College fees

omahaid

If we must bring back fees for college courses should be bring back fees for all courses? My argument is that some courses produce graduates that are more employable than others. I had a look at the UCC careers site (they have surveys for where grads go after finishing their degree). Without stating specific degrees, it is pretty apparent that some degrees prepare a student to work and pay taxes, other courses do not.

I don't want people to not study what they want, but if we have to introduce fees for courses, should we introduce them for courses where there is less chance of getting our money back?

ei.sdraob

yes

science and engineering courses should be encouraged, their uptake is still dropping


accountants, lawyers and government artists only lead to the disaster that this country is in and don't produce products/services that can be exported in order to gain wealth

omahaid

Yes, that was my thinking. If we are to become a "knowledge economy TM " then perhaps we should ruthlessly encourage it, this idea that "sure at least you're at college studing hard" that our parents have isn't entirely correct. All degrees are not equal so the taxpayer should pay for people to study "useful" ones and course deemed not useful should not be subsidised.

prinz

Absolutely not. There are plenty of unemployed engineers and a lot of the job losses are in the science, research and manufacturing areas. .

prinz

The problem with this country for the last few years was people on the sites were getting far too well paid, as such third level was not attractive to many, who now end up on the dole lacking in qualifications etc. Graduate level salaries were far below what was being paid to brickies etc and that's what we should have changed. Reward people for gaining the 'knowledge' for our knowledge based economy. Instead for years we were rewarding people to shift bricks etc.

I would recommend Ireland follow the German example. Not sure if it's the same across all the Lander, but I know in NRW, the government subsidies are repayable after graduation/qualification based upon a percentage of your earnings. Also the amount repayable is dependent upon results in university, i.e. graduate with a 1.1 and you only have to repay 25%, graduate with a 2 you repay 50% etc. Incentives to excel tbh. That's where we would get the educated population needed for a 'knowledge based' economy. Favouring certain courses or subjects over others is ridiculous however.

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

Absolutely not. There are plenty of unemployed engineers and a lot of the job losses are in the science, research and manufacturing areas. .

Yes, but the statistics (at least the ones from UCC) imply that the reason that there are a lot of job losses in the science, research and manufacturing areas is that there are jobs in those areas in the first place. We don't here of any philosophers losing their jobs because there were never many "Job available: Philosopher" ads in the paper.

I'm not trying to say that we should bin these degrees, they benefit humanity, but should the tax payer pay for people to study them in a recession?

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

Absolutely not. There are plenty of unemployed engineers and a lot of the job losses are in the science, research and manufacturing areas. .

most of the current unemployment in engineering is in the construction related areas, and construction was at an incredible 25% of our economy, the writing was on the wall many years ago that its not sustainable...

i can open a job site now and see dozens of jobs I easily qualify for, everything from google ireland to a local startup in the incubation center

not that I need a job as i am an employer and main employee and still making money despite this recession throwing a spanner in work (in fact i should be working now instead of wasting time on boards ), if anything we be hiring once the government and the tax man stop doing everything in their power to discourage small local business from starting up :mad: the amounts we paid in taxes last year could have comfortably paid for 2 people at respectable salary, instead its going to be pay banks

tho some graduates expect a job handed to them on silver platter when they graduate, thats wrong attitude! which is prevalent across all fields

/

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

I'm not trying to say that we should bin these degrees, they benefit humanity, but should the tax payer pay for people to study them in a recession?

Why should I pay taxes to subsidise some young fella doing science? IMO it's nothing more worthwhile than a girl doing philosophy/art etc. The economy is not going to suddenly rebound because we churn out a few more science grads. Our standard of education is far below that achieved in most of mainland Europe, across all subjects and that is something which needs to be targeted.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

tho some graduates expect a job handed to them on silver platter when they graduate, thats wrong attitude! which is prevalent across all fields

See point above re standard of education. Should we also penalise medicine students, after all they don't export or generate wealth per se. Teachers? etc etc. Focusing on one or two areas would be detrimental in the long run tbh. I'll get blasted for Godwins Law or whatever, but it strikes me as resembling something of a fascist/Soviet ideal of determining people who are valuable to the state, and penalising those seen as superfluous to the national interest (doctors, lawyers, intellectuals etc.) As a law graduate myself I have a vested interest in this, because if I had to pay fees I would not have been able to go to college at all, yet here I am working (supposed to be ) and paying my taxes to the state.

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

Why should I pay taxes to subsidise some young fella doing science? IMO it's nothing more worthwhile than a girl doing philosophy/art etc. The economy is not going to suddenly rebound because we churn out a few more science grads. Our standard of education is far below that achieved in most of mainland Europe, across all subjects and that is something which needs to be targeted.

that science student can go on and start up the next Google or maybe research and develop a new product like a better medical stint for an existing company


what will the philosophy student accomplish? (heh philosophical question?)

prinz wrote: »

See point above re standard of education. Should we also penalise medicine students, after all they don't export or generate wealth per se. Teachers? etc etc. Focusing on one or two areas would be detrimental in the long run tbh. I'll get blasted for Godwins Law or whatever, but it strikes me as resembling something of a fascist/Soviet ideal of determining people who are valuable to the state, and penalising those seen as superfluous to the national interest (doctors, lawyers, intellectuals etc.) As a law graduate myself I have a vested interest in this, because if I had to pay fees I would not have been able to go to college at all, yet here I am working (supposed to be ) and paying my taxes to the state.

we are on same wavelength here i pay taxes too

i would rather see that money go into education starting from primary than being handed over to banks

i wasn't singling out accountants and lawyers earlier, i still have to go to my accountant for him to do all the paperwork (which his more than delighted to do lately with other businesses folding) and i have to go to a lawyer for legal issues

tho there is no denying that creative accounting and willful stupidity from management at some banks was one of the causes of the current situation

back on the topic and question asked by OP, if (and it seems they will) fees are introduced should more productive and economically beneficial courses (engineering, medicine, science) be encouraged?

i see your point about "communist" type intervention, i dont like the idea of government interfering in things in first place

omahaid

prinz wrote:

See point above re standard of education. Should we also penalise medicine students, after all they don't export or generate wealth per se. Teachers? etc etc.

Well no, my point is that medicine students have a very good chance of getting a job after college and paying back their fees in the form of increased taxes.

prinz wrote:

Focusing on one or two areas would be detrimental in the long run tbh.

Why? Encouraging people to study science, medicine, teaching, engineering surely won't have a detrimental effect?

prinz wrote:

I'll get blasted for Godwins Law or whatever, but it strikes me as resembling something of a fascist/Soviet ideal of determining people who are valuable to the state, and penalising those seen as superfluous to the national interest (doctors, lawyers, intellectuals etc.)

No, I'm proposing that if it is deemed that there is a very good chance that a student will leave with a degree and get a job and pay higher taxes as a result then the state should consider not imposing fees for that course.

prinz wrote:

As a law graduate myself I have a vested interest in this, because if I had to pay fees I would not have been able to go to college at all, yet here I am working (supposed to be ) and paying my taxes to the state.

That's my point. If there is a good chance that a degree will increase your employability (and as a result you will pay more taxes) then the state should encourage it by offering to pay the tuition fees.

prinz

ei.sdraob wrote: »

....that science student can go on and start up the next Google or maybe research and develop a new product like a better medical stint for an existing company.

If it's about raising revenues for the country I would rather we have a system of across the board employment for people in all sectors, rather than rely on the 1/1000 shot of the someone starting "the next google". I think having 100 accountants doing their thing and paying taxes is better than subsidising a tech head on the off chance that they might set up a 'google' instead of ending up as tech support for the accountants. We may as well keep no fees for law courses on the off chance that someone will set up a successful law practice, accountancy firm etc.

Innovation and invention is all well and good but we can't be basing our economy on that, it's like buying a lottery ticket in the hopes of hitting it big. Sure there's a place for that, but would it not be better than science and techy courses attract the people who really want to do those courses ( which in turn would lead to people more into developing google 2 etc ) instead of people doing those courses for free fees? Counter productive IMO.

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

Well no, my point is that medicine students have a very good chance of getting a job after college and paying back their fees in the form of increased taxes.

As do many people who study "non productive non-exportable" areas, like etc.

omahaid wrote: »

Why? Encouraging people to study science, medicine, teaching, engineering surely won't have a detrimental effect?.

When it comes at the expense of other areas then yes it would. People want to study the area they are interested in. Favouring one area more than others will lead to either (a) people not attending university at all or (b) people doing courses etc that they are not interested in, so we end up with an over supply of engineers, but no lawyers etc.

omahaid wrote: »

No, I'm proposing that if it is deemed that there is a very good chance that a student will leave with a degree and get a job and pay higher taxes as a result then the state should consider not imposing fees for that course.That's my point. If there is a good chance that a degree will increase your employability (and as a result you will pay more taxes) then the state should encourage it by offering to pay the tuition fees.

There's a very good chance any graduate could get a job. Even people studying philosophy are employable.

thebaldsoprano

omahaid wrote: »

We don't here of any philosophers losing their jobs because there were never many "Job available: Philosopher" ads in the paper.

There were never many "Job available: Mathematician" adds in the paper either, but I've never been stuck for work. You can apply skills learned in a degree to a different area and this is just as true for things like philosophy or art.

Such an approach would be short-sighted IMO.

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

Favouring one area more than others will lead to either (a) people not attending university at all or (b) people doing courses etc that they are not interested in, so we end up with an over supply of engineers, but no lawyers etc.

I should clarify that I am assuming fees will be brought back in some fashion. This will lead to people not attending university at all. I'm proposing that some areas have very good employment prospects and the state should not bring in fees for those courses.

prinz wrote:

There's a very good chance any graduate could get a job. Even people studying philosophy are employable.

But do they get jobs as philosophers? I agree that some people studing philosophy will get jobs based on the fact they studied philosophy. But I believe the majority will get jobs where they didn't need to study philosophy. If this is the case then was it worthwhile paying for it in a recession?

If we must bring back fees then I don't feel that bringing fees back for every single course is the right way, some areas should be encouraged (e.g. nursing).

omahaid

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

There were never many "Job available: Mathematician" adds in the paper either, but I've never been stuck for work. You can apply skills learned in a degree to a different area and this is just as true for things like philosophy or art.

Such an approach would be short-sighted IMO.

So the proposal "we must bring back fees so we must bring back fees for every single course" is the right one? I dont want to see fees introduced at all, but I think bringing back fees for every single degree is not right either.

ei.sdraob

omahaid wrote: »

So the proposal "we must bring back fees so we must bring back fees for every single course" is the right one? I dont want to see fees introduced at all, but I think bringing back fees for every single degree is not right either.

you know, despite being opposed to fees there might be a silver lining in the form of:

* students taking more time to decide what path to follow in life
* students showing up for lectures more since paying for something makes you appreciated and try to get value for money

omahaid

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you know, despite being opposed to fees there might be a silver lining in the form of:

* students taking more time to decide what path to follow in life
* students showing up for lectures more since paying for something makes you appreciated and try to get value for money

That's probably true. I went to college as a mature student and I worked it out that between grants and tuition fees, the state paid about €36k for my degree, and that's something I'm very grateful for and I couldn't have paid it myself.

thebaldsoprano

omahaid wrote: »

So the proposal "we must bring back fees so we must bring back fees for every single course" is the right one?

Yes. Tying the likely future earnings of a holder of a particular degree with whether fees should be charged for it strikes me as absurd. One obvious flaw with this is that predicted future earnings can change considerably according to what's in vogue. A degree in quantity surveying had a much greater value two years ago compared to today.

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

But do they get jobs as philosophers? I agree that some people studing philosophy will get jobs based on the fact they studied philosophy. But I believe the majority will get jobs where they didn't need to study philosophy. If this is the case then was it worthwhile paying for it in a recession?
If we must bring back fees then I don't feel that bringing fees back for every single course is the right way, some areas should be encouraged (e.g. nursing).

I am employed in a job where my degree is largely irrelevant. Does that mean I should have paid fees in your opinion... Fact is, people change careers something like 4 or 5 times on average these days so telling people they have to pay fees unless they work in an area directly connected to their field of study is redundant.

Why should nursing be encouraged moreso than accountancy for example? Both are needed in a well developed economy..

Either all pay, or all free IMO. That said as fees look likely, I would support a results based and level based scale of fees, i.e. encourage people to study harder and get better qualifications, and encourage people to progress from grad level to masters, Phd's etc.

You say the state paid 36k for you....... couldn't you pay them back now? A couple of grand a year for example?

omahaid

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yes. Tying the likely future earnings of a holder of a particular degree with whether fees should be charged for it strikes me as absurd.

Well that's fair enough, I disagree . I think if we can encourage certain areas (e.g. green technology) then we should. I don't see why we should penalise everyone.

thebaldsoprano wrote:

One obvious flaw with this is that predicted future earnings can change considerably according to what's in vogue. A degree in quantity surveying had a much greater value two years ago compared to today.

Perhaps it is a flaw, but I think the approach of applying fees to every course is even more flawed. As much as anyone here can try to convince me, I still think certain areas of study should be encouraged.

thebman

I don't agree with putting a price on a degree especially not on certain degrees and not on others.

Education isn't/shouldn't be solely about bringing money in for the economy later on. I don't think someone that pays for their degree in philosophy should be asked to pay tax to subsidise someone who will study engineering.

Just seems like bollocks and favortism to me. I did a software engineering degree and I'd think it would be bollocks for anyone doing philosophy or arts or something which someone from another background might consider less worthy for the state to pay for.

The reality is there is a shortage in computers and engineering already and I don't think fees will help this but nor will discounts because the root problem is people aren't learning maths properly in secondary schools IMO. Also I don't really believe there is a shortage of people in IT, just a shortage of good people and giving cheaper degrees to people to try to encourage them to do computers will not solve that problem.

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

I am employed in a job where my degree is largely irrelevant. Does that mean I should have paid fees in your opinion... Fact is, people change careers something like 4 or 5 times on average these days so telling people they have to pay fees unless they work in an area directly connected to their field of study is redundant.

I'm saying that certain areas of study do not lead to employment (indirectly or directly). In this case, in a recession, it doesn't make sense to apply free fees.

prinz wrote:

Why should nursing be encouraged moreso than accountancy for example? Both are needed in a well developed economy..

I agree, and if graduates of these course are predicted to pay more tax then I would consider these course to be good options for free fees.

prinz wrote:

Either all pay, or all free IMO.

But why? What's wrong with saying "We need more x's, lets encourage this". In fact, we already had a campaign encouraging men to go into teaching because of the shortage of male teachers.

prinz wrote:

You say the state paid 36k for you....... couldn't you pay them back now? A couple of grand a year for example?

I would argue that I'm doing this anyway because my earnings are higher because of the job I have. A job I got directly because of the college course I studied. Fact is I am paying a lot more tax now then I would be if I was still in the minimum wage job I was in before college.

thebman

I'm against trying to bias anybody into fields. You just end up with people that shouldn't be there.

Encouraging people that might not want to do it into the area is nonsense IMO. If someone is afraid to go into a field that is predominately a different gender to them then they have bigger issues. Why should we put in place subsidies to try to get them to do something? I don't think those people will make ground breaking discoveries since they will still have the complex that they don't belong in the area.

When going to college you shouldn't be thinking about that kind of stuff anyway IMO. Just go study what your interested in.

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

I'm saying that certain areas of study do not lead to employment (indirectly or directly). In this case, in a recession, it doesn't make sense to apply free fees.

Any examples of these areas of study?

omahaid wrote: »

I agree, and if graduates of these course are predicted to pay more tax then I would consider these course to be good options for free fees.

I know of people who did highly specialised coursesand were predicted to be high earners etc when times were good but are on the dole now. I also know of people who did courses such as History, International Relations etc who are in stable employment paying taxes.

omahaid wrote: »

But why? What's wrong with saying "We need more x's, lets encourage this". In fact, we already had a campaign encouraging men to go into teaching because of the shortage of male teachers.

But were the female teaching students paying the way for the men? Why should one person subsidise another person doing the same thing?

omahaid wrote: »

Fact is I am paying a lot more tax now then I would be if I was still in the minimum wage job I was in before college.

Exactly my point. If I had to pay fees I wouldn't have gone to college. Likewise if I had gone and had paid fees why should I pay and someone on a different course pay none because some bureaucrat decided their area of study was more valuable than mine even though at the end of the day we'd both be conferred with the same level qualification? Plus most college courses are say 4 years... in 4 years time the requirements of our economy could be entirely different. I remember during the dot com boom an increase in enrollments for computer courses etc but by the time they were coming to graduation the boom was over, and they were left....jobless.

Riskymove

Under the old system the EU funded a lot of courses under degree level (diploma/cert) under the ESF (european social fund), certainly when i did a 3 year diploma in DIT in the 90s my fees were paid and I got a grant as did everyone in the course, regardless of means

do we know if this funding is still there??

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

Any examples of these areas of study?

I know of many people who studies arts (sociology, greek and roman civilisation) who left college and could not find jobs in sociology etc.

prinz wrote:

I know of people who did highly specialised coursesand were predicted to be high earners etc when times were good but are on the dole now. I also know of people who did courses such as History, International Relations etc who are in stable employment paying taxes.

But in the majority of cases does this hold true?

prinz wrote:

But were the female teaching students paying the way for the men? Why should one person subsidise another person doing the same thing?

But student won't be subsidising each other. A student that is paying fees will be paying for their own course.

prinz wrote:

Plus most college courses are say 4 years... in 4 years time the requirements of our economy could be entirely different. I remember during the dot com boom an increase in enrollments for computer courses etc but by the time they were coming to graduation the boom was over, and they were left....jobless.

Ok, but deciding policy on how the economy will be entirely different in four years surely isnt the right approach. It must be reasonable to look forward four years and give an educated guess that we will need x nurses or y accountants or we want to encourage research in area z because we think area z will benefit the country.

Riskymove

prinz wrote: »

I know of people who did highly specialised coursesand were predicted to be high earners etc when times were good but are on the dole now.

many people doing law, architecture etc are in trouble here because of the collapse of the housing boom

I also know of people who did courses such as History, International Relations etc who are in stable employment paying taxes.

but are they in employment related to their degrees?

there are people with all sorts of degrees in the public sector but the topic of the degrees are, effectively, irellevant and is the money that went into their education somewhat wasted?

omahaid

Just doing a bit of research. Decisions like this are already done at 4th level

http://www.iua.ie/publications/documents/publications/2006/FutureofPhdBrochure.pdf

The emphasis is being placed hugely on industrial research. There is massive amounts of government money being pumped into this area right now. Without saying whether this is right or wrong, what's so bizarre about extending it to third level?

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

But student won't be subsidising each other. A student that is paying fees will be paying for their own course..

So the student who pays no fees - who pays for that course?

Riskymove wrote: »

many people doing law, architecture etc are in trouble here because of the collapse of the housing boom

Yes....... However you may have noticed the huge influx in the numbers of people in the last couple of years looking for qualifications in these areas... and now what.. they are on the dole. So when the boom was starting would it have been right to offer these students free fees while someone doing music had to pay? The other person could still be in employment paying the taxes etc.

Riskymove wrote: »

but are they in employment related to their degrees?
there are people with all sorts of degrees in the public sector but the topic of the degrees are, effectively, irellevant and is the money that went into their education somewhat wasted?

Er, I'm in the private sector, in a different area to my degree. Is the money that went into my education wasted? Uhm no. In 3 years I could return to the area of my degree. Maybe I'll do something else, who knows.

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

So the student who pays no fees - who pays for that course?

The student themselves pay in increased income tax after college. If graduates from the course have a high probability of finding employment related to their degree then they would pay their debt. Of course it is possible the student will choose to go on the dole but what I am putting forward is a "better than nothing and everybody pays" solution.

prinz wrote:

Yes....... However you may have noticed the huge influx in the numbers of people in the last couple of years looking for qualifications in these areas... and now what.. they are on the dole. So when the boom was starting would it have been right to offer these students free fees while someone doing music had to pay? The other person could still be in employment paying the taxes etc.

Not really, in the boom times everyone had free fees. This argument is about our current recessionary times. There are plenty other areas where people can still get jobs.

prinz wrote:

Er, I'm in the private sector, in a different area to my degree. Is the money that went into my education wasted? Uhm no. In 3 years I could return to the area of my degree. Maybe I'll do something else, who knows.

Not wasted, but is it right for the tax payer to pay for an arts degree (for example) just so the student can leave college and never work in the area that they studied? My missus did this btw, she studied arts several years ago and it is unlikely she will ever work in the area she studied. Even she concedes she wasted her time and should have studied something else.

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

The student themselves pay in increased income tax after college. If graduates from the course have a high probability of finding employment related to their degree then they would pay their debt. ..

But someone with an arts degree could be paying far more in income tax than someone who studied nursing........... why should they pay fees AND more income tax.

omahaid wrote: »

Not really, in the boom times everyone had free fees. This argument is about our current recessionary times. There are plenty other areas where people can still get jobs...

The recession will be over by the time people entering uni now will have left IMO. Boom and bust, boom and bust. This isn't so much a recession as a return to normality anyway.

omahaid wrote: »

Not wasted, but is it right for the tax payer to pay for an arts degree (for example) just so the student can leave college and never work in the area that they studied?.

It's no different than paying for an engineering degree for someone who goes working in something else. How do you know that someone will never work in the area they studied. I did a law degree, at the moment I'm a part qualified accountant doing professional studies and I fully intend to return to the law in the future... where do I fit in? I'm paying taxes, I'm working etc, just not in the same area... should I have had to pay fees because I made the decision to gain experience and a qualification in a second area?

By your reckoning if someone does and arts degree and gets a job in their area of study they should have the fees they paid refunded to them, is that right?

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

But someone with an arts degree could be paying far more in income tax than someone who studied nursing........... why should they pay fees AND more income tax.

No, you've missed the point. This isn't something done on a case by case basis, its done by simple numbers. People studying course x are y% likely to get a job in that area immediately after graduation.

prinz wrote: »

The recession will be over by the time people entering uni now will have left IMO. Boom and bust, boom and bust. This isn't so much a recession as a return to normality anyway.

Then why are fees being brought back at all? I'll agree that my argument is rubbish if fees are not brought back. Can ignore me completely in that case

prinz wrote: »

It's no different than paying for an engineering degree for someone who goes working in something else. How do you know that someone will never work in the area they studied. I did a law degree, at the moment I'm a part qualified accountant doing professional studies and I fully intend to return to the law in the future... where do I fit in? I'm paying taxes, I'm working etc, just not in the same area... should I have had to pay fees because I made the decision to gain experience and a qualification in a second area?

If law was one of the courses where it was determined that there was a good chance of getting employment as a direct result of studying that course then fees dont apply.

prinz wrote: »

By your reckoning if someone does and arts degree and gets a job in their area of study they should have the fees they paid refunded to them, is that right?

No, that is incorrect. If it is the case that people studying arts are likely to get a job in that area immediately after graduation then they wouldn't pay fees in the first place.

dvpower

Fees, if they are brought back will still only be a proportion me the full cost e.g. The full cost me a medical degree is huge. I think that the (FG ?) Proposal for a graduate tax is worth looking at as long as the option of individuals paying full fees up front is available.

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

No, you've missed the point. This isn't something done on a case by case basis, its done by simple numbers. People studying course x are y% likely to get a job in that area immediately after graduation.

If the economy gets worse sure they'll not be able to say y% are likely to get a job. Who decides.

omahaid wrote: »

Then why are fees being brought back at all? I'll agree that my argument is rubbish if fees are not brought back. Can ignore me completely in that case

Fees will probably have to be brought back in. We've been very very lucky for a long time not to have fees. However saying certain courses are free and certain you have to pay extra for, judged on a subjective guess of how many will get employment in a certain area 4 years into the future is ridiculous and impossible to determine.

omahaid wrote: »

If law was one of the courses where it was determined that there was a good chance of getting employment as a direct result of studying that course then fees dont apply. If it is the case that people studying arts are likely to get a job in that area immediately after graduation then they wouldn't pay fees in the first place.

A few years ago there was plenty of jobs for law graduates. Nowadays there aren't so many. Why would you decide whether a first year student going into college now has to pay fees, based upon circumstances when they graduate in 4 odd years time. You don't know what the job situation will be like for law graduates then. Maybe they'll be snapped up, maybe there will be no jobs. Again it comes back to deciding what is likely.

Again I'll point to the german system. You pay fees retrospectively, based upon your circumstances and earnings post graduation, and based upon your academic performance in your course. Getting people to pay up front is counter productive. Favouring one course over another is counter productive.

Mario007

As a future student(ie starting this september) I would say the deffered payment is the best option, I think. If you put the fees only on some course you will automatically discourage students taking them up and in fact then many would go study to UK rather than Ireland, I think.

The deffered payment is good, because realistically looking at it University education is something extra which the students must realize. It will also give us students greater power for pushing our university forward and demanding better services as we can say that we are paying for the course and demand to receive adequate services to our payments. It will also make us more inclined to study and do well as we will be paying for the course. The only bad thing about this option is that the banks will be discouraged for providing mortgages to the graduates because they will already have one big loan that they have to repay. Also how would the government get the money back if the students decided to emigrate?

thebman

yes the problem with a graduation tax is people will just emigrate so we will be educating people for other countries which is pointless.

It needs to be a proper loan that follows the person around to other countries.

Personally I think its a good idea for everyone to go to third level and that the stuff you get up to that isn't on the course is as important as the other aspects. I think people learn so much in college that everyone should go TBH.

andrew

If the fact that people with Science/Engineering degrees earn more than people with other degrees isn't enough to make people do these degrees, then what is? Also, I think that doing this would make people who don't really like sci/eng do sci/eng, leading to a reduction in the number of people doing these courses and getting jobs in related fields.

Though ignoring the practical effects for a moment, I'd be opposed to this because I don't like that it discourages learning for learning's sake. Knowledge is valuable in of itself and can't be valued on a purely monetary basis IMO. Not liking that your taxes are funding someones Philospohy degree is pretty narrow minded I think. And, getting back to a practical level, ignores the fact that all graduates tend to earn more than non graduates and as a result. paying more tax.

thebman

Also ignores that despite doing a degree in engineering/science, graduates still have to be trained like their pretty much clueless when they do start working :-/

omahaid

andrew wrote: »

If the fact that people with Science/Engineering degrees earn more than people with other degrees isn't enough to make people do these degrees, then what is?

Yes, that is my point, they do earn more, therefore we should consider keeping these course free.

andrew wrote:

Also, I think that doing this would make people who don't really like sci/eng do sci/eng, leading to a reduction in the number of people doing these courses and getting jobs in related fields.

Isn't this the complete opposite of what you just said above?

andrew wrote:

Though ignoring the practical effects for a moment, I'd be opposed to this because I don't like that it discourages learning for learning's sake. Knowledge is valuable in of itself and can't be valued on a purely monetary basis IMO.

I agree, I am in favour of keeping all third level free.

andrew wrote:

And, getting back to a practical level, ignores the fact that all graduates tend to earn more than non graduates and as a result. paying more tax.

I beg to differ. I can cite cases where people (my own missus included) thought this before college "sure doesn't everyone with a degree earn more". This is a myth, not true.

omahaid

thebman wrote: »

Also ignores that despite doing a degree in engineering/science, graduates still have to be trained like their pretty much clueless when they do start working :-/

Of course they do. I work in a job where only 5 people in the world use the same programming language (it is proprietary so I know this is true). Of course I had to be trained, but without the background degree I simply could not have done this job.

ei.sdraob

omahaid wrote: »

I beg to differ. I can cite cases where people (my own missus included) thought this before college "sure doesn't everyone with a degree earn more". This is a myth, not true.

i brought that issue up earlier in thread

theres a sense of "entitlement" of a guaranteed job once they graduate, and usually no appreciation for the free education provided

i see it all the time as i still get to work with uni's and some people i know have the degree==job mentality, some even argue loudly when you point out the flaws in that reasoning, they just dont want to hear it which in turn leads to disappointed/disillusionment when not being able to find a job straight away

Riskymove

prinz wrote: »

Er, I'm in the private sector, in a different area to my degree. Is the money that went into my education wasted? Uhm no. In 3 years I could return to the area of my degree. Maybe I'll do something else, who knows.

but you may not return

why should the State put enormous resources in to educating people to be say, an engineer or a scientist, or a computer programmer and yet the person becomes a bank clerk

is the person getting a job (any job) sufficient return for such investment? what is the objective of free fees? I think that has to be considered

I remember a lecture on how the free fees initiative had not really made much difference to the level of attendance at third level from disadvantaged areas. It has been mainly to the advantage of the better off.

prinz

omahaid wrote: »

Yes, that is my point, they do earn more, therefore we should consider keeping these course free.

So you earn more therefore you pay less Shoudn't that be reversed...

Riskymove wrote: »

but you may not return
why should the State put enormous resources in to educating people to be say, an engineer or a scientist, or a computer programmer and yet the person becomes a bank clerk...

So what? I may or may not. I'm expected to pay fees based on a possibility? What happens if I do return to work in the legal area... would I get my fees refunded then? What if someone does law and becomes a solicitor and 5 years later changes their mind and wants to become an artist instead.... do they then have to pay fees. Education is never wasted. What you are advocating there is a Soviet Union/China style system of evaluating kids at 3 and 4 years of age and determining what they should be for life. You'll have someone looking at a leaving cert class saying 'well we need 10 engineers so you 10 become engineers and the rest of you don't need any further education because you're just going to end up as bank clerks and cost the state money so get lost...'

Riskymove wrote: »

I remember a lecture on how the free fees initiative had not really made much difference to the level of attendance at third level from disadvantaged areas. It has been mainly to the advantage of the better off.

Not because of financial reasons, but because of mind-sets I'm afraid. As for free fees, I don't come from a disadvantaged area but I would not have been able to pay fees for the course I did. Personally the free fees initiative made a huge difference to my life. Before I turn 30 I hope to be qualified in two professions, and who knows maybe I'll add a third (glutton for the study me).

andrew

omahaid wrote: »

Yes, that is my point, they do earn more, therefore we should consider keeping these course free.

I think you're missing the point I made there. What I meant was that since they already earn more and everyone knows this, then further incentivising sci/eng courses probably won't lead to that big an increase in people doing them.

Isn't this the complete opposite of what you just said above?

No. What I mean is that any increase that is seen would mainly consist of people who are really not that into engineering, considering that, given the incentives which currently exist, anyone who is interested in engineering, or who only slightly dislikes is, already does it.

I beg to differ. I can cite cases where people (my own missus included) thought this before college "sure doesn't everyone with a degree earn more". This is a myth, not true.

Of course you can cite specific examples. What I mean is that on average graduates earn more.

Also, I'd like to see the data which shows that sci/eng graduates are better for the economy. Sure they may earn more and they may be in high demand, but how productive are they? What return does the economy get from an individual sci/eng graduate? Given most high level positions in companies aren't occupied by engineers/scientists (AFIAK), do these graduates contribute as much to the economy as someone with an MBA or something? In some ways sci/eng graduates are becoming the factory workers of the future - sure they're in high demand, but the amount of wealth they produce is determined by the people who employ them and run their companies, and you don't need a science degree to run a company.

Riskymove

prinz wrote: »

What you are advocating there is a Soviet Union/China style system of evaluating kids at 3 and 4 years of age and determining what they should be for life. You'll have someone looking at a leaving cert class saying 'well we need 10 engineers so you 10 become engineers and the rest of you don't need any further education because you're just going to end up as bank clerks and cost the state money so get lost...'

yes that's exactly what i was suggesting, perhpas with just killin goff a few three year olds before they cost us fees:pac::rolleyes:


I am asking why should the state put enormous resources in educating people to be trained in a discipline that they then wont use. Many people drop-out, go into other areas, emigrate. While they may benefit from a third-level education, the State does not necessarily get a return from the investment.

People should make their own decisions and if some have to pay for fees then so be it, hardly communism?

As for free fees, I don't come from a disadvantaged area but I would not have been able to pay fees for the course I did. Personally the free fees initiative made a huge difference to my life. Before I turn 30 I hope to be qualified in two professions, and who knows maybe I'll add a third (glutton for the study me).

I went to college before the free fees initiative and I and most of my peers would not have been able to afford fees. Due to a combination of the HEA grants and ESF course we could go, I don't see what the problem was with that system.

tbh your example is exactly what would annoy people, why should taxes go towards you continually doing free college courses?

prinz

Riskymove wrote: »

I am asking why should the state put enormous resources in educating people to be trained in a discipline that they then wont use. Many people drop-out, go into other areas, emigrate. While they may benefit from a third-level education, the State does not necessarily get a return from the investment. People should make their own decisions and if some have to pay for fees then so be it, hardly communism?

What you're advocating is exactly the kind of population planning etc that does/did go on. Engineers = valuable, therefore keep/subsidise them, musicians are dispensable... It's funny how the scope of just what courses should be free has expanded and changed. Also when I requested info on what courses have a less than 50/50 chance of getting a related job.... no answer....

Riskymove wrote: »

tbh your example is exactly what would annoy people, why should taxes go towards you continually doing free college courses?

er listen mate, I went to uni, got an honours law degree, I'm in full time tax paying employment since and I'm now a part qualified chartered accountant, which is done on my own dime in my own time.If I choose to progress in law after qualifying as an accountant that would also be on my time at my expense. I don't owe this country a bloody thing. Here I am working 40-50 hour weeks, lectures at the weekends and weeknights, exams, paying a small fortune for the privilege and all the while I'd actually be financially better off if I was on the dole.

Riskymove

What you're advocating is exactly the kind of population planning etc that does/did go on. Engineers = valuable, therefore keep/subsidise them, musicians are dispensable... It's funny how the scope of just what courses should be free has expanded and changed. Also when I requested info on what courses have a less than 50/50 chance of getting a related job.... no answer....

no it isn't

where did I suggest some courses should continue to be funded because of what they are?

er listen mate, I went to uni, got an honours law degree, I'm in full time tax paying employment since and I'm now a part qualified chartered accountant, which is done on my own dime in my own time.If I choose to progress in law after qualifying as an accountant that would also be on my time at my expense. I don't owe this country a bloody thing. Here I am working 40-50 hour weeks, lectures at the weekends and weeknights, exams, paying a small fortune for the privilege and all the while I'd actually be financially better off if I was on the dole.

I had considered this might be your comeback, frankly your orignal posting implied you were doing more than one course on free fees

I have also done under and post-graduate courses in my own time

prinz

Riskymove wrote: »

no it isn't
where did I suggest some courses should continue to be funded because of what they are?.

Riskymove wrote: »

there are people with all sorts of degrees in the public sector but the topic of the degrees are, effectively, irellevant and is the money that went into their education somewhat wasted?

Riskymove wrote: »

why should the State put enormous resources in to educating people to be say, an engineer or a scientist, or a computer programmer and yet the person becomes a bank clerk..

Riskymove wrote: »

I am asking why should the state put enormous resources in educating people to be trained in a discipline that they then wont use. Many people drop-out, go into other areas, emigrate. While they may benefit from a third-level education, the State does not necessarily get a return from the investment.

Ok sorry, the state should only pay fees if people work in a job directly related to their course..... is that right? Or some courses are a waste of money...

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

Ok sorry, the state should only pay fees if people work in a job directly related to their course..... is that right? Or some courses are a waste of money...

Well, we don't have unlimited funds, do we? The proposal is should we discourage people from every course in college by introducing fees for everything, or is encouraging some courses a good investment? Simple fact is, we can't pay for everything but maybe we should pay for some.

omahaid

prinz wrote: »

Ok sorry, the state should only pay fees if people work in a job directly related to their course..... is that right? Or some courses are a waste of money...

So the argument that we should bring back fees for every course... should this apply to the Bachelor of Arts (in Police Studies) that Templemore offers? No reason why they should be exempt is there? Not by your reasoning anyway, it's as valuable as a Degree in Celtic and Roman Civilisation.

Riskymove

prinz wrote: »

Ok sorry, the state should only pay fees if people work in a job directly related to their course..... is that right? Or some courses are a waste of money...

No i am not talking about linking fees to jobs, however, i can see the reasoning behind ideas like a student-loan in areas like medicine etc where high-paying jobs will be the norm

I am saying while universal funding of fees results in massive waste of resources and makes it easier for people to cruise along, waste time at no personal expense. i think if people had to pay, some may make more considered decisions

I prefer the old system which had fees for all courses but provided for grants/EU funding