Teenagers on the Dole

Nick Guats

Is it right that 18 and 19 year olds who have never worked are entitled to job seekers allowance ?

murphaph

Nick Guats wrote: »

Is it right that 18 and 19 year olds who have never worked are entitled to job seekers allowance ?

IMO no. I believe a person should have contributed a minimum amount into the pot before being eligible to take a penny out. This is what familes are for, not wider society.

Sleepy

What about 18/19 year olds that have no family? or that simply can't find work?

While I believe our welfare system is too soft and overly generous, I'm also against the ideas of ageist discrimination rather than examining individual's circumstances and the idea of forcing those who haven't yet had a chance to contribute to the labour market into a life of crime in order to support themselves is a false economy.

mikemac1

They are adults, they are job seeking, they can apply the same as anyone else

And not everyone has a family to support them

They have maybe forty to fifty years work and tax paying ahead of them. They might be struggling now but the system is there to support them. Most will go on to be hard working citizens making their way through life

norrie rugger

Nick Guats wrote: »

Is it right that 18 and 19 year olds who have never worked are entitled to job seekers allowance ?

If they are seeking a job then they should get job seekers allowance

Outkast_IRE

What needs to be stamped out is parents taking their kids out of school at 16 and bringing them to the welfare office to try and claim as much as they can.

When i had to visit the local welfare office last August , there was a mother in their with her 16 year old shouting at the counter about how hes 16 i took him out of school i want what hes entilted to , and she went on to say her 2 other kids had gotten their claims at 16 etc.

The kid was mortified and actually looked like a bright enough lad who was being lead and said by the mother , that sort of situation is totally wrong with the parent making the child think they are entitled to everything.

But if its an 18 or 19 year old who is genuinely looking for work i would have to problem helping them by short term .

No matter how bad the job situation is for a determined young person willing to do any type of fair work such as supermarkets, fast food etc you would get a job within a year.

Peanut2011

I would say anyone who is an adult and seeking employment should be able to apply. What difference does it make if they are 18 or 28? There are no guarantees that the 28th year old have ever contributed either.

I would say especially in the current economic climate this is more important than ever. Let's face it, even people with qualifications and years of experience are unable to find jobs, how will the kids just out of school find them?

I would however look at something of a further education where by the people on the job seeker allowance are obliged to do a course of some sort where they have an option to choose. So for every year or two years on the dole, they need to do the training course of their choosing.

That would surely give them extra skills they would need when hopefully employment picks up. Obviously the courses would have to be available and range wide enough for people to benefit. I am sure many would opt to doing this if they had a choice.

Compulsory schooling until you're 18 is the answer. This isn't 1955, its 2012. You're left behind if you cannot compete mentally, today. You lose your stake in society when you lose the ability to understand the way that the world actually works.

Dump Irish, and split English. The only English module that should be compulsory should be a written and oral subject that teaches people how to communicate at the level that is necessary in 2012 (I can't find the article at the moment that I'm referring to here, it basically spelled out our appalling record when it came to producing citizens who were fully capable of dealing with a complex, modern life through adequate English). Leave Shakespeare to those who want him.

If a parent is seen to stand in the way of a child's *right* to education, then they must be punished for denying those rights. The stake-holding of the person does not begin with their post-code. It is something that they can see themselves growing up, and what do you expect when I came out of school knowing more about the Penal Laws and Catholicism than I did about Accounts or Business, or Politics, or anything else that is actually necessary for life.

The difference between me and the guy who was dragged in by his mother to the Social at 16, is that my parents were able to fill the cultural and educational gap themselves, and it costs both time and money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What would the libertarian solution to this be? Leave it to them to sort it out themselves I'd imagine - we can't have the government interfering with the ability of the free market to sort this out, can we?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Some glorious la-latarian myth making going on there. Of course if you had done your research you'd know employers can pay an 18 year old a wage below the mimimum wage if they've no work experience. They can pay even less again if the applicant is under 18.

So please, save your ideological disdain for any form of employment law to the appropriate thread before going off on one about the evils of the big bad socialist government without checking your facts, amusing as it is and all to read that it's the m/w which is causing youth unemployment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

goose2005

By your logic, no-one should ever get more from the Exchequer than they put in. High and middle income people receive far less over their lifetime from the state than they put in; low-income people receive far more. There are many social and economic reasons why this is a very good idea.

As it is, 18-24-year-olds get lower benefits for no better reason than "Ah, sure, they can mooch off their parents." So a 30-y-o who has been on benefits for years will get significantly more than a 23-year-old, who has worked for the last 5 years and just lost his job.

token101

They shouldn't be entitled to anything until they have completed LC or LCA, or are at least in the process of doing so. The logic being that you can't even seek a job these days without these qualifications.

invinciblePRSTV

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your ignorance of economic research is equally amusing. This is also the consensus view among economists. For instance, Neumark and Wascher, 2003:

We estimate the employment effects of changes in national minimum wages using a pooled cross-section time-series data set comprising 17 OECD countries for the period 1975-2000, focusing on the impact of cross-country differences in minimum wage systems and in other labor market institutions and policies that may either offset or amplify the effects of minimum wages. The average minimum wage effects we estimate using this sample are consistent with the view that minimum wages cause employment losses among youths. However, the evidence also suggests that the employment effects of minimum wages vary considerably across countries. In particular, disemployment effects of minimum wages appear to be smaller in countries that have subminimum wage provisions for youths. Regarding other labor market policies and institutions, we find that more restrictive labor standards and higher union coverage strengthen the disemployment effects of minimum wages, while employment protection laws and active labor market policies designed to bring unemployed individuals into the work force help to offset these effects. Overall, the disemployment effects of minimum wages are strongest in the countries with the least regulated labor markets.

[/Quote]

That doesn't really add anything to the topic does it? citing a decade old study to suggest that Irish youth unemployment is caused by the m/w doesn't really hold much water, particularly when you consider that just a few short years ago youth unemployment was quite low when the m/w was what is now.

Given your deep 'economic research' knowledge, why not outline for us at what level you would set the m/w for youths and everyone else?

And while you're here why not tell us why you actively campaigned for a political party which promised to increase the m/w at the last election? Bit bizarre to be supporting a political party when one of their key policies appears to be something you strongly disagree with?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

then surely you can't draw conclusions from an even briefer period when the irish economy was/is in troubled waters? This is after all your original point, you contended that youth unemployment in Ireland was because the m/w is too high.

You've cited a general study to back up your assertion despite the fact its well out of date, has a narrow sample size and doesn't account for other factors such as the banking bailout.

But none of this really matters because after all, you've been indoctrinated to believe that there shouldn't be a m/w at all?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Compulsory schooling until you're 18 is the answer. .

Until you've completed the LC or LCA, surely...
Not everyone is 18 in sixth year at all

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Some glorious la-latarian myth making going on there. Of course if you had done your research you'd know employers can pay an 18 year old a wage below the mimimum wage if they've no work experience. They can pay even less again if the applicant is under 18.

There is still a minimum for them as well though. Not sure how that comes into the figures above, but it's not like it's a free for all

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Until you've completed the LC or LCA, surely...
Not everyone is 18 in sixth year at all



There is still a minimum for them as well though. Not sure how that comes into the figures above, but it's not like it's a free for all

No, until they are 18 they should be in some state of education. Of course there could be a special allowance made for especially academically gifted students but we're talking about perhaps a couple of dozen students a year.

I see very little reason for anyone to leave school at 16 or 17, other than you were started in school at too young an age.

There is no place for 16-22 year olds in the world of work. Hence the 48% male youth unemployment at the moment. A person is only worth as much as they can carry without an education.

juan.kerr

mikemac1 wrote: »

They have maybe forty to fifty years work and tax paying ahead of them.

Some do, some don't - some will never work a day in their life unfortunately.

Maybe there should be some sort of mandatory full time community service scheme for people claiming who have never made PRSI contributions?

bfocusd

I done my leaving at 16, finished a 2 year college course and went to work for an engineering consultancy at 18, I was a senior in my position at 19 and work slowed down, was let go at 22, I got a cut rate of welfare as I wasn't 24, but had made high tax contributions. And was trying desperate for work, I cannot get any assistance for a place to live as my parents should take me in, also im capable to work so it's my problem.

All while my cousin, the same age as me who dropped out of school before her junior cert, worked about 3 weeks total over the years got a full payment as she was on the dole before the change in rates, she also rents an apartment they pay mostly for, no kids and does the odd course every year or so to keep them off her back..

It's totally unfair, she's never lifted a finger to even try, she'll tell you herself she's no intention to work as it's easier to do nothing, she hasn't been out of bed before noon in years and just lives off the tax I've been paying, while I get screwed because I wasn't the right age!

It should be assessed, that was a couple of years ago now, she's still doing the same thing and is saving to get insurance on the car she bought, while im constantly looking contract work as there are no permanent positions going.

I know people will prob say report her but the thing is, she's not breaking the law, in the social welfare she is entitled to this! It's her right to have all of this handed to her, while I work and pay taxes for her, but when I'm out of work its my problem!

It really really annoys me and she knows it, I said it to her before and she laughed at me cause I have to work and she was going on about her car and new laptop, she was asking for a punch in the head that day! I didnt hit her either, but it took a lot for me to walk away and keep my dignity.

bfocusd

bfocusd wrote: »

I done my leaving at 16, finished a 2 year college course and went to work for an engineering consultancy at 18, I was a senior in my position at 19 and work slowed down, was let go at 22, I got a cut rate of welfare as I wasn't 24, but had made high tax contributions. And was trying desperate for work, I cannot get any assistance for a place to live as my parents should take me in, also im capable to work so it's my problem.

All while my cousin, the same age as me who dropped out of school before her junior cert, worked about 3 weeks total over the years got a full payment as she was on the dole before the change in rates, she also rents an apartment they pay mostly for, no kids and does the odd course every year or so to keep them off her back..

It's totally unfair, she's never lifted a finger to even try, she'll tell you herself she's no intention to work as it's easier to do nothing, she hasn't been out of bed before noon in years and just lives off the tax I've been paying, while I get screwed because I wasn't the right age!

It should be assessed, that was a couple of years ago now, she's still doing the same thing and is saving to get insurance on the car she bought, while im constantly looking contract work as there are no permanent positions going.

I know people will prob say report her but the thing is, she's not breaking the law, in the social welfare she is entitled to this! It's her right to have all of this handed to her, while I work and pay taxes for her, but when I'm out of work its my problem!

