Home Blog Page 1370

Legislation is the new negotiation

0

 

By Jennifer Bednard

Image By: Wade Kelly (Flickr)

Last year, labour minister Lisa Raitt forestalled several attempts at strike action by employees at Air Canada. To do this, she had their jobs reclassified as “essential services,” and thus prevented labour action in the name of public safety. Back in mid-March, the B.C. government acted in a similar manner, enacting Bill 22, which forced members of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation to return to work, and prevented them from enacting any further walkouts. Even more recently, the House of Commons pushed through a piece of legislation to end a Canadian Pacific Railway workers’ strike.

These are separate incidents, but they point to a disturbing trend of government interference in labour disputes, both in cases where the government is legislating its own employees back to work, and in cases where the workers are employed by businesses outside direct government control.

When the government passes laws to force its own employees back to work, they bypass the negotiation process. We can use the teachers’ strike as an example as to how this dynamic plays out. When negotiation hit a stumbling block, like when the provincial government refused to budge from its net-zero negotiation policy and the teachers refused to accept it, the teachers considered going on strike. The government quickly tabled legislation that forced teachers back to work, with no possibility of labour action for at least six months, and imposed a mediator (chosen by the government) to resolve the dispute. This illustrates a fundamental disregard for the entire concept of negotiation, where both sides are supposed to meet on relatively even ground and come to an agreement by allowing certain concessions to the other side. The workers have the power to strike, and the employer has the power to sit and wait as the workers slowly run out of money. A prolonged strike is not good for either party, but it may encourage both sides to reach an agreement.

It is also problematic when the government involves itself in a private corporation’s labour dispute. Contract negotiations are meant to take place between the employer and the employees. A third party may be brought in after negotiations break down and no agreement is in sight, but government interference is only excused in cases where the average citizen is put in significant danger or hardship due to the labour action. This was not the case for the Air Canada strike. Though inconvenient for a great number of people, Air Canada workers simply refusing to work would not be devastating for Canadians. Legislation in the company’s favour only serves to create a larger power imbalance, removing the workers’ only source of bargaining power.

The government is doing itself no favours. The public isn’t outraged that public servants or Air Canada baggage handlers are being forced back to work, since these aren’t popular groups to begin with. The teachers are either more or less sympathetic, often depending on where you stand on the political spectrum. But these aren’t the only contracts coming up for renegotiation. What’s going to happen when workers whose jobs genuinely are essential and who tend to get better press, such as nurses, have to renegotiate a contract? Will the threat of legislation make them more likely to quickly agree with government proposals? Or will it make them feel like heroes for defying them? Only time will tell.

Eerie Theories: A list of the craziest conspiracies

0

By Ljudmila Petrovic

The first images that come to mind in response to the term “conspiracy theory”: a middle-aged man in his mother’s basement with a tin foil hat. But it’s not as simple as that. Conspiracy theories emerge from every possible niche of our society, and have a following as diverse as the theories themselves. Some are hilarious, some are bizarre, and some are surprisingly sensible. Below is a list of some of the most famous conspiracy theories:

AIDS is a laboratory-made disease
The 1980s saw the rise of the devastating HIV/AIDS virus, and even this isn’t safe from conspiracy theories. Some theorists that believe AIDS was man-made as a form of biological warfare, with the motive of wiping out groups such as African-Americans and homosexuals. It is believed to have been a government-funded project, likely with CIA aid, and that it was spread among homosexual men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. Another conspiracy theory posits that the US government didn’t necessarily create it, but that they are withholding the cure, which they have allegedly had for a number of years. These theories have, however, been widely discredited, with the most recent scientific evidence agreeing on the origin being an evolution from a similar virus from 1930s Africa.

Elvis faked his own death (and Tupac is still alive. And Kurt Cobain was murdered.)
It seems that when any public figure dies, there’s bound to be conspiracy theories surrounding their deaths. It’s no different for these three music greats. Elvis is alleged to have faked his own death, evidenced by reported sightings of the King, and the fact that, on his tombstone, his middle name Aron is spelled as “Aaron.” Tupac, too, is supposed to have faked his death. A number of his lyrics hint at faking his own death, many of his songs that were released after his death. Furthermore, there were supposedly no pictures of Tupac at the hospital, and the funeral was unexpectedly cancelled. There is little doubt that Kurt Cobain is dead, but conspiracy theories nonetheless surround his death. Many believe that it was not a suicide (both a heroin overdose, then a shot to the head), as assumed, but a murder. The argument is that Cobain had three times the lethal dose of heroin in his bloodstream, along with Valium, which would apparently make it impossible for him to go through the actions of putting the needle away and then shooting himself. Furthermore, there were no legible fingerprints — Cobain’s or otherwise — anywhere on the gun, needle, or surrounding area, which has lead some to believe that someone else’s fingerprints were cleaned up.

John F. Kennedy’s assassination
This event may have the most conspiracy theories around it. After the President’s 1963 assassination, Harvey Lee Oswald was arrested for the shooting. However, many people did not believe that Oswald had acted alone or, in some cases, that he had acted at all. The most common theory is that there were two shooters: based on an analysis of the bullet wounds, it seemed unbelievable that one shooter could have managed all of the shots with such precision. Others blamed specific groups, all of which allegedly had political motives, for conspiracy plots that led to the assassination: the CIA, the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro and Cuba, and the Mafia, among others. The Warren Commission, which was ordered to look into the assassination, found that there had been no conspiracy and Oswald had, indeed, acted alone. Not surprisingly, the Commission has become another factor that conspiracy theorists look to when trying to find an answer.

9/11 was a hoax
According to some conspiracy theorists, the US government were aware of the planned attacks on the Twin Towers, and did nothing to stop them. However, most theories revolving around the September 11, 2001 attacks are more extreme than this. One theory states that it wasn’t the planes that made the Towers collapse, but rather bombs that had been placed inside the buildings beforehand. Some theories state that various aspects of the attack were faked, including the phone calls from the plane, and that all passengers on Flight 93 were alive and have been relocated.

So is global warming
Republican Senator James Inhofe was the main advocate for the idea that the global warming craze is a hoax, used by certain people and groups to gain control and profit. Proponents for this theory claim that there hasn’t been a statistically significant increase in temperature in the past 14 to 17 years, even going so far as to state the contrary: there has been a global cooling in the last 9 to 13 years. There are various theories discussing which groups are behind this, but climate scientists, the United Nations, and socialists are all possible suspects.

“Paul is Dead”
In 1969, a shocking article was published that claimed that Paul McCartney had died in a car crash, and had been replaced by a look-alike — one who is alive, well, and impersonating Sir McCartney to this day. Most of the clues that believers of this theory use for their case are various Beatles lyrics played backwards, or subversive interpretations of their album covers. In “Strawberry Fields Forever”, for example, John Lennon spoke what was construed as “I buried Paul.” Lennon later addressed this rumour, insisting that he had been saying “cranberry sauce.” The most famous example is the cover of the Abbey Road album, showing The Beatles crossing a street in single file. McCartney is the only barefoot Beatle, and he is walking out of synch with the rest of the group. Lennon is in white (supposedly representing a preacher or religious figure), Ringo is seen as the mourner in all-black, and George Harrison is in a tattered jacket and jeans (interpreted as being the grave-digger). Of course, McCartney and the other Beatles have all spoken out over the years, denying that there is any truth in the allegations.

Most figures in politics and entertainment are actually shape-shifting reptiles
For obvious reasons, this conspiracy theory doesn’t have as large of a following as some of the more feasible ones listed. It all started in 1998, with the publishing of David Icke’s book, The Biggest Secret. What was this huge secret? Why, that there are shape-shifting reptiles in our midst, of course. Not only that, but they are those that hold the most power in our society, and have changed into human form in order to infiltrate and then destroy the human race. Among those that are supposedly in on this: the Royal Family, Bill and Hilary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, and Bob Hope. Seems unrealistic, but then again, Icke’s website promises to expose “the dreamworld we believe to be real,” and it sells t-shirts, so it must be legitimate.

