This is an archived comment posted by Andrew Dilts, Candidate for President. You can view the original
here. Mr Dilts, let me see if i understand what you are saying with regards to deregulation, your plan is to go and tell admin that it is bad for the university, and back this up how exactly??? And then go to the province and tell them that they are underfunding universities??? Why do you think they will listen to you when they have ignored 100's of others???
Because they have listened.
Consider lobbying internally:
The current caps on tuition increases at UW -- 2% and 15% in regulated and deregulated programs, respectively -- were set in consultation with students. These caps were set the year after tuition costs rose 9% and 19% in Reg. and DeReg. programs (1999), and the student response helped the admin to understand that students can't afford those kinds of increases.
The student voice was heard.
Next, note that these caps are only set until 2005. Would you like to elect an exec who would not be willing to work on this issue, in which case we might see tuition increases to the tune of up to 20% in deregulated programs at UW? Sorry, but I wouldn't.
Read further to hear how I would back this up.
The whole reason tuition is deregulated in some programs is because there are more than enough people out there with the high grades to get in who can afford to pay. I do not think that it really matters to the university if lower income people can not afford to get into engineering here, they care that they are getting people who can pay the bills.
Surely not all, but do you not think that there are some members of UW who want to see the best, most qualified students come to learn here, regardless of income? I do. They're called professors.
My father is a professor, and as such I have met many professors throughout the years: enough to know that encouraging rich students over talented students isn't the rule among faculty. Ask any professor -- it's about teaching, not about making the rich, richer.
Now, you should probably ask yourself whether or not the faculty is amenable to working with students here at UW. Especially in the Senate, the highest academic body here at UW. I'll answer that for you -- in some cases, they are.
Then, you should ask yourself whether or not students have a majority voice on that body if the Faculty is on their side. They do.
Then, ask me again whether or not I believe that students have a voice when it comes to lobbying the administration internally. I'll let you answer that one yourself.
That's one example of how I believe students could effectively lobby the UW administration. Be listening for more.
Whether we like it or not, deregulation is here to stay so long as there is a "Progressive Conservative" government at Queens Park. Until such time as they are removed from power, the educational system in this province, elementary, secondary and post-secondary are going to remain severely underfunded and forced to take steps like deregulation to have any hope of covering costs and maintaining the quality of education. If we want to see a change in provincial policy, we need to make our voice heard as voters, by finding a party with a platform to put money into education, 18,000 undergrads voting in the next provincial or federal election would make a difference in the waterloo north riding and hopefully beyond.
Whether the PC government will ever look to re-regulating programs, or tightening caps on tuition increases, I can not say. I don't have any evidence to suggest that it would.
Whether or not you've looked to the part of my platform that states that I completely endorse the platforms of my ticket-mates, I do not know. Although it's an issue that is usually tackled by a VP Education candidate, ensuring that students are enumerated and informed voters on PSE-related issues is something that I believe is neceessary for any Exec.
Take the SmartVote campaign down at Western, for example. The University Students' Council (their "Feds") have been actively working to get students more informed on issues that can be dealt with at the ballot box, a move which I both applaud and would like to see implemented here at UW.
Simply because my running mate Liam McHugh-Russell platform deals with enumerating voters doesn't mean that I don't endorse this issue. On the contrary, it means a great deal to me to have an informed and active student body.
My apologies if you misunderstood my stance on informed choice and student enumeration. Call it the curse of running on a complete ticket.
I firmly beleive that your platform is taking the complete wrong tact to fighting tuition increases. Talking to admin is wasting your breath, as is dealing with the Provincial government through lobbying, they don't believe that we will use the power we have in a democratic country and vote them out.
Again, I agree that students could use their votes to better have their voices heard. That's important. On the other two points (lobbying the admin and the provincial gov't), I believe that I've already stated my case. Thanks for your opinion, though.
We need to find a party and candidates at the provincial and possibly even federal levels who are proposing increased "OPERATING" funds as opposed to projects like Ontario Superbuild to create new buildings is what will actually create the possibility of holding the line, if not reducing tuition rates by throwing support behind them and using the voice students have as voters to try and get them elected.
Sounds like a plan! Got anybody in mind? Thinking about the recent release of the Ontario Liberal Party's platform?
Or perhaps that of the NDP?
DuctTape, simply because I'm not running on a platform that would more fully suit a candidate for VP Education (which, admittedly, is not such a bad idea) doesn't mean that I'm not aware of the issues, nor of know how to deal with them. It's just not the platform that I'm focusing on (darn complete ticket!).
Sincerely,
Andrew Dilts
Candidate for President
[ Parent ]
| 
