In her messages to staff she calls the is this proposal "slightly" different from past practice. How is it so when all faculties have simultaneously been charged with the task of urgently identifying courses that can be disappeared, combined, or offered in alternate years? How so when it is an unprecedented overhaul of what students learn, how they learn, where they learn? • Students deserve to be more thoroughly briefed and presented with the case for it because it will impact their academic choices and prospects. Including whether to stay.
: No one we know has claimed mation is ma chases went e cut, out sting mis sage is that the wi be in scope for review. Why the red herring?
• Staff did not pull the <60 or <30 numbers out of thin air. These numbers were proffered to staff following directives from the Proctor's leadership group. (We know that they continue to be used in various departmental exercises. In some cases, firm
messages insist that many PG courses should have enrolment of at least 30.) PG students will get lectures when they would benefit from smaller seminars.
• Why the sudden and unusual time pressures involved?
• What role does the impact of Waipapa Taumata Rau and Transdisciplinary course requirements have on on students, their degrees and their plans?.
• this not a sudden decision calling for sudden wholesale change? • Was this "optimisation" process anticipated by City campus consolidation or CFT plans? If so why have students and staff not been advised until now?
• What are the implications for degree quality or teaching coverage (fewer full-time permanent, more precarious fixed-term positions?).
• What equity considerations have been made (small programmes, offering content to highly specialised or marginalised aroune) 2