Introduction of fees seemingly imminent

Acid_Violet

MrPirate wrote: »

As well as the constitution still basically saying that women should be in the kitchen.(http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf article 41)

Do you honestly think that a prehistoric line in the Constitution (as written by Dev) is still in the Constitution because the politicians and people believe in it? Or maybe because it's such an absurd and irrelevant article that it's easier to just ignore it because it no longer has effectively any impact on Irish life and organising a referendum to scrap it would be too much effort and simply not worth the while?

Agent J

Fad wrote: »

*groan* this again.........

Basically if a decent loan system is introduced, it'll be grand.

Look at the current grant system and tell me how much faith you have....

A Neurotic

First the HPAT, and now this...

If Australia jumped off a bridge...?

Napoli

Agent J wrote: »

1) Colleges will not get more money

This is a misunderstanding and possibly naive of people to think this. This is being introduced as a cost saving measure thefore what they want to do is replace the money being paid for by the government with money from the people. At very best case it will be neutral cash flow for the colleges more likely to loose money. Unless they are very stupid and try to increase fees to make up the difference in which case the may loose even more.

This makes all the pro-fees arguments in this thread invalid, so please stop saying colleges will be getting more funding meaning extra money for research leading to more jobs blah blah blah.

Fad

Agent J wrote: »

Look at the current grant system and tell me how much faith you have....

Sorta why I mentioned decent.

I have a parent unemployed (For a good while at this stage) and I'm pretty sure I dont qualify for a grant, I'm going to make sure, but it's pretty insane tbh.

HQvhs

Stev_o wrote: »

If you want to make charitable donations to whatever university you wish to go to be my guess there's no one stopping you.

Well, okay then. So far no one has come up with an argument against this particular plan. I am against upfront fees. But a student loan paid back when a certain income has been reached is quite reasonable.
It doesn't stop people going to university, and if they remove the initial €1800 payment and make it part of the loan it may improve participation. (Although fat chance).

Secondly, there's no proof that the introduction of free third level specifically in 1994 has increased the numbers of lower-income children, the schemes target, going to universities. Rather it has led to a boom in middle class children going to universities.

Almost all other countries don't have free third level, and see where they are compared to us with "educated work forces". It's quality as well as quantity. Unfortunately while we may have a lot of medicine, arts, law & commerce graduates we still lack science graduates or an entrepreneurial culture. This is what is needed to advance our economy.

And this isn't just a short sighted plan to deal with the recession. This recession will be long gone in 15 years time when the effects of this will begin to be truly seen in the country. It's better to get it right rather than attempt a botched short term job to fill the state coffers.

I really haven't seen a convincing argument for why adults (not parents) should not pay for a bit of their own education when they can afford it, especially if it has given them a bigger income.

HQvhs

Napoli wrote: »

This makes all the pro-fees arguments in this thread invalid, so please stop saying colleges will be getting more funding meaning extra money for research leading to more jobs blah blah blah.

I haven't said anything like that. It's not related t jobs at all. If you recieve a service that benefits you, giving you a larger income, you should pay for it if you can. A fairly standard labour-esque idea really.

Fad

HQvhs wrote: »

I haven't said anything like that. It's not related t jobs at all. If you recieve a service that benefits you, giving you a larger income, you should pay for it if you can. A fairly standard labour-esque idea really.

You'd be paying more in taxes anyway. Dont really see the point in making them pay MORE tax.

Emigration for the fúcking win

HQvhs

But so are people on high incomes who didn't go to university. This isn't a tax to the govt. It goes to the universities and third level institutes.

Stev_o

HQvhs wrote: »

Well, okay then. So far no one has come up with an argument against this particular plan. I am against upfront fees. But a student loan paid back when a certain income has been reached is quite reasonable.
It doesn't stop people going to university, and if they remove the initial €1800 payment and make it part of the loan it may improve participation. (Although fat chance).

Secondly, there's no proof that the introduction of free third level specifically in 1994 has increased the numbers of lower-income children, the schemes target, going to universities. Rather it has led to a boom in middle class children going to universities.

Almost all other countries don't have free third level, and see where they are compared to us with "educated work forces". It's quality as well as quantity. Unfortunately while we may have a lot of medicine, arts, law & commerce graduates we still lack science graduates or an entrepreneurial culture. This is what is needed to advance our economy.

And this isn't just a short sighted plan to deal with the recession. This recession will be long gone in 15 years time when the effects of this will begin to be truly seen in the country. It's better to get it right rather than attempt a botched short term job to fill the state coffers.

I really haven't seen a convincing argument for why adults (not parents) should not pay for a bit of their own education when they can afford it, especially if it has given them a bigger income.

The Union of Students in Ireland claims the average student in Australia finishes university with a $12,000 debt, which takes about a decade to repay. It says almost one third of the multibillion dollar debt owed by university students has been written off by the federal government as a bad or doubtful debt. In the US, the default rate on student loans has increased to about 7 per cent.

Your forgetting that most people coming out of college will be prioritising getting a house/flat and possibly a car. That's two further loans that can add to the burden of already having to pay back a student loan. No one and i mean no wants to come out of college with not a cent to their name already having a debt in the thousands especially during a recession.

Fad

HQvhs wrote: »

But so are people on high incomes who didn't go to university. This isn't a tax to the govt. It goes to the universities and third level institutes.

I would love to assert that, and that's not just me being a smartarse, I just cannot see it being that simple.

If fees were reintroduced but government funding wasnt cut too drastically (Again provided that seemingly impossible decent loan system is introduced) I would be alot happier with this whole situation, as it means that the universities might actually benefit from this in the long term. That more than likely wont happen though.

Stev_o

To put this into perspective, imagine if college fees had already been in place and you were one of these lot.

http://careeradvice.loadzajobs.ie/graduates/graduate-jobs-up-to-70000-graduates-on-dole-by-end-of-year-2009-3736

irish_ninja

If all fees were postponed until after college it would only make me want to go even more as I would have more money in college.No problem after college as I would have to have a wage to be eligible to pay the loans back.No morgage,no other loans.Basically if there were no fees at all during college i think that there would be more going into college.therefore better educated workforce.I f there are no jobs then at least these people would be educated and they might make jobs or attract them

Delta Kilo

HQvhs wrote: »

But so are people on high incomes who didn't go to university. This isn't a tax to the govt. It goes to the universities and third level institutes.

Prove it. I'd say the universities will be lucky if they see half of it to be honest. It will still be done through the government, we wont be paying the college directly, I can guarantee you that.

To reiterate Fad, emigration for the fúcking win.

Seriously, if I have a loan breathing down my neck after uni, it is seriously going to scupper my ten-year-plan. (Yes, I have a ten year plan, how sad I know)

Our best hope is that they will dither on it and it won't affect us, just the years after us!

OneArt

A Neurotic wrote: »

If Australia jumped off a bridge...?

This world would be a better place. It's a horrible country with a racist government. I don't see it's appeal at all (don't tell me sun Spain has that too!).

I don't mind the idea of a student loan system. I'd be happy to pay it back just as long as I'm able to work abroad after college. I will shoot myself in the head if I have to live another ten years in this country with a f*cktarded government.

Buddha I'm in an angry mood tonight.

Stev_o

Delta Kilo wrote: »

Prove it. I'd say the universities will be lucky if they see half of it to be honest. It will still be done through the government, we wont be paying the college directly, I can guarantee you that.

To reiterate Fad, emigration for the fúcking win.

Seriously, if I have a loan breathing down my neck after uni, it is seriously going to scupper my ten-year-plan. (Yes, I have a ten year plan, how sad I know)

Our best hope is that they will dither on it and it won't affect us, just the years after us!

It's a yearly fee so we may get one year off buy pay for the other 3.

Napoli

HQvhs wrote: »

But so are people on high incomes who didn't go to university. This isn't a tax to the govt. It goes to the universities and third level institutes.

So instead of me paying tax to the govt who then pay it on to the universities, I'm paying "tax" (fees) to the university directly as well as paying tax to the govt.

Lovely.

cul-2008

Motion - Yay or Nay?

Nay for me, don't personally like the idea of an incompetent minister for education putting a lead weight around my kneck in 4 years time as part of a new form of income which will end up costing millions to initiate, and will eventually join the list of other corrupt programmes this government has established.

For those who are all for it, some have missed a vital point - the money to support this loan system is going to come from where?

The government will have to put out a nice sum of money before they begin to get a cent back in 4 years time - resorting to the re-introduction of fee's is not going to provide an immediate source of income, an opinion I personally gather that the government is under.

Just another day on the Island of Ireland...

Agent J

HQvhs wrote: »

I haven't said anything like that. It's not related t jobs at all. If you recieve a service that benefits you, giving you a larger income, you should pay for it if you can. A fairly standard labour-esque idea really.

I've answered this already.

Higher rate PAYE, PRSI, Consumption taxes....

If you earn more, you will pay more.

MrPirate

Acid_Violet wrote: »

Do you honestly think that a prehistoric line in the Constitution (as written by Dev) is still in the Constitution because the politicians and people believe in it? Or maybe because it's such an absurd and irrelevant article that it's easier to just ignore it because it no longer has effectively any impact on Irish life and organising a referendum to scrap it would be too much effort and simply not worth the while?

Well it's most likely the latter but the fact that it's still in Irish law (Technically,although it may be ignored) which goes to show you how our beloved government like to run things: outdated and uselessly.

Also, I've noticed people saying about emigration; I considered that too on first hearing about the loans. But has no one thought of the possibility that they(govt) might make the loans in a way that if you bail out, your parents will have to pay them?
My solution to that is have your whole family move!
So many nicer countries than this...

well horse

Ahem. Why didn't they bring back the fees when everybody had the money? Typcal stupid government trying to rectify their bad descisions by taking money off people as soon as they dont have it anymore.

randylonghorn

Jay P wrote: »

Like the article says, it's already in place in the UK and Australia, so obviously it must be somewhat effective.

:eek:

Stev_o wrote: »

Why do our generation have to suffer as a result of a recession that the government as dealt with shockingly.

While I sympathise, indeed would generally lean towards your side of the argument, you do realise that it's not just YOUR generation? Most Irish graduates paid full fees up front, the Free Fees "Initiative" has only been in place for ~ 15 years.

LeotheLion wrote: »

well it wouldnt be a nice feeling coming out of a degree with 2 loans to be repaid, as mentioned before it should be means tested

In fairness, it probably will be. Whether the test is valid or reliable is ofc another story ...

Jay P wrote: »

Colleges will have more money and less students who shouldn't be there.

I doubt the first part greatly, and in my experience the cohort you refer to in the second part are usually drawn from families who will still be easily able to afford to send them.

Piste wrote: »

The point is, everyone will be able to afford the fees ...

In theory, but on the other hand if you are someone who already has to borrow to the hilt to pay living expenses going through college; the chances of raising some of that money through part-time work while a student are greatly reduced; the chances of you getting a decent job at the end of your course is also greatly reduced ... will you bother to take on an extra load of debt? Or will you take the easy option and sign on the dole? I know which I would do ... but I also know that the increasingly steep uphill climb will deter many.

Piste wrote: »

I think our Universities will benefit hugely and more money will be put into research which in turn will create jobs.

I sincerely doubt it.

If this had been introduced in the good times, they might have. Now ... the State will simply cut back on what it gives the third level sector in lieu of fees.

Overall funding to third level has already been cut seriously this year, and I doubt that trend will reverse.

A Neurotic wrote: »

First the HPAT, and now this...

If Australia jumped off a bridge...?

Well, we used to shamelessly ape everything the UK did.

I guess since the advent of th'internet ... :rolleyes:

HQvhs wrote: »

Well, okay then. So far no one has come up with an argument against this particular plan.

1) Lots of people will opt not to saddle themselves with even bigger loans to go to college to get a qualification which in the present climate does not guarantee them a well-paid job ... or even a job. This will be especially true of those who would be hard-stretched to make it through even now.

2) For those who do, and actually get a job, they will have big loans to pay back, so they will have less to spend into the economy, they will put off buying / building a house, etc., thus prolonging the recessionary cycle.

3) Others will make it through, emigrate, disappear, and default on the loans. Approx. one third of the Australian loans are written off as bad debt. The government will wring its hands and say "oh dear! aren't they bold!" and either the third-level colleges or the taxpayer will be at the loss. The inequity will shift somewhat to those who are honest being screwed for the sake of those who disappear across the horizon.

Btw, despite the government hype, most of the Australian colleges and students I have dealt with, and I've dealt with a fair few, do not think their scheme works well.

HQvhs wrote: »

and if they remove the initial €1800 payment and make it part of the loan it may improve participation. (Although fat chance).

You have that bit right.

HQvhs wrote: »

Secondly, there's no proof that the introduction of free third level specifically in 1994 has increased the numbers of lower-income children, the schemes target, going to universities. Rather it has led to a boom in middle class children going to universities.

You're mostly correct, mainly because it was spread too wide and wasn't sufficiently targetted. Michael O'Leary's children were (still are, pending change) as entitled to free fees as the fourth child of a Dunnes shop assistant. Another major glitch was that all part-time students paid full economic fees regardless of actual income. So our hypothetical Dunnes shop assistant taking a course in the evening to attempt to better themselves had to pay the full cost, just like, say, a partner in an accountancy firm taking a CPD course. In fact, in the latter case, the firm were probably paying ... it is very unlikely Dunnes were!

Where I disagree with you is the idea that the target of this scheme is lower-income children ... the targets of this scheme are (a) to reduce state spending on third level even further while (b) keeping the numbers of middle-income students as near to the present level as possible.

HQvhs wrote: »

... we still lack science graduates or an entrepreneurial culture. This is what is needed to advance our economy.

Now here I agree with you completely.

HQvhs wrote: »

I really haven't seen a convincing argument for why adults (not parents) should not pay for a bit of their own education when they can afford it, especially if it has given them a bigger income.

I actually don't disagree with you at all. I just don't think the scheme this is based on is a good way of doing this, and I don't trust our government to improve on it ... quite the reverse.

Here's a couple of thoughts:

(a) Retain the basic system as it is at present, but means-test it (properly and fairly!!). Make those above a certain income pay part or full fees on a sliding scale.

(b) Introduce a loan scheme, repayable as the current proposed scheme, which any student can use to "top up" if they are finding it tight.

(c) Introduce an additional 1% education levy on all graduates above a certain (decent) income level. Use this money and the fees raised above to
(1) drive research and development in colleges and elsewhere and
(2) to support hard-working bright kids who could never afford to go to college to get there.

(d) End the inequity between full-time and part-time students, and apply the above principles to both groups.

HQvhs wrote: »

But so are people on high incomes who didn't go to university. This isn't a tax to the govt. It goes to the universities and third level institutes.

It won't. There will be a lot of hype, but they won't see any real increase, probably the opposite.

Fad wrote: »

If fees were reintroduced but government funding wasnt cut too drastically (Again provided that seemingly impossible decent loan system is introduced) I would be alot happier with this whole situation, as it means that the universities might actually benefit from this in the long term. That more than likely wont happen though.

It won't.

p.s. Agent J, take 10 bonus points for Gryffyndor! :pac:

KnifeWRENCH

I was always torn on the fees issue: "free education for all" is a wonderful idea in theory but on the other hand if the universities and colleges need money it has to come from somewhere.
Of course I always assumed that the idea of fees was to pump more money into education but from reading through this thread it seems like they won't really benefit: they'll just receive students money instead of Government money. Is this correct?

Whatever method is brought in better be means tested. For purely selfish reasons, I would not have minded the upfront approach if it was aimed specifically at higher or middle income earners because if that was the case I (and my parents) wouldn't have had to pay them.

Basically, I'm pro fees if I won't have to pay them and anti fees if I will have to pay them.

(Yes I am incredibly selfish and no, I'm not bothered by the fact that I'm incredibly selfish.)

amacachi

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I was always torn on the fees issue: "free education for all" is a wonderful idea in theory but on the other hand if the universities and colleges need money it has to come from somewhere.
Of course I always assumed that the idea of fees was to pump more money into education but from reading through this thread it seems like they won't really benefit: they'll just receive students money instead of Government money. Is this correct?

Whatever method is brought in better be means tested. For purely selfish reasons, I would not have minded the upfront approach if it was aimed specifically at higher or middle income earners because if that was the case I (and my parents) wouldn't have had to pay them.

Basically, I'm pro fees if I won't have to pay them and anti fees if I will have to pay them.

(Yes I am incredibly selfish and no, I'm not bothered by the fact that I'm incredibly selfish.)

I'm pro-fees fullstop, even though it would be a pretty harsh system in which anyone in my family would have to pay them. Once loans are available then it's fair.

Gavin "shels"

Acid_Violet wrote: »

It's worth considering that we already have a highly skilled and educated workforce. Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem of unemployment as there are tonnes of highly trained people who've worked their asses off in college who can't get jobs anymore cos there aren't any for them.

Foreign and native investors want cheap labour more than they want educated workers. That's why they're moving their factories to India and China, where people will work for less, where they know that they're infinitely more competitive and will work longer hours and a lot harder. If anything, we're too educated.

I'll pick you up on the first point, and I'll use an example. Our IT workforce, over half of the employed workforce in IT is foreign as there isn't enough Irish skilled enough to fill the posts, along with that 2,000-3,000 IT jobs go unfilled every year in Ireland (stats were on RTÉ a while back).

If foreign and native investors want cheap labour over educated works, why are the likes of Intel, Ebay, Google, etc... based in Ireland!?

randylonghorn

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I was always torn on the fees issue: "free education for all" is a wonderful idea in theory but on the other hand if the universities and colleges need money it has to come from somewhere.
Of course I always assumed that the idea of fees was to pump more money into education but from reading through this thread it seems like they won't really benefit: they'll just receive students money instead of Government money. Is this correct?

I think it definitely is at this stage.

If fees had been re-introduced when Noel Dempsey wanted to do it, and the exchequer was flush, there was a fair chance that the colleges would have benefited. Now, I firmly believe it will simply be used as a partial palliative in further massive State cutbacks in funding to third level.

Gavin shels wrote: »

I'll pick you up on the first point, and I'll use an example. Our IT workforce, over half of the employed workforce in IT is foreign as there isn't enough Irish skilled enough to fill the posts, along with that 2,000-3,000 IT jobs go unfilled every year in Ireland (stats were on RTÉ a while back).

I suspect those stats were out of date; if not then, they soon will be. There have been a lot of IT people let go in the last year.

Gavin shels wrote: »

If foreign and native investors want cheap labour over educated works, why are the likes of Intel, Ebay, Google, etc... based in Ireland!?

Intel are cutting back, AFAIK. But I agree that we are likely to retain Ebay, Google and the high-end jobs at Intel, for a while at least. In fact, with likely decreases in labour costs, they may be fairly safe in the foreseeable future.

For a better example of what has gone / will go, look at Dell.

Agent J

randylonghorn wrote: »

I think it definitely is at this stage.

If fees had been re-introduced when Noel Dempsey wanted to do it, and the exchequer was flush, there was a fair chance that the colleges would have benefited.

I have to disagree.
What makes you think the government would have maintained its funding as well as put fees on students even back in 2002?
Disaster Dempsey jacked up the registration fee 70% in the same year as well as hitting the back to education allowance hard.
Also this was amid the cut backs which followed the 2002 general elections which seem like paper cuts in comparison to todays.

It has always been about trying to shift the burden of payment of 3rd level education from central government funds to the indivudals. Its just that now they dont have to make the pretense of "Improving access" or some other fancy phrase.

randylonghorn

Agent J wrote: »

I have to disagree.
What makes you think the government would have maintained its funding as well as put fees on students even back in 2002?

Tbh, I wouldn't be shoving the idea down anyone's throat as a fact.

I'm more saying: "it might have happened then, at least to some degree, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell now!"

Agent J

randylonghorn wrote: »

Tbh, I wouldn't be shoving the idea down anyone's throat as a fact.

I'm more saying: "it might have happened then, at least to some degree, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell now!"

Fair enough.

You make some good points in your intial post. I'm not exactly a fan of the graduate tax idea and based on the current grant system that this government has presided over for the past 12 years i dont have a lot of faith in them coming up with anything fair means tested.

Amen to the part time students though. Those poor SOBs dont get one red cent from the government(Baring claiming the Tax back assuming they earned enough)

RiverWilde

Bring back fees? No, not a good idea.

However, this isn't the main problem with the system. The main problem is places or rather lack thereof.

It's probably been said earlier but here goes ... we have a recession ... nearly 500,000 unemployed and what does the govt do? It makes it more difficult to obtain education and training.

Brilliant!

Maybe they'll bring back the window tax next.

Riv