Post-grad or Pest-grad: will the new Sabb help or hinder students?

Is there a need for a Postgraduate Sabb?

John: Definitely. The Education Officer currently deals with all Academic issues, which in a primarily academic institution, seems senseless. Apart from that being the most overburdened set of responsibilities, it dilutes representation for everyone as neither viewpoint can get adequate focus when they have to be balanced in the arguments of one representative. It’s also a fact that Undergraduates and Postgraduates are very different. In one year Masters courses there is no overseer to enforce year-on-year improvement. PhD students have the continual problem of being treated like students or like staff whenever it suits the University – and rarely when it suits the student!

George: If this is the case, then why do we not have a specific Undergraduate Sabb? Next year’s UG intake is the first to pay £9,000 fees; surely UGs need their own advocate to make sure they are getting a fair deal from the university? Separate UG and PG Sabbs may lessen the burden for the Education Officer but would also diminish their impact, which doesn’t benefit anyone. Would a bolstered PG SSLC system not help resolve academic representation?

J:  I think that the Education Officer should be a specific UG Sabb. The PG SSLC system is actually very strong compared to that at Undergraduate level, except that there is nobody to carry it over from year to year.

G: What about the possibility of an UG being elected to the PG Sabb position? It is unlikely, but not impossible. Do our representatives need to reflect their constituents, or can anybody do the job? Has anyone even asked for a PG Sabb?

J:  An UG would have as much to learn for the role as a Master’s graduate, especially given the variance across faculties. There hasn’t been a wide call for this. These changes come from the people who currently handle PG issues and have identified a Sabb role as being the most effective approach. I think you have to respect the perspective of a two-term Education Officer and a President who was formerly Welfare Sabb. At the very least, it will be an interesting experiment.

G: One of the controversies here is that separate Democracy and Union Development officers will be sacrificed. In an ideal world, where the Union has an unlimited budget, the addition of a PG Sabb wouldn’t be contentious. This is essentially an experiment as there is no evidence to suggest a PG Sabb will be more effective than the current system we have in place.

J: The ‘sacrifice’ is just because those roles were split recently, and it doesn’t work. I fail to see how we can criticise having two officers for Academic matters when we now have three with overlapping influence on extracurricular activities (Sports, Societies and Campaigns). The Union needs to do more to engage with PG students.

G: Sean Ruston’s policy to establish a Postgraduate Association would help the Union engage with PG students, yet this has not been given a chance to operate independently of a PG Sabb. The PGA could have resolved issues of PG representation without the need for a Sabb. This policy was backed by the general meeting in November, and in no part of the policy does it specifically mention a PG sabb.

J: I don’t have any faith in the PGA; it’s just a re-labelled Postgraduate Forum, and that couldn’t solve our issues either. Postgraduates are quite autonomous, and what we lack is the high-level representation that this Sabb should deliver.

G: The Sabb team are elected to represent the whole student population, which includes PGs. The roles and duties of the PG Sabb are already covered by the Education officer; prior to this change, the Education officer was specifically mandated to give a voice to underrepresented students, such as postgraduates.

J: Councillor positions are 3:1 in favour of undergraduates, and that’s before you consider that most of the officer positions also go to Undergraduates. I really see only benefit in dividing the ridiculous workload of the Education officer into Undergraduate and Postgraduate matters.

G: There is nothing to stop PG students running for sabb positions currently. These changes leave UGs without a specific promoter; of course the whole sabb team work to support UGs, but by granting PGs their own advocate, UGs might feel somewhat isolated. Could a similar approach not be taken with PG students, as with international students who represent 28% of the student population? Instead of creating an ‘International Sabb’, the Union adopted a policy of internationalisation to involve these students, with each sabb working towards engaging with this group.

J: International undergraduates are more willing and able to participate than postgraduates (many of whom are international). We expect systems to work for us, rather than having to join the system to make it work. The Union needs a different approach.