third level fees

The Volt

Valmont wrote: »

Are you really going to stand behind such a patently ridiculous system solely because it has some symbolic appeal of representing "free" education? It's not free anyway, the taxpayers are paying for all of it. In which case value for money in terms of the economy should be of paramount importance, not some peripheral side project.

I didn't say anything about standing behind the current system. I've a lot of problems with a system that breeds inequality at all levels. I also take issue with the suggestion of scrapping or belittling the study of subjects that aren't seen as 'profitable' to companies.

Cavehill Red

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Let me turn this around for you.
I understand McDonalds and Burger King both have their own 'universities' in which they train their staff.
Why should the state subsidise the training of workers required by other firms?

Riskymove

Like many issues currently, the scenario is being sensationalised

I finsihed secondary education in a working class area of Dublin at a time when we did not have free third level

A large proportion of my class went to college, from TCD to DIT and other regional ITS

no-one I know of paid fees

Chuck Stone

Why do people keep referring to 'free' education?

There is nothing 'free' about formal education. The issue here is not whether education should be free or not. The issue is who should pay.

Moreover who should pay for what? What return is Joe Taxpayer likely to get from a person pursuing a degree in fine art or English or Philosophy?

I think it's perfectly legitimate for Joe Le Taxpayer to ask questions about what return he will get on his money.

Let's be honest here Joe Le Taxi is much more likely to see a return on his investment from people who leave 3rd level with an education in engineering, science, technology, computings, medical research etc.

cavedave

Chuck Stone Why do people keep referring to 'free' education?

I think it's perfectly legitimate for Joe Le Taxpayer to ask questions about what return he will get on his money.

Just to throw a spanner in the works the reason some professions earn so much is access has been limited to allow for above normal returns for those already in the industry. Pharmacy is one example I have noticed.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Adam Smith

So what do you do with courses where the people earn large amounts due to shoddy practices by the overseers of the profession? You could have a situation where a course is free because they will earn a large amount which may create a moral hazard for those that control entry numbers.

murphaph

Student loans (to be repaid regardless of the final employment status of the graduate) for ALL courses is the only fair way IMO. Students taking on courses with little/no chance of employment do so at their own financial peril.

Third level should be much more business-like but tbh our secondary schools don't prepare students at all well for university. In Germany even getting the Abitur (leaving cert) is not by any means guaranteed. Students who can't manage academia (we have to accept that not all men/women are in fact created equal) go to different schools, not aimed at prepping them for Uni. Those on the uni path get used to the responsibility required by a uni while still at school.

There are problems with grade inflation in Germany too, but the issue seems to at least be causing concern here!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cavehill Red

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you know, despite your claimed doctorate in literature, you do come across as quite the philistine.
I know four Medievalists (history moreso than literature). They're currently employed in academia, import-export, the British Library and teaching in a private South Dublin secondary school.
I suspect it disappoints you that you are unable to order 'fries with that' in Middle Irish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They're currently employed in academia

Educated by the tax-payer and then employed by the tax-payer?

import-export,

fair enough.

the British Library

Educated by the the tax-payer and employed by the tax-payer?

and teaching in a private South Dublin secondary school.

Again, educated by the tax payer and wages paid by the tax-payer?

This is hardly a good return for the taxpayer is it?

Shea O'Meara

You can't blithely dismiss a particular academic field due to it not matching the wants or needs of private corporations. We already bow to them with tax incentives and bailouts, be they financial institutions.

I recall the big push for I.T., (early 90's) certs and degrees by government as backed by the corporations...then it all fell on its arse and I knew a great deal of I.T. qualified people either unemployed or working in another area.
I know bricklayers and other skilled workers currently on their collective asses, but for generations a skilled trade was a great thing to have.
In more progressive countries financial workers are on their uppers as various institutions fold or cut back staff.

.....so to suggest only assisting those willing to pursue a course the current 'business' community are willing to hire falls flat to at least some extent. Also how bleak and ignorant a country would it be if the only knowledge held past secondary was by that of accountants or marketing grads?

We need to subsidise those who need it, those who simply, upon means testing, can't afford it.
Education is the key to rescueing the country from the state it's in, not pandering to the whims of the arseholes who got us here.
The new AIB chap wants the salary cap lifted so he can hire decent folk...somebody tell him there's a salary cap for a couple of reasons, a) you used money like a play thing, b) all the high paid experts made a balls of and abused their own system.

Third level fees, sparingly and only to those who can afford it.
No fees for people trying to get a leg up with a view to earning a living and paying tax regardless of current trends.

blahfckingblah

a lot of these professions that sre getting completely slated are important for culture and heritage on which our tourism industry is based, therefore, as tourism pne of the largest sections of our economy

southsiderosie

I'm surprised at the suggestion that the government should essentially be 'picking winners' by subsidizing certain fields of study. People should be able to study whatever they want; they just need to be financially responsible for it.

A lot of tech jobs don't even require a university degree; this is where a better secondary/vocational system becomes important. Personally I think the whole 'qualifications inflation' racket is more pernicious than grade inflation.

mickstupp

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What return is Joe Taxpayer likely to get from a person pursuing a degree in fine art or English or Philosophy?

I'd suggest Joe Taxpayer might possibly get a bunch of literate future politicians, bankers, developers etc. who have a rudimentary understanding of Ethics, something which at times seems completely lacking in this country.

Suryavarman

mickstupp wrote: »

I'd suggest Joe Taxpayer might possibly get a bunch of literate future politicians, bankers, developers etc. who have a rudimentary understanding of Ethics, something which at times seems completely lacking in this country.

They could do with a basic understanding of economics more than anything.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cavehill Red

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, I repeat the question - what qualifies you to be the arbiter of what counts as 'useful' education, and how are you able to predict what will be useful to Irish society in decades to come?

cavedave

Cavehill Red

Again, I repeat the question - what qualifies you to be the arbiter of what counts as 'useful' education, and how are you able to predict what will be useful to Irish society in decades to come?

This is an interesting question. And one I asked in post #7. But I am starting to think the argument over which third level course is worthy may be missing the point.

There are some things most people would agree will be useful. Literacy, IQ are two fairly obvious ones. IQ people get kind of sticky over but if you take it as a measure of environmental pollution most people are broadly ok with it. So for example lead paint -> developmental problems and that can be measured in IQ.

Many things effect IQ. Known ones are maternal smoking, drinking and drug use. Maternal diet. Early education including play in a stimulating environment and music. I would make the argument that attempts to improve the condition of the less advantaged in the womb and in early life would do more to improve peoples outcomes (at least in the maxmin way of Rawls) than later free third level.

My argument here is that the sort of person who will work hard enough to do well at third level will be ok anyway. It is the people you never reach the literacy stage that need the most help. This is easy for someone like me who was lucky enough to be able to afford fees if they existed to say.

From a social if not economic point of view would money spent helping the disadvantaged go to third level be better spent prior to first level?

murphaph

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Again, I repeat the question - what qualifies you to be the arbiter of what counts as 'useful' education, and how are you able to predict what will be useful to Irish society in decades to come?

The world doesn't change overnight. We can look at the jobs we did manage to generate over the past 20 years and see what they were based on and promote those things for the medium term.

We are in crisis mode. We can't afford to be paying for people to go to college, just because. If we fund it, it should deliver a measurable return to society. We don't have the luxury of funding endless "media studies" degrees.

saa

Free fees for all? no, child benefit for all? no

... for those who need it yes... I feel like the tax payer should pay off the fees and maintenance for those from disadvantaged back grounds as they are the only group I see who predominantly wouldn't be able to support themselves through college and in many cases may cost the tax payer more for a life time of support opposed to four years.

I come from that so called disadvantaged back ground if anyones wondering, no mummy and duddy didn't just buy a nice house and now can't pay for it many more factors

the vulnerable in this society should be bailed out a little in some cases when its in the long run more expensive not to.

afrodub

My children as ALL children deserve a better future than this,I expect to have to pay to support my children long after they graduate because of this regressive tax on educational merit.

dubred

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Does primary education not have a role in this? If students don't have the basic building blocks of literacy and numeracy leaving primary school, it becomes very difficult to catch up in secondary school. Secondary school teachers are not trained to teach a child to read or write, nor should they be spending their time doing so. This leads to 'dumbing down' of junior/leaving cert exams and then to the problem described in the quoted article. It was encouraging to see this recognised in a recent statement from Ruairi Quinn where more time is to be devoted to these skills at primary level.