€1500

steveone

thats some rise in reg fees...I hope the grants hold out....

Crash

Its not actually a rise in reg fee - its a rise in the cap on reg fee. I severely doubt you'll see a jump in trinity by that much - maybe in the region of 1200 rather than 1500 imo.

Ron DMC

Does that cap include the sports centre fee or is that tagged on by the college as an extra?

godtabh

Going Forward wrote: »

Its not actually a rise in reg fee - its a rise in the cap on reg fee. I severely doubt you'll see a jump in trinity by that much - maybe in the region of 1200 rather than 1500 imo.

If they think they can get away with it they will charge that. All it takes is one college to do it and the rest will follow suit.

I'd loud to see a chart of the rise of registration fees over the last 10 year. I'd say it points upwards!

Ronny Mitchell

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Does that cap include the sports centre fee or is that tagged on by the college as an extra?

That's extra, of course.

COH

kearnsr wrote: »

I'd loud to see a chart of the rise of registration fees over the last 10 year. I'd say it points upwards!

If you look at chart of the price of anything over the past ten years it'll most likely point up!

What I dont get is students who went to secondary schools that charge 3-5000 a year in fees moaning about having to pay half or a third of that for their college education. If you don't feel its a worthy investment, then don't go to college!

Ron DMC

COH wrote: »

What I dont get is students who went to secondary schools that charge 3-5000 a year in fees moaning about having to pay half or a third of that for their college education. If you don't feel its a worthy investment, then don't go to college!

Not everyone went to private schools, and registration fees are an extra pain in the balls if you're alreasy paying full fees.

rash0001

I bet it will be closer to 1500! And they will get away with it as this is not a tution fee but mere "Registration Fee" or "Capitation Fee".:mad: TCD starts, UCD follows and so on... I actually think they can't care less if students don't attend college. what with getting over 10,000 from non-nationals. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank!

Mark200

COH wrote: »

What I dont get is students who went to secondary schools that charge 3-5000 a year in fees moaning about having to pay half or a third of that for their college education. If you don't feel its a worthy investment, then don't go to college!

As said, not everyone went to private schools


And either way I think it's fair for anyone to moan about "registration fees" while the government will continue to boast its free 3rd level education policy

PurpleFistMixer

COH wrote: »

What I dont get is students who went to secondary schools that charge 3-5000 a year in fees moaning about having to pay half or a third of that for their college education. If you don't feel its a worthy investment, then don't go to college!

Some people send their children to fee-paying secondary schools on the assumption that college will be relatively cheap. If full fees came in, I'd guess that the numbers enrolling in fee-paying schools would decrease.

steveone

oh I'm not moaning about it. that would be futile, I'm in a very simple position. no grant, no college. end of..
I was just surprised by the jump from 9 to 15 although it was rumoured that a rise in the reg fee was on the cards-

EGaffney

rash0001 wrote: »

I bet it will be closer to 1500! And they will get away with it as this is not a tution fee but mere "Registration Fee" or "Capitation Fee".:mad: TCD starts, UCD follows and so on... I actually think they can't care less if students don't attend college. what with getting over 10,000 from non-nationals. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank!

Ireland actually has one of the highest participation rates in third-level education in the OECD. Assuming diminishing marginal returns, we aren't losing as much as other countries would in the same position.

Thirdfox

I feel like I may be the only student who is in favour of college fees (I know with my family income bracket I'll be paying the full whack) but looking at what the colleges can do with the extra money in places like the US (where I'm on exchange right now) I would support paying at least 5,000 a year (a meagre amount) if it means we can get a better quality of services and education. Of course

To me, it's between paying 900 a year and getting okay services and pretty good education and paying 5000 to get great services (or at least much improved) and top flight education.

The cost of law school in the US is 40,000 dollars per year, and they have scholarships up to 90,000 (for 3 years) to support certain people. 5,000 looks like chump change compared to that.

Though to be fair to Trinity I don't think it's missing all that much - I'm sure the administrators have a to-do list that it would be able to get through much quicker if students were paying fees.

Otherwise, let's just raise income taxes :rolleyes:

Crash

On the note of TCD starting, UCD and others follow, i'd be much more worried about it being the other way round. UCD already have the highest at around 1200. I do not see the uni's putting it up by 600 in one go.

godtabh

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Not everyone went to private schools, and registration fees are an extra pain in the balls if you're alreasy paying full fees.

If I was applying for my masters this year I wouldnt be able to pay for it now and alot of employers wont fork out close to €10k these days.

This may have a major impact on mature students coming back to college

rash0001 wrote: »

I bet it will be closer to 1500! And they will get away with it as this is not a tution fee but mere "Registration Fee" or "Capitation Fee".:mad: TCD starts, UCD follows and so on.

What I said but I think colleges will be more like we can so we will

xeduCat

Going Forward wrote: »

Its not actually a rise in reg fee - its a rise in the cap on reg fee. I severely doubt you'll see a jump in trinity by that much - maybe in the region of 1200 rather than 1500 imo.

True, it's a cap, but AFAIK that's actually the way it has always been phrased (since the registration fee was introduced) because it is the university (not the State) that actually charges and collects - and on every single occasion to date in every single institution the 'cap' is what is charged (plus additional local fees like the TCD sports charge which are not counted). It would be very interesting to see different charges happen but even when there were previous dramatic jumps all the institutions stuck together like thieves superglue.

Peslo

How much would the government get if the colleges put it up to 1500?? do they get the extra 600? If not, where does the extra 600 go? Iurely the costs of maintenance of college facilities, staff costs etc. couldn't have gone up so much to justify this!
I know this year the gov got €300(OFC) out of the 900 that we paid.

PurpleFistMixer

Thirdfox, just because it costs more in America is not a valid argument for it costing a lot here. They operate differently to us.

Peslo - presumably any extra money would go not into increasing costs in some things (though that's also possible/likely), but into new and better stuff. What stuff they need I don't know, as I've only been here 2 weeks and came from a pretty underequipped school, so it all looks pretty fancy to me. I'm sure they could find something to spend the money on, though. (Who couldn't?)

Peslo

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Thirdfox, just because it costs more in America is not a valid argument for it costing a lot here. They operate differently to us.

Peslo - presumably any extra money would go not into increasing costs in some things (though that's also possible/likely), but into new and better stuff. What stuff they need I don't know, as I've only been here 2 weeks and came from a pretty underequipped school, so it all looks pretty fancy to me. I'm sure they could find something to spend the money on, though. (Who couldn't?)

Like those mythical gold keyboards in LG12....

xeduCat

Well all the money 'goes' to the institution (the thing you heard about the 300 is a simplification of a clever accounting shimmy by the Dept. of Education, see below). So yes, it has happened before (as in that case) that the direct State support to institutions has been cut at the same time as a registration charge has gone up by a coincidentally similar amount (if that's not the definition of a fee I don't know what is...), and on other occasions the State support had stood still (which, with inflation/wage increases taken into account is effectively a cut from the institution's point of view) while the reg charge has gone up to (partially) plug the gap. I'd be extremely surprised if today's announced increase was on top of a separate (even inflation-matching) increase in core funding - though the exact details might take a while to figure out.

How the Marlborough Street Shimmy works (in very basic terms):

Year 1
The State funds a university with €1m (out of tax income or whatever)
The university has 1,000 students who pay €100 in registration charges each (i.e. €100,000)
Total university income is €1.1m (and they spend it all)

Year 2
The university says that its costs have increased by 5% due to inflation and thus it requires €1.15m for this year in order to do the same as Year 1.
Instead, the State cuts the university's funding to €900,000 and approves a registration charge increase from €100 to €205
The university has 1,000 students who pay €205 in registration charges each (i.e. €205,000)
Total university income is thus €1.15m - but the State has saved €100,000 and the university doesn't have any 'extra' money to spend on what the registration charge is supposed to fund

rash0001

Peslo wrote: »

How much would the government get if the colleges put it up to 1500?? do they get the extra 600? If not, where does the extra 600 go? Iurely the costs of maintenance of college facilities, staff costs etc. couldn't have gone up so much to justify this!
I know this year the gov got €300(OFC) out of the 900 that we paid.

