Letters to the editor
Send your letters to editor@themanitoban.com or drop them off at 105 University Centre
I may not return to the U of M next year
I am a first-year student in engineering, and voted “no” in last week’s referendum to raise fees. I work March through December at a plant nursery. Even with two years’ experience, I earn little more than minimum wage, and spend a good portion of my earnings on transportation and the extra food I need to do this physically demanding job. The rest of my earnings go towards tuition fees, books, transportation and food for the school year.
My parents provide me room and board, but do not contribute towards my tuition fees. I don’t know whether I will be able to return to my studies next year because of this fee increase, and I am not eligible for student aid (loans, bursaries).
I am glad that UMSU took a stand in support of the tuition fee freeze and that groups like EAT Hikes tried to counter the incredible amount of propaganda coming from the university (not to mention the vandalism and campaigning misconduct) and that quite a few engineering students voted no.
In addition to being disappointed by the ”yes” vote, which I don’t think took place under fair rules or conduct, I am frustrated by the orthodoxy in the press that the faculty of engineering has antique computers and terrible labs. I believe I am receiving a good
education under the tuition fee freeze. If only I could afford it.
Thomas Carlyle, first-year engineering
Re: ‘The hour of the engineering student’ (March 7)
As an engineering student, I find Patrick Smith’s characterizations of engineering students bizarre. I voted “no” in the recent referendum. I don’t think that increasing tuition fees will solve the problems in our faculty, nor do I have the privilege like so many others to be able to afford an increase in fees.
Smith seems to have little experience on campus if he thinks this is going to amount to a
“sea change in student politics.” The faculty has long been talking about an increase like this. We are constantly being told that we have to pay more or our education is under threat. If Smith is so concerned with the ”underdog” students, perhaps he could also write an article about all of us who are now forced to pay the increase, currently not having the fortune of our parents paying for our tuition, and how he figures we will find the money in time for his tide-turning tuition fee increase.
As an “underdog,” I find a 38 per cent increase in tuition fees to be much more “oppressive” than UMSU or CFS has ever been. As an engineering student, I do not feel that this biased referendum complete with vandalism, intimidation and scare tactics was my hour. It was the hour of the faculty, who were trying to raise my fees and make engineering less affordable for myself and my fellow students.
Brian Latour, second-year civil engineering
Tuition fee freeze and the (mis)use of data
I disagree with those who suggest the tuition fee freeze has failed to improve access to universities and colleges. Clearly, the tuition fee freeze in Manitoba has been good for more than just the Doer government’s public relations. Low-income enrolment has increased by 35 per cent in the past seven years. This is a huge success story and we should all be very proud of this accomplishment.
In particular, much hay has been made of a recent study by Statistics Canada. This study by Marc Frenette emphasizes parental supports and high school grades as opposed to financial constraints. It has been used by advocates of high tuition fees to show that fees are an unimportant factor in improving participation of low-income students. Fortunately, the study is not difficult to interpret: parental support and high school grades are inextricably linked to a student’s ability to afford to pay fees.
Parents who can’t afford to pay tuition fees are not only unable to afford books and other academic support, but are also unlikely to encourage their 15 year-old to pursue academic courses. It is no surprise that students from low-income backgrounds receive lower grades that create an obstacle to their participation in university.
While a small but vocal minority would like to see tuition fees rise substantially while provisions are made for aid to a tiny slice of low-income families, there is an impressive body of research that shows both the detrimental effects of high fees on access. An Australian study showed that students who worked long hours while in school and post-secondary education were much more likely to drop out than those who did not work at all. Students who worked 30 hours per week or more had drop-out rates that were 200 per cent greater than for those who were not employed.
A 2005 study confirms that deregulated fees in professional programs resulted in a decline in access for middle- and low-income families. A U.S. study found that every $1,000 increment in tuition fees reduced the probability of poor and working-class students’ re-enrolling in college or university the following year by 16 per cent and 19 per cent respectively.
This brings me to a final point about how data have been presented in the media. I disagree that the Frenette studies “proves” that the tuition fee freeze is not working. The tuition fee freeze is one among many policy tools required to make post-secondary education more affordable. It is not designed to target students from low-income backgrounds, but to benefit everyone.
While high-income earners may take advantage of certain universal programs, that does not mean these program “don’t work” or are inefficient. While it is certain that the freeze has not solved the problem of persistently low participation of students from low-income backgrounds, it is totally illogical to argue that lifting the tuition fee freeze will somehow succeed at sending more students to college and university.
