Anyone PRO-fees?

Prof.Badass

The Economist wrote: »

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

sorry to be such a pedant but each suggestion would yield more than €1. And another thing, who says we need an evenly balanced budget?

1. Rise in income tax (particularly the higher tax band)
2. Serious public sector reforms.
3.serious reduction in the pay/expenditure of politicians and state representatives.
4.Cancellation of metro north and all non-essential development projects.
5.Removal of state funding from private schools.

This is only a short list coz i'm lazy and have a life to live, I could easily make it far longer given the time.

there's loads of places where spending can be cut that have a lesser priority than 3rd level education.

-EDIT.

sensationalism much? metro north is set to cost €5b alone. how much does free 3rd level cost?

€2b! that's how much.

Fuck all when you consider the grand scheme of things.


hmmmmm...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

fiveone

The Economist wrote: »

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.

Your condescension is really charming, wipe that spittle off your suit there chap. Intervention in the US was done merely to counteract a market that has now clearly spiralled out of control, which we're only beginning to see the consequences of. "Bailouts" are merely necessary steps undertaken when the **** hits the fan. This is not regulation of industry, but rather a lubrication of deregulatised institutions.

Bubbles might occur in highly-regulated industries, but I'll wager they're not nearly as severe as ours. The Irish property bubble was clearly exacerbated by fianna fail's policies, and our very dependancy on it highlights a clear short sightedness. Of course, the Irish government has no real power in terms of what it can and can't do in terms of regulation given its dependance on global markets, but shunning a common EU taxation policy was yet another act of stupidity and greed when a global regulation system is precisely what's needed.

The Economist wrote: »

Do you really think "a couple of per-cent" will do it?
There's "should" and there's "what we can afford". Seriously, who do you suggest takes the fall? I'll need 19 billion suggestions.
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.

A higher tax rate would have prevented exorbitant spending, its not merely monetary. Two per cent is what it comes down to in elections, but actually I never mentioned the figure "two," I would be thinking more like ten, as well as higher property taxation for second homes etc.

It's about the difference between "want" and "need." The people who take the fall should be the people who caused it - the people with power and money in financial institutions, of whose scandals we hear more of every day.

If you're looking to me for solutions, I don't have any, but then I didn't cause this. People like you did: people who think they can simply remove the human element from economic calculations. Bubbles cannot be avoided, but they can be controlled to a greater extent, and furthermore they can be averted. Economists in fact predicted this situation in Ireland years ago.

Asking students to pay fees will only lead to more fees, and if the government needs money they should collectively bite the bullet and ask for higher taxes instead of implementing localised stealth taxes like these.

Now take a deep breath and count to ten before you reply.

Jonathan

Simple fact is that the government cannot afford to pay your fees.

To be honest it doesn't matter what you think anyways.. You are all paying fees in one form or another whether you like it or not.

Personally i'd prefer to get a loan now and pay back a loan myself, rather than my future tax revenue paying off my fees plus the accumulated interest on the national debt.

What about you? Are you happy to sit back and watch Ireland's sovereign debt rating be devalued?

EGaffney

Yeah. Add to that analysis that many of the students who the anti-fees crowd are crowing on about - the "creators of future prosperity" and all that - will be gone to better countries the minute they get their degrees in their hands. Further reducing the tax base from which we can obtain that revenue.

lydonst wrote:

Your condescension is really charming, wipe that spittle off your suit there chap. Intervention in the US was done merely to counteract a market that has now clearly spiralled out of control, which we're only beginning to see the consequences of. "Bailouts" are merely necessary steps undertaken when the **** hits the fan. This is not regulation of industry, but rather a lubrication of deregulatised institutions.

Bubbles might occur in highly-regulated industries, but I'll wager they're not nearly as severe as ours. The Irish property bubble was clearly exacerbated by fianna fail's policies, and our very dependancy on it highlights a clear short sightedness. Of course, the Irish government has no real power in terms of what it can and can't do in terms of regulation given its dependance on global markets, but shunning a common EU taxation policy was yet another act of stupidity and greed when a global regulation system is precisely what's needed.

That's still very naive. Identify a regulation, please, that would have prevented everything that has happened so far in the financial markets. A policy that exascerbated the property bubble would be nice also. Common EU taxation would wipe out our one largest advantage as a relatively disadvantage island nation in the EU, but what does that matter if it offend leftist dogma, I suppose.

A higher tax rate would have prevented exorbitant spending, its not merely monetary. Two per cent is what it comes down to in elections, but actually I never mentioned the figure "two," I would be thinking more like ten, as well as higher property taxation for second homes etc.

Show the room how "exorbitant spending" caused the crisis. Do you mean cheap credit, maybe? Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with tax rates.

It's about the difference between "want" and "need." The people who take the fall should be the people who caused it - the people with power and money in financial institutions, of whose scandals we hear more of every day.

The individuals have already lost millions in net worth. Problematically, the institutions are difficult to punish without sending the whole system under. Only the most dogmatic libertarian or revolutionary socialist would welcome the destruction of many banks at this stage.

If you're looking to me for solutions, I don't have any, but then I didn't cause this. People like you did: people who think they can simply remove the human element from economic calculations. Bubbles cannot be avoided, but they can be controlled to a greater extent, and furthermore they can be averted. Economists in fact predicted this situation in Ireland years ago.

You are clearly not aware what economics is. It is about people. Do read up on mainstream views of economics before responding (i.e. not internet leftist views).

Asking students to pay fees will only lead to more fees, and if the government needs money they should collectively bite the bullet and ask for higher taxes instead of implementing localised stealth taxes like these.

So it doesn't matter what the rest of the country has to suffer through as long as a few mostly middle-class young people get to drink themselves silly every weekend, because they don't have to bear the real cost of their education, a huge financial benefit to them, which shall be paid for by PAYE workers.

snappieT

I really don't believe in free fees, and I believe that the taxes to pay for said free fees need to be reduced. Sure I'm getting my free education, but how many people are doing "English Lit & Psycology" from my parent's taxes?

I'd be fine with the government providing education with no upfront cost, then charging a tax supplement on the students that benefited until they pay the cost off. Those that benefit from education will pay it off, and neither Joe Millionaire, nor Mr. 20k a year will have to fund them.

Pay yourself through.

tolosenc

vinylmesh wrote: »

1. Rise in income tax (particularly the higher tax band)

How about a dramatic cut in taxes at all levels so that 3rd level education can be more affordable?

vinylmesh wrote: »

2. Serious public sector reforms.
3.serious reduction in the pay/expenditure of politicians and state representatives.
...
5.Removal of state funding from private schools.

Here, here

vinylmesh wrote: »

there's loads of places where spending can be cut that have a lesser priority than 3rd level education.

Like primary schools, hospitals, public transport.

How exactly is the Metro North non-essential? That's off topic, go there at your own risk...

vinylmesh wrote: »

Fuck all when you consider the grand scheme of things.

But the amount that government SHOULD be paying is more in the region of 7bn euros. I mean, there has been absolutely zero increase in the sum universities receive since the intrduction of the fees-remission scheme. 10 years of boom-time inflation and not 2 cents more? That's a joke.


EDIT: I will only support a fees system which treats everyone equally, no seperate treatment for rich and poor. It must also be that fees are completely untaxed, with all the desperately needed money going directly to the college.

My point about treating everyone equally is this (assuming it is people's parents paying for them) - My dad took out a loan and worked 4/5 nights a week when studying as well as 2 jobs during the summer to afford college. He then left college and headed into the private sector where he worked his ass off from the bottom right up to where he is today. He had a stress induced heart-attack a few years ago, but is now in a slow paced managerial position at an investment firm, earning 6 figures. Why should he be expected to fork out for my education, when someone who left school at 14 and has drawn the dole ever since isn't expected to pay a penny? Penalising the hard-working, money-concious members of society in favour of those more lazy and less frugal is beyond a joke.

fiveone

EGaffney wrote: »

That's still very naive. Identify a regulation, please, that would have prevented everything that has happened so far in the financial markets. A policy that exascerbated the property bubble would be nice also. Common EU taxation would wipe out our one largest advantage as a relatively disadvantage island nation in the EU, but what does that matter if it offend leftist dogma, I suppose.

Stricter criteria for mortgage loans, and limiting the profit motive of financial institutions. Common EU taxation would be a step towards this. As it stands, a globalised market is practically impossible to regulate, hence it forcing our tax rate (and minimum wage) down.

How good is our advantage now, might I ask? Is it appropriate to mention Iceland here?

Likewise, its not so much what Fianna Fail did but didn't do with regard to the housing market - this applies to adequately limiting the number of houses built, implementing stricter planning permission with regard to housing quality, location, and infrastructure. Cut your crap about dogma. That's a nasty little rhetorical habit you guys seem to have. Debate much?

EGaffney wrote: »

Show the room how "exorbitant spending" caused the crisis. Do you mean cheap credit, maybe? Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with tax rates.

Spending beyond means, on credit. I think that's fairly obvious. Lower tax rates encourage people to spend more, and furthermore add fuel to the competetive market of financial institutions which are compelled to issue dodgy loans.

EGaffney wrote: »

The individuals have already lost millions in net worth. Problematically, the institutions are difficult to punish without sending the whole system under. Only the most dogmatic libertarian or revolutionary socialist would welcome the destruction of many banks at this stage.

You are clearly not aware what economics is. It is about people. Do read up on mainstream views of economics before responding (i.e. not internet leftist views).

Individuals need to be punished, institutions need to be regulated. Who mentioned destruction? Surely you're not stooping to misrepresent what I said? Oh ok, I see you jumped to your own conclusion.

EGaffney wrote: »

So it doesn't matter what the rest of the country has to suffer through as long as a few mostly middle-class young people get to drink themselves silly every weekend, because they don't have to bear the real cost of their education, a huge financial benefit to them, which shall be paid for by PAYE workers.

Perhaps college should be tougher on miscreants, I grant you. Education should probably be merit based, but in order for that to happen fairly you need public access to secondary education, which private schools undermine. Anyway, not every student behaves like that, and in fact I know far more working people who plaster themselves with drink every weekend. But lets not start stereotyping...

Jonathan

lydonst wrote: »

Stricter criteria for mortgage loans, and limiting the profit motive of financial institutions. Common EU taxation would be a step towards this. As it stands, a globalised market is practically impossible to regulate, hence it forcing our tax rate (and minimum wage) down.

Gotcha.... increase the rate of corporation tax to the EU levels on an small overpriced island such as Ireland.


Good one.

EGaffney

I really couldn't care less about making personal insults, but there is some seriously incorrect economics going on here.

lydonst wrote:

Stricter criteria for mortgage loans, and limiting the profit motive of financial institutions. Common EU taxation would be a step towards this. As it stands, a globalised market is practically impossible to regulate, hence it forcing our tax rate (and minimum wage) down.

That's very vague. Would you have lent money to a Dell employee if you were a bank? I certainly would have, but that looks foolish now. That would have been prudent in the United States, where the governments encouraged racial lending policies, but it's got little to do with Ireland. Without the profit motive, who will want to sustain their existence? Competitive tax rates are good because government regulation tends to mess things up on a more sustained basis than markets do.

How good is our advantage now, might I ask? Is it appropriate to mention Iceland here?

Yes, it is. Without huge public sector cutbacks, the international markets will have as much confidence in us as they do in Iceland. Good if you're a Green-Left type, but bad for everyone else.

Likewise, its not so much what Fianna Fail did but didn't do with regard to the housing market - this applies to adequately limiting the number of houses built, implementing stricter planning permission with regard to housing quality, location, and infrastructure.

It would not have been politically feasible to limit housing construction without significant problems among our growing population. We also have a low housing stock compared to the rest of the EU, which is surprising, but not if you bear in mind the low levels of investment due to poverty after independence. So it's not evident that there is an over-supply problem in the market, but there is a certainly problem of frustrated demand (i.e. credit crunch).

Spending beyond means, on credit. I think that's fairly obvious. Lower tax rates encourage people to spend more, and furthermore add fuel to the competetive market of financial institutions which are compelled to issue dodgy loans.

The major problems with credit are to do with construction/housing/mortgages, so increased tax rates wouldn't have changed that all that much. The last part, about fuel and markets and all that, doesn't make sense.

Individuals need to be punished, institutions need to be regulated. Who mentioned destruction? Surely you're not stooping to misrepresent what I said? Oh ok, I see you jumped to your own conclusion.

Destruction was the alternative to the bailout. e.g. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, because financial institutions could not have survived without very generous terms.

Perhaps college should be tougher on miscreants, I grant you. Education should probably be merit based, but in order for that to happen fairly you need public access to secondary education, which private schools undermine. Anyway, not every student behaves like that, and in fact I know far more working people who plaster themselves with drink every weekend. But lets not start stereotyping...

The problem starts at primary level, where lots of the kids don't learn to read properly, and where much of the time nowadays in particular is spent on teaching English as a foreign language to some of the kids. Access to third-level education, which is realistically unnecessary for most people, ought to be based on a free agreement between the student and the institution.

shay_562

snappieT wrote: »

Sure I'm getting my free education, but how many people are doing "English Lit & Psycology" from my parent's taxes?

You (and others) keep saying this and it keeps pissing me off. Why, if you use your CS degree to go and programme video games, are you contributing any more to society than an English Lit & Psychology student who chooses to get an ICAI qualification (most accounting firms *love* psychology students, who tend to be smart, competitive and analytical) and then use that knowledge and experience to work in the Dept. of Finace in some socially 'useful' capacity? Why do you think it's valid for you to criticise everyone who does an arts subject in such a blanket way even though there's no guarantee that people who do science or computer-based subject won't end up working in Xtra Vision? Pull your head out of your ass, stop assuming that you and your classmates are in some way better contributors to society and less undeserving of free education than arts students, and stop making snide, bitchy little asides about people that you don't think are as good as you.

4Xcut

smcfunnyface wrote: »

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.

Consider 2 families. One high earning and one low earning. Your stance, as far as I read, is that the students from the high earning family should pay for third level education, as they have more money and can afford it. However, the higher earning family already pay higher tax. Assuming that the tax system is designed to be fair(not getting into the debate on tax), the higher earners are already contributing more to the exchequer than the lower earners. In fact depending on the difference in earnings, the higher earners could be paying for the lower earners education as well.

I just think that if the tax system is supposedly fair, then education should be free for everyone or not free for everyone, but not some free and some pay. If it's some free and some not free, then it's a blatant admission that the tax system is inequitable. If this is the case, then this should be being addressed at the moment too.

lilmizzme

I'm kinda of on the fence here, I'm pro-fees as long as when the fees are brought in, conditions come with it. I agree that those that can afford it should pay for college, while those that can't afford it should be offered grants, loans etc. I can't understand how the students that have gone to private fee paying secondary schools can stand outside and protest fees for college. It was my parents tax paying money that paid for the teachers in those secondary schools, and it was those schools that made it harder for me to get a place in my course by pushing up the points. Why all of a sudden, is it so wrong to keep paying for an education, if they've been doing ok for the last 6 years?
Also, I'm not having a go at high earning families, they've worked hard to get there and I can appreciate that, they deserve what they have. But I simply belive if they can afford it, they should pay for it.

And also, snappieT, get off your high horse and stop being such a snob...arts students can contribute just as much to society as a CS student can...chances are you'll go abroad and work anyways, thereby contributing nothing. Also, arts degrees offer a fairly unlimited career choice, so your English Lit and Psychology student could end up being a lawyer, child psychologist, teacher, lecturer, social worker, journalist....are they all useless to society and the economy?

neonic75

shay_562 wrote: »

Why do you think it's valid for you to criticise everyone who does an arts subject in such a blanket way even though there's no guarantee that people who do science or computer-based subject won't end up working in Xtra Vision?

Because of the beautiful reaction we get each and every time

j1smithy

Of course fees should be reintroduced. It will help keep the riff-raff out.

fiveone

EGaffney wrote: »

Would you have lent money to a Dell employee if you were a bank? I certainly would have, but that looks foolish now. That would have been prudent in the United States, where the governments encouraged racial lending policies, but it's got little to do with Ireland. Without the profit motive, who will want to sustain their existence? Competitive tax rates are good because government regulation tends to mess things up on a more sustained basis than markets do.

Dell isn't an appropriate example, there were clearly more extreme cases in the US where the banking sector is more competetive. Governments would want to sustain their existence not only in the interests of the people but also with a regulated and relaxed profit motive. Less competition means less risks are taken on dodgy loans.

EGaffney wrote: »

The major problems with credit are to do with construction/housing/mortgages, so increased tax rates wouldn't have changed that all that much. The last part, about fuel and markets and all that, doesn't make sense.

Regulation falls under taxation, but not exclusively so. No, it wouldn't make sense if you read "fuel" literally - in a competetive market, of course banks are going to take more risks than is wise or necessary. If you limit this market influence, or even regulate the banks completely, this dangerous market influence largely dissapears, or can at least be controlled far more effectively.

EGaffney wrote: »

Destruction was the alternative to the bailout. e.g. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, because financial institutions could not have survived without very generous terms.

Yes, but bailout should have meant nationalisation.

EGaffney wrote: »

It would not have been politically feasible to limit housing construction without significant problems among our growing population. We also have a low housing stock compared to the rest of the EU, which is surprising, but not if you bear in mind the low levels of investment due to poverty after independence. So it's not evident that there is an over-supply problem in the market, but there is a certainly problem of frustrated demand (i.e. credit crunch).

This argument is a mask for unwillingness to interfere in the market. The problem of high demand is anecdotally untrue just by looking at the amount of empty housing constructions around Ireland, and this is not just because people simply cannot afford them: the property boom did not stem for the government's concern for the population at large, but rather the large amount of money that lay in property development, which led to supply now exceding demand. This is further shown by the total lack of regulation in housing standards, infrastrucure, and lack of adequate taxation for second homes. Whatever problems that may have stemmed from "over population" are in any case totally and utterly exacerbated now, and therefore this policy was a failure in terms of social benefit (which is what you're arguing, here at least).

20somethings

The head of the USI said that fees shouldn't be brought back because Waterford Crystal and Dell employees need to re-train themselves.

HMMMMMMM, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO PAY FEES ANYWAY!?

TheAmateur

20somethings wrote: »

The head of the USI said that fees shouldn't be brought back because Waterford Crystal and Dell employees need to re-train themselves.

HMMMMMMM, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO PAY FEES ANYWAY!?

not if it's their first degree.

snappieT

shay_562 wrote: »

You (and others) keep saying this and it keeps pissing me off. Why, if you use your CS degree to go and programme video games, are you contributing any more to society than an English Lit & Psychology student who chooses to get an ICAI qualification (most accounting firms *love* psychology students, who tend to be smart, competitive and analytical) and then use that knowledge and experience to work in the Dept. of Finace in some socially 'useful' capacity?

I'm not applying more worth to a CS degree, I just happen to think English Lit & Psychology doesn't have much relevance in today's society. I understand that it means you were smart enough and have a sufficiently analytical mind to get through college, but the same goes for any course, you might as well have a usable skill at the end of it, as engineers, doctors and CS students do. Regardless, I don't think engineers, doctors or CS students should have their way paved for them either.

shay_562 wrote:

Why do you think it's valid for you to criticise everyone who does an arts subject in such a blanket way even though there's no guarantee that people who do science or computer-based subject won't end up working in Xtra Vision?

I'm criticising everyone, not singling out arts students. This criticism includes myself. Fact is you wouldn't do a course that wouldn't put you in a better position if you had to pay up. I use an arts course simply as an example.

shay_562 wrote:

Pull your head out of your ass, stop assuming that you and your classmates are in some way better contributors to society and less undeserving of free education than arts students, and stop making snide, bitchy little asides about people that you don't think are as good as you

I never said I'm better than anyone. I don't think anyone should get free education. I clearly said this in my last post.

lilmizzme wrote:

And also, snappieT, get off your high horse and stop being such a snob...arts students can contribute just as much to society as a CS student can...chances are you'll go abroad and work anyways, thereby contributing nothing.

You're absolutely right, I intend to leave. I don't think people should be able to do that: get their free education and feck off - but that's the way it is.

lilmizzme wrote:

Also, arts degrees offer a fairly unlimited career choice, so your English Lit and Psychology student could end up being a lawyer, child psychologist, teacher, lecturer, social worker, journalist....are they all useless to society and the economy?

I too could end up being a lawyer, teacher, lecturer, social worker, journalist etc. The only thing in that list I couldn't do is child psychologist. Instead I can be a software engineer.


I cannot make this clear enough: I don't think CS is any better than any other course. I don't think CS students should be paid for, nor any other students.

Brian

Free fees is all a scam; the longer you stay in the country, the greater the chance you meet some chick that you'll marry and end up staying here. Nasty, scheming government tactics.

Jonathan

Baza210 wrote: »

Free fees is all a scam; the longer you stay in the country, the greater the chance you meet some chick that you'll marry and end up staying here. Nasty, scheming government tactics.

Narrow minded attitudes like that disappoint me.

frecklier

I was slushing my way though college yesterday evening, having spent the day working for the benefit of non-fee-paying students (for 7.5% less of a salary than I was getting last month), when one of the little free-loaders decided to pelt me with a snowball. It hurt!
Maybe if students had to pay fees the same way as most of us adults in the real world had to, they'd be forced to grow up.

snappieT

frecklier wrote: »

when one of the little free-loaders decided to pelt me with a snowball.

You aren't a Trinity student, but you were walking through the grounds. Don't assume the person that got you with the snowball was a Trinity student - it could just as easily have been someone external like yourself.

PurpleFistMixer

frecklier wrote: »

I was slushing my way though college yesterday evening, having spent the day working for the benefit of non-fee-paying students (for 7.5% less of a salary than I was getting last month), when one of the little free-loaders decided to pelt me with a snowball. It hurt!
Maybe if students had to pay fees the same way as most of us adults in the real world had to, they'd be forced to grow up.

Wait, so... paying for university fees is a good thing because there will be less snowball fights? ... Well, at least it's an unusual argument, I suppose.

Brian

jmccrohan wrote: »

Narrow minded attitudes like that disappoint me.

Er, I was being facetious. I thought you would have gotten that, at least.

frecklier

snappieT wrote: »

You aren't a Trinity student, but you were walking through the grounds. Don't assume the person that got you with the snowball was a Trinity student - it could just as easily have been someone external like yourself.

No, I'm Trinity staff. And I'm a female who paid full fees for 6 years of college education, so no spring chicken!
(have to admit, I'd be pro-fees anyway, just thought I'd have a rant about the snowball).

StinkyMunkey

Funny how all the students went on a march complaining abouts fees, which basically translates into saying we cant afford it. And then went on a massive bender after the march, well them that made it out of the pub anyway for the march....!

scruttocks

I'd be interested to know in what other countries the right to free third level education is upheld.

PurpleFistMixer

scruttocks wrote: »

I'd be interested to know in what other countries the right to free third level education is upheld.

Denmark, Sweden, and Norway off the top of my head. Presumably there are others.

scruttocks

scruttocks wrote: »

I'd be interested to know in what other countries the right to free third level education is upheld.

You don't have a right to free third level, but the government has a policy where it will pay for it. There is a difference.

scruttocks

Yeah I know, I was being sarky. If the rest of the world can get by without free tuition (bar those crazy danes), I don't see why we need to indulge in the luxury when the government has no money and plenty of other things (that are actually necessary) to spend it on.

I'd also be interested to know how many of the 10,000 or so who were marching last week would have come out if they'd been told that fees would only be introduced for people starting 3rd level next year.