Why college fees should be reintroduced!

Xterminator

Have a look at the whinging going on on this thread.
moany students

The real cost of a years tuition was estimated to average €30,000 per annum in the Herald this week. Now the students are being asked to pay less than 1% of this cost and they think there getting a rough deal?

Now I come from one of the most disadvantaged areas in Dublin.
Ballymun.
In my area few enough students finish Second Level, and going to college is not even an option for these young people.

If they are lucky their familys can support them long enough to finish secondary, with a leaving cert. And they are in the minority I can tell you.
Then they have to go and work for a living.

Despite DCU being 'next door' the % of Ballymun residents (a town of 30,000 people) going to DCU is next to none.

Now the people of ballymun (along with all other taxpayers) are supposed to pick up the tab for those young people who do attend college?

Guess what, your daddys taxes does not pay for your 3rd level education, or even come close.
I think you should all get interest free student loans, and get the privilige to pay back in full The Cost Of Your College Education to the irish taxpayer.

Do you think it is right that 3rd level edcation is payed by the taxpayer, when those on low wages know that there children cannot afford the luxury of attending such places?

X

JustHalf

Whether or not the fees should be reintroduced is one thing. It does have to be said though, giving students 2 months to scrape together an extra 280 Euro is far more than a bit harsh.

On the tax point, my taxes over the next 10 years will cover the cost of my education several times over.

You are oversimplifying the cost issue, by the way. (what about the benefits?)

Xterminator

Originally posted by JustHalf
......

On the tax point, my taxes over the next 10 years will cover the cost of my education several times over.

You are oversimplifying the cost issue, by the way. (what about the benefits?)

So you dont think you might have to contribute to the other costs asociated with running the country in the next 10 years (health, roads, government, public sector etc.), and that your taxes will all go to pay for your college fees?

And then perhaps your passport should be take off you, for 10 years or so, until the moneys are recouped, in case you decide to emigrate?

Thats a weak answer, and if I was oversimplyfing, what was that?

X

stevoslice

I suppose you'll start ranting about the gardai next too, sure don't your taxes put them through the garda college in templemore, and whats worse you pay their wages then!!!

Sheesh, thats Capitalism for ya i suppose.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Xterminator
So you dont think you might have to contribute to the other costs asociated with running the country in the next 10 years (health, roads, government, public sector etc.), and that your taxes will all go to pay for your college fees?

Over the next 10 years, I will end up paying around 150 thousand Euro in income tax ALONE. This isn't including VAT, for example.

If I did not go to college, I would be probably be paying significantly less (ruling out the fact that I'm a genius anyway)

I do plan on living longer than that, by the way.

eth0_

Originally posted by Xterminator


Despite DCU being 'next door' the % of Ballymun residents (a town of 30,000 people) going to DCU is next to none.

Well, isn't that the exact reason that the BITE program was set up in DCU?
http://www.dcu.ie/student/access/agen.html
and
http://alumni.dcu.ie/magazine2002/reachout.html
Can tell you more about this. They're trying to get more kids from Ballymun in to DCU, and Trinity have a similar scheme going on whereby you do a one year foundation course.

Anyway, people from "disadvantaged" areas aren't the only ones suffering because of the price of education in this country, i'd love to go back full time to finish my degree but at a cost of €3800 per year for 3 years, it's a bit out of the question for me as well, unfortunately.

Borzoi

Students, somewhat like farmers, are apt to complain about anything.

Why should taxpyers pay for 3rd level education? Why pay for 2nd level either?

Because in the long term the state gets more back. Largely in direct taxes off the educated, and thus higher paid, employee.

Furthermore the availability of skilled empoyees attracts industries which pay corporation tax.

Bear in mind the state does little that's in the direct interest of people, it's more interested in it's own survival, so it's not for altruistic concerns thatit provides 3rd level.

Having said that, I would like top see fees reimposed and a much stronger grant system, so that those earing a lot paid a lot of fees, earn less, pay less, and those who can't afford it, paid fees and maintenance.

This is speaking as someone who went through the system in the early 90s before free fees and on a grant.

I really hate the fact that people who have ability are held back from education purely because of money.

bonkey

Originally posted by Borzoi
I really hate the fact that people who have ability are held back from education purely because of money.

Probably just as much as I hated those students falsely claiming grant eligibility before fees were (mostly) scrapped, as well as those who were only there to drink for 4 years and try to scrape a pass degree with the minimum of learning, regardless of their ability.

At the end of the day Xterminator makes a fair point, but can I not say that I should not have to pay any contribution to roads because I dont own a car? That I will choose not to pay for hospitals and take my chances that I will never be seriously ill?

Where do you draw the line? You are arguing that the government should not be paying for stuff which does not benefit all people equally. Name one area the government funds which does treat all people equally?

Medicine? Nope - unemployed gets more off the state than I do.
Roads? Nope - plenty of people dont drive.
Unemployment benefit? Nope - only benefits those who dont have a job.

Lets scrap all of it. Pay for everything yourself and screw the whole notion of government funding. I'm guessing that once you do the math you'd quickly change your tone.

The inequality i fine when its stuff you get the benefits from, but not when it isnt? Thats what it reads like to me.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by Xterminator
Now I come from one of the most disadvantaged areas in Dublin.Ballymun.
In my area few enough students finish Second Level, and going to college is not even an option for these young people.

If they are lucky their familys can support them long enough to finish secondary, with a leaving cert. And they are in the minority I can tell you.
Then they have to go and work for a living.

Despite DCU being 'next door' the % of Ballymun residents (a town of 30,000 people) going to DCU is next to none.

Now the people of ballymun (along with all other taxpayers) are supposed to pick up the tab for those young people who do attend college?

Guess what, your daddys taxes does not pay for your 3rd level education, or even come close.
I think you should all get interest free student loans, and get the privilige to pay back in full The Cost Of Your College Education to the irish taxpayer.

First off i dont agree in the least about what you say in connection to ballymun, "support them in seco" What are you talking about? There are those who do and those who sit on their arse. I Live right beside ballymun, i go to school with several people from the area, Maybe even yourself for all i know, and sure some drop out be some dont, ive never know it to be cuased by a lack of funds.
Stop with this "its not my fault its the area i live in" crap, I plain to go to DCU and ill be working my way through it. I'm the type of person who wont recieve grants.

Now onto the issue, WHy should loans be given out. Having a well trained work force is of huge benfit to ireland, overlooking the inflated tax the goverment will recieve as a result, it also attracts foreign investment.

By all means i would support a system where by you had a choice of either state funded or personaly funded third level, whereby if you were state funded you had to take an undertaking to work in ireland for at least 5 years, that would more then pay of the costs

Xterminator

Originally posted by eth0_


Well, isn't that the exact reason that the BITE program was set up in DCU?
http://www.dcu.ie/student/access/agen.html
and
http://alumni.dcu.ie/magazine2002/reachout.html
Can tell you more about this. They're trying to get more kids from Ballymun in to DCU, and Trinity have a similar scheme going on whereby you do a one year foundation course.

Anyway, people from "disadvantaged" areas aren't the only ones suffering because of the price of education in this country, i'd love to go back full time to finish my degree but at a cost of €3800 per year for 3 years, it's a bit out of the question for me as well, unfortunately.

While I do welcome any attempt to slightly level the playing field, I dont consider these schemes to be broad enought to make a difference to the overall problem.
A few tropy 'disadvantaged' youths to shoot photos of simply smacks of PR rather than an effort to redress the imbalance.

You see its not about fees, its more fundamental than that. It seems that you think you have a 'right' to third level education?

You dont , its a privilige you enjoy.

You seem to be arguing that the whole country benifits from your higher education?

Im some small ways it may, but the gain is by for mostly on your side. And I dont think asking you to pay back the cost of your education, when you are able to do so, in addition to any taxes we all have to pay is unreasonable. As you mentioned, a 3rd level education virtually guarentees that you will earn above average wages for your lifetime, and enjoy a high standard living, and a longer life expctancy than the average young person who grew up in a disadvantaged area.

I can see your not cut up about it, but the average working young person is lucky if he can afford to pay his local GP fees, and you can moan about the 'cost of Internet' and 'college fees'.

Your damn lucky, but unappriciative, and the combination of both is offensive.

X

JustHalf

And you say students are moany?

Lemming

Originally posted by Xterminator

Im some small ways it may, but the gain is by for mostly on your side. And I dont think asking you to pay back the cost of your education, when you are able to do so, in addition to any taxes we all have to pay is unreasonable. As you mentioned, a 3rd level education virtually guarentees that you will earn above average wages for your lifetime, and enjoy a high standard living, and a longer life expctancy than the average young person who grew up in a disadvantaged area.

I can see your not cut up about it, but the average working young person is lucky if he can afford to pay his local GP fees, and you can moan about the 'cost of Internet' and 'college fees'.

Waaa Waaa Waaaa

I find your remarks about being guaruanteed a job because of 3rd level qualifications to be offensive X .. just like you find people who complain about fees to be offensive.

Having a 3rd level qualifaction guaruantees you precisely DICK. I have friends with degrees, and a couple with Masters, in IT who are working in fluppin' corner shops.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Lemming


Waaa Waaa Waaaa

I find your remarks about being guaruanteed a job because of 3rd level qualifications to be offensive X .. just like you find people who complain about fees to be offensive.

Having a 3rd level qualifaction guaruantees you precisely DICK. I have friends with degrees, and a couple with Masters, in IT who are working in fluppin' corner shops.

Hmm first up I'd didnt say you were guarentted a job. What i said was over your life time you will earn more than a peraon who hasnt got 3rd level.

Also the tone of my last post (no i have read over it) was bit OTT .. wasnt meant in an aggressive manner, it was an observation.

X

eth0_

Originally posted by Xterminator



Also the tone of my last post (no i have read over it) was bit OTT .. wasnt meant in an aggressive manner, it was an observation.

X

I think you have a *major* chip on your shoulder. Boo hoo, you're from Ballymun and can't afford to go to college. Being from Ballymun means JACK **** my friend. Most students work their way through college, I could certainly have afforded to pay my college fees if I was living at home and working all summer and part time during term time.

We have it easy in this country, Look at colleges in the USA and Canada where it costs about 9 grand a YEAR to attend university.

Also, may I point out the fact all universities here offer mature studentship, whereby if you really want to go to college you can save for a few years and wait until you're 23.

All the options are there, they may not be handed to you on a silver platter but they're there.

Xterminator

Originally posted by eth0_


I think you have a *major* chip on your shoulder. Boo hoo, you're from Ballymun and can't afford to go to college. Being from Ballymun means JACK **** my friend. Most students work their way through college, I could certainly have afforded to pay my college fees if I was living at home and working all summer and part time during term time.

We have it easy in this country, Look at colleges in the USA and Canada where it costs about 9 grand a YEAR to attend university.

Also, may I point out the fact all universities here offer mature studentship, whereby if you really want to go to college you can save for a few years and wait until you're 23.

All the options are there, they may not be handed to you on a silver platter but they're there.

Well DR ETH0 , where did you get your degree in psychology?

Cause your well off the mark.

I simply believe that the tax payer should not be subsidsing 90 odd percent of 3rd level education, when it is a fact the young people from disadvantaged areas for socio-economic reasons make up less than 1% of the student population.

Thats fact.

I was not talking about me going to college, or not. i have a good job and earn enought to live on. I wasnt born in ballymun, i used that as an example because i know about it.

I would find givingf students interest free loans, covering the true cost of there education, aka UK, would be a fairer.
This could lead to being able to spend the savings on primary education and secondary education to improve standards including renovating some extremly old and unsuitable premises.

I dont consider students of 3rd level education places to be the 'neediest' of irelands needy people, because while your short of a few bob while in college, the vast majority of those who graduate will be among the top earners for years to come.

Finally saying you pay tax, is not enough.

Most people who work, pay tax, and only a small percentage of people go to college.

We dont have enough tax revenue to pay for everything that we'd like. (eg medical care on a par with private care, no housing lists, no unemployed, no homeless.
Tax spending has to be prioritised, and i feel that 3rd level students do not appriciate how large a chunk per head per annum(many thousand euro's) is being spent on them.

This is regalrdless of your situation, ie living at home with your bills being paid, or living in a flat, short of money for food.

Now if fees were reintroduced, and realisitic grants might be afforded to those who need help for day to day expences.
College fees could be waived for low income earners, or deferred, whatever.
But the current scheme where those who are well off are subisdised by the taxpayers (many of the taxpayers who struggle to make ends meet) is just not right.

Finally well off is a relative thing. To me if you can afford to go to the pub once or twice a week on a regular basis, then your doing better than most.

X

shotamoose

I think Xterminator's basic point - that all taxpayers are paying for a system some cannot afford to access - is a good one. And I don't think it's fair to compare the free fees system to government funded health, unemployment benefits or roads. The first two are 'hard times' supports which disproportionately benefit those who most need them and are least able to pay, while the latter does benefit eveyone, regardless of whether they drive or not: we all benefit from having a roads system that's used by the postal system, public transport, commercial vehicles, etc. Maybe you only leave the house to walk through a field to a village shop, but that shop is still supplied by road. In fact you might argue that those who don't drive get MORE out of the roads system than those who do since they don't pay for insurance, petrol, VRT and all the other expenses associated with driving.

At the moment this country treats college education as a purely public good to be publicly funded. This is obviously absurd as a lot of the eventual benefit is gained by graduates in their private capacity. So, to simplify, we should treat it as a mix of a private and a public good so that those who can afford to pay do and those who can't afford to pay are supported from public funds.

Venom

The sooner students and farmers get it through their skulls that the days of free hand outs is coming to the end,the better for this country as a whole.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
I would find givingf students interest free loans, covering the true cost of there education, aka UK, would be a fairer.

No, it wouldnt.

If you set up this system, you would have two choices :

1) Only give the loan to those who can prove an ability to pay it back. In other words, those who can already afford to go to college. Not very useful as a means of changing things.

2) Give the loan to everyone, and let the state cover the cost of those who cannot manage to pay it back for whatever reason.

Option 2 is simply a reversal of the current situation. If you're from a well-off family, you pay for college, if you're from a poorer family, you only pay if you get anything from it. In other words, tax-payers will fund the poor who fail, but the rich who fail cover their own ass. Hardly a fair solution, just one thats preferable to the poorer sections of the community.

Now if fees were reintroduced, and realisitic grants might be afforded to those who need help for day to day expences.
College fees could be waived for low income earners, or deferred, whatever.
But the current scheme where those who are well off are subisdised by the taxpayers (many of the taxpayers who struggle to make ends meet) is just not right.

And you want to replace it with a system which basically says "pay as much as you're able to, and let the state pick up the rest of the tab".

jc

Sand

I agree with Xterminators basic point ( that students are far far too moany and ungrateful regarding the benefits they receive) but the free fees is fairly equitable in that it allows anyone (even suitabl people from Bally-where-ever to go to college assuming theyre bright and hardworking enough. At the same time it allows a complete shower of wasters whose only ambition in life is to beat Fat Bobs record of .75 seconds "down in one" pint challenge - in between levelling rain forests so they can slap up stupid posters about "fighting the man" over every available square inch of space. This is bad.

The interest free loan idea is pretty good but some of these people are complete morons (one guy i knew has recently lost a job -his first in a long,long,long time- at a fast food chain, he held it for a current record of over one week, try getting him to pay you back).

Maybe a compromise can be reached so the government pays for each term - and then the student must achieve some certain level ( not a pass, 2.2 grade for example - people there to doss and scrape a pass can pay for it themselves) or be liable for the fee - the max the government would be out would be one terms worth.

As for the marginalised subsidising the well off in the form of college fees youre right, but the well off subsidise the marginalised once they qualify from college (well some of them do anyway- the rest head off to "find themselves" - aka escape responsibility).

Greenbean

"I simply believe that the tax payer should not be subsidsing 90 odd percent of 3rd level education, when it is a fact the young people from disadvantaged areas for socio-economic reasons make up less than 1% of the student population."

Seriously, re-read what you just said. Because something doesn't benefit young people from disadvantaged areas for socio-economic reasons it is good reason to deny it to those not from those areas? Its for the socio-economic reasons these young people can't take advantage of the benefit - not because of everyone else. Why should this stop others from getting an benefit that has been offered for all?

In a slightly off-centre analogy, if (as is) everyone were afforded the opportunity to join the army for next to no money, and it didn't benefit a group of people who for religious reasons couldn't participate, would they have a right to stop others from joining the army?

The guts of starting the trend of pushing up college fees by the government is being layed out in the argument that the free fee's for all hasn't benefited everone like it was supposed to. The big predictions that it would open up the doors for people who couldn't take advantage for monetary reasons are being shown to be wrong, since the main cost is in attending and participating at the college (accomodation, books, transport, no source of decent income). To be honest, I suspect this as a mask for simply raising more money by an overspending government - it would have been apparent the free fees was only making it easier for middle class students after the first year of free fees.

But it is true. I agree with Borzoi, I would rather a scenario where someone who wants to goto college for an education shouldn't be held back due to monetary reasons, and the government should aid such genuine cases as much as possible.

I don't agree with moaning because people have taken advantage of something offered to all. I do even understand the social aspect of it all, even if the social element in it all is something I don't respect, I do understand that under the same environment you and me would all be exactly the same; ie guided by peer pressures and necessity of the poorer start in life. Its not a "too liberal" view to have either. If it means you give every slacker and asshole the benefit of the doubt to ensure those with genuine benefit, then so be it - its the price of doing what is right.

bugler

Well, I'll ignore the sweeping generalisations and begrudgery posted already, and just focus on a couple of points.

Do you think it is right that 3rd level edcation is payed by the taxpayer, when those on low wages know that there children cannot afford the luxury of attending such places?

What are you arguing is that if someone or their family is unlikely to avail of a certain state aided programme then they shouldn't have to pay taxes for it. That's great in theory, sounds fair and all. Would you agree with a wealthy, financially secure man who said he shouldn't have to pay for Ballymun's residents unemployment benefit? After all, he's unlikely to claim it, so why should he have to pay for these people just because they can't (or don't want to) get a job? Some people on the dole, like some students, don't bother putting any effort in. They just sit back and let things float past, only doing enough to get by. If I don't have a daughter, or sister, and I'm gay, why the hell should my taxes pay for any benefits to young single mothers?

The reason everyone has to pay tax, and that everyone's money is liable to be spent on anything, ie defence, the dole etc, is that we have to set aside the notion of ourselves not likely to need certain things. I may never need to go to a hospital, I might have a mortal fear of the places, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't pay for them to be built. I might believe in an extreme form of simplistic anarchismand or might live like a hermit on Carrig Tuohill,and think I don't police around. So should I have the right to demand that my tax money isn't put toward law enforcement?
Just because we are unlikely to ever benefit from something, doesn't mean we shouldn't partly shoulder the cost of it. It's a fundamental bond of society. We all pay xxx as appropriate, and it goes toward programmes which our elected representatives decide we need.

You seem to be arguing that the whole country benifits from your higher education?
Im some small ways it may

The ways aren't small. Individually, we are unlikely to ever have an experience and think, "wow, that guy's/girl's third level education really benefitted me/us there", but that doesn't mean they aren't big benefits to be had. Downplaying the importance of a solid education system in respect to a country's well being and thus its standard of living is madness, and that's as true regarding secondary school and primary as it is third level.

Lemming

Originally posted by Xterminator


Hmm first up I'd didnt say you were guarentted a job. What i said was over your life time you will earn more than a peraon who hasnt got 3rd level.

Initially ... yes. Ultimately, no. Companies look for experience above everything else.

For example, Iv'e a friend who never finished college , yet is very good with computers.

He got a job .. and would now be earning easily far more than me as a starting salary, simply because eh has experience.

That's the bottom line X

staring elf

wait a minute here. i think etho_ said it all a few posts up. it is NOT expensive to go to college even with this new hike up of registration fees. working the summer before you go to college will make you about 2 grand (and that's if you're working full-time on only a minimum wage). this is more than enough to pay for registration, and accomodation (should you be living away from home) and food for a few weeks/months. when you start college you continue to work part-time. this will EASILY continue to pay for accomodation, food, travel, etc. students in this country complain about having no money, but this is because most students spend it all on luxeries (alcohol, nights out, cigarettes, etc). all they have to do is give these up, and if a 3rd level education was important enough to them they would sacrifice these if it meant being able to get a 3rd level education. it is NOT expensive to survive, it IS expensive to live a luxurious student life. unfortunately, many irish students do not consider alcohol and entertainment as a luxery.

RampagingBadger

I think that while it's fair to say that some students drink their way through college you shouldn't taint all students with the same brush. I'm studying engineering and I usually don't have time to go out drinking and living the mad life some people seem to think I'm supposed to. Studying at university is bloody hard work. I have 30 odd hours a week of labs, lectures and tutorials. I then spend at least 12 hours a week doing assingments/reports/projects. The time I have left is divided up into study, leisure and work time. In the months/weeks coming up to exams I work 12 hour days 7 days a week. When I finish in June I'm truly shattered. Yes of course there's some nights during the year where I go wild and get wasted. But the same could be said of anyone of my age whether they're in college or not. I wouldn't say I'm that exceptional either. I know of a number of students who work considerably harder than I do. If someone is capable of dossing all the time and passing their course then they're obviously a lot more intelligent then I am and deserve to have their college fees paid on that basis.

staring elf

well, i didn't say ALL students are like that, but there's no arguing that a large percentage are. also, i don't think any student who passes their exams without studying should get their fees paid simply because they're more intelligent - that's insane.
basically, it is NOT hard to survive if you go to college. it's hard to live any kind of luxerious college life however. so, getting back to the original point of this thread, yes, i would agree in theory with an increase in student fees. by "in theory" i mean that i would agree were the money the govt receives from the fees spent wisely. however, i believe the current govt are a bunch of overpaid wasters who had so much money during the celtic tiger years they didn't know what to do with it and spent it foolishly and ultimately had to "cook the books" in last years budget (and will have to borrow in the next 2 yrs maximum). for example (and this is one of many i could give), the proposed national stadium is costing something like 1 billion euro. why is this so?? the millenium stadium in cardiff cost a mere 80 million. something's wrong somewhere. the govt spend it on researchers and surveyors and surveyors who survey the researchers and crap like that instead of going and just building the damn thing like they did in wales.

Cork

simply believe that the tax payer should not be subsidsing 90 odd percent of 3rd level education, when it is a fact the young people from disadvantaged areas for socio-economic reasons make up less than 1% of the student population.

Why indeed?

The grants system can target resources. Universal free fees has not worked. It is squandering tax payers resources.

The maintenance grant needs to be dobled - but fees need to be re-introduced to cover this

JustHalf

No-one wants to answer this question... did the government give sufficient warning of the price hike?

I certainly didn't budget in this hike, and now I'm screwed.

Excelsior

There are a couple of points I'd like to add.
The first is that regardless of your opinion on fees, the introduction of a sizeable increase in registration in the middle of the summer is not acceptable. There are families out there, (such as my own) who have to scrimp and save to put me through college, even without fees. My parents set out a general budget three years ago that they review at the end of every year. Now that is all out the window.
If someone starts college education, then they should be assured that for the duration of their undergraduate degree, the costs will remain the same, or as close to as possible. Basically, the way these costs have been increased adds a degree of instability that is very stressful.

In terms of socio-economic factors in 3rd level education:
The root of this problem, for me, lies not with college at the age of 18, but with pre-school at the age of 3.
I come from a family of teachers and when my sister and mom were both teaching infants the year the fees were introduced, they both made the point that this was misdirected money. We have 2 years of infant classes which some kids only start when they are 5. The goal of the first two years of education is to teach kids how to go to school. That takes alot of time and a lot of effort and the methods used, that is, the formal, generally uniformed environment of a national school is perhaps not the best.
Educationalists would argue that we should revamp the education system whereby from say, 3-5, kids are sent to montessorri style centres where the work of the infant classes is carried out. Only after that, should "education" (in terms of specific subjects) begin.

By the time a kid from Ballymun is 5, she will be affected by the socio-economic situation she is raised in. She knows that education is not a priority, she knows no one who takes it seriously, she knows no professionals and no students. A pre-school system that introduces the child to education before these influences take hold would be of great benefit.
(Re-reading this I am using the kind of language that an advocate of eugenics would use! I apologise.)

Hopefully she will have a much more useful education whereby school is not a culture shock she never recovers from. I know that I never minded school (until the heartless and knowledge-less grind of secondary school set in) and I never doubted that I would go to college. But beside me in class were kids who hated it with a vengeance. They couldn't even wear their uniforms without rebelling against the tucked in shirt and the scummy tie. I know that I got more out of it because I was suited to it. A good idea would be to set up a system whereby kids have a fairer chance of being suited to it.

On fees:
There is only one sure way of solving the socio-economic crises of Ballymun and Jobstown and such places. That is to employ and train the residents and give them the opportunity for better housing. By far and away the best system I know for doing this is capitalism.
Yet economies now grow in relation to their level of education. Not all 3rd level education is in the form of degrees. Apprenticeships, certs and diplomas are all worthy aspirations. Irish society has to begin to value a well trained plumber just as much as a well trained civil engineer. (Only the people screwed by a poorly trained plumber seem to grasp the importance of it)
In my opinion, all of these options should be free. They should all be comprehensive. They should all be competitive.
That means that the cost of the education, (not the books and computers and accomodation) should be met by the tax payer. That means they should cover all that needs to be covered, (no cutting corners to suit a particular industry's desires) and they should all fail students that don't make the grade.
The reason we should do this? Because well trained people make money. They not only have the skills in their field, they should have the all round education that allow them to assess risks and take the initiative and... make money. Then they have to pay it all back in taxes that will pay for Sand's heart bypass after he reads another arrogant, rabidly anti-american and naive student lash out at something in an incoherent rant.

On Grants:
Wat a joke! This is not a maintenance grant. When you have a rent bill and a dental operation and a busted bike to fix, your grant will disappear very quickly.
It is abused by non-PAYE workers. I know that while my family have to take my costs very seriously, I still am not eligable for a grant on account of my mom's civil servant status.
I know people with hundreds of cattle and a couple hundred acres who are receiving it. And drinking it. (But that is their own business once we give them the money).
This needs a total overhaul.
It is laughably corrupt.

On Liberty:
At last, the punchline. John Stuart Mill's argument was that no education should be covered by the state for the protection and benefit of the citizen. How can we trust the government (with its self perpetuating tendencies) to educate us in the Truth? We need independently and privately educated citizens to protect us from tyranny. And plus, it really is a privelige.
Without the abondenment of fees I may not have been able to go through college.
I am taking the privelige seriously.
Folk like me are the reason we shouldn't re-introduce them.

I'm off to look at Masters options. Which I will happily pay for myself.

Borzoi

Originally posted by JustHalf
No-one wants to answer this question... did the government give sufficient warning of the price hike?

I certainly didn't budget in this hike, and now I'm screwed.

Really the subject for a further thread but here goes nothing:

Taxes were cut too much
The economy then underperformed
McCreevy (despite pre-election bravado) decided that all departments had to trim budgets.
Minister for education decides to hit 3rd level students for the cash.

Simple.

Shinji

What i said was over your life time you will earn more than a peraon who hasnt got 3rd level.

Sorry, just to backtrack a bit, I'd like to point out what utter rubbish this is. The majority of third level education in Ireland isn't worth shíte from an employers perspective - "congratulations, you spent four years píssing a student loan against a wall, moaning about everything under the sun, acting like an immature schoolkid and learning absolutely NOTHING of any relevance to the workplace. Very nice. Now where's your industry experience? None? So long then!"

When our society decided in its oh-so politically correct way to make degrees accessible to everyone in the country (almost a standard part of education, now) and to rename polytechs and ITs as universities, they devalued degrees totally. In all but a very small number of professions, degree education counts for pretty much nothing now.

SheroN

is my degree worth anything?

Venom

I agree with Shinji on this one as Iv seen it happen in the IT industry so much.Hell even where IM working and Id to sit in on an interview for a new support position,the only thing I gave a toss about was the person's experience and knowladge various IT related subjects.

The person who got the job knew there stuff and had years of home and business experience using,repairing and building pc's.Of the other 2 people who went for the job,1 had degree's in sociolgy and English and the other had a pilosophy degree.Needless to say there interviews were very short and they were never in the running for any postion in the company where I work due to us not needing a cleaner/teaboy or any other position they would qualify for.

Experence is what the majority of companies want in a new employee as its less downtime in training them up to speed in company products.

Just because a individual goes to collage dosent mean their a shoo in when it comes to job interviews.

RampagingBadger

I agree. I think the money the government spends on educating people in the arts is largely wasted. I think limited college fees should be re-introduced for the subjects that don't give people some skills that'll be of use in the workplace (ie classical studies, politics).

The money the government does have should be spent on those subjects that'll bring about a return in taxes (ie law, architecture, engineering, languages) and on those people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford to go to college. Having said that I have to confess I'm an engineer so I might be biased.

JustHalf

There are things more precious than gold or silver.

Shinji

RampagingBadger - I agree, in some senses. However it's not just Arts subjects that are the problem - one of the biggest offenders is computer type courses, which frankly qualify you to do absolutely nothing of worth.

Perhaps more relevantly, I think there's a case for not letting people into university at 18. Some form of vocational or on-the-job training, sure, but if you want to do university, you go off and work for a few years before being allowed into third level... Which means that you've actually been useful to society, you've got some experience of the world and you've got some appreciation of what you're being offered in university.

It'd also vastly reduce the number of people on degree courses, thus enabling the standards of the degrees to be raised and the value of the qualification would go up. Other avenues in vocational training could be used to supplement degrees, which are currently (wrongly) seen as the be-all and end-all of education.

Oh, and damn right we should be charging for courses like philosophy or what have you. The state is a business, and it needs to see a return off what it invests. While JustHalf is correct - there ARE things more valuable than gold or silver, and education is one of those things - I'm not convinced that it's the taxpayers job to fund all of those things.

JustHalf

I always thought an educated populace was a very good thing to have.

bonkey

Following on from what Shinji was just saying, I thought I'd describe the system here in Switzerland, because its very different and perhaps a better model.

First of all, every industry has apprenticeships. From chimney-sweeping to Computer Programmer and everything in between. A huge percentage of people leave school at the equivalent to the leaving cert and take an apprenticeship.

Apprentices are paid, with the company swallowing the cost - it is not state funded. Apprentices also attend "apprentice school" which provides basic training in some relevant areas. This *is* state-funded, as far as I am aware.

Of those who continue in their education, most go to some form of "technical school" afterwards - restaurant school, business school, engineering school and so on. These produce useful, specialised qualifications which are work- or industry- focussed, and which are required for certain jobs (e.g. you cannot own a restaurant licence without a restaurant school qualification).

Such education is not state-funded, although I believe it is possible for families to get grants from the local community for a "primary qualification". These are individually means-assessed on a case-by-case basis, although there are flaws in the system.

Finally, there is university. Because the technical school qualifications are the major requirement of businesses, the universities tend to be less focussed on these areas - thus university would mostly be for languages, arts, and medical degrees. University is almost entirely student-funded, as far as I am aware, and therefore quite expensive. Most degrees also take a minimum of 6 years, typically 7, and students dont emerge from uni until at least the age of 25.

Other than the rich, universities are often populated by those doing part-time study and part-time-work, as my girlfriend is doing. She has her primary education qualification, but always wanted to study Old and Middle English. So she is doing it on her own time - a pretty common approach.

Now, Im not saying that the Swiss have it right, but I do think that the idea of apprenticeships is a good one, as are the technical colleges. University degrees have become so worthless in so many industries, but a seriously focussed practical course can be of great benefit.

Ultimately, if you still want that "mind-expanding" education over here, you can still have it. But you dont get paid to get it. You get paid to learn how to work, and to work. You get paid well. You pay for the rest.

jc

Lemming

Sinjhi .. some of what your'e saying makes for sound thinking.

But I can't help but feel that other bits of it sound awfully "elitist".

Shinji

Lemming -

Yep, it is. That's why our oh-so politically correct society won't accept it, despite the fact that it's political correctness that has wrecked our education system in the first place, and made degrees so utterly worthless.

I'm not being elitist in favour of rich people or whatever with these ideas. I'm suggesting - and this is what people don't like hearing for some reason - that not everyone is of equal intelligence.

Now, given that not everyone is of equal intelligence (and you KNOW it's true - are you on the same level of intelligence as Jade from Big Brother, or Albert Einstein?), why should we be attempting to educate people in the same way? In the name of "political correctness" we've forced everyone through this one system, leading to a degree, which is utterly pointless and self-defeating.

We used to have polytechs and RTCs, but now - despite the fact that these places do NOT have the same entry requirements or stringent standards as universities - they're all called universities and they teach degree courses (less so in Ireland I realise, but look at the British system and see where Ireland is headed). Meeting them halfway, the universities have dumbed down their courses and their entry requirements and boosted their numbers in order to compete with the less academically proficient institutions.

You end up with a situation where university degrees are worth sod all, technical college qualifications have become degrees and are worth sod all, and the only thing employers care about is what you've done in the industry... Which of course, you can't do in university. A degree was meant to be a fast-track up the ladder, all it is now is a delaying tactic which means you don't start on the bottom rung until you're 23 or 24....

eth0_

Originally posted by Shinji


We used to have polytechs and RTCs, but now - despite the fact that these places do NOT have the same entry requirements or stringent standards as universities - they're all called universities and they teach degree courses (less so in Ireland I realise, but look at the British system and see where Ireland is headed). Meeting them halfway, the universities have dumbed down their courses and their entry requirements and boosted their numbers in order to compete with the less academically proficient institutions.

Are you an idiot? A degree from an IT is *JUST* as good if not better than (depending on your college) a university degree. The same course material is covered and to the same standard as a university. All degree courses are authorised by the same authority, and from my experience, computer and engineering courses involve more studying and practicals in an IT than in a university with a similar course.

Where on earth are you getting your information from?

bonkey

Originally posted by eth0_
Are you an idiot? A degree from an IT is *JUST* as good if not better than (depending on your college) a university degree. The same course material is covered and to the same standard as a university.

I think you missed the point where SHinji was implying - that the RTCs et al have lowered their usefulness to that of providing a degree comparable to the universities.

Its not that they're every bit as good as the uni's, its that they're every bit as useless.

My 4 years in uni was good for three things :

1) The people I met
2) The good times I had
3) The 9 months work experience which led to my first job, which in turn led to several companies offering me my second.

You tell me an RTC or anything else is "as good" and I'll say "so fecking what - its not hard - my course was mostly useless to me".

All graduating from a course does is indicate a probable aptitude, and perhaps allow an employer to hopefully assume a base level of non-ignorance. The banks have aptitude tests as their entrance exams which last 2 or 3 hours, as opposed to 4 years.

Its funny - those with degrees deride them. Those without want them. I fall into the latter. Just as my leaving cert ("the most important exam you'll ever sit", they told me) served one purpose - to get me into uni, so did my degree ("the most important qualification you'll ever get", they told me) serve one purpose - it got me my first job.

Everything after that was based on experience, and proven ability.

jc
jc

Shinji

eth0 - what bonkey said. Although, several ITs (and ex-polytechs in Britain) have utterly terrible teaching standards and their degrees are even worse than university-awarded ones.

As to your outraged "where are you getting your information from", the answer is "interviewing people on a regular basis".... Although since you apparently got the wrong end of the stick from what I'm saying, I don't think that's applicable anyway.

As an aside... even if the content is the same, do you honestly think a degree from Dundalk IT is "worth" as much as a degree from Trinity or UCD?

And if so, what planet exactly are you living on?

T4-DEMON

Originally posted by bonkey

jc
jc

rofl
rofl

eth0_

Originally posted by Shinji
eth0 - what bonkey said. Although, several ITs (and ex-polytechs in Britain) have utterly terrible teaching standards and their degrees are even worse than university-awarded ones.

Ok, sorry I got the wrong end of the stick there.

As an aside... even if the content is the same, do you honestly think a degree from Dundalk IT is "worth" as much as a degree from Trinity or UCD?

And if so, what planet exactly are you living on?

Technically, some degrees are as good, but from what i've seen, many IT's have better facilities than Trinity, be this due to the fact there's so many more people there that there's less access to pc's etc, or the fact theres much less people in your year group in an IT. Of course Trinity is a good university and its name stands for a lot, but on the other hand I have heard of a few employers who would think twice before employing someone who got their degree there. (I don't share that opinion)

tHE vAGGABOND

But from what I’ve seen

is this what a bloke down the pub told you, or have you seen and compared both places!!

I’ve been in both Trinity and Dundalk IT (and every single college in the country) during my time working with USI, and I can tell you despite the nice buildings and stuff Dundalk is a dive of the highest order. Trinity may be squashed in town, but that’s why they move some facilities and departments off campus at times, and build new buildings (such as the IT one out the back)

With regard to the fees thing, I have done the campaign thing with USI in the past, and I'm sort of an ex-USI officer. But with the benefit of seeing how it’s done around the world, I think that some students should have to pay something. Not the full 5/10 grand, god no, but ‘rich’ maybe a £800 a year or something like that (rich being parental income of €70,000 and higher), and index link it. At the same time I think the student grant should be raised for the poorest people big time, and all grants index linked.

A bloke who has just finished a 4-year degree is working for me here. He got a first right thru, no repeats or fails or anything, and now has about 20 grand of debt overall in the government loans scheme in the UK here. He will be paying that off for about 10 years.

Cork

As an aside... even if the content is the same, do you honestly think a degree from Dundalk IT is "worth" as much as a degree from Trinity or UCD?

Why not?

I did a post grad in Uni - Half the course was absolute rubbish. The course was in IT - we did one subject on how data was stored on a floppy disc.

It think that in ITs - courses are better organised and ran

Greenbean

I think alot of people judge a degree's usefulness on how far in front in the work place it takes you. As far as the academics associated with my course were concorned, the work place was irrelevant. Their main interest was in educating people in research and helping produce the next batch of lecturers, post grads, professors. Post grads means a Professor's donkey work gets done, their research gets done and can aid in their funding.

They care about getting this research done under their name for the love of the knowledge and probably for the ego. Its a self-fulfilling setup, and not really a bad one. Typically a student studying a course under this environment is going to be conditioned for research, figuring things out by themselves, chock a block with theory - but unless you study programming in your own time (which is expected but not forced on you) - then you can get through the whole degree with minimal programming skills.

Saying this the course wasn't entirely irrelevant to the work place; in my line of work computer programming, its very tough at the moment to get a job with a degree - but unless you're a lucky bastard or a ingenious social networker, without a degree you may as well go work in a chip shop.

Kalina

Originally posted by eth0_


I think you have a *major* chip on your shoulder. Boo hoo, you're from Ballymun and can't afford to go to college. Being from Ballymun means JACK **** my friend. Most students work their way through college, I could certainly have afforded to pay my college fees if I was living at home and working all summer and part time during term time.

We have it easy in this country, Look at colleges in the USA and Canada where it costs about 9 grand a YEAR to attend university.

Also, may I point out the fact all universities here offer mature studentship, whereby if you really want to go to college you can save for a few years and wait until you're 23.

All the options are there, they may not be handed to you on a silver platter but they're there.

I'm joining this conversation a little late but I agree entirely with etho's first post. I'm not from a disadvantaged area, I live in the midands (though some would call that disadvantaged ) yet my parents aren't by any means very well off. They can't afford to give me money for college unless I'm desperately stuck and they throw 20 Euros my way. Therefore I work for the summer and during the year part-time and save whatever I can. Loads of people are in the same situation and we can all manage to go to college with little or no financial help from our parents. I get the grant, which is brilliant but otherwise I fund myself. So, I'm wondering why Xterminator says:

"In my area few enough students finish Second Level, and going to college is not even an option for these young people.
If they are lucky their familys can support them long enough to finish secondary, with a leaving cert. And they are in the minority I can tell you.
Then they have to go and work for a living.
Despite DCU being 'next door' the % of Ballymun residents (a town of 30,000 people) going to DCU is next to none."

Can't these people get a job and stand on their own 2 feet without their parents support? If they wanted to go to college badly enough couldn't they save as much money as possible and go to a college in Dublin so they could save on rent? I'm sure supermarkets and hotels etc. pay the same wages near Ballymun as they do around the rest of the country. In my opinion it's a matter of people wanting to get up and make an effort to get an education instead of sitting around feeling sorry for themselves because they're from a disadvantaged area.

l3rian

why not take a couple of losers off the dole instead of introducing college fees? ...or lowering the ever increasing child-benifit, or cutting off those useless nackers... why are students who have the least ability to earn money, and the most potential in the future to improve the country made to pay more?

amp

Keep it civil.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Kalina


I'm joining this conversation a little late but I agree entirely with etho's first post. I'm not from a disadvantaged area, I live in the midands (though some would call that disadvantaged ) yet my parents aren't by any means very well off. They can't afford to give me money for college unless I'm desperately stuck and they throw 20 Euros my way. Therefore I work for the summer and during the year part-time and save whatever I can. Loads of people are in the same situation and we can all manage to go to college with little or no financial help from our parents. I get the grant, which is brilliant but otherwise I fund myself.

Can't these people get a job and stand on their own 2 feet without their parents support? If they wanted to go to college badly enough couldn't they save as much money as possible and go to a college in Dublin so they could save on rent? I'm sure supermarkets and hotels etc. pay the same wages near Ballymun as they do around the rest of the country. In my opinion it's a matter of people wanting to get up and make an effort to get an education instead of sitting around feeling sorry for themselves because they're from a disadvantaged area.

Although you have picked up on only 1 of my thoughts on why i dont think the taxpayer should fund 90%+ of your third level education, I guess the simple answer to your question is they dont get the chance to go.

What you are basically saying is that the poor and econimically disadvantaged are lasy.
They couldnt be arsed to get themselves out of the situation.
I suppose when some homeless person on the street asks you for money your say "GET A JOB!" eh?

I guess that youve lived your life protected from the outside world, so that you are you that blissfully unaware of how life really in the inner city and some suburbs like Darndale, Ballymun, Corduff, parts of Tallaght etc ? (also I've no experience of it, but Limerick is supposed to have similar areas, pehaps on a smaller scale.)

Yes some people from these areas do drag themselves out of the poverty trap, but its far more difficult than it need be.

And if the governmet stoped paying everyone's fees regarldless of their circumstances, and put the saved money back into grants that actually covered the costs of going to college, but made them means tested, (or loaned them the money, interest free and made them pay it back if and when they were able) then perhaps more people from disadvantaged areas might escape the poverty cycle you have never heard of.


X