We asked the Education candidates to come in for a video debate in the College Tribune office. Patrick Wolohan was not able to attend but Sam Geoghegan and Shane Comer took part.
You May Also Like
23 thoughts on “The Education Debate”
Comments are closed.
Why has Patrick Wolohan not been able to participate in anything which shows what type of candidate he is?
He did not go to Hustings and now this.
He is actively doing nothing now, he has done NOTHING as gender equality officer and I can only imagine what he would be like as an Education Officer.
I like my sabbatical officers to actively do something for students, or at least appear to, but Wolohan doesn’t seem to be capable of even this.
Hey Sinead
i’m just after reading your comment and felt that i should reply in order to clear a few things up. First things first , i will get to your comments about the hustings and the tribune interview today, I had every intention of attending the hustings on Thursday as i do not see the point of running a campaign where a candidate does not wish to advertise themselves and the reasons they believe that they should be elected to as large an audience as possible (otherwise its just an efficient way to waste a couple of hundred euro and lose a lot of sleep at the same time). Unfortunately due to reasons of an extremely personal nature i was unable to attend on Thursday, but only after i phoned both of my opponents and explained the situation to them and they both had no objections to me not attending (tor which i am extremely thankful to both of them). On the matter of today i was only informed of the interview at 2pm today and i happened to have other plans, You may not be aware of this but i am a final year student at the moment and have a large number of assignments due in for the next few week as well as 2 midterms ( 3 if you include the one i had today ) to study for and i had planned to do them all this weekend as i imagine i might be just a little busy next week , Because of this i have spent the last 8 hours writing about the sevillian school of painting ( which tbh hasnt been the best craic i’ve ever had ) . You seem to have several questions that you would like to ask me so i thought i’d just let you know in advance that i will be attending two hustings this Monday , one at 1pm ( venue yet to be confirmed) and another at 7pm in theatre L and you will have the opportunity there to ask me any Question that you would like to face to face. If however you cannot wait that long , my phone number is 0861683302 and my email is patrick.wolohan@ucdconnect.ie. If you would like to meet up and talk over the weekend , i would be more than happy to do that . Hope that this has been helpful Patrick xoxo
Sam keeps going on about how he “is the education officer” and this is why he is more experienced and the best man for the job and how he can “hit the ground running.” This is a joke of a point! If this was a valid point to stand on, the job would not be an elected position and someone would be hired to do the job. The position is not there to be a permanent position; you get in and get out and try as best you can to fulfil your manifesto promises which Sam clearly has not. An education officer of all people should realise that a year out of study is enough and should be eager to get back and finish their degree.
Sam keeps going on about how he “is the education officer” and this is why he is more experienced and the best man for the job and how he can “hit the ground running.” This is a joke of a point! If this was a valid point to stand on, the job would not be an elected position and someone would be hired to do the job. The position is not there to be a permanent position; you get in and get out and try as best you can to fulfil your manifesto promises which Sam clearly has not. An education officer of all people should realise that a year out of study is enough and should be eager to get back and finish their degree.
Fair play to Wolohan for coming out and responding to this comment. Met the lad for the first time in the arts block on Thursday. I found him to be eager but most of all very approachable. I haven’t had any dealings with Sam so I won’t comment on his ability but I found Shane Comer to be quite condescending.
An education officer should be approachable at all times when students wish to bring their respective issues. I could imagine going to Wolohan about my problems but to be honest I think Comer would just make me feel stupid for raising my concerns.
Anyway Monday should be interesting.
I agree with Kevin. Patrick Wolohan seems like the most genuine of the three. From looking through his manifesto I’d have to say that he has some great ideas. Not only are the ideas good but they’re definitely financially manageable. I met the lad for the first time about a month ago and he was telling me about his intent to run for the position. Since then, a minority of very narrow-minded people have been labelling him as a “joke-candidate”. My first impression of him was that hes just a lad who loves to have the craic, but sincerely cares about the position he is running for. I think it’s this blend of being a bit of a “Jack the lad” and his sincerity that would make him perfect for the job. He is undoubtedly approachable, genuine and unlike the other candidates, has the experience and knowledge required to make him the perfect man for the job.
I don’t know much about any of the candidates but I heard that Shane is only running for education because welfare would have been unattainable for him. That is a pretty poor reason to run for a position. It is no wonder that so many students have apathy for those who run in these elections.
On the other hand Sam had his term this year where he seems to have done an adequate job. Patrick I do not know much about but he seems to be getting good press here?
I will either vote for Patrick or Sam but I am leaning towards Patrick at the minute as that debacle over the books being thrown out happened under Sams watch. Patrick deserves his chance to show the student body what he can do.
What are the rumours about Patrick Wolohan being a sexually sadistic psychopath? My questions are serious.
I agree with Sarah that I did hear similar rumours about Shane wanting Welfare. Sam has had his term and should step down gracefully and not run again when he counts overseeing the change to Gmail in his experience when it had nothing to do with him.
