Calls for University in the South-East

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojgbaukfau/

I can't imagine there's sufficient demand for another university in this country. Which is not to say that I don't see this happening. They'll just water down what a university is further, until it means little more than 'dominant regional IT or better'. What is it with people in this country demanding that every service be provided within commuting distance of their house? Without any knowledge of the actual merits of the scheme (or lack thereof), people oppose specialist medical services being centralised, because it would be inconvenient. People want Post Offices maintained in every village, even where there's no demand for them. I just don't understand it.

Way over the top John

Yes there is sufficient demand for another University and that University must be designated to Waterford, Waterford is the only City in this country that does not have a University on it's campus, WIT has made remarkable strides so much so that the Jim Port report has shown the capability of WIT to be upgraded to a Uni, why John should the south east region be left lagging behind everybody else in this regard!!

On the medical side, to say that "people oppose specialist medical services being centralised, because it would be inconvenient" is a load of rubbish, try travelling from Waterford to Dublin each day like many cancer sufferers have done for year because this government would not provide the neccesary facilities for this region, it is about time that Waterford stood up for itself on these issues and not allow us to be neglected any longer, WIT deserves it's upgrade now to a University and this must happen asap

Not exactly Breaking News.
I think this application is a few years old and a few comments from the Dep of Education a while back seemed to set it up for the knock-back.
In the meantime, CIT and DIT are considerring similar applications apparently.

WIT - the most ironic acronym in Irish education.

Good one Gav.

Here, let's have DIT upgraded first. AFAIK, the admins have put the wheels in motion on becoming a university.

Aside, what advantages does being a university have over being an IT?

Also, IIRC Trinity and UCD were complaining recently about being under-funded. It's not worth starting another uni if two of the countries leading ones are already "underfunded".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teckno

Way over the top John

---

A bit of a rant yes, but there are some questions I would like answered, and there is an attitude problem.

Quote:

---

Yes there is sufficient demand for another University

---

Is there? The last I hear, number of students taking the Leaving Cert is falling. I recall projections that the ITs were going to come under pressure from falling numbers and some of them would disappear. Why do we need more universities?

Quote:

---

and that University must be designated to Waterford...

---

That I'll grant. It's next on the list in terms of population. My question is why not Dundalk too? And Tralee? Ennis? Naas? There has to be a certain need for universities in the country, and I think it's fairly fulfilled.

Quote:

---

, Waterford is the only City in this country that does not have a University on it's campus, WIT has made remarkable strides so much so that the Jim Port report has shown the capability of WIT to be upgraded to a Uni, why John should the south east region be left lagging behind everybody else in this regard!!

---

Firstly, Port's report hasn't, to my knowledge, been published. Until it has, quoting it as supporting WIT's claim for university status is not going to convince me. There's no detail, just a fuzzy positive vibe interpreted by biased councillors.

Second, my parish is being left lagging behind also. And yes, that sentence was written to annoy you, and for no other reason. The thing is, I've already wondered why people in this country expect everything to be within commuting distance. If we need another university, by all means put it in Waterford, but if not, the current distribution is in line with the main population centres anyway. I'd contend that the majority of people don't commute to university anyway, and putting one in Waterford wouldn't change that statistic much at all.

Quote:

---

On the medical side, to say that "people oppose specialist medical services being centralised, because it would be inconvenient" is a load of rubbish, try travelling from Waterford to Dublin each day like many cancer sufferers have done for year because this government would not provide the neccesary facilities for this region,

---

How about you try getting misdiagnosed as not having breast cancer because an overworked non-specialist used an elderly piece of junk best suited to life as an inconveniently large paperweight to make the diagnosis. That's happened too. My anecdote outdoes yours. No, wait, it doesn't. They're just anecdotes. How about we let someone who's actually looked at the figures and thought about how to optimally allocate the limited funding do their jobs. They can't, be cause this kind of attitude prevails all over the country:

Quote:

---

it is about time that Waterford stood up for itself on these issues and not allow us to be neglected any longer, WIT deserves it's upgrade now to a University and this must happen asap

---

Can someone tell me what is involved in upgrading to a University?

