New terminology, same old rhetoric in TJ Editorial
The editors at the TJ have risen from their collective stupor and delivered a one-two punch to the university community on the pretence of defending the public interest in PSE (Freedom and responsibility 16 Jul 2008). Now that is a leap in logic, as they like to put it.
Beginning with an inflammatory and inaccurate allegation: “Freedom and accountability have become buzzwords” they proceed to statements such as “It sounds as though universities won’t settle for anything less than a blank cheque.”
A sarcastic response would go something like: “Where the hell is the money, never mind the blank cheque?”
The probability is that some artful financing is in the works, for example, the plan to convert Saint John College into an IALT under the auspices of UNBSJ. This arrangement would, we are told, divert monies earned from providing local businesses non-credit programs into UNBSJ coffers, but given the government’s miserliness in PSE these very riches (which would ebb and flow with the local economy) could be our undoing. Why would UNBSJ receive more baseline government funding if existing funds could be supplemented with those earned through the IALT? For all the promises of a more equitable funding formula, it is conceivable that this private-public partnership would undermine efforts to put UNBSJ on a firm financial footing, on par with public funding for other universities in the province.
Moving on, could anyone please tell me exactly what the Liberal version of being “accountable on an administrative level” is, and how “That’s a far cry from policing what professors say.”
Yeah, yeah, I know the government wants five-year strategic plans and a curtsey from the presidents annually, but what does that really mean?
Does it mean:
- That only programs that are teaming with students and/or demonstrably linked to the political and economic vitality of the province be funded?
If so, does that mean that ecommerce programs will have to retool so as to focus on e-porn – one of the most successful businesses online? Or perhaps, BBA students should major in online scams, online fraud, online crime, or… casino management-another, apparently, major economic initiative in the province.
- That programs offered elsewhere in the province, in the region, in the country, in the world! need not be duplicated here-since doing so would mean that New Brunswickers (and, I repeat, the taxpayers of Canada) would be wasting money on PSE that could be accessed elsewhere-or online.
Why waste time teaching 18th century philosophy, or the humanities in general? Who needs it? Moreover, anyone with a yen for such esoteric stuff can access it by going off to one of those “elite” universities that other governments have the luxury of funding, or through E-Education-the next brave new world.
- That the government really means it intends to “cut the fat” at the administrative level-since now the emphasis has shifted away from the “fat cat” professors to the “fat cat” administration. I’m being sarcastic of course since the government loves bureaucracy and intends to add layers of new bureaucracy/administration to the PSE system.
But lets face facts, the TJ does perhaps speak for some out there who think that the university is simply a haven for people who couldn’t make it in the “real” world and that those ill-equipped people are over paid for being square pegs in round holes. While some individuals have no trouble defending their income-for example, physicians who are in short supply in this province, or accountants and lawyers whose billable hours are the stuff of legend, or engineers who are needed to design the hydra-like New Brunswick transportation network or nuclear power plants-but how do individuals whose work is ridiculed as useless defend receiving a paycheque at all? I can only say that it is common knowledge that salaries at Maritime universities are lower than those elsewhere in Canada, but that probably doesn’t appease the critics who will counter with but the cost of living is lower. I’m pretty sure that our administrators are also paid less than those “out west” as well, but that is a matter of conjecture since UNB did not provide that information to MacLean’s for its annual university issue.
The terminology used by the editors suggests they recognize that education is an investment rather than an expense, but their comments betray the fact that their views have not changed with the terminology: For example,
“New Brunswickers aren’t funding universities as charity thinktanks. They’re trying to create stronger communities and economic opportunities.” [and] “Being accountable means justifying the ongoing public investment. Has public funding helped New Brunswickers secure meaningful careers? Has it generated research that extends public knowledge or produces tangible benefits? Are graduates as skilled as their peers elsewhere? If not, what are administrators going to do about it?”
Our universities are open to all takers-those from New Brunswick, the region, the nation and beyond-and this is the nature of all Canadian universities. And this is how it should be.
Aside from the principle of universal access, Canadian taxes pay for much of what goes on in our universities and so it is that they are open, public institutions.
That students leave universities to go on to “meaningful careers” has been well established. That New Brunswick universities are charged with ensuring New Brunswick students graduate to meaningful careers is an entirely different matter and is not commensurate with university mandates elsewhere. Is it the responsibility of Dalhousie to ensure that Nova Scotian students obtain meaningful careers? McGill to ensure Quebec students obtain meaningful careers? University of Toronto to ensure Ontario students obtain meaningful careers? You get the drift.
Moreover, what the H E double hockey sticks do the editors mean when asking “Are graduates as skilled as their peers elsewhere?” Of course there are skills learned (or improved upon) at university-reading and writing being prime examples. In the main, however, we are about thinking. This is not about charity. Thinking is key to the human condition.
They also ask “Are graduates as skilled as their peers elsewhere?”
Some are, some aren’t and the same could be said in the reverse. I suppose this particular question could be applied to some of the applied programs, for example engineering and nursing, but for most of us at the university skills training is not our niche. Moreover, where skills training is an issue, accreditation by external, self-governing bodies (eg. Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the Canadian Bar Association) is a key determinant of standards.
The TJ conveys the notion that universities are completely independent agents, responsible to none, behaving arbitrarily. This is simply not true and the editors should cease and desist from perpetrating such inaccuracies.
Excellent dissection of a poorly thought out and misinformed/misinforming editorial.
Perhaps we should email the editorial board the Mission and Purpose statement of the U of T for some life-long learning at the TJ!
This is the letter I’m sending to the Telegraph:
To the Editor,
The word university means “an institution of learning of the highest level.” You would be hard pressed to find words like “economy,” “career,” and “skills” in most definitions or sources. Yet, to use the Telegraph’s vocabulary, these are the “buzzwords” that flow from the PSE reports, and now, conveniently, are being used in the newspaper too. Naturally, a prospective university graduate hopes to land a career in his or her field of interest, but the overriding concern remains: under the banner of “being accountable,” what criteria will the government use as justification for a program, course, or department to continue? Will it be enrolment numbers? The cost of the course? Or, as is feared, its relevance to an existing workforce need?
Attacking university presidents and faculties (”Freedom and Responsibility,” July 16, 2008), the editorial staff of the Telegraph-Journal asks, “Has public funding helped New Brunswickers secure meaningful careers?” This is an excellent question, but should not be converted into blame as to what offerings universities do or do not provide prospective students. Securing “meaningful careers” only applies if a student opts to create some kind of self-employment upon graduation (since opportunities for meaningful post-university careers are currently lacking).
Thanks to chronic underfunding, fewer university graduates have been able to remain within the province’s university system (to become future professors, for example). The exodus of graduates from Saint John to find university-educated opportunities will grow if the province remains unable to offer careers for students seeking employment in fields of interest outside of energy hubs. Will the non-trades-based jobs that past, present, and future university students have been waiting for ever be created? If the intent is to be “student-focused,” and to prepare New Brunswick students to contribute to the province’s economy, then desirable jobs must be available for both college students and university students, not solely the former.
And so we return to “university,” an unspoken word for months and months at a stretch by the actual minister of post-education (even then, it was a “university presence”). While we waited for comments — or even basic discussion — on this important word, UNBSJ suffered damage on P.R., financial, and enrolment levels, for which no apology or compensation has been offered.
When Ed was finally forced to release the latest PSE report, less than a fifth of the estimated required budget was allotted to the entire PSE system. According to the T-J, those who oppose this announcement are indicting themselves. How this can insultingly be compared to “not settling for anything less than a blank cheque” escapes me.
No one doubts our colleges are in need of support; however, the post-secondary education minister announced that he refuses to have any further consultation on a subject which, frankly, he has yet to openly discuss. Surely the role of our universities and of a “student-focused” university education deserves examination. The editors at the Telegraph disagree, dismissing the arguments raised by the university faculties. Perhaps, though, it’s their own faculties that require further examination.
Jay Rawding
Student, UNBSJ