3rd Level Fees: Rich families to pay

Captain Trips

A college degree doesn't guarantee you money. You can do a degree in whatever you want these days. Check out all the people who did forensic science in the UK. great, but did they think at the start "That would be cool" or "That will get me a job".

People these days seem to think they should feel great about themselves and whatever choices they have made - good or bad. They feel they are entitled to someone else paying for health, education, anything.

Whatever happened to people just using the system that is there already - fee paying or not - ; get a loan, pick a degree you figure will earn you good money (and quit the idealistic crap of a teenager) and do it.

Someone made a comment about how it would be bad to have to tell their kid they can't "start living there life because they are in debt". What the **** is that all about? Jesus christ, life is about being in debt. You can't avoid it. You never will. Get used to it and learn how to manipulate the system a little.

Debt is part of life. The more debt you are in, the better your credit rating!

vorbis

anyone at all capable of reading the proposals involved. Parental income in the vast majority of cases is a perfectly acceptable indicator. You'd want to be some idiot to leave home at 18, go to college and pay for it yourself. Regarding the levels of income involved. Something like over 100,000 a year to pay fees is reasonable enough. Obviously multiple siblings would be factored into this. It won't make a profit but it does reduce the education bill by some bit.

Repli

Originally posted by Captain Trips
A college degree doesn't guarantee you money. You can do a degree in whatever you want these days. Check out all the people who did forensic science in the UK. great, but did they think at the start "That would be cool" or "That will get me a job".

Erm that's irrelevant to anything.. Nobody said a college degree guaranteed you money but it sure does better your chances at getting a decent job in an area you enjoy working in.. And I'm sure those people with forensic science degrees will end up in a job they like..

Sparks

Vorbis,
The thing here is that the total savings for education would be (average cost of a year's fees) x (number of people that attend college and are not eligible for free fees).
We don't know what that second figure will be because we don't know the threshold figures. But in order to be useful, that sum will have to be large enough to be worth eridicating free fees and diverting attention from the grants system, and even then it would have to be ringfenced to ensure it didn't go to pay for bertie's rouge bill...
Frankly I don't think that that's going to happen or that it's going to be worth it.

Lenny

ABout students applying for loans... I applied for a loan off Aib there about 2/3 months ago of 3,000 euro.
I put the loan down as education. I got refused.
I have saved thousands of euro's with Aib, there september gone, I had over 2,500 in my account after only going 18
So I think getting a loan may be a tough thing to do..

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Repli
Erm that's irrelevant to anything.. Nobody said a college degree guaranteed you money but it sure does better your chances at getting a decent job in an area you enjoy working in.. And I'm sure those people with forensic science degrees will end up in a job they like..

Sorry I actually forgot - the point was that most of them can't. The post was in response to an earlier one in the thread saying that people with say an Arts degree were earning 5% (can't remember exactly) less than average earned by someone without a degree.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And where's he going to get the money to pay for it up front?
Student loan?
Back to the problem of emigration and defaulting...
And pragmatically, we get more money through the taxation method.

I dont see how we get more money through the taxation method unless it somehow produces more doctors who don't emigrate. Then again, its Friday afternoon, so my brain has started its weekend wind-down.

Would you consider a "binding contract" position, where the government act as a sponsor, and make it a requirement for anyone who uses it to spend a minimum of X time in the country working, where X is somehow related to the amount you were funded and the amount you repay. Maybe not necessarily until its all repaid, but say about 1 year of employment per year of fees funded?

Indeed, if coming from the government, this would also possibly give them the ability to refuse people exit from the country until their debt to society had been paid off as required (contractual obligation). Implement some form of "arbitration process", so that exceptions could be made where useful/needed.

Ultimately, I am completely opposed to the idea of thid-level education being treated as a free handout in terms of fees etc. It is my opinion (through observation) that students who have to accept burdens to get through college are far more likely to apply themselves and ensure that they minimise that burden and maximise their chances for "return on investment".

Interestingly, I recall a somewhat similar discussion with Gandalf on Humanities when he was a mod there, shortly before Politics was created and the two of us moved in here. There, he was talking about someone using the "long-term unemployed mature student" route of getting the government to pay for their degree...again using the "its an investment on the government's part" argument. I was opposed to it for more or less the same reason - I do not see it as the government's job to be investing in what I see as "private industry". (You want to work to make money for yourself. You're your own business interest).

Ultimately, the way I see it, is if someone is going to invest in a business with the aim of making profit, then they should have a say in how their money is used, and should get some protection on same. I can't see people (rightly or wrongly) accepting the government being able to tell them where they can and cant work, or what they can and cant do, just because the govt forked out a couple of hundred grand (your figures, or someone elses?) to cover their expenses in getting the qualifications they wanted....and for that reason, I don't think they have any right to expect the government to make that investment.

For example...if the govt has paid your education in Subject X, and there are no jobs in that area right now....should the govt be able to tell you "stuff what you want, you will work in this civil service position, or that commuinity service position, or any available job because we paid for that education." Thats heading into a seperate topic though (people choosing to remain unemployed because they are searching for a job in a specific field, rather than a job in general), so maybe we should leave that for a seperate thread/day.

I'm all for improving the system, and not exactly sure how to do it...I'm just thoroughly convinced that a "free ride" system is not the way to go. There are individuals it will undoubtedly benefit in the sense that its supposed to, but overall I think it is not a good system, and I get the impression that too many people simply see what has been in place for under a decade going away and somehow think that this is some inalienable human right that is being denied us and that it must be left in place.

(I readily admit that the govt dont seem to have a clue what they're doing on this, though, which is even more worrying - never touch anything until you know what you're gonna go with it).

