so.. whens this strike

Amtmann

I'm a PhD student, and I'll be walking right through the picket lines on Monday morning. I actually have work to do.

Amtmann

D-Generate wrote: »

I don't see the actual point of this strike. A day of action by the students? What do the government care if students attend lectures or not? Its not like it has any impact on the tax revenue for that day. Furthermore if the students decide not to attend lectures for the day then it just reinforces the idea that why should fees be free if students are not bothered attending lectures.

I fully endorse the idea of fees being reintroduced and I am student that would have to pay these fees. Currently Ireland's third level education system pales in comparison to other European countries and to the States. A major reason for this is the funding made available. If UCC is to maintain an international standard it needs a larger resource pool, this can only be achieved by reintroducing fees and increasing government funding. At the current rate of things and with impending budget cuts, getting a degree in UCC and not paying any fees would only deliver a piece of paper that would be relatively worthless in the eyes of our international counterparts.

The spin that the SU are putting on the fees debacle is horrendous. They have not been prepared to discuss any alternative arrangement and instead are vehemently against introduction of fees of any sort. They see third-level education as a human right, but I alway was under the assumption that third-level education is a priveledge.
It is my belief that fees should come back but there should be made wide availability of low-interest loans and an increase in the number of scholarships to those who are gifted in the summer examinations. Those dedicated to pursuing an active role in furthering their education would not be deterred by the inconvenience of accruing a loan over the 4 years, however those who go to college merely to delay entering the working world at low skill jobs would be deterred by the cost involved.
I have worked part-time jobs where my co-workers have completed 4-year degrees in Commerce, Arts and numerous other subjects. They have entered jobs that have not required the use of anything beyond what they knew from the Leaving Cert. Why should the nations tax payers contribute to funding these people who will contribute nothing more to society than if they had left the education system at 18?
Its about time that attending University stops becoming a passage to adulthood, because you are an adult at 18. Introducing fees can seek to rectify the situation so that those who are determined to succeed will be rewarded by receiving an education at a well funded university whilst those who are interested in just parties for 4 years will be deterred by the costs involved.

I could go on and offer the idea that the cost of fees are different for each degree. Fees would be calculated by looking at the mean tax revenue from graduates of that degree. High tax revenue means that the course produces graduates who contribute a large return in revenue and are in demand, hence fees should be reduced for this course so as to produce more candidates which will be returning high tax revenue. Similarly, those courses where the tax revenue of graduates is low should have to pay increased costs as the pay-off of generating graduates from this course isn't as good.
Unfortunately this idea comes across as quite elitist but I would bet my house that those studying Engineering, Medicine, Physics and Maths would favour this method. Those studying Archaeology, maybe not so.....

I was going to hit the "thanks" button for your post quoted above, but you let yourself down a bit with the last sentence. I appreciate the sentiment, but on the whole it's unfair for Archaeology in particular; most Archaeology students from second year onwards take their subject very seriously indeed. It's actually one of those subjects that students tend to become obsessed with. But certainly, Arts is a weedy corner of the garden. It's a shame that it's become the soft option for so many social parasites, because those who take it seriously and rise to the top of their fields (economics, politics, sociology, psychology, history) frequently become very influential in society.

robp

As a Archaeology student who would be partly in support of fees. I agree with most of D-Generate post (except that relating to archaeology!). There are far too many people who just drift into college without serious commitment because it’s seen as a essential rite of passage but in the long run its just devaluing degrees and a huge waste of tax payers money.
A fee that is comparable to other EU countries may encourage only the commited to apply. Obviously no one who is serious about getting a degree should be restricted entry by their own financial situation and if they are, those fees are completely unjustifiable.

yay_for_summer

Re: Dgenerate's idea of scaling fees, is it not a bit unfair. Medicine, engineering etc generally give better-paid jobs, which is why they return more tax. So you qualify from arts or whatever, become a teacher for example, and earn less than a doctor even though you paid more than the doctor did for your degree? The arts student seems to lose out twice there.

KnifeWRENCH

D-Generate wrote: »

Currently Ireland's third level education system pales in comparison to other European countries and to the States.

Does it really though? I was under the impression that Ireland had a pretty damn good education system at all levels. I know the States have excellent colleges but education is really expensive over there.

The spin that the SU are putting on the fees debacle is horrendous. They have not been prepared to discuss any alternative arrangement and instead are vehemently against introduction of fees of any sort. They see third-level education as a human right, but I alway was under the assumption that third-level education is a priveledge.

This I do agree with. There should have been more debate about the issue before the SU declared their position. It seems like "FUCC FEES" was their approach to endear themselves to the general student population. "LET'S HAVE A RATIONAL AND BALANCED DEBATE ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS OF THE POSSIBLE RE-INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR THIRD LEVEL EDUCATION" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

As for the shutdown, it won't affect me. I have no review classes Monday and don't need to use the library urgently, so I'll stay away. I hope that people who genuinely need to use the college Monday don't receive any abuse from the picketers.

Amtmann

square_igloo wrote: »

Does it really though? I was under the impression that Ireland had a pretty damn good education system at all levels. I know the States have excellent colleges but education is really expensive over there.

I don't know the stats, but I've always been astonished by the very poor writing skills consistently displayed by Irish UCC students. The majority of students that I've encountered do not know how to use a comma properly, and they have no idea what a semi-colon and a colon are for. This problem is endemic in UCC - as is the aversion shown by so many students to words made up of more than four syllables. I would say the Irish education system is failing badly. I know several people, who I would consider to have woefully sub-standard writing skills, now training to be primary teachers.

Fees might not be the way to go, but one thing that simply must happen is a merciless raising of standards. To pass First Year, students should get 55% minimum, not 40%. A grade ombudsman should be appointed to ensure that grade inflation doesn't follow.

deisedude

Furet wrote: »

I don't know the stats, but I've always been astonished by the very poor writing skills consistently displayed by Irish UCC students. The majority of students that I've encountered do not know how to use a comma properly, and they have no idea what a semi-colon and a colon are for. This problem is endemic in UCC - as is the aversion shown by so many students to words made up of more than four syllables. I would say the Irish education system is failing badly. I know several people, who I would consider to have woefully sub-standard writing skills, now training to be primary teachers.

Fees might not be the way to go, but one thing that simply must happen is a merciless raising of standards. To pass First Year, students should get 55% minimum, not 40%. A grade ombudsman should be appointed to ensure that grade inflation doesn't follow.

Are you serious? First of all i doubt there are any stats on whether or not people in Ireland can use commas because that would be a frivolous waste of time and money. So you think introducing fees will improve peoples punctuation? Jesus wept!:rolleyes:

Amtmann

deisedude wrote: »

Are you serious? First of all i doubt there are any stats on whether or not people in Ireland can use commas because that would be a frivolous waste of time and money. So you think introducing fees will improve peoples punctuation? Jesus wept!:rolleyes:

What?

Did you actually think about what I wrote at all, or did your knee just jerk forward uncontrollably?

De-Generate and Square Igloo raised the issue of how Irish education standards compare to those of other countries. I stepped in and mentioned 'stats', saying that I had none to hand. You fatuously seem to think I meant statistics pertaining to comma usage. Given the context of the preceding post it's pretty obvious that I was referring to Irish education rankings as they compare with those of other countries; (il)literacy rates would be a rather obvious example. I then pointed out that in my experience, many UCC students can't write cogent English. This indicates to me that our education standards aren't as good as some people like to think they are.

It's also fairly obvious that the widespread inability of Irish third level students to punctuate sentences correctly indicates that a major problem exists in our education system. I certainly don't think that people who are unable to write properly after 18 years or so of education should be awarded a degree (particularly Arts students); still less should they be placed in charge of the education of primary school children. If this isn't a matter of concern to you, it should be. And how you can believe that an investigation into this basic (and embarrassing) failure of our system would be "a frivolous waste of money" is beyond me.

As to how you arrived at your own 'interesting' interpretation of my post, that is your own problem. In fact I clearly wrote that fees might not be the answer.

bleg

Furet wrote: »

I'm a PhD student, and I'll be walking right through the picket lines on Monday morning. I actually have work to do.

final year student. ditto.

i don't support these actions in any way

deisedude

Furet wrote: »

What?

Did you actually think about what I wrote at all, or did your knee just jerk forward uncontrollably?

De-Generate and Square Igloo raised the issue of how Irish education standards compare to those of other countries. I stepped in and mentioned 'stats', saying that I had none to hand. You fatuously seem to think I meant statistics pertaining to comma usage. Given the context of the preceding post it's pretty obvious that I was referring to Irish education rankings as they compare with those of other countries; (il)literacy rates would be a rather obvious example. I then pointed out that in my experience, many UCC students can't write cogent English. This indicates to me that our education standards aren't as good as some people like to think they are.

It's also fairly obvious that the widespread inability of Irish third level students to punctuate sentences correctly indicates that a major problem exists in our education system. I certainly don't think that people who are unable to write properly after 18 years or so of education should be awarded a degree (particularly Arts students); still less should they be placed in charge of the education of primary school children. If this isn't a matter of concern to you, it should be. And how you can believe that an investigation into this basic (and embarrassing) failure of our system would be "a frivolous waste of money" is beyond me.

As to how you arrived at your own 'interesting' interpretation of my post, that is your own problem. In fact I clearly wrote that fees might not be the answer.

For a start how do you know that there is a widespread inability among students to punctuate properly? Are you reading everyones essays or something? My 'interpretation' was meant to be sarcatic by the way.

P.S. Your statement regarding art students is downright condescending.

Amtmann

deisedude wrote: »

For a start how do you know that there is a widespread inability among students to punctuate properly? Are you reading everyones essays or something?

Something like that. (Hint: Not everyone on this board is an undergraduate student. Some of us have actually taught and/or tutored.)

P.S. Your statement regarding art students is downright condescending.

Really? If Arts students - who probably rely more on the written word than the students of any other faculty - cannot write properly, then they should not be awarded a degree in my opinion. English, Sociology, Philosophy, Geography, History (which is my own subject): all of these require an ability to write clearly and effectively to a very high standard. I can't believe you'd take offence to this blatantly obvious fact. Grow up and stop throwing a tantrum whenever you read something that makes you uncomfortable.

deisedude

Furet wrote: »

Something like that. (Hint: Not everyone on this board is an undergraduate student. Some of us have actually taught and/or tutored.)



Really? If Arts students - who probably rely more on the written word than the students of any other faculty - cannot write properly, then they should not be awarded a degree in my opinion. English, Sociology, Philosophy, Geography, History (which is my own subject): all of these require an ability to write clearly and effectively to a very high standard. I can't believe you'd take offence to this blatantly obvious fact. Grow up and stop throwing a tantrum whenever you read something that makes you uncomfortable.

Effectively what you are saying is that if students don't know where to put a colon or comma they shouldnt graduate. I would think being able to comprehend and illustrate their knowledge of the material they have learned should entitle them to a degree.

Amtmann

deisedude wrote: »

Effectively what you are saying is that if students don't know where to put a colon or comma they shouldnt graduate.

Of course.
How can you argue that a student of English or History should graduate if he or she doesn't know how to use a comma for Christ's sake? These subjects are founded on writing!

Now, granted, the choice of using a colon or a comma is often stylistic; indeed, it's very possible to write a whole thesis without using a colon, and that's fine by me. One should know how to use one, however. Most essays I've corrected (and I've corrected A LOT) have contained fundamental errors. Whole sections of particular essays were barely intelligible. You frequently get essays laced with words that together do not actually form sentences at all. You get this again and again and again. When that happens, then yes, in my opinion (and in the opinion of quite a few others) the Degree should not be awarded because the student is simply incapable of presenting his or her argument or interpretation. For subjects like History and English, this amounts to a total failure.

I don't know why you're so recalcitrant about this. It's a big problem in Irish universities and it needs to be tackled. I'd go further and say that such people shouldn't even make it into third level to begin with; they shouldn't pass their Leaving Certs until they have mastered the skill of writing. Yet they get Cs and Bs in Higher Level exams. It's incredible really: instead of being helped to write properly, they are shovelled out the doors of secondary schools and are stuffed into places like Boole IV. Standards have dropped across the board as a result. This problem needs to be fixed; the bar needs to be raised.

But you seem to be in favour of dumbing it all down to the lowest common denominator.

fredmc

Furet wrote: »

Of course.
It's a big problem in Irish universities and it needs to be tackled. I'd go further and say that such people shouldn't even make it into third level to begin with; they shouldn't pass their Leaving Certs until they have mastered the skill of writing. Yet they get Cs and Bs in Higher Level exams. It's incredible really: instead of being helped to write properly, they are shovelled out the doors of secondary schools and are stuffed into places like Boole IV. Standards have dropped across the board as a result. This problem needs to be fixed; the bar needs to be raised.

Not every course needs a high standard of English. I can't see a Maths Science student being failed for having poor punctuation. Wouldn't it be a better idea to teach students how to write properly instead of refusing them entry to college?

Amtmann

fredmc wrote: »

Not every course needs a high standard of English. I can't see a Maths Science student being failed for having poor punctuation.

Quite right. Hence my emphasis on Arts courses, because most of these rely almost exclusively on the written word. A third level English student who doesn't know how to punctuate properly is as bad as a third level maths student who can't do basic algebra.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to teach students how to write properly instead of refusing them entry to college?

Of course that would be preferable. But students should learn that skill before they enter third level. That's what primary and second level are for. Students applying to enter third level should have already acquired the pre-requisite skills. To insist otherwise is to permit dumbing down. Universities are supposed to be centres of excellence.

D-Generate

I hope that I do not get any hassle tomorrow or that I will not be called a scab when I break the picket line to get my work done. I'm fairly certain that it will be a relatively small turn out. With so many people having gone home due to lectures finishing last week, I expect only the die hard SU fans to be out picketing.

EDIT:
After checking the UCC forums it appears that support for the picketing is minimal across the board. Of the over 2000 students that voted in favour of the strike action I am intrigued to see the percentage that actually attends a strike.

keane2097

D-Generate wrote: »

I hope that I do not get any hassle tomorrow or that I will not be called a scab when I break the picket line to get my work done. I'm fairly certain that it will be a relatively small turn out. With so many people having gone home due to lectures finishing last week, I expect only the die hard SU fans to be out picketing.

EDIT:
After checking the UCC forums it appears that support for the picketing is minimal across the board. Of the over 2000 students that voted in favour of the strike action I am intrigued to see the percentage that actually attends a strike.

I heard the whole thing was called off...

KnifeWRENCH

Nah it's still going ahead.
I won't be around college tomorrow so I have no idea how it'll go or how many will show up. Maybe someone can report here tomorrow evening? If not, it will almost certainly be discussed here:
http://forum.ucc.ie/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=18146

Rebecca4welfare

I'm speaking here just as myself like, but a picket isn't what was voted for. I won't be breaking it myself as I've rearranged a few things and got books out of hte library for study at home but I think that a picket is a bit pointless.

The vote was for a day of action. I believed that this would be a day of demonstration and protest on campus, where students would be on campus, mobilised and being active in the fight against fees. I think tomorrow is going to be an embarassment to be honest.

D-Generate

Well the group FEE are the same group who caused a national student embarrassment at NUI Galway too. Anything organized by them or even having their participation is something that I could not partake in.

deRanged

I just arrived in, there's no pickets or strikes or anything on any of the main campus gates.

Aodan83

Far as I can tell, they have like 2 people on each gate. Nowhere near the mass turn out they were expecting, I'd imagine. It was a bit of a non-event to be honest, I was expecting so much more from those guys!!

deRanged

there's a small protest at the Boole library gate.



I spoke to Keith O'Brien UCCSU welfare officer to voice my support for fees

D-Generate

deRanged wrote: »

there's a small protest at the Boole library gate.



I spoke to Keith O'Brien UCCSU welfare officer to voice my support for fees

kinda reminds me of


Oh except for the fact that the "cause" supported by those numpties in the SU is a bit of a mole hill. But to Keith O'Brien, I say "Student Power!". Say it loud and proud Keith.... loud and proud....

keane2097

D-Generate wrote: »

I don't see the actual point of this strike. A day of action by the students? What do the government care if students attend lectures or not? Its not like it has any impact on the tax revenue for that day. Furthermore if the students decide not to attend lectures for the day then it just reinforces the idea that why should fees be free if students are not bothered attending lectures.

I fully endorse the idea of fees being reintroduced and I am student that would have to pay these fees. Currently Ireland's third level education system pales in comparison to other European countries and to the States. A major reason for this is the funding made available. If UCC is to maintain an international standard it needs a larger resource pool, this can only be achieved by reintroducing fees and increasing government funding. At the current rate of things and with impending budget cuts, getting a degree in UCC and not paying any fees would only deliver a piece of paper that would be relatively worthless in the eyes of our international counterparts.

The spin that the SU are putting on the fees debacle is horrendous. They have not been prepared to discuss any alternative arrangement and instead are vehemently against introduction of fees of any sort. They see third-level education as a human right, but I alway was under the assumption that third-level education is a priveledge.
It is my belief that fees should come back but there should be made wide availability of low-interest loans and an increase in the number of scholarships to those who are gifted in the summer examinations. Those dedicated to pursuing an active role in furthering their education would not be deterred by the inconvenience of accruing a loan over the 4 years, however those who go to college merely to delay entering the working world at low skill jobs would be deterred by the cost involved.
I have worked part-time jobs where my co-workers have completed 4-year degrees in Commerce, Arts and numerous other subjects. They have entered jobs that have not required the use of anything beyond what they knew from the Leaving Cert. Why should the nations tax payers contribute to funding these people who will contribute nothing more to society than if they had left the education system at 18?
Its about time that attending University stops becoming a passage to adulthood, because you are an adult at 18. Introducing fees can seek to rectify the situation so that those who are determined to succeed will be rewarded by receiving an education at a well funded university whilst those who are interested in just parties for 4 years will be deterred by the costs involved.

I could go on and offer the idea that the cost of fees are different for each degree. Fees would be calculated by looking at the mean tax revenue from graduates of that degree. High tax revenue means that the course produces graduates who contribute a large return in revenue and are in demand, hence fees should be reduced for this course so as to produce more candidates which will be returning high tax revenue. Similarly, those courses where the tax revenue of graduates is low should have to pay increased costs as the pay-off of generating graduates from this course isn't as good.
Unfortunately this idea comes across as quite elitist but I would bet my house that those studying Engineering, Medicine, Physics and Maths would favour this method. Those studying Archaeology, maybe not so.....

tl;dr

Only joking, excellent post Kieran - more or less articulates my exact views on the matter. I'm going to be forwarding this in emails to people I've been having arguments with as it avoids the need to write something similar out myself :pac:

keane2097

deisedude wrote: »

I would think being able to comprehend and illustrate their knowledge of the material they have learned should entitle them to a degree.

I know this is from a few days ago, but I feel the need to address this point which I believe is just insufferably silly.

Being able to illustrate your knowledge of material of any sort to an acceptable level requires a corresponding acceptable level of proficiency in the language of a subject. Granted, that's different in maths than it is in philosophy, but the point is the same.

Someone writing a third year essay in English, Philosophy, History etc. who uses improper grammar should be immediately marked down as they have displayed an inability to communicate effectively. Communicating effectively requires appropriate use of language, it can not be achieved in spite of it.

This idea that a person who can use garbled English but can "get their point across" being deserving of a degree is just so fatuous. It's a degree FFS, it's not a Junior Cert honour - it's actually supposed to be worth something.

Awarding degrees to people, certainly people in the courses mentioned if not all the rest as well, who fail to display an ability to communicate at the absolute pinnacle of the English language diminishes any degree awarded by the University in question by an enormous amount imo.

captainspeckle

keane2097 wrote: »

I know this is from a few days ago, but I feel the need to address this point which I believe is just insufferably silly.

Being able to illustrate your knowledge of material of any sort to an acceptable level requires a corresponding acceptable level of proficiency in the language of a subject. Granted, that's different in maths than it is in philosophy, but the point is the same.

Someone writing a third year essay in English, Philosophy, History etc. who uses improper grammar should be immediately marked down as they have displayed an inability to communicate effectively. Communicating effectively requires appropriate use of language, it can not be achieved in spite of it.

This idea that a person who can use garbled English but can "get their point across" being deserving of a degree is just so fatuous. It's a degree FFS, it's not a Junior Cert honour - it's actually supposed to be worth something.

Awarding degrees to people, certainly people in the courses mentioned if not all the rest as well, who fail to display an ability to communicate at the absolute pinnacle of the English language diminishes any degree awarded by the University in question by an enormous amount imo.

nicely said.

ReacherCreature

deRanged wrote: »

I just arrived in, there's no pickets or strikes or anything on any of the main campus gates.

Aodan83 wrote: »

Far as I can tell, they have like 2 people on each gate. Nowhere near the mass turn out they were expecting, I'd imagine. It was a bit of a non-event to be honest, I was expecting so much more from those guys!!

Sounds like a disaster! Thought there'd be a mass protest or something.

Chuckled at yer man in the middle's sign, "You've Made Me Very Very Angry!"

Amtmann

Would TheBigCheese22 et al care to share with us some of their reflections on the success or otherwise yesterday's events?

Aodan83

Now that you mention it, BigCheese's absence is rather noticeable. He didn't seem too chuffed with the turn out when I met him at the gates yesterday!!