Alternative to the CSC

d93c2inhxfok4y

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, etc. etc.

http://thefreemarketeers.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/the-folly-of-central-planning/

It isn't just about centralized planning, it's specifically to do with trinity.

Marvinthefish

I'm spending my CSC dollars on booze...Food and Drink society I suppose?

shay_562

Would hold a little more weight coming from a different author. That said, even ignoring who's saying it, it's an utterly unworkable system. The majority of students don't, as the author suggests, put a huge amount of time into deciding which societies to join. Most only join the ones that give out free stuff and have something big on in Freshers' Week. Furthermore, the CSC system is actually much more nuanced than the author gives it credit for. They give out money to fund specific events and purchases. Thus, a society that attracts loads of members in Freshers' Week with shiny cool free stuff but never holds any events gets minimal funding, while the societies that are quite active get lots.

I'd agree that the CSC as it stands can be quite corrupt in places and doesn't always do as much as it should to help smaller societies (the "fourth week" scarves bull**** annoys me quite a bit), but this piece is just reactionary, poorly-conceived twaddle.

EGaffney

Well, what to say in response to that? I know the author well, and he is very intelligent, but here, very wrong. The essential flaws are the same as those which undermine most naive anarcho-libertarian analyses.

1. The proposed system doesn't change the main aspects of central planning in society budgets, which are (a) the total capitation grant and (b) the amount secured by the CSC. If you "abolish the CSC" as the author explicitly proposes, who's going to secure that money for societies, as opposed to the better-organised alternatives like Publications, DUCAC, SU and GSU?
2. The author dismisses what economists call "rent-seeking" entirely as a pre-existing problem. "Rent-seeking" is a term for socially unproductive activities that nevertheless make the participant better-off. Like political lobbying or, here, gaudy advertisement and fund-raising campaigns that don't advance the society's goals but get names on the membership list. If people respond to incentives, then they will increase rent-seeking activities among students when the reward increases. Especially because...
3. If this happens during Freshers' Week as proposed, the new Junior Freshman students have absolutely no idea what the societies are like, so they will make poor judgements. If they are above JF, they probably won't care - as we can see from the distribution of students by year in the typical medium or large society membership list, most members are Junior Freshmen who probably don't participate. Naturally, if it doesn't happen during Freshers' Week, societies can't access funds at an expensive time of the year.
4. Expensive societies that nonetheless contribute greatly to College would suffer, because there is a lack of understanding about how much it costs to run certain societies, and often the active membership is a niche that doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. Goodbye Players, goodbye Trinity FM.
5. The above problem is a special case of a general problem. The CSC is genuinely better informed than students about society activity. It's not that people are "stupid". It's that they rationally choose not to inform themselves about societies which aren't relevant to their interests.
6. This is not like privatising healthcare or education, because nothing is being exchanged in the proposed system for the share in society funding. No good, no service. The only change is that the allocation decision for a given sum of money is being given to disparate individuals rather than a voluntarily-constituted allocating body. Therefore, there isn't a functioning market here. Pretending that there is a market in non-market goods, from national security all the way down to society activity, results in ridiculous policy proposals.

bruff

I agree.

P.S:

You both should be working harder. Never going to get Schols while you mess about on the internet.

Herbal Deity

But people are very gullible. Won’t they be tricked by false promises during Freshers’ Week? Won’t societies lie to you to get your CSCs? Firstly, that’s an existing problem under the status quo with membership fees, so it’s not caused by CSC dollars. Secondly, people are smart, and usually ask questions about the society’s track record before parting with their money. There’s no reason to think that the current CSC Executive is any smarter than the average student with CSC dollars.

wtf?

What an ill thought out load of shíte.

EGaffney

bruff wrote: »

I agree.

P.S:

You both should be working harder. Never going to get Schols while you mess about on the internet.

Me and Shay? Yeah, we're really agonising about it.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

wtf?

What an ill thought out load of shíte.

Some people think sarcasm reads well on the Internet, including the author. They are wrong. To avoid being labelled a hypocrite, my first comment was sarcastic (I nearly have two degrees from U of Dublin).

shay_562

EGaffney wrote: »

Me and Shay? Yeah, we're really agonising about it.

You mean you can't take Schols after you graduate? Well damn, there goes that plan...

Danger Bob

The original argument is far too stupid for me to comment on. I will note that the Phil would probably not do quite as well under the proposed system. Just throwing that out there.

However, in response to Shay, I will say that smaller societies tend to get significantly more funding per member than the larger ones so I'm not sure where that argument comes from. They also tend to use the office facilities an awful lot more. We've also spent the last few weeks (and will spend the next few) asking all societies what more we can do for them and the response has generally been that societies are more than happy with the support they receive, particularly the smaller ones. If there's a specific example of a small society who feel messed around, they should definitely make their concerns known or else how can we fix it?

Also, I can uderstand if people think the scarf thing was a little silly but it definitely wasn't discriminatory towards any size of society. One representative from each society was able to claim on on Monday evening. There's a bit of a lie going around that they were for people from large societies but that's just usual silliness. If your concern about the scarves is the financial side of it, then be assured that they were all covered by an old sponsorship arrangement which the CSC has in place and not from students' money. All of Fourth Week was funded through this.

I should note that this isn't just my usual disagreeing with Shay about the functions of different college organisations. I'm the chair of the CSC and would be very concerned if it was believed that we were corrupt in our treatment of societies or the use of our finances. It's concern rather than general argumentativeness.

Finally, we should note that the CSC has a much wider role than just throwing money at societies. We're there to advocate for societies in college, to encourage society involvement and to support societies through services, among other things. Any argument about the CSC which focuses primarily on which society gets how much money is misunderstanding a huge amount of the costing structure.

EGaffney

Yeah, the obvious problem which I for some reason ignored is that only two-thirds of the CSC budget actually goes to individual societies, whereas a whole one-third goes on shared resources which can mostly be summarised as "secretarial" in some sense or another. I would broadly agree more with Danger Bob about services for small societies, but then again I would wouldn't I?

freemarketeer

I'm disappointed that any objections or criticisms of the piece in question could not have been directed at me by commenting on the blog - and indeed have already answered some objections there already. For what it's worth:

Shay:

If students join the society that offers them free stuff during Freshers' Week, is that a particularly bad thing? Most people don't return to most of the societies that they join during Freshers' Week anyway. I think that free stuff holds an attraction because it is certain. Maybe this would just force societies to more competitively and aggressively convince their prospective members that they should join their society even (say) in the absence of free stuff? If it's so abundantly clear to you that free stuff is the foolish choice during Freshers' Week, other people must realise this too.

Also: You're basing your argument on the current behaviour of FRESHERS. Under the CSC dollar system, more than three times as much funding would be going into the hands of non-freshers (like you) with experience and knowledge of societies.

Ed:

1. Abolish the central planning aspects of CSC. Instead, let college decide what a reasonable amount to spend per person on college societies is. Then distribute it.
2. One reason why rent-seeking hasn't been stamped out during Freshers' Week is that societies have an alternative source of funding. The societies that don't pander with free stuff don't worry too much, because CSC will fund them regardless. The CSC dollar system has less rent-seeking since...
3. Everyone will be given CSC dollars, not just freshers. If non-freshers don't spend their CSC dollars, that's really foolish of them isn't it? If you're giving non-freshers free money to distribute to societies at the start of the year, I anticipate that membership amongst that cohort will increase and membership of societies will begin to reflect true value to students and not just gullible freshers. The OPPOSITE of what you posit.
4. Goodbye Players, Goodbye Trinity FM. Hello Societies that students actually participate in, and derive value from. What right have you to force students to subsidise players, when they would rather give their money to (say) Paintballing or something? I anticipate that Players would secure independent funding from the Drama Department, or from other sources. But they would have to justify it. It wouldn't come as a matter of course, as happens under the status quo.
5. People rationally don't inform themselves about society activity. You're right. Why? Because they will be involved in the societies they want to be involved with. Why shouldn't all members of the (say) Ultimate Frizbee club not be able to take all their funding from CSC and DUCAC and give it straight to the sport they're passionate about? I don't care if CSC is more informed than me. I know what I want. My system is more democratic, and you can't argue against that.
6. There can be a functioning market. Societies provide services for their members, in exchange for a fee (composed of CSC dollars and euros). To argue otherwise is facile.

