Students & College Fees - Who Should Pay?

Mark200 · 04-06-2011 12:55AM

I think a graduate tax scheme would be the best bet - the Government can pay for the student, and then get the money back off the student at a later date when they're earning enough to afford the pay backs. I don't think anyone can really argue that that'd discourage any poor people from going to college.

LuckyLloyd · 04-06-2011 01:14AM

Kid A wants to go do science, maths, engineering, computer science, etc type degree he gets subsidised;

Kid B wants to do marketing, commerce, business, arts, etc he pays;

Basically courses that produce skills that will keep the economy competitive should be invested in more heavily by the State in the short term.

Long term we do require the establishment of a loan system along the lines of what the UK operate.

daedal · 04-06-2011 01:17AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Kid A wants to go do science, maths, engineering, computer science, etc type degree he gets subsidised;

Kid B wants to do marketing, commerce, business, arts, etc he pays;

Basically courses that produce skills that will keep the economy competitive should be invested in more heavily by the State in the short term.

Long term we do require the establishment of a loan system along the lines of what the UK operate.

I wholly agree with this!

autonomy · 04-06-2011 01:19AM

I say we cut the disability allowance to pay for the students drinking habits

Lone Stone · 04-06-2011 02:18AM

I pay my own college fee's, Now i could get a grant or what ever but i thought since i happen to have the money myself i wouldnt go for a grant.

I know people who are in college getting a the fee's paid for them and some of them dont even want to do carry on doing what it is we are doing when we finish college.

So what i think would be a good idea is a performance based grant , maybe you can only keep getting the grant if you show via your grades that you are serious about it

Wolfe Tone · 04-06-2011 02:26AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yeah. Pretty much. In a similar situation myself. Parents have too high an income but they also have large outgoings(mortgage). Grant office don't take that into account.

People will say "why don't they sell the house?" Sort of an irrelevant question seeing as I have no control over that decision

IMHO the tradition of parents paying for college needs to be destroyed. We should be seen as independent adults. Everyone entitled to student grants or loans at any age.

If loans were neccesary they would only be repayable on graduation after the graduate is earning a decent wage. If travelling or lose job the loan goes on hold. Interest repayments would be linked to inflation so not for profit.

Yeah it sucks, thats pretty much my situation and its hardly fair.

amacachi · 04-06-2011 02:55AM

Loans and let the students pay it back. Heading into 3rd year myself and had to pay the fees in 1st year. Along with the registration fee there was a ton of hassle that if there was a proper loans system in place I wouldn't have had to deal with and I'd have no problem with paying back the fees later.

amacachi · 04-06-2011 03:01AM

Emory Strong Gynecology wrote: »

Don't even get me started on that nonsense of lecturers working 6 months a year, lecturers work right through the summer just like everyone else, teaching is only a small part of their job, supervising research students, doing their own research and the endless search for funding takes up a lot of time and effort. Along with spending much longer in university to gain their qualification their salarys are well earned.

Also if they drop the salarys people wont lecture as they will work in industry and get paid much more. Which will result in a drop in the quality of lecturing as you wont have anywhere near the best people working in universities.

What's the pay like for non-research lecturers do you know? I agree that in the uni's at least that most lecturer's at least appear to be earning their pay but outside of that I wonder what the story is.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Kid A wants to go do science, maths, engineering, computer science, etc type degree he gets subsidised;

Kid B wants to do marketing, commerce, business, arts, etc he pays;

Basically courses that produce skills that will keep the economy competitive should be invested in more heavily by the State in the short term.

I would agree but I think that charging for all courses would give results almost as strong in that people will be more likely to do a useful course once they have to pay. Also artsy subjects can subsidise the useful ones. When one sees government funds going on facilities for music and the like while 30-40 year old engineering labs are left alone it can be a little disheartening.

RoyalMarine · 04-06-2011 03:07AM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Students should pay the first years fees and the registration fee should be scrapped. If a person succeeds in their first year and continues in the program then the governement should pay for the rest or pay a large proportion of it. Save a lot of money not having to pay for wasters who drop out after a year of booze.

There should be a government loan scheme set up to ensure they have access to the funds with no interest until they have graduated.

Why not do it the other way. If a student drops out before graduating, unless for medical reasons then they should repay the entire sum back to the government.
I'm a student on BTEA and I wouldn't be in college if I did not qualify for it. And I don't get to go out on the beer like everyone else. I have a son and myself to look after.

I would gladly take student loans if available and repay once I finish.
I'm 27 btw. I think a lot of younger students will argue that the government should pay them regardless.

Crow92 · 04-06-2011 03:34AM

People doing courses such as arts and such do basically bring in the largest chunk of money the college will get as it's the biggest course but it doesn't cost as much as other courses that require studios/ labs ect. ect.

I know that Architecture department in UCD has had about 40% of it's funding cut the last few years and last year it had to get 1million from the arts department to balance their books.

I also don't agree with paying for "non-useful" courses. College should be a place for learning not just a job training centre.

I'd personally like to see fee's brought back in for those who could afford, it's very unfair that the well-off basically get a tax break by no having to pay for their childs education. This would bring in more money for the college, should reduce the student reg fee of 2k which if you get a maintenance grant the gov will pay. This would leave more money for the people from poor socio-economic backgrounds.

Obviously there should also be a tiered system for students
Less than 23k=full fee's paid and full grant.
30k=Full Fee's paid and 75% grant.
35k=Full Fee's paid and 50% grant.
40k=Full Fee's paid and 25% grant.
45k=Full Fee's paid and 0% grant.
After 50k 25% fee's paid.
After 65k, 50% fee's paid.
After 80k you have to pay full fee's.
Something like that would be fair to all in terms of wealth and would give the college back money it needs since it's been cut a huge amount from the gov over the years.

LuckyLloyd · 04-06-2011 04:04AM

amacachi wrote: »

I would agree but I think that charging for all courses would give results almost as strong in that people will be more likely to do a useful course once they have to pay. Also artsy subjects can subsidise the useful ones. When one sees government funds going on facilities for music and the like while 30-40 year old engineering labs are left alone it can be a little disheartening.

As an economy, if we are to get out of this mess it will depend in large part on our ability to compete for direct foreign investment. There is no doubt that we need to increase demand for technically demanding courses in high skill areas. Presently from a teenagers perspective, there is little in the way of personal incentives to choose science over commerce outside of a particular like or interest in the subject.

If everyone pays, then the status quo will be maintained in terms of those incentives for those with a remaining ability to enter third level (maybe the range of courses being offered via the CAO may diminish somewhat I guess). If you make courses of study more useful to the economy dramatically cheaper, then in the minds of kids and parents in second level education you are creating a very important incentive for them to try and get onto such courses.

Ultimately, the State needs to approach the whole business of education in a far more utilitarian manner. A marketing degree is nowhere near as useful or valid for the individual or the state as a computer science degree. It is time for us to start following through on that reality - all students and courses are not of equal value to the country!

LuckyLloyd · 04-06-2011 04:07AM

Crow92 wrote: »

I also don't agree with paying for "non-useful" courses. College should be a place for learning not just a job training centre.

If everyone is on their own dime they can have all the learning they like. But they aren't, and the country is broke. Hence we require - if not a job training centre - a future economic competitiveness centre.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 04-06-2011 11:19AM

Crow92 wrote: »

I'd personally like to see fee's brought back in for those who could afford, it's very unfair that the well-off basically get a tax break by no having to pay for their childs education. This would bring in more money for the college, should reduce the student reg fee of 2k which if you get a maintenance grant the gov will pay. This would leave more money for the people from poor socio-economic backgrounds.

Obviously there should also be a tiered system for students
Less than 23k=full fee's paid and full grant.
30k=Full Fee's and 75% grant.
35k=Full Fee's and 50% grant.
40k=Full Fee's and 25% grant.
45k=Full Fee's and 0% grant.
After 50k 25% fee's.
After 65k, 50% fee's.
After 80k full fee's.
Something like that would be fair to all in terms of wealth and would give the college back money it needs since it's been cut a huge amount from the gov over the years.

That idea is too complicated. You'll also find there's lots of people within the 50-80K earning area but are effectively a lot poorer because they are repaying a huge mortgage.

We're adults at 18. Parental income shouldn't come into it. UK system is fine should just copy that/

Matthew23 · 04-06-2011 11:44AM

First post!

I think the goverment should pay for students eductation because it is in there interest that they have well educated work forces and young people who are able to tell there arse from there elbow. Id say that if education was more expensive people would be less likly to go to college and this would have a bad effect on our economy which is already pretty bad

sherdydan · 04-06-2011 11:48AM

I think that there should be a loan system in place, which also gives students enough to live on while in college. Also students who pick courses which graduates are needed in should be given preferential rates of interest, and the loans should be secured against the parents so that the students cant fúck off outta the country!

also, students shouldnt have to pay until they have a job, and repayments should be affordable.

amacachi · 04-06-2011 12:10PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

As an economy, if we are to get out of this mess it will depend in large part on our ability to compete for direct foreign investment. There is no doubt that we need to increase demand for technically demanding courses in high skill areas. Presently from a teenagers perspective, there is little in the way of personal incentives to choose science over commerce outside of a particular like or interest in the subject.

If everyone pays, then the status quo will be maintained in terms of those incentives for those with a remaining ability to enter third level (maybe the range of courses being offered via the CAO may diminish somewhat I guess). If you make courses of study more useful to the economy dramatically cheaper, then in the minds of kids and parents in second level education you are creating a very important incentive for them to try and get onto such courses.

Ultimately, the State needs to approach the whole business of education in a far more utilitarian manner. A marketing degree is nowhere near as useful or valid for the individual or the state as a computer science degree. It is time for us to start following through on that reality - all students and courses are not of equal value to the country!

I think the impact of a degree on employment prospects when debt will be incurred would provide a bit of a shift towards people doing more useful courses. I think we're both pretty much on the same page on this matter though.

aligator_am · 04-06-2011 12:24PM

Gophur wrote: »

You're 18 and want a mortgage? You get the mortgage and nobody but you is expected to pay for it.

You can get married, you can get a driving licence and be let loose on the road, and nobody but you is expected to pay for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo9_aBj1Z84

tatabubbly · 04-06-2011 09:12PM

Ok, so i have a degree in science and i'm doing research for my masters in the area of diabetes.

My best friend is did an arts degree and has her dip and is teaching.

Both of us are doing valuable things with our lives, I wouldn't and can't differentiate between degrees. Everyone should have the chance to an education that they deserve.

My name is URL · 04-06-2011 09:30PM

I think the costs should be subsidised by the tax-payer so that everyone has a more equal opportunity to a 3rd level education. Though in these recessionary times, there should be a stipulation which requires them to seek employment here for a set amount of time after they have graduated. If no work is available then of course they can emigrate.

I've encountered plenty of people who plan on leaving Ireland after graduation, regardless of the availability of work. The types that moan non-stop about how much of a kip the place is while happily availing of a further education provided in part by the state. Those parasites don't deserve to have anything provided to them.

Show Time · 04-06-2011 09:44PM

If you want the education then pay for it yourself simple as.

04-06-2011 09:59PM

Emory Strong Gynecology wrote: »

Also if they drop the salarys people wont lecture as they will work in industry and get paid much more. Which will result in a drop in the quality of lecturing as you wont have anywhere near the best people working in universities.

What makes you think the best people are working in them at the moment?

solerina · 04-06-2011 10:17PM

I graduated from university in the late 90s and I never got a penny from the government, there were no free fees in my day, I worked, my parents paid for my education, it wasnt easy but we managed.....
Free Fees when the county is bankrupt is a rediculous idea..I work and have whats suppose to be a well paid job and Im just about getting by (mortgage is taking a huge chunk of my wages) I dont agree that my taxes should continue to fund third level education when our health service is in ruins

Students & College Fees - Who Should Pay?

Comments