I wanted to share with you all a point of clarification that came up during our last meeting when I expressed some concern that we were limiting ourselves in terms of trying to stick within the provost's offered 'budget.' It seems that what is commonly done when committees write recommendations to the university is not that they offer just one short list of unanimously agreed upon recommendations, but rather the proposal includes a variety of the ideas discussed by the committee, including those that the committee may ultimately decided not to recommend. This means that in our proposal we should able to make mention of even the prohibitively expensive ideas, even if the committee decides to ultimately 'recommend' a more moderate version. I know that might not sound like much of an improvement, I do think it will give Greg, Brian, and I a little wiggle room to strongly encourage the Provost to consider some things that would exceed his ideal budget for us.
I think we'll have a better sense of how much/little we will be able to pack into this report after our next meeting on the 22nd when we start to actually draft some sections of our report.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Add Our Calendar
Hi Everyone,
As things get rolling for the fall, you can keep track of meetings and events by downloading our Google Calendar.
Just click the button in the upper right hand corner and you should get linked right to it.
Stay tuned for further updates...
As things get rolling for the fall, you can keep track of meetings and events by downloading our Google Calendar.
Just click the button in the upper right hand corner and you should get linked right to it.
Stay tuned for further updates...
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A Quick Response to Some Concerns
1. Fundraising
Contrary to what's been going around on the list, the problem is not that the university isn't concerned with fundraising! What we have been told repeatedly by several different administrators is that it is always extremely difficult to raise money for graduate student aid. This is not a problem just confined to this university (although this university does have specific fundraising difficulties because of the relatively small undergraduate population it has now, as well as historically). Moreover, fundraising drives take years, so even if the university decided right now to undertake a massive fundraising campaign for graduate students, it wouldn't really help with our immediate situation. So as far as fundraising it concerned, its kind of a moot point unless anyone has some very specific ideas about where large sums of money could be raised quickly. This is not to say that more general fundraising suggestions won't be helpdul for the long term--I just want folks to keep it in perspective that a fundraising campaign will not solve our current woes.
2. Faculty
Faculty support for our cause would, I think, be helpful, but perhaps only in a limited sense. That is, the letters of general support that we got form some departments is certainly helpful, but unless faculty are actually willing to really pressure the admin on our behalf, I don't know how far that will get us. But by all means if you know faculty who might actually 'campaign' for improved gard funding, by all means pass us their names. Even better, if you know any faculty who would be willing to sign on to a voluntary 1-2% pay cut to put in a graduate aid fund, get them to speak out. I suspect it would completely embarass the admin if faculty were willing to pay out of their own pockets to help our efforts.
3. Unions and applying pressure to the admin
Greg, Brian, Averill, Erica and I chatted recently about the situation of things so far, and I can assure you that we're all trying to develop strategies to make our point about the necessity of improving graduate student aid from a lot of different angles. Erica is committed to working with us in putting this matter before the Trustees, and Averill is serving as something of the summer stand-in for Dave on GC/union matters. Frankly, I don't think we need to be worried about these things not being in an especially good state of organization over the summer. Right now, our work with the Committee is still going ahead, even if it doesn't always look all that promising, but we are not anywhere near having our backs against the wall at this point. I think that if we need to apply a little external pressure, we'll have plenty of time to do that come fall. And even if the whole unionization movement won't be in a position to extert any pressure until much later, even with minimal organization I believe we will be able to use the threat of unionization to our advantage if need be.
4. Overall attitude
I just want to say that while I have been, and still am to some extent, a bit pessimistic about this process, I don't want that to be confused with the university taking an "obsructionist" attitude. A lot of the people we've spoken too, including Provost Rosenbaum and most of the regular members of our committee, really do want to do something to improve the current situation. The challenge I think is really about thinking outside of the box and coming up with ways to stretch and finesse the little money we have, and ways to make persuasively appeal to the university's academic ideology. This will be a difficult task, but I don't think we need to get the Molotov cocktails ready just yet.
We've got our last meeting for several weeks tomorrow. Updates to come!
Contrary to what's been going around on the list, the problem is not that the university isn't concerned with fundraising! What we have been told repeatedly by several different administrators is that it is always extremely difficult to raise money for graduate student aid. This is not a problem just confined to this university (although this university does have specific fundraising difficulties because of the relatively small undergraduate population it has now, as well as historically). Moreover, fundraising drives take years, so even if the university decided right now to undertake a massive fundraising campaign for graduate students, it wouldn't really help with our immediate situation. So as far as fundraising it concerned, its kind of a moot point unless anyone has some very specific ideas about where large sums of money could be raised quickly. This is not to say that more general fundraising suggestions won't be helpdul for the long term--I just want folks to keep it in perspective that a fundraising campaign will not solve our current woes.
2. Faculty
Faculty support for our cause would, I think, be helpful, but perhaps only in a limited sense. That is, the letters of general support that we got form some departments is certainly helpful, but unless faculty are actually willing to really pressure the admin on our behalf, I don't know how far that will get us. But by all means if you know faculty who might actually 'campaign' for improved gard funding, by all means pass us their names. Even better, if you know any faculty who would be willing to sign on to a voluntary 1-2% pay cut to put in a graduate aid fund, get them to speak out. I suspect it would completely embarass the admin if faculty were willing to pay out of their own pockets to help our efforts.
3. Unions and applying pressure to the admin
Greg, Brian, Averill, Erica and I chatted recently about the situation of things so far, and I can assure you that we're all trying to develop strategies to make our point about the necessity of improving graduate student aid from a lot of different angles. Erica is committed to working with us in putting this matter before the Trustees, and Averill is serving as something of the summer stand-in for Dave on GC/union matters. Frankly, I don't think we need to be worried about these things not being in an especially good state of organization over the summer. Right now, our work with the Committee is still going ahead, even if it doesn't always look all that promising, but we are not anywhere near having our backs against the wall at this point. I think that if we need to apply a little external pressure, we'll have plenty of time to do that come fall. And even if the whole unionization movement won't be in a position to extert any pressure until much later, even with minimal organization I believe we will be able to use the threat of unionization to our advantage if need be.
4. Overall attitude
I just want to say that while I have been, and still am to some extent, a bit pessimistic about this process, I don't want that to be confused with the university taking an "obsructionist" attitude. A lot of the people we've spoken too, including Provost Rosenbaum and most of the regular members of our committee, really do want to do something to improve the current situation. The challenge I think is really about thinking outside of the box and coming up with ways to stretch and finesse the little money we have, and ways to make persuasively appeal to the university's academic ideology. This will be a difficult task, but I don't think we need to get the Molotov cocktails ready just yet.
We've got our last meeting for several weeks tomorrow. Updates to come!
Comments by Jenn
I met with the people setting up the grad union initiative. The first concern it has been decided is to try and generate enough representation from the various departments. This means that it is pretty much back to square one and not in any position to be able to start leaning on the admin any time soon.
It seems to me the problem is that the admin continues to ignore our importance in the framework of this university. Given what the values of the admin are this means they don't see us as
a) going to give them money in future years
b) going to either hurt or help their reputation
I think in order to get them to move on these issues we need to prove them wrong. I would suggest the following.
a) we need to make it clear that the reason past alums don't give is that they are too poor and too pissed off to be interested in this and the university could benefit by ending this line of thought
b) bring a motion to the faculty senate (or whatever similar body we have) to support the funding of current students
c) talk to current donners who do contribute and try to get them to not donate unless the university agrees to really address the inequality amoung its current students.
Lastly on the 'there isn't currently enough money issue'. Someone suggested to me that we could ask the university to promise raise funds for loan forgiveness in the future. This iniative would both give the university time to raise money and target those who suffered most under the current funding plan.
It seems to me the problem is that the admin continues to ignore our importance in the framework of this university. Given what the values of the admin are this means they don't see us as
a) going to give them money in future years
b) going to either hurt or help their reputation
I think in order to get them to move on these issues we need to prove them wrong. I would suggest the following.
a) we need to make it clear that the reason past alums don't give is that they are too poor and too pissed off to be interested in this and the university could benefit by ending this line of thought
b) bring a motion to the faculty senate (or whatever similar body we have) to support the funding of current students
c) talk to current donners who do contribute and try to get them to not donate unless the university agrees to really address the inequality amoung its current students.
