Are you gonna march on wednesday 22nd October?

ilovemybrick

manicmonoliths wrote: »

though maybe that's only true for hacks like me

Ah your still only a baby hack though.

manicmonoliths

ilovemybrick wrote: »

Ah your still only a baby hack though.

I can't think of a comment witty enough to counter your comedy soc hackness, apologies.

Boston

Mark200 wrote: »

But how can they do they when the majority of incoming students will be 18 or over, the government can't expect all those parents to pay for their children's education.

I don't think full parental emancipation happens at 18 in Ireland, its either 21 or 23 I forget which and the leprechaun who told me was pretty drunk at the time so it was hard to make out.

Crash

actually - heres a funny idea. which do you prefer, an SU and USI which have a strong mandate opposing fees, or one that doesn't.

Cus the funny part is, one of those can sit down and attempt to raise items concerning how they feel fees should be best introduced (graduated grants, tax breaks etc.) and the other can't technically, at all. Funny that isn't it?

ilovemybrick

manicmonoliths wrote: »

I can't think of a comment witty enough to counter your comedy soc hackness, apologies.

I never claimed to be funny. Just organised.

starn

The SU and USI would be a lot better going out and protesting about the 1% tax incrse and its implimentation on lower paid worker (Basically people who earn less then 23k and thus fall out of the tax bracket) I would imagine very few SU and USI members earn over 20k a year let alone fall into any of the tax brackets. Come on Cathal get off your arse and do something

tolosenc

The very idea of people protesting this pisses me off.

Before I start, I'm in no way an FF looney, or even supporter.

The Irish Government bucks the international trend by covering our education costs, and a by-product of this is ridiculously under funded universities. Students who protest against the reindtroduction of fees are doing so out of greed, demanding that a privelege afforded to them in more affluent times, which can no longer be supported, not be taken away. It is in the benefit of both the University and the state to re-introduce fees.

In the interests of keeping college accesible to all, which is undoubtedly a good thing, a more effective grant system is needed for the less well off, but those who can afford the fees should be paying 6 odd grand a year for the privelege of attending college.

Surpluses that were wasted by FF, the PDs and the Greens in past years is not an argument against the reintroduction. What's done is done, and they should never be allowed back into government for it, but at the end of the day, this rather common rebuttal is akin to crying over spilt milk.

That and I have a class then.

Crash

actually, forgot one other thing, along side grant reformation - similar loan system to many countries in that the loans only fall due once you begin to earn over a certain threshold, therefore you're not forced into repayments before you're financially capable thereof.

PurpleFistMixer

obl wrote: »

The Irish Government bucks the international trend by covering our education costs, and a by-product of this is ridiculously under funded universities. Students who protest against the reindtroduction of fees are doing so out of greed, demanding that a privelege afforded to them in more affluent times, which can no longer be supported, not be taken away. It is in the benefit of both the University and the state to re-introduce fees.

To demand that education be free for all is greedy?

EGaffney

Yeah, pretty much.

To demand a free €4,500 subsidy rather than a free €3,000 subsidy - for all, no matter what their income or anything like that - certainly is greedy.

Subsidies certainly haven't helped unis educate Irish students better. Medical education is the most glaring example but there are probably others.

Ron DMC

obl wrote: »

The very idea of people protesting this pisses me off.

I agree.

People who can afford college should pay for it, those who cannot afford it should be allowed go anyway. Obviously some can afford it more than others, so a graded or ranked system of different fee levels for different income families would be ideal.

obl wrote: »

Surpluses that were wasted by FF, the PDs and the Greens in past years is not an argument against the reintroduction. What's done is done, and they should never be allowed back into government for it, but at the end of the day, this rather common rebuttal is akin to crying over spilt milk.

Don't be silly, in that case no political party should ever be elected to Government. They've all made mistakes at one stage or another.

Boston

You either have an open education system or you don't. Fees would represent a barrier to entry to third level education, as such you can't both have fees and an education system which everyone can avail of regardless.

Obi, I'll have the privilege of handing over half my income ( or there about) to the state each month when I'm fully qualified. Why is it so hard to see free education as an financial investment? The benefits of a large highly qualified work force can he seen all around us. The government pays now, but down the road takes in many times that amount in tax revenue.

You're solution is a fairer grant system where by people pay in proportion to what they can afford, however the current grant system has many failings, why wouldn't a new one? And is it even fair to take parents income into account in the first place?

Another point which I think is often over looked is that we need people qualified in areas which won't result in high paying jobs. Is it fair to burden these people with 24k -30k of debt when they're likely to be only earning 25k - 28k a year once qualified, that would represent more of a hardship to them then it would to someone starting out at 40K a year.

