12: "Time to Act"

For once I'm going to use this space the way it was meant to be used--for chicken scratches.

I just read the Howard Windsor report. There is an update on funding from the government side, but otherwise, no big surprises.

We still need to address that NSCAD is running under an unsustainable business model--not wilfully, perhaps, but given where the current economic climate, enrolment trends, and private fundraising prospects put the school at present. Initiatives like the Friends of NSCAD general assemblies are a good start at addressing deficiencies in that business model from the bottom up.

I'm also thinking that Sharon is partly right when she talked about having to make "brave decisions"--some of the issues that effect the student and faculty experience, including class sizes, after-hours access, and course offerings, are part of what makes the NSCAD model unsustainable, and they do need to be addressed.

I'm thinking about that exchange of information I was talking about between Bernadette Kehoe and I. Bringing different, potentially conflicting perspectives together in an open way.

Allowing imperfect proposals to be put out into the open.

That exchange needs to happen at a larger scale. As students, we spend a significant of time in the studios, navigate through the course calendar every semester, etc. We are in a particular position to point out what needs to stay and what can go (painful as it may be), from a student's point of view.

We might not be "right" (we don't have the full picture either), but we have our particular point of view.

For example, as much as I appreciate the 20-odd-student class size limit, there are some classes where I felt that wasn't particularly necessary. It could've been a little bigger. What is more important is that the classes are more well-planned, the critiques more focused--not less students but less time wasted.

I personally also don't need 24-hour access in the paint studios; if they were eliminated, I would just plan my time around painting when I needed to, and do off-campus work (such as writing) during the night.

What I just said is "wrong" for a lot of reasons (for example, Intro Paint can't go above 20 students anyway because it doesn't have the studio space to accommodate more; also, there are other students who work on different schedules and need that around-the-clock access). But that's just my experience, just as each student has their own experience.

But if we can systematically survey these opinions and find commonalities, together that data can go towards funding useful change.

So what if there was a website where we polled students on all of these matters: studio space, studio access, class sizes, course efficiency, etc.?

That input can be extremely valuable.

I don't see that happening yet--we have student council meetings and meetings with the president, where all students can attend, but nowhere that a student can just say, off-the-cuff, what is more important and less important to his or her educational experience.

Especially since, I believe, many students are similarly hesitant in having to devote time to attending a general assembly, and having to speak their mind on potentially controversial sacrifices (such as reducing hours of access). We need to find out how many people need that campus access, for example, to judge how important it is to keep it. Otherwise, we are just working off assumptions, which may not be the most efficient solution.

It may not be pretty.

Moments after I thought about this I also thought, "wouldn't this just start putting people--faculty, maintenance, security--out of their jobs?"

And students, particularly, seem to think that anything in the realm of sacrifice is sacrilege.

Maybe. Not necessarily. Perhaps as Russell Ackoff says, we (and by that, I mean "I"--my own censor) need to not shoot down suggestions on the basis of what's wrong, but take it and try to make it better.

We need to allow it to happen.

We also need to allow it to be wrong.