Category Archives: news

SURVEY MONKEYING AROUND

The VC is said to have been pleasantly surprised by the warm reception given to the plans for UA92 by the people of Stretford. We have to wonder how he gained that impression. At a recent public consultation, Gary Neville and our own Professor Sharon Huttly experienced at first hand the frustration felt by local people at the lack of information from Trafford Council, the Class of 92 and Lancaster University (staff here will no doubt fully sympathise in this regard). Reports from the meeting suggest that they were in fact taken aback by the strength of the opposition.

Perhaps the VC was relying on the results of an online poll conducted by Trafford Council, which apparently showed that 75% of local residents were in favour of the scheme. However, doubts arose about the reliability of this poll when it emerged that respondents were presented with four options for each survey question, three of which could be interpreted as positive responses. This is an approach to assessing opinion familiar to anyone who has ever completed a Lancaster staff satisfaction survey. Oh, and it was possible to fill in the survey as many times as you wanted. We must hope that further decisions on UA92 will be informed by better research. Perhaps if we are really lucky, they will create a word cloud (see subtext 160)!

CONSULTANCY NEWS

Some colleagues in Leadership and Management, facing the imminent dissolution of their department and their transfer – if they’re lucky! – to Organisation, Work & Technology or Entrepreneurship, Strategy & Innovation, have expressed disappointment at what they see as the thin business case presented by the Dean of LUMS, Prof Angus Laing, to justify this restructure. Perhaps the Dean should have consulted some experts in organisational change within business schools . . .

. . . like, for example, the experts at Nurture Higher Education Group, http://nurturehighered.com/, a consultancy firm founded in January 2017 which provides ‘ongoing longer-term support to assist schools in working through major change programmes’ and can offer ‘unrivalled guidance geared towards enhancing the competitiveness and sustainability of their institutions.’ They’ve got offices in Covent Garden – well, they’ve got an address in Covent Garden, managed by Garden Studios at 71-75 Shelton Street – and an impressive array of associates. Anyone wishing to avail themselves of Nurture’s consultancy services should contact its Chairman, Prof Angus Laing.

BRAVE NEW WORLD

Obviously inspired by subtext’s recent embracing of technology, the Vice Chancellor has decided to bring his particular badinage of vernacular to Twitter, and you can follow him at: twitter.com/VCMarkESmith

Amongst pictures of him mingling at conferences, praising speakers and announcing his speaking engagements, we noted that the VC recently retweeted a WonkHE columnist’s list of the ‘dumbest university rankings’, which included the Spiked Online ‘Free Speech’ league table and the People and Planet’s green ratings as its top two. Neither of which Lancaster does particularly well in, but to be fair they are both admittedly dumb tables – what causes us to pause for thought is how the VC feels about some of the other ‘dumb’ rankings we’ve received that have featured prominently in the University’s marketing.

SPECIAL REPORT: END OF PART ONE

Are the days of Part I at Lancaster as we know it numbered? The paper ‘A proposal for radical improvement’, drafted in July 2017 by the Dean for Academic Quality and recently seen by subtext, would have required very rapid change to be implemented in time for an October 2019 start. The response from many departmental heads of teaching was not positive – ‘it can’t be done!’ said one – and the whole matter has gone out to a working group.

The basic idea is easy to state. In place of three Part I subject options (which in faculties other than FASS usually means two subjects in your major and one in your minor), the student would study:

– Only major courses in the first ‘core’ term; then

– A mix of major and minor courses (usually one-third major for a single honours student) in the second ‘exploratory’ term; then

– Back to your major subject for the third ‘bridging’ term.

Final assessment of courses would take place at the start of the following term, so there would be no end-of-year examinations, except for the third term’s courses which would be assessed by coursework. The emphasis moves towards the programme, and away from the department or the module. This approach to assessment, moving away from the end-of-year exam as main arbiter of success, shows the influence of recent educational research and the team in OED.

So could it work? In terms of content, staffing and timetabling, the main change would see first years studying just their major in the first term, in order to help them ‘become inducted and assimilated into their academic disciplines at an early stage, as well as beginning to learn some of the most important material for their degrees’ and ‘speed up progress towards a feeling of belonging to students’ academic disciplines, programmes and departments.’ This frontloading of core content is contentious. For many of our programmes, the deep learning occurs in the second term, after everyone is hopefully settled in, but this approach may no longer be feasible under the new proposals. Some departments have suggested that professional accreditation would not be possible under the new system.

The description of second term options envisages an ‘anything goes’ mix. There might be non-standard options in a student’s own discipline, alongside courses designed to broaden the horizons (Physics’ former Part I in ‘The Universe as an Art’ is mentioned approvingly) and double-weighted ‘switching modules’, designed specifically to enable those thinking of ‘switching’ to move into that subject more or less straight away, so their third term courses could be in their new subject.

For departments that currently offer minor-only Part I courses, this might not be too great an increase in workload, but for departments that currently mix major and minor students together, it could represent a significant hike . . . unless of course your current major class is so big that you’re on the verge of double teaching anyway, in which case, so the thinking goes, why not offer two slightly different streams?

It’s not entirely clear how combined honours degree schemes – which can currently be run efficiently with relatively small numbers due to the sharing of modules with single honours students – would fit into the new model, especially during the core term. Natural Sciences gets mentioned, as a consortial scheme for which ‘programme teams have little flexibility and find their students’ requirements can be subservient to those of departments,’ but there’s no mention of how Natural Sciences could fit into the new Part I structure.

Methods of assessment and concerns over timetabling aside, the end result might turn out to be, well, not entirely dissimilar to the educational experience at several other universities. A traditional course at a redbrick might include 75% of compulsory courses in the first year, alongside a variety of options, including for most students the opportunity to study courses in other departments. Lancaster’s approach to the first year, by contrast, is now rare in England and Wales. Scotland has always done things differently of course.

When you look beyond the thoughtful proposals on teaching styles and assessment methods, these ‘radical’ proposals for our Part I start to look rather like what everyone else is doing. Maybe the truly radical option would be to keep Part I largely as it is?

END OF PART ONE PART TWO

As well as the implications for departmental workloads, these proposals also carry major financial implications that seemingly haven’t figured in any of the plans. Departments or degree schemes with small student numbers are very dependent on the revenue that Part I minor students provide. DeLC and Sociology, for example, might not survive the loss of income, nor would they survive losing the students who opt to switch into their degrees after enjoying minoring their subject during Part I. It is proposed that the Senate be consulted on the implementation of these changes at its next meeting – not whether it should happen or not, we hasten to add, but the implementation.

There are some very angry and upset members of staff in a number of departments. We have already reported on various departments being asked to slash their budgets (subtext 165), and a struggling degree scheme being berated and threatened with closure if things don’t turn around (subtext 167). Has the prospect of a mass exodus of smaller departments figured as an issue in the proposals, or, to be conspiratorial, is something being pre-empted here?

FACETHING

Our Facebook page continues its octopoidal stranglehold on the internet, and we’re getting used to updating the thing and maturing into proper Content Providers. If you like us, like us, at www.facebook.com/LUsubtext

SPORTS NEWS

TAKING ON THE STRETFORD END

In this issue, we publish a letter from a Stretford resident stating some of the objections from local residents to the siting of the new UA92 in the middle of their community (see Letters below). This is symptomatic of the growing – and strengthening – opposition in Stretford to the plans announced with much fanfare in September. Shortly after that announcement an online petition was launched which within days attracted over 900 signatures. The petition – addressed to Trafford Council – highlighted the environmental and social impact of having a 6,500-strong ‘student village’ built in the area. Local people have long campaigned to have the damage caused by previous ‘regeneration’ schemes to be put right, and were hoping that the current Stretford Town Centre Masterplan would at least begin to address this. Instead, they are having to deal with a scheme which, in their view, would make their situation worse.

Residents are particularly incensed that all this has been presented as a fait accompli by Trafford Council. There had been no consultation with residents and even local councillors had been kept in the dark. Since the plans were announced there has been one public consultation meeting, with another to come. However, some of those who attended the meeting are of the opinion that the Council is simply going through the motions and that it was all a done deal. At this stage, it is not clear if it was UA92 that first approached the Council for a piece of the Trafford Masterplan action or if it was the other way round. What we do know is that MediaCity in Salford was under consideration as the UA92 site when, late in the day, the Stretford option appeared on the table, suggesting that it was Trafford Council who made the approach. It would appear that the star appeal of the Class of 92 was such that the Council was prepared to make a significant change to its own development plan in order to accommodate their wishes.

