Discrimination Against Students

Kathy12

I am sick of replying to adverts for accommodation only to see that students need not apply.
My parents are willing to pay ridiculous amounts for rent only to be told that we are not wanted. I find this very unfair that we are all branded the same. Is anyone else in the same boat?

ironclaw

Its not discrimination, its a product of the generations before you. Unfortunately nothing you can do about it. There are decent landlords out there, they just can be really hard to find. Also, in Dublin especially, it makes more sense now adays to rent a property than to sell it. Even developers are renting blocks rather than selling as there is more money to be made. Students by their very nature miss rent and can't afford high rent, so there are economic reasons too.

Kiltennel

Think of it from their point of view. The areas surrounding UCD are nice middle class areas but not incredibly expensive, they have no problem finding the young professional sort of crowd who cause little trouble to rent their place. They will obviously go with the crowd who will be more likely to pay on time, will be much less likely to cause any damage to the house, and less likely lead to noise complaints. It's the reality of being a student. People don't trust students, move on and find somewhere else. With the shortage of good quality houses available for rent in Dublin it's a landlords market.

F7Z

ironclaw wrote: »

Its not discrimination, its a product of the generations before you. Unfortunately nothing you can do about it. There are decent landlords out there, they just can be really hard to find. Also, in Dublin especially, it makes more sense now adays to rent a property than to sell it. Even developers are renting blocks rather than selling as there is more money to be made. Students by their very nature miss rent and can't afford high rent, so there are economic reasons too.

Also known as stereotyping which by definition is discrimination. Not that I'm complaining since I fit the stereotype perfectly but still

Sam the Sham

I live very close to UCD. There is one house on my street inhabited by students. Guess which house has parties that keep the neighbours (including children, a good many elderly and at least one unwell elderly woman) up all night with drunken idiots roaring and shouting and pissing in other people's gardens? Guess which house was nearly burned to the ground a few months ago?

Students can't have it all ways: behaving like party animals and living for the "craic" while expecting to be treated like responsible members of society.

Raphael

Except there are plenty of Students who do not behave in that manner who suffer the same consequences as those who do. Which sucks for them, but unfortunately discriminating against someone for being a student is completely legal, and as mentioned before, in the current market landlords can afford it.

Sam the Sham

I have a lot of dealings with students. I don't think there are very many who don't behave in that manner, unfortunately.

Would you like some evidence? OK, here:

A survey conducted by The University Observer has revealed that the number of UCD students drinking excessive amounts of alcohol has risen since the recession.

78 per cent of students surveyed said they suffered memory loss as a result of alcohol consummation on a night out...

Students were asked how many alcoholic drinks they would normally consume on a night out, with 48 per cent admitting to consuming six or more drinks per night and 28 per cent saying five to six drinks.

[...]

The results also revealed that 89 per cent believe alcohol is an inherent part of university culture.

kilrush

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I have a lot of dealings with students. I don't think there are very many who don't behave in that manner, unfortunately.

Would you like some evidence? OK, here:

I don't think that is fair. Yes a lot of students drink too much. They always have and unless something radical changes in Irish society they always will.

That doesnt mean they become destructive or anti social.

I think it is fair to say some students are like that but I'm sure some "professionals" are like that too.

Sterotyping and discrimation because of a sterotype isn't fair and it puts alot of stress and anxiety on someone who only wants to go to college and improve themselves.

Sam the Sham

kilrush wrote: »

I don't think that is fair. Yes a lot of students drink too much. They always have and unless something radical changes in Irish society they always will.

That doesnt mean they become destructive or anti social.

I think it is fair to say some students are like that but I'm sure some "professionals" are like that too.

Sterotyping and discrimation because of a sterotype isn't fair and it puts alot of stress and anxiety on someone who only wants to go to college and improve themselves.

Let me spell it out logically:

Syllogism 1:
Major premise: People who drink to excess are irresponsible;
Minor premise: The vast majority of students drink to excess (76% drink over 5 pints when they drink; 78% have memory loss as a result of drinking);

Therefore: the vast majority of students are irresponsible.

Syllogism 2:
Major premise: Irresponsible people are bad tenants;
Minor premise: The vast majority of students are irresponsible

Conclusion: the vast majority of students are bad tenants.

QED

In short: it's not "stereotyping," it's common sense. It's also economics: if the chances are (and they are) that the student who would like to rent your place is irresponsible, why would you rent to them rather than someone else who is less likely to be irresponsible?

kilrush

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Let me spell it out logically:

Syllogism 1:
Major premise: People who drink to excess are irresponsible;
Minor premise: The vast majority of students drink to excess (76% drink over 5 pints when they drink; 78% have memory loss as a result of drinking);

Therefore: the vast majority of students are irresponsible.

Syllogism 2:
Major premise: Irresponsible people are bad tenants;
Minor premise: The vast majority of students are irresponsible

Conclusion: the vast majority of students are bad tenants.

QED

In short: it's not "stereotyping," it's common sense. It's also economics: if the chances are (and they are) that the student who would like to rent your place is irresponsible, why would you rent to them rather than someone else who is less likely to be irresponsible?

First of all there is absolutely no need to be so condescending.I fully understand the point you are trying to make I just don't agree that it is true.

You use the university observer survey to back up your two syllogisms here which of course isn't representative because;

a) its done by a student paper they are not going to have the resources to get a fair sample size and probably just asked people in the bar.

b) It is for a student paper. No student is going to saying to a student paper "yeah i had two pints last night and went home and watched greys anatomy".

I do not know a single person who hasn't got their full deposit back after their lease. I'm not in my forth year of leasing apartments in Dublin and not once have I had a complaint made about me.

Raphael

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I have a lot of dealings with students. I don't think there are very many who don't behave in that manner, unfortunately.

Would you like some evidence? OK, here:

So do I - I'm a postgrad student (Was PhD, now research MSc), have been in UCD near daily for the last 8 years, heavily involved with society life for more than half of that, and I've been tutoring first year courses for the last 2 years. I also live in a neighbourhood right next to campus, which an awful lot of student renters.

My anecdotal evidence is different to yours. I would find that sort of behaviour to belong to a loud and obnoxious minority, in my experience. I'm not saying your wrong, though, just that anecdotal evidence is bull.



That Observer survey had 320 respondents from more than 30,000 students, which is a very small sample size, and the only sign of methodology they give is "Were distributed on campus", which means they could well have some significant selection bias in there.


However, the argument of whether or not most students are bad tenants or not is completely moot. What's important is that if you rent to students, there is a greater chance of incurring damage to your property, or losing out on rent. And in this market, landlords can afford to hedge their bets.

Edit: Further notes on that survey - The figures for how much students drink are below the average for the 18-24 group according to this Health Research Board survey. Which would make student renters more responsible than the average young person, who might have a full time job and an easier time renting.

Additionally, the 78% figure of "Have suffered memory loss" has no connotations of regularity, and in that event says absolutely nothing about responsibility - I've suffered memory loss on a night out. It was my stag night, I had far too much to drink, and have no intention of ever drinking that much again. Does that make me irresponsible?

Riamfada

Wasn't there that party a few years back where some people turned one of the upper level apartments in Roebuck into a beach complete with sand and loads of water. Ruining the place and the apartment below?

Twas back in ye old'e '09.

So yeah, don't blame landlords blame students. Why should a landlord take the risk of this happening.

If you dont want to read the thread here is the opinion of someone on students wrecking rented accommodation


"Like, sickened. People do have fun going mad, and if things get vandalised, it generally starts off a small laughing fit between whoever is there to see the damage being done, and if it annoys people like you who "can stand people who vandalise property", it makes it that bit more fun in alot of cases. So sickened to be someone who cares, power to the people who just laugh at the whole thing and get on with it like. Party the **** out of the place like,forever."

Raphael

Christ almighty, I remember that. What a ****ing pillock. Though I do also remember "What a ****ing pillock" was what everyone I know said about it, so see obnoxious minority point.

Riamfada

Raphael wrote: »

Christ almighty, I remember that. What a ****ing pillock. Though I do also remember "What a ****ing pillock" was what everyone I know said about it, so see obnoxious minority point.

Oh yeah I agree about the minority point. But if you were a landlord what would be the gain to risking that and renting to students.

Sam the Sham

I note that nobody has seriously contested even one premise in my two syllogisms. Indeed, the Health Research Board study makes my point for me: young people drink a lot and people who drink a lot are irresponsible.

That's not a reason to discriminate against students as opposed to other people of the same ages. But it is a reason to discriminate against all people of those ages.

Sam the Sham

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Let me spell it out logically:

Syllogism 1:
Major premise: People who drink to excess are irresponsible;
Minor premise: The vast majority of students drink to excess (76% drink over 5 pints when they drink; 78% have memory loss as a result of drinking);

Therefore: the vast majority of students are irresponsible.

Syllogism 2:
Major premise: Irresponsible people are bad tenants;
Minor premise: The vast majority of students are irresponsible

Conclusion: the vast majority of students are bad tenants.

QED

In short: it's not "stereotyping," it's common sense. It's also economics: if the chances are (and they are) that the student who would like to rent your place is irresponsible, why would you rent to them rather than someone else who is less likely to be irresponsible?

Well that's a massive assumption

Sam the Sham

AdamD wrote: »

Well that's a massive assumption

What is? I've assumed nothing. Every one of my premises was explicitly stated.

Sam the Sham

Sam the Sham wrote: »

What is? I've assumed nothing. Every one of my premises was explicitly stated.

You've hypothesised that all people who drink to excess are irresponsible, that's simply incorrect.

HeidiHeidi

Quite apart from the stereotyping/discrimination argument (which I don't agree with btw), there's also the fact that students tend to want to rent for 8-9 months of the year - that's a big hole in your annual income if you're the landlord.

Hard to argue against them opting for someone who'll sign for a full year.

Sam the Sham

AdamD wrote: »

You've hypothesised that all people who drink to excess are irresponsible, that's simply incorrect.

Are they more irresponsible than people who don't drink to excess, all other things being equal?

convert

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Are they more irresponsible than people who don't drink to excess, all other things being equal?

Yes, they can be. As an example: a former housemate of mine was receiving rent allowance and the dole, yet consistently failed to pay their rent and bills on time because they preferred to dabble in drugs. When they eventually left, they owed at least 4 months' rent and 6 months in bills.

UCDCritic

Kathy12 wrote: »

I am sick of replying to adverts for accommodation only to see that students need not apply.
My parents are willing to pay ridiculous amounts for rent only to be told that we are not wanted. I find this very unfair that we are all branded the same. Is anyone else in the same boat?

Just don't tell them you're a student.

ironclaw

UCDCritic wrote: »

Just don't tell them you're a student.

Failure to disclose would terminate any contract pretty sharpish legally. Also, it would be beyond obvious.

Mr.Fun

Sam the sham, are you a drinker?? Your statements anger me

Sam the Sham

Mr.Fun wrote: »

Sam the sham, are you a drinker?? Your statements anger me

Pity.

Mr.Fun

Pity everyone is against you in this thread

Sam the Sham

Mr.Fun wrote: »

Pity everyone is against you in this thread

And if I were black, everyone in the Ku Klux Klan would be against me too. What's your point?

Recondite49

Kathy12 wrote: »

I am sick of replying to adverts for accommodation only to see that students need not apply.
My parents are willing to pay ridiculous amounts for rent only to be told that we are not wanted. I find this very unfair that we are all branded the same. Is anyone else in the same boat?

Hi Kathy,

I'm sorry you had difficulties with finding accommodation and share your pain!

I had similar issues when I first arrived in Dublin in 2012 as although I wasn't a student (I was looking for work), the people I wanted to move in with were.

Day after day we went to house after house and were knocked back ; this is of course irrespective of the number of places on websites where the advert says straight out, "No students or rent allowance", which I agree is right up there with "No blacks or Irish"(!)

Eventually one of my female friends and I solved the issue by posing as a couple looking to rent a family home. When the property management company asked for my occupation I simply wrote "Freelance Writer" (this was true in the sense that any fool can sign up to websites like e-lance and write a few travel articles).

This also got around the knotty issue of providing things like a contract of employment and I didn't even have to lie!

I appreciate this is dishonest and it panders somewhat to the prejudice you've experienced but I honestly think you'll have more joy by claiming you're self employed - at least it worked for us after nearly nine weeks of trying and getting nowhere.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

And if I were black, everyone in the Ku Klux Klan would be against me too. What's your point?

Classic reductio ad absurdum.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

Classic reductio ad absurdum.

You have no idea what that means.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You have no idea what that means.

On the contrary I have a degree in Linguistics and can write Ecclesiastical Latin well enough when required.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

On the contrary I have a degree in Linguistics and can write Ecclesiastical Latin well enough when required.

You can also apparently write in English. That doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about when you write in English. Is this another reductio, in your view?

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You can also apparently write in English. That doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about when you write in English. Is this another reductio, in your view?

The suggestion was that I didn't know what the expression means. I did and I applied it in context as you were employing that particular logical fallacy. Close but no cigar as they say.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

The suggestion was that I didn't know what the expression means. I did and I applied it in context as you were employing that particular logical fallacy. Close but no cigar as they say.

You don't know what it means as my example was in no way a reductio. Furthermore, a reductio is not in and of itself a fallacy. But again, it wasn't one. If you think it was, maybe you'd like to explain in what way it was.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You don't know what it means as my example was in no way a reductio. Furthermore, a reductio is not in and of itself a fallacy. But again, it wasn't one. If you think it was, maybe you'd like to explain in what way it was.

I think it's obvious to posters, it was not only fallacious reasoning but a rather silly thing to say, grow up and stop writing nonsense, please.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

I think it's obvious to posters, it was not only fallacious reasoning but a rather silly thing to say, grow up and stop writing nonsense, please.

I'm afraid you're not correct about it being either fallacious or silly or nonsense (or a reductio, for that matter). It was a way of making the obvious point that the fact that a mob is arrayed against one in no way implies that the mob is right.

Again, if you think this is fallacious or silly or nonsense or a reductio, then you're going to have to have an argument to show those things, barring which please feel free to say nothing.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

I'm afraid you're not correct about it being either fallacious or silly or nonsense (or a reductio, for that matter). It was a way of making the obvious point that the fact that a mob is arrayed against one in no way implies that the mob is right.

Again, if you think this is fallacious or silly or nonsense or a reductio, then you're going to have to have an argument to show those things, barring which please feel free to say nothing.

So not only have you said something idiotic and fallacious, you need me to explain to you exactly how you've been idiotic?

I honestly have better things to do with my time. Stop employing logical fallacies and you won't be called out on it in future, it's that simple.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

So not only have you said something idiotic and fallacious, you need me to explain to you exactly how you've been idiotic?

I honestly have better things to do with my time. Stop employing logical fallacies and you won't be called out on it in future, it's that simple.

You can't call someone out for a "logical fallacy" where no logical fallacy has been committed. A reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy at all. That fact alone is enough to establish that you don't know what it is. Don't believe me? Here's as good a definition as any:

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

Do you see anything about it being a fallacy there? It is a "style of reasoning." But I take it that reasoning is not really your thing.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You can't call someone out for a "logical fallacy" where no logical fallacy has been committed. A reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy at all. That fact alone is enough to establish that you don't know what it is. Don't believe me? Here's as good a definition as any:



Do you see anything about it being a fallacy there? It is a "style of reasoning." But I take it that reasoning is not really your thing.

It's one thing to be stupid Sam, it's another to expect others to explain to you why you have been stupid. Like I said, stop employing fallacies and you won't have any issues with people calling you out on it, surely that's not too difficult a concept to grasp?

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

It's one thing to be stupid Sam, it's another to expect others to explain to you why you have been stupid. Like I said, stop employing fallacies and you won't have any issues with people calling you out on it, surely that's not too difficult a concept to grasp?

Apparently, you also don't know what "stupid" means either. My definition of stupid includes insisting that something is the case (e.g., that a reductio is a fallacy] in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Apparently, you also don't know what "stupid" means either. My definition of stupid includes insisting that something is the case (e.g., that a reductio is a fallacy] in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

All you've really said is "no I'm not" - I don't have time to explain to you how you've been fallacious, work it out for yourself.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

All you've really said is "no I'm not" - I don't have time to explain to you how you've been fallacious, work it out for yourself.

No, you only have time to engage in the same infantile gainsaying ad nauseam.

Again, there is nothing fallacious about pointing out that a view endorsed by the mob is not made true simply because the mob has endorsed it. And there is nothing fallacious about giving another such example. Indeed, it's eminently reasonable. What is not reasonable, is to continue to insist that it's a fallacy and then, when called on your bull****, to adduce a "lack of time" to avoid answering the charge. Funny how you have a lot of time for tit-for-tat sniping, though.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

No, you only have time to engage in the same infantile gainsaying ad nauseam.

Again, there is nothing fallacious about pointing out that a view endorsed by the mob is not made true simply because the mob has endorsed it. And there is nothing fallacious about giving another such example. Indeed, it's eminently reasonable. What is not reasonable, is to continue to insist that it's a fallacy and then, when called on your bull****, to adduce a "lack of time" to avoid answering the charge. Funny how you have a lot of time for tit-for-tat sniping, though.

As a great man once said:

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead, it's a problem for everyone else.

It's the same when you're stupid.

Sam the Sham

Recondite49 wrote: »

As a great man once said:

When you're dead, you don't know you're dead, it's a problem for everyone else.

It's the same when you're stupid.

Something we can agree on.

Recondite49

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Something we can agree on.

Just tone down the fallacies in future, you'll be fine.

shruikan2553

The main issue I come across is that I want a 9 month lease. It costs to get new tenants and registering them so it makes sense to choose the person wanting to stay 12 months and then might stay even longer.

Raphael

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and lock this. Gg everyone.