UCD Postgrad Fees go up 10% - Who voted for and against yesterday?

by angry student in belfield Wed May 12, 2004 12:56

those councillors that voted for the fee increase should be punished in these elections. if you are from those areas, or know someone that does, make sure everyone knows about these people and their vote for student poverty yesterday.

by ucdhead Wed May 12, 2004 12:58

do you think education pays for itself???
who do you think the current fees situation is of most benifit to? those who's backgrounds restrict their access? or those middle class families who, once they are secure in the knowledge that most of the third-level fees can be covered, reinvest that money in their children's second level education, sending them to private schools, schools that are the main feeders the universities??? and in this way they exasperate the existing inequalities between classes. i somehow don't see how that system helps those who need it the most. why do you think the pd's were against the reintroduction of fees...
bring on a fees threshold. free fees to those below an agreed line.. and for those who can afford it, pay accordingly.
the left seem quite divided on the subject...to many smoked salmon socialists???

by Educationist Wed May 12, 2004 13:24

The choice is stark. Higher education needs lots more money. EITHER fees go up to pay for it, OR there would have to be a huge general increase in taxation. Which is fairer? I suspect higher fees are. But those who oppose this have no credibility UNLESS they simultaneously demand a huge increase in general taxation. Oh, I forgot - they oppose that too.....

by jools Wed May 12, 2004 13:29

Well done to Paul Dillon, Jennifer Allen, Oisin Kelly etc. who all voted against the post grad fees increase. It's good to see our union looking out for the best interests of students.The registration fee is phenomenal at its current rate, and we don't even know where the money is going. Is it even reinvested back into student facilities? Furthermore, northern Ireland students do not have to pay the registration fee, which thus is discriminatory against students in the Republic.

by Mark O 'Hehir Wed May 12, 2004 14:28

WELL THEY'RE HARDLY GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOUR ARE THEY????

by louise Wed May 12, 2004 15:17

free education is of benefit to all. The reason that the middle classes benefit disproportionately and that access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds is restricted is not due to the failure of free fees; it is due to other inequalities in irish society. These inequalities exist due to factors such as our system of taxation which is not truly progressive; and most profoundly the two tier system of second level education. Indeed it is hardly surprising that there are such levels of inequality in access to third level when u consider that ireland is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.

Research has shown that "Free Fees" has actually done some (although granted not that much) good toward addressing this situation. Free fees could, and indeed undoubtedly would do alot more if other inequalities in the system were addressed.
Dont throw the baby out with the bath water: free fees will work if other inequalities, (which emerge long before people get to third level) are addressed.
A free, state owned education system,at all levels, funded through a reformed and truly progressive tax system is the best way to address inequality in society and promote social mobility. The suggestion that free fees dont work is a myth.

by sparky marky Wed May 12, 2004 15:19

well, aonghus hourihane and abey campbell put up no resistance last year when postgrad fees went up 8%. this year the hussey and brady had to fight to get this through. moore mcdowell even threatened to resign if it didn't get passed.

by ucdhead Wed May 12, 2004 21:22

While I have much to agree with you louise I have to take you up with a few points:

+++The reason that the middle classes benefit disproportionately and that access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds is restricted is not due to the failure of free fees; it is due to other inequalities in irish society. These inequalities exist due to factors such as our system of taxation which is not truly progressive; and most profoundly the two tier system of second level education. Indeed it is hardly surprising that there are such levels of inequality in access to third level when u consider that ireland is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. +++

"is not due to the failure of free fees". Do you deny then that they have not had a role in the current situation where you say "that ireland is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world"? The structural inequalities, while not specifically attributable to the education system, is nonetheless closely entwined in it and therefore must be examined in any assessment of structural inequalities.

+++Research has shown that "Free Fees" has actually done some (although granted not that much) good toward addressing this situation. +++

As free fees have not brought about the intended results, and have, as research has also shown, actually made the situation far starker, does that not demonstrate the need to reassess and ultimately change the system of free fees?

+++Free fees could, and indeed undoubtedly would do alot more if other inequalities in the system were addressed.+++

very valid point, but note the aspirational 'could'. If we had the society in which a system of free fees would benefit everyone then this system would be ideal. but as we live in a society with differing degrees of inequalities across and within different areas, (including beliefs systems that are not often taken into the equation), it would appear that a one-size-fits all approach to free fees does not challenge the structures it intends to do, and merely reinforces those unequal structures, taking third-level education further from those who need it.

It may be far more appropriate to take a 'substantive equality' approach than the 'formal equality' approach. 'Formal equality', or equal treatment, when applied to an unequal system, has been shown to enforce existing inequalities. For example, if the same fee system is applied across an unequal system, then those benefiting from that system will simply get access to more resources and further their position. This, arguably, is the system that is currently in place. 'Substantive equality', or equality of outcome, on the other hand seeks to change aspects of the system that disadvantage particular groups, using the social and economic context as the guiding value in identifying groups. e.g. indigenous people and dominant settlers. The aim of this is not to confer special favours on those identified , but to provide what is necessary for them to achieve equal outcomes in society.

Formal equality, in this sense, becomes a weapon in maintaining the status quo.

+++Dont throw the baby out with the bath water: free fees will work if other inequalities, (which emerge long before people get to third level) are addressed.+++

agree to some extent, but if free fees are further exasperating those other inequalities instead of challenging and addressing them than should they not be reassessed?

+++A free, state owned education system,at all levels, funded through a reformed and truly progressive tax system is the best way to address inequality in society and promote social mobility.+++

possibly, but normative positions are just that: what things should be, and inevitably bring about the 'it should be this way' debate. While this is necessary and good, I think I'll step back this time once I say that there are many suggestions as to how 'it' should be done. Yours appears difficult to achieve in the current environment, but that is not to say that it will not be achievable in the future.

+++The suggestion that free fees dont work is a myth.+++

But what do free fees work for? It is definitely not challenging those structural inequalities that it intended to. So in that way, who do free fees work for? In that sense I would say that your first sentence, 'free education is of benefit to all' is a myth, one that is long in need of its bubble being burst.

Don't get me wrong, your opinion has much normative validity, but it does not warrant my support when the current situation is assessed. (granted, its my assessment)

Who would lose the most from the current free fees system?

by ucdhead Wed May 12, 2004 21:29

who would loose the most from an end to the current fee fees system?

by ucdheadwithglazedovereyesfromstaringtoolongatacomputer Wed May 12, 2004 21:31

'lose'

by Dan - UCDSU Wed May 12, 2004 21:35

The various teacher and student unions have proposed a specific levy on business to pay for education. This takes care of the issue of funding. And ICTU economists have totally discredited the PD/FF line that any increase in corporation tax would lead to economic freefall, so don't tout that either...

by ucdhead Wed May 12, 2004 22:14

the corporate taxation system that is currently in place is definitly another aspect of the structure that benifits very few and is in need of substantial change. but how many other areas, e.g. community development, could also benifit from the revenue gained from such monies, and possibly target the inequalities that louise pointed out as emerging long before people reach third level? you seem to believe it to be 'that simple', summing it up within three lines. maybe you should be at the helm of government instead of wasting away in the UCDSU!
A specific levy on business to pay specifically for education might seem logical, but it is also logical to all other sectors, and therefore what justifies education, particularly 3rd level, getting priority over all others? I don't think the ''education, education, education'' line will wash with everyone.
I don't know much about taxation issues (can someone enlighten?), but it does seem that revenue from corporate taxation would have to be sectorally non-specific allowing the social and economic contexts determine where the finances should go.
And lastly, if the private sector are forced to provide a specific levy to education, how would the negotiations on this go? The behaviour of business suggests that they will necessarily seek out and exploite weaknesses for their advantage, and there is a sever danger of inadvertantly supporting a GATS agenda in doing this.

by Sweet Caroline Thu May 13, 2004 13:53

Louise is right to say that "Free Fees" has not failed. There has been an increase in access to 3rd level. We should be clear it is the Government that are to blame for the mess that primary and 2nd level education is in. The inequalities in Education starts at primary level. In fact, it starts before that.

