all grants and funds for students are finished this year (maybe)

sensibleken wrote: »

If they bring in a loan system how will graduates pay it off if theres no work for them

You pay it off when you do have work... or out of other income.

Teutorix

prinz wrote: »

Get a job, work for a few years, save up and return to college when you can afford it, armed with maturity and life experience.

There seems to be a problem with you people. The idea of going to college is to get qualifications to get a job. We dont have any unskilled jobs left :rolleyes:

Here's a story about how things might be in the future, based on my experiences. I'm going to university now, as a mature student, because I didn't get to go straight after school. Why not? Because I lived in a country that had no form of state support for tertiary education at the time. None whatsoever: no maintenance grants or free tuition, or anything like that.

So how did anybody ever go to university at all? Sources of funding for undergraduates were limited to (a) families and (b) corporate bursaries. I had no hope of (a) and only a slim chance of (b). I started an apprenticeship with a large steel factory who provided a limited number of bursaries for study, which actually led to a decent career without my needing to go to university, so I didn't push for a bursary in the end. The bursary wouldn't have covered all costs anyway, just tuition, and I was by myself by the time I turned 18 - no family to help with other costs.

The way bursaries worked was as follows: you received funding for study in a field relevant to the company's needs, and in exchange you agreed to work for them after qualification for a certain number of years. A friend of mine joined the same company and managed to get a bursary from them: he was much more driven than I was ... and his father was a senior manager there, which helped. He studied Electrical Engineering, joined the company after qualification (B.Eng), and worked for them for several years: the stress and workload nearly killed him before he emigrated. (I left after gaining my lower "technician" qualification and working there for a couple of years, and ended up back in the UK working in the PC industry.)

So, how does this picture compare to Ireland? First of all, the idea of apprenticeships: a way of gaining a useful career without going to university. For that to work, you need to have industries: sustainable industries willing to take on apprentices, which is a multi-year process. Ireland doesn't have that, does it? What will young people do if university becomes too expensive? It should be possible to have a life without a degree: university education is not for everyone, not without dumbing it down. These days it seems like you need a degree - any degree - just to be "employable" - that's one reason (not the only reason) why I bit the bullet and started university myself.

Secondly: if Ireland had industries or institutions willing to fund bursaries, you'd probably be guaranteed a job afterward, but they would tell you what to study. If you applied for a bursary from an aviation engineering company, it would be to study mechanical engineering with an emphasis on certain topics. You would not get funding to study Arts unless an Arts-related company (e.g. Sotheby's) couldn't hire already-qualified people. (How's that job segment looking?)

Summary for those of short attention spans: in my opinion, the Irish govt. needs to invest in creating a broader spectrum of industries, and then industries can offer young people careers without the need to have a university degree. If everyone has to have a degree, what happens to the idea of a degree? It becomes devalued and employers can demand one, without it actually being necessary. Thriving industries can, in turn, offer bursary funding for relevant education for suitable students, with job security afterwards. It's not a perfect solution, but the state-support model seems to be encouraging a lot of "ah, right, I dunno what I want, so I'll go to UCD to study Orts, what else is there to do with myself?" :eek:

XxMCRxBabyxX

lisaface wrote: »

You lived at home precisely the point, what about the people who don't live at home.

This is what always pissed me off about my fellow course people, the people that lived at home, forget about the world outside mammy & daddy sorting everything for them , be it the weekly shop, or keeping the electricity on, or even those water charges, oh and of course bin charges not to mention RENT, and whatever else had to be paid for.

The worst thing these people said 'oh but I work' and do you give any of that money to your parents? 'no *shocked face*' - feckin' muppets , and they wonder why non living at home people get pissed at them when they throw out the 'but i work AND attend every lecture' stfu!!

oh and sensibleken this doesn't directly apply to you, I was just using your statement as an example :P[/I]

I don't live at home, have two part time jobs, no access to a grant (though comparing my circumstances to others that do I'm pretty sure I should be getting one) and I'm managing to survive with good grades and a social life too and I have only missed one lecture without a valid reason this year (slept in after an all-nighter on an essay, other two were due to a hospital appointment)!

It is possible, too many people just don't want to give up their luxuries

Teutorix wrote: »

There seems to be a problem with you people. The idea of going to college is to get qualifications to get a job. We dont have any unskilled jobs left :rolleyes:

There are plenty... and there a few professions you can get into straight from secondary level. The recession will pass and there will be jobs going again.

smccarrick wrote: »

Whether we like it or not- 3rd level students are going to have to make a considerable contribution towards their education in future-

What, you mean like the taxes that higher earners in Ireland pay for their entire lives, which constitute the vast majority of income taxes paid, who not coincidentally mostly have third level qualifications?

Its very simple arithmetic here.

I would agree we need less of a focus on liberal arts stuff though.

smccarrick wrote: »

There are 7 children in my family- all of us managed to attend college. We all had to work to pay our way- and no, we didn't get grants etc.

Take a look through the regional forums, every summer you will see threads about students unable to find part time summer jobs. I mean you have people saying that no Irish person will do "menial" jobs, which is why all of these "menial" jobs are filled, and then turning around and demanding that students do the "menial" jobs to earn their way through college when most of these "menial" jobs are already filled. You can't have it both ways.

Wicklowrider

Sean^DCT4 wrote: »

get a job.. ?

Thats one incredibily, possibly record breaking, ignorant comment.

mink_man

Adam wrote: »

source?

our students union.

re the "get a job" comments: where? The economy has sunk way below the level at which jobs can be found by "trying harder": you're just beating your head against the wall unless you have years of experience in exactly what an employer wants. next time you're in Tesco or Lidl, have a look around: they're highly efficient operations that employ small numbers of people, and they already have way more applicants than positions.

bnt wrote: »

re the "get a job" comments: where? The economy has sunk way below the level at which jobs can be found by "trying harder": you're just beating your head against the wall unless you have years of experience in exactly what an employer wants....

Was up in the local shopping centre at lunch and three shops were advertising for staff. Obviously depends where in the country you are, but you can't always expect the jobs to come to you either.

bnt wrote: »

re the "get a job" comments: where? The economy has sunk way below the level at which jobs can be found by "trying harder": you're just beating your head against the wall unless you have years of experience in exactly what an employer wants. next time you're in Tesco or Lidl, have a look around: they're highly efficient operations that employ small numbers of people, and they already have way more applicants than positions.

Not to mention that getting a third level qualification is hard. Maybe the first years and sometimes second years go out on the tear a lot, but at the end of the day you need your head in the right place and plenty of time to make a proper go of it.

thebigbiffo

get a job ya damn long haired punk lazy ass drug smoking hippie kids

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Not to mention that getting a third level qualification is hard. Maybe the first years and sometimes second years go out on the tear a lot, but at the end of the day you need your head in the right place and plenty of time to make a proper go of it.

The standard of what is expected of students here in academic work terms is a joke by comparison to a lot of other developed countries where students are expected to stump up the cash to pay for the privilege. Talk to foreign Erasmus students here and 9 times out of 10 they will be having the easiest semester they've ever had.

Bogger77

lisaface wrote: »

Yes, because they're just being handed out like free beer at freshers week, & the graduates w/out jobs at present are marching in November for NO reason what so ever!!!

USI has always had march in November, had them in 1994,95,96 and 97 when I was in college, and after I'd left.

but it's amazing, middle of a downturn, loads of unemployed people, and new graduates surprised that there's no jobs for them.

bnt wrote: »

Summary for those of short attention spans: in my opinion, the Irish govt. needs to invest in creating a broader spectrum of industries, and then industries can offer young people careers without the need to have a university degree.

Doesn't work, you'll just end up cutting the legs off of blue sky research, and even basic R&D. Research has a very high cost for potentially no benefit, so most for-profit companies don't do much of it, unless they are megacorps like IBM or Intel. This means that your companies will end up permanent second stringers in the competitive global marketplace.

Tiddlypeeps

The lady talked about in the DIT news letter. WTF. Is that seriously the best example of somebody being put out by the cuts they could find?

I pay about €500 a month. If I lost my rent assistance I would have to move out and probably end up sharing.

Dear god the poor thing, imagine having to share a house with OTHER PEOPLE! The government are monsters!

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont know a single person who would have been able to go to college if it wasnt for free fees, myself included. When I was in college 90% of the people I met in my first year 1998 did not come from a background where their families could have afforded college for more than 1 child, and 1 at a push.

I wonder if the CSO have produced anything on this. I would imagine that college educated people go on to earn higher wages and thus pay higher tax. It could be a return to fees will leave huge swathes of people out of the tax bracket in the long run.

College graduates in post-industrial economies make more money over a lifetime than non-college graduates. So the 20,000 in loans you have to take out on the front end will be well worth it on the back end. I haven't seen the exact data for Ireland, but in the US, the annual earnings gap between high school and college graduates is $23,000. It would be extremely short-sighted to NOT go to university because of the short-term cost.

Crasp wrote: »

6 years of tuition fees + books, rent + bills, food and travel expenses... there is no way that any unskilled job would allow me to earn that amount of money per year and attend college at the same time.

The great irony of the free fees program was that it took place when the labor market was so good that it would have been quite easy for most students to work their way through school.

Crasp wrote: »

"Dear Mr bank manager, i need €60,000 to pay for 6 years of college, and associated rent, travel, food and educational materials. Obviously I'll pay it all back after I qualify. I'll be good for paying it back (in small amounts) in about 6 years time, I swear"

Yes, pretty much.

Loan programs in other countries are flexible enough that if you can't get a job you can defer payments, and if you have a low-paying job, they will adjust repayments accordingly.

sensibleken wrote: »

In fairness, other countries dont have 13.5% unemployment with even the graduates having to emigrate to find work.

If they bring in a loan system how will graduates pay it off if theres no work for them

The youth unemployment rate is 19.1% in the US, and students there pay $10,000/year to go to public university. But loan programs there allow you to defer repayment if you are unemployed, and will reduce your monthly payment if you have a low-income job. They are amazingly flexible - the only catch is you can never, ever write off that debt, even if you declare bankruptcy.

In the long run, college makes such a huge earnings difference for people - especially in post-industrial economies - that it is usually worth it to take out loans. The only catch is that as a rule of thumb, you loan debt should not exceed your expected gross income (more or less). So for most people, it would not make sense to take out $80,000 in loans in order to major in art history. But certainly those going into law or medicine have more leeway to take on educational debt.

southsiderosie wrote: »

College graduates in post-industrial economies make more money over a lifetime than non-college graduates. So the 20,000 in loans you have to take out on the front end will be well worth it on the back end. I haven't seen the exact data for Ireland, but in the US, the annual earnings gap between high school and college graduates is $23,000. It would be extremely short-sighted to NOT go to university because of the short-term cost.

By the same yardstick the wage disparity means that graduates pay a lot more tax, in fact the vast majority of income taxes. So the government would be extremely short-sighted to NOT provide free third level education, at least for certain skillsets.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Not to mention that getting a third level qualification is hard. Maybe the first years and sometimes second years go out on the tear a lot, but at the end of the day you need your head in the right place and plenty of time to make a proper go of it.

Oh please. In comparison to the US where most students have to take out loans or work part time while in school, the Irish undergraduate courseload is extremely lax. And people still whinge.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

By the same yardstick the wage disparity means that graduates pay a lot more tax, in fact the vast majority of income taxes. So the government would be extremely short-sighted to NOT provide free third level education, at least for certain skillsets.

People will still go into high earning professions, whether the government subsidizes education or not. The smart ones will, anyway.

In addition, the government cannot afford to pay third level education for everyone at current tax rates, and even with students paying, the fees do not fully cover the cost of education. It is short-sighted for the government to give out this subsidy, because it is putting the overall stature of its universities at risk; TCD and UCD are the two top internationally ranked schools, and both fell in the rankings last year due to cuts in government funding.

I also think ending free fees would help to get students more focused on what they actually want to do, rather than wasting taxpayer money majoring in in likeyouknowsomething, and then graduating without having a clue about what they did over the last 3-4 years and what they want to do moving forward.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Doesn't work, you'll just end up cutting the legs off of blue sky research, and even basic R&D. Research has a very high cost for potentially no benefit, so most for-profit companies don't do much of it, unless they are megacorps like IBM or Intel. This means that your companies will end up permanent second stringers in the competitive global marketplace.

"your companies"? I didn't go in to specifics about the numbers or types of companies, I just said "industry". I don't think it's an "either-or" situation: a balanced economy means you have both "blue sky" R&D and manufacturing - or must the fruit of R&D always get outsourced to China?

Or do you really want Irish industry populated by companies that only employ PhDs? By definition, only the best people (should) get them. I get the whole "post-industrial" nature of the world these days - but what do you propose we do with the 50% of people who are below average? Join the Army?

mojesius

I'm amazed at the 'there are no jobs, what am I to do' attitude not just in this college thread but in countless others. Currently, I am full-time in a restaurant (just finished my MA and worked there p/t during college for funding) and do you know how many young Irish people come in with their CVs during the 40 hours I work? Sweet F.A. and it's in the middle of Dublin city. We also just did a big recruitment drive for the busy season, gave the jobs to the foreign nationals who actually applied. Too many whingers in this country, afraid to be seen wearing an apron or a name badge :eek:

More on topic, the free college fees scheme needs to be subjected to severe means testing in every case. The grant system is totally f*cked up, my mam had a student from Laois living in her house a few years ago, who drove a two year old Range Rover home and back every weekend. Also, I find the number of college dropouts a horrendous waste of money, considering that the tax payer must pick up the bill.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

By the same yardstick the wage disparity means that graduates pay a lot more tax, in fact the vast majority of income taxes. So the government would be extremely short-sighted to NOT provide free third level education, at least for certain skillsets.

Well, this only leads to a general economic argument about taxation and distribution of resources, which is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, IMHO. If you read my previous (too long) post, you could argue that companies could fund tertiary education directly, without the money being fed through the government. If a company needs Engineers, why should they pay to train Archaeologists that no-one needs?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Oh please. In comparison to the US where most students have to take out loans or work part time while in school, the Irish undergraduate courseload is extremely lax. And people still whinge.

And you have some evidence to substantiate the relative courseloads? I don't mean some course you googled quickly, I mean nationwide statistics.

southsiderosie wrote: »

People will still go into high earning professions, whether the government subsidizes education or not. The smart ones will, anyway.

That doesn't address the point, sorry. Third level education is the single best investment any government can make, the returns from a lifetime of index-linked tax paying are huge, and that's just the economic benefit.

southsiderosie wrote: »

In addition, the government cannot afford to pay third level education for everyone at current tax rates, and even with students paying, the fees do not fully cover the cost of education.

Third level eucational institutions in Ireland are far from lean, mean educational machines, which is why a few hundred TUI lecturers just got the axe. There's no doubt a lot more cruft that could be looked at.

southsiderosie wrote: »

It is short-sighted for the government to give out this subsidy, because it is putting the overall stature of its universities at risk; TCD and UCD are the two top internationally ranked schools, and both fell in the rankings last year due to cuts in government funding.

Your argument is predicated on two things - that the government shouldn't look at the mid term view, twenty years down the road, and that international third level ratings agencies are dependable. Most of them don't even bother to list non English speaking institutions, so I don't really see a basis for your perspective.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I also think ending free fees would help to get students more focused on what they actually want to do, rather than wasting taxpayer money majoring in in likeyouknowsomething, and then graduating without having a clue about what they did over the last 3-4 years and what they want to do moving forward.

Basically what you're saying here is that having teenagers with a bit of skin in the game, or tens of thousands of euros in the game, will focus their minds nicely. Nothing like a spot of social darwinism to wean out the weak eh?

Herb Powell

smccarrick wrote: »

I also think ending free fees would help to get students more focused on what they actually want to do, rather than wasting taxpayer money majoring in in likeyouknowsomething, and then graduating without having a clue about what they did over the last 3-4 years and what they want to do moving forward.

true, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect an 18 year old to know what they want to do for the rest of their lives, and to make them choose.

bnt wrote: »

"your companies"? I didn't go in to specifics about the numbers or types of companies, I just said "industry". I don't think it's an "either-or" situation: a balanced economy means you have both "blue sky" R&D and manufacturing - or must the fruit of R&D always get outsourced to China?

Or do you really want Irish industry populated by companies that only employ PhDs? By definition, only the best people (should) get them. I get the whole "post-industrial" nature of the world these days - but what do you propose we do with the 50% of people who are below average? Join the Army?

bnt wrote: »

If you read my previous (too long) post, you could argue that companies could fund tertiary education directly, without the money being fed through the government. If a company needs Engineers, why should they pay to train Archaeologists that no-one needs?

Corporate sponsored courses are aimed at one thing only - the profits of the corporation, and as quickly as possible. That internet you're typing on was not the product of corporate research.

bnt wrote: »

Well, this only leads to a general economic argument about taxation and distribution of resources, which is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, IMHO.

No, its not, its really simple. The overwhelming majority of income taxes and in all probability VAT, CGT, and everything except corporate taxes are paid by the higher earners, who are in the majority third level graduates.

So by providing free third level education, at least for certain skillsets, you pay for your educational costs and you pay for everything else as well.

Cookie_Monster

Crasp wrote: »

Not where I study it wouldn't.

why not?

Even so, 25hours a week is a luxury I don't have.

you study all day sat and sun and every evening do you?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you study all day sat and sun and every evening do you?

You have to wonder how many future high taxpayers, who will help pay for the shambles the government has caused today, would fall by the wayside because they weren't carved of wood with a will of iron when they were teenagers. The amount of people willing to stuff the future of the nation into the craw of short term expediency is astonishing.

Don't get me wrong, we don't need the number of liberal arts graduates that we get, but there are other ways to shape that than putting an additional burden on an already difficult process.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

And you have some evidence to substantiate the relative courseloads? I don't mean some course you googled quickly, I mean nationwide statistics.

I've worked in universities in both Ireland and the US. The courseloads and expectations for undergraduates at top schools in the US are much MUCH heavier than in top schools in Ireland. Even more so on a graduate level - it's quite shocking, actually.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

That doesn't address the point, sorry. Third level education is the single best investment any government can make, the returns from a lifetime of index-linked tax paying are huge, and that's just the economic benefit.

You seem to think the government's interests are served by investing in individuals. I think they are better served by investing in institutions.

I would argue that the government benefits more from putting money into R&D through its universities rather than directly subsidizing individual students. As a % of GDP, the Irish government spends less than half of what the US does, and a third of what the Finns do. Where do you think this money is better spent: funding basic research through its universities (research projects which usually fund dozens of students, by the way, not to mention the effect on industry), or paying for individuals, many of whom are there because they think they are supposed to be there, not because they know what they want to do or why.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Third level eucational institutions in Ireland are far from lean, mean educational machines, which is why a few hundred TUI lecturers just got the axe. There's no doubt a lot more cruft that could be looked at.

Based on what I've seen, I don't think that Irish universities necessarily use their resources well, but then again, neither do American universities. Both could stand to cut down on their administrative staff and multiple deans - SIGNIFICANTLY. I think cutting research and teaching staff is foolish though, especially since this negatively impacts students who end up with fewer course choices and larger class sizes.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Your argument is predicated on two things - that the government shouldn't look at the mid term view, twenty years down the road, and that international third level ratings agencies are dependable. Most of them don't even bother to list non English speaking institutions, so I don't really see a basis for your perspective.

If you are claiming that the rankings are biased towards English-speaking institutions, then Ireland's slide in the rankings is even more problematic.

I will also add, again, based on my time on both sides of the Atlantic, researchers and faculty have far greater resources in the US, in terms of research grants, facilities, etc. (although I think a lot of German institutions are REALLY well funded, and the Chinese are DUMPING money into their universities and letting their researchers run wild).

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Basically what you're saying here is that having teenagers with a bit of skin in the game, or tens of thousands of euros in the game, will focus their minds nicely. Nothing like a spot of social darwinism to wean out the weak eh?

Pretty much, yes.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I've worked in universities in both Ireland and the US. The courseloads and expectations for undergraduates at top schools in the US are much MUCH heavier than in top schools in Ireland. Even more so on a graduate level - it's quite shocking, actually.

So no evidence at all then.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I would argue that the government benefits more from putting money into R&D through its universities rather than directly subsidizing individual students. As a % of GDP, the Irish government spends less than half of what the US does, and a third of what the Finns do. Where do you think this money is better spent: funding basic research through its universities (research projects which usually fund dozens of students, by the way, not to mention the effect on industry), or paying for individuals, many of whom are there because they think they are supposed to be there, not because they know what they want to do or why.

Firstly you haven't dealt with the blunt and undeniable taxation figures, which you yourself supported in a roundabout way earlier, and secondly I never said the Irish government was doing research properly, case in point billions went into SFI with an end result of SFA to date.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Both could stand to cut down on their administrative staff and multiple deans - SIGNIFICANTLY. I think cutting research and teaching staff is foolish though, especially since this negatively impacts students who end up with fewer course choices and larger class sizes.

Well which is it, do they need to streamline or not?

southsiderosie wrote: »

If you are claiming that the rankings are biased towards English-speaking institutions, then Ireland's slide in the rankings is even more problematic.

I'm claiming that any government that expects the nation to exist in twenty years shouldn't put its students at a disadvantage, and that ratings agencies aren't the best guide to much, except what the ratings agencies think.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I will also add, again, based on my time on both sides of the Atlantic, researchers and faculty have far greater resources in the US, in terms of research grants, facilities, etc. (although I think a lot of German institutions are REALLY well funded, and the Chinese are DUMPING money into their universities and letting their researchers run wild).

And much of their funding comes from donations from graduates, which is then placed into investment portfolios, currently some of the largest and most successful around, at least if you're talking about the ivy leagues.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Pretty much, yes.

How very 19th century.