People who never worked getting medical cards

maryk123

The problem with getting medical cards is that people have to weigh up their options when they get a job because a medical card is worth a lot. Free gp, free medicine, free dentist visit, free extractions and two free fillings, free eye test and free glass in glasses. I am sure there is more. The above is worth a lot. That is why people want to keep them and you can't blame them really can you

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Bannasidhe, Gp visit could be 15 euros for someone on medical card/gp card then 25euros for the rest. As for college fees, isn't everyone entitled not just middle class? And you get grants if you are from a family with low means no?

15 euro is still a large whack out of 188 - not to mention it's over 50% of what S.W. pays weekly for a child.

Those on low incomes were always able to get grants to pay fees - free fees were brought in for the middle class many of whom, and I see the evidence everyday, pay 'grind schools' more per year than the college fees would be to ensure their children get the points - this option is not open to low income families so it's not a level playing field. I can honestly say in all my years of lecturing I have had very few students (bar mature ones) who would be considered from a lower socio-economic background and when we do - they bloody well work. Middle class kids - not so much work, lot of party and excuses....

Treehousetim

Maybe more kids from socially deprived backgrounds would avail of free college if there wasn't a social welfare career path mapped out for them. I'm not saying I know that's true, just considering it

Cody Pomeray

maryk123 wrote: »

The problem with getting medical cards is that people have to weigh up their options when they get a job because a medical card is worth a lot.

Revenue Job Assist answers that problem by allowing long term unemployed to keep their medical card for 3 years after re-entering the workplace.

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

15 euro is still a large whack out of 188 - not to mention it's over 50% of what S.W. pays weekly for a child.

Those on low incomes were always able to get grants to pay fees - free fees were brought in for the middle class many of whom, and I see the evidence everyday, pay 'grind schools' more per year than the college fees would be to ensure their children get the points - this option is not open to low income families so it's not a level playing field. I can honestly say in all my years of lecturing I have had very few students (bar mature ones) who would be considered from a lower socio-economic background and when we do - they bloody well work. Middle class kids - not so much work, lot of party and excuses....

Poor kid has to fight to get into University.
Rich kid has to fight to avoid University.

Bannasidhe

Treehousetim wrote: »

Maybe more kids from socially deprived backgrounds would avail of free college if there wasn't a social welfare career path mapped out for them. I'm not saying I know that's true, just considering it

Maybe more would consider it is a viable option if they were able to avail of the same secondary facilities as the kids of better off parents who can pay for grinds, private schools etc.

Many middle class kids believe they are entitled to a university education - and I say this as someone who would be considered middle class and who is the product of a private education. I did, however, pay college fees as I am old and pre-date the free fees.

The point remains, I read threads like this about people on either JSB (who have paid their 'stamps') or those on means-tested JSA 'abusing' RA/Medical cards/SW cos it's 'free' then I go to work at am faced with a bunch of students getting a highly subsidised 3rd level education whinging because they have to read a book but suggest those students might discover a work ethic if they actually had to pay and all hell breaks lose about squeezing the middle class and entitlement to an 3rd level education.

I find it an interesting disconnect.

Make the 'poor' pay for health care but heavily subsidise the better off's educations.

Personally I would prefer my considerable tax payments went towards allowing someone on the lowest income avail of health care than funding a 3/4 year party for someone just out of school who expands far more energy on avoiding work then would be required to do it...who will probably emigrate when they graduate.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Those on low incomes were always able to get grants to pay fees - free fees were brought in for the middle class many of whom, and I see the evidence everyday, pay 'grind schools' more per year than the college fees would be to ensure their children get the points - this option is not open to low income families so it's not a level playing field. I can honestly say in all my years of lecturing I have had very few students (bar mature ones) who would be considered from a lower socio-economic background and when we do - they bloody well work. Middle class kids - not so much work, lot of party and excuses....

It really depends on what you lecture and where you lecture. Universities tend to be dominated by the middle class definitely, IT's less so, varying quite a bit from IT to IT.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

It really depends on what you lecture and where you lecture. Universities tend to be dominated by the middle class definitely, IT's less so, varying quite a bit from IT to IT.

In one of the good old NUI's plus in Distant Education.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point remains, I read threads like this about people on either JSB (who have paid their 'stamps') or those on means-tested JSA 'abusing' RA/Medical cards/SW cos it's 'free' then I go to work at am faced with a bunch of students getting a highly subsidised 3rd level education whinging because they have to read a book but suggest those students might discover a work ethic if they actually had to pay and all hell breaks lose about squeezing the middle class and entitlement to an 3rd level education.

It's pretty obvious that free fees has been a disaster for academic performance. One need only compare the material on courses today to that of 30 years ago to see the problem. As one lecturer said to me, the final year material he did for his BA in the 80s is now making up the MA. Some courses have stayed "elitist" (i.e. expecting you to have some ability and work) but they've paid the price of having small student numbers and funding dished out on a "bums in seats" basis. If you are a Humanities department and want funding for your department you'd better not have a challenging first year. Or second year for that matter (remember if you leave them in you've got to pass them or a lot of questions will start being asked) and so on. It's less of a problem in the 500 point courses but it's still there to an extent.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In one of the good old NUI's plus in Distant Education.

Depending on your department we may know each other, I know a good few lecturers in a certain NUI.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

Depending on your department we may know each other, I know a good few lecturers in a certain NUI.

I now a good few lecturers in several NUIs - some of whom are still speaking to me.

I also know many PhDs from several NUIs who are now the holders of medical cards as they cannot get a job....

mattjack

Treehousetim wrote: »

I think A/E is free for medical card holders. To be honest that list if entitlements is great. I struggle to afford to go to doctor and my family the same.
More often than not I just don't go and I know lots of people the same.

According to HSE figures, an average medical card holder gets about €280 in free GP fees and over €800 in free drugs each year.

Tim, if you take a look at the Med Card application form you might see where its written the Med Card may be issued at the discretion of the HSE , what they are saying is that if you have a need for multiple issues of medication and spending a lot on prescriptions i.e. comorbidity , underlying long term illness , attending the doctor a lot etc you may be issued a card even if you don't meet the criteria.
Its worth writing a letter explaining why you need a card.

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

One need only compare the material on courses today to that of 30 years ago to see the problem. As one lecturer said to me, the final year material he did for his BA in the 80s is now making up the MA.

Depends what he means by material. Obviously one can legitimately deal with the same subject in a first year dissertation as in a PhD thesis, just to a different depth.

I don't really buy the theory of disintegration of teaching standards as a result of the free fees scheme. It has the whiff of "back in my day" about it, usually recounted alongside semi-amusing stories about matronly landladies and 'digs' which I presume is a reference to the strike of an ashplant one might have taken from a jesuit priest.

It's almost akin to a school-boy of the 1950's lamenting the extension of secondary education to the great unwashed, fearing it had depleted the value of his own qualifications. Which it did.

Back to the universities - as badly funded as they are now, there would be a widely accepted belief Irish universities have become far better resourced than they were in the 1980s. Some of that is incidental (i.e., the internet, improvements in publication and accessibility) and some of it is directly attributable to educational policy. But until we have something substantial to say about standards in third level education, maybe less of the hardship nostalgia would be helpful.

Treehousetim

mattjack wrote: »

Tim, if you take a look at the Med Card application form you might see where its written the Med Card may be issued at the discretion of the HSE , what they are saying is that if you have a need for multiple issues of medication and spending a lot on prescriptions i.e. comorbidity , underlying long term illness , attending the doctor a lot etc you may be issued a card even if you don't meet the criteria.
Its worth writing a letter explaining why you need a card.

Thanks but I don't think they will issue me with anything except a pfo. I am not falling apart and they will look at my gross salary ( not so indicative of my spending money) and tell me to sod off. I'm well aware of how these things work in Ireland. If you come from the right side of town nobody gives a crap. They want to give to those 'poor people' who in fact are not always so poor.

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Depends what he means by material. Obviously one can legitimately deal with the same subject in a first year dissertation as in a PhD thesis, just to a different depth.

I don't really buy the theory of disintegration of teaching standards as a result of the free fees scheme. It has the whiff of "back in my day" about it, usually recounted alongside semi-amusing stories about matronly landladies and 'digs' which I presume is a reference to the strike of an ashplant one might have taken from a jesuit priest.

It's almost akin to a school-boy of the 1950's lamenting the extension of secondary education to the great unwashed, fearing it had depleted the value of his own qualifications. Which it did.

Back to the universities - as badly funded as they are now, there would be a widely accepted belief Irish universities have become far better resourced than they were in the 1980s. Some of that is incidental (i.e., the internet, improvements in publication and accessibility) and some of it is directly attributable to educational policy. But until we have something substantial to say about standards in third level education, maybe less of the hardship nostalgia would be helpful.

Wellll - used to be to do a post grad one needed a first -or a very good 2.1 - following orders from on high to increase the numbers of PG's a 2.2 will do so yes, standards have been lowered.

I have corrected MA's which are barely legible yet am pressured to pass them. Maybe it's me, but I expect that some one who has an MA should be expected to be able to write a coherent, correctly structured, sentence.

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wellll - used to be to do a post grad one needed a first -or a very good 2.1 - following orders from on high to increase the numbers of PG's a 2.2 will do so yes, standards have been lowered.

But that's entirely irrelevant in itself. It's only relevant if standards subsequently fell in terms of deciding whether or not to award the end qualification.

I have corrected MA's which are barely legible yet am pressured to pass them.

That's a statement of what the present situation is in your experience. Unless we know what your predecessor's situation was, that in itself is of limited value.

Even if standards have fallen, and there is no evidence that they have imo, my particular gripe is in linking it to the free fees scheme.

You can say lots of deservedly nasty things about the free fees scheme, whatever 'free' is a reference to, but saying that it has caused standards to slip is a bridge too far I reckon.

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that's entirely irrelevant in itself. It's only relevant if standards subsequently fell in terms of deciding whether or not to award the end qualification.

That's a statement of what the present situation is in your experience. Unless we know what your predecessor's situation was, that in itself is of limited value.

Even if standards have fallen, and there is no evidence that they have imo, my particular gripe is in linking it to the free fees scheme.

You can say lots of deservedly nasty things about the free fees scheme, whatever 'free' is a reference to, but saying that it has caused standards to slip is a bridge too far I reckon.

We are going way off topic here.

Suffice to say 20 years ago I would be expected to insist that a poorly structured, badly written, sloppily researched piece of work (at undergrad or post grad level) fail.

10 years ago it would be normal to insist it was re-written and re-submitted.

Now - I am being pressured to pass it.

I have a lot of visiting students from the U.S. - their work is usually flawless, they are engaged and determined to get value for their money.

Most Irish students only contact me for an extension, to make excuses for why they have failed to attend lectures or submit assignments or to try and find out the exam questions.

Now I think we have dragged this off topic enough. My point was that it is often the same people who complain about 'free' SW who also complain about the re-introduction of 3rd level fees.

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But that's entirely irrelevant in itself. It's only relevant if standards subsequently fell in terms of deciding whether or not to award the end qualification.

That's a statement of what the present situation is in your experience. Unless we know what your predecessor's situation was, that in itself is of limited value.

Even if standards have fallen, and there is no evidence that they have imo, my particular gripe is in linking it to the free fees scheme.

You can say lots of deservedly nasty things about the free fees scheme, whatever 'free' is a reference to, but saying that it has caused standards to slip is a bridge too far I reckon.

They massively increased the numbers of students. Do you think the average academic ability of the population increased to compensate? Of course standards have dropped. Every lecturer I've spoken to about this who is outside of the Hard sciences, i.e. Physics and Maths because being taught solely through mathematics is a great way to cull the herd, has said to me that standards have declined. Most of the ones I know have been in their jobs for 20-30 years.

I really don't want to get into specifics on a public forum, but for example, French in UCC used to be taught through French, makes sense doesn't it? After free fees came in they stopped doing this and started teaching through English. There is only one reason they would do this, to make the course more accessible to students of a poorer standard. Why would they do this? Well funding was changed to be "bums on seats" so there's a huge incentive to attract as many students as possible and find a way to pass them. Do you seriously think standards haven't dropped here?

I went back to college as a mature student a good few years ago. I was averaging around 85% in essays which is fairly insane but I got 98% and 100% in two essays in one course. I asked the lecturer how on earth was he going to justify those grades for a piece of written argumentative work. He said he'd just show the examiner some of the essays he'd have to pass. You know what, those grades weren't challenged. I was ill a lot and doped up on too much medication, if I made it into college two days in the week I was doing well, I never worked outside of class unless I had an assignment due. Started studying the day before my exam, you get the idea. I still graduated with a good First. This kind of thing should not be happening.

sunbeam

nesf wrote: »

I went back to college as a mature student a good few years ago. I was averaging around 85% in essays which is fairly insane but I got 98% and 100% in two essays in one course. I asked the lecturer how on earth was he going to justify those grades for a piece of written argumentative work. He said he'd just show the examiner some of the essays he'd have to pass. You know what, those grades weren't challenged. I was ill a lot and doped up on too much medication, if I made it into college two days in the week I was doing well, I never worked outside of class unless I had an assignment due. Started studying the day before my exam, you get the idea. I still graduated with a good First. This kind of thing should not be happening.

In 1990 one of my first year psychology lecturers in UCG told us the highest mark she had ever given for an essay was 80 percent. She was close to retirement age and had only awarded it twice in her entire academic career.

Back then final grades were published alongside individual names on the graduation booklets. Less then 3 percent of my graduating BA class got a first (summer and autumn combined, excluding people who only took one honours subject) and there were plenty of thirds and pass degrees awarded. I'd love to know what the grade distribution is like these days.

nesf

sunbeam wrote: »

In 1990 one of my first year psychology lecturers in UCG told us the highest mark she had ever given for an essay was 80 percent. She was close to retirement age and had only awarded it twice in her entire academic career.

Back then final grades were published alongside individual names on the graduation booklets. Less then 3 percent of my graduating BA class got a first (summer and autumn combined, excluding people who only took one honours subject) and there were plenty of thirds and pass degrees awarded. I'd love to know what the grade distribution is like these days.

Some numbers here: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/where-to-go-to-get-a-first-class-degree-1.556602

A tad higher than 3%. It does vary wildly by department though, Dentistry in UCC is infamous for being extremely stingy with firsts for instance. Rumour has it it is because the lecturers there are UCC grads and if they couldn't get a first...

jank

Standards have unquestionably dropped in third level. My mother had 40 years experience in education and about 25 of those at a NUI lecturing. It's her opinion as well of her ex colleagues that this is the results of free fees. Courses are dumbed down for the masses and its very very had to fail someone if they do their work. If you pay for something, you have ownership which incentives you to work at it. It's madness that the government are subsidising people to go off and study the classics.

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

They massively increased the numbers of students. Do you think the average academic ability of the population increased to compensate?

Well, that would only be a given if the reason why Ireland historically tended to have low participation at 3rd level was based on cognitive ability. If we must resort to anecdotes, I'm sure we all know graduates of Trinity College or the NUIs of the 1960s and 1970s who casually admit that they were not necessarily the brightest in their community, but they could afford a college education.

It is entirely possible to increase access - in fact, guarantee access - to high education without letting the standards of examinations and awards fall correspodingly.

This was achieved most famously in California under its 'Master Plan'. Similar schemes operate today on the Continent. So no, I don't at all agree that falling standards is a necessary consequence of significantly improved access.

Of course standards have dropped. Every lecturer I've spoken to about this...

I'm sorry but this is the equivalent of the "my friend told me about immigrants on the medical card" post in the OP and doesn't deserve a serious response.

Why would they do this? Well funding was changed to be "bums on seats"

First of all, 'bums on seats' was a factor by which funds were extended to universities under the HEA block grant that preceded free fees. I don't know how old you are, but if you attended University in Ireland 20 years ago, your institution's funding was decided partially (and significantly) on the basis of student numbers.

Looking back on the history of the Irish Universities, especially in light of their block funding, when exactly was it not partially based on bums on seats? When was it ever not in the Irish Universities' financial interests to have greater intake? That was an issue long before free fees.

Kinski

nesf wrote: »

I went back to college as a mature student a good few years ago. I was averaging around 85% in essays which is fairly insane but I got 98% and 100% in two essays in one course.

Where was that? I've never seen a grade over 80% for an essay (actually, any of the marking schemes I've seen almost forbid a mark over 80%).

Bannasidhe

Kinski wrote: »

Where was that? I've never seen a grade over 80% for an essay (actually, any of the marking schemes I've seen almost forbid a mark over 80%).

Up until about 2005 it was very rare to see a mark over 80% and these (in the case of 3rd years) would be sent to the extern to validate. Now, although not common place, marks up to 90% are awarded. I have seen dissertations receive 95%.

I have sat on enough exam boards to know marks over 80% not only happen, they are not rare.

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm sure we all know graduates of Trinity College or the NUIs of the 1960s and 1970s who casually admit that they were not necessarily the brightest in their community, but they could afford a college education.

You only have to look at some of the people they were employing to lecture in the past: for instance, Trinity once turned down acclaimed poet Louis MacNeice for the role of head of English, in favour of some non-entity who was a poor scholar and hung about like a bad smell for several decades. And David Norris held a lecturing post there despite never having earned a PhD - wouldn't happen now.

Kinski

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Up until about 2005 it was very rare to see a mark over 80% and these (in the case of 3rd years) would be sent to the extern to validate. Now, although not common place, marks up to 90% are awarded. I have seen dissertations receive 95%.

I have sat on enough exam boards to know marks over 80% not only happen, they are not rare.

Well, I can't say what's common, but in the departments I have experience of (since 2006) you wouldn't get a mark like that.

Bannasidhe

Kinski wrote: »

You only have to look at some of the people they were employing to lecture in the past: for instance, Trinity once turned down acclaimed poet Louis MacNeice for the role of head of English, in favour of some non-entity who was a poor scholar and hung about like a bad smell for several decades. And David Norris held a lecturing post there despite never having earned a PhD - wouldn't happen now.

Not so.

I can think of 3 of my colleagues off the top of my head who do not have PhD's and are in permanent positions. They are damn fine lecturers too.

Kinski

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can think of 3 of my colleagues off the top of my head who do not have PhD's and are in permanent positions. They are damn fine lecturers too.

In that English department in Trinity I meant; I don't think they would give a permanent position to someone with no PhD now (the views I've heard on Norris as a lecturer have been very mixed, of the loved him or loathed him variety.)

I do know a handful of other people who have jobs despite not having one.

Bannasidhe

Kinski wrote: »

In that English department in Trinity I meant; I don't think they would give a permanent position to someone with no PhD now (the views I've heard on Norris as a lecturer have been very mixed, of the loved him or loathed him variety.)

I do know a handful of other people who have jobs despite not having one.

Apologies. Didn't realise you were talking only about Trinity.

Bannasidhe

Kinski wrote: »

Well, I can't say what's common, but in the departments I have experience of (since 2006) you wouldn't get a mark like that.

Every dept (or school) has it's own formula so there is no hard and fast rule applied across the board but the nature of my work means I do a lot of inter-disciplinary work across various schools (and universities) and all of them award over 80%. Can't remember a case where the extern lowered a mark tbh...as the internal assessor I have recommended to externs that marks be lowered but, due to the nature of how these things are done, cannot say if my recommendations were followed.