dooley@helios.toronto.edu (Kevin Dooley) (03/16/89)
In article <89Mar15.114025est.9395@ois.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: >In article <744@helios.toronto.edu> dooley@helios.UUCP (Kevin Dooley) writes: >>This is the key problem. The university has an enormous budget, >>a budget which could easily be used to hire more faculty and more >>TAs, a budget which could easily be used to further the cause of >>education on this campus. Far too small a fraction of it actually >>winds up being used for that, though. Underfunding is an issue, >>but budget allocation is perhaps a more serious issue. >Is there any evidence that allocation is as severe a problem as you allege? >What are the figures? How do you know that the administration is keeping >for themselves a larger slice of the budgetary pie than they should keep? I suggest that you refer to the U of T Faculty Association for the figures. This has always been the principal plank in their platform for reduced class sizes. U of T is not alone in this issue. Budget allocation has been a source of complaint at every university I have ever seen. It is a disease which grows as the university itself grows. The problem is not, of course, which is isolated to Simcoe Hall. Take instead the example of computing services. There was a terrific campaign to get the Cray supercomputer here in the physics building. Now it is being desperately underutilized. How many millions were wasted by this poor allocation of funds? I know that the counter argument is that this money would not have even come to U of T if it didn't come in that form, so it was not so much a waste of U of T budget as a waste of Ontario taxpayers money. Nonetheless, it was a stupid misallocation of funds. (Does George Luste read ut.general ;->) The bill for Dr. Connell's office renovations was considerably less than the bill for the Cray. Even if we consider both in isolation, it is no big deal. What's a couple of million dollars anyway? However these events are not in isolation. Every issue of every campus newspaper contains reports of new and more flagrant ways that people (not always from Simcoe Hall either) have diverted money away from research and education and into what I shall generically refer to as 'The Administrative Pork Barrel'. Certainly we ARE underfunded, but my point is that we could do much better with what we have! Now consider the governmental point of view. They are being asked to shell out ever increasing amounts of money into an ever deepening pork barrel. This university has to smarten up or we may risk the kind of funding backlash which nearly closed down UBC not too very long ago. Funding is a two way street. Nobody can reasonably expect that every funding decision will turn out for the best. For example, I really thought that the Cray was a good idea at first. The government expects the occasional accidental misallocation, but I refer you back to any given issue of any given campus paper to stress my point that it is not the occasional accidental misallocation which is the problem. Now I am very sure that I have offended a large number of people. You will all notice that I have altered the subject line so as to start a new and fresh debate. Anybody who has anything intelligent to add on the subject of internal funding is welcome to join the debate lest ut.general slip back into a sleepy forum for apartments wanted. Kevin Dooley -- Kevin Dooley UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!helios.physics!dooley Physics Dept. BITNET - dooley@utorphys U. of Toronto INTERNET - dooley@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
johns@eecg.toronto.edu (David Johns) (03/18/89)
In article <747@helios.toronto.edu> dooley@helios.UUCP (Kevin Dooley) writes: >In article <89Mar15.114025est.9395@ois.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: >>In article <744@helios.toronto.edu> dooley@helios.UUCP (Kevin Dooley) writes: >>>This is the key problem. The university has an enormous budget, >>>a budget which could easily be used to hire more faculty and more >>>TAs, a budget which could easily be used to further the cause of >>>education on this campus. Far too small a fraction of it actually >>>winds up being used for that, though. Underfunding is an issue, >>>but budget allocation is perhaps a more serious issue. >>Is there any evidence that allocation is as severe a problem as you allege? >>What are the figures? How do you know that the administration is keeping >>for themselves a larger slice of the budgetary pie than they should keep? > >I suggest that you refer to the U of T Faculty Association for the figures. (Kevin goes on to describe some mismanagement of funds) > >Kevin Dooley > Not that I fully agree with either John or Kevin arguments but there is a very good article in the "Report on Business" in the Friday, March 17'th issue of the Globe and Mail about the mismanagement of Health care money with particular emphasis on Hospitals. I think many of the same arguments also hold for the Educational system and Universities. David Johns
mdhutton@lily.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) (03/26/89)
Please excuse my ignorance, but I just picked up this group, and in over 30 articles, have yet to figure out the reason for this strike. We get the same (probably justified) grumblings about underfunding at Waterloo, the same over-crowded classes, etc... What is different at U of T from say, here? My vastly incomplete knowledge of the process makes several assumptions: 1. TA's are grad students. As such they 'get paid' to go to school. (I've been looking forward to this for five years) 2. TA's work a fixed number of hours, units, what have you, and as thus are obligated only to a fixed portion of the underfunding crisis (unlike profs, who teach larger classes, and students who suffer through them) Am I wrong? Are there 'career TA's ' at Toronto that have nothing to do with the academic process? If so, do I want to get help on my courses from people removed from the research world? As a potential grad student at Toronto next year, I am starting to have a few misgivings. Should I stay put and count my blessings? Do I really have to join a union (bleagh!!!) to continue my education? If I do go to Toronto, will I be subject to some kind of painful existance (other than the odd all-nighter). Someone told me that Masters students teach courses - I assumed they meant tutorials? PS: You've got your CRAY, we've got the "Bill Davis centre for Computer Research" Everybody has their monetary sinkholes in the interests of friendly competition. (Actually, I'm starting to like the DC, it's kind of like the Eaton Centre without the skateboarders ...) Mike -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hutton University of Waterloo, Computer Science. mdhutton@lily.waterloo.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/28/89)
In article <8831@watcgl.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@lily.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >What is different at U of T from say, here? Probably a combination of a less cooperative administration and more militant TAs. >1. TA's are grad students. Yup. CUEW local <whatever> used to be the Graduate Assistants' Assocation. >As such they 'get paid' to go to school. If "get paid" means "receive money", that depends very much on which department they're in. Some believe in supporting their students directly. Some do not, meaning that working, e.g. TAing, is the only source of funds for non-scholarship grad students. >2. TA's work a fixed number of hours, units, what have you, and > as thus are obligated only to a fixed portion of the underfunding > crisis... That is the theory. It is reported that in practice, unpaid overtime is common; it is understandable that TAs would be reluctant to protest such abuses to people who also control their educational future. >Am I wrong? Are there 'career TA's ' at Toronto that have nothing to >do with the academic process? ... Not that I know of. >Do I really have to join a union (bleagh!!!) to continue my education? Only if you're going to be TAing, although that is often considered a part of your education. >If I do go to Toronto, will I be subject to some kind of painful >existance (other than the odd all-nighter)... Apart from the run-of-the-mill U of T pains -- this is a big university, and is famous for its contempt for its students -- there shouldn't be any significant problem in Computer Science. If you were in, say, the English department, that might be different. Computer Science treats its students pretty well, and in particular, is one of the "direct financial support" departments. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) (03/28/89)
In article <1989Mar27.175623.16734@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Computer Science treats >its students pretty well, and in particular, is one of the "direct >financial support" departments. This might be what you mean anyway, but if it's not, treat it as an addendum: in DCS, graduate students who receive departmental support generally do not know the direct source of the support. Typically it is the operating grant of a prof, but that prof may not be that student's supervisor. This is an important if perhaps slightly subtle point. Another policy we have tried to maintain is to provide additional financial support to offset visa tuition fee differentials. This is quite expensive. -- Eugene Fiume Dynamic Graphics Project University of Toronto elf@dgp.toronto.edu