From what I have heard lecturers in ITs has a good job as basically get summer holidays like schools. AFAIK University means research so in theory have to work in the summer too?

If WIT was to become a University what would be its speciality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

How about we let someone who's actually looked at the figures and thought about how to optimally allocate the limited funding do their jobs.

---

How about we let that happen with regard to potential new universities too.

solution to universtity funding problem / knowledge based economy ...

in alot of courses alot of first years drop out during the year or else spend the whole year sitting in the union or never go into a lecture coz they are back in the flat riding their new bird / fella all the time etc etc and then fail the year.

The new rule should be anyone who fails first year has to repay the fees themselves. You could either pay up a lump sum or it would be taken as taxes once you get a job.

All the money saved on this, should then be diverted into PHD / postgrads funding instead. The amnount of taxes wasted every year on dopey first years is a disgrace!

bhs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackholesun

in alot of courses alot of first years drop out during the year or else spend the whole year sitting in the union or never go into a lecture coz they are back in the flat riding their new bird / fella all the time etc etc and then fail the year.

The new rule should be anyone who fails first year has to repay the fees themselves. You could either pay up a lump sum or it would be taken as taxes once you get a job.
bhs

---

Although a bit off topic I agree. I think current rule is you pay for the repeated year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

How about we let that happen with regard to potential new universities too.

---

Would love to. Can't find anything of the sort though.

Given the success of universities, in an increasingly global higher education market, is dependant on building critical mass in specialised areas through attracting staff and research grants, would it not be more sensible to provide investment to improving our current universities rather than establishing a mediocre new university?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackholesun

in alot of courses alot of first years drop out during the year or else spend the whole year sitting in the union or never go into a lecture coz they are back in the flat riding their new bird / fella all the time etc etc and then fail the year.

---

A lot could be to do with not being suited to the course. We had to sign in every lecture and submit assignments or our grant was cut. Similar logic could be used to fairly enforce some policy like above rather than punish people for not being up to the course (which is more the fault of an admission policy based purely on academic achievement not suitability to the course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

How about you try getting misdiagnosed as not having breast cancer because an overworked non-specialist used an elderly piece of junk best suited to life as an inconveniently large paperweight to make the diagnosis. That's happened too. My anecdote outdoes yours. No, wait, it doesn't. They're just anecdotes. How about we let someone who's actually looked at the figures and thought about how to optimally allocate the limited funding do their jobs. They can't, be cause this kind of attitude prevails all over the country:

---

How about they put the centre's of excellence in place, and then close existing services. The current policy, which is rightly oppossed, is to close existing services, with no plan and no time frame for the introduction of the new ones. I'd contend that much of the objections to centralisation of health services is down to lack of trust of delivery, based on past experience and a lack of proper proposal to implement them.

The post office thing is about the pay off between it being a public service or whether it's purely a business. Again, you can't tie it down to being purely about wanting it for the sake of wanting it - it does serve a social function in communities especially for the old. So the arguement is really about whether that is the function of a post office or is it a for profit business. It's clear the Government have a privatisation agenda, so it's the latter for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Although a bit off topic I agree. I think current rule is you pay for the repeated year?

---

Thats it , i failed first year many moons ago due to reasons stated above and I had to pay the repeat fees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

A lot could be to do with not being suited to the course. We had to sign in every lecture and submit assignments or our grant was cut. Similar logic could be used to fairly enforce some policy like above rather than punish people for not being up to the course (which is more the fault of an admission policy based purely on academic achievement not suitability to the course)

---

I've known a number of people who did half a year or a so of a course, decided it wasn't for them and signed up for a new course. They're no burden on the system, as they had to pay fees for the first year of their new course anyway. I do see where the suggestion is coming from.

Quote:

---

How about they put the centre's of excellence in place, and then close existing services. The current policy, which is rightly oppossed, is to close existing services, with no plan and no time frame for the introduction of the new ones. I'd contend that much of the objections to centralisation of health services is down to lack of trust of delivery, based on past experience and a lack of proper proposal to implement them.

---

Thank you. That's the first time I've ever heard someone argue rationally about that. It's a perfectly valid concern.

Quote:

---

The post office thing is about the pay off between it being a public service or whether it's purely a business. Again, you can't tie it down to being purely about wanting it for the sake of wanting it - it does serve a social function in communities especially for the old. So the arguement is really about whether that is the function of a post office or is it a for profit business. It's clear the Government have a privatisation agenda, so it's the latter for them.

---

I agree that a semi-state like An Post shouldn't value the bottom line over providing an adequate service, but I'm don't see how rural post offices have that important a social role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

I agree that a semi-state like An Post shouldn't value the bottom line over providing an adequate service, but I'm don't see how rural post offices have that important a social role.

---

They probably don't for you and I. They might do for an OAP, who doesn't get the internet, or even modern banking systems like cash machines, who simply wants to go to the post office and collect their pensions, send a letter, pay a bill etc. It's like the push for letter boxes at the end of the drive rather than the postie driving up to the house - fine for us who are probably out at work, not so hot from the OAP who's only contact with another human being all day was the postie dropping in the mail and passing the time of day. Things like that shouldn't be underestimated imo.

Personally even for the relatively young and mobile, I think the local Post Office is one of those you only miss when it's gone.

I grew up quite rurally, and the post office was not simply a post office. It was the local shop too, and the newsagent. The back of beyond I come from saw it as number two only to the Church as a place where many of all ages could congregate and meet. For those who knew it for that all their lives, for those who had chosen to stay rural and not move to the urban settlements, this was the nexus of local life. It had purpose that made it's existence more valid than simply being a shop would have made it. Indeed, many people would go to the post office at regular times, for dole collection etc.

From my travels, I am unaware of there being any rural post-office that did not contain the shop element: indeed the more rural you get the more commonly you find that the only local shop is the post office. Without the post office, the fear is that shop would die, and similarly, without the post office, you rely on the church to meet people.

I think that the problem is as much as anything about infrastructure. The cities and towns were poorly facilitated with social outlets (still are in my opinion), so what chance did the rural enclaves have?

I don't really agree with you John to be honest. I feel that looking at the issue in demand terms (like the post office comparison) and saying the idea might denigrate the university tag is too simple (and perhaps a little haughty!) a way of looking at things.

I haven't read anything on this so I haven't formed concrete argument/opinion, but I just feel that you wouldn't know, there could be incalculable benefits from it. A bit chicken/egg maybe in that the, if nothing else psychologically substantial, morphing might spark a badly needed interest in higher education in an area that has traditionally not been so inclined - as historically there was more of an emphasis on primary and secondary industries (as against Kerry say, for example). So with changing landscapes this might be just the elixir to infuse the region with some higher-education energy.

At any rate, I can't understand why you'd argue against something as important as educational advancement! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingdom hoop

At any rate, I can't understand why you'd argue against something as important as educational advancement! :)

---

I think his point is that having more universities will mean that funding will be spread out more thinly between universities, thus reducing the standard of education that those universities are able to provide. And without proper funding, I'd agree that this could happen.

I still feel, however, that there do need to be more centres of education in places other than Dublin. It might do something to stop Dublin's population increasing so quickly, and help population issues in more rural areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I think his point is that having more universities will mean that funding will be spread out more thinly between universities, thus reducing the standard of education that those universities are able to provide. And without proper funding, I'd agree that this could happen.

---

So his point then is that upon the condition that funding for other institutes isn't unduly diminished that WIT can become WU (WIT-WU, sounds attractive :D)? Is that your point John83, or were you just blowing off steam about Irish parochialism? :)

Can this not signal the requisite increased commitment from the state to funding education? Or is that too idealistic?