Author: Neal Yonson

Neal Yonson is a native of Ottawa. He graduated from the University of Toronto with an Hon.B.Sc. in 2006 and will be happy to tell you about how things seemed to work more smoothly there. After traveling across the country for free (protip: strategically arrange grad school visits where they reimburse travel) he came to UBC to start a Ph.D. in chemistry. He was quite happy to avoid student issues until he found out how much it cost to go to the BirdCoop. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of advocacy projects.

Categories
Academic Life

Neat new stuff

And a plug. I refer readers to Maclean’s Education. A helluva site with tons of good articles. There’s a very useful piece on how to get a reference letter for grad school, a skill that students far too often find themselves without. And even discussions on Facebook. Apparently Spencer Keys (a friend of the show) is involved in some way that, as of yet, is unascertainable on the site.

But two articles stand out, and they’re quite related. The first is a piece on the plight of the sessional lecturer. In short, they’re paid nearly minimum wage (25-30k, if they get a full load) to teach. This leaves them no time to do research, which denies them tenure-track positions. It’s a vicious cycle. And the second is a more philosophical piece about why we’re all at Universities in the first place.

The latter piece attempts to contextualize the contemporary University experience. The picture it paints is one of a University for mass consumption, driven less by the “corporate” nature of Universities and more by the desire to get as many people in and out the doors as possible. In short, Universities fail to create meaningful learning experiences. We don’t learn from classrooms – we learn from associations with professorial research, from engaging more in-depth with the field, and from extra-curricular activities associated with the University. And this is related to the sessional lecturer – often, the sessional has to hold down a second job, and can’t devote themselves to engaging with students in a meaningful way. The emphasis becomes on cramming the brains of those in the lecture halls – hardly conducive to learning.

We’ve also created a culture where students expect to go into a University and to acquire the knowledge, like a car going in for a new paint job. Potter’s piece makes the point that the onus is as much on the student to seek to better themselves as much as it’s on the University. His metaphor is that of an elite athlete who relies on a coach to bring out the best, but at the end of the day, it’s up to athlete to better herself.

What are the implications for UBC? It’s where things like NSSE come in. We’re a University failing miserably at engaging our students, at creating the environment where opportunities exist. Sure, they’re fighting a generational battle. But emphasis of research in tenure appointments, lack of informal learning space, the measurable impact of research dollars, the unavailability of research or other engaging opporunities for many students (Seriously, anybody know any undergrad Arts students who’ve ever worked with a prof? I’ve been here six years and have yet to meet one.), and the general sense of “people in, degree out” that comes with a University of this size are all conspiring to create a University experience that’s quite frankly underwhelming.

Admittedly this is partly a generational problem. We’re a narcissistic generation that demands hand-holding. But UBC and Universities ought to challenge us, rather than granting a degree as a reward for attendace in classrooms 15 hours a week. Your degree equity is suffering. Hell, the bachelor’s is on the cusp of irrelevance already.

Not sure where I was going with all that. But read the articles. They’re good.

Categories
Student Politics

Campaign tips, or, how students learned to stop reading and love the familiar.

After my recent abysmal loss in the SUS elections, I found myself wondering what, exactly, do candidates need to do to themselves and surrounding victims in order to get their message out? Student leaders and political junkies constantly and lamely lament the so-called “student apathy” problem. Everyone else is too apathetic to care, frankly. The apathy issue is bound up with the perceived irrelevance of student government on the part of most students, but also with the dynamics of the societies themsleves, which have constructed and enforced an exclusive protectionist force-field around them. So either people voted into student government are instantaneously transformed into small-minded snobs, or opportunities for relevance and communication truly are limited, or the electorate is perpetuating the status quo (exactly what it bitches about) with it’s choices. Given my vehement personal bitterness, I took option 3 as a working hypothesis.

To find out a little more about how people make their choices, I conducted an utterly unscientific poll* by ambushing people randomly in the SUB and in the 99 B-line queue. Find out about the results and my mad excel-skillz behind the jump.


