Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
University fees
Read more about: Academia, Education
I wrote this on my own blog this morning, but I thought I would share it here too…
I have written about this before and I will say it again. One of the worst things to ever happen to education in Ireland was when Niamh Breathnach as minister for education abolished fees.
Ostensibly, this was to benefit the lower paid, but the lower paid were already in receipt of government grants. It did nothing for Irish education other than allow the children of millionaires to go to college for free, to weaken the 3rd level sector as a whole, to inflate class sizes as a result and to make the universities increase the registration fees from less than 100 pounds to its current level of about 800 Euro.
What is the result? Well, 800 Euro registration fee is paid by everybody - wealthy and poor. This wasn’t the case. This is very difficult for the low-paid.
As a staff member who began lecturing in 1999, I now have double the number of lectures every year than I used to have. This reduces the amount of time I can spend on research, developing intellectual property (which the university would own), etc. Fine, if that is what we want to do, but it is not the best use of my time.
Some universities (which I won’t name) have a policy of NOT putting this extra teaching burden on their staff, but rather, they emphasise courses where students can be taught in bulk - class sizes of 500 students are now commonplace for some courses. I don’t know if this is really a good thing.
The lower-paid in society are not much better off as a result. In Maynooth, we have the largest proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but some universities (or at least one) has only 1% of its students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. This can hardly be said to be a ringing endorsement for a policy that was touted as one that would change everything.
Bat O’Keeffe is right. Apply fees to everybody and then families on low incomes can apply for grants. We have 33,000 millionaires in Ireland, not including the value of their homes. These, at least, could pay for their children’s education without blinking an eye. I saw Rosanna Davidson being interviewed in the paper a couple of weekends ago and she said that “everyone should leave the doom and gloom of Ireland and go somewhere sunny”. Well, she got free education in UCD - the privileged daughter of a multimillionaire.
If you go visit the south inner city in Dublin, you will find that a lot of teenagers there have about as much chance of going to college as they have of flying to the moon. The ‘free fees (that include 800 euro registration fee)’ hasn’t made a blind bit of difference.
Here is how it should be:
| Parents’ income | Fee |
|---|---|
| 0–30,000 | Full grant and subsistence for student |
| 30,000–60,000 | Full grant and half subsistence |
| 60,000–80,000 | Full grant |
| 80,000–100,000 | Half grant |
| 100,000+ | no grant. |
The registration fee is to be incorporated into the fee/grant.
Right now the situation is that regardless of your income, you get a ‘full grant’. This is what it should be called “full grant for all”.
It is morally wrong for the children of millionaires to have access to college for what they would consider to be a pittance, when the children of lower-paid workers simply cannot go. The current policy is bad for the lower-paid, bad for the universities and bad for our society.
What if the relationship between the student and parents is broken down?
What happens if a parent is within the 30-60 bracket but has 4 children going to university at the same time?
Do you know what free fees actually cost in the first full year? £4m. There were so many bursaries, tax breaks and cheating going on (neighbours ostensibly paying for each other’s children’s education, etc), that the cost to the State was neutralised.
The problem with university funding isn’t that people aren’t being charged fees. It’s that the universities are shite at fundraising and the Government isn’t funding them properly.
“Well, 800 Euro registration fee is paid by everybody - wealthy and poor”
Not actually true - those on any section of the Third Level grant (a minority, I accept) don’t pay the registration fee.
Besides, as Keith has said, the problem with Third Level funding isn’t that they don’t charge fees, it’s that the Government won’t fund them.
And on the point of charging everyone fees and letting them apply for grants to counteract it, my only thought is look at what a piss poor job they do of administering the current grants system and I shudder to think of what would happen if you added another 50-60 thousand applicants every year.
Anyone who thinks that a College’s core funding won’t be removed if fees are reintroduced isn’t thinking straight.
@Eoin - I didnt want to put in all the contingencies, but about 15% of our students are coming to college at a later stage in life, so this means that thousands are in that category. I was using parents income as a proxy for student wealth. If a student is self sufficient, then they are assessed themselves. I know that currently, grants are often taken on a case-by-case basis.
This indeed the response I thought I might get to this issue. The resistance is enormous. Having centralised government funding will be based on a per-student (full time equivalent) model as it is now. The suggestion is to divert funding away from some other programme in order to fund the universities properly. This will mean that the wealthiest will still get their education for a pittance and the lower-paid will still be unable to send their children to college. This is what is happening today and if the funding model continues, then it will happen in the future. Ireland has a big uptake in 3rd level education, but the universities are now under pressure and standards are noticably falling and the way in which teaching is delivered is changing. The model of funding needs to change and I happen to agree that it is inequitable for the children of multimillionaires (I gave the example of Rosanna Davidson, but there are tens of thousands of other children of multimillionaires in our universities and precious few of the children of the lower socio-economic groups).
Keith: Why should the universities fundarise? Is there something written on the front door of our universities that says “place of learning…and fundraising”? I have no qualifications in fundraising and indeed I have no desire to have a career in fundraising. Do you fundraise?
A phrase like “Government isn’t funding them properly” means “We should divert tax money away from other projects to fund the children of the wealthy”. That’s a reasonable interpretation of what you have just said. I’m saying the exact opposite.
Colm : Saying nthat something is poorly administered and using this as a way of pooh-pooing the principle of changing the funding model is not really a good argument. Administration is not a principle - it is simply the way in which the principle is carried out. People have always complained about grant administration (I do), but this is only a straw man argument.
Ditto to your comment about core funding. This is also a straw man argument. The core funding has halved in real terms anyway.
Bottom line: The current funding model is only helping the wealthy and has done nothing whatsoever for the lower-paid and this is what was being touted. Graduates still, on average, earn more than non-graduates and university is paid by the tax money of both graduates and non-graduates. This seems to me to be somewhat unfair. Non-graduates pay for people to go to college and then when they come out, they are better off and their children are much more likely to go and avail of the same benefit from non-graduates.
The only programme that has seen the children of the lower-paid go to uni is the access programme.
“The only programme that has seen the children of the lower-paid go to uni is the access programme.”
That’s simply not true. In many, if not all IoTs, the bulk of students come from RAPID areas. If these students (and their families) were force to pay fees, then the option of attending would be a non-runner.
And to say that fees shouldn’t replace core funding isn’t a straw man argument, it’s simply a point of view.
I went to college and was covered by the “free” fees scheme. I didn’t obtain a grant and there financed my education in no small part. Now, given my higher education, I should earn more than a non-graduate and will therefore pay more tax. So in essence, a graduate tax already exists. The tax I will earn will more than payback any monies from the government funding. Never mind the benefit to the economy having another skilled member of the workforce.
Why should I be forced to pay twice?
Colm, You (well, I don’t want to say specifically you, but many people, let’s say) get to pay that tax because some lower-paid person is funding it in the first place. That is the point.
Your last comment about being forced to pay twice is also not really valid. You are paying more tax because you are higher paid, you are also taking home more money every week because you are better educated. You got to be more highly paid and better educated because the education system is set up for you - it is not set up for the lowest income families - you had opportunities offered to you that are no more than a pipe dream for some people.
Would you prefer a system where you are not paid more and therefore, you wouldn’t be ‘forced to pay twice’ with your taxes?
A person from a lower-income family would gladly go to college, earn more money and pay back tax if they had the opportunity. Having free fees for all (including millionaires and multi millionaires) has done absolutely nothing for this country.
“You (well, I don’t want to say specifically you, but many people, let’s say) get to pay that tax because some lower-paid person is funding it in the first place. That is the point.”
By the same argument, I’m paying for someone from a low-income background to attend college. It’s a two way street.
And plenty of people from low-income families DO gladly go to college. As I said, having no college fees has helped achieve this.
Getting some people paying college fees won’t increase people from RAPID areas attending, it’ll simple stop those in the mid-range from attending.
“By the same argument, I’m paying for someone from a low-income background to attend college. It’s a two way street.”
No. Everybody pays for roads. Everybody uses roads. 98% of students in some schools near St. Stephen’s green go to college and 2% of students from some schools in Dublin 1 go to uni. The truth is that right now, we all use roads, but we do not all get to go to uni, but we all pay for uni. It is not a two-way street. Scrapping fees for the wealthy did not improve the situation for everybody. It simply didn’t
Right, ok, and this is the last time I will mention this. In a number of IoTs, at least 50% of the student population are drawn from RAPID areas. Even if you assume that free fees is not the primary motivation for them attending, you simply cannot say with a straight face that it didn’t help and that the re-introduction of fees wouldn’t cause a dip in enrolment from these areas.
And fair enough everyone uses roads, but I can’t even remember the last time I was in a hospital, so I don’t use hospitals, yet my tax goes towards funding the health service and I’m not for a moment suggesting that we should have full pay-as-you-go hospitals. This is because people have a right to decent free Healthcare, just as they have a right to free education.
Mm dont agree with this at all, never mind on a personal level the fact that as the parent of a child two years away from college I am more than a little worried about this particularly considering the ‘better off’ title. Could I afford a couple of grand a year for college, NO I cannot. Better off is probably another name for PRSI contributors. The fact the grant is currently cut off at €40k is crazy.
Free fees were/are a good thing, the fact the Government has not matched the influx of people getting to college with funding is something else.
Regarding the free fees not making a difference to the inner city, show me your evidence of this please. There are figures to show that not to be the case and yes of course there are other factors around equality of opportunity to third-level with fees just being one part of it. But they have certainly helped.
I am rather baffled by people who argue for reintroducing fees. They think that reintroducing fees will be a way of increasing university funding; however, the Government sees it as a way of saving money. Work it out for yourself.
And the arguments for making people pay for 3rd level education should apply equally to 2nd level, or even primary. Why should that be free to our 33,000 millionaires as well?
If you really want to suggest something radical, it should be the ending of state subsidized private education.
Well, I knew I’d be on my own on this one
@Colm: I’m of the opinion that with greater support, like the RAPID programme and the Access programme, you will see people achieving their potential. Not like it is at the moment where people don’t get the chance. I agree with you 100% that this programme has had an influence and this is the kind of thing that needs to be worked on. It is not related to the funding issue. I’m proposing a funding model where those who are able to afford to pay will pay. Others get a grant (I might even advocate that this grant would be subsequently re-payable by those who benefit from 3rd level). I’m not saying re-introduce fees and scrap alll other programmes. Not at all.
Redmum: The fact that the grant is currently cut off at 40K is indeed crazy. I agree. See above, my figure was 60K and indeed, you could earn 100K and still get half fees paid. This is not targetting people that could not afford it. It is simply saying that it is better for our economy, universities and communities if money was going into education, not decking, off-road 4×4s and third holidays.
Lanod: Who are the government only the people that elect them and that live here. Yes, this is a way of getting more money into the university sector. Everybody else on here is saying that this should happen, but the way in which it should happen is to take it from somewhere else. Where? Hospitals? Roads? or decking, 4×4s and third holidays?
From an education perspective (and indeed the constitution), education up to second level is a fundamental right - it provides an individual with the ability to educate themselves. Third level, by contrast (while being an economic necessity for this country) provides people with a certain amount of priviledge and specialisation above the basic skills. It is considered that secopnd level is a right and that is the difference. If it is a right (like healthcare and so forth), then it should be available to all.
As for ending subsidies for private schools….well, I think I’ve ranted about that on this blog some other time too.
Ok, gotta go. Was fun
James,
Never fear; you’re “not alone” on this one. At the time the free fees scheme was announced I think there were a lot of people on the left, like myself, who had serious misgivings about the abolition of university fees. The proposal was not based on any coherent long term policy for third level education in Ireland. It was an ill construed Labour Party political ’stroke’ in government, primarily designed to shore up the support of middle class voters who had supported them in 1992 for the forthcoming 1997 election. As we all know, it didn’t work politically and in terms of its impact on education in Ireland, arguably it has operated to its detriment.
I benefited from the ‘free fees’ scheme insofar as both my children went through university. But the fact is that we would have ensured they got to college anyway, irrespective of fees at any level, and we had already made provision in terms of savings for that eventuality before the fees were abolished. Thanks to free fees I have a new kitchen!
I don’t think anyone knows how effective the free fees initiative has been in respect of its stated objective of opening up access to third level education to the children of lower income families. Most evidence cited, especially by ardent advocates of free fees, tends to be of the anecdotal variety. Most likely it has had some impact. However, as people’s incomes generally increased during the Celtic Tiger period, the numbers of students drawn from lower economic cohorts in society would have increased anyway. I think the debate has to be on a broader base than a crude numbers’ game.
I don’t know as much about it as you; but I think you are right that the debate should be focused on the wider implications of the free fees scheme - is it the most appropriate funding model for third level eduction in Ireland? What has been its impact on second level education e.g. parents diverting the money they would have used for university fees to fee-paying second level schools for their children? How many community colleges have ‘lost’ pupils to their fee-paying counterparts as a consequence? How many have closed, been put in danger of closing because of ‘lost’ pupils? What is the overall and long-term impact of this on society in terms of equality, social mixing etc?
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to have an intelligent, dispassionate debate on the issue since it is now irrevocably politicised. If you’re on the left of the political spectrum then you are supposed to be in favour of ‘free fees’, which is nonsense when you think about it. And no doubt the Labour Party will live up to its promise to sabotage any sensible discussion and fight tooth and nail, however disingenuously, to retain this great ‘achievement’ of theirs in government. They did this very successfully when Noel Dempsey attempted to revisit the issue a few years ago.
The type of investment/saving schemes that I started paying into when both my children were quite small, and that were designed to mature once the children reached university-going age, have long since disappeared as a financial product for sale to middle class parents. Many middle income parents have simply not made provision for the reintroduction of university fees and might find themselves in difficulty if they were asked to stump up the cost of their children’s third level education in the morning. The downturn in the economy won’t help things either for these families. This is an important part of the political backdrop to any debate on the reintroduction of a fee-paying model.
Nonetheless, I hope there will be a sensible debate, as the whole question of funding our third level sector and where it is going needs to be placed on a secure footing for the long term. Even a blind man can see that at the moment it just isn’t working.
Well said Veronica.
You forget the other effect of free fees: it greatly increased Department of Education control over the universities, which always seemed to me to be a large part of the motivation at the time.
Colman,
I wonder how useful a Freedom of Information request might be in ascertaining if the Department was partly motivated by the prospect of securing greater control over the universities? It would be interesting to see the file on how this decision came about, though I have no doubt that it originated within the Labour Party at the outset.
To say the least, the Departments of Education, Finance and Social Welfare, and Enterprise and Employment, must have made some interesting observations at the time on the government memo proposing free university fees. And they can hardly have been so stupid or venal not to address the full implications of the proposal, can they? That’s the job of civil servants after all. I recall that the then Minister for Social Welfare, Prionsias De Rossa, was reported as not being in favour of the free fees proposal at all because of the impact it might have in the long term on issues of social equality.
One of the points consistently made by the Labour Party, and repeated again by RQ in his article in today’s Irish Times, is that the system of tax credits, relief for education endowments etc. (all benefiting the rich, of course) then in place were costing the Exchequer more than the abolition of university fees was ever going to cost. No figures have ever been produced to support this contention, though doubtless it would have been considered by the high level Tax Strategy Group as part of budget planning, would it not? Their documents are also available under FOI.
It’s a relatively weak argument in any case, since if tax anomalies of that kind did exist then surely there were alternative means of dealing with them as opposed to a blunt catch-all measure like abolishing third level fees for everyone?
I think it would be very helpful to the current debate if we understood what was going on at the time the decision was made and just how much coherent analysis it was subjected to before the government of John Bruton, Spring, Quinn et al arrived at their momentous decision.
Why should the children of millionaires get free second level or primary for that matter? Let’s make it worthwhile in terms of revenue and charge all those on 100,000 plus for their children’s education right the way through. Education is a privilege not a right? Why should lecturers have to teach people who are getting education for free. It’s a disgrace I say.
Thelma: The constitution clearly says that education is a right. However, the level to which we say that somebody has received sufficient education that the state has discharged its responsibility is prehaps what is in dispute. If you take a look at educational psychology, then the purpose of primary education is to teach the ability to read and write. the purpose of second level is to teach people how to teach themselves. These are basic rights and enshrined in the constitution.
The issue we are debating here is how the 3rd level is funded.
Your sarcasm is not really needed in the discussion and the previous 20 comments have been sarcasm-free. I note your computer is within the oireachtas.ie domain.
“Why should lecturers have to teach people who are getting education for free. It’s a disgrace I say.”
This is hardly a constructive comment. At no point have I said that I resent having to teach people that are getting free education and you can ask my students what they think of my teaching. This was not called for. This is not some kind of problem that lecturers are having and I’m not wearing my lecturer hat when I write these comments - I simply want to see us having a top-class educational system and right now we don’t. Sarcasm is a pretty poor polemic device.
The options are:
1. Stay as we are - from first-hand experience, this is not the best education system we could come up with. It is definitely better than it was in the 1980s, but not really at the races internationally.
2. Take some money from hospitals or roads, etc. and put it into 3rd level.
3. Initiate a system where the user of optional education (i.e. 3rd level) will somehow contribute to funding it. The model I proposed is only one of a number of options.
Is Batt O’ Keeffe reading p.ie, I was suggesting 100K over there as a threshold purely for the purposes of discussion and it pops up in the paper a few days later. I suspect Batt is as lazy as I was and just took it as a nice round number. I’d scribbled the below in response to a letter in the IT on Saturday, sums up my views.
Income tax at the higher right is charged irrespective of whether you are a graduate or not, it is not a graduate tax as suggested by some. Nor is there any linkage between the proportion of income tax generated by graduates and the institution or course they graduated from. There is no incentive for colleges or university departments to expend resources on expensive courses that may well lead to high incomes being earned for the exchequer since any money generated is divided between colleges by the minister. Third level needs more money to ensure the quality is there, and that money should not come at the expense of other areas of spending.
The removal of fees was a pinnacle of the desire for simplistic solutions to the complex problems - in this instance the participation rates in third level. Participation should be based on merit and ability not economic background. While participation has increased in terms of numbers it has not widened, which was after all the stated intent of the measure. Since it has failed in its aim, it should be reviewed.
When it comes to financial impediments it is living costs that prevent those from lower income backgrounds attending the third level institution of their choice. In truth, parents should not be expected to pay for their children’s education once they are adults and capable of earning themselves, yet nor should students be required to work while in full-time education in order to finance their education. The solution is deferred charges with tax credits based on income background as part of a range of measures to resolve the dependency culture in third level funding.
Fees should not be levied while in education but rather chargeable after a number of criteria have been satisfied, such as attaining age 25, a number of years (3-5) after graduation and when a certain income threshold has been achieved. With appropriate safeguards to ensure that people can’t wriggle out of payment as many high earners currently do with paying income tax. Funds so raised must be directed towards the courses and department the graduate attended.
For the sake of an example, take a family with a combined income of 100K that has one child attending third level, then that student could incur the full cost of their course. For every 8K under 100K in earnings they get a 10% credit from the state for the cost of the course. The 100K threshold would increase by 10K for every further child in full time education. To go with this, the nonsense that is the maintenance grants system should be addressed whereby currently a school leaver who is unemployed receives more to live on per week than someone who is in full time education. And the state must not use fees to replace existing funding levels but instead they should serve as a source of additional income.Colleges can assist in starting this process by publishing the real costs of tuition of each course, for each year, and the portion of state subsidy currently provided for that course and the portion that comes from other areas.
Those who have benefited most from free fees are those who needs were least. Deferred fees with credits based on income background and tied to courses are a more nuanced solution whose time has come. It is past time for graduates to ask not what our alma maters can do for us, rather what we can do for our alma maters.
I think that is a very strong argument, Dan.
The one thing I would say against this argument is that if the parents don’t have to pay fees, then they will channel this money to the grind schools.
The only people that benefitted from the abolition of fees were the grind schools - parents that might have paid 3rd level fees could now instead get private education for their children - and this completed the lock-out for people on lower incomes.
With the scheme you outlined above, there is still one area in which your economic circumstances will still be a major influence on whether or not you get to go to 3rd level. In the absence of fees, the grind schools will continue to prosper. I’m not convinced that is a good thing.
Don’t know if that one can be solved anyway.
The other point that nobody in favour of ‘free fees’ has made is that fees exist in 4th level. Surely, if there is a principle of not paying fees in University, then it should apply to all university courses? However, right now for 4th level there is a system of fees and grants.
James, there are (were last time I checked) fees for areas outside the explicit 3rd level sector - post secondary courses, the PLC sector and so on. It is true that my system (which to be fair I’ve done off the top of my head without the support of the entire departments of education and finance to help me out with the detail) doesn’t prevent parents spending money on grind schools or other private help. I’m not sure we can.
How about this? Everyone who goes to a fee-paying second level school pays fees at third level? Those who went to a fee-paying second level school on scholarships get one at third level too.
You see one of the problems is that the inequality in educational processes already evident by aged 13 is only compunded as the years go on.
73man: My thinking is that there is such a thing as ‘appropriateness’ of education (haven’t had time to think of a better name for it). Anyway, it goes like this. Some people would do very well in the primary-secondary-3rd level/4th level educational system. They are ‘made’ for studying and it comes easy to them. It is important for everybody in Ireland that this person is identified and is supported in whatever way is necessary. That way they won’t end up being incorrectly employed later in life (incorrectly employed is another shorthand because I cannot think of a better phrase). On the other hand, there are people for whom further education is not appropriate - either they don’t like it or they are not good at it or both. Once again, there is an appropriate educational path for this person, though not an academic one.
What is happening right now is that the children of wealthy parents are getting grades that really are above their natural ability, simply because of the spoon-feeding that happens in grind schools or because they have the money to support the student for repeat leaving certificates. This means that the student has taken three years for a two year course and simply by the process of mental osmosis, will get a high grade. I have seen first-hand these kinds of students subsequently being in real trouble in a course that is above their natural ability. At some point the spoon feeding has to stop and then you have a person in a job that is above their abilities.
The opposite then happens - students with high levels of intelligence and motivation finding that they really could not put upon their parents to support them for another four years in 3rd level and therefore, they bail out at the age of 17, even though they could easily get 1st class honours degrees, PhDs, whatever.
Therefore, I am in favour of not just making it free for exceptional students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to college, I am in favour of paying them a small wage (that will be dependent on good results, etc.).
Firstly can I say that nobobdy in Ireland cannot afford 800 euros to put their child through Uni. What a load of rubbish. I come from a poor background and can I tell you when my parents needed anything they saved for it. Don’t give me the crap that these children are not going to uni because of the 800 fees. I would beg borrow and steal to get the money if I thought my child really really wanted to go to uni. (Sure she could pay me back when she was earning loads of money.) I can tell you most unemployed people I know wouldnt think twice about spending 15 euros a week on drink and cigarettes. Forget the poor mouth. As two low paid semi state workers (forget the pun about pensionable jobs) we have paid our taxes all our lives and have scrimped and scraped to pay mortgages, feed and cloth our children and educate them.
We never got anything for free, we either had to save our borrow just to exist. Because we are in the middle income we would be caught both ways.
Paying our taxes and now funding universities. This additional money would have to come out of taxed income (between us we are just at the 40% rate)
so we would have to earn 140% of the fees in additional income.
My daughter currently goes to college, lives at home and works partime to
support herself. A neighbour I know doesnt work, his child is now unemployed and is going to college as a mature student. He is going to get free fees, 200 a week (back to education allowance) rent allowance and maintenance. He said he can also apply to the university as the have a hardship fund. So don’t give us all this crap about disadvantaged people
BD: First of all, it is not 800 Euro to put your child through uni, it is 800 euro per child per year - 3,200 each for the degree and if there are say, three children, this is 10,000 Euro. I would suggest that for any family on a low income, this is a significant cost. As for working while at college - this has a significant affect on grades and once again the children of the lower paid work longer hours at evenings and weekends and get, on average, lower grades as a result.
You are obviously slightly incorrect when you say you never got anything for free - your child went to college for free.
In none of the schemes outlined above would you end up paying fees and nobody is suggesting that you would. In the scheme proposed by Dan Sullivan, you might even benefit financially from having a child in uni.
I would think that your neightbor who is getting an allowance to go back to college, rather than getting the dole has a much higher likelihood afterwards of getting a well-paid job, contributing more to the country and paying more tax, which is better for everybody. You obviously would prefer if they stayed at home on the dole for the rest of their lives.
Its very easy to sit around and say everything is crap and nobody should get anything, but personally, I would prefer to be a little more progressive.
I returned to education as a self supporting , “mature” student. I qualified for the “maintenance” grant.
I was happy for this and not having to pay fees, as my maintenance grant, the full one no less, did not even cover my rent and bills. Then I had to get books (yes, we still buy those) and hardware, and have my own transport as there was no easy way to get anywhere I needed to go.
I graduated after 4 years of college with 1st class honors, with none of my saving left, and I thank the education system for not making me pay fees to the college and at least letting me cover some of my expenses. Thank you “free education”. And I have a job, we all do from the class, wheres this recession then
Robert - my point exactly. The thing has to be that everybody that wants to go to college should have the option. If you can afford to pay for it at the point when it is offered (i.e. you or your parents are very wealthy) then you should, otherwise, there should be some help. Afterwards, you can pay back (taxation, or whatever). However, there needs to be a very good education system, properly funded and access for everybody. Right now, there are people effectively without access, either because of financial problems, societal problems, lack of support, etc. Also, the universities are going further into debt to provide the same (not higher) levels of service.
As for where the recession is? I have lots of recent graduates telling me that jobs are thin on the ground. You have a 1st class honour - generally a cohort of people that won’t have much trouble getting a job. Well done you!
@James
That is a shame, we were lucky in that everyone in the class got jobs, albeit in a different section of software from our training, but that is another rant for another time. That being said there was only 5 of us left.
Wrong wrong wrong.
We should not be limiting the choices of young people because of their parents income. One can easily imagine scenarios where daddy says ‘I’m not paying for you to do archeology’ (or whatever).
The logic that your family is poor; therefore you get a grant does not work in reverse. Why should one 18 year old (ADULT)have to ask mummy and daddy for money to go to college and another get in for free?
The fact that the Government has underfunded universities is not the fault of the middle classes - do you really think that any monies raised under the return of fees will be ‘extra’ income? Bat O’Keefe has been talking about how much this will save the Government - work it out for yourself.
Hi Lanod, Yes, you can imagine a situation where daddy says he is not going to pay for child to study (in which case the father is a total ass, of course), but there are situations right now where daddy is saying that there is no hope he can come up with the money for the child to go study anything.
The logis is not just that your family is poor - we have been talking about cut-off salaries of greater than 100,000 Euro. Some others are talking about cut-offs of 140,000-160,000.
As for the suggestion that this is a way of saving money for the government - if this became the situation, then i would be completely, totally against it. This is not what it is about.
What it is about is :
1. Access to university
2. Adequate funding for education in Ireland with some contribution from the users.
You would have to be naive in the extreme to not think that the re-introduction of Fees is just an excuse for the Government to get rid of the Core Funding provided by the Dept of Education & Science.
James,
Reintroducing fees will not benefit the less well off. This will just be a revenue adjustment for the Government. All that they keep talking about is how much this will save - cf the front of the Irish Times last
I could agree to some form of student loans for those who don’t fall into the free fees income bracket. It’s the tying 18 year olds to their parents that I have a problem with - this works when giving them money but is totally unfair on the 18 year old when taking money off them.
BTW - I completely agree that our universities are not adequately funded.