Conferrings are the formal end of a persons course of study in a University where the Chancellor or other shakes hands with the graduate and hands over the piece of paper with the magic words written on it. As a TCD graduate and staff member I have attended a good few such ceremonies in the Exam Hall. Way back when I also attended my sister's graduation from St. Patrick's Drumcondra and another when she attended NUI Galway. Then in the last month or so I have attended the DIT ceremony where my mother was awarded an MA and then yesterday I was in the Helix for the DCU conferring where my wife earned her MSc.
It seems to me that the conferring ceremony is a good indicator of the ethos and style of the university. The TCD one, for example, is completely in Latin and formal black-tie is required for all graduands. This matches up with the university's sense of history and pomp. DIT hold their graduations in St Patrick's Cathedral which immediately gives a sense of gravitas but the ceremony itself is held at a fast pace. I also liked that each PhD had a brief synopses of their research read out by their supervisor before receiving their award.
However, of all the events I've attended I think I enjoyed the one in DCU the most. The venue, as a modern concert hall, can't be matched for comfort or sightlines - there isn't a bad seat in the house. There were two interesting speeches during the event from the Chancellor and the President of the university and the post ceremony reception was of the highest quality. The only downside of the DCU graduation is the DCU anthem which was blasted out during the two academic processions - wouldn't be high on my list of favourite songs.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Campaign Costs
In response to Daniel Sullivan's excellent suggestion to put all donations and expenditure in the public domain, here is the breakdown for my campaign.
Thats it. All expenses have been met from my own meagre savings. No cash donations have been sought or accepted.
Expenses
- Litir Um Thoghchan - 1500
- Envelopes, paper, printer toner - 70
- Stamps - 200
- Website hosting and domain - 80
Donations
- Time spent on website design and implementation (6 hours) - 300
Thats it. All expenses have been met from my own meagre savings. No cash donations have been sought or accepted.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Risk versus Reward
Fintan O'Toole, a man for whom I have a lot of time, has an interesting article in today's Irish Times. His opening statement reads "Economic and scientific elites are prey to delusions that the unlikely will not happen. The rest of us pick up the pieces when it does."Fintan then proceeds to dazzle us with some armchair mathematics about million to one chances coming true. The main thrust of his argument is that because rare events don't occur often enough for us to classify them we can't make estimations on the likelihood of them occurring in the future.
He mentions the odds of six specific horses winning at Cheltenham as being 1.5 million to one. Fair enough. But the odds of any six specific horses winning would also be quite high. Not following horse racing I can't comment on the specifics, but lets say there were 10 horses in each race and each horse is exactly identical then each set of six winners is equally likely. In my scenario there are exactly 1 million outcomes so no matter which set of six winners occurred that's a one in a million chance. But one of those outcomes has to occur so why do we draw any special inference on that particular outcome? Because we're human and like to see patterns in chaos.
The other thing to note is that Fintan falls into another common trap by selectively picking his data points. Lets say Cheltenham ran for 5 days, 8 races per day, 10 horses per race, 3 Irish horses per race, all horses equally likely to win. Then the odds of there being a day where there were six Irish winners is given by our good old friend the binomial distribution and works out around 2% per day or about 9% over the course of the festival. All of a sudden that's pretty far away from the million to one odds that were being quoted earlier on.
EDIT: Just looked at my spreadsheet again - the 2% and 9% figures are for 1/3 horses being Irish. If there are 3/10 Irish horses then the figures are 1% and 5.5% respectively but they are still orders of magnitude greater than a million to one.
Later in the article he state the design of the Fukushima reactors "did not take account of the possibility of an earthquake beyond what had ever been experienced before being combined with a tsunami." If that is so, and I have seen nothing elsewhere that backs this statement up, it is a damning indictment of Japanese engineering practices 40 years ago. But I seriously doubt this is actually true when one considers the amount of effort that Japan invests into earthquake and tsunami defense.
The biggest failing of Fintan's article is that he ends up saying we should be subservient to Sods Law and that to challenge the status quo is in some way hubris. This I emphatically object to. The path of progress has always been risky. The Wright Brothers were not the first people to try to fly and many died before them trying. Many have died since in aviation accidents but we don't think twice about jumping on a Ryanair flight to see a football match in a foreign country.
Similarly nuclear power is not without its risks. The specter of a reactor meltdown or a dirty bomb immediately sends shivers up the spine. However, when compared to other sources of energy it has a pretty good track record. Despite the good news story of the Chilean Miners last year, coal mining and pollution from coal burning power plants still kill thousands every year. The Gulf Oil spill caused massive ecological damage and lets not even touch the whole Iraq issue in terms of lives lost.
