Reg Fee Increased

dyl10

I would agree mostly with what you say Errllyod with the exception of a few small things;

1. A small thing, 65% of UCD students coming from above income families is a very conservative estimate. If it is truth, I assume that it is the result of the mistaking of average income as being the average person in terms of social class or socioeconomic status.

2. The issues around fees and points is a little bit of a red herring as the barriers are much more fundamental than a crossroad that is reached at 18 or the leaving cert year.

3. The Hunt report is an embarrassment of a document, focussed mainly around the commercialisation of education and was put together by a bunch of businessmen and hacks. From what I recall, there was not one practicing academic on the committee for it.

Otherwise, I think you are generally right.

errlloyd

They're all perfectly reasonable qualms.

I have heard 65 batted around before. I agree with you its probably more like 80!!

supernutrino

As for me, I think we should target the protest more towards getting a working means testing system.

Ever applied for a medical card?
or even a grant?

Means testing is an inaccurate haphazard bureaucratic nightmare that always leaves out a big chunk of people that should get help but don't.
Universal systems are way better, everyone gets in, and the richer folk pay through higher taxes.

Merit is the only thing that should matter getting into education.


Do you really want an entire generation leaving college with 5 figure debt? By the time they come anywhere close to paying that off its mortgage time.

Lifelong debt. I can only think of one group thats good for, its great for employers, their workers won't get uppidy about rights and working conditions if they need the job to pay off a huge debt.



In any case this whole debates a bit of a waste of time in itself, without seeing the broader context, factors are in play concerning peoples life chances from birth, well before cost of university becomes a barrier, its just one of many barriers and if were not ready to tackle inequality as a society in general then this is all a wasted debate...

I don't think you'll value it more if it cripples you with debt for life, I don't value college any more or less for the 2k I'll have to pay in september, in fact I kinda resent it, as many Americans do, they spent thousands and thousands on a degree and now because of the depression they're stuck in a job they could have gotten without the degree anyway, or they spend 100k on a degree and are in a 50k a year job (yes, it happens, a lot).

We definitely need a mechanism to stop people just choosing arts cos they don't know what to do or science because its easy points, i'd argue we need a new entry system, but not to cripple an entire generation with debt.




Also regardless of where you stand in this debate, means testing or universal, lets not loose sight of the fact that this govt promised during the campaign abolition of the reg fee and a graduate tax system, which I thinks fine, I'm happy paying a little extra tax to contribute to my education instead of being crippled with debt....but instead they just race to implement a policy even FF didn't go for, that the campaign was filled with lies should piss everyone off regardless of where they stand.


Lets also not loose sight of the fact that the states bankrupt because of reckless speculation in stocks and property both here and abroad, not because of what in reality is a very small segment of the budget.

supernutrino

Also on a separate note, you gotta love the Labour partys sheer level of political incompetence toying with full fees, I don't know of any party anywhere in the world besides them who are racing to destroy their own signature accomplishment, the only thing anyone remembers them accomplishing in office.

Can you imagine the democrats calling for the privatization of social security, or abolition of medicare or medicaid in the USA?
Can you imagine (even new) Labour in the UK calling for the abolition of the NHS?
Can you imagine FF coming out and saying we should get rid of the bus pass?

Idiots.

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

Lets also not loose sight of the fact that the states bankrupt because of reckless speculation in stocks and property both here and abroad, not because of what in reality is a very small segment of the budget.

Third level education is one of the most important parts of our economic recovery. Without fees, universities will continue to be under funded. Which will be to our economic detriment.

I'm sorry but all logical thought and research into this area yields the opinion that fees need to return. Means testing is not as chaotic as you claim and we are suggesting a more balanced means test.

supernutrino

Third level education is one of the most important parts of our economic recovery. Without fees, universities will continue to be under funded. Which will be to our economic detriment.

Lack of fees is not what has the unis underfunded, even at the height of the boom our education spending was the 4th lowest in the OECD. The system could still be funded centrally as it always has been, and as for tying that to economics your right but this is again just one piece of that puzzle, the science situation at second level is a major part of the problem there as well.

Think this though, the govts desperate to conserve funds because the IMF is slapping them around, so whats going to happen when they introduce fees, there will be a corresponding decrease in central govt funding to match it, leaving third level at the same level its at now, no improvement, only a burden on lower income students and lifelong debt for those who can afford the loans.
So what will eventually happen, is the colleges will press for (or do it themselves depending on how its set up) higher fees, and higher fees, and it will be just like the reg fee, every year will see an increase, untill were at American style levels of college debt.

