The following is a letter from presidential candidate Jordan Bancroft-Smithe in response to Chris Miller's earlier post about CBA supplemental tuition.
Last week, Chris Miller posted on this blog about our platform plank relating to differential tuition rates for the College of Business Administration. I would like to note some changes we will be making to our plank in response to Chris’ post. The main thing we needed to change is the tone of the plank. It comes across as if we are attacking the CBA and their policy of differential tuition. Specifically speaking, I am referring to the word “audit.” To audit somebody, or to be audited, has negative connotations, and because of this I understand Chris’ reaction. We are not saying that the CBA is doing a poor job of providing for its students, but rather that there are students that are not seeing or noticing these promised services. The point of this would be, as Chris put it himself talking about one of our other planks, “showing students what is going on without them having to take the proactive approach of searching for it.” We would be taking that proactive approach and get that information for the students.
Secondly, in our plank we ask the question, “What is our* extra $1,500 going towards?” I feel like there are several questions inherent within that question. By not mentioning these questions, I added to the confusion and the feeling that the plank was attacking the CBA’s differential tuition policy. I apologize for not making these questions explicit, and they will be included into our platform. We are not just asking, “What is our extra $1,500 going towards?” We are also asking, “How well is that extra $1,500 being spent? Are class sizes going down? Are new hires being used to replace the loss of adjuncts? Are new courses being added?” This is something that is important for the students to know and we believe that it should remain on our platform. It has been three years since this policy of differential tuition was put in place and we think that students, especially those who were here before the implementation of differential tuition, should be able to see what the CBA has been able to do with the supplemental money.
Now to address some of the things that Chris said that I feel are inaccurate or beside the point. The first being that he called us out on calling it differential tuition when, as it clearly states in the link he provided that it is called “supplemental tuition.” You may have noticed that I am still referring to is as differential tuition and this is because “differential tuition” and “supplemental tuition” are one in the same. Iowa State calls the similar program in their College of Business and College of Engineering “Differential Tuition.” And if you go to their engineering program’s site it clearly states that “Differential tuition, sometimes referred to as supplemental tuition or a tuition surcharge…” in the beginning of the second paragraph. “Supplemental Tuition” is the name that UNI and the CBA gave to a differential tuition policy.
The second issue I have is with what he said about refilling positions. Currently, as is stated in UNI’s master agreement article five: section five, UNI holds a policy of attrition. As it was explained to me, when a faculty member leaves, their position is not refilled. Instead the position is removed, it is taken into review, and then the administration decides whether or not to reinstate that position. This can lead to the perception of positions not being refilled because this process can take time, or this could also mean that the positions are being eliminated. Either way, having a report that is accessible to the students showing that these positions are being kept, filled, and are making classes smaller would be most beneficial. I can’t see why Dean Farzad Moussavi would be opposed to this. If we find that this information is already available, then we should work with Dean Moussavi and the CBA to get this information to the students.
Finally, I want to address the percentage quotes that he provides from the CBA website. While those numbers are nice, they don’t tell the whole story. Chris has told me that the information I would be looking for, which is a complete breakdown of where the supplemental dollars are going, is available and Dean Moussavi has already provided it to the CBA Presidents Council. The problem with this then becomes that the information on those reports wasn’t readily available to the students who are not a part of that council. Part of what we want to do is to gather all of this information into a single, easy to read report that will be available to the students of the CBA.
To conclude, I would like to commend Chris and the other writers of the blog. This shows that the blog is doing its job by making sure that the candidates stay both honest and realistic in this race. It’s great that there are people out there double checking our facts and it proves that the blog is a necessary component of this process.
*”Our” is referring to the students in the CBA
No comments:
Post a Comment