Mary Coughlan on campus tomorrow (Friday 29th, 930), get your protesting pants on!

LeixlipRed

Arrives at 9:40am to shout obscenities at library workers or something (she's actually announcing the funding for the library extension). Sly timing on the university's behalf with students away for mid-term. We're meeting at North Campus side of bridge at 9:30am so if anyone at all is around try and get down. Poxy timing of course but only just found out. Link to facebook event here.

irish_goat

What a bitch, coming here announcing new funding, she has some nerve.

MaynoothSU

Anyone interested in joining please contact president@nuimsu.com

We were literally just told.

cian1500ww

The uni's getting good at keeping these things under wraps :P

LeixlipRed

irish_goat wrote: »

What a bitch, coming here announcing new funding, she has some nerve.

Ah will you ever cop on ffs, I'm assuming you don't face much financial hardship because any time there's a hint of a protest or something related you're on here with a snide comment. New library is great, government policy isn't great. Which is obviously why we're protesting and you know that because I've met you and you're an intelligent person. But you can't help yourself.

Seren_

If it weren't for the fact that I'll be on a train to Sligo tomorrow morning at half 9, I'd come along. Hopefully the more times the government actually see students giving out about cuts to education funding, they might actually take some notice.

Good luck anyway.

Daemos

What exactly is wrong with an extension for the library? Is it because it's going into that and not march-related issues?

Seren_

Daemos wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with an extension for the library? Is it because it's going into that and not march-related issues?

I don't think they're protesting about the (much needed) library extension, more the fact that she's the Minister for Education and that the government are planning huge cuts in education spending.

Daemos

Hm, makes a little more sense now, but is there really any point since the big march is only 5 days later?

Seren_

Well, in previous years when Ministers etc would visit the college, the SU would invariably pander to them, and not tell the student body in case a protest or whatever would occur. But all that seems to have changed now, or so it would seem.

The march next Wednesday is for every student around the country to get their point across. Tomorrow is really just to show that NUIM students aren't happy with what the government are proposing.

At least that's what I get from the whole thing

Daemos

Yeah I guess. It just seems a bit pointless having one (especially an impromptu (sp?) one) so close to next Wednesday. I mean I'd imagine there'd be only ~100 there tomorrow, what's the point when there'll be 30,000 gathered together only days later? With all due respect to whomever is organising it, I doubt it'll have any impact at all.

Edit: Also, doing so when she's announcing an extension to the library, something that will benefit the college? Sounds a bit like campaigning for the sake of it, that even when they're doing something good they still have protesters around the place? That's not the kind of image I want the college to be associated with, but unfortunately it seems like that's the road things are going down.

Seren_

Lol 100? I doubt they'll get 50, no offence to them. Not due to lack of interest, but mainly due to the fact that we're only finding out about it now, and she's going to be there early in the morning.

It's something like the protest that the SU held when Mary Hanafin came to open the Iontas building a few months ago.

I'm making it sound like it's going to be awful. It won't though

PrivateEye

Lol 100? I doubt they'll get 50, no offence to them

As an 'old man of the left' (:rolleyes:) I have to agree. I've always been opposed to calling short-notice demos. A low turnout to any demo never looks good. You could get a dozen heads at something like this with such short notice.

Saying that, I support it. If I can get off work for a bit I'll go (don't need much sleep obviously).

Also, doing so when she's announcing an extension to the library, something that will benefit the college?

Fianna Fail Stop Doing This, This and This- But Keep Doing This!

Their educaiton policies are crippling us. What use a nice library if none of us can afford to go to University?

LeixlipRed

There was about 25 hardy souls there to endure getting pissed on for an hour. Just back home in bed Some good chanting and the lovely lady didn't even acknowledge our presence. Nor did the President. But worth it.

PrivateEye

That's bloody excellent. The days of getting two dozen students to stand in the rain at Trinners or Belfield are sadly over, with less than 24hr notice that's a good sized picket.

Like with Hanafin earlier on, another small demo, it was an issue of timing. Looks like the lads managed to pull something together. As I said, I'm not a fan of short notice demos myself (I've been on demos with a two taxi loads of people before...) but well done to those who organised this quickly. Were I not working, I'd have assisted/attended. Nice work friends and comrades alike.

Some good chanting and the lovely lady didn't even acknowledge our presence.

Fianna Failers are making a habit of ignoring booing people.

LeixlipRed

Daemos wrote: »

Yeah I guess. It just seems a bit pointless having one (especially an impromptu (sp?) one) so close to next Wednesday. I mean I'd imagine there'd be only ~100 there tomorrow, what's the point when there'll be 30,000 gathered together only days later? With all due respect to whomever is organising it, I doubt it'll have any impact at all.

Edit: Also, doing so when she's announcing an extension to the library, something that will benefit the college? Sounds a bit like campaigning for the sake of it, that even when they're doing something good they still have protesters around the place? That's not the kind of image I want the college to be associated with, but unfortunately it seems like that's the road things are going down.

I only seen this post now. First of all, what sort of image is it you'd like associated with the university? One were educated people have no right to protest for example? A university should be a place were if someone wants to stand outside the library 365 years a day roaring about the lack of education financing they should be allowed and encouraged to do so. Because it attracts debate on important issues related to being a student. Issues which plenty of posters on here seem willing to discuss on an anonymous internet forum yet once there's any mention of marching around campus it's ,"oh god, why would you do that?".

Secondly you seem to miss the point completely about why we were protesting. New library extension is fantastic news. Now who exactly will be using that if a)registration fees double b)grants decrease c)grant threshold increases? I reckon if we surveyed all those with similar attitudes to yourself you'd find that very few of them will be financially affected by what will happen in the budget. Because I can only assume that if you were on the grant and struggling to afford a bus into college every day you'd be supportive of any protest which draws attention to your plight.

banquo

PrivateEye wrote: »

with less than 24hr notice that's a good sized picket.

Technically we were never officially informed. The email got leaked to the SU.

declan06

I think it went well, considering the short notice. I got absolutely soaked, but there was some media attention. I really think little protests like this are important. Wherever these ministers go, we're telling them we won't tolerate education cuts.

Daemos

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I only seen this post now. First of all, what sort of image is it you'd like associated with the university? One were educated people have no right to protest for example? A university should be a place were if someone wants to stand outside the library 365 years a day roaring about the lack of education financing they should be allowed and encouraged to do so. Because it attracts debate on important issues related to being a student. Issues which plenty of posters on here seem willing to discuss on an anonymous internet forum yet once there's any mention of marching around campus it's ,"oh god, why would you do that?".

Secondly you seem to miss the point completely about why we were protesting. New library extension is fantastic news. Now who exactly will be using that if a)registration fees double b)grants decrease c)grant threshold increases? I reckon if we surveyed all those with similar attitudes to yourself you'd find that very few of them will be financially affected by what will happen in the budget. Because I can only assume that if you were on the grant and struggling to afford a bus into college every day you'd be supportive of any protest which draws attention to your plight.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that we should have a right to protest against issues that will affect us. Although I won't be going to the march next Wednesday I support it 100%, and wish you and everyone going to it the best of luck.

It's just this protest today that I have issues with. It's not like the Iontas building that was funded but wasn't needed, that was rightly protested against. But protesting today, during an announcement of funding into an area you yourself said was needed, seems pointless, because it does help us.

I want the college to be associated with strategic, meanful protests. That way they are more effective because they're less frequent. But doing it at every single opportunity seems like a step backwards because IMO it'll have a weaker effect each time, especially if turnouts are so small (granted today was Friday, hastily organised and had bad weather, but how much support would it really have had if it wasn't?).

I am on a full grant so I do understand why the protest is on next Wednesday. And I understand your and others opinion on how today's protest is relevant to it. I do see what you're saying; I just don't agree with it.

LeixlipRed

Disagreeing with me is no issue at all. I don't have a problem with that. And we do fundamentally disagree. Coughlan coming to announce new funding for a library is not even a good thing. She's giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The library extension project is excellent but she sure as hell didn't come up with the idea and we were protesting against what she represents. And I think that's perfectly clear to everyone. I'm sure even the Tanaiste would realise we weren't there protesting against a library being extended.

As for your point on not protesting with too much frequency, I disagree. Every opportunity to protest should be taken. It'll remind those in power that we're a constant presence and nuisance to them. We're not bandwagon jumpers who turn up for the big day out (which will be a huge issue next Wednesday) but dedicated and persistent protestors who won't back down or give them a reprieve.

irish_goat

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Ah will you ever cop on ffs, I'm assuming you don't face much financial hardship because any time there's a hint of a protest or something related you're on here with a snide comment. New library is great, government policy isn't great. Which is obviously why we're protesting and you know that because I've met you and you're an intelligent person. But you can't help yourself.

I face more hardship than the average student as I get nothing from my the county council and my parents can't afford to give me anything so I put myself through college by working, getting loans and budgeting so I don't believe any of the crap about people not being able to afford to go to college. Students have to accept that cuts need to made across all sectors of the community and the rest of the working country aren't going to be cheering student protestors on when they're all taking a beating.

Twigster

of course they're going to double registration fees, how are they going to pay for the library otherwise?

mp3guy

Twigster wrote: »

of course they're going to double registration fees, how are they going to pay for the library otherwise?

They already have that money. The University has A LOT of money tied up in capital funds, they just can't spend it else where. It's only for building.

LeixlipRed

irish_goat wrote: »

I face more hardship than the average student as I get nothing from my the county council and my parents can't afford to give me anything so I put myself through college by working, getting loans and budgeting so I don't believe any of the crap about people not being able to afford to go to college. Students have to accept that cuts need to made across all sectors of the community and the rest of the working country aren't going to be cheering student protestors on when they're all taking a beating.

If it's that easy to get a job, loan and do a budget then why is anyone poor?

mp3guy

LeixlipRed wrote: »

If it's that easy to get a job, loan and do a budget then why is anyone poor?

Because everybody is different.

LeixlipRed

Being poor isn't being different.

Saying get a job to pay your way through college or get a loan (which you obviously need a job to repay) is all fine and good. Where are these jobs? My brother is in his 2nd year of college and he hasn't been able to find a permanent part time job since he started college. Luckily I've moved out and my other brother has a good job and can support himself allowing my parents to support him. I'm from a middle class family, not everyone has these luxuries or opportunities. Irish goat is lucky in that he has a job. And not much sympathy who don't obviously.

I won't even comment on this "we all have to share the burden" rubbish, if I hear the phrase one more time I'll have a coronary.

mp3guy

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Being poor isn't being different.

Saying get a job to pay your way through college or get a loan (which you obviously need a job to repay) is all fine and good. Where are these jobs? My brother is in his 2nd year of college and he hasn't been able to find a permanent part time job since he started college. Luckily I've moved out and my other brother has a good job and can support himself allowing my parents to support him. I'm from a middle class family, not everyone has these luxuries or opportunities. Irish goat is lucky in that he has a job. And not much sympathy who don't obviously.

I won't even comment on this "we all have to share the burden" rubbish, if I hear the phrase one more time I'll have a coronary.

I think you missed the point of my post.

LeixlipRed

I picked up on the implications just fine, thanks.

mp3guy

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I picked up on the implications just fine, thanks.

And what were the implications?

LeixlipRed

Just to be clear the first line of my post was a smart arse retort to your comment. The rest was directed at irish_goat.

mp3guy

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Just to be clear the first line of my post was a smart arse retort to your comment. The rest was directed at irish_goat.

Well in that case I don't think you picked up on the implications "just fine". Rather you picked them up the way you wanted to, which amounts to the same thing as totally missing the point.

