subtext

issue 116

20 February 2014

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

'Truth: lies open to all'

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

Every fortnight during term-time.

All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors@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, appointing heads of department, 50th anniversary dinner, Keith Soothill, concert review, there goes the neighbourhood, art of noise, links, letters

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

EDITORIAL

As we've previously noted, the University is running an impressive financial surplus: £16.2 million (8.2%). Many of us at Lancaster, and our unions, think that at least some of that money should be spent on better pay for current staff.

But maybe top table think otherwise, and maybe they're right: the VC's 11 February communication offers new staff posts as one alternative good, and of course more full-time, open-ended staff posts would be welcome. So, for another example, would better pay and conditions for part-time and fixed-term staff like Teaching Assistants (see further LETTERS below).

The trouble is that so far we haven't heard much about such plans, and that we've had less opportunity to contribute to them. There is a real and important discussion to be had about the future, including the financial future, of universities - of Lancaster.

Lancaster staff have a strong common interest in the University's - and in UK universities' - ongoing survival and success, and if we can be shown that survival and success really require another year of real-terms pay cuts, we can accept that. But we do need to discuss it in the open.

As a small start at that: What should we do with a £16.2 million surplus? Save it for a rainy day? Payrise? Expansion posts? New departments? New buildings? Cut flowers in every seminar room? We invite suggestions from subscribers, to the usual email address.

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

NEWS IN BRIEF

subtext notes that, despite the monsoons over the last 6 weeks, Lake Carter hasn't overflowed. Some good work has been done on drainage, it seems: a couple of years ago just one day's heavy rain put a deep moat across the road. Hats off to those responsible.

*******

In other 'bad things not happening' news, the wind turbine hasn't broken loose from its moorings, and, given the climatic outlook for the rest of human history, is proving a better investment by the hour.

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

APPOINTING HEADS OF DEPARTMENT

As befits a large and complex organisation, Lancaster University has constitutions, standing orders and codes of practice laid down for its boards and committees. If it did not, there would be endless debates over procedure, and much time would be wasted. But, strangely, there does not appear to be a written procedure for appointing heads of department.

In practice, HoDs are appointed by the VC, but the name put forward to him may come from the department as a whole, or from senior (academic) staff in the department; normally, this recommendation will be passed to the VC via the Faculty. It has usually been understood that academics of Senior Lecturer grade or above must be ready to serve.

Of course, all departments are different. The absence of a fixed procedure may allow them to choose a way of forming and expressing their views about their next HoD that is appropriate to them. At least, this may be the theory; but extra requirements are sometimes introduced.

A recent note from the Dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology, about the headship of Engineering, which falls vacant at the end of July 2014, specifies that candidates should be 'of professorial level'. We may speculate about the Dean's reasons for introducing this requirement; but long-standing members of staff will be able to recall professors who didn't perform all that well as department heads, and senior lecturers and even lecturers who were very good. It seems unwise to restrict the field of candidates in this rather arbitrary way, particularly when the historical evidence suggests this may disqualify some excellent candidates for the HoD role.

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

50TH ANNIVERSARY DINNER

Anonymous contribution

The celebrations of the University's 50th anniversary were launched at a dinner held in the LICA foyer on 6 February. Perhaps harking back to traditions brought with them by the founding fathers, the meal began with a grace in Latin - but how many will have known what the words meant? (No translation was provided.) There were over 200 people present, invited in the following categories: people with early links to the university, especially those to December 1964 plus partners/spouses, some of the good and great (Princess Alexandra, Lord and Lady Clitheroe, members of our Council, our MP, Baroness Henig, etc.), representatives of major donors over the years, and of course some key current officers of the university.

The Vice-Chancellor made two speeches, one before anyone had eaten and another at the end. The first was both historical and prospective, and wasn't bad, although too long. We then had Christian Bonington; again too long, but talking about the warmth and welcome of the university, which is his customary theme. David Crystal, the linguist to whom we gave an honorary degree in the summer, then spoke; again too long, but pursuing the important theme of how to maintain academic rigour in universities in these days of Wikipedia and MOOCs. After dinner the Vice-Chancellor spoke again, this time explicitly to ask for contributions, whether of time, expertise or money, and everyone was issued with questionnaires to fill in. Actually, we were meant to be running a 50th fundraising programme, and Paul Wellings laid the foundations before he left. The new regime did not however pick it up fast enough, and so there is kind of an appeal, and everyone is invited to contribute. (But why should we, when the outcome of the successful Steinway campaign was the closure of Music?)

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

KEITH SOOTHILL

subtext readers who knew Keith will have been shocked and saddened to read of his death in last week's LU-Text. Shocked because the loss was so sudden and unexpected - Keith had been active socially and intellectually right up until his devastating stroke; saddened because Keith was a man of great warmth, kindness and humour, with a rare capacity for friendship and collegiality.

To say that Keith represented all that is best in Lancaster's traditions is to risk being glib, since Keith should be remembered and honoured because of who he was, not of what he might be said to represent. But his academic work, and the manner in which he carried it out, really did exemplify what many of us like to believe are Lancaster's best qualities. He was a model of intellectual integrity, but combined an absolute commitment to academic freedom with a talent for creative collaboration with many colleagues at Lancaster and elsewhere. He was impatient with managerial constraints but did his bit (more than his bit) as head of both Sociology and Applied Social Science. He was intelligently sceptical of the culture of league tables and incessant audit while consistently publishing at a rate and a level that was astonishing to ordinary mortals. In REF/RAE terms, Keith's outputs – and indeed his impact – were outstanding, but he needed no external pressure to research and publish. He was endlessly curious and imaginative in the topics he chose for critical empirical scrutiny, and able even late in his career to acquire new skills and understanding – notably in the statistical analysis of large samples, which underpinned his work on criminal careers with colleagues in Mathematics and Statistics. But he had always – and apparently effortlessly – worked across disciplinary boundaries.

There is no way of measuring Lancaster's loss against that of Keith's family and closest friends, but it is certain that Lancaster has lost a scholar of rare imagination and creativity. He is irreplaceable.

David Smith

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

CONCERT REVIEW: QUARTETTO DI CREMONA

For the concert on 6 February by this young Italian string quartet, the Great Hall seating was arranged in the round. This more intimate setting is surely much more appropriate for chamber music than the usual lecture arrangement.

Their concert opened with the string quartet no. 1 by Paganini, written about 1815. Known primarily as an exceptional virtuoso on the violin, Paganini had clearly composed this piece as an opportunity to show off his own skills - the first violin part dominates the others so much that the three lower parts are of little interest.

It was followed by the A minor quartet composed in 1919 by Fritz Kreisler. Also a violin virtuoso, Kreisler is far more self-effacing than Paganini: he spreads the musical interest in this quartet generously among the four players. As the programme notes indicated, the musical idiom of the quartet belongs to fin-de-siècle Vienna, recalling Richard Strauss and early Schoenberg. Although derivative from earlier sources, it is a skilfully-crafted piece.

The second half of the concert consisted of Schubert's 'Death and the Maiden' quartet - so called because the second movement is a set of variations on the composer's song Der Tod und das Mädchen. The music of Schubert often reveals hints of menace; this quartet is full of drama, to which the players gave full rein. This was a highly skilled and committed performance of one of the masterpieces of the string quartet repertoire. The contrast between this and the Paganini piece played at the start could not have been more complete.

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

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBOURHOOD...

subtext always looks favourably on ideas which could increase Lancaster's global impact, but not if they bring us into association with disreputable institutions. Members of the collective were duly alarmed when they discovered the following proposal in a national newspaper:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2014/feb/14/move-house-lords-commons-to-lancaster

subtext does recognise that the implications of the article are not all bad. The people who hit on the name 'Parliament Street' for a city thoroughfare will find posthumous justification. It's also good to have some official backing for the claim, often voiced by Admissions Tutors on Open Days, that Lancaster is right at the heart of the UK. They should make the most of this while they can, because a cunning combination of the President of the EU commission and the leaders of the three main British parties seem hell-bent on clinching the case for Scottish independence.

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

THE ART OF NOISE

Further to our comment on the current noxious noisiness of campus (see subtext 115), we have been favoured by a loyal subtext subscriber with some recent correspondence. Our colleague contacted the facilities helpdesk to complain about the fact that a Thursday morning class is always interrupted by a fire alarm test, which destroys everyone's concentration. Would it be possible, the subscriber asked, to arrange for the test to be conducted between classes, rather than in the middle of the same one every week? The reply was prompt and polite, and can be summarised in the word 'No'.

Currently subtext is being produced by a skeleton staff (see desperate appeals in subtexts passim), and we lack anyone with expertise in the psychology of fire-alarm testing. At the risk of exposing our naivety in such matters, we must confess to feeling puzzled. Apparently the tests have to be held at the same time every week so people know that there isn't really a fire. This would make things awkward if there was a real fire at the time in question – a bit like the Boy who cried 'Wolf', or the siren that cried 'Eeeh aah eeh aah eeh aah', but let that pass. Also, people will presume it's only a test if the irritating noise stops after a minute or two – but for the sake of argument we'll let that pass, too.

However, even if a seminar group knows that a fire alarm will go off at some stage of their meeting there must be a split second when, on hearing the noise, their conscious thoughts are overwhelmed by the competing 'fight or flight' instincts which, (judging from the typical Politics seminar) are never far beneath the surface. This, as our subscriber remarks, is no laughing matter – few seminar groups will ever recover their previous level of concentration.

So, while recognising that these infernal tests must be held at set times, may we ask for them to take place on the hour in future so that the disruption only affects sessions which last more than 50 minutes? – or, if this cannot be done, would someone provide a reason that we can understand?

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

LINKS

One take on what the UCU/Unison/Unite industrial action is really about: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/opinion-pay-is-the-front-line-in-a-fight-over-the-future/2011047.article

*******

Following discussion this issue and last of how HoDs are appointed, subscribers may be interested in an earlier discussion in subtext 26: 'The Role of the Head of Department: Changing Conceptions', http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/subtext/archive/issue026.htm.

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

LETTERS

Dear subtext,

With a significant rise in students experiencing mental health issues (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/10/university-students-seeking-counselling-mental-health-uk), I wonder if the 'carefully targeted investment to support the student experience' that I just read about in an email from the Vice-Chancellor might be 'targeted' towards counselling services. I also wonder how much higher the figures for accessing the counselling services would be if the environment were't so void of warmth and privacy - students have first to go through an online questionnaire with all the empathy of... an online questionnaire, wait in a crowded public space for their appointment and then sit in a box room divided by panel glass windows (albeit partially glazed) to discuss matters of an often intense personal nature. All credit to the counsellors who have to work in those conditions. And then there is the question of why this increase? With Lancaster University's excellent reputation for research, maybe some money could be 'targeted' towards finding out?

Fiona Perris

*******

Dear subtext,

Sharing subtext's concern with an absence of letters, an opportunity presented itself with comments relating to the role of a Head of Department: 's/he does not have authority in a line management sense, but is primus inter pares, using authority granted by those over whom it is wielded'. This surely harks back to a different world. From my own recent experience, it is routine that department meetings – often cancelled, agenda vetted, and formal motions ignored – serve as a conduit for reporting decisions taken elsewhere. With the centre driven by performance indicators, traditional notions of collegiality and scholarship face similar demise. How times can change; but perhaps my experience is not typical. It would be interesting to hear from those on campus who feel that their Head of Department's role is exercised authentically by the primes inter pares model.

Charles Carter, Lancaster's first Vice-Chancellor, saw the first duty of a University as the conservation of existing knowledge through the reproduction and re-energising of ideas through scholarship and teaching. And, although the Green Paper of 1985 signaled a 'concentration of research activity' and 'selectivity' in UGC allocations, Lancaster contracts of employment have maintained an equal status for scholarship: 'On appointment you will become a member of the University, which is the sole employing authority. You must pursue advanced studies or research in your subject.'

However, most recently from Lancaster, we have 'Our strategy for 2020'. Word-counts across that defining document show: 'global(ly)' 24; 'teaching' 32; 'research' 64; and 'scholarship' 0 (nil).

Gerry Steele

*******

Dear subtext and its readers,

I was quite taken aback by the report in the last issue of subtext that Lancaster University's surplus this year was: 8.2% or £16.2 million. That makes quite a contrast with the academic pay increase offer: 1%

But, what about Associate Lecturer (or TA) pay? In FASS this currently stands at around £1000 per year for each seminar class. Having just submitted my thesis, I'm working as an Associate Lecturer at the moment. Although I wanted as much teaching as I could get, I was only able to get one seminar class this year; much of the first year teaching is done for free by PhD students on fees only 'bursaries' (i.e. indentured labour).

So, let's do some maths. I do roughly this much work over the course of the year:

22 hrs seminars per year

44 hrs preparing material for seminars (2 hrs preparation per seminar: in fact, it probably takes more)

50 hrs office hours

10 hrs marking essay scripts (30 scripts)

3.5 hrs marking exam (10 scripts)

5 hrs moderating

4 hrs course meetings

Note: this includes no time for breaks, no sick pay, no time to read long novels or watch films set for the course. And, of course, no time to research, educate or train myself. Expenses are also not included in these sums, e.g. books; nor are bus tickets (£2.40 each day). Also note: there's no cheap canteen on campus (for staff or otherwise).

Anyway, that's 138.5 hrs for £1000 per year, or £7.22/hr for teaching 1st year undergraduates at a not-quite-top-10 university.

Note how quickly this goes down if we say 3 hours for prep per seminar (not unreasonable if you count time reading multiple texts as well as constructing a lesson plan): 66 hrs prep means 160.5 hrs, which means £6.23/hr.

Meanwhile, those students are each paying £9000/year to the university: or £90,000. They do three modules, I teach all their seminars for one module. So let's say that I do a 6th of their teaching (though it's not so easy to quantify): I get 1/90th of what the university makes in 'tuition' fees for doing 1/6th of their tuition.

There's a moment in Andrzej Wajda's film, A Generation, where the Communist mentor figure explains Marx's theory of the production of surplus value (exploitation) to a young apprentice: "See this door? How much does the boss sell this door for? And how many doors do you make in a week? And how much do you get paid for a week?" &c. &c. Do I need to break it down? Ask yourself again how it is that the university is £16.2 million in surplus.

No excuses: it's past time that PhDs and ECRS were paid properly for the labour they do - labour which keeps this damn place running.

Thanks subtext for flagging this up! Best wishes,

Chris Witter

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

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