Fight Fees! Etc...

delta_bravo

I presume everyone got the email. Anyone going to the protest?

I suppose there will be a pretty decent turnout since it will be quite a hike in fees and its pretty much for definite this time. But if the pensioners over 70 arent getting an automatic medical card I think we can forget about contesting this.

Ah im sure the SU will save us all by returning to us our €150 student centre levy to pull us out of these tough times

33% God

delta_bravo wrote: »

I presume everyone got the email. Anyone going to the protest?

I suppose there will be a pretty decent turnout since it will be quite a hike in fees and its pretty much for definite this time. But if the pensioners over 70 arent getting an automatic medical card I think we can forget about contesting this.

Ah im sure the SU will save us all by returning to us our €150 student centre levy to pull us out of these tough times

Awesome attitude there. I see no reason why we won't be able to if we have large enough numbers. The government are our representatives, not rulers. They have to listen to the people.

I'm going, and I hope everyone else does too. If they do bring it in I won't be able to be here next year.

Brimmy

delta_bravo wrote: »

Ah im sure the SU will save us all by returning to us our €150 student centre levy to pull us out of these tough times

Oh, I see what you did there... that's funny :P

I'll probably go to this (first and last protest, well besides the time everyone in Secondary protested against the teachers strike), purely because I think the budget this year as a whole was a joke.

Dave!

Final year here

Stepherunie

I'm a postgrad and still going.

Fees for undergrads will probably lead to increases in postgrad fees.

1968

I'm marching for my younger siblings as well as me.


Monday 20th of October – Brian Lenihan Protest/Blockade. Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan will be chairing a meeting in the Quinn School of Business at 6:30 pm. It is important that we let him know that we will not accept cutbacks in our education. Meet outside the Quinn school at 5:50pm and let him know what you think. If he blocks our access to university, we'll block his!

Wednesday 22nd of October – THE BIG DUBLIN DEMO. This will be the highlight of the week when all colleges from across Dublin unite. It is starting at the Spire at 1:30 but buses will be leaving the Student Centre between 12:00 – 12:30.

mloc

What ever about a demonstration march in town (I get that, makes sense), blocking him from coming to UCD? Thats a great idea, lets block him, inevitably get scuffly (read: violent) and forget about engaging in a debate presenting some sort of alternative to fees!

Well done guys, to be honest most of the protest-at-anything-do-nothing-constructive timewasters shouldn't be in college anyway. UCD would be better off a bit more streamlined, IMO.

33% God

mloc wrote: »

What ever about a demonstration march in town (I get that, makes sense), blocking him from coming to UCD? Thats a great idea, lets block him, inevitably get scuffly (read: violent) and forget about engaging in a debate presenting some sort of alternative to fees!

Well done guys, to be honest most of the protest-at-anything-do-nothing-constructive timewasters shouldn't be in college anyway. UCD would be better off a bit more streamlined, IMO.

It's quite possible to do both.

Diorraing

1968 wrote: »

I'm marching for my younger siblings as well as me.


Monday 20th of October – Brian Lenihan Protest/Blockade. Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan will be chairing a meeting in the Quinn School of Business at 6:30 pm. It is important that we let him know that we will not accept cutbacks in our education. Meet outside the Quinn school at 5:50pm and let him know what you think. If he blocks our access to university, we'll block his!

What exactly do you hope to achieve by blocking him access to UCD?

Stepherunie

It's worked before.

Preventing Ministers from coming and doing there nice puff pieces that get them that nice and easy photo op and all cutesy smiles means that they realise that we're serious about no fees and we're not going to let up. It put pressure on and states our case.

I hope it stays very peaceful, violence will get us nowhere.

mad lad

ffs nobody thinks giving Lenihan a slap is going to change anything - there will be no violence.

delta_bravo

mad lad wrote: »

ffs nobody thinks giving Lenihan a slap is going to change anything - there will be no violence.

I do think a theatrical pie in the face would be quite good. He may even see the funny side

Stepherunie

mad lad wrote: »

ffs nobody thinks giving Lenihan a slap is going to change anything - there will be no violence.