We need to have a sensible, rational discussion about the issues surrounding nuclear power but articles like this should be called out for what they are - FUD.
He mentions the odds of six specific horses winning at Cheltenham as being 1.5 million to one. Fair enough. But the odds of any six specific horses winning would also be quite high. Not following horse racing I can't comment on the specifics, but lets say there were 10 horses in each race and each horse is exactly identical then each set of six winners is equally likely. In my scenario there are exactly 1 million outcomes so no matter which set of six winners occurred that's a one in a million chance. But one of those outcomes has to occur so why do we draw any special inference on that particular outcome? Because we're human and like to see patterns in chaos.
The other thing to note is that Fintan falls into another common trap by selectively picking his data points. Lets say Cheltenham ran for 5 days, 8 races per day, 10 horses per race, 3 Irish horses per race, all horses equally likely to win. Then the odds of there being a day where there were six Irish winners is given by our good old friend the binomial distribution and works out around 2% per day or about 9% over the course of the festival. All of a sudden that's pretty far away from the million to one odds that were being quoted earlier on.
EDIT: Just looked at my spreadsheet again - the 2% and 9% figures are for 1/3 horses being Irish. If there are 3/10 Irish horses then the figures are 1% and 5.5% respectively but they are still orders of magnitude greater than a million to one.
Later in the article he state the design of the Fukushima reactors "did not take account of the possibility of an earthquake beyond what had ever been experienced before being combined with a tsunami." If that is so, and I have seen nothing elsewhere that backs this statement up, it is a damning indictment of Japanese engineering practices 40 years ago. But I seriously doubt this is actually true when one considers the amount of effort that Japan invests into earthquake and tsunami defense.
The biggest failing of Fintan's article is that he ends up saying we should be subservient to Sods Law and that to challenge the status quo is in some way hubris. This I emphatically object to. The path of progress has always been risky. The Wright Brothers were not the first people to try to fly and many died before them trying. Many have died since in aviation accidents but we don't think twice about jumping on a Ryanair flight to see a football match in a foreign country.
Similarly nuclear power is not without its risks. The specter of a reactor meltdown or a dirty bomb immediately sends shivers up the spine. However, when compared to other sources of energy it has a pretty good track record. Despite the good news story of the Chilean Miners last year, coal mining and pollution from coal burning power plants still kill thousands every year. The Gulf Oil spill caused massive ecological damage and lets not even touch the whole Iraq issue in terms of lives lost.
We need to have a sensible, rational discussion about the issues surrounding nuclear power but articles like this should be called out for what they are - FUD.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Its all about the balls
Last night I got to see one of the truly great bands perform in Dublin. Accept, the German dinosaurs, rolled into town and blew the roof off the Village. For a band that started out almost 35 years ago they still know how to rock. Below the fold is a video of one of their most famous songs, Princess of the Dawn, but to get the full effect of last night you need to treble the volume and then add some more.
Accept's other main classic is the tune Balls to the Wall which was brought to every teenager's attention in the early 90s by Beavis and Butthead. I know I've mentioned the dynamic dunces before but I guess I'm just a product of my time. Anyway, the reason why I bring it up is that I also thought that was going to be the theme tune for the earlier part of the day when Ireland took on England in Lansdowne Road in the last round of the 6 Nations.
But how wrong was I in that prediction? For the first time this season everything clicked. The opening 40 minutes was incredible to watch and but for a few tight calls and loose passes we could have had another 15-20 points on the board. Maybe it just is the Old Enemy, 800 Years of Oppression stuff that fires up the team, but in the modern game, played by professionals that should not make the difference. All of a sudden I'm beginning to regret my decision not to go to New Zealand for the World Cup, but I guess if the Seanad is in session then it'd be a bit rich for me to be skiving off for a month or more.
Also being held last night was the annual Irish Blog Awards. The only link to the title is that it was held in a function room that could also double up as a Ballroom - tenuous, I know, but cut me a little slack! Glad to see that the Cedar Lounge Revolution picked up the best political blog award. I don't always agree with what they're saying but they are always thought provoking and their two repeat columns Meanwhile, back at the Seanad and Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week always entertain. Good job comrades!
Back to normality tomorrow, when I'm going to have a look at some more of the crazy stuff related to 3rd level that has been coming out over the last few days.
Accept's other main classic is the tune Balls to the Wall which was brought to every teenager's attention in the early 90s by Beavis and Butthead. I know I've mentioned the dynamic dunces before but I guess I'm just a product of my time. Anyway, the reason why I bring it up is that I also thought that was going to be the theme tune for the earlier part of the day when Ireland took on England in Lansdowne Road in the last round of the 6 Nations.
But how wrong was I in that prediction? For the first time this season everything clicked. The opening 40 minutes was incredible to watch and but for a few tight calls and loose passes we could have had another 15-20 points on the board. Maybe it just is the Old Enemy, 800 Years of Oppression stuff that fires up the team, but in the modern game, played by professionals that should not make the difference. All of a sudden I'm beginning to regret my decision not to go to New Zealand for the World Cup, but I guess if the Seanad is in session then it'd be a bit rich for me to be skiving off for a month or more.
Also being held last night was the annual Irish Blog Awards. The only link to the title is that it was held in a function room that could also double up as a Ballroom - tenuous, I know, but cut me a little slack! Glad to see that the Cedar Lounge Revolution picked up the best political blog award. I don't always agree with what they're saying but they are always thought provoking and their two repeat columns Meanwhile, back at the Seanad and Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week always entertain. Good job comrades!
Back to normality tomorrow, when I'm going to have a look at some more of the crazy stuff related to 3rd level that has been coming out over the last few days.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
ECF - Letter to the Editor
Here is the text of a letter I sent to Madame l'Editoir yesterday. James McInerney from NUI Maynooth has an excellent letter on the subject published today.
Madam,
The third-level sector, unlike primary and secondary education, competes on a global stage. We need high quality teaching and research to attract the best students and staff from around the world. It is therefore with some dismay that I read about the extended Employment Control Framework that was introduced in the dying hours of the Fianna Fail government (Sean Flynn 15/3/11).
This framework plans to ban all promotions and make all employment subject to temporary or fixed-term contracts even in cases where the funding is not from the exchequer. These other funding sources include industrial contracts, EU partnerships and fees from overseas students. We will lose existing staff to foreign universities where promotion and academic freedom are allowed and encouraged. Who in their right mind would take up a post in an Irish university under these conditions? The knock on effect is that we will also lose our best students to foreign universities and they will not be here to contribute to Ireland's economic recovery.
If we truly values our education system and the benefits that derive from it, then the newly elected government would do well to rescind the ECF in its current form and work with the universities rather than impose draconian measures that do not address the core issues that face the sector.
Yours, etc,
Madam,
The third-level sector, unlike primary and secondary education, competes on a global stage. We need high quality teaching and research to attract the best students and staff from around the world. It is therefore with some dismay that I read about the extended Employment Control Framework that was introduced in the dying hours of the Fianna Fail government (Sean Flynn 15/3/11).
This framework plans to ban all promotions and make all employment subject to temporary or fixed-term contracts even in cases where the funding is not from the exchequer. These other funding sources include industrial contracts, EU partnerships and fees from overseas students. We will lose existing staff to foreign universities where promotion and academic freedom are allowed and encouraged. Who in their right mind would take up a post in an Irish university under these conditions? The knock on effect is that we will also lose our best students to foreign universities and they will not be here to contribute to Ireland's economic recovery.
If we truly values our education system and the benefits that derive from it, then the newly elected government would do well to rescind the ECF in its current form and work with the universities rather than impose draconian measures that do not address the core issues that face the sector.
Yours, etc,
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Employment Control Framework
Over the last few years, the public sector has been working under what is called the Employment Control Framework. This document put in place strict rules about appointments and promotions in the sector where exchequer funding was being spent. This was an attempt to control the public wage bill from continuing to grow. In 3rd level this has been difficult to deal with as it made academic promotion almost impossible, hiring of research staff took forever to be approved even for fixed term hires and all contract staff in support sections were let go.
Now it transpires that in the dying moments of the last government a new framework was announced that will last from 2011-2014. This version puts even further restrictions on the freedom of the universities to manage their own employment matters even where the funding is not from the exchequer - EU funding, philanthropic donations or postgraduate and overseas student fees. This is extremely worrying for the third level sector in Ireland.
This new document is an attack on the autonomy of the institutions covered by the Universities act. It is using the economic situation as an excuse for the HEA and by extension the Dept of Education to take control of third level. They are looking to put in place a system not unlike the teachers panels that operate at primary and secondary level where staff can be redeployed between schools. So if a position is funded in UCD say, they have to ask all the other institutions if they have spare staff who can be transferred before being allowed to take on new people. This is the complete antithesis of the academic way where all appointments should be made on the back of an open competition to hire the best person for the job.
The net result of the extended framework will be the continued erosion of our standing in the international academic community. We will lose existing staff to foreign universities where promotion and academic freedom are allowed and encouraged. We will also not be in a position to attract the best lecturers and researchers to our universities. The knock on effect of this is that we will also lose our best students to foreign universities and they will not be here to take up positions in the Smart Economy.
The university sector as a whole needs to stand up against the extension of the framework. I call on the new Minister for Education to make a statement on the matter as soon as possible. If this is the last sting of a dying Fianna Fáil wasp then it can be overturned. However, if it is retained as government policy in its current state then it shows that the new administration is, as the previous one did, only paying lip-service to the notion of a high quality education system.
Now it transpires that in the dying moments of the last government a new framework was announced that will last from 2011-2014. This version puts even further restrictions on the freedom of the universities to manage their own employment matters even where the funding is not from the exchequer - EU funding, philanthropic donations or postgraduate and overseas student fees. This is extremely worrying for the third level sector in Ireland.
This new document is an attack on the autonomy of the institutions covered by the Universities act. It is using the economic situation as an excuse for the HEA and by extension the Dept of Education to take control of third level. They are looking to put in place a system not unlike the teachers panels that operate at primary and secondary level where staff can be redeployed between schools. So if a position is funded in UCD say, they have to ask all the other institutions if they have spare staff who can be transferred before being allowed to take on new people. This is the complete antithesis of the academic way where all appointments should be made on the back of an open competition to hire the best person for the job.
The net result of the extended framework will be the continued erosion of our standing in the international academic community. We will lose existing staff to foreign universities where promotion and academic freedom are allowed and encouraged. We will also not be in a position to attract the best lecturers and researchers to our universities. The knock on effect of this is that we will also lose our best students to foreign universities and they will not be here to take up positions in the Smart Economy.
The university sector as a whole needs to stand up against the extension of the framework. I call on the new Minister for Education to make a statement on the matter as soon as possible. If this is the last sting of a dying Fianna Fáil wasp then it can be overturned. However, if it is retained as government policy in its current state then it shows that the new administration is, as the previous one did, only paying lip-service to the notion of a high quality education system.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Progressive and in the Seanad!?
The question was asked, "how can you be a progressive if you want to be in the Seanad?" The implication of course is that only boring, old, conservatives would want to be in the Seanad. Based on the current inhabitants, with notable exceptions, that may be a fairly accurate description but that is more down to the way the chamber is currently filled rather than the type of people who might want to be involved.
What do I mean when I claim to be progressive? Progressivism is the acceptance that the world is changing and that politics needs to keep up. It is the happy medium between conservative inertia and reactionary zeal. It is the path that leads to Now, more than ever, we need to be forward looking and willing to take hold of the opportunities that present themselves. Society will march forward with out without politics. It is the responsibility of politics to keep up with this change and create policy and legislation that enables and facilitates this progress.
Progressivism is often co-aligned with liberalism but it doesn't need to be. However, I have no qualms about also firmly identifying myself as a social liberal and will fight for equality and social justice if elected to the Seanad. On the economic front I am not a free-marketeer. While I accept the right of the marketplace to determine the levels of supply and demand for, and hence the costs of, goods and services, it needs to be properly regulated and supervised to protect the interests of the population at large rather than the interests of the few.
Hopefully this at least partially addresses the original question. As always, comments welcome either here or via twitter!
What do I mean when I claim to be progressive? Progressivism is the acceptance that the world is changing and that politics needs to keep up. It is the happy medium between conservative inertia and reactionary zeal. It is the path that leads to Now, more than ever, we need to be forward looking and willing to take hold of the opportunities that present themselves. Society will march forward with out without politics. It is the responsibility of politics to keep up with this change and create policy and legislation that enables and facilitates this progress.
Progressivism is often co-aligned with liberalism but it doesn't need to be. However, I have no qualms about also firmly identifying myself as a social liberal and will fight for equality and social justice if elected to the Seanad. On the economic front I am not a free-marketeer. While I accept the right of the marketplace to determine the levels of supply and demand for, and hence the costs of, goods and services, it needs to be properly regulated and supervised to protect the interests of the population at large rather than the interests of the few.
Hopefully this at least partially addresses the original question. As always, comments welcome either here or via twitter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)