It is rare that I find myself in agreement with Andrew Coyne about politics in Canada, although I do (sadly for me, I guess) find him to be one of our better political writers. Maybe the best. And I do not know Andrew Coyne personally, although we have met a few times and I now have a quite hilarious story that goes along with one of those encounters. Yet, occassionally, I seriously worry for the man because he seems to get rather depressed when he thinks too much about the way in which the Conservatives' are governing our country.
The latest examples are here, here and here. I hope someone in the Rogers/Macleans world is checking in on Mr. Coyne regularly because his usual cynicism seems to be venturing near the deep waters of depression.
I will say this, however, from my own limited experience that I too am shocked and a little depressed by the way this government manages its business. It's not so much the cynicism of their behaviour, as Coyne seems to worry most about, but rather the incompetance, depravity and vidictiveness that seems to characterize their outlook on the world and response to events. They seem to continue to behave as though they never won an election and power might slip away at any second (depending on whether they are reading polls on Monday or Wednesday one can imagine how this aspect at least would be prone to a certain type of manic reaction). This seems to lead to a constant state of message control, domination and bullying of those people and agencies that are within their grasp. This is true whether it's the PBO, Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, assinine comments from Ministers caught on tape, the information commissioner or any number of things. Perhaps it's just that they had very little collective experience governing prior to winning and so they feel the need to squeeze every second from the experience, but they handle themselves almost without a modicum of grace. Worse still perhaps, they seem quite alright with such an existence. It seems to me that they cannot see the carrot for the stick.
How could they possibly see a tree, let alone the forrest?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Message From Europe
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2009/05/04/equitable-access-to-pse-in-europe/
I believe, on the heels of Obama's ambitious goals for higher education, that this constitutes a pretty serious challenge to be heeded globally. In essence, the members of the European Higher Education Area have said, "who's got next?" in terms of committing to deeper more meaningful access to higher education for all citizens and the idea that the student population in higher education institutions should be more diverse and reflective of the societies outside their walls.
Let me also just take a second to address a debate that is sure to ensue, because it does every time "Europe" manages to do something constructive on higher ed, this is no way some sort of indictment of our federation. Yes, Europe has (seemingly) successfully integrated many states with often competing, sometimes converging interests to act (or propose to act) on higher education issues. The primary feature of their efforts, however, is the recognition that action requires compromise and cooperation. It also allows individual states the freedom to act independently in their own jurisdiction, both in terms of pace of reform and the form those changes will take. None of this is precluded in our constitution. Let's repeat, the constitution is not an impediment to action on higher education reform in Canada.
If I could write a single speech for the Prime Minister today (and have him believe in what it said) it would contain the following sentences:
"That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete [post-secondary education] and meet a new goal: by 2020, [Canada] willonce again have the highest proportion of [post-secondary education] graduates in the world. The federal government will lead the way on this goal, but we will accomplish it in partnership with all provincial and territorial governments who we know understand the importance of expanding and profoundly deepening access and success for young Canadians."
Now let's go do this thing.
(H/T to Dale Kirby at Macleans)
I believe, on the heels of Obama's ambitious goals for higher education, that this constitutes a pretty serious challenge to be heeded globally. In essence, the members of the European Higher Education Area have said, "who's got next?" in terms of committing to deeper more meaningful access to higher education for all citizens and the idea that the student population in higher education institutions should be more diverse and reflective of the societies outside their walls.
Let me also just take a second to address a debate that is sure to ensue, because it does every time "Europe" manages to do something constructive on higher ed, this is no way some sort of indictment of our federation. Yes, Europe has (seemingly) successfully integrated many states with often competing, sometimes converging interests to act (or propose to act) on higher education issues. The primary feature of their efforts, however, is the recognition that action requires compromise and cooperation. It also allows individual states the freedom to act independently in their own jurisdiction, both in terms of pace of reform and the form those changes will take. None of this is precluded in our constitution. Let's repeat, the constitution is not an impediment to action on higher education reform in Canada.
If I could write a single speech for the Prime Minister today (and have him believe in what it said) it would contain the following sentences:
"That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete [post-secondary education] and meet a new goal: by 2020, [Canada] will
Now let's go do this thing.
