This isn't a column, but an article I am quite proud of. Enjoy:
Take that, Maclean’s
The U of O conducts their own evaluation of the student experience
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Mar 16
IN CONTRAST TO the ever-popular Maclean’s magazine and Globe and Mail university reports, University of Ottawa surveys have discovered that students are, in fact, generally satisfied with their university experience.
The End-of-Program survey was created last fall and consists of questions regarding academic and social aspects of university life. Approximately 3,818 students in their final year of undergraduate studies took the time to fill out the survey in 2010, resulting in a 50.3 per cent response rate—one of the highest in Canada.
“The results indicated overall happiness with the quality of courses, overall happiness with the quality of the university, [as well as] some concern about the lack of availability for some courses,” explained Allan Rock, president of the U of O.
“They were pretty specific. We have provided that information to the faculties right down to course name and number so they can start looking at the gaps and providing more sections for courses.”
The purpose of these surveys is two-fold: the first being for program critique and the other acts as university life improvement.
“One crucial function of the survey is that the results are broken down into faculties and departments, and then, without revealing the identity of students, we send that to the deans and the directors. [They] interpret the results in terms of the quality of the program they offer,” said Pierre Mercier, associate VP of Institutional Research and Planning at the U of O.
The survey results are also taken to the administrative committee, consisting of Rock and the vice-presidents, so they can keep them in mind when planning the budget and university activities.
Mercier explained that these results are significantly different from those in other publications such as Maclean’s because it looks at all the variables rather than just the highest numbers.
“Maclean’s plays a bit of a trick on us. Most of the questions are on a four-point scale—very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied. We realize that the two categories—satisfied and very satisfied—reflect the positive side of the scale,” said Mercier.
“What Maclean’s does, [is] they realize that most Canadian universities are very good universities and that they wouldn’t see any difference if they added these two categories [together], so they rank universities only on the very top category—[very satisfactory]. And there you see some differences.”
However, not everyone is convinced that the End-of-Program survey is all together accurate. Amy Kishek, the student representative on the Board of Governors, maintains that the university still has a lot to do.
“I do wonder about accuracy,” she explained. “But I do hope they take it into consideration and incorporate it into the budget. Although the outcome shows us fairing well, I do believe it’s far less the ideal and the university has a lot to improve on.”
The university is currently in the process of comparing the 2010 data with the information obtained by previous surveys. The results have indicated that the university should focus on ensuring students are able to obtain information about their programs more easily. To do this, they have created two committees—one dealing with academic information such as registration and prerequisites, and the other concentrates on services such as residence and food.
“Maclean’s isn’t the only game in town, and while it is the most visible ... you have to go past it. That being said, I am not denying there is a problem,” noted Rock. “It’s my number one priority. It has been since I’ve gotten here.”
General satisfaction results:
How satisfied are you at the U of O?
Very satisfied 14%
Satisfied 72%
Dissatisfied 12%
Very dissatisfied 2%
How satisfied are you with your program of studies?
Very satisfied 22%
Satisfied 63%
Dissatisfied 14%
Very dissatisfied 2%
How satisfied are you with your professors’ contribution?
Very satisfied 19%
Satisfied 67%
Dissatisfied 12%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The truth and a smile create unsafe space?
I guess for this column you may need some background information. In our student federation elections at the University of Ottawa, the candidate for vp finance was disqualified after he was elected into office by the students. For obvious reasons, students took this as a blow to democracy. For some, they claimed you can't kick someone out who was democratically elected into office. When they asked for a by-election, the Board of Administration (BOA) refused. This has caused a sit-in and a few major protests. More info to come.
The BOA listened to student appeals on March 6, in a closed-room setting with a live-feed set up across campus. This column addresses how the media was shut out from the room and under what conditions we were let into the meeting.
The truth and smiles create an unsafe space?
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Mar 9
WELL, MY FELLOW readers, I don’t even know what to say. I have been shocked silent. Should I write about how the Board of Administration (BOA) outright disqualified Tristan Dénommée; should I write about the sit-in students organized in protest; or should I write about the people protesting the sit-in? Should I write about the gossip being spread by student federation executives and board members, or should I talk about Protection Service’s involvement in this entire affair?
After reviewing my options, I have decided to write about the fact that the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO), and the BOA respectively, think that the media create unsafe space.
I guess my reputation for being intimidating has spread across campus. And if any of you know me, you can probably picture me saying that with a smile. Well, not this time.
During the March 6 BOA meeting, the media was allowed into the room after two hours of debating, and only under certain conditions. We were told by Federico Carvajal, Chair of the BOA, that only three members from each paper could enter the room. We were told that we could not speak (not that we usually do as objective observers). We were told that if we did speak, we would have to leave quietly or security would take us out forcibly. Finally, we were told we had to respect the room as a “safe space.”
At this point, I think I speak for the entire Fulcrum when I say we did not feel “safe” entering that room.
Since when has the media become an instigator of unsafe activity? The media’s role is to inform the public in an objective manner. I’m sorry if our pens make too much noise as we write down notes, but does that mean that you feel unsafe in our presence? The Fulcrum has never spoken out during a BOA meeting and only works toward writing the truth—and that is exactly what the BOA feels creates an unsafe space.
I can tell you what they were afraid of. They were afraid that we would be able to hear them better than we could from the live-feed. They were afraid that we would be able to actually quote them rather than paraphrase. They were worried that we would write a story outlining their faults as a democratic institution.
I don’t have a grudge against the SFUO or the BOA. All I wanted was for my reporters to be able to do their job and inform the public as to what happened inside that closed-door meeting. I told them all to be fierce, to try their best to get into the room because the chances of technical difficulties were pretty high. Yes, I said this with a smile.
But apparently, smiles and the truth are what frighten this student federation.
The BOA listened to student appeals on March 6, in a closed-room setting with a live-feed set up across campus. This column addresses how the media was shut out from the room and under what conditions we were let into the meeting.
The truth and smiles create an unsafe space?
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Mar 9
WELL, MY FELLOW readers, I don’t even know what to say. I have been shocked silent. Should I write about how the Board of Administration (BOA) outright disqualified Tristan Dénommée; should I write about the sit-in students organized in protest; or should I write about the people protesting the sit-in? Should I write about the gossip being spread by student federation executives and board members, or should I talk about Protection Service’s involvement in this entire affair?
After reviewing my options, I have decided to write about the fact that the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO), and the BOA respectively, think that the media create unsafe space.
I guess my reputation for being intimidating has spread across campus. And if any of you know me, you can probably picture me saying that with a smile. Well, not this time.
During the March 6 BOA meeting, the media was allowed into the room after two hours of debating, and only under certain conditions. We were told by Federico Carvajal, Chair of the BOA, that only three members from each paper could enter the room. We were told that we could not speak (not that we usually do as objective observers). We were told that if we did speak, we would have to leave quietly or security would take us out forcibly. Finally, we were told we had to respect the room as a “safe space.”
At this point, I think I speak for the entire Fulcrum when I say we did not feel “safe” entering that room.
Since when has the media become an instigator of unsafe activity? The media’s role is to inform the public in an objective manner. I’m sorry if our pens make too much noise as we write down notes, but does that mean that you feel unsafe in our presence? The Fulcrum has never spoken out during a BOA meeting and only works toward writing the truth—and that is exactly what the BOA feels creates an unsafe space.
I can tell you what they were afraid of. They were afraid that we would be able to hear them better than we could from the live-feed. They were afraid that we would be able to actually quote them rather than paraphrase. They were worried that we would write a story outlining their faults as a democratic institution.
I don’t have a grudge against the SFUO or the BOA. All I wanted was for my reporters to be able to do their job and inform the public as to what happened inside that closed-door meeting. I told them all to be fierce, to try their best to get into the room because the chances of technical difficulties were pretty high. Yes, I said this with a smile.
But apparently, smiles and the truth are what frighten this student federation.
Limiting the scope
http://www.thefulcrum.ca/blogs/blog/41075
Limiting the scope
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Jan 26
THE NOMINATION PERIOD for the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) elections ended last Friday, and with it the chance for hundreds of students to run for office. These elections offer new students the opportunity to bring their ideas and experience to university life. Unfortunately, our student federation has done nothing to inform students of this important opportunity.
This is a flaw I hoped would be resolved in this year’s elections, but unfortunately, it looks like we are already on our way towards a misinformed and limited running. The student federation didn’t inform U of O students that the election was approaching, ultimately restricting the number of people who are able to run for office.
First of all, students did not receive an email notifying them of the nomination period. In the January SFUO newsletter, the topic of elections could be found in the sixth blurb, and was summarized in three sentences. The website that it linked to simply listed the positions that you could run for and gave an application deadline. There were no job descriptions and no list of qualifications. There were no tweets on Twitter, and the Facebook group had the same limited information as the website.
The lack of information available to students about the positions of both the student executives and the Board of Administration (BOA) representatives creates a barrier for those interested in running. It ensures that only those who have prior knowledge of student politics are able to fill in a nomination form—basically, anyone who is working for the SFUO or the BOA. Our student federation has become a round-robin in which BOA and SFUO staff continuously jump from position to position, leaving no room for new blood.
By doing so, the SFUO is severely limiting the scope of its own union. It is stifling original ideas—the chance for change. I don’t want the same people running our student union every year. I want to see competition—a fight between people who genuinely care about the students’ interests and want to do something radically different.
Of course, this can’t happen now. Nomination period is over. Let’s just hope that those who were able to discover the secret SFUO elections took a risk and applied, regardless of the fact that they didn’t know what they were getting into. The chances of this are slim, but I can hope—can’t I?
Limiting the scope
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Jan 26
THE NOMINATION PERIOD for the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) elections ended last Friday, and with it the chance for hundreds of students to run for office. These elections offer new students the opportunity to bring their ideas and experience to university life. Unfortunately, our student federation has done nothing to inform students of this important opportunity.
This is a flaw I hoped would be resolved in this year’s elections, but unfortunately, it looks like we are already on our way towards a misinformed and limited running. The student federation didn’t inform U of O students that the election was approaching, ultimately restricting the number of people who are able to run for office.
First of all, students did not receive an email notifying them of the nomination period. In the January SFUO newsletter, the topic of elections could be found in the sixth blurb, and was summarized in three sentences. The website that it linked to simply listed the positions that you could run for and gave an application deadline. There were no job descriptions and no list of qualifications. There were no tweets on Twitter, and the Facebook group had the same limited information as the website.
The lack of information available to students about the positions of both the student executives and the Board of Administration (BOA) representatives creates a barrier for those interested in running. It ensures that only those who have prior knowledge of student politics are able to fill in a nomination form—basically, anyone who is working for the SFUO or the BOA. Our student federation has become a round-robin in which BOA and SFUO staff continuously jump from position to position, leaving no room for new blood.
By doing so, the SFUO is severely limiting the scope of its own union. It is stifling original ideas—the chance for change. I don’t want the same people running our student union every year. I want to see competition—a fight between people who genuinely care about the students’ interests and want to do something radically different.
Of course, this can’t happen now. Nomination period is over. Let’s just hope that those who were able to discover the secret SFUO elections took a risk and applied, regardless of the fact that they didn’t know what they were getting into. The chances of this are slim, but I can hope—can’t I?
absent yet again...
I apologize, again, for not posting regularly. I think I just need to admit to the fact that while working for a newspaper and being responsible for filling it's content and writing my own columns, I just don't have as much time to blog as I would like to. I am going to continue to post my columns on this blog, and then will return to write when my mandate is over (sad face).
http://www.thefulcrum.ca/blogs/blog/40195
Rock and the quality of student experience
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Jan 12
AS A NEWS reporter, it is my job to be critical. I’m supposed to look at every angle, ask lots of questions, and, in general, be skeptical. In fact, when I took over this position at the Fulcrum, I was told by three generations of news editors to not be afraid to go after a story in this fashion.
While I pride myself on being a wonderful cynic, even I must admit that I enjoy my monthly conversations with U of O President Allan Rock. Yes, I can tell when his answers are shaped by his politically trained mind, but at the same time, it gives me an opportunity to ask him follow-up queries about the administration. In our latest meeting, I questioned him about his presentation on the quality of the student experience at the December Board of Governors (BOG) meeting, a meeting I couldn’t personally attend due to an exam.
He replied that he also had an exam in December: that he had to prove to the BOG that the university administration is making the quality of student experience as their first priority. This came as a response to Maclean’s University Report and the Globe and Mail university rankings.
Rock’s response to my question: “I gave a report of what has been done. I acknowledged it wasn’t sufficient and that it was a real challenge,” and “that [it] is going to become a major preoccupation for the board and for me.” He never denied that there was a problem— he didn’t even try a politicized answer. He had an expression of genuine enthusiasm on his face.
He mentioned a few ideas. Rock understood the roles of the faculty deans and stressed the importance of communicating with students. He mentioned bringing together first-year students for a day to talk about services the university offers and giving them time to answer personal questions (including providing a concert on Tabaret lawn). Creating a more user-friendly website for prospective students was suggested, and the idea of a second 101-week was even bounced around.
Now, I mentioned the above skepticism for a reason—this is a big initiative and will probably take years to organize (10, as joked by Rock). But at least it is being considered and worked on.
Although the administration tends to take their time and work in terms of financial stability above anything else (ex. tuition fees), even I have to admit that our university is working hard to make a noticeable difference: Hot chocolate and tea for students waiting in lines for financial aid; better quality food from the cafeteria; personal meetings between the administration and concerned or frustrated students.
Do we have a lot to do? Absolutely. Will it take a long time? I can imagine 10 years minimum. Will students continue to be frustrated? Probably. But with an administration this concerned about the student experience, I’d at least say that we are on our way to that A+...or maybe a solid B, in Maclean’s.
http://www.thefulcrum.ca/blogs/blog/40195
Rock and the quality of student experience
by Katherine DeClerq
Published: Jan 12
AS A NEWS reporter, it is my job to be critical. I’m supposed to look at every angle, ask lots of questions, and, in general, be skeptical. In fact, when I took over this position at the Fulcrum, I was told by three generations of news editors to not be afraid to go after a story in this fashion.
While I pride myself on being a wonderful cynic, even I must admit that I enjoy my monthly conversations with U of O President Allan Rock. Yes, I can tell when his answers are shaped by his politically trained mind, but at the same time, it gives me an opportunity to ask him follow-up queries about the administration. In our latest meeting, I questioned him about his presentation on the quality of the student experience at the December Board of Governors (BOG) meeting, a meeting I couldn’t personally attend due to an exam.
He replied that he also had an exam in December: that he had to prove to the BOG that the university administration is making the quality of student experience as their first priority. This came as a response to Maclean’s University Report and the Globe and Mail university rankings.
Rock’s response to my question: “I gave a report of what has been done. I acknowledged it wasn’t sufficient and that it was a real challenge,” and “that [it] is going to become a major preoccupation for the board and for me.” He never denied that there was a problem— he didn’t even try a politicized answer. He had an expression of genuine enthusiasm on his face.
He mentioned a few ideas. Rock understood the roles of the faculty deans and stressed the importance of communicating with students. He mentioned bringing together first-year students for a day to talk about services the university offers and giving them time to answer personal questions (including providing a concert on Tabaret lawn). Creating a more user-friendly website for prospective students was suggested, and the idea of a second 101-week was even bounced around.
Now, I mentioned the above skepticism for a reason—this is a big initiative and will probably take years to organize (10, as joked by Rock). But at least it is being considered and worked on.
Although the administration tends to take their time and work in terms of financial stability above anything else (ex. tuition fees), even I have to admit that our university is working hard to make a noticeable difference: Hot chocolate and tea for students waiting in lines for financial aid; better quality food from the cafeteria; personal meetings between the administration and concerned or frustrated students.
Do we have a lot to do? Absolutely. Will it take a long time? I can imagine 10 years minimum. Will students continue to be frustrated? Probably. But with an administration this concerned about the student experience, I’d at least say that we are on our way to that A+...or maybe a solid B, in Maclean’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
