Paying for King's Inns

paky

how are students expected to pay for kings inn? it works out at around 12 grand a year. that kind of money isn't easy to come by. is it just rich students that go there?

Delancey

paky wrote: »

how are students expected to pay for kings inn? it works out at around 12 grand a year. that kind of money isn't easy to come by. is it just rich students that go there?

My perception has always been that students there would either be enjoying full support from families or perhaps have separate incomes. I've never thought of it as a bastion of egalitarianism though I will stand corrected on that.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

how are students expected to pay for kings inn?

much the same as any other course of further edcation - by work, loans, scholarships and the like.

works out at around 12 grand a year.

is it 12k for the full course rather than 12k per year?

that kind of money isn't easy to come by. is it just rich students that go there?

depends what you mean by rich. Most students there would cone from western European countries such as Ireland and England, so rich in global terms. Compared to us university fees, those fees are by no means prohibitive.

I suspect that most people who complain about the high fees would like to think that they are being unfairly discriminated against because of their background, but an equal or perhaps more plausible analysis is that they just don't want to have to work hard or take out a loan to pay for anything. It's entitlement culture I suppose.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's entitlement culture I suppose.

what as an entitlement to education? i dont see why money should be a barrier to that

johnnyskeleton

Delancey wrote: »

paky wrote: »

how are students expected to pay for kings inn? it works out at around 12 grand a year. that kind of money isn't easy to come by. is it just rich students that go there?

My perception has always been that students there would either be enjoying full support from families or perhaps have separate incomes. I've never thought of it as a bastion of egalitarianism though I will stand corrected on that.

This attitude reminds me of a young lady who once suggested that studying law in ucd/trinity was for the privileged few unlike her who had to put up with second rate legal education in griffith college. The idea that ucd/trinity are significantly cheaper than full fee paying colleges but you have to work harder to get into them didn't cross her mind at all.

That you can use separate incomes as a basis for inequality is kinda crazy. I would wager that most if not all separate incomes come from working full time or part time and reducing discretionary spending and to suggest that this is a kind of unequal treatment doesn't stack up.

People will always begrudge those who try to better themselves and the lazy presumption of a privileged background is an insult to anyone who has worked hard to put themselves through college.

purpleglory

To be honest you should have already have gotten an education by the time that you go to the inns. Its more of a professional qualification so you could hardly argue that you are being discriminated against by not getting such "education"

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This attitude reminds me of a young lady who once suggested that studying law in ucd/trinity was for the privileged few unlike her who had to put up with second rate legal education in griffith college. The idea that ucd/trinity are significantly cheaper than full fee paying colleges but you have to work harder to get into them didn't cross her mind at all.

That you can use separate incomes as a basis for inequality is kinda crazy. I would wager that most if not all separate incomes come from working full time or part time and reducing discretionary spending and to suggest that this is a kind of unequal treatment doesn't stack up.

People will always begrudge those who try to better themselves and the lazy presumption of a privileged background is an insult to anyone who has worked hard to put themselves through college.

so what would you suggest an aspiring barrister should do? save the 12 grand or become a solicitor instead?

bath handle

paky wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's entitlement culture I suppose.

what as an entitlement to education? i dont see why money should be a barrier to that

It is not a barrier. Everybody pays the same. Complaining about the fees is like saying gym club membership fees are a barrier to fitness. Who do you expect to pay the fees?

paky

purpleglory wrote: »

To be honest you should have already have gotten an education by the time that you go to the inns. Its more of a professional qualification so you could hardly argue that you are being discriminated against by not getting such "education"

there shouldn't be limits to the types of education you are entitled to

paky

bath handle wrote: »

Complaining about the fees is like saying gym club membership fees are a barrier to fitness.

its not actually, you can get fit by putting on a pair of runners and going for a jog. gym membership does not equate to fitness. there are plenty of fatties in there

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's entitlement culture I suppose.

what as an entitlement to education? i dont see why money should be a barrier to that

People feel that they should get unlimited education for free and feel that someone else should pay their way through life. Because they cannot touch education, they think it has no monetary value and therefore should be free, or at least paid for by someone else.

It's not long before a government agency is set up to wipe these peoples bottoms for them because they won't do it themselves.

Money is not a barrier to education, anymore than it is a barrier to a house, food on your table, foerign holidays etc. You want money you have to earn it. Once earned, you choose how to spend it.

The bogeyman of this percieved class of wealthy people getting everything magically paid for is nonsense. And because of a misguided belief that barristers are an elite profession, lazy people prefer to pretend that they are excluded by their socioeconomc background rather than their own unwillingness to work harder and/or make sacrifices in their standard of living in order to get educated.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

People feel that they should get unlimited education for free and feel that someone else should pay their way through life. Because they cannot touch education, they think it has no monetary value and therefore should be free, or at least paid for by someone else.

It's not long before a government agency is set up to wipe these peoples bottoms for them because they won't do it themselves.

Money is not a barrier to education, anymore than it is a barrier to a house, food on your table, foerign holidays etc. You want money you have to earn it. Once earned, you choose how to spend it.

The bogeyman of this percieved class of wealthy people getting everything magically paid for is nonsense. And because of a misguided belief that barristers are an elite profession, lazy people prefer to pretend that they are excluded by their socioeconomc background rather than their own unwillingness to work harder and/or make sacrifices in their standard of living in order to get educated.

i disagree, education is a fundamental right, and its the duty of the government to protect that right and to provide for it.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

so what would you suggest an aspiring barrister should do? save the 12 grand

Yes, isn't it bloody obvious? In much the same way, an aspiring motorist must consider how to finance the purchase of their automobile of choice.

or become a solicitor instead?

There are so many things wrong with this but I'll stick to two:


1. Blackhall fees, and indeed most other professional qualificstions, cost about the same or even more.

2. Becoming a solicitor is not some poor mans alternative to becoming a barrister.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

its not actually, you can get fit by putting on a pair of runners and going for a jog. gym membership does not equate to fitness. there are plenty of fatties in there

Well you can learn the law for free in the national library or on websites such as www.courts.ie or www.irishstatutebook.ie.

Of course, the reason most people opt for the gym is to get the additional benefits that their experienced staff provide. But the staff don't give that away for free.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, isn't it bloody obvious? In much the same way, an aspiring motorist must consider how to finance the purchase of their automobile of choice.

i would've thought a maintanance grant from the local authority to be an easier option

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Becoming a solicitor is not some poor mans alternative to becoming a barrister.

its certainly cheaper

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

i disagree, education is a fundamental right, and its the duty of the government to protect that right and to provide for it.

I disagree, primary education is a constitutional right but third level is not. Where does it end? Should legal services be free because they protect your right of access to court? Should everyone get free broadband, free phone and a column in a national newspaper each lest our right to free speech be interfered with? Free food for all lest you have to pay to live? Tell me this, with all this free stuff floating around paid for by the government, who or what pays for the government? Since all our needs and wants are paid for by the government, no one works and no one pays taxes. Of course, no one provides the lecturing services either because they are too busy racking up their fifth PhD that is free from their benevolent government.

You should learn a bit more about politics and economics before deciding to become a barrister, by the way.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I disagree, primary education is a constitutional right but third level is not. Where does it end?

providing free education produces more educated people, which creates higher competition for jobs, which creates better efficiency

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You should learn a bit more about politics and economics before deciding to become a barrister, by the way.

why?

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

i would've thought a maintanance grant from the local authority to be an easier option

So you admit that you just want the easy option instead of working to achieve your goals? That's classic entitlement culture. But that aside, you can use a local authority grant to pay for some of the fees. You still have to pay for some of them though. So you simply can't avoid the rather unsavory task of getting a job like the rest of the ordinary joes who go to kings inns. You will also have to ask the local authority to pay for your sedan chair carriers lest you have to look at people working as you are being conveyed from your home (courtesy of someone else, naturally) to the inns.

its certainly cheaper

Its in the region of 13-14k to do ppc 1 & 2 but why let facts get in the way of a really good rant?

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

why?

Because barristers need to understand the real world of income, expenses, taxes and paying for goods and services, something you seem to be unable to grasp.

FreudianSlippers

King's Inns isn't even true third level education, it's postgraduate / vocational training.

Yes, it's expensive - but if you're worried about paying for the Inns, you'll never make it through the first 4 years of making less than minimum wage followed by 3ish years of a very modest income.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because barristers need to understand the real world of income, expenses, taxes and paying for goods and services

easier for you to say since mammy and daddy probably paid for you to go to kings inn.
i myself, am in part time employment and in full time study. i put in enough hours for it to be considered full time. i dont feel entitled to anything

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

something you seem to be unable to grasp.

just becasue my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean i dont have a grasp of it

NoQuarter

Paky, to be fair, your facts are just plain wrong. It is factually not cheaper to become a solicitor as both PPC courses combined are more expensive than the KI degree.

I can see you are on your free education rant (what with being a 1st/2nd year law student you are probably only studying Constitutional Law now and are on that buzz) but asking for free third level education and the postgrad education is proposterous! There are enough educated people in the market struggling to find work right now!

With regard to your first question, some people down there have their parents paying for it, other people are parents themselves, other people have saved in previous jobs and a lot of us leave the inns in the evening and go straight to work.

There was a higher education grant available last year up to around €6000 but if post grad grants have been done away with then that might not be an option anymore.

The cost of KI is €12,560 for fees. Living expenses are the usual. The wig and gown cost 600-1000+. The KI pub also takes a fair chunk of my money

EDIT: exam fees in August - €600.


As for the first year of practice having to pay library fees and other expenses without having an income, I don't think anyone in the Inns has figured out how they are going to do that yet.

paky

NoQuarter wrote: »

but asking for free third level education and the postgrad education is proposterous! There are enough educated people in the market struggling to find work right now!

if your not benefiting from free education then i can see how you would be against it.

blueythebear

As has been said, Blackhall (Solicitors Course) costs the guts of €13,000 not to mention the cost of doing FE-1s, registering as an apprentice, entering the roll of solicitors, etc.

Here's a list of the fees...

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/education/hbs/Fees%20Order%2015.12.08.pdf

I'm sure it's a similar situation for Kings Inns.

You really sound like you have a chip on your shoulder about this. If you look at the Constitution, there is only a requirement to provide free primary education so when you consider it in those terms, free education up to third level is pretty good.

You suggest that all education should be free. What happens if I'm really indecisive and get a degree in Business but then decide I should have done law. If education was free in the manner you suggest, then I could just go back and do a law degree. WHat if I decide I don't want to study law then and go back and study medicine? Who is going to fund all that study?

I agree with you that Education should be free but only to a point and the point that it is currently at, I believe is reasonable as it allows everyone in the State the opportunity to get a good education up to degree level.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because barristers need to understand the real world of income, expenses, taxes and paying for goods and services

easier for you to say since mammy and daddy probably paid for you to go to kings inn.
i myself, am in part time employment and in full time study. i put in enough hours for it to be considered full time. i dont feel entitled to anything

I never said I went to kings inns, but if you read our respective posts, I am the one talking about having to work to pay ones way in kins inns rather than expect a handout and you are the one complaining that someone else isn't paying your way.

So to turn it on it's head and suggest that I am really speaking from a position of privilege is ridiculous. But more importantly it shows the remarkably large chip on your shoulder. You seem to think that you are special and harder working than everyone else and have been denied basic free stuff that only the privileged few can afford. You fail to realise that you are probably no more hardworking nor underprivileged as most others who are going to kings inns. In fact, as there are many people who work full time and then do the night time diploma, I would say that is significantly more challenging than working partyime and studying full time.

Just to be clear, working, saving, part time jobs, summer jobs and car loans are the normal for student life and doesn't make you some kind of good will hunting underrated genious from the wrong side of the tracks.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

something you seem to be unable to grasp.

just becasue my opinion differs from yours doesn't mean i dont have a grasp of it

it's not the disagreement that shows your lack of understanding, it's your inability to accept the almost universal situation where professional qualiiciations and indeed university are not paid for by the state in lots of other countries and government sponsored undergrand third level is relatively rare outside some European countries. I would imagine that very few states offer universal free unlimited education and professional qualification.

Had you presented a well reasoned argument based on sound economic policies, I wouldn't say you lack understanding. But since you're only point seems to be that it should be free because you want it, and with no thoughts for how this would be financed, shows that your argument is ill thought out

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

if your not benefiting from free education then i can see how you would be against it.

I'm benefiting from Free Education. I'm against it.

I'd rather pay fees (preferably in a loan system) and get an education I can be proud of. I would be happy to pay for that.

And non, Mammy and Daddy can't afford to put me through college. I am saving every cent that I can to do that.

And as has been said, if all education is free where do you draw the line? You will just end up with people spending their whole lives in college going from course to course as it's free and easy

blueythebear wrote:

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/e...2015.12.08.pdf

Well that just scared the **** out of me...
Looks like I have more saving to do yet!

paky

blueythebear wrote: »

You suggest that all education should be free. What happens if I'm really indecisive and get a degree in Business but then decide I should have done law. If education was free in the manner you suggest, then I could just go back and do a law degree. WHat if I decide I don't want to study law then and go back and study medicine? Who is going to fund all that study?

that system is already in place. if you drop out and decide you want to pursue a different course you are not entitled to free fees. free fees will only be available once a period of 5 years lapse. that seems pretty fair to me

blueythebear

paky wrote: »

that system is already in place. if you drop out and decide you want to pursue a different course you are not entitled to free fees. free fees will only be available once a period of 5 years lapse. that seems pretty fair to me

So now you're advocating that there should be restrictions on free education? I thought your opinion was that free education was a basic right?

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

that system is already in place. if you drop out and decide you want to pursue a different course you are not entitled to free fees. free fees will only be available once a period of 5 years lapse. that seems pretty fair to me

You've changed your tune...

paky wrote: »

what as an entitlement to education? i dont see why money should be a barrier to that

paky wrote: »

there shouldn't be limits to the types of education you are entitled to

Also, are you deliberately avoiding the fact that you have been shown numerous times that Blackhall costs just as much as KI?

paky

blueythebear wrote: »

So now you're advocating that there should be restrictions on free education?

no, what im advocating is that the system in place is a good one

NoQuarter

paky wrote: »

if your not benefiting from free education then i can see how you would be against it.

I, thankfully, am benefiting from the grant system. I still don't think we are entitled to completely free education but support for those who genuinely need it, yes I believe in that.

But saying, as you seem to suggest, that we are entitled to free education up to any standard, I don't agree with. If that was the case, we would have people coming through the ranks that are not fully committed. So I do think a certain amount of hardship should be endured.

The last thing we need is people in the King's Inns who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" you know?

blueythebear

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Well that just scared the **** out of me...
Looks like I have more saving to do yet!

Yeah, not cheap. Solicitor training is a veritable cash cow for the Law Society.

paky

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I'm benefiting from Free Education. I'm against it.

I'd rather pay fees (preferably in a loan system) and get an education I can be proud of. I would be happy to pay for that.

are you too proud for free education? i'm sure there would be a lot of others who would be proud to be in your position. your posts stinks of elitism

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

that system is already in place. if you drop out and decide you want to pursue a different course you are not entitled to free fees. free fees will only be available once a period of 5 years lapse. that seems pretty fair to me

A fairer system would be to replace the current system of government paying for fees for everyone and using that money instead to provide liveable scholarships to those who are genuineky underprivileged or show exceptional talent and even then only for courses that it is deemed beneficial for the broader economy e.g science instead of Greek and roman history.

So I'm sure such a system would be acceptable to someone in your shoes who has worked hard all their life with no help from their parents. The penniless orphan genius therefore gets the same chance at education as everyone else.

blueythebear

paky wrote: »

no, what im advocating is that the system in place is a good one

You're contradicting yourself...One minute you say free education is an absolute right to any level and the next minute, you're suggesting that you agree with restrictions on this right.

FreudianSlippers

paky wrote: »

are you too proud for free education? i'm sure there would be a lot of others who would be proud to be in your position. your posts stinks of elitism

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Inns and BHP are vocational postgraduate degrees, not third level education. Even if you were correct in third level being completely free, your argument re: KI and BHP is moot.

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

are you too proud for free education? i'm sure there would be a lot of others who would be proud to be in your position. your posts stinks of elitism

No paky, I'm sensible. I realise that this country cannot afford to provide free third level education and that our standards are slipping as a result. I would rather see a loan system implemented that gives every person the same rights and access to education which is then paid off as they work. That way everyone gets their education and actually works and pays for it.

Call it elitist if you want. I don't really see how it is. But honestly, if that's what it is, I'd rather be elitist than follow the entitlement culture we have in Ireland.

Proud to be in what position exactly?

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

no, what im advocating is that the system in place is a good one

Then if you accept the system is good should the thread be closed? After all, the thread was started because of a perceived unfairness about kings inns fees and you now accept the government policy in this area is fair.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

are you too proud for free education? i'm sure there would be a lot of others who would be proud to be in your position. your posts stinks of elitism

That has to be the most irrational comment this side of the fremen thread. You seem convinced that everyone else is elitest, even those who are demonstrably in the same position as yourself but, unlike you, are thankful for the government support at present rather than unrealistically demanding unlimited free education. You posts are far more elitest than anyone else's, because everyone else wants to work hard and achieve something themselves with no help from government, parents etc while you are throwing a tantrum because you don't get a free pass at life.

paky

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Then if you accept the system is good should the thread be closed? After all, the thread was started because of a perceived unfairness about kings inns fees and you now accept the government policy in this area is fair.

the system as far as thrid level is fair but then it stops. it should be extended to include kings inn and black hall place

NoQuarter wrote: »

The last thing we need is people in the King's Inns who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" you know?

im assuming verbal articulation is more important than written in kings inn

paky

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Proud to be in what position exactly?

im sure there are many people who competed for your position through the cao. its unfortunate that somebody as ungrateful as you got it

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

im sure there are many people who competed for your position through the cao. its unfortunate that somebody as ungrateful as you got it

I'm ungrateful because I am willing to pay for my education? That makes sense...

Personally, I see your sense of entitlement and expectation that your whole education will be paid for as being far more ungrateful than someone willing to pay for it themselves.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

the system as far as thrid level is fair but then it stops. it should be extended to include kings inn and black hall place

I dont see why it should, since most other countries don't do that, it is a professional qualification so it is reasonable to have to pay for it given that it opens up considerable oors careerwise and that the current provision of third level fees should be viewed as the additional benefit which they are, instead of the right which you seem to think they are. The government is not some unlimited pool of vast resources created out of nowhere, but sure you'll probably learn that the hard way if you are ever forced to hold down a real full time job and pay taxes.

im assuming verbal articulation is more important than written in kings inn

No, both are important. Unless you think that barristers just swan into court and say whatever pops into your head without preparing.

FreudianSlippers

paky wrote: »

the system as far as thrid level is fair but then it stops. it should be extended to include kings inn and black hall place

Why?

As an aside, it would be nearly impossible for people to get into the Inns (not that it already isn't difficult) if it was free. Limited spaces for huge numbers of applicants plus a set of difficult exams; presumably the Inns would need to establish a minimum 2.1 requirement to entry application as well.

im assuming verbal articulation is more important than written in kings inn

You'd be very incorrect in that assumption. You need high levels of both written and verbal communication skills.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Unless you think that barristers just swan into court and say whatever pops into your head without preparing.

Well... I won't name names, but... :P

bath handle

paky wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

Complaining about the fees is like saying gym club membership fees are a barrier to fitness.

its not actually, you can get fit by putting on a pair of runners and going for a jog. gym membership does not equate to fitness. there are plenty of fatties in there

You can get an education by going to the public library.

johnnyskeleton

paky wrote: »

im sure there are many people who competed for your position through the cao. its unfortunate that somebody as ungrateful as you got it

He wants to express his gratitude for the good education by paying for it. That seems reasonable. Ingratitude is getting something for free and demanding more free stuff because of it. You probably don't realise that pre c 1997 there was no free universal third level education.

blueythebear

paky wrote: »

im assuming verbal articulation is more important than written in kings inn

You're absolutely correct, as a barrister, you will never have to draft written legal submissions or arguments.

paky wrote: »

im sure there are many people who competed for your position through the cao. its unfortunate that somebody as ungrateful as you got it

That's a ludicrous statement. Do you know what that poster is studying and at what level? I don't but regardless of that, I don't see where the "ungrateful" comment came from at all.

This thread is going nowhere. You say one thing, then contradict yourself, you refuse to listen to reason and then attack other posters who disagree.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well... I won't name names, but... :P

It takes massive amounts of preparation and effort to look that effortless and unprepared. Being hungover, I assume, also helps.

paky

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I'm ungrateful because I am willing to pay for my education? That makes sense...

Personally, I see your sense of entitlement and expectation that your whole education will be paid for as being far more ungrateful than someone willing to pay for it themselves.

you're saying you're willing, but the fact of the matter is that your not paying, so stop talking nonsense

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont see why it should, since most other countries don't do that, it is a professional qualification so it is reasonable to have to pay for it given that it opens up considerable oors careerwise and that the current provision of third level fees should be viewed as the additional benefit which they are, instead of the right which you seem to think they are. The government is not some unlimited pool of vast resources created out of nowhere, but sure you'll probably learn that the hard way if you are ever forced to hold down a real full time job and pay taxes.

i dont think its too much to ask for considering the amount of money that was wasted on the banks

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I
No, both are important. Unless you think that barristers just swan into court and say whatever pops into your head without preparing.

should i apologise for been raised to write and speak irish? comments like noquarters just go to show the mentality of the people who enter the law profession

XxMCRxBabyxX

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He wants to express his gratitude for the good education by paying for it. That seems reasonable. Ingratitude is getting something for free and demanding more free stuff because of it. You probably don't realise that pre c 1997 there was no free universal third level education.

She* :P
I never thought that I'd be confused with a guy with a username like mine!