third level fees

amacachi · 28-07-2011 12:28AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

5) There should be a national merit scholarship program where the top 10% of students going to university get free or heavily reduced tuition. Those who finish each year in the top 10% of their class should get significantly reduced tuition the following year. Excellence should be rewarded, and it should be need-blind.

10% in each school or 10% of a national leaderboard? If it's the latter about 80-90% of it would just be a refund for those who send their kids to expensive secondary schools.

DB21 · 28-07-2011 12:35AM

Great to see the usual lazy student stereotype from the pro-fees crowd. I'll tell you something, in my 2 years so far in NUI Maynooth, I've been out about 6 times only. So don't give me that crap that none of us do work. I'll tell you what, why don't you go round and explain to young people with aspirations of going to college that are from a working class background that college is going to be a rich boys club again.

The Volt · 28-07-2011 12:36AM

amacachi wrote: »

10% in each school or 10% of a national leaderboard? If it's the latter about 80-90% of it would just be a refund for those who send their kids to expensive secondary schools.

It would also still see students attending private schools gain a significant advantage.

amacachi · 28-07-2011 12:43AM

DB21 wrote: »

Great to see the usual lazy student stereotype from the pro-fees crowd. I'll tell you something, in my 2 years so far in NUI Maynooth, I've been out about 6 times only. So don't give me that crap that none of us do work. I'll tell you what, why don't you go round and explain to young people with aspirations of going to college that are from a working class background that college is going to be a rich boys club again.

I've not been out with people in college in two years, I win!

Voltwad wrote: »

It would also still see students attending private schools gain a significant advantage.

Exactly, and as I said earlier college fees, I would imagine, could reduce the numbers going to private secondary schools rather than give an even greater benefit to those who can afford such things upfront while class sizes in state-funded schools increase.

feicim · 28-07-2011 01:15AM

blahfckingblah wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/are-third-level-fees-looming-187801-Jul2011/

a possible return to third level fees. if this happens it will have the knock on effect of even higher rates of emigration and therefore smaller larger dole queues. this government surely must see that the benefits drawbacks of this move would outweigh the drawbacks benefits. cynicism craziness.

LimerickLad92 · 28-07-2011 01:36AM

As a person preparing for 1st year in college Id like to have a say on this aswell.

Its absolutely crazy to expect alot of people to go to university or college without "free" fee's. Thats a very loose term, €2k is alot of money, more then I can afford and I will be relying on a grant to help me, let me give you all some info.

I come from 2 unskilled parents and a family of 6, I have a mother working 2 nights a week on minimum wage and cannot find any more hours or a second job, I have a father who has been disabled due to a work related accident and receives €211 a week, 16 of that is to feed, cloth and look after me per week.

I worked my ass off in a crap school full of lazy, trouble making students to have a very good leaving cert and go on and study the course I always dreamed of, Business w/Japanese. I come from a socio disadvantaged background and some weeks my family cannot do the shopping because bills need paying.

Yet, at this present structure I can still go to University, and hopefully change the lifestyle I see my parents struggle with a decent job at the end, where I can contribute to society and give my kids a stronger start at life

Enough of the personal bit, If Fee's are introduced, many people like me will be forced out of college, thats the fact, and what do I become in this economy? someone on social welfare struggling to find any job because the country has been devastated by pig headed politicians.

I do not say "No to Fee's". If a UK situation of a student tax was introduced for a certain amount of years after University was introduced, then it would be much fairer, if a finance system was forumlated where those with no income, with no credit rating can get a loan finance for their fees and living costs then even then, this loan cant be paid back without a job, there is not many jobs.

Not many students can secure a part-time job, why give Joe Soap, an 18 year old Engineering student a job in a Deli when Jim bob, an unemployed man with experience in the field has also applied for the job.

The problem is the same, no jobs. But the Government still must maintain the present circumstance so that Ireland can churn out more graduates, attract more FDI and let the youth motor this dump out of the recession.

Rant over!

southsiderosie · 28-07-2011 08:05AM

amacachi wrote: »

10% in each school or 10% of a national leaderboard? If it's the latter about 80-90% of it would just be a refund for those who send their kids to expensive secondary schools.

It could be either way, but you're right, the top 10% from each school would be far more equitable. That could really help give a leg up for kids from disadvantaged schools, but it would also acknowledge the fact that hard work should be rewarded, no matter what the socio-economic background.

As it stands the current system still disproportionately benefits the better off, who use the funds that would have gone towards fees to send their kids to better secondary schools, tutoring, etc.

nesf · 28-07-2011 08:12AM

LimerickLad92 wrote: »

As a person preparing for 1st year in college Id like to have a say on this aswell.

Its absolutely crazy to expect alot of people to go to university or college without "free" fee's. Thats a very loose term, €2k is alot of money, more then I can afford and I will be relying on a grant to help me, let me give you all some info.

I come from 2 unskilled parents and a family of 6, I have a mother working 2 nights a week on minimum wage and cannot find any more hours or a second job, I have a father who has been disabled due to a work related accident and receives €211 a week, 16 of that is to feed, cloth and look after me per week.

I worked my ass off in a crap school full of lazy, trouble making students to have a very good leaving cert and go on and study the course I always dreamed of, Business w/Japanese. I come from a socio disadvantaged background and some weeks my family cannot do the shopping because bills need paying.

Yet, at this present structure I can still go to University, and hopefully change the lifestyle I see my parents struggle with a decent job at the end, where I can contribute to society and give my kids a stronger start at life

Enough of the personal bit, If Fee's are introduced, many people like me will be forced out of college, thats the fact, and what do I become in this economy? someone on social welfare struggling to find any job because the country has been devastated by pig headed politicians.

I do not say "No to Fee's". If a UK situation of a student tax was introduced for a certain amount of years after University was introduced, then it would be much fairer, if a finance system was forumlated where those with no income, with no credit rating can get a loan finance for their fees and living costs then even then, this loan cant be paid back without a job, there is not many jobs.

Not many students can secure a part-time job, why give Joe Soap, an 18 year old Engineering student a job in a Deli when Jim bob, an unemployed man with experience in the field has also applied for the job.

The problem is the same, no jobs. But the Government still must maintain the present circumstance so that Ireland can churn out more graduates, attract more FDI and let the youth motor this dump out of the recession.

Rant over!

I've not seen anyone (worth listening to) who's argued for a flat return of upfront fees without either a loan system like the UK or the State covering fees for the less well off. You're ranting about something no one is proposing!

paulmr · 28-07-2011 09:11AM

Quite simply a return to third level fees would be a huge backward step. Even in this recession we should prioritise education and think long term. If fees return the chances of anyone from a disadvantaged background going to college will absolutely disappear. While a student is attending college for the 4 years they receive no social welfare, Would one not cancel out the other? so instead of lounging around wating for dole day at least the person is trying to better themselves and their chances. Also a person that attends college and gets their qualification is more likely to end up in a better paid job so in the long term will more than pay for their college fees through their income tax.

Kinski · 28-07-2011 10:06AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

It could be either way, but you're right, the top 10% from each school would be far more equitable. That could really help give a leg up for kids from disadvantaged schools, but it would also acknowledge the fact that hard work should be rewarded, no matter what the socio-economic background.

Hard work and talent is rewarded - with good grades and good qualifications. Why should financial rewards be thrown in for people who don't need them?

28-07-2011 10:07AM

blahfckingblah wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/are-third-level-fees-looming-187801-Jul2011/

a possible return to third level fees. if this happens it will have the knock on effect of even higher rates of emigration and larger dole queues. this government surely must see that the drawbacks of this move would outweigh the benefits. craziness.

And probably won't do a damn thing about grade inflation or the declining standards. I don't know about the idea of funding courses selectively, it sounds a bit too much "we need engineers, so all students need to go study engineering now", but it's true we can't go on as we are.
Surely if we could raise academic standards properly, fewer students would waste time at college and expenditure would be less on students.
Failing that, then improve the standards and introduce a loan system.

dtmc · 28-07-2011 10:22AM

If you were to selectively give free fees to certain courses, you'd end up having a huge rise in the numbers of people applying for those courses(half of which probably have no interest in studying the subjects but have chosen to do so because it's free) and this would inevitably push the points for these courses up dramatically and alot of people who actually want to study it will not get accepted. You could end up with much more people dropping out beofre completing the course and the numbers graduating from these "economically beneficial" courses would be much less than previously, leading us to a much worse position to the one we were in previously.

Cavehill Red · 28-07-2011 10:31AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Maybe if we had a proper fee paying system then there would be more scholarships on offer in these areas.

Why on earth should businesses have to pay up front? What if the students drop out of college?

The British army offer cadetships to put people through university in the UK. If people drop out, they repay the army what they owe. Simples. Basically, you've called for a renovation of universities into some sort of training mill for businesses. Why should universities assume that role which is properly the responsibility of the businesses themselves? Let the businesses pay to support the training they wish to outsource.

Suryavarman wrote: »

People go to college to learn these skills, they are then compensated for these for these skills through higher wages. So yes businesses do technically pay for college.

You appear to miss my point, so I'll repeat it: the businesses pay for the skills supplied by their employees. They do not (even indirectly) pay for university degrees. I challenge you to supply a scan of any employment contract that states that the employee is being reimbursed for their educational costs prior to taking up the job.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Once again I ask, why should businesses have to pay up front? What if the student turns out to be completely useless and is no use to the business. In that situation everyone loses, the student has a degree in an area they are incompetent in and the business is out of pocket for a useless degree. Why shouldn't the student have to pay for their living expenses out of a part-time job?

You're offering a series of false either/ors. If businesses want universities to supply courses that train people vocationally for their employment, then businesses should subsidise the cost of supplying such courses, either directly via studentships or indirectly via funding the departments.
If students accrue a debt of responsibility, then like every other area in life, they repay that debt, either by fulfilling the terms of their studentship (in the army case, by taking up employment with the army and passing muster there) or else by repaying the money owed.
You may not have noticed, but the vast majority of students DO pay for their living expenses by working. The maximum grant works out at about 40 euro per week, which wouldn't cover half of their accommodation costs, never mind transport, food, utilities, books, etc.

Lockstep · 28-07-2011 11:10AM

Not a big fan of the argument that those who pay fees would take their education more seriously.
First of all, students still pay €1500 a year, secondly my experience studying abroad with American and British students had them acting every bit as fecklessly as Irish students. Anecdotal evidence of course but it did make me dubious about the assumption that fees=reponsability.

jc84 wrote: »

Ireland is the only country I've come across where third level education is free,

Off the top of my head, the following also have free tuition (and registration fees similar to/lower than Irish ones)
Belgium, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland.

cavedave · 28-07-2011 11:16AM

Why just have loans for university fees? Why not put all education on a loan basis that you pay once your an adult? Presumably because you want every citizen to have a basic education (the three R's) to allow them to contribute to society and live in a way that maximises their chances.

But why is this point the end of second level and not at 12? or at 15? or 21?

Permabear · 28-07-2011 11:40AM

This post has been deleted.

Cavehill Red · 28-07-2011 11:55AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Straw man alert. I said we shouldn't be seeing Aisling's degree in Medieval Celtic Studies purely in monetary terms. I never mentioned blank cheques. We can of course extend your argument backwards to secondary and primary education. Should we eradicate subsidy of all study of anything non-vocational there too?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, now who's resorting to caricature? This is the sort of argument propagated by the sort of person who writes 'Arts degree - please take one' on the loo roll containers in TCD arts block.
TCD's English School, for example, is currently ranked 5th best in Europe. It attracts students from all over the world to Dublin, who pay fees, contribute to the local economy, etc. The idea that only STEM subjects are of economic worth is a dubious one.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think you can conclude that, since Irish primary degrees are significantly more specialised than American ones. Further, I'd be intrigued to establish how those researchers determined a methodology of measuring the rate and quality of learning. It sounds like exactly the sort of woolly and unproveable research which gives sociology such a bad name.

Permabear · 28-07-2011 12:11PM

This post has been deleted.

Nijmegen · 28-07-2011 12:48PM

I don't think anyone is suggesting that students pay up front, and this will make college a rich people only affair.

Deferred loans, paid back as a percentage of salary over a certain limit, would be the method I think most people agree would be used. So, you get a degree and you pay for it from your salary. It's predictable for you.

As for access to higher education, the OECD studied this for the Irish Government and concluded that free fees was only a benefit for middle class people who were sending their kids to college anyway.

cavedave · 28-07-2011 12:58PM

Nijmegen

Deferred loans, paid back as a percentage of salary over a certain limit, would be the method I think most people agree would be used. So, you get a degree and you pay for it from your salary. It's predictable for you.

Presumably you pay the debt when you have a decent job? I see two issues with that
1. Irish young people like to emigrate, and this is further incentive to. Britain has something like 60m people and we have closer to 5. This means we will nearly always have higher emigration. A fair number of people will leave and never pay their debt

2. A third of Ireland young that are still here don't have jobs.

In Spain, youth unemployment runs at a scary 44%. In Greece it is at 36%, in Portugal, 28%, and Ireland, 31.5%

. I am willing to bet that many that do do not earn enough to be above any reasonable time to repay the debt limit.

This is a practical question. What % of people would actually repay a university debt given emigration and unemployement?

amacachi · 28-07-2011 01:00PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I myself do see grade inflation as an issue however I'd love more details on UCD's "unclassified" 40% of students and on TCD's dropout rate before the final year.

Nijmegen · 28-07-2011 01:04PM

Presumably you pay the debt when you have a decent job? I see two issues with that
1. Irish young people like to emigrate, and this is further incentive to. Britain has something like 60m people and we have closer to 5. This means we will nearly always have higher emigration. A fair number of people will leave and never pay their debt

2. A third of Ireland young that are still here don't have jobs.

When you emigrate you don't pay back loans in your home country? If only! I work with people around the world and from around the world, and haven't met one who is paying off student loans back home and living/working abroad who isn't meeting their repayments.

At the end of the day, you may want to return home some day - and credit ratings are international things! Apply for a loan in the US after defaulting on your student loan in Ireland and forget about it.

As for those who don't have jobs, yep, that's a problem today. But we're talking about a solution for funding our education system for the next 100 years, not just today.

. I am willing to bet that many that do do not earn enough to be above any reasonable time to repay the debt limit.

This is a practical question. What % of people would actually repay a university debt given emigration and unemployement?

Emigration not a problem and unemployment a problem today. In Latin America a private company is giving student loans. The default rate is 2%

anymore · 28-07-2011 01:09PM

RMD wrote: »

They need to use their heads here. I wont be able to afford fees, so I wont be able to get skilled qualifications and get a well paying job. Instead I'll end up more than likely in some minimum wage paying unskilled job for the next 10-20 years until I'm lucky to get a good position down to experience.

The extra income tax they'd take in over 10-20 years due to having a well paying job would completely outweigh the money they'll spend on putting me through college.

Third level isnt the only route to get ' qualifications ! Also why do you feel that in the absence of third level that the only option is minium wage work ? This seems to be quite a bizarre view of work life ????

anymore · 28-07-2011 01:12PM

RMD wrote: »

They need to use their heads here. I wont be able to afford fees, so I wont be able to get skilled qualifications and get a well paying job. Instead I'll end up more than likely in some minimum wage paying unskilled job for the next 10-20 years until I'm lucky to get a good position down to experience.

The extra income tax they'd take in over 10-20 years due to having a well paying job would completely outweigh the money they'll spend on putting me through college.

That is an extraordinary claim to make !!!! There are many routes to a good job that are not dependent upon a 3rd level education including some of the professions.

Suryavarman · 28-07-2011 02:42PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The British army offer cadetships to put people through university in the UK. If people drop out, they repay the army what they owe. Simples. Basically, you've called for a renovation of universities into some sort of training mill for businesses. Why should universities assume that role which is properly the responsibility of the businesses themselves? Let the businesses pay to support the training they wish to outsource.

I'm not calling for renovating universities into a training mill. I'm simply calling for full fees to be introduced. At the same time if the universities aren't preparing students for the workplace, then what hell is the point of the things?

You appear to miss my point, so I'll repeat it: the businesses pay for the skills supplied by their employees. They do not (even indirectly) pay for university degrees. I challenge you to supply a scan of any employment contract that states that the employee is being reimbursed for their educational costs prior to taking up the job.

The employer is willing to pay extra for the skills employees learned through going to college. So yes the employer is indirectly reimbursing the employee for going to college. If the employee is being reimbursed indirectly, I don't see why it would be in the contract.

You're offering a series of false either/ors. If businesses want universities to supply courses that train people vocationally for their employment, then businesses should subsidise the cost of supplying such courses, either directly via studentships or indirectly via funding the departments.
If students accrue a debt of responsibility, then like every other area in life, they repay that debt, either by fulfilling the terms of their studentship (in the army case, by taking up employment with the army and passing muster there) or else by repaying the money owed.

Universities don't train people vocationally, so why would business subsidise the courses? I very much doubt anyone walks into straight into a job out of college without any training. The businesses have to pay for this training.

You may not have noticed, but the vast majority of students DO pay for their living expenses by working. The maximum grant works out at about 40 euro per week, which wouldn't cover half of their accommodation costs, never mind transport, food, utilities, books, etc.

From my time in college the majority of people I knew were not working and were living off their grant and they could manage all their expenses. You also make the assumption that everyone in college is living away from home. If you were living at home you could easily go to college and live off €40 per week.

Cavehill Red · 28-07-2011 02:43PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, it is not. Quit arguing with yourself. I said that monetary criteria should not be how we measure either the validity of learning nor the preservation of heritage and I stand by that, not your attempts to distort what I said.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And what qualifies you to be the arbiter of what is useful and useless education?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, bully for you.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, bully for you. Not everyone wants to be a lawyer (especially in the US where the sector is heavily overpopulated) or a financier (given the economic terrorism they have inflicted on the planet in recent times.) Some people may be thrilled to use their degrees without requiring six figure incomes. Not everyone is as motivated by mammon as you are.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I asked for the methodology to be explained, as it seems impossible to me to measure something as vague as 'the rate of learning.' I don't have a 'preferred conclusion'. What I have is scepticism that the study you cite can demonstrably be proven to accurately measure what it purports.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, university is not intended to be solely the training ground for office life. If you wish it to become so, then again, as I said earlier, it is incumbent on the industries which would benefit to pay for that.

Permabear · 28-07-2011 03:04PM

This post has been deleted.

The Volt · 28-07-2011 03:07PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More or less. Free education is either something you believe in, or you don't.

Permabear · 28-07-2011 03:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 28-07-2011 03:16PM

Voltwad wrote: »

More or less. Free education is either something you believe in, or you don't.

Are you really going to stand behind such a patently ridiculous system solely because it has some symbolic appeal of representing "free" education? It's not free anyway, the taxpayers are paying for all of it. In which case value for money in terms of the economy should be of paramount importance, not some peripheral side project.

third level fees

Comments