| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 119 8 May 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, v-c visitations, county main disturbances, our new chancellor, roses report, more good news, national youth jazz orchestra, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL On the face of it, the recent industrial action seems to have ended in a score-draw. On the union side, threatened use of the 'nuclear option' of a marking boycott could be said to have exacted an improved offer. For their part, the employers must be happy with an outcome which does little to address the long-term decline in pay (and conditions) for university staff. subtext subscribers will have noted a remarkable change in the tone of communications from the centre. As soon as the sector as a whole began to discover the virtues of flexibility, the rather risible note of menace in such messages was jettisoned in favour of the 'we're all in this together' approach. Better late than never, we might conclude; but University House should be aiming to be better than this, and try to get the tone right in the first place. As things turned out, their attempt to play the disciplinarian card against the people who make the university viable as a place of employment (and generate the profits which they guard so tenaciously) was a gratuitous and damaging own-goal. In terms of public relations, therefore, what looks like a score-draw should really be viewed as a defeat (perhaps on the away-goals rule) for University House. Our decision-makers should take note of this verdict, and they would also be well-advised to ignore the bald statistics about lectures and seminars cancelled, etc., during the dispute. They should be aware that support for the various actions taken within the university is a very crude measure of the level of sympathy towards the cause. Unless the real lessons of this period of disruption are heeded, it might turn out to be a springboard for a better-supported protest among staff who will be united in person as well as in principle next time. ***************************************************** MEASURING THE UNIVERSITY'S PERFORMANCE The Vice-Chancellor continues to tour the departments. Spending possibly two hours per department, of which there are some 30, is a time-consuming exercise. Clearly he thinks it important to be seen and to meet colleagues across the University - a view with which subtext strongly concurs. He tells an upbeat story about Lancaster University. Our financial situation is sound: although the national budget for HE will continue to be tough, Lancaster should be in a strong position. Our undergraduate intake is rising steadily (this is vital now that a substantial proportion of the funding of universities arises from student fees). Almost uniquely in the sector, Lancaster recruits substantially more students from state schools than the government's benchmark figure, and at the same time it has managed to raise the A-level scores of its intake. It isn't clear how we have managed this difficult feat of social inclusion, but Admissions teams across the University deserve high marks for achieving it. Let's hope we will continue to do so. There is a tendency to nominate some comparator universities against which we can judge our performance: Bath, Durham, Exeter, York etc. This is respectable company to be in - but is it wise to select our own peer group? There must be a risk that we will choose a rather comfortable set of peers that may not provide the competition we need to stimulate us to greater and greater efforts. Inevitably we compare ourselves with others using established criteria (A-level scores, social inclusion, research performance and so forth) because the statistics exist - but do these criteria truly reflect Lancaster's priorities? Are they chosen in part because they use quantifiable measures and are readily available? subtext suggests we should establish where our priorities lie, work out how to measure our performance against these priorities, and then see how well we're doing. If this means using different criteria from other universities, so be it - no university gets ahead by aping what all the others are doing. ***************************************************** MAYHEM IN COUNTY MAIN (A FINAL-YEAR STUDENT SUBSCRIBER WRITES) This time last year, during quiet period, students were sent the following notification: 'County Main Work - UPP Office relocation - On Monday 13th May work will start on the refurbishment of two of the retail units and seminar room 10 on the ground floor of County Main… If you have any queries about this work please contact the facilities Helpdesk on 93333 or facilities.helpdesk@lancaster.ac.uk'. ***************************************************** A CHANCY CHANCELLOR? The recent confirmation that the Rt. Hon. Alan Milburn will succeed Sir Chris Bonington as Chancellor of the university is likely to provoke mixed feelings among subtext subscribers. It is of course strongly in Mr Milburn's favour that he is an alumnus of Lancaster. While some might feel a twinge of anxiety about an association with a prominent politician, our Chancellor-elect (or, more exactly, 'Chancellor-select') is far from being a tribal-style partisan for Labour. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were happy to appoint him to an advisory position dealing with social mobility – a cause in which our university has a good record (see above). Indeed, Mr Milburn was at one time tipped for a cabinet post under the coalition government. So this is a rare example of a politician who enjoys genuine cross-party respect. However, it is only fair to note that Mr Milburn's appeal within the political establishment is not necessarily matched by widespread popularity among the British public. This is the common fate for people who are closely associated with Tony Blair. In Mr Milburn's case, those with a capacity to retain political information will remember his decision to resign from the cabinet in 2003 on family grounds, followed by a return to the ranks in September 2004, and a second resignation in 2005. Even in a government remarkable for its revolving-door ministers, this was an unusual sequence of events. It suggests that Mr Milburn's primary loyalty lies with individuals rather than institutions, and although this might be an unfair conclusion it is not the ideal CV for a ceremonial figurehead like a University Chancellor. The other objection which might be raised from Mr Milburn's predilection for voluntary departures is that it is almost a decade since he served as a cabinet minister, so that even undergraduate students of Politics and International Relations cannot be guaranteed to have heard of him. Sir Chris Bonington, to be fair, was never likely to be obstructed in the course of his duties by the paparazzi, and might even have suffered from a name-recognition problem in recent years. Nevertheless, he is certainly the best-known British practitioner of his profession in recent decades, so that his position as Chancellor can be explained to those who are too young to have seen him in his pomp. The same might be true of Mr Milburn, but there are reasons for scepticism here. subtext has not been able to discover any polling figures relating to the popularity of mountaineers as a group, but it is a fair bet that they were rated more highly than politicians in the days when Sir Chris was ascending his personal peaks, and this verdict is unlikely to have been reversed since then. Many people believe that New Labour is at least partly responsible for this situation. So, if a student on the day of graduation asks who Mr Milburn is, the answer 'He was a senior figure in Tony Blair's government' is, on balance, unlikely to kindle positive emotions. However, to some subtext subscribers these points will seem superficial. For them, there are three damning elements of Mr Milburn's record – his past, his present and his probable future. They will feel that his record as Health Secretary (1999-2003) was most notable for the introduction of Foundation Trusts, which some critics regarded as an attempt to inject private sector values into the National Health Service. Since his retirement from parliament, Mr Milburn has taken on more than one position which is capable of arousing controversy in the general area of health care. He is, for example, a long-serving advisor to Pepsico, and he has performed a similar role for a venture-capitalist outfit with a strong interest in a greater role for the private sector in health service provision (for some critical commentary on Mr Milburn's private financial initiatives, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10593106/Poverty-tsar-Alan-Milburn-makes-a-million.html). Far from throwing his weight behind what many people see as the 'creeping privatisation' of the NHS, Mr Milburn has openly criticised coalition policy in this respect (see, for example, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jun/16/nhs-reforms-amended-plans-car-crash-alan-milburn). Nevertheless, at the present time these are not associations which are calculated to assuage the misgivings of staff and students who are concerned about trends within Higher Education, as well as the NHS. Recently it seems to have become a habit for subtext to criticise appointments (or, in the case of the Bowland College Principal,non-appointments). Needless to say, we derive no pleasure from this. The (limited) contact between members of the collective and Mr Milburn has been very positive at a personal level – even those who are reluctant to recognise his merits for political reasons should appreciate his approachability and willingness to listen to well-informed arguments. Nevertheless, these qualities could probably have been found, at least to a comparable extent, in less contentious candidates for the position of Chancellor. ***************************************************** COMING UP ROSES Congratulations to everyone involved in this year’s Roses match. The outcome - a Lancaster victory by the emphatic margin of 183.5 points to 142.5 - is very pleasing in the University's 50th anniversary year. subtext's compliments to all the competitors, and also to everyone who worked alongside them or behind the scenes: coaches, grounds staff, staff of the Sports Centre... a complete list would be very long indeed. subtext's scouts who watched some of the events report that the match was very well organised, so special praise is due to LUSU, who were responsible for this, and particularly to Emily Pollitt, LUSU's VP (Activities), who led the organising team; also to SCAN, Radio Bailrigg and LA1:TV for their continuously-updated coverage on the web (http://www.roseslive.co.uk/ - still up at the time of writing) and live pictures and commentary. It was a highly professional job in all its aspects, and a real credit to the University. ***************************************************** COMING UP ROSES (II) Our much-loved Roses rival, of course, was founded in 1963 and as such has just departed from the THES league table for universities founded less than fifty years ago. Last year York finished seventh in the world, for which we should offer some grudging recognition while pointing out that these rankings are highly unscientific. As the university stressed on its website, in 2013 it was the only UK institution to creep into the top ten in this dubious league table. Now, however, Lancaster has triumphantly emulated this performance, soaring up to tenth place in the THES table (see http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/one-hundred-under-fifty). Some sour adherents of the White Rose might quibble that we were pretty assured of a higher ranking, since York is now ineligible for this table. But no matter; we are too grown up to be deflected by such pettiness. These rankings, we now realise, are based upon rigorous research which no serious-minded statistician – if such individuals exist – could question. Presumably the methodology has been tightened since last year, when York did so freakishly well. Joking apart, being rated top of the UK's youthful