| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 103 22 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'. CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, closing music, admissions saga continues, admissions tutor's lament, senate report, Lancaster's investments, university brass band championships, concert reviews, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Several subjects of this and recent issues of subtext - the closure of Music, the central takeover of entry-grade setting, the Senate effectiveness review - crystalize into one question: what sort of organisation should Lancaster University be? Should it be a top-down hierarchy like a private business, where management make decisions and employees live with them or leave? Or should it be a democratic community of staff and students? Like any university, Lancaster has elements of both models, but both national trends and the style of the previous vice-chancellor and his administration have pushed us a long way towards the first. Our new VC is already far more open than his predecessor, and should get kudos for that, but we think there’s still a lot of space for democratic pushback. subtext has incurred some criticism from colleagues who think that it is opposed to change (see LETTERS, below). Clearly change is sometimes needed, but too often, we believe, change has been driven from an unaccountable centre, by people who ask the question 'How can Lancaster refashion itself to meet the challenges that face us?' A better question might be, 'Given the qualities which have raised Lancaster in national and international league tables, how can we adapt to an uncertain environment without losing our essence?' Those who are fixated on the former question run the risk of transforming an institution that punches well above its 'natural' weight into one which makes some fancy moves for a couple more rounds before making a tactical error which leaves it spreadeagled on the canvas. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Admissions to go to Centre? Spotted on Lancaster’s jobs website, an advertisement for a Head of Undergraduate Admissions (https://hr-jobs.lancs.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx?ref=A683). Among the post’s duties, ‘the implementation of a new centralised triage approach to undergraduate admissions decision making (in place of the current system in which much of the processing of UG applications takes place in academic departments)’. Have any admissions tutors, or indeed any departments, been consulted or even warned about this? ****** LUSU on Music In a meeting on 28 February, LUSU council passed a motion resolving: 1. To mandate the LUSU VP Academic/Education to pressure the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to retain the current [Music] teachers, at least for the remainder of Music students' studies. 2. To mandate its delegates to the University Senate and Court, and sub-committees thereof, to enforce the opposition of students towards the closure of Music, and engage in constructive negotiations with the University to maintain Music as a degree scheme. ****** Broadbean Food Co-Op Broadbean Food Co-op - a student-run, not-for-profit initiative - is selling organic, fair trade and locally sourced vegetables, wholefoods and coffee beans every Thursday in Alexandra Square as part of the weekly Farmers' market. If their stalls are financially sustainable, they will be using the cash surpluses generated to reduce their prices as much as possible and to advertise a non-exploitative, restorative economy. The Co-op does not trade for profit and the students involved offer their time on a voluntary, unpaid basis. The Co-op states that its aims are to: * provide Lancaster University students and staff with organic, local or fair trade produce (e.g. vegetables, fresh fruit, dried fruit, wholefoods, coffee beans) at the lowest possible prices * support and advertise local producers and suppliers thus diverting money away from business that disrespect human labour and the environment * educate its members in the not-for-profit, mutual-aid, social economy * welcome everyone who would like to get involved with running the Co-op: membership is open to anyone who would like to get involved. For more information email h.kaloudis@lancaster.ac.uk, or see facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Broadbean-Co-operative/412905918802519. ****** Travelling to Conferences? Those seeking to reclaim travel expenses using the new on-line system will find out that booking one's own plane ticket, train ticket, or accommodation is now NOT ALLOWED. The Travel Management System is compulsory. This isn't clear from the expenses manual, but when one tries to claim money back it becomes very clear indeed. Suppose one recklessly, foolishly, and in complete disregard of the university procurement policy, goes and buys a train ticket, say to Manchester airport. Then, when one tries to reclaim the money, many exclamations marks will come up, and one will have to explain why the Travel Management System had not been used, and why one's even apparently modest submitted costs 'exceed cost limit'. Being told to use the new Travel Management System will place many readers in a dilemma. Many will have had previous and not altogether happy experience of new computer-based university systems. Maybe the new system works well, maybe it doesn't, but one wouldn't want to find out that it's rubbish only when an important trip is coming up. If you've used the system, we'd like to know how it worked. ****** Talks Here? What with this being a place of cutting edge learning and research and everything, now and again, readers might be interested in seminars and talks outside their own departments. Let's try and find out what's on: the university home page has nothing obvious. Let's try 'Lancaster University seminars and events' in Google. What comes up? A site with a few events, sorted by department, not date, and mainly in the past: http://news.lancs.ac.uk/Web/News/Pages/9F78FD60BB2C2B47802575510050ADB6.aspx. Let’s try something specific, say, seminars in the psychology department; oh dear, there's nothing on their webpage. While some individual departments provide details of their events, it appears that there is no general listing of seminars and talks at the university as a whole. This is a great pity. Having something that was sortable by seminar series and date would be useful. ****** More Alexandra Square Fall-out Robinson's Newsagents is to cease trading in May. The owners cite very sluggish business for the last few years (surely to do with underpass renovations limiting passing trade) followed by a 40% rent increase. ****** Saturday Working More and more open days are taking place at weekends, and the exam timetable for this year also has many exams scheduled for Saturdays. Having some Saturday open days may these days be unavoidable - after all, we have to fall in line with our 'competitors'. But what's the excuse for Saturday exams? And what's the limit to the number of Saturdays staff may be asked to 'put in their diaries'? Since the University calculates academics' pay deductions for striking on the assumption that they work, and are paid, for five days a week, can it reasonably ask academics to come in on a Saturday at all? ***************************************************** CLOSING MUSIC Why have we lost the degree in Music? LUText 602 offered one view: 'Several significant investments and alternative approaches have been made by Lancaster over the last decade to seek to stimulate music and attract new applicants to its music degrees during a decline in applications nationally. Despite these attempts to revive interest, music as a core single degree has proved unsustainable at Lancaster, due to lack of demand and the University has made the decision to stop admissions to its BA (Hons) major and combined music degrees and restructure its music provision'. Here's an alternative view: there has been a long-term decline in the budget for instrumental tuition at Lancaster, at the same time as entry offers were increased from the centre against the advice of local experts. Applicants with the grades to consider Lancaster against its competitors on 'price' therefore often went somewhere else where they could get more tuition. Despite that, Music continued to have a healthy number of applicants. In 2011, the degree recruited well but - unlike others in the same position - wasn't allowed to take students who missed their offers but had points-equivalent grades (e.g. ABC instead of BBB). Music therefore undershot its admission target. In 2012, the University's prospectus was wrong (describing subjects, like medieval music, which no longer existed at Lancaster), many students were put off, and - in the face of very low takeup - recruitment to the degree was closed in November. A working group within LICA was formed to consider options, and reported in January 2013 with proposals including a revived degree in (the academic study of) Popular Music. The FASS faculty management committee (FacMag) rejected these proposals for reasons which are obscure to those outside it. FacMag then laid the degree in Music down and informed Music staff that they were being made redundant, even though it doesn’t apparently have the right to do so, as this authority is delegated by Senate to the Faculty Teaching Committee - next meeting, May 2013. The reply may be: even if all this is true (and at least some of it is disputed), we shouldn't keep a Music degree if it's unsustainable. As LUText says, applications for music degrees are in decline nationally. Except that they may not be: according to Thomas Schmidt of the National Association for Music in Higher Education (http://www.namhe.ac.uk/), 'Between the 2010 and the 2012 intake, the sector is down 6.4%, History/Philosophy are down 5.5%, English is down 6.3%; and Music is up 1%'. According to Classical Music Magazine, 'The most recent UCAS figures show that in terms of accepted places, music has outperformed both the sector as a whole and virtually all other humanities subjects. In the face of an exceptionally difficult climate for the creative arts, music has bucked the trend and has actually become stronger. It beggars belief that institutions are shutting down departments'. (http://www.classicalmusicmagazine.org/2013/03/lancaster-university-students-discuss-options-following-closure-of-music-programme/). ***************************************************** ADMISSIONS SAGA CONTINUES An 8 March email from the Undergraduate Admissions Office to admissions staff stated: 'As agreed at UMAG the UG Admissions Office will be coordinating a mailing to Home/EU applicants who have received an offer of a place at Lancaster, but have not yet replied. The intention will be to encourage offer holders to place Lancaster as their firm choice, with a commitment to offer them on campus accommodation, an academic scholarship and a guaranteed place even if they slip a grade. A standard letter (attached) will be sent out on your behalf to all offer holders for courses with an offer level of AAB or above. Courses offered at ABB (list attached) will be excluded from the mailing.' Note that 'guaranteed place even if they slip a grade'. Does this strategy fit in with what members of Senate were told on 6 March? In any case, it will not be effective in recouping applicants who were deterred from applying for 2013 entry because of the advertised grade requirements - it will reach only those who have applied to Lancaster. What impact might the letter have on the grade requirement-accrued league table standings? We have already paid the price of the grade requirements in lost applicants for 2013. Do we lose whatever benefit we may have gained in terms of higher league table standings if we now send this letter? It also seems to contradict management's message that the grade requirement (or 'cost' of entry) is seen as an artefact of quality. Does lowering the required grades smack of desperation and potentially put off candidates for whom the higher grades were an attraction? What is the evidence base for the calculation of the marginal increase in recruitment that such a letter might produce? And does it offset whatever costs result from lowering the 'brand image' by lowering the grades? The real issue is 2014. We have already lost a substantial percentage of potential applicants for 2013 and we cannot recoup the ones who did not already put Lancaster on their UCAS form. They are gone. The letter will not reach them: it is going only to those who did put Lancaster on their UCAS form as one of their five choices. It is not too late to change the grade requirements for 2014. Management have made a decision to change the requirement for 2013 (when it is too late to get back the applicants who were put off from applying) but are holding the line for 2014 (when it is not too late). ***************************************************** THE ADMISSIONS TUTOR'S LAMENT Imagine that you have an important role in recruiting for your organisation. You want to attract the right kind of people; so you read all the application forms, make offers where appropriate, answer queries from around the world, and hold regular events for would-be applicants. It's quite demanding work but you do it without complaint because you believe in your organisation and you have excellent support from the central team. Now imagine that the conditions change almost overnight. You are told that you no longer have much discretion in the people you recruit. You have to target those with the highest formal qualifications. This means that you are competing against other organisations which have much greater resources and inflated reputations. This decision is part of a strategy which has been enforced without adequate consultation with people at the sharp end, like yourself. At the same time, applicants will have to pay a great deal more for the privilege of joining your institution. Instead of being enthusiastic to hear about the good things you have to offer, applicants are now more likely to demand information on a wide range of issues. Worse still, while your role was always important to the health of your organisation, it is now almost the only thing that matters. Your previous pleasure in the job is replaced by relentless pressure. Compared to the general situation in Britain today, this still seems tolerable. However, recruitment is only a small part of your job. Primarily you're a teacher and researcher. In both of these roles new demands have been piled on you in recent years, and the pressure to perform at your best has intensified as part of the same strategy which has made your recruitment work so onerous. If you'd like to sample this existence at first hand, volunteer now to become your department's Admissions Tutor. On present trends there are likely to be plenty of vacancies in the near future. ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT 6 MARCH 2013 (An extraordinarily long report for an extraordinarily long meeting) Before the meeting started, senators were greeted outside Management School LT 2 by a small number of students raising a banner bearing Friedrich Nietzche's thoughts on the closure of the Music degree: WITHOUT MUSIC, LIFE WOULD BE A MISTAKE! The day before, the Students' Union had held an Emergency General Meeting, at which students voted to mandate LUSU's Senate delegates to voice opposition to rising entry grades and the closure of Music. A speaker at this meeting heavily implied that it might be a good idea for dissenting students to bring banners to the meeting, although he most certainly did not endorse it. This, along with the long awaited arrival of the proposals to restructure Senate, promised a contentious meeting before it had even started. First came an update from Pro-VC Bradley on the situation of Lancaster University’s proposed campus in Ghana, which is making good progress. Mr Thornberry (Bowland College) raised concerns over the tight timeframe around the 2013 launch of the Foundation Programme, as well as the lack of conversations surrounding staffing. Professor Bradley assured the Senate that staffing procedures would commence upon confirmation of accreditation. He added that the Lancaster undergraduate courses would not begin until 2014, which should leave plenty of time for the hiring of suitable staff. The next item on the agenda, Dean of FASS Tony McEnery's oral report on the closure of the Music degree, set the tense atmosphere of the rest of the meeting. Armed to the teeth with facts, statistics and more than a few opinions, Professor McEnery drew the Senate's attention to the sustained decline in applications to study Music at Lancaster. He highlighted Music's low quality of student intake (since 2002, it has never attained a high average of students scoring BBB at A-Level), as well as its low grant intake (£300,000 since 2007-8), showing how far Music lagged behind other subject areas at LICA. In order to quell any fears that the arts as a whole at Lancaster are under threat, McEnery emphasised that money saved by making Music staff redundant (three posts are being retained, to teach out the Music degree and incorporate music and sound into other LICA areas) would be invested in new posts in Art and Design. Academic members of the Senate remained quiet, but the LUSU representatives confronted McEnery with a bombardment of questions. Caroline Arnold felt that it was insulting to describe the music students as low quality on the basis of their A Level grades, ignoring their impressive achievements and qualifications in instrumental performance. Vocational grades are not important for an academic subject, McEnery asserted, before likening offering a Music degree to good instrumentalists to offering a football degree to sporty students, thereby apparently likening the subject to an extra-curricular activity. Other LUSU officers raised concerns over the potential damage that staff reductions could have on the perception of the quality of music degrees from Lancaster, as well as the threat it could place other LICA subjects under, concerns which were casually dismissed as being misplaced. So far, so good for management, until Mr Thornberry addressed the elephant in the room - that it was FacMag, rather than the Faculty Teaching Committee, that had taken the decision to lay down the degree scheme; an idiosyncratic approach completely at odds with University procedure. Professor McEnery's response was to insist that the redundancy procedure and the laying down procedure were 'two completely separate procedures'. Professor McEnery assured Mr Thornberry that once the redundancy procedure had been wrapped up, the decision whether or not to lay down the degree would be made in 'due course'. So, apparently the official decision to close Music for good has not been made yet, but when it does it will surely go though the correct channels. subtext does wonder, however, why LUText has reported on the closure of Music, and why there exists a set of FacMag minutes from the 29th of January which state: 'Facmag agreed that following consultation the Music degree scheme be laid down and the seven academic staff should be recommended for redundancy'. There lingered a funny smell in the room for a good while after. Next came a question for the Vice-Chancellor from Dr Szerszynski (Sociology), regarding the negative impact that Lancaster's raised entry grades have had on admissions. The obvious fear for the wellbeing of departments kickstarted a long discussion on the poor level of consultation surrounding the raised entry grades. Professor Semino (LAEL) told the Senate that, regardless of the merits around higher entry grades, she has found herself having to make up answers when asked why Lancaster is asking AAA of its prospective students, and asked simply to be better informed over how decisions are made. A stern telling off came from Senate's newest signing this season, Dr Hagopian (Furness College). He bemoaned the dramatic effect that the entry grades have had on the History department and revealed that, after asking if entry grades could be lowered to AAA-AAB, his department (History) was informed that their role was solely to proofread UCAS codes before they were printed in the prospectus! He echoed Professor Semino's sentiments in calling for the University to be reactive, responsive, and recognise the individual needs of departments. But the room's outlook on our entry grades weren't all doom and gloom. Dr Austen-Baker (Lonsdale College) equated high entry grades to goods being 'reassuringly expensive', and explained that far from being a tool to acquire the 'best' students, they are a tool used by prospective students to determine the 'best' University. Support came from Dr Davidson (Lonsdale College), who was pleased to have Lancaster perceived to be 'competing' with the likes of Oxford and Cambridge. The students were less than convinced by this. LUSU President Ste Smith made the point that Lancaster, in many cases, sets the same grade boundaries as Oxford, Cambridge and Warwick (Senators may soon take it upon themselves to down a shot every time someone mentions Warwick to the VC) for many of its subjects. 'When deciding where to invest £27,000', he said, 'students with the potential to attain AAA would not pick Lancaster'. The LUSU Vice President (Academic) Richard Clark expressed concerns that the University is walking down a 'risky path', and advised that it proceeds with concern for students and informs departments of the steps being taken. Wrapping up the discussion, the Vice-Chancellor assured the Senate that the university would remain pro-active in its current volatile situation, adding that he has recognised the disconnection between departments and senior management with regards to the strategy. A small beacon of hope for the future? Then came the time to thrash out the main event - the Senate Effectiveness proposals. Presenting the report, the University secretary outlined the aims of the rejigging - to turn the Senate into a space of community, and reducing its membership to 62 to improve the perception that Senate is a forum for debate – although the liveliness of the discussion that day showed no issues with its current makeup. Before discussions began, the Senate was made aware that a procedural motion, proposed by Mr Thornberry and seconded by Ronnie Rowlands (Students' Union), had been submitted a few hours earlier. The motion called for each of the 15 proposals outlined in the document to be voted on individually, rather than as a package. Clearly irked by the prospect of spending a long time scrutinising a proposal at a meeting that had already overrun, the Vice-Chancellor advanced on Mr Thornberry: 'You sat on the Senate Effectiveness Working Group - why didn't you put this forward at those meetings?' Mr Thornberry simply responded that he didn't realise that Senate was expected to love or hate the proposals in their entirety. Other senators who sat on the Working Group were less than impressed. Dr Brown (Dean - UG Studies) and Professor Geyer (PPR) asserted that the general feeling during discussions what that the proposals were formulated as a 'package', and argued that one aspect could not work without the other. How circulating Senate papers to all staff members is impossible unless the body has a membership of 62 was never explained, but your reporter is sure he is simply naive. The motion was put to the vote and was defeated - 19 in favour, 33 against. This loss appeared to enhance to fighting spirit those opposed to the way business was being conducted - many senators did not want to accept a proposal full of good ideas if it meant also accepting reduced membership. It was time for the defenders of the true faith to form their barricade. Dr Austen-Baker was the first to bear his hammer and nail. Eloquent and highly knowledgeable of the Senate, its history and its constituencies, he first pointed out that the complete obliteration of College syndicate members was a mistake. Far from representing the college, they are in fact there to represent junior academics, who generally have more contact with students and a greater understanding of their academic needs. Therefore, a constituency was not being reduced in line with others; it was being removed entirely. Professor McEnery, Dean of FASS, briefly intervened to make a comparison between College syndicate elections and those in Communist China; not the most tactful remark to make in front of two visitors from Guangdong, who were present at the meeting. Ignoring this gaffe, Austen-Baker went on to criticise the lack of proof that a smaller senate would improve discussion, as well as the requirement to vote on all proposals in one swoop - being forced to take the 70% good meat with the 30% horsemeat, as he so topically put it. To Austen-Baker's legal mind, this lack of evidence was enough to throw out the case. But, it turns out a scientific mind works differently; the Vice-Chancellor asserted that, while there is indeed no evidence to support a smaller senate, there is equally no evidence to dismiss the notion - a good scientist can only disprove. The Vice-Chancellor remained confident in the proposal. With Austen-Baker winged, more support came in the form of Ronnie Rowlands, who declared it 'spiteful' to deprive academic staff of the opportunity to involve themselves in University governance due to their lack of status. Professor Introna (LUMS) then tagged in, and offered more insight and a far more convincing set of proposals than most of those offered to the Senate. He pinpointed the primary issues affecting the quality of discussion at Senate - the late arrival of papers caused senators to attend ill-prepared. Perhaps most daringly, Professor Introna advocated the use of secret ballots in Senate's voting procedures. Just as it looked like a vote was nearing, Ronnie Rowlands raised his hand again to point out that some of the liveliest speakers of this meeting had come via the College syndicates, and offered positive representation to junior academics. With this in everyone's mind, he moved an amendment to the motion: to add the 9 College Syndicate reps back into the proposed membership. The Vice-Chancellor reminded Mr Rowlands that this proposal was a package, not open to amendments. However, Erica Lewis (Postgraduate Board) argued that the rejection of Mr Thornberry's earlier amendment to approve the proposals one at a time meant that the floodgates had been opened to suggestions for amendments to the text. The Vice-Chancellor conceded, and the amendment was put to the vote - 26 against, 29 in favour, despite management coming out in full force against the motion. Sniffing blood, the LUSU President moved an amendment of his own - to add two more students to the proposals and normalise the proportion in line with the 9 new syndicate additions. Before he could finish, the Vice-Chancellor interrupted with a U-Turn. Suddenly acknowledging the fierce contention, he took the decision to pull the proposals for further work. Senate agreed, and the meeting ended. Only an hour and a half over the constitutional time limit. The post-meeting feeling in the foyer remained mixed. Some were drained by the level of discussion, other enthused by its vibrancy. Nonetheless, the latter group had undoubtedly shown that diverse discussion is more than possible on Senate in its current form, and rather than designating a Senator of the month, subtext will instead split the award between Joe Thornberry, Patrick Hagopian, Richard Austen-Baker, Lucas Introna and Ronnie Rowlands for their sterling effort to preserve the diversity of the Senate. First, they came for the Colleges ... ***************************************************** LANCASTER'S INVESTMENTS A request under the Freedom of Information Act by Lancaster student Laura Clayson reveals that the University both lacks an ethical investment policy, and has several ethically dubious investments, most notably in BAE systems, but also including Royal Dutch Shell, Anglo American Mining, and Imperial Tobacco. At a few tens of thousands of pounds each, the amounts involved are small in the context of University turnover, but is any investment in these companies appropriate? And given how trivial it would be to disinvest, why not do so? The University's investments in BAE systems are particularly worrisome to many students. Following a recent protest in Alexandra Square by Lancaster University Against the Arms Trade, a 'university spokeswoman' offered the following explanation. Apparently the money invested in BAE shares came from donations received over a decade ago. 'At the request of the donors, the money was put into a trust which is authorised by the Charity Commission. ... The trust has an ethical restriction in that it does not invest in tobacco related industries but has no restrictions in relation to aerospace or defence' (http://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/community/education/uni-students-up-in-arms-1-5476327). In any case, a spokeswoman for BAE systems offered further reassurance. Admittedly, BAE systems do have pictures of what look to be massive great big tanks on their webpage, but they are 'committed to achieving and sustaining a leadership role in ethical business conduct'. We're not too sure what that means, but at a guess we can rest assured that no child labour is involved in tank construction. Anyone who might think it better if Lancaster University didn't invest in the arms trade might consider signing a petition that has been set up on http://www.thepetitionsite.com/990/441/242/no-bae-on-lancaster-university-campus/ ***************************************************** UNIVERSITY BRASS BAND CHAMPIONSHIPS On Saturday 16th February the Great Hall was once again the venue for the University Brass Band Championships of Great Britain. Thanks to slightly improved publicity – a note in the previous day's Lutext – the attendance was better than last year and those present were rewarded with a day of splendid music-making from fourteen bands. The music ranged from marches (including the well-known 'Colonel Bogey') through familiar hymn tunes (at which brass bands excel) to big band belters like 'Sing, Sing, Sing' and classical pieces by composers such as Faure and Karl Jenkins (the latter being featured by three different bands). Lancaster performed very well – the highlight being an excellent trombone solo version of Hoagy Carmichael's 'Stardust'. While this song is familiar to just about everyone of my age, I did wonder how many of the students playing or listening had heard of it before. It was, nonetheless, a lovely and tender rendition of an old favourite. Top spot, however, went to the University of Huddersfield whose band consists entirely of music students. A truly thrilling and high quality performance included a remarkable xylophone duet (backed by the band, of course) featuring tunes by Liszt ('Liszteria'). The University of Manchester were second and York third. Even the band that came last was worth listening to, however, and as the day progressed one could not but be inspired by the enthusiasm, commitment and ability of the young people involved. The competition also provided an example of unintended consequences. For the past few years Brass United – largely featuring players from the Royal Northern School of Music – have simply outclassed all other bands. The organisers, therefore, decided, to have a separate 'elite' competition for bands from music colleges. It was a good idea since it would give other bands a chance to win. Unfortunately only Brass United entered and so the audience was denied the opportunity to hear this wonderful band and its outstanding soloists. A pity. David Denver ***************************************************** CONCERT REVIEWS Gabriela Montero Originally from Venezuela, Gabriela Montero was a child prodigy at the piano, performing her first piano concerto at the age of eight. She came to international attention when she played, with Itzhak Perlman and Yo-Yo Ma, at the inauguration of Barack Obama as US President in January 2009. She opened her Great Hall recital on 7 March with three Intermezzi by Brahms, and followed these with the third Scherzo of Chopin. Her rather idiosyncratic performances of these pieces did not appeal to this reviewer. But then she moved on to Latin American composers, where she was clearly much more at home. Her performance of Andalucia: Suite española by the Cuban composer Ernesto Lecuona evoked the Spanish spirit brilliantly. The first half of the concert concluded with the piano sonata no 1 by the Argentine composer Alberto Ginastera. This is a fine piece which places considerable virtuosic demands on the performer: Montero rose to these demands very well. In a remarkable innovation for the University’s concert series, the second half of the concert was entirely improvised. As Montero pointed out (having studied in the US for some years, she speaks good English), improvisation is nowadays mostly confined to church organists, who often have to fill gaps of indeterminate length in church services, and jazz soloists; but in the 19th century, virtuoso performers such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini regularly made long European tours in which some of the pieces they played were improvised. Even J S Bach, generally regarded as a strait-laced family man, wrote Toccatas which are completely improvisatory in style. To set this in motion, Montero asked members of the audience to suggest themes, by singing them into the microphone. The themes suggested by the audience came from George Gershwin (Somebody Loves Me), Supertramp, Grieg, etc. After a few exploratory bars of music, Montero set off into five minutes or so of fluent improvisation. She was also asked to improvise freely on Hugo Chavez, who had died two days earlier. She obliged, but it appeared she was not at one with her late socialist president. Some members of the Great Hall audience felt all this was something of a circus act; but given the famous antecedents from earlier years, it would seem to be a legitimate form of performance, even if one wouldn’t want too much of it. ****** Lancashire Sinfonietta The Lancashire Sinfonietta was originally formed from players in the County Schools Symphony Orchestra who had gone on to greater things. Many of the players are now - how to put it? - very experienced, so their background as talented sixth-formers is harder to discern, but their performances are of a high professional standard. Their concert on 14 March was billed as ‘Wunderkind’. This appeared to be because the violin soloist, Callum Smart, is only sixteen years old. However, there was more to it than that: all of the works performed in the concert were written by very youthful composers. The concert opened with the Simple Symphony, written by Benjamin Britten at the age of 20. The themes may be childish, but Britten’s handling of them is remarkably skilful. This was followed by Mozart’s fifth violin concerto, written when he was 19 (he wrote three other violin concertos in the same year: all are masterpieces). Callum Smart gave an astonishingly mature performance of this concerto - technically assured and musically very satisfying. The concert concluded with the Octet for Strings by Mendelssohn, written when he was just 16 years old. Remarkably, this was the first string octet ever written; other composers have attempted to write for this grouping, but none has ever achieved such skill and inventiveness in writing for the string octet as Mendelssohn did. The work is a brilliant piece of writing, and it was excellently performed by the Sinfonietta. ***************************************************** LETTERS We have a bumper crop of letters this edition (last edition was devoted to the possible closure of music, and so we haven't published letters for a while). Dear subtext, Congratulations on your recent paragraphs regarding the Music fiasco, in particular, to quote from your editorial in issue 101: 'Perplexing as it is that University management appears not to utilise (or at least consult) staff in the world-renowned Lancaster University Management School when it comes to the running of our institution….'. I wonder, though, whether there is a real prospect of such consultation taking place this time? Given that at the time of the University's financial crisis of the 1990s, a member of the university's audit committee did indeed sound out the then Business/Management school for advice on the question of whether it was fair for academic staff to be blamed for making unwise financial decisions without having had some minimum of relevant business training beforehand. The response was to the effect that 'no, we're just academics ourselves, not qualified to give such advice'! Regards, Hubert Montagu-Pollock, Physics ****** To the editors, The drive to increase entry grades has been in place for a good number of years now and not just in response to the liberalisation of the sector. I would hope that few of us are happy to defend the status quo and that we aspire instead to improve the standing of the university as an academic institution. This involves trying to attract more highly qualified students. Now, a number of departments, including my own, have suffered as a consequence of the drive to this end. It seems to me that to blame the university's management for the situation is inexcusable however because, at least partly, these departments' current predicament also is a consequence of steadfast refusal to countenance that things change and that departmental structures need to change in response. Not only is there no sacrosanct reason for things remaining as they are forever more, but it also fails our younger colleagues as they strive to build their academic careers. It also sets a very bad example for those students who aspire to change the world. Paolo Palladino ****** Dear subtext, I hope your editorial in subtext 101 suggesting that the Management School be utilised in the running of the University (and the implication that if it had been, the problems surrounding Music and so on might have been avoided) was meant to be satirical. You can't be serious, can you? After all, a key reason why the modern corporate state and its institutions are so permeated by managerialism is in essence because of management schools (see Locke and Spender's book Confronting Managerialism: How the Business Elite and Their Schools Threw Our Lives). The managerialism that has thereby emerged operates on the basis (or, rather the ungrounded belief) that any manager can, in effect, manage any institution. The result – just to cite UK examples - has led to management executives from biscuit companies being parachuted in to run the railways, business executives brought in to run universities and so on (and that's without talking about banks or the NHS). And we are very aware of what the results have been. Perhaps a better way to run things might be to ensure that no management or business school is ever allowed to get anywhere near actually managing anything. That might even lead to the revolutionary idea of having institutions and units being run by people who actually know how they work and what they are dealing with. Of course that might go against modern business and managerial practices – but since these have so palpably failed to do more than create a small elite of ludicrously remunerated executives amidst a sea of economic destruction, they are hardly worth retaining. That, rather than your proposal, is what I'd call rocket science. Ian Reader, PPR ****** Dear subtext, While I am sympathetic to some of the points raised in your piece 'SCAN – Here we go again' from the subtext 101, I feel the arguments somewhat over-dramatise the impact of the SCAN Editor role becoming non-sabbatical. There is a new structure that will be put in place in time for the next academic year which introduces a team that will act as a senior exec - or a board of directors if you want to look at it in those terms. On this team, you will have the Editor, the Assistant Editor, the Carolynne Editor, the new Head of Production role and the Head of Web & Mobile. The purpose of this new structure is to reduce the workload and responsibility of the SCAN Editor and spread it more evenly across these five roles. In practice, the Editor should only have to deal with the other four members of this team. Indeed, the most time consuming role of the current positions of LUSU VP (Media & Comms) and Assistant Editor is the actual production of the paper. The new Head of Production is responsible for building a team who will be responsible for this. In addition, today's role of VP (Media & Comms) is clearly unfair; it is ridiculous to assume that someone must have experience of producing SCAN in order to set LUSU's communications strategy. The addition of Campaigns to this remit for next academic year only makes this a more pressing concern. Jack Smith, SCAN Acting Editor ****** Dear subtext, Unbeknownst to the hydrophobic masses under the Spine, there is a quiet venue for lunch situated mere metres from the EL-Zee. The Chaplaincy Centre has lounges both downstairs and upstairs, and is almost always deserted. There is a problem with using the Chaplaincy as a lunch venue, however. The upstairs lounge is situated next to the Friends International office. Several years ago, before the El-Zee, a group of students used it as a social lunch venue. Their gentle talking disturbed staff working next door, who pressured occupiers of the lounge to leave. The downstairs lounge is colder, but offers similar facilities - WiFi, power sockets, and comfy seats. There is even the temptation of an open kitchen. But do not be deceived! Although the microwave, kettle, and fridge are available for groups booking the Centre (which includes Chaplaincy staff), they take a dim view of other people using these facilities. For now, I might suggest selecting a seminar room to occupy, at which to stage a sit-in protest every lunch time. Reform in the Chaplaincy Centre would be an even better solution, but requires more than my individual efforts. Name withheld ****** Dear subtext With your anniversary issue in mind, some of your readers might be interested in a memoir I have just published. It includes a chapter on my time at Lancaster in the 1960s when I studied English, Philosophy and Religious Studies. I refer in passing to seminars with Ninian Smart and Adrian Cunningham, to tensions in the English Department between Linguistics and Literature, and to political debates among students at the time. I begin my account thus: Autumn 1967, my teenage years over, I arrived at the shining city on the hill, otherwise known as the University of Lancaster. That summer the first cohort of students had graduated. Newness was in the air. It was so new that there were still no halls of residence, and most students lived in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Morecambe and commuted into Bailrigg by special double-decker buses. We were welcomed by Tom Lawrenson, a professor of French, at St Leonards Gate in the city of Lancaster, which was the first home of the university. After furnishing us with a potted history of universities in Europe, starting with Bologna, he ended: 'Spend your three years with us wisely and please remember there are some of us who will be here long after you've gone, so give some attention to the community that will survive you'. That seemed to be a jibe about the new generation of students who might take it upon themselves to wreck the place. As I came away from that opening session I wasn't sure if I had received a welcome or a warning-shot. I do recall that it was a common belief at the time that the new universities were deliberately sited a couple of miles outside of town in case there was trouble. Details of the memoir can be found below (as can my author page on amazon). Best wishes, David Pierce http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=1671 http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Pierce/e/B001HOVIM2/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1 ****** Hi subtext, College Magazines have survived. Take a look at Pendle JCR on LUSU'S website ... on-line and ready to download! http://pendle.lusu.co.uk/the-witch/ Jill Harpley, Pendle College Administrator ***************************************************** 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. |