| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Issue 149 9 June 2016 ***************************************************** Fortnightly during term time. All letters, contributions and comments to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but will consider requests for publication with the name withheld. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. Back issues and subscription details can be found at www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/ CONTENTS: editorial, league us alone, photo opportunity, resigned VP, enough Europe to hang ourselves with, loud library, noise through the ages, letters rejoice, presidential approval ratings, democracy, Orwellian undertones, Shart attack, Nigeria meets Lancaster, aria in Ulverston, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL What is occurring? A tale of three unions, that’s what. A referendum, another referendum, and unresolved industrial action. Though in all democracy is at stake, so we hope you have been paying attention. In one corner is the LUSU referendum, with a grand total turnout of 749 as subtext goes to print. In the other corner, the EU, a referendum so many people are excited about that they absolutely had to wait to the last minute to take part in. And in the often neglected third corner, a trade union with a fight on its hands and a few unresolved internal disputes to keep it busy. But frankly, we’re bored of all of them, so for this editorial we thought we’d just say, hasn’t the weather been bleeding hot? It has, hasn’t it? We’d write more, but those exams won’t mark themselves. On that point, wouldn’t it be nice if all postgrad tutors who mark exams were paid for it? It probably would be. Then they could afford such luxuries as their tuition fees and food, and alcohol. Sorry, was that bitter? Well tough. Where’s their pay, HR? Where? Is it fair that there are different pay structures for the same work across different departments? No? We didn’t think so! Where does the slippery slope end? Not paying students for their work at all? It seems the University’s social media team has picked up a few lessons from academic departments in that regard. You lot make Sports Direct look like saints, you know that? Sorry, anyway, here’re some words. They’ve also been written for free, but it's okay: the collective got some valuable experience from it. ***************************************************** FLYING HIGH As another academic year draws itself to a close the sense of numbing inevitability has once again settled itself over the top flight of British universities*. Unlike the Cinderella finish of the (football) Premier League, the university top four remains unchanged for the second season in a row, with Cambridge holding on to the top spot for the sixth year in a row. Bitter rivals Oxford – who were last crowned Number One in 2011 – must feel robbed: finishing with the best teaching points, but falling behind on ‘career after six months’. Surrey and Loughborough fans have equal reason to celebrate, with both universities sharing fourth spot. The Guildford uni held onto its fourth place position for the second year in a row, while Loughborough saw themselves promoted from 11th right up to 4th – a fairy tale finish to the year (if you accept no one else is going to break into the top three). The plucky Robbins’ sides have cemented themselves firmly between old boys St. Andrews and Durham without the years of prestige to fall back on. Imperial climbed up from the danger zone into a safe seventh, and must surely now be looking to build on their performance for next year. Following close behind is Lancaster, who this year escaped relegation from the Top Ten, managing to climb two place to eighth: significantly for their manager overtaking his previous team Warwick, who slipped from sixth to ninth and must surely now be watching their backs. Bath faded badly, crashing down from fifth to tenth and finding themselves petering on the edge and hoping not to follow Exeter, who after a dreadful campaign saw themselves relegated from the Top Ten. In the bottom tier Bucks New University managed to crawl off bottom spot, now occupied by Glyndwr. But with an influx of new sides predicted following the White Paper, we’ll have to see how these private providers measure up. The rumour mill has it that there might not be enough room for all the different teams, and club closures could be on the horizon. At least it’s only a game… *Pundits will note that final league positions are taken from the Guardian Table and not The Times’ Good University Guide, because we can’t afford to access that. ***************************************************** UNWANTED EXPOSURE Lancaster has long prided itself in being more socially inclusive than its nearest league table buddies. And in choosing Alan Milburn as Chancellor, we have apparently strengthened our credentials in this area, given that he champions various social inclusion causes, and in fact is the chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. Milburn has called for an end to unpaid internships, claiming that they deny careers to young people from poorer backgrounds. Given these views, we wonder what he would make of the University's recent decision to ask on Instagram for "student photographers" who would take photos during the open day on June 18th, offering them the exciting chance to have their work featured on the university website and prospectuses: http://tinyurl.com/zk3cjrw. Great, an opportunity to earn a bit of cash and start paying off that mountain of student debt, you might think... Not a chance, the students are expected to do this in exchange for "showcasing" their work, and are meant to be reassured that they will be credited. As one professional photographer pointed out in the comments thread, credit and exposure is great, but you can’t very well go to the supermarket and pay for a weekly shop with some exposure. Apart from that, this sort of practice devalues the work of creative professionals, and in the long term can make it unviable to work in this sort of career. You know, the kind of career that the BA in Photography offered by, erm, Lancaster University is supposed to prepare students for. We would invite readers to add their own critical comments under the photo, but it appears these are not welcome - any comments other than routine enquiries are being deleted. So, we’ll leave you with Harlan Ellison to speak on your behalf: http://tinyurl.com/log5q3j ***************************************************** UNHAPPY UNION subtext readers may have noted the resignation of Julie Hearn as the Lancaster UCU Branch Vice President. Hearn said in a statement to UCU members: “It is with sadness that I find my position as joint VP no longer tenable and therefore am resigning with effect from 15 July 2016. I will continue to defend members’ interests, in a voluntary capacity, on the NEC and in the branch. Thank you to members for their support over the years.” Hearn had just returned from representing Lancaster at the UCU Annual Congress. Amongst discussion at the Conference was possible dates for further UCU action following the strikes a fortnight ago. There are suggestions she had been unhappy with the political direction (or what she perceived as a lack thereof) of the local branch for some time. We expect more information to be available for the next issue of subtext. ***************************************************** EU ‘AVIN A LAUGH? It may only be June, but the panto season is well underway. The whole nation has been enjoying the avant garde pantomime, The EU Referendum, and last week Lancaster got a taste of the magic too, with the spin-off ‘In or Out: Politicians Debate Europe’ at the Town Hall. Excited punters lined up to see a cast of family favourites put on a local version of the national phenomenon. Headlining was Natalie Bennett, best known as Leader of the Green Party, who starred as Remain Advocate Number One. She was partnered with Kate Green, Labour MP and Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities (not to be confused with our very own Cat Smith, who is Junior Shadow Minister). Pitted against them was supposed to be Robert Gillespie, local UKIP Chair, who readers may remember as the enthusiastic bus-driver at the picket line mentioned in the last issue of subtext. Who knows what lofty heights of rhetoric the debate might have reached had he been able to attend. However, panto-attendees were stuck with UKIP MEP and General Secretary Jonathan Arnott (also the 169th best chess player in England, fact fans) instead, joined by trusty homegrown sidekick Charlie Edwards – former Lancaster student and now Conservative Councillor for Bare Ward in Morecambe. In the chair was Dr Simon Mabon of the PPR department, who invited each speaker to give 7-minute speeches, following which the floor would be opened up for questions, which audience members could submit either via Twitter or, failing that, by putting their hand up and asking out loud (how retro!). Bennett and Green took up the unenviable Mark Hamill role: trying to make Remain inspiring, but ultimately falling flat next to the Brexit duo who chewed the scenery with classic panto villain lines like “peace will only take you so far” and “it’s time for us to speculate”. Cllr. Edwards deserves an honorable mention for remembering the university motto, “truth lies open to all”... Or was he perhaps referring to subtext’s motto instead? Indeed there were moments when the audience wondered if Cllr Edwards was about to announce his conversion to red-blooded Trotskyist revolution, as he passionately argued that “our generation believes in a global universal border” and railed against “decisions made by people much older than you.” The audience joined in the fun, with boos for Brexit and hurrahs for RemaIN. (Or at least the part of the audience who had caught onto the general tone of political debate in modern Britain. Some misguided youngsters seemed to be under the impression they were meant to take the whole thing seriously.) While the big names may have drawn in the crowds – there was a healthy audience of at least a hundred people watching, most of them students, who are supposed to not be interested in good panto these days – the largely non-local roles of the politicians meant the script mostly just resembled what is being played out on the national stage. The plot, such as it was, followed three main points:
In the tradition of all good debates, the audience was asked to cast its votes - Remain, Leave or Undecided - both at the start and after hearing the speakers. The results: before the speeches it was Remain 68, Leave 9, Undecided 8 (total 85 people); after the speeches it was Remain 80, Leave 20, Undecided 5 (total 105 people). It seems that the Leave vote had been boosted by the late arrival of some “Lexit” supporters (Left Exit - geddit?) who had been paper-selling outside and missed the start. For the efforts of the student producers alone in organising a performance, In or Out gets a passable three stars from subtext: worth seeing, but hopefully not to be repeated for another 30 years. And for readers for whom the end of the whole charade can’t come quickly enough we say: stay strong, soon you'll be able to say it's behind you. ***************************************************** SHH... Last week saw the official opening of the new University Library, an event joyously celebrated by the University’s great and good. And so it should be: the new Library appears to be a hit with students, especially at the peak of exam season. They like it so much there were plenty of them gathered there trying to revise while the opening ceremony was taking place, presumably wondering why a fairly noisy event was taking place in the quietest part of campus during its busiest period. If students party on campus during exam ‘Quiet Period’ they’re treated to a double fine by the deanery. Not that we’d suggest any double standards are at play. ***************************************************** EVERY BLOODY YEAR And on that note, let us take a brief journey into the archives. subtext 52 (6/5/09): “Despite it being the 'quiet period' within college residences, a private wedding reception was booked into Pendle College Bar for Saturday 18th April. Unfortunately, the event deteriorated into a brawl by the end of the evening.” subtext 105 (16/5/13): “... such building work might better have been reserved for, oooh, say, any of the 48 weeks of the year which are not officially designated – by the University – as 'Quiet Weeks' for revision...” subtext 119 (8/5/14): “The helpdesk contact details should be particularly useful for those who live in County Main, where once again there is substantial (and noisy) building work taking place in the so-called 'Quiet Weeks'.” subtext 134 (28/5/15): “… once again Facilities are stressing the urgency of building works continuing, quiet period or no quiet period. Many students will no doubt feel a great deal of resentment at their liability to receive a hefty fine from their Dean for noise, while those pesky lawnmowers and multi-million pound building projects get off scot free.” ***************************************************** LOVE LETTERS While the introduction of letter grades may have caused some consternation among the staff and student body, not least those who are part of the subtext collective (see DEATH LETTER, subtext 148), perhaps the view that they are all bad is a little overblown. For a start, second years when letter grades were first introduced were the only group of students who had to get used to a completely new system midway through their degrees. For incoming first years in that year, and now for all undergraduates, this is the only system they have ever known at university. And on that point, whatever system we use, incoming undergraduates all need to get used to how grading works at university, and it is likely to be different than what they are used to from their previous educational experiences. There is nothing "natural" about a system based on 100 marks, particularly when some disciplines make use of a much greater range of marks than others. Arguably a system based on letters, even if they mean something slightly different, is more familiar to students who have come through a school system that uses letter grades. There are multiple problems with a 100-mark scale. Research has shown that raters (i.e. the people doing the marking) simply cannot distinguish between so many different marks reliably. In fact, calling it a percentage scale is only sensible when marks are proportionally converted to a mark, in other cases, it is simply a system with 100 separate marks. A number of departments at Lancaster and other universities have developed formal or informal ways of dealing with this problem, for example only giving marks that ended In 3 or 7 so as to avoid boundary marks. While not entirely solving this problem (there are still too many separate marks), the letter grade system has gone some way to addressing it. The fundamental problem that letter grades were apparently introduced to address, the differences in grade levels between different subjects, results from two very different assumptions about what a grade means, and this in turn is linked to two different kinds of assessment. Assessments that involve qualitative judgements when being marked, for instance essays or reports, are (hopefully) marked according to predetermined criteria, but these tend to be spread across whole "bands" of marks, and this in turn tended to mean that the upper ranges of marks (80 and above) were rarely if ever used, and also that markers could spend ages pushing marks up or down by one or two points. On the other hand, those assessments with a limited set of "right" and "wrong" answers tended to be proportionally translated into percentages. However, this is in itself a questionable practice. It should really depend on how well students at a particular level can be expected to do on a given assessment, and how difficult individual questions are. This can to a certain extent be addressed by weighting questions differently, but again, whether it is necessarily the case that getting 7 marks out of 10 means the mark should be 70 is based on convention rather than anything "natural" about this marking system. Assuming equal weighting, perhaps the vast majority of students can answer seven of the questions, and it should therefore be a middling rather than a narrowly achieved first-class mark. From this point of view, the percentage conversion table provided in the University's guide to the new marking system (see http://tinyurl.com/gs56xgs) is unhelpful. Rather than continuing this system, colleagues who are setting assignments should be advised to consider how difficult a given assessment is, and what level of performance deserves which mark on the letter grade scale. Ultimately there is no marking system that will please everyone. It is important that there is a broad consensus about what marks mean in individual subjects, and this can only be achieved through experience, comparison (e.g. through second-marking or benchmark-setting exercises where the entire pool of markers looks at the same assessments and agrees what marks they should get, or how difficult they are), and observing how well or badly students do at the assessments over time. Perhaps rather than just tinkering with the marking system and relabelling things, the University should encourage interdisciplinary dialogue about such matters, for instance by providing social spaces for staff from different departments where they can hang out and informally swap ideas. Didn't we used to have something like that? ***************************************************** HED IN THE SAND Since 2011, the final issue of SCAN is supposed to question the outgoing LUSU President on their record in office and hold them to account for any unfulfilled promises. This year’s puff-piece, err, interview with Will Hedley did very little of this sort of thing. Buried within the usual litany of successes (increased revenue, Sugarhouse still exists, tractor production up, etc. etc.), a few points of note caught the subtext collective’s attention. When outlining his approach to dealing with the University, President Hedley noted his pride that his team had opted “to act in a less political fashion” - a strange stance from a president who promised a “more political union” when he was running for election. He goes on to aim barbed remarks at the previous year’s officer team, adding that this year LUSU has “regained a lot of credibility with the University.” Presumably, this is a denunciation of the support that last year’s team afforded to the occupation of University House, as well as the more confrontational approach exhibited during their campaign on fee and rent increases. This year, LUSU announced that they had secured a reduction in rents (propped up by an increase in other on-campus rents, but that’s a different discussion...). But given that last year’s direct action was precisely the reason why the University even agreed to get round the table and discuss such a thing, arguably Mr. Hedley ought not to dismiss a political approach so blithely? Or, at least, acknowledge the groundwork that had been laid before he arrived into office? Furthermore, we wonder if Mr. Hedley would have preferred to sell student activists down the river? Or perhaps, support their activity and use it to leverage negotiations with the University, as last year’s officers did? If nothing else, we can question the assumption that LUSU has regained ‘credibility’ with the University: if a union is perceived as being a collective of pleasant, friendly compromisers who aren’t willing to ruffle any feathers, then surely they have no credibility as a potential threat to the University if they opt to implement policies that are to the detriment of students? This year’s team are known to bleat about the “significant reputational damage” that LUSU supposedly suffered due to last year’s repeated mischief - the subtext collective knows not of any such loss of standing, and wonders if this is merely a platitude hidden behind to avoid making decisions or taking tough stances. We could go one further and ask what LUSU has actually gained from its compliance (subtexts passim ad nauseam) other than a few extra pennies on top of their block grant, and come to the conclusion that the answer is ‘nothing’. ***************************************************** REFERENDUM MEMORANDUM The long awaited referendum on LUSU’s constitutional changes (see subtexts 146 & 147) is currently taking place, and the SU are pulling out all the stops to meet the minimum turnout of 1200 voters. The normally cash strapped union has scraped together a few pennies and poured them into banners, shirts, erecting a large tent in the square and gifts for voters. Yes - anybody who votes could be in with a chance of winning free extrav tickets, Grad Ball tickets, t-shirts, free house cleans, merchandise, a BBQ kit, hoodies and t-shirts. As well as financially, all bets are seemingly off when it comes to the rules - LUSU FTOs have been campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote within work hours. Furthermore, we have enjoyed seeing university staff posing in t-shirts, a move that sails dangerously close to the university being actively encouraged to influence a union election. Whichever way this election goes, it isn’t going to reflect particularly well on LUSU: if it doesn’t even meet the minimum turnout, then it goes to show how few students really are keen on voting in regular referenda for every union policy. If it does get more than 1200 votes, then it goes to show that students will only vote on such things if there is the potential for some kind of reward, and doesn’t guarantee a particularly thoughtful decision. Is LUSU going to find itself throwing money at every single “preferendum” that it intends to replace its decisionmaking structures with? ***************************************************** TWENTY SIXTEEN Hidden in the depths of the subtext archives, we recently discovered a dusty and badly decayed manuscript for what appears to be a piece of dystopian science fiction. Only fragments remain readable, and we publish the first page here in case any of our readers recognise the outlandish characters and places depicted here: It was a bright cold day in June and the clocks were striking thirteen... Willston Hedd-Smyth, his MiniLU lanyard tucked under his chin to stop it from falling into his pint of snakebite, slipped through the glass doors of the Democracy Office, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of cat-related leaflets from entering with him. The hallway smelt of pies and old burritos. At one end Willston could just make out a colourful poster bearing the slogan PREFERENDUM: VOTE YES. Through the window he could see Ministry staff grabbing people and forcing them to vote. Either way. Honestly. It didn’t matter. Only the turnout mattered. Willston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was now covered by private security working, after that unfortunate run in with student politics last December. He had spent the last year trying to correct what was now known darkly as Occupation Day. The office was one flight up. On each step, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous swoosh gazed from the wall. It was one of those logos which are so contrived that the lines follow you about when you move. CONTROL IS FOR YOU, the caption beneath it ran. Beneath that, Willston could just make out the three slogans of LUSU: DEMOCRACY IS PROXIES REPRESENTATION IS JURIES POLITICS IS APOLITICS... ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U) TO: Hewlett Venkklinne, Director of Forward Focus Resilience and Public Misperception Prevention Assurance, Beau Studd, Head of Workforce Contentment. SUBJECT: UCUnison Industrial action. Dear Beau and Hewlett, Please find attached my official response to the recent industrial action undertaken by the underworked and overpaid ingrates. ------ Dear staff, Apologies if this does not apply to you. This is aimed at the malcontents, skivers and has-beens (you know who you are) who, in typical bully-boy fashion, sought to disrupt the smooth running of our global academic institution through so-called ‘strike action.’ Hewlett and I were shocked and dismayed at the rejection of the more than generous pay increase of 1.1%. In order to share the burden in these difficult times, I was happy to forego my normal inflation rate plus 15% uplift, and settled for a meagre but ultimately prudent rise of 5%, which, let me tell you, will bring endless grief to the Shart household. But far be it from me not to take the disgruntlement of my staff into consideration, or to disregard the financial consequences for those who take strike action. Our esteemed Head of Workforce Contentment Beau Studd has highlighted an anomaly in how we work out pay deductions for strike days. It would appear that we have calculated on the basis that you only work five days a week; this is of course, true, but Beau tells me that any weekend work undertaken is not to contract and purely voluntary. By calculating deductions in this way, it seems that your financial loss is far greater. As a firm believer in treating all staff fairly, whether they deserve it or not, I have opted to rectify this anomaly. Henceforth, consider yourselves contracted to work 7 days a week. This means that daily deductions shall be one 365th, rather than one 260th, of your annual salary, leading to a lower pay deduction in the event of future strikes, and ensuring that LuVE-U will lead the way in positive approaches to employee relations. To those loyal staff who braved intimidation at the picket line in the finest LuVE-U tradition, let me say - thank you so much. And I really mean that. This shows your gratitude for having a job and your appreciation for your current pay packet. No doubt the militants of the UCUnison, in their typical arrogant way, will demand that you also will receive any additional pay rise that they manage to extract through their industrial blackmail. However, I know that you will not wish to benefit from such grossly immoral and fiscally irresponsible actions. Rest assured that, as a considerate leader, I feel your ethical dilemma, and I will ensure that you will not be burdened by receiving such tainted lucre. Have a nice weekend! Mike. *** FROM: Beau Studd, Head of Workforce Contentment. TO: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). SUBJECT: re: UCUnison Industrial action. Nice one Mike, looks great to me! One or two small things, though. Due to the nature of our BELLICOSE© accountancy software package, it is impossible for us to in any way reduce the financial penalty for going on strike (obvs). Furthermore, if you don’t mind me saying so, while I know that Mrs. Shart will not react well to the diminution of your emolument, I’m not sure this is something that you need to share with the rest of the university. On a happier note, I have calculated that the savings we make through not offering any extra increase to our loyal staff will be enough to move our senior management team away-weekend from Cleethorpes to a fortnight in Las Vegas. I think you will agree that this would be more in keeping with our aspirations as an international university. Beau. *** FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). TO: Beau Studd, Head of Workforce Contentment. SUBJECT: re: UCUnison Industrial action. Hmm. Good point, Beau. Okay, let’s compromise. Remove the part about smaller deductions, but keep in the new weekend hours? I think you will agree that this clarifies the contractual situation, something which UCUnison have always banged on about. As for Mrs. Shart – another good point. I think it would be unfair of me to ask Mrs. Shart to share the burden occasioned by my moral scruples on this matter. So, reluctantly, I must make the sacrifice and, perforce, accept my usual increase, plus the new top-of-the-range Jaguar I’ve just heard is a standard Vice-Chancellorian refinement. Viva Las Vegas! Mike. ***************************************************** EMAIL FROM NIGERIA In the spirit of learning from our colleagues in higher education around the world, and definitely not because of an email received from a Nigerian prince promising vast amounts of money, the subtext collective recently dispatched its most intrepid reporter on a fact-finding mission to explore the conditions at Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) in the city of Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. On arriving, the first impression was the massive scale of the campus - buildings were an even greater distance apart than the proposed new Health Innovation Campus from all the other buildings at Lancaster. And as is often the case when one explores new countries and cultures, the first thing to stand out were the differences. The campus boasts a natural history museum, and while the taxidermy is slightly dubious, the skeleton collection is outstanding and includes not only a dromedary but also a penguin and a wombat. Take that, Ruskin Library. There is also a zoo (a.k.a "biological garden") which contains a number of bored-looking animals in somewhat neglected enclosures, including lions, hyenas and snakes. It was not possible to ascertain whether this was a mechanism for the disposal of outspoken trade union leaders rather than just for general education and research, but we're hoping it doesn't give Lancaster's VC any ideas. Speaking of trade unions, the most exciting part of the visit involved witnessing a demonstration by several hundred staff activists who walked resolutely down the central drive bearing signs with slogans and handing out leaflets with numerous demands. This caused us to reflect on some of the differences in conditions between OAU and Lancaster, but also on the issues that unite University workers across cultures. Here are some of the most memorable slogans: – TALE OMOLE: WORST OAU VC... History may tell a different story, but we think it unlikely that such a slogan would be seen on a picket line at Lancaster under the present regime, given the previous incumbent(s). – OAU VC IS SPENDING N2.3 BILLION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS... Leaving aside the mind-boggling figure caused by a heavily inflated currency (this amount in Nigerian Naira in fact equates to around 8 million pounds at current pre-referendum rates), again we are pleased that there are no rumours of financial irregularities surrounding our current VC. What he chooses to spend the university's money on, however (for instance, new buildings rather than staff salaries), might be as great a bone of contention. – FEDERAL VISITATION PANEL URGENTLY NEEDED AT OAU... Unlike at OAU, this is one area where Lancaster's senior management and rank-and-file staff seem united - we are not keen for more government involvement in HE. Given the likely omnishambles that the TEF appears to be turning into, we feel this may be a vain hope. – OAU VC HAS DESTROYED OUR COMMITTEE SYSTEM... Lancaster's staff may have mixed feelings about this one, given the slow but steady pendulum swing of centralisation to decentralisation and back affecting many university bodies. – SYCOPHANCY AND LOYALTY HAVE REPLACED MERIT AND CREDIBILITY... There are of course no examples of this at Lancaster, and there is no need to read past issues of subtext to check. Nope. – UNDERPAYMENT OF STAFF BY 7.5% SINCE 2004 IS BEING CHALLENGED... Only 7.5%? With Lancaster's staff losing 14.5% in real terms since 2009, this seems rather mild. On the other hand, we rather suspect this refers to actual underpayment (i.e. not paying full salaries), and the fall in real terms given the aforementioned inflation in Nigeria is likely to be many times higher. – DENYING WORKERS THEIR EARNED ALLOWANCES IS WICKED... We couldn't have said it better ourselves, particularly with the threat of full pay deduction for partial performance (or even apparently for working only as much as our contracts stipulate) hanging over us, not to mention the fact pay deductions are calculated at 1/260th of our annual salaries when many university staff spend weekends working and above all the despicable fear-mongering around withholding pension pay-outs to next of kin in the event of death during strike action. – IMPOSITION OF STOOGE AS NEXT VC IS BEING CHALLENGED... We haven't heard about any similar plans at Lancaster, but readers can rest assured that subtext will be on the case if this happens. – To conclude, we leave you with our subtext reporter's favourite slogan about the so-called Treasury Single Account, an anti-corruption measure for Nigerian public institutions: FRAGRANT VIOLATION OF TSA SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED... Clearly, something stinks at OAU. ***************************************************** REVIEW: DON GIOVANNI IN ULVERSTON Opera is often seen as an art form that appeals only to slightly dotty enthusiasts. Then along came the three tenors, to sing Puccini’s Nessun Dorma, from the opera Turandot, at the Rome World Cup in 1990. Their subsequent recording of this and other operatic arias became, and remains, the best-selling classical album of all time. Clearly opera can have broad appeal. Undeniably a magnificent aria, Nessun Dorma was originally written for tenor solo, so it’s not necessary to have three tenors to perform it. Some of the best pieces in opera were specifically written to be sung as duets, trios and quartets, and almost inevitably we find these in Mozart’s operas. English Touring Opera were recently in Ulverston to perform Mozart’s Don Giovanni, which abounds with duets and trios. This small company tours extensively, performing in a range of venues, so they need to be highly adaptable. In Ulverston they were at the Coronation Hall, built to commemorate the 1911 coronation of George V. The 24-piece orchestra were in front of the stage, whilst on the stage the set represented the underground sewers of Vienna - an appropriately creepy location also used in the 1949 classic Orson Welles film The Third Man. The great thing about opera is that it combines dramatic narrative, stagecraft and music, and especially the range and vulnerability of the human voice; but it’s rare to find performers who excel in all of these areas, and indeed although the singers were excellent musically, some were rather wooden as actors. Nonetheless, this was an excellent experience overall, and well worth the drive to Ulverston (train would have been better, but unfortunately there are no late trains back...). Although they have performed in Preston and Blackpool, as well as Ulverston, English Touring Opera have never performed in Lancaster. But they are expected to be here in autumn for Bach’s St John Passion, to be done in the Priory Church. This should be a very interesting experience, and well worth attending. (Incidentally, it’s worth watching the Three Tenors' performance of Nessun Dorma on YouTube - in a mere three minutes the three of them manage both farcical comedy (‘who’s going to sing the next bit?’) and magnificent dramatic ensemble singing.) ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, The first I heard of the move to Letter grades was upon flicking through my departmental handbook at the start of second year. The move always baffled me - the only justification my peers and I were given was that it moves us towards an American GPA system, as though that were inherently superior. Certainly I never had cause to compare my grades from the History Department with those of friends studying physics. The downsides, in contrast, were obvious. Lecturers continued to think in percentages, which they then converted to grades, costing us clarity. Is a B+ almost first class or does it have some way to go? We would then convert our grades back as best we could. It was a particular challenge when, in final year, I came to apply to postgraduate courses at other institutions and had to explain a marking system which I didn't full understand to make it clear that I was well on course for a high 2.i. I am still waiting for anyone to explain the merits of a grading system which everyone ignores in practice. Yours Jack Fleming History 2010-2013 ******** Hello editors. Still interested in swoosh sightings? There's one on the PDF versions of our yearly Performance and Development Review (PDR) documents. Simon ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, James Groves, Lizzie Houghton, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, Johnny Unger, and Martin Widden. |