Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

|!| Third Level Fees

  • 27-11-2002 12:46pm
    #1
    no2fees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭


    fees1.giffees2.gif

    Hey guys, the above is a replica of the postcards that the YOUNG PDs are currently circulating as part of a no2fees campaign. Being a YPD member myself, I strongly disagree with the re-introduction of third level fees, and its also something that our parent party, the Progressive Democrats agree with, furthermore, they are supporting our campaign effort with a strong re-iteration as members of the Government that third level fees will be opposed by us (as YPDs AND PDs). We're asking people to re-enforce this opinion by supporting our campaign, thus the reason for my post.

    A website is available to backup the site. http://www.youngpds.org

    I hope you find it of interest, and if anyone has any questions or comments, please visit the site and let us know, or email no2fees@youngpds.org.

    Regards
    Dave C.
    no2fees

    no2fees website


«1

Comments

  • #2
    tHE vAGGABOND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,687 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    I campaigned for free fee's and used to be a very active member of USI (quite a while ago) and I say free fee's dont work..

    countries around the world all are moving to a system where the student has to pay something significant to costs, as free fee's dont do the job they were supposed to - being to bring non traditional students to 3rd level education..

    Free fee's are for the poor - but why should a millionares son or daughter get free fee's too?

    We should have something like the old grant, but with a higher means tested ceiling, say (to pick a figure out of the sky) €50,000 per annium. If parental income is below that it should be totally free, and above that it costs whatever it costs, and put a government intrest free loans paid back over a number of years of your working life, post college.


  • #3
    swiss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭swiss


    no2fees, please read the forum guidelines
    Topics should not be verbatim quotes from some article sans comment. Either add a comment before or after the post, offering your opinion on the subject, or at the very least, your reason for adding the topic.

    This is not the first time I've seen the PD's pushing some bandwagon to furthur their political agenda. I for one strongly oppose the reintroduction of college fees, but I would rather join a campaign that relies on rigorous political merit rather than a leech on the back of public opinion.

    If I'm wrong, then please tell me what exactly the PD's intend to do, and what the PD's have done to date. They are a minority coalition party in government. If they feel so strongly about the reintroduction of fees they can bring down the current administration, or at least use it as a bargining chip. Until they are prepared to do this or some other effective means of opposing the decision, I'm not going to countenance the PD's loud insistence that they are stronly opposed to fees without some evidence that they are actually prepared to *do* something about it.


  • #4
    chernobyl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭chernobyl


    What about getting better resources to secondary schools and pupils that are not so privlidged?..although i doubt my money will do so.

    Yeah...once we have such a corrupt and ****ty government i dont want my money going anywhere near them!


  • #5
    Bateman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,818 ✭✭✭Bateman


    Yeah I think the point is that the government have said that they will use money generated by fees to help those who should not have to pay fees.
    However, on the back of their recent renaging on several fronts, I simply do not think that they should be trusted to spend the money on this alone. It would be next to impossible to guarantee that fees money is spent on this and this alone, so there simply is no carrot at the moment.
    Have to agree with the criticism of the PDs though, if they let this happen and continue to whine about it then they will get short shrift from students in the future, this will not be forgotten.
    But as long as we have wánkers like Hourihane running the show being bankrolled by FF (and coincidentally agreeing with the idea of reintroducing fees), its difficult to know who is going to defend these interests.


  • #6
    no2fees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭no2fees


    well thats utterly pathetic, those cards were done by me, so that would be expressing my opinion in fact! So you are completely wrong to have edited a post by me.

    The rest of the edited post indicates that I was not in fact "moderated" I was censored. So you edit posts that don't match your political opinion? Thats worrysome.

    Well there goes all confidence I ever had in boards.ie out the window!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    So what you are saying is that those posters are not official PD colateral. Do they know that you are posting these personal opinions of yours with their name associated with them.

    Back to why it was moderated/censored etc. We have a set of rules for this forum you read them before posting. We do not like to see a single link or a picture without the poster taking the time to write their own views in a post. Now I would have needed to be a mind reader to realise that you made those posters personally wouldn't I (see I'm saying they looked fairly professional, how nice of me!).

    Gandalf.

    (by the way people who posted similar posts to yours in the past, ie a link to website or a picture only have included the Irish White peoples party(I've forgotten their name tbh) & the Continunity IRA)


  • #8
    no2fees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭no2fees


    I'm saying nothing of the sort, I'm a YPD, who is part of the no2fees campaign being launched by the YPDs, not the PD.

    The cards are by me, and if you need me to repost with a bit of editorial, fine. But I sure as hell don't appreciate people deleting an email, then making a comment (political comment).

    If you have a good reason to delete them, fine, but sure as hell don't make it out because you (personally) disagree with them.


  • #9
    tHE vAGGABOND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,687 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    Mary H hasent got the balls to stand up to FF anyway..

    she has been their lapdog for how long, 6 years now..


  • #10
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    So what your saying is YPD is a different organisation to the PD's. Like "Diet" PD's or "Lite" PD's :)

    I did have a good reason to delete your spam BECAUSE YOU BROKE THE RULES. If I decide to add a comment to add some humour, so what! (it wasn't personally aimed at you!)

    Man if your going to get involved in politics you need to grow a thicker skin !!!

    If you edit your post with some words explaining your campaign and your position then I have no problems leaving your post intact.

    Gandalf.


  • #11
    festivala
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭festivala


    Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND

    Free fee's are for the poor - but why should a millionares son or daughter get free fee's too?

    Why, exactly, should rich people have to pay for education but poor people get it for free? That is simply not fair to the rich people.

    Is this more 'positive discrimination' nonsense?

    Why don't shops charge rich people for food and poor people get it for free?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Dampsquid
    Registered Users Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Dampsquid


    Why, exactly, should rich people have to pay for education but poor people get it for free? That is simply not fair to the rich people.

    If thats your argument, then why give poor people social welfare payments?


  • #13
    Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Meh


    Originally posted by festivala
    Why, exactly, should rich people have to pay for education but poor people get it for free?
    Because the rich people can afford to pay it on their own, and the poor people can't.


  • #14
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    Of course, there's also a question mark over means-testing the parents of people who aren't technically dependents any more in order to work out if they deserve a grant.

    I'm 21 years of age and living and working in a different country to my parents - I've worked full time and supported myself since I was 18. However if I decided to go to university now, I'd be refused a grant because of a means test on my parents. Fair?

    (That being said, I agree with college fees if the cash will be ploughed back in places it's needed more. If I want the privelige of a university education I'm prepared to do the work and shoulder the debt required to pay for that as much as possible, but I'd like to see the cash used to provide better education systems across the board or to support those who really, genuinely could not afford university otherwise.)


  • #15
    Bateman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,818 ✭✭✭Bateman


    Rich and poor, exactly what is all this bollocks?

    I mean surely its common sense to make allowances for people with lower incomes on issues such as education, I mean we already have it in health with the medical card, why is education lagging behind?


  • #16
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by swiss
    no2fees, please read the forum guidelines

    You've had the same message from two mods, and yet insist that you're being censored.

    Well, lets go for unanimity in the politics moderator triumverate.

    No2Fees - any post which starts a thread without personal commentary will be summarily edited/deleted by one of the mods, unless we deem it is by a long-term poster we happen to know will take part in the discussion.

    If you dont have the common decency to read our rules before posting, or lack the intelligence to understand that they apply equally to you as to others....this is not our concern.

    You were not censored. You were not oppressed. You were moderated for not doing what the rules tell you to. Arguing your case, to be honest, does not strengthen your position - it simply confirms my belief that you still have not read the rules, or that you have read them and still cannot understand that they apply to you.

    Getting back to the point....
    Free fee's are for the poor - but why should a millionares son or daughter get free fee's too?

    Exactly where do you think the money for fees comes from? Ultimately, the tax-payers. Given that the millionaires contribute so much more to the govts tax income "per capita" than anyone else, I think its only reasonable that they should get equal benefit from it.

    I suppose next we'll have someone arguing that their fees should be higher than everyone else's too, cause they can afford to pay.

    jc


  • #17
    mrangry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭mrangry


    Well as a student i m dead aginst the reintroduction of fees.No political party has taken a stand for students.If the PDs are willing to put their arse on the line for this,as they have with Bertie bowl,spending ect, then I welcome it,irrespective of some of my views on them.

    Mary Harney doesnt usually come across as a politician who makes empty promises.

    This whole fees businee,I believe is been used by the students unions and USI for their own self purposes.In an era where students are getting more and more indifferent to their unions, this issue or non issue is been used to show that they are still relevant to student life and not just a bunch of wanna be politicians!!


  • #18
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    I dont understand are the PD's not a Right wing political party.

    I confusses me that they should not want fees.

    Are the PD's turning Left wing and could this start a wonderful relationship between them and Labour, what a force.

    I don't respect the government when they wish to get rid of Fee's but I cann't see students doing and thing to stop them. The student strikes were useless and unorganised. They should all strike on the one day not just take days every now and then. One week it Galway the next its Waterford and then its Limerick.

    Go on disrupt the roads on a national day of Striking.

    After all most of the student unions around the country are part of the USI. Where is the USI when you need them?????


  • #19
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Does nobody else think that the introduction of 3rd level fees would be political suicide.
    FF are already pushing the limits of what they are doing for the "good of the country", I think this is basically forming an entire generation of people who won't vote for FF, because they made them have to work their asses off in college instead of enjoying it.


  • #20
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #21
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    I think they want to be different so the just say they are right wing when really like most people in Ireland they are centre left.


    Centre Left could change to centre right after the budget.

    (Just an edit to say i am talking about the PD's, due to the page change.)


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by PHB
    Does nobody else think that the introduction of 3rd level fees would be political suicide.

    Depends on the timing and how you went about it, really.

    I think it would, like any other controversial move, generate miles of column-inches, and maybe cause a few people to go hoarse from incoherent shouting and ranting, after which it would die down and become just another fact of life.
    I think this is basically forming an entire generation of people who won't vote for FF, because they made them have to work their asses off in college instead of enjoying it.

    Its taken me a while to figure out what irks me about this suggestion....and its just come to me....

    When I went through uni, you still had to pay fees.

    It wasnt all that long ago, either, so its not like I'm a doddering old grandad fondly remembering through rose-tinted glasses.

    I still enjoyed my four years there. In fact, anyone I know who was in Uni at the time pretty much enjoyed it...as much as you enjoy anything in life. Some of them needed jobs, some of them didnt.

    My girlfriend over here in Switzerland is putting herself through Uni. She will have debts in excess of €20K at the end of it. She still enjoys it.

    In other words, I dont see working your ass off as being incompatible with the idea of enjoyment. There's room for both in your life. Well - there should be - because otherwise your days until retirement are gonna be pretty un-good ;)

    To be quite honest, the more I think about it, the more I favour the re-introduction of fees. I would like to see it happening in conjunction with some system allowing those who cannot afford to pay them to borrow the money from the government, interest free, with some intelligent means-tested repayment system.

    While not perfect (you can still get a degree then waste your life away and never be in a position to repay the cash), I do think its a better solution than any other I've heard proposed to date. It would need fine-tuning, to avoid government sponsorship of eternal students etc., but at its core I think its a feasible system.

    Yes, I'm pretty sure I've offended many of you who are, or will be students. Tough. I fully support your right to go to university, but I do not believe that it should be at the taxpayers' expense. If you cant afford to pay your way, then the government should loan you the money to pay your way, and you should repay it.

    Of course, this probably isnt what will happen....which then leaves the issue of which of the available solutions is preferable. Here, Im not sure yet....

    jc


  • #23
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #24
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
    I campaigned for free fee's and used to be a very active member of USI (quite a while ago) and I say free fee's dont work..
    I was on the executive of the UCD Students’ Union around that time and we had already figured out, in fairness, that it was a stupid idea - UCDSU was (one of) the only to oppose USIs pro-Free Fees stance.

    The purpose of introducing free fees was ostensibly to open up third level education to potential students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Even if you considered that potential students from disadvantaged backgrounds were already receiving free fees, there was the reality that attitudes and not fees are the cause of the demographic bell curve in universities. The entire exercise was viewed as the rather idiotic brainchild by then minister of education Niamh Bhreathnach - who thankfully failed to get re-elected.

    The only realistic reason for not re-introducing third level fees today is status quo, in particular that it would put at a disadvantage those families who had, upon the original introduction of free fees, channelled their college funds into private second level education, now placing them at a financial disadvantage. I’m not saying this is not a valid reason, btw.

    Either way the government would want to act on this in this budget, so as to allow the political dust to settle by the next election.


  • #25
    Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Meh


    Originally posted by daveirl
    I know people at the moment who completely scam the system in order to get a grant when they are no more entitled to it...

    This is the major problem, that the deserving people don't get the grants and that many people who don't deserve them, screw the system to get them. I'd imagine this would only increase if there was a return to fees.
    This isn't a reason not to reintroduce fees. This is a reason to reform the grants system.


