Benjamin Hourigan

Today I post the last of Michelle Smith’s responses to my comments on the “Women’s Edition” of Postgraduate Review. Here Michelle explains some more about how and why themed editions of PGR are put together, and writes about her opposition to VSU because of its impact on UMPA’s ability to provide services to students. A reminder that these words are Michelle’s alone, and aren’t an official statement from UMPA. Tomorrow: A final email from me in which I explain my most basic reasons for supporting VSU…

A further response from Michelle Smith

Thanks for your reply also. I would still beg to differ that the “women’s edition” or any of the other editions we’ve had on, for instance, international student issues have been irrelevant to all other students as we have always included significant other content (half the magazine or more) on issues/reviews unrelated to the particular group we may be focusing on. We have had other very tenuous themes such as “opportunity” and “new beginnings” which have just served as ways to tie the content together and to provide a cover image- there are always certain requirements for inclusion in every edition as mandated by UMPA policy (officer reports, higher education news, UMPA events etc.)

I would also suggest that we present these issues very differently to commercial publications, say in the instance of Cleo, because we specifically took up the concerns of women as postgraduates in the articles on mature-age women or women studying computer science in the student profile. These perspectives related specifically to the postgraduate experience of the students involved, and I can’t see why a man couldn’t read an article about a woman studying IT or a mature-aged woman coming back to study. I’d be equally as happy to look at men studying primary teaching or nursing in future editions.

It really is impossible for every one article to relate to every one postgraduate student, so we hope to cover a range of key issues for postgraduates in every edition as well as some that may only affect a certain proportion of them. There are specific issues of concern for international students that do not usually apply to local students (visas, say) and it seems strange that we shouldn’t look at subjects that may help these students because it won’t benefit local students who don’t face the problem. Or, perhaps we shouldn’t look at issues surrounding Research PhDs (I have a student who has volunteered an article on an alternate model of the PhD for edition 3), as the majority of postgraduates are actually coursework students.

As you have raised some of the reasons for your opposition to compulsory payment of the Amenities and Services Fee, I will just briefly go into why I support it. Many of the services a small organisation such as UMPA provides won’t be able to be funded on a user pays basis. Things such as independently representing students when they have a concern with their supervisor (the number one subject students come to us about), are faced with an allegation of academic misconduct, or are in a dire emotional state due to study/work/life pressures are not necessarily things that you can operate at market rates for students who may be on low incomes. Not every student has one of these problems, this is true, but if it were only students who could afford to pay commercial advocacy or legal rates who contributed to keeping these staff on the payroll UMPA would not be able to be paid their wages. In effect, the services would have to disappear or be scaled back to a bare minimum, thereby removing the “choice” to seek help if a student wishes to pay because it simply won’t be on offer. It will not be easy for UMPA to roll out memberships like the undergraduate union as postgraduates enrol throughout the year; we are not permitted to email them; at the Melbourne Business School postgraduates are enrolled on a trimesterly basis; and some postgrads enrol without ever setting foot on campus.

UMPA’s activities will most likely be reduced to about a third of their present level. While some things such as our 360 guide for postgraduates, lockers, study carrels etc. could still be provided if we charged individual students for them, other things which are less tangible, but probably more important for students’ completion rates, would disappear. Similarly, as with the advocacy services, students who could not afford to pay market rates ($100-$150 per hour times what could be more than ten hours work) would miss out.

I will consult with my manager and fellow UMPA representatives as to whether I will allow you to publish my email responses on your blog. I would be happy for you to do so, but need to bear in mind that UMPA does work as a representative student organisation and I need to take into account opinions as to whether this would be a helpful or harmful thing to do.

I also hope you will keep in mind that this was just one edition out of more than forty editions of PGR, and that our next will address how to get/cope with tutoring work, what Centrelink/Family Assistance Office benefits students may be entitled to, the
student union employment service, how to manage your study psychologically by the counselling service etc. -basically articles that are of potential import to most postgraduates. PGR is actually the only thing we know all postgraduates receive from us (as we cannot email them due to university policy), so it is our way of letting them know about our events and support services as well, not just a magazine for enjoyment.

I’ll let you know about the permission for your blog when I’ve spoken to my colleagues. I will also discuss the possible publication of your letter in PGR, although our next edition is in the layout stage right now and due at the printer quite soon.

Best wishes,

Michelle