Lastly on the 'there isn't currently enough money issue'. Someone suggested to me that we could ask the university to promise raise funds for loan forgiveness in the future. This iniative would both give the university time to raise money and target those who suffered most under the current funding plan.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
First Grad Life Committee Meeting
Greetings gang!
Hope everyone is enjoying their summer.
Greg, Brian, and I just wanted to give you some brief updates about The Committee on Grad Life (I think that’s what their calling us) since we had our first meeting on Tuesday.
First the committee members:
(chair) Alison Winter: History/ CHSS
David Martinez: Classics/Divinity School
Thomas Thuerer: Dean of Students, Humanities
Martina Munsters: Deputy Dean of Students for Student Affairs
The first meeting was really about introducing the issues. Alison began by saying that most of our activity over the last quarter was news to the faculty, so she wanted to hear from us what our concerns were. We proceeded to go over our proposal, which Martina had already provided for everyone present.
By far the most discussion was generated about teaching, I think because everyone present was shocked to learn that teaching salaries had not changed over the last nine years. There also seems to be some support for increased grants and competitive funding, and Martina and Tom have promised to bring figures for our next meeting on how many people have been applying for things like the Provost Summer Stipend and The Doolittle-Harrison Travel Grant, versus how many people actually get these things. But both already seemed aware that the number of students applying for these things and the amount of funds available were hugely out of proportion, which only helps our case.
These are just the things that seemed to draw the most positive reactions and I do want to point out that nothing we brought up was rejected outright. That having been said, it still looks like we’ve got a lot of challenges ahead of us. But our next meeting with Simrit Dhesi from the budget office, Patrick Hall, the dean of students in the Social Sciences, and Terri Owen, the dean of students in the Divinity School, will give us (students and faculty) a sense of where money for these initiatives might come from, as well as give us a genuine sense of the feasibility of some of our proposed changes.
In short, things look promising right now, even if there isn’t much new to report. I do believe there is a genuine spirit of cooperation in the room, even if we’re all coming at these issues from very different perspectives.
As I mentioned before, in the next few meetings Martina is going to do some data gathering for us, which I think will show that student need has increased while funding opportunities from the University have been unable to meet the higher demands. It would be really great if we could present some of our own data from the student survey in return. Any thoughts on this? Has anyone from the Grad Life/Survey Data Committee done more analysis on our data since our presentations in May?
Hope everyone is enjoying their summer.
Greg, Brian, and I just wanted to give you some brief updates about The Committee on Grad Life (I think that’s what their calling us) since we had our first meeting on Tuesday.
First the committee members:
(chair) Alison Winter: History/ CHSS
David Martinez: Classics/Divinity School
Thomas Thuerer: Dean of Students, Humanities
Martina Munsters: Deputy Dean of Students for Student Affairs
The first meeting was really about introducing the issues. Alison began by saying that most of our activity over the last quarter was news to the faculty, so she wanted to hear from us what our concerns were. We proceeded to go over our proposal, which Martina had already provided for everyone present.
By far the most discussion was generated about teaching, I think because everyone present was shocked to learn that teaching salaries had not changed over the last nine years. There also seems to be some support for increased grants and competitive funding, and Martina and Tom have promised to bring figures for our next meeting on how many people have been applying for things like the Provost Summer Stipend and The Doolittle-Harrison Travel Grant, versus how many people actually get these things. But both already seemed aware that the number of students applying for these things and the amount of funds available were hugely out of proportion, which only helps our case.
These are just the things that seemed to draw the most positive reactions and I do want to point out that nothing we brought up was rejected outright. That having been said, it still looks like we’ve got a lot of challenges ahead of us. But our next meeting with Simrit Dhesi from the budget office, Patrick Hall, the dean of students in the Social Sciences, and Terri Owen, the dean of students in the Divinity School, will give us (students and faculty) a sense of where money for these initiatives might come from, as well as give us a genuine sense of the feasibility of some of our proposed changes.
In short, things look promising right now, even if there isn’t much new to report. I do believe there is a genuine spirit of cooperation in the room, even if we’re all coming at these issues from very different perspectives.
As I mentioned before, in the next few meetings Martina is going to do some data gathering for us, which I think will show that student need has increased while funding opportunities from the University have been unable to meet the higher demands. It would be really great if we could present some of our own data from the student survey in return. Any thoughts on this? Has anyone from the Grad Life/Survey Data Committee done more analysis on our data since our presentations in May?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
GCGFC Proposal
GCGFC Proposal
DATE: May 2, 2007
TO: Robert J. Zimmer, President
Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Provost
David A. Greene, Vice President
Martha Roth, Deputy Provost
Martina Munsters, Deputy Dean of Students
FROM: Current Doctoral Students in the Divinity, Humanities, and Social Sciences Divisions
RE: Proposal for Changes to Current Doctoral Funding
The recent Presidential Funding Initiative demonstrates the University's dedication to continuing its legacy as a leader in academic excellence and graduate research. Current doctoral students unequivocally applaud the University's foresight and courage in making dramatic improvements to graduate funding. By its own terms, the Initiative recognizes that the financial struggles of extant students called for a renewed commitment to graduate funding.
The University has embraced this commitment, but it has failed to respond to the existing problem that generated the Initiative: the economic difficulties faced by the current doctoral population in the Divinity School, Humanities, and Social Sciences. In the University’s attempts to bolster its competitive edge and to create parity with competing institutions, minimal resources have been dedicated to current graduate students. Only $1.5 million, or 3%, of the Trustees' $50 million commitment has been allocated to the current doctoral population.
The following proposal has emerged from the organized collaboration of students from 32 departments and committees in the Divinity, Humanities, and Social Sciences Divisions. A committee of student representatives from those departments has carefully created each component of this proposal, which was ratified and refined according to input received from an online survey that over 580 students participated in.
Stipends
The University has committed to providing incoming students with five years of stipend funding at $19,000/yr. By making this gesture, the University has dedicated itself to supporting much of the cost of living during the academic year. The University “Graduate Guide to Student Loans and Federal Work Study” states that the estimated personal cost of living will be $21,921 for the 2007-2008 9-month academic year. Current doctoral students in our divisions receive stipends unacceptably lower than this base cost of living estimate.
- All students within the first five years of their doctoral program shall receive a stipend of $19,000 for the remainder of their first five years of the Ph.D.
Summer Stipend
Doctoral students are expected to work towards their degree twelve months of the year. Without funding for summer studies, current students are forced to seek summer employment, resulting in the lengthening of time to complete degree requirements. The limited quantity of competitive summer stipends currently available is grossly inadequate for addressing this problem.
- All graduate students in their first twelve years of doctoral work shall receive two summer stipends of $3000, pending departmental confirmation of sufficient academic progress towards the degree.
Health Insurance
The University has acknowledged that healthcare is essential for students' intellectual and personal productivity. There is no compelling reason why this coverage should be limited to students in their first five years of doctoral study.
- All students shall receive full health insurance coverage in their first twelve years of doctoral work. Students beyond their twelfth year shall have the option of purchasing the student health insurance plan.
Tuition
Doctoral tuition and fees present an unnecessary and frequently crushing financial burden to students, slowing their progress toward degree and forcing them to focus on subsistence rather than scholarship.
- Academic tuition and fees shall be waived for all students in their first twelve years of doctoral research.
Teaching
Within our divisions, compensation for teaching positions has not been increased or adjusted since 1998, resulting in a net decrease in real personal income. The University lags far behind its peer institutions in this regard. Additionally, because the University does not have clear guidelines for teaching responsibilities, teaching assistants who feel exploited have little or no recourse. We appreciate the University's assurance that teaching opportunities will not fall below their current level.
- Compensation for teaching assistants, instructors, and preceptors at the University of Chicago shall be raised to a level that matches the yearly pay for equivalent positions at peer institutions; this amount should be adjusted for cost of living increases on an annual basis.
- The University shall establish clear guidelines for the duties and responsibilities of teaching assistant positions, including the maximum number of hours required.
- Each year, the University shall demonstrate empirically that the current level of teaching assistant positions has not diminished as a result of the recent funding initiative.
International Students
- The University shall recognize the financial hardships of international students. Towards this end, the university shall create grant opportunities to serve in the place of funding available only to U.S. citizens, and in an ongoing dialogue with international students, the University will investigate additional ways to address their specific financial challenges.
We are confident that the Administration understands the importance of each of these issues, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on them.
DATE: May 2, 2007
TO: Robert J. Zimmer, President
Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Provost
David A. Greene, Vice President
Martha Roth, Deputy Provost
Martina Munsters, Deputy Dean of Students
FROM: Current Doctoral Students in the Divinity, Humanities, and Social Sciences Divisions
RE: Proposal for Changes to Current Doctoral Funding
The recent Presidential Funding Initiative demonstrates the University's dedication to continuing its legacy as a leader in academic excellence and graduate research. Current doctoral students unequivocally applaud the University's foresight and courage in making dramatic improvements to graduate funding. By its own terms, the Initiative recognizes that the financial struggles of extant students called for a renewed commitment to graduate funding.
The University has embraced this commitment, but it has failed to respond to the existing problem that generated the Initiative: the economic difficulties faced by the current doctoral population in the Divinity School, Humanities, and Social Sciences. In the University’s attempts to bolster its competitive edge and to create parity with competing institutions, minimal resources have been dedicated to current graduate students. Only $1.5 million, or 3%, of the Trustees' $50 million commitment has been allocated to the current doctoral population.
The following proposal has emerged from the organized collaboration of students from 32 departments and committees in the Divinity, Humanities, and Social Sciences Divisions. A committee of student representatives from those departments has carefully created each component of this proposal, which was ratified and refined according to input received from an online survey that over 580 students participated in.
Stipends
The University has committed to providing incoming students with five years of stipend funding at $19,000/yr. By making this gesture, the University has dedicated itself to supporting much of the cost of living during the academic year. The University “Graduate Guide to Student Loans and Federal Work Study” states that the estimated personal cost of living will be $21,921 for the 2007-2008 9-month academic year. Current doctoral students in our divisions receive stipends unacceptably lower than this base cost of living estimate.
- All students within the first five years of their doctoral program shall receive a stipend of $19,000 for the remainder of their first five years of the Ph.D.
Summer Stipend
Doctoral students are expected to work towards their degree twelve months of the year. Without funding for summer studies, current students are forced to seek summer employment, resulting in the lengthening of time to complete degree requirements. The limited quantity of competitive summer stipends currently available is grossly inadequate for addressing this problem.
- All graduate students in their first twelve years of doctoral work shall receive two summer stipends of $3000, pending departmental confirmation of sufficient academic progress towards the degree.
Health Insurance
The University has acknowledged that healthcare is essential for students' intellectual and personal productivity. There is no compelling reason why this coverage should be limited to students in their first five years of doctoral study.
- All students shall receive full health insurance coverage in their first twelve years of doctoral work. Students beyond their twelfth year shall have the option of purchasing the student health insurance plan.
Tuition
Doctoral tuition and fees present an unnecessary and frequently crushing financial burden to students, slowing their progress toward degree and forcing them to focus on subsistence rather than scholarship.
- Academic tuition and fees shall be waived for all students in their first twelve years of doctoral research.
Teaching
Within our divisions, compensation for teaching positions has not been increased or adjusted since 1998, resulting in a net decrease in real personal income. The University lags far behind its peer institutions in this regard. Additionally, because the University does not have clear guidelines for teaching responsibilities, teaching assistants who feel exploited have little or no recourse. We appreciate the University's assurance that teaching opportunities will not fall below their current level.
- Compensation for teaching assistants, instructors, and preceptors at the University of Chicago shall be raised to a level that matches the yearly pay for equivalent positions at peer institutions; this amount should be adjusted for cost of living increases on an annual basis.
- The University shall establish clear guidelines for the duties and responsibilities of teaching assistant positions, including the maximum number of hours required.
- Each year, the University shall demonstrate empirically that the current level of teaching assistant positions has not diminished as a result of the recent funding initiative.
International Students
- The University shall recognize the financial hardships of international students. Towards this end, the university shall create grant opportunities to serve in the place of funding available only to U.S. citizens, and in an ongoing dialogue with international students, the University will investigate additional ways to address their specific financial challenges.
We are confident that the Administration understands the importance of each of these issues, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)