|!| Third Level Fees

festivala · 28-11-2002 4:23pm

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.

seamus · 28-11-2002 4:30pm

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.

tHE vAGGABOND · 28-11-2002 5:16pm

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.

festivala · 28-11-2002 5:29pm

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.

Bateman · 28-11-2002 6:29pm

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.

Cork · 29-11-2002 11:22am

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.

rien_du_tout · 01-12-2002 10:56pm

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.

Shinji · 01-12-2002 11:33pm

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?

no2fees · 01-12-2002 11:41pm

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!

The Corinthian · 02-12-2002 1:24am

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.

bonkey · 02-12-2002 7:40pm

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

Shinji · 02-12-2002 8:50pm

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?

bonkey · 02-12-2002 10:01pm

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

rien_du_tout · 02-12-2002 10:43pm

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

Shinji · 03-12-2002 12:32am

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.

daveirl · 03-12-2002 12:54am

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian · 03-12-2002 1:04am

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
This is very elitist.

Yes. Yes it is.

Welcome to the real World...

03-12-2002 1:29am

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

Shinji · 03-12-2002 1:34am

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.

03-12-2002 1:47am

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

03-12-2002 2:26am

Originally posted by 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.

You assumption doesn't hold up to much investigation.

Firstly, you have what is your, and maybe a handful of other people's observations on the quality of Irish Degrees. I would like to see you prove to me, using some facts, that Irish degress are worth less.

Secondly, even if you could prove that degrees are worth less nowdays, you would still have to go on to prove that the reason for that is explicitly because of free fees.

There is massive differences between the psychology of different generations and you would need to be a seasoned sociologist with a lot of data to corroborate your statement.

- Kevin

Xterminator · 03-12-2002 3:11pm

Originally posted by p
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. - Kevin

No youre wrong. 10 years ago, youre parents paid a whack of money to get you a chance at college. If you dropped out then that had it repercussions.
Also those who had to repeat, found it cost another years money .. a great incentive to actually try to pass, cuase if you didnt you had to answer to somebody!

Now dropping out is seen as near consequenceless, (to the individual) because the financial value of a year in college has been devalued.
Thats a fact.

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.

Wecome to the real world. Supply and demand. Market forces.
Is it really worth your while doing an arts degree if you have to pay for it?
Nursing is paid the minimum the government can get away with.
If there arent enough people siging up .. they have to make it more attractive. The same with teaching. There is also the argument that such posts arent just jobs, but vocations ... so money is not the only concern.
Anyway we can always plunder the nurses of the 3rd world countries to fill our needs ... (oops we're already doing that!)

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.- Kevin

If the richer paid proportianally more tax than those on middle and lower incomes that might just be true.
But they dont. the fact is the paye sector pay a far greater % of the tax bill than other sectors.
The farmers (and theres a lot of their children in college), the self employed, the company directors etc, can avail of clever accounting practises, (such as the farmer buying machinery before the end of the tax year) to limit there tax liability, but the paye sector are royally screwed.
Now everyone has opinions on what should and shouldnt be done, etc but the fact remains that the paye sector, which includes those on minimun wage is subsiding the College bill of the students
There is also the point that students can drop out, repeat and emigrate taking with them with the valuble education that is paid for by the taxpayers.

And even if if they do finish college and if they stay here as tax payers, and contribute towards the tax bill, there are ways available to some professions and sectors of evaiding the full share of tax burden, despite having benifitted from its fruits.

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 [/B]

Market forces Kevin.
They manage to do ok in countries such as switzerland, and the uk. There are many factors in play, and though this would in part affect wage levels demanded by graduates, but this could be in offset by the lower tax bill, or improved public services in other areas (which the saved monies could be used for).

X

Thomas · 04-12-2002 11:45am

My friends and I were discussing this in the UCD canteen just this morning(no we weren't missing a lecture at the time). We felt that free fees should remain while you are attending college and that ALL student could avail of a decent sized grant if they so wished but if this was the case then a working graduate should, when they move into the higher tax bracket, pay an extra 1% on the higher rate(i.e. 43%). They would then revert to the normal higher rate when they've paid back the cost of their education. We thought that this would be fairest system to all graduates, including the poorer ones. What do you think?

Tom

Shinji · 04-12-2002 11:48am

Thomas; what exactly is the difference between what you propose, and the student loans system?

The Corinthian · 04-12-2002 11:53am

Originally posted by Shinji
Thomas; what exactly is the difference between what you propose, and the student loans system?

Branding.

Thomas · 04-12-2002 11:57am

Loans automatically inspire apprehension among people but a cent in a euro doesn't sound too bad, especially if you earn enough to make it into the top rate in the first place. Also, this way ensures that only those who can really afford to pay back the loan have to. If you're changing jobs etc. having to re-organise the loan would be very complicated and involve a lot of hassle, whereas this way of repaying is dependent on the graduate earning and is automatic through their paycheck so there's no dealing with banks etc.

Shinji · 04-12-2002 12:21pm

Also, this way ensures that only those who can really afford to pay back the loan have to.

Student loans don't begin paying back until you go over a certain level of income. If you drop back below that again or become unemployed, the loan is frozen. In effect it's exactly the system you're talking about, but you want it government-sponsored so that there's no "apprehension" about the huge wodge of cash you're spending on your education.

You know, maybe when you're spending thousands of pounds of other peoples money, there SHOULD be some apprehension involved... Think of it as an incentive.

seamus · 04-12-2002 3:20pm

Originally posted by Shinji
Student loans don't begin paying back until you go over a certain level of income. If you drop back below that again or become unemployed, the loan is frozen.

Wrong. That's the way it operates in Britain, not in Ireland. In Ireland, you start paying back either straight away, of after a predetermined time (6 months for example). Even if you can't afford it, it's hovering over your head. If you default on it, they'll go your guarantor and get them money from them. That's one of the big arguments in the Irish student loan structure. On the other hand, it may be better that students can't simply defer their loans until they're earning enough - it makes them think twice about getting one, and teaches a bit of money skills......

rien_du_tout · 04-12-2002 7:56pm

Originally posted by Shinji
You know, maybe when you're spending thousands of pounds of other peoples money, there SHOULD be some apprehension involved... Think of it as an incentive. [/B]

so anything paid by the government is "spending other peoples money" so we should feel ashamed a regretful when we have to rely on the structures and institutions set up by society. yep...... I'm feeling pretty ashamed for all the money my parents have gotten through child welfare, oh ya, I didnt deserve a penny of it and sure if you can't make your own money you may aswell die coz you shouldnt go looking for "other peoples money" when you could be there dieing in the street and erasing your traits from the gene pool. Hmmmmm......

The Corinthian · 04-12-2002 8:22pm

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
so we should feel ashamed a regretful when we have to rely on the structures and institutions set up by society.

Not if you have to rely on them.

But if you don't (and that it'll make life a bit difficult is not an acceptable reason for having to rely upon hand-outs) then yes, I'd probably think you should be ashamed of yourself for being such a snivelling little parasite.

|!| Third Level Fees

Comments