Petition Tag - higher education

1. The Evergreen State College: A Commitment to Educating Students

By signing this petition you are endorsing the following principles (signed by over 100 Middlebury College professors) while making a commitment to free inquiry at Evergreen State College. You have an option to not have your name published. If you are still concerned, feel free to type anonymous under name and make up and email address.

2. ARE YOU A VICTIM OF THE DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION?

Back in 1989, i was fresh out of high school, and had gotten married. Newlyweds etc. A truck driving representative contacted us from MTA Truck Driving School and talked us into taking out a GSL and an SSL both government student loans totalling $5000. We started the school. Now, mind you, i am 19 yrs old and at that time , no trucking industry would hire you , due to there insurance policy, unless you was 21 yrs old in which this was never mentioned to us in the beginning. EVER! Shortly after graduating the 7 week class/course, i divorced and had children etc and never pursued a truck driving job ever. For many years i struggled to keep economically afloat and was unable to pay the debt. My wages were gauranteed from the Higher education and they started taking my taxes immediately within the year that we graduated. Many times throughout the years i made many attempts to contact The Higher Education and make payment arrangements and was always told that my amount monthly wasn't enough and they couldn't except that.
It is now 2017 , i am still receiving letters from The Department of Education and not to mention they continue to wait for me to get employment and still to this day have taken all my income taxes for the past 28 years! I feel that this debt , starting at $5000 has been paid quadruple amount of times and if you are dealing with the same issue etc then please help me to help all of us being taken by THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

3. Save Hull College for the people of Hull

On 25th August 2016 Hull College management issued a notice that threatened over 120 posts at the College with redundancy. Redundancy has become a fact of life at Hull College, with a total of 385 job losses across the group since 2011, and a total of £2,747,454.15 paid out in redundancy payments as a result. The consequence of this is that staff are suffering from increased workload and stress, and many students are not able to follow their first choice of course and are moving to other providers. If students stay they are being offered alternatives that do not always match with their aspirations or are being mixed with students not studying at the same level. The College management have also decided to close nursery provision across all sites. This is an attack on our most vulnerable students, and hardworking staff who have no choice but to work to support their families.

This is the sixth year in a row that management have announced job losses at Hull College. Staff at the College believe that the redundancies are short sighted and that profit is being put first. They are a result of years of mismanagement and entrepreneurial failures. They are not in the interests of students, staff or the people of Hull. The continuing job insecurity, threats to people’s livelihoods and erosion of educational opportunities for the people of Hull caused by this yearly cycle of redundancies cannot continue. Yet again hardworking and dedicated staff are subject to an annual cull due to significant financial shortfalls caused by mismanagement. College management are running what was once a great college into the ground. This is an attack on education, staff, students, and the people of Hull. We are in a race to the bottom, and it has to stop!

4. Lower the costs of Higher Education

A recent study showed that by 2025, United States economy will need 60 % of the workforce to hold a post-secondary degree. Currently, less than 40% of the United States workforce has a post-secondary degree. Nationwide, student loan debt has accumulated to over $1.2 trillion, contributing to that debt is the continued increase cost of higher education. On average in the United States, higher education has increased over 5.2% which is double of what the national inflation rate of 2.3%.

This continued increase of tuition is making in more difficult for the working middle class to attend college. Many young adults are choosing not to go to college to avoid the high costs of tuition which those individuals will earn almost half of what a college education American would earn,

Sign this bill in protest to the continued increase of higher education and to make it more affordable to the working middle class!

5. Make scholarships available for all: equality in availability of scholarship funds

I am writing this letter to voice my concerns regarding the matter of Utah State University's scholarship policy. I am hoping that by voicing my view on the matter, it might spark a change.

My concern with this university's policy relates to the statute that “Continuing students are encouraged to apply for scholarships through their departments and colleges,” while “freshman and transfer students are automatically considered for USU scholarships when they apply for admission.” Even highly qualified transfer students who miss the deadline to apply for scholarships, but not to apply for entrance into the school, are not considered for scholarships the following semester.

The setup feels rather like a fly trap. Once students have come to the school there is no longer any hope of earning a USU scholarship through hard work and merits. We should be allowed to change, improve ourselves and be rewarded for our efforts from the University, in addition, and not limited to, our scholarships from differing departments.