Trafford is not the first local authority in the area to be dazzled by the glamour of these footballing legends. Earlier this year the Salford Star announced the winner of one of its annual awards for ‘the most deserving individuals and organisations in the city for their stupid statements, dodgy dealings and iffy activities over the last twelve months’. And the winner of this accolade for 2016 was Salford City Council for ‘the very strange manner in which planning permission was obtained for Salford City FC to develop its Moor Lane stadium’, the same club that’s 50% owned by the Class of 92. And who owns the other half? Why, none other than Mr Peter Lim, who already controls 75% of the said Class of 92. The Salford Star also highlighted the role of a company called Zerum Construction Management Ltd, which seems to specialise in helping development companies find the cheapest way through those pesky planning regulations. A quick search of the Companies House database reveals that Zerum is 75%-owned by a Mr Gary Neville. Not for nothing has the Star decided to name its annual prize the ‘Gary Neville Finger in Pies Award’.

***

GIGGSY THOUGHT ON HIGHER EDUCATION WITH FOOTBALL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE GETTING RICHER ERA

The UA92 website continues to astound with its philosophical pronouncements and its steadfast refusal to be bound by niceties of syntax and logic. Its ‘Vision’, we are told, is to ‘educate preparation to realise dreams’. And what does this mean? Apparently, it’s about ‘giving our graduates the tools, challenges, support and confidence to make amazing happen.’

Ryan Giggs, long-experienced in giving 110% effort when he played for Man U, gives his own prescription for ‘making amazing happen’. ‘Here at UA92’, he states, ‘we believe that tenacity, preparedness, passion and hard work play an equally important role. Add commitment, inner fire and the right preparation, and you can compete at a level far beyond your inborn potential…’

While we at the Mother Campus limit our ambitions to helping students develop to their full potential, at UA92 they will be encouraged, nay enabled, to go ‘far beyond’ that potential. To infinity and beyond, indeed. And all this, in the closing words of the ‘Vision’, will be ‘underpinned by the academic rigour of top-performing, world-renowned Lancaster University.’

We have been warned.

***

MAN-U-SPLAINING

Aside from lauding its ‘good character building’, UA92 has also been publicly committing itself to a widening participation agenda.

Presenting educational opportunities to people from marginalised communities requires tact, empathy, and an understanding of the barriers that people face, and who better to smash stereotypes and level the playing field than the Class of ’92? A body whose commitment to ‘closing the gender pay gap’ and ‘generating… public interest in the women’s game’ culminated in their sponsorship of the Lingerie Football League (http://tinyurl.com/yce32ouz)

We look forward to UA92’s positive presentation of poor, disabled, and ethnic minority students. We suggest a flashmob of soot encrusted children in Victorian dress, Joey Deacon impressions, and a black and white minstrel show [that’s enough – ed].

UNIVERSITY OF THE YEAR

How long does it take to repair a leaking shower door in the changing room of the new Faraday building? Although brand spanking new, the door was damaged in the repair then discovered to be a discontinued part, so an entire shower unit, less than a year old, was ripped out. After several revisions of Planon status a new unit was eventually bought and lay next to a messy hole in the floor awaiting assembly until last week when the job (requested 24th August) was finally completed. A random survey of the half dozen daily users who had to traipse towel-clad to the nearest facility discovered a range of opinions as to how long one would tolerate such a situation at home before devising an alternative fix (e.g. an IKEA shower curtain at £1.50). Answers ranged between 24 and 48 hours. During the survey it was discovered that one reason for the queue of users was that the showers in the even newer Physics building were installed with NO door or curtain. Their first use led to a flood, and they have been deadlocked ever since!

SHAKE, RATTLE AND ROLL

The other week LU Text informed us of planned ‘canopy work’ outside Fylde:

‘From Monday 30th October, a section of canopy which has been installed to the Fylde Building along the South Spine will be worked on. Completion of these works is planned for Friday 3rd November. Noise disruption is expected in the immediate area. External work at Fylde will take place during the times of 7.30am–4.30pm Monday to Friday and 9am-4pm Saturday and Sunday.’

Teaching staff may remember to warn students that they will be subject to the bomb shelter experience (see subtext 167) – the room may shake every few minutes accompanied by loud bangs and crashes and you may be gently showered with dust from the ceiling. Teaching staff may remember to tell students, but the intermittent nature of the thumps and the level of noise does not stop them, and indeed the member of teaching staff (understandably) ‘jumping’ and/or squealing.

What LU Text did not warn those of us teaching on the ground floor of the Charles Carter building was that a large generator would be making so much noise that you could hardly hear yourself think, let alone shout loud enough so the students could hear you.

BIG BROTHER IS STILL NOT WATCHING YOU

We are informed by the powers that be that there continues to be a number of unexpected teething problems with the new attendance monitoring system. How long are ‘teething problems’ supposed to last? subtext understand that these ‘teething problems’ continue to mean teaching staff spending a not inconsiderable amount of time finding out who is not and who is in the lecture theatre – sometimes half the actual session. And then, the surveillance machinery overrides what you spent your precious teaching time inputting. And of course there are some students who are genuinely concerned about what is going to happen to them when they are not being picked up by the surveillance machine.

YOU SAY ERRATUM, WE SAY ERRATA

In the previous issue of subtext, we incorrectly noted that Phil Neville had a brief and inglorious stint as Valencia manager. An eagle eyed reader has informed us that it was in fact Gary Neville who had a brief and inglorious stint as Valencia manger, while Phil Neville enjoyed a longer and just as inglorious stint as Valencia assistant manager.

THE PERFECT BUS STORM

Your travel correspondent has had little to excite him of late. Journeys to and from work have provided little in the way of amusement. Until the middle of half-term week, one late morning. The single decker bus arrives and the awaiting crowd steps back to allow an older man with a wheeled walking frame to board the bus. He is followed by two mums with a pushchair each – one a giant ‘state-of-the art’ thing that looks as though it would be good for ‘off-roading’. The driver is obviously under the illusion that the bus is some form of Stagecoach Tardis which will expand to accommodate any number of passengers – more and more people clamber on. The student passengers all seem to have massive over-sized handbags or completely stuffed backpacks. More and more people get on and we set off (illegally) on our journey. By this time your correspondent (comfortably ensconced in his window side seat) was intrigued how this would all pan out. This was made all the more interesting by the willingness of the driver to stop at the Infirmary and stuff more folk on the bus, including a young woman with a child in a baby-wrap. She had bags of shopping and a polystyrene cup of coffee which causes a frisson of nervousness to ripple through the bus. Incredibly some passengers managed to get a hand free and attempt to use their mobile phones. More entertainment was provided by the bus having to stop at almost every stop on the way to the University to let some passengers get off. This all meant an extended journey time to work but was a price worth paying for an entertaining people-watching experience.

UPON FÜHRER INVESTIGATION

As promised in the editorial, here is everything we know regarding the defacing of posters with Nazi graffiti. The story that we published in subtext 166 refers to three separate incidents in the Sociology Department over the summer. We understand that all of the incidents took place in the evening after lockdown, suggesting it was someone with access to the department. Nobody knows who did this and there appears to be no connection between the three incidents. Security were informed and there were no further incidents. Those whose doors were targeted were postgraduate students, two of whom have subsequently left Lancaster (upon completing their studies, not as far as we know owing to the graffiti).

We understand that there have been incidents of posters being defaced with Nazi nasties for quite a while – certainly more than just this summer.

It was in April when the first incidence of hate-fuelled graffiti were brought to the Sociology Department’s attention by a couple of PhD students. A few posters with references to terrorism were taken down, after being graffitied with comments like ‘Bomb them all’.

After raising this matter with the Head of Sociology and the doctoral directors it was agreed to take it ‘higher’. A meeting took place with two Bowland Assistant Deans, who suggested that little could be done. This may in part be because College Deaneries are not responsible for academic departments, so it is not clear why they were contacted in the first place. University House was contacted and asked for a public notice regarding the policies on hate speech to go out but, as far as we know, this wasn’t done. This starkly contrasts with the actions of other universities such as Exeter and Cambridge, whose VCs or spokespeople issued public statements condemning such behaviour after similar incidents earlier this year.

It is frustrating that there has been no broad denouncement at Lancaster of this sort of behaviour. Tensions are running high on an international scale, and even if it is sadly no longer surprising to see growing support for fascistic ideals, we must treat each incident with equal rejection.

LESSONS IN HOW NOT TO DO THINGS

Not long after the messy introduction of a divisive plan to close down a department in LUMS (see subtext 165), subtext learns of some rather odd and worrying developments in the Law Department. The Head of Department, Professor Alisdair Gillespie, held a ‘secret’ strategic review to determine the future of the various Criminology degrees at Lancaster. It is not clear who was in attendance at the review meeting but no staff were involved. Then, lo and behold, a meeting was announced. All staff were to attend including those on annual leave and sabbatical. No agenda was circulated and no details given as to what the meeting was to be about. Staff gathered in the lecture theatre, somewhat perplexed and obviously worried about what this was all about. Professor Gillespie then proceeded to embarrass and humiliate the people who deliver the Criminology programmes in front of the entire staff group. Recruitment is apparently not good enough and if things do not improve he threatens to cease all Criminology teaching in the department, and staff will have to leave. He does concede that he may not have the full facts or the correct data, but apparently he is passing on the thoughts of Andrew Atherton. He also alluded to the fact that HR have known about this proposal for some time.

Criminology at Lancaster is rated No. 1 in The Times University Guide.

YOOF TINGZ

Our Facebook page has enjoyed a health influx of attention since we announced its launch in the last issue. As part of our ongoing synergised cross-platform interdiscursivity initiative, we’d like to draw your attention to it again and ask you to like / share / follow / thingamajig us on www.facebook.com/LUsubtext

VALUED MEMBERS OF STAFF

In the last edition of subtext we reported on the problems of staff on termly contracts and their inability to get a staff bus pass. subtext has learnt of similar problems concerning hourly paid teaching staff who drive to work, and although we have historically avoided publishing stories about parking, we felt this one needed some further discussion on the grounds that a group of staff who are already marginalised and on insecure contracts were being treated unfairly.

Teaching staff attending the security building to renew their staff parking permit for the academic year were somewhat shocked to be told that unlike last year, they are no longer eligible for a staff permit. No prior warning, no correspondence informing them of this change in policy. Despite offering to pay the same amount as they had paid last year – and perhaps more importantly, the same amount as other staff still pay (!) – they were told that they are not eligible for a staff permit and would have to park ‘at the bottom end of the campus’.

The fact Lancaster University is situated on a hill is coincidental but this is highly symbolic; those ‘at the top’ (i.e. ‘proper’ staff) were deemed to be worthier in that they are given the ‘right’ to park in a more convenient location, over those ‘at the bottom’. For those staff, the issue with parking ‘at the bottom’ is not related to laziness but is more about feelings of inequality and the apparent power imbalance.

Why is it that these staff are no longer eligible? Is it because they are not ‘full-time’ members of staff. No. So it must be because they are ‘part-time’ members of staff. Well, no. Apparently the explanation given is that due to a lack of parking and over-subscription for permits, a review (which was not communicated to those concerned) had concluded that restrictions needed to be made and teaching staff who are also undertaking a PhD were the group to be targeted for cut backs. Staff-students have been discriminated against over both full-time and part-time staff who are not studying alongside their teaching. Essential teaching staff are vital for our Part I delivery and are apparently valued members of the research community when we tell stories during our strategic reviews and in our REF narratives. Welcome to the inclusive academic community.

Oh, and for those members of staff (regardless of status) who don’t have a permit at all, it seems there has been another price hike. The car park by the tennis courts has tripled in price from £1 per day to £3 per day. Thus endeth our gripe about parking.

NEVILLE MIND

Phil Neville is the somewhat less famous of the two brothers in the Class of 92, our new partners in UA92. In recent years he has become better known for a brief and inglorious career as manager of Valencia FC (owner, Peter Lim) and for his narcolepsy-inducing football commentaries for Sky Sports. This has not deterred him from seeking to branch out into the world of political punditry. The recent appearances of Hillary Clinton on TV to promote her new book prompted him to tweet: ‘Hillary Clinton on the One Show’ along with a laughing-face emoji, followed by: ‘Hillary you lost move on’. Nice.

This was not Phil’s only foray into the maelstrom of American politics. After the Presidential election result was confirmed, Phil announced via twitter: ‘I knew Trump would win’. This prompted a certain degree of scepticism among his many followers, several of whom responded along the lines of: ‘Yeah, sure you did, mystic Phil’. But others were grateful for this enlightenment, with one remarking: ‘Thank God you let us know. I was only asking the lads earlier: I wonder what Phil Neville thinks of it all. Delighted I know now’.