Does free tertiary education work?

Atoms for Peace

I've come to the conclusion free third level education only moves the goalposts and leads to a type of educational arms race.

WesternZulu

It's still better than the alternative.

LeinsterDub

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion free third level education only moves the goalposts and leads to a type of educational arms race.

I assume you've lots of evidence and research to back this up?

EmzBoBo

Speaking as someone who has just graduated from College, I wouldn't agree that third level education is free - subsidized yes, but definitely not free.

Those that have money can usually afford the fees anyway.
Those that are deemed to fall into deis, or disadvantaged categories have the option of applying through the DARE scheme, which can lower the entry requirements for them. They also have the ability to get the SUSI grant, which pays their fees and/or some of their college related expenses (books, materials etc.)
For the rest of us stuck in the middle, €3500 in fees every year is a lot of money, particularly if there's more than one of you in College, and can be hard to come by, especially if SUSI decide that you're just outside their thresholds.

judeboy101

Free??? Where are you going to college, Pyongyang?

Water John

We see lots of spinning that Universities need student fees. Well we found out recently that, they had a lot of funds stuffed in the mattress.

Atoms for Peace

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion free third level education only moves the goalposts and leads to a type of educational arms race.

Do you mean a kind of education inflation? as it ends up meaning you need a masters to get a job processing mortgage applications.

Kurtosis

If by works, you mean allows access to tertiary education independent of ability to pay for it, then yes it does.

Well, kind of...with registration fees and a somewhat dysfunctional grant system, you can hardly call it free. It's better than the alternative where kids from lower income households would be excluded to an even greater extent.

rossie1977

Do we want to follow the UK model?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36150276

What is you solution though restrict third level education so that it raises its value how would that work.

Wanderer78

US student debt is over a trillion dollars, has the UK overtaken this? That's disgraceful

Oh, we don't have a 'Free' educational system as others have said, ask any parent

CelticRambler

Here in France, third level education is effectively free (a small registration fee of a few hundred euro). It's also "accessible to all" - to get into any university, all you need is a pass in your Bac, a single figure - the equivalent of getting 3Cs and 3Ds in your Leaving.

The result: 60% of students drop out of their chosen course within two years. And that applies to equally to the second course they do after they've dropped out of the first one.

The exceptions are the restricted entry courses - medicine, veterinary, dentistry, engineering, etc - where students do two or three years in between leaving secondary and starting uni (Ecole Préparatoire, a sort of extended transition year) to be able to compete for the limited number of places on offer. They don't drop out afterwards, but (if my colleagues are anything to go by) they end up as the most arrogant, self-obsessed members of society ("because I'm worth it")

The more I work with people who've been through the educational systems of Ireland, the UK, France and other EU countries, and the more I see my children and their peers progress through those same systems, the more I realise that what you've got in Ireland is pretty damn good.

reason vs religion

Kurtosis wrote: »

If by works, you mean allows access to tertiary education independent of ability to pay for it, then yes it does.

This is sheer naivety. Anywhere that there are student fees there are also low-interest student loans, with very favourable repayment conditions (no repayment till earning above 25k+; written off after thirty years; etc.). Student fees generally also allow for generous maintenance grants for low-income students. So, not only ought it not discourage students from low-income families going to college, it should actually lower the barrier to entry through the maintenance supports. The homeless campaigner Erica Fleming, who couldn't take up her place on a Trinity access programme because the maintenance payments of ~€2.5k are so meagre, would have received ~£10k in the UK through maintenance grant, single-patent grant and low-interest living expenses loan. I know which system I'd preder to be under.

That is not to say that studenr fees don't have certain down sides. But there are compelling arguments for fees that those in support of free fees wholly ignore.

CelticRambler

reason vs religion wrote: »

Anywhere that there are student fees there are also low-interest student loans, with very favourable repayment conditions (no repayment till earning above 25k+; written off after thirty years; etc.).

...

there are compelling arguments for fees that those in support of free fees wholly ignore.

There is also compelling evidence that where there is a system of student loans, third level education becomes a consumer product, with institutions competing to provide courses that attract the most applicants, regardless of how whether there are employment opportunities.

Over in the states, there's a huge problem with law graduates not being able to get work, because "law" is sexy, so every two-bit college provides a law degree, takes the money and dumps a load of poorly trained graduates into the market place.

The same thing is happening in Europe in veterinary medicine. Thanks to "Supervet" and other such programmes, getting into vet school has become an even more desireable career path, and there are two new schools in the UK now quite happy to relieve starry eyed girls (the intake is nearly all girls) of more than £50,000. One of the two, though, isn't yet recognised by the authorities, so there's every chance those first graduates will leave with a massive debt and a diploma that's worth nothing.

And even those who do graduate with a recognised degree are increasingly hitting the hard wall of reality, when they find that the life portrayed in the university's sales video (and on TV) bears no relationship to their actual working conditions. As a UK vet friend said to me a couple of months ago, we've got to the point where we're actively selecting the people least suited to working the profession.

Ficheall

Does tertiary education work?

reason vs religion

CelticRambler wrote: »

There is also compelling evidence that where there is a system of student loans, third level education becomes a consumer product, with institutions competing to provide courses that attract the most applicants, regardless of how whether there are employment opportunities.

Over in the states, there's a huge problem with law graduates not being able to get work, because "law" is sexy, so every two-bit college provides a law degree, takes the money and dumps a load of poorly trained graduates into the market place.

The same thing is happening in Europe in veterinary medicine. Thanks to "Supervet" and other such programmes, getting into vet school has become an even more desireable career path, and there are two new schools in the UK now quite happy to relieve starry eyed girls (the intake is nearly all girls) of more than £50,000. One of the two, though, isn't yet recognised by the authorities, so there's every chance those first graduates will leave with a massive debt and a diploma that's worth nothing.

And even those who do graduate with a recognised degree are increasingly hitting the hard wall of reality, when they find that the life portrayed in the university's sales video (and on TV) bears no relationship to their actual working conditions. As a UK vet friend said to me a couple of months ago, we've got to the point where we're actively selecting the people least suited to working the profession.

Curious that you edited out of my initial comment an acceptance that there were consequences.

In Ireland at present we graduate too many lawyers. Meeting the demand of what students want to study seems a positive to me. Much rather that than being told I can't have a place studying what I want to because some bureaucrat deems there not sufficient job opportunities.

The European vet school is irrelevant to the Irish situation. And I don't understand the relevance of your UK vet friend's experience: college's may market themselves, but they've no reason to market specific courses.

Note that I accept some and engage with all of your arguments; the typical anti-fees person engages, like you, with none of mine.

reason vs religion

reason vs religion wrote: »

Curious that you edited out of my initial comment an acceptance that there were consequences.

In Ireland at present we graduate too many lawyers. Meeting the demand of what students want to study seems a positive to me. Much rather that than being told I can't have a place studying what I want to because some bureaucrat deems there not sufficient job opportunities.

The European vet school is irrelevant to the Irish situation. And I don't understand the relevance of your UK vet friend's experience: college's may market themselves, but they've no reason to market specific courses.

Note that I accept some and engage with all of your arguments; the typical anti-fees person engages, like you, with none of mine.

You're going to make a lot of friends around here.

LirW

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here in France, third level education is effectively free (a small registration fee of a few hundred euro). It's also "accessible to all" - to get into any university, all you need is a pass in your Bac, a single figure - the equivalent of getting 3Cs and 3Ds in your Leaving.

The result: 60% of students drop out of their chosen course within two years. And that applies to equally to the second course they do after they've dropped out of the first one.

The exceptions are the restricted entry courses - medicine, veterinary, dentistry, engineering, etc - where students do two or three years in between leaving secondary and starting uni (Ecole Préparatoire, a sort of extended transition year) to be able to compete for the limited number of places on offer. They don't drop out afterwards, but (if my colleagues are anything to go by) they end up as the most arrogant, self-obsessed members of society ("because I'm worth it")

The more I work with people who've been through the educational systems of Ireland, the UK, France and other EU countries, and the more I see my children and their peers progress through those same systems, the more I realise that what you've got in Ireland is pretty damn good.

This sums it up, in Austria you do the first 8 Terms (it should take you 6 to finish a Bachelor +2 tolerance terms) for free, only have a fee of 20 quid to pay. Afterwards you pay 360 Euro per term. Bachelor is 6 terms free (4+2).
It's free for all EU citizen, Non-EU have to pay.

Courses are overloaded, the ones that need entry exams are fought for and drop-out rates are high. But I do like that you can enter a lot of courses without having X amount of points in your leaving cert. It only matters if you want one of the entry exam courses.

andekwarhola

I actually think 'free' fees benefit the middle-classes most. The class that can either pay it or save towards it. It hasn't led to an explosion in the rates of access for people from deprived backgrounds either.

At a rough calculation, saving the monthly child benefit (as we do) that everybody recieves for each child for 18 years would give you aroud 30 grand per child as they hit third-level age.

reason vs religion

andekwarhola wrote: »

I actually think 'free' fees benefit the middle-classes most. The class that can either pay it or save towards it. It hasn't led to an explosion in the rates of access for people from deprived backgrounds either.

At a rough calculation, saving the monthly child benefit (as we do) that everybody recieves for each child for 18 years would give you aroud 30 grand per child as they hit third-level age.

This paper by a UCD economist backs up both your points: that free fees had no effect on low-income participation (because they were in receipt of exemptions beforehand anyway) and that "the only obvious effect of the policy was to provide a windfall gain to middle-class parents." (The latter actually serves to exacerbate inequality.)

Roger Hassenforder

reason vs religion wrote: »

Curious that you edited out of my initial comment an acceptance that there were consequences.

In Ireland at present we graduate too many lawyers. Meeting the demand of what students want to study seems a positive to me. Much rather that than being told I can't have a place studying what I want to because some bureaucrat deems there not sufficient job opportunities.

The European vet school is irrelevant to the Irish situation. And I don't understand the relevance of your UK vet friend's experience: college's may market themselves, but they've no reason to market specific courses.

Note that I accept some and engage with all of your arguments; the typical anti-fees person engages, like you, with none of mine.

(Is it we're graduating too many lawyers, Or it's ok, people should study what they like)

IMO There's too many bullsh1t courses being offered, funded/subsidised by the tax payer to pander to little darlings that want to 'read' Early pre Celtic women's social studies through the media of modern interpretive mime, and their own kids possibly not even being able to afford to go.

If the taxpayer is expected to invest in education, Mickey Mouse courses should be subject to some form of audit to ensure ongoing public value for money , with realistic employment oppurtunities, rather than keeping otherwise unemployable academics closeted from reality in an echo chamber. Fair enough offering post graduate courses in nonsense as an indulgence, with zero probability of employment, but charge the "customer" the sh1t out of it.

reason vs religion

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

(Is it we're graduating too many lawyers, Or it's ok, people should study what they like)

It's both, you idiot. More lawyers graduate than are legal positions, which the poster I was replying to would see as wrong; I mentioned it to show that it's not merely a product of fees. Regardless, I believe people should be entitled to study what they want and think that the skills developed through a law degree are applicable widely.

IMO There's too many bullsh1t courses being offered, funded/subsidised by the tax payer to pander to little darlings that want to 'read' Early pre Celtic women's social studies through the media of modern interpretive mime, and their own kids possibly not even being able to afford to go.

If the taxpayer is expected to invest in education, Mickey Mouse courses should be subject to some form of audit to ensure ongoing public value for money , with realistic employment oppurtunities, rather than keeping otherwise unemployable academics closeted from reality in an echo chamber. Fair enough offering post graduate courses in nonsense as an indulgence, with zero probability of employment, but charge the "customer" the sh1t out of it.

This "micky mouse courses" accusation is so trite and so stupid. It betrays your prejudiced worldview. The reality is that most history graduates don't become historians, most English literature graduates don't become novelists or critics, most law graduates don't become lawyers, most maths graduates don't become mathematicians, and so on. Instead, these students engage academically with an extensive body of knowledge and way of thinking, in the process developing skills like critical thinking, expression, sustained concentration, argument, synthesis of ideas, etc. You obsess over what you see as a worthless body of knowledge, unaware that what's important is actually what skills are developed through engaging with it. And there is much reason to think that gender studies (which I happen to think to be one of the most abstract and challenging subjects within the arts) develops all the same skills as other essay-based subjects that I presume you admire, like history.

conorhal

rossie1977 wrote: »

Do we want to follow the UK model?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36150276

I'd prefer to follow the German model, doing a science, engineering or nursing course... here, have your education on us!


P.S. If you want to study some daft SJW arts course, your daddy can fund that for you...


With limited funds to go around we should absolutely focus those funds to encourage students to study in the areas that are useful to our society, as opposed to producing entitled, over-educated baristas.

LirW

So, where does a course start to be a Mickey mouse course?

Roger Hassenforder

reason vs religion wrote: »

It's both, you idiot. More lawyers graduate than are legal positions, which the poster I was replying to would see as wrong; I mentioned it to show that it's not merely a product of fees. Regardless, I believe people should be entitled to study what they want and think that the skills developed through a law degree are applicable widely.

This "micky mouse courses" accusation is so trite and so stupid. It betrays your prejudiced worldview. The reality is that most history graduates don't become historians, most English literature graduates don't become novelists or critics, most law graduates don't become lawyers, most maths graduates don't become mathematicians, and so on. Instead, these students engage academically with an extensive body of knowledge and way of thinking, in the process developing skills like critical thinking, expression, sustained concentration, argument, synthesis of ideas, etc. You obsess over what you see as a worthless body of knowledge, unaware that what's important is actually what skills are developed through engaging with it. And there is much reason to think that gender studies (which I happen to think to be one of the most abstract and challenging subjects within the arts) develops all the same skills as other essay-based subjects that I presume you admire, like history.

"You idiot" brilliant!
I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of reporting it, I'll let it sit there with the rest of your inane post like the turd it is.

How do you know I'm not a hapless victim of one of these Mickey Mouse courses, unemployable, unless a Japanese/Korean multinational comes to my end of the peninsula with a sudden vacancy for a graduate with 0 experience, but a BA in Eastern Feminist Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science.

reason vs religion

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"You idiot" brilliant!
I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of reporting it, I'll let it sit there with the rest of your inane post like the turd it is.

How do you know I'm not a hapless victim of one of these Mickey Mouse courses, unemployable, unless a Japanese/Korean multinational comes to my end of the peninsula with a sudden vacancy for a graduate with 0 experience, but a BA in Eastern Feminist Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science.

Inane post?! It may be wrong, but only an idiot could accuse it of inanity. Do you realise what inane means? Could it be that you haven't perceived the subtle arguments?

I'm ceetain you are hapless, but I highly doubt you've been anywhere near a university.

Roger Hassenforder

reason vs religion wrote: »

Inane post?! It may be wrong, but only an idiot could accuse it of inanity. Do you realise what inane means? Could it be that you haven't perceived the subtle arguments?

I'm ceetain you are hapless, but I highly doubt you've been anywhere near a university.

You're right. I'm exposed.
I don't know my letters or my numbers. I dropped out of Pre-school, failed the repeats in Autumn.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Junkyard Tom

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Mickey Mouse courses should be subject to some form of audit to ensure ongoing public value for money.

There's very little justification for having a large physical infrastructure with resulting tutors/lecturers/cleaners/security to deliver an awful lot of courses/degrees across the third level sector. We have a thing called 'the internet' now. I'd expect an awful lot of courses/degrees to be delivered digitally in the coming years.

professore

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here in France ....

They don't drop out afterwards, but (if my colleagues are anything to go by) they end up as the most arrogant, self-obsessed members of society ("because I'm worth it")

Nah ... that's just most urban middle class French people.

LirW

So "free fees" might have led to a dramatic increase in the number of people waving diplomas -- but the quality of the diplomas has dropped (through grade inflation), the quality of the courses and the universities offering them has suffered, and we have many young people with degrees but little resembling a genuine education. Many of them might have been better off pursuing some kind of vocational course or apprenticeship.

Catch 22: to get a well-paying job it's almost always requirement to have a degree.

Roger Hassenforder

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There's very little justification for having a large physical infrastructure with resulting tutors/lecturers/cleaners/security to deliver an awful lot of courses/degrees across the third level sector. We have a thing called 'the internet' now. I'd expect an awful lot of courses/degrees to be delivered digitally in the coming years.

We'll always need bricks and mortar colleges for 'hands on' courses like Underwater Basket Weaving

Valmont

reason vs religion wrote: »

I
This "micky mouse courses" accusation is so trite and so stupid. It betrays your prejudiced worldview...Instead, these students engage academically with an extensive body of knowledge and way of thinking, in the process developing skills like critical thinking, expression, sustained concentration, argument, synthesis of ideas, etc. You obsess over what you see as a worthless body of knowledge, unaware that what's important is actually what skills are developed through engaging with it.

This idea needs to go away fast. It's a superficial justification of even the most useless academic fields. You shouldn't need to go to university to develop 'sustained concentration', 'argument', or 'synthesis of ideas'. These are all things one should have learned in leaving certificate English. University was supposed to provide difficult and specialised knowledge or a deep humanistic education. Now we just have thousands of bleating humanities and social science graduates crying that they can't find a job despite having developed the highly sought after ability to write a two thousand word essay.

Valmont

LirW wrote: »

Catch 22: to get a well-paying job it's almost always requirement to have a degree.

This isn't the case anymore. Tech giant Google doesn't even care if its employees have degrees. I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby; it had nothing whatsoever to do with my admittedly useless degree.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pretty sure you could've copied pasta'd one of your posts from 5 years ago. :pac:

In the case of Trinity there are a high level of repeats and dropouts (in science at least) followed by specialisation in the last couple of years. At that point many students will do 8-10 "modules" per year because they had to ape the mills. Failing any module is a disaster so it's fairly hard to get a 2:2 without sailing pretty damn close to the wind for an overall failure.

Professor Moriarty

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"You idiot" brilliant!
I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of reporting it, I'll let it sit there with the rest of your inane post like the turd it is.

How do you know I'm not a hapless victim of one of these Mickey Mouse courses, unemployable, unless a Japanese/Korean multinational comes to my end of the peninsula with a sudden vacancy for a graduate with 0 experience, but a BA in Eastern Feminist Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science.

IMO, a "Philosophy of Science" course would be very worthwhile and meaningful with many important applications to modern science. Not least in relation to ethics.

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

This isn't the case anymore. Tech giant Google doesn't even care if its employees have degrees. I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby; it had nothing whatsoever to do with my admittedly useless degree.

Tech seems to be one of the most meritocratic areas around right now.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

IMO, a "Philosophy of Science" course would be very worthwhile and meaningful with many important applications to modern science. Not least in relation to ethics.

For a 4 year course it would be a bit much.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

For a 4 year course it would be a bit much.

Perhaps. Many a good PhD in it though.

Roger Hassenforder

Valmont wrote: »

This isn't the case anymore. Tech giant Google doesn't even care if its employees have degrees. I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby; it had nothing whatsoever to do with my admittedly useless degree.

Hello fellow Alumini from the School of
Eastern Feminist Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science?

Kappa-Rho-Beta Forever...

Roger Hassenforder

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

IMO, a "Philosophy of Science" course would be very worthwhile and meaningful with many important applications to modern science. Not least in relation to ethics.

I agree, but do we need schools in every college churning them out?

Professor Moriarty

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I agree, but do we need schools in every college churning them out?

No. Certainly not every college but there's a place for every school of knowledge - even Eastern Feminist Epistemology.

osarusan

Making 'worthwhile' subjects free while introducing fees for others would probably result in loads more people applying for the 'worthwhile' subjects, until there are so many graduates that it's not a worthwhile subject anymore.

Dravokivich

andekwarhola wrote: »

I actually think 'free' fees benefit the middle-classes most. The class that can either pay it or save towards it. It hasn't led to an explosion in the rates of access for people from deprived backgrounds either.

At a rough calculation, saving the monthly child benefit (as we do) that everybody recieves for each child for 18 years would give you aroud 30 grand per child as they hit third-level age.

Not everybody is able to put that into savings. Another thing for your middle class to benefit from?

MarinersBlues

osarusan wrote: »

Making 'worthwhile' subjects free while introducing fees for others would probably result in loads more people applying for the 'worthwhile' subjects, until there are so many graduates that it's not a worthwhile subject anymore.

That is pretty much what the springboard scheme courses do.

It is working very well for the students, employers and the state.

LirW

Valmont wrote: »

This isn't the case anymore. Tech giant Google doesn't even care if its employees have degrees. I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby; it had nothing whatsoever to do with my admittedly useless degree.

A good friend of mine is a IT-dropout, started to work in a company that develops Casino games and makes more money with it than a graduate would.
Development and Programming are two fields where it's all purely skill-based: you either can do it or you can't. It gets a lot more difficult in other fields like Finance or HR. It also has to do with the number of applicants.

In a lot of cases a degree is the entry ticket for well-paying sectors. A few years down the line once the CV is right nobody gives a toss.

Yourself isit

reason vs religion wrote: »

It's both, you idiot. More lawyers graduate than are legal positions, which the poster I was replying to would see as wrong; I mentioned it to show that it's not merely a product of fees. Regardless, I believe people should be entitled to study what they want and think that the skills developed through a law degree are applicable widely.



This "micky mouse courses" accusation is so trite and so stupid. It betrays your prejudiced worldview. The reality is that most history graduates don't become historians, most English literature graduates don't become novelists or critics, most law graduates don't become lawyers, most maths graduates don't become mathematicians, and so on. Instead, these students engage academically with an extensive body of knowledge and way of thinking, in the process developing skills like critical thinking, expression, sustained concentration, argument, synthesis of ideas, etc. You obsess over what you see as a worthless body of knowledge, unaware that what's important is actually what skills are developed through engaging with it. And there is much reason to think that gender studies (which I happen to think to be one of the most abstract and challenging subjects within the arts) develops all the same skills as other essay-based subjects that I presume you admire, like history.

While there is something in what you say in some cases (classics in the Oxbridge colleges is a hard course to get into and produces a lot of the elite) I doubt that there's much original thinking in gender studies. The way you argue negates your argument, assuming you were so educated.

Yourself isit

LirW wrote: »

A good friend of mine is a IT-dropout, started to work in a company that develops Casino games and makes more money with it than a graduate would.
Development and Programming are two fields where it's all purely skill-based: you either can do it or you can't. It gets a lot more difficult in other fields like Finance or HR. It also has to do with the number of applicants.

In a lot of cases a degree is the entry ticket for well-paying sectors. A few years down the line once the CV is right nobody gives a toss.

Don't tell that to a trinity graduate. You are right. In IT it's industry experience and github.

Junkyard Tom

Valmont wrote: »

I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby.

Beer taster!?

Atoms for Peace

conorhal wrote: »

I'd prefer to follow the German model, doing a science, engineering or nursing course... here, have your education on us!


P.S. If you want to study some daft SJW arts course, your daddy can fund that for you...


With limited funds to go around we should absolutely focus those funds to encourage students to study in the areas that are useful to our society, as opposed to producing entitled, over-educated baristas.

In Germany you can also get into science and engineering positions through a more vocational model.

Jayop

My oldest is due to go to college in 3 years and I'm cacking it.Between fees and accommodation it's probably going to cost upwards of $8k a year and she won't be entitled to any assistance. Free my hole.