Leanna Byrne & Jack Leahy
Trinity students have voted for Trinity College Students’ Union to vote for a student loan scheme as the preferred method of funding third level education at USI Congress this week. The results came from a turnout of 440 students after three days of polling.
Members of TCDSU are disappointed with a low turnout, but still see the preferendum as having achieved its objective.
“Whilst you always hope for a turnout that is as close to 100% as possible, this vote still achieved its objective,” SU President Ryan Bartett told The University Times. “It was a chance for Trinity students to express their views on a very complicated matter.”
TCDSU President-elect Rory Dunne was in agreement with Bartlett, stating that “while I would have liked students to have voted in greater numbers, I feel that those who did vote were the ones who had given each argument careful consideration and had educated opinions which they wanted to express.” Dunne added that low turnout would be examined before any polls were organised next year. “Without doubt, the approach to polling on these issues and the encouragement for students to participate in these elections is something which we will investigate next year.”
Despite this, students are disappointed with the low turnout as many feel that it signifies undemocratic representation. As there are approximately 16,000 students studying in TCD, a turnout of 440 represents 2.8% of students.
“With regards to the fees preferendum, the tiny valid poll of 441 students, a clear consequence of a poorly managed information campaign, makes me dismiss off hand its legitimacy as a policy mandate,” says Fiachra O’Raghallaigh. “I find it hard to believe that the majority of students in Trinity College would support a student loan scheme over 100% exchequer funded fees, or the current student contribution system even.” Bartlett countered the criticism of the information campaign by saying that students were given notice of the preferendum in three consecutive emails before polling began and that an extensive poster campaign was undertaken by the SU. He also cited the production of an information booklet, available in print and online, that laid out the pros and cons of each option “simply and without bias”. This booklet was produced by the SU in the absence of a similar booklet being sent by USI until the day polling began. The University Times also ran a front page story about the preferendum on the day polling began, and encouraged students to have their say on the matter.
Bartlett added that “it’s important to remember that the SU cannot campaign or show any bias in these ballots. Our job is to put the information out there and let people make a decision for themselves. I encouraged interested parties to set up campaigns themselves, as was done with the Coca Cola referendum a few years ago. Indeed, I received correspondence from some students which suggested that there would be more visible campaigning for some of the options in the preferendum. Unfortunately these campaigns never materialised. But for people to say that we haven’t engaged with the issue of third level funding this year is nonsense. Our team organised a Town Hall meeting on the issue of third level funding – the first of its kind to be organised in by the Students’ Union. I also criticised USI last term for both its simplistic rhetoric in relation to third level funding and the manner in which it was campaigning to achieve its goals on this issue. Finally, the fact that we had a general ballot is a sign of progress as regards transparency in the SU. Previous to this year, the issue of the SU’s policy towards funding was decided either at SU Executive meetings or at SU Council. Indeed, there is nothing in the constitution that would have prohibited us from doing something similar this time around. But we strove, as we have done all year, to bring this question to students and to let them tell us how they wanted their representatives to vote at Congress.”
In fact, some students are in favour of the decision. Chair of Trinity Young Fine Gael Eoin O’Driscoll welcomed the result of the preferendum as he sees it as a “sensible, sustainable funding for third level education” since the “upfront cash system is simply not there.” Yet, O’Driscoll blamed the SU on the low turnout. “An abominably low turnout is typical of Student Union run ballots and simply reflects the sad reality that they are horribly out of touch with the student body.”
Bartlett denied that there was much more that the SU could do as it was difficult to communicate the message to students. He also felt that the timing of the vote was not ideal as many students were concentrated on studying, but that this could not be helped as the ballot had to be taken before USI Congress, which begins on April 2nd.
Student loan schemes have been established by at least 50 countries around the world including the UK and Australia. In 1998 the mortgage-style loan scheme was replaced by an income contingency plan that taxed incomes from a graduate’s pay slip.
However, last year the Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn ruled out a student loan scheme as he felt it was of “no value” to the economy because “it would take 17 years to refund itself”. Minister Quinn also believed that a loan scheme would create an emigration incentive for graduates to avoid paying the tax. In 2010, 25 per cent of student loans defaulted in Australia.
