Well all I can say to that I am well aware of many many families who are on social welfare and have their children in 3rd level education. They are availing of the grants and are not living in areas where 3rd level institutions are close by.
Equally I am aware of people who are in relatively good jobs who are struggling massively to put their children through 3rd level.
As we are essentially talking on this thread about the last 5 years what are the real figures during this period that led to the massive sea change in education in the last 5 years.
Where is the utopian state that has all the perfect scenarios that are being complained about in this country and in this thread. Is it Greece?.
Yes Dermot, I know of these types of situations as well, but these are exceptions to the general convention as to how our two tiered educational system operates.
Look up the CSO figures for the last five years, regarding socio economic barriers to entering third level.
In relation to your last question, maybe we should cast our eyes to Finland or Germany, and not Ireland or Greece.
In relation to your last question, maybe we should cast our eyes to Finland or Germany, and not Ireland or Greece.
We have an entire grant system designed to get people into third level instutitions.
In the last year there were 60,000 successful applicants. I think that constitutes more than an exception. Are FG mugging the middle class by giving the grants to the wrong people???
I don't see how a two-tiered education system even begins to describe the complexity of the system across three levels, urban and rural, community schools versus religious schools, across household income levels, fee paying versus free schools, the grinds brigade etc - in all the things it does well and does badly.
Do the third level grants you refer to cover the expense of student accommodation and living expenses that are incurred by students residing in the cities in which the colleges are located (for example, if you are travelling from a council estate located outside the cities to study in a college, I think not. )
By two tiered, I mean how persons can access good schools, universities, teachers ( grinds ) depending on how much money they, or their parents have, that is all. Read the previous posts.
Yes Finland is at the top so every other country is below them. Their economy is not in such great shakes currently and their education system is being targeted for cuts as well as wages and salaries throughout the economy. So the Government have to prioritise and some areas will receive bigger cuts than others and maybe Finland will be close to the bottom in some areas when these are implemented. All not rosy in Finland.
I do not know enough about Germany but as the richest economy in Europe and currently running a budget surplus with a history of an ability to borrow at very low interest rates I would feel it a bit unfair to compare Ireland's economic situation with Germany's in the last 5 years.
You have to have the mental ability to be able to get into 3rd level education in Germany as well. That could be classed as discriminatory by some people as well.
I would hardly class Angela Merkel as a socialist or SF leaning
I don't see anything wrong with fee paying schools or grinds. But I do see something wrong if that is the only way to get a good education.
I just don't think two-tiers is an accurate or useful term to describe the situation.
Our education system, which is a reflection of our society, has a lot more than two tiers. So when I see someone use a phrase like two tiers which is objectively inaccurate, it immediately predisposes me against their argument.
Our universities contain students from a wide range of income backgrounds.
We have free tuition and a grant system in place supposedly to prevent income from blocking qualified candidates from third level. I think it's more useful to focus on its specific shortcomings (as you noted, not covering X) than throw out terms like two tiers. What specifically did the last government do to reduce access to third level education, or what promise did they not fulfil in that area?
You are going well off thread, I suggest you start a new thread maybe "Fine Gaels glorious Educational triumphs in the last 5 years." Sure FG are planning to introduce a new graduate tax on top of registration fee of 3,000 euro, decreased spending on Education, etc., what next, hedge schools to do away with overhead costs.There are several threads on why bank interest rates are higher here and why no other banks want to come into this country so will leave it at that on that subject.
As for access to education what major impediments were introduced in the last 5 years as you appear to be inferring happened.
What is it you wanted the Government to do to the Banks? Banks are just organisations. Do you want them nationalised ( which most of them were)? Do you want the Directors jailed? Do you want the staff jailed? Do you want Depositors "bailed in"?You are, the thread is Fine Gael mugged the middle class ( which they did ) and never touched the banks ( which they didn't )
Equality of opportunity is a mirage and is subject to a myriad of outside factors such as political connections, old school ties, religion, etc., to think otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand. Take off the rose coloured spectacles.
how did Fine Gael and Labour take on the banks ? Why did they not insist that the bank's lower their variable mortgage rates to borrowers in line with their European counterparts ?
What is it you wanted the Government to do to the Banks? Banks are just organisations. Do you want them nationalised ( which most of them were)? Do you want the Directors jailed? Do you want the staff jailed? Do you want Depositors "bailed in"?
What specifically do you think should have happened to Banks?
For two connected reasons.
1. So that the banks could return to profitability and rebuild their reserves. With a view to re-privatising them.
2. So that the cost of this wouldn't fall entirely on general taxation.
For two connected reasons.
1. So that the banks could return to profitability and rebuild their reserves. With a view to re-privatising them.
2. So that the cost of this wouldn't fall entirely on general taxation.
National banks do not work in any country. This has been tried before unsuccessfully in Ireland with ACC and ICC. Both were high cost institutions which were subject to political interference by successive governments. Having worked in government owned banks abroad I have yet to see one that has been profitable and run without Government interference. The concept just does not work. Cost of borrowed funds is not an issue for the main banks.Why not keep AIB as a national bank in the medium term, this would enable the bank to purchase monies at the same low rate that the Irish Government can purchase it at.