The Merit of College Societies

spookykev

I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the actual merit of college societies. TCD currently has ~100 societies which all receive part funding from the college itself. I think this is a little excessive as many seem to be just token representatives of different college departments and thus not really deserving of general funding.

Other societies seem to be either highly inactive or simply avenues for overly ambitious people to CV augment. Wouldn't it be better if we disbanded the majority of useless societies and concentrated on the few functional ones and the sports clubs?

In an ideal world with plenty of funding and space and time we could have all these entities operating as freely as they wanted but I think modern TCD demands a better return on the use of the university name, crest and money.

stesh

spookykev wrote: »

I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the actual merit of college societies. TCD currently has ~100 societies which all receive part funding from the college itself. I think this is a little excessive as many seem to be just token representatives of different college departments and thus not really deserving of general funding.

Other societies seem to be either highly inactive or simply avenues for overly ambitious people to CV augment. Wouldn't it be better if we disbanded the majority of useless societies and concentrated on the few functional ones and the sports clubs?

In an ideal world with plenty of funding and space and time we could have all these entities operating as freely as they wanted but I think modern TCD demands a better return on the use of the university name, crest and money.

How do you decide which societies are 'useless'?

spookykev

When you've been in the college for more than one day unlike some, you can decide what's useless and what's not. you'll find out some enough effective criteria for judging uselessness and functional.

j1smithy

He does have a point, some of the societies are useless. I don't know about now but for example the engineering society was very badly run for years, it was a zombie society for want of a better word. They have upped their game though in the past few years though, after a couple of people made it a pet project of theirs. There are a couple of societies that could do with being culled or at least threatened to have their funding removed because they are not near active enough (one magazine comes to mind).

I'm not a fresher and I know that there are plenty of societies that seem to exist just to enhance the CV's of the officers

CJTobin

There are a number of societies that could easily be integrated into the one, for instance I see no reason why DUCSS, NetSoc, and this new Pirate Party could not easily exist as one society. The same goes for the History Society and the Archaeology Society. The proper financial incentives (read: threats) could encourage this merging.

Of course, it wouldn't be long before some high ranking college official suggested the merging of the Phil and the Hist, then there'd be all out war...

The Phist, anyone?

stesh

CJTobin wrote: »

There are a number of societies that could easily be integrated into the one, for instance I see no reason why DUCSS, NetSoc, and this new Pirate Party could not easily exist as one society. The same goes for the History Society and the Archaeology Society. The proper financial incentives (read: threats) could encourage this merging.

Of course, it wouldn't be long before some high ranking college official suggested the merging of the Phil and the Hist, then there'd be all out war...

The Phist, anyone?

Not all members of Netsoc or DUCSS would support all of the ideals of the Pirate Party.

snappieT

If societies are 'zombie' and fail to produce accounts for two years, they are derecognised and no longer eligible for funding.

If a society is 'unwanted', then it won't get the membership numbers. Funding awarded by the CSC is correlated with membership.

Finally, agree with stesh on the merge idea. Netsoc and DUCSS have very different aims (one is in favour of the internet, the other in favour of spreading the concepts of computer science), and the Pirate Party is a political society. There may be an overlap of committee members, but this is only because many of those on the committee of DUCSS are friends, and decided to start the Pirate Party together. I'm on the DUCSS committee myself, and don't agree with the Pirate Party at all - I'm not joining it, let alone being in favour of amalgamating it with my society.

EGaffney

spookykev wrote: »

I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the actual merit of college societies. TCD currently has ~100 societies which all receive part funding from the college itself. I think this is a little excessive as many seem to be just token representatives of different college departments and thus not really deserving of general funding.

Other societies seem to be either highly inactive or simply avenues for overly ambitious people to CV augment. Wouldn't it be better if we disbanded the majority of useless societies and concentrated on the few functional ones and the sports clubs?

In an ideal world with plenty of funding and space and time we could have all these entities operating as freely as they wanted but I think modern TCD demands a better return on the use of the university name, crest and money.

I will have a more elaborate argument on this tomorrow. As a preview: I don't agree that most of the societies are indeed useless, the overall funding figures hide justifiable and necessary homogeneity, CV boostering is less useful than one may think, and I think I have had more senior experience re societies and society funding than, I'd wager, 98% of people on the TCD Board.

Kwekubo

spookykev wrote: »

When you've been in the college for more than one day unlike some, you can decide what's useless and what's not. you'll find out some enough effective criteria for judging uselessness and functional.

If you've found "some enough effective criteria", then why not list them here for the rest of us?

EGaffney

The societies seem more expensive to run than they are for several reasons.
1. Lots of fixed costs. Adding another society, in the information age, doesn't add all that much to costs ranging from CSC salaries to room maintenance to stationery. These costs, which aren't related to any one society, comprise a huge chunk of what we spend on societies, and adding/removing one doesn't increase/reduce it significantly.
2. Heterogeneity, i.e. some societies cost persistently more than others. About 10-20% of the society budget in any year goes to a handful of societies which simply require huge funding to even exist. I'm sure OP wouldn't suggest that we categorise, say, DU Players or Trinity FM as do-nothing societies. But top-class stage productions and broadcasts require a lot of money to be spent on equipment and fittings.
3. Many societies don't draw down the entirety of their grant application. Allocated budgets may exceed what's actually spent.
4. snappieT is right about almost everything; activity is correlated with funding. Not with membership though, or else the Phil and the SVP would get massive grants.

Why not mass mergers?
1. CSC already discourages replication of society functions. The reason Pirate Party's founders were not encouraged to act within Netsoc or DUCSS is because it's very different to either. PP is nominally a political party, right?
2. That means there are lots of societies which cover distinct, if small, niches. As long as History and Archaeology are represented by separate societies, you don't have to worry about the committee not caring about Archaeology because they are all interested in only the history aspect of a merged society.
3. There are indeed societies whose interests overlap, or which have nominally different remits that coincide in reality. Netsoc/DUCSS and Phil/Hist come to mind. In each case, College seems to benefit.

Why does this not work for CV boosters?
1. In any given year, there will be 300-500 other people who are also society officers. Add in another 50 for other capitated bodies, and I haven't even touched on the sports clubs. It's hardly unique.
2. The society offices that can actually work for your CV are ones where you have to do actual work too. Employers are rational.
3. Sometimes it doesn't matter. I don't list that I was Secretary of the Phil on my CV because nobody who will hire me would care... maybe they would at interview stage, but not when they see it, unadorned and unexplained, on a sheet of paper.

PurpleFistMixer

CJTobin wrote: »

I see no reason why DUCSS, NetSoc, and this new Pirate Party could not easily exist as one society.

The Pirate Party is a political society, and DUCSS/Netsoc are not, so there is quite a clear distinction there.

As far as I'm concerned, if a society exists, the CSC deemed it worthy of their money. I'm not entirely sure how quick they are to shut down failed societies, but if a society is inactive it's not using any money so I don't reallllly see the problem here.

mardybumbum

Come on the JazzSoc

snappieT

EGaffney wrote: »

4. snappieT is right about almost everything; activity is correlated with funding. Not with membership though, or else the Phil and the SVP would get massive grants.

Admin budget is membership based, no? Up to a point of course, once you've reached the maximum admin budget, you can go no further.

snappieT

EGaffney wrote: »

4. snappieT is right about almost everything; activity is correlated with funding. Not with membership though, or else the Phil and the SVP would get massive grants.

Main meeting budget is membership based, no? Up to a point of course, once you've reached the maximum admin budget, you can go no further.

CSC wrote:

This grant may be used for one large reception or several small ones. It is based strictly on the numbers of members in the society.

EGaffney

Yeah, but it's a small portion of budget allocations, and nowadays most societies are so large that they hit the upper limit. The problem is that it creates the notion that funding is tied to membership, and then societies whine when they recruit 2x members and don't get 2x funding.

Time Magazine

Membership is often tied to activity (people don't join inactive societies, beyond a reasonable threshold anyway) and funding is tied to activity. So there's a reasonable correlation between membership and funding. If Archaelogy Soc, for no apparent reason, pulled in 2,000 members this year they'd get money for a good reception. But not much else.