Given the size of the budget cuts, and the fact that they took the postsecondary sector apparently without warning, the most recent announcement from the University of Alberta is not really surprising. While the government of Alberta has declared that it will not balance its budget on the backs of students, the simple fact is that cuts to postsecondary funding will necessarily impact students, by reducing access to services, by increasing class sizes, by eliminating instructors, and by removing programs. This is simply because the core purpose of these institutions is to educate students. The Edmonton Journal article simply provides a snapshot of each of these implications as they take shape in one faculty in one university (e.g. eliminating course sections, cutting funding for graduate student teaching assistantships, eliminating faculty positions, and of course suspending programs). Of course, similar stories have been unfolding throughout the province in recent months.
These Faculty of Arts cuts themselves are not surprising. However, what has surprised me a great deal is that this recent news has touched a nerve, at least in terms of activity on Twitter that uses the hashtag #abpse. I have been following this thread for many months, and over the last few days two things have become apparent. First, there has been an explosion of the number of tweets that use this hashtag. Second, these tweets are coming from individuals who to my knowledge are new to this discussion.
I am not sure why the recent University of Alberta news has produced such a strong response. Perhaps with the new term approaching, more students are paying attention to current events on campus. Perhaps the response is because this announcement is from such a large Faculty at such a large institution. At any rate, I believe that the reaction to the Arts news is healthy and important.
A close reading of the Edmonton Journal article also surprised me, and tweaked a growing concern. Dean of Arts Lesley Cormack is quoted as follows: “It’s important to recognize that this is good management of programs as much as it is anything to do with budgets,” Cormack said Sunday. “It’s unfortunate that it’s had to happen as quickly as it has. But the problem is, if you do it slowly, it sort of never happens.” Of course, it is quite sensible that programs be regularly evaluated, and possibly removed if they are no longer serving their intended needs. However, Thomas Lukaszuk, minister of Enterprise and Advanced Education, gives the sense that ‘program evaluation’ is essentially simple economics. According the Edmonton Journal, the Minister’s position is that “students vote with their tuition dollars and have sent a strong message to university administration”. In short, the Minister apparently believes that the worth of a program is revealed by the number of students it attracts.
In my mind, the Minister’s position is disturbing and simplistic (but perhaps not completely surprising!). Just because a program attracts a small number of students does not mean that it is not important. A broader perspective than just numbers is required to properly evaluate a program’s importance.
A look at 20th century history provides a good example of this. At the start of WW II, pure mathematicians were few and far between (it is a complex and abstract field that does not attract multitudes of students!), and largely ignored by British and American military leaders. However, when finally called upon by their governments, pure mathematicians made huge contributions to the outcome of the war; they were responsible (for instance) for cracking the German enigma code. Fortunately for all of us their programs weren’t cut because of budgetary constraints on low enrollment programs.