People who never worked getting medical cards

Treehousetim

A friend of mine works with immigrants in dublin. He said this particular group of people all have medical cards although they never once worked in ireland.
So it's free healthcare all the way. On the other hand, other mugs who work/worked ( irish and non irish who dont "qualify") are holding off on getting healthcare when sick due to the expense. Are we total fools?

Geuze

Thousands of people who never worked have med cards in Irl.

Most of them are Irish.



Bear in mind that hosp care in Irl is free, so med cards just save the costs of:

GP fees
Drugs up to 144 pm
A+E fee = 100

ahnowbrowncow

Jaysus OP, you're really grinding your axe about social welfare today

Treehousetim

Fair enough. I'm pissed off feeling like a mug.

Tails142

Geuze wrote: »

Thousands of people who never worked have med cards in Irl.

Most of them are Irish.



Bear in mind that hosp care in Irl is free, so med cards just save the costs of:

GP fees
Drugs up to 144 pm
A+E fee = 100

It's not free to go to the hospital, ranges from 75 euro upwards to a max of 750.

http://www.connollyhospital.ie/en/PatientsVisitors/Admissions/

Used to have a medical card when I was a kid, never really thought much about it. Now that I'm an adult and working I have to pay €80 a month on prescription costs and visit the doctor twice a year at 55 a pop. All I can do is claim 20% back from my tax bill at the end of the year. Don't forget about 75 a month VHI as well. So... its ok I have the money, but the medical card is a nice bonus if you can get it. That's just me on my own, dread to think when there are kids on the scene what I'll be forking out, at least I'll be able to benefit from the drugs payment scheme at last.

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm pissed off feeling like a mug.

Not as much as a mug as you will feel should you ever become unemployed and claim all of these 'free' things your taxes and PRSI help fund- or should we assume you will never claim RA or a medical card or any form of social welfare?

Treehousetim

Anyway back to the topic, does every person have to pay the 75-100 bucks a day for hospital? What happens if you don't pay? Any consequences or does that depend on whether you are someone they can go after ( regular joe) or not?

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Anyway back to the topic, does every person have to pay the 75-100 bucks a day for hospital? What happens if you don't pay? Any consequences or does that depend on whether you are someone they can go after ( regular joe) or not?

You will be billed by the HSE. There have been issues with non-payment by 'regular joes' so the HSE are being far stricter about following up.

Few years ago I was in and out of hospital and had an operation - no health insurance - bill came to over 1000 euro, paid it off in installments.

BTW - once one is in receipt of SW does one cease to be a 'regular joe'? If so, what does one become?

Tails142

Treehousetim wrote: »

Anyway back to the topic, does every person have to pay the 75-100 bucks a day for hospital? What happens if you don't pay? Any consequences or does that depend on whether you are someone they can go after ( regular joe) or not?

I know someone in work who got a letter from a debt collection agency called Inturum Justitia for not paying a €75 hospital charge in time.

Treehousetim

Nope - regular joe being someone either on welfare or not, who abides by the law, insofar as giving a crap about being issued with a legal letter.

goose2005

OP, the medical card is based on need, not on how much you pay in. Children and teenagers get it too. Really, immigrants aren't a huge strain on services, given that they're generally able-bodied healthy young people.

Geuze wrote: »

Thousands of people who never worked have med cards in Irl.

Most of them are Irish.



Bear in mind that hosp care in Irl is free, so med cards just save the costs of:

GP fees
Drugs up to 144 pm
A+E fee = 100

Also dental and maternity.

Cody Pomeray

Hey guys guess what, we have a system in Ireland that says you won't die or suffer pain if you can't afford (i.e. are living on less than €184 a week for a single person) to go to a Doctor.

I can only imagine what sort of Victorian alternative the OP, and his friend regaling horror stories of immigrants receiving healthcare, are actually proposing.

-Deport the infirm?
-Casual labour in the hospital campus in return for a bed?
-Sick immigrants on sewing machines for Irish export goods?

Seriously, what?

Treehousetim

You are making the assumption that people without medical cards can all afford to go to the doctor.

Cody Pomeray

No, I'm not at all.

Unless I am mistaking your argument, and you don't have a problem with immigrants getting the medical card, and you only want to extend its availability?

Is that it? Keep the immigrants' entitlement?

Treehousetim

The healthcare budget has its limits. Therefore extending it to all will mean those who had it before will get less.

Cody Pomeray

Extending it to all would also be 100% bonkers.

I don't see your point, Tim.

Bannasidhe

I would like to know what the OP means by 'immigrants' - is it all immigrants including those from the UK and other E.U. countries?

Is it Non- E.U. immigrants?

Is it refugees?

Treehousetim

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Extending it to all would also be 100% bonkers.

I don't see your point, Tim.

In some countries all are entitled to free primary care. Why is that so bonkers?

Cody Pomeray

Treehousetim wrote: »

In some countries all are entitled to free primary care. Why is that so bonkers?

Oh just an ideological preoccupation I have about access to certain services being based on the ability to pay. Never mind that.

I'm more interested in this question of immigrants.

Have we now established that your problem is not with immigrants, but in fact with the fact that everybody doesn't have a medical card?

Is that the new point? Are you accepting that immigrants who cannot afford to see a Doctor must be granted medical treatment?

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

In some countries all are entitled to free primary care. Why is that so bonkers?

You think we should have an NHS? - I agree.
But the decision not to have an NHS style health service was not made by people who have medical health cards. It was made by people who retired on generous pensions paid by the taxpayer.

Perhaps we should be focusing on the fees doctors charge - yes, it is often too expensive for an employed person to visit their GP which begs the question how is someone whose weekly income is 188 euro meant to be able to afford 50 euro out of that to pay a GP?

Geuze

OK, ok

I missed the fourth main h/c charge


(1) GP fees
(2) drugs up to 144pm
(3) A/E fee = 100, free with GP letter
(4) hosp care is 75 per night up to max of 750 pa.


Maternity is totally free at point of care.

Treehousetim

I think A/E is free for medical card holders. To be honest that list if entitlements is great. I struggle to afford to go to doctor and my family the same.
More often than not I just don't go and I know lots of people the same.

According to HSE figures, an average medical card holder gets about €280 in free GP fees and over €800 in free drugs each year.

titan18

Geuze wrote: »

OK, ok

I missed the fourth main h/c charge


(1) GP fees
(2) drugs up to 144pm
(3) A/E fee = 100, free with GP letter
(4) hosp care is 75 per night up to max of 750 pa.


Maternity is totally free at point of care.

I dont think that's right at all. Afaik, the 144pm is for the Drug Payments Scheme, which you can get if not eligible for the medical card. The medical card is you pay 1.50 per prescription, but each family/person will only pay up to 19.50 per month in charges.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You think we should have an NHS? - I agree.

I don't. It's the same as the water charges argument, if you don't have to pay for it some people will take the piss. In the UK I've friends who tell me of waiting lists to see their GP during busy times mainly due to an attitude of go to the doctor for anything wrong with you because, well, it's free inn'it attitude amongst some people. I also have a friend over there who is in a nightmare scenario where his wife is bedridden most of the time due to severe pain but no cause has been found. They ended up having to go private even though they can't afford it really because of quotas and other nonsense about referrals (GPs are given targets for referring patients on up the chain, you're rewarded if you refer fewer patients than the target). Paying for the GP is not pleasant and definitely not cheap, I get hit more times a year than most people because I've a long term illness and need regular bloods taken and whatnot. But if the alternative is waiting for three days when I or one of my kids have a chest infection I'd rather be ponying up the cash.

Now subsidising GP care and leaving some kind of cost like €20 there, that I wouldn't have a problem with. There's only a problem if you have it free or something small like a fiver.

Treehousetim

Excellent post. There is a problem with abuse when things are free. But try getting the generations of people who had freebies 4 ever to pay. They will feel so wronged! Usual whineing of being entitled and persecution of the poor will be rolled out.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

I don't. It's the same as the water charges argument, if you don't have to pay for it some people will take the piss. In the UK I've friends who tell me of waiting lists to see their GP during busy times mainly due to an attitude of go to the doctor for anything wrong with you because, well, it's free inn'it attitude amongst some people. I also have a friend over there who is in a nightmare scenario where his wife is bedridden most of the time due to severe pain but no cause has been found. They ended up having to go private even though they can't afford it really because of quotas and other nonsense about referrals (GPs are given targets for referring patients on up the chain, you're rewarded if you refer fewer patients than the target). Paying for the GP is not pleasant and definitely not cheap, I get hit more times a year than most people because I've a long term illness and need regular bloods taken and whatnot. But if the alternative is waiting for three days when I or one of my kids have a chest infection I'd rather be ponying up the cash.

Now subsidising GP care and leaving some kind of cost like €20 there, that I wouldn't have a problem with. There's only a problem if you have it free or something small like a fiver.

I lived in the UK for ten years before the Tory's began to dismantle the NHS (quotas/trusts/ etc) and never had to wait 3 days for an appointment - that is the NHS I am referring to...

As for going because it's free innit - my mother does something similar as 'sure she is paying (or rather my brother is...) for the top VHI package and she may as well get something for her (his) money.'

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Excellent post. There is a problem with abuse when things are free. But try getting the generations of people who had freebies 4 ever to pay. They will feel so wronged! Usual whineing of being entitled and persecution of the poor will be rolled out.

Just to extend this 'for free' theme - what about free third level fees?

Yes, I know there is a substantial capitation fee but it does not go towards the actual fees and even if it did would constitute at least a 50% discount on what the fees would be - should we stop that too? If we did the middle classes would be screaming about being squeezed and students (and future students) would be protesting on the streets. Again.

I work as a 3rd level lecturer and I have seen first hand how many students abuse their 'free' fees...

Do we make people pay for health care even when they are in receipt of SW but continue to subsidise 3rd level education to mollify the middle class?

Cody Pomeray

Treehousetim wrote: »

I think A/E is free for medical card holders. To be honest that list if entitlements is great. I struggle to afford to go to doctor and my family the same.
More often than not I just don't go and I know lots of people the same.

According to HSE figures, an average medical card holder gets about €280 in free GP fees and over €800 in free drugs each year.

4 posts before this and you were asking why universally free health care was bonkers.

If you could sum up your point in a line, Tim, what would it be, exactly?

Treehousetim

Bannasidhe, Gp visit could be 15 euros for someone on medical card/gp card then 25euros for the rest. As for college fees, isn't everyone entitled not just middle class? And you get grants if you are from a family with low means no?

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I lived in the UK for ten years before the Tory's began to dismantle the NHS (quotas/trusts/ etc) and never had to wait 3 days for an appointment - that is the NHS I am referring to...

As for going because it's free innit - my mother does something similar as 'sure she is paying (or rather my brother is...) for the top VHI package and she may as well get something for her (his) money.'

And why were the quotas/trusts/etc brought in? Because the system was far too expensive. Was there an ideological element? Certainly, many Tories would dismantle the NHS completely if they could. Were they wrong though? Labour were in Government for quite a long time there, if it was a purely ideological thing those Tory changes would have been reversed no? I mean improving the NHS and keeping it free is a vote winner for a left party plain and simple.


The VHI? Eh, hardly anything is free, you get some partial payment on some things up to a limit and for nearly everything else there's a substantial excess.

nesf

Treehousetim wrote: »

Gp visit could be 15 euros for someone on medical card/gp card then 25euros for the rest. As for college fees, isn't everyone entitled not just middle class? And you get grants if you are from a family with low means no?

15 is much too high for the medical card, might be ok for the GP card but it would be hard on people.

maryk123

The problem with getting medical cards is that people have to weigh up their options when they get a job because a medical card is worth a lot. Free gp, free medicine, free dentist visit, free extractions and two free fillings, free eye test and free glass in glasses. I am sure there is more. The above is worth a lot. That is why people want to keep them and you can't blame them really can you

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Bannasidhe, Gp visit could be 15 euros for someone on medical card/gp card then 25euros for the rest. As for college fees, isn't everyone entitled not just middle class? And you get grants if you are from a family with low means no?

15 euro is still a large whack out of 188 - not to mention it's over 50% of what S.W. pays weekly for a child.

Those on low incomes were always able to get grants to pay fees - free fees were brought in for the middle class many of whom, and I see the evidence everyday, pay 'grind schools' more per year than the college fees would be to ensure their children get the points - this option is not open to low income families so it's not a level playing field. I can honestly say in all my years of lecturing I have had very few students (bar mature ones) who would be considered from a lower socio-economic background and when we do - they bloody well work. Middle class kids - not so much work, lot of party and excuses....

Treehousetim

Maybe more kids from socially deprived backgrounds would avail of free college if there wasn't a social welfare career path mapped out for them. I'm not saying I know that's true, just considering it

Cody Pomeray

maryk123 wrote: »

The problem with getting medical cards is that people have to weigh up their options when they get a job because a medical card is worth a lot.

Revenue Job Assist answers that problem by allowing long term unemployed to keep their medical card for 3 years after re-entering the workplace.

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

15 euro is still a large whack out of 188 - not to mention it's over 50% of what S.W. pays weekly for a child.

Those on low incomes were always able to get grants to pay fees - free fees were brought in for the middle class many of whom, and I see the evidence everyday, pay 'grind schools' more per year than the college fees would be to ensure their children get the points - this option is not open to low income families so it's not a level playing field. I can honestly say in all my years of lecturing I have had very few students (bar mature ones) who would be considered from a lower socio-economic background and when we do - they bloody well work. Middle class kids - not so much work, lot of party and excuses....

Poor kid has to fight to get into University.
Rich kid has to fight to avoid University.

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Maybe more kids from socially deprived backgrounds would avail of free college if there wasn't a social welfare career path mapped out for them. I'm not saying I know that's true, just considering it

Maybe more would consider it is a viable option if they were able to avail of the same secondary facilities as the kids of better off parents who can pay for grinds, private schools etc.

Many middle class kids believe they are entitled to a university education - and I say this as someone who would be considered middle class and who is the product of a private education. I did, however, pay college fees as I am old and pre-date the free fees.

The point remains, I read threads like this about people on either JSB (who have paid their 'stamps') or those on means-tested JSA 'abusing' RA/Medical cards/SW cos it's 'free' then I go to work at am faced with a bunch of students getting a highly subsidised 3rd level education whinging because they have to read a book but suggest those students might discover a work ethic if they actually had to pay and all hell breaks lose about squeezing the middle class and entitlement to an 3rd level education.

I find it an interesting disconnect.

Make the 'poor' pay for health care but heavily subsidise the better off's educations.

Personally I would prefer my considerable tax payments went towards allowing someone on the lowest income avail of health care than funding a 3/4 year party for someone just out of school who expands far more energy on avoiding work then would be required to do it...who will probably emigrate when they graduate.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Those on low incomes were always able to get grants to pay fees - free fees were brought in for the middle class many of whom, and I see the evidence everyday, pay 'grind schools' more per year than the college fees would be to ensure their children get the points - this option is not open to low income families so it's not a level playing field. I can honestly say in all my years of lecturing I have had very few students (bar mature ones) who would be considered from a lower socio-economic background and when we do - they bloody well work. Middle class kids - not so much work, lot of party and excuses....

It really depends on what you lecture and where you lecture. Universities tend to be dominated by the middle class definitely, IT's less so, varying quite a bit from IT to IT.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

It really depends on what you lecture and where you lecture. Universities tend to be dominated by the middle class definitely, IT's less so, varying quite a bit from IT to IT.

In one of the good old NUI's plus in Distant Education.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point remains, I read threads like this about people on either JSB (who have paid their 'stamps') or those on means-tested JSA 'abusing' RA/Medical cards/SW cos it's 'free' then I go to work at am faced with a bunch of students getting a highly subsidised 3rd level education whinging because they have to read a book but suggest those students might discover a work ethic if they actually had to pay and all hell breaks lose about squeezing the middle class and entitlement to an 3rd level education.

It's pretty obvious that free fees has been a disaster for academic performance. One need only compare the material on courses today to that of 30 years ago to see the problem. As one lecturer said to me, the final year material he did for his BA in the 80s is now making up the MA. Some courses have stayed "elitist" (i.e. expecting you to have some ability and work) but they've paid the price of having small student numbers and funding dished out on a "bums in seats" basis. If you are a Humanities department and want funding for your department you'd better not have a challenging first year. Or second year for that matter (remember if you leave them in you've got to pass them or a lot of questions will start being asked) and so on. It's less of a problem in the 500 point courses but it's still there to an extent.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In one of the good old NUI's plus in Distant Education.

Depending on your department we may know each other, I know a good few lecturers in a certain NUI.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

Depending on your department we may know each other, I know a good few lecturers in a certain NUI.

I now a good few lecturers in several NUIs - some of whom are still speaking to me.

I also know many PhDs from several NUIs who are now the holders of medical cards as they cannot get a job....

mattjack

Treehousetim wrote: »

I think A/E is free for medical card holders. To be honest that list if entitlements is great. I struggle to afford to go to doctor and my family the same.
More often than not I just don't go and I know lots of people the same.

According to HSE figures, an average medical card holder gets about €280 in free GP fees and over €800 in free drugs each year.

Tim, if you take a look at the Med Card application form you might see where its written the Med Card may be issued at the discretion of the HSE , what they are saying is that if you have a need for multiple issues of medication and spending a lot on prescriptions i.e. comorbidity , underlying long term illness , attending the doctor a lot etc you may be issued a card even if you don't meet the criteria.
Its worth writing a letter explaining why you need a card.

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

One need only compare the material on courses today to that of 30 years ago to see the problem. As one lecturer said to me, the final year material he did for his BA in the 80s is now making up the MA.

Depends what he means by material. Obviously one can legitimately deal with the same subject in a first year dissertation as in a PhD thesis, just to a different depth.

I don't really buy the theory of disintegration of teaching standards as a result of the free fees scheme. It has the whiff of "back in my day" about it, usually recounted alongside semi-amusing stories about matronly landladies and 'digs' which I presume is a reference to the strike of an ashplant one might have taken from a jesuit priest.

It's almost akin to a school-boy of the 1950's lamenting the extension of secondary education to the great unwashed, fearing it had depleted the value of his own qualifications. Which it did.

Back to the universities - as badly funded as they are now, there would be a widely accepted belief Irish universities have become far better resourced than they were in the 1980s. Some of that is incidental (i.e., the internet, improvements in publication and accessibility) and some of it is directly attributable to educational policy. But until we have something substantial to say about standards in third level education, maybe less of the hardship nostalgia would be helpful.

Treehousetim

mattjack wrote: »

Tim, if you take a look at the Med Card application form you might see where its written the Med Card may be issued at the discretion of the HSE , what they are saying is that if you have a need for multiple issues of medication and spending a lot on prescriptions i.e. comorbidity , underlying long term illness , attending the doctor a lot etc you may be issued a card even if you don't meet the criteria.
Its worth writing a letter explaining why you need a card.

Thanks but I don't think they will issue me with anything except a pfo. I am not falling apart and they will look at my gross salary ( not so indicative of my spending money) and tell me to sod off. I'm well aware of how these things work in Ireland. If you come from the right side of town nobody gives a crap. They want to give to those 'poor people' who in fact are not always so poor.

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Depends what he means by material. Obviously one can legitimately deal with the same subject in a first year dissertation as in a PhD thesis, just to a different depth.

I don't really buy the theory of disintegration of teaching standards as a result of the free fees scheme. It has the whiff of "back in my day" about it, usually recounted alongside semi-amusing stories about matronly landladies and 'digs' which I presume is a reference to the strike of an ashplant one might have taken from a jesuit priest.

It's almost akin to a school-boy of the 1950's lamenting the extension of secondary education to the great unwashed, fearing it had depleted the value of his own qualifications. Which it did.

Back to the universities - as badly funded as they are now, there would be a widely accepted belief Irish universities have become far better resourced than they were in the 1980s. Some of that is incidental (i.e., the internet, improvements in publication and accessibility) and some of it is directly attributable to educational policy. But until we have something substantial to say about standards in third level education, maybe less of the hardship nostalgia would be helpful.

Wellll - used to be to do a post grad one needed a first -or a very good 2.1 - following orders from on high to increase the numbers of PG's a 2.2 will do so yes, standards have been lowered.

I have corrected MA's which are barely legible yet am pressured to pass them. Maybe it's me, but I expect that some one who has an MA should be expected to be able to write a coherent, correctly structured, sentence.

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wellll - used to be to do a post grad one needed a first -or a very good 2.1 - following orders from on high to increase the numbers of PG's a 2.2 will do so yes, standards have been lowered.

But that's entirely irrelevant in itself. It's only relevant if standards subsequently fell in terms of deciding whether or not to award the end qualification.

I have corrected MA's which are barely legible yet am pressured to pass them.

That's a statement of what the present situation is in your experience. Unless we know what your predecessor's situation was, that in itself is of limited value.

Even if standards have fallen, and there is no evidence that they have imo, my particular gripe is in linking it to the free fees scheme.

You can say lots of deservedly nasty things about the free fees scheme, whatever 'free' is a reference to, but saying that it has caused standards to slip is a bridge too far I reckon.

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that's entirely irrelevant in itself. It's only relevant if standards subsequently fell in terms of deciding whether or not to award the end qualification.

That's a statement of what the present situation is in your experience. Unless we know what your predecessor's situation was, that in itself is of limited value.

Even if standards have fallen, and there is no evidence that they have imo, my particular gripe is in linking it to the free fees scheme.

You can say lots of deservedly nasty things about the free fees scheme, whatever 'free' is a reference to, but saying that it has caused standards to slip is a bridge too far I reckon.

We are going way off topic here.

Suffice to say 20 years ago I would be expected to insist that a poorly structured, badly written, sloppily researched piece of work (at undergrad or post grad level) fail.

10 years ago it would be normal to insist it was re-written and re-submitted.

Now - I am being pressured to pass it.

I have a lot of visiting students from the U.S. - their work is usually flawless, they are engaged and determined to get value for their money.

Most Irish students only contact me for an extension, to make excuses for why they have failed to attend lectures or submit assignments or to try and find out the exam questions.

Now I think we have dragged this off topic enough. My point was that it is often the same people who complain about 'free' SW who also complain about the re-introduction of 3rd level fees.

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that's entirely irrelevant in itself. It's only relevant if standards subsequently fell in terms of deciding whether or not to award the end qualification.

That's a statement of what the present situation is in your experience. Unless we know what your predecessor's situation was, that in itself is of limited value.

Even if standards have fallen, and there is no evidence that they have imo, my particular gripe is in linking it to the free fees scheme.

You can say lots of deservedly nasty things about the free fees scheme, whatever 'free' is a reference to, but saying that it has caused standards to slip is a bridge too far I reckon.

They massively increased the numbers of students. Do you think the average academic ability of the population increased to compensate? Of course standards have dropped. Every lecturer I've spoken to about this who is outside of the Hard sciences, i.e. Physics and Maths because being taught solely through mathematics is a great way to cull the herd, has said to me that standards have declined. Most of the ones I know have been in their jobs for 20-30 years.

I really don't want to get into specifics on a public forum, but for example, French in UCC used to be taught through French, makes sense doesn't it? After free fees came in they stopped doing this and started teaching through English. There is only one reason they would do this, to make the course more accessible to students of a poorer standard. Why would they do this? Well funding was changed to be "bums on seats" so there's a huge incentive to attract as many students as possible and find a way to pass them. Do you seriously think standards haven't dropped here?

I went back to college as a mature student a good few years ago. I was averaging around 85% in essays which is fairly insane but I got 98% and 100% in two essays in one course. I asked the lecturer how on earth was he going to justify those grades for a piece of written argumentative work. He said he'd just show the examiner some of the essays he'd have to pass. You know what, those grades weren't challenged. I was ill a lot and doped up on too much medication, if I made it into college two days in the week I was doing well, I never worked outside of class unless I had an assignment due. Started studying the day before my exam, you get the idea. I still graduated with a good First. This kind of thing should not be happening.

sunbeam

nesf wrote: »

I went back to college as a mature student a good few years ago. I was averaging around 85% in essays which is fairly insane but I got 98% and 100% in two essays in one course. I asked the lecturer how on earth was he going to justify those grades for a piece of written argumentative work. He said he'd just show the examiner some of the essays he'd have to pass. You know what, those grades weren't challenged. I was ill a lot and doped up on too much medication, if I made it into college two days in the week I was doing well, I never worked outside of class unless I had an assignment due. Started studying the day before my exam, you get the idea. I still graduated with a good First. This kind of thing should not be happening.

In 1990 one of my first year psychology lecturers in UCG told us the highest mark she had ever given for an essay was 80 percent. She was close to retirement age and had only awarded it twice in her entire academic career.

Back then final grades were published alongside individual names on the graduation booklets. Less then 3 percent of my graduating BA class got a first (summer and autumn combined, excluding people who only took one honours subject) and there were plenty of thirds and pass degrees awarded. I'd love to know what the grade distribution is like these days.

nesf

sunbeam wrote: »

In 1990 one of my first year psychology lecturers in UCG told us the highest mark she had ever given for an essay was 80 percent. She was close to retirement age and had only awarded it twice in her entire academic career.

Back then final grades were published alongside individual names on the graduation booklets. Less then 3 percent of my graduating BA class got a first (summer and autumn combined, excluding people who only took one honours subject) and there were plenty of thirds and pass degrees awarded. I'd love to know what the grade distribution is like these days.

Some numbers here: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/where-to-go-to-get-a-first-class-degree-1.556602

A tad higher than 3%. It does vary wildly by department though, Dentistry in UCC is infamous for being extremely stingy with firsts for instance. Rumour has it it is because the lecturers there are UCC grads and if they couldn't get a first...