While 513 million dollars has been raised and numerous buildings constructed, I can't help but wonder if even half the effort spent on raising that money was spent instead on securing endowments for increased funds available for scholarship distribution, what could be the result.

Another problem I see is that new freshman and transfer students who are offered scholarships are in jeopardy of losing their scholarships indelibly if they cannot maintain adequate performance throughout their study at USU, and are thus left without hope of penitence or rectification if for one semester they fall short of par.

I plead with you to work for change in the policies mentioned so that all students may apply for scholarships based on their current overall excellence, GPA (which does not discount past blunders in school but averages them out with the now-scores), and activities. As a student, my power is limited unless I get the voice of the student body behind me, or unless those in positions of greater authority will listen and use their influence for change.

6. FAIR CHANCE: Higher Education needs to become a Human Right

There are many issues in our society right now that need to be addressed such as the quality and cost of higher education because it affects many students.

Higher Education needs to become a human right. Students should not have to shatter their dream career just because they are financially unstable, therefore, higher education should not cost a foot and a leg.

Becasue of students’ lack of education, they are not up to par in the workforce, therefore, the jobs are being transferred overseas. According to Wall Street Journal, “thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas”.

7. Statement Against The Interference And Control Of Language Use In Higher Education

Several related groups have been pressuring the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to amend the newly crafted CMO 20 series 2013 and make Filipino a requirement in higher education. Unfortunately, CHED seems to be bowing to the pressure of these one-sided groups by saying that they are considering (maybe as a concession) making it mandatory that three of the General Education subjects be taught using Filipino.

The requirement to offer a certain number of units in teaching Filipino in the GEC or prescribing its use as language of instruction without extending the same kind of privilege to other languages—Philippine or otherwise—is a highly problematic move. CHED would essentially be forcing colleges and universities—which should be bastions of free thinking, plurality, and equality—to subscribe to a hegemonic one-nation-one language ideology. Any language policy should reflect the multilingual context of our learners. Furthermore, since languages mediate learning, the choice of language to be used in a particular area of study should be based on the objective to improve learning outcomes and to equip the students to the world of work and service in their own community and beyond.

The imposition of language of instruction is not part of CHED’s power. We ask that the technical panel for General Education and the CHED commissioners to continue upholding academic freedom and not enter into any concession with any interest group. Moreover, we would be greatly relieved if CHED issued a formal statement endorsing the use of any local or international language in higher education.

8. Leave the the Internship Allowance at BWP2000

The Government of Botswana has recently cut the Internship Allowance from BWP2000 to BWP1420.00, which they have cut BWP680.

9. Pass The New York State Dream Act

In the 2013 New York State Legislative session, New York State Assemblyman Francisco Moya, representing District #39 (Corona, Jackson Heights and Elmhurst) introduced bill A2597, entitled "The New York State Dream Act".

This bill would allow undocumented students who were brought to the United States as very young children to be eligible to receive Financial Aid for a College Education within New York State.

The Bill increased Financial Aid by 25 million dollars, in support of this initiative. The Bill is supported by Speaker of the Assembly Sheldon Silver. A similar bill was introduced in the New York State Senate bill #S2378, but is being blocked by the Republicans Led by Senator Dean Skelos. Senator Skelos does not want the bill to reach the floor because he is afraid to put the State Senators on the record to either support or object to the Bill. Senator Skelos, does not want to loose power in the Senate. Senator Skelos is putting Politics above People.

We need to contact Senator Dean Skelos and tell him to support The Dream Act.

10. Call for Cambridge University to invest responsibly

The Cambridge University Sustainable and Responsible Investment Campaign (CUSRIC) is lobbying the University to adopt an explicit Responsible Investment Policy.

WHY WE ARE CONCERNED - THE FACTS:
-The University of Cambridge is the wealthiest University in the UK.
-The total capital value of the Cambridge Univeristy Endownment Fund (CUEF) in 2012 was £1.7 billion.
-There is currently no oversight nor means of tracking how the CUEF is invested.
-There is a danger that University funds, entrusted to third party fund managers, are being invested in arms, environmentally damaging fossil fuels, and conflict zones.
-Responsible investment practice is becoming mainstream with a growing global adherence to the UN Principles of Responsible Investment.
-There is evidence that Cambridge could reform its investment practice without jeopardising competitive returns.

