These OAP marches

mike65

Jebus anyone listening to rte? Sounds like a riot, people fainting, FF speakers being shouted down. One would suspect they are enjoying thier moment in the sun, the government have climbed down and yet they vent thier rage.

Mob rule is no rule, and the way things are going the state is going to be ungovernable as government policies fold under force of an indignant howl.

Mike

mathie

mike65 wrote: »

Jebus anyone listening to rte? Sounds like a riot, people fainting, FF speakers being shouted down. One would suspect they are enjoying thier moment in the sun, the government have climbed down and yet they vent thier rage.

Mob rule is no rule, and the way things are going the state is going to be ungovernable as government policies fold under force of an indignant howl.

Mike

Enjoying their moment in the sun?
Are you serious?

The government hasn't fully climbed down.
They've set limits on the amount a person can have as an income.
And no prizes for quessing that the limit will be lowered and lowered over the coming years. Like everything the Government has done it'll be trickled in with minimum of fuss.

This protest isn't just about the medical card. It's about showing the Government how the people feel.

Zombrex

There is a big march though O'Connell street at the moment, though I'm not sure it is the OAP, it seems like students. I'm on middle abbey street and it sounds like it is all kicking off, lots of cheers and shouts and a few minutes ago a load of guards on motor bikes when screaming down Abbey street, I imagine from the station up by the Four Courts.

ah, just like the 80s ... happy days :pac:

luckat

Was down at the Dáil - massive crowd, cheering and shaking their sticks in the air. You've picked on the wrong people, Harney.

Kama

I for one welcome our Old Overlords?

podge79

mike65 wrote: »

Jebus anyone listening to rte? Sounds like a riot, people fainting, FF speakers being shouted down. One would suspect they are enjoying thier moment in the sun, the government have climbed down and yet they vent thier rage.

Mob rule is no rule, and the way things are going the state is going to be ungovernable as government policies fold under force of an indignant howl.

Mike

are people not allowed protest in a democracy? its not mob rule.... if they burnt down the dail then maybe... but merely protesting isnt mob rule!

mathie

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidcwsnqlql/

Many fear the Government's move will lead to erosion of the planned income thresholds in the coming years and could also pose a threat to their free travel passes, fuel allowances and TV licence entitlements.

Boggle

Jebus anyone listening to rte? Sounds like a riot, people fainting, FF speakers being shouted down. One would suspect they are enjoying thier moment in the sun, the government have climbed down and yet they vent thier rage.

Mob rule is no rule, and the way things are going the state is going to be ungovernable as government policies fold under force of an indignant howl.

Mike

They have my backing. Whats the point of penalising the top 5% of people for doing well in life - especially when they'll probably use private services in most cases?? Answer is there is no point unless you plan to extend this to more and more older people...

...see the student protests. registration fees having been consistently rising since I was in college - something I'm sure people at the time said would never happen.

jhegarty

mathie wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidcwsnqlql/

Many fear the Government's move will lead to erosion of the planned income thresholds in the coming years and could also pose a threat to their free travel passes, fuel allowances and TV licence entitlements.

exactly, Harney got asked in the Dail yesterday if the threshold could be changed by ministerial order , and she didn't answer...


i'd say their plan is to get the bill through, and have some excuse in January's / February why they need to move the thresholds back to the ones in the budget...

irish_bob

mike65 wrote: »

Jebus anyone listening to rte? Sounds like a riot, people fainting, FF speakers being shouted down. One would suspect they are enjoying thier moment in the sun, the government have climbed down and yet they vent thier rage.

Mob rule is no rule, and the way things are going the state is going to be ungovernable as government policies fold under force of an indignant howl.

Mike

the whole thing has descended into farce , theese people have gotten what they want , now they are merely protesting for the sake of it , ann manahan was on seogie a few minutes ago and gave the best performance of her life , a foreigner visiting the country watching the scenes and listening to the media would think the senior citizens of this country had witnessed the hollocaust

Breezer

irish_bob wrote: »

the whole thing has descended into farce , theese people have gotten what they want , now they are merely protesting for the sake of it , ann manahan was on seogie a few minutes ago and gave the best performance of her life , a foreigner visiting the country watching the scenes and listening to the media would think the senior citizens of this country had witnessed the hollocaust

What they want is a rollback on the entire scheme, not alterations and different income limits to those originally planned, which, as has been pointed out, can be changed at a later date. More power to them, they've shown far more backbone than our supposed leaders, who chose to pick on what they thought were easy targets.

Wicknight wrote:

There is a big march though O'Connell street at the moment, though I'm not sure it is the OAP, it seems like students. I'm on middle abbey street and it sounds like it is all kicking off, lots of cheers and shouts and a few minutes ago a load of guards on motor bikes when screaming down Abbey street, I imagine from the station up by the Four Courts.

That was a separate protest against the mooted return of 3rd level tuition fees. Though both groups of protesters were giving each other great support

nesf

jhegarty wrote: »

i'd say their plan is to get the bill through, and have some excuse in January's / February why they need to move the thresholds back to the ones in the budget...

I seriously doubt it after the reaction it got this time around. I'd say the pensioners have secured the vast majority of their medical cards for a good number of years here.

luckat wrote: »

You've picked on the wrong people, Harney.

If you actually believe this was a PD/Harney centric decision then you've swallowed FF spin hook, line and sinker.

djpbarry

Breezer wrote: »

That was a separate protest against the mooted return of 3rd level tuition fees. Though both groups of protesters were giving each other great support

I saw a few dolly birds on Grafton St wearing "No 2 Fees" t-shirts while carrying bags from Brown Thomas :rolleyes:.

I could smell the desperation*...



* The fragrance that is...

Boggle

the whole thing has descended into farce , theese people have gotten what they want ,

They want a complete reversal - no more, no less. When they get that and keep on protesting, then you may be justified in saying its a farce but until then only an idiot would accept this kind of platitude.

Its typical FF really, expect selfishness on the part of the elderly who think "at least I'm okay" to get the bill in and then slowly take all the medical cards with incremental decreases in the limit over time (much less likely to draw such wrath).

Remember college reg fees? They started low and look at them now...

I wonder how it feels for hardened FF supporters (who probably wanted to believe their party was a good one) to realise that their representatives really are the dirty scum that people said they were?? I only hope they get wiped out over this as a warning to future generations of political parties about political consequences.

djpbarry

Boggle wrote: »

I wonder how it feels for hardened FF supporters (who probably wanted to believe their party was a good one) to realise that their representatives really are the dirty scum that people said they were??

Shouldn't you include FG and Labour in that statement too, seeing as how they both opposed the scheme up to now (when it became politically advantageous not to)?

irish_bob

im not a ff supporter but im disgusted at how spineless the goverment has been on this issue , how we will ever get through this rescession when our leaders havent the nuts to follow through on a descision like this is beyond me

i for one am not willing to pay an extra 2% in tax just so some retired doctor or garda inspector can visit his gp for free

therewillbe

DID YE HEAR YOUR MAN KENNY FROM FG AT THE DEMO FOR THE BLUE RINCERS ? HE SOUNDED LIKE GIBSON IN BRAVEHEART AND BIG IAN , NO NO NO / NEVER NEVER OR WHATEVER. IN MY OPINION A PLONKER LIKE THE REST OF THEM. FAIR PLAY TO THE AUL BIDDIES. LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION !:)

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

If you actually believe this was a PD/Harney centric decision then you've swallowed FF spin hook, line and sinker.

Did she resign as Minister? Did she so much as express reservations? No, she applauded Lenihan's budget with the rest of them and then went to a press conference with Brian Cowen to express her support for the initiative. This is a Government policy and all of them, FF, PD and Green, are equally accountable.

djpbarry wrote:

I saw a few dolly birds on Grafton St wearing "No 2 Fees" t-shirts while carrying bags from Brown Thomas .

"A few." I saw 10,000 students from all walks of life and across the political spectrum marching and not a Brown Thomas bag amongst them.

Shouldn't you include FG and Labour in that statement too, seeing as how they both opposed the scheme up to now (when it became politically advantageous not to)?

They opposed FF buying an election. And there's a big difference between not bringing a scheme in in the first place and cancelling it later, when people have built their lives around it.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

Did she resign as Minister? Did she so much as express reservations? No, she applauded Lenihan's budget with the rest of them and then went to a press conference with Brian Cowen to express her support for the initiative.

And she's not standing in the next election so she makes a very convenient meat shield for the public hatred.

kaiser soza

They have picked on the wrong people here as Students being one myself will jump at the excuse to fight the power and old folks deserve better treatment,sack the Dail,why should we line their dirty pockets.

nesf

kaiser soza wrote: »

Students being one myself will jump at the excuse to fight the power

The Students have been very quiet for years in fairness. Only handfuls used to turn out for the protests about the level of the grant.

jill_valentine

The OAP protest was pretty cool. Lot more respect for my elders now...

kaiser soza

I didn't march today as I had lectures all afternoon, but most if not all colleges are off next week so something should take place then.

Crash

nesf wrote: »

The Students have been very quiet for years in fairness. Only handfuls used to turn out for the protests about the level of the grant.

That always used infuriate me - especially does now. Fees? out in a flash. people getting screwed over by the grant system? nah couldnt really care.

jill_valentine

Before, we could get by. Not this time, fees wouldn't just hurt our standard of living, it would shut a lot of us out of third level education altogether.

nesf

Going Forward wrote: »

That always used infuriate me - especially does now. Fees? out in a flash. people getting screwed over by the grant system? nah couldnt really care.

Pretty much my opinion of the whole thing. Reintroducing fees and increasing the grant ftw.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Before, we could get by. Not this time, fees wouldn't just hurt our standard of living, it would shut a lot of us out of third level education altogether.

A lot of people were being shut out of it before because of money issues. Fees will hurt the middle class, not those on the grant since they, most likely, will get a waiver on the fees anyway.

Crash

Cop out tbh Jill. The difference is it could hit a majority, but this is the first time the student movement has been in any way effective or united in years. I'm not gonna repeat my rant on another thread, but I will say that years involved in the education side of things from a student perspective led me to be very disenfranchised as to the general attitude of the average student, who seemed to have little to no concept of the value of the education they were receiving, and little care. Apathy runs scarily deep these days in the student body, and the only thing in the end that managed to shake it at all was the threat of disenfranchisement. Took a hell of a lot tbh.

Nesf wrote:

A lot of people were being shut out of it before because of money issues. Fees will hurt the middle class, not those on the grant since they, most likely, will get a waiver on the fees anyway.

Fees will hit the exact same people that got screwed over by the grant - those that are the borderline cases - a few quid too high on income, an outgoing which doesn't fall under the means test, a few hundred metres too close to the college. I don't think you'll see that changing for a fair while.

jill_valentine

I could maybe live with the reintroduction of fees if I had any faith whatsover that the grant would be brought up to meet the difference.

Crash

Tell you what, If there's no mention of some level of grant overhaul with whatever pile that O'Keefe comes out with in February (which knowing that eejit there probably won't be) I'll be out marching beside you

jill_valentine

lol, fair enough.

djpbarry

Breezer wrote: »

"A few." I saw 10,000 students from all walks of life and across the political spectrum marching and not a Brown Thomas bag amongst them.

All walks of life? Probably. But which “walk of life” do you suppose most of them come from? You’d have a hard time convincing me that the majority of students cannot afford to pay fees. Having said that, I would be opposed to their reintroduction without a major overhaul of the grant system.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

Having said that, I would be opposed to their reintroduction without a major overhaul of the grant system.

That sounds like what we have in America. If so...it doesn't work.

podge79

djpbarry wrote: »

All walks of life? Probably. But which “walk of life” do you suppose most of them come from? You’d have a hard time convincing me that the majority of students cannot afford to pay fees. Having said that, I would be opposed to their reintroduction without a major overhaul of the grant system.

and how are they supposed to pay for these fees? most fees are at uni are at least 4k add in the accomodation and the basics ie food,travel costs and its easily 10-15k a year. I presume that you think that a loan system should be setup so that students will pay back when they are earning.. despitethe fact that many already take out loans to help pay for college... so we should basically throw them out into the world already saddled with debt.... do we want to follow americas lead?

djpbarry

podge79 wrote: »

and how are they supposed to pay for these fees? most fees are at uni are at least 4k add in the accomodation and the basics ie food,travel costs and its easily 10-15k a year.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents. I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time. Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

The same was true when I was in college. I was one of a handful of people in my class who had a part-time job, yet virtually all of my class-mates could afford to live on campus, spend half their time in the student bar and regularly attend balls and socials.

Personally, I don't think it is right that taxpayers are paying for these people to attend university.

podge79 wrote: »

I presume that you think that a loan system should be setup so that students will pay back when they are earning.. despitethe fact that many already take out loans to help pay for college... so we should basically throw them out into the world already saddled with debt.... do we want to follow americas lead?

You'll note that I said that I would not approve the re-introduction of fees without an overhaul of the grant system in such a way as to allow anyone to avail of third-level education without incurring significant debt.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents. I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time. Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

Do you think someone in their early 20's always going to spend their money wisely.
I remember being in college and instead of a healthy lunch and dinner I would eat ramen noodles. The house I lived in always had a case of beer though and there was always the Thurs night drink specials.
However I went to what is known as a "junior college" because my parents could not afford to send me to a University (even a state one).
Oh and I also had to work part time.
I know people that are still paying off their student loans and getting made redundant a decade after leaving college.
That's what happens when you don't make 3rd level free for all.

Personally, I don't think it is right that taxpayers are paying for these people to attend university.

If they have hundreds of billions for the bankers then they surely have enough to make sure everyone has free access to higher education.

podge79

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents. I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time. Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

The same was true when I was in college. I was one of a handful of people in my class who had a part-time job, yet virtually all of my class-mates could afford to live on campus, spend half their time in the student bar and regularly attend balls and socials.

Personally, I don't think it is right that taxpayers are paying for these people to attend university.
You'll note that I said that I would not approve the re-introduction of fees without an overhaul of the grant system in such a way as to allow anyone to avail of third-level education without incurring significant debt.

i never said they didnt get financial assistance from their parents.... newsflash not all the students who attend college in dublin are from dublin - cant exactly live with parents then can they? and last time i looked dublin isnt that cheap

dont the unis encourage them not to work part-time as it'll affect their studies?

laptops are cheap enough these days and seeing as most unis have substandard computing equipment not to say not enough to meet demand.

so they cant have a social life either? if their doing whats required of them and passing the course i have no problem....

their parents are part of those taxpayers... as they will be in a few years

old boy

youth always had its fling, the present setup is outdated, if it is changed it should be student friendly, not every student has a banker, developer or bloodstock dependant parent, why not hit the high rollers and their ilk, why does it have to be the little guy that gets hit.
the future of this and every country is its children and youth. yet they are on the chopping block.
the recent marches seem to say the little guy has enough of being hit, the present and next generation of o.a.p.s. have worked and lived thro the late 70s, 80s, and 90s, they payed enormous taxes, long hours, nothing in material comforts, they watched as the polititians, and industary fat cats got fatter, while they got no thanks for their efforts

jill_valentine

Evidently, I didn't win the Luck Lottery, I don't get any financial assistance from my parents.

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required. Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

nesf

jill_valentine wrote: »

Evidently, I didn't win the Luck Lottery, I don't get any financial assistance from my parents.

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required. Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

I'd disagree for UCC students anyway. It was that way a few years ago but they've improved the IT situation drastically and someone could do all their coursework on the undergraduate access machines if they needed to.

djpbarry

sovtek wrote: »

That's what happens when you don't make 3rd level free for all.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no grant system for third-level students in the US, is there?

podge79 wrote: »

newsflash not all the students who attend college in dublin are from dublin

Did I say they were?

podge79 wrote: »

dont the unis encourage them not to work part-time as it'll affect their studies?

Possibly; depends on the course I suppose.

podge79 wrote: »

...seeing as most unis have substandard computing equipment not to say not enough to meet demand.

I wonder why that is? Could it be that the numbers attending third-level institutions has gone up and funding for said institutions has not kept pace? In other words, spending per student has decreased in recent years.

podge79 wrote: »

so they cant have a social life either? if their doing whats required of them and passing the course i have no problem....

So, a guy/girl gets her college fees paid for him/her and during his/her 4 years at university, he/she manages to spend, say, €10,000 on alcohol (and maybe a little coke). You’re ok with that as long as he/she passes the course? That makes little sense.

podge79 wrote: »

their parents are part of those taxpayers... as they will be in a few years

So?

jill_valentine wrote: »

Evidently, I didn't win the Luck Lottery, I don't get any financial assistance from my parents.

Neither did I, evidently.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required.

As far as I am aware, they cannot do that. If a computer is a requirement for a particular course, the onus is on the university/IT to provide it.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

Without access to a PC maybe, but that doesn’t mean you have to own one. I got through an electronic engineering degree without owning a computer and several of my classmates did too.

podge79

djpbarry wrote: »

I wonder why that is? Could it be that the numbers attending third-level institutions has gone up and funding for said institutions has not kept pace? In other words, spending per student has decreased in recent years.

So, a guy/girl gets her college fees paid for him/her and during his/her 4 years at university, he/she manages to spend, say, €10,000 on alcohol (and maybe a little coke). You’re ok with that as long as he/she passes the course? That makes little sense.

where the guarantee that spending per student would have increased even if numbers attending third level hadnt gone up? its not as if an increase in students couldnt be planned for... they know the amount of children already in the system so they can hardly go "where they all come from?" and that in a changing economy that more people will want to go to college... colleges are spending millions on these lovely to look at buildings and paying uni presidents 6 figure sums... hmm l how better could that money could be sent??!!

I have no problem with the exchequer picking up the tab for free fees... in fact we need to increase spending on education at all levels.... its about giving everyone an equal chance and not saying well you cant go because you wont be able to afford it oh and you ya you can go but you'll have to pay fees.... if the cost of salaries perks and pensions of the politicians were slashed by 50% how many would that pay for?

Fionnanc

I think students should work during college, maybe something related to their career. I had the luck to work in a position, that was mainly staffed with non-EU nationals, which had direct relevance to my current profession. The employer would have preferentially employed many part-time EU citizens rather than go through the hassle of the work permit system. For example an engineering student could work a day a week as a laborer on a building site( in previous economic climate), would get paid and gain valuable experience too.
An economics or business student could work as a contract cleaner or caterer in the (for eg) IFSC, see the place in action, meet people/make contacts , plus regular work will give you a good work ethic making passage to your future career easier./

I would also like to add a 10 year old computer will handle the applications required for any undergraduate undertaking, if you can resist the temptation to fill your powerpoint presentations with fancy graphics to hide the lack of content. If you find the college computer room crowded at 1pm to 6pm, get up at 7am to be in the comp room at 7:30am. Ye are meant to be in "fulltime" education.

Crash

Jill Valentine wrote:

Also, most colleges and courses now specifically state that a personal computer is required. Usually because there aren't enough computers to go around, but mainly because I'd say most courses now have an IT element that requires familiarity with a particular application. Without a laptop you simply cannot do your coursework.

I'd definitely question that. I just finished a computer science degree, and while I had a laptop for most of the time in college, looking back on it, for periods where laptops broke etc. I could quite easily have managed four years doing comp sci using only college computers. It wouldn't have been quite as easy, but to say everyone needs a computer is a tiny bit of an overstatement. For instance in second year doing a film course as part of a broad curriculum course, all my essays were done in college, on college computers.

Granted this is only one universities situation, but Nesf has vouched for UCC, I can vouch for Trinity on this one.

Breezer

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell me that third-level students don't receive any financial assistance from their parents? Most (if not all) of the Dublin-based students I deal with live with their parents.

Perhaps that is because college is already expensive enough, and if renting their own place is not a necessity then why would anyone in their right mind do so?

I'd also add that very few of them seem to work part-time.

Jobs aren't exactly ten a penny these days. Especially when you have no qualifications and aren't available a lot of the time due to college and study commitments.

Yet they still seem to be able to afford laptops and drink sessions every other night.

Laptops cost a few hundred euro and will last several years; fees would be a few thousand euro every year. First years aside, I've met very few students who go drinking every other night. My faculty has a night out roughly once every three weeks to a month, and not everyone goes. The high attendance at 9am starts would suggest the majority aren't out at private parties every night either.

You'll note that I said that I would not approve the re-introduction of fees without an overhaul of the grant system in such a way as to allow anyone to avail of third-level education without incurring significant debt.

Would you care to suggest such a scheme? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just wondering what you have in mind. Whatever it is, I very much doubt Batt O'Keeffe has anything like it planned. It's easier to talk about a handful of millionaires. The result will be another shambles like the medical card issue.

Fionanc wrote:

I think students should work during college

Ye are meant to be in "fulltime" education.

Which is it?

For example an engineering student could work a day a week as a laborer on a building site... An economics or business student could work as a contract cleaner or caterer in the (for eg) IFSC

You find me a company that's willing to hire a student for one day a week. In fact, since you'd like all students to be doing this, find me several thousand. The jobs don't exist and didn't even during the Celtic Tiger. You were lucky to get a summer job.

jill_valentine

Going Forward wrote: »

Granted this is only one universities situation, but Nesf has vouched for UCC, I can vouch for Trinity on this one.

