By Satvik R Sharma

Today, the University of Sydney’s Academic board voted down a proposal to reduce the length of simple extensions from 5 days to 3 days in a crucial vote that came down the wire, with one deciding vote leading to the proposal failing. Let’s not understate this, this moment is a win for students throughout the university.

Simple extensions for those who aren’t aware of the system are a form of extensions available that get approved instantly, providing flexibility to students with various extenuating circumstances that may result in one requiring an extension. It is different to the special considerations system, which is a lengthier process that also requires extensive supporting documentation, with simple extensions simply requiring a simple student declaration.

About 30% of students have used simple extensions. They are a mainstay of student life, and allow University of Sydney students the flexibility to maintain their study loads while pursuing work, extracurricular commitments, or to allow extenuating circumstances not to affect one’s studies. 5 days is a crucial timeframe as it is long enough to allow students to get on track, however they also are not too long as to reduce the value of assessment tasks and deadlines altogether.

However, I wish to recount to you how this almost did not happen. How the student body would have been left with 3 day simple extensions which would have reduced student quality of life.

At academic board, proposals were made to amend the simple extension system to make it simpler and fairer for students. The primary two were to do away with the requirement of a student declaration (which is quite cumbersome), with it being replaced with a dropdown menu and a text box. In addition, the circumstances in which simple extensions were significantly expanded to include items such as work and other extraordinary commitments, allowing flexibility for the student body when it came to utilising the simple extension system.

However these vital changes were bundled in with the proposal to reduce the length of simple extensions. On one hand you have vital amendments that improve quality of life for students. On the other hand, reducing the length of simple extensions would have a disastrious impact on students.

Various Academic Board members, and guests from SUPRA spoke to and for the changes being made. What is notable however is how mixed the reaction was to the whole host of changes proposed. Each issue was divisive and there was a possibility that the motion would have succeeded, simply because some Board members just wanted some of the reforms implemented.

This is where I stepped in. I did what no one else (strangely) did not even think to do. To move an amendment. An amendment to keep all the other vital changes while preserving 5 day simple extensions.

Due to the confusing nature of the meeting, with many AB members not sure what was going on, my amendment did not pass. However it started an important conversation as to delineating the length of simple extensions and the other changes that were proposed. The chair proposed that the changes we moved back down to a committee for examination, but along with some of my AB colleagues, we moved down quickly to shut down that suggestion in the interests of students. Instead we pushed both issues into two separate votes. Eventually when clarity was established, the changes to conditions and the doing away of a student declaration passed, and the amendment of the timeframe of simple extensions from 5 days to 3 failed.

Let’s remember that it was my initial amendment that resulted in this outcome. Everyone had on their mind that either the entire package was voted in, or voted out, which with either option would have led to a suboptimal outcome for students. It was my amendment that started this conversation and ultimately led to this amazing outcome for students.

This attempted push towards moving towards 3 day simple extensions however highlights why student engagement in student politics is vital. Many times students run for position simply to serve their own self-interest, or to represent an activist left wing class that is completely unrepresentative of student opinion. Student politics should not be a mock presentation of parliament, and nor should it be about padding CV’s. It should be about serving students with conviction, as I did at the Academic Board meeting held today.

Academic Board elections for student representatives and SRC elections are to be held in Semester 2. I advise that everyone vote in these elections, and that individuals vote for candidates that genuinely care about students. For far too long, the activist class and CV padders have dominated student politics, and it is now time for students with conviction to come to the fore, students who spend student money and time addressing student issues, not international issues.

Satvik Sharma is the Treasurer of the University of Sydney Conservative Club. He is also a Councillor on the University of Sydney Student’s Representative Council, holding office-bearer positions as Environment and Global Solidarity officers. Satvik also sits on the University of Sydney’s Academic Board, and he sits as a student representative on the Business School Faculty Board.

Editorial note: All contents within Sydney Tory articles, including this one simply reflect the opinion of the author and are not to be taken as representative of the positions of the University of Sydney Conservative Club. In line with USU, SRC, and University guidelines, the Conservative Club does not endorse any candidates for any student political position. However we do encourage active engagement in politics, including student politics