Rumours of severe cuts to post graduate grants

nesf

From Politics.ie: http://www.politics.ie/forum/education-science/175612-all-post-graduate-grants-cut.html

Reports in tomorrows sunday business post is that all grant support for masters, phD's and Higher Diploma's will be cut to nothing. Dont get me wrong I know there is an 18.6bn fiscal deficit and like many on this site we knew the 2.75% growth rate in the four year plan was a piece of fiction. I knew it would get harder and harder for governments to find savings but this is seriously going to impact on attendance for post grad courses. e.g economic hdip 6,000. engineering 8,000. May not sound like a lot of money to people on this site but for students it is a lot of money, parents dont have that kind of money anymore and even the likes of the credit unions are rejecting loan requests (rumour has it there 1bn in the colour that isnt black, thats with r and ends with d).

Is this move by the government likely to increase economic growth and output in the long run. Discuss (20 points)

(please refer to the deficit reduction diagram in your answer (5 points) referring to how cutting the fiscal deficit improves confidence (please outline 3 reasons why) and then use the trade off about students not upskilling due to financial difficulties).

In summary. Im slightly pissed.

This is bloody insane. Of all the parts to cut in education this is the part that is of most economic use. It had better not extend to IRCHSS and IRCSET.


*And yes, I do browse Pol.ie a bit...

Byron85

Not a rumour i'm afraid.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150344228196910&set=a.411944371909.195698.162384576909&type=1&theater


No idea what i'm going to do. Credit union loans it is I guess.

Icepick

People should be able to pay this themselves. We don't need people with useless PhDs paid by the tax payer.

bleg

I quit a PhD because the funds were so crap. Looks like I'll have a good few people joining me!

They should have at least looked for private investment before cutting the programmes completely.

woodoo

Icepick wrote: »

People should be able to pay this themselves. We don't need people with useless PhDs paid by the tax payer.

How many PHD Students are there? We are paying people like Miriam O'Callaghan childrens allowance but we can't pay for the brightest of our students to complete their education.

Sulmac

If it's simply abolishing postgraduate grants than it is a disgrace.

However, they might be planning on bringing in a student-loan type scheme (as they operate in the UK, Australia and New Zealand) for higher education, which presumably would help cover the costs but have to be paid back (usually via the taxation system at a low rate of interest), unlike grants. Either that or a graduate tax, which would operate in almost the exact same manner. I'd imagine such a scheme would apply to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.

I take this from the Irish Times yesterday:

Cabinet discussions on a future funding model for higher education are set to take place over the coming weeks in the run-up to the December budget. Department of Education officials are examining a series of options, including the return of fees along the lines favoured by Dr Murphy. But they are also examining student loan schemes and a graduate tax.

Richard571

woodoo wrote: »

How many PHD Students are there? We are paying people like Miriam O'Callaghan childrens allowance but we can't pay for the brightest of our students to complete their education.

Whilst I'd agree that it's crazy childrens allowance is not means tested it is equally wrong that post graduate degrees get significant grants - a much fairer alternative would to be provide a low cost loan repayable upon minimum income levels post qualification - the "brightest of our students" should be able to pay back any post graduate education costs themselves. After all, they are getting the benefit of the qualification.

WesternNight

Richard571 wrote: »

Whilst I'd agree that it's crazy childrens allowance is not means tested it is equally wrong that post graduate degrees get significant grants - a much fairer alternative would to be provide a low cost loan repayable upon minimum income levels post qualification - the "brightest of our students" should be able to pay back any post graduate education costs themselves. After all, they are getting the benefit of the qualification.

It's happening already. It's called income tax.

avalon68

Is this just abolishment of local authority grants? I dont think it would affect stipends. But, saying that, there has been a noticeable drop off in the number of PhD places funded over the past few years. I've also heard of many people having trouble getting their funding extended for the fourth year......

bleg

Richard571 wrote: »

Whilst I'd agree that it's crazy childrens allowance is not means tested it is equally wrong that post graduate degrees get significant grants - a much fairer alternative would to be provide a low cost loan repayable upon minimum income levels post qualification - the "brightest of our students" should be able to pay back any post graduate education costs themselves. After all, they are getting the benefit of the qualification.

Whilst working for the universities, being lecturers slaves. They don't even have a claim to own anything they discover.

Sierra Oscar

This will be a good way for FG / Lab to fire up the "smart economy" that they seem to be ever more reliant upon.

:rolleyes:

HavingCrack

How much postgraduate research is actually funded by the government? Nearly every Masters degree has fees between 7,000 and 12,000 per anum. Very few PHD's are actually funded 100% by public monies in Ireland either, it's nothing like Denmark. All this will do is drive researchers to Canada, the US and mainland Europe.

HavingCrack

Icepick wrote: »

People should be able to pay this themselves. We don't need people with useless PhDs paid by the tax payer.

This is a stupid idea, how many people can self-fund PHD's? Unless you come from an extremely wealthy family it can't be done. Some people manage to complete them working part-time but it isn't the most common. Phd's have always been funded, whether via scholarships, funding or grants from public monies, private donations or a mixture of both.

nesf

HavingCrack wrote: »

This is a stupid idea, how many people can self-fund PHD's? Unless you come from an extremely wealthy family it can't be done. Some people manage to complete them working part-time but it isn't the most common. Phd's have always been funded, whether via scholarships, funding or grants from public monies, private donations or a mixture of both.

Well, the cheapest PhDs (to my knowledge) work out around €4,500 a year or thereabouts in fees. It's pricier in science etc and in some science subjects it's extremely expensive if you don't have funding for equipment etc (i.e. without funding almost no one does a PhD in these areas).

HavingCrack

nesf wrote: »

Well, the cheapest PhDs (to my knowledge) work out around €4,500 a year or thereabouts in fees. It's pricier in science etc and in some science subjects it's extremely expensive if you don't have funding for equipment etc (i.e. without funding almost no one does a PhD in these areas).

Ah, sorry my field (geography, environmental science, climate change etc.) is quite science biased so I'm probably not as aware of fees in other subjects . You also have to factor rent and living costs into doing a PhD also, it's not just fees.

HavingCrack

Richard571 wrote: »

Whilst I'd agree that it's crazy childrens allowance is not means tested it is equally wrong that post graduate degrees get significant grants - a much fairer alternative would to be provide a low cost loan repayable upon minimum income levels post qualification - the "brightest of our students" should be able to pay back any post graduate education costs themselves. After all, they are getting the benefit of the qualification.

Using similar criteria anyone who avails of a public service should be required to repay the cost. Should someone receiving rent allowance be required to repay itall when they start renting privately? Surely this is the point of income tax?

avalon68

A PhD is a full time job for most people and should receive a stipend imo. Remember that the "research carried out by lecturers" is actually carried out by PhD students. Publications etc produced by the students promote the university. For 4-5 years they earn a tiny wage and are subjected to supervisors whims and tantrums and have virtually zero rights. Technically not students, and technically not staff- they have no pension benefits/health insurance etc. In many cases they are required to teach labs/tutorials/grade papers in addition to their own work.

LilMsss

Richard571 wrote: »

it is equally wrong that post graduate degrees get significant grants.

What are these 'significant grants' that you're referring to for PhD study? I will get a grand total of €1250 this year (less if they reduce the rate again in the budget). I worked my ass off to pay for the fees for my masters degree and also paid fees for the first year of my PhD when I was part-time - not because I could afford them but because I prioritised my education over a social life, clothes, holidays, a car etc and saved, saved, saved.

I have been informed by my LA that since I did 3 years part-time postgrad study, I can only be awarded a grant/fees for a maximum of one year and I can assure you it is far from 'substantial'.

I'm looking for a job at the moment and will be forced to either defer next year, or else find a few grand for part-time fees. I won't be affected next year as I will still be in the above situation regardless of whether or not additional cuts are brought in. However, I object to these cuts on a moral level. This will affect so many people who desperately rely on the grant and more specifically the fees, people who without financial assistance are unable to complete their studies/research.

In saying that though, I am in favour of a student loan system as it would make a huge difference to many people, including me. I did my undergrad in the UK and the system they had was really good, although I didn't qualify at the time. Everyone (well UK residents) were eligible for loans and those least well off could also get grants and top-up loans. It was the difference for many students between being on the breadline and surviving the academic year.

I don't like the idea of student loans for undergrads but I think a lot of students who otherwise can't afford to pay fees for postgrad study upfront would go for their chosen course if they had the option of paying the fees back at a later date. Not to even mention the cost of living and trying to manage financially with rent, bills etc.

Icepick

woodoo wrote: »

How many PHD Students are there? We are paying people like Miriam O'Callaghan childrens allowance but we can't pay for

This is the kind of logic that leads to €20bn deficit.
But since you asked, I'd only pay out a very small part of children allowance in cash and would cut the total benefit.

woodoo wrote: »

we can't pay for the brightest of our students to complete their education.

Surely the brightest students can get a scholarship or a loan. I also support setting up a loan system if there isn't one in place already.

murphaph

Icepick wrote: »

Surely the brightest students can get a scholarship or a loan. I also support setting up a loan system if there isn't one in place already.

So do I but the govt appear to be putting the cart before the horse: scrap grants for Phd's before introducing a student loan system to replace them: fooking stupid move for a country that wants to develop its smart economy.

We are paying out a myriad of benefits to the terminally lazy (not the people who have been made recently unemployed in the downturn and get nothing but grief from SW, I mean the people who were signing on all throughout the boom: there are a few thousand of these people and their "benefits" could fund Phd's instead and be of actual use to the country) instead of investing it in our country's future.

I would propose student loans for all students and grants for economically essential subjects.

This is another moved designed to save money by affecting people who have a small voting bloc, rather than go after the big savings and risk not being re elected.

Dan_Solo

Much like the 10% put cut for new public servants, this stink of more "pulling up the ladder"... OK as long as you're above the ladder I guess.
Very true what is said above though: no PhD students, no research. University staff simply don't have the time to do field/laboratory research. You may as well close the SFI and HRB in that case and stop pretending we're a smart economy. We're not.

Dan_Solo

Icepick wrote: »

Surely the brightest students can get a scholarship or a loan. I also support setting up a loan system if there isn't one in place already.

Scholarships are shot as the University budgets are already crippled (more undergards, less from the HEA per undergrad).
And good luck getting a loan of the AIB these days!

saa

I am absolutely distraught, 4th year fine art so I need my masters to work in therapy, teaching or to study the business/management side.

I can't go on the dole when i finish if I declare myself as an artist because I'm available to work, even though theirs not enough sales to live, so I can't be an artist and pay the bills. I have no means to pay back a loan if I got one, no money from my family so i'll have to sign on eventually find a retail/cleaning job and hope to save up for a masters (loan) and wait all that time to begin my career, they're just going to end up paying what could of been my grant in dole money!

Hopefully I can get funding for a masters abroad or a scholarship, just very confused.
I don't want to sound like oh I'm entitled to this but whats the point of all the K's they put into my degree and they won't get anything back unless I can do my masters, economically.

I always said I would stay here, but now I'm not so sure.

nesf

saa wrote: »

I am absolutely distraught, 4th year fine art so I need my masters to work in therapy, teaching or to study the business/management side.

I can't go on the dole when i finish if I declare myself as an artist because I'm available to work, even though theirs not enough sales to live, so I can't be an artist and pay the bills. I have no means to pay back a loan if I got one, no money from my family so i'll have to sign on eventually find a retail/cleaning job and hope to save up for a masters (loan) and wait all that time to begin my career, they're just going to end up paying what could of been my grant in dole money!

Hopefully I can get funding for a masters abroad or a scholarship, just very confused.
I don't want to sound like oh I'm entitled to this but whats the point of all the K's they put into my degree and they won't get anything back unless I can do my masters, economically.

I always said I would stay here, but now I'm not so sure.

This. The option is the dole for a lot of potential post grads. If they could secure a job without the post grad then they'd probably not be doing one etc.

saa

nesf wrote: »

This. The option is the dole for a lot of potential post grads. If they could secure a job without the post grad then they'd probably not be doing one etc.

There are degree's in which you cannot gain employment in most cases without post grad training, or else you have to have connections to gain the relevant experience. It's not an option to go without for everyone.

For most sure cut funding, but they could have saved some of the funding for exceptional cases.

nesf

saa wrote: »

There are degree's in which you cannot gain employment in most cases without post grad training, or else you have to have connections to gain the relevant experience. It's not an option to go without for everyone.

For most sure cut funding, but they could have saved some of the funding for exceptional cases.

And this is compounded by a very harsh job market anyway at the moment. I'm kind of in the same place as you, most jobs in my area require a Masters at minimum. But just spent the past 3 months in hospital so was in no place to sign up for anything this year. Have some work thankfully and the wife has some work too, so we're doing ok, but in the long term I need to get back to college and do something.

harrythehat

As I already commented on another thread you are incredibly LUCKY to have gotten financing for your undergrad. We live in one of the ONLY countries in the worlds that provides this.


If after your mostly state-funded [I know, reg fees, yada yada yada] undergrad you feel the need to go further with your education do the same thing you would do if you wanted a car or a house - TAKE OUT A FRICKIN' LOAN!

nesf

harrythehat wrote: »

If after your mostly state-funded [I know, reg fees, yada yada yada] undergrad you feel the need to go further with your education do the same thing you would do if you wanted a car or a house - TAKE OUT A FRICKIN' LOAN!

That would be fine if we had a good system set up for graduate loans for post grads but we flatly don't. I know some areas have it, my sister got a loan no problem to finance post-graduate conversion to medicine but this is the exception.

If we have a proper graduate tax/UK style loan system I'll have no problem with it, but we just don't at the moment and the Government should have set something like this up before cutting funding for post graduate level.


That and, tried to get a loan lately? The banks are tight fisted as **** right now and good luck getting a loan from them for most post grads if you don't have a job or assets already.

saa

nesf wrote: »

And this is compounded by a very harsh job market anyway at the moment. I'm kind of in the same place as you, most jobs in my area require a Masters at minimum. But just spent the past 3 months in hospital so was in no place to sign up for anything this year. Have some work thankfully and the wife has some work too, so we're doing ok, but in the long term I need to get back to college and do something.

Thanks, the way things are I can't work as an artist or art therapist I just hope I get to use my degree.


Wait I've got a solution! http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/?mode=startme&welcome_to_sugarDaddyForMe.com&x_source=A2_442252:google

harrythehat

nesf wrote: »

That would be fine if we had a good system set up for graduate loans for post grads but we flatly don't. I know some areas have it, my sister got a loan no problem to finance post-graduate conversion to medicine but this is the exception.

If we have a proper graduate tax/UK style loan system I'll have no problem with it, but we just don't at the moment and the Government should have set something like this up before cutting funding for post graduate level.
.

I should have said this. I agree completely. I presume [perhaps overly optimistically] that the Government will introduce some kind of low/no interest loan scheme to go with this.

Byron85

harrythehat wrote: »

I should have said this. I agree completely. I presume [perhaps overly optimistically] that the Government will introduce some kind of low/no interest loan scheme to go with this.

That's the thing. If they do, I have no problem whatsoever with accepting that. I get my education paid for completely and get a grant, but if we had a loans system like the one in U.K for example, i'd still be going to university. Why? Because it's worth it. I love what i'm doing and any loan would pay itself off in more ways than one over my lifetime.

avalon68

nesf wrote: »

That would be fine if we had a good system set up for graduate loans for post grads but we flatly don't. I know some areas have it, my sister got a loan no problem to finance post-graduate conversion to medicine but this is the exception.

They managed to bring in the loan system for graduate medicine relatively quickly, and without too much hassle - I think a loan system could be implemented for undergrad and postgrad pretty quickly. Yes the banks are strained right now, but we own the banks, and in the long term it would be far more cost effective to the tax payer to bring in the loan system. I think standards will also improve - when students are paying for their education they will demand, and get, a better quality education.

harrythehat

I'm glad ye get my point anyway, I posted a similar view on facebook the other day only to be told I "clearly believe education is only for the wealthy"

Sulmac

As I posted on the first page, apparently the government are considering a student loan scheme or graduate tax system (both very similar in operation) to fund third-level.

New Zealand has an interesting loan scheme run by the government, very similar to the UK's. It's in three separate parts - fees, course-related expenditure (such as books and equipment) and living expenses. The latter two have upper limits. Each student applies for what they need from each category, with the fees being directly paid to the college. When they graduate and are earning over a certain amount, they begin to pay it back through the tax system (PAYE, same as here).

If they go abroad - which many do, New Zealand has an emigration problem similar to Ireland - they are subject to interest; and if they don't inform the Revenue they are subject to penalties. As far as I can tell, it applies to both undergraduates and postgraduates, and students from less well-off families get grants and allowances which don't have to be repaid.

In a perfect world, we would have completely free third level education. Unfortunately, it's inevitable that some form of fees are going to be brought back, but up-front fees would be a disaster (I would apply the current registration fee to this). A system akin to New Zealand's, while not perfect, would be a hell of a lot better (especially as living costs are covered - I'd imagine this would be a blessing for many families).

nesf

harrythehat wrote: »

I'm glad ye get my point anyway, I posted a similar view on facebook the other day only to be told I "clearly believe education is only for the wealthy"

Yeah there's some very hard left wing opinions on this stuff. I don't get it, I'm very much on the right but while I favour fees I also favour support for those who can't afford the fees and so on, I just don't get subsidising the middle classes. I haven't come across anyone who is against the State supporting poorer people to go to college.

southsiderosie

Ireland is ass-backwards when it comes to funding third-level education. It makes far more sense to fully fund graduate students, in particular PhDs, than to fund undergraduates.

First, grad students have a much clearer track record of achievement than an undergraduate, and this cuts down on funding people who are doing college because it's the 'done' thing and such.

Second, doctoral research fuels much of the innovation that happens within universities (not to mention teaching loads, etc.

Finally, Ireland is shooting itself in the foot: its top graduates will simply take their brainpower elsewhere. Even in the US, where students are generally expected to fund their own undergraduate educations, top departments offer guaranteed funding to PhD students for the first 4-5 years. Not to mention that at large public universities, there are far more opportunities for people to make extra money lecturing, bartending, working in the library, etc: big state schools are mini-economies on their own, and that is not the case in Ireland.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

Finally, Ireland is shooting itself in the foot: its top graduates will simply take their brainpower elsewhere. Even in the US, where students are generally expected to fund their own undergraduate educations, top departments offer guaranteed funding to PhD students for the first 4-5 years. Not to mention that at large public universities, there are far more opportunities for people to make extra money lecturing, bartending, working in the library, etc: big state schools are mini-economies on their own, and that is not the case in Ireland.

Well, bluntly, many of our top graduates will go to the US or UK or whatever anyway because they want to maximise the value of their PhD or whatever. There is an enormous difference between me getting a Masters in LSE or Cambridge and UCC you know.

thebman

I'd firmly believe that education should be free but that we should setup a system without government interference as much as possible and that punishes people who drop out/fail continuously.

I think it should be preserved no matter what the cost myself as someone who is done with the whole college thing for a while now and has no real desire to go get a masters. I still think it should be supported by the state. It pays for itself in the long run if it is run properly and not interfered with by the state.

I'd love to know how much this is going to save and see what the other alternative cuts that could be made to safe this from being cut where TBH. It seems like cutting this won't really safe a whole lot TBH.

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

Well, bluntly, many of our top graduates will go to the US or UK or whatever anyway because they want to maximise the value of their PhD or whatever. There is an enormous difference between me getting a Masters in LSE or Cambridge and UCC you know.

I was a visiting researcher for a while at an Irish university, and what what I could tell, a significant percentage of the grad students were from other EU countries. The English-speaking universities are still where it's at research-wise, but I do think you will start to see a shift away from Irish universities due to the funding situation, especially given that the cost of living in Dublin is so high. And the flip side to that is it will also make it harder to attract good faculty if they don't have good grad students.

nesf

southsiderosie wrote: »

I was a visiting researcher for a while at an Irish university, and what what I could tell, a significant percentage of the grad students were from other EU countries. The English-speaking universities are still where it's at research-wise, but I do think you will start to see a shift away from Irish universities due to the funding situation, especially given that the cost of living in Dublin is so high. And the flip side to that is it will also make it harder to attract good faculty if they don't have good grad students.

I think Trinity/UCD will be ok in the medium term but it's tough outside of Dublin speaking globally. In specific subjects though it's a different story, genetics/biochem/food science is superb in UCC for instance.

beeftotheheels

Icepick wrote: »

People should be able to pay this themselves. We don't need people with useless PhDs paid by the tax payer.

With the financial crisis in full swing it can be difficult to even think about the fact that sometimes there are things more important than money.

Before Penicillin was discovered it might have been daft to study molds. A study into a venereal disease (boo hiss) led to a vaccine for many cervical cancers which kill many young women. Before the first computer was invented, before the telephone such things were incomprehensible. Until they weren't.

And this is true across the board, not just in medicine (which might make us healthier), not just in the sciences or technology (which might make us richer), not just in the social sciences (which might help us to understand why things happen and how to prevent past mistakes repeating themselves). Across the board. Who knows if Ireland's redemption may yet be in something which is currently unimaginable in the work of a drama PhD, or an Agriculture PhD, or indeed any field of study.

So preventing study, preventing the acquisition of knowledge is never a good thing, because we don't know where that study might lead, we don't know what solutions it may offer us.

That said, grants alone are not necessarily the answer, student loans might be e.g. a UK model where you only start repaying once your salary passes a certain threshold,. In some areas it may be possible to get external funding, for some individuals personal funding may be an option. But the cold hard fact remains that the next great discovery could be made by a student who couldn't afford to self fund, in a field which doesn't attract external support, in a field which (at the moment) would not appear to be capable of leading to a well paid job.

So some compromise has to be made, to further the pursuit of genuine knowledge by people both interested and capable of engaging in that pursuit.

ArtSmart

Richard571 wrote: »

Whilst I'd agree that it's crazy childrens allowance is not means tested it is equally wrong that post graduate degrees get significant grants - a much fairer alternative would to be provide a low cost loan repayable upon minimum income levels post qualification - the "brightest of our students" should be able to pay back any post graduate education costs themselves. After all, they are getting the benefit of the qualification.

WesternNight wrote: »

It's happening already. It's called income tax.

There is two key issues with 3 level education.

Who benefits and Who pays



Whilst a country as a whole benefits from educated people, those with the education benefit more directly.

So who should pay? Everyone?

I'm always amazed at the student expectation that the public purse should pay for 3rd level education.

Because the reality is, not everyone gets the direct benefit.

So why should the factory worker etc pay for 3 level students?

3rd level education is not general education which facilitates all participants to negotiate the general challenges of modern life- it is quite specific - quite specialised. And the benefactors are primarily those who receive 3 level education.

Sure society benefits, but the recipients benefit more. much more.

So, who should pay?


For me, a loan repaid when the student is earning makes the most sense in terms of fairness and in terms of access - (no way all parents can foot the bill.)

This idea of 'right to 3 level education' and hence a 'right to the rewards it brings' is not a 'right' which is universally accessed by a country's citizenry (whatever that reason might be) and it never will. Why therefore should they pay for others to benefit from it through their income tax?

And why oh why should those who benefit most not pay - , of course, only when they are working and when they are able to do so?

eta, i see no evidence of cutting grants before a loan/ grad tax system is introduced. Does anyone else? Now, that would be insanity...

ArtSmart

HavingCrack wrote: »

Using similar criteria anyone who avails of a public service should be required to repay the cost. Should someone receiving rent allowance be required to repay itall when they start renting privately? Surely this is the point of income tax?

Third Level education is an asset, the other is not. (I'm specifically referring to 3 level)



the function of income tax is to benefit all those who pay in, should it be required - ie you become unemployed and have no income etc.

But all tax payers do not benefit from 3 level education (whatever the many reasons)

nesf

ArtSmart wrote: »

Third Level education is an asset, the other is not. (I'm specifically referring to 3 level)



the function of income tax is to benefit all those who pay in, should it be required - ie you become unemployed and have no income etc.

But all tax payers do not benefit from 3 level education (whatever the many reasons)

Conversely though any qualification, 3rd level or apprenticeship or whatever, that increases earning potential increases the contribution of that person to the public purse through direct and indirect taxation so it is not as if these people do not give back for any supports that they get. I'm fully in favour of a loan system but it's very apparent that those who work hard and put themselves ahead do contribute more to the running of society than those who do not do so.

ArtSmart

nesf wrote: »

Conversely though any qualification, 3rd level or apprenticeship or whatever, that increases earning potential increases the contribution of that person to the public purse through direct and indirect taxation so it is not as if these people do not give back for any supports that they get. I'm fully in favour of a loan system but it's very apparent that those who work hard and put themselves ahead do contribute more to the running of society than those who do not do so.

for sure - (i'm assuming you mean hard at receiving an education?)

As for apprentices - back in the day - they paid the tutors!, but state needs interceded / superseded that . They also are receiving the same benefits as 3 level students and should also be grad taxed. imo.

however, whilst as i said society as a whole benefits, the recipients benefit more, and should therefore pay. same as any area in life...

(as society does benefit, the govt of the day should do their utmost to encourage education, even a certain amt of subsidy (which will remain, no matter what) , but the directly benefited should pay more)

LilMsss

ArtSmart wrote: »

So why should the factory worker etc pay for 3 level students

This is an argument that so many critics of social welfare recipients put forward as well. The whole 'I'm paying for you to sit around doing nothing' brigade often extend their criticism to other areas, such as the 'student scroungers' looking for someone else to pay for their education and so on.

The fact remains that we have no choice or say in what our taxes are spent on. If they were to suddenly abolish all financial assistance for all college courses (which isn't too far from what is currently being proposed) in the form of the maintenance grant and fees - the factory worker, cleaner, postal worker, banker, teacher, doctor etc. will still be required to pay the same amount of tax.

So asking why the factory worker or any other kind of worker should contribute taxes to subsidise third level courses is kind of a moot point, since that contribution will be spent whether the worker in question approves of what it will be spent on or not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HavingCrack

southsiderosie wrote: »

I was a visiting researcher for a while at an Irish university, and what what I could tell, a significant percentage of the grad students were from other EU countries. The English-speaking universities are still where it's at research-wise, but I do think you will start to see a shift away from Irish universities due to the funding situation, especially given that the cost of living in Dublin is so high. And the flip side to that is it will also make it harder to attract good faculty if they don't have good grad students.

The Anglo-centric university model certainly will be around for some time to come (in fact I suspect it will always dominate to an extent). However it certainly is the case that northern European and perhaps more significantly Asian universitites are gaining ground rapidly (Interestingly Latin American universitites are not for whatever reason). I suspect you might see and awful lot more Chinese and to a lesser extent Indian researchers choosing to remain in Asia rather than moving to the US, UK, Australia and Canada in the future.

HavingCrack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is actually a major issue for education right across the board. The idea that someone would leave school at 18 and find a decent enough job (not just in retail and bar/restaurant work which seem to be the only options) seems utterly anemtha these days. As a result more people do undergraduate degrees and end up doing jobs that didn't require a 3rd level qualification in the first place. So as you say, a postgraduate degree becomes the 'done thing' to get ahead of the competition. I really don't know how this can be addressed.

ArtSmart

LilMsss wrote: »

This is an argument that so many critics of social welfare recipients put forward as well. The whole 'I'm paying for you to sit around doing nothing' brigade often extend their criticism to other areas, such as the 'student scroungers' looking for someone else to pay for their education and so on.

The fact remains that we have no choice or say in what our taxes are spent on. If they were to suddenly abolish all financial assistance for all college courses (which isn't too far from what is currently being proposed) in the form of the maintenance grant and fees - the factory worker, cleaner, postal worker, banker, teacher, doctor etc. will still be required to pay the same amount of tax.

So asking why the factory worker or any other kind of worker should contribute taxes to subsidise third level courses is kind of a moot point, since that contribution will be spent whether the worker in question approves of what it will be spent on or not.

I've answered the first bit in previous posts.
As for the bold bit, true, but that doesnt quite render my point moot.

HavingCrack

ArtSmart wrote: »

Third Level education is an asset, the other is not. (I'm specifically referring to 3 level)



the function of income tax is to benefit all those who pay in, should it be required - ie you become unemployed and have no income etc.

But all tax payers do not benefit from 3 level education (whatever the many reasons)

I don't benefit from the salaries paid to civil servants, the money given in grants to the youth club in a disadvantaged area of Cork, the road built between Donegal and Sligo etc. etc. We don't get to pick and choose what our taxes get spent upon unfortunately.