Students to protest against 3rd level fees on Thursday 9th

turgon

A lot of students from CIT, UCC (both Cork), UL and MI (both Limerick) are marching around Cork City the coming Thursday, protesting against the hinting of the proposed re-introduction of third level fees. According to CIT Student Union fees should be paid for the government, full stop, and this appears to be the general consensus of a lot of students.

I am in no way opposed to people having an opinion. However I have already experienced a usual side effect of this kind of protest: the "we're right, no matter what" syndrome. Of late this has even extended to "you don't agree with us, who the **** do you think you are?"

On two occasions I attempted to state my point of view, that although I am opposed to students having to pay out thousands of euro at our age, I dont fully agree with lifelong subsidization either. My main phrase was that those who didn't go to college were paying for those who did.

Twice I said this. The first time I was accused of having a rich "daddy who can pay for you." As a primary school teacher, no he cannot considering I have two siblings. The second time the other person in question looked away (me having just laid out my position) then looked back and stated in an extremely annoyed tone "I just hate the way Irish people don't stand up for what they believe in."

This self righteousness is not exactly a rare thing in Ireland, but here was the first time I experienced it face on. I explained my position, and had it rebuked without any reference to it, people just brushed me off as if I was a asshole. Fundamentally, I suppose, "Ignorance is Strength".

So anyone marching??!!

Please don't tell me that students are only marching in Cork.

jaffa20

No,i'm not. I support the reintroduction. If your parents earn over 120k per year, they can afford to put you through college. I supported myself through college with loans, grants and part time jobs and never asked for a penny off my parents. But some children are luckly that their parents can afford it.

cavedave

jaffa20

If your parents earn over 120k per year, they can afford to put you through college

Why does what their parents earn effect an adult? By that logic should someone with rich parents not have to pay more tax?

turgon

cavedave wrote: »

Why does what their parents earn effect an adult? By that logic should someone with rich parents not have to pay more tax?

Well at that age most people are financially dependent on their parents: thus the amount of money available to then is more or less proportional to the amount their parents have.

Breezer

Fees seem to be off the agenda again for the moment anyway. According to 'The Irish Times' and RTE today, the 'registration fee' will be increased substantially instead. This keeps no one happy but avoids hassle since it's been done so many times before people are used to it.

There are better ways to invest in 3rd level education than increasing registration fees or reintroducing tuition fees. Tighter regulation of exactly what 3rd level institutions are spending their money on would go a long way. The amount of waste I see on a daily basis in my own university is shocking.

Taking public money that's currently being wasted and channelling it into 3rd level education, on which less percentage-wise is being spent now than a decade ago, would also help.

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to any reintroduction of tuition fees. Education is a right and in this day and age the traditional 'basic education,' i.e. a Leaving Cert. will not get you very far. A well-educated population, while certainly benefiting the individual, also benefits society as a whole and therefore should be paid for by the State.

cavedave

Breezer
For what it's worth, I'm opposed to any reintroduction of tuition fees. Education is a right and in this day and age the traditional 'basic education,' i.e. a Leaving Cert. will not get you very far. A well-educated population, while certainly benefiting the individual, also benefits society as a whole and therefore should be paid for by the State.

What do you mean by "very far" for example will an engineering degree get you very far where as one in history of art will not? If it is the case that some degrees benefit society more should they not be rewarded/sponsored more?

turgon
Well at that age most people are financially dependent on their parents: thus the amount of money available to then is more or less proportional to the amount their parents have.

So you should punish those who live in an adult way and are not financially dependant on their parents?

Breezer

cavedave wrote: »

What do you mean by "very far" for example will an engineering degree get you very far where as one in history of art will not? If it is the case that some degrees benefit society more should they not be rewarded/sponsored more?

I mean that the majority of non-minimum wage employers won't give those with only a Leaving Cert. a second glance these days, and require some form of further education. The one exception I'm aware of off the top of my head is the public service (for certain positions), which will hopefully be slimmed down in the near future, which will have the effect of reducing openings in the field. I was in no way suggesting the superiority of one form of 3rd level education over another.

