Update me on VSU (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

Dude, it's probable the majority of people (especially young people) who want to get fit is for appearances. So? It is your own opinion that that's not the reason you prefer to get fit, but that doesn't deter the fact it's a highly open option for many other people. Plus you're also generalising against people who gym, in quite an uneducated manner may I add, since you also assert that you'd 'never go anywhere near a gym'.

No I wouldn't because, as you say, people get fit for appearances. I'm not really into being around people who get fit for the purpose of looking good. Not sure about you but the notion of young guys continually looking at themselves in mirrors is a little unnerving.

I'm also pretty sure that excessive vanity isn't a good character trait. Also people do very unhealthy things in the name of vanity. Good body looks often do not correspond with general all round fitness and health.

The gym is an excellent place to build strength, endurance and cardiovascular ability. It's becoming apparent that you're quite biased against many other options of retaining health except for university sports.I would be pretty confident in saying that gyms are considerably more effective in helping people retain health and fitness than university sports. Whatever opinions you hold of people who go there isn't relevant, thank you very much.

If my opinion on gyms are irrelevant then so are your opinions. By simply applying your own logic your opinion on university sports becomes irrelevant. I'll remind you of what you said..

Plus you're also generalising against people who gym, in quite an uneducated manner may I add, since you also assert that you'd 'never go anywhere near a gym'

I'll assume you don't participate in university sports.

I think it would be churlish to suggest wholeheartedly that gyms are the best at maintaining health for everyone and that university sports are not. You will also find that I never said that gyms were better or worse than university sports at maintaining health and fitness. This is highlighted in the quote above.

University sports and the gym will be good for certain people and depending on their personal circumstances. Certainly gyms are used by sporting teams in conjunction with their usual skills training.

I think that would be called a big fat sweeping generalisation to say that gyms are much better for maintaining physical fitness. It also shows up your personal biases. I mean I assume you are a Gym Junky and you do it in order to improve your self image and confidence. I hardly think this is good for character building or instilling competitive attitudes.

Mental balance issues as in motivation? One main reason how exercise helps people is due to the release of feel good hormones, such as endorphins.. and suppressing depressive catabolic ones like cortisol. You can achieve both in both gyms and university sports. Another benefit is team sports, which raises the matter into a social event. This is actually a good point for university sport, however it's not like you can't achieve this playing sports outside of university, going to the gym with friends or jogging with a mate.

Mental balance in terms of competitive spirit. All you are doing in the gym is playing yourself or, as you mentioned, fulfilling your own vain dreams.

Also a number of the university teams do not compete between universities. The university enters teams in the larger not university based sporting competitions around the state.

Yes, I live in Pittwater. So? I see you're trying to imply another generalisation, how excellent.

I think it would be odd to say you are seriously struggling with money when you live in one of the wealthiest electorates in the whole of Australia. If you would like to rebut my generalisation by telling me you are poor and really cannot spare such money during the year at all then I'll take it back.

 

[Collin]

Again, it doesn't matter what you think about guys who work out to look good. That's not relevant. The point is about retaining health. They are working out to look good, that's their concern yet at the same time they are getting healthy, and that's the important thing. Physically speaking, what's the main differences between exercising in a gym to playing university sports? Not much, I would think except for the mental side which I argue below to be quite minimal too.

Let me clarify my gym stance: I think that gymming is more effective in the manner that it helps a higher level of Australians retain health rather than university sports, not effective in the context that you get better exercise results. Of course, I doubt any of us here can prove nor disprove this.. but it seems like in your previous post you were seriously attempting to dent the gym industry's credibility of promoting health simply because you don't like the pretty boys who work out there.
I'm not a gym junkie, my attachment rate of attendance to my local gym (% of no. workouts/number of days of a month) for the last 3 months has been around 20%. That's around 1-2 days per week, where a gym junkie tends to go 4-6 times a week. I will admit for the first year I joined a gym, my intent was for personal appearances. But I've been working out for 3 years now, things have changed long ago.
As for personal participation, I was actually a member of several clubs, such as Table Tennis.

There is much more to retaining health and fitness than the aspect of having a competitive feeling present. Exercise physiologists claim that the main mental benefits to sport is the fact that it can be a social event aswell as the fact that certain hormones released by the body during intense exercise are feel good and anti-depressant in nature. You can quite easily achieve these two results from other activities other than university sport, like sporting outside of university, gyms, jogging with a friend, going to the beach with your mates etc. etc. In other words, there are many ways to get physically fit other than joining university sports which can result in good mental health.

Also, university sports isn't going to die because of VSU. It seems like alot of USU supporters think that VSU will kill off university sports altogether. It's like many of you are implying a funding halt. According to a Sydney University's report on tertiary sporting overall, Australian tertiary institutions invest around $60m into facilities and services. The introduction of VSU will cut $30m of that out of the budget. That is nowhere near critical level. Simply put, to make ends meet universities will increase the cost of participation. That's it. You can still participate in university sports, it may just cost a little more. I don't think that's unfair, if you want to go into university sports, then just pay a little bit more. If you don't well obviously you don't have to pay for it like you do now, which I think is completely fair.

