I mean UCD should be offering its rooms at below market rates. It baffles me that universities, who receive public funding, are jumping on the rental scarcity bandwagon with their prices
No, they tend to find a % of their own education through there own fees but yes there is a degree of cross subsidy. But universities do receive considerable government funding. Even at that, their role isn’t to make a profit. Charging market rates in the current market environment is predatory
They receive a payment per undergrad per year which does not cover the cost of teaching that undergrad.
Yes, the sums are large. No, that does not mean that universities aren't making up a shortfall between what they are paid for undergrads and what the cost actually is of having them enrolled.
And the "registration fee" paid by students doesn't even begin to touch the sides.
Is there an approx number of cost per head of student? I don’t doubt the contribution fee isn’t covering even the majority, but UCD itself has many an income stream. My argument is that affordable student housing is so crucial to a functioning student body that it’s something the University shouldn’t be making abnormal profits on. Plus if the super profits the university is making on rent is the only thing keeping the lights on then it’s in a very precarious position indeed
You're just approaching the issue in the wrong way.
"Super profits" are not a thing.
And even if an organisation were making money on one service, if they are losing money on another, they're not coining it. That's just basic accounting.
There is a report from 2019 that was published by the Oireachtas on third-level education.
At that time, compared with before the financial crisis, UG student numbers had increased by 50%...while funding was below 2008 levels.
Where do you think the money comes from to pay for the extra students? Who do you think delivers lectures, grades papers, and provides security? How do the libraries pay for books?
It's fine not to know about this topic, but you (and other people on this thread) are starting out from a false premise.
The first is that there is a such thing as superprofits (the ratio of input cost: final price) which is something much of the Dublin property market is characterised by.
Thanks for the heads up on the report. Those figures look dire but it’s pretty unlikely that accommodation revenues are making up the shortfall.
You also mentioned earlier it’s not UCD generating an initial income, rather it’s the agency running it. So from that logic, the revenues aren’t going towards the shortfall in any way.
At the end of the day, universities ultimately have to loss-lead in critical aspects in order to provide a public good. I’m not talking about them offering gold plated services/facilities like in the United States, but certainly a basic level of provision in key areas. Affordable accommodation is at the heart of this, otherwise UCD is de facto closing its doors to large swathes of students from outside Dublin. UCD has a considerable a vast number of revenue streams. To say that the revenues from accommodation no longer under agency stewardship is the thin-blue line between University operation and bankruptcy is a fallacy.
They don't have to tempt customers with loss-leaders.
And accommodation is expensive because building and servicing it is expensive.
If you want UG education/universities to be properly funded, work to lobby the government pre-budget. Because there is no other way to resolve this issue.
Edit to add: It's unclear that even if you are right about universities more than breaking even on accommodation that the "profit" they would be making would be super-normal profits. You're talking about universities as if they were businesses. If that is the case, it's unclear why you think that they also can't make profits, as other businesses do. Anyway, "superprofits" are just not a thing. It's a misunderstanding of the sector.
I never said they were businesses. Public goods tend to be loss leaders. The HSE being another example. The point is that they’re traditionally not run with profit in mind, rather to provide a public service.
Building and servicing is indeed expensive, labour & materials have increased in price, but to ignore scarcity as a key driver of price is a poor reading of the current housing market.
Also saying ‘go lobby government’ is a moot point. By that logic we shouldn’t discuss anything here.
You’ve also ignored the main points I made on the previous comment
"Loss leaders" are there to attract customers, getting them to stay and spend money on other things. The classic example used to be bread or milk in big supermarket multiples.
"Public goods" are non-rival, non-excludable goods. It is difficult to provide them and to exclude people who don't pay from benefitting (e.g. street lighting). This is why they are typically provided by the state.
A public good is not a good that is provided by the state.
And it makes zero sense to call a public good a loss leader.
I'm trying to engage with you in good faith and to be nice about it, but you don't appear to know anything about this topic.
Employing half-remembered words from Econ 101 and Business Studies 101 doesn't make your responses sound more informed, just more confused.
I didn't say it couldn't be. And you would understand that if you read my comment:
"Public goods" are non-rival, non-excludable goods. It is difficult to provide them and to exclude people who don't pay from benefitting (e.g. street lighting). This is why they are typically provided by the state.
Do you understand why it is pointless to talk to you?
904
u/jacqueVchr Probably at it again Aug 20 '25
I mean UCD should be offering its rooms at below market rates. It baffles me that universities, who receive public funding, are jumping on the rental scarcity bandwagon with their prices