[feonateresa]

It's not really a matter of being worried or upset that Dr. So and So won't be teaching anymore, more that it can compromise what kinds of classes one can take. If classes are not being offered anymore, have they set up a plan to reconstruct degree requirements so we're not stuck here a fifth year trying to catch up with classes that are offered on alternate years or not at all? I would assume that they would have to take such measures, but it certainly narrows down on the amount of choice we have in taking classes.

The fact that classes are larger are not as worrisome, but I wouldn't know what that feels like since I've only experienced first year classes which tend to be the largest. I think it depends on the professor whether or not the amount of students in the room affects their quality of teaching; which I would think wouldn't. I suppose in tutorials, that's where it'll affect it most.

[huzaifa47]

It sucks that you may like Dr. So and So and he/she wont be teaching you that subject anymore, but the university clearly didnt value them, and since that's the case, it wouldnt have done any good for their career at the university. Would you promote someone in a team you are managing that you dont value? Think about it. Its better that they pursue other opportunities anyway. Better for Dr. So and So and better for the university.

Okay soo I'm not attacking the quote directly, but I have a random question I'll throw up in the air. WHO decides which prof is good and should be valued and on what criteria? It is the STUDENTS who are experiencing these prof's on a daily basis and I would think that they would have a decent idea of how good a prof is. Rather then some official sitting in his office looking at figures and numbers to decide if a prof is good or not(that is what I inferred how they currently do the job, and hence the allegation that Cla's are "boosting" the aforementioned scores by compromising educational values). In other words what role Can the Msu play and is it currently being ignored? :S

For example two first year prof's that are immensely popular and in my opinion very "Good" teachers are Mr Todd Alway(Polisci) and Marc Oullette(cstc), yet they are still CLA's and I've heard from a few sources that its not confirm whether they will still have a job next year. They quite frankly have taught me more then a number of other(I won't mention for HR laws) who have taken the verbatim route Rohan talked about. And its not just first year courses they are doing a good job at, Mr Alway is well regarded in the upper year courses as well(or so I heard). In this volleyball between Cupe and Mac I really wonder whether it has anything to do with the students and their opinion at all :S

[lorend]

Here is an article from today's Spec: Union worries Mac will cut instructors

I also suggest you all read the most-recent MUFA newsletter, as the first few pages make some excellent points.

[Goce]

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

Okay soo I'm not attacking the quote directly, but I have a random question I'll throw up in the air. WHO decides which prof is good and should be valued and on what criteria? It is the STUDENTS who are experiencing these prof's on a daily basis and I would think that they would have a decent idea of how good a prof is. Rather then some official sitting in his office looking at figures and numbers to decide if a prof is good or not(that is what I inferred how they currently do the job, and hence the allegation that Cla's are "boosting" the aforementioned scores by compromising educational values). In other words what role Can the Msu play and is it currently being ignored? :S

For example two first year prof's that are immensely popular and in my opinion very "Good" teachers are Mr Todd Alway(Polisci) and Marc Oullette(cstc), yet they are still CLA's and I've heard from a few sources that its not confirm whether they will still have a job next year. They quite frankly have taught me more then a number of other(I won't mention for HR laws) who have taken the verbatim route Rohan talked about. And its not just first year courses they are doing a good job at, Mr Alway is well regarded in the upper year courses as well(or so I heard). In this volleyball between Cupe and Mac I really wonder whether it has anything to do with the students and their opinion at all :S

Todd Alway is the man. I agree with a lot of what you said. Though we, the students, do get a say in who stays and who goes I don't know if end-of-the-year course evaluations are as meaningful as they ought to be. The question really becomes how can the instructor-student relationship be improved, along with satisfying the goals of the administration. I am no expert on these issues, but it does seem that this trilateral relationship is antagonistic whereas you'd hope for and like to see something more co-operative. For whatever it is worth those are my .02.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by ash0000

This is a recession, and whether or not you like it, all companies like to use recessions as an excuse to weed out the less valued or more expensive (i.e cost-benefit not there) of their employees. Universities are no different, especially a research institution such as McMaster.

Have you checked out the money the top dogs at the university are making?

http://www.thespec.com/article/540649
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/educatio...ersity-sector/

I know they're valuable to the university, but wow.

Originally Posted by ash0000

Management has to decide what the better/safer route is, and its their decision to make, and throwing a fit over it is not going to do anything or anyone good. These things happen in any organization and an institution is no different.

Is this really the stance you're going to take? I'm not saying that every decision an organization makes is going to be categorically wrong. But perhaps we should excercise the critical thinking skills we're supposedly learning and cast a critical eye on those who have the power to make the decisions.