My first question was: “Did you vote, or do you plan to vote in your undergraduate society election this year at UBC?”


As you can see, my sample obviously cared a little more than average, since the going rate for undergraduate elections is about 10% voter turnout, and I’ve got around 23%. Kudos to SUB-wanderers. This 23% represents 15 people.

I asked these what sorts of factors helped them decide how to vote, listing 6 options: 1) reading posters, 2) facebook groups, 3) knowing (of) people personally beforehand 4) reading candidates’ external websites, 5) class announcements, and 6) totally random. (They were allowed to say yes to as many as they wanted, so the bars do not add up to 15.)


As you can see, almost everyone said that knowing people, or knowing of people personally was a factor. Several people commented that they would go down the list and vote for people they knew, and only if they did not know anyone, they would then find out about the candidates’ platforms. Unsurprisingly, people in smaller faculties like engineering or Forestry didn’t pay attention to posters or websites at all and relied exclusively on knowing (of) candidates personally. Familiarity, not friendship, is important.

The next most important factor was class announcements. People commented that it helped by simply creating awareness of that person’s existence, though others said that they learned nothing from announcements and thus would not be influenced by them.

Posters, totally random, facebook groups, and external websites were about equally (in)significant. Interestingly, these categories encompass both the most detailed and the most shallow exposure candidates have. There was also a significant amount of overlap: those that read candidates’ websites were likely to use most of the other sources of exposure as well. People that payed attention to class announcements though, were unlikely to read external websites, and mostly voted by personal knowledge of the candidates. Lets be honest though, my sample size is debilitatingly small.

The conclusion that is possible is that just knowing vast numbers of people, or being a familiar figure, will do more for you in an election than any specific ideas or goals you may have for the position. Also, campaigning (posters, websites, announcements) doesn’t work that well. Targeting your acquaintances with personal appeals is more worthwhile, apparently.

So how does all this relate to apathy, the alleged irrelevance of student societies, and exclusivity? Well, it’s a bit of a cycle: as long as most people are too lazy to vote, the deciding factor in elections will be the personal acquaintances of the candidates, or associated “insiders”. Thus, it’ll be more worth it to ignore most voters and concentrate on these insiders, both in campaigns, and in policies (read: personality-driven campaigns and governance, not issue-driven ones). This further perpetuates the sense of irrelevance and exclusivity that makes people too lazy and disinterested to bother voting in the first place.

Perhaps one way to get candidates more serious and voters more interested simultaneously is as simple as advertisement: if elections are higher-profile, the level of discussion and challenge will be driven up. The interesting experiment of the Voter-Funded Media (click!) contest that accompanied the AMS elections has arguably raised the bar for campus political coverage and debate, but didn’t raise overall voter turnout. Since the banning of slates (student political parties or factions), maybe campaigns are destined to be lower-profile and less flashy. But should this translate into lower interest and greater apathy? Maybe there’s unexploited potential in the slate-less system to leave traditional campaigning behind in favor of more personally accountable issue-driven platforms. Here’s hoping, anyway.

Perhaps though, the inherent structural realities of a commuter campus, our cultural stand-offishness (just asking people to answer a two-question survey made me feel like Oliver Twist – asking for someone’s vote, and plying them with web addresses and platform points is almost an inexcusable intrusion) and the demanding academic environment are the real factors. Confronting these realities to create a stronger more informed electorate at UBC is a challenge nobody really knows how to approach. So let the laments continue.

*Yes, I am in sciences, and can do error analysis. No I did not bother.

Categories
Government

Budget Highlights

Where I read it. So you don’t have to!

The first thing to note is that post-secondary education (PSE) isn’t the showpiece of the budget. But there are a few tweaks and spending increases that will be of interest. It’s also important to note the possible implications of the equalization formula calculations – a province’s “fiscal capacity,” the extent to which they can be expected to contribute, will be based on property values. That valuation could seriously ding BC, with sky-high property values. So that has some in the provincial Treasury a wee bit frightened. I’ll be honest – I don’t understand what the “provinces able to choose” actually means, so I’ll just leave that as a potential issue.

But on to the PSE sections. There are a few highlights:

  • $800 million increase in the Canada Social Transfer in 2008-9. This is money that the feds give to the provinces to fund provincial social spending in health care and education.
  • Making info about Universities available to Canadians (no further detail).
  • 1,000 new merit-based awards for graduate students. For Masters’ students the awards are 17k, for Doctoral students they’re 35. Awarded by the granting councils, this totals $35 million/year.
  • $2M international student recruitment campaign. Whoop-dee-doo.
  • A review of the Canada Student Loan Program, designed to simplify and integrate the myriad systems that students must navigate to get financial aid.
  • Increasing RESP contribution limits, which will really only benefit those in upper income brackets.
  • $105M to specialized research centres, including UBC’s Brain Research Centre.
  • $85M in new funding to the granting councils: $37M each to NSERC and CIHR, $11M to SSHRC.
  • $15M to support the indirect costs of research. That’s nothing.

There are a few worth further explanation.

1) Increase in CST. Good. More money = good. But let’s put it in perspective. It’s $800M nationally. If you were to (roughly) pro-rate that to UBC’s size, it would wipe out our deficit. That’s it. This ain’t a huge sum of money. But it’s definitely a start. I’d personally like to see a dedicated transfer, and bigger. But who wouldn’t? It’s also delayed a year in order to work out some accountability mechanisms. A response to Maclean’s? Highly likely. Accountability has to be a good thing, but will it really be meaningful?

2) The grad student scholarships are big. Important. It’s a 50% increase in the state’s ability to offer huge chunks of cash to our country’s best and brightest. One quarrel – 400 each will be funded by NSERC and CIHR; only 200 go to SSHRC. That means, once again, Social Science and Humanities research is at the bottom of the food chain. That’s not how it should be. These are important disciplines, doing important if un-sexy research that too often goes unrewarded. (SSHRC also gets screwed throughout the granting council cash, too.) Also, this does nothing to address accessibility.

3) Loan streamlining. Sure, I suppose it’s a good thing. But there’s so much more that could be done. Grants. Elimination of parental income stipulations. Any measures targeting those groups that right now don’t access PSE. A weak step, but a step nonetheless.

I know I missed something. But the budget’s been out for 45 minutes. I’ll update when/if I read it more thoroughly. But the headlines? Baby steps in the right direction. Unless you’re in Arts.

Categories
Student Politics

It's politics – suck it up

(NB: This post is poorly written and rant-y. Mostly it’s a thinly veiled response to the personality conflicts that were the big “scandal” of the SUS elections. But it’s no scandal at all. It’s really just a personality clash masquerading as about “leadership” or “issues.” Also, I hate when people throw around the word “libel.” If this interests you, read on. If not, I encourage, nay implore you to move on for now.)

I try to be professional and respectful. But something’s bothering me and I need to get it off my chest. It’s when Student A has a beef with Student B, and makes some sort of public statement. Usually that beef is personal, but A will always take great pains to portray the conflict as professional. It’s not. And that first intrusion is often unwarranted, silly, and petty.


But what gets me all riled up is that Student B is often incapable of taking criticism. B will almost always take it personally, and retaliate as such. And they always accuse A of slander/libel. The whole thing is silly, but this one’s my favorite. Mostly because it’s always used inappropriately.

Libel defined: a false statement, implicitly or explicitly represented as true, that harms the reputation of another person.
The key point? That it has to be false. Not questionable, not in the grey area between true and false, not an opinion. False.

So is that it? No. Not at all. There are several defences to libel. Instances where we say it’s justifiable. For instance, reporting of court proceedings. Or truth of the statement. But the most important is fair comment. Put simply, if a person has an honest and reasonable belief that the statement is true, and they’re commenting on a matter of public interest, then it’s not considered to be defamatory.

It’s basically the “politicians” exception. If Stephen Harper proposes a tax cut and says that the taxpayer will save $500, and I disagree, and print an editorial that says Stephen Harper is wrong and a bad economist, should I be held responsible for libel? Of course not. It’s politics – suck it up. And PLEASE stop calling things libelous? I’ve seen dozens of student politicians complain that a criticism leveled at them was libelous. It rarely is.

Now not all bad statments are libelous. Sometimes A has no business throwing that mud at B. But authorities ought not to substantively intervene unless it actually reaches that potentially libelous level – anything below that threshold threatens and stifles the already meager political debate that may take place. Sure, person A might be discourteous and even rude, but these are personal quibbles, best fixed in the personal arena. And B ought not to go crying to the teacher to make A stop.

Categories
Campus Life
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

The Global Outreach Students’ Association presents:

(in collaboration with the College of Health Disciplines )

Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge, and Access to Essential Medicines

Saturday, March 24th, 2007

9:00 am-5:00 pm

First Nations Longhouse (1985 West Mall)

FREE ADMISSION, FREE FOOD

http://www.health-disciplines.ubc.ca/GOSA/GOSA_events_conf0607.htm
REGISTER AT gosa.ubc@gmail.com

Speakers include:

Kelly Bannister, UVic

Accessing traditional knowledge and biodiversity: Rights, responsibilities and related issues

Pat Howard, SFU

Biopiracy and Traditional Medicines

John Hepburn, UBC VP Research

Technology transfer, patent licensing and current research at UBC

Bob Hancock, UBC Microbiology and Immunology

Antimicrobial peptides, access to essential medicines, research funding

Steve Morgan, UBC Centre for Health Services and Policy Research

Can patents promote efficiency and equity in pharmaceutical innovation?

Cailin Morrison, International Trade Law Consultant, MSF Access to Essential Medicines Campaign Legal Advisor

Trading away Health: Free Trade Agreements, Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicines.

Guests from the Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)

Role of universities in equal access to technology and distribution of research


Categories
SUS

SUS election results!

These are unofficial until next Thursday, but I thought I’d post them anyhow. Note the high voter turnout via WebCT!

President
Michael Duncan – Yes 1079, No 206

Vice President External
Jamil Rhajiak – Yes 989, No 227

Vice President Internal
Jimmy Yan – 474
Stephen Yoon – 321
Gregory Stegeman – 211
Farzin Barekat – 157

Director of Administration
Alex Lougheed – 608
Maria Jogova – 572

Director of Finance
Lois Chan – 583
Aaron Sihota – 404
Vishal Hirilal – 194

Director of Publications
Ally Vaz – 676
Varun Ramraj – 439

Public Relations Officer
Meghan Ho – 440
Lawrence Chow – 402
Mark Berg – 326

Director of Sports
Polly Kwok – Yes 885, No 296

Science Senator
Diana Diao – 605
Geoff Costeloe – 409
Martin Sing – 196

Alma Mater Society Council Representatives
Lougheed – 517
Tahara Bhate – 454
Tristan Markle – 420
Clark Funnell – 396
Maria Jogova – 389
Stephen Yoon – 346
Anita Yuk – 322
Maayan Kreitzman – 290

Thoughts behind the jump.

My impressions are as follows – I’m not at all surprised Mike Duncan won by a landslide yes vote, nor by the wins of Alex Lougheed, Lois Chan, Meghan Ho, and Diana Diao.

I do hope Alex Lougheed will lose some of his arrogance and actually try to work with people in order to push anything forward. I also hope Lois Chan’s platform of rage will transform, again, into something productive and progressive. Since she controls the budget, it places her in a powerful role in thinking twice about blindly allocating money (and thus execution) towards self-serving events. Make no mistake – electing those two was a clear message that SUS will have to slap itself in the face several times: we, the members of SUS, want to see change.

Diana will have to learn how to speak out and work beyond the prescribed codified duties if she wants to get anything done at Senate – something she has yet to demonstrate (despite of her boyfriend’s objections to this on WebCT). Organizing an open house at SUS in no way translates to an ability to speak up on the floor of senate or advocating for student agendas through administrative hurdles.

The surprises are Tahara’s win to AMS Council and Ally Vaz (well not so much, I’m sure her sorority helped her out tons).

I’m sad that Maayan didn’t make the elections cut, because I can see her be a very diligent and thoughtful AMS councillor. This once again shows that popularity is still an emanating force in the democratic process – informed voting would have no doubt placed her higher.

Most importantly, I’m really happy about the Voter turnout. In the past voter turnout was around 10% (ish). WebCT proved to be a tool of convenience and accessibility and I suppose this helped the strong(er) numbers shown above.

Congratulations to the winners – you have a heavy task ahead of you.

Categories
Student Movement

Aquatic Centre Gym, Part II

First, I should note an addendum to my previous post. Rec has released their proposed fee reductions. They’re very good. They’re 25-30% in the Elite (refereed) divisions, and 45-50% in the Co-rec. This is a very welcome development.

Something interesting happened with the Aquatic Centre Gym closure. Note Tuesday’s Ubyssey – there were two stories, one dealing with the closure, and one covering student reaction. And really, that’s fair. Student reaction and outcry has been nothing short of remarkable. Those of us who’ve been around a while can’t remember anything like it.

How has it worked? Quite simple. The first people were tipped off by people in HKin – a Facebook group was established that became a central online gathering point for people to a) find out, b) get information, and c) invite more friends. But most importantly, it became a hub to tell people where to apply pressure, whom to e-mail. I have no idea how many e-mails were sent, but people sent them to the right people. Moreover, the AMS swung into action with a rapid response and applied pressure. In short, the student lobbying arm worked like it’s supposed to.

What’s been the outcome? As of now, the University has agreed that this needs to go through the committee, and that the original decision bypassed that. They’ve called a meeting for some time next week, though haven’t indicated when it will be yet. They haven’t provided any more information, are unprepared to present a case for action. In short, they got caught with their pants down and are desperately trying to pull them back up.

What are the lessons for the student movement?

  1. Students need to know HOW to make a difference. This is kinda obvious. But not really. See every student has a beef with the University, but doesn’t know that they have the power to get it fixed. And the AMS ought to help empower them. Which leads to…
  2. The AMS needs to lobby WITH students. If this was just a case of the AMS complaining, we wouldn’t have got anywhere. Conversely, without properly applied AMS pressure, student e-mails would have just been dismissed. Both groups need each other.
  3. Use new media and Facebook. It has huge power. And can be a really easy way to reach people without that pesky e-mail list. If the AMS has a lobbying priority, use Facebook to mobilize student support. It’s kinda simple, really. And in doing so, the AMS can work with students to get it all done. The communication between Jeff and the Facebook group has been so encouraging.

Admittedly, it’s still not done. But things look good. We’ve seen a relatively successful grassroots student uprising… the question is how we, as students, can replicate it in the future.

Categories
Campus Life

Aquatic Centre Gym, Part I

Due to a hole in our wordpress implementation, this post is incorrectly attributed. It was originally written by Tim Louman-Gardiner.

So the University decided to close the Aquatic Centre Gym. Students fought back. There’s the story. The first part is dedicated to the gym and the background – Part II will discuss the very interesting student response.

Why is the gym important?
On its face, it may not be. The Bird Coop is bigger, there are gyms in all the residences, and this one is just tiny. Well, for one thing, it’s the only free gym on campus. It’s also used by the various clients who use the Aquatic Centre, to create a more complete fitness regime. When it was built 30 years ago, there was so much student money involved that the University agreed to have free student times, and free student use. But most importantly, there’s a sense that this gym matters to people; its users feel a distinct sense of ownership.

Who closed it? How?
Aye, there’s the rub. See decisions about the Centre’s use are supposed to go through the Aquatic Centre Management Committee, a joint UBC-AMS committee, with student representation. This process was by-passed.

Who did that?
We don’t know. A Ubyssey article pointed the finger at the new manager of the Aquatic Centre, chalking it up to his inexperience. But recent evidence and thoughts from Aquatic Centre staffers indicate that this was in works a long time, and probably directed from the head of Athletics himself. Again, we can only speculate that Bob Philip, Director of Athletics was behind it.

Why close the gym?
Theories abound. The most plausible one involves revenue generation. Simply put, a free aquatic centre gym takes business away from the Bird Coop. (Never mind that the Coop is crowded during peak hours!) There are other theories, including renovation, but the fact that Athletics is putting forward a business case ought to indicate it’s about dollars and cents.

Why the outrage?
First, UBC students pay $175 each year to Athletics and Rec. What value do UBC students get for that money? Well, over 60% of the money goes to varsity sports, so the average students doesn’t get a penny. The rest goes to athletic and rec programming. But here’s the thing – UBC’s one of the only universities in the country that doesn’t give its students free gym passes. A Bird Coop membership is only slightly cheaper than a City of Vancouver pass. We still have to pay hundreds of dollars in team fees for Rec leagues that have no referees, staff, or supervision. In a system that already produces precious little value for students, we ought not be removing the only value added piece!

Where next?
Well, Athletics needs AMS and student support for two major projects. First, they want to hike the Athletics and Rec fee to subsidize a new gym. The AMS ought to link any successful outcome in this situation to the proposed fee increase. If Athletics is so willing to show disregard for students, then we shouldn’t be in the business of supporting them. Second, UBC wants to be part of the NCAA. It’s Bob Philip’s dream. And, should the continue to stand in the way of students, we should do everything we can to oppose that change, on the grounds that students just don’t want it.

Athletics, and UBC, really need to start to listen to students. And tonight I’ll post Part II, where students start to speak up.

Categories
SUS

The Science Undergraduate Society.

It seems to me that the current undergraduate society election taking place (link), which like many bureaucratized “representative” bodies suffers from self-prescribed self-importance yet in praxis reveals to be quite disconnected from its roots, has internally been turmoiled, yet externally invisible. Allow me to call this turmoil an internal collapse – an implosion, if you will.

As an “insider” twice removed from these ongoings, and as a former (and admittedly somewhat disheartened) executive of this very organization which seeks to re-perfuse itself with new or old human resources, I will attempt to describe the following positions and the candidates that seek to champion them. Before this, here’s how I’m voting:

President – No (or spoil my vote)
VP Internal – Jimmy Yan
VP External – Yes
D of Finance – Lois Chan/Aaron Sihota
Senate – Geoff Costeloe
Exec Secretary – Maria Jogova
PRO – Meghan Ho
D of Sports – No
AMS Rep – Maayan Kreitzman (top pick), choose two between Tristan Markle, Maria Jogova, Alex Lougheed and Clark Funnell


President.
Candidates: Michael Duncan (incumbent). Yes/No vote. The role of president is an important one as it involves oversight of all operations of SUS and an influential leadership of the direction the society decides to take any given year. Technically, voters would vote on a candidate whose leadership direction they agree with. Personally I would like to see someone who is interested in moving away from the binary of beergardens and Science Week. While I understand the emotional attachment to both, and while I do not advocate the abolishment of the latter, I do believe the limited energy of the busy executive should be channelled to a more grass-roots connection to students.

This is why I am hesitant to vote yes for Mike Duncan. While I think he is a nice person and very very friendly, sociable and approachable, I fundamentally disagree with the direction he (and the past presidents after the legendary Reka Sztopa) have taken. In fact, I am suggesting that they have not had any refreshing direction for the organization at all. It is all too easy to slip into the automatic pilot mode as president, and simply chair SUS council meetings, attend AMS meetings, and sit on the committees and allow for things to simply take their course. And while it is under Mike Duncan’s presidency that the building came to completion, if it had been Mike Duncan’s leadership during which the planning and referendum of the building’s initial genesis took place five/six years ago, I seriously doubt whether this impacting initiative would have been realised at all.