institutions is really a very good way to bow out of the 'under-50s club', and jubilant subtext functionaries were a little surprised that the glad tidings seemed to fall out of our website's 'headlines' pretty quickly. This just shows that, if modesty were included as part of the calculations – and it clearly should – Lancaster would have been rated top of the whole world. Now, of course, we graduate to the more competitive 'under-100s' league; but watch out, York, Lancaster is coming to get you! ***************************************************** NYJO AT THE GREAT HALL The final event in the season of Thursday evening concerts in the Great Hall was given by NYJO - the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. With its line-up of five trumpets, five trombones, five saxes and five percussion players (plus flute, French horn and vocals), this is a classic Big Band. All the players are under 25. The music was amplified by a good deal of electronic equipment, and clearly the audience could have been blasted out of the hall; but the playing of the band was musically very sensitive, as was the manipulation of the controls on the electronics. One piece (there was no printed programme, so it was difficult to tell what the titles were), a chorale for all five trombones playing in close harmony, was particularly beautifully played - perfectly in tune, and very well balanced so that no part stood out. Other pieces gave individual players the opportunity to take solo riffs. Every one of them is a gifted performer, yet this band manages the unusual feat of combining a number of brilliant soloists into an excellent collaborative whole where no one instrument stands out unless taking a solo line. Their material is a satisfying combination of classic jazz standards and original pieces, with many of the arrangements done by members of the band. The evening was well compèred by Mark Armstrong, a jazz professor at the Royal College of Music. Vocals were provided by Jessica Radcliffe, an excellent young singer (in an earlier era the band provided one of the first opportunities for a sixteen-year-old Amy Winehouse to perform). Overall this was a very good finish to the 2013-14 season of Great Hall concerts. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext editors, In issue 118 your piece on the USS pension scheme and the annual allowance isn't strictly accurate. Both sections of the USS pension scheme (Final salary and Career Revalued) are defined benefit schemes and the calculation performed to test whether a member has annual allowance issues is not based on the amount of contributions made into the scheme by the member and employer, but by valuing the increase in their pension within a pension input period or PIP (for USS the PIP runs 1 April to 31 March). Here is an excerpt from the USS website that shows how the AA calculation works: If you had 20 years' service on 1 April and your pensionable salary was £40,000 then your pension on 1 April would be: 20 X 1/80 X £40,000 = £10,000.00 pa CPI increase: 3.1% Pension after CPI increase = £10,000 X 1.031 = £10,310.00 At 31 March the following year your pensionable salary was then £42,000 pa, your pension at 31 March was therefore: 21 X 1/80 X £42,000 = £11,025.00 So, the increase in your pension over the year was £11,025 - £10,310 = £715.00 pa And the capital value to check against the AA would be £715 X 19 = £13,585.00 VCs will pay the same percentage contribution rate as everybody else (7.5 in final salary) so for a VC to be paying in the current AA allowance of 50k as you suggest would require a salary of circa £670k! Any contributions to a money purchase AVC such as Prudential are added to the PIP calculation above before assessing any tax liability under the annual allowance rules. Exposure to annual allowance issues is not exclusive to the highest paid, there are circumstances where members of any of our defined benefit schemes including LGPS, might trigger an AA charge, one example could be a member with 30 years' pension scheme service, receiving a promotion that increased their salary from £36k to £45k, the increase in the value of their pension in that PIP would be enough to breach the AA limit and would then require them o check for carry forward relief available from previous years to mitigate any potential tax charge. Yours sincerely, Terry Hallam Payroll & Pensions Manager ******** Dear subtexters, The subtext collective replies, in what we presume is the contemporary stylee: Hey, Mike! You raise a point which has been discussed within the collective recently (since institutional memory fades). It would be nice to say that the instruction to delete arises from the incendiary content of subtext, but the true reason is more banal – if subscribers don't delete their fortnightly feast of verbal pyrotechnics, it will clog up our internal emailing system. Warm regards, subtext ******** Dear subtext, I was delighted to see that the Admissions Adjustment and Clearing Team has been recognised with a staff award. I know them all to be dedicated and skilled in what they do and I'm sure the award is fully deserved. I am sad to see however the lack of recognition of what the full time members of staff of the Admissions Office have achieved. I'm sure that they will have made a major contribution not only to the success of the two week August/September operation but during the other fifty weeks of the year also, and it would be nice to see some public recognition of their contribution. Bob Brown ******** Dear subtext, Amid the normal doom and gloom reported by Subtext it was heartening that the editors recently focused on a glow of light from that great East Midlands city of Leicester (see historically interesting tidbit in subtext 118). Supporters of Leicester City Football Club are all too familiar with the fickle hand of fortune, but now with the unswerving support of subtext surely this is indeed the season for Leicester. Many thanks,
***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sam Clark, Mark Garnett, George Green, Ian Paylor and Martin Widden.
|