Introduction of fees seemingly imminent

well horse · 08-07-2009 12:44am

Ahem. Why didn't they bring back the fees when everybody had the money? Typcal stupid government trying to rectify their bad descisions by taking money off people as soon as they dont have it anymore.

randylonghorn · 08-07-2009 1:12am

Jay P wrote: »

Like the article says, it's already in place in the UK and Australia, so obviously it must be somewhat effective.

:eek:

Stev_o wrote: »

Why do our generation have to suffer as a result of a recession that the government as dealt with shockingly.

While I sympathise, indeed would generally lean towards your side of the argument, you do realise that it's not just YOUR generation? Most Irish graduates paid full fees up front, the Free Fees "Initiative" has only been in place for ~ 15 years.

LeotheLion wrote: »

well it wouldnt be a nice feeling coming out of a degree with 2 loans to be repaid, as mentioned before it should be means tested

In fairness, it probably will be. Whether the test is valid or reliable is ofc another story ...

Jay P wrote: »

Colleges will have more money and less students who shouldn't be there.

I doubt the first part greatly, and in my experience the cohort you refer to in the second part are usually drawn from families who will still be easily able to afford to send them.

Piste wrote: »

The point is, everyone will be able to afford the fees ...

In theory, but on the other hand if you are someone who already has to borrow to the hilt to pay living expenses going through college; the chances of raising some of that money through part-time work while a student are greatly reduced; the chances of you getting a decent job at the end of your course is also greatly reduced ... will you bother to take on an extra load of debt? Or will you take the easy option and sign on the dole? I know which I would do ... but I also know that the increasingly steep uphill climb will deter many.

Piste wrote: »

I think our Universities will benefit hugely and more money will be put into research which in turn will create jobs.

I sincerely doubt it.

If this had been introduced in the good times, they might have. Now ... the State will simply cut back on what it gives the third level sector in lieu of fees.

Overall funding to third level has already been cut seriously this year, and I doubt that trend will reverse.

A Neurotic wrote: »

First the HPAT, and now this...

If Australia jumped off a bridge...?

Well, we used to shamelessly ape everything the UK did.

I guess since the advent of th'internet ... :rolleyes:

HQvhs wrote: »

Well, okay then. So far no one has come up with an argument against this particular plan.

1) Lots of people will opt not to saddle themselves with even bigger loans to go to college to get a qualification which in the present climate does not guarantee them a well-paid job ... or even a job. This will be especially true of those who would be hard-stretched to make it through even now.

2) For those who do, and actually get a job, they will have big loans to pay back, so they will have less to spend into the economy, they will put off buying / building a house, etc., thus prolonging the recessionary cycle.

3) Others will make it through, emigrate, disappear, and default on the loans. Approx. one third of the Australian loans are written off as bad debt. The government will wring its hands and say "oh dear! aren't they bold!" and either the third-level colleges or the taxpayer will be at the loss. The inequity will shift somewhat to those who are honest being screwed for the sake of those who disappear across the horizon.

Btw, despite the government hype, most of the Australian colleges and students I have dealt with, and I've dealt with a fair few, do not think their scheme works well.

HQvhs wrote: »

and if they remove the initial €1800 payment and make it part of the loan it may improve participation. (Although fat chance).

You have that bit right.

HQvhs wrote: »

Secondly, there's no proof that the introduction of free third level specifically in 1994 has increased the numbers of lower-income children, the schemes target, going to universities. Rather it has led to a boom in middle class children going to universities.

You're mostly correct, mainly because it was spread too wide and wasn't sufficiently targetted. Michael O'Leary's children were (still are, pending change) as entitled to free fees as the fourth child of a Dunnes shop assistant. Another major glitch was that all part-time students paid full economic fees regardless of actual income. So our hypothetical Dunnes shop assistant taking a course in the evening to attempt to better themselves had to pay the full cost, just like, say, a partner in an accountancy firm taking a CPD course. In fact, in the latter case, the firm were probably paying ... it is very unlikely Dunnes were!

Where I disagree with you is the idea that the target of this scheme is lower-income children ... the targets of this scheme are (a) to reduce state spending on third level even further while (b) keeping the numbers of middle-income students as near to the present level as possible.

HQvhs wrote: »

... we still lack science graduates or an entrepreneurial culture. This is what is needed to advance our economy.

Now here I agree with you completely.

HQvhs wrote: »

I really haven't seen a convincing argument for why adults (not parents) should not pay for a bit of their own education when they can afford it, especially if it has given them a bigger income.

I actually don't disagree with you at all. I just don't think the scheme this is based on is a good way of doing this, and I don't trust our government to improve on it ... quite the reverse.

Here's a couple of thoughts:

(a) Retain the basic system as it is at present, but means-test it (properly and fairly!!). Make those above a certain income pay part or full fees on a sliding scale.

(b) Introduce a loan scheme, repayable as the current proposed scheme, which any student can use to "top up" if they are finding it tight.

(c) Introduce an additional 1% education levy on all graduates above a certain (decent) income level. Use this money and the fees raised above to
(1) drive research and development in colleges and elsewhere and
(2) to support hard-working bright kids who could never afford to go to college to get there.

(d) End the inequity between full-time and part-time students, and apply the above principles to both groups.

HQvhs wrote: »

But so are people on high incomes who didn't go to university. This isn't a tax to the govt. It goes to the universities and third level institutes.

It won't. There will be a lot of hype, but they won't see any real increase, probably the opposite.

Fad wrote: »

If fees were reintroduced but government funding wasnt cut too drastically (Again provided that seemingly impossible decent loan system is introduced) I would be alot happier with this whole situation, as it means that the universities might actually benefit from this in the long term. That more than likely wont happen though.

It won't.

p.s. Agent J, take 10 bonus points for Gryffyndor! :pac:

KnifeWRENCH · 08-07-2009 1:43am

I was always torn on the fees issue: "free education for all" is a wonderful idea in theory but on the other hand if the universities and colleges need money it has to come from somewhere.
Of course I always assumed that the idea of fees was to pump more money into education but from reading through this thread it seems like they won't really benefit: they'll just receive students money instead of Government money. Is this correct?

Whatever method is brought in better be means tested. For purely selfish reasons, I would not have minded the upfront approach if it was aimed specifically at higher or middle income earners because if that was the case I (and my parents) wouldn't have had to pay them.

Basically, I'm pro fees if I won't have to pay them and anti fees if I will have to pay them.

(Yes I am incredibly selfish and no, I'm not bothered by the fact that I'm incredibly selfish.)

amacachi · 08-07-2009 1:47am

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I was always torn on the fees issue: "free education for all" is a wonderful idea in theory but on the other hand if the universities and colleges need money it has to come from somewhere.
Of course I always assumed that the idea of fees was to pump more money into education but from reading through this thread it seems like they won't really benefit: they'll just receive students money instead of Government money. Is this correct?

Whatever method is brought in better be means tested. For purely selfish reasons, I would not have minded the upfront approach if it was aimed specifically at higher or middle income earners because if that was the case I (and my parents) wouldn't have had to pay them.

Basically, I'm pro fees if I won't have to pay them and anti fees if I will have to pay them.

(Yes I am incredibly selfish and no, I'm not bothered by the fact that I'm incredibly selfish.)

I'm pro-fees fullstop, even though it would be a pretty harsh system in which anyone in my family would have to pay them. Once loans are available then it's fair.

Gavin "shels" · 08-07-2009 1:51am

Acid_Violet wrote: »

It's worth considering that we already have a highly skilled and educated workforce. Unfortunately that doesn't solve the problem of unemployment as there are tonnes of highly trained people who've worked their asses off in college who can't get jobs anymore cos there aren't any for them.

Foreign and native investors want cheap labour more than they want educated workers. That's why they're moving their factories to India and China, where people will work for less, where they know that they're infinitely more competitive and will work longer hours and a lot harder. If anything, we're too educated.

I'll pick you up on the first point, and I'll use an example. Our IT workforce, over half of the employed workforce in IT is foreign as there isn't enough Irish skilled enough to fill the posts, along with that 2,000-3,000 IT jobs go unfilled every year in Ireland (stats were on RTÉ a while back).

If foreign and native investors want cheap labour over educated works, why are the likes of Intel, Ebay, Google, etc... based in Ireland!?

randylonghorn · 08-07-2009 2:10am

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I was always torn on the fees issue: "free education for all" is a wonderful idea in theory but on the other hand if the universities and colleges need money it has to come from somewhere.
Of course I always assumed that the idea of fees was to pump more money into education but from reading through this thread it seems like they won't really benefit: they'll just receive students money instead of Government money. Is this correct?

I think it definitely is at this stage.

If fees had been re-introduced when Noel Dempsey wanted to do it, and the exchequer was flush, there was a fair chance that the colleges would have benefited. Now, I firmly believe it will simply be used as a partial palliative in further massive State cutbacks in funding to third level.

Gavin shels wrote: »

I'll pick you up on the first point, and I'll use an example. Our IT workforce, over half of the employed workforce in IT is foreign as there isn't enough Irish skilled enough to fill the posts, along with that 2,000-3,000 IT jobs go unfilled every year in Ireland (stats were on RTÉ a while back).

I suspect those stats were out of date; if not then, they soon will be. There have been a lot of IT people let go in the last year.

Gavin shels wrote: »

If foreign and native investors want cheap labour over educated works, why are the likes of Intel, Ebay, Google, etc... based in Ireland!?

Intel are cutting back, AFAIK. But I agree that we are likely to retain Ebay, Google and the high-end jobs at Intel, for a while at least. In fact, with likely decreases in labour costs, they may be fairly safe in the foreseeable future.

For a better example of what has gone / will go, look at Dell.

Agent J · 08-07-2009 2:18am

randylonghorn wrote: »

I think it definitely is at this stage.

If fees had been re-introduced when Noel Dempsey wanted to do it, and the exchequer was flush, there was a fair chance that the colleges would have benefited.

I have to disagree.
What makes you think the government would have maintained its funding as well as put fees on students even back in 2002?
Disaster Dempsey jacked up the registration fee 70% in the same year as well as hitting the back to education allowance hard.
Also this was amid the cut backs which followed the 2002 general elections which seem like paper cuts in comparison to todays.

It has always been about trying to shift the burden of payment of 3rd level education from central government funds to the indivudals. Its just that now they dont have to make the pretense of "Improving access" or some other fancy phrase.

randylonghorn · 08-07-2009 2:29am

Agent J wrote: »

I have to disagree.
What makes you think the government would have maintained its funding as well as put fees on students even back in 2002?

