Alan Ahearne Appointed as Special Adviser to Minister for Finance

Économiste Monétaire

I spotted this on the Irish Economy blog. Story here and here.

blast05

He supports property tax and 3rd level fees (to paraphrase: "fees would force students to demand more of their college and lecturers and thus improve education standards and the standards of our 3rd level") among other things

blast05

blast05 wrote: »

He supports property tax and 3rd level fees (to paraphrase: "fees would force students to demand more of their college and lecturers and thus improve education standards and the standards of our 3rd level") among other things

So?

P. Breathnach

blast05 wrote: »

He supports property tax and 3rd level fees (to paraphrase: "fees would force students to demand more of their college and lecturers and thus improve education standards and the standards of our 3rd level") among other things

I don't have a fundamental objection to college fees. But I think a justification of that nature sounds a bit ... well, scary, or something.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't have a fundamental objection to college fees. But I think a justification of that nature sounds a bit ... well, scary, or something.

Academic standards have dropped horribly over the past decade (pretty much coinciding with a 50% increase in the number of graduates pumped out each year). This is a severe problem and potentially something will come back to bite us if not reversed.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Academic standards have dropped horribly over the past decade (pretty much coinciding with a 50% increase in the number of graduates pumped out each year).

If we are to listen to anecdote, academic standards have always been dropping. Are you aware of any research that supports what you say?

This is a severe problem and potentially something will come back to bite us if not reversed.

I am all for maintenance of standards (who wouldn't be?), but the idea that the introduction of fees would be the appropriate mechanism to bring that about strikes me as being a bit "off". What if a student paid fees and failed to graduate because he spent most of his time partying, or because he simply didn't have the academic capacity for the course? Might the demand for some return on his fees be a force for lowering standards?

Very often, complicated problems are not amenable to simple solutions.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If we are to listen to anecdote, academic standards have always been dropping. Are you aware of any research that supports what you say?

From personal experience grade inflation is rampant. Some data here: http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie/links_irl.html

Essentially, they are handing out Firsts far far easier than before. It's symptomatic of a system where the Government both controls and supply and demand of the academic system (also bear in mind that funding for academic departments is based on gross student numbers passed each year not academic standard for undergraduate with obvious incentive problems). Either the standard for Firsts is dropping or the kids are getting smarter, now I know which of those is far more likely.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am all for maintenance of standards (who wouldn't be?), but the idea that the introduction of fees would be the appropriate mechanism to bring that about strikes me as being a bit "off". What if a student paid fees and failed to graduate because he spent most of his time partying, or because he simply didn't have the academic capacity for the course? Might the demand for some return on his fees be a force for lowering standards?

Very often, complicated problems are not amenable to simple solutions.

I agree, but arguably part of the lax academic attitude is because it's "free" and is treated like an extension of second level. I don't think fees on their own will fix this but a) we've a budget deficit and b) people tend not to value that which is free.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

From personal experience grade inflation is rampant. Some data here: http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie/links_irl.html

Thank you for that. Bookmarked for perusal later.

Essentially, they are handing out Firsts far far easier than before. It's symptomatic of a system where the Government both controls and supply and demand of the academic system (also bear in mind that funding for academic departments is based on gross student numbers passed each year not academic standard for undergraduate with obvious incentive problems). Either the standard for Firsts is dropping or the kids are getting smarter, now I know which of those is far more likely.

It is astonishing, and disturbing, to hear those charged with the maintenance of academic standards defend major changes in the mix of grades awarded, and to find that the last possibility that they will consider is that the standards for award of grades have changed. Ask what mechanism exists for ensuring consistent standards, and the answer (if you get one) is most likely to be that it is the judgement of the examiner/assessor.

machintoshlover

As a current student of a certain third level institution in the west of Ireland I can attest that 1:1's are very easily obtained without a big effort from the student. Thats just my opinion though...

What do you guy's think of Dr. Ahearne's appointment? I only know his background briefly but he seems well suited to a government advisory roll with his experience in the Fed among other things.

nesf

machintoshlover wrote: »

What do you guy's think of Dr. Ahearne's appointment? I only know his background briefly but he seems well suited to a government advisory roll with his experience in the Fed among other things.

He's a well qualified macro-economist. Exactly the type of person that they are lacking in the Department of Finance these days.

thebman

machintoshlover wrote: »

As a current student of a certain third level institution in the west of Ireland I can attest that 1:1's are very easily obtained without a big effort from the student. Thats just my opinion though...

What do you guy's think of Dr. Ahearne's appointment? I only know his background briefly but he seems well suited to a government advisory roll with his experience in the Fed among other things.

Well I can say that they weren't low in my college. When we entered final year, we were given a speech from some of our lecturers telling us we weren't entitled to a degree just because we got this far and that degrees were being handed out way too easy and failure rates would back that up. Half our class were repeats from the previous year and some people were on their second attempt at repeating.

In fact, the course got a reputation even outside the college for being hell on earth and personally I can't help but get offended when people tell me my results were marked easier than they should have been when I worked damn hard to get them.

If you go around saying things like that then my qualification becomes useless when presented to an employer and I can't get a job. Our Dept. was actually in trouble on several occasions for the failure rate on the course and at one stage they were saying they were going to scrape the Dept. entirely and the course was almost canceled twice in the time I was in the college. Up to now, people from my course have had a good name on the back of the course I did and I'd hate to see that changed because of blanket statements like this.

If there are problems sort them but I absolutely have an issue with blanket statements such as all our degrees are crap. It simply isn't the case. There may be problems with the majority of courses in colleges but it isn't all and people saying that are doing a disservice to people like me.


edit---

I'm also completely against a fee based education. I think standards can be increased without reintroducing fees and I think making the youth of our nation debt ridden before they even leave our colleges is not a good system. Most of our problems are caused by people being up to their eyes in debt and I have to take issue with handing them a massive debt before they leave college.

Also, wages will be expected to go up or these people as they have these loans to pay. This will only harm the lower-middle class people and result in less people attending third level and less graduates. Even poor graduates from colleges are better than few graduates. I would probably stand to benefit being one of the few people to get through college without fees in the country and it would reduce the amount of people working in my area but I still stand against this.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

Well I can say that they weren't low in my college. When we entered final year, we were given a speech from some of our lecturers telling us we weren't entitled to a degree just because we got this far and that degrees were being handed out way too easy and failure rates would back that up. Half our class were repeats from the previous year and some people were on their second attempt at repeating.

In fact, the course got a reputation even outside the college for being hell on earth and personally I can't help but get offended when people tell me my results were marked easier than they should have been when I worked damn hard to get them.

If you go around saying things like that then my qualification becomes useless when presented to an employer and I can't get a job. Our Dept. was actually in trouble on several occasions for the failure rate on the course and at one stage they were saying they were going to scrape the Dept. entirely and the course was almost canceled twice in the time I was in the college. Up to now, people from my course have had a good name on the back of the course I did and I'd hate to see that changed because of blanket statements like this.

If there are problems sort them but I absolutely have an issue with blanket statements such as all our degrees are crap. It simply isn't the case. There may be problems with the majority of courses in colleges but it isn't all and people saying that are doing a disservice to people like me.

Bluntly the problem is this, some departments are very hard to get firsts out of, many are not. This is fine when the people hiring you can tell whether your degree is from the latter or the former but that is increasingly difficult to do unless your department has an international reputation in your field. (i.e. Physics in UCC is an example, it's a bloody tough degree and the reputation is known and with a First from it you can get into PhD places the world over but start applying for jobs outside of academia or industries that are highly quantitative and no one will know its reputation and that is what screws you).

In general there's been rampant grade inflation and pressure to pass students from higher up the chain as you know from your course. What this does is devalue degrees in general and this screws over all the people who did a tough degree every time they send in a CV to a place which isn't familiar with their course (because they'll get automatically labelled as an "Irish grad").

thebman

nesf wrote: »

Bluntly the problem is this, some departments are very hard to get firsts out of, many are not. This is fine when the people hiring you can tell whether your degree is from the latter or the former but that is increasingly difficult to do unless your department has an international reputation in your field. (i.e. Physics in UCC is an example, it's a bloody tough degree and the reputation is known and with a First from it you can get into PhD places the world over but start applying for jobs outside of academia or industries that are highly quantitative and no one will know its reputation and that is what screws you).

In general there's been rampant grade inflation and pressure to pass students from higher up the chain as you know from your course. What this does is devalue degrees in general and this screws over all the people who did a tough degree every time they send in a CV to a place which isn't familiar with their course (because they'll get automatically labelled as an "Irish grad").

I'm not debating the need for change, I'm just suggesting that people refrain from tarring all our degrees with the same brush. My degree is widely recognised in industry due to the work ethic of people that survive the course when they get into industry and it has been said to me after being hired that they have had hired previous people from my course and were very impressed with the person work and intelligence and they saw the same traits in me from my work experience and results.

I remain in contact with other class mates and others have had similar experiences.

I was extremely concerned when I heard they were thinking of shutting down our entire dept. and I have no doubt that it was because they wouldn't play ball on results and TBH that sickens me. One of the reasons my Dept. still had this attitude IMO is because it is a new college (NUI Maynooth) and new dept. so they wanted to get a reputation for producing high quality graduates as all the courses were new so they were trapped between a rock and a hard place so to speak.

I think a lot of the established colleges have problems because they feel established or they are resisting changing courses too much. When I was looking at courses, I looked at every course available in the NUI's in my area and as my brother is also in the same area, he helped me. One thing that became clear was that many of the courses hadn't been updated in a while. I was able to recognise this without my brothers help as someone with only enthusiast knowledge in the area so it was shocking for me to view some of the modules in the courses in some of the colleges. We are talking about teaching stuff that has been obsolete for 10 years under the guise of it is a good learning subject when it is no better and the lecturer probably doesn't want to brush up on his skills and he has just been in the position too long and has lost interest.

machintoshlover

thebman wrote: »

Well I can say that they weren't low in my college. When we entered final year, we were given a speech from some of our lecturers telling us we weren't entitled to a degree just because we got this far and that degrees were being handed out way too easy and failure rates would back that up. Half our class were repeats from the previous year and some people were on their second attempt at repeating.

In fact, the course got a reputation even outside the college for being hell on earth and personally I can't help but get offended when people tell me my results were marked easier than they should have been when I worked damn hard to get them.

If you go around saying things like that then my qualification becomes useless when presented to an employer and I can't get a job. Our Dept. was actually in trouble on several occasions for the failure rate on the course and at one stage they were saying they were going to scrape the Dept. entirely and the course was almost canceled twice in the time I was in the college. Up to now, people from my course have had a good name on the back of the course I did and I'd hate to see that changed because of blanket statements like this.

If there are problems sort them but I absolutely have an issue with blanket statements such as all our degrees are crap. It simply isn't the case. There may be problems with the majority of courses in colleges but it isn't all and people saying that are doing a disservice to people like me.


edit---

I'm also completely against a fee based education. I think standards can be increased without reintroducing fees and I think making the youth of our nation debt ridden before they even leave our colleges is not a good system. Most of our problems are caused by people being up to their eyes in debt and I have to take issue with handing them a massive debt before they leave college.

Also, wages will be expected to go up or these people as they have these loans to pay. This will only harm the lower-middle class people and result in less people attending third level and less graduates. Even poor graduates from colleges are better than few graduates. I would probably stand to benefit being one of the few people to get through college without fees in the country and it would reduce the amount of people working in my area but I still stand against this.

I didnt say your results were marked easier I said that mine certainly were. Also if employers are impressed with the graduates comming out of your course then my opinion of my course isnt going to affect their opinion of your course.

The fee's debate is alot bigger than should fee's be brought back in - theres alot of issues that need discussion about our third level system and funding is one of them. If a fee's based system was introduced on a equitable basis Im definetely not against it.

Sea Sharp

Either the standard for Firsts is dropping or the kids are getting smarter, now I know which of those is far more likely.

I would have to completely disagree with this. The internet has had a significant contribution to the advance of education standards.

10 years ago, a student studied for their exams using books from the library and notes that were copied down from a black-board. These days, all your notes are available online.

The system has improved and the grades have improved proportionally.

Sleepy

TBH, I always felt that my degree could have been covered inside a year rather than the three that it took.

Whether commerce was always that easy a degree is another question.

Good to see that Lenihan will now have qualified advice. Shocking to see that he didn't have it up until this point!

GerardD1

I agree with one of the contributors that Ahearne is a fan of property tax BUT he is not alone see David McWilliams recent piece in the B.Post

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2009/03/22/we-need-workfare-not-welfare/comment-page-2#comments

I have to say I would totally reject both Ahearne and the seemingly consensus view among our economists about a property tax.

D.McWilliams says in support of his views on NOT taxing work - quote
“To do this, we must cut income tax and raise property tax as the central aspect of our revenue strategy. The reason is clear: if we tax work now and make it more expensive, there will be fewer jobs to go around. If we tax property now, we will extract real cash out of this most useless and socially divisive”

Now leaving aside the perversity of the proposition - the fact that many people in the state (myself included) stupidly bought into the property market and paid big stamp duties in process, it is obnoxious to think that we will now be paying annual tax - on top of rip-off management fees in my case!

(1) I disagree that the prosposed property tax is not a tax on work. Reason: You can be absolutely sure that only middle and higher income earners will be asked to carry the most if not the total burden of this tax i.e. it will be a tax on work!! Contrary to David’s view. In fact I would prefer an equivalent hike in my income tax over a property tax - at least that would not screw up the value of my home (further) - which affects me if I were to sell or had an LTV mortgage.

(2) We actually had a property tax up to 1997 - I remember it well. It was a complete disaster and actually cost more to collect/administer than received. I can also guarantee that any reintroduction would end similarly and at every election every politician would be advocating its abolition!

(3) It is not a usage tax - like say a water charge which I agree with in principle as it enviromentally acceptable, it is an EU requirement and can be reduced once metered - so you have greater control over the final cost.

(4) The property market is in the crapper and whether we like it or not we are now pregnant with risk of this market because we own the banks (sadly). SO why are thinking about a tax that will simply make the tax payer’s liability even higher through further reducing the value of land and property. Strikes me that this is last thing we should be considering.
....

Generally I am surprised that I am not seeing more opposition to this tax from FG and Labour and independent economists - it seems everyone is resigned to the fact that is coming.

I think most of us are prepared to pay more tax - but not ones that dont make sense, political dynamite and especially taxes that have already been tried and tested and failed!! Unbelievable.

Maybe my view is in the minority.

thebman

I have to say I agree with a property tax. I didn't buy property, most of my friends didn't buy property, we have just graduated. We have played no part in the financial crisis but are about to be slaughtered in income tax to pay for those that did mess around during it.

A property tax forces those that bought into this bubble to pay. Developers have property so they'll be affected and hell even the bankers have property and will pay.

Seems pretty fair to me. The reduction in income tax will mean younger people that didn't contribute to the bubble can work for cheaper. I'm for it but then I would be since I might benefit from it.

GerardD1

I appreciate your view and I agree I might have a different view had I not bought a property - but then again that assumes that they abolish stamp duty in favour of a property UNLESS you are not thinking about buying a house of course. In which case maybe they should also think about a rent tax or VAT like in some European countries. Not to give the mandarins any more bad ideas.

The final point I would make is that even if you didnt participate in buying property (lucky you) because we own the risks of the banks we will all end up paying higher taxes if there bad debts get out of hand. I just think a property tax will increase risks of bad debt as valuations are decimated. It just doesnt add up. AND as I have said we actually had this tax before and it was ineffective. Just like this one will be.

Cheers

thebman

thebman wrote: »

I have to say I agree with a property tax. I didn't buy property, most of my friends didn't buy property, we have just graduated. We have played no part in the financial crisis but are about to be slaughtered in income tax to pay for those that did mess around during it.

A property tax forces those that bought into this bubble to pay. Developers have property so they'll be affected and hell even the bankers have property and will pay.

Seems pretty fair to me. The reduction in income tax will mean younger people that didn't contribute to the bubble can work for cheaper. I'm for it but then I would be since I might benefit from it.

But you just had your degree paid for by people 'who are about to be slaughtered'. Time to repay your debt to society.

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

But you just had your degree paid for by people 'who are about to be slaughtered'. Time to repay your debt to society.

Well I paid massive registration fees for that and a 1% tax levy and whatever other increases come in this budget and the tax already paid since graduating so I'll have paid that back shortly if I haven't already.

J.S. Pill

Does anyone remember a Vincent Browne article written a few weeks ago where he talked about the lack of expertise present in the department of finance? Can't remember if it was in the Irish times or SBP. A link would be terrific. Cheers

nesf

thebman wrote: »

Well I paid massive registration fees for that and a 1% tax levy and whatever other increases come in this budget and the tax already paid since graduating so I'll have paid that back shortly if I haven't already.

If you think registration fees are massive you've no idea of the actual cost of education. A drop in the ocean is what they are.

nesf

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Does anyone remember a Vincent Browne article written a few weeks ago where he talked about the lack of expertise present in the department of finance? Can't remember if it was in the Irish times or SBP. A link would be terrific. Cheers

I saw one by Gareth Fitzgerald a month or two ago on the topic in the Irish Times. Didn't see any Vincent Browne ones though.

thebman

nesf wrote: »

If you think registration fees are massive you've no idea of the actual cost of education. A drop in the ocean is what they are.

I know but they are massive for a supposedly free education system.

machintoshlover

thebman wrote: »

I know but they are massive for a supposedly free education system.

Nesf is pointing out that the overall cost of education is alot more than registration fee's and that in all liklihood you probably haven't repaid the state for your education yet.

leninbenjamin

thebman wrote: »

Well I paid massive registration fees for that and a 1% tax levy and whatever other increases come in this budget and the tax already paid since graduating so I'll have paid that back shortly if I haven't already.

fees for non nationals are typically in excess of 15k for a lot of degrees (that's per annum btw). you think you'll have that paid back through a 1% levy?

thebman

leninbenjamin wrote: »

fees for non nationals are typically in excess of 15k for a lot of degrees (that's per annum btw). you think you'll have that paid back through a 1% levy?

Over the course of my working life? I imagine it will more than pay for it. Anyway income tax will increase. I don't have a problem with that and paying more than my fair share to get the country back on track.

I don't see why there should be no property tax too though. I'm just suggesting the people that fooked things up pay a little more not that they take all of the hit (because to put it bluntly they can't afford to).

leninbenjamin

thebman wrote: »

Over the course of my working life? I imagine it will more than pay for it. Anyway income tax will increase. I don't have a problem with that and paying more than my fair share to get the country back on track.

oh, over the course of your life now is it? does this include the interest that would be owed? does it account for inflation? what about other services your entitled to such as health, infrastructure, policing, pension, etc., are they discounted from the final amount due? I really do think that very few of my current generation who were on the receiving end of free fees will ever pay that back in full.

thebman

leninbenjamin wrote: »

oh, over the course of your life now is it? does this include the interest that would be owed? does it account for inflation? what about other services your entitled to such as health, infrastructure, policing, pension, etc., are they discounted from the final amount due?

Income tax and other taxes pay for those other services. I pay road tax, VRT and VAT on all purchases, PRSI etc...

The 1% income tax levy is caused by this crisis and whatever increases come in the next budget. I think that will more than cover the amount. Vat increases too just to pay for this property bubble so I contribute more on everything I purchase (I eat almost every day).

I might also ask what infrastructure (most of the new roads have tolls and they gave away the communications infrastructure) and policing? :P I've not seen a member of our police force on the streets or policing the roads in months. I see the buildings they use, maybe they are hiding in there. That's good use of my money.
--edit---
Anyway this isn't what the thread is about, is it? how about you talk about whether your for or against property tax and whether it would actually effect you if you for or against it?

leninbenjamin

thebman wrote: »

Anyway this isn't what the thread is about, is it? how about you talk about whether your for or against property tax and whether it would actually effect you if you for or against it?

against it. no point kicking people when they are down, most of the money that was in property a couple of years ago is long gone, all a property tax would serve at this point in time would be to punish further those who gambled excessively on property, and thus would i feel have more negative consequences for the rest of the economy than the return yield, as it would potentially put a lot of people treading the line in the waters of bankruptcy.

better to implement a property tax at a height of a boom, when it makes sense in the purposes of slowing down the economy. But property is one of those income streams a government should never really come to rely, as ours did and taxing in a recession seems pointless to something so volatile. if we implement it now it'd serve little purpose, and at the time when mortgage applications are beginning to slowly rise again, would be utterly daft imo.

and no, it doesn't effect me directly.

oh, and btw this thread was about Alan Ahearne, not necessarily where one stands on the property tax thing. just, ya' know like.

btw, i got me degree at NUIG. I had very little experience of the man first hand to be honest, but i've never found him very informative. There's a reason he ended up lecturer in an underperforming regional university like NUIG after the dizzying heights of Washington methinks, i can only hope it doesn't become apparent soon.

Of course i'm being skewed by my experiences of NUIG's economics dept. i never found what passes for research there worth the value of the paper it's written on, apart from a select few individuals, so you can see how coloured my opinion is

Assets Model

[btw, i got me degree at NUIG. I had very little experience of the man first hand to be honest, but i've never found him very informative. There's a reason he ended up lecturer in an underperforming regional university like NUIG after the dizzying heights of Washington methinks, i can only hope it doesn't become apparent soon.

presumably he has some sort of attachment to GAlway and chose to go there. UCD would have him in a flash.

leninbenjamin

Assets Model wrote: »

UCD would have him in a flash.

so he moves from an underperforming regional university to an underperforming university in the capital with more money and less excuses :P

serfboard

leninbenjamin wrote: »

There's a reason he ended up lecturer in an underperforming regional university like NUIG after the dizzying heights of Washington methinks, i can only hope it doesn't become apparent soon.

This logic assumes that the only reason someone takes a job with a particular institution and in a particular location is for career purposes only. As you will discover, life's not like that. It's called work-life balance.

how exactly will bringing back fee's "for the rich" lead to a better university education for everyone. Fee's for all would still be stupid but I could at least accept that.

But instead we'll get a horrible system where some students/parents will be paying for their not just their own kids/themselves in college, but for others too. Nothing will change as regards "mark inflation" etc. If anything there would be more pressure to give people easier passes so they don't end up having to pay for extra years.

pinnyoshea

leninbenjamin wrote: »

btw, i got me degree at NUIG. I had very little experience of the man first hand to be honest, but i've never found him very informative. There's a reason he ended up lecturer in an underperforming regional university like NUIG after the dizzying heights of Washington methinks, i can only hope it doesn't become apparent soon.

Of course i'm being skewed by my experiences of NUIG's economics dept. i never found what passes for research there worth the value of the paper it's written on, apart from a select few individuals, so you can see how coloured my opinion is

Im currently in my final year in UL and have been researching masters courses. Ive only heard good things from my lecturers about the economics department in Galway and about Dr Ahern. I will be applying for the course for which he is course director (now on sabbatical due to new position).

I am undecided about student fees but claims that students never pay back the free fees they earn through taxes are quite ignorant. Ireland has gained from free student fees through an increase in the number of qualified graduates which has, in turn, attracted much business to our shores and generated much national revenues.

leninbenjamin

pinnyoshea wrote: »

Im currently in my final year in UL and have been researching masters courses. Ive only heard good things from my lecturers about the economics department in Galway and about Dr Ahern. I will be applying for the course for which he is course director (now on sabbatical due to new position).

I am undecided about student fees but claims that students never pay back the free fees they earn through taxes are quite ignorant. Ireland has gained from free student fees through an increase in the number of qualified graduates which has, in turn, attracted much business to our shores and generated much national revenues.

ummm.... sorry, but from where i stand, and what i've read, this is little but wishful thinking. the Celtic tiger occured in the early 90s, what attracted FDI was not the sheer number of graduates, but more the price of them. We were simply cheap back then; due to low corporation taxes and high unemployment (there are papers that suggest up to 80% alone of the FDI influx was simply due to the corporation tax, just google, i can't remember the names). Most of those graduates were in place long before the free fees, and any formal study i've read on fees has suggested they had little to no impact whatsoever other than to devalue the education system.

Since then, you've had companies, like Havok, who require high skilled workers, typically of post grad level and above, who simply can't the workers they need. Havok is the supposed high skilled 'knowledge economy' type of company we want to attract as a nation with all our 'knowledge economy' guff we spew from all quarters, but they are no longer investing in expanding their activities here. The main obstacle is not the price of business, but simply that the graduates of the standard we need simply aren't being produced by our system. Seeing as Hovok were a direct result of our education system anyway, you'd think if free fees was such a good thing they'd have the workers they need. Sadly this isn't the case. We've simply devaluted our education system to such an extent that we're driving away the very kind of company we need for our economy to start growing again.

btw, some of the prime heads at NUIG were are among the key players in the propagation of the 'knowledge economy' buzzword. Based on the above, you can see my disdain for the dept., the research done there just isn't grounded in reality.

pinnyoshea

Granted it may be wishful thinking as I have not done any research on the matter other than read others opinions in the papers/ couple of articles on the net. My college load at the moment is pretty heavy comin up to my final year exams. However, although we can take for granted that corporation tax was the major factor in attracting FDI, without a steady stream of graduates coming from our universities the financial services, higher value added manufacturing etc as they existed up to the current crisis would not have been able to operate in Ireland. Whether or not free fees was a factor in increasing the number of graduates to the required amounts, I honestly do not know and I am too tired to try and see if any research has been done on the subject. I still believe that a graduate contributes back into the economy more than the cost of his/her college education whether it is paid for by the state or by the student him/herself.

On the topic of the NUIG economics dept, I am only going on the advice of my lecturers who informed me that it was very strong academically.

I think I would sway towards the reintroduction of fees on a means tested basis. The social benefits of participation by more disadvantaged groups and minorities who may not attend college if required to pay must be considered. Again I have no research done for the effects on college participation rate before free fees so my argument is weak. That is why in my original post I said I had not made up my mind.... lack of an informed opinion. Anyway I believe I have been rambling but its late and Ive been typing a up an essay all evening so Im wrecked. Next time I post Ill try and have my homework done for a better opinion

leninbenjamin

pinnyoshea wrote: »

I still believe that a graduate contributes back into the economy more than the cost of his/her college education whether it is paid for by the state or by the student him/herself.

i'm skeptical. it's not the nominal contribution i'm talking about, more the opportunities foregone because of it. the 3rd level system is a massive burden on the government budget, and in particular research funding has taken a massive hit over the years (in real terms) to support the undergrads.

pinnyoshea wrote: »

On the topic of the NUIG economics dept, I am only going on the advice of my lecturers who informed me that it was very strong academically.

i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm just saying as an undergrad of that department i found standards very low (you had people getting degrees in what is essentially a numerical science, and them not able to do 1st order differentiation, which i find appalling. if you do that masters btw, you will have a two week crash course in maths at the beginning to bring the NUIG grads up to speed).

pinnyoshea wrote: »

I think I would sway towards the reintroduction of fees on a means tested basis.

I actually agree with you there 100%.

thebman

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Since then, you've had companies, like Havok, who require high skilled workers, typically of post grad level and above, who simply can't the workers they need. Havok is the supposed high skilled 'knowledge economy' type of company we want to attract as a nation with all our 'knowledge economy' guff we spew from all quarters, but they are no longer investing in expanding their activities here. The main obstacle is not the price of business, but simply that the graduates of the standard we need simply aren't being produced by our system. Seeing as Hovok were a direct result of our education system anyway, you'd think if free fees was such a good thing they'd have the workers they need. Sadly this isn't the case. We've simply devaluted our education system to such an extent that we're driving away the very kind of company we need for our economy to start growing again.

There are lots of reasons Havok can't get the people here but I don't think grade inflation is part of the reason.

That is bending the truth a little IMO. People aren't doing maths intensive courses in Ireland so there is a lack of graduates, your going to lack good graduates if you have few graduates. Not everyone can work for Havok even if it was harder to get degrees it would not solve the problem. They are looking for very specific candidates from a small pool of graduates in a small country.

leninbenjamin

thebman wrote: »

People aren't doing maths intensive courses in Ireland so there is a lack of graduates,

and the reasons for this doesn't concern you? for a nation who were once pretty good at educating more than our fair share of engineers and scientists and the like these courses are suddenly no longer attractive? is this really the case or is it because we're failing to teach our students properly? It just seems bizarre to me that a company founded on the back of our 3rd level system can no longer get the employees it needs... shouldn't that have been the case from day one?

i can only point to my own experiences on this, as i've no idea if there's much research in the area in relation to maths, but i've had lecturers pretty much fail to teach the math properly, simply give up when it becomes apparent the class struggles, and just give enough exam hints to make the class pass! now that's grade inflation and exactly the reason why employers find it so difficult to evaluate our graduates.

thebman

leninbenjamin wrote: »

and the reasons for this doesn't concern you? for a nation who were once pretty good at educating more than our fair share of engineers and scientists and the like these courses are suddenly no longer attractive? is this really the case or is it because we're failing to teach our students properly? It just seems bizarre to me that a company founded on the back of our 3rd level system can no longer get the employees it needs... shouldn't that have been the case from day one?

Well no they needed fewer employees on day one. Anyway I would say a lot of people did not want a degree in engineering or maths intensive courses because there was easy money elsewhere in the economy.

i can only point to my own experiences on this, as i've no idea if there's much research in the area in relation to maths, but i've had lecturers pretty much fail to teach the math properly, simply give up when it becomes apparent the class struggles, and just give enough exam hints to make the class pass! now that's grade inflation and exactly the reason why employers find it so difficult to evaluate our graduates.

That never happened on any Math module I had. Most of ours had around 50% failure rates and a lot of people got by on repeat exams because they took it more seriously second time round.

As someone who never repeated an exam in college, I'd like to see employers be able to find out if a student had to repeat exams in college to pass as I think that is unfair on the people that worked hard first time. I think I showed more initiative by never failing an exam and I'd like employers to know that and be able to check it if they can't already.