Students must now pay to attend their own conferrings. Eh...what?

Byron85 · 02-04-2010 05:27PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Then the government would pay, as they do now. The government pays the registration fees for those in difficult circumstances. The free fees system only helps the middle-classes, although they like to say they're standing up for the ppor off because it makes their cause look nobler.

I agree with that to an extent. I see people who don't need the grant and the free fees make full use of it. On the other hand, i'm from one of those "poor" backgrounds. I'm a mature student so i'm assessed on my own income, which is non-existent, and even if I was being assessed by my family's income (read a single parent) i'd get the full grant and free fees like I am now.

So, I agree with you that people who don't need it get it but don't forget that there are people such as myself and my sister who simply couldn't afford to go to college or university at all if the free fees initiative wasn't there. The system does need a serious shake up though.

Eliot Rosewater · 02-04-2010 05:58PM

MisterCadbury wrote: »

Seriously elliot go home.

But I am at home!! Oh no, what to do!! :pac:

MisterCadbury wrote: »

You have no right to tell someone they shouldn't do a masters.

I didn't tell them they shouldn't do a masters. I said that if they weren't happy with the terms of the masters they needn't have taken it on. We're not forced to go to UCC you know.

MisterCadbury wrote: »

That comment about the banks increasing supply to meet demand is idiotic.

You should take an economics course, it might broaden your perception of how the world around you works.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

So, I agree with you that people who don't need it get it but don't forget that there are people such as myself and my sister who simply couldn't afford to go to college or university at all if the free fees initiative wasn't there.

Point taken. So would you support a system whereby universal free-fees were abolished, but the income brackets for support raised?

What would you think of a Government sponsored loan system, or a "graduate tax"?

Byron85 · 02-04-2010 06:04PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Point taken. So would you support a system whereby universal free-fees were abolished, but the income brackets for support raised?

What would you think of a Government sponsored loan system, or a "graduate tax"?

If the income brackets were changed it wouldn't affect me whatsoever or my sister as the income in my family is well below the threshold as it is. As for the Government loan system, it's not something i'd like to have to resort to but if it came down to it, I would. A College/University education is worth it at the end of the day.

MisterCadbury · 02-04-2010 06:30PM

You should take an economics course, it might broaden your perception of how the world around you works.

hahahhahahhahahahha Seriously your arguments are pathetic. I mean once again you fail to answer a single question I pose. And if you really think the banks will just start handing out student loans if college fee's are introduced well I urge you to seek a psychiatric evaluation. Has there been more grants handed out because of the financial crisis? No so your point is utterly invalid.

Esse85 · 02-04-2010 07:28PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Then the government would pay, as they do now. The government pays the registration fees for those in difficult circumstances. The free fees system only helps the middle-classes, although they like to say they're standing up for the ppor off because it makes their cause look nobler.

If a demand for student loans grew a supply would emerge. How do you think these things operate in other counties?

Whats the alternative to this fee? How is UCC going to get the funding it needs?

No one forced you to do your masters. If you've a problem with the fee regime in UCC don't go.

Is your daddy the president or perhaps giving you backhanders??

You pick tiny nuggets outta people's post and use that to start a new argument about something not related to the original thread.

Eliot Rosewater · 02-04-2010 09:09PM

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

If the income brackets were changed it wouldn't affect me whatsoever or my sister as the income in my family is well below the threshold as it is.

Oh right, I misinterpreted your post because I read it too fast!

If anyone else wants to continue talking with me civilly Ill have no problem with responding. As it stands I don't feel posts which accuse me of having a financial vested interest or urge me "to seek a psychiatric evaluation" merit responses.

rebel girl 15 · 02-04-2010 09:19PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I didn't tell them they shouldn't do a masters. I said that if they weren't happy with the terms of the masters they needn't have taken it on. We're not forced to go to UCC you know.

You should take an economics course, it might broaden your perception of how the world around you works.

Point taken. So would you support a system whereby universal free-fees were abolished, but the income brackets for support raised?