Tbh, I wouldn't be shoving the idea down anyone's throat as a fact.

I'm more saying: "it might have happened then, at least to some degree, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell now!"

Agent J · 08-07-2009 2:36am

randylonghorn wrote: »

Tbh, I wouldn't be shoving the idea down anyone's throat as a fact.

I'm more saying: "it might have happened then, at least to some degree, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell now!"

Fair enough.

You make some good points in your intial post. I'm not exactly a fan of the graduate tax idea and based on the current grant system that this government has presided over for the past 12 years i dont have a lot of faith in them coming up with anything fair means tested.

Amen to the part time students though. Those poor SOBs dont get one red cent from the government(Baring claiming the Tax back assuming they earned enough)

RiverWilde · 08-07-2009 2:57am

Bring back fees? No, not a good idea.

However, this isn't the main problem with the system. The main problem is places or rather lack thereof.

It's probably been said earlier but here goes ... we have a recession ... nearly 500,000 unemployed and what does the govt do? It makes it more difficult to obtain education and training.

Brilliant!

Maybe they'll bring back the window tax next.

Riv

xOxSinéadxOx · 08-07-2009 10:20am

was reading in the paper today that they plan to make the registration fee as part of the loan as well so you can pay it back later. wtf? I was shocked. surely they would be abolishing the registration fee if they brought fees back in :eek:

Kat Slater · 08-07-2009 10:51am

I don't mind having to pay for college education, as long as all the freeloaders I know have to pay as well. I don't want my younger siblings leaving college with a 30K debt over their head when some people will manage to disguise their income and get away with paying nothing.

Liam O · 08-07-2009 1:03pm

what's more likely to happen is that the people who can afford to go to college after the fees come in will go to the private colleges. They are much better and the cost difference wouldn't be much, if even anything.

Fad · 08-07-2009 1:22pm

Liam O wrote: »

what's more likely to happen is that the people who can afford to go to college after the fees come in will go to the private colleges. They are much better and the cost difference wouldn't be much, if even anything.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, no they are not.

Gavin "shels" · 08-07-2009 2:09pm

randylonghorn wrote: »

I suspect those stats were out of date; if not then, they soon will be. There have been a lot of IT people let go in the last year.Intel are cutting back, AFAIK. But I agree that we are likely to retain Ebay, Google and the high-end jobs at Intel, for a while at least. In fact, with likely decreases in labour costs, they may be fairly safe in the foreseeable future.

For a better example of what has gone / will go, look at Dell.

The stats were for 2008 afaik. There has been alot of people let go, but just pop onto a few of the job sites and you'll probably have no bother getting a job if you have a degree if an IT field.

Intel let/are letting up to 300 workers go, but don't forget they still employ over 5,000 people in Ireland.

Dell, iirc they weren't for high skilled workers, merely putting stuff together, I could be wrong mind you.

MrPirate · 08-07-2009 2:18pm

Gavin shels wrote: »

Dell, iirc they weren't for high skilled workers, merely putting stuff together, I could be wrong mind you.

Yup, mostly manufacture.
And someone asked why do they still have their HQs here? Because of the 12.5% corporation tax.

Bring back fees? No, not a good idea.

However, this isn't the main problem with the system. The main problem is places or rather lack thereof.

It's probably been said earlier but here goes ... we have a recession ... nearly 500,000 unemployed and what does the govt do? It makes it more difficult to obtain education and training.

Brilliant!

Maybe they'll bring back the window tax next.

Riv

Internet tax is next in line. Followed by that, then air tax.

donutheadhomer · 08-07-2009 2:27pm

HQvhs wrote: »

Well, okay then. So far no one has come up with an argument against this particular plan. I am against upfront fees. But a student loan paid back when a certain income has been reached is quite reasonable.
It doesn't stop people going to university, and if they remove the initial €1800 payment and make it part of the loan it may improve participation. (Although fat chance).

Secondly, there's no proof that the introduction of free third level specifically in 1994 has increased the numbers of lower-income children, the schemes target, going to universities. Rather it has led to a boom in middle class children going to universities.

Almost all other countries don't have free third level, and see where they are compared to us with "educated work forces". It's quality as well as quantity. Unfortunately while we may have a lot of medicine, arts, law & commerce graduates we still lack science graduates or an entrepreneurial culture. This is what is needed to advance our economy.

And this isn't just a short sighted plan to deal with the recession. This recession will be long gone in 15 years time when the effects of this will begin to be truly seen in the country. It's better to get it right rather than attempt a botched short term job to fill the state coffers.

I really haven't seen a convincing argument for why adults (not parents) should not pay for a bit of their own education when they can afford it, especially if it has given them a bigger income.

I think it may have actually made it more difficult for kids from poorer backgrounds as the entry points have skyrocketed since the intro of free fees with so many kids from middle class backgrounds going to college.

One good thing to come from paying to go to college will be a revaluing of education. Degrees and post grads are ten a penny now and this has done nothing but degrade the pursuit of education. Kids should realise that it is not necessary to attend college to do most jobs in Ireland and most kids are wasting their time in college - colleges are more like a social club for late teens and early 20's. Kids only really go to further their social lives not their education.

I feel that the point at which the former student should begin paying the debt off though should be realistic. Something like the average wage in Ireland as surely no college graduate should earn less than the average wage should they?

Kids from poorer backgrounds would continue to receive free fees if their parents qualify for the higher education grant as was the case also pre 1995. The biggest injustice of the free fees scheme is that it did nothing for kids that would already have been going to college free on the HEG scheme.

donutheadhomer · 08-07-2009 2:36pm

Gavin shels wrote: »

The stats were for 2008 afaik. There has been alot of people let go, but just pop onto a few of the job sites and you'll probably have no bother getting a job if you have a degree if an IT field.

Intel let/are letting up to 300 workers go, but don't forget they still employ over 5,000 people in Ireland.

Dell, iirc they weren't for high skilled workers, merely putting stuff together, I could be wrong mind you.

I am being made redundant from Dell and have postgrad qualifications - 2 honours primary degrees and a masters. I'm very annoyed by this overgeneralisation of the layoffs in Dell. The majority of Dell workers attended college to some level: some to phd level in fact and were still laid off. Plenty of guys I know/knew in Dell have IT degrees.
edit, I did not receive my education through the free fees cheme but rather the Higher Education Grant system.

Gavin "shels" · 08-07-2009 4:39pm

EurasianBadger wrote: »

I am being made redundant from Dell and have postgrad qualifications - 2 honours primary degrees and a masters. I'm very annoyed by this overgeneralisation of the layoffs in Dell. The majority of Dell workers attended college to some level: some to phd level in fact and were still laid off. Plenty of guys I know/knew in Dell have IT degrees.
edit, I did not receive my education through the free fees cheme but rather the Higher Education Grant system.

Apologises, I wasn't 100% sure but well you've proven otherwise.

bythewoods · 08-07-2009 6:02pm

I love a good fees argument.

Basically, if upfront fees were introduced, I wouldn't be able to study Medicine.
I'm already going to have to take out a big, manky student loan to pay for stuff like accomodation. My parents wouldn't be able to afford it. Simple as.

This loans system, flawed as it is, is better than the prospect of upfront fees, but I still don't fully agree.

Can't wait to emigrate.

Acid_Violet · 08-07-2009 10:31pm

MrPirate wrote: »

Well it's most likely the latter but the fact that it's still in Irish law (Technically,although it may be ignored) which goes to show you how our beloved government like to run things: outdated and uselessly.

It's not in 'irish law' per se, have you ever heard of it (or could even imagine in your wildest dreams) it being quoted in a court of law in todays modern Ireland to prove some point or provide foundations for a case?

Fad · 08-07-2009 10:37pm

Acid_Violet wrote: »

It's not in 'irish law' per se, have you ever heard of it (or could even imagine in your wildest dreams) it being quoted in a court of law in todays modern Ireland to prove some point or provide foundations for a case?

That whole gay rights thing?

Acid_Violet · 08-07-2009 10:44pm

Gavin shels wrote: »

I'll pick you up on the first point, and I'll use an example. Our IT workforce, over half of the employed workforce in IT is foreign as there isn't enough Irish skilled enough to fill the posts, along with that 2,000-3,000 IT jobs go unfilled every year in Ireland (stats were on RTÉ a while back).

Perhaps it's because no Irish people wanted to fill the posts? The government is always harping on about getting Arts students to change their minds and doing Science or something technological instead, but obviously to no effect. Just consider how many Arts students there are in UCD compared with Science if you want proof. All the free fees in the world won't change peoples minds about this one. In fact, make people pay fees and they're more likely to go for something which will get them a job pronto, which would've at least slightly increased the lack of numbers doing IT.

If foreign and native investors want cheap labour over educated works, why are the likes of Intel, Ebay, Google, etc... based in Ireland!?

Most of these multinationals won't be here much longer, cheaper labour abroad, lots of whispers heard around lots of companies now. Labour was once cheap and economical here but just as Fruit of the Loom closed in Donegal and moved to a sweatshop in Morocco, so will this trend continue in most sectors. Basically, what Randy said.

Acid_Violet · 08-07-2009 10:45pm

Fad wrote: »

That whole gay rights thing?

The whole 'the woman's place is in the home' thing?

EDIT: You mean that Article 41 of the Constitution (which deals with the family being at the centre of family life and the woman being the centre of the home) would be used in a gay right's debate? I can see why, in a very roundabout way still, but the idea that this Article still bears significance in modern day Ireland is ridiculous. Why? Civil unions have just been granted and the only reason why not more has been done recently is because 1) we're incredibly slow at moving with the times- divorce is only about ten years old here and 2) there are a good few current cabinet ministers who are very much anti-gay (Dermot Ahern, if I recall correctly, came out with some atrocious comments recently enough)

randylonghorn · 08-07-2009 10:59pm

Gavin shels wrote: »

Dell, iirc they weren't for high skilled workers, merely putting stuff together, I could be wrong mind you.

As someone else has pointed out, they did have many highly skilled workers ... BUT their main focus was manufacture and assembly (very broadly speaking) and that is the kind of work that is more and more finding its way to places like China and India.

EurasianBadger wrote: »

I am being made redundant from Dell and have postgrad qualifications - 2 honours primary degrees and a masters. I'm very annoyed by this overgeneralisation of the layoffs in Dell. The majority of Dell workers attended college to some level: some to phd level in fact and were still laid off. Plenty of guys I know/knew in Dell have IT degrees.
edit, I did not receive my education through the free fees cheme but rather the Higher Education Grant system.

No-one meant to suggest that Dell employees were under-educated or not up to scratch in some way, apologies if it came across like that ... more that the trend is for manufacturing type work to disappear abroad to places where the necessary skills also exist and costs are lower.

EDIT: lets not go down that road in this thread / forum, Acid / Fad ... an interesting topic certainly, but a bit out of place here?

Fad · 08-07-2009 11:09pm

randylonghorn wrote: »

EDIT: lets not go down that road in this thread / forum, Acid / Fad ... an interesting topic certainly, but a bit out of place here?

I have no interest in a discussion about it, I was just pointing out that the constitution can still be used/abused.

Jammyc · 09-07-2009 1:59pm

My apologies if this offends anyone and Im sure I would agree with most of your political views but, I just saw another thread being closed for talking about fees because this one was open.

This one doesnt seem to deal with fees now in the way that most of us want to. If we could actually discuss fees and how we would manage as opposed to criticizing the constitution, it would be mega helpful. Just my two cents.

KnifeWRENCH · 09-07-2009 2:26pm

Jammyc wrote: »

My apologies if this offends anyone and Im sure I would agree with most of your political views but, I just saw another thread being closed for talking about fees because this one was open.

I closed that thread because I didn't think having two threads was necessary. This thread is a general discussion about fees: whether you're for or against them, whether a student loan is a good idea or not, how you'll cope etc. It's a broad subject but I think one thread will suffice for now.

This one doesnt seem to deal with fees now in the way that most of us want to. If we could actually discuss fees and how we would manage as opposed to criticizing the constitution, it would be mega helpful. Just my two cents.

You can do so here.

The constitution topic was something that just came up. Besides, just a few posts above, randy requested it be kept out of this thread:

randylonghorn wrote:

EDIT: lets not go down that road in this thread / forum, Acid / Fad ... an interesting topic certainly, but a bit out of place here?

Fighting Irish · 09-07-2009 2:28pm

I don't mind college fees if its a loan type system but i think college grants should go before college fees come in

And also i think people should be discounted for passing their end of year exams, so many people drop out of college its not even funny

electriks · 09-07-2009 4:42pm

Jammyc wrote: »

My apologies if this offends anyone and Im sure I would agree with most of your political views but, I just saw another thread being closed for talking about fees because this one was open.

This one doesnt seem to deal with fees now in the way that most of us want to. If we could actually discuss fees and how we would manage as opposed to criticizing the constitution, it would be mega helpful. Just my two cents.

Yeah sorry i started the thread and wasn't very specific:pac:
I wanted to know if the people starting college in september would have to pay the fees when we're already in the system or wot????

SligoBrewer · 09-07-2009 7:12pm

electriks wrote: »

Yeah sorry i started the thread and wasn't very specific:pac:
I wanted to know if the people starting college in september would have to pay the fees when we're already in the system or wot????

No one knows.

I think it's a joke tbh. We're the unlucky ones, the ones who really have to pay for the **** that FF/PD's/Greens (yes the Greens) have inflicted on our country. We have seen nothing of the Celtic Tiger, not a bit. We didn't bring it's downfall. We didn't over inflate house prices, but yet Batt and Brian have decided to tax going to college.
I used the the word tax there and not fees, as yes, I believe that I have a right to an education. The government has already planned for the payment of its and other EU citizens to go to college here as part of National Development Plan, our pre-recessionary stimulus package. The purpose of including this as part of the NDP was to encourage Ireland's youth to a life of education and reclaim Ireland's claim to fame as a land of scholars. The bringing of this tax to go to college is a joke, which shows that the government doesn't care about me, or the youth of this country. We have been abandoned.

Yeah, yeah I hear you say. You should pay for your education! Our colleges are under-funded and falling apart! The fact that the Government pays for our education and not us ourselves should not impact on the standard of education that one receives (see Private vs Public state funded schools)

I live in Sligo. To go to college, will be a massive expense even without fees. I'll need a loan to pay for accomodation, living costs, registration fees and materials needed for college. On top of that I'll now be stumped with a loan to Government for fees. And ANOTHER loan when I do my masters. Can you imagine the debts I'll have amounted before I go to work at all? I'll be in €25,000+ in the red, and many others will too. Can you imagine being 23 and having that level of debt hanging around your neck like a stone, dragging you to work. I thought we had already tried this nation living on debt thing already anyways.

I will fight this tooth and nail, and I'm sure I will not be alone. The pensioners got their medical card and the ****ing stingy mobile home owners got their €200 tax rescinded. They can pay Gah players wages €1m, and yet they cannot afford education? What matters more? If they can rescind a puny second home tax on the rich like the afore mentioned one already, we can stop them with this tax on the ordinary.

randylonghorn · 09-07-2009 11:26pm

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I don't mind college fees if its a loan type system but i think college grants should go before college fees come in

I presume you're one of those who don't need / are unlikely to receive a grant?

electriks wrote: »

I wanted to know if the people starting college in september would have to pay the fees when we're already in the system or wot????

Nobody knows, but there is some rumbling in the media that O'Keeffe intends that whatever system come in next year will apply to this year's intake as well ... hence flagging the likelihood of change now, so that (theoretically) people can't say they weren't warned / can't claim they contracted in to do the course on the basis that it would definitely remain covered by the Free Fees Initiative.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

We have seen nothing of the Celtic Tiger, not a bit. We didn't bring it's downfall. We didn't over inflate house prices, but yet Batt and Brian have decided to tax going to college.

