Posted: 6th of November
University Council elections closed today. Chris Wong and Lavinia Emmett-Grey won the two undergraduate spots. Xu Ting won the post-grad position.
Full details of the count and final margins are avaliable here.
In summary, Chris Wong received 431 primaries, with Lavinia on 149 and Paris Dean on 119. Tomas Macura was some way behind on 48 votes.
Chris Wong broke quota by some 200 votes, and so his votes flowed on to Lavinia (82 votes), Paris (54 votes) and Tomas (45 votes). This brought Lavinia to 231 votes, and Paris to 172. Tomas was eliminated.
The next round of redistribution saw 33 of Tomas’ votes flow to Lavinia, and 36 to Paris, bringing their totals to 264 and 209 respectively. Reaching the 250 quota figure first, Lavinia was elected to the remaining spot.
The post-graduate count only took 2 rounds, with only 156 valid ballots being cast. Quota was 79 votes, which none of the candidates reached. Xu Ting had 74 primaries, David Coluccio had 44, and Morteza Mohammahzhaheri has 38. Morteza was thus eliminated, and the ballots redistributed (15 to Xu Ting, 14 to David). Xu Ting was elected with 89 votes, David Collucio eliminated on 58 votes.
Repost: To A Degree, It's The End of University Conversation
Posted: 6th of November
The following is an article published in The Punch today. It is written by incoming On Dit Editor Connor O'Brien, regarding the Hughes Plaza consultation session which took place last Wednesday:
On the table, a hundred cups and saucers (arranged neatly, ten by ten). The university has pegged its hopes on this meeting, emailed the entire student body three times, plastered the campus with large, full-colour posters asking – begging – students to attend.
The meeting is an attempt on the part of administration to give students direct input into proposed campus redevelopments. The idea: have a cup of tea with members of the university’s Strategy and Space Planning department, air your grievances, and put forward your vision for a better campus. As they tell us repeatedly, desperately, “We’re listening.”
I count three students. (Hannah and I don’t count – we’re student journos. We have to be here). Anne, who’s in her fifties, is a mature-entry student who volunteers at the library. Gunter is an ageing hippy who’s been drifting in and out of campus for the past thirty years. The final ‘student’, Angus, doesn’t even attend the university.
This is a disappointment. Because students are unwilling to engage with administration, it has been increasingly difficult for the university to provide the college experience students wish for (but are refusing to explicitly ask for).
It’s not like students don’t care about what’s happening on campus. They do. A month ago, the university announced plans to demolish a historic theatre to make way for a state-of-the-art science precinct. Within weeks, five hundred students had joined a Facebook group petitioning against the redevelopment. A hundred students posted comments on that page, variously labelling the impending destruction a “barbaric act”, a “disgrace”, and a “tragic loss”.
But none of those students are here today.
I remember speaking to the editor of a local youth culture magazine who told me, “People can’t be f….ed anymore. I try to promote a show or an exhibition, and I’ll get hundreds of people clicking ‘Attending’ on Facebook, but they just won’t show up. You also have people who think it’s enough to become a ‘Fan’ of a local artist on Facebook, but then not buy any of that artist’s work, because they feel they don’t need to – they’ve already shown they’re a fan, by clicking a button. What I’ve realised, increasingly, is that what people do and say online is completely meaningless.”
I asked one of the students who joined and commented on the Facebook petition why he joined the group instead of speaking directly to a member of the university’s Strategy and Space Planning department. He told me that he assumed that, as soon as the group reached a “critical mass”, the university administration would have to sit up and take notice. When I point out that it’s unlikely that members of the administration actually use Facebook, he told me, “Yeah, but it’ll get on the radio or in the papers.”
Had he written to the papers? “No. But somebody else will, I’m sure.”
You can’t blame him, or any of the others, for not getting involved. Students have too much on their plates already to really give a damn about the state of the higher education system. A recent survey revealed that Californian students work an average of 23 hours per week – empirical evidence suggests that the Australian student experience can’t be much different. For all the talk of a “wasted generation”, students are actually spending the vast majority of their time working, attending classes, hitting the books – or in front of the computer, trying to resist the temptation of typing twitter.com into the browser window. Even before VSU hit, there was just no time for campus culture.
You hit a point where you realise it’s all become too darn complicated. On the one hand, students are feeling increasingly disconnected – universities have become so driven by the profit motive, students feel, that their concerns no longer factor into the equation. At the same time, the administration is struggling to connect with a student body that is distant and unresponsive. Nobody’s talking.
Two senior tutors, in their final tutorials of the year, implored us to send letters to administration. About anything – the IT system, course structure changes, even the quality of the food at the cafeteria.
“They don’t give a shit about faculty,” one tutor told me. “But they give a shit about you, because you’re the customer.”
In the closing five minutes of the final lecture of his academic career, a History professor spoke frankly about the changing face of the university.
“What is happening right now at this university,” he said, “will destroy higher education.”
This lecturer was speaking about course structure changes which force students to enroll in a larger number of introductory subjects across their undergraduate career. I’ve spoken to at least a dozen members of faculty: none are happy with the changes. Humanities students feel as though they’re now receiving a “joke education”. Yet – and here’s the kicker – the faculty are afraid to complain to administration, and students either don’t know who to talk to, don’t believe they’ll be listened to, or simply don’t have the time to voice their concerns.
I look around the room, with ninety-five coffee cups still gleaming and untouched. Angus is speaking, lamenting, “There’s no sense of collegiality. You get in, go to your lecture, leave.”
Members of the administration are writing this all down. It’s new to them. And this guy, Angus, who’s providing them with all this juicy info – he doesn’t even attend the bloody university.
Posted: 30th of October 2009
In terms of power in the University of Adelaide pond, University Council is where the big fish lurk. The Council consists of most of the heads of departments and standing committees, as well as the big whigs we receive emails from every now and then. Council approves or makes the biggest decisions facing students at the University of Adelaide.
The Council allows three positions to students, which are decided by online election. Two for undergrads, one for a post-grad. These positions are fiercely contested, and no wonder, with many students figuring it better to be a weak voice on the Council with power than a strong one on less directly influential bodies like, say, the Adelaide University Union. Furthermore, Council elections are usually contested by groups who don’t often bother with the AUU, such as the Medical Students and the Liberals.
This year’s undergraduate election is a four-way contest.
The favourite is Chris Wong, a Med student who is widely expected to be assured an easy ride onto Council due to the significant block vote behind him. I know very little about him, other than that he has three times as many people on his facebook group than the next highest candidate.
Close second is Lavinia Emmett-Grey, the former AUU President no doubt familiar to readers of this blog. If there’s one thing I’ve been assured of in my time watching student politics, it’s the pull of name recognition. Lavinia has more than most, and a dedicated network of people she’s recruited into student politics behind her to boot. Due to both these reasons, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her polling very highly.
Another likely to achieve some level of name recognition is Paris Dean, the long-haired socialist who has in his time as AUU Board Director and SRC President developed quite a reputation. How much of this is due to his Samson-like qualities is uncertain. Paris unexpectedly bowed out of recontesting his position on Union Board earlier this year. Many, myself included, thought that it was his throwing in the towel, but through this nomination, it appears he has his sight set on bigger things.
The final, largely unknown, contestant is Law/International Studies student Tomas Macura. A newcomer to student politics, his left-wing credentials saw him secure a preference-deal with Paris. Both have preferenced each other second, and then Lavinia third. Lavinia has not formally preferenced anyone, apart from Xu Ting (more on him below).
As already stated, Chris’ position on University Council is almost certain. The fight will be for the second position, which will likely fall to either Paris or Lavinia. I expect Lavinia will secure more primary votes, but if (or when) Tomas is knocked out, at least some of his preferences will flow to Paris. It is uncertain whether this will be enough for Paris to overtake Lavinia on preferences. Both will be anxiously awaiting the result.
In the post-grad race, three are contesting.
The first is Xu Ting. Xu made it onto this year’s Union Board, and has the block international vote behind him. However, I question how many international students will vote in an online, as opposed to campus-based, election. Many do not hesitate to cross the line in AUU election week to vote for someone who speaks their language, but I am uncertain if they will turn out in similar numbers when voting is more difficult to direct, as it is in an online forum.
The second is David Coluccio. David is the General Manager of the Adelaide University Union. As such, some have protested the conflict of interest in his contesting the position. After all, he will no doubt have a pro-union bias in his role, should he get the Council position. Rodney Crewther is a Council Member (Staff Representative), and also heavily involved in the local NTEU Branch, and so it is worth noting that Cullucio’s decision to contest in no way breaks precedent. It could place David in an interesting position however when the Council discusses issues to do with the AUU, the relationship between those two being considerably different from that of the University and the NTEU. Despite the many arguments I have heard to the contrary, I’m inclined to think that should he get on, a seat on University Council would be a significant gain for the Union.
The last post-graduate candidate is Morteza Mohammadzaheri, about whom I know absolutely nothing. Update: Several readers have informed be that Morteza is involved with the Post-Grad Students Association, an (currently barely operating) affiliate of the AUU.
Voting closes 10am Friday the 30th. The results should be known by that afternoon. Update: My bad. It closes at that time on November the 6th. I.e. you still have 1 week to vote.