Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Third Level Fees

  • 29-01-2009 1:31pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭


    Id imagine the chances of these returning have been going up dramatically in the last few months. I dont think its a bad idea for the people who can afford it to pay, ie leaving cert students where both parents are working and earning well above the average for example. But surely they cant take free fees away from the people who would otherwise be unable to return to college - kids from very low income families, unemployed people returnind to college as mature students? What do you think, will they bring back fees and if so will everyone be hit or just the people who can afford it?


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Well people from disadvantaged families get grants and that would cover them.

    And fees have been reintroduced, thats why the "registration" fee went up by €600, when how could the price of "registration" have gone up at all?? You couldnt make it up really.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    We have fees. Approx €1500 per year. Pretty close to half what's paid in the north.

    I think these fees should be paid after the course is completed in the form of a loan. €1500 is a lot of money for someone from a poor background


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Pub07 wrote: »
    Id imagine the chances of these returning have been going up dramatically in the last few months. I dont think its a bad idea for the people who can afford it to pay, ie leaving cert students where both parents are working and earning well above the average for example. But surely they cant take free fees away from the people who would otherwise be unable to return to college - kids from very low income families, unemployed people returnind to college as mature students? What do you think, will they bring back fees and if so will everyone be hit or just the people who can afford it?

    Problem is, if you use this concept of "people who can pay, should pay", it will only create a "drop in the ocean" money, and it will have ramifications on those who live in University Cities. Furthermore, it will mostly hit PAYE workers, who are already being taxed heavily, with more likely to come in these troubling times. Imagine, could a middle ranking civil servant and a teacher afford to pay to put three children through college at the same time ??? I doubt it. It would become a form of affirmative action for those who cannot afford to pay at all, i.e if you cant pay then come on in...however, if you are on a decent salary, but have plenty of children around the same age...and there is more than just their education burdening your salary, then its your fault for earning too much. Also, under "the those who can pay should", one group of people will be getting free third level fees, and a grant...while others

    The reality is, if the Government want to make any money from this, it will have to be a cross the board return. There is no point in bringing college fees back for some if there is no money to be made


    Top Up Fees or Corporate Sponsorship and funding is the way to go. It is no longer sustainable to keep thrid level fees, without anything mitigating the loss to the college purses


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,447 ✭✭✭ongarite


    I'm not against the re-introduction of fees as the colleges need the funding to remain compettive internationally.

    I think a good idea would be introduce fees with the course fee to be paid up front and then a performance related refund on completion of said course.

    If you piss around and fail your course, then you get nothing back.
    You work hard and get a great mark, you get fees back or high percentage of it back.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Pub07


    We have fees. Approx €1500 per year. Pretty close to half what's paid in the north.

    I think these fees should be paid after the course is completed in the form of a loan. €1500 is a lot of money for someone from a poor background

    That €1500 is nothing compared to what it would cost if they got rid of the Free Fees Initiative. You'd be looking at another €6000-€7000 on top of it, every year.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    I'd agree Ongar, a financial incentive would work wonders...Behaioural economics would I believe back you up on this...

    It's only nominaly free atm, we already has fees as was said. There's a sound economic argument that the middleclass was being subsidised, capturing the benefits and reallocating the cash; free fees is a shibboleth of the Left, as an end in itself; a socialist equity argument as a front for more material interests, imho.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    The people who've benefitted most from free fees are not the people they were designed to benefit; there needs to be more help given to the less well off students, and a means test for those that can afford to pay fees. Het-field, do you really think that the family earning 80,000 can't better afford to send multiple children through university than the family on 25,000? Nonsense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,046 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    ongarite wrote: »
    I'm not against the re-introduction of fees as the colleges need the funding to remain compettive internationally.

    I think a good idea would be introduce fees with the course fee to be paid up front and then a performance related refund on completion of said course.

    If you piss around and fail your course, then you get nothing back.
    You work hard and get a great mark, you get fees back or high percentage of it back.


    The course fee to be paid up front?So instead of having to come up with €6000 a year, I'd have to get €24000.The incentive at the end of the course is worth it, but it'd still have to be done on an annual basis.If you get good marks at the end of your degree, you can get a percentage of it back then.

    As I am in college atm, I am against fees.I think it'd be a terrible thing to bring in, as a lot of students won't be able to afford to go to college anymore.I have to say that some don't deserve the free fees though.In my course, attendance is shocking.They will ultimately pay the price at the end of the day when they fail, but it is unfair that they are getting fees paid for, they have accomadation paid for by their parents, and arent bothered to turn up to classes and put in an effort.

    In my course, there are around 150 students enrolled for it.I'd see around 50-70 in a day, and that is only for the main modules.In the minor ones, we have an attendence of around 20-30.

    So fees are being paid for these people to go to college and then they dont turn up.The march next Wednesday in Dublin, it's a pissup basically.There are people from my class going up, and staying overnight so they can go clubbing.They're taking 2 days off college so they can drink.This is a disgrace imo.The march itself won't do anything.The government won't be swayed by it.It would have to be something like the French strikes for the Government to take notice of the country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    What's being looked at (and will be discussed with the minister) by an internal review in FF is the idea that a minimal fee be introduced for the wealthy, as well as an increase in income tax for higher earners. There will also be views expressed regarding the entirity of the whole 3rd level system as the 2 are inextricably linked, capital budgets excluded.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    College students tend not to cast ballots, so can be pretty safely ignored, politically...tokenistic politics of impotent mobilization = college politics imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Pub07 wrote: »
    That €1500 is nothing compared to what it would cost if they got rid of the Free Fees Initiative. You'd be looking at another €6000-€7000 on top of it, every year.
    Whether it would be €6k -€7k would depend

    a) on the family income
    b) on the amount of members of the family in 3rd level
    c) on the actual amount charged by each individual college/department within a university/IT

    I'd have no problem with a family with 1 child sending them to 3rd level having to pay fees if the income was €75k+

    Many pay 2nd level fees on lower incomes, so they should have to cough up too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Kama wrote: »
    College students tend not to cast ballots, so can be pretty safely ignored, politically...tokenistic politics of impotent mobilization = college politics imo.

    But its their parents who would be most directly affected, especially parents of children soon to become uni students?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    You're all forgetting what happened when the fees were there.

    Rich farmers and the self-employed who self-declared their earnings qualified for grants whereas low to middle income PAYE people who were caught in the tax net were told to eff off.

    Abolition of fees at least got rid of that rip-off.

    There's no reason to assume the same won't happen again if fees are re-introduced.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    There is because its already been said that the government won't make people earning below I think 100,000 pay fees.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 724 ✭✭✭muckety


    Its not in the Gov't interest to put obstacles up for people who could go to college, as unemployment is likely to rise steadily. I would think that strategically they should look at alternatives (such as the corporate sponsorship mentioned earlier, or what is currently being discussed as possible mergers/specialisations between the existing colleges) but keep the student charges DOWN.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    student loans are the way forward imo; make them take direct responsibility for their own education.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭Dr_Teeth


    Free fees is one of the few decent investments the Irish government have ever made. Bringing them back is utter insanity imo. This will create serious economic hardship right across the middle class.

    To those who think this government can come up with a perfect set of rules and means tests that makes everything fair and good, I say this: they will **** it up completely. The rich will find a loophole, the poor won't see any difference or won't care, and the middle class will get screwed trying to put 2-3 kids through college at the same time, when they can barely afford registration fees and accomodation as it is.

    I will not vote for a party that brings back fees while so much money is being flushed down the toilet elsewhere.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 Takenforaride


    Students, go on the marches, go for a few pints after and complain into your pint.

    Then get up off your lazy arse and Register and Vote.

    Then you can do something positive and vote the bastards out !:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭BroomBurner


    At least they're marching. They also vote too, when they can. For instance, when polls are not held on a Thursday meaning that they can't make it home then back to college without missing classes and spending money they don't have on train and bus fare.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    What about the students that support the reintroduction of fees?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭*Honey*


    I personally agree that fees should be paid by those who can afford it.. perhaps a sliding scale of contribution or something...100% if the family income is 100k, less if less for example.

    When I was 18, there was no way I could afford to go to college.. I only did in the end due to the introducion of ESF grants that year. However, I will tell you that I was mostl in the pub for 2 solid years.. not slagging it or me off, I learnt a lot in the meantime and passed my course with a distinction. About 7 years ago, I was determined to get my Degree and paid for it myself, whilst working... as some may know, there has never been anything known as free fees for part-time students so I paid for everything myself. And I worked my ass off and got a 1st class honours Degree of which I'm very proud. The difference was that, this time, I was more more inclined to do something about it because it was hitting me where it hurt, in the pocket.

    I work in 3rd level education and the amount of BMW's and even Porsche's I've seen in the student car park astounds me at times... I've been working since I was 14 and I couldn't afford a car like that, ever! So my thinking is that there are a LOT of people who certainly could afford to pay full fees... there are also some that can't and I certainly believe they shouldn't be discriminated against because of this. I believe that paying for something certainly gives a high incentive to make it work... so with a sliding scale of fee payment, dependent on family income is not a bad thing.

    Someone earlier said that they already pay fees - you don't, you pay a capitation fee... that goes nowhere near the cost of delivering your course. It maybe covers some of the administration around exams and delivering student services but that's about it. And, believe me, the college concerned will probably not see all of that 1,500 per student anyway.

    As a person who's had free fees and had to pay fees, I'd have to agree that actual payment of monies really does focus your attention on your studies - I would be inclined to agree with a sliding scale of fee payment, as long as it was pitched correctly.. with those who are honestly unable to pay, being supported in some fashion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Students, go on the marches, go for a few pints after and complain into your pint.

    Then get up off your lazy arse and Register and Vote.

    Then you can do something positive and vote the bastards out !:)
    Remember that come the next election, the government will (like they did last time and the time before) gerrymander the election time so that students will not be able to vote (if it's a choice between journeying home to vote and possibly missing a final exam, or staying put to do the exam and/or study, which would any sensible student do?)

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    SeanW wrote: »
    Remember that come the next election, the government will (like they did last time and the time before) gerrymander the election time so that students will not be able to vote (if it's a choice between journeying home to vote and possibly missing a final exam, or staying put to do the exam and/or study, which would any sensible student do?)

    Students can vote in their college's constituency, if they couldn't register to do this I'd agree that they are getting screwed over but they can exercise their vote either in their home constituency or their college constituency depending on which would suit them better.

    I have a lot more sympathy for people with very long commutes who get no such option.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Pub07


    mikemac wrote: »
    First of all there aren't that many rich farmers around, in fact there are very few full-time farmers at all. But yes are mega rich examples with connections to meat factories.
    Very few full-time farmers? I take it this is still Ireland we're talking about? There are tons of full time farmers in this country, I have alot of relatives and extended relatives who are full time farmers as have 95%+ of the country. I also know loads of full time farmers in the town where I'm originally from, and guys who will be full time farmers when they're parents die and pass on the land. As for being rich, a farmer is almost by default wealthy, you do know how much land is worth dont you? Even with the recession your average farmer is sitting on land worth a small fortune.

    Just because they mightn't have much cash in hand doesn't mean they are not rich, €€€ in land is worth the same as €€€ in cash.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    SeanW wrote: »
    (if it's a choice between journeying home to vote and possibly missing a final exam, or staying put to do the exam and/or study, which would any sensible student do?)
    A sensible student would set their voting address to where they're actually going to be or apply for a postal vote. Same as a sensible person would do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    If the middle class can afford to send their children to private secondary schools and weekly grinds, they can afford the college fees.

    If you really want to go to college, you'll find the money somewhere.