I met Wolohan last week and I must admit I was surprised at how well he was able to sell himself to me. He’s an honest and genuine candidate who will be more than approachable next year if elected. It’s a shame he hasn’t been able to prove himself in the debates so far but he will be getting my number 1 vote nonetheless.
Is it true that Comer is only running for Education because he wouldn’t run against Micheál for Welfare? What a joke, I personally don’t want someone who hadn’t the bottle to run for the position they wanted to be fighting against cutback for me on all the boards they have to sit on. What a joke.
I personally am suprised that Patrick Wolohan has not been to the hustings or this debate either. I know both Shane and Patrick to talk to (Sam is quite anonymous in UCD SU life). As far as I know, Patrick is an approachable, down to earth lad who will try earnestly to get things done. Shane is hard working but have been put off by the rumours of him wanting to run for welfare.
Eunan, you are, are you not on Wolly’s campaign team?
Bit of a biased view.
It is true Shane wanted to run for welfare, one of my friends is heavily involved in welfare crew and Comer didn’t want to split the vote and didn’t think he could beat Micheál. His manifesto comes across as not having been researched very well and it’s not very education-y. It’s kind of like he wanted to run for Welfare or C+C but Education seemed like an easier race.I was in a lecture the other day and he had someone else lecturing adressing for him, I think yer man was the lawsoc editor? Seems unprofessional and shows a lack of committment to me. He has absolutely no experience and strikes me as someone who is running for a sabbatical position merely for the sake of it, rather than because he is passionate about our education or even vaguely interested in it.
Wolly seems like a lovely lad but I just don’t understand his motivation for running for this position. Education is arguably the most important position in the SU and under his experience he cites ” volunteered in an animal sheder[sic]” as being relevant experience for this job. I’m not sure which is worse, his delusion, his lack of experience, or his seeming lack of committment to the race. We don’t need a “jack the lad” for education; go run for Ents instead. And Gender Equality? Hah,don’t get me started. He described himself as the “worst officer in the history of the SU”…and I have to admit I’m not going to disagree.
Then finally there’s Geoghegan;the only one with any relevant experience… He’s had his flaws, the book shop debacle being one of them but at least he admits the year wasn’t perfect, admitting there was a “steep learning curve”. However I think the pros outweigh the cons. I’ve had Sam personally help with me an important and very sensitive issue and he helped me with the utmost professionalism and generally kindness. He’s definitely not been perfect but I think he’s done a pretty good jobs overall. I know that if I have another problem next year if its Wolly or Comer in that office I won’t feel comfortable going to them; I don’t trust them to mnage my degree any better than I can.
I think the point that sabats should only do a year is a valid point because it is not a permanent job but in the education office I disagree. There is so many obstacles to getting things introduced from the university that many times the education officer is gone when his plans are being implemented.
I have no experience with Wolahan at all, never seen him on campus, never heard a lecture adress. The only ones I’ve heard is name mentioned is people talking about how bad a term as gender equaity officer he had. I try not to base my opinions on that but at the moment he is trailing in my books. Maybe he’ll step it up this week however.
I’m not at all surprised that Comer wanted welfare! His manifesto reads like a C&C candidates and his arguments keep going back to being visible and getting students to come to you. Only a small number of students need the personal help of the education officer and committing so much time so that everyone else on campus knows who you are wil certainly waste time that could be spent far better.
For these reasons and the fact the Geoghegan is the only one with relevant experience (who could possibly be more experienced than the current officer?!) I will be voting for Sam and will encourage my friends to do the exact same!
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Wolohan was a bad gender equality officer. I hadn’t heard of Regina Brady when she was Woman’s Officer either.
I agree with Alice in that it’s extremely harsh to label Patrick as a bad Gender Equality Officer, and as for never having seen him around campus, I have encountered him being involved in numerous fundraisers and SU-related events over the past year. I don’t think for a second he see’s himself as a ‘Jack the Lad’ candidate…I think that was an attempt at humour.
I feel Sam has had a decent term as Education Officer but it’s hard to look past the recent book debacle. His experience in the role is obviously a plus for his campaign but Patrick is also experienced in the ‘ins and outs’ of the SU. Having spoken to him on Wednesday, he informed me that he has lived on campus for each of his years in UCD and is well experienced in dealing with Res. issues. Maybe it’s time for a fresh approach.
I hadn’t heard of Shane until last week and while he seems enthusiastic about the role, his manifesto doesn’t seem as feasible as either Patrick’s or Sam’s. I haven’t had the chance to talk to Shane yet but unless he has some amazing tricks up his sleeve, I can’t see him getting my #1 vote…
Alice, Wolly described himself as the “worst officer in the history of the SU”.
Speaks for itself no? Plus, why argue with his own, highly accurate evaluation.
And Regina ran a very successful “Pink Week”, she had women from all platforms of society on campus giving talks etc; , she also helped to co-ordinate a highly successful competition with The Marie Keating Foundation and Britvic; raising cancer awareness and 5 ucd students won oxegen tickets.
The complete air of ignorance coming of this thread is unbelievable.
“It’s unfair to label Wolohan as a bad gender equality officer.” Right, well it is obvious to see you all have your Wolohan t-shirts on then.
I am not involved in student union politics, but it is incredibly accurate to say Wolohan has been an absolute joke as part of the SU executive.
Who cares about Regina Brady, is she running for elections this year – NO. The attention from Wolohan is trying to be deflected to Brady in order to justify his utter failure this year.
Apparently Wolohan ran as a joke for gender equality officer, which I understand is only speculation, but the very fact that he has treated his position with so little respect highlights it was all a joke and he used his executive position as a platform to run for sabatical this year. I am only judging what I have seen. And I know Rachel Breslin had to single handidly organce gender equality week. This is Wolohan’s portifolio and he couldn’t even organise the one week which he had signed up to do.
I appreciate giving me your number and email address to contact you Patrick, but to be honest you just excused how you couldn’t attend hustings and how difficult your life is as a student cos you have so much college work to do. Welcome to the real world of being a student. It would have been nice if you addressed how poor your preformance was this year as oart of UCDSU executive.
@Sinead.
Hear hear.
So our choices for Education VP are the guy who wanted to run for Welfare, the “worst officer in the history of the SU” or the current VP who didn’t see the problem in dumping thousands of euros worth of books?
@Sarah M
I am surely. What difference does it make? I reckon i’m entitled to an opinion here sugarlips.
Alice, you have this completely right.
Fairly pathetic to be honest and what is even more upsetting is that a lot of people who are part of the “student movement” generally tend to be future “leaders” of our country. Gilmore, Rabitte et al.
What a horrible world.
I’d just like to set to address the issue of Patrick Woolohan’s perceived reputation of having done nothing over his past term as Gender Equality officer. I’d like to ask everybody to realise that alot of work is done behind the scenes by many of our officers particularily that of the Gender Equality Officer. I met Patrick last year as I had a problem relating to gender discrimination of a personal nature regarding my flatmates on Res. I felt uncomfortable and alone. Flicking through my student diary I spotted Patrick’s piece. I sent him an email and he promptly replied and organised a meeting. I went open minded to him ,not expecting much to be honest. I can sincerely say that although I felt uncomfortable talking to a male, Patrick was extremely warm and easy to talk to. He gave me some sound advice and put me in contact with other people that could help me regarding my issue. He spoke on my behalf to the accomodation Management and offered me practical advice on what courses of action I could take. He had a humility and eagerness about him that truely surprisied me. I think it is only when you are faced with a problem you realise the often hidden work that is done tirelessly by our Officers in the SU. I have met Patrick on a couple of occasions since and he always has time for a chat.He is a great people’s person and is so giving of his time. He handled my problem with a manner of utmost discretion and confidentiality. He also appeared well informed and intelligent. I don’t know Shane or Sam personally but have heard them speak.Shane doesn’t seem to have his heart fully in wanting the education role and I thin its time for Sam to step down I can truely say hand on my heart that given the selection of candidates Patrick would be a breath of fresh air and is extremely approachable and competent for the job. He is also taking a hundred euro a week pay cut and donating it to Welfare which is great to see in this time of recession when so many people need it. I’d urge people to come and see him speak tomorrow at teh hustings and make up your own minds.
@Sarah M, in reference to your support of Regina Brady’s running of the campaign for The Marie Keating Foundation and Britvic, that was actually a campaign (and very successful one!) done separately by Pat de Brun, as campaigns and communications officer, who was approached by a junior member of the Britvic team to increase sales in UCD.
There are flaws with both candidates’ arguments here, I think it was a shame Patrick Wolohan could not be present, but as he explained (and credit where it’s due for commenting!) he will be attending further Hustings next week.
Sam makes some interesting points but I can’t seem to see past the last year, where he hasn’t fulfilled much of his promises, only further engaged with his KBC cronies (who you will find loyally bullying everyone into voting for him, most likely in Newman!) and done little to prove he was worthy of the position. He seems to only shift into gear with elections approaching and knowing him in person still does not inspire confidence in me that he can overcome his FF background and social agenda. Also he proposes to make an iPhone app, that’s a brilliant idea, except wait, oh yeah there already is one!
Shane is also an interesting candidate, he inspires more confidence as I have high hopes that he is not in this for political ladder climbing and may not turn out to be full of ideas and words and little action as so many of our Sabbats have, however, and i can actually understand his desire to not run against ultimate jack-the-lad social climber Micheal for self-esteem reasons.
All in all this debate has confused me even more and I may just have to revert to Sam’s old enemy RON!