David Porreca, FAUW President

This week’s post addresses issues and concerns relating to the November Senate meeting, when UW’s Strategic Plan was voted upon and approved. The UW Imprint and Daily Bulletin have already published news items relating to these events.

The discussion of the strategic plan generated a lively and vibrant debate, one which demonstrated Senate not to be a sleepy rubber-stamping body.  That said, there is some sense of disappointment in the end results. Let me explain.

The vote

Senate actually got to vote on the final version of the wording of the Strategic Plan, which had been called for at the October meeting of Senate.

Fears

1. The fact that the Strategic Plan was printed, published and released as a public document prior to final Senate approval is, to me, the most unsettling portion of the events relating to this topic.
2. The impact of emphasizing three specific research areas above others in the Strategic Plan is bound to colour perceptions of what research gets done at UW, including what donors see as our principal activities (e.g., will someone wanting to endow a research chair in a non-identified research area still want to send their monies to UW?)

Compromise

Concerns concentrated around the changes in wording of the Strategic Plan (detailed in our November 4 and November 11 posts) between the version Senate had approved by electronic vote in May and the one that was actually put forward at this November meeting. A friendly amendment was added to the motion to approve the Strategic Plan directing the team in charge of the implementation of the “Transformational Research” portion to refer to and take into account the university’s Strategic Research Plan, which is a much more inclusive document in terms of recognizing the broad range of research that happens on our campus. Hopefully this amendment functions to ensure the multi-million dollar internal CFI grant competition decisions are not influenced solely by the Strategic Plan statement.

Consequences

Water Institute Newsletter, v. 4 issue 1, p. 5

1. It has not taken long for evidence to arise that confirms some of our fears in relation to identifying these three research areas.  See page 5 of the Water Institute’s Fall 2013 Newsletter (pdf).
2. After the vote was completed on the Strategic Plan itself, a motion was put forward by a colleague aiming to proclaim Senate’s own authority to govern the academic aspects of any future strategic planning at UW.  Here is the language of the motion, with amendments noted (deletions that passed during debate are struck through):

   Motion:
   
   Whereas the University of Waterloo Act 1972 grants the Board of Governors the power to conduct the university’s business and affairs “… save with respect to such matters as are assigned by this Act to the Senate, …”, and
   
   Whereas the same Act, in section 18, states that “The Senate has the power to establish the educational policies of the University … this includes the power … j. to undertake, consider and co-ordinate long-range academic planning”, and
   
   Whereas research and teaching are both fundamental components of the educational and academic functions of the University, and
   
   Whereas any strategic plan for the University will address the strategies and approaches to be taken to further education and research at the University, and will identify potential areas of opportunity or importance,
   
   Be it resolved that

   a. Senate asserts the powers granted to it under the Act which give Senate the final authority over all academic aspects of any Strategic Plan, including those to do with research and education.
   b. No Strategic Plan for the University shall be regarded as being in effect until an explicit motion to that effect is discussed and approved by Senate.

Debate revolved around the specifics of the wording of the motion, to the point that the eventual vote went (quite surprisingly, in my humble opinion) against the motion 30-28, with votes going along non-partisan lines. Of course, Senate does not have the authority to vote away its own authority over academic matters, which is enshrined in the UW Act. Plans are afoot with student Senators to craft a more acceptably worded motion for the January meeting of Senate to address the concerns of Senate’s role in governing the academic aspects of any future strategic planning that happens at our university.

George Freeman, FAUW Past President

The Senate meeting of Monday, April 15 will live in my memory under the heading “kill two birds with one stone.” Unfortunately the two birds seem to have been institutional autonomy and collegial governance. Also, curiously, I don’t think I’ve ever seen more examples of the prisoner’s dilemma or tragedy of the commons illustrated in a single meeting. That’s because we had a great talk by Prof. Keith Hipel of Systems Design Engineering on methods to analyse problems which otherwise might go down those unfortunate paths. Then we went down them.

The story actually starts a long way back with a peculiar organization known as the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario or HEQCO. In early April, it produced a report entitled “Quality: Shifting the Focus – A Report from the Expert Panel to Assess the Strategic Mandate Agreement Submissions.”

Anyone wanting to understand the shortcomings of education and business leadership in Ontario must read this report, keeping in mind the credentials of the people whose names are attached to it. I promise you will be shocked, by the naked self-interest and by the lack of sound evidence-based reasoning.

The strategic mandate agreements were a bait-and-switch game foisted on university and college presidents. Under the hint of some new money, they were asked to summarize the strengths and goals of their institutions. As you might expect, there’s a strong similarity among the submissions and also a bunch of points of differentiation, such as cooperative education at Waterloo. The new money seems to have morphed into new cuts. However, differences can be amplified and marketed and that appears to excite both government and industry.

