Third-level fees have to come back

anymore

IrishTonyO wrote: »

and this has what to do with third level fees?

I though yiou werent replying to my posts anymore ?

Read back a little and you will see the connection.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why ? Many Colleges carry academic courses who's value is questionable, dont you think ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mickstupp

freyners wrote: »

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 sort of thing would make me very happy indeed. I have no problem with the idea of leaving college any amount of money in debt, as long as I have the opportunity to actually get the education I want.

PeakOutput

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes but for many of these athletes sport is the only way for them to get any sort of decent education as their academic results wouldnt get them in alone

i have certain issues with the ncaa but on the whole i think its a great system that helps alot of people and gives people a brilliant chance to compete at the top level(indeed it appears that peopel rpefer the amateur version of the sports as this years basketball ncaa finals had twice the viewing figures of last years nba final according to espn

also im not saying that the money from fees should be spent improving sports teams, at least not util the academics is sorted

Flamed Diving

anymore wrote: »

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

1) I knew that such thinking could not reach all people...

2) They were being produced by people you never heard of, and the government suggested should "take a swim". What was the term called... oh, that's right, "doom and gloom merchants".

Doom indeed.

freyners

mickstupp wrote: »

This sort of thing would make me very happy indeed. I have no problem with the idea of leaving college any amount of money in debt, as long as I have the opportunity to actually get the education I want.

Its the best alternative to what is existing at the moment but whether the government follow this idea or not is another issue. The rumours ive heard (and ill stress that rumours only) is that the bit about the should you wages fall below the threshold bit could be left out.
dont see why they would though, they australian system has been adopted by new zealand and other countries too.

Sleepy

freyners wrote: »

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.

So we should maintain a system of mediocre colleges/universities competing against each other instead of raising a handful of them to the standard where they could compete internationally?

I wouldn't be in favour of merging all our colleges but I'd imagine there's definitely some scope for economies of scale benefits from merging institutions that are currently operating within a stone's throw of each other e.g. DIT, DCU.

I'd be more in favour of having universities specialise, grouping the best talent we have in each area into the university that specialises in the field should, imho, improve the standard of research and lecturing.

anymore

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1) I knew that such thinking could not reach all people...

2) They were being produced by people you never heard of, and the government suggested should "take a swim". What was the term called... oh, that's right, "doom and gloom merchants".

Doom indeed.

And how was this information reflected in the benchmarking process and the very unseemly scramble by the heads of 3rd level colleges for ever more and more money to satisfy their greedy remuneration demands ?

Flamed Diving

anymore wrote: »

And how was this information reflected in the benchmarking process and the very unseemly scramble by the heads of 3rd level colleges for ever more and more money to satisfy their greedy remuneration demands ?

You're really not making any sense. At all.

anymore

Sleepy wrote: »

So we should maintain a system of mediocre colleges/universities competing against each other instead of raising a handful of them to the standard where they could compete internationally?

I wouldn't be in favour of merging all our colleges but I'd imagine there's definitely some scope for economies of scale benefits from merging institutions that are currently operating within a stone's throw of each other e.g. DIT, DCU.

I'd be more in favour of having universities specialise, grouping the best talent we have in each area into the university that specialises in the field should, imho, improve the standard of research and lecturing.

the real problem with mergers in 3rd level colleges is that it would diminish the number of top level positions such as presidents of College etc and our academics guard their positions and priviliges very jealousily and in this they will be supported by local TDS and Councillors.

hmm... where to start?

I'm completing a postgrad in Business Studies in one of Irelands IT's. I came back to Ireland just before the bubble crashed and was unable to find work. I'm also 33, a qualified credit controller, with over a decade in experience. I went on social welfare for three months, and then got a job, which ultimately paid less that the welfare payments would have provided (€160). But, hey, at least I had something to do. Then that job ended due to lack of business, and I was back to applying for welfare. And then I got admitted to college, which was rather nice.

I'm not from a poor family. We're what some of you would call middle class. Both my parents are retired teachers, and I'm lucky to be able to live at home while I go to college. So rent isn't a problem. And they're happy to have me at home, so feeding me isn't an issue.

I wasn't eligible for any grants. None at all. I could get paid to be unemployed but not to go to college. When the administration fee of €1500 came to be paid, I seriously considered not doing the course, because simply put, i didn't have the money. My parents came through in the end, because in their eyes, education is worth it. I got a part time job for the first semester, which brought in €50 a week, which helped for dinners, photocopying, etc. And then that job disappeared when the company went out of business. And the parents have picked up the tab and have since given me €50 a week to cover stuff.

Now a few points to make:
1) College is expensive. The living costs and education costs don't stop at the admin fee paid so you can sit the exams. Even 5 cups of coffee a week amounts to €9. Subsidized canteens are great, but dinner still costs €5-€7 a day. I haven't been drinking, or had much of any social activity since I started college since thats an unnecessary expense. (€50 a week doesn't last long, even when you ignore the weekends, and any transport)
2) My family might be middle class, but the money still has to come from somewhere. Its not just the poorer families that have issues with money, especially in the current economic climate.
3) I went back into welfare to sign up again since I figured it would be difficult to find work again when I graduated. (I've sent out resumes, had 4 interviews, and nothing.) They told me I wouldn't be receiving the full jobseekers, since it was 2 years since I had worked in Ireland. Never mind that I had worked and paid taxes for the previous 13 years prior to 2008... Those are the rules. (I had plenty of contributions prior to going back to college)
4) I have never received any welfare with the exception of those three months. I have also never received any medical care that my own private insurance didn't pay for. And I wasn't eligible for any grants when I first graduated 10 years ago. Simply put, I've paid a hell of a lot in taxes already in this country.

If fees had been instigated when I started college last year, I definitely wouldn't have gone back. Way too expensive when everything is factored in.

I Would be inclined for the fees to be applied against your PRSI contributions either in the past, or for those who haven't worked into the future. A portion of the total contributions spread over a period of years. At least then, both people who have been paying taxes could get some benefit, and those that haven't worked, can pay the fees back without their salaries being demolished by some "loan". - However, I still feel that Fees are a bad idea. This country is expensive enough as it is for just about everything else. Why make it even worse?

And just a interesting question to all those shouting loudly for the fees to be reintroduced.... Who paid for yours? Likely a lot of the people returning to college..

Two Last Points; if you really were concerned about the numbers going to college, and the costs involved, perhaps you should be calling for a tightening on the requirements needed to get into courses? The points needed to get into courses has continuously dropped across the board (my course is over a 100 points lower than when i did the LC), and the level of students being accepted into courses is shocking. Frankly, I was appalled at the level of English (written and spoken) of some of the students I participated in projects with this year.

And lastly.... The college I'm in spent a fortune in putting up buildings and sports facilities over the previous three years. They built a massive engineering block with major investment, and guess what? The building is too dangerous to use. The builders used crappy materials and the ceiling is raining blocks making it... useless. Looks nice on the outside though. :rolleyes: Perhaps a look at what colleges are spending their money on, how they're spending the money, and why.... [My college also recently replaced all the chairs in the canteen with more "stylish" ones. I'm saying sylish since they're uncomfortable, which the old cheap ones weren't. - I wonder how much they cost?]

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

So we should maintain a system of mediocre colleges/universities competing against each other instead of raising a handful of them to the standard where they could compete internationally?

Why not apply exacting standards towards them all?

I wouldn't be in favour of merging all our colleges but I'd imagine there's definitely some scope for economies of scale benefits from merging institutions that are currently operating within a stone's throw of each other e.g. DIT, DCU.

Agreed. If they're that close to each other, then its just bureaucracy and the love of administration that keeps them separate. It would be more cost effective if under one administration, and wouldn't require much in the way of changes to the actual courses themselves.

I'd be more in favour of having universities specialise, grouping the best talent we have in each area into the university that specialises in the field should, imho, improve the standard of research and lecturing.

My course is apparently a "Honors" course. I say apparently, since 10 years ago it was just a 4 year degree. My 3 year diploma which I graduated in is now considered a "pass" degree. In any case, I have found the quality of lecturers to be rather dismal considering the type of course. I have a Strategic Marketing lecturer who was an accountant before becoming a lecturer. He has zero experience of marketing (and zero experience of management or strategy)except from an academic aspect (He has his Masters). And yet, he's also lecturing two subjects on one of the masters programs here. (Neither being accounting)

And he's not the exception to the rule considering the other lecturers in my course, the comments of friends in other courses, and even friends in other colleges.

There seems to be a general lack of decent lecturers in this country outside of the main universities. And even then, they're purely academic in nature. Very few of them have any practical experience to back them up. Personally, I think this country should seek lecturers who have worked in their respective fields, and can lecture with both their qualifications and their experience. If this country is indeed going to become competitive, then our students need more than a piece of paper thats essentially useless. (considering the very real perception that our degrees are worth less considering the quality of students graduating).

ardmacha

This thread seems to have drifted off course, it started with the proposition that more or less free third level education could not be afforded by the State and has drifted into discussion of merging colleges. In fact merging two relatively large colleges would only lead to very modest administrative savings, the benefits would be in the capability of the merged institution to offer advanced specialised courses effectively. The point is that Ireland has a relatively large number of people at the age who go to Third Level and a high proportion of these who do so. It also presently has a substantial structural budget deficit and an increasingly underfunded Third Level system. Rather than the public at large borrowing money to pay for students some sort of of loans to the beneficiaries of Third Level is needed. People who end up paying high taxes find them a disincentive and they quickly forget the tens of thousands spent by the State on their degree. If taxes are a bit lower and you have to repay a loan then you know where it goes and that you chose the course yourself.

anymore

ardmacha wrote: »

This thread seems to have drifted off course, it started with the proposition that more or less free third level education could not be afforded by the State and has drifted into discussion of merging colleges. In fact merging two relatively large colleges would only lead to very modest administrative savings, the benefits would be in the capability of the merged institution to offer advanced specialised courses effectively. The point is that Ireland has a relatively large number of people at the age who go to Third Level and a high proportion of these who do so. It also presently has a substantial structural budget deficit and an increasingly underfunded Third Level system. Rather than the public at large borrowing money to pay for students some sort of of loans to the beneficiaries of Third Level is needed. People who end up paying high taxes find them a disincentive and they quickly forget the tens of thousands spent by the State on their degree. If taxes are a bit lower and you have to repay a loan then you know where it goes and that you chose the course yourself.

Fair points but if we and the other EU countires can afford to massively subsidise inefficient farmers then we moost certainly can afford to pay to have kids educated to third level.
The slackers can be weeded out in the first year by expelling all who fail to meet minimum standards in first year without possibility of reating unless full fees are paid.

danbohan

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Seconded, with grants provided to those from low-income families.

not necessarily , this country needs get away from its hand out mentality

Flamed Diving

danbohan wrote: »

not necessarily , this country needs get away from its hand out mentality

Then a heavily polarised society is the outcome.

danbohan

danbohan wrote: »

not necessarily , this country needs get away from its hand out mentality

No. This country needs to get smart about how it hands out its money.... There's still quite a bit of favoritism regarding how the state gives money to those "needing" the help. For example, I know two students the son & daughter of a farmer who are on the full grant, yet drive to college separately in two 2009 land-rovers.

Removing aid to those that need it (regardless of their backgrounds) should never be removed. Instead a more balanced, and careful approach to spending money.

