International College of Mystery
U of M admin needs to be clear on its motivations for private college on campus
Tessa Vanderhart, Staff
University president Emöke Szathmáry told the Board of Governors last week that she didn’t know that 35-40 per cent of international students were failing all of their first-year classes. How is this possible?
. More importantly, how can the university use the fact of the appallingly high failure rate to justify its partnership (note: not “affiliation”) with Navitas, an Australian company, to create the Navitas International College of Manitoba (ICM)?
. The institution, which will use two classrooms and an office, and the help of several faculties in approving courses for transfer, will provide the U of M with a significant financial reward — likely, if it follows the Simon Fraser University/Fraser International College model, in the order of 10 per cent of the $15,000 tuition of the approximately 200 students planned for ICM.
. This plan became controversial when it was announced by Navitas on Nov. 26 — Australian law stipulates that they had to announce the agreement the day it was signed — but no one at the university save a few key administrators were apprised of the partnership until a professor requested information at the Dec. 1 Senate meeting, and finally, vice-president (academic) Robert Kerr presented information at the Jan. 9 Senate meeting.
. My problems with this agreement are as follows: the university administration made a deliberate attempt to avoid normal procedure by signing an agreement with Navitas that specifically avoided the need for Senate or the Board of Governors to approve it. Further, the university is extremely reluctant to provide more information on the contract, citing competition, but more likely because there is no more information — an appalling prospect.
. Additional problems have been cited by UMFA president Brenda Austin-Smith — that the program is prohibitively expensive; and by CUPE president Jason Kelly — that the lecturers will probably be U of M grad students, who will be ineligible for union pay rates and benefits. Rachel Heinrichs, UMSU vice-president (advocacy), cites the egregious lack of foresight in providing these students access to U of M’s libraries. All, of course, are overexcited about the problem, and have cited many other, poorer concerns, but that should not mean that legitimate problems are overlooked.
. To solve all of these problems, the university could do two very simple things: one, it could decide on the details of how this already agreed-upon college will be implemented, and tell us all. Secondly, instead of directing the proceeds back to departments, where the kickback will be almost irrelevant, half of the money transferred by the International College of Manitoba to the University of Manitoba should be directed to setting up a strong review committee, in the order of that suggested — because they were allowed to review the idea — by McMaster University’s Board of Directors. This committee should have a moderate level of influence on the instruction at ICM, with the goal of one day placing the college into an affiliation with the University of Manitoba.
. With the other half of the kickback, the university should build bursaries and English-language education programs for international students, whose tuition is 180 per cent of Canadian students. Sure, most of U of M’s international students can afford tuition and could afford private English lessons — but if the university is serious about having 10 per cent international students, it should get serious about providing them with a quality education.
. Finally, the deal struck between the U of M and Navitas is a partnership. In other words, a close working agreement, an affiliation. The university has successfully dodged this label for legal reasons: it allowed the plan to pass uncontested. Fine. But this college is probably a good thing — so it should be treated as such. Further, closer integration will make the program more successful, as the university will be better able to advise a high quality of education if there is, at the very least, an empowered and publicly accountable review committee in place.
