Third level: Is it a privellege or a right?

Medusa22

Right

ted1 wrote: »

Are trying to see England doesn't 't have fees?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/higher-education-universityfunding

Did you ignore the part that said 'excluding england'?

http://www.studyineurope.eu/tuition-fees

ted1

You were a bit stingy with the words and your sentence wasn't clear. As you see from my post Scotland and wales charge as well.

Odysseus

I would see it as a right. However, one you work/pay for. I would like to see a system that helped you get to whatever level you were capable of up to PhD, but you pay it back in some way once you are working.

Medusa22

Right

ted1 wrote: »

You were a bit stingy with the words and your sentence wasn't clear. As you see from my post Scotland and wales charge as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/13/european-student-numbers-soar-scotland

Scotland also has free fees.

Andrewf20

Kathnora wrote: »

Strange how a few years ago a Leaving Cert was the "benchmark" regarded as a good and necessary standard of education and a prerequisite for getting a decent job. Then it moved to getting a degree. Now, in recent times it seems that you need a Masters to get that decent job....where will it all end?

Agreed. Ive seen this too. It looks like the classic supply and demand situation in relation to jobs - loads of graduates itching for work, but few jobs so companies can pick the best of the bunch.

somefeen

Right

I find people claiming its a right you earn through school to be a bit naive.
School is not the only path and completely unsuitable for many people. Plenty of mature students around doing very well at third level who 'earned the right' by working hard and gaining relevant experience or doing access courses at night while holding down a job and/or raising a family. Surely those people deserve the same shot at it as they have displayed the required commitment.

I would say its neither a right or a privilege, but something you should have access to if you prove you have what it takes and the interest. I refrain from considering it a right outright because there are lots people in college barely putting the effort in and only there for the grant and a few more years of living like a child. Make it a right and you're only justifying the existence of these people.

ProudDUB

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

That is a bit silly and very, very naive imo. There has to be some way to quantify and measure the academic qualifications and training that people have.

Would you want to be operated on by a doctor who had not achieved all of the academic qualifications required to be a doctor? Who do you want to operate on you? The dude who spent 7 years doing medicine in UCD or The College of Surgeons, plus whatever other stuff that they have to do to become trained surgeons. Or the dude who spent all his time cutting up dead rats in his basement because anatomy and whatnot is something that he is really, really interested in? :rolleyes:

What cars/trains/planes would you rather travel in? The ones made by companies who employ engineers who have studied the laws of physics, gravity, mechanics etc etc, and have degrees to prove it? Or ones made by the company who employs some dude who like to blow $hit up in his basement, because it is fun and interesting?

Celly Smunt

ted1 wrote: »

Makes sense to me.

Ireland has an immunity to sense though.

Pinewoo

Right

Kathnora wrote: »

Strange how a few years ago a Leaving Cert was the "benchmark" regarded as a good and necessary standard of education and a prerequisite for getting a decent job. Then it moved to getting a degree. Now, in recent times it seems that you need a Masters to get that decent job....where will it all end?

PhD.
Has to end there, what's higher than a PhD? Wait, post-doc qualifications? Yeah
The average time required in college to get a job will soon be 11 years

errlloyd

Hard question.

Third level education that is free at the point of entry is a right. Education should not be reserved for the rich.

That said, I don't think it's fair that people who don't benefit from education should share the cost. I'd say a very high percentage of Irish people go on to third level, so we are all pretty much paying the fees through taxation anyway.

Imagine Ireland has 100,000 babies a year. Of those 50k go to third level at 2k a year and 50k don't. That means there is 100k in fees to be paid. Why should the 50k of people who gained no benefit from education at all, pay the same amount as the 50k of people who do? In fact the people who didn't go to third level aren't just not gaining, they're actually actively losing out, they're paying for people who are competing with them in the workplace to go to college.

That is why I believe there should be some sort of UK style grad tax or student loan so those who benefit pay, and those who don't benefit, don't pay.

On a final morale note, if people feel their is an unlimited right to third level education, would they extend that to unintelligent people? Would they scrap the leaving cert and allocate university places by lottery? Much of the attraction to university in Ireland is the lifestyle, benefits and freedom. Why are those things reserved for the smart people, who gained by having smart genes, just like rich people gained from having rich parents.

ted1

errlloyd wrote: »

Hard question.

Third level education that is free at the point of entry is a right. Education should not be reserved for the rich.

That said, I don't think it's fair that people who don't benefit from education should share the cost. I'd say a very high percentage of Irish people go on to third level, so we are all pretty much paying the fees through taxation anyway.

Imagine Ireland has 100,000 babies a year. Of those 50k go to third level at 2k a year and 50k don't. That means there is 100k in fees to be paid. Why should the 50k of people who gained no benefit from education at all, pay the same amount as the 50k of people who do? In fact the people who didn't go to third level aren't just not gaining, they're actually actively losing out, they're paying for people who are competing with them in the workplace to go to

People with higher education tend to beuch more successful and the country will benefit as the taxes they pay will make up on what the education costs, so your logic is flawed and comes across as being bitter or jealous

People who drop out of school and college have a better chance if being in social housing and on welfare why should people who applied themselves and study subsidise there lazy life

Frank Black

I think that as a country we should be investing more into third level education. As I previously stated, there should be some form of contribution towards the cost by the student either through fees or pay-back system post qualification. However, I have no issue with government subsidisation of the cost of provision either.
We should be aiming to get as many people third level qualified as possible. I think the country derives huge economic benefit from having a large percentage of the population qualified to this level, and it makes Ireland an attractive place for investment for foreign multinationals.

Money is tight at the moment - but I'd hate to see cuts to 3rd level education funding.

token101

There should be a right of access but there should never be a right to a free education. People often combine these to suit an agenda. There's no logical reason against a pay later loans system like the UK where you pay nothing up front and only pay when you earn.

ted1

token101 wrote: »

There should be a right of access but there should never be a right to a free education. People often combine these to suit an agenda. There's no logical reason against a pay later loans system like the UK where you pay nothing up front and only pay when you earn.

There is quite a logical reason against it, it encourages people to leave. All the graduates who have left would not be paying back and hence its penalises those that stay.

Anita Blow

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

Not a sensible idea at all.
If we had that system for the past 10 years we'd have even more unemployed construction/architecture graduates simply because their course was economically attractive at that time. Meanwhile we would have barely any science graduates because those courses were not attractive at the time. Remember science was around 300 points only a couple years ago, and now it is over 500.
Even besides that, a person shouldn't be punished because they want to do an arts degree. Universities aren't there to just churn out workers for multi-nationals, they're there to provide an education, whether it be in arts or science.

errlloyd wrote: »

Hard question.

Third level education that is free at the point of entry is a right. Education should not be reserved for the rich.

That said, I don't think it's fair that people who don't benefit from education should share the cost. I'd say a very high percentage of Irish people go on to third level, so we are all pretty much paying the fees through taxation anyway.

Imagine Ireland has 100,000 babies a year. Of those 50k go to third level at 2k a year and 50k don't. That means there is 100k in fees to be paid. Why should the 50k of people who gained no benefit from education at all, pay the same amount as the 50k of people who do? In fact the people who didn't go to third level aren't just not gaining, they're actually actively losing out, they're paying for people who are competing with them in the workplace to go to college.

That is why I believe there should be some sort of UK style grad tax or student loan so those who benefit pay, and those who don't benefit, don't pay.

On a final morale note, if people feel their is an unlimited right to third level education, would they extend that to unintelligent people? Would they scrap the leaving cert and allocate university places by lottery? Much of the attraction to university in Ireland is the lifestyle, benefits and freedom. Why are those things reserved for the smart people, who gained by having smart genes, just like rich people gained from having rich parents.

People who don't attend college aren't paying for anyones third level education. It is they who benefit from the massively increased tax people with degrees pay over those who don't have degrees.
We spend €1 billion on third level education as it is, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the €20 billion we pay on social welfare. The only difference is the money spent on third level education is an investment which pays massive returns out.
Also, the last argument is silly. Nobody believes in an unlimited right. You get one free go at a degree, & after that you pay. That is the system we have now. The 'smart genes' argument is a cop out. If you want something then you must be prepared to work for it, as with anything in the world.

Hoop66

Catkins407 wrote: »

...I like the people with literature degrees who proffered read and ghost write too...

Oh, the ironing!

It's an act of madness to exclude people from higher education because they can't afford it. Equally, it's daft to have everyone doing a degree; just look at the host of people who, imo, aren't really suitable for higher education doing media studies etc. in the UK.

Maintain the standards of higher education and make it available to all who qualify.

Frank Black

ted1 wrote: »

There is quite a logical reason against it, it encourages people to leave. All the graduates who have left would not be paying back and hence its penalises those that stay.

The amount that a graduate is required to pay back as a contribution to their 3rd level education shouldn't be set at a level which is going to drive people out of the country.
I can't imagine it being the main driver in a newly qualified graduate's decision on where to work - as long as it's not a cripplingly high amount.
I could choose to go abroad to work in countries where I would pay almost no tax on my earnings - and yet I work in Ireland.
It's lack of employment opportunites for graduates that drives them away.

errlloyd

I don't think 1% extra on tax take for a few years is going to drive many people to leave, people already pay more income tax in Ireland than America people don't flood to America to dodge tax. It also something that can be protected against with a treaties and agreements.

I can't understand how people can stand over their being different tax bands for lower income and middle income people and not stand over a grad tax. It's the same principle. The fact a middle income earner gets charged like 12 percent more tax than a lower income earner has never driven anyone from the country.

And finally, you're forgetting we pretty much already do pay for our education in taxation, and it hasn't driven anyone out. I'm just saying I find it hard to morally justify charging non beneficiaries for the service. Social housing, public transport, public health insurance, all of these things are tax services that help those less well off, education is usually for the wealthy or soon to be wealthy anyway. So tax it, not at the point of entry, but later in life.

As for "we pay their social housing argument" - firstly you've copped out, apparently everyone not in college ends up in social housing. Thus avoiding asking the question of why a successful non college graduate should pay the same amount of fees as a college graduate.

To whoever said they gain benefit because we pay more tax, while you're right that society benefits from us paying more tax, individuals don't. The simple fact is if there was no college for anyone, than people who didn't go to college wouldn't have to compete with graduates for jobs. Now the country would be ****e but that is that.

ted1

errlloyd wrote: »

As for "we pay their social housing argument" - firstly you've copped out, apparently everyone not in college ends up in social housing. Thus avoiding asking the question of why a successful non college graduate should pay the same amount of fees as a college graduate.

not everyone who does not haev a 3rd level degree ends up in social housing but the vast majority of social housing is made up of people without 3rd level or even secondary education.

ScumLord

It's an option. It's really an option that few 18 year olds have the sense or knowledge to know how to use properly. Someone coming out of school is really not in much of a position to say what they want to do with the rest of their lives. They should take a few years out to get a feel for the real world before deciding what they want to invest thousands of euro and years of their life on.

Czarcasm

ScumLord wrote: »

It's an option. It's really an option that few 18 year olds have the sense or knowledge to know how to use properly. Someone coming out of school is really not in much of a position to say what they want to do with the rest of their lives. They should take a few years out to get a feel for the real world before deciding what they want to invest thousands of euro and years of their life on.

They've had 18 years to decide already, how much more fcuking time do they need! :pac:

IK09

Right

College in this country is an excuse. All it does for these "rich kids" is give them a few years of boozing, where they dont have to work. I should know, i went to college because i was told id regret not "havin a laugh", wanted to become a carpenter, went to Mary I and did teaching. It wasnt a mad laugh, it was shíte. I learned fúck all and came out with a degree i dont use or want. I have friends who are still in college (repeatin 3rd year, after repeating 2nd year) who just dont want to work and probably never will after doing arts (soc and pol, and philosophy). Well done you are officially qualified to ask someone "why u want fries with that?" rather than just "do you want fries with that"

Jester252

Right

College is not a right. We have it lucky in Ireland when it comes to third level eduction that almost everyone can enter it regardless of money. This should be respected but its not. The system is abused by lazy people that are just there for the drink keeping other hard workers off the course and giving college students a bad name.

ScumLord

Czarcasm wrote: »

They've had 18 years to decide already, how much more fcuking time do they need! :pac:

They need some time to forget all the useless crap they were taught in primary school and learn them some street knowledge.

Czarcasm

ScumLord wrote: »

They need some time to forget all the useless crap they were taught in primary school and learn them some street knowledge.

And that right there is the problem- they don't build a solid foundation in primary school, and then that carries on into secondary school and unfortunately beyond, which is why we have so many secondary school leavers completely unprepared for third level education when they're not being hand held and spoon fed like they were in secondary and going all the way back to primary school.

It's unfortunately all too common now to see children leaving primary school with only a bare grasp of the basics, wander aimlessly through secondary school, and drop out half way through a third level education because by that stage their lack of grasping the basics means they struggle with the more complex concepts introduced at secondary and third level, so therefore lose interest and become unmotivated and unwilling to learn.

The street knowledge or social skills are something that should be developed in tandem with their academic education, not something that further enforces the idea of aimlessly drifting through life picking and sampling only what pleases them and discarding what they don't like, but that which is still necessary for their personal, social, academic and intellectual development.


TL;DR: If you forget how to do simple arithmetic, reading and writing, you'll struggle later on in life to get your head around algebra, literature and making yourself understood by those around you, which will only lead to frustration, confusion and apathy.

ScumLord

Czarcasm wrote: »

The street knowledge or social skills are something that should be developed in tandem with their academic education, not something that further enforces the idea of aimlessly drifting through life picking and sampling only what pleases them and discarding what they don't like, but that which is still necessary for their personal, social, academic and intellectual development.

I think the problem is the state doesn't teach people how to be civilised people. We just fill them up with information from textbooks but don't teach simple things like how to communicate effectively or how to find and process information so we're not susceptible to mob mentality.

Czarcasm

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the problem is the state doesn't teach people how to be civilised people. We just fill them up with information from textbooks but don't teach simple things like how to communicate effectively or how to find and process information so we're not susceptible to mob mentality.

Damn, I'm just about to go in and sit an exam (well prepared already!) but the above is a good point, the only place I'd differ (quick opinion here) is that it's not up to the educational system to teach people how to be civilised, that's up to their primary carers such as their parents and guardians to influence their behaviour towards others by leading by example and being civil to others themselves.

ScumLord

Czarcasm wrote: »

Damn, I'm just about to go in and sit an exam (well prepared already!) but the above is a good point, the only place I'd differ (quick opinion here) is that it's not up to the educational system to teach people how to be civilised, that's up to their primary carers such as their parents and guardians to influence their behaviour towards others by leading by example and being civil to others themselves.

I don't really see it that way, I don't think parents can be trusted and they're going to come into the education process with their own bias and ignorance.

We're a community, and the community as a whole decides how the community should act. We like to think of ourselves as a collective of individuals where each one can dictate their own agenda and every agenda is valid. We're a community though, the needs of the community always outweigh the needs of the individual. I think the community has an obligation to the individuals in that community to ensure they get the best possible information from proper sources and that it's not left to some random person that may not have the right tools or experience to give the proper type of education.

miss no stars

Right

Didn't read thread, so apologies if it's been done to death.

Third level education is an academic privilege. There are so many courses available that anyone who pretty much just sits the leaving cert is able to go to college. I think this is where the problem is.

To clarify, I don't think it's a financial privilege, but an academic one. If someone is academically deserving of a place in college, then a place they should get and let's worry about the money after they graduate and make something of themselves.

But the fact that there are SO many courses available means that if you do reasonably alright-ish in the leaving cert, it's possible to go to college and the grant doesn't discriminate between courses so there's no thought to "do I want or need to go to college?" Instead it's done as a rite of passage.

Saw a lab group recently. Mostly Irish, with 1 American kid. That American kid was sssooooooooooo engaged in the lab cos it's so much harder to get in to college and costs so much more to be in college in America and so they treat it as the privilege it is and put the work in. Irish kids? Ah be grand, I'll copy the report off someone else.

St.Spodo

The worst-case scenario would be intelligent and capable people being priced out of college. That fosters elitism and perpetuates inequality.