    On a connected point, the amount given to people in the form of "grants" is shocking, thousands upon thousands.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 376 ✭✭Hillel


    ninty9er wrote: »
    What's being looked at (and will be discussed with the minister) by an internal review in FF is the idea that a minimal fee be introduced for the wealthy, as well as an increase in income tax for higher earners.
    dresden8 wrote: »
    You're all forgetting what happened when the fees were there.
    Rich farmers and the self-employed who self-declared their earnings qualified for grants whereas low to middle income PAYE people who were caught in the tax net were told to eff off.
    Abolition of fees at least got rid of that rip-off.

    The grants system is still there for maintenance and the self-employed are still manipulating the system to take advantage of it. The reality is that there is no political will to change this. The problem is well known, and understood. Now ninty9er, that's what I'd like the internal FF review to look at, and "discuss with the minister". Can you help?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    i've no problem with fees - even when i was in college i was in favour of them

    but make sure that when parents pay them that they can claim tax credits if their income is below a certain level

    there are plenty of people now sending their darlings to fee paying Secondary schools and grinds schools cause Third level is free

    Make sure those getting grants are ENTITLED to them - cause half the fcukers i was in college were not entitled to them but got them anyway cause daddy was self employed or a farmer and had a good accountant

    students nowadays seem to be very well off - lots of them driving cars into college with no shortage of money, new clothes etc. fecks sake, i remember having to survive on sweet feck all once rent and food was paid for


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭lucideer


    After seeing the reports of 12,000+ students protesting I was fairly surprised. So I've been browsing around online trying to get an idea of whether this is representative of most students opinion or whether it's just a load of ignorant sheep following a few hacks in the USI.

    Not that the online opinion would be accurately representative of the majority, but most fora, including this one, seem to have a good few people advocating some form of reintroduction of fees.

    Is anyone on here aware of any kind of active movement to represent this side of student opinion publicy? (any "counter protests" or such like)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,321 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    astrofool wrote: »
    Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.

    Surely that should be up to each individual parent to decide? I know that if I have the money when my son is old enough that I wouldn't begrudge paying college fees for him so long as he took his education seriously and in fact it is something that I would motivate me to work harder and get a good salary so I could provide for him in this fashion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    astrofool wrote: »
    Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.

    Fair point, then I presume you would be against grants for those people whose parents are on low incomes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭lucideer


    astrofool wrote: »
    Someone's parents should have nothing to do with their cost of education once they are over 18.
    What exactly are you suggesting?

    Should it be illegal for parents to support their over 18 children? How many students would make it to 3rd level if that were the case?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,321 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    That we should not be discriminating against a student's ability to pay based on what their parents earn.

    Children of higher earners may find they don't have to work part time (no student should have to work at all while in college to pay the way, most courses are designed for a 40 hour+ work including lectures, assignments and study time), or that they can enjoy a better lifestyle while in college, they should not however be indebted to their parents in order to go to college, they are an adult, and at this stage, should be indebted to no one.

    Bringing back fee's, if only for high earning parents, means that child's education is at the whim of a parent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭lucideer


    Sorry astrofool, but you seem to be assuming that wealthy parents don't assist their children in any way on their path through college. The ideal of 18 year olds becoming instantaneously autonomous is nice and all, but here in the real world, parents do pay for their childrens' education if they can afford it, and if they can't (at the moment) the students either work or skip 3rd level altogether. It doesn't sound too ideal to me.

    My ideal would be not wasting money handing out freebies to those with wealthy parents to rely on, and redirecting funds to the currently grossly deficient maintenance grants system, or to revive the student assistance fund they're currently cutting lumps out of each semester. Saving students the horror of a "feeling of indebtedness" is not a worthy cause when compared to spending the same money getting more students into further education.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 219 ✭✭MrMiyagi


    Look its quiet simple.

    Everyone should have to repay the fees over time once they complete their college course and start working.

    So there should be a special graduate tax introduced where you pay back back a percentage of your fees every year until they are paid. Obviously this has to be linked to inflation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24 newby09


    MrMiyagi wrote: »
    Look its quiet simple.

    Everyone should have to repay the fees over time once they complete their college course and start working.

    So there should be a special graduate tax introduced where you pay back back a percentage of your fees every year until they are paid. Obviously this has to be linked to inflation.

    who would it apply to then? graduates from this year on or backdated to the times fees aboished. I would be more in favour of the latter.

    its not fair to make people pay fees if their parents earn over 100k - they pay more tax than lower incomes and are effectively punished for having a good job. Maybe 200k should have to pay but 100k isn't very high a threshold for families nowadays.

    those who live near university have it easier - no bills for shopping etc, accomadation. mammy and daddy to look after them and cook their meals every evening.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Fees will return. The financial problems that universities have walked themselves into demand it even if the public finances weren't so bad.

    The debate needs to be about what form the fees should take

    - student loans?
    - deferred payment with early discounts?
    - exemptions for disadvantaged?
    - graduate tax?
    - means tested and how (asset or income)?
    - level, full cost recovery for some?
    - income up front for third level institutions to take the pressure off central funding?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Godge wrote: »
    Fees will return. The financial problems that universities have walked themselves into demand it even if the public finances weren't so bad.

    The debate needs to be about what form the fees should take

    - student loans?
    - deferred payment with early discounts?
    - exemptions for disadvantaged?
    - graduate tax?
    - means tested and how (asset or income)?
    - level, full cost recovery for some?
    - income up front for third level institutions to take the pressure off central funding?

    Any tax they introduce has to go straight to the "awarding" institution rather than a general fund. Part of what's needed is for colleges to be able to invest and then reap the rewards of that investment (i.e. if tie funding to future wages of graduates then you give an excellent incentive for universities to produce as marketable and talented graduates that it can).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭lucideer


    newby09 wrote: »
    are effectively punished for having a good job.
    This is about as far right as a you can get, and while you're entirely entitled to your views I doubt there's really a huge number of Sarah Palin fans in this country. If there are, I doubt it's because of her "Joe the Plumber" politics.
    newby09 wrote: »
    100k isn't very high a threshold for families nowadays.
    And that's just ignorant. 17% of the population were on under €12,000 in '07.
    Godge wrote: »
    The debate needs to be about what form the fees should take
    Exactly, and the direct action should be taking this to the government and public, not silly demands for a utopian society where funding is infinite. Personally I'd say means tested by some manner of accounting for both asset and income.
    nesf wrote: »
    if tie funding to future wages of graduates then you give an excellent incentive for universities to produce as marketable and talented graduates that it can
    As sensible as this does at first sound, I would be wary of putting excess emphasis on the money making ability of a 3rd level degree. I'm an engineering student myself, and even I am concerned at the effect of corporate funding on the direction of the degree. I'd hate to think of the effect a system like this would have on subjects such as philosophy. On the other hand, it's nowhere near as bad an idea as direct corporate sponsorship to pay for free-fees, as some are suggesting elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    newby09 wrote: »
    its not fair to make people pay fees if their parents earn over 100k - they pay more tax than lower incomes and are effectively punished for having a good job. Maybe 200k should have to pay but 100k isn't very high a threshold for families nowadays.

    How many families are on over 200k?

    There's a reason that pay cuts aren't being put only only the very-high earners - there's not enough of them. Unless you suggest charging them 100k to make up for all the other families


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    nesf wrote: »
    Any tax they introduce has to go straight to the "awarding" institution rather than a general fund. Part of what's needed is for colleges to be able to invest and then reap the rewards of that investment (i.e. if tie funding to future wages of graduates then you give an excellent incentive for universities to produce as marketable and talented graduates that it can).

    Heaven forbid that people go to University to learn....

    Bye bye arts, classics, languages, hello business courses.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    lucideer wrote: »
    As sensible as this does at first sound, I would be wary of putting excess emphasis on the money making ability of a 3rd level degree. I'm an engineering student myself, and even I am concerned at the effect of corporate funding on the direction of the degree. I'd hate to think of the effect a system like this would have on subjects such as philosophy. On the other hand, it's nowhere near as bad an idea as direct corporate sponsorship to pay for free-fees, as some are suggesting elsewhere.

