Who Decides SU policy on fees?

andrew

In every e-mail i get from the SU (or a SU rep), their anti-fee stance is mentioned, and SU people have come in before a couple of lectures to encourage us to protest fees. So I was just wondering who decides SU policy on this, do they just decide it for themselves, is there some sort of charter etc? Since they represent the entire student body, shouldn't they just be neutral?

Fad

andrew wrote: »

In every e-mail i get from the SU (or a SU rep), their anti-fee stance is mentioned, and SU people have come in before a couple of lectures to encourage us to protest fees. So I was just wondering who decides SU policy on this, do they just decide it for themselves, is there some sort of charter etc? Since they represent the entire student body, shouldn't they just be neutral?

I would imagine, and I could be wrong, but I would say that the vast majority of students would be against fees.

ilovemybrick

andrew wrote: »

In every e-mail i get from the SU (or a SU rep), their anti-fee stance is mentioned, and SU people have come in before a couple of lectures to encourage us to protest fees. So I was just wondering who decides SU policy on this, do they just decide it for themselves, is there some sort of charter etc? Since they represent the entire student body, shouldn't they just be neutral?

The position stems from a motion made to council which was passed.
This is voted on reps. So in theory it is supposed to be representative. There is a strong pro-fees argument but until it is made through the proscribed channels the student union sabbatts are mandated to be anti-fee.

Tristram

Elected reps, they speak for you (in theory).

andrew

Fad wrote: »

I would imagine, and I could be wrong, but I would say that the vast majority of students would be against fees.

That's probably the case, but i was wondering if they just kinda assumed that or there was actually some vote on it.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

The position stems from a motion made to council which was passed.
This is voted on reps. So in theory it is supposed to be representative. There is a strong pro-fees argument but until it is made through the proscribed channels the student union sabbatts are mandated to be anti-fee.

Ah i see.

Jonathan

andrew wrote: »

In every e-mail i get from the SU (or a SU rep), their anti-fee stance is mentioned, and SU people have come in before a couple of lectures to encourage us to protest fees. So I was just wondering who decides SU policy on this, do they just decide it for themselves, is there some sort of charter etc? Since they represent the entire student body, shouldn't they just be neutral?

Annoying isn't it?

Best thing to do is just ignore the SU.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

So in theory it is supposed to be representative.

Hardly representative when you have the Sabbats there telling people to pass it.

ilovemybrick

jmccrohan wrote: »

Annoying isn't it?

Best thing to do is just ignore the SU.



Hardly representative when you have the Sabbats there telling people to pass it.

Representative in theory. Anyway you don't go to council anymore so you're hardly representing all that much yourself.:p

Jonathan

ilovemybrick wrote: »

Representative in theory. Anyway you don't go to council anymore so you're hardly representing all that much yourself.:p

That is true

In all seriousness though, there is a reason that TD's can't canvas outside a polling station. This is similar.

gamma23

When a class rep votes at council they should vote for what they think the majority of their class want.

Whether I am pro or anti fees didn't come into my decision to vote for the anti-fees policy motion. It was the fact that over 80% of my class were stood with me at the last protest.

(As it happens I am against fees cos I rather like college and would like to still be here next year, something I won't be able to afford with fees)

Hornd

(As it happens I am against fees cos I rather like college and would like to still be here next year, something I won't be able to afford with fees)

Would you be able to afford it if you received an interest free loan from the government and payed it back once you finished your degree and started earning money?

Mark200

Hornd wrote: »

Would you be able to afford it if you received an interest free loan from the government and payed it back once you finished your degree and started earning money?

Yay, we can all start off our working life €25,000 in debt

snappieT

Mark200 wrote: »

Yay, we can all start off our working life €25,000 in debt

Sounds reasonable to me. I understand why society needs engineers, business graduates, doctors and so on. I don't think the taxpayer should have to fund Little Miss English & Philosophy.

Also: since the taxpayers aren't funding students, taxation should be lower, making that 25k of debt easier to pay back due to your greater earning power.

ilovemybrick

snappieT wrote: »

Sounds reasonable to me. I understand why society needs engineers, business graduates, doctors and so on. I don't think the taxpayer should have to fund Little Miss English & Philosophy.

Also: since the taxpayers aren't funding students, taxation should be lower, making that 25k of debt easier to pay back due to your greater earning power.

That only assumes that college can continue to function at the level of funding which it is currently receiving, which it can't.

gamma23

Hornd wrote: »

Would you be able to afford it if you received an interest free loan from the government and payed it back once you finished your degree and started earning money?

Actually that probably wouldn't have an immediate effect on student finances.

But effectively borrowing money out and paying to set up a system that wont raise any money for about 8 years (ish by the time it makes back what it would cost probably) isn't exactly a good economic plan at the minute is it. And thats why that wouldn't be a bill the government would write up.

Brian

Peslo.

Jonathan

snappieT wrote: »

Sounds reasonable to me. I understand why society needs engineers, business graduates, doctors and so on. I don't think the taxpayer should have to fund Little Miss English & Philosophy.

If fees are announced I plan to go to the bank and get a loan.

Get a part time job during the college year to pay the interest, work full time during the summer to earn money to live off for the college year (as I have done for the past few summers), and then pay back the capital when I am earning money.

gamma23

jmccrohan wrote: »

If fees are announced I plan to go to the bank and get a loan.

A loan? As a student from an Irish Bank? In the near future? You better be good at flirting with them people that give out loans, thats all I'm saying.

Jonathan

gamma23 wrote: »

A loan? As a student from an Irish Bank? In the near future? You better be good at flirting with them people that give out loans, thats all I'm saying.

I am fully aware of the current economic situation.

scengi

jmccrohan wrote: »

If fees are announced I plan to go to the bank and get a loan.

Get a part time job during the college year to pay the interest, work full time during the summer to earn money to live off for the college year (as I have done for the past few summers), and then pay back the capital when I am earning money.

To echo and earlier post, no bank will give you a loan to pay for your degree right now. This is especially true for an engineering degree (right john?) considering the current economic climate. I'm not sure whether or not you currently have a parttime job but I can assure you that they are becoming more and more difficult to come across. In terms of a full time job for the summer, this summer will be shorter due to the introduction of semesterisation next year (freshers week begins the 21st sept). Couple that with the recession and trying to find a full time job for two months becomes increasingly more difficult.
If fees (or a loans system that will leave us in debt that we will have to pay back when we begin to work) are introduced, this is serve only to subsidise the government's current payment of fees for us. The universities will be no better off. This will also mean that there will be a drop in the numbers in nursing, teaching etc as people realise that they are destined for middle income jobs in these and knowing that they are going to leave college in significant debt will entice them towards degrees that lead to higher income jobs (law, medicine etc). By the same logic, there will be a hefty drop in those studying the Arts as there is no defined route to a job from same. This, inevitably will lead to a drop in numbers attending 3rd level overall and as such a drop in the universities funding as it is the students that are financing it; leaving the universities in a worse wituation that they are currently in. Education services all and has to be paid for through taxation (just like the prison and health system). You may argue that there are a lot of people that don't go to college and still pay. they benefit in the fact that we have doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, engineers, academics etc etc that are utilised by all. By the same logic I could argue that 3rd level graduates use the health and prison systems less than those that don't graduate from third level (I'm not being derogatory-this is fact) but I'm still happy to pay for them to be there and I believe I benefit significantly from the fact that they're there.
If you look at ANY other country in economic difficulty, they're investing more in education because it is an well educated workforce that produces good jobs, brings money into the economy and stabilises the country economically.
To introduce fees will make the economic situation worse than it currently is, will lead to a great increase in emmigration and will cripple the Universities beyond what many of them can handle.


See you wednesday.

gamma23

yes well said scengi, those were my sentiments but much better articulated!

(now if i could only find out how you do that thanks thing)
edit: o ok then thats how

Jonathan

scengi wrote: »

If you look at ANY other country in economic difficulty, they're investing more in education because it is an well educated workforce that produces good jobs, brings money into the economy and stabilises the country economically.

Right now we cannot really afford that.

As a nation, we are in a state of emergency. Unfortunately not many of the students realise this. Most just think that these cuts are being made cause the Government overspent a bit last year, and we now a have recession.

Very few of the students in college at the moment know what a recession is like. Most people of our generation just grew up remembering a Fianna Fail government and the Celtic Tiger.


Right now, about the only thing keeping this country running is the Euro. If not for that, we would be like Iceland. Running off a multibillion euro loan from the IMF.

andrew

scengi wrote: »

To echo and earlier post, no bank will give you a loan to pay for your degree right now. This is especially true for an engineering degree (right john?) considering the current economic climate.

I know a guy who walked into BoI this September, said, 'can i have a loan for a repeat year plz?' and got one with no hassle. I can only guess that the banks feel that people leaving college in 4 years time won't have as big a problem getting a job as people do now, so that shouldn't be a problem. Also, people with degrees generally become employed in relativly good jobs compared to people without degrees, so it's not as if students are akin to subprime loans.

If fees (or a loans system that will leave us in debt that we will have to pay back when we begin to work) are introduced, this is serve only to subsidise the government's current payment of fees for us. The universities will be no better off.

I don't know how much the Uni's get from the Government, but I imagine it's a bit less than what they could charge if they were setting prices. Could be wrong though. Even if that isn't the case, fees will mean that the govt. can spend less on universitys and more on other more important forms of education like primary and secondary schools.

This will also mean that there will be a drop in the numbers in nursing, teaching etc as people realise that they are destined for middle income jobs in these and knowing that they are going to leave college in significant debt will entice them towards degrees that lead to higher income jobs (law, medicine etc). By the same logic, there will be a hefty drop in those studying the Arts as there is no defined route to a job from same. This, inevitably will lead to a drop in numbers attending 3rd level overall and as such a drop in the universities funding as it is the students that are financing it; leaving the universities in a worse wituation that they are currently in.

Even with a loan, arts/nurses/teaching degrees still mean you'd earn more than if you didn't get a degree at all. So not going to college at all for that reason is a bit silly, I think most people realise that, so I don't think there'll be a huge drop in numbers for that reason.

If you look at ANY other country in economic difficulty, they're investing more in education because it is an well educated workforce that produces good jobs, brings money into the economy and stabilises the country economically.
To introduce fees will make the economic situation worse than it currently is, will lead to a great increase in emmigration and will cripple the Universities beyond what many of them can handle.

Examples? Anyway, since fees probably won't lead to a big reduction in the number of people going to uni, and since fees will probably mean more money for primary, secondary (if thats where the govt puts the money) AND more money for universitys, AND less grind school idiots taking up places, then I don't see how this would make our education any worse.

tolosenc

If nothing else, the council's wording in the resolution ABSOLUTELY needs to be changed. Objecting to the reintroduction of fees in any form, even one that was 100% agreeable to all(and no, I don't know what that is), is just plain silly.

The Governments coffers are running on empty. I'd be the first to criticise FF for their management of the economy, but that's beside the point. University fees can no longer be afforded by the tax-payer. If some of the money saved was injected into grass roots stuff like Primary schools, where it is desperately needed, we might have a better shot down the line of an educated workforce.

From my viewpoint, and I'm not suggesting this of everyone, a lot of students are just acting like spoiled brats. I agree with the comments above about "Little Miss English and Philosophy", but who's to decide what is a valid course to be state funded? All or none.

And please, don't do what some people I know did at the last protest. If you want to be taken seriously, don't see this as an opportunity to get hammered and go mental. Have a bit of dignity and some respect for everyone else.

EGaffney

English and Philosophy ought to be funded more by governments than Science and Engineering, because there are fewer direct financial benefits to the participant, thus discouraging take-up of those courses. In contrast, there is always a job market for engineering/science degrees, so if those sectors want to encourage more graduates, they should call forth more labour by offering higher wages.

sunnyjim

EGaffney wrote: »

English and Philosophy ought to be funded more by governments than Science and Engineering, because there are fewer direct financial benefits to the participant, thus discouraging take-up of those courses. In contrast, there is always a job market for engineering/science degrees, so if those sectors want to encourage more graduates, they should call forth more labour by offering higher wages.

The state should put money into something that it gets no return from, but should gain money from something it will gain even more from.

Right.

Pay the fees. Maybe people will start picking wisely and stop going to college for the craic, only to end up working for the cinema or whatever.

manicmonoliths

sunnyjim wrote: »

The state should put money into something that it gets no return from, but should gain money from something it will gain even more from.

Right.

Pay the fees. Maybe people will start picking wisely and stop going to college for the craic, only to end up working for the cinema or whatever.

Society would indeed be perfect if all anybody did in college was engineering.

I don't get how some people decide that some courses have more to offer society than others. Of course all engineers and scientists contribute more to society than a lowly English student ever could.

How do you decide whether someone 'contributes to society' or not? Where do you draw the line? As long as someone has a legitimate job I'd feel they were contributing.

I'm genuinely interested in this, what do you think people with English degrees do after they finish college? Do they all go straight on to social welfare and milk the state for all it's worth? As far as I know many go on to be teachers and journalists, which sound like pretty important jobs to me.


Does everyone with an engineering degree go on to be an outstanding member of society?

I don't mean to single out engineers by any means (I was almost one myself:))

Jonathan

manicmonoliths wrote: »

Does everyone with an engineering degree go on to be an outstanding member of society?

Yes.

















:pac:

devinejay

I've already made my points over on the other thread (Pro-fees one) but I thought I'd jump in on this brawl.Basically in the face of all these clashing opinions with no way to adjudicate who's right or wrong (they are opinions all the same) I'd like to swing the focus back around to the SU. It's clear they don't represent everyone, and it has to be accepted that, as someone mentioned earlier, their completely anti-fees stance is illogical and over enthusiastic. Is there anything that can be done? They as representatives of the whole student body are never gonna please everyone, but they could try. In my class of about 180 there's two reps, and it seems they just assumed we were all anti-fees. It's a dangerously imbalanced system.

Brace yourself for a pipe-dream;
A fairly comprehensive SU run survey of the opinions of the student body, with accompanying education campaigns from all sides so it doesn't end up an individualistic consensus of "Yeah, I suppose I'd rather not pay fees". Impossible? Surely this one of the most (if not the very most) important issues of student politics to be raised during our respective years in college. It couldn't hurt to get it right, I mean they surveyed us about a student center that looks doomed to toil in administration until we are all long gone.

EGaffney

sunnyjim wrote: »

The state should put money into something that it gets no return from, but should gain money from something it will gain even more from.

Right.

Absolutely right, actually, unless you see the State as a profit-making enterprise like those of DR Congo, Zimbabwe, etc.