So, the Provincial Government is planning to implement a tobacco free campus initiative, and certain members of campus are just too overjoyed at this.
I currently sit on the committee which looks at Policy 15, which will be drastically revised to ban all sales of tobacco and tobacco related products from campus grounds. (Do I smell a lawsuit from Shoppers?)
Forgetting about the tyrannical aspect of this legislation for a second here, I simply do not see the point of its existence. This whole project only works if you presume that a smoker will quit smoking if this policy/and Provincial legislation is put in place. If there are people who actually believe this is going to follow, enlighten me as to how.
From my experience we will always find out where we can get smokes, even if we have to hop on a 17 and run to Safeway on Sasamat. So the whole effect of this is merely a redistribution of wealth to outside of the borders of campus grounds, and potential loss of a leases in the Student Union Building (ie Lucky Market) and University Boulevard (Shoppers). Well, maybe not Shoppers. Oh by the way, this will not make us stop smoking. Any arguments of trying to protect the non-smokers from second hand smoke therefore quickly degenerate.
This ideological crusade is a feeble attempt secondary to violating an individual's liberty. And it will also only pass legislature because the smoking population (15%) is a minority in BC. If this had applied to alcohol, there would be much greater objection.
Nevertheless, my final point is this: while we are driven by this benevolent mission to rescue people from their obvious health catastrophe (oh let me be your saviour, you misguided lamb), the very UBC members spearheading this with valor are conveniently forgetting the fact that their very pension plan is heavily invested in tobacco companies. While their entire life mission may be to make people quit smoking on campus, what they fail to address is their own deeply rooted systemic reliance on Tobacco companies.
(Timeline: this is going to Board on May 7, circulated around the community for "consultation", and then voted on at the next Board meeting.)
Saturday, March 31, 2007
An Ideological Crusade (or, a gross waste of my tax dollars)
Fridays
As I gaze longingly back at years of yore, reflecting on my precious half-decade involved at UBC, I can't help but notice the absolute depths to which campus community have plummeted. Seriously. Where are all the beer gardens?
I used to love beer gardens. Not because I'd get smashed, but because it was where the community happened. A bzzr garden wasn't about beer, it was about the roving community of people who'd hang out on Fridays, travelling the campus. I can say that, without hesitation, but for beer gardens I'd never have been elected to BoG. In all honesty, involvement in that social circle was that tiny bit of a foot in the door that got me involved in the orbit of campus politics.
I can't help but feel that those days are behind us. And I, for one, find that sad. Even more sad are the explanations I've come up with. (And yes, I do spend time worrying about this. For reals.)
- Admissions averages. Students have higher marks coming out of high school, and are expecting to keep them. Fridays are less beer-y, more study-y.
- Higher tuition, more loan dependency. Students are more likely to be working on Fridays or studying (because they were working on Thursday) or sleeping because they're exhausted.
- Pressure to get second degree. The first degree is becoming rapidly obsolete. Students feel the need to get into grad/law/med school, and that means higher marks.
- Police crack-down. Seriously. What gives? The cops showed up to every beer garden on campus in the first semester, creating a "chill" around future events. They're denying licenses and killing on-campus booze-based socializing.
- The "millennial" generation. Bzzr gardens are a starting off point for entrepreneurial fun. You really have to make your own, bzzr gardens were just a way to meet up and get started. The millennial generation are kids who like rules, need a little hand-holding, and are far more likely to go to a more formal party environment or structured social activity.
- Specialization of fun. Less affinity and sense of community to the institution as a whole, more with narrow friends. Probably a function of the combination of things above.
I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.
And the worst part? Grad, law, and med schools don't need more keener kids, they need well-rounded people with *gasp* social skills. And here's a tip - in the real world, people drink booze. Sometimes a lot. And college is probably as good a time as any to learn how to drink socially. It's way better than getting blasted on tequila in res.
I miss beer gardens.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of my posting this at 11pm on a Saturday. I'm in the middle of a paper. Bite me.)
Return of the Political?
Stephanie Ryan Photography
So I've been facebook-stalking the newly elected blood to AMS Council, and I think in general we have a good group. And with good I mean politically charged and fairly capable.
Aside from Amy Boultbee and Kate Power, the bunch seem fit to enter the AMS arena and add some interesting discussions to the AMS committees and the Council agenda.
Andrew Forshner is a debate hack (Tim probably knows him), and labels his political leanings as "moderate". My guess is he's one of those conservative-leaning Young Liberals of UBC. And you know what? While we would politically disagree on issues, I'm really happy he got elected. This is part of re-injection of political urgency.
AUS Election Results
Who won the AUS elections?
President
Stephanie Ryan (Incumbent)
VP Internal
Vicki Lindström
VP External
Tyler Allison
VP Finance
Michelle Yuen
Academic Coordinator
Stash Bylicki
Social Coordinator
Jeremy McElroy.
Student Services
Michael Serebriakov
Promotions
Ashley Pritchard
AMS Reps (7)
Jessica Hannon
Nathan Crompton
Amy Boultbee
Sam Heppell
Joel Koczwarski
(Kate Power????
Andrew Forshner???)
Senator
Erin Rennie
General Officer
Chris Chapman
Mike Jerowsky
Katherine McGill
Sarah Howe
Tom Lamb
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Knowledge Gap
I don't want to draw attention away from the post below. Read it, too. But that's why I've hidden this one behind a jump. But don't let that stop you from reading this one, either. Read it all! Just remember there's two new posts tonight. We're busy.
New Tidbits from Senate
The UBC Vancouver Senate met and here are some updates:
1. We just established five new Chairs in the UBC Institute of Mental Health, three of which were donated by the Sauder Family through a $10 Million endowment fund, matched by the provincial government: The Sauder Chair of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, SC in Geriatric Psychiatry and Depression, and SC in Psychotherapy.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
UBC on CBC radio! (X2)
I'm always on the lookout for UBC-related news in the mainstream media. And today, since I had the scholastically inauspicious displeasure of being sick as a dog at home, I had lots of time to mope around the house listening to CBC radio and doing not much else. To my happiness, two pretty interesting stories came up about UBC.
- UBC Food Systems Project - Senior Instructor in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems Alejandro Rojas was interviewed on the program BC Almanac by Mark Forsythe about this unique project. The project originated with the Faculty of Land and Food systems' desire to build the study of the local food system, particularly using the UBC Farm, into their curriculum. Thus, AGRO 450 students now study and do projects to better understand and to improve UBC's food system - of course, as a microcosm of the city's food system, and the world's food system as a whole. A variety of other organizations on campus collaborate in this somewhat hodge-podge investigation/effort, including the UBC Campus Sustainability Office’s SEEDS Program, UBC Food Services, the Alma Mater Society’s Food & Beverages Department, the Centre for Sustainable Food Systems at UBC Farm, UBC Waste Management, and UBC Campus and Community Planning. Dr. Rojas will be speaking on the topic of the UBC Food Systems Project at the Wosk Centre for Dialogue this Friday from 12-2 as part of the Imagine BC series there. I couldn't find details on the site, but there's contact info, and general info about the Imagine BC dialogues here (click!)for those interested.
There's a UBC reports piece here (click!) about the project too. Hopefully the AGRO 450 folks will have an official website in the near future.
- AMS Art collection - This one was on the BC reports news, or maybe the Afternoon Show (also on CBC radio, of course). Interestingly, a dime out of your student fees goes to maintaining and expanding a collection of art owned by the AMS. The collection used to be displayed regularly in Brock Hall and in the SUB gallery, but due to ebbing and flowing interest, plus the lack of secure gallery space around campus to display the valuable pieces most of them are now perpetually locked up in a safety vault away from culture-seeking eyes (taken out for airing a couple times a year). The original piece in the collection, Abandoned Village by E.J. Hughes was last appraised at $150 grand; the whole collection is worth between 6 and $800 000 at last appraisal (which was a while ago in the 80's). But, two recent purchases to the collection of contemporary photography reflecting the changing landscape of BC have reignited some interest in the art collection. Anyhow, our AMS president, and the current AMS art commissioner both spoke very nicely, and it was good to learn about something totally new about the AMS on the news!
An archive entry about the AMS art collection can be found here (click!)
Also, have a gander here at an oldschool Ubyssey from Oct. 31, 1957 containing a little piece on the then newly-established collection (left column on 4th page)
It's nice to see that some unique stories have been picked up by the mainstream media. Either this doesn't happen too often, or I'm not home sick all that often, but there's probably untapped potential for great communication between the mother corp, (and other media), and the AMS about our goings-on. There were only 5 official news releases written by the AMS (at least only five published to the AMS website) in this fall/winter session so far. That's not great. Clearly student issues and innovative projects have currency, like in the two cool stories I heard today. Get on it Matthew Naylor.
AUS Presidental Slap-Fest
I don't like writing about elections. But it's kinda our bread and butter, and people seem to enjoy it. Hmm.
To begin, my colleague has taken the AUS to task for its elections administration. In short, I differ in her assessment, to a point. The voting has been highly visible, well-planned and well-executed; I suspect it's almost impossible for an Arts student to miss a voting booth over the course of the week. The downside? There's like NO information about candidates anywhere. Nothing in the Underground that I've yet seen (from the VFM contest winners, no less), nothing on the AUS website. Nothing except posters. Which are designed to get elected, not to inform. You have to be a Facebook friend, in which case you already know the candidates. (I pretty much blame the candidates. They're just as responsible for getting the word out as Elections staff. The staff in this election have been first-rate.)
So what info would be out there? Well, that's the problem. It's a very thin gruel, at best. There's AJ Johal's site, which really just reads like a resume of a high school student councillor. AJ, love ya, but you've gotta leave high school off the qualifications. Seriously. His site has another major weakness. He doesn't tell us why we should vote for him. "Because it matters," he says. Unfortunately, his definition of why it matters is merely the stock "we have your money" argument.
Then there's Steph Ryan. She's produced a platform, impressive only measured in relation to her opponent's. Problem is, most of it can be really better done by someone else. Free tutoring? AMS rep. Don't promise things you can't personally deliver. She promises to publish meeting times and use the AUS web site to get this information out. But big friggin' deal - you find me a student who's interested in committee meetings and minutes, and I'll show you a student who's already involved. Listening to students is a good idea, to be sure. But the first post on her web site is devoted to what she's heard from students. Either her own past consultation has been inadequate, or her future consultation wasteful. And SUB Concourse office hours? Good idea. But you have your own MASS space that it's probably more important to leverage.
But at least she has a platform. And she's done very good work with the Faculty to provide services and help drive Arts engagement. Unfortunately, neither candidate, though, has really taken stock of the true measure of the irrelevance of the AUS, both as a political and non-political entity. What are the problems?
- Physical space. They don't fully leverage MASS, certainly not as effectively as Ladha. MASS is designed in such a way as to give the prime, interior space to AUSers, while ordinary students float about the periphery. As physical space, it makes the AUS users into the insiders, while everybody else is an outsider. Literally. There are better ways to use the space, and to get students using the rooms. They get a gold star for the events calendar, though.
- The size of Arts. It's huge. Just too big. And there's no sense of identity. Why? Probably because of the size. An AUS President needs to consider how best to address this, and to build a coherent sense of Artsiness. How? I suspect it involves working with the departments, as they're far more likely to be a driver of student engagement. Faculty reps on AUS are woefully under-used (just an ACF clean-up crew, basically) and that's a communication link that needs to develop.
- The relationship with the Faculty. It's strong right now. But there's a danger of being co-opted. I recall hearing something about the AUS using the MASS student levies (since the mortgage is paid off) to fund Arts Advising. That's fucked up. It's a core academic service - the University has no business making students pay. So it's an important existential question - how close ought the relationship be between the Society and Faculty? Sure, co-operation is good, when it comes to Last Lecture etc., but is that meaningful co-operation, or just titular, consultative input? And is there a danger of co-opting the student voice?
There's an existential conversation that needs to happen, and I don't see that.
Monday, March 26, 2007
I take issues with the AUS Elections
Hey if you're in arts, you can vote in the AUS elections right now. Vote until the 30th. The polling booths are supposed to be on either entrance of the SUB and somewhere in Buchanan, 10-5pm.
Also, since the people running the elections did not specify how many people you can vote for in some positions, here are the specifics: 11 General Officers, and 7 AMS reps (correct me if I'm wrong)
As to their write ups and who's running - there are no write ups and a list of who's running is also not on the AUS official website. But there's an unofficial list here (see two posts down). So I guess, vote for your friends? What an..... interesting way to run an election. If you have Facebook you have to join "Aus Elections" (and they have to approve you as a friend) in order to see the write ups of some candidates.
I asked Stephanie Ryan (AUS President incumbent) where I could receive the information on where the polling booths would be, here was her reply:
"i'm not sure, but i do know that the candidates will be able to tell their friends where to go and that we've hit 3 major entrance-ways and that our booths will be well-labelled, so in 5 days most Arts students will probably stumble across a voting booth at at least one point in time"
While I agree that a lot of arts students will be able to see the booths, I don't think this reliance on having the candidates tell their friends where to go vote is a smart idea for two reasons:
1) The campaign period ended on the 23rd before voting began on the 26th, and the information on ballot locations wasn't available until the 25th. So you would technically be breaking the rules on campaigning unless you contacted every single friend on a "private conversation" basis to let them know where they could vote.
2) Relying on "telling your friends" skews the elections once again towards voting for your friend. Especially since the write-ups of candidates are not even accessible unless you check Facebook and memorize who you want to vote for and then try to remember the list of people at the poll.
Victory!
Athletics has decided not to close the Aquatic Centre gym! They apologized for the process, and agreed to find other ways to deal with the (minor) issues raised like liability, class space, and old machines.
This is a victory that happened because the AMS and students at large worked together. The AMS reps couldn't have done it without a mobilized popular support, and the students wouldn't have had a voice without the focusing impact of the AMS reps.
It's the kind of symbiotic lobbying efforts that need to be common practice.
And, if this has proven anything, it's really not that hard to do. Plus it's fun when you win.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Ubyssey Reportcard
The following was submitted Feb 15, 2007 to the Ubyssey Editorial board and was rejected based on "libellous grounds".
I know many students who simply stopped reading the paper. Talking to
the business manager, he announced that he assumed everyone read the
Ubyssey.
So the answer to whether I'm going to censor the paper, the answer is
no. In my opinion, the greatest form of censorship is to run itself
the way it has this year.
AUS elections
So, apparently the AUS Elections are happening. Apparently there are candidates.
The AUS website has no information about candidates or voting. But we do!
So here's what we know of the elections:
Campaiging March 16-23. Voting takes place at 3 separate polling booths in the SUB and Buchanan Buildings between March 25-30
We're probably the only place you can publicly find the candidates list. Thanks to Patrick Meehan for providing us with what should be readily available public information, which is found behind the jump.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The UBC Farm's example: how UBC should catch up to its vision.
Juxtapose what pops to mind when you think of:
1. UBC administration's main prerogatives.
2. UBC's only broad, encompassing mission statement, trek 2010.
For me, it goes something like this for the former, "Martha Piper-endowment-development-endowment-ivory tower-endowment-elite research-endowment-ivy league-endowment"
and something like this for the latter: "complete community-global citizenship-sustainability-global citizenship-community outreach-global citizenship-public responsibility-global citizenship-innovation-global citizenship.
Now why is this? Why is there such an enormous (at least at the dubious level of free association) gulf between the university's professed goals and vision, and the visceral sense students seem to have that it is being dishonest about them? I'd like to take the case of the UBC Farm, especially in the context of the Campus Plan and Official Community Plan to think about this.
I'll start with a little summary: UBC, *shock* extends beyond 16th avenue. It has sizable land holdings in the South Campus area, which contain some national research facilities, an animal research centre, the UBC Botanical Garden's nursery, some forest, and an agricultural area: the UBC Farm. The land where the farm sits was once used exclusively for research purposes by the Faculty of Land and Food Systems. Since 2001 though, with the student-initiated, faculty-supported document "Re-Inventing the UBC Farm" the land has been used as a functioning student- and volunteer-run organic farm, and a centre for wider community participation and education in urban agriculture, in conjunction to it's continued use as a site for academic research.
Currently, the farm has loosely ambiguous status as a a protectorate (for lack of a better term - since there isn't any formalized language) of the Faculty of Land and Food Systems, though technically it also belongs to Forestry and Science for research. It does not get core funding from the faculties, however. Mark Bomford says the farm received about $300,000 in its early years of operation from the faculty of L&F Systems. It now receives no core funding from the university, but is supported with administration and communication by the faculty, whose past and present Deans have been very supportive. Many project grants, as well as individual student project budgets, and revenue from the summer markets support it's current programs and staff. Essentially, the Farm is a cost-recovery operation that strives to be self-sufficient through the sales of its products, and grants.
As we all see, smell, and (gross) taste, every day, UBC's Point Grey campus is undergoing a bit of an overhaul physically. There are nine major construction sites on campus now. This of course, is just the beginning. The UBC Campus Plan, which you may have heard of, is in the process of creating a comprehensive plan for the "academic" needs of UBC's campus core (CORRECTION: not including the much-maligned University Boulevard project). This plan is governed under BC's University Act, which designates the framework for the construction of university premises. By contrast, "non-academic" buildings and neighborhoods being developed on the university's property are governed by the Official Community Plan (OCP) which is a municipal bylaw passed by the GVRD in 1997 outlining the land uses for all of UBC's holdings, particularly its non-institutional areas. These include the Hawthorn place, Hampton place, and Wesbrook neighborhoods, that are intended for the general public as opposed to student populations. By deciding which areas of the UBC campus are needed for the university's "academic" (ie, university-related) uses, the administration has been able to contract off swaths of the "extra" land for development under the guidelines of the OCP (not the University Act), in return for wads of cash for the endowment. The endowment is a large bulk sum of money that sits in a bank and collects interest that is then theoretically used to reinvest in the university's academic programs, scholarships, innovation, and so forth.
More riveting analysis behind the jump, yo.
Friday, March 23, 2007
The VP Carousel
Stephen Toope was hired almost exactly one year ago. Since then two VPs have resigned, and a third will be gone in a few years (BSull). We've also hired a new DVC (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, or the person in charge of UBC Okanagan). UBC's undergoing a serious period of internal change.
Before I look at it, though, let's compare the "resignation" letters sent to the campus community, both written by Prof. Toope:
Whitehead: "Dr. Lorne Whitehead, who has served UBC with great distinction since July 2004 as Vice President Academic and Provost, and I have agreed that he will resign from his current administrative duties...effective immediately"
Pavlich: "With regret, I have to inform you that Professor Dennis Pavlich, Vice President External and Legal Affairs, has advised me of his intention to resign his administrative appointment effective this spring"
Fun, huh?
I have a feeling UBC will see a moderate executive re-organization. Particularly, look for the VP External portfolio to be re-distributed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the development of a VP Advancement or VP Development portfolio, designed to handle all the University's truly external affairs. These include fundraising, public affairs, government relations, and alumni. UBC also has a centennial (or three) to prepare for in the coming years, which will probably coupled with a massive cash campaign.
It's a re-organization that's designed to leverage our alumni and community connections in every way. That means better advocacy and, more importantly, more money. I'm of the opinion that this is the exact wrong time to be going out, cap in hand. Our reputation in the community isn't stellar - it's of a property developer going building-happy. Every year we raise $110-120 million. You'd think that's a lot, but well over 98% of that comes from big-ticket donors. The Ike Barbers of the world. How much comes from rank and file alumni? Just over $2.5M. How do they get that cash? 77,000 phone calls. That's a crappy yield rate, no?
Why is that? Probably because people are sick of "the ask" they get at the dinner table. But I have a gut feeling it's only going to get worse. We're a generation that takes a University degree for granted, that sees it as something we get in return for our four years of tuition payments. Moreover, it's a University that, to its members, seems not to take a great stock in their individual needs. "I'm just a number" is felt nowhere among the BC student class more acutely than at UBC.
So that's why I'm disheartened by the changes I see coming down the pipeline. UBC has troubles already engaging its students, its future alumni - why re-emphasize the perception that we're more useful for our cash than for anything else? A truly inspiring University will use alumni and its communications shops not for fundraising, but to enrich the University experience. A donation of time to mentor students in a field can be far more valuable than any money an alum wants to give. But right now our University is setting up to handle the latter, which generally comes at the expense of the former.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Neat new stuff
And a plug. I refer readers to Maclean's Education. A helluva site with tons of good articles. There's a very useful piece on how to get a reference letter for grad school, a skill that students far too often find themselves without. And even discussions on Facebook. Apparently Spencer Keys (a friend of the show) is involved in some way that, as of yet, is unascertainable on the site.
But two articles stand out, and they're quite related. The first is a piece on the plight of the sessional lecturer. In short, they're paid nearly minimum wage (25-30k, if they get a full load) to teach. This leaves them no time to do research, which denies them tenure-track positions. It's a vicious cycle. And the second is a more philosophical piece about why we're all at Universities in the first place.
The latter piece attempts to contextualize the contemporary University experience. The picture it paints is one of a University for mass consumption, driven less by the "corporate" nature of Universities and more by the desire to get as many people in and out the doors as possible. In short, Universities fail to create meaningful learning experiences. We don't learn from classrooms - we learn from associations with professorial research, from engaging more in-depth with the field, and from extra-curricular activities associated with the University. And this is related to the sessional lecturer - often, the sessional has to hold down a second job, and can't devote themselves to engaging with students in a meaningful way. The emphasis becomes on cramming the brains of those in the lecture halls - hardly conducive to learning.
We've also created a culture where students expect to go into a University and to acquire the knowledge, like a car going in for a new paint job. Potter's piece makes the point that the onus is as much on the student to seek to better themselves as much as it's on the University. His metaphor is that of an elite athlete who relies on a coach to bring out the best, but at the end of the day, it's up to athlete to better herself.
What are the implications for UBC? It's where things like NSSE come in. We're a University failing miserably at engaging our students, at creating the environment where opportunities exist. Sure, they're fighting a generational battle. But emphasis of research in tenure appointments, lack of informal learning space, the measurable impact of research dollars, the unavailability of research or other engaging opporunities for many students (Seriously, anybody know any undergrad Arts students who've ever worked with a prof? I've been here six years and have yet to meet one.), and the general sense of "people in, degree out" that comes with a University of this size are all conspiring to create a University experience that's quite frankly underwhelming.
Admittedly this is partly a generational problem. We're a narcissistic generation that demands hand-holding. But UBC and Universities ought to challenge us, rather than granting a degree as a reward for attendace in classrooms 15 hours a week. Your degree equity is suffering. Hell, the bachelor's is on the cusp of irrelevance already.
Not sure where I was going with all that. But read the articles. They're good.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Campaign tips, or, how students learned to stop reading and love the familiar.
After my recent abysmal loss in the SUS elections, I found myself wondering what, exactly, do candidates need to do to themselves and surrounding victims in order to get their message out? Student leaders and political junkies constantly and lamely lament the so-called "student apathy" problem. Everyone else is too apathetic to care, frankly. The apathy issue is bound up with the perceived irrelevance of student government on the part of most students, but also with the dynamics of the societies themsleves, which have constructed and enforced an exclusive protectionist force-field around them. So either people voted into student government are instantaneously transformed into small-minded snobs, or opportunities for relevance and communication truly are limited, or the electorate is perpetuating the status quo (exactly what it bitches about) with it's choices. Given my vehement personal bitterness, I took option 3 as a working hypothesis.
To find out a little more about how people make their choices, I conducted an utterly unscientific poll* by ambushing people randomly in the SUB and in the 99 B-line queue. Find out about the results and my mad excel-skillz behind the jump.
I asked these what sorts of factors helped them decide how to vote, listing 6 options: 1) reading posters, 2) facebook groups, 3) knowing (of) people personally beforehand 4) reading candidates' external websites, 5) class announcements, and 6) totally random. (They were allowed to say yes to as many as they wanted, so the bars do not add up to 15.)
As you can see, almost everyone said that knowing people, or knowing of people personally was a factor. Several people commented that they would go down the list and vote for people they knew, and only if they did not know anyone, they would then find out about the candidates' platforms. Unsurprisingly, people in smaller faculties like engineering or Forestry didn't pay attention to posters or websites at all and relied exclusively on knowing (of) candidates personally. Familiarity, not friendship, is important.
The next most important factor was class announcements. People commented that it helped by simply creating awareness of that person's existence, though others said that they learned nothing from announcements and thus would not be influenced by them.
Posters, totally random, facebook groups, and external websites were about equally (in)significant. Interestingly, these categories encompass both the most detailed and the most shallow exposure candidates have. There was also a significant amount of overlap: those that read candidates' websites were likely to use most of the other sources of exposure as well. People that payed attention to class announcements though, were unlikely to read external websites, and mostly voted by personal knowledge of the candidates. Lets be honest though, my sample size is debilitatingly small.
The conclusion that is possible is that just knowing vast numbers of people, or being a familiar figure, will do more for you in an election than any specific ideas or goals you may have for the position. Also, campaigning (posters, websites, announcements) doesn't work that well. Targeting your acquaintances with personal appeals is more worthwhile, apparently.
So how does all this relate to apathy, the alleged irrelevance of student societies, and exclusivity? Well, it's a bit of a cycle: as long as most people are too lazy to vote, the deciding factor in elections will be the personal acquaintances of the candidates, or associated "insiders". Thus, it'll be more worth it to ignore most voters and concentrate on these insiders, both in campaigns, and in policies (read: personality-driven campaigns and governance, not issue-driven ones). This further perpetuates the sense of irrelevance and exclusivity that makes people too lazy and disinterested to bother voting in the first place.
Perhaps one way to get candidates more serious and voters more interested simultaneously is as simple as advertisement: if elections are higher-profile, the level of discussion and challenge will be driven up. The interesting experiment of the Voter-Funded Media (click!) contest that accompanied the AMS elections has arguably raised the bar for campus political coverage and debate, but didn't raise overall voter turnout. Since the banning of slates (student political parties or factions), maybe campaigns are destined to be lower-profile and less flashy. But should this translate into lower interest and greater apathy? Maybe there's unexploited potential in the slate-less system to leave traditional campaigning behind in favor of more personally accountable issue-driven platforms. Here's hoping, anyway.
Perhaps though, the inherent structural realities of a commuter campus, our cultural stand-offishness (just asking people to answer a two-question survey made me feel like Oliver Twist - asking for someone's vote, and plying them with web addresses and platform points is almost an inexcusable intrusion) and the demanding academic environment are the real factors. Confronting these realities to create a stronger more informed electorate at UBC is a challenge nobody really knows how to approach. So let the laments continue.
*Yes, I am in sciences, and can do error analysis. No I did not bother.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Budget Highlights
Where I read it. So you don't have to!
The first thing to note is that post-secondary education (PSE) isn't the showpiece of the budget. But there are a few tweaks and spending increases that will be of interest. It's also important to note the possible implications of the equalization formula calculations - a province's "fiscal capacity," the extent to which they can be expected to contribute, will be based on property values. That valuation could seriously ding BC, with sky-high property values. So that has some in the provincial Treasury a wee bit frightened. I'll be honest - I don't understand what the "provinces able to choose" actually means, so I'll just leave that as a potential issue.
But on to the PSE sections. There are a few highlights:
- $800 million increase in the Canada Social Transfer in 2008-9. This is money that the feds give to the provinces to fund provincial social spending in health care and education.
- Making info about Universities available to Canadians (no further detail).
- 1,000 new merit-based awards for graduate students. For Masters' students the awards are 17k, for Doctoral students they're 35. Awarded by the granting councils, this totals $35 million/year.
- $2M international student recruitment campaign. Whoop-dee-doo.
- A review of the Canada Student Loan Program, designed to simplify and integrate the myriad systems that students must navigate to get financial aid.
- Increasing RESP contribution limits, which will really only benefit those in upper income brackets.
- $105M to specialized research centres, including UBC's Brain Research Centre.
- $85M in new funding to the granting councils: $37M each to NSERC and CIHR, $11M to SSHRC.
- $15M to support the indirect costs of research. That's nothing.
1) Increase in CST. Good. More money = good. But let's put it in perspective. It's $800M nationally. If you were to (roughly) pro-rate that to UBC's size, it would wipe out our deficit. That's it. This ain't a huge sum of money. But it's definitely a start. I'd personally like to see a dedicated transfer, and bigger. But who wouldn't? It's also delayed a year in order to work out some accountability mechanisms. A response to Maclean's? Highly likely. Accountability has to be a good thing, but will it really be meaningful?
2) The grad student scholarships are big. Important. It's a 50% increase in the state's ability to offer huge chunks of cash to our country's best and brightest. One quarrel - 400 each will be funded by NSERC and CIHR; only 200 go to SSHRC. That means, once again, Social Science and Humanities research is at the bottom of the food chain. That's not how it should be. These are important disciplines, doing important if un-sexy research that too often goes unrewarded. (SSHRC also gets screwed throughout the granting council cash, too.) Also, this does nothing to address accessibility.
3) Loan streamlining. Sure, I suppose it's a good thing. But there's so much more that could be done. Grants. Elimination of parental income stipulations. Any measures targeting those groups that right now don't access PSE. A weak step, but a step nonetheless.
I know I missed something. But the budget's been out for 45 minutes. I'll update when/if I read it more thoroughly. But the headlines? Baby steps in the right direction. Unless you're in Arts.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
It's politics - suck it up
(NB: This post is poorly written and rant-y. Mostly it's a thinly veiled response to the personality conflicts that were the big "scandal" of the SUS elections. But it's no scandal at all. It's really just a personality clash masquerading as about "leadership" or "issues." Also, I hate when people throw around the word "libel." If this interests you, read on. If not, I encourage, nay implore you to move on for now.)
I try to be professional and respectful. But something's bothering me and I need to get it off my chest. It's when Student A has a beef with Student B, and makes some sort of public statement. Usually that beef is personal, but A will always take great pains to portray the conflict as professional. It's not. And that first intrusion is often unwarranted, silly, and petty.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
SUS election results!
These are unofficial until next Thursday, but I thought I'd post them anyhow. Note the high voter turnout via WebCT!
President
Michael Duncan - Yes 1079, No 206
Vice President External
Jamil Rhajiak - Yes 989, No 227
Vice President Internal
Jimmy Yan - 474
Stephen Yoon - 321
Gregory Stegeman - 211
Farzin Barekat - 157
Director of Administration
Alex Lougheed - 608
Maria Jogova - 572
Director of Finance
Lois Chan - 583
Aaron Sihota - 404
Vishal Hirilal - 194
Director of Publications
Ally Vaz - 676
Varun Ramraj - 439
Public Relations Officer
Meghan Ho - 440
Lawrence Chow - 402
Mark Berg - 326
Director of Sports
Polly Kwok - Yes 885, No 296
Science Senator
Diana Diao - 605
Geoff Costeloe - 409
Martin Sing - 196
Alma Mater Society Council Representatives
Lougheed - 517
Tahara Bhate - 454
Tristan Markle - 420
Clark Funnell - 396
Maria Jogova - 389
Stephen Yoon - 346
Anita Yuk - 322
Maayan Kreitzman - 290
Thoughts behind the jump.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Aquatic Centre Gym, Part II
First, I should note an addendum to my previous post. Rec has released their proposed fee reductions. They're very good. They're 25-30% in the Elite (refereed) divisions, and 45-50% in the Co-rec. This is a very welcome development.
Something interesting happened with the Aquatic Centre Gym closure. Note Tuesday's Ubyssey - there were two stories, one dealing with the closure, and one covering student reaction. And really, that's fair. Student reaction and outcry has been nothing short of remarkable. Those of us who've been around a while can't remember anything like it.
How has it worked? Quite simple. The first people were tipped off by people in HKin - a Facebook group was established that became a central online gathering point for people to a) find out, b) get information, and c) invite more friends. But most importantly, it became a hub to tell people where to apply pressure, whom to e-mail. I have no idea how many e-mails were sent, but people sent them to the right people. Moreover, the AMS swung into action with a rapid response and applied pressure. In short, the student lobbying arm worked like it's supposed to.
What's been the outcome? As of now, the University has agreed that this needs to go through the committee, and that the original decision bypassed that. They've called a meeting for some time next week, though haven't indicated when it will be yet. They haven't provided any more information, are unprepared to present a case for action. In short, they got caught with their pants down and are desperately trying to pull them back up.
What are the lessons for the student movement?
- Students need to know HOW to make a difference. This is kinda obvious. But not really. See every student has a beef with the University, but doesn't know that they have the power to get it fixed. And the AMS ought to help empower them. Which leads to...
- The AMS needs to lobby WITH students. If this was just a case of the AMS complaining, we wouldn't have got anywhere. Conversely, without properly applied AMS pressure, student e-mails would have just been dismissed. Both groups need each other.
- Use new media and Facebook. It has huge power. And can be a really easy way to reach people without that pesky e-mail list. If the AMS has a lobbying priority, use Facebook to mobilize student support. It's kinda simple, really. And in doing so, the AMS can work with students to get it all done. The communication between Jeff and the Facebook group has been so encouraging.
Posts
