It’s the time of year when students’ minds are on multiple things – exams, jobs, the vacation.  I am an ‘ambulant’ PVC, keeping my base in my own department and often walking around campus to meet colleagues elsewhere or to attend meetings. Here are a few snatches of student conversations I’ve overhead while doing so in the last few days:

Good luck with it and take care [to a friend just entering the Western Bank Library]

I’m off for an all-nighter in the IC

I e-mailed him to ask to see him but he said he was too busy and would get back to me when he had the time.

… wasn’t really interested in the course but I took it because he’s a fantastic lecturer

… that description about solutions that stick.  What did you make of it? …

I’ve just handed in one essay, another next week and then it’s on to the dissertation.

When is it all going to end?

I’ve just had my head down doing my essay. I hadn’t realised things were so bad.  If the government says no one should go do you think we’ll get all our money back? [Clearly talking about Thailand]

… so I’ve got two interviews – for my dream job.

I’ve never been interested in Turkey – never have, nor Greece.  My sister goes every year though.

There will be no blog tomorrow (Friday) as I’m on leave.  So that’s it for May.

There are a remarkable number of companies and other organisations that have decided that Universities are a soft touch for conference attendance.  They put on a string of 'absolutely essential' one day events, almost always in London, with a series of 'high profile' speakers - and then charge between £300 and £500 for registration and a lunch (which is sometimes quite good, I must admit).  Today I have been assailed by invitations, often personalised ones (the joys of mailmerge), to attend quite a number all built around the theme of the delivery of teaching excellence under the new government.

It is certainly the case that a good cross-university conference can be an excellent opportunity to gain some insight on the thinking of key policy-makers, to hear how particular issues are being tackled in other universities, and to network with a variety of colleagues during the breaks.  I have been at some excellent events of this nature at UUK headquarters in Woburn Place. The charge for these tends to be little more than the cost of refreshments.  UUK meetings also draw in politicians, heads of relevant bodies and key thinkers from various lobby or mission groups.

But there is one particular organisation whose meetings I delete from my attention as soon as I see their logo - knowing they will all be fronted by the same ex-media-commentator and that their charges will be unjustifiable.

What do I look for in a conference intended to aid an understanding of the policy context or higher education's strategic concerns?
1. I look for high profile speakers who I haven't heard or met before.  Once I've heard them once I don't want to hear them again until there is some new development in their field.
2. I look for speakers who come from universities that are similar in mission to Sheffield.  Where that isn't the case any discussion is likely to be dominated by the concerns of very different parts of the whole higher education sector.
3. I look for a programme that is not packed with lots of short interventions - thereby ensuring that a lot of people will of necessity turn up to ensure good numbers.  I should point out that even with high fees, many conferences do not pay their speakers even their expenses - and sometimes ask them to register and pay the registration costs (presumably in the assumption that the vanity of senior colleagues to be heard will ensure that they will acquiesce).

On this basis every one of the conference notices I have received today has gone in the bin or been greeted with a quick deployment of the 'delete' button.   

But you may regard me as a hypocrite.  Something that I did do today was to send off my mini-biography for the programme of a conference that I am speaking at towards the end of June. It's actually a meeting that accords with my three criteria above.  I've been invited because of two things that I do - firstly that I am a member of the Higher Education Funding Council's Strategic Advisory Committee on Teaching Quality and the Student Experience (this is the committee that advises the HEFCE Board on all aspects of teaching policy); and secondly (as I have reported in previous posts on this blog) I am the co-chair of the Higher Education Academy's national network of Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Learning and Teaching.  Speaking at the conference will mean an overnight trip to London and no expenses or fee (although I don't have to pay for registration for this particular organisation).  But the other speakers are ones I want to talk to over coffee or lunch to get their views on where we are heading in the new world of a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.  On the other hand, I was signed up for this one before we even had the election.

Almost everyone connected with the university is an achiever.  A high proportion of staff hold degrees, professional qualifications or have been successful in some sort of training: all our students have strong achievements to their names before they arrive here: that is a sine qua non for them being here.

This evening I have been at an event that celebrated those for whom achievement is only starting to be within their grasp - and who may never actually make it in the way I have described above.  Yet the role of the university in trying to stretch their ambitions is very considerable.  We had around 200 visitors to the Octagon Centre this evening for the presentation of certificates to young people from schools around South Yorkshire who have successfully completed a series of tasks with the help of mentors (ambassadors) from within our student population.  The young people are from backgrounds where there is no experience of university, and little recognition of what higher education may do for an individual's life chances.  Those who came on the stage to receive certificates from me were from Y9 to Y13.  All had had a role model presented to them in the form of a current student, and we celebrated their dedication as well: many of our students told me how worthwhile they felt the whole project had been.

A month or two ago I was at an awards evening at the Sixth Form College where I am a governor. On that occasion I was not presenting the certificates - that was being done by Phil Jones from Sheffield Hallam and David Blunkett (in whose constituency the College lies).  Many of the awards were for academic work.  Some were for non-academic achievement - support for newly arriving mid-year students, help with pastoral work and so on.  But towards the end of the evening there were awards for students who had entered the college aged 16 with no formal qualifications at all - no GCSEs for example - but who were now established in a work routine that might lead to them achieving certificates within a year or two.  There was something very touching about these young people as they came onto the stage - an air of mixed defiance at being involved in an event that was not really very cool in their eyes, mixed with a feeling of pride that perhaps for the first time in their lives they were being praised for something.  It may actually have been the first time they had ever felt pride in themselves for something that other people would also recognise as meritorious.  I met a group of the lads outside the college afterwards and congratulated them on their awards - once again they didn't quite know how to react but they seemed pleased I had commented.  But I noticed that while all those who had won awards for academic achievement had their parents with them, none of these winners of awards for just turning up regularly and punctually was accompanied by any family member.

In my view it is important that a university that thrives on excellence and achievement should do whatever it can, in whatever way possible, to try to encourage aspiration raising and achievement in those who may ultimately not engage further with us - but who can benefit greatly from our encouragement, particularly where there is little else encouraging in their lives.   

I spent some time this morning at both the Senate Nominations Committee (which I chair) and the Council Nominations Committee.  These are the groups that ultimately make recommendations on the most appropriate composition of a wide variety of university committees and panels - within the parameters laid down for each such body.  One of the difficulties lies in achieving a balance between experience and opportunity.  Clearly many deliberative bodies within the University work much better if they have those with wisdom and a knowledge of precedent as key contributors.  But committee work also provides a wonderful opportunity for more junior colleagues to start to grasp something of the organisational structure of the University, and to realise new ways in which their own career development could be enhanced as well as making a difference more widely.

During my time in the University I have witnessed a general reduction in the volume of extra-departmental committee opportunities available to younger staff. In part this is to be welcomed and has come about through the streamlining of many processes that at one time required several Faculty stages as well as further consideration at University level (often in more than one body).  But with that streamlining we have got into a position where the level of representation on (for example) Faculty committees is often now confined to Heads of Department, Directors of Teaching or Research and the like.  Within three years of my appointment to the University I was asked to sit on a Faculty Board - which met at least twice a 'term' with 3 hour meetings punctuated by a tea break after which the student representatives left so that 'reserved business' dealing with individual staff and students could be transacted.  I don't want to turn the clock back to those times.  But it did mean that I quickly developed a network of friends and connections in departments other than my own, and it also meant that I started to get an inkling of how the University worked.

Perhaps it also gave me the confidence to put my head above the parapet and write the letter to the University Newspaper that in some ways set me on track to develop a wider profile across the institution.  This letter was one of protest that the newly-opened Octagon Centre (yes: I have been here a long time) had as one of its first hirings a boxing promotion - which I felt was incompatible with the standards of civilised behaviour one should expect in a university.   It was on the basis of the profile I developed through that letter that shortly afterwards I was approached to become Sub-Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences - a position that no longer exists. That was my first taste of university administration.

I would be interested in views from others as to what we might (ought?) to do to encourage younger colleagues to start to develop a sense of the university as a whole self-governing community.  I strongly believe that such governance is not something that should simply be left to senior figures.

Several people have said that they found the format of last month's posts - where I produced an annotated daily diary - both interesting and informative.  But I intend this month to revert to commenting on individual items in my schedule that I think might be of interest to readers around the university.

The key event of the past month has been the general election, with an outturn that is actually rather unclear in its implications for higher education.  The formal 7 page agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats contains relatively little on universities. One of the key opt-outs for the coalition is for the Liberal Democrats not to be bound to vote in favour of any policy that results from Lord Browne's review of university funding and student fees.  Of course we knew that the Liberal Democrats were committed to the abolution of tuition fees - although their position on when this could be achieved had become very vague by the time of the election.  Although at one time I was guessing that the Browne Review would conclude in July 2010, this is now looking increasingly unlikely. That would push back any likely introduction of changes until 2012 at the earliest.

The coalition agreement has a deafening silence on funding for research, and I suspect that reflects a lack of real interest in the topic from either of the coalition partners.

And the statement on immigration provides no clues as to the attitude the new government might take to the impact of the points-based immigration system on students - a key issue for many universities.  I went with a small group of other Russell Group PVCs for Learning and Teaching to meet the Conservative spokesman on immigration a couple of months ago, and he at least was giving every appearance of listening to us then.

So we are in for an interesting period during which I hope some clear lines start to emerge to tell us how this new government is going to relate to universities.