Progressive changes to post-secondary admission and judicial monetary penalties

Significant work and billions of dollars have been invested in reducing poverty in Canada. In Ontario, all three major political parties (prior to Mr. Ford) have made poverty reduction a significant investment in their platforms. Yet, there are opportunities to increase the capacity of individuals and reduce the criminalization of impoverished individuals without substantial expenses. In some instances, there may be an opportunity to save money in these ministries. Some of the changes have been and are implemented in different progressive and developed countries around the world. Most of these ideas would come from the socialist democratic style of countries but are amongst the peers of Canada. The first idea is tailoring post-secondary tuition to your income levels and second is again attributing monetary fines to your income.

Post-secondary education is incredibly relevant in today’s economy. It is seen as a minimum standard for many positions whether it be college or university. Yet, thousands of low-income individuals either cannot afford to attend or struggle with massive amounts of debt to attend. This is because there is a standard cost associated with attending a university in the form of flat-rate tuition. This tuition is subsidized by the government to allow for Canadian students to attend at a cheaper rate (international students are not included in this. Hence they pay the “full amount” of tuition). While this subsidized rate does efficiently create ‘equal’ access for thousands of students it does this unequally. If tuition stands at $7,000 annually for a Canadian student, this is the standard no matter the income. A student whose family makes $32,000 annually or $250,000 annually pays the same amount. Yet, this dramatic income differential has a drastically different effect on both individuals. That student whose family makes $32,000 must set aside almost 22% of their annual earnings to just pay the entrance fee. Whereas the student whose family earns $250,000 only has to set aside 2.8%. This places that student whose family earns significantly less annually in a drastically more difficult situation. To be able to pay tuition let alone the other necessities associated with education and living and continuing with getting an education over 4+ years. The flat rate program leaves that student in a situation where the only viable option is a drastically large student debt allotment which causes future financial difficulties. While our system is set out to be equal and fair; it, in fact, is not. Both students share the same opportunity to attend by the governments flat rate but both students do not have the equal genuine opportunity due to large upfront and long-term fixed costs. While the family that earns $250,000 will see more deductions from their income through income taxes and that student may not qualify for additional supports once a student; the upfront cost and long-term costs are not significant barriers or as significant.

Visible minorities, Indigenous peoples, and new Canadians are often the ones that struggle with low income, poverty, and education is supposed to be an opportunity to provide these individuals with current and future changes. This flat rate system means more often then not we end up subsidizing higher income families who ability to pay is apparent; while only assisting those few lower-income individuals once they have made it past the gatekeeper. Changing the way we charge tuition and provide assistance to those with lower income would provide more accessibility and opportunity to these individuals while also being fiscally responsible. A tiered system would be necessary to provide these opportunities to those individuals who met the standards. The subsidy would be based on the earned income of the individual/family. The family who makes $32,000 a year may see their costs go from the flat rate of $7,000 to $2,500 annually. An annual reduction from 22% annual income to 7.8% or a -14.2% reduction for that student to attend university. This increased subsidy could be offset by increasing the amount for that student whose family earns more. The student whose family earns $250,000 could be asked to pay $11,500 annually in tuition to cover the reduction for low-income students. This increase in cost still is below what that low-income student would have to save annually. The amount based on the income would increase from 2.8% annual savings to 4.6% which is less than a +2% increase. This change would allow a significant improvement in the livelihoods of students who struggle with costs associated with post-secondary and the related debt. The difference of $4,500 for that low-income student pays for 9 out of 12 months of rent (Room rent of $500), or it pays for 15 months worth of food ($300 monthly) reducing both student homelessness and student hunger.

This would also not be detrimental to either party minus the small increase in monetary costs to the higher earners. Universities love international students because they pay up front and they pay the full amount. They don’t have to fight with governments over ratios or numbers, and they set the amount charged. These higher tuition costs mean those post secondary institutions would be challenging to attract more senior income students because they would pay more up front. As such it would allow for more lower-income students to attend that institution and get the same education. In other areas; where there are low mobility rates and depressed income levels generally, there is an opportunity to subsidize those areas with income from richer communities to allow for a diversification of the workforce in the depressed areas.

Germany has a system implemented for monetary penalties given by the judicial system where it too is associated with your income. An individual was found driving egregiously on the Autobahn and was caught speeding; based on his income his fine was $22,000. Whereas someone with a lower income bracket would pay must less but both serve these individuals as effective deterrents because they are proportional to their income. Our system as we have it currently presents everyone as equals. Whether you have $1 to your name or billions both are considered equal. This system while ‘income blind’ doesn’t effectively create the proper outcomes or equal ones. People struggling with low income or people who are impoverished face much larger proportional penalties than someone with a large income and wealth even though the fines are the same. Much like the university tuition system in Canada, it is a flat rate system. This costs us the taxpayer millions of dollars annually as well because the system is not representative of the individual’s situation. For example, a public intoxication ticket is relatively minor and cheap. In Ontario, the cost is $65, but depending on your situation the outcomes could be completely different. A homeless individual whose home is ‘the environment in which he /she lives’ can often rack up a large number of these within short order. Whereas, a college student drunk walking down the street and being a danger to himself may only get one in his/her lifetime. The student ends up paying the ticket, and it costs him a weekend of partying or a week of ramen noodles. For that homeless individual; with no adequate income or a limited income, it can result in jail time. Enough tickets associated with an individual will lead to his arrest through a bench warrant. Often this leads to jail time for the individual and thousands of dollars in costs to taxpayers. To keep an individual in jail per day costs on average $116,000 a year to keep someone in jail. If an individual gets sent to jail for a 3 month period because of intox. Tickets; as taxpayers, we spend $28,600. Editors note: Police officers are often aware that people cannot pay; sometimes tickets are given with the knowledge that these individuals will go to jail eventually (Yes, they are legitimate tickets). Winter is a tough time for homeless individuals, and with enough tickets, the individual may spend the time inside (jail) with a warm environment, food, and access to medical help. It’s an unfortunate workaround to make sure people don’t freeze to death or suffer unnecessarily. Associating tickets to individuals incomes would be more effective in deterring individuals but also understanding their realities. That ticket tied to the homeless person’s income may be better given as community service without the monetary penalty. If we could reduce the number of people spending time in prisons because they are homeless or lack the ability to pay then we could save millions annually.

Speeding is another example of an area where a flexible system would be better served then the flat rate system. A flat rate of $500 would have significantly more detrimental effects on the individual whose car is falling apart than the individual whose Maserati is sitting in the lockup. A monetary fine that is too large for an individual to pay may also have external but related negative impacts. That suspended license for not paying the penalty could lead to a no insurance ticket which if caught is a $5,000 fine or higher insurance premiums from canceling and reopening policies. It could also be the only means for an individual to get to and from work which could cause job loss and potentially both confidence and mental health issues. While it is important to have a fine that is effective at deterring individuals from committing these acts it is also important to understand the realities of the human situation. Set the fine at a flat rate of income; 2% as an example would mean an individual earning $32,000 would pay $640 but an individual earning $250,000 would be $5,000. While neither fine may break the bank for either person it provides a useful deterrent to people; it also takes into account the human element of the situation. It is more equitable than the flat rate system and it gives additional flexibility to justices when making decisions on fines. Both individuals are harmed, but neither is hampered to the point where it unequally impacts one person because of their income levels.

Our idea of a flat fee for everyone is noble and comes with good intentions. It removes the human element of the situation and we lose sight of the purpose. We want to punish people enough to deter them from conducting themselves in certain ways. We do not want to hamper them so much we effectively kill all hope for progress. Our society is considered to be fair and provide the necessary helping hand when needed. Yet, we are subsidzing the education of the rich while effectively denying it to the poor or indebting them so much that they continue to stay poor while profiting off them.

What do you think of the situation?

Advertisements

Collaboration Between Lakehead University and other Government Agencies

The Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital board of directors announced that they are starting a process to redevelop the hospital and plan for the future of the facility. They are looking at the potential options to meet the current demands of the community and into the future. A requirement of this planning by the Government of Ontario is that one of the options considered is a complete redevelopment on ‘green space’. Typically; I view this to be the least effective and least productive method for moving forward as green space is often away from established areas and can promote urban sprawl. In this instance I believe that there is an opportunity here to establish a new facility while creating new and exciting partnerships between other governments and governmental organizations. One of the options that the hospital should consider is a partnership with Lakehead University to create a university hospital much like those seen at larger campuses in the United States. This facility could provide a partnership that creates the future model for intergovernmental cooperation and the training pipelines necessary to provide the educational and real world experiences for future professionals. This collaboration provides benefits to Lakehead University; the Ontario Government; the City of Orillia and Georgian College. Below is a presentation of what each group has to gain and offer to this option.

Lakehead University

The campus was established in Orillia in 2006 and later established a permanent campus into a large green space in West Orillia shortly after. It currently serves approximately 1,500 students and is the only university in Simcoe County. Laurentian University was set to establish their satellite campus in the City of Barrie in 2015 which would have served 3,000 students but this was not picked by the Ontario government for funding. The Government of Ontario is currently looking to establish new campuses further into the GTHA region and much of the financing is being focused there.  The Lakehead Orillia campus is set for growth as both the City of Barrie and Orillia are expecting their population to grow significantly in the next 10 to 15 years. It is well positioned for growth as the campus has significant space requirements to expand their facility. The current issues pertaining to growth at this campus is the lack of available financing to continue expanding facilities and lack of space for new programs. The negatives for the campus can be used as collaboration pieces for the new hospital campus. The abundance of space means that the university can offer cheap land to the hospital in return for shared space in the new facilities. These shared spaces can be used in conjunction with one another to offer state of the art training facilities for university students and hospital patients. A practice like this is already in place at the Georgian College Barrie campus; if an accident were to damage the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) they could transfer patients to the training facility on campus and still have the same quality of care. The difference for this campus would be the buildings would be shared instead of stand alone buildings. Students in these facilities would get the opportunity to interact and observe the real world operation of a hospital. These shared learning facilities also provide the university with the opportunity to add additional degrees to attract students to the facility. Courses like Nursing, Business administration, Information technology are all some of the potential options to attract students to the campus. Lakehead University also has its own medical school which produces doctors at the Thunder Bay campus; were they to provide an additional satellite facility on the campus they could provide the same mandate of improving medical care to rural areas to Simcoe County. A collaboration between the hospital and the university opens up research opportunities for the academics within the facility and commercial opportunities for developing medical technology. In short; Lakehead’s current issues of lack of funding for expansion and the resulting issue of lack of space could be mitigated by this cooperation.

Orillia Solders Memorial Hospital

The current hospital is running into the issue of lack of space and existing facilities that are aging and not meeting the demand of the citizens. Some of the buildings are from its original construction and there have been additions on the building as its grown. The benefit of the expansion into the Lakehead space is twofold. One; they get a new facility which will be designed to meet the demands of the community and designed for future growth. This facility will be able to meet the requirements for accessibility purposes; the planners will have the reduced stigma associated with mental health hence providing more space for staff to reduce stress and more room for addressing mental health within the community. Secondly; they get a partner in the cooperation with Lakehead which provides them with the next generation of nurses, business administrators among other important roles. This means that when they need to expand they don’t look purely at the Ministry of Health for funding they can also look for the Ministry of Universities and Colleges. This additional funding opportunity allows them to get new technology faster and better meet the needs of the community. Leveraging the knowledge at Lakehead University could also allow them to attract research investment into the hospital. A smaller version of university avenue in Toronto, ON could be an example of collaboration between universities, research companies and hospitals leveraging each others strengths to further one another. In short; the OSMH gains a new facility where they meet the demands of a growing community for the next 25-30 years and gains access to new funding/research opportunities.

City of Orillia

The City of Orillia has done a lot of work to better support the expansion in West Orillia with the development initially of a single bus line serving Lakehead University to the expansion of a second one. They have also invested in a multipurpose sports facility which gets extensive use and an industrial park which is set to be home to the new OPP detachment and Hydro One research/service facility. The collaboration between these Lakehead University and the OSMH does provide some initial issues but I feel provides long term benefits to the community and the city. Short term the city has to deal with a large parcel of land in an established part of the community moving out to the fringes. This would likely cause a depreciation of land values of those homes and businesses close by to the hospital. Long term the city would gain a large parcel of land that it could influence the redevelopment of that part of town with. That could be the catalyst for new multi use developments which brings commercial and residential to that area including new tax income. There is a lot of opportunity for the community to reuse this land to provide benefits for the long term of the community. The continued development of Lakehead University also has important benefits to the community. Housing development in this area of town has expanded significantly in a short period of time providing employment and income to city coffers. With a community population of 31,000; 1,500 students annually attend the Lakehead campus on September 1st of every year which means the community grows by almost 5% overnight which has a significant impact on the businesses within the community. The City of Orillia has invested a lot of time and money into this part of the community to address its growth and expansion. The collaboration between Lakehead and OSMH would provide significant benefits to the community as a whole but could have some detrimental short term effects.

Georgian College – Lakehead Collaboration

Lakehead University and Georgian College have come together to provide additional programs that “offer the benefits of a college diploma and an university degree”. While this is beneficial to both campuses it is currently focused more on the Barrie campus then Orillia as Georgian has more space to offer these programs. Furthering the collaboration between these two groups could again provide fruits in the Orillia campus. Georgian college has a number of programs pertaining to health which would be beneficial to the new collaboration. Students at the Georgian Barrie campus have access to very high tech and realistic technology which makes them attractive candidates for future employment. Programs such as nursing could take advantage of the investment Georgian College has made into these facilities and complete a diploma there; then complete their degree at the university campus which would have ample workplace opportunities for training with the merged facilities. Nurses could have the opportunity to do two years in Barrie in those facilities and then come to Orillia to attend the theory part of nursing and the hands on experience of being in a shared learning space. This would provide students with the hands on experience they need to be highly sought after candidates and provide work spaces with employees who have real world experience coming into the work site. This makes it highly valuable for all parties to work together on providing the opportunities that students need to make something like this work. Continuing the collaboration provides highly sought after students and makes these two campuses attractive to applicants as they offer the best job prospects.

 

Why LUSU’s plan to ‘Fight the Fees’ actually costs students.

Lakehead University Student Union (LUSU) and the Canadian Federation of Students have announced a new plan to ‘fight the fees’. Essentially, they are rebranding their annual proposal to vote no to tuition increases or to abstain from the vote at the board of governors meeting by participating in protests or sit ins. Annually, they lose these votes because they are outvoted by the rest of the board of governors and current/future students lose twice because they lose their voice and receive the tuition increases anyways.

The reason I am writing this blog is to show the folly of their plans and to provide a constructive criticism along with contempt as a student who suffers due to their actions. The board of governors typically votes during the summer at their general meeting on the amount of increase they will pass into tuition to help cover the expanded costs of operating the university. These costs are maxed out by the government and for many years it was 8% which is 2.5x times general inflation, currently it is 3%. Tuition rates have increased well beyond inflation and have caused severe strain for students and their financial supporters. I truly believe that the Ontario government and the Federal government need to look for new ways to prepare significant and stable funding increases for universities to cover costs. I would also like to see the Board of Governors move their meeting to during the school year so more students can be present and participate in the processes to which they are subject.

Yet, at the local level there are a number of things that could have been done to reduce the costs associated with the operation of the university and the services it provides to its students if LUSU was able to look beyond their own term in office. When LUSU votes ‘No’ or abstains from the vote at the board of governors they are effectively giving away any and all influence in the decisions on how that money is spent and what mandates we want it to go towards. This voice that students give the individual is wasted and thrown away and does nothing to benefit the university, students or future students.

Looking to the university campus there are a significant number of buildings that were designed, built and continue to operate in a pre-environmental concern mindset. Imagine if LUSU had voted for these fee increases and used that influence to change the landscape of the campus, reducing the number of buildings by combining them into larger structures which not only reduces the environmental impact, it reduces costs in taxes, heating, electricity, maintenance among many more. New facilities are also a huge draw for students and a larger student base spreads that cost over a much larger number of people meaning the individual cost is less. These new buildings influenced by LUSU and the students as to the needs and desires of students with an environmentally friendly and technology conscious mindset could help guide Lakehead for the next 50 years.

A reduction of current facilities into an amalgamated facility also allows for certain other things if the buildings are removed. Increased greenspace, opportunities for future facilities, expansion of facilities. As Lakehead is a school of the north and focuses heavily on the environment and forestry there could be community gardens, traditional aboriginal services or even cultural spaces from the many different communities and countries the international students come from. A modern campus would allow for a multitude of things to happen that could be increasingly beneficial for the student population, Thunder Bay and more.

Working with the university rather then fighting them also brings in a number of other impacts that could benefit student life and reduce the cost to students. Imagine in that new building (s) that LUSU worked with the university to build; it has a grocery store, cafe, among other privately run businesses that increase the offering of services on the campus and reduce the cost. It reduces the cost because now it is not only being shared by government/university and students it is being shared by government/university/students and private enterprise. It also provides employment for students to gain some much needed workplace experience, income and social connection that our university campus desperately lacks. We have 1,200 students on campus that live, study and socialize here. Its a captive audience for businesses lost by poor planning. Foresight, would reduce the cost of operating the university and the cost of university for the students.

As a student I have to question some of the auxiliary fees that I pay that go directly to support LUSU related activities or projects. I pay almost $17 for computer upgrade fees of which I use everyday through the wifi provided by Lakehead, school computers etc and yet I pay $6.66 for LUSU radio that I have never listened to. No private business operates with a subsidy so why is it that LUSU radio can not operate without a student subsidy; is the business plan so ineffective that it simply can not and as a student do I really want to pay for that failed business plan. Answer for me at least is NO. LUSU recently posed the question to students (couple years ago) about rebuilding the pool and the cost associated with that; they posed to students the question if they would be willing to pay for it. As a student who does not use the facility I see no personal benefit but others likely do and as a democratic organization if the student group said yes then that is fine to me. What I do question is: had LUSU considered working with the City of Thunder Bay in finding an operating agreement to use the complex as a facility for gym and pool. Other then a membership there is no cost to LUSU or the students. Whereas now we pay operating, staffing and maintenance costs. Had LUSU worked with the Board of Governors could that building could had been redone on Lakehead’s dollar and influenced other levels of government to reduce the costs. Could students have shouldered 15% of the rebuild cost rather then 100%.

Someone will probably try and say that it is impossible for students and the organization to work together since their goals and aspirations are so different. I would say to that person that they are wrong since Georgian College Student Association did just that. They put their money where their mouth is and put up cash to get a real voice in how it is spent within the organization. Their cash multiplies because they are working with other levels of government to fund the things that they want. They do not get to fund one project on their own they fund four because they are stretching their dollars. They do not get everything they want just as LUSU would not if they decided to go down this road. The influence would be much greater and we would see more student oriented items within campus.

Until LUSU and the Canadian Federation of Students get their heads out of the sand their doing more harm then good for students.

Top 5 things for going to university

1. Your experience depends on what you put in it.

– If you sit in your room and don’t try to experience different people, cultures and ideas then your going to not have nearly as much fun as someone who does. That being said if you spend all your time partying and drinking your academic career might be short lived.

2. Stay in residence

– The rules suck, the place gets boring after a while but I don’t regret staying in residence at all. I met a lot of my close friends there, had a lot of fun and many people who didn’t go regret not having that experience. If you can afford it (its expensive) I recommend you do so.

3. Time Management

– You are going to want to do 10,000 things at once and it can’t happen. You need to pick and choose what your going to do and how your going to do it. You also need to do this with the academic side of school. Your paper will probably be better if you write it slowly and weeks in advance or you could do an all nighter. Up to you.

4. Know your limits with drugs and alcohol.

– Not recommending you do anything illegal. Your going to drink and some of the people you know will probably delve into other things but you need to know yourself in order to avoid trips to the hospital. Start slow and find your limits.

5. Respect the people around you.

– Try to make the environment around you healthy by surrounding yourself with people you like and who like you. If you got a bad feeling about someone its time to part ways they can be replaced. If someones to intoxicated to stand they’re to intoxicated to agree to anything.

Have fun out there.

Explaining snow days to Thunder Bay students

I remember in first year that the Lakehead University campus had 2 snow days back to back at the beginning of the school year. It was joyful for the Orillia students but seemed to irk the Thunder Bay students that they weren’t getting days off. Students were making comments about the inability of southern Ontario drivers to deal with a Canadian winter. I totally understand where students are coming from and have personally seen both Thunder Bay and Central Ontario drivers not comprehend driving in the snow. There is one major difference though for students at the Thunder Bay campus to know about the campus down here though and why we may get more snow days.

In Thunder Bay the campus and a majority of its students are in Thunder Bay. There isn’t much driving required for Thunder Bay students to get to the campus and those that make the trip from out of town are smaller portion of student. Which means less reason to shut down the school if only 10-20% of class is commuting. Here in Orillia that statistic is much different. A significant majority of the student population commutes from outside of Orillia to the campus. The best example would be taking the Thunder Bay campus and placing it in Murillo or Lappe and expecting students to drive there during dangerous weather conditions. Large portions of students drive in from the surrounding communities and from Barrie which is the hub of Simcoe County. Highway 11 from Barrie to Orillia is 35 km one way and lined with farmland meaning squalls and whiteout conditions are common. Traffic is also much heavier leading less room for mistakes and more accidents to deal with. The geographical location means a significant portion of the class will be unable or unwilling to attend class due to the weather. Central Ontario also deals with snow drifts like I have never seen before, they are much more common than Northwestern Ontario and more severe. Add in a less comprehensive transit system and the location of school being a primarily car oriented design it doesn’t leave much room when the weather is dangerous.

As Lakehead Orillia deals with another snow day sit down and think if the campus was in Lappe would you take the time to drive there in blowing snow and squalls?

Positive Things by Police

Law enforcement has seen its share of trouble/negative media attention and public criticism over the last couple years. We as humans tend to focus on the negatives and I myself am no different. Its really unfortunate that negative things seem to stick in our heads longer then the positives. My purpose with this post is not to argue the merits of individual cases if the officers was wrong/justified. What I do want to do is bring some attention to the positive things that Canadian law enforcement is doing to make the community a better place and improve civic relations.

#1: Frosty comes alive.

Orillia OPP Cst. Marcus LEE helps a young male build a snowman in Orillia’s first snowfall.

\
Cst. Marcus LEE

Story: http://www.orilliapacket.com/2015/11/25/local-officer-stops-to-help-boy-create-some-winter-fun

Remarks: Its really nice to see A) the media caught on to this and B) the officer take time out of his schedule to spend it with Orillia’s Youth. This community building went viral on social media where it brought out lots of positive comments about the officers actions and the law enforcement community in general. Its a small act that likely had a big impact on the kid and had a big impact on improving the community relations.

#2 Social Media Crazy

Law Enforcement in Canada has taken a big step in community relations by moving into social media and making an officer available for comment, to address concerns and deal with public issues. This move to social media allows the law enforcement community to show what it is that they do and how they do it. They get to address issues and to interact with the community; we are seeing individual officers now using social media to work with the community. Its a great improvement which helps to humanize the officers who roam the streets and to show the community that they are there for them. I follow a number of officers and organizations myself and if your looking for information on how to join the OPP then the best place is @OPP_Hire on twitter. York Regional Police just put out a call to help them arrest an individual who had been sexually assaulting women through twitter and the community rallied to help put the individual behind bars.

Halton Region: @Haltonpolice
Peel Regional Police: @Peelpolice
Toronto Police: @TorontoPolice @pcarsenault @pcglennjones
York Regional Police: @YRP
Go Transit: @GoRivett94, @GOgrodzinski301
OPP: @OPP_Hire,

(Humour filled American channel on Instagram @officerdaniels_1)

Got more news stories send them to me in the comments and I’ll add them in or more social media accounts of police you like comment below.

