Author: Neal Yonson

So most of you have probably already been bombarded with messages to vote today- I know I’ve certainly had 3 of my profs tell me a total of about 15 times to go out and vote. But even after all that, I found out that people were still not planning on it. So I figure maybe one more reminder might do it. Think of it this way- if you don’t vote, you can’t exactly complain when the country isn’t being run well. Do you care for Canada? Do you care how it’s run? Do you care about proposals that are going to directly affect you? If so, then vote. If not, then still vote, because it’s still important. If you don’t know who to vote for- check out the platforms, it’s not too late. You have until 7pm! And don’t worry if you’re not registered- they’ll register you there, and it takes all of maybe 5 minutes. So take a break from studying for your midterms (if you’re reading this, you already are, and should go vote), and go to your nearest voting station!

Type the rest of your post here.

So lots of students societies finished their fall voting today, and I thought that it might be interesting to look at how elections are run. Being a Science student, and a SUS Council member for the past 2 years, I can at least comment on the way that SUS campaigns are run, and I would imagine that there are lots of similarities between SUS, AUS, EUS, etc. societies (although I could be fully wrong on this point). So let’s take a brief look.

Visiting the SUS website, and looking at all of the candidates, it seems like everyone is essentially focused on the same thing- they’re dedicated, passionate about SUS, they want to represent students. The things I’ve found severely lacking, however, are the actual plans that students have. The way I see it, everyone runs the same campaign every year- so I always wonder, how exactly are people supposed to decide? It seems to me that this sort of system perpetuates voting based on popularity and personality rather than any sort of credentials or something that might be even better- some sort of plans for what they want to accomplish. This is something that’s painfully lacking- most campaigns include vapid promises about getting students ‘in touch’ and representing students at Council. It would all be great, if it weren’t for the fact that year upon year students promise to do these things, and year after year, it’s still a problem. I think it’s getting better, but I still propose that candidates be asked to propose at least one concrete plan each time they run, and actually outline in concrete terms one thing they would like to accomplish, and how. Sure, it requires a little bit more work and more thought, and it might not always be something that’s carried out, but I think this solution provides us with two things:
1.) It allows voters to distinguish between those they’re electing, and vote on something more concrete than sense of humor or physical appearance of the candidates
2.) It actually forces the candidate to think about the position, what they’re doing, and makes them more accountable- people can always ask how the project is going, or can think back to the previous campaign and ask what’s been done.

I realize that lots of people run for Society positions to put something on their resume- but what exactly do most people do on when elected? There are certainly lots of very dedicated members, who help run events, who regularly sit on committees and actually do things. But there are also many who skip out on meetings, who don’t come to any committee meetings, who I never see around during office hours, etc. So it seems like there needs to be some actual accountability- there’s always a Code in place that enables people to be kicked off Council- but how often is the Code used? And why are people so afraid to point out to others that they’re not doing their jobs? In an organization that’s supposed to help students, it would certainly make people take the positions seriously. Yes, it might be harsh, and yes, I do realize that this is a volunteer position, but when a person volunteers at some organization, do they promise to do things and then don’t deliver? Do they bother showing up for their shifts? Why should a Council position be any different, then, from any other volunteer job?

This isn’t to say that there aren’t always some excellent candidates who don’t have a platform or any concrete plans- there certainly are. And there are certainly lots more people getting involved with SUS due to things like our Frosh program, which have been great at recruiting students to help with SUS events. However, I think that it might be best to look at how elections are actually run, and see if we can make student societies even better.

The issue of whether or not UBC should join the NCAA has been around for years and the discussion is reaching a peak with major consultations set to occur. I’ve been to a consultation meeting already and through my discussions with people on all sides of this issue, I think I’ve heard all of the major arguments for and against. Based on what I’ve heard, it has become very clear to me that joining the NCAA has overwhelming negative consequences for UBC and indicates a further deprioritization of non-varsity students by Athletics and Rec.

Without getting too much into the details, UBC-V has 361 athletes competing on 8 men’s varsity sports teams and 9 women’s teams. The varsity teams are members of either Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). In 2008, the NCAA Division II members voted to accept a 10-year pilot project to allow Canadian institutions to apply for membership. This has opened the door for UBC to apply for Division II, a desire that has been motivated by the Athletics and Rec department since the 1990’s.

