Jack Leahy

Deputy News Editor

The University Times has learned of plans to launch a student tabloid website based around the Dublin third-level institutions. The project involves a significant proportion of staff of the Midnight promotions group, who run events in Alchemy, Dandelion, and Tramco nightclubs on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday respectively. Former Dublin City University Student Greta Dunne – a member of the private Midnight Facebook group for staff – will serve as editor.

The College Times, a project that recognises the lack of a tabloid student newspaper in Ireland, will be launched in the near future and boasts an Exsite-designed demo website. Existe is a Dublin-based web design company that also designed the Midnight website. The high level of recent activity suggests that the site is being primed for launch in the near future and a number of articles already accessible refer to the start of the summer period as a premise.

It includes sections on student news, sports, gig reviews, travel, student classifieds, a ‘Confession Book’ forum in which users post details of minor transgressions, and a section entitled ‘It’s All About Sex’, among others. A number of articles appear pseudonymously, with Theta Omicron frat leader Jack O’Connor offering advice on the execution of contraceptive application, anal sex, and the female orgasm in the latter section. O’Connor posted his finished articles in the College Times staff Facebook group but the online versions appear under the names ’Conor Jackson-Wild’, ‘Conor Jackson Wild’, and ‘Connor Jackson-Wild’. It is unclear if any of the site’s other articles are written under pseudonyms.

Suggestions that the project is being run by the Midnight group come from the involvement of a number of core Midnight staff – director Jamie White, Dan O’Brien, Orla Byrne, O’Connor, Rob Walsh, among many others – though the site’s currently available content does not immediately suggest that the site will be used as a promotional tool for the brand. In total, the College Times staff group and the Midnight staff group – both private and exclusive – have sixteen members in common.

The site also advertises yet-to-be-launched Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube accounts, as well as an interactive poll gathering users’ opinions on nightlife, sexual positions, and post-education life choices.

This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie

Cormac Shine

A graduate tax perhaps achieves the best balance between the availability of higher education for all and how to pay for it in a fair and effective way without putting too much pressure on government.

If we considers the other options, a graduate tax is at least the “least worst” possibility. Fees aren’t equitable and exclude many without the means to pay from attending college; even if means-tested, fees will be based on the income of a students’ parents, while the graduate tax will be based on the income of the graduate themselves.

Exchequer funding is expensive and unsustainable for the Irish government, now more than ever. The current system of student contributions is not fair in that, again, students of lesser means are paying proportionally more; as the registration fee has risen year after year, many students have been forced to de-register as the cost of third-level education rises beyond their reach.

Of course, all students would love free university tuition in a perfect world, and a graduate tax moves some way toward this by providing a level playing field, with fees being paid off after graduation at a proportional rate.

We have to be realistic about completely free tuition. Free education, or even the existing “free” system, registration fees and all, at third level is unsustainable.

A graduate tax goes some way towards finding the balance between giving everyone the opportunity to go to college and also finding a way to foot the bill. It’s equitable, and more importantly, it’s realistic. Graduates would pay a fixed percentage of their salary for a fixed amount of time after leaving college, and after this time has ended, their education has been paid for, regardless of whether this amount has fallen short of or exceeded the costs incurred. While in college, their tuition is free and so there are no barriers to entry because of income.

This system is preferable to a student loan scheme because it doesn’t place a burden on a graduate for years afterward. If they are unemployed for a time, there won’t be the added pressure of meeting personal loan repayments, keeping their credit worthiness intact.

Indeed, a number of private sector companies in South America and elsewhere such as Lumni have developed a similar model, in which investors buy an “equity stake” in a student’s future (a more positive spin on the graduate tax moniker). The Irish government should learn from these innovations and provide them as a public service.

Finally, the graduate tax is a good option because it means the government and the graduate will be striving for common goals. It’s in everyone’s interest that the graduate earns the highest possible salary and doesn’t end up in the dole queues, and the government will have to ensure that emigration is minimised in order to maximise gains from the tax.

Overall, the graduate tax is a pragmatic and fair solution, halfway between the idealistic notion of free third level education and an unfair fee-paying system.

As the second day of voting in USI’s funding preferendum goes on, the battle lines have been drawn between those advocating the retention of the free fees policy and those in favour of a new approach to the funding issue. The latter have generally declared themselves in favour of a graduate tax, with some (including TCDSU President Ryan Bartlett) in favour of a student loan scheme. Below are videos that were posted to YouTube today by both groups. The free fees video plays on the traditional view of a union as a protesting organisation whereas the graduate tax video portrays the student activists as lobbyists and political players. Whether the characterisation of the student movement in either video is deliberate or not, the viewer is left in no doubt as to the viewpoint of their makers.

The Grad Tax Video

The Free Fees Video

Rachel Barry
TCDSU Education Officer

I first walked through the front arch as a Trinity student in 2007, a fresh faced girl from Liverpool, excited about what the next four years would hold. In addition to the obvious hopes of your average fresher as regards social life, I also had several expectations about the academic side of the environment I was walking into: a superior education from one of the top universities in the world; to face a new academic challenge that required more than mere regurgitation of knowledge; to be surrounded by the brightest minds of my generation; and for those minds and my own to be cultivated by a culture that not only admired but demanded excellence.

Having graduated in December 2011, I am happy to say that I look back on my time as a student with pride. However, now as a student representative, I find myself staring into the reality that because the funding of our higher education system is at a crisis point, those that follow me may not be so lucky.

When I began my studies in Trinity, the registration fee (as it was then called) was €900, nearly a 500% increase on the original figure of €190 when free fees were introduced in 1995/6. Next year, students (my younger brother among them) can expect to pay €2250 up front – more than double the amount that I had to pay for my first two years in college. The Minister for Education has virtually guaranteed that this will rise for every year of their course, reaching €3000 in 2015. At the same time, the grant has been cut so much that the USI have resorted to taking a Supreme Court case in an attempt to protect its more vulnerable members.

We’ve heard all these numbers before. In fact, most students are sick of hearing them. As I write, we have commenced the third week of exams, and the fatigue is starting to kick in. We’ve been talking about this all year, and soon myself and my colleagues will be replaced by a new, fresh team of officers. Shouldn’t I just change the record?

Unfortunately, I can’t do that. The fact of the matter is, this issue is simply too important to stay silent on.

It’s too important for our brothers and sisters, our cousins, our families, who will be paying an increased student contribution charge in the next few years, and who will have no government assistance in paying this increased student contribution charge.

It’s too important for the students whose income lies just above that eligible to receive the grant, and yet currently have to pay exactly the same as students whose parents earn six figure sums.

It’s too important for those who fail to qualify for the higher rate of the grant because they live 0.2 km outside a higher distance rate that is calculated as the crow flies, at the same time as vital transport services such as the 84 Dublin bus route are being cut next year.

It’s too important for those entering college with the same expectations that I had, only to find slashed library hours, no access to labs, beleaguered lecturers who have no time to meet one student out of their ever increasing class size, and student services who can’t cope with the increased demand and lower funds.

It’s too important for those of you reading this, who will have to pay an increased student contribution next year, and who may want to give your children the same opportunities that you have to become highly educated citizens.

The vote taking place this week will affect how higher education will be funded in the future, because it will affect the argument of one of the main stakeholders at the table – students. When government officials and the Higher Education Authority sit down to make decisions on third level funding, USI is the only student organisation with enough clout to influence the discussion. It is vitally important that Trinity students do all that they can to make sure that this voice is representative of your hopes, your dreams and what you want in your future.

This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie

Daire Collins

The USI has finally heeded the call for a direct democratic vote on the preferred choice for funding of higher education. This is a sign that the majority are tired of the unrealistic free fees policy. The demand that the taxpayer should bear the entire cost of higher education is out-dated, given that this system has already been abolished and is unlikely to return to the government programme. It is time for us students to recognise their duty to preserve the open access to education for all. This can only be realised while we are realistic in our demands. “Learn the wisdom of compromise, for it is better to bend a little than to break”.

Often dismissed at a first glance by students not wanting to bear the brunt of the cost, the student loan scheme, when executed properly, can give greater equal opportunity to those wishing to attend university. A student loan scheme eliminates most upfront costs during your college years, this makes it significantly cheaper than the current system of student contribution, in the short term.  For those who have maintenance grants, their situation would also dramatically improve. The government would no longer need to cover the cost of the student contribution, freeing up more resources for increased maintenance grants and raising the threshold to which they’re applicable.

The huge decrease in government spending may open up additional revenue to universities for much needed services. However this may take some time, due to the current state of the economy and the time lapse before students start repaying their loans. What must be realised is that a long term plan is necessary, it is both selfish and foolish to choose the path which seems easiest for you in the short run.

For a student loan scheme to work there are numerous requirements without which the strategy will fail to foster support or work. The most important of these is the need for a low interest rate on these loans. On all sides, including the banks involved in financing the loans, there must be no desire for large  profits. Rather the interest rate must only exist to cover the debt of those who are unable to repay their loans. A threshold income, under which graduates will not have to repay their loans, protects students and means no one will suffer under crippling repayments in their post college years. Explaining this feature properly should help to sway the minds of debt-adverse students.

Granting a minimum threshold income for repayments also reinforces the idea of education as an investment. Higher education must be viewed as an investment in your future. It can be seen as an investment both for the state and the individual. In times of crisis, such as the recession we’re in, the burden of the investment must rest on us, the individual. However the statistics show that higher education is one of the most influential investments a person can make. Average wages of university graduates are well above those with only secondary education, for women even more so. The rate of unemployment for graduates is also significantly lower than those without degrees. The returns on education make it foolish not to invest in it.

The time has passed where we can rely on the government to fund our higher education, the mantle must now be taken up by us, the students. The student loan scheme levels the playing field and demolishes almost all barriers to entry. If it is presented properly and all details explained accurately to secondary school students, there is no reason the scheme shouldn’t work smoothly with a little adaptation.

This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie

Fiachra O’Raghallaigh

In recent time, it has been popular to view education solely as a “personal investment”, and that the recipient should pay for it. This school of thought, although simplistic, is not entirely without its merits. Economic data shows that graduates earn higher salaries than non-graduates. Add to that the fact that Irish universities are experiencing a funding crisis, and it appears to be logical that students should pay for their third level education.

This market focused thinking is flawed however, because it focuses on the student, ignoring the wider social effects. This view is most prevalent within the Anglosphere, and has little currency in continental Europe – even among conservative countries such as Germany. Europe has perceived what we have failed to appreciate: that open access to higher education benefits even those who do not receive it.

Why is this? A highly educated country has the ability to attract and create much more lucrative industries than would otherwise be possible. Workers involved in such industries benefit from higher wages, as the neoliberals rightly conclude, yet they stop there. They do not assess the social impact of their greater purchasing power, particularly on those whom they rely on for goods and services. Low skilled sectors will benefit from the knock on effects to the economy.

Free education leads to innovation and employment, and it is impossible to fully assess its benefits in such a short article. The alternatives to it are poor, in my assessment, and rife with perverse incentives. Upfront fees are an unfair burden to place on students, particularly as they ignore the fact that even middle class families may simply baulk at the cost. Student loan schemes have failed in the United States, where cheap credit led to the cost of education to inflate enormously.

On a more practical level, the student loan and the graduate tax are both new forms of income tax. For it to be fair and equitable, the repayment schedule of the loan will have to correspond to the income of the borrower. As for the graduate tax, the keyword is in the name.

I will not bother spending much time explaining how both schemes create obvious perverse incentives. In a country with as great a history of emigration as Ireland, both schemes would be plagued by widespread payment avoidance, as demonstrated  by Australia. On a deeper level, they equally are unfair and unnecessary. How is it that some people, for know other reason than the period in which they were born, have benefited from free education while others have not?

If we are so truly focused on levying income tax under another name, then why not simply increase income tax? Why not allow graduates who already paid tuition and/or registration fees to get tax credits equal to their contribution? Why not solve the funding crisis overnight by increasing taxes, rather than complicating the issue to satisfy our Anglospheric  Groupthink?

The truth is that we introduced the free fees scheme because it appeared to be popular. As such it was poorly thought out. Now when confronted with our first problem, we seem predisposed to throwing it away. Rather than fixing our universities, we wish to break them even more. Yet again, we are closer to Boston than Berlin.

This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie

There’s always an unfortunate moment in one’s life where it’s necessary to take the side of people one despises. If the best shade of the peculiar feeling of schadenfreude is, as Jarod Kintz once said, “bright red, from a haughty spanking”, then this equally curious sensation of agreeing with Fine Gael leaves one feeling rather blue.

Defending the corner of Enda Kenny is not something I envisaged myself doing frequently during his tenure, but it is extremely difficult to deny that the following statement made in February by the Taoiseach carries some weight: “It’s part of my own philosophy that we prove by 2016 we’re the best country in the world in which to do business and a really strong and vibrant third-level system is fundamental to that, and it’s got to be paid for.” And yet such a pronouncement does nothing to convince me that the answer to the third-level question is an increase in student fees. Nor do I believe that the other proffered solutions are any more edifying either, for that matter.

University education is a fundamental human right, and not the privilege that many wish to characterise it as. Being educated to the limit of one’s ability is something that every citizen of this country should be entitled to, and such a simple normative value makes Jack Leahy’s absurd claim in this paper that student contribution is “fair” all the more vituperative. Even if working class students attend University, a study done in 2005 by the London South Bank University shows that these undergraduates are far more likely to undertake paid work during term time in order to pay their way, which subsequently has an adverse effect on their attainment. Raising fees means that students from disadvantaged backgrounds will carry that same disadvantage with them their whole lives.

Free fees, cheap credit, and a graduate tax are all discussed as possible options that could combat the problem of affordability in education. All of these routes, however, have somewhat obvious drawbacks. Free fees would mean that the taxpayer sets the price of education. Cheap credit would be a problem due to a possible debt aversion amongst prospective students. A graduate tax would have the unfortunate public relations problem of being seen as taxing something beneficial to society. Ultimately, however, the efficacy of education does appear to be unquestionable in this regard. Studies have revealed that an extra year of education boosts earnings by 7.7%. And of course, the MNC’s that Ireland is so dependent on as a country will only choose to set up bases in places with a large pool of skilled workers.

One of the most alarming manifestation of Ireland’s recession has been the “brain drain”. We are currently experiencing structural unemployment in this country, with a clear skills mismatch for all to see and experience for themselves. A recent Hays survey showed that there is a dearth of skilled IT talent in the country, and that employers are having trouble hiring proficient staff from this field. Given the overdependence on this sector in recent years in terms of FDI, such a revelation does not bode well for Ireland’s immediate economic future.

Perhaps there is a way of blessing two birds with one lotus. A system exists in Malaysia whereby the tertiary education is paid for by the government for Malaysian citizens. This education can occur in Kuala Lumpur, Dublin, or even Oxford. In return, these students are contracted to remain in or return to Malaysia after they have completed their degree for a period of ten years. If such a system were implemented in Ireland, it would prevent this “brain drain” from occurring, and also satisfy the concerns of people who cannot afford to pay for third-level education. If at any point these graduates wish to leave the country, they will of course be free to do so, provided they pay back the proportion of fees remaining that is owed to the state. Needless to say, this proportion will be relative to parental income, and not a flat-rate amount.

The conservative commentators and columnists in this country are right in one sense. There is no reason why the taxpayer should provide for the free education of students if they seek to migrate to Australia or America as soon as they have attained their erudition. Such consequences are a waste of good money, and a waste of good will, at a time when there is not an abundance of either to go around. But if we force (yes, force) these graduates to pay back their education through hard work, then we can certainly view it as the investment it ought to be. You don’t have to be a bleedin’ heart liberal to see it makes sense.

Ronan Costello
Editor

The first day of the online USI vote on third level funding did not go as smoothly as the organisers would have hoped. It was discovered early in the day that former students of NUI Maynooth, DIT and UCD were being allowed to vote in the online poll, giving rise to complaints that the final tally would be distorted and therefore invalid.

Students who participated in the vote were asked to submit their college username and passwords. These credentials were then cross checked with the respective colleges’ databases. However, some colleges do not clear their database of information relating to students who have recently graduated or dropped out. In these instances, former students found that they could vote by using their old credentials. Trinity was not affected by this issue, as ISS clears its database on an annual basis.

In an email to student union sabbatical officers, USI Deputy President Colm Murphy said: “Unfortunately a small number of colleges have not disabled their student accounts for some students who have graduated/dropped out and so these former students are still able to cast a ballot. Our team are working with HEAnet and the relevant colleges to correct this problem and ensure that we will be able to screen out these votes after polls have closed and so they will not be counted, and the integrity and anonymity of the process is protected.”

Murphy went on to say that HEAnet would work with each college to ensure that only the votes of current students would be counted. This audit of votes would require the co-operation of the the IT services in each college and, with polls closing on Sunday night, will have to be completed before USI Special Congress which takes place in UCD next Wednesday. Murphy was adamant that USI officers would not be involved in this audit and that voter anonymity was assured.

A photo also surfaced on Twitter which purported to demonstrate a simple hacking of the USI vote website. Murphy issued the following statement from the web developer who had worked on the site:

The USI voting system is running as three modules: www.usivote.com, vote.usivote.com and the Edugate connector – these three systems are completely independent.

Only Gary [Redmond, President of USI], Colm [Murphy, Deputy President of USI] and I [Web developer] have access to log into www.usivote.com to simply update the text on the web pages.

Only I [web developer] have access to log into the backend of vote.usivote.com. Even it was possible to log into the backend of vote.usivote.com there is no logic available to actually view or tamper with votes.

The system also has a safety mechanism built in where it automatically shuts down and will refuse to accept any updates once the election starts. This means that even if Gary or Colm were able to, there is no way to change the election once it has begun.

The image that Colm showed me was a view of a status panel for the Edugate connector. While configuring the system I needed to be able to see which colleges were active on the system. This status panel will not let me change anything… I [webdeveloper] can only view the status of each college i.e. that it is accepting connections

To change the Edugate configuration, I [web developer] need to log in over an SSH encrypted connection using a secure ssh key. Only me and my team can do that.

Even if someone could see the configuration of Edugate partners, they could NOT see the votes that were cast or they could NOT tamper with any of the votes (as these are completely isolated in a separate database). All they could see is that UCD, TCD, etc. etc. were making the following fields available to USI:

• affiliation
• student status
• unique ID number (to prevent someone from voting twice)

UPDATE: USI have released the following statement in relation to the issues above

Some issues have been raised by students, Students’ Unions and graduates about the voting process in the USI Funding Preferendum.

USI would like to clarify the following issues.

It should be noted from the outset that the system used for authentication is not software designed for or by USI and is provided by HEAnet, see below for more information.

How the process works.

The process for students voting is; a student logs on to www.usivote.com to cast their vote, they select their college, they are then transferred over to a server in their college where they enter their username and password as if they were logging into a computer on campus. Their college then checks if they are a current student and provides this along with a unique identifier, not related to their student number, and transfers the student back to the usivote.com server to allow them to vote if, and only if they are a current student. The unique identifier is used to ensure that the student can only vote once. It is important to point out that USI receives no personal information about the student at any point in the process as all verification and generation is carried out by the students’ own college on their servers.

Graduates being able to vote

The process outlined above is a tool called Edugate, provided by HEAnet. HEAnet is the IT infrastructure provider for all Irish Higher Education Institutions, the Public & Civil Service including Government Departments and Leinster House. HEAnet provides Edugate for a number of purposes including verification of student status used to operate campus car parks, education discounts on computer products such as the Apple Education Store Discount, online voting in a number of colleges and the ability to access computers and IT services in another college’s campus.

Each individual college maintains its own database of current students, i.e. the same database used for registration, examinations etc. It has transpired today a small number of colleges have not kept their databases up to date and this has allowed some recent graduates to cast a ballot. As part of the Edugate system each college is required to keep their database up to date. Only each individual college has access to its own database.

How this issue has been resolved

Throughout the entire process we have been in constant communication with HEAnet and as soon as we became aware of this issue, it was immediately brought to the attention of HEAnet.

As the databases of some colleges still contained students who have graduated, or progressed to another course using a different student number, some graduates have been able to vote, and some students who have progressed to another course have been able to vote twice.

Each of the small number of colleges affected by this issue is now auditing and updating their databases. At the close of polls, the unique identifier codes for each ineligible person in the database will be crosschecked against all votes cast. If it is discovered that any person who not a current registered student has voted, their identifier code will ensure that their ballot shall be deemed void and not included as part of the counts.

At no point in this process will the identity or person details of any person be revealed. This process will not identify any individual student or graduate but will ensure that only the votes of currently registered students are counted.

Twitpic purporting to show someone has gained access to administration ofwww.usivote.com

Earlier today there were claims that a user had been able to access the administration panel of the USI voting system.

The USI Voting system is running as three modules: www.usivote.com, vote.usivote.com and the Edugate connector – these three systems are completely independent.

www.usivote.com is the physical website where the pages explaining the preferendum are located. When a user begins the voting process they move to the vote.usivote.com module.

Nobody at USI has access to log into the administration of vote.usivote.com. Even it was possible to log into the administration system of vote.usivote.com there is no ability to actually view or tamper with votes.

Secondly, the system also has a safety mechanism built in where it automatically shuts down and will refuse to accept any updates once the election starts. This means there is no way to change the election or modify votes once it has begun.

The image posted online earlier showed a view of a status panel for the Edugate connector. This screen was an online tool used by our web development company to show which colleges were active on the system. It is a status panel and will not let a viewer change anything. This panel was used for testing purposes and does not affect the live vote.

This article advocates an option in the USI funding preferendum. To vote in the preferendum, go to www.usi.ie

Jack Leahy

Governments exist to make decisions, and unions exist to lobby against any negative impact these decisions may have on their members. To mandate a national students’ union to do anything but fight for a system that balances meritocratic universality of access to higher education and the maintenance of academic standards would be ludicrous.

Cynics have so often noted the bureaucratisation of student politics in recent years. Nowadays, it’s a political suit-and-tie game in which petty sleepovers in the offices of periphery TDs don’t quite cut it when the big wigs debate at the highest level of decision-making. In its proposals and its actions, the USI must act as a credible representative of student interests.

First of all, to mandate a students’ union to propose 100% upfront fees – a measure that would actively exclude large numbers of its members from third-level education – would be to mandate the death of the credibility of the student representative movement. Does SIPTU fight for pay cuts? Would you expect a teachers’ union to look for longer days and shorter summers? Would the National Union of Turkeys vote to propose more Christmases? No union with any legitimacy proposes measures that would negatively impact large numbers of its members. It is the government’s job – and not that of the union – to weigh argued principle and interests against economic restriction. The USI must not further facilitate its own discrediting by proposing a measure that would deny access to education to so many.

This is not to say that union representation is duty-bound to self-interest and impracticality. A core principle of negotiation is that if you demand everything, you are rewarded with nothing, and so it is with some sadness that we – temporarily, at least – must also discard the idealist exchequer-funded option. Given the infamous and unprecedented economic difficulties with which the State is saddled, the quality of education offered by our third level institutions would suffer if large amounts of core state funding was re-allocated to the payment of course fees. I think students have begun to recognise this, and that’s why this preferendum is necessary.

Student loan and graduate tax systems, to sum it up, have a history of working for neither state nor student. One need look no further than Great Britain to observe an almost comical impotency to track down emigrants and the number of legal loopholes that see thousands evade payment. Not to mention that repayment almost certainly requires immediate employment after graduation because that’s when repayments begin.

There is only one feasible option, and that’s for the USI to lobby the government to fund third-level education with a balanced student contribution. I’d even be in favour of the fee rising to €3,000+ a year for some if the current practice of waiving or reducing payment for students from relatively disadvantaged economic backgrounds was extended.

This would allow for the channel of progression from secondary to third-level education to remain primarily meritocratic. For all of its flaws, the Irish education system allows most to access higher education, with places in different institutions decided on exam performance rather than family income. In the US, a student can achieve Trinity-standard grades and end up in the derided ‘community College’ scheme  if they are just above the level of income necessary for scholarship application, yet well under the income band that can afford fees of $30,000+ per annum. Fees, additional taxes, and loans are financial burdens that actively close doors that this country has proudly held open for many years.

A tiered student contribution system appeals to the universal access idealism of the free fees proponents and addresses the issue of third-level funding. By increasing the student contribution and widening income-based reliefs proportionally, we would be moving towards a system that embodies the social equalisation that the free fees system falsely propounds. It allows for education to remain partially student-funded while removing some of the financial burden on lower-income but not lowest-income families. Transfer that portion of the burden to those who can carry it without creating an excessive gap.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it is the only one that can weigh student concerns of access and quality against each other and achieve equilibrium. That’s exactly what our national student union exists to do in its capacity as a political lobbyist.

The discourse is changing and free fees are dead. The student solution must, above all, protect students. If you ask the USI not to care about students, you can be damn well sure that the government will follow suit.

Vote for the student contribution and let’s move towards a decent system of access and quality.

Local Celebrity in action. Photo courtesy of the Racing Post.

Louis Murray

Local Celebrity, the horse owned by the TCD Horse Racing Society, had a winning return to action today at Sligo Racecourse. The horse was given a break after winning for Trinity in Navan before Christmas. The first horse ever owned by an Irish college society made it a remarkable two victories by winning the Irish Stallion Farms European Breeders Fund Hurdle.

Local Celebrity came home a neck in front of the very accomplished runner, His Excellency, which was the 5/2 second favorite, to win the €8,970 first prize. Champion amateur, Patrick Mullins, bounced Local Celebrity out in front and stayed there for a gutsy victory after a protracted battle up the home straight with the late charging His Excellency.

Commenting after the race, Patrick Mullins remarked “He was tough and very brave over the last three hurdles. Hopefully that puts a pep in the step of everyone in Trinity during the exam period!”

This victory places Local Celebrity as a horse on the up in Irish racing, with exciting plans already being made by the society’s connections in a bid for a three in a row.