(H/T to Dale Kirby at Macleans)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Really?!
Kory Teneycke, the Prime Minister's communications director, says this
about politics in Canada:
"I think if you're going to step into the ring, you've got to be able to take the punch...This is the House of Commons. This is Politics."
about politics in Canada:
"I think if you're going to step into the ring, you've got to be able to take the punch...This is the House of Commons. This is Politics."
It sounds more like Thunderdome.
And these are currently the ones in GOVERNMENT. It's going to be a dark few years yet, my friends.
Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I Ask Myself All The Time
Every time I read things like this I ask the same question that Krugman is asking of his own country today.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Economics = Education?
As I suggested several days ago now, I have wanted to return to various recent stories about higher education that have appeared in Canad and elsewhere recently and now I'm finally in a position to do so.
As some of you may have heard, times are tough. The economy is in the tank these days and (forgive me Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty) no one seems to know what to make of it. Into this muddle, however, recently waded the Educational Policy Institute with a report (.pdf) that attempts to look out beyond the recession we see in front of our faces to speculate what the impacts might be on higher education in Canada. Not surprisingly, authors Dunn and Usher aren't bathed in a warm glow of light when they peer into their crystal ball.
The gist of the report comes down to this (in my opinion): universities (in particular) and colleges are being squeezed by tanking revenues (e.g., endowments) and increasing expenses (salary and pension obligations), enrolments will continue to rise and it is forseeable that governments will squeeze the sector further when their balance sheets recover a bit and start looking to get rid of their deficits by cutting operating grants and student aid. According to Dunn/Usher there are a few ways to make everything a little easier over the next half decade. Among the ideas they put forward are:
Here's the thing - really, nothing that EPI wrote in this report is really all that controversial in the sober light of morning. Many of these things happened after the last recession (funding cuts, tuition hikes, stripping student aid of anything that didn't require repayment, etc.) and if the intent was to encourage everyone to keep an eye on the ball this time around then it was worthy of the doing. To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time figuring why EPI bothered to write this report at all, other than to annoy particular groups of people whose reactions were entirely predictable? In so far as Dunn/Usher really felt the need to write the report, however, it just stinks to me of a concerted effort to piss off the CFS and CAUT and send the Macleans On Campus blog comment boards into a frenzy. Mission accomplished.
However, the historical comparisons are the real problem and the real danger with this report because it does fall squarely into the realm of idle speculation based precisely on what happened "last time" and smart people aren't so sure this is like last time. Niall Ferguson, a smart person, recently said, "You're going to end up assuming that this recession is going to end up like other recessions, and other recessions didn't last that long, so this one won't last so long. But of course...[t]his is something really quite different in character from anything we've ever experienced in the postwar era." This is what I'm getting at. Dunn/Usher assume, first, that they can know how this economic situation will end up, which is an assumption fraught with perile. Then they assume they can know a series of governmental, institutional and social reactions that are inherently unknowable. Then they issue a series of recommendations. And, all of it is based on what happened during and following the last major economic downturn 10-15 years ago. This just isn't that useful, which makes the extreme reactions all the more ridiculous.
On another note, I'd say that when the Minister responsible for the area your report addresses is running fast in the opposite direction from it, it's just not good for business. It's not good for anybody.
As some of you may have heard, times are tough. The economy is in the tank these days and (forgive me Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty) no one seems to know what to make of it. Into this muddle, however, recently waded the Educational Policy Institute with a report (.pdf) that attempts to look out beyond the recession we see in front of our faces to speculate what the impacts might be on higher education in Canada. Not surprisingly, authors Dunn and Usher aren't bathed in a warm glow of light when they peer into their crystal ball.
The gist of the report comes down to this (in my opinion): universities (in particular) and colleges are being squeezed by tanking revenues (e.g., endowments) and increasing expenses (salary and pension obligations), enrolments will continue to rise and it is forseeable that governments will squeeze the sector further when their balance sheets recover a bit and start looking to get rid of their deficits by cutting operating grants and student aid. According to Dunn/Usher there are a few ways to make everything a little easier over the next half decade. Among the ideas they put forward are:
- Help institutions restructure faculty salaries and pensions through pay outs to older staff.
- Don't constrain the ability of institutions to meet shifting demand with antequated enrolment formulas.
- Allow tuition increases of as much as 25%.
- Protect student aid programs that matter (targetted and need-based grants) and ditch the ones that don't (tax credits).
- "Fund brains, not buildings" - In other words, pay to make sure that our highest quality faculty and researchers remain in Canada.
- Use good measurements to understand the system and leave aside other things.
Here's the thing - really, nothing that EPI wrote in this report is really all that controversial in the sober light of morning. Many of these things happened after the last recession (funding cuts, tuition hikes, stripping student aid of anything that didn't require repayment, etc.) and if the intent was to encourage everyone to keep an eye on the ball this time around then it was worthy of the doing. To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time figuring why EPI bothered to write this report at all, other than to annoy particular groups of people whose reactions were entirely predictable? In so far as Dunn/Usher really felt the need to write the report, however, it just stinks to me of a concerted effort to piss off the CFS and CAUT and send the Macleans On Campus blog comment boards into a frenzy. Mission accomplished.
However, the historical comparisons are the real problem and the real danger with this report because it does fall squarely into the realm of idle speculation based precisely on what happened "last time" and smart people aren't so sure this is like last time. Niall Ferguson, a smart person, recently said, "You're going to end up assuming that this recession is going to end up like other recessions, and other recessions didn't last that long, so this one won't last so long. But of course...[t]his is something really quite different in character from anything we've ever experienced in the postwar era." This is what I'm getting at. Dunn/Usher assume, first, that they can know how this economic situation will end up, which is an assumption fraught with perile. Then they assume they can know a series of governmental, institutional and social reactions that are inherently unknowable. Then they issue a series of recommendations. And, all of it is based on what happened during and following the last major economic downturn 10-15 years ago. This just isn't that useful, which makes the extreme reactions all the more ridiculous.
On another note, I'd say that when the Minister responsible for the area your report addresses is running fast in the opposite direction from it, it's just not good for business. It's not good for anybody.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Big Week for Education
So there are two education related things that are bouncing around in my head that I do need to write about, but haven't found time for yet.
1) The education sections of President Obama's speech on Tuesday.
2) The report released by EPI Canada this week.
I will have to come back to each, but suffice it to say I have opinions. Opinions, dammit!
1) The education sections of President Obama's speech on Tuesday.
2) The report released by EPI Canada this week.
I will have to come back to each, but suffice it to say I have opinions. Opinions, dammit!
The Good Kind of Journalists
There are days when journalists drive me crazy with lazy analysis, even lazier reading, dumb, hackneyed commentaries and an inexplicable hatred of all things modern and bloggy (bitter old sports journalists populate this category almost exclusively). So I have a lot of time for writers like Wells and Coyne, who even when I don't agree with them at least are able to string together a coherent reading (wait...are at least able to demonstrate comprehension of things they've read) of the situations, events, phenomena and people they're writing about and, miracles, even things that are not directly connected, but play on the things they write about.
But, I also have time for journalists like Aaron Wherry (it only seems like I'm pimping all staff writers of MacLean's, I swear...I really do think that their education section sucks *sigh*) who doesn't tend toward the high level, meta-analysis, big picture stuff. You know why I like journalists like him? Because he just hands over the rope and let's people go to town.
But, I also have time for journalists like Aaron Wherry (it only seems like I'm pimping all staff writers of MacLean's, I swear...I really do think that their education section sucks *sigh*) who doesn't tend toward the high level, meta-analysis, big picture stuff. You know why I like journalists like him? Because he just hands over the rope and let's people go to town.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Gov't Calls Bulls*#t on Unis and Colleges, Then Gives In
It's not often that you see a government minister tell the truth quite as obviously as Jason Kenney did yesterday. Kenney, the Immigration Minister, said that Canada's post-secondary institutions count on international students as a "source of revenue." Yes, yes they do. International students are typically charged twice the level of tuition of a Canadian student (loosely, Canadian born or Canadian citizen). Over the last number of years Canadian institutions have started recruiting heavily overseas, even going so far as opening sattelite campuses on foreign shores. The AUCC as recently as its 2008 federal budget consultation submission ranked federally-funded scholarships for international students ahead of dealing with the impending end of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation's need-based bursaries for Canadian students (although they claim their numbered list of recommendations wasn't ranked, in so far as numbered lists cannot be ranked). So, that someone called them on their motivations for admitting more international students was ramarkable.
Of course, Kenney was announcing that the Conservative government was prepared to "substantially increase" the number of visas they issue to international students who want to study here. So, take it for what it's worth.
At the risk of coming across all xenophobic, let me say this: I believe that international students breathe life into a campus. Having gone to a small university where a small number of international students were an increasingly large part of the campus community I believe I was enriched by my exchanges with people from around the globe (especially studying international relations). But let's not be blind on this question. And let's certainly insist that as more international students are brought to Canadian campuses the support they need to succeed, and perhaps become a lasting part of the Canadian social fabric, are in place at the schools they attend. This, at least, should be a part of the bargain for charging them so much more than anyone else from home and native land.
Lastly, let's not forget that increasing international student enrollments should not and cannot be a solution to problems we have getting our own young people the education they need. You're still about twice as likely to go to university if you come from a family in the top two fifths of income than in the bottom fifth in Canada (slightly less than twice as likely for college). You're much much more likely to go to university (maybe only much more likely for college) if you're white than if you're from a First Nation band, if you're Inuit or Metis. These things can't be ignored while we recruit students from among the wealthiest of other nations around the globe.
*End of rant*
(H/T the indispensable Dale Kirby)
Of course, Kenney was announcing that the Conservative government was prepared to "substantially increase" the number of visas they issue to international students who want to study here. So, take it for what it's worth.
At the risk of coming across all xenophobic, let me say this: I believe that international students breathe life into a campus. Having gone to a small university where a small number of international students were an increasingly large part of the campus community I believe I was enriched by my exchanges with people from around the globe (especially studying international relations). But let's not be blind on this question. And let's certainly insist that as more international students are brought to Canadian campuses the support they need to succeed, and perhaps become a lasting part of the Canadian social fabric, are in place at the schools they attend. This, at least, should be a part of the bargain for charging them so much more than anyone else from home and native land.
Lastly, let's not forget that increasing international student enrollments should not and cannot be a solution to problems we have getting our own young people the education they need. You're still about twice as likely to go to university if you come from a family in the top two fifths of income than in the bottom fifth in Canada (slightly less than twice as likely for college). You're much much more likely to go to university (maybe only much more likely for college) if you're white than if you're from a First Nation band, if you're Inuit or Metis. These things can't be ignored while we recruit students from among the wealthiest of other nations around the globe.
*End of rant*
(H/T the indispensable Dale Kirby)
Friday, February 13, 2009
"SlumCanine" Thousandaire
Having just returned from three weeks in India I should write a real post about my adventures while there, and I will, but two nights ago I saw Slumdog Millionaire and I want to make some comments about that.
1. I loved it as a film. Great story, incredibly filmed, well paced, well acted - it would be great if most of the movies we are exposed to were this good. Sadly all I can say is that I paid money to see both Street Fighter and Cuthroat Island in theater. Those were kind of my own fault.
2. Some of the troubling aspects are certainly visible in any Indian city. Still, Danny Boyle's assertion that "slumdog" is an allusion to "underdog" rings pretty hollow upon viewing. Perhaps he didn't want to court controversy by pointing out that many Indians say worse about the poor over there (in fairness, most are entirely compassionate, if helpless).
3. Having downloaded the soundtrack immediately after the movie ended (praise be to Jobs) I predict a Slumdog Millionaire musical on stage in London or New York within two years.
4. Strictly speaking Jamal won about $500K (CDN). I realize that it was $20m rupeeees, but I still say he was screwed.
5. The actor who played adult Salim looks remarkably like Boston Celtics point guard Rajon Rondo. It was bothering me throughout the movie, but that was my conclusion upon seeing some of the Celts-Mavs game last night.
Sent from my iPhone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)