So you should punish those who live in an adult way and are not financially dependant on their parents?

I agree with what you're getting at here: this is yet another problem with fees. We must remember that parents are under no legal obligation to put their children through college. The rationale of means testing the parents is therefore flawed, although I accept that it is currently used for other purposes as well, e.g. grants. The idea of State loans is a better one, but that carries its own problems as well and is far from ideal.

Hotblack Desiato

The reason USI et al. are so voiciferous on this one is because they feel very threatened by this - why?

Students from low-income families will continue to get free fees and the pittance of a grant - so no change there - but it's perfectly clear that USI don't really give a damn about them.

The ones who lose out will be the upper-middle classes who are the ones USI really represent. The way to increase equality of participation in third level was not free fees but grant reform.

Crash

To be honest, I'd be completely for fee reintroduction - on one ground.

A proper, well organised means tested grant system that isn't a shambles HAS to be in place before fee reintroduction is even considered. The ones who suffer will be those at the lower end of the income scale rather than anyone else.

brianthebard

I wouldn't have a problem with fees, its been shown time and time again that the one's who benefit most from free fees are the one's who need it least. But as pointed out if there is to be any benefit to all this then there needs to be a restructuring of admin, cutting of waste, etc, all of which takes time and isn't seen as visible action. So its unlikely to happen.

Imposter

The reason the majority of students are complaining and cannot see any other point of view is that they are seeing from their own 'selfish' perspective's.
There are many many things as mentioned that need to be reformed.

- To talk about free fees and then a 'registration fee' which is how much now is ridiculous. Initially the registration fee was what 150 pounds now it's many multiples of that. That's not free fees as the registration fee was part of the fees before.
- The grant system as mentioned needs to be reformed. There needs to be more layers to it than what exists at present.
- The waste in Universities and colleges needs to be tackled
- The universities and colleges need better funding in the right areas.

cavedave

Breezer
I was in no way suggesting the superiority of one form of 3rd level education over another.

Why not examine the superiority of one form of third level education over another?



Or if money is too gauche a measure of a degrees quality how about the ethics of those who graduate? Why can't we look at degrees and sponsor some more selectively than others?

Time Magazine

Free third-level education without a graduate tax is a human right. Fact. Us well-educated people shouldn't have to pay for it.

Let's make poor people pay relatively more tax, instead. Oppose fees!

SeanW

turgon wrote: »

My main phrase was that those who didn't go to college were paying for those who did.

I'm sure some people said the same thing about secondary school.

lostexpectation

I wouldn't have a problem with fees, its been shown time and time again that the one's who benefit most from free fees are the one's who need it least.

lets make the rich pay for primary and second level too. that'll learn em posh usi gits.

Breezer

cavedave wrote: »

Why not examine the superiority of one form of third level education over another?



Or if money is too gauche a measure of a degrees quality how about the ethics of those who graduate? Why can't we look at degrees and sponsor some more selectively than others?

Because a society is not merely an economy, and it would be irresponsible of a State to foster a culture of learning for the sake of making money rather than learning for the sake of education. Besides, a well-rounded, educated population, with people capable of doing all sorts of jobs, is necessary for a healthy economy. It's not all about high earnings or working in prestigious fields. For the record, should we go by your system and this chart, my degree would be at the top of the list for State funding.

Regarding the article about stealing ethics books, it's way too late for me to read that right now. I may have a look at it tomorrow. If you get here in the meantime, perhaps you'd sum up your point rather than just linking to an article.

lostexpectation wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with fees, its been shown time and time again that the one's who benefit most from free fees are the one's who need it least.

lets make the rich pay for primary and second level too. that'll learn em posh usi gits.

Correction: the ones whose parents need it least. The State has no right to insist that students seek money from parents since it has no means of ensuring they pay for their adult children's third level education. This is why deferred loans are a far better option, although still by no means ideal.

And free second level education helped immensely in dragging this country up from the gutter years ago. I only wish the FF of today had half the vision of the party of Lemass. Are you seriously suggesting we abolish state funding for not only secondary, but primary education? Come off it.

cavedave

Regarding the article about stealing ethics books, it's way too late for me to read that right now. I may have a look at it tomorrow. If you get here in the meantime, perhaps you'd sum up your point rather than just linking to an article.

The paper looks at the rates of stealing among ethics students and finds it is higher then among the average student. The conclusion is that studying ethics does not make you anymore ethical. So if ethics do not make you more ethical what is the point studying it? There are similar experiments with other groups of students. Economics students are the least altruistic. So if a society wants to encourage altruism it should discourage the study of economics?

djpbarry

Breezer wrote: »

Tighter regulation of exactly what 3rd level institutions are spending their money on would go a long way. The amount of waste I see on a daily basis in my own university is shocking.

The lack of money I see spent on anything in my institution is shocking. Budget cutbacks earlier this year meant that, during the summer, the building could only remain open for 10 hours per day, 5 days per week.

Breezer

djpbarry wrote: »

The lack of money I see spent on anything in my institution is shocking. Budget cutbacks earlier this year meant that, during the summer, the building could only remain open for 10 hours per day, 5 days per week.

And reintroducing fees will do nothing to help that situation. There will simply be a corresponding reduction in Government investment. I realise this is my opinion, but given the scale of cutbacks in other areas and the fact that we've actually reduced the amount spent on education in the past decade, I believe it to be well-founded.

Better management of existing funds coupled with reallocation of money from stupid, unnecessary projects into education will make a difference.

cavedave wrote:

The paper looks at the rates of stealing among ethics students and finds it is higher then among the average student. The conclusion is that studying ethics does not make you anymore ethical. So if ethics do not make you more ethical what is the point studying it? There are similar experiments with other groups of students. Economics students are the least altruistic. So if a society wants to encourage altruism it should discourage the study of economics?

You are missing the point. Not everyone who studies a particular subject goes on to work directly in that area. Engineers run businesses. Doctors become lecturers. Solicitors become Ministers for Finance. The research skills, presentation skills, etc. and general broadening of the mind learned in any 3rd level education course, on the other hand, are valuable skills which enable our workers to contribute to the economy and society regardless of what discipline they go into. Additionally, many who take a generalised Arts type degree at undergraduate level go on to specialise in what you would probably consider a more useful degree at postgraduate level.

Dont be at yourself

A robust means-tested grant system coupled with state-backed, low-interest student loans is a much better alternative to the 'one size fits all' initiative currently in place.

It is a huge burden on the tax-payer, and while I understand the benefits of a highly-educated workforce, there is no reason why the majority cannot pay their own way in life.

If students' own money was on the line, you can also be sure that academic performances would go through the roof too. From my experience, too many young people use college as an excuse to doss around for 4 years.

Crash

Huge burden on the taxpayer, and also causes institutions to suffer from MASSIVE underfunding. A working means tested grant and a reintroduction of fees may only be the viable solution.

Breezer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

A robust means-tested grant system coupled with state-backed, low-interest student loans is a much better alternative to the 'one size fits all' initiative currently in place.

I have absolutely no faith in such a scheme being put in place. The current grants system is a mess. For example, if you are not eligible in first year, then you are never eligible, regardless of what change in circumstances might happen in between. Additionally, grants are often paid late. Yet there has been no talk of reforming the current grants scheme.

I also have little faith in means testing. Too often it takes a highly simplistic view of matters. It looks at gross income, and does not take into account that levels of disposable income can be masked by this figure. The people who would not be entitled to have tuition fees paid are the same people who are not entitled to social housing, medical cards, etc. and are already paying a higher rate of income tax. Why should these people be the ones who have to fork out every time?

I accept that not everyone is going to agree with my ideology that 3rd level education is a right. But there are many, many practical arguments against the reintroduction of fees that are not being addressed.

Going Forward wrote: »

Huge burden on the taxpayer, and also causes institutions to suffer from MASSIVE underfunding.

Do you, or any of the pro-fees people on this thread, honestly believe for one second that this government, given its record on education spending, cutbacks and broken promises, is going to continue to fund the third level sector to the same extent once this comes in? Institutions will still be underfunded, and those that are already contributing high levels of income tax will be double taxed by having to spend thousands on fees.

Dont be at yourself

I don't really accept that argument.

The current method of funding university is flawed.
The current grants system is flawed.
The current system for means-testing is flawed.

Therefore, we shouldn't change things.

I realise that that is an over-simplification, but we can't judge the merits of any future scheme on the flaws of current schemes. If anything, future grant schemes may have the benefit of hindsight when it comes to drawing up how they will work.

The people who would not be entitled to have tuition fees paid are the same people who are not entitled to social housing, medical cards, etc. and are already paying a higher rate of income tax. Why should these people be the ones who have to fork out every time?

Because they can afford to. Things like social housing, medical cards and university grants aren't cases of penalizing people who are capable of paying their own way, it's a means of helping people who aren't capable of doing so.

Breezer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I don't really accept that argument.

The current method of funding university is flawed.
The current grants system is flawed.
The current system for means-testing is flawed.

Therefore, we shouldn't change things.

I am not saying that things shouldn't be changed, I am saying that they shouldn't be changed in the way Batt O'Keeffe has been hinting at. I have seen nothing to suggest that the problems with the current system of means testing is going to be overhauled; rather he was touting a figure of €125,000 as a cut-off point, above which fees would be paid. Much like the current grants system in reverse. He then went on to show that this would rake in €530 million a year, before having to cut that figure by over 75% when reality got in the way. How can we trust this man to implement a fair and worthwhile system?

Because they can afford to. Things like social housing, medical cards and university grants aren't cases of penalizing people who are capable of paying their own way, it's a means of helping people who aren't capable of doing so.

I accept that that is the idea behind those initiatives, and it is a noble one that I would defend vociferously. However, the way people are grouped into those who can afford things and those who can't is over-simplified. The fact is the same people end up paying for absolutely everything on the basis that "they can afford to," and disposable income is very quickly eaten into in this way. I am not talking about Batt O'Keeffe's millionaires here, I am talking about regular, middle class people who carved out a reasonably comfortable living for themselves through sheer hard work, and as a result are entitled to nothing.

We're digressing slightly here, and you have not answered my question, so I'll ask again: do you believe for one second that by bringing in fees, 3rd level funding will increase substantially, rather than the Government simply using it as an excuse to make further cutbacks in education (while talking about the need for a knowledge economy)?

Dont be at yourself

I am not saying that things shouldn't be changed, I am saying that they shouldn't be changed in the way Batt O'Keeffe has been hinting at. I have seen nothing to suggest that the problems with the current system of means testing is going to be overhauled

I've made no mention of O'Keeffe or his proposed system. I put forward that the reintroduction of fees should be dependent on a robust means-tested system with the availability of a state-backed, low interest student loan.

I accept that that is the idea behind those initiatives, and it is a noble one that I would defend vociferously. However, the way people are grouped into those who can afford things and those who can't is over-simplified. The fact is the same people end up paying for absolutely everything on the basis that "they can afford to," and disposable income is very quickly eaten into in this way. I am not talking about Batt O'Keeffe's millionaires here, I am talking about regular, middle class people who carved out a reasonably comfortable living for themselves through sheer hard work, and as a result are entitled to nothing.

We both support means-testing in theory, and I agree that in practice it is far from perfect. However, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is no reason a means-tested grant system cannot take into account mortgage payments and other financial burdens faced by the middle class.

You have not answered my question, so I'll ask again: do you believe for one second that by bringing in fees, 3rd level funding will increase substantially, rather than the Government simply using it as an excuse to make further cutbacks in education (while talking about the need for a knowledge economy)?

While I don't have a crystal ball, I wouldn't necessarily see either happening.

While it is clear that there is a real need to educate our population to a high level, there is also a financial reality that cuts need to be made in public spending. By transferring the costs of third-level education to the students themselves, they then free up public funds to be put to other use, without third level funding taking a hit.

I don't believe that this money will be re-directed into further third level investment, but nor do I believe that the government will feel the need to further cut their budget for education in any meaningful way.

But, again, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know.

tolosenc

The one thing that really bugs me is the whole protesting against something that hasn't happened. I mean, come on, protesting against possible future events is just ridiculous, if not wholly immature. And I agree with the OP that a lot of students have quite a 'holier than thou' attitude to things. Gives us a bad name.

I'm a 2nd year 3rd level student, and I'm pro the reintroduction of fees. It's the only way for universities to survive and thrive. The current program doesn't pay the university what the students would, and the universities are suffering.

And one thing to bear in mind is that the government have been bucking the international trend for years by providing us with 3rd level for free. This is a PRIVELEGE and NOT a RIGHT. In uncertain economic times, if the government feels it cannot afford to provide this privelege, it is under no obligation to continue to do so. Students protesting this are the same hippies who are fast out of the blocks to criticise "corporate greed" as they see it, but are huge hypocrites in this instance. They are all looking out for number one.

In the prosperous times we had in the last few years, Fianna Fáil lead governments (the closest thing to a mafia family we'll ever see in this country) squandered surpluses, that could have gone into this program in tougher times, like now. But we all know what they say about crying and spilled milk, right? Yet a lot of these students will go home and at election time follow the classic Irish mantra of "the divil you know is better than the divil you don't", and vote in these same politicians against whom they so firmly protest.

Basically, the best path forward for our government(whom I would never consider voting for), for our universities and for our economy is without the "Fees Remission Scheme", whether or not its scrapping will materialise remains to be seen...

Breezer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I've made no mention of O'Keeffe or his proposed system. I put forward that the reintroduction of fees should be dependent on a robust means-tested system with the availability of a state-backed, low interest student loan.

True, you haven't, but the thread is about a student protest against the re-introduction of fees proposed by Batt O'Keeffe. I believe that O'Keeffe, by grossly fudging his sums, announcing the results of these sums publicly as evidence to support his scheme, eating his words, then continuing as if nothing has happened, has shown himself incapable of making any informed decision as regards means testing.

We both support means-testing in theory, and I agree that in practice it is far from perfect. However, one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is no reason a means-tested grant system cannot take into account mortgage payments and other financial burdens faced by the middle class.

We do. If I believed no one should pay for anything I'd support the Socialists, and if I believed the State shouldn't pay for anything I'd support the PDs. But here's the rub: in practice the current system is far from perfect, as you say, and I can't see it getting any better. In theory there is no reason other factors can't be taken into account, but in practice there is a very good reason: FF in government.

While I don't have a crystal ball, I wouldn't necessarily see either happening.

Look at this government's track record. The last time cut backs were needed, Dempsey tried the same tactic. He was forced to back down, and third level funding was forgotten about again. This is not going to benefit the third level sector.

While it is clear that there is a real need to educate our population to a high level, there is also a financial reality that cuts need to be made in public spending. By transferring the costs of third-level education to the students themselves, they then free up public funds to be put to other use, without third level funding taking a hit.

I'll direct you to the link in my signature for examples of creative ways of channelling money into public funds without hitting third level funding or students.

I don't believe that this money will be re-directed into further third level investment, but nor do I believe that the government will feel the need to further cut their budget for education in any meaningful way.

But, again, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know.

In other words, the situation will remain unchanged, and third level institutions will still be underfunded, thereby completely negating one of the major arguments in favour of this scheme.

obl wrote:

The one thing that really bugs me is the whole protesting against something that hasn't happened. I mean, come on, protesting against possible future events is just ridiculous, if not wholly immature.

Hold on, you don't think it's appropriate to register opposition to a controversial education proposal that the Minister for Education has commissioned research into and clearly intends introducing if he can possibly get away with it? You'd prefer to wait until it's been signed into law and then protest? I realise you don't agree with the protesters, but this is still completely irrational. By that logic, the banks wouldn't be guaranteed until they collapsed, Libertas would not have been founded until after Lisbon was passed, etc.

