| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 122 16 October 2014 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight during term time. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk 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/. CONTENTS: editorial; battle for pensions; new logo; college review; revolting students; transport news; outbreak of democracy; logo again; news from afar; culture corner; sub-zero temperatures; memory lane; letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Dear Readers, Welcome to the start of a new academic year. We hope you all enjoyed a few moments of refreshing rest during your research-intensive summers. It's good to see so many happy faces back on campus – though it would be even better if there were a few hundred more of them. But enough of such preliminary pleasantries. What you really want to know is the outcome of the subtext Strategy Meeting, held in Fylde Bar on 25th September. The following aspirations were duly recorded, as part of a longer term strategy which takes us up to 2020. 1. Acheieve a top 10 UK ranking We note with pleasure that subtext is back in the Guardian's Top Ten for Alternative-University-Information-Services-with-an-attempted-satirical-flavour (AUISWAASFs) this year. However, for some reason The Times and The Sunday Times were less impressed with our efforts. Subtext believes that a consistent top 10 ranking is do-able if we are focused and determined. In particular, we are hoping that senior university managers will set an appropriate example by providing us with a steady supply of easily-satirised initiatives, and ensuring that consultation with staff and students is maintained at derisory levels. Sitting alongside our national league table ambitions is a target to be a top 100 AUISWAAS. Why is league table position important? Firstly we know that readers of AUISWAASFs are very influenced by league tables. Secondly, league tables measure the sorts of things we should care about anyway as a leading AUISWAASF: reader satisfaction, research quality, competitions to find the silliest nickname for a colleague, etc. Appointing the best people at all levels of the organisation is crucial to achieving our priorities and we are pleased to say that a number of senior subtext operatives are now in post, though obviously their names will have to remain secret. 2. Increase the refreshment budget by at least 10% each year Producing subtext is not cheap, as the bill arising from the Fylde Strategy meeting showed all too clearly. We have therefore embarked on a major drive for external funding, which we hope will result in a 10% uptick in the number of drinks that are bought for us by grateful readers. Donations of very large pork pies would also be welcome. 3. Regain our top 10 position in the AUISWAAS Readers Survey On this front, we have dire news to report. Although we are above our benchmark for reader satisfaction, our reader satisfaction rating has plummeted from the 2013 figure of 90% to a catastrophic 89%. We need to claw our way back from this precipice. An improved result of probably around 91% would be required to regain a top 10 position. We appeal to all our readers: if you don't enjoy subtext very much, please, please PLEASE pretend that you really love us when you fill in your 750-page questionnaire. 4. Subscriber applications rise to 15,000 per annum. Although we have done well recruiting new readers for this year – and during the 'clearing' process in August the subtext hotline was bombarded by at least 3 callers (only 2 of whom had got the wrong number) – we just need more, more, more. The more the merrier. We would be undyingly grateful if you would include a link to subtext every time you 'tweet'. In particular, we want to attract more international readers, and representatives of certain desirable socio-economic categories. Some readers have suggested that we would benefit from a new logo – or, indeed, a logo of any kind. The debate rages on (see below), but we are always happy to listen to the opinions of our faithful and much-valued customers. Many thanks for taking the time to read this and enjoy the new term! ***************************************************** PENSIONS BATTLE LOOMING It seems like only yesterday that UCU was preparing for a marking boycott as part of its escalating pay campaign and dire threats were being issued by the HR Director to those minded to take part. The boycott didn't happen as the dispute was settled with the acceptance of a 2% wage increase, far below the original claim. For the last two weeks UCU members have again been balloted but this time the issue isn't pay (though the less-than-inflation settlement still rankles) but pensions. Readers will recall that in 2011 there was national industrial action in response to the attempts to reduce pension benefits because of (according to the employers' side) escalating scheme liabilities. Eventually a compromise settlement was reached which saw the maintenance of the Final Salary scheme for existing members and the creation of a less-generous 'career-average' benefits scheme for new members. The inflation calculator was changed from the Retail Price Index to the lower Consumer Price Index. There was an uneasy feeling at the time that this was a truce rather than a peace settlement and that the employers would come back for more. And so it has come to pass. Earlier this week the employers' organisation Universities UK (UUK) published its proposals for radical changes in USS pensions. Chief of these was the closing of the Final Salary scheme and for everyone to be moved to the career-averaged Career Revalued Benefits (CRB) scheme. This would mean a reduced pension for those who thought they'd been protected by the 2011 settlement but worse was to come. The employers also want to impose a salary cap of £50,000 up to which a guaranteed 'defined benefits' pension would be calculated, and earnings over that would be subjected to a new 'defined contributions' scheme to which the employer and employee would both contribute. This new scheme is effectively a savings scheme, with contributions invested in the stock market with all the attendant risks. The big attractions for the employers is that all the risk is transferred to the individual and the employers' contribution is reduced from 18% for the 'defined benefits' to 12%. In all, there would be a considerable reduction in the expected pension benefits for all employees in USS. The employers say that they are forced to make these drastic changes because there is a projected deficit of £7.5bn between the assets and the liabilities of USS. UCU disputes this. It points out that USS is carrying a healthy surplus – over £1bn last year – and that the deficit worry assumes a scenario where the whole of UK higher education goes bankrupt at once and pension liabilities have to be met. The union also strongly challenges the methodology used to calculate the pension scheme's assets. This is based on the current value of government gilts which, as a result of the Bank of England’s money-printing 'quantitative easing' policy, yield close to zero return. UCU points out that less than 25% of USS assets are in gilts and the remainder are performing very well indeed. There is a strong suspicion in union circles that there is more to these changes than a desire by university employers to reduce their costs. According to one UCU national negotiator, USS 'sticks out like a sore thumb' in that it is one of the largest pension schemes in the country, it is still 'final salary' for most of its members and it is still a 'defined benefits' scheme for all. It is the only one of its kind in the private sector and the government and the City don't like it – it goes against the prevailing ideology of replacing guaranteed pensions with individual responsibility for maintaining life after retirement. It is questionable that the employers would be taking such an extreme stance without the encouragement of DIUS, the Stock Exchange and the Pensions Regulator. One outcome of these changes, which may not be to the employers' satisfaction, is that the gap between the pension benefits of pre- and post-1992 universities will grow even larger. At present, colleagues retiring from our neighbouring institutions in Bowerham and Preston already enjoy better pensions than we do, and if the proposed changes go through this relative advantage increases considerably. An example given by UCU, and quoted in a recent THES article, suggests that a professor aged 66, retiring from a post-92 HEI on a salary of £75,000 after 41 years' service, would receive about £49,000 a year in total benefits compared with only £28,389 from an institution such as Lancaster. How would this square with the 'attracting and retaining the best talent' mantra so beloved of HR departments? Can it be that this has already been anticipated, and that senior managers in the sector who have been quietly bailing out of USS over the last few years for more attractive schemes provided by their grateful universities be planning to extend this largesse to the already well-cocooned research stars? Surely not! To return to the UCU ballot, if the result is a 'yes' for industrial action then we will be faced with possibly the bitterest dispute that has been seen in years. UCU activists say that the union should learn the lessons of last year's pay dispute and not dissipate its energy in fruitless one-day and two-hour strikes but use immediately its most potent weapon, the marking and assessment boycott. Employers have let it be known that if this happens they will make 100% pay deductions for 'incomplete performance'. And the union has responded that there will be national strike action if any single employer makes these punitive deductions. The stakes are high but for the union the issue requires this. Disputes about pay are usually settled in the knowledge that however unpalatable the deal it will always be possible to claw back what has been lost in future negotiations. Not so with your pension. Once it's