Given the size of the budget cuts,
and the fact that they took the postsecondary sector apparently without warning,
the most recent announcement from the University of Alberta is not really
surprising. While the government of
Alberta has declared that it will not balance its budget on the backs of
students, the simple fact is that cuts to postsecondary funding will
necessarily impact students, by reducing access to services, by increasing
class sizes, by eliminating instructors, and by removing programs. This is simply because the core purpose of
these institutions is to educate students. The Edmonton Journal article simply provides
a snapshot of each of these implications as they take shape in one faculty in
one university (e.g. eliminating course sections, cutting funding for graduate
student teaching assistantships, eliminating faculty positions, and of course
suspending programs). Of course, similar
stories have been unfolding throughout the province in recent months.
These Faculty of Arts cuts
themselves are not surprising. However,
what has surprised me a great deal is that this recent news has touched a
nerve, at least in terms of activity on Twitter that uses the hashtag #abpse. I have been following this thread for many
months, and over the last few days two things have become apparent. First, there has been an explosion of the
number of tweets that use this hashtag.
Second, these tweets are coming from individuals who to my knowledge are
new to this discussion.
I am not sure why the recent
University of Alberta news has produced such a strong response. Perhaps with the new term approaching, more
students are paying attention to current events on campus. Perhaps the response is because this
announcement is from such a large Faculty at such a large institution. At any rate, I believe that the reaction to
the Arts news is healthy and important.
A close reading of the Edmonton
Journal article also surprised me, and tweaked a growing concern. Dean of Arts Lesley Cormack is quoted as
follows: “It’s important to recognize that this is good management of
programs as much as it is anything to do with budgets,” Cormack said Sunday.
“It’s unfortunate that it’s had to happen as quickly as it has. But the problem
is, if you do it slowly, it sort of never happens.” Of course, it is quite sensible that programs
be regularly evaluated, and possibly removed if they are no longer serving
their intended needs. However, Thomas
Lukaszuk, minister of Enterprise and Advanced Education, gives the sense that ‘program
evaluation’ is essentially simple economics.
According the Edmonton Journal, the Minister’s position is that “students
vote with their tuition dollars and have sent a strong message to university
administration”. In short, the Minister
apparently believes that the worth of a program is revealed by the number of
students it attracts.
In my mind, the Minister’s position is disturbing and
simplistic (but perhaps not completely surprising!). Just because a program attracts a small
number of students does not mean that it is not important. A broader perspective than just numbers is
required to properly evaluate a program’s importance.
A look at 20th
century history provides a good example of this. At the start of WW II, pure mathematicians
were few and far between (it is a complex and abstract field that does not
attract multitudes of students!), and largely ignored by British and American
military leaders. However, when finally
called upon by their governments, pure mathematicians made huge contributions
to the outcome of the war; they were responsible (for instance) for cracking
the German enigma code. Fortunately for all of us their programs weren’t cut because of budgetary constraints on
low enrollment programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment