Paying Fees?

Moorsy

Well I’m sure I'll be referred to a tread, which was written, debated and left unsolved, but I'll throw this in anyway.

What is the argument for and against fee's? I don’t really know what side I would take. Most probably the whole philanthropic approach about lower class or less well off people finding it easier to enter third level and therefore leave the social cycle which is pretty endemic in Ireland (due to many FF Gov’s (that’s just there to piss people off),). This would be my side at the mo, it’s just my personality I guess.

But then there's the other argument, which from my lacking knowledge seems more logical; Universities at the moment don't have enough funds and it hasn't actually made much of a dint in the social situation in Ireland today.

Wow even I’m getting confused here, just wonder if anybody could shed some light on the arguments.
Thanks

Bartronilic

eh alot of people wouldnt be in college without it. thats the best argument i have.

Moorsy

Yes but as I said above it hasn't changed the situation. People (parents) now just use money that they would have saved for a son or daughter for third level for private secondary schools, grinds or summer holidays.

Bartronilic

John hume got into secondary school cos it was free or something. im terrible at this arguing thing ill stop now.

Crash

I wonder at the point of having a high level of education open to all when its underfunded, tbh. In a way I'd be for the introduction of fees if it were guaranteed the uni's etc. would get the cash properly. granted i'd be in a ****e situation then, but at least i'd be sure that my cash strapped existence would be really, truely worth something.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

Well....if universities are underfunded, reintroducing fees should probably be the last measure...

Firstly perhaps make sure that universities are making the best use of funds and not squandering it...not sure how that would be done, I don't claim to be an authority on such matters...

Secondly means testing...a graduated scale so that those at the bottom can still get in, and those at the top and the middle etc. etc.

And there are probably a great many other steps that can be taken that I couldn't be bothered to think about at this time...

Nietzschean

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

Well....if universities are underfunded, reintroducing fees should probably be the last measure...

We are close enough to needing last measures...

Firstly perhaps make sure that universities are making the best use of funds and not squandering it...not sure how that would be done, I don't claim to be an authority on such matters...

Hence the massive reform in most colleges with regard funding?

Secondly means testing...a graduated scale so that those at the bottom can still get in, and those at the top and the middle etc. etc.

In the event of fee's re-introduction that would be a county council thing, and what they will do....

And there are probably a great many other steps that can be taken that I couldn't be bothered to think about at this time...

And i'm sure others have all thought about them before................

this isn't anything new, while i'm glad to have gotten my uni time for free at this point i'd be infavour of the uk style loans for students and leaving it to the college's how much fee's they charge, funnel the free-fee's money into the county council's for grants, or to the college's for scholarships if they want to let them decide.

xeduCat

We are the free fees generation - all the benefits of higher education, but still can't spell the word ;-)

OP: can you please correct your post title at least? It makes me cry.

jdivision

Moorsy wrote:

Yes but as I said above it hasn't changed the situation. People (parents) now just use money that they would have saved for a son or daughter for third level for private secondary schools, grinds or summer holidays.

Not necessarily, I went to school in one of the worst areas of urban poverty in Ireland and I didn't get any grinds, summer holidays etc. I was able to go to college in Dublin to do the course I wanted to do (only available there) because of the abolition of fees, without it I would have had to stay in Cork and done something else. I'm quite successful now so it was great for me. I see the argument for bringing back fees in that it allows universities do more research projects etc but in my opinion children of high earners (e100,000 per annum means tested to include income from rents) should have to pay fees.

Crash

jdivision: but its actually hitting the point now where fee introduction would be feck all to do with research projects, and just to do with keeping a constant standard of teaching with in courses.

अधिनायक

There seem to be many more people with working class parents in college now than when fees were in existence. In the old regime of means tested fee-refunds, many of those who qualified were those with sufficient tax dodges to make their incomes appear low enough.

On the other hand, 'free fees' is a way of giving money to the middle classes from the pay packets of the poor. Also the fee grants are insufficient to cover all college costs, so the poorer students have to do part-time work. We could look to other countries to see what works as many combinations of loans and grants have been tried elsewhere.

There is a poor and inconsistent standard of teaching at 3rd level but I doubt it is linked to cash: when I was in college there was no training for lecturers and their methods were completely outdated. The problem was poor management and academic conservatism.

shay_562

The problem with means-testing the parents to determine if the child should pay fees is that you're automatically assuming that every parent is willing to pay entirely for their child's education, which clearly isn't the case. But is there any way of introducing a means-testing system that takes into account all the variables, and if not, is it really fair to deny people funding for third-level education on the grounds that they don't fit in with the standard template?

Either way, it's something of a moot point. Whichever government re-introduces third-level fees will face massive opposition and public bitching, so nothing short of a complete collapse or the third-level system as we know it will make it happen. And since we're not quite there yet...

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

shay_562 wrote:

if the child should pay fees is that you're automatically assuming that every parent is willing to pay entirely for their child's education, which clearly isn't the case.

think this is a key point.

wouldn't have any objection to paying back for cost of education at some point in the future - but, thats what our progressive tax system does anyway.

uni education = higher pay = higher marginal tax rate = paying back for free education

introduce a flat-tax system, and then there is a case for charging higher income households for their children's education.

in relation to another point made on this thread, about the government "subsidising" middle-income households. i'd say there are very few middle-income households who have the necessary free money to comfortably pay uni fees for their kids. (mortgages, pensions, high marginal tax rates, high VAT rates, medical bills, high cost of goods; are all causing increased financial difficulties for a large number of households)

Moorsy

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote:

Well....if universities are underfunded, reintroducing fees should probably be the last measure.....

Where did you get this? Wouldn't it be more logical that if the government didn't have to subsidise funds for students millions, maybe even a billion or two, would be available for the government to give to Universities for research and better facilities etc?

xeduCat wrote:

OP: can you please correct your post title at least? It makes me cry.

Ahhhhh grrr this is like the second time this has been said about me!! Do you have a site, which will teach me to post properly? We are all adults here and most of us go to Trinity I am sure people can made basic deductions about the thread when they enter.

John

Moorsy wrote:

Ahhhhh grrr this is like the second time this has been said about me!! Do you have a site, which will teach me to post properly? We are all adults here and most of us go to Trinity I am sure people can made basic deductions about the thread when they enter.

This book should set you straight.

Pet

We are all adults here

All the more reason to have an understanding of basic grammar then, eh?

John

It's fixed! Back on topic now.

Crash

back on topic folks.

ISAW

&#231 wrote: »

back on topic folks.

the user should pay. If the user cant pay it all then they should pay a nominal fee and the people with money pay for them . In otherwords still have the current grants system but make the better off pay for the less well off.

This is basically the central principle that socilaists claim to believe in. But the Labour Party are oddly AGAINST fees! And it was a Labour Minister that did away with them. The result was that the people who would have gotten grants still got grants and no tuition fees but the middle classes got no fees either.

dont forget that the lecturers still collect their salaries so someone has to pay. guess who it is. The Taxpayer. Now why should any working taxpayer who does not intend or never uses a university have to pay for the children of those who can already afford it and are using it?

Why should a student whose corporate and family wealth is 700 million euro not pay some fees? why does Labour support the child of Big Business? Most of these people live offshore and pay 12.5 per cent corporations tax. The only part of their wealth in Ireland is the family going to college. why cant they pay 25,000 or 50,000 a year in fees. they will pay it to get a pilot's licence.

Crash

Thats a ridiculuously jaded approach ISAW, to be truly honest. I really think you're playing devils advocate there. I would have no issue with paying an extra few grand in a year (which, working summers, i can earn) if i saw an appreciable level of change in the system in my years in college, tbh.

Nietzschean

thats a bit off the wall , the people who are OTT rich who are living off shore likely send their kids stateside or something anyhoo since they've the dosh, but regardless they make up a tiny tiny % of student in uni, so unless you intend on charging them 500k - 1m each they arn't really worth considering are they?

if your talking about 'the tax payer' the majority of people paying 42% tax tend to be the middle classes or upper middle classes, whom are likely have either been in university or their offspring will, so really they are just paying for it either way.(if fees come back i imagine it should be writeable off against tax by people who are paying them...so either they pay it in tax or they pay it to the college?)

if fee's were abolished as someone mention'd the parents willingness to support/pay for the child through college should somehow be considered, though side stepping the issue by using the no interest long term loans like the uk would be one way...

John

Nietzschean wrote:

the majority of people paying 42% tax tend to be the middle classes or upper middle classes, whom are likely have either been in university or their offspring will, so really they are just paying for it either way

What about those who have been to college before free fees with no offspring? They're paying twice.

I must point out that I don't think of universities as something that only some people should pay for. I think if everyone is taxed for education, regardless of what education they take or what their children take, is good and fair. The education system, health system, infrastructure of the country, etc, etc is something people pay for as a whole. Not everyone uses a tiny cul de sac in the wilds of Donegal, should only the road tax of people who use it pay for it?

Nietzschean

well the lesson is have lots of offspring to make full use of your taxes?

ISAW

Nietzschean wrote:

thats a bit off the wall , the people who are OTT rich who are living off shore likely send their kids stateside or something anyhoo

No they dont. I can name several related to Trinity but I am not going to. Certainly into the hundreds of millions possibly a Billion and thats just a few of the top of my head. of course they are approached to "give" towards other funding but why shouldnt they pay fees? Why should rich benefactors get a free ride?

since they've the dosh, but regardless they make up a tiny tiny % of student in uni, so unless you intend on charging them 500k - 1m each they arn't really worth considering are they?

Yes they are! they may give another million to building a new molecular science institute lets say. But why should then not giv e that anyway? And why when their son does Arts shoul the hispanic languages department be closed and lecturers be relocated for lack of funds when their child goes to this department say?

if your talking about 'the tax payer' the majority of people paying 42% tax tend to be the middle classes or upper middle classes, whom are likely have either been in university or their offspring will, so really they are just paying for it either way.(if fees come back i imagine it should be writeable off against tax by people who are paying them...so either they pay it in tax or they pay it to the college?)

this is just saying that tax pays for education rather than the user. If that is the case why not apply the same model to health? Why not let tax pay for it all and get rid of private health? Because the richer people wouldnt want that either.
I think one could keep state support fixed at current rates and index it. They could then get the users to pay fees. this should about double the amount in colleges. The extra fees could go straight to the department involved. this means that big undergrad teaching departments would get more money but the research departments (who are the big gainers
under restructuring/ARAM/etc.) will have to work of another stream. Departments would also have to change with demand however.

if fee's were abolished as someone mention'd the parents willingness to support/pay for the child through college should somehow be considered, though side stepping the issue by using the no interest long term loans like the uk would be one way...

If the child is living at home then yes. But if the family can afford it then no. If the child goes out and gets a job pays tax and is independent then the child can apply for a grant.
If the parents want to "sacrifice" for their child then thats what a parent does.

ISAW

John2 wrote:

What about those who have been to college before free fees with no offspring? They're paying twice.

there is no such thing as FREE FEES!

somebody pays. In this case the State.

I must point out that I don't think of universities as something that only some people should pay for.

But only the State pays for it now. Not alone that but the state pays for other European citizens as well to avail of "free fees".

I think if everyone is taxed for education, regardless of what education they take or what their children take, is good and fair. The education system, health system, infrastructure of the country, etc, etc is something people pay for as a whole. Not everyone uses a tiny cul de sac in the wilds of Donegal, should only the road tax of people who use it pay for it?

Yes. I am quite happy to have an "education tax" just as they havce a "training levy" on employers. The civil servants in the Department of Finance wouldnt like this though. why? BHecause it means that the money will go directly to education and/or directly to colleges and they will rundn their own budgets. The HEA would lose its power also and colleges would have to move academic staff around or lay them off if necessary another no no for tenured public servants!

I am also happy to have road tax to go into a budget only to be spent on roads and not into central funds wher it might be spent on electronic voting.

Ron DMC

Ido think that everyone should be entitled to free education but on the other hand, paying for it might make people appreciate it more.

I'm going to pay for college this year. We'll see if that makes up my mind for me.