subtext

issue 102

4 March 2013

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

'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'.

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

EDITORIAL

Regular subtext readers will know that editions outside the usual publication cycle are published only rarely, and only when thought to be merited. This is such an occasion – hence the early publication of this issue. Regular readers will know that Lancaster's Music degree is to be closed, with the loss of seven academic jobs and of LICA's plausibility as an Institute for (all of) the Contemporary Arts. The history of the closure is complex (and to be explored further next issue), but part of the reason for Music's decline is increasing entry offers imposed on the degree, from the centre and against the advice of local experts.

Concern continues to be expressed about the role and importance of Senate – it should not be an echo-chamber for sentiments expressed in University House. One of the powers of Senate is that of regulating the admission of students to courses of study – as set out in the Ordinances of the University. The fact that Senate has this power implies that it is responsible for the regulation of admissions, since no other body or person has this power. At present, Senate has delegated this power to the Target-Setting Group (TSG), a group of four people only one of whom is an academic, and it has allowed this group to make decisions which, in the case of Music, appear to have been at best misguided, and could be said to have been disastrous.

The threat to other departments in the University which fail to reach their admissions targets is therefore real. TSG are pushing up the entry requirements relentlessly, as part of the quest to push Lancaster up the national and international league tables. There are specific reasons why this is damaging for some subjects, in which students typically do not have the highest grade A-levels. In addition we are now in the position that for some courses, the standard entry grades for Lancaster are now equal to or even ABOVE the grades for the highest ranked universities/courses in the country. On spend per student, staff-student ratios etc. we cannot as yet compete with the courses that rank highest in the tables. It's disastrous to raise our entry grades so much faster than other metrics used in the league tables. Last summer Lancaster University departments were not permitted to relax their entry grades, even if it meant asking for the same number of points (AAC instead of ABB) – while Russell Group Universities were dropping theirs to keep admissions healthy.

This process has become opaque and inaccessible without input from admissions tutors or departments. The role of Senate is to regulate the admission of persons to courses of study but recommendations (from TSG) are not put to Senate for approval. An unaccountable authority is therefore being allowed maximum autonomy to take high risk decisions which impact on the future of Lancaster University. Senate can at any time vary the terms of the delegation, or revoke it. It is probably too late to think of revoking the delegation to the TSG at this week's meeting; but Senate should get a grip of the actions of this group. No one would dispute that we should set relatively high entry requirements, which after all we have done for years; the problem is the fantasy that we can raise the requirements across the board without deterring applicants. If we are, as the centre suggests, to compete head-to-head with Oxbridge, then students who are 'Oxbridge material' but who for some reason do not get the Oxbridge grades will have no reason to put Lancaster as an alternative – because our grades are the same! So we aren't just losing numbers of students, we're losing quality too.

Senate is the governing body of the academic affairs of the University. In earlier times, its meetings were regularly the scene of lively and outspoken debate; but in more recent years Senate has turned into little more than a channel of top-down communication from the University's management. It's not the size of Senate that has discouraged meaningful debate - OK, it has grown larger over the years, but it has always been a large body (we will return to this issue in the next 'normal' edition of subtext); the problem has been the top-down behaviour of the management.

Now that the University has a new vice-chancellor who appears to be willing to encourage debate, subtext believes this may be the moment when a sea-change could be brought about in the conduct of Senate meetings.

We encourage our subscribers to lobby their Senate representatives in advance of Wednesday's meeting, and do their best to galvanise them into taking an active part in the meeting - to speak, if they are so moved; to listen to the debate, and take up a position on it; and to vote. Senate should be a proper representative body, not just a doormat for management to walk over.

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

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sam Clark, Rachel Cooper (PPR), Mark Garnett, George Green, Ian Paylor, David Smith and Martin Widden.