Tertiary Update Volume 12 Number 8

Consumer Magazine is advising its readers to be wary of the consistency of marking and assessment standards in tertiary-education institutions. The magazine suggests in this month’s edition that there can be significant variations in marks for students’ work and it calls for increased quality assurance. University of Auckland professor of education John Hattie is quoted as arguing that, while “we implicitly trust our academics to know what they value in their subjects, to set examinations and assignments, to mark reliably and validly”, evidence suggests that trust may not always be warranted.

Dr Alison Viskovic of Whitireia Community Polytechnic suggests in the same article that academic staff often learn the trade of assessment by “trial and error”, with few opportunities to observe others teaching or of being observed by a peer and given feedback. And Professor Luanna Meyer of Victoria University says that academic staff are usually appointed on their subject knowledge and qualifications rather than their teaching expertise, but tuition in how to do the job does not necessarily follow once they start work.

Consumer calls for a code of practice ensuring academic quality similar to that in the Britain, where institutions publish clear assessment criteria and ensure marking is carried out fairly and consistently. It also recommends publically assessing our institutions against a range of quality indicators such as occurs in Germany.

However, TEU president elect Dr Tom Ryan has expressed caution about adding further layers of “quality assurance” onto tertiary-education teaching staff.

“TEU is mindful of the need to ensure the highest standards of teaching and learning in our institutions. We welcomed the recent investment by government of $20 million in the establishment of the Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence,” Dr Ryan said. “Many of our polytechnics and ITPs already require their teaching staff to have formal qualifications in adult learning and teaching. And our universities have long required student evaluations of their courses, and assessment of graduate coursework and postgraduate theses by academics based in other New Zealand and overseas universities.”

“Our recent experience of the PBRF suggests that centrally imposed quality-assurance systems are massively expensive, impact negatively on workplace relations and morale, and invite manipulation and abuse by management. While our members recognise and value the importance of high quality teaching in all tertiary institutions, they want to be part of and consulted about any changes that might be proposed,” argued Dr Ryan.

Also in Tertiary Update this week:

1. University unions ballot for nationwide employment agreement
2. Voluntary repayment bonus to favour wealthy graduates
3. Controversy over cash-for-holidays plan
4. 3000 places in ITPs for 9-day-fortnight workers
5. Three to contest te tumu arataki position
6. French university strikes have government recalling 1968
7. TAFEs to help Australia meet degree target
8. London VC quits after losing £56m
9. Demand for Muslim prayer room rejected
10. Staff could face sack over spoof pamphlets

TEU Tertiary Update is published weekly on Thursdays and distributed freely to members of the Tertiary Education Union and others. Back issues are available on the TEU website. Direct inquiries should be made to Stephen Day, email: http://scr.im/stephenday

Academics at Liverpool University have threatened strike action if management push through proposals to axe its politics, philosophy, and probability departments in what appears to be the the first casualty of poor scores in December’s national exercise to judge research quality in Britain.

The draft proposals to close the departments include similar plans for civil engineering, cancer studies, dentistry, sociology, and Latin and American studies. They will be discussed this week at Liverpool University’s senate meeting.

The school of politics and communication studies, the philosophy department, and the division of statistics and probability failed to do well in the government’s recent research assessment exercise (RAE).

The vice-chancellor, Professor Sir Howard Newby, has told staff that in “driving towards world-class excellence in areas where we are globally competitive, we need to undertake reviews of academic departments where performance is not of the same exceptional standard”.

If the senate passes the proposals then it and the university’s council will decide the final fate of the departments in June.

The university says it will honour obligations to students in any departments affected, including those entering in 2009-10. It will also “honour all existing staff contracts and will only consider compulsory redundancy measures as a last resort”.

But both staff and students are mobilising against the moves, despite finding out about the proposals only late last week. A source at Liverpool’s University and College Union (UCU) branch said, “What they are proposing subsequently is to measure everybody according to their research star rating. The fear is that they will get rid of people with 1* or 2* (can’t work this out) research or offer them teaching-only contracts,” the source said.

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, said, “Liverpool University must not overreact to the RAE results; institutions do not build long-term reputations for excellence by axing departments on short-term results.”

From Anthea Lipsett at the Guardian

The International Monetary Fund reports that increased government spending on public education will have a more powerful impact on the financial crisis than tax cuts.

This is the conclusion of a note from the IMF to the G20 countries that was released on 5 February, and reported by media including the Financial Times the next day. In the note, the IMF calls for “more aggressive and concerted policy actions” by the G20 countries.

It also repeats the Fund’s call for stronger fiscal stimulus “to avoid a deep and prolonged recession,” and emphasizes that such programmes “should support demand for a prolonged period of time and be applied broadly across countries with policy space to minimize cross-border leakages.”

The IMF has calculated multipliers for three policy options: tax cuts, infrastructure investment and “other” government spending. Public education would be included in the latter.

The paper says that the “other” category includes additional spending on safety nets, assistance to small and medium enterprises, support for housing markets and transfers to state and local governments. In many North American and European countries, a primary example of transfers to state and local governments is for funding public education.

The IMF assessment makes the point that “other” government spending has a considerably larger multiplier than tax cuts (1.0 vs 0.6), although infrastructure investment has an even higher multiplier (1.8 vs 0.6). Clearly, tax cuts are the least effective policy option.

In apparent response to local and international pressures reported in previous issues of Tertiary Update, the council of the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) has appointed a committee on governance and academic freedom. The terms of reference for the new committee are listed by chairperson Phumla Mnganga as “to examine issues pertaining to governance and academic freedom at the University of KwaZulu-Natal … and make recommendations to council and senate.”

The local university staff union, the National Tertiary Education Staff Union (NTESU) was instrumental in generating several hundred signatures from around the world to an online petition calling on the university to uphold the tenets of academic freedom.  While the two professorial staff directly involved in the dispute that led to the campaign resigned under duress from the university, the issues are still quite alive at the campus.

The announcement of the committee says that it will investigate and undertake an assessment of governance structures and processes and how these foster or inhibit academic freedom or freedom of expression; fairness of relevant dispute resolution mechanisms and the extent these may foster a culture of hostility; and other relevant factors bearing on academic freedom or freedom of expression.

Responding to the announcement, NTESU national deputy president John Landman said, “While the NTESU welcomes establishment of this committee, the fact remains that two noted academics, Professors van den Berg and Chetty, were brought under great duress and forced to resign their positions.  It is untenable that the university then comes, after the fact, to recognise that there are fundamental and long-standing governance problems at UKZN and makes no mention of discussing the reinstatement of those academics.”

NTESU expects an appointment with the minister of education after its representations at that level and will continue to monitor the situation and make comment to the UKZN committee.

TÄ“nā koutou

TEU elections  are to take place shortly

TEU elections will take place by postal ballot between Monday 16 February and Monday 9 March.  Ballot papers and voting instructions will shortly be posted out to all eligible voters and more details of the election will be posted on the TEU website – www.teu.ac.nz. This page provides information about each of the candidates standing for a contested position.

There are three contested elections.  For other positions there were enough or too few candidates to fill the available positions so the nominees have been duly elected.

Nominees

National President Te Tumu Whakarae

There are two nominations for the one position:

• Tom Ryan
• Tangi Tipene

ITP Academic Vice President

There are two nominations for one position:

• Peter McLuskie
• Michael O’Connell

ITP Sector Group Academic Representatives

There are eight (8) nominations for six (6) positions:

• Glennis Birks
• Richard Draper
• Lesley Francey
• Sarah Ann Hardman
• Eric J Stone (nee Herzog)
• Peter McLuskie
• James Houkamau
• Phyl Stuart

Eligibility to Vote

All financial members are entitled to vote for the position of National President.

All financial members who work in an ITP, REAP, PTE, other tertiary education provider (OTEP) or NZCER, who are defined by their institution as academic rather than general staff, are entitled to vote for the position of ITP Academic Vice-President and for the six academic positions on the ITP Sector Group.  Typically these will be people who are engaged in research or teaching.

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

TOM RYAN

My experience in union leadership began in the 1970s, when I held various elective offices in Australian mining unions. Since then, amongst other roles, I have been President of the Lecturers’ Association at the University of Auckland, a Staff Representative on Council and Academic Board at the University of Waikato, and a National Councillor and Vice-President of the Association of University Staff.

If elected National President/Te Tumu Whakarae of the New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/ Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa, I promise to ensure that:

• TEU focuses its resources on its core business of protecting and improving the wage and salary levels, and the employment conditions, of all its members;
• TEU governs and manages itself effectively and prudently, with appropriate involvement by its staff, national officers, sector committees, and local branches;
• TEU promotes its own vision of a quality tertiary education sector, including increased public  funding, equal access and opportunities, and academic freedom;
• TEU engages with wider union and social issues, especially in respect to Māori and the Treaty, but also regarding women and other disadvantaged groups.

My understanding of the tertiary education sector has been shaped by two decades spent as a university teacher, administrator, and researcher – mainly at Waikato, but also in France, the United States, and the Pacific Islands. If elected President, my personal priority will be to rapidly upskill myself on the workplace realities faced by TEU members in polytechnics, wānanga, and industry training organizations.

Kia ora koutou katoa.

Return to list of nominees

TANGI TIPENE

Tangi Tipene led ASTE as the first Māori president for the last two years and four years previous as vice president.  She is one of the only remaining officials who were instrumental in the successful TEU amalgamation.  Tangi walks comfortably in all worlds and as a mother and grandmother of nine sees education as paramount to successful citizenship.

Tangi has represented the union and presented at many international conferences.  Tangi represented the sector at several national level groups and panels such as Ako Aotearoa.

Tangi has over 30 year’s union experience and initiated the first marae based PTE computer school in the 1980s.   Tangi has worked 17 years at Waiāriki and served on Council as academic staff representative. Tangi serves on the CTU Runanga and represents the ITP sector at CTU meetings as well as a trustee on New Horizons Women’s Trust.  She is a founding member of the treaty partnership group. She is dedicated to serving TEU and prepared to work hard for both academics and general members.

“TEU encompasses two strong union cultures and many professions and this union can grow stronger through manaakitanga, whānaungatanga and kotahitanga.  We need to create a coherent organisation internally first so that we can have one voice externally.  Our sector needs financial stability, employment security, and increased investment in tertiary education; a fairer research funding regime and support of academic excellence. We are the tertiary voice and I am committed to an ‘educational’ vision for our nation.  Let’s not wait for the economic crisis, let us plan to support our members to survive it, now.”

Return to list of nominees

ITP ACADEMIC VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

PETER MCLUSKIE

I lecture in employment and introductory law at the Open Polytechnic, where I have worked since 2001, having worked from 1999 – 2000 as an assistant lecturer at Victoria University. Before becoming a law lecturer I taught and worked with people with intellectual disability for 15 years, and established Argo Trust (Inc). As Prof. EZ I have hosted the jazz and world music shows on Radio Active 89 FM over the last 17 years.

For the last four years I have been Branch Chairperson ASTE at the Open Polytechnic. During this time the Open Polytechnic has undergone significant positive changes. In our last negotiations we achieved a 7% increase in our wages over two years. We were also achieved a significant financial settlement for the branch in regard to allegations of ‘passing on’ of our CEA terms to non-union employees. TEU’s membership has also increased during this period, with over 75% of academic staff being members. Personal grievances have declined, and, when they arise, they are settled in an amicable and constructive fashion.

I have built an excellent inter-union relationship with the PSA at the Open Polytechnic. Staff at the Open Polytechnic are very satisfied with the service that they receive from TEU.

As the ITP academic vice-president of TEU I will bring a wide and diverse range of skills, including excellent skills in legal analysis, coupled with an ability to think laterally. I am able to quickly come up with new approaches and innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

Return to list of nominees

MICHAEL O’CONNELL

After 20 years in the ITP Sector and 11 years as an elected officer within the governance structures of the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education, I am well prepared and positioned to articulate and where possible advance the competing issues of the sector as Vice President.

This sectors constituency groups are broad ranging and its educational interests diverse.  Representational needs remain extremely important to each of these groups as multiple issues impact on their ability to provide quality education while real funding to this sector has seen an insidious decrease over recent years.  In addition – the move towards differentiation and capped funding within the sector has been a double edged sword as opportunities for bolstering income such as cross region delivery have been restricted and the surety of income through investment planning is not the panacea many institutions had hoped and planned for.

While the Vice President position and scope of this sector role has yet to be sized – I see the role, other than leadership and representational, encompassing the need for effective engagements at various levels and with peak bodies within the sector ensuring a full understanding of its complexities, opportunities and threats.   As important will be effective communication of core issues, concerns and recommendations for action to the sector committee and where appropriate to the TEU Council.

Michael O’Connell

Academic Staff Member

UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LEARNING

Palmerston North

Return to list of nominees

ITP SECTOR GROUP ACADEMIC CANDIDATES

GLENNIS BIRKS

Glennis Birks is a Principal Academic Staff Member at the Waikato Institute of Technology teaching nursing.  She has been active in the union movement since the 1970s when she held elected offices in New Zealand Nurses Organisation. More recently, Glennis has been central northern representative to ASTE National Executive Committee and a member of the Industrial Committee. Glennis has been Chairperson of Wintec ASTE branch for the last five years and was the elected staff representative to Wintec Council for 10 years.

Her vision as a member of the ITP sector committee would include focusing on the core business of protecting and improving the salary levels and employment conditions of members, pay and employment equity, increased public funding for the tertiary sector, and a commitment to equity and equal opportunity issues.

Return to list of nominees

RICHARD DRAPER

My name is Richard Draper and I have been nominated for a position on the ITP sector group of NZ TEU.

I have been involved in the ITP sector through my teaching at Christchurch Polytechnic (CPIT) since the mid-90s. I served as Branch Chair of ASTE at CPIT for two years and I’m looking forward to my role as Branch President of TEU in 2009.

In addition, I had the honour of serving as deputy representative for the Southern Central region in ASTE, and attended some national executive meetings in 2008.

At a local level, I have been elected to the CPIT Council for a four-year term. I intend to ensure that the opinions and issues of and for staff are heard by governing body of the Institution. This leads me nicely to why I accepted nomination for TEU’s ITP sector group…

I believe that a quality education system is vital to the health and well-being of New Zealand. A strong tertiary sector is a key part of that system and we in the TEU have a significant role to play in making this so.

There is a strong focus on financial issues in our sector, so much so that it borders on obsession in places. But it is the quality of our staff – those who teach and those who support that teaching – that makes a difference to our key stakeholders: our students and our communities. This is what motivates me in my various roles in the TEU.

In short, I am enthusiastic about being nominated for TEU’s ITP sector group!

Return to list of nominees

LESLEY FRANCEY

Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland.

I started teaching on the ESOL programme at MIT in 1999 on a casual contract which developed into a limited tenure contract which rolled over and over again until ASTE stepped in and suggested that this was not good employment practise!

Having immigrated from Scotland, whose fire-breathing unionists were ‘famous’, I decided it was time to become actively involved in the union by way of a thank you for obtaining my tenureship. Not surprisingly, my first area of interest was looking at the plight of staff kept on limited tenure contracts for unjustifiable reasons. I was delighted when ASTE decided to launch its Fixed Term Campaign which has been very successful.

I have been Secretary, Deputy Branch Chair and am now Branch President of the MIT Branch where I am working to create a much more active and involved membership. We are just about to begin our CEA negotiations and as the first ITP to do so in 2009 I am conscious of our national responsibilities.

The new funding regime and the new government are going to bring huge challenges to the ITP sector and I would really value the opportunity to be involved at a national level in protecting the working conditions of my colleagues in the tough times ahead.

Return to list of nominees

SARAH ANN HARDMAN

I have been a lecturer in English Language at Unitec since 1996 and I’ve been chairperson of first the Unitec ASTE branch and now TEU for over 3 years. I first became an active member of our union in the 1980s.  I’m delighted to see our union move forward by merging with AUS and I hope that in the future we will develop further links with other education sector unions so that teachers’ voices can be heard ever more clearly in the sector. However, at the same time I feel very strongly that our identity as Polytech teachers needs to be maintained. Whether we are trades teachers or involved with the many other areas of skills and knowledge taught within our sector, we need to be clear about and proud of what Polytechnic teaching has represented over many decades in New Zealand and internationally.  I believe that it is in Polytechs that a lot of excellent teaching and learning may be found and I want our union to be in the forefront of seeing that we get the recognition that we deserve for this.  I think that maintaining and enhancing our working conditions is the bottom line of which we should never lose sight, and the key for all activists and organizers is to communicate with and listen to our members.  My own commitment to unionism is lifelong and is informed by a strong personal commitment to social justice for all.  I would be honored to serve on this committee.

Return to list of nominees

ERIC J STONE (nee HERZOG)

Ko Manaia taku maunga

Ko te rererangi taku waka

Kei Parua taku kainga noho

Kei roto I te rohe o Whangarei

Ko Tangata Tiriti taku iwi

Ko Eric Herzog taku ingoa, a, no Ahitereiria au.

Tena koutou katoa.

I offer the following credentials of what I bring to the job…

• Committed to maintain and improve our work conditions….
• Four years as a National Executive member of ASTE, five years as Branch Chairperson and fifteen years as a member
• Have been at the forefront of our struggle to retain our conditions of employment through: member communication, advice and support, negotiation, mediation, organisation and policy review and education.  I am passionate about reaching those members who are geographically isolated
• MECA negotiating team member 2003 (23 days), 2005, 2007 and 2008

Experienced as a professional educator….

• Currently employed as a Learning and Teaching Development Facilitator
• Commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.  Currently, involved on a National Partnership Working Group comprised of equal representatives of Māori and Tau iwi
• Eighteen years employment as a Computing Tutor
• Three years experience as an Academic Auditor
• Five years part-time work with the NZQA as a Moderator and Competency-Based Assessment Trainer

Qualified to do the job….

• Bachelor of Vocational Education and Training from Charles Sturt University
• Graduate Certificate in Career Development from AUT.

I have three adult children.  My work/life balances include motorbike riding, swimming, caring for QEII native bush covenants, understanding partnership, wine appreciation and travel.

Return to list of nominees

PETER MCLUSKIE

I lecture in employment and introductory law at the Open Polytechnic, where I have worked since 2001, having worked from 1999 – 2000 as an assistant lecturer at Victoria University. Before becoming a law lecturer I taught and worked with people with intellectual disability for 15 years, and established Argo Trust (Inc). As Prof. EZ I have hosted the jazz and world music shows on Radio Active 89 FM over the last 17 years.

For the last four years I have been Branch Chairperson ASTE at the Open Polytechnic. During this time the Open Polytechnic has undergone significant positive changes. In our last negotiations we achieved a 7% increase in our wages over two years. We were also acheived a significant financial settlement for the branch in regard to allegations of ‘passing on’ of our CEA terms to non-union employees. TEU’s membership has also increased during this period, with over 75% of academic staff being members. Personal grievances have declined, and, when they arise, they are settled in an amicable and constructive fashion. I have built an excellent inter-union relationship with the PSA at the Open Polytechnic. Staff at the Open Polytechnic are very satisfied with the service that they receive from TEU.

As an Academic Staff Representative on the ITP sector group of TEU I will bring a wide and diverse range of skills, including excellent skills in legal analysis, coupled with an ability to think laterally. I am able to quickly come up with new approaches and innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

Return to list of nominees

James Houkamau

No candidate statement had been received by the returning officer at date this document went to print.  If a candidate statement is received at a later a date it will be published on the TEU website at www.teu.ac.nz

Return to list of nominees

PHYL STEWART

Tairāwhiti Polytechnic

Kia ora tatou.

I joined my first education sector union at the age of 17, eventually becoming PPTA Branch Chair and PPTA rep on the Gisborne CTU. When I shifted into the tertiary sector, I was ‘elected’ Branch Secretary at the first ASTE meeting I attended. The branch then thought it would be a great idea if we saw in the new millennium with our first woman Chair, and I have been in the hot seat since 2000. I have also been declared redundant from every permanent job I have ever had – on the last two occasions I have been redeployed within this poly.

We all know that the new TEU offers definite opportunities in greater numbers and a membership base across a range of wider interests. But while this wider base gives strength, the interests of those on the fringes should not be forgotten. I am offering myself as a member of the ITP Sector Committee because I have become increasingly aware that the smaller regional polytechs and most PTEs are not driven by the same imperatives as the larger ITPs and the universities.  Our focus is more likely to be on trades and foundation studies, not on degrees and postgraduate programmes.  The PBRF means nothing to most of us.  But we are a vital part of the diversity that is TEU, and should have representation at national level.

Return to list of nominees

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information about the election please check the TEU website over the next few days in the first instance.  Otherwise please contact the TEU election returning officer, Nanette Cormack at 0800 278 348 or http://scr.im/nanette

Regards,

Nanette Cormack

TEU Returning Officer

Submission of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa

on the PBRF Sector Reference Group consultation paper “New and emerging researchers” Read more →

Submission of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Te HautÅ« Kahurangi o Aotearoa

on the PBRF Sector Reference Group consultation paper “Eligibility”

30 January 2009

For further information please contact:
Jo Scott
Policy Analyst
Tertiary Education Union
Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa

Eligibility

The New Zealand Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Te HautÅ« Kahurangi o Aotearoa is the largest tertiary sector union in this country.  Our membership currently sits at approximately 11,000 members, covering all types of TEOs in the sector.

Prior to the formation of the TEU on 1^st January 2009, both AUS and ASTE have made submissions on a range of topics related to the PBRF.  When the PBRF was introduced, we raised a number of concerns about the model, many of which have unfortunately emerged as issues in the sector.  Our stance on the PBRF model some years on from its introduction is that minimal changes should be implemented as a result of the current review.  We have taken this position with the current funding model as we believe that post-2012 the sector should vigorously debate alternative models that could replace the PBRF, which we regard as fundamentally flawed.

For this reason the TEU holds the view that further changes to the model, other than minor adjustments (such as clarifying guidelines) would put unnecessary pressure on academic and general staff involved in research and on TEOs, would risk further undermining the data obtained so far from assessment rounds, and should therefore be rejected.

Eligibility issues

In regards to the criteria for eligibility for performance-based funding, the TEU’s main concern is in the effect that so-called ‘game-playing’ can have on the employment agreements and career prospects of individuals.  For example, the TEU knows that some staff are being pressured to adopt lower-status tutor roles, and to agree that their teaching is ‘under strict supervision’, as a way of making them PBRF-ineligible.  This kind of action by the employer is inherently unacceptable, and has the potential to destroy a person’s academic career.  It would be regrettable if the PBRF becomes a source of employment relationship problems as a result of such actions, however if this type of behaviour continues it will almost be inevitable.

Specific proposals in the consultation paper

The TEU generally supports maintaining the status quo in regards to eligibility, except perhaps for some clarification of guidelines as noted in 6.1.3.  In supporting this recommendation, however, we would expect that individuals are able to challenge their inclusion or exclusion with their TEO, as the consultation paper correctly notes that there is great variance in both the range of academic titles and academic roles across the sector and therefore individuals need to be afforded the opportunity to respond to their particular classification.  Otherwise there is potential for some individuals to be unfairly treated as the employer tries to manipulate the PBRF eligibility criteria to its advantage, using terms and conditions of employment in inappropriate ways.

The TEU does not support any of the other options proposed in the paper, as further changes in our view will only lead to additional pressure being placed on TEOs and staff to comply with these, with the likelihood of any negative impacts being felt most keenly by individual staff involved in research.  We do feel some affinity with the proposal in the Adams Report that suggests narrowing eligibility to include only permanent staff around whom the research system pivots, however we believe that implementing such a significant change at this time to what is already a flawed system would further confuse the sector.  As we previously stated, any major changes should be reserved for an agreed new model after consultation post-2012.

In responding to the proposals put forward in the consultation paper, we are particularly averse to the idea of further auditing to control eligibility-related misuses, which would only add to compliance costs, and in our view compliance costs of the PBRF are already too high.  The PBRF is itself a form of audit, so having to ‘audit the audit’ only serves to discredit the whole system.  The danger is that the core activity of TEOs will eventually become ‘auditing’, rather than what it should be – supporting quality research, teaching and learning.

Conclusion

The TEU therefore recommends that the eligibility criteria remain as they are in 2012, other than perhaps minor clarifications to guidelines.  However any changes to guidelines must ensure that staff are more clearly advised about the eligibility criteria so that they can have more control over their inclusion in, or exclusion from, the PBRF.  Importantly, such changes should also confirm an individual’s right to challenge the TEOs decision on eligibility, and to present their case for inclusion or exclusion as appropriate.

The TEU looks forward to the development of a more rational, equitable and efficient system for assessing research funding, after 2012.  But, further, the TEU also acknowledges that governmental assessments of research quality in the tertiary sector inevitably have undesirable effects, and become controversial and divisive within the academic community.  The challenge post-2012 is therefore a significant one, which must take due consideration of the strengths and limitations of the current model.

 Submission of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Te HautÅ« Kahurangi o Aotearoa

 on the PBRF Sector Reference Group consultation paper

 â€œEvaluating applied and practice-based research”

 30 January 2009

For further information please contact:

Jo Scott
Policy Analyst
Tertiary Education Union
Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa

Evaluating Applied and Practice-Based Research

The New Zealand Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Te HautÅ« Kahurangi o Aotearoa is the largest tertiary sector union in this country.  Our membership currently sits at approximately 11,000 members, covering all types of TEOs in the sector.

Prior to the formation of the TEU on 1^st January 2009, both AUS and ASTE have made submissions on a range of topics related to the PBRF.  When the PBRF was introduced, we raised a number of concerns about the model, many of which have unfortunately emerged as issues in the sector.  Our stance on the PBRF model some years on from its introduction is that minimal changes should be implemented as a result of the current review.  We have taken this position with the current funding model as we believe that post-2012 the sector should vigorously debate alternative models that could replace the PBRF, which we regard as fundamentally flawed.

For this reason the TEU holds the view that further changes to the model, other than minor adjustments (such as clarifying guidelines) would put unnecessary pressure on academic and general staff involved in research and on TEOs, and would risk further undermining the data obtained so far from assessment rounds, and should therefore be rejected.

Issues – evaluating applied and practice-based research

The concerns raised in this consultation paper about how research in applied and practice-related fields should be evaluated have been voiced by many TEU members, and are frequently raised in discussions on the PBRF.  Further debate and analysis across the sector would in our view be useful, to either allay or substantiate these concerns.  Such a discussion could take place outside of the PBRF process, as a further contribution to debate about research assessment post-2012.

For the purposes of this current review however, the TEU believes that as little disruption to the system (flawed as it is) is the most pragmatic approach at this stage.  If minor adjustments can be made to the processes for evaluating research, which might assist in addressing concerns expressed in the sector about the assessment of applied and practice-based research, then our view is that it would be appropriate to do so.  Anything more than this we believe would be unnecessarily disruptive at this stage of the PBRF model.

Development of research capacity

Maintaining a balance between research and scholarly ambitions and obligations of academic staff, on one hand, and their commitments to students, community and industry, on the other, has always been a difficult task, especially with increasing teaching workloads and staff/student ratios.  The PBRF model has tended to highlight this tension, as the demands brought about by the funding/evaluation model place extra pressure on eligible staff to produce research to a particular level, often without being balanced by a reduction in teaching workloads.

The tension is particularly apparent in those parts of the sector which have more recently been included as ‘research active’ institutions or disciplines (because of the nature/level of programmes they offer), such as teacher education and many of the higher-level programmes now offered in the ITP sector.  These disciplines (which have an applied and practice-based focus to their teaching) have faced significant structural challenges in meeting the requirements of the PBRF quality assessment and funding system, especially that of balancing higher levels of teaching commitments (commonly associated with practice-based fields) with research activity.

These discipline areas generally have not yet developed a significant research culture such as that commonly found in more empirically-based disciplines – rather their focus has been on teaching and other aspects of professional practice.  Within the PBRF system therefore, they will continue to be at a disadvantage for some time yet because of the emergent nature of their research cultures.  Ensuring that research is supported within these discipline areas is crucial if we are to understand and address the many complex social issues we face, as much of their research seeks to address these very concerns.

As the overall lifting of research quality is a central tenet of the PBRF system, the TEU would therefore be supportive of moves by the TEC to further analyse research capacity in the sector with a view to developing strategies (including addressing workload allocation of eligible staff in the newly merged colleges of education and ITP sector) to assist research development in areas identified as needing additional support.

Clarification of panel-specific guidelines

In terms of the specific proposals in the consultation paper, the TEU supports clarifying panel-specific guidelines to ensure that the distinction between research and professional practice activities is clear to TEOs and individuals.  Academic staff undertake a wide range of activities in the course of their jobs, which are not always easily distinguishable as either ‘research or ‘professional practice’ functions.  It is vital that the sector, TEC, management and individual staff have a clear sense of this distinction, and are able to focus energy and resources appropriately.

External representation on assessment panels

Within the current model, the TEU is ambivalent about including members from outside of the sector on assessment panels.  The purpose of the PBRF is to conduct a peer-assessment of research quality, and senior members of the academic community are presumably competent to do this.  There may however be value in further integrating community/industry feedback as part of the research assessment process (such as in evidence portfolios), to highlight the impact the research has had outside of academia.  Such an approach is relevant to all research methodologies, and if adjustments to guidelines for EPs could be made with minimal disruption, then giving panel members greater breadth of information about research impact would in our view be a useful enhancement.

Evaluating peer esteem and research impact

If there is evidence of inconsistency in panel assessment of peer esteem and wider research impact (communities, industry etc), as discussed on page 12 of the consultation paper, then the TEU would support some review of this area, using already-identified exemplars/models developed by other panels to minimise duplication of effort.  As well the TEU would support panels being requested to ask for sector-specific feedback on guidelines for recognising research impact and peer esteem, to ensure that these are relevant to the particular discipline (i.e. considering sources other than citations or other commonly used measures, if this is regarded as appropriate by the discipline).

Diversity of representation on panels

If there is evidence that indicates a lack of representation on panels by researchers with expertise in applied/practice-based research models, then the TEU would be supportive of moves to ensure better representation.  A fundamental tenet of the PBRF system is that of comprehensiveness, which must apply also to panel representation.

We would view the above proposals as being less disruptive options that could assist in allaying some of the concerns expressed about the assessment of applied and practice-based research, without significantly impacting on the current system.

Conclusion

The TEU supports minimal changes to the current system in the area of applied and practice-based research, in line with our position on completely reviewing the assessment and funding system post-2012.

To: Massey University General Staff and Managers of General Staff

New Job Evaluation System for General Staff Positions

The University and the Combined Unions representing General Staff have entered into a joint project to implement a new job evaluation methodology for assessing the size of General Staff jobs and establishing internal relativities.

1.            Background

1.1    Purpose of Job Evaluation:

Job evaluation is a systematic process for establishing the relative size, content and contribution of jobs within an organisation.  It provides a structured, consistent and equitable process for deciding job gradings and placing jobs within an internal grading structure.  The evaluation system which operates at the University is one which involves analysing, within a structured framework, a set of defined individual job factors (or elements) that make up a job.

1.2    Reason for Changing the Methodology:

Since 1990, Massey has been using the Canadian ‘Aiken Plan’ to job size general staff positions.  However, this methodology has not been widely used or supported in New Zealand for a number of years and no remuneration survey information has consequently been available.  This has severely limited the Plan’s usefulness and ability to support Massey’s remuneration structure for General Staff.

The need to replace the existing system was first acknowledged back in 2003 when a joint University and Combined Unions Salaries Taskforce recommended the implementation of a new job evaluation methodology and more specifically the “COMPERS” system.  That recommendation was not progressed until 2007 when, following collective agreement negotiations, the University and the Combined Unions entered into a problem-solving process.  During those discussions it became clear that staff confidence with current internal job relativities had diminished and there was a need to collect information to enable the University’s job sizing to be compared with external market data.  It was subsequently agreed that:

“The University will institute a new job evaluation methodology.   This will be implemented during 2008 by the current joint Job Evaluation Committee. The Job Evaluation Committee will provide a report to the 2008 problem-solving group on this implementation.”

Although there was no problem-solving group convened in 2008 the commitment to a change to the job evaluation system was reiterated very recently when the latest Collective Employment Agreement (covering a term from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009) was settled.   That settlement stated:

“The parties have continued the commitment made during the 2007 problem-solving process to institute a new job evaluation methodology and to implement the new methodology during the term of this agreement.”

An assessment of available job evaluation methodologies and linkages to remuneration survey information has resulted in a decision to take on the earlier recommended “COMPERS” system.  This particular methodology is provided and supported by remuneration consultants, Mercer (NZ) Ltd.

2.            Implementation Project:

2.1    Project Scope:

The University and Combined Union parties have acknowledged that in committing to the implementation of the new job evaluation methodology the application of the new system to all general staff jobs will not be able to proceed until the parties have developed an approach on how the COMPERS evaluation system is to relate to the current grading and salary scale structure for General Staff.  The current grades and scales are based on the Aiken Plan which has a different job factor evaluation points system to that provided by COMPERS.  For that reason, the scope of the current project will be limited to establishing and evaluating a new set of benchmark jobs to provide a reference point against which others jobs may be assessed and to assist with gathering comparable external market data.  Beyond that point the process for implementation of the new system is a matter for future discussion between the parties.