I'm not gonna do my university the disloyalty of naming it so, but we have a fairly serious computer and lab shortage. Students are regularly turned away from their own scheduled lab just for lack of machines, and told to go do it on their laptops. It's the norm. My laptop cost €399.

djpbarry

podge79 wrote: »

where the guarantee that spending per student would have increased even if numbers attending third level hadnt gone up? its not as if an increase in students couldnt be planned for... they know the amount of children already in the system so they can hardly go "where they all come from?"

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.

podge79 wrote: »

.... its about giving everyone an equal chance…

I’d say it’s also about getting value for money.

Breezer wrote: »

Perhaps that is because college is already expensive enough, and if renting their own place is not a necessity then why would anyone in their right mind do so?

I was responding to another poster who included “accommodation” in the list of costs associated with attending college.

Breezer wrote: »

Jobs aren't exactly ten a penny these days. Especially when you have no qualifications and aren't available a lot of the time due to college and study commitments.

I guarantee that I could pop out this lunchtime and get myself a part-time job in a shop, café, bar, or whatever. There’s actually quite a few of them out there. Besides, I’m not just talking about the last few months. As I said, when I was doing my degree, the vast majority of my class-mates didn’t work.

Breezer wrote: »

Laptops cost a few hundred euro and will last several years…

The point is they are a luxury for most students.

Breezer wrote: »

First years aside, I've met very few students who go drinking every other night. My faculty has a night out roughly once every three weeks to a month, and not everyone goes. The high attendance at 9am starts would suggest the majority aren't out at private parties every night either.

Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. But it ain’t too difficult to find drunk/high students on the streets of Dublin on a weeknight. I work with students on a regular basis who blame their lack of punctuality on a late night, hangover, etc. I should stress that I am not tarring all students with the same brush and I apologise if I’ve offended anyone. But, I do not like the idea that taxpayers are paying for some students to attend college when all the student is interested in is getting pissed every night for 3 or 4 years – they do not appreciate the value of what they are receiving.

Breezer wrote: »

Would you care to suggest such a scheme? I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just wondering what you have in mind.

Well, how about I suggest how it should not work? I was not considered for a grant because both my parents worked full-time – apparently this results in immediate disqualification (or at least it did at the time) regardless of income levels. Now, I know of people whose parents were seemingly making far more than mine (I’m guessing based on the size of houses, cars, etc.) but they received grants. In their cases, the mother did not work or maybe worked part-time. Now, I’m not sure about the detail in this, but on the surface, it seemed ridiculous to me that these people were entitled to grants (both attended the Institute of Education at the weekends) and I was not.

Breezer wrote: »

The jobs don't exist and didn't even during the Celtic Tiger. You were lucky to get a summer job.

That’s absolute nonsense. I was finding full-time summer jobs BEFORE the Celtic Tiger came roaring along.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no grant system for third-level students in the US, is there?

There is but it's poor.

sovtek

djpbarry wrote: »

I’d say it’s also about getting value for money.

I'd say that you would get your value for money if everyone was given free 3rd level education.
Besides I would value giving everyone an equal opportunity over value for money.

djpbarry

sovtek wrote: »

I'd say that you would get your value for money if everyone was given free 3rd level education.

Would we? Does everyone who begins third-level education see it through to it's conclusion? Does everyone who does complete third-level obtain a degree that is of use to society (both in subject area and grade)?

sovtek wrote: »

Besides I would value giving everyone an equal opportunity over value for money.

But equal opportunity is precisely what I'm talking about too. At present, the grant system does not work; people who shouldn't be receiving grants are receiving them and vice versa. I don't think the solution is to give everyone a free ride, because there are (in my experience) far too many people who do not appreciate it. At the end of the day, the whole point of providing free third-level education is to get a return on the investment, in an economic sense. At present, it doesn't seem to be working.

podge79

Quote:
Originally Posted by podge79 View Post
where the guarantee that spending per student would have increased even if numbers attending third level hadnt gone up? its not as if an increase in students couldnt be planned for... they know the amount of children already in the system so they can hardly go "where they all come from?"

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.

... that the excuse of all the extra students attending third level is the reason funding per head has reduced.... they knew that the kids were already in the system ... why didnt they make allowances for that? plan ahead?

djpbarry

podge79 wrote: »

... that the excuse of all the extra students attending third level is the reason funding per head has reduced....

I never said it was an excuse, I just said that that is the reality. Now maybe if we strip away the excess, lack of funding won't be a problem. But I think it would also help if access to third level was restricted to those who actually want to be there to learn, rather than those who just want to piss around for a year or two before dropping out.