Cited Reasons to Join

• Increased level of competition. UBC teams have had tremendous success, continuously winning championships. It is speculated that the NCAA Division II will offer a higher level of competition for these teams. But even if this speculation is granted as true, an increased level of competition only benefits certain varsity teams. For other teams, the CIS or NAIA offer the appropriate level of competition. Some varsity athletes have expressed the concern that the NCAA is not appropriate for their teams.
• Put people in the stands. Students at UBC are not going out to watch their teams compete, even when they’re winning all the time. Stands are regularly near empty and it is hoped that the prestige of the NCAA will get UBC students interested in their athletics teams. But increasing interest in athletics, as many of the student athletes themselves argue, is not best achieved by joining the NCAA. Interest in the NCAA stems primarily from Division I competition, not Division II. And if you look at the membership of the conference that UBC would be playing in, all of them are no-name schools. Who’s going to get excited because the Notre Dame de Namur University is coming to campus?
• Attract more athletes to UBC. The assertion is that the high school kid’s dream of playing in the NCAA will attract them to enrole at UBC. The major oversight here is that the dream is to play in NCAA Division I, not Division II.
• Bigger scholarships. The CIS and NAIA set restrictions on the financial incentives UBC can offer athletes to the cost of tuition and ancillary fees (NAIA covers room and board too). Under NCAA regulations, UBC would be able to offer prospective students lucrative scholarships, much like those offered in the United States. Athletics has no conception of how much this will cost, but they did say that it wouldn’t be in effect until at least 2013. This point raises questions about how we want to use limited funds to attract students to UBC. Should we place the emphasis on varsity athletes or on underrepresented groups and high achieving students?
• Increased fundraising. Athletics argues that the prestige of the NCAA will motivate a new $75 million fundraising campaign. Once again though, there is not really any prestige associated with Division II. How can we be sure that Athletics’ level of confidence in their ambitious fundraising goal is merited? If they don’t pull through with fundraising, the cost will fall on students. There is also an issue of equality of funding between men’s and women’s sports teams. Many donors will specify that they only want to contribute to a certain team, which usually turns out to be a men’s team. As a result, there is a huge disparity in funding both between the sports, but also between men’s and women’s teams.

Reasons Not to Join

• Accreditation and SAT. If UBC were to join the NCAA, the University would have to undergo accreditation and meet standards laid out by the United States. The implications of this are not entirely clear to me, but allowing the US to have any influence over the operation of our autonomous educational institution is worrisome, at the least. In addition, potential student athletes would be required to write the SAT to attend UBC and compete in varsity athletics. Forcing our domestic students to meet American standards of testing is something that should on its own raise serious doubts with regards to application to the NCAA.
• Problems of dual membership. If UBC decided to apply and was accepted to the NCAA, they would only have observer status and not obtain full status until at least 4 years later. CIS has not yet decided on whether or not to allow dual membership for sports teams, but if they disallowed it (which is quite possible), CIS would kick out 7-8 of our sports teams and those teams would be without an organization to compete in during the 4 year observer status lag.
• The NCAA is UnCanadian. UBC would be the only non-US institution to compete in the NCAA if we joined. Many student athletes are concerned that competing in an American sports environment is inconsistent with the values of Canadian sport.
• Funding. All students at UBC are currently charged $207 in Athletics fees each year. This fee has been increased by UBC (illegally) by 30 times of what the cost was in 1985. Joining the NCAA will surely cost a ton more. Think about travel – half of the teams in UBC’s would-be division are located in Hawaii. Then there is the general pressure to use student money to upgrade facilities for varsity athletes that will come as a result of being a member of the NCAA. The decision to pursue the NCAA clearly indicates that Athletics’ priorities lie with the small group of varsity athletes, not the other 44,000 students. Varsity athletics is already eating up 80% of our athletics fund and it shows. Shouldn’t the priority of Athletics be on programs that benefit all students, like perhaps a free gym or intramurals?
• Slide into Division I. Athletics Director Bob Philips has been saying since 1997 that his ultimate goal is to join Division I of the NCAA. Given the shaky foundation of arguments to join Division II, it should be fairly clear that Division II is only meant as a stepping stone to Division I. I can’t provide an analysis of the positives and negatives of joining Division I, but I do know that the average Athletics operating budget of Division I schools is over $35 million (ours is $3.7 million). We would have to increase our athletics budget tenfold to reach that level of funding. And where would the money come from? Students, of course.

Athletics is trying its best to appear as if its consultation is meaningful, but if you look at their consultation booklet, you’ll notice that it reads more like pro-NCAA propaganda material than anything else. The consultation questions are suspect as well. Look at this one: “Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: ‘Increased athletic financial aid for student-athletes through NCAA Division II membership is important.'” Athletics director Bob Philips has made it clear since day one th
at his desired legacy is to see UBC in the NCAA. It should come as no surprise that he’s running the consultation as a top-down exercise consistent with that view.

How many times now have students been ‘consulted’ on this campus only to find out that their opinions made little difference in the decision making? This is yet another example. Since the consultation sessions are being run as pro-NCAA rally sessions, the only hope for opposition lies with our student leaders.

Hi everyone,

We just wanted to let everyone know that Stephane Dion is coming to UBC on September 23. He will be holding a town council at Hebb Theater at 4.30, so if you are interested in asking him uncensored questions, or just listening to what he may have to say, regardless of whether or not you have decided who you are voting for, this is a great chance to do so!

Food is FUNdaMENTAL : A Conference on Mouths, Minds, Development and UBC Farm

The Student Environment Centre (SEC) and Friends of the UBC Farm (FOF) are thrilled to be hosting a conference at the end of September entitled “Food is Fundamental”. The conference is being held to educate, discuss and take action on pressing “food issues” that concern people, the environment and the economy in both local and global contexts. The timing of the conference is no coincidence as it is also meant to bring immediate attention to the situation at the UBC Farm as it is being considered for private residential development. In addition to calling these potential development plans into question, we are addressing publicized and popular food topics as well as those that are considered to be extreme or “on the fringe”, but are in fact resurging agrarian values and perspectives. In summary, we want to talk about FOOD! We want to create a dialogue that connects soil and land to our plates and we want to address the need to eat and live healthily and happily with significantly lessened adverse effects on the planet, people and our companion species.

Our speakers are all local, with one exception, and will be presenting on topics such as “dubious foods”, food crises, food sovereignty, the politics of genetic engineering, fisheries, First Nations and native foods, and many more areas of interest. Additionally, we understand it is one thing to talk about ecological, social, and economic responsibility and consciousness; it is quite another to actually live it. And whether it is intentional or unintentional, in virtually every aspect of our lives, we are currently supporting an economic system that inherently depletes, ignores and manipulates nature. This is especially true with our current industrialized and profit-driven systems of food production, distribution and consumption. There are however, many ways of condemning, resisting, and changing these systems. This must all begin the most basic and necessary form: personally and communally practicing a lifestyle and culture of food that does not endorse or support oppressive, violent, and irresponsible food-systems. This is exactly why the final and largest day of the conference, Saturday, September 27th, will be mostly workshops on subjects like: “alternative eating”, reducing and using food waste, growing your own food, brewing your own beer, how to shop responsibly and consciously etc. and what better venue to hold these workshops on than the UBC Farm, where talk and practice meet.

This conference will be a week filled with interesting and engaging learning, teaching, discussing, entertainment, fun and eating for everyone, so please, come join us at the conference because, indeed, “Food is Fundamental”!

Dates: September 23rd-27th

For schedule details and registration: www.foodisfundamental.com

To volunteer during or before the conference email: enviro@ams.ubc.ca or come to our weekly meetings: Tuesdays @ 12:30pm, SUB 245

Some Conference Highlights:

Tuesday, September 23, 12 – 2pm (Norm Theatre): Panel discussion on first nations food sovereignty

Thursday, September 25, 12-2pm (SUB 214/216): Panel discussion on GMO foods

Friday, September 26, 12 – 2pm (SUB Ballroom): A presentation by Nancy Knight about campus sustainability

Saturday, September 27, 10 – 1 (UBC Farm): Workshops, farm tours, presentations, and music

Saturday, September 27, 1:30-6:30 (MacMillan): Keynote speakers, presentations, workshops and free dinner by community eats

As many of you might know, UBC has been working for a while to try to find a method of getting lectures to be more interactive. The advent of things like PRS and iClickers has made it possible for professors to ask students questions in class in order to gauge their understanding of covered material, or at least to encourage student participation (or get students to attend class, which I think is generally a good thing). However, as much as I like these goals, and as much as I support involvement and interaction in lectures, there are certain problems with the way UBC is going about dealing with the issue.

The PRS system was first adapted a while ago, and since then students were required to buy PRS clickers ($45 at your friendly UBC bookstore- although I believe it was less 5 or so years ago) for certain classes. The idea was that they would be needed in several classes, and that they could be reused each year, or else you could sell them back to the bookstore for 50% of the current market price. Classes were also set up with antennas, which, according to my research, cost about $200 each. Professors were trained how to use the clickers. The problems came when they were actually being used, however- professors often had difficulty with the program used to run the clickers, some students found them to be a waste of class time, etc. So as a solution, UBC decided to adapt iClicker technology instead.

Now, there are several advantages to the iClicker, and this system addressed some of the issues that both profs and students were having with PRS. Namely, they are less expensive (only about $30), they’re easier to use in that they don’t require that you log into the class, and the technology is generally easier to learn. So far, so good.

So what’s the kerfuffle? Well, first of all, it seems like UBC has actually overlooked students in their decisions. Students who purchased PRS clickers are now forced to pay more for a new clicker(or lose marks in class, for instance)- even those who managed to sell back their old clicker have to spend some money to buy their new one. But the issue seems to be multifold. First of all, the UBC Bookstore has imposed a ‘quota’ on how many PRS clickers they’re buying back. This seems largely unfair- to state that you will be buying back clickers, and then to say that you’ve bought back enough and have reached some sort of ‘quota’ (that students didn’t even know about) doesn’t is dishonest to students who have been told that they can sell back what is now a useless piece of technology. It’s not even so much the fact of having a quota- it’s that they didn’t inform students explicitly of it! It also means that some students have ended up having to pay $75 for technology that they have used in one or two of their classes last year, and might be using in one class this year. Despite what students end up paying in total for iClickers (be it $10 after the buyback, or $30 on top of what they paid for PRS last year), the issue is also that when students are regularly spending $700 for per term for textbooks, $10 still counts ($10 can pay for a meal, in fact!). And students aren’t just spending money- they’re also spending time lining up for 40 minutes at a time in the bookstore when purchasing these clickers. Furthermore, UBC has already invested in PRS technology- I don’t know if the PRS antennas can be used for iClickers, but if not, then that’s thousands of dollars spent on technology that is now obsolete. And where does some of that money come from?

The bigger issue, however, at least from my perspective, is that these new iClickers don’t actually solve the problems of PRS. Sure, they may be easier to learn to use, or they might avoid the annoying problem of having to log into your class, but from my experience, the biggest problem with PRS was that it took up too much class time. Not because there were oodles of technological difficulties, not because professors couldn’t use the program, not because it took ages to join/access a class- but because the use of the technology wasn’t efficient, and was organized properly. My typical experience with PRS was a professor giving us a question, taking a while to explain it, giving students what I thought was too much time to actually solve the problem, and then giving us some more time because some students hadn’t answered the question yet. I did see some effective use of PRS (in my chem 233 class, for instance). But face it- the new iClicker won’t solve these issues. It was competely possible to use PRS effectively, to not let it guzzle up class time, to ensure that the answers were encoded properly. And the students who hated it despite all that will hate iClickers probably just as much, because lots of the problems associated with it were ones that were simply associated with trying to generate class discussion and participation.

I don’t deny that there were technological problems with PRS- I certainly experienced frustration with the system. I’m also not saying that iClickers aren’t a better technology- they certainly seem to address some of the student concerns about price, and professors’ concerns about ease of learning. And on the whole, I love the idea of getting students to engage in the material covered in class, and I like the notion of student participation, and profs being able to see if students actually understand the material, or if they need to spend a bit more time on a concept. For first and possibly second year students who didn’t have to get a clicker until this year, this issue may be largely irrelevant. All I’m saying is that I saw the system work quite well, and it’s possible for the system to work well. I just don’t think that the solution to the inability to properly operate technology that you’ve invested thousands of dollars in warrants the introduction of new technology that won’t solve the actual problems, but that won’t do so at students’ expense. So what’s the solution? I think that the Bookstore should buy back all of the PRS clickers, and ensure that next time, the policy on buybacks and ‘quotas’ is clearer.

This article/rant is a guest post written by Sonja Babovic, a third-year Science student, and as such may particularly resonate with other students in the Faculty of Science, though the author believes that the fundamental ideas discussed in the rant can be applied across the board.

It really irks me when people complain about keeners in their classes. You know, the people who commit the horrific sin of trying to participate in the course and actively learn. Who ask questions in class because they are interested in the answers, and maybe even believe that the whole class could benefit from thinking and discussing said question/answers. I will make no effort to hide that I am one of those keeners, and I don’t see anything particularly wrong with this.

Complaints I hear about keeners can be lumped into two main categories. The first argues that people who ask questions, especially intelligent questions, in class, are only trying to showcase how smart they are. While this may be true in some cases, I think that it is far more rare than most complainers make it out to be. If someone asks a question, it’s usually because they want to know the answer. There are much more direct ways to brag about one’s academic success, and from my experience, most top students keep quiet about their grades, because at even the slightest mention of them the student runs the risk of being labelled as a braggart. On the other hand, posting words to the effect of, “i failed the midterm because i didn’t study and i’m screwed for this course LOL can someone help me plz?” is still considered perfectly respectable.

The other complaint I hear is that keeners are just trying to draw attention to themselves. Let’s go with the worst-case scenario and pretend this is true in all cases. For one, I think there are much more disruptive ways to draw attention to oneself than sparking lively academic discussion. Like being obnoxious by talking loudly in class and berating your classmates and/or the instructor. Or playing World of Warcraft on your laptop while sitting in the front rows, which is incredibly visually distracting. Or consistently making out in class. I’m not kidding.

Or POSTING IN BLOCK CAPS ON DISCUSSION BOARDS, as exemplified by this gem:

GOOD LUCK TO ALL
wish YOU ALL DON”T NEED TO COME BACK AGAIN
but most importantly
WISH MYSELF A GREAT LUCK ( while all of you just good luck) ahahahhaah
jkjk
happy tomorrow.

Secondly, I’ve observed a common sentiment regarding UBC among many of my colleagues: classes are too large and profs are too distant. I hear complaints over this so frequently, and I am left puzzled when the same people roll their eyes at anyone who tries to spark any kind of in-class dialogue. Do you want classes where your prof lectures at you for 50 minutes straight, or do you want your classes to be a more participatory kind of forum? Or do you just want to complain?

I mean, you’ll have to excuse me for being at university because I genuinely want to be here. If you picked your courses or your program of study because a) you thought it would get you into medical school, b) your parents forced you to, c) you didn’t know what else to do with your life, or d) all of the above, that is unfortunate. As an adult, you are responsible for your own happiness, and why you would spend arguably the best years of your life doing something you show no apparent interest in, is truly beyond me, and I’m sorry I can’t help you there. My opinion is that you should be doing whatever makes you happy on a fundamental level, but, you have the right to instead spend your time doing something that bores you to tears.

I’ll be the first to admit that UBC is far from perfect, and I’ve spent hours of my life ranting about things I think could be improved on here. As an example, I’ve found many of my very time-consuming undergraduate labs lacking in intellectual stimulation, often devoid of correlation with the course material, starved for knowledgeable TAs dedicated to help students get the most of their lab experience… the list goes on. At the same time, I think that if things ever get to the point where I’m disgruntled and dissatisfied most of the time, that point would be a really good time to leave. I realize this may come as a shock to many people, but if you really do dislike UBC so much, and if you can think of no positive things to say about it… nobody is making you stay here? The same logic applies to your program. If you have constructive criticism and are trying to engage in meaningful dialogue with others to bring about the change you desire, you have massive respect from me. But if all you’re going to do is indulge in cynicism and whinery, this helps no-one, least of all yourself, and in this case I do wonder why you are staying in a place that makes you so unhappy.

I see so few people in Science genuinely interested in what they are presently taking, and this is unfortunate for a host of reasons. I do realize that being enthusiastic about what one is spending well over 40hrs/week doing is outside the social norm of cool. However, a more important consideration, to me, is that it’s generally a good thing to be able to speak of things that matter to you with pride and confidence.

I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I left the notion of “being cool” back in high school, where it belongs.