So there is talk about the government permitting universities to charge a compulsory non-academic fee of up to $250 for the purpose of funding student services and amenities.
Student unions might or might not get any of the money. It seems likely that the intention is that they will, but at unimelb, most of the services are run by the university, rather than a student association. However, a student association itself is a kind of service or amenity. Student unions, sports associations and student clubs lend themselves very much to the university in its marketing and educational goals. The university would be behind its competition if all it could say in its marketing was, "We provide classes... and if you get upset we have counsellors. There is nothing else to do on campus except study." Students would look at another university who was saying, "We provide classes and when you're not in class we have clubs and societies where you can meet other interesting students and do things that are fun and exciting. Many of our graduates keep in contact with the networks they establish at university as friends or business partners."
This is the campus culture argument. For VSU, there are things like the self-interest argument (why should I pay for things I don't use), the responsible management argument (student unions waste money), the anti-political argument (student unions spend money on political campaigns) and the freedom of association argument. The self-interest argument is knocked down by the taxation argument (let's stop paying for hospitals because we don't get sick) and the anti-political argument is challenged by the fact that student representatives are elected.
The responsible management argument crops up from time to time because student reps waste money or are corrupt, as if that never happens in big business, government or universities.
The freedom of association argument is also flawed because VSU legislation did not cover all institutions in higher education and requiring students to be members of a student organisation is not the same thing as charging a compulsory non-academic fee. For example, a services and amenities fee could be used to provide services and amenities completely independent of any student association.
For me it boils down to a matter of whether the university is expected to be a mere degree shop or if there is supposed to be life outside the classroom. If it is the former, then we should give up our student unions, sports associations, counselling, health, disability and volunteering services and spend all of the money on books and online lecture slides.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
From VSU to SSF
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Commerce Student Subject Choice Drops 18.6%
A comparison of the subjects offered to Commerce students in 2007 and 2009 reveals that Commerce students have lost 40 of the 140 subjects offered in 2007. This accompanies the creation of just 14 new subjects leaving a net loss of 26 subjects. The worst hit areas are Economics, which had a net loss of 8 subjects and Management and Marketing which had a net loss of 9 subjects. Business Law is no longer offered to Commerce students, resulting in a loss of 4 subjects.
To suffer a net loss of 26 subjects, represents a reduction in student subject choice of 18.6%, which means that students in 2009 have had their subject choice reduced by nearly one fifth. It is rather sad that the Commerce, which has the highest proportion of full fee international students, has made such drastic cuts to its offerings. The education of the University of Melbourne's Commerce students has clearly been compromised.
---
Update:
See comments, a commerce student points out the flaws in the comparison which bring the net loss of subjects much lower.
Update 2: Of 117 subjects in 2007, 9 were lost, a decrease of 7.7%.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Faculty of Arts Handbook Analysis
In The Age today there is a discussion of the financial cost of the government's cuts to domestic undergraduate full fees.
Let's take a moment to look at the difference between the 2007 and 2009 subject offerings in the Faculty of Arts and take.
Arts Majors in the 2007 Handbook that have not be listed as available to B. Arts students in the 2009 Handbook:
American Studies,
Ancient Greek,
Archaeology,
Architectural History,
Astronomy,
Biology and Botany,
Business Law,
Catalan, Chemistry,
Classical Studies and Archaeology,
Computer applications in the Social Sciences and Humanities,
Computer Science,
Development Studies,
Earth Sciences,
English as a Second Language,
English Language Studies,
Communication Skills,
Environmental Studies,
European Studies,
Gender Studies,
Global Issues,
Management,
Mathematics and Statistics,
Modern Greek,
Music History,
Physics,
Planning and Design,
Portuguese,
Social Work subjects, Social Work,
Socio-Legal Studies,
Theology,
Media and Communications,
Creative Arts,
Public Policy and Management (Honours).
Monday, September 1, 2008
SUPRA takes on the Melbourne Model
SUPRA has published a critique of the Melbourne Mode in the latest edition of Honi Soit. It raises standard points, such as income support, public transport concession cards and the exploitation of students for fee-income.
But most interestingly, it discusses USyd's SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, coincidentally its acronym is a homophone of the acronym for Special Weapons and Tactics). USyd apparently thinks that it is already pretty good at offering graduate entry programmes and even has some initiatives in place to offset some of the problems of postgraduate study, such as access to income support.
