Home

TheSinner.net

Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby whoknows on Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:50 pm

apparently students have occupied parliament hall protesting against tuition fees...thoughts?
whoknows
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Spike on Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:56 pm

AGAIN!? Didn't they do this like 2 years ago and nothing happened then?

I mean.... OCCUPATIORZ! WOOOO!
From Rock to Opera
Spike
User avatar
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Archie on Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:31 pm

I'll be more impressed by the ones who stay occupating after term ends. That will be real dedication to the cause!
Archie
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Spike on Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:13 pm

Or when the university turn the heating off, that might be quite amusing ^_^
From Rock to Opera
Spike
User avatar
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Al on Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:37 pm

Was it really two years ago? How time flies.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby 5HT on Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:25 pm

oh dear - what's worse is that Sienna is supporting it.. it's so stupid on so many levels.
5HT
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby siena on Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:21 pm

to quote "the University of St Andrews Students' Association has no official position on occupations or direct action on campus , and we did not organise this. However, we absolutely support their right to take part in peaceful protests. We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching.

Broadly, the Students' Association opposes the rise in tuition fees...although we are the officially recognised and elected representatives, we still recognise the occupation as a distinct and democratically different protest, and one which is equally valid."
siena
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby FergusNeville on Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:07 pm

The previous occupation was last year and it did achieve some of its goals, including the university switching from Eden water supplies.

Also the university have turned the heating off on the occupiers. Not only is this quite petty, but it closed down the St Mary's library this afternoon which was personally really inconvenient.

I also applaud Sienna Parker for supporting the action - by all accounts she did a great job last night mediating between the protestors and the university/police. About time we had some student representatives who actually represent students.

Finally, I can't really understand how any students could be hostile to the action since the protest is against the introduction of tuition fees and cuts to teaching?
FergusNeville
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:48 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Guest on Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:30 pm

FergusNeville wrote:Finally, I can't really understand how any students could be hostile to the action since the protest is against the introduction of tuition fees and cuts to teaching?


How could any students possibly have a different idea to you? It is inconceivable that anyone would think that to combat underfunding of universities and the academic brain-drain to American universities with a different system that ensures more personal liability for those choosing to go to university. Or that some students would want to have a rational debate on this rather than simply shouting slogans and locking themselves into university buildings (after all Louise Richardson does not have a vote on this in parliament).
Guest
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Spike on Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:20 pm

FergusNeville wrote:Blah Blah Blah....
I also applaud Sienna Parker for supporting the action - by all accounts she did a great job last night mediating between the protestors and the university/police. About time we had some student representatives who actually represent students.

siena wrote:to quote "the University of St Andrews Students' Association has no official position on occupations or direct action on campus , and we did not organise this. However, we absolutely support their right to take part in peaceful protests. We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching.

Broadly, the Students' Association opposes the rise in tuition fees...although we are the officially recognised and elected representatives, we still recognise the occupation as a distinct and democratically different protest, and one which is equally valid."


FergusNeville wrote:Finally, I can't really understand how any students could be hostile to the action since the protest is against the introduction of tuition fees and cuts to teaching?

Because you're taking action in the most petty in stupid manner which has an incredibly negative effect on the image and reputation of the 99% of students who are just as badly affected but choose not to throw their toys out of the pram against the very institution which has little or no say in ANY matter to which you are protesting.
From Rock to Opera
Spike
User avatar
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Delts on Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:51 pm

What I still don't understand is why Scottish students are protesting about the tuition fees. It's an English matter, has bugger all to do with any current Scottish student right now. I accept that it will affect anyone school leaver considering heading south for their education, but there are no school children occupying their school halls as far as I know. If the Scottish government ever decide to follow the English policy then protest that but right now it just seems incredibly stupid to me.

And as far as cuts go, especially with the Language Teachers and what not, unless I'm mistaken these are not due to future proposed cuts but in fact due to the clusterfuck that was our recession.
If you do physics, panic.
Delts
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 1:35 am
Location: Miles away, literally

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby FergusNeville on Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:37 pm

Guest wrote:
FergusNeville wrote:Finally, I can't really understand how any students could be hostile to the action since the protest is against the introduction of tuition fees and cuts to teaching?


How could any students possibly have a different idea to you? It is inconceivable that anyone would think that to combat underfunding of universities and the academic brain-drain to American universities with a different system that ensures more personal liability for those choosing to go to university. Or that some students would want to have a rational debate on this rather than simply shouting slogans and locking themselves into university buildings (after all Louise Richardson does not have a vote on this in parliament).


Apologies if my post was misconstrued as denying others the right to express views alternative to my own. I was instead trying to articulate my personal opinion that students should support action designed to protect an education system from which they have benefited, and which is critical to the local/national economy. The other point I was trying to make is that everyone is entitled to their own stance on the matter, and should be free to express it. You are welcome to debate the issues on an online messageboard with me, just as the protestors have the right to express their views through different (peaceful) avenues.

To suggest that 'rational debate' is the preferred alternative to the occupation makes the assumption that direct action is irrational. I would contest this on a number of levels, but don't see the value of doing so here. I do however strongly agree with your call for a debate on the matter, but at present, I haven't heard any opposition to the arguments presented by the demonstrators other than some vague grumbling and personal insults. As someone without entrenched political views I would find a public discussion of the role of tertiary education in our society, and the funding of it, interesting and refreshing.
Last edited by FergusNeville on Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FergusNeville
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:48 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby FergusNeville on Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:58 pm

Delts wrote:What I still don't understand is why Scottish students are protesting about the tuition fees. It's an English matter, has bugger all to do with any current Scottish student right now. I accept that it will affect anyone school leaver considering heading south for their education, but there are no school children occupying their school halls as far as I know. If the Scottish government ever decide to follow the English policy then protest that but right now it just seems incredibly stupid to me.

And as far as cuts go, especially with the Language Teachers and what not, unless I'm mistaken these are not due to future proposed cuts but in fact due to the clusterfuck that was our recession.


For me there are (at least) 3 reasons for Scottish students to protest; as a British citizen, as a Scot, and as someone with an invested interested in the University of St Andrews.

Firstly, there is an argument that it is important to show solidarity with our fellow students in England. As Osbourne and Cameron are keen to remind us, we are of course, all in this together. Additionally Scottish students vote in both the Scottish and British parliaments, and are thus entiteled to an opinion on aspects of British policy.

It is also important to keep pressure on the Scottish government. Although at present Scottish students are able to study within Scotland without tuition fees, this could change due to pressure on the Scottish education budget, and the outcome of next year's Scottish elections. It is critical to let MSPs know that as Scottish students we dearly value our education system and will struggle to protect it.

Finally I fear that Thursday's bill will have an effect upon the diversity and quality of our university's student population. If some English (or non-European) students feel that they can no longer afford to study here then we will restrict the talent pool of students applying to attend St Andrews. I don't want to be at a university where education is a comercial product available only to those who can afford it. I want to work in an environment populated by the brightest and most talented students from across the globe.
Last edited by FergusNeville on Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FergusNeville
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:48 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby FergusNeville on Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:20 pm

Spike wrote:
FergusNeville wrote:Blah Blah Blah....
I also applaud Sienna Parker for supporting the action - by all accounts she did a great job last night mediating between the protestors and the university/police. About time we had some student representatives who actually represent students.

siena wrote:to quote "the University of St Andrews Students' Association has no official position on occupations or direct action on campus , and we did not organise this. However, we absolutely support their right to take part in peaceful protests. We also commend the fact that they have chosen not to occupy any part of the University which will disrupt other students or interrupt teaching.

Broadly, the Students' Association opposes the rise in tuition fees...although we are the officially recognised and elected representatives, we still recognise the occupation as a distinct and democratically different protest, and one which is equally valid."


FergusNeville wrote:Finally, I can't really understand how any students could be hostile to the action since the protest is against the introduction of tuition fees and cuts to teaching?

Because you're taking action in the most petty in stupid manner which has an incredibly negative effect on the image and reputation of the 99% of students who are just as badly affected but choose not to throw their toys out of the pram against the very institution which has little or no say in ANY matter to which you are protesting.



Spike - thanks for your reply.

Firstly, I am not (currently anyway) taking action. I am sitting at home listening to Mogwai and drinking a beer. But I was defending the protest in my post, so perhaps that is irrelevant.

I'm not convinced that the action does have "an incredibly negative effect". From the students and staff I have spoken to, most seem quite supportive of the protest. Whilst some disagree with the arguments, and others with the methods of expressing those arguments, everyone I have discussed the topic with has been happy that our students are not as apathetic and apolitical as we're told they are, and that if nothing else the action has sparked debate. To me that's the key. Whether you agree, disagree, or haven't made up your mind, stimulating debate amongst students, staff, and local residents is welcome and refreshing. Achieving this is anything but "petty in [sic] stupid".

I also question your contention that the university "has little or no say in ANY matter to which you are protesting". The university will charge tuition fees to English and non-European students. The university is the biggest employer within St Andrews and thus critical to the local economy. The university chancellor is a well respected senior politician and our local MP.

If the protest was solely against our own university then your point may have been partially valid. However, the action is directed against the university, the Scottish and British parliaments, and in solidarity with fellow students.
FergusNeville
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:48 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Archie on Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:24 am

Remember how excited the last Occupation became when Noam Chomsky sent a message of support?

He's at it again with University College London. I wonder if our ex-Occupators feel quite so special now.
Archie
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Spike on Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:34 am

FergusNeville, I believe there are a few points that you need to be brought up to speed on.
As it stands the university already charges tuition fees to all students, however Scottish students have said fees paid for them by the Scottish Parliament. The fees that the University impose are dictated (I believe) by the Scottish Parliament, and is in no way directed by Westminster. Yes English universities will increase their fees, however Scottish universities (which includes St Andrews) will not.

Finally I fear that Thursday's bill will have an effect upon the diversity and quality of our university's student population. If some English (or non-European) students feel that they can no longer afford to study here then we will restrict the talent pool of students applying to attend St Andrews. I don't want to be at a university where education is a comercial product available only to those who can afford it. I want to work in an environment populated by the brightest and most talented students from across the globe.


After sifting through the PR chat and bullshit I think I see that you have yet again misunderstood the education bill and the fact that such powers are devolved to holyrood. Let me make this nice and clear for you.

THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS AND THE FEES THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE ARE REGULATED BY THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT AND NOT WESTMINSTER. LOOK HERE!

THE FEES THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE WILL NOT CHANGE ONE IOTA IF THE EDUCATION BILL PASSES
From Rock to Opera
Spike
User avatar
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Mumbler on Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:52 pm

Spike,

Again you are missing the point: Huge rises in university fees are a matter of concern for everyone, English and Scottish students alike, and for non-English students too. If English universities increase their fees by a huge amount, it will be likely that their revenue will rise too (depending on how much public funding is cut by). In that case, universities that want to compete with these or just want to increase their revenue, as Louise Richardson's St Andrews seems eager to, will make a good case for the Scottish parliament to enable them to raise fees. If on the other hand English universities don't see their revenue rise because of huge cuts in public spending, there will be tremendous pressure on the Scottish parliament to stop subsidising Scottish students as much as they actually do, and to introduce fees.

Moreover, as one of the more famous universities in this country, our voice matters in this debate. For instance, if Louise Richardson was to say she does not support the Browne report, that could make some MPs reconsider their decision of voting for the cuts/fees. More generally, this government is using the public deficit to pass a number of reform that aim at continuing the privatization of public higher education initiated by Thatcher and supported by Blair. The abrupt rise of fees will probably have a much bigger impact than the previous reforms on who can study and who cannot. This deserves a public debate that has been occulted by the ideological recourse to "the financial crisis".

Please note that I do not advocate for or against the fees themselves, or even the privatization of higher education. I do not think that it's the best way to go, but nor do I believe that previous reforms have adequately answered the issue raised by the massification of education in the 1960s My main fear is that a further rise in fees will mainly end up fuelling Economics and Finance departments, whose ability to contribute to the public debate and to public policy has to be demonstrated, given their inability to help predict and reply to all the financial crises of the past 30 years. And these inept experts are the ones currently pushing for cuts, which to me seems self serving and ill-advised.
Mumbler
 

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby Anon. on Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:54 pm

the University of St Andrews Students' Association has no official position on occupations or direct action on campus


"On campus"? Faugh.
Anon.
 
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby DACrowe on Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:49 am

I'd definitely want to agree with Siena that it's commendable they managed to (and surprising they were able to!) find a block of time during which Lower Parliament Hall was not in use. If you were wanting a totally neutral reason to support the strike, university facilities are there for students to enrich their learning experience and apparently the people involved in the occupation find it rewarding in some way.

What I would say to 'Mumbler' though who seems to be the de facto voice of the occupation on the Sinner, and in so doing echoing some of what Spike has already said, the key to a good protest surely is that your aims are both relevant and achievable. You mention that one motivation for the protest is that the university's Chancellor is an MP and yes indeed he is, but he's also pledged (and... er... pledged again) to vote against the tuition fee bill, so if influencing him was the principle aim then congratulations you achieved your objective before the occupation even began.

I don't think it's unfair for Spike to call you on some of the odd things which appear in the list of the occupation's demands though as, after all, those are the occupations demands.

Let's briefly go through the list (with a bit of re-arrangment to make them more thematic)

No to raising tuition fees - I assume this refers to the raising of fees in England. As I said the MP for this area has already said he will vote 'no' and if you think he'll roll back on that issue having said it from the outset I'd submit that you don't know Ming (and you should, because he's lovely). So in far as this aim is achieveable it would seem better pursued by attending a rally somewhere the MP does intend to vote 'yes' or to abstain or to participate in the SA's letter writing campaign to them if physical attendance would interfere with your studies.

Widening uni access policy; scholarships last your whole time at uni, not just first year - No university opposes access; there is no conspiracy on the part of the university to promote the acceptance of underqualified students. Indeed the university has a vested interest in exactly the opposite. But a lot of time it's a question of diminishing returns. A scholarship system like the one you're proposing would be very expensive and the university's funds are finite, so proposing it while simultaneously opposing all cuts appears to be inconsistent practical terms. You can certainly make the case for scholarships to the university and there may be a form of financial assistance to low income students with regards to accomodation in the future, but again if you wish to convince people you have to make a case which appears to be in touch with the financial realities which this demand just on the face of it doesn't appear to be.

Investigation into High drop out rates of low income rate - I found this a rather disingenuous addition to the list. As seemed to be made perfectly clear at the Principal's open forum (which you can view online) the university /is/ currently investigating this and it is only through the investigation the university is conducting that we know this is the case. The upshot will hopefully be a targeted policy to deal with the key reasons for this drop out rate because as I said above and the Principal made clear at the forum the university has a strong vested interest in fighting this trend as it appears that those who do stay on tend to do better on average than students from higher income backgrounds (perhaps because they'd have had to work harder in order to get here).

No frontline staff cuts, No disproportionate targeting of any school or department with cuts - First I'm sure the university wouldn't deliberately engage in anything it considered to be 'disproportionate'. As I think Spike mentioned at lot of these budgetary facts are set by central government. So for example, in England, given the cuts have been to the teaching budgets for arts and humanities and not the sciences it's forseeable that the arts and humanities teaching will undergo greater cuts in university budgets as, after all, that corresponds with what the funds they get from central government are earmarked for. If the government in Holyrood after the next election decided to do something similar you could expect a similar outcome. But of course university finances are a complex business and departments aren't islands unto themselves otherwise the patents held by, for example, the Chemistry department wouldn't be effectively 'shared' with the rest of the university as it is. The university has a vested interest in keeping a fairly balanced base of subjects but obviously if cuts are made it may well be that it's sensible for the university to favour some departments over others in keeping with it's strategy to be a world leader in those subject areas. And example would be the amounts currently spent on philosophy and international relations which recieve levels of funding some might consider 'disproportionate' precisely for St Andrews to compete in those subjects at an international level. If it's a concern you have you'd be better advised going to the Principal's office hours than occupying Parliament Hall.

No announcements of budget allocation outwith of academic year - This is a good idea, but obviously this is something the SA has been heavily pushing for after the announcement about the library project funding was made outwith term time. I'm not sure to what extent the occupation would further the case for this in a relevant way. It would seem more productive to make a sensible and measured case for the need for the university to properly engage with its student representatives in order to maintain good relations with the student body (which are obviously necessary for St Andrew's continued success given the importance the 'student satisfaction rating' has in the current rankings systems).

Complete financial transparency on the part of the University, No further staff cuts until transparency - This seems a mix between the achieved and the redundant. So the University's finances are public record as a registered charity (or so I understand) and the only aspect which hasn't been (again, so far as I understand) has been the fundraising figures, which again is something the SA has been pushing for following the library project incident given how much of the projected spending on the library was supposed to be coming from fundraising figures. What you can be sure is that given the extent to which her reputation is built upon her successes as a fundraiser and relies upon that trend continuing, the Principal is highly motivated to work with fundraising.

Student involvement in decision making areas (i.e. Court and Senate) - Again, of course, this is something the SA is pushing for and again I'm really not sure the extent to which the occupation if it presents itself as picking a fight with the university will promote that goal. The university is far more likely to engage more closely with student representatives if it sees them as constructive interlocutors with shared concerns (student welfare, access, the continued prestige and success of the university etc); which is one of the reasons we can be glad they're dealing with Owen and Siena.

No commercialization of teaching - I'm not sure what this means. I mean... when I taught last year I was paid for it. This seemed a good system to me. I'm not sure what you're talking about in so far as this 'demand' is seperate from the first one about tuition fees. What I would say is that vague and diffuse demands do nothing to help your overall cause and should be avoided. What would be the circumstances under which you would consider your demand for 'no commericalisation of teaching' to have been met?

No caps on students from any geographical areas, No accepting of ‘overseas-fee bribes’ from British students to gain University places - I find this pretty disingenuous again. The source from this, I'm fairly sure, comes from remarks made by the Principal at the open forum. Perhaps I'm feeling a bit of personal bias here as she gave the response which mentioned it to a question I asked her about the University's lobbying priorities. The current caps on student numbers from Scotland is (a) not the University's policy but Holyroods and (b) not something that the University supports in fact it actively opposes it. St Andrews spends a lot of money (unnecessarily, in a manner of speaking) each year in fines for exceeding the quota of students it is permitted to take from Scotland. Again, this is something the Principal made very clear at the Open Forum. I was interested in learning what the University might be lobbying for as obviously Higher Education financing is an issue which is going to come up in the Scottish elections this May, so I was wondering if they would be pushing for a graduate tax as NUS Scotland will be. The answer I was given (if I recall correctly, you can check the video) was twofold; (1) the lobbying organisation the University is part of hasn't decided what it's position will be and (2) St Andrews, given it considerably outperforms the other Scottish universities in league tables, is lobbying for greater financial autonomy of the universities to pursue alternative sources of revenue. One example given to this would be the ability to charge domestic students the overseas student rates when the cap on student numbers imposed by Holyrood had been reached. So, the Scottish government limits the number of domestic students who can attend the university. An option being floated is that for people who apply in excess of that cap, who meet the academic requirements for admission but are turned down in any particularly year, if they are able to pay at overseas rates will be given the option to do so. The money gained can then be used to fund projects such as the kind of scholarships you're talking about above or the accommodation subsidisation I mentioned; from the impression I got from the brief conversation I had with her afterwards, using this new revenue to further improve the university and promote access for low-income students is something the Principal feels strongly about and while you might have concerns about the creation of a two-tier system so long as there are controls in place to maintain high academic standards of admissions the gain in the ability of the university to promote access seems worth it when the 'cost' is allowing students who wouldn't otherwise have been able to come here because of limits put in place by the Scottish government to do so.

That said, I hope your occupation goes really well and you enjoy yourself, though I'd question the extent to which 'success' is possible given the stated aims makes it hard to see how any quantifiable success might be determined to have been achieved.
DACrowe
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Student Occupation of Parliament Hall

Postby macgamer on Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:21 am

This is an interesting leak from the NUS:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/un ... rants.html

'In one email to the department’s officials, dated Oct 1, Mr Porter suggested that £800 million should be “deducted from the grants pot” over four years. That would cut total spending on grants by 61 per cent. Mr Porter also proposed the “introduction of a real rate of interest” for student loans.'

I don't see how cutting grants helps to widen the access to university for the poorest. The government's proposals seem much fairer by comparison.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Next

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests

cron