The apparent shift in “shifting the focus” is to an explicitly two-tiered system of university education (like that bastion of social equity, the United States). The big lie in “quality” is twofold in my opinion:

1. That quality can improve under this kind of differentiation, except for a few of the privileged or lucky, and 
2. That costs can go down.

The HEQCO report gives no evidence for any quality increase or cost decrease. What the report does indicate is that Ontario’s universities are already differentiated on everything the panel cared to measure. Yet, they repeat over and over a call to differentiate. Thus, maybe it’s useful to contemplate where the problems with university differentiation might exist, or be perceived to exist.

The main ones I could think of, off-hand, are location and faculty pay.

Location is important because Ontario has built huge settlements ringing Toronto over the past few decades but not sited enough universities within them. Also, the present universities, being close to uniformly good and close to uniformly diverse in program offerings, attract many students from their local areas. This saves a lot of money for a lot of parents (except in the huge new settlements). A recent proposal from government had three distinctly second-tier campuses being built to serve these areas. However, such a direct approach to making quality lumpy has obvious and negative bang-for-the-buck optics. In any case, Ontario’s universities are clearly too uniformly good even when badly funded.

Faculty pay is important because it’s the supposed key to a two-tiered system. The dream seems to be to have large numbers of students educated by less expensive non-research-active faculty teaching more courses per year. Let’s say on average one of these people costs $100k and teaches eight courses in comparison with a present-day faculty member who costs $130k and teaches four courses. Then, three faculty members costing $390k and teaching twelve courses could be replaced by one faculty member and one non-research-active faculty member costing $230k and teaching twelve courses.

On the surface, this would save about 40% of the 30% of the university budget which goes to faculty salaries, say twelve percent. In the university system, that’s about three to four years of inflation covered at the cost of both research diversity (including graduate courses) and research resilience dropping by 67 percent. About one third of the approximately 10% of space used for academic offices might be freed up (half a building or so at Waterloo).

This might buy enough time to fund the construction of a cheap campus or two (12% of the system budget is about $800m). It would be to the great benefit of any politicians who could announce it.
Of course, I doubt one could come anywhere near this level of transformation, so the actual potential savings must be much smaller. In any case, a system which gives a viable research opportunity to all faculty is, again, too good and too uniform to market effectively as sound bites.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

HEQCO’s financial survival depends on telling the government what it wants to hear. They especially like surveys of public perception and arguments involving performance metrics and system-wide control by outside, non-democratic and non-participatory agencies. Increasingly, university presidents and the Council of Ontario Universities seem to just fall in line, giving up their institutional autonomy and voluntarily playing the prisoner’s dilemma game while destroying the Ontario university commons. By Feridun’s description of the last COU meeting to Senate, there is zero chance of the university presidents cooperating against differentiation. Bird number one went down but the stone continued.

On further questioning, it emerged that Waterloo would consider shutting down departments as part of differentiation; perhaps those with not enough participation in graduate studies. The next natural question was about what kind of consultation might go on before (or while) proceeding with such a differentiation agenda at Waterloo. Apparently, the meetings around the mid-cycle review of the university’s strategic plan over the past year have given the administration a mandate to go in this direction. That, and the fact that other universities are already doing it. Bird number two, dead.

One might wonder what roles Senate, its Long-Range Planning Committee, and its Finance Committee play in this, especially if you read their legal responsibilities under the University of Waterloo Act and Senate Bylaws, in particular, the Act Section 22, Bylaw 3 Section 3, and Bylaw 4 Section 3. Apparently, their roles are deemed to be none, none, and none, except that the SLRP did assist Sallie Keller (former VPAP) with the strategic mandate agreement for Waterloo and Senate still gets to ask questions. SLRP will also review, in some sense, the strategic pl
an. FAUW members have some further leverage through Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the Memorandum of Agreement. Keep in mind, however, that the province does not respect such agreements or existing legislation very much lately.

The usual message is trotted out, that Waterloo might be a net “winner” in differentiation of teaching just as we appear to be so in the differentiation of research. However, in both cases, this is just in the context of everyone losing. The United Kingdom and Germany, strangely enough, were the touted models at Senate. The UK takes performance metrics to the limits of absurdity and seems to have completely abandoned the notion of the university as a social good. Germany is distinguished by having universities which are free but mediocre, according to The Economist last June. Not exactly the leaders I would have picked to follow.

Bottom line: If we’re so innovative, why would we seek to emulate haphazard social experimentation or mediocrity?

Addendum 1: A quick scan of the just-released strategic plan draft shows “cut” only three times, as part of the phrase “cutting-edge” and, although “different” appears seven times, it is never in the context of differentiation. Whatever mandate came from the consultations isn’t obvious in the plan.

Addendum 2: HEQCO must be rolling in money because reports come too fast to read. The latest from them claims that Ontario universities are efficient, productive, and accessible – then argues for a new accountability regime to improve what we do without additional funding. OCUFA characterized it quite astutely as “fiddling at the margins.” I feel so naive having worked here for 28 years without any notion of quality to guide me.