Update me on VSU (2 Viewers)

[Xayma]

(YEEEEESSS! What a comment! VSU or no VSU! LOL)

Well, Xayma isn't exactly the 'artsy' type.

As long as the plays were restricted purely to Australian plays. Assuming of course leetom, you would be prepared to donate to the CSIRO.

 

[withoutaface]

uch an attitude of mind as a policy. It is based on perceptions of fairness. A petrol tax paid by motorists and not paid by bike riders and pedestrians is widely accepted as fair, although governments don't spend (or even promise to spend) all that source of revenue on road building and maintenance.

Extremely poor example. Which is going to do more damage to the road? A 1 tonne + car, or an 80kg cyclist? The road needs maintainence because of motorists, not cyclists.

 

[walrusbear]

i agree with asqy's article

do the pro-VSUers here have issues with holistic education? (out of interest)

 

[katie_tully]

i agree with asqy's article

do the pro-VSUers here have issues with holistic education? (out of interest)

No. We don't. But why should we pay for others to have a "holistic" education?

 

[leetom]

It is misdirected because any attempt to restrict the funds available for spending on unfriendly political causes should be fired with a rifle at political activity, not by taking a blunderbuss to student services in general, but that of course would raise the issue of free speech.

Indeed. Surely the government recognises the value of non-political student services. A move to ban Union involvement in leftist political indulgences is much more reasonable than blanket destruction of all Union activities. Much more emphasis should be placed on Union reform, (Universities control Union spending, spending highly scrutinised and spending lists made available for public) rather than advocating all-out Union demise, which can only have negative consequences.

Any Liberal who pushes the all-out Union demise line is clearly driven by the ideological 'death to Unions' approach, which, regardless of and ignoring any societal benefits the Union provides, only seeks to destroy Unionism solely out of ideological conviction.

No. We don't. But why should we pay for others to have a "holistic" education?

Because, as Asquithian's article states:

and the whole community benefits from the vitality generated by that patch of turf.

Which is sports ground specific but implies the general collective benefit for the community at large of having a Union subsidised holistic education.

I find it sad tully, that you are an adherent of the 'but I don't use the services' line, which to me is very primitive. Surely, the gross self-serving nature of it irks you as well, to some extent?

 

[katie_tully]

I find it sad tully, that you are an adherent of the 'but I don't use the services' line, which to me is very primitive. Surely, the gross self-serving nature of it irks you as well, to some extent?

No. What irks me is that people like yourself expect others to fund services they don't use, purely because you have this concept in your mind that it benefits others, thus they should contribute.

What I also cannot comprehend is why you people don't believe that if as many people want the services, as you say they do, then why won't the services still exist?. What irks me is the fact that you obviously don't grasp the idea of "pay per use" services.

To me, what is primitive, is the idea that we are selfish because we want to keep our money for ourselves, to use how we see fit, when infact isn't it selfish to expect others to pay for things they don't use, just because others do? What the?

 

[katie_tully]

Which is sports ground specific but implies the general collective benefit for the community at large of having a Union subsidised holistic education.

I still don't understand why you people are adamant the services are going to stop, if it becomes voluntary. If people want the services, they will pay for the services, thus keeping everybody happy. Is that hard to comprehend?

You all keep going on that it is going to benefit the community at large. No, it's benefiting the people who use the services. If more people use the services than not, then I fail to see what the problem is if it becomes voluntary. It purely means that people who don't use the services are able to keep THEIR money for THEIR own purposes.

 

[walrusbear]

No. We don't. But why should we pay for others to have a "holistic" education?

because the opportunities won't exist if enough people don't contribute
contributing for the greater good is essentially what's called being part of a 'society'
this user pay attitude gets taken too far when you can't see the value in something that doesn't directly benefit you
(although, it kinda does benefit everyone. why anyone would be willing to surrender student advocacy is lost on me

 

[katie_tully]

because the opportunities won't exist if enough people don't contribute
contributing for the greater good is essentially what's called being part of a 'society'
this user pay attitude gets taken too far when you can't see the value in something that doesn't directly benefit you
(although, it kinda does benefit everyone. why anyone would be willing to surrender student advocacy is lost on me

Oh jesus.
What says the opportunities will cease to exist if EVERYONE doesn't have to pay for them? As we've said thousands of times, you all proclaim there to be a huge following of the student union, and if this is infact the case, the services will still exist.

The "contributing for the greater good" attitude gets taken too far when you can't see a person's entitlement to use their own money for whatever they want. It gets taken too far when you put your own interests infront of others. It's not your money. I can't believe that you all have the audacity to dictate as to what others should do with their money, which may I add is a significant amount.

Another thing none of you seem to comprehend is that "holistic" education is not everybodys cup of tea. If somebody wants to go to university, get their degree and then get the hell out of there, that's their business. They shouldn't be expected to dillydally and nancy around having an "omg awesome social life" at university if they don't want to. Just because you guys seem to think it benefits your experience, does not mean it benefits everybody else.

 

[walrusbear]

I still don't understand why you people are adamant the services are going to stop, if it becomes voluntary. If people want the services, they will pay for the services, thus keeping everybody happy. Is that hard to comprehend?

You all keep going on that it is going to benefit the community at large. No, it's benefiting the people who use the services. If more people use the services than not, then I fail to see what the problem is if it becomes voluntary. It purely means that people who don't use the services are able to keep THEIR money for THEIR own purposes.

surely you don't really think services will continue as per usual under VSU?
not even Nelson is pretending that's the case
this is one cynical piece of policy, and has been marketted to appeal to the selfish notion of students saving a few bucks at the start of each year. attempts from the student groups to discuss the policy with nelson has been ignored. so i guess it can be assumed that the liberal party doesn't really want ANY union reform so much as NO unions. i can't see any way to view this policy but as an ideological attack.
so i can't see why you're so adament everything would be fine after VSU. i'm sure many of the larger unions will survive, with a lot less capabilities. but a shitload more will be lost.

 

[walrusbear]

Oh jesus.
What says the opportunities will cease to exist if EVERYONE doesn't have to pay for them? As we've said thousands of times, you all proclaim there to be a huge following of the student union, and if this is infact the case, the services will still exist.

The "contributing for the greater good" attitude gets taken too far when you can't see a person's entitlement to use their own money for whatever they want. It gets taken too far when you put your own interests infront of others. It's not your money. I can't believe that you all have the audacity to dictate as to what others should do with their money, which may I add is a significant amount.

Another thing none of you seem to comprehend is that "holistic" education is not everybodys cup of tea. If somebody wants to go to university, get their degree and then get the hell out of there, that's their business. They shouldn't be expected to dillydally and nancy around having an "omg awesome social life" at university if they don't want to. Just because you guys seem to think it benefits your experience, does not mean it benefits everybody else.

it's not really my own interests.
i believe that if you want to attend a university you should be expected to contribute to its funtion as a community. that means contributing financially or otherwise to the union; which allows for subsidised food, health services, clubs, sports etc (essentially everything on campus outside of class).
why should a university be expected to give you your degree if you are not willing to contribute to its institutional status?
i think a major problem the pro-VSU people have is getting past this notion of education as a product. asqy's article correctly points out that university is more of a community.
maybe when you go to uni you'll gain better perspective on this, tully

anyways
this argument has gone no where for a long time
essentially i can't argue with anyone who's political perspective doesn't extend beyond near fundamental adoration of this 'user pay' concept. if your viewpoint is too narrow to extend beyond your own needs and you are unwilling to see how your views affect the broader societal concerns then there is no argument

 

[katie_tully]

anyways
this argument has gone no where for a long time
essentially i can't argue with anyone who's political perspective doesn't extend beyond near fundamental adoration of this 'user pay' concept. if your viewpoint is too narrow to extend beyond your own needs and you are unwilling to see how your views affect the broader societal concerns then there is no argument

Pot. Kettle. Black.
"Too narrow to extend beyond your own needs and you are unwilling to see how your views affect the broader societal concerns then there is no argument"

Perhaps the same can be said about the USUers who are unwilling to accept that people have the right to decide that they do with their money, and considering the student union isn't a non profit organisation going towards cancer, I fail to see how not wanting to contribute is going to alter the lives of anybody drastically.
Refer to previous comments.

I don't need to go to uni to change my mind. I've made this decision because when i DO go to uni, I don't want to be hit with a bullshit student contribution bill.

 

[katie_tully]

i'm sure many of the larger unions will survive, with a lot less capabilities. but a shitload more will be lost.

Oh, like USYDs lunchtime "DJ competition?"

My heart bleeds, you poor dears.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Oi Katie remember how you don't go to uni yet?

 

[walrusbear]

Pot. Kettle. Black.
"Too narrow to extend beyond your own needs and you are unwilling to see how your views affect the broader societal concerns then there is no argument"

Perhaps the same can be said about the USUers who are unwilling to accept that people have the right to decide that they do with their money, and considering the student union isn't a non profit organisation going towards cancer, I fail to see how not wanting to contribute is going to alter the lives of anybody drastically.
Refer to previous comments.

I don't need to go to uni to change my mind. I've made this decision because when i DO go to uni, I don't want to be hit with a bullshit student contribution bill.

so broader societal concerns can be conflated with your personal money in this case??
argument still hasn't gone anywhere
my issue is with your user pay attitude - i don't think it should apply to university.
if you're convinced that your right NOT to support the university infrastructure (yet somehow maintain the right to recieve a degree from said university) outweighs the value of tertiary education in the country then i guess that's that.

may i add that this pot,kettle,black business doesn't really stand when all i'm advocating is stronger university standards for the country. i still don't get this confused conservative logic where my support for unions is just as selfish as your support for your own personal funds.
does your right for a user pay university outweigh the right for australians to be offered a rich and holistic university experience?
funny that pretty much all university faculties and many prominent australian figureheads are fighting the policy and the greatest supporters are students such as yourself (actually, you're a high school student) whose primary argument is 'i don't want to pay for something that won't directly benefit me in my opinion' (presumably you don't want representation).
i still think it lacks perspective.

 

[katie_tully]

Oi Katie remember how you don't go to uni yet?

Gee Nathan. Well done. You're what...person number 36 to point this out? This would make it the 36th time I've explained why I don't support USU? Actually no. Go back and read what I said conerning the fact I'm not at university yet.

does your right for a user pay university outweigh the right for australians to be offered a rich and holistic university experience?

Once again, the only argument you people have is based on the premise that VSU is going to spell the complete end of the "holistic" experience, and neither you nor myself know this is going to happen for a fact. We're saying that if a majority of people wish for the services to remain, then they won't vanish. You're saying they will. Atleast we are being optimistic on your behalf, because all I've seen so far is a defeatist attitude.

As I've said before. Some people enjoy the holistic experience. Some people do not. Why should those who do not be penalised financially, purely because a bunch of whingers are adamant that their quality of university life will diminish without everybody contributing.

if you're convinced that your right NOT to support the university infrastructure (yet somehow maintain the right to recieve a degree from said university) outweighs the value of tertiary education in the country then i guess that's that.

What the hell? Not everybody slaves away during the HSC to get into university so that they can "have a good time". In the long run we are PAYING for our tertiary education, whether it be upfront or through HECS, so in all honesty yes, we do have the right to decide what else we contribute to.
I hate this shitty argument about how you shouldnt be allowed to go to university if you don't participate in the "holistic" experience. Bullfuckingshit. We pay for our course, it isn't like we can go to university for free like public education.

 

[Xayma]

surely you don't really think services will continue as per usual under VSU?
not even Nelson is pretending that's the case

In Western Australia membership contributions were 30%, the fees were cut by half. That is still 15% of the income.

The USU is predicting membership to drop to 15%.

Now the WA model stated that they could not discriminate between members and non-members thus providing no incentive to join (the greedy situation if you will) other then the goodness out of your heart to have others take some of your money. Now in the Federal model they can discriminate there is incentive to join. If membership drops to 15% it shows how unsatisfied the members are, considering where 30% were doing it when they didnt have to.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Unlike government taxes where generally the fact is you will probably get back what you paid for and that alot of taxes go into much more important services. I don't see the great corrolation with university that people keep bringing up.

Most people probably don't mind having to pay for child care, a bit of money to keep uni buses running, and maybe even a small contribution to sport. I don't see why this money couldn't be simply given to the university to allow the university to support what most people would agree are fairly important services.

It's basically everything else that is the problem. Alot of people aren't going to uni, aren't joining unions because they are "teh poor " it's because they want an added social life, and i'm sorry but I do not agree that the whole university community benefits when a few guys get cheaper beer or "such and such" society is funded by the university.

There is the problem of advocacy, but I believe there are several options to fill in the gap. (I don't believe it's used too often anyway...).

i still don't get this confused conservative logic where my support for unions is just as selfish as your support for your own personal funds.

Well alot of people who are after unions are doing so because they're upset that they'll lose their culture. I honestly don't think it has too much to do with others, however your views on the matter may be different and looking out more for the community at large.

I feel I am looking out for the community because I feel the choice to choose whether you want to pay the union fees should be paramount. It is not really a matter of "I want my money" for myself, but if other people feel that way let them have it.

It's not like the richer people, with a better ability to pay union fees will be the ones not paying. It's going to be the people struggling at uni, who don't have time to enjoy the "holistic experience" that you and the boys at the university gentlemens club love so much.

Oi Katie remember how you don't go to uni yet?

She could be a 10 year old, but if you're not going to front their argument it's just weak to point out things such as this.

funny that pretty much all university faculties and many prominent australian figureheads are fighting the policy and the greatest supporters are students such as yourself (actually, you're a high school student) whose primary argument is 'i don't want to pay for something that won't directly benefit me in my opinion' (presumably you don't want representation).

Again, you attack her... and not her argument. I reckon we could dig up alot of dirt on you too if we could peer into your memories, your life, to show that you're not exactly in a position of purity to be proclaiming yourself of good heart either.

What is the argument of these "prominent figureheads" and "university faculties" ? Don't just name drop, give us their arguments.

i can't argue with anyone who's political perspective doesn't extend beyond near fundamental adoration of this 'user pay' concept. if your viewpoint is too narrow to extend beyond your own needs and you are unwilling to see how your views affect the broader societal concerns then there is no argument

Why does a system where people can choose to pay, or not pay fundamentally seem greedy over a system where a minority (or even a majority) forces the others to pay?

this is one cynical piece of policy, and has been marketted to appeal to the selfish notion of students saving a few bucks at the start of each year. attempts from the student groups to discuss the policy with nelson has been ignored. so i guess it can be assumed that the liberal party doesn't really want ANY union reform so much as NO unions. i can't see any way to view this policy but as an ideological attack.

Is it possible to negotiate with those student unions.... really? Like perhaps now because they're at a position of weakness, but before?

Good way to dismiss things "It's ideological". All views come from some sort of ideology, your own defense of usu comes from your ideology, attack their ideological point-of-view.

 

[Generator]

A contest between the new idea of a university education as a commodity granting qualifications and that of the 'traditional' notion of a university education as an educational experience granting qualifications. Fun for all.

It's sad that however many years of campus vitality are at risk of being sacrificed merely because some are unwilling to compromise and create a viable alternative that both supports essential and social services and 'freedom of association' (be they a hardliner from the Liberal ranks or a student association delegate unwilling to admit that reform (and a greater degree of transparency) is needed). That the eventual outcome is to be determined by those without a meaningful stake is also quite depressing..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How is it that you won't get an educational experience due to it being a commodity? Has the fact that you pay for your degree actually negated the educational experience of university making it almost a shop where you just walk up and buy a degree? I think not. The traditional notion of a university was that it was a place for rich nobelmen and their sons to gain a bit of knowledge. Oh the good old days!