Right wing government makes further education even more inaccessible in future

dilbert2

First we have the abolition of postgraduate fees from this right wing FG-led government, and now we have the possibility of a "lottery system" been created for university places.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/leaving-cert-set-to-become-tougher-in-system-overhaul-2971164.html

pupils facing a possible lottery for university places.

What's even more infuriating about this move to take away yet more opportunities for young people to attend university in future is that it has the backing of a Minster from a party with a supposedly left wing economic and social slant. Limit upward mobility through education for all bar the wealthy and lucky few, some social democrats they are. :rolleyes:

PomBear

FG/Lab will destroy this economy furthermore really. The economic benefits to an educated workforce is endless but by raising fees, cutting the grant and doing this, we'll our younger generation on the dole queue and emigrating, well done FG/Lab, good work

RichieC

poor people should bloody well know their place. plenty of manual labour for them.

leave knowlege to tbose of us with good genes and birthright....

starlit

Looks like its going that direction at the moment for the third level education system in the next few years. It's a shame really, that they plan to scrap the Postgraduate grant.

They are thinking of cutting down on courses. Its mentioned in todays Irish Independent.

They hope to mainstream some courses like Law. There is so many different type of Law courses in colleges and uni's that they are thinking of just reducing to the one Law course. It be at introductory level for incoming first years for the first year of the course and then students get to decide what area of law they like to specialise in for the remainder of the course. Think they are thinking of doing that kind of system for other courses I think.

It be a good idea to do it for general courses like Nursing, Business and so on but they kinda do that any way for most business courses but I suppose there might be just too many different business courses out there that perhaps reducing the number of them and then specialise then be more economical idea depending what kind of courses they are like as there are a range of business and science courses available. In particular various different types of computer science and technology courses they are all different and subjects vary between colleges and universities.

I know for some uni's in Dublin they do that for Science and Mechanical Engineering courses.

Kensington

You pay for college in the US.
You pay for college in India.
They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves education wise, especially in science and engineering.

Free education is great but:
1) we cannot afford it as a country anymore
2) too many people being "educated" for the sake of it, doing wishy washy courses that make them no more employable at the end of it
3) grant money given to those who can afford to use it to insure their car or drop into the tills of Diceys over the course of each year
4) we cannot afford it

orourkeda

Education should be foremost in the minds of any government let alone one that claims to be a government of Job creation.

RichieC

yea lets copy india and the us. excellent examples of just societies..

dilbert2

Kensington wrote: »

You pay for college in the US.
You pay for college in India.
They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves education wise, especially in science and engineering.

Free education is great but:
1) we cannot afford it as a country anymore
2) too many people being "educated" for the sake of it, doing wishy washy courses that make them no more employable at the end of it
3) grant money given to those who can afford to use it to insure their car or drop into the tills of Diceys over the course of each year
4) we cannot afford it

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61321626 :rolleyes:

Kensington

dilbert2 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61321626 :rolleyes:

And...?

We need better standards and as opposed to fees as i have been for years, I'm starting to think it's a necessity

I'm glad they're hoping to make the LC tougher but i think the reform needs to start from primary up.

Seachmall

dilbert2 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61321626 :rolleyes:

Looks like he's being objective to me. Fair play.

Podge_irl

They're saying a lottery might be a necessity if there are fewer grade distinctions. This will only affect the lower end of the scale of people applying for certain courses. There is already a lottery system in place for many courses where there aren't enough places for people on a certain points level (it was quite common in medicine before the HPAT). Personally I don't think there is a massive difference between a student who gets 450 and a student who gets 460 so it seems reasonable. Of course it's more useful to your ridiculous point to woefully misconstrue what's actually being suggested.

Chuck Stone

The user should pay.

tigger123

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The user should pay.

And what about those that can't afford to pay? No education for them? Should 3rd level education only be available to those whose parents did well for themselves?

tigger123

tigger123 wrote: »

And what about those that can't afford to pay? No education for them? Should 3rd level education only be available to those whose parents did well for themselves?

we should have scholarships and grants and they can work a few years and save up too

Sky King

I am not sure I want to live in a world where 'wishy washy' courses are removed from ease of access. Ireland is laden with a rich cultural heritage - I don;t want that to change. We need writers, artists, designers, just like we need accountants and engineers. It makes our society a nicer and richer and more satisfying place to be.

I do believe that some people do courses such as arts because they don;t know what to do with their lives. This is wrong. The course should be made available to anyone regardless of their financial status, but only the most suitable applicants should get it free, everyone else should have to pay.

And if people have to pay for themselves or their kids to kill 3 years while they figure out what the fcuk they want to do with themselves, then they won;t be long about telling them to make their fcuking minds up!

But yeah, grants and scholarships, as outlined above.

And the points system is totally unsuitable for selecting suitable people.

RichieC

Seachmall wrote: »

dilbert2 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61321626 :rolleyes:

Looks like he's being objective to me. Fair play.

l got mine so fk you is more like it. as i suspect the majority of the pro fee people on here.

Chuck Stone

tigger123 wrote: »

And what about those that can't afford to pay? No education for them? Should 3rd level education only be available to those whose parents did well for themselves?

Scholarships for talented students from poor backgrounds.

Loans for people who can't pay up front.

Redirect money spent in 3rd level to world class primary school education with all the supports children need to catch and thwart problems before they become a drain on every other service.

I bet that would provide far greater value for money for the Irish tax-paying public than subsidizing hobby degrees and students who are doing degrees for the sake of it.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Scholarships for talented students from poor backgrounds.

Loans for people who can't pay up front.

Redirect money spent in 3rd level to world class primary school education with all the supports children need to catch and thwart problems before they become a drain on every other service.

I bet that would provide far greater value for money for the Irish tax-paying public than subsidizing hobby degrees and students who are doing degrees for the sake of it.

loans, i forgot to add loans to the list

Seachmall

RichieC wrote: »

l got mine so fk you is more like it. as i suspect the majority of the pro fee people on here.

Or he recognises it's strain on the State and despite of the fact he's eligible for it and may even need it (I don't know his situation) argues it should be removed or restricted.

I have no opinion on the fees by the way, I'm not saying this simply because I agree with him, I don't (or don't necessarily).

Only he knows which it is but bringing up the point in the first place is a ridiculous Ad Hominem.

dilbert2

Kensington wrote: »

And...?

The and of it is - if you (as well as other people in this generation) get the opportunity to avail of free third level education and have fees covered, then why shouldn't students in future have the same opportunities? Third level education is expensive and many families cannot afford to send their kids to college. By mucking about with the leaving cert and gradually abolishing fees across the board at third level, the government will create a system whereby it will be the kids of the wealthy who will be able to attend third level institutions. And anyway, it's a load of rubbish for other simple reason that the LC for the majority of students is not easy, and is quiet a stressful experience, not the care free and easy experience that many in government like to portray it as.

Chuck Stone

dilbert2 wrote: »

The and of it is - if you (as well as other people in this generation) get the opportunity to avail of free third level education and had fees covered, then why shouldn't students in future have the same opportunities?

It's not free. The cost is diffused across all tax-payers. The problem with this is that the cost and size of 3rd level keep going up because nobody is feeling the increasing burden (boiling frog anecdote).

What you have then is special concentrated interests (as opposed to diffuse costs) leaning on the government (i.e. you and I the tax-payer) to ever-increase subsidizing 3rd level regardless of value for money.

How to stop this?

Make the user pay.

sock puppet

OP I hope you're not studying English in college as it appears you and most of the other posters on this thread are illiterate.

Sky King

Make the user pay

Certain users may still not have the means to pay, because their qualification does not lend itself to a high paying job.

An actuary could pay back their loans in a matter of a year or two, how long would it take a primary school teacher or a struggling musician or writer?

amacachi

RichieC wrote: »

yea lets copy india and the us. excellent examples of just societies..

Well the Indian guy who I dealt with in Amazon customer care was far more helpful than any Irish or British person I've encountered with other companies so it seems they're doing something right.

sock puppet

Sky King wrote: »

Certain users may still not have the means to pay, because their qualification does not lend itself to a high paying job.

An actuary could pay back their loans in a matter of a year or two, how long would it take a primary school teacher or a struggling musician or writer?

Huh? Primary school teachers start off on well above the median wage for a graduate.

Sky King

Yeah and stay on it for the next gazillion years.

Perhaps it was a bad example though. My point still stands.

amacachi

Sky King wrote: »

Certain users may still not have the means to pay, because their qualification does not lend itself to a high paying job.

An actuary could pay back their loans in a matter of a year or two, how long would it take a primary school teacher or a struggling musician or writer?

Then tough titty. People need to make choices and as much as some would like it not everyone is equal. If someone can afford to do a degree in Cartography then more power to them. If they're worried about future finances then they should do something useful or save beforehand.

Being realistic and looking at it from an Irish perspective there's a very high proportion of students in places like Trinity that went through fee-paying schools. A helluva lot of them wouldn't have gotten that advantage over the plebs if their parents were going to have to pay for college. While it's unfair on one hand it gets rid of one of the advantages that the better-off have had for the last couple of decades.

Also there's the small fact that since free fees came in the proportion of students attending universities from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder hasn't increased whatsoever.

Chuck Stone

Sky King wrote: »

Certain users may still not have the means to pay, because their qualification does not lend itself to a high paying job.

An actuary could pay back their loans in a matter of a year or two, how long would it take a primary school teacher or a struggling musician or writer?

This is exactly the desired effect. People would be way more careful with their choices and would be more likely to end up in the productive part of the economy.

Btw a teacher has a lifetime secure job and pension to pay back a loan.

I don't see why the tax-payer should fund what are in effect 'hobby' degrees (and fund the wages and pensions of hobby degree lecturers).

sock puppet

Sky King wrote: »

Yeah and stay on it for the next gazillion years.

True.

Killer Pigeon

In my opinion the government should stop paying for fees, but people are not ready to be left the obligation of paying fees. Essentially, economically I'm libertarian right-wing, so I would agree. I'm not going to getting into an argument on this thread about it now though, I'm too drunk. Night night!

Logical Fallacy

tigger123 wrote: »

And what about those that can't afford to pay? No education for them? Should 3rd level education only be available to those whose parents did well for themselves?

If those who can pay do pay, there is more money to assist those who can't.

Sky King

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't see why the tax-payer should fund what are in effect 'hobby' degrees (and fund the wages and pensions of hobby degree lecturers).

I dislike this attitude, and if you refer to my original post, you'll see why.

Art and culture are an absolutely essential part of our society. Without it we would have no literature and poetry, no beautiful buildings, no music to make us happy and sad, no pretty paintings and lovely photographs to look at, and comedy to make us laugh.

This 'productive member of society' ideal smacks of old school communism to me. It's like something you'd read in 1984.

A country full of engineers and accounts and quantity surveyors would be a bland and boring and dreary and horrible place to be.

Ruire

Sky King wrote: »

I dislike this attitude, and if you refer to my original post, you'll see why.

Art and culture are an absolutely essential part of our society. Without it we would have no literature and poetry, no beautiful buildings, no music to make us happy and sad, no pretty paintings and lovely photographs to look at, and comedy to make us laugh.

This 'productive member of society' ideal smacks of old school communism to me. It's like something you'd read in 1984.

A country full of engineers and accounts and quantity surveyors would be a bland and boring and dreary and horrible place to be.

And how many prize-winning authors and poets have degrees in creative writing?

Killer Pigeon

Sky King wrote: »

I dislike this attitude, and if you refer to my original post, you'll see why.

Art and culture are an absolutely essential part of our society. Without it we would have no literature and poetry, no beautiful buildings, no music to make us happy and sad, no pretty paintings and lovely photographs to look at, and comedy to make us laugh.

This 'productive member of society' ideal smacks of old school communism to me. It's like something you'd read in 1984.

A country full of engineers and accounts and quantity surveyors would be a bland and boring and dreary and horrible place to be.

In my honest opinion, some of the greatest architecture, fine art, music and literature came during periods in history when the state didn't contribute in any way to education. Why is that?

The nanny-state attitude that has come about in most parts of the Western World has led to a culture of descent.

amacachi

Sky King wrote: »

A country full of engineers and accounts and quantity surveyors would be a bland and boring and dreary and horrible place to be.

I dunno, to me it sounds better than a country full of unemployed builders, that seems to be the legacy of the system of free fees that we've had.

jam_mac_jam

The way people go on you would think that college is all full of working class kids who are not going to be able to go in future. Well that's not really true is it? Those who are rich not only have free college they get cheap private schools.

If you want to help those who cannot afford a good education put it into primary schools by the time you get to college its too late.

If you want to go to college pay for it. Why should somebody who works Mc Donalds be paying for my kid to go to college when I or he can pay for it. Stupid. Get a loan like in most other countries.

Sky King

And how many prize-winning authors and poets have degrees in creative writing?

I don;t know. Obviously you don;t just clock up four years and automatically become booker prize standard - i am talking about an overall vibe and culture thorough a society, not measured in terms of clocking up prizes

In my honest opinion, some of the greatest architecture, fine art, music and literature came during periods in history when the state didn't contribute in an way to education. Why is that?

It was done generally by people from the upper classes back then, yeah? People who could afford it?

Who is to say that if back then, poor people had access to state funded education (which back then probably amounted to little more than basic maths and reading and writing) we wouldn't have even BETTER music, art and architecture than the stuff you;re so fond of?

maglite

We cant afford it and there are better ways of educating our workforce rather than funding 3rd level and Post Grad courses.


How about investing Primary or Secondary to improve our basic literary levels. Its an unpopular stance but why are we providing people with Degrees to work in medial Jobs (Supermarkets and McDonalds etc). We should focus and having a good average education and focusing the funding on those who are worth it and will add value to the society.


Those who want to further their education for their own pleasure should fund it themselves.

Killer Pigeon

Sky King wrote: »

t was done generally by people from the upper classes back then, yeah? People who could afford it?

Who is to say that if back then, poor people had access to state funded education (which back then probably amounted to little more than basic maths and reading and writing) we wouldn't have even BETTER music, art and architecture than the stuff you;re so fond of?

I think you need to broaden your mind and consider societal structures of the time and how money/wealth flowed. It's not as simple as being "rich" and "poor". You have to question how society became so polarised in that way.

Interestingly, poorer people do have access to education (etc..) nowadays and I don't see art, architecture or music getting any better than it was back then (or maybe I'm just biased). It's not, of course, to do with poor people, it's to do with general societal descent and apathy.

Chuck Stone

Sky King wrote: »

I dislike this attitude, and if you refer to my original post, you'll see why.

Art and culture are an absolutely essential part of our society. Without it we would have no literature and poetry, no beautiful buildings, no music to make us happy and sad, no pretty paintings and lovely photographs to look at, and comedy to make us laugh.

A couple of points.

I'm not saying these types of degrees should be done away with. I just think that people who do them should pay to do them (as with all degrees).

What would happen then is that they would become representative of the demand for them rather than being a degree people do when they're not sure what to do (you've alluded to this yourself).

You say that art and culture are essential but that does not mean that without 3rd level art and culture would not exist. Indeed I would ask exactly what value a 3rd level qualification adds to the world of art and culture?

Also it seems that you're making the assumption that creativity can be taught. I totally reject that idea. Creative people will be creative whether they have gone through 3rd level or not.

Sky King

Also, might I point out that you learn a hell of a lot more in college than just what's on your curriculum?

Nowhere else is there such a melting pot of people from thinkers, writers and artists, to mathsey types and tech heads... drama enthusiasts and physicists.

Killing off 'hobby courses' is totally changing the vibe of a university campus and changing the type of people who go there to middle class mercenaries and the result of that is a narrowing in cultural scope and this can only be detrimental to society as a whole.

It supersedes 'prizes'. It's a macro thing.

starbelgrade

Since when were the government right wing?

Fine Gael are conservatives & Labour slightly left of centre. Not exactly the BNP we have in the Oireachtas.

My name is URL

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In my honest opinion, some of the greatest architecture, fine art, music and literature came during periods in history when the state didn't contribute in an way to education. Why is that?

Apart from architecture, the others don't really depend on a person having a formal qualification in their area of interest. Those studying the likes of music rarely become 'musicians' themselves, but go on to work in areas of industry concerning music.

I'm torn on the whole fees thing. It'd be nice if an efficient and effective student financing/loan system were introduced. I don't think money should be a deciding factor in who gets into college at all.. it's asking for trouble in the long run.

Killer Pigeon

starbelgrade wrote: »

Since when were the government right wing?

Fine Gael are conservatives & Labour slightly left of centre. Not exactly the BNP we have in the Oireachtas.

I hate it when people who believe in right-wing economics are thrown into the same basket as the BNP.

ECONOMICALLY RIGHT WING =/= SOCIALLY RIGHT WING

Chuck Stone

Domo230 wrote: »

Well what will you do if people decide to study the current flavour of the month which promises to offer high paying jobs only to have those opportunities taken away by changing markets?

Welcome to the real world. It can happen to anyone and does - look how many people have left to find work. Do you think the state should guarantee every person who leaves 3rd level a job?

They tried that before in the GDR and it didn't work out too well.

A world without lecturers working on their "hobbies" (as you term them) would be a very dull world indeed.

Nice crystal balling. Will you get the results of the next weeks football while you're predicting such a bleak outcome?

starbelgrade

My name is URL wrote: »

Apart from architecture, the others don't really depend on a person having a formal qualification in their area of interest.

Some of the best architects in history never had formal training or qualifications.

In contrast, 99% of architects who've past through college in the last 100 years have been dreary, lacking in any vision & willing to whore themselves out to their client's wills for the sake of a large pay packet.

Chuck Stone

Granted some hobby degrees are worse than others.

What a fucking joke.

Sky King

I'm not saying these types of degrees should be done away with. I just think that people who do them should pay to do them (as with all degrees).

But lots of people can;t afford to.

What would happen then is that they would become representative of the demand for them rather than being a degree people do when they're not sure what to do (you've alluded to this yourself).

I agree that no-one should have a course paid for them who is just killing time while they figure out what to do with their lives, but I firmly believe the state should give talented and worthy people the opportunity to study whatever they want regardless of perceived commercial value. Saying 'hobby courses' should not be funded is saying they have no value and this is wrong.

You say that art and culture are essential but that does not mean that without 3rd level art and culture would not exist. Indeed I would ask exactly what value a 3rd level qualification adds to the world of art and culture?

Hmm. I understand your argument and I suppose I can't counter it, other than by saying such a contribution is immeasurable and as I said is a 'macro' thing and can;t be though of in terms of writing prizes. We need experts in ancient celtic mythology and greek pottery. It enriches us to have this, and the people that study this stuff (perhaps indirectly) enrich our lives by making society a nicer place to be

Also it seems that you're making the assumption that creativity can be taught. I totally reject that idea. Creative people will be creative whether they have gone through 3rd level or not.

I made no such assumption. I would probably be what you call a creative person... nothing grand mind you and I'll be the first to admit it - but I have minor original music releases and I have had bits and bobs of creative writing published over the years. I also dabble in graphic design. BUT I had to pay for music lessons in the beginning and I had to be taught how to write and use graphic software.

Creativity is a mode of thinking but the tools must be acquired.

starbelgrade

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I hate it when people who believe in right-wing economics are thrown into the same basket as the BNP.

ECONOMICALLY RIGHT WING =/= SOCIALLY RIGHT WING

They are not necessarily equal in principle, granted, but they do tend to go hand in hand in practice.

There's still very little about the current government that is right wing. Socially or economical.

Killer Pigeon

starbelgrade wrote: »

They are not necessarily equal in principle, granted, but they do tend to go hand in hand in practice.

This true unfortunately, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's just a certain stigma attached to the terms "right wing" and "left wing" that's been implanted into people's minds that effects their decision on who to support.

starbelgrade wrote: »

There's still very little about the current government that is right wing. Socially or economical.

I'd regard the present government as corporatist, which is sort of right wing.