I wasn't saying that people who are poor are different, I was saying that it's how people deal with their situation that lets them rise above it.

LeixlipRed

What you're implying is, the implications I was referring to, is that you believe that people less privileged should just try harder or what have you. Life is not that simple unfortunately and this view of the working class or the poor as people who just don't really apply themselves enough is rubbish. Sure you can be lucky enough to find employment and get an education but the system is weighted heavily against those coming from the gutter. That doesn't mean to say there aren't lazy or demotivated poor people, there are but it's much easier to access education if you're well off. That is a fact, not my opinion.

lemansky

LeixlipRed wrote: »

What you're implying is, the implications I was referring to, is that you believe that people less privileged should just try harder or what have you.

You are seeing what you want to see in these posts.........this is NOT what mp3guy was implying.

LeixlipRed

Are you sure? Or are you just reading what you want to read? It's the internet, everything is open to interpretation.

lemansky

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Are you sure? Or are you just reading what you want to read? It's the internet, everything is open to interpretation.

I am positive.

Ostrom

mp3guy wrote: »

Well in that case I don't think you picked up on the implications "just fine". Rather you picked them up the way you wanted to, which amounts to the same thing as totally missing the point.

I wasn't saying that people who are poor are different, I was saying that it's how people deal with their situation that lets them rise above it.

Absolute nonsense, the choice to rise above - let alone the means to do so - is fixed long before anyone chooses to go to college.

The HEA recently commissioned the ESRI to research equality of access to third level education and concluded that participation amongst the non-manual was still pitifully low despite years of growth*. This proportion has been relatively stable throughout the boom years also, so it cant have too much to do with available employment.

The choice has always been there to take employment (or 'rise above' as you say), but there is much more to it than this - and Coughlan et.al's approach to redress is going to entrench this division even further for a long time to come.


Should be available online but I cant find a link (apologies). The title of the report is "Hidden Disadvantage? A study of the low participation in Higher Education by the Non-Manual Group".

Lord TSC

Something that hit me...

Has there been anything said that people who are on grants now are going to have to pay the fees once they are increased? Correct me if I'm wrong, but people who are on grants don't pay the fees, and there's been nothing (at least as I understand) to suggest that this will change, regardless of how much the fees are.

I bring this up because it strikes me that people are constantly saying how bad increasing the fees will be since it will prevent people from going to college due to expense. But it also appears to me that if you really are in a social class that can't afford that money, you don't have to pay it. I say this, because a large part of me feels as if there are a lot of the more well off people who hide behind this banner of "Looking out for the poor" when what their real worry is is that the more well off people might be asked to pay what they can afford.

But then it also strikes me that this clashes with, for example, what I know about Lexilip from our previous debate and the whole "tax the hell out of the rich" thing. Surely, asking people who have more money to pay accordingly actually fits in with the socialist view. Or am I being an idiot? <_<

Ostrom

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I bring this up because it strikes me that people are constantly saying how bad increasing the fees will be since it will prevent people from going to college due to expense. But it also appears to me that if you really are in a social class that can't afford that money, you don't have to pay it. I say this, because a large part of me feels as if there are a lot of the more well off people who hide behind this banner of "Looking out for the poor" when what their real worry is is that the more well off people might be asked to pay what they can afford

I always found student politics a bit puzzling. We know that the vast majority of students attending higher education are from wealthier cohorts, which makes it all the more curious when we claim to speak on behalf of the working class.

For me, the issue extends well beyond the university, and I dont think anything can realistically be achieved by protesting fee increases. On average it is hypocrisy, because those of us who complain about it are typically in the best position to meet the costs.

Equality of access will never be solved through registration fee reform, or even grant reform, as the factors that produce the inequality in the first place are in motion long before the student comes through the door - and rarely does the momentum of good intentions survive into the working lives of graduates. (Again I believe this is fundamentally systemic).

Probably my own laziness talking though - its just after 8 years in college I really cant see any way of addressing the above through collective action. We might achieve victory over registration fees, but the positive effects stop with us.

LeixlipRed

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But then it also strikes me that this clashes with, for example, what I know about Lexilip from our previous debate and the whole "tax the hell out of the rich" thing. Surely, asking people who have more money to pay accordingly actually fits in with the socialist view. Or am I being an idiot? <_<

We believe third level education is a right not a privilege so it doesn't come under any tax the rich policy.

Lord TSC

Wow. You've...I'm going to be honest. For the first time in my life, I've been rendered speechless by a comment on an internet board.

And weirdly, all that comes to mind is a memory of a night in UCD when I was younger, involving a debating competition, and two of the richest kids you'll ever see uttering those exact words.

LeixlipRed

Hmm, and you haven't noticed the FEE people wandering around everywhere on campus the last few years. Google what FEE stands for there. I also posted about them about ten times the last few weeks. You'll also note I never said that we demand free education right now.

Also, I'm no rich kid, are you going to tell me about my Intel built mansion in Leixlip again? :rolleyes:

Lord TSC

Also, I'm no rich kid, are you going to tell me about my Intel built mansion in Leixlip again?

For the record, I wasn't the one who mentioned the Intel mansion. I've never commented on your own personal status (I think; I know the comments you're refering to were made by someone else though, and I think I stayed clear of them. I should have anyway. This shouldn't turn into a public flaming contest, since there's important points to be discussed here. I hope this topic doesn't get shut because of things getting personal). I also know you're not "rich" cause I don't think you'd be pushing a 70% tax on people earning over €100,000 if you were <_< I, personally, get the feeling you're not quite the poor person either. You strike me as somewhere in between, where most people probably are.

I google'd FEE and came up with "Foundation for Environmental Education". Given what that site seems to be about, I'm not 100% sure if that's the group you were on about though >_> And truthfully, I've never see anyone from the FEE group (I know what they are, despite my above joke <_<) around the campus. Not once in the 5 years I was up there did I ever see anything about FEE except for when I'd visit these boards. That said, maybe that was because I tended to see University as somewhere where I went from bus to class to library to bus again and home. I generally thought that my time in Uni should be focused around my education and spent my time accordingly.

I think I've realised what's buggging me about the "Third Level Education should be a right" thing though. It presupposes some things.

Firstly, it presupposes that 3rd Level education is absolutly nessecary to the development of a human being, like other nessecary rigths (the right to shelter, healthcare, etc). Indeed, I'd agree with you if you simply argued that education is a right, because at it's basic levels, it is. People need to learn how to read and write, and as such, education can be classed as something everyone should have universally. But not everyone needs third level education. There are plenty of people (in fact, I'd say a a majority) who get by in life just fine without a college or university degree. As such, I believe that every child has a right to a basic education which sets them up in life, and allows them to make a living. Everyone should get an equal chance starting off. Third level education then is a luxury, one we earn by working hard and being rewarded accordingly.

Secondly, it seems to suggest that kids from lower income households are finding they can't go to college, which doesn't make any sense to me yet seems a favorite arguement of those who campaign against fees. If you can't afford to go to college because your parents earn too little money, well there's the maintence grants. I bring this up because I lived off those grants for five years. I don't come from a poor family, but I don't know how I would have survived without those grants. I don't know how I could have survived if asked to pay the fees.

But here's the thing. "Poor" people are not asked to pay the fees, and again I say, I've not read anything to suggest that that is going to change. Those who recieve the grants will seemingly retain that ability to have their fees paid for them in full. The grants then are more than enough to recieve a third level education. On the grant, I was able to commute up and down every day, pay for the nessecary books and feed myself, and thanks to handy budgetting, I'd still have plenty left over. I couldn't afford to stay up there, nor could I have afforded to go socialising every night of the week like some did apparently (given how busy the SU building always seemed to be). But then, my priority was on my education, on getting the best education I could. After that, it was all luxuries I couldn't afford. That never bothered me, mind. I'm not the socialising type. Regardless, what it did mean was that I took my time in Maynooth seriously, worked hard and walked away with 4 different qualifications in 5 years.

It strikes me though that the way the "poor" are brought up in the arguement is faulty. "They are poor, they do not go to college, ergo they do not go to college because they are poor." But that's faulty logic. Coming from Drogheda and going to a school where I was surrounded by people from council estates, I know going to college simply was not on their list of "things to do." And that wasn't because they couldn't afford it. There was and is a system in place to help the poor in that way. It wasn't a priority because they were born into a place where it simply wasn't a priority. The mindset was that kids don't need to go to college. I know one friend of mine who, when she asked her parents if she could go to a nicer secondary school instead of the rough as hell one nearby, was hastly told "Why would you want to go there? It never did us any harm. What, you think you're better than everyone?" The problem for those kids is that no one thinks they will ever go to college and there's no desire amoung certain groups in the lower class to do anything but exist in the same way they always have. I realise you may feel thats a sweeping generalisation and perhaps untrue, but if you do, I fear you're being a tad innocent about things.

If people were so worried about lower classes going to college, they'd realise the system is amazing at third level to help them, but that by that stage, it's too late to get them there. The attitude towards college is one which is bred at a primary school level, perhaps even before, and that's where the changes need to be made. If people really worred about the lower classes, they'd realise that there's an excess of money being wasted at the third level which should instead be pumped into kids at a younger age in an attempt to battle the social attitudes they are born with, grow up with and are fed on.

But then, I do believe the excuse of "helping the poor" is only one designed to hide a lot of people's true intentions. It wouldn't be PC to admit that the reason the middle and upper classes want fees to remain low is because THEY don't want to have to pay the money. They don't want to find themselves out of a bit of cash (despite the fact they can afford it). And people don't want to have to face the consequences of a global economic downturn and give up luxuries such as living on campus, going out multiple nights a week, etc. But then, that arguement would be met with a respectful "At least your honest, but cop on" reply and this debate would be over pretty quickly...

LeixlipRed

Did you see efla's post previously? These people are not gaining access to education, regardless of the grant system or not! That's the whole point, our education system is biased towards the middle and upper classes. That's why we believe it should be free because there certainly won't be an egalitarian society if the poorest people in the society are relatively uneducated, excluded from obtaining the highest of educational qualifications.

And apologies for confusing you with someone else, I though you had made the ridiculous Intel comment.

LeixlipRed

Also, there's so many ridiculous insinuations in your post, I'm just too tired to reply to them all. The last comment about middle and upper class people not wanting fees so they can go for free is ridiculous if it's aimed at me. I'm a postgrad anyway, so i'll be paying fees no matter what and I'm certainly not in bed politically with anyone who wants a free ride of the back of this campaign.

Lord TSC

I did read Efla's post. Am I right to say you mean when Efla said...

The HEA recently commissioned the ESRI to research equality of access to third level education and concluded that participation amongst the non-manual was still pitifully low despite years of growth*. This proportion has been relatively stable throughout the boom years also, so it cant have too much to do with available employment.

I may be wrong (Interprtations are flying around like mad here) but I actually take this statement to support my claims (The joy of taking stuff out of context from larger studies).

My understanding of what Efla said is that despite the growth of Ireland, "poor" people (I'm presuming the post meant "manual" and not "non-manual"; Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure how it fits into this discussion at all <_<) did not go to third level education despite the finances available. The participation amoungst the manual class was "pitifully low despite years of growth". In other words, despite the fact the money is there to help them go through college, they were not going. Basically, "poor" people are not going even when the financial options are available to aid them.

Or am I reading that wrong. Have I completly misunderstood the post, and if so, how?

That's the whole point, our education system is biased towards the middle and upper classes. That's why we believe it should be free

How? how is it biased? Those who are coming from low income families partically do get a college education for free. Fees are paid and they are handed 3 grand a year to help them through. How is that biased against poor people? That's my problem here. I don't understand this biasness that you're claiming exists.