That's the hope, but a non SU protest last week turned pretty ugly with a lot of abuse and the like hurled so you can't presume that everyone will be all nice and well behaved and peaceful.

mad lad

but a non SU protest last week turned pretty ugly

Which protest was this?

Mushy

mad lad wrote: »

Which protest was this?

Not fully sure if its the same one, but maybe when Martin Manseargh came to do something. Am having a stab in the dark at it though.

ciaranajl

What are you marching for?!

It's absolute HYPOCRISY to see the students' union and several other societies promoting "nights out", usually costing €10-20, and everyone is always eager to pay for that, because, you know, spending your cash on that and drink multiple times a week is just what the economy needs. Forget education.

Bottom line - if you can afford to go out several times a week and squander your money on alcohol, then you can pay up to €3000 for you to attend college. After all, aren't a lot of the people who attend UCD from fee-paying secondary schools where annual fees can reach up to €5000?

Education is essential for a healthy economy. A good education system requires funding.

AGGGGH. Go to the Trinity thread on this for more anti-march arguments so you can all see sense.

I swear if one more student union person comes into my lecture screaming about "we must fight this!", I will throw my laptop at him.


ARGH! One word: Spoiled.

Stepherunie

Okay have you seen UCD events? Most events during the week go beyond 7e per ticket. There'd be a few biggies through the year which are more but most average around 7 with UCD ents putting on at least one free event every week.

Secondly not everyone drinks, not everyone goes out several times per week. You're generalising to the extreme. A lot of people tend to go out maybe one big night per week. Personally I might go out 2 - 3 nights per week but I'll only drink one of those nights and will often just attend an event in UCD which keeps the cost down significantly.



The SU isn't arguing against funding for education - FFS that's insane. Most people are smart enough to realise that even if fees are brought in chances are that this wont' actually increase the level of 3rd level funding available to the Universities, it will just mean the government pays less.

The Presidents of the NUI Colleges and Trinity have advocated the Graduate tax purely for this reason. They see it as the only way that the sector will actually get the extra funding it requires to keep providing the current levels or service it provides and to further strengthen this in times to come.


To believe that the government will continue to fund the 3rd level sector whilst also introducing fees is insane, it just won't happen and as a result many of the colleges will end up further in debt.

As regards fee paying schools. Out of a class of 40, 5 people went to a fee paying school. No doubt as well that the current free 3rd level fees have influenced the number of parents who chose to send there children to fee paying schools. I bet you if fees were to be reintroduced, the numbers of students going to fee paying schools would decrease and the pressure on free schools, particularly in south county dublin would increase monumentally.



One word: Generalisations.

Tom65

ciaranajl wrote: »

What are you marching for?!

It's absolute HYPOCRISY to see the students' union and several other societies promoting "nights out", usually costing €10-20, and everyone is always eager to pay for that, because, you know, spending your cash on that and drink multiple times a week is just what the economy needs. Forget education.

Bottom line - if you can afford to go out several times a week and squander your money on alcohol, then you can pay up to €3000 for you to attend college. After all, aren't a lot of the people who attend UCD from fee-paying secondary schools where annual fees can reach up to €5000?

Education is essential for a healthy economy. A good education system requires funding.

AGGGGH. Go to the Trinity thread on this for more anti-march arguments so you can all see sense.

I swear if one more student union person comes into my lecture screaming about "we must fight this!", I will throw my laptop at him.


ARGH! One word: Spoiled.

Quick question: After two years in UCD, I have never been to an pay-in event run by the SU, does this mean I don't have to pay fees? Stepherunie is right. You're generalizing in the extreme.

