| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 98 13 December 2012 ***************************************************** '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/. If you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'. CONTENTS: Editorial, news in brief, GTA pay, booking campus rooms, Orchestra of Opera North, Odyssey, colleges, Council report, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL As reported in subtext 97, our neighbour the University of Central Lancaster plans to apply to the Secretary of State to become a limited company, while retaining its charitable status and degree-awarding powers, and without (yet) selling shares or seeking other private investment. This may or may not turn out to be a good move in financial and strategic terms. But it's a bad idea for more fundamental reasons: it's likely to be a shift away from democracy and towards autocracy and managerial hierarchy. This is bad for universities in the same way it's bad for nations. First, there are familiar ethical arguments for democracy: the demand for political freedom and equality, for having a say in decisions that affect you, for being a fellow citizen not a subject. Second, there are (perhaps less familiar?) epistemic arguments: democratic organisations tend to make better decisions than autocracies, because they call on multiple understandings and perspectives, while the single perspectives of autocrats are often subject to bias, fashion, and small-group-think. But most importantly for universities in particular, democratic organisations are better at our central purpose of increasing, protecting, and spreading knowledge, just because those purposes require multivoiced discussion between equals, and are damaged by pressures to homogeneity and by direction from above. Complaints about the take-over of universities by business styles and forms are nothing new, of course - Thorstein Veblen's classic of the genre, The Higher Learning in America, was published in 1918 - but UCLan's move is a further small step in a wrong direction. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Spots Centre notes: 1 To the Sports Centre: we say again, the changing rooms are far too small. We reckon that the new Centre has roughly half the changing room floor space that the old Centre had, to cope with more than double the numbers. But we recognise that there isn't much you can do about that now. But what you can do is something about the fact that there aren't anywhere near enough lockers. There's no point in having a notice in the gym saying 'no bags in the gym' if there aren't enough lockers for the number of people using the place. Where do you suggest we leave them? ******** NatWest closure Readers will have seen that the NatWest branch on campus is to close. Just another example of the curse of Alexandra Square? Rumours have reached subtext that more is going on: NatWest are telling the University that they've been ordered off campus by their owners Royal Bank of Scotland, because they're not generating enough new business to justify keeping the branch open. The new Santander branch's competition may have something to do with that. Both LUSU and the University itself (including its bars, for example) bank with NatWest, so the loss of the branch will create some inconvenience, and we have to wonder whether the decision to allow Santander onto campus was worth it. ******** University brings enlightenment to bus users In the Autumn of last year, a sudden, chilling darkness fell over the departures board at Lancaster bus station. In its quest for spending cuts, Lancashire County Council had discontinued a service which had been invaluable for any flustered traveller seeking information but lacking the time to find and consult the relevant printed timetables. While the council was pulling the plug on the bus station, the University was providing its own message boards at the other end of the journey, in Alexandra Square. While one might quibble about the siting of these displays - and the one in the underpass which has yet to materialise - they are extremely useful, and a testament to the skills of their designer, David 'Beacon' Ingles. Having developed the technology at relatively low cost, the University offered it to the County Council and this has now been accepted. The new board at the bus station will be funded by United Utilities; but in providing this essential gadget the University has shown a highly responsible attitude to the City as well as its own students. Every time we rush into the bus station and glance up at the screen which informs us that we have just missed the number 3 and have to make do with the 2A, our cries of rage and disappointment should be mingled with an acknowledgement of the University and 'Beacon Dave', without whom the bad news would take longer to discover. ******** Sports Centre notes: 2 From a bodybuilder and sports centre manager of 15 years standing, to the procession of (mostly) young (mostly) men chugging protein drinks in the (yes, still very small) changing rooms: extra protein won't make you more muscled unless you know what you're doing, and can harm your health. A normal balanced diet is sufficient for almost everyone. At least get some advice. You risk doing more harm than good. ***************************************************** GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT PAY The British Postgraduate Philosophy Association recently published a survey (http://www.bppa-online.org/node/41) of Graduate Teaching Assistants' working hours and pay in philosophy. It suggests that many UK institutions, including Lancaster, pay their GTAs less than minimum wage in real terms. There seems no reason to think that this is only a problem with philosophy departments, and if true, these results should worry all of us who are, or once were, or work with, or manage GTAs. The Department of Politics, Philosophy, & Religion (where Lancaster philosophy has been based since 2010) has been prompted, first, to increase mentoring of GTAs to help them avoid being exploited — especially, to help them not to exploit themselves out of inexperience and conscientiousness. Second, to pursue a pay increase (to be exact, an increase in the 'preparation time per taught hour' multiple, currently 3 hours pay per 1 hour taught) from Human Resources. Why think this matters? Those of us lucky enough to have open-ended, full-time academic jobs should be aware of the extent to which we rely on our GTAs to deliver, especially, first-year teaching. There's a tension in how we understand GTA work. Traditionally in UK universities, it's a valuable apprenticeship in university teaching offered as part of postgraduate training, on the assumption that our students plan an academic career. Pay isn't the central point, and we rely on our GTAs to be enthusiastic amateurs who do the work for its own sake and for career-development purposes, not just to put food on the table. But UK universities increasingly rely on professional adjuncts including GTAs, and adjunct teaching is turning into a career, or a substitute for one. The UK is following a path already taken by the US in this, of course. If that's what being a GTA is, then it ought to be paid and supported far better, and be far less precarious, than it is. More and more US university teaching is done by people in extremely unstable job situations, and we should resist movement towards that mess in the UK by supporting our GTAs in improving their conditions of work, including but not limited to pay. We're told by an involved source that a University-wide campaign to address the issue is in the works, and that departments should expect a survey regarding their GTA policies from Human Resources, who are being helpful and positive. ************************************************* BOOKING CAMPUS ROOMS FOR MEETINGS Readers of subtext will be supporters of freedom of speech and of expression, of course. Universities might be expected automatically to support free speech, because free debate and discussion provide the forum for advancement of knowledge; but just in case they don't, the Education (no 2) Act of 1986, sec 43, imposes a duty to ensure that the use of university premises is not denied to any individual or body of persons on the grounds of their beliefs, views, policies or objectives. At Lancaster these ideas are embodied in the University Rules, section 3 of which states 'The University is responsible for upholding and maintaining the principles of freedom of expression and academic freedom within the law.' The Rules continue: 'So far as is reasonably practicable, the University will not deny use of University premises to any individual or body of persons on any grounds connected with the beliefs or views of that individual or any member of that body, or with the policy or objectives of that body.' But recently the University introduced new requirements for students wishing to book a room, set out under Timetabling and Room Booking on the University web site: subtext is not sure when these requirements were introduced, or what process of approval they went through. They state that students are only permitted to book a room if they are either postgraduates booking a room for work-related purposes, or making the booking for a society registered with LUSU. This is not in the spirit of the rule quoted in the previous paragraph. Can there be a good reason why an ad hoc group of students shouldn't be able to book a campus room for a meeting or event, provided they leave it tidy afterwards? These rules and policies embody contradictory ideas - on the one hand, university premises are to be available to everyone without restriction, but on the other, they are only to be used by a limited range of people and for rather restricted purposes. There is obviously scope for arbitrary interpretation here - and this appears to have been happening. When postgraduate students organised the 'University in Crisis' lecture series two years ago, they had difficulty booking rooms, and were sent an email informing them that rooms 'must not be used for political party meetings unless organised through the auspices of a society affiliated to LUSU or to the University'. More recently, the organisers of a series of film screenings called 'Free Films for Free People', loosely affiliated with Lancaster University Against the Cuts (LUAC), booked a campus room each Monday evening for five weeks. They had no problem until the fourth week, when they were refused a room. For the fifth showing, two people who tried to book a room were refused. A third was 'allowed', but the University withdrew the booking later that day. Perhaps the University feels it has to police room bookings by student groups, as part of its obligation to avoid extremist political groups operating and recruiting on campus. But if so, this seems to be being done in a heavy-handed and indiscriminate way. subtext believes the University should be making its rooms available to anyone who takes the initiative to organise a meeting or event, as set out in section 3 of the University Rules. There are many good reasons why this kind of enterprise should be encouraged, as part of students' university education. ************************************************* ORCHESTRA OF OPERA NORTH Both the orchestra and the conductor at the Great Hall concert on 29 November had moved from their original roles to new ones: the Orchestra of Opera North emerged from the pit to perform from the concert-hall stage, and the conductor Howard Shelley, who began his career as a much-feted pianist, moved into orchestral conducting. They performed three major works: the overture to Mozart's Don Giovanni, the Emperor Concerto of Beethoven, and Dvorak's 8th symphony. For the concerto, Howard Shelley conducted from the piano. The Emperor Concerto is demanding for the pianist, and it is just about impossible to be soloist and conduct at the same time - when he is playing, he has to depend to a great degree on the musicality of the orchestra members, particularly on the orchestra leader, who effectively takes over the role of the conductor. Shelley stood to conduct when he was not actually playing; but as the orchestra got on very well without his help much of the time, one feels they could have played the whole concerto without his having to stand and conduct at all. Indeed, this would have been preferable, because he was occasionally inaccurate in the concerto - possibly owing to the heavy demands of acting as conductor as well as soloist. Dvorak tends to be regarded as not of the first rank as a composer simply because his works nearly all reflect his sunny disposition - most 19th-century works are full of drama, so Dvorak's cheerful music seems incongruous. Yet much of it is of high quality, and the eighth symphony is certainly in this league. Shelley's interpretation of it was enjoyable, if possibly lacking that final spark of inspiration that would have lifted it into the highest level. ************************************************* ODYSSEY - THE PAPER CINEMA We are sitting in the darkened interior of the Nuffield Theatre. The backdrop consists of a bright screen and floor-to-ceiling backlit panels looking like rough or unravelled weaving. There is little other sign of activity – a few musical instruments lying on the stage area, a couple of tables facing the screen. As the start time approaches a group of five people wander onto the stage area – two take up position by the tables and the other three move over to the musical instruments. Suddenly the sketch of a man's head begins to appear on the screen, the face much ravaged by experience and suffering – the ever-enduring Odysseus, trying to make his way back to home and family after ten years in Troy and nine further years journeying. Then the faithful wife, Penelope, appears and Odysseus' son Telemachus, whom he had last seen as a baby, followed by other key players in the drama – Penelope's suitors depicted as wolves, Athena, Odysseus's patron goddess, and Calypso the nymph who kept Odysseus on her island for many years. All these portraits were being sketched in real time by Nicholas, the puppeteer. Once we were introduced to the characters and the background to the story, Imogen (puppeteer) and the three musicians Christopher, Francesca and Hazel joined Nicholas to involve us in Odysseus' continuing trials until at last he reached home, conquered the devouring suitors and took possession once more of his heritage. In full view of the audience, Nicholas and Imogen manipulated hundreds of paper puppets before the camera. These had been cut from cardboard (some of them from cornflake packets) in all the shapes necessary to move the story on. Their images were projected on to the screen amongst more cut-outs of tossing waves, 3-D palaces and deserted islands, while the musicians provided the sounds to add extra verisimilitude – waves crashing, sea-birds calling, giants roaring etc. Some nice touches brought the story up to date, such as Telemachus on his motor-bike visiting the aged survivors from Troy to see if they had news of Odysseus. To say the production was slick is to make it sound facile; to say it was well-rehearsed makes it sound stodgy – the hundreds of paper shapes were manipulated with enormous skill and zest, with only now and then the image of a finger end to remind us that Odysseus and his allies and enemies were no longer of our world. Catch The Paper Cinema next time it comes. ************************************************* COLLEGES Subscribers may have seen the article in SCAN of week 6 (is it just us or has SCAN dramatically improved?) reporting that the Marketing Department has proposed a change to the way Lancaster Colleges are organised: that Colleges should be identified with certain academic departments. This has always been rejected by the university, on the grounds that students are already seeing students from their subject areas every day; it aids social interaction if for social purposes they are divided by other factors. In the past this idea was always honoured in the breach. Students quickly worked out that the English department was located in Bowland College, and that if they too were in Bowland then it would be a short walk to a 9 am seminar. Since the recent building works and the introduction of central timetabling this situation has changed, as much teaching is no longer done in the department. (That said, all teaching is done north of the George Fox building, so canny students will still try to get into a northern College.) But most people would probably agree that, in principle, social mixing is better than social stratification. Except that, as was suggested in the editorial in the first subtext of this term, the Colleges are no longer the beasts that they used to be, or are at best a pale shadow of them. To reiterate: colleges now have almost no social space that they run themselves, and the bars – emblematic of college identity if anything is - are being run quasi-centrally. The differences between them are at best cosmetic and anyway nothing to do with anything inherent to the individual College. Colleges are now essentially dormitories that run trips to clubs in town for their inmates, who identify with each other only for sporting purposes. Talk to any student from 25 years ago about what their College meant to them, and compare it with any current student. (We just did this. The difference is stark.) One of two things must be true: either the changes are the result of a deliberate policy decision, or else no-one bothered to think through what the consequences of the changes would be. In this context the Management School's proposal may have some merit. At least if the inmates of a College had their academic interests in common that might be an improvement on the current situation. It's worth thinking about. ************************************************* COUNCIL REPORT The University Council met on 23 November. The meeting opened with a presentation by Facilities Director Mark Swindlehurst on the estate Masterplan for 2012-2020. Key new projects will be a redevelopment of the approach to University House to provide a distinctive entrance, the long-overdue refurbishment of the Great Hall and surrounding area, creation of more open courtyard spaces on the Spine, and the provision of 'Green Finger' entrances from the perimeter road. There was also the hope that the proposed Science Park adjacent to the University would get the go-ahead and that we would be deeply involved. As well as general upgrading of older buildings, there were also possibilities for the creation of an additional 81.5K sq m of academic and residential space within the existing perimeter. All this, of course, will be dependent on the availability of the money to do it (and as long-term subtext readers and Facilities followers will realise, very few if any of these proposals actually reflect new ideas). The Vice-Chancellor's report followed, with an update on progress on the Ghana and China partnerships, and an announcement that, because of concern about overstretch, there will be no further international teaching partnerships for the time being. He confirmed that this meant that the potential projects in Brazil, outlined by the Deputy VC at the last Council meeting in October, would not go ahead. Other items he reported included a bid for one of the six Regius Professorships awarded by the Queen to mark her Diamond Jubilee (Lancaster's was for a chair in Applied Linguistics), the award of three major new research grants totalling £6.3m, and an update on the discussions on the University Strategic Plan. He concluded with some (surely timely) observations about Lancaster's participation in the 94 Group of research-led universities. The recent departure from the Group of Bath, Surrey and St. Andrews had put a question mark over its future. There had been an intriguing hint from Universities Minister David Willetts that the government would like the 94 Group to continue as a form of counterweight to the Russell Group. There was to be a board meeting on 3 December and, unless there was some sort of plan for renewal, Lancaster would have to consider its position. There followed a report from LUSU and then a number of governance matters from the University Secretary. These included the establishment of a Search Committee to begin the process of appointing a successor to Bryan Gray as Pro-Chancellor, and the return of a proposal to amend University Statute 9. subtext readers will recall that Statute 9 became an issue over a year ago, when Lancaster City Council appointed as its University Council rep an elected councillor (Jonathan Dixon, Lab, University Ward) who also happened to be one of our students. An attempt to change the Statute to nullify this appointment had been approved by University Council but decisively rejected by Senate. The University Secretary was now to have a second attempt. This was opposed by the student reps and some Council members, one of whom was concerned that this new proposed amendment was substantially the same as the one that had been thrown out by Senate. This was challenged by the University Secretary but further discussion was cut short by the Chair, who wanted to move quickly to a vote. The amendment was passed and will be sent to Senate for its concurrence, or not. Next came two big items, the Audit Committee's annual report and the report from the Director of Finance. The Audit Report concluded that the University's management, control and quality assurance processes, and related policies, were adequate and appropriate. Some concerns were expressed about procedures at The Work Foundation, and these were to be addressed. The Report and its recommendations were accepted. The Director of Finance reported another strong financial performance for 2011/12, with income of £180m+ and a surplus of £8.3m over expenditure. Income for 2012/13 was forecast at £196m, with a target surplus of 4-6% on the year. Following further reports on Lancaster's placings in University League Tables and the Lancaster Experience KPIs, and from the Marketing and External Linkages and various sub-committees, the Council meeting came to an end. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, Frankly, your editorial in issue 97, on the relative merits of increasing A-level grade entry requirements, made me want to vomit. Some particularly obnoxious phrases were: 'It's certainly nice, on the whole, to teach brighter students.' 'Being able to recruit more off-quota students with AAB and above would be good for the University.' 'For most subjects, entry into Britain's elite represents a welcome opportunity for us to compete (and often beat) the best with everything that Lancaster has to offer.' '...there are too few elite-level students nationally (or internationally) for them to recruit.' It is certainly worth criticising the drive for higher and higher entry-requirements, and perhaps that is what you see yourselves doing in your own polite, coded and professional way. However, you question this system only within the terms of the status quo: as an issue of marketing strategy and economic competition with other universities. That is to say, despite posing as a 'critical' - even 'underground’ - voice, you are merely reproducing and apologising for the prevailing neoliberal rationality that comes hand-in-hand with the withdrawal of public funding for, and marketisation of, HE. A-level grades do not mean 'brighter students'. The grade-system encodes class and ethnic inequalities which are becoming starker and starker within the HE sector with the increasing of fees, the cranking up of rent and other living costs, and withdrawal of funding and support services. Why do I have to tell you this? In the process of patronising incoming VCs and Deputy VCs (as though your 'guarded praise' might somehow get them listening to you) have you lost your minds? What is the point of the University? If it is only to out-compete other universities, and participate in an HE 'elite', then please let me know so I can pack my bags up and go home. If not, what might be 'good for the University' is to recover some sort of progressive social role beyond the marketplace. Given the sort of mentality that is pervasive even amongst our so-called 'leftist' academic staff members, however, the chances of this are beginning to feel increasingly slim. Two last things to say. One is that, with my A-level results, I would never be allowed into Lancaster University as a BA student these days. I might have graduated with the highest grades on my course, but the way things are now I'd never have been given the chance. Another is that London Metropolitan has more black students than the whole of the Russell Group put together. That is the real content of your beloved 'elite'. Chris Witter ******** Dear subtext, Congratulations on your typically measured piece about the Music Department. As the principal architect (with fine colleagues) of the pioneering university B.Mus which linked performance and composition with musicological studies in the 1970s, it is salutary to see its rise and fall over one generation. As so often, it is our past students who feel most concerned about this latest news and the probable loss of a degree programme they could truly believe in. Denis McCaldin, Professor of Music Emeritus, Lancaster University; Director, Haydn Society of Great Britain ******** Dear subtext, In Issue 97, Gerry Steele argued that wind turbines are too inefficient to compete with non green alternatives. The only reason that energy from wind turbines is more expensive than energy from nuclear and fossil fuels is that the latter does not include the price of the many lives lost or diminished by nuclear disasters, mining accidents, drilling accidents, pollution and environmental degradation, or the cost of reversing climate change and other environmental impacts. Paul Ralph, Management Science ******** Dear subtext, Gerry Steele reminds us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The human habitability of the planet, however, certainly can be destroyed, and arguments like his are helping the process along. His crucial point seems to be that green needs subsidies to improve its efficiency but shouldn't get them because it is inefficient. This is no better than the logic that keeps kids on benefits because they can't get a job until they've had one – but here it is not just some lives, but all our lives, that are being jeopardised. An old green adage is that to pursue open-ended growth in a finite system, you need to be either mad or an economist. Still seems cogent! John Foster, PPR ******** Dear subtext, Re: Campus catering I agree that there is little provision early in the day, but that is not to say there is none: County Diner (an independently operated concern) officially opens at 8.00, but they always are able to serve me a coffee at 7.30, and they do an excellent full English breakfast – I use it for most of my meetings and find the staff both friendly and attentive. I know for some people the North end of the campus seems a long way to come, but it's here if you need it at that time in the morning. Chris May, PPR/FASS ******** Dear subtext, Re: Homeless health check prototype to be launched, http://news.lancs.ac.uk/Web/News/Pages/homeless-health-checker.aspx It may just be that I have only minimal info on this project but on the face of it one could be excused for thinking that 1.9 million pounds would have been better spent on housing for the homeless rather than on a gadget which the homeless will probably sell or swap for something useful, say food, or which they will be unable to use for the set purpose of reminding themselves of appointments with dentists or doctors due to the fact that, if you do not have a home address, you can't actually register with either. Russian astronauts with pencils and American astronauts with specially invented (at huge cost) pens with pumping heart technology spring to mind. Give them a pencil and notepad. Much cheaper. I have no doubt there were benefits to those who invented the technology, but is that what it was about? £1.9 million would have bought some serious accommodation. Barbara Glass, Grizedale College ******** Dear subtext, I think 'Terry the Tutor', whose letter regarding the new Academic Tutor system was featured in subtext 97, has gotten the wrong end of the stick. He claims to be a College Tutor (or College Advisor as they are now known), and not an Academic Tutor, so I wonder why he is concerned about the list of issues that Academic Tutors are not allowed to discuss, when he is not one. Although I agree that the list may be cause for concern if a tutee wishes to discuss them, I do believe that the roles of Academic Tutors versus College Advisors can be potentially harmonious. Academic Tutors are there for help with academic issues and College Advisors are there for help with personal issues and welfare. Unless I've missed something that is suggesting that College Tutors/Advisors become Academic Tutors if they are, in fact, already academic staff? Andy Smith Pendle College Advisor ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sam Clark, Mark Garnett, George Green, Ian Paylor, David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden. |