University Fees

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

surely then they deserve to get more

Mark200

perri winkles wrote: »

So now that you've gotten your free ride through college, you feel its ok to reintroduce fees.

Honestly, if you were a new student starting out, without a degree behind you, would you be in favour of the fees being brought back in?

I'm a student and I'm in favour of fees being brought back in as I've said many times in this topic. A loan system or a graduate tax would be the best, as it would mean that people only have to pay their fees once they are able to afford it.

Strata

Strata wrote: »

But surely if people can afford to pay, they should? High earners pay more in tax because they can afford to pay more.

But whats the point in earning more if you have to spend it on what lower earners get for free.

People don't strive to become high earners so that they can pay for stuff thats provided for others. They do it for a better lifestyle for themselves and their children, comfortable retirement etc etc. They already get crucified in tax and then are going to be expected to pay fees others don't have to for the same education.

I used the example earlier and I got a nothing reply to it but I don't see how its different than going into the shop and being told you earn 100,000 per year so this litre of milk is going to cost you 10 euro, because you can afford to pay it.

Strata wrote: »

Unfortunately, the 1000's and 1000's of euro that your parents pay every year in tax and the 1000's you will pay when you start working (if you're one of the few who get a job) is not enough to fund third level fees.

They have paid for my fees many many times over already and it at least gives them a bit of consolation that the tax they are paying every month now is going towards the funding for my PhD.

melekalikimaka

Strata wrote: »

Is that not the side effects of living in a socialist country like Ireland though?



But surely if people can afford to pay, they should? High earners pay more in tax because they can afford to pay more.

socialist? really?


because the rich have the money,they should pay... man are you serious, thats serious chip on shoulder syndrome, lets say you have 3 kids, a couple can have none... oh just take one of yours... you have enough...

seriously you cany just demand payments because they have money. tbh if that came in, all that would be left would be the unemployed and the idiots.

why would a government turn on ther people who are pumping the most money in???

DeepSleeper

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

You know some are very good, some are good but most are dossing, and it hasn't changed much in almost 20 years. Of course they are overpaid,and if that isn't good enough, they have a low concern for 'student' or 'service'. Lecture time is a joke, research well what's that ? Availability for other duties is also another joke. Too many holidays, too few hours, I wonder where they find the time to spend their inflated earnings.

T&C's need to be scrutinised, before screwing more fees from more students.

So you don't know what research is? Ever walk around a university and see dozens of people working away in labs? That's research! Ever see a book in a bookshop which has been written by a lecturer? That's research output! Ever see a university lecturer being interviewed on the news, talking on a TV documentary or giving a lecture to conference or to a local interest group? That's research output too - the communication of knowledge from expert to interested amateur.

As for holidays, please don't do yourself an injustice by aligning yourself with the brigade of muppets who think university lecturers walk out of their offices at the end of May and don't come back until September or even October - Or that they work only 5 hours a week if they are scheduled for only 5 hrs lecturing a week - Anyone who thinks this is the case for all clearly hasn't a clue how the system works.

Your statement regarding 'too few hours' is also telling - most lecturers work somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week - and their output is being monitored. Their lecturing and associated examination of students is overseen by external examiners, their research output is peer reviewed, their workload is assessed through Full Economic Costing reviews and regular departmental Quality Reviews - If anyone is unaware of these things, then they are unaware of how the system works...

Strata

Asher Vast Hippy wrote: »

But whats the point in earning more if you have to spend it on what lower earners get for free.

People don't strive to become high earners so that they can pay for stuff thats provided for others. They do it for a better lifestyle for themselves and their children, nicer house, better car more comfortable retirement etc etc. They already get crucified in tax and then are going to be expected to pay fees others don't have to for the same education.

I used the example earlier and I got a nothing reply to it but I don't see how its different than going into the shop and being told you earn 100,000 per year so this litre of milk is going to cost you 10 euro, because you can afford to pay it.

Well I think it depends on what you define as a high earner. If someone can afford to pay for their child's third level fees and live a comfortable life then why not? Like I said in my earlier post - that's how a socialist society works no?

But I think that's where means testing is very important. The criteria for who can afford it needs to be looked at realistically. At the moment I understand it to be more in favour of a self employed person i.e. they can manipulate their income/assets whereas it can be quite punitive on PAYE workers because their income cannot be manipulated.

In summary though I think it's only fair that people who can afford it contribute more than those who can't.

Strata

melekalikimaka wrote: »

socialist? really?


because the rich have the money,they should pay... man are you serious, thats serious chip on shoulder syndrome, lets say you have 3 kids, a couple can have none... oh just take one of yours... you have enough...

seriously you cany just demand payments because they have money. tbh if that came in, all that would be left would be the unemployed and the idiots.

why would a government turn on ther people who are pumping the most money in???

Is that not how the taxation system works though? People who earn more pay more.

Asher Vast Hippy wrote: »

But whats the point in earning more if you have to spend it on what lower earners get for free.

People don't strive to become high earners so that they can pay for stuff thats provided for others. They do it for a better lifestyle for themselves and their children, comfortable retirement etc etc. They already get crucified in tax and then are going to be expected to pay fees others don't have to for the same education.

I used the example earlier and I got a nothing reply to it but I don't see how its different than going into the shop and being told you earn 100,000 per year so this litre of milk is going to cost you 10 euro, because you can afford to pay it.




They have paid for my fees many many times over already and it at least gives them a bit of consolation that the tax they are paying every month now is going towards the funding for my PhD.

The budget deficit would beg to differ. Unfortunately your parents can't pick and choose what their tax monies are spent on.

twinytwo

Strata wrote: »

Is that not how the taxation system works though? People who earn more pay more.



The budget deficit would beg to differ. Unfortunately your parents can't pick and choose what their tax monies are spent on.

well up to a point... then u can just ship it over seas and not pay any:pac:

melekalikimaka

Strata wrote: »

In summary though I think it's only fair that people who can afford it contribute more than those who can't.

thats quite the opposite of fair, so your out with friends buying rounds, the guy who earns the most surely should buy more rounds then everyone else? why because he earns more... it might seem the better option when your at the bottom of the barrel... but this comes back to the selfish mentality we as a people have developed over the last decade, screw him he makes more than me, leave me alone...

people need to grow up

DeepSleeper

melekalikimaka wrote: »

thats quite the opposite of fair, so your out with friends buying rounds, the guy who earns the most surely should buy more rounds then everyone else? why because he earns more... it might seem the better option when your at the bottom of the barrel... but this comes back to the selfish mentality we as a people have developed over the last decade, screw him he makes more than me, leave me alone...

people need to grow up

I suppose it all depends on how you portray it - the way I see it, people who can afford it should not be asked to pay more...

They should be asked to pay the full cost of the education course - no more, no less.

Those who cannot afford it, should receive State-sponsored help proportionate to their means so that they too can undertake the course.

Strata

melekalikimaka wrote: »

thats quite the opposite of fair, so your out with friends buying rounds, the guy who earns the most surely should buy more rounds then everyone else? why because he earns more... it might seem the better option when your at the bottom of the barrel... but this comes back to the selfish mentality we as a people have developed over the last decade, screw him he makes more than me, leave me alone...

people need to grow up

Ironically enough I think the attitude that those who can afford but still shouldn't have to contribute more is selfish.

I'm not suggesting that low income earners should'nt have to pay anything - just what they can afford.

If people who genuinely cannot afford to send their children to third level don't qualify for a grant/free fees then that means that they can't go because they literally don't have money - how is that fair?

twinytwo

Strata wrote: »

Ironically enough I think the attitude that those who can afford but still shouldn't have to contribute more is selfish.

I'm not suggesting that low income earners should'nt have to pay anything - just what they can afford.