To be honest, I'm not sure about fees. I can see why they could work in theory - people who can afford to pay do pay, thus more money, thus better universities.
Unfortunately, this is Ireland, and things never work here.
Firstly, when our grants system is so bad, why should we trust a fees system to work any better?
Secondly, how will people qualify for fees? I know people who, based on their parents' income, would have to pay fees, despite getting no financial support from their parents.
Thirdly, as (I think) someone already mentioned in this thread: Ireland has one of the lowest per-GDP spending on education of all OECD (looking around, I see spending on education hasn't increased since 2000). Why not see how our universities do with more government investment before introducing fees? None of the top spending countries in the OECD - Israel, Iceland, and Denmark - have fees.


I genuinely haven't made up my mind regarding fees. But it seems to me that this, like so much of the recent budget, is the easy option to make money.

Breezer

Just echoing what Steph and Tom said. It's pretty much what I've said in other threads already, except I'd also highlight the amount of waste that goes on in UCD as something to be looked at before fees are deemed a necessity.

Out of interest, how many of these threads do we have going at this stage?

ciaranajl

Firstly, trust me, certain parents won't be dissuaded by anything from sending their kids to fee-paying schools. Ireland has a very wealthy upperclass and paying 5k a year is nothing to them. In fact, 5k is nothing compared to American high schools.

OK, forget the SU organising nights out point. I made it up. I'll admit that.

But do you see the SU saying that people should limit how many society nights out they should attend so that they can be in a position to put their money towards more essential thingsl like education?

Basically, everything I've said directly concerning the fees issue is right - we should be paying more. However, the issue is whether or not the extra money we fork out will increase the total university funding. Everything that's been said about that is purely conjecture. Or is it...? Are there Government quotes to corroborate that they will pay less?

mloc

I personally think the "Free Education For Everyone!" text on the posters is hilarious. There is simply no such thing; if they put the reality of their statement, "Taxpayer Funded Education for Everyone!" there instead, I think their cause might be viewed differently.

Tom65

ciaranajl wrote: »

Firstly, trust me, certain parents won't be dissuaded by anything from sending their kids to fee-paying schools. Ireland has a very wealthy upperclass and paying 5k a year is nothing to them. In fact, 5k is nothing compared to American high schools.

OK, forget the SU organising nights out point. I made it up. I'll admit that.

But do you see the SU saying that people should limit how many society nights out they should attend so that they can be in a position to put their money towards more essential thingsl like education?

Basically, everything I've said directly concerning the fees issue is right - we should be paying more. However, the issue is whether or not the extra money we fork out will increase the total university funding. Everything that's been said about that is purely conjecture. Or is it...? Are there Government quotes to corroborate that they will pay less?

You say we should be paying more, but do you not think the government should be paying more? The 3rd level funding statistics have been brought up and few times, and when it comes to fees I think they're crucial to consider. I agree with the view of university as an 'investment' for the governmenet - the more money they put in the more they'll get out (theoretically speaking, anyway). 4% of our GDP (as opposed to the highest which would be around 9% for Israel, Denmark etc.) isn't a huge amount, and I think with our 'knowledge-based economy' (I HATE using that term) the economy relies a lot on college graduates.

mad lad

Mansergh pulled out, obviously there was no violenece.

mloc wrote: »

I personally think the "Free Education For Everyone!" text on the posters is hilarious. There is simply no such thing; if they put the reality of their statement, "Taxpayer Funded Education for Everyone!" there instead, I think their cause might be viewed differently.

It's pointed out, in the text on the back of the leaflet, that education should be fully funded through the tax system. 'Free' education simply means that you don't have to fees to enter education -that includes tutition fees and the registration fee. Education istelf is obviously not free, we already pay for it.

When the government sends you official documentation, it punctuates free as 'free'.

irish.rugby.fan

Written on the toilets in Quinn,

"Bring back fees, boggers and knackers out!"

Stabshauptmann

ciaranajl wrote: »

Firstly, trust me, certain parents won't be dissuaded by anything from sending their kids to fee-paying schools. Ireland has a very wealthy upperclass and paying 5k a year is nothing to them. In fact, 5k is nothing compared to American high schools.

Why should we trust you? Having a logical argument would be far more convincing than just "FACT" [sic]

OK, forget the SU organising nights out point. I made it up. I'll admit that.

Now I really cant see why we should "trust you".

Basically, everything I've said directly concerning the fees issue is right

Well arent you great :rolleyes:

lemon_sherbert

It's a difficult question, and I think there are good arguments on both sides.

The cutbacks are becoming evident, and I think most of us can agree that the universities are not receiving enough funding, the university heads are certainly making noise about it. In that respect, fees could add some much needed capital to the universities, as well as a level of independence in spending. However, inevitably, I think the government would use fees as an excuse to reduce their contribution to the universities, and then we're back at square one.

Fees will prevent many people from coming to college, those whose parents are unwilling to support them, whose parents cannot support them, and those who are struggling even now with part time jobs. I think the argument that everyone should be working part time jobs is faulty, some students are in lectures from 9 till 5 every day, some are commuters, and many courses are very demanding. I think there is an emphasis in this country on the minority who will be easily able to pay fees, perhaps media induced, on the fee paying schools in Dublin etc. However, as had been said in this thread already, if government funding was withdrawn from fee paying schools, the public system would not be able to support those who would have to leave private schools with a massive fee hike. I went to a private school, and there were many in the school whose parents struggled to pay for (what they considered) better opportunities for their daughters.

I agree with the argument that many people come to university who don't need to, because of the jobs they will end up working in. However, I don't think that limiting access on the basis of their parents earning power will weed out these people. It will merely isolate disadvantaged areas.

Perhaps with a sliding grants scale, and interest fee loans it could work. But I think the system requires more thought than is being put in, there is a definite lack of transparency in the decision making process, and though we think fees will be introduced, the public have received little to no information on the form of administration. Any such system is going to be very hard to administer, and some people will fall through the cracks.

I don't think it's a black and white issue, and maybe there would be a greater dedication to studies in the student body if a student knows they are paying for their time in the university, but I don't think, (in its present form anyhow) that the introduction of fees will solve the problems they (the gov't and the university heads) say it will. I know if I was starting all over and I knew I would have to pay for the experience, I'd be off to England in a flash.

Whew, long post! Anyway, just my thoughts on the issue:pac:

Stabshauptmann

Very good post, and I agree with it by and large. However just a FYI, we do have a sliding grant scale.

Personally, in tandem with increased funding, Id try and redesign how universities are funded, Id remove the direct link on student numbers and probably reduce the total number of places available.

What Id like to see is the universities providing the right courses rather than useless courses that will attract students (this is becoming a problem but not something to worry about just yet, Im looking at the situation in England and the US though and thinking this is something we need to nip in the bud).

Some might think that this goes against the principles of supply and demand, but the fact that students dont pay for their course makes supply and demand models redundant.

I think the current competition between third level institutes for students has a negative impact on the running of institutions and the quality of the education they deliver (I definitely think grade inflation is something to be addressed urgently).

The reason I bring this up in a fees debate is because I see poor resource management as being the fundamental problem with university budgets. In UCD the admin has roughly doubled since brady took over. Also I think bench marking is a farce. Its inaccurate and doesnt properly value job security, perks and the working environment. In short, I think that many university employees are paid far too much. In general public sector pay has risen to 120% private sector levels.


Like lemon_sherbert I dont believe that fee income would augment university budgets, I think government spending would just fall accordingly.

And as Ive said before I dont agree with targeting high earners for fees is fair, as they generate most of the tax income in this country, or wise, as it removes the incentive to work hard if you can have the same standard of living on a lower gross income.

Het-Field

It is for reasons outlined above, I have begun questioning whether the Labour Party hould be citing the abolition of 3rd level fees as a success. Its not about the success of the proposal in terms of an increase in numbers of students, who have directly benefitted from the scheme. It is more to do with the blatant lack of a contingency plan on the part of the Labour Party.

The party should have had the intellegence to know that this would create a major hole in the purse of 3rd level institutions. In spite of this, Ireland's 3rd level sector has had to compete, at a world level, on a negligable standard of funding (when compared with other institutions around the world). Furthermore, the grant is handing out money left, right, and centre. It is easy to fool the local authority, and get a handout from the government. In effect Irish students can be in reciept of two types of Government aid, and in some cases this is used as drinking money.

If we wish to tighten our belts, but continue to operate under the current system, then we need to consider our options. However, for too long, the 3rd level sector has been effectively held up by vested interests.

It is crucial that corporate sponsorship is accepted. If Mr Quinn had not contributed to the University, then the Commerce Student's would not have their beautiful, and modern building at the edge of the campus. If more such doners were found, UCD could see the building of wonderfully modern buildings. If corporate money could be used to attract top head hunted, academics, then its the way to go. It is quite easy to investigate potential doners, and ensure that they have the best interests of the University at heart. However, we cannot maintain the current system and expect to have a world class 3rd level system. I believe the free fees initiative can be maintained, along with the acceptance of corporate sponsorship.

Fluther

Reading this thread is giving me a headache...i rarely come onto this site and now i am remembering why...

@ Het-Field...criticise Labour all you want but they did not advocate the tax breaks offered to the super rich and reduction of income tax, like the PDs, which created holes in the Irish govt's revenue which in turn lead to less funding in education. I am not getting into an argument about economics here but i'm simply offering a different point of view.

@anyone in favour of fees...Are you off you trolley? Before i went on Erasmus i had a job and i paid tax. I did not mind paying it becos i felt i was benefiting with my almost free education etc. When i leave ucd i will not mind paying tax as it will bring benefits to both me and the society i live in. What i do mind is being charged again with university fees or being stung for €100 every time i go to A&E.

More funding for universities yes, but fees no. There is plenty of money wasted by the govt every year, maybe if that was curtailed then funding could be re allocated, rather than hitting at easy targets like 3rd level students.

Tayto2000

Het-Field wrote: »

It is for reasons outlined above, I have begun questioning whether the Labour Party hould be citing the abolition of 3rd level fees as a success. Its not about the success of the proposal in terms of an increase in numbers of students, who have directly benefitted from the scheme. It is more to do with the blatant lack of a contingency plan on the part of the Labour Party.

They shouldn't be. Read up on the history of fee abolition, it was a fairly blatant overture to the voting middle classes in 1996. No consultation with the Universities, no plan for an alternative funding model just a media announcement. I'm not sure if it was a misprint or a freudian slip, but the Tribune quoted Niamh Breathnach back in August as saying:

"I looked at the way the third level was funded extensively before I abolished fees. I found the simplest way to open the gates to all was to remove funding for all. I would be very disappointed if fees were re-introduced at this stage." :pac:

It's been political suicide to try and reverse it though and it's taken the onset of recession to really make it worthwhile in terms of political pain vs exchequer gain. Study after study has recommended a return of fees along with (crucially) an overhaul of the system as a whole. The return of fees alone would not be any sort of solution, as lemon_sherbert said, it's not a black and white problem.

Interesting article from the SBP here, written back when the tiger was still roaring...

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/06/12/story5553.asp

Tayto2000

Fluther wrote: »

@anyone in favour of fees...Are you off you trolley? Before i went on Erasmus i had a job and i paid tax. I did not mind paying it becos i felt i was benefiting with my almost free education etc. When i leave ucd i will not mind paying tax as it will bring benefits to both me and the society i live in. What i do mind is being charged again with university fees or being stung for €100 every time i go to A&E.

More funding for universities yes, but fees no. There is plenty of money wasted by the govt every year, maybe if that was curtailed then funding could be re allocated, rather than hitting at easy targets like 3rd level students.

And your argument against fees is...you personally don't want to pay them? Pay tax by all means, we all will or do, but tax revenues were not making it to 3rd level during the boom and with a black hole where the government coffers used to be don't hold your breath for any increase soon. There's been a 42% (Adjusted for inflation etc) drop in core funding per student since they were abolished because no successive government has had the incentive or will to tackle the issue. What would you propose as an alternative?