  • #26
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    quote:
    I think this is basically forming an entire generation of people who won't vote for FF, because they made them have to work their asses off in college instead of enjoying it.

    Its taken me a while to figure out what irks me about this suggestion....and its just come to me....

    It took you a while to figure out what's wrong with that statement? Haven't you had the first coffee of the morning yet? :)

    What's wrong with that statement is the typical student "why should I have to work" mentality, which seems to apply as much to their studies as to actually working their way through college. It's the childish, petulant attitude which treats university as a bit of a laugh and a holiday at the expense of the state and their parents. It's the kind of sickening bullsh1t which ensures that nobody gives a tuppenny damn about the students whinging about fees or whatever, because we know that this is the sort of rubbish they'll throw back at us.

    You're not kids any more. You're allegedly adults. So you have to work. This isn't school; this is university, which is optional, and if you're not prepared to put in the effort required there - and I do mean WHATEVER IT TAKES - then there are plenty of jobs in McDonalds for you.

    Not "enjoying" university indeed. The state isn't there to fund your entertainment.


  • #27
    Cork
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,924 ✭✭✭Cork


    Originally posted by Meh
    This isn't a reason not to reintroduce fees. This is a reason to reform the grants system.

    The arguement for introducing third level fees and for taxing childens allowance are similar.

    Do you think that the "well to do" should get Free third level fees?

    I surpose - it all comes down to if the government can reform the system to the benefit of all.


  • #28
    tHE vAGGABOND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,687 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    What's wrong with that statement is the typical student "why should I have to work" mentality, which seems to apply as much to their studies as to actually working their way through college
    A good friend of mine works for a very big investment bank over here in London. They have always taken graduates from Ireland (he is one!) - taken the 6 or 7 they consider to be the cream of the crop..

    This is the first year in the last 20 that they will not do it, as the people from the last few years, and the people they interviewed have been or come accross as lazy and not been that great at all..

    Could this be that students are getting things handed to them on a plate, told the chapters to study and what chapters not to study and not have to worry about fee's and having to make a real effort?

    Rob: You know your the exception rather than the rule in the case of students who are directly or indirectly dependent on their parents. I would say high 80's to early 90's percent of students are dependant on their parents.

    Now if we can come up with a better way of ensuring that the childern of people who can afford to pay, pay and the children of people who cannot afford to pay dont then Im all ears :)

    In my student union days we thought about maybe anyone who is on any form of social welfare (be that unemployment or widows pension type thing or whatever) should be free - but that discriminates against farmers, fishermen and people who get off their arse and do low paid work?


  • #29
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #30
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    What's wrong with that statement is the typical student "why should I have to work" mentality, which seems to apply as much to their studies as to actually working their way through college. It's the childish, petulant attitude which treats university as a bit of a laugh and a holiday at the expense of the state and their parents. It's the kind of sickening bullsh1t which ensures that nobody gives a tuppenny damn about the students whinging about fees or whatever, because we know that this is the sort of rubbish they'll throw back at us.

    I wont be treating university as a laugh, perhaps some will but thats the same with any system.
    I wouldnt have to work through college anyway since my parents would pay for it, since they value education over other things, since i'm a lucky ****.
    However this wouldnt apply to all people, and if we re introduced college fees less people would go to college, simply because they can't afford it.
    Yes if the government can introduce college loans, but that will mean you will have a huge debt hanging over you for the first 10 or so years of being in the workforce.
    If it ended up like the system in the UK, where the fee is the same for all colleges, then I think the system could work, but it would still mean some people wouldn't have the choices they could have with education.
    I think we can all agree we don't want a system like they have in the US.

    You're not kids any more. You're allegedly adults. So you have to work. This isn't school; this is university, which is optional, and if you're not prepared to put in the effort required there - and I do mean WHATEVER IT TAKES - then there are plenty of jobs in McDonalds for you.

    The point is that people should be putting their efforts into university, not into work. If fess are introduced it will result in people spending a majority of their time working, which will have a negative result on their studies.
    Not "enjoying" university indeed. The state isn't there to fund your entertainment.

    No the state isn't there to fund your entertainment, it doesn't mean that it can't be a side effect of state funding.
    It increase the skill of the workforce, meaning more companies will continue to come into this country, supporting the economy.
    Free 3rd level education is good for the state.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    festivala
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭festivala


    Originally posted by Cork
    The arguement for introducing third level fees and for taxing childens allowance are similar.