It really really annoys me and she knows it, I said it to her before and she laughed at me cause I have to work and she was going on about her car and new laptop, she was asking for a punch in the head that day! I didnt hit her either, but it took a lot for me to walk away and keep my dignity.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76661195&postcount=22

Read my post two above yours. Your problem isn't in any way related to whatever the hell your cousin gets on the dole, so don't waste your energy.

You don't come across in any way capable of viewing the wood for the trees. You might have been a great engineer, indeed, but do you know anything else about anything?

Mance Rayder

Nick Guats wrote: »

Is it right that 18 and 19 year olds who have never worked are entitled to job seekers allowance ?

The Back to education allowance is the only allowance they should be entitled to. If your not working, then you should be doing something constructive..

bfocusd

She chose to not have an education, she left school at 14, her mother was constantly trying to get her back, but she would get herself suspended or one expelled. she chose to stay out of any work, and is still doing the same today.
she done a secretary course a few months back and chose to not do the exams, I tried to help and encourage her, mailed her jobs she could do with the cert if she passed, but no, she doesn't want to work.

I agree if someone was 18-22 and wanted to better themselves, but shes the complete opposite, she went on about wanting to do hairdressing so I got her an interview through a friend and she never showed up.

It's not for lack if any of us trying to help her, she just doesn't want to know.

So myself and everyone else is supposed to work ourselves into the ground for to pay her way of life.

I do see it for what it is, im blaming the system for not getting her the help needed, but its unfair for me and many others to be given the left overs while other people have no intention to change.

jackiebaron

bfocusd wrote: »

She chose to not have an education, she left school at 14, her mother was constantly trying to get her back, but she would get herself suspended or one expelled. she chose to stay out of any work, and is still doing the same today.
she done a secretary course a few months back and chose to not do the exams, I tried to help and encourage her, mailed her jobs she could do with the cert if she passed, but no, she doesn't want to work.

I agree if someone was 18-22 and wanted to better themselves, but shes the complete opposite, she went on about wanting to do hairdressing so I got her an interview through a friend and she never showed up.

It's not for lack if any of us trying to help her, she just doesn't want to know.

So myself and everyone else is supposed to work ourselves into the ground for to pay her way of life.

I do see it for what it is, im blaming the system for not getting her the help needed, but its unfair for me and many others to be given the left overs while other people have no intention to change.

Look mate, while your cousin sounds like a complete waste of space, she's entitled to get what she's getting. Tomorrow she'll wake up and she'll be 45 and will have accomplished nothing in her life. Bitching about her living off your taxes is meaningless. People always crib about where their taxes are going but their argument is largely about envy rather than anything else. I don't have kids. I don't bitch about my taxes going towards schools and play areas. I'm not disabled..I don't cry about my taxes going towards care centres and wheelchair ramps. I don't drive..I don't bitch about my taxes being spent on road repairs that only benefit those selfish bastards in their cars.
Your cousin is a waster. Fine. But she's the exception. I would bet the ranch that 95+% of all young people her age would gladly work if they were offered a job.

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

No, until they are 18 they should be in some state of education. Of course there could be a special allowance made for especially academically gifted students but we're talking about perhaps a couple of dozen students a year.

Do you think they should be forced into college then when they finish at 16 or 17? Who's going to pay for that?

I see very little reason for anyone to leave school at 16 or 17, other than you were started in school at too young an age.

There is no "too young" about it if they are academically capable. One size does not fit all

There is no place for 16-22 year olds in the world of work.

What a bizarre thing to say. Why is that?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Do you think they should be forced into college then when they finish at 16 or 17? Who's going to pay for that?

There is no "too young" about it if they are academically capable. One size does not fit all


What a bizarre thing to say. Why is that?

Look at our friend, the engineer, above. I would argue that pushing gifted children into jobs as early as possible for a quick buck is the wrong idea. Had this lad taken his time through education, his options would be far more varied.

Being academically capable is just one aspect of life. You can be great at rote learning but lack critical thought and analysis. What's the point in knowing Shakespeare if you can't read between the lines? What's the point in being a maths wiz if it leads to you being taken out of school early and going on to lead an abnormal solitary existence because you lack the social skills that everyone else was busy learning at the same age?

We need well rounded and capable citizens. We don't need one hit wonders!


But I would be open to hearing your argument on why it is better to leave school early. Even a few positives will do.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

What a bizarre thing to say. Why is that?

There is no place for 16-22 year olds in the world of work. Hence the 48% male youth unemployment at the moment. A person is only worth as much as they can carry without an education.

I thought it was self explanatory. There, of course, is always going to be monkey work to do for students and ordinary folks to get by. If we want a country to be proud of, we shouldn't be at any point accepting anyone under the age of 18 dropping out of full time education to go spend their lives selling mars bars in a shop. That is what I would call letting your potential rot. If you let it rot for long enough it's gone forever.

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Look at our friend, the engineer, above. I would argue that pushing gifted children into jobs as early as possible for a quick buck is the wrong idea. Had this lad taken his time through education, his options would be far more varied.

I don't think we should push them into jobs, but if they've taken their time through school, I don't think they should be kept back in education not learning anything just for the sake of it.

Being academically capable is just one aspect of life. You can be great at rote learning but lack critical thought and analysis. What's the point in knowing Shakespeare if you can't read between the lines? What's the point in being a maths wiz if it leads to you being taken out of school early and going on to lead an abnormal solitary existence because you lack the social skills that everyone else was busy learning at the same age?

Imagining that children lack social skills because they completed their LC at 17 is bizarre. I'm happy to acknowledge that for some, waiting til later is better, but what I don't like is the blanket assumption that everyone must stay in education until 18 just for the sake of it, regardless of the type of child or their capabilities. School is not just about socialising. If the child is well balanced and capable, there is nothing unusual whatsoever about them finishing at 17 or even 16. There is no "pushing" about it. Especially if they skip TY.

But I would be open to hearing your argument on why it is better to leave school early. Even a few positives will do.

I don't think it's "better to leave school early". I think children should finish school at an age appropriate for them. I am arguing against "children should all be forced to remain in education until 18 regardless of anything else", rather than arguing for leaving "early".

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I thought it was self explanatory. There, of course, is always going to be monkey work to do for students and ordinary folks to get by. If we want a country to be proud of, we shouldn't be at any point accepting anyone under the age of 18 dropping out of full time education to go spend their lives selling mars bars in a shop. That is what I would call letting your potential rot. If you let it rot for long enough it's gone forever.

What if they want to take a year out to work then go to uni? Are you arguing they can't leave school before 18, or if they finish school before 18 they must continue to uni?
are we including apprenticeships in this full time education thing?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think we should push them into jobs, but if they've taken their time through school, I don't think they should be kept back in education not learning anything just for the sake of it.

Imagining that children lack social skills because they completed their LC at 17 is bizarre. I'm happy to acknowledge that for some, waiting til later is better, but what I don't like is the blanket assumption that everyone must stay in education until 18 just for the sake of it, regardless of the type of child or their capabilities. School is not just about socialising. If the child is well balanced and capable, there is nothing unusual whatsoever about them finishing at 17 or even 16. There is no "pushing" about it. Especially if they skip TY.



I don't think it's "better to leave school early". I think children should finish school at an age appropriate for them. I am arguing against "children should all be forced to remain in education until 18 regardless of anything else", rather than arguing for leaving "early".

Well I've kind of already covered this area in that my system would allow for gifted students to apply for early leave before 18. Why you think we should trust everyone at 16/17 to pick their future careers is beyond me. They can't even legally buy alcohol and here they are making the biggest decision of their lives, as kids. The problem then is that we all end up paying for it if they drop out or if they go on to lead generally unhappy and unfulfilled lives which I would argue have a negative multiplier effect on society as a whole.

I'm also NOT saying that you would have to stay in secondary school until 18, just in some sort of education. I would prefer is there were a level 2.5 where you might spend a year or two deciding on what to with your life, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

What if they want to take a year out to work then go to uni? Are you arguing they can't leave school before 18, or if they finish school before 18 they must continue to uni?
are we including apprenticeships in this full time education thing?

You can't take a year out until you're 18. End of.

And yes I'm including apprenticeships in this. Why a brick layer or a mechanic or an electrician deserves less formal education than a bank teller is beyond me.

Remember I'm talking about a brighter future through producing better citizens. Not better worker-bots. Worker-bots lack an ability to think, and we end up with housing bubbles and crashed economies. etc.

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Well I've kind of already covered this area in that my system would allow for gifted students to apply for early leave before 18. Why you think we should trust everyone at 16/17 to pick their future careers is beyond me. They can't even legally buy alcohol and here they are making the biggest decision of their lives, as kids. The problem then is that we all end up paying for it if they drop out or if they go on to lead generally unhappy and unfulfilled lives which I would argue have a negative multiplier effect on society as a whole.

I'm also NOT saying that you would have to stay in secondary school until 18, just in some sort of education. I would prefer is there were a level 2.5 where you might spend a year or two deciding on what to with your life, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

You're saying they can't be trusted and might drop out, but then saying they should move on to uni, basically. Why should they waste their time doing that? Why not take the year off, do some work, go to uni with a more level head? Find alternative ways of progressing in life/career?
Forcing them to pick out a college course or apprenticeship just to tick a box of "18 only" is more likely to lead to drop outs and people who have no idea what they want to do


I don't see how there is magically any difference between 17 and 364 days and 18, to be frank. It's an arbitrary line to be drawing.

I don't know where you're getting 17 vs 18 to "generally unhappy lives" either

I mean you're sitting there talking about socialising and broad education and life skills, and then insisting they stay away from the world and in full time education. Completely contradictory.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

You're saying they can't be trusted and might drop out, but then saying they should move on to uni, basically. Why should they waste their time doing that? Why not take the year off, do some work, go to uni with a more level head? Find alternative ways of progressing in life/career?
Forcing them to pick out a college course or apprenticeship just to tick a box of "18 only" is more likely to lead to drop outs and people who have no idea what they want to do


I don't see how there is magically any difference between 17 and 364 days and 18, to be frank. It's an arbitrary line to be drawing.

I don't know where you're getting 17 vs 18 to "generally unhappy lives" either

These are the years that shape your life. If you honestly think that someone hasn't grown between 17 and 18 then why not just let people out of school at 12? or 14? Sure everything will be graaaand, right?

I never said they must go on to university. They could easily do a years course in a plc and actually decide if they're picking the right career. Remember that my system would involve a total re-working of the education system, and with that the end of the JC and LC and an introduction of modular learning.

There are tonnes of options, and whatever pickle you have with my post I'm going to be able to come up with a solution so I'll leave it here for now!

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I mean you're sitting there talking about socialising and broad education and life skills, and then insisting they stay away from the world and in full time education. Completely contradictory.

Talk about a straw-man! You're only in school a few hours a day!

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Talk about a straw-man! You're only in school a few hours a day!

If you're only in school a few hours a day why do you keep insisting staying in school a few hours a day for an extra year is going to completely change someone's life?

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

These are the years that shape your life. If you honestly think that someone hasn't grown between 17 and 18 then why not just let people out of school at 12? or 14? Sure everything will be graaaand, right?

I never said they must go on to university. They could easily do a years course in a plc and actually decide if they're picking the right career. Remember that my system would involve a total re-working of the education system, and with that the end of the JC and LC and an introduction of modular learning.

There are tonnes of options, and whatever pickle you have with my post I'm going to be able to come up with a solution so I'll leave it here for now!

My "pickle with your post" is the idea of forcing everyone to stay in one of your courses until an arbitrary age; that you think someone not staying until this arbitrary age is going to automatically end up "selling mars bars for life" or "living an unhappy life"; that there is nothing stopping this reform of the system and adding in one year courses without an age requirement (who's paying for those under your new system? the students? what if they can't afford it? do we add this to the taxpayer bill just because of an arbitrary age?) and that you think the time between 17 years and 364 days and 18 years is "the time that shapes your life".

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

If you're only in school a few hours a day why do you keep insisting staying in school a few hours a day for an extra year is going to completely change someone's life?



My "pickle with your post" is the idea of forcing everyone to stay in one of your courses until an arbitrary age; that you think someone not staying until this arbitrary age is going to automatically end up "selling mars bars for life" or "living an unhappy life"; that there is nothing stopping this reform of the system and adding in one year courses without an age requirement (who's paying for those under your new system? the students? what if they can't afford it? do we add this to the taxpayer bill just because of an arbitrary age?) and that you think the time between 17 years and 364 days and 18 years is "the time that shapes your life".

I'm not saying that 18 is a definitive age. But it is the age that you can smoke, drink and vote. The age you become a full adult in the eyes of the law. To me, leaving school at 18 would be a waste, unless of course you're especially gifted (WHICH ONCE AGAIN I WILL POINT OUT THERE WILL BE ALLOWANCES MADE FOR). Why you think everyone should be able to have a choice at 16 of "I don't want to go to school anymore" is wrong.

I personally wouldn't advise anyone to leave schooling at 18. My kids certainly won't, and neither will yours or anyone else in a position to debate issues such as this. So why would we not apply what is best for ourselves and our own kids to every child in the country irrespective of background?

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm not saying that 18 is a definitive age. But it is the age that you can smoke, drink and vote. The age you become a full adult in the eyes of the law. To me, leaving school at 18 would be a waste, unless of course you're especially gifted (WHICH ONCE AGAIN I WILL POINT OUT THERE WILL BE ALLOWANCES MADE FOR). Why you think everyone should be able to have a choice at 16 of "I don't want to go to school anymore" is wrong.

If they have their leaving cert, why not? Do you really think someone doing their LC at 17 is "especially gifted"? It's a pretty average age.

Why is leaving school at 18 now a waste? I thought you wanted to make it compulsory until 18 because that was the best idea?

I personally wouldn't advise anyone to leave schooling at 18. My kids certainly won't, and neither will yours or anyone else in a position to debate issues such as this. So why would we not apply what is best for ourselves and our own kids to every child in the country irrespective of background?

I wouldn't advise them to, but I wouldn't make it compulsory not to, and therein lies the difference. There are 17 year olds out there who might be well advised to work for a year and then go back to uni to appreciate it a bit more.
there are those who maybe can't afford to stay in full time education and need to work to help out at home.
there are those who maybe couldn't afford these new plc courses either

Anyway, none of this addresses permabear's point:

The outcome is that far too many young people are unprepared to take advantage of opportunities in higher education. A recent Higher Education Authority report on college progression rates showed that 27 percent of students drop out of computer science courses and 20 percent drop out of engineering courses after their first year. In the Institute of Technology sector as a whole, 22 percent of students do not progress to second year.

some reform is needed but i don't think age restrictions are going to be the answer. if you have a useless education in secondary no age requirement is going to make you not drop out

As for the topic of the dole itself, I think having the LC AND being allowed to work full time should be the requirement to be eligible, aside from any other possible dole reforms

bfocusd

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Look at our friend, the engineer, above. I would argue that pushing gifted children into jobs as early as possible for a quick buck is the wrong idea. Had this lad taken his time through education, his options would be far more varied.

Being academically capable is just one aspect of life. You can be great at rote learning but lack critical thought and analysis. What's the point in knowing Shakespeare if you can't read between the lines? What's the point in being a maths wiz if it leads to you being taken out of school early and going on to lead an abnormal solitary existence because you lack the social skills that everyone else was busy learning at the same age?

We need well rounded and capable citizens. We don't need one hit wonders!


But I would be open to hearing your argument on why it is better to leave school early. Even a few positives will do.

For a start your being close minded thinking im a male engineer and im not your friend, you know nothing about me. I always had art and design as a hobby, I finished my exams at 16 as I excelled in most subjects.
I went to college because I wanted to, ive had an interest in building design and architectural history. I was not pushed into anything.
After the two years during which I spent both summers traveling Europe, I wanted to get a job as I was tired of the college life and wanted to use what I know, you can study all you want, but unless your capable to use it, it's a waste of time.

Since I started work, I done 6 evening courses, for both work and personal enjoyment, I love art and take classes. I do animation and graphic design, because I enjoy it.

I have worked on several high profile projects, such as metro west and north, hospitals across Ireland and hundreds of schools, the aviva, and the o2.

My options are as varied as I make them, both personal and academic. I have studied various aspects of design. I also tattoo as another hobby.

Maybe i have matured faster than people my age, but I prefer it this way. as a child I always liked circulating with people who are different and don't follow the expected route in life. That think with their own minds.

For you to criticize me about my life and knowledge and say that I can't socialise like people who have gone a different route to myself is ignorant.

I am not a one hit wonder and when I do finally leave for Australia to join all of the people I worked/socialised with here, with my knowledge and happy sociable personality, who will design your hospitals? your transport systems? while we are all living our life not having to worry about not being qualified or not able to afford a flight ticket because they spent the years in college. Like many people I know.

You are very single minded and I would much rather be myself and open to any situation or ideas than be stuck on a subject which is for the individual to decide, not you.

What happened to your childhood that left you like this? Were you made work when young and resent that you had no choice or what? What's your story.

bfocusd

bfocusd wrote: »

For a start your being close minded thinking im a male engineer and im not your friend, you know nothing about me. I always had art and design as a hobby, I finished my exams at 16 as I excelled in most subjects.
I went to college because I wanted to, ive had an interest in building design and architectural history. I was not pushed into anything.
After the two years during which I spent both summers traveling Europe, I wanted to get a job as I was tired of the college life and wanted to use what I know, you can study all you want, but unless your capable to use it, it's a waste of time.

Since I started work, I done 6 evening courses, for both work and personal enjoyment, I love art and take classes. I do animation and graphic design, because I enjoy it.

I have worked on several high profile projects, such as metro west and north, hospitals across Ireland and hundreds of schools, the aviva, and the o2.

My options are as varied as I make them, both personal and academic. I have studied various aspects of design. I also tattoo as another hobby.

Maybe i have matured faster than people my age, but I prefer it this way. as a child I always liked circulating with people who are different and don't follow the expected route in life. That think with their own minds.

For you to criticize me about my life and knowledge and say that I can't socialise like people who have gone a different route to myself is ignorant.

I am not a one hit wonder and when I do finally leave for Australia to join all of the people I worked/socialised with here, with my knowledge and happy sociable personality, who will design your hospitals? your transport systems? while we are all living our life not having to worry about not being qualified or not able to afford a flight ticket because they spent the years in college. Like many people I know.

You are very single minded and I would much rather be myself and open to any situation or ideas than be stuck on a subject which is for the individual to decide, not you.

What happened to your childhood that left you like this? Were you made work when young and resent that you had no choice or what? What's your story.

I'll tell you who will design our "hospitals? your transport systems?" - OUR MASSIVE OVERSUPPLY OF ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS.

For someone so worldly, you certainly lack an ability to express yourself. I'm glad you're taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, but when you say things like "I done this or that course" my heart sinks.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

Anyway, none of this addresses permabear's point:

some reform is needed but i don't think age restrictions are going to be the answer. if you have a useless education in secondary no age requirement is going to make you not drop out

As for the topic of the dole itself, I think having the LC AND being allowed to work full time should be the requirement to be eligible, aside from any other possible dole reforms

To address Permabear's point, I think I've pointed out how a system that puts education before specialization by enforcing at least 13 years of schooling for those entering the system will enable what we consider *School Leavers* to make bettr choices. Through a fuller education, a person will be more likely to understand the choices they are making prior to specializing in a specific area in college.

I ended up doing Computer Science when I left school in 2003, because I was awesome with computers, right? The only problem was that I was in no way prepared for the real world (i.e. boring) application of computers. I'm a mature student now and I see it with the traditional students. They have no confidence to speak up in tutorials, no new ideas to share. It's sad.


On the topic of the Dole, I fully agree with you there. If someone has put themselves in the position of being unemployable at the age of 18, they certainly should not be rewarded for it. This just serves to perpetuate a skewed vision of the world - that it owes you something.


Like I've said though, I would do away with the LC and start kids on a modular format from their entrance into secondary school. You would have end of semester exams, rather than two years of nonsense for one all inclusive exam. When the hell else in life do we gauge somebody on their ability to re-hash as many Shakespeare quotes as they can in three hours? Yet this is how we pick our Doctors and Teachers etc! Completely ludicrous.

bfocusd

The over supply of engineers you speak of are there because the government gave the impression that this is where the jobs are. The same way they are now about needing scientists and mathematicians.

over the past twenty years in particular the numbers grew excessively, the engineers and architects who are emigrating are generally 35 or younger, eventually we will be crying out for them again, as the chartered will be retiring, the remaining seniors will either change career as there is no work or will continue to struggle to get work. The colleges won't be producing a level needed to fill positions, as it's seen as unstable or a dead end, it's a vicious circle.

As for my grammar, I apologise, that's what happens when I'm frustrated about having to unnecessarily defend my life style/career choice.

bfocusd

bfocusd wrote: »

The over supply of engineers you speak of are there because the government gave the impression that this is where the jobs are. The same way they are now about needing scientists and mathematicians.

over the past twenty years in particular the numbers grew excessively, the engineers and architects who are emigrating are generally 35 or younger, eventually we will be crying out for them again, as the chartered will be retiring, the remaining seniors will either change career as there is no work or will continue to struggle to get work. The colleges won't be producing a level needed to fill positions, as it's seen as unstable or a dead end, it's a vicious circle.

As for my grammar, I apologise, that's what happens when I'm frustrated about having to unnecessarily defend my life style/career choice.

This is where I think you're missing your point. What I'm trying to say is that perhaps with a better education aimed at equipping you for life, you may have been able to objectively consider the picture that the government was painting and perhaps, see it for what it was.

You might have learned to always give yourself an out. You seem like an extremely intelligent person, so why couldn't you have gone into business or some other area when the building sector collapsed? A guy like you should be able (and probably will, judging by your attitude here) to make a success of himself in whatever area he chooses.

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

To address Permabear's point, I think I've pointed out how a system that puts education before specialization by enforcing at least 13 years of schooling for those entering the system will enable what we consider *School Leavers* to make bettr choices. Through a fuller education, a person will be more likely to understand the choices they are making prior to specializing in a specific area in college.

You're not enforcing 13 years of schooling (which I would also disagree with as a rule), you're enforcing an age requirement, and leaving that to however many years of schooling it takes to get to that age. 12 years if they start at 6 and finish at 18.

I ended up doing Computer Science when I left school in 2003, because I was awesome with computers, right? The only problem was that I was in no way prepared for the real world (i.e. boring) application of computers. I'm a mature student now and I see it with the traditional students. They have no confidence to speak up in tutorials, no new ideas to share. It's sad.

Right, because they have spent their entire lives in full time education and not out in the real world. How you think enforcing this full time education based on arbitrary age criteria is going to make the blindest bit of difference in this matter is beyond me
that said, a few more oral based exams may help

Like I've said though, I would do away with the LC and start kids on a modular format from their entrance into secondary school. You would have end of semester exams, rather than two years of nonsense for one all inclusive exam. When the hell else in life do we gauge somebody on their ability to re-hash as many Shakespeare quotes as they can in three hours? Yet this is how we pick our Doctors and Teachers etc! Completely ludicrous.

I agree the system needs some kind of reform, though my reform would involve much higher standards

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

You're not enforcing 13 years of schooling (which I would also disagree with as a rule), you're enforcing an age requirement, and leaving that to however many years of schooling it takes to get to that age. 12 years if they start at 6 and finish at 18.


Right, because they have spent their entire lives in full time education and not out in the real world. How you think enforcing this full time education based on arbitrary age criteria is going to make the blindest bit of difference in this matter is beyond me
that said, a few more oral based exams may help


I agree the system needs some kind of reform, though my reform would involve much higher standards

Wow, you're really sticking to this '18' issue.


Let me spell it out.



A CHILD,
may not leave formal education until the age of 18. Now, if we're enforcing the LC (for arguments sake) as the barometer for even being eligible for the dole, then we also have to accept that there will be people who will be in 'secondary' school until 19 or 20. There will also be bright kids who will be able to do the Leaving Cert at 15 or 16 - after which they should begin college. There is no need to take a year out to stack or sell Mars Bars, no matter what slant you put on it.

PLEASE,
give me one benefit of leaving schooling before the age of 18. Just one.

bfocusd

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

This is where I think you're missing your point. What I'm trying to say is that perhaps with a better education aimed at equipping you for life, you may have been able to objectively consider the picture that the government was painting and perhaps, see it for what it was.

You might have learned to alwys give yourself an out. You seem like an extremely intelligent person, so why couldn't you have gone into business or some other area when the building sector collapsed? A guy like you should be able (and probably will, judging by your attitude here) to make a success of himself in whatever area he chooses.

You mean a woman like me.

How are you supposed to pick a from an unlimited amount of positions if your being told the majority if jobs will be in x sector, so you study and have spent 4 years on a position which is now pretty much pointless. It's difficult to predict what will be a necessity, people study for what is seen as a booming industry and hope it stays that way.

I have done, im qualified in various things all drawing based, I've two construction technology certificates, I've building services certs, when things started to collapse I moved towards drafting, I do 2D and 3D and I can programme Autodesk products, I can animate cartoons and buildibgs in 3Ds max design, at the moment im studying graphic design and I will be going for the train the trainer cert soon to.

On my time off I volunteer in my old school I help the teachers in art and technical drawing, I do it because they helped me get to college and I take classes of students and prepare them for entrance exams and the level of work required.

I agree with you on one point, they never ask questions, it's like getting blood from a stone, so rather than working individually with each student, I work in a group, that way they can help each other with ideas, so I find a basis to start, say design a new chair, then as a group they develop individual ideas and help each other, usually the quietest student in the class is the most intelligent afraid of expressing there ideas in case they are turned down, the over talkative student is compensating for lack of knowledge and trying to look intelligent.

The reason I didn't switch my career is because I'm happy with what I do, im not going to sell out just because there is a recession, plus qualifications can be gained at any time, having an artistic and visually minded personality is a trait im not letting go of. I probably will change, who knows, I could be working in a shop in twenty years looking back wondering how I ever dealt with the levels of stress involved at times.

Also, my brother is 17 and completing his cao at the moment and he will be going to college, there is nothing progressive he can do at the moment without some qualification, he's having a problem now that there is no obvious route to rake in something he likes, he doesn't want to become a scientist and is leaning towards management as its flexible to different sectors.

Rojomcdojo

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Wow, you're really sticking to this '18' issue.

it's the main problem I had since your first post on this thread, and it's the main problem i have now.

PLEASE,
give me one benefit of leaving schooling before the age of 18. Just one.

Rojo, I have already said I am not arguing for leaving school at a particular age. I am arguing against being forced to stay in education until a particular age. Having "a particular age" as a general barometer for schooling regardless of individual circumstances is what I have a problem with. Insisting that because it is best for your children, it must be best for absolutely everyone else's children is ridiculous. It should be a decision made by the student and their families, not you.

There are students who know what they want to do, finish their LC, but need to take a year working to save up for college because they can't afford it.
There are students who may not know what they want to do, and want to work and travel before deciding.
There are students who may not need to go to college at all, and are happy going straight into work after LC. At 17.
There are students who may know what they want to do and it does not involve full time education.
There may well be students who need to work to help out at home because of financial circumstances.

Having this age requirement benefits nobody. You talk about introducing all sorts of courses - who is going to pay for those? Our education budget is already bloated, and the quality of our education system is already declining. Resources are being cut everywhere, and children go to school in prefabs.
Do you want to waste even more money on poor education JUST to tick an age box? Or perhaps force the students and their families who can not afford it, to cough up?
Look at permabear's statistics from earlier in the thread regarding our poor education & teaching. Is forcing people to stay until 18 in poor conditions going to help anybody? Really? What about the fact our college courses are deteriorating, the quality of our graduates is bemoaned by all and sundry, we have slipped down the rankings - is insisting people go straight to college without a year gap actually going to help solve that problem?

You talk about problems with students being too shy in class, and mature students who have gone out and worked and come back to appreciate their education are the ones asking questions. Is forcing students to sit quietly in the back of a classroom without any other change going to fix that either?


I'm sure you'll come up with answers for these. And for every answer you need to come up with to answer all the exceptions that exist, it will translate into more time, money, and effort in real-world implementation. Money we don't have to spend purely on chasing up arbitrary rules. Money that could be spent reforming our already declining education system.
And for every answer you do come up with, such as new courses etc, I will bet that none of those answers depends on having this age requirement in place. The students will not benefit more from these things purely by having an age requirement.

Having this age requirement, in short, will add nothing and only add to a costly, timewasting, bureaucratic nightmare.

bfocusd

bfocusd wrote: »

You mean a woman like me.

How are you supposed to pick a from an unlimited amount of positions if your being told the majority if jobs will be in x sector, so you study and have spent 4 years on a position which is now pretty much pointless. It's difficult to predict what will be a necessity, people study for what is seen as a booming industry and hope it stays that way.

I have done, im qualified in various things all drawing based, I've two construction technology certificates, I've building services certs, when things started to collapse I moved towards drafting, I do 2D and 3D and I can programme Autodesk products, I can animate cartoons and buildibgs in 3Ds max design, at the moment im studying graphic design and I will be going for the train the trainer cert soon to.

On my time off I volunteer in my old school I help the teachers in art and technical drawing, I do it because they helped me get to college and I take classes of students and prepare them for entrance exams and the level of work required.

I agree with you on one point, they never ask questions, it's like getting blood from a stone, so rather than working individually with each student, I work in a group, that way they can help each other with ideas, so I find a basis to start, say design a new chair, then as a group they develop individual ideas and help each other, usually the quietest student in the class is the most intelligent afraid of expressing there ideas in case they are turned down, the over talkative student is compensating for lack of knowledge and trying to look intelligent.

The reason I didn't switch my career is because I'm happy with what I do, im not going to sell out just because there is a recession, plus qualifications can be gained at any time, having an artistic and visually minded personality is a trait im not letting go of. I probably will change, who knows, I could be working in a shop in twenty years looking back wondering how I ever dealt with the levels of stress involved at times.

Also, my brother is 17 and completing his cao at the moment and he will be going to college, there is nothing progressive he can do at the moment without some qualification, he's having a problem now that there is no obvious route to rake in something he likes, he doesn't want to become a scientist and is leaning towards management as its flexible to different sectors.

If he doesn't know what he wants to do, tell him to do an arts course. Arts in UCD has tonnes of choice in whatever subjects you might like to pick and choose from. Then after he learns to think and write academically he can breeze through a post-grad when he's sure of what he wants to do.

My brother in law took this course and a few years after the post-grad is heading the European Corporate Law section of a multinational.


It's great that you volunteer at your old school, would you ever consider teaching? Or even doing a doctorate and entering academia? The world is your oyster with an intellect such as yours!