More Student Protests Over Fees? Hmph.

caseyann wrote: »

So what if she is from USA please have you seen the state of their education standards over there and the amount of school drop outs,and students who are in debt up to their eyeballs before they even have a job and paying for half their lives?

Southsiderosie didn't design the US education system so it doesn't have anything to do with how valid her opinion is.

As for standards, while the standard of primary and secondary level education in the US is embarrassing. Their third level institutions on the other hand are the best on the planet. There's a reason why names like Harvard and Yale are known all over the planet.

JustinDee wrote: »

You keep banging on about "debt". So what? Not everybody in this country borrowed beyond their means, even before tighter times. You keep telling me that times are incomparable now yet have no inkling whatsoever of what the late 80s/early 90s were even like. Not one idea.

Yes, because debt has a huge impact on the economy as a whole: students mired in debt, parents unable to help out their kids as they're taking massive hits themselves, businesses being hit due to drops in consumer spending and the crowding-out effect by government.
Of course I have an inkling about what times were like then: that's what data is for. So far, you've been unable to source your own claims and keep bleating out trump cards which boil down to "I was there and so don't need any sources at all".

JustinDee wrote: »

I was. I was 19 in 1988. You were something like 3 or 4?

Of course you were. That seems to be your only point in this argument.
Forget facts, sources, citations and evidence. Who needs them when you can keep repeating about how you're right and everyone else is wrong, facts be damned.

JustinDee wrote: »

No need to act the yutz if you can't take a joke. You've no idea about my work hours whatsoever.

Just pointing out the bizarreness of attacking lazy students when your own post history is all over the place. Dunno what your hours are like but assuming you're only posting outside of work, your job is fairly soft on hours.

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't go for blogs, fella. They, like the op-eds you link, are also opinion. Have never visited politics.ie. One forum is enough.

An economics piece by the IT Economics Editor.
An article (not an Op-Ed) by the IT Southern Correspondant.
A Guardian blog by one of their journalists, where the relevant part on emigration is sourced by ESRI.
These aren't random spoutings by randomers (like your claims are). They're written in reputable media sources but you obstinately refuse to acknowledge them because they don't fit in with your pre-formed opinions which have been refuted.

JustinDee wrote: »

Not having experience in such a time kind of lets you down because you are going on second-hand cherry-picked opinion.

Ah yes. Using empirical data and sources (as opposed to opinions and hear-say) is cherry-picking opinions.
Did you know that 2002 was the worst year ever for the Irish economy?
Whaddya mean there's reams of data proving this isn't true? I WAS THERE AND ANY SOURCES THAT CONTRADICT ME ARE CHERRYPICKED, FAKE AND UNTRUE!

JustinDee wrote: »

It was sarcasm. If you don't get it, no worries and no surprises.

No, it's bad English. You don't need to write perfectly or anything but the following is incomprehensible

There's no work but some work and thats all described as no work.

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh peace. You're making out like there were no economic woes during the late 80s/early 90s. "It wasn't bad. I would have read about it".
In case you hadn't heard, Japan nearly went bust and world markets took an huge nosedive in an huge crash. The Irish exchequer's coffers were also almost bust until yet more assistance procured from its neighbours. Unemployment was unprecedented (and remains so to this day). Emigration was massive.

JustinDee wrote: »

Second-hand information and cherry-picked at best.

Yup, evidence and sources are second hand. They're not one person's rantings.
If they're 'cherry picked' you would have no problems in providing sources which refute them but you have yet to do so.

JustinDee wrote: »

You're telling someone what a time was like despite them being of an age to actually comprehend what it was like.

And your 'comprehension' has been shown to be false or at least completely unrepresentative of the time.

JustinDee wrote: »

It peaks. Not "soft on hours" as you mean to demean.
Don't assume.

Fairly light on hours then no? Or at least, one which lets you post during work hours.
Certainly not a very taxing job for someone who rants at students for being lazy.

JustinDee wrote: »

All opinion pieces. You do know what an Op-Ed is, don't you?

Only one is an opinion piece (Showing the author's opinion) and even then she sourced the ESRI to make her claim (which is what I was relying on RE emigration. Not the anecdotes of people in Oz)
The next is an Economics piece by the Economics editor and the other is an article (Not an Op-Ed) by the Southern Correspondant.
You keep whining about the pieces without even attempting to refute them. If they're so untrue and 'cherry picked opinions' then you should have no trouble refuting them.
But you haven't after a couple of days of complaining about them so I'm guessing you're unable to.

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't think you're really qualified to lecture me about how print news media works.

Given your inability to accept anything which doesn't fit into your pre-formed views, 'lecturing' seems to be the only way possible.

JustinDee wrote: »

"Empirical"?

Capable of being verified, unlike your own unsourced opinions

JustinDee wrote: »

Its colloquial. Like I said, you don't get it so no worries.

Poorly worded and grammatical incorrect English is colloquial. I see.
In that case, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, is there any argument against a student loan scheme, in theory? For me, the USI's opposition in theory to a load scheme - which would retain college opportunity but also provide funding for third level institutions - really undermines their whole protest. It shows that the real concerns aren't opportunity and wanting a knowledgeable workforce (because those can be facilitated by loans) but rather that the students protesting are just cheap, like all humans, and don't want to pay more for something than they do now.

I think it undermines their case doubly, because they're trying to advertise themselves as the smart future of Ireland while engaging in a campaign that is inherently intellectually dishonest.

The only argument that's put forward against it is that it puts young people in debt and is something they shouldn't have to countenance at 18 etc. I sympathise with that view and students from a middle-class and higher background will always have their family to fall back on, financially, to some extent, more than a student from a working-class background.

However, the "graduate tax" is the way to go nonetheless. £5 a week over 25 years in England is how it works over there I believe. Sign me up.

The problem we have here is that we're currently in no-man's land. The government don't want to introduce the above type scheme, at least as of yet, and the USI et al won't backdown either. So, that means registration fees are going to go up but there's going to be no loan scheme or similar to counteract that.

The USI and Students' Unions are just breeding grounds for politicians in the making. They're after a vote so they can use their position as a stepping stone Students' Unions to the USI, or on to a branch of political party of some sort. To that end, they'll support whatever the majority of students want in order to get a vote, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

One thing in particular that sticks out involves our former Students' Union President. He was vehemently anti-fees, as you'd expect. As of two months ago he's in London doing a Masters. So, he can afford to pay full fees there, and living expenses in one of the most expensive cities in England, yet "can't" afford fees and/or registration fees here. It reeks of hypocrisy.

Byron85 wrote: »

The only argument that's put forward against it is that it puts young people in debt and is something they shouldn't have to countenance at 18 etc.

Lockstep wrote: »

While I disagree with graduate taxes/student loans (being someone paranoid about debt) they are at least free at point of entry and paid back when income levels reacha a certain amount.

I don't really sympathise with that debt argument. There's no rational basis for it, particularly if the loan is designed to be repayable only on earning a certain amount. This opposition comes down to some emotional "gut-feeling" that has absolutely no practical impact. It's a very weak justification for maintaining "free fees" with all its negatives, and (like most/all pro-"free fees" arguments) strikes me at this moment in time as just being a proxy for the human cheapness argument I mentioned above.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

A graduate tax system however is pretty much totally unworkable in Ireland - primarily due to the fact that it will likely encourage graduates to leave the country, which will place a punishing burden on those who chose to remain and the deficit will have to be made up via the general taxpayer either way. There was a trend of graduates choosing to leave Ireland for a few years before the recession even began out of choice, it will be little incentive for them to return.

I agree with this. Going beyond debating a loan system in theory, constructing one is definitely non-trivial. I believe New Zealand adds extra interest payments if the graduate goes abroad. Realistically, how many people leave Ireland for good? Could it be possible to incentivise voluntarily paying it back?

Another alternative would be having the loan issued by a non-governmental institution which would "chase" graduates around the globe. Banks are in pretty bad repute at the moment, and I don't know would they be willing to issue student loans systematically.