Should Students attending third level pay fees?
Should there be a Student Loan system?
Should the costs be covered for in full by the taxpaying citizens of the country?
The arguments for 3rd level being free at the point of access are;
It is a right.
It is good for society.
It encourages participation by people from poorer backgrounds.
The first point is dubious as Masters, PhD’s and mature Students all have to pay fees at present.
The second is debatable; there are many things which are good for society, should they all be paid for by other people?
The third is utter nonsense; poor people don’t pay fees at the moment.
I have no objection to Students not paying fees but we need a proper national discussion about what sort of third level education system we want and need.
It seems to me that every College wants to be a University and that it is desirable that every Student gets a Masters. Is that really what we need? I’m from a Engineering Trades background and, in common with other companies in my area in Ireland, the biggest obstacle to growth we face is a lack of skilled people and a State training system which is utterly unfit for purpose.
What is the objective of spending all the extra money which an abolition of fees would cost? It isn’t to get young people from deprived areas into college as they don’t pay fees anyway. If we wanted to address the issue of under education in those areas we’d be spending the money there on early primary educational resources.
It is not because we need more graduates; we have amongst the highest level of graduates in the world. The quality of many of those degrees is, in my opinion, questionable.
We have no Universities in the top 200 in the world. Trinity just about made it before because they “accidentally” gave false information to the accessing body. They have since been disqualified from that list completely.
Maybe we need to look at the quality of the 3rd level institutions we have, including the quality of the people teaching there and running things, before we decouple the consumer of the product (the student) from the cost of providing that product. Remembering that fees only cover a small proportion of the overall cost anyway.
So, do we want a good third level educational system (let’s not starting talking about being “world class”) which is properly funded and targets the areas we need as a society and an economy or do we want middleclass parents to send their middleclass kids to college and still afford holidays and car upgrades?
Given the massive advantage those students will enjoy throughout their lives as a result of their degree I see no issue with a Student Loan system. That way the Students will be more likely to demand quality from the service provider. Equally I have no objection to not charging them fees. The objective should be to have a system which is fit for purpose, offers value for money and given the best results possible. Whichever system does that is what we should go for. Ideology should not come into it.
Should there be a Student Loan system?
Should the costs be covered for in full by the taxpaying citizens of the country?
The arguments for 3rd level being free at the point of access are;
It is a right.
It is good for society.
It encourages participation by people from poorer backgrounds.
The first point is dubious as Masters, PhD’s and mature Students all have to pay fees at present.
The second is debatable; there are many things which are good for society, should they all be paid for by other people?
The third is utter nonsense; poor people don’t pay fees at the moment.
I have no objection to Students not paying fees but we need a proper national discussion about what sort of third level education system we want and need.
It seems to me that every College wants to be a University and that it is desirable that every Student gets a Masters. Is that really what we need? I’m from a Engineering Trades background and, in common with other companies in my area in Ireland, the biggest obstacle to growth we face is a lack of skilled people and a State training system which is utterly unfit for purpose.
What is the objective of spending all the extra money which an abolition of fees would cost? It isn’t to get young people from deprived areas into college as they don’t pay fees anyway. If we wanted to address the issue of under education in those areas we’d be spending the money there on early primary educational resources.
It is not because we need more graduates; we have amongst the highest level of graduates in the world. The quality of many of those degrees is, in my opinion, questionable.
We have no Universities in the top 200 in the world. Trinity just about made it before because they “accidentally” gave false information to the accessing body. They have since been disqualified from that list completely.
Maybe we need to look at the quality of the 3rd level institutions we have, including the quality of the people teaching there and running things, before we decouple the consumer of the product (the student) from the cost of providing that product. Remembering that fees only cover a small proportion of the overall cost anyway.
So, do we want a good third level educational system (let’s not starting talking about being “world class”) which is properly funded and targets the areas we need as a society and an economy or do we want middleclass parents to send their middleclass kids to college and still afford holidays and car upgrades?
Given the massive advantage those students will enjoy throughout their lives as a result of their degree I see no issue with a Student Loan system. That way the Students will be more likely to demand quality from the service provider. Equally I have no objection to not charging them fees. The objective should be to have a system which is fit for purpose, offers value for money and given the best results possible. Whichever system does that is what we should go for. Ideology should not come into it.