On the overall issue of USU sports funding and how it fits in the big picture: The federal, state and local governments spend $2b annually on sports and other active recreation (2003 ABS report). VSU eats out $30m, a mere 1.5% funding cut from the nation's sporting and physical recreation effort in terms of allocation of funding.

Yes, I'm poor. It takes me several weeks to make out the money USU wants from my wallet, and I'd rather use that on rent, food and bills.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

It is more a question of whether we value sport. The message sent by those who attack university sport is that sport is of no value.

Cutting funding to sports hardly is a good image when society is so unhealthy.

Uni gym still (iirc) costs $60-70 a month for one gym, whereas fitness first costs $80 for any fitness first in sydney. A saving of 12.5-25% at the expense of other students will not cause many more people to go to the gym, and is generally just a waste of money.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

I think it would be odd to say you are seriously struggling with money when you live in one of the wealthiest electorates in the whole of Australia. If you would like to rebut my generalisation by telling me you are poor and really cannot spare such money during the year at all then I'll take it back.

Since he's a uni student he's hardly going to have a massive income.
Wealthy electorate = higher rent/rates = less money to spend.

 

[SashatheMan]

Since he's a uni student he's hardly going to have a massive income.
Wealthy electorate = higher rent/rates = less money to spend.

exaclty.
(not aiming at you capitalist pig)
to the guy who sais its not much money anyway, your probably showered with your parents' money , and dont really think much about 600 dollars a year because you get it in a week or something.

i dont get any money from parents and i have to pay for this shit, so dont give me crap about the sum not being much.

 

[erawamai]

to the guy who sais its not much money anyway, your probably showered with your parents' money , and dont really think much about 600 dollars a year because you get it in a week or something.

I think you should be more careful when you read. I never said 600 a year (which only applies to first year usyd students) was not alot of money, did I?

I also think it would be silly to assume because someone is not totally independent financially and does rely on their parents to subsidise their existence that they have no appreciation for the value of money for money. Especially when that child is well aware of how hard his or her parents work for that money.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Who says he rents?

Yes, I'm poor. It takes me several weeks to make out the money USU wants from my wallet, and I'd rather use that on rent, food and bills.

. .

 

[Sarah]

You seem to imply that cutting sports funding is my attempt to fix up the problem. What? I merely suggested that cutting out funding won't have a major impact on obesity outcomes, hence it could be done.

The problem with your argument is that you seem to think university sport is almighty important to the image of sport within Australia as a whole. Do you really believe a person's motivation to get into shape, increase fitness and decrease body fat percentage can be even a tiny bit attributed to the presence of university sports? The media bombards the populace enough with models, creating the sense that it is best to be skinny. We have sport regularly on TV, major sports section in newspapers, external sports clubs etc. How much do you really think sports within universities can contribute towards promoting sport within this country in general? Not much, I would think, and for me, certainly not worth paying hundreds of dollars each year.
.......

Well unless someone can show a study which provides evidence for causation then this issue is going to go round and round in circles.

Yes students may not see the point in providing funding for sporting clubs but isn't it better to have a variety of methods to combat obesity? (rhetorical question, u don't have to answer). Giving funding gives accessibility and at an affordable rate.

 

[Xayma]

Great news, while paying fees to fight obesity we are also paying to subsidise fatty foods

 

[Phanatical]

I'm more concerned about the sorts of sports activities that Are subsidised require students to be on campus to take advantage of them. If you want to subsidise sports, then gym discounts, pool passes etc. would be far more beneficial than (again) elite sports teams. Same with any other number of Union/SRC/Sport services.

Problem is, most students that run for the Directorship of these services are the sorts of students that LIVE on campus. It's a bit annoying when it takes me an hour and a half to get into uni to do chalking, just to have them arrive 15 minutes later when they hear I've arrived.

The point is though, these students don't serve part time students. They don't serve students who live away from campus. This is one of the fundamental problems that our student associations need to deal with.

 

[Collin]

Haha @ Xayma.

isn't it better to have a variety of methods to combat obesity? (rhetorical question, u don't have to answer). Giving funding gives accessibility and at an affordable rate.

Did you even read all my posts? If you had, you'd know that my fundamental point was about how I don't believe the outcomes of university sports towards weight loss justifies hundreds of dollars out of my pocket each year. Also, I already emphasised that it's simply a funding cut, not a funding halt. I doubt VSU is gonna make tertiary sporting 'inaccessible'.

 

[Sarah]

Haha @ Xayma.
Did you even read all my posts? If you had, you'd know that my fundamental point was about how I don't believe the outcomes of university sports towards weight loss justifies hundreds of dollars out of my pocket each year. Also, I already emphasised that it's simply a funding cut, not a funding halt. I doubt VSU is gonna make tertiary sporting 'inaccessible'.

I tried to read all your posts although i admit i skimmed through it mainly due to their length.

The main message i was getting from them was that there are other opportunities to participate in sport outside of university and that people join sport for other reasons other than to combat the obesity problem. Yes I can see how you think this is unrelated e.g a person doing sport to look good, but in the end, it helps prevent obesity from occuring. The point of my post was to highlight that sport at uni was one method of addressing the problem and in addition, i highlighted affordability. Reason being is that reducing the amount of funds available would have an impact on accessibility as a result of being able to afford to undertake a particular sport.

I note a previous post of yours:

You can still participate in university sports, it may just cost a little more. I don't think that's unfair, if you want to go into university sports, then just pay a little bit more. If you don't well obviously you don't have to pay for it like you do now, which I think is completely fair.

I'm not the best person at interpreting tone over the internet but that sounded very blase. Apologies if i've misinterpreted it.

Sport itself is not considered an essential good. It can get annoying bringing economics into it but I think that students (bearing in mind particular characteristics e.g cost conscious, time conscious) would be responsive to price changes. I know I would if I were to undertake sport. In a simple supply and demand model with the assumption that sport at uni has an elastic demand, if the price goes up, demand goes down.

 

[Collin]

One point I raised about the whole notion of university sports and obesity was the fact that many people who participate in university sports were already active pre-enrolment and many people who are obese would out of all activities, avoid places like team and competitive sports, due to self-esteem issues or whatever. For this matter, obviously university sports may not be that relevant to obesity. I think if anything, the vast majority of people who join university sports tend to already be within or near the optimal weight range (I hate using BMI since it's often quite inaccurate when dealing with muscular men or people with higher bone density) and just do it for the sake of having fun. I have no problems with that, but of course the whole issue was to do with obesity and for that, again I just don't find university sports a strong enough performer against obesity to warrant myself unloading that much money each year.

 

[Generator]

No news article, but I just heard on 702 that the VSU bill may be rushed through the parliament before the year is out, no matter (or possibly in light of) Joyce's position (along with however many other pieces of legislation).

 

[walrusbear]

how annoying

to change to direction of this thread away from this sport and obesity argument; could some pro-VSU supporters justify why the universal payment system in itself is inferior to user pay??
seems like the biggest pro-VSU argument is that the fees are too high for most students (the figure thrown around is $600, although that figure is slightly higher than the actual figure of the worst fees, at USYD) to get any benefit from them.
anyways, is there any real reason (aside from the ideological hatred of unions i'll see from the young libs) why VSU is better than a USU that enhances its services and lowers its fees??

 

[withoutaface]

how annoying

to change to direction of this thread away from this sport and obesity argument; could some pro-VSU supporters justify why the universal payment system in itself is inferior to user pay??
seems like the biggest pro-VSU argument is that the fees are too high for most students (the figure thrown around is $600, although that figure is slightly higher than the actual figure of the worst fees, at USYD) to get any benefit from them.
anyways, is there any real reason (aside from the ideological hatred of unions i'll see from the young libs) why VSU is better than a USU that enhances its services and lowers its fees??

People should not have to pay for services which do not benefit them. I never said it enhanced its services, it will merely weed out those which people do not value and leave those most important to the university community. This leaner service structure will lower fees.

 

[walrusbear]

People should not have to pay for services which do not benefit them. I never said it enhanced its services, it will merely weed out those which people do not value and leave those most important to the university community. This leaner service structure will lower fees.

when i wrote 'enhance its services' i was suggesting that the union itself refocus its spending to better serve students
anyways

i have real issue with this notion that 'people should not have to pay for services which do not benefit them'. to speak frankly it is a fucked perspective to take because it shows a willingness to ignore greater social conditions and focus entirely on the needs of the individual. in a sense it is narrow and self-centred, a highly foolish basis for poiltical policy. though i'm sure many will be happy not to pay at all, i hardly see why this is more valuable than the social benefits of collective strength.
my opinion anyways, i guess this is the ideological heart of the issue which we've been over a million times.

 

[Generator]

Nelson plans national student vote on VSU laws

Education Minister Brendan Nelson has come up with a plan that he hopes will ensure the passage through the Senate of his Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation.

He is proposing a national vote of students.

The VSU bill is due to be debated in the Senate late this week.

But a number of Coalition senators have indicated they will not support it in its current form.

Brendan Nelson wants to put the idea directly to the nation's 600,000 university students.

He is proposing to allow universities to poll their students on whether they want to pay fees for sporting and non-academic services.

The ballots would be overseen by the Electoral Commission and if a majority of students agree, the fees would be administered by the universities and not student unions.

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce is sceptical about the proposal.

"I think it's a little bit flawed in that not only must you have everybody vote, but you must also get the vote out to everybody who's about to go to university as well," he said.

"I imagine you should be going around the primary schools and the kindergartens because this bill will not only affect the facilities of universities now but will especially affect the universities down the track."

 

[walrusbear]

so would that mean if a majority of students vote 'no' then VSU will be forgotten??
and also, is voting compulsory??

 

[Generator]

By the looks of it VSU will be passed no matter what, it's just that a 'no' vote would mean that the universities will be responsible for levying and managing a services fee.

Edit: Given the wording of the article, a 'no' vote is likely to be one that brings in vsu in its entirety, so perhaps we should be voting 'yes' in favour of a universal services fee that is divorced from the student associations. It's much better than nothing, after all.