Lakehead’s Teacher Reviews are a Joke

I’m going to be one of the first people to tell you to participate in something that is designed to make the system that we use daily better. I emphasize people to vote, to take part in school surveys and to be a part of improving our lives but when it comes to the teacher reviews at Lakehead I refuse to waste my time. Students like myself are tired of filing out these forms and seeing nothing done to try and improve the quality of professors at the school or remove those that consistently receive poor reviews from students. I can name a couple teachers that I fill out the forms for but that is because they are good teachers. I enjoy their classes and the way that they educate me but I refuse to make a review about teachers who have no interest in teacher, perform poorly at their jobs or have no actual idea about the content they are teaching. Why? I’m the one that started talking about how participating actively supports the improvement of our education and government systems. Professors at Lakehead are NOT required by the university to disclose the content of those teacher evaluations. That means if a teacher is rated poorly by his/her students for things like poor content knowledge, sexism or racism in the classroom or poor teaching quality they don’t have to disclose it. Imagine getting a poor job review and basically saying well it doesn’t matter because that one is staying with me. Wouldn’t you yourself pump yourself up and push the good reviews over the bad ones? Not having to disclose the issues that a teacher is presenting means that the opinions of students truly is not important to the education system. One has to think that there are means of pulling bad teachers but different numbers right or means?

Most students don’t know that their evaluations mean nothing. In order for the negatively to truly make it to the decision makers you need to make a presentation to the dean of the specific department or you need to provide an email of the account of the struggles to him. I’m sure that a large population of students would be uncomfortable with dealing with this individual based on their concerns. The evaluations are supposed to be a indirect means of presenting to the decision makers their feeling on their education. In order for Lakehead students to truly feel like their opinions are being heard the evaluations NEED to be sent to department heads good or bad.

You would think that there are other means of rooting out bad teachers right? Marks would be bad, attendance would be bad or large numbers of students would drop a class in order to protest the class? Marks can be and often are inflated in order to fall into line with the university requirements. Some teachers may give bonus marks, some may give marks through attendance or participation and many teachers give bell curves. This means that the quality of marks is often representative of the quality of education (but not always) but that teachers are able to fluctuate their numbers in order to present a better image. These do not accurate represent the education that students are getting and worse they allow teachers with poor standards to preserve their positions until it is almost impossible to remove them from teaching.

Attendance is often as indicator of how students perceive a class or a professor. Our largest lecture hall holds 200 students and for teachers who are viewed to be positive, educational and understanding their classes are well attended. Now as time goes on there is an attendance drop but typically a large portion attend the classes. Teachers who are viewed to be uneducated, unmotivated or perceived negatively will see this attendance drop significantly early on. I can account for this happening in 2 classes I have taken with the same teacher. Both times in large lecture halls with full student capacity. The class attendance quickly dropped off and this is representative of the poor ability to hold a class, present oneself and the topic with confidence that this individual has. The main lecture hall quickly dropped to less then 1/2 of the class attending by 5 weeks in and around 1/4 (50 or less students) close to the end of the semester. This is directly repeated in his current class and this is a direct result of his inability to teach the content accurately or with confidence. Lakehead should consider this to be a more important factor and the causes behind it when they come to consider teachers and who they intend to educate.

Students dropping a class is one way to see how a teacher is doing but its not always an option for many students. Many times classes may be mandatory for a student in order to graduate and he/she will be forced to sit through the class whether he agrees with it or not. A large drop rate may be an indicator though of students who don’t agree with or are struggling due to the means/method in which a teacher conducts himself. I know for a fact that a class I was in has seen an incredibly drop rate as a result of the way the teacher taught the class and her methods. While I perceived her to be very well educated and knowledgeable on the content of the class she seemed to think that we had the same degree of knowledge. Evaluations of testing materials were done as a means to drop individuals from the class and as a result she has had a large drop rate in her class. In this case its not about the content of the class or the teacher but how she conducts herself and her marking that has pushed a large number of students away. This should be a red flag for the university as it is not the job of professors to play games with numbers or to play hardball until they have a small chosen group. It is their job to educate the masses and provide them with the information they need in order to make the world a better place.

I guess by getting the information out there that the process Lakehead has is broken and is in need of repair. I urge Lakehead students to avoid the evaluation system and take the comments directly to those that make the decisions. In order for us to make the school better we need to change it from the inside and put pressure on the decision makers to make that change.