I would have thought that as colleges are charging more on registration the state pays less towards fees? Or State paying less towards upkeep, grants etc as colleges will try to support themselves better with this slight increase from their point of view?

Edit: what xeduCat said.

Thirdfox

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Thirdfox, just because it costs more in America is not a valid argument for it costing a lot here. They operate differently to us.

Of course, that's why it costs 40,000 a year there.

But even in England they have 1500 pound fees (last time I checked) and they're hardly the free market capitalists the US institutions are.

5,000 isn't a lot - and 1,500 isn't a lot. If we get to charge international students 38,000 euro to study medicine here (14,000 for law last time I checked) I'm sure wealthy people in Ireland (my family included) can afford to pay for the rest of society - just like income tax, those who can afford to pay should do so in order to guarantee a higher standard of education for everyone.

This isn't 1960s Ireland - we're in a current downturn yes, but post Celtic Tiger most people in Ireland have a lot more wealth and can (and I argue should) pay for better services.

From what I've seen of the different systems operating (I've studied in Ireland, China and now the US) our system isn't doing too badly, but if we can afford to improve it then for the "pain" of 5,000 euro (or 1500 - sticking to facts here) I believe we should invest in our education more.

Now what xeducat said about government taking its funding away from universities and letting individuals fill the shortfall isn't something I'd be in favour of - as then effectively that "extra" 5000 isn't extra at all.

Fad

Thirdfox wrote: »

But even in England they have 1500 pound fees

3000 a year i was told @ higher options.

COH wrote: »

What I dont get is students who went to secondary schools that charge 3-5000 a year in fees moaning about having to pay half or a third of that for their college education. If you don't feel its a worthy investment, then don't go to college!

I'm not trying to say that this happens to alot of parents. But some parents get into debt to send their children to private schools. I know yes its thier choice n all, but some assume their children will get a better standard of education, in a slightly more pleasant enviornment. Not everyone's dad is Maurice Pratt (his son is in my year, im not plucking a name out of nowhere)

Peleus

COH wrote: »

What I dont get is students who went to secondary schools that charge 3-5000 a year in fees moaning about having to pay half or a third of that for their college education. If you don't feel its a worthy investment, then don't go to college!

because it's supposed to be 'free education'. it's hardly free if we have to pay loads in registration fees. €900 is grand but €1500 is pushing it a bit. What i dont get is when the economy is in great shape there is high inflation cos apparently we can 'afford it'. and when the economy is going through a downturn there is still the same rate of inflation??? why are things so expensive? it's getting annoying at this stage.

EGaffney

Peleus wrote: »

because it's supposed to be 'free education'. it's hardly free if we have to pay loads in registration fees. €900 is grand but €1500 is pushing it a bit. What i dont get is when the economy is in great shape there is high inflation cos apparently we can 'afford it'. and when the economy is going through a downturn there is still the same rate of inflation??? why are things so expensive? it's getting annoying at this stage.

Because if they didn't do something, the country would default, and in practice, charging more for university is a pretty well-targetted tax against the middle class. Bear in mind that this was the "wine up-cider down budget".

Boston

Thirdfox wrote: »

I feel like I may be the only student who is in favour of college fees (I know with my family income bracket I'll be paying the full whack) but looking at what the colleges can do with the extra money in places like the US (where I'm on exchange right now) I would support paying at least 5,000 a year (a meagre amount) if it means we can get a better quality of services and education. Of course

To me, it's between paying 900 a year and getting okay services and pretty good education and paying 5000 to get great services (or at least much improved) and top flight education.

The cost of law school in the US is 40,000 dollars per year, and they have scholarships up to 90,000 (for 3 years) to support certain people. 5,000 looks like chump change compared to that.

Though to be fair to Trinity I don't think it's missing all that much - I'm sure the administrators have a to-do list that it would be able to get through much quicker if students were paying fees.

Otherwise, let's just raise income taxes :rolleyes:

You assume that an increase of fees to 5000 wouldn't simply result in a decrease of government contribution by an equal amount, as xeduCat pointed out earlier.

I really don't get why you think 5000 Euro is a small amount of money. Are you so detached from your fellow man that you believe the majority live the life style you do? 5K may be have been a simple thing for you to put your hands on but for most people it would represent a great hardship. I would have had to borrow to afford that and quite frankly 20K or more of debt would be pretty crippling at this point in time.

As for the American system. When I'm in industry, over 50% of my income will go directly to the government. We either have taxes to pay for education or we ask people to pay for it themselves. As a country and a people it is better for the state to pay via taxation as it makes it more widely available.

On a final point, you mention 40k fees in the states. How much of that money is actually needed for education. How much is mindless waste and pomp? The Best universities charge the highest fees and all the BS.

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

I really don't get why you think 5000 Euro is a small amount of money. Are you so detached from your fellow man that you believe the majority live the life style you do? 5K may be have been a simple thing for you to put your hands on but for most people it would represent a great hardship. I would have had to borrow to afford that and quite frankly 20K or more of debt would be pretty crippling at this point in time.

In fairness I think he's talking about the people, like him, who will not be able to avail of grants because their family has a high income.


The disappointing thing is that the Government are edging more and more towards saying it's a privilege to go to college, when in fact they SHOULD be trying to get everyone to go through 3rd level education. Not just so they can boast to foreign politicians saying "our citizens are more educated than you" but because it WILL help the economy. Having an educated work force will attract big multi-national companies. Businesses like Google, Intel and Apple aren't going to locate in a country where the workforce don't know anything. Even in the case of some businesses that do locate in India because it's cheaper, they still bring over Irish workers to oversee everything because we are better educated (I know a guy who now works in India in the IT section).

There are two things that have attracted these big companies:

1) Low corporation tax
2) High skills

There are loads of countries offering low tax. There are loads that can offer high skills. But very few can offer both, and if the Government screw this up by limiting the amount of people who can go to college here.....then we'll be in trouble.

Thirdfox

Mark200 wrote: »

In fairness I think he's talking about the people, like him, who will not be able to avail of grants because their family has a high income.

Thank you - and it's good that you quoted him since I've had him on ignore for a long time now.

People on low income who cannot afford the 900 euro now obviously won't need to pay the 1500 or 5000 etc. I think segmented pricing will work out best for them (and "worst" for families like mine who can afford to pay while not being fabulously rich). Just like how the upper middle-class pay for most services I think eeking out just that little more from them isn't too troublesome.

So disadvantaged people keep their grants and higher income people pay to improve services, I cannot see why people who are getting grants now and would effectively be getting a "freebie" (in improved services/education) from the middle classes under a new system can complain. I suppose the fear is that charges will be applied to them but that's not what I'm proposing. That may be what the government wants to do though - I don't know.

edit: and while US degrees may seen really expensive to us (and really they are) wages in the US for those with top-flight education are way above what we expect in Ireland. I found out that a 1st year associate at big/middle sized law firms can expect to earn up to 160,000 dollars a year. Meeting people who earn around 300,000 dollars a year isn't unusual (nor is it to meet people who earn very very little). I prefer our system where wages are bunched around 40-150,000 and I believe there is still enough distinction to tax the rich (people like my family) and give to the not as rich (like Boston).

Boston

Mark200 wrote: »

In fairness I think he's talking about the people, like him, who will not be able to avail of grants because their family has a high income.

I don't come from a high income household and I wouldn't be able to avail of grants or fee remission. Its really annoying when people trot out the line that only the rich have to pay fees. The vast majority of working class families would have to pay fees. It isn't just two extremes, rich and poor, the majority are somewhere in the middle. Gone are the days when even having a job meant your income was above ~ 80% of the population.

Thirdfox, 5K isn't just a "little more" then 900 Euro. I'll put it this way, a student working all summer at minimum wage would earn approximate 4500 Euro. You assume everyone has parents willing and able to support them. I've know plenty who due to circumstances had to pay their own way through college.