I'm a postgrad anyway, so i'll be paying fees no matter

But again, they even help with Postgrad courses. I did a postgrad course when I did my MA, and I had my fees paid for me. So long as you progress upwards, you can keep getting the grant. Just cause you're a postgrad does not mean you have to pay.

Ostrom

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I did read Efla's post. Am I right to say you mean when Efla said...

I may be wrong (Interprtations are flying around like mad here) but I actually take this statement to support my claims (The joy of taking stuff out of context from larger studies).

My understanding of what Efla said is that despite the growth of Ireland, "poor" people (I'm presuming the post meant "manual" and not "non-manual"; Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure how it fits into this discussion at all <_<) did not go to third level education despite the finances available. The participation amoungst the manual class was "pitifully low despite years of growth". In other words, despite the fact the money is there to help them go through college, they were not going. Basically, "poor" people are not going even when the financial options are available to aid them.

Or am I reading that wrong. Have I completly misunderstood the post, and if so, how?

Dont feel too bad, I also took it out of context

My point in both posts is that the issue is more complex than availability of funds. It is not a case of manual/non-manual individuals opting out, the argument is they aren't given a reasonable chance to opt in well in advance of applying for college places. In short, I'm trying to avoid numerous worm-filled cans that discuss the leaving cert as priviliging returns on monetary investment in the form of tuition and resources, the relative prestige of education etc.

Short answer: addressing the registration fee will have a negligible effect on non-manual participation (sorry for using these terms - I'm just trying to be consistent with the data).

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

How? how is it biased? Those who are coming from low income families partically do get a college education for free. Fees are paid and they are handed 3 grand a year to help them through. How is that biased against poor people? That's my problem here. I don't understand this biasness that you're claiming exists.

But again, they even help with Postgrad courses. I did a postgrad course when I did my MA, and I had my fees paid for me. So long as you progress upwards, you can keep getting the grant. Just cause you're a postgrad does not mean you have to pay.

The problem is for all our data and models, we dont truly understand the specific mechanism that produces this effect - even the ESRI report is at best descriptive. We know there is a substantial difference in participation across social class - but our policies are squarely focused on the flawed assumption that making a nominal contribution (i.e. the grant system) will inevitably produce equality of access. Conversely, I believe student protests are equally limited by suggesting that reducing said nominal fee will automatically bring more into the 'eligable' cohort - which is not true.

There are no shortage of suggestions on boards as to why this difference is so: having the resources of an accountant to fix your net income for the application, even having the knowledge or time to source the appropriate documentation to avoid disqualification, obligations to provide income for extended family at a young age, living in a community that places low value on education - even the very way in which we deliver content.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what effective action against this would look like.

Lord TSC

That's cool Efla, and in truth, I agree with everything you say.

We're not going to come up with solutions here in a debate on a forum board. It just annoys me when people are putting all this effort in for a good cause, but are aiming it at the wrong thing.

On a more on topic note, my mom was telling me she heard a women giving out on the radio over the weekend. The woman said she thought it was disgusting that they were giving Maynooth 20 million for the library when they wouldn't pay for someone to mind her handicapped kid so she can go out at the weekend for some fune. Why, she asked, would the government waste so much money on something like education when there was people like her who needed it?

mp3guy

Well. Post-march I have to say hands down to making students look like numbskull neanderthal brutes with a completely unjustified air of importance. Really.

Ostrom

mp3guy wrote: »

Well. Post-march I have to say hands down to making students look like numbskull neanderthal brutes with a completely unjustified air of importance. Really.

Really? Makes the willingness of the remaining 99% of the population to roll over for a rearside shafting look all the more pathetic.

Although the 'neanderthal brute' describes the Kildare Street group fairly well. Had it ended before the later confrontations, something may have been achieved.

funky penguin

Take it to the other thread.