subtext

issue 105

16 May 2013

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

'Truth: lies open to all'

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

Every fortnight during term-time.

All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk. Please delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext.

The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions.

subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld.

For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/.

If you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'.

CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, senate report, equipment, building, town hall meeting, america sneezes, jobs, warwick, union blues, scan, eating, utopias, letters.

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

EDITORIAL

Those who went to the Town Hall Meetings (see article below) will have heard some interesting and eloquent thoughts on the draft University Strategy Document. Inter alia, the Vice-Chancellor made a comment that was worth thinking about; the Strategy tells us 'who we are and who we want to be'. Indeed it does, or it should. So subscribers will forgive us harking back a year or so to when the news of our Chinese campus first became common knowledge. We asked then if there was any country or regime in the world that the University would not do business with on principle. We didn't get a reply to that, but then it was probably seen as a rhetorical question. Well, this one isn't a rhetorical question, and we think it should be asked in the context of 'who we are and who we want to be'. Is there any commercial company on earth that the University would not do business with; or, perhaps more aptly, is there any research project that the University would not involve itself with as a matter of principle? If, for example, the University was offered £60 million by Shell to do research on fossil fuel extraction, as Manchester University was last year, would we take it? We of course acknowledge that £60m is a huge amount of money and a great deal of good could be done within and without the University with such a sum: but, we repeat, is there a moral or ethical line anywhere that the University simply would not cross, on principle?

The choice here seems to us to be straightforward. If the University does have such moral and ethical boundaries, then surely they should be set out clearly in the Strategy Document. After all, surely those boundaries – more than anything else – will help to define who we are, and who we are not. If, on the other hand, we don't have such boundaries, then they can't go into the Strategy Document because they don't exist. And without them we will know - all too well - who and what we are.

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

NEWS IN BRIEF

Blast from the Past

The 2nd of May saw an event celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Creative Writing MA at Lancaster. The main speaker was Professor David Craig (rtd), who gave an eloquent and quietly passionate reminder of what the University's guiding principles had been back in the day. Those considering writing a piece for 'U. Utopia' as suggested in subtext 104, and see below again, might do well to have a look at it, once the recording is made available. (Here's one example for starters; 'Students were encouraged to set their own essay topics'. Discuss.)

******

Logos

The FASS website logo used to be a stringed musical instrument until a few weeks ago. Our thanks to those who wrote to point out the irony of this, and admiring the new logo, a set of very nice paintbrushes. Let us hope that this does not turn out to be some version of the curse of Hello! – our colleagues who teach Art may wish to look to their admissions totals even more closely than usual.

******

Nice

Some subscribers think that we only ever notice bad things and we only know how to carp and complain. (We don't. It's just what we do best.) Well, we'd like to say here and now that the flowers appearing on the approach road and around campus are lovely. There.

******

Get 'em out by Friday

Robinson's newsagents in Alexandra Square will close their doors for the last time on Friday 31 May, after over four decades of trading. But the last delivery of newspapers will be on Saturday 25th, after which they'll focus on selling off the last bits of stock and emptying the shop. Apparently Robinson's asked the University if they could empty the shop over the weekend of 1-2 June, but were told no, as potential new tenants were keen to size up the property. (The smart money seems to be on a Chinese supermarket.) It seems a shame that the University couldn't see its way to give such a longstanding member of the University community a bit of slack at last (see subtexts passim). We hope that subtext readers at least will pop in and say thanks and goodbye to Derek and Lesley during the last few days.

******

Live at the Witch Trials

A useful link is given below for subscribers wondering about the Vice-Chancellor's thoughts around the Liverpool non-merger last year and the possibility of such movements in the future: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/lancaster-considers-federal-union-to-bolster-world-profile-and-research-power/2003713.article.

And if that interests you, you might also like to have a look at 'Warwick University Limited', below.

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

SENATE REPORT

The May 1st meeting of the Senate ought to be noted as a significant date in the history of Lancaster University's governance. Many will argue that we have been left with a deep representative deficit on our highest academic governing body following the events of this meeting.

As outlined in subtext 103's Senate Report, the long awaited Senate Effectiveness proposals were put to that meeting, bombarded with amendments and ultimately withdrawn somewhat hastily by the Vice-Chancellor. The most significant change proposed was a reduction in the membership of Senate, from 97 to 65. Previously this had been justified as a means of improving debate and discussion, in some way or another. Or perhaps that was a proposal to double the numbers, we forget. There's no real evidence either way. There can’t have been more than 65 present at the last meeting anyway, and that’s been par for most meetings recently. If this 2/3 turn-out is maintained, under the new proposals Senate is going to be down to around 40 attendees. Very representative.

It was, of course, anticipated that the proposal would come back in a different form in the not too distant future, but for it to reappear at the very next meeting was baffling to some senators, especially when the constitution of the Senate dictates that any item that is substantially similar to a proposal dealt with by a meeting cannot reappear for another six months, unless the body gives its express permission. Mr. Rowlands (Students' Union) raised the issue as a point of order before discussion began, and questioned the legitimacy of the proposal's presence on the agenda. The University Secretary responded by highlighting a key phrase in the stipulation – 'dealt with'. Given that the proposal had been withdrawn before a vote, rather than decided upon by show of hands, it hadn't been 'dealt with', in strict constitutional terms. Some might argue that a lengthy debate counts in all meaningful senses as 'dealing with' something – and do we really want a system where items can be introduced, debated, and then if it looks like they'll be defeated, pulled from the agenda, and re-introduced at the next meeting? Surely this is what the constitution is specifically trying to prevent? Otherwise what's the point?

The challenges to the new proposals didn't end there. At the previous meeting of the Senate, Mr. Rowlands' amendment, to reinstate the nine College Syndicate representatives to the new proposed membership, was passed. Somehow it appeared not to have been included in the new proposals. This omission came after Dr. Austen-Baker (Lonsdale College) had stressed, with no little eloquence and in great detail, the importance of having junior academics as members of Senate. As well as lacking some of the more problematic aspects relating to the power of the University Secretary, the new proposals for the structure of the Senate included the addition of four 'early career' (first five years) academics – one to be elected from each faculty. In the preceding weeks, the Pro-VC (Colleges & the Student Experience) Amanda Chetwynd had visited the College principals in an effort to 'bargain' for a compromise (in other words, anything other than keeping College Syndicate members). It would appear that this new addition was the result.

Dr. Hagopian (Furness College) asked why the passing of Mr. Rowlands' amendment, the only aspect of the proposals that the Senate did 'deal with', was not honoured in the new proposals. The Vice-Chancellor responded that it would not be good practice to honour, fully, 'on the hoof' amendments in a 'knee jerk fashion'. Rather, he felt it more important to capture the 'spirit of the discussion' from the previous meeting. Surely the Vice-Chancellor must see that this is not only making policy on the hoof: is it not setting a very dangerous precedent if measures properly voted on by Senate can be simply ignored in this way? The whole point of such votes is to represent the conclusions of the meeting – if not, why take a vote at all? And, of course, quis custodiet ipsos custodes – who decides what the 'spirit of the discussion' was? Without suggesting that there is any comparison at all between the Vice-Chancellor and Joseph Stalin, the latter made a wise comment: 'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' Similarly, those who capture the spirit of the discussion tell us what the discussion was about and what was decided. Dr. Austen-Baker pointed out to the Vice-Chancellor that, by 'junior academics', he was referring to any academic below professorial level, rather than 'early career academics' – an entirely different category.

Dr. Hagopian added that, as someone who has worked in admissions for his department, he had been able to offer different perspectives to the discussions. He pointed out that while early-career academics can contribute to Senate discussions in a meaningful way, they are by no means a replacement for general academic staff, and highlighted their academic probation, unfamiliarity with university governance and the potential to feel intimidated by faculty Deans. He then highlighted the praise that both he and Dr. Austen-Baker received for their contributions (for which they are most welcome), and asked which of the two the proposal was trying to 'silence'.

At this point, one Senator, an Associate Faculty Dean facing the axe from the Senate stated that she did not feel 'silenced' by being kicked off the Senate. She does, however, have the benefit of continuing to be represented by the Faculty Deans and Deputy Deans, who will remain on the Senate. Meanwhile, 'general' academics now have no such voice on Senate.

Mr. Thornberry (Bowland College) then drew the Senate's attention to some inconsistencies in the Vice-Chancellor's arguments for voting in favour of the restructure. He highlighted that, while Lancaster’s Senate size is indeed currently an outlier in comparison to other Universities (as if that matters at all – maybe we're right and they're wrong, since when did universities subscribe to the wisdom of crowds?), voting in favour of these proposals would result in Lancaster University being an outlier in a completely different way: it would end up having a comparatively large democratic deficit, with very few truly elected members.

Mr. Smith (LUSU President) suggested that, as College Principals and Students' Union Presidents are elected, Mr Thornberry was mistaken. This suggests that, when electing a LUSU President or College Principal, students and staff should have as their primary consideration the candidate's potential as a Senator. Which they do, obviously. Mr. Smith added that he was 'very, very happy' with a proposal that reduced the number of student members of Senate. Subdued clucking from one corner of the chamber suggested that some Senators thought that there was some similarity between the LUSU President's attitude and that of the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas.

As more and more Senators expressed their support for the proposals, Mr. Rowlands rose again to support the points raised by Mr. Thornberry and Dr. Hagopian, and to move a new amendment. Recognising the value that both early career academics and academics below Professorial level can contribute, he moved that there be two elected Senators per faculty, rather than one – one early career, one 'at large'.

This was met dismissively by the Chair, who informed Mr. Rowlands that the Senate was 'not taking amendments on this.' Dr. Brown (Dean of UG Studies), who had sat on the Senate Effectiveness Working Group, added that the group had agreed not to have the proposals 'salami sliced' by the body. It should be noted that the constitution is clear that, once a proposal is put to the Senate, that proposal is the property of the meeting. Nobody can decree that a motion is sacrosanct, and proposing amendments is most certainly not offside. Dr. Hagopian, irritated by the apparent refusal of the Chair to put the amendment, announced his willingness to second it, and admonished top table for its obstructive handling of the proposal.

The chair relented and put it to the vote. Sadly, it turned out to be Mr. Rowlands' difficult second album – the amendment was flattened. The overall proposal was then quickly put to the vote, and Senate came out largely in support of it (although interestingly, some Collegiate senators abstained from voting).

So now it's a done deal. It is difficult from an outside perspective to know why Senators had been swayed by the arguments for a smaller Senate, which were always unconvincing, tendentious and, in the way they were presented to this meeting, contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the University's constitution.

At least the new proposals came with new justifications. Senators were provided with a benchmarking table which listed some good universities alongside their relatively low senate numbers. These universities, the Vice-Chancellor argued, have made significant advances in the league tables since they reduced the size of their own senates. Leaving aside other considerations, this is a worrying instance of league-table status being treated as a conclusive argument in itself, which if left unchallenged would be a precedent for a series of 'on the hoof' decisions about departmental closures, etc. But on closer examination the argument is pitifully poor because Lancaster has positively thundered up to the top of the league tables with a large Senate - while some poorly ranked universities with smaller Senates appear not to have benefited from that inestimable advantage. subtext would even go as far as to say that the size of Senate makes little difference to the success of a university – providing that the staff of the university in question feels that the process of consultation is adequate - and that benchmarking is an utterly ludicrous exercise. But that's just us. Maybe top table are right, and benchmarking is the way forward. Maybe we should check out the average shoe size of top ten Heads of Department and begin to appoint accordingly.

And there we have it. Doubtless the vote for the new proposals will come as a surprise to few subtext subscribers. subtext may have given the impression recently that Senate was beginning to see itself as the guardian of democracy in the university. This impression may have been premature. Some will feel that these proposals stand as the most drastic, worrying change ever inflicted on the makeup of the Senate. Not only have the Colleges been dealt (yet another) spectacular dent in their relevance, but a vital Senate constituency will cease to exist come the next academic year. A proposal which promised us a more talkative, engaging and insightful discussion body instead stands to serve as a body reduced in its diversity and range of perspectives. It would be nice to think that in, say, 2016, there would be an Effectiveness Review of the implemented proposals of the 2013 Effectiveness Review. By that time, though, any such suggestion will probably be rejected on the grounds that 'best practice' in top ten universities is to put in place mechanisms which debar any discussion of previous managerial decisions.

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

EQUIPMENT

An email was circulated in Engineering last week asking for bids for large-scale pieces of equipment. It noted that proposals had already been received, including one for an 'environmental chamber for temperature and humility.' How has this brilliant invention escaped attention up to now?
It's not hard to think of candidates who would benefit from passing through this chamber. Several members of the government spring readily to mind, together with a number of heads of banks and finance companies. There could even be people within this University who would benefit from a brief visit.
subtext presumes this device is related to the Total Perspective Vortex, well known to fans of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

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

BUILDING

Inhabitants of The County College received the following email last week:

'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. This space will reopen at the end of May as the new offices for University Partnerships Programme (UPP) the managers of campus accommodation on Alexandra Park and County and Grizedale Townhouses. If you have any queries about this work please contact the
facilities Helpdesk on 93333 facilities.helpdesk@lancaster.ac.uk'.

We reprint this email here as a service for those affected who may think that 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, and who may wish to express that opinion to the relevant authorities.

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

TOWN HALL MEETING

On May 13th the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor hosted the first 'Town Hall Meeting'. The theme was the Strategic Plan. There wasn't anything radically new or strange, but it was interesting – and highly indicative of the way that the Top Table is thinking. Much of what we learned was broadly reassuring – league tables are important but we shouldn't be obsessed by them [but c.f Senate Report, above] - we are in a very fluid and dynamic world, the Lancaster 'spirit' is something to be cherished, values matter. When it came to specifics, unsurprisingly there was slightly less to gladden the heart; inclusivity is important and desirable but it has to be reconciled with economic reality, staff development is...well, the same. We are relaxed about the Russell Group, the strategy is to be so darn good that they will come to us. Onward, upward, and so on.

This may all sound as though subtext is suggesting that it was all a bit woolly, and that would be unfair. As the VC pointed out, the Strategy Document is all about aspiration. Our aspirations tell the world (and ourselves) a lot about who we are and who we want to be. The devil is, of course and as always, in the detail, but those of us who remember the equivalent point in the process of putting together the equivalent Strategy Document during the Wellings regime will have been somewhat reassured. The document's heart will probably be in the right place. The main worry is what financial reality will do to those good intentions

A couple of other highlights from the meeting: 1) The VC doesn't much like Powerpoint. 2) The Lancaster Jubilee next year will be a year-long party. Hurrah to both those.

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

AMERICA SNEEZES...

Readers may be interested in the recent report at (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134238284530760.html) regarding the situation across campuses in the US. Does this sound familiar? Low wages, lack of job security and the growing numbers of unemployed and under-employed PhDs. The increasing focus on web-based learning and the growth of open online courses with alumni being asked to volunteer their time as 'online mentors' and 'discussion group managers' for an online course. Fewer professors and fewer qualified - or even paid - teaching assistants will be required in higher education's New Order. The article goes on to ponder on what life in the UK will be like post the latest REF – do not read if you are of nervous disposition.

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

JOBS FOR ALL (but not, apparently, forever)

The University is concerned about the level and scale of casual and temporary employment at Lancaster in light of recent pension reform which introduces additional legal requirements regarding casual employment practices. The University is taking this opportunity to improve efficiency and effectiveness (yes, those dreaded weasel words) in this area. The University spends over £4 million p.a. (in gross salary cost terms) on casual employment. It currently employs 2084 people (including external examiners) on casual contracts, of whom 874 are students – some of these folk are on 'no hours' contracts which seems very casual indeed. This does seem like a lot of people.

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

WARWICK UNIVERSITY LIMITED

This was the title of a Penguin Education Special published in 1970. Edited by the historian E.P. Thompson, and subtitled 'Industry, Management and the Universities', the book was a powerful critique of how the university's development had been shaped since its foundation by the interests of industry and commerce. It was also the title of a paper presented on 8 May to a seminar in Lancaster's Department of Organisation, Work and Technology. The speaker was Martin Parker, Professor in the Management School at Leicester, and lately – and briefly – Professor in Warwick Business School (WBS). Parker's main focus was on the dramatic changes introduced in WBS by its recently appointed Dean, Mark Taylor. These have been extreme, but they are in line with some long-standing aspects of Warwick's style, as Parker noted in describing the Thompson book as 'prescient'.

WBS came fifth among Management Schools in the 2008 RAE, which was regarded by the University as a disaster about which something had to be done. What was done, following Professor Taylor's appointment, was the rapid restructuring of the School, restrictions on collective communication within the School, and radical rebranding of corporate identity: following the slogan of 'seeing things differently', the claret of the old brand was overnight replaced by blue, which was used even for images of roses and ladybirds. A very large number of academic and administrative staff have now left, some after signing a gagging clause, and their academic replacements (many drawn to Warwick by lavish financial inducements) have been appointed on the basis of the sole criterion that they will be able to submit four 4* papers to the REF in 2013. In practice this means that they have four papers (the topics are irrelevant) in journals which feature in the supposedly authoritative list of the best in the field that is maintained by the Association of Business Schools (ABS). Nothing else will do. Anything WBS achieved in the past is simply discounted.

Whether this 'seismic' change and the rigorous '4 x 4' policy will achieve the desired result of restoring WBS to the top of the league is uncertain. The REF panel has said that it will not score on the basis of the ABS list, and the environment and impact elements of the REF are likely to prove tricky, given how many staff will be new to Warwick, so that any impact they have had will have been felt elsewhere. But the changes have been made at Warwick with remarkably little resistance: the management line is that of course change is painful (and if it were not painful it would not be real change), and that those who try to resist are merely acting out of self-interest, or aren't living in the real world. This refusal to accept that criticism is legitimate has proved influential: Martin Parker's paper on the events at Warwick, having been accepted for journal publication, was passed to the publisher's libel lawyers, whose advice resulted in a refusal to publish despite the editors having accepted the paper.

Some of the seminar participants remarked on the disturbing wider implications of the events recounted by Martin Parker for academic freedom and democratic dissent – and in subtext's view they were right to do so. But, if we treat the story of 'change management' at WBS simply as a case study of a Business School (and of its influence on the university of which it is a part), what might the implications be for other universities – Lancaster, for instance? On the Warwick website we learn that in March the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Koen Lamberts was appointed Vice-Chancellor of York; and of course our own Mark Smith came to Lancaster from a senior management position at Warwick.

In the news item on Koen Lamberts Warwick congratulates itself for producing managers who go on to top jobs elsewhere. So how worried should we be that the Warwick way of doing things will soon be exported to the north? Might we, more optimistically, hope that some senior academic managers are desperate to escape the Warwick regime, and to work in universities less driven by ruthless business-style competitiveness? Within the subtext warehouse a few tales have circulated of refugees moving from Warwick to other, more congenial and not necessarily less successful institutions – as Martin Parker has done. E.P. Thompson, too, resigned from Warwick, where he held a Readership, in his case to pursue scholarly and political work outside the university sector. So fingers crossed.

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

UNION BLUES

Subscribers may know about the University of London Union, and may think it a good thing. They may not, however, know that the University of London is planning on closing it down. If you think this is a bad decision or just want to know more, follow the link below. Meanwhile, members of LUSU might wonder why their own union is so relaxed about the closure of a sister organisation, and also wonder what sort of 'union' allows a significant part of itself to be closed without so much as a whimper. This move by the University of London might, of course, be a one-off, due to unique circumstances. Or it might be the thin end of a very nasty wedge. You be the judge: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-university-of-london-save-the-university-of-london-union-3

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

SCAN

subtext would like to welcome Rachel Quin as the new SCAN Editor, and to wish her luck. We'd like to feel that she stands a chance of both doing a good job and getting a decent degree, and we'd love to be proved wrong: but those of us who remember the 1970s, when SCAN editors were similarly non-sabbatical, doubt very much whether it is possible to do both. The Union recognised this as a fact, which is why they started to pay the editor. We wonder what characteristics of the job have changed in order to facilitate this return to the past? (If the Union has any doubt about the accuracy of our memory, it could consult Peter Elliott, soon to be late of this parish, who was a student officer at the time. They could ask him what happened to Bob Lawrence.)

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

EATING

There used to be a column in one of the University media headed 'Overheard on the Spine' (Good name for a band, maybe?). Last week we heard someone wondering if they should get a Subway roll for lunch on the grounds that it was 'better for you' than, say, a chicken korma at the Sultan or a Greggs sausage roll. For purposes of comparison, subtext offers the following numbers culled almost at random:
1) a Subway 12” meatball marinara sandwich gives you around 960 calories, of which around a third is from fat.
2) a McDonalds' Double Quarter pounder with cheese gives you 950 calories, of which just under half is fat.
3) three pieces of fried chicken and a portion of chips are about 1200 calories, around a third of which is fat.
4) a pint of bitter, around 170 calories.
5) a can of Coke - 142 calories.

Broadly speaking, a man needs around 2,500 calories a day, a woman about 2,000. Enjoy your lunch.

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

U. UTOPIA: A CALL FOR PAPERS (AGAIN)

We make no apology for repeating this call – hey, not everyone reads every word in every issue of subtext, and we'd hate to think anyone missed the opportunity.

subtext invites wild utopian speculation: What would the ideal Lancaster University be? If everything went right, what could Lancaster be in 20 years? If you were in charge, what would you aim at? What kind of teaching, research, public engagement should the University aim to be doing? What kind of organisation should it be—more businesslike, more democratic, flatter or more stratified? How big should it be? Local or international or somewhere in between? Please send 300-word (max) utopias to subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk, for publication over this term.

And see below for the very first one.

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

U. UTOPIA (AGAIN), AGAIN

Following our request in subtext 104 for papers on utopian speculation and its repeat in this issue, readers might want to listen (again) to the Bottom Line on Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rgmbh). First broadcast on 30th March 2013, the show's first topic was education and how to make a profit from it. The three guests on the show - described as business leaders in the learning sector - were Carl Lygo, Chief executive of BPP; Professor James Tooley, chairman of Omega Schools; and Professor Sir Howard Newby, Vice Chancellor of the University of Livercaster. The topics covered were low-cost private schools in Ghana, no-frills law courses, the University of Liverpool campus in China, business lessons on how to build a reputation and how to price a good education. The assembled luminaries also spoke about the challenges of taking on traditional, public institutions as well as the technological advances that look set to transform learning over the next 20 years.

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

THE FIRST U. UTOPIA

Lancaster, 1 May 2040:

'Wait', said the visitor. 'You don't give out degrees?'

'We're a democratic community of learners, not a credential factory', I said. 'Some of us, like me, are here for the long haul. Others stay for a week, a term, a few years. We read, talk, make, write, experiment, and find things out together, and we share what we’ve done with people outside the university. Sometimes we share by going and working with them.’

'Fine for wishy-washy humanists, but some people need actual facts and skills. Talking about calculus isn't learning it...'

'…and there are self-organising workshops where you can learn it, just as there are for other skills. I spend a lot of time in groups reading for argument. If you help someone take over their own development, they can learn what they need better than you could cram them with it.'

'Sounds like a nice way to teach, but what about research?'

'Why should research and working with other learners be so different? We got out of the for-profit-journals racket years ago. I write, but it's all open access. A lot of my publications are online discussions.'

'What about international reputation?'

'What about it? Other places have their own good local universities, or are working towards having them. We've given help there, and learned a lot ourselves.'

'All very nice for the privileged. But why would anyone who needs a job pay for this? What are you selling if not a degree certificate?'

'Individuals don't pay for their own education. The point of life together isn't profit and victory, it's helping people to flower into full human beings. Self-development through learning is part of that, so we make sure everyone gets a chance at it, over their whole lives.'

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

AND, FOR BALANCE, THE FIRST U. DYSTOPIA

Lancaster-News.com, 1 May 2040: LanU plc (formerly Lancaster University) today announced further job cuts after another year of financial losses. The company, which offers 'Mentoring and tuition for all major online degree providers', has faced overwhelming competition from global brands like Harvard(TM) and Princeton(TM), which are able to invest in the latest Fox-Disney 3D lecture presentations, AI feedback, and auto-essay-grading software. Ex-'Qualification facilitator' John Smith (BPhil MLitt PhD DPhil) spoke of a 'boiler room' culture on the tuition floor: 'we were under a lot of pressure to keep chatroom time with students under two minutes each, and to cross-sell modules. I had a ten calculus class per day quota.' Some of the redundant employees will be replaced by former LanU students working off student loans through the government's controversial 'Honest Payback' scheme. LanU's official press release stated that the company's CEO, board of directors, and investors were looking forward to the challenge of facing a new year 'streamlined and ready to move forward in a difficult environment'.

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

LETTERS



Dear subtext,

Why is the university suddenly (fashionably?) asking us to declare whether the gender we associate ourselves with, is the same as that we were born with? I really don't see what it's got to do with anyone, or anything – especially the PDR ‘usefulness’ survey. A more pertinent question might be: on a scale of 11-20 how disillusioned are you with a process that consistently fails to enhance your personal or professional development? People's gender might change over the years, but apparently the ineffectual review process never does.

Best Wishes,
Dr Ruth Allen
The Graduate School
Science and Technology

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

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