There won't be this magical candyland of funds available suddenly for all the science and research some people seem to imagine, esp since the govts "smart economy" strategy, when you actually go into detail, is a joke, and if you had any notion of the level of waste in UCD alone, its quite staggering.

I'm sorry but all logical thought and research into this area yields the opinion that fees need to return.

I don't count reports that tell you what you rigged them to tell you as research.
Ministers wanting to do something controversial getting an "independent" report to "recommend" it is a time tested political trick, I can't believe how many still fall for it..

Means testing is not as chaotic as you claim and we are suggesting a more balanced means test

I flat out don't beleive that, these are the lies your told before something like this passes to make the pill easier to swallow, then its too late to do anything about it.
I've personally experienced two means tests.
One of them was for the grant, the delay in processing the means test resulted in a fee hold on my account which meant:

• Being locked out of the library
• Being locked out of blackboard.
• Not having access to basic materials such as a reading list.

• Not being able to register for classes.
• Not knowing where lectures are
• Not knowing where tutorials are.

This went on for most of the first semester, and naturally the college obviously expects me to live by same academic rules as everyone else, despite not having so much as a reading list for ages.

I waited 9 months for a medical card even though my income situation was ZERO (easy to process one would think....) and at the time was having kidney problems...but I had to wait, all so someone on the upper middle class woudn't accidentally get some healthcare free at the point of use...how awful would that have been.


This is a govt who during the campaign said, as separate parties they wouldn't do a half dozen things they've since done total u turns on, and were going to suddenly trust them to have a broad income threshold and really fair means test system? My ass.

noodler

graduate wrote: »

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What exactly does that have to do with free-education. The overarching amount of sovereign debt of this state came about after the nationalisation of toxic banks and the overpopulated public service - not from the likes of free education, etc.. which will come as an asset to the revival of economy.

1) He was talking about the Deficit - the deficit of 18bn this year is only 3bn to do with the banks. The rest is public spending. HSE, Education, College Costs, PS salaries and pensions.

Don't be deluded into thinking the reason we are spending more than we are earning is down to the banks in the main.

supernutrino

noodler wrote: »

1) He was talking about the Deficit - the deficit of 18bn this year is only 3bn to do with the banks. The rest is public spending. HSE, Education, College Costs, PS salaries and pensions.

Don't be deluded into thinking the reason we are spending more than we are earning is down to the banks in the main.

To be more accurate the banks reckless speculation crashed the economy which resulted in the collapse of the revenue base which previously funded things like HSE, Education, pensions...
The reason were spending more is EXACTLY to do with the banks.
Their speculation crashed the economy and we socialized their debt, thus they created both the budget defect and the national debt issues we now face.

We didn't just almost spend too much....aaaaaalllllmost spend too much...then one day BAM, spent too much and suddenly the economy collapsed....



The only other factor was the last govt relied too much on revenue from property and based a lot of new spending on that revenue (HSE for example), revenue which was never sustainable even without the global crash.

noodler

supernutrino wrote: »

To be more accurate the banks reckless speculation crashed the economy which resulted in the collapse of the revenue base which previously funded things like HSE, Education, pensions...
The reason were spending more is EXACTLY to do with the banks.
The only other factor was the last govt relied too much on revenue from property and based a lot of new spending on that revenue (HSE for example), revenue which was never sustainable even without the global crash.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I urge you to research this further.

We have a deficit of 18bn because our Government enacted spending increases based on revenue streams which turned out to be temporary. You should check out Ireland's collapse in Exchequer Revenue from 2007 onwards.

Somehow arguing it was the banks who forced our Government to spend the excess revenues on increased salaries, SW and tax breaks is really delirious stuff.

EDIT: Executive Summary of the Department of Finance Review here - the keyword is pro-cyclical fiscal policy.

supernutrino

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I urge you to research this further.

We have a deficit of 18bn because our Government enacted spending increases based on revenue streams which turned out to be temporary. You should check out Ireland's collapse in Exchequer Revenue from 2007 onwards.

In other words what I just said in the previous post? :P

supernutrino wrote:

The only other factor was the last govt relied too much on revenue from property and based a lot of new spending on that revenue (HSE for example), revenue which was never sustainable even without the global crash.

...and why was there a drop in property taxes suddenly in 2008? did those particular bills get scared and run away? :rolleyes: There was a speculation bubble fueled, on purpose, to make people money, and it burst, like every other speculation bubble in history has, but we thought we were gonna be the first ones who had a "soft landing".
...That just happened to occur at the same time as a global crash (which would have hit us and caused a defect anyway just on its own) which itself was caused by speculation of a different nature in the states.
Both situations involved banks trying to make a ****load of money, and succeeding, but leaving a trail of devastation along the way.

Somehow arguing it was the banks who forced our Government to spend the excess revenues on increased salaries, SW and tax breaks is really delirious stuff.

I didn't say they did, and it wasn't "excess" we had balanced budgets and a surplus, its not excess spending if you have the cash.
There was a crash which wiped that revenue base out, a crash caused by banks.



the DOF review, oh thats objective..

noodler

supernutrino wrote: »

In other words what I just said in the previous post? :P

Nope.

Jesus where to begin...

supernutrino wrote: »

...and why was there a drop in property taxes suddenly in 2008? did those particular bills get scared and run away? :rolleyes: There was a speculation bubble fueled, on purpose, to make people money, and it burst, like every other speculation bubble in history has, but we thought we were gonna be the first ones who had a "soft landing".

Property taxes? You mean taxes from property related activities? Again, if you chech the Exchequer figures like I said you will see that the larger fall was in income tax. Exchequer revenue did not shrink by 15bn in the space of two years because of a fall in stamps.

supernutrino wrote: »

...That just happened to occur at the same time as a global crash (which would have hit us and caused a defect anyway just on its own) which itself was caused by speculation of a different nature in the states.
Both situations involved banks trying to make a ****load of money, and succeeding, but leaving a trail of devastation along the way.

Not too sure what you are trying to say here?

supernutrino wrote: »

I didn't say they did, and it wasn't "excess" we had balanced budgets and a surplus, its not excess spending if you have the cash.
There was a crash which wiped that revenue base out, a crash caused by banks.

No, not at all correct. A multitude of things led to our collapse in revenues.

1) Banks lent poorly - this is not in dispute but this is only part of the story.

2) Irish people borrowed huge amounts of money to purchase houses. Some did so for speculative purposes (see?, not all banks as you seem to suggest). Many bought simply to live in, tragic, however they still went out and applied for mortgages that were incredible multiples of their annual salary and paid ridiculous prices for property. If you feel the banks are the only ones to blame for the increase in property prices then you are in the minority.

3) On the revenue side: Our revenues increased massivesly but if the Government had not increased its expenditure to match the increase then we wouldn't have a deficit problem. Government spending should not complement economic growth (similarly in a time of recession the Government should spend what it has saved up in the boom - counter-cyclical fiscal strategy).

supernutrino wrote: »

the DOF review, oh thats objective..

Are you saying the DoF doctored a report in order to portray themselves in a bad light? Surely if they had power over the report then they would have blamed it all on the banks and not blamed themselves at all????

You don't seem to know what you are talking about here but the DoF review was chaired by an ex-Canadian Deputy Finance Minister - i.e. he was independent.

We also have THREE, yes three banking reports:

1) The Watson/Regling Report (Ex-IMF, British and German)

2) The Honohan Report (our CB Governor)

3) The most recent report by Peter Nyberg (Finnish)

All the reports are independent and are pretty damning of the Government's role in the destruction of the tax base (tax breaks in property, income tax etc) as well as serious spending increases.

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

if you had any notion of the level of waste in UCD alone, its quite staggering.

Given I have worked for UCD (and hopefully back there soon) and had 5 years as a student, I am pretty confident in my knowledge.

Lack of fees is not what has the unis underfunded, even at the height of the boom our education spending was the 4th lowest in the OECD. The system could still be funded centrally as it always has been, and as for tying that to economics your right but this is again just one piece of that puzzle, the science situation at second level is a major part of the problem there as well.

When I say funds, I am referring to ideas such as those given by Ferdinand von Prondzynski. Without fees, it was inevitable that funds would end up reduced.

There won't be this magical candyland of funds available suddenly for all the science and research some people seem to imagine, esp since the govts "smart economy" strategy, when you actually go into detail, is a joke, and if you had any notion of the level of waste in UCD alone, its quite staggering.

I don't claim there will be a "magical candyland". I am pretty realistic in my views. I'd be happy if they could increase funding to ensure priority services such as the library get increased funding. The basics are being cut into, let alone anything else.

don't count reports that tell you what you rigged them to tell you as research.
Ministers wanting to do something controversial getting an "independent" report to "recommend" it is a time tested political trick, I can't believe how many still fall for it

Where exactly am I counting these reports? Why discount what I say with such a ridiculous statement? I am not referring to government reports, so don't pretend that I am.

I flat out don't beleive that, these are the lies your told before something like this passes to make the pill easier to swallow, then its too late to do anything about it.
I've personally experienced two means tests.

First off, I have yet to meet somebody suffering grant issues like this who applied early. But anyway, I have been through various means tests throughout the years. I have had no such issues. Regardless, you are basing your opinions on existing means tests, not any hypothetical means tests being suggested in posts in this thread.

One of them was for the grant, the delay in processing the means test resulted in a fee hold on my account which meant:
Being locked out of the library
Being locked out of blackboard.
Not having access to basic materials such as a reading list.
Not being able to register for classes.
Not knowing where lectures are
Not knowing where tutorials are.

That is sensationalist BS. I worked with people in that situation at the student desk. If you approached lecturers, programme office, student desk etc people would try to help you. Anyway, it is not as if the location of lectures or a reading list are dark secrets. I'm sure you could call the school or ask another person in the course and see what times classes were on/get a reading list. Access to the library is also available for people without student cards. All you had to do was enquire.

What year were you in when you had these issues? First years have no issues registering to classes, regardless of their fees status.

partyndbs

i asbsoluitely ****in h8 college so much fcukin **** like this,....bring me back to secondary skl plz. ucd ur ****in ***** i h8 u...on top of repeats as well..money hungry saps

supernutrino

Property taxes? You mean taxes from property related activities? Again, if you chech the Exchequer figures like I said you will see that the larger fall was in income tax. Exchequer revenue did not shrink by 15bn in the space of two years because of a fall in stamps.

There was an overreliance on property related taxes.

Income and VAT receipts dropped because there was a crash, not because of the level of spending.
There was a crash because of banking speculation.
There was so much reckless speculation because of lack of govt regulation in key areas.

Not too sure what you are trying to say here?

That regardless of how prudent our fiscal policy had been we would likley still have been facing a defecit and a banking crises because were in a globalized economy, and the biggest player in that global market, the US is an unregulated mess and was ground zero for the 2008 crash.
Our levels of public spending would not have mattered much, there were a lot of factors out of our control.

2) Irish people borrowed huge amounts of money to purchase houses. Some did so for speculative purposes (see?, not all banks as you seem to suggest).

Who ran the seminars pushing it as a great investment? Who gave out the loans to purchase said investment? (and in the US case then bet against mortgages they sold on that they knew would blow up)

Many bought simply to live in, tragic, however they still went out and applied for mortgages that were incredible multiples of their annual salary and paid ridiculous prices for property. If you feel the banks are the only ones to blame for the increase in property prices then you are in the minority.

There were few cheap reasonable morgages out there, if you wanted a house at all you had to buy these absurd mortgages, that was just how it was.

EVeryone collectively saying "no were not paying that" resulting in a drop in prices...outside an economics classroom its not quite that simple in the real world.

3) On the revenue side: Our revenues increased massivesly but if the Government had not increased its expenditure to match the increase then we wouldn't have a deficit problem.

So we should have what? Put all the cash under the bed? Not upgraded our infrastructure? not built new hospitals and schools? There was certainly a lot of waste, but to say we should have just not spent any of the new revenue is absurd, no country would ever develop that way.
No country has ever starved itself to prosperity.

Are you saying the DoF doctored a report in order to portray themselves in a bad light? Surely if they had power over the report then they would have blamed it all on the banks and not blamed themselves at all????

The Irish DOF are a diffrent story for a diffrent day I don't wanna side track the topic any more than we already are.


There are a lot of people out there who put ideology ahead of common sense with the economic policies they advocated, and like communists in the early 90s they've just seen their ideas fail in a massive and obvious way, so they've banded together and said no the problem wasn't lack of regulation of exotic financial instruments, it wasn't a lack of a wall between depository and investment banks, it wasn't relying too much on certain kinds of taxes....we spent too much.....

supernutrino

irst off, I have yet to meet somebody suffering grant issues like this who applied early.

Blame the user not the broken system.....I'm seeing a theme in your outlook here.

I applied in august, well before most were even thinking about it, because Id had such problems the previous year as well and was hoping to get a head start on things and have everything ready in time that year.
I ended up waiting longer than before.
The grant processing for that council area was on time, but they had quibbles with my case in the nitty gritty detailed (none of which were income related, which is meant to be the point of the grant)

But anyway, I have been through various means tests throughout the years. I have had no such issues. Regardless, you are basing your opinions on existing means tests, not any hypothetical means tests being suggested in posts in this thread.

Yeh...they don't exist. I've studied social policy for years now I've yet to see an efficient means test anywhere in the world that didn't leave out a significant portion of people.
I don't beleive that in Ireland, a country not exactly known for bold new ideas policy wise, that were going to see the first.

If were low on funds, as we are, fine, reproirotize, i notice were still paying for a lot of wasteful programmes that should be far lower a priority than education, but don't throw out a system, universal access, that works well

That is sensationalist BS. I worked with people in that situation at the student desk. If you approached lecturers, programme office, student desk etc people would try to help you.

Listen mate your starting to annoy me here, its what happened. Sorry if you can't deal with reality, but thats what my experience was.

Your either lying flat out here, or your experience is not the norm.
They are barred by UCD rules from helping you in any way, thats what I was told, the programme office would not so much as tell me where lectures were held and I still have the emails from them to prove that, the student desk has nothing to do with the detailes of academic progrrames and if you go to the school offices they tell you they don't keep physical copies of reading lists anymore that its all online.

It may seem in the abstract that lecture locations for various modules are an easy thing to find but if you go lookin for them its actually not simple info to access, EVERYTHING is centralized thru sis and blackboard now and if you are not registered the info wont appear on them.

The only way to get stuff is to walk up to randomers in your class and beg for their materials so you can copy them, its quite humiliating.

Anyway, it is not as if the location of lectures or a reading list are dark secrets. I'm sure you could call the school

Heres how that conversation went, because I tried

RING RING
"hi, im looking to see what lecture theater (x module) is in?"
"that informations on your sis"
"well see im not actually registered for the module so its not appearing on my sis"
"why are you not registered?"
"i havn't paid my fees"
"if there is a fee hold on your account I can't help you you need to get your fees paid and then the information will appear on your sis, we dont' give that information out over the phone"


In one case I was looking for some docs from the school office and the woman behind the desk did this dramatic sigh routine and said i should have my fees paid "at this stage" (4 weeks in) and looked at me as if I were a bum.

This is not sensationalist, this is what happened, this is what happens when you trust a means test system, for many it will be fine, but there will always be a large number who have complications with their application, as I did, thus delays which will have knock on effects like this.
Universal systems protect everyone, I could have spent time on my course instead of going around various govt offices lookin for extra documents to support the application and worrying about getting basic materials..all this instead of actually studying.

You dont write good laws and social policies by denying that such problems occur or by blaming the victim in this situation.

or ask another person in the course and see what times classes were on/get a reading list.

With modularization thats more complicated than it looks not everyones in every class you have, and you'd be surprised at how unhelpful some people are with these things.

Access to the library is also available for people without student cards. All you had to do was enquire.

NO ITS NOT!!!
What college are you in?????
Do you think I sat on my ass and didn't challenge any of this stuff?
I spent nearly ALL of my time fighting tooth and nail to get access to these basic things and it was a major distraction from what I should have been doing which was actually studying the course material.

The only way you can get into the library without a card is the day pass, and you need to be registered to get one, the only other way after that is to purchase an external pass, and if your income is so low you get a grant yout not gonna have the kinda money (was around 80 euro i think) to buy one of those.

What year were you in when you had these issues?

3rd

First years have no issues registering to classes, regardless of their fees status.

Thats utter bs, if you have not paid the reg fee you can't register, I doubt they'd have diffrent rules for diffrent years.

dyl10

I think a lot of what you are saying, supernutrino, is correct but maybe you need a little more focus instead of jumping everywhere. You seem to be arguing at the institutional level on one hand but maybe alluding to systematic failings? i.e. the nature of neoliberal banking.

If that's the case, I would really recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

supernutrino

dyl10 wrote: »

I think a lot of what you are saying, supernutrino, is correct but maybe you need a little more focus instead of jumping everywhere. You seem to be arguing at the institutional level on one hand but maybe alluding to systematic failings? i.e. the nature of neoliberal banking.

If that's the case, I would really recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Its all integrated, but the reason I'm jumping around a bit is the discussions meandering between college fees and the (intellectually dishonest) connection people are drawing to the wider economic crises, the suggestion is that we have a whopping defect partly because we have universal third level education, I know this to be factually incorrect (its a result of an economic crises which in turn was caused by lax regulation).
Its like someone being stabbed and when they start bleeding the paramedics say well clearly he had too much blood, ignoring the knife and wound as factors in the equation.

As for institutional things, I'm drawing a connection between the decision to say switch to means testing, which many quite naively think is far better a way to target the poor, and how that will effect the student on the micro level.
Many will have a nice smooth clear application process and get the help they need.
Many will not, many who don't have such problems now, the grant systems already a disaster and were talkin about expanding it?

My central point is that the model itself , universal access, is NOT the core problem here, it is not what has caused any of the problems that have been raised.

The system by which students acess, the CAO, is a huge problem, I think thats a far bigger factor in people not valuing their degree, because its a little too blind, doesn't make you apply for and fight for the course you want, you don't have to sit down and write to an applications board justifying why you'd be a good law student say.
The second level subjects in science and their uptake is a huge issue.
The way universities budgets work is a joke, with people in very minor roles paid a disgusting amount of money.
There are other problems that are being ignored here which are IMO they key problems, not universal access, people are going on as if the silver bullet soloution is to reintroduce fees and then thats it, nice well funded universities which will feed a smart economy.
Its dangriously simplistic thinking.


This has nothing to do with education of valuing your degree, its a way to trim fat to meet IMF targets, so lets not pretend its about improving education.
Everyone paying a tiny silver of their income tax to education, or an entire generation crippled with debt, which is a better way?

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

I applied in august, well before most were even thinking about it, because Id had such problems the previous year as well and was hoping to get a head start on things and have everything ready in time that year.

August 20th is a common deadline for grant applications (it normally says applications/renewals received after that date are subject to delay).

Listen mate your starting to annoy me here, its what happened. Sorry if you can't deal with reality, but thats what my experience was.

Your either lying flat out here, or your experience is not the norm.
They are barred by UCD rules from helping you in any way, thats what I was told, the programme office would not so much as tell me where lectures were held and I still have the emails from them to prove that, the student desk has nothing to do with the detailes of academic progrrames and if you go to the school offices they tell you they don't keep physical copies of reading lists anymore that its all online.

It may seem in the abstract that lecture locations for various modules are an easy thing to find but if you go lookin for them its actually not simple info to access, EVERYTHING is centralized thru sis and blackboard now and if you are not registered the info wont appear on them.

The only way to get stuff is to walk up to randomers in your class and beg for their materials so you can copy them, its quite humiliating.

Listen "mate" you could find out what times classes are on at. Informal methods work just as well as formal, but I guarantee that what I am saying is correct. Of course there are ways of finding out. The UCD website has a list of every module and they give the name of the lecturer. Go to their office and find out what time the fricking class is on (a visit to the programme co-ordinator would be the obvious choice). It isn't rocket science. Ditto going to the secretaries in the school.

You do not need to give me basic information on SIS, I worked daily with the thing. Ditto telling me what the student desk can and cannot do. Giving you information about where you can find help is not academic help. Asking a class mate for something is not "humiliating" either. Calm down.

"hi, im looking to see what lecture theater (x module) is in?"
"that informations on your sis"
"well see im not actually registered for the module so its not appearing on my sis"
"why are you not registered?"
"i havn't paid my fees"
"if there is a fee hold on your account I can't help you you need to get your fees paid and then the information will appear on your sis, we dont' give that information out over the phone"

There are valid reasons for not giving out information over the phone. However, there is nothing stopping you going to the school office and proving your identity in person.

You dont write good laws and social policies by denying that such problems occur or by blaming the victim in this situation.

I am not "blaming the victim" or denying that problems occur. People in that situation have my sympathy. However, you throwing the rattle out of the pram does not make me overly sympathetic. You are also being far too dramatic about it and seem to be avoiding practical solutions.

NO ITS NOT!!!
What college are you in?????
Do you think I sat on my ass and didn't challenge any of this stuff?
I spent nearly ALL of my time fighting tooth and nail to get access to these basic things and it was a major distraction from what I should have been doing which was actually studying the course material.

The only way you can get into the library without a card is the day pass, and you need to be registered to get one, the only other way after that is to purchase an external pass, and if your income is so low you get a grant yout not gonna have the kinda money (was around 80 euro i think) to buy one of those.

You go to the student desk or school. You get a written letter explaining your situation and then you get access to the library. Calm down. No need for all caps.

thats utter bs, if you have not paid the reg fee you can't register, I doubt they'd have diffrent rules for diffrent years.

Doubt all you want, I know it to be fact considering it was my job to help first years register.

If you tone down the needless hostility and amateur dramatics, the replies to your posts would be different.

supernutrino

August 20th is a common deadline for grant applications (it normally says applications/renewals received after that date are subject to delay).

Our councils was October I believe.

Listen "mate" you could find out what times classes are on at. Informal methods work just as well as formal, but I guarantee that what I am saying is correct.

Your not correct, I was there, I tried, its not impossible, I did find out eventually but I had to piece it together and waste time I should have been spending getting work done,
A student should not have to spend time fighting to assemble basic information like lecture times, it should be provided.

Of course there are ways of finding out. The UCD website has a list of every module and they give the name of the lecturer. Go to their office and find out what time the fricking class is on (a visit to the programme co-ordinator would be the obvious choice). It isn't rocket science. Ditto going to the secretaries in the school.

Were you not reading what I said.
The school. WILL. NOT. TELL. YOU.
The first thing they ask in person or on the phone is why can't you see that online and when you tell them they say while there is a fee hold they can't help you.
They are like programmed robots, they don't go outside those restrictions.

Giving you information about where you can find help is not academic help.

If you ask the student desk where your lectures are you will get the same robotic answer you get from the school.
I tried it. It was the answer I got.

Asking a class mate for something is not "humiliating" either. Calm down.

"I cant afford to pay my fees so can I get the reading lists and blackboard info off you" is pretty degrading IMO, and a surprising amount will actually say no or make some excuse why they can't help you.

There are valid reasons for not giving out information over the phone. However, there is nothing stopping you going to the school office and proving your identity in person.

If your not registered you are not their student, you are not in one of their modules, you don't exist to them.

I am not "blaming the victim" or denying that problems occur. People in that situation have my sympathy. However, you throwing the rattle out of the pram does not make me overly sympathetic. You are also being far too dramatic about it and seem to be avoiding practical solutions.

It sounds dramatic because its an absurd situation to be placed in, having to fight to get basic information like where your lectures are.
The "practical solutions" you gave were all tried, they don't work, they won't tell you anything!
The means test didn't help me, it seriously hindered me in fact, and thats my point, its not as simplistic as "oh we can target the ones who really need it and the rest can pay", you need to realise that.

When you decide to make people go through means testing your not helping them your drowning them in paperwork and making them fight a broken system and layer upon layer of bureaucracy to get something very basic with no gaurentee at the end of all that heartache that they will actually get it.

I can't let someone come on here and claim means testing is a better solution when I know from two very painful experiences, and all the research I've read, that it is a nightmare of a system especially regarding education.

You go to the student desk or school. You get a written letter explaining your situation and then you get access to the library. Calm down. No need for all caps.

They don't do that, the student desk does not do tailored letters for each student nor does the school.
All the desk can give you is one of several form letters, the one I got was "student is eligible to register" which the library said meant nothing because I had to be ACTUALLY registered in order to gain access, or buy the external pass. They were quite helpful in offering to let me get the ex ucd student pass which was cheaper but it was still more than I could afford.

I'm not saying the staff around UCD were all evil (thought some were so full of contempt at the notion of not having paid fees it was really shocking), but they have rules on what they can and cannot do and they have to follow them.
They can't give course material to someone who has not paid their fees.

Doubt all you want, I know it to be fact considering it was my job to help first years register.

First years don't have to pay their fees to get access to basic materials but the rest of us do?
Sure :rolleyes:

If you tone down the needless hostility and amateur dramatics, the replies to your posts would be different.

Your ill informed posts need to be corrected, there are people out there who might actually believe your claims.

As for "dramatics" it makes me angry to see your simplistic bull**** being spouted as if the solutions were so obvious when I know from experience these things do not get you the material you need.
Why would I put myself through falling behind in course work and possible fails thus more resit fees etc if it really was so easy and simple to get the information?

If you have not paid your reg fee you'll get the cold shoulder from nearly every office in UCD, thats reality.

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

Our councils was October I believe.

The deadline for getting your grant before term starts is what I pretty clearly said I was talking about. Which is why I said applications received after that date are subject to delays.

supernutrino wrote: »

"I cant afford to pay my fees so can I get the reading lists and blackboard info off you" is pretty degrading IMO, and a surprising amount will actually say no or make some excuse why they can't help you.

As that is your only option of course. "I am having problems with my SIS, could I get a copy of the timetable?". Is that really a degrading thing to say?

I'm not going to bother arguing the rest of it with you. You talk about the student desk as "they". I am giving you answers from somebody who worked at the student desk until recently and who may be working in UCD again next semester. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

Edit: Actually I have to respond to this BS

supernutrino wrote: »

First years don't have to pay their fees to get access to basic materials but the rest of us do?
Sure

Roll your eyes all you want. First years do not have to have paid fees to get a student card (they can pay half the student centre levy and pay the reg fee later). Also, by necessity first years get access to materials without having paid fees as how else will they be able to do anything? It is a practical decision, first years are simply different to other years. They do not get access to everything, but they get "basic" materials. You have not worked at the Student Desk, I have. Your semi-literate ramblings are examples of being ill-informed, not my posts. You are basing your opinions on what happened to one student (i.e. you). That is hardly representative of the entire student body.

supernutrino

The deadline for getting your grant before term starts. Which is why I said applications received after that date are subject to delays.

My application was in during august, regardless of any other issues, it was in on time, the problems were with this form and that form, unrelated to income issues.

As that is your only option of course. "I am having problems with my SIS, could I get a copy of the timetable?". Is that really a degrading thing to say?

People are naturally curious they ask what problem, and keep in mind you have to go do this to a dozen people, the way the system works now with more choices (which is good, not knocking modules) one persons not going to be in all your courses.

I'm not going to bother arguing the rest of it with you. You talk about the student desk as "they". I am giving you answers from somebody who worked at the student desk until recently and who may be working in UCD again next semester. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

Maybe they'll retrain you in the new harsh ways next semester.
Times are tight you see, gotta save money (only in the right areas of course..)

Also, by necessity first years get access to materials without having paid fees as how else will they be able to do anything?

They could't do anything without access to materials, thats my point, it was quite hard for me to proceed with study for my material with a fee hold locking everything out.

Also having a student card does not mean you have universal access.
I had a student card during much of the fee hold because you need one for the residences to get in your door, still would not let me into the library and it didn't mean dick to the school office, they don't have physcial copies of reading lists, me having a student card won't make one magically appear.
Some lectures were fine and just said yeh heres the list whatever I'm busy, others were far more anal.

It is a practical decision, first years are simply different to other years. They do not get access to everything, but they get "basic" materials. You have not worked at the Student Desk, I have.

No, I've been a student, and I'm tryina get you to see what life outside the bureaucracy is like, it works one way on paper and another way in reality.

parker kent

I didn't say having a student card gives universal access to everything. That is why I said:

They do not get access to everything, but they get "basic" materials

supernutrino wrote: »

No, I've been a student, and I'm tryina get you to see what life outside the bureaucracy is like, it works one way on paper and another way in reality.

Life outside the bureaucracy? Jesus calm down. How do you think I got that job, I was a student until last September. I had administrative problems as well. I was a student on a grant and from time to time there were issues. Although I always got it as soon as the first cheques arrived.

For my masters, the school failed to upload my name onto the list and as such I was technically not on the course. Which meant no access to SIS or my class times. But I managed by doing all of the above.

noodler

supernutrino wrote: »

There was an overreliance on property related taxes.

Income and VAT receipts dropped because there was a crash, not because of the level of spending.
There was a crash because of banking speculation.
There was so much reckless speculation because of lack of govt regulation in key areas.



That regardless of how prudent our fiscal policy had been we would likley still have been facing a defecit and a banking crises because were in a globalized economy, and the biggest player in that global market, the US is an unregulated mess and was ground zero for the 2008 crash.
Our levels of public spending would not have mattered much, there were a lot of factors out of our control.



Who ran the seminars pushing it as a great investment? Who gave out the loans to purchase said investment? (and in the US case then bet against mortgages they sold on that they knew would blow up)


There were few cheap reasonable morgages out there, if you wanted a house at all you had to buy these absurd mortgages, that was just how it was.

EVeryone collectively saying "no were not paying that" resulting in a drop in prices...outside an economics classroom its not quite that simple in the real world.


So we should have what? Put all the cash under the bed? Not upgraded our infrastructure? not built new hospitals and schools? There was certainly a lot of waste, but to say we should have just not spent any of the new revenue is absurd, no country would ever develop that way.
No country has ever starved itself to prosperity.




The Irish DOF are a diffrent story for a diffrent day I don't wanna side track the topic any more than we already are.


There are a lot of people out there who put ideology ahead of common sense with the economic policies they advocated, and like communists in the early 90s they've just seen their ideas fail in a massive and obvious way, so they've banded together and said no the problem wasn't lack of regulation of exotic financial instruments, it wasn't a lack of a wall between depository and investment banks, it wasn't relying too much on certain kinds of taxes....we spent too much.....

I have set you straight factually - theres nothing more I can do other than repeat my previous post.