Ruairi Quinn vs Gary Redmond on primetime last night -

Jaysoose

Was anybody esle watching the primtime episode from last night were Ruairi Quinn was outdebated by the USI guy Gary Redmond, the minister was made to look quite foolish by Redmond who simply had all the facts at hand and quoted a number of policy promises from the Fine Gael manifesto to which the minister for education couldnt reply without the usual waffles. Redmond Also posed a very interesting question about propetcting the pay of lecturers while at the same time increasing the registration fees for students.

It seems that fine gael are determined to protect the salaries of lecturer and expect the incoming students to pay an increased Reg Fee.

The minister performed quite badly when Redmond used fine gaels own figures etc against him.

PRAF

Didn't see the debate but a few quick points:

1. Ruairi Quinn is Labour, not FG

2. FG manifesto has little relevance here. FG weren't elected with a majority and had to join with Labour to form a coalition. They had to negotiate a combined Programme for Govt based on their own electoral mandate and policy positions. The USI guy should be highlighting if and how the Programme for Govt hasn't been delivered. Focussing on election manifestos is either (a) a sign of incompetence or (b) a sign of intellectual dishonesty

3. The country is broke. Govt is about making decisions and choosing your priorities. There is unlimited demand for services and very finite resources. We can't afford unlimited free education for everyone. Did the USI guy suggest any way to pay for whatever it is he wanted?

WeeBushy

Jaysoose wrote: »

Was anybody esle watching the primtime episode from last night were Ruairi Quinn was outdebated by the USI guy Gary Redmond, the minister was made to look quite foolish by Redmond who simply had all the facts at hand and quoted a number of policy promises from the Fine Gael manifesto to which the minister for education couldnt reply without the usual waffles. Redmond Also posed a very interesting question about propetcting the pay of lecturers while at the same time increasing the registration fees for students.

It seems that fine gael are determined to protect the salaries of lecturer and expect the incoming students to pay an increased Reg Fee.

The minister performed quite badly when Redmond used fine gaels own figures etc against him.

Really? I thought he did rather poorly, and Quinn was far more pragmatic and realistic. While coming across as articulate, Redmond failed to offer anything.

PRAF wrote: »

3. The country is broke. Govt is about making decisions and choosing your priorities. There is unlimited demand for services and very finite resources. We can't afford unlimited free education for everyone. Did the USI guy suggest any way to pay for whatever it is he wanted?

This.

Jaysoose

PRAF wrote: »

Didn't see the debate but a few quick points:

1. Ruairi Quinn is Labour, not FG

2. FG manifesto has little relevance here. FG weren't elected with a majority and had to join with Labour to form a coalition. They had to negotiate a combined Programme for Govt based on their own electoral mandate and policy positions. The USI guy should be highlighting if and how the Programme for Govt hasn't been delivered. Focussing on election manifestos is either (a) a sign of incompetence or (b) a sign of intellectual dishonesty

3. The country is broke. Govt is about making decisions and choosing your priorities. There is unlimited demand for services and very finite resources. We can't afford unlimited free education for everyone. Did the USI guy suggest any way to pay for whatever it is he wanted?

Your right he is labour thats my mistake. The USI guys main point was that the Minister signed a pre-election pledge not to reintroduce fees or cut grants but is now talking about increasing the Fees and also cutting the grants while at the same time defending the pay scales of lecturers as they are protected by the CPA which in my opinion was a valid direction to take the debate.


We all know the country is broke i just found it interesting that there is very little focus on education except the increasing of fees and cutting of grants. We are constantly hearing about the Smart economy but the goverment seem to be hindering people getting the higher level education to maintain this mantra into the future.

PRAF

Unfortunately, we can't stop individual politians making stupid promises that they can't keep. When RQ signed that pledge, he probably didn't realise he would soon by Minister for Education and would have to stick by what he said then. In the interim, his party entered into a coalition with FG and his / Labours promises on college fees were abandoned. Again, it is about priorities and finite resources. I'm not excusing the stupid promise (Leo Varadkar said something equally stupid about bondholders), however, I can see the bigger picture.

The USI guy obviously has a vested interest about college fees. Equally, the unions will have vested interests about maintaining pay & conditions for their members. Ultimately, we are paying the govt to weigh up the options, decide on what is the best choice and implement their decisions.

When the next general election comes around, we can decide whether they did a good job or not.

Suryavarman

Interesting how one of the students interviewed in the segment before the debate was studying "European Studies". What the hell is that supposed to be and what job does one get from such a degree? The anti-fees people don't do themselves many favours by doing useless degrees and wasting taxpayers money.

pragmatic1

Didnt think Gary Redmond came across well at all. He said "certainly" about 50 million times and went off on tangents. Ruairi Quinn just told it like it is. We're broke and just dont have the money.

hatrickpatrick

PRAF wrote: »

2. FG manifesto has little relevance here. FG weren't elected with a majority and had to join with Labour to form a coalition. They had to negotiate a combined Programme for Govt based on their own electoral mandate and policy positions. The USI guy should be highlighting if and how the Programme for Govt hasn't been delivered. Focussing on election manifestos is either (a) a sign of incompetence or (b) a sign of intellectual dishonesty

He signed a pledge before the election. He shouldn't have signed it if he didn't mean it - he knew exactly where the country's finances stood.

3. The country is broke. Govt is about making decisions and choosing your priorities. There is unlimited demand for services and very finite resources. We can't afford unlimited free education for everyone. Did the USI guy suggest any way to pay for whatever it is he wanted?

The country was broke last February when the election campaign began. No one force Quinn to sign any such commitment - he shouldn't have done it unless he was confident he could implement it.

Things may have changed, but the gigantic hole in education funding didn't appear over night, and it didn't appear in the last 9 months either. Either he was lying when he signed that pledge, or ignorant. Both are pretty damaging qualities for a politician.
I'll rethink voting for Labour next time, apparently that's as much "democratic accountability" as we're allowed to have in this country. We can punish our politicians for lying to us. Five years later.

Whoopedoo. :rolleyes:

southsiderosie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He signed a pledge before the election. He shouldn't have signed it if he didn't mean it - he knew exactly where the country's finances stood.

The country was broke last February when the election campaign began. No one force Quinn to sign any such commitment - he shouldn't have done it unless he was confident he could implement it.

Things may have changed, but the gigantic hole in education funding didn't appear over night, and it didn't appear in the last 9 months either. Either he was lying when he signed that pledge, or ignorant. Both are pretty damaging qualities for a politician.
I'll rethink voting for Labour next time, apparently that's as much "democratic accountability" as we're allowed to have in this country. We can punish our politicians for lying to us. Five years later.

Whoopedoo. :rolleyes:

Honestly, you keep repeating this across several fora. Was this your first time voting or something? Do you really expect politicians to keep every election promise they made beforehand - especially considering the worsening economic situation across the euro zone?

These kinds of posts just come off as very naive.

Manach

hatrickpatrick I believe is acting on the assumption that Politicians should behave like normal people, whose word once given is good. Saying that, I'd agree that this country being in hock to the IMF/EU cannot afford free education at 3rd level and,for this alone, I'd agree with Mr. Quinn.

dixiefly

I thought the debate was pretty even, Quinn justified his position ok. I am coming from the point of view of a parent that has a child in uni and another coming along - I dont want fees but I dont want the country to go bankrupt either.

Sully

Gary was poor. He quoted bits and pieces (sound bits), interrupted a fair bit but offered nothing. Ruairi just seemed to stare at him with a "Wtf" expression. He dodged the bullet big time when pressed on what the USI proposes to the government on tackling the problem he and the department faces. He couldn't answer it. A lot of the time he was speaking he avoided eye contact. He was there to hammer a point that no fees should be in, but couldn't offer an alternative to funding the problem. So most people will be wondering, looking at their TV, what the hell the point of him coming on was when he actually cant find a solution or offer one himself and has to avoid the question.

It wasn't that long ago that the USI were removing posts on their Facebook which pointed out that they were pushing a Labour vote, and that it was obvious what Ruairi was at anyway. A pointless pledge a lot of people knew was never realistic.

Listen, I am all for people knocking the government on their plans and approaches but only if they can come up with an alternative or more credible solution. Shouting and demanding to a Minister whose ultimate job at the moment is to identify area of big spending and try cut it back to make big savings. Why? Because we are broke. So what, Education comes first? Indeed, but it cant come first if you cant pay for the running of the country or that department. The state cant afford it. It has no other choice.

It scares me to think the USI is missing out on a bigger issue - the grants. Some form of fees or increase in the existing fees is a given. The USI will go mad and spend even more money on new TShirts, banners, pencils, adverts in the paper, etc. fighting a battle they already lost while instead they should be taking a common sense approach. Which is? Reform the education system from top to toe. Cut out over spending, cut back on wages, make the system fairer on the students (who are the customer), and improve the overall quality based on these savings PLUS fees. This reform and increase in money to the department will see a proper shift in our failed Education system, and make us compete more across the EU.

Now, I am sure the USI/anti fees brigade will tell me that's part of the overall message but that increasing fees and stuff will drive down education numbers. Of course it will. If I am getting it free, and I am not told to pay but cant - I cant go. So whats the solution? As part of the needed reforms I mentioned, tackle the grant system. Strip it apart, upgrade it, make it more economical, faster, efficient, and fairer. Those who can pay - pay. Those who cant - pay it. Those who would struggle - offer assistance. Its a win win for everyone.

But the USI are targeting and being very vocal on an issue they know they wont change when they should be being realistic on offering a solution to the problem at the very least, and targeting more troubling areas in the education system blocking people already from going to college which is getting worse every year.

Nothing against the idea of a union defending their students, at a big cost to them, but get realistic please.

PeterTwo

Suryavarman wrote: »

Interesting how one of the students interviewed in the segment before the debate was studying "European Studies". What the hell is that supposed to be and what job does one get from such a degree? The anti-fees people don't do themselves many favours by doing useless degrees and wasting taxpayers money.

Basically, the study of 2 European (Spanish, French, Italian and/or German usually) languages in depth as well as those countries' culture and history. A really useful course for employment, but it's quite intensive.

snafuk35

Unfortunately, we can't stop individual politians making stupid promises that they can't keep. When RQ signed that pledge, he probably didn't realise he would soon by Minister for Education and would have to stick by what he said then.

Yeah right.

In the interim, his party entered into a coalition with FG and his / Labours promises on college fees were abandoned. Again, it is about priorities and finite resources. I'm not excusing the stupid promise (Leo Varadkar said something equally stupid about bondholders), however, I can see the bigger picture.

You are excusing it.

The USI guy obviously has a vested interest about college fees.

Most students do.

Equally, the unions will have vested interests about maintaining pay & conditions for their members. Ultimately, we are paying the govt to weigh up the options, decide on what is the best choice and implement their decisions.

Tell us something we don't know?

When the next general election comes around, we can decide whether they did a good job or not.

Again tell us something we don't know?

PRAF

Hey snafuk35, how about some constructive engagement please. Any chance you might tell us what you actually thought of the original question posed here? Any chance you can tell us what you would do to solve the 3rd level funding crisis?

snafuk35

PRAF wrote: »

Hey snafuk35, how about some constructive engagement please. Any chance you might tell us what you actually thought of the original question posed here? Any chance you can tell us what you would do to solve the 3rd level funding crisis?

There is no solution. It's too far gone for that.
Ruairí Quinn knew he would have to implement cuts but he had to kick FF while they were down to get elected. He lied his ass off to get votes and now surprise, surprise the students are going to get it in the neck.
Parents and students are going to have to pay for their education.
End of story.
Until the economy gets back up off its backside, our young people are just going to have get by without a third level education or emigrate to find work.
The next ten or twenty years are going to be very bleak indeed for this country.
Families who thought they were middle class are going to have to get used to social exclusion, poverty and going hungry again.

avalon68

snafuk35 wrote: »

Until the economy gets back up off its backside, our young people are just going to have get by without a third level education or emigrate to find work.
The next ten or twenty years are going to be very bleak indeed for this country.
Families who thought they were middle class are going to have to get used to social exclusion, poverty and going hungry again.

Ridiculous. Why cant our young people take personal responsibility and take out a loan? People do it the world over? Or work for a year and save the money. Its hardly a sentence to poverty :rolleyes: A universal loan system, made available to every student who achieves the grades to enter college will not exclude anyone. Many people dont think twice about taking out loans for cars , holidays etc, but when it comes to investing in their futures they dont even want to consider it.

snafuk35

avalon68 wrote: »

Ridiculous. Why cant our young people take personal responsibility and take out a loan? People do it the world over? Or work for a year and save the money. Its hardly a sentence to poverty :rolleyes: A universal loan system, made available to every student who achieves the grades to enter college will not exclude anyone. Many people dont think twice about taking out loans for cars , holidays etc, but when it comes to investing in their futures they dont even want to consider it.

Your solutions are just so naive and removed from reality it's not funny. You don't seem to grasp that there are no jobs. After throwing money at people who couldn't pay it back and getting themselves in deep brown foul smelling stuff, why on earth do you believe the banks would agree to a universal loan system????? People do think twice about taking out loans for car, holidays etc. because in case you haven't noticed there is an economic depression.

themont85

I ****ing despise the USI, each individual 3rd Level Student Union and their respective officers. Every year, same ****. Telling students that fees are completely evil. Now, every student, rich or poor is forced to pay 2,000 euro.

