Student Survey Summary

Student Survey Summary In early March, the FGSA conducted a survey of the current forestry graduate student body to ask (1) where students stand with regards to the restructuring of the Faculty of Forestry and (2) what actions students would like to take while the consultation process is open. Approximately half of the currently active student body responded. Four major issues were raised: branding, autonomy, finances, and future directions. This is a summary of the students’ comments and concerns.

BRANDING The student body is unanimously concerned about the branding of Forestry in Daniels. As written in the proposal, there will be no formal name for the forestry unit other than its program titles (PhD, MFC, MScF). With concerns about program independence and that the forestry discipline stays intact under Daniel’s, in addition to the public’s opinion on the credibility of this program, the student body wants to structure the program as a school or department. Mention was made of internationally renowned programs such as the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Science. Alternatively, students suggested that forestry be added to the Daniels faculty name or include terms such as sustainability and conservation within the branding but with an err of caution to maintain a multidisciplinary stance and not to focus too much on branding U of T forestry as an urban forestry program. Another major concern from students was the amount of information made available to current and prospective students. The website is out of date and contains little to no information about the restructuring. The undergraduates have little idea of what is going on this late in the process and most alumni have not gotten the message. The students want to be sure that in the face of the restructuring, more information will be brought to prospective students about both the restructuring and the program in general to assure them that they are pursuing a legitimate education in forestry, despite the unintuitive nature of the program being under design, landscape and architecture. There needs to be more advocacy to increase enrollment.

AUTONOMY The students are advocating for written assurance that the forestry program will have an acceptable level of autonomy when faced with faculty-wide decisions. There are many things being promised to the forestry program that have not been recorded. This is concerning, especially for the long term goals of Forestry. If U of T forestry merged into Daniels, it would be unavoidable that forestry will to a certain extent lose some autonomy. In this state, forestry may gradually lose its competitive advantage over other forestry schools in Canada. As a result, U of T forestry may be forgotten by people many years later. Suggestions on having a Vice Dean or Associate Dean of Forestry may be beneficial, but more information is needed about what these positions entail, though the addition of this position would negate the positive financial impact of not having a Dean.

FINANCES The student body has mixed opinions about the finances. Some believe finances should not be an issue since merging with Daniels will put Forestry in a better financial position. Many are concerned that the endowment funds originally allocated for the Faculty of Forestry, and want to ensure they remain solely within the program, though this is written in the proposal. With the concern of autonomy, forestry should be able to dictate the details on hiring new professors and to ensure the $1 million added to the base budget will at least ensure the sustainability and growth of the program within Daniels as well as

towards forestry related collaborations. There is also concern about existing Daniels debt in relation to the recent 1 Spadina reclamation. Despite the final goals of this restructuring, many students are still very much confused on the rationality of the restructuring if the main reason is on a financial basis. Undergraduate enrollment provides Faculty funding, and if the professors are teaching all the courses anyways, it is unclear why Arts & Science maintains these courses. There is also confusion to why the $1 million is contingent on this restructuring. If the programs are not meant to change, how is this restructuring improving the financial status of forestry? It was also pointed out that, as a non-profit institute with over 3,700 staff members on the sunshine list as of 2018, why finances seem to always be on the top of the list of priorities. If the university is “is dedicated to fostering an academic community in which the learning and scholarship of every member may flourish”, as stated in their mission statement, why is money the focus and not finding ways in which forestry education may expand, especially with the growing concerns about climate change.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS In terms of the hiring of new FTE’s and some of the future aspects of Forestry in Daniels, the student body is generally optimistic with the change, though are cautious about the directions it may take. When the hiring of new FTE’s takes place, the student body agrees that we should look towards maintaining some current topics hosted by current professors approaching their retirement. These areas (ecology, silvics, climate, wood materials, social aspects, etc.) are broad but highly relevant for at least another generation. There were also suggestions to add FTE’s that are from government or professional organizations. Apart from the broad areas pertinent to forestry, the students embrace the idea of hiring FTEs with areas of study that will benefit both forestry and design, landscape or architecture. This ensures the programs remains interdisciplinary and has a balance between researchers and professionals which is a factor that has driven many students to pursue a degree in forestry. It was also suggested that there should be a timeframe for the hiring of 5 new professors, preferably before finalizing the program structure – the way UBC had done for urban forestry. A major concern is also with the accreditation. When the restructuring takes place, there should be extra caution taken to ensure the MFC program can remain accredited. Suggestions also included looking into the accreditation of undergrad programs or having multiple streams for MFC students.

OTHER The most prominent concern is getting everything in writing. Promises and clarifications have been made in person but it is not a guaranteed once the restructuring is underway. The written component will ensure changes promised will get made, but will also give some certainty for the future. It is also suggested that a long term plan should be made for the faculty that should involve reestablishing the undergraduate programs under the new faculty while allowing the unit to become economically stable, even if it is necessary to move to UTM or UTSC. The written plan should also include a mission/ vision statement that will ensure that changes are made according to those principles. The students would also like more information about program requirements and if they will change. The proposal states that the requirements will be determined by Daniel’s, how can we ensure they are tailored to forestry, and would any changes effect students currently enrolled in these programs? Particular concerns are for the PhD qualification and graduation requirements. Finally there is a concern about relaying more information about the restructuring. In particular, how will the new forestry unit be administered? What are the thoughts and concerns for the alumni and NGOs that are related to forestry? How are the interests of these groups being represented?