What would you think of a Government sponsored loan system, or a "graduate tax"?

Maybe they had to take it on for work reasons, to ensure they get a job, I personally was had to go to UCC as I could not afford to go to any other college, I was lucky in the sense that the course I wanted to do is in UCC. Circumstances can dictate that people are forced to go to the college and no where else. Many people in my field are being forced to go back to college to ensure that they have a chance to get a job, or to get higher up the pay scale so that they can afford to live. I know that in the banking industry that some are being forced to go to college lectures and do exams or else they cannot work. I don't think anyone would spend close to €15,000 for the craic of it to go to college.

MisterCadbury, there have been an increased number of grants because more and more people have fallen into the bracket for them, I personally am one of them. Didn't get one for first year, but did get one for second year.

There is no way that in this economic climate that student loans would be given out - even if demand was there. The money simply is not there, what with all the goings on with NAMA etc. People with full time jobs are finding it difficult to get loans, simply because the banks don't know whether they can pay it back or not. Students would be a huge risk category, a lot of graduates this year don't know whether if they will get jobs in the 3 years after they graduate. I also don't think that the Gov have the sense to set up a proper system if student loans are necessary.

I'm all for free education, I would also would not like to see a Graduate Tax system come in, you are penalizing people for going to college!

Anyway, I don't see how much of this is related to the introduction of the €65 fee. UCC have not justified the fee, what is this €65 for? People may accept it if they know what it is for. Why has it been introduced? Its been introduced sneakily when the SU are away, same as the printing fees. No offense to you, but it seems like you would have no problem handing over €65 for it without asking what it is for.

Eliot Rosewater · 02-04-2010 09:42PM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Maybe they had to take it on for work reasons...

I realize that, but lets not pretend that going to UCC to study is the only option people have. An attitude seems to have grown in this country whereby all your personal problems should be solved by the State. What I'm saying is that all the different options should be weighed up, and as a part of this people should realize that it costs money to educate. Getting a masters gives you advantages but its comes with various costs. The college is giving you something; I don't see why people begrudge giving it something back.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I'm all for free education, I would also would not like to see a Graduate Tax system come in, you are penalizing people for going to college!

How so? Sending people to college costs money, why should they get tuition fees for free?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

UCC have not justified the fee, what is this €65 for?

The college are in debt and they need more money.

I'm not against the fee as I value my education and hate seeing tutorials and the like called off because of budget deficits; anything which helps remedy that should be partly welcomed. Like Paulie C said, its a far far cry from my ideal, but no matter what way the college tries to get funding the SU are going to oppose it anyway.

Which has me thinking, does anyone know what is the SU's plan for remedying the budget deficit and getting more funding for the college so that it can continue to work its way up the international rankings?

rebel girl 15 · 02-04-2010 10:18PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I realize that, but lets not pretend that going to UCC to study is the only option people have. An attitude seems to have grown in this country whereby all your personal problems should be solved by the State. What I'm saying is that all the different options should be weighed up, and as a part of this people should realize that it costs money to educate. Getting a masters gives you advantages but its comes with various costs. The college is giving you something; I don't see why people begrudge giving it something back.

How so? Sending people to college costs money, why should they get tuition fees for free?

The college are in debt and they need more money.

I'm not against the fee as I value my education and hate seeing tutorials and the like called off because of budget deficits; anything which helps remedy that should be partly welcomed. Like Paulie C said, its a far far cry from my ideal, but no matter what way the college tries to get funding the SU are going to oppose it anyway.

Those people doing masters are paying for the it, the college aren't giving it to them for free! They are already giving that amount of money, plus now they are being asked for an extra €65 on top of it. The first line of your post I have a huge problem with - and I'm not the only one. I could not afford to go to a different university, I am living at home and commuting to college. Many of my friends who went to live in the city for first year have had to move home this year and commute because they cannot afford to live in the city. The colleges got themselves into debt in the first place, they have to find the way out. I can't believe that they are asking for this fee just weeks after it came out about the antics of the UCC President.

The way it is at the moment is that everyone in this country is entitled to a free education (which it is not anyway!)

As far as anyone knows the fee is going for the graduation ceremony, not towards anything else. The reason why some tutorials and modules were dropped were because not enough students were doing them - there was a reason behind them, you can read it in the cost cutting report. The printing fees were also in there - but this new fee has come from nowhere. It had not been mentioned. You have also failed to address the monopoly that UCC already has on the conferring ceremony with the dress robes and photographer. They already have increased the registration fee last year, which will probably go up again next year.

I'm against the fee as it stands because of the way it was sneakily introduced and there has been no justification - this yarn that oh the college is in debt and needs the money is not an excuse, there has been no justification for this fee. I like to know where exactly my money is going. There are many other ways to get the college out of debt besides a money grabbing exercise on one of the most important days of a person's life. They want 20% of the student body to come from outside Ireland so that they have to pay fees - that will be a huge income for the college!

Eliot Rosewater · 02-04-2010 10:37PM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The first line of your post I have a huge problem with - and I'm not the only one.

I wasn't talking about just going to different Universities; I was talking about life decisions as a whole. Going to college is one of many things people can do with themselves. It shouldn't be some kind of entitlement, or a kind of rite of passage; it should be an option for people in deciding what to do career wise. It is a career avenue that has significant costs and benefits, and those who undertake a college education should take on both, in my (rather disliked) opinion.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The colleges got themselves into debt in the first place, they have to find the way out.

The student body has proven itself to be quite adept at dodging the consequences of their actions. The current fees system, which the SU has ardently protected, has partly caused the current funding situation. However any suggestion that the students should help out is met with "no no I didn't do any wrong".

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The way it is at the moment is that everyone in this country is entitled to a free education

I question why this should be.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The reason why some tutorials and modules were dropped were because not enough students were doing them

The tutorials I had that were dropped were due to funding issues withing the CS department; there were at least 40 people doing the course.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

They want 20% of the student body to come from outside Ireland so that they have to pay fees - that will be a huge income for the college!

So you don't mind the foreign students paying?

Esse85 · 02-04-2010 11:03PM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Those people doing masters are paying for the it, the college aren't giving it to them for free! They are already giving that amount of money, plus now they are being asked for an extra €65 on top of it. The first line of your post I have a huge problem with - and I'm not the only one. I could not afford to go to a different university, I am living at home and commuting to college. Many of my friends who went to live in the city for first year have had to move home this year and commute because they cannot afford to live in the city. The colleges got themselves into debt in the first place, they have to find the way out. I can't believe that they are asking for this fee just weeks after it came out about the antics of the UCC President.

The way it is at the moment is that everyone in this country is entitled to a free education (which it is not anyway!)

As far as anyone knows the fee is going for the graduation ceremony, not towards anything else. The reason why some tutorials and modules were dropped were because not enough students were doing them - there was a reason behind them, you can read it in the cost cutting report. The printing fees were also in there - but this new fee has come from nowhere. It had not been mentioned. You have also failed to address the monopoly that UCC already has on the conferring ceremony with the dress robes and photographer. They already have increased the registration fee last year, which will probably go up again next year.

I'm against the fee as it stands because of the way it was sneakily introduced and there has been no justification - this yarn that oh the college is in debt and needs the money is not an excuse, there has been no justification for this fee. I like to know where exactly my money is going. There are many other ways to get the college out of debt besides a money grabbing exercise on one of the most important days of a person's life. They want 20% of the student body to come from outside Ireland so that they have to pay fees - that will be a huge income for the college!

Ye are very lucky to have this option to live at home and save vast amounts on rent, bills etc.....

rebel girl 15 · 02-04-2010 11:13PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I wasn't talking about just going to different Universities; I was talking about life decisions as a whole. Going to college is one of many things people can do with themselves. It shouldn't be some kind of entitlement, or a kind of rite of passage; it should be an option for people in deciding what to do career wise. It is a career avenue that has significant costs and benefits, and those who undertake a college education should take on both, in my (rather disliked) opinion.

The student body has proven itself to be quite adept at dodging the consequences of their actions. The current fees system, which the SU has ardently protected, has partly caused the current funding situation. However any suggestion that the students should help out is met with "no no I didn't do any wrong".

The tutorials I had that were dropped were due to funding issues withing the CS department; there were at least 40 people doing the course.

So you don't mind the foreign students paying?

That bit in bold - if someone wants to get a good job and have decent life for themselves they must go college, thats not a decision that people can just decide to make. Not many people want to have a poor paying job and a poor life. Look at it this way - if you want to be a doctor, you cannot just waltz into a hospital and treat patients, you need to go to college and graduate, that is not a decision, it is a necessity. there are not a huge number of jobs for people without a college education, if a person wants a career they need a college education, not an option. You will probably argue that wanting to be a doctor is a decision a person can make, but it is not - people want to be doctors to help people. I'm going to be a teacher to teach students, not for the holidays or anything else, but to be involved in education. For me to do that I need to go to college, I have no option but to go to college!

The consequences of the student body - you have got to be joking. What have the student body directly done to get the college into the mess? Go to college? The current fees system has not caused the funding situation - for years the college and the Gov wasted money, spent money when it should not have been spent. That has caused the situation - anyone with a grain of sense would have understood that the boom was not going to last, unfortunately the people in power lack that grain of sense. Outside students have always had to pay to get the education, I have no problem with them paying. I do have an objection to Irish students being forced to pay fees - if we want to get this country out of this mess, we must have an educated society!

You mention about your tutorials - funding issues due to mismanagement of finances is the most likely cause.

Of the UCC budget, how much do you think is spent of staffing? I can guarantee you that there was mismanagement of staffing as well that would have saved quite a bit of money.

Bottom line - there is no justified reason for the €65 fee. Because the college is in debt is not a reason.

rebel girl 15 · 02-04-2010 11:19PM

Esse85 wrote: »

Ye are very lucky to have this option to live at home and save vast amounts on rent, bills etc.....

I know, and I do appreciate it - but tbh it was my only option. My course is available in UL, DCU and UCC but I had to go to UCC as I could not afford to go to UL or DCU as I would have had to pay for accommodation. I'm spending about a third of what my friends are paying. I'd love to be living in the city and get involved in clubs and a fuller college life, but I can't afford it.

Eliot Rosewater · 02-04-2010 11:35PM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

That bit in bold - if someone wants to get a good job and have decent life for themselves they must go college

And therein lies the trade-off. Going to college brings potentially huge benefits. If you really want those benefits you should be willing to invest in your future and bear the costs.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The consequences of the student body - you have got to be joking.

This is the classic attitude; any student irresponsibility is dismissed out of hand as being bizzare. When the college was looking for fees to be raised and more revenue streams to be created, who were the only ones hounding them to stop? The students union. You can mention Mr Murphy and Public Sector wastage (ie pass the buck) all you like, but one of the biggest obstacles in improving funding in education has been the resistance amongst the students to pay more for it.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Outside students have always had to pay to get the education, I have no problem with them paying.

"Its happening already" is a really poor justification for anything. But otherwise, up to 1994 Irish students had to pay, so why not again?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I do have an objection to Irish students being forced to pay fees - if we want to get this country out of this mess, we must have an educated society!

Being "forced to pay fees"; in other words bearing the cost of your own lifestyle instead of relying on the taxpayer. I find this perspective completely mind-boggling. You're being given something for free, then when its suggested you chip in suddenly your "being forced" into something. Heaven forbid individuals would pay for what they got!

Btw, the educated society/"knowledge economy" phrase is nothing more than a political tagline used by successive Governments during the Celtic Tiger to justify their economic policies that caused the gigantic increase in the cost of doing business in Ireland. No country can sustain itself off of "knowledge jobs" alone.

Esse85 · 02-04-2010 11:51PM

This topic has gone way off topic.

Simply what Im saying and what many others on here are saying is: To just drop a €65 fee on us a few months before we graduate is highly unfair, no details of how they came up with the fee, what the fee covers etc....

If this was all pointed out to the students in the email then, Im sure some of us might be able to digest it alittle more.

That is all.

maglite · 03-04-2010 12:00AM

Are we saying this is not an April fools at this stadge?

Some comment on the proposal..

rebel girl 15 · 03-04-2010 12:06AM

Esse85 wrote: »

This topic has gone way off topic.

Simply what Im saying and what many others on here are saying is: To just drop a €65 fee on us a few months before we graduate is highly unfair, no details of how they came up with the fee, what the fee covers etc....

If this was all pointed out to the students in the email then, Im sure some of us might be able to digest it alittle more.

That is all.

Yep, thats it in a nut shell, and what is in bold is what I'd like to know before i hand over the money

rebel girl 15 · 03-04-2010 12:12AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This is the classic attitude; any student irresponsibility is dismissed out of hand as being bizzare. When the college was looking for fees to be raised and more revenue streams to be created, who were the only ones hounding them to stop? The students union. You can mention Mr Murphy and Public Sector wastage (ie pass the buck) all you like, but one of the biggest obstacles in improving funding in education has been the resistance amongst the students to pay more for it.
.

Why? Why did the college need to look for fees to be raised? You talk about responsibility - its about time the college takes responsibility for what they have done and not pass the cost of their mistakes onto the students, (who have done nothing wrong) before the college authorities exhaust all other avenues of funding/cutbacks. If students have to pay after that, then I'll accept it

samf · 03-04-2010 12:33AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

When the college was looking for fees to be raised and more revenue streams to be created, who were the only ones hounding them to stop? The students union.

You say that like its a bad thing? Are you actually suggesting that the students union, as the students representative body should instead of resisting new fee's for students, be welcoming them, and suggesting new ways of adding more fee's onto the students since sure we're all getting a great education so we might as well pay through the nose for it? At what point do we say ok students are paying enough, clearly you dont think we've reached thay point yet? You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope you realise that its the opinion of the vast minority of students.

And as for your point of UCC's financial mess should be the students to pay off - why?? Why should students, some of who this year needed to apply for a hardship fund this year because they were literally living in their car going hungry, have to pay for the mistakes made by presidents living millionaire lifestyles in the past thinking "sure why not build a multi million IT center and a few research buildings since we have the money and it'll pay off in the long term". €65 means different things to different people, for some it may be a slight shortfall in the weekly budget, but for others its just a slap in the face to say too bad if you cant afford it, expect your degree in the post... (that is after you send us a stamped addressed envelope). Enough is enough and im fed up of the students having to pay for debts we were never responsible for getting into.

robp · 03-04-2010 12:57AM

Why? Why did the college need to look for fees to be raised? You talk about responsibility - its about time the college takes responsibility for what they have done and not pass the cost of their mistakes onto the students, (who have done nothing wrong) before the college authorities exhaust all other avenues of funding/cutbacks. If students have to pay after that, then I'll accept

What! The College should take responsibility? What mistakes are you referring too? Do elaborate for us. Irish universities are publicly funded and thus their financial woes are consequence of political decisions. Batt O'Keefe's education cuts of 8% were not a UCC decision. Investing in Irelands future (eg WGB construction) can hardly be considered a mistake. UCC's deficit is in the region of 13 million. A debt born of the abolishment of tuition fees in 1995. History proves this quite clearly. Admittedly there is waste in UCC that could be reduced but for the most part it is negligible compared to the actual shortfall in cash. It is difficult to understate how poorly Irish universities are funded compared to real world class institutions.

The total budget for the seven universities from the Irish Government is €1.765bn this year in current spending, with about €141m for capital development. Compare this to the $3.7bn budget for Harvard in 2009,

In the scheme of things 65 euro is utter pittance and is hardly worth talking about. Perhaps it would have been better PR to include it in the registration fee but as a seperate fee its far fairer.

Papa_Lazarou · 03-04-2010 01:11AM

robp wrote: »

What! The College should take responsibility? What mistakes are you referring too? Do elaborate for us. Irish universities are publicly funded and thus their financial woes are consequence of political decisions. Batt O'Keefe's education cuts of 8% were not a UCC decision. Investing in Irelands future (eg WGB construction) can hardly be considered a mistake. UCC's deficit is in the region of 13 million. A debt born of the abolishment of tuition fees in 1995. History proves this quite clearly. Admittedly there is waste in UCC that could be reduced but for the most part it is negligible compared to the actual shortfall in cash. It is difficult to understate how poorly Irish universities are funded compared to real world class institutions. In the scheme of things 65 euro is utter pittance and is hardly worth talking about. Perhaps it would have been better PR to include it in the registration fee but as a seperate fee its far fairer.

In the scheme of things 65 euro might be pittance to people who can afford but there is plenty of people out there who are paying full fee's which average out at over 5k + accomodation + food and suddenly that 65 euro becomes not so easy to pay off. And there is a lot more wastage going on in UCC than you think. The amount of people that UCC employ for the most pointless of tasks is quite amazing. Positions that are made just so a friend of a friend can get a job. Can't really divulge in more but trust me a huge amount of money could be saved it UCC cleaned up its act.

Fabio · 03-04-2010 01:21AM

samf wrote: »

You say that like its a bad thing? Are you actually suggesting that the students union, as the students representative body should instead of resisting new fee's for students, be welcoming them, and suggesting new ways of adding more fee's onto the students since sure we're all getting a great education so we might as well pay through the nose for it? At what point do we say ok students are paying enough, clearly you dont think we've reached thay point yet? You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope you realise that its the opinion of the vast minority of students.

And as for your point of UCC's financial mess should be the students to pay off - why?? Why should students, some of who this year needed to apply for a hardship fund this year because they were literally living in their car going hungry, have to pay for the mistakes made by presidents living millionaire lifestyles in the past thinking "sure why not build a multi million IT center and a few research buildings since we have the money and it'll pay off in the long term". €65 means different things to different people, for some it may be a slight shortfall in the weekly budget, but for others its just a slap in the face to say too bad if you cant afford it, expect your degree in the post... (that is after you send us a stamped addressed envelope). Enough is enough and im fed up of the students having to pay for debts we were never responsible for getting into.

Great point Sam.

I've read through this thread and Eliot has not made one positive remark through it. S/he is very good at smart quips though.

samf · 03-04-2010 01:28AM

robp wrote: »

What! The College should take responsibility? What mistakes are you referring too? Do elaborate for us. Irish universities are publicly funded and thus their financial woes are consequence of political decisions.

I think you may be forgetting President Wrixon's legacy - remember all those court cases taken out against UCC because of him?

The liability in relation to three highly public cases alone (Fanning, Howard, Ahern & Others) exceeds 10 million euro. Failure to deal with staff grievances is a major contributor to UCC's budget deficit. The true cost to UCC of disputes should include the cost of routine legal advice, the cost of litigation, the value of settlements and the salaries of staff on suspension and sick leave.

And as for the IT building, heres an article from 4 years ago:

UCC has begun construction on a €65m IT building without full and final approval from the department or the Higher Education Authority (HEA). As a result, the college, which is in substantial debt, risks losing its capital funding. This would force it to assume the significant construction costs.

Documentation obtained under Freedom of Information reveals correspondence from the Department of Education to the under-fire UCC President Dr Gerry Wrixon warning him categorically that his college, by breaching normal procedure with regard to the construction of the IT building, would have its funding approval denied.

In one letter dated July 31, the department expressed concern given the college's current debt as to its ability to raise funding privately, in light of capital funding being denied. Dr Wrixon responded to that letter on September 11 and said that he was moving forward with the project as the planning permission on the IT building was due to lapse shortly and he was anxious to begin construction to avoid letting that happen. He said he was happy that the matter could be resolved "retrospectively".

Now the above sound like some financial mistakes to me, and if you ask any staff member they'll tell you it was Wrixons tenure that was responsible for a good chunk of the current debt. So tell me, years later, why should the current students foot the bill for these mistakes, while at the same thing being charged for the one thing we're actually going to college for - a degree?

rebel girl 15 · 03-04-2010 01:34AM

robp wrote: »

What! The College should take responsibility? What mistakes are you referring too? Do elaborate for us. Irish universities are publicly funded and thus their financial woes are consequence of political decisions. Batt O'Keefe's education cuts of 8% were not a UCC decision. UCC's deficit is in the region of 13 million. A debt born of the abolishment of tuition fees in 1995. History proves this quite clearly. Admittedly there is waste in UCC that could be reduced but for the most part it is negligible compared to the actual shortfall in cash. It is difficult to understate how poorly Irish universities are funded compared to real world class institutions. In the scheme of things 65 euro is utter pittance and is hardly worth talking about.

That is not fully correct - the colleges are also funded by private funding. If you had read anything about Mr Murphy's travels, you would have seen that many of his trips were to secure private funding If you care to go through the cost cutting report, you would see that the shortfall would have been more than adequately covered had some changes been made early.

Getting Value for Money (VfM) would be one such area - a new committee has been set up only recently to sort this out, if that had been sorted out years ago, the college would not be in the mess it is now. A programme like that has existed in the UK since 1993, takes a crisis for the Irish universitites to see what best practice in the world is. Sabbatical leave has cost 10 million in the last five years. Energy - if UCC had started turning off the computers and lights at night, they would have been saving roughly half a million a year in energy costs. Case studies have shown that savings of at least 10% can be made by "good housekeeping" e.g. switching off lights that are not required. €1.7 million cost of corporate entertainment over three years. €4.1 on consultants in 07/08 - were UCC getting value for money with those consultants?? Could they have used their own expertise rather than looking for consultants - answer is yes, and probably halved the cost.

Insurance, when VfM was sought was €600,000 cheaper per year, if they had sought that 5 years ago, its €3 million. Part time teaching budget and staffing shows some excess numbers as well. Are the staff doing the proper workload for the money that they are being paid?? 78% of UCC's total budget is spent on staff, the cost of which I am sure could have been trimmed down

I don't think you could class the waste as negligible, it is real money - because the college is poorly funded is not an excuse for wastage. Managed properly over the last 10 years, we would not be in this mess.

€65 is not a pittance - I honestly cannot believe the attitude of some people here, who would blindly hand over the money and not ask what it is for, why has this fee been introduced, why now?

Papa_Lazarou · 03-04-2010 01:43AM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

That is not fully correct - the colleges are also funded by private funding. If you had read anything about Mr Murphy's travels, you would have seen that many of his trips were to secure private funding If you care to go through the cost cutting report, you would see that the shortfall would have been more than adequately covered had some changes been made early.

Getting Value for Money (VfM) would be one such area - a new committee has been set up only recently to sort this out, if that had been sorted out years ago, the college would not be in the mess it is now. A programme like that has existed in the UK since 1993, takes a crisis for the Irish universitites to see what best practice in the world is. Sabbatical leave has cost 10 million in the last five years. Energy - if UCC had started turning off the computers and lights at night, they would have been saving roughly half a million a year in energy costs. Case studies have shown that savings of at least 10% can be made by "good housekeeping" e.g. switching off lights that are not required. €1.7 million cost of corporate entertainment over three years. €4.1 on consultants in 07/08 - were UCC getting value for money with those consultants?? Could they have used their own expertise rather than looking for consultants - answer is yes, and probably halved the cost.

Insurance, when VfM was sought was €600,000 cheaper per year, if they had sought that 5 years ago, its €3 million. Part time teaching budget and staffing shows some excess numbers as well. Are the staff doing the proper workload for the money that they are being paid?? 78% of UCC's total budget is spent on staff, the cost of which I am sure could have been trimmed down

I don't think you could class the waste as negligible, it is real money - because the college is poorly funded is not an excuse for wastage. Managed properly over the last 10 years, we would not be in this mess.

€65 is not a pittance - I honestly cannot believe the attitude of some people here, who would blindly hand over the money and not ask what it is for, why has this fee been introduced, why now?

Nice post rebel girl

rebel girl 15 · 03-04-2010 02:07AM

Some of the financial stuff is crazy reading!

Page 4 http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/salaryscales/Salary%20Scales%202010.pdf

From 2008 to 09, there was a huge increase in some of those consultants salaries, up to €50,000, huge wastage - all of those salaries have come down to 08 levels in the 10 budget - wonder if anyone can explain why there was that huge increase?

tried to find the college financial statements, broken link :rolleyes:

x in the city · 03-04-2010 02:50AM

boycott that grad

that is all...........

does a framed photo with a senior academic mean so much on your wall.....

Eliot Rosewater · 03-04-2010 10:49AM

Grand, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't mind having to shell out extra money for the WGB; at the end of the day my education will be better cause of it. Clearly the prevailing attitude is students don't want to pay any money for the University to improve. The culture of entitlement and skewed priorities tied into one neat bundle.

Esse85 · 03-04-2010 11:51AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Grand, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't mind having to shell out extra money for the WGB; at the end of the day my education will be better cause of it. Clearly the prevailing attitude is students don't want to pay any money for the University to improve. The culture of entitlement and skewed priorities tied into one neat bundle.

So you dont mind handing out an extra €65 just because the college asked for it even though they gave no justification as to where they got the figure from or what the money will go towards??

You sound like Anglo Irish a few years back.

rebel girl 15 · 03-04-2010 01:54PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Grand, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't mind having to shell out extra money for the WGB; at the end of the day my education will be better cause of it. Clearly the prevailing attitude is students don't want to pay any money for the University to improve. The culture of entitlement and skewed priorities tied into one neat bundle.

Your education and others doing computer science and related courses is better for it, that is a minority of the 16,000 students of the college. There still is no open access computer lab down there, which would benefit the whole student body. I don't mind paying for something that improves the college as a whole, but not just for a minority of students. You are grand, you and others got what ye needed with the building of WGB, the prevailing attitude is that if it is good for me, then I'll pay, if its not good for me, I won't pay. If I said to you that you would have to pay an extra €100 onto your registration fee to fund my outside coaching courses, then how would you feel? They are a requirement of my degree and if a fee like that can in it would save me a lot of money and further my education, but I'd be against it, asking other students to pay for my education. If a charge has to come in, I'd much rather it to be for something that benefits the majority of the students, not a minority, as it stands the WGB benefits a few, but with a number of changes could benefit many more students.

As for students refusing to pay any money for the University to improve, you have not made any comment on my previous post outlining a number of areas for which the college was responsible for wastage of money. Students should not be forced to pay for the college's mistakes. Best practise in 1993 in the UK was to look for Value for Money, 15 years later the Irish universities catch on. Wonder how many wasted trips to the UK UCC presidents made and didn't bring back that excellent concept. Go back to the WGB, the top floor is not being used for anything!! What was it going to be for in the plans? Why has it not been utilised? Should it have been built at all? How much would it have saved if that floor was not built? It all comes back to accountability. I actually like the building, but it could be utilised for more students.

You cannot say for certain that the fee that is being looked for is going to be used for the university to improve, you nor I know exactly what it is for. It could be going straight into someone's pocket for all we know, but until we do know, a majority of students will be against it. If in the email that we received there was no reason, telling us what the €65 is for. If the matter was clarified and justified by saying that the €65 is for x,y and z then the student body would be more willing to accept it, if it were for genuine reasons. These generic reasons like the "college is in debt" or "its needed to improve the college" don't cut it - I want to know where my money is going, what it is being used for and if it is being used well

If you are happy to hand over €65 without question, then its your own decision. Many of us would prefer to know where our money is going before handing it over.

Students must now pay to attend their own conferrings. Eh...what?

Comments