Arts/Science funding

[immunodiffusion]

At last night's Rectorial hecklings, Prof Greer suggested that the Arts Faculty should receive a significant increase in its funding in comparison to the Science Faculty (or technocrats, as she put it). What do people think about this? I would have thought that the Science Faculty should receive increased funding due to the higher costs of equipment, which has to be constantly updated. And what about the Faculties of Divinity and Medicine?

[LJ]

Exactly! The science faculty can only sustain their successful record if they continue to have modern equipment, and this quite obviously costs more than a the majority of purchases that the arts faculty would make.

By making that comment, Germaine Greer just lost my vote completely!

[James Baster]

From Tammy Nicols interview:
http://www.thesinner.co.uk/article-view.php?article=361

"Issues which Greer did voice concern over, however, included the difference in funding between the Arts and Science faculties. "We're building a two tier society of rich technocrats and poor humanists," she declared, reassuring me that she had "No secret plan for draining the technocrats of their money" before declaring her interest in exploring fundraising possibilities which would channel more money into the Arts."

If she can do it without taking money of the sciences of there funds, then more power to her.

But the sciences have got a very good reputation here. Taking money of them now is completly daft if they want that reputation to continue. When I arrived here, Comp Sci was the 3rd best in scotland (After Glasgow and Edinburgh)

[James Baster]

From Tammy Nicols interview:
http://www.thesinner.co.uk/article-view.php?article=361

"Issues which Greer did voice concern over, however, included the difference in funding between the Arts and Science faculties. "We're building a two tier society of rich technocrats and poor humanists," she declared, reassuring me that she had "No secret plan for draining the technocrats of their money" before declaring her interest in exploring fundraising possibilities which would channel more money into the Arts."

If she can do it without taking money of the sciences of there funds, then more power to her.

But the sciences have got a very good reputation here. Taking money of them now is completly daft if they want that reputation to continue. When I arrived here, Comp Sci was the 3rd best in scotland (After Glasgow and Edinburgh)

[kensson]

I think it's more that scientists like me can walk into a PhD with funding and a generous maintenance grant with a 2:1, while someone with even a first in an arts subject will have immense difficulty finding funding for a postgrad course.

Furthermore, as a mathematician, I don't think my course involves any more overheads than, say, an English student's - except that maths has enough money to give every postgrad office space, and nearly every postgrad a good computer.

It's only because scientists are seen as useful (we can make bombs &/or money) that we get more money.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[wyrd]

Yep, there is the funding thing, and from talking to Professor Greer, she is also concerned that some arts tutorial rooms are really inappropriate for their purpose, especially at subhonours level - there are some without enough desks or chairs for students, there are some held in tiny little claustraphobic rooms with too many people (the Social Anthropology Amerindian library springs to mind, for some reason, but the English department was also really guilty of this at subhonours). While it's nice when your tutor decides to move the tutorial to the grass outside the department, or the beach, or the pub, it's not good when this actually improves on resources (ie. the availablility of enough tables and chairs or even seating space on the ground for everyone to write notes easily and keep track of the page we were looking at). Crowded tutorials (whether through too many people or lack of available rooms of a suitable size) do nobody any favours.

Now, this being said, my (one semester - CS1002) experience of Computer Science was of nice small tutorials with enough chairs and a whiteboard, but no desks. The labs could be pretty crowded, although I usually managed to get a demonstrator's attention if required. (This was back when they still used S-Algol, and were in the Physics building. I have no idea about facilities now.)

I've got pretty limited experience of the sciences (I did 5 subhonours geography modules in my first two years here, back in the portacabin days, but they're one of those special case subjects, and anyway, they had a policy of not having anything recongnisable as tutorials). Still, I'd argue that, while science provision isn't necessarily perfect, arts could really do with more funding, providing it isn't taken away from more useful things. And I say that as a philosophy postgrad...

[JJ]

I was disappointed in the interview with Germaine Greer - it highlighted why she shouldn't be elected as Rector.

The KK thing - she has made it an issue. Donald Findlay never made his alledgedly sectarian stance an issue when he stood and when he was rector. He simply assisted the students as best he could in his capacity as Rector.

The Arts/Science funding. The Sciences need more money. Sadly, it costs more to build a sub-atomic particle generator than it does to fund research in many of the Arts subjects.

The key point is that each is as important as the other for the university - not that each should receive the same amount of money. IF you can't see this then you shouldn't be Rector.

[kensson]

I believe Prof. Greer is talking about the student funding aspect (did you read what I wrote or what wyrd wrote straight after?) It seems wrong that I should end up with an £8,000-odd maintenance grant each year and have my tuition fees paid when an arts postgraduate has little if any chance of getting any grant at all.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]kensson wrote on 16:45, 24th Oct 2002:
I believe Prof. Greer is talking about the student funding aspect.


From what she said at the Hecklings, it sounded like she was saying that the Arts should receive more funding for resources. For example I seem to remember she mentioned money for books and computer facilities for Arts students. If she was talking about the discrepancies for maintenance/tuition fees for postgraduates she didn't make this clear at the Hecklings.

[RichZ]

Yeah, it sounds like you would like to give some of your money to Arts students, as you're so unhappy with it all! No I'm only joking.

I don't really know the situation as far as Arts v Science funding goes, but the nature of Science means research has to be done. I know St. Andrews deals directly with industry, PIC for instance, it needs money to make money.

This may just be me being very nieve but what research does the Arts facualty do exactlly?

[kensson]

I'd love to be rich enough to fund arts PhDs...

Part of the point I made earlier was that in maths, we have around 40 PhD students. All have office space, all have computers supplied.

From what I gather from speaking to arts postgraduates, most of them are no better-off resources-wise than the undergrads - they work largely either in the library or at home. (Please tell me if I'm misrepresenting the arts faculty and you have sumptuous lounges in which to do your arty business.)

And if arts degrees need so much less by way of resources, surely a few more grants here and there would be chickenfeed compared to the (ahem) subatomic particle generators we seem to be buying all over the place.

[kensson]

Oh, and I, like nearly all of the maths PhDs, are funded by the government.

[splittter]

Off the top of my head the St A's IR department is pretty much regarded as a, if not the, world authority on Modern terrorism ... which I would imagine requires research, it being pretty difficult to simply guess what they are up to ... arts 'research' is certainly of a different calibre than science, but imho no less important.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Unregisted User splittter wrote on 17:17, 24th Oct 2002:
arts 'research' is certainly of a different calibre than science, but imho no less important.


Yes it's no less important, but does it require more resources? The IR department's research into International Terrorism is no doubt very useful and interesting, but I would imagine it costs a good deal less to carry out that than, say, chemistry research. If Science research is more expensive, surely it needs more resources and more money to fund that research than equally important but cheaper Arts research.

Also, most research and PhD studentships the university carries out are funded by government Research Councils, businesses and charities, rather than by direct university money. Therefore the control of this money is not in the hands of Court or the Rector. When Greer says she will increase Arts funding, surely she is talking about the resources handled by Court and not postgraduate research.

[Saki]

Just a few points:

1. Having read the interview, I don't think that Germaine Greer was talking about _resources_ for arts students - the PCs comment seems to me to have been a separate university-wide point.

2. Yes, most funding is from the goverment, but all departments have at their disposal some funds to distribute to postgraduates whom they think worthy. E.g. my (arts) department is paying my tution fees. I'm assuming that she meant that she would like to get arts departments more money for this purpose because arts postgrads have much less chance of getting government funding than scientists do.

3. Someone asked what arts research is. Well, that kinda depends on the department. But basically, it consists of writing a thesis on an area that you think you can contribute something interesting to. If doing English, one might write a thesis on "connections between Ezra Pound and T.S.Eliot" or if philosophy "whether a logical language can provide a basis for science". The possibilities are endless. But usually it consists either of expounding a "new" idea or of expounding a "new" comparison in whatever field you're in.

4. Yes, that has no practical merit. But neither, as Kensson pointed out, do mathematical or theoretical physics PhDs. And in any case, I think that such research is intrinsically valuable. NOt going to bother arguing for it, cos if you don't see that you're not going to from anything I say.

[splittter]

I agree with you, it probably doesn't in terms of cost (although thats a total guess, and as has been noted not all science needs expensive equipment). I took it that Greer's points were regarding the possibility that Arts may not be getting the money it needs ... I can't speak for her, but the important thing isn't that it gets as much money as science ... but that it's needs are taken as seriously, a point which we seem to agree on. My post was mostly a response to RichZ who was asking what research arts did at all.

I've just gone back and read specifically what Greer said ... her comments about a two tier society would only make sense if we assumed she meant that the arts suffered in regards to the sciences, not in purely monetary terms, but in quality of teaching because of lack of funds.

I'm really in no position to say whether thats true or not ... i did a year of chemistry/maths and 3 of philosphy and noticed no great differences ... however it is certainly true that it's far harder to get funding for an arts post-grad course ... what that has to do with the position of rector I don't know. If Greer has evidence to back up her claims she should say what it is, and how her rectorship would address it.