The fact is we live in a very unequal society. The great wealth in society goes to a few. Capitalism exploits people, it takes the wealth off the very people that creates wealth. This inequality is refected throughtout society. In politics, in government, in education.

We live in a Class Based society. This is why there are inequalities in Education. Not because of free fees. Students are generally from better off backgrounds. SO WHAT! Can you blame them for that? EVERYONE should get into 3rd level if they want a place. Students should not feel guilty that they are in 3rd level.

For f**ks sake, it's hard enough to make ends meet as a student without bastards like Hussey and Hugh Brady voting for a 10% hike. Brady may be able to get his kids into postgrad courses. He's on a massive wage (although he is living in a Publicly owned house).

by libertarian Thu May 13, 2004 16:45

a publically owned house which he spent €200,000 renovating as soon as he took office. €200,000 which should have been invested in student services. We now have two gyms on campus, one for your average Joe soap and a private one for owl Hugh Brady in the basement of his student funded house.

by Annoyed Student Thu May 13, 2004 17:18

It's time the SU had a proper campaign against Brady and his cronies, he has been talking about privitisation, commercialisation and cuts for the past 6 months. The SU up to know have done nothing to show this guy for what he actually is. One of the officers even called him progressive in and article in Schnews and have therefore added to his bogus 'pro student' image. Brady and the rest of the Governing Authority are not pro student, they are anti student and pro government, lets occupy the Governing Authority meeting when we get back to UCD next year!

by PAYE worker Thu May 13, 2004 17:25

"Tax business - it's very simple" - Dan (SA)

Yes, absolutely we should tax business, they are not paying their fair share. They get over 60% of the wealth produced in this country while only paying 10% of all tax. However we can't simply stop at increasing their tax, if we were to increase tax to such an extent that they paid their fair share (ie increase it by at least 6 times) big business would use all the trickks in the books to evade tax and would shift it abroad. That is why we need to expropiate their resources and nationalise the economy, so it can be democratically planned for the interests of the majority.

Make Big Business Pay their fair share, Taxation Justice Now!
Nationalise any company that dodges tax or exports profits!

by Balls Thu May 13, 2004 18:21

Balls to nationalisation we would compromise all our EU treaties and our WTO obligations thereby forcing economic sanctions onto ourselves and returning slowly to the stone-age.

by tear'emup Thu May 13, 2004 18:43

Fuck the capitalist EU and WTO! What about democracy oif peopel in Ireladn want to nationailise their industries why the hell cant they?! And by the way we have never made any obligations to the EU and the WTO, the capitalist class has not the working class. Tear up their treaties and write treaties with other working class governments in the world

by ? Thu May 13, 2004 18:46

Doesn't Paul Dillon support the Nice Treaty and the EU? Why would he be proposing nationalisation to pay for education. He support coalition government! The SU have put up anti-Brady posters that name and shame those that voted for fees.

by UCD Leftie Thu May 13, 2004 18:49

Paul Dillon does not support the Nice Treaty. The Nice Treaty proposes privitisation and militarisation of Europe. Paul is completely opposed to these policies

by antrophe Thu May 13, 2004 19:46

Yup, Brady's dream of a globalised UCD is going to unravel fairly quickly at this rate.

However, several members of the Governing Authority are elected, along a corporate system. From several of the likely routes the GA will try push things in UCD next year, the undemocratic nature of the set up will reveal itself, giving us apt opportunities to demand direct elections to the GA.

Theres very little point thinking of doing anything on any of this at this time of year with the student body dispersed there's no-one to organise. To win, we're gonna have to see the post grads self organise and build a supportive campaign around them.

I didn't take well to Oisin Kelly's glib triumphalism over the library opening 24/7, that the money to do this came from the general book fund, and outside security was brought into 'mind' those unforunates who feel the need to use the library at such crazy hours are something we should point out and vehemently oppose in teh long term interests of building real links with trade unionists on campus, rather than using them and then fucking off when everything is looking rosy for us student types. When we're long gone, they'll be sitting here dealing with all the shit we let slip under the radar once our qualms were settled.

That the 24/7 library comes on the back of further cutbacks in a valuable area (...if you can't afford books already, and with only a handful of core texts on any course availible, its pretty shit to cut funds to books) suggests the manner in which Brady works, he used the term 'collobarate' in his opening speech to students, and these concessions can be seen as a way of buying students off and creating a divide between union activists and broader membership when long term consequences are mentioned.

The shit that's gonna hit the fan next year is semesterisation. Failing to introuduce fees (commodifaction of education- you consume a product) they introuduced cutbacks to force an implict acceptance from college authorities for a rise/return of fees.

Now they are gonna introduce a modular based/semesterised system which supposedly affords acccess to those who have to work to get through college. In terms of the broader picture (Settign up a canadaian model of education) this is the attempt to break the product (Education) down into smaller units which can be packaged and sold off. The effects this will have on the critical university, which in my expereince exists waaaay outside any lectures ive been in and in cultural/political and social activities will be detrimental. Never mind the effect the rush for research and limited marketablity of certain subjects will have in terms of them getting funding. The bullshit arguement ye'll hear in favour of this is that it allows people to work their way through college. But of course adequate grants, rent allowance and support structures also allow people to go through college with out working, solving that problem.

The final step in their process is private funding, private funding...privatisation.

We can wreck havoc on the college authorities heads, neve mind the government, they'll come in due course, but theres a bunch of very unfriendly people lurking in some tower block in UCD; few of us know who the fuck they are, whats their background, whats their game...but there's a helluva lot more of us lot. But oen problem in facing down semesterisation is that there is a genuine lack of awareness even among the left of the motivation behind what seem like such nice and cushy options like playing around with subjects and so on...theres is definetly not the critical/discursive college. Make no mistake.

by louise Mon May 17, 2004 17:58

you pose the question-"who benefits most from 'free fees'? the answer of course is the middle classes- i could not and do not argue with this. However, i would suggest to you that this is something of a mute point and that my argument remains: the reintroduction of fees would increase, not decrease inequality.

I think we need to begin with what is perhaps a more important question- "What has the abolition of fees achieved?"
The Clancy Report (2001) has shown that with the abolition of fees over time the extent of inequality between classes has actually declined. Even between 1992 and 1998 Clancy has estimateda reduction in inequalily of 15%. Hence the abolition of fees has had a positive effect. And, as i pointed out last time it would have a far greater impact if other inequalities in the system were addressed.

I understand and indeed sympathise with your argument that "community development, could also benifit from the revenue gained from such monies, and possibly target the inequalities that louise pointed out as emerging long before people reach third level". However funding theses projects need not imply that we cannot fund "free fees" as well. Free fees is a mechanism for creating greater equality, why abolish it? We certainly do not need the monies that would be derived from the reintroducation of fees to fund education and challenge inequality.

Dan is absolutely correct in suggesting that corporate tax could be a mechanism for increasing funding in education. Ireland's corporation tax, at only 12.5% is the lowest in Europe. Moreover many pay less that this fugure and others pay none at all because of loopholes in the system. Loopholes are not confined to corporation tax. The irish tax system has a myriad of exemptions and loopholes which allow legal avoidance. There exist many property based tax breaks. Indeed amazingly the government continues to give total tax write offs to investors in property despite the fact that property prices are clearly overheated. Ireland is also one of the few countries in the world where there is no tax on residential property. Furthermore stallion stud fees, BES schemes, private nursing homes and provate hospitals are some of the exemptions which should have been eliminated by the government.
The tax forgone for avoidance amounts to hundreds of millions. This coupled with funds derived form increased corporation tax could easily pay for the capital and current needs of the education system including the community based projects you referred to. There is no just reason why this source of capital has not been exploited.

You suggested last time that my ideas had normative value but were somewhat radical and unrealistic. I would suggest that perhaps my ideas sound radical due to the prevelence of right- wing and indeed neo-liberal ideology in this country and most predominantly in the present government. From this perspective perhaps a little radicalism is exactly what is needed to bring us back to thinking in terms of social justice and society as a whole rather than individual egotism and corporate gain. I dont thing society would have come very far if people had simply sat on their asses, given up and decided that things were too hard to change.

Free fees must be maintained on the basis that it is a mechanism for increasing equality and that fact that funding for improving other elements of the educaiton system can be easily and justly sourced elsewhere. Maintaining free fees is however by no means enough to improve the educaiton system to satisfactory levels. Maintainence grants must be increased if those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are to be kept in college once we get them there. Above all however the inequalites at primary and second level must be addressed.

Irish primary schools have some of the largest class sizes int he OECD and are renouned for often being delapidated and rat-infested. Funding must be increased to address this. At second level the situation is more complicated. The two-tier system of 'private' versus public education is a massive contributory factor to the inequaltiy of access that presents itself at third level. Funding must be directed towards second level to dramatically expand and improve the public sector in order to abolish the private.

The fact of the matter is that these measures would be the minimum needed to address the inequalities of access at third level. Perhaps they seem radical from the perspective of conservative ireland. They are however logical, possible and necessary. In this sense claiming that they are too difficult to achieve is nothing short of defeatist.

by f Mon May 17, 2004 18:23

"I didn't take well to Oisin Kelly's glib triumphalism over the library opening 24/7, that the money to do this came from the general book fund, and outside security was brought into 'mind' those unforunates.... "

James, you're being a small bit disingenuinous here, you well know that Oisin opposes the use of private yellow pack 'libro cops' and did and does support the union in opposing this development. I am sure you are also aware that Oisin, unlike some other on the 'left' opposes all cuts and does not favour cuts in other services to pay for the library. What is needed is a campaign to reverse all cuts this needs workers and students in UCD coming together to discuss a common strategy to take on the government and defeat the cuts.

by Paul Mon May 17, 2004 18:28

FF, FG and Labour councillors that were on the governmeing authority did not vote against this 10% increase. If they did it would not have gone through. Because of these parties and the unaccountable and unrepresentative 'academics' on the GA I can't afford to do a postgrad course, this is despite me getting firsts and 2.1's in my 1st and 2nd year exams. I'm not the only one, these fees are harming education.

I reckon that students shoudl not vote for these 3 parties or the PDs (who have been implementing the cuts with FF) in the upcoming elections. The SU also needs to really step up the campaign for a democratic governing authority.

by Gaz - libertarian ucd Sat May 22, 2004 07:53

demspey spent 6 million refurbishing his offices last year...i guess the money has to comefrom somewhere

by OK Sat May 22, 2004 23:54

James, I am disappointed that you think i'm glibly triumphant over the library opening hours. The fact is that the action taken by hundreds of students (not just me or other officers) did put the issue of inadequate library hours on the agenda. The University are the ones that are trying to attack the conditions of the library workers and are cutting elsewhere, not me! You will find that I have always opposed the idea that cuts some come from elsewhere to pay for other services. This cannot be said for everyone in UCD who advocate cuts in one aspect of a public service to pay for services in UCD.

by Labour Hater Sun May 23, 2004 00:21

Paul Dillon did vote for the Nice Treaty. Paul supports the European Union. And he will probably be voting for the EU Constitution next year. FACT!

Why not ask him yourself "UCD leftie"?