Who's going marching

Alan Smith

Who's going marching?
Finished at 12 anyway so I'll be going

Fuascailt

I'm not pushed tbh. I dont want to be the only one left on campus though

KnifeWRENCH

Well I can't go anyway because I have a lecture (and it's one of those horrible modules where attendance is sompulsory at ALL lectures.)

But if I was free I'm not sure if I'd go. I'm very much undecided on this issue. Obviously, it's fantastic not paying fees, and education should be a right and not a privilige. But on the other hand, universities do need to be funded. And if fees were brought back on a means tested basis, I don't think it would be too bad.

Aodan83

I'm there, nothin could stop me goin.

But i have to be back in college for a lecture at 3

sleepyescapade

Aodan83 wrote: »

I'm there, nothin could stop me goin.

But i have to be back in college for a lecture at 3

Same :pac:

titan18

I've got tutorials at 12 and a lecture at 3 so I doubt it

Elle Victorine

I only found out about this about ten minutes ago....And from vic mills I keep hearing a crowd cheering....could be them or I could be imagining things.However we are seeing some effects in one of our departments. For our fieldwork module in archaeology for our final year we have to shell out 400 euro for two weeks due to cuts. I'd say that's why they've changed the field work layout this year to an option of one week experience/essay (5 credits), or two weeks of experience for 10 credits. It's 200 for only one week which is the estimated cost. They can only barely shell out the money for the on site archaeologists and surveyers etc. Some dose. My decision has on that grounds already been made for me unfortunately.Essay it is:( **** happens I guess.

insinkerator

I went, it was a good laugh.

Fabio

I went and the turnout was really really good and I'd hope that if need be the turnout would be just as high again.

At first I thought that means tested fees wouldn't be a bad idea but I don't trust this government. For the first year of its introduction it may well be only for the mega-rich but belive you me in time the threshold would drop and the ordinary Joe Soap would be paying a certain amount or using a loans system to get to college.

It is no coincidence that the huge economic growth really kicked into gear when the fees were abolished as foreign companies realised that graduates here would be knowledgeable and plentiful and now they want to stop all of that...it's just not after being thought out at all by Batt O' Thief.

Fuascailt

If fees were brought in properly, it'd be fine. As said above, the universities need money- look at first year arts like, their only getting two lectures a week because the class is too big

Seraphicblue

yeah but that because they
1. let too many people in
2. too many people applied for english as first and second and got it. they needed to accept that not everyone could be accomodated

life_is_music

Anyone see the 2 guys dressed as priests???

That was me:D:D:D

The massive vote no to lisbon sign was mine too!!

i thought it was a great laugh

bleg

bring back fees. too many wasters around ucc these days.

wexartgirl

The March yesterday was really good! great turn out.. This is the link to the story TV3 did on it.. enjoy!

http://www.tv3.ie/news.php?video=1407

D-Generate

I'm sure the government are quaking in their boots. Firstly students are a demographic of society that have an incredibly low voting turn out. Secondly, students (the majority of) are not paying taxes, how can they have any real say in government funding when the tax revenue from them is negligible.

I'm firmly in the opinion that there needs to be a reintroduction of fees to a certain extent. Too many people are going to college these days just because its the thing to do, rather than actually wanting to pursue a further education. This has a numerous negative effects.
It is now a case where every Tom, Dick and Harry ends up with a degree but many of these folks then go on to work in a job that does not need any third level qualification at all. I have worked summer jobs as a clerk in a major insurance firm. This job required no formal education above a Leaving Cert yet everyone there had gone to college to get their BA or BComm or what not. Unfortunately it now means that this job isn't filled with secondary school leavers any more because you need a degree just to keep up with the others for a job that doesn't need one. So instead of having a bunch of school leavers paying tax it is now a case where they are costing the tax payer close to 8k a year for four years to provide an education that is not necessary for their future job.

Here is where i will get flamed. I think it would be best if fees were introduced based on the relevancy of the course to further societies development. There are some courses out there where you end up being a professional when you graduate, engineering, medicine, pharmacy etc, just to name a few. These should remain free because a further education is absolutely necessary to fill these jobs in society and the tax revenue from most of these positions easily offsets the cost to teh tax payer for education.
Then there are the courses that should not be free. Some Arts courses fall in to this category. Subjects like Ancient Irish Civilization or Archeology should not be free. These course produce graduates who are of no real benefit to society other than being able to teach the next generation of Archeology or Irish Civ students. There is little tax revenue to be gained from the few jobs available in these fields so I don't see why the tax payer should pay for an education that won't give back to society monetarily. I haven't exactly ironed out which courses I think should be free or not and perhaps I would even prefer a graded scale where Commerce and Law is half fees or something.

The introduction of fees would dissuade people from attending the free party ride which lets be honest, is the primary reason for attending college for a huge percentage of the student population. Interest free loans or low-interest loans should be provided because those who are actually interested in the course would not find this off-putting and would avail of these gladly. These loans can then be paid back upon graduation. The number of scholarships should be increased and aptitude tests could also be introduced for each course, the results of which may entitle you to a scholarship.

Excuse the crazy haphazard concept.... i have been drinking. Oh and also I am a student myself before you accuse me of being a begrudging tax payer.

Fabio

You've guts to suggest that kind of stuff!

So what you're saying is, we as a society should only leave rich people become doctors and poorer people become archaeologists and English teachers?

You open a can of worms too here - who'd decide what is relevant?

All in all it wouldn't work.

Education is a right and I firmly believe if taxes were managed properly then we could have an electrified train system (rather than spending millions on some new trains built in Spain but with diesel engines [er, did they forget about fuel prices???!!!!]) and we could freer healthcare and free education.

Government funding has flatlined for universities over the last six or seven years despite the country being flush with cash. Wages and other costs have risen in that time. Considering those that come out of universities with degrees have been proven to be the ones to get higher paying jobs and thus pay more taxes to the government, these same taxes should fund the universities.

Now who's for a tax on sleeping?

D-Generate

No, education would be free for those pursuing a course in medicine. Loans would be made available for those pursuing courses that don't fall under the free education banner. This is similar enough to the British education system, well even better because some courses would still free. Third level education is not a right, it is a privilege. Do we really need a society that doesn't begin working until the age of 22/23?

Fuascailt

So, akind of a quota system. Thats very communist.

Elle Victorine

Fabio wrote: »

You've guts to suggest that kind of stuff!

So what you're saying is, we as a society should only leave rich people become doctors and poorer people become archaeologists and English teachers?

It wasn't so long ago that archaeology was a rich man's persuit. However it had a different name then. How times do change eh? :rolleyes:

insinkerator

I think to be honest that the idea of introducing fees to people earning over 100.000 or whatever the cut off point was, is a good idea. These people can afford to pay for college, and seeing as third level education isn't exactly a right, then those who can afford it, should pay. Also i think that colleges arent exactly using the money to the best of their ability. For instance, a friend of mine has a disability benfit. Fair enough. He has something wronh with his elbow, that means he cant really write for porolonged periods of time. So as a result of this, he is entitled to a note taker/scribe person. Thats fine. However he is also entitled to a free taxi service into college?? He has a bad elbow. He can walk perfectly fine. I think situations like that are a waste of resources

bleg

don't agree with this cut off point at all. higher earners pay higher taxes, you're going to rape them to pay for college fees as well?

no, what has to happen is not punishing people for being successful but for people who are on lower incomes to make sacrifices for their kids to go through college. then you wouldn't have people going to college purely for the sake of it. parents would want to make sure their kids aren't wasting their money leading to more productive and dedicated students.

titan18

bleg wrote: »

don't agree with this cut off point at all. higher earners pay higher taxes, you're going to rape them to pay for college fees as well?

no, what has to happen is not punishing people for being successful but for people who are on lower incomes to make sacrifices for their kids to go through college. then you wouldn't have people going to college purely for the sake of it. parents would want to make sure their kids aren't wasting their money leading to more productive and dedicated students.

What about parents who wont make those sacrifices?Should the child be punished for his parents behaviour?If the parent drinks every night of the week and is unwilling to do anything for the child,is the child denied any opportunity to do anything in his life?

CommieBaz

life_is_music wrote: »

Anyone see the 2 guys dressed as priests???

That was me:D:D:D

The massive vote no to lisbon sign was mine too!!

i thought it was a great laugh

At least the two of you had the creativity to dress the part, I saw tons of others who had the same Father-Ted inspired slogan though...

1968

fair play guys.

solidarity from UCD.

we're marching on wednesday.

yay_for_summer

I think the cut-off point thing is a good idea. Even though higher earners do pay more tax, a doctor could afford to send their kids to college no matter what, whereas someone on a lower wage couldn't if fees were reintroduced.

The main gripe I have with it though is it starts off being fees for only those earning over say €100k a year. But as more fees are needed, that'll come down every few years so in ten or twenty years time everyone'll have to pay. I'll be finished by then, and I wouldn't have to pay fees under the €100k limit system, but my sister would probably be affected in a few years time, so that's why I'm opposed to them being introduced at all. They won't stop at introducing it for only the high earners.

Also, the system of fees depending on necessity of having the degree isn't a bad idea. A lot of courses sound a bit makey-uppy to me...You don't get anything practical or useful out of them.