Dear Friends of TechBC: We're not out of the woods yet - the decision comes
down next week - we still need your voices and your support.

The future of the Technical University of British Columbia (TechBC)  is at
risk!  Let me highlight the issues and what you can do to help.

The possibility of TechBC closing has arisen because of the government¹s
current core review.  Unfortunately, the government does not understand the
uniqueness of TechBC¹s programs and the accomplishments of our learners and
faculty. We need to help the government understand our uniqueness and our
importance to the future of British Columbia.

At TechBC we call our students ?learners¹.  This is not just to be
different!  The word student implies a certain time of study.  We believe
that the young people we are sending into the high-tech sector must be
life-long learners.  They need to learn to learn, so they can keep up with a
constantly changing industry.

Our programs do not duplicate those of any other university. TechBC is the
only public university in the country specializing in high-tech education,
degrees and research. The B.C. government is committed to doubling the
number of high-tech university graduates; TechBC, with its programs in
Information Technology, Interactive Arts and Management and Technology, is
in a position to help achieve that goal.

And it¹s not only our course content that is unique. Each course is taught
through a combination of web-based e-learning and in-class sessions where
learners work in teams to complete assignments. In this way they learn the
collaborative skills that will be needed in the workplaces of the future.

We hear many positive comments from our learners.  Here are just a few:
  
³I have learned more in two months at TechBC than I did at other
universities in two years.²

³I would have to go to several universities in order to get the education I
get here in one spot.²

³TechBC offers women more opportunities to work with technology.²

But the current situation has learners concerned ­ justifiably ­ about their
future. As one learner puts it:

³What will happen to my goals if this opportunity is stolen from me?²

It is not only the learners who help make TechBC unique. Our faculty have
come here from all over the world because they believe that TechBC
represents a new way of learning and research. Our professors could have
gone anywhere to teach ­ they chose to come to TechBC.

Unfortunately, issues around the ICBC building under construction next to
Surrey Place have clouded the TechBC story.  The former government planned
to provide space for TechBC in the building, and the costs of that building
are unfairly hurting the university¹s reputation.  Not only would TechBC be
only one of many tenants in the complex; the building is not essential to
TechBC¹s future. If necessary, we can and will find other space in which to
learn, to teach, to conduct research, to engage in partnerships with the
private sector.  

The costs that TechBC has incurred in this start-up phase are not
extravagant and not at all unusual in the start-up of any operation.  These
costs are already beginning to drop, as the initial development of programs
is almost complete.

For many years a group of people from the Surrey and surrounding area
lobbied for a university for young people from the Fraser Valley.  TechBC is
providing innovative programs for the new world and helping young people
from the Fraser Valley and indeed from across British Columbia prepare for
the future.  Our province can¹t afford to let this initiative die.

Please contact your local MLA or the Premiere directly and voice your
opinion or help us any other way you see fit.

There's a new tool for expressing your support for TechBC. Please sign the
online petition at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/techbc/petition.html<http://www.petitiononline
.com/techbc/petition.html>


Sincerely, with thanks for your support,

Camille Baker
Graduate Learner - Interactive Arts
Graduate Learning Assistant - Management & Technology
The Technical University of BC, Surrey, BC
(604) 586-6178

The responses below show the changing political and financial context TechBC
has survived to date.
 

MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
 
1.  Tech BC costs have far exceeded original projections and several targets
set for the university have not been met.
FACT:
TechBC's first set of financial projections were established in August of
1998 with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology
(Academic Plan Information -- August 1998).  The 1998 report established a
five-year enrollment projection, staffing targets and levels of both public
and private funding that would be sought.  The major assumption made in this
report was that TechBC would undertake the planning, design and construction
of its permanent facility, to be open during the 2000/01 academic year.
 During the summer and fall of 1998, ICBC began discussions with government
concerning its desire to develop TechBC's permanent facility.  Protracted
negotiations between ICBC, the Ministry and TechBC ensued, with formal
agreements being signed in March 2000 stating that TechBC would move into
its permanent facility in 2003 (a full two years after the original plan).
The formal agreements laid out the financial details of the partnership,
with TechBC costs flowing through from the Ministry of Advanced Education,
Training and Technology.  The Ministry is now including the lease and
prepayment costs outlined in the ICBC agreements when it indicates that
TechBC costs have been increasing.  These costs have increased because the
Ministry is including both capital and operating costs in the numbers it is
using, and comparing these to previous numbers which included operating
costs only.
 Once the formal agreements with ICBC were signed, TechBC and the Ministry
began discussions around funding for interim space.  TechBC proposed that
the Revy site, located at the Scott Road SkyTrain station, two stations
removed from TechBC and still in Surrey, be purchased as an interim facility
until the permanent facility was complete.  This facility would have
permitted TechBC to deliver its program to approximately 1400 students and
to provide space that would be sublet to private partners. MAETT  rejected
this proposal, and lease costs for an interim 88,000 square foot facility
within Surrey Place Mall were then added to TechBC's operating budgets for
the 2001/02 and 2002/03 academic years.  These are also costs the Ministry
is now including in its financial model, even though these additional costs
resulted from the late completion date of the ICBC project.
 The August 1998 report set enrollment targets and private partnership
revenue based on the assumption that TechBC would have approximately 450,000
square feet of space available during the 2000/01 academic year.  Given that
the interim space at Surrey Place was less than 100,000 square feet in
total, the original student numbers could not possibly be accommodated in
this space, nor would the private partner funding targets be possible, given
that much of this revenue was assumed to result from subleasing excess
TechBC space as student ftes increased.  The Ministry hired a consultant to
examine these revised assumptions, and in October 2000, the Peter Adams
report provided a new set of enrollment targets (245 in 2000/01 compared to
the original 400 in 2000/01; 497 in 2001/02 compared to 969) and external
revenue projections.  The Ministry appears to be ignoring the fact that
these new projections were arrived at jointly between TechBC and the
Ministry after the ICBC deal was signed.
 
MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
2.  The original vision called for TechBC to have 1440 students by
2001/2002.Only 400 are enrolled.
 FACT:
Since TechBC has been operational, its first business plan (Academic Plan
Information - August 1998) projected 969 learners for the 2001/02 academic
year.  Those targets were revised in the October 2000 Peter Adams report to
497 DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS.
 We understand now from the Minister that the 1440 figure was arrived at by
dividing TechBC's total operating costs in 2001/02 by a computed per fte
figure.  The five-year operating grants agreed upon in the August 1998
report were never meant to be per fte costs -- they were to reflect TechBC's
developmental nature.
There are 436 learners enrolled now.

MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
 3.  The provincial government costs for each fte student position is five
times greater at TechBC than traditional universities ($59,000 vs $12,500).
 FACT:
There are two reasons the TechBC per fte costs are higher -- one the result
of curriculum design and development that will disappear within a year and
the other the result of the Ministry comparing a number for TechBC which
includes space costs with figures for the traditional universities, which do
not include space costs.
 The $59,000 per fte number includes the up front costs of planning,
designing and developing 400 modules, 10 academic programs, and the online
infrastructure and learning models required to support TechBC's academic
programs.  While this assumes higher "front end loaded" costs initially,
these costs mean that, unlike other traditional universities, TechBC retains
a valuable academic asset.  Traditional universities typically incur few
developmental costs associated with its academic programs; however, the
valuable intellectual property of courses leaves these universities when a
faculty member retires, goes on sabbatical, or finds a job elsewhere.
 The $59,000 per fte the Ministry is using for TechBC includes everything in
TechBC's operating budget, including the interim lease costs.  The $12,500
figure for a traditional university does not include space costs, since
these costs are recognized in the capital budgets of these universities and
are therefore not included in the calculation.  The comparison is therefore
invalid.
 The Ministry is not considering the downstream lowering of costs at TechBC.
One of the merits of our e-learning based approach is that development costs
are up front. We have developed over 400 modules in a rich multimedia
context. This means that students do not sit in classes with 500 students to
hear a lecture. Rather they experience the lecture in a rich format, on
their own time, and can play back key parts as often as they like. Learning
is much more effective and the academic assets that TechBC has produced
represent a benefit to TechBC, the province and BC's post-secondary system.
 Once the modules have been developed, they can be delivered to many
students at low marginal cost. In fact, Price Waterhouse has estimated that
that the cost per learner over five years for technology delivered training
is less than a seventh that for traditional training. Price Waterhouse also
did comparison on costs per year and found that a technology delivered
course cost 25% more in its first year than a traditional lecture/lab
format, but it declines rapidly to a third of the cost of traditional
delivery by its third year. (See
www.forbes.com/specialsections/elearning/contents.htm)
 Our cost reduction projections are even more dramatic than this. We
estimate that five years out, our costs per learner will be substantially
less than the costs of other universities¹ technology courses.
 
A significant financial benefit of the TechBC model is in its space costs.
Even though TechBC's lease costs in the Surrey City Centre project appear
high, the amount of space required for the same number of student ftes would
be substantially higher for a traditional university.  In 1998 the Ministry
agreed that it would provide space to TechBC at 53% of the space standards
of the Ontario Council of University (COU) standards.  Traditional
universities in the province have been asked to decrease their space
requirements to 90% of COU standards, many of them down from over 100%.
Therefore to house these same student ftes elsewhere in the post-secondary
system would require a substantially higher space budget.
 And finally, TechBC's potential as a magnet for the creation and nurturing
of new high tech companies in the region is just now reaching fruition.
TechBC can become known as the centre of a critical mass of exciting applied
researchers and students and soon the financial impact of the model will
begin to be felt in the region.
 Summary: the Ministry penalizes with two inconsistent treatments: it
includes capital and startup costs for TechBC (and not for the others) and
it uses early year costs for us, but ongoing costs for the others. This
basis does not allow TechBC to show the reaping of delivery efficiency. We
look forward to comparisons of other new universities in BC start-up costs
and space requirements.

 MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
4.   TechBC was to develop partnerships with industry for applied research
that would cover one-third of total salary costs. This has not happened and
revenues from industry are negligible.
 FACT:
The August 1998 Academic Plan Information report set enrollment targets and
private partnership revenue based on the assumption that TechBC would have
approximately 450,000 square feet of space available during the 2000/01
academic year.  Once the date of move into a 450,000 square foot facility
was delayed dramatically by the ICBC proposal, TechBC had to find an interim
space solution.  When the Ministry rejected the Revy proposal, interim space
at Surrey Place was leased. The interim space was less than 100,000 square
feet in total, rendering the private partner funding targets impossible,
given that much of this revenue was assumed to result from subleasing TechBC
space (which would not be fully occupied for the first 3-5 years) and
developing relationships with the subleasing high tech companies.   The
Ministry hired a consultant to examine these revised assumptions, and in
October 2000, the Peter Adams report provided a new set of lower external
revenue projections.
The Ministry appears to be ignoring the fact that these new projections were
arrived at jointly between TechBC and the Ministry after the ICBC deal was
signed. The original goal of immediate and extensive industry partnerships
for TechBC had to be cut back when the government was unable to move ahead
with providing TechBC with sufficient space.  Many industry leaders are
still in active discussions.
 
MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
5.   Government will work with TechBC and will also explore additional
options with other post secondary institutions.
 FACT:
TechBC will continue to work with government. A key way to do that is to be
sure that we are looking at an apples-to-apples comparison with other
universities. This means common exclusion or inclusion of space
requirements, start-up costs and life cycle/ongoing costing.
 TechBC is also exploring options with other universities. But the
government must recognize that TechBC is a different model than other
universities, and that its programs are unlike those at traditional
universities. For example, TechBC is truly interdisciplinary, so that
students learn to think, design and manage with technology. In other
universities, students take fine arts courses from one faculty and computer
science from another. There is no integration. What makes TechBC different
is that this integration cascades through all aspects of programs. In this
way graduates will be able to get the academic context of technology but
also be able to apply and transcend it.  You can¹t take this new concept and
plunk it in another university without destroying what makes TechBC
graduates uniquely able to navigate the 21st century.
 A second unique aspect of TechBC that may not survive a merger with another
post-secondary institution is that TechBC learners work completely in teams,
and learn with a combination of rich, multimedia online lectures with
applications/case study in class.  The objective is not to have faceless
lectures in 500 seat lecture theatres.
 Other universities would require additional space if they were to absorb
TechBC learners. The cost of providing space (i.e., constructing a new
building) would have to be included in the cost of transferring learners.
MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
6.  Students have been assured that their current academic year will not be
in jeopardy.
 FACT:
The Ministry has publicly stated that the current academic year of TechBC's
400 plus learners will not be jeopardized.  This is incorrect, however, for
their year is already seriously compromised as a result of the government's
statements concerning the uncertainty of TechBC's future.  While there may
be a commitment on the government's part for TechBC learners to complete
their 2001/02 academic studies at TechBC, they are anxious about their
personal futures as well as that of the University.  Because TechBC is both
a new and innovative university, transfer arrangements with other
institutions are not well developed, and students do not even accept that
they will fit into other programs at traditional universities with different
pedagogical models. There is for example no other Bachelor of Science degree
in Interactive Arts in BC or in Canada. TechBC's learners are extremely
concerned that their degrees will be worthless unless TechBC continues.
 The very reason that TechBC was created (a major shortage of available
seats into BC's high technology academic programs) means that there are not
available seats to ladder TechBC learners into without significant cost
implications.

MINISTRY¹S STATEMENT:
7.  The University signed a legally binding 25-year lease agreement with
ICBC, which owns Central City, prior to construction two years ago.  TechBC
agreed to a rate of $426,000 per month for the space.

FACT:

During the summer of 1998 Bob William, Chair of ICBC, approached the
Minister of Advanced Education, Andrew Petter, with a proposal to become the
developer of the TechBC campus at Surrey City Centre (the City of Surrey had
announced in July of 1998 that it was providing TechBC with 12 acres of land
at Surrey City Centre).  The ICBC proposal assumed that ICBC would purchase
Surrey Place Mall, and that the 12 acres of land provided by the City for
TechBC would be combined to support three phases of development.  Phase I of
this project is currently under construction and ICBC has renamed the
project Central City.

TechBC was "informed" about the ICBC proposal in the fall of 1998 when Bob
Williams and Bing Thom, the architect for the project, presented their
proposal to TechBC's Board of Governors.  Since July of 1998, when the City
announced the transfer of the 12 acres of land to TechBC, TechBC had been
undertaking a formal process to hire an architectural firm to design a
TechBC building on the 12 acre site.  Shortly after the meeting between Bob
William, Bing Thom and TechBC's Board of Governors, the Ministry of Finance
and Corporate Relations directed TechBC to put a stop to its process to hire
its own architect.  TechBC was then directed by the Ministry of Advanced
Education, Training and Technology to proceed with the negotiation of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ICBC, TechBC and the Ministry
ensuring that the costs of the Surrey City Centre project were "off book".
TechBC did this, and in August of 1999 the MOU was signed by all three
parties.  Two of the formal agreements, the Development Agreement and the
Mutual Objectives and Endowment Agreement, were signed by all three parties,
while the Lease Delivery Agreement, between ICBC, as landlord, and TechBC,
as tenant, was signed by TechBC and ICBC.  All agreements were signed on
March 10, 2000.  The Development Agreement is the agreement, which lays out
the details of all other agreements in the package and indicates the
province's approval of the proposal, the financial arrangements and the
schedule.  The lease rate was set by ICBC in the MOU, prior to signing of
the formal agreements, and was set at an annual interest rate to ICBC of
seven (7) percent. 

All agreements assumed a lease arrangement with ICBC as landlord and TechBC
as tenant in order for the project to be interpreted as "off book".  TechBC
objected to the ICBC proposal from Day 1 ­  it would have been faster and
more cost-effective for TechBC to construct its own facility.  The
government of the time, however, argued that the Surrey City Centre project,
led by ICBC, included social benefits to the province that TechBC alone
could not fulfill.



TechBC Fact Sheet


What We Are
    
o TechBC is the newest university in BC-the only university in Canada
without a union, tenure or senate. Its core values are innovation,
flexibility, collaboration and entrepreneurship.

o TechBC is a niche university, specializing in high-tech education, degrees
and applied research.  Presently, TechBC offers degrees in:
o Information Technology- cutting edge expertise in the technologies of the
future
o Interactive Arts- interface of technology, arts and multimedia
o Management and Technology- blending of technology and business.
o Additional program areas will be added over the next several years.

o The undergraduate program is heading into its third year; graduate
programs are being launched throughout 2001. There are approximately 430
learners (including 30 graduate learners); this year, projected to grow to
1170 by 2004/5.

o TechBC is currently operating out of a temporary, edgy ³Betaspace² at
Surrey Place.

o TechBC currently employs about 160 people.

o The budget of $23 million pumps about $150 million into the local economy,
annually. 

o TechBCis meeting the new fiscal reality by freezing its budget over the
next three years. Strategic partnerships will generate applied research
revenues and graduate, certificate and other programs will operate on a full
cost recovery basis.  Funding per learner will decline by two-thirds by
2004/5.


Why We¹re Different

o TechBC is the only university/industry hybrid in Canada.  It combines the
best practices of both in teaching, corporate education, co-op placement and
as a high-tech incubator. TechBC Corp, a subsidiary of the university, was
formed to act as an ³open for business² partner with industry.

o TechBC is a blend of academic studies and applied skills, so that learners
have the ability to get jobs while understanding the context of technology.
In short, TechBC graduates will be uniquely able to navigate the 21st
century.  

o TechBC¹s interdisciplinary approach ensures that learners excel in the new
economy, where technology, new media, arts and business meet. Unlike other
university programs, this approach creates professionals who thrive in a
culture of change, and can therefore lead the process of innovation in BC.

o TechBC offers a new learning approach, combining multimedia on-line
learning with face to face coaching.

o TechBC employs a team-based approach to both teaching and learning, so
that knowledge is shared and increased, TechBC graduates achieve a balance
of both hard and soft skills.



How TechBC Will Help Deliver the New Era

o TechBC is directly positioned to help BC double its number of high-tech
leaders within five years.

o TechBC¹s graduates will not only be technically proficient, but also have
the context skills to function in the new economy. They can do this because
they have the right mix of academic and applied content, the teamwork to get
things done in the real world, and the interdisciplinary skills in business,
technology and interactive arts. Business leaders praise our co-op program.

o TechBC, with its expertise in online multimedia-based learning, is
uniquely positioned to strengthen on-line learning throughout the province.

o TechBC is a linchpin in on-line training for professionals in technology
and specifically in how technology will work in the new economy.

o TechBC can make health training and delivery more effective by:
o using its multimedia, online expertise to develop and deliver a rural and
remote training program for health professionals
o developing remote diagnostics capabilities

o TechBC¹s new approach to learning focuses more of the education dollar to
improving the quality of education for students

o TechBC¹s new approach to learning produces graduates who can adapt to and
innovate with technology. As technology advances, TechBC graduates adapt and
lead. This means that the TechBC approach builds in sustainability.

o TechBC can be a lead generator of programs, methods and strategies in the
government¹s education export program.

o The province will benefit from greater prestige as the university furthers
BC¹s reputation as an innovation leader, both nationally and
internationally.



TechBC: What¹s the Benefit?

The seven MLAs who represent the voters of Surrey have done a disservice to
their constituents and to every fair minded taxpayer in British Columbia. By
releasing an opinion piece to the media condemning TechBC as being fiscally
irresponsible smacks of political posturing and shortsighted adherence to a
faulty logic.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the group of seven uses misinformation,
outdated numbers and dubious arguments to paint TechBC as a noble experiment
must be dismantled. Never mind the significant investment that has already
been spent. Never mind that the economic benefits will never be realized. If
the MLAs are to be believed there is nothing positive or economically viable
about TechBC. This type of flawed logic and selective use of statistics
would never warrant a passing grade at our university.

What began as a vision for advanced education in the high technology field
became a reality in the form of TechBC, and remains a credible and
cost-effective way to realize the vision. To use the government¹s own
mantra: don¹t blink! Now is not the time to second-guess the value of the
investment. The front-end costs have been loaded but the downstream benefits
cannot be realized unless the university is allowed to continue.

According to the press release, The Ministry of Advanced Education has
reviewed the TechBC business plan, and yet the MLAs persist in referring to
inaccurate and misleading figures on student enrolments and costs as if they
come from the Business Plan. For the record: TechBC was supposed to have 470
students enrolled as of September 2001 (not 1400 as the MLAs claim) and the
university currently has 441. The MLAs claim that the cost per student at
TechBC is over $50,000 (never mind that last week they claimed it was
$60,000, and the week before ?). What they do not acknowledge is that the
$50,000 includes developing the courses ($18,427), infrastructure such as
furniture, facilities, planning for the new building which we were pressured
into leasing ($15,947) and course delivery ($24,688). Do the same
calculation for the startup of other university and the cost per student
will be equally high!

The reason TechBC has had difficulty meeting the original revenue targets
has more to do with the government than with the institution. How do you
attract world-class faculty and significant private sector investment when
the government refuses to provide you with the space necessary to hold
classes, conduct research and build your credibility? Against the odds, and
in spite of what the MLAs suggest, TechBC has attracted first rate faculty,
over $2 million in research funding, and $468,000 in commitments from the
private sector.

The options being explored by the Minister of Advanced Education to have
other post secondary institutions assume TechBC¹s role will not reduce the
financial burden on British Columbians. It will simply transfer it. We are
in the process of submitting a very aggressive Business Plan to the Minister
with the assistance of a panel of highly respected experts including Mike
Gurley, former Deputy Minister of Finance in the Harris government in
Ontario. 

We have some homework for the Surrey MLAs. Explain to your constituents:
? Why the government is questioning a university that will enable Surrey
residents to navigate the 21st century, at a time when their government
promises to double the number of technology graduates
? Why they ignore life cycle costing. Why throw away an investment that is
front-end loaded (already been spent) and give up reaping the benefit down
the road? TechBC will deliver technology graduates at a lower cost than
traditional universities within two years and forever thereafter.
? Why the Ministry cosigned the lease agreement
? Why young people in Surrey will have to endure long commutes when they
could have had a local, first rate university


The MLAs suggest that we can¹t continue making decisions for the short term.
³True leadership means making the tough decisions for the public interest in
the long term.² To them we say: the decision to create TechBC was an
appropriate long-term solution to doubling the opportunity for knowledge
professionals in British Columbia. True leadership is not letting
short-sighted misinformation undermine the long-term benefits of sound
investments like TechBC.


 


....please pass the word to friends, family, and complete strangers....


 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(a) (c) (o) (u) (s) (t) (i) (c) ( ) (s) (p) (a) (c) (e)
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
information&comunication channel | for net.broadcasters
http://xchange.re-lab.net  (Xchange)  net.audio network
xchange search/webarchive: http://xchange.re-lab.net/a/