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; } } }

Child Item

Students: Should they get free fees and do they benefit society?

steddyeddy

I'm sorry about the ars-y thread title. I'm just starting a thread on this because a poster on another thread brought up an interesting point. The poster maintained students are funded by the taxpayer and "bleeding the country white". It's true to say that there are ever increasing numbers going into education and it is going to cost the taxpayer massively. Are free fees a good idea, sustainable or fit for purpose ? As far as I know they were introduced to widen the participation rate amongst students from less well off families.

The poster also maintained society doesn't get a great return from students and that PhDs are just career students. So are we getting a good return for our money and are PhDs post docs wasters?

In my opinion some members of society can afford fees and the money would be better spent on secondary level education. I certainly don't think all PhDs are wasters and on the large I think they do benefit society.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

_Redzer_

Why not being in free fees but not for repeat years. As far as I'm aware that's how SUSI works in regards to tuition fees.

At least then you can't just ride along in a college course for the sake of it, and it gives everybody access to a degree, so long as they're willing to work for it.

yer man!

I'd really like to see people matched to their course a little better, I know when I was 17 and applying to the CAO I had no idea what I wanted to do so I picked science, I'm in the industry a few years and not really liking it at all. I'm now looking at going back to college and paying my own way completely (no other option) or doing an apprenticeship in some areas if identified that I'd love to work in. College isn't for everyone and I know of countless people are are in course just for the sake of it. So a better entrance system definitely needs to be introduced.

LETHAL LADY

Ok then, would it be wrong to suggest that those achieving the highest grades in first year should be entitled to greater assistance in their second year and so on. This imo may incentivize students.

steddyeddy

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Ok then, would it be wrong to suggest that those achieving the highest grades in first year should be entitled to greater assistance in their second year and so on. This imo may incentivise students.

That already exists in some universities.

srsly78

Trinity already does something like that with the "schols".

LETHAL LADY

steddyeddy wrote: »

That already exists in some universities.

I meant across the board.

shruikan2553

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Ok then, would it be wrong to suggest that those achieving the highest grades in first year should be entitled to greater assistance in their second year and so on. This imo may incentivize students.

I would agree with you but Im slightly biased. Many gives awards for first class honours, in NUIG its 250 euro. In trinity you do extra exams and get a ****load

Stheno

I'm self funding a masters while working full time in a fairly demanding job.

I think there should be a balance.

Access to third level education should be based on ability with funding available to those unable to afford it.

Beyond primary degrees, there should be no state support which is almost the case.

IrishEyes19

free fees? that's hillarious, the majority didn't and dont get free fees and actually work during their course to pay for it.

srsly78

The majority do get fee fees, they only pay a small registration charge. Non EU students have to pay the full whack which can be 15 grand or more.

[Deleted User]

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Ok then, would it be wrong to suggest that those achieving the highest grades in first year should be entitled to greater assistance in their second year and so on. This imo may incentivize students.

It might disadvantage students who haven't studied the subject at leaving cert level I guess, just from my own experience getting a A grade in first year physics requires only a basic amount of practice for someone who did physics for LC, while someone who is taking it up for the first time as part of general science degree will have to do a lot of work to get close to the same grades, it's only by about 2summer/3rd year that you wont notice the difference between the groups anymore.

Digital Society

Very very few get free fees. Usually pay at least 2k a year. Its not as widespread as people make out.

srsly78

riffmongous wrote: »

It might disadvantage students who haven't studied the subject at leaving cert level I guess, just from my own experience getting a A grade in first year physics requires only a basic amount of practice for someone who did physics for LC, while someone who is taking it up for the first time as part of general science degree will have to do a lot of work to get close to the same grades, it's only by about 2summer/3rd year that you wont notice the difference between the groups anymore.

The more serious courses in some unis have basic entry requirements like B in higher level maths and physics etc, in addition to the usual points requirement.

thelad95

What's worrying is that we live in a system where creativity and ingenuity amongst young people is discouraged and instead they have to engage in a stupid cram-fest known as the Leaving Cert, do a course they may or may not want to do and often work some sh*tty part-time job to fund it, often all to keep Mammy happy. Students who fit this description often pack it in before sitting their Christmas exams and that folks is a waste of tax-payers money.

It is right to fund students who genuinely want to go through college and contribute positively in the future, either to Ireland's economy or the global economy but college doesn't suit everyone and these young people need to stop being pushed towards third level.

Shakespeare's Sister

Free fees no, multi-layered means testing yes.

[Deleted User]

srsly78 wrote: »

The more serious courses in some unis have basic entry requirements like B in higher level maths and physics etc, in addition to the usual points requirement.

Yeah like theoretical physics and so, but the majority of students will go into general science and get to pick from maths, chem, biology, physics etc.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Manc Red

I would prefer if students in receipt of a government grant/free fees were made more aware about the course they choose to try to reduce the chance of them dropping out.

I'm not sure on this but judging from what I've read it's such a huge waste of time and money if they decide to drop out after the 1st or 2nd year.