What I am suggesting, then, is a fundamental uprooting of the structure and operations of the society in order to gain any sort of relevancy to the students. Yes the Ladha Science Student Centre was significant, and it received the administrative support of former president Martha Piper, and the Faculty of Science. But it is not enough.

Do the beer gardens SUS spends countless time and money on cater towards a student group beyond the incestuous crowd of AUS, SUS, EUS, AMS? Do these initials live up to their mandate or do their activity have a tendency to perpetuate the well-being of only this in-crowd of no more than 200 faces total?

The attitude whenever this issue has been raised has been quite constantly: get involved and join us. Become part of this clique. No one will be turned away. I translate: complacency, with the onus on the individual to enter this circle.

What I would like to see is a radical departure from this attitude. What I would like to see is SUS reaching out to students by using its financial and bureaucratic situation to become (gasp) relevant. And this starts with becoming in touch with what a non-SUS, non-student government type student needs.

If I were to disseminate this (and this is just one person’s view), it starts with support structure for a science student’s life. A member of the Commerce Undergrad Society enjoys a rich career resource centre and planning of conferences which broaden the experiences of the student. This to me is a gesture of the representative of a commerce student fetching its constituency an opportunity to enrich their undergraduate student life. But not every undergrad society can afford that kind of overhead fee. But there are substantial things SUS can do to connect itself to the students. For example:

– work very hard at establishing a centralized student resource guide on courses, course planning beyond what’s written in the calendar. I know from a livejournal community that plenty of people want the honest opinion on how to specialize in something, etc. This needs to be approachable, and most certainly beyond WebCT.
– the Science career fair is held every year and it’s mostly successful and helpful. I think it could be improved a lot by advertising it more. It can be bigger and better.
– Teaching evaluations. The undergrad societies have been very very quiet at their level of involvement especially in working with the AMS. Hello here is one thing that most students find important and the Science Undergraduate Society does not prioritize this. If I had to tell an exec about what I cared about more, which would I prioritize you to spend your time on?
– I seem to have a thing against beer gardens. I actually like some – the Chemistry one always attracts grad students, students and profs and is a great social venue for this particular department to connect. SUS beer gardens (held in the SUB/Ladha) are mostly of the elitist/incestuous crowd. That’s why it’s a different story. Unless you get the Associate Deans and the Dean to come out as well, I don’t think there is much value to them.

These are just small suggestions but should not be adopted on their own, without a shift in the general attitude and priority of the society. And no, this should not be all shoved into the VP Internal portfolio. The President, AMS Reps, PR officer, and VP External should be concentrating their efforts on this as well. It’s about allocation of resources and priorities.

I think this would start at an existential discussion of what the mandate of SUS really is and if their activities reflect them. We have seen undergraduate societies which work – Commerce, and the Land and Food Systems for example. They do have the advantage of being small, but they both capitalize on the fact that every member of their society has one thing in common – and that is, they are studying their respective subjects.

It is irresponsible, ignorant and regressive to presume that any given Science student would enjoy or find value in the activities of SUS. So it needs to undergo a critical reflection. I am unsure if someone already programmed in the normative system is able to achieve this paradigm shift to make the huge leap to take the society into a direction that is closer to the student that is aiming for a BSc.

Other positions:
VP Internal – this position is largely academic and therefore (in my biased opinion) a very important one. The only person who I see a little serious in grasping the scope of the position is Jimmy Yan.

VP External – Jamil is the sole contender, and as this is a slave-driving position (organizing Science Week) and he’s had exposure to the heaps of work he’ll be facing, I wish him all the best.

