Between spreadsheets and strategy, Queen’s forgot to consult its own students on proposed alterations to faculty funding.
The Journal obtained consultant documents detailing a proposed restructuring at Queen’s, including an increased focus on research and graduate education, online continuing education offerings, and the likely slimming of arts departments. While the potential for
accessible education via the internet is exciting, the documents validate the worst fears of both Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) students and faculty members, as well as appearing disingenuous in their sudden interest in graduate students.
The documents detail a desire to increase enrolment to 40,000 students by 2040, 10,000 of which would attend online through a new school entitled the School of Professional and Continuing Education (SPACE). While the idea of continuing education is exciting, offering more opportunities for mature students to return to school, it raises questions about the effectiveness of online learning. There’s definitely a market for online education, but the jury’s still out on if it can replace the classroom.
The documents also recommend a reduction of 3,500 FAS students, justified on the basis of “concentrating our research.” Justification aside, the lack of administrative initiative regarding the future of ArtSci at Queen’s is concerning.
In one section, the documents describe an exercise where administrators were given balls representing university funding and asked to sort them into bins based on where they should be allocated. The majority were allocated towards Health and Science, and Engineering.
While not a clear indication of the university’s future, the exercise is a frightening example of the decision-making process behind the proposed cuts. It’s disappointing not to see evidence of further student and faculty consultation, implicating profit as the primary motivation behind administrative decisions.
The University can shape the desirability of their programs via investment and outreach, but instead, is choosing to do away with them to align with market trends.
The report also recommended a significant increase in the number of graduate and professional students. However, this goal comes across as disingenuous in the face of increased increased TA workloads with lower pay.
A year after 2,000 graduate students protested their working conditions by walking off the job, a prioritization of graduate funding doesn’t seem likely. It’s frustrating to only see graduate studies taken seriously on account of their ability to turn a profit, not when they’re struggling to make rent and pay for groceries.
While the objectives outlined in the documents seem misaligned with the material reality at Queen’s, the unfortunate truth is that the consultancy is in response to provincial funding cuts to universities. We can talk all we want about the Universities financial decision making, but they’re ultimately at the mercy of a provincial government that doesn’t seem to value higher education.
Even with funding cuts and international tuition caps, it’s disappointing to see the University operate as a business, instead of a forum to prioritize dialogue, critical thought, and the equality of all students. Ultimately, education, not profit, should be at the heart of discussions surrounding the future of the University.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
ArtSci, Bicentennial Vision, grad students, online school, Queen's, Restructure
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.