'Mind boggling' as university to cut jobs and courses amid financial worries
Wales Online readers have been reacting to the recent news that Cardiff University is planning to slash 400 jobs and discontinue various degree courses. The proposed cuts have sent shockwaves through the community, with many reeling from the uncertainty surrounding the future of academic programs and employment.
On Tuesday, the university disclosed its intention to reduce its academic workforce by approximately 400 full-time equivalent roles, which represents 7% of its total staff. Compulsory redundancies will be considered "only if absolutely necessary".
Courses in ancient history, modern languages and translation, music, nursing, and religion and theology are set to be axed, with some schools facing mergers. Joey Whitfield, a lecturer in Hispanic studies and chair of the University and College Union (UCU) at Cardiff University, expressed deep concern, stating: "It is very bad. People are in shock and very distressed."
READ MORE: Drug dealer refused to give police phone PIN - so they just pointed the screen at his face
READ MORE: Undercover police burst in on gang to find them surrounded by £62,000 cash and £230,000 of cannabis
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has expressed its concern about the proposed closure of Cardiff University's School of Nursing. In a statement, the executive director of RCN Wales, Helen Whyley said: "I am very concerned about Cardiff University's proposal to close its School of Nursing. This proposal comes at a time when Wales is facing a severe nursing shortage, with thousands of vacancies placing immense pressure on an already overstretched workforce.'
Facing a projected £28m deficit for the current financial year, the university has suggested that the changes aim to create "a slightly smaller university refocused around our core and emerging strengths".
The final proposals are slated for review by the University Council in June after a three-month consultation period.
Wales Online reader Junehill feels: "Unfortunately though, I am in total agreement with those who don't believe that to become a nurse you need to have a degree. Unless and until any government in power looks at reversing this. There are no alternatives. The University training was brought in by the Blair dynasty, who let's not forget, changed doctors contracts also, letting them opt out of them working out of hours, weekends or holidays. Because as was stated by the Blair government that doctors needed to have a viable and appropriate life/work balance. My granddaughter is currently over half way through her uni nurse training, but many of her peers have and are dropping out. Mostly because of financial restraints and the amount of debt that they accrue whilst they are students."
Dapdancer adds: "Some of the comments on here about scrapping nursing degrees being a good idea are mind boggling - of course nurses need a degree level qualification - maybe in the 1950s it was OK to learn on the job, but not with all the technology and treatments these days - we can and do require nurses from abroad to have these qualifications, do we expect our nurses to be less qualified or should we just import all our nurses from abroad - it seems like things are moving that way."
Kaypea believes: "Nursing never used to be a degree and that on the job training allowed people who were not keen on school to get on in life. It will be said that nurses do so much more these days. Great, you can still learn in the workplace."
Dafen50 comments: "Regardless of political views and whether or not nurses should be qualified to degree level or not, up-to 400 employees could be facing redundancy, losing their jobs and lively hoods. So sad for all of them and the families affected."
Dingle6677 says: "We only need universities for certain roles, as it was in the past. All the micky mouse courses should go. As for nurses they should be trained on the job as it was in the past no ifs or buts. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs, get people earning, with full time hours, paying tax, creating wealth for themselves and the country, that's the way forward."
Csider1 points out: "The cuts are due the dire financial situation of universities across the uk due to the Tory government changing the rules on postgraduate dependents. UK universities got between 30-60% of their income from postgraduate students and so losing that money has had a massive impact. What's compounded the issue at Cardiff U is the huge money spent on new buildings over the last decade, most of which were not needed. Academics playing at property development!"
MiriamDavies writes: "Reality has finally caught up with the money making scheme. Courses which are a waste of time and certainly a waste of money. Staff on silly wages that don't reflect the real world (where everyone else lives). In reality, they just want overseas students and fleece them for 22k per year. To be a nurse, it shouldn't need to be a degree course - but an apprenticeship in the hospital - where they can learn and earn at the same time."
CardiffSouth adds: "I went to Cardiff Uni and a wake-up call for poor teaching. Too many academics in roles than fail to teach undergrads/I had just a few hours a week and told the rest to do online. Lazy!"
Cantonkid1955 says: Perhaps the Vice Chancellor needs to look in the mirror, and ask herself if she is worth £290 grand a year, plus expenses, plus car. The whole university senior management need cutting back in jobs and salary.
Arfabrain thinks: "Universities are just companies looking to make profit, simple as that and lets be honest degrees in reality are generally worthless in most instances, as few ever work in the field that they studied in. Also soon AI will soon replace most of these positions i.e. doctors lawyers accountants etc as AI is found to be more accurate with no personal opinion."
Do you believe the university is going about the right way to save money? Let us know in the comments below or HERE.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
EPA set to roll back rules that limit greenhouse gases and mercury from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to eliminate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, part of a wide-ranging rollback of environmental regulations that Administrator Lee Zeldin has said would remove trillions of dollars in costs and 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also plans to weaken a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The planned rollbacks, set to be announced Wednesday, are meant to fulfill President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to "unleash American energy" and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' He said the actions would put a 'dagger through the heart of climate-change religion' and introduce a 'Golden Age' for the American economy. Environmental groups vowed to challenge the rules in court. 'Power plants are among the largest sources of dangerous pollution in the nation. We have modern technologies that allow these plants to reduce pollution with available and cost-effective solutions,' said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. The clean-air standards targeted by the EPA under Trump, a Republican, "are protecting people across America today and will safeguard future generations,'' Patton said. 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,'' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Our lawyers will be watching closely, and if EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules — the Biden administration's most ambitious effort to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector — would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or to climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Our research shows that EPA's power plant rules make substantial strides to protect human health and the environment,'' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,'' Bergman said in an email. 'And we also would have seen significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans voted for deportations. They didn't necessarily vote for this.
There is an emerging conventional wisdom about the increasingly aggressive Trump administration deportations and troop mobilizations that underlie the scenes in Los Angeles. It holds that people really want to deport undocumented immigrants. And that means they don't sympathize with the demonstrators and won't care that Trump is taking extraordinary steps – i.e., calling in the National Guard without gubernatorial approval for the first time in 60 years and mobilizing the Marines – to address the unrest. 'America voted for mass deportations,' White House adviser Stephen Miller posted Wednesday on X. He added that the demonstrators in Los Angeles are 'trying to overthrow the results of the election.' It's worth questioning this premise. In fact, it seems the deportation operations that set off the protests could alienate many Americans – as could Trump's latest move to apparently involve troops in Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Americans voted for deportations when a plurality backed Donald Trump – who'd spoken openly about his plans on the trail – last November. But they didn't necessarily vote for this. We saw something quite interesting on Tuesday. Amid all the discussion of Trump's actions to quell the protests, a handful of House Republicans – all of them Hispanic – stepped forward to suggest Trump was going too far with his deportations. The administration seems to have moved from focusing on undocumented immigrants who they allege have committed crimes to a much broader campaign, including targeting workplaces like Home Depot. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the White House, frustrated by its lower-than-hoped deportation numbers, has pushed to – in Miller's words – 'just go out there and arrest illegal aliens.' The Journal reports this has meant setting aside the longstanding practice of developing target lists for deportations. But at least four House Republicans cautioned against that approach: Rep. David Valadao of California said the administration should 'prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years.' Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida cautioned against deporting people 'that have been here for a while.' Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida suggested some of the people being rounded up could have legitimate asylum claims about the dangers of returning to their home countries. And Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas told CNN's Jake Tapper that he worried about deportations targeting 'the milker of cows who's, you know, in 103-degree weather.' He added: 'If you're going down where, you know, you're just picking up everyone who's here illegally … that takes you away from tackling the biggest problem in our country, which in my eyes is the convicted criminal that makes all of us unsafe.' The fact that these are Hispanic Republicans certainly stands out, given Hispanics are often the targets of Trump's deportations. But the issue they're highlighting is a valid one. While Americans strongly favor the broad concept of deporting undocumented immigrants, that comes with some real caveats. People love the idea of deporting criminals and recent border-crossers. Polls suggest they do not like the idea of deporting the kinds of people these lawmakers mentioned. A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year showed that Americans opposed deporting people 'who have a job,' 56% to 41%. They also strongly opposed deporting people who came here as children (68-30%), the parents of US citizen children (60-37%), and undocumented immigrants who married citizens (78-20%). A March Marquette Law School poll was similar. While 68% broadly favored deportations, that number dropped to 41% for people who have been here for years, have jobs and have no criminal record. And a February Washington Post/Ipsos poll showed Americans opposed deporting people who haven't broken non-immigration laws (57-39%), those who arrived as children (70-26%) and those who have been here for more than 10 years (67-30%). The problem for the administration is that these groups cover large swaths of people who would likely – and indeed already are – getting swept up in its deportations. The broader you go in your effort to make good on the 'mass deportation' promise, the more likely you go after sympathetic targets. A case in point: A huge proportion of undocumented migrants in this country have US citizen children, due to birthright citizenship. Pew last year estimated 4.4 million citizen children have at least one undocumented parent. Given Pew estimated there are about 11 million undocumented immigrants in total, you can do the math. A very large number of that 11 million, if deported, would leave behind citizen children and result in separated families. (The administration has in some cases sent the citizen children with their deported parents, but that too has created problems.) Similarly, the new move to apparently involve the National Guard in ICE operations could rub people the wrong way. While Americans have in recent years warmed to harsher deportation methods – especially during the border influx under the Biden administration – getting the military involved is taking things to another level. A CBS News/YouGov poll in November showed Americans opposed involving the military, 60-40%. (CNN polling in 2020 showed Americans opposed deploying the military to protests by a similar margin: 60-36%.) One of the big unknowns in all of this is how much people really care. Maybe they say these things to pollsters because they like to sound compassionate to at least some undocumented immigrants. Maybe they truly believe them, but it's just not that important to them. Trump seems to be banking on people wanting undocumented migrants out – and believing his often-exaggerated claims about Los Angeles – and not worrying too much about the details. But we've already seen how Trump's often haphazard and aggressive approach to this subject has rubbed people the wrong way. Despite historically low border-crossing numbers early in his second term, his numbers on immigration have often turned negative, and people have had real problems with things like the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and sending people without due process to a brutal prison in El Salvador. The danger for Trump, as it often is, is that he goes too hard, too fast, without taking care in the way that US presidents and politicians should. If his administration is going to pursue a much broader mass-deportation effort, it will test the tolerance of not just the protesters in Los Angeles, but lots of Americans.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
EPA set to roll back rules that limit greenhouse gases and mercury from US power plants
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to eliminate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, part of a wide-ranging rollback of environmental regulations that Administrator Lee Zeldin has said would remove trillions of dollars in costs and 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also plans to weaken a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The planned rollbacks, set to be announced Wednesday, are meant to fulfill President Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' He said the actions would put a 'dagger through the heart of climate-change religion' and introduce a 'Golden Age' for the American economy. Environmental groups vowed to challenge the rules in court. 'Power plants are among the largest sources of dangerous pollution in the nation. We have modern technologies that allow these plants to reduce pollution with available and cost-effective solutions,' said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. The clean-air standards targeted by the EPA under Trump, a Republican, 'are protecting people across America today and will safeguard future generations,'' Patton said. 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,'' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Our lawyers will be watching closely, and if EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules — the Biden administration's most ambitious effort to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector — would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or to climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Our research shows that EPA's power plant rules make substantial strides to protect human health and the environment,'' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,'' Bergman said in an email. 'And we also would have seen significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health.' Daly writes for the Associated Press.
