Like many academics (I guess) I'm never that keen on the thought of marking, but when I get down to doing it I generally find it quite pleasurable - and often very rewarding.  I have a general rule of not working on Friday evenings or Saturdays, but I have a pile of third year projects from my option seminar class that were handed in a little while ago. And as the person who pushed through Senate the promise that comments on projects would get turned around within three weeks, I need to keep that new pledge intact myself.  Hence I've settled down after dinner this evening and made a start.

Marking what turns out to be a good piece of work can actually open up new understanding for me, make me think differently, and can tell me things I didn't know.  That's already happened this evening in a project where the student, through some very sensible searching of government data sources, has updated my knowledge of social trends in a key European state.  I've also been treated to some thought-provoking observations on the relevance of a set of social theories for a series of situations that were far outside the realms where those theories have been previously applied.

On the other hand, I've also realised where certain things I've tried to get across in my teaching have not been received in quite the way I had intended, and I've been led to reconsider some of the advice that I need to give the students next time round.  So marking can be both a learning task for the marker, and also a very reflective one.

But my problem at the moment is that although I've made a good start there are still over 20 projects to go.  It looks like I may have to break the other half of my weekend rule, and work on Saturday.

That's all for this blogging month. One more month to go to fulfil the promise I made at the start of the year.

I have spent a lot of time today on events surrounding the occupation of two lecture theatres in the Hicks Building by students protesting at impending cuts to university funding.  One of my roles has been as the media spokesman for the university, and during the day this has involved two live-to-air interviews for Radio Sheffield, and a recorded package for BBC Look North.  ITV's Calendar had booked a slot for an interview but ultimately failed to show up.  One of the Radio Sheffield interviews took place in their studios in Shoreham Street and the other was via my mobile phone in my own room in the university.

I felt reasonably happy with what I managed to say in each of these pieces. I believe I have certainly benefited from two intense episodes of media training that I have undertaken, and I am by no means a stranger to being interviewed to camera.  But it is always an experience that gets the adrenalin flowing.  Particularly with live interviews, there is the danger of choosing the wrong word or coming up with a formula that one later regrets. But on the other hand in a live interview there is the chance of talking direct to the audience. If the interviewer allows the interviewee some space it is the latter who effectively takes the bulk of editorial control - and needs to make use of that to get their message across. In an interview with Rony Robinson this morning in the studio he allowed me that time and I was grateful for it.

The later package for Look North was rather different.  Of the 7 or 8 sentences I gave them to camera they edited the piece down so that only 1 was used: they take editorial control and used what I said in ways that fitted their story-line (although it must be added that I had fed them some ideas on what that line might be when they were discussing how to approach the item).  The package they eventually came up with, which was used on both their lunchtime and early evening bulletins, was actually very sound - but if they had wanted they could have used my material in a way that would have given a very different slant to the story.

In the third item today the interviewer 'broke the rules' in certain respects by not telling me in advance that I would be interviewed directly after a live interview with one of the occupiers (by then 'former occupiers').  Actually I was happy to agree with much of what she said, although deprecating the way in which the protesters were making their points, but this could have become more confrontational.

There's a lot involved in even the shortest news item, particularly on sensitive issues such as those being dealt with today.  But it's also chastening to the academic in me to realise that those short items reached many more people than my books or research papers ever will.  During the evening a number of people from all over the country, from walks of life far removed from academia, have been in touch to say that they saw or heard me or have been told about my appearances by others who did.  

In 2007 the University was subject to Institutional Audit, in which the Quality Assurance Agency came to inspect us to provide assurance to the funding council that we had in place good procedures to manage the quality of the student experience. This year we have to produce an interim report on the development of our systems and strategies since then, because we are about half way between two audits - that of 2007 and the next one which we can expect to take place in around 2013.

QAA Institutional Audit is one of the regulatory mechanisms that applies to universities. There are many others.  Last week, at a conference in London, I was involved in a debate on a motion along the lines that "If they give us less public money, they should regulate us less."  The motion was proposed by Eeva Leinonen, Vice-Principal for Learning and Teaching at Kings College London, and me.  It was opposed by Stephen Jackson from the Quality Assurance Agency, and by Liam Burns, the President of NUS Scotland.  I am pleased to say (given the side I was taking) that the motion was won with a vote of (as I recall) 25 in favour, 8 against, and 5 abstentions.

But I am under no illusion that actually we are moving towards a more regulated environment.  Eeva and I argued that with students paying more it should be them that regulated us more, through the freeing up of numbers caps so that students flow to quality programmes and away from those that are less satisfactory.  But interestingly that was not how Liam saw things.  He wanted the student interest to be backed by a strong regulatory body to ensure that the promises universities make are actually fulfilled - and that students have a come-back against universities that don't deliver.

Lord Browne has commented that his review needed to usher in a new set of regulatory mechanisms for new times, and that the burden of regulation should be reduced.  But at the same time his report suggested more regulation of the teaching qualifications of university staff; of the delivery of widening participation strategies; and of methods of delivery in priority subjects. There will doubtless be a watchdog over the new Key Information Set which all universities will be required to produce.  I had calculated for the debate last week that the annual total cost of regulation and compliance at the University of Sheffield is probably around £800k, or around the cost of a small department in Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences.

Given the choice I would prefer the department, rather than compliance, and I would give students the power to vote with their feet against poor provision and in favour of good.  But I fear that this view will not prevail.  And thus, at a time of budgetary constraint, we will actually have to end up spending yet more on meeting regulatory and compliance burdens.  It is not a happy prospect.

Accepting an invitation to review a new book is a very risky business.  Unless one knows the author's work well, one has little to indicate whether the experience is going to be enjoyable or painful.  Over the years I have written book reviews where the book has been so interesting and provocative that I have pored over every word and spent three times as long on the task as I should - but I have equally taken on some volumes that really ought not have been published at all.

Writing a negative review often takes longer than a positive one.  No author offered a positive review is going to complain if they have been slightly mis-represented.  But an author whose work is savaged by a reviewer is likely to try to impugn the level of understanding of the reviewer, or to try to demonstrate that they have not read the book properly.  I have (via publishers) received complaints about my comments: but I've never received the ultimate put down from an author that is recorded against the composer Reger who is reputed to have written to a critic "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house.  I have your review before me.  In a moment it will be behind me."

I spent the journey back from Newcastle this evening considering a book review I have agreed to produce for the Times Higher on a book that has very little purpose.  It has been translated (somewhat literally) from another language, and has no argument whatsoever to it - consisting almost entirely of disjointed paragraphs that are all stuffed full of dates, names of people, and street addresses where they lived or worked.  The only saving grace in the book is that it is exceptionally well illustrated with stunning plates that are very well produced.

If only the book had been interesting, challenging and worthwhile. In that case I'd have polished off a favourbale review by now - conpleted my allotted 600 words and moved on.  But now I face doing some background research on the authors; seeking to see if the book has actually been published in its original language and perhaps abridged from that; and fact checking to make sure that where I am about to be negative I am on sure ground. Book reviewing is rather like dealing with students - the best books and students take very little time; but the worst require a great deal of care and attention.  But a poor student may be redeemable; with a poor book it is already too late.

I am writing this while sitting in a hotel room in Newcastle.  I arrived a few minutes ago, just after 10 p.m., and am here to spend most of tomorrow acting as the external advisor on an interview panel at the University of Newcastle where they are seeking to appoint a new PVC for Learning, Teaching and Student Experience (their local title for the role).  Earlier on today I spent over an hour in a three-way meeting with Michael Arthur and Wendy Piatt.  Michael is VC at Leeds but also chair of the Russell Group, whilst Wendy is the chief executive of the group.  I took over a couple of months ago as the convenor of the Russell Group's network of PVCs for learning and teaching, so I was trying to speak for all 20 universities in the Group.

At a time when many people are expecting a new spirit of competition between universities, it may seem strange that we actually co-operate very considerably.  Last week I spent nearly 24 hours chairing the Higher Education Academy's PVC / DVC network at a meeting in London.  That was attended by around 45 PVCs from all round Britain, and our guest speaker at dinner was Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England.  Much of the talk at the meeting, particularly the 'bar' and 'coffee' talk, was about common issues we are all facing.

The fact is that around the sector there is actually more co-operation than competition.  Particular at the present time, we can only approach an understanding of the complex new post-Browne and post-CSR worlds if we can recognise the possible effects on the higher education sector as a whole, and on different institutions in different parts of the sector.  Political processes will in some cases be driven by local considerations, and a variety of lobby groups could also have specific effects.  As the VC has said in an article in the Times Higher and in various other communications, the sector actually needs to stand together - the proposed changes in funding are a threat to the whole of English high education and not just to individual institutions.

We can learn a lot from talking to each other about how we are tackling common issues such as widening participation, the provision of high quality teaching accommodation, responses to the removal of teaching funding from Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences subjects, and views on new regulatory burdens that are likely to be introduced in the next few months.  I am sure I will return from Newcastle after tomorrow with new ideas on various issues. The only problem then in my very crowded diary will be finding the time to jot them down and start actioning any of them!

It has been a very busy month since I last blogged – not just for me but for everyone else in the university, I am sure.  The combination of the Browne Report, the Comprehensive Spending Review announced on 20 October, and the government’s response to (a small number of issues arising from) the Browne Report on 3 November has created a situation where we face greater uncertainties in UK higher education than at any time since the early 1980s. During the last month I have been involved in a number of discussions about these matters – at a private conference for the HEFCE board and its five strategic advisory committees, at a dinner I hosted last week at which Sir Alan Langlands (Chief Executive of the funding council) was the guest speaker, and with colleagues from the Russell Group and a variety of other universities.

But I want to start this penultimate blogging week by mentioning what I have been doing over the last few days.  I am writing this on the train on the way back from Gatwick Airport, having flown in earlier this evening from Thessaloniki where I have been visiting our International Faculty – CITY College.  I spent Thursday and Friday there with four senior colleagues from across the University, in discussions with a variety of staff, meeting students, and being involved in a series of workshops over issues such as the next Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy; handling assessment feedback; handling complaints and appeals; developing students’ employability and so on. 

We in Sheffield have a lot to learn from aspects of what CITY does.  As one of my colleagues said after the workshop day on Friday: “They don’t realise how good they are.”  CITY has cracked (or partially done so) a number of issues that we in Sheffield find challenging – for example, creating an international environment on campus, and fully involving employers in all programmes.  And as a private college they have done so with no direct public support (except sometimes through government scholarships for students).  They have been entrepreneurial in seeking out new areas of business.  A CITY colleague who also has experience at Sheffield, and to whom I was talking at dinner on Friday, has offered to produce a brief paper on what Sheffield might learn from her colleagues in Greece.

My final event at CITY took place last night when the Principal of the college and I had dinner with the Minister of Education of the Republic of Macedonia who had undertaken the 5 hour round trip from Skopje (or had got his driver to do so!) simply to discuss ideas for a CITY / Sheffield academy for managers to be developed, with some funding from the Macedonian government, in his own country.  CITY doesn’t just deliver the Sheffield experience in Greece: it currently does so in Serbia, in Romania, in Bulgaria, in the Ukraine – and soon in Albania and Turkey.  We were joined at dinner by another Macedonian government official – who took the International Faculty’s MBA and who is thus a Sheffield alumnus, and who is now starting on a PhD supervised