2.2    Project Sponsor and Steering Group:

The Sponsor for the benchmarking project is Alan Davis, Assistant Vice-Chancellor (People & Organisational Development), and a Project Steering Group comprising University representatives, Combined Union representatives and remuneration consultants has been established to oversee the implementation project.   Members of that Steering Group are:

Stuart McKie – Senior HR Advisor, HR Section

Alan Wheeler – Deputy Director, HR Section

Jane Kostanich – AUS Branch Organiser, Auckland

Noelene White – Library

Neil Jury – Mercer Consultant

Suzane Riddle – Mercer Consultant

2.3    Project Objectives:

·         To implement a fair, robust, gender-inclusive and transparent job evaluation methodology that effectively supports ongoing requirements.

·         To have a set of benchmark positions evaluated as a basis for gathering data about salary relativities and to provide the parties with a view on how the job evaluation is to relate to the current grading structure for general staff.

2.4    Plan & Timeline

The following is an indicative timeframe for the benchmarking project:

Early Dec 2008     Benchmark jobs are selected to represent the range of general staff roles in the University, including some unique roles.

Mid-Dec 2008       Training of selected staff to act as ‘Data-gatherers’ to work with job-holders and their managers in the collection of relevant job information.

Early Feb 2009      Data-gathering process completed.

Feb 2009               Members of the current Job Evaluation Committee trained on the COMPERS methodology.

End of Mar 2009  Committee evaluations of benchmark positions completed.

April 2009             Remuneration consultants review and check evaluation outcomes.

End of Apr 2009   Data and documentation on evaluation outcomes finalised and project completed.

2.5    Gender Equity:

A key objective of this implementation project is to ensure that the job evaluation system and processes promote gender equity.  The Steering group is using the NZ Gender-inclusive Job Evaluation Standard (NZ8007:2006) to monitor gender inclusiveness and to help identify and eliminate any gender bias.  The following set of gender equity objectives and principles has been prepared for the project:

Objectives:

·         To ensure gender inclusiveness at each stage of the evaluation process.

·         The evaluation of jobs is based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions and not on the people who hold the jobs.

Principles:

·         an open, transparent and fully understood and explained process.

·         avoidance of gender bias through careful planning and good documentation

·         benchmark positions are representative of the full range of jobs and take account of jobs with highly specific features and jobs that are predominantly occupied by one gender.

·         Key people involved in the process (e.g. data-gatherers and members of the job evaluation committee) are trained to recognise and avoid gender bias.

·         Monitoring and checking of job evaluation outcomes to identify and eliminate gender bias.

2.6    Benchmark Jobs:

There are some 1400+ staff in jobs that are placed on the General Staff Grading & Salary Scales by way of a job evaluation process.  Due to this large number the approach that has been taken is to select a representative sample of jobs to establish a benchmarking framework against which other positions can be assessed and measured.  The Steering Group decided that approximately 5% of the total number of jobs would provide a sufficiently robust benchmarking structure.

During the selection process consideration was given to ensuring there were jobs representing a range of functional areas; jobs that are most often held by women and most often by men; jobs that represent all levels of the current grading structure; jobs from within colleges/regions/national shared services; jobs across all three campus locations; jobs from the most frequently occurring and most highly populated positions as well as some one-off jobs with unique features; and jobs occupied by staff who had been in the job for a sufficient length of time to be fully familiar with the role.

After due regard to the above factors a total of 78 general staff jobs have been selected.  That is 5.5% of the staff numbers but with many of the selected benchmarks coming from “highly-populated” job categories they represent about 64% of General Staff.  The job-holders of the selected positions comprise 67% women and 33% men, which is almost the same as the overall gender profile for general staff which is currently 66% women and 34% men.

Job-holders in the selected benchmark positions and their managers will be contacted early in the New Year to enlist their support and cooperation with gathering relevant job data.

3.      Future Communications:

There will be further updates as work on this project progresses.  However, it is important to reiterate that the scope of this initial phase is limited to evaluating a set of benchmark jobs and therefore, until the University and Combined Unions agree a way forward on how the new methodology will apply to all general staff jobs, no comment can be made on what, if any, effect there will be on current job gradings or salaries.  Consideration of such matters will occur when the parties develop the future approach to full implementation.

The one outcome that the parties do wish to see from the implementation of this new job evaluation methodology is for General Staff to have confidence and trust in the process and that will require extensive staff briefings and regular communications at a later date so that staff have a good understanding of the system.

(Issued on 12/12/08 by the Steering Group for the Job Evaluation Benchmarking Project)

Tertiary Update Volume 11, Number 43

The New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (NZVCC), representing the country’s eight universities, has released overnight a “nine-point plan” for government policy in the sector. Underpinning the nine points is an invitation to the new government to work with the NZVCC “on a programme that will ensure New Zealand fully benefits from its universities”.
The first of the nine points is for increased public investment in the sector by an amount that has been reported elsewhere as $230 million a year in addition to the present $1.149 billion. The NZVCC supports this bid by repeating its previous counterposing of university investment and student support and a claim that 42 percent of government money goes towards the latter, one that is hotly disputed by the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations.
In addition to increased funding, the document seeks annual indexation of that funding on the basis of a university-related price index rather than the general consumer price index and of limits on student tuition-fee increases. Failing the requested increase in public funding, the vice-chancellors’ fall-back position is for increased revenue from student fees and “a reconsideration of the current fees maxima policy to provide greater flexibility around fee setting”.
Other claims are for reduced compliance costs, “a differentiated investment system which recognises and supports their distinctive contributions”, and restoration of the universities’ access to contestable research funding. These are followed by pleas for closer, more complementary, relationships with other research organisations, especially crown research institutes, an unspecified “step change” for Māori and Pasifika, a commitment to the universities’ distinctive contribution, and acceptance by the government of “its obligation to safeguard university autonomy and academic freedom and recognise universities’ unique ownership position”.
Association of University Staff national president, Associate Professor Maureen Montgomery, while welcoming the vice-chancellors entry into the debate and supporting their concerns about underfunding of the sector, has cast doubt on the efficacy of their proposed cure. “The NZVCC has correctly identified the problem that universities face, underfunding, but its solution to take money from other areas that are also underfunded, such as students and the rest of the tertiary-education sector, is iniquitous,” she said. “The nine-point plan is blinkered and would be doomed to fail.”
“It is not just universities that are a key part of the nation’s infrastructure, as the NZVCC claims, but public education as a whole. University vice-chancellors will not be seen to speak for the whole sector when they take a narrow and segmented view of our education system,” Dr Montgomery concluded.
Education minister Anne Tolley is reported in the Dominion Post as rejecting the vice-chancellors’ attempt “to seize control of student fees” and has reaffirmed the government’s election-campaign commitment to the fee-maxima policy.

Also in Tertiary Update this week
1.         Union salary rights supported by ERA
2.         New union signed and sealed
3.         More evidence of PBRF “game-playing”
4.         Survey finds students hard-drinking
5.         New ranking scheme for Europe
6.         Challenges remain for scholars in Iraq
7.         Give us the service we pay for, say students
8.         Will electric professors dream of virtual tenure?
9.         Neither pelf nor privilege …

Union salary rights supported by ERA
A challenge by Victoria University professor of economics and finance, Roger Bowden, against the university’s decision to award him a lower salary increase than that negotiated by staff on the collective agreement has been rejected by the Employment Relations Authority. Professor Bowden, on an individual employment contract, complained that his pro vice-chancellor had limited his individual increase to 2.6 percent while union members on the collective agreement gained 4.5 percent.
Professor Bowden had argued that his salary should continue to reflect the requirements of his position and that his increase was accordingly inadequate in relation to that of his peers. The ERA, however, decided that the pro vice-chancellor had properly assessed Professor Bowden’s position, had used relevant criteria, and had genuinely believed that the latter had a lesser workload than other professors and had not performed to a sufficently high level.
Association of University Staff acting general secretary, Nanette Cormack, said that the decision clearly illustrated the benefits of being a union member. “Had Professor Bowden been an AUS member and covered by the collective agreement, he would have been entitled to the same 4.5 percent salary increase that others achieved,” she added.
“It is somewhat extraordinary that Professor Bowden would expect the same salary increase as those covered by the collective agreement, particularly given the efforts made by AUS members over the last five years in particular to advance salary issues through such means as the tripartite process,” Ms Cormack said. “The decision also shows quite clearly that employers are not required to give non-union staff the same salary increases as union members.”
Ms Cormack also noted that the decision showed that the pro vice-chancellor making the decision on the size of Professor Bowden’s salary increase found that there was no evidence of academic leadership and innovation or the attracting of research funding on his part. He also believed that Professor Bowden did not develop and maintain research programmes or collaborate with his colleagues because he was seldom on campus. He believed that Professor Bowden was no longer developing new programmes and noted that he supervised only one PhD student and had a relatively light workload compared with other professors.

New union signed and sealed
In the culmination of a protracted series of individual steps, the formation of the new Tertiary Education Union was finally and irrevocably cemented at three conferences earlier this week. On Monday morning, the Association of University Staff (AUS) and the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (ASTE) met separately in annual conferences to adopt the procedures necessary to permit amalgamation of the two existing unions. During the balance of Monday and Tuesday, officers, delegates, and observers from the two unions came together in the inaugural conference of the new union to endorse its constitution, structures, and budget.
The inaugural conference itself was the scene of a very real amalgamation of its own as participants from AUS and ASTE shed those identities and worked in joint delegations based on common workplaces. Workshops on organisation and recruitment of women, the TEU’s position on PBRF, general-staff focus and growth, recruitment strategies, and the creation of influence at national and local level provided further platforms for the development of common strategies.
The first stage in the implementation of the new constitutional structure was also put in place with the election of the members of the national women’s committee, te kahurangi māreikura. The successful candidates were, from general staff, Lyndsay Ainsworth from Lincoln University, Helen Brett from the University of Otago, Tracey Morgan from the University of Waikato, and Gwen Walker from Otago Polytechnic. Those from academic staff were Kari Bassett from the University of Canterbury, Alex Sims from the University of Auckland, Vicki-Lee Tyacke from UCOL, Palmerston North, and Joneen Walker from the College of Education, University of Otago. The women’s vice-president and hui-ā-motu representative will be elected in the new year.

More evidence of PBRF “game-playing”
Reservations about aspects of the operation of the Performance-Based Research Fund expressed by Dr Jonathan Adams in his recent independent strategic review of the fund have been extended with the release of a new sector reference group consultation paper. Following up on Dr Adams’s references to “wilful game-playing” in the assessment process, the new report claims that that results in some scores are not providing “an adequate basis for stakeholders and the government to differentiate between providers and their units on the basis of their relative quality”.
Emphasising the importance of these concerns being taken up if confidence in the PBRF is to be maintained, the report continues, “The current eligibility and reporting mechanisms have resulted in some scores that could be considered misleading about the quality of research in particular subject areas/nominated academic units/TEOs [tertiary-education organisations], particularly when comparisons are made with these subject areas in other TEOs.”
Possible solutions to the problems suggested in the paper include more rigorous audits of staff eligibility, clearer eligibility guidelines, giving institutions more room to move on inclusion or exclusion of particular academics, and providing for the exclusion of more new and low-level researchers.
In response to the sector reference group’s concerns, AUS national president, Associate Professor Maureen Montgomery, said, “The widely acknowledged misbehaviour of universities in manipulating the eligibility rules to gain advantage under the PBRF has undermined the reputation of this assessment among academic staff.”
“But worse, many academics are being pressured by their employer to change their terms of employment, for example to less advantageous tutor roles, in order to rule them out of eligibility,” Dr Montgomery added. “The Tertiary Education Commission’s inability to control such manipulation means that the PBRF is rapidly becoming a source of employment-relations problems, and the new TEU will be forced to respond aggressively to this.”.

Survey finds students hard-drinking
A recent survey of the drinking habits of New Zealand university students appears to provide some statistical support for the popular image of a hard- and heavy-drinking lifestyle. The study, conducted by a number of international researchers, found that 81 percent of those surveyed had consumed alcohol in the previous four weeks, 37 percent reported at least one binge-drinking session in the previous week, and 33 percent had a memory black-out in the preceding four weeks, compared with 13 per cent of drinkers in a 2004 national survey from the whole population who had more than one black-out in the preceding year.
In addition, the research, based on a web survey of more than 2500 undergraduates aged seventeen to 25 at six New Zealand campuses, found that 6 percent of drinkers in the university survey had unprotected sex in the preceding four weeks, compared with 3.3 percent in the national survey who had unprotected sex more than once in the preceding year; and that 5 percent of the student drinkers reported being physically aggressive in the four-week period, compared with 2.2 percent in the national survey who had got into a physical fight more than once in the preceding year.
Responding to the results of the survey, New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations co-president, Paul Falloon, said that student drinking needs to be considered in a wider context. “It’s kind of hard to say that all students are like this. We certainly accept that there’s an element of heavy drinking within the student body, but also within the wider society as well, and I think it’s an issue that society at large needs to acknowledge,” he said.