Please join us in calling on the University to improve its investment policy. The CUSRIC petition will be presented before the Executive Committee at its annual review of University investment policy in May.

In addition to your name, please indicate in parentheses your status (e.g. university staff, student, fellow, alum, concerned citizen) and Cambridge email address (if you have one). This is important as the University administration needs to be aware that the University community as a whole backs this effort.

11. END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST U.S. CITIZEN COLLEGE STUDENTS

Approximately two years ago, the New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority ("HESAA") began to deny U.S. citizen college students eligibility for Tuition Aid Grants ("TAG Grants") solely on the basis of the students' parents' immigration status.

As a result, hundreds, possibly thousands, of high achieving New Jersey high school graduates, who were accepted to approved New Jersey colleges, universities or proprietary schools, have had their college careers stopped or put on hold. In most cases notification to the student, of the withdrawal of their TAG Grant, occurred only weeks before they were scheduled to move in and/or start classes.

Although a New Jersey Appellate Court ruled this practice illegal this summer, in the case of A.Z. v. HESAA, the Attorney General's Office has indicated that it intends to file an appeal to try to have the ruling reversed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

12. Oppose the new system in UK Higher Education

We are approaching the first term under a new regime in UK Higher Education (and particularly in England), which represents a seismic shift in the nature of public provision, marked by the removal of the cap on tuition fees.

As academic staff we wish to declare our continued opposition to a system which will increasingly exclude working class students and others from non-traditional backgrounds and promote higher education as a privilege. The irony is that while students are paying hugely inflated fees (albeit as 'loans'), universities are making cuts in academic, professional and support jobs which will seriously affect the extent and quality of educational provision.

The scapegoating of London Metropolitan University as part of a government publicity stunt to bolster its immigration policies, at the same time as university support services are to be contracted out, exemplifies the political nature of the attack on Higher Education.

The entry of Pearson Education into ‘the market’ demonstrates the developing privatisation of Higher Education and, as in health and social care, the prospect of large multi-nationals becoming key providers.

13. Open Letter to Malcolm Grant: Say no to the 'New College of the Humanities'

On Sunday 5 June, a private college calling itself the "New College of the Humanities" (NCHUM www.nchum.org) was launched in the UK press. This college promises "one to one tuition" in humanities subjects at the University of London in return for an annual fee of £18,000 a year. Unlike the publicly-funded not-for-profit University sector, this college is set up as a private enterprise paying shareholders dividends.

Simultaneously, Arts and Humanities departments in universities across the UK are in crisis. Government funding for teaching has been cut by 80% and it is doubtful that ordinary working-class UK students will be able to pay £8-9,000 to study subjects such as Philosophy, History, Art, Language and Literature. Universities which specialise in Humanities subjects, or whose intake is primarily working-class, face bankruptcy.

The NCHUM is thus part of the problem, not part of the solution. Should this business model be successful it will likely create a market drive towards similar experiments at the expense of the public sector, in exactly the same way as private wards and BUPA have impacted on the NHS. For this reason the proposal must be opposed.

Vice Chancellors across the University of London have so far been slow to distance themselves from this venture. This petition, open to staff, students and alumni of University College London (UCL) asks that current Provost, Malcolm Grant does just this.

14. Stop Cutting Higher Education Financial Aid

Students of the United States of America work extremely hard in order to further their education while having jobs and trying to succeed in college. The financial aid that we receive is very important to us.

Why is it that students who have parents that are members of congress do not have to pay off student loans? While the rest of us have to struggle with loans, work, college, and try to pay for college. People who are not wealthy are being discriminated against.

15. Manifesto for Higher Education

Please consider signing up to the manifesto for higher education that is part of a forthcoming Pluto Press book called 'The Assault on Universities: A Manifesto for Resistance'.

As you know only too well, students and university staff are involved in a series of crucial campaigns not simply to oppose increased tuition fees and education cuts but also to challenge attempts by the government to impose a whole new ethic to university education in this country: one that is based, above all, on the marketisation of learning and teaching.

We have included below the very short list of manifesto demands that we believe need to be part of the public debate in relation to the future of universities. We plan to run a very public campaign focusing attention on the manifesto to make sure that it is widely circulated inside academic, student and campaigning circles.