Where is the alternative voice amongst students who are pro getting a good degree. Irish colleges are going through the floor.

avalon68

snafuk35 wrote: »

Your solutions are just so naive and removed from reality it's not funny. You don't seem to grasp that there are no jobs. After throwing money at people who couldn't pay it back and getting themselves in deep brown foul smelling stuff, why on earth do you believe the banks would agree to a universal loan system????? People do think twice about taking out loans for car, holidays etc. because in case you haven't noticed there is an economic depression.

From the naive tone of your posts you appear either unwilling or unable to look at the bigger picture. I am fully aware of the jobs situation - Im typing this from the other side of the world having emigrated for work! Additionally, I work in the university sector and can see the benefits of a well funded system. As you clearly point out and underline - there is an economic depression - so where do you propose the money come from to pay for your education? Banks are in business to make profit - student loans will be nice earners for them over the long term. The levels of fees being talked about aren't exactly huge, and are very repayable when people graduate and get work. American students manage it and they graduate with MUCH higher levels of debt than those being proposed in Ireland.

thebman

Our banks are more worried about staying afloat in the short term than money earners for the long term however.

PRAF

snafuk35 wrote: »

There is no solution. It's too far gone for that.
Ruairí Quinn knew he would have to implement cuts but he had to kick FF while they were down to get elected. He lied his ass off to get votes and now surprise, surprise the students are going to get it in the neck.
Parents and students are going to have to pay for their education.
End of story.
Until the economy gets back up off its backside, our young people are just going to have get by without a third level education or emigrate to find work.
The next ten or twenty years are going to be very bleak indeed for this country.
Families who thought they were middle class are going to have to get used to social exclusion, poverty and going hungry again.

On balance, I will agree with you about RQ and his promise. I won't go as far as to say it was a lie, however, it was extremely unwise and probably a little foolish to have signed that pledge.

However, I have to disagree strongly with the rest of your post. snajuk35 - you are just coming across as too negative here:
- "Parents and students are going to have to pay for their education": this is true but it is the case, will be the case and has always been the case for as long as education has existed. Education is an investment. It is probably the best investment anyone could ever make but it is still an investment. The vast bulk of the costs of college are very rarely considered (rent, heat, subsistence, books, and most importantly the opportunity cost of not having a job for the 3 to 4 years you are in college). In the grand scheme of things, the 2k student contribution is small change. Look at America where students routinely get loans of 100k plus to fund the costs of their college education.
- "Until the economy gets back up off its backside, our young people are just going to have get by without a third level education or emigrate to find work": how many people go to college now compared to say 1995 or 2005 for that matter. I would hazard a guess that we have more college students now than ever before. Yes, bringing in some sort of additional student contribution / fees / loans / post graduation tax will deter some people. However, I just cannot see your doomsday scenario ever happening.

Personally I am against the idea of student loans. However, surely some form of post graduation tax can be considered to offset the large investment the state makes in people's 3rd level education (e.g. an extra 2% tax on incomes for a period).

snafuk35

avalon68 wrote: »

From the naive tone of your posts you appear either unwilling or unable to look at the bigger picture. I am fully aware of the jobs situation - Im typing this from the other side of the world having emigrated for work! Additionally, I work in the university sector and can see the benefits of a well funded system. As you clearly point out and underline - there is an economic depression - so where do you propose the money come from to pay for your education? Banks are in business to make profit - student loans will be nice earners for them over the long term. The levels of fees being talked about aren't exactly huge, and are very repayable when people graduate and get work. American students manage it and they graduate with MUCH higher levels of debt than those being proposed in Ireland.

Get real.
There is not enough money in the state coffers to pay for it.
End of.
The people using the system will have to pay for it.
If they can't pay for it and they don't get educated then tough.
The banks might have agreed to a system of loans before the crash but not now. There has to be a significant economic recovery before we can even begin to consider a return to the same level of funding or the same level of bank lending we saw before the crash.

snafuk35

thebman wrote: »

Our banks are more worried about staying afloat in the short term than money earners for the long term however.

Tell us something we didn't know.

Eliot Rosewater

On the Primetime debate Redmond said that after second level people do three things: go to University, go on the dole, or emigrate. This is a farcical statement. I live in an estate where the majority of people my age work in trades or in other non-University-based jobs. It says a lot about the kind of life and friends Redmond has that he isn't aware of these people.

The irony is that Redmond, as head of the USI, tries to portray himself as the champion of the vulnerable. But the irony is a little bigger than that. Despite the all-inclusive rhetoric, the USI pro-fees campaign protects one class of people: affluent middle-class college students who don't care enough about their degrees to actually pay for them.

Sulmac

Very well said, Eliot Rosewater!

Just one thing to add...

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But the irony is a little bigger than that. Despite the all-inclusive rhetoric, the USI pro-fees campaign protects one class of people: affluent middle-class college students who don't care enough about their degrees to actually pay for them.

Or in many cases, even do their degrees. The 'college breaks' taken by student union officers (many of whom ultimately end up in USI) can last for years.

Suryavarman

PeterTwo wrote: »

Basically, the study of 2 European (Spanish, French, Italian and/or German usually) languages in depth as well as those countries' culture and history. A really useful course for employment, but it's quite intensive.

Actually that sounds like a pretty good course. I withdraw my previous statement

DB21

Y'know, there is a disgusting anti-student sentiment on this website. Take the fúcking grants away. Remove free fees. College is a rich boys club. There is no fúcking jobs. So we lose a generation of school leavers. Why are we as a country so willing to screw over the future? Why aren't people getting up off the fúcking fat lazy arses to protest €700m cheques being signed over to banks that should have failed? Because this country has a mé fein attitude. I for one will not be taking me or my friends being screwed because of the cost of the banks incompetence and embezzling of the country lying down. I'll be one of the 90,000 marching on Dail Eireann next Wednesday. If you have any pride or will to see this country survive and not to have your children and grandchildren leave, I would suggest you start marching as well.

Figerty

Either you are a windup merchant or just plain ignorant.

It looks we are back to the 'I'm all right Jack metallity'. You attitude is absolutely sickening and shows little awarness of the value of an eduaction vs the cost.

Take a look at the amount of social problems there are in this country, Then have a look at the amount of people that have lifted their expectations and prospects through education.

If you want to improved education, then get into the nitty gritty of the colleges and start stripping away the layers of management and titles that cost money with little return. Black tie dinners and the granduer that costs money.

Look it third level sector at the amount of lecturer on low hours and able to escape any content with students. I recently heard of students being interviewed for Co-op. They were from a University. Out of the seven interviewed not one could discuss their field of education, not one had a clue where they were going in their field. I will bet that not one lectuer had engaged in a meaningful conversation during their education about their course or their careers.

Then take a look at the fees and the value for money, then work out where the saving can be made before lumping it on the students..

If you want to fund the third level sector properly then start with the following.
(1) Cut college courses that have low numbers and little academic merit.
(2) Get Lecturers to work the minimum number of hours at least and cut the bull of hours off for duties that should be part of their contract.
(3) Cut out the management roles that produce little or nothing. Believe me there are plenty of these.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Get real.
There is not enough money in the state coffers to pay for it.
End of.
The people using the system will have to pay for it.
If they can't pay for it and they don't get educated then tough.
The banks might have agreed to a system of loans before the crash but not now. There has to be a significant economic recovery before we can even begin to consider a return to the same level of funding or the same level of bank lending we saw before the crash.

snafuk35

It looks we are back to the 'I'm all right Jack metallity'. You attitude is absolutely sickening and shows little awarness of the value of an eduaction vs the cost.

The rich care about the greater good as long as it doesn't hit them too hard in the pocket. Obviously it would great if everyone was educated but the rich and wealthy will look after themselves first and if they have push the poor to the kerb during tough times.

Take a look at the amount of social problems there are in this country, Then have a look at the amount of people that have lifted their expectations and prospects through education.

There are few social problems in south Dublin. That's all that matters.

If you want to improved education, then get into the nitty gritty of the colleges and start stripping away the layers of management and titles that cost money with little return. Black tie dinners and the granduer that costs money.

If they can save money by taking it from other areas they will do that first. You know this. So your suggestion is a non-runner.

Look it third level sector at the amount of lecturer on low hours and able to escape any content with students. I recently heard of students being interviewed for Co-op. They were from a University. Out of the seven interviewed not one could discuss their field of education, not one had a clue where they were going in their field. I will bet that not one lectuer had engaged in a meaningful conversation during their education about their course or their careers.

That's their problem. When you become an adult you figure it out for yourself.

Then take a look at the fees and the value for money, then work out where the saving can be made before lumping it on the students..

Just how naive are you?

If you want to fund the third level sector properly then start with the following.
(1) Cut college courses that have low numbers and little academic merit.
(2) Get Lecturers to work the minimum number of hours at least and cut the bull of hours off for duties that should be part of their contract.
(3) Cut out the management roles that produce little or nothing. Believe me there are plenty of these.

Are you suggesting that universities and colleges start living in the real world?

pconn062

I agree that some fees are necessary and also that grants need to take a hit like everything else (apart from TD's expenses and pensions of course) but the idea of cutting ALL grants for postgraduate students is ridiculous, which was reported in the Sunday Business Post this morning. The grant I receive for my postgraduate studies has been cut by 66% already this year due to the new regulations about your home distance away from college, so I work to make up the difference. But to turn around and cut all grants, not just curtail them, is a foolish decision and you will gradually see a dumbing down of the workforce in this country.

dlofnep

Most people would accept that the state is under extreme financial strain, and cutbacks would be easier to swallow if it wasn't for the fact that our current Government handed away €718 million to unguaranteed bondholders. We're broke, but we can still afford to give funds to a failed and corrupt bank. A bank might I add that Leo Varadkar promised would not receive anymore funding. So much for the promises of FG politicians.

People need access to education, now more than ever. Opportunities are poor right now, and a large portion of my friends have either emigrated or are in the process of emigrating.

You insult the Irish public by telling us we are broke with the upper lip, and justify the handover of 3 quarters of a billion euro with the lower lip.

snafuk35

dlofnep wrote: »

Most people would accept that the state is under extreme financial strain, and cutbacks would be easier to swallow if it wasn't for the fact that our current Government handed away €718 million to unguaranteed bondholders. We're broke, but we can still afford to give funds to a failed and corrupt bank. A bank might I add that Leo Varadkar promised would not receive anymore funding. So much for the promises of FG politicians.

People need access to education, now more than ever. Opportunities are poor right now, and a large portion of my friends have either emigrated or are in the process of emigrating.

You insult the Irish public by telling us we are broke with the upper lip, and justify the handover of 3 quarters of a billion euro with the lower lip.

If we burn the bondholders we could forget about ever entering the bond market again. Why the hell would anyone buy our bonds - i.e. lend us money?
You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.
The bond markets call the shots.
End of story.
Unless you want a return to the workhouse and poor relief and slave labour to pay for the running of the state?

dlofnep

snafuk35 wrote: »

If we burn the bondholders we could forget about ever entering the bond market again.

Don't be absurd. The bondholders had no guarantee. It wouldn't be the first time bondholders were burnt in the world, and wouldn't be the last. And it certainly wouldn't stop us from entering the bond markets again either. The markets want to see that the state can sustain the levels of debt it incurs.

The Government didn't even try. You might be able to glance over the pre-election promises by Fine Gael, but I don't forget that easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTCT7QIeP8

Sully

The bondholders were let go because of the promissory notes for Anglo Irish. It made more sense to target the bigger fish. This was part of the discussions.

ninty9er

themont85 wrote: »

I ****ing despise the USI, each individual 3rd Level Student Union and their respective officers. Every year, same ****. Telling students that fees are completely evil. Now, every student, rich or poor is forced to pay 2,000 euro.

Where is the alternative voice amongst students who are pro getting a good degree. Irish colleges are going through the floor.

As a students' union president I find your generalisation repulsive and I'll informed. At a recent Council meeting our students discussed third level funding, some acutely aware of the effects of higher fees (let's be straight about it we already have fees) but are in favour of them. The majority however still feel that they will pay enough in taxes over the course of their working life. I represent the majority, its how democracy works. The issue is that the state has already drained the third level system to the point where the only thing keeping the doors open is rising student numbers. Introduce fees and that disappears.

Fees are fine in theory, but in practice the effect will be that the state grant to institutions will reduce by the same amount as fees raise. It's this hypocrisy that many of my members can't take.

The issue at hand with the march is that Quinn made that promise, he didn't have to. Labour were going to be in government and he knew that. Offering non-deliverables wasn't a good move and Labour will pay for it at the next election. The party is now less credible than Robert Mugabe.

Sulmac wrote: »

Very well said, Eliot Rosewater!

Just one thing to add...



Or in many cases, even do their degrees. The 'college breaks' taken by student union officers (many of whom ultimately end up in USI) can last for years.

Many officers (my whole team) are graduates or due to graduate. Very few of us get 1.1 degrees, but that's because we tend to be involved in student life during our entire time in education.

People should get their facts straight before throwing generalisations around the place.

Sulmac

ninty9er wrote: »

Many officers (my whole team) are graduates or due to graduate. Very few of us get 1.1 degrees, but that's because we tend to be involved in student life during our entire time in education.

People should get their facts straight before throwing generalisations around the place.

Apologies. I'll be honest - my own experience is with the UCD SU who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

southsiderosie

ninty9er wrote: »

The majority however still feel that they will pay enough in taxes over the course of their working life. I represent the majority, its how democracy works. The issue is that the state has already drained the third level system to the point where the only thing keeping the doors open is rising student numbers. Introduce fees and that disappears.

If students are willing to forgo the long-term economic benefits of a degree for the short-term inconvenience of paying for it, then, to be quite honest, I question their intelligence.

The universities are being drained because there is too much money put into subsidizing students (who, even with fees, would still not be paying the total cost of their education) and over-paying senior faculty and administrators. This is money that would be far better spent on research, which drives both innovation and international university rankings.

ninty9er

Rankings are largely irrelevant. Ever drilled the figures or examined the process?

southsiderosie

ninty9er wrote: »

Rankings are largely irrelevant. Ever drilled the figures or examined the process?

Ranking are not irrelevant to employers and investors. And yes I have gone through the methodology, and while some are better than others that doesn't take away the fact that they allow for standardized cross-national comparisons of institutions.

MagicMarker

southsiderosie wrote: »

If students are willing to forgo the long-term economic benefits of a degree for the short-term inconvenience of paying for it, then, to be quite honest, I question their intelligence.

The problem is, for some it's not an inconvenience, it's simply not an option.

southsiderosie

MagicMarker wrote: »

The problem is, for some it's not an inconvenience, it's simply not an option.

If there is a proper loan program in place, then it is an option for everyone. By insisting on no-fee grants, the USI is just kicking the can down the road.

gifted

How many politicians were in the student union in their day?. Wouldn't support students union in any situation.

p1akuw47h5r3it

snafuk35 wrote: »

Your solutions are just so naive and removed from reality it's not funny. You don't seem to grasp that there are no jobs. After throwing money at people who couldn't pay it back and getting themselves in deep brown foul smelling stuff, why on earth do you believe the banks would agree to a universal loan system????? People do think twice about taking out loans for car, holidays etc. because in case you haven't noticed there is an economic depression.

Yes there are jobs. Many places take on Christmas staff, for example Argos, who are recruiting 800 people for Christmas work http://www.jobsguideireland.com/christmas-2009-jobs-at-argos/.
Yes this is only temporary but people do be kept on from these jobs It is the same where I work, we take on temps and some get kept on if they are good enough.. Most of the people I know have part time work. Did they find hard to get a job? Yes but they kept trying until they got one. It isn't THAT hard to get part time work. The people who are most affected by the recession are those in the construction industry and construction related industries (obviously), but also those people who need more than simply part time work to sustain their lively hood i.e not students. When it comes to jobs students are the least affected by everybody. If you look enough you'll get a job.

ToadVine

ninty9er wrote: »

The party (FG) is now less credible than Robert Mugabe.

I am not a FG supporter, but this is hard to take from a diehard FF supporter like you ninty9er.

How credible are FF in your opinion? As compared to Robert Mugabe? Or even as compared to FG?

ninty9er wrote: »

Rankings are largely irrelevant. Ever drilled the figures or examined the process?

This statement is incredibly ignorant. I'm especially shocked that the current SU president in UL would say something like that.

And just fyi ... I'm very familiar with the ranking system. I am currently working as a full time academic in a large Irish University. In fact, I have worked in a number of educational institutions both in Ireland and abroad. I can categorically tell you that the University ranking system matters a great deal. It matters to the Universities (who strive to get higher in the rankings ... have a look at what Hugh Brady has tried to do in UCD), and it matters to students who sometimes make decisions based on these rankings (especially foreign students coming to Ireland). It also matters to people like me who work in these Universities. As a matter of fact I can tell you that my colleagues from a variety of Universities in the US and Europe have commented to me on the fall in ranking of my particular University.

To say these rankings are "largely irrelevant" displays an ignorance (and probably a prejudice) that is, quite frankly, shocking.

Figerty

snafuk35 wrote: »

The rich care about the greater good as long as it doesn't hit them too hard in the pocket. Obviously it would great if everyone was educated but the rich and wealthy will look after themselves first and if they have push the poor to the kerb during tough times.

True

There are few social problems in south Dublin. That's all that matters.

Rubbish

If they can save money by taking it from other areas they will do that first. You know this. So your suggestion is a non-runner.

Rubbish, i am in the system, I know this is not the case.

That's their problem. When you become an adult you figure it out for yourself.

More Rubbish

Just how naive are you?

About half as Naive as you. I know what goes on.

Are you suggesting that universities and colleges start living in the real world?

Yes, and you know it too.

Figerty

The Sunday times rankings are an nonsense. The seem to find a way to give number one the college they wish to find favour with.

They give more marks for the number higher honours degree given and then dock marks for too many higher degrees on another scale.

The scoring systems is extremely dubious.

ninty9er wrote: »

Rankings are largely irrelevant. Ever drilled the figures or examined the process?

thebman

southsiderosie wrote: »

If there is a proper loan program in place, then it is an option for everyone. By insisting on no-fee grants, the USI is just kicking the can down the road.

What is the difference between a loan program that everyone can use and the government paying everyones fees and then taxing them for life once they are working?

I don't see the difference, there are problems with our current system, I don't think lack of fees is really one of the major problems TBH.

The real problem is government interfering too much in the education system because it is paying the fees.

Is there any assurances that it will not continue to do this after it reintroduces fees?

ninty9er

southsiderosie wrote: »

Ranking are not irrelevant to employers and investors.

I don't see queues of multinationals leaving due to Ireland's poorly ranked universities. I haven't ever heard an employer mention rankings, and I've been to a few employer forums in recent months within my own institution. They want good employees, ones who are adaptable, there's no ranking metric for that.

ToadVine wrote: »

I am not a FG supporter, but this is hard to take from a diehard FF supporter like you ninty9er.

It's not the actions of the government, but the endless abyss that exists between those actions and the rhetoric in February. FF didn't make the foolish promises

ToadVine wrote: »

This statement is incredibly ignorant. I'm especially shocked that the current SU president in UL would say something like that.

And just fyi ... I'm very familiar with the ranking system. I am currently working as a full time academic in a large Irish University. In fact, I have worked in a number of educational institutions both in Ireland and abroad. I can categorically tell you that the University ranking system matters a great deal. It matters to the Universities (who strive to get higher in the rankings ... have a look at what Hugh Brady has tried to do in UCD), and it matters to students who sometimes make decisions based on these rankings (especially foreign students coming to Ireland). It also matters to people like me who work in these Universities. As a matter of fact I can tell you that my colleagues from a variety of Universities in the US and Europe have commented to me on the fall in ranking of my particular University.

To say these rankings are "largely irrelevant" displays an ignorance (and probably a prejudice) that is, quite frankly, shocking.

you should chat with another senior academic I recently heard speak, Prof. Ciaran Murphy of UCC who made the point that rankings are largely irrelevant and went on to list why. At the same time the chair of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals reiterated the point.

For example Trinity has a bias considering peer reputation is a metric and Trinity is also one of Ireland's prime tourist locations, meaning everyone's heard of it. An institution can improve its ranking by issuing more 1st class degrees, it doesn't mean the standards have gone up, it likely just means the bar was lowered. This was noticeable in 2006 (IIRC) when a huge jump in % of 1sts and 2.1s emerged from the 4 NUIs almost identically.

If an institution has a medical faculty or biomedicine department it's ranking on publications will be higher as those are more cited than arts papers.

Don't try coming on here looking down on me from some academic ivory tower, because I DO know what I'm talking about.

Figerty

ninty9er wrote: »

I don't see queues of multinationals leaving due to Ireland's poorly ranked universities. I haven't ever heard an employer mention rankings, and I've been to a few employer forums in recent months within my own institution. They want good employees, ones who are adaptable, there's no ranking metric for that.


It's not the actions of the government, but the endless abyss that exists between those actions and the rhetoric in February. FF didn't make the foolish promises


you should chat with another senior academic I recently heard speak, Prof. Ciaran Murphy of UCC who made the point that rankings are largely irrelevant and went on to list why. At the same time the chair of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals reiterated the point.

For example Trinity has a bias considering peer reputation is a metric and Trinity is also one of Ireland's prime tourist locations, meaning everyone's heard of it. An institution can improve its ranking by issuing more 1st class degrees, it doesn't mean the standards have gone up, it likely just means the bar was lowered. This was noticeable in 2006 (IIRC) when a huge jump in % of 1sts and 2.1s emerged from the 4 NUIs almost identically.

If an institution has a medical faculty or biomedicine department it's ranking on publications will be higher as those are more cited than arts papers.

Don't try coming on here looking down on me from some academic ivory tower, because I DO know what I'm talking about.

Can I jsut answer one point here. I know of a company in dublin that cannot get C++ programmers in this country of a high enough standard to get them in the door as a graduate. The company would take them from there and train them the rest of the way.

They have gone to meet all the colleges with course that should be able to supply these Telecoms engineers, explained the problem with standards to the relavent heads and have been ignored. yet these Universitys are still pushing out first class honours students who are not capable of producing first class graduate level work.

Rankings are irrelevant if it just means your graduates are just the best of an average bunch. Industry knows wht they need and in many cases they are not getting it.

The government need to get better value for money before it puts the burden on the students.

Xenophile

Gary Redmond was excellent on that programme. My immediate thought was that he would be a great asset to political life.:)