Hardly surprising news, but we read in today's Edmonton Journal (where else?) that an expected continued 0% increase to the government grant for fiscal year 2012 will mean more cuts on campus. The refreshingly plain-spoken Dean of Arts, Leslie Cormack, plans to cut seven professorial positions in 2012, this on top of cutting 15 positions (including 12 support staff) in this fiscal year, and 26 mainly administrative positions in 2010.
Similarly, the Journal reports that the Faculty of Science eliminated 55 faculty and administrative positions over the last 19 months by closing vacancies, early retirements, and some non-academic staff layoffs. Dean of Science Gregory Taylor says that chairs are telling him "we cannot do it [more cuts] again without cutting programs."
Layoffs of teaching staff will inevitably mean larger class sizes (especially in first and second year) and higher student:teacher ratios* (one of the key metrics administration wants to see decreasing). Students see this as a bum deal, as their tuition fees steadily increase, and non-instructional fees and late-payment fees start to bite.
But fear not — Provost Carl Amrhein is on the case and is optimistic. He says he has spoken to the new Redford government, and thinks she understands the situation: "I haven't given up on the government grant," he says.
In a companion article in the Journal, there is a lengthy discussion of the particularly difficult position the Faculty of Arts finds itself in, compared to other large faculties that fit the federal government's STEM agenda (science, technology, engineering, medicine) where targeted funding and research chairs are still relatively abundant. Some have suggested a form of transfer payments, from these "rich" faculties to poorer ones like Arts, but Amrhein dismisses that idea, saying that "since donors make their own decisions on where their money will go, the university would have little control over the allocation and could not direct money to the arts." No harm in asking though, is there? Perhaps also the new Office of Advancement could make greater efforts to target potential donors to the Arts, as opposed to focusing on big oil and pharma?
* Or we could do the unthinkable and reduce our student intake. That just might get the public's attention.
Posts
Kirby marks Education Week with call for support for teachers
-
Monday, March 5, 2012
For Immediate Release
NDP Education Critic Dale Kirby (MHA, St. John’s North) noted the annual
arrival of Education Week with congra...
2 days ago
It also settles the question discussed here as to whether or not retirees will be replaced. BTW, does anyone know if the Arts cuts to faculty positions will be tenure track ones? I think if the university declares a financial emergency, any of us could be on the chopping block, but I"m not sure.
ReplyDelete... and of course, the notion of raising the bar for admission, in order to keep the student-to-faculty ratio barely reasonable will not even be entertained, even though there is another undergraduate institution in this very city that aims at expanding its enrolment.
ReplyDeleteI can honestly not make any sense of any of this.
Well, let's see. All students, including engineering and science students, need to take two English courses in order to graduate. Why not start charging those courses to the faculties of science and engineering? Why should the poor arts faculty have to pay to deliver those courses to the engineering and science students, who typically don't even want to be there.
ReplyDeleteBecause the same identical remarks apply in reverse to arts majors, and if the sciences retaliate, guess who's losing out ?
DeleteIf there is one logic that we, as a faculty, must stay clear of, is that which pitches arts and humanities against STEM.
I think it is high time the University considers to establish a grant overhead system, like they do south of the border, whereby part of every individual grant goes to fund general University operations, including A&H. I honestly do not see another way out of this predicament.
There already is such a system built into all NSERC grants - the university gets some percentage of the award to cover research overheads and I believe (but do not know for certain) that this is directed more towards the poorer (financially speaking) faculties rather than being spread out based on who brings in the money.
DeleteThe difference between our system and the US is that in the US the overheads are unjustifiably large, 40+% and are set by the institutes whereas the NSERC overhead is set by NSERC at a fixed rate of ~23% (if I remember correctly). Frankly I think our system is better - if we went to the US system that would be ~20% of our research funding disappearing into university administration which I would argue is an even worse situation to be in.
Yes, but then they'll cut them out, as I'm sure even our own President doesn't understand the value of Arts in our programs.
ReplyDeleteMassimo: There is already an overhead of 20% charged on all external grants (except Tri-Council grants). I don't know how all that overhead is divvied up, but some goes to the host faculty, some goes back to the researcher, some pays for RSO; where the remainder goes, I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteOverhead or Indirect costs ? I think they are two different things. And I don't think that there is presently any overhead on NSERC grants, is there ? It may be an NSERC directive, but at times of financial hardship it may have to be renegotiated.
DeleteWell, the overhead is used to pay for indirect costs.
DeleteYes, Tri-Council grants (NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR) are exempt from university overheads, but the Tri-Councils have begun providing some indirect operating costs to universities. Unfortunately, because SSHRC grants are usually much smaller than NSERC or CIHR grants, the returned indirect costs are also relatively small.
It is all a bit twisted when I consider the posting for the new VP (Advancement) in the Globe and Mail on Saturday. The UofA needs some help and perhaps it is time for our new Premier to pony up some cash. The public education system got more money from Premier Redford so it seems something isn't working with our strategy.
ReplyDeleteA Faculty Lecturer colleague didn't get their contract renewed this year, but their department still needed courses to be taught, so is hiring the person back to teach the same courses. (Isn't that...illegal?) This FL talked to the AASUA for help and the response was, "If you ever want to work at the U of A again let it go." Great advice, AASUA.
ReplyDeleteApparently Science departments are under strict orders not to hire any sessionals as full time (3 courses/term) because then they'd have to be paid benefits.
Isn't that great? Some creative budgeting to be sure.
That 20% actually results in a profit for the U for a lot of Humanities/conceptual research. I mean, in research, where the research doesn't require any equipment or people over and above what the grant pays for. I know that FGSR has costs but 20% is a lot for a project that isn't using any university equipment or personnel.
ReplyDeleteThe 20% "overhead" is a tax plain and simple and one that has jumped 33% recently. With the quality of "service" from RSO and the huge delays in getting grants set up, they should be adding 20% to our projects to penalize for the extra work it creates. Any idea what it means to the paperwork factory when grants are delayed by 6 months? Every expenditure has to be moved and then signed off. I have no idea if RSO has been "hit" by cuts but they are archaic in their process.
DeleteThe administration has done a masterful job in getting profs to believe that they get little indirect funds from NSERC/tri-council grants. Its simply not true.
ReplyDeleteInstead, they get a minimum of 20% from the federal government (http://www.indirectcosts.gc.ca/calculations/index_e.asp) for indirect costs. Given the federal govt is putting 322 million into this program this year, this means a large amount of money comes to UA.
If this were any other type of grant, some of these funds would be directed specifically to deans, chairs, and PIs. However ... for whatever reason there is this great blindspot about tri-council grants.
I never understood why UASUA didn't take up the fight to get those funds distributed appropriately, rather than treated differently.
Signed,
JC Cahill
Thanks to Jeremy for his comments on the funding cuts as they affect Arts faculty on CBC radio this morning. They were much appreciated and made me feel somewhat less isolated!
ReplyDeleteIs there a link for an audio clip of your remarks, Jeremy? I'd love to hear what you said!
ReplyDeleteJust up:
Deletehttp://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/episodes/2012/01/17/u-of-a-budget/
Carolyn, is there a link to the CBC interview you did last night? (I heard it -- nicely done. )
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeremy! Thanks especially for your final answer -- and for making the point about SSHRC being the poorest of the federal research grant agencies.
ReplyDeleteOh, thank you, Vox. There is indeed:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/radioactive/episode/2012/01/16/concern-over-arts-faculty-budget-cuts/
I'd like to see folllow-up on what JC said. What kind of accountablity is there to ensure that that 20% is actually necessary and actually goes to cover the actual indirect costs of the research? In my area it certainly doesn't. The only university infrastucture I use that isn't covered by other parts of the grant is my computer and my office. I suspect that 20% is going into VP salaries, the new buildings in other faculties, etc.
ReplyDelete