Third level fees

[superfrank]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0811/breaking18.htm

It would be a bad move to re-introduce third level fees, even for the wealthy.

Equality should prevail. Yes, they can afford it but it is unfair to expect that some people should have to pay for their education, while others don't.

The abolition of third level fees contributed greatly to the Celtic Tiger and the educated employees available in Ireland. As we are in recession, re-introducing them would hinder a return to where we were a few years ago.

[Macy]

We already have a system which is supposed to ensure that the wealthy pay more for their services. It's called income tax. Perhaps if FF hadn't continually reduced the top rate of tax, which favoured the rich disproportionately, rather than widening the bands then the Universities could've been properly funded.

At the time the fees were abolished it was PAYE workers that bore the brunt of them, since self employed and self assessed workers could massage their figures to avoid them. FF just love giving get outs for those that aren't PAYE, like all the tax breaks of recent years. Tuition fees are just another example.

And btw, it's a stretch to call our education system free as it is. Between books and "voluntary" contributions, calling it a subsidised education system would be more realistic. We had to pay to feckin register our child with a school ffs.

[pete]

In an ideal world I think everyone would pay for college fees mainly by means of college loans. That way when you are earning more money as a result of the 3rd level education you can pay back the loan. Maybe a half way system would be best...? Medicine would probably be the best example where the state subsidies the qualification & then the graduate can leave the country so we have no benefit or stay at home & high salary from the state.

The whole college loan thing is how it works in the US but can mean massive loans to pay back & salary not always the highest post 3rd level depending on what you studied.

:confused:

[Ringo]

In an ideal world I think everyone would pay for college fees mainly by means of college loans. That way when you are earning more money as a result of the 3rd level education you can pay back the loan. Maybe a half way system would be best...? Medicine would probably be the best example where the state subsidies the qualification & then the graduate can leave the country so we have no benefit or stay at home & high salary from the state.

The whole college loan thing is how it works in the US but can mean massive loans to pay back & salary not always the highest post 3rd level depending on what you studied.


:confused:

Totally agree with you on this one. How many parents pay for their children to go to private seconadary schools & then the state pays for their third level education. These parents are obviously willing & able to pay fees. We have an education system which needs huge investment. Most of the TD's who came out against it yesterday came from upper classs areas of Dublin & from all parties.

[pete]

Does anyone now how the system works with grants for college? What happens if you fail say first year? Do you get a grant to repeat?

:confused:

[gustavo]

Does anyone now how the system works with grants for college? What happens if you fail say first year? Do you get a grant to repeat?

:confused:
I'm not sure if you get the grant , I doubt it , but you do have to pay tuition fees if you fail

[Macy]

That way when you are earning more money as a result of the 3rd level education you can pay back the loan.
Shouldn't that be if you are earning more money? But then if you are, then you'll be paying more income tax. General taxation does the same job, without a few more quango's to operate it.

The last thing the economy needs going forward is more disincentives for students to go on to third level. The grind schools say more about the entry system and the failings of the general school system than it does about parents being willing to pay for them. But also highlights that the top rate of tax came down too much.

[jebus]

The whole college loan thing is how it works in the US but can mean massive loans to pay back & salary not always the highest post 3rd level depending on what you studied.


That's exactly why I wouldn't be in favour of college fees. The US system favours the middle to upper class as the workers generally can't afford to take on that amount of debt to do something they may or may not find employment in after work. They're happy with keeping it because America seemingly likes to deal in inequality. Similarly in Britain (although to a lesser extent) people spend a lot of years struggling to pay off their college loans.

Personally I think the introduction of higher college fees (college fees do exist in Ireland) is just a means of keeping the class system in place and should be avoided at all costs


Does anyone now how the system works with grants for college? What happens if you fail say first year? Do you get a grant to repeat?

:confused:

Not 100% sure but I think you lose your grant for a repeat year, but on passing that year it kicks back in again

[OneRedArmy]

Whilst the US system is hugely expensive, there are significant scholarships available for the most able. IIRC colleges like Harvard and Stanford basically guarantee that anyone accepted will be able to take up their place through a combinations of guaranteed loans and scholarships.

Not sure what the best way forward is here in Ireland, the one thing that is certain is that the status quo isn't working and universities are more and more underfunded.

Tying it back into another recent thread, this is why I always thought a university in the south east was never really a runner as it would simply cannibalize funds from the existing underfunded unis.

[Macy]

There were no tuition fee's when I went to University in the UK, but the level of grants* meant that I did take on student loans to cover some of my costs. To an extent, that was a choice for me, but it did mean that I stayed in my hometown city rather than go away, purely on the basis I didn't want to start work with a mountain of debt so I did turn down courses that I probably would've preferred. I've know people that opted for work instead rather than incur that debt. Like I said, that was before tuition fee's upped the ante even more.

There is no reason why Universities cannot be funded through general taxation. The contention is that graduates earn more, so then they will pay more income tax. There is no need for graduate taxes or fee's.

*the level of grants would be the prime example of why I wouldn't trust the threshold talk from FF - in the UK when I went to college in 1995, the grant hadn't been increased since 1987! I have no doubt they'd do the same with the thresholds for who'd pay the fees and who wouldn't.

[Student Mullet]

the one thing that is certain is that the status quo isn't working and universities are more and more underfunded.I've heard that said a lot but it it actually true? The man on the radio today said that the universities have been getting annual increases in funding of well above the rate of inflation.

[OneRedArmy]

I've heard that said a lot but it it actually true? The man on the radio today said that the universities have been getting annual increases in funding of well above the rate of inflation.Its not the absolute figure thats important, moreso the comparative funding when compared internationally, as the market for research funding and teaching talent at university level is a global one.

This gap is widening.

[Student Mullet]

Its not the absolute figure thats important, moreso the comparative funding when compared internationally, as the market for research funding and teaching talent at university level is a global one.

This gap is widening.If you don't mind me repeating my earlier question, is this actually true? In my line of work I meet a lot of university researchers and from what I can tell, the government here puts much more into postgraduate studies (in the sciences) than many, if not any, other country.

If there's a funding problem, it's at the undergraduate level. Even at that, I don't think it's getting any worse. My own area in UCD seems much the same as it was when I started, possibly a little better. That anecdote seems consistent with the national figures which show increases in funding to the universities a little above the rate of inflation.

[DmanDmythDledge]

Totally agree with you on this one. How many parents pay for their children to go to private seconadary schools & then the state pays for their third level education. These parents are obviously willing & able to pay fees.
The numbers in private secondary schools would drop if college fees were re-introduced.

[sonofstan]

If you don't mind me repeating my earlier question, is this actually true? In my line of work I meet a lot of university researchers and from what I can tell, the government here puts much more into postgraduate studies (in the sciences) than many, if not any, other country.

If there's a funding problem, it's at the undergraduate level. Even at that, I don't think it's getting any worse. My own area in UCD seems much the same as it was when I started, possibly a little better. That anecdote seems consistent with the national figures which show increases in funding to the universities a little above the rate of inflation.

UCD and probably Trinity have mounted a sustained campaign to improve research - or more importantly for the college admin. the perception of that research - in order to attract more international post- grads and research staff; the first because they pay fees, the second because they raise the profile on the institution. This, is, I think the reason why Hugh Brady is so keen to see the reintroduction of undergrad. fees - so they can spend it, not on undergraduate teaching, but on profile raising research. The benefit to the ordinary student and the state is indirect at best.

Thing is, this is the way universities work around the world; senior staff are increasingly freed from teaching duties in order to give them time to do research, and more importantly, publish, and graduate students do more and more of the actual teaching as part of their funding 'package' - a deal which arguably retards their own progress towards the Ph.D that will get them into the job market, and thus keeps them available as cheap labour for longer.

[Student Mullet]

UCD and probably Trinity have mounted a sustained campaign to improve research - or more importantly for the college admin. the perception of that research - in order to attract more international post- grads and research staff; the first because they pay fees, the second because they raise the profile on the institution. This, is, I think the reason why Hugh Brady is so keen to see the reintroduction of undergrad. fees - so they can spend it, not on undergraduate teaching, but on profile raising research. The benefit to the ordinary student and the state is indirect at best.

Thing is, this is the way universities work around the world; senior staff are increasingly freed from teaching duties in order to give them time to do research, and more importantly, publish, and graduate students do more and more of the actual teaching as part of their funding 'package' - a deal which arguably retards their own progress towards the Ph.D that will get them into the job market, and thus keeps them available as cheap labour for longer.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here on two points and I'll agree with you on one.

You're correct when you say that UCD (and presumably Trinity but I don't have any personal experience) has been improving the standard of research with the aim of moving up the international rankings. There's no secret being made of that and I don't think that there's anything wrong with it either.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about international post-grads and research staff paying fees. All post-grads pay fees and no staff do. Nationality doesn't come into that.
On the main point, what you say about professors leaving teaching to junior staff or students doesn't agree with my experience at all. In my time here (and I can only really speak for my own faculty) lecturing has always been done by the professors and senior staff and post-grad students have always supervised the laboratory work and tutorials. That adds up to 50 hours a year of work for post-grads and it hasn't retarded the progress of anyone that I know.

[sonofstan]

Sorry, I didn't mean research staff paid fees - the sentence was a bit clumsy. And yes, all post- grads pay fees, but non-EU ones pay more, and in my dept. we get a fair few from the US and Canada, which must look nice on a balance sheet.

And on the last point, I didn't mean that was the story here - here for me being UCD as well - but that it was a model being moved towards; I know a fair few people who are doing or have done PhDs in North America and the workload of the average grad student is way more than we would be used to as tutors/ instructors.

And I don't there's anything wrong with trying to improve our research profile either; I just think reintroducing undergrad fees without a consequent improvement in undergraduate teaching would be wrong.(in fact, I think it would be wrong anyway)

[OneRedArmy]

If you don't mind me repeating my earlier question, is this actually true? In my line of work I meet a lot of university researchers and from what I can tell, the government here puts much more into postgraduate studies (in the sciences) than many, if not any, other country.

If there's a funding problem, it's at the undergraduate level. Even at that, I don't think it's getting any worse. My own area in UCD seems much the same as it was when I started, possibly a little better. That anecdote seems consistent with the national figures which show increases in funding to the universities a little above the rate of inflation.I unfortunately can't provide a weblink if thats what you mean, but I did read an article lately which focused on UL and the strides it has made in attracting non-government funding (endowments, research grants etc.). I think part of the problem is that we are not a particularly philantrophic or entrepreneurial nation therefore a lot of the burden on university funding has historically fallen on government.

Re Sonofstans point on an increasing focus on research to the detriment of undergrad teaching, this is certainly the case in UK universities and has been probably the key change in the last decade. Good if it isn't happening here but we're certainly in the minority if so.

[Bald Student]

I did read an article lately which focused on UL and the strides it has made in attracting non-government funding (endowments, research grants etc.).I think this leads on to a separate argument. There are about a dozen universities on this island and we're certain to run into difficulties if all of them try to compete with the top international colleges. Politics here doesn't allow for efforts to be concentrated into a smaller number of universities so I think their efforts are compromised and that it has nothing to do with fees.

My own opinion is that there's some hidden game being played here. Introducing fees doesn't come close to being progressive and levelling fees onto the wealthy few will not raise any significant amount of money. Whatever we think about the government ministers, they're not stupid so they know this as well as anyone else.

[Macy]

I think part of the problem is that we are not a particularly philantrophic or entrepreneurial nation therefore a lot of the burden on university funding has historically fallen on government.
I would say it's the fact that we let the super rich off their tax burden (and then have a collective w**k over O'Reilly or Magner when they do deign the people worthy of some of their billions). Cut the loop holes and maybe they could be funded by Government, rather than by philanthropists that invariably have an angle that comes with that funding (be that a legacy or an influence over policy).