Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 23. September 20, 1976

Report and Comment on the Pols Departmental Meeting Held Last Wednesday

Report and Comment on the Pols Departmental Meeting Held Last Wednesday

Last week's Political Science staff meeting was primarily concerned with the appointment of the new lecturer and the chairman's report on the matter. It was orginally intended to have full student representation at the meeting, but after consultation with the chairman (Dr Vasil) it was realised that nothing of value could be done by students to influence the choice of appointment, so a token gesture in the form of yours truly turned up.

Of the appointment, so little was said that I came away with the feeling that the meeting had been used as some form of rubber stamp. No recommendations were made, the meeting was not asked to discuss or recommend any candidate or particular characteristics of those chosen by the chairman and those he consulted (though there is apparently departmental procedure for this to be done). All that was said was that there were over 65 applicants, which was reduced to 17 'suitable' applicants, which was further cut down to a short of 8 'recommended' applicants (by the chairman and the executive) with a preference expressed for one.

Of that applicant, all is known is that he has teaching experience, high qualifications and fulfills the requirements laid down in the advertisement (comparitive politics, Western Europe).

What was important in the melee that followed was a feeling expressed that there was room for more discussion pertaining to appointment (within the boundaries of confidentiality placed upon the chairman by university regulations) than Doctor Vasil had allowed.

I see three areas that are of direct relevance to students —
1.

Qualifications & teaching experience

The ability of any lecturer to relate directly to his students, individually and collectively, is of crucial importance to a students understanding of any course approach. While no doubt the staff members involved in the selection process are acutely aware of this, they must rely upon their own prejudices when making decisions in this area.

2.

Interests and approach to field

While we have some knowledge as to the field (Comparitive / Western Europe) the orientations within such broad parameters are many indeed and could focus upon any form of analysis. Students need to know something about these orientations before they can possibly agree to base their understanding of politics around them.

3.

How the appointment will fit into the VUW Pols department

How the department intends to use the lecturer is of crucial importance. All that is known is that this new lecturer will participate in the restructured stage 1 course next year - seems like the department is looking for another 'Saviour' for its inadequate Stage I presentation.

Apart from the appointment - several disturbing factors emerged from the meeting:

— The position of the Pols Sci Soc is heavily compromised by clauses which exlude its three votes from matters involving appointments (looks like we dipped out anyhow), Staff matters' & financial matters - so the question remains - What can we do?

— The majority of staff (all but the 3 female members of staff) have not undertaken any teaching 'refresher courses' such as those undertaken by Prof Clifts teaching research centre and have no intention to do so.

Pols Sci - Putting students in the right perspective

Pols Sci - Putting students in the right perspective

— The staff regards individual student opinions as lacking any credibility or integrity, especially in terms of their lack of 'experience' in Pols. I must point out to the department that if their ideas and approaches fail to hold water with students whose understanding of Pols is limited to undergraduate courses, one may regard their basic approach having limited credibility in itself.

Drs' Steven Levine and Margaret Clark were particularly volatile in their inquisitions and while their point: that individual students do not represent the mass; may be valid, such opinions may not be dismissed out of hand as they would have it done.

Dr Levine raised the point that students (and student newspapers) never say anything 'positive' about their courses and lecturers - so if you are happy with your lot - give them a pat on the head, maybe it will help them respond to criticism a little better.

There was one - only one - positive indication that students (and the Pols SCI Soc) may be treated with a bit more respect when the feeling was expressed that it may be a good thing to have a student rep. on the departmental executive - although this is obviously not the opinion of the chairman, Dr Vasil.

In a response to the request that the staff participate in debate accessable to more students (through Salient, etc), the answer remains no - with the excuse that it may harm the development of further rapport -I tend to disagree.

Any issue will not become apparent until there is an argument and a response so this refusal seems to me to be an irresponsible attempt to cloud the fact that alternatives exist.

After emerging battered and severely wounded from the meeting, I came to the conclusion that the only way students any students are to be taken seriously is to bring in large enough numbers to enforce any demands they may make. So maybe next year we can do something But thats what they said last year!

But next year will ge different - won't it?

So until it is better folks, it may be best to always go to the Pols department in groups - and carry a big stick.

- Neil Gray