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

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.