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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The economic justification for the return of college fees?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    Oh yay - Now I finally know why the current system was implemented in the first place. Thanks for telling me

    but yeah - would you, personally, not view it as a serious error how the system comprised of the entire populace, as opposed to just those who would have had difficulty providing 3rd level education for their children in the previous circumstances?

    The wealthy suiting themselves?

    What would you think the popular reaction be if the government scrapped private healthcare and put us all under the GMS? (off topic, but its along the same lines)


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    If fees were introduced you would find lots going up north and to England to do courses.


  • Options
    #34
    Économiste Monétaire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    Simon Nutty Swimmer wrote:
    Oh yay - Now I finally know why the current system was implemented in the first place. Thanks for telling me
    ... :confused:
    but yeah - would you, personally, not view it as a serious error how the system comprised of the entire populace, as opposed to just those who would have had difficulty providing 3rd level education for their children in the previous circumstances?
    Your question is far too general – what do you define as ‘difficulty’? I’ve already gone through how much would be expected to save by having those, who could reasonably be described as quite wealthy, pay fees and it isn’t enough. We’re moving away from the universal ‘free’ fees initiative to provide universities with more resources. Keeping the current plan and simply reinstating fees for the 'wealthy' isn't enough.

    Those who can least afford to pay won't - the grant system was there before the free fees initiative and it's a safe bet it will be there again. So, you can move away from your crusade against general inequality in society.
    The wealthy suiting themselves?
    The word agenda springs to mind...
    What would you think the popular reaction be if the government scrapped private healthcare and put us all under the GMS? (off topic, but its along the same lines)
    Yes, lets throw in the health care system when the topic is third level fees. It’s not along the same lines, the issues are not interchangeable. It has nothing to do with the topic.

    Outline your idea for the reintroduction of fees. So far you haven't, you've just questioned the system the government are trying to move away from.


  • Options
    #35
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    As ive a small knowledge on economics (didnt even do it for the leaving) it would be foolish for me to attempt to draw up a masterplan on how to re-work the issue.

    but yeah - im one of the typical 'of course those whom it wont impede should pay'......

    Why not just operate the fees system along the lines of the grant system, you declare your annual incomes and then its determined what amount of fees will have to be payed,
    but yeah, you say that re-introducation for the wealthier isnt sufficient, but then, if the finance gained from that system falls short, why dont the government look elsewhere and just stop tax breaks on the more baffling ones in existence - tax breaks for those who own horses etc... (perhaps the necessary finance has to be gained from within the educational sector, im not aware)

    (my knowledge of taxation akin to that of economics)


  • Options
    #36
    Économiste Monétaire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    but yeah - im one of the typical 'of course those whom it wont impede should pay'......
    Indeed, I already said in my first post, as a personal aside, that it is silly for people earning quite a lot of money to be given a subsidy equivalent to that of those lower on the socio-economic ladder. However, it is understandable why people accept the subsidy for their children. Similarly, for comparison but a transfer payment, it doesn’t make rational sense for they very wealth to receive child benefit payments.
    Why not just operate the fees system along the lines of the grant system, you declare your annual incomes and then its determined what amount of fees will have to be payed,
    Well, the fees system (registration) and the grant system work parallel to each other so that kinda already does occur - you declare your income, for the grant, and that determines if you get a grant thus if you pay the registration fee. That would be expanded if academic fees were reintroduced, under your idea.

    You just have to set a reasonable level where money is generated for universities, but at the same time don’t charge those, whom are deemed by academic merit, eligible for third level but really cannot afford it. That has to be quantified, which isn’t simple and always contentious. You also have to give reasonable warning of the reintroduction of fees to middle class families, whom are not quite rich enough to simply write a cheque, but not eligible for grant support. You then have to work out financing options for families (government or private loans? Maybe a savings scheme for those with young families to prepare them for the costs of third level).
    but yeah, you say that re-introducation for the wealthier isnt sufficient, but then, if the finance gained from that system falls short, why dont the government look elsewhere and just stop tax breaks on the more baffling ones in existence - tax breaks for those who own horses etc... (perhaps the necessary finance has to be gained from within the educational sector, im not aware)
    Taxes aren’t a solution. Re the horse tax: I have no idea about it, I’m not a horse person. I’d assume that the horse racing/riding sector does produce quite a lot of direct and indirect economic activity, and is taxed one way or another. If you were to dump a tax on one sector then it’s a safe bet they’d leave the country to a more favourable environment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    g5fd6ow0hseima
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,787 ✭✭✭g5fd6ow0hseima


    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    If you were to dump a tax on one sector then it’s a safe bet they’d leave the country to a more favourable environment.

    We've already seen examples of this in the music industry


  • Options
    #38
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    I simply don't accept that people will go overseas to study when fees are re-introduced.

    The supply of places is one obstacle, as is our poor level of foreign language development here making the UK and Us the only 2 viable options.

    I have a cousin that went to the US to study business on a 50% scholarship. Even with that the cost was significantly higher than a 4 year undergrad + 2 year MA in Ireland.

    If you say that the rich avail of free fees here to afford postgrad studies abroad, then why did 1200 postgrads enrol in UL this week? The argument doesn't make sense. If people are willing to pay for postgrads here irrespective of income, surely they would be willing to pay on a means tested basis for undergrad courses. US students come here to do undergrad and postgrad courses. Fees may be an issue, but they pay significantly more, similarly, a Chinese student I assisted with her enrolment this week is paying almost €11k per year plus flights, plus accomodation to do a 4 year undergrad here....why would she not have gone to the US or UK?

    Let's be honest about this. Irish universities may not be highly regarded internationally on some sort of scale devised by God knows who to make the "big boys" look great, but they give hands on, honest, and useful education as opposed to many of their superiors where they entry requirement is simply that:
    a) You must be able to pay
    b) You must know someone on the governing authority if space is tight.

    If our 3rd level system was substandard, we wouldn't have had such high levels of FDI and we would certainly not have massive influxes of international students going out of their way to study undergrad courses here.


    League tables look great, but I'd **** on Harvard before I'd consider going there.

    "La di la.....I have ideas about myself...I went to Harvard you know"

    These places need to get over themselves.


  • Options
    #39
    Économiste Monétaire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    I simply don't accept that people will go overseas to study when fees are re-introduced.
    Someone has never heard of the whole ‘Cross Elasticity of Demand’ malarkey.
    The supply of places is one obstacle, as is our poor level of foreign language development here making the UK and Us the only 2 viable options.
    I was talking about the UK. You’re also assuming I’m talking about an on mass exodus.
    I have a cousin that went to the US to study business on a 50% scholarship. Even with that the cost was significantly higher than a 4 year undergrad + 2 year MA in Ireland.
    U.S. University fees and funding are in no way on the same level as European fees & funding. I already posted about that. You also assume that the degree and education received is homogeneous to the Irish equivalent.
    If you say that the rich avail of free fees here to afford postgrad studies abroad, then why did 1200 postgrads enroll in UL this week. The argument doesn't make sense. If people are willing to pay for postgrads here irrespective of income, surely they would be willing to pay on a means tested basis for undergrad courses.
    You really aren’t reading what I said. I never said ‘the rich’ avail of free fees to afford postgraduate studies. I said middle class families would. The argument makes rational sense. Why would someone apply to the University of Limerick when they could go to Oxford or Cambridge? The price barrier becomes relatively reduced. How do you know the 1,200 applied irrespective of income? Did you undertake a questionnaire? Some people take masters courses here so as to apply to postgraduate abroad. Other people receive funding that acts as an incentive to keep them here. E20,000 does act as an incentive to middle class families.

    Also, ‘postgraduate’ covers H.Dip and M.A. Qualifiers too.
    US students come here to do undergrad and postgrad courses. Fees may be an issue, but they pay significantly more, similarly, a Chinese student I assisted with her enrolment this week is paying almost €11k per year plus flights, plus accomodation to do a 4 year undergrad here....why would she not have gone to the US or UK?
    Because they didn’t accept her? Are you really asking me a rhetorical question based on an anecdote – how am I to know if what you say is true.
    Let's be honest about this. Irish universities may not be highly regarded internationally on some sort of scale devised by God knows who to make the "big boys" look great, but they give hands on, honest, and useful education as opposed to many of their superiors where they entry requirement is simply that:
    a) You must be able to pay
    b) You must know someone on the governing authority if space is tight.



    League tables look great, but I'd **** on Harvard before I'd consider going there.

    "La di la.....I have ideas about myself...I went to Harvard you know"

    These places need to get over themselves.
    What that dribble has to do with an economic prospective on fees I don’t know, so I won’t even bother retorting to someone with academic short-man syndrome, which you are displaying. You wouldn’t, ehem, on Harvard. Grow up.
    If our 3rd level system was substandard, we wouldn't have had such high levels of FDI and we would certainly not have massive influxes of international students going out of their way to study undergrad courses here.
    Substandard relative to what? What is the ‘standard’? Massive influxes is an exaggeration. No one said that fees will drive people out of the country on mass. When undergraduate fees come back in then it becomes relatively more attractive to study in Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, LSE, etc.


  • Options
    #40
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    Someone has never heard of the whole ‘Cross Elasticity of Demand’ malarkey.
    Indeed I have, studied it with one of Ireland's most laughed at economics academics, who then turns and laughs at others when his forecasts turn out to be right.
    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    I was talking about the UK. You’re also assuming I’m talking about an on mass exodus.
    An en masse exodus would be required to justify your argument.
    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    U.S. University fees and funding are in no way on the same level as European fees & funding. I already posted about that. You also assume that the degree and education received is homogeneous to the Irish equivalent.
    Indeed, the Irish business/commerce degree is more useful and rarely involves a primary school level book report on Tom Sawyer or similar.
    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    You really aren’t reading what I said. I never said ‘the rich’ avail of free fees to afford postgraduate studies. I said middle class families would. The argument makes rational sense. Why would someone apply to the University of Limerick when they could go to Oxford or Cambridge? The price barrier becomes relatively reduced. How do you know the 1,200 applied irrespective of income? Did you undertake a questionnaire? Some people take masters courses here so as to apply to postgraduate abroad. Other people receive funding that acts as an incentive to keep them here. E20,000 does act as an incentive to middle class families.
    UCD_Econ wrote: »

    Because they didn’t accept her? Are you really asking me a rhetorical question based on an anecdote – how am I to know if what you say is true.