    Philosophy classes are small anyway, I know because I was in one, I'm not sure if this would change things much in that regard. Already funding is tied to number of students (for undergraduate) and anyone who is in college would tell you that the numbers for things like Classics and Philosophy are small compared other more marketable courses.

    Heaven forbid that people go to University to learn....

    Bye bye arts, classics, languages, hello business courses.

    I don't think you would see that, you'd just see smaller departments for things like Philosophy which has already happened. Languages are very different to Classics since, bluntly it's quite marketable to have such a degree be it for teaching or business. This of course comes down to why we want to fund third level study in the first place and (regrettably) it isn't so everyone can study Philosophy and Classics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    nesf wrote: »

    I don't think you would see that, you'd just see smaller departments for things like Philosophy which has already happened. Languages are very different to Classics since, bluntly it's quite marketable to have such a degree be it for teaching or business. This of course comes down to why we want to fund third level study in the first place and (regrettably) it isn't so everyone can study Philosophy and Classics.

    The day we solely judge our third level institutions on what graduates earn is the day the barbarians are truely at the gates.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    The day we solely judge our third level institutions on what graduates earn is the day the barbarians are truely at the gates.

    Sure but we're talking about funding not judgement here. The funding from the business courses can subsidise the lack of funding from other courses etc. As it is, we "judge" our third level institutions by how many students they have in the class, this is how funding is granted to departments.

    Are you saying that this is a better way to do it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭lucideer


    nesf wrote: »
    As it is, we "judge" our third level institutions by how many students they have in the class

    As it is we "judge" our third level institutions on how many graduates get "immediate employment in their field of study" - this generates "reputation" at least which leads to more students and more corporate funding of research (where colleges recoup much of their losses from underfunding and administrative mismanagement). This is already I believe career-centric enough without further focus on the earnings of the same "employment in their field of study".

    You also mentioned the dwindling numbers studying non-career centric disciplines. This would be their death knoll.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    lucideer wrote: »
    As it is we "judge" our third level institutions on how many graduates get "immediate employment in their field of study" - this generates "reputation" at least which leads to more students and more corporate funding of research (where colleges recoup much of their losses from underfunding and administrative mismanagement). This is already I believe career-centric enough without further focus on the earnings of the same "employment in their field of study".

    You also mentioned the dwindling numbers studying non-career centric disciplines. This would be their death knoll.

    I don't disagree but our present funding system specifically rewards quantity over quality of graduates. A department that grants degrees to 50 idiots will get more money than a department who grants degrees to 10 exceptional students so the incentive is for departments to dumb down courses and pass as many people as possible. Philosophy in UCC for instance is a small course precisely because they've maintained a high academic standard and the initial class of 150ish in First Year Arts is down to about 15 in Second Year because a) the material is tough and b) the exams are tough. They get screwed over for maintaining a high standard though by getting less funding.

    I don't necessarily think that a tax on future earnings is the best option by the way, my original point was that funding should go back to the awarding institution for each student rather than a central fund.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Im not pushed as long as the grant system is overhauled and easier to apply for. Its a bloody disastor. A lot of students dont trust the government to bring in a fair solution so that people who actually have the money to pay fees easily will and those on lower bracket will be better assisted.

    At present the government savings are not hitting the high earners enough so whats to stop them doing the same with the fees?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 845 ✭✭✭nhughes100


    Fees have to come back in, like another Poster I work in 3rd level and the amount of cars & new laptops that students have is unbelieveable. A lot of them will freely admit to using a year or two in college while they wait for the army, gardai or other emergancy service. That or they're on a waiting list for something else. Attendance is shocking. Most of your "registration" fee goes to providing services such as the students union, clubs+socs and subsidising printing/photocopying/library books.

    I don't believe in flat fees for all but everyone should make a contribution once they hit a certain salary. Like a lot of students in the early 90's I had nothing in college, got 60quid a month as a grant and probably went to about 2 socials a year and didn't get a crappy car till I was 3 years in the workforce. It'll teach todays students the value of earning something. Colleges don't run on fresh air, if real fees came in, ie to come close to the actual cost of running the college I'd hazard a guess would be around 10-15k a year.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement