Re introduction of fees?

lazybutlively

Welcome back everyone ,

Thought i'd drop a line about this and see where the dcu heads stand on this one. Are we going to get organised or does anyone care?

Since the president of DCU has been all over the airwaves saying the college is chronically underfunded , perhaps the reasonably well off should indeed pay fees or a loan system like the UK be introduced for those coming from families with high middle incomes and above.

Problem is where is the cut off point ? Will it administered correctly not to burn people from lower middle to middle income families. Will the limit be indexed to inflation etc.?

Without getting too political my faith in the current government administration is not at a record high at the moment . My county council is a bit out of touch with reality too. They don't take queries on grants on certain afternoons and we get our last grant cheque the last week of semester 2.

So based on that I would be against the introduction of fees until a transparent coherent plan is put together taking a lot of input from academics and students alike .

My main concern is that if this door is opened and the lunatics once again take over the asylum ( see port tunnel , voting machines in storage down the country) it will be lower-middle to middle income families that will end up footing the bill

I'd like to hear what the rest of ye think

Evangelion

The UK system is great. end of.

One positive thing i see from fees is the reduced number of degrees. I'm a grad of two years. the degree gets you so little these days cos everyone has one, even the masters is the same

Darren1o1

Evangelion wrote: »

The UK system is great. end of.

One positive thing i see from fees is the reduced number of degrees. I'm a grad of two years. the degree gets you so little these days cos everyone has one, even the masters is the same

Sounds a little down beat. Depends on what qualification you have. I must say in Engineering it goes a long way and even further abroad.

I think fees may put off some of the less fortunate students who may be academically competent. It think allot of our economic success has been from the fact we have churned out graduates no end! There is a fine balance needed if fees are to brought in.

Universities need to improve there financial standing/facilities. But this should not mean anyone gets left out. We must keep the level of funding from the government and not allow us to go into a downward spiral that will end up with a system similar to the US where a good education is privy of the few.

Will

Don't know how DCU is underfunded, there's sweet feck all in the way of discounts for students e.g spar shop, canteen etc

My opinion of DCU has changed a hell of a lot in the last 4 years. In my eyes they're money grabbing any chance they get...

On topic

Bringing fees back won't change a thing, tax the rich? yeah haha that will never happen. It's the average joe and below that will get screwed over.

cooker3

I have never been able to justify why your average taxpayer should have to pay for me to attend college for 4 years, I still can't

Darren1o1

We are investing in you so you can make us some more of those nice tax dollars!

cooker3 wrote: »

I have never been able to justify why your average taxpayer should have to pay for me to attend college for 4 years, I still can't

cooker3

Tax hey. That maybe a problem

Shiny

Darren1o1 wrote: »

We are investing in you so you can make us some more of those nice tax dollars!

Yep, nail on the head.

High knowledge economy = more investment = more tax.
" = high wages = more tax.

You wouldn't be long paying back those fees through tax and the
additional vat you pay on the extra stuff you can afford due to you
higher wages.

Grudaire

I'm against the idea, but IF they manage to tax the rich.... oh who am I kidding!?

cooker3

Darren1o1 wrote: »

We are investing in you so you can make us some more of those nice tax dollars!

How about art degrees, why should people fund them?
If it's such an easy money earner I presume people would have no issue taking out loans then?

lazybutlively

Ye the whole taxation issue is compelling since I think the last English Study had graduates on average earning twice as much as non-graduates . As the previous reply intimated graduates will make a good contribution to the taxman . So having gone around a few houses is it up to the government to allocate this accordingly to the cash starved universities......

Not in the current climate anyhow .....

Maybe an alumni contribution scheme aswell .... i.e. when you hit 35 or 40 and are turning a few quid make make an annual tax free donation from your salary .Think the major colleges in the states do this .....


Wouldn't solve the immediate problem though

Evangelion

Shiny wrote: »

Yep, nail on the head.

High knowledge economy = more investment = more tax.
" = high wages = more tax.

You wouldn't be long paying back those fees through tax and the
additional vat you pay on the extra stuff you can afford due to you
higher wages.

Thats the thing, Grads are a dime a dozen...the high wages arent there anymore.

Btw, ive a degree in Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science.
I also heard theyre stiil encouraging people to do science....bad idea, the industry is in a serious downturn, moreso than the economy

Darren1o1

There is a benefit for both the country and the people doing the degrees. Arts does have many merits (I myself being an engineer), and it has been proven that any graduate (arts included) on average earn substantially more.

We cannot be solely a nation of scientists and engineers, there need to be many other areas of industry. Plus what build would you go to, to take a nap if there was no arts

cooker3 wrote: »

How about art degrees, why should people fund them?
If it's such an easy money earner I presume people would have no issue taking out loans then?

Darren1o1

Evangelion wrote: »

Thats the thing, Grads are a dime a dozen...the high wages arent there anymore.

Btw, ive a degree in Chemical and Pharmaceutical Science.
I also heard theyre stiil encouraging people to do science....bad idea, the industry is in a serious downturn, moreso than the economy

Relatively speaking in comparison to say 5 years ago but compare to say 15 yrs ago, we are doing pretty good.

goodgodholmes

If you're currently a student, will you have to pay fees if they're re introduced?

I'll be going into my final year next year, and to be honest I might never have gone to college if not for free fees, I just couldn't afford it.

So if I have to pay for my course next year I may be forced to drop out at final year.

Would it just be for students starting in 2009 or would fees apply in my case if I'm already a student?

Ace2007

personally i do think if should be introduced for certain people, i.e earning over x amount per year.

Shiny

Evangelion wrote: »

Thats the thing, Grads are a dime a dozen...

Maybe, Maybe not.

cooker3

Darren1o1 wrote: »

There is a benefit for both the country and the people doing the degrees. Arts does have many merits (I myself being an engineer), and it has been proven that any graduate (arts included) on average earn substantially more.

We cannot be solely a nation of scientists and engineers, there need to be many other areas of industry. Plus what build would you go to, to take a nap if there was no arts

Well assuming all this is true, people shouldn't mind taking loans out to fund it right?

hopalong85

Ace2007 wrote: »

personally i do think if should be introduced for certain people, i.e earning over x amount per year.

do you mean people whose parents earn over x amount per year? if so, why? personally, i think it's unreasonable to expect students from wealthier backgrounds to have to pay fees. it's kind of inequality, no? if fees are reintroduced, it should be done in the same way as the uk, ie pay your loans back once you've found employment upon graduating.

also, just because someone is from a wealthier background does not mean their parents will be willing to support them financially during college.

Darren1o1

cooker3 wrote: »

Well assuming all this is true, people shouldn't mind taking loans out to fund it right?

Ah but people are short sighted and will be discouraged upfront by fees. Just remember being a LC student and making that decision is already hard enough. Perhaps some hidden "grad" tax may be suitable.

Our economy is built on the fact we have so many grads coming out. Multinationals have cited that and the tax as reasons for moving here. We are up there with science and engineers grad per capital (2nd to S. Korea I have heard at one stage). Do you not think this would quickly change? Look at England for example! As I am aware the college going population has dropped.

Ace2007

hopalong85 wrote: »

do you mean people whose parents earn over x amount per year? if so, why? personally, i think it's unreasonable to expect students from wealthier backgrounds to have to pay fees. it's kind of inequality, no? if fees are reintroduced, it should be done in the same way as the uk, ie pay your loans back once you've found employment upon graduating.

also, just because someone is from a wealthier background does not mean their parents will be willing to support them financially during college.

well lets just look at the secondary and primary schools - the rich pay for their education - why not continue it on to third level?

the poor go to state run schools, the rich to private,

cooker3

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Ah but people are short sighted and will be discouraged upfront by fees. Just remember being a LC student and making that decision is already hard enough. Perhaps some hidden "grad" tax may be suitable.

Our economy is built on the fact we have so many grads coming out. Multinationals have cited that and the tax as reasons for moving here. We are up there with science and engineers grad per capital (2nd to S. Korea I have heard at one stage). Do you not think this would quickly change? Look at England for example! As I am aware the college going population has dropped.

Having lots of grads should not be a goal in itself. It is irrelevant if the they have pointless degrees which serve no purpose or are involved in course which are dumbed down just so they have more people passing. That helps nobody

hopalong85

Ace2007 wrote: »

well lets just look at the secondary and primary schools - the rich pay for their education - why not continue it on to third level?

the poor go to state run schools, the rich to private,

some rich people (not all) go to private schools. rich people paying for university education wouldn't be a continuation of anything. everyone who goes to a private school pays, not some students, everyone. this is equality. making some pay for college and not others is inequality, regardless of their families' financial situations. it's not the same at all.

Ace2007

lets take Belvedere College S.J. as a quick example, there are fee paying students and non fee payin students attending the school - this is a fact.

now why isn't there an uproar....hmm..

Gavin

Fees with a loan system seems to be a good idea. However, I suspect the government are pro fees as they will then stop paying any money to universities.

Fees + continuing the existing funding as provided. It also means that there is more money to be made available to lesser off people who wish to attend college. e.g Money for living can be made available to them and they take out a loan to cover the cost of the education as would most other students.

Taxing people who earn above X is not a particularly good solution. 'Rich' people already contribute to the economy by paying tax. And those super rich that don't should be made to.

Fyr.Fytr

Ace2007 wrote: »

lets take Belvedere College S.J. as a quick example, there are fee paying students and non fee payin students attending the school - this is a fact.

now why isn't there an uproar....hmm..

Yea 4 or 5 scholarship students per year, thats just the jesuits being socially just and giving someone who normally wouldnt have it a chance to attend the school.

The scholarship is funded by donations etc so the fee is still paid but by others.

Ace2007

hmm who funds colleges atm - o wait the goverment - so the poor can still get funded the and rich can now pay

exact same situation....

Ace2007

Fyr.Fytr wrote: »

Yea 4 or 5 scholarship students per year, thats just the jesuits being socially just and giving someone who normally wouldnt have it a chance to attend the school.

The scholarship is funded by donations etc so the fee is still paid but by others.

i know for a fact its more than 4/5 and its not them being socialable either...

robby^5

cooker3 wrote: »

Having lots of grads should not be a goal in itself. It is irrelevant if the they have pointless degrees which serve no purpose or are involved in course which are dumbed down just so they have more people passing. That helps nobody

The quality of degree's is kind of besides the point, we have a fairly high standard of third level education here anyway.

Once a students done with third level they'll go on to get jobs and start contributing to society by paying taxes, and having a degree will usually mean more money than not having a degree, this is good for the government and the economy.

Reintroduce fee's and your left with fewer people attending third level education and the ones that do leave 3rd level already in debt before they even start working.

Defenestrate

How about the Government just stops funding EU students in Ireland? In Scotland for example, the government pays on behalf of Scottish nationals but for no others, even other UK countries.

Charge EU students more, and abolish the 'admin' fees for Irish nationals imo.

cooker3

robby^5 wrote: »

The quality of degree's is kind of besides the point, we have a fairly high standard of third level education here anyway.

Once a students done with third level they'll go on to get jobs and start contributing to society by paying taxes, and having a degree will usually mean more money than not having a degree, this is good for the government and the economy.

Reintroduce fee's and your left with fewer people attending third level education and the ones that do leave 3rd level already in debt before they even start working.

How is beside the point. If everyone graduate arts, I doubt that would say much for the quality of the workforce in this country.

I read an interview with 1 of the head guys from Havoc saying how poor the standard of IT graduates are. I look at people from CA and you can see where he is going (and yeah I am including myself there)
The quality of the degrees mean everything.

Ace2007

I sorta agree with cooker - there are too many people getting degrees for stuff - the exams are very much the same year in year out - the lecture tells students what to study and then surprise surprise ur in the exam and that exact thing came up... therefore people have degrees in subjects they know very little about...

Gavin

Quality of courses is a separate issue to fees.