By that I mean I would assume they would be on the dole again if they couldn't find a job and they would have to pay for some of the years of the new course themselves? I could be wrong on that but if that is the system, it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm of the opinion that 3rd level education is a privilege and not a right. There are certain things which have to be worked for. I'm hoping to save enough to go to college by the age of 24 (hopefully by 23). Of course it means cutting back on a lot of expenses and activities that people my age normally get up to. It has also given me time to think about what I really want to do instead of rushing into college at 17-18-19.

Should someone who has been handed government money have the same opportunities that I do? I don't think so and I don't expect to get anything in return for not getting free fee/grant money.

steddyeddy

Manc Red wrote: »

I would prefer if students in receipt of a government grant/free fees were made more aware about the course they choose to try to reduce the chance of them dropping out.

I'm not sure on this but judging from what I've read it's such a huge waste of time and money if they decide to drop out after the 1st or 2nd year.

By that I mean I would assume they would be on the dole again if they couldn't find a job and they would have to pay for some of the years of the new course themselves? I could be wrong on that but if that is the system, it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm of the opinion that 3rd level education is a privilege and not a right. There are certain things which have to be worked for. I'm hoping to save enough to go to college by the age of 24 (hopefully by 23). Of course it means cutting back on a lot of expenses and activities that people my age normally get up to. It has also given me time to think about what I really want to do instead of rushing into college at 17-18-19.

Should someone who has been handed government money have the same opportunities that I do? I don't think so and I don't expect to get anything in return for not getting free fee/grant money.

Science has one of the highest drop out rates and the leaving cert simply doesnt prepare people for it.

steddyeddy

thelad95 wrote: »

What's worrying is that we live in a system where creativity and ingenuity amongst young people is discouraged and instead they have to engage in a stupid cram-fest known as the Leaving Cert, do a course they may or may not want to do and often work some sh*tty part-time job to fund it, often all to keep Mammy happy. Students who fit this description often pack it in before sitting their Christmas exams and that folks is a waste of tax-payers money.

It is right to fund students who genuinely want to go through college and contribute positively in the future, either to Ireland's economy or the global economy but college doesn't suit everyone and these young people need to stop being pushed towards third level.

The leaving cert is a load of dribble. I have teaching responsibility in science third level and the 600 points pupils do not make the best scientists by a long shot. The most creative do by a country mile.

orchidsrpretty

I read before that the standard of Irish universities is fairly mediocre in comparison to the US system and probably the UK system too, (the MITs/Yales/etc,) which is probably understandable given our population. But what is not understandable is the amount of colleges we have and their locations etc. we have UCC UCG UCD TCD DCU NUCI ++++ ?? (3-5+ in dublin alone?)We should have sold UCD for a cool €2B+ when times where good and relocated it to a new University town purpose built in middle of nowhere to be honest and amalgamated it with all the other ones too. The positives would be too many to mention.

To answer the OP, I'm a firm believer there should be scholarship (with free accommodation & grant) programs for those from severely disadvantaged backgrounds as a priority to those who show potential/will/drive/intelligence to succeed wether in a sporting field or academically, & others after them up (limited spaces i'd imagine) to a cut off point on household income, a fee for everyone else, can't pay & dumb as a brick/no talent do something else to make your bread.

*****
Belfield sits on 360 acres of prime south county dublin land that's gotta be worth €€€€'s yet it (UCD) operates at a loss year or year costing the tax payer €€€'s (presumably! haven't researched) makes sense right?

steddyeddy

orchidsrpretty wrote: »

I read before that the standard of Irish universities is fairly mediocre in comparison to the US system and probably the UK system too, (the MITs/Yales/etc,) which is probably understandable given our population. But what is not understandable is the amount of colleges we have and their locations etc. we have UCC UCG UCD TCD DCU NUCI ++++ ?? (3-5+ in dublin alone?)We should have sold UCD for a cool €2B+ when times where good and relocated it to a new University town purpose built in middle of nowhere to be honest and amalgamated it with all the other ones too. The positives would be too many to mention.

To answer the OP, I'm a firm believer there should be scholarship (with free accommodation & grant) programs for those from severely disadvantaged backgrounds as a priority to those who show potential/will/drive/intelligence to succeed wether in a sporting field or academically, & others after them up (limited spaces i'd imagine) to a cut off point on household income, a fee for everyone else, can't pay & dumb as a brick/no talent do something else to make your bread.

*****
Belfield sits on 360 acres of prime south county dublin land that's gotta be worth €€€€'s yet it (UCD) operates at a loss year or year costing the tax payer €€€'s (presumably! haven't researched) makes sense right?

Well I agree on the disadvantaged students front. They need every help they can get. UCD is better than it lets on though. It has produced some world class scientists.

MouseTail

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is one of the perverse repercussions of free fees. It actually locks out people, particularly the disadvantaged from education. Another by product is the insane pressure for points, and as others have stated a funnelling of young people into academic courses no matter how unsuited they are. If we had a decent loan scheme, and a Continental apprenticeship model for young people better suited to the vocations we would have a much more equitable system.

PopePalpatine

Nib wrote: »

Free fees? Haha

Get a part time job and pay your own fucking way.

Great, where are these jobs?

Typical right-wingers, you're totally devoid of empathy.

quadrifoglio verde

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm sorry about the ars-y thread title. I'm just starting a thread on this because a poster on another thread brought up an interesting point. The poster maintained students are funded by the taxpayer and "bleeding the country white". It's true to say that there are ever increasing numbers going into education and it is going to cost the taxpayer massively. Are free fees a good idea, sustainable or fit for purpose ? As far as I know they were introduced to widen the participation rate amongst students from less well off families.

The poster also maintained society doesn't get a great return from students and that PhDs are just career students. So are we getting a good return for our money and are PhDs post docs wasters?

In my opinion some members of society can afford fees and the money would be better spent on secondary level education. I certainly don't think all PhDs are wasters and on the large I think they do benefit society.

I'd argue that the way we fund education should be looked at. I struggled through four years of college, as I had to work to pay my own fees, as well as all those other expenses of food buses etc. I was lucky enough to be able to stay at home for the duration of college but had a commute of over an hour each way.

I'd advocate that their should be no upfront costs to third level education, instead it's paid back through a higher rate of tax for a number of years.
To those that claim that students will just emigrate afterwards......theirs 1000s emigrating anyway after having paid their fees and grants for the past 4 years.
Yeah that was a great return on the investment lads.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Three things

"Free" fees are almost €3 K a year
Full fees are generally ridiculously expensive. For instance, grad-entry medical students have to pay over €16 K a year for... what? About 15-20 hours of lectures a week and exam corrections.
Some courses (with full-non EU fees) are just cash cows. They are geared to have non-EU students in them as a source of revenue for universities. €30K a year is typical enough.

Of course means tested grant undergraduates with no prior qualifications genuinely do get free third level tuition

challengemaster

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Nope, the person who gets 40% gets the same as the person with 85%, its all just based on income.

The person with 85% overall for a year doesn't exist, considering most exams are essentially marked out of 85%.

=>70% is a 1.1 with 16% of graduates nationally achieving that result for their degree (from a 2012 article). I'd be willing to bet almost all of those were in the 70.1 -> 75.0% range.

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Ok then, would it be wrong to suggest that those achieving the highest grades in first year should be entitled to greater assistance in their second year and so on. This imo may incentivize students.

If you're talking about grants, then yes that would be very very wrong - IMO. Considering that grants are awarded based on income/family income/etc.

Moreover, just because a student is getting a 2.1 or 2.2 in first year for example - it doesn't mean they're stupid either. They may have a bad module they're required to take dragging down their grades, strict correcting within a department, or they might not be suited to the rote-learning based nature of most examinations.

Just because a student is only a 2.1 or 2.2 or whatever grade student, it doesn't mean they're not in need of a grant to maintain themselves during the college year.

If you mean additional rewards for high achievers, then AFAIK something like such is in quite a few places, but it's not across the board, and not standardised (how could it be? ). Just don't fool yourself by believing that it's a fair achievable incentive across the board either. Like I said, most examinations are rote-learning based and hence favour students that can rote-learn. A student from any background could be the most attentive student in the year and still never achieve a grade to qualify for such a reward.

challengemaster

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Full fees are generally ridiculously expensive. For instance, grad-entry medical students have to pay over €16 K a year for... what? About 15-20 hours of lectures a week and exam corrections.

Some courses (with full-non EU fees) are just cash cows. They are geared to have non-EU students in them as a source of revenue for universities. €30K a year is typical enough.

1. Grad-entry med students are paying over 16k a year for a qualification in medicine, where they will eventually earn back much more than what they pay.

2. Yes and no. Take a look at the fees US students have to pay in US universities.

B.A._Baracus

Am I the only one who laughs at the words "benefit society"?

Take tax for example. No one wants to pay it. We do so because it's the law but most people work the system. From some dole-lifer to a business man not declaring all his or her income. We also have no issue with paying someone a nixer for services. Why should we? we save money because they don't have to pay tax.

Life is dog eat dog. Every man and woman for them'self. But hold on there buddy, "you are not a benefit to society" :pac:

Would you ever go and ... :pac:

rom

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Am I the only one who laughs at the words "benefit society"?

Take tax for example. No one wants to pay it. We do so because it's the law but most people work the system. From some dole-lifer to a business man not declaring all his or her income. We also have no issue with paying someone a nixer for services. Why should we? we save money because they don't have to pay tax.

Life is dog eat dog. Every man and woman for them'self. But hold on there buddy, "you are not a benefit to society" :pac:

Would you ever go and ... :pac:

Don't usually post on this forum but am I the only one to find it ironic that this comes from someone that is the polar opposite of a "benefit to society" seeing what you post about in other threads perhaps you should go back to playing your xbox/PS3, smoking in your car with your kids while living in your state provided housing while working on the side and not declaring for tax.

If most people "worked the system" then there would be no system to work.

Would you go and ....

emigrate

:rolleyes: