LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThose who can afford to pay should pay. The money generated could be used to bring capable students from disadvantaged areas and ************************ty schools, on through third level. The result will be more graduates overall.
Those who can afford to pay should pay. The money generated could be used to bring capable students from disadvantaged areas and ************************ty schools, on through third level. The result will be more graduates overall.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
My experience - students roar with laughter at how cheap it is to go to a decent state school. Here, they complain about car parking being "loike, hard, y'know"..Originally Posted by michael1965
True. It varies a lot from state to state I believe. I remember reading a newspaper report over in California a couple of years ago and considering all the tax breaks, and other allowances open to people, the public system didn't seem all that crazy expensive.Excellent point. However, as someone familiar with the US system, the public (state) system there is in many cases as good as if not better than the Ivy boys. State universities charge fees also. Take a look at Ohio State for example. a top notch school http://undergrad.osu.edu/costs.html ; $6000 plus pa for Ohio residents, $20k for non state. Note that these are the top-up fees. the univeristy getting a whack of money from the State also.While Minister O'Keefe is saying all options are on the table, the only one I seem to hear him talking about is bringing back fees for people on "substantial" incomes (eg over 120K). Whatever way he goes, there are a few things he should consider:
1) Income doesn't always equate with ability to pay. Lots of families on 120K have huge mortgages, and can't afford an unexpected hit of thousands of euro a year. Even, if a plan is hatched that involves people paying, it can't be brought in over night. People need time to prepare for major financial outlays like this.
2) A single threshold (apart from being grossly unfair) will produce the usual shenanigans from people who are near to it. eg. if your income is just over it, it could be worth your while to take a salary cut for a few years. The self employed will obviously be able to arrange that much more easily.
3) What exactly are we trying to achieve? Are we trying to emulate the US Ivy League? That might make sense for the university heads themselves. The ability to raise huge amounts of cash and spend it in exactly the way they wish, is every administrator's dream. But, if we have to look to the US, should we not also be looking at US publicly owned universities, and see how they are funded, since they are probably much closer to what we already have. Before any decision on funding is taken, the government needs to explain what its "vision" for third level actually is.
4) I think there could be a considerable backlash from one particular sector, if the plan is not properly conceived. These are the people (including me) who never got the benefit of free fees themselves, but whose kids will be looking at university in the next few years, and looking at the prospect of having to pay them, on top of all the existing tax we pay.
I think the "graduate tax" Australian model type proposal is one that would provide extra money, while not dissuading people from starting Uni since they wouldn't have to payback until they started work. The Brits are now using this system. Means testing won't work, it'll just encourage tax evasion by the parents. Suddenly everyone on the country will be on 119,999 K per annum or less. Very few PAYE on this much, so it's pointless
Not in favour of fees, but over a month and a half, debate has moved from fees/no fees to " which sort of fees?" Economy sh@gged so education suffers. Simple enough. Noel Dempsey's error was to try this on during the boom. I have a horrible feeling Batt O'Keffe has a bit more upstairs
The floggings will continue until morale improves
He's not giving much away. Today's IT reports that he's against the student loans idea. No clue as to why this is.I have a horrible feeling Batt O'Keffe has a bit more upstairs
Because the student loans type system won't bring in cash for a few years, straight fees would mean cash today!He's not giving much away. Today's IT reports that he's against the student loans idea. No clue as to why this is.I have a horrible feeling Batt O'Keffe has a bit more upstairs
Dan Sullivan. I was back but we still couldn't all have a vote.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's what I'm afraid of, short term, knee-jerk response, thought up by the bean-counters in his dept. Not seeing much evidence yet, that Batt has much upstairs.Because the student loans type system won't bring in cash for a few years, straight fees would mean cash today!He's not giving much away. Today's IT reports that he's against the student loans idea. No clue as to why this is.I have a horrible feeling Batt O'Keffe has a bit more upstairs
If a government can borrow billions to fund overpriced property then a government can borrow billions to fund a government under written student loan scheme.
It is up to students to choose courses that will provide a real income.
The poor can borrow funds for their education with a rolled over loan until such time as they can afford to repay the loan
A fund of 125 million a year would go a fair way to meeting demand and would provide a route of access for all with ability to avail of appropriate education.
It is important to our economy that we make the best use of our talent.
A portion of the fund should be ring fenced for occupations which are beneficial to the economy Science, Engineering etc,
Vocational training should also be funded in this way also such as FAS trades courses
Fianna Fail will allow the Irish People, to me milked like Milch Cows, by the CIF through high house prices, rents, and land prices, at the expense of competitiveness,and quality of life. FF+CIF=1
There are two key points on government funding of third level education,in my opinion. [color=#0040FF]First,the government won't fund universities properly given our moderately low tax model [/color]which is designed to encourage inward investment and incentivise Irish business. Ireland is not a Scandinavian welfare state that showers money on everything and is not likely to become one in the next twent years. So given budgetary strains, third level education funded mostly by the Irish state will decline in quality over the next five years,to the point that Irish degrees will become largely worthless and the best students will go abroad to English speaking countries such as the UK and the USA for their education.The embryonic Irish knowledge economy is endangered.
[color=#0040FF]Second,high quality third level and university education ranks low on the election winning political priorities of politicians[/color],who,like politicians on the Continent,will settle for mediocre third level factory style education with poorly equipped facilities and underpaid lecturers and professors. Better for them to spend money on popular, election winning priorities such as public sector pay,old age pensions,local infrastructure projects that politicians can point to etc.
Charging fees to high income families could be a solution if the net included say the top 15% of all wage earners. Over time with inflation in pay,increasing percentages of wage earners could be drawn into the net. This would be reasonable as the state has no obligation to provide free third level education to the well off.
Alternatively under the present no fees policy,the French approach of lavishing funds on elitist Grand Ecoles could be emulated. [color=#0040FF]Spending couild be heavily targetted on selected degree programmes of certain centres of excellence in third level.[/color] For example,Trinity's highly regarded genetics department could receive a disproportionately large percentage of grants for Biotech and Genetics programmes in third level.
Reply With Quote