I myself obtained a B.Sc. here in Science and then moved to Germany. On going there I expected the standard to be the same and I can assure you that was not the case. My German counterparts were much more capable than me in all areas of my subject, and most importantly at actually applying their knowledge to solving real problems. Where I knew of certain terms and remembered vaguely how I could solve EXAM questions on the topic – I had no significant experience at really working with and applying the material and thus felt completely undereducated in comparison to the others there. (This is an experience which I have shared with other Irish science and engineering graduates, from different Irish universities who also worked on the continent (in different European countries)).

Furthermore, Erasmus students from the continent often comment on how “easy” our system here is.

My opinion on the cause:
Each department in the universities here obtain funding related directly to the number of students they have! Thus, failing a student in 1st, 2nd or 3rd year = less funding for the department. The result is that nearly everyone who gets into science graduates and has little fear of being failed (entry points are gen fair low and have been seen down in the 200′s).

Should there be less graduates?? Maybe – there should be strict and properly regulated exams (possibly also a lot of continuous assessment to avoid the above mentioned exam problem). And most importantly the departments should be free to fail anyone who doesn’t meet the mark. This will result most likely in fewer graduates, but at least the graduates will be worth something! Or for the others that can’t make it have general degree’s or diplomas that they can opt out with.

I cannot speak for other areas but in science and engineering we really lag behind!! And artificially holding up the graduate numbers is pointless and something that we as a country will ultimately pay the price for! (Already warning bell’s are ringing in employers offices)

I am not convinced that moving away from a fractional reserve system would avoid the problems that led to the current crisis. The crisis was fundamentally about lack of regulation of the shadow banking system.

Of course the Fed (and other central banks in fractional systems) control the level of the required reserve ratio – it is not as if the banks are allowed free rein (or at least should not be) and banks generating cash ‘out of fresh air’ will simply be replaced by monetary authorities creating money out of fresh air.

Seems excessive and will not remove need for appropriate and enforced regulation.

Declan

It certainly is silly to flood the country for the benefit of restoration.

But flood restoration is an economic stimulus. It brings in insurance money. It reduces the savings rate. It increases consumption. It employs people. All in the short run.

This is a silver lining only. We’d rather not have the cloud. But a cloud with a silver lining is better than a cloud without a silver lining.

Sorry, this is kind of off-topic, but i would be interested to hear a local economist reaction to it, as it seems to be completely absent from the Irish economic discourse.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is planning to introduce the The American Monetary & Financial Security Act in the US Congress over the coming months. In a nutshell, the act would end fractional reserve banking. A Government Central Bank would be the only authority allowed to create money and banks would no longer be allowed to create credit money out of thin air.

I am not an economist, but it seems clear to me that this crisis was not, at root, caused by houses. It was caused by a fundamental flaw in the monetary system and i cannot see any proposals , bar this, that deal with the systemic problems. Is monetary reform a good idea or is it, as i have heard off some, fundamentally flawed itself? I would be interested to hear an economist’s opinion on the subject.

Here is a link to the act: http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf

Alfred O’Rahilly wrote a book, titled ‘money’, on the subject in, i think, 1941. It was published by Cork University Press. In it, he argues for monetary reform along similar lines as Kucinich’s act.

Why does he believe that no academic economist has had other non-academic work experience? And why is running a business the only criteria for having a useful contribution? The Thatcher phrase about being savaged by a dead sheep comes to mind for some reason.

There have now been 66 games with only 4 draws – a tad over 6% of the games played. None of the top eight teams have played out a draw, while six of the bottom eight have been involved in a draw – generally amongst themselves. Stoke City in 13th place are the only team to have drawn twice.