Reg Fee Increased

papajimsmooth

So looks like they increased the registration fee again. Got an email saying its 2000e now. Up every year ffs!

Killer Pigeon

I wonder if our former SU Campaigns and Communications Officer turned SU President is will to campaign to keep it at €1500.

Isn't UCD the most expensive non-private third level institution in the country at this stage?

graduate

ot an email saying its 2000e now. Up every year ffs!

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?

Isn't UCD the most expensive non-private third level institution in the country at this stage?

Does UCD charge a different registration fee than other third level institutions in the State? It certainly charges a fraction of those in the North for undergrads.

Killer Pigeon

graduate wrote: »

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?

What exactly does that have to do with free-education. The overarching amount of sovereign debt of this state came about after the nationalisation of toxic banks and the overpopulated public service - not from the likes of free education, etc.. which will come as an asset to the revival of economy.

graduate wrote: »

Does UCD charge a different registration fee than other third level institutions in the State?

I'm talking mainly about all UCD services combined and their costs on the average student.

parker kent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What exactly does that have to do with free-education. The overarching amount of sovereign debt of this state came about after the nationalisation of toxic banks and the overpopulated public service - not from the likes of free education, etc.. which will come as an asset to the revival of economy.

To be fair to him, "free" fees have caused enormous problems in third level education and have led to a greater divide between better off and disadvantaged students. I know nobody wants to be the unlucky set and be there when full fees are brought back, but something has to be done.

Killer Pigeon

parker kent wrote: »

To be fair to him, "free" fees have caused enormous problems in third level education and have led to a greater divide between better off and disadvantaged students. I know nobody wants to be the unlucky set and be there when full fees are brought back, but something has to be done.

Right, so we'll have students from less well off backgrounds who pass the points threshold yet cannot attend university because they can't afford it - then we'll have students from well off backgrounds being able to go to university because their fees are being paid out of their daddy's back pocket. Huge division would arise between students who have to work their ass off and students who get everything paid for them by their parents.

My mother (back in the 70's) had to drop out of university because she wasn't able to pay for it and didn't qualify for a scholarship. Are you suggesting that this sort of inequality would decrease this "divide" you speak off? - I don't see your logic.

I haven't seen any division based on students being better off or from disadvantaged backgrounds in my year. I would attribute this to free education.

parker kent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Right, so we'll have students from less well off backgrounds who pass the points threshold yet cannot attend university because they can't afford it - then we'll have students from well off backgrounds being able to go to university because their fees are being paid out of their daddy's back pocket. Huge division would arise between students who have to work their ass off and students who get everything paid for them by their parents.

My mother (back in the 70's) had to drop out of university because she wasn't able to pay for it and didn't qualify for a scholarship. Are you suggesting that this sort of inequality would decrease this "divide" you speak off? - I don't see your logic.

I haven't seen any division based on students being better off or from disadvantaged backgrounds in my year. I would attribute this to free education.

I really don't think you are aware of the statistics about third level since free fees were introduced. Free fees has essentially been a tax break for the wealthy. I'm not talking about introducing fees across the board, there should be mechanisms in place by means of an improved grants system were fees re-introduced. But I think it is just wrong that the wealthy benefit from free fees and use that money to subsidise their secondary education.

I don't think comparisons with the 1970s are valid either. My sister didn't go to college in 1990 either due to fees, but that is not relevant to 2011.

Also, so I don't have to write all this out again, these are my wider view on fees, third level etc.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71398453&postcount=114
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71403656&postcount=118

You should read opinions such as those of Ferdinand von Prondzynski. He pretty clearly expalins why free fees has been a social disaster in Irish education. He has many, many articles like this on. He also wrote a regular column in the University Observer.

Free fees' were a disaster for society and the third-level system

LEFTFIELD: To offer globally competitive third-level education, we need some level of student contribution by those who can afford it, writes FERDINAND VON PRONDZYNSKI

EVER SINCE tuition fees for third-level were abolished in the mid-1990s their return has never been far off the national agenda. When “free fees” were introduced it was predicted with some accuracy that pressures on the exchequer would, from time to time, tempt or force governments to cut higher education funding. Over time the cumulative effect of this would call into question the ability of universities and colleges to resource programmes of world class quality. And so it has proved.

During my tenure as president of DCU, I experienced an almost constant contraction of the amount of money available to teach each student. This reduction in real terms was for many years obscured by the overall volume increase in student numbers, which produced year-on-year increases in the taxpayer’s investment in higher education, but steady reductions in the money available per student.

Faced with this, we had to start cutting certain services some time ago, and long before the recession set in. Any institution that did not do so (often for understandable reasons) found itself recording increasing deficits. Taken per student and adjusted for inflation, today’s funding, through the recurrent grant and fees paid by the Government on behalf of students, is roughly the same as the recurrent grant element alone was in the mid-1990s. In other words, since the introduction of free fees the universities have been asked to “absorb” or fund from other means what was once the student fee; over time the Government simply withdrew it. And as we know, the cuts are nowhere near finished.

The idea of “free” higher education is an attractive one. It suggests that we live in an egalitarian society in which access to this vital stage of personal formation is free and available to everyone, regardless of background or means. That’s a beguiling notion, and it still influences many people.

But it never really reflected reality. For years all the available statistics have shown that social exclusion from higher education has remained stubbornly high. For example, while some areas of (mainly south) Dublin have more or less 100 per cent participation rates in higher education, others (many close to DCU) continue to have rates well below 10 per cent, and these have hardly changed at all over the 15 years of “free fees”.

Recent statistics from the Higher Education Authority show a deterioration in this participation. Partly the reason is that fees are not the major issue for these groups anyway, as even before their abolition people from disadvantaged backgrounds qualified for free access and grants. What changed in the 1990s was that the rich no longer needed to pay and, to be fair, that some middle income groups now found it easier to afford college.

But the socially deprived remained deprived, and in some ways their position worsened because some well-meaning people thought that “free fees” had solved all social disadvantage problems and that no further resources were needed. In fact, access for the disadvantaged requires careful nurturing, from primary school onwards, and is expensive. But as we have been giving wads of money to wealthier families, we didn’t have enough resources to promote access programmes to the level required. These access programmes were in any case largely funded by private philanthropy.

It is maybe a harsh thing to say, but “free fees” have amounted to a major redistribution of resources from the poor to the rich. It is a scheme that is now both morally and financially unsustainable.

So, in their protest march last week organised by the Union of Students in Ireland, were the students wrong?

One can understand the anxieties and fears felt by students at times of growing economic hardship. And, I confess, I have some sympathy with their objection to rising registration charges, which provide money for services other than tuition. That’s not what we need now. We need a proper system resourcing higher education that doesn’t asset strip teaching on a continuing basis.