The Moon Landing was staged (and filmed by Stanley Kubrick)
The Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969 was a historic moment in human history. However, many conspiracy theorists have since questioned whether Neil Armstrong really walked on the moon, or if it was all a hoax, a government-funded film directed by Stanley Kubrick in a Nevada studio. According to these theories, the US government had numerous motives, including getting ahead of the USSR in the Space Race, and distracting the country from the failing mission in Vietnam. The only images and footage of the event are in the hands of NASA, leading many believers to question the authenticity of the evidence. At the center of the conspiracy is the American flag, proudly fluttering on the moon: many people question how the flag could be waving when there is no atmosphere — and thus no wind — on the moon. Furthermore, the lighting of the photographs is questioned: the only known light would be from the sun, which doesn’t seem to match the photograph. Another common debate is brought up surrounding the photographs of Neil Armstrong’s first steps: if he was the first man to walk the moon, who was taking the photographs? Many of these points have been addressed and discredited, but the debates continue to this day.

Area 51: They have aliens
Area 51 is a top-secret air force base located almost 250 km outside of Las Vegas. According to United States government, the purpose and happenings of Area 51 are classified for reasons of national security — of course, that’s code for “extraterrestrial activity.” Theories surrounding the base include the idea that a UFO had crashed into the US at some point, that the remains of the UFO are located in Area 51, and that they are undergoing government-funded studies to obtain the aliens’ technology secrets. Others believe that Area 51 is harbouring actual aliens, or that government scientists are studying time travel.

Lectures, and laptops, oh my! The changing face of student productivity

0

By Sol Kauffman

It’s 3 p.m. on a Monday and I’m sitting in my afternoon writing lecture. The professor has been reviewing PowerPoint slides for the past half-hour and my attention has inevitably slipped away from the content of the class. In one open window of my laptop, I’m brewing ideas for the paper that’s due at the end of this week; in another, I’m editing photos for a commercial photo shoot I did over the weekend. In my busy life, this is the perfect opportunity to get some work done. I half-listen to the lecture as I work on other things, perking up only when somebody asks a question.

Most of the seats in front of me are empty, despite the waitlist at the beginning of the semester. Obviously, a large portion of the class is skipping today. Maybe they’re sick, maybe they’re working a part-time job or doing something else that’s important to their lives; hell, maybe they just slept in. In front of me, I see a student on Facebook, another writing in her journal, another texting on his phone. The class consists of only about twenty-five people, and I’ve had courses with many of them before; they’re all strong writers, and I’m confident they’ll all pass this course with at least a B+. It’s not that the assignments are too easy; on the contrary, we’ll all spend sleepless nights grinding away at them. So why are so many of us absent, be it physically or otherwise?

From the ivory towers of university to the hallways of elementary school, technology is exploding in classrooms, and the way people learn in the information age is turning out to be much different than in years past. In my three years as an arts student at the University of Victoria, I’ve watched the university try hard to adapt to the changing needs of students: high-speed Internet, power plugs near desks, and printing labs and computer stations in the library are among the steps they’ve taken. But in light of issues brought up by technology use and the change in learning styles, UVic and many other schools have begun to institute laptop bans and strict attendance policies.

“The use of cell phones, laptops . . . except for the purpose of note-taking . . . is considered disruptive and may lead to discipline from the instructor or the Department Chair,” reads a portion of the UVic Department of Writing policies. “Laptop users should sit in the front of the room for lectures and may be required to refrain from computer use during workshops.”

This is just not the way to deal with the problem.

In the fourth grade, I was diagnosed with Written Output Disorder — a learning disorder that doesn’t affect my ability to understand or process information, but rather my ability to write it down properly. This condition made it extremely frustrating for me to hand-write assignments and tests in class. I would often become irritable or lose my composure when I had to produce written work, despite my oral skills and ability to comprehend the subject. My parents got a written recommendation from a child psychiatrist that I take typing lessons and be allowed to use a laptop in school; since then, I’ve taken a laptop to class every day for my 12 consecutive years as a student. I’ve mostly overcome my output frustrations as I’ve grown, but laptops have always been an integral part of my learning experience. Laptops are such a good tool for recording information, communicating, working, and editing, that it’s practically unheard of for a student to not own one.

Of course, many professors will tell you that they hate having laptops in their classes, that laptops are disruptive, that students are always on Facebook or surfing the web, and that the downsides outweigh the potential benefits. Many times throughout high school and university, I’ve had professors ask me to close my laptop, or to sit in the front of the class, which I find excessive and embarrassing: if I sit in the front row, isn’t my screen more distracting to others than if I sit in the back? Though a lot of professors relax their rules regarding laptops after I speak with them in office hours, it reflects the faculty’s position on the matter.

To be honest, in a lecture, I often am on Facebook, or I’m doing something productive, like working. A lot of the other people in my courses are doing the same. It’s part of how we’re used to using computers: we take in information from several different sources at once and are constantly multi-tasking. We are habituated to the practice of using a computer for several different things at once, and often the content of a lecture course can take a backseat as we run triage on our time.

“Young people increasingly live and work in their technology. Like it or not, they are embedded in it,” says Stephen Hume, one of the writing professors at UVic and a columnist for The Vancouver Sun. “Their artistic entertainment, their work, their research information, their social networking, their classroom work, their communications all reside in the electronic matrix.”

There have been numerous studies that have shown a link between the use of laptops in class and students’ reduced capacity to take in information and memorize it. This has led to support from faculties and professors for forbidding the use of computers in classes. But this is a short-sighted attempt to address the issue.

For one thing, it’s ridiculous to ban a tool that most students are going to spend their entire lives engaging with. “Telling students they can’t open the laptop on which they’ve received their assignment, stored their research and written the essay seems about as wise as telling students then can bring textbooks to class but aren’t permitted to open them,” argues Hume.

By banning laptops, universities must also address the issue of how much professors should police their paying students. If I want to use class time to work on other things — or even to completely ignore the lecture — who cares, as long as I’m not disrupting anyone else? If I sit in the back and don’t make too much noise, I’m the only person missing out.

In second year, I took a music class that focused on computing in music and how digital recording worked. It was very intensive; grasping the key concepts meant asking a lot of questions in class and taking exhaustive notes. Had I tried to pass by simply cramming right before the exams, I would have almost certainly failed. There was a surprising amount of math and physics involved that I had to practise, and as it was, I scraped by with a B. It was a demonstration of a lecture course that really required me to use my laptop to take notes in order to keep up, and one in which I simply didn’t have time to tab over to my web browser during class.

Many people in other faculties, such as Engineering or Science, find that their classes are similar: note-taking is critical, and the material being memorized is directly relevant to working in the field. That said, I didn’t retain much of what I labored to memorize for the exams, and I got a lot more value from the hands-on recording techniques class that the lecture class was a prerequisite for. The point is that, in a class where my laptop was truly necessary, I wouldn’t have been able to get by without it.

The flip side of that is the only other time I really use my laptop is when I’m not engaging with the lecture at all. If the course material isn’t interesting, or isn’t relevant to my GPA, ,then I’m getting a pretty poor return on my tuition investment. And of course I’m going to keep going to class and signing up for these lectures, just like everyone else will: we all know you pretty much need a bachelor’s degree to find work anywhere in the white-collar world.

In second year, I registered for an Economics class as an elective. The description sounded really great: game theory, policy intervention, social choice. I was really looking forward to it as I walked into the 200-person lecture hall and found a seat with a plug for my laptop. I’d gotten lucky: the professor was a good lecturer and the content was pretty interesting.

The problem was that it was on Tuesday nights. That year, I was spending Tuesday evenings running around shooting last-minute photos for the newspaper, and my first-year-out-of-res shoestring food budget meant that Tuesday night’s free Church Dinner at Emmanuel Baptist was a near-must. The reality of it was that I missed nearly all of the classes that semester. With a huge class size and no attendance policy, nobody noticed my absence, and the times I did sit in, I felt like there was no reason for me to be there. After all, the notes were all posted online.

Come exams, I would cram the night before. I walked into each exam feeling like I had the notes down cold, and I did — I passed the course with an A average. And I wasn’t the only one, either; lots of my classmates did the same thing.

I wouldn’t say the class was easy; my math skills have always been weak, and memorizing the specific terminology and logical processes for each test was quite difficult.  But the more time I spend in university, the more my bizarre experience in this class has stayed with me: how was I able to skip nearly every lecture and not only pass, but get an A?

Absenteeism deals with similar issues as laptops. It’s fair to say that skipping class is disrespectful to professors, just like not paying attention is, but from my experience, most people only cut class if they have a reason. A lot of us have busy lives, and there are lots of resources for us to catch up on missed notes; cracking down on absenteeism only punishes students for those times when their bus is late, or their partner dumps them, or they have an important final for another course.

“Attendance is prescribed by the writing department,” says Hume. “Students know the rules. As adults, I expect students to abide by them. I don’t take formal attendance because I think it’s demeaning. This isn’t elementary school. I’m not your authoritarian dad. I know my students by name and I know who’s there and who’s not and how often they are away. Everybody has missed an occasional day for illness, or because real life has intruded into their schedule.” In fact, according to the UVic Department of Writing policies: “Students may miss up to two classes in a single term. A subsequent absence necessitates course withdrawal, or in the event that it is too late to withdraw, the student can expect a failing grade. This is a change from previous years, where students could miss a certain percentage of classes without consequence.”

 

One of the issues is that students don’t bother coming to class if they feel like nobody cares whether they do. In my time at UVic, I’ve skipped countless lecture courses, but very, very few workshops or tutorials.

“The smaller the class, the less I skipped,” says Bryce Bladon, a recent graduate of UVic’s writing department. “I found that I placed substantially more value on classes where my attendance affected the learning of others or where my absence would be noticeable to the professor or lecturer. When my presence was valued, I valued my attendance.”

At the end of the day, banning laptops and making penalties higher for skipping class is a band-aid on the problem of academic apathy. I can’t imagine a professor preferring that people be forced to pay attention to a genuine desire to learn in a class.  Finishing high school and entering university is an important transition in responsibility. Enforcing rules takes responsibility away from students and infantilizes them, and that in turn encourages them to care even less.

“I take the view that my task is to lead students to water, not force them to drink it,” says Hume. “If they choose not to pay attention or participate actively in the class, then they are robbing themselves, not me or the university. So after 19 years of teaching these workshops, I’m now firmly of the ‘less is more’ school of thought when it comes to the instructor’s control of the process.”

Hume also reports higher standards of performance from his students. “The output is better and the quality of work is much better and their sense of communal obligation to one another is much higher,” he says. I feel as though every hands-on course I’ve taken was worth at least twice as much as any other lecture I attended. Of course, it’s not possible for every class to have that element, but it’s important for professors to keep in mind that the more they engage students, the less they have to deal with problems like absenteeism and inattention.

So what’s a university to do when confronted by this problem? You can’t force students to listen up, and they’re so bored in some lectures that they’re actively doing other work. It’s a waste of students’ time and a waste of professors’ time teaching to a silent room. The face of student productivity is changing with technology and busy lifestyles; universities’ approaches to these issues should be changing as well.

 

Come fly with me: One student’s experience as a flight attendant

0

By Alison Roach

It’s summertime — or at least every once in a while the weather is decent enough to feel like it is.  Maybe you’re starting a summer job; you are a starving student, after all.  Maybe you’re taking more shifts at that restaurant, or you’re dragging yourself to the mall every day to help hordes of squealing teenage girls find that perfect tank-top and low rise jeans ensemble.  I have a summer job too, but it’s a little different from the classics.

On my school breaks, I’m a flight attendant.

It is really not as awesome as it sounds. First of all, let’s just clear a couple of things up.  No, I do not personally get to fly anywhere spectacular.  If you’re into exotic British Columbian destinations like Bella Bella, Powell River, or Trail, I’m your girl.  Hawaii, or the south of France?  Not so much.  No, I do not make insane amounts of dollars. It’s definitely better than minimum wage, but it’s not a salary that affords designer sunglasses, or aged bottles of whiskey.  No, I don’t wear a little hat and a short skirt; this isn’t the 1960s and PanAm has been out of business for ages.  Finally, no, I am not a member of the mile-high club.  You’re hilarious.

The truth is, my job is better than most.  It’s a grown-up job: something that people turn into an actual career and do for the rest of their lives.  But because it’s a grown-up job, I actually have to act as one, which is sometimes not so fun.  For your consideration, I present the hours: my average work day is between 10 and 12 hours, with a personal record of 15 hours.  The check-in time tends to be before eight in the morning, sometimes before six.  All this translates into me not being able to stay up past 10 p.m.  The lesson here: if you force yourself to act like an old person, you end up actually acting like one.  Sorry friends, I cannot go to the bar tonight, because I will be asleep by the time we get there.  If, by some miracle, I do make it to the bar, I have learned the hard way what trying to go to work the next day with even the slightest of hangovers is like: trapped in a bumpy plane for hours is a bad call.

The second part of my job deals with passengers.  Most people seem to overlook the fact that being a flight attendant doesn’t only entail being on the plane; it means being responsible for everyone else on that plane.  As anyone in customer service can tell you, dealing with people is the best part of the job, and sometimes the worst, too.  I have met some very interesting people on my flights: Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson, a handful of local hockey players, an author who asked me to read his book, a group of Swedish bird-watching enthusiasts, and an SFU alumnus (who shall remain nameless) who lived in residence at the same time as premier Christy Clarke — apparently Christy knows how to party. Nine out of 10 passengers are complete sweethearts. The other 10 per cent can be a little challenging.

Considering the fact that airplanes have been around for quite a while, some people know surprisingly little about flying on them.  There was a woman one flight who seemed genuinely shocked when I told her she couldn’t use her phone on the plane (“Not even when we’re in the air?”).  About five passengers each day completely ignore the carefully placed seat belts on their chairs.  A passenger once asked me if I could ask the pilots to stop doing “so much of this,” which she then represented by making several swooping motions with her arms stretched out into wings.  Unless she would have liked to go somewhere out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean instead of to Vancouver, there was nothing I could have done to accommodate her.  There are starers, there are nervous flyers who act like you’re personally trying to murder them, there are people who simply do not believe in the unspoken “one complimentary snack per person” common courtesy rule, and every once in a while, there’s a groper.  Sometimes, it feels like “flight attendant” isn’t a very appropriate title.  Perhaps something like “sky waitress” would be more fitting, maybe “air babysitter” or “plane slave.”

The most important thing I’ve learned being a 19-year-old girl in a grown woman’s job is that you need to be able to adapt. You need to be able to be nice, but sometimes, you just have to be a bitch. I’ve been told by a passenger that I was “as cute as a button” and “a very polite young lady.”  I’ve also made a drunken woman 25 years my senior cry when I took away her contraband bottle of wine. What is true in other jobs is also true of this one: people will think it’s easy to manipulate you and ignore you, and the only way to convince them this is not the case is to show them.  Nobody respects a pushover, and without respect, I can’t do my job very well. I am trained and paid to handle any situation that may come up, and to possibly save lives in the process.  If a passenger doesn’t bother to listen to where the exits are, or pretends they don’t know that they can’t use your iPod during take-off, how am I supposed to do that?

I really do love my job. I get to fly every day. I get to see British Columbia from the air, which, two minutes out from Vancouver, is uninhabited, wild, and beautiful. I get to stay in hotels and work with pilots who have flown all over the world (for the record, they can really drink). I’ve seen a fighter jet being refueled mid-flight, and taken a baby black bear up to its new home at the top of Haida Gwaii. I’ve learned some sign language from a passenger who could before only speak to me in smiles, and I’ve flown over the Rockies at sunset, an experience I wouldn’t trade for anything in the world.

Having a grown-up job is challenging. Trying to exercise any sort of authority over a group of people old enough to be your parents — even grandparents — isn’t  always easy.  Trying not to become hardened and bitter in the process is even more difficult.  In customer service, it’s easy to start disliking people as a whole when you have to deal with them all day, but I think it’s a fair trade. After all, I do get to scan my fingerprint to get through the door to work every day, which makes me feel like a spy.  And I get to wear a snappy silk neck scarf.  It might not be PanAm, but flying for a living is still pretty fucking cool.  So please, if you’re flying anytime soon, be nice to the lady or gentleman patiently making the announcements for the sixth time that day. Try to listen when they tell you where the oxygen masks are, and thank them when they bring you snacks.

You can’t even imagine how much we appreciate it.