There's absolutely no doubt that cuts have to be made, the money just isn't there. But these cuts have an impact on us. Maybe we should pay attention to the decisions being made and what alternatives are/are not being considered.

Originally Posted by ash0000

This isn't an agenda to make education crappier for students. It may be and probably is a result of bad management in the past, but its a decision they felt nessecary to make.

So perhaps we should ask "Are the decisions being made good ones? How will they affect us? What are the alternatives?"

[deadpool]

I hate broaching the topic of high-paid University officials, but I shall.

The fact of the matter is, we pay so highly for University officials because we want to attract the best of the best. Dr. George might be hated for his salary, but he still runs a school which consistently increases its reputation, consistently increases endowments and consistently increases enrollment. Moreover, the administration has managed to make Mac a pretty elite science school.

Now, at the same point in time, I do understand that the Mac officials still beat the market when it comes to payment, especially with Dr. George's salary. However, Dr. George is at the end of a a contract with a graduated pay scale, so the next University president should make a wage much closer to the competitive point.

But back to the issue at hand, I agree with many points you make bobble. I just hate the sensationalization of this issue by CUPE in an effort to deceitfully sway students over.

[ash0000]

I am not taking a stance, nor do i care why its happenning, whether or not it is right, I am simply saying it like I see it.

Those top dogs that get paid a zillion thousand dollars a week also happen to be the ones who are fostering external support and major relationships with people who throw money at the university like wildfire. Im not saying its fair, but to the ones who make the decisions the cost-benefit is there, (which is what i meant by more expensive).

The researchers arent going to get layed off (most of them anyway, some do, but thats another story) because theyre also performing revenue generating activities. Post-docs generally dont get laid off because its almost a form of modern slavery, extremely cheap labour with good/direct (revenue generating) benefits.

Hell even the tim hortons people are bringing in actual bucks.

I dont know the business of a university that well, but from what I do know, sessionals are there to teach courses when the people who should be teaching them dont care to. I havent seen an employment contract or a job description, but from what I do know, they aren't permanent. Otherwise they would be on some other tenure track. A lot of them even know that being a sessional doesnt have much job security, thats a risk they take.

Cutting these workers out isnt going to have a direct or immediate revenue effect. These workers may be valued by students, but not the accountants. Sure some students may get angry, but let me ask you this: are you going to make such a drastic decision such as dropping out of school or switching schools because your favourite prof was layed off? Probably not. My point is that in a financial squeeze, these are the logical ones to go.

In my opinion, its not this specific decision you should be protesting or making a fuss about, its the bad management decisions of the past that made in nessecary. Those are the decisions that you should be trying to prevent in the future, not protecting a logistically unvalued job. Dr. So and So will probably find another room to lecture in one day. Im sure some of our tenured profs have gone through this very experience earlier in their careers.

I think the question to ask is not "what were the alternatives", whats happening is happening, I think the question to ask is "how can this be prevented from happening again for at least the next 5-10 years"

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by deadpool

But back to the issue at hand, I agree with many points you make bobble. I just hate the sensationalization of this issue by CUPE in an effort to deceitfully sway students over.

I agree with you there too. Unfortunately CUPE can be shrill and rabidly ideological to the point it turns pretty much everyone but the most zealous right off.

Originally Posted by ash0000

I dont know the business of a university that well, but from what I do know, sessionals are there to teach courses when the people who should be teaching them dont care to.

From what I understand, it's not that professors don't want to teach the courses, it's that there aren't enough professors to teach the courses. One of the reasons why? Because faculty attrition hasn't been met with the same rate of tenure track hiring.

Laying off professors isn't the only option (though you present it as being the only "Logical" one.) Other options? Wage reductions for faculty and administration, benefit and pension rearrangements, scrapping or reducing plans for building new buildings and creating secondary campuses (ie. Burlington).

The issue here isn't some sort of sentimental attachment to the professors who will be let go. It's not an "Oh noes, pplz won't have jobz!" concern. It's a concern over the quality of education being offered at McMaster. I note that in that entire post, you never once mention whether or not the administration should consider the quality of education being offered to us.

Less professors means larger classes. It means students who are increasingly treated like consumers rather than intellectuals. It means professors who are frustrated with the number of students they have to deal with. It means less individual attention, less opportunity to interact with professors and each other. Less complex assignments that demand intellectual expansion, group work skills and critical thinking (because these take time for professors and TAs to mark and the more of us there are in a class, the less time there is for this). Less feedback on work.

Welcome to your McDegree.

