Anyone PRO-fees?

20somethings

I really hate the fact that our SU and student population in general frown upon those who are pro-fees.

Is this the same SU who protests cutbacks like that Acting course?

No fees, no cutbacks? Can't have both....

Is there any group in TCD for Pro-Fees students? I don't want to be misrepresented by the barrage of smelly pseudo left wing students at the next protest.

20somethings

To add to this there's some protest going down Nassau street right now. What is it for? Seriously, gay. Enjoy the snow.

neonic75

is it lonely all the way up there on your pedestal?

godtabh

20somethings wrote: »

To add to this there's some protest going down Nassau street right now. What is it for? Seriously, gay. Enjoy the snow.

Taxis

devinejay

I'm kinda with you on this one. While I wouldn't say I'm pro fees, I just think that they're inevitable. The colleges are choked for funding and the government can't afford to give any more. People go on about what we need is education and the development of an educated workforce to bring us out of this slump but they don't realise that while fees suck for those not able to afford them, if we leave things the way they are the third level education standards will stagnate and Ireland will fall behind in the coveted educated workforce stakes. We are losing the battle of quality over quantity of degrees and it needs to be rectified.

Also it needn't be the end of the world for the everyman's education, if the government cuts it's funding for college fees by 50%, say, that's a huge benefit for them and there's no reason they couldn't use the remaining 50% to implement an effective scholarship scheme.

So basically in protest to everyone's automatic and generally knee-jerk style "no fees" stance, I'm not going to the protest. Anyone protest? Then head on over to the protest.:rolleyes:

PurpleFistMixer

Aye there's a fair few pro-fees people knocking about. Maybe you should start some right-wing society with which to express your views? Or join the young Fianna Fáil? ;p

devinejay

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Aye there's a fair few pro-fees people knocking about. Maybe you should start some right-wing society with which to express your views? Or join the young Fianna Fáil? ;p

Heh, I just had the image of the republican party in the simpsons flash into my head. I giggled in the library, but it's cool cause the sign says there's only fines for having your phone on. In the clear.:o

dan719

I'm pro fees. They are an economic necessity and also mean that students will more fully weigh up costs and benefits of going to college.

In terms of the SU, their stance on fees is simply unsustainable, by refusing to 'come to the table' they miss out on a chance to help design a fair fees system incorporating scholarships etc.

P.S Being pro fees doesn't necassarily imply that one is right wing!

JackKelly

I'm not pro fees, but I don't understand how people think that having the government pay for education is a right. Third level education is a privilege, and I can only imagine how much money is lost every year by students having a blaze attitude toward college, and leaving after half a year.
That said, I think a good go-between needs to be formed, maybe like the Australian system where students pay back the loan once they get a job earning X amount per year.

PurpleFistMixer

TimAy wrote: »

I'm not pro fees, but I don't understand how people think that having the government pay for education is a right.

It's an ideological thing. Somewhat like thinking free health care is a right, and whatnot.

smcfunnyface

I'd be pro-fee's for those that can well afford to pay, I believe thats the position of the government on this one? Coming from a working class background I was taken aback in first year at the amount of people in my class who had come thorough private schools, surely if thats an option for families then paying third level fees would be too? It may level out the playing field a little if it meant private secondary education wasn't as affordable when the less well off are no longer subsidising your kids education. It is a little unfair when you have people in less privileged areas with a very low level of third level participation paying for the people in well off areas to go to college, when their own kids have a low chance of making it there themselves. This may be a vast over simplification but really whats wrong with asking high earners to pay their own way, lets face it the money could be much better spent elsewhere like the public school system, revolutionary I know, just throwin it out there.

Kwekubo

How did the SU come to its current stance on fees (ie, complete opposition to any change to the status quo)? Was there a referendum?

tomcollins97

I wouldn’t be against fees. I suppose it is just something people will have to think about when they are deciding how many kids to have – can they afford them? If fees are set at, for example, 3.5k for 4 years it would mean parents putting away €775 a year from 0-18. It may mean holidays or other luxury’s may have to be sacrificed but that is what it is to be a parent!

devinejay

How did the SU come to its current stance on fees (ie, complete opposition to any change to the status quo)? Was there a referendum?

It seems to me like they are just choosing the popular front. Fees are bad pretty much sums up their argument, or at least what I have heard of it. We get ridiculed for being pro-fees, dubbed Fiana Fáil-ers. The SU's apparent popularity based (vote-mongering?) tactics go unscathed? It doesn't seem right to me.

I would be pro fees on condition that there exists the facility for those who are unable to afford them to get funding.

Something along the lines of long term, low interest loans conditional on employment or fees paid back through a scaled tax system.

One advantage of the US system is that there is more of culture of philanthropy and there exists a large pool of alumni who are willing to partially fund students in the system. I was talking to a person who was in fees office of Boston College and she mentioned how over 60% of students got funding of some description. However, we don't have the same levels of philanthropy here (although we quite generous as EU nations go) and nor do we have the same tax benefits for people who donate to charities as they do in the states.

To sum up, I would support an introduction of fees providing a worked out system of funding was available.

Jonathan

I dont know how the SU thinks it is fair for our fees to be paid for by national debt.

Prof.Badass

The biggest mistake people are making is assuming that parents will pay. Why should it be based on your parents income??? most people seem to aggree you'll pay it off on a loan. so basically you get punished because your PARENTS have money and still have to pay off all the money yourself. hardly seems fair if you ask me.

If you want fees re-introduced, fair enough. If you don't that's also fine. What isn't fine is these idiots saying "only people with a certain amount of money should pay". This is completly unfair and goes against the principles of democracy.

If i was a well off parent (and we're not talking rich here) whose hard-earned money is paying for a service for other peoples children, then my own children are entitled to avail of this service, seeing as i am paying way more towards this service than the other parents. This only seems fair.

A half-assed approach to fees is nothing short of discrimination.


btw, personally i'm against fees. However i recognise that there may come a stage when free 3rd level is no longer feasible. However, before free 3rd level is abolished there's fúck-loads of other less important stuff that should to go first.

EGaffney

@OP: Yeah, absolutely. Since Ireland has one of the top 5 highest participation rates in third level in the OECD, and also the highest rate of private financial return to third level education in the OECD (14% - better than any financial asset at the moment), it's shocking that students pay next to nothing to get their education, which they then profit greatly out of.

lucernarian

Nicely said Vinylmesh.

The last time I checked, I thought the idea of a meritocracy was one society held highly. Whatever happens, fees should not go down the road of further penalising the people who have parents earning over 50k or whatever the income band for half-fees is currently. Not all of those people went to private schooling;)

I can understand the idea of the disadvantaged being assisted so that they have the chance of benefiting from 3rd level education (the local authority grants etc). But once everyone can sustain themselves somewhat while in college, why should someone's background then mean they owe the state more or less for being there in the first place?? Certainly, if fees were to be paid after the degree (Graduate tax, govt-to-student loans etc) then there is absolutely no reason why your parent's bloody income should be considered.

I think the arguments for fees are being lost in a sea of "class struggle" and victimisation against silly suggestions to fix the problems for funding colleges. If education is to be seen as the investment that it is, it's worthwhile to fund it through credit, from both the students' and Govt. point of view. I apologise if this sounds kinda vague, I'm too tired to elaborate currently!

smcfunnyface

I think the idea is to encourage participation, children of the well off will get an education regardless, other will be even less likely if they'll be saddled with depth. The pay back to society is communities becoming less isolated, having more control over their future ad so more likely to participate in a constructive way. One child heading to college can show the alternative choices to people around them making them more likely to consider further education. I believe this is what the government is proposing anyway? Isn't it how its supposed to work the well off help out the weaker members so they in turn can contribute. From what I've seen so far the talk has been about a cut-off income band for free-fees rather than a loans system people have been suggesting, although I can see the benefits of this it doesn't see to be whats on the cards, or can someone correct me on this? It isn't a call to class warfare or anything just the reality of the situation.

Cantab.

vinylmesh wrote: »

...
nothing short of discrimination.
...

Would you ever cop yourself on.

Jonathan

To be honest, i dont think many realise the seriousness of the the situation we are in..

Have a read here...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055463133

fiveone

Problem could be solved if the rich paid more tax.

God forbid.

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

Problem could be solved if the rich paid more tax.

God forbid.

Oh the fallacy of the infinite funds of the rich. No, the problem isn't that easily solved.

For what it's worth, I'd greatly support a significantly higher tax for the well-off. (Incidentally, so do most economists.) But the scale of the problem is so large that higher taxes on the wealthy just won't be enough.

Besides, we live in a republic and our votes aren't socialist. It's really quite undemocratic to assert that the problem should be fixed in the manner you propose. And of course by undemocratic, I mean unsustainable - the electorate will simply vote for whoever offers lower taxes next time round.

neonic75

Sorry to be the voice of reason here on this one but in the current climate it is more important now than ever before to ensure free education. Ireland just cannot compete on the global market the way it used to. Our labour is not cheap and or workforce while skilled is not highley educated. Now more than ever before we need to ensure that our workforce is highly educated in order to attract high tech induustry. Take dell Vs. Intel. Dell left and intel stayed. Dell Left because looking at the figures they could output the same product in poland with a substantial saving. Dell (incase you have your head under a rock) manufactures computers. Intel on the other hand develops chips, motherboards and processors. This is the sort of industy we need to attract but in order to do this we need the highly skilled highly educated workforce so tha industry simple cannot find staff abroad. Keep 3rd level fees's out of Ireland! (unless of course your doing a meaningless course like arts)

EGaffney

Check the post above. The problem isn't some vague notion of competitiveness. The problem is that the country has no money, right now, and we need it.

The bigotry shown by some respondents here against arts subjects betrays their selfish, rather than moral, analysis of the issue of fees; I'm going to assume that they study something like computer science (a field where jobs are easily transferable to India BTW).

neonic75

ok fair enough. I'll retract the comment about the art students but I will not retract the statment about remaining in a society with free education. I am well aware that the country needs money but removing grants for fees simply removes the investment in future generations. I wouldnt have been able to attend college without free fee's even though I may have come in above the threshold. And I know alot of people in the same boat.

neonic75

neonic75 wrote: »

ok fair enough. I'll retract the comment about the art students but I will not retract the statment about remaining in a society with free education. I am well aware that the country needs money but removing grants for fees simply removes the investment in future generations. I wouldnt have been able to attend college without free fee's even though I may have come in above the threshold. And I know alot of people in the same boat.

No, it remove Government investment in education.
A proper credit system would see private credit take its place, which means that everyone is better off as it reduce the burdern of a government trying to pay off a 20bn euro annual deficit.

Also, (not directed at person I am quoting) please don't confuse the issue of the grant and fees. The grant is meant to support a person during their college time, to make sure that they can afford to attend college. Fees are another matter and if grant money is transferred to fee payment, that is a very bad situation as then you are reducing the ability of people to attend college.

Time Magazine

neonic75 wrote: »

I am well aware that the country needs money but removing grants for fees simply removes the investment in future generations.

Okay.

We have a budget deficit of €16,000 per household facing us. What do you suggest we cut?

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

Oh the fallacy of the infinite funds of the rich. No, the problem isn't that easily solved.

For what it's worth, I'd greatly support a significantly higher tax for the well-off. (Incidentally, so do most economists.) But the scale of the problem is so large that higher taxes on the wealthy just won't be enough.

Besides, we live in a republic and our votes aren't socialist. It's really quite undemocratic to assert that the problem should be fixed in the manner you propose. And of course by undemocratic, I mean unsustainable - the electorate will simply vote for whoever offers lower taxes next time round.

No, but we're in this situation because of deregulation. Taxes won't solve the problem now, but it would have.

Frankly, since the electorate are too greedy and short sighted to have a couple of per-cent shaved off their income, especially the rich, they deserve everything they get for the next couple of years.

And students shouldn't have to bear the brunt of this.

edit: not that half of them are even aware of the economic policy of the party they're voting for.

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote: »

No, but we're in this situation because of deregulation. Taxes won't solve the problem now, but it would have.

You're just wrong here. Deregulation of what? European monetary union? The housing sector? The US financial system? With its history of bailouts, government agencies and intervention?

Blaming deregulation isn't simply idiotically naive, it's just wrong. Bubbles occur in highly-regulated industries as well as those where there are none. They occur regularly and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

Blaming deregulation is..... just, no.

Frankly, since the electorate are too greedy and short sighted to have a couple of per-cent shaved off their income, especially the rich, they deserve everything they get for the next couple of years.

Do you really think "a couple of per-cent" will do it?

And students shouldn't have to bear the brunt of this.

There's "should" and there's "what we can afford". Seriously, who do you suggest takes the fall? I'll need 19 billion suggestions.

edit: not that half of them are even aware of the economic policy of the party they're voting for.

If you think a 2% increase in the higher tax-band will do anything for this deficit, you are not one to talk about being aware of economic policies.