I kind of disagree with the first statement tbh. Most people of 17-18 at the moment have seen some benefit from the boom years ... the proliferation of highend mobile phones, laptops, computers, brand name clothes and shoes, foreign holidays etc. spring to mind. However, you are right in saying that you didn't bring about its demise. However, that reality is unlikely to change anything. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, a question? ... if the boom had continued until you were out of college, would you have refused the fee subsidies under the FFI on the basis that you weren't responsible for the boom and the economic prosperity which underpinned them?

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I live in Sligo. To go to college, will be a massive expense even without fees. I'll need a loan to pay for accomodation, living costs, registration fees and materials needed for college. On top of that I'll now be stumped with a loan to Government for fees. And ANOTHER loan when I do my masters. Can you imagine the debts I'll have amounted before I go to work at all? I'll be in €25,000+ in the red, and many others will too. Can you imagine being 23 and having that level of debt hanging around your neck like a stone, dragging you to work.

Yes, it's not a nice thought. And when you graduate, and assuming you get a job, your spending power will be severely cut by this system, which in itself will tend to stagnate the economy and prolong the recissionary cycle, as I pointed out above.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

They can pay Gah players wages €1m, and yet they cannot afford education?

Wait! The government pays GAA players now?! When did that happen?!

Gear9992 · 09-07-2009 11:47pm

Read in the paper that they are planning to make the fees for medicine around 30k a year, and thats for 6 years, or however long they spend in college.

So basically, in a couple of years, the only doctors in the country will be euromillions winners.

SligoBrewer · 09-07-2009 11:57pm

randylonghorn wrote: »

I kind of disagree with the first statement tbh. Most people of 17-18 at the moment have seen some benefit from the boom years ... the proliferation of highend mobile phones, laptops, computers, brand name clothes and shoes, foreign holidays etc. spring to mind.

Material goods. Meh. We didn't have high salaries, get an education granted to us like the the 13 or so previous classes who did or have a decent health system to protect us. We got nothing.

randylonghorn wrote: »

if the boom had continued until you were out of college, would you have refused the fee subsidies under the FFI on the basis that you weren't responsible for the boom and the economic prosperity which underpinned them?

No. A government shouldn't have to wait for booms in order to provide it's citizens with basic necessities, essential for functioning as a modern society.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Wait! The government pays GAA players now?! When did that happen?!

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enIE316IE316&q=gaa+government+grants&btnG=Search&meta=

randylonghorn · 10-07-2009 12:39am

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Material goods. Meh. We didn't have high salaries, get an education granted to us like the the 13 or so previous classes who did or have a decent health system to protect us. We got nothing.

1) You hardly expect to be paid for being a teenager.

2) What about the 100s of classes before them again that had to pay full fees?

3) We haven't had a decent healthcare system in Ireland in living memory, boom or bust.

SligoBrewer wrote: »

We got nothing.

0_o

I'm so tempted to suggest you go spend a gap year in Indonesia ...

SligoBrewer wrote: »

No. A government shouldn't have to wait for booms in order to provide it's citizens with basic necessities, essential for functioning as a modern society.

Ok, you know, I'm actually generally on your side of the argument, but you're beginning to convince me I must be wrong.

Desirable as I think free or at least very low-cost higher education is, it certainly doesn't qualify as a "basic necessity".

Leaving aside the kids in other parts of the world who would probably see adequate food and fresh water in that light, I have worked with youngsters here in Ireland who would prioritise a decent dry, warm, home; being able to go outside their front doors without encountering drug-dealers and criminals or without fear; hell, being able to go inside their front doors without fear in some cases; all of these and many more things higher up their wish-list of "basic necessities".

And the government didn't deliver any of that even in the boom years.

And in any case my point was that saying that you are entitled to free fees because you didn't cause the recession is a bit akin to jumping up and down and screaming at your parents "it wasn't my fault, so I should have heat!!!" if the heating oil runs out at home. Whether it was your fault or not won't change the reality of the situation, and it won't impress people as an argument.

People who preceded you in the thread made far more rational and reasonable arguments against the proposed changes.

Oh, I do agree with you re: the GAA players though. Sorry guys, but there are lots of things higher on the agenda for that money.

Jammyc · 10-07-2009 12:55am

Gear9992 wrote: »

Read in the paper that they are planning to make the fees for medicine around 30k a year, and thats for 6 years, or however long they spend in college.

So basically, in a couple of years, the only doctors in the country will be euromillions winners.

Saaay whaaat? Ahh feck! Looks like grad. medicine is out for me. 60000ish I could deal with (or would have somehow;)) but the thoght of being roughly 200000 in debt before youve got yourself a house/car/life! Feck that!

Gear9992 · 10-07-2009 1:01am

Jammyc wrote: »

Saaay whaaat? Ahh feck! Looks like grad. medicine is out for me. 60000ish I could deal with (or would have somehow;)) but the thoght of being roughly 200000 in debt before youve got yourself a house/car/life! Feck that!

It could be 30,000 a year for the last two or three years, I'm not totally sure.

If these fees are brought in, wouldn't be surprised if there was a mass-migration of students abroad, with me on the first flight out of here :P

randylonghorn · 10-07-2009 1:17am

Gear9992 wrote: »

Read in the paper that they are planning to make the fees for medicine around 30k a year, and thats for 6 years, or however long they spend in college.

I didn't see that in the paper, but I'd say they are just taking a shot in the dark based on something like this.

I really wouldn't be paying too much attention to speculation like that. Ok, if they re-introduce fees, medicine is likely to be at the top of the scale, but it's very doubtful that they would jump from a reg. fee of €1,500 p.a. to €30,000 p.a.!

A few reasons ...

a) there would be war!

b) they know damn well that a lot of people would simply drop out of contention, and the medical schools would be going mad because they would no longer be attracting "the best of the best".

c) most doctors end up deriving all or part of their income from the State. The more debt they are saddled with, the more they will agitate for higher and higher salaries. Cue increased pressure on our banjaxed health service; industrial action; etc. etc. It would make poor long-term economic sense.

None of these factors apply to international students (i.e. those from outside the EU) which is why fees for this cohort have traditionally been set at what the market will bear (or, my own suspicion, by firing a dart at a dartboard!! :pac: )

SligoBrewer · 10-07-2009 10:54am

randylonghorn wrote: »

2) What about the 100s of classes before them again that had to pay full fees?

Did I say that was right?

randylonghorn wrote: »

3) We haven't had a decent healthcare system in Ireland in living memory, boom or bust.

We did, before the abolition of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, but thats a whole different story.

randylonghorn wrote: »

I'm so tempted to suggest you go spend a gap year in Indonesia ...

I hope to go and do something like that, the townships in South Africa being my particular place that I wish to visit/help

randylonghorn wrote: »

Desirable as I think free or at least very low-cost higher education is, it certainly doesn't qualify as a "basic necessity".

Leaving aside the kids in other parts of the world who would probably see adequate food and fresh water in that light, I have worked with youngsters here in Ireland who would prioritise a decent dry, warm, home; being able to go outside their front doors without encountering drug-dealers and criminals or without fear; hell, being able to go inside their front doors without fear in some cases; all of these and many more things higher up their wish-list of "basic necessities".

And the government didn't deliver any of that even in the boom years.

And in any case my point was that saying that you are entitled to free fees because you didn't cause the recession is a bit akin to jumping up and down and screaming at your parents "it wasn't my fault, so I should have heat!!!" if the heating oil runs out at home. Whether it was your fault or not won't change the reality of the situation, and it won't impress people as an argument.

People who preceded you in the thread made far more rational and reasonable arguments against the proposed changes.

If we are to have any way out of this mess, It's via education. While my earlier post may have been seen as rather selfish, admittedly taxing going to college will not help things. A 3rd band of tax at ~60% and an increase of the higher rate of tax to 45-46% would be much fairer, as we still would be paying for our education when we actually started making money, and not having the mountain of debt inflicted upon us by FF.

Jammyc · 10-07-2009 11:39am

I'm thinking more of Graduate Medicine though.

UCD Website wrote:

Fees:

The Programme tuition fee for EU graduate students is €26,960 per annum in 2009. The Higher Education Authority will contribute €13,845 per annum in 2009 towards the fee leaving the student liable for the balance of €13,115 per annum.

Im fearful that theyll take this away!

electriks · 10-07-2009 5:07pm

Unno what, the people saying that we're not the first to have to pay fees are dead right, and this cock-up is the governments fault because when in Ireland's history was the country that prosperous??? In a matter of months it disentigrated to to the elderly flooding the streets because they were being deprived their rights and now students forced to line up for grants and grovel to be in with a chance of going to college.

We are getting a raw deal. Why shouldn't we benefit from access grants and such????
Personally, I'm clean broke and didn't bother my arse with the leaving because i didn't think I'd be able to afford college without coming out with a €15000+ loan and now fees on top of it???

And the most pathetic part is i was turned down for the Access grant and had to get a TD to appeal it for me. they made up some riduculous reason in the letter they sent me for not giving it to me and i wasn't the only one who got turned down that deserved it.

I'm sorry but i am going to take all the help i can get and fight for those grants as is everyone else that thinks this is an utter injustice.
You wanna complain that we're acting spoilt after benefiting from the celtic tiger or that we should shut up and just accept it........................
Then what can i say??????? Screw you!!!!!

sorry bout the rant but having to get TD's to get you some money to get into college is seriously pissing off!!!!

sock puppet · 10-07-2009 6:03pm

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Did I say that was right?

We did, before the abolition of the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes, but thats a whole different story.

I hope to go and do something like that, the townships in South Africa being my particular place that I wish to visit/help

If we are to have any way out of this mess, It's via education. While my earlier post may have been seen as rather selfish, admittedly taxing going to college will not help things. A 3rd band of tax at ~60% and an increase of the higher rate of tax to 45-46% would be much fairer, as we still would be paying for our education when we actually started making money, and not having the mountain of debt inflicted upon us by FF.

60% tax:eek:. What on earth would be the incentive to earn money then? We already have a 48 percent top rate effectively. I'd much prefer to pay off a loan/pay some extra tax for a few years.

And how do you know we will pay for the governments mistakes? By the time you leave college the recession could be over and you might be able to get a job straight out of college. Someone in their 50's who has just been layed off is in a much worse position. I won't be happy about paying for college but we're hardly the unlucky ones.

We · 10-07-2009 6:13pm

croker1 wrote: »

have you ever thought of the people who might not be able to afford the fees??? its all well and good you saying your in favour of it when you obviously have the money to pay it.... what about those who dont....

Obviously you didnt read the article...

How could you possibly predict whether or not you will be able to afford it after you have graduated? Or is it your intent to stay at a shít paying job for the rest of your life?

Piste · 10-07-2009 6:26pm

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy. If the graduate tax comes in it means that only those who benefit from the education should pay for it. Instead of our parents paying our fees we'll pay for our own education regardless of socio-economic backgrounds- as it should be.

SligoBrewer · 10-07-2009 6:32pm

sock puppet wrote: »

60% tax:eek:. What on earth would be the incentive to earn money then? We already have a 48 percent top rate effectively. I'd much prefer to pay off a loan/pay some extra tax for a few years.

It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000. O noes! Tax the rich! What about my Porsche? If I was in a 60% tax band, paying at the highest rate possible, I'd be more than happy to pay, as it would mean that I would have a standard of living that was very comfortable indeed.

sock puppet wrote: »

And how do you know we will pay for the governments mistakes? By the time you leave college the recession could be over and you might be able to get a job straight out of college.

This self inflicted "situation" we are in is now a depression. The 30's or 80's didnt finish in 5 years, and now this is up there amongst those "situations".

SligoBrewer · 10-07-2009 6:35pm

Piste wrote: »

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy. If the graduate tax comes in it means that only those who benefit from the education should pay for it. Instead of our parents paying our fees we'll pay for our own education regardless of socio-economic backgrounds- as it should be.

This tax is and should be income tax Piste. As those with 3rd level education will be earning on average far more than those with out 3rd level education. What about the thirteen years of people who have gone through without paying a graduate tax? I'll pay for my education via income tax, as it's by the far the fairest way to tax an economy.

Agent J · 10-07-2009 6:35pm

Piste wrote: »

I'm in favour of a graduate tax as long as decent funding does go to the various third level institutions and not to plug the various holes which have appeared in the economy. If the graduate tax comes in it means that only those who benefit from the education should pay for it. Instead of our parents paying our fees we'll pay for our own education regardless of socio-economic backgrounds- as it should be.

Yeah. Never going to happen. Its a nice ideal but take a look at the government.

They wont ring fence a graduate tax and besides people already pay the higher rate of tax anywau.

sock puppet · 10-07-2009 7:21pm

SligoBrewer wrote: »

It ridiculous to think that a person who earns €40,000 is taxed in the same band as one earning €2,000,000. O noes! Tax the rich! What about my Porsche? If I was in a 60% tax band, paying at the highest rate possible, I'd be more than happy to pay, as it would mean that I would have a standard of living that was very comfortable indeed.

This self inflicted "situation" we are in is now a depression. The 30's or 80's didnt finish in 5 years, and now this is up there amongst those "situations".

That's not my point. Say if the income threshold is 150,000. What incentive is there to earn above that if you're only going to be able to keep a small portion of it?

The 30's or 80's in which country? Ireland wasn't too badly affected by the Great Depression as opposed to industrialised countries. And while problems remained the Depression did end within 5 years.

KnifeWRENCH · 10-07-2009 7:38pm

electriks wrote: »

Unno what, the people saying that we're not the first to have to pay fees are dead right, and this cock-up is the governments fault because when in Ireland's history was the country that prosperous??? In a matter of months it disentigrated to to the elderly flooding the streets because they were being deprived their rights and now students forced to line up for grants and grovel to be in with a chance of going to college.

Off topic, but the elderly were never denied their rights. Only elderly people who could actually afford medical care would have had their cards taken off them, yet people insisted on making a huge deal about it.
The Government should never have made a U-turn on that decision imo.

We are getting a raw deal. Why shouldn't we benefit from access grants and such????
Personally, I'm clean broke and didn't bother my arse with the leaving because i didn't think I'd be able to afford college without coming out with a €15000+ loan and now fees on top of it???

I'm sorry but if you didn't bother your arse with the Leaving then perhaps you don't deserve to go to college. :rolleyes: You should give 100% to your Leaving Cert regardless of what you plan to do afterwards. It's not the be all and end all certainly but it's still a very important exam.

And the most pathetic part is i was turned down for the Access grant and had to get a TD to appeal it for me. they made up some riduculous reason in the letter they sent me for not giving it to me and i wasn't the only one who got turned down that deserved it.

In fairness to the Access people, their funding has been cut a lot in the past couple of years. I entered college through the HEAR route two years ago and they can't afford to give everyone who registered the same financial support. They have probably had to be much more stringent with the application criteria this year, which is why you and others lost out this year when you probably would have qualified any other year.
Although I must say fair play to you for taking the initiative to go to your local TD.

Fighting Irish · 10-07-2009 7:51pm

electriks wrote: »

Unno what, the people saying that we're not the first to have to pay fees are dead right, and this cock-up is the governments fault because when in Ireland's history was the country that prosperous??? In a matter of months it disentigrated to to the elderly flooding the streets because they were being deprived their rights and now students forced to line up for grants and grovel to be in with a chance of going to college.

We are getting a raw deal. Why shouldn't we benefit from access grants and such????
Personally, I'm clean broke and didn't bother my arse with the leaving because i didn't think I'd be able to afford college without coming out with a €15000+ loan and now fees on top of it???

you're the problem, not trying at all but still expecting something

Introduction of fees seemingly imminent

Comments