A day that celebrated the achievements of Forward with Integrity initiatives left the overall state of the academy largely undefined.
cipro zithromax no prescription
David Wilkinson, Provost and Vice-President (Academic), gave his State of the Academy address on Oct. 10 after presentations and receptions of various Forward with Integrity had taken place throughout the day.
"Forward with Integrity," an open letter by McMaster President Patrick Deane in 2011 was turned into an initiative allowing students to apply for funding to complete projects that would make Deane's vision a reality. 78 projects have been funded since, including the Learning Portfolio on Avenue and a psychology project studying how people can be perceived differently when conducting job interviews over Skype.
Beginning at 11:30a.m., presentations of numerous FWI projects filled the schedule at CIBC Hall, leading up to the State of the Academy. Wilkinson called his own address “window dressing” to a day of celebration.
“We decided this year’s State of the Academy Address, as it was originally called, to turn it into a whole day event of celebration,” said Wilkinson.
Wilkinson’s address, to a room filled with faculty and staff, highlighted academic research issues and remained vague regarding the overall state of McMaster University.
The Provost highlighted a few FWI projects with positive fanfare and video presentations. The Learning Portfolio received strong attention and was touted as a growing success.
“It really is an opportunity for students to integrate their learning into one place,” said Wilkinson.
With the address, Wilkinson said that he hoped to develop an identity for McMaster as both a research-intensive and student-centred school.
“Strong linkage between student centered-ness and research focus is really how we intend to define ourselves as an institution," Wilkinson said.
When it came to more technical matters, Wilkinson left a few questions unanswered.
He chose not to speak to the school’s budget in his address, instead referring the audience to the University Factbook for details.
“The State of the Academy can be all about budgets and numbers. I didn't want to do that last year and I’m not going to do it this year either. So we won’t talk a lot of budgetary situations,” said Wilkinson.
“The University Factbook…was released a couple days ago. It has an update of all of the numbers.” The document is available on the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis website.
Wilkinson was also vague with when it came the Ontario government’s push to have post-secondary institutions specialize further.
On the matter, he said “The government pays the freight, and when they want to change something, we have to pay attention to that.”
Wilkinson explained that McMaster will have to negotiate with the provincial government over the course of this academic year.
He was relatively unclear in what the school will be doing to prepare for this, saying, “One of the key things for us to do as an institution is to get our ducks in order and be prepared to state how we wish to be seen as a differentiated organization compared to other universities in the province.”
“I think, actually, we’re in pretty good shape to develop that process.”
With regards to McMaster’s internationalization, Wilkinson said, “This is the one area of Forward with Integrity that hasn't received the attention it deserves.”
Sue Grafe and Nikki Bozinoff have a first-hand look at how last year’s changes to the federal health care program affect refugee health care in Hamilton.
Grafe is a nurse practitioner at REFUGE, a Hamilton refugee clinic, as well as a nursing professor at Mac. Bozinoff is a McMaster medical student and member of Hamiltonians for Migrant and Refugee Health.
Along with Mac economics professor Michel Grignon, they discussed the impact of last year’s refugee health cuts Tuesday at a panel hosted by the Global Citizenship Conference.
Cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) were brought into effect on June 30, 2012, intended to minimize abuse of health privileges. As of then, refugees not assisted by the government have no vision, dental or medical coverage except in emergencies. Refugees from a “designated country of origin” don’t get any coverage.
At the panel, Grafe and Bozinoff said since the cuts were implemented, there has been a great deal of confusion among practitioners about who has coverage and who doesn’t.
“We [at REFUGE] see people regardless of coverage, but the problem becomes, what do you do?” said Grafe.
“There are pregnant clients who don’t get prenatal care because they fall within the gap of having and not having coverage.”
Bozinoff added that there were problems with IFPH even before the cuts were made.
“Even before the cuts, many [refugees] were turned away if they didn’t have a knowledgeable providers,” she said.
Grafe said that prior to the cuts, many Hamilton refugees had been using walk-ins, but because of the confusion, they seem to be using those services less.
She anticipates that refugees from Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are most affected by the cuts in Hamilton, recognizing that refugees from various countries tend to settle differently across cities.
Grafe also observed some “ironic” inconsistencies in the system with changes to the IFHP.
In some cases, she said, “you can get their medication covered if they qualify for Ontario Works, but you can’t run any blood work.”
In getting coverage through Ontario, she and Bozinoff pointed out, the health care costs are downloaded to the Province.
According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the IFHP costs $84 million per year, and the cuts would save $20 million annually to a total of $100 million after five years.
Michel Grignon, director of the Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, approached the issue from a socio-economic perspective.
On whether or not Canada’s international image would be negatively affected by the cuts, Grignon doesn’t think so.
“We’re still doing reasonably well in terms of [the numbers] of refugees who come here—we are still seen as fairly generous.”
Currently, Canada is home to 5 refugees per 1000 people. The US has a ratio of 0.9 per 1000 while Syria has 49 per 1000.
He did express some qualms about the policy moving Canadian healthcare toward a two-tiered system.
“What’s great about universal coverage is that doctors don’t have to worry about who is covered. In the UK nobody will ask you anything, they just treat you,” said Grignon.
Farzeen Foda
Senior News Editor
McMaster University’s Budget Remodelling Task Force recently released its Final Report, available online through the Provost’s Website.
The Task Force has been working on this project since 2007, when Phase I was initiated, noted Khaled Hassanein, chair of Phase II of the Task Force, which started in August 2009.
The current University budget is undergoing a transformation to increase transparency, but also “find a balance between accuracy and simplicity,” said Hassanein, so faculties can better understand their funding allocations and make plans accordingly.
This new and improved budget system features a de-centralization of funding, noted Hassanein, and resembles the one used by the University of Toronto.
The current University budget follows an Incremental system, and McMaster is in the process of transitioning to an Activity-Based system.
The primary difference between the Incremental and Activity-Based system is that following the Incremental System, faculties receive funding based on historical estimates of their needs, whereas, in the Activity-Based system, funding is allocated based on the activities of each faculty, referenced as activity units in the report.
The Task Force has released the final report in an effort to receive feedback from the McMaster community.
Hassanein outlined a few potential risks associated with the Activity-Based budget model, noting that, given its nature, it may give way to reduced inter-faculty collaboration.
This strong drawback is intended to be targeted through a variation of the Activity-Based model, maintaining some aspects of the Incremental system.
Another potential risk pertains to the possibility that this alternative model may result in financial benefit for some faculties, while incurring a deficit in others.
To prevent this possibility, a University Fund will be put in place to support those faculties that may incur a loss upon transition to the new model.
A Shadow Budget will also be implemented for an undefined period of time.
During this time, the University will maintain its current model, but run the alternative model concurrently on a smaller scale to better evaluate its efficacy with McMaster.
The University will also be actively involved in training necessary staff in the implementation of the new budget system.
The budget remodelling task began with Phase I in 2007, at which time the Activity-Based Budget was evaluated, and it was decided, “would this be a good idea for Mac,” according to Hassanein, who explained that McMaster looked to other universities who had implemented the system.
Following careful evaluation, Phase I approved the Activity-Based Budget and concluded that McMaster must develop an Activity-Based Budget system that would be in line with the University’s academic mission, leading to Phase II, which began with a discussion with the Deans of faculties.
