The economic justification for the return of college fees?

Flamed Diving · 12-08-2008 6:51pm #1

Given the current exchequer difficulties, it is hardly surprising that the government are looking to being back fees for college. However, this may result in a lower volume of graduates in our country, with unknown repercussions in the long-run. Of course the counter-argument from an economic perspective is that we currently have an oversupply of graduates, and that the standard of these are perhaps questionable due to lack of funding and my own hunch, people who go to college for no good reason and only do so because it is free. Anywho, I think this topic may make an interesting discussion from the point of view of government budgetry issues and rational choice theory. Discuss!

silverharp · 12-08-2008 7:17pm

stepping back a bit, my main problem with the current system is the lack of choice, people who want to train as doctors, teachers dentists etc cant because of a lack of places. would there be a lack of places if the university system was more market oriented? imagine the benefits to the health system if there were more trained staff chasing positions. the obvious implication is that fees should be reintroduced.

Économiste Monétaire · 12-08-2008 10:56pm

I have a problem with people’s general reaction so far. Mainly being the militant - like - socialist outcry that ‘free’ third level education is a human right that should be available to everyone, with merit or not. I’d bet that if you were to ask average Joe on the street whether he would support tax increases to pay for the initiative the answer would be negative. In this country we want more but to pay less, somewhere there has to be a choice made.

My view on graduate taxes: The idea is somewhat confusing me, and I find several problems with it. Graduates can up and move to anywhere in Europe simply avoiding it, also being that you need a form from the Revenue Commissioner about your tax affairs, would the (delayed) tax root graduates in the country until the tax comes in? Thus limiting their movement and opportunities. Other concerns I have:

How much does one pay or how long does the tax last? Until the cost of fees have been repaid to the exchequer? Is that adjusted for inflation? thus paying for fees at the current rate.
What about one year courses compared against 3-4 year degrees? Even medicine being 5-6 years. Is the tax increased (band, time frame, etc) for this?
When exactly does the tax come in? Is that determined by a specific time frame or a wage band?
Is there a limit to what someone can pay? Who calculates this?
Would the delayed tax cause potential postgraduate students to be unable to leave the country, to go to other institutions abroad, because the Revenue Commissioner cannot give them the all clear on that front?

I find the graduate tax idea too complicated to tax someone that far after the fact. There is also, of course, the disincentive created, having a double coincidence of tax because they chose to attend university.

The United Kingdom also considered a ‘pure graduate tax system’. There is a very short paper (only 7 pages) on why they decided against it, here.

On a personal note - I believe there should be a cut off at some income point for free fees. If full fees were reinstated then some of the money ‘saved’ needs to be allocated for an enhancement of the Grants system, for those who have put the effort in and won their place, by merit, in college on, what I view as, a brutal but fair system of points = place.

Of course, we’re assuming this will happen. It most likely won’t be before the next general election, at least not full blown removal of the free fees initiative – the Greens and the PDs are against it, from what I’ve read, stating “it’s not in the programme of government”.

The 'free fees' initiative was passed to increase participation rates, particularly in the disadvantaged/lower socio-economic areas. It is safe to say that the aim hasn't been achieved to the full extent that was intended. And, there most likely would be consensus here that Universities need a fund increase of between 20-30% as being requested by Hegarty, Brady & co. I'd look more to the loan system in the U.K. as a viable solution.

OfflerCrocGod · 15-08-2008 11:01pm

Obviously the best system is an American style private third-level university system (they also have very good public colleges). The chances of Ireland ever introducing one of those is about zero, which is a huge pity and of detriment to the country. Free university meant that the degree I earned was worthless to my eyes and I also earned it by putting in nearly no effort at all; I just can't believe the system we have currently is for the best.

Économiste Monétaire · 15-08-2008 11:04pm

OfflerCrocGod wrote: »

Obviously the best system is an American style private third-level university system

Why do you say that? How do you measure something as being the 'best'?

No degree is worthless when you go to a University with a decent/good reputation and achieve a II.I or I.I.

dan719 · 15-08-2008 11:48pm

A market orientated college fees system does not work IMHO.
In such a scenario colleges which have superior reputations (whether in the eyes of employers or The Times rankings etc is a matter for debate) would 'fairly' charge higher fees for their 'product' due to higher salaries graduates of the same could command. In such a scenario Trinity would claim it can charge much more then the rest of the Unis and colleges and it would be correct(at least if rankings are the measurement of excellance/reputation)
Oxbridge recently put forward such an idea to the British Govt. asking to be allowed charge fees up to sixteen thousand pounds a year.