But we must face up to the fact that we simply cannot continue to offer third-level programmes that claim to be globally competitive on the back of such meagre resources. And however hard this may be for many people, whether on grounds of principle or because of their concerns and fears, we must also face up to the fact that, whatever we might wish in an ideal world, the Government cannot provide the resources needed.

There is no way to go, absolutely none, that will not involve some level of student contribution by those who can afford it, whether in the form of fees or graduate payments, together with proper financial support for access programmes. If we reject that, we will signal that Irish higher education no longer aims to be internationally excellent, and that it will play no serious role in our recovery from gloom and recession.

Is that what we want?

Ferdinand von Prondzynski is a former president of DCU

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2010/1109/1224282950460.html

kev9100

I consider myself distinctly left-of-centre and I'm a strong supporter of free fees but one thing I've never understood and that really annoys me is when people who went to private secondary schools pay the same fees as those who went to public school. Surely if you went to a private secondary school the State shouldn't subsidise your college education.

LUPE

Oh great, this again.

delta_bravo

kev9100 wrote: »

I consider myself distinctly left-of-centre and I'm a strong supporter of free fees but one thing I've never understood and that really annoys me is when people who went to private secondary schools pay the same fees as those who went to public school. Surely if you went to a private secondary school the State shouldn't subsidise your college education.

A counter opinion to that would be that those people may earn higher incomes and therefore pay more tax so they should be as entitled to it as much as people who didn't go to private school. Not my opinion but it is often the argument against that.

parker kent

kev9100 wrote: »

I consider myself distinctly left-of-centre and I'm a strong supporter of free fees but one thing I've never understood and that really annoys me is when people who went to private secondary schools pay the same fees as those who went to public school. Surely if you went to a private secondary school the State shouldn't subsidise your college education.

How do you square being left of centre with being in favour of free fees? Free fees=more wealthy third level students

unpeumad

graduate wrote: »

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?




Does UCD charge a different registration fee than other third level institutions in the State? It certainly charges a fraction of those in the North for undergrads.

I don't go to UCD but my reg fee will be increased to 2000 aswell , I thought most fees will be increased to that amount ?
Also wondering how UCD is most expensive non private college in the country?

parker kent

unpeumad wrote: »

Also wondering how UCD is most expensive non private college in the country?

They are presumably talking about resit fees and other services around campus. Fair enough about the resit fees, they are pretty expensive compared to other third level institutions (even allowing for higher fees due to greater expenses by having the largest student body in the country).

But the other services could be argued and not many of them are charges that absolutely must be paid.

kev9100

parker kent wrote: »

How do you square being left of centre with being in favour of free fees? Free fees=more wealthy third level students

Because free fees also help kids from middle class and lower middle class families go to college. However, I do take your point that they also benefit the wealthy so maybe we should move to a system where the wealthy pay fees and the rest don't?

Also, if we want to increase the amount of poorer students going to college we should have reduced the points for students who come from poorer backgrounds. When you compare certain schools on the Southside to some schools in my area its just not a level-playing field.

Crow92

kev9100 wrote: »

Also, if we want to increase the amount of poorer students going to college we should have reduced the points for students who come from poorer backgrounds. When you compare certain schools on the Southside to some schools in my area its just not a level-playing field.

We do have a system for that, it's called H.E.A.R. The Higher Education Access Route, it basically allows students from poor socio-economic backgrounds to gain access to courses with reduced points, really good system.

Sadly even with this system it doesn't really help the problem of poorer students not going to college. Out of 60 people in my 6th year class only 3 of us went to college, it's the lack of drive and importance of college that cause this, very hard to change a mindset.(Though possible)

LUPE

kev9100 wrote: »

Because free fees also help kids from middle class and lower middle class families go to college. However, I do take your point that they also benefit the wealthy so maybe we should move to a system where the wealthy pay fees and the rest don't?

Also, if we want to increase the amount of poorer students going to college we should have reduced the points for students who come from poorer backgrounds. When you compare certain schools on the Southside to some schools in my area its just not a level-playing field.

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

parker kent

LUPE wrote: »

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

I could get into a long reply to this, but there are clear advantages to coming from such a background. There are also clear negatives to being from a poorer background. You can't just throw out BS like "hard work". If you actually researched the area or had personal experience in it, you would reach the same conclusion.

LUPE

Go on then...

parker kent

What's the point? You'll still disagree no matter what I say. Also I have given my opinions in my above post, including giving links to two other posts of mine. Plus I did say if YOU did your research.

LUPE

parker kent wrote: »

What's the point? You'll still disagree no matter what I say. Also I have given my opinions in my above post, including giving links to two other posts of mine. Plus I did say if YOU did your research.

Well that's an awfully defensive attitude to take, I'd like to know which parts of my post you take issue with and what the inherent advantages and disadvantages that you referred to are. That's all.

WeeBushy

LUPE wrote: »

Well that's an awfully defensive attitude to take, I'd like to know which parts of my post you take issue with and what the inherent advantages and disadvantages that you referred to are. That's all.

Go back and read post 7. He gives his thorough (and very well written I might add) opinion in two links of the disparity of third level education, including the issues of fees.

LUPE

WeeBushy wrote: »

Go back and read post 7. He gives his thorough (and very well written I might add) opinion in two links of the disparity of third level education, including the issues of fees.

Well I wasn't asking you...

Post 7 does not directly address what I said, yet he/she took issue with what I said yet refuses to elaborate further than merely that, and in doing so is adopting a very defensive, chip-on-shoulder attitude.

parker kent

LUPE wrote: »

Well I wasn't asking you...

Post 7 does not directly address what I said, yet he/she took issue with what I said yet refuses to elaborate further than merely that, and in doing so is adopting a very defensive, chip-on-shoulder attitude.

Did you read the posts that I linked? They specifically address what you are talking about.

dyl10

LUPE wrote: »

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

I really hope you're trolling.

I think it would be more tolerable if you proclaimed that you think third level education should be an exclusive institution. Instead, it just appears that you have no understanding of the world you live in.

dyl10

Also, on the reg fee increase; as the fee comes closer and closer to the level of some tuition fees (i.e. the standard 6k for Arts, Social Science, Computer Science), I assume students in those disciplines will eventually say "**** this, I am not paying the same fees as a med or vet student so they can earn four times my salary"

LUPE

parker kent wrote: »

Did you read the posts that I linked? They specifically address what you are talking about.

Just read them there.

The first link has no real relevance to my post.

The second one has more relevance yet so you seem to make the same point that I do that it is the environment which makes the difference rather than the fact that they pay for education, so I don't understand why you took such issue with what I had to say

LUPE

dyl10 wrote: »

I really hope you're trolling.

I think it would be more tolerable if you proclaimed that you think third level education should be an exclusive institution. Instead, it just appears that you have no understanding of the world you live in.

Before you make such claims, I'd prefer if actually made a point of your own or, at the very least, refuted one of mine.

dyl10

Ok, I'll make some short points and try make them simple as it really would be a case of being here all day explaining the roots of the issues you are missing. I have to try not make generalisations here myself. There are a lot of different layers to this.

There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

In the scheme of this debate, this point is very small but to let you know, as it is a very basic one, this is not true. There are only so many hours in the day and to let you know; there are smart, working-class people who study flat out for the leaving cert also. You won't see them strolling around medicine.

If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

People from the areas you are talking about don't have that mindset at all. I can guarantee you, many of them don't particularly think about schools or education at all after the age of 12 probably.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers)

Correct. Why are they more motivated?
People who live in poor places don't live there because they are poor at the moment. Generally, they live there because they have been born into a family that has always been poor. Despite what some people may think, there's no natural law to who is rich and who is poor, the system is as it is because it is designed that way.

it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner

Then why hand them over, so?

If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work

Genius, all we have to do is inform people why they should work harder and when they understand, we will have solved our issue with the smart economy!?
(and if I wanted to go marxist on it, I'd ask "but wait, who's going to collect your bins?")

They are some short ones, there's plenty of things to refute for someone who wants to.

kkumk

LUPE wrote: »

I never understand this argument. The LC is a standardised national exam, the syllabus for which is known long in advance. It is an exam which can be methodically prepared for (past papers and marking schemes are freely available to all), and one in which hard-work is ultimately rewarded. There are good and bad teachers in every school, the students who do the best are those who work the hardest and of course have good natural intelligence.

If you're under the impression that fee-paying students are spoon-fed or whatever then you are mistaken. Yes, some may be able to afford grinds in a particular subject or whatever but ultimately they take the same exam as everyone else and are marked by the same criteria, and I know plenty of people who got loads of grinds and did poorly and plenty who got grinds and did very well. The key factor there was hard work.

The reason students from fee-paying schools tend to do better is that they are generally more motivated to do so, something which comes from the environment they live in (school, family and peers), it's not like handing over however many thousands of euros a year makes any difference when you're just a number on a page to a LC examiner. If pupils from your area tend to do worse then it may have something to do with this attitude of "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside..." instead of getting the head down and doing the work.

What an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant statement. I went to a public secondary school for 5 years (before moving to The Institute for 6th year) and there's no way you can argue that teaching is universal and therefore every student has an equal chance at education.

Firstly, from the day we began school in 1st year we were never taught about going to University. What I mean by that is that it was never presupposed that that's what one is meant to do after finishing school. The majority of pupils older brothers and sisters were hairdressers or electricians or plumbers and it was assumed that's the route most others would take. Teachers didn't tell us about it, infact to be completely honest, most of my friends who went to that school to this day don't even know what college is about. They couldn't tell you what the word Fresher means or what a Soc is or what subjects an Arts student might take or what a 2.1 is. I find this shocking as it's as if they grew up thinking it wasn't for people like them.

Out of 200 students taking the Junior Cert in my school in 2005, the highest result was 4 A's, 5 B's and a C. Similarly, for the Leaving Cert in 2007 the highest result was 470. This could not be the fault of 200 students. Were every one of them too lazy to work? I'm not saying that every public school has terrible teachers, or that every private school has excellent ones, there's always a mix, but overall I've personally found that the teachers in the Institute were much more dedicated to their subject and had proper lesson plans and aimed to get the course covered, which is more than can be said for the teachers in my old school. (I know that the Institute is an exaggerated form of private school, but at the same time many of my teachers there also taught in Belvedere and Blackrock etc.)

My sister (who still attends the public school, she is in 5th year) was recently asked by her Career Guidance teacher what she wants to do when she leaves school. She said that she'd like to study midwifery in Trinity College. (She's really smart, got 6 A's in her Junior Cert and studies loads) He replied with ".....well... you can always do a PLC."
It is this kind of attitude, rather than a "we are so disadvantaged, look at those schools in the Southside" that prevents so many pupils entering third level education.
This is also the reason why free fee's have made very little difference to the number of working class students attending uni, many don't actually understand what it means to get a degree, most of their parents didn't and so they aren't in a position to tell them about it and some even discourage it(btw I am not making assumptions about working class people and their education, I'm relaying personal experiences), furthermore their teachers do very little to inform them of their options. This is why scheme's such as H.E.A.R and UCD New Era are so important, because its not intelligence that's holding lower income families back, its their perception of third level education combined with the poor teaching efforts in many public schools.
I was by no means the best student in the class in my old school, but I gained higher results in my LC than any of those who had previously been "smarter" than me, and it saddens me to think that my friends have been held back and have not reached their full potential due to what I consider an inadequate education.

parker kent

LUPE wrote: »

Just read them there.

The first link has no real relevance to my post.

The second one has more relevance yet so you seem to make the same point that I do that it is the environment which makes the difference rather than the fact that they pay for education, so I don't understand why you took such issue with what I had to say

Seemingly I do have to explain the boringly obvious.

The environment only exists because of a previous culture of fee paying students dominating third level. Increase the amount of students from poorer backgrounds in third level and you break the cycle, leading to a faired, more equitable society.

There are also numerous students from poorer areas intellectually capable of thriving in third level, yet they miss out for various reasons. That is a loss to society. We need to get those people into third level. There are pretty obvious areas where it would be beneficial to have people from diverse backgrounds working.

As for the difference between fee paying and "normal" schools in poorer places, there are obvious differences most notably in the quality of teachers. Of course there will be exceptions, but by and large fee paying students have better teachers. Better teachers lead to better results. It is such a basic premise that it should not have to be explained.

Fee paying students also tend to have better facilities (note I say tend, not always). I never had the use of a lab for any science classes for example. I never did any practicals. That is an obvious area where I suffered through no fault of my own. The learning experience was worse because of the school that I went to.

The general environment of the school also plays a role in a students success. The majority of my classes had people doing higher, ordinary and foundation level. That means the teacher divides their time between 3 sets of students, none of them getting appropriate attention.

Also higher level students have to try and strive for excellence in an environment where acting the díck is normal. That is difficult. Wanting to succeed in such a school is difficult. If I were in a different school, I would have been surrounded by peers who wanted to do well (for the most part). That makes a difference. Schools in poorer areas are far more likely to have such troubled environments. Environments where classes are hijacked by gob****es and the teacher spends more time disciplining people than teaching. Obviously I know private schools have discipline issues as well, but it is not to the same level.

I could go on and on, but it should be obvious why fee paying students have advantages. kkumk has explained many other reasons in the post above that I would otherwise explain to you (some points have already been alluded to earlier and I'm sure most other people implicitly understood those points anyway). You really seem either ignorant of other schools or are just being difficult. You speak of the environment issues as if students from poorer areas are just not putting in enough hard work. Which is such an insulting, ignorant opinion. If you seriously think like that, you really should try and educate yourself on these issues.

errlloyd

Dear OP. Outgoing Campaigns and Communications officer and incoming President Pat De Brun has already protested against this increase. It was the big **** off protest we had back in November. That said I imagine we will do it again.

As for me, I think we should target the protest more towards getting a working means testing system. Yes I know means testing has failed before, thats why I want a working system. Those who can afford (I would count myself in the group that should have to pay) should pay, but money should never be a barrier.

65% of UCD students come from above average income families. They can easily afford. As said before to lots of people the barrier to education is not money anymore its points. The barrier to points is money. As the poster above said he opted to leave his school in 5th year and go to the institute. I would suggest that at least a few of the people who used to be competitive with him in terms of points, couldn't afford that.

I think people who have to pay for their degree will value it more and work more highly for it. The average work hours by both American and British students are higher then Irish students. I believe its because they have paid for it.

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think the university around us is giving us a good education these days. In law I have 11 hours a week, no more tutorials or seminars and a 2 hour paper at the end. For this years exam I studied two out of eleven topics for property law and got a B. More money needs to go into education, see the Hunt Report.

Lastly I think we are kidding ourselves if we think free is free. Its not free, the money comes from somewhere. In this case the money is coming from hospitals, from schools, from old men who have paid their tax all their lives and are having their nursing homes shut down. I know its incredibly frustrating ministers get paid so much and get pensions. But its unfair to assume that just because we deserve it more then them we should get it. There are people who deserve it more then us. If I was in a hospital lying on a trolley I'd be physically sick at the thought of middle class kids going to Dicey's every Monday, D2 every Wednesday and Palace every Thursday, while complaining they might have to pay fees.

dyl10

I would agree mostly with what you say Errllyod with the exception of a few small things;

1. A small thing, 65% of UCD students coming from above income families is a very conservative estimate. If it is truth, I assume that it is the result of the mistaking of average income as being the average person in terms of social class or socioeconomic status.

2. The issues around fees and points is a little bit of a red herring as the barriers are much more fundamental than a crossroad that is reached at 18 or the leaving cert year.

3. The Hunt report is an embarrassment of a document, focussed mainly around the commercialisation of education and was put together by a bunch of businessmen and hacks. From what I recall, there was not one practicing academic on the committee for it.

Otherwise, I think you are generally right.

errlloyd

They're all perfectly reasonable qualms.

I have heard 65 batted around before. I agree with you its probably more like 80!!

supernutrino

As for me, I think we should target the protest more towards getting a working means testing system.

Ever applied for a medical card?
or even a grant?

Means testing is an inaccurate haphazard bureaucratic nightmare that always leaves out a big chunk of people that should get help but don't.
Universal systems are way better, everyone gets in, and the richer folk pay through higher taxes.

Merit is the only thing that should matter getting into education.


Do you really want an entire generation leaving college with 5 figure debt? By the time they come anywhere close to paying that off its mortgage time.

Lifelong debt. I can only think of one group thats good for, its great for employers, their workers won't get uppidy about rights and working conditions if they need the job to pay off a huge debt.



In any case this whole debates a bit of a waste of time in itself, without seeing the broader context, factors are in play concerning peoples life chances from birth, well before cost of university becomes a barrier, its just one of many barriers and if were not ready to tackle inequality as a society in general then this is all a wasted debate...

I don't think you'll value it more if it cripples you with debt for life, I don't value college any more or less for the 2k I'll have to pay in september, in fact I kinda resent it, as many Americans do, they spent thousands and thousands on a degree and now because of the depression they're stuck in a job they could have gotten without the degree anyway, or they spend 100k on a degree and are in a 50k a year job (yes, it happens, a lot).

We definitely need a mechanism to stop people just choosing arts cos they don't know what to do or science because its easy points, i'd argue we need a new entry system, but not to cripple an entire generation with debt.




Also regardless of where you stand in this debate, means testing or universal, lets not loose sight of the fact that this govt promised during the campaign abolition of the reg fee and a graduate tax system, which I thinks fine, I'm happy paying a little extra tax to contribute to my education instead of being crippled with debt....but instead they just race to implement a policy even FF didn't go for, that the campaign was filled with lies should piss everyone off regardless of where they stand.


Lets also not loose sight of the fact that the states bankrupt because of reckless speculation in stocks and property both here and abroad, not because of what in reality is a very small segment of the budget.

supernutrino

Also on a separate note, you gotta love the Labour partys sheer level of political incompetence toying with full fees, I don't know of any party anywhere in the world besides them who are racing to destroy their own signature accomplishment, the only thing anyone remembers them accomplishing in office.

Can you imagine the democrats calling for the privatization of social security, or abolition of medicare or medicaid in the USA?
Can you imagine (even new) Labour in the UK calling for the abolition of the NHS?
Can you imagine FF coming out and saying we should get rid of the bus pass?

Idiots.

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

Lets also not loose sight of the fact that the states bankrupt because of reckless speculation in stocks and property both here and abroad, not because of what in reality is a very small segment of the budget.

Third level education is one of the most important parts of our economic recovery. Without fees, universities will continue to be under funded. Which will be to our economic detriment.

I'm sorry but all logical thought and research into this area yields the opinion that fees need to return. Means testing is not as chaotic as you claim and we are suggesting a more balanced means test.

supernutrino

Third level education is one of the most important parts of our economic recovery. Without fees, universities will continue to be under funded. Which will be to our economic detriment.

Lack of fees is not what has the unis underfunded, even at the height of the boom our education spending was the 4th lowest in the OECD. The system could still be funded centrally as it always has been, and as for tying that to economics your right but this is again just one piece of that puzzle, the science situation at second level is a major part of the problem there as well.

Think this though, the govts desperate to conserve funds because the IMF is slapping them around, so whats going to happen when they introduce fees, there will be a corresponding decrease in central govt funding to match it, leaving third level at the same level its at now, no improvement, only a burden on lower income students and lifelong debt for those who can afford the loans.
So what will eventually happen, is the colleges will press for (or do it themselves depending on how its set up) higher fees, and higher fees, and it will be just like the reg fee, every year will see an increase, untill were at American style levels of college debt.

There won't be this magical candyland of funds available suddenly for all the science and research some people seem to imagine, esp since the govts "smart economy" strategy, when you actually go into detail, is a joke, and if you had any notion of the level of waste in UCD alone, its quite staggering.

I'm sorry but all logical thought and research into this area yields the opinion that fees need to return.

I don't count reports that tell you what you rigged them to tell you as research.
Ministers wanting to do something controversial getting an "independent" report to "recommend" it is a time tested political trick, I can't believe how many still fall for it..

Means testing is not as chaotic as you claim and we are suggesting a more balanced means test

I flat out don't beleive that, these are the lies your told before something like this passes to make the pill easier to swallow, then its too late to do anything about it.
I've personally experienced two means tests.
One of them was for the grant, the delay in processing the means test resulted in a fee hold on my account which meant:

• Being locked out of the library
• Being locked out of blackboard.
• Not having access to basic materials such as a reading list.

• Not being able to register for classes.
• Not knowing where lectures are
• Not knowing where tutorials are.

This went on for most of the first semester, and naturally the college obviously expects me to live by same academic rules as everyone else, despite not having so much as a reading list for ages.

I waited 9 months for a medical card even though my income situation was ZERO (easy to process one would think....) and at the time was having kidney problems...but I had to wait, all so someone on the upper middle class woudn't accidentally get some healthcare free at the point of use...how awful would that have been.


This is a govt who during the campaign said, as separate parties they wouldn't do a half dozen things they've since done total u turns on, and were going to suddenly trust them to have a broad income threshold and really fair means test system? My ass.

noodler

graduate wrote: »

Hopefully you feel privileged to receive a massively subsidised education in a state which is borrowing one quarter of its expenditure and quite likely to go bust?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What exactly does that have to do with free-education. The overarching amount of sovereign debt of this state came about after the nationalisation of toxic banks and the overpopulated public service - not from the likes of free education, etc.. which will come as an asset to the revival of economy.

1) He was talking about the Deficit - the deficit of 18bn this year is only 3bn to do with the banks. The rest is public spending. HSE, Education, College Costs, PS salaries and pensions.

Don't be deluded into thinking the reason we are spending more than we are earning is down to the banks in the main.

supernutrino

noodler wrote: »

1) He was talking about the Deficit - the deficit of 18bn this year is only 3bn to do with the banks. The rest is public spending. HSE, Education, College Costs, PS salaries and pensions.

Don't be deluded into thinking the reason we are spending more than we are earning is down to the banks in the main.

To be more accurate the banks reckless speculation crashed the economy which resulted in the collapse of the revenue base which previously funded things like HSE, Education, pensions...
The reason were spending more is EXACTLY to do with the banks.
Their speculation crashed the economy and we socialized their debt, thus they created both the budget defect and the national debt issues we now face.

We didn't just almost spend too much....aaaaaalllllmost spend too much...then one day BAM, spent too much and suddenly the economy collapsed....



The only other factor was the last govt relied too much on revenue from property and based a lot of new spending on that revenue (HSE for example), revenue which was never sustainable even without the global crash.

noodler

supernutrino wrote: »

To be more accurate the banks reckless speculation crashed the economy which resulted in the collapse of the revenue base which previously funded things like HSE, Education, pensions...
The reason were spending more is EXACTLY to do with the banks.
The only other factor was the last govt relied too much on revenue from property and based a lot of new spending on that revenue (HSE for example), revenue which was never sustainable even without the global crash.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I urge you to research this further.

We have a deficit of 18bn because our Government enacted spending increases based on revenue streams which turned out to be temporary. You should check out Ireland's collapse in Exchequer Revenue from 2007 onwards.

Somehow arguing it was the banks who forced our Government to spend the excess revenues on increased salaries, SW and tax breaks is really delirious stuff.

EDIT: Executive Summary of the Department of Finance Review here - the keyword is pro-cyclical fiscal policy.

supernutrino

That is absolutely ridiculous.

I urge you to research this further.

We have a deficit of 18bn because our Government enacted spending increases based on revenue streams which turned out to be temporary. You should check out Ireland's collapse in Exchequer Revenue from 2007 onwards.

In other words what I just said in the previous post? :P

supernutrino wrote:

The only other factor was the last govt relied too much on revenue from property and based a lot of new spending on that revenue (HSE for example), revenue which was never sustainable even without the global crash.

...and why was there a drop in property taxes suddenly in 2008? did those particular bills get scared and run away? :rolleyes: There was a speculation bubble fueled, on purpose, to make people money, and it burst, like every other speculation bubble in history has, but we thought we were gonna be the first ones who had a "soft landing".
...That just happened to occur at the same time as a global crash (which would have hit us and caused a defect anyway just on its own) which itself was caused by speculation of a different nature in the states.
Both situations involved banks trying to make a ****load of money, and succeeding, but leaving a trail of devastation along the way.

Somehow arguing it was the banks who forced our Government to spend the excess revenues on increased salaries, SW and tax breaks is really delirious stuff.

I didn't say they did, and it wasn't "excess" we had balanced budgets and a surplus, its not excess spending if you have the cash.
There was a crash which wiped that revenue base out, a crash caused by banks.



the DOF review, oh thats objective..

noodler

supernutrino wrote: »

In other words what I just said in the previous post? :P

Nope.

Jesus where to begin...

supernutrino wrote: »

...and why was there a drop in property taxes suddenly in 2008? did those particular bills get scared and run away? :rolleyes: There was a speculation bubble fueled, on purpose, to make people money, and it burst, like every other speculation bubble in history has, but we thought we were gonna be the first ones who had a "soft landing".

Property taxes? You mean taxes from property related activities? Again, if you chech the Exchequer figures like I said you will see that the larger fall was in income tax. Exchequer revenue did not shrink by 15bn in the space of two years because of a fall in stamps.

supernutrino wrote: »

...That just happened to occur at the same time as a global crash (which would have hit us and caused a defect anyway just on its own) which itself was caused by speculation of a different nature in the states.
Both situations involved banks trying to make a ****load of money, and succeeding, but leaving a trail of devastation along the way.

Not too sure what you are trying to say here?

supernutrino wrote: »

I didn't say they did, and it wasn't "excess" we had balanced budgets and a surplus, its not excess spending if you have the cash.
There was a crash which wiped that revenue base out, a crash caused by banks.

No, not at all correct. A multitude of things led to our collapse in revenues.

1) Banks lent poorly - this is not in dispute but this is only part of the story.

2) Irish people borrowed huge amounts of money to purchase houses. Some did so for speculative purposes (see?, not all banks as you seem to suggest). Many bought simply to live in, tragic, however they still went out and applied for mortgages that were incredible multiples of their annual salary and paid ridiculous prices for property. If you feel the banks are the only ones to blame for the increase in property prices then you are in the minority.

3) On the revenue side: Our revenues increased massivesly but if the Government had not increased its expenditure to match the increase then we wouldn't have a deficit problem. Government spending should not complement economic growth (similarly in a time of recession the Government should spend what it has saved up in the boom - counter-cyclical fiscal strategy).

supernutrino wrote: »

the DOF review, oh thats objective..

Are you saying the DoF doctored a report in order to portray themselves in a bad light? Surely if they had power over the report then they would have blamed it all on the banks and not blamed themselves at all????

You don't seem to know what you are talking about here but the DoF review was chaired by an ex-Canadian Deputy Finance Minister - i.e. he was independent.

We also have THREE, yes three banking reports:

1) The Watson/Regling Report (Ex-IMF, British and German)

2) The Honohan Report (our CB Governor)

3) The most recent report by Peter Nyberg (Finnish)

All the reports are independent and are pretty damning of the Government's role in the destruction of the tax base (tax breaks in property, income tax etc) as well as serious spending increases.

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

if you had any notion of the level of waste in UCD alone, its quite staggering.

Given I have worked for UCD (and hopefully back there soon) and had 5 years as a student, I am pretty confident in my knowledge.

Lack of fees is not what has the unis underfunded, even at the height of the boom our education spending was the 4th lowest in the OECD. The system could still be funded centrally as it always has been, and as for tying that to economics your right but this is again just one piece of that puzzle, the science situation at second level is a major part of the problem there as well.

When I say funds, I am referring to ideas such as those given by Ferdinand von Prondzynski. Without fees, it was inevitable that funds would end up reduced.

There won't be this magical candyland of funds available suddenly for all the science and research some people seem to imagine, esp since the govts "smart economy" strategy, when you actually go into detail, is a joke, and if you had any notion of the level of waste in UCD alone, its quite staggering.

I don't claim there will be a "magical candyland". I am pretty realistic in my views. I'd be happy if they could increase funding to ensure priority services such as the library get increased funding. The basics are being cut into, let alone anything else.

don't count reports that tell you what you rigged them to tell you as research.
Ministers wanting to do something controversial getting an "independent" report to "recommend" it is a time tested political trick, I can't believe how many still fall for it

Where exactly am I counting these reports? Why discount what I say with such a ridiculous statement? I am not referring to government reports, so don't pretend that I am.

I flat out don't beleive that, these are the lies your told before something like this passes to make the pill easier to swallow, then its too late to do anything about it.
I've personally experienced two means tests.

First off, I have yet to meet somebody suffering grant issues like this who applied early. But anyway, I have been through various means tests throughout the years. I have had no such issues. Regardless, you are basing your opinions on existing means tests, not any hypothetical means tests being suggested in posts in this thread.

One of them was for the grant, the delay in processing the means test resulted in a fee hold on my account which meant:
Being locked out of the library
Being locked out of blackboard.
Not having access to basic materials such as a reading list.
Not being able to register for classes.
Not knowing where lectures are
Not knowing where tutorials are.

That is sensationalist BS. I worked with people in that situation at the student desk. If you approached lecturers, programme office, student desk etc people would try to help you. Anyway, it is not as if the location of lectures or a reading list are dark secrets. I'm sure you could call the school or ask another person in the course and see what times classes were on/get a reading list. Access to the library is also available for people without student cards. All you had to do was enquire.

What year were you in when you had these issues? First years have no issues registering to classes, regardless of their fees status.

partyndbs

i asbsoluitely ****in h8 college so much fcukin **** like this,....bring me back to secondary skl plz. ucd ur ****in ***** i h8 u...on top of repeats as well..money hungry saps

supernutrino

Property taxes? You mean taxes from property related activities? Again, if you chech the Exchequer figures like I said you will see that the larger fall was in income tax. Exchequer revenue did not shrink by 15bn in the space of two years because of a fall in stamps.

There was an overreliance on property related taxes.

Income and VAT receipts dropped because there was a crash, not because of the level of spending.
There was a crash because of banking speculation.
There was so much reckless speculation because of lack of govt regulation in key areas.

Not too sure what you are trying to say here?

That regardless of how prudent our fiscal policy had been we would likley still have been facing a defecit and a banking crises because were in a globalized economy, and the biggest player in that global market, the US is an unregulated mess and was ground zero for the 2008 crash.
Our levels of public spending would not have mattered much, there were a lot of factors out of our control.

2) Irish people borrowed huge amounts of money to purchase houses. Some did so for speculative purposes (see?, not all banks as you seem to suggest).

Who ran the seminars pushing it as a great investment? Who gave out the loans to purchase said investment? (and in the US case then bet against mortgages they sold on that they knew would blow up)

Many bought simply to live in, tragic, however they still went out and applied for mortgages that were incredible multiples of their annual salary and paid ridiculous prices for property. If you feel the banks are the only ones to blame for the increase in property prices then you are in the minority.

There were few cheap reasonable morgages out there, if you wanted a house at all you had to buy these absurd mortgages, that was just how it was.

EVeryone collectively saying "no were not paying that" resulting in a drop in prices...outside an economics classroom its not quite that simple in the real world.

3) On the revenue side: Our revenues increased massivesly but if the Government had not increased its expenditure to match the increase then we wouldn't have a deficit problem.

So we should have what? Put all the cash under the bed? Not upgraded our infrastructure? not built new hospitals and schools? There was certainly a lot of waste, but to say we should have just not spent any of the new revenue is absurd, no country would ever develop that way.
No country has ever starved itself to prosperity.

Are you saying the DoF doctored a report in order to portray themselves in a bad light? Surely if they had power over the report then they would have blamed it all on the banks and not blamed themselves at all????

The Irish DOF are a diffrent story for a diffrent day I don't wanna side track the topic any more than we already are.


There are a lot of people out there who put ideology ahead of common sense with the economic policies they advocated, and like communists in the early 90s they've just seen their ideas fail in a massive and obvious way, so they've banded together and said no the problem wasn't lack of regulation of exotic financial instruments, it wasn't a lack of a wall between depository and investment banks, it wasn't relying too much on certain kinds of taxes....we spent too much.....

supernutrino

irst off, I have yet to meet somebody suffering grant issues like this who applied early.

Blame the user not the broken system.....I'm seeing a theme in your outlook here.

I applied in august, well before most were even thinking about it, because Id had such problems the previous year as well and was hoping to get a head start on things and have everything ready in time that year.
I ended up waiting longer than before.
The grant processing for that council area was on time, but they had quibbles with my case in the nitty gritty detailed (none of which were income related, which is meant to be the point of the grant)

But anyway, I have been through various means tests throughout the years. I have had no such issues. Regardless, you are basing your opinions on existing means tests, not any hypothetical means tests being suggested in posts in this thread.

Yeh...they don't exist. I've studied social policy for years now I've yet to see an efficient means test anywhere in the world that didn't leave out a significant portion of people.
I don't beleive that in Ireland, a country not exactly known for bold new ideas policy wise, that were going to see the first.

If were low on funds, as we are, fine, reproirotize, i notice were still paying for a lot of wasteful programmes that should be far lower a priority than education, but don't throw out a system, universal access, that works well

That is sensationalist BS. I worked with people in that situation at the student desk. If you approached lecturers, programme office, student desk etc people would try to help you.

Listen mate your starting to annoy me here, its what happened. Sorry if you can't deal with reality, but thats what my experience was.

Your either lying flat out here, or your experience is not the norm.
They are barred by UCD rules from helping you in any way, thats what I was told, the programme office would not so much as tell me where lectures were held and I still have the emails from them to prove that, the student desk has nothing to do with the detailes of academic progrrames and if you go to the school offices they tell you they don't keep physical copies of reading lists anymore that its all online.

It may seem in the abstract that lecture locations for various modules are an easy thing to find but if you go lookin for them its actually not simple info to access, EVERYTHING is centralized thru sis and blackboard now and if you are not registered the info wont appear on them.

The only way to get stuff is to walk up to randomers in your class and beg for their materials so you can copy them, its quite humiliating.

Anyway, it is not as if the location of lectures or a reading list are dark secrets. I'm sure you could call the school

Heres how that conversation went, because I tried

RING RING
"hi, im looking to see what lecture theater (x module) is in?"
"that informations on your sis"
"well see im not actually registered for the module so its not appearing on my sis"
"why are you not registered?"
"i havn't paid my fees"
"if there is a fee hold on your account I can't help you you need to get your fees paid and then the information will appear on your sis, we dont' give that information out over the phone"


In one case I was looking for some docs from the school office and the woman behind the desk did this dramatic sigh routine and said i should have my fees paid "at this stage" (4 weeks in) and looked at me as if I were a bum.

This is not sensationalist, this is what happened, this is what happens when you trust a means test system, for many it will be fine, but there will always be a large number who have complications with their application, as I did, thus delays which will have knock on effects like this.
Universal systems protect everyone, I could have spent time on my course instead of going around various govt offices lookin for extra documents to support the application and worrying about getting basic materials..all this instead of actually studying.

You dont write good laws and social policies by denying that such problems occur or by blaming the victim in this situation.

or ask another person in the course and see what times classes were on/get a reading list.

With modularization thats more complicated than it looks not everyones in every class you have, and you'd be surprised at how unhelpful some people are with these things.

Access to the library is also available for people without student cards. All you had to do was enquire.

NO ITS NOT!!!
What college are you in?????
Do you think I sat on my ass and didn't challenge any of this stuff?
I spent nearly ALL of my time fighting tooth and nail to get access to these basic things and it was a major distraction from what I should have been doing which was actually studying the course material.

The only way you can get into the library without a card is the day pass, and you need to be registered to get one, the only other way after that is to purchase an external pass, and if your income is so low you get a grant yout not gonna have the kinda money (was around 80 euro i think) to buy one of those.

What year were you in when you had these issues?

3rd

First years have no issues registering to classes, regardless of their fees status.

Thats utter bs, if you have not paid the reg fee you can't register, I doubt they'd have diffrent rules for diffrent years.

dyl10

I think a lot of what you are saying, supernutrino, is correct but maybe you need a little more focus instead of jumping everywhere. You seem to be arguing at the institutional level on one hand but maybe alluding to systematic failings? i.e. the nature of neoliberal banking.

If that's the case, I would really recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

supernutrino

dyl10 wrote: »

I think a lot of what you are saying, supernutrino, is correct but maybe you need a little more focus instead of jumping everywhere. You seem to be arguing at the institutional level on one hand but maybe alluding to systematic failings? i.e. the nature of neoliberal banking.

If that's the case, I would really recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Its all integrated, but the reason I'm jumping around a bit is the discussions meandering between college fees and the (intellectually dishonest) connection people are drawing to the wider economic crises, the suggestion is that we have a whopping defect partly because we have universal third level education, I know this to be factually incorrect (its a result of an economic crises which in turn was caused by lax regulation).
Its like someone being stabbed and when they start bleeding the paramedics say well clearly he had too much blood, ignoring the knife and wound as factors in the equation.

As for institutional things, I'm drawing a connection between the decision to say switch to means testing, which many quite naively think is far better a way to target the poor, and how that will effect the student on the micro level.
Many will have a nice smooth clear application process and get the help they need.
Many will not, many who don't have such problems now, the grant systems already a disaster and were talkin about expanding it?

My central point is that the model itself , universal access, is NOT the core problem here, it is not what has caused any of the problems that have been raised.

The system by which students acess, the CAO, is a huge problem, I think thats a far bigger factor in people not valuing their degree, because its a little too blind, doesn't make you apply for and fight for the course you want, you don't have to sit down and write to an applications board justifying why you'd be a good law student say.
The second level subjects in science and their uptake is a huge issue.
The way universities budgets work is a joke, with people in very minor roles paid a disgusting amount of money.
There are other problems that are being ignored here which are IMO they key problems, not universal access, people are going on as if the silver bullet soloution is to reintroduce fees and then thats it, nice well funded universities which will feed a smart economy.
Its dangriously simplistic thinking.


This has nothing to do with education of valuing your degree, its a way to trim fat to meet IMF targets, so lets not pretend its about improving education.
Everyone paying a tiny silver of their income tax to education, or an entire generation crippled with debt, which is a better way?

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

I applied in august, well before most were even thinking about it, because Id had such problems the previous year as well and was hoping to get a head start on things and have everything ready in time that year.

August 20th is a common deadline for grant applications (it normally says applications/renewals received after that date are subject to delay).

Listen mate your starting to annoy me here, its what happened. Sorry if you can't deal with reality, but thats what my experience was.

Your either lying flat out here, or your experience is not the norm.
They are barred by UCD rules from helping you in any way, thats what I was told, the programme office would not so much as tell me where lectures were held and I still have the emails from them to prove that, the student desk has nothing to do with the detailes of academic progrrames and if you go to the school offices they tell you they don't keep physical copies of reading lists anymore that its all online.

It may seem in the abstract that lecture locations for various modules are an easy thing to find but if you go lookin for them its actually not simple info to access, EVERYTHING is centralized thru sis and blackboard now and if you are not registered the info wont appear on them.

The only way to get stuff is to walk up to randomers in your class and beg for their materials so you can copy them, its quite humiliating.

Listen "mate" you could find out what times classes are on at. Informal methods work just as well as formal, but I guarantee that what I am saying is correct. Of course there are ways of finding out. The UCD website has a list of every module and they give the name of the lecturer. Go to their office and find out what time the fricking class is on (a visit to the programme co-ordinator would be the obvious choice). It isn't rocket science. Ditto going to the secretaries in the school.

You do not need to give me basic information on SIS, I worked daily with the thing. Ditto telling me what the student desk can and cannot do. Giving you information about where you can find help is not academic help. Asking a class mate for something is not "humiliating" either. Calm down.

"hi, im looking to see what lecture theater (x module) is in?"
"that informations on your sis"
"well see im not actually registered for the module so its not appearing on my sis"
"why are you not registered?"
"i havn't paid my fees"
"if there is a fee hold on your account I can't help you you need to get your fees paid and then the information will appear on your sis, we dont' give that information out over the phone"

There are valid reasons for not giving out information over the phone. However, there is nothing stopping you going to the school office and proving your identity in person.

You dont write good laws and social policies by denying that such problems occur or by blaming the victim in this situation.

I am not "blaming the victim" or denying that problems occur. People in that situation have my sympathy. However, you throwing the rattle out of the pram does not make me overly sympathetic. You are also being far too dramatic about it and seem to be avoiding practical solutions.

NO ITS NOT!!!
What college are you in?????
Do you think I sat on my ass and didn't challenge any of this stuff?
I spent nearly ALL of my time fighting tooth and nail to get access to these basic things and it was a major distraction from what I should have been doing which was actually studying the course material.

The only way you can get into the library without a card is the day pass, and you need to be registered to get one, the only other way after that is to purchase an external pass, and if your income is so low you get a grant yout not gonna have the kinda money (was around 80 euro i think) to buy one of those.

You go to the student desk or school. You get a written letter explaining your situation and then you get access to the library. Calm down. No need for all caps.

thats utter bs, if you have not paid the reg fee you can't register, I doubt they'd have diffrent rules for diffrent years.

Doubt all you want, I know it to be fact considering it was my job to help first years register.

If you tone down the needless hostility and amateur dramatics, the replies to your posts would be different.

supernutrino

August 20th is a common deadline for grant applications (it normally says applications/renewals received after that date are subject to delay).

Our councils was October I believe.

Listen "mate" you could find out what times classes are on at. Informal methods work just as well as formal, but I guarantee that what I am saying is correct.

Your not correct, I was there, I tried, its not impossible, I did find out eventually but I had to piece it together and waste time I should have been spending getting work done,
A student should not have to spend time fighting to assemble basic information like lecture times, it should be provided.

Of course there are ways of finding out. The UCD website has a list of every module and they give the name of the lecturer. Go to their office and find out what time the fricking class is on (a visit to the programme co-ordinator would be the obvious choice). It isn't rocket science. Ditto going to the secretaries in the school.

Were you not reading what I said.
The school. WILL. NOT. TELL. YOU.
The first thing they ask in person or on the phone is why can't you see that online and when you tell them they say while there is a fee hold they can't help you.
They are like programmed robots, they don't go outside those restrictions.

Giving you information about where you can find help is not academic help.

If you ask the student desk where your lectures are you will get the same robotic answer you get from the school.
I tried it. It was the answer I got.

Asking a class mate for something is not "humiliating" either. Calm down.

"I cant afford to pay my fees so can I get the reading lists and blackboard info off you" is pretty degrading IMO, and a surprising amount will actually say no or make some excuse why they can't help you.

There are valid reasons for not giving out information over the phone. However, there is nothing stopping you going to the school office and proving your identity in person.

If your not registered you are not their student, you are not in one of their modules, you don't exist to them.

I am not "blaming the victim" or denying that problems occur. People in that situation have my sympathy. However, you throwing the rattle out of the pram does not make me overly sympathetic. You are also being far too dramatic about it and seem to be avoiding practical solutions.

It sounds dramatic because its an absurd situation to be placed in, having to fight to get basic information like where your lectures are.
The "practical solutions" you gave were all tried, they don't work, they won't tell you anything!
The means test didn't help me, it seriously hindered me in fact, and thats my point, its not as simplistic as "oh we can target the ones who really need it and the rest can pay", you need to realise that.

When you decide to make people go through means testing your not helping them your drowning them in paperwork and making them fight a broken system and layer upon layer of bureaucracy to get something very basic with no gaurentee at the end of all that heartache that they will actually get it.

I can't let someone come on here and claim means testing is a better solution when I know from two very painful experiences, and all the research I've read, that it is a nightmare of a system especially regarding education.

You go to the student desk or school. You get a written letter explaining your situation and then you get access to the library. Calm down. No need for all caps.

They don't do that, the student desk does not do tailored letters for each student nor does the school.
All the desk can give you is one of several form letters, the one I got was "student is eligible to register" which the library said meant nothing because I had to be ACTUALLY registered in order to gain access, or buy the external pass. They were quite helpful in offering to let me get the ex ucd student pass which was cheaper but it was still more than I could afford.

I'm not saying the staff around UCD were all evil (thought some were so full of contempt at the notion of not having paid fees it was really shocking), but they have rules on what they can and cannot do and they have to follow them.
They can't give course material to someone who has not paid their fees.

Doubt all you want, I know it to be fact considering it was my job to help first years register.

First years don't have to pay their fees to get access to basic materials but the rest of us do?
Sure :rolleyes:

If you tone down the needless hostility and amateur dramatics, the replies to your posts would be different.

Your ill informed posts need to be corrected, there are people out there who might actually believe your claims.

As for "dramatics" it makes me angry to see your simplistic bull**** being spouted as if the solutions were so obvious when I know from experience these things do not get you the material you need.
Why would I put myself through falling behind in course work and possible fails thus more resit fees etc if it really was so easy and simple to get the information?

If you have not paid your reg fee you'll get the cold shoulder from nearly every office in UCD, thats reality.

parker kent

supernutrino wrote: »

Our councils was October I believe.

The deadline for getting your grant before term starts is what I pretty clearly said I was talking about. Which is why I said applications received after that date are subject to delays.

supernutrino wrote: »

"I cant afford to pay my fees so can I get the reading lists and blackboard info off you" is pretty degrading IMO, and a surprising amount will actually say no or make some excuse why they can't help you.

As that is your only option of course. "I am having problems with my SIS, could I get a copy of the timetable?". Is that really a degrading thing to say?

I'm not going to bother arguing the rest of it with you. You talk about the student desk as "they". I am giving you answers from somebody who worked at the student desk until recently and who may be working in UCD again next semester. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

Edit: Actually I have to respond to this BS

supernutrino wrote: »

First years don't have to pay their fees to get access to basic materials but the rest of us do?
Sure

Roll your eyes all you want. First years do not have to have paid fees to get a student card (they can pay half the student centre levy and pay the reg fee later). Also, by necessity first years get access to materials without having paid fees as how else will they be able to do anything? It is a practical decision, first years are simply different to other years. They do not get access to everything, but they get "basic" materials. You have not worked at the Student Desk, I have. Your semi-literate ramblings are examples of being ill-informed, not my posts. You are basing your opinions on what happened to one student (i.e. you). That is hardly representative of the entire student body.