Third level education no longer a fee

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

20/03/2009, 12:26 PM
Royal rover

Third level education no longer a fee

Taken from - http://www.independent.ie/education/...n-1679714.html

This is a joke with things the way they are - unemployment on the rise etc, the re-introduction of tuition fees it make it virtually impossible for some people to further there careers -
20/03/2009, 12:29 PM
Dodge

Presume you didn't receive a third level education with that headline and the general standard of the post.

If you did, and you got it for free, you've just argued for fees...
20/03/2009, 1:40 PM
pete

At the time when there are cuts across the board it is hard to argue that our future doctors & barristers would get free third level education. It could hardly be said that it is free at the moment with the rate of registration fees but some sort of the student loan system would be best.
20/03/2009, 2:07 PM
Shilts

People will soon realise that the free ride is over.
If you want education, decent healthcare, housing or anything else that was given out for nothing during the boom times, then you are just going to have to pay for it.

We are broke and if you want something, then pay for it. The option is yours.
20/03/2009, 8:04 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shilts

People will soon realise that the free ride is over.
If you want education, decent healthcare, housing or anything else that was given out for nothing during the boom times, then you are just going to have to pay for it.

We are broke and if you want something, then pay for it. The option is yours.

I assume you're in favour of fees for primary schools so?
20/03/2009, 9:51 PM
superfrank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shilts

People will soon realise that the free ride is over.
If you want education, decent healthcare, housing or anything else that was given out for nothing during the boom times, then you are just going to have to pay for it.

We are broke and if you want something, then pay for it. The option is yours.

Are you saying that when people were rich, things were free but now that people are poor, things should be paid for?

:confused:
21/03/2009, 12:19 AM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

I assume you're in favour of fees for primary schools so?

I think that's a pretty dubious assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Hardy

As far as could be learnt it appeared that the poor
young dog, still under the impression that since he was
kept for running after sheep, the more he ran after
them the better, had at the end of his meal off the
dead lamb, which may have given him additional energy
and spirits, collected all the ewes into a corner, driven
the timid creatures through the hedge, across the upper
field, and by main force of worrying had given them
momentum enough to break down a portion of the
rotten railing, and so hurled them over the edge.
George's son had done his work so thoroughly that
he was considered too good a workman to live, and was,
in fact, taken and tragically shot at twelve o'clock that
same day -- another instance of the untoward fate which
so often attends dogs and other philosophers who
follow out a train of reasoning to its logical conclusion,
and attempt perfectly consistent conduct in a world
made up so largely of compromise.
21/03/2009, 12:27 AM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

At the time when there are cuts across the board it is hard to argue that our future doctors & barristers would get free third level education.

It is hardly fair that those two kinds of students should have to pay while the rest don't.
21/03/2009, 12:26 PM
NeilMcD

I think Fine Gaels idea of introducin a system where the student pays for it through their PRSI when they are employed in the future. This means that they pay for it when they are able to pay for it and it is not done through the bank who cannot be trusted for something like this. It was a good idea from Fine Gael in my view.
21/03/2009, 1:20 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

It is hardly fair that those two kinds of students should have to pay while the rest don't.

I was only using them an example of students who could potentially earn high salaries (from the state) while the state paid for their education. In the case of medicine the actual cost of their degree is multiples times that of an average degree.

Not sure if the PRSI system would work as could easily avoid by emigrating hence the student loan scheme.

Some courses have very high failure rates in 1st year so maybe this would be reduced.
22/03/2009, 6:56 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I think that's a pretty dubious assumption.

Easy to dismiss it, but I've yet to read an argument for reintroduction of third level fees that couldn't be applied to first and second level too. I know there are some points, but they should be debated on. No one argues these things even vaguely logically. It's really quite annoying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

I think Fine Gaels idea of introducin a system where the student pays for it through their PRSI when they are employed in the future. This means that they pay for it when they are able to pay for it and it is not done through the bank who cannot be trusted for something like this. It was a good idea from Fine Gael in my view.

If the student earns more money from having studied at college, they're already paying more tax (directly and indirectly) than if they don't. I don't see the point in additional taxes. It just makes educated immigrants even cheaper to hire than Irish graduates. Meanwhile, the guy with a masters in Middle English who's about as employable as a paraplegic paedophile doesn't pay for his education. Why is this fair?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Not sure if the PRSI system would work as could easily avoid by emigrating hence the student loan scheme.

Some courses have very high failure rates in 1st year so maybe this would be reduced.

Australia has a student loan system. They also have a very impressive figure in defaulted student loans where the defaulter emmigrated and was never heard from again.
22/03/2009, 8:20 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

Easy to dismiss it, but I've yet to read an argument for reintroduction of third level fees that couldn't be applied to first and second level too. I know there are some points, but they should be debated on. No one argues these things even vaguely logically. It's really quite annoying.

Because it's not necessary for every argument to reach it's logical conclusion. If something is free, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything should be free. Equally, if I'm willing to pay for something, it doesn't follow that I'm willing to pay for everything.

Most decision making is built out of finding a compromise to balance the competing merits of various actions.
22/03/2009, 9:40 PM
John83

Are you deliberately trying to do what you've criticised me for?

You're correct, but you're arguing against a straw man.
22/03/2009, 9:52 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

Are you deliberately trying to do what you've criticised me for?

You're correct, but you're arguing against a straw man.

Have I misunderstood you? Did you not just assume that the person above who favours college fees must also favour primary school fees, to be logically consistent?
22/03/2009, 9:59 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Have I misunderstood you?

Perhaps a little, though I guess I've been less than clear.

I don't think that; I merely haven't found any argument from someone in favour of reintroducing college fees which didn't apply to primary school, so I've taken to punching my own straw man in the hopes that someone will explain why they think the cases are different. So far, your answer, that it's a matter of chosing a compromise, is the closest I've gotten, but it doesn't satisfy me. You have to justify your choice of cut off.
22/03/2009, 10:07 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

Perhaps a little, though I guess I've been less than clear.

I don't think that; I merely haven't found any argument from someone in favour of reintroducing college fees which didn't apply to primary school, so I've taken to punching my own straw man in the hopes that someone will explain why they think the cases are different. So far, your answer, that it's a matter of chosing a compromise, is the closest I've gotten, but it doesn't satisfy me. You have to justify your choice of cut off.

It's a bit like putting a football team together. If you have a hundred quid a week, you can hire Kilduff. If you have a grand a week, you can hire Glen Crowe. If you have 50k per week, you can hire Robbie Keane. Your choice of cut off is not decided by the merits of the players but by your club's budget.

If you have a hundred quid a week and you hire Glen Crowe, you're following the Shelbourne school of economics and you're club will go bust. It's not enough to know what you want, you have to also consider what you can afford and hire the best team of players your budget will allow.

If the budget isn't big enough to allow free primary and free third level education, then the government will have to cut one of them and keep the other. There's nothing inconsistent about picking which of them is more important.
22/03/2009, 10:52 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

It's a bit like putting a football team together. If you have a hundred quid a week, you can hire Kilduff. If you have a grand a week, you can hire Glen Crowe. If you have 50k per week, you can hire Robbie Keane. Your choice of cut off is not decided by the merits of the players but by your club's budget.

If you have a hundred quid a week and you hire Glen Crowe, you're following the Shelbourne school of economics and you're club will go bust. It's not enough to know what you want, you have to also consider what you can afford and hire the best team of players your budget will allow.

If the budget isn't big enough to allow free primary and free third level education, then the government will have to cut one of them and keep the other. There's nothing inconsistent about picking which of them is more important.

That is a bad analogy. The argument isn't about whether we can reduce spending on education, it's whether or not the government pays for the universities and ITs at all. In the short term, it removes a cost from the budget, but in the long run it has lots of other social and economic implications that a government should be considering too.
22/03/2009, 11:11 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

In the short term, it removes a cost from the budget, but in the long run it has lots of other social and economic implications that a government should be considering too.

I agree with that and the government is tasked with weighing up the various competing claims.
22/03/2009, 11:21 PM
John83

We've had another argument over semantics again, haven't we? I'm going home.
22/03/2009, 11:31 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

We've had another argument over semantics again, haven't we? I'm going home.

I'm already at home,
Good evening.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page