Is it time to cut funding to the Societies?

Denerick

Considering only a tiny fraction of the student body actively engage in any of the societies, and the political hack-ism that goes on in its higher echelons, is it not time that the University cut most funding to the societies? Allow them to pay their own costs if they are so eager to stay open.

Exceptions would of course be made for the sporting clubs and the historically significant Hist and Phil (Though the hackery there would put most mainstream politicians to shame) But otherwise, lets cut off the noose. Provide free society rooms for societies that claim a large enough membership and income stream to pay basic expenses, but cut those useless institutions which are in effect, a cynical CV plugging scam.

shay_562

Denerick wrote:

Exceptions would of course be made for the sporting clubs and the historically significant Hist and Phil (Though the hackery there would put most mainstream politicians to shame)

Why exempt the sports clubs? What about societies that provide useful services for minority groups within college (LGBT, ISS etc) or are just socially useful in general (VDP, FLAC)? What about societies that bring a decent amount of kudos and attention towards the college through their activities (Players)? Even for the rest, surely there's a reasonable benefit to the college in having elements of student life outside of just lectures to try and broaden people's experience and help them get more out of college? How much does it actually cost the college to fund the running expenses of, say, the Archaeology society year-on-year? And given that the main problem you have with them is 'hackism', is that really a problem in, say, the Paintball society? (I'll give you a hint: it isn't)

lou91

No.

Hasn't this thread been done plenty of times before (indeed, I think Denerick started it before)? Perhaps if the same amount of time was spent contributing to societies and college life as giving out about them then Trinity would be a better place.

Boston

Old troll is old, repeated trolling even older. You should get rid of the SU before you get rid of the societies. They're a part of what makes a university. If you can't understand that, then you're wasting your time here.

andrew

I didn't read the OP, but I have no doubt that it was well articulated and made a lot of sense so I'm going to go with yes.

Denerick

Sports (+ Drama) clubs naturally cost more than the average society and therefore deserve funding, because they actually provide useful societal services and personal development. The running costs of groups like the LGBT are small, and should be paid for by the members. It would cut on a lot of this crap we see on noticeboards (IE, x society hosts end of year ball!!!) Seeya. The only function for these kinds of societies is the facilitation of the leaders social life with money they haven't earned.

Even for the rest, surely there's a reasonable benefit to the college in having elements of student life outside of just lectures to try and broaden people's experience and help them get more out of college?

Ha! Thats a laugh. I don't blame you, I blame the modern world for instilling this paternalistic instinct within you. I'm not talking about disbanding the societies, I'm talking about the members taking responsibility for the costs of operating it amongst themselves. Considering so few students actually avail of these societies, its absurd to claim that every student should bear the cost of the upkeep.

How much does it actually cost the college to fund the running expenses of, say, the Archaeology society year-on-year? And given that the main problem you have with them is 'hackism', is that really a problem in, say, the Paintball society? (I'll give you a hint: it isn't)

'The Paintball Society', as an example, can organise their own outings and pay for it amongst the members themselves.

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Old troll is old, repeated trolling even older. You should get rid of the SU before you get rid of the societies. They're a part of what makes a university. If you can't understand that, then you're wasting your time here.

1-5% of students are actively involved in societies. I guess the other 95% of us are wasting our time in 1) Getting our degree 2) Being indifferent to petty adolescent student politics and 3) actually getting on with our college experience without feeling the need to be a secretary/spokesman/chairman etc. of whatever society.

Denerick

Dónal wrote: »

Hasn't this thread been done plenty of times before (indeed, I think Denerick started it before)? Perhaps if the same amount of time was spent contributing to societies and college life as giving out about them then Trinity would be a better place.

The idea of a politically motivated student body fills me with terror. The problem with the internet age is that its made democracy too accessible (A la, that idiotic Rage against the machine campaign) It allows people to bypass thought and leap straight on to bandwagon.

Fo Real

I'm in favour of the existance of the societies. I just don't want the college funding them because the money ultimately comes out of MY pocket.

I've said it before: a lot of them are circle jerk clubs set up for the benefit of a very tiny minority. Do we have representatives of the Afro-Carribean soc or Jew soc on boards so they an explain what they actually do? I'm also interested in how many non-minorities they have accepted into their respective societies. Since I'm paying for them I have a right to know.

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

1-5% of students are actively involved in societies. I guess the other 95% of us are wasting our time in 1) Getting our degree 2) Being indifferent to petty adolescent student politics and 3) actually getting on with our college experience without feeling the need to be a secretary/spokesman/chairman etc. of whatever society.

Where did you get that figure? How does it compare to those involved in sports clubs, how does it compare to those involved in the hist?

You don't know, cause you made it up. Theres a massive difference between 5% and 1%

Fo Real wrote: »

I'm in favour of the existance of the societies. I just don't want the college funding them because the money ultimately comes out of MY pocket.

I've said it before: a lot of them are circle jerk clubs set up for the benefit of a very tiny minority. Do we have representatives of the Afro-Carribean soc or Jew soc on boards so they an explain what they actually do? I'm also interested in how many non-minorities they have accepted into their respective societies. Since I'm paying for them I have a right to know.

Why not join the societies and find out? Do you even know what the money is spent on? It's actually quite reasonable. You issue is not infact the money, its that these societies which you have no interest in exist. There doesn't have to be something in it for you always like.

PurpleFistMixer

Denerick wrote: »

1-5% of students are actively involved in societies. I guess the other 95% of us are wasting our time in 1) Getting our degree 2) Being indifferent to petty adolescent student politics and 3) actually getting on with our college experience without feeling the need to be a secretary/spokesman/chairman etc. of whatever society.

"getting on with our college experience" is naturally mutually exclusive with being involved in societies?

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Where did you get that figure? How does it compare to those involved in sports clubs, how does it compare to those involved in the hist?

Comparatively there aren't many people involved in the sports clubs - ie, there is a 25-30 man panel for the soccer team, the rugby team etc. Whereas the Hist really boils down to the high committee and a few ambitious underlings. That figure is a ballpark, but even if 50% of all students are actively involved in societies, it doesn't actually change anything.

Denerick

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

"getting on with our college experience" is naturally mutually exclusive with being involved in societies?

Thats a bit pedantic, but I'll allow it. I was referring to Boston's post, where he said that societies are part of college life, hence logically those who don't take part are not participating in college life. Although his statement is profoundly wrong on its own merits, I was trying to explain that vain aspirations to climb the societal ladder is not what college life is all about.

Boston

How doesn't it? It's the key point.

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

How doesn't it? It's the key point.

Not really. Say for example 50% of students are active in the societies - morally, its completely absurd to expect the other 50% to bankroll their own social life. If participation were that high in the first place, they would have no problem living off a modest subscription provided by their own members (And of course the free rooms provided by the college)

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

Not really. Say for example 50% of students are active in the societies - morally, its completely absurd to expect the other 50% to bankroll their own social life. If participation were that high in the first place, they would have no problem living off a modest subscription provided by their own members (And of course the free rooms provided by the college)

You admit yourself that participation in sports is low, so why should people who never go to the gym and never join a club have to pay 80 odd euro a year to fund the sports facilities? If they are that important, why can't those who use it pay 3 - 4 times as much? I can extend this logic to the libraries, or any other facilities provided. Why should people with home computers have to support on campus computer rooms? Nothing in trinity is used by everyone, I'd say few things are even used by the majority.

You suggest that societies should get free rooms, why? Thats goes against your logic, if they should be support to that degree, why not more?

Denerick wrote: »

Thats a bit pedantic, but I'll allow it. I was referring to Boston's post, where he said that societies are part of college life, hence logically those who don't take part are not participating in college life. Although his statement is profoundly wrong on its own merits, I was trying to explain that vain aspirations to climb the societal ladder is not what college life is all about.

What a ridiculous assertion. Societies are a part of college life, they are not the end all and be all of it. Everyone who goes to trinity has a different experience, for some societies are an major part of it. You seem to have misinterpreted the social aspect of some societies but students socialising most certain is a part of college life. You'd have a miserable time without it.

D.R cowboy

What a ridiculous assertion. Societies are a part of college life, they are not the end all and be all of it. Everyone who goes to trinity has a different experience, for some societies are an major part of it. You seem to have misinterpreted the social aspect of some societies but students socialising most certain is a part of college life. You'd have a miserable time without it.

what is the over all atmosphere at trinners , do society only really work in favour of those who live on campus who are near the college on a full time bases also because there are so many tourists going in and out does this take away from the " we are all together atmosphere " like UCD has as it's not in the city. trinity is a big place so many needs have to be meet and thats why their is a need for a diverse range of societys to meet everyones needs, eg Not everyone plays rugby like me, some people play golf so meet their needs too

Boston

D.R cowboy wrote: »

what is the over all atmosphere at trinners , do society only really work in favour of those who live on campus who are near the college on a full time bases also because there are so many tourists going in and out does this take away from the " we are all together atmosphere " like UCD has as it's not in the city. trinity is a big place so many needs have to be meet and thats why their is a need for a diverse range of societys to meet everyones needs, eg Not everyone plays rugby like me, some people play golf so meet their needs too

Your post lacks entropy

shay_562

Denerick wrote:

Sports (+ Drama) clubs naturally cost more than the average society and therefore deserve funding, because they actually provide useful societal services and personal development.

OK, so the list of student groups that you'd allow funding for now include all clubs, DU Players, and basically anyone else who you personally consider facilitates "personal development" but have significant running costs. You've already allowed that you'd leave societies their rooms, which I'd imagine is probably the biggest cost for most small societies (in terms of opportunity cost - I'd imagine there's something far more profitable TCD could be doing with those spaces). You've also conveniently ignored that most societies do, in fact, pay for a good chunk of their own running costs through membership fees, fundraising drives etc (I speak as a former treasurer within DUCAC; more than half of our budget came from fundraisers), or through one-off payments (the Paintball society is a good example here - members pay for the bulk of the costs of any trips they go on), and that most of the money they get from the college outside of that isn't just a bag of cash that they can spend as they wish, but money that gets fairly heavily scrutinised and goes on things like posters to get more people involved (which you decry in the same post where you complain that not enough people are involved; like, pick one) capital expenditure and so on. At this point, all you're really threatening to cut is a hundred quid here or there to take a drinks reception away from a few dozen societies. Hardly worthwhile, like.

Ha! Thats a laugh. I don't blame you, I blame the modern world for instilling this paternalistic instinct within you. I'm not talking about disbanding the societies, I'm talking about the members taking responsibility for the costs of operating it amongst themselves. Considering so few students actually avail of these societies, its absurd to claim that every student should bear the cost of the upkeep.

Wrt the first part, if it's so paternalistic and laughable to suggest that the college support societies, why would you keep funding for sports clubs, Players and room funding intact? Small societies run on a shoestring, and what little help CSC can give them makes them much more accessible to people. If they had to pay for all of their costs themselves, membership fees would rise, fewer people would get involved and fewer people would get whatever benefits one gets from societies (and given that you can see benefits from sports clubs, like social interaction, the development of non-academic interests and broadening as a person, I assume you can see why there might be some benefit to societies too?)

Wrt the second point, I'd back up Boston in saying that it's a pretty broad assertion to say that only 5% of the student body participate in student life. Taking only people from my course, I can't think of more than a handful of people who didn't benefit from the existence of societies at some point, be it from the lectures organised by TES, the share games run by Trinity Traders, the social events run by DUBES, the SER debates run by the Hist and Phil, or even more random personalised stuff - for example, about a dozen of us in my course were members of the Japanese society, went to a few of their sushi nights and other random events and loved it. The fact that only a handful of people ever get really involved in the organisation and running of societies doesn't mean that no one gets benefits from them - there's about 50 members of the Hist who are highly involved to the point of running for committee positions, going to debating competitions etc., but a good debate will attract upwards of 200 people; the 3000 society members all get something out of it at some point over the year, presumably, since a good proportion sign up again year on year.

Basically, your claim that few people get involved in these societies and that they're a massive waste of money seems to be based on a mixture of ignorance and your own distaste for getting involved in them, which you've spun along with most of your anti-Trinity rhetoric into a huge internal conspiracy-type mess among society heads to keep all the precious college funding for themselves or some such. I don't blame you; I blame the modern interwebz, where any ignorant twatwaffle with an agenda can spout off about crap and expect to have at least one other ignorant twatwaffle chime in with dull-witted, poorly-conceived support for them. On which note...

Fo Real wrote:

I've said it before: a lot of them are circle jerk clubs set up for the benefit of a very tiny minority. Do we have representatives of the Afro-Carribean soc or Jew soc on boards so they an explain what they actually do? I'm also interested in how many non-minorities they have accepted into their respective societies. Since I'm paying for them I have a right to know.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you haven't said it before, since you're [wink] new here [wink wink]. (Seriously though, if the mods aren't going to ban you could you at least keep up the pretence of not being a banned user?) Point is (i) your question would probably be better placed towards the societies themselves, since they're not required to read boards.ie and reply to idle bitching at the drop of a hat (even if you do 'have a right to know' :rolleyes:), and (b) quite a number, actually. I know a couple of white people who've gotten really into Afro-Carribean soc. The LGBT is perfectly welcoming towards straight people (though that's not exactly something you can check through in their membership records). It's likely that, in both cases, they're in a minority, in the same way that pacifists are something of a minority in the paintball soc, but no society has ever, to my knowledge, turned people away or made them feel unwelcome because of their sexuality or race; if they did, I'd be fully in favour of sanctions.

D.R cowboy

Boston wrote: »

Your post lacks entropy

Boston you have 15000 posts you should own boards by now, or least be a mod but you don't because your a smelly disengage philistine of a troll that eats away at everything that the human existence has evaluated thur life and the experiences which we share you demoralise yourself for everything you write you swine or a swine ahhhhhhhhh I'm yelling at the computer in rage *

Denerick

I don't see the contradiction in giving funding to sports clubs, because they are far more than some simple social outlet for the egomaniac. As for the opportunity cost of society rooms, yes, I'd agree, college could do something more profitable. But I'm not anti society persé, I just feel that its egregious that we should be expected to pay even some of their operating costs. And you shouldn't take 3,000 + membership of the Hist as a ballpark, a rather cynical observation to make considering they usually offer huge freebies for freshers who join up over that week. (I am a member of both it and the Phil by the way, which instantly dashes your point) In terms of social development; good. I'm glad some people learn something about themselves through activity in society. It makes my heart rush with girlish glee. But they can pay for that privilige themselves. I enjoy going to football matches, I don't expect the university to pay the cost of my ticket 'in case otherwise I don't grow up to have acceptable levels of social cohesion waaa waa waa'

Boston's point about withdrawing funding for academic pursuits is so obtuse it doesn't necessitate a response.

P.S- This spin you're coming out with is moderately impressive, but leave out the 'twatwaffle' comments. I know its painful after you worked so hard and licked such arse to get to such a cozy position in one of the societies, but do mind your manners.

Denerick

D.R cowboy wrote: »

Boston you have 15000 posts you should own boards by now, or least be a mod but you don't because your a smelly disengage philistine of a troll that eats away at everything that the human existence has evaluated thur life and the experiences which we share you demoralise yourself for everything you write you swine or a swine ahhhhhhhhh I'm yelling at the computer in rage *

Go away.

Fo Real

shay_562 wrote: »

Actually, I'm pretty sure you haven't said it before, since you're [wink] new here [wink wink]. (Seriously though, if the mods aren't going to ban you could you at least keep up the pretence of not being a banned user?) Point is (i) your question would probably be better placed towards the societies themselves, since they're not required to read boards.ie and reply to idle bitching at the drop of a hat (even if you do 'have a right to know' :rolleyes:), and (b) quite a number, actually. I know a couple of white people who've gotten really into Afro-Carribean soc. The LGBT is perfectly welcoming towards straight people (though that's not exactly something you can check through in their membership records). It's likely that, in both cases, they're in a minority, in the same way that pacifists are something of a minority in the paintball soc, but no society has ever, to my knowledge, turned people away or made them feel unwelcome because of their sexuality or race; if they did, I'd be fully in favour of sanctions.

1) I have mentioned it before: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63495708#post63495708

2) I'm not a banned user. I hope you have evidence to back up this ludicrous claim, lest you look like a fool.

3) You still havn't answered my question: What does the Afro-Carribean society actually do? I can only assume "black guy stuff" :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBH20TGiMkc

4) This next point is out of genuine concern: You sound like you're getting emotional. Please step away from the computer if you feel the debate is getting too intense or personal.

Denerick

Fo Real wrote: »

4) This next point is out of genuine concern: You sound like you're getting emotional. Please step away from the computer if you feel the debate is getting too intense or personal.

Well said. Shay is clearly a society hack and thus is coming out with the typical party propaganda. And is getting overly emotional about it all.

EGaffney

Denerick wrote: »

Considering only a tiny fraction of the student body actively engage in any of the societies,

Weasel words, ill-defined.

Denerick wrote: »

and the political hack-ism that goes on in its higher echelons,

Define "hack-ism", then explain how it is grounds for stopping funding.

Denerick wrote: »

is it not time that the University cut most funding to the societies? Allow them to pay their own costs if they are so eager to stay open.

Not most funding, but certainly some.

Denerick wrote: »

Exceptions would of course be made for the sporting clubs

Why are sports better than more intellectual interests?

Denerick wrote: »

and the historically significant Hist and Phil

Why should we fund present activity based on what technology we had 100 years ago?

Denerick wrote: »

(Though the hackery there would put most mainstream politicians to shame)

That is a naive view of mainstream politicians.

Denerick wrote: »

But otherwise, lets cut off the noose.

Confused metaphor.

Denerick wrote: »

Provide free society rooms for societies that claim a large enough membership and income stream to pay basic expenses,

So to those societies that have much, more will be given, but to those societies which need college money most, it shall all be removed?

Denerick wrote: »

but cut those useless institutions which are in effect, a cynical CV plugging scam.

What does size of income stream have to do with validity of purpose? Surely the societies with the largest income streams are going to be the ones that are best for one's CV.

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

I don't see the contradiction in giving funding to sports clubs, because they are far more than some simple social outlet for the egomaniac. As for the opportunity cost of society rooms, yes, I'd agree, college could do something more profitable. But I'm not anti society persé, I just feel that its egregious that we should be expected to pay even some of their operating costs. And you shouldn't take 3,000 + membership of the Hist as a ballpark, a rather cynical observation to make considering they usually offer huge freebies for freshers who join up over that week. (I am a member of both it and the Phil by the way, which instantly dashes your point) In terms of social development; good. I'm glad some people learn something about themselves through activity in society. It makes my heart rush with girlish glee. But they can pay for that privilige themselves. I enjoy going to football matches, I don't expect the university to pay the cost of my ticket 'in case otherwise I don't grow up to have acceptable levels of social cohesion waaa waa waa'

Sports clubs should get money because you view them as better then societies, thats the sum of your argument. Thats incredibly weak. You then go onto outline how it's ok for the hist and the phil to exist and be funded since they are you social outlet, but other societies cant. Bias cat is Bias.

Denerick wrote: »

Boston's point about withdrawing funding for academic pursuits is so obtuse it doesn't necessitate a response.

Obtuse you say? It's a common argument put forward. Most students appear to use the campus computers to check facebook,. nothing more. Why should I pay for that?

Denerick wrote: »

P.S- This spin you're coming out with is moderately impressive, but leave out the 'twatwaffle' comments. I know its painful after you worked so hard and licked such arse to get to such a cozy position in one of the societies, but do mind your manners.

You know nothing. I haven't been on a society committee in years.

D.R cowboy wrote: »

Boston you have 15000 posts you should own boards by now, or least be a mod but you don't because your a smelly disengage philistine of a troll that eats away at everything that the human existence has evaluated thur life and the experiences which we share you demoralise yourself for everything you write you swine or a swine ahhhhhhhhh I'm yelling at the computer in rage *

Easy kid, this isn't English paper 2.

Boston

Fo Real wrote: »

3) You still havn't answered my question: What does the Afro-Carribean society actually do? I can only assume "black guy stuff" :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBH20TGiMkc

Why don't you join them and find out. Your ignorance isn't a good enough reason to remove funding.

Denerick

Boston, I wasn't even referring to you. In fact I find your megalomania somewhat charming if nothing else (How long is it now since you were stripped of your moderatorship?)

Sports clubs should get money because you view them as better then societies, thats the sum of your argument. Thats incredibly weak. You then go onto outline how it's ok for the hist and the phil to exist and be funded since they are you social outlet, but other societies cant. Bias cat is Bias.

After lecturing D.R. Cowboy to read, you make this irony particularly exquisite. And in case you don't get it (Which I'm assuming you won't) The fact that I am a member of these organisations underscores my argument that the '3,000' members point is pants. There might be 3,000 nominal members, but only a few dozen who put in any work.

And no, thats not the sum of my argument. But your comprehension does remind me of simpler times

D.R cowboy

With times becoming worse societies like LGBT and the Afro-Caribbean society will have there funding cut which will be justified by making it racist thing which it's not

SligoBrewer

D.R cowboy wrote: »

With times becoming worse societies like LGBT and the Afro-Caribbean society will have there funding cut which will be justified by making it racist thing which it's not

Eh.. What?