so.. whens this strike

Benhonan

My guess is that he's advocating a general shift in the number of college places available, rather than specifically changing allocation of places based on economic needs every year. That smacks a little bit of the Iron Curtain, but I suppose lessening the number of places in courses that are not seen to have a significant contribution to economic growth might not be a bad idea. I'm not against education for the sake of education. It worked for the Ancient Greeks, and I believe it's a bit of a generalisation to say that Arts degrees are only useful for training secondary school teachers. There are a lot of subjects which can be studied through arts, and if nothing else it will give research skills which could be useful for future employers. Whether or not they are useful enough to warrant the level of government investment put into them is another question, one to which I won't even pretend to know the answer. I don't want to get into the more heated area of the debate, as I haven't got the facts to back up statements, something which everyone should try to aim for. I will say though that I think Keane2097's argument about prioritising and reforming college places doesn't seem to link in directly to re-introducing fees, and I'd like to hear more from him on this matter.

My reason for opposing fees is more social than economic. As things stand, with free fees, there are very few people from under-privileged backgrounds attending college. Now you could say that bringing in a more comprehensive academic scholarship system would solve this problem, but standards of teaching in some areas, as well as having poor access to grinds and no support at home makes it difficult for these people to achieve their full academic potential in school. There's the argument that 'well if they're good enough they'll have no problem getting a loan and paying it back when they're earning.' The problem here is that working class people do not have a culture of confidence and pride in academia. I'm not going to go quote the whole John Lennon song, but if you could have it playing on youtube in the background reading this maybe it would help.

So my opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that I would prefer to see a greater number of people attending college, rather than a higher quality of education for those that can afford it. I would stand by this even in the current economic climate.

On the spat between Keane and bigcheese. Having read through both of your posts in this forum I've drawn my own conclusions. Keane I had a slight run in with earlier on, but I find him to be quite articulate and good at using basic logic. Ideologically I disagree with him, but I respect his opinions. Cheese on the other hand, strikes me as a smarmy, self-righteous character who will make snide remarks out one side of his mouth and allege bullying out the other. Considering I've never met the guy, I didn't like that he referred to me as a 'tosser' on the forums, especially considering he's auditor of a political society whose views for the most part I would agree with. To be honest I don't like the way he conducts himself on these boards and he's the major obstacle for me getting involved with labour next year.

So I suppose while i'm anti-fees, all the points go to keane in terms of cohesion of argument and basic etiquette.

thebigcheese22

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't agree with you. Nobody should have third level education as a right. It should be a privilege earned by academic endeavour. People should get into college based on evaluations of their suitability for it. This can be assessed through past performance i.e. the leaving cert, interviews, essays etc.

I agree that people should have the intellectual capacity to enter third-level education, which is judged by the Leaving Cert (but it should count on something more concrete, rather than one exam). I just think that once people have this capacity, nothing should hinder their getting an education, third-level or whatever. I think the word 'right' supposes that anyone, no matter how lazy or unsuitable for college, should enter it, which is a tad misleading. I think it means on a financial basis, rather than an intellectual one.

Places should be limited in courses where there is no demand for graduates. For example, I fail to see the reason why thousands of Arts graduates are churned out each year hoping to fill non-existent secondary school teacher roles. The jobs aren't there, stop training people to fill them.

I disagree. I don't think education should solely be about practicality. Why do we study Irish? It's never used by most people, yet it has a value outside of practicality. Same goes with Arts, while there is no set degree at the end of it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. Where else could one study History to become a historian, or English for journalism (if they don't want to move out of Cork).
And btw I'm not doing Arts, I'm actually as bad as anyone for those Arts jokes!

Anybody who wants to train away in a discipline in which we don't need graduates should be free to pay for themselves to do so, but there's no way the tax payer should have to foot the bill. I for one do not see it as a useful way to spend my taxes continuing to train people in third level courses for jobs which simply do not exist. People do not have a "right" to be trained in any discipline they wish, regardless of whether society needs people with that training or not.

That's a fair enough argument. I suppose I just can't see it happening that people pay nothing for degrees like Engineering, but have to pay a few grand for Arts. In that scenario, we would get hardly any Arts graduates and it would be too far in the other direction.

If someone wants to train to be a clown the taxpayer won't pay for it. Why? Because it's just not useful. The exact same logic can be applied to a vast range of college courses.

One could argue its useful for kids!
And are you advocating the closure of CIT in that case, being the ultimate clown college?! :P I kid, I kid....

I'd imagine it's more a money saving venture by the government rather than an attempt to increase funding to the colleges tbh.

Agree with you there. I just don't think it will raise much, for all the trouble that it will bring.

This is not a logically reasoned out point at all tbh. I'll take you through it:-

1. After fees were abolished, entry to third level education increased.

Grand.

2. If they are brought back the number of students attending third level education will decline, hence less graduates will be produced.

Grand.

3. Our economy will therefore be hindered.

No. Sorry. Wrong. Points 1 & 2 are self-evidently correct, but point 3 is pulled out of nowhere. Where is the logical progression between points 2 & 3? One is put in mind of the great Underpants Gnome meme when reading this argument:

1. Collect underpants
2. ??????
3. Profit

I maintain there are a few major question mark steps between "less people attending college" and "worse economy". You might wish to enlighten me, but I don't see, in the current climate, how continuing to pay the vast sums of money necessary to train people for non-existent jobs is going to anything but a pointless drain on the economy.

Aidan talked about that one so I won't go into detail. Basically I think in a time of recession there should be more people going to college, and yes, attending those courses which will be most needed e.g. Engineering, Science etc. I just don't think the reintroduction of fees as it is proposed now will do anything to help that. Tho I disagree, I can see the merit in your scheme for paying more for less practical degrees. However, I don't think the Government will go down that route next week.

I believe my beliefs are highly irrelevant. What if I believe that the level will be gradually moved upwards, allowing more and more people to get to college for free? Does one baseless opinion balance out another? This really is a pointless side to attack the argument from as it's all baseless conjecture.

I believe it is a more than educated guess, based on the previous form of this Government.

Tbh I think the most realistic way fees are going to be repealed is if there is a collapse in Government. (A very realistic scenario given the current political instability. Saying that, I will still attend protests and action against it.

Now I'm not trying to be snide here although I realise that that's how it might come across, but can you see the argument, based on what you've said there, that your degree is completely pointless in terms of the value it adds to the workforce of the society.

What is the value of having you spend four years learning a load of information that I, or anybody else, can go away and find in a book in the unlikely event I'll ever need it? The only reason anyone needs a commerce degree is to put themselves on a level playing field in the job hunt with other people with commerce degrees (commerce simply being an example, there are many degrees which are equally or even more vapid imo).

When you get a job after you finish your degree very likely you'll see that the four years you spent in University was largely a waste, and you could have been trained into your job in two weeks if you hadn't needed the degree to get it in the first place.

That did come across as snide, but probably less so than your previous criticism of Arts...

It might have come across that my Commerce course is all about learning reams of information. It isn't but I definitely think there should be more innovation brought into the course. For example, in Marketing why not make us come up with a whole campaign for a fictional product? Even assignments coming up with our own conclusions have been few and far between. Tbh I think it is better to ask a full Commerce student about that, as I spent a quarter of my time doing my language, and nearly a half in Second Year.

Also, I would totally disagree with calling Commerce vapid. Ask deisedude or others, it is far from that.

I disagree with your insinuation that the four years I spend doing Commerce is going to be wasted. Firstly, as a language student I will spend Third Year in France which will hopefully make me fluent in a language, giving me an advantage over those coming straight from Leaving Cert or others.
Also, while learning information and reading books might be considered not innovative, it is the only way we can enlighten ourselves with the ideas of our forefathers. Learning about the works of Max Weber, or John Maynard Keynes, is certainly not a fruitless exercise. The work I will do in the next three years could no way be done in four weeks. Ask other Commerce students and I'm sure they will say its a rewarding, informative course.

This is a different option and it's not a bad suggestion. My major contention with it is that I believe we have too many people in college either way. It would be superior imo to be producing less graduates of a higher quality than to continue to produce large volumes of lower quality graduates for non-existant jobs like we are today, regardless of how it's paid for.

I agree with Benhonans views on this, tho I can see the argument for and against.

FWIW, this thread was about the strike until you made it about intimidation, respect and people not being the "brightest penny in the fountain". Clearly we're only allowed to go as far off topic as you decide, and that seems to be until somebody pulls you up with questions you can't answer.

Yeah you're right, I made this thread far too personal and I apologise. I can obviously see you're far from not being 'the brightest penny in the fountain', as you have made some very worthwhile policy ideas. Though I made that remark in jest it does come across as rude and idiotic and I'm sorry.
Same goes to benhonan, in another thread I made a throw-away remark that was insensitive, I didn't realise it until his post there and I've apologised to him in a PM.

So you shall hear no more idiotic personal jibes from me. Volitaire's famous quote and all that jazz

deisedude

In relation to big cheeses last post. Second year commerce does involve a lot more hands on projects. For example there is a group innovation project for a fictional company ala the marketing example given. First year has a lot less hands on stuff but i suppose thats to be expected of first year in any course

thebigcheese22

deisedude wrote: »

In relation to big cheeses last post. Second year commerce does involve a lot more hands on projects. For example there is a group innovation project for a fictional company ala the marketing example given. First year has a lot less hands on stuff but i suppose thats to be expected of first year in any course

Yeah I'm delighted to hear it. I just think calling Commerce (and Commerce with French) a vapid course is an insult to its students who find it challenging and interesting. Sure Engineering degrees are more practical, but how are people to become economists etc without an appropriate degree?

Dudess

deisedude wrote: »

The introduction of fees is elitist

Only if you interpret it as so - if that were the only reason for the reintroduction (and it isn't even one of them) you might have some case for fighting it, but the bottom line is: third level institutions in this country are haemorrhaging money, in particular UCC. A continuance of things as they are, is absolutely unsustainable. A list of reasons was already given - what wasn't included is the fact staff contracts are not being renewed, no matter how badly the departments need them to be. Not only temporary contracts - full-time positions that become vacated due to retirement, resignation etc are not being restaffed. Departments are being put under crazy pressure.

The university will get to a stage where it won't even be able to function properly and give students the support they need. I mean, where do those who won't face up to this reality expect the money to come from?

The taxpayer covers enough with primary and secondary. Not everyone goes on to third level. Why should every taxpayer foot the bill for something that not everyone will avail of?
Certain people take the piss out of free third level also - viewing college as three or four years of dossing. Probably more than likely to be middle-class people too - fees might soften their cough a bit. When I was in university it was the people from low-income backgrounds who worked hardest and got the highest results. They obviously took it less for granted. And wealthy people not paying third level fees is ludicrous. It's like Michael Smurfit getting the free medical card and Michael O'Leary's wife getting children's allowance.

I can't see any other option besides a rigorously means-tested fees system. It's got nothing to do with elitism. I agree education is a right - primary and secondary. If third level is a right, then it's a right of which many people don't avail.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I do agree with the re-introduction of fees (maybe with some kind of low interest loan system or summat). However, I do think that the SU are probably doing the right thing by being so unequivocably opposed to it, because the Government will probably do as much as they are let to get away with in terms of the actual cost of the fees, how people are supposed to be able to afford them, how it will affect grants etc. Fees are coming in, I assume the SU realises this, but having them taking a "We-ain't-taking-no-****-from-you" stance is more likely to result in a better outcome as far as students are concerned.

keane2097

Benhonan wrote: »

I believe it's a bit of a generalisation to say that Arts degrees are only useful for training secondary school teachers.

Just to clarify this point, I understand that Arts is not such a narrow course as I may have inadvertently suggested - I didn't mean to suggest that's all it produced, it was simply the first example that came to mind.

I haven't had time to catch up on the whole thread as I was away for the weekend, I will as soon as I get a chance.

deisedude

I've heard that an announcement over the fees issue is to be made in the next month. Could anyone enlighten me if this is true?

thebigcheese22

deisedude wrote: »

I've heard that an announcement over the fees issue is to be made in the next month. Could anyone enlighten me if this is true?

Yup, apparantly he's delayed it til next month at least

I'm not sure if this is good or bad news, but I think the latter, as maybe Batt is realising that the Budget has screwed over normal working people so much that they really can't afford fees. I'm still not sure tho.

deisedude

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Yup, apparantly he's delayed it til next month at least

I'm not sure if this is good or bad news, but I think the latter, as maybe Batt is realising that the Budget has screwed over normal working people so much that they really can't afford fees. I'm still not sure tho.

I wonder is his plan to make the announcement during May because all college students will be doing exams and therefore he will be spared from protests

keane2097

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Yup, apparantly he's delayed it til next month at least

I'm not sure if this is good or bad news, but I think the latter, as maybe Batt is realising that the Budget has screwed over normal working people so much that they really can't afford fees. I'm still not sure tho.

I rather imagine it's simply to avoid compounding the already bad press the government were certain to get on Tuesday - they've simply put off telling us some of the bad news to avoid being hammered for everything at once...

Dean D

deisedude wrote: »

I wonder is his plan to make the announcement during May because all college students will be doing exams and therefore he will be spared from protests

That's exactly what they're doing; waiting until the student body can't mobilise.

bleg

well if there are ****ers protesting during my finals i'm going to grab my shotgun.

in fact, they would make me very very angry.

Aodan83

bleg wrote: »

well if there are ****ers protesting during my finals i'm going to grab my shotgun.

in fact, they would make me very very angry.

They're hopin that noone will go protestin durin the exams. Can't see that many people would. Pretty sneaky thing to do really, but it's politicians we're talkin about!!

keane2097

Aodan83 wrote: »

They're hopin that noone will go protestin durin the exams. Can't see that many people would. Pretty sneaky thing to do really, but it's politicians we're talkin about!!

Sure that's why they put referenda in which they expect the typically radical student vote to go against them on midweek when most college students will be away from home unable to vote.

Orizio

keane2097 wrote: »

Just to clarify this point, I understand that Arts is not such a narrow course as I may have inadvertently suggested - I didn't mean to suggest that's all it produced, it was simply the first example that came to mind.

I haven't had time to catch up on the whole thread as I was away for the weekend, I will as soon as I get a chance.

I understand your criticism of Arts, but sometimes people just want to go on to educate themselves further (education in of itself is a very positive thing) or use an Arts degree as a stepping stone to toher careers, not all of them teaching. Personally, I hope to do post-graduate work in History for example.

keane2097

Orizio wrote: »

I understand your criticism of Arts, but sometimes people just want to go on to educate themselves further (education in of itself is a very positive thing) or use an Arts degree as a stepping stone to toher careers, not all of them teaching. Personally, I hope to do post-graduate work in History for example.

I really don't mean to criticize Arts though, I think it's as valid as many other courses - as I said, the training of two many secondary school teachers was just an example to illustrate a flaw in the current third level education system as I see it...