Incoming students May Be Liable For Fees Next Year

p1akuw47h5r3it

This will cause an outcry for sure!

New students to be informed of possible fees

Quote:
THE DEPARTMENT of Education has instructed third-level colleges to put new students on notice they may be liable for new fees from next year.

Students will be told of their potential liability for fees when they register for the first time next month.

__________________

ohthebaby

But sure did we not already know that?! I always thought that's what was going to happen if they were introduced. Not that I want them or anything.

Boston

freeloading students! Why don't you get a job.... oh right.

snappieT

ohthebaby wrote: »

But sure did we not already know that?! I always thought that's what was going to happen if they were introduced. Not that I want them or anything.

I think the idea everyone had in their head was that only new students would be liable for fees, not continuing students. Since those who register this year will be continuing by next year when fees (may) come in, it was thought/hoped that they would be exempt.

p1akuw47h5r3it

snappieT wrote: »

I think the idea everyone had in their head was that only new students would be liable for fees, not continuing students. Since those who register this year will be continuing by next year when fees (may) come in, it was thought/hoped that they would be exempt.

Exactly

t0mm

But surely the whole point of not giving fees to continuing students is that when they chose to go to college they did so with the expectation that they would be receiving free fees. It could be argued that new students entered the college system when they completed the CAO back in Feb, meaning that the same applied to them. The process for going to college started back then, not when they register. Of course the Dept. will argue that that is not that case, but could this be counted as a valid point if a legal challege ever took place?

mathew

Not really. You submit an application in Feb.. But we knew by april that fees were going to be a pretty big possibility.. You can withdraw your application if you wish up to the 1st of July..
In theory most students should know already so telling them at registration is probably just to cover themselves.
It will most likely be a graduate loan type system too.. It may end up being cheaper next year if the registration fee is included into the loan..
Yes, students will then all be in debt.. But thats another argument altogether...

Cantab.

So does this mean that by next academic year, all the first years will be paying fees and the second/third/fourth years won't be?

It would be interesting to compare the examination performance with and without fees.

FIFA2004

i know nobody really knows whats going to happen but i was wondering what people think will happen to those in my situation.
I started college last year but changed course so will be a first year again. So ill have to pay fee's for this coming year. Will i be able to get away with fee's or a graduate tax if they are introduced because i was in the system from last year

devinejay

That's a tricky one Fifa, but I'd imagine you are likely to get caught. They're not going to let many through the net, the whole reason they're informing this years students is so that whenever they're ready they can start charging, rather than have students who are only in college a couple of months get away with the rest of their degrees fee-tree.

That's what I gathered anyway, when they say

The department hopes this move will help to avert any legal challenge by students to a new fees regime.

all I hear is

We're about to do something that will seriously p!ss a lot of you guys off

claire h

ohthebaby wrote: »

But sure did we not already know that?!

No. Conjecture, speculation, and 'maybe's/'probably's do not count as adequately informing incoming students about the financial situation they're putting themselves into. Saying it a few weeks before students are going to register, after they've applied under different circumstances, after they've accepted offers of college places, after they've made plans for the upcoming year - it's absolutely disgraceful.

j1smithy

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but however I think the return of fees is a good idea. I remember in my first year we had lost 20 people as dropouts by christmas. Our class also has a 10% failure rate up. I can't help but think that if a student knew s/he was sitting on €6000 debt for each year would motivate them to attend class and perhaps spend less time partying (if you can juggle both then fair play, a lot can't though)

I made a similar post in AH. The reintroduction of fees won't affest the affordability of college if they are financed with a student loan which is repayable upon graduation/dropping out. Day to day expenses (rent, food etc) while in college can still be financed as before with part time jobs, parents or summer work as well as additional borrowings if required and the grant if eligible.

One should consider fees a capital investment in ones self. If the repayments to the bank don't start till after graduation then I don't see what the problem is. A third level education is a privilege not a right, and its about time the collective student body sees that.

cul-2008

j1smithy wrote: »

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but however I think the return of fees is a good idea. I remember in my first year we had lost 20 people as dropouts by christmas. Our class also has a 10% failure rate up. I can't help but think that if a student knew s/he was sitting on €6000 debt for each year would motivate them to attend class and perhaps spend less time partying (if you can juggle both then fair play, a lot can't though)

I made a similar post in AH. The reintroduction of fees won't affest the affordability of college if they are financed with a student loan which is repayable upon graduation/dropping out. Day to day expenses (rent, food etc) while in college can still be financed as before with part time jobs, parents or summer work as well as additional borrowings if required and the grant if eligible.

One should consider fees a capital investment in ones self. If the repayments to the bank don't start till after graduation then I don't see what the problem is. A third level education is a privilege not a right, and its about time the collective student body sees that.

Let me guess, you have your degree started/completed? :rolleyes:

Well if you want to take that approach to things, how about I invoice you the €30,000 that I will more than likely have to pay at the end of my new degree? Now that, to me, is about as acceptable as the re-introduction of third level course fees.

Jonathan

j1smithy wrote: »

A third level education is a privilege not a right, and its about time the collective student body sees that.

Pity TCDSU thinks otherwise.

Boston

j1smithy wrote: »

I'm probably going to get flamed for this but however I think the return of fees is a good idea. I remember in my first year we had lost 20 people as dropouts by christmas. Our class also has a 10% failure rate up. I can't help but think that if a student knew s/he was sitting on €6000 debt for each year would motivate them to attend class and perhaps spend less time partying (if you can juggle both then fair play, a lot can't though)

I made a similar post in AH. The reintroduction of fees won't affest the affordability of college if they are financed with a student loan which is repayable upon graduation/dropping out. Day to day expenses (rent, food etc) while in college can still be financed as before with part time jobs, parents or summer work as well as additional borrowings if required and the grant if eligible.

One should consider fees a capital investment in ones self. If the repayments to the bank don't start till after graduation then I don't see what the problem is. A third level education is a privilege not a right, and its about time the collective student body sees that.

Spoken like someone who has never had to get a student loan in their life. They're not that easy to obtain and often the conditions are extremely punitive. The assumption that everyone will be able to get a loan is not accurate.

Having a degree doesn't guarantee a higher salary, or a salary at all for that matter. Students loans can represent a serious hardship even when someone has an ok Job. I know people in my year whose net income after tax isn't that much more than what I receive on a studentship.

Students loans repayments will simply raise the minimum graduate wage. I'f I was an engineer in the states I'd be looking at a starting salary of 50K+ and for that to go up significantly in the first few years, heres it's 30 - 32K with 28K not that uncommon. It will simply raise Labour costs.

Students fees way be introduced, but so far there has been no clear move by the government to outline how students are meant to pay for these loans. No offer of interest free loan scheme, no guaranteed loans. No move to make load repayments tax deductible. I'm sure some people in power think this is exactly the type of thing the banks need.

gnl

I personally don't have a massive problem with the idea of fees IF the system is fair, something like the UK or Australian system where fees are state provided and payed back only when the student is earning a set amount post-degree (£15k in the UK I think).

If they didn't provide state loans, I'd be pretty fu****g mad if banks got stingey on applicants for loans. Especially because our fees will go towards bailing them out (yeah, I know that's cliched economics, but hey). Without some kind of loan, I for one would be screwed.

Boston

Not the UK, only England, Whales, Scotland and Afair Northern Ireland have free fee's. The ironic thing is that England residents have to pay to attend colleges in other parts of the UK, whereas welsh, Scottish and north Irish student can attend English universities for free (Was true last time I looked).

Here a scenario, you want to go to college, but your parents are retired living off small pensions and as such an ineligible to go sign a loan, what are you going to do? Should you fokes be put in a situation whereby they'd have to remortgage they're home at 65 years+ in order to provide an education for you? Is that the type of Ireland anyone bar the free marketters wants?

j1smithy

cul-2008 wrote: »

Let me guess, you have your degree started/completed? :rolleyes:

Well if you want to take that approach to things, how about I invoice you the €30,000 that I will more than likely have to pay at the end of my new degree? Now that, to me, is about as acceptable as the re-introduction of third level course fees.

Yes, I was in Trinity during the free fees scheme. My course would have costed about €24,000 if I had to pay fees. I would have paid it if I had to. I would have been able to pay that debt in about 2 and a half years. Thats not a big ask. Sure I'm happy I don't have to pay it but I wasn't blind when I was in College, its massively underfunded, student health being a prime example. So the college needs money and whos going to pay for it? The Government... well they have none, so it must be the students.

Juxta Dublin

Boston wrote: »

Here a scenario, you want to go to college, but your parents are retired living off small pensions and as such an ineligible to go sign a loan, what are you going to do? Should you fokes be put in a situation whereby they'd have to remortgage they're home at 65 years+ in order to provide an education for you? Is that the type of Ireland anyone bar the free marketters wants?

How likely is that scenario? In all fairness? Both parents would have to be 45/46+ at the time of the students birth. Furthermore, people having kids at this age will tend to be wealthier than most and thus the chances of them living off 'small pensions' is pretty low.

One can construct an obscure scenario to oppose pretty much any policy decision.

Boston

j1smithy wrote: »

Yes, I was in Trinity during the free fees scheme. My course would have costed about €24,000 if I had to pay fees. I would have paid it if I had to. I would have been able to pay that debt in about 2 and a half years. Thats not a big ask. Sure I'm happy I don't have to pay it but I wasn't blind when I was in College, its massively underfunded, student health being a prime example. So the college needs money and whos going to pay for it? The Government... well they have none, so it must be the students.

You would have been able to pay ~1000 euro a month off a loan plus interest on top of the cost of living? I don't know what job you have, but I'll take it. Student loans of 5 - 6K are scheduled for repayment over 2 -3 years, loans of 24k are not.

I didn't realise the new fees will be going to pay for improved health services. I thought they would be going to make up for the short fall in direct government funding. In a similar fain to your argument I heard the student fees will be going towards curing blindness in puppies.

Fad

I dont get why people thing that the college will benefit in any capacity though, if student health is underfunded now, it will stay underfunded, because as far as I can tell, the fees are just to replace the government contribution and not add to it (Which for some bizarre reason, people seem to think that colleges will gain from this). {Edit: Bostie beat me to it}

I would also assume that if the fees are re-introduced, the student loan system would be altered significantly, if every incoming student needs one, under the current system there'd be havoc.

MrPain

I'm sure by the time the government save any money, this whole recession lark will be over.

gnl

Boston wrote: »

Not the UK, only England, Whales, Scotland and Afair Northern Ireland have free fee's. The ironic thing is that England residents have to pay to attend colleges in other parts of the UK, whereas welsh, Scottish and north Irish student can attend English universities for free (Was true last time I looked).

Here a scenario, you want to go to college, but your parents are retired living off small pensions and as such an ineligible to go sign a loan, what are you going to do? Should you fokes be put in a situation whereby they'd have to remortgage they're home at 65 years+ in order to provide an education for you? Is that the type of Ireland anyone bar the free marketters wants?

You have to pay fees (through the loan scheme) if you attend uni in England, Wales, NI, regardless of where you are from. There are no fees in Scotland though.

I totally get the unfairness of that scenario, there's a lot of people (me included) who just couldn't go to uni if they had to raise 15-25k from home to pay for it. If they introduced a scheme that left students looking at that situation I'd be waving signs drunk and angry up and down Dame Street like every other student would.

On the other side though, if the government introduced a fees scheme based on loans repayable in later years, which made 3rd level accessible to everyone I wouldn't object to it, even though I'd rather not pay. Especially if it meant better facilities, teaching etc.

fh041205

Jonathan wrote: »

Pity TCDSU thinks otherwise.

Pity they never asked the students to vote on it. The biggest shame IMO is that they won't negotiate. Its been pretty obvious for a while that fees would be introduced yet the TCDSU have done nothing about it. Now that this is confirmed ,they should be working on getting the best deal for students (something they should have been doing since the start). Yet I think that this may never happen.

j1smithy

Boston wrote: »

Spoken like someone who has never had to get a student loan in their life. They're not that easy to obtain and often the conditions are extremely punitive. The assumption that everyone will be able to get a loan is not accurate.

Having a degree doesn't guarantee a higher salary, or a salary at all for that matter. Students loans can represent a serious hardship even when someone has an ok Job. I know people in my year whose net income after tax isn't that much more than what I receive on a studentship.

Students loans repayments will simply raise the minimum graduate wage. I'f I was an engineer in the states I'd be looking at a starting salary of 50K+ and for that to go up significantly in the first few years, heres it's 30 - 32K with 28K not that uncommon. It will simply raise Labour costs.

Students fees way be introduced, but so far there has been no clear move by the government to outline how students are meant to pay for these loans. No offer of interest free loan scheme, no guaranteed loans. No move to make load repayments tax deductible. I'm sure some people in power think this is exactly the type of thing the banks need.

No I never had to get a student loan. I was able to use Summer work (albeit plentiful then) my sponsorship as well as assistance from my parents (for which I'm extremely grateful) to finance my university years.

Student loans will be obtainable certainly from the two main banks as the government can pressure them into providing the products. The only problem some people may have is providing collateral and as a last measure the nullification of any qualification they may have obtained in the event of default could be used. If it was a government scheme the main problem is people upping and emigrating after graduation and not paying.

Having a degree doesn't necessarily guarantee a higher income but it gives you the potential to have one. There is a glass ceiling in terms of promotion you'd find it difficult to break through with your degree.

Boston

Juxta Dublin wrote: »

How likely is that scenario? In all fairness? Both parents would have to be 45/46+ at the time of the students birth. Furthermore, people having kids at this age will tend to be wealthier than most and thus the chances of them living off 'small pensions' is pretty low.

One can construct an obscure scenario to oppose pretty much any policy decision.

Getting a loan is becoming more difficult not easier. The idea that someone won't be able to find an eligible person to co-sign their loan is far from an "obscure scenario" but rather the likely case for thousands of would be students.

You also have a strange notion of what a state pension is like.

Boston

gnl wrote: »

You have to pay fees (through the loan scheme) if you attend uni in England, Wales, NI, regardless of where you are from. There are no fees in Scotland though.

I totally get the unfairness of that scenario, there's a lot of people (me included) who just couldn't go to uni if they had to raise 15-25k from home to pay for it. If they introduced a scheme that left students looking at that situation I'd be waving signs drunk and angry up and down Dame Street like every other student would.

On the other side though, if the government introduced a fees scheme based on loans repayable in later years, which made 3rd level accessible to everyone I wouldn't object to it, even though I'd rather not pay. Especially if it meant better facilities, teaching etc.

A good system.

1) Guaranteed loans assured by the government
2) Interest free loan.
3) No repayments until income reached a suitable threshold
4) Make loans repayments 100% tax deductible.

Juxta Dublin

Boston wrote: »

Getting a loan is becoming more difficult not easier. The idea that someone won't be able to find an eligible person to co-sign their loan is far from an "obscure scenario" but rather the likely case for thousands of would be students.

You also have a strange notion of what a state pension is like.

As a percentage of college students, how many have both parents 65+?

As a percentage of that group, how many would be on state pensions?

Would you not agree that the cohort of people you are talking about are likely to be a tiny minority?

gnl

Boston wrote: »

A good system.

1) Guaranteed loans assured by the government
2) Interest free loan.
3) No repayments until income reached a suitable threshold
4) Make loans repayments 100% tax deductible.

True that, and not a far fetched system either, as far as I know (except maybe the 4th part) that's the story in England. I wouldn't have a prob signing up for that.

Fad

Juxta Dublin wrote: »

As a percentage of college students, how many have both parents 65+?

As a percentage of that group, how many would be on state pensions?

Would you not agree that the cohort of people you are talking about are likely to be a tiny minority?

I think his point was more about people not being able to get someone to co-sign for them for a loan. Now, if I take myself as an example, if I was heading in to college last September, and fees had just come back in, and I needed a loan under the current system of student loan, there would no way in hell I could get someone to sign for me, I really doubt having one parent in half time employment is enough to get a loan.......Luckily, that situation has changed, but if it hadnt and I had to get a loan this year, I probably wouldnt be going to college at all.

Juxta Dublin

Fad wrote: »

I think his point was more about people not being able to get someone to co-sign for them for a loan. Now, if I take myself as an example, if I was heading in to college last September, and fees had just come back in, and I needed a loan under the current system of student loan, there would no way in hell I could get someone to sign for me, I really doubt having one parent in half time employment is enough to get a loan.......Luckily, that situation has changed, but if it hadnt and I had to get a loan this year, I probably wouldnt be going to college at all.

Not to pry or anything, but if you have one parent in half time in employment, would you not be under any but the most extreme threshold for fees? Also do you not get a grant from the government?

I realise these are personal questions, but one can't really discuss your post without asking them.

Fad

Juxta Dublin wrote: »

Not to pry or anything, but if you have one parent in half time in employment, would you not be under any but the most extreme threshold for fees? Also do you not get a grant from the government?

I realise these are personal questions, but one can't really discuss your post without asking them.

No problem! it's a long story, but the way the grants system is done, it's done on the 07' tax year, and the unemployment had been a semi-recent/sudden development, and that employment is another story altogether.

Fad

Fad wrote: »

No problem! it's a long story, but the way the grants system is done, it's done on the 07' tax year, and the unemployment had been a semi-recent/sudden development, and that employment is another story altogether.

The grant if you're applying this year isn't on '07 tax year it's on '08. Might you have read the previous regulations? They were only updated online (apart from the application form) in the last month. The Council/VEC also take the unemployment into account when determining the level of income as you'd have a 'change in circumstances'.

Might be worth giving your Council a call to clarify, might be worth it

Fad

Dónal wrote: »

The grant if you're applying this year isn't on '07 tax year it's on '08. Might you have read the previous regulations? They were only updated online (apart from the application form) in the last month. The Council/VEC also take the unemployment into account when determining the level of income as you'd have a 'change in circumstances'.

Might be worth giving your Council a call to clarify, might be worth it

Well daddy got himself a job about a month ago, so my real problem was somewhat relieved. I was reading the website the week before the leaving, which is close enough to actual college for me to assume that it was the '07 year. (Thanks for clearing that up, I'll give a look)

Unregistered.

What if you have to repeat first year? *gulp*

Fad

Unregistered. wrote: »

What if you have to repeat first year? *gulp*

In short, I wont......

Boston

Juxta Dublin wrote: »

As a percentage of college students, how many have both parents 65+?

As a percentage of that group, how many would be on state pensions?

Would you not agree that the cohort of people you are talking about are likely to be a tiny minority?

Fad answers this point nicely.

Juxta Dublin wrote: »

Not to pry or anything, but if you have one parent in half time in employment, would you not be under any but the most extreme threshold for fees? Also do you not get a grant from the government?

Now there's an assumption. That anyone with an sufficient income would be eligible to co-sign. What about the people mortgaged to the hilt and in negative equity but have incomes which preclude their children from getting grants? Is this an absurd scenario? Do you think the number of families in this situation will increase or decrease in the coming years?

Also, you assume a massively expanded grant scheme, the government have made no indication that they'll expand the thresholds. The argument is being made that children of rich parents shouldn't get free education, especially when they can afford private secondary schools and the like. However in the same vain why should middle income families be expected to pay the same as those extremely well off. Surely it will cause unfair hardship.

I don't mind fees, infact I think fees are probably the only way to stop the rot when it comes to Irish third level education. If its progressive, fair and genuinely takes into accounts peoples circumstances, then great, but I fear it will be another regressive taxation, poorly thought out and extremely damaging. We don't have to ****ing up introducing fees, it's just highly likely that we will.

fh041205

Boston wrote: »

Fad answers this point nicely.



Now there's an assumption. That anyone without an sufficient income would be eligible to co-sign. What about the people mortgaged to the hilt and in negative equity but have incomes which preclude their children from getting grants? Is this an absurd scenario? Do you think the number of families in this situation will increase or decrease in the coming years?

Also, you assume a massively expanded grant scheme, the government have made no indication that they'll expand the thresholds. The argument is being made that children of rick parents shouldn't get free education, especially when they can afford private secondary schools and the like. However in the same vain why should middle income families be expected to pay the same as those extremely well off. Surely it will cause unfair hardship.

I don't mind fees, infact I think fees are probably the only way to stop the rot when it comes to Irish third level education. If its progressive, fair and genuinely takes into accounts peoples circumstances, then great, but I fear it will be another regressive taxation, poorly thought out and extremely damaging. We don't have to ****ing up introducing fees, it's just highly likely that we will.

Excellent post. I think you may have hit a nail on the head there in terms of the grant system. It doesn't provide properly for people who genuinely need it, in the exact way that you have descibed. Thats the real problem with fees. Families who can't afford it should be covered under the grant system but alas they are not.

student30

The problem with bringing in said fees is that this country has a habit of doing these cuts 'accross the board' failing to take into account people's incomes etc. I'm not opposed to fees at all once they are means tested fairly,thus allowing access for everyone regardless of your financial situation.
As for student loans....yes that sounds great, do your degree and pay back your loan with your high paying job....ummm jobs in Ireland at the moment=0.
It's high time we all took a stand in this country, look at the state of the healthcare system....why do we put up with it! The government announces that in 2010 they will introduce fees for students starting college in 2009 just as students have already accepted ,if not made plans to accept(as previously discussed) their college places.....WHAT???? Typical Irish government, bring it in and that's it, end of, well it's just time people to get your protest boots on!

:mad:

Fad

If a proper equal access loans system is put in place, I'm not entirely sure why it should be means tested at all. I understand a lot of people wont see it that way, but if an adequate loans system comes out, then those who are in a lower income bracket could get grants t cover cost of living, and they, like everyone else, would pay once they graduate.

Any thoughts?

student30

By means testing I mean, if a student falls into a certain income bracket, like the do with the current grant system, then their fees will be paid and they will qualify for assistance.
The problem is that a student whose parent is on social welfare and a student whose parent is a politician say, are charged the same fees accross the board regardless of circumstance...I think that is the point I am getting at, there should be assistance and grants for those who qualify, like the current grant scheme, otherwise we will find a lot of people unwilling to have this debt hanging over their heads, not because education is not important to them but because of the risk involved at the end of the degree ie: job prospects.

fh041205

student30 wrote: »

The problem with bringing in said fees is that this country has a habit of doing these cuts 'accross the board' failing to take into account people's incomes etc.
:mad:

You're saying that people who can't afford fees will be prevented from going to college, but those who can afford it should be asked to pay it. Have I picked you up correctly there?

Its quite obvious then, that your problem is with the grant scheme which should provide for such people, not the actual fees themselves. Thus protesting fees is not what you want.

Edit, you may have indeed elaborated this very point in your reply above, which eluded me.

student30

fh041205 wrote: »

You're saying that people who can't afford fees will be prevented from going to college, but those who can afford it should be asked to pay it. Have I picked you up correctly there?

Its quite obvious then, that your problem is with the grant scheme which should provide for such people, not the actual fees themselves. Thus protesting fees is not what you want.

Edit, you may have indeed elaborated this very point in your reply above, which eluded me.

Protesting fees is what I am indeed doing. The grant scheme currently does provide for lower incomes not neccesarily your average joe.
With these fees introduced, higher income earners will not be the ones getting these student loans it wil be the average income earner. Means testing is the fairest way.
When fees come in I'm not sure if maintenance grants will automatically be raised,especially if these student loans are available for all....maybe someone can shed light on this?
Grants being raised would be an alternative, it is secondary to the Fee issue.
If fees come in then students should pay fees in accordance to their financial situation, sliding scale, this would be the Ideal imo.
For once it would be nice if this was done fairly.

fh041205

student30 wrote: »

If fees come in then students should pay fees in accordance to their financial situation, sliding scale, this would be the Ideal imo.
For once it would be nice if this was done fairly.

So you're not against fees, you just think they should be inplemented fairly yes? Thats perfectly understandable. I actually share your opinion here. The quest now should be to get the best deal for students in precisely this way. Protesting against fees full stop will not achieve this. Thats the point I was making. Just had to make sure I knew what you meant first.

Fees themselves are not the problem. Its neccessary in todays financial climate (please don't kill me for regurgetating that phrase). The problem is how can they be introduced fairly so people can still have a fair chance at a 3rd level education.

Señor Juárez

A bit of a hark back to earlier in the thread, but ANYONE who says that fees should be reintroduced on the basis of discouraging dropouts and laziness should be shot. How the hell is that fair to those of us who actually do try, and do well?

I was a decent enough student, and I did quite well in the end. It is also the case that I simply would not have been able to go to college were it not free, taking out a massive loan would simply have been too daunting a commitment. Now using my degree I will no doubt be capable of contributing to the economy in a more useful way.

Solution: fees are funded conditional on your finishing of your degree. If you fail or decide to drop out, you should be liable for every cent you wasted.

Fighting Irish

No thanks

I won't be paying any either way

student30 wrote: »

The problem with bringing in said fees is that this country has a habit of doing these cuts 'accross the board' failing to take into account people's incomes etc. I'm not opposed to fees at all once they are means tested fairly,thus allowing access for everyone regardless of your financial situation.
As for student loans....yes that sounds great, do your degree and pay back your loan with your high paying job....ummm jobs in Ireland at the moment=0.
It's high time we all took a stand in this country, look at the state of the healthcare system....why do we put up with it! The government announces that in 2010 they will introduce fees for students starting college in 2009 just as students have already accepted ,if not made plans to accept(as previously discussed) their college places.....WHAT???? Typical Irish government, bring it in and that's it, end of, well it's just time people to get your protest boots on!

:mad:

Fighting Irish

Why not bring fees back but you get the money back if you finish your course

Fighting Irish

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Why not bring fees back but you get the money back if you finish your course

What would the point of that be?

Fighting Irish

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

What would the point of that be?

That was a reply to someone who said something about the dropouts costing everyone money

I'd be happy if it was like that, everyone pays €5000 a year and you get back some of that money once you finish your course