graphic designer, activist

Join the discussion

8 Comments

  1. Uniwersytet Zaangażowany is not an author of the description above the photos.
    We see the difference between the below sentences, yet we support the thesis that there is a huge difference between common consultations and normal legislative process, and would like to once more stress the fact that Rector and the Senate of the University of Warsaw should have done more to get in touch with the students.
    It is highly distressing that despite having advanced means to enable widespread debate and dialogue, those in power decided to show indifference, rather than reach out to thousands of people and asking their opinion.

  2. BTW: Katarzyna Błahuta is mentioned as the author. Replies come from “Uniwersytet Zaangazowany”. So who is the author of the text?

  3. Dear Uniwersytet Zaangazowany,

    Please just compare:
    “without even consulting the students.”
    with
    “It is not that there were no consultations at all, but the claim they were sufficient would be close to naivity”

    I see the difference: the first sentence is simply untrue and misleading. On behalf of all readers thank you for the rectification.

  4. And to clarify it further:

    There is a huge difference between changing the Rules of Study with a proper and widely – targeted information campaign, using a set of meetings supported with internet data collecting, rather than leaving it entirely to the Students Self-Government. It is not that there were no consultations at all, but the claim they were sufficient would be close to naivity. It is enough to say, that the first event opposing the new Rules of Study gathered 2500 “attending” reponses in four days, and was widely spread further.

    What’s more, the time between first and second protest was enough to gather 3000 signatures under the petition to revoke the new RoS, while the information campaign and the collecting of signatures was run by a small group of student volunteers.

    The reason for the protests is our disappointment and surprise, that despite having far more advanced means to contact over 40 000 students, the Senate and Rector of the University of Warsaw were not more interested in gathering the data on new RoS feedback, than was the forementioned group.

    What’s more there was no shown evidence, that limiting the time for writing the final thesis while using any form of fees in case of not delivering it “in time”, increases the quality of the research. We also believe, that the new RoS does not meet the specifics of several faculties. Due to the data we acquired, at the Institute of Etnology, there was just one person delivering their final thesis before the end of the fifth year. It is due to the fact that the field research is hard to accord with the course of the final years of the studies.

    We strongly support the thesis, that the increase of the quality is achievable by promoting the individual tutoring mechanisms and making the student-teacher relations more open for individual interest, rather than pressuring the students to accomodate their final thesis to limited time conditions.

    It is our belief that the innovation and new qualities contributed by research on all levels of education, are the utmost ideals of the University, that go long before administrative efficiency, which however necessary, can never replace Science.

  5. Dear Sir,
    regarding your pretty serious accustation let us direct your attention to several facts:

    – following the procedures of legislative process cannot be understood as public consultations.

    – Seven Principles of Public Consultations are easily available here: https://mac.gov.pl/files/7_zasad_30-04.pdf. Considering the fact that none of us knows why we do not follow them at our University we still believe that the readiness to change this condition should begin with noticing abovementioned differance.

    (http://yourlisten.com/Prezydium_PSUW/vii-posiedzenie-parlamentu-studentw-uw – our question considering the consultations: 1:14:10-1:14-20, Your answer: 1:23:20-1:23:25).

    – moreover please notice that the subject of public consultations which had place was already prepared project, which was already voted by Senate and after first signs of discontent expressed during the VI session of Student’s Parliament. Instead of the open debate students of this few faculties were asked “yes/no” question.

    We hope that this explanation will help us on our way to mutual understanding.

  6. “…without even consulting the students.”

    In January the project was sent to Student’s Self-Government.
    In March it was debated in Student’s Parliament.
    In February, March and April it was debated more than 4 times in two Senate Committees, with participation of student representatives and with their active involvement in amending the original proposal.

    Why do you spread the lie?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.