You say that the question is "How can the administration avoid making such bad decisions in the future?" I wonder if they care. We seem so unwilling to care about what happens that there's little repercussions for such bad decision making. You say there's no reason to throw a fit, but, if no one's willing to stand up, there's no motivation for our concerns to be considered.

This doeesn't mean we should throw a tantrum (as so much student activism turns into), but at some point perhaps we should start to ask whether the education we were promised matches up with the education we're receiving.

[huzaifa47]

Originally Posted by ash0000

The researchers arent going to get layed off (most of them anyway, some do, but thats another story) because theyre also performing revenue generating activities. Post-docs generally dont get laid off because its almost a form of modern slavery, extremely cheap labour with good/direct (revenue generating) benefits.


I dont know the business of a university that well, but from what I do know, sessionals are there to teach courses when the people who should be teaching them dont care to. I havent seen an employment contract or a job description, but from what I do know, they aren't permanent. Otherwise they would be on some other tenure track. A lot of them even know that being a sessional doesnt have much job security, thats a risk they take.

I'm assuming you mean the people who are supposed to be teaching i.e: The tenured lot are busy researching/teaching smaller class. But having said that the question is IS McMaster a bloody Think Tank?! The last I heard one of the more main reasons a university exists is to educate the next generation, sure research is important but if you get too busy diverting all the funds there and ignore the upcoming generation who will replace the current?! The reason we love certain sessionals is that more often then not they make us think and challenge the norms, their coursework is usually the hardest because it involves rational individual thought, Mr Alway had the most challenging coursework for me this year yet I absoultely enjoyed it at the end of the day. This isn't highschool not everyone wants a Cookie Cutter McCourse which gives us a quick easy grade.

I'll give you a real life example, due to prior Highschool Credit(I'm from a different system) I had taken the equivalent of theoretical physics(random example) in highschool, but since I had recieved max credit for other subjects I had to take Theoretical Physics at Mac as well. Theoretical Physics class had over 400 people(Mdcl) the prof was uninspiring and read out the slides, gave exams from the slides, the tutorials were bland and followed the same pattern. But most of all theoretical physics is a social science subject that is best learnt by essay writing, intellectual discussion and placing the course material into real world scenarios/examples in other words it requires a certain "outlook" to be developed and guided over time. BUT theoretical physics at Mac is graded entirely on Multiple Choices because they can't check 400 essays. It went from my favourite subject at highschool to something so uninspiring and insipid that I hardly attended any classes.
I am 110% sure had I not taken it at highschool level; (and known what its really about) having gone through the first year course at Mac I would NOT have ANY interest in majoring in it like I currently plan on.

That is what happens when classes get McDonaldized, now I might not claim that I'm some uber genius that would have solved global warming and found a cure for cancer by graduating with and researching Theoretical Physics but somewhere down the line we might actually be "losing" people who could potentially do great things had they studied certain subjects and recieved a certain academic experience.

[lorend]

Another issue which hasn't been brought up by anyone else is faculty renewal, and that is just as important, or more so than the hiring of tenure-stream faculty.

Lets say in Department X there are 17 tenured professors. One dies, and six leave for various reasons (other job offers, transferred to another position etc), which mean there are now 10 tenured professors in X faculty. Logic states that the school would be hiring another 10 tenured professors to replace them, right?

We, as students don't seem to be privvy to that information without hunting for it ourselves. But based on my own department, it seems as though faculty renewal isn't happening either.

[kenn987]

The spec article mentions that the school has hired 35 new tenure track professors, does anyone know which faculties they are in? Also when will we know what courses have been cut for 09/10?

[lorend]

No, I don't think we do know. The Daily News piece I posted earlier doesn't have any specifics either.

When the course time tables come out in a few weeks (? or sooner) we may get an idea of what courses are affected, but right now it seems there are lots of unknowns.

[lorend]

Remember when I said the mass layoff would affect the courses offered?

It totally does for Anthro, English and CSCT. I'm not surprised the same is true in other departments as well.

[huzaifa47]

Originally Posted by lorend

Remember when I said the mass layoff would affect the courses offered?

It totally does for Anthro, English and CSCT. I'm not surprised the same is true in other departments as well.

So is it just the Arts(Socsci and Humanities) that suffered this layoff, or were McMaster's Pride and Joy Lifesci/Engineering affected as well?

Are there any official numbers posted somewhere or as expected this matter is kept on a hush by the University admin?

[lorend]

To be honest, I'm not sure.

All CLAs would have been affected...but I don't know what numbers are for CLAs in Sci/Health Sci/Business/Eng. I am under the impression that they are in general much lower, but this could be incorrect.

University? Keep it hush-hush? OF COURSE!