Third-level fees have to come back

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.

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.

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.

you misunderstand the difference

universities are charged with the advancement of knowledge(ie research)

it's are charged with the teaching of current knowledge(basically)

and while the lines are blurring those are the two fundamental ideas that each comes from

a computer course is equally at home in a university as an it but the approaches to teaching it will generally be very different

Nope, get the difference, in fact suggesting an extra tier!

I don't see that a university student requires top level researchers to educate them in the 'add-on' modules to their course. An engineering undergrad is well served by getting an understanding of some project management theory, an IT student does well to learn the basics of accounting etc. They don't require high level instruction in either of these in order to gain a world class degree in their core discipline. 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, this should lead to better research (through collaboration) being done AND students in those discipline having a better standard of lecturers / phd advisors available to them within that institution.

Might we be better served by consolidating all our universities into a single location? We could base it in Leitrim and use the NAMA over-stock to provide housing for the students

The main thrust of my argument is that we currently have lots of small, underfunded, average universities and IT's. Given our size as a nation (and economic reality) we can't hope to turn all of these into glittering beacons of academia. By focusing our efforts and resources on one or two of them, I think we could realistically hope to have one institution in the top 20, develop our best and brightest to their full potential and, by focusing on the more montisable areas of research and study (i.e. science and technology, business, etc. rather than the humanities), provide graduates capable of attracting the high-end FDI and (perhaps in association with the IDA) creating our own native industries in the much touted 'knowledge economy'.

I take your point that there's a danger in over-specialising but right now we have 7 universities, 13 IT's (and DIT which seems to fall somewhere between the two) trying to be all things to all people in a country of less than 4.5 million people. Looking briefly at http://www.cao.ie/courses.php for level 8 business courses (and removing things like 'equine business', 'bar management' or courses that are primarily law / engineering etc. I count 136 different business degrees open to applicants in 25 different institutions! I think we can afford a little specialisation of campuses!

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.

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.

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?

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:

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 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?

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 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 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

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