Awayindahils

I very much dislike protests, and I don't think I should have come to college for free, so I'm still unsure whether or not I'll be there. I'm sick of being told that x/y/z doesn't exist becuase there isn't the money. I hate that in 4th year a load of my courses have new lecturers because my school can afford to offer people contracts for more than 3 years.

This said I don't think that the current proposals by the government are nuanced enough to deal with the situation effectively without damaging the knowledge economy. I also think there needs to be a system where by people can secure finance for 4th level. I'm not sure what kind of loan system there should be, but the complete lack of proper student loans at the moment is a huge flaw in our system.

My sister goes to college in Dundee and while it's free for her to attend for the next 5 years, she pays fees after she graduates. I think that has potential as a system for here. People only start paying when they start earning, and one doesn't leave college in a huge amount of debt.

It'll be interesting to see what the protest is like next week.

Boston

If
A) All student loans where interest free and backed by the government
Delayed repayment until income reached an acceptable level
C) The full cost of repayments could be applied against tax liability.
D) Progressive grants right up the pay scale and not in brands.

I could see it as potentially a good system. Should ensure that all those that want to go to college have the money available to do so and the opportunity to repay without being crippled.

However I predict the following

A) Student loans continue to be managed by banks often with extreme interest rates and short periods of repayment
Repay after fix time regardless of income
C) Loan repayment not applied against tax liability (why should the rich get tax breaks)
D) Same band system as we have now whereby you'd basically have to already qualify for social welfare in other to get fee remission.

This will keep alot of people out of third level education, and ultimately **** our country in years to come.

EGaffney

We already have one of the highest levels of participation in third level institutions in the OECD. Realistically, there are people in third level who would do just as well if they were working, or training while working, or on apprenticeships. However as long as we are in a situation in which everybody trains to get a diploma/degree because everybody else is too, nobody has an incentive to break out of this equilibrium.

And of course, we the taxpayers foot the bill.

The vast majority of economic benefits of third level education accrue to the educated people themselves.

Boston

You say "we the tax payer" as if students never become tax payers.

For what its worth I agree. More and more I encounter people working in Jobs that don't utilise the qualification they have and would never require a degree. College has become things people simply do before having to enter the real work. This has the knock on effect of raising the bar to a silly height. Why exactly is a degree needed to perform a function someone straight out of school or who has a diploma/cert from a PLC/IT could do just as well.

The current system is flawed. A fee system would fix a lot of the current problems but introduce a lot of new ones.

EGaffney

Well, most students aren't currently taxpayers! (Bar VAT and the like.) I am both - and I know that my own views on tax became a lot firmer when I started paying PAYE.

I think that TCD certainly does help the "knowledge economy" - probably not as much as UCD though. That's because many of my class has left to take our state-subsidised education abroad, and I intend to do the same. I don't feel any patriotic duty to hang around in the jobs market during a recession at home! I do think that most students would be prepared to pay fees, given an appropriate finance system, which in fairness is what Batt O'Keeffe has spoken about.

The question is not about TCD/UCD so much as the rural ITs. I can't be convinced that the State actually gains from paying for class after class of business graduates rather than people with experience in the sector.

Jegger

obl wrote: »

The very idea of people protesting this pisses me off.

Before I start, I'm in no way an FF looney, or even supporter.

The Irish Government bucks the international trend by covering our education costs, and a by-product of this is ridiculously under funded universities. Students who protest against the reindtroduction of fees are doing so out of greed, demanding that a privelege afforded to them in more affluent times, which can no longer be supported, not be taken away. It is in the benefit of both the University and the state to re-introduce fees.

In the interests of keeping college accesible to all, which is undoubtedly a good thing, a more effective grant system is needed for the less well off, but those who can afford the fees should be paying 6 odd grand a year for the privelege of attending college.

Surpluses that were wasted by FF, the PDs and the Greens in past years is not an argument against the reintroduction. What's done is done, and they should never be allowed back into government for it, but at the end of the day, this rather common rebuttal is akin to crying over spilt milk.

That and I have a class then.

You are unbelievable, i don't know if your saying make the rich pay and have it free for the less well off or if your saying make the less well off pay some but not all, either way I at laugh at your politics. You really think the government could draw a line down through the population and say of yous have to pay yous don't. The world doesn't work like that. Some families can't even afford to send there kids to free primary school, some can hardly afford to send them to college, cos college is far from free. As I'm sure you know (but it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't) that we college student have to pay for books and accommodation travel food etc. put fees on top of that and people simply will not be able to afford to go to college. If the "grant" system worked the way it should nobody would complain about the cost of education but unsurprisingly it doesn't. Say no to fees and try, for 2 minutes, thinking about those people who cant afford them!

JonGaffer

JonGaffer wrote: »

You are unbelievable, i don't know if your saying make the rich pay and have it free for the less well off or if your saying make the less well off pay some but not all, either way I at laugh at your politics. You really think the government could draw a line down through the population and say of yous have to pay yous don't. The world doesn't work like that. Some families can't even afford to send there kids to free primary school, some can hardly afford to send them to college, cos college is far from free. As I'm sure you know (but it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't) that we college student have to pay for books and accommodation travel food etc. put fees on top of that and people simply will not be able to afford to go to college. If the "grant" system worked the way it should nobody would complain about the cost of education but unsurprisingly it doesn't. Say no to fees and try, for 2 minutes, thinking about those people who cant afford them!

yes comrade!

EGaffney

JonGaffer wrote: »

Say no to fees and try, for 2 minutes, thinking about those people who cant afford them!

OK I thought about them. Perhaps those people would do just as well doing something else. There is nothing about ITs/university which makes one an inherently better human being.

That is especially the case if, as you suggest, they are struggling in education before coming to third level in the first place. If that is the case, then student subsidies are an even bigger wealth transfer to the middle classes than we may have thought...

Boston

EGaffney wrote: »

OK I thought about them. Perhaps those people would do just as well doing something else. There is nothing about ITs/university which makes one an inherently better human being.

Wow. Are you seriously suggesting that those who can't afford third level should just "do something else" and attempt to find fulfillment else where? Perhaps you would have been just as happy working as a street sweeper?

Brian

Another consideration of reintroducing fees is the effect it will have on the number of Irish students enrolling overseas. Free 3rd level education was one of the fundamental reasons that I stayed in Ireland for university. If it's going to cost the same to go to a better university in the UK, why bother staying here?
I'm sorry to be blunt like this, but it seems that making Irish universities merely as financially enticing as overseas ones, not more, will result in brain drain.

ilovemybrick

Boston wrote: »

Wow. Are you seriously suggesting that those who can't afford third level should just "do something else" and attempt to find fulfillment else where? Perhaps you would have been just as happy working as a street sweeper?

I think this notion of "afford" is open to debate. Some people cannot afford education fees yet will spend 2000 euro on a TV and 3000 euro on holidays.

Prioritising certain things in life make other things unaffordable. Be it music lessons and instruments instead of family holidays in my family to private education rather than a new car in other people's.

I agree with you on the front of students becoming tax payers. I pay tax now and will in the future. The solution for me however is not free fees and then pay them back through tax but rather pay fees or get loans now and then be able to write that off against taxes in the future. I would have no borrowing 20,000 euro to pay for fees if it meant that I could write it off against tax in the future.

Even better would be the possibility of transferrable tax credits. For example if ones parents pay fees when that person graduates that persons parents can write that off their liability. The liability should be split over a greater number of years then the course was.

We do however need to avoid the catastrophe that was the educational covenants which is the real reason free fees was introduced in the first place.

Boston

Baza210 wrote: »

Another consideration of reintroducing fees is the effect it will have on the number of Irish students enrolling overseas. Free 3rd level education was one of the fundamental reasons that I stayed in Ireland for university. If it's going to cost the same to go to a better university in the UK, why bother staying here?
I'm sorry to be blunt like this, but it seems that making Irish universities merely as financially enticing as overseas ones, not more, will result in brain drain.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I think this notion of "afford" is open to debate. Some people cannot afford education fees yet will spend 2000 euro on a TV and 3000 euro on holidays.

Prioritising certain things in life make other things unaffordable. Be it music lessons and instruments instead of family holidays in my family to private education rather than a new car in other people's.

Thats rather simplistic and you know it.

I agree with you on the front of students becoming tax payers. I pay tax now and will in the future. The solution for me however is not free fees and then pay them back through tax but rather pay fees or get loans now and then be able to write that off against taxes in the future. I would have no borrowing 20,000 euro to pay for fees if it meant that I could write it off against tax in the future.

Even better would be the possibility of transferrable tax credits. For example if ones parents pay fees when that person graduates that persons parents can write that off their liability. The liability should be split over a greater number of years then the course was.

We do however need to avoid the catastrophe that was the educational covenants which is the real reason free fees was introduced in the first place.

It comes down to being able to put the full amount against tax. Hands up who things this would happen.

ilovemybrick

Boston wrote: »

Thats rather simplistic and you know it.

True but it is a stage that has been overlooked here. The notion of affordability is not one that can be dictated about each and every individual student by the government. However VECs and Local Governments should be better equipped to deal with these issues on a case by case basis.

Boston wrote: »

It comes down to being able to put the full amount against tax. Hands up who things this would happen.

If enough students and student representative structures came together to attempt to force this then maybe it could be achieved.

My real point in this whole situation is not about fees. I think that is an argument for a different time. Now I would love to see 5000 plus students getting out on Wednesday and actually putting it to the government that the very future of this country depends on us and as such we need to be part of the decision making process.

This is also something that puts me at odds with USI and the SU. Fighting fees in the way that it is being done at the moment (ie just no. Doesnt matter what you say no. Im not listening- no.) is not the way I would do it. Get to the table with the government or we will lose and we will lose badly.

Crash

Interesting one actually - ever talked to some lecturers about their views on fees? nearly every single one i've talked to when the subject came up has stated that since fees there has been a drop in the average attendance and quality of work submitted.

Now there are two reasons you can consider for this: 1) there are people now applying for college who wouldnt have in the past, and have little interest except for the fact that its free, or 2)students are an immature bunch, who have no concept once something doesn't have a monetary value assigned to it.

Interesting one though I think.

Brian

Boston wrote: »

Thats rather simplistic and you know it.

Was that directed at both of us? I was not suggesting that my point was the sole factor to be considered but was just pointing it out as afaik it's a consequence not yet raised up till now.

On the flip side, the people not bothering to attend lectures/do assignments that Going Forward refers to may've been of more use to the ailing economy if they weren't in university in the first place, eh.

EGaffney

Boston wrote: »

Wow. Are you seriously suggesting that those who can't afford third level should just "do something else" and attempt to find fulfillment else where? Perhaps you would have been just as happy working as a street sweeper?

Come off it. Are you saying the average job for someone who doesn't have a third level qualification is "street sweeper"?

That's awfully elitist.

Boston

ilovemybrick wrote: »

My real point in this whole situation is not about fees. I think that is an argument for a different time. Now I would love to see 5000 plus students getting out on Wednesday and actually putting it to the government that the very future of this country depends on us and as such we need to be part of the decision making process.

This is also something that puts me at odds with USI and the SU. Fighting fees in the way that it is being done at the moment (ie just no. Doesnt matter what you say no. Im not listening- no.) is not the way I would do it. Get to the table with the government or we will lose and we will lose badly.

More money is needed.

Going Forward wrote: »

Interesting one actually - ever talked to some lecturers about their views on fees? nearly every single one i've talked to when the subject came up has stated that since fees there has been a drop in the average attendance and quality of work submitted.

Now there are two reasons you can consider for this: 1) there are people now applying for college who wouldnt have in the past, and have little interest except for the fact that its free, or 2)students are an immature bunch, who have no concept once something doesn't have a monetary value assigned to it.

Interesting one though I think.

Heres another point, a 5K fee assumes numbers remain unchanged. There are certain economies of scale which you'd loss as class sizes are reduced and there are also basic costs which have to be covered regardless of the number of of students. Its unlikely 5K would do it should there be a large drop in those attending

Baza210 wrote: »

Was that directed at both of us? I was not suggesting that my point was the sole factor to be considered but was just pointing it out as afaik it's a consequence not yet raised up till now.

No, you made a very good and valid point. I'd personally would have been determined to do engineering and would have gone to the best university I could afford.

EGaffney wrote: »

Come off it. Are you saying the average job for someone who doesn't have a third level qualification is "street sweeper"?

That's awfully elitist.

Missed my point EGaffney. It might as well be street sweeper (which btw is a highly paid job believe it or not) if you're in a job you don't want then thats the long and short of it. If I couldn't have gone to third level, I'd probably have ended up in a trade. I've some skill at carpentry and did it for years growing up. I would have hated it since it wasn't what I wanted to do.

You may have been just as happy doing something else. But I doubt you would have been happy had you been forced to do something else due to circumstances.

Mark200

ilovemybrick wrote: »

This is also something that puts me at odds with USI and the SU. Fighting fees in the way that it is being done at the moment (ie just no. Doesnt matter what you say no. Im not listening- no.) is not the way I would do it. Get to the table with the government or we will lose and we will lose badly.

I agree, saying no and putting your hands over your ears isn't going to help. It'd be an idea to see exactly what the options are, and what the benefits of it would be.

Going Forward wrote: »

Interesting one actually - ever talked to some lecturers about their views on fees? nearly every single one i've talked to when the subject came up has stated that since fees there has been a drop in the average attendance and quality of work submitted.

Yeah that is interesting. I'd think it's because you're more motivated to do well because your parents probably paid for your education and you'd really be in trouble if you screwed up. It's like going to the Institute, half of it is just about trying harder because someone has paid a lot of money for you to be there

EGaffney wrote: »

Come off it. Are you saying the average job for someone who doesn't have a third level qualification is "street sweeper"?

That's awfully elitist.

In fact, the odds are people who drop out of education are more likely to become millionaires.



I was just thinking....isn't the reason why the universities want fees brought back is so they can charge more? Under the free fees scheme they aren't allowed to charge above what they are charging because the Government is paying for it. So in fact, it may well be more than €5000 odd written on our bill if this is brought back