What’s going on?
UTS is gearing up for a major structural shake-up with two plans that are unfolding simultaneously; a Creative Industries Faculty Merger and Operational Sustainability cuts, to the tune of $100 million.
Creative Industries Plan: What is it?
Creative Industries proposes merging the Design, Architecture and Building (DAB) faculty with the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) – turning these former faculties into schools of their respective subject matter.
Instantly, I hear you ask “If FASS ceases to become a faculty and instead becomes a school, will its acronym change to SASS? Or will it simply drop the F and run with ASS?”. Although your question was stupid, you’ve stumbled onto an interesting point which is that currently, no one knows.
Staff are now referring to this new mega faculty as ‘Faculty TBC’, according to Dr Sarah Attfield, branch president of the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union) and senior lecturer in FASS/SASS/ASS (using all potential acronyms to hedge my bets). Attfield says the merger is ‘pretty much a done deal’, and will be happening as soon as Q1 2025.
There was word that this would mean the merger would occur as early as March however UTS Newsroom has confirmed with Vertigo that this is not the case. Which is good because it would be really embarrassing for me, as this article is slated for print in April.
Attfield casts doubt that the implementation could occur so speedily, considering the new faculty has no leader, and that structural change within UTS generally ‘takes ages’. However, management seems to be moving forward, having created a series of Faculty Implementation Working Groups in areas of Research, Organisational Culture, Teaching and Learning, and Operations, to provide insight, advice, and diverse perspectives.
Do I need to worry about it?
While management promises that us sweet little students will hardly notice the change, if you’re a good person (like me) who feels for all the tutors working in the Leichhardt lithium mines over the weekend to make ends meet, you might be curious about the effects of the Creative Industries Plan.
No need to despair here! The Creative Industries (CI) Change Implementation plan states that “The leadership structure and faculty level changes do not result in redundancies.”
The faculty merger “is not a cost driven one—it is a strategic decision to differentiate UTS from our competitors in the market.”
Which is brilliant! It’s a niche no one has yet filled! Other than bachelors degrees at MQ, WSU, SAE, JMC, QUT, RMIT, Flinders, UniSA… But in terms of UTS’s competitors within walking distance from campus, we will be unparalleled in the market.
It also doesn’t seem like UTS is planning on smooshing Communications, Visual Communications and Design degrees into Bachelors of Creative Industries. So why exactly this means that UTS will differentiate itself from its competitors, I don’t know. I’m yet to hear back from UTS management.
Based on the limited information currently available, it seems the Creative Industries Plan will impact UTS’s image, marketability, and management structures, but have little effect on staff and students… Hopefully.
Foundations for 2030: What is it?
According to the Vice Chancellor’s report, Foundations for 2030 and Operational Sustainability aims to increase UTS’s ‘annual savings requirement’ from 45 million dollars per year to 100 million dollars, aiming to reach this 100 million dollar annual savings by 2026.
(To one percenters like you and I - that may seem like water off a regal duck’s back that bathes in a celebrity's bathwater, or even a single straw on a camel that stashed the rest of its straws in an offshore account to appear broke - but UTS Vertigo’s empathy coach has informed me that to some of the less hard working members of society who haven’t figured out how to defy gravity and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, that is actually a lot of money).
These cuts initially seemed to be a response to the Labor Government’s cap on international students. When the Australian landlord class began to have pangs of guilt due to crippling housing unaffordability, the media stepped in to ease their worries by scapegoating international students who get absolutely railed by both university housing and private accommodation.
As these caps were debated, Universities Australia (insert insult here) stated the result could mean 14,000 tertiary job cuts across the country. In a media release, the NTEU responded that “threatening to slash 10 percent of the university workforce as a bargaining tool against the federal government is a cruel and callous way to treat staff”. But this legislation isn’t going through, right? So can everyone keep their jobs?
Well, as worded by the NTEU in a statement, “Uncertainty around these changes have created a vacuum allowing opportunistic vice-chancellors to put job losses on the table.”
This uncertainty stems from multiple places. Overall, international student applications have been falling since 2024, and Ministerial Direction 107 has introduced stricter criteria for international applicants. Regardless of who wins this year's federal election, a reduction of international numbers will likely stay on the policy table.
This uncertainty has meant that UTS management continues with the 100 million dollar figure.
At the staff town hall last year, a graph was presented with potential pathways to financial recovery.
One line showed the current trajectory of UTS’s savings, projecting a return to surplus in 2027, with significant growth expected in 2028.". Another line represents Operations and Sustainability - a “potential path to sustainable result through -$100m targeted intervention”. This returns UTS to profitability by the 2026 Financial Year. This graph was titled with the upbeat ‘We need to do more’. Very inspiring!
Arguably, this Graph shows management is using these savings as a financial buffer in case of further market instability, rather than as a necessity. Associate Professor Paddy Gibson, who is on NTEU branch committee, noted that staff are asking “what's the rush, why these two years, why are you willing to hurt so many staff and the quality of education just for an extra two years of surplus?”.
Paddy agrees that the uncertainty is cause for concern, but that for the UTS NTEU branch, their argument is to “Look after your staff, look after the actual people that make up this institution, because whatever challenges we face, we’re going to be in a better position to deal with them and grow if you have a well functioning staff cohort.”
UTS have engaged one of the big four consultancy firms, KPMG, to analyse financial viability. As KPMG are not experts in the education sector and have an (alleged) history of unethical and corrupt behaviour, I’m sure they’ll do a great job and not cost a pretty penny themselves. Paddy described the introduction of private consulting firms as “more evidence they’re running this university like it’s a big business.”
So… Do I need to worry about it ?
The Operations and Sustainability Plan is still in the consultation process - management has held multiple meetings with staff to discuss the changes, with another ‘town hall’ scheduled in April. Those at the alumni green rally on the 12th March were estimating that between three and four hundred jobs would be cut, based on the last time UTS cut funding during COVID.
According to Stop The Cuts UTS, management will consider cuts for any subject with a negative financial margin, which puts a hefty 66% of subjects at risk. Smaller subjects with less than 80 students enrolled are especially at risk, as these are not big financial winners, despite having high educational value. These are subjects that teach specialist knowledge for specific professions and areas of academia.
Paddy told me that “What’s at risk here is public interest research and public interest education. The research that is threatened, and the academics that are threatened, are ones that are not bringing in external income, and the main way that people are looking to bring in external income is by partnering with corporations. They’re more and more pushing the university to be an arm of big business rather than a public interest institution.”
How are they related?
On the relationship between the Foundations for 2030 Operational Sustainability and the Creative Industries Plan, the CI Plan states that “The two programs of work are not interdependent, but it is likely that they will intersect.”
While the Creative Industries Plan will not bring about redundancies, and student experience will not majorly be affected, Operations and Sustainability makes no such promise. It’s hard to believe that it won’t be detrimental to class sizes and student choice. Staff in both teaching and research will be optimised for profit.
I hope I am wrong in believing that Foundations for 2030 is the red right hand that slashes jobs and courses, while Creative Industries is the shiny new image. There is still time to oppose Foundations for 2030 - so keep an eye out for rallies and petitions if you’re interested.
As this is a developing story, Vertigo will cover new information as it comes to light - in the meantime remain hoping that the demise of FASS can lead to the rise of SASS.