It is clear staff don't feel heard and are frustrated with the lack of transparency and communication from the university. Here are some of the comments staff have made on the course cuts:
It's good that the uni (at this stage ...) is saying at least that they hope to protect Maori, Pacific and local content. However, little is known about WHO is making the final decision and on WHAT basis.
We have been given no rationale for why <60 at UG and <30 at PG are considered 'small' courses and that these are a problem. PG courses in particular SHOULD be small - much smaller than 30! Stage 3 courses are also most appropriately under 60 students. The panicked rush to make these cuts is also very disturbing, as these kind of changes can require restructuring on entire major programmes and so need careful consideration.
As both staff and a student, I haven't been made aware of such changes until it leaked by people who heard third-hand what was going on, and even then it wasn't what was going on, because the administration hasn't made that clear! There are cuts all over the place, with inconsistant reasoning behind them. What I have been able to find out officially as the causes of these cuts are "financial pressure" and "logistical issues" which are very obviously downstream effects of the administration's poor planning. Wouldn't be having these problems if we were building class-rooms instead of 8-lane swimming pools (that we have to pay to use!).
Where is the VC? Just when some leadership is called for, she is AWOL. This has been left to the Provost-Deans-Directors committee to implement. They have done it poorly. The messaging is unclear, inconsistent, and partial.
I have heard that neither finances, nor space nor timetabling are the real issues. The real issues are people: teaching staff to take the new TD and WTR courses, staff who may magically have been freed up because their courses have been cut but their expertise is now available. While this is an educated rumour, someone surely needs to show some leadership and speall it all out clearly, instead of doing it all by stealth and proxy.
If space/rooms is an issue, why wasn't this properly considered before the University sold Tāmaki and Epsom campuses?
It is clear based on the myriad of responses that the university administration and its direction are by its very nature a profit-seeking, parasitical organisation that is putting forward short-term, money-motivated, checks and balance sheets above that of the well-being of staff, well-being of students, and the quality of education that this university is happy to boast about. The Arts are simply the easiest to target. If the principle is the compromise of education for the sake of short term shareholder gains, who is next? Which faculty libraries will they burn as they did with Engineering only a scant seven years ago? The administration has been happy to shred books to save cents. What knowledge is on the line cutting students off from accessing these subjects? How many courses are going to be interrupted? How many staff will leave at the maltreatment that steps on their mana as education providers? The complete lack of conscious decision making at the top proves that we must, as a student body, university administration, and teaching staff wananga on a long term plan for the good of the university, and runanga to implement such a project! Oho ake mai Tamaki Taumata Rau! Wake up UoA! We need Democracy in our decision making! Transparency in its execution! Education as the foundation! Maranga mai! Maranga mai! Maranga mai!
As both professional teaching staff and a postgraduate student I feel like we are losing more and more of the spark and excitement the university is meant to facilitate to all its members -staff and students. First merging of faculties and reducing professional staff and now course cutting makes me think that there is no room for specialisation and encouragement to diversify knowledge and skills - I do not feel fully informed and the student emails we receive are almost a copy/paste of the staff emails with no real explanation of the decisions being made. There is no opportunity for students to grow and be supported with the decline in courses meaning less employment opportunities as well.
Is an equity assessment being done on how cutting smaller courses is likely to disproportionately impact courses focused on marginalised communities? e.g. Māori Studies, Pacific Studies, Gender Studies. These courses are critical for building knowledges that address inequities in Aotearoa and globally and cutting them is likely only to increase disparities.
It has been very disheartening to find that the expertise I (and others) have developed as academic staff in teaching within our areas is not considered valuable by this institution when it comes to future planning. I was perhaps naive at the start of my career and believed Universities to be distinct from corporations in their structure, community and aims. At UoA it is very clear: we have a CEO in the Vice Chancellor and we are employees delivering a product to customers also called students. The "product" is not lucrative enough and therefore leadership will dictate what changes are required. What is the point of Senate other than show? What is the point of hiring staff with PhDs and expertise other than show? Really, what is the point of a University in the public sector other than to gloss up a neoliberal business?
I have lost all confidence in the clock tower's ability to effectively govern and manage this university. From faculties collapsing "do as I say, not as I do" governing framework**. Leadership lacks vision; they cannot coherently explain or justify what motivates these drastic changes. Leadership systematically makes this university an unpleasant working environment for legitimate education and research. I reserve explicit derision for the Provost, who serves up bald-faced lies about "optimisation," sending the same exact script to the New Zealand Herald and students alike; for the VC, who is, I don't know where; and for Phipps, who treats human resources with condescension. They have lost the plot because they don't talk to anyone outside of their bubble. Try talking with actual students and staff, not just the sycophant middle management whose job who are afraid to exercise critique for fear of losing their positions.
We all know we are being gaslit - everyone is being told something different, and those somethings amount to nothing while senior management (I refuse to call them leaders) hide and try to claim "nothing to see here". Even when they also say the quiet part out loud. And it is so obvious it deserves that Scooby Doo meme. Well we are all calling BS. The VC is not here or is hiding (so same old same old) and the Arts are being targeted - AGAIN. There was no real rationale pinned to actual data for the merger of Arts with CAI and EDSW and the "search" for a new Dean was farcical and pre-determined. These new "cuts" have similarly had shifting rationale posited but with no actual data because that would mean those up top actually taking responsibility for flawed vision and making mistakes (student hubs I am looking at you as another example). If we didn't have problems timetabling before these mega courses were proposed (and before the VC's arrival) maybe getting rid of them is the solution. We learn through our mistakes - isn't that what we tell our students? So woman up and take responsibility - yes you in the clocktower. You deserve all the sunlight to which we can expose you.
Senior Management you have failed us, [and] our students and those who are going to be crucial to solving wicked problems in Aotearoa going forward. We call BS and maybe we should be calling for demonstration of no-confidence.
This has crashed through the science curriculum in the past 2 weeks, unannounced, and suddenly we are being asked to cut and merge fundamental upper-level courses without rhyme or reason, apparently just to make space for 2 new first-year required courses which, whatever their value, are going to have to be generic, easy-breezy, "McEducation", due their huge size. We are being told to sacrifice advanced courses to make space, and being told it will be done for us, if we don't do it. Various ideas for the admin to be flexible on their end -- offer some of the slots for these 1st-year courses in the evening, weekends, online, etc. -- have all been systematically turned down.
All of this is on top of the Curriculum Framework Transformation's impact on the structure of science degrees, in recent months we have had to cut two important course requirements in our programme, despite these courses and their place in our degrees having all been set up just in recent years -- at the time with enthusiastic approval for making our degrees more modern, quantitative, and employable.
Faculty member view on Provost comments at student rally
After having watched the student rally and the Provost's response to student questions this afternoon, I wrote a summary of how what the Provost said contrasts with faculty members' understanding of the situation.
What evidence do we have that a 2+3+3 structure supports properly scaffolded learning, and that students will be adequately trained for postgrad or the workforce?
Do we need a WTR course that duplicates the aspirations of the already nested and relational capstone courses?
Do we need a compulsory TD course, at the expense of the transdisciplinarity we have worked for years to develop in existing programmes?
Why must TD and WTR be taken in the first year?
When will honest comparisons be made between the results of the CFT process and the aspirations of the CFT process?
How can we roll back changes that some (who perhaps saw the writing on the wall and grabbed their chances to restructure in their favour) are happy with?
as a student department rep, a staff member and a regular student, all of this has been handled so embarrassingly poorly by the upper management. so much duplicitousness and outright disrespect - instead of coming clean and clarifying and setting the record straight about what's actually happening, faculty management chooses to clarify things in meetings behind closed doors and not allay the (very real) concerns of rank and file students and staff. the students should NOT have to create a forum to demand answers, though i commend them for their leadership on this matter - it's certainly more than the Senate/committees at this university have shown so far. I am interested to see how the upcoming open day pans out re: course cuts, as it has made the news and I am already hearing that prospective students are concerned.
Over the past months, staff were asked to strategically "transform" our curriculum. We had been busy doing that when all of a sudden we were asked to "optimise" our curriculum (i.e., cut courses) with a very short time limit. I guess the idea was to cram more students into fewer classrooms to save the University some money and free-up staff (whose papers were cut) and classrooms for new mega 100-level courses? The tight deadline gave us no time to collectively strategise what would be best for our programs or students. We need to be including staff and students in these decision-making processes, not ramming through changes from the top which lack an understanding of what works on the ground.
The lack of student voice begs the question as to how the university plans to include the active involvement of student and staff voices in future steps?
This process is remarkably rushed. It is clear that bad planning has led to a situation where we don't the the resources to offer what we had expected to in 2026 hence this move. If people who are paid to plan had planned correctly, we would not be in this situation. To come out and frame it as business as usual and even some sort of strategic review is insulting.
A good solution would be to change the TD strategy from mass top down courses to more organic ground up courses coming from schools and faculties. That would help relieve pressure of mass timetabling and be more in keeping with transdisciplinary teaching and research. Some simple strategic moves like this would ease resourcing costs and associated financial pressure. Needs to be more faith in faculty process for achieving curriculum development and change.
Perhaps the TD courses are more expensive than the numpties budgeted for and the govt is cutting funding so now something gotta give so it’s your courses suckers. truly clown tower.
As of now, it seems that the outcome of the recent optimisation exercise at our university is the elimination of every course I've taught here, including one of the largest courses in my faculty and an entire major I've significantly contributed to. In light of these changes, my teaching load for 2025 has been reduced to just six weeks. Many students were looking forward to taking my courses next year, and I was eager to teach them, but it appears the university [administration] no longer values or supports this academic relationship.
After 16 years of service, while I am in the process of applying for promotion, the institution is dismantling everything I've worked to build. I am left uncertain about what my role, if any, will be from 2026 onwards. I no longer have confidence in our leadership or their vision for the future, and as a result, I will be seeking new employment opportunities.