Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Free college fees? Should they be scrapped?

124

Comments

  • #92
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Podgerz wrote: »
    The current Attorney General did an Arts course and worked her way up to the arguably highest legal position in the country, there are many more examples i am sure, thats just one. If she had to pay for her course id imagine she wouldnt have went to college at all, or have been significantly disadvantaged in doing so.

    Thats the answer if you were serious, f you were just taking the piss my answer is - damn straight, hippies - what do they do anyway

    University tuition fees for undergraduates were abolished in Ireland in 1996


    I think she did her undergraduate long before this so probably had to pay fees:)

    Whelan studied politics and sociology at University College Galway, before switching to law,[2] and gained a Masters Degree from the University of London.[3] She was called to the bar in 1985, and was appointed as senior counsel in 2005.


  • #93
    Muir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Muir


    You get rid of free fees, what happens to the people who can't afford college? The dole. Working out more expensive.
    Other young people go off, have kids, claim their social welfare, children's allowance, rent allowance etc. Some get off their ass and try to educate themselves so that they can get a job and pay back in taxes the money used to help them go to college. Which of these is better? Most graduates will pay back money in taxes. People who left school, went straight on the dole and have never had a job are probably less likely to pay that money back into the tax pool. I certainly know who I'd rather be helping.


  • #94
    magicherbs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭magicherbs


    Muir wrote: »
    You get rid of free fees, what happens to the people who can't afford college? The dole.

    they get a job :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #95
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Muir wrote: »
    You get rid of free fees, what happens to the people who can't afford college? The dole. Working out more expensive.
    Other young people go off, have kids, claim their social welfare, children's allowance, rent allowance etc. Some get off their ass and try to educate themselves so that they can get a job and pay back in taxes the money used to help them go to college. Which of these is better? Most graduates will pay back money in taxes. People who left school, went straight on the dole and have never had a job are probably less likely to pay that money back into the tax pool. I certainly know who I'd rather be helping.

    Means tested grant system


  • #96
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    twinQuins wrote: »
    Why don't you tell me why you think it's not? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, it's just that so often people will say "it's not a right" and then leave it at that.

    Well, why do you believe so?

    because its not needed by anyone to survive. irish people just THINK its a right, especially student activists


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Muir wrote: »
    You get rid of free fees, what happens to the people who can't afford college? The dole. Working out more expensive.

    They get free fees through the grant system, while Michael O'Leary and Michael McDowell pay fees for their children to go to Trinity, but would get tax relief under the old system.

    Apparently this is a right wing notion.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #98
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    because its not needed by anyone to survive. irish people just THINK its a right, especially student activists

    Chanting 'we don't want to pay no fees, we just want to get degrees':pac:


  • #99
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Chanting 'we don't want to pay no fees, we just want to get degrees':pac:

    degrees for some.. miniature socialist flags for others


  • #100
    Muir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Muir


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Means tested grant system

    Means tested grant system wasn't any use to me. And no, my family is not on a good income. 50-100 over the limit (when the insane amounts of tax paid aren't even considered). I had to seek help from other sources or I would have ended up needing to drop out.


  • #101
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    MadYaker wrote: »
    If people from disadvantaged areas aren't going on to third level its because they are either too lazy or inept to get good enough points in the L.C


    Listen Larraine dealt with this perfectly but I have to add my two cents because this lack of thought is very hurtful and insulting to some people. The attitude also is part of what convinces kids from disadvantaged areas that they don’t deserve college. People coming from disadvantaged areas have a completely different run up to the leaving cert than other most other people do. Some people in these areas also have terrible home lives and are sometimes criticised for aspiring for college by their families!

    What Larraine says regarding schools in these areas are bang on the money. I went to one. We had maybe one teacher that cared and she was a substitute teacher. The rest didn’t give two fecks about the kids in the school. We had no chance, confidence or education other than the ones we gave ourselves by extra-curricular reading. Several students came from rough homes and had to study at friends or at the library every daylight hour. Myself and a few others made it because we did a lot or extra-curricular reading but a lot of more intelligent people than me didn’t. Too boil it down to the leaving cert being the only decider as to whether people get into college is frankly very stupid.


    Environment plays the most important part in deciding academic ability. A person who gets into college coming from a school in the worst area of Dublin is after making a far greater achievement than someone who comes from the top school in the country. If you doubt that environment plays a role in ability to do well academically I would be happy to send you some neuroscience papers that back it up. I’m sorry to bring science into things again but I find it dispels stigma beautifully.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,419 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    I'm all for it. No more pressure to do well in the leaving, no more college etc. Only problem, would need to bring in conscription as a means of getting some youngsters out into the world.


  • #103
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    K-9 wrote: »
    Just on the free fees thing, as somebody who the grant system and the free fee system meant little too, it meant no difference, I'm still stunned at this total belief that the new system is so much better.

    Can anybody explain to me how the free fees system benefits the disadvantaged more than a grant system, the disadvantaged still get free frees anyway?


    I meant to reply to you ealrier so sorry about that. I was arguing on the other thread with someone linking free fees to a drop in standard. The free fees idea I dont actually feel strongly about. If free fees remained for those in disadvantaged areas then I have no problem getting rid of them. It might even improve things.


  • #104
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    because its not needed by anyone to survive. irish people just THINK its a right, especially student activists

    Neither is second level education - if we're going by the strict definition of 'survival' you use here - and yet you believe that is a right, if my reading of your earlier post is correct.

    Am I missing something?


  • #105
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Social mobility in my view is a right for everybody.


  • #106
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    twinQuins wrote: »
    Neither is second level education - if we're going by the strict definition of 'survival' you use here - and yet you believe that is a right, if my reading of your earlier post is correct.

    Am I missing something?

    no i guess second level isnt a right either. Third level education is something that in most countries is not covered by the state, no one is going to die from not having a degree, you can have a great quality of life without a degree. i fail to see how anyone can justify third level education being covered fully or partially by the state as a right


  • #107
    Muir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Muir


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    no i guess second level isnt a right either. Third level education is something that in most countries is not covered by the state, no one is going to die from not having a degree, you can have a great quality of life without a degree. i fail to see how anyone can justify third level education being covered fully or partially by the state as a right

    Many in Europe do. Our "free" fees are €2500 I think now? More expensive than most of Europe.


  • #108
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Muir wrote: »
    Many in Europe do. Our "free" fees are €2500 I think now? More expensive than most of Europe.

    2500 is more expensive than most of europe? Some european countries have free frees yes, but do they also have crippling debt hanging over them, I supported fees when we as a country could afford it... not anymore, likewise with healthcare


  • #109
    magicherbs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭magicherbs


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    2500 is more expensive than most of europe? Some european countries have free frees yes, but do they also have crippling debt hanging over them, I supported fees when we as a country could afford it... not anymore, likewise with healthcare

    what exactly do you think paye taxes should be spent on? other than roads and police?

    you seem to be highly influenced by american dogma with your regards to healthcare and education. are you also in favour of more liberal gun laws?


  • #110
    Muir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Muir


    Yes, it is. But we don't actually have free fees, and as I said earlier, if people can't afford to go to college then they go on the dole. Which is more expensive. Fees get paid back when the graduate gets a job.


  • #111
    Podgerz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 134 ✭✭Podgerz


    Boombastic wrote: »
    University tuition fees for undergraduates were abolished in Ireland in 1996


    I think she did her undergraduate long before this so probably had to pay fees:)

    Whelan studied politics and sociology at University College Galway, before switching to law,[2] and gained a Masters Degree from the University of London.[3] She was called to the bar in 1985, and was appointed as senior counsel in 2005.

    Fair point, but if someone similar was in her shoes today, you get the idea


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    not third level. and not for free

    I've never actually seen anyone explain this: On what basis and by what criteria are you differentiating between second and third level? Why should the former be free and not the latter, exactly?


  • #113
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,236 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    MadYaker wrote: »
    This free fees thing is misleading. Its not free my parents pay €2750 registration per year for me and the same for my sister. That €5500 per year to put us through college and were both doing 4 year degrees. I know it would be a lot more if the government didn't chip in about €8000 per year on top of that but its still not free.

    I have a part time job and don't live at home so I'm not as much of a drain on their income as my sister is but its still a lot. And neither of us qualify for any grants from anywhere.

    Your parents can claim tax relief on the fees.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #114
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,236 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    K-9 wrote: »
    Also under the old system those who paid could get a tax rebate through the covenant system so that takes care of the "I pay a fortune in tax" argument, yep, you'll get a tax refund based on your marginal rate of tax, we actually still have something similar for certain courses.

    Free fees saved the taxpayer an absolute fortune because we were no longer subsidising that covenant system.

    When I went to college first the registration fees were £150

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #115
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    mango salsa wrote: »
    Free fees saved the taxpayer an absolute fortune because we were no longer subsidising that covenant system.
    When I went to college first the registration fees were £150

    Can you expand on that?


  • #116
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    magicherbs wrote: »
    what exactly do you think paye taxes should be spent on? other than roads and police?

    you seem to be highly influenced by american dogma with your regards to healthcare and education. are you also in favour of more liberal gun laws?

    I love it when someone interjects a bit of pragmatism (its not like we are bankrupt or anything..) and they get labelled as an extreme right-wing nut job. So, how is Pol Pot these days? :cool: :D


  • #117
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I'm not complaining about anything. I come from a disadvantaged area and I'm in college so I have nothing to complain about. A poster on another thread was complaining about free fees and I thought some of his points warrented discussion.


    My last post is here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82955135&postcount=273

    But like K-9 I will copy it here to make it easier to continue the discussion in once place.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steddyeddy
    . I’m not anti-rich (I’ll be one of them one day)I just think it’seasier for a rich dumb kid to get into college than a poor dumb kid.

    Why would either be going to college? Free fees has helped the middle class kids go to college when they shouldn't be there anyway. That doesn't mean that we should send working class dumb kids to college to "balance" it all up! Dumb is dumb no matter what your economic status or class.

    The rest of the post is mute as I said numerous times that free fees should be scraped and replaced with a scholarship scheme for those that cannot pay. Invest the rest in primary education. Free fees does nothing for people in disadvantaged areas when they struggle to learn how to read, never mind get a good leaving cert.

    K-9 has posted a link which gives an insight to what I have been saying all along. Free fees is a middle class tax break and does nothing for those in disadvantaged areas, which was my point from day one.


  • #118
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Muir wrote: »
    Means tested grant system wasn't any use to me. And no, my family is not on a good income. 50-100 over the limit (when the insane amounts of tax paid aren't even considered). I had to seek help from other sources or I would have ended up needing to drop out.

    If you pay high tax you'll get 41% tax relief on fees paid, that was the old system.

    You get zilch on the €2,500 registration fee and more to come. Other courses do get tax relief for some God knows what reason, they thought it up 15 years ago and never updated it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #119
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Muir wrote: »
    Yes, it is. But we don't actually have free fees, and as I said earlier, if people can't afford to go to college then they go on the dole. Which is more expensive. Fees get paid back when the graduate gets a job.

    Nope, you still get a grant, there is little difference in what the disadvantaged got under the old system to the old. I wish middle and upper class posters who've no clue about what the system was 20 years ago would stop pretending this is in the interest of the disadvantaged.
    mango salsa wrote: »
    Your parents can claim tax relief on the fees.

    Nope they can't.
    mango salsa wrote: »
    Free fees saved the taxpayer an absolute fortune because we were no longer subsidising that covenant system.

    When I went to college first the registration fees were £150

    I paid that too.

    So a 48% or so Tax relief deduction is now cheaper than a 100% deduction?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #120
    Scruffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 955 ✭✭✭Scruffles


    in own view,courses shoud be free for foundation education or employment courses for learning disabled,& mainstream basic adult education and life skills,however there shoud be a course loan available for anything else,make it interest free and paid back after the person is making x amount of money.

    higher education is a choice it isnt needed for people to have a great quality of life assuming the jobs are there, and today so many people have degrees but have never actualy had use for them because so many are doing them it has raised the threshold for quality.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Listen Larraine dealt with this perfectly but I have to add my two cents because this lack of thought is very hurtful and insulting to some people. The attitude also is part of what convinces kids from disadvantaged areas that they don’t deserve college. People coming from disadvantaged areas have a completely different run up to the leaving cert than other most other people do. Some people in these areas also have terrible home lives and are sometimes criticised for aspiring for college by their families!

    What Larraine says regarding schools in these areas are bang on the money. I went to one. We had maybe one teacher that cared and she was a substitute teacher. The rest didn’t give two fecks about the kids in the school. We had no chance, confidence or education other than the ones we gave ourselves by extra-curricular reading. Several students came from rough homes and had to study at friends or at the library every daylight hour. Myself and a few others made it because we did a lot or extra-curricular reading but a lot of more intelligent people than me didn’t. Too boil it down to the leaving cert being the only decider as to whether people get into college is frankly very stupid.


    Environment plays the most important part in deciding academic ability. A person who gets into college coming from a school in the worst area of Dublin is after making a far greater achievement than someone who comes from the top school in the country. If you doubt that environment plays a role in ability to do well academically I would be happy to send you some neuroscience papers that back it up. I’m sorry to bring science into things again but I find it dispels stigma beautifully.

    You target the fees saved from giving the Michael O'Learys and McDowell's free fees, and instead target it at schools in Kilbarrack, Coolock etc.

    This is a perfect example of putting down the political rhetoric, put that political ideology away, nothing to see here folks.

    I've had disagreements on private education and other stuff with posters on this thread that agree with me, amazing we all still see the benefit in scrapping advantages for the wealthy on this specific issue and help the disadvantaged. We disagree strongly on other education issues, I don't see the benefit in the state subsidising private education, others do.

    But still they see the stupidity of subsidising high wealth individuals childrens third level education and pretending it benefits the disadvantaged.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement
Advertisement