World Watch
New ranking scheme for Europe
The European Union is planning to launch its own international higher-education rankings, with emphasis on helping students make informed choices about where to study and encouraging their mobility. Odile Quintin, the European Commission’s director-general of education and culture, announced she would call for proposals before the end of the year, with the first classification appearing in 2010.
A European classification would probably be compiled along the same lines as the German Centre for Higher Education (CHE) Development Excellence Ranking. Last September, Ján Figel, a member of the European Commission responsible for education, training, culture, and youth, gave official support for the CHE project and its aims to develop “tools to produce multi-dimensional rankings based on robust, relevant, and widely accepted methodologies”.
Mr Figel had said the main interest of the commission was, “To help member states and their institutions improve the quality of their education and training systems and in particular to make it easier for students to make an informed choice on where and what to study, by offering accessible, transparent and comparable information.”
“The commission is of the opinion that many existing rankings do not really fulfil this purpose, for example because they focus on research aspects rather than teaching, and on entire institutions rather than programmes and departments,” Mr Figel said.
“In order to achieve a mapping of European higher education that provides guidance and transparency, we need ranking tools that take into account the existing diversity in terms of languages, subject areas, profiles, student services, research, and teaching quality. CHE is among the projects which are giving an important contribution towards this objective.”
From Jane Marshall in University World News

Challenges remain for scholars in Iraq
Two of three scholars invited from Iraq to share analysis of academic conditions there could not get visas to attend this week’s meeting of the Middle East Studies Association held in Washington. Those gathered at the annual meeting for a panel on “the role of academics in building civil society in Iraq” had to settle for having the papers paraphrased to them by a colleague.
This twist of fate, however, prompted the remaining panelists to reflect on the challenges that still exist for students and scholars in a post-Saddam Iraq. Although Riyadh Aziz Hadi, a high-ranking administrator at Baghdad University, and Amer Qader, a professor at Kirkuk University, were unable to attend the event, their scholarly work was presented before the panel.
“This is kind of good for the event in a sinister way,” said Abbas Kadhim, professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, and a product of Iraqi higher education. “This shows you some of the difficulties that remain for Iraqi academics. If someone cannot attend an event like this, because of a denied visa with one year’s notice, you’re looking at a sequestered group of people.”
Though not to the extent that it was during the Saddam regime, Kadhim said, academic freedom is still constrained in Iraq. Inside the classroom, he said, the free flow of ideas between student and professor is limited by former customs. For example, he noted that many Iraqis consider the questioning or challenging of a professor publicly an “act of hostility”. Even the wider academic curriculum cannot offer a diversity of interests or values to students, he said, noting that degrees are “cookie cutter” by design and leave no room for electives.
From Inside Higher Ed

Give us the service we pay for, say students
The traditional undergraduate experience of huddling for warmth around a one-bar heater and eating baked beans from the tin is apparently being threatened by a new breed of student. University vice-chancellors are having to adjust to undergraduates who believe that their £3,000 annual fees entitle them to a respectable standard of living.
Rather than tolerating overcrowded houses where comfort is regarded as having a bean bag in the sitting room, students are demanding en suite bedrooms, direct access to the latest technology, and even cleaning staff.
Brian Lang, vice-chancellor of St Andrews University, told university leaders at Princeton University in New Jersey that students even expected their essays to be marked legibly and on time. “We are becoming a service society, and students increasingly think they are buying a service, for which they want a return,” he said.
“We’re on a ratchet with expectations and it’s very difficult to manage expectations downwards. We have to manage student expectations. The most old-fashioned way of doing that is to say, ‘if you don’t like what we’re offering, go elsewhere’.”
Dr Lang was one of the speakers at the Future Campus conference at Princeton’s school of architecture, which was addressed by senior staff from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and New York. Afterwards he said, “Students are more demanding. Not only do they expect a single room, it has to be en suite, have a TV in it, and be cleaned for them.”
“This spreads into the learning experience: they expect essays to be marked clearly and back within a certain number of days, and to see their tutor regularly. They want a fit-for-purpose library with all the books they need, when they need them, especially when they’re paying substantially for it. It’s part of an increasing cultural awareness of service,” Professor Lang concluded.
From Nicola Woodcock and Jack Malvern in The Times

Will electric professors dream of virtual tenure?
Last month at the NASA-Ames Research Center, a group of top scientists and business leaders gathered to plan a new university devoted to the idea that computers will soon become smarter than people. The details of Singularity University, as the new institution will be called, are still being worked out and, so far, the organisers are tight-lipped about their plans.
To hold such a discussion at all, however, is a sign of growing acceptance that a new wave of computing technologies may be just ahead, with revolutionary implications for research and teaching. The idea that gave the new university its name is championed by Ray Kurzweil, an inventor, entrepreneur, and futurist who argues that by 2030, a moment, the “singularity”, will be reached when computers will out-think human brains.
His argument is that several technologies that now seem grossly undeveloped, including nanotechnology and artificial-intelligence software, are growing at an exponential rate and thus will mature much faster than most linear-minded people realise. Once they do, computers will take leaps forward that most people can hardly imagine today.
In The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Dr Kurzweil presents a utopian vision in which these supersmart machines quickly help human researchers cure diseases and vastly extend the human life span. Many academics think that’s far-fetched; after all, early proponents of artificial intelligence made similarly bold promises decades ago that went unfulfilled.
Not, however, Ben Goertzel, director of research at the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, a private organisation promoting Dr Kurzweil’s ideas. Computers will become better at teaching than most human professors are once artificial intelligence exceeds the abilities of people, he argues.
From Jeffrey R Young in the Chronicle of Higher Education

Neither pelf nor privilege …
Academics may typically be motivated more by love of learning than money, but few are known to have negotiated their salary downwards. However, the actions of an eminent historian prove that such selflessness, intended in this case to stop cash-strapped universities from spending funds they can ill afford, does exist.
Quentin Skinner stepped down as Regius professor of modern history at the University of Cambridge this year at the age of 67. According to one of his peers, Alison Richard, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, offered to keep Professor Skinner on at the history faculty’s expense. But Professor Skinner said that, although he would have liked to stay after almost half a century at the university, he was “too expensive” and the faculty would be better served by employing two younger members of staff at the same cost. The source added, “Great heavens, they said, you can’t mean it – but he did.”
When Queen Mary, University of London, then offered him the post of Barber Beaumont professor of the humanities, Professor Skinner proceeded to “beat them down” to a lower salary; he said he only wanted to top up his pension.
In a third act of altruism, he returned his lecturing fee to the University of Bristol’s Institute for Research in the Humanities and Arts when he discovered it represented a large chunk of its annual grant. “Horrified by this, he returned the cheque for use as a postgraduate bursary,” his admiring colleague said.
And his restraint is not restricted to remuneration. In 1997, when he was appointed Regius professor of history by the Queen, he reportedly turned down the knighthood that is typically conferred upon the holder of the post. His colleague said, “He told them, ‘I can’t do that, I’m a republican.’ And when his then vice-chancellor asked him to reconsider for the sake of the university, he said, ‘No, no, my friends wouldn’t speak to me!’”
From John Gill in Times Higher Education

More international news
More international news can be found on University World News:
http://www.universityworldnews.com

AUS Tertiary Update is published weekly on Thursdays and distributed freely to members of the Association of University Staff and others. Back issues are available on the AUS website: www.aus.ac.nz. Direct inquiries should be made to the editor, email: editor@aus.ac.nz