SFU places on list of top 50 young universities

0

By Graham Cook

Scores highest for international mix and citations categories, lowest for teaching

SFU recently placed on two different lists of the best universities in the world under 50 years old. Both Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) Top Universities and Times Higher Education judged Simon Fraser to be one of the best young universities, ranking it 25th and 30th respectively. The Times list, however, pointed to a potentially lack in teaching quality at the university.

QS, which recognizes SFU as 260th in their overall rankings, bases their ranking system very loosely on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education in the U.S., and takes into account size, focus, research intensity, and age. QS gave the top prize to the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

SFU president Andrew Petter said of the distinction, “to look at universities under 50 and compare them to each other is much more of an apples to apples comparison . . . and obviously I was very pleased to see how we did in both.” However, he also outlined some concerns he had regarding university rankings. “The problem is that I think with these rankings you’re necessarily selecting . . . measures that are quantifiable. I take all ratings with a bit of a grain of salt,” he said. “I don’t take any rankings, these or Maclean’s, to be the measure that we should use to judge our own success.”

One striking aspect of the Times rankings was that, save for 23-year-old Charles Darwin University in Australia, SFU scored the lowest in the “teaching” category. A school’s score in this area is determined by a combination of the 2011 Academic Reputation Survey, the staff-to-student ratio, the ratio of PhD to bachelor’s degrees awarded, the number of PhDs awarded (scaled against its size), and “a simple measure of institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers,” according to the Times website.

When questioned about this aspect of the evaluation, Petter posited that the way these ratings measure teaching “isn’t really necessarily related to the experience the student has in the classroom.” He attributes this flaw to the rankings’objective factors and “indicators that may or may not be relevant.” He further stated that “even if [the objective factors] are relevant, they are certainly not the whole story.”

Petter stressed that these rankings represent some of the best universities in the world. Having comparatively lower scores in some areas, then, may not be a troubling indicator.

While QS did not break down individual scores, SFU’s highest scores on the Times Higher Education list came from the “international mix” and “citations” categories.

Harbour Centre lease extended to 2028

0

By Alison Roach

New contract could mean a 75,000-square-foot expansion

SFU has recently renewed the lease on the downtown campus, ensuring that SFU Vancouver will remain there until at least 2028.

The original lease was put in place in 1989, and was set to expire in 2017. This may seem like a fair ways off, but as SFU president Andrew Petter explained to The Peak, “if we were to lose the right to the facility, the time to find an alternative is becoming short.”

This new lease is a result of discussions with the owners of the Harbour Centre Complex, a family business based in Germany that, according to SFU administration, was very keen to enter into negotiations. The lease was officially approved at the most recent SFU board of governors meeting, and the final documents were signed and sealed in the last few months. “The initial impetus was to provide adult programming,” said Petter on the evolution of the Harbour Centre space, “but it has obviously grown over time. There is now a major undergraduate population downtown.”

Though the main objective of the negotiations was to secure the Harbour Centre space for the future, the new lease also provides room from growth. SFU currently holds 175,000 square feet in the building, but a provision has been included in the new contract that would allow SFU to expand into an additional 75,000 square feet in the future. This opportunity will arise three years from now. A review is planned to determine if this expansion can be justified, taking into account the current programming, financial considerations, and alignment with the university’s academic plan. Petter said that they hope to reach a decision on whether to expand or not before the end of this calendar year.

“Most people identify it as the structure that really marked SFU’s establishment of its downtown campus,” said Petter. “It was the Harbour Centre facility . . . that marked the decision that SFU had made to not confine itself to Burnaby Mountain.”

The strengthening of SFU’s ties to downtown falls in line with Petter’s vision of SFU as a strong three campus university, each with their own distinct cultures, rather than a school made up of a main campus and two satellites. “I think with the new vision of the university as an engaged university, it was the move downtown and to Surrey that shows we could engage physically, and established in people’s minds that we were a university that was working down from the mountain and engaging with the community,” said Petter.

“SFU has three distinct campuses, each one, we hope, being the distinct ‘intellectual heart’ of their respective communities,” said Laurie Anderson, the executive director of SFU Vancouver.

Douglas Hume, the general manager of the Harbour Centre Complex Ltd., believes in the importance of having the university in downtown Vancouver. “SFU is not only an excellent tenant, but they’re good for the city. It brings people into the downtown core and adds a certain degree of vibrancy,” said Hume. Anderson agreed, stating, “SFU Vancouver enhances downtown intellectually, socially, culturally, and economically. The range of programs we offer, the free public lectures, the myriad of community ties we have, the money spent by the SFU Vancouver community in downtown businesses, and the joint ventures we’re engaged in; SFU Vancouver’s impact on the health of the urban core of the city is enormous.”

For now, the renewal of the lease provides a welcome sense of security. “We’re very, very pleased that we know that they’ll be here for the next 20 years,” said Hume.

Hall wins BoG race

0

By David Dyck

Last week, the election results were announced for the position of student representative on the SFU board of governors. The winner was graduate student Angie Hall. Hall beat out three other contenders for the position.

“I’m really excited, I was compulsively refreshing my email this morning,” Hall told The Peak last Thursday, when election results were announced.

“I’m really hoping I can be on the finance and admin committee, looking at the budget for the school and seeing where we can do things better and bring some new ideas to what we can be doing with students’ money,” said Hall. Board members are appointed to various committees by the chair. “To work with some very influential people at the school and in the community will be really exciting,” said Hall.

According to the elections office, the total number of votes received for this election was 424, an extraordinarily low number. Typically there are over 1,000 votes cast.

Board shorts

0

By David Dyck

The board of directors had a lengthy conversation regarding transparency last week. In an effort to combat what he described as a “lack of trust” towards the board from forum, member services officer Humza Khan brought a motion to board that would see board and committee meeting agendas forwarded to the forum email list “as soon as the agenda is ready; preferably no later than 24 hours before the set meeting times.”

Khan stated that at the last forum meeting it was evident that forum mistrusted the board. Forum is an advisory body made up of representatives from departmental student unions (DSUs) and constituency groups. It meets every other Thursday. Khan told the board that he believes that this is a step forward in gaining the trust of forum members. Moving forward, the constitution and policy review committee will look at making this an official policy. For now, the motion was passed with an amendment that it will continue until the end of the fall semester of 2012.

Prometheus’ fire fizzles

0

By Kristina Charania

Despite lukewarm characters, the explosive effects and ambiguous philosophizing make Prometheus an intriguing adventure

Having been in development for over 10 years with the largest budget to date for a movie in the Alien series, producer and director Ridley Scott has again jumped on board to produce the long-awaited fifth installment of the franchise.

Prometheus takes place in 2089, with devoutly Christian researcher Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and her partner Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discovering a 35,000-year-old star map that proves humans were created by an alien species. Through funding from the Weyland Corporation, the pair embarks on a two-year space journey to a distant moon in order to find the “Engineers” who created them.

The film borrows many ideas from its precursors — Scott stated that Prometheus is not necessarily a prequel to Alien (additional films are needed to bridge the gap between the two), despite their dual existence in a universe where the Weyland Corporation exploits their employees in the name of scientific advancement. Androids are regular crewmembers, and humans are inferior, expendable commodities to the alien race.

The characters in Prometheus are similarly expendable. Excluding Elizabeth, who doesn’t quite surpass Ellen Ripley from the first four Alien movies, and a subtly condescending android played by Michael Fassbender, the characters are dull and remain stagnant as the film progresses.

While Shaw’s creationist beliefs provoke philosophically heavy, centuries-old questions of the origin of life, the film leaves the answers up to viewer interpretation. The Alien series suggests the presence of Engineers, but otherwise leaves them shrouded in mystery. Prometheus provides concrete evidence for their existence, but continues to conceal most details of their origination, motivation, and whereabouts, hence leaving Darwinist and creationist views unchallenged. Because of the hype created through viral campaigns like the 2023 TED talk featuring Peter Weyland, this unspoken message may disappoint viewers looking for an ending with all ribbons tied.

The special effects in the film are exceptional. Scenes including a dazzling holographic projection of outer space, high-tech spaceship simulations, the dark interior of the moon’s caves, and massive mid-air explosions are exemplary of the effort exerted to produce an eye-pleasing flick.

The movie, despite its minor faults, is still a great science fiction film worth watching.  The shortcomings of Prometheus may make it pale in comparison to its predecessors, but as a stand-alone piece it’ll be worth every cent that you spend at the theatre.