Initial signatories include John Pilger, Paul Gilroy, John McDonnell MP, Nick Davies, Etienne Balibar, Michael Lowy, James Curran, Angela McRobbie, China Mieville, Colin Leys, John Corner, Wendy Brown, Graham Murdock, Mark Fisher, Andrew Ross, Bruno Bosteels and many other academics.

We would really appreciate your support and, of course, let us know if you have any questions about the project. You can email hemanifesto@gmail.com to sign, or if you have any questions.

With best wishes Des Freedman and Michael Bailey

16. UK scientists oppose cuts in the Arts and Humanities

The government has announced large cuts to the funding of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. Whole departments are to be closed. One persistent theme in the framing of this decision is the claim that these subjects are not strategically important and do not contribute economic value.

As researchers and teachers in the natural sciences, we know that the balance of teaching and research subjects at each university cannot be remade by a product-oriented central plan, and we strongly believe that our universities are indivisible.

Healthy natural science teaching and research are inseparable from healthy humanities and social sciences; witness the tremendous investment of world-leading technology universities such as Caltech and MIT in their schools of humanities and social sciences.

Computer scientists collaborate with linguists and psychologists on translation software; mathematicians collaborate with economists on financial models; social scientists collaborate with biologists to guide the application of genomics discoveries; and all depend on philosophers and historians to establish the foundations of their subjects. Students who are preparing for the challenges of the 21st century need to be exposed to this thriving interdisciplinarity.

Lord May, former president of the Royal Society, expressed this well in 2002: “Science does no more than setting the stage, providing and clarifying the choices. Our values and feelings about the society we wish to build, in this wiser world of tomorrow, then will write the play. But whence the values? What shapes them? What guides the subsequent choices? These are hugely difficult, yet utterly fundamental questions. Ultimately the answers ... will illustrate better than anything else just how indivisible is the continuum from the arts and humanities through to the sciences. Studies in the arts and humanities continue, in many different ways, to illuminate the mechanisms of social interaction and cohesion in human institutions.”

17. Texans Against Higher Education Budget Cuts

Both the Texas House and Senate are proposing cuts in Higher Education funding for student financial aid. The aforementioned budget proposal will either completely remove or reduce a significant portion of the financial aid, therefore making aid inaccessible to Texas Students.

We are already facing fiscal issues due to the current state of the Texas economy and it is not acceptable for the state to reduce our source of funding. Student tuition will rise drastically, important courses will be eliminated, student services will be reduced and many more significant factors of our education will be either completely removed or will face funding reduction.

So, we are requesting that Texans unite as one voice in this great state and say NO to these inappropriate budget cuts.

Join us in the fight in state mandated funding cuts, and be a part of the collective voice that can influence your university and the future of Higher education in the State of Texas.

18. Support a Retrospective Graduate Tax

As the number of people seeking the benefits of higher education inevitably rise, the costs of providing it via general taxation have become difficult to sustain.

This is a simple petition to the UK Government to ask them to implement a retrospective graduate tax to fund at least part of the costs of teaching in Universities. This would replace the cumbersome, daunting and unnecessary student tuition fees and loans.

This would share the cost of higher education between the past, present and future generations of graduates who directly benefit and the general taxpayer who may not personally benefit.

Of course, transitional arrangements would have to be made for current students or graduates with outstanding loans, and for those who have already piad them off. And the position of graduates from Welsh and Scottish universities would have to be resolved. This petition is about the principle.

We believe it is administratively simpler, fairer and easier to administer.

It would also prevent Universities competing on price. Competition between Universities on quality already provides an adequate level of incentives to improve, without introducing socially regressive and divisive financial competition for places.

19. MPs - Vote against a rise in HE fees

We, the undersigned, wish to raise our grave concerns about the vote to increase the level of the cap on student tuition fees on Thursday 9 December 2010.

The Government is, in effect, proposing a vote to triple fees before Christmas, a vote to make them ‘progressive’ after Christmas, and a vote on legislation to deliver value for money for those fees much further down the line. This process lacks proper scrutiny or democratic accountability and should be resisted by MPs and Lords of all parties.

We are deeply concerned that these proposals seek a near tripling of the cap on tuition fees to replace an 80 per cent cut in teaching funding for universities, including the removal of all public funding for subjects such as history, economics, English and politics. Suggestions that these proposals will improve quality and the student experience are not backed up by any guarantees or protections and these proposals would put our future and the world-class reputation of our universities at risk.

The proposals take an extremely risky approach to funding the higher education sector, with a rapid move to an unconstrained market of universities in which students pick up the bill for almost the whole cost of teaching. They ignore the probability that with much higher fee levels, prospective students - especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds - will change their behaviour and make judgements primarily on prices, costs, and debt.

As every other OECD country is investing in its higher education, we stand alone with Romania in cutting back and failing to fund the high level skills we need for our future economy and society. The funding universities receive is not ‘dead weight’ but is a good, strong and stable investment that brings huge economic, as well as social and cultural, returns.

The argument that the proposals to increase the fee cap to £9,000 will actually save money and pay down the immediate public deficit is also in doubt. There is a great cost to the Government, who will have to borrow additional money to provide students with higher loans.

Indeed, The Higher Education Policy Institute's verdict is that the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next. And the Office for Budget Responsibility’s updated November forecast shows that the impact of the Government’s plans to increase fees to £9,000 would add £13 billion to public sector net debt by 2015-16, even after the massive education funding cuts have been taken into account. As such, the argument that these measures are a necessary response to the need to reduce public spending simply does not add up.

The case has not been made to increase the tuition fee cap to £9,000 and it has not been made clear what students and their families would receive in return for huge increases in fees - and no protection mechanisms or access requirements have been properly proposed or discussed.

We believe that these points are extremely important and must be taken into account.

20. Postpone the HE Fees Vote

We, the undersigned, would like to raise our concerns about the vote to increase the level of the cap on student tuition fees on Thursday 9 December 2010.

The Government is, in effect, proposing a vote to triple fees before Christmas, a vote to make them ‘progressive’ after Christmas, and a vote on legislation to deliver value for money for those fees much further down the line. This process lacks proper scrutiny or democratic accountability and should be resisted by MPs and Lords of all parties.

We are deeply concerned that these proposals seek a near tripling of the cap on tuition fees to replace an 80 per cent cut in teaching funding for universities, including the removal of all public funding for subjects such as history, economics, English and politics. Suggestions that these proposals will improve quality and the student experience are not backed up by any guarantees or protections and these proposals would put our future and the world-class reputation of our universities at risk.

The proposals take an extremely risky approach to funding the higher education sector, with a rapid move to an unconstrained market of universities in which students pick up the bill for almost the whole cost of teaching. They ignore the probability that with much higher fee levels, prospective students - especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds - will change their behaviour and make judgements primarily on prices, costs, and debt.

As every other OECD country is investing in its higher education, we stand alone with Romania in cutting back and failing to fund the high level skills we need for our future economy and society. The funding universities receive is not ‘dead weight’ but is a good, strong and stable investment that brings huge economic, as well as social and cultural, returns.

The argument that the proposals to increase the fee cap to £9,000 will actually save money and pay down the immediate public deficit is also in doubt. There is a great cost to the Government, who will have to borrow additional money to provide students with higher loans.

Indeed, The Higher Education Policy Institute's verdict is that the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next. And the Office for Budget Responsibility’s updated November forecast shows that the impact of the Government’s plans to increase fees to £9,000 would add £13 billion to public sector net debt by 2015-16, even after the massive education funding cuts have been taken into account. As such, the argument that these measures are a necessary response to the need to reduce public spending simply does not add up.

The case has not been made to increase the tuition fee cap to £9,000 and it has not been made clear what students and their families would receive in return for huge increases in fees - and no protection mechanisms or access requirements have been properly proposed or discussed.

21. Save Jobs at the University of Reading

The University plans to appoint a reader/professor in theatre and sack one lecturer specialising in film and one lecturer specialising in television. This is part of the University’s plans to both save money and to reshape the University ‘strategically’. The two lecturers who will be dismissed are most likely to be junior members of staff (the department has a high proportion of young lecturers) and the new reader/professor will certainly be on a much higher pay scale. Therefore, the cost saving objective behind this plan is not apparent. Neither does the ‘reshaping strategy’ (e.g. scaling back film and television while investing in theatre) have any clear reasoning behind it. Repeatedly, the University has claimed that the decision to favour theatre in the current plans is based upon perceptions of relative research strength. For example, early in the process of planning where to make cuts, the University management suggested that film performed less well in the last RAE (Research Assessment Exercise). It was pointed out that this was pure speculation (the RAE results are completely anonymous and do not identify individual lecturers let alone separate theatre from film or television) and they eventually retracted this claim (or, rather, stopped saying it). However, they continue to point to the perceived greatest value for the department of theatre as a research discipline as the basis for their decisions. Whenever they are questioned on the academic basis for their strategy, the University management is unable to point to any factual data, any objective or empirical evidence. We, the undersigned, point out that the University seems to be basing their continued strategy, which will destroy two careers, on gossip and innuendo.

Moreover, by singling out film and television specialists, the University is effectively undermining the interdisciplinarity of the department, which is one of its renowned features. For example, the BA in Film and Theatre is a single-honours degree. The disciplines are substantially integrated through the department’s teaching, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level, as well as through the department’s research. Moreover, the recently advertised post of reader/professor in theatre would be the replacement of a retired member of staff whose job title was ‘professor in film and drama’.

We note that the department has been unable to appoint at reader level or above in theatre on two separate occasions (the post was last advertised in August 2010 and the University was unable to draw up a shortlist of a sufficient calibre). In effect, this means that the University will fire two (almost certainly junior) academics in order to have the ‘research leadership’ of a person who they cannot find. This is not only morally indefensible but is also severely misguided. The department is a very young one (in terms of the age of its lecturers), the University having repeatedly invested in the long-term potential of junior staff. Neither the University nor the department has ever suggested junior staff are not fulfilling this potential, so they should have the patience to realise the long-term vision their previous appointments demonstrated and reward the excellence in teaching and research displayed by this vibrant department. The University has also invested in an £11 million building for the department (opening Easter this year), which will contain state of the art facilities for theatre, film and television, and we, the undersigned, suggest the University should better value the staff who will work in its new buildings.

In the current climate, many will feel that financial savings must be made at Reading and at other universities. However, here as elsewhere, savings can be made by voluntary redundancy and the non-replacement of staff. We do not accept the University pursuing a misguided and short-termist agenda that will destroy careers, staff morale, will weaken the diversity of research and teaching in the department and is part of a ‘strategy’ that is ill-conceived and lacks an objective grounding in fact.


Please read on...

To those signing the petition, we ask if you would please email as many of the senior members of the University of Reading management that you can in order to protest against its mistreatment of staff and to demand that it withdraw from its plans for a new appointment in theatre so that it can save existing posts.

The email addresses are below and we have also included a suggested template for the email at the bottom. Please use/don’t use as you see fit. We would be so grateful if you can show your support for the staff in Reading FTT in any way you can and protest against the sacking of two lecturers in order to get in a new, more senior member of staff. This is all part of a severely misguided (not to mention callous) management agenda.

Thank you so much for your support!

Gordon Marshall (Vice Chancellor): g.marshall@reading.ac.uk

Christopher Fisher (President of University Council): cfisher@penfida.co.uk

Tony Downes (Deputy Vice Chancellor): t.a.downes@reading.ac.uk

Rob Robson (Pro-Vice Chancellor for Teaching and Learning): pvctandl@reading.ac.uk

Sue Walker (Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities): s.f.walker@reading.ac.uk

Jonathan Bignell (Head of School of Arts, English and Communication Design and member of FTT department): j.bignell@reading.ac.uk


Dear *,

I call on the University of Reading to withdraw its plans to make two lecturers redundant in its Film, Theatre and Television department (FTT) while appointing a new reader/professor in the same department. The University says that its ‘intention remains of course to avoid the need for compulsory redundancy where this is possible’ yet these redundancies are clearly avoidable here – a reader/professor clearly costs a lot more than the lecturers the University plans to dismiss. These redundancies will not only potentially destroy two careers, they will undermine the interdisciplinarity the FTT department is known for and the diversity and vibrancy of its teaching and research.

In the current climate, the University management clearly feels that financial savings must be made. However, here as elsewhere, the savings can be made by voluntary redundancy and the non-replacement of staff. I contend that this would be a much less divisive and much less destructive way of coping with the current funding crisis and would therefore prove to be a much more effective management policy in the longer term.

Thanks for your time in reading this.

