YES, BUT WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY DO?

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on YES, BUT WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY DO?

Yet another senior management post is currently being advertised, this time a Pro-Vice Chancellor for ‘Engagement’. Some time ago, we supplemented our PVC for quality and standards and our PVC for the student experience with a new PVC for education, to add to our dangerously understaffed top floor. It then seemed that the number of education-related head honchos threatened the status of those on the research side of the stairs, as this autumn another senior management post was advertised, at a to-be-negotiated, but one assumes eye-watering, salary, adding more top brass to the research pontiffocracy. Again, exactly what this person was expected to do was not clear. The REF was alluded to but no actual measurable duties were specified other than ‘answering to’ the existing PVC for Research and Enterprise.

And now it is the turn of ‘Engagement’. Remembering that each department already has at least one person responsible for teaching / research / etc who answers to their faculty Associate Dean, who in turn answers to a Dean, who in turn answers to at least one PVC, we felt it was time to look more closely at what these rather expensive new colleagues will do for their daily crust.

Simon Hoggart used to say that if the opposite of a politician’s statement (e.g. ‘we support hard working families’) was ridiculous then the original statement wasn’t worth making. Kenwright has suggested that if it is not clear how the holder of a management post’s success or failure could be judged after a given interval from the job description, then the post isn’t worth having. So, let’s look at the PVC for engagement’s ‘specific duties’, shall we?

– University Planning and Resource Group
– Internal groups as advised by the Vice-Chancellor
– Business and Community Engagement Group (Chair)
– Various promotions and professorial pay committees
– ‘We are Lancaster’ (Lead)
– Dukes Partnership
– Lead on the Public Arts Strategy
– Santander Advisory Group (Chair)
– Appropriate approvals as delegated by Senate or the Vice-Chancellor

Well that’s perfectly clear then!

Those of us unfortunate enough to have to assess module descriptions are told to use Bloom’s Taxonomy of measurable verbs to ensure our learning outcomes can be tested (e.g. ‘able to explain phlogiston theory’, not ‘understands phlogiston theory’). If our leaders cannot come up with more convincing descriptions of what their new chums will do, other than add critical mass to the air of collective self-importance with which they stride across campus between meetings clutching folders and frowning earnestly, then one wonders whether the money might be better spent on subscriptions to journals, books for the library, bottles of deuterated solvents or anything else which would actually enhance research, learning or the university in general.

Comments Off on YES, BUT WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY DO?

Posted in news

Tagged , ,

SCHOOL OF MISSING LETTERS

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on SCHOOL OF MISSING LETTERS

Coming off the night shift at the subtext warehouse our drones were intrigued by the new sign at the entrance to Bowland North. Not the blaring adverts for Subway and Blackwell’s, but the cool, chunky, brushed steel lettering proclaiming something called ‘law school’. The fact that it was all in lowercase suggested that the infamous Capital Letter Thieves were again at large. Readers will recall how in recent times the Learning Zone and the Ruskin Centre suffered from their depredations, with letters disappearing overnight to sometimes comic effect. Were they up to their old tricks again?
As we tucked into our post-shift sweet tea and dripping sandwiches, we pondered on the identity of the missing letter. Could the sign be indicating the ‘Flaw school’, an extension of PPR containing a new Department of Refutations, dedicated to exposing the faulty reasoning behind current university policies (UA92 springs to mind)? Perhaps it’s the ‘Claw school’, suggesting a concentration of the university’s mushrooming enterprise units, slavering to compete in the cut-and-thrust world of marketised HE. Maybe a fearfully symmetrical twin is planned for next-door Bowland Main, the ‘Tooth school’.

Another suggestion was the rather esoteric ‘Glaw school’, which had the more unlettered members of the collective tapping into their search engines to find a meaning. ‘Glaw’, according to the Urban Dictionary, is ‘a word with no meaning, used as a response to a question to annoy someone’. Clearly, any modern university worth its salt needs this function but as it was already admirably fulfilled by the Human Resources Division, it was deemed to be superfluous.

After much discussion, a consensus was eventually reached. A search of the subtext archives revealed that the place we now know as Bowland North was originally called ‘Lonsdale’, famous for the sybaritic lives of its inhabitants and known to all as ‘The Party College’. According to legend, the gods got so angered by their debauchery that one night they scooped up all the inhabitants and deposited them in the remotest region of Hades known as Alexandra Park, where they remain to this day. And it is in their memory that, employing the Glasgow street slang for cannabis (and other things), the space shall henceforth be known as… the ‘Blaw school’.

