Masters and H-Dip

drusk

Mods - I know this is related to student finances, but I think I might get a better response here.

I have a degree and a masters. I have never applied for any type of grant or student assistance before.

I am going back to college to do the h-dip this year. Is there any chance that I'll be entitled to a grant, even though I've already got done a postgrad course?

Mr.Nice Guy

I sent an email about this to the local authority and was told that the grants scheme is based on progression so you have to be going up a level to be eligible for funding. Therefore if you already hold a postgraduate diploma you aren't eligible to apply for another one as it is the same level of study.

Nead21

yeah was in the same situation when i was heading back to college to do my HDip. The County Council recommended that i write a letter to the DES pleading my case...financial hardship etc...but i was still declined.

As the poster above said, going back to do a Diploma is not seen as progression in you academic career after completing a Masters.

Rosita

I know someone who (like myself) is starting the Dip in September and they are in a slightly anomalous situation related to this.

He will graduate with a Master's in November - all going well of course - with the course requirements due to be completed by September.

He did not apply for any grant or student assistance ever before. In light of what has just been mentioned here, I wonder if he would qualify for a grant for the Dip on the basis that he will not have the Master's completed at the commencement of the Dip?

While this might seem very technical and too smart by half, when you think about it in no other situation e.g. going for a job, applying for another course etc. could he claim to hold a Master's degree before actual graduation. If fairness and consistency were to apply (which is no guarantee when there's money involved of course!) he might have an argument surely?

Rosita

I just had a look at the application form for the grant and I reckon it's nearly easier to raise the money yourself anyway.

But it does ask if you commenced any other post-graduate course which seems like their get out clause.

rainbowtrout

Rosita wrote: »

I know someone who (like myself) is starting the Dip in September and they are in a slightly anomalous situation related to this.

He will graduate with a Master's in November - all going well of course - with the course requirements due to be completed by September.

He did not apply for any grant or student assistance ever before. In light of what has just been mentioned here, I wonder if he would qualify for a grant for the Dip on the basis that he will not have the Master's completed at the commencement of the Dip?

While this might seem very technical and too smart by half, when you think about it in no other situation e.g. going for a job, applying for another course etc. could he claim to hold a Master's degree before actual graduation. If fairness and consistency were to apply (which is no guarantee when there's money involved of course!) he might have an argument surely?

Well if he's graduating in November with everything completed in September then he's finished his masters and will probably have his results. Or at the very least will be at the results pending stage.

If you wanted to look at it that way, when he's finished the dip course should he apply for any teaching jobs next year if he hasn't officially graduated? Wait until September perhaps when he gets the bit of paper in his hand as he won't be able to technically claim he has the HDip. As far as grants are concerned he's done the masters and won't get a grant. I'd hate to think another deserving student who is genuinely progressing from one level to another would miss out on a grant because someone tried this.

Rosita

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well if he's graduating in November with everything completed in September then he's finished his masters and will probably have his results. Or at the very least will be at the results pending stage.

If you wanted to look at it that way, when he's finished the dip course should he apply for any teaching jobs next year if he hasn't officially graduated? Wait until September perhaps when he gets the bit of paper in his hand as he won't be able to technically claim he has the HDip. As far as grants are concerned he's done the masters and won't get a grant. I'd hate to think another deserving student who is genuinely progressing from one level to another would miss out on a grant because someone tried this.

Look, if he doesn't qualify fair enough. But in fairness your last sentence about another "deserving student" is a bit harsh as it implies that this lad somehow does not "deserve" assistance (as opposed to not technically qualifying) despite the fact that he has never at any stage - even as an under-graduate (he did a part-time degree later in life) - has had his fees paid by anyone else.

He then had the wherewithal to do and fund by himself a Master's to the tune of €7k+ (obviously not copping on to the grants available at the time). To imply now that he is undeserving (for that is the flip side of your "undeserving student" remark) of a grant while some other little mite who didn't bother doing a Master's and had their under-graduate fees paid by the exchequer deserves support is unfair.

As he put it himself, (his Primary and Master's degree have cost him €25k on fees alone all paid for by himself) he might not qualify for a grant which is fair enough but to say that he doesn't deserve one is hard to take.

rainbowtrout

Rosita wrote: »

Look, if he doesn't qualify fair enough. But in fairness your last sentence about another "deserving student" is a bit harsh as it implies that this lad somehow does not "deserve" assistance (as opposed to not technically qualifying) despite the fact that he has never at any stage - even as an under-graduate (he did a part-time degree later in life) - has had his fees paid by anyone else.

He then had the wherewithal to do and fund by himself a Master's to the tune of €7k+ (obviously not copping on to the grants available at the time). To imply now that he is undeserving (for that is the flip side of your "undeserving student" remark) of a grant while some other little mite who didn't bother doing a Master's and had their under-graduate fees paid by the exchequer deserves support is unfair.

As he put it himself, (his Primary and Master's degree have cost him €25k on fees alone all paid for by himself) he might not qualify for a grant which is fair enough but to say that he doesn't deserve one is hard to take.

Rosita, i think you're taking what I said totally out of context. I think it's quite obvious from what I said that I think he shouldn't be able to get a grant if he is not moving up a level, and for him to try and slip through on a technicality could mean a student that should get it for academic progression could miss out. I never said anything about him personally not deserving it and neither did you mention in your first post anything about his personal circumstances. Anyway, most people in this country who have gained a degree in since 1996 have not paid fees for it, myself included. So i wasn't even considering his personal circumstances.

Rosita

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Rosita, i think you're taking what I said totally out of context. I think it's quite obvious from what I said that I think he shouldn't be able to get a grant if he is not moving up a level, and for him to try and slip through on a technicality could mean a student that should get it for academic progression could miss out. I never said anything about him personally not deserving it and neither did you mention in your first post anything about his personal circumstances. Anyway, most people in this country who have gained a degree in since 1996 have not paid fees for it, myself included. So i wasn't even considering his personal circumstances.

I'd hate to think another deserving student who is genuinely progressing from one level to another would miss out on a grant because someone tried this.

You did not say anything about him personally not deserving it but - perhaps unwittingly - the above remark of yours clearly implied it. That's the context as far as I see.

And him slipping through on a technicality doesn't come into it. He is either entitled to a grant or he is not. It is a technicality that is preventing him qualifying for a grant rather than him trying to "slip through on a technicality" which is not the most elegant turn of phrase from someone who claims not to have suggested he was undeserving.

And frankly your view "I think he shouldn't be able to get a grant if he is not moving up a level" is meaningless as it simply means that you think the rules should be applied rather than offering any qualitative argument on the policy and why it should be so. Do you have a rational argument why someone should not qualify for a grant for one of their post-grads irrespective of their chronological order, or is it merely a case of keeping in line with whatever the rule is? And if that rule changed this would be your new position?

I'll say this much, if the idea of grants is to encourage people to further their education, there is no little irony in the fact that he would be blocked for having already done so.

Because essentially the reality is that in the first instance he will not ever get a local authority grant not because he is "not progressing" but because he dared to progress already.

It is a remarkably anti-educational piece of red tape and I am surprised to see someone who works in education defending it.

rainbowtrout

Rosita wrote: »

I'd hate to think another deserving student who is genuinely progressing from one level to another would miss out on a grant because someone tried this.

You did not say anything about him personally not deserving it but - perhaps unwittingly - the above remark of yours clearly implied it. That's the context as far as I see.

And him slipping through on a technicality doesn't come into it. He is either entitled to a grant or he is not. It is a technicality that is preventing him qualifying for a grant rather than him trying to "slip through on a technicality" which is not the most elegant turn of phrase from someone who claims not to have suggested he was undeserving.

And frankly your view "I think he shouldn't be able to get a grant if he is not moving up a level" is meaningless as it simply means that you think the rules should be applied rather than offering any qualitative argument on the policy and why it should be so. Do you have a rational argument why someone should not qualify for a grant for one of their post-grads irrespective of their chronological order, or is it merely a case of keeping in line with whatever the rule is? And if that rule changed this would be your new position?

I'll say this much, if the idea of grants is to encourage people to further their education, there is no little irony in the fact that he would be blocked for having already done so.

Because essentially the reality is that in the first instance he will not ever get a local authority grant not because he is "not progressing" but because he dared to progress already.

It is a remarkably anti-educational piece of red tape and I am surprised to see someone who works in education defending it.

I didn't imply anything, you're just suggesting I did. Sorry my English vocabulary isn't up to scratch, I'm a science teacher.

If students were to keep applying for grants indefinitely to keep moving from course to course at the same level, you can be sure a lot of money would be wasted. It's not there to prevent students progressing. Some of course might find it financially difficult. There will always be that few no matter what way the system operates.

Are you suggesting that students should move from postgrad to postgrad year after year and get the grant funding each time, just because they remain in education? Granted they are learning something new and I'm not denying that, but if that rule changed it would also mean students could keep switching courses and repeating courses at undergrad level and claim grants. Many who genuinely need it but there are plenty out there just there for a good time.

Rosita

rainbowtrout wrote: »

1) I didn't imply anything, you're just suggesting I did. Sorry my English vocabulary isn't up to scratch, I'm a science teacher.

2) If students were to keep applying for grants indefinitely to keep moving from course to course at the same level, you can be sure a lot of money would be wasted. It's not there to prevent students progressing. Some of course might find it financially difficult. There will always be that few no matter what way the system operates.

3) Are you suggesting that students should move from postgrad to postgrad year after year and get the grant funding each time, just because they remain in education? Granted they are learning something new and I'm not denying that, but if that rule changed it would also mean students could keep switching courses and repeating courses at undergrad level and claim grants. Many who genuinely need it but there are plenty out there just there for a good time.

1) Well maybe it was sloppily phrased, but it was a very reasonable inference to draw on my part.

2) I never suggested the rule was there to prevent students progressing. I suggested that the application of the rule in this instance has the effect of punishing progress.

You have given the obvious explanation as to why the rule is there but not an explanation as to why in the cases such as the one I am citing and the one the OP raised about themselves the rule should be applied so rigidly. What is so special about the first post-grad? Why can the grant not apply to someone's second one instead? I would suggest there is no rational argument to defend the rule's application in this manner.

I imagine the rule emerged from concerns over procedural inefficiencies in verifying if people had previously received grants rather than anything more meaningful than that in the educational sense.

3) It doesn't get much more disingenuous than this utter distortion of what I have been arguing - Are you suggesting that students should move from postgrad to postgrad year after year and get the grant funding each time, just because they remain in education?

Did I suggest that? If I did please point it out so that I can withdraw it because it is the opposite to what I think.

What I actually suggested was that it might be fair that a student be given a grant for one post-graduate course at level 9 and that it is sharp practice rather than fair to insist that option is available only if it is your first post-grad.

I am patently - for anyone reading my posts with due care - not arguing that all post-grads should have grants available. I have never challenged the effect the rule is trying to achieve, merely the nature of its application in an instance such as this one.

In actual fact, I would be inclined to argue that in an environment of free fees for primary degrees, there might be an argument for no grant for post-grads at all.

Though quite how a change in the grants rule for post-graduate courses would "also mean students could keep switching courses and repeating courses at undergrad level and claim grants" I have no idea. I don't quite get the connection between post-grad grants and under-grad courses.