nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Third level: Is it a privellege or a right?

Chemical Burn

A lot of my friends are very left wing and see a third level education as a God-Given right, even if the course that they are choosing will have no economic benefit whatsoever. Some of them are doing arts degrees, that will not get a job afterwards, namely, religion and literature (or some equally non beneficial course). OK, you can get good teaching job from it.

A rudimentary standard of education, up to Leaving Cert level is a right, but after that it isn't. Why is there such a sense of entitlement? Why should people who leave school / college and work their fingers to the bone to build up a nice empire / business fund someone to go to college and live off the grand / get pissed off it.

Leaving cert and school will give you a head start in life and make sure you are not exploited and get decent work, but I don't think that college should be a right. You can afford it, or you can't end of.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sciprio

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Victory!

amen

In general if you have the ability then you should be allowed to pursue your education to its highest form i.e. Diploma, Degree, PhD, Chief, Master Plumber etc.

If the state is going to the effort of educating everybody to Leaving Cert (remember it was only around 40 years that free secondary education arrived in Ireland but free in most parts of the USA since the 1930s!) and then saying to those people with an aptitude for a subject/skill who cannot afford to continue their studies that they cannot progress any further then we have wasted that person skills.

Everyone should get a chance to at least attend/obtain their primary qualification of choice. If of course they fail or drop out then its up to them to pay for their next attempt.

Funding may be increased to those subjects/fields of studies in which the government wishes to increase growth/employment. This could lead to a decrease in fees to those pursing scient/ict/engineering etc and an increase in those studying Law/Arts etc.

The funding for a MSc/PhD is a bit different. This should really be awarded to the best person in the relevant subject they wish to pursue.

But people who access that education should contribute towards it, either through fees or additional taxation for a period after qualification.

In general though those with a Degree earn more than those without and thus pay more in taxes.

Imagine a world where all our people in areas of power all come from the same wealthy backgrounds with no other perspective in life but that

Hmm the Irish Dail, large number of publicans, teachers and those who attended private schools.

shruikan2553

People should be allowed into college if they can prove it is of actual interest to them, not because they just want a degree so that they can say they went to college. Ive seen people who are there just to exist and have had people in my course even say they have no idea why they picked this subject. Education costs the country money and it shouldn't be wasted on people just wanting to drink for 3/4 years

hatrickpatrick

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

are masters and phd's a right too?

If you have the ability then why not?
No one can possibly argue that everything one learns in school benefits the economy. I know myself that half of it was interesting but has no practical application whatsoever - where and why should a line be drawn, exactly? Education is education.

Lone Stone

I would say every has the right to go, and with the grant system most who think it might be for them try it out. That said i paid my own fee's and didnt get the grant because i had the money at the time. I saw a lot of people wasting their place in class swanning around with no interest in what they were doing and dropping out or barely passing and showing zero interest in the subject, when it could have gone to some one who actually wanted it more.

I have always said a grant system should be monitored payed out by performance based assessments by lecturers and if your just a dosser you get cut off and kicked out. but that would never happen here because it would require to much effort and save money.

Cookie_Monster

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

shruikan2553

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

I would go for that but then you get people who have no interest in the subject choosing the cheaper subject so we end up with lots of engineers but then you have to try and pick out the good ones

Odysseus

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Define "poorly"

Obviously if they did well enough for the certain degree, that's fair enough. But I don't think one can do nothing in secondary school and still be allowed to claim third level as a "right" which can't happen at the moment and that's good.

I was on the hop for 6 months in 2nd year, the same in 3rd. In my Inter I got 2 Ds, 3 Fs, 2Es, and 2 NGs.

When I finally got to 3rd level, I got a 2.1 in my degree and now have a masters, and various professional qualifications.

Edit: This is why I am always careful about writing people off based on their second level experience

omahaid

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

Even worse, you'll be vilified for even mentioning it.

[Deleted User]

orestes wrote: »

Why should a person be denied an education purely because their family can't afford it? The days of rich kids swanning off to college while poor kids are chucked into the workforce are thankfully behind us. The vast majority of people are going to spend the rest of their lives paying back in taxes many times the cost of their education.

No, I am pretty sure "free fees" has been shown to only benefit the middle classes a bit more. No change to anyone else. And the quality of the degree in the meantime goes down, down, down.

Loan system and a more rigorous entry vetting would be the best

ted1

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

The problem is these days people go to college just to get a degree in "something"

They couldn't give a flying **** what its in just as long as they get their level 8.

When people with sales experience but no 4 year degree cant apply for graduate sales positions and Zoology grads with no sale experience can you know you have a broken system.

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

Nonsense , you need to be able to bench mark people, those sales guy you are talking about probably lack key procedural skills.

ted1

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I went to an economic talk recently held by one of the heads on ANZ bank in New Zealand.
Part of what he was talking about was the serious lack of suitably qualified people here (medical / engineering etc) while there is a glut of useless Arts graduates as the economy has no need for their skills. He advocated flipping the fees charged here based on demand rather than cost. So current arts say cost $2k a year and engineering $15k, charge the art student $15k as it's a redundant course and subsidise the engineering student and charge him only $2k as NZ is desperate for engineers.
Seemed a pretty sensible thing, which unfortunately is why it'll never happen.

Makes sense to me.

melekalikimaka

its a privilege, and tbh i find it hilarious seeing people try to justify it as a right, we really have our head so far up our asses, even still, the Celtic Tiger really is hard to shake off

Ziphius

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

The problem is these days people go to college just to get a degree in "something"

They couldn't give a flying **** what its in just as long as they get their level 8.

When people with sales experience but no 4 year degree cant apply for graduate sales positions and Zoology grads with no sale experience can you know you have a broken system.

My solution: get rid of Degrees, Masters and levels of classification. People will then study something they're interested in and relevant to their future career.

The subject is important not the level.

If the purpose of University education is just to train people for work than why bother with it in the first place? Why not abolish undergraduate education and replace it with state subsidized apprenticeships or training years in businesses so that people get an education "relevant to their future career".

Indeed, this may be a far more fruitful endeavor than BAs for everyone.

lower_league

of course its not a right , next thing a bmw will be a right

MaroonAndGreen

Its a right that you earn from doing well at school!

Peregrine

Odysseus wrote: »

I was on the hop for 6 months in 2nd year, the same in 3rd. In my Inter I got 2 Ds, 3 Fs, 2Es, and 2 NGs.

When I finally got to 3rd level, I got a 2.1 in my degree and now have a masters, and various professional qualifications.

Edit: This is why I am always careful about writing people off based on their second level experience

And what happened after your Inter? I'm hardly suggesting refusing people third level for being on the hop in 2nd year.

I'm saying that if the students do **** all for the Leaving Cert like a huge percentage of teenagers you see today, then college isn't their automatic "right". I see students who put no effort at all into school, can't distinguish a brain from a kidney in biology and saying that it should not matter and they should be allowed into a degree in Sports education (typically) because it's their right. I say no.

Once again, not talking about mature students. Talking about CAO entry.

Catkins407

Useless arts degrees? Wow.

Kathnora

Strange how a few years ago a Leaving Cert was the "benchmark" regarded as a good and necessary standard of education and a prerequisite for getting a decent job. Then it moved to getting a degree. Now, in recent times it seems that you need a Masters to get that decent job....where will it all end?

Frank Black

bluewolf wrote: »

Loan system and a more rigorous entry vetting would be the best

There's no such thing as a rigorous vetting system, just different means of assessment.
The number of places a course has available is the same regardless of the system of assessing entry.
What are you suggesting specifically as an alternative to the current system?

Odysseus

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

And what happened after your Inter? I'm hardly suggesting refusing people third level for being on the hop in 2nd year.

I didn't see a class room for another 10 years.

Fair enough once you don't deny people another shot at a later stage; that would be the big thing for me.

For various reason some people just don't do well in 2nd level, if at a later stage they are able to re-engage with the education system them we should be facilitating it. Like mature students as you mention.

Now I will be the first to admit I was a little bollix but I was also written off by the system too.

It was only a decade later when my situation had changed that I got access education again.

lower_league

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

Its a right that you earn from doing well at school!

says who ?

Medusa22

I don't understand why doing a degree ''just to have one'' is such a bad thing. I'm doing a ''useless arts degree'' so I can get a well paid job, in whatever field because I know that most jobs now require a degree (yes, I am aware that we are in a recession and even having a masters doesn't guarantee a job etc etc).

I was a receptionist earning 9 euro an hour with no hope of progressing because I didn't have a degree and I decided that I would do a general degree (like arts) so that I could get a much better paid job.

I see third level education as a right, it is ludicrous to exclude people if they cannot afford to go to college, you are basically creating a barrier for them to better themselves financially (and for those who suggest student loans I would find it very discouraging to leave college in so much debt, especially during a recession).

Let's be realistic, it is not entirely ''free'' to go to college here anyway, many people struggle to pay the registration fees which are far higher than in other EU countries.

ted1

Kathnora wrote: »

Strange how a few years ago a Leaving Cert was the "benchmark" regarded as a good and necessary standard of education and a prerequisite for getting a decent job. Then it moved to getting a degree. Now, in recent times it seems that you need a Masters to get that decent job....where will it all end?

We were a low cost manufacturing country, that required little to no qualifications or even street smart. We're now a well paid highly skilled workforce.

ted1

Medusa22 wrote: »

I don't understand why doing a degree ''just to have one'' is such a bad thing. I'm doing a ''useless arts degree'' so I can get a well paid job, in whatever field because I know that most jobs now require a degree (yes, I am aware that we are in a recession and even having a masters doesn't guarantee a job etc etc).

I was a receptionist earning 9 euro an hour with no hope of progressing because I didn't have a degree and I decided that I would do a general degree (like arts) so that I could get a much better paid job.

I see third level education as a right, it is ludicrous to exclude people if they cannot afford to go to college, you are basically creating a barrier for them to better themselves financially (and for those who suggest student loans I would find it very discouraging to leave college in so much debt, especially during a recession).

Let's be realistic, it is not entirely ''free'' to go to college here anyway, many people struggle to pay the registration fees which are far higher than in other EU countries.

Yes but other countries have fees which are much higher than our registration fees.

lower_league

ted1 wrote: »

We were a low cost manufacturing country, that required little to no qualifications or even street smart. We're now a well paid highly skilled workforce.

your right about the well paid part , their is nothing uniquely highly skilled about us however regardless of what various unions might say

Medusa22

ted1 wrote: »

Yes but other countries have fees which are much higher than our registration fees.

Within the EU? Excluding England, that is.

ted1

Medusa22 wrote: »

Within the EU? Excluding England, that is.

Are trying to see England doesn't 't have fees?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/higher-education-universityfunding

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Disheartening to see the majority of people who believe that education is a privilege.

Back to the dark ages with ye...

lower_league

Ford Hallowed Bartender wrote: »

Disheartening to see the majority of people who believe that education is a privilege.

Back to the dark ages with ye...

education is a very broad brush

were refering to third level but you already know that