College Fees

Kevster

Hey,

Please tell me that there are others out there that agree to an abolishment of the free fees scheme... ...? I am a mature student (aged 24) and am dismayed by the scheme. It allows people to get into college that shouldn't be there. These people don't go to college to learn; they go to college to socialise. However, they invariably pass the course they applied for - and get a well-paid job - but are incompetent.


If we had to pay for college, we would appreciate it more.


Kevin.

brianthebard

It also allows me to go to college which would be impossible if I had to pay. I deserve a place here just like anyone else. If people go for reasons other than to learn then the system is imperfect, but guess what that's not unusual.

plonk

Are you having a laugh. The amount of people who now go to college from under-privliged families that couldnt afford a car never mind a college course for their children and you want to deprieve them of a decent (further) education. This is one of the greatest things a goverment ever did for this country.

Kevster

Fortunately, I can see both sides to the issue we are discussing here and do not wish to deprive these people - of course I don't. However, the system IS imperfect, as brianthebard has stated.


I probably would not have gone to college either were it not for the free fees. I am a fee-paying mature student now, however, and am appreciating it much more. Perhaps there should be more screening done or something... ...I'm not sure how this could be tackled.


Anyway, I doubt you can argue that colleges in Ireland ARE riddled with people that are only there for the social aspect. In my opinion, they shouldn't be there.


Kevin.

plonk

I get what your saying I just think the number of people who are there for the social aspect is greatly outnumbered by the people who wouldnt have had te means to go in the first place. So therefore its a good thing.

They could maybe screen it by raiseing the pass level to 50 % so therefore you wont get by just scraping through and you will have to work for it

brianthebard

I can also understand what you are saying, but even taking my own example, for various reasons I didn't put much effort into last year. But I have this year and enjoyed it a lot. If there was some screening test though I probably would've failed. This year I'm hopefully going to get a high 2.1 or even a first. What Im saying is there is more to the whole thing than outward appearances or even the way a person acts in a year. In the long run though the people who are there to party or whatever will not get the same results as those who work for their degree. I think if these people are truly incompetent then they will not get as far as those who have the drive to succeed.

mikemac

Free fees should be kept. After all, hopefully the graduates will get good jobs and will repay the fees many, many times over.
It's very likley that someone with a college education will pay higher rate of tax but an early school leaver might not. Obviously tradesmen and entrepreneurs are an exception but you won't pay high tax if your only job is stacking shelves in Tesco.

I seem to remember our SU wanted to propose the student grant was matched to the dole.
The thinking being graduates will repay any free fees and grants through taxes but what do the long term unemployed contribute to the country.

They had a point.

flogen

eh.... AH?

badgerbadger

i don't see how fees would stop people going to college to socialise especially if people have rich parents and i probly wouldn't be in college if it wasn't for free fees

nesf

brianthebard wrote:

It also allows me to go to college which would be impossible if I had to pay. I deserve a place here just like anyone else. If people go for reasons other than to learn then the system is imperfect, but guess what that's not unusual.

Why should college be a birthright? (Am more curious than anything else)



Oh, and moved to Humanities.

Kernel

plonk wrote:

Are you having a laugh. The amount of people who now go to college from under-privliged families that couldnt afford a car never mind a college course for their children and you want to deprieve them of a decent (further) education. This is one of the greatest things a goverment ever did for this country.

*nods vigourously*

They get to college on acedemic achievement. Not like mature students, who just get in if they lick arse/pay/are good bull****ters.

****in snobs! :rolleyes:

randylonghorn

Kernel wrote:

They get to college on acedemic achievement. Not like mature students, who just get in if they lick arse/pay/are good bull****ters.

... which no doubt is why mature students generally score well above the average in terms of grades ...

:rolleyes:

karen3212

I would like to say that I learned far more at college outside of lectures. Met many very interesting and intelligent people and have a much better understanding of different types of people than if I'd never gone.
Is it also not the case that students that have time to think, and aren't worried about paying a huge amount of money started the marches in the US that led to the end of the war in Vietnam. I know very far fetched I know, but people say that nowdays the students are so worried about the money they/parents are paying for their education doesn't give them any time to think of anything other than their academic results.
I would keep the free fees,

Iktomi

I think it’s a fair assumption to assume that the majority of people go to college for the possibility of future financial gain.
As such it makes sense that they should finance their education themselves since they are the one’s who ultimately profit from the venture. As such loans seem to me the appropriate mechanism; although schemes offered by the army for example where you get your education paid for but ultimately are bound for a term of service seem fair and equitable to me.

I’m a firm believer in that no respect is offered for anything given for free.

brianthebard

nesf wrote:

Why should college be a birthright? (Am more curious than anything else)

I don't consider it a birthright, but I feel I am entitled to an education and should be able to choose how far that goes, not based on cost. I don't see how it could be considered fair to base education and the pursuit of knowledge on monetary worth.

Zombrex

Kevster wrote:

Perhaps there should be more screening done or something

There is "screening", its called the Leaving Cert.

Beruthiel

Kevster wrote:

It allows people to get into college that shouldn't be there.

It also allows people to get into college who would otherwise never have been able to afford it.
I for one wouldn't want our country to turn into the kind of place where only rich people get to have a third level education and no matter how smart you are, if you're poor you don't.

skywalker

plonk wrote:

Are you having a laugh. The amount of people who now go to college from under-privliged families that couldnt afford a car never mind a college course for their children and you want to deprieve them of a decent (further) education. This is one of the greatest things a goverment ever did for this country.

Completely agree. Well put. I probably wouldnt have been able to go to college without free fees. Im certainly grateful for the opportunity. Im now several years later working full time & paying for myself to do a masters at night.

I absolutely loath the way the govt is/was reintroducing fees via the "registration fee", I think that was the name for it. Has anything happened with that?

Iktomi

brianthebard wrote:

I am entitled to an education and should be able to choose how far that goes, not based on cost.

Perhaps you'll explain why I and others should have to cover the cost of this (college) education for you.

Zombrex

Iktomi wrote:

Perhaps you'll explain why I and others should have to cover the cost of this (college) education for you.

The same reason we cover the cost of his primary and secondary level education

A well educated work force is vital for economies these days. Ireland has very little else to offer apart from the education level of its work force. Everyone should be going to college if they want to

Iktomi

Wicknight wrote:

The same reason we cover the cost of his primary and secondary level education

We provide primary and secondary education to grant the basic education to function our society. A college education is above and beyond this.

Just because someone wants to do something doesnt mean that society is bound to provide it, people should accept the burden for their education once they reach adult age.

Zombrex

Iktomi wrote:

We provide primary and secondary education to grant the basic education to function our society. A college education is above and beyond this.

As I pointed out, not any more. 3rd level education is increasingly vital for both the welfare of our citizens in terms of if they can get a job or not and our economy as a whole in terms of how attractive we are to foreign investment in the country

Iktomi wrote:

Just because someone wants to do something doesnt mean that society is bound to provide it, people should accept the burden for their education once they reach adult age.

Then why not make the cut off a primary level? Just because someone wants a 2nd level education doesn't mean we should provide it surely?

The answer is of course that to do well in the world the vast majority of our citizens need a 2nd level education. We also need the vast majority of our citizens to have a 2nd level education for our economy.

And it is becoming increasingly the same with regard to 3rd level education.

Iktomi

There's no doubting that a third level education is to your advantage in this day and age.
But in the end of the day people can make there way without a third level education, its a nice to have not a requirement. There are many professions available which don't require it.

I'm not against the idea of supporting people in bettering themselves, but I am against the idea that society must provide handouts to everyone.

I see nothing wrong with loans been provided which are payed back at the end of the term, or people are bound into a contract to provide a service in return for the cost of there further education been covered.

brianthebard

Iktomi wrote:

There's no doubting that a third level education is to your advantage in this day and age.
But in the end of the day people can make there way without a third level education, its a nice to have not a requirement. There are many professions available which don't require it.

Gosh how kind of you to decide what professions I can take up, based on my families fiscal worth. Would you prefer people were forced into lower paid jobs because they can't afford an education? Or perhaps it is possible to see the benefits of educating those who desire it so they can get higher paid jobs, contribute more to the economy, and pay back anything you "covered" for me many times over. How do you expect to see any change in this country if we limit education to the most well off? How can you expect to see any sort of levelling up process, of people moving up through social strata, if we are to put economic restrictions on their options? Do you begrudge single mothers, disabled people, people who draw the dole in the same way?

Zombrex

Iktomi wrote:

But in the end of the day people can make there way without a third level education, its a nice to have not a requirement.

At the end of the day people can "make there way" with a primary education. There were a large number of people I know who did not finish Junior Cert, let alone Leaving Cert. They didn't end up homeless and penniless. But "there way" tended to be not very good and few of them were exactly what foreign investors in the country would consider attractive workforce.

Iktomi wrote:

There are many professions available which don't require it.

Not in the areas that are high priority for the economy

Iktomi wrote:

I'm not against the idea of supporting people in bettering themselves, but I am against the idea that society must provide handouts to everyone.

So are you against primary and secondary free education as well since they are nothing but handouts a well?

Iktomi wrote:

I see nothing wrong with loans been provided which are payed back at the end of the term, or people are bound into a contract to provide a service in return for the cost of there further education been covered.

For primary and secondary as well?

Blush_01

What about the people (like me) who had to borrow in order to go to college despite "free fees"? I had to borrow a lot of money in order to pay for my accommodation at undergratuate level, and it was only a 3 year course. I worked throughtout college and paid my loan off as I studied, but without the loan I'd have been homeless and unable to attend college. My registration fee was between €750 and €1,000 each year - that's nothing to sneeze at. Once I'd saved that and some of my accommodation fees from slaving all summer in crappy jobs I had nothing to show for my three months of hard work, I still had a loan, and I'm still paying for it.

This year I borrowed a substantial amount to pay for my accommodation and course fees, which it doesn't quite cover. That doesn't take into account books, writing materials, the cost of getting my dissertation bound, any of the numerous fiddly little costs that go with spending a year in college. Nor does it include any contribution to living costs such as food and clothing.

It's easy to say that the reintroduction of fees will make people work harder but frankly, it'll mean that people who don't come to college just to socialise and have a good time will lose out. Will there be a decent grant system in place to offer people (like me) the opportunity to study further but who don't receive a grant under the current regulations? Why should my parent's financial situation dictate whether or not I am entitled to study?

At the end of the day, it'll mean that the wealthier people in Ireland will be able to afford a 3rd level education for their children, and those who genuinely want to go to college to learn will lose out unless they can stump up the cash. If your parents have a bad credit history now, you won't get a loan as a student, as your parents have to guarantee your loan. That's not much good to someone who needs one to afford college, is it.

Plonk's suggestion of raising the pass level to 50% in Universities is a great one. Many courses already have it, such as Medicine and many science courses. Why not have that across the board? That 10% between a pass and a 2.2 is easy to get if you work but not too freely given if you're just coasting!

Blush_01

Iktomi - you pay my college fees and I'll pay your pension, alright? Ta, love.

Iktomi

The fact is I pay my own pension which is also how it should be. But thanks for offering.
If you can't afford something that’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t mean I should be out of pocket to please you.

nesf

brianthebard wrote:

I don't consider it a birthright, but I feel I am entitled to an education and should be able to choose how far that goes, not based on cost. I don't see how it could be considered fair to base education and the pursuit of knowledge on monetary worth.

Should you be entitled to a free PhD course and a Post-Doctoral position also? Where exactly do you draw the line where education suddenly costs money?

Zombrex

Iktomi wrote:

If you can't afford something that’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t mean I should be out of pocket to please you.

No, it means you should be out of pocket to raise the standard level of education in the country to competitive levels.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Should you be entitled to a free PhD course and a Post-Doctoral position also? Where exactly do you draw the line where education suddenly costs money?

What do you mean where it "suddenly" costs money? The whole thing costs money. A primary school student costs far more than a PhD student.

brianthebard

nesf wrote:

Should you be entitled to a free PhD course and a Post-Doctoral position also?

Its hardly free, only the fees are paid for me. And personally I'm obviously going to say yes, cause that's what I want to go for after this year. I don't see why their should be a line drawn, the search for knowledge is something we should encourage in people, not prevent.

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

What do you mean where it "suddenly" costs money? The whole thing costs money. A primary school student costs far more than a PhD student.

I think the meaning is fairly obvious. Of course it all costs money but it doesn't directly cost the student anything (if you exclude capitation etc).

nesf

brianthebard wrote:

Its hardly free, only the fees are paid for me. And personally I'm obviously going to say yes, cause that's what I want to go for after this year. I don't see why their should be a line drawn, the search for knowledge is something we should encourage in people, not prevent.

Ok, fair enough let me rephrase. At what point should the Government stop automatically paying college fees? I agree with you, I'm roughly speaking in the same boat though I'm presently having to pay my own fees. The thing is that I do feel that there needs to be more discrimination based on merit, not necessarily money. The problem isn't that we have too many smart working class (or whatever) people in third level, it's that we have too many academically poor students in third level and that this reduces the value of degrees for all students. The problem with free fees is that it encourages people who are academically poor to head to college anyway since they don't have to part with four or five grand to just sit the exams on top of their cost of living. A reintroduction of fees plus a solid and fair system of scholarships for people who can't afford it but who do show academic merit would in my opinion improve things but I do admit that I can't see a way to fairly implement said system of scholarships without disenfranchising some people who can't afford fees who would undoubtedly fall through the cracks of any such system.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm being very clear.

nesf

nesf wrote:

Ok, fair enough let me rephrase. At what point should the Government stop automatically paying college fees? I agree with you, I'm roughly speaking in the same boat though I'm presently having to pay my own fees. The thing is that I do feel that there needs to be more discrimination based on merit, not necessarily money. The problem isn't that we have too many smart working class (or whatever) people in third level, it's that we have too many academically poor students in third level and that this reduces the value of degrees for all students.

Does that make sense?

It's true that maybe some (a lot?) of people go to college just for the hell of it rather than wanting to learn, but I don't think money is the answer. Surely higher LC points requirements and pass %s for lots of courses and so on would be the answer.

Iktomi

Wicknight wrote:

No, it means you should be out of pocket to raise the standard level of education in the country to competitive levels.

I'd rather have a lower number of motivated/driven people who got there on their own steam rather than a large number of people who have been brought up in a belief that they should have everything handed to them.

That is what seem to me to be be the crux of the problem.

nesf

bluewolf wrote:

It's true that maybe some (a lot?) of people go to college just for the hell of it rather than wanting to learn, but I don't think money is the answer. Surely higher LC points requirements and pass %s for lots of courses and so on would be the answer.

I don't know (I edited my above post to give an opinion of the money idea btw apologies for the late edit).

The problem is that if you introduce a kind of interview system where students are assessed for entrance by course administrators the system is no longer blind and in such a small country this could cause problems.

brianthebard

nesf wrote:

Ok, fair enough let me rephrase. At what point should the Government stop automatically paying college fees? I agree with you, I'm roughly speaking in the same boat though I'm presently having to pay my own fees. The thing is that I do feel that there needs to be more discrimination based on merit, not necessarily money. The problem isn't that we have too many smart working class (or whatever) people in third level, it's that we have too many academically poor students in third level and that this reduces the value of degrees for all students. The problem with free fees is that it encourages people who are academically poor to head to college anyway since they don't have to part with four or five grand to just sit the exams on top of their cost of living. A reintroduction of fees plus a solid and fair system of scholarships for people who can't afford it but who do show academic merit would in my opinion improve things but I do admit that I can't see a way to fairly implement said system of scholarships without disenfranchising some people who can't afford fees who would undoubtedly fall through the cracks of any such system.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm being very clear.

Ok so the problem isn't free fees, its the way its implemented. I can understand that. In germany if you achieve a certain grade you pay less or no fees. This would be an incentive to work hard for people. I've already said (I think) that the system is not without flaws, and it would certainly be a good idea to extend free fees to mature students and others who haven't got them at the minute. The problem with scholarship systems is the scaling, a family who is 7 euro over the limit for yearly earnings is entitled to feel hard done by, but there is nothing that can be done. By attempting to give everyone free fees, we are provided with as fair a playing field as possible. Of course there are other factors in the equation, there always is, and so we will never get a completely fair system. We can only hope to be as fair as possible.

brianthebard

Iktomi wrote:

I'd rather have a lower number of motivated/driven people who got there on their own steam rather than a large number of people who have been brought up in a belief that they should have everything handed to them.

That is what seem to me to be be the crux of the problem.

Its a lot more likely for the more wealthy people to believe they should have everything handed to them. Your post is reinforcing the reasons why we should have free fees rather than arguing against it.

nesf

brianthebard wrote:

Ok so the problem isn't free fees, its the way its implemented. I can understand that. In germany if you achieve a certain grade you pay less or no fees. This would be an incentive to work hard for people. I've already said (I think) that the system is not without flaws, and it would certainly be a good idea to extend free fees to mature students and others who haven't got them at the minute. The problem with scholarship systems is the scaling, a family who is 7 euro over the limit for yearly earnings is entitled to feel hard done by, but there is nothing that can be done. By attempting to give everyone free fees, we are provided with as fair a playing field as possible. Of course there are other factors in the equation, there always is, and so we will never get a completely fair system. We can only hope to be as fair as possible.

Oh that German system sounds interesting though it would heavily favour upper middle class city families (i.e. the ones who have nearby grind schools that they can afford to send their kids to).

The big problem is fairness and you are completely correct, scaling is a serious issue in scholarship and grant systems. I'm really just at the point of seeing what the problem is rather than actually having thought of a way to solve it if you know what I mean.

Iktomi

I totally agree with you that the offspring of the wealthy are likely to waste their good fortune.
But that doesn't concern me since it's not my money that's been spent. If they wish to finance their children through college and see their money squandered, that is for them to deal with.

Zombrex

Iktomi wrote:

rather than a large number of people who have been brought up in a belief that they should have everything handed to them.

I think you have a rather funny idea of what actually goes on in college

The college fees paid to the universe don't buy the degree (well some would argue that some of the private colleges that is the case - degree mills).

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

The problem with free fees is that it encourages people who are academically poor to head to college anyway since they don't have to part with four or five grand to just sit the exams on top of their cost of living.

All university level qualifications have a minimum entrance standard, independent of the points system.

If you pass that level you are considered fit enough, academically, to start the course.

If you are too academically poor to meet these requirements you won't get a place in the course in the first place. Fees have nothing to do with it.

Zombrex

Iktomi wrote:

I totally agree with you that the offspring of the wealthy are likely to waste their good fortune.
But that doesn't concern me since it's not my money that's been spent. If they wish to finance their children through college and see their money squandered, that is for them to deal with.

Would you feel "squandered" if a 5th year student left secondary school before sitting their leaving cert?

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

All university level qualifications have a minimum entrance standard, independent of the points system.

If you pass that level you are considered fit enough, academically, to start the course.

If you are too academically poor to meet these requirements you won't get a place in the course in the first place. Fees have nothing to do with it.

And those minimum standards are extremely low.

Iktomi

Wicknight wrote:

Would you feel "squandered" if a 5th year student left secondary school before sitting their leaving cert?

In a nutshell yes I would feel they squandered the opportunity the taxpayer offered them. Although if they left it so they could pursue an apprenticeship I wouldn’t see it as so.

Blowfish

Iktomi wrote:

I think it’s a fair assumption to assume that the majority of people go to college for the possibility of future financial gain.
As such it makes sense that they should finance their education themselves since they are the one’s who ultimately profit from the venture.

You are missing out on the fact that in a way they are paying for themselves, and that they are essentially getting a loan.

Like you pointed out, a lot go to college for financial gain. This would mean that after college they are earning a better wage than if they hadn't gone at all. If they are earning a better wage, that means that they are paying more taxes. Eventually over the course of their lifetime, the amount of extra taxes due to increased income will easily cover the amount the government paid for their college fees. In fact paying to send someone to college who wouldn't normally have gone otherwise, will more than likely earn the government a profit.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

And those minimum standards are extremely low.

Extremely low for what?

The entry requirements set the level that the person must be up to academically to be able to follow what happens in first year. If they were too low to be able to do the course then the person would not be able to do the course.

Iktomi

I suspect we're quite close in thinking. Where you look for the return on the investment of educating a person at the end of the course once they start earning; I conversely believe that they should bare the cost of it ahead of time. That way if they fail, drop out and/or leave the country the investment is not lost.

For example I am in favour if student loans at a preferential rates (although not zero interest) which they must subsequently repay regardless of their successful completion of their course.

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

Extremely low for what?

The entry requirements set the level that the person must be up to academically to be able to follow what happens in first year. If they were too low to be able to do the course then the person would not be able to do the course.

Eh, you've got it backwards. The basic requirements give no guarantee that the person is capable of doing the course and are not set with that in mind nor are the changed to reflect grade inflation within our secondary school system.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

The basic requirements give no guarantee that the person is capable of doing the course

Nothing gives a "guarantee" that a person is capable of finishing a university course.

What the entry requirements do is ensure that the person is academically up to a level so that they will be at the correct starting point. It is set based on what the person will be doing in 1st year.

For example is a 1st year course requires a certain standard of mathematics to be able follow, then the entry requirements will reflect this. This is because there isn't time in the 1st year to teach the students up to this level if they are not at the standard already. They need to be at it already.

For example French in Maynooth requires at least a C3 or more in higher level French. Aeronautically Engineering in UL requires a higher level maths and a pass in a science subject.

The reason for this should be obvious.

What purpose did you think these entry level requirements served?