amen wrote: » a dreadful idea. There is a big difference between a University and an IT offering certs/diplomas. As for each campus specialising a lot of research is cross discipline and it can be an advantage to have everyone on the same campus. Even at undergrad level you may be taught the basics about other courses with lecturers from those courses.
granturismo wrote: » but when has one research project from Ireland benefitted a single cancer patient or saved a region's crops from infestation using natural predators instead of pesticides.
Sleepy wrote: » I can see the point that IT or Engineering students benefit from a grounding course in management theory etc. but given the level those courses need to be taught at is effectively '101' using the best available lecturers to teach them is a misallocation of resources. Perhaps using visiting lecturers from the 'average' universities or the local I.T. to provide these course modules would make more sense than each university having it's own Commerce Department etc.
PeakOutput wrote: » ucd / trinity / ul / ucc have made very significant contributions to science and health. much as i think they can be imroved over all there are some outstanding researchers in departments across the country trinity in particular played a huge roll in the mapping of the human genome trinity also researched and built parts for some of the nasa satallites(i think it was the sattellites i cant remember exactly)
Sleepy wrote: » It makes sense to me that having a university (such as MIT) focusing on a single area will lead to a greater grouping of academic talent in that university
rightwingdub wrote: » They can work for a few years, save up quite a bit of money and then go to college say when they are 21 or 23, mature students tend to have more appreciation for the courses they are doing than a lot of 17 or 18 year old kids.
Sandvich wrote: » Also your ageism is ridiculous. I've met plenty of 21 or 23 year olds who are just as immature. I hated most other students when I was in college but the only reason the "Older" ones were any better was because they were in 4th year and dead busy.
Kiwi_knock wrote: » If fees were introduced I would be able to afford them (albeit with a curbing of leisure and giving up any hope I had of moving out) but I do not agree with those who argued that students whose parents earn under a certain amount should not have to pay. This is distinctly unfair and I do not believe it would bring an end to students giving a go at first year but spending most of the time partying and then dropping out. If we are to pay everyone should pay, no matter their background. Of course we would not all have to pay at the same time but everyone should have to pay back for their education. There should be an increase in scholarships, colleges should be going into secondary schools and looking for the brightest talents that this country has to offer.
T.W.H Byron wrote: » No matter what way you look at it, someone from a middle to upper middle class background is going to be less straddled with debt compared to someone from a poorer working class background.
PeakOutput wrote: » no they wont student loans can be used in conjunction with grants and scholarships to balance things out everyone gets a student loan people whose parents cant afford to contribute anything can get grants to cover some of the expenses people who are very smart or gifted in other areas can get scholarships to cover some of the cost their loans will not be as high as an average middle class student going to an average college
donegalfella wrote: » This post has been deleted.
monosharp wrote: » The top three are; University of Cambridge (61), Harvard University (48) and Columbia University (37). And never did I suggest Harvard didn't belong up there, my point was that the list as a whole is nonsense. Sure Harvard might very well be the 'best' University in the world. But the top 19 are most certainly not all American and British institutions. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_college_and_university_rankings_(North_America) for a small insight into this. You might also like to check the list of nobel recipients carefully and note how many of the people receiving such awards in the US and the UK are from other countries. A huge draw to these people is the name of the university and the English language. I'm currently living in an Asian country where to be a professor in a University, having a PhD from an English speaking country's University is almost a requirement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country Take a look at the USA's list and see how many are immigrants.
Eliot Rosewater wrote: Third level fees should be brought back in some form or another. Though a government sponsored loans system would be a step in the right direction, I would also favour a situation where those who can pay up front should have to do so. . .
Flamed Diving wrote: I strongly disagree. This is such a lazy attitude. I worked 27 hours a week, part-time at one stage during college. I just don't get this kind of "I'm entitled" attitude.
PeakOutput wrote: indeed i can get a degree failing 4 modules a year for 4 years as long as my average is still a c
Sulmac wrote: Another thing I would do to reduce costs would be merge all universities/instituties of technology/colleges of further education/etc. in Dublin into a new "University of Dublin" and all those outside Dublin into a "University of Ireland" (or maybe a provincial basis - "University of Munster", etc.). Something similar to the current NUI set-up (even though NUI has been/is being abolished?), but with each campus specialising in a different field.
freyners wrote: » where exactly is this in practice? sounds bad in theory, but how many students can afford to fail 4 modules and still have c average? as far as i know in ul, where im studying, you fail the module, you get a 2nd chance in repeats, after that, tough luck.
freyners wrote: » @people who say the lower class families will be protected by grants. the grant system is abused like hell, my neighbour gets a full maintenance grant while hes parents drive a 10 vw and himself in a bmw. Meanwhile, thanks to the inspiration in lowering the bands needed for a grant, i now miss out on a part maintanance grant by the princely sum of 300 or so euro. :mad:
PeakOutput wrote: » im in ul less than 40% is a fail but you dont have to repeat if your average is a c or over if you get less then 30% you have to repeat you can have up to 2 compensations a semesters as long as your average is still above a c this is ridicolous
PeakOutput wrote: » its been repeated over and over that with the introduction of fees would have to come a massive overhaul of the grants system having said that there will always be people just under and just over the cut off points and thats just tough im afraid
XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: » Not all of us are eligible for grants despite the fact that daddy has barely any money! And there aren't that many jobs around for those not eligible for a grant to make money so what are we meant to do?! We have no choice but to take daddy's money. I'm sick of people implying that the only people with money issues in college are those low income families on grants. there are plenty of us not eligible for various reasons that find it hard to survive and we don't have the benefit of the government's pockets. Not that i have an issue with people getting grants! i'm just sick of the insinuation that if you're not getting a grant you're getting daddys money and lots of it! This is why the PRSI/tax system is being introduced. if we pay out of our wages, it's not a debt that is placed on us but a system in which we pay back for our education out of our salaries. It's less pressure for a start and has been successful in other countries
PeakOutput wrote: » the universities dont see that money the point is the universities need more money, much more, increasing taxes or talking about taxes at all dosnt address this. most people in this thread, including myself, have specifically explained ways that fees can be introduced without affecting the 'vulnerable' in anyway. there are very good reasons for providing tax breaks to the industries you have mentioned but thats an argument for another threadif you get the grant there is no excuse for not being able to survive on your own. i work between 22 and 24 hours a week on minimum and that takes care of everything accept rent, if i was entitled to a grant i would probably not have to work at all and i could pay my rent. and by the way even while working i average a's and b's, i also have plenty of time for going out getting drunk and having the craic in the words of a 30 year old self made millionare 'make the time STOP WATCHING ****ING LOST' thats a good idea to start with, it dosnt go nearly far enough though
freyners wrote: » and who (beside a very select few, even then read on to my bit about grants) can do that at the moment?:
freyners wrote: » terrible terrible idea, what would happen to the inter college rivalrys, stuff like the sigerson cup/fitzgibbon would die as a result.
ilovemybrick wrote: » The simple fact is that if I could have gone to an Oxbridge college for the same cost as going to University in Ireland then I would have gone. I would have spent time out of the country and I would have developed an attachment to that country.
mahamageehad wrote: » People pay more taxes -> the country has more money -> more money can be spent on education.
There are also very good reasons behind free third level education
If i get the grant there's no excuse for not being able to survive? Lets do some quick sums: The college term is Sept to May- roughly 30 weeks excluding holidays. However your rent doesn't take a holiday, rent has to be paid all 40 weeks. So if we count the grant as a wage thats €85.50 a week. Now my rent is €105 a week. And I do this funny little thing as well- I like to eat things sometimes. And I occasionally socialize. Now factor in bills, and college equipment (my course is pretty expensive). Of course, I'm not living near the college so there's the addition €20 travel money each week.
Must have very little hours in your course. Fair play to you though.
Eliot Rosewater wrote: » Besides those who can't pay up front, a fees system will encourage parents to save (shock horror!). Loans systems can be created either through the private banking system or the government. You know what? You're so right. Forget about wanting to create universities that are the best in the world. Forget science, engineering, technology and the rest of the future. Forget academics. What matters most in our third level education system is the Fitzgibbon hurling cup. The cornerstone. All else should be sacrificed for it. Bang on the money.
PeakOutput wrote: » i think its pretty obvious that taxes dont go were they are needed in the proportion they are needed not anymore there isnt i meant working as well as taking the grant obviously. 285 a week is easy to live on even with expensive dublin rents and even if you half how much you work and you earn 100 a week you can survive on 185 a week no bother(i know i do some weeks) i have more than most and less than some
mahamageehad wrote: » Where did you pull €285 from??