As students are faced with another bid to circumvent the tuition fee freeze policy, I encourage them to do their own research. For my part, I am very dubious about claims that increasing tuition fees by nearly 40 per cent for engineering courses will have no adverse effect on the ability of low-income students to become engineers.
Even with increased student aid, the gains made among the economically fragile constituency of students from low-income backgrounds could quickly be reversed. For a faculty in which women and Aboriginal students are already drastically under-represented, increasing tuition fees is a poor policy choice.
Meghan Gallant, president, Graduate Students’ Association (GSA), University of Manitoba.
Interference by the CFS and everyone else
It’s amazing how much attention politics at the University of Manitoba is garnering, especially from those who are no longer students here, and who deep down may have their own political motivations. Take Joey Coleman, author of last week’s “Democracy at UMSU is dead” (March 7) or “the election must not be fair because no other students ran.” Coleman used to be a student here (visiting I think), but he is no longer on campus, he’s not even in Manitoba! So why all this interference — err interest — in what is happening here?
The most hilarious part about his interference with UMSU is that he complains about “outside bodies,” like the CFS, doing exactly what he is doing — meddling.
Now on to Patrick Smith, whose piece I found equally as amusing. Particularly now with Patrick Smith’s new identity: assistant, Prime Minister’s Office, Office of the Chief of Staff; how professional! It seems that Canada’s new Conservative government has enough staff to let one of them write for student papers! And meddling seems to be what they do best.
And it’s not only that he has enough time to write for the student paper. It seems as though the federal Conservatives are now also expressing an interest in becoming involved with the UMSU elections. By the sounds of it, Patrick will be up to his neck in election organizing soon, hoping to save the underdog students (is that what he called us?), and get his engineering running-mate from the election he lost a nice job with UMSU.
The point here is that the only two “experts” that the Manitoban can rely on to support their agenda are both non-students who don’t even live in this province and were never actually involved in any significant way with UMSU. I mean come on, if you’re going to put forth some “informed” opinions, you should use people who are close enough to actually know what’s going on. Failing that, at least find a “has been” who could give some perspective. Two “never beens” with an axe to grind do not a news story make.
But why bother writing any of this. It seems that the only conspiracies or interference pieces that ever get run are those about UMSU anyway. I’m sure the editor I send this to, and myself will be the only two to ever lay eyes on these last however many words.
Edwardo Famakin
Give Carson Jerema a break!
I read the Manitoban regularly and feel that someone had to come to the defence of Carson Jerema. Seemingly, every week there is a letter complaining about Jerema for his views which he expresses in the paper.
Most are upset that Jerema is criticizing UMSU and all the wonderful services they provide. They sure provide some useful services, however many of the services are quite the opposite. Perhaps fees would actually go down if there were fewer “free” (pre-paid) food events and less advertising for things that don’t affect the majority (engineering referendum). Jerema is simply pointing out obvious flaws in the union that the socialist student body loves so much. I applaud Jerema for not blindly following the sheep to the left-wing promised land. Maybe if there were more people like Carson Jerema the quality of education at this fine institution would begin to increase, instead of steadily declining.
Mick Epson, fourth-year management.
Caitlin Brown is neutral
As the chief elections commissioner for the UWSA, I think it is a travesty the way the Manitoban is treating UMSU’s CRO, Caitlin Brown. Perhaps if anyone on the editorial board had been privileged enough to actually read or understand anything about public sector neutrality, they would understand that Brown, by accepting the position, is completely and utterly neutral. Because she was appointed by the board does not make her indebted to him.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley is not indebted to the federal government for his position. I’m not indebted to Kate Sjoberg for my position. We choose this job because we want to ensure that a fair election takes place. We choose it out of a sense of duty and service to the student bodies we are a part of. You have to. There’s no fame or riches or glory; merely an unending stream of complaints and “issues,” fuelled in many cases by irresponsible reporting. I could be making five times what I’m making doing this simply by working at a job which I quit to take this on.
It is not Brown’s fault that none of the other 40,000 students at the U of M decided to run for president. It is not her fault that there is only one candidate for each position. No, that fault lies with the students and with the student newspaper. After all, with the irresponsible reporting that takes place in the Manitoban, who really wants to have their name dragged through the muck for a year?
Matthew Molnar
Kerri Woloszyn was right
I couldn’t agree more with Kerri Woloszyn’s idea that the University Centre should be a priority for UMSU (A university centre makeover, 28/02/2007). UC is severely outdated and requires revitalization to truly make it the centre of our campus.
Kudos to Garry Sran and UMSU for all the hard work and ideas for turning UC into a new students’ centre. As a student, I fully support UMSU’s work to have more control of the space and give students a stronger voice on our campus.
Manpreet Singh, third-year science
