably presented proposal, that turns the last few millennia's thinking on education, on it's head!
Sir, I salute you.

But like I said the subject will be the same, same topics, same knowledge same everything. You just won't have people using it as a status.

They'll just have to admit they're a lowly Dentist or Architect or Engineer.

Frank Black

fewtinsoffroth wrote: »

And so you should, but they were replying to somebody saying that third level ''definitely'' isn't for people if they don't have second level achievements, which is nonsense.

I'd agree in the most with your sentiments. But i don't have a problem with some degree courses requiring a certain minimum standard in the LC to be attained first.
No point studying something which requires complex mathematics if you can't pass lower level LC maths.

Pilotdude5

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

What about the people who stay in college to do research and expand the academic frontiers? How do they distinguish among themselves? Not everyone goes to college to get a degree that will get them a job.

They can have that experience logged effectively. I mean no Masters or PhD is the same. Reaching that amount of knowledge should be fine by itself.

Its just the opening up of opportunities for people having a "Degree in something" I have a problem with.

I the US to apply for a major Airline(Delta etc) you a need a 4 year degree. Dosent matter in what. So you have a situation where someone with a Zoology degree and a couple of years as a pilot can apply whereas a pilot with no degree and 10+ years can't.

I'm in an angry mood today I apologise.

Frank Black

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

But like I said the subject will be the same, same topics, same knowledge same everything. You just won't have people using it as a status.

They'll just have to admit they're a lowly Dentist or Architect or Engineer.

I assure you, in a dental practice, or engineering or architectural consultancy , people don't go around defining themselves by the type of degree they got in college.

Pilotdude5

Frank Black wrote: »

I assure you, in a dental practice, or engineering or architectural consultancy , people don't go around defining themselves by the type of degree they got in college.

Victory!

Sciprio

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Victory!

amen

In general if you have the ability then you should be allowed to pursue your education to its highest form i.e. Diploma, Degree, PhD, Chief, Master Plumber etc.

If the state is going to the effort of educating everybody to Leaving Cert (remember it was only around 40 years that free secondary education arrived in Ireland but free in most parts of the USA since the 1930s!) and then saying to those people with an aptitude for a subject/skill who cannot afford to continue their studies that they cannot progress any further then we have wasted that person skills.

Everyone should get a chance to at least attend/obtain their primary qualification of choice. If of course they fail or drop out then its up to them to pay for their next attempt.

Funding may be increased to those subjects/fields of studies in which the government wishes to increase growth/employment. This could lead to a decrease in fees to those pursing scient/ict/engineering etc and an increase in those studying Law/Arts etc.

The funding for a MSc/PhD is a bit different. This should really be awarded to the best person in the relevant subject they wish to pursue.

But people who access that education should contribute towards it, either through fees or additional taxation for a period after qualification.

In general though those with a Degree earn more than those without and thus pay more in taxes.

Imagine a world where all our people in areas of power all come from the same wealthy backgrounds with no other perspective in life but that

Hmm the Irish Dail, large number of publicans, teachers and those who attended private schools.

shruikan2553

Right

People should be allowed into college if they can prove it is of actual interest to them, not because they just want a degree so that they can say they went to college. Ive seen people who are there just to exist and have had people in my course even say they have no idea why they picked this subject. Education costs the country money and it shouldn't be wasted on people just wanting to drink for 3/4 years

hatrickpatrick

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

are masters and phd's a right too?

If you have the ability then why not?
No one can possibly argue that everything one learns in school benefits the economy. I know myself that half of it was interesting but has no practical application whatsoever - where and why should a line be drawn, exactly? Education is education.

Lone Stone

I would say every has the right to go, and with the grant system most who think it might be for them try it out. That said i paid my own fee's and didnt get the grant because i had the money at the time. I saw a lot of people wasting their place in class swanning around with no interest in what they were doing and dropping out or barely passing and showing zero interest in the subject, when it could have gone to some one who actually wanted it more.

I have always said a grant system should be monitored payed out by performance based assessments by lecturers and if your just a dosser you get cut off and kicked out. but that would never happen here because it would require to much effort and save money.