Herbal Deity:

I concede to your superior ability to form, articulate, and present argument.

Danger Bob:

I have no problem with the possibility that the Phil would get less money. To be honest, the Phil has more money than most other societies and clubs in college can dream of. Does it provide a decent service to members of college in return for that money? I think so, but don't know what most people think. Perhaps everyone in college would give a few CSC dollars to the Phil each year, or perhaps they wouldn't. They should be free to choose.

The Phil is also a society that raises the profile of the entire university. Maybe a Phil receiving less funding in CSC dollars may get funding from other college sources (perhaps a grant from the Economics Department when they bring a famous Economist to the college?). Who knows.

Finally, in terms of equality of funding. Let's imagine that I am a debater who dabbles in journalism, and plays rugby. Thus, I am supported by some of the most well-financed institutions in college. I get much more CSC money spent on me than (say) my friend who is completely obsessed with Ultimate Frizbee. Why shouldn't we get an equal say in how college funding is spent, and why shouldn't we get the same share of college funding spent on our respective activities? You can't answer that question.

Unfortunately, the perception to outsiders is that the CSC system is elitist, closed, unaccountable, untransparent, and corrupt. Why not have public elections like the Students' Union? Why not make accounts of CSC public? Why not allow anybody stand for CSC Executive and make it equitable? It's a closed shop, plain and simple.

In the absence of CSC in its current form, communal services could be preserved. As for "encouraging society involvement", we all know that this is a stupid waste of time as was the whole Week 4 fiasco. What a waste of my money..

If my argument above was so stupid, I am disappointed that you are unable to defend the existence and integrity of CSC in the presence of such stupidity.

PurpleFistMixer

freemarketeer wrote: »

In the absence of CSC in its current form, communal services could be preserved.

How? Actually, I would be interested to hear a complete alternative to the current CSC, as opposed to just "I don't want to pay for someone else to have fun". Is it your desire to take only the financial issues from the hands of the CSC, or to remove it entirely? Do you feel there should be some form of regulation of what societies may exist? Do you think the finances of societies should be monitored, and if so, who should do this?

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

How? Actually, I would be interested to hear a complete alternative to the current CSC, as opposed to just "I don't want to pay for someone else to have fun". Is it your desire to take only the financial issues from the hands of the CSC, or to remove it entirely? Do you feel there should be some form of regulation of what societies may exist? Do you think the finances of societies should be monitored, and if so, who should do this?

Seeing as his name is 'freemarketeer' and he links to the Ludwig von Mises institute in his blog, I think we can guess the answer to both those questions, 'the market will look after itself'. To be honest, I think in a small community of moderately intelligent people like Trinity College, I think we'd do a pretty decent job, no worse than the hackfest at the moment.

EGaffney

freemarketeer wrote: »

I'm disappointed that any objections or criticisms of the piece in question could not have been directed at me by commenting on the blog - and indeed have already answered some objections there already.

I think boards.ie has a bigger audience.

freemarketeer wrote: »

Abolish the central planning aspects of CSC. Instead, let college decide what a reasonable amount to spend per person on college societies is. Then distribute it.

So before we even address any substantive issues of distribution, society funding has already been cut substantially due to a lack of society representation in the budget allocation process. Thanks for that Jonathan.

freemarketeer wrote: »

If non-freshers don't spend their CSC dollars, that's really foolish of them isn't it?

No it's not. They don't care either way in the vast majority of cases. That is why they delegate funding authority to the Central Societies Committee, which acts in their interests. Unless you believe that the bulk of the apathetic student body has an intricate knowledge of society activity and needs. It would be foolish of them to waste time thinking about a funding allocation judgement that affects them in no way.

freemarketeer wrote: »

If you're giving non-freshers free money to distribute to societies at the start of the year, I anticipate that membership amongst that cohort will increase and membership of societies will begin to reflect true value to students and not just gullible freshers. The OPPOSITE of what you posit.

Meaningless prediction without real-world evidence.

freemarketeer wrote: »

Goodbye Players, Goodbye Trinity FM. Hello Societies that students actually participate in, and derive value from.

You believe that students actually derive no value from, and don't participate in, DU Players and Trinity FM?

freemarketeer wrote: »

I anticipate that Players would secure independent funding from the Drama Department, or from other sources.

Yes, now I see. That should reassure Players.

freemarketeer wrote: »

But they would have to justify it. It wouldn't come as a matter of course, as happens under the status quo.

It doesn't come as a matter of course in the status quo. Do you understand the grant allocation process, or do you just construct mythical misallocations with your mates in the Phil?

freemarketeer wrote: »

My system is more democratic, and you can't argue against that.

It's a direct democracy - there are good arguments against that, actually, thanks to about two and a half millennia of philosophy since the zenith of Athens.

freemarketeer wrote: »

Unfortunately, the perception to outsiders is that the CSC system is elitist, closed, unaccountable, untransparent, and corrupt.

Who believes that?

freemarketeer wrote: »

Why not allow anybody stand for CSC Executive and make it equitable?

You can. Have you even read the constitution of the institution you're criticising?

freemarketeer wrote: »

In the absence of CSC in its current form, communal services could be preserved.

Who will pay for the secretarial staff, photocopier repair, etc, etc, etc? Do we trust College to centrally plan this, or will we ask each student for a voluntary contribution?

This is a theoretical proposal with next to no regard for the actual details of the institution that's being proposed for the scrapheap, from its role in securing funding from College to the ability of students to be candidates for its governing body.

ilovemybrick

freemarketeer wrote: »

Unfortunately, the perception to outsiders is that the CSC system is elitist, closed, unaccountable, untransparent, and corrupt. Why not have public elections like the Students' Union? Why not make accounts of CSC public? Why not allow anybody stand for CSC Executive and make it equitable? It's a closed shop, plain and simple.

The elections are open and public. The accounts are available. Any student can stand for executive. Its a bit rich to decry the system and suggest a brand new one when you quite obviously haven't a notion as to how the system works.

Señor Juárez

One gets the feeling that the author of this article doesn't actually know how the grant system works (or that the big societies actually get external funding/sponsorship). I'm also pretty sure that all of the books are very much open, if you care enough to want to look into things.

While the CSC is massively corrupt, it also works reasonably well, and probably as well as any other system put in place to do this job would.

Danger Bob

OP, the reason why I'm not interested in responding is that there's just so much wrong with your argument on your blog. As Ed has clearly pointed out, you have no idea about the organisation that you're seeking to 'improve'. For example, there ARE open elections in the CSC which anyone can run for. ANY student can run for ANY position on the executive or any officership.

One major issue which is being missed is that the CSC does not get money to spend on students. The CSC gets money to spend on society activities. As such, we don't work for students, we work for societies, hence why the CSC electorate is made up of the societies and not the general student body. Using your SU analogy, in order to run the Students' Union, you need the support of the students, so in order to run the CSC (which is akin to a societies union), you need the support of the societies.

As an aside, I dislike the insinuation that the CSC is corrupt without any facts to back this up. Before I was involved in the CSC, I always heard that it was so corrupt but while I've been involved I've been unable to see exactly where this suggestion comes from. We're an open body which provides services and which funds societies based on their levels of activity and based on a Grants Policy Document which is approved by the societies themselves. It's pretty simple really. There's not actually that much room to be corrupt, even if we wanted to be.

But, back to the original points made. My biggest issue with the blog post is that you've published something in the guise of some form of economic analysis of a situation when you haven't even bothered to research the organisation that you claim to be analysing. It's a bit of an insult to economics to try pass this off as anything but random musings. I don't understand why anyone would choose to publish such an article with so little actual information and then defend it so staunchly. I also hear you plan to have it printed in the college media.

Anyway, I hear that a chimp's written a very interesting article on quantum physics somewhere. Maybe it'll be better researched than this.