Yours *

22. Smarter SRC = Less disruptive & destructive strikes

South African tertiary institutions are being crippled by disruptive and destructive strikes spear headed by academically under achieving students occupying high posts in our SRC's.

These people stay for years in these institutions so they can enjoy many benefits including free fees, etc.

Why are people consistently failing on the one thing that got them in the institution being allowed to lead fellow students ?

In high schools we see bright kids excelling in their studies and sports but also head their Learners Representative Councils, what happens to this aspiring leaders when they arrive in institutions of Higher Learning ?

Lets call on the Department of Education to pass Legislation that will force tertiary institutions to set out clear and sensible criteria for students' eligibility in occupying seats in the SRC's.

23. Stop Planned Cuts to Higher Education

Just before Christmas, Peter Mandelson announced that funding for higher education will be slashed by over £900m over the next three years. This amounts to £190 less in resources per student than in 2009.

This has taken place despite the fact that over 50,000 students were denied places for 2009, the UK's average for NEETs (young people not in employment, education or training) is higher than the OECD average, and the UK spends 10% less of its GDP on universities than the OECD average.

24. Save Californian Higher Education!

The public higher eduction system in California is the best, most affordable and most comprehensive in the nation. Five of the top twenty universities in the United States are CA public schools.

The state of California is facing a $24 billion budget shortfall right now. Thus, the entire university system statewide is facing approximately $800 million in budget cuts for the 2009-2010 academic year. These cuts will result in an immediate increase in tuition/fees, an increase in class size, salary cuts and workload increases for staff and thus an overall decrease in the quality of the system. This will drastically impact the state in a number of important areas, not least the quality of healthcare that the university health centers and hospitals provide to 3.6 million patients annually and access to a quality university education at a reasonable price, two basic human rights.

Education and the promotion of American, competitiveness and innovation is also deeply threatened by an attack on this university system. Collectively more Nobel Prizes have come out of the California system than any other and many of the most important innovators, scientists and artists in the US are alumni.

Maintaining the health of the California higher education system is supporting American academic excellence that we will need, now more than ever, to ask and answer the difficult questions that will continue moving us forward for years to come.

25. No Future Rise in the Cap on Variable Tuition Fees

The 2009 Department of Employment and Learning review of Variable Fees and Student Finance arrangements will examine the higher education funding system in Northern Ireland. The outcome of the review will determine future policy on undergraduate student tuition fees and the financial support available to students at university.

Currently, variable tuition fees are capped at a maximum of just over £3000 per annum. One of the aspects the review will examine is the upper limit for tuition fees, and the question of raising the cap. The review will report its findings in 2010, and the Minister for Employment and Learning will consider its reports before submitting recommendations on the level of fees.

This is a unique opportunity for students to have an input into the fees charged by institutions. NUS-USI believes any rise in fees will burden students with unsustainable levels of debt; limit choices potential students can make when selecting their institution; and reduce opportunities for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

While the review considers the impact of the funding system on institutions and students, it is critical that students make it clear throughout that any rise in the current cap on variable fees will have a harmful impact on university applications, diversity of student body, retention rates and student debt.

Throughout the review process in 2009 and 2010, we will deliver regular updates on the number of signatures to the Chair of the review of Variable Fees and Student Finance arrangements Department of Employment and Learning; Queen’s University Belfast; University of Ulster; Stranmillis University College; St. Mary’s University College; Association of Northern Ireland Colleges; Open University; Education and Library Boards.

We will submit the petition to the Chair of the review and Minister for Employment and Learning once the review closes in 2010 for the writing-up stage.

Now is the time for Northern Ireland’s students to say no to any future rise of the current cap on student tuition fees.

Please note: This site does not collect your emails for sale to advertising companies or for unsolicited email. Your email is for confirmation purposes only.

26. GIVE THEM A VALUED EDUCATION

The PWORA act has been praised for the major changes that it has brought. It has set time limits and work requirements for TANF RECIPIENTS.
But there has not been a call for a higher education that could take many of TANF recipients off of welfare rolls permanently.

We feel that there is a need for more promotion of a higher education for this at risk population who need a helping hand.

27. No Confidence in the PA SSHE System Administration!

This petition is an opportunity for the students of Edinboro University of Pennsylvania to express their feelings of 'No Confidence' in the administration currently running the State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania.