so.. whens this strike

bleg

D-Generate

Which SU member is TheBigCheese22? But yup I too was wondering where he is at the moment. He might think that the "cause" is only worth talking about to supporters of it.

Amtmann

I don't know, but his post #15 on page one of this thread displays an astonishing level of immaturity and simple-mindedness.

thebigcheese22

Oh my god I'm posting! :rolleyes: Don't worry the only reason I couldn't post was because I was at a party conference at the weekend, plus a newly-elected auditor of a society is a busy man.

Furet wrote: »

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

In my opinion, it was not at all like the disaster that it could have been. The problem was that the SU had no time to prepare, with the unions only pulling out of the strike on the Thursday or Friday. The only reason they held it on the Monday when there was no lectures was to coincide with this strike, If they had cancelled it, it would have looked a lot worse IMO, plus time is against students with the Budget next week. We got our point across in the media anyway, with it being covered by RTE, TG4 News, Evening Echo, Red FM and 96 FM.

ReacherCreature wrote: »

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

I don't think getting that kind of media presence with such a short amount of time is a disaster in anyone's books

D-Generate wrote: »

Which SU member is TheBigCheese22? But yup I too was wondering where he is at the moment. He might think that the "cause" is only worth talking about to supporters of it.

Well I'm not an SU officer, but I'm a member of the SU, just like every student of this college. Btw I'm not in that photo. And believe me, I'm a lot more vocal about this subject to those in favour of fees than those who are against them. Don't bother preaching to the converted and all that jazz.

Furet wrote: »

I don't know, but his post #15 on page one of this thread displays an astonishing level of immaturity and simple-mindedness.

Wow, you're scavaging for incriminating posts is the height of maturity my friend! :rolleyes: You might try to be condescending to get your point across but I have to say, it doesn't work.

I am a student against fees, because I believe everyone should have the right to education, from pre-school to primary, secondary to third-level. If the Government's proposals of those earning over 100 G only paying fees was true, I would be the first one in support of it, even if I hate the Government. The fact is, mean testing has been proven not to work in this country, and Fianna Fail are guaranteed to lower the threshold over time to a level where ordinary people will struggle to pay. Look at the ridiculous stealth rises in the registration fee if you don't believe me.

I am against fees for the reasons stated above, plus plenty more, and I make no apologies for doing everything (legal) I can to stop them being brought back. If the gang in this thread - I can't think of any other word for you - want to try and intimidate me, fine, but I will never change my opinion.

Amtmann

I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to intimidate you. That wasn't my intention.

thebigcheese22

Furet wrote: »

I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to intimidate you. That wasn't my intention.

Fair enough. It just annoys me when people sneer about these kind of demonstrations. Fair enough if you're all for fees, but theres a lot of students against them, and once they're introduced are gonna say we did **** all to fight them, and that pisses me off TBH

ReacherCreature

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

I don't think getting that kind of media presence with such a short amount of time is a disaster in anyone's books .

I didn't hear anything but then again I was moving house and was busy all day but I was expecting something bigger considering the amount of students that voted and the number of times people called into lectures to talk about it. However you went ahead with it and at least you can say you fought against fees etc. Nice one.

captainspeckle

would love some links to the media coverage, coz it all kinda went un-noticed to me!

thebigcheese22

captainspeckle wrote: »

would love some links to the media coverage, coz it all kinda went un-noticed to me!

There ya go

It was also on the evening echo yesterday, TG 4 news at 7, and the news on Red FM.

Amtmann

Forty students out of what, 17,000?

deRanged

it's also the first result if you search for "ucc students protest against fees" on google. well, my blog post is. ahead of rte

keane2097

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Wow, you're scavaging for incriminating posts is the height of maturity my friend! :rolleyes: You might try to be condescending to get your point across but I have to say, it doesn't work.

Aside from the scavenging talk, I must say that post was a terribly poor reflection on you.

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

I am a student against fees, because I believe everyone should have the right to education, from pre-school to primary, secondary to third-level.

Why?

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

If the gang in this thread - I can't think of any other word for you - want to try and intimidate me, fine, but I will never change my opinion.

Now this really is just too precious. You're going to make a fine politician sir, making gangs and intimidation out of people asking tougher questions than you're prepared to answer on an internet forum for god's sake :eek:

"Intimidate" you... :rolleyes:

KnifeWRENCH

The RTE link said "up to 40 people" - were there actually that many people there at any point? Because from reading this thread and the thread on FUCC it seems that there weren't even that many there.
I know the day of the strike was chosen to correspond with other union demonstrations but it still would have helped FEE's cause to hold the protest during term when the majority of students were actually around campus.
Having maximum attendance at a protest is surely more important than coinciding with similar protests? The fact that the other protests were cancelled makes it all worse.

thebigcheese22

keane2097 wrote: »

Aside from the scavenging talk, I must say that post was a terribly poor reflection on you.

As I made the point earlier, the Devil can cite scripture for his own nefarious purposes. You're trying to undermine my argument by pointing out a post I made at the very start of the thread. I could equally sift through all of your previous posts in threads and point out idiotic statements by you (I admit that post by me was idiotic, get over it), because you, my great friend, don't seem like the brightest penny in the fountain.

Why?

Have you read any of my posts? :rolleyes:

Now this really is just too precious. You're going to make a fine politician sir, making gangs and intimidation out of people asking tougher questions than you're prepared to answer on an internet forum for god's sake :eek:

"Intimidate" you... :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

Firstly, don't worry, I'll never be a politician. If a person is interested in the blood sport that is politics, he or she's ultimate goal is not necessarily to become a politician.

Secondly, you're saying that because its on the internet, a person needn't show respect to another person? That highlights an immaturity that reflects badly on you. ''intimidate' you'' indeed. I argue with people over certain issues, but I show them respect for their opinion. (See the thread on the stem-cell issue) You, kind sir, don't show respect for any opinion, except those who agree with you.

Again, that highlights an immaturity that reflects badly on you, kind good sir. :rolleyes:

deisedude

keane2097 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

What i was trying to get across was that a few misplaced commas shoudnt result in people failing. If everything they have written is incomprehensible tripe well then thats a differernt matter

keane2097

deisedude wrote: »

What i was trying to get across was that a few misplaced commas shoudnt result in people failing. If everything they have written is incomprehensible tripe well then thats a differernt matter

It's a matter of degrees I guess (excuse the pun). One misplaced comma here or there in an 80 page thesis might be excusable, but that's because it's easy to just forget to put in a comma somewhere - it doesn't mean you don't know what commas are.

In that sense, commas are a bad example really as very few people could be accused of systematic misuse of them. Grammatical errors, rather than punctuation errors, are to large extent what I'm talking about.

keane2097

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

I could equally sift through all of your previous posts in threads and point out idiotic statements by you (I admit that post by me was idiotic, get over it), because you, my great friend, don't seem like the brightest penny in the fountain.

I don't see what I've said anywhere in this thread that would give you the impression that my intellect is lacking. Perhaps I've made a few statements you don't fully understand. If you need clarification, just ask.

The only point worth mentioning here, imo, is that we've made a little bit of progress with you actually just admitting that the post in question was foolish. Previously we had to watch you wander off on wild tangents about being a victim of intimidation in order to avoid addressing it.

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Secondly, you're saying that because its on the internet, a person needn't show respect to another person? That highlights an immaturity that reflects badly on you.

Thank god I can happily report that no bad reflections have been cast anywhere on me. It is with a great sense of relief I can confirm that I haven't spoken about showing respect to other people anywhere on this thread. You have, in fact, completely fabricated an opinion and falsely attributed it to me by using the following phrase:

"you're saying that because"

Luckily, I believe most of the people involved in this discussion will not fall for your elaborate attempts to reflect badly on me...:pac:

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

''intimidate' you'' indeed. I argue with people over certain issues, but I show them respect for their opinion. (See the thread on the stem-cell issue) You, kind sir, don't show respect for any opinion, except those who agree with you.

Again, that highlights an immaturity that reflects badly on you, kind good sir. :rolleyes:

Now this....is....just....mind-boggling... (note that I've used dots to emphasize my disbelief).

May I draw your attention to the following two statements:-

"you, my great friend, don't seem like the brightest penny in the fountain."

&

"I argue with people over certain issues, but I show them respect for their opinion."

Now excuse me if I snigger behind my hand just a tad. You speak about how wonderfully you respect people in the same post where you dismissed someone's intellect so flagrantly. Did you forget what you wrote in your first paragraph when you were writing the rest? Did your personal abuse just slip your mind when you lauded your own "respectful" persona? You, sir, I charge with being a hypocrite. There can be no defense - you have convicted yourself.

Also, re:your sarcastic overuse of term "friend". Besides putting me in mind of a particularly hilarious plot thread from the Inbetweeners, I can't see what you're trying to achieve. Mindless sarcasm is, well, mindless.

You've mentioned my "immaturity" on the topic without actually referencing any particular instances, well I would point you to your own "my great friend" statements and ask you to ask yourself - is this really the stuff of grown ups?

EDIT:

By the way, I have read your earlier posts and your reasoning against fees is quite feeble imo.

1. "Third level education should be for all, rich or poor"

This is simply an opinion - for it to be a valid argument you need to actually make a point. My counter-position is

"Third level education should be for neither rich nor poor and it should certainly not be for everyone. Third level education should be for the most gifted people in the areas in which they are needed"

2. "Basically I'm against it because bringing back fees will damage our economy"

Basically is the operative word here if ever there was one. How do you figure bringing back fees will damage our economy? Do you have any back up to this statement at all or is it just a complete throwaway comment?

3. "We will never be able to build that knowledge based economy which is one of Fianna Failure's stated aims"

We already have a knowledge based economy. Currently, a whopping 75% of the workforce has achieved higher education. You know what, the economy is still fcuked, and all the knowledge based economy extolling in the world can't change the simple reality.

4. "If a limit of 100000 for parents earnings is put in, this will eventually be lowered"

This is clearly just made up and I make no bones whatsoever about dismissing it as an argument out of hand.

thebigcheese22

keane2097 wrote: »

Perhaps I've made a few statements you don't fully understand. If you need clarification, just ask.

Nice condescending language there, I understand perfectly well what your argument is, and I disagree with it.

The only point worth mentioning here, imo, is that we've made a little bit of progress with you actually just admitting that the post in question was foolish. Previously we had to watch you wander off on wild tangents about being a victim of intimidation in order to avoid addressing it.

Thank you for patting me on the back for my so-called 'progress', it means a lot. :rolleyes: I never once went off on 'wild tangents' to excuse certain posts.

Thank god I can happily report that no bad reflections have been cast anywhere on me. It is with a great sense of relief I can confirm that I haven't spoken about showing respect to other people anywhere on this thread. You have, in fact, completely fabricated an opinion and falsely attributed it to me by using the following phrase:

"you're saying that because"

Luckily, I believe most of the people involved in this discussion will not fall for your elaborate attempts to reflect badly on me...:pac:

You're being deliberately pedantic to get away from the real issue - the reintroduction of fees. You asked 'why?' everyone should have equal access to all forms of education. Elaborate on this, instead of asking one-worded questions, and excuse me if I side-step from this silliness you want to drag the thread into.

keane2097

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

You're being deliberately pedantic to get away from the real issue - the reintroduction of fees. You asked 'why?' everyone should have equal access to all forms of education. Elaborate on this, instead of asking one-worded questions, and excuse me if I side-step from this silliness you want to drag the thread into.

There's a difference, a very big difference in fact, between being pedantic and clarifying yourself when somebody has wildly misrepresented what you've said.

Anyway, I've added more to the initial post now if you'd care to comment.

EDIT:

By the way, you've cunningly sidestepped this:

keane2097 wrote:

May I draw your attention to the following two statements:-

"you, my great friend, don't seem like the brightest penny in the fountain."

&

"I argue with people over certain issues, but I show them respect for their opinion."

Now excuse me if I snigger behind my hand just a tad. You speak about how wonderfully you respect people in the same post where you dismissed someone's intellect so flagrantly. Did you forget what you wrote in your first paragraph when you were writing the rest? Did your personal abuse just slip your mind when you lauded your own "respectful" persona? You, sir, I charge with being a hypocrite. There can be no defense - you have convicted yourself.

Also, re:your sarcastic overuse of term "friend". Besides putting me in mind of a particularly hilarious plot thread from the Inbetweeners, I can't see what you're trying to achieve. Mindless sarcasm is, well, mindless.

You've mentioned my "immaturity" on the topic without actually referencing any particular instances, well I would point you to your own "my great friend" statements and ask you to ask yourself - is this really the stuff of grown ups?

Now I'll understand if you simply don't want to defend the indefensible, but I'd hate to think you'd just missed it...

thebigcheese22

keane2097 wrote: »

EDIT:

By the way, I have read your earlier posts and your reasoning against fees is quite feeble imo.

1. "Third level education should be for all, rich or poor"

This is simply an opinion - for it to be a valid argument you need to actually make a point. My counter-position is

"Third level education should be for neither rich nor poor and it should certainly not be for everyone. Third level education should be for the most gifted people in the areas in which they are needed"

Firstly I disagree with randomly taking out sentences from posts, without giving due regard to the context it was said in, but anyway...

What you mightn't have grasped from my statement is that third-level education should be available for rich and poor, if they have the intellectual capacity to enter a college. I agree that all people are not up to the level that third level institutions require, and some just want to finish their education after the Leaving.
What I don't agree with is that your parents income should be the determining factor for getting into third level education. For example, some people can afford grinds which improve their results in the Leaving Cert. What about those that cannot afford this form of private education?
While I agree with your opinion in this regard, I still don't see how this justifies bringing back fees?

2. "Basically I'm against it because bringing back fees will damage our economy"

Basically is the operative word here if ever there was one. How do you figure bringing back fees will damage our economy? Do you have any back up to this statement at all or is it just a complete throwaway comment?

Firstly, the money Batt O Keefe says he will raise is paltry and will never be enough to fund universities. People think that once fees are back, thats the funding issue for universities sorted. It's not.
After fees were abolished by the Labour Party, entry to third level education increased substantially. Conversely, if they are brought back, the number of students gaining degrees will reduce substantially, hindering our economy. Don't think there's much more to it TBH.

3. "We will never be able to build that knowledge based economy which is one of Fianna Failure's stated aims"

We already have a knowledge based economy. Currently, a whopping 75% of the workforce has achieved higher education. You know what, the economy is still fcuked, and all the knowledge based economy extolling in the world can't change the simple reality.

Besides the fact that that's a highly defeatist attitude, what do you propose to fix our economy? Reduce the number in education, then what?

4. "If a limit of 100000 for parents earnings is put in, this will eventually be lowered"

This is clearly just made up and I make no bones whatsoever about dismissing it as an argument out of hand.

How many times has the registration fee been hiked up? Its gone from a couple of hundred euros to 1500 euro this year. The Government have been stealthily re-introducing fees for the last few years. Do you really believe that it won't reduce this threshold over time?

Also, if you think I am against reform in the third-level sector, you are wrong. I am all for improving the quality of degrees. This means introducing more innovation and student's ideas into their courses. For example, in my personal experience, I am in Commerce and I have not had to do anything which requires any kind of new thinking on my part, just learning information, and regurgitating it back out. This is not the way it should be and I acknowledge that. This increase in quality will have to be supported by increase in funding, which, IMO has to be brought about by a progressive tax system, not fees. We as a country spend the lowest percentage of GDP on education, when it should be a lot higher. That is the reality, those are the facts, and I think most people will have no problem paying more tax if it improves this country's education, rather than used for bailing out Fianna Fail's buddies in the banks and construction.


EDIT:

keane2097 wrote: »

Now I'll understand if you simply don't want to defend the indefensible, but I'd hate to think you'd just missed it...

Nah, I'd rather keep the thread on topic, thanks.

captainspeckle

keane2097 wrote: »

There's a difference, a very big difference in fact, between being pedantic and clarifying yourself when somebody has wildly misrepresented what you've said.

Anyway, I've added more to the initial post now if you'd care to comment.

what exactly is this thread about? i seem to be missing something obviously.:D

keane2097

This really is just too ridiculous. Can I just point out to everybody that this joker has sent me a private message to goad me because I didn't respond to his post quickly enough. The workings of some peoples' minds are just a mystery.

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

What you mightn't have grasped from my statement is that third-level education should be available for rich and poor, if they have the intellectual capacity to enter a college.

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

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

Anybody who wants to train away in a discipline in which we don't need graduates should be free to pay for themselves to do so, but there's no way the tax payer should have to foot the bill.

I for one do not see it as a useful way to spend my taxes continuing to train people in third level courses for jobs which simply do not exist. People do not have a "right" to be trained in any discipline they wish, regardless of whether society needs people with that training or not.

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

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Firstly, the money Batt O Keefe says he will raise is paltry and will never be enough to fund universities. People think that once fees are back, thats the funding issue for universities sorted. It's not.

I don't know what the figures are. Do you?

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

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

After fees were abolished by the Labour Party, entry to third level education increased substantially. Conversely, if they are brought back, the number of students gaining degrees will reduce substantially, hindering our economy. Don't think there's much more to it TBH.

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

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

Grand.

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

Grand.

3. Our economy will therefore be hindered.

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

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

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

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

How many times has the registration fee been hiked up? Its gone from a couple of hundred euros to 1500 euro this year. The Government have been stealthily re-introducing fees for the last few years. Do you really believe that it won't reduce this threshold over time?

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

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Also, if you think I am against reform in the third-level sector, you are wrong. I am all for improving the quality of degrees. This means introducing more innovation and student's ideas into their courses. For example, in my personal experience, I am in Commerce and I have not had to do anything which requires any kind of new thinking on my part, just learning information, and regurgitating it back out. This is not the way it should be and I acknowledge that.

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

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

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

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

This increase in quality will have to be supported by increase in funding, which, IMO has to be brought about by a progressive tax system, not fees. We as a country spend the lowest percentage of GDP on education, when it should be a lot higher. That is the reality, those are the facts, and I think most people will have no problem paying more tax if it improves this country's education, rather than used for bailing out Fianna Fail's buddies in the banks and construction.

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

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Nah, I'd rather keep the thread on topic, thanks.

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

mezain

Fantastic idea to organise the strike at end of March when most of the students are gone home. If the organisers had brains they'd be dangerous.

Aodan83

keane2097 wrote: »

3. Our economy will therefore be hindered.

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

I was under the inpression that Ireland was aiming for a "knowledge economy". Surely the number of college graduates has an effect on this!!
It's not like we have the natural resources to base our economy on mining or large sacle manufacturing. We do manufacture pharmaceuticals, granted, but outside of this, there is precious little left, and the multi-nationals are pulling out at a spectacular rate. Our only real industry left is the services industry, and thats not going to last long if we don't have the third level graduates to sustain it! I'm with BigCheese on that, mate.

captainspeckle

keane2097, you have some serious tunnel vision.

go outside and take a good look around for yourself.

keane2097

captainspeckle wrote: »

keane2097, you have some serious tunnel vision.

go outside and take a good look around for yourself.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about. I appreciate the advice, although last time I took a break from my computer I got a PM from thebigcheese goading me for taking too long to reply to his post, so now I don't know what to do :pac:

keane2097

Aodan83 wrote: »

I was under the inpression that Ireland was aiming for a "knowledge economy". Surely the number of college graduates has an effect on this!!

That's all well and good, but sometimes practicalities have to supersede ideologies in the real world. None of us have ever experienced an economic climate this harsh before and imo if there was ever a time to put grand plans on the backburner in favour of short-term stability it's now.

Aodan83 wrote: »

It's not like we have the natural resources to base our economy on mining or large sacle manufacturing. We do manufacture pharmaceuticals, granted, but outside of this, there is precious little left, and the multi-nationals are pulling out at a spectacular rate. Our only real industry left is the services industry, and thats not going to last long if we don't have the third level graduates to sustain it!

Well I think the point is we're producing graduates on a massive scale each year in this country and yet the multinational companies are still moving away. It's not graduates they're moving over - it's increased costs in every sector, including labour.

Continuing to pay vast sums of money to produce graduates for jobs that aren't there (since the multinationals are gone) can't help the economy in the state it's in. All it will end up doing is draining it further, leading us to a situation where all we have left is an army of emigrants with degrees.

Look, I have no problem with the country producing graduates. What I worry about is the lack of regulation in terms of how many people we are training in each industry.

As you said, we have a good pharmaceutical industry in this country that is still crying out for engineers, while there are no jobs at all in, say secondary school teaching. How can it make sense to continue, under those circumstances, to train the same numbers of people in Chemical Engineering and Arts when the demand has changed so much? The number of places offered in courses which train secondary school teachers should be drastically reduced to reflect the needs of that industry, conversely the number of places in chemical engineering should be increased dramatically for the same reason.

People will then have a choice of applying to become a professional in an industry where they're actually needed, or they can pay the fees to have themselves trained in an industry where they aren't needed.

That's my vision - fees or no fees based first and foremost on the needs of the workforce, place in the course or no place in the course (and associated grants) based on suitability of the candidate, as assessed by leaving cert performance, interviews, essays etc.

bleg

keane2097 wrote: »

As you said, we have a good pharmaceutical industry in this country that is still crying out for engineers, while there are no jobs at all in, say secondary school teaching. How can it make sense to continue, under those circumstances, to train the same numbers of people in Chemical Engineering and Arts when the demand has changed so much? The number of places offered in courses which train secondary school teachers should be drastically reduced to reflect the needs of that industry, conversely the number of places in chemical engineering should be increased dramatically for the same reason.

People will then have a choice of applying to become a professional in an industry where they're actually needed, or they can pay the fees to have themselves trained in an industry where they aren't needed.

That's my vision - fees or no fees based first and foremost on the needs of the workforce, place in the course or no place in the course (and associated grants) based on suitability of the candidate, as assessed by leaving cert performance, interviews, essays etc.

can't say i agree with that system. when i started pharmacy they were crying out for graduates. now, we can't even get a placement for the year. alot can change in 3/4/5 years

deisedude

bleg wrote: »

can't say i agree with that system. when i started pharmacy they were crying out for graduates. now, we can't even get a placement for the year. alot can change in 3/4/5 years

Ditto my course commerce and probably a lot more courses besides

Aodan83

bleg wrote: »

can't say i agree with that system. when i started pharmacy they were crying out for graduates. now, we can't even get a placement for the year. alot can change in 3/4/5 years

Very true, in my own course (BIS) in the last few years,quite a few third years qould have gone to Boston on placement. This year, many are struggling to find any placement. To be fair, this is caused by the recession.
But think of it this way, the government pay fees for those entering into certain courses where there is an expected, or current demand for graduates. If they do not expect a demand for BIS graduates, they reduce the amount of the fees they will pay. But as far as i can tell, they didnt see the recession coming (at least they didnt do anything to attempt to reduce its effects!), so they would not have reduced the amount of fees they would have paid for BIS students. So then we are left with a load of students, whose fees are being paid, but who aren't being given work placement in third year, and are going to find it hard to find work after college.
Having said that, its rather ridiculous that so many were given their choice of english in arts this year, that students have been asked (or forced rather) to only attend every second lecture so everyone can attend the same number of lectures, while the ones they miss can be downloaded as podcasts. Surely that was the whiole point of the points sysrtem, that only a certain number can attend each course!! There is something to be said for Keane2097's idea in that particualr case!!