D of Finance – Out of the three contestants Lois Chan, Vishal Hiralal, and Aaron Sihota, the two candidates who stand out are Lois and Aaron. Lois seems very discontent with the current performance of the executive (for reasons l
isted on her write-up), while Aaron is harping on his ideas to be transparent and create a student initiative fund. I quite like the idea of a student initiative fund, but I question the dedication he will put in to create this. Having spoken with people who worked with him in the past, it seems as though he’s had an unpredictable performance record (being sometimes there, often not) and being much more concerned with stacking his resume for his medical/law school application. So we have here a candidate who has a pretty platform but with questionable dedication, and an angry platform with more reliable dedication. Your pick, people.

Executive Secretary – at first glance Maria Jogova and Alex Lougheed’s platform points seem identical: more transparency! Minutes timely posted online! they both scream. Luckily, both have websites. Alex, a current exec of SUS, has been on AMS Council and has done little to impress me. To his credit he’s shown up to council and committee meetings, but he has said little at council that shows me he has the visionary strength, leadership and passion to live up to his platform. He has, however, paid attention to how AMS Council is run and thus his platform from his website mirrors its operation through the creation of an oversight committee and having execs paid for their turnover and their year-long term. He is also looking to survey students and reform the executive portfolios. While I am unsure of his competence and ability to do this, I sense that he is the type of person who will try to do his best. I am unsure of how tactful and effective he will be, however, given his arrogance and ego displayed quite frequently, which has surmounted into a tension within the current executive. There is a fine line between being radical and repulsive, and I question how far he is leaning towards the latter.
Maria’s platform is rich with fresh ideas. The following I find quite appealing – “Draft an official Equity Policy- because one does not yet exist… there is no official policy for dealing with people who are purposefully offensive, or say derogatory things that are based on race, gender, age, etc. Granted, this isn’t a huge problem, but this is a project I would like to undertake (regardless of whether I am elected or not)”. She also lists the measures she has taken currently in trying to keep her constituency (Science One students) informed of SUS business. I find this encouraging and am therefore excited for her potential to do more. Alex already is an AMS rep and exec, and he has shown little results this past year. Maria has been quite active within a limited position to do so, and shows huge potential. Their platforms are quite similar, so my vote goes towards Maria.

Senate: Geoff Costeloe.
Diana Diao is a nice and quiet person, and my problem lies in the latter. I have seen her do nothing this past year while her position as PR officer of SUS has been one where she could have done LOTS. The lack of visibility of SUS lies largely on her shoulders. Martin Sing’s platform is a bit vague. From Geoff’s write-up he seems to have an informed and sensible angle. I want to pass my torch off to him.

PR officer – Meghan Ho. Lawrence and Meghan are the only ones who submitted a write-up on time, and out of the two Meghan seems more competent, excited and experienced. Easy.

AMS Reps – I’ve valued the dedication and involvement of Tristan Markle this past year, and his alternative voice which is much more progressive than Council’s. I fully admit I subscribe to his views, but my endorsement of him reaches beyond political ideology. He has offered a valuable perspective to the table which has been critical and grounding.
Maayan has been a favourite budding student politician of mine. Her blog is ridiculously entertaining and more importantly well informed. While I disagree with her stances politically at times, I respect her reasoning and have no doubt she will be an excellent councillor.
It’s noteworthy that I have seen Clark Funnell attend AMS Council meetings more than once, and this makes me believe he will take the position seriously.
Alex Lougheed has the experience, but as mentioned above, has added little valuable discussion at meetings (if any).

D of Sports – Hello, write up please? I’m voting No because I have no idea who you are.

Categories
Uncategorized

We're back! Contributors needed!

So we’re gonna resurrect this blog around the undergraduate society elections. Particularly Arts and Science. We’re hoping to drum up a little bit of interest in them.

But we need contributors. For two reasons. First, we don’t have enough time to do this all ourselves. And second, we need people on the ground, in these faculties, who are more aware of the issues. So comment here, or drop us an e-mail, and let us know if you want to get involved!

Spam prevention powered by Akismet