I once travelled to Wuhan where I visited one of the many wondrous universities of China. I was given a tour of a relatively spartan residence where the rooms were very small and amenities were of the minimalist kind. I joked that one wouldn't want to have a party in such a tiny room. My host, with great restraint, looked me dead in the eye and said courteously, "But students don't come here to have fun. They come here to work". A sobering moment.
I once read Maclean's magazine (in May 2011) where the current Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities, John Milloy, is quoted as saying: "Putting Students First, is a response to a single goal of Ontario families that can be summarized as: “I want my kids to go on in school and get a good job.”. Another sobering moment.
I once asked a Trent alumna (who is very well employed) to tell me what she valued most about her time at Trent. Her answer was the transformational experiences she had while living and learning in one of the Colleges. She recalled particularly one professor who regularly met with students outside of class hours, usually over food and beverages, and would argue, discuss and debate long into the wee hours of the night. Sobering in its way.
Ah. But am I beginning to indulge myself in the very nostalgia I decry? Or am I articulating one of the critical pivots of the academic planning exercise?
One of the many challenges we face in developing an academic plan for Trent is the imperative of addressing exactly what kind of institution we want to be. Equally important is the necessity to examine how feasible our desires may be in the contexts of the 21st century university and the realpolitik of offering a postsecondary education--and a postsecondary venue--that is both transformational and marketable. Fun as well as "useful". To do this we need change.
Certainly we have seen a shift in the kinds of graduate degrees being offered south of the border. Now one can opt for the "professional doctorate" or the "professional Masters" which are essentially course based graduate degrees without the necessity to produce an original contribution to knowledge known as the dissertation. Likewise, we have seen a shift toward more job-oriented universities such as UOIT here in Ontario whose Act clearly states their responsibility to offer market driven programming. Recent stats have similarly shown a marked increase in applications to applied science programs. Even the Council of Ontario Universities has launched a website devoted to the pragmatic: myeducationhasvalue.ca (which folks should check out).
But whither curiosity based research? Whither critical inquiry that may not always be politically popular?
All of which is a preamble to the burning question: is Trent's original mandate--to provide a solid education in the liberal arts and sciences--still viable? Or have we reached a turning point where we must change our mandate? Do we wish to resist curricular change, programming change, pedagogical change, or do we wish to embrace change? Are we in fact wedded to the past (to our detriment) as some colleagues feel? Must "a view to the future" categorically exclude the past? Is the choice so clearly either/or?
These are the questions we are asking ourselves. The challenges are enormous. But the consequences of not asking them are unthinkable. A very sobering moment indeed.
If we do have to change our mandate, I hope the part we are not changing is "provide a solid education".
ReplyDeleteWe've seen Trent implement a lot of cost cutting measures that directly affect the quality of teaching, such as:
- The elimination of demonstrator & technician staff positions (Biology and Geography have been gutted), which results in the elimination of lab teaching in some courses, or taking over of their work by less qualified and less experienced graduate students working as teaching assistants. Nothing against them, just that many of them come to Trent with no teaching experience or training.
- The drastic reduction of equipment budgets for science departments, which has made it difficult to maintain current equipment and impossible to buy any new. Example: We now have to spend lots of time lobbying for $5000 to replace 6 year old computers in the GIS lab.
- The huge increase in administration duties for everyone, without any release from regular teaching duties, turning a full day into an overtime day. Example: We now have to produce a syllabus twice: once by mid-August for vetting by the Dean's office, and then again when classes start, filling in all the information that was not available in mid-August (TAs, room locations, etc.)
- The elimination of some courses via cut in academic budgets, which happened last year across all departments for the first time.
- Now the latest suggestion, which you mentioned in ERS's meeting this past week, not running classes below a minimum enrolment.
All these factors erode our quality of education at Trent. We continue to do the best we can and are doing a decent job I think (hard to be unbiased), but our quality is eroding.
I wonder if a conceptualization of our mission based upon 'or', ie either market-oriented or critical thinking oriented continues to serve us well? perhaps we ought to think of 'and' as well as complementarity as a way forward.
ReplyDeletethe foundations of trent are freirian in nature: the fostering of critical consciousness and the conscientization of students and faculty. being of the market doesn't necessarily imply that we have bought lock stock and barrel a market consciousness.
i am reminded often of the words of fred wheatly, an anishinaabe elder, who won a symons teaching award many years ago: we have to live in the world we find ourselves in and we have to live in it with integrity, ie being true to our own values.
we foster a critical consciousness among our students; as faculty we bring this approach to our work and we help students not just acquire the functional skills to live well in a market economy but to foster, initiate and sustain change in that economy so that it can serve better all aspects of society.
perhaps we can think of a new term to replace 'liberal arts and science', grounded as it is in the traditions of a conceptualization of a world divided into free men and slaves, with one that is grounded in this new world of market and society, individual and community. our students need to be able to live well in both.
david
Quality not Cuts
ReplyDeleteThree issues are at the forefront of all current discussions …student numbers (enrolment and retention), morale and cutting the budget. Instead of focussing on cuts I think that we need to determine what we MUST keep for Trent to be Trent, to move forward and be strong and viable. To figure this out would solve all 3 issues.
To do this I envision a referendum in which all members of the Trent community select the 20 or 30 (numbers to be determined) programs, departments, activities including graduate programs and programs offered in Oshawa that they feel are important for Trent to retain, and then to strengthen. These may include the biggest programs for their financial input or the smallest programs because of the academic culture they add to Trent. It could be an activity that is important to many, or very important to a few. It may be a small program with a strong potential for new growth or a new initiative with an exciting future. By determining what all of us, old and new members of the community, alumni, students, staff and faculty feel is important we may be surprised by what we discover.
Have a great day.