    I don't make stuff up to form arguments, I was paid to help these people last week. How are you to know it's not true, why should you expect it isn't?
    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    What that dribble has to do with an economic prospective on fees I don’t know, so I won’t even bother retorting to someone with academic short-man syndrome, which you are displaying. You wouldn’t, ehem, on Harvard. Grow up.

    That's exactly the attitude I was talking about. Rarely backed up by anything substantive.
    UCD_Econ wrote: »
    Substandard relative to what? What is the ‘standard’? Massive influxes is an exaggeration. No one said that fees will drive people out of the country on mass. When undergraduate fees come back in then it becomes relatively more attractive to study in Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, LSE, etc.
    Money isn't the only factor, people will want to be able to return home to train at weekends etc, which becomes nigh on impossible when abroad given time constraints.

    There are already a small, but noteworthy minority of Irish students travelling to study in the UK and in English speaking universities elsewhere.

    To put it in simple economic terms, the cost/benefit would imo sit on the side of having means tested fees.


  • Options
    #41
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Reading last weekend's paper here and it lists the extraordinary salaries and costs.

    Head of trinity John Hegarty commands €218k, lives free in No 1 Grafton St with a butler!!

    UL head Don Barry commands €211k and has a new residence being built at a cost of €1.25m.

    UCD head Hugh Brady commanded €205k in 2005, lives in 'University Lodge' which was recently renovated at €3m cost, double the original estimate.
    UCD staff spent €7m on travel and €10m in unspecified expenses and indications that the deficit for this year will be €15m which has grown from half a mill in 2005!!

    DCU's Ferdinand von Prondzynski commanded €205k last year, also has offical residence and claimed travel expenses of €26k.

    UCC head Micheal Murphy earns €273k.

    Trinity is over €7m in debt despite getting €91m in state grants, €70m in student fees and €57m in research grants.
    UL is €1.5m in debt. NUI Galway €29m in debt despite getting state grant of €68m and €63m in student fees.
    NUI Maynooth is €8.2m in debt

    And to top it up, all the university presidents made a joint application for a 55% pay hike and ended up getting a raise of between 14% and 19% by a review board.

    Time to cut the salaries, cull the numbers or bring back fees to pay for it all?! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    eamonnm79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭eamonnm79


    Bat O Keeefe is saying that the means test will be very generous.
    Accumilated parental earnings of over 120k
    If this is the case I dont have a problem with bringing fees back for the wealthy.


  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    Bat O Keeefe is saying that the means test will be very generous.
    Accumilated parental earnings of over 120k
    If this is the case I dont have a problem with bringing fees back for the wealthy.

    yeah I do tend to agree but I am torn on a social aspect of this issue....

    You hit 18 you can vote, your an adult. You should be out of home as many students do. A mature student also is tested on their parents income.

    I think this adds to the view that its normal to have people in their 20s living at home. As being "dependent". Rejig the system and introduce fees. If students can prove they live away from home and do not return for the summer then maybe rate them as independent seperate from their parents.
    Also there are people who dont get along with their parents and parents who may have money who just wont give it no matter what they earn.
    In the minority yes but when your 18 your an adult and should be treated like one


  • Options
    #44
    DJDC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭DJDC


    The simple reality is that we have too many universities and IT's competing against one another for a limited student population and a limited income.If the budget was better allocated amongst a fewer number of institutions we would be able to attract top international staff and students.Instead we have the current situation whereby a large amount of substandard graduates are churned out of the system every year.These sub 300 point students most often end up in non graduate jobs anyway so what was the point of the state paying for their education for 3/4 years?

    Already I know a number of top secondary school students opting to study in oxbridge,edinburgh etc. over Irish universities. It would be a shame to see our top students opting to study abroad, leaving our universities to cater for the average joes.


  • Options
    #45
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    Bat O Keeefe is saying that the means test will be very generous.
    Accumilated parental earnings of over 120k
    If this is the case I dont have a problem with bringing fees back for the wealthy.
    +1 :D Although, the likelihood is that 120k will be implemented for the first year or two, then it will be down to 110k, and so on so on.
    DJDC wrote: »
    .These sub 300 point students most often end up in non graduate jobs anyway so what was the point of the state paying for their education for 3/4 years?
    .
    Everyone is entitled to the college experience. It is more than just getting a Masters degree. It gives you life skills and you meet friends who you may have forever.


Advertisement