| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 16 13 December 2006 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. CONTENTS: birthday message, privatisation on campus, noblesse oblige, People Strategy, anniversary awards, campus life, urban myths and realities, letters **************************************************** 1. THOUGHTS FROM THE SUBTEXT WAREHOUSE The first edition of subtext went out on December 12th 2005, so subtext is one year old this week - an occasion celebrated with much joy at the subtext warehouse, where our mascot, motto and coat of arms are displayed with pride, alongside the remaining letters of QinetiQ. Our subscription list is now over 700, which suggests either that we are doing something that people find useful or that life is so dull on campus that people are desperately in need of something to peruse during coffee breaks. And, since it is the end of year (calendar) and as thoughts turn away from work to something more congenial, here is a Special subtext Bumper Birthday Edition. We start this time with two apologies. The first is to all of those who found that subtext 15 was delivered not to their mailbox but went straight into their Junk Mail folder. We are trying to sort out how this happened; we are sure that this was merely a computer glitch, rather than something more sinister or to do with a new system of quality control in the University mail system. The second apology is in connection with the item in subtext 15 on League Tables, and we would like to thank Roger Cook at Paisley University, one of the authors of the report we discussed, that in effect turned the old TQA League Table on its head. Roger has been in touch to emphasise that the point of the article they produced was to show the vacuity – and the inherent bias- of the TQA and of the tables that resulted from it. As Roger points out, the Paisley academics tested the QAA's facile claims as to how Subject Review was conducted, by controlling for factors that, according to the QAA's approach, should have been irrelevant, but in fact produced a ranking vastly different to the official TQA one. These were points that the article's authors also made to the THES – which misreported them and conveyed the misunderstandings that were then reported in subtext. The article by the Paisley academics reported on by THES showed not only how skewed the TQA was towards pre-92 institutions but also, more significantly, just how fatuous the whole exercise was. That the THES itself failed to pick up on the nuances of the article in the context of its focus on bias towards pre-1992 universities, is of concern, since it suggests that the THES itself might have similar orientations, reproducing the system's inherent biases towards these same universities. A further item in subtext 15 noted the upheavals at Oxford over its VC's plans to 'reform' the university by bringing in outside figures and give them a majority on the University's Council, thereby undermining that institution's democratic structures. Since then, academics at Oxford have voted the planned 'reforms' down- although there remains talk that the VC will seek another vote, this time by postal ballot, presumably in the hope that a second ballot will provide the results he wanted but did not get the first time. It's an interesting spin on democracy; aren't elections supposed to decide things, or is it the case that those in power can now call for a second vote if they are defeated first time around? If the response of the Oxford VC is to go down this route, it would speak much of his attitude towards democratic governance. Our birthday issue starts with an item on the new Foundation programme that raises very serious questions about encroaching privatisation at Lancaster, one that incorporates worrying implications for standards, for the university's autonomy in terms of selecting its own students, and for its potential impact on the activities of departments in the university, whose own activities appear to face competition from an external 'provider' with which the university is doing business. We also publish an open letter to university management from academics in the Department of Linguistics and English Language (LAEL) on this issue. We also, as promised in subtext 15, have an item on the People Strategy, the title of a policy document that 'emerged' from UMAG and the Personnel Office, and that is to be imposed on staff at Lancaster, a short but telling item about the use of the lift in University House, subtext's inaugural annual birthday awards, some further contributions on University Urban Myths, and a telling couple of tales initially thought to be myths but that say much about finance, management and dealings with the private sector. We also include a new subtext irregular feature, Scenes from Campus Life, which will convey short vignettes that capture the ethos of life at the modern university. *************************************************** 2. STUDY GROUP INTERNATIONAL AND THE PRIVATISATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING ON CAMPUS Below we publish a letter signed by a number of members of the Department of Linguistics and English Language (LAEL), reflecting concerns about a venture between Lancaster University and an external business enterprise (Study Group International SGI), which now has a commercial arrangement to provide overseas students with English language teaching on campus with a view to entering the University after a period of study here. The letter, amongst other things, raises the question of whether the University is in effect going into competition with itself (since LAEL already teaches programmes in English for Academic Purposes (EAP), an area that SGI is engaging in here) or whether it may have signed a contract privileging a rival of one of its own Departments. SGI has established an International Study Centre at Lancaster (see the University's web site http://www.lancs.ac.uk - although when one clicks on the ISC one is taken to Study Group's own web site http://www.studygroup.com/isc/lancaster/), which offers international high school students whose native language is not English a 'direct path to a wide range of degrees at Lancaster University'. SGI has similar links to other universities in the UK- although it is not easy to find exactly which ones, since its web site is less than forthcoming about its links and partners- although very welcoming of those who wish to become agents for the group (subtext is considering this option at present). We are aware of cases where SGI involvement has caused concern. A central condition of the contract SGI has with the University of Surrey, for example, is the waiver of IELTS (or any equivalent standardised test), which is normally a pre-requisite for international (non-native English speaker) entry into university. Instead at Surrey Study Group are proposing to use their own module assessments in lieu of a standardised test, implying that, through its agreement with SGI, the University of Surrey will admit students to its degree courses who have not passed Surrey's normal entry requirements but those of an external commercial company, whose business relies on its ability to provide international students with an English language education that can get them into a British university. We hear that protests by academics at Surrey were met with the response that Lancaster agreed a similar waiver. There were protests, too, at Northumbria University in April at job losses in connection with SGI's potential involvement there, and the related threat to jobs due to the reorganisation of Northumbria's English Language Centre, which teaches English to foreign language students starting degrees. University officials claimed the centre was overstaffed for its current levels of work and planned to reduce its staff levels from 28 to 18; at the same time, however, the University opened negotiations with Study Group International to provide services similar, we understand, to those it will provide at Surrey and Lancaster. It is hard to escape the feeling that SGI is being brought there to do something already provided by that university's own Centre- and that the job losses are somehow connected. Other institutions where SGI has links include Sussex, whose VC, famed for his attempted closure of Sussex's Chemistry Department, according to Study Group, invited the company to establish an International Study Centre there Is this another step in the privatisation of universities, with services
already provided from within universities being cut while external commercial
companies are hired in to provide those same services? And what does this
say about the standards being provided? Study Group can presumably do
it cheaper – but does cheaper mean better? And what about the autonomy
of a University that signs a contract that allows an external commercial
agency to, in effect, determine whether a student can enter it or not?
There are many issues that are unclear both about this new venture and the way in which it has been adopted by the University. At present we at subtext know little about SGI, save that it is based in Hove, and was once part of the Daily Mail Group. We ask readers to send us any information you might have about the company and the arrangement it has with Lancaster. Certainly this is an issue of major importance for the University, and one we hope to follow up further in subsequent subtexts. Here is the statement from members of LAEL: STATEMENT This is a short response from members of the Department of Linguistics and English Language (LAEL) to the announcement on the Lancaster University website of the establishment of an International Study Centre on campus. The Centre is to be run by an independent business operation (Study Group International – SGI), offering 12-month Foundation courses for prospective undergraduates, with a significant English for Academic Purposes (EAP) language component. We are particularly concerned about the academic and commercial implications of this agreement for colleagues in LAEL who work in cognate areas. The overall issue is one of safeguarding the interests of academic staff, and by extension the university of which we are a part. As is widely known, LAEL includes a group of colleagues with worldwide reputations in the research and development of the teaching of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Indeed, historically Lancaster University has been central in creating and shaping the field of EAP. Our statement is provoked by the fact that SGI has been contracted without consultation with Lancaster University's own EAP specialists over the design of the innovation, or over the various implications this may have for our existing academic and commercial activities. These include the on-campus Study Skills summer courses which LAEL offers, and the international academic reputation of colleagues in the area of EAP. We elaborate on these points below, and conclude with a request for assurances on three matters. a) Principles of consultation with internal specialists in the field: It is alarming that staff with internationally recognised expertise in EAP provision and research were not consulted by the University on an innovation such as this. When undertaking developments in one of its academic areas, we would expect the University to consult with - and explore implications of the development for - its specialist academic staff. No doubt others on campus also have relevant expertise. The implications of such an innovation need to be explored and discussed with those members of the University whose academic reputations, teaching and research space might be particularly at stake prior to decisions being taken. b) Lack of consultation with existing on-campus service providers: LAEL (and before it, the Institute for English Language Education, which LAEL founded within the University) is itself an active provider of EAP programmes, having earned valuable income for the University and the Department for more than 30 years, and therefore has an obvious professional interest in being informed of developments. The massive prominence of the new programme on the LU website, and the likely impact on the availability of physical space, staffing and other facilities (such as the opportunity to collaborate with other Lancaster University departments) can only be seen as a direct commercial threat to an existing on-campus enterprise. It is normal practice for existing university services (e.g. catering services) to have first refusal over on-campus business opportunities. Yet this programme has been announced without any consultation with LAEL staff as providers of a related service. c) Concern for safeguarding our reputations through appropriate monitoring procedures: Finally standards are a legitimate concern for all of us. In this respect, it is worrying that the University has not invited specialist Lancaster University staff to contribute preliminary input or to participate in future monitoring of the operation. Colleagues capable of providing specialist advice will find their academic reputations compromised if standards are not maintained. Particular areas of concern for all academic departments include the fact that (i) an externally validated language test (such as IELTS) will not be used as an exit criterion, in spite of the fact that the University uses such tests as part of its normal admissions procedures; (ii) the website announces a programme apparently closely tailored to the language demands of particular academic departments, implying the appointment of staff able to collaborate with the departments involved; and (iii) it is not at all clear what procedures and practices will be followed to ensure that students recruited onto the programme have the intended language level at entry. In light of the above, we request: Further, if the University departments, faculties and committees concerned by the establishment of the International Centre have not had the opportunity to discuss the University's agreement with SGI, they should be invited to do so and decide whether they recommend it as being in the University's interests. There is a clear need for discussions to manage and mitigate any potential conflict between this innovation, and the interests of one of the University's departments. We deplore the fact that to date this has not been attempted. Signatories: (Professors) Martin Bygate, Charles Alderson, David Barton, Paul Chilton, Norman Fairclough, Roz Ivanic, Keith Johnson, Paul Kerswill, Mick Short, Ruth Wodak, (Drs) Jay Banerjee, Veronika Koller, Gila Schauer, Mark Sebba, Elena Semino, Jane Sunderland, Dianne Wall and former member of IELE Dr. Kathy Pitt. *************************************************** 3. NOBLESSE OBLIGE Due to the extensive building work around the entrance to University House, staff are now required to go around the building to what most of them refer to as the 'tradesman's entrance'. That's probably unavoidable, but what's perhaps less understandable was the email received by the staff on the lower floors, requesting them not to use the lift during this period. ('To avoid congestion', as one disgruntled recipient said.) Reserving the lift for the use of those on the top floor, and presumably any captains of industry who may be visiting, is no doubt an essential managerial decision at a time of some strain due to equally essential disruption, but we suspect that workers on the lower floor may in future, shall we say, be less inclined than usual to hold doors open for their colleagues from above. *************************************************** 4. THE PEOPLE STRATEGY In subtext 15 we referred to 'The People Strategy'- a document produced somehow 'on high' that outlines future University policy/strategy for dealing with its staff. We have now had a closer look at the 'new' People Strategy document to see what the future may hold for staff here. The document is the direct descendant of the previous Human Resources Strategy – whatever happened to that? – but presented in a more user–friendly form. And (at least according to the new title) we've all been upgraded from 'human resources' to 'people'! Apparently written to complement and support the successful implementation of the recently revised University Strategic Plan, it is intended to 'address the needs and circumstances of all staff, across all functional groups and locations'. So, no one escapes! A diagram is also given that outlines the presumed connections between people and management practices, such as recruitment and rewards, which encourage a positive psychological contract between the individual and the organization, (yes, they do, honestly!). In turn this will result in the 'required' organizational behaviours, namely productivity, innovation, agility and respect, leading to – you've guessed it – organizational success. It's all so straightforward and easy! The document tells us, too, that recent 'achievements' regarding the reward framework at Lancaster (a.k.a. 'pay modernisation') in combination with other elements of the strategy 'provide a platform for driving change across the institution in culture and behaviours'. The 'People challenges' facing us are outlined. These include the changing jobs market within higher education, the growth of employment legislation, staff expectations and changes in bargaining structures and processes from national to local levels on key issues. Somewhat more menacingly, there is also the University's financial strategy to factor in, a key objective of which is to contain payroll costs to 60% of overall spend, as well as the University's recently launched business process review, which is looking at what we do internally and how we do it. By a strange coincidence the project group for the latter is headed by the Director of Finance and Resources whose comment that the project would raise questions about jobs and job security yet was not targeted to produce redundancies (a statement that caused many to conclude the opposite) was reported in subtext 12. In passing, one might note that the People Strategy has as one of its summary actions the revision of the redundancy and redeployment policy, but the authors seem to have forgotten that we don't have one as such, unless it's been quietly slipped through the HR committee without public discussion! How are these challenges to be addressed? There is to be a focus on five key areas. The first is a fully integrated 'Talent Management' programme. (Sorry, we are not making this up!) It may be that the X Factor is coming to Lancaster but the objective is to have effective policies and processes for the recruitment, retention, development and well being of all staff. Second, 'Total Reward' policies will be developed which will emphasise the intangible benefits of employment (for example, challenge and interest) alongside the tangible (pay and career opportunities). Third, the People Strategy document states that access to relevant and progressive professional and leadership development programmes will be readily available to all staff. Fourth, the aim is to continuously improve employee relations through the development of sound HR (human resource) policies. Fifth and finally, if all this is to be achieved the HR function within the University will have to be further enhanced, i.e. more resources are needed. All the above elements are elaborated upon within the document but the overriding impression remains that this has been put together using a first year management textbook. It is no surprise that it was not well received at Senate's last meeting, with at least one member remarking that it was difficult to recognize that it was intended for implementation within a university. Academic staff in particular will search in vain for an appreciation and understanding of the importance and value of professional autonomy within their work. Likewise, mention of collegiality is absent from the document. In its place we have an emphasis on performance management. The assertion is made that the management of staff performance remains an 'area of concern', and it is here that an institution- wide Talent Management programme will apparently have a role to play. There is another proposal to modernize and launch key employment policies relating to performance and to produce management toolkits, and another for all staff to have a 'structured performance management process' by 2010. These and other actions will contribute to the (much needed) development of an integrated performance management system. The inference is clear. We have been underachieving as an organization. Hence more management is needed. Of course at subtext we are surprised as everyone else will be that a document coming out of University management has concluded that more management is needed to make us better. We are, however, puzzled that the strategy document is silent on the vexed issue of resources on this point, or indeed on all the other areas it discusses. It does acknowledge that resource limitations within Human Resources present a 'unique challenge' in terms of its delivery - which many Heads of Department have interpreted as code for this becoming their responsibility. On the other hand, if, as the document suggests, a Return on Investment Model linked to Pay Modernisation is introduced in 2007, we may find that resources become available to assist in the task. (At this point readers should look out of the nearest window for signs of flying pigs.) We understand that UMAG and the HR committee have already endorsed the People Strategy. Doubtless they were reassured by the existence of measures by which it can be evaluated and senior managers held to account. However, as HoDs and others have remarked, it was produced with the minimum of consultation - and it shows. We are now promised wide consultation after the event. The People Strategy document, as we indicate above, raises many questions and seems to be yet another example of ill-judged top down management, aimed at changing the University's culture, jettisoning collegiality in favour of increased management and exciting new 'Talent Management' programmes. Then again, who would have expected anything else? Does anyone remember the days when we just worked hard and were driven by professional pride and collegial commitment to our fields of work, our colleagues and the institution? *************************************************** 5. THE SUBTEXT ANNIVERSARY AWARDS To celebrate our first anniversary we present here the subtext First Annual Awards for Services to the University. The awards will carry the usual subtext cachet, coupled with the usual fruits of subtext prizes (i.e. nothing). ****** subtext Media Award This was a tightly run affair, with two stand-out candidates, each of whom has gone to extraordinary lengths to snatch this glittering prize by bringing the University into the eyes of the wider media in some noteworthy way. Until barely a month ago, the undisputed front runner and hot favourite was our very own VC, Paul Wellings, for his sterling deeds in getting Lancaster University into the national press last autumn via the George Fox 6 case. Sadly, however, Professor Wellings will have to settle for the runner-up slot, for at the last gasp the prize has been snatched away from him - by a close colleague on UMAG. So congratulations to Cary Cooper for his appearance in the Guardian's Bad Science column (see subtext 15). We hope Professor Cooper is proud of this prestigious award. We trust, too, that we can rely on him – and Professor Wellings - to continue with their sustained efforts to ensure that the award is retained on D Floor next year too. ****** subtext Award for Most Useless and Short-Lived Innovation Another close run call, between the banners proclaiming our £200 million investment in facilities, and the 'interactive screen' supposedly providing campus information in the Underpass, which was active for a brief period, although mostly this consisted of a butterfly flittering across the screen periodically, before going dead. While the screen is still there, it appears to have long ago given up any aspirations to being interactive or even operational. subtext has recently been informed that the fumes from passing traffic gummed up the air filter system needed to run the projectors for the screen, and that until these are cleaned (something that will mean closing the Underpass) the screen remains inactive. That's probably a good thing anyway- who wants the Underpass closed just to get that butterfly back? The winner, therefore, is the screen. We offer a special subtext prize, too, for anyone writing in to us with a piece of campus information that they actually gleaned from the screen during its short extant life so long ago. ****** subtext Climb down of the Year Award This has to go to the AUT negotiators in the pay dispute. While we were
all relieved that the whole sorry dispute, with its stressful marking
boycott and the worries this imparted on our students, was resolved, we
still cannot make out what was so good or different about the accepted
offer compared with the one so resoundingly rejected by the same negotiators
just beforehand. subtext Award for Information Received and Letters of Support This goes to all our readers and correspondents who have helped us over the past year to keep up with University stories and rumours. We won't name anyone but you are all quietly and metaphorically enshrined in subtext's Hall of Merit at the back of the warehouse. *************************************************** 6. SCENES FROM CAMPUS LIFE The following scene, observed by a member of the subtext collective, will be familiar to many who work on our tranquil campus at present. A lecture hall, students sitting, notebooks at the ready and a lecturer organising his notes at the lectern. As the lecturer begins to speak, the students fall silent - at which point a pneumatic drill immediately starts up right outside, drowning the speaker's voice. The speaker stops, the drill ceases, the lecturer starts again. Then the drill starts again ... *************************************************** 7. URBAN MYTHS PART ONE We've had more response to the idea of the Bailrigg Urban Myth than just about anything else we have ever published. See below for responses to the myths published in subtext 15, but first here are a few more to keep the ball rolling: ****** Myth 1. 'The Lancaster student suicide rate is the highest in the country.' subtext verdict: Unproven. This myth is trotted out every so often, without any proof. There was a time when the tower was the scene of several suicides in fairly quick succession, which is where the idea may have come from, but we aren't aware of any recently. Does anyone have any statistics? ****** Myth 2. Back in the old days, if porters suspected that members of staff were engaged in sexual trysts after work in their office, they would wait until the light was turned off and then go up and lock the door. As the old office doors couldn't be unlocked from the inside, those inside the office would have to ring down to ask the porter to come and let them out, to an innocent 'Sorry, the light was off so I assumed everyone had gone home ...' subtext verdict: Falls down on the simple ground that doors can always be opened from the inside. Except on one notable occasion in the Politics Dept in the 1970s, when after an altercation with a member of staff, a porter did lock him and his friend in his office, and the porter left the key in the lock, so that the inmates couldn't get their key in from the other side. It seems that this single event has become a template for a more general myth. There is also a similar story from about the same time centring around a manager of the Sports Centre, his friend and a wonky sauna thermostat late one evening. But that's for another day. ****** Myth 3. 'The duck pond is officially known as 'Lake Carter', in honour of the first VC.' subtext verdict: True. Which leads us to another in our series of subtext competitions: what edifice or other feature of the University should be named after the present VC, in order to preserve his memory once he leaves? ****** Myth 4. 'The University was once in a travel guide as a nature trail.' subtext verdict: True. The 1986 edition of 'Explore Britain! 1001 Places to Visit' describes it as the 'Bailrigg nature trail (Lancaster University) A6 south of Lancaster. Trail (often muddy) starts as Visitors Parking North way-marked yellow. Formerly garden and farmland, now campus, landscaped with trees. 1 mile, may be shortened by cutting between buildings.' For those who know the area, it's the steeply sloping path through the trees beyond County. Don't you love that 'often muddy'? This is surely the product of the same drive obsessively to mention every hiccup and squeak of anyone from Lancaster in the University's Newsletter - someone in the Press Office said 'Hey! Lots of people read guides on walking, let's get ourselves into one of them!' Try it one day, see if you think it's a 'nature trail'. ****** Myth 5. There is a bomb shelter under University House. subtext verdict: we don't know. Can anyone provide evidence either way? And if it exists, what is the real purpose - to safeguard UMAG if the students (or, heaven forbid, the staff) take over? *************************************************** 8. URBAN MYTHS PART TWO In subtext 15 we mentioned two University Urban Myths and several correspondents have been in touch (including Dave Boyle, Mike Cowie, Neil Mullinger, and some anonymous ones) to provide further information on these that show that they are not myths but realities. ****** Myth 1: There is a tunnel under the campus Dave Boyle, a former Lancaster student writes: 'I don't know if a third-hand report qualifies as confirmation, but I was an undergraduate from 1992-1995, the first year of which was when the new Pendle blocks were being built on the south end of campus. During this project, which also saw the construction of the George Fox Building, much work went on to connect the new facilities to existing University infrastructure. 'One night, a corridor mate from Pendle possessed of far greater bravado than anyone we knew managed to enter the tunnel under the spine, the entrance to which had been opened as part of the construction work. He said he got to the underpass, where the dankness of the tunnel got too much, and he exited. This journey was attested to by several others who followed him on his journey in parts, hearing him shout upwards through (one presumes) the drains.' Mike Cowie informs us that there are two large underground tunnel systems that carry huge heating pipes and the ISS networking lines, one serving the north campus and the other the south. The systems do not continue under Alex Square, which is a roof for the underpass, with no room for access by people between it and the top of the buses, and so that's why the campus system is divided into two. The last Mike heard, the south system extended to a manhole cover in the middle of a field near what's now Infolab, and you could open it and peer out like some giant gopher. Both sets of tunnels flood with unpleasant scummy water in places to a depth of about 6 inches, so you need wellies to go down there. He has also heard that the tunnels were mapped, as practice for real caves by LUSS (the caving club) in the 1970s, and somewhere near the Management School, there is some graffiti dated 1976 that lends weight to this rumour. There are big fans at the north end of the south system, and you can look down at people in the bus queue in the underpass. The person who told Mike about the cavers said that they dropped little stones down onto the people waiting, because they found it funny to see them look about all confused trying to work out who kept chucking things at them. However, we should warn anyone who might want to break into these tunnel systems that they have quite a few hazards. Because parts of the campus site are sloping, but the tunnels are horizontal, there are some ladders to go up and down between sections, and some quite big drops. Little pumps drain the systems, and keep the water to a depth of about 6 inches in most of the tunnels, but there was are places that, if the pumps are not working, can flood to a depth of several feet, causing anyone down there to have serious difficulties. ****** Myth 2 You can cross the campus from north to south without touching the ground – and students used to have a race to do this Neil Mullinger writes: 'I can confirm that it is indeed possible to make the journey from the very northern end of the Spine walkway at County down to Pendle without touching the ground. The crux of the course is crossing the area of the Venue with a second difficulty in the area of the Biology Lecture theatre. It should probably not be attempted without a good head for heights, a certain amount of climbing ability and a couple of pints to relax the athletes. 'I can also confirm that it has been raced with the current best recorded time being set at 3 mins 43 seconds by a former student who shall remain nameless. That is timed from leaving the ground to touching down again. There were several eyewitnesses.' Another (anonymous) correspondent also wrote to say that: *************************************************** 9. NOT MYTHS AT ALL: FINANCES, TREES AND VAT The next two items were sent to us as 'myths' but further information showed that they were realities. We provide them here under a separate heading because they say much about the University and its operations. ****** The first one has clear messages about University engagement with private businesses and concerns estate management and the campus trees. Thanks again to Mike Cowie for alerting us to this, and other correspondents for confirming details. In late eighties/early nineties, the University decided that outsourcing estates management to a private firm would be 'more efficient'. The private firm chosen started with a survey of the campus grounds and informed the University that a number of trees would have to come down; however, since the University would need to replace them, the firm offered to do this at a cost of £80 per sapling to replace each dangerous tree. The University agreed to this. However, a biology lecturer – said to be the late Professor Andrew Malloch - noticed that most of the beech trees on campus appeared to have red marks on them, and made enquiries. Realising that the plan was to cut the beech trees down, he made a report to the University, which fortunately listened to him (those were the days!), and the process was stopped. The company entrusted to look after the campus estates had marked almost every beech tree for removal, and since beech is expensive wood, each was worth then about £800- a little more than the £80 per replacement sapling. The company would have done well, and the University and campus would have been scalped. The University in this instance listened to the advice of their academics; another involved in the campaign to save the trees, John Rodwell, was subsequently asked to chair a landscape advisory group. Despite all the building work that now goes, the campus overall has been well looked after. There may be a moral in there somewhere, about dealing with private external operators and about listening to what campus staff have to say ... ****** The second 'myth' that proved to be a reality- again with messages about the sort of managerial skills we all so love- relates to finance and the period in the mid 1990s, when Lancaster University embarked upon an extensive building programme, including expansion of the library. However, those responsible for financial affairs forgot to include VAT when costing the planned library extension. When the mistake came to light, the planned extension was cut back proportionately to fit the new reduced budget. When it was discovered that all the other budgets related to expansion were in disarray, precipitating Lancaster's mid-1990s financial crisis, one casualty was the entire south side of the extension, which simply does not exist. As correspondents note, if one explores the library, one can find corridors that don't go anywhere and other indicators that something more was planned for the building. Such magnificent cock-ups are part of our heritage at Lancaster- the failure to understand VAT rates appears to be a recurrent one in the 1990s – and we would like to hear more from readers about this rich part of Lancaster history. *************************************************** 10. LETTERS Dear Editors, The article on UMAG and the issues it raised about a separation of concerns between the management of the University and the business of the University reminded me of two conversations I've had. The first was at my first QAA Board of Directors meeting, and the second occurred 3 weeks ago at my alma mater in Australia. In the first the subject was Gold Plating, or how some universities around the time of an audit invest large amounts of money to convince the outside world that processes that are totally ineffective (and invented specifically for the review) meet some set of arbitrary check boxes which the institution assumes exist. This is made tragic rather than comical by the fact that audits largely try to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of an institution as the institution sees them. Gold plating thus leads to everyone panicking about policies and plans that have no life beyond the audit and at best have no impact on the life of the institution (well... with the exception of its management, certain creative talents in administration and some committees that get taken in by it all). At worst the 'management' prevents the 'business' from being done. The second conversation took place three weeks ago, two weeks after staff at that university received notice that one third of their academic staff were to be retrenched. What had happened was that management had so built up the number of 'business' people, managers, and administration staff that the place became overstaffed. Then, when retrenchment became necessary, staff were asked to 'volunteer' for redundancy. It appears that the academic staff (at all levels) were asked but were 'a bit slow' in volunteering, leading management to decide who to get rid of. Everyone is left wondering if they used dice to decide. There are messages here for Lancaster. There is a lot to be said for having people who not only once understood academia, but who understand Lancaster and will have to live with the consequence (for better or worse) involved in the running of this University. A good first step might be a new management philosophy of empowering those who do the work rather than using last minute consultations. On that note, well done to Father Hugh for his role at Senate (see subtext 15). Maybe what we really need is not only a Father of the Senate, but a Father of the Council as well? Applications from senior academics with a dislike of wasted time, an understanding of the word 'university' and a strong loyalty to any of our colleges could be invited. Andre Oboler ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Ian Reader, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Alan Whitaker. |