Best news I've heard in months. The elimination of fees has only served to help the better off at the disadvantage of everyone else. Instead of paying third level feees, richer familities are putting the money they save into grinds at second level and thereby giving their children an advantage. This would be great news in creating a fairer education system for all, allowing those that can pay for it to do so, and allowing those that cannot to receive tthe help they need.
The Mahon Tribunal found Olivia Mitchell to have received an inappropriate payment from Frank Dunlop at the time of the 1992 Election. F.G. Gael has taken no action against her.
Not quite the issue, is it?Originally Posted by Macy
Can I suggest those costs bear no relationship to the cost of running the school - the bulk of which will be teachers salaries.
If you had to meet the full cost of a primary schoolchild's education, you'd be shelling out about €5,500 per annum. (This information can be found here on Page 5 Figure B).
By all means lets discuss the issue. But lets not talk nonsense.
However, banks know they have a duty of care to their clients and I'm sure that this should prevent them lending irresponsibly.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
what is it about dun laoghaire?....
hanafin was just on the news 'STICKING HER SIZE 10'S IN'..........
should she be interfering in a ministry where she 'didnt do too well'? and was moved?
That's interesting.
Can you explain how you were in a situation where you had to pay fees when we are meant to be discussing the introduction of fees in the future? Were you taking a course (perhaps at post-Grad level) that didn't qualify for the "free fees" scheme or repeating a year?
Also, I accept that the resources you mention are of help today, with the existing situation. But introducing fees where previously there were none will create a new category of prospective student: those with parents who can but won't pay. This raises two issues...
Firstly, how far will the resources you mention go towards accommodating those who honestly won't get parental support even though the parents are deemed able to afford it? We could be talking about many hundreds of students (or more).
Secondly, can you suggest how the systems you mention will be able to distinguish between parents who can pay but won't pay, and parents who can pay and would pay but say they won't pay?
Related to that second question, it's seems to be well accepted in this country that a lot of self-employed parents are - to put it mildly - very cute about how they declare their incomes. They do this to ensure their income appears low, and their child qualifies for a grant.
Doesn't this state of affairs suggest that regardless of the truth, there will be no shortage of parents declaring solemnly that they won't support their childrens' third level education, if this declaration means neither child nor parent has to cough up for fees?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
First of all.
Fees exist already.
Student s services Fee
What we are talking about the government removing supports from students and increasing the costs they will incur when they go to college.
In 2002, they increased the student registration fee by 69% then threathen to bring back the rest of the fees. One thought was to get that increase paid by scaring everyone with the thought of Full fees being brought back. Watch for a similar move this time.
1) We want to increase funding to the Univerities.
So you have been purposefully starving them of funding up to this point so that the heads of the Unis/ 3rd level will agree with any attempt to bring back in fees and get more money?
They will be taking money from one section of 3rd level and might put some of it(Are we really that naive to think it will all go right back to the Unis?) back to 3rd level.
Taking from Peter to pay paul.
2)We want to increase access for the under priviliged
And the last 10years in which you have run the grant system havent been doing this?
The current grants system means that 2 parents working full time at Mc Donalds are over the limit for grants. This government have run this system for ten years and now they want us to think they will do it fairly? Fine but why take money directly out of another area of 3rd level expense to do this?
And again are we really naive to believe that the money saved from scrapping 3rd level fees will all be put back into this?
3)We will only affect the super rich.
Uh huh. Forgive me if i am sceptical of this one when looking at the grant limits. And if we are targeting the super rich then why not charge them for ... 2nd level... or primary... Or how about an increase in higher level of tax. If you want to tax the super rich.. then tax the super rich not the students.
Oh and skip the whole graduate tax and student loan thing as well.
People will degrees earn more anyway so pay higher tax.
Loans only defer funding so the Unis will be screwed until they are paid back unless the goverment puts money upfront(Believe it when i see it) and a loan is only a fancy way of saying fee.
Whats super rich? 100k? 50k?
Whats to stop them dropping the income barrier as soon as its introduced?
What if you are some poor sod under 23 but get nothing from your parents? (The government wants to know all about your parents income until that ages reguardless of circumstance)
And Dempseys climb down position in early 2003 was that taxing the super rich for fees wouldnt bring in all that much anyway...
4) It will make the system fair and accessable.
An agreement to pay for the 1st time undergraduate degree of anyone in the state as long as they dont repeat a year(They pay for that). Isnt fair?
The 1930s constitution said that primary education would be free.
The 1960s brought in free secondary education
The 1990s brought in "free" 3rd level education
The access of people to college aside from that may have to be changed and looked at but dont change the central principle which is the fees(And all the fees should be gone including the student services fee) should be free for anyone who wants to attend college. Otherwise they are just giving with the left hand while taking with the right hand...
Do we want to take a step backwards?
How about seperating the education of the children from the wealth of their parents completely!!
Scrap means testing, give every student a grant and give every student a state loan for the value of their tuition fees.
Link the repayment of that loan to their future earnings. The students who benefit financially from their education will repay the costs to the state of educating them while those who pursue vocational education and never make a whole lot of money in their future careers never have to repay their debts.
Link in the level at which loan repayments are due to the average wage in the economy. If someone reaches the average wage, they could trigger a small repayment of their loan. deducted from their wages like PAYE, if they start to earn significantly above the AIW then their repayments are increased, and if they become wealthy, they will have to repay the whole loan and the grants that they received during their education.
The benefits of this are everywhere.
1. the individual who benefits the most from the state education will pay the cost.
2. The costs of education will be incurred when the individual is best positioned to repay them (rather than front loading all the costs when the individual has very little prospect of a livable income)
3. It will remove the seperation between working class, middle class and upper class students in the eyes of the state
4. There are no student loans in Ireland at present. The ability of a student to finance their own education relies on them having someone to guarantor a loan in their name (at commercial bank rates) or their ability/willingness to work a job to pay for their own expenses (something that puts them at a disadvantage to their peers and even if someone works they are unlikely to earn enough to cover all the costs of their education meaning they still rely on loans or gifts from others)
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
The thing is, they wont introduce a fair grants sytstem. They havent in over twenty years (the first report to point out the problems was in 1985), and i doubt that the oppportunity to gouge more money from the populace will be a great motivator.
The big problem with the system as is (IMO) is that mortgages and other outgoings are not included. It stands to reason that a family who own their home and earn 34000 per annum is very different from a family on 42K and owing 250K on a mortgage. Secondly, the system (as it calculates income in one year) is open to manipulation by those who can alter their receipt of income over the financial year. This could be fixed, by changing the income and expenditure limits and looking at income over the past five years from Revenue.
This would allow more money to be given to the deserving. However, the article in the Times mentions those earning above the average wage which stands at about 38K, which conveniently is in and around the grant threshold. If we assume that of the `180K students in HE, about half pay 5000K a year while the department funds the rest. The net result is no change in funding, as i find it unlikely (and against the European evidence) that the government would maintain the current level of spend.
In order for the colleges to 'compete' (whatever the hell that means) they'll need to increase the fees paid to about 8-16K per annum, which will cause problems for students and parents to pay, certainly the second family above earlier.
The big problem I see with reintroducing fee though, is that given our relatively young population, we may be better off educating them for free, so that they will have good jobs and pay for all the old people about to retire. Then, in a generations time, as birth rate drops make an impact on the numbers of young people and we need to start paying for their (our) retirement, fees will be reintroduced. Personally, I reckon its the worst possible decision they could have made.
And on a side note, I'm pretty unhappy with no comment from USI on this, given its importance and the need to fight against this policy, Makes me wonder if the sell out thread was in fact true. Thats off topic though.
Hi Generick
USI did release a press release. It was only sent to Presidents and I would imagine only half the media......i know several journalists who didnt get it....it was a poor attempt at a rebuttal......crib rattling exercise with no meat in the press release, no facts, no figures just noise.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Why don't we cut the debate about this issue, and indeed all social policy issues, and just go straight to asking the question:
"What would Sweden do?"
The no fee structure was introduced in Ireland to improve access to education for all our citizens. Having had a little read of the international comparative tables on the subject, it seems Sweden comes first among all the EU nations on facilitating and following through on access to third-level education for the optimal amount of its citizens.
A major component of Sweden's policy on achieving this is free university education.
Q.E.D. (or something similarly conclusive)...
I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them. - George Bush
Some background on this. When Uni fees were abolished there was a matching tax change to end covenants which were a loophole for the effective tax free payment of fees to exclusive/ selective schools. There has been a substantial rise in 3rd level participation over what is a relatively short period. Like any change the educated and the wealthy have changed behaviour in response BUT so have the less well of but able.
There are two perspectives on this.
The party political.
The reintroduction of fees would be a political gift to the opposition and in particular to the Labour Party who have claimed credit for the change and consistently argued for the status quo. FG has had differing statements over time at least that is the impression I have. I can see the leaflets from local Labour candidates targeting the Greens in the upcoming locals. It is of no relevance that this is not a Local Government area of responsibility. Posters have remarked that people in Dublin are buying private education at 2nd level. They are doing so and have spent the money that they had earmarked for. They will be very angry and the government parties will take a serious beating in particular in large urban areas with PAYE dominated electorates.
Education and access.
The largest part of 3rd level funding is and would remain government block grant funded by tax. The introduction of partial fees would disadvantage the low paid in accessing the service that they are helping pay for.
There are other options.
One would be to maintain the status quo. The grant system could bear serious realignment to the detriment of non PAYE sector that do get a disproportionate benefit by bending the rules.
Another would be to abolish the block grant and have all 3rd level courses charge full fees to all comers with the state buying all or part of the service on behalf of those who it is considers should be funded. This would also be unfair but probably to a different group of people and would generate different responses from the middle classes.
As a general comment there is no limit to the actions that middle class people will take to benefit their children and in particular their educational opportunities . The stories of house being bought to get children into particular primary schools show how far things have gone in the UK. It also demonstrates how dangerous a political territory it is. Standing between a middle class mother and the gate of her child’s preferred educational institution is a deadly political place.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote