Anti fees protest

K-9 · 05-02-2009 11:07AM

astrofool wrote: »

A high % of people with a university education is the only thing stopping us being a third world country at this stage. If we bring in fees, we might as well start shipping people out of the country as soon as they hit 18, as no multinationals will ever be interested in coming to Ireland any more.

Nah, they came here when there was fees.

Wagon wrote: »

Sorry mate, have to disagree with that. There's no way in hell that any student could afford rent and living expenses and fees by working a summer job. When your a student, you get paid minimum wage. So unless you don't sleep all summer and have 2 jobs from start to finish that won't happen. Also, it's far too optimistic to just assume that every student in Ireland will be gaurenteed a job for the summer, especially since it's very hard to get regular work as things are economically.

People managed before the free fees.

Mark200 · 05-02-2009 11:08AM

galwayguy22 wrote: »

Oh and I forgot to say,

Anybody would be able to pay for food and rent plus the proposed fee's with a solid summer job and a weekend job even without help from parents or grant.

My course would be €7000 a year. I had a summer job last summer, about €9 an hour, 40 hours a week. I got about €5000. So to say that I could make up another €2000 AND pay about €4000 for accommodation, and pay for food......is quite ridiculous really.

And I know that I was lucky to get a summer job because my dad was able to get it for me. In case you haven't noticed, there aren't a lot of jobs around these days. If I were to have to pay all this myself, there wouldn't even be any point in me going to college cos I'd have no time to study, I'd be spending all my time trying to pay for it!!!

Rb · 05-02-2009 11:10AM

Did he mean 4th year of college of 4th year of secondary school?

His complete and utter apparent ignorance is excusable depending on the answer.

ScissorPaperRock · 05-02-2009 11:18AM

K-9 wrote: »

Nah, they came here when there was fees.

People managed before the free fees.

The reason they came was a combination of a highly-skilled workforce and low corporation tax. Without the highly-skilled workforce - a product of 3rd level education - we would have no edge over the abundance of countries with extremely cheap labour.

I'm sure people did manage to go to college before there were free fees, but I'd imagine the numbers were significantly lower. If the same pattern would emerge it would in turn lead to reduction in the number of highly-skilled employees, and therefore reduced incentive for multinational corporations to base operations here.

K-9 · 05-02-2009 11:28AM

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

The reason they came was a combination of a highly-skilled workforce and low corporation tax. Without the highly-skilled workforce - a product of 3rd level education - we would have no edge over the abundance of countries with extremely cheap labour.

I'm sure people did manage to go to college before there were free fees, but I'd imagine the numbers were significantly lower. If the same pattern would emerge it would in turn lead to reduction in the number of highly-skilled employees, and therefore reduced incentive for multinational corporations to base operations here.

Free fees benefited the middle classes, as seen by the amount of cars now owned by students. If many students can afford cars, they can afford fees.

We had a highly skilled workforce before free fees.

ScissorPaperRock · 05-02-2009 11:33AM

K-9 wrote: »

Free fees benefited the middle classes, as seen by the amount of cars now owned by students. If many students can afford cars, they can afford fees.

Well I'm just talking from experience here, have worked since I've started college, come from a middle class family, and would no in no way be able to afford a car.

K-9 wrote: »

We had a highly skilled workforce before free fees.

Anything to back this?

At the very least I believe it's safe to say that no fees = more 3rd level students = larger highly skilled workforce. Which is what we need.

Wood · 05-02-2009 11:33AM

Saw them pass my job yesterday, i saw maybe one in ten of the students drinking either cans or bottles of wine.

The Ugg boot brigade were out in force as were the designer handbag mob.

I saw at least 3 different misspellings of the word privilege.

A run of special fight the fees t-shirts? Would that money not be better spent on say.....College fees?

So all in all, judging by the shameful display yesterday i'm glad that fees are being brought in so my tax isn't paying for that shambling mess that "protested" yesterday

K-9 · 05-02-2009 11:36AM

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Well I'm just talking from experience here, have worked since I've started college, come from a middle class family, and would no in no way be able to afford a car.

Anything to back this?

At the very least I believe it's safe to say that no fees = more 3rd level students = larger highly skilled workforce. Which is what we need.

You think we didn't pre 95?

Most probably emigrated though, it was called the brain drain.

ScissorPaperRock · 05-02-2009 11:41AM

K-9 wrote: »

You think we didn't pre 95?

Most probably emigrated though, it was called the brain drain.

Didn't what? The point I'm making is that it will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of 3rd level students. I believe the increase of fees in the UK led to a reduction of 4%. This would not lead to a stronger foundation for the economy in the future.

And such a brain drain would definitely not be beneficial.

K-9 · 05-02-2009 11:46AM

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Didn't what? The point I'm making is that it will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of 3rd level students. I believe the increase of fees in the UK led to a reduction of 4%. This would not lead to a stronger foundation for the economy in the future.

And such a brain drain would definitely not be beneficial.

You think this highly skilled workforce suddenly materialised in 1995?

A reduction mightn't be a bad thing. Weed out the ones who do degrees for no real reason.

Targets some of the funds saved at the disadvantaged.

ScissorPaperRock · 05-02-2009 11:51AM

K-9 wrote: »

You think this highly skilled workforce suddenly materialised in 1995?

Well no, but I'd imagined it has increased dramatically since then.

K-9 wrote: »

A reduction mightn't be a bad thing. Weed out the ones who do degrees for no real reason.

I'd beg to differ. What are those that don't go for degrees supposed to do? Work in unskilled/semi-unskilled jobs? How would they compete with the much cheaper workforces in South Asia or Latin America that would do the same work.

Wagon · 05-02-2009 11:58AM

K-9 wrote: »

People managed before the free fees.

Yes but we aren't talking about then, we're talking about now.

K-9 · 05-02-2009 12:22PM

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

Well no, but I'd imagined it has increased dramatically since then.

It would have anyway with the Celtic Tiger.

ScissorPaperRoc wrote:

I'd beg to differ. What are those that don't go for degrees supposed to do? Work in unskilled/semi-unskilled jobs? How would they compete with the much cheaper workforces in South Asia or Latin America that would do the same work.

69% of the Civil Service have degrees. I doubt they all are being fully optimised. There's a lot of doing degrees just for the sake of it.

Wagon wrote: »

Yes but we aren't talking about then, we're talking about now.

It's a fair comparison.

Wagon · 05-02-2009 12:28PM

K-9 wrote: »

It's a fair comparison.

What was the price of the fees before? And the rent etc...? I was too young to know.

brianthebard · 05-02-2009 12:32PM

astrofool wrote: »

A high % of people with a university education is the only thing stopping us being a third world country at this stage. If we bring in fees, we might as well start shipping people out of the country as soon as they hit 18, as no multinationals will ever be interested in coming to Ireland any more.

Multinationals employ mostly semi skilled labourers here.

Also, I've been saying it all along, the re-introduction of fees will only affect those families who can afford to pay fees. I've no sympathy for a family with a combined income of over 100k paying fees.

K-9 · 05-02-2009 12:38PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Multinationals employ mostly semi skilled labourers here.

Also, I've been saying it all along, the re-introduction of fees will only affect those families who can afford to pay fees. I've no sympathy for a family with a combined income of over 100k paying fees.

YEP, that was the limit suggested last year.

K-9 · 05-02-2009 12:40PM

Wagon wrote: »

What was the price of the fees before? And the rent etc...? I was too young to know.

Rent would have been £40/50 per week. Fees about £2/3,000 a year.

I suppose you'd need to adjust for inflation and much higher incomes now.

Lockstep · 05-02-2009 12:42PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Also, I've been saying it all along, the re-introduction of fees will only affect those families who can afford to pay fees. I've no sympathy for a family with a combined income of over 100k paying fees.

Not true Brian.
It will affect those who's parents are rich.
I believe your counted as a mature student above the age of 23, below that if your parents are rich, then you'd be counted as being able to afford fees.

Regardless of whether or not you get money off them. As I said earlier in the thread, one of my friends is fairly estranged from his parents and they don't help him out at all. He'd be screwed if fees came in.

brianthebard · 05-02-2009 01:05PM

I really don't see why we should protest fees on account of one person who's estranged from his parents. It will affect those who's parents are rich, correct-those are the people who are best able to afford it, and also as or more importantly the people who have benefitted disproportionally from the introduction of free fees. Free fees were meant to benefit those from come from lower income families, but its the higher earners that have gained the most. Why not correct this?

K-9 · 05-02-2009 01:12PM

brianthebard wrote: »

I really don't see why we should protest fees on account of one person who's estranged from his parents. It will affect those who's parents are rich, correct-those are the people who are best able to afford it, and also as or more importantly the people who have benefitted disproportionally from the introduction of free fees. Free fees were meant to benefit those from come from lower income families, but its the higher earners that have gained the most. Why not correct this?

Enough socialist talk from you!

Wagon · 05-02-2009 01:12PM

K-9 wrote: »

Rent would have been £40/50 per week. Fees about £2/3,000 a year.

I suppose you'd need to adjust for inflation and much higher incomes now.

When you take these factors into consideration though:

1. Student services fees have been rising for the last few years. We all pay that regardless of any fees.

2. Rent for on-campus accomodation costs at least €5000 per year and I'd say that's gone up again (this doesn't include your bills and basic living expenses such as food and drink). you could go for the alternative such as living outside the college but

3. Even your average bedsit in somewhere reletively central like Rathmines will cost about €600 - €700 a month and that rarely includes bills. Sharing a house is a good option too though and is more of a laugh but more often than not it's difficult to find a place near the college you are going to so many will still have to take transport into consideration.

4. This governments shining ineptitude to do anything right, constantly verified by cock up after cock up. Why should something this important be any different? And as they have their own agenda, why should they give a **** about the people who pay taxes?

5. Lack of part time work that's available for students. People are getting laid off left, right and centre from full time jobs so the odds of a student finding work is getting more and more difficult.

This is only a rough outline, if anyone has any previous experience living out of home while they were in college and sees any mistakes then correct it if you like

I still firmly believe that free fees aren't responsable for the amount of wasters in college. I think it's down to the attitude of the parents and the schools, and many pupils are heavily encouraed to just "go" to college. But to do what? More often than not, a pupil will pick a course just to get everyone off their back and **** off. A secondary school is there to educate a person up to the leaving cert and then their job is done. Their argument is that a student must go to college as their mind is still actively interested in learning. I don't know about anyone else on this thread but I was sick to death of looking at books when I finished the leaving. If you want to get rid of wasters, give them a chance to make up their minds on what they want to do and they can go when they're a bit older. They can get work in the meantime (although they might have to go across the waters to find it) Going to college at 22 and doing something you like is a much better use of time than going at 17 and dropping out after a year.

Lockstep · 05-02-2009 01:12PM

brianthebard wrote: »

I really don't see why we should protest fees on account of one person who's estranged from his parents.

Christ Brian, it was an example. You know that.

If you didn't, it was meant to show that the way fees would be introduced would render people unable to go to college based on their parents being rich. They are 18 at that age, and adults themselves.

brianthebard wrote: »

It will affect those who's parents are rich, correct-those are the people who are best able to afford it

And yet there are those who will fall through the cracks of the system and be unable to go to college. Based on an assumption that parents automatically provide for their kids.

skywalker · 05-02-2009 01:17PM

galwayguy22 wrote: »

I'm currently in 4th year so I couldn't give a **** if they bring back fees to be honest.

What a disgusting attitude. Im alright so **** the rest of ye. Im finished college a good few years now, but I still went along, because Im aware that if it hadnt been for free fees, I wouldnt have been able to go to college.

astrofool · 05-02-2009 01:19PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Multinationals employ mostly semi skilled labourers here.

Multinationals were attracted here by low corporation tax and low wage workers.

Low wage workers are gone, and it's only been through the increasingly high skilled work that multinationals have been able to justify their existance in Ireland (witness Dell laying off the semi skilled labourers, but keeping the uni grads recently).

With free fees (and I don't see why it should matter whose a person's parents are when they are over 18), everybody gets the same chances, from low class to high class backgrounds.

There have been numerous social reasons why people from low class backgrounds don't have as high a % go to third level education as a high class background (e.g. previously high pay rates by going into a trade, lack of decent schools in low class area's). With the fall off in blue collar work, we will see far more people go back to third level education, paving the way for our future economy, reintroducing fees will kill that dead.

K-9 · 05-02-2009 01:24PM

Wagon wrote: »

When you take these factors into consideration though:

1. Student services fees have been rising for the last few years. We all pay that regardless of any fees.

I would have thought the reason the fees are going up is because of so called free education.

I'd assume they would be abolished if fees came in.

Wagon wrote:

2. Rent for on-campus accomodation costs at least €5000 per year and I'd say that's gone up again (this doesn't include your bills and basic living expenses such as food and drink). you could go for the alternative such as living outside the college but

Wouldn't be far of €2/2,500 13/14 years ago. Rents are falling and will fall more with over supply of property.

Wagon wrote:

3. Even your average bedsit in somewhere reletively central like Rathmines will cost about €600 - €700 a month and that rarely includes bills. Sharing a house is a good option too though and is more of a laugh but more often than not it's difficult to find a place near the college you are going to so many will still have to take transport into consideration.

See above point.

Wagon wrote:

4. This governments shining ineptitude to do anything right, constantly verified by cock up after cock up. Why should something this important be any different? And as they have their own agenda, why should they give a **** about the people who pay taxes?

Nice rant.

Wagon wrote:

5. Lack of part time work that's available for students. People are getting laid off left, right and centre from full time jobs so the odds of a student finding work is getting more and more difficult.

Unemployment is lower than 95. How did people manage then?

Wagon wrote:

This is only a rough outline, if anyone has any previous experience living out of home while they were in college and sees any mistakes then correct it if you like

brianthebard · 05-02-2009 01:27PM

K-9 wrote: »

Enough socialist talk from you!

:eek: what gave it away?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Christ Brian, it was an example. You know that.

If you didn't, it was meant to show that the way fees would be introduced would render people unable to go to college based on their parents being rich. They are 18 at that age, and adults themselves.

And yet there are those who will fall through the cracks of the system and be unable to go to college. Based on an assumption that parents automatically provide for their kids.

So let him apply as a mature student. Introduce a system that allows independent means testing at 18. there'll always be cracks, but making families who earn over 100k is a fairer more equitable system, and will get money back into the unis and help lower income families, which is whats needed. You know that uni funding was cut 3% last year, how is that going to be made up? Registration costs-fees under another name? If so then the lower income students will be hit hardest again. Introduce fees, abolish reg costs, and get money back into uni infrastructure and funding for lower income families.

astrofool wrote: »

There have been numerous social reasons why people from low class backgrounds don't have as high a % go to third level education as a high class background (e.g. previously high pay rates by going into a trade, lack of decent schools in low class area's). With the fall off in blue collar work, we will see far more people go back to third level education, paving the way for our future economy, reintroducing fees will kill that dead.

You can show this how?

Lockstep · 05-02-2009 01:35PM

brianthebard wrote: »

So let him apply as a mature student.

Why? He is 18. Should he spend the next 5 years working whatever he can get his hands on before getting to apply to university because he happens to not get on with his parents?

brianthebard wrote: »

Introduce a system that allows independent means testing at 18.

How do you propose this to work? I often hear this argument but it usually falters as to how the government will regulate this means testing or what is to stop the parents giving the kids money on the sly.

brianthebard wrote: »

there'll always be cracks, but making families who earn over 100k is a fairer more equitable system, and will get money back into the unis and help lower income families, which is whats needed.

How exactly will it help lower income families? Do you think the government will maintain the same level of funding for universities or will it just use the extra cash to allow it to roll back how much it helps out.

brianthebard wrote: »

You know that uni funding was cut 3% last year, how is that going to be made up?

By the exchequer funding it, combined with extra tax on those earning over 100k a year?
There is much talk of the rich paying for college, why not do so through direct taxation. That way it ensures that the money goes from those who can genuinely afford it.

brianthebard wrote: »

Registration costs-fees under another name? If so then the lower income students will be hit hardest again. Introduce fees, abolish reg costs, and get money back into uni infrastructure and funding for lower income families.

See above as regards to the government being likely to roll back funding.

Wagon · 05-02-2009 01:39PM

K-9 wrote: »

Nice rant.

Still applies

TouchingVirus · 05-02-2009 02:33PM

That pre-95 argument is bull**** K-9, one which you've not backed up with sources either (including your 69% of the civil service have degrees comment) so here comes my take on it, also without references.

The price of goods and services has risen so much that what people could have gotten for a few pence back in the day isn't what we pay now even after you take in inflation, currency changeover etc etc. So basically, students may get 200 euro for a weekend job which you compare to I dunno, £40 we'll say. The cost of ESB/Heating/etc isn't comparable to what was paid pre-1995. Again, after taking inflation into account it's still a much bigger percentage of our current wage spent on bills than our predecessors.

I'd wager there's more students going to college now than there used to be, so there's a lot more looking for summer jobs. Let's say there's the same amount of summer jobs that there were pre-95, that still means a lot more students don't have a job come summer. They're also not entitled to the dole or assistance for the summer and should they not get a grant and have fees to pay that's a loan situation or a dropout one. Comparing to pre-1995, if every summer job was taken up then there'd be a lower number of students who didn't get a job and hence couldn't pay their fees.

There are over 460,000 people with degrees in the country compared with 233,000 back in 1996, at least partially because of the increase in numbers attending college. Only 6,000 students aged 19 and over (who i'll assume are mostly college students) travelled more than 15 miles to college back in 1996. Over 28,000 people do it now and I'm sure if things were the same now as they were back in 1995 then those numbers would be the same too :rolleyes:

You're comparing apples and oranges and I hate fruit..

galwayguy22 · 05-02-2009 02:41PM

skywalker wrote: »

What a disgusting attitude. Im alright so **** the rest of ye. Im finished college a good few years now, but I still went along, because Im aware that if it hadnt been for free fees, I wouldnt have been able to go to college.

Not one person in my 4th year class went to the protests and generally don't care. Yes, it doesn't effect me so I don't care. boo hoo.

Anti fees protest

Comments