If people who genuinely cannot afford to send their children to third level don't qualify for a grant/free fees then that means that they can't go because they literally don't have money - how is that fair?

you mean the people who are paying a % of their salary at 42% tax?

melekalikimaka

Strata wrote: »

Ironically enough I think the attitude that those who can afford but still shouldn't have to contribute more is selfish.

i think everyone should contribute equally...

melekalikimaka

Strata wrote: »

If people who genuinely cannot afford to send their children to third level don't qualify for a grant/free fees then that means that they can't go because they literally don't have money - how is that fair?

grants are available for people earning below a threshold

AlmightyCushion

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i think everyone should contribute equally...

Does that mean that you are in favour of scraping the grant?

melekalikimaka

grants and fees are different. i dont get grants, and need one badly, the system is flawed

AlmightyCushion

melekalikimaka wrote: »

grants and fees are different. i dont get grants, and need one badly, the system is flawed

But if you get the grant they will pay your fees for you which means everyone isn't contributing equally.

whadabouchasir

SeaFields wrote: »

If it comes to the point where resources are stretched so far that the quality of the 3rd level education suffers dramatically, then the reintroduction is very necessary. We cannot build a first class knowledge economy with third class graduates.

the thing is though that the Government are just going to reduce the amount that they give to the uni's and the difference will be made up by the increase in Registration fees.The government are doing this not to improve the 3rd level sector,rather to reduce the budget deficit.

SueGrabbit

melekalikimaka wrote: »

grants and fees are different. i dont get grants, and need one badly, the system is flawed

How can you say that, when the system is pretty clearly set out.

Either you or your parents are earning 40k plus in total, or else you'd be getting some kind of a grant.

AlmightyCushion

SueGrabbit wrote: »

How can you say that, when the system is pretty clearly set out.

Either you or your parents are earning 40k plus in total, or else you'd be getting some kind of a grant.

Not all students are dependent on their parents. I know I'm not.

Doop

Nor am I, with 2 retired parents, and myself being a mature student living independently & away from the 'family home', still classed as a 'dependent'.

As far as im concerned this is another maneuverer from the government reinforcing the fact that they're giving two fingers to me and many more.

They might as well just start subsidising peoples flight tickets to emigrate..

SueGrabbit

Strata wrote: »

Ironically enough I think the attitude that those who can afford but still shouldn't have to contribute more is selfish.

I'm not suggesting that low income earners should'nt have to pay anything - just what they can afford.

If people who genuinely cannot afford to send their children to third level don't qualify for a grant/free fees then that means that they can't go because they literally don't have money - how is that fair?

I think the grant scheme you'll find IS fair.


Education is not going to be available to the 70% of leaving cert students that have had third level education for the last decade.

Instead education will only become something the rich can afford and the middle classes may get grants for. (because only the middle classes will be able to afford the extra costs sending your kid to school is.)

The poor, as in really poor, will get free fees, but won't be able to afford, rent, food, books, materials and the rest that the roughly €7000 annual student cost is.


And those people end up not going to college by either choice, or socio-economic issue, they make up the 30%.


Once fees are reinstated more and more of the lower middle classes wont be able to afford all the 'extras' involved in sending your kids to uni/college.

SueGrabbit

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Not all students are dependent on their parents. I know I'm not.

Well, unless you havn't applied, or have reasonable amounts of income/savings you should be eligible for a grant.

melekalikimaka

there are many many reasons why grants are unattainable

prinz

SueGrabbit wrote: »

I think the grant scheme you'll find IS fair.
Education is not going to be available to the 70% of leaving cert students that have had third level education for the last decade. Instead education will only become something the rich can afford and the middle classes may get grants for. (because only the middle classes will be able to afford the extra costs sending your kid to school is.) The poor, as in really poor, will get free fees, but won't be able to afford, rent, food, books, materials and the rest that the roughly €7000 annual student cost is.
And those people end up not going to college by either choice, or socio-economic issue, they make up the 30%. Once fees are reinstated more and more of the lower middle classes wont be able to afford all the 'extras' involved in sending your kids to uni/college.

You are ignoring the fact that almost everyone who has advocated the reintroduction of fees has supported a government loan system, so how poor/rich your parents are is irrelevant.

ddef

got my sign ready for tomorrow
Hey Mr.Cowen!
Hows this for a budget buster!

Sonnenblumen

DeepSleeper wrote: »

So you don't know what research is? Ever walk around a university and see dozens of people working away in labs? That's research! Ever see a book in a bookshop which has been written by a lecturer? That's research output! Ever see a university lecturer being interviewed on the news, talking on a TV documentary or giving a lecture to conference or to a local interest group? That's research output too - the communication of knowledge from expert to interested amateur.

As for holidays, please don't do yourself an injustice by aligning yourself with the brigade of muppets who think university lecturers walk out of their offices at the end of May and don't come back until September or even October - Or that they work only 5 hours a week if they are scheduled for only 5 hrs lecturing a week - Anyone who thinks this is the case for all clearly hasn't a clue how the system works.

Your statement regarding 'too few hours' is also telling - most lecturers work somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week - and their output is being monitored. Their lecturing and associated examination of students is overseen by external examiners, their research output is peer reviewed, their workload is assessed through Full Economic Costing reviews and regular departmental Quality Reviews - If anyone is unaware of these things, then they are unaware of how the system works...

I'm not convinced by your descriptions of what is research, and judging by the number of academic economists currently flooding the airwaves, well opinions are two a penny. What are the critical success factors, how do we know resources are not being wasted on deadend topics and whilst viable projects struggle for resources? Why is this not more public? Hiding in labs/rooms with white coats might give the illusion that something meaningful, useful or economically beneficial might be achieved. But where are the hard core facts? Look at Ireland's position on international R+D investment. Do you know Ireland patent apps/capitata, do you know how many are granted? A crude form of measurement perhaps, output seems to lag behind our international counterparts when it comes to commercialisation. Proof of concept might mean something to an anorak, but it's the revenue that counts. Who are you codding with lecturers work 60hrs/week? Also if so why are they engaged in private grinds during term and during summer months on 'tour' in other countries? Don't sound like overworked?


Care to give a breakdown of the typical working week for a college lecturer? Keep it simple the top 5 time allocations will do.

Firehen

melekalikimaka wrote: »

as has been mentioned manytimes before, if fees were brought in (full fees - circa 6- 10k per year), government load schemes would be introduced to cover these so as to prevent a divide based on rich/poor

Fine in theory, but the sheer fact that fees were introduced would immediately put many people from lower income brackets off the idea of college in case the schemes would disappear (like the free fees theoretically would).

Also, there'd be large amounts of resentment from those who just miss out on these load schemes.

No matter what you propose, reintroducing the fees would cause a ruckus and leave a lot of people justifiably peeved.

SeaFields

whadabouchasir wrote: »

the thing is though that the Government are just going to reduce the amount that they give to the uni's and the difference will be made up by the increase in Registration fees.The government are doing this not to improve the 3rd level sector,rather to reduce the budget deficit.

Thats a good point. I still maintain tho that fees may be necessary to insure the quality of the education being received. I think many here have alluded to a loan scheme or something similar.

Just from being a researcher in a university it was very obvious that resources are being stretched further and further. Things like the latest version of a software program not being purchased, subscriptions to online journals running out, newer hardware not being ordered, are not doing us any favours in terms of a country in building a knowledge economy.

muffy

A major problem with the system in this country is that it is based on the parents income. At 18 or whatever age you enter University, you are meant to be an adult. If your parents can provide you with money, fair enough. If the can't, there is a grant. If they don't want to, or if you don't want to mooch off your parents, then what options have you? Basing these things soley on parents income only fosters people dependency and entitlement issues.

Also the fact is now a days a degree is essential to getting almost any kind of career. The government have create, even fostered, this kind of knowledge culture (cronyism is still king though!). Bringing back fees or increasing regs fees means that many people will be left out of the job market as the have no diploma/degree, until the cultural balance shifts back to the dark ages when people didn't need a higher education to achieve stable careers.