Free College Gone?

ferdi

hi
it seems that in their wisdom, bertie and his hench-men are ending free acees to 3rd level education:



irish times artical

i think the basic idea is that you have to pay your college fees once you start earning. i just knew they would do this the year i was set to start:mad:

i hate the establishment here, its all so sneeky and slimey, and they (the gov.) really couldnt give a toss about the wishes of the citizens (eg: backing bushes war + letting US war machine us shannon). this is just another example of the total disregard the irish government have for us. and it dosnt matter if its FF, FG, PDs, LB, GP, SF or whoever in power, they are all just looking out for them and their greasey little pals!!:mad:

and they wonder why no young people vote:rolleyes:

write to you local tds, if you think it will make a differance (it wont by the way)screw them anyway

bertie wants to do it because graduates earn on average 57% more or something, but when we will be paying this money back will we be earning these massive amounts?? NO!!

well thats my rant over with

cheers

ferdi

ballooba

Why should people who have never gone to colllege have to pay for your education?

IMO this scheme make perfect sense.

It's hardly going to take a lifetime to pay off a 32,000 mortgage (At most, correct me if i'm wrong) if you are on a decent salary.

ferdi

Why should people who have never gone to colllege have to pay for your education?

i dont know.

but Tony O'Reilly and other Fat Cat pr!cks got free thrird level education for thier kids, something tells me they didnt really need it.

It's hardly going to take a lifetime to pay off a 32,000 mortgage (At most, correct me if i'm wrong) if you are on a decent salary.

what decent salary?

ballooba

Originally posted by ferdi
i dont know.

but Tony O'Reilly and other Fat Cat pr!cks got free thrird level education for thier kids, something tells me they didnt really need it.

Seperate matter entirely (I presume you are talking of corruption or some b*llox). I'm sure students from privileged will have to pay the same as students from under-privileged backgrounds.

Originally posted by ferdi

what decent salary?

The kind of salary that would make doing the course worthwhile.

ferdi

all you need to know is that i have my knickers (actually i'm more of a boxers man) firmly in a twist. as i said it was a rant, so p!ss off:D

ballooba

Surely if you can't back up your rant, you must see that it is irrational.

This is the fairest solution that I have seen so far to the fees problem IMO.

Only thing is that the public will probably still end up paying for people who don't reach the salary level where they have to start making repayments. This means that we will all end up paying for career academics and the like.

seamus

Originally posted by ballooba
It's hardly going to take a lifetime to pay off a 32,000 mortgage (At most, correct me if i'm wrong) if you are on a decent salary.

It's tough enough to et a footing after leaving college without someting like this hanging over your head. "Oh sorry we can't give you a mortgage for your house, you haven't paid off your college fees yet" :mad:

Let's say when I finish college next year, I have €32,000 hanging over my head, and start out at €25,000 (a very generous salary). Money is paid back at 5% of my salary per annum. It's going to take me 8-10 years to pay it all back, unless I get a drastic pay rise. That means I'll be into my thirties before I get it paid off. Ridiculous.

No, everyone pays tax. Since the Government seems to think that graduates make more money than non-graduates, it then follows that they pay more tax - paying for themselves many times over during their life. This is just another double taxation that the Government likes to sting on people when they **** up the finances. When the economy grows healthy again, will they reinstate free fees? What happens then to the poor bastards with 'loans' hanging over their heads?

Repli

Its looking like theyre gonna be introduced as early as this year.
You can look at this from 2 points of view..

The 1st being the government are wrong in reintroducing fees.. they are shooting themselves in the foot.. college graduates are the key to this country's future.. by reintroducing fees they are restricting thousands of working/middle class students from attending college.. The country is in an economic crisis and the government expect the students to pay for this.. when really it's just a source of short term finance.. we are entitled to free education, what next.. taking away free 2nd level education? last month bertie assured students that fees wouldnt be introduced during his time in govt.
Thanks bertie.


The 2nd being that the government and bertie are right in doing this. More money is needed to fund primary & secondary schools.. so that everyone can get a decent education. As i said above this will restrict a lot of working/middle class students from attending college.. When in reality most working class students don't attend college anyway.. only 20% in fact.. where as 90% of middle/upper class students attend some sort of college.
However, with our current government I really doubt they will invest the money in 1st/2nd level education.. Most people in 3rd level already will find some way to come up with the €3000-€6000/year.. be it working some extra hours during summer.. or a student loan..

Doodee

the whole point behind the free 3rd level edication is the fact that even if you were poor, middle-class or rich, u could still go easily to college/uni and pay your way through for food ect, this is the biggest loss to the government, what shall they do with all this extra cash, spend it on stupid comms systems that make no sense at all.

I mean ffs, we are already behind the rest of europe in our IT infastructure but by bringing back Fee's is going to cause havok!

I for one dont fancy having to pay off loans for third level ed and having to support myself through college. I curt the purse strings from my parents when i got my job in November, I dont fancy having to go back to Galway every weekend just to bring up food and money to keep me going for the week cause i have to pay off school loans.

also, the majourity of degree students dont tend to get jobs for 2 years after finishing their degree's unless they have work experience.

its a load of bollix, and will have a MAJOUR effect.

look at the states, u can pay for your kids education, regardless of how stupid they are, well, what i mean is, the more u pay the better the kids shall be educated (UP to them, if they slack off,,,, u know what i mean)

ahh i dunno, im ranting.

seamus

Thread moved from Leaving Cert to Politics

ballooba

Originally posted by seamus
"Oh sorry we can't give you a mortgage for your house, you haven't paid off your college fees yet" :mad:

Highly unlikely. They don't refuse you a car loan because you have a mortgage outstanding on your house.

Originally posted by seamus

It's going to take me 8-10 years to pay it all back, unless I get a drastic pay rise. That means I'll be into my thirties before I get it paid off. Ridiculous.

Mortgage on a house would take a lot longer to pay off.

Originally posted by seamus

No, everyone pays tax. Since the Government seems to think that graduates make more money than non-graduates, it then follows that they pay more tax - paying for themselves many times over during their life.

The fact that graduate earn more money and therefore pay more tax only means that they make a greater contribution to paying off there college fees than their none college going counterparts. What about none graduates who arte in the upper wage brackets? should they also pay for you education?

Originally posted by seamus

What happens then to the poor bastards with 'loans' hanging over their heads?

What happened to the poor bastards who had loans out when the free fees came in?

If someone could give me a good reason why you personally shouldn't have to pay for the education that you personally receive then i will gladly eat my hat.

ferdi

Thread moved from Leaving Cert to Politics

thats good, i thought i was going mad

If someone could give me a god reason why you personally shouldn't have to pay for the education that you personally receive then i will gladly eat my hat.

at some stage you'll probably need a doctor, nurse or some type of proffesional who went to college. why should we, a "first world nation" have to import medical personel, its outragious.

ballooba

Originally posted by ferdi

at some stage you'll probably need a doctor, nurse or some type of proffesional who went to college. why should we, a "first world nation" have to import medical personel, its outragious.

Forgive if i'm stupid, but I don't see the connection between importing medical personnel and re-introducing fees.
[edit] If you forgive me then can you please also point out the connection?[/edit]

ferdi

i forgive you.

ferdi

Let's say when I finish college next year, I have €32,000 hanging over my head, and start out at €25,000 (a very generous salary). Money is paid back at 5% of my salary per annum. It's going to take me 8-10 years to pay it all back, unless I get a drastic pay rise. That means I'll be into my thirties before I get it paid off. Ridiculous.

lets be honest, that is totally ridiculous.
they will reap what they so.

who are the groups who oppose fees etc?
can anyone give me some some websites please please please

cheers
ferdi

Repli

http://www.usi.ie/
Fight the system!

PHB

This is a short term plan to stimulate the economy, and is not looking at the long term picture.

If they introduce the fees as a lump sum at the start of the year, the amount of people from working class backgrounds will drop, its just a simple fact.
If they however take up this pay after approach, it will not stop as many people, but will still stop some.

If the idea of this scheme was to stop people from spending their lives in education, then it will not be effective in the slighest, since those people will have financial support from their parents anyway.

This will result in less skilled labour, which will be detremental to the economy, which will result in higher taxes for the people that this would save tax money from.

3rd Level education should be a right, not a priviledge.

sunbeam

Could be wrong of course, but I got the impression from the article in the Times that a 'reformed' grants system would stay in addition a loans system so the very poorest students wouldn't incur extra debts.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the inequalities of the grant system as it stands. I was a grant recipient myself. I'm from a working class background. Both parents left school at 14 and only one cousin had been to college before me. Years ago the only way to get into the professional course I wanted to do was to have a masters when applying-credential inflation in the mid nineties and all-so I started a research masters. To make a long story short my grant ran out before completion becuase I all but dropped out to care for a terminally ill parent. I took a variety of low paid jobs and paid fees every year in the hope I would complete it, the strain of travelling accross the country to care for my other parent who was also ill and health problems of my own made this impossible. I'm now trying to complete it while caring for her fulltime.

At the time the professional course I wanted to do was was ESF funded and I'd hoped to work for a bit and save up enough to keep myself for the year. However the loss of this funding and substantial increases in costs of living has put this out of my reach. Without the professional qualification I won't earn enough for any bank to offer me a loan to do it-so I'd actually be quite pleased if there was a student loan system where I could get one...

ballooba

Originally posted by ferdi
who are the groups who oppose fees etc?
can anyone give me some some websites please please please

www.fightfees.com i thought you had done some research on this b4 you went on your rant??? [posters on every (USI affiliated) campus in the country with the address].

You still haven't substantiated your point about the connection between importing medical personnel and re-introducing fees.

Anyway, by the very nature of supply and demand, if we need doctors then the salary available to these people will go up. if the salary fgor a doctor is proportionally higher than that available to other graduates then the higher cost of training to be a doctor is a justifiable expense.

If people from other countries are willing to pay to train as a doctor and will work for cheaper and provide the same service then its right that they should get the jobs.

If these 'imported' medical personnel are having their education paid for by other countries and then not paying tax to said countries then the situation will rapidly sort itself out, in that said countries will no longer pay for free education for these doctors, nurses etc.

bonkey

At the moment, every taxpayer in Ireland is paying for students to go to college.

When the system changes, that will no longer be the case.

So, you're complaining about having to pay back your fees....and ignoring that once you're working you'll never be funding other students' fees.

I would also suggest you check how relaitvely short-term a phenomenon free fees was...its amazing how many people seem to consider it an inalienable right.

jc

3rd Level education should be a right, not a priviledge

3rd level education should be earned not just given to you.

At the moment, every taxpayer in Ireland is paying for students to go to college.

Yup, & also consider that the majority of jobs that students have while in college are not paid over the counter, so they in turn don't pay tax. I may be wrong in this assumption, but it was generally the way, when i went to college.

TBH, i'd prefer my taxes to be spent on areas that actually help me.

Cork

Originally posted by klaz
3rd level education should be earned not just given to you.

I think that "Free Fees" introtroduced by the rainbow government was a gift to the super rich.

It did not encourage an additional prticipation in third level education. I think if additional funding becomes available school transport to secondary schools should be free.

But - Free Fees was a big waste of taxpayers money. It was both short sighted and ill conceived. It was amazing - it was introduced by a socialist minister for eduacation.

I think that they will bring in a loans system that graduates will pay back through taxation. This is a fairer system than free fees.

ballooba

BTW the government announced to day that they are increasing spending on school dinners for primary and secondary school students. Bear in mind that this is the only proper meal that a lot of kids get in the day.

They also announced that they are selling a building off Baggot St for something in the region of 9 million which will be spent on Garda Stations and schools (drop in the ocean but its a start).

If free education for 3rd level students was scrapped then a lot more money would be available for a lot more people to get to the level where 3rd level is even an option for them.

If these people then decide that 3rd level education is worthwhile, they can go and the government will lend them the cash.

Johnmb

At the moment, every taxpayer in Ireland is paying for students to go to college.

When the system changes, that will no longer be the case.

So, you're complaining about having to pay back your fees....and ignoring that once you're working you'll never be funding other students' fees.

So are you saying that by doing this they are going to lower my taxes? If not then they shouldn't be doing it. My taxes should be used to invest in the future of my country, and that means providing a good education to people so that they can get jobs and I won't have to be paying for them to have a life for the rest of their lives.

Cork

If free education for 3rd level students was scrapped then a lot more money would be available for a lot more people to get to the level where 3rd level is even an option for them.

I agree - Impove primary and secondary. Making 3rd level free was a move that did not increase 3rd level education. Because of this - free fees must go.

I would also suggest you check how relaitvely short-term a phenomenon free fees was...its amazing how many people seem to consider it an inalienable right.

When you make something free. It is hard to accept you'll have to pay for it.

But when you look & see that participation in 3rd level was not improved - you see that fees should be brought back.

Johnmb

I agree - Impove primary and secondary. Making 3rd level free was a move that did not increase 3rd level education. Because of this - free fees must go.

But they won't use that money to improve primary and secondary education. Even if they did, they should not be doing it at the expence of third level education. There are lots of other areas that could be cut back. Health and education should never be cut back.

But when you look & see that participation in 3rd level was not improved - you see that fees should be brought back.

Participation in third level education has increased. It is not at the level one would like, but that is due to social problems. Working class students generally accepted that they could not afford to go to college. That mindset takes a while to overcome, and free fees have not been around that long. Now with stupidity like this on the governments part, it is unlikely to change anytime soon as the working classes will still not expect to be able to go to college as they can't trust the government to provide the funding. If education is a right, why does it not extend to third level? Why just second level? Especially considering that in todays world, second level education simply isn't good enough to encourage investment in the country from abroad.

ferdi

i thought you had done some research on this b4 you went on your rant???

intransitive senses
1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2 : to scold vehemently
transitive senses : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion
(webster's)

where does it say i have to do research for a little rant on an internet discussion board?

If education is a right, why does it not extend to third level? Why just second level? Especially considering that in todays world, second level education simply isn't good enough to encourage investment in the country from abroad.

exactly.

ferdi

BTW the government announced to day that they are increasing spending on school dinners for primary and secondary school students. Bear in mind that this is the only proper meal that a lot of kids get in the day.

When did they start paying for students meals? I mean, while I was at school, i paid for my lunch (with either my own or my parents money). Admittedly its almost 8 years since i did my leaving cert.

Johnmb

When did they start paying for students meals? I mean, while I was at school, i paid for my lunch (with either my own or my parents money).

It only occurs in some schools, not all. And they have pretty much said that it is not going to apply to all schools in disadvantaged areas, let alone all schools.

hmmm.... so what types of schools get it? Special-Needs Schools? Seems strange that if only a few schools are getting it, why are we paying for it...

ballooba

Originally posted by klaz
hmmm.... so what types of schools get it? Special-Needs Schools? Seems strange that if only a few schools are getting it, why are we paying for it...

I don't know what type of school you are talking about or whether it needs to be incorporated in this scheme.

There are schools where parents literally struggle to make enough money to keep their kids in school. Clothes, books, transport and meals. These are schools where many parents can't afford to buy food to make breakfast for the kids. There are also schools where uniforms are the only clothes the kids own.

Before this scheme was introduced, many kids were going to school hungry. I'm sure you know that it is impossible to work never mind enjoy your work if you are hungry.

I know of two schools where this scheme operates. The National Schools in Finglas and Ballymun. Finglas is serviced by Bewley's who provide lunches for the students.

There is no reason why this scheme should be extended to priviliged schools. The line has to be drawn somewhere and if you thinks that the kids who rely on this service should be denied it then I won't try and change your opinion.

ballooba

Originally posted by Johnmb
It only occurs in some schools, not all. And they have pretty much said that it is not going to apply to all schools in disadvantaged areas, let alone all schools.

True but hopefully they will increase the amount they spend on this again.

Johnmb

True but hopefully they will increase the amount they spend on this again.

I'd have to disagree. It is the parents responsibility to feed their children. I know of nobody who is not given enough money to feed themselves and their family even if they are long term unemployed, so I'd like to know what makes the people in these areas so special. But then again, I'm not much of a socialist and never will be, so we might as well agree to disagree now and save a discussion that is unlikely to change either of our minds

ballooba

I wouldn't consider myself a socialist either. Even though the views I express here do not represent those of Ballooba.net. Ballooba has nothing to do with student politics.

I just wouldn't like to see kids go hungry. This discussion may be unlikely to change either of our opinions but it may change other people's opinions.

Yes, it should be up to the parents to support their children. The fact remains that some families do not have enough money to spend on food and other essentials. This isn't right in this day and age but that is the situation.

I don't have the statistics at hand to support this but if you add up the cost of sending 3 kids to school and subtract this from the amount of welfare provided to disadvantaged families (children's allowance) you will get a negative figure that will probably be a multiple of the amount of welfare provided.

I would also rather see welfare to these families provided in the form of food (ala school dinners) because food can not be spent on alcohol, drugs etc. as would happen in some of these families

Johnmb

I would also rather see welfare to these families provided in the form of food because food can not be spent on alcohol, drugs etc. as would happen in some of these families

Now that is something I can agree with. If children are going hungry then I personally feel that this is due to bad management of the money that is provided. Admittedly low paid workers or the unemployed don't have much, but they have enough for the essentials, they just have to sacrifice their social lives, which I think is fair. I'm happy to pay taxes to feed and cloth people, but not to pay for them to go down to the pub.

Getting back on topic though, an unemployed family in Crumlin doesn't get any more money than an unemployed family in Finglas, so why do the Finglas family get free food and not the Crumlin family?

There are schools where parents literally struggle to make enough money to keep their kids in school. Clothes, books, transport and meals. These are schools where many parents can't afford to buy food to make breakfast for the kids. There are also schools where uniforms are the only clothes the kids own.

I dunno. I went to a state school, where a large portion of the traveller community went. I never saw them receiving any free food or such. Admittedly, i don't know if they received these free meals and such as part of the money their parents received from welfare. Regardless, I'd love to know where these schools are that the children are starving, or where their uniform is the only clothes they own?

I know theres poor people out there. I know that theres poor kids out there, that go to school. But i do know that there's welfare for such families.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, my opinion on this is, that its a good idea. It makes college a goal worth reaching for, rather than something to do while u waste 4 years of your lives, rather than work.

Now Students might actually care whether they pass or fail their exams, because speaking from personal experience, i know i didn't care.

ballooba

I'm not saying that Ballymun and Finglas are the only schools covered under this. They are just the ones that I know of. Certain City Centre schools are also covered.

True but hopefully they will increase the amount they spend on this again.

Hopefully they will spread this to other schools. I wouldn't like to see it cover only kids whose folks are unemployed in the school because this would lead to slagging, bullying etc. Maybe some other solution could be found for this.

Johnmb

Maybe some other solution could be found for this.

Maybe give the parents some sort of course to help them manage their money better so that they can feed their kids. I don't mean that to sound as bad as it does, I mean it honestly. The amount of people that I know who can't manage their money is amazing. I'm guilty of it at times myself, but I can afford it now. You see it all over the place. If a family is living on the borderline then bad money management is a luxery they can't afford.

Better still, introduce totally free third level education and encourage them to avail of it so that they have a chance of getting a job that pays well and will no longer be relying on state handouts to make ends meet. In this day and age, the government should be trying to make as many people as possible go to college, not giving them reasons to avoid it, otherwise we'll lose out on foreign companies basing here.

ballooba

Originally posted by Johnmb
In this day and age, the government should be trying to make as many people as possible go to college, not giving them reasons to avoid it, otherwise we'll lose out on foreign companies basing here.

I'll state what my point is basically.

This scheme should not dissuade people from going to college. The only thing that should dissuade people from availing of this scheme is their lack in confidence (or lack in confidence in their application) of their abilities to make more money by going to college.

If people want to work/make money and they have confidence in their abilities to do so then they should have the confidence to invest in their futures. They are already investing 3 and upwards years of their lives to go to college so why not re-affirm their committment by investing financially in their futures.

[edit]
Have a look here for the figures on how much families are entitled to.http://families.welfare.ie/publications/sw22.xml#hmcyg

Figures for back to school allowance:
[/edit]http://families.welfare.ie/publications/sw75.xml#all

Johnmb

Okay, answer me this. Why are my taxes being spent to pay for someone to sit at home doing nothing, thus providing absolutely no return, yet my taxes will not be spent to encourage that person to go to college, get a good education thereby attracting more companies to Ireland, and going on to pay taxes along with me which will not only ease the burden on me of financing others, but will help pay for others to go to college as well. As a tax payer I consider dole payments to be wasted money, whereas money spent on education is an investment in the future. Asking people to go into debt in order to have the privilage of paying taxes and buying petrol for ministerial planes is hardly encouraging them to go to college.

ballooba

Unemployment benefit is a huge issue on its own. It is one which i don't think is fully relevant to this thread and one which we could discuss for days. A lot of people (by no means a majority, but a lot) on the dole are unemployable or too lazy to work.

For the uneployable ones, they are probably undeducatable too or you wouldn't wnat to see them in your lecture thaatre.

For the lazy ones. Would you rather pay for them to go be lazy in college or enrol in courses that they don't attend?

For the unemployed who wan't to work. I feel sorry for them. it would be impossible to find a solution that suits everyone, if it was possible then the world would be perfect and everything would be hunky-dory. it is about finding the fairest solution possible.

If these people had the opportunity to borrow money off the government when they finished their second level education then they could have gone to third level.

The proposed system is not all that different from the current one except that instead of paying a contribution to everyones education, you are paying proportionally to the level of education you personally receive.

therecklessone

It always intrigues me to hear people argue in favour of the reintroduction of college fees by asking why should they pay for somebody else to go to college, through general taxation. Why not ask why you should pay for a health care system, when you've never been sick for a day in your life? Or why you pay for a fire service, when your house has never caught fire?

Usually the old chestnuts appear, masquerading as reasoned debate. Its either the offspring of Tony O'Reilly or Ben Dunne who have benefitted most from the abolition of fees we are told. Yeah right. Basically folks, taxation is levied to raise funds to provide a range of services and facilities to the citizens of a state. Notice I didn't say taxpayers. So that means that some people who pay no taxes, and never have, receive benefits from the state, which is effectively you, the taxpayer. Not ideal, but that is how it is. God forbid any of you should be unfortunate enough to lose your job and find yourself relying on social welfare to make ends meet...

I'm getting slightly off topic here, so back to college fees. I'm in favour of a student loan system, but with some consideration to be given to people who are subsequently employed in certain areas of public service or private industry. For example, as an incentive to attract, and retain, teaching staff, the possibility of a reduction in a persons student loan, or its complete cancellation, should be considered. Likewise with nursing. Private industry could benefit from this as well, to encourage students to study subjects which are considered important for industry, such as science.

Regardless of this, access to 3rd level education for people from disadvantaged backgrounds will not improve unless the government starts to address the problems affecting our primary and secondary schools. The level of access is dependant on decent education up to 3rd level entry, not money spent to encourage participation at 3rd level. It is doubtful that the current government is serious about dealing with this problem however, as the results can not be seen for at least ten years, and as such would hardly help with the re-election...

sunbeam

Originally posted by therecklessone
Regardless of this, access to 3rd level education for people from disadvantaged backgrounds will not improve unless the government starts to address the problems affecting our primary and secondary schools. The level of access is dependant on decent education up to 3rd level entry, not money spent to encourage participation at 3rd level.

In fairness it is dependent on both. I went to a rural school on the western seaboard where about 95 percent of kids would have been classed as 'disadvantaged'. Quite a number went on to college, but none of us would have had the maintenance grant not been available, paltry as it was. This was the early 90s and part-time work was not quite so easily available as in recent years-and yes, I did work summers and in later years during term.

Interestingly enough from the Irish Times article it seems that students would not be asked to repay the full cost of their education under the proposed loans sytem. The full economic fees which non EU students usually pay are on average three times those theoretically charged to Irish students. For example the full economic fee per year for Medicine in UCD is €20,316, €13,350 for Science and €9,920 for Arts/Comerce/Law. So even if the loans system did go ahead in that form Irish students would still be highly subsidised by the government. (I wouldn't be an advocate of students paying full economic fees-just pointing it out!)

ballooba

Originally posted by therecklessone
It always intrigues me to hear people argue in favour of the reintroduction of college fees by asking why should they pay for somebody else to go to college, through general taxation. Why not ask why you should pay for a health care system, when you've never been sick for a day in your life? Or why you pay for a fire service, when your house has never caught fire?

People do pay for fire services, used to be in the region of £500 for non-fatal fires (they obviously didn't ask you to pay if someone died). People also have to pay for health services through health insurance like BUPA and VHI.

mada999

Looks like my local Sinn Fein TD from Louth supports the student have a read, every1 should be supporting sinn fein they rock!




A chara

I am writing to confirm my support for the USI campaign. Our party's
spokesperon
on Education, Seán Crowe TD, has written to Colm Jordan, the
President of USI,
to state on the record that when students take to the streets they
do so with
the full backing of Sinn Féin and to remind him of our absolute
commitment to
the principle of free education for all.

The more aggressive and high profile protest actions of USI this year
have been
a refreshing and welcome development and I have no doubt it will play a
key role
in advancing the agenda of all who advocate a fair and inclusive
education
system.

The introduction of free fees was not the solution the government
of the day
represented it as. It has done little for many of the young people
attempting to
enter university from some of the poorest parts of this state, while
making it
easier for some. But it was a step in the right direction. It was a
move towards
a fair and open system of education. It cannot be expected to be
the sole
solution to tackling inequality in Irish education.

We need massive increases in state support for students to bring the
grant in
line with social welfare levels and we need purpose built and
state funded
student accommodation to tackle the ongoing student accommodation
crisis. These
are all problems that were identified years ago and about which the
government
has done little.

Students are expected to live on the poverty line while this government
refuses
point blank to consider a fairer taxation system and a more just
redistribution
of wealth. When students take to the streets on the 5th they will do so
with the
full support of Sinn Féin and, I am sure, the support of hundreds of
thousands
of people across the state who support the development of a fair and
inclusive
education system.

Is mise Arthur Morgan

ballooba

Deadly:rolleyes:

therecklessone

Originally posted by ballooba
People do pay for fire services, used to be in the region of £500 for non-fatal fires (they obviously didn't ask you to pay if someone died). People also have to pay for health services through health insurance like BUPA and VHI.

Yes, but the fire service is also funded through taxation, no? So if I never need to call on their services, do I get my money back? Of course not...

As for health services, not everyone has VHI or BUPA, and there is a public health service, bad and all as it is. Should my money (tax paid) be used to pay for a smoker who has lung cancer to receive oncology treatment for instance???

I'm not arguing that taxation should only be spent on those services which I make use of and nothing else, far from it. I'm pointing out how absurd it is to argue against free 3rd level education on the grounds that you, or somebody else, didn't go to college, so "why should I pay fo somebody else's 3rd level education?" What about non-nationals who were educated outside the country, but now work and pay tax in this state...should their taxes subsidise free 2nd level education?

ballooba

recklessone, ferdi, sunbeam:: It is blatantly obvious that the current system is not working.

USI have given up the idea of running around shouting about whats wrong with the system and have started to try and think of a better solution.

What solution do you propose that is fairer than the current situation and also fairer than the proposed scheme? (that is a serious question which i'd like to hear your answers to).

therecklessone

Originally posted by sunbeam
In fairness it is dependent on both. I went to a rural school on the western seaboard where about 95 percent of kids would have been classed as 'disadvantaged'. Quite a number went on to college, but none of us would have had the maintenance grant not been available, paltry as it was. This was the early 90s and part-time work was not quite so easily available as in recent years-and yes, I did work summers and in later years during term.

Point taken. However, what I was getting at was that there is little point in ploughing money into access programmes for the disadvantaged if, as a result of poor primary and secondary education, they lack basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, no? Free fees were never going to address the real problems at the heart of Irish education, and the failure of successive governments, from all side of the Dail, to face up to their responsibilities and develop a primary and scondary education framework that this country can be proud of is the reason why that remains the case today. If the government chooses to reintroduce fees as an attempt to raise revenue to be spent on purely on 3rd level, then they will not be doing anything near enough to increase access levels.

Plough the savings into a school building program, so that kids don't end up going to freezing cold school buildings, unfit for human habitation. Don't waste it on press release friendly schemes that deliver little in the way of increased access for the disadvantaged.

therecklessone

Originally posted by ballooba
recklessone, ferdi, sunbeam:: It is blatantly obvious that the current system is not working.


What solution do you propose that is fairer than the current situation and also fairer than the proposed scheme? (that is a serious question which i'd like to hear your answers to).

Did you bother reading my original post at all? If not, try reading it now...in its entirity.

Typedef

Why should people who have never gone to colllege have to pay for your education?

Because it benefits the Irish economy, to have graduates who will work cheaply and attract foreign investment.

A better educated and better paid workforce, raises the prospects for continuity of high tech and (other) investment in this economy and the more money those people get paid and pay to the State in taxes, exponenciates the State's ability to provide services.

Think of it as a an investment in your future, by providing prosperity to your fellow citizen, you increase the likelyhood of the same in kind.

Quid pro quo Agent Starling.

troll.