From little things, big things grow? The Faculties of Land and Environment and VCA and Music face budgetary and administrative restrictions that could damage the quality of graduate teaching and learning, according to GSA Council

This quote is from an email sent to fellow students and faculty by Ms Kelly Donati, a graduate student at the University of Melbourne. But let's start at the beginning...

1. On 10 August, The Age published this article Green studies hit by Melbourne Uni
2. On 13 August, The Age published a response from Professor Rick Roush, Dean, School of Land and Environment.
3. (Professor Roush also sent an email to students and faculty staff, but has declined to let GSA publish it here.)
4. Ms Donati's email (in full below) was her response to Professor Roush's (unpublished) email, and we asked (and received) her permission to upload it here, because we found it an inspiring and articulate response to the issues raised.
5. On Tuesday 18 August, GSA Council passed a motion reflecting their concern.

Reply by Professor Rick Roush to the Article in The Age "Green studies hit by Melbourne Uni"

I must correct one misunderstanding in "Green studies hit by Melbourne Uni" (The Age, 10/8) The draft "performance review" did not state that teaching would end at the Burnley, Creswick and Dookie campuses, but echoed the school's plans that they should become "self-sustaining research campuses". Nothing prevents teaching at a research campus.

The article highlights the paradox of declining student enrolment in front-line occupations such as agriculture. World-wide trends show that we must increase crops by 100 per cent in the next 30 years in the face of climatic variability, and increased costs of energy, fertiliser and carbon capture.
We simply can't manage  to reduce such environmental impacts without a highly trained and sophisticated workforce. Yet Austrlian Universities produce only 800 graduates for the 2000 positions available annually. We need more students willing to accept such challenges.

Rick Roush, Dean, School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne

Kelly Donati's email response to Professor Rick Roush's email (not published here, but you get the gist...)

Your email was so galling that I had to respond, regardless of whatever consequences this may incur for me down the track.

I'm sorry, but I cannot buy the story of "fewer but stronger subjects with larger average enrolments, thereby teaching smarter rather than working ever harder".  This is a load of bunk.  Staff all over the university (inside and outside the faculty) are working harder than ever.  "Larger average enrolments" means more marking, more student contact and therefore MORE WORK, particularly when you are cutting 30% of staff within one faculty alone.  A further reduction in administrative staff means that teaching staff spend more time running around doing administrative work.  As a casual staff member who gets paid for a couple of hours per week, I was shocked that it took me half a day of my time (unpaid) just to get myself on the payroll because there was no longer a centralised area which handles this.  Tutors/research assistant/sessional staff are often expected to contribute unpaid time to the university, and I have no idea on what grounds this can be considered reasonable.  We are at the bottom of the heap, already living off below-the-poverty line scholarships, and we are tired of "sustaining" the university's unsustainable and untenable future direction whilst receiving nothing in return.

Universities in Victoria seem to be a law unto themselves when it comes to industrial relations and adhering to the very basic principle of fair pay for fair work seems to be optional rather than essential.  We've heard plenty about the financial operations and challenges of Melbourne University.  Where is the discussion about the ETHICAL principles by which these financial decisions are made? Is there one??

I was sickened to see not 1 but 10 Melbourne University ads for open day on prime time television on Sunday evening.  Not only is it a colossal waste of money, it will not attract students when the university is making more and more cuts to teaching staff. Students want access to staff who are not overworked and underpaid. They want to attend classes where they are not one in 200 (particularly at the masters level).  If you want to boost student enrolments, you need to offer them much more than glossy "dream large" banners and expensive primetime television commercials that cost MILLIONS of dollars.

Have you ever stopped to consider that fewer students may be interested in studying agriculture because the kind of agricultural studies on offer is simply not what they are looking for?  Perhaps students are interested in engaging with the issues of sustainable food and agriculture outside of the scientific/ technological paradigms that Land and Environment so enthusiastically embraces.  As a nation, we need independent research that is not controlled by corporations, that crosses disciplinary boundaries and that fundamentally challenges previous approaches to how we eat and think about food (remembering, of course, that agriculture is not just a commodity - it is what sustains us biologically, culturally, socially).  By cutting even more staff, you are effectively reducing the number of perspectives (and potential supervisors) on any given area of food and agricultural research, so it's no wonder the Faculty is having trouble attracting students.

In addition, let's not forget that the cost of living has increased exponentially in Melbourne over the last 2 years, so perhaps students are simply finding it impossible to make it work for the financially.  This is a reality that the university continues to ignore. A PhD scholarship of $1500 a month when rents are easily $900-1000 a month (for *appropriate* accommodation - not a dog box - with room to cook, study and relax that is not hours from the city) is hardly an enticing proposition for would-be students, nor is it financially workable when PhD students don't have access to concession and health care cards but need to buy books, public transport tickets, food etc (see above point about unpaid work).  A parttime job that doesn't interfere too much with study might push this monthly income up to $2000.  I ask you, Rick Roush, when was the last time you lived off of $2000 a month?  Are YOU willing to take a pay cut to help sustain the university's future?

To sum it up, not all the spin doctors in the world are going to convince me that Melbourne Uni is heading in the right direction.

There are many excellent and passionate academic staff and students at Melbourne Uni, but they are increasingly exhausted and demoralised by the cost-cutting and penny-pinching going around them.  Keep it up and you'll have nothing left but a shell of a university and none of the PEOPLE (what else is a university made of but its staff and students?) who make a university a wonderful and engaging place to learn and research.

Regards,

Kelly Donati

Motion passed by the GSA Council on 18 August 2009

Motion

Council expresses its solidarity and support for the NTEU campaign against University job reductions, and endorses the role played by Paul Coats and other GSA officers in supporting this campaign. Council is concerned that job losses are unnecessary at present, and that these may denude the already strained staff resources available for coursework subject provision and research student supervision within many faculties.

In particular Council notes that the Faculties of Land and Environment, and Faculty of VCA/Music are earmarked for major job reductions, and requests that the President prepare a public response in the spirit of this motion.

Council further notes its opposition to the punitive measures associated with 'Responsible Division Management' throughout the University, in particular the fining of faculties $10,000 per subject for graduate-level subjects with enrolments below 15, and the unequal burden placed on some faculties as a consequence of space charging rules.

Council asserts that regardless of RDM rules, the University ought provide greater subsidies to the aforementioned faculties to avoid significant job reductions and improve the possibility of high quality and teaching provision that is responsive to specific needs in those faculties. For reasons historical and otherwise, such subsidies are necessary to maintain strong coursework and research, and for the University to demonstrate its vital commitment to the full array of creative arts and to the innovation in sustainable land, water, food and environmental arenas.