Comments on: BoG Forces Sauder to Repay $2M to Students

By: Vancouver Window Cleaners

Vancouver Window Cleaners — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 02:19:39 +0000

Well written article! Good job guys.

By: lg

lg — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:25:26 +0000

So nice to read a piece of investigative journalism.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott

By: Future BComm

Future BComm — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:11:01 +0000

Great Article. I think the lack of honesty and transparency at Sauder is appalling as these are the things it teaches it students. Thinking back to first year now, I can’t believe I was convinced to vote for that referendum by what now seems like propaganda instigated by Dean Dan and a group of easily swayed Sauder students. Moreover, I don’t see any reason why Sauder shouldn’t regularly report it’s accurate financial position all of it’s students. Some regular accountability would only make things better.

By: Richard Ivey

Richard Ivey — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:29 +0000

Sauder only wishes they could charge a $15,000 tuition! And that was before Ivey began our new renovations!

Really though, this whole situation is quite BS and students should be absolutely appalled–where’s all the marketing majors posting this amazing article up on the latest social media forum?? This needs to get out in the open and it needs to happen right now!

By: J

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:06:38 +0000

Do Sauder admin has to scam the student’s tuition just to be at the same level with.. Richard Ivey? That’s pretty sad.

And where are the CUS people that were yapping “we will be your voice” when the students’ interest is being violated? Why do we even have this so-called CUS in the first place.

It’s mind boggling to think they could get away with this unscathed because apparently people are still thinking “what’s the big deal”.

By: snake in the grass

snake in the grass — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:16:38 +0000

Having recently completed my MBA degree at Sauder I find it ironic that one of the most important lessons I have learned from the School comes not from the Faculty but from the Administration, namely ‘beware the snake-oil salesman’.

While I find it troubling that Sauder has been sitting on these reserves and on this plan for some time, it’s not the fact that they exist that bothers me. More importantly, I believe, is the fact that we, as students, were guided down the wrong path by someone (some people?) who we placed our trust and faith in. More troubling still is that we did not challenge these presumptions, which we had a responsibility to do, particularly given the decision we were asked to make on behalf of future students.

I think a lot of the reaction that is being conveyed here today is not merely outrage, but also, to some degree, embarrassment that we had the wool pulled over our eyes…

Sauder Admin has some explaining to do. I’d like to see Phase 4 of the building project (sure to be unveiled only after the students are told that Phase 3 simply can’t be completed without an additional $6 gajillion dollars levied on their tuition… that’s right, I said ‘gajillion’) incorporate good old medieval stocks in a centrally-located public place for our illustrious ‘leaders’ spend some time in.

By: MBAanon

MBAanon — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:26 +0000

During the debate on this, the main arguments are ‘we need to support the dean’ and ‘it doesn’t matter because we won’t be paying for it.’ The argument that these upgrades improve education was spurious at best. If someone tried to debate the issue, they were insulted and treated like children by the student society. The issues raised in the article are not a surprise to me.

By: hdizzle

hdizzle — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:26:31 +0000

who cares, $500 is chump change. or as some would say “the cost of business”. If you want you attract the best, you have to spend money. Otherwise we will be like that other business school on the hill, whats its name now? BEEDIE school of business or something. We have to step in the right direction like RICHARD IVEY.

By: Insulted

Insulted — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:26:46 +0000

So to the extent the CUS has a referendum and scraps the fee the AMS is on the hook. Does the AMS have the right to collect a discriminatory fee from only one faculty?

By: Neal Yonson

Neal Yonson — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 23:49:43 +0000

The CUS is not a legal entity on its own. It is indeed merely a subsidiary of the AMS.

As well, the AMS did in fact sign an agreement guaranteeing the loan. It was approved by council on May 12, 2010 and I’ve uploaded the draft copy (which was ultimately approved) here:

http://ubcinsiders.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CUS-Sauder-Final-Agreement.pdf

Clause #6 is the one to look at.

“6. If for any reason the AMS ceases to collect the Student Fee, or instructs UBC to cease collecting the Student Fee (a “Student Fee Default”), then the AMS agrees that it will pay each year to UBC, no later than October 15th of each year, an amount equal to $500 for each student defined in the Referendum Documents until the earlier of a) the entire Loan Amount plus accrued interest thereon being repaid in full or b)35 years from the first date the Student Fee was collected. The AMS agrees that these payments shall be a debt owing to UBC. In addition to other ways it may fund these payments, the AMS may within its legal authority choose to collect these amounts from the CUS or its members.”