The Melbourne Model seems to be receiving a somewhat icy reception in Australian Higher Ed. It is generally a feared thing in popular press and opinion thanks to its association with subject cuts, staff cuts and blatant money-grabbing. The only university that seems to be considering copying it is UWA and it is my estimation that they will be going for something subtly but significantly different.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Centrelink Weddings
So the NDA happened and wasn't as bad as it could have been; in fact, it was actually quite good.
I Olivia, take thee, Rupert, to be my legally-wedded husband, to have and to hold you whenever a government official is nearby, for better or more likely for worse, for richer or more likely for poorer, in sickness and in health, to support, witness and co-sign all Centrelink applications, until graduation do us part, and be thankful we figured out how to work the system.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Shopping List
So, there is a National Day of Action next week. It is, as usual, demanding a shopping list, which I will proceed to critique in order.
1. NO FULL FEES: Over 60 undergraduate degrees now cost over $100, 000. Universities can now offer unlimited full-fee places. We demand that the government abolish this inequitable, user-pays system in favor of more accessible education.Full fees are an important part of the income of Australian universities. To take it away without replacing it with adequate commonwealth funding is ridiculous. Besides, the government is already phasing these out and universities are already moving into a more defensive stance. Has anyone seen the size of lectures lately?
2. SCRAP VSU: Hundreds of vital student services have been destroyed or at risk because of anti-student organization legislation. Make sure that you have a voice, and that your campus is more than a degree factory – demand the Government scrap Voluntary Student Unionism.While I'm not a big fan of VSU, I don't think that the anti-VSU campaign has been built well. The average student isn't seeing their troubles tying into VSU - they probably don't use any of these services anyway. Student services are designed to help the disadvantaged which makes them, more or less by definition, 'unpopular'. (By this I mean they appeal to a small 'market' of students)
3. DECREASE HECS: Australian students now pay the second highest fees in the OECD after the 2007 25% increase. Students graduate with crippling levels of debt, up by 1100% since the 1990s. We demand that the government reduce HECS to more equitable levels.Good luck.
4. END STUDENT POVERTY: 1 in 8 students miss a meal regularly because of lack of money. 1 in 2 students report that their studies are adversely affected by financial stress, and over a third of students work more than twenty hours a week. We demand that the government make Youth Allowance, AusStudy and Abstudy fair and accessible.This is a good point. Unfortunately, NUS leaves the best till last where it can be ignored easily. It is also unlikely to be successful, given that the government isn't exactly showering education and youth with money right now. Still, I suppose it is good to raise the point.
The shopping list protest model of student activism continues to disappoint. The only issue here that really deserves a protest might be student poverty, but the rest deserve more careful and considered lobby work. Perhaps it is because by the time a student ends up in a position of power in NUS they're so old and disconnected from the average student that they really have no idea who it is they're supposed to be representing.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Objects of Envy
Sometimes it is hard to figure out why the top US universities attract so much attention, so much discussion and so much longing. A lot of Australian commentators have a thing for them. UWA DVC Donald Markwell certainly did in his book A Large and Liberal Education, former UoM VC Alan Gilbert did if John Cain and John Hewitt are to be believed in Off Course: From Public Place to Market Place at Melbourne University. So today, I picked up a copy of The Age and on the front cover is 'Homeless Crisis at Top University'. "She [Denise Bradley] revealed the push [to overhaul Youth Allowance and Austudy] as the vice-chancellor of Melbourne University, Glyn Davis, said 440 students were in effect homeless, "hot-bedding" with relatives or friends because they could not afford their own residence.
So, after reading that and being rather disappointed by the lack of review for HECS, I got home and opened my RSS feed. The Harvard Crimson reports, 'Harvard Endowment Posts 9 Percent Return in 10 Months'. I'm not an economist, but 9% in 10 months looks pretty impressive to me. What does this mean?
...
But federal Education Minister Julia Gillard said yesterday the Government was unlikely to change HECS, despite calls, including from its architect, Bruce Chapman, for a rethink.""Harvard's endowment posted returns of approximately 9 percent through the first 10 months of this fiscal year, according to data from the University. The increase puts the endowment's value at around $38 billion as of this April, up from $34.9 billion as of last June."
Ok, so they made an extra 3.1 billion USD in 10 months, just from investment, not operation, just investment. What is UoM's annual turnover? Well, the 2007 Annual Report (pdf, 8.1mb) tells us that for the year ended 31 December, 2007, operating income was $1.433 billion (AUD of course) and the operating surplus was $96.246 million after tax. So there we have it in simple numbers. Top US universities are making more money from investments than top Australian universities are making in operations for an entire year. It is no wonder that those US universities are envied.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Science, Universities and Money
Nature News has recently reported on university conflicts of interest in both the UK and US. A UK study of universities have found raised questions about the accuracy of government statistics on defence-related research grants. Some universities were receiving as much as 5 million pounds to conduct defence-related research, with the money coming from both government and commercial sources. In the US, many top-level institutions have simply trusted their scientists to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.“It's an honour system,” says Robert Alpern, dean of the Yale School of Medicine. “We rely on the faculty to tell us the truth. And to be honest, up until a few months ago, I think we all thought they were telling us the truth.”
What can universities do to ensure that their researchers are declaring conflicts of interest? If asking them to fill in a form that asks questions about large sums of money doesn't work, then will interviewing them be any better, as Duke University hopes? Does it even matter?
These issues relate to some of societies big issues - weapons and drugs. If governments are turning universities into rats in an arms-race, then they aren't serving other purposes. [Scientists for Global Responsibility Consultant, Chris] Langley says that ultimately he believes higher education should spend less on improving the UK's weapons technology and more on research of benefit to society: “We have our priorities wrong,” he says.
One easy example of research that benefits society is the development of medicine - cures for cancer, vaccines for HIV. Healing, instead of killing. But conflict of interest can make this kind of research more of a danger to society than a help. Scientists know how to manipulate the conditions of a study to make a useless drug look like more like a miracle. By making the data fit the statistical requirements, or by using less robust methodology or just straight-out lying, an ineffective or even dangerous drug can make it to the market. Not only would it get prescribed, sold and consumed, but it would all happen with complete confidence. Patients would trust their doctors, doctors would trust the imprimatur of a good university. No one would know until it was too late.
Universities are in a constant bind. Corporate funding comes loaded with potential conflicts of interest. Government funding comes loaded with political bondage. Philanthropic funding is as fickle as the wealthy individuals who hand it out and many students are already being turned into an underclass of cheap easy-to-exploit labour with big debts thanks to tuition fees. Add an [un]healthy dose of globalisation and we have a problem that goes beyond who is being honest about where that $4 million came from...
Friday, April 25, 2008
"It's Harvard, Darling..."
Harvard is to receive very large sums of philanthropic support:
David M. Rockefeller ’36, the grandson of the famous oil magnate and a longtime Harvard benefactor, has donated $100 million to the University.It would be very nice to have an extra $2.5 million per year, with the promise of $100 million bequest. That kind of money could easily save the Faculty of Arts from its future budget deficit. But unfortunately, the extraordinary wealth and fundraising ability of Harvard is not making the implementation of Harvard's new curriculum of General Education, set to replace Rosovsky's Core, much easier.
[...]
Seventy percent of the gift will be devoted to international programs, and the remaining portion will be used to fund arts programs, The Times reported. Harvard will not receive the $100 million until Rockefeller's death but will receive $2.5 million per year until then, meaning that the total value of the donation could end up being well over $100 million.
The donation comes as the Committee on University Resources, which is composed of individuals who have given $1 million or more to Harvard, convenes at the Charles Hotel this weekend.
In fact, members of the Class of 2012 have to choose between the two curricula and many don't know what is going on:
Members of the Class of 2012 may need to decide between these two curricula early in their academic careers. Only 13 courses so far have been approved to “double-count,” or fulfill both Core and Gen Ed requirements. Nine double-counting courses will be offered next academic year.This sounds very familiar. It would be nice though, if someone, somewhere knew how to implement a curriculum review smoothly.
[...]
OUT OF THE LOOP
The Class of 2012 has received little information—if any—about the transition.
When incoming freshman Roshane B. Campbell of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. was asked about the curriculum change, he said, “I actually don’t know what’s going on.”
The 50-page Admissions Office brochure mailed to prospective students this year mentions Gen Ed once. On page 15, it reads, “The faculty is developing a new and distinctive program of General Education.”
