nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Third-level fees have to come back

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Einhard

If someone can afford it, I see no reason why fees should not be charged. Agree with the poster regarding the entitlement culture in this country, and as a dole scrounger I have first hand experience of it! :pac:

Seriously, from each according to their means, to each according to their needs and all that. If you can afford fees, you should expect to pay them. If you can't, then they should be waived. Personally, I think some form of loan system would be the most sustainable and equitable solution.

PeakOutput

quietsailor wrote: »

There are/were other criteria being pushed on colleges in the US - see here http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm
Colleges were forced to admit nonwhite students over white students regardless of ability.

yes but this unfair practice has rightly been stopped iirc

quietsailor

PeakOutput wrote: »

wrong, they dont cherry pick individuals in general.

they set standards and if you meet those standards you can get in this benefits everyone int he college by keeping the standard of your fellow students high

they then cherry pick the best to give scholarships and grants to so no matter were you are from if you are smart enough you can get in

i dont see any problem with this

you are being judged completely on academic ability do you think there should be any other criteria examined for entry?
edit; i will say that there are times when people get in cause of who they know and being related to an alumni is a huge advantage. i dont believe that a brilliant student would lose their place because of this though.

There are/were other criteria being pushed on colleges in the US - see here http://www.adversity.net/education_2_mich.htm
Colleges were forced to admit nonwhite students over white students regardless of ability.

Flamed Diving

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm sorry but nobody seems to have any particular REASON why a well off family should not just pay for their own kids tuition, but also for 'Johnno's' down the road. Now I'm fine with well of people having to pay their fee's if it comes down to it, but lower income families should have to BORROW the money from the government to be paid back after college/university is completed.

Fees for ALL or fees for NONE is the only fair way.

edit: Sorry this reads like an article in The Sun, but you get the point :P

It seems like people nattering on is not enough, and I agree. So I will offer a brief theoretical reason why it is a good idea.

I refer to a paper called "Income Distribution and Macroeconomics" by Oded Galor & Joseph Zeira (link below). I will spare you all the waffle and break it down. I must state that the authors were seeking to model income inequality through educational investment.

Ok, see this graph from the paper:

So, let's pick a few points and discuss them. The x-axis is wealth today, and the y-axis is wealth tomorrow.

1) Those individuals who inherit less than 'f' (poor parents) cannot afford to pay for new skills and nor can they pay for their children and on to infinity, thus we converge over time to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

2) Those individuals that inherit greater than 'f' but less than 'g' may have enough capital to invest in skills, but in the long-run their descendent also converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex].

3) 'g' is the critical point. Those who begin with an inheritance greater than 'g' will be able to invest in skills and see their descendants converge to [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex].

In the long-run, you will have complete polarisation. But the important point is this. The higher the population of [latex]\sf{\bar{x_n}}[/latex] people, the poorer the entire economy is. So, by raising more people above 'g', you will make the whole country better off, in the long-run.

Remember, that 'g' is an endowment, so how do you achieve this? Well, transfers from [latex]\sf{\bar{x_s}}[/latex] (via government) is an option which we currently have in an extreme case, where all skills are paid for via transfer.

So remove the blanket fees, let those above 'g' pay for themselves and offer transfers to those below 'g' only.

Cheers.

http://www.isid.ac.in/~tridip/Teaching/DevEco/Readings/05Inequality/04Galor&Zeira-ReStud1993.pdf

freyners

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.

Ya its soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to get a loan off the banks at the moment. great idea
And sorry if i dont trrust a government to have the ability to provide my loans for education when they couldnt find 10 million to provides shots against cancer:mad:

And sorry do you realise how much college costs. If we introduced fees on parents, 6-10k for fees, 3-5k per year for accomm, 1.5k per year on the reg fee, 2k+ per year on expenses. 1K for books, equipment etc. and you can definately put in another 1k in there for general things. at the lowest then, thats 14k per year PER CHILD. So my family, in practise,has to pay that for 12 years (3 children). Of course, it even isnt over 12 years as there is only 4 years between my and my two brothers. yup, thats easily attainable for all those familys saddled with a mortgage, and other loans, maybe if they dont feed themselves.(Note:All these are my own rough estimates)
(this is just my own pride here, luckily for my parents, they dont have to pay all of this, my brothers and i have been working since we have been able to and have the savings to pay for all but the hypothetical fees in this case):rolleyes:

so no, paying up front fees will not work, personally i would love to see free frees continue, so would most, but its not working.
a deferred loan scheme would work better than this up front nonsense, but would have major problems. Before anything needs to be done, as peakoutput said, the grant system needs major reforms.

Re: fitzgibbon. ill going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you just read what i said there and didnt read what it was in reply to. Here it is ..again.

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

I posted that as just one of the many points against the idea of merging all our universities/ITs into 2/3 ones. You would lose so much under that plan, not least the traditions like the fitzgibbon cup.
You would lose fresh ideas too, competition breeds efficiency and forward thinking as we try to outdo our rivals. You go on about the loss in science, engineering etc. Bullsh1t, the rivalry between the colleges creates advances in these fields as they try and outdo one another.
also

PeakOutput wrote:

in fairness the colleges atmosphere is a pretty important part of the overall thing aswell

hes right, college isnt just learning, one way to guarantee loss in your fields of excellence is to make it all about academic and no social outlets

PeakOutput

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

iv suggested a completely workable alternative because the argument for free frees of 'just cause' dosnt cut it anymore

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

Ya!
You're right!!!
Thats exactly why people can't get jobs in the current climate.....
They don't want it enough!!!
It all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

I've already stated that I've been cut back to 8 hours a week. And haven't been able to find another job. Thats about €66. The grant comes in 3 chunks, not per week. And a sizeable chunk is paid on deposits for the house at the start of the year.

Nope I just have to want it more.

**Goes into back yard to plant €2 and waits for her money tree to grow, because she wants it**

dont take things so personally none of what i said is aimed at you as an individual, you could be a medical student from a single parent family with 10 brothers for all i know

im talking about people in general

i still believe there are jobs out there but then i dont live in dublin anymore maybe id find things harder if i did

either way its irrelevant my solutions disadvantages no1 and improves education for everyone and if i can come up with it in 10 mins imagine how good a properly thought out one by experts will be

ilovemybrick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So clearly you don't value your third level education enough to pay a significant amount for it. But some of us do! And under the current system there's no opportunity for one university to "take the bull by the horns", charge large fees, and invest in its future with the goal of having a sterling international recognition.

Now, now, let not make assumptions. I studied what I wanted to study, where I wanted to study it and am more than happy about it both personally and from a career point of view.

I agree with your point on the the current system, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

[Deleted User]

I'm sorry but nobody seems to have any particular REASON why a well off family should not just pay for their own kids tuition, but also for 'Johnno's' down the road. Now I'm fine with well of people having to pay their fee's if it comes down to it, but lower income families should have to BORROW the money from the government to be paid back after college/university is completed.

Fees for ALL or fees for NONE is the only fair way.

edit: Sorry this reads like an article in The Sun, but you get the point :P

mahamageehad

PeakOutput wrote: »

85 a week from the grant

100 a week if you work 13 hours

200 a week if you work 26 odd hours(bang out a 10 hour day on a saturday or sunday on top of your 13 hours and you almost have it)

add up the amount of time you spend procrastinating and you will be amazed(if you come out of denial long enough)

its all about how much you want it

Ya!
You're right!!!
Thats exactly why people can't get jobs in the current climate.....
They don't want it enough!!!
It all makes sense now! :rolleyes:

I've already stated that I've been cut back to 8 hours a week. And haven't been able to find another job. Thats about €66. The grant comes in 3 chunks, not per week. And a sizeable chunk is paid on deposits for the house at the start of the year.

Nope I just have to want it more.

**Goes into back yard to plant €2 and waits for her money tree to grow, because she wants it**

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

Where did you pull €285 from??

85 a week from the grant

100 a week if you work 13 hours

200 a week if you work 26 odd hours(bang out a 10 hour day on a saturday or sunday on top of your 13 hours and you almost have it)

add up the amount of time you spend procrastinating and you will be amazed(if you come out of denial long enough)

its all about how much you want it

mahamageehad

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

Where did you pull €285 from??

PeakOutput

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.

in fairness the colleges atmosphere is a pretty important part of the overall thing aswell

PeakOutput

mahamageehad wrote: »

People pay more taxes -> the country has more money -> more money can be spent on education.

i think its pretty obvious that taxes dont go were they are needed in the proportion they are needed

There are also very good reasons behind free third level education

not anymore there isnt

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.

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)

Must have very little hours in your course. Fair play to you though.

i have more than most and less than some

Eliot Rosewater

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.

So clearly you don't value your third level education enough to pay a significant amount for it. But some of us do! And under the current system there's no opportunity for one university to "take the bull by the horns", charge large fees, and invest in its future with the goal of having a sterling international recognition.

Eliot Rosewater

freyners wrote: »

and who (beside a very select few, even then read on to my bit about grants) can do that at the moment?:

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.

freyners wrote: »

terrible terrible idea, what would happen to the inter college rivalrys, stuff like the sigerson cup/fitzgibbon would die as a result.

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.

mahamageehad

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

Sorry that wasn't aimed at you like that. What I meant is that there are a fair proportion of people who haven't earned a cent of their own, despite being in their 20's because the family is well off. I have a serious issue with the idea of "o your family made €200 too much last year, no grant for you". I know quite a few people in this situation. The bands should be higher and people with exceptional circumstances should be able to appeal. There is a guy in my class who's dad is quite well off. However he's gone from the family and doesn't contribute anything. He was turned down as his dad makes too much money, despite the fact that he isn't getting any of it.

In another twist I also know a few people who have had their accountants twiddle the books to get a grant for their kids. Despite the fact that they're loaded. The current grant system needs changing, i've never denied that.

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 thread

if 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

People pay more taxes -> the country has more money -> more money can be spent on education.

There are very good reasons for providing tax reliefs to those industries?
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.

You work 22-24 hours a week? Must have very little hours in your course. Fair play to you though. You just need to understand that not everyone can do it. Sure some students don't want to. But what about those that can't find work? In first year college I worked 20 hours part time. This year however there is only 8 hours a week available. I haven't been able to get another job during term time. I don't appreciate being lectured about work when I haven't been out of a job since I was 15. I've always paid my own way, and sure I'm in a little debt now, but nothing major. However tuition fees? That would sink a lot of people including me.

ilovemybrick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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.

I agree that paying for an education makes sense, but why not be smart about it, and instead do so through a tax on graduates. To avoid the obvious scheme of simply emigrating post University, why not then offer a tax break over 20 years after serving a period of "graduate taxation" for 4. It will never pay for the education completely, but it will provide an incentive to remain here if graduates can see a benefit to remaining and being part of a much needed tax base.

The fees argument is short sighted in the extreme. What needs to happen is an investment in the quality of the universities and a move towards getting rid of the ridiculous assumption that everyone HAS to go to University and HAS to have a degree despite the fact very few will use that degree in the rest of their life.

In a country starved of an indigenous industry that can and will compete on the global stage the last thing this country needs to do is further alienate the generation who can innovate and establish these sort of industries.

In famine, the last thing you eat is your seeds.

freyners

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

aye but really, will both happen at the same time or will they press ahead with fees and not reform it untill several years later.
as regards to my own situation, while i dont like the way im just about cut off, i can live with that, still galling when you see people like my neighbour abusing the sytem like that.
oh ya, just to put my own views out there, of course id love to see free fees continuing, but im practical, it cant continue. The deferred laon system could work, to saddle 20-40k on someone just leaving college is pretty hard to take.
One point id like to make. to those who bleat the "im paying taxes for your education". im guessing that many of ye also benefited from free fees or that your children have? if you/them were in college now would you still support it?

freyners

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

ah i thought something different sorry and thanks

PeakOutput

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:

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

PeakOutput

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.

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

freyners

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. .
.

and who (beside a very select few, even then read on to my bit about grants) can do that at the moment?

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.

fair play to ya for that, if you dont mind me asking though, how many hours of college did you have per week or did you miss some to do this amount of part time work

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

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.

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.

terrible terrible idea, what would happen to the inter college rivalrys, stuff like the sigerson cup/fitzgibbon would die as a result.
also, if you only had one college doing each area, standards would slip, not rise, competition to be considered the best in a field leads to improved standards

@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:

Flamed Diving

Ok, let's look at an Asian ranking system then:

http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2009.jsp

PeakOutput

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.

so they attract the best talent,

they graduate the best talent,

their graduates are sought out all over the world,

but they arent the best universities on the planet?

monosharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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. A large part of that is simply to do with the English language itself.

My simple point which you dismissed is that the current rankings are corrupted and are nowhere near a true indicator of the 'best' institutions in the world. Your automatically putting non-English speaking countries universities at a disadvantage right away.

Are you honestly going to say that there isn't a single German, French or other University in the world that deserves to be in the top 19 ? Only the USA and the UK deserve it ?

Byron85

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

That's a good point and a good idea. Kudos.

PeakOutput

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.

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

Byron85

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.

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.

The whole education system needs shaking up; especially second level education. I concur with a previous poster that people should not be going on to third level education until they are at least 20 or 21. Kids, and that's what they are, should not be rushing into an education system that is so keen to spew out people who never actually "learn" anything and merely remember everything without thinking critically. Even at 20 or 21, your priorities and outlook on life are different compared to the 2 or 3 year previous.

IrishTonyO

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.

well it looks like it is you, that is the one with problem if you hated most other students.