Crash

There's essentially the important issue though Joe - and its why i'd be in favour of bringing back fees only on condition of a properly stepped means based grant system (from each according to their ability etc.) - if fees were brought back in now, without any overhaul on how grants are given, the people who would be hit worst would be those who earn just that bit too much to qualify, or live to close to college to qualify for a slightly bigger grant (as in just inside the limits) and various other things like this.

Ron DMC

Boston wrote: »

Thirdfox, 5K isn't just a "little more" then 900 Euro. I'll put it this way, a student working all summer at minimum wage would earn approximate 4500 Euro. You assume everyone has parents willing and able to support them. I've know plenty who due to circumstances had to pay their own way through college.

5k is well earnable in a summer if you save properly.

I've saved enough over the summer to pay full fees which was just under 5k when I had to repeat the year, and I saved a few grand the previous summer for rent etc when I moved out.

Boston

Good luck seeing that rolled brought in crash. In fairness its kinda flawed to take the parents income into account in the first place.

As I said, on minimum wage you can earn about 4500 euro in a 3 month period.

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

if fees were brought back in now

Speaking of:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1015/1224020736572.html

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

I don't come from a high income household and I wouldn't be able to avail of grants or fee remission. Its really annoying when people trot out the line that only the rich have to pay fees. The vast majority of working class families would have to pay fees.

I apologise, I wasn't aware you spoke to Mr. Lenihan himself.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I admit that a lot of what I am saying in this topic is based on me hearing a few months ago in the news somewhere that the fees would not apply for families who earn less than €100,000 a year.
So maybe you heard differently, but if not I wouldn't really hesitate in calling that a high income family. Maybe not rich, but well able to afford the college fees.

Boston

I'm almost certain I replied to Mark, mod delete?

Anyway. Basically Mark, you're ministerial promises aren't worth the paper their not even written on. I'm basing my comments on the numerous references which have been made to the English system which certainly isn't a case of only the rich paying. 100k a year would be a high income household by anyone's standard, but given the fact that I had to pay registration fees all through college, I see no reason to believe there will be a massive shift in government criteria to exclude people like me from having to pay fees.

Thats a far nicer reply then the first one btw.

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

Anyway. Basically Mark, you're ministerial promises aren't worth the paper their not even written on. I'm basing my comments on the numerous references which have been made to the English system which certainly isn't a case of only the rich paying. 100k a year would be a high income household by anyone's standard, but given the fact that I had to pay registration fees all through college, I see no reason to believe there will be a massive shift in government criteria to exclude people like me from having to pay fees.

Thats a far nicer reply then the first one btw.

So just because the Government believes you can afford €1500, they're going to presume you can afford an extra €5000?

I see.............

Boston

Because the government has been so rational of late. If you can explain to me what changed between last week and this week that meant 30% of pensioners over 70 no longer need a medical card, maybe I'd have the same blind faith you do.

The same people who where asked to pay 300 euro 5 years ago will now be asked to pay 1500. Thats a 500% increase with only a marginal increase in grant brackets. Why do you believe it would be anything but business as usual should they introduce a 5K fee? These are the people who think a 1% levy on everyone's income is "progressive" and fair because its 2% for those over 100k.

You've also yet to provide a reference for where this 100k threshold came from.

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

You've also yet to provide a reference for where this 100k threshold came from.

"I admit that a lot of what I am saying in this topic is based on me hearing a few months ago in the news somewhere that the fees would not apply for families who earn less than €100,000 a year."


You read that. I hope you're only acting that stupid and you're not really. If you're going to be a little child and pick on things and ask for things that I have already implied that I do not know exactly where I got the information from, then fine...go do that somewhere else where people will play along.

Boston wrote: »

Because the government has been so rational of late. If you can explain to me what changed between last week and this week that meant 30% of pensioners over 70 no longer need a medical card, maybe I'd have the same blind faith you do.

The...E...word.

Economy

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I don't see how that implies in any way that they're now going to make you pay an extra €5000 for your precious education

Boston

Yes Mark, I'm stupid.

I read somewhere a year ago in a new paper (may have been the daily mail) that Brian Lenihan eats babies. What that, you won't just accept my vague memory of something which may be completely out of context? You must be stooooooooopid.

If you're not able to back up your claim, then I'm going to go right ahead and assume you made it up.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I don't see how that implies in any way that they're now going to make you pay an extra €5000 for your precious education

Its called a trend. Excluding more people from having to pay fees would go against the current trend. But you're right, maybe the government will go completely against type.

Ps Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and Jesus aren't real.


Also I don't pay fees...

Boston

Boston wrote: »

I'm almost certain I replied to Mark, mod delete?

There are no posts between your post above and Mark200's post of 19:36 from yesterday.

Tricity Bendix

There was a good anti-fees rally in Dun Laoghaire today. About 300 IADT students and some UCD agitators. Its been ages since I've been on the righteous side of a political argument.

Mark200

Boston wrote: »

Yes Mark, I'm stupid.

I knew it!!!!!!

Boston wrote: »

If you're not able to back up your claim, then I'm going to go right ahead and assume you made it up.

You haven't been able to back up your claim either, and instead are basing it on a "trend"....

Either way, as I've said before, educating our future workforce is vital to our economy...and giving medical cards to those over 70, isn't so vital. There's a huge difference, and you can't use how one is treated to predict how the other will be treated.

That is stupid.

Peslo

Boston wrote: »

If you're not able to back up your claim, then I'm going to go right ahead and assume you made it up.

What are you trying to act like Brendan Tangney for?!!:pac:

Brian

Peslo wrote: »

What are you trying to act like Brendan Tangney for?!!:pac:

The Warden of Trinity Hall? He's got an ultrathin VAIO.

Peslo

Baza210 wrote: »

The Warden of Trinity Hall? He's got an ultrathin VAIO.

That's the man.

Peslo

Peslo wrote: »

What are you trying to act like Brendan Tangney for?!!:pac:

You realise staff members read Boards right? And that Tangney has been directed towards this forum before (not to do with anything bad, was about the fish dying or someting in Halls), so he may lurk from time to time.

Not to mention the fact the Junior Dean's minions lurk these forums. You know, you just can't get good minions these days.

Peslo

Myth wrote: »

You realise staff members read Boards right? And that Tangney has been directed towards this forum before (not to do with anything bad, was about the fish dying or someting in Halls), so he may lurk from time to time.

Not to mention the fact the Junior Dean's minions lurk these forums. You know, you just can't get good minions these days.

Haha that's fine by me!! He'll know what I meant if he does! And so will anybody else who has him for Computers and Society!!! lol:D

Brian

Dear Dr. Tangney,

On Slide 13 of your orientation presentation this evening, there was a grievous error. In place of "and/or", there was in fact "and/are" displayed. Besides this and several misspellings, the presentation-wide footnote proclaimed to all and sundry that this was the Orientation 2007 meeting.

Good day,
IOc9dbCMwA

Boston

Mark200 wrote: »

I knew it!!!!!!

If you seriously think I'm stupid then you're not actually worth my time talking to in a meaning full fashion.

You haven't been able to back up your claim either, and instead are basing it on a "trend"....

Either way, as I've said before, educating our future workforce is vital to our economy...and giving medical cards to those over 70, isn't so vital. There's a huge difference, and you can't use how one is treated to predict how the other will be treated.

That is stupid.

Why do you hate old people? Is it because of the rejection your felt as a child from your mother? Is it because she dressed you as a girl growing up resulting in a gender identity disorder? Is this also why you feel the need to be a compulsive liar, pretending that the Mr finance took you to a social lunchen to discuss this magical 100K threshold. What exactly is the source of your behaviour mark? I'm deeply concerned for your well being.

Brian

Boston wrote: »

If you seriously think I'm stupid then you're not actually worth my time talking to in a meaning full fashion.

In fairness, you tried to shave with an axe.

Boston

That just proves I'm a real man. And it wasn't an Axe, it was my dry wit, for once it cut me as deeply as its cutting mark.