Surely you only have to pay tuition fees if you already have a degree? Are you paying for your second degree?

Or are you referring to your living costs? Because many students also pay their own living costs.

This is my first degree and I have to pay tuition fees as our combined earnings go just over the ceiling for the grant. They do not take into consideration any outgoings. Thats why it annoys me to see many, many people on grants just waste it, don’t bother turning up and fail the course.

Fees should be free for your first degree once its a full time degree.

Not all students are out on the piss, though. I can only speak for my own son, but he’s lucky if he can get out once a week, The rest of the time, he’s at home. He can’t afford to be out on the last 24/7. I do agree with means testing the grant; if daddy is in a high paying job and can well afford to pay his little darling’s college fees, then he should. The area I live in has plenty of kids who would love to go to college, but can’t afford to, which is a crying shame.

Going on the piss is part of the problem though. In first year there were over 120 of us. Now in third year there are 27. Most of them dropped out because of laziness and a “I can’t be arsed attitude”. Most if those in year 1 and 2 had grants. What a waste of money!

Those who genuinely need the grant aren’t out often, but those that are getting it when they don’t need it give a bad name to the system by living so comfortably.

I don’t think the issue is that people are getting grants even when ‘daddy is in a well paid job’. I think they’re referring to people being means tested on their savings as well as their incomes. The parents income has always been means tested

FG VS L another round of the phoney war. We fight we kiss we make up that’s what lovers do.Drama school.

Spot on Colin. My comment saying the same thing was deleted. Farmers obviously have more power than I realised.

That’s right, sure it’s the farmers that are causing all this, they caused the the collapse of the economy too! Fool!

That’s some jerky knee you have there, Tara.

Hope it doesn’t jerk my foot in the direction of your behind Colin!

Well, if it keeps it from your mouth, no harm.

You’d know all about foot in mouth Colin, try taking it out every now and again. :)

My son started his first year in college in September. Now, he was lucky enough to be accepted as part of the HEAR Scheme: http://www.accesscollege.ie/hear/index.php . His career guidance councellor was the one who encouraged him to apply for it. The college he attends had an orientation weekend for the 150 students who got in through this scheme…..and a lot of them were the children of farmers. Yet the kid who lives next door to me who had also applied for the same scheme was turned down. No-one’s saying that the farmers have caused all of this, but I’ll be damned if I’ve ever met a poor farmer. I await the avalanche of red thumbs.

To be fair, as a rural dweller, I do know small farmers who struggle. In spite of what FootInMouth lady might think, I am not anti-farmer. But there is sonething incredibly unfair for the child of a PAYE parent on 40k being denied a grant while the child of a farmer with nearly a million in assets, who stands to inherit those assets, to be provided with a free 3rd level educaton at the PAYE parent’s expense. At the very least I believe there should be a lien on the assets which is realised on transfer. That would be far fairer. And 750k, as proposed is a very generous allowance.

No ,jumping to the defence of their core vote.

Inform me of how it is just wealthy farmers and not all business or asset owners?

Do you believe that a builders cement mixer, van and other tools should be taken into account. And if this brings him over the means test should he sell his van or one of his other tools to send his child to school.

This is what you want farmers to do. Land is only the same as a tool, with our the land they have no tools. So if they sell 10 acres of land for one child they are seriously reducing there income for the rest of there lives.

Would you expect a business owner to downsize there premises in order to send there child to college, and this reducing their income from now on.

Why don’t we bring the family home into a means test. Surely people can sell there family home and down size it when it comes to paying for their kids to go to college.

There’s sone point in what you say, but if a business has assets of over 750k and not generating a real profit of over 40k, you’d have to ask why the business owner doesn’t sell it up and live off the interest on 750k instead of working. It’s too easy for accountants to be creative and conjure up losses and write offs at the right time. I have no issue with perhaps allowing the payment to be deferred, and a liwn put on assets until the business is successful enough to generate enough cash to pay the fees.

Neasa, A farmer would not have to keep on selling off land to send children to college if the value of his or her assets fell below €750,000. Only savings and assets above €750,000 are to be taken into account, so it’s not the same as asking a builder to sell his tools etc.

The grant will be still based on people’s pay but anyone who is self employed ( such as farmers) should have to declare huge savings or assets. Again this is a common sense approach and should have been implemented years ago.

Michael, if a farmer is wealthy, his or her children won’t qualify for a grant, because they’ll be over the income threshold.

There are arguments for considering business assets, including farms, when determining who gets a grant, but as the matter stands these are assessed on income and no “wealthy” families, farmers or otherwise currently qualify.

That doesn’t change the fact that its the right thing to do. The only opposition to this comes from farmers, I wonder why….