Third-level fees have to come back

ardmacha

The problem is becoming more urgent. It seems easier for the government to cut a relatively efficient sector which is actually experiencing an increase in demand than to cut Quangos etc.

---

from Indepdent.ie

MORE than 1,000 jobs have been lost in higher education over the past two years -- at a time when student numbers are rising rapidly.

New figures show that at the end of March this year, the third-level colleges had a full-time staffing quota of 20,084, down from 21,149 at the end of December 2008.

But over the same period the number of full-time students went up from around 145,000 to 155,000, and is still rising amid warnings of further cuts in staffing levels.

The Higher Education Authority has written to the heads of third-level colleges, alerting them to the possibility of more staff reductions next year. Chief executive Tom Boland said they can also expect further reductions in core allocations from the State.

His letter prompted an angry reaction from the Irish Federation of University Teachers, which said that it beggared belief that the Department of Education and Skills could even be considering more cuts.

General Secretary Mike Jennings warned that the union would not agree to any compulsory job losses.

Dublin City University President Ferdinand von Prondzynski said that the letter came at a time when universities had already lost 6pc of total staff numbers over two years while admitting additional students.

Pressure

"We will be under further pressure to add to the student numbers while losing yet more money and having fewer staff to teach them," he said.

Meanwhile, an international study has shown that universities in Ireland and Latvia were suffering the worst cuts in government funding in Europe.

This year's reduction of 9.4pc in state aid followed cuts of 5.4pc last year in Ireland.

Only Latvia, where the IMF and the World Bank demanded drastic cuts in education, suffered a worse fate, with cuts of 48pc in 2009 and 18pc this year.

thebman

We are building a smart economy by not investing in BB and letting the most educated minds in the country go and ensuring there are not enough places in our colleges for our bright students.

Certainly seems like a well thought out plan :-/

the_syco

rightwingdub wrote: »

the quality of courses will improve if fees are brought back.

How? There were crap lectures back then, there are crap lectures now. The course that a lecturer can take to show them how to teach is optional, and many douches out there may be brilliant in their field, but still can't teach for sh|t.

=-=

You want to bring back fee's, sure. For everyone. Because otherwise those who got grants before the fees will be the only ones able to attend college after the fees come back.

graduate

There were crap lectures back then, there are crap lectures now.

The quality of the course is not only a function of the lecturer spoon feeding it to the students. It also requires a lecturer who is up to speed with current developments and their relative importance.

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

mickstupp

graduate wrote: »

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

I assume when you say that you mean some people, not all, since that would be just a little bit completely wrong. There are plenty of reasons why some people cannot afford college now, let alone if full fees are reintroduced. I'm not saying they shouldn't be reintroduced, since clearly they should, but when full fees are eventually reintroduced I think the means testing system needs to be given a thorough overhaul at the same time, since the current system is at the root of some people's reasons for not being able to afford it right now, nevermind the prospect of an extra four to six grand a year. Even an increase of a couple of hundred on the registration fee would be kicking some people out.

graduate

graduate wrote: »

The quality of the course is not only a function of the lecturer spoon feeding it to the students. It also requires a lecturer who is up to speed with current developments and their relative importance.

Which is sadly lacking in many of the lecturers in our colleges/universities. Having more money is not going to solve that problem. Instead it will only encourage colleges to hire regardless of the quality of service. Its not a matter of spoon feeding students. Its the problem that while many lecturers are experts in their fields (and many aren't) they're incapable of communicating effectively with students.

Take my course for example. A honors degree in Business Studies (Post Grad). This last semester I had four subjects. All mandatory. Strategic Implementation, Strategic Marketing, Financial Management, Systems & Project Management.

The Strategic Implementation and Systems lecturers were quite good, although the Systems lecturer used the old format of speaking through the whole lecturer at breakneck speed, and having everyone write down his notes. (since they weren't available anywhere else except from his own notes). But otherwise a reasonably good lecturer willing to explain aspects in the canteen later.

The Financial Management lecturer was incapable or unwilling to write questions/answers on the board, preferring to use excel the whole time. Which is a bit odd considering none of us would have such an opportunity. But that aside, he was incapable of explaining the reasons behind certain formula's and ratios. A very intelligent man, but not a very good communicator. Has written dozens of papers and journal entries for accounting magazines. Also quite rigid in his thinking, despite evidence showing his examples to be false in the real world.

And lastly Strategic Marketing, which I figure is a rather useless subject in itself. Since the course material was essentially the marketing that was taught every year previously in the course. All the lecturers notes were taken directly from Wiki. Exactly. He read from his notes in lectures. Exactly. And his examples were off the wall, many of which were filled with logical (and marketing) holes. Oh, his masters is in Accounting, not Marketing.

The reason I'm giving these examples is to show the level of quality for a post grad course. Not a university admittedly, but there's a rather large chunk of the population that goes through the "Institute of Technology" route. 50% decent lecturers? And these were long standing lecturers having all been there a decade. I should know... I finished the undergraduate there 10 years ago with those same lecturers.. :rolleyes:

There is a problem with our Third level education system. More or less money isn't the root problem. Its the inability to hire on ability rather than some vague reference or some piece of paper (Phd).

The main issue here is not that Lecturers will lose their jobs... The government is going to cut corners in education regardless of what anyone says. The issue is that they're cutting across the board, rather than seeking to retain those lecturers who are capable. So instead we'll probably have institutionalized lecturers who have been there 20 years, and are so removed from the practical aspects of the real world that they're incapable of teaching anything worthwhile. Except for pure theory, of course.

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

And many couldn't. And many more people these days have more debts than before. And many of those very people with these debts are younger than previous generations. The situation is not static. We can't just look to the 80's, say things were terrible, and then point to our period and say we can do the same. Circumstances were vastly different across the board.

I've asked this before of people advocating the return of the fees but few have responded directly. Did they themselves pay fees when they were in before? So, did you?

Mal-Adjusted

graduate wrote: »

And there were lectures when there were fees before, people could afford them, no reason why they cannot again.

i can think of about 450, 000 reasons why they can't :rolleyes:

vonnie10

Bringing back third level education fees would be a major step backwards, Free fees has allowed so many people to enter 3rd level education who originally would not have had the opportunity. I say this as a middle class student at UCD. I would not qualify for any grants but would certainly struggle to pay full fees especially as i have siblings who would also be attending college. It would not be the low income families that would suffer the most as they would receive maintenance grants, but would more likely be the middle income families like myself and most of my friends, that are not in the high income bracket but earn too much to qualify for any grants. I already pay a 1650 euro reg fee every year and as i am not from dublin i have rent and living expenses to pay. As it stands it already costs approximately 10K to put me through college every year, if you add fees of say approx 6K , there is not a chance i could afford that. We already pay fees through our reg fee and student services fee (despite the fact that this has risen in recent years, student services have been cut) . The library service at UCD has been considered a student service, sorry excuse me for thinking that a library was an essential service at a third level institution:rolleyes: Also there is currently no library service in UCD at all on a sunday which is disgraceful !!! I'm sure its a similar story in other colleges and universities around the country.I'd like to start seeing some value for the money we already pay before people start mouthing off that students should be paying fees. Also most students take their studies very seriously and are incredibly ambitious and want to leave with the best degree, especially now with the state of the economy. Do not blame 3rd level students for the state of the country now, they should not be punished for the failings and inadequate management of our corrupt government, bankers and university presidents!!! Hugh Brady president of UCD randomly gives himself bonuses of 12K (he may have given it back ), TD's all over the country are claiming expenses left right and centre for no reason and bankers like sean fitzpatrick and fingleton are claiming massive pensions for screwing the country over and you're seriously telling me OP that you want to reduce the countries deficit by alienating vulnerable members of our society from a 3rd level education...

sponsoredwalk

IrishTonyO wrote: »

That's why grants or loans should be available to people who need them. I have never been able to understand why the taxpayer has to pay for a solicitors education or any other profession for that matter. If they cannot afford the fees a loan should be made available that would be repaid on a monthly basis as soon as the person starts earning.

With respect, isn't this the American way of life that has made slaves out of it's students & a system with which the people are extremely unhappy and fight for reforming...

Why do people deserve to pay back the system that required them in the first place in order to continue along?

If these people were not educated then things would collapse, why should someone have to pay this back for years and years?

We need you, but you're going to pay for helping us...

One party definitely requires the other more.

Regardless of all the promises & assurances, this will, as history can easily demonstrate, rapidly backfire on the poor & aid the wealthy.

There are better ways to get money than to take away money from the public sectors...

John Lynch Ph.D wrote: »

Terrible idea.

And why are people so for the idea of providing free education to students from only low income family's? again after again these students have proven to be the under performers in college, and that is FACT, the basic reality is they come from low income family's for a reason and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.


I'm aware this isn't always the case, but it is 90% of the time. So for applications grants would have to be heavily scrutinized and also availible to middle class students aswell.

However I feel that the approach to third level needs to completely reworked, employers aren't looking for a general piss in the pan Irish college degree because they know they're worth.

Oh no, I remember you...

The latest piece of hatred coming from your keyboard is to insult poor people with a form of economic determinism...

rightwingdub wrote: »

There's far too much of an entitlement culture in this country, if adults want to pay for third level education then they should pay for it pure and simple, although I would certainly support a grant system for people from more modest backgrounds.

Who are the modest classes? The ones who can't afford bread or the ones who barely buy school books & uniforms at the start of the year for their kids?

These aren't fantasies, these are people & these things happen year round, how many recessions will it take all of you to patriotically call for high fees for primary schools while allowing people to misrule your economy & alternately get you richer, poorer & more scared of the word public...

Why do you people fall for the fallacy of tightening the economic belt during recessions?
do you know how many have happened over the years?

Do you know that they are an integral part of the system?

Do you not notice how every time it comes around everyone goes straight for the public sector? Even the banks went for the public sector for a bailout after partially creating this mess, yet you want to penalize ordinary people...

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Third level fees do not have to come back. I've benefited from free fees, I'd never be able to afford a university education without free fees. There is a desperate lack of funding in the third level sector. Re-introducing fees and forcing people from poor backgrounds away from University is not the way to go.

It falls on deaf ears when we're in a recession

People start looking out for No.1...

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I strongly disagree. This is such a lazy attitude. I worked 27 hours a week, part-time at one stage during college. I felt proud of this because I clearly had a hunger that others didn't. It seems like some people just want their whole lives subsidised. I will only take money when I really need it. But I will always choose to pay my own way, whenever I can.

I just don't get this kind of "I'm entitled" attitude.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but it's my opinion.

Tell me, how does one who has to travel everyday also work while studying somoething like medicine, or theoretical physics, or math & physics concurrently, or any of these crazy courses?

If you aren't lucky enough to get night security then you're going to have a hell of a time getting by just living & studying, and that says nothing of having a normal life outside of school.

Throw on top of that expenses such as being a vegetarian for medical reasons, (I'm sure moral reasons wont resonate with anyone when discussing money), or suffering from some form of sleep sickness, or any other little imaginative feasible spanners & what happens?

Not everyone is as lucky as you & it's not fair to judge all accordingly.

Please don't forget that people are educated to benefit their country, why should they suffer in the process of trying to better their country?

This is what happens when a population that was taught by a society whose math teachers were grossly, grossly uneducated: their former pupils get their chance to change things & they just repeat history by attacking the public that they exist among :rolleyes:

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

If fees were introduced I would be able to afford them (albeit with a curbing of leisure and giving up any hope I had of moving out)

This is crazy...

So, in other words we reintroduce fees so that the rich who can afford it get to party at their leisure in college, (not saying that many of them want to, but they have the economic freedom to choose), while those from more meagre backgrounds, (i.e. the majority of people) will be slaving away serving those lucky people who get to go out on Friday nights, or Tuesday morning etc...

This is craziness, yet somehow people accept it :eek:

monosharp wrote: »

The top three are; University of Cambridge (61), Harvard University (48) and Columbia University (37).

And never did I suggest Harvard didn't belong up there, my point was that the list as a whole is nonsense. Sure Harvard might very well be the 'best' University in the world. But the top 19 are most certainly not all American and British institutions.

I think Harvard's credibility has been severely damaged after their support of Alan Derschowitz

Flamed Diving wrote: »

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.

There's no y on that graph

Your plan looks great theoretically, except for the fact that in reality we all know it will not work that way.

There's no reason not to be highly skeptical, blanket assurances are not good enough anymore, I have plenty of historical instances of this type of blanket assurance that ended up disastrous for the poor...

It's things like the G.I. bill in America that aided the growth of the economy greatly, it greatly aided African Americans who, due to stigma, certainly would have benefited much less so.

When it comes to education, it doesn't pay to stigmatize people, even the richer people.

Again, why should the rich have to pay for their education when it is their educated persons that perpetuate society & better it?


We need you, but you're going to pay dearly for helping us...

sponsoredwalk

FIVE REASONS TO OPPOSE COLLEGE FEES

1. Fees won’t cut costs during the recession

The government has indicated its intention
to introduce some sort of fees for third-level education, with the
most likely model being a graduate tax, or a graduate loan system
(as favoured by Education Minister Batt O’Keeffe). The timing of such
proposals shows the government is attempting to quickly eliminate
some state spending to balance the books.

Neither a graduate tax or graduate loan system
will save the exchequer any significant monies for up to a decade.
Even if graduates manage to find a job in Ireland, they will take
years to repay the debt. Fees will not help us cut state
spending during the recession.


2. Fees will increase government debt and emigration

The government is closely looking at
Australia’s graduate tax system, known as the Higher
Education Contribution Scheme (HECS).
This system is currently owed some $10billion (€5.8billion)
by graduates who are unable to pay and chose to leave the
country. The Australian government has admitted that up
to 30% of this debt will never be repaid by graduates.
New Zealand’s loan system, with a population similar to
Ireland’s, has a collective debt of over €5billion after
20 years in operation.

With the economy likely to struggle for years
to come, we are giving our graduates an incentive to emigrate
and never come back. The choice for them will be to
emigrate debt-free or stay and owe and average
of €32,000. If graduates emigrate, which they are likely to,
the government will have to pick up the cost.


3. Fees will be cheaper for the rich and dearer for the poor

Batt O’Keefe has hinted his support for a scheme
whereby those who can afford to pay fees up-front rather than through
a tax or loan system will get a significant discount on their fees.
It has also been proposed that interest rates will be applicable to any
loans system, increasing the debt even further for those who cannot
pay fees up-front.

The system favoured by the Minister is unfair
on those working families who are already struggling to make
ends meet. The rich will pay far less for their education than
those on ordinary incomes.


4. Fees will restrict access to third-level education

The government has signalled its intention
to increase third-level participation rates to 72% by the year 2020,
in order to create a knowledge economy workforce that can dig us
out of recession. Forcing €32,000 of debt for a science or
technology degree on potential students is no way to encourage participation,
but instead is a recipe for a generation of emigration.

Secondary school students will be encouraged
to not enter third-level education as they will face massive debts
or graduate taxes. Families from lower-income backgrounds will be
especially discouraged from taking on such debts.


5. Third-level education is already underfunded

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) has found that in 2005
Ireland was spending 1.2% of our national income on
third-level education, a decrease from 1.5% in the year 2000.
They also found that our euro-for-euro spending was below the international average.
As for the pitiful Student Grant, which is aimed at helping ordinary families send their children to college, it doesn’t even cover the cost of rent in the main university towns.

The government is attempting to create a world-class third-level education system without funding it properly.
Instead, it wants 18 year old Leaving Cert students to take on the
funding issue and spend years repaying graduate loans or taxes.

FYP

A nice, concise addendum to my rant above, for your collective perusal

mickstupp

Without getting into the nitty gritty financial details etc. ... and just to make the point that not all students think in the same way.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The government has indicated its intention to introduce some sort of fees for third-level education, with the most likely model being a graduate tax, or a graduate loan system
(as favoured by Education Minister Batt O’Keeffe).

I've just finished second year, and at the moment it's touch and go whether I'll be able to afford another year. I would happily, in a heartbeat, sign up for a loan system if it would help me finish not only my degree, but a Masters too. Happily. For some people an education is worth more than practically anything else. If they opened up applications on Monday I'd be first in line. I'm not the only one who feels like this.

Even if graduates manage to find a job in Ireland, they will take
years to repay the debt.

Some of us genuinely don't care. A good education is worth it. If I could get what I wanted out of an education, I wouldn't care if I left college 50, 60, 100 grand in debt. Anything. Seriously, it's priceless to me. I'll live the rest of my life in debt in return for an education. Gladly. Because right now I can't afford it. With a loan system I could.

You say introducing fees will restrict access, and maybe it will, but I can't see why if it's in the form of a tax or loan you pay back once qualified and working. Right now it's already hugely expensive for some people. The opportunity to get an education and pay back your debt later would be a genuine incentive for some people. Maybe not many, I don't know. But some. Personally it wouldn't make me feel like skipping the country afterwards. If anything it'd make me feel like my country gives enough of a damn about me to train me and let me repay when I can. Next time the reg fee increases I for one, and a bunch of my friends, will have to drop out. There's no two ways about it, because there's a lot of people already at the limits of budgeting and so on. The means testing system in this country is broken. There's a lot of people getting money they don't need, and a lot who need it and don't get it. For those people, do you not think the prospect of getting an education that you can repay later, would be an incentive to go and get qualified? If nothing else, prospective income and ability to repay loans right now is an awful lot lower than it'll be with qualifications. I have faith that the country will get better eventually. When it does, I'd like to be in a position to get a good job, rather than where I am now. If that means paying back in tax or whatever, great. Bring it on. And besides... the benefits of an education go a lot further than simply job prospects. Bring it on I say. I'll sign up in a heartbeat.

I'm a student who's clearly in the minority. I genuinely don't understand why accepting some financial responsibility for one's education is a problem. Pardon my lack of any sort of decent argumentation here, it's an emotional subject for me because I can't afford the education I want. If the government bring in fees in the form of a later tax or loan, then that would enable me to get the education I want. That's how I look at it. Why would I turn that down? Or protest against fees if that's a possibility? As it stands we don't have a free fees system except in a nominal sense. It's an illusion.

sponsoredwalk

I get where your coming from. If you want me to get more specific in what you've said I'll reply line by line but I think I can explain it easier than that


Why should you have to get into massive debt to acquire the skills that are required to perpetuate the society you were born into?

We, the people, set the way things are to be done & if the people did not attempt to get an education then society would drastically suffer, if not collapse.

Do you not realise that society needs you?

I unerstand an education is priceless, I think so too. However, why is selling yourself into economic slavery in order to make a sector of society richer something you would happily agree to?

In America they take out huge loans, huge! in order to pay for college & then if they do not instantly repay them back the interest accumulates rapidly. I heard on the radio that some people were paying like $40,000 in interest to the banks, wtf...

There have been numerous protests to amend this gross system. Theses are things people have a choice over, if you remember last year they were planning to reintroduce college fees & there were massive protests against it. When the people speak loud enough then the system has to follow suit.



You are waiting on a whim for the economy to get better, why would you want to pledge so much money to a system that you can't depend on?

You are willing to get into hge debt to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer. As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money.

Depending on your job you are making X amount of money for society while giving them a smaller repayment of Y, while gaining a comparitively meagre salary of Z, unless you become a captain of industry...

If education is so valuable then there is no reason you can't autodidactically teach yourself.

There's obviously more to it than that, already you're getting qualified to look attractive to society & to guarantee some form of wage yet look at the system around you, it can't guarantee stability yet your required to have X,Y,Z qualification that can only be provided by accredited course X, Y, Z, i.e. be a stable/model employee.

Also, why is it that the public will bail out the banks no problem with public money but when the people, who society is supposed to be there for, want something there's uproar...

Now, I'm extremely confused with the last part of your post.

How would government fees enable you to attend the course you currently can't afford :pac:

Who is stopping you from going to A.I.B. of B.O.I. & getting a student loan which you can happily pay back in the future???

mickstupp

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.

Now, I'm extremely confused with the last part of your post.

How would government fees enable you to attend the course you currently can't afford :pac:

Note, I said 'If the government bring in fees in the form of a later tax or loan'. Obviously if it were just straight up fees, I'd just be screwed, but straight up fees are not what was being proposed.

Who is stopping you from going to A.I.B. of B.O.I. & getting a student loan which you can happily pay back in the future???

All I can say to that is the only people in the way of AIB or BOI loans, are people in the AIB or BOI, specifically the ones who approve loans. Some people don't have regular income, collateral, people to go guarantor, or indeed grants or other subsidies etc. I had to beg for a loan last year. I'm hoping I won't have to this year. And I'm hoping they'll say yes. So what, right? My point is everyone has different financial issues.

The promise of an education now which you have to pay for later doesn't actually restrict access as such. Everyone gets access, and everyone pays later, after the fact. It wouldn't affect access in any way whatsoever, except in the sense of it turning some people off with the prospect of paying later. But that's still not restricting access because they could still go if they wanted to. Anyway, if later on, you're paying back that fee with 5% or whatever of your wages every month, taken out before it gets to you, I fail to see any problem with that. I have zero issue with that prospect. Like I said, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

sponsoredwalk

Look if A.I.B. or B.O.I. have given you a loan for these past 2 years, (you're going into third, right?) then I doubt they're going to leave you in the lurch after all of that.

You've pretty much got your chance to take a big loan on your head, that doesn't mean we have to implement plans that will end up doing more damage than good for a lot of people.

Of that 5 point list I quoted from the link, points 2, 3 & 4 apply to you exactly in the manner published;

2: you'll be in massive debt & you've mentioned that emigration would be on the cards...

3: you would be paying the loan back over a long period of time, albeit happily, but you'd still pay more on the accumulated interest than someone richer who paid off the loan quicker. In America that is the kicker, here it would assume that position. The fact that you wouldn't even know or think about it is scary because there would be many like you paying extra unnecessarily.

4: If fees are re-introduced & no loan scheme then you don't go.

I'm just a bit confused still.

You know most courses would be in excess of 13,000 (euro) a year if fees were reintroduced.

I'm probably assuming/asking too much but the main fee is 1500e is it not, with the rest for living purposes?

I don't see how you wouldn't come off extremely worse with a fees, extremely worse.

Also, there would be no state benefit, the meagre money saved would be diverted into paying off the governments cock-ups in other area's.

Why should the populations education suffer???

Seeing as you still don't see any problem, I'll ask you to read this just once more;

You are willing to get into huge debt to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer. As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money.

Take time to think about that concept. I apologise for personalizing society like that, but it just made the typing easier. Still though, think about it.

mickstupp

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Of that 5 point list I quoted from the link, points 2, 3 & 4 apply to you exactly in the manner published;

I really don't agree at all.

2: you'll be in massive debt & you've mentioned that emigration would be on the cards...

I don't remember saying emigration would be on the cards. I remember you saying that... "we are giving our graduates an incentive to emigrate and never come back". I remember me saying: "The opportunity to get an education and pay back your debt later would be a genuine incentive for some people. Maybe not many, I don't know. But some. Personally it wouldn't make me feel like skipping the country afterwards." Maybe I should have been clearer. When I used the word 'incentive' I meant that being able to pay back fees later would be an incentive to go to college now, for free. As it stands right now, there are people who don't go to college because of the expense incurred now. The expenses as they stand today are a disincentive. Being able to put off that expense until afterwards doesn't restrict access in any way as far as I'm concerned. The massive debt part doesn't matter to me once I have the education I want. It literally has no bearing on what I want. I'm willing to put up with someone taking part of my wages for however many years. And even so, the massive debt wouldn't be all at once, it'd over a long time. Big deal? Doesn't bother me.

3: you would be paying the loan back over a long period of time, albeit happily, but you'd still pay more on the accumulated interest than someone richer who paid off the loan quicker. In America that is the kicker, here it would assume that position. The fact that you wouldn't even know or think about it is scary because there would be many like you paying extra unnecessarily.

It's not that I wouldn't even know or think about it... it's that it's a price that I'm more than willing to pay. So this is also a point that doesn't actually apply to me as far as I'm concerned.

4: If fees are re-introduced & no loan scheme then you don't go.

Very true. And if the reg fee increases before I'm done, same deal. But I disagree with your fourth point when you say students 'will be encouraged to not enter third-level education as they will face massive debts or graduate taxes'. If you're saying people, be they teachers/parents/whoever will discourage students, I can't see how you'd ever think such a thing. Who in their right mind would convince an able person to not go to college? If you're saying the price would put them off, I disagree again. That debt is smaller than many other debts, like a mortgage that many people will voluntarily sign up for, not being in the least bit discouraged due to the heavy debt etc. etc. Hell I've heard of people (fools in my opinion) paying over 32000 on their weddings. I don't think it's a realistic argument. And I think suggesting that '[f]amilies from lower-income backgrounds will be especially discouraged from taking on such debts' is a little disingenuous. The families wouldn't be taking on the debt in a tax/loan system. The person who's just earned the nice qualification is the person with the debt. What a statement like that does is make families who are finding it difficult assume that things will instantly get more difficult, which isn't the case if they're getting a loan or the promise that they'll only have to repay the costs through tax once they're earning. There's no increased outlay restricting them from attending college. The fee is at the other end, after the fact, when they've qualified and are in a job where they can afford to repay the debt. Now... if the students in question don't bother their behinds to work hard and get their qualification... then I'd say tough to whatever penalties are incurred. But my point is, I don't agree that the prospect of paying fees after the fact is or would be a serious disincentive to going to college and getting a qualification.

You know most courses would be in excess of 13,000 (euro) a year if fees were reintroduced.

No, I didn't know that. I know mine as it stands would be about five grand over the reg fee, plus travel and book expenses. Less than 10 basically. Which is an awful lot as things stand now. But if I can put off that cost until after the fact, then I do not care.

I'm probably assuming/asking too much but the main fee is 1500e is it not, with the rest for living purposes? I don't see how you wouldn't come off extremely worse with a fees, extremely worse.

With straight up fees, absolutely, I agree, we'd all be a lot worse off. But not with a tax/loan system, on that I don't agree. You wouldn't be paying the fees there and then, wouldn't be extremely worse off. You're not paying anything back until after the fact. What you would have is the certainty that as long as you uphold your part of the bargain, i.e. working hard and not screwing around enough to have to repeat whole years etc. and whatever other restrictions were required, like showing up an overall percentage of classes, whatever... what you would have is the certainty that money to pay for your education is not an issue. It will be your problem, but only later when you've qualified and have a job and can afford it. While you're in college... that particular financial stress and worry is gone.

Also, there would be no state benefit, the meagre money saved would be diverted into paying off the governments cock-ups in other area's.

I don't know what this means.

Why should the populations education suffer???

I don't see why it would. People in the system would know they're responsible for their own education and would hopefully work harder because of it. People not in the system... well I don't get how it would affect them. And the guaranteed revenue, granted eventually and not for the first bunch of years, would hopefully help to increase the standards and facilities.

Seeing as you still don't see any problem, I'll ask you to read this just once more;

You are willing to get into huge debt to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer. As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money.

Well, there's a couple of things here. Yes, I'm willing to get into huge debt... to acquire the skills I want. It's nothing to do with what society wants or needs. That might be a byproduct, sure, although I doubt society necessarily needs the skills I want. But essentially I'm doing it for me, not for anyone else, and certainly not for society. It's a personal thing. I didn't choose my course with the aim of bettering society, of making other people money. I chose it because it's a subject I'm interested in, and I'd like to do something with my life that I enjoy. You're suggesting I'm doing this explicitly for someone else's benefit and I'm not. And I don't really think many people decide they want "to acquire the skills society needs you to have in order to make society richer". I can't look at it like that, that point of view doesn't make sense to me. And besides that... "As you slowly repay society the loan they gave you you are all the while making them additional money." - Firstly, what is wrong with repaying society the loan they gave me? Secondly, whether they're making money off me in the meantime is irrelevant to me paying back a loan. They're two different points that you're making into one. I don't see them as one point.

Why is it an issue for me to a) pay back a loan, b) while I'm working in the society that loaned me cash in the first place? Essentially, why should I get it for free? That'd be a handout, I don't want a handout. I want to earn what I get. And that's why I would have zero problem owing a tonne of money after the fact. It still stands that if straight up fees are introduced I and many many others will be instantly screwed. But fees to be repaid afterwards, as in a tax/loan system? I still see no problem with it whatsoever.

I don't have the time for more posts like this. What I'm trying to say is, not all students are opposed to fees being reintroduced. But other things need to be considered. The means testing system needs an overhaul. Fees need to be after the fact, in my opinion taking a percentage from monthly wages is the best way to go, but either way the method of paying back the cash needs to be discussed properly. If fees are straight up front, that would restrict access. After the fact, I don't think fees would restrict access at all. I know I'm in a minority, but that's essentially what I want to say, not all of us are opposed to fees full stop.

the groutch

there needs to be some sort of college fees imo, too many students don't take college serious enough

the groutch

the groutch wrote: »

there needs to be some sort of college fees imo, too many students don't take college serious enough

Interesting... In my postgrad course which finished this year there were 90 students.. and they all (with a few exceptions) worked their asses off to get good results. I knew most through meeting them in the Library or in the computer labs. I got my results on Wednesday and came out with a 69% average. Not bad at all in an honors degree course. I know of three individuals who failed one exam, and the rest passed or came out with distinctions of some variety.

These sort of comments make me think that everyone believes that all college students are first years..

XxMCRxBabyxX

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting... In my postgrad course which finished this year there were 90 students.. and they all (with a few exceptions) worked their asses off to get good results. I knew most through meeting them in the Library or in the computer labs. I got my results on Wednesday and came out with a 69% average. Not bad at all in an honors degree course. I know of three individuals who failed one exam, and the rest passed or came out with distinctions of some variety.

These sort of comments make me think that everyone believes that all college students are first years..

In all fairness that's postgrad, the people who get as far as postgrad are the ones who want to work!

XxMCRxBabyxX

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

In all fairness that's postgrad, the people who get as far as postgrad are the ones who want to work!

I know quite a few people who worked hard throughout their time in university and didn't make it into postgrad... When I first went through Uni over 12 years ago, I didn't get the marks to get into the 4th year, and went working instead. I came back this year to finally finish the circle.

In all Fairness, there are plenty of extremely hard working students out there in 2nd, and 3rd years of their courses who deserve not to be thrown in with the party addicts and alcoholics. They spent their time studying, working to support their studies, or just at home. Thats probably why they don't make as much of an impact on peoples minds as the binge drinkers.

(The only reason I don't include 1st years is because I've been a 1st year twice and very rarely met a hard working student, not that they don't exist, of course)

Chuchoter

I have to say I disagree. I am from a middle class family, and though we're not 'poor', I would never be able to pay 13 grand a year for 5 years in the course I want to do. It would just be impossible. I really don't think bringing in fees would do anyone any favors, the problem is we have an insane number of third level institutions which frankly, are unnecessary. I mean its like more than 38. Having so many only decreases the value of having a degree, because everyone has one. The problem isn't fees, its that the money that is there is stretched too thinly.

thebman

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

In all fairness that's postgrad, the people who get as far as postgrad are the ones who want to work!

Its a few degree courses that are giving our colleges a bad name IMO.

When I was in college and said I was doing Computer Science, most responses were oh your getting a real degree.

90% of those people were doing arts which passes way too many people and then you have to be really good to go any further.

But arts degrees are pretty much worthless now IMO and many other degrees that weren't updated by colleges are worthless too.

I as lucky in that my college updated the courses all the time to more modern technologies. A lot of colleges were still teaching Pascal when I went to college because lecturers and the department and probably the college didn't really give a crap.

sponsoredwalk

I must say I'm quite suspicious at this stage, your full of trade off's.

If you're going to argue for something, why don't you argue for something that is for the benefit of you and, consequentially, everybody else.

Why wouldn't you ask your government for a fee paying scheme that just covers the cost of fees as they stand now, without the added 13,000 a year (or whatever one it is).


Estimated Undergraduate Unit Costs Per Annum for Universities 2008/2009 (Source: HEA)
Arts €9,446
Business €8,688
Science €13,615
Engineering €14,247
Medicine €12,675
Dentistry €38,621
Veterinary €28,844
Part-time Arts €5,717
Part-time Science €7,344
Nursing €7,451

This was posted earlier in the thread.

Why haven't you argued that maybe the banks need to reform their student loan system?



There are many viable options that wont lead to chaos for ordinary people.

Also, if you all had read the arguments I posted from the NUI website you'd see that re-introducing fees will help nobody. We're already struggling with a smaller budget on education as it is.

Also, all of you people insulting first years for being lazy etc... Maybe in some courses, but funnily enough - that's their choice - why the hell should they be penalized because they want to take it easier than some in college?

And judging be the intelligence level of these comments, I'd wonder about those making them. They are so idiotic, so foolish. I actually feel obliged to ask how a student of law or theoretical physics could possiblt waste away first year with those heavy workloads...
Not everybody does arts... And funnily enough, not everyone who does arts just dosses around... (I only say arts for it's reputation of first year dropouts)

What's stranger is that you are all arguing for fees with the air of vengance as a reason, shameful...

If you'd bothered to read the 5 points in the list I quoted you'd see how ridiculous this would all be.

Look, I'm sorry if you can't understand how society works, but society is made up of people whose skills are required to perpetuate society as it stands & to improve it. If you don't believe me look at the west of Ireland. Due to recession & emigration what could have been a thriving part of the country has lost out enormously to what it could have been had people stayed.
There were crazy schemes in place just to pay farmers to make produce & then to just dump it, a handout (that word you don't like), & if there wasn't so much brain drain then things could have been better for that part of the country.

Now, look at the way emigration is handled in Dublin, nobody wants this to go on because society needs these people to stay here to make money.
What is difficult about that to understand?
If you could get past your personal situation, there are other people in this country.

Education isn't a privelidge, it's a right. There's no justifiable reason I've read, still (after actually reading the whole thread), that can show me why our country should pay crazy fees that will be diverted to covering up areas of the economy mismanaged over the past few years.

Funnily enough, nobody wants to argue in favour of taking away subsidies to private secondary schools, a comparable amount of money would be saved.

It's very relevant to the topic too, we subsidize private education with around a €100 million a year but we're willing to take away public education. If we took it away, most of the money saved would go into subsidizing private education (not directly I'm sure, but you can see what I mean).

You people sicken me with your lack of awareness, you fight to take away money from ordinary people so ignorantly while allow things like the above to go on without batting an eyelid.

People can't even afford to go to free primary and secondary schools, they are asking for 2-3 hundred million a year to get back to school allowances as it is.

Jesus christ you need to wake up

ardmacha

Also, if you all had read the arguments I posted from the NUI website you'd see that re-introducing fees will help nobody. We're already struggling with a smaller budget on education as it is.

The standard of argument on this thread makes me wonder if the problems with third level education are worse than we thought. People post statements that third level education in Ireland had less spent on it than other countries during the boom and complain about libraries having short hours. Some contribution from those who benefit from this education would allow the same amount of money be spent as in other countries and libraries would then be able to open on Sundays. Full fees are not needed, UK level fees would be appropriate. For all of the reasons quoted as to the overall benefits of education the government should set up a loan scheme to allow people meet these fees and ensure that loans are available regardless of the deficiencies of commercial banks.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think the British system is the fairest.

Your fees are only paid back when you're receiving your salary after graduation.

Anyone can also take out maintenance loans which are paid back in the same way. There's also grants if you qualify for them.

I think we should have exactly the same system

Also will people please wake up. We already have fees which we have to f*cking pay up front. Putting the word registration before them doesn't stop them being fees:rolleyes:

Sulmac

From today's Irish Times:

Report to support return of tuition fees

SEÁN FLYNN, Education Editor

Tue, Jun 22, 2010

A LANDMARK report on higher education is set to back the return of student tuition charges as colleges face unprecedented financial pressures.

The recommendation from the Hunt report will put the issue of student fees back on the agenda – even though the Green Party vetoed any change to the free fees scheme in the revised programme for Government.

The expert group, chaired by economist Dr Colin Hunt, is working on a long-term national strategy for higher education. Publication of the much-anticipated report, which was expected this month, is now set to be delayed until the autumn.

Sources say the group will now begin a full review of its work in an effort to resolve several key issues.

The strategy group is working on a revised final draft of its proposals.

An earlier draft that made no firm proposals on several key issues was circulated last month.

However, Dr Hunt has agreed to present a revised “toughened-up’’ draft after a meeting with the heads of universities and the institutes of technology last week.

Sources say the Hunt group now accepts the case put forward by college bosses that “there is no alternative” to tuition charges.

Third-level colleges are coming to terms with a looming financial crisis as they struggle to cope with a forecast additional 55,000 students over the next decade.

Last month, an internal Higher Education Authority (HEA) report said an investment of over €4 billion would be required to upgrade dilapidated buildings and provide space for a surge in student numbers.

The report did concede that such investment was “highly unlikely” in the current economic climate.

Sources say the group can no longer ignore the issue of student charges. However, any decision to back new charges is set to be opposed by Shane Kelly, the student representative on the strategy group. Mr Kelly is a former head of the Union of Students in Ireland.

Other members of the strategy group include Brigid McManus, secretary general of the Department of Education; Michael Kelly, chairman of the HEA; Dr John Hegarty, Provost Trinity College Dublin, and Paul Rellis, managing director of Microsoft Ireland

Other proposals expected from the Hunt group include: closer collaboration between all third-level colleges with the development of clusters specialising in a smaller number of disciplines: an expanded role for the HEA in managing the sector and linking spending to national objectives and a new workload management process where the working hours of academic staff in both the universities and the institutes of technology (ITs) will be more closely monitored.

The group is also under pressure to establish a new umbrella body for the ITs, a national technological university, which would help to boost the status of the ITs. However, it has still to decide on this issue.

In a blow for parents, Minister for Education Mary Coughlan last month refused to rule out an increase in the €1,500 student registration charge from 2011.

The Minister made her comments during a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education which discussed the huge financial challenges that are now facing the higher-education sector.

© 2010 The Irish Times

imme

rightwingdub wrote: »

They should never have been abolished in 1995, thats what happens when Labour are in government, also third level students might begin to value their courses more and the quality of courses will improve if fees are brought back.

were the Labour Party not elected or something.
Do third level students not value their education at present?, considering the considerable registration fees (third level fees) that they have to pay.

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

ardmacha

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

Presumably this is based on the propostion that you get what you pay for, you cannot run Third Level institutions without money to fund libraries etc. You cannot have education comparable to other prosperous countries unless you spend a similar amount of money per student.

Eliot Rosewater

imme wrote: »

Do third level students not value their education at present?, considering the considerable registration fees (third level fees) that they have to pay.

€1,650 is not "considerable" for a full year in a thirdlevel institution. Students like to make a big deal of this number, conveniently forgetting that the costs of their education far exceed that. Additionally, not every student pays the registration fee. In UCC, where I attend, I think about one third don't. It's funny, then, that the free-fees campaign likes to hone in on fairness and opportunity, when in reality increasing fees won't actually affect the financially worst off. It's only for the middle classes.

As regards the valuing of ones education, it's only natural that if someone is not paying for something they will value it less. A lot of college students make a big deal about "golden weeks": weeks in which they attend all of their lectures. "OMG, I nearly had a golden week lol." Apparently actually attending all of your lectures is something strange, something you should be commended for.

imme wrote: »

How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

More funding = better education. The university had hire better staff, and more staff. This year I had tutorials cut because of funding difficulties.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

€1,650 is not "considerable" for a full year in a thirdlevel institution. Students like to make a big deal of this number, conveniently forgetting that the costs of their education far exceed that. Additionally, not every student pays the registration fee. In UCC, where I attend, I think about one third don't. It's funny, then, that the free-fees campaign likes to hone in on fairness and opportunity, when in reality increasing fees won't actually affect the financially worst off. It's only for the middle classes.

Firstly, those that don't pay the existing fees aren't allowed to sit exams or even if they manage to sit them, to get the results.

Secondly, for all this talk about middle class, many of those contained in that bracket have a lot less disposable income to pay for university fee's.

As regards the valuing of ones education, it's only natural that if someone is not paying for something they will value it less. A lot of college students make a big deal about "golden weeks": weeks in which they attend all of their lectures. "OMG, I nearly had a golden week lol." Apparently actually attending all of your lectures is something strange, something you should be commended for.

Dunno about that. Never heard of these "Golden weeks" until you mentioned them. But if the college course was taught by good lecturers, was interesting, and actually sought to teach understanding (rather than just cramming and learning off chunks), there would be more people attending the lectures.

In my first seminar, I was in every one of my lectures, since the lecturers made the subject material interesting and well, even if it was a boring subject, they made it clear that understanding was needed to pass the exams. In the second semester I attended 4 lectures for this one subject. Why the drop off? It was the same material taught for the last 3 years, the lecturer was crap, and there was the obvious point that you could pass without going to lecturers. I got 79% in his exam from going to 4 lectures.

More funding = better education. The university had hire better staff, and more staff. This year I had tutorials cut because of funding difficulties.

More funding does not equate to better education or better staff. It just means they don't have to pay as much attention as they should. The problem is not just with the money given to education, but how it is spent, and also who it is spent on.

My college just before christmas replaced every chair in the canteen (old fashioned cheap plastic chairs) with new fancy aero-dynamically designed chairs, which I would guess cost quite a bit. This is an example of how the money is spent... :rolleyes: