University fees are back on agenda says O'Keeffe: Times

[Ronanr]

Their is an obvious case for removing the restriction of means, and ensuring that those whose incomes are directly benefited pay the cost through State underwritten loan schemes.

The problems with that are just because you went to college does not mean that you will have a huge income in future.

For instance, nurses, lab technicians, etc.


Also, quite a lot of people from a poorer background would be put off by the idea of debt.

But I am not utterly opposed to a government backed loan scheme.

[mairteenpak]

Nurses are verry well paid and earn money during their training.

[imokyrok]

But it is much fairer to have the people who directly benefit pay directly themselves.

After all other state services are available to all. Third level education is not available to all but is available on the basis of ability and means of the individual or their parents.

Their is an obvious case for removing the restriction of means, and ensuring that those whose incomes are directly benefited pay the cost through State underwritten loan schemes.

Society as a whole benefits by having a highly educated population, Mairteenpak. The grant I recieved to pay my fees two decades ago was more than compensated by what I've been able to give back to society as a result of my education. As it is it costs €38,000 euro to get a child though college to basic degree level without fees.Not easy to find that kind of money multiplied by how many kids you have and still pay mortgage etc. Make it worse financially and all but the rich will suffer and fewer will get to college at all. With regard to a loan system - many already have to do that - they don't live on air and water.

[generick]

Their is an obvious case for removing the restriction of means, and ensuring that those whose incomes are directly benefited pay the cost through State underwritten loan schemes.

The problems with that are just because you went to college does not mean that you will have a huge income in future.

For instance, nurses, lab technicians, etc.


Also, quite a lot of people from a poorer background would be put off by the idea of debt.

But I am not utterly opposed to a government backed loan scheme.

Indeed, the research shows that an Arts graduate in the UK will, on average, earn 10K sterling more over their entire working lives. Given that a three year arts degree now costs 9K sterling, that may not be the best deal.

There's also some research that shows that poor students are put off by debt, and many give up on college because they do not have faith in the outcomes. This is a ludicrous waste of potential. Meanwhile, the rich get student loans and invest them at a profit while daddy pays the fees.

I do think that loans are a terrible idea, as getting this nations people even more indebted at a time like this makes no sense. A graduate tax (or levy, which i would prefer) paid only by those who do not donate willingly after receiving a degree, coupled with tax relief on contributuons to education would probably make the most sense to provide funding in the short to medium term. The graduate tax, provided it were ring fenced for education would amount to a HUGE investment for the colleges over time. They'd get nothing for 5 years though, and probably not a lot for ten. So it wont be done in the current fiscal environment.

EDIT: Nurses are very well paid? Thats nuts, take a look at the salary scales at healthjobs.ie, i believe that the top of the scale for a staff nurse is 42K per annum, which is 4K over the average wage. So not poorly paid, but certainly not well paid.

[mairteenpak]

I am not asking that the fees be paid by the parents who may not have means. under the current system there are several low paid workers who cannot afford to send their families to college due to the other expenses to be met, particularly for people who have a number of children entering college at the same stage.

Access must be provided for all who have the ability regardless of their own or parents means.

A loan scheme would provide such access for all and would be optional, such that it should provide for fees, course material, exam fees, and maintenance.

€40,000 is not a huge sum to pay for an education that will improve your earning capacity over forty years.

A poor family can hardly be expected to fund the cost of educating eight children as the fees are only a small part of the cost.

If it justifies allowing tax relief to build thousands of houses in Longford and leitrim that no one wants Third level education loans must be worthwhile guaranteeing by the government.

Those on lower incomes following third level qualifications faces with loan repayments would also face a lower tax burden since the State would not be footing the bill. The net difference would not be substantial.

Hard to justify taxing the low paid to fund third level education that they did not have the ability or funds to avail of.

[mairteenpak]

Their is an obvious case for removing the restriction of means, and ensuring that those whose incomes are directly benefited pay the cost through State underwritten loan schemes.

The problems with that are just because you went to college does not mean that you will have a huge income in future.

For instance, nurses, lab technicians, etc.


Also, quite a lot of people from a poorer background would be put off by the idea of debt.

But I am not utterly opposed to a government backed loan scheme.

Indeed, the research shows that an Arts graduate in the UK will, on average, earn 10K sterling more over their entire working lives. Given that a three year arts degree now costs 9K sterling, that may not be the best deal.

There's also some research that shows that poor students are put off by debt, and many give up on college because they do not have faith in the outcomes. This is a ludicrous waste of potential. Meanwhile, the rich get student loans and invest them at a profit while daddy pays the fees.

I do think that loans are a terrible idea, as getting this nations people even more indebted at a time like this makes no sense. A graduate tax (or levy, which i would prefer) paid only by those who do not donate willingly after receiving a degree, coupled with tax relief on contributuons to education would probably make the most sense to provide funding in the short to medium term. The graduate tax, provided it were ring fenced for education would amount to a HUGE investment for the colleges over time. They'd get nothing for 5 years though, and probably not a lot for ten. So it wont be done in the current fiscal environment.

EDIT: Nurses are very well paid? Thats nuts, take a look at the salary scales at healthjobs.ie, i believe that the top of the scale for a staff nurse is 42K per annum, which is 4K over the average wage. So not poorly paid, but certainly not well paid.

What about shift allowances, and early retirement benefits as well as agency work in addition to regular work?
Nurses also get paid while training

[dajaffa]

What about shift allowances, and early retirement benefits as well as agency work in addition to regular work?

Not sure what it is now but my sisters a nurse and not long ago she'd get an extra €100 for working 7 12 hour night shifts in a row. Any other job and you'd get serious money for working those shifts, but nurses get little more than an extra euro an hour.

[generick]

Eh, what are you talking about? All the benefits you mention are available to all other health sector employees, most of whom are far better paid. The agency work point seems somewhat stupid, as most nurses would far prefer a full time job rather than running from pillar to post with an agency. Especially this year. Its pretty sickening to compare any nurses salary with any medical salary, the disparity should put us to shame and does show real differences in income between men and women.

And yes, Nurses get paid while training, but they were also the last students in the country to get free fees, after major protests after it was switched to a degree.

They also spend a full year after their course is complete working for feck all money in the hospitals. This year used to take place in third year, but is now fourth year in order to reduce costs.

Finally, i would say about 75% of nursing graduates wont get jobs in ireland this year, so the money we spent on them has been wasted.

I note that you dont address the substantive points i raised, either.

[imokyrok]

I am not asking that the fees be paid by the parents who may not have means. under the current system there are several low paid workers who cannot afford to send their families to college due to the other expenses to be met, particularly for people who have a number of children entering college at the same stage.

Access must be provided for all who have the ability regardless of their own or parents means.

A loan scheme would provide such access for all and would be optional, such that it should provide for fees, course material, exam fees, and maintenance.

€40,000 is not a huge sum to pay for an education that will improve your earning capacity over forty years.

A poor family can hardly be expected to fund the cost of educating eight children as the fees are only a small part of the cost.

If it justifies allowing tax relief to build thousands of houses in Longford and leitrim that no one wants Third level education loans must be worthwhile guaranteeing by the government.

Those on lower incomes following third level qualifications faces with loan repayments would also face a lower tax burden since the State would not be footing the bill. The net difference would not be substantial.

Hard to justify taxing the low paid to fund third level education that they did not have the ability or funds to avail of.

The point is that you don't have to be low paid to have severe difficulty funding a child through college. Make it even harder and less will go and society suffers in the long run. I would hate to see a child of mine weighed down with loans on completion of college. They are going to have a hard enough time putting a roof over their heads as it is. Graduates also often earn very little in the initial years after graduating.

I had a grant which paid my fees but still needed student loans and worked up to three jobs at a time all through my five years of college. It was a miserable experience. I was the first and only person in my family to go to college. The others looked at my experience and thought why put themselves through that. Reintroducing fees would be a seriously retrograde step.

[KingKane]

Is Batt O' Keeffe reading p.ie, I was suggesting 100K as a threshold purely for the purposes of discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=171&t=38917&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=2 4#p1281176

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 John Kennedy (letters August 9th). 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.