gone, it's gone. UCU members have until 12 noon on Monday 20 October to cast their votes in the ballot for industrial action. Votes must be cast by post. ***************************************************** NO LOGO Subscribers will probably be aware that over the summer the University got itself a spanking new logo, as well as a redesigned website with new typefaces and colours. Those subscribers wishing to have an informed view on the matter might like to have a look at the 'Lancaster University communications toolkit' at subtext's attention was first drawn to this site by subscribers who variously described it as 'probably satire' and 'probably beyond satire', to which we would reply, respectively, 'oh no it isn't' and 'oh, no it isn't'. First, the new logo. Gone is the 'swoosh', the diagrammatic representation of the Chaplaincy Centre spires that has symbolised the University for so many years. In its place comes a shield with a lion passant across the top (symbolising courage, presumably that required for prospective students to count up how much it'll cost to come to university and then still come anyway). Then there are two red roses (one standing for Lancashire and the other...well, another Lancashire), then a series of wavy lines (one supposes that these are to suggest the river Lune, or perhaps the M6 once junction 34 is finished) and finally at the bottom a book (see below). It would be unreasonable to expect an institution full of both semioticians and the highly opinionated not to have strong views on such changes, and so it has proved. Phrases used in our hearing to describe the new logo have included 'commonplace', 'undistinguished' and 'crap', although on the other hand apparently someone's taxi-driver quite liked it. Politically correct critics have suggested that the lion is gendered and the shield militaristic. More immediately (and perhaps more importantly), Marketing 101 instructs us to consider what a watcher is reminded of when they catch just a brief glimpse of the logo. Subscribers may remember the posters for the first Batman movie, which on first encounter made one think of a set of dangling tonsils, which was probably not what the designers intended. In fairness, we must first agree that the old Lancaster swoosh logo resembled the Atari symbol, though the words 'Lancaster University' immediately underneath it probably prevented many students from coming here thinking that they had signed up for three years of slightly dated computer games. Suggestions for first impressions of the new shield logo have included 'a giant robot', 'an anatomically correct blow-up doll' and 'a heavily-moustachioed man screaming that the lion on his head has just eaten his nose'. These reactions may or may not be an improvement on a logo having a superficial resemblance to that of a computer games company. Onward through the website. The online toolkit tells us a number of things about what a carefully chosen future-facing design concept can provide in delivering excellence going forward. Usefully, it suggests the reasoning behind the University’s choice of fonts for the website, for example. (Effra, Lexia and Activ Grotesk - surely the three witches in a Terry Pratchett novel.) This reasoning is worth quoting in full and the claims made, we suggest, could with advantage be set as exam questions. 1.) 'The use of a slab and a sans serif typeface is important as it provides depth to the Lancaster personality'. Discuss, after defining a) what you consider the 'Lancaster personality' to be, and b) what 'depth' might mean in this context. 2.) 'A slab serif typeface helps to provide gravitas and authority'. Discuss, in two parts; first suggesting methods how this augmentation of gravitas and authority might be measured, and then assessing the value of this sort of statement when it might be argued that the precise opposite of the statement could be asserted with equal authority. 3.) 'A sans serif typeface is clean, modern and is easy to read as body copy'. Discuss first what 'clean and modern' might mean in this statement, and then interrogate the logic that pairs such a modern typeface with a new logo which contains multiple signifiers and self-consciously harks back to the medieval era and beyond. Harrumph. subtext isn't against change, and mere sentiment isn't enough reason to keep a logo if it isn't doing its job. However, as we would happily have pointed out, had we been asked, which we weren't, (and as an aside we’d like to hear from anyone who was asked, because it would be ridiculous to suggest that there was anything other than a wide-ranging consultation exercise undertaken before these decisions were implemented, and yet somehow we haven’t met anyone yet who was part of it), while it is perhaps true that the discarded swoosh logo didn't say 'Lancaster University' to people who’ve never been here, it did indeed say exactly that to anyone who has driven up the approach road and seen the spires of the Chaplaincy Centre against the sky, and this symbol was often remarked upon at Open Days. However, you would stare at the new shield logo for an awfully long time before you thought, 'Oh yes, of course, I see, it's obviously the logo of Lancaster University'. Apart from anything else, as the library appears hell-bent on getting rid of as many books as possible; if the new shield is magically somehow so modern and groovy, as opposed to a symbol that had great significance up to about four hundred years ago but not so much since then, shouldn't that book be a screen? We could go on, but we'd like to give subscribers a chance to comment. Perhaps the toolkit is right and we’re wrong. Perhaps subscribers will agree that the rounded bottom right hand corner is truly 'distinctive' and does indeed give the page a 'sharper feel'. Maybe everyone else out there actually agrees that white is definitely an effective 'corporate colour' which gives a 'clean crisp feel', that adding grey effectively 'softens' the appearance of the pages, and that the use of Pantone 1807 Red actually adds 'vitality and dynamism' to designs. Maybe. Once we have a sense of how others are reacting to all this, we'll return to it. ***************************************************** COLLEGE REVIEW subtext readers will no doubt be fully up to date with the situation regarding the Principalships of Bowland and Lonsdale Colleges. In a nutshell - both are still without Principals, one without the Principal they have repeatedly and specifically asked for. The Students' Union Council have been particularly vocal, with representatives from that body bringing concerns directly to D-Floor. subtext understands that, when asked by a LUSU Vice-President whether or not the Colleges would have their requests honoured, the University Secretary retorted that 'the answer is NO'. Furthermore, the Provost of Colleges (Professor Chetwynd) has been stuck on a loop of insisting that Bowland and Lonsdale Colleges will be 'fine' sharing Roger Gould with each other and Pendle College - an opinion shared with precisely no-one. During freshers' week, the majority of the work was undertaken by Bowland Vice-Principal Simon Corless and newly elected Lonsdale Vice-Principal Keith Davidson - completely voluntarily and without the buyout afforded to full College Principals. (Since Corless and Davidson have stepped up to the plate so valiantly and taken on an unprecedented amount of responsibility, subtext wonders whether or not their 'interim' appointment is receiving more money for his increased portfolio. If so, for doing what, exactly?) Those raising concerns have also been half-heartedly satiated by the incoming 'College Review'. It will be steered by a panel consisting of external members, senior management and a member of academic staff. As for College representation, that will be made up of the Provost of Colleges and a 'Senior College Principal' (a caveat which narrows things down to precisely one candidate...). Also present are the LUSU Vice-President for Union Development Damon Fairley and the LUSU President Laura Clayson. When the LUSU President asked, at the last meeting of University Council, to be removed from the panel and replaced by an elected College JCR President, she was of course knocked back. We can't have pesky democracy get in the way of what is doubtless a cut and dried process, after all. Evidently, there is very little actual College representation on a panel that ostensibly exists to shape the future of the Colleges, but this issue is being swept aside by promises of Extensive Consultation. Of course, the issue with 'consultation' is that 'Consensus' is usually a big field with one Yes Man standing in the middle of it. One of the professed aims of the College review is to assess 'the role of Principal and the attractiveness of the post to senior academics and professional staff'. As a starter for ten, the subtext collective were able to come up with a number of institutional changes which would make a word of difference very quickly. Perhaps if the University didn't consistently show a lack of faith in the College's ability to run themselves by centralising the running of their bars and accommodation provision? If they didn't have their relevance and representation on Senate and other committees consistently undermined and cut? If College involvement were reintroduced as promotions criteria? If central interference were kept to a minimum? If Syndicate resolutions weren't so brazenly ignored and their membership not patted on the head and told 'don't sweat it' as we've seen in the past few weeks? If they weren't expected, as this review seems to wish to further enforce, to demonstrate 'Synergy' (obedience) with central management, rather than to serve as collectives of cross disciplinary individuals who act as critical friends to the University? If they were allowed to democratically elect their own Principals without the need for selection panels largely hand-picked by the Vice-Chancellor put in place to hand pick the least 'troublesome' candidates? ***************************************************** THE STUDENTS ARE REVOLTING It's always refreshing when the Students' Union is openly political and encouraging students to awaken their political consciences. What is highly promising is the upcoming 'Assembly For Change' conference, the first LUSU-run national conference of its kind, taking place on the 8th and 9th of November. Traditionally, congregations of figures and organisations assembling for the attention of students have largely been safe and distinctly un-radical - mainstream companies with a strong track record of graduate employment, here to prepare students for a society which they mightn't find desirable. Appealingly, there are a large number of fringe charity and lobbying organisations coming to speak - almost like an 'alternative' careers weekend. Billed attendees include Peter Tatchell, Natalie Bennett, Owen Jones, War on Want, HOPE NOT HATE and Amnesty International. Here's hoping that a precedent is being set for More Of This Sort Of Thing. More information here: http://lusu.co.uk/happening/assembly-for-change-2014/. ***************************************************** BUSES Your travel correspondent reports on the new arrangements regarding bus travel whilst the bus station is partially closed due to the United Utilities work. Armed with his newly acquired staff Unirider bus pass – which by the way is excellent value if you are a regular commuter to the University from Lancaster and its environs – your correspondent started his new relationship with Stagecoach during freshers/welcome/intro week. Under the new interim measures buses travelling south towards the University leave from Dalton Square. The phrase organised chaos is frequently misused but this lazy shorthand does offer of good description of the current arrangements. Signage is non-existent. Buses are parked up with the familiar and much-loved 'Sorry...Out of Service' notice displayed on the destination board. Other buses are parked with the destination board stating University but obviously not going anywhere soon. There is normally an inspector in a high visibility jacket offering advice and instructions. Drivers also appear in high visibility jackets and are harassed by passengers wanting information. The inspector will occasional shout 'Preston – direct, quicker route to the University' causing shoals of passengers to lurch towards the newly arrived bus. We later pass this bus at the Infirmary. In the meantime another bus draws up causing the shoal to splinter. Students with their ear phones firmly attached have not heard the original instruction and move one way then the other causing a whirlpool effect. Cries of 'Garstang?' and 'Blackpool?' uttered by other passengers fade away unheeded. Your correspondent did actually work on the buses many years ago in the days when buses had conductors (ask your grandparents for an explanation). One particular incident your correspondent recalls is a potential passenger approaching the driver in his cab and enquiring 'Fleetwood?' 'Aye' came the reply. The passenger embarked and requested a single to Fleetwood. He was somewhat perplexed and mildly annoyed when informed that the bus went nowhere near Fleetwood. He was not comforted by being informed that the driver had actually just responded to someone asking him his name- Mick Fleetwood! Back at Dalton Square another bus arrives, journey over. The driver and passengers disembark adding to general melee. The driver locks the door and strides off for a well-earned rest. Horror! Two faces appear (obviously students) locked inside the parked bus. The look of panic suggests that they are calculating the quantity of air remaining inside the empty double-decker bus. The inspector rescues the couple in the nick of time. People are remarkably compliant, your correspondent heard some occasional grumbles but generally folk did not appear to mind spending in time in one queue only to be directed to another. One additional perk to having a Unirider pass is the fact that if the Inspector who is directing the shoals happens to spot you brandishing your pass he (it is always a man – I have not spotted a female Inspector) will pluck you out of the queue and invite you board the bus in front of the queue without showing your pass to the driver. Bit like being a VIP entering a night-club. Once aboard the bus the strange etiquette of where to sit is interesting to observe. For a number of us that option does not exist – standing room only. The phrase 'move down the bus, please' seems to have fallen into desuetude. People congregate around the hanging straps in the space by the area designated for wheelchairs and pushchairs. When someone in a wheelchair does get on the bus a strange dance occurs, passenger shuffling around one another in a confined space rather than just moving down the bus. Your correspondent also had his first ever experience of standing upstairs on a double-decker bus – this added a certain spice to the journey plus the added frisson of knowing that you were probably breaking some law or other. Things will get back to normal, but for the moment, if you are in no real urgent need to get to work, the situation offers an invaluable people-watching experience. ***************************************************** DEMOCRACY We're two weeks into term and already there's some democracy ensuing down in Graduate College. Student representation is facilitated by the Postgraduate Board, and a number of students are currently campaigning for your vote. Your correspondent was present at the hustings which took place, and was impressed with the sheer numbers of students who were standing despite barely having finished unpacking their belongings. Voting closes tomorrow, and all postgraduate readers should have received their voter codes in their Lancaster email. ***************************************************** ANOTHER THING ON LOGOS A very poor job was done on keeping the University of Lancaster's rebranding a secret. The initial draft of the shield was circulated in LU Text and offers were made for individuals to write in with their views. Within a few hours of the publication going out, SCAN got hold of the imagery and immediately polled the student body on their opinions: old or new? The 'swoosh' logo received an overwhelming majority of preference, while the shield was subject not only to embarrassing figures in the polls but much ridicule as well: 'The University of Megatron' and 'disgruntled French Napoleonic soldier' stood out as particularly catty and cutting. subtext has been lead to understand that Marketing immediately got in touch with the Students' Union and asked that the poll be taken off the SCAN website and its Facebook page. When challenged as to why this should happen, the response was that the imagery was 'embargoed' and 'not yet ready for public viewing'. A few pointers for maintaining an embargo: don't publish the embargoed information on the internet. Do something to the search engine optimisation so that it isn't the third result in Google when you type in 'Lancaster New Shield.' Otherwise, it just looks like another of those retrospective embargoes which probably wouldn't have been enforced if the results had been a unanimous outpouring of adoration for our new fez-wearing automaton chum. ***************************************************** NEWS FROM FAR-FLUNG PLACES All German Universities will be free of charge as of this year. Lower Saxony, the last German land to remove fees, has officially done so. Where Germany leads, can England be far behind? (Answer: Yes.) For further details, see http://www.zmescience.com/other/germany-education-fees-01102014/ Elsewhere, eagle-eyed subscribers might have seen THES reports concerning UCLAN's foreign investments. If not, here are relevant links: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/headaches-for-uclan-over-foreign-campuses/2010068.article
***************************************************** INTERNATIONAL CONCERT SEASON BEGINS The 2014-15 season of Lancaster International Concerts began last week with a recital in the Great Hall by the soprano Jane Irwin, with pianist Julia Lynch. But hold on: is that the same Jane Irwin who graduated from Lancaster in the 1990s with a BA in Music? Surely she's a mezzo-soprano, not a soprano? Well, yes it is, and yes, she was a mezzo; but five years ago she 'moved into the soprano repertoire', as the programme notes put it. This brief statement hugely understates both the courage needed to change, mid-career, from one repertoire and range to another, and the effort needed to achieve it. The soprano range is only a third higher, but at the top of the range this is significant. The reason for making this change appears to have been that, in opera, which forms a major part of Jane's work, there are many more roles for sopranos than for mezzos, and more prominent roles too. The Marriage of Figaro has four soprano roles, but none for mezzo; Madam Butterfly is a soprano, but her maid Suzuki, clearly a subsidiary role, is a mezzo; and so on. The programme for Thursday's recital ranged across more than 300 years, from the song of the demented Mad Bess by Purcell to Madeline Dring's setting of Betjeman’s Business Girls. Many of the songs were highly dramatic. Singing entirely from memory, Jane engaged the audience to the full with her eyes, with her facial expression and with gesture. In performing these works, Jane showed tremendous dramatic abilities that had been little exercised while she was an undergraduate at Lancaster, but have developed enormously since. It is not surprising that she has a full programme of international engagements for the future. Her recital was a brilliant start to the Concert season. ***************************************************** ICE COLD IN PHYSICS Wandering aimlessly towards the Sports Centre the other day, a subtext functionary couldn't help noticing that one of the banners currently festooning the long and winding road proclaims: 'The world's lowest temperatures have been achieved in our Physics labs'. While this is the kind of world-leading work of which Lancaster should be proud, the non-scientific functionary formed the initial impression that the banner was actually a subversive comment on the somewhat erratic heating system in the university's teaching rooms. The impression was the more difficult to efface since the operative in question had just spent an hour giving a lecture in Furness LT1, where conditions of heat and ventilation resembled those on the surface of the sun. ***************************************************** FIFTY YEARS ON ... Snapshots from distant memories It was indeed the very best of times: a member of a team dedicated to the establishment and development of a completely new institution for higher education – the University of Lancaster. Moving towards the tail-end of thirteen years of Conservative government which had started in 1951, the Robbins report was the charter for a major expansion of higher education including the creation of several entirely new institutions not founded on any previous college. I was a post-graduate student at Nuffield College, working on external relations of the then European Economic Community. I applied to be a member of staff in the Politics Department of the new University in a part of the country of which I had little knowledge. Indeed my only previous visit was to Morecambe when, probably via an organization called Federal Union, I had spoken to the local Soroptomists on whether Britain should join the EEC. The new University had already appointed the 'Professoriat' who would head the initial ten or so departments; now it was looking for more junior staff – generally two per department. Vice-Chancellor Charles Carter and the Head of Politics Department Professor Philip Reynolds interviewed me in the King’s Arms Hotel. I cannot remember exactly when I was informed that I had been successful but I do recall a feeling of excitement and confidence – in all things – as I walked up a hill and found myself in what I later knew as Williamson Park. There were some thirty academic staff and around the same number of admin and clerical staff. My other academic colleague in Politics was the late Russell Price and we had a departmental secretary, Dorothy Burgin. I would teach Political Institutions; Russell would teach Political Theory; Philip would teach some seminars in each subject. The syllabi were in effect started from scratch. We were based in St Leonards House, formerly part of Waring and Gillow. I gave my first lecture in the Grand Theatre opposite St Leonards House at mid-day on Friday October 16th 1964. Immediate cheers from many students - but not for me or the forthcoming lecture - when I announced the latest result from the previous day's general election: somewhat improbably Labour had gained a seat in Brighton. By Friday evening it became clear that as well as a new University Britain also had a new government – history will no doubt tell us one day which turned out to be the more significant! Looking back, I think all staff were linked by a very special collegial atmosphere which I have never encountered since in any institution in which I have worked. Obviously there were social groupings, and younger members of staff – academic and non-academic - would frequently drink and eat together in local hostelries, a Chinese restaurant near St Leonards Gate with occasional 'luxury' outings to the Fenwick Arms. Coffee was consumed in quantity during wide-ranging, late night discussions. We certainly had no idea of the likely growth of the University, speculating that it might be better to stay in the Town rather than move a few miles to the then unknown territory of Bailrigg! Was the collective view or ambition for 'our' University perhaps somewhat limited? Certainly we made little attempt to predict the future. We had no idea that Lancaster would in due course be a prime designation for students from other countries; league tables were the province of football rather than education. And we simply took for granted that some kind of income related grant system would remain in place. The idea that tuition fees would ever be charged would have been totally unbelievable. Looking back, the mission of the University was essentially defined by learning: higher education's aim was to widen perspectives on life rather than a preparation for the jobs market. Thus whilst ultimately specializing in their chosen subject, students took three subjects in their first year. Thereafter as well as the major there would be a minor subject and, innovatively, during the second year what was termed a 'distant' minor. So science students might continue to study a humanity or a social science. All members of staff sat on Boards of Study: there was no Academic Board as such. Well, that is history. Much has changed in fifty years. In the beginning a collective spirit was predominant – all of us, even those like me on their first full-time job, thought of themselves as playing a key part in the building of an institution. Do those working for or at the university see things in quite the same way today? We read newspaper articles about whether or not university graduates are appropriately trained and skilled for the world of work. Do university teachers still see their primary role as being to educate or do they too focus on training and skills? Not for me to seek to answer such questions. Fifty years on, the compulsory distant minor is no more; the boards of study have disappeared; the politics department has been merged into something much larger. No doubt this is all progress, but happily one aspect is unchanged and continues to differentiate Lancaster from most other universities: the collegiate system. Even today everybody vouches for its major role in the university. Hopefully this is much more than lip service; long may the colleges continue as one of the last links to bygone days. Stanley Henig; Member of Department of Politics 1964-6; and still a member of Bowland College ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, I see from a recent LU Text that the university has started to 'roll out our new branding'. I quickly went to the URL explaining the new branding and read the following: 'Our visual identity primarily refers to our logo but also to the look and feel of our communications - for example, the colours and images used, and the use of the curve. Together these provide a visual shorthand which represents everything the University does and stands for. Presenting one face to the world helps us to differentiate ourselves from other universities nationally and internationally. Consistent appearance increases recognition and presence in the marketplace, eases understanding of us as an institution and also makes us more cost efficient.' Initially, I confess, I wondered if I had stumbled upon an intended satire from a subtext wannabe in the administration. It sounded rather like some of the items that appeared in subtext's early days when a spoof university was used to lampoon issues such as branding and marketing, and in which subtext contributors tried to come up with ideas that would be too mad for a real university to engage with. However, given its position on the official website and given its date (not April 1) I think it was actually a real document. And as I did so I began to be overcome by waves of gratitude that, in today's harshly competitive market, our institution has devoted time, energy and doubtless money to coming up with a rebranding scheme to make us all feel better. The new curved imagery sounded interesting, presumably as an attempt to make us institutionally more cuddly. I assume it will give us a huge advantage over older universities such as Oxford and Cambridge (so pointy with all those spires) and all those big, squat and un-curvy metropolitans like Manchester, that will doubtless all lose out in the rush to join more softly shaped universities. Despite such glowing optimism, I am nonetheless worried. Philosophically speaking, can we be curvy and robust at the same time? Will the new branding create identity crises for staff who, like myself, have always felt a bit, shall we say, angular and (even worse) stuck in an old mode of thinking that universities should be about scholarship, research, teaching, community engagement and the like? Can I embrace this new way of doing things and produce the sort of visual shorthand that is clearly so important to those who run the university? Will curved manuscripts and the new logo increase my research capacities and transform me into a softer, caring person to whom students will flock? And as for subtext, with its boring old font, how will it embrace this wonderful new world? Is it time to drop your stuck-in-the-mud notions that teaching, writing books and articles, encouraging discussion, inquiry and challenging people to use their minds, are the things the university should stand for, and recognise that it's not content, quality or research that counts, but the feel of our communications? Or should we just all hold our heads in despair now that university identity seems to relate to a logo, some colours and a curve or two, which together 'represent everything the university does and stands for', and recognise that the lunatics really have taken over the asylum? Ian Reader, PPR ******** Dear subtext, I have not yet warmed to the new logo/branding. I hope the designer was not from an outside 'design' company with a large invoice for something rather mediocre. It is a shame that the members of the University were not consulted. The shield is fine but not the design on it. With a bit of thought the red spires and the red roses of Lancashire could have been incorporated into the shield. Did no-one look at the design? All it says is 'Undergraduate staring bewildered into the face of academia'. AKS Long standing member of the Lancaster University community. ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Mark Garnett, George Green, James Groves, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, Johnny Unger and Martin Widden.
|