All Posts Tagged With: "B.C. Universities"
B.C. dysfunctional on higher ed
Splitting education department is no master plan, it is a symptom of incompetence
Danielle Webb has already covered the BC government’s bizarre decision to change the Ministry of Advanced Education into the Ministry of Regional Economic and Skills Development (for Colleges) and the Ministry of Science and Universities (for, you guessed it, universities). And I’m quite comfortable labeling it as bizarre, if only because everyone else seems to also.
“Post-secondary education is a collaborative field but, to get the most out of that collaboration, you need to have a single minister responsible for the entire system,” said Cindy Oliver, president of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. “Our concern is that dividing those responsibilities between two Ministers may well detract from the kind of collaboration that we think is necessary and possible.
For her part, the new minister, Ida Chong, said “Science and universities are really going to be an important part of our economic future going forward,” which is true, but also a pretty hilarious non-justification for the two portfolios being together (example: Technology and Tourism are important parts of BC’s economic future, so why not make them one ministry? Oh right, it’s because they’re two separate things).
Anyway, Danielle analyzed the decision under the assumption that the government had a plan in this restructuring that could have long-term ramifications for how governments view post-secondary education. And that’s possible. But here’s another theory: The provincial government did this because it doesn’t know what it’s doing with post-secondary education.
In 2008, Paul Wells described the post-secondary file in BC as “a spiraling helldive of disaster”, and that was before a cut of over $16 million in aid programs for students last year. They’ve turned a number of regional colleges into universities, and invested heavily in graduate and research funding, but haven’t given the file anywhere near full attention over their nine years in office.
And if they’re suddenly going to change that, why have Ida Chong in charge of it? Since 2001, she’s been Minister of Healthy Living and Sport, Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, Minister of Community Services, Minister of Advanced Education and Minister of State for Women’s and Seniors’ Services. In other words, someone who gets shuffled from minor file to minor file.
With the Liberals currently languishing with Mulroneyesque numbers in the polls, the government is throwing things at the wall (Tax cuts! Full-day kindergarten! Cabinet Reshuffles!) at the wall and seeing what sticks.
So yes, this could all be part of some master plan to re-conceptualize the role of the universities in today’s knowledge economy. Given the care and attention—or lack thereof—lavished on post-secondary education by this government though, I doubt it.
UPass hits a bump in the road
One contract for all B.C. students causing friction
Back in June, the BC government announced, with great bravado, that a province-wide transit pass would be available to all post-secondary students for $40 a month. Politicians get to look sustainable, students save a buck. A slam-dunk, right?
Er, no.
The deal is contingent on a) Students voting in favour of the pass via referendum, and b) Student unions signing off on the contract between them and the government. A contract which, as of now, will require all students to pay for the pass, whether they use it or not. And in the case of Kwantlen University, both issues are at play right now, which has caused them to miss a deadline for having the transit pass implemented by January.
Causing tension is the fact that transit to and around Kwantlen’s mutiple campuses in the Fraser Valley can be quite scattershot, to put it mildly. In September, students raced on bike and foot to beat buses that went between the school’s Surrey and Langley campuses—and the buses lost.
Naturally, students wonder if paying $40 a month for a system they may not be inclined to use is actually worthwhile, and there’s a push to allow Kwantlen students to be able to opt out of the plan if they want. However, the government wants one contract for all post-secondary institutions, which is causing some friction, according to the Georgia Straight.
No doubt this will eventually get resolved—but it will be interesting to see if the provincial government budges on this, or whether intra-student union solidarity will break first.
B.C.’s next university?
College of the Rockies gets degree granting authority
British Columbia has added another name to its extensive list of degree granting institutions. College of the Rockies (COTR) has been given the go-ahead to offer a Bachelor of Business Administration in Sustainable Business Practices, president Nick Rubidge announced last week.
The four-year program, that begins in September, combines a COTR diploma in accounting, marketing, or general business, with courses from the arts and sciences. Students will complete online specialization courses in their upper years either through COTR or another institution that has agreed to partner with the college, such as Thompson Rivers University and Athabasca University. Fourth-year courses will contain an applied sustainability focus.
According to the Cranbrook Daily Townsman, Rubidge says that a focus on sustainability is necessary as businesses are increasingly expected to consider the environmental impacts of their operations. “I see the skills of our graduates being used in a whole variety of businesses, not just a niche in environmental business, but in all businesses. All business practices need to start by building a business model that includes sustainability and environmental issues,” he said.
Entering the league of degree granting institutions has been a COTR goal for years. “Becoming a degree-granting post-secondary institution is not an easy task. There are many standards, evaluations and criteria to meet, and the process takes years,” Rubidge said.
U-Pass: A gift to students or evidence of a ‘nanny state’?
At a cost of $20-million, the UPass is no longer about post-secondary affordability
When British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell announced the creation of a universal $30/month transit pass for all post-secondary students in the province yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Students applauded the move.
“The U-Pass is an investment in the next generation, in the economy and the environment,” Nimmi Takkar, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students–BC was quoted as saying in a press release. “This program is going to make a major difference in students’ lives and go a long way towards building a transit culture in British Columbia.”
Just as fast as the CFS media machine cranked out its press release, opponents to the move started decrying the U-Pass announcement as a draconian, paternalistic move typical of our “nanny state.” One reader who responded to On Campus’s news story argued that “students are forced to pay whether they ride the bus or not” despite Translink’s “crappy” service, and who the hell are you anyways to tell me I shouldn’t drive my car?!
Such critics are right about one thing: the policy is not so much allowing students to “access” affordable transportation as it is compelling them to buy in. Nevertheless, none of the schools will sign on until the U-Pass is approved through a student referendum. Although I’m sure it’s annoying for car-loving, suburb-dwelling students out there to be outnumbered by their more green-conscience colleagues, that’s how our democratic society works–so live with it.
The U-Pass isn’t a new idea, but this announcement marks an interesting deviation from the original intent of the program that is worth noting. Originally, the program was intended to be revenue-neutral; basically, Translink would add up its cost of providing transit to a campus then split that cost among the students of that school, regardless of whether they took the bus or not. Translink didn’t make any money off the deal, but they didn’t lose any either. In essence, non-transit-using students subsidized the cost of a transit pass for everyone else. This is why negotiations for U-Passes at other colleges and universities in the Lower Mainland broke down; while the economics of the program made sense at big schools like UBC and SFU, the cost per student was significantly higher elsewhere, and student unions there wouldn’t accept the higher cost.
And so yesterday’s announcement represents a major shift in the philosophy of the project. The $30/month U-Pass is set to cost the provincial government some $20 million. No longer is this a revenue-neutral feel-good program, but a significantly expensive one. And, if this is truly about lowering expenses for students, it’s worth considering whether that $20 million would be better spent on, say, provincial needs-based grants.
But that argument is moot. Because the reality is that the U-Pass program is no longer about affordability, if it ever was, but about promoting a shift towards the “transit culture” Takkar refers to in the CFS release. Using economic means to push people into making more environmentally-friendly choices is par for the course here in B.C., where the country’s first carbon tax was implemented and where car-drivers have long subsidized transit through Translink’s gas tax.
My point is that this program should be recognized for what it is, rather than congratulating ourselves for supporting broke students. And that’s where The Province newspaper hits the nail on the head: “But why should students be singled out? Why is a 19-year-old university student any more worthy of government support than another 19-year-old starting out in life in a job? If the aim is to promote post-secondary education, a more direct way is to further subsidize tuition.”
If we accept the notion that the U-Pass isn’t the best way to subsidize post-secondary education, then the question becomes: is it fair to force students to purchase transit passes that they may not use in the name of promoting transit? Is it appropriate for universities to administer a fee that is fundamentally driven by the desire to shift society?
I don’t have the answer to those questions. But, for the record, I rode my bike to the office today in the rain.