Comments Off on SCHOOL OF MISSING LETTERS

Posted in news

Tagged , ,

IMMOVABLE TYPE

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on IMMOVABLE TYPE

And another thing about that lowercase Law School sign… Lancaster seems to have long had an unwritten rule (see what we did there?) that buildings should not have department names engraved on them, not least because there seems to be a tip in the ‘Modern VC’s Playbook for Keeping Departments in Line” that departments should be regularly moved when buildings are refurbished, or merged with others, or just closed, to stop them from getting too comfortable. However, with new buildings springing up all the time, and Engineering getting its very own shiny lowercase letters a few years ago, it’s possible the Law School had a bit of sign envy. Or perhaps it’s a North Campus/South Campus thing? With the huge sign outside the FASS building now a thing of the past, it’s possible someone felt the sign balance needed to be shifted again.

There’s only one problem: as regular visitors to Bowland North know, the building is home not only to Lancaster’s legal scholars. It also accommodates the Departments of Languages and Cultures, and Sociology, as well as the occasional band of itinerant Linguistics PhD students who seem to have been banished from County South. And that’s just the top three floors. The ground floor houses two lecture theatres, 27 seminar rooms (some of which even have windows, see subtexts passim) and two computer labs, all of which are used as teaching space by pretty much every department in the University, by conference delegates and by a number of summer schools. Why the Law School should be the only department that gets a huge sign on the side of the building is as yet not quite clear, but if readers know of any ‘cash-for-signs’ shenanigans, please do write in (for the benefit of any lawyers reading this, we are joking!). All the signs point to more signs in future.

Comments Off on IMMOVABLE TYPE

Posted in news

Tagged , ,

RISING DAMP

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on RISING DAMP

An awful lot of people have complained about the monolithic campus map outside University House – you know, the one with enough space to accommodate legible text but instead has a key in 8 point type and a big black empty void, in very much the Scandinavian style. We should probably be grateful for what we have, since the maps have started to become discoloured with what would appear to be damp, causing an outbreak of grey patches that are starting to cover the already miniscule text. At least, we think that’s what it is. But it doesn’t look intentional: https://tinyurl.com/ya7eoe9p

Comments Off on RISING DAMP

Posted in news

Tagged ,

LU TEXT LOST AND FOUND

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on LU TEXT LOST AND FOUND

The final issue of term sees the welcome return of LU Text Lost and Found, subtext’s repository of Lancaster related news stories that somehow didn’t find their way into LU Text’s ‘Lancaster in the Media’ roundup.

Alan Milburn, our esteemed Chancellor, made headlines last week when he resigned as Chair of the government’s Social Mobility Commission in protest at No. 10’s failure to tackle inequality. Some might view this as a bit of vainglorious ostentation from a man who was up for renewal in his post and didn’t fancy his chances, others might view it is a principled refusal to continue reaching out to a government that failed to listen. Regardless of his motives, our Chancellor has made waves, and put inequality on the agenda: https://tinyurl.com/ybaqj7yt

And finally, you won’t believe what the Daily Express had to say about THIS fair and wise university Pro-Chancellor! Yes, our very own Lord Liddle found an interview he gave on Sky News being quoted by the Daily Express. According to the paper, he made the SHOCK claim that ‘Britain should have ANOTHER Brexit vote.’ His exact words, for the record, were ‘I’m not saying there SHOULD be a second referendum but I think that the idea that we voted finally in June 2016 and there is no possibility of ever changing that – I don’t actually think that’s democratic.’ https://tinyurl.com/y8n9weyg

Comments Off on LU TEXT LOST AND FOUND

Posted in lu text lost and found

Tagged , ,

THE SUMMER OF ’84: LANCASTER SOCIAL EDUCATION SUMMER PROJECT

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on THE SUMMER OF ’84: LANCASTER SOCIAL EDUCATION SUMMER PROJECT

As promised in our last issue, here is an account of a local support project that grew out of the miners’ strike of 1984/85. The project was born (as all good ideas are) out of conversations in the bar at the Gregson Institute. Why not do something practical locally to help the miners, something that would get wide support? Out of this came the idea for a summer camp for miners’ kids. A strange collection of folk became involved: University lecturers, teachers, students, left-wing politicos, and dedicated barflies. Somehow a semi-formal structure and a conscious strategy emerged. The kids would come from Blyth in Northumberland, from where miners were picketing Glasson Dock trying to prevent strike-breaking coal imports. There would be 75 of them (fifteen a week for five weeks in late July and August and we’d need at least £2000 to feed and entertain them. We would take them to Silverdale, where someone knew of a good cheap campsite at Gibraltar Farm. They would get lots of healthy outdoor activities, with the odd evening at Morecambe funfair if funds permitted, and we would supply a good balanced diet to make up for months of paltry rations because of the strike.

There was no shortage of organisers and adult volunteers. Money was more of a problem. We started strongly with large donations from the Students Union at St. Martin’s College and several University JCRs, and built on this base with begging letters to local political parties, the Co-op, trade unions and churches, as well as a very lucrative circular to every member of academic staff at the University. We had an overwhelming response, apart from the Duke of Westminster (the richest man in Britain), who informed us that he did not give to charity. Busking by Paramount Islanders and a concert by the local group Sound Investment raised almost £300. The University Community Action Group helped us contact volunteers and the District Education Office arranged the loan of cagoules, boots, rucksacks and cooking equipment. The University hiking club lent us four large and quite invaluable tents.

On a very sunny Sunday afternoon the first fifteen kids arrived. The campsite was at a particularly beautiful and secluded area only a few hundred yards from the beach. We kept rules to a minimum, making the safety of the kids the paramount reason for having a rule. They took part in activities they had never experienced before – rock climbing, abseiling, canoeing, sailing, pot-holing – and it is to the credit of the volunteers who supervised them that there was not a single accident in the five weeks of the camp. Every day saw a different experience for the kids. One of the most popular was the swimming and water games session held every morning at Carnforth Pool. The pool staff volunteered to come in an hour early so that we could have the pool to ourselves. We found this positive, helpful attitude was widespread. Marineland in Morecambe gave free tickets every week for the dolphin show, Morecambe funfair and Spaceskate in Lancaster gave big reductions for the kids, youth workers at Scotch Quarry organised games, the Georgian Club provided crisps and lemonade whenever the kids visited Lancaster, and when we needed refuge in wet weather and freezer space for food, the sisters at St. John of God Hospice were glad to oblige. The Heysham Dockers donated their tuck shop and members of Morecambe Labour Party provided high tea every week. And there were people who would turn up at the camp with homemade cakes, biscuits and jams, boxes of books and games, sweets and crisps. On one occasion, a group of anglers arrived at the camp with baskets overflowing with freshly-caught flounders. It was fish supper that night.

Each group of children was accompanied by women from the Blyth Womens’ Support Group who perhaps did most to ensure that the kids had a good time (and behaved themselves!). The camp also became a venue for rest and recuperation from picketing duty for miners, some of whom had had a hard time of it at the hands of the police. They too contributed greatly to the success of the camp, and to the political education of the volunteers.

Every week finished with a two-day stay at an old miners’ cottage at Kentmere, in the Lake District, where outdoor pursuits specialists ensured the kids had a busy but enjoyable time. We were very lucky in having exceptionally good weather for most of that summer, so that outdoor activities could be enjoyed to the full. There were the usual problems arising from clashes of temperament and differences of opinion with both adults and kids, but these were rare and were resolved through discussion and compromise. The general atmosphere was relaxed and good humoured. New friends were made and strong bonds of mutual respect and affection were formed between adults and kids alike. Looking back on the experience, it is remarkable, given the backdrop to the strike and the unrelenting hostility of the media, just how generous people were. It gave us all a glimpse of what could be possible.

Comments Off on THE SUMMER OF ’84: LANCASTER SOCIAL EDUCATION SUMMER PROJECT

Posted in history

Tagged , , , ,

QUEEN’S SPEECH

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on QUEEN’S SPEECH

And so, we join the rest of you in winding down and shutting up shop for the term. Given how busy we’ve been over the last 9 weeks, we are almost afraid to avert our gaze, so rapid is the rate at which Things have been happening this term. Last year, subtext was struck by a theme of ‘secrecy’ – the bulk of our reportage was on the lack of transparency from top table, and how little we were able to report. Thus far this year, the intensely guarded plans that we revealed have started to come into effect, and we have been struck by a common theme at the heart of all of them – austerity. The party political point du jour has long been the idea of those at the bottom bearing the brunt of the cuts in the name of tightening the belt, while those at the top get fat and wealthy enough to buy a bigger one. We’ve been seeing fairly blatant austere hypocrisy this year. Money has been taken from: non-academic departments (subtext 165), disabled students, the students’ union’s block grant, and on-campus students (subtext 169). We at subtext would be willing to at least entertain the idea that this has been necessary, if we weren’t looking at cuts out of one eye and an utterly insane Manchester commercial venture, a vast architectural refurbishment, a seemingly superfluous new management appointment, and the potential for countless professorial salaries for external HoD appointments (see subtext 168) out of the other. None of these ventures are for the benefit of staff or students, making the funding cuts harder to stomach. We’ve said, time and time again, that the university seems not to realise / care where the bulk of their funding comes from, or upon whose success its success depends – if management wants to avoid a powder keg, then it’s high time they started to.

But, until next time, the subtext collective would like to wish you all a participative Christmas, and a skills-based new year.

Comments Off on QUEEN’S SPEECH

Posted in news

Tagged ,

SHART ATTACK

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on SHART ATTACK

FROM: Alan Pushers, Head of Technological Innovations and Solutions
TO: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U).
SUBJECT: The next stage

Dear Mike,

Following the seamless introduction of the Student Location University Geomonitoring Systems, I am pleased to say that moving forward we can move forward on the plan discussed at the Special Projects Committee to cascade this system to staff. As you know, we have little idea what staff are up to most of the time, where they spend their time, how productive they are being, even what value they are adding to LuVE-U. All this will now change with the data we will get from Productive Activity Time Surveillance System.

Before rolling it out, we did a quick test run of the system last week on a random staff member. Here are the results:

RESULTS FOR: Hewlett Venkklinne – Director of Public Disapproval Modification.
Total time spent – Location
4.5 hours – Local BMW second hand dealer
3.9 hours – Trafford Centre
1.4 hours – At his desk
7.2 hours – Senior Leadership Lounge
1.1 hours – Trapped in wheelchair accessible toilet when door wouldn’t open and no one responded to the alarm
4.9 hours – Googled: ‘Tips and Hairstyles for Balding Men.’
1.3 hours – Toni and Guys
0.5 hours – Googled: ‘How to take a screenshot on a Mac.’
7.5 hours – Browsing: Vogue Magazine models
1.6 hours – Google Images: Students in graduation robe
3.3 hours – Browsing: wikihow.com/photoshop-basics
4.5 hours – Browsing www.beingaleader.net

Alan.

***

FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U)
TO: Hewlett Venkklinne – Director of Public Disapproval Modification.

Hewlett,

Photoshopping supermodels onto the prospectus and marketing materials are we? Don’t deny it, I know you are.

Genius strategy – you’re worth every penny.

Mike.

PS. Do you think I should keep using Viviscal?

Comments Off on SHART ATTACK

Posted in shart attack

Tagged ,

MARK THOMAS: A SHOW THAT GAMBLES ON THE FUTURE. A REVIEW

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on MARK THOMAS: A SHOW THAT GAMBLES ON THE FUTURE. A REVIEW

Mark Thomas was back at the Dukes on Wednesday 29th November. After last year’s poignant, moving and very funny theatre show ‘The Red Shed’ (see subtext 156) he returned to the Dukes with more traditional stand-up fare. This time it’s just him, a microphone, a few scraps of paper and some betting odds. We are here, Thomas tells us, to work together as a group. Our job is to vote (with our cheers) for the best prediction of the future proffered by our fellow audience members pre-show.

After Brexit and Trump (and UA92), who really knows what’s going to happen next? None of us, of course. Recent events have been so unexpected we cannot be any less accurate than the experts. Don’t look to Mark Thomas, either – he’s not offering any answers here, instead he is channeling our collective cluelessness into two hours of cathartic entertainment in which we laugh, not just at the world, but at our own divergent understandings of it.

The audience were canvassed in the bar with slips of paper which invited them to guess one thing that might happen in the future, be it outlandish or predictable, and Thomas spends most of the time simply reading through them and discussing the subjects they bring up, occasionally referring to contributions from past shows. The idea is that he and the audience single out their favourite prediction by a vaguely democratic ‘biggest cheer” process. At the end of the show donations are thrown in a bucket by the door, which we are told will be placed on the winner, and if it wins, the cash will be given to a worthwhile cause.

So it’s a simple enough idea to get a bit of banter going, ad-libbed as well as scripted, although there’s plenty that Thomas would have known to expect. ‘Trump will be assassinated/impeached’, ‘there will be a UK general election within the next year’ and (big cheer for this) ‘Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister’ are all hurried through. As ever at a Mark Thomas gig, the left-leaning converted are being preached to, even though Thomas himself seems keen to engage in discussion with all comers.

Compared to the heart-stopping suspension and heart-breaking tenderness of ‘The Red Shed’, this show might seem a little slight. But he’s still Mark Thomas, which means we’re treated to the best kind of hilarious political rantings, underscored by stories about his upbringing and, in particular, his father, whose rare mix of religious devotion and fiery temperament is another telling influence on the comic. Throughout these tales Thomas proves to be an energetic and compelling raconteur, weaving narratives which take the audience along with him, offering insights into the unorthodox upbringing of a man who retains a smouldering anger at injustice.

This Lancaster audience voted for the bet that ‘EU immigrants would ‘club together’ and buy the Daily Mail’. And people as they left the theatre dutifully threw their pound coins into the bucket – Mark did not tell us what odds we would get on this particular bet!

Comments Off on MARK THOMAS: A SHOW THAT GAMBLES ON THE FUTURE. A REVIEW

Posted in review

Tagged , , ,

LETTERS

Posted on December 7 2017 | Comments Off on LETTERS

An Open Letter to readers of subtext

The announcement at the annual meeting in January 2017 of a review of the effectiveness of the Court – a body often likened to the annual shareholder meeting in a private company – seemed at the time relatively inconsequential. Six months elapsed before a circular was sent to Court members listing the make-up of the new Court effectiveness committee, with a questionnaire on the perceived role and importance etc of the Court and information that there would be an external assessor. Like others I took a good deal of time and trouble over completion of the questionnaire and I also requested a meeting with the assessor. Meanwhile, rumours were circulating that the University had already decided in effect to abolish the Court.

I felt my meeting with the external assessor went well and like others I have been waiting for feedback from the review committee. Now just two months before the anticipated date for the 2018 Court meeting, we read in subtext about discussions in the University Senate. Evidently the review process is well under way although there have been no public reports as to progress. However, it increasingly seems that for once the rumour mill may be accurate.

The view has been expressed that the Court’s membership may not be sufficiently diverse. It is perhaps worth exploring the whole of the University’s institutional structure in terms of its diversity. I cannot comment directly on the membership of the Senate but I was a member of the Council for a good many years until 2011, by which time that body was certainly not significantly characterized by diversity in its own membership. Indeed, when the Court lost its traditional power to elect some Council members, it seemed inevitable that the latter body would be less diverse. Overall, the University’s governance structure has certainly become increasingly removed from any direct and structured involvement with the outside world. In this context, accountability is perhaps even more important than diversity. The University is certainly in no way accountable in a structured sense to the collective judgement of those who work within it.

Abolition of the Court as a formal body would remove the last vestige of any kind of structured accountability to any locally based institutions. In this sense, abolition would complete what from many perspectives has been an ongoing process. Henceforth, accountability would only be to market forces and national government. Is this a rational choice?

I would like to end by asking what attention is paid by Lancaster University to the wider world which in a real sense determines the parameters within which it operates. The implications of Brexit for the UK’s University sector cannot be other than deeply damaging. If indeed there is a much-needed review of the student loan system, then this too could have significant adverse repercussions for university budgets. In this uncertain world, is it really the moment to send a message to local and regional stakeholders, alumni and others, that the University no longer requires their formal structural involvement? At the very least, is there not an overwhelming case for the regular annual meeting of the existing Court to take place in January 2018 and for its agenda to give priority to debating and determining these issues?

Stanley Henig

A founding member of the University’s Department of Politics 1964-6; elected Member of University Council 2001-11; and elected Deputy Pro-Chancellor 2006-11, in which capacity I chaired the previous Court Review.

********

Dear subtext,

In response to Cheryl Simmill-Binning’s query (letters, subtext 169): weather forecasters never sit down because of where they have to talk out of.

Keep up the good work!

John Foster

********

Dear subtext,

I always ‘enjoy’ reading up on developments at Lancaster Uni! And would love to continue my subscription!

It is not just a way of staying in touch with a university’s politics at which still several of key colleagues of mine work, but also subtext is a source for envisaging what may come to to other universities on earth,
in countries that lag behind in neoliberalising higher education.

Cheers,

Ingmar Lippert (IEPPP/CSEC student 2005-7, now IT University of Copenhagen)

********

Dear subtext,

An update on the university’s response to Heaton-Harris’ letter – the university have told me (after much prompting), via twitter, that they have sent him a copy of the prospectus. There was no mention of the previous response of ‘treating as an F.O.I request’

Cheers,

Sarah Beresford

********

Dear subtext,

College Council minutes appeared in my inbox last week, and one of the items reported was that ‘the churches’ are withdrawing the funding for the two full-time Anglican and Methodist chaplains, with the possibility that the two posts will be lost during the coming year.

Given that this is a service provided to the University in addition to its own provision for student and staff wellbeing, I wondered if the subtext collective can shed any further light on this situation?

Keep up the good work!

Many thanks,

James Mawdesley

Comments Off on LETTERS

Posted in letters

Tagged , , , ,

subtext 169 – ‘Their tongues are silver forks. There’s a lack of wisdom, you can hear it on their breath’

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on subtext 169 – ‘Their tongues are silver forks. There’s a lack of wisdom, you can hear it on their breath’

Fortnightly during term time.

Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk

In this issue: editorial, disability cuts, subscriptions, hods, senate report, short stuff, rent pasta, stretford surveys, dept merge, UA92 bodies, VC twitter, shart, zionism review, letters

*****************************************************

EDITORIAL

In today’s issue, we report once again on the proposed gutting of University Court. The body, which is Lancaster’s largest and most diverse stakeholder gathering, has already been pushed close to being merely a ceremonial gathering, but D Floor’s clear ambition is now to abolish it entirely and replace it with a PR event. Not that subtext expects top table to meet much resistance – there was little opposition to the idea of abolition at Senate last week, and now, we assume, we just wait for the University Council to drop the axe.

What are the implications of this? Well, it means in no uncertain terms that our alumni, dignitaries, and other external stakeholders will now receive no say whatsoever in any part of the University’s operations. The Court – our last truly democratic governing body, which elects large numbers of its members and is responsible for approving our Chancellor and, until recently, Pro-Chancellor – will cease to exist, depriving stakeholders from whom we rarely hear of the chance to offer unique perspectives and propose policies that the Senate and University Council are mandated to, at the very least, discuss. Attending the University Court, especially for alumni and external stakeholders, is a labour – members travel from miles around to be in attendance, and they do so because there is a sense of duty to the University as well as the opportunity to be involved in Lancaster’s decision-making. Is anybody going to swell with a sense of social responsibility at the thought of traveling 245 miles to listen to a drab presentation from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor on financial performance and hear Roger Liddle shouting ‘long may the University prosper’ before retiring to the lobby for some ‘light refreshments’?

The ‘pitfalls’ of having a University Court, as outlined by the Chief Administrative Officer, are vanishingly small. At this stage in the Vice-Chancellor’s tenure, it is easy to draw patterns between meetings that have put his nose out of joint or embarrassed him and proposals to make those meetings suddenly disappear. Make no mistake – the abolition of University Court would be an act of petty isolation, and a means of senior management keeping a tighter grip on just who gets to be involved in decision making. The role of Bath University’s own Court in bringing their overpaid VC to book admirably demonstrates the value of having such an independent minded body with the ability to intervene. Maybe this is why so many Vice-Chancellors are so keen to get rid of them.

Comments Off on subtext 169 – ‘Their tongues are silver forks. There’s a lack of wisdom, you can hear it on their breath’

Posted in editorial

Tagged , , ,

BREAKING: CUTS TO FUNDING FOR DISABLED STUDENTS

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on BREAKING: CUTS TO FUNDING FOR DISABLED STUDENTS

Lancaster University Disability Service released a statement yesterday (22 November) about the use of Educational Psychology Assessments:

‘The university recognises that assessments for Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) (including dyslexia) can be expensive and we currently provide funding towards the cost of assessments undertaken on campus. Due to limited funds and the numbers of students seeking diagnosis the university contribution towards the cost of an SpLD assessment will be reduced to a 50% contribution from January 2018. This change will allow us to continue to support as many students as possible with the cost of an assessment. However as the total financial contribution towards these assessments each year is limited, there will be no financial contribution available once all funds for the academic year have been used. We will still be able to arrange an appointment for an SpLD assessment, but no financial contribution will be available.’

Disability and equality representatives and LUSU and UCU have not been consulted and we are not aware of any equality impact assessment taking place regarding this decision to cut funding for assessments. Obviously, disabled students who can’t afford the assessment will be worst hit, and losing this support can have a massive impact on their life chances. While we recognise the current scarcity of financial resources, what with the essential new lighting and fountains on campus, it seems a highly dubious decision to make disabled students take the brunt of it. We are very familiar with the old ‘non-disabled fraudsters mean cuts for real disabled people’ myths, and we hope that that tired old nonsense isn’t playing a part in the decision.

There are other ways to triage need and provide lower cost assessments than the ones provided by expensive for-profit dyslexia consultants. Even if we had to make cuts, and the case for that has not been explained or backed up with figures or evidence, then there are a number of people in this University who would be very happy to work with the University to advise them on a more sensible path to follow. The way the University has gone about this is not good and looks unintentionally discriminatory at best.

Comments Off on BREAKING: CUTS TO FUNDING FOR DISABLED STUDENTS

Posted in news

Tagged , , ,

SUBSCRIPTION INFO

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on SUBSCRIPTION INFO

Now that Lancaster’s glorious new email list server software seems to have overcome its initial glitches and be running fairly smoothly, we thought it was high time we updated our subscription information. Any readers who wish to share the love and encourage their friends, colleagues or enemies to subscribe, are advised to do the following:

If the person in question has a Lancaster University email account, they should visit https://lists.lancaster.ac.uk/lists/lists/subtext, log in using their normal uni username and password, and click ‘join’ at the top of the page.

If they are external to the university, please ask them to send an email to subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk, and we’ll sort it.

Comments Off on SUBSCRIPTION INFO

Posted in news

Tagged , ,

CLOD-HOPPING HOD-DROPPING

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on CLOD-HOPPING HOD-DROPPING

As the muted rows about the new processes for appointing heads of academic departments rumble on, it is worth reflecting on just how fundamental those changes are. The traditional Lancaster approach was, broadly, to allow departments to devise their own procedures, with the expectation that at some point all senior members should take their turn at the helm. The new process, which follows on from last year’s HoD Review, introduces two new features: that the HoD should ‘normally’ be a professor (if necessary, an external one), and that final approval of the candidate is to be made, not by the department or the faculty, but by a central appointments panel chaired by the VC.

While Lancaster is second to none when it comes to the quality of its professoriate, it does not follow that exemplary scholarship brings with it the skills and understanding required to run an academic department. (Why, we know of some professors… but that’s another story). There is also an equalities issue to consider. Currently, there are 295 professors in the university, of whom 69 (23%+) are women. However, the academic workforce is 36% female, so there is more chance that a professor will be a male. It follows that if the opportunity to head a department is restricted to an unrepresentative professoriate, there is indirect discrimination against women academics.

The situation becomes more worrying when one considers the composition of the HoD Appointments Panel. In a recent case, the panel included the Chief Administrative Officer and the HR Director. They were not there ‘in attendance’, but as fully-participating panel members. This is unprecedented. Never in the past have senior administrative officers had a direct say in academic appointments. There is the argument that a departmental headship is a management post, not an academic one. If that is the case, then there should not be a requirement that the holder be a professor, an academic title. The role of the HR Director in the process is particularly problematic. HR has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting on compliance with the University’s diversity and equality policy. If a complaint of discrimination should arise, who could be confident of the impartiality of an HR investigation if the boss was directly involved in making the decision? Finally, there appear to be no arrangements for oversight, as there are with other appointing bodies. Is the VC to report to himself?

Comments Off on CLOD-HOPPING HOD-DROPPING

Posted in news

Tagged , , , ,

SENATE REPORT

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on SENATE REPORT

The November session started with a written question to the VC asking if there were any plans to build lecture theatres capable of accommodating larger groups of students. The lack of such space was causing major problems for the larger teaching departments. Replying on behalf of the VC, Deputy VC Andrew Atherton said that indeed there was a plan for just such a facility, for up to 500 students. However, this was only a partial solution to the problem. As student numbers increased in line with the University’s strategic plan, other approaches would need to be adopted to deal with larger cohorts. These could include more flexible timetabling and extending the teaching day to enable more double-teaching. All this, of course, would have to happen without any detriment to the ‘student experience’. Nothing, though, was said about the detriment to the staff experience, a point made by a number of Senators during the ensuing discussion.

On next to the Vice-Chancellor’s report on current issues. There were plenty of positives – the record student intake this year (in contrast to much of the HE sector), becoming University of the Year and moving up to 6th place in the Times league table, the first LU Ghana graduation and the positive impact we’d made in that country. There was also a mention of the launch of UA92 (which he clearly believed was a positive development) and the current consultation on the plans in Manchester. The VC stated that he had been pleasantly surprised by the generally positive reception from local people and that any opposition was more to do with ‘Manchester politics’ than the merits of the plans. (Oh really? See letter from a local resident below – eds).

On the gloomier side, the VC had just received a consultation copy of the draft new regulatory framework for HE. The proposals, he reported, are overly heavy-handed and appear to put into regulation what the government had been unable to achieve in Parliament just before the last general election. Then there was the matter of what he termed ‘the pensions squabble’. The USS Board was seeking to change the pension from a defined-benefit scheme to what was essentially a savings scheme. This was being resisted by UCU and as a result the university was likely to be facing industrial action beginning next February. ‘But we are not the enemy’, protested the VC, who happens to be the current chair of UCEA, the employers’ group which has not opposed these changes. Lancaster staff facing major reductions in their pension benefits, while having to make increased contributions, may beg to differ.

Senate then went on to discuss the Court Effectiveness Review. This was to be an opportunity for Senate to make any final comments to the Review Group before it made its final recommendations. One of the LUSU Senate reps made a strong plea for Court to retain its role in university governance, and for its single annual meeting to be given more support and prominence by the university. He took issue with the Chief Administrative Officer’s briefing document which stated that there was a lack of diversity in the Court membership but did not offer any evidence to support this claim. He pointed out that Court was far more diverse and representative than the membership of University Council or the senior management team. He also questioned whether Court required ‘a considerable amount of resource’ to support its function, as was claimed in the document. The Chief Administrative Officer responded by restating what she had already said in her briefing paper. There were some further contributions in favour of the current Court arrangements but the discussion was effectively ended when the VC declared that his preference was to remove all governance responsibilities from Court and to retain its annual meeting as only ‘a stakeholder event’. So that, we must presume, is that.

There then followed a report on the institutional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for 2016/17. The VC indicated that overall, we were doing well against targets, though he was concerned that Lancaster is not doing as well as it should in retaining its students. Mental ill-health was identified as a major factor but for too many students there is no information on why they drop out. They simply leave without telling anyone why. Finally, there was that bit of the agenda covering written reports not presumed to warrant discussion. Thankfully, one eagle-eyed senator spotted a hugely important issue that was about to be nodded through without discussion- a reference to the Review of Part 1 which appeared to suggest that proposed changes would now be implemented after consultation with departments. Senate, of course, has yet to discuss and approve these changes. It was agreed that the report would be amended to make this clear. Just goes to show that careful reading of Senate papers is always worthwhile.

Comments Off on SENATE REPORT

Posted in official meetings

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

MISCELLANY

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on MISCELLANY

OVERHEARD AT LANCASTER

In the Management School Hub. A young man obviously very thrilled to have been offered a job at Lancaster University. ‘I am so pleased, fantastic, and they told me I don’t have to wear a suit every day to work but under no circumstances must I ever wear jeans to work’. Obviously not a teaching post then.

********

THE THIRD RED SCARE

In subtext 167, we reported on the ill-advised letter from Chris Heaton-Harris MP, sent to large numbers of Vice-Chancellors asking for all educational materials relating to Brexit, and the academics involved in its teaching. We were unsure at the time whether our own Vice-Chancellor had received Mr. Heaton-Harris’s pleasant little missive, and if so, what the response had been. Since then, SCAN has reported (http://tinyurl.com/y74h6dbd) that the VC did receive the request from Mr. Heaton-Harris, that it was considered under FOI procedures, and that the ruling followed the precedent set by Arkell v. Pressdram. It was to be expected, but pleasant to learn all the same.

********

VIRTUALLY FINISHED

As one of subtext’s drones was returning from a trip to the balmy South [they get holidays now?? -ed], imagine its surprise when it saw, as it was cruising up the A6 and passing the field immediately north of the current Lancaster University campus, the label ‘Lancaster Science Park’ emblazoned over a large grey rectangle to the right of the road on its sat nav screen. There may be no buildings, paths, lights, or any activity whatsoever on the field between Bailrigg Village and campus as yet, but at least someone is preparing for Lancaster’s bold northward expansion!

********

ANOTHER GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR SUBTEXT

Here in the warehouse we are always pleasantly surprised when we learn how widespread and diverse our readership is. Following our story on the overcrowded bus (subtext 168) it cannot be a coincidence that your correspondent witnessed a Stagecoach driver, in the underpass, stood outside of his bus counting the passengers on so not to exceed the legal numbers of standing passengers. The power of the press!

********

LSESP

Following our trip down memory lane (see subtext 168) a number of readers have expressed interest in knowing a little more about the Lancaster Social Education Project during the miners strike (1984/85). subtext would like to hear from readers who involved with the project or indeed the children and grandchildren of people who were active during that time and know of any ‘tales from the campsite’.

Comments Off on MISCELLANY

Posted in news

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH

Posted on November 23 2017 | Comments Off on THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH

Visitors to campus in recent days may have been rather baffled by the amount of pasta being handed out to passers-by. Those in the know, however, may well have been pleased to see some protest activity from the Students’ Union around an issue that clearly matters to students. The issue in question? On campus rents are set to increase by 4% – up to £249 per year – and LUSU officers highlighted the real terms of cost of this by setting up a stall with £249 worth of pasta (although we do wonder if £249 worth of beer might have been more relatable).

In response to the uproar, the University released a very brief statement, citing the usual ‘increasing costs’ and the fact that we consistently are voted ‘Best University Halls’ in the National Student Housing Awards. And, incomparable though we are, the usual opportunity to point out that we are better than our comparator institutions (which are, of course, chosen by us and are subject to change). Oddly, the statement does not offer the usual defence that comes up, which is that our agreement with UPP requires us to increase our rents above the rate of inflation year on year.

The institutional memory at any university is short, and by now the vast majority of students who were around in the 14/15 academic year will have gone in an almost complete change of blood. That’s a great shame, because it means that few are aware of the almighty year long war that raged between the SU and the University over a 2% rent increase – a series of protests that culminated in the first occupation of University House in over 2 decades, and forced the University’s hand in getting back around the table with the SU to agree on how to approach rent increases in the future.

It was ‘agreed’ during these negotiations that there would be greater student representation on any bodies that discuss and implement rent increases, as well as greater consultation. That the SU has responded so viscerally to the rent increase suggests either that they weren’t consulted, or that they weren’t listened to. Indeed, the response from the SU should be commended, given that such information has historically been imparted to SU officers on a ‘commercial in confidence’ basis. LUSU’s ‘Pay More, Get Less’ campaign highlights an increase in the cost of living, as well as a decrease in the block grant that they receive from the University to provide services to students. Couple this with the 2% cuts that all non-academic departments have had to make, as well as the multi-million pound risk that Lancaster is taking by involving itself in the ridiculous Gary Neville University and the costs of the campus redevelopment, and the message is clear – the University’s wild spending on vanity projects and commercial adventures is being placed on the shoulders of students. The students are Lancaster’s biggest single source of income, with around 47% of income coming from tuition fees in the last year for which records are available (15/16). This percentage has steadily increased over the past years, but perhaps the continued expenditure on projects that seem to do little to improve things for students shows that top table is rather unashamedly ignoring this.

The subtext collective wishes the SU well in its campaign, and we encourage our readers to involve themselves in it: https://tinyurl.com/y7umspov 

Comments Off on THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH

Posted in news

Tagged , , , , ,