... to vote for the Liberal Party at the next election.
Why would I, as someone who aspires to be socially progressive, who has little time for the radical conservatism of neoliberals and who sees well-funded public education as ideal, be starting to consider the Liberal Party?
Well, simply put, incompetence.
So there was the Education Revolution that isn't. Laptops in schools are a waste of money, especially if the schools don't even have the infrastructure to maintain and use them (mostly for the very productive purpose of watching videos and otherwise wasting time).
Not to mention the whole abolition of Domestic Undergraduate Full Fees which has taken $27 million straight out of the University of Melbourne.
And at a State level, we have a transport minister who isn't interested in transport. As someone who nearly got doored while riding my bike today I say, "Thanks for nothing Labor."
There was Rudd's rather silly response to the whole Henson affair.
And now there is this (via Hoyden About Town) rather sorry affair on how same-sex couples will get short-changed by Labor's attempts to end discrimination against them.
So, I'd rather have a competent government that I can occasionally win concessions from rather than an incompetent government that undermines progressive social causes through clumsiness.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Please Stop Enouraging Me...
Thursday, November 6, 2008
From VSU to SSF
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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Culture?
So it has been a month since I last posted anything here. A lot has happened.
There was this interesting piece in The Cambridge Student where a member of the drinking society goes to a 'fresher swap' and explains how selection for the swap works: "During the lull in proceedings just before the curry arrived, they began to press me for answers as to their selection, and encouraged by their responses to some of my anecdotes, along with the effects of several pints, I leant forwards and confided (with a knowing smile and a wink) that they had in fact been picked straight from the fresher's facebook group, by virtue of their aesthetic qualities and whether or not they looked "fun" (translate: easy).
This is an interesting comment on student culture in higher education institutions. What do we really mean when we talk about student culture? Is this the kind of thing we are referring to? Is student culture for the most part just free sausages, beer, chlamydia share-parties with the occasional theatre production (complete with almost nude actresses) to give it that icing of dignity?
...
Cambridge gets away with a lot under the pretence of tradition, and perhaps we could all do without this bizarre and laughable need of some people to set themselves apart as the social elite within an already elite university."
In other news, the York University Student Union is to lobby for a 24-hour library. This is the kind of thing that would probably only work at a residential university. Can you imagine a student taking the 1030 train on to campus to hang out in the library until at least 6 am before they can return home?
Marc Bousquet also writes some excellent commentary about the higher education quality cult and the problem of what seems to be the US-equivalent of a hyper-casualised academic workforce.
The second article is particularly relevant to the University of Melbourne. The university is happy to cut permanent staff and rehire them as casuals, essentially forcing people off real contracts and on to dodgy ones. It undermines their rights as workers and tells them how much the university really cares about the teaching and research they do (not a lot). The student unions and associations are more or less powerless to stop the trend since the university will just claim that it is an HR issue and refuse to talk any further. Bousquet argues that it is only when the untenurable reach positions of leadership that the situation will change. It is only through autonomous action that the casual staff of UniMelb can win decent conditions. They soon will be, if they aren't already, in the majority. All they need to do is realise it.
It is a little depressing really. How on earth do these people expect students to get a reasonable education and to engage with the campus if the only staff we encounter are casuals or sessionals? Casual staff means casual engagement and it is rather hypocritical of the educationalists and executives to casualise their academic workforce on the one hand and then whinge about the casualisation of student engagement.
Friday, August 8, 2008
USyd News
So, semester 2 has started and I'm behind on my reading already. Apart from my course-related reading, I've failed to notice not one, but two editions of Honi Soit being launched. 814 has a few very amusing articles and I'm yet to get to 815... So USyd has a new VC, which 814 satirises as being obsessed with Oxford. I know the feeling, everyone is obsessed with Oxford, it's a prerequisite for heading up an Australian college or university. US Ivy League obsessions are merely supplementary compared to the Oxford obsession.
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...
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
News
The University of Sydney land-grab shuts down a mental health institution Rozelle Hospital, reports Honi Soit.
The University of Manchester Vice-Chancellor Alan Gilbert (former University of Melbourne VC) has responded to criticism in Student Direct. The Reclaim the Uni pressure group has staged protests, including an occupation and disrupting a meeting.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Facebook Fines
The Friday, April 25 edition of Varsity reports that Oxford University Proctors are fining students using photographic evidence on facebook:
"Following complaints of antisocial
behaviour amongst students from University staff and members of the public, proctors made
the decision to browse students’ profiles in order to identify those who have breached University
rules. Emails which cite links to incriminating photos on Facebook are then sent to students to impose fines ranging from £80 to £500.
[...]
Whilst the University states that “the fines collected each year go towards a good cause within the University”, the Student Union claims that the amount collected in the last year rose by 465% to £11,065."
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Arts Forum and the Press
This afternoon the University of Melbourne Student Union and University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association held a forum regarding renewed cuts to the Faculty of Arts. Dean of Arts, Professor Mark Considine was in attendance to answer the questions of undergraduates, postgraduates and many tutors.
Some highlights:
1. Voluntary redundancies - increasing workloads, stressing out staff and making working conditions inhospitable surely make getting rid of people easier.
2. Several casual postgraduate students and tutors related their experiences of not receiving proper training or pay.
3. One student asked if this wasn't violating the university's contract to provide the degree she was enrolled in.
At the beginning of the forum, Considine made a remark about the forum being in-house. This lead to an Age journalist being asked to leave. This shows how eager the university is to control its image and its lack of commitment to transparency. The general public is a stakeholder in the university, which is partly government funded:1.9 [The university] is accountable to the wider community, particularly in Melbourne and Victoria, but also nationally and internationally, for advancing the economic, social, educational and cultural welfare of society.
The public clearly has the right to know about what goes in the University of Melbourne and its Faculty of Arts, yet this makes it quite clear that Arts and the broader university have no such intention of doing this.
In a similar way, it is accountable to its current students:1.7 To its current students, the University must account for its responsibility to provide a rich teaching, leaning and research training environment in which support services and infrastructure are of the highest possible quality.
So if the Faculty of Arts is happy to ignore its responsibility to account to the wider public, how can students trust that it is upholding its responsibility to account to students?