Obviously fees would differ hugely from course to course also. To borrow a system used by Australian Immigration we could rank degrees on a sliding points scale which corresponds to price, e.g Medicine would be worth 60 points, Maths and Economics 50 points etc.

Since a degree is to be marketed as a product, would refunds be on offer in the case failure to achieve the expected salary and status? A med student would not be very impressed to find a English Lit student, who would have paid much less for his degree commanding a greater salary. Or would fees be retrospective based on success in later life.

The above system would be very attravtive to Brady but probably not so much so to the other heads of universities. But is the logical consequence of claiming fees are fair and just on an economic basis, quality(whatever that abstract quantity is) must come into it.

Personally as a student I am in favour of free fees as if they were returned it would be very difficult for me to afford to go to University. It is also interesting to note that I think at least some of the posters on this thread have benefited from free fees, would they be willing to pay their fees retrospectively due to 'economic justification'?

Obviously second most favourable is a loan system similar to that currently in use in the UK. The ability to pay for one's education after the deed is obviously very attractive to most people, to assume that most people will simply cheat the system does not take into account enforcement measures or the fact that people will more then likely be willing to pay the money rather then leave the country, possibly for good. This is something the government should be expected to make work, rather then rubbished due to a lack of originality on their part, I would like to return to the viability of such an option in a later post.

And to whoever claimed many people go to college simply because it is free, that is nothing but a return of old fashioned elitism. And a pretty stupid statement, college is obviously not free, due to the high opportunity cost involved in taking four years out of the workplace aswell as the actual cost involved.

For someone living away from home and going to Uni in Dublin some of the costs involved are

Acc 20,00 (5,000 a year for four years)
Living expenses 12,000
Reistration fees 4000
etc etc.

This excludes the opportunity cost of not working which just for kicks I'll put at a reasonable 25,000 a year. We can assume most Uni entrants have high points and as such could be expected to find jobs in banks etc, or in office jobs etc so might even earn more.

In response to the riposte 'well the investment is paid back in higher earnings'.

Not always. And that's a little like saying shares are 'free' if you make your money back.

Économiste Monétaire · 16-08-2008 12:48am

dan719 wrote:

A market orientated college fees system does not work IMHO.
In such a scenario colleges which have superior reputations (whether in the eyes of employers or The Times rankings etc is a matter for debate) would 'fairly' charge higher fees for their 'product' due to higher salaries graduates of the same could command. In such a scenario Trinity would claim it can charge much more then the rest of the Unis and colleges and it would be correct(at least if rankings are the measurement of excellance/reputation)
Oxbridge recently put forward such an idea to the British Govt. asking to be allowed charge fees up to sixteen thousand pounds a year.

You haven’t actually stated why that’s a bad idea, just outlined a hypothetical situation. (I know you mentioned colleges, i.e. Universities but) Universities already do charge more than I.T. colleges for courses, especially for postgraduate courses. This is a reflection of the costs (and degree recognition) to the universities for better staff, better facilities, libraries, etc. I can’t really see why Universities shouldn’t compete on price, but I wouldn't object to being swayed on that

Restaurants charge more for fillet than sirloin for a reason.

Obviously fees would differ hugely from course to course also. To borrow a system used by Australian Immigration we could rank degrees on a sliding points scale which corresponds to price, e.g Medicine would be worth 60 points, Maths and Economics 50 points etc.

Fees already do differ from course to course. The ‘fees’ you’re referring to is the, across the board, registration fee. Again, they reflect real costs.

Since a degree is to be marketed as a product, would refunds be on offer in the case failure to achieve the expected salary and status? A med student would not be very impressed to find a English Lit student, who would have paid much less for his degree commanding a greater salary. Or would fees be retrospective based on success in later life.

Not everyone will make the same money. Why? Because human beings are not a homogenous product. There is not a single, all encompassing, price for human capital when one is conferred with a specific degree. There are many variables that lead to a wage. Not all students receive the same class of degree, for obvious reasons.

I think the fees would reflect the cost to the University. Not all law students graduate and end up as a barrister/solicitor. It would be quite hard to base fees predicated on assumed roles that graduates will take, in my view. There could be a percentage levied for prestige of the university, on top of those costs, say 20%, for arguments sake.

The above system would be very attravtive to Brady but probably not so much so to the other heads of universities. But is the logical consequence of claiming fees are fair and just on an economic basis, quality(whatever that abstract quantity is) must come into it.

Do you mean Dr. Hugh Brady, president of UCD, or Dr. John Hegarty, Provost of TCD? Why would it not be attractive to anyone but TCD or UCD? UCC is also quite well regarded in rankings. Some would say the same for DCU. Just curious about that point, really.

You couldn't expect TCD and, say, DCU to charge the same based on reputation. The goodwill and name of a business are factored in accounting aswell, as far as I know.

Personally as a student I am in favour of free fees as if they were returned it would be very difficult for me to afford to go to University. It is also interesting to note that I think at least some of the posters on this thread have benefited from free fees, would they be willing to pay their fees retrospectively due to 'economic justification'?

If that is a question then: I wouldn’t have a problem paying for fees. I don’t know of the other posters because I don’t know their personal, and financial situations, and neither do you, in fairness.

Obviously second most favourable is a loan system similar to that currently in use in the UK. The ability to pay for one's education after the deed is obviously very attractive to most people, to assume that most people will simply cheat the system does not take into account enforcement measures or the fact that people will more then likely be willing to pay the money rather then leave the country, possibly for good. This is something the government should be expected to make work, rather then rubbished due to a lack of originality on their part, I would like to return to the viability of such an option in a later post.

No one argued against the loan system. I actually said it was the most viable solution. I argued against a pure graduate tax.

Flamed Diving · 16-08-2008 8:11am

dan719 wrote: »

Personally as a student I am in favour of free fees as if they were returned it would be very difficult for me to afford to go to University. It is also interesting to note that I think at least some of the posters on this thread have benefited from free fees, would they be willing to pay their fees retrospectively due to 'economic justification'?

No. Because I believe that 'free fees' have already served their purpose, and are now actually holding the system back. There were plenty of people in my class who were from a upper-middle class background and were getting free fees. They were also walking around the place in designer clothes and had a new car and celebrated their exams by heading off to somewhere exotic. I'm not bitter, but if their parents can afford to buy them these items, they can afford to pay fees. We are no longer the 'poorest of the rich', many families can afford these fees by sacrificing all those above mentioned luxuries they shower on their kids. Those who genuinely cannot afford it can be means tested and have their fees either fully or partially paid.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 17-08-2008 7:56pm

My arguement is simple,

Speaking of the higher sections of Irish society, why should such ardent capitalists avail of a socialist ideal?

Universal free education in a capitalist country like Ireland shouldnt be in existence!

Time Magazine · 17-08-2008 10:12pm

Simon Nutty Swimmer wrote: »

My arguement is simple

Dead right it is.

Économiste Monétaire · 17-08-2008 10:13pm

Antithetic wrote: »

Dead right it is.

Brilliant.

OfflerCrocGod · 17-08-2008 10:39pm

Antithetic wrote: »

Dead right it is.

Doesn't make it wrong.

OfflerCrocGod · 17-08-2008 11:10pm

UCD_Econ wrote: »

Why do you say that? How do you measure something as being the 'best'?

Are you being serious? The third level education in the US of A is widely regarded as being the best on this planet. In the US Universities don't start companies they found new industries. The entire IT infrastucture we are using was created in the US (ye, ye somethings where created in Europe but they are the exception which prove the rule). Look at the worlds leading IT companies - they are ALL American. Where is the European Sun, Intel or Google - nowhere they simply don't exist! Our Universities simply aren't up to the standards of the US. It's all a matter of what you pay - you get what you pay for. I can't believe I'm explaining this to an economics forum.....

UCD_Econ wrote: »

No degree is worthless when you go to a University with a decent/good reputation and achieve a II.I or I.I.

