Category Archives: news

BOOM, SHAKE SHAKE SHAKE THE SEMINAR ROOM

The ‘bomb shelter experience’ currently being enjoyed by the unlucky souls studying in Fylde lecture theatres reminded us of the recent experience involving a high-altitude glass walkway high in the East Taihang Mountains near Handan City in China. Glass-bottom bridges are the latest tourist craze in China. This particular bridge hangs over 3,800 feet in the air, affixed to the mountainside, and has as its newest feature sensor technology which creates the illusion that the bridge is going to shatter under the weight of those walking on it. To enhance this effect, bits of actual broken glass were placed under the sturdy glass floor, and video screens displayed fake cracks in the glass as people pass over it. This is all done without any warning. Not surprisingly this has created a social media storm, with thousands posting negative comments accusing the organisers of being cruel and even dangerous, with the possibility that it might give someone a heart attack. Whilst not on the same level, bangs and crashes loud enough to make students ‘jump’ and squeal will undoubtedly generate negative comment in the NSS and PTES later this year.

I GOT 92 PROBLEMS BUT A PITCH AIN’T ONE

Faced with UA92, the new higher education venture fronted by ex-manchester united players , one must confess to a certain confusion. One’s immediate reaction was, frankly, hilarity. This was then tempered by a realisation that this project was a rare example of sportsmen putting their (considerable) money where their (also considerable) mouths were. Then one realised that the project is, however well-intentioned, primarily a money-making venture, and one starts to feel uneasy.

Anyway, cleaving close to the subtext mission statement to carp and criticise, it is perfectly possible to think that this project is a jolly commendable idea in many ways while also thinking that it is not necessarily something that Lancaster University (yes, that’s uppercase) should necessarily be hitching its wagon to. Of course, we don’t know the fine details of the deal, but we’re sure larger and better-informed minds than ours have no doubt thought long and hard about how it will work, and what our commitment and investment should be. However, a number of questions persist, most of them under the umbrella of ‘what could possibly go wrong?’ University teaching is described in the publicity as the third leg of a triad, along with sport and business. Even allowing for the VC’s recent comments on building links with business, this goes beyond links and into partnership. That’s a sea-change. Maybe a good one, but it’ll be difficult to distance ourselves if this all goes wrong, and it might. UA92, it seems, aims to fill a gap somewhere between HE and FE, mixed up with a kind of Matthew Arnold-esque emphasis on mens sana in corpore sano, building character and quadriceps with equal enthusiasm, maximising self-reliance and oxygen uptake in the same programme. If it works, fine. If it doesn’t, our name is all over it.

Which is odd, because you can go through the UA92 website for a long time without discovering what Lancaster University will actually do for these lucky students. You will discover that ‘Universities have traditionally placed academic learning at the core of the curriculum, supported by character development for the world of work’. By comparison, UA92 will deliver ‘a curriculum with employability and character development at the core wrapped around by academic development.’ Um, ok, well, that doesn’t sound so much like a vision, more a change of emphasis at most. And are we happy to be the afterthought in this arrangement?

We learn further that the ‘Target Talent Curriculum’ (harrumph) seeks ‘to put personal development at the core of the learning experience’, and that it will focus on providing students with ten attributes: academic learning, life skills, work experience, how to survive in demanding workplace situations, leadership skills, peer group analysis, participative learning, fitness, and presentation and financial skills. Leaving aside the Blair-esque meaninglessness of a phrase like ‘Target Talent Curriculum’, we note that of the ten desirable attributes, academic learning is just one. Not their priority, then. Is this to be like the Associate College scheme, where students come here for a top-up degree in their third year? If so, will these students, however bursting with peer-group analysis skills they may be, find the academic playing field to be level? Or will the field be re-marked to fit them, in which case how will their degrees compare to those students who have been here for three years, pale of skin and character, and short on resilience and the ability to survive in demanding workplace situations, but nevertheless well-trained in passing exams?

But harken we to the words of the VC. ‘This is a good time to test the appetite for a venture of this nature for two reasons. Firstly, the government wishes to open up the Higher Education marketplace to new and innovative ways of delivery. Secondly, businesses are becoming increasingly interested in how Higher Education can prepare students for working life. This project is designed to address both of those ideas head on.’ So that’s all right then.

THE THIRD RED SCARE

Regular readers of one of subtext’s minor competitors, The Guardian, may have come across an article early on Tuesday morning about a letter sent by Tory whip Chris Heaton-Harris to University Vice-Chancellors demanding to know who was teaching students about Brexit, and what the content of their courses was as well as links to online lectures (http://tinyurl.com/yd7e5xqe). It is true that subtext’s coverage of VCs does not always consist of glowing praise, given pay differentials, inaction on pension theft, vanity building projects, and a litany of other charges. But it seems that at least one VC, Worcester top dog David Green, comes off as something of a hero in this tale, by more or less intimating that he intended to tell the MP to chuff off. Whether our VC had a similar response in mind has yet to be established – D floor has not yet responded to subtext’s request for a comment – though according to the Guardian (the local paper, that is, not the national one – keep up!) it was being treated under the University’s Freedom of Information procedures. This, of course, could amount to the same thing.

Meanwhile, back to Heaton-Harris’s shenanigans, around Tuesday lunchtime, by a report that Downing Street had issued a statement saying Heaton-Harris had been acting not as a Government whip, but in a personal capacity as an MP (http://tinyurl.com/ycdgf4vk). That man must have some interesting conversations with himself. In future, he might take the time to have a good chat with himself about who actually teaches at university, as his letter asked for details of ‘professors’ teaching in the area – presumably unaware of the fact that in the UK, professors mostly do what they can to avoid teaching, which is largely carried out by more junior staff. Or perhaps he thinks anyone who is not a professor can’t be taken seriously? Given the leave campaigners’ attitudes towards ‘experts’, we rather doubt the latter could be the case. Heaton-Harris has been the recipient of failed Tory leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom’s full support, so it can only be a matter of time before he is sacked.

A number of other newspapers have jumped on Heaton-Harris-bashing bandwagon since Tuesday, while some of their… less salubrious fellow publications have jumped to his defence, with hand-wringing articles mentioning ‘remainer universities’ and ‘fears students are being brainwashed by remain-supporting lecturers’. You’d almost think universities had some vested interest in EU membership, such as depending on millions pounds of EU project funding, partnerships with other European universities for inbound and outgoing exchange programmes, and being able to recruit thousands of highly qualified staff from other EU countries.

WHEN ROCK WENT TO COLLEGE

Staff, students, and alumni of the university will have recently received an invitation to the launch of ‘When Rock Went to College’ – a comprehensive book detailing the bands that played the Great Hall by Paul Tomlinson and Barry Lucas. subtext has twice reported on this work; once to encourage anybody with any information / photos to contact the authors, and once to announce a release date… of Spring 2016.

We’ve no idea what the delay was, but it’s a delight to see that it wasn’t a (too!) long one. It is well remembered, but little known today, that the Great Hall formerly was a regular stop on the live music circuit. We played host to U2, Elvis Costello, The Who, Sparks, and many others. The launch takes place tomorrow in the Great Hall at 7:30PM. Your correspondent was fortunate enough to see the reams of research, photos, and trinkets that co-author Paul Tomlinson had compiled back when the project was in its infancy. That alone is enough for us to recommend the book, which can be purchased here: www.tinyurl.com/ycmoc7ld

WHEN ROCK PLAYED TRUANT

Further to our little plug for Paul Tomlinson and Barry Lucas’s compendium of the bands that played Lancaster, the sheer magnitude of the acts we played host to does raise the question: why don’t we do this anymore? The Great Hall is laid out like most live music venues across the UK, has an entire audience on its doorstep, and a vast heritage. While we’re sure the official explanation of fire regulations has some basis in fact, we welcome suggestions for more creative theories from our readers!

HOW NOT TO PROMOTE A POLITICAL MEETING

Posters appeared on campus yesterday advertising an event at the Cornerstone Methodist Cafe at 7pm on Wednesday 15 November, titled ‘Balfour, May and the ‘Wrong Kind of Jews”. subtext’s first impressions were not positive. First, because many in our community will have been alarmed to see a poster which brashly promises to discuss ‘the prospect of Jewish opposition to Zionism today’ and mentions dismissively, almost in passing, that ‘most Jewish communities around the world will be celebrating the anniversary’ of the Balfour declaration. Yes, they will – according to an Ipsos MORI survey for Yachad in 2015, 93% of British Jews feel that Israel is important to their identity. One gets the impression that those who view the Balfour declaration as, on the whole, probably a good thing, are unlikely to feel welcome. Second, because faced with a subject matter which cries out for authority and reassurance, the designer has opted to typeset it in Comic Sans. Oh lordy. Not that we at subtext can talk, given our choice of font.

Further investigation reduces our concerns. The speaker is Robert Cohen, a writer of note on modern Jewish identity, who explains his provocative choice of talk title in a recent Patheos article (http://tinyurl.com/yc9dswxh). The organisers include the Lancaster Methodist Church and the Catholic Diocese of Lancaster’s Faith & Justice Commission, although there don’t seem to be any local Jewish bodies involved (were they invited, we wonder?). Nevertheless, this could be a thoughtful contribution to the debate on Balfour, and subtext hopes to send an observer.

UCU + A

The first (in this academic year) General Meeting of Lancaster UCU took place yesterday. The meeting took place in the ironically named Welcome Centre Lecture Theatre 1 – cold, airless, almost windowless, accessible only via a building site and acoustically unfriendly to boot. The gathering was an modestly well–attended affair – many readers may feel glad to see UCU with a blossoming, increased membership and an active and vibrant executive. Only two main items were on the agenda, both seemingly sponsored by the letter A. USS Pensions: aghast and aggrieved plus ua92: against and aspersions (as in casting). The branch also voted for a couple of motions to be tabled at UCU National Congress in Manchester later this year, one on the pension crisis and the other on campaigning alongside other disputes and campaigns.

BRAVE NEW WORLD

Over the summer, the subtext collective conducted a vast market research exercise. By which we mean, some members of the collective complained about our fustiness – courier fonts, email newsletters, asterisks, indeed! While we have yet to come to an agreement over how best to meet the Fast-Paced demands of the 20th Century [shouldn’t that be 21st?? – Ed], we have at least made some concessions to modern models of Content Provision. So on that note, please enjoy our new Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/LUsubtext/ We’re still trying to figure out how best to utilise the thing, but while we do, feel free to ‘share’ and ‘like’ it (if those are the correct terms) if you’re that way inclined.

SPECIAL REPORT: NEVILLE HAVE I EVER

FLOOD ALERT

The announcement that the Football University is to go ahead means that the issue can finally be discussed openly. The new institution will be a separate entity and not a part of Lancaster University in any way. It will be controlled by two companies – UA92 Ltd (the holding company) and UA92 Manchester Ltd (operations) – in which Lancaster will have a substantial stake. How substantial a stake is still unknown, though the sum of £4M for a 40% share was suggested at an early stage in the discussions.

The ‘Managing Director’ of both companies has been named as Brendan Flood, a Manchester lettings magnate and a director of Burnley football club. The choice of Mr. Flood appears to be an odd one. He is founder and a director of UCFB, an education company with campuses at Wembley, Burnley FC and, recently, at Manchester City’s Etihad Stadium, offering degree courses in sports-related media, marketing, finance, psychology, coaching and event-management. Very like, in fact, the proposed curriculum for UA92, and aimed at the same student market. It’s as if Pep Guardiola was to pop up in the dugout alongside José Mourinho at the next game at Old Trafford. Is an early merger with UA92 on the cards?

***

IN LIM-BO?

It is uncertain how much the Singapore-based billionaire Peter Lim – the main financial backer of the Class of 92 – will be involved in UA92. His name certainly figured in the early negotiations with Lancaster. However, there are signs his business relationship with Neville & Co may have come under strain. Earlier this year Lim’s Singapore company Rowsley had to issue a profits warning to investors, partly due to the poor performance of the Class of 92 businesses in Manchester, 75% of which is owned by Peter Lim. This was followed by Ryan Giggs’ and Gary Neville’s failed central Manchester development scheme (see subtext 158), a setback for Lim’s Manchester property development ambitions. Intriguingly, the same Brendan Flood is also a partner in Giggs’ and Neville’s Jacksons Row Development Partnership. It’s a small world, is Manchester property development.

***

SUBSTITUTE BENCH

For Lancaster staff, the immediate impact of the venture will be on those working in IT support, HR, marketing, compliance and quality assurance. subtext understands that individuals from these areas will be seconded to begin the daunting task of setting up a new university from scratch. What is not known is whether this will be voluntary or be deemed to be part of the individual’s employment contract. There is also the question of the impact of withdrawing experienced staff from areas that are already under-resourced and where work stress is worryingly high. Will there be like-for-like replacement of the seconded? Past practice in the University would suggest not. No doubt the campus unions will have prepared a long list of searching questions to present to management.

While academic colleagues may have thought they could get away with having nothing to do with UA92, it seems the academic leadership of FASS has been playing Simon swaps. Simon Guy, erstwhile FASS Dean, has been seconded as Academic Director of UA92, while Simon Bainbridge, previously Deputy Dean, is now Acting Dean of FASS for the next year.

***

MINT CONDITIONS

One of the arguments used in favour of Lancaster’s involvement in the Football University was that the Manchester United connection would enhance the attraction of the University to potential international students, particularly in the Far East. Admittedly, the potential is somewhat lessened now that David Beckham is no longer involved in the Class of 92 but it was still an opportunity too good to miss (so it was said).

Unfortunately, cashing in on footballing fame may not be as straightforward as it sounds. Celebrity endorsement is big business these days, and it doesn’t come cheap, thanks to the ruthless marketing of companies who own the ‘image rights’ of the celebs. In the case of the Class of 92, endorsement is handled by an outfit called Mint Media, which also owns the image rights of Real Madrid star Cristiano Ronaldo (now that would be an endorsement worth getting!). And who owns Hong Kong-based Mint Media? Why none other than Mr. Peter Lim, financial backer of the Class of 92 (see above). We can but hope that when the University seeks to use Paul Scholes’ sunny features to promote the benefits of a Lancaster MBA, Mr. Lim will be amenable to providing us with mates’ rates for the job.

BIG BROTHER IS NOT WATCHING YOU

First week of term and the iLancaster monitoring and surveillance machine kicks into gear. Well, no.

Cue lots of students randomly pointing their phones at any and all boxes in the corner of the seminar rooms. And lecturers hastily scrambling around for bits of paper and a pen to compile a register. Brave new world indeed.

HOD CARRYING

More creeping centralisation afoot. The subtext collective understands that the Dean of FASS Simon Guy, after extensive consultation (with the Vice Chancellor), has decided to consider an external search for Heads of several departments. Professor Guy has plans to draw up terms of reference to enable a search this term. The natives are not happy about what they consider yet further denuding of their departmental autonomy. Apparently, the Dean sees this simply as a way of dealing with a lack of willing and/or quality candidates for the posts. The Vice Chancellor expressed a preference that, ideally, the position would be filled by a Professor, since it is more reasonable to ask someone who has reached this more senior stage of their career than other colleagues. Subsequently, subtext has learnt that a flowchart appeared (conveniently) in August detailing the direction of travel of any future HoD appointments. This shows that the VC will have a direct part in all such appointments. The circulation of this document was apparently very restricted – on a need to know basis. There is maybe an argument that sensitive financial arrangements need to be handled in a cloak and dagger fashion, but the process of selecting your next line manager should not be so restricted.

This is surely an area that should be transparent. If nothing else, it is a slap in the face to the numerous non-professorial staff who have carried out the thankless role of HoD to a very good standard over the years.

THE (BUILDING) PLOT THICKENS

The University continues to resemble a building site, as rumours continue to circulate about a completion date – the latest word to reach the subtext warehouse is sometime in September 2018. Over the summer it felt like scaffolding was covering most surfaces, which not only messed with Lancaster’s ‘Italian village on a hill’ vibe (yeah right!) but also made it exceedingly difficult for wheelchair users to get around. And of course nobody tells you what the purpose of the scaffolding is and you have no idea what is going to happen until the scaffolders  have gone and the work people arrive with their various (very noisy) pieces of kit. The east side of Bowland North just before term started was completely covered by scaffolding, which was then enclosed by vast sheets of white polythene then heat treated with some form of blow-lamp. This of course cut all light from the offices so folk had to turn their lights on during the day to get any work done, with no word as to why. A few days later all was revealed – the work people were sand-blasting the building. Cue various corridors filling up with fine dust particles and folk spluttering and wondering what the hell was going on. The cause turned out to be a colleague leaving a window open (no reason why s/he shouldn’t), and the disabled toilet on that floor having a window that could not close. The result: a disabled toilet covered in a fine layer of stone dust unable to be used until the cleaners arrived the following day.

Following complaints from staff, an email arrived from the Managing Building Surveyor pledging to wet down the external wall prior to commencing further grinding out works, as well as to check that all windows were closed. And finally, a request that people who have offices could refrain from opening their windows for the day. NOW you tell us…

COURT IN THE ACT

David Allen, the Court Effectiveness Review Group’s ‘external reviewer’, is visiting campus this week to meet with those who asked to be interviewed by him, as part of his review. Mr Allen is a former Registrar at the University of Exeter and we hope he’ll enjoy his visit. He’ll be putting together a report for the Review Group, who’ll be making final recommendations to the University Council in November. The Court won’t get to discuss the group’s recommendations before they’re presented for approval.

Readers might be wondering:

  • Why is the review happening? The official position is that it simply makes sense, following a Senate review in 2012-13 and a Council review in 2016-17, to review the way the Court works. We know that the Vice-Chancellor thinks the composition of Court is not especially diverse.
  • Hasn’t there already been a Court Effectiveness Review? Yes there was, in 2007-8. That review group was established by the Court and included several members elected by the Court. The current review group was set up by the Council and we’re not sure how its members have been chosen.
  • Why does it need an external reviewer? According to the Director of Governance’s ‘Green Paper’, to provide an external perspective (well, yes) and to undertake the review process.

We’re sure Mr Allen will do his job diligently, but several omens suggest that the future doesn’t look bright for the Court. In January we saw management put on a Court meeting that was deliberately as mediocre and unwelcoming as possible – moving the start time forward, cutting the advertised duration to just one hour, and getting rid of lunch (see subtext 157). In June the Court was unceremoniously stripped of its key role in appointing the Pro-Chancellor (see subtext 165). There was no open call for expressions of interest in serving on the Review Group.

And there was something about the choice of a former Registrar for the University of Exeter to do the review that got us thinking… why Exeter? Well, it’s notable amongst the chartered universities in that, back in 2008, it abolished its Court! The minutes of Exeter’s University Council meeting in April 2008 record that Council resolved to ‘thank Court for its work over the years and to stand it down from the end of the current academic year’. ‘Stand it down’ – now there’s a euphemism. Who was the Registrar in attendance at that meeting? Lo and behold, one David J Allen.

Court members thinking of booking train tickets in advance for January 2018’s Court meeting should be careful – they will probably find that there’s nothing left for them to attend.

The deadline for Court members to respond to the Consultation on the Future of Court is Friday 13 October – so if you’re a member and have not yet responded, there’s still time.

TO COURT YOUR FAVOUR

Even though the University Court is the single largest meeting of the University, readers may still be confused as to why subtext would make such a big deal over the closure of what is often seen as just a ceremonial gathering. In the simplest terms, the Court is not just an assembly of members of the Senate, Council, and officers of the Students’ Union. It also has places for alumni, MPs, the clergy, the dignitaries, the scientific bodies, etc. A lot of its attendees are lay-members, and since we’re a university that (when it suits a particular scheme) values an ‘outside perspective’, it would seem obvious that the Court would be an ideal forum to, er, ‘court’ the opinions of those who aren’t involved in our day to day operations. It has also traditionally served as an opportunity for disinterested bodies, unfettered by concerns over promotion and how much favour they are currying, to give both barrels to the more fanciful / destructive notions of senior management, as well as an opportunity to engage with alumni who like to make a day of coming ‘home’ to Lancaster. To do away with such a body, which is already lacking in teeth, seems an inordinately petty and isolationist move.

THE TIMES THEY ARE A’CHANGING

Pretty much everyone at the University of Lancaster was delighted to hear the glorious news – The Times and Sunday Times have named us ‘University of the Year.’ We at subtext aren’t entirely sure what that means – their very own university guide places the University of Cambridge at the top of the league, and shonky though they are, their measurables actually provide a reason why Cambridge deserves to be there. And presumably, the university that sits atop a publication’s league table should, by extension, be regarded as ‘University of the Year’ by said publication.

But we’re just being nasty and cynical. However The Times arrived at this conclusion, the subtext collective can do little but agree that Lancaster truly is a great place to work and study. And if this accolade attracts more staff and more students, all the better. If nothing else, at least it’s stopped us going on about the TEF result!   

HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS?

Some disturbing news over the summer is the reporting of a number of incidents of material on doors being defaced by the image of a swastika. In addition to alarming people in the offices concerned it is also unacceptable behaviour that can be categorised as gross misconduct. For staff this includes ‘deliberate or malicious damage to University, staff, customer or visitor property’ and for students and staff in the University rules it includes ‘the general harassment or intimidation of another member of the university’ understood to include: ‘any act or expression or series or combination of such, or incitement to commit such acts, against a person, that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment that prevents or significantly impairs that person’s (or group’s) full enjoyment of living, learning, or working at Lancaster University; and that is insistent and/or persistent and/or repetitive. Examples include: derogatory name calling, insults, humiliating graffiti, verbal abuse or ridicule of, an individual’.

It is somewhat worrying that the University appears to have chosen not to openly address this.

NON-FLEXIBLE BENEFITS

What has happened to the price of the staff bus pass? In 2016/17, it cost £76 per year. It was increased in 2017/18 to £99 per year (grades 1 to 6)  and £112 per year (grades 7 and up). That is a 30% increase for grades 6 and below, and a 47% increase for grades 7 and up.

subtext assumes this is the result of Chancellor Philip Hammond’s announcement last year that he would tighten rules allowing workers to forgo part of their salary in return for certain work benefits. As a result of having a lower salary, employees were paying less income tax and making lower National Insurance contributions. Likewise, employers saved on National Insurance as this was linked to salary. Salary sacrifices could also be used to preserve the £11,500 personal allowance.

Nationally the most popular benefits claimed by staff through such arrangements are pension contributions, meeting childcare costs, bicycle schemes, and medical insurance. In recent years, benefits have expanded to include company cars, health screening, gym membership and even mobile phones, TVs and white goods.

It would be remiss of those of us on higher grades to complain about a relatively marginal increase, and a bigger injustice is revealed when we look at the position of staff on monthly/termly contracts. Stagecoach does not offer the university a monthly option. For someone on a short term contract, the alternative is the one-term unirider that the Students’ Union sells, which costs £99.99. Having your contract extended by a further term does not entitle you to a staff bus pass, so off you go back to the SU to spend another hundred quid. If your contract is then extended for a third term, you are still not entitled to a staff bus pass, so off you go again to the SU to spend another hundred quid. This all assumes that you will not be travelling to work during the Xmas and Easter breaks!

In the extremely unlikely event that your contract is extended over the summer recess for which there is no one-term unirider available, you would have to purchase a Bay megarider Xtra pass at a cost of £56.99 per month for three months totalling £170.97. A total cost of £470.94.

That is £100.95 more than if you had bought a yearly pass directly from Stagecoach! Which you can’t!