issue 63

3 June 2010

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

'Truth: lies open to all'

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

Every fortnight during term-time.

All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk.

Please 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.

subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld.

For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/.

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

CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, universities: the big picture, senate report, impact, 1966 and all that, letters.

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

EDITORIAL

Times are tough and getting tougher for universities (see 'The Big Picture', below). In the coming months it will be far too easy for opposite sides on any and every dimension to compete rather than work together for the best of the sector and all that it can offer in terms of research and teaching. Imagine how it might be if administrators and academics actually worked together to find effective solutions to the challenging circumstances. Imagine faculties and departments working together to make the most effective use of resources. Imagine old and new universities working together to best maintain Britain's position in terms of research and education. Perhaps if we all imagine the best, we can make the future a little brighter.

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

NEWS IN BRIEF

Redundancies

We understand that at the last Committee of Council meeting, the proposed redundancies of senior administrative staff, on which we reported in the last issue, were approved. The proposals were not simply waved through by Council members, the result of the vote being 9 for and 6 against with a couple of abstentions. University (academic and union) members who voted against or abstained have apparently been invited to a meeting with Andrew Neal, the Chief Operating Officer and Fiona Aiken, University Secretary, to discuss their concerns about the restructuring of Marketing and External Linkages, of which the redundancies are a part.

*******

Beware of Greeks bearing partnerships

The University's latest foreign excursions have taken our Deputy VC to Athens where (in his own words) "the meetings ... were a delight" and the colleagues from OTE (Hellenic Telecommunications Organization S. A.) were "very pleasant" and "extremely bright and focussed." No need, then, for assurance that there is a firm foundation for the latest use of the Lancaster University brand name despite the lack of infrastructure and the Greek financial situation.

The plan is to offer Lancaster degrees (undergraduate and postgraduate) through OTE Academy in Greece. The postgraduate programmes, starting in January 2011, will be substantially taught by Lancaster staff and perhaps 70% of the fees will come to Lancaster in the first instance. They were so busy being delighted, pleasant, bright and focussed that they neglected to agree what the fees would be for one of the programmes, the MSc in Broadband and Mobile Communication Systems; the Global MBA will charge 14-15k Euros. The undergraduate programmes will be taught by OTEA staff ratified by Lancaster and the administrative support will be split between the two bodies; Lancaster will collect 15-20% of the 8-10k Euro fees.

But the OTE Group's financial statements suggest that our new partner may not be as strong as they are pleasant. Last year profits were down by 33% as compared with the previous year and the first quarter of this year they are down by 76% compared with the first quarter of last year.

*******

League table good news

Readers of the Times or LU Text will have seen that Lancaster rose magnificently to be ranked 10th in the 2011 Good University Guide. The Guide is based on scores for student satisfaction from the 2008 and 2009 National Student Survey, research quality based on the 2008 RAE, entry standards, student-staff ratios (Lancaster was 13.4:1 - which seems strange), services and facilities spending per student based on HESA 2007-08 and 2008-09 data, proportion of students completing their degrees, proportion of good honours degrees, and graduate prospects. Except where noted, figures are derived from HESA 2008-09 data.

The University's news page (http://bit.ly/TimesGuide) lists several subjects that ranked near the top of their list, but they neglected to give due credit to many subjects that ranked better when the length of the list is considered. For example, 3rd place out of 20 is good, but less good than 5th out of 78. The following is a summary by subject of how well Lancaster placed in percentile terms:

90th percentile or better: Subjects Allied to Medicine; Art & Design; Drama, Dance & Cinematics; Business Studies; Accounting & Finance; Social Work

80th percentile or better: Geography & Environmental Sciences; Biological Sciences; Sociology; Mathematics; Communication & Media Studies; American Studies; Psychology; English; French

70th percentile or better: Computer Science; History; Physics & Astronomy; Law; Economics

60th percentile or better: Linguistics, Theology & Religious Studies

50th percentile or better: Electrical and Electronics Engineering; Music; Mechanical Engineering; Politics

40th percentile or better: German; Philosophy

*******

University of Cumbria mayhem

The University of Cumbria, two days after announcing a £12 million investment in its Lancaster campus, has shed its vice-chancellor, Professor Peter McCaffrey. The news coming out of Cumbria has been unremittingly negative in the months since his appointment last July, with investment at Carlisle deferred for a decade, the Ambleside campus mothballed, a deficit of £13.2 million declared for 2008-09 on a turnover of £79 million, and salary costs of over 70%. Rumours abound of staff disquiet, of a moratorium on internal promotions, and of close monitoring by HEFCE - and redundancies are more than a rumour. Even the vice-chancellor's departure - had he really gone? and why? - offered contradictory messages. Long-serving staff at Lancaster will need no reminder of the pall of gloom that will be hanging over colleagues at Bowerham, Ambleside and Carlisle, some of whom must be questioning the rush to university status that was pushed through just three years ago. subtext wishes them well as they grapple with the fallout from this latest drama, including the appointment of Graham Upton, retired former vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes (1997-2007), as interim VC.

*******

Vice-chancellors' and senior administrators' pay (and redundancies)

Vince Cable, the new Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (the department which, perversely, has responsibility for Universities) this week made an attack on the high salaries of Vice-Chancellors and expressed his concern at salary escalation at the top level. "I was very taken aback to discover that last year the pay of vice-chancellors rose by over 10 per cent in the middle of a financial crisis. There is some gap between reality and expectations in some of those institutions." Just 24 hours later, the Provost of University College, London announced that he was voluntarily taking a 10% pay cut, while insisting that the salaries of academics had to remain competitive if Britain was to avoid the effects of a brain drain. Perhaps other Vice-Chancellors will be moved to do likewise? Lancaster has, of course, made its own contribution to this escalation at the top level. In issue 50, we reported that external advertisements had been placed for a new Director of Marketing and External Linkages at £90,000 and a Director of Student Services at £75,000. It is worth noting that the holder of the former post is now the one spearheading the current senior administrative redundancies. As the payroll budget is limited to 60% of expenditure, then might we assume that these cuts are being made to fund these high-paying posts, regardless of the operational consequences?

*******

Support for UCU's position on pension negotiations

UCU report definitive results from their online consultative ballot on the USS pension plan negotiations. 60.5% of the 35,078 members contacted by email responded. The response rate was more than twice the previous record for a UCU online consultation ballot, suggesting that members feel strongly about the issue. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of the UCU's negotiating position (96.6%) and of rejecting the employers' current proposals (96.2%). The employers propose that:

- pensions for new members of the scheme would be based on average rather than final earnings

- employers' contributions would be frozen at the present level (16%) with USS authorized to make cuts to assure that it does not rise

- employees' contributions would increase now and as needed to compensate for the frozen employers' contributions

- the link between the Retail Price Index and the pension would be broken, so that pensions would decline in value in real terms.

Following the result of the consultation UCU has called for urgent talks facilitated by independent chair Andrew Cubie aimed at making progress on the basis of the changes endorsed overwhelmingly by UCU members. UCU general secretary Sally Hunt has issued a personal invitation to employers to meet for urgent talks aimed at securing the future of the fund.

*******

Philosophy at Middlesex

The campaign to save the distinguished Philosophy department at Middlesex from closure continues. According to a message from senior staff in the department, "the Dean acknowledged the excellent research reputation of Philosophy at Middlesex, but said that it made no 'measurable' contribution to the University." Clearly, excellent research is no longer considered to be a 'measurable' contribution to university life. Presumably, this means that the department was not making enough money, which bodes ill for all arts and humanities departments right across the country. In a recent further twist, it seems that two professors and several students have now been suspended for participating in a protest occupation of a university building. A petition against the closure may be signed at http://bit.ly/Mdlsx.

*******

Libraries are harmful?

James Murdoch has declared his opposition to the British Library's plans to make past newspapers available online. "The public sector interest is to distribute content for near-zero cost, harming the market in so doing." Hmmm ... aren't all lending libraries guilty of the same thing?

*******

On the move

Congratulations to Professor Colin Rogers of Educational Research, who has just been appointed Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in FASS. Professor Rogers is a long-standing member of the Department of Educational Studies and a previous Head of Department. He has made a wide contribution to university life over the years, including serving for a period as Principal of Cartmel College. subtext wishes him well in his role. We also pay tribute to the popular outgoing Associate Dean, Mike Doupe, who carried out his duties with consummate skill and diplomacy. We wish him well as he returns full-time to the Law School.

*******

40 Years in admissions

We also extend congratulations to Bob Brown who is marking 40 years service in the Undergraduate Admissions Office, having joined that department at the age of 19. Lancaster has been singularly fortunate in its Admissions staff who have worked tirelessly and supportively for academics, particularly Admissions Tutors, and have always done so in a cooperative, cheerful and collegial way. Bob Brown has made his own distinctive contribution over the years to the development of this style, and we take this opportunity to express our thanks to him and all other staff in the Undergraduate Admissions Office.

*******

A subtext milestone!

subtext is pleased to report that it now has over 1000 subscribers. The resurrection of subtext two weeks ago induced a few more readers to subscribe, thus enabling us to pass this milestone. The subscription list is broad, comprising as it does not only readers based at Lancaster, but also many others with Lancaster connections across Britain and, indeed, the world. We are very grateful for all the 'welcome back' messages we have received, and print some of these below. As ever, we encourage all subscribers to be more than just passive readers. We continue to be dependent on your contributions, letters, articles, information and feedback more generally.

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

UNIVERSITIES: THE BIG PICTURE

While events here at Lancaster are of immediate and tangible concern to us all, there can be little doubt that developments at a national level are looming ever larger in our sights. Few can be unaware of the pending cuts in national funding for universities, with the resulting squeeze likely to be the severest for several decades.

Cuts in university funding have been on the cards for some time. Lest anyone was in any doubt about this, the Mandelson Report on Higher Education (see subtext 61) was unequivocal in warning universities that such cuts were unavoidable. The extent of these cuts was made clear in the government's pre-budget report of December 2009, which was followed in the New Year by a well publicised chorus of complaints from Vice-Chancellors that the projected cuts would bring universities "to their knees". The change of government has, in this respect at least, made prospects bleaker still. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is committed to much heavier cuts than was the outgoing Labour government, as the recent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed.

Universities, of course, are not alone in this. Similar cuts will be experienced right across the public sector, although historical precedents suggest that Higher Education will be expected to shoulder more than its fair share of these. In the current economic climate, such cuts are, tragically, inevitable. What is not inevitable, however, is the mechanism that may be used to distribute this reduced funding. As the Mandelson Report made clear, such funding as there is will be concentrated on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, and especially on those parts of the universities that either make demonstrable impact on the economy and society, or best respond to the current demands of the business sector. As was argued in subtext 61, the effects of such criteria are potentially much more damaging than the cuts themselves. The latter may bring universities to their knees, but the former would twist and mangle them beyond recognition. A vocational training ground for the business sector is something quite other than a university. Indeed, in important respects they are antithetical.

Is the new government likely to make a difference in this respect? Not significantly, one might say. Debate on Higher Education was noticeable by its absence in the recent election campaign, and it is difficult to discern any substantive ideological differences between the parties on the future of universities. But there are one or two chinks of light in the otherwise unremitting gloom. At Cabinet level, universities are now the responsibility of Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary, while at ministerial level, the Conservative David Willetts is at the reins. There are some signs that Willetts has reservations about the proposed 'clunky' impact criteria for the allocation of research funding. If he reverses these proposals, this will undoubtedly be welcome, although it is as yet unclear how decisive his reversal will be (see the 'Impact' article below).

In this whole situation, the grave danger facing universities is that they will be frightened into quiescence. This would be a great mistake. While the cuts are non-negotiable, the means of implementing them are not. In fact, when resources are being squeezed, even greater vigilance is required to ensure that core academic values are protected. This was a point recently made by the Vice-Chancellor of Warwick, Nigel Thrift. In Times Higher Education (4 March 2010 - see http://bit.ly/NigelThrift), he pointed out the growing threats that exist to university autonomy. In particular, he points to a HEFCE financial memorandum, the proposals of which, if implemented, "could produce something akin to a de facto nationalisation, and no self-respecting university is likely to welcome it." He calls for an "aggressive campaign" to safeguard our values: "we need to start saying 'no'. Part of the sector's malaise is that it has become too close to Government and now seems unable to step away. We have made too many compromises, too many accommodations in search of a bit more funding advantage. ... [T]he sector is obsessed with government policy. When vice-chancellors meet, they seem to spend most of their time interpreting the twists and turns of the policies of the government of the day, rather than saying what they want universities to be and where they want them to go. Saying 'no' every now and then is going to be difficult, but it is key to maintaining our independence. ... Instead of continually trying to eke out tactical advantage, perhaps we need to think about how to get strategic advantage for the sector as a whole. The watchword must be co-operation."

A few years ago, almost exactly the same point was made in Lancaster by Lord Judd at a meeting of the University Court (see issue 20). He urged universities to be much more vocal in defending their core values to a wider world. Alas, this exhortation was not heeded by our own Vice-Chancellor. As our analysis of the Mandelson document revealed, many of the deeply worrying recommendations contained therein were proposed by none other than Professor Paul Wellings of Lancaster. Far from standing up and saying "no" to government policy, he has committed himself to pre-empting it. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Thrift ends on a pessimistic note. Unless universities are prepared to stand up for themselves, he predicts that: "[t]he various mission groups will take over and there will no longer be a single British higher education sector. Each group will seek its own salvation, gradually producing a more and more Balkanised landscape. Indeed, we may already have reached that point, in all but name. But I think it is worth one more push before we all go our separate ways."

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

SENATE REPORT

There was an air of anticipation before Senate. Rumour was that 'blood would be spilt'. In the end (apart from (History) Professor Derek Sayer's interjection - more later) little happened and most things were nodded through with little or no comment.

The VC began proceedings with his normal briefing on matters of significance. Basically, the Higher Education environment we inhabit is not good. A watching brief on how bad things may get is the order of the day. A similar 'wait and see' position was adopted with regard to HEFCE consultation on T-Funding and the National Review Groups in the area of Learning, Teaching and Assessment and Quality Assurance.

Dr. Aneta Stefanovska (Dept of Physics) was not present but her question to the VC (in essence, 'where has the RAE money gone?') was answered by PVC Trevor McMillan. His response was that it went to the departments but then much was clawed back so that it might be shared and regulated in the best interests of the University as a whole.

The question from Mr. Mike Jenkins (PG Studies Representative), 'how is Lancaster doing with regard to the Research Condordat?', was eloquently and diplomatically fudged by PVC McMillan. The fudge was accepted.

The proposal to lay down the Learning Teaching and Assessment Committee, the Undergraduate Studies Committee and the Graduate School Committee was accepted with a little murmur. No comment was offered on the proposal to change the undergraduate assessment regulations. Likewise silence greeted the proposals from the Assessment Feedback Working Party. There was a similar response to the proposal that the Institute of Advanced Studies should continue its current activities and then perhaps be reformed as a more university-wide forum to encourage cross-disciplinary research and enhance the University's profile.

The confirmation of the future role of the Colleges was passed with a gentle nod and the new Single Equality Strategy for University received unanimous approval.

Director of Human Resources, Chris Thrush, then presented his report on the negotiations surrounding the University's Employment Procedures. Comment was invited. Professor Derek Sayer (History) metaphorically leapt to his feet and offered a stinging indictment of the proposal that a single individual should have the prerogative to dismiss staff using the Disciplinary and Capability procedures. This, he argued, concentrates too much authority in the hands of an individual, and provides for no check against unfair, biased or arbitrary dismissal decisions.

There was murmured assent from the Senate floor and the VC took the unusual step of offering to take a 'straw poll' of Senators to gauge the depth of feeling about this. The vote revealed overwhelming support for the view expressed by Professor Sayer. The Director of Human Resources looked suitably chastened.

After this the discussion about the report on a revised structure regarding the roles of the Deputy VC and the PVCs generated little interest and we were back in our offices by 3.30.

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

IMPACT: BLUE SKIES, DISCOVERIES, CURIOSITY AND BETTER OUTCOMES

In the last issue of subtext we mentioned the recent speech by David Willetts in which he appeared to be bucking the (economically-focussed) trend towards 'impact' assessment by voicing scepticism about the REF: "You cannot reduce science to an economic balance sheet." However, he also admitted to being interested in the views of Paul Nurse on how to support 'blue skies research'. As that particular moniker has more recently been associated with vacuous management-speak (in the subtext bunker, at the very least), we had a look at Sir Paul's interview with the Times. In it, he admits to being elitist regarding research, and advocates higher funding and career security for around 100-150 professors across all sciences (we think this means social sciences too), to a level comparable to financial support in the USA and elsewhere. As the Science Editor of the Times points out, "Obviously, the money for this would have to come from the wider research budget, so it would mean less for other scientists."

It seems that Sir Paul is reinforcing a view of science as conducted by an elite of researchers who are driven purely by curiosity and a wish to understand the world better, and thereby producing real discoveries and advances. He contrasts this with the current situation in which there are too many people being financially supported in research aimed at improving quality of life, health and so on. He decries the way that "our political masters and our scientific leaders are trying to direct science to research that will lead to better outcomes in various fields."

So that's all clear, then. Just as some of us were worrying that "impact" was a euphemism for the financial bottom line, and that research would be judged by pure revenue generation, it seems that we were confused. The reality, we are being told, is rather simpler: apparently, "impact" was a conspiracy by our (previous) political masters to support far too many ineffective scientists in their effort to produce some sort of societal benefit, involving improvements in quality of life and health, and delivering better outcomes in various fields. The antidote is a healthy dose of elitism, in which the very best can be funded with money comparable to equivalent Americans, to pursue their pure scientific curiosity and thereby produce "real discoveries" and "real advances".

Things are obviously now moving fast, and it is looking increasingly like the previously central 'impact' criteria may soon be deposed. This can only be a good thing, but there is no room for complacency. No doubt, other distorting criteria will be proposed with their own distinct pitfalls. We are likely to be facing a whole series of future battles over this question.

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

1966 AND ALL THAT - CHAPTER SIX

David O'Dell was amongst the first students to study at the newly-founded University of Lancaster. With apologies for the hiatus, here we continue his story - as he remembers it.

Year 2, Michaelmas Term: September-December 1967: Naked Ambition

* Arrive back in Lancaster after a three month break, spent mainly in the employ of Television Audience Measurement which, as its name suggests, calculates the TV ratings. Once the ratings have been estimated, a report is produced for the BBC and ITV which shows how many people watched each show. However, this data is also sold to commercial advertisers so that they can assess the impact of their advertising campaigns.

* Everything at TAM is done on punch-cards. Each product has its own card which must be must be collected, or 'pulled', from a rack and then fed through a reader which matches it with the viewing figures for each of the thirteen different ITV regions. On my first day my supervisor looks me in the eye and says she wants me to 'pull this'. I can't help feeling that this is not the first time she has used this line on neophyte students, but working 9.00 to 5.30 earns me £7.15.0 a week between July and the end of September.

* My grant this year has been reduced to £89 a term, but I do now get a travel allowance of £12 and I have saved £11.10.0 from my summer job.

* Set up home with Mike and Andy from last year's Dallam Avenue digs in a flat on one floor of the Wellington Hotel at the bottom of West End Road, near the pier in Morecambe. We have decent sized bedrooms and share a lounge/kitchen from which you can see the sea if you put your head out of the window. The owners set visiting hours for guests, but after some negotiation we agree on 11.30 p.m. weekdays, 1.00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 12.00 p.m. on Sundays.

* Register for the second year and decide to major in Politics with Economics as my minor. Opt for international politics with a view to taking the strategy and defence options next year. Clearly I have no career plans. All students have to take a 'distant minor' which must be different from their main field of study. I manage one seminar of Russian and Soviet Studies before I am discovered and booted out. Relocate to Religious Studies with Prof. Ninian Smart.

* First meeting of the County JCR. There are probably a thousand undergraduates at Lancaster this year and only 120 in County so anyone who wants to get involved can do so. I am appointed to the College General, Disciplinary and Refectory Committees.

* Meet my new tutor, Dr Brian Duke, for a sherry in his study. How sophisticated is that? Shown plans of the new college. Later I am invited to dinner by another member of the SCR, Prof. Ross. Clearly I am now a person of some importance.

* This year the University is competing in University Challenge and Third Degree, its radio equivalent, for the first time. Andy puts my name down as a joke, but to everyone's surprise, including my own, I get through to the last 20 and then the last 12. The final shoot-out takes place in the Physics lecture theatre with teams, buzzers and a capacity audience. There is a delay of half-an-hour while a series of physics undergraduates try to work out how to wire a simple circuit so that the bells and the buzzers don't all go off at the same time and, although I do well, I don't do well enough, and end up as reserve for Third Degree. Clearly I am not that important.

* The new Sports Hall is now open, and although it is half-a-mile across a building site from the main buildings, hockey training is much more pleasant.

* Early on in the term the 2nd XI lose 4-0 to Manchester University, which is an improvement on last year's 10-0 defeat, but the highlight of the day is watching Charlton and Best playing for Man Utd against Coventry at Old Trafford. Charlton runs 2/3rds of the pitch to score as United win 4-0. Three days later play my first game for the 1st XI and we beat Bolton 2-1. Perhaps I am important after all. Do not play for the 1st team again until the end of term. Perhaps not, then.

* As the current bunch of student SRC and JCR officers near the end of their time in office, some of us begin to test the water to see how our candidacy for a range of posts might be viewed. Cartmel have a College dog - Banji - and a Mistress of the College Hound - Anthea - but I have marginally loftier ambitions. I take up semi-permanent residence in the County JCR Office, using it to type my essays and organise the first College dinner. As the term progresses the retiring JCR Committee is less and less in evidence: I feel the hand of history on my shoulder.

