The problems of student binge drinking and the question of tuition fees

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Stereotypes are fun
It's a generalisation which is often thrown around. Can't really see why it can be applied to most students (and this from a 1;1 student in third level education). Sounds like run of the mill populism in everything from students to immigrants.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OldJay

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Students get drunk? The horror and shock of it all :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Justind wrote: »

Students get drunk? The horror and shock of it all :rolleyes:

Let's get rid of free tuition fees, then. They can get drunk while wasting their own money, instead of the taxpayers.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Extremely subjective claim there.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not in an IT so can't comment on that anecdotal account. However, I find college a lot easier than school as there's a lot more choice in what I can do. I was able to choose a mixture of history and law and had grades that shot upwards; it's a lot easier to do well in work that you like.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We differentiate between different levels of degrees (level 7, level 8 etc) as well as different grades within the levels (pass, 2.2/2,1/1.1 honours)

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A study from 6 years ago?
Nonetheless, the results from that time period aren't that out of kilter with the Irish population as a whole; binge drinking is the norm. http://www.aim-digest.com/gateway/pages/binge/articles/ireland.htm

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A study from three years ago?

:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Let's get rid of free tuition fees, then. They can get drunk while wasting their own money, instead of the taxpayers.

I'm back in University doing a postgraduate course. I'm not eligible for any grants under any of the current systems. Believe me, I've tried them all. The government will pay me to be unemployed but not to attend full time education. And while there are no fees, there is a rather hefty administrative charge to be looked at. i.e. €1500 euro before any exams can be sat. Never mind the cost of books, living expenses, stationary (copying/printing) etc.

There are quite a lot of people in this country attending third level college who do not have either the money nor the inclination to binge drink. Its kinda annoying being lumped in with those that do. And its worth noting that I have had to pay a rather large amount of tax to the government over 13 years of full time work, and I've seen very little opportunity to directly gain advantage of it.

Nodin

Justind wrote: »

Students get drunk? The horror and shock of it all :rolleyes:

...end of the world. Tellin ye now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

....as have students since the dawn of studenting. Yet the world still turns. While I doubt the Irish National Party will ever gain a seat anywhere, they're still more worthy of discussion, character assasination, debate and bickering than students getting twisted.

Flamed Diving

Nodin wrote: »

....as have students since the dawn of studenting.

Perhaps, but not always at the expense of the state. Are you getting this point yet?

Mr. Incognito

At the expense of the state??

They are students- educations drives the economy and the measly amount the government spends on education they reap ten fold when these people are employed when they graduate. Also most students have to WORK to supplement their income further bringing in tax returns.

Immigrants and students are to blame for the economy tanking?

Flamed Diving

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

At the expense of the state??

blah blah blah, nothing to do with the post above, blah blah blah.

Yes, those who attend uni and do nothing but get pissed and perform very poorly are wasting taxpayers money. It's all very simple if you read the posts preceding my one, then you are able to form the full context of the discussion in your mind and not make rash posts which completely miss the point.

Eliot Rosewater

The point being made is there is a bad culture amongst the majority of students that inhibits being a good student academically. I dont take much issue with the binge drinking; I engage in a bit of that too of a time. Its the not turning up for college thats the worst part of it. First day back today after break and some people didnt even bother turning up. Many similar stories, and many even worse. Fundamentally students arent paying much for their education, so they dont have any respect for it. Theres no excuse for missing over 50% of your lectures, tbh.

And lets not talk about the people who wont be able to go if it werent free. I was talking to one such person. He didnt care because if fees are introduced the grants will simply go up and he will be covered. The poorest will get in free anyway.


Saying that, I dont think Ill be voting for the INP

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The point being made is there is a bad culture amongst the majority of students that inhibits being a good student academically. I dont take much issue with the binge drinking; I engage in a bit of that too of a time. Its the not turning up for college thats the worst part of it. First day back today after break and some people didnt even bother turning up. Many similar stories, and many even worse. Fundamentally students arent paying much for their education, so they dont have any respect for it. Theres no excuse for missing over 50% of your lectures, tbh.

In my postgrad business course (and I'm going to an IT) I would say there's on average of 80-90% attendance for lectures. I've been to every one of my lectures, and I know the faces quite well. There were a few new faces appearing once the semester one exams came up but not many. Unless you're talking about first years?

Perhaps look at the entrance requirements for college these days? The leaving cert point requirements have dropped quite a bit in the last 10 years... I'm constantly amazed at the low standard of English by students in a postgrad course....

And lets not talk about the people who wont be able to go if it werent free. I was talking to one such person. He didnt care because if fees are introduced the grants will simply go up and he will be covered. The poorest will get in free anyway.

Well, there's no chance of my being able to go to college if the fee's were re-introduced, and I'm assuming being a mature student wouldn't exclude me from them. I already had to get a loan to pay the "admin" fee. And as I've said before not everyone is eligible for grants. Even when I was in my 20's and going to college for the first time, I wasn't eligible since my parents were both retired teachers. (didn't matter they didn't really have the disposable income to support me being retired, but they tried.) Yay.

but hey, as long as the poor are covered everything is rosy... :mad: Well, there's quite a few people who aren't considered poor simply because they come from a good background, and yet haven't got the money to get through college. I'm lucky my parents have allowed me to stay in their home rent free, because my part time job would never cover the costs. As it is, my social life is non-existent, and I'm building up quite a debt while I'm here... At least everyone was so considerate about my inability to buy anyone presents beyond two selection boxes for my nieces. Lovely. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

It isn't, at least that one night a week and the morning after (and for some rather more). Of course nationally 61% (edit note: I previously typed this as "48" here rather than 61) of all males binge drink once a week and 16% of all females binge drink once a week (Irish national health promotion survey, though a few years old). The big jump with regard to student drinking is obviously amongst the women - 48 to 61 is noticeable, 16 to 44 is the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Can someone demonstrate that it wasn't so before "free" fees were introduced?

And yes, if this turns out to be the major topic of this thread, it will be spun off into its own.

Flamed Diving

sceptre wrote: »

Can someone demonstrate that it wasn't so before "free" fees were introduced?

And yes, if this turns out to be the major topic of this thread, it will be spun off into its own.

That's not really the point being made (unless I missed it), I merely said that if people want to behave in such a fashion, they can do so without wasting taxpayers money. I don't think that free tuition fees causes such behaviour, although it would definitely lead to less respect shown towards the course, and more wasters on it.

sceptre

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That's not really the point being made (unless I missed it), I merely said that if people want to behave in such a fashion, they can do so without wasting taxpayers money. I don't think that free tuition fees causes such behaviour, although it would definitely lead to less respect shown towards the course, and more wasters on it.

I don't see the effect then. While I'd happily have a system where those who can afford to pay be required to pay (or another contributory system), the case is being made that students are wasting taxpayer money (presumably significantly) as a result of their binge drinking. It's not that they have too much money as a result of not being charged fees then (that's option 1)? if it's not (option 2), do we know for a fact that lecture attendances are materially affected as a result of drinking patterns? And then tie that into the availability of "free" fees as obviously that's a necessary ingredient because of the policy included in this thread from which the discussion comes. Anecdote isn't worth anything I'm afraid (not that you've necessarily used it as a central support but looking back up, some have(I didn't take note of who did)) - it never tends to be here. Feel free to assume I'm attempting to keep up here - it's one or the other or both, I'm unsure what case is being advanced as it isn't that clear.

Soldie

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

At the expense of the state??

They are students- educations drives the economy and the measly amount the government spends on education they reap ten fold when these people are employed when they graduate.

This point is made often and is generally well-received, but tends to fly under the radar of criticism. As it stands, "free" education is costing the tax payer billions of Euro per year -- billions of Euro that we don't have. You cannot simply make a vague assumption that the benefit outstrips the cost. If you make this claim, the onus is on you to subtantiate it. Of course, I'm not expecting you to prove that the benefits are worth "ten" times that of the cost but, rather, any kind of evidence to show that the economy is (or was :pac:) better off than it would otherwise have been without "free" eduation.

sceptre

sceptre wrote: »

It isn't, at least that one night a week and the morning after (and for some rather more). Of course nationally 48% of all males binge drink once a week and 16% of all females binge drink once a week (Irish national health promotion survey, though a few years old). The big jump with regard to student drinking is obviously amongst the women - 48 to 61 is noticeable, 16 to 44 is the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Can someone demonstrate that it wasn't so before "free" fees were introduced?

And yes, if this turns out to be the major topic of this thread, it will be spun off into its own.

I don't suppose it could have been the booming economy.. with the combination of work for students, and parents having more cash, giving students more disposable income?

I wonder how up to date these statistics really are.. Does anyone know for a fact that these %'s are still accurate at this stage of the economic downturn?

Flamed Diving

It all started with:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To which Justind replied:

Justind wrote: »

Students get drunk? The horror and shock of it all :rolleyes:

To which I replied:

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Let's get rid of free tuition fees, then. They can get drunk while wasting their own money, instead of the taxpayers.

This is all I am saying. If people are abusing themselves during their time at college, then we should question why the taxpayer is footing the bill for this mess. The disparity between the general and student populace is startling and there is clearly a problem. I must repeat, this is all that I am saying.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hardly anecdotal; would you disagree that it's easier to motivate yourself to do well in a subject that you like?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For all the good it will do them. When a general degree is needed, a level 8 Hons seems to be the going rate. I don't really see it as a problem as I can see why there should be a gradient between level 8 and the leaving cert.
Dislike the slippery slope argument by the way.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you didn't say mention the 2007 report. Only the 2004 one.
Ireland is moving fairly swiftly so information can become outdated fairly quickly; can I use data on society in 1994?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Right, so the problem isn't with students. It's with 18-24 year olds in general.

At any rate, that information is out of sync with the Alcohol in Moderation link I already posted; which said that 48% of all men binge drink at least once a week.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Let's get rid of free tuition fees, then. They can get drunk while wasting their own money, instead of the taxpayers.

Hurt everyone because some people are irresponsible.
Brilliant.

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This is all I am saying. If people are abusing themselves during their time at college, then we should question why the taxpayer is footing the bill for this mess. The disparity between the general and student populace is startling and there is clearly a problem. I must repeat, this is all that I am saying.

Why not judge college entrants based on their PRSI contributions? If they haven't made any significant contributions they face a fee of some sort, if they have then the fees are waived. Naturally, I'm being selfish here. I have worked. I have paid taxes for over a decade. And now that I need some of the benefits, I'm being screwed with.

Flamed Diving

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not judge college entrants based on their PRSI contributions? If they haven't made any significant contributions they face a fee of some sort, if they have then the fees are waived. Naturally, I'm being selfish here. I have worked. I have paid taxes for over a decade. And now that I need some of the benefits, I'm being screwed with.

What about those who just finished the LC? Your system seems inherently biased towards your specific case.

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What about those who just finished the LC? Your system seems inherently biased towards your specific case.

Sure it is. I said I was being selfish. But lets face it, when people just finish their LC they're likely to be still under the support of their parents to some degree, and getting a part-time job to pay the extra expenses is doable. Mature students on the other hand have a host of expenses in addition to those of college.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

YEs but there are different types of degrees. I really don't see the problem here; different types of degrees are given out at different grades. Employers are free to make their own decisions based upon this.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Grand but the student drinking culture is fairly similar to the general drinking culture.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is indeed. I'm just wondering where you draw the line with acceptabley dated sources.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is it? I've already shown how binge drinking levels are fairly similar between students and Irish men as a whole. I fail to see how the above two points have been proven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True on the island as a whole.

Eliot Rosewater

My theory is this. Students don't have respect for their education because they're not paying for it. Even I have this attitude of a time. I wake up at half 7, Im tired, look Ill take the morning off. If I was paying for it I would have a different mindframe. My money (or my parents money or the banks money) is being used to pay for my Uni so I better make the most of it. Would ye disagree with this train of thought?

The binge drinking culture merely accentuates this attitude. Friday morning lectures are a joke. My one usually hangs around 35% - 50% attendance. I know this because on the day to hand up our assignment the theater was full; usually its less than half full.

So some lame statistics to back it up. This morning we started a new module, which is taken with a variety of different course such as Chemistry and Physics. The lecture wanted to know who was who and asked the latter to raise there hands. His "quick count" gave a result of 15; according to him there should have been 30. No matter what kind of margin of error you throw on that its still silly.


My solution is to get students to pay fees. It will make them appreciate their education. They will presumably try to study more, lest they waste 7 grand by failing a year. We will have less people doing crap "for the sake of it" courses such as Celtic Civilization. And my opinion is that were there fees there would be a huge demand for student loans, and as such a supply of loans from the bank.

Flamed Diving

kickoutthejams wrote: »

True on the island as a whole.

If so, we still have one group binge drinking at no one else's expense (except HSE, maybe, but most of these people are taxpayers, after all), and another group who are binge drinking while costing at least €4,000pa, per student, to the taxpayer.

Unjustifiable.

sceptre

Oh, I hate repeating myself but it's so easy with the copy and pasta.

sceptre wrote: »

It isn't, at least that one night a week and the morning after (and for some rather more). Of course nationally 61% (edit note: I previously typed this as "48" here rather than 61) of all males binge drink once a week and 16% of all females binge drink once a week (Irish national health promotion survey, though a few years old). The big jump with regard to student drinking is obviously amongst the women - 48 to 61 is noticeable, 16 to 44 is the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Can someone demonstrate that it wasn't so before "free" fees were introduced?

And yes, if this turns out to be the major topic of this thread, it will be spun off into its own.

sceptre wrote: »

I don't see the effect then. While I'd happily have a system where those who can afford to pay be required to pay (or another contributory system), the case is being made that students are wasting taxpayer money (presumably significantly) as a result of their binge drinking. It's not that they have too much money as a result of not being charged fees then (that's option 1)? if it's not (option 2), do we know for a fact that lecture attendances are materially affected as a result of drinking patterns? And then tie that into the availability of "free" fees as obviously that's a necessary ingredient because of the policy included in this thread from which the discussion comes. Anecdote isn't worth anything I'm afraid (not that you've necessarily used it as a central support but looking back up, some have(I didn't take note of who did)) - it never tends to be here. Feel free to assume I'm attempting to keep up here - it's one or the other or both, I'm unsure what case is being advanced as it isn't that clear.

Anytime someone wants to pick one of the above options or give some useful evidence about the one they pick and perhaps offer a nod to the earlier progressive correlation request, feel free to jump up and run with the ball and turn this into a Politics subdiscussion, not an AH one.

Flamed Diving

Neither relate to my point, unless one has an affinity for attaching legs to things.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My theory is this. Students don't have respect for their education because they're not paying for it. Even I have this attitude of a time. I wake up at half 7, Im tired, look Ill take the morning off. If I was paying for it I would have a different mindframe. My money (or my parents money or the banks money) is being used to pay for my Uni so I better make the most of it. Would ye disagree with this train of thought?

The binge drinking culture merely accentuates this attitude. Friday morning lectures are a joke. My one usually hangs around 35% - 50% attendance. I know this because on the day to hand up our assignment the theater was full; usually its less than half full.

So some lame statistics to back it up. This morning we started a new module, which is taken with a variety of different course such as Chemistry and Physics. The lecture wanted to know who was who and asked the latter to raise there hands. His "quick count" gave a result of 15; according to him there should have been 30. No matter what kind of margin of error you throw on that its still silly.


My solution is to get students to pay fees. It will make them appreciate their education. They will presumably try to study more, lest they waste 7 grand by failing a year. We will have less people doing crap "for the sake of it" courses such as Celtic Civilization. And my opinion is that were there fees there would be a huge demand for student loans, and as such a supply of loans from the bank.

My solution is to raise the standard of the courses involved. I'm doing an Honors Degree course in Business. I've worked in Business for a rather long time (including running a startup business), and I'd be hardpressed to find more than one or two things we've learned in the last semester which would be used in the business world. RTC's (IT's) used to be about practical knowledge. And I can't see it being there any more. Sure.. some of the subjects are interesting, but the lecturers themselves will admit to their lack of use in the "real" world.

The point is that if the coursework was designed to be interesting, and sought involvement from students, then its likely there would be more attendance. In my course, there is high attendance, however extremely low involvement. Most of them have said that they will cram a week before the exams, and still do ok. And I can't say that they're wrong.

There's no real need to attend lectures, since all the lecture notes are available on server. There's no real need to study during the semester since most of them have years of experience in cramming for exams. And there's no need to attend their lectures, because I've seen two role calls being done during the whole semester. Its different for me. I have to study every day because my memory isn't quite as good as theirs, and I'm working hard to learn crap that goes against my experience in the real world.

Just in regards to the different qualifications (level 7/8 etc). When i graduated from this course in 2000 I graduated with a 3 year diploma.. When I came back to study I found this had been upgraded to a degree. But from an international point of view, 3 years does not make a degree. 4 years is the standard for a degree. Fancy coding, and terms is not going to change that.

sceptre

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Neither relate to my point, unless one has an affinity for attaching legs to things.

It's better for me as a poster and for everyone else if you only reply if you want to turn the subdiscussion into something useful with actual pseudo-evidence and actually do that - there's no need to reply if you'd like it to remain as it is:) I'm not the Little Red Hen, thankfully.

Flamed Diving

How about I put this issue as an analogy that everyone on this forum can relate to...

The Indo - Today:

It was discovered today that the government spent over €4,000,000 sending 1,000 bankers on a course in how to deal with NAMA and the new regulations that Patrick Honohan was devising. Further to this, it was reported that many of the attendees spent much of their time binge drinking, often more than once per week, and consequently failed to attend a significant proportion of their classes, and achieved only a passing grade, or slightly better. The Bankers Association of Ireland defended their position by stating that most of the attendees passed the course, and that their alleged behaviour while attending was irrelevant. The government stated that stories of alcohol abuse and low attendance were only anecdotal, and therefore should be ignored, finishing by saying that the state-funded course would continue indefinitely.

Deyy dukkk urrr jerbs!!!!

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....a recent term, now thrown about as if it explains all the problems of the world....Hopefully it will become as anachronistic in usage as references to plucking at beards in times to come.

Mr. Incognito

This point is made often and is generally well-received, but tends to fly under the radar of criticism. As it stands, "free" education is costing the tax payer billions of Euro per year -- billions of Euro that we don't have. You cannot simply make a vague assumption that the benefit outstrips the cost. If you make this claim, the onus is on you to subtantiate it. Of course, I'm not expecting you to prove that the benefits are worth "ten" times that of the cost but, rather, any kind of evidence to show that the economy is (or was ) better off than it would otherwise have been without "free" eduation.

Interesting read:

http://www.esri.ie/pdf/Stability%20and%20Growth%20Pact_Benign%20or%20Malign%20Neglect.pdf

In addition they predicted the crash in the US economy.

Flamed Diving

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Interesting read:

http://www.esri.ie/pdf/Stability%20and%20Growth%20Pact_Benign%20or%20Malign%20Neglect.pdf

In addition they predicted the crash in the US economy.

Meh, that isn't really a prediction. It's like saying Man Utd will win because of a Rooney winner, when in fact they turned out to win because the other team failed to show up. You would be right, but not really.

In addition, that is an article written by Paul Devereux for the ESRI, but not representing them:

The opinions expressed in the Review
by our contributors do not necessarily
coincide with those of the banks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Donegalfella wrote:

Do you ever have anything to contribute other than snark?

Theres a function which shows the last few hundred posts. I'd suggest using that and reporting to moderation after, should you feel the need.

Donegalfella wrote:

Binge drinking is a huge problem in Ireland, with 48 percent of men engaging in it once a week (the equivalent figure for France is 9 percent). The implications for antisocial behaviour, health and wellbeing, road safety, and so on, are enormous—but all you can do is scoff.

Indeed, and I like the way mocking this rather silly whinging about student drinking is automatically linked to minimising matters related to road safety. While I appreciate why that might be foremost in your mind, your redirected anger at me is misplaced.

Lockstep

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If so, we still have one group binge drinking at no one else's expense (except HSE, maybe, but most of these people are taxpayers, after all), and another group who are binge drinking while costing at least €4,000pa, per student, to the taxpayer.

Unjustifiable.

I fail to see how they are binge drinking at everyone's expense or that reintroducing fees will make students appreciate students more. Students who can arse around all day without needing a job must be having some form of outside funding. PResumably they'd be acting the same way as either way they're parents would be footing the bill.

Forgive the anecdotal evidence but I see a similar culture in US undergrad students over here on they're year abroad. Getting absolutely sh!tfaced and so on. And these are paying incredible fees (or at least they're parents are)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can you link me to one of these cross sectional studies? I usually find them a bit sceptical; "It would never have happened in Catholic Ireland" etc.

aurelius79

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, I'm not too sure how a thread about the Irish National Party ended up as a debate about binge drinking in Ireland, specifically student binge drinking. Anyway, on to my main point.

The drinking culture in the U.S. is nothing like it is here. To even try to compare the two is ridiculous. Yes, students in the U.S. drink a lot at frat parties and sometimes bars but it is nowhere near what it's like here. Most Americans are taught from a young age that if you do decide to drink, do it responsibly. Drunk driving in the U.S. is about as socially acceptable as child abuse. Drinking 10-15 pints in a night out is somehow considered an accomplishment here. In the States you'd be "that a**hole who got plastered and ruined the party".

Instead of everyone pointing blame and moaning about how your taxes are being wasted, why not try to discuss how Ireland as a whole can break out of this toxic cycle of alcohol abuse because let's face it, the drinking culture in this country has destroyed countless lives and won't stop until we do something about it. Let's not pretend it's just the students causing all the social problems associated with alcohol abuse.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Mod hat on:

Thread split from the Irish National Party thread. While the thread title is unwieldy, it's comprehensive enough to cover the topic.

sceptre

User hat on:

sceptre wrote:

Oh, I hate repeating myself but it's so easy with the copy and pasta.

sceptre wrote: »

It isn't, at least that one night a week and the morning after (and for some rather more). Of course nationally 61% (edit note: I previously typed this as "48" here rather than 61) of all males binge drink once a week and 16% of all females binge drink once a week (Irish national health promotion survey, though a few years old). The big jump with regard to student drinking is obviously amongst the women - 48 to 61 is noticeable, 16 to 44 is the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Can someone demonstrate that it wasn't so before "free" fees were introduced?

And yes, if this turns out to be the major topic of this thread, it will be spun off into its own.

sceptre wrote: »

I don't see the effect then. While I'd happily have a system where those who can afford to pay be required to pay (or another contributory system), the case is being made that students are wasting taxpayer money (presumably significantly) as a result of their binge drinking. It's not that they have too much money as a result of not being charged fees then (that's option 1)? if it's not (option 2), do we know for a fact that lecture attendances are materially affected as a result of drinking patterns? And then tie that into the availability of "free" fees as obviously that's a necessary ingredient because of the policy included in this thread from which the discussion comes. Anecdote isn't worth anything I'm afraid (not that you've necessarily used it as a central support but looking back up, some have(I didn't take note of who did)) - it never tends to be here. Feel free to assume I'm attempting to keep up here - it's one or the other or both, I'm unsure what case is being advanced as it isn't that clear.

Anytime someone wants to pick one of the above options or give some useful evidence about the one they pick and perhaps offer a nod to the earlier progressive correlation request, feel free to jump up and run with the ball and turn this into a Politics subdiscussion, not an AH one.

Still waiting. Third time requesting as I'm the patient type. Ironically some of those who have criticised anecdotal evidence have proceeded to base half their arguments on their own anecdotal evidence without making the basic connection I requested above in post number 1. As I don't particularly deal in anecdotal mumbo jumbo as a forum of evidence, I'll just leave the hitherto unaddressed questions above there hanging and unaddressed (but the nice bits bolded) as a monument to never letting a lack of evidence get in the way of a good continued rant. I hope for better.

AARRRGH

I did a degree 10 years ago (95 - 99), and a masters 2 years ago (07 - 08).

From my own experience college has dumbed down a lot in just under a decade. And they will now do anything to pass you.

Binge drinking is just as bad as it used to be though. Maybe it's a little worse now with it being uncommon for women to drink half-pints.

Saying all this, I agree with free fees. It makes everyone believe they can go to college, which I think is important for society.

P. Breathnach

When I was an undergraduate (before many people posting here were born) I was told by people of my parents' generation that standards had fallen since their day. It's one of the constant "truths" that university standards fall just after one gets one's degree. [And students always have worse English than used to be the norm -- mind you, encouraged by some of those who post here, I am tempted to agree with that contention.]

What constitutes binge drinking? DF represents it as getting "paralytically plastered". That's not a very precise measure. How about:
- "The official definition of binge-drinking is consuming five consecutive drinks in one sitting" [http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2009/0219/business/pressure-to-be-perfect-in-work-leading-to-binge-drinking-399619.html] or
- "Health and addiction professionals use 'binge' to mean five units, which equals 2.5 pints of beer or three glasses of wine." [http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=11798]?
If Herself and I had aperitifs, and then shared a bottle of wine over dinner, we would be binge-drinking. And there I was, thinking I was abstemious.