Difference between public and private education -

rlow68

beemar wrote: »

Before Griffith I studied and completed degrees in two other universities and I'm sorry to say Griffith is piss poor in every aspect I can judge. I've finished two years of my three year degree and am constantly surprised by the lack of intelligence of people on my course. It amazes me that they pass exams and I find its the first college I've been too where I haven't had to work incredibly hard to get good grades. Do nothing and get a B. A real kip. I can't wait to transfer somewhere decent after next year to complete my course. I'm embarrassed to say I attend the place.

You have got two degree as you said, then what are doing at Griffith?, and you are in year 2 of 3 years course, dont u see that you dont know what you are doing, or you just think running the place down is your best bet, if the college is not good what are you still doing there and why dont you change to another college particularly somebody who claimed to have 2 degrees.
'You are unbelievable'

rlow68

experiMental wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that Griffith is training in areas which don't need much research, and all you have to do in your chosen career is to follow predefined rules (e.g consultant on property law to a solicitor,etc)

I'd say it makes sense to pay for that qualification. If it was free, then 99% of school leavers would go for careers like that, which involve little risk taking and research, yet award good pay. Then there would be little or no innovation and the economy would suffer. I mean, all courses in state universities that deal in the above areas are either nearly inaccessible or have extremely difficult requirements, but in Griffit, you can get the same qualifications for less points, but you have to pay.

Do you think that "free fees" education like in universities is just an incentive to get people to undertake difficult research-oriented degrees which involve high risk and questionable career reward at the end? (e.g arts/science degrees). For example, no matter how hard I would try to create innovative concepts that could save the world in my design engineering degree, I would still be faced with little degree-related opportunities at the end - the only option would be going for one of those extremely competitive graduate employment schemes where I would be up against people from many other courses. At the end, though, some of my designs would be used by corporations to make profits, without giving me any reward or work experience.

To make the long story short, I think that private universities are a wise thing in this day and age - if you want a relatively stable career, you have to "suffer" for it as much as for a relatively unstable one. There is no easy way

The College was not good enough and you spent 7 years and paying the fees, it seems you are not saying the truth. Unless you are one of the people who failed and keep on repeating, which course do you do for 7 years, and if the college was not good why dont you go back to DIT or any other University?
'You are unbelievable'

loveacca

The OP asked for differences between Public and Private education. From what I have seen the Private colleges are the palces to go if you are studying for professional exams eg law and accountancy where your final award comes from an established body.
For degrees, masters etc the likes of UCD, TCD etc seem to have the name

andrewire

I've studied at Griffith and UCD and this is what I think:

• Griffith students have no sense of identity. People are not proud of being part of the college but I think this is not their fault. It's the college administration that is abysmal.
• Griffith lecturers are quite good and they are very open. Because of the college's size, I think lectures feel more personal.
• Societies at Griffith are pretty much lifeless, except for sports and partying. Debate society? In your dreams.
• UCD students are generally 'smarter' or more active when it comes to participation.
• UCD lecturers are always too busy but they are extremely good at what they do.

In conclusion: Studying at a public university is much better than going to private college if you are looking for a remarkable educational experience. If you just want a degree and no sense of 'belonging', a private college will suit your needs. I think the main problem with private and public universities is the admissions system. You usually get better students at public universities because those are the ones that (generally) got good results in their leaving cert. On the contrary, anyone can enrol in a private college. The admission process is nonexistent.

techguy

andrewire wrote: »

I've studied at Griffith and UCD and this is what I think:

anyone can enrol in a private college. The admission process is nonexistent.

I agree with some of your points above but I can't see how this is true. I had to apply through the CAO for griffith. I think the only exception would be mature students, but doesn't that apply to public also?

andrewire

techguy wrote: »

I agree with some of your points above but I can't see how this is true. I had to apply through the CAO for griffith. I think the only exception would be mature students, but doesn't that apply to public also?

I am sorry, I think my comment was a bit unfair. What I was trying to say is that public universities seem to be more competitive, mostly because their students worked hard to get in. Private colleges are less competitive in that sense and unfortunately most of those colleges do not challenge their students as much as they should. Part of this issue comes from the 'community' mindset public university students are taught. They have to 'protect' the reputation of their university. It's not the same with private colleges. Of course you get both attitudes in public and private colleges, i.e. "I'm an A student" and "I don't care about my grade as long as I pass".