HACkers blog

While we squabble about what we mean by "research-led", having decided it's what we want to be, evidence from elsewhere suggests that this might not be such a good thing where teaching and learning is concerned.

A study by the Higher Education Policy Institute in the UK of English Universities concluded that the "newer" (ex-Polytechnic) universities were outperforming the "research-led" universities - aside from Oxford and Cambridge - where it came to undergraduate teaching and learning. The large-scale survey, funded by the Higher Education Academy, found that "research-led" provided less contact hours; less small group tutorial teaching and more large classes; and less teaching by qualified academic staff and more by postgraduate teaching assistants.

The authors argue that the university leaders' "obsession" with research is detrimental to students, and is disproportionate, given that foreign students bring in more revenue than does the research assessment exercise.

Which, of course, raises a question - should we pay most attention to what pays most money, or are some activities intrinsically more valuable in ways less easy to reflect on a balance sheet?

Yet anther missive from Bremner arrives to castigate those who do not share the same bureaucratic priorities. And is duly tossed into an overflowing inbox, to await that mythical visitor, "Spare Time".

But, following on other discussions, it provokes whiskied cogitations on what Bremner's Inferno would look like.

image from http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/imagemid/inferno.jpg

The first circle is for those who lack faith. These sceptics can be seen at meetings all over Campus, whenever something is presented - like a new Student Admin System that will make life simpler, faster, better. They say nothing - they needn't. They've seen this all before...

The second circle is for those overcome by lust. Since we know that sexual activity is positively correlated with coffee drinking, coffee consumption will be used as a proxy measure for lust, and the frequent patrons of Java Junction and Nescafe will summarily be consigned to this circle.

The third circle is for the gluttons. In a resource-constrained environment, overconsumption is bad to the point of evil. This circle wil include anyone who exceeds the norm for consumption of anything. One printer cartridge too many, and you're here for eternity.

The fourth circle is for the spendthrifts. Those whose monthly phone bill exceeds the Faculty-sanctioned R30, or the HoDs who blow their entire Non-Recurrent Staffing budget within the first three months, knowing they'll be bailed out at the expense of the avaricious. With whom they share this circle. It's basically for anyone who doesn't stick to their approved Spending Plan.

The fifth circle is for the slothful. And because this is as defined by Bremner, it includes anyone whose priorities differ. Including those who do not religiously sign and return those lists that accompany the payslips every month. And those who can't be bothered to spend an entire day trying to catch the authentication server in an up moment so as to download the correct, latest, officially-sanctioned versions of SAP forms to apply for leave, take on a new tutor or Bad, bad, bad!

The sixth circle is for the heretics. Bad people, heretics. These can range from those who argue that the academic project, rather than the spreadsheet, should drive our key decisions, to those who think that the shortened exam period with its half-minute swot week is having a negative effect on our teaching and learning. And pretty much anyone whose first or second name is David, who speaks in Senate.

The seventh circle is for the violent, and is divided into three rings:

• * The outer ring houses those violent against people and property. Especially those who spill coffee on their keyboards!
• * The middle ring houses the suicides. This includes killing one's mind - if an academic - by engaging in discussions with those employed to have hands but not minds (those not on academic conditions of employment). The mind of an academic is University Property, after all, so this category really collapses into the one above.
• * The inner ring houses the blasphemous. Choose your god carefully - if it's not the one officially sanctioned by the Church of Neoliberalism, this is where you'll end up!

The eighth circle, housing the fraudulent, is divided into ten ditches.

1. 1. Panderers and seducers - unless you're trying to get students into one of the courses that attract the highest subsidy. Then it's OK.
2. 2. Flatterers - but because testing the veracity of claims is tiresome, anyone giving any kind of positive feedback will be included here. You don't want to increase anyone's sense of self-worth, after all - they'll just demand more pay!
3. 3. Simonists include those who attained positions in Bremner improperly. For example, through completing a Higher Degree in a cognate discipline which actually qualifies them to do their jobs. In themselves, Higher Degrees are suspect as they raise suspicion that the holder may have <ulp!> academic leanings, but if it's in something completely unrelated, and therefore useless, it can be forgiven if sufficient deference is shown to the Real Priorities.
4. 4. False prophets include all those who said that programmes would never work. That outsourcing was a bad idea. That RFJ and Performance Management would create skewed focus. Their prescience - however obvious - is cause enough for any punishment visited on them.
5. 5. The corrupt deserve their fate. If they were good enough at it, or did it on a large enough scale, they'd be movers and shakers. Getting caught - ah, well...
6. 6. Hypocrits include those who read both Varsity and the Wednesday Paper. It's a choice - either the spin, or the free press. You can't hunt with the hounds and run with the hares.
7. 7. Thieves - not just those who "inadvertently" carry off pens or paperclips, or make private calls. Oh no - every minute your mind is wondering if you switched off the stove before you left home is a minute stolen from the University.
8. 8. Fraudulent advisors - those who encourage staff to go on training courses to develop themselves. They'll get ideas and want to improve systems and procedures. This is not allowed. Don't encourage people to think - they might just.
9. 9. Sowers of discord - people who give colleagues or underkicks positive feedback and mean it. They'll think they're better than their jobs, or their salaries, and agitate for better. Which they won't get, so don't give them ideas.
10. 10. Falsifiers - anyone who submits a departmental budget.

The ninth circle, for traitors, is divided into four zones:

1. 1. Traitors to their kindred - including anyone who makes themselves available to students. Bad work norm that creates....
2. 2. Traitors to political entities - including anyone who thinks that cross-faculty collaboration is a good idea. No point in setting up competing units in a resource-scarce environment if someone's going to spoil the game by cooperating with the enemy!
3. 3. Traitors to their guests - including those who try to "educate" their students and teach them to think critically, rather than training them to be cogs in the machine, as required by The Market.
4. 4. Traitors to their benefactors - anyone whose immediate response on receipt of their payslip is not to fall down on their knees in grateful thanks, and send effusive emails of profound gratitude to HR for continuing to retain their records in the SAP database.

Now, that's enough time spent reading this. Or do you plan to hand back your salary cheque with a profuse apology for stealing University resources??

 (More)

"Send me your paper" is the academic equivalent of the airkiss.

Perhaps after spending three days bitching about the disciplinary luminaries, grumbling about the tardiness of the coffee and getting legless together in the evenings, people feel a sense of obligation to people they've never met before and are unlikely to meet again - until next year's conference. Almost as if some intimacy barrier has been crossed - like the awkwardness of breakfasting together after a one-night stand.

The business cards collect like used condoms bearing testimony to encounters intense, immediate, but ultimately fleeting. By the time the CD arrives with all the papers, or the proceedings are published, one can barely match a name to a face to an argument.

But sometimes, just sometimes... one of those old, dog-eared papers turns up in a forgotten conference bag or under a heap of teaching hand-outs, and reminds one of something someone else mentioned an interest in. Dusting off a manila envelope, one slips it into the infernal mail, and somewhere, perhaps, an idea germinates after all.

News reports yesterday spoke of a trial interrupted because of HIV. Which made me reflect on how often HIV interrupts our lives in other ways.

Including The Talk.

The Talk that all responsible people are supposed to have when they're embarking on a new sexual liaison. Which includes the minefield of How Many Previous Lovers to admit to having had.

Given that one is trying to talk the clothes off the other person - assuming they're not the inflatable variety - this becomes very tricky, and is all about second-guessing what their norms are regarding too many vs too few, rather than about the "honesty" one is trying to fake.

Too many, and they're worried their best buddy is also on that list, and that you'll be comparing. Way too many, and they're out of there, worrying if they haven't already perhaps picked up a disease simply by talking to you.

Too few, and they're wondering if they're wasting their time - after all, this is supposed to be about enjoyment, not about education. Way too few and they're wondering why - perhaps they're so drunk that their beer goggles are misleading them about any attractiveness they're attributing in your direction.

So getting it right is a Big Deal.

I was recently offered the following suggestion:

• If the person is conservative, three to six is appropriate.
• If they're not conservative, a number in the teens will work.
• If they're a sexual radical, you should be safe with the truth.

Which is all very well if you are an accountant who records everything in an Excel spreadsheet. Those of us who rely on our memory alone have a more difficult task. What is "the truth"? Given the investment in forgetting all those Best Forgotten incidents that are too tragic to remember, or the pinnacles of mediocrity that one simply can't remember, how do you know when you've reached the end of your mental list?

Again, coming up with a number too quickly suggests artifice, planning... lying. Spending too long trying to reach a number suggests discomfort, panic... lying.

AAAAAAAAAARGH!!

How on earth do people still manage to get it together, with all that going on??

 (More)

The UK Minister of Higher Education has voiced his support for universities banning students wearing niqab. Hijab still enjoyed his support, but his tolerance was outweighed by his discomfort when it came to the face being covered.

This, somehow, is supposed to undermine the "extremism" that led to the UK's suicide bomb attacks on the tubes and bus last July.

The article in the Guardian quoted him as saying:

"Many teachers would feel very uncomfortable about their ability to teach students who were covering their faces... And I doubt many students would feel it was acceptable to be taught by someone who had chosen to veil their face."

Interesting notion, that - clearly we should tolerate only that which feels comfortable to us, and which we deem acceptable.

If one of my students arrives in lycra cycle shorts, and I feel uncomfortable about my ability to teach students in lycra cycle shorts, can we please ban those?

Or what if... <whisper> the students find it unacceptable to be taught by someone who <even quieter whisper> wears stripey legwarmers.... will those get banned, too?

I realised recently that I don't like RSS.

I can understand that there are some people who are simply too busy to engage in a deep and meaningless relationship with Google or Technorati, and who prefer their information shoveled at them in great spadesful rather than spending the time themselves to sift through what they really want. In this attention economy, after all, the way to get around information overload is to make it rush at you rather than going after it when you want it.

But to me, RSS is like Purity Chicken a la King - predigested, all the taste and texture removed. While the nutritional value might remain, who cares if the joy of eating it is removed, and a mushroom is indistinguishable from a noodle?

Context matters. Presentation matters. How boring life would be if we only ever had meat without the salads, sex without the seduction, the final act without the overture?

According to reports, a South African diplomat has been sent home from London because of his sons' behaviour. His response to news of his recall was apparently, "Children will be children".

And, given that one of the incidents which led to the recall was his 12year old son taking a toy gun to school, one might agree. Admittedly, that is the sort of behaviour children usually outgrow at around eight years of age, unless they've taken to wearing black trenchcoats and writing emo poetry.

But the other incident was rather more disturbing. His 19year old son took part in an armed robbery two years ago. Knife crime among adolescents has sparked major concern in the UK in recent years, and in this context one can understand their reluctance to harbour people who are immune from prosecution because of their diplomatic status.

To dismiss armed robbery with a statement like "children will be children" does adolescents everywhere a disservice. For many teenagers, it is not "normal" to form knife-wielding gangs to rob others of their possessions, and the fact that some parents consider this behaviour "normal" is alarming. Perhaps it is too common in our schools, and perhaps desensitisation has taken place, outside of the polite suburbs.

Perhaps, too, it is simply the flip side of a social obsession with some idealised notion of "childhood past", some Golden Age against which today's childhood can be classified "toxic", today's children pitied - and feared. Recent press paranoia about MXit - largely ill-informed - reveals a generation that is reluctant to engage, unwilling to admit ignorance and unable to accept that anything not under their control can be anything but evil.

Perhaps if the middle-aged guardians of social mores were a little more honest in their reconstructed rememberings of their own adolescent years, beyond the airbrushed convenience that age brings, the debates on childhood might progress beyond stereotypes of good and evil, and allow real engagement with the challenges and choices that real children face in real time, without the judgment.

"Unintended consequences", like "collateral damage", is one of those weasle-phrases bequeathed us by the current social order. Just as the fear that follows the non-striking Supercare workers is deemed an "unintended consequence" of the Code of Conduct that chloroforms our consciences for having outsourced cleaning services in the first place, so the collapse of education in Iraq is likely to be shrugged off as an "unintended consequence" of America's imperial ambitions in that region.

Our silence on both - as an institution, and as individuals within an institution - is deafening.

Many people on Campus are not even aware that there is a strike in the cleaning sector.

And, while we have a wall to remind us that the Middle East exists just off the radar screen, Iraq is something few people devote too much neural activity to these days.

And while our ability to act on the Iraqi issue might be limited to symbolic action, we can certainly act in more material ways to support the cleaning sector workers - both those who are not striking, and those who are.

True life confessions - I'm terrified of Librarians.

This might be due to some deeply repressed trauma in my youth.

More likely, though, it's due to the fact that at any given moment, Wanted! posters with my picture on them adorn the quiet walls of at least half a dozen libraries. Late books. Unpaid fines. Tardy renewals. Capital crimes in library land.

(Quick count - five libraries, currently. OK, it's been a better month than most...)

However, Tony showed me an article in the latest Wednesday Paper reporting on some of our Librarians who've clearly been up to things other than harrumphing loudly when someone's cellphone goes off among the holy shelves. Two of whom are a familiar presence on this very blogspot!

Well done, guys - it's great to see quality being recognised and acknowledged.

Now, I'll slink off quietly with a paper bag over my head, if you'll excuse me...

Saturday was the first anniversary of the publication of the Danish anti-Muslim cartoons, and, appropriately enough, SACOMM scheduled a paper by Nicola Jones on the subject.

The paper argued that, while the cartoons constituted hateful speech, they did not constitute hate speech, and the commissioning editor was thus right to exercise his freedom in publishing them.

The argument centred around intent. Hate speech, it argued, was characterised by an incitement to violence or harm; if this was present in the intent, it was hate speech. If this was not intended, it was merely hateful speech - irrespective of 139 dead in its unintended wake.

Which sounds a bit like being found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder - "Your Honour, I really didn't intend to kill the victim. I merely pressed the gun against his temple and pulled the trigger - I had no idea that death could result from my actions."

Freedoms are wonderful things. But they are not absolute, and they come with responsibilities. The Danish editor might, on looking back, not have any regrets about his decision, but the families of 139 people who died as a result, almost certainly do.