Think about all the crappy initiatives our government has spent money in the past. Even take the ones that succeeded. How many of those projects could have been managed better, with savings which could be spent to cover those that need the help to go to college or to see a doctor...

ardmacha

How many of those projects could have been managed better,

The deficit is 14% of GDP, all these savings are needed, but would not make any difference other than at the margin. Third level education warrents government subsidy, but not to the extent that it can be free for everyone, as the State cannot afford this.

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

The deficit is 14% of GDP, all these savings are needed, but would not make any difference other than at the margin. Third level education warrents government subsidy, but not to the extent that it can be free for everyone, as the State cannot afford this.

This is the problem with this country and its mindset. Every solution has to be big, and revolutionary. Cut corners at the edges of a lot of little areas, and it'll add up to a rather large chunk of cheese.

The state can afford the college fees. Hell, they can afford double pensions. One year of Berties double pension would put... how many people through college? roughly 80k? hmm... 40 people perhaps? And thats just mentioning pensions... what about all the other perks they receive across the board?

There's plenty of areas which this country can look at to costs, and frankly, in a lot of cases, those costs shouldn't have been there in the first place. This countrys only chance of being successful in Europe and the rest of the world is through a skilled/educated population, and by cutting out the bull**** costs which our politicians, and bureaucracy have been wallowing in. (Its also worth considering that most answers to social disorder and violence points to education, and giving people options for the future. What happens when you take away those options?)

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Then a heavily polarised society is the outcome.

thats debatable , it presumes that university is the only way to get on in life, not true. Many well/high paying jobs have alternate routes in to them, sounds like a bit of a bogey man. Also I guess we will never know how many working class or lower middle class people could afford to send their kids to college if the state wasnt taxing them so heavily.

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

thats debatable , it presumes that university is the only way to get on in life, not true. Many well/high paying jobs have alternate routes in to them, sounds like a bit of a bogey man. Also I guess we will never know how many working class or lower middle class people could afford to send their kids to college if the state wasnt taxing them so heavily.

I guess. But polarisation isn't the exclusive domain of wealth, you know.

Secondly, how much is heavily?

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I guess. But polarisation isn't the exclusive domain of wealth, you know.

Secondly, how much is heavily?

In the round if we are talking about social mobility then wealth would be the most important driver combined with the ambitions of the parents involved. I dont think the government should be in the job of social engineering and even if they are the evidence if true that woking class kids dont attend college due to peer pressure, then they are failing.

as for you second point, given that parents have 18 years "warning" it is perfectly reasonable to expect parents to save for this future cost, what are we talking about €1K to €2K per year invested with an insurance company. I'm sure the average working class family forks out this amount every year and then some in indirect taxes alone.

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

In the round if we are talking about social mobility then wealth would be the most important driver combined with the ambitions of the parents involved. I dont think the government should be in the job of social engineering and even if they are the evidence if true that woking class kids dont attend college due to peer pressure, then they are failing.

If the government were involved in social engineering then that would entail forcing people to go to college. My attitude is more about addressing imbalances. Offering the opportunity to go is not social engineering.

If you prefer, we could just have a society where only the wealthy go to college, and work in white-collar jobs, and the working-class remain ignorant, yet still earning decent money as plumbers, etc.

But it's not just about 'Y', is it?

silverharp wrote: »

as for you second point, given that parents have 18 years "warning" it is perfectly reasonable to expect parents to save for this future cost, what are we talking about €1K to €2K per year invested with an insurance company. I'm sure the average working class family forks out this amount every year and then some in indirect taxes alone.

Assuming rationality. You should know very well that humans aren't very rational when it comes to long-term decision-making. This is the biggest failing of (economic) right-wing thinking.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If the government were involved in social engineering then that would entail forcing people to go to college. My attitude is more about addressing imbalances. Offering the opportunity to go is not social engineering.

If you prefer, we could just have a society where only the wealthy go to college, and work in white-collar jobs, and the working-class remain ignorant, yet still earning decent money as plumbers, etc.

But it's not just about 'Y', is it?

social engineering does not have to be coercive. But the question back might be where is the justice in appropriating money from one group who will not be availing of university to give an opportunity to another group?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Assuming rationality. You should know very well that humans aren't very rational when it comes to long-term decision-making. This is the biggest failing of (economic) right-wing thinking.

Its not a matter of assuming, I know x% will save and y% will not or will save for other goals. If the parents and or the local community do not respect third level education for "good" or erroneous reasons then I'd guess this will give a good guide to outcomes regardless of gov. supports. To gear the whole system to offer opportunities for people to access a particular path in life is expensive and unjust to those who have to fund it.

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

social engineering does not have to be coercive. But the question back might be where is the justice in appropriating money from one group who will not be availing of university to give an opportunity to another group?

Where is the justice in someone being unable to afford to attend 3rd level, simply because they were born on the wrong side of the river, yet someone has it handed to them on a plate, for another geographical roll of die?

We could come up with these questions all day, I'm sure.

silverharp wrote: »

Its not a matter of assuming, I know x% will save and y% will not or will save for other goals. If the parents and or the local community do not respect third level education for "good" or erroneous reasons then I'd guess this will give a good guide to outcomes regardless of gov. supports. To gear the whole system to offer opportunities for people to access a particular path in life is expensive and unjust to those who have to fund it.

It's just about creating a level playing field, which the current system is not. People are born into communities that don't respect education, for sure. So that means anyone born in that position should just accept their lot? Should they be punished for their parents apathy towards education?

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

To gear the whole system to offer opportunities for people to access a particular path in life is expensive and unjust to those who have to fund it.

The catch is that now the very people that funded it for other people over the last 10,15,20 years have come back in the hopes of gaining something useful from their previous payments. And even if they haven't returned to college or gone on welfare, they've provided for their children to do so in the future.

Nobody was crying out that the lack of fees was unjust when I was working.. :rolleyes:

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Where is the justice in someone being unable to afford to attend 3rd level, simply because they were born on the wrong side of the river, yet someone has it handed to them on a plate, for another geographical roll of die?

We could come up with these questions all day, I'm sure.

Its a very myopic question, you might as well ask why sons of farmers get to inherit their parents farms or why is it fair that Africans have a lower standand of living then Europeans. They are not questions of Justice. Clearily Anthony Foley's lectures went in one ear and out the other in my case:pac:

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's just about creating a level playing field, which the current system is not. People are born into communities that don't respect education, for sure. So that means anyone born in that position should just accept their lot? Should they be punished for their parents apathy towards education?

I'd say nobody should accept their lot, if anyone grows up with dysfunctional or shortseighted parents then their off spring are best served getting out of there fast and doing something completely differnent. My question is are you using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and or is it a solvable problem? I dont have the numbers but for example I assume only a tiny fraction of Ballymun kids go to DCU which is just down the road after being the recipient of state aid all though their lives. If you could demonstrate that a high % of kids from a deprived area would attend university as opposed to a life on the dole or menial manual jobs I'd write a personal cheque myself and spport the effort. It doesnt pass the justice test and I doubt it would even pass a utilitiarian audit

Flamed Diving

silverharp wrote: »

Its a very myopic question, you might as well ask why sons of farmers get to inherit their parents farms or why is it fair that Africans have a lower standand of living then Europeans. They are not questions of Justice. Clearily Anthony Foley's lectures went in one ear and out the other in my case:pac:





I'd say nobody should accept their lot, if anyone grows up with dysfunctional or shortseighted parents then their off spring are best served getting out of there fast and doing something completely differnent. My question is are you using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and or is it a solvable problem? I dont have the numbers but for example I assume only a tiny fraction of Ballymun kids go to DCU which is just down the road after being the recipient of state aid all though their lives. If you could demonstrate that a high % of kids from a deprived area would attend university as opposed to a life on the dole or menial manual jobs I'd write a personal cheque myself and spport the effort. It doesnt pass the justice test and I doubt it would even pass a utilitiarian audit

Alright, I am weary. So weary.