Ok let me explain to you why it was something I didn't value - personally speaking. I went to your Uni; for free, in fact I even got aid from the council to go. I did not work for 4 years while going - I lazied about and did very little other then attend I gained a 2.1 with no effort at all and afterwards I did nothing for 2 years. 6 years of unproductive time. UCD offered me very little to aspire to or push me academically; it couldn't really afford it.

Now let's pretend that I had gone to let's say Caltech instead I would have been pushed much harder and have access to many more opportunities - I would have been massively in debt I would have been forced to take any oppurtunity that I could get I would have worked as hard as I could have during the summer and at weekends. If I had been able to emerge from that with a degree I would have earned it. I would have been forced to immediately start earning money to pay of the debts I had.

I remember the Chinese students in my course they always worked much harded then any of us. Some of them where even working for companies being productive while we were playing computer games, drinking or not attending our courses.

Now explain to me how the American approach where you earn what you have is not as good as our awesome Socialist paradise?

/puts on l'Internationale.

failsafe · 18-08-2008 12:04am

I can see the merit to some of the arguments above for removing the free fees but I'm just not so sure. Personally, I know that I could have afforded it. Not easily mind, but I worked a part time job, lived at home and my parents could have lent me some of the money. I probably would have had a small-ish loan that I'd be paying off by about now (2 years later).

I know everyone agrees that free fees have been of huge advantage to our economy and that an educated work force was one of the primary drivers of the Celtic Tiger. I worry that it's something we'd find too hard to do without. If the money "saved" by the government isn't enough to halt the worst of the oncoming downturn/depression (i.e. if other parts of the plan fail) I'd be worried that the drop in College graduates would leave us up a creek without a paddle. We'd be in a position of a strong Euro/weak dollar, so our labour costs would be too high for that elixir of FDI, especially compared to the Eastern block and especially(!) if it lacks the high quality to demand such a high price. I just see us stuck between a rock and a hard place. Could wage rates fall enough to compensate for the decline in the labour quality?

Maybe it's not something I've thought through fully enough. If a market based University system really does drive up the standards towards that of the US, would the smaller number of higher quality graduates be enough to start new industries that could get us exporting best-in-class products or services (e.g. green tech?). I could certainly see that happening if we played our cards right, and Silicon valley and NY seem to be pretty good examples of how small pockets of top notch universities can power an economy. But then the question has to be asked, is that what we want? Do we value growth over something more stable but with broader benefit? I.e. Do we want to be American or European? Look at the standard of education an "average" American has. A free market University system certainly has it's advantages, but it has a cost too.

I'm honestly not sure what way I feel about that issue, but I think it's definitely a debate we need to have in this country.

suckslikeafox · 18-08-2008 12:10am

Theres no doubt that introducing fees would increase standards but something to think about is how long would this take and how much would we suffer in the meantime? Standards wont increase overnight whereas the numbers attend will decrease right away

Économiste Monétaire · 18-08-2008 12:25am

Are you being serious? The third level education in the US of A is widely regarded as being the best on this planet. In the US Universities don't start companies they found new industries. The entire IT infrastucture we are using was created in the US (ye, ye somethings where created in Europe but they are the exception which prove the rule). Look at the worlds leading IT companies - they are ALL American. Where is the European Sun, Intel or Google - nowhere they simply don't exist! Our Universities simply aren't up to the standards of the US. It's all a matter of what you pay - you get what you pay for. I can't believe I'm explaining this to an economics forum.....

First off, take a step back. I said how do you measure what is the best, not how -in general- one measures what is ‘best’. So you measure success based on I.T. companies? – got that. I was interested to know how you measured Universities on a scale

– that’s why there isn’t one, all encompassing, scale. THES seems to qualify as that, though, at times. I don’t think you can, for definite, say that US third level institutions are solely responsible for the current I.T. industry, it seems a far too general statement to be true, but that’s going off-topic.

Ok let me explain to you why it was something I didn't value - personally speaking. I went to your Uni; for free, in fact I even got aid from the council to go. I did not work for 4 years while going - I lazied about and did very little other then attend I gained a 2.1 with no effort at all and afterwards I did nothing for 2 years. 6 years of unproductive time. UCD offered me very little to aspire to or push me academically; it couldn't really afford it.

Now let's pretend that I had gone to let's say Caltech instead I would have been pushed much harder and have access to many more opportunities - I would have been massively in debt I would have been forced to take any oppurtunity that I could get I would have worked as hard as I could have during the summer and at weekends. If I had been able to emerge from that with a degree I would have earned it. I would have been forced to immediately start earning money to pay of the debts I had.

I remember the Chinese students in my course they always worked much harded then any of us. Some of them where even working for companies being productive while we were playing computer games, drinking or not attending our courses.

So you blame UCD and the current funding structure for lazing around after your degree... OK then... Why did you not put the effort into your studies and go to the States for graduate study? Many people have done so after finishing undergraduate studies in Irish universities. What was the specific funding issue that stopped you from getting a I.I (let’s face it, not difficult to do) or pushing yourself? (Trust me when I say I know of the problems the place has, so I’m not against you on that)

How do you base your assumptions on American students – are you trying to imply that every student there is your opposite (all driven)? The average student has €8,700 spent on them in European Universities, in the U.S.A. the figure is €36,500. It isn’t just Ireland that has this problem - just for a relative prospective.

I don’t quite understand your definition of incentives for students, either. Being incredibly heavily burdened with debt is dubious in rationality, it probably does act as an incentive but also quite stressful. You define ‘earning’ something as paying for it with monetary contribution, alone?

Now explain to me how the American approach where you earn what you have is not as good as our awesome Socialist paradise?

Just another thing I’ll point out: I don’t believe the current system is working, the opposite to your assumption about my stance, so why would I defend it? I never said it was working. I don’t believe that the incentive structure of “earn what you have” is quite as dramatic as you would imagine, though.

Now, moving on, seeing as you have an interest as do I in this

Would you contend that there should be a pay at point of use, getting personal loans (an Irish Sallie Mae?) American model? Or the UK alternative? Would you agree to the grant system staying as a support mechanism for the underprivileged?

gcgirl · 20-08-2008 2:16pm

personally i am all for paying for uni ! If your family can afford to pay to send their darlings to a fee paying school they can afford to pay uni fee's

failsafe · 21-08-2008 11:45am

gcgirl wrote: »

personally i am all for paying for uni ! If your family can afford to pay to send their darlings to a fee paying school they can afford to pay uni fee's

And what if they can't? No private education or third level education? Sounds a bit unfair to me.

damnyanks · 29-08-2008 2:55pm

OfflerCrocGod wrote: »

Are you being serious? The third level education in the US of A is widely regarded as being the best on this planet. In the US Universities don't start companies they found new industries. The entire IT infrastucture we are using was created in the US (ye, ye somethings where created in Europe but they are the exception which prove the rule). Look at the worlds leading IT companies - they are ALL American. Where is the European Sun, Intel or Google - nowhere they simply don't exist! Our Universities simply aren't up to the standards of the US. It's all a matter of what you pay - you get what you pay for. I can't believe I'm explaining this to an economics forum.....
Ok let me explain to you why it was something I didn't value - personally speaking. I went to your Uni; for free, in fact I even got aid from the council to go. I did not work for 4 years while going - I lazied about and did very little other then attend I gained a 2.1 with no effort at all and afterwards I did nothing for 2 years. 6 years of unproductive time. UCD offered me very little to aspire to or push me academically; it couldn't really afford it.

Now let's pretend that I had gone to let's say Caltech instead I would have been pushed much harder and have access to many more opportunities - I would have been massively in debt I would have been forced to take any oppurtunity that I could get I would have worked as hard as I could have during the summer and at weekends. If I had been able to emerge from that with a degree I would have earned it. I would have been forced to immediately start earning money to pay of the debts I had.

I remember the Chinese students in my course they always worked much harded then any of us. Some of them where even working for companies being productive while we were playing computer games, drinking or not attending our courses.

Now explain to me how the American approach where you earn what you have is not as good as our awesome Socialist paradise?

/puts on l'Internationale.

So because you procrastonated you believe everyone else should pay the price?

I availed of free fee's I went straight into work - I went abroad. I earn a good salary.

Didnt we create viagra? Viagra is far more important then google or intel or whoever

p.s The first computer was made in the UK

ninty9er · 30-08-2008 7:59pm

I'm in favour of a means tested initiative. The response of students' unions and particularly welfare officers is counter productive and is to the detriment of those that actually need more assistance to go to third level.

The government is not going to introduce across the board fees. The wealthy who go to college for free and then take over a managerial position in a family business really don't need to go to college and are costing the state; not the family and not the business.

The most progressive way to do this is to increase the grant threshold and annex the grant system with a "negative grant" dependent on income levels the same as the grant system currently works. Of course this would require the centralised administrative centre for this to be in place.

Basically as I'd propose it amounts to a family with one child at college doing the average course (€4,800p.a) paying €450 from €70k income, €900 from €72.5k, €2,100 from €75k, €3,300 from €77.5k, €4,500 from €80k and €5,700 from €90k.

Thresholds to be increased as per current grant system based on number at 3rd level.

No threshold increases for families earning over €150k

Together with this you increase grants and make it absolutely fee and tuition free for anyone in a family earning under €70k, giving a 25% grant up to €65k, 50% up to €50k, 75% up to €45k, 100% up to €40k and top up grant up to €25k.

The current tuition fee system didn't put many extra students in college, the grant system did.

Free fees was a ploy to woo upper middle class voters and it didn't work obviously because Labour haven't seen power since 1997.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 02-09-2008 7:51pm

Ah sure, if your going to take to piss, you may as well tell me why the rich should avail of the current system.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 02-09-2008 8:00pm

failsafe wrote: »

And what if they can't? No private education or third level education? Sounds a bit unfair to me.

Im sure she's aiming that statement as a perticular section of society

Économiste Monétaire · 02-09-2008 8:44pm

Simon Nutty Swimmer wrote: »

Ah sure, if your going to take to piss, you may as well tell me why the rich should avail of the current system.

Are you suggesting that affluent families should pay academic fees even though they're not required to? You wouldn't find many people willing to fork out E5,000+ by choice. I don't understand your argument - I don't think you do either, really.

They avail of the 'system' because it's subsidy to increase their children's human capital. If full academic fees were to be brought back then why would one stay in Ireland? It's really only a hop, skip, and a jump, over to more renowned institutions like Cambridge, LSE, and Oxford. If my family were required to pay undergraduate academic fees I sure as **** would have gone to the UK.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 02-09-2008 10:22pm

But a centre right wing government is only wasting the possiblity of revenue by having a universally free education system.

Most sectors of society can see the logic in introducing fees for the upper echelons of our society, if tax breaks exist for those involved in equestrian circles, surely they can decide to turn the tables and charge those of whom 5k p/a counts as a fraction of a birtyday present for their childs 21st (not trying to give any digs),

Look, free education isnt the thing keeping Irish students from the wealthier class here, IN contemporary Ireland, if someone wanted their son studying in Cambridge or Sorbonne, he would be there. The sole incentive of saving 5k a year isnt really at the forefront of the issue. Perhaps those who would send their kids of to the better colleges in the event of fee-reintroducation are currently depriving their children of an education they would see as sufficient due to the fact they wont part with a minimal sum

Économiste Monétaire · 02-09-2008 10:52pm

But a centre right wing government is only wasting the possiblity of revenue by having a universally free education system.

It isn’t actually ‘free’ in the true sense. Also, the added revenue isn’t very much. The reasons for the reintroduction of fees should be to increase funding for Universities, not to save the Exchequer.

Most sectors of society can see the logic in introducing fees for the upper echelons of our society, if tax breaks exist for those involved in equestrian circles, surely they can decide to turn the tables and charge those of whom 5k p/a counts as a fraction of a birtyday present for their childs 21st (not trying to give any digs),

Oh, I agree fees should be reintroduced in one form or another. The problem with the ‘only rich people should pay’ argument is that there really aren’t that many 'rich' people availing of the free fees initiative every year to make it a substantial contribution. As far as I can see, the figure being floated around (being payed by families earning over €150K) would be approx €14,000,000. Now, that really isn’t very much in the large scale of things, as you can imagine.

Look, free education isnt the thing keeping Irish students from the wealthier class here, IN contemporary Ireland, if someone wanted their son studying in Cambridge or Sorbonne, he would be there. The sole incentive of saving 5k a year isnt really at the forefront of the issue. Perhaps those who would send their kids of to the better colleges in the event of fee-reintroducation are currently depriving their children of an education they would see as sufficient due to the fact they wont part with a minimal sum

Actually it kind of is a large incentive keeping the middle class here. Where you complete your Undergraduate study isn’t of great importance (as long as it’s a decent University) with standard tests like the GRE and GMAT being used for entry to Graduate programs. Where you choose to study your graduate program is important. It would be between 6,000-7,000 a year for undergraduate study here in a University, not including Medicine. So to save about 20,000 (depending on how long the programme lasts) is an incentive, in my view, for most families. Take that money and use it for graduate study.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 03-09-2008 3:57pm

To many in todays Ireland, its important which primary school their kids go to, let alone a post primary school or college.

I know plenty of people who would piss on most 3rd level institutions in Ireland, and not just I.T.s

Économiste Monétaire · 03-09-2008 4:11pm

Simon Nutty Swimmer wrote: »

To many in todays Ireland, its important which primary school their kids go to, let alone a post primary school or college.

I know plenty of people who would piss on most 3rd level institutions in Ireland, and not just I.T.s

What a well thought out - and constructive - reply to the points I raised, thanks. I never mentioned ITs, I said Universities. I never said it wasn't important, I said it was not of great importance. I'm not going down the road of explaining why where you choose to read for your graduate degree is more important, you should already know that - and it's off topic.

Now, please add more flaccid ideas for change. I wait with trepidation.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 03-09-2008 6:26pm

Oh, so ITs dont count, sorry, should have read the UCD in your avatar before mentioning ITs!

Économiste Monétaire · 03-09-2008 7:16pm

Where did that come from?

This isn't a debate on ITs Vs. Universities (or my 'avatar') - to clear up the confusion. I asked for your perspicacious argument about the return to fees and that's what you contribute - you then wonder why the mod is, according to you, 'tak[ing] the piss'.

Riiiiiiiiiight... (that's me not responding any more unless you want to add something of value).

g5fd6ow0hseima · 03-09-2008 8:39pm

Still though, ill stand up and admit my arguements arent the best, as to be honest my knowledge of economics is below average, but nobody ever answered me as to why staunch capitalists should avail of the socialist ideal of universal education.

Surely, many would be unhappy with a scenario where private healthcare was abolished and we all went udner the GMS (slightly related, but still off topic) but - the bottom line is, if the rich have the money to pay, shouldnt they be a cut above the average joe?

I know youve said your in favour of the re-introducation in some way or another, but my arguement is far more general, not exactly what you want on this forum.

(I now notice im getting a little bit like the catholic church with the M&C scheme)

Économiste Monétaire · 03-09-2008 10:11pm

Simon Nutty Swimmer wrote: »

Still though, ill stand up and admit my arguements arent the best, as to be honest my knowledge of economics is below average, but nobody ever answered me as to why staunch capitalists should avail of the socialist ideal of universal education.

Well, your question is quite poorly constructed. What you're asking there is akin to, 'why do those, whom I deem to be wealthy, avail of 'free' third level education?'. I've already answered that above.

I believe what you're trying to ask is, 'why as a capitalist society did we (and continue to) implement, a socialist idea in, the free fees initiative?'. The answer to that is commonly knowledge - the 'free' fees initiative was put in place to allow those from lower socio-economic background to attend third level education, on academic merit, without the obstacle of paying many thousands of Pounds/Euro. Did it reach the goal that was intended in the strictest sense? No - consensus is that it did not. Now, we arrive at the present day and the discussion of the return to academic fees for undergrads.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 04-09-2008 10:50pm

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)

04-09-2008 11:15pm

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

Économiste Monétaire · 05-09-2008 12:24am

Simon Nutty Swimmer wrote:

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?

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.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 05-09-2008 1:21am

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)

Économiste Monétaire · 05-09-2008 12:58pm

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.

g5fd6ow0hseima · 05-09-2008 4:30pm

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

ninty9er · 07-09-2008 10:27pm

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.

Économiste Monétaire · 08-09-2008 3:44pm

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.

ninty9er · 09-09-2008 10:11pm

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.

gurramok · 16-09-2008 5:45pm

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?!

eamonnm79 · 16-09-2008 5:57pm

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.

16-09-2008 7:46pm

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

DJDC · 16-09-2008 8:18pm

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.

K4t · 17-09-2008 6:17pm

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

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.

The economic justification for the return of college fees?

Comments