Time for structural improvements

During November our University commemorates its foundation by awarding an ever-increasing number of degrees. The University body feels proud of its output to the community, and rightly so. Our graduates can claim that they have reached the same standards as those of any other institution of repute. This is only possible because of all the hard work put in by all quarters, starting from the Minister of Education, through the Rector, academic staff, technical and administrative staff, all the way to each and every worker, including the gardener who helps in the upkeep of the campus and persons like Rosa who takes care of the cats which keep lonely students company.

Such an august body of individuals, academics, students and staff, who in their own way all strive towards the bettering of our alma mater, is the reason behind our University's success. This on the whole praiseworthy situation, however, does not mean one should sit on one's laurels. The time is just ripe for improving the structures of our University.

The pillars of the university, the faculties and the institutes are growing; departments are growing; in other words the University is growing; and therefore delegation of work is now essential. Alas, there is not enough of this. There is need for the official bodies of the University to meet more often. Council, Senate, Faculty Boards and their sub-committees need to meet every four weeks rather than once every two months. Maybe the meetings should be shorter rather than the current marathons of never-ending discussions. The same may be said about the ever increasingly important committees, such as the work resources fund committee. So important is this committee that it warrants full time attention by its members.

The various committees should not go into the nitty-gritty of each and every application and the bureaucratic details or every action and decision. The bodies should act more as controllers, checking that regulations are abided by.

Why should it take nearly a year for a student to register for a post-graduate degree? Why should two degrees in the same faculty of an equivalent standard and duration be called by different names, one a doctorate and the other a bachelor? Why should they have different levels of entry requirements? Why should one have a numerus clausus and the other open to all? These are the issues which Senate should be looking into. The other tasks should be delegated down to Boards of Studies and Departments, while allowing a means to appeal decisions taken at the lower levels to them. In Euro-jargon this would be called subsidiarity.

The Rector's office may need increased support. It is true that now the Rector has two Pro-Rectors who are fully functional delegates, in contrast to the old days when the position of Pro-Rector was more or less only honorary. The Rector, however, could or rather needs to, appoint a college of advisers, persons whose task would be to keep their ears to the ground. They need not all be University staff. This will be a casual think-tank and distinct from the formal council.

This college would be exclusively consultative in nature and it would be left to the Magnificus to pull up his sleeves at the unenviable task of decision making. There should be only one captain of the ship, although he could do with a lieutenant. What happened to the post of university secretary anyway? There is even the need for the decisions taken to be made known.

Possibly the best way is by making the minutes of the faculty boards, senate, council and the sub-committees available online or at least a summary of the decisions taken. In this age of transparency this is the way forward.

One of course must use discretion on specific cases such as considerations regarding individual students, respecting the dignity and privacy of those involved. The Registrar and Rector would of course make sure that this discretionary exercise is carried out properly. On the other hand the Rector needs to be given more power and flexibility, such as in the case of temporary appointments, promotions and adjustments in the budget. If the University is to be run in a sustainable manner the Rector must have the same authority as a CEO would have in running a private enterprise.

While some institutes have delivered beyond expectations others have failed to deliver the goods (i.e. human resources) required by the country. One has to examine ways how to develop these institutes. The need to attract students into certain courses rather than into some of the traditional ones that are oversubscribed is still there.

There is also room for new courses such as in Clinical Psychology, in Podology and in Veterinary Medicine. There is need for more emphasis on presentation work, which means that the Department of Communication Studies and the CCT need to offer their services to other faculties in a more organised fashion.

All these functions, along with many more not mentioned here, cannot be carried out with the present university structures. Updating the university structures would ensure the continuation of the excellence achieved in the past and boldly place our Alma Mater in the future.