As for the govt. slashing education left, right, and centre....its hardly surprising. I somehow think that so many people ignore the contribution our educational system has made to helping this country develop since its inception, and now just view it as another expense to be spared on. Back when we were a poor nation, education was a priority...it was the only way we could help ourselves out of the "mud", so to speak. Now that the mud is beneath us, there seems to be an increasingly pervasive attitude that education is over-funded, and that we cant afford such high standards any more. This worries me for the up and coming generations.

Sparks

I dont see how we get more money through the taxation method unless it somehow produces more doctors who don't emigrate.

Would you consider a "binding contract" position, where the government act as a sponsor, and make it a requirement for anyone who uses it to spend a minimum of X time in the country working, where X is somehow related to the amount you were funded and the amount you repay. Maybe not necessarily until its all repaid, but say about 1 year of employment per year of fees funded?

It sounds intriguing, but as you say, this not only requires the ability of the State to enforce a ban on travel, but it also creates problems with labour market gluts and so on and so forth.
I'm going to have to think about this one for a while to get a decent take on it bonkey...

Ultimately, I am completely opposed to the idea of thid-level education being treated as a free handout in terms of fees etc. It is my opinion (through observation) that students who have to accept burdens to get through college are far more likely to apply themselves and ensure that they minimise that burden and maximise their chances for "return on investment".

I can understand the foundation of that stance, but the thing is that in a decade of being in college as both an undergrad and a postgrad, I've never seen any evidence of a direct link between how well a student applies herself and how well-off she is. I've seen cases where students couldn't do as well because they had to work more part-time hours than normal to make ends meet, but never the opposite. Frankly, the only thing I've ever seen that could be a determining factor in how well they apply themselves is their aptitude for, and interest in the course they're studying.

I'm all for improving the system, and not exactly sure how to do it...I'm just thoroughly convinced that a "free ride" system is not the way to go. There are individuals it will undoubtedly benefit in the sense that its supposed to, but overall I think it is not a good system, and I get the impression that too many people simply see what has been in place for under a decade going away and somehow think that this is some inalienable human right that is being denied us and that it must be left in place.

It's not a "right" anymore than healthcare is a right ...

(I readily admit that the govt dont seem to have a clue what they're doing on this, though, which is even more worrying - never touch anything until you know what you're gonna go with it).

That's the main reason I have to worry!

As for the govt. slashing education left, right, and centre....its hardly surprising. I somehow think that so many people ignore the contribution our educational system has made to helping this country develop since its inception, and now just view it as another expense to be spared on. Back when we were a poor nation, education was a priority...it was the only way we could help ourselves out of the "mud", so to speak. Now that the mud is beneath us, there seems to be an increasingly pervasive attitude that education is over-funded, and that we cant afford such high standards any more. This worries me for the up and coming generations.

You and me both. It's not just education that's being slashed - research is being undercut as well. The Basic Research Grants Scheme, for example, has been sublty altered so now the only research it's funding is more properly classified as Applied Research, at least in computer science and engineering. Not funding Basic research has been shown in the past to be a Bad Idea (tm).

Captain Trips

What's strange is that they apparently didn't even think of *one* thing to spare in the cutbacks - be it transport/roads, education, healthcare, etc,. . I am not surprised that free fees are going - it didn't work in the UK because some courses like medicine are very very expensive comapred to others. PLus, you have to spend summers doing elective work either here or abroad to get experience and usually have little time to do part-time work.

And while 20 years ago fees at Harvard and other world famous universities were massive, these days it not unusual that standard yearly college fees are between $30-40,000.

Unless there is some mad conspiracy angle that the government needs to maintain a relatively uneducated underclass, it appears that education cost increases are not an entirely Irish phenomenon if we compare to the UK and US (seeing as most people go there, Australia or Canada when emigrating).

Corben Dallas

My problem here is that it would be the thin end of the wedge. A level that would be brought lower and lower every budget year.

this is exactly it, reintroduction of fees is a step backwards and we fought for years to try to redress teh imbalance between Uni attendance between Northside and Southside numbers
(which was HUGELYin favour of the S'siders, prob about 2/3 to 1 of S'sides to N'siders) and now their goin back to the old system.
I didnt go to college because my parents couldnt afford it.

The problem is that 'oh dont worry we'll means test so only the rich will pay' fine but this is the Revenues slippery slope. it might start out as fair but next year they'll lower the entry lvl for fee paying so that the only ppl who will get grants free will be ppl on minimum wage -and I dont call the middle class 'rich'

they idea that they would consider adding up parents + anyone living @ home earners is a joke. and possibly a catchall to get max payment if someone goes to college in your family

-OT dont get me started on Doctors , dont kid yourself folks doctors dont contribute to irish society half as much as they should (services not tax) Doctors work hard @ uni and then they work v hard (for 5yrs) as Junior Doctors NCHD (Non Consultant Hospital Doctors) but once they've done this its easy street all the way...... eg u wont get a doctor sitting in Surgery on Sat (Local Gp), going rate is about 30-50 €'s to see them per visit and if yur unlucky that u have to get a Doc on call out .......the skys the limit. Once they have done their 5yr NCHD work they'll work half the hours u and I do per wk and get paid 3,4 or 5x times what u or i get.

I think that combined earning(including parents only) should be fees exempt up to 80,000 or single earner@ 45/50,000 above this is 'rich' and should pay for fees

what lvl do ppl think(salary wise) fees should become payable

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Corben Dallas


-OT dont get me started on Doctors , dont kid yourself folks doctors dont contribute to irish society half as much as they should (services not tax) Doctors work hard @ uni and then they work v hard (for 5yrs) as Junior Doctors NCHD (Non Consultant Hospital Doctors) but once they've done this its easy street all the way...... eg u wont get a doctor sitting in Surgery on Sat (Local Gp), going rate is about 30-50 €'s to see them per visit and if yur unlucky that u have to get a Doc on call out .......the skys the limit. Once they have done their 5yr NCHD work they'll work half the hours u and I do per wk and get paid 3,4 or 5x times what u or i get.

Then again they take the risk of making life or death decisions and assuming all responsibility when things go wrong (or even right) and are the last line between you and the grave, so you bitch about 50 euro for a doctor visit. How much do you value your health? I guarantee that you waste more on non-essential things like alcohol. Is 50 quid too much to get you healthy or would you prefer to spend 2 grand on a holiday? Having fun, etc,? It's a job that helps people and it's cheaper to get that service then it is for the massive amounts people throw away on ****. Spent 700 quid on a TV and people bitch about 50 quid to get their kid looked at. However, given the attitudes of a lot, I have visions of pigs, hell, a cold day and flying all at once as to whether it will change.

Even though it's off topic - I think it's important as the population of Ireland has not really increased by 50% chunks yet there has been several hundred new consultant posts. However, people these days feel they should have everything and have it now and it should be for free or I'll sue! Goddamit! The problem with the healthcare in Ireland is increasing demands of a greedy public. Now *there's* somethign that it'll start a flame war!

Or have Irish people suddenly become more populous by the million and are sicker then ever compared to 20-30 years ago? Will anyone take this on? The health service has improved drastically but not in proportion to this newer, magically more *ill* population. Thoughts or a new thread?

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
Indeed, if coming from the government, this would also possibly give them the ability to refuse people exit from the country until their debt to society had been paid off as required (contractual obligation).

The EU would go gaga. I'd take them to court in Europe myself if they tried to limit freedom of movement. We even had a constitutional amendment to cover our asses on freedom of movement so we could keep a ban on abortion active remember? Banning them fom leaving the EU, now that's a different matter. Short flight to Heathrow as a jumping off point would sort that. Contract, schmontract, you're not allowed to sign away your rights like that. Not going to happen.

Shorty

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96632

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
Contract, schmontract, you're not allowed to sign away your rights like that. Not going to happen.

Yup...and while people want the government to pay for a higher level of education than is covered by any definition of "the right to an education", and aren't likely to make any sacrifices for it, then that last sentence is just as accurate a description of the reality of the government continuing to foot the full bill for university costs.

Not going to happen.

And yet, every single thing they do is argued against on the grounds that "its not a right, but it should be".

All take and no give.

I'm guessing that the same people, if asked how the government will pay for this will come up with some blinding genius idea like "stop wasting money on other areas, and there's plenty to go around". Nice idea, but in practice, dont you think the government would have realised this already?

The simple truth is that the government cannot afford to continue these subsidies. There are three choices : stop funding it, hike taxes to make up the shortfall, or cutback in some other area.

Now, given that option 1 is what people are complaining about, I'm just wondering which of the other two options they think the government should be taking. If its the "cutbacks" one, then I'd honestly like to know what the government is spending a comparable amount of money on that you feel the nation can do without.

So - seriously - if people oppose this move, then suggest where the money will come from. Our economy is going down the toilet, and we've been forced to make cutbacks. This is one. If we dont cutback here, we need to do so elsewhere, or we need to increase taxes.

Which, where and how???

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
Our economy is going down the toilet, and we've been forced to make cutbacks. This is one. If we dont cutback here, we need to do so elsewhere, or we need to increase taxes.

While I agree in principle in what you are saying here, that if there is no money in the kitty it can't be funded, surely it's neccessary for the government to make the unpopular decisions that actually completely reforms our public sector. Is there even one public service/sector that is performing satisfactorily. If not why do people continue to have to pay more and more into a system that shows no signs of improving (or even maintaining) the standard of living of the vast majority of the population.

Of course completely reforming such a system might cause them to look at themselves as well which is obviously not going to happen.

Sparks

bonkey,
It says a lot about the economic situation that the government is buying new jets while slashing the education budget. So frankly, I don't see why we need to give up something so crucial as education while buying a new gulfstream for bertie while leaders of other, larger countries use commercial transport (usually their national airlines).

Originally posted by Sparks
bonkey,
It says a lot about the economic situation that the government is buying new jets while slashing the education budget. So frankly, I don't see why we need to give up something so crucial as education while buying a new gulfstream for bertie while leaders of other, larger countries use commercial transport (usually their national airlines).

ah something to agee with Sparks on:eek:
My local council go away two or three times a year,to some obscure conference or other, at the taxpayers expense.
I sat in on a meeting recently, and the amount of nonsense that was being talked...was unreal,there was one councillor, no doubt , with the ink fresh on his expense sheet, snoring merrilly in the corner:rolleyes:
Theres a perfectly good wide road between, the two towns beside me, all it needs, is a "pass-out lane" Australia syle with a ring road around the next town, yet, they are buliding 12 miles of dual carriageway instead.

An extreme tightening up of compensation laws would be helpfull also,diverting money otherwise squandered on unscrupulous claims to the Education budget.

Incidently, and as an aside, most of the money, used to upgrade and extend two schools here locally was raised locally,there was no point depending on the government.
Maybe there should be parish or local funds , set up specifically for the purpose of raising funds for those that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.
mm

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Man


Incidently, and as an aside, most of the money, used to upgrade and extend two schools here locally was raised locally,there was no point depending on the government.
Maybe there should be parish or local funds , set up specifically for the purpose of raising funds for those that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to go to college.
mm

Indeed: I heard on the radio this evening that some parents group are setting up a gaelscoil in Limderick or someplace. I think that local funding is the best idea because at 1st and 2nd level in 99% of cases I would guess that kids go to school within 10 miles of home.

Forget about a federal EU - federalise Ireland! Locally elected councils and money with central poolling of a separate national tax would probably work better. It's sad that a single government can't run a country as small as this but on the other hand seeing as I use local roads more than say, ones to Berties house, I would be pro independence.

Now where's my confederate flag; it's time to start campaigning around Cork.

smiles

I think it's perfectly fair.

Plus I don't honestly think the "wedge" is going to be reduced every year, Familys with over €100,000 should help to redistribute their good fortune.

<< Fio >>

Sparks

And Fianna Fail didn't lie at the last election. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by smiles
I think it's perfectly fair.

Plus I don't honestly think the "wedge" is going to be reduced every year, Familys with over €100,000 should help to redistribute their good fortune.

<< Fio >>

Actually this interests me.
If it's only ,students whose families income is over €100,000 or higher who have to pay-who is protesting at this?
Prior to 1995, these people were well able to send their kids to college if they got a place or wanted to go.
Indeed private schools aren't a problem either, the higher up the income bracket you go.
Should the State pay for anyone to go to Blackrock college ( albeit with an extension of the buildings there ) ??

I would find it Gas,that students,who are going to have their fee's paid anyway( as the majority of parents are not in the "super-income" threshold ) end up campaigning for ,the kids of wealthy families to have free fee's.

Actually now that I think of it, thats a great concept and would represent a swing to the right
Imagine, if the logic was transferred further,it should mean Mary Harney gets a medical card as does Michael Smurfitt...
Not that the likes of the super wealthy would use it much, but it would cost the state a fortune in prescriptions as everyone would be entitled to it.
Mind you, we'd probably come to the attention of the IMF:eek:
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And Fianna Fail didn't lie at the last election. :rolleyes:

Consistently? About everything?

Why is it that once there is grounds to say "X has told lies" that someone will turn it around to somehow mean "X cannot be telling the truth, because X always lies".

jc

Captain Trips

Originally posted by smiles
I think it's perfectly fair.

Plus I don't honestly think the "wedge" is going to be reduced every year, Familys with over €100,000 should help to redistribute their good fortune.

<< Fio >>

Devil's Advocate here, but aren't they contributing way more than the sub-100,000 category anyway? Income tax, etc., . No medical card. No college grants, all of that counts. The only difference is they choose to earn and spend money how they like. Why reward slackers - it's a generally free country (irony unintended). I would be in favour of the government loan system like the US uses. It would make people grow up and deal with the real world quicker.

The campaign for free fees like above - what does it really do? Yes you have the right to an education but where does it end? Are we going to end up with free phDs and Masters as well at a higher level again?

People who want a certain education can get it - and if they cannot afford that then a government loan would be appropriate. After all, where the hell does the money come from? Magic?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

l3rian

daveirl, a family that earns over €100,000 should pay fees.

Lets say they pay 42% tax, so they have €58,000 a year or €4,900 a month. They would pay around €3,000 on mortgage/loans and expensives/bills, leaving around €2000 a month disposable income. Putting aside €800 a month they could afford fees of around €10,000. (all figures approximate)

Sparks

l3rian, spoken like someone that's never raised a family.

l3rian

Your right, I havent. But I can do the figures.

The bottom line of around €2000 maybe generous, but I think this figure is the arguement.

What is your guesstimate of a €100,000 familys disposable income?

Originally posted by Sparks
l3rian, spoken like someone that's never raised a family.

just to add, I and another member of my family went to college, and had to pay full fee's and all the other costs associated without any grant what so ever.
And thats with parents earning a lot less than €100,000 at the time.
If you couldn't afford to send at least two kids to college on €100k plus, then theres something else wrong.
mm

DeVore

My parents paid my college fees and I worked saturdays to get cash for spending money.

But I'd pay an extra 1% tax if it meant keep college fees out of the system. I hated the LC when I was doing it because its ruthlessly fair. However looking back its the only way.
College was an option for me, for many with at least as good grades it wasnt and thats the first time the educational system was clearly unfair.

Ireland can only benefit from free education and so what if 5-10% of them leave, so what if 50% of them leave. We are done being a 3rd world country, we have to compete with the 1st world and that needs education cos we cant do sweatshops no more...

Think about the big picture for 2 seconds, think about someone other then yourselves.

DeV.

Sparks

just to add, I and another member of my family went to college, and had to pay full fee's and all the other costs associated without any grant what so ever.
And thats with parents earning a lot less than €100,000 at the time.

Ditto, but we could only afford for one of us to go to college at any one time, and that was only changed by the introduction of free fees.
Mind you, back then our house was worth 30,000 pounds - nowadays it would go for 600,000.
In other words, the economic circumstances from a decade ago don't apply any longer.

Look, it's like this - free fees did do some good. We have them. So why the hell would we give them up?
The grant system needs reform? Yes, but that doens't need free fees to be abolished.
Because it's unfair to the rest of us that the rich get in free? That's disingenous - it's a lot more unfair that those on middle incomes get shafted, because there are more of them.

l3ian,
Try zero, or close to it. You have morgage payments, electric/gas/telephone/garbage/etc bills, food, clothes, car payments, petrol, supporting kids going through college, pension plan payments and very, very little left over. Think being able to go out for dinner every so often, or to the pub for a pint. You're not talking about exotic holidays three times a year! :rolleyes:

Sand

Of course completely reforming such a system might cause them to look at themselves as well which is obviously not going to happen.

Well its not an easy thing to actually completely reform a system, especially a national one, whilst at the same time keeping it from breaking down in pure confusion. Whilst I agree reform is needed at a fundamental level its not something that can be done successfully over the course of a governments typical lifespan. Youd need widespread political support to actually begin, maintain and follow through on reform - and given the nature of the bitchy petty bickering where extremely few new ideas beyond spending more money are seriously considered its not going to happen. And thats even before the politicians confront the bureacrats and the unions with their no doubt extremely controversial reforms.

My personal opinion is free fees for all or fees for all, I'm not too pushed either way but people should misrepresent the threshold as way more than it is.

I agree and disagree:)

On the one hand I agree because students are (almost?) all legally adults and thus youd think theyd be viewed independantly of their parents - so you would have the free fees for all or none.

On the other hand very few students are independant of their parents - even those living away from home are often having their bills paid by their parents to a large degree. When you accept that then you cant say students should be treated one and all by the government. as parents from different backgrounds are going to be able to support their children different and it would be extremely wasteful for the government to spend money on students who are perfectly capable of paying their own way.

In my opinion the government should stop free fees for courses which are economically useless - like ancient history for example - regardless of any other factors, stop free fees for students of wealthy families who are capable of paying for their kids education fairly easily - but offer the option of a government loan to be paid back only at the rate of inflation within say 10 years or whatever to those students who wish to stand on their own two feet.

Free fees arent actually free. *Someone* is paying for them - it should be the people gaining the most direct benefit wherever possible. Free fees are only useful where it helps Ireland to increase its knowledge base to make it a more attractive option for foreign investment. Thats it, the only reason the government should be interfering in 3rd level education as far as I can see.


Was also listening to Colin (? ) Jordan on the radio today, the students che guerva - the guys a riot, apparently cant be held responsible for what students do if fees are reintroduced . What are they going to do? Strike:D? Protest on the streets - a new and fresh approach to student issues:)?

l3rian

Sparks, I dont think zero is a realistic figure.

And why do you support your kids going thru' college? Have they ever heard of part-time jobs?

smiles

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Devil's Advocate here, but aren't they contributing way more than the sub-100,000 category anyway? Income tax, etc., . No medical card. No college grants, all of that counts. The only difference is they choose to earn and spend money how they like. Why reward slackers - it's a generally free country (irony unintended). I would be in favour of the government loan system like the US uses. It would make people grow up and deal with the real world quicker.

Right the way I see it the idea of Free fees is to encourage people into the education system and get rid of income limiting people from going to college, familys earning over 100,000 do not face these problems and I think it is only fair that they have to pay for themselves, free fees should be there for people who need them.

It's not a case of rewarding slackers, the kids have never had a chance and you cannot judge them based on the fact their families are unlucky, disabled, etc. and yes there will be some slackers but you get the good with the bad.

<< Fio >>

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Man

If you couldn't afford to send at least two kids to college on €100k plus, then theres something else wrong.
mm

Exactly, but people want 50,000 euro cars and 300 grand houses in south dublin, pay 5 quid for a pint and aren't willing to put the effort in to find what they want somewhere where they can afford all of it. It's greed IMHO.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by smiles
Right the way I see it the idea of Free fees is to encourage people into the education system and get rid of income limiting people from going to college, familys earning over 100,000 do not face these problems and I think it is only fair that they have to pay for themselves, free fees should be there for people who need them.
<< Fio >>

Yes I know, but what about the reports last year and before showing how many students at even 2nd level were not bothering studying so they could work parttime to go drinking, etc., ? Those were all over the papers in 2001 and 2002. That's undeniable - and then they **** up the LC, but get another free ride until they are 22 or so - and then with some degree or diploma that basically doesn't guarantee money or a job unless they thought about it carefully - but chances are they didn't if they were faffing about earlier.

So how about this:
Bring back fees, but increase the amount of scholarships by a very large proportion. 2nd level is free generally. So reward those who do best in the LC - who committed to studying harder. Yes I know someone will bring up grind schools; make them tax deductable.

So if you show you are committed to studying purposefully, you get one of a much increased number of one-off single degree scholarships. Therefore it's not based on income - it's based on educational committment.

Or another way: have free fees for the first year of college, with anyone allowed to go into any speciality - be it arts, science, medicine, whatever. Have a bastard hard 1st year exam, one to see who is really committed to staying in college for a further 3-5 years, and have them compete for scholarships for the rest of the degree or diploma. Then the ones who are not going to use the opportunity (and I suspect that is quite a lot given failure rates per year and drop outs) would not be draining the system of much needed cash.

Not income based. Not family-wealth-connections-whatever based. Just on whether you DESERVE fee support from the government or not. Scale the scholarships to different levels - those doing say higher level, or ordinary level or whatever they are these days. So say you are not a 550+ pointer. Lets say you want to do a course on something that's 400 points. No bull**** - you study, you get into first year, free fees. Then you have to show you mean business and work your ass off to get to 2nd year/compete for scholarships (much increased numbers of these). Would this work? I am not trolling here - I just thought it was a new way that hadn't been mentioned yet; I believe in rewarding a harder worker - wouldn't this work better than a blanket 100,000 or whatever it may be cut-off or grade. It removes all means testing and unfair situations whereby a student may be say refused funding by parents, etc., . Make them scholarships - emphasise the studying. THat would promote a much higher skilled workforce, no?

Sparks

people want 50,000 euro cars and 300 grand houses in south dublin, pay 5 quid for a pint and aren't willing to put the effort in to find what they want somewhere where they can afford all of it. It's greed IMHO.

And where do you propose we go to buy a car or a house or a pint? Houses sell for prices from 250,000. Cars from around 15,000. We don't get to say "well, I'll pay 25,000 for the house, and I want the car for 3,000". The only other option is to emigrate - and in case you've not noticed, that's bad for the economy.

Yes I know, but what about the reports last year and before showing how many students at even 2nd level were not bothering studying so they could work parttime to go drinking, etc., ?

That's one of the consequences of not paying teachers top dollar - you lose a lot of possible teachers because intelligent people at age 18 look at the stress/workload to pay comparison and decide that teaching is not a viable option - the end result being that with a few exceptions (people with a true vocation), you don't get high-quality teachers, and the next batch of students are worse than the last. It's a vicious cycle too

Those were all over the papers in 2001 and 2002. That's undeniable - and then they **** up the LC, but get another free ride until they are 22 or so - and then with some degree or diploma that basically doesn't guarantee money or a job unless they thought about it carefully - but chances are they didn't if they were faffing about earlier.

Restructuring grants and reintroducing fees won't help here. The problem that you're talking about is with primary and secondary education (secondary in particular). The only way to fix those problems is reform of the primary and secondary educational systems and increasing both teachers pay and teaching standards. Trying to fix the problem by messing with the fees system for college is like trying to fix the problem of sugar in the gas tank of a car by mucking about with the exhaust system.

<snip>
Would this work?

The problem is that exams are well-known as a bad means for measuring a students ability, conviction or actual vocation. All an exam measures is how well the student sits an exam on that particular day. Plus, from the inside of teaching college courses, those exams are not as formalised as they need to be and there is no effective pressure on colleges to change that, or to review their courses. The computer engineering course in TCD for example, has been in dire need of a comprehensive review of how the entire four-year course is structured and taught for nearly a decade now, and there is absolutely no sign of that ever happening.
So I'd be strongly opposed to college exams being used for the purpose of deciding on funding, because of how they are set up and run.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
And where do you propose we go to buy a car or a house or a pint? Houses sell for prices from 250,000. Cars from around 15,000. We don't get to say "well, I'll pay 25,000 for the house, and I want the car for 3,000".

It's perfectly possible to buy a serviceable used car for €3,000. And if you can't afford that, there's public transport. If you can't afford to pay a €250k mortgage (I know I can't), you can rent accommodation for less than a €250k mortgage would cost. If you can't afford the rent, the Health Board will give you Rent Allowance money. You're not "entitled" to own a new car or buy your own house or go to college at the taxpayer's expense. All these things are privileges, not rights.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Sparks

So I'd be strongly opposed to college exams being used for the purpose of deciding on funding, because of how they are set up and run.

So instead we should have free fees for everyone bar those who worked harder/more to get more money, and have a situation where when free fees came in everyone said great and did IT. And now because of greedy choices (i.e., I want to be *earning* a hundred grand at 24 and other madness) unemployment and immigration are going to prob go up.

So do you think people all made good choices when it was free for all?

smiles

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Yes I know, but what about the reports last year and before showing how many students at even 2nd level were not bothering studying so they could work parttime to go drinking, etc., ? Those were all over the papers in 2001 and 2002. That's undeniable - and then they **** up the LC, but get another free ride until they are 22 or so - and then with some degree or diploma that basically doesn't guarantee money or a job unless they thought about it carefully - but chances are they didn't if they were faffing about earlier.

Well then that's their loss.

So how about this:
Bring back fees, but increase the amount of scholarships by a very large proportion. 2nd level is free generally. So reward those who do best in the LC - who committed to studying harder. Yes I know someone will bring up grind schools; make them tax deductable.

Making Grind Schools tax deductable? What point would that serve?

You're helping people who are naturally gifted, some people can do fúck all work and still come out tops in the marks.

What about the kids who go home every night to a house where they have to share a room with two little kids, they can't study after 8pm because their siblings are asleep... your method favours those who are lucky enough to have a good place to study and those who are rich enough to pay for the kids to go to grind schools. Fair enough to have some rewards, but to base an entire education funding scheme upon it is a terrible idea.

Or another way: have free fees for the first year of college, with anyone allowed to go into any speciality - be it arts, science, medicine, whatever. Have a bastard hard 1st year exam, one to see who is really committed to staying in college for a further 3-5 years, and have them compete for scholarships for the rest of the degree or diploma. Then the ones who are not going to use the opportunity (and I suspect that is quite a lot given failure rates per year and drop outs) would not be draining the system of much needed cash.

And where would the funding go when there will be **** all people in the next few years of college, you'd actually be causing problems because there are certain cut off points, if there are 20 people or 200 people in some course, the cost of running the course will still be the same, the lecturers, the theatre halls, etc. all have to be paid for regardless of the number.

Not income based. Not family-wealth-connections-whatever based. Just on whether you DESERVE fee support from the government or not.

Why not? Surely those who are able to afford to pay, especially those who have already paid for their kids to go to private schools, if they can do that then surely they can't complain if they have to continue to do so.

Scale the scholarships to different levels - those doing say higher level, or ordinary level or whatever they are these days. So say you are not a 550+ pointer. Lets say you want to do a course on something that's 400 points. No bull**** - you study, you get into first year, free fees. Then you have to show you mean business and work your ass off to get to 2nd year/compete for scholarships (much increased numbers of these). Would this work? I am not trolling here - I just thought it was a new way that hadn't been mentioned yet; I believe in rewarding a harder worker - wouldn't this work better than a blanket 100,000 or whatever it may be cut-off or grade. It removes all means testing and unfair situations whereby a student may be say refused funding by parents, etc., . Make them scholarships - emphasise the studying. THat would promote a much higher skilled workforce, no?

If a student is refused funding by their parents they can take it up with various different education authorities and arrangements can be reached, and somehow I doubt that this would happen in very many, if any, cases.

You're idea is theoretically a good one, but there are still problems with it, the exams for every course will be different, you will encourage people to do courses which will not challenge them because they are afraid that if they do the ones which challenge them then they won't get free fees, and surely you don't want people who simply do a course because this is the only way they are sure they will get a scholarship, in fact you'd be encouraging a workforce thats afraid to be challenged.

<< Fio >>

Sparks

Trips,

when free fees came in everyone said great and did IT. And now because of greedy choices (i.e., I want to be *earning* a hundred grand at 24 and other madness) unemployment and immigration are going to prob go up.
So do you think people all made good choices when it was free for all?

No I don't, and I've said so before. But that's a problem in secondary level education and third level entrance requirements and course structure - and those problems will not be solved through the removal of free fees.

Meh,

It's perfectly possible to buy a serviceable used car for €3,000.

Where from? (He says, having seen that the lowest price in the latest "Car Buyers Guide" is ~4500 for a car with over 100,000 miles on the odometer).

And if you can't afford that, there's public transport.

I'm going to try *very* hard not to fall over laughing Meh. You and me may have walked to school each morning, but that was over twenty years ago and nowhere near Dublin. If I had kids, I would not be allowing them to walk a mile or more to school unattended - and given the reality of working in Dublin and living in a dormitory town, cars are about the only viable solution That's not to say that there should be an alternative - but until security on public transport is sufficent that you don't have to worry about your child being abducted or beaten, I don't count it as a viable alternative.

If you can't afford to pay a €250k mortgage (I know I can't), you can rent accommodation for less than a €250k mortgage would cost. If you can't afford the rent, the Health Board will give you Rent Allowance money. You're not "entitled" to own a new car or buy your own house or go to college at the taxpayer's expense. All these things are privileges, not rights.

Actually, you have a legal right to education. And in our society, without an equal chance to go to college, that right is comprimised because a LC is not the equivalent of a BA.

Further, should free fees be cancelled, do you really think your tax levels will fall?

And to quote a letter from today's Irish Times:

Anyone who thinks Noel Dempsey or the rest of the Government cares about third-level access for the disadvantaged is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

The only implemented change I have seen recently in this regard has been the 25 per cent cut in the Back To Education allowance for the long-term unemployed, lone parents, etc. Have I missed something?

bonkey

Originally posted by Captain Trips
So how about this:
Bring back fees, but increase the amount of scholarships by a very large proportion. 2nd level is free generally. So reward those who do best in the LC - who committed to studying harder. Yes I know someone will bring up grind schools; make them tax deductable.

No offense, but that type of elitist structuring is - in my opinion - the worst possible solution imaginable.

Take my case.

My dad earned a reasonable salary working for a semi-state. My mum didnt work. My dad could afford to put his four kids through university - two of us in the days when there were fees, and the fourth not yet there, so that probably means he's paying fees for her too.

Now - he's budgeted for this for each of us since the day we were each born. It has meant smaller cars, bought less often. It has meant fewer foreign holidays, and other sacrifices over the past 30 years, but thats what he reckoned it took, and he put his luxury aside for half his life to ensure that we got to go through university irrespective of whether or not we had to pay fees etc. He treats the fees being dropped for some years as "free money" which he can touch the day my youngest sibling graduates.

I'm a lazy sod. In my last term of first year in UL, I attended approximately 1/3 of my lectures. I did SFA study. I was the archetypal poor student. I wasnt much better in the first two terms, but final term of first year was a real doozy. Anyway...as it happens, I'm also rather good at what I do. As a result I walked out of first year with the lowest attendance record and the highest average grades in my class - and one of the highest averages of my entire year in university (dunno if UL is still the same, but I finished first year with a QCA of 3.84).

According to your system, I should be rewarded with less fees the following year. Why? My dad had the money put aside, and I sure as hell didnt work a fraction as hard as many of my class - many of whom just about scraped by into second year. And yet I would be the one rewarded for my "good work"...purely because I happen to have a natural aptitude for what I was studying.

Much and all though such a system would benefit me personally, I would be the first to oppose it, as it is heading down the road of "education is for the smart". Can you imagine, for example, if the government adopted the same system in secondary or primary school?

"I'm sorry sir, but your son doesnt get to start secondary school unless you fork over the readies. He's too stupid to be worth government funding".

No thanks.

If you can suggest a way to link the reward to the effort rather than the ability, then sure - I'd be all for it - but otherwise no way.

jc

donutheadhomer

Any parent who can afford Private Schools and Grinds for their kids can also afford 3rd Level fees

donutheadhomer

k

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Where from? (He says, having seen that the lowest price in the latest "Car Buyers Guide" is ~4500 for a car with over 100,000 miles on the odometer).

http://search.autotrader.ie/cgi-bin/search?locale=eir.CARS.1&country=IE&orderby=neg_price&make_id_EQI=0&model_EQS=0&specified_price_GT=500&specified_price_LT=3000&currency=EUR&SUBMIT=Search

You have searched for: Price €500 - €3,000, Sort by Price High-Low

874 cars from a total of 12,607.

I'm going to try *very* hard not to fall over laughing Meh. You and me may have walked to school each morning, but that was over twenty years ago and nowhere near Dublin. If I had kids, I would not be allowing them to walk a mile or more to school unattended

Who said anything about unattended?

Actually, you have a legal right to education.

A legal right to education is not the same thing as a legal right to free education.

Sparks

Meh,
First, thanks for the link (looking to get a new car as the current one isn't going to make it past the NCT...)

Who said anything about unattended?

Who said that we have the time to walk to our kids schools and get to work for 0900? Most schools do not have any facility to look after kids arriving at 0700 which is why you'd have to be dropping them off while driving to dublin from a dormitary town, and close to the time were you using the DART.

A legal right to education is not the same thing as a legal right to free education.

No, but the legal right is to an equal standard of education, as shown by the recent case won against the government regarding the education of autistic children. There is an argument that reintroducing fees runs counter to that right.

But we're arguing here about something off the central topic.

What do we want from our education system? I'm arguing that the education system produces our greatest natural resource - an educated skilled workforce. That education system, however, is a complex one, and full of flaws. Primary and Secondary education are in need of better pay for teachers to attract the best teachers we can get. Higher standards need to be set to counter the inflow of graduates applying to be teachers to ensure we get the best of the applicants. More money for capital spending is required to upgrade a large number of primary and secondary schools to a minimum standard (ie. no rats, no mildew, no damp, etc...). In third level, the HEA needs to step up it's auditing program to an annual one, instead of a five-year one. College courses need to be reviewed comprehensively on an annual basis, and many are in dire need of updating. College examination practises and standards have to be updated, and something that should be seriously considered is either extending the length of the courses for some subjects or switching to a system similar to that of German colleges. And in some colleges, like TCD, the weight of the internal college beaurocracy is an enormous problem. Further education after graduation is also in dire need of review, especially as for the next decade or so, it's going to be of equal or greater size than undergraduate courses. TCD isn't even accepting non-graduates for their further education courses - that's the kind of thing that has to be changed.

Given all of that, I have to sincerely doubt that reintroducing fees is going to have anything but a negative effect. If Dempsey is serious about access to third level, he has to restructure the grants system - not make it harder for middle income families (who, like it or not, make up the majority of those sending kids to college) to send kids to college.

The problems with the education system are too complex, and the system too important, to allow a kneejerk reaction to be taken.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Who said that we have the time to walk to our kids schools and get to work for 0900?

You don't have time to walk or accompany them on the bus, but you've got time to sit in a traffic jam and drive them? Please.

No, but the legal right is to an equal standard of education, as shown by the recent case won against the government regarding the education of autistic children.

And that case is completely irrelevant to free fees. If the government was proposing to reintroduce fees for autistic students only, that wouldn't be allowed, sure. But as far as I've heard, they've no intention of doing that.

There is an argument that reintroducing fees runs counter to that right.

As long as the rules on who has to pay and who doesn't get applied to everyone equally and without arbitrary discrimination, there is no problem.

The problems with the education system are too complex, and the system too important, to allow a kneejerk reaction to be taken.

I agree, but free fees is precisely that kneejerk reaction. It was introduced as a vote-buying measure by the Labour government a few years back, against the advice of their own civil servants.

Sand

Can you imagine, for example, if the government adopted the same system in secondary or primary school?

Not really the issue though - I think its generally accepted that primary and secondary school teaches the basic skills of reading, writing addition and exsposes the kid to a variety of subjects so that he or she can decide on what they might like to pursue and to determine if theyve got the ability to pursue it.

it is heading down the road of "education is for the smart".

Education *is* for the smart Id reckon, or at least for those with an ability for what their pursuing.

The government has to get a return for its investment - its the tax payers money, politicians cant throw it around so theyre popular. If youre not gifted enough/hard working enough to pass your exams easily enough then why should the government pay for you? Whilst you may have been naturally gifted at what you pursued surely thats a good thing? Others had to work harder to get similar results but either way the government gets a group of qualified people who are either naturals or motivated enough to learn.

Thats better than a bunch who scraped in *barely*, passed their exams *barely*, and come out the other side with a qualification to their name they did *just enough* to get, which they wouldnt have valued enough to pursue if it wasnt free.

If you can suggest a way to link the reward to the effort rather than the ability, then sure - I'd be all for it - but otherwise no way.

The points system generally rewards effort - its after all just a short term memory test where you spit out what youve memorised, and complete questions extremely similar to questions youve been doing for the past 6 months. Its so broad ranging that you cant be naturally gifted at everything. If you cant get a good points total youve just not put in the effort or your just not suited for the sort of challenges a 3rd level course will present. Either way why should the government fund you?

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Sparks
Given all of that, I have to sincerely doubt that reintroducing fees is going to have anything but a negative effect. If Dempsey is serious about access to third level, he has to restructure the grants system - not make it harder for middle income families (who, like it or not, make up the majority of those sending kids to college) to send kids to college.

Yeah but who pays? Free fees for everyone? yeah that will work like it does now. Are we benefiting so greatly from these free fees? In what way are things *better* now, compared to 10-15 years ago. Are we so rich and arrogant to give everyone not just primary, secondary but also college education? Like I said, then free post-grad courses? WTF does the money come from? Spend 12 years in college? Who is going to support these people? You, me? It's a nice idea if money was magic and you didn't need to pay for accomodation, salaries, etc., . But this isn't Star Trek's Federation and money still exists. And you have to pay people and at the moment our governement cannot afford it.

Bonkey's story was excellent: exactly the sort of cop on from his dad that I think people these days miss. Everyone has to make some sacrifice and he chose to sacrifice say a flash car, etc., over the years and so on.

Where and when did the mentality of that all things should be available now and for free? What sort of magical thinking is this? You want to say have your future kids go to college - but want to make no sacrifice for it. Instead you want buy a stupidly expensive Dublin house, a new BMW and not accept that you can't have everything. Not willing to say or decide what you think is best. It's arrogant and selfish to then presume that others - some weird group of immposibly rich people who earn the vast amount of 100,000 a year between them - should pay for you to go and keep studying in college - and then next in 10 years time - to pay for the equivalent to go on to free post-grad education. Still no increase in workforce numbers, etc., . Still no give. Just greed and selfish behaviour that someone else should work for you. Am I so wrong in the above? And it's not directed at anyone here in particular.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
No, but the legal right is to an equal standard of education, as shown by the recent case won against the government regarding the education of autistic children. There is an argument that reintroducing fees runs counter to that right.

Except that the initial case regarding autism was where someone wanted an education which (s)he had been denied in their youth, wasnt it?

IIRC, the findings were that yes - the government had failed in its duty to supply an equal standard of education, and no - the person was not entitled to an education today, because the government's responsibility only covered you to the age of 16.

How re-introducing fees could run counter to this "legal right" is beyond me....except for the rare prodigy who attends university from a young age. There, I believe the government also has a get-out clause, because its legal responsibility is also only limited to the level of the Leaving Cert.

So, when you talk about "legal rights" to an education, you have absolutely nothing relevant to university. What you are - in effect - arguing is that we should have such a right.

jc