Cookie_Monster

Right

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

shruikan2553

Right

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

I would go for that but then you get people who have no interest in the subject choosing the cheaper subject so we end up with lots of engineers but then you have to try and pick out the good ones

Odysseus

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Define "poorly"

Obviously if they did well enough for the certain degree, that's fair enough. But I don't think one can do nothing in secondary school and still be allowed to claim third level as a "right" which can't happen at the moment and that's good.

I was on the hop for 6 months in 2nd year, the same in 3rd. In my Inter I got 2 Ds, 3 Fs, 2Es, and 2 NGs.

When I finally got to 3rd level, I got a 2.1 in my degree and now have a masters, and various professional qualifications.

Edit: This is why I am always careful about writing people off based on their second level experience

omahaid

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

Even worse, you'll be vilified for even mentioning it.

orestes

Right

orestes wrote: »

Why should a person be denied an education purely because their family can't afford it? The days of rich kids swanning off to college while poor kids are chucked into the workforce are thankfully behind us. The vast majority of people are going to spend the rest of their lives paying back in taxes many times the cost of their education.

No, I am pretty sure "free fees" has been shown to only benefit the middle classes a bit more. No change to anyone else. And the quality of the degree in the meantime goes down, down, down.

Loan system and a more rigorous entry vetting would be the best

ted1

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

The problem is these days people go to college just to get a degree in "something"

They couldn't give a flying **** what its in just as long as they get their level 8.

When people with sales experience but no 4 year degree cant apply for graduate sales positions and Zoology grads with no sale experience can you know you have a broken system.

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

Nonsense , you need to be able to bench mark people, those sales guy you are talking about probably lack key procedural skills.

ted1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

Makes sense to me.

melekalikimaka

Right

its a privilege, and tbh i find it hilarious seeing people try to justify it as a right, we really have our head so far up our asses, even still, the Celtic Tiger really is hard to shake off

Ziphius

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

The problem is these days people go to college just to get a degree in "something"

They couldn't give a flying **** what its in just as long as they get their level 8.

When people with sales experience but no 4 year degree cant apply for graduate sales positions and Zoology grads with no sale experience can you know you have a broken system.

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

If the purpose of University education is just to train people for work than why bother with it in the first place? Why not abolish undergraduate education and replace it with state subsidized apprenticeships or training years in businesses so that people get an education "relevant to their future career".

Indeed, this may be a far more fruitful endeavor than BAs for everyone.

lower_league

of course its not a right , next thing a bmw will be a right

MaroonAndGreen

Right

Its a right that you earn from doing well at school!

Peregrine

Odysseus wrote: »

I was on the hop for 6 months in 2nd year, the same in 3rd. In my Inter I got 2 Ds, 3 Fs, 2Es, and 2 NGs.

When I finally got to 3rd level, I got a 2.1 in my degree and now have a masters, and various professional qualifications.

Edit: This is why I am always careful about writing people off based on their second level experience

And what happened after your Inter? I'm hardly suggesting refusing people third level for being on the hop in 2nd year.

I'm saying that if the students do **** all for the Leaving Cert like a huge percentage of teenagers you see today, then college isn't their automatic "right". I see students who put no effort at all into school, can't distinguish a brain from a kidney in biology and saying that it should not matter and they should be allowed into a degree in Sports education (typically) because it's their right. I say no.

Once again, not talking about mature students. Talking about CAO entry.

Catkins407

Useless arts degrees? Wow.

Kathnora

Strange how a few years ago a Leaving Cert was the "benchmark" regarded as a good and necessary standard of education and a prerequisite for getting a decent job. Then it moved to getting a degree. Now, in recent times it seems that you need a Masters to get that decent job....where will it all end?

Frank Black

bluewolf wrote: »

Loan system and a more rigorous entry vetting would be the best

There's no such thing as a rigorous vetting system, just different means of assessment.
The number of places a course has available is the same regardless of the system of assessing entry.
What are you suggesting specifically as an alternative to the current system?