* Writing in his John O' Gauntlet column, Maximus, the mysterious commentator on student politics, expresses some concern about the number of first year students who are standing as candidates for College posts: "In County College", he opines, "second year Dave O'Dell is likely to be unopposed, but if he is, should have no difficulty in being elected President. Some people consider that it is bad for too many first years to hold office, as they have limited knowledge of student affairs at Lancaster, but in the absence of good second year candidates, Messrs Ward, Kottler and Lishman could all be successful presidents and together with Mr O'Dell would certainly ensure that the next year's SRC will be far from top-heavy." I have become a political heavyweight just by being around longer. Can it be that easy?

* Saturday, 18th November. The £ is devalued by 14.3% and is now worth $2.40. The prime minister assures me that this does not mean that "the pound in your pocket" has lost its value. I wish I had a pound in pocket full stop. Banks are all shut all-day Monday as a result and I have to survive on 2/6.

* Lose 3-1 away to Leeds. There is deep snow on the Pennines and I am stripped naked by the hockey team on the bus coming home. Just an ordinary match day in the North West.

* December is a mass of parties and dances. The County College Dinner - 14/6 a ticket, DJ/lounge suits - is attended by large numbers of both the JCR and the SCR - and County's first party - County's Communal Christmas Crimble - at the Casa-ba-ba in Lancaster is a success, though apparently the lighting makes the girls' bras shine though their tops. My mind is set on higher things and regrettably I fail to notice.

* The University's Yuletide Yonk features Julie Driscoll and the Brian Augur Trinity as well as Jimmy James. Driscoll's cover of Dylan's 'This Wheel's on Fire' is in the charts, but we get her for £80.

* One unexpected outcome of the Yonk is that I am made captain of the 2nd XI for the game against Chester College the next day: Phil Murray, the nominal captain, is still unable to walk after Yonk excesses. However, the honour is somewhat tarnished by the fact that we can only field a team of ten, even after borrowing one of their players, and I have to play kicking-back. We lose 2-0.

* Sunday dinner in the flat has become an 'occasion' and I have assumed the role of head chef, roasting a range of tasty animals - chicken, rabbit, cow, pig and sheep. Encouraged by this success, I cook Christmas dinner for 27. We take over the hotel dining room for the afternoon but I have to do all the cooking on eight separate stoves in eight separate flats on two different floors. I spend the day going round in circles. However, the dinner, which involves the non-consensual co-operation of three turkeys, is a great success, tempered only by the eviction of a flatmate who is caught in flagrante delicto by the hotel proprietors.

* As term ends the political prizes are handed out: Mike is the new federation Internal Vice Chairman and other friends and fellow hockey players have also triumphed: Chris Wolvin is Secretary, Aled Williams, Treasurer, and Dick Snow, Rag Week Chairman. I am to be the next President of County JCR. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive. But to be elected (unopposed) was very heaven.

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

LETTERS

Good to have you back in circulation. Best wishes.

Michael Seymour

*******

Great to see you back again ... a wonderful surprise that improved my afternoon.

But the tulips, though wonderful when in flower, now look sadly ... dead. What will they be replaced by (and will it take as long as planting c. 25000 bulbs) or will it just look tatty for graduation?

Jen Shepherd

*******

Great to have you back!

You have made my day :-)

Hilary Thomas

*******

Good to see subtext back - and in a punchier format than before. Its time seems to be now when LU Text is so strong on 'Lancaster in the news' but short, and partisan, about news of institutional change/redundancies/re-organisation/contract changes etc. This leaves me bewildered when UCU mailings present an alternative, equally partisan, take. In these situations the rumour mill steps in and is now working overtime, but is as always unreliable. It's a bit of a pity we need a 'third voice' to tell us IAS is closing and other such institutional changes but I for one welcome subtext taking on this important role and hope we will continue to see it in this format - punchier news and analysis.

As it rises from the ashes it would also be nice to see some more positive hailing of good people/projects/practice - the relentless negativity, tempered only by over-worn in-jokes, was not good to read and just made a worrying situation for all in HE now seem worse...

Nice to see it back - and good luck!

Steve Wright

*******

Very pleased about your return!

Best regards

Gerhard Kerstiens

*******

Good to have you back - thank you!

Lucy Lloyd

*******

Welcome back - as expected - you were much missed.

All good wishes for a prosperous future.

Denis McCaldin (Emeritus Professor of Music, Lancaster University)

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

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Noel Cass, Rachel Cooper (Philosophy), Catherine Fritz, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Peter Morris, David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden.