Brian Lenihan (Min. for Finance) is visiting UCD.

1968

Student Union and Free Education for Everyone have called a protest to greet him.

mloc

More of the same naive lefty protest crap?

Sure guys, why don't we just print more money instead of having people pay fees? It seems to work in Zimbabwe.

delta_bravo

OP you sure the SU organised this?

Het-Field

FFE. That is the naffest parody ever.

Tayto2000

No mention of the SU, could this be the first day out for the fledgling anarchist society...?

'Free' education is not right btw, it's more accurate to call it 'taxpayer funded' education...

spudington16

These guys really don't have a clue, and their tactics are a bad reflection of UCD and aren't representative of its student population as a whole.

33% God

mloc wrote: »

More of the same naive lefty protest crap?

Sure guys, why don't we just print more money instead of having people pay fees? It seems to work in Zimbabwe.

Ya screw it, I'm sick of seeing poor people in my university, pushing up the points and what not :rolleyes:.

Stabshauptmann

Sorry, what did the budget do to free fees?

Tom65

Don't tell me they're going to pull this crap where they stop him from attending whatever he's in UCD to do (like with Eamon Ryan last year)? It's embarrassing and reflects badly on UCD.

As Kaptain Redeye said, what did the budget have to do with 'free fees'?

elgriff

it raised the registration fee to €1500

fish-head

Such a reasonable proposition.

1968

delta_bravo wrote: »

OP you sure the SU organised this?

The above poster was designed by a member of FEE.

The UCDSU sabbatical officers have voted in favour of supporting the protest.

Stabshauptmann

****, that flew right under my radar.

1968

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Sorry, what did the budget do to free fees?

The student registration charge will increase by roughly €600 to €1,500 from next September. However, Minister for Education Batt O'Keeffe has signalled this is only an interim measure, pending the likely return of some form of college fees.

In a significant move yesterday, the Minister said he has now been mandated by the Cabinet to bring forward proposals on tuition fees. These are expected to be ready within four months, probably early in the new year. It is expected a new fees regime will be in place by September of next year. This is likely to run in parallel with the student registration charge which will increase from an average of about €900 to €1,500."

continues - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1015/1224020736572.html

bnt

If you're going to reverse a government decision, you'll need to do more than protest, IMHO. All a protest does is say "we don't like it", and I'm guessing they can see that coming. Make a case, tell them something they don't already know, and without the predictable whining. :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

1968 wrote: »

The student registration charge will increase by roughly €600 to €1,500 from next September. However, Minister for Education Batt O'Keeffe has signalled this is only an interim measure, pending the likely return of some form of college fees.

In a significant move yesterday, the Minister said he has now been mandated by the Cabinet to bring forward proposals on tuition fees. These are expected to be ready within four months, probably early in the new year. It is expected a new fees regime will be in place by September of next year. This is likely to run in parallel with the student registration charge which will increase from an average of about €900 to €1,500."

continues - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1015/1224020736572.html

another interesting point from that article is that the UCD registration fee is about €300 higher than the average university...

mad lad

Sure guys, why don't we just print more money instead of having people pay fees?

The government currently subsidises private second level education to the tune of approx €80 million. If the government really cared about social inclusion, it would end this subsidy which only serves to give the children of wealthy parents an additional advantage of those from lower socio-economic backgorunds. The €80 million, which is more than would be raised by the reintroduction of fees, could then invest in the grants system or in early intervention schemes at primary and secondary level to help address certain barriers to education. There are countless other examples of issues like this.

their tactics are a bad reflection of UCD and aren't representative of its student population as a whole.

The last time a blockade happened in UCD was in 2002 at the arrival of Noel Dempsey on campus. An opinion poll conducted by the Tribune after the event found that 76% of students supported the tactics of the group involved. The current blockade has the backing of the 5 sabbatical officers who students put in charge of representing them. I'd attribute more wieght to the combination that a) the tactic has been previously supported by the majority of students and b) its supported by the people students chose to represent them. The use of the tactic might not represent you, but you are not ucd.

<edited>

Kelso

mad lad wrote: »

There was a referendum a couple of years ago to increase the registration fee by €150 (I think) to fund a new student centre, which was passed. I think thats partially why ucds charge is higher...blame the idiots who've graduated and left the current bunch to pick up the bill!

The 150 is not part of the registration fee, it's the student centre levy. And it wasn't increased by 150 anyway, there was already a levy in place which was increased TO 150.
Allso, as to the 1500 reg fee, if I'm correct that's just the limit they can raise it too so it won't necessarily be the whole 1500 (although it would be v.unlike ucd not to squeeze evry penny possible of the students)

mad lad

The 150 is not part of the registration fee

yeah you're right, my memory is ****ed...but try registering without paying it and see how far you get

dr.bollocko

The real problem is that that's just a piss poor poster.
There are a number of issues that have been raised by yesterday's budget and I really think that I now mistrust the guy implicitly for what he did yesterday. I'd love to put a few questions to him or see him in person so I could look for the strings controlling him from above.

mad lad

The real problem is that that's just a piss poor poster.

tell ya what - post up a better one here and I'll put a hundred posters and 500 leaflets around campus with your image on it.

dr.bollocko

mad lad wrote: »

tell ya what - post up a better one here and I'll put a hundred copies around campus and 500 leaflets with your image on it.

/puts up dukes.

mad lad

I'm deadly serious. We're giving out leaflets up until monday - if you can come up with something better, by all means, go ahead.

The_Minister

mad lad wrote: »

The government currently subsidises private second level education to the tune of approx €80 million. If the government really cared about social inclusion, it would end this subsidy which only serves to give the children of wealthy parents an additional advantage of those from lower socio-economic backgorunds. The €80 million, which is more than would be raised by the reintroduction of fees, could then invest in the grants system or in early intervention schemes at primary and secondary level to help address certain barriers to education. There are countless other examples of issues like this.

The government still has a duty to pay for education. All that private schools do is make the parents who choose to send their children there, pay more for facilities etc. Do you really think if parents make a contribution to the school, to promote a certain ethos, or maybe increase the range of activites available, then the government should just say "**** you" and put the entire cost of education on the parents?
How do you justify that? Seriously?
You are basically saying that all schools should be funded publically to the same standard (grand stuff) but if parents choose a school where they can contribute more for whatever (archery classes, fishing club etc), then they have to take the entire cost of education on board (Not grand).

mad lad wrote: »

The last time a blockade happened in UCD was in 2002 at the arrival of Noel Dempsey on campus. An opinion poll conducted by the Tribune after the event found that 76% of students supported the tactics of the group involved. The current blockade has the backing of the 5 sabbatical officers who students put in charge of representing them. I'd attribute more wieght to the combination that a) the tactic has been previously supported by the majority of students and b) its supported by the people students chose to represent them. The use of the tactic might not represent you, but you are not ucd.

I wouldn't wipe my hole with the Tribune. It's like the Mirror - you read it for entertainment, but you don't believe whats in it. I wouldn't trust the Tribune to tell me that the sky was blue.
I have no problem with the protest, but the poster is childish and insulting.

mad lad wrote: »

There was a referendum a couple of years ago to increase the registration fee by €150 (I think) to fund a new student centre, which was passed. I think thats partially why ucds charge is higher...blame the idiots who've graduated and left the current bunch to pick up the bill!

Oh yes it's our fault:rolleyes: we just had to pay for it, and will get a tiny discount when its built. Most of us who voted for it (I slightly regret my decision) still have to pay the levy at least once.

dr.bollocko

You have indeed laid down the gambit. As 'twere. And I may even give it a bash. However UCD is not my native college nor my native county.
Though I might submit an alternative I would just argue that it is not the design that is the problem but the context in which it is framed.

mloc

mad lad wrote: »

An opinion poll conducted by the Tribune after the event found that 76% of students supported the tactics of the group involved.

I'd like to see the methodology behind their poll. A non-independent, non-randomised poll by the Tribune is worth about as much as fart.

I'm personally for the re-introduction of fees with a college loans system backed up by means tested repayments, similar to the system in place in Scotland and Australia.

mad lad

All that private schools do is make the parents who choose to send their children there, pay more for facilities etc........then the government should just say "**** you" and put the entire cost of education on the parents?

Absolutley. Why should the parents of a kid in public school subsidse private education for wealthier kids to gain an advantage?

I'd like to see the methodology behind their poll. A non-independent, non-randomised poll by the Tribune is worth about as much as fart.

I'm not a fan of polls myself but I'd take one over the opinion of some lad on an internet forum conflating his views with those of ucd as a whole.

I'm personally for the re-introduction of fees with a college loans system backed up by means tested repayments, similar to the system in place in Scotland and Australia.

This system has left the Australian government €15 billion in debt. How do you propse the system and results would be different in Ireland? The current Australian education minister has said the system has been a failure.

Breezer

mad lad wrote: »

Absolutley. Why should the parents of a kid in public school subsidse private education for wealthier kids to gain an advantage?

They're not "subsidising private education for wealthier kids." 'They' (by which I mean the Irish taxpayer, not any articular group of parents) are subsidising education in general. If, having paid their taxes (at a higher rate), higher earners want to contribute more towards their children's education then I see no problem with that. Nor do I see why, having done so, they should then be told "Well, you're clearly rich, so as well as paying higher taxes and the extra for private education, you can also pay the basic education rate instead of 'the taxpayer', and then you can pay for college too. That'll teach you to pay for things you want, won't it?"

While the increase in registration fees is ridiculously high, I am much more concerned that there has still been no attempt to regulate the waste of money on the part of UCD and other institutions. Today I learned that the UCD library has a place in 'Second Life.' I wonder how much that cost, and if it stays open longer than the real library?

Back to the original topic, I've no problem if people want to heckle Brian Lenihan. Students won't be the only ones. But don't prevent him speaking at debates, make your views known outside, then argue the point with him in the debate. And when the time comes, for the love of god vote him out along with the rest of his party!

anonymous_joe

Hmmm.

Two points:

Off topic - if private schools shouldn't get government funding, why not reduce taxes for people who send their kids to private schools?

On topic - if you disagree with Lenihan, engage in debate, nothing else. Then vote against him afterwards.

mad lad

if you disagree with Lenihan, engage in debate, nothing else. Then vote against him afterwards.

USI will be engaging in debate with the minister. Waiting until the summer of 2012 to write a number in a box isn't going to accomplish much.

On the issue of private schoos:
Wealthy parents pay for private education for their children in order to give them an advantage in the leaving cert and consequently, of getting into the 'better' colleges and courses. Currently the government subsidises this. I'm against it because I don't believe that the government should be contributing financially to something that promotes inequality.

mloc

mad lad wrote: »

This system has left the Australian government €15 billion in debt. How do you propse the system and results would be different in Ireland? The current Australian education minister has said the system has been a failure.

The system seems to be working in Scotland, which is much more similar to Ireland than Australia. The fact is colleges are running into huge deficits, despite cutbacks. Where will the money come from? More taxes? Oh yes of course, tax the well off; putting a tax on being successful is a fantastic way to stimulate the economy.

Two things are certain in colleges in Ireland; too many people (well off and not so well off) are going to college when they should be in other disciplines and there is simply not enough money to fund courses properly. Sure, everyone has a "right" to education; but this right does not neccessarily stretch to 3rd level education for those who are unable, uninterested or those who expect it to come for free. A payback loan scheme for fees is fairer; those from well off backgrounds and those from poorer are both given a chance to make a career for themselves before paying money back.

mad lad

eh, do you know how it works in Scotland? The Scottish government pays all tuition fees. In Scotland you previously had to pay a once off endowment once you'd graduated (which was about £2000) but they've scrapped that now too.

Their student loan sysytem is designed to help students afford free tuition. The Scottish governments give students loans, in Ireland we're forced to go to AIB & BOI etchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Awards_Agency_for_Scotland

Where will the money come from? More taxes? Oh yes of course, tax the well off; putting a tax on being successful is a fantastic way to stimulate the economy.

Yes, theres a return of €1.25 for every €1 invested in education.

mloc

May I ask, before I go further, what you would have Ireland do?

Dave!

mad lad wrote: »

I'm deadly serious. We're giving out leaflets up until monday - if you can come up with something better, by all means, go ahead.

You can use this one if ye like mate

mad lad

mloc wrote: »

May I ask, before I go further, what you would have Ireland do?

According to the OECD's Education at a Glance report, "only two countries, Greece and The Slovak Republic invest less as a percentage of GDP in education than Ireland". I'd have them up total spending on education to the EU average.

The government doesn't fund education out of the goodness of its heart - it does it because of the 'rate of return on investment'.

Graduates produce more, on average for the economy, than non-graduates. The government expects to make a long term profit on all graduates because education and earnings are positively linked. If it wasn't economically beneficial, if there was no rate of return on investment, they simply wouldn't bother doing it at all.

Breezer

mad lad wrote: »

I don't believe that the government should be contributing financially to something that promotes inequality.

It isn't. Myself and The Minister have both pointed this out. I detest this government but I acknowledge fact.

vote4pedro

if you disagree with Lenihan, engage in debate, nothing else. Then vote against him afterwards.

What a sad time it is for students when a peaceful protest against a huge increase in fees such as the one we've witnessed is considered radical, lefty, anarchist and reflecting poorly on UCD. Pathetic.

anonymous_joe

vote4pedro wrote: »

What a sad time it is for students when a peaceful protest against a huge increase in fees such as the one we've witnessed is considered radical, lefty, anarchist and reflecting poorly on UCD. Pathetic.

Ok, first things first, it's a blockade not a peaceful protest.

I like the idea of coming across as some kind of far right nutcase. It really makes me feel good about myself. I blame studying commerce.

I just think that blockading someone from going to a prior engagement is rude, childish and pointless.

Much as I dislike the notion of increased fees, education in Ireland at third level is vastly underfunded. The only source of revenue is the government. That's sadly not working. Increased fees were inevitable, and to be honest, while it's a hefty increase, it's a long way short of paying the actual fees are courses would entail.

Given that the world's economies are in retreat, and money has suddenly become scarce, a reduction in government spending was inevitable, money has to come from somewhere else, and we're the obvious source of revenue. I fully appreciate the fact that this will place hardship on some people, and I hope to God that there are provisions made for those struggling already, because I think everyone should have the chance to go to college. I know people from other countries with debts of 30 or 40k hanging over there heads, so I'm glad we don't have to deal with that.

We got off lightly to be honest. What would we prefer, that we get spared a fee increase at the expense of primary education or secondary education? Or the Health Service...?

33% God

mloc wrote: »

The system seems to be working in Scotland, which is much more similar to Ireland than Australia. The fact is colleges are running into huge deficits, despite cutbacks. Where will the money come from? More taxes? Oh yes of course, tax the well off; putting a tax on being successful is a fantastic way to stimulate the economy.

Two things are certain in colleges in Ireland; too many people (well off and not so well off) are going to college when they should be in other disciplines and there is simply not enough money to fund courses properly. Sure, everyone has a "right" to education; but this right does not neccessarily stretch to 3rd level education for those who are unable, uninterested or those who expect it to come for free. A payback loan scheme for fees is fairer; those from well off backgrounds and those from poorer are both given a chance to make a career for themselves before paying money back.

Loans are incredibly discouraging. If someone comes from a genuinely disadvantaged background he/she is going to look at University and see the opportunity cost in loss of earnings and now also a risky loan (what happens if you fail, you still have all this money to pay back). I'd imagine that many will opt for the safe option of a trade (not that there is anything wrong with trades, but there is something wrong with possibly forcing more able candidates into plumbing or carpentry while our next batch of cancer researchers are there because Daddy has deep pockets)
Furthermore someone who is embarking upon a 7 year course like myself is not likely to be bothered. Why would I pay extra to do my current degree when I could simply become a teacher and be out before I'm 21. There is very little difference in salary. The difference for the government is that rather than a highly qualified graduate in a vital field they'll have someone who got there because daddy could afford it.

We want a meritocratic society, not a plutocracy

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I just think that blockading someone from going to a prior engagement is rude, childish and pointless.

He's going to stop me from coming to UCD, I'm going to stop him from doing the same.

Mr.Nice Guy

Good luck to those involved with the protest I say.

Stabshauptmann

mad lad wrote: »

Absolutley. Why should the parents of a kid in public school subsidse private education for wealthier kids to gain an advantage?

That statement would lead one to believe you are either lazy or stupid. Either you didnt read his post, or you lack the ability to comprehend what he said.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

I've no problem if people want to heckle Brian Lenihan. Students won't be the only ones. But don't prevent him speaking at debates, make your views known outside, then argue the point with him in the debate. And when the time comes, for the love of god vote him out

QFT

Stabshauptmann

mad lad wrote: »

Graduates produce more, on average for the economy, than non-graduates. The government expects to make a long term profit on all graduates because education and earnings are positively linked. If it wasn't economically beneficial, if there was no rate of return on investment, they simply wouldn't bother doing it at all.

There is nothing from history or the current political climate that has led me to believe that governments make purely rational economic decisions.

Decisions will always have social and tribal dimensions, though (but not always :rolleyes:) bound by economic restraints.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

It isn't. Myself and The Minister have both pointed this out. I detest this government but I acknowledge fact.

Ive a question for both yourself and The Minister to ponder though.

I agree with you in principal, and am thankful for The Minister's post which saved me the time and effort as he said all I wanted to say.

However, how do you reconcile the fact that these schools are not open to the public?

Ive no problem with public finances pay the basic cost and anything extra is at the parents discretion, but these schools are not open to everyone. And I think its when you start doing things like that that the issue of whether or not you can then claim public funding should be addressed.

If the schools are first come first serve, but by the way theres fees, then fine. Thats the way the Institute works afaik. But correct me if Im wrong, dont Mary's, Blackrock, Gonzagga etc choose who to admit?

And no I dont accept that those who choose not to avail of free education (or any other state service) should then be entitled to a tax break. The state makes these services available to all, how you choose to use them is your prerogative. Those who pay tax at the higher rate will in variably use less public services than others.

The_Minister

[Mod-hat]Kaptain Redeye, we have a multi-quote function, in general its preferred if you use one post, as opposed to four posts in a row. That said, you aren't as bad as this guy. I know its easy to do when you read through a thread and keep seeing posts that you want to respond to, but just try multi-quoting them. [/mod-hat]


To answer your question, I don't mind. Most private schools (and a good bunch of public ones) favour those families who have had other children in the school before. This is to keep siblings together, and give the family an investment in the school (as in its their school, and they take an interest in it as such). I know that in recent times this has discriminated against immigrants, but that was never the intention of this tradition (they predate the tradition by decades).

Or are you referring to the ability tests that some schools make their pupils take?

1968

33% God wrote: »

He's going to stop me from coming to UCD, I'm going to stop him from doing the same.

here here.

all out! join the UCDSU and FEE on monday. 5.50pm outside Quinn.

Stabshauptmann

The_Minister wrote: »

[Mod-hat]Kaptain Redeye, we have a multi-quote function, in general its preferred if you use one post, as opposed to four posts in a row. That said, you aren't as bad as this guy. I know its easy to do when you read through a thread and keep seeing posts that you want to respond to, but just try multi-quoting them. [/mod-hat]


To answer your question, I don't mind. Most private schools (and a good bunch of public ones) favour those families who have had other children in the school before. This is to keep siblings together, and give the family an investment in the school (as in its their school, and they take an interest in it as such). I know that in recent times this has discriminated against immigrants, but that was never the intention of this tradition (they predate the tradition by decades).

Or are you referring to the ability tests that some schools make their pupils take?

None of the schools in my locality, and I thought it was the same with all public schools, have any say who goes there. You let them know you're coming and thats about it. If they're full, its a first come first served basis (the primary schools did actually get full and you might have to wait until the next year).

For private schools on the other hand I thought you had to apply and the school choose whether or not you could attend. Right there is the problem with public funding, its not open to all.

gubbie

mad lad wrote:

Absolutley. Why should the parents of a kid in public school subsidse private education for wealthier kids to gain an advantage?

If you're gonna think like that then why should the parents of wealthier kids pay for poorer kids to go to school?

Breezer

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I agree with you in principal, and am thankful for The Minister's post which saved me the time and effort as he said all I wanted to say.

However, how do you reconcile the fact that these schools are not open to the public?

Ive no problem with public finances pay the basic cost and anything extra is at the parents discretion, but these schools are not open to everyone. And I think its when you start doing things like that that the issue of whether or not you can then claim public funding should be addressed.

If the schools are first come first serve, but by the way theres fees, then fine. Thats the way the Institute works afaik. But correct me if Im wrong, dont Mary's, Blackrock, Gonzagga etc choose who to admit?

AFAIK yes, they do, although this is breaking down to some extent. They are no longer allowed choose on the basis of religion, for example (but can still promote whatever religious ethos they choose to in the school, which is a whole other discussion). The secondary school I went to, if I remember correctly, gave priority to pupils of the attached primary school, followed by brothers of current pupils, then sons of past pupils. I was none of these and still got in, and I wasn't the exception either. This was in a small enough school when compared to the likes of Blackrock. While I can see the logic in the policy as explained by The Minister, I also accept your argument, and would have no major problem if schools were required to drop these admission policies to keep State funding. I went to an Educate Together primary school, which by definition has absolutely no such restrictions on admission, and I think in an ideal world it's by far the best education model, and one I'd love to see extended to secondary schools.

And no I dont accept that those who choose not to avail of free education (or any other state service) should then be entitled to a tax break. The state makes these services available to all, how you choose to use them is your prerogative. Those who pay tax at the higher rate will in variably use less public services than others.

Not sure if this was directed at me or not. If so, I wasn't suggesting that parents of children in private schools should get a tax break, rather that they should not be penalised for sending their children there by automatically receiving no State assistance of any description on the basis that "they're rich."

anonymous_joe wrote:

We got off lightly to be honest. What would we prefer, that we get spared a fee increase at the expense of primary education or secondary education? Or the Health Service...?

O'Keeffe isn't finished yet, fees are still on the agenda for next year. Primary and secondary education also got hit hard, with pupil:teacher ratios going up and cutbacks in grants for schools. As did the Health Service: I have mixed feelings on the withdrawal of the over 70's medical card, but the increase in A & E is not on when people often have few primary care alternatives, and the higher cut off rate for monthly prescription medicines hits people suffering from chronic disease. This budget made no effort to tackle bureocracy, and instead lashed out at ordinary people.

mad lad

If you're gonna think like that then why should the parents of wealthier kids pay for poorer kids to go to school?

Because this promotes greater equality.

Stabshauptmann

Breezer wrote: »

Not sure if this was directed at me or not.

It was in response to anonymous_joe