Abolishing free fees in university?

steddyeddy

Should free fees be abolished in university for those who can afford them? Before people jump at me I think those who can afford them only include those who can pay fees without making significant changes in lifestyle. I do not think a lot of the middle class are rich either before people attack me for that.

In order to illustrate my point ill detail the following. I attend UCD and I was struck by the large number of people who seem to be absolutely minted. From what I hear the same applies to trinity.A large number of these rich students are funded to gills and a large proportion of them dont seem bothered at all. A lot of them see a degree as a hobby and go out drinking two or three nights a week. I was in a lecture theatre the other day where some students were shouting moo at the lecturer (agricultural science) we are paying for them to do that as a soceity and its not good enough anymore .

I dont think the poor should pay fees at all they generally work harder to get to university anyway (poor schools, lack of confidence, lack of society's expectations towards them) but theres an element in college today that can afford to pay lots why should the taxpayer fund them?

Overheal

The rich pay taxes too. More taxes, in fact. I don't see why they shouldn't receive (at the least) the same opportunity as someone else?

steddyeddy

Overheal wrote: »

The rich pay taxes too. More taxes, in fact. I don't see why they shouldn't receive (at the least) the same opportunity as someone else?

They already receive more opertunity than most. If they can comfortably afford to pay large fees I dont see how they would be deprived of any opportunity? Im doing a masters and so am paying fees but Im by no means rich. Im not being denied a chance. In fact when I pay fees I find I have been working even harder. A lot of these privileged students are not taking college seriously.

hattoncracker

I think people who live adjacent to their college and thus can live at home and don't have to pay rent should be considered for higher admin fees but I do think college education should be a right and not a privilege! We need graduates with a good education to attract multinationals to this country.

starbelgrade

hattoncracker wrote: »

I do think college education should be a right and not a privilege! We need graduates with a good education to attract multinationals to this country.

If you make education a right, then you water down the quality of graduates from third level education.

I'm not saying that wealth should be the defining factor in who gets a place in third level education, but people should in some way have to earn their place in college rather than it being a free for all.

steddyeddy

hattoncracker wrote: »

I think people who live adjacent to their college and thus can live at home and don't have to pay rent should be considered for higher admin fees but I do think college education should be a right and not a privilege! We need graduates with a good education to attract multinationals to this country.

Indeed I agree but if people are rich who are they being denied their right. We are losing out on a large amount of the intelligent undergraduates because of the current system.

starbelgrade

Domo230 wrote: »

Free fees!!!!

Where the feck are these free fees?

This really tees me off when people call it free, since despite working, I still cannot afford this so called "free" education.

It isn't entirely free, but it is hugely subsidised. If people had to pay the full cost of third level education in Ireland, the colleges would be empty.. or, as with the likes of Medicine, full of rich kids from other countries.

hattoncracker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

The rich pay taxes too. More taxes, in fact. I don't see why they shouldn't receive (at the least) the same opportunity as someone else?

They already receive more opertunity than most. If they can comfortably afford to pay large fees I dont see how they would be deprived of any opportunity? Im doing a masters and so am paying fees but Im by no means rich. Im not being denied a chance. In fact when I pay fees I find I have been working even harder. A lot of these privileged students are not taking college seriously.

I can understand where you're coming from, its hard when you see people take the piss when you have to bust your ass to get where you are, believe me. Im the only mature student in my course who works, if I lose my job I will not qualify for JSA, or BTEA, whereas everyone in my course does, I get €130 a month of a grant and thats all I will ever get, and I very nearly didn't get it at all. I have rent, bills and travel costs to cover, and I never get to go visit my family because it's too expensive.

But at the same time, if we start means testing fees, sometimes someone who really can't afford them will have pay because of some boll*x loophole.

steddyeddy

Domo230 wrote: »

Free fees!!!!

Where the feck are these free fees?

It really tees me off when people call it free, since despite working, I still cannot afford this so called "free" education.

I was in UCD myself for 2 years before I had to leave because I couldn't afford it.

Well theres a lot of people wasting their education in university who have a large proportion of their fees payed for by the taxpayer.

ebixa82

Overheal wrote: »

The rich pay taxes too. More taxes, in fact. I don't see why they shouldn't receive (at the least) the same opportunity as someone else?

They do receive the same as everyone else. If they couldn't afford then they wouldn't as per means test.

I think the rich absolutely should pay more for college fees than less well off families.

By no means should the rich be taxed to the gills like all the leftist/socialist/united left desire, however paying once yearly tuition fees as an investment in their child's future is acceptable.

Overheal

Means tested aid I am familiar with. That's seperate from the cost of college itself.

In the US if I am of eligible need (...and I am) I qualify for federal student grants, and generous tax reliefs as a student. But the School itself does not say "Oh we have a child with rich parents attending here" and suddenly discriminate against that student by charging them more than they charge me. Me and the other student both pay the same amount in this situation, the difference is he pays for it out of pocket, and I pay for it out of grants. The school takes in the same amount of revenue off each of us.

steddyeddy wrote: »

They already receive more opertunity than most.

That circumstance is entirely detached from education though. If they come from a wealthy family, why should they be discriminated against?

hattoncracker wrote: »

I think people who live adjacent to their college and thus can live at home and don't have to pay rent should be considered for higher admin fees

Why???

I believe that I read somewhere that "All men are created equal" but that doesn't mean they all have to dress the same, act the same, think the same, or incur the exact same expenses. If someone chooses to attend college closer to a family home, what business is that of the college? You have me at a baffle.

starbelgrade

Domo230 wrote: »

I was in UCD myself for 2 years before I had to leave because I couldn't afford it.

That in itself is a massive waste of taxpayers money.

In my opinion, potential students should have to prove their capability of supporting themselves for the full length of their course.

In addition to this, I would slap the full cost of the course on anyone who drops out. That'd make students take the whole thing a bit more seriously.

hattoncracker

Overheal wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

They already receive more opertunity than most.

That circumstance is entirely detached from education though. If they come from a wealthy family, why should they be discriminated against?

hattoncracker wrote: »

I think people who live adjacent to their college and thus can live at home and don't have to pay rent should be considered for higher admin fees

Why???

I believe that I read somewhere that "All men are created equal" but that doesn't mean they all have to dress the same, act the same, think the same, or incur the exact same expenses. If someone chooses to attend college closer to a family home, what business is that of the college? You have me at a baffle.

Because where I come from in Ireland there are literally NO colleges within a commutable daily basis..
And I did say considered, as in if this was implemented, that should be the first place to start checking.

ebixa82

Overheal wrote: »

That circumstance is entirely detached from education though. If they come from a wealthy family, why should they be discriminated against?
Why???

I believe that I read somewhere that "All men are created equal" but that doesn't mean they all have to dress the same, act the same, think the same, or incur the exact same expenses. If someone chooses to attend college closer to a family home, what business is that of the college? You have me at a baffle.

It's pretty obvious why, due to the money they save on funding their child living away from home.

Rent + food + allowance = 200-250e per week x 30 weeks per year = 6,000-7000e

Granted it costs money for local kids to be fed and watered at home but merely a fraction of this.

Callipo

Only smart people should go to university.

I'd up the points needed.

Allowing people in willy nilly for whatever reasons has degraded universitys and degrees imo. It has also robbed certain industries of "smart" employees.

Overheal

starbelgrade wrote: »

In addition to this, I would slap the full cost of the course on anyone who drops out. That'd make students take the whole thing a bit more seriously.

Here the situation is if I drop out I repay a prorated amount. I can usually keep the benefits as long as I maintain so many credit hours. For instance if I drop one class (3 credits) out of 14 total, the guidelines say I have to maintain at least 9 to remain eligible. So at 11 Credit Hours, I can't drop anything else, but it's flexible if I have to drop something for whatever reason. It also prevents students from defrauding the system.

starbelgrade

Domo230 wrote: »

Well I was able to support myself but the recession destroyed my savings.

?

hattoncracker

Domo230 wrote: »

starbelgrade wrote: »

It isn't entirely free, but it is hugely subsidised. If people had to pay the full cost of third level education in Ireland, the colleges would be empty.. or, as with the likes of Medicine, full of rich kids from other countries.

For most courses in UCD you already pay 50% of the "full" cost.

So it's not exactly like the subsidy is huge either.

How much is your admin fee?!

My admin fee is 2,000 but my full fees would be 7,500 per year if I had to pay them outright! It's a huge subsidy!

hattoncracker

Callipo wrote: »

Only smart people should go to university.

I'd up the points needed.

Allowing people in willy nilly for whatever reasons has degraded universitys and degrees imo. It has also robbed certain industries of "smart" employees.

Besides the point of this thread, poor does not mean stupid.

Overheal

ebixa82 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious why, due to the money they save on funding their child living away from home.

Rent + food + allowance = 200-250e per week x 30 weeks per year = 6,000-7000e

Granted it costs money for local kids to be fed and watered at home but merely a fraction of this.

Completely asswards way of thinking to be sure. Punish someone for living near the college? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider means tested rent allowance to students to avail of? Again it seems counter intuitive to charge someone more for going to college nearby, than it does to subsidize someone for going to college far away.

Honestly though someone people sound like they are jealous of the opportunities some people happen to have. How dare they grow up in a college town. Let's teach them a lesson.

Ultimately though colleges have no business practicing in discrimination of students. If the state wants to subsidize students based on need thats an entirely separate matter.

Pacifist Pigeon

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was in a lecture theatre the other day where some students were shouting moo at the lecturer (agricultural science) we are paying for them to do that as a soceity and its not good enough anymore .

You see the thing about Ag student is that most of them were brought up near animals, so, naturally enough, animal sounds, such as "moo", have entered their lexicon.

However, on University fees I would tend to agree with you. Successive government have absolutely destroyed the quality of education; politicians are more concern with the quantity of people in education, rather than the quality of people in education.

Free education is predicated on the assumption that education is a right; under the most basic notion of what rights are, education is most certainly not a right, rather it is a privilege.

Modern third level education is ripe with bureaucracy, which only accentuates its problems - all due primary to government intervention in education. Universities are now like factories rather than centres of learning and self enlightenment.

steddyeddy

Overheal wrote: »

Means tested aid I am familiar with. That's seperate from the cost of college itself.

In the US if I am of eligible need (...and I am) I qualify for federal student grants, and generous tax reliefs as a student. But the School itself does not say "Oh we have a child with rich parents attending here" and suddenly discriminate against that student by charging them more than they charge me. Me and the other student both pay the same amount in this situation, the difference is he pays for it out of pocket, and I pay for it out of grants. The school takes in the same amount of revenue off each of us.
That circumstance is entirely detached from education though. If they come from a wealthy family, why should they be discriminated against?
Why???

Im not lookign to discriminate against anyone. The government are paying
5,319.60 tuition fees for people doing science in UCD. I dont see how someone whose parent are making figures in the six figures can not pay that instead of the taxpayer. It might elimate the hobby element some people attach to their degrees.

steddyeddy

hattoncracker wrote: »

Besides the point of this thread, poor does not mean stupid.

Indeed poor in college often means work harder to better your lot as theres not as much to fall back on.

Pacifist Pigeon

Domo230 wrote: »

For most courses in UCD you already pay 50% of the "full" cost.

So it's not exactly like the subsidy is huge either.

Please elaborate. I go to UCD and for my course I pay around €2000 plus a small student services levy. If I were to pay half of the full fees I would be paying near €8000. Every course (bar postgraduate courses) in UCD are more or less the same when it comes to fee for Irish and EU students.

starbelgrade

Domo230 wrote: »

Whatever way you put it, it's certainly not free.

No-one ever said it was free. I said it was hugely subsidised, which it is.

steddyeddy

Domo230 wrote: »

Many of the courses are around €5800 per year (not all of course but some of the bigger ones are)

The registration is expected to go up more to around €2500 (not including other charges) so it's still a decent portion you pay.

Whatever way you put it, it's certainly not free.

Education should be a right for all. It won't affect the quality of education too much if the grading standards are maintained (sadly they are not in many subjects).

Domo Ill add university should be a right to only those who want to pursue a certain course, have the intelligence for a certain course and are willing to work hard enough for that course.

hattoncracker

Callipo wrote: »

Only smart people should go to university.

I'd up the points needed.

Allowing people in willy nilly for whatever reasons has degraded universitys and degrees imo. It has also robbed certain industries of "smart" employees.

I don't know any university that will allow you in if your points aren't good enough. Unless your a mature student, in which case it goes on your life experience.

DB10

Something needs to change I feel. I know lads on the piss 4 or 5 days a week, 3 days minimum, every week, and some of them with grant money to pay for this.

Sadly some people will have rich parents and others scrimping to get by, I'm neither here nor there, but one thing I will say is something is very wrong when people can get grants and yet afford to go on the lash 4 nights a week.

Now I'm no angel either, I love a piss up as much as the next man, but I dont have a job or a grant, just over the limit sadly, so I have to watch my money. Others can afford to swan around drinking grant money. I'm not bitter either, realistically if your full on the beer 3-5 days a week regularly your going to run into trouble in more ways than one.

I dont know what can be done. I wouldnt trust the Government to know either. I guess we just have to write it off.

Chuck Stone

Overheal wrote: »

The rich pay taxes too. More taxes, in fact.

I am so sick of hearing this ^^ reductionist propagandistic bullshit. The rich pay more income tax - that's where this idea begins and ends.

The sum total tax burden on the middle and working classes is far greater when all taxes and flat charges are considered.

So people, don't ever let anyone tell you the rich pay more taxes - they fucking do not.

DB10

I would be more interested in the Grant getting scrutinised rather than abolising tuition fees. I seen somewhere 40% or more students have some sort of grant. That surely is not right.

The fees thing, not so much. Alot of people with no grant but average money could not afford, me included.

ebixa82

Callipo wrote: »

Only smart people should go to university.

I'd up the points needed.

Allowing people in willy nilly for whatever reasons has degraded universitys and degrees imo. It has also robbed certain industries of "smart" employees.

You can get 600 points and end up being a crap Doctor/Lawyer or get only 300 and be a brilliant Doctor. Points system doesn't work.

Overheal wrote: »

Completely asswards way of thinking to be sure. Punish someone for living near the college? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider means tested rent allowance to students to avail of? Again it seems counter intuitive to charge someone more for going to college nearby, than it does to subsidize someone for going to college far away.

Honestly though someone people sound like they are jealous of the opportunities some people happen to have. How dare they grow up in a college town. Let's teach them a lesson.

Ultimately though colleges have no business practicing in discrimination of students. If the state wants to subsidize students based on need thats an entirely separate matter.

Relax, you wouldn't be punishing everyone. Obviously if someone could afford to pay for the cost of putting the child through college AND the fees they should pay that too.