(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

I just read an article on stuff.co.nz that the government plans to change course funding from the bums-on-seats method currently being used, where courses which attract higher numbers of students are more likely to continue to be funded. While this is theoretically great - because that approach involves chasing students, extremely competitive courses, and ultimately a huge loss of variety and broadness of course spectrum - I'm a little concerned about what they're changing it to.

Says the Stuff article, "[The Government] want[s] to change the emphasis from funding [courses] based on the number of students they attract to providing courses that are seen to be in the national interest." Adds Dr Cullen, "While academic freedom would be recognised, universities had acknowledged the public had a right to see taxpayers' money was used responsibly and strategically." That's okaaaaaay, although I am hesitant to say that Jo/e Public is the judge of what is a responsible use of funding - quite probably s/he would be perfectly happy with the continued loss of funding in the Arts degree, which suffers because people think it's useless (despite the fact that money from these popular courses is frequently used to fund expensive courses like Science and Engineering.) I don't like thinking that the value of so-called "useless" or "unpractical" courses like the poetry writing and reading course I'm taking is dependent for its continued existence on it being seen as valuable to the "national interest."

Sound alarmist? Maybe - surely the gvt can be trusted to keep its nose out of the Universities' choices? Except maybe not, because the article concludes: "The changes would be gradual not revolutionary and would steer universities into a greater partnership with business and their communities."

Um. Excuse me? Universities are supposed to be acting with the Business Roundtable now? But I don't wanna!

This move has been welcomed by the Otago University Students' Association and the NZ Vice-Chancellor's Committee (Headed by Roy Sharp, the busy little bee!) But that might have more to do with the $126 million in funding that comes with it, including some to help with the funding shift and some to help attract and retain staff to keep NZ universities competitive/respected internationally. I'd be interested to see what the New Zealand University Students' Association and the Association of University Staff have to say about it, but there's nothing yet. And maybe I am being paranoid and insane, but, yeesh, seriously, it does sound a little dodgy, right? It's not just me?

Comments

[blademistress.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I wonder if this is at all tied in with the general education courses the uni is now making students take.

[kitsunerei88]

Wow, in Canada, it doesn't work out like that at ALL. . . ^^'' Personally, I'd be suspicious because "public interest" seems pretty, well, undefined to me. In Canada, the government gives public universities money based on how many students are attending that particular university, ie, The University of Toronto would get more the The University of Western Ontario because UofT has 70 000 students whereas UWO only has 30 000. . . And I think it's pretty much up to the universities to spend it how they like.

At UWO, I think that it's spread pretty much equally, because the cheapest classes are Arts and Humanities and Social Sci classes - Engineering tuition fees are nearly 1.5 to 2 times Science tuition, which is a few hundred bucks more than Social Sci tuition. --''

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

Yes, it does sound dodgy to me.

[angry-in-pink.livejournal.com]

"In the national interest?"...Business Round Table?

Excuse me?


*flails*

Is Dodgy indeed :/

[angry-in-pink.livejournal.com]

Yeah. If I was in a more coherant mood I would have said something like that. But what ever happened to "knowledge for the sake of knowledge?" . Meh.

[rewihendrix.livejournal.com]

to me it sounds good. but then again, i'm doing one of those extremely competitive courses that would most probably come under the category of high public interest.

Tomorrow has been cancelled due to lack of interest

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

Oh deary deary me. Myself I'm generally a fan of the let-the-students-choose method of determining funding - after all, students are themselves a reasonable cross section of the 'nation' (or, to prevent this from degenerating into yet another discussion of nationalism vs anti-nationalism, the 'general public'), particularly the section of the nation that is willing to take university courses. As long as there is some way to resurrect a course that undergoes a temporary lull of interest, I don't really see a problem.

And don't you think you're being a bit alarmist? Aren't you in favour of universities having a partnership with communities, if not businesses?

Actually I think it's silly to have a reaction to this statement at all - 'work more closely with businesses and communities' is, like 'in the national interest', the policy statement equivalent of 'have a nice day' - it's meaningless unless you know what the writer's understanding of the national interest or a community is.