Third-level fees have to come back

mahamageehad

PeakOutput wrote: »

85 a week from the grant

100 a week if you work 13 hours

200 a week if you work 26 odd hours(bang out a 10 hour day on a saturday or sunday on top of your 13 hours and you almost have it)

add up the amount of time you spend procrastinating and you will be amazed(if you come out of denial long enough)

its all about how much you want it

Ya!
You're right!!!
Thats exactly why people can't get jobs in the current climate.....
They don't want it enough!!!
It all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

I've already stated that I've been cut back to 8 hours a week. And haven't been able to find another job. Thats about €66. The grant comes in 3 chunks, not per week. And a sizeable chunk is paid on deposits for the house at the start of the year.

Nope I just have to want it more.

**Goes into back yard to plant €2 and waits for her money tree to grow, because she wants it**

I'm sorry but nobody seems to have any particular REASON why a well off family should not just pay for their own kids tuition, but also for 'Johnno's' down the road. Now I'm fine with well of people having to pay their fee's if it comes down to it, but lower income families should have to BORROW the money from the government to be paid back after college/university is completed.

Fees for ALL or fees for NONE is the only fair way.



edit: Sorry this reads like an article in The Sun, but you get the point :P

ilovemybrick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So clearly you don't value your third level education enough to pay a significant amount for it. But some of us do! And under the current system there's no opportunity for one university to "take the bull by the horns", charge large fees, and invest in its future with the goal of having a sterling international recognition.

Now, now, let not make assumptions. I studied what I wanted to study, where I wanted to study it and am more than happy about it both personally and from a career point of view.

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

Ya!
You're right!!!
Thats exactly why people can't get jobs in the current climate.....
They don't want it enough!!!
It all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

I've already stated that I've been cut back to 8 hours a week. And haven't been able to find another job. Thats about €66. The grant comes in 3 chunks, not per week. And a sizeable chunk is paid on deposits for the house at the start of the year.

Nope I just have to want it more.

**Goes into back yard to plant €2 and waits for her money tree to grow, because she wants it**

dont take things so personally none of what i said is aimed at you as an individual, you could be a medical student from a single parent family with 10 brothers for all i know

im talking about people in general

i still believe there are jobs out there but then i dont live in dublin anymore maybe id find things harder if i did

either way its irrelevant my solutions disadvantages no1 and improves education for everyone and if i can come up with it in 10 mins imagine how good a properly thought out one by experts will be

PeakOutput

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

iv suggested a completely workable alternative because the argument for free frees of 'just cause' dosnt cut it anymore

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Besides those who can't pay up front, a fees system will encourage parents to save (shock horror!). Loans systems can be created either through the private banking system or the government.



You know what? You're so right. Forget about wanting to create universities that are the best in the world. Forget science, engineering, technology and the rest of the future. Forget academics. What matters most in our third level education system is the Fitzgibbon hurling cup. The cornerstone. All else should be sacrificed for it.

Bang on the money.

Ya its soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to get a loan off the banks at the moment. great idea
And sorry if i dont trrust a government to have the ability to provide my loans for education when they couldnt find 10 million to provides shots against cancer:mad:

And sorry do you realise how much college costs. If we introduced fees on parents, 6-10k for fees, 3-5k per year for accomm, 1.5k per year on the reg fee, 2k+ per year on expenses. 1K for books, equipment etc. and you can definately put in another 1k in there for general things. at the lowest then, thats 14k per year PER CHILD. So my family, in practise,has to pay that for 12 years (3 children). Of course, it even isnt over 12 years as there is only 4 years between my and my two brothers. yup, thats easily attainable for all those familys saddled with a mortgage, and other loans, maybe if they dont feed themselves.(Note:All these are my own rough estimates)
(this is just my own pride here, luckily for my parents, they dont have to pay all of this, my brothers and i have been working since we have been able to and have the savings to pay for all but the hypothetical fees in this case):rolleyes:

so no, paying up front fees will not work, personally i would love to see free frees continue, so would most, but its not working.
a deferred loan scheme would work better than this up front nonsense, but would have major problems. Before anything needs to be done, as peakoutput said, the grant system needs major reforms.

Re: fitzgibbon. ill going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you just read what i said there and didnt read what it was in reply to. Here it is ..again.

Sulmac wrote:

Another thing I would do to reduce costs would be merge all universities/instituties of technology/colleges of further education/etc. in Dublin into a new "University of Dublin" and all those outside Dublin into a "University of Ireland" (or maybe a provincial basis - "University of Munster", etc.). Something similar to the current NUI set-up (even though NUI has been/is being abolished?), but with each campus specialising in a different field

I posted that as just one of the many points against the idea of merging all our universities/ITs into 2/3 ones. You would lose so much under that plan, not least the traditions like the fitzgibbon cup.
You would lose fresh ideas too, competition breeds efficiency and forward thinking as we try to outdo our rivals. You go on about the loss in science, engineering etc. Bullsh1t, the rivalry between the colleges creates advances in these fields as they try and outdo one another.
also

PeakOutput wrote:

in fairness the colleges atmosphere is a pretty important part of the overall thing aswell

hes right, college isnt just learning, one way to guarantee loss in your fields of excellence is to make it all about academic and no social outlets

Flamed Diving

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm sorry but nobody seems to have any particular REASON why a well off family should not just pay for their own kids tuition, but also for 'Johnno's' down the road. Now I'm fine with well of people having to pay their fee's if it comes down to it, but lower income families should have to BORROW the money from the government to be paid back after college/university is completed.

Fees for ALL or fees for NONE is the only fair way.



edit: Sorry this reads like an article in The Sun, but you get the point :P

It seems like people nattering on is not enough, and I agree. So I will offer a brief theoretical reason why it is a good idea.

I refer to a paper called "Income Distribution and Macroeconomics" by Oded Galor & Joseph Zeira (link below). I will spare you all the waffle and break it down. I must state that the authors were seeking to model income inequality through educational investment.

Ok, see this graph from the paper:



So, let's pick a few points and discuss them. The x-axis is wealth today, and the y-axis is wealth tomorrow.

1) Those individuals who inherit less than 'f' (poor parents) cannot afford to pay for new skills and nor can they pay for their children and on to infinity, thus we converge over time to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

2) Those individuals that inherit greater than 'f' but less than 'g' may have enough capital to invest in skills, but in the long-run their descendent also converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

3) 'g' is the critical point. Those who begin with an inheritance greater than 'g' will be able to invest in skills and see their descendants converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex].

In the long-run, you will have complete polarisation. But the important point is this. The higher the population of [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex] people, the poorer the entire economy is. So, by raising more people above 'g', you will make the whole country better off, in the long-run.

Remember, that 'g' is an endowment, so how do you achieve this? Well, transfers from [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex] (via government) is an option which we currently have in an extreme case, where all skills are paid for via transfer.

So remove the blanket fees, let those above 'g' pay for themselves and offer transfers to those below 'g' only.

Cheers.

http://www.isid.ac.in/~tridip/Teaching/DevEco/Readings/05Inequality/04Galor&Zeira-ReStud1993.pdf

quietsailor

PeakOutput wrote: »

wrong, they dont cherry pick individuals in general.

they set standards and if you meet those standards you can get in this benefits everyone int he college by keeping the standard of your fellow students high

they then cherry pick the best to give scholarships and grants to so no matter were you are from if you are smart enough you can get in

i dont see any problem with this

you are being judged completely on academic ability do you think there should be any other criteria examined for entry?
edit; i will say that there are times when people get in cause of who they know and being related to an alumni is a huge advantage. i dont believe that a brilliant student would lose their place because of this though.

There are/were other criteria being pushed on colleges in the US - see here http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm
Colleges were forced to admit nonwhite students over white students regardless of ability.

PeakOutput

quietsailor wrote: »

There are/were other criteria being pushed on colleges in the US - see here http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm
Colleges were forced to admit nonwhite students over white students regardless of ability.

yes but this unfair practice has rightly been stopped iirc

Einhard

If someone can afford it, I see no reason why fees should not be charged. Agree with the poster regarding the entitlement culture in this country, and as a dole scrounger I have first hand experience of it! :pac:

Seriously, from each according to their means, to each according to their needs and all that. If you can afford fees, you should expect to pay them. If you can't, then they should be waived. Personally, I think some form of loan system would be the most sustainable and equitable solution.

thebman

I think a graduation tax for people that have come from our universities makes sense TBH.

The only real difference between that and a student loan for fee's is the time over which it must be repaid.

I would have no problem paying a graduate tax to fund less well off students getting free third level education subject to penalties upon failure. I think if you fail a year, you should have to pay fees for that year and not for the repeat year which I believe would get rid of the college tourists who are there to get drunk and drop out. If they would owe the fee's for the first year and have an additional fee to pay to repeat they are less likely to take the risk and more likely to put in the work. This would either result in better students, less students and more income for colleges.

A graduation tax also has the benefit of the people that really can't get to college not paying for those that can afford the extra college fees etc...

Those that use the system pay. But I would require that colleges be more free from political interference which I think would come from graduates who are paying their extra taxes refusing to allow their qualifications become devalued by the state meddling and if it does occur, the state will then have to remove the tax and lose the graduate vote for screwing with their qualification and the votes of parents with kids going to college and the college students themselves which is a significant part of the electorate.

Eliot Rosewater

ilovemybrick wrote: »

Now, now, let not make assumptions.

I was only working off what you said:

ilovemybrick wrote: »

The simple fact is that if I could have gone to an Oxbridge college for the same cost as going to University in Ireland then I would have gone.

I interpreted that as meaning you didn't value your third level education enough to shell out the extra money to get a better degree. In retrospect, my mentioning of that was pretty pointless: I'm also studying in Ireland. My argument was that the system of free fees reduces choice as every student attends a "one-size-fits-all" university. In a system of paid fees certain universities can charge more and invest more, thus students who want a better education can pay for that.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

It's hard to say really. I think a major problem with this country is culture: parents don't save up for their child's education. This makes it very hard to revamp the system as you risk creating a "lost generation" who's parents didn't save up but who also didn't get state support.

I think some kind of loans system might be good, but if it's run by the government it will invariably be inefficient, what with people high-tailing to Australia etc. My ideal would be a full up front fees system, with private banks providing loans which obviously would have to be paid back. The government could become a "lender of last resort" for students from families with bad credit ratings.

The feasibility o that plan really depends on the banks. Would the banks be willing to loan €100,000 to students over 4 years?

Eliot Rosewater

freyners wrote: »

And sorry if i dont trrust a government to have the ability to provide my loans for education when they couldnt find 10 million to provides shots against cancer

But yet you do trust them to give you a degree for free. How very convenient.

freyners wrote: »

And sorry do you realise how much college costs

Yes, I'm attending university. College costs a lot because it takes a lot of resources to provide it; I don't think people should get a free ride. They should have pay for what society has given them. I understand that people are often not in a position to do this, which is why I would support giving everyone the opportunity to do it for free in the short term, once they pay back the government/bank later.

freyners wrote: »

Re: fitzgibbon. ill going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you just read what i said there and didnt read what it was in reply to.

I did read what it was in reply to. Sulmac made a pretty good suggestion regarding specialization and the meeting of minds. In the worldwide scale, the ability of our graduates to make a real impression on the various fields they are in trumps the Fitzgibbon hurling cup by a country mile.

freyners wrote: »

the rivalry between the colleges creates advances in these fields as they try and outdo one another.

And yet, Irish universities are doing awful on the international rankings. Would you care to explain why this is?

freyners wrote: »

hes right, college isnt just learning, one way to guarantee loss in your fields of excellence is to make it all about academic and no social outlets

Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem. Mr Wiles spent 7 years working on the proof in effective reclusion, and this is hardly uncommon in the field on mathematics (if you disagree I suggest you visit a maths department and try and talk to the people there).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

sounds enlightened. I'd be more nervous about selecting a pool of medical students for instance based purely on their ability to ace the leaving cert.

PeakOutput

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem. Mr Wiles spent 7 years working on the proof in effective reclusion, and this is hardly uncommon in the field on mathematics (if you disagree I suggest you visit a maths department and try and talk to the people there).

i agree with everything else you said but not with this completely

while you dont have to have great extra curricular activities it is preferable and the rivalries improve community

from the colours debates to the oxford cambridge boat race to some of the top colleges in the states also having top basketball and football teams it adds to the general 'health' of the college. even mit and harvard and the very top teams have extensive extra curricular activities

a happy balance if you will

also the reason i dont htink it should be a graduation tax is i dont trust the goverment to give all the extra money to the colleges. a loan were the payments are related to how much you eanr and you dont pay if you unemployed is the better answer i think as the colleges are guaranteed the money and not reliant on the moods of different goverments

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem. Mr Wiles spent 7 years working on the proof in effective reclusion, and this is hardly uncommon in the field on mathematics (if you disagree I suggest you visit a maths department and try and talk to the people there).

tbh ive never heard of him/or his law. Fair play to him for living years as a recluse but how many can manage it? simple fact is that most need a social outlet, or they'd crack up.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

But yet you do trust them to give you a degree for free. How very convenient.

they will make a shambles of it, anyways, read my view in that post, i would support the deferred loans scheme, if it was done right and not half-arsed as is there tendency.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

In the worldwide scale, the ability of our graduates to make a real impression on the various fields they are in trumps the Fitzgibbon hurling cup by a country mile.

So we should give up sport in the pursuit of academia? Which ties people closer together, theorums or matchs?
Im not saying that sport has a greater status than learning but i dont think such a drastic measure is workable, that only being one reason. What happens when someone wants to do....lets say medicine from donegal and the only place in ireland to do this in cork. some might do it but alot wont due to the geograhy, how many good minds are lost there?

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

And yet, Irish universities are doing awful on the international rankings. Would you care to explain why this is?

i can't, but ive learned long ago not to take them as serious as some people do. Im guessing they only take academic standards into account, very important, yes, but not the be all and end all.
according to rankings china is the most productive country in the world, does that mean we should follow there example in labour laws etc.

Eliot Rosewater

Yes I think social activity does contribute positively; I'm heavily involved in one society here in UCC and it has definitely improved my experience. However I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, and I don't think it should be the focus of university policy. freyner's comment was something to the effect of "Amalgamating colleges to concentrate like-minded academics together is bad because inter-college rivalries in GAA championships would be negatively impacted upon", and I was responding to that comment more so than yours.


I share the skepticism of government policy. The alternative is that banks would provide loans. Perhaps forum members more familiar with foreign educational setups with a private system could expand upon how funding works there.

Eliot Rosewater

freyners wrote: »

tbh ive never heard of him/or his law.

[LATEX]\displaystyle a^n \neq b^n+c^n[/LATEX] for any n, a natural number, bigger than 2. Whilst not of immediate apparent use, it was a maths question posed nearly 360 years before it was proved and it was probably the biggest deal in maths at the time. Wiki.

freyners wrote: »

Fair play to him for living years as a recluse but how many can manage it?

I was only using it to show that the generalization doesn't always hold true. There are other examples of recluses, such as author JD Salinger, but I suppose they certainly aren't the norm.

freyners wrote: »

So we should give up sport in the pursuit of academia? Which ties people closer together, theorums or matchs?

In fairness freyners, your post was to the effect that sport should be prioritized over academic pursuits in universities.

As regards tying people together, mathematics forms the backbone of engineering and has been used in the construction of everything from the first horse carts to the space shuttle, including all the normal kinds of transport in between. So I think that mathematicians win on that one.

freyners wrote: »

according to rankings china is the most productive country in the world, does that mean we should follow there example in labour laws etc.

Apples and oranges, to be honest. I think the rankings are important, and even if you don't, companies, other universities and job providers certainly do, and that's what matters at the end of the day.

freyners

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes I think social activity does contribute positively; I'm heavily involved in one society here in UCC and it has definitely improved my experience. However I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, and I don't think it should be the focus of university policy. freyner's comment was something to the effect of "Amalgamating colleges to concentrate like-minded academics together is bad because inter-college rivalries in GAA championships would be negatively impacted upon", and I was responding to that comment more so than yours.


I share the skepticism of government policy. The alternative is that banks would provide loans. Perhaps forum members more familiar with foreign educational setups with a private system could expand upon how funding works there.

dude i make no apology for saying that i value things like inter college rivalry but just read on after that point in my post, i believe that merging colleges would decrease standards, not increase them. Competition generally = improvements. It worked wonders in for things like transport, why wouldnt it work in education?

Australia has a type of deferred loan scheme in place, called the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, students borrow the money to pay for the tuition or if they are extremely lucky, they pay it up front.
The loans they get are called income contingent loans, which loans that are not repayed until your income passes a certain theshold, so if someone graduates and is unemployed for the first half year or so, there is no liability, when they find a job that pays below the income threshold, there is no liability either (as an example, lets say the threshold is 25k, and our hypothetical is earning 22k= no liability)
Say then the graduate gets promoted to a salary of 30k, this is passed the threshold and the repayments of the loan kick in, the graduate now pays a % of her income as repayment. Should her income drop below the 25k threshold again, the repayments are postponed.
this is different to the us style of student loans, where the graduate pays off the loan no matter hat her income is
The disadvantage to Australias loan system is that a % of earners never cross the income threshold and the debts are saddled by the lender.
A good examination of the us and oz style loans is here http://http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/10/02/the-us-college-loan-system-looks-odd-from-down-under/

anymore

PeakOutput wrote: »

its not a subsidy we dont pay them anything we simply dont tax certain parts of their business, that is not subsidising them. in return they set up large business's here, bring in foreign investment and hire hundreds of workers who pay millions in taxes. as far as i know there is no tax break for the gambling industry so i dont know what your talking about there. paddy power pays the same taxes on his profits as any other company afaik



well you clearly have something against artists so i dont know if there is much point debating the point with you, but for every bono and u2 there are thousands of artists on the poverty line and people who make art for the love of it rather than monetary reward. again is it only the artist who dosnt pay tax dealers / galleries /auction houses all pay the same taxes as everyone and they wouldnt be there without the artists and there wouldnt be anywere near as many artists if they were taxed the same way as other employees. and thats just talking about strict monetary benefit of the break the social and cultural benefits are far greater

Well if you are going to debate points with me, could you try to equip yourself with some facts ?
Try this: from a paper by UCC on Government support for horse racing.
http://www.ucc.ie/en/economics/.. Conclusion

HRI receives a considerable amount of public revenue each year. The industry does
unquestionably play an important role in the economic and social aspects of Irish life
however so do many other sports, which fall under the remit of the ISC, and do not get a
fraction of the government support that horse racing gets. More importantly, this paper
has sought to highlight the fact that the distribution of funding by HRI is centred on
current expenditure, particularly in the form of prize money. Expenditure on capital
project would fit better with the goals of the Department of Arts, Sports & Tourism.
This paper has also sought to highlight the conflicting reality of the Department of Arts,
Sports and Tourism’s objective and HRI actions. The objective of “promoting of sport
and recreation, particularly in disadvantaged communities” is not being met by HRI,
instead the racing authorities are redistributing public monies towards well-off
individuals and wealthy foreign nationals. Either the Department’s objectives need to be

clarified or the subsidisation of HRI needs to be considerable reduced.


Now even if you were right that Government does not subsidise the racing industry ( and you are not right) refraing from taxing income on which tax would otherwise be payable is in itself a subsidy.

As for artis/writers on the breadline : read this slowly: there is no artist /writer on the breadline who would be paying income tax if there were no exemption. Low income people do not pay income tax regardess of thier occupation. Is that clear ?
I do a number of things for the love of them as do many citiznens - we do not ask other people to subsidise our pursuits - neither should artists/writers. They are not the very special people thay and thier supporters presume themselves to be
Subsidies tend to encourage crap art and writing - of the buying public isnt interested in buying the output of these people, there is probably a reason for it !
I note that the majority of artists.writers when and if they do start to make big money very quickly turn into geredy little capitalists !

anymore

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It seems like people nattering on is not enough, and I agree. So I will offer a brief theoretical reason why it is a good idea.

I refer to a paper called "Income Distribution and Macroeconomics" by Oded Galor & Joseph Zeira (link below). I will spare you all the waffle and break it down. I must state that the authors were seeking to model income inequality through educational investment.

Ok, see this graph from the paper:



So, let's pick a few points and discuss them. The x-axis is wealth today, and the y-axis is wealth tomorrow.

1) Those individuals who inherit less than 'f' (poor parents) cannot afford to pay for new skills and nor can they pay for their children and on to infinity, thus we converge over time to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

2) Those individuals that inherit greater than 'f' but less than 'g' may have enough capital to invest in skills, but in the long-run their descendent also converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

3) 'g' is the critical point. Those who begin with an inheritance greater than 'g' will be able to invest in skills and see their descendants converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex].

In the long-run, you will have complete polarisation. But the important point is this. The higher the population of [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex] people, the poorer the entire economy is. So, by raising more people above 'g', you will make the whole country better off, in the long-run.

Remember, that 'g' is an endowment, so how do you achieve this? Well, transfers from [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex] (via government) is an option which we currently have in an extreme case, where all skills are paid for via transfer.

So remove the blanket fees, let those above 'g' pay for themselves and offer transfers to those below 'g' only.

Cheers.

http://www.isid.ac.in/~tridip/Teaching/DevEco/Readings/05Inequality/04Galor&Zeira-ReStud1993.pdf

Meanwhile back in the real world...... Where were all the graphs before the recession ?

PeakOutput

is horse racing ireland a goverment body?

either way i take it back i thought you were talking about us giving money to breeders and other people in the industry just to be here

anymore wrote: »

Now even if you were right that Government does not subsidise the racing industry ( and you are not right) refraing from taxing income on which tax would otherwise be payable is in itself a subsidy.

you need to look up the definition of subsidy i think

As for artis/writers on the breadline : read this slowly: there is no artist /writer on the breadline who would be paying income tax if there were no exemption. Low income people do not pay income tax regardess of thier occupation. Is that clear ?
I do a number of things for the love of them as do many citiznens - we do not ask other people to subsidise our pursuits - neither should artists/writers. They are not the very special people thay and thier supporters presume themselves to be
Subsidies tend to encourage crap art and writing - of the buying public isnt interested in buying the output of these people, there is probably a reason for it !
I note that the majority of artists.writers when and if they do start to make big money very quickly turn into geredy little capitalists !

[/FONT]

wow someone is bitter

fair enough if you really think that the goverment is better of with the couple of mill extra it would get in taxes and without the thriving community of artists we have in the country thats your right. its still completely wrong

I do a number of things for the love of them as do many citiznens - we do not ask other people to subsidise our pursuits - neither should artists/writers. They are not the very special people thay and thier supporters presume themselves to be

what about sports people? do they deserve to be supported?

Einhard

Originally Posted by Eliot Rosewater
Andrew Wiles is one of the most famous mathematicians in the world by virtue of his proving of Fermat's Last Theorem.

And there I was thinking Lisbeth Salander solved that one. Just before she drove an ax into her father's head. Silly me...

monosharp

PeakOutput wrote: »

so they attract the best talent,

Undoubtedly they attract a quite substantial number of the best talent because of the factors that have been highlighted numerous times here. Their reputation and in the case of non-English speakers, the fact they use the English language.

Please note again I am not suggesting that Universities like Harvard, Cambridge etc don't belong in the top tier. My point is that there are plenty of highly reputable institutions from non-English speaking countries that are as deserving of their place in the top tier as many on that list.

they graduate the best talent

Please see my previous point about this. Yes you are right but the reasoning behind this is flawed. They graduate the best talent because the best talent comes to them for a number of reasons.

On a side note, like George W from Yale ? One of the best talents in business in the world ? A mind as sharp as a razor ?

These universities graduate the rich for been rich. Nothing to do with their talent.

their graduates are sought out all over the world

Of course they are, for the reasons already highlighted. Most of them, Harvard, Cambridge etc fully deserve it.

but they arent the best universities on the planet?

I didn't say they weren't the best institutions, I said the list was complete nonsense. I cannot argue with Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, MIT been up there in the top tier. What I am arguing is that there are plenty of Universities from other countries which deserve to be in the top tier as well. The list is completely biased in favour of English speaking (Western) Universities.

Or are you saying that theres not a single German, French, Swiss, Swedish etc University that belongs in the top 19 in the world ? I have asked this question many times and no one has answered it.

Do you think people who speak English as their native language are simply smarter then other people ?

Do you think someone who gains a science degree from Harvard or Cambridge is more talented then someone who gains one from Technical University of Munich or Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris ? Are they smarter ? Is their course 'better' ?

I'm currently studying for my PhD in a non-English speaking country, is it worthless ? Am I wasting my time ?

I had the chance to study in Ireland or the UK (in a University not far down this list) but I choose to study further afield, mostly for personal reasons but thats besides the point. How much lower is my PhD worth then someone with one from the US or the UK ? Am I wasting my time according to you ?

monosharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ok, let's look at an Asian ranking system then:

http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp

Whats your point ? I'm the one who provided that link previously.

PeakOutput

monosharp wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't the best institutions, I said the list was complete nonsense. I cannot argue with Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, MIT been up there in the top tier. What I am arguing is that there are plenty of Universities from other countries which deserve to be in the top tier as well. The list is completely biased in favour of English speaking (Western) Universities.

their criteria may well be biased but going by their criteria this is the list, i know there is a top business school in paris and a top it that rivals mit in india but overall? yes i believe overall these are pretty much the best univerisities in the world, thats not to say other ones arent good and other ones dont have great departments that would compare to departments in some of these schools but as a general rule i would say that yes this list represents reality, and for all the reasons we both listed.

Or are you saying that theres not a single German, French, Swiss, Swedish etc University that belongs in the top 19 in the world ? I have asked this question many times and no one has answered it.

wel i know that there is a french and a spanish school in the list of top business schools so i would say that if they were good enough by the criteria outlined by the people who make the list then they would get in, i dont believe there is a big conspiracy to keep non english speaking colleges out

Do you think people who speak English as their native language are simply smarter then other people ?

what has that got to do with anything? no1 has infered anything of the sort

Do you think someone who gains a science degree from Harvard or Cambridge is more talented then someone who gains one from Technical University of Munich or Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris ? Are they smarter ? Is their course 'better' ?

depends on the person and the degree obviously

I'm currently studying for my PhD in a non-English speaking country, is it worthless ? Am I wasting my time ?

no1 said that either jsut like no1 said that studying in trinity or ucd or ul is worthless

I had the chance to study in Ireland or the UK (in a University not far down this list) but I choose to study further afield, mostly for personal reasons but thats besides the point. How much lower is my PhD worth then someone with one from the US or the UK ? Am I wasting my time according to you ?

just because its not from the uk or us is not what would make it worth less

there are plenty of valid reasons that would make it worth more or less

either way i doubt your wasting your time and i dont even know why your bringing it up tbh as no1 said you were

the fact of the matter is universities are only as good as the people there and these universities attract the best people and are known for it and as a result no matter what country you are from or what language you speak the smart people are attracted to these colleges. it dosnt make the other colleges worthless it just makes it harder for them to compete

PeakOutput

monosharp wrote: »

Whats your point ? I'm the one who provided that link previously.

i assume his point is that your argument that the lists are biased is 100% wrong as the asians themselves rank the colleges just the same way and they have no reason to be biased towards them, quite the opposite in fact

anymore

PeakOutput wrote: »

is horse racing ireland a goverment body?

either way i take it back i thought you were talking about us giving money to breeders and other people in the industry just to be here




you need to look up the definition of subsidy i think



wow someone is bitter

fair enough if you really think that the goverment is better of with the couple of mill extra it would get in taxes and without the thriving community of artists we have in the country thats your right. its still completely wrong



what about sports people? do they deserve to be supported?

Bitter ?
Is there anything more stomach churning than artists writing to newspapers complaining about cutbacks when they have a tax exemption and previously paid no taxes at all ?
Well that is the morality of Irish artists -!
Thriving community of artists ? What does that mean ? Does it mean that if they paud tax at the same rate as others, they would no longer be productive or suffer ' creative blocks' ?
If that is so, you have little respect for them ! How much real art is produced in this country and how much is just poor quality pastiche of whatever Emin, Hirst etc are churning out for the gullible art collectors in the UK and Europe ?
A friend is having a clear out of his house next week, maybe there are artistic gems in there - a rusty old bedstead, crappy matresses, some old Action man toys - should be worth a fortune if some artists gather them into an intersting meaningful work of Art.

IrishTonyO

anymore wrote: »

Bitter ?
Is there anything more stomach churning than artists writing to newspapers complaining about cutbacks when they have a tax exemption and previously paid no taxes at all ?
Well that is the morality of Irish artists -!
Thriving community of artists ? What does that mean ? Does it mean that if they paud tax at the same rate as others, they would no longer be productive or suffer ' creative blocks' ?
If that is so, you have little respect for them ! How much real art is produced in this country and how much is just poor quality pastiche of whatever Emin, Hirst etc are churning out for the gullible art collectors in the UK and Europe ?
A friend is having a clear out of his house next week, maybe there are artistic gems in there - a rusty old bedstead, crappy matresses, some old Action man toys - should be worth a fortune if some artists gather them into an intersting meaningful work of Art.

and this has what to do with third level fees?