Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Third-level fees have to come back

Options
1…567810

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    imme wrote: »
    were the Labour Party not elected or something.
    Do third level students not value their education at present?, considering the considerable registration fees (third level fees) that they have to pay.

    No it's odd actually. Its almost as if something has caused them to take their education for granted.
    How will the quality of courses improve if third level fees are reintroduced????? Is this based on something?

    More funding for universities/colleges.


  • Options
    #273
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Firstly, those that don't pay the existing fees aren't allowed to sit exams or even if they manage to sit them, to get the results.

    :confused: Many students don't pay the reg fee due to grants. For example, if they're from a disadvantaged area. The percentage is quite high.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dunno about that. Never heard of these "Golden weeks" until you mentioned them.

    Maybe it's only a UCC thing. In any case, attendance is pretty bad in general in my experience. My Arts friends tell me that lecture halls are packed out for the first lecture, then declines to about half for normal lectures in term.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But if the college course was taught by good lecturers, was interesting, and actually sought to teach understanding (rather than just cramming and learning off chunks), there would be more people attending the lectures.

    I don't see why that should matter. Students are getting a service for comparatively little; they should at least go to lectures. They're not there to be entertained; they're there to get an education.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    More funding does not equate to better education or better staff. It just means they don't have to pay as much attention as they should. The problem is not just with the money given to education, but how it is spent, and also who it is spent on.

    You're taking a very pessimistic approach to the issue. How do you think universities improve, if not through extra funding? UCC recently build the new IT complex, which offers world-class facilities for a number of departments. It cost €13 million I think. For every story of chairs in the cafeteria I'm sure there are many more of money being invested for the good of the university. You need money to improve.

    Irish universities are competing with universities with better funding.


  • Options
    #274
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    As it stands the system is horribly biased against all those living just above the poverty line, but below a standard of living where they can afford to drop 1,500 euro in a lump sum. This is even the case at second level to be honest (I myself have just finished my leaving cert so this might just be a tad anecdotal), where medical cards entitle people to a number of reductions on things they might be better placed to afford than others. As such I also believe that bringing in upfront fees is a bad idea, the rules will not be fair and grants and personal loans will not cover everybody who needs it.
    The system proposed a while back, that all fees be emalgimated and the sum be paid as a government sponsered loan, to be repayed via increased tax, makes more sense to me. It does not hinder anyone, nor does it give anyone a free ride. It also allows for repeat fees etc.

    The taxation element brought an interesting question to mind though:
    The IMF paper says that an important trend in labour markets in the advanced economies has been a steady shift in demand away from the less skilled toward the more skilled. This is the case however skills are defined, whether in terms of education, experience, or job classification. This trend has produced dramatic rises in wage and income inequality between the more and the less skilled in some countries, as well as unemployment among the less skilled in other countries.
    In the United States, for example, wages of less-skilled workers have fallen steeply since the late 1970s relative to those of the more skilled. Between 1979 and 1988 the average wage of a college graduate relative to the average wage of a high school graduate rose by 20 percent
    Given this statement could you not say that through an increase in income and hence an increase in tax paid, graduates already more than pay for their education?


  • Options
    #275
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Third level fees will probably come back, not with the aim of achieving higher standards but simply because, in a deteriorating economy, the money won't be there to subsidise universities to the same extent.

    There have been some comparisons between Irish and US universities on this thread. Probably the most appropriate comparison would be between Irish universities and the US state system with it's combination of fees and subsidy. I don't think there'll ever be valid comparisons between any Irish university and the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford or whatever. We don't have the size of population from which these institutions draw. Private fee paying institutions already exist in Ireland but they will never develop into anything like the top US universities.


  • Options
    #276
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Third level fees will probably come back, not with the aim of achieving higher standards but simply because, in a deteriorating economy, the money won't be there to subsidise universities to the same extent.

    Exactly it will be question of preventing a dangerous decline in standards rather than any expansion.
    I don't think there'll ever be valid comparisons between any Irish university and the likes of Harvard, MIT, Stanford or whatever.

    Was there not a statistic knocking around that Stanford's budget was about the same as all of the universities (or even all of third level) in the Republic of Ireland put together. Stanford has less students than UCD.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Just found some remarkable figures on Indymedia website (the result of an internet search, for those interested) about the numbers of schoollesavers per postal district who proceed on to further education.
    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/91024 (the source isn't referenced and it's not clear if it's admission to universities or 3rd level in general)

    Reminded me of the John Lonergan (Mountjoy Prison Governor) remark that he can predict by postal district who will enbd up in Mountjoy.


    On pricipal I don't think 3rd Level fees should be reintroduced, but welcome a discussion at national level about it.

    I can't see an unpopular government pushing such a measure, as well after former Minister O'Keeffe rowed back from it last year.


  • Options
    #278
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    €1,650 is not "considerable" for a full year in a thirdlevel institution. Students like to make a big deal of this number, (1) conveniently forgetting that the costs of their education far exceed that. Additionally, not every student pays the registration fee. In UCC, where I attend, (2) I think about one third don't. It's funny, then, that the free-fees campaign likes to hone in on fairness and opportunity, when in reality increasing fees won't actually affect the financially worst off. (3) It's only for the middle classes.

    As regards the valuing of ones education, it's only natural that if someone is not paying for something they will value it less. A lot of college students make a big deal about "golden weeks": weeks in which they attend all of their lectures. "OMG, I nearly had a golden week lol." Apparently actually attending all of your lectures is something strange, something you should be commended for. (4)


    (5) More funding = better education. The university had hire better staff, and more staff. This year I had tutorials cut because of funding difficulties.

    (1) Registration fees are not fees for 3rd level education, remember 3rd level fees are free! How could a registration fee equate to the 'free' cost of education?
    (2) Are there any other figures availavble from UCC other than anecdotal accounts?
    (3) The return of fees will affect all.
    (4) Do you think students whose parents pay for their 3rd level education (if fees were reintroduced) would have a different appreciation.
    (5) Was 3rd level education of a better standard in Ireland when fees were payable. "Better staff"????? Do 3rd level institutions hire staff of a sub standard variety or something at the moment?
    Were the funding difficulties that you mention part of government cut backs in general? If there hadn't been cutbacks would you have been happy with the level of tutorials available?


  • Options
    #279
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    I'm against third level fees after seeing(personally) and hearing of so many examples of the squandering and wastage of money in universities/colleges in Ireland.

    It's no different to any other public service, throw all the money you want at it and the quantative difference will be negligible and I don't trust individual institutions to manage and spend funds marked for infrastructural development.


  • Options
    #280
    The_B_Man
    Registered Users Posts: 7,860 ✭✭✭The_B_Man


    Having free fees or not can affect someones life. Its the difference between being able to afford college, and giving up college for a mediocre job. Just because some muppets decide they want a free ride, does not mean everyone does. For every muppet, theres at least 10 people who are serious, and I'd be interested to find out how many of these would not be able to attend college without some govt subsidisation.

    Also, being 18-25, most people wouldnt have commitments, ie mortgage, kids, etc. This is the perfect time to go to college, but also the time when people will be broke! By the time they can afford college themselves, they have commitments and are accustomed to a certain quality of life. They'll be less likely, in my opinion, to leave that behind and go back. In saying that, I'm aware of all the mature students going back to college these days, but they're all availing of grants!


  • Options
    #281
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    imme wrote: »
    (1) Registration fees are not fees for 3rd level education, remember 3rd level fees are free! How could a registration fee equate to the 'free' cost of education?
    (2) Are there any other figures availavble from UCC other than anecdotal accounts?
    (3) The return of fees will affect all.
    (4) Do you think students whose parents pay for their 3rd level education (if fees were reintroduced) would have a different appreciation.
    (5) Was 3rd level education of a better standard in Ireland when fees were payable. "Better staff"????? Do 3rd level institutions hire staff of a sub standard variety or something at the moment?
    Were the funding difficulties that you mention part of government cut backs in general? If there hadn't been cutbacks would you have been happy with the level of tutorials available?

    Registration fees are massive though. If they reintroduce fees they will have to reduce registration fees to the actual level to cover cost of registration.

    At the moment, it pays for many student facilities. Its like VRT, its not a registration fee, its a massive surcharge to screw you over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    imme wrote: »
    (1) Registration fees are not fees for 3rd level education, remember 3rd level fees are free! How could a registration fee equate to the 'free' cost of education?

    It costs €1,650 to attend a third level institution in Ireland per year. This is the amount people pay for their education. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still a fee to go to college. Even UCC student's union agree with me. ;)
    imme wrote: »
    (2) Are there any other figures availavble from UCC other than anecdotal accounts?

    A breakdown of the UCC registration fee shows that roughly €55 of it goes to the students union.

    According to a students union officer, the union gets €400k from this.

    €400k/€55 equals under 7,500. So presumably about 7,500 people pay the registration fee.

    According to UCC there are 12,578 undergraduates. As you can see, there's quite a discrepancy.

    The only issue with that reasoning is the €400k figure, ie whether that ignores certain USI deductions. Anyway, it's enough to show that a sizable chunk of the student body don't pay the reg fee.
    imme wrote: »
    (3) The return of fees will affect all.

    No, it won't affect the poorest members of society, as per above.
    imme wrote: »
    (4) Do you think students whose parents pay for their 3rd level education (if fees were reintroduced) would have a different appreciation.

    Probably. But fostering an appreciation of one's education is only a small argument for fees; there are many more.
    imme wrote: »
    "Better staff"????? Do 3rd level institutions hire staff of a sub standard variety or something at the moment?

    There are different grades of staff, starting from Irish IT standard right up to Harvard. Staff higher up the scale demand higher compensations and greater amounts of funding for research, presumably.
    imme wrote: »
    Were the funding difficulties that you mention part of government cut backs in general? If there hadn't been cutbacks would you have been happy with the level of tutorials available?

    No, the funding difficulties were always there. Most of UCC's debt comes from the construction of the new information technology building that opened last September. Certain students have taken a dim view of its construction, saying that UCC couldn't afford it. The point is that the building has improved the university. Some students appear willing to sacrifice the quality of the university in order to keep it free. I think that their priorities are wrong.


  • Options
    #283
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    :confused: Many students don't pay the reg fee due to grants. For example, if they're from a disadvantaged area. The percentage is quite high.

    And they're taken for an interview by the college/university to determine if the fees are waived because of their circumstances. Its not as if there's a lot of people joining colleges, attending classes, and getting away without paying. Its part of a system.
    Maybe it's only a UCC thing. In any case, attendance is pretty bad in general in my experience. My Arts friends tell me that lecture halls are packed out for the first lecture, then declines to about half for normal lectures in term.

    Perhaps its just me, but I'd be inclined to look for reasons from the college's responsibility for such low attendance. Its very easy to say that its typical students, but why are they not attending?
    I don't see why that should matter. Students are getting a service for comparatively little; they should at least go to lectures. They're not there to be entertained; they're there to get an education.

    They're there for a useful education. Something they can use in the real world. However, there is a rather large degree of education in colleges which is of no practical use. Either its outdated, or pure abstract theory. Or that the lecturers themselves are so long out of their respective fields they're teaching a focus which is of no real use.

    I originally completed my degree over 10 years ago, and came back to college to get the honors postgrad of the same course. I was game on, dedicated & focused which lasted the first semester. The second semester drained that focus from me, simply because the lectures were awful.

    This is not about entertainment. Its about making the course material interesting. If its not interesting then students will find it harder to understand/learn, and many will stop coming to lectures.
    You're taking a very pessimistic approach to the issue. How do you think universities improve, if not through extra funding? UCC recently build the new IT complex, which offers world-class facilities for a number of departments. It cost €13 million I think. For every story of chairs in the cafeteria I'm sure there are many more of money being invested for the good of the university. You need money to improve.

    I don't think I'm being pessimistic. I'm being practical. During the 9 odd months I attended that college I saw a number of projects which the college started/finished with the aim of improving the college. Most were mismanaged or useless compared to what the money could have been invested in.

    And my point still stands. The problem is not the lack of funding. In the 10 years + that I was out working, the college added many facilities, but when i came back, I had my lectures in the same rooms as I had before, had mostly the same lecturers, and the content wasn't improved all that much. During the boom, money poured into the colleges and it was wasted in many case. Oh they did add some quality facilities and such, but for the most part it was wasted.

    The problem is with how the colleges are managed, and the measures they must satisfy before approval on spending occurs. And the secondary problem is the quality of the lecturers.


  • Options
    #284
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The_B_Man wrote: »
    Having free fees or not can affect someones life. Its the difference between being able to afford college, and giving up college for a mediocre job. Just because some muppets decide they want a free ride, does not mean everyone does. For every muppet, theres at least 10 people who are serious, and I'd be interested to find out how many of these would not be able to attend college without some govt subsidisation.

    Also, being 18-25, most people wouldnt have commitments, ie mortgage, kids, etc. This is the perfect time to go to college, but also the time when people will be broke! By the time they can afford college themselves, they have commitments and are accustomed to a certain quality of life. They'll be less likely, in my opinion, to leave that behind and go back. In saying that, I'm aware of all the mature students going back to college these days, but they're all availing of grants!

    Actually they're not all. I wasn't eligible for a grant. And I knew quite a few of the other mature students who also didn't qualify for any grants. And these would be (myself included) people with a mortgage, or other such drains on income.

    I've asked this a number of time, but never get an answer. How many of the people here calling for the reintroduction of the fees went through college without them? Now that they're past college, they favor the return of the fees. They're removed from the problem. I felt the same way when i was working, and had no intention of returning to college. But circumstances change... I did go back to college, and frankly it saved my sanity to have something useful to do when i couldn't find work. I've just graduated, and honestly, I'm against the reintroduction of the fees. I'm unlikely to go back to college again, but I see the value of the fees not being there.


  • Options
    #285
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And they're taken for an interview by the college/university to determine if the fees are waived because of their circumstances. Its not as if there's a lot of people joining colleges, attending classes, and getting away without paying. Its part of a system.

    Okay, so what's your point? I said that the poorest in society would be exempted if fees we re-introduced, a position that is supported by the fact that they already are.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Perhaps its just me, but I'd be inclined to look for reasons from the college's responsibility for such low attendance.

    Why? Once again, people aren't going to college to be entertained. If they believe a degree course has value then they decide to do it and they put in the work to attain good grades. Additionally, if you're going to try and "blame" colleges then you'll have to explain why some people go to most of their lecturers and why some people don't.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    They're there for a useful education. Something they can use in the real world. However, there is a rather large degree of education in colleges which is of no practical use.

    So why are they doing that course?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't think I'm being pessimistic. I'm being practical. During the 9 odd months I attended that college I saw a number of projects which the college started/finished with the aim of improving the college. Most were mismanaged or useless compared to what the money could have been invested in.

    So how do you think we should improve universities? Do you think that simply cutting down on waste is enough to enable Irish universities to compete on the world stage? And do you think they can do this without any extra funding?


  • Options
    #286
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »



    So how do you think we should improve universities? Do you think that simply cutting down on waste is enough to enable Irish universities to compete on the world stage? And do you think they can do this without any extra funding?

    I'll field this one.

    Simply put economies of scale need to be introduced. What messes up the Irish tertiary sector is that it's not just the universities that need cash, but all the other ITs and fetac colleges, Each requiring expensive administration.

    Let's merge/shut all these no name colleges into bigger less complex units.
    Guaranteed big savings.


  • Options
    #287
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #288
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Can't wait for it to happen. Whats going to happen when rural institutes like LYIT & Carlow etc are proposed for the chop? along with the likes of the Tipp institute i can't see much reason for their existence beyond being the result of classic pork barrel politics.


  • Options
    #289
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Okay, so what's your point? I said that the poorest in society would be exempted if fees we re-introduced, a position that is supported by the fact that they already are.

    You responded to my point that there weren't loads of people escaping the paying of the administration fee... it wasn't about poorer people being exempted from paying.
    Why? Once again, people aren't going to college to be entertained. If they believe a degree course has value then they decide to do it and they put in the work to attain good grades. Additionally, if you're going to try and "blame" colleges then you'll have to explain why some people go to most of their lecturers and why some people don't.

    Dunno, why this has to be about assigning blame. The system doesn't work. Doesn't make more sense to look at all factors, and seek a reasonable and workable solution, rather than just "blame" students or colleges?
    So why are they doing that course?

    Any number of reasons. But I'll give you a personal example. When i applied to my course in Business Studies, I checked the course program, had a look at the subjects, and browsed some of the recommended reading. The content of the course appealed to me, since it would provide an academic explanation to many of the areas of work I had performed over the previous 10 years. Sorted. However, when I started the course, I realised very quickly that the lecturers taught subject matter that was very different to what was advertised as being the course content. Sure, they covered them in broad strokes, but the meat of the course was completely up to them, and it changed depending on the area's they wished to cover at the time.

    So, for me I was disappointed because the course didn't do what was advertised.... I was also extremely disappointed at the quality of the lecturers... But I've posted that before in this thread. Not going to repeat myself.
    So how do you think we should improve universities? Do you think that simply cutting down on waste is enough to enable Irish universities to compete on the world stage? And do you think they can do this without any extra funding?

    Well, I'd be inclined for a honest review of the lecturers taking input from the students that had done the course. If lecturers failed to measure up to the supposed standards of the course, then they would be forced to re-educate themselves with the skills needed to lecture properly, or to move on. I'd also love to see lecturers hired on proven past ability rather than some paper masters or phd with doesn't really show anything except their ability to study. It would also be nice if the respective qualifications/experience matched the subjects they were teaching.

    The lecturers that were the most interesting, had the highest attendance, and the best exam results were those that had worked professionally in their respective areas. The lecturers with few practical examples, or held themselves apart had low attendance.

    I'd also like to see a proper review of the guidelines by which colleges invested in buildings and facilities. The college I was in spent a fortune on a new engineering building contracted out to a local company. This company used cheap materials, and now the building which was finished last July, stands empty because its too dangerous to enter it. The blocks in the roof/ceiling have fallen inside the building at times, due to shoddy craftsmanship and cheap materials. Looks lovely on the outside, but a complete waste of money. Now the same contractor has the job of fixing it, and there isn't any money left to do it. So its standing there, empty, and no work is being done on it.

    I'd also like to see a review of the periods of "holidays" and "study weeks". I was amazed at the amount of time that there were no lectures for one reason or another due to the college calendar. In spite of the long holidays the college got at summer, there were numerous long periods where the whole place was closed. What was just as annoying was that the Library was closed, as were other facilities, when the lecturers were off.. so we couldn't study there even if we wanted to.

    And I could go on. And on. and on.

    I came back to college after working for over a decade, and I was amazed at the amount of inefficiency and waste that happened there.


  • Options
    #290
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    I'll field this one.

    Simply put economies of scale need to be introduced. What messes up the Irish tertiary sector is that it's not just the universities that need cash, but all the other ITs and fetac colleges, Each requiring expensive administration.

    Let's merge/shut all these no name colleges into bigger less complex units.
    Guaranteed big savings.

    Don't know the details, but I've heard rumours about how the Tipperary IT (TippInst, heh like that's fooling anyone) was to be merged with the LIT, as was recommended in an bord snip. However someone kicked up a raucous over this, the recommendation was rescinded and some of those in the Tipp Institute managed to renegotiate contracts on similar rates, some higher than before, to those in the Limerick IT.

    The net result being that the whole situation between both institutes is far more in-efficient now than it was previously. This was heard from a friend whose father is a top dog in one of the IT and therefore did not make the news. I don't have more details than that so unfortunately that's just going to go down as one of these hear-say arguments. :(


  • Options
    #291
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    It costs €1,650 to attend a third level institution in Ireland per year. This is the amount people pay for their education. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still a fee to go to college. Even UCC student's union agree with me. ;)



    A breakdown of the UCC registration fee shows that roughly €55 of it goes to the students union.

    According to a students union officer, the union gets €400k from this.

    €400k/€55 equals under 7,500. So presumably about 7,500 people pay the registration fee.

    According to UCC there are 12,578 undergraduates. As you can see, there's quite a discrepancy.

    The only issue with that reasoning is the €400k figure, ie whether that ignores certain USI deductions. Anyway, it's enough to show that a sizable chunk of the student body don't pay the reg fee.



    No, it won't affect the poorest members of society, as per above.



    Probably. But fostering an appreciation of one's education is only a small argument for fees; there are many more.



    There are different grades of staff, starting from Irish IT standard right up to Harvard. Staff higher up the scale demand higher compensations and greater amounts of funding for research, presumably.



    No, the funding difficulties were always there. Most of UCC's debt comes from the construction of the new information technology building that opened last September. Certain students have taken a dim view of its construction, saying that UCC couldn't afford it. The point is that the building has improved the university. Some students appear willing to sacrifice the quality of the university in order to keep it free. I think that their priorities are wrong.
    I´m not dressing up anything Eliot. A registration fee is one thing and college fees are another thing. ;)
    I wouldn´t like to presume that less than half the students in UCC are having their fees paid by the State.
    I´d like to know the facts, not to assume them.

    Different grades of staff? I`m not sure what this means. Did Irish third level institutions employ a greater number of these Harvard-standard staff when full fees were payable.

    So, you`re saying that the capital costs of the new UCC IT facility are affecting current spending. Is the college being managed effectively?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Chuchoter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    I'm just wondering, why do we have 38 third level institutions if they are all grossly underfunded? Would it not make sense to halve that number and just have a few really good ones? Then you wouldn't have to pay fees and you'd have a really good service. I know someone just posted a link about the Dublin ITs, but all these tiny ones, why were they ever set up?


  • Options
    #293
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You responded to my point that there weren't loads of people escaping the paying of the administration fee... it wasn't about poorer people being exempted from paying.

    But I think that's how it started. I said that if fees were introduced the worst off would not be affected.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Any number of reasons. But I'll give you a personal example...

    That sounds pretty unfortunate, and I obviously can't excuse the college.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well, I'd be inclined for a honest review of the lecturers taking input from the students that had done the course.

    But the problem is, at least in UCC, that lecturers' primary responsibility is research. I don't know if it's the same in your place. So while terrible lecturers exist they won't be removed because the teaching is only secondary. It's unfortunate for undergrads, but I can see why the system is like that

    It comes back eventually to student responsibility. University isn't secondary school: there is a huge onus on the student (now an adult) to work themselves. Hence the short hours.

    So you think it's a managerial issue? From what you've said, I'd agree. The question is how we can improve that, especially within the context of the public service. And secondly, within the universities, is efficiency nearly enough?
    imme wrote: »
    I wouldn´t like to presume that less than half the students in UCC are having their fees paid by the State.
    I´d like to know the facts, not to assume them.

    Ditto. Which is why I outlined, above, a rough estimate, using facts, of how many students don't pay the reg fee.
    imme wrote: »
    Different grades of staff? I`m not sure what this means. Did Irish third level institutions employ a greater number of these Harvard-standard staff when full fees were payable.

    I don't see why that matters. Quite simply, if fees were introduced then universities would have more money.
    imme wrote: »
    So, you`re saying that the capital costs of the new UCC IT facility are affecting current spending. Is the college being managed effectively?

    That's what the student's union say, though they have a vested interest because claiming the college is badly run is their best tactic for ensuring free fees remain. But, as above, will improvements in efficiency be enough?


  • Options
    #294
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    That's what the student's union say, though they have a vested interest because claiming the college is badly run is their best tactic for ensuring free fees remain. But, as above, will improvements in efficiency be enough?

    Of course there is always some room for efficiency, but this has probably already been absorbed since 2008. Education generally is by no means the least efficient part of the PS in Ireland, while there are always examples from particular institutions the sector as a whole compares better with other countries than many public services.

    http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/our-excellent-universities-top-eu-league-table-for-efficiency-2112511.html


  • Options
    #295
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Of course there is always some room for efficiency, but this has probably already been absorbed since 2008. Education generally is by no means the least efficient part of the PS in Ireland, while there are always examples from particular institutions the sector as a whole compares better with other countries than many public services.

    http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/our-excellent-universities-top-eu-league-table-for-efficiency-2112511.html
    Dude, way to misrepresent a news article.

    That's about efficiency of graduates, not efficiency of financial spending.


  • Options
    #296
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    That's about efficiency of graduates, not efficiency of financial spending.

    Well if the quality of outputs is higher than the European average, in the form of a large number of well educated graduates, and the financial inputs are not the highest in Europe then this is measure of efficiency.


  • Options
    #297
    gulf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭gulf


    What's the point in pumping money into education when graduates are leaving in their droves for London?

    I know several PhDs who are doing very well in London thanks to the Irish exchequer. It costs €15k a year for 4 years to train an engineer, about €25k a year for 3 years at postgraduate level.

    I guess the mediocre are left to compete against each other for the choice pickings of a failed state.


  • Options
    #298
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    But I think that's how it started. I said that if fees were introduced the worst off would not be affected.

    Lets leave it as a misunderstanding on both sides. We're arguing about completely different things.
    That sounds pretty unfortunate, and I obviously can't excuse the college.

    The point is that this is not unique. I experienced similar 10 years ago in the same college, and also in Sligo RTC before that. There is a rather large gap between what is advertised, what is planned and lastly what is actually performed in class.
    But the problem is, at least in UCC, that lecturers' primary responsibility is research. I don't know if it's the same in your place. So while terrible lecturers exist they won't be removed because the teaching is only secondary. It's unfortunate for undergrads, but I can see why the system is like that

    Ahh well, I think that's stupid. A university or college is a place of education first not research. The primary purpose of a lecturer is to impart both their own personal experience of a subject/discipline, and also the academic relationship. While lecturers may do research papers, perform experiments or write for journals, the main reason they have that position is to teach students. Regardless of whether its undergrad or postgrad.

    The lecturer is there to provide a framework for research & study. Otherwise we might as well skip lectures, use the topics from the syllabus, and just grab information from the internet. What is the purpose of Lecturers then?

    Why not just abolish all universities which don't have a practical aspect (Lab science, Crafts, etc), and send everyone else (Business, Social Sciences, etc) to study online?

    Students hold responsibility to develop their own study and to complete their projects/assessments/etc. But that does not remove the requirement for lecturers (as being the experts in their field) to provide the building blocks, to be there for questions/explanations, and ultimately guide a student along the rocky path of the course objectives.

    Take Strategic Implementation. A Business Subject. If I went off on my own I could spend the next 5 years studying theories about strategy, case studies of businesses implementing different strategics, and articles regarding those different areas. Without the framework provided by lecturers to regulate the flow of information, and also to provide clarity on many very abstract theories relevant to the course, most students would lose themselves.
    It comes back eventually to student responsibility. University isn't secondary school: there is a huge onus on the student (now an adult) to work themselves. Hence the short hours.

    No, the short hours is another example of the Public service in regards to education takes the piss. Seriously. The amount of time off that lecturers receive in formal holidays is bad enough, but through canceled classes, religious sessions, university events etc. makes the idea of it being a workplace a joke.

    I worked 11 years doing various professional office type work. Monday to Friday. Average of 8am to 6pm officially. Unofficially add 1-3 hours each day. Often brought work home with me to do on the weekends. 14 Official days holidays a year. 4-6 sick holidays a year. You get the picture?

    Now compare that with Lecturers being paid by the public service, the amount of holidays, free time, benefits, etc.

    Now tell me again the reason for the short hours?
    So you think it's a managerial issue? From what you've said, I'd agree. The question is how we can improve that, especially within the context of the public service. And secondly, within the universities, is efficiency nearly enough?

    I believe that the public service gets away with a lot in this country simply because it is the public service. For too many decades, we've just shrugged our shoulders and said that inefficiencies and bureaucracy were the norm. We would just have to make do with the system and make minor changes. What is the difference between any Public service department/facility and a normal Private Business department?

    Secondly, is inefficiency enough? Of course not, but its something to strive towards in addition to other values for a performance related organization.
    Ditto. Which is why I outlined, above, a rough estimate, using facts, of how many students don't pay the reg fee.

    In UCC.
    I don't see why that matters. Quite simply, if fees were introduced then universities would have more money.

    Not necessarily. They'd just have more money to spend on things/services. That doesn't necessarily translate into providing either a better service, or making it break even.


  • Options
    #299
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    John Lynch Ph.D wrote: »
    Terrible idea.

    And why are people so for the idea of providing free education to students from only low income family's? again after again these students have proven to be the under performers in college, and that is FACT, the basic reality is they come from low income family's for a reason and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

    ...because it's prejudiced attitudes like you have expressed that those from low income families encounter from both their professors and classmates that make them think, well really, wtf is the point of even trying, I've failed before I've even begun. Not to mention the generally crap secondary schooling they get from their local schools compared to that which higher income earning families would get from theirs (I'm being generalistic here but it would normally be the case).

    For many low income earning area's of the country, schooling more or less ends or is pretty much pointless past primary education due to complete lack of funding, crap and unmotivated, prejudiced teachers teaching them and the constant and incessant notion being instilled into children from schools in these area's that the child is worthless and will amount to nothing anyway.
    So many leave at the earliest legal opportunity (if not before) without even a passing thought put toward third level education - they've rarely if ever even been seriously encouraged to consider it as an option during secondary schooling.
    For those that do follow the path, real pressing life matters due to their own circumstances can take over and interfere or hinder their progress.
    Kids will be kids and teenagers especially coming of age will change as the few short years roll by, but there's a lot more crap to encounter and put up with in disadvantaged area's or disadvantaged families than there are in middle or higher "classed" area's and families, which weigh a lot more heavily on the outcome of their results, if they've even managed to drag themselves through it that far.
    A little thought and consideration toward those less fortunate than your good self wouldn't go amiss sometimes, outside of your own fine upbringing and family life.

    I also don't see why I as a taxpayer had to pay to fund or part fund your education - you personally or your family could probably well have afforded to pay for it themselves with no problems...whereas others in society need a helping hand both economicaly and encouragingly to fulfill and hopefully succeed at their desired profession, to pull themselves and their future family out and away from what they themselves had to put up with. A few thousand a year in grants to help them do that is well worth it imo.
    I'd prefer also that more disadvantaged students were encouraged toward the health profession rather than it being what it is now, a more or less elitist profession reserved for those from more well off families - might help society coming to terms with the crap they seem to have produced from it all, what with all the scandals involving junior doctors recently who no matter how much they've learned nor how much they've educated themselves, can't even seem to grasp the basic principles of intelligence itself. Yeah, world class education system my arse.


  • Options
    #300
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Well if the quality of outputs is higher than the European average, in the form of a large number of well educated graduates, and the financial inputs are not the highest in Europe then this is measure of efficiency.
    Thats also bollocks.
    Firstly; Efficiency has nothing to do with quality.
    Secondly; Overall efficiency of graduates getting a job in Ireland has next to nothing to do with the quality of their education/degree.
    Thirdly; The report you linked is pre-recession, so the 'efficiency' will have nose dived.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Firstly; Efficiency has nothing to do with quality.

    Hardly. If you had no interest the quality of graduates you could have a student ratio of 100:1 and give everyone a first.
    How else can you measure the performance of education than that people are well educated?
    Secondly; Overall efficiency of graduates getting a job in Ireland has next to nothing to do with the quality of their education/degree.

    Thirdly; The report you linked is pre-recession, so the 'efficiency' will have nose dived.

    We are concerned with the perceived employability of Irish graduates, not whether they got a job in Ireland or elsewhere.


Advertisement