Newsgroups: ukc.misc From: Creature Subject: Re: AUT strikes Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:35:56 +0000 On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:59:31 +0000, Duncan Langford wrote: > OK, guys - if lecturers striking is such bad news, what would you suggest > we did instead? As others have said, I think you'd be better pursuing action designed to impact the University directly - either in the pocket, in the face, or in its functioning. How can you impact its earnings? Stop all research activities. Presumably Kent generates some income from research results (either undertaken on behalf of a company or from commercial applications thereof). Maybe there are financial benefits to attending conferences and publishing papers - stopping these activities could deprive the University of this income, and also hurt its public face (point two). Refusing to participate in open days (although they are probably all nearly over by now) could also deprive the University of future income. The Easter holidays are coming up, when the University clears out the students from the accommodation to run conferences. Disrupt these conferences - the University loses money and public face. You might not even have to actually disrupt them, either. The mere threat might be enough to pursuade the University to cave if they thought you were serious. Which brings me onto another main idea - disrupt the running of the University. The finance office of the University is a tiny, tiny area. 20 or 30 people would fill it solid, and make it impossible to take any money from students or conduct any business in there at all. This one, to me, seems pretty much foolproof. The Senate meet at regular intervals, as do other University boards. Turn up, make a lot of noise, stop the meeting running. How about a sit-in at the roundabout? It's visible, it would be a good photo opportunity, and while it might disrupt students' lives more than the above options it would be an annoyance rather than any serious, long-term harm. Yes, a lot of direct action does seem quite petty. But most people here aren't saying that you shouldn't take action, they're complaining because it's the students who suffer and not the University. There are a lot of dedicated staff at the University who do care about students, but as an organisation I'm aware that I am little more than a pawn. Students are those annoying people who stop the University pursuing its actual money-making function of hosting conferences - UKCH basically keeps the University fiscally viable. A marking/tuition strike punishes the students without aversely affecting the University. Worst comes to the worst they pay a few more postgrads than usual to invigilate and outsource the marking. The wheels keep turning, and no-one suffers except the people who commit 3-4 years and pay through the nose to be here. Oh, and their results are likely to be worse, so they don't get the best degree they can get. But that'll only matter the rest of their working lives, so no big deal. Finally, while the idea of students withholding fees from the University is nice it doesn't work in practice. Most people have already paid their fees by this point. Personally, I still owe the University some money. I can imagine how the conversation will go: "Hi, I'm not paying the last block of my fees in solidarity with the striking lecturers." "Knock yourself out. We'll be charging interest in the meantime." "I'm not going to pay interest on the balance for the duration of the strike." "As you wish. You won't be able to graduate while the University considers you a debtor, but it's your degree." Not paying fees is reasonable, but if it leads to not getting a degree? > For years the universities have said they would like to increase pay, > but just didn't have the financial resources to do so - but now they > have. (They actually promised the government that at least a third of > their new fee millions would go on pay - a promise that seems to now be > forgotten...) Do they actually have their claws on the money, though? Top-up fees don't begin to be paid until the people graduate. So even presuming that this year's intake was caught by the system, they've got another 2 years before they start to get paid - and they're 3 times the amount but they're paid in installments dependent on salary, so it's not an income that can be guaranteed. Others have suggested the Government are fronting the money, but I've heard no such reports and would be interested where they conjured such a huge amount of money from. Let's say the University takes in 3000 undergrads each year (based on about 400 in each of the colleges and 1,400 in Park Wood). Let's say a third of 'em are overseas students, so that leaves 2000. 2000 students x 3000 a year in fees = £6,000,000 for the Government to fund Kent alone. Assuming there are 50 Universities in the country (I'd be surprised if there weren't more) that's £300 million a year for the Government to find. It's not down the back of the sofa, that's for sure. Long story short, I think the "They've got the money!" is not the case. Not yet, at least. -- Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. http://www.alexpounds.com/ CS Student /V\ http://www.ethicsgirls.com/ // \\ "Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\ ^`~'^