Stephen Downes

Alex Usher tends to write from the government and university administration's point of view, and it makes sense, because that's where the money is. So it's not surprising to see this week's column devolve into "academic unions in Canada have a veto over real program change (and) dig in against not just job losses but any hint of changes in working practices." And honestly, it's pretty easy to criticize people with "average professorial salaries of over $200K such as at UBC". It's just enough money that most people think it's a lot (and it is a lot - I wish I made that). But it's not so much that losing their support will ever cost the consulting business any income. It also doesn't help that most faculty never really wanted to be in the education business - they wanted to be historians or geographers or physicists or some such - but unless they're in an actual profession like doctor or lawyer the best employment opportunities will be in colleges or universities. But having said all that - blaming "resistence to change" is a gross mischaracterization of opposition to a lot of what's happening in academia. I mean - you're talking about really smart people, for the most part, and their only objection is "I don't like change"? There's a lot that can't be said in this short space, but I think any discussion has to begin with a recognition that academics resisting the conversion of their workplace into free training camps for corporations might have some basis for their objections. Image: AAUP.