    Do you think that the "well to do" should get Free third level fees?

    I surpose - it all comes down to if the government can reform the system to the benefit of all.

    I simply believe that it is unfair to charge one section for education while allowing another to receive it for free.

    An even bigger problem is where do you draw the line? We are not talking about only rich and poor, and its foolish to believe that it's that simple. There is a third group. The people on the means-test (and don't get me started on means-testing) borderline are the ones who ALWAYS suffer.

    Free education is an enlightened policy. The frightening statictics showing that huge numbers of students have to work their way through college mixed with the unbelieveable drop-out rates has, in my opinion, demonstrated that, even with free fees, many students simply cannot afford to go to college. And you know what's going to suffer - the college work.


  • #32
    festivala
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭festivala


    Originally posted by Shinji

    Not "enjoying" university indeed. The state isn't there to fund your entertainment.

    But it's also not there to profit from it, which is what is most certainly happening in Britian.


  • #33
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Originally posted by PHB
    The point is that people should be putting their efforts into university, not into work. If fess are introduced it will result in people spending a majority of their time working, which will have a negative result on their studies.

    The main problem is that you can't put all courses under one big umbrella.
    Arts for example, someone might have 12/13 hours of lectures a week. Why shouldn't they work another 30/35 hours a week. What else have they got to do? Studying is secondary, and is done at home, just like back in Secondary school.

    Medicine though, the poor bastard might have 40+ hours per week. Obviously they can't be expected to work at all.

    So for free fees or means-testing to work fairly, everything should be taken into consideration, not just how much your parents earn, and how many siblings you have. After all, like in Shinji's example, you may be completely non-dependant on your parents, yet this isn't considered. Someone may also be just €1 inside the "Have to pay for it" bracket, yet they can't really afford to. It's all a bit too grey to just suddenely declare "Right, rich pay fees, poor don't". That's not fair either.

    As Vagga said too, free fees is breeding a generation of lazy workers. Getting into college for nothing is having a negative effect on people's studies. People no longer see college as a priviledge. Thousands go to college "just for the sake of it", wasting their time and the state's resources. When I was in first year Science in UCD, 40% of people had dropped out before the exams even started. Only a quarter of these people even bothered to try again and repeat first year. That's just a complete waste of it. Many people just see college as an extension of secondary school, and treat it as such, when nothing could be further from the truth. IMO, people would be a hell of a lot more interested and diligent in college of they or their parents were paying large sums for them to even attend college in the first place. It would have a general positive effect on test results and studies IMO.


  • #34
    tHE vAGGABOND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,687 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    which is what is most certainly happening in Britian
    waffle. The loans program over is loan + very little intrest, its hardly massive profit - it pays for the program to be run. its not easy to run, and keep track of, loans for millions of students. its hardly paying for a underused government jet or anything :)

    You pay the loan back when you are able to, when you start earning over a set threshold. I think its a good idea, altho it seem to be on the way out.


  • #35
    festivala
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭festivala


    Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
    waffle. The loans program over is loan + very little intrest, its hardly massive profit - it pays for the program to be run. its not easy to run, and keep track of, loans for millions of students. its hardly paying for a underused government jet or anything :)

    You pay the loan back when you are able to, when you start earning over a set threshold. I think its a good idea, altho it seem to be on the way out.

    You pay it pay when are able to because the banks are interested in getting customers for life. Keep 'em in debt is the policy.

    You make it sound like it's a massive liability for the banks to give student loans. That must be why they're falling over themselves to give them out, so.


  • #36
    Bateman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,818 ✭✭✭Bateman


    I have to say that to break things down to rich and poor is quite silly and simplistic.
    I don't think its too much to ask to expect students to have a weekend job (like me) that will fund transport, lunch, books, and a little drinking.

    The results of free fees as regards laziness are there for all to see, but when rich kids saunter through college at parents' expense, this happens as well.

    Its a puzzler alright. Free fees were great when we needed graduates to fill highly skilled jobs, but if the government feels that this is no longer as necessary as before, then fees will soon be a reality.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Cork
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,924 ✭✭✭Cork


    Originally posted by festivala
    I simply believe that it is unfair to charge one section for education while allowing another to receive it for free.

    An even bigger problem is where do you draw the line? We are not talking about only rich and poor, and its foolish to believe that it's that simple. There is a third group. The people on the means-test (and don't get me started on means-testing) borderline are the ones who ALWAYS suffer.

    Free education is an enlightened policy. .

    So called free third level education has not opened up third level education to all sectors.

    All colleges cannot offer a complete range of courses.

    We need reform of our grants & college system to open the whole thing up.


  • #38
    rien_du_tout
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭rien_du_tout


    Loads of issues here, hmmmmm

    Some1 made a comment about the rich of this country providing most of the tax. Yes but look at how much tax they avoid paying through loopholes etc, this was pointed out in the Irish Indpendant sometime this week.

    Free 3rd level education benefits society. I dont think there's anything wrong with discrimminating against though who can afford to pay fees by making them pay fees.

    I'm totally against reintroducing fees for a number of reasons:

    1) It will have a major negative impact on the number of people going to college in the next few years. Personally my parents had been prepared for it since I was young but have used some of it since for our new house and my dental work and stuff. It would be tight to make the amount for next year or whenever.

    2) It'll increase stress in university goers. We already have a majorly hight suicide rate in this country. Anybody wanna increase that number.

    3) Less time for study due to working to pay of loans,etc..... increased stress from this also.

    Saying that free fees increases laziness in students is strange. Do they not have to pass the same exams and do the same course as they would have to if they were paying?? Maybe, its because students who under the fees system would be stressed coz of money are more capable of passing. Seems possible....

    I cant understand the logic behind this "university is a privillige(sp?)" nonsense. Education is a right, and it is the duty of the state to provide that education as it does at primary and secondary levels.


  • #39
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    Saying that free fees increases laziness in students is strange. Do they not have to pass the same exams and do the same course as they would have to if they were paying??

    You can't have this both ways. A lot of courses (not all I admit, but certainly a majority of them) are in fact structured to ALLOW for the fact that students will be working to pay their way while in university. They ask amazingly low hours in terms of lectures and so on as a result.

    If you're going to make the whole thing subsidised, this has to go. 40 hour weeks in university - hell, it'd probably condense some courses down by at least a year. You wouldn't get a vast amount of time to urinate your earnings away into a gutter, but hey, everyone else in the world is working their backsides off to the same degree!

    I wonder which option the students would take - the same workload and hours as people in full employment but free education, or pay a bit and get the freedoms they currently enjoy? :)


  • #40
    no2fees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭no2fees


    I'm in college from 9 until 4 literally every day. I commute two hours each side, and trying to fit a 20hr part-time job is a push for me, I had to pay the reg fees myself, and the cost of transport and college costs stretches my meagre attempts at survival already.

    I only got a letter on Friday warning me about "excessive absense" from some lectures.

    EEEP!


  • #41
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Originally posted by rien_du_tout
    1) It will have a major negative impact on the number of people going to college in the next few years. Personally my parents had been prepared for it since I was young but have used some of it since for our new house and my dental work and stuff. It would be tight to make the amount for next year or whenever.
    The issue you're describing is fiscal planning, not fees.
    2) It'll increase stress in university goers. We already have a majorly hight suicide rate in this country. Anybody wanna increase that number.
    Wait until you discover the stress of the workplace - We all have to grow up sometime.
    3) Less time for study due to working to pay of loans,etc..... increased stress from this also.
    No one is advocating a situation whereby you cant support yourself and go to college. The money behind college fees, loans or grants, however, is not for the purpose of funding your beer drinking.
    I cant understand the logic behind this "university is a privillige(sp?)" nonsense. Education is a right, and it is the duty of the state to provide that education as it does at primary and secondary levels.
    Education is not a right. It is not a right of the indolent or the lazy or the stupid. It's too easy to be liberal with what we may consider our rights while neglecting what are our duties.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by rien_du_tout
    I cant understand the logic behind this "university is a privillige(sp?)" nonsense. Education is a right, and it is the duty of the state to provide that education as it does at primary and secondary levels.

    Wrong, wrong and, ummm, wrong.

    Oh - hang on...you could be right on the first point. Maybe you actually dont understand the logic.......

    You are considered to have a human right to a basic education. This would probably be satisfied by our primary school system.

    In Ireland, you have a legal right to a secondary education.

    Nowhere in the world is a university degree considered to be a right - neither in law nor in things such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. University, by its very definition is classed as "higher education". Higher as in "above standard". If it were a right, surely it would be named differently?

    Whats next? CAO is a suppression of your rights, because you may not get the education you want, but have to settle for some alternate course that you only took cause its what you had the points for?

    jc


  • #43
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    Indeed. If you have a "right" to your university degree, then do I have a "right" to whatever job training I fancy for free as well?


  • #44
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    And if those pesky companies want paying for your training, just send them at the government. After all, someone has to pay, and if its your right then surely its up to the state....

    This is getting silly ;)

    jc


  • #45
    rien_du_tout
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭rien_du_tout


    Originally posted by The Corinthian

    Education is not a right. It is not a right of the indolent or the lazy or the stupid. It's too easy to be liberal with what we may consider our rights while neglecting what are our duties. [/B]

    This is very elitist. I'm not claiming everyone has a right to a degree, or junior cert or leaving cert for that matter. That's not what I said. I said a right to education. I would include Higher education/3rd level education on this, as I would adult learning schemes, etc. Why should some1 not go to college and aim for a certificate, diploma, degree, masters, whatever....... obviously you dont trust the leaving cert and/or the points set by Universitys. The people going there are capable of getting the education they need. Why should this not be offered to all those capable and willing to avail of it??

    Also it's a bit of an insult to me to say that that issue is fiscal planning. So if suddenly there are charges for second level students imposed on me it's my fault because I should have checked with my accountant, economist and personal assistant to see what was happening. Ha, nice. The fact is I am a very able student expecting about 450 points in the leaving cert yet may not go to college or might have to take a loan to do so. due to a fee reimposed without warning. thanx bertie


  • #46
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    I'm not claiming everyone has a right to a degree, or junior cert or leaving cert for that matter. That's not what I said. I said a right to education. I would include Higher education/3rd level education on this, as I would adult learning schemes, etc.

    Right, well, you're out on the bit of a limb there because very few people believe that you have a right to third level education. Once you have your leaving cert, the state has MORE than done its bit. You don't need a degree to be a useful, productive member of society.


  • #47
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #48
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Originally posted by rien_du_tout
    This is very elitist.
    Yes. Yes it is.

    Welcome to the real World...


  • #49
    p
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,119 ✭✭✭p


    Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
    A good friend of mine works for a very big investment bank over here in London. They have always taken graduates from Ireland (he is one!) - taken the 6 or 7 they consider to be the cream of the crop..

    This is the first year in the last 20 that they will not do it, as the people from the last few years, and the people they interviewed have been or come accross as lazy and not been that great at all..

    Could this be that students are getting things handed to them on a plate, told the chapters to study and what chapters not to study and not have to worry about fee's and having to make a real effort?

    Or could it be complete speculation on your part, about something which could be attributed to any number of reasons.

    I'll leave as an excercise to the reader to decide.

    - Kevin


  • #50
    Shinji
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    I think the chances of it being speculation are reduced somewhat by the fact that I've seen the same phenomenon in action in several industry sectors, ranging from IT to media. Degrees have been vastly devalued over the past decade, it's as simple as that.


  • #51
    p
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,119 ✭✭✭p


    Some things to think about:

    I'm not going to argue about the right of free education because that's a whole other issue.


    Drop Out Rates
    Some students are lazy now, and drop out. That has always been the case. A lot of course don't have the resources to actually cater for everyone if they did all pass. This is as true now as it was 10 years ago.

    Until someone can come up with some facts showing a significant increase in drop out rates as a result of free fees then you can stop using that as a point.

    Arts/Teaching/Nursing
    If you have a large loan you will be less likely to go for low paying courses since you will be unable to pay back the loan, or it will be extremely hard to do so. Courses and vocations like this could suffer heavily at a detriment to our society.

    Students should Pay!
    Why should students pay for education when they'll make loads of money out of it. Well, they shouldn't and they don't. Graduates are for the most part better paid, which means they pay more taxes and in the long run, pay more taxes than they would have had they not gone to college. That offsets the cost.

    Labour Cost
    If free fees are abolished people will be coming out of college with 20k+ loans.
    Like in other countries where this happens graduate wages will naturally increase. One of the reasons many multinationals come to Ireland is because of the cheap (comparatively) labour and educated workforce.

    Free fees will eliminate the cheaper labour in Ireland, and that could have considerable effect continued investment in Ireland.

    - Kevin


  • Advertisement
Advertisement