I'm a 2nd year 3rd level student, and I'm pro the reintroduction of fees. It's the only way for universities to survive and thrive. The current program doesn't pay the university what the students would, and the universities are suffering.

You have stated that you would never vote for this government. Do you trust them to put all of this money into education? Because I don't. This is not a conspiracy theory I'm forming here: again I say look at their track record.

This is a PRIVELEGE and NOT a RIGHT.

Do you deny that for both the individual and the economy, third level education is becoming more and more necessary every day?

Húrin

turgon wrote: »

My main phrase was that those who didn't go to college were paying for those who did.

But this ignores the obvious fact that everyone in society benefits from the jobs done by people who have university qualifications.

That said, I do think that the fact that the free fees scheme is largely a subsidy to the middle class needs to be addressed.

Húrin

Another interesting fact is that the government spends €45 million a year subsidising the internal flights industry. I'd say that kind of money would solve many of our university funding problems.

Breezer

Húrin wrote: »

Another interesting fact is that the government spends €45 million a year subsidising the internal flights industry. I'd say that kind of money would solve many of our university funding problems.

Not to mention helping meet our Kyoto targets.

The Government is also ignoring a potential €1.5 billion carbon windfall currently in the hands of energy companies. This is what I'm talking about: address the rampant waste that still exists, both at national level and as regards how third level institutions use the money they have, rather than charging students.

Tim Robbins

What are people's problems with fees?
If parents earn large salaries why should the state pay for their kids education? If students get five months off a year, surely they can work and save up the money to contribute?
If students are so hard up, why do they all have mobile phones? Surely mobiles are luxury not a necessity?

djpbarry

Breezer wrote: »

And reintroducing fees will do nothing to help that situation.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that it would, I was just pointing out that in some institutions, there's very little to be wasted!

Breezer wrote: »

Libertas would not have been founded until after Lisbon was passed...

Now that would have been interesting.

Húrin wrote: »

Another interesting fact is that the government spends €45 million a year subsidising the internal flights industry.

Do you have a source for that (genuinely interested)?

dodgyme

there is no problem with fees. The reason the students will protest is because they are mainly middle class people whose parents benefit from free education. Fees are a good idea if the entitlement was on a scaled system allowing someone to qualify for a certain percentage of the overall grant depending on parents wages eg. 10% 20% -> 100%. Any one whose parents earn more than say 120k should get nothing. This should be adapted slightly if parents are divorced.

cavedave

Tim Robbins

If parents earn large salaries why should the state pay for their kids education?

Someone who is 18+ is not a kid. If you can charge these adults based on their parents income why not tax all adults more if their parents are rich?

Fighting Irish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What are people's problems with fees?
If parents earn large salaries why should the state pay for their kids education? If students get five months off a year, surely they can work and save up the money to contribute?
If students are so hard up, why do they all have mobile phones? Surely mobiles are luxury not a necessity?

So the more successful you are the more you get screwed? Fook that.

stovelid

cavedave wrote: »

Someone who is 18+ is not a kid. If you can charge these adults based on their parents income why not tax all adults more if their parents are rich?

Disingenuous. The amount of middle-class, 18 year students that pay their own third-level fees must surely be nominal.

Crash

Simple fact is, that with the current state of the grant system the people that would suffer would not be those on grants, or those that are middle class, but those unfortunates who are just borderline enough in families earnings, or live half a mile to close to the college to qualify, or any billion and one other issues that the poorly managed grant system at the moment causes.

As someone who just finished my final year at the start of the summer, I've been for fees being reintroduced for years, provided there is a proper means tested system. But it can't, and should not, be brought in until such a system is in place.

GuanYin

Merged two threads on same subject.

Breezer

Ned Costello, CEO of the Irish Universities Association, which represents the 7 universities, has come out against a reintroduction of fees:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1009/education.html wrote:

Warning against return of college fees
Thursday, 9 October 2008 11:55

The CEO of the Irish Universities Association says the organisation is not in favour of the re-introduction of college fees.

Ned Costello said he would not like to see a return to a pre-1996 scenario and said reasons of inequity led to their abolition.

Mr Costello was speaking before an Oireachtas Committee along with the heads of the country's universities.

He said there are no proposals from universities to increase registration fees and said the minister for education has not suggested an increase.

Labour TD Ruari Quinn had asked if there was going to be a rise in such charges as some newspaper reports had suggested.

Mr Costello went on to say that the sector was bedevilled somewhat because they do not yet now how much funding they will get in forthcoming the Budget.

He also said that real term funding for individual students has gone down by 17% between the years of 2001 and 2006.

But this was disputed by FG's Brian Hayes.

Mr Costello also said a significant number of the seven universities are in deficit.

The committee also heard that three of the country's 7 universities are not in deficit. They are NUI Galway, NUI Maynooth and Dublin City University.

Mr Costello also said that the re-introduction of fees can only be considered as part of an overall investment plan for higher education and he said that plan currently does not exist.

The hearing was also told that there are now 100,000 students attending universities here.

Tim Robbins

Fighting Irish wrote: »

So the more successful you are the more you get screwed? Fook that.

What's the purpose of the state? So the successful can crush the unsuccesful?
If you earn a large salary, having to pay for your kids education is hardly being screwed. It may mean you mightn't be able to change the SUV every year, but is that being screwed? No.

asdasd

Someone who is 18+ is not a kid. If you can charge these adults based on their parents income why not tax all adults more if their parents are rich?

This argument is ridiculous. The 18 year olds who would prefer that their parents money not be taken into account had better

a) Be not living at home
b) Not getting any money whatsoever from their parents
c) Agree to not get any money from their parents during their parents lifetime.

You dont have to be a kid to survive on mummy and daddys largesse. Plenty of twentysomethings do, including getting houses paid - or part-paid for.

so if they want to be considered financially independent adults they need to sign away their nepotism - otherwise the State is quite right in assuming that they are dependent on their parents and take their parent's income into account.

cavedave

asdasd
so if they want to be considered financially independent adults they need to sign away their nepotism - otherwise the State is quite right in assuming that they are dependent on their parents and take their parent's income into account.

Can you point out where it is possible to sign away your nepotism?

ninty9er

Breezer wrote: »

For example, if you are not eligible in first year, then you are never eligible, regardless of what change in circumstances might happen in between. Additionally, grants are often paid late. Yet there has been no talk of reforming the current grants scheme.

Both of those statements are untrue.

You can apply for a grant each year regardless of whether you've previously had one....you just have to submit the supporting documentation just like a continuing applicant would.

The grant system is proposed to be centrally administered (and was supposed to be this year), but it hasn't happened yet

Breezer wrote: »

True, you haven't, but the thread is about a student protest against the re-introduction of fees proposed by Batt O'Keeffe. I believe that O'Keeffe, by grossly fudging his sums, announcing the results of these sums publicly as evidence to support his scheme, eating his words, then continuing as if nothing has happened, has shown himself incapable of making any informed decision as regards means testing.

Actually, even €100m would clear the 7 university retained deficits within 1 year.

dodgyme wrote: »

there is no problem with fees. The reason the students will protest is because they are mainly middle class people whose parents benefit from free education. Fees are a good idea if the entitlement was on a scaled system allowing someone to qualify for a certain percentage of the overall grant depending on parents wages eg. 10% 20% -> 100%. Any one whose parents earn more than say 120k should get nothing. This should be adapted slightly if parents are divorced.

This is not true either. The amount of (supposedly smart) people that I know from the students' union in UL protested because "everyone will have to pay €7.5k to go to college next year if fees come in"

That's not true, and they're being fed this sh1t by students' unions the length and breadth of the country. In fact I lambasted the SU president in the pub lastnight for going along with the usual USI lies and propaganda which now looks like causing more people not to go to 3rd level because the reg fee is likely to hit €2k next year

stovelid wrote: »

Disingenuous. The amount of middle-class, 18 year students that pay their own third-level fees must surely be nominal.

+1