Tag Archives: student numbers

subtext 184 – ‘life’s an illusion love is a dream’

Every so often during term time.

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

Back issues & subscription details: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/about/

In this issue: editorial, unconditional offers, stansted 15, lusu referendum, shop news, lost and found, restaurant review, widden, letters.

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

EDITORIAL

At the beginning of term, subtext reported on the apparent fait accompli around evening teaching:

http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/2018/10/11/good-evening-everyone/

Definitely here to stay, we thought, and management won’t budge. Looks like we weren’t quite right. While some evening classes took place throughout the term, and this looks set to continue until at least 2020, there has been quite a bit of furious backpedalling by senior management and Timetabling. This means that the number of evening classes has already been reduced by some shuffling (of deck-chairs, more cynical readers may think), and management are even apparently exploring other options, including lecture live-streaming where departments are keen. From being a sure thing that only need to be evaluated for impact, evening teaching at Lancaster has now apparently shifted to being an emergency measure to cope with a temporary space problem. Trebles all round?

There are, however, still some unanswered questions around how the University will cope with the projected year-on-year increase in student numbers, when newly built lecture theatres may only solve the current teaching space problem. Perhaps some more radical solutions need to be considered, including – shock horror – only accepting as many students as we have room to teach?

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE

The practice, widespread across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, of making unconditional offers to applicants for undergraduate degrees is attracting the displeasure of ministers, VCs and, potentially, the new Office for Students (OfS). Sam Gyimah MP, Minister of State for Universities until he became a Brexit casualty on 30 November, described them on 26 July as ‘completely irresponsible’ and called on the OfS to take action. The VCs at Brunel, Buckingham, Chichester, Hertfordshire, King’s College London and the West of England led the signatories to a letter in the Times on 20 November, regretting that the practice was ‘detrimental to the longer-term interests of students, skews university choices and reduces the motivation and quality of sixth-form life in schools.’ Signatories particularly disliked so-called ‘unconditional if firm’ offers, also called ‘conditional unconditional’ offers, where universities put students under pressure by dangling an unconditional offer in front of them… but only if they pick that university as their firm choice, not their insurance choice.

Lancaster is unlikely to sign up to such sentiments – because business is booming in ‘unconditional if firm’ offers here! For some of our departments, the overwhelming majority of offers are now ‘unconditional if firm’, and as our admissions team will doubtless point out, they seem to work, especially when it comes to persuading applicants to choose us in preference to a close rival.

This competitive advantage only works if we’re doing it and our competitors are not, of course, and UCAS’s 2018 end-of-cycle report, published on 29 November, suggests that we’re fast approaching a no-score draw:

https://www.ucas.com/data-and-analysis/undergraduate-statistics-and-reports/ucas-undergraduate-end-cycle-reports/2018-end-cycle-report

It seems that 14% of offers made for 2018 entry were unconditional, this being made up of 7.1% genuinely unconditional offers and 6.9% ‘unconditional if firm’ offers. Overall, 34.4% of applicants received at least one unconditional offer last year. In a conclusion due to be filed alongside that technical report on ‘things bears do in the woods’, UCAS has found that ‘applicants who hold an unconditional offer as their firm choice are more likely to miss their predicted A level grades by 2 or more points, compared to those who are holding a conditional offer as their firm choice.’

It pains subtext that Lancaster is one of the pioneers of this coercive approach to recruitment; but it seems likely that we won’t be allowed to do it for much longer anyway. Last year, Swansea University published the following statement on its website, aimed at its 2018 applicants, and we really couldn’t have put it better ourselves:

‘Universities typically indicate that they are making an unconditional offer because they have been favourably impressed with the candidate’s application. As flattering as it can be to receive such an offer, we would suggest that you consider why a University is behaving in this way. In this situation you are being invited to enroll on a degree programme without having to demonstrate prior achievement or a relevant base of subject knowledge. This says quite a lot about the University and their lack of confidence in being able to attract strong students.’

Miaow! This statement is no longer on Swansea’s website – we wonder why?! – but is still available via the magic of the Google cache.

LETTERS

Dear subtext,

As a current member of USS (but not of any union), I must say that UCU’s reaction to the proposed changes to USS seems rather over the top.

Under the proposed changes, benefits already accrued will not change – all that will change is that benefits accrued from 2019 onward. The scheme would move to entirely defined contribution, rather than defined benefit. This is in line with standard practice in the private sector. In addition, the proposal would include an option for employee contributions of 4%, alongside the 85 already offered, making it far more appealing for to staff such as myself on lower salaries.

In contrast UCU’s proposal would see employee contributions increase above the current 8% (hardly a low level to begin with), which would likely price many lower paid staff out of the scheme.

While I believe there is a middle ground between UUK’s proposed reduction to benefits and UCU’s proposed increase in contributions, UCU’s response to UUK’s proposal being chosen over theirs seems to be melodramatic. To call for 14 days of strike action over a change which would simply bring the scheme in line with the private sector norm, and to do so before the consultation period on the new scheme has even opened, looks to me like UCU striking for the sake of it.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Fleming

(History, 2010)

***

Dear subtext,

It is totally unnecessary for the university to require us to ‘double-teach’ lectures, as you report in subtext 172. The lecture can simply be recorded and placed on Moodle. A single optional session can then be organised for those students who wish to ask questions. When I previously wrote to subtext, a couple of years back, in support of the LUSU campaign for the video recording of all lectures, pointing out in the process that this was an opportunity for us all to lecture less, my views were not exactly warmly received. One of those who replied was, if I recall rightly, ‘appalled’ at my suggestion. Perhaps now, faced with the prospect of coming in on a Saturday morning to repeat the Friday afternoon lecture, staff will become more appreciative of the technological alternatives. There are, of course, some things that must be delivered fact-to-face – laboratory/computer practicals being the obvious example. Some of these I do currently double-teach, but in my experience I generally have a flood of students for the early session, and then a sparse group for the late show. Students don’t seem to like double-teaching any more than we do. So let’s not have any talk of double-lecturing – let’s just get out the cameras, apply our non-reflective moisturizer, and get into the 21st century.

Sincerely,

Derek Gatherer

BLS (FHM)

subtext 172 – ‘panic in granadaland’

Fortnightly during term time.

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

Back issues & subscription details: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/about/

In this issue: editorial, strike, more strike, pile ’em high and sell ’em cheap, UA92, court report, bomb shelter news, letters.

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

EDITORIAL

Imagine the situation. You’ve just been named ‘University of the Year’. Yes, we know it’s a marketing gimmick. But they’re not going to trash their reputation by giving you the thing if they don’t think you’re pretty good, are they? And you’ve just got a ‘Gold’ rating in the national assessment of teaching quality. Again, yes, we know it’s a flawed measure. But you’re pretty keen to keep hold of it, aren’t you?

Given all this, what’s your headline strategy for the next few years? What’s that? ‘Go all out for an increase in numbers, with no investment in facilities to match, get the staff to double teach their courses, and make them teach on a Saturday,’ you say? Well, congratulations! You’re just the person we’re looking for to drive our ‘dash for growth’ proposals forward.

Oh, just one more thing. Do you have a private pension plan? You see, I’m not sure you’re going to like our plans for the company scheme…

REVERSE AND FAST FORWARD

Our senate report in subtext 151 noted that Lancaster aimed to increase student numbers to 14,640 by the academic year 19/20. In spite of the concerns about space that were raised at the time, and the admission from the Deputy Vice Chancellor that there would be ‘a lag’ between student numbers and the resources that become available to them, it would appear that the top table doesn’t consider that to be nearly enough.

They have indicated to HoDs and others that the University is to aim for an extra 2,000 new undergraduates by 2020-21. Discussions have been held (not consultations you will note) about how to accommodate such a large growth in students. Most obviously you would have thought that this would necessitate an expansion of teaching spaces, but there would appear to be no planned increase in accommodation and resources beyond what was promised in late 2016. Instead, it is proposed that departments will double-teach (teach two different groups of students the same thing) or in some cases triple-teach. In addition, the University intends to extend the teaching day, possibly to include weekends. The VC’s take on all this is that our current staff-student ratio is far superior to our competitors and the increase in student numbers should not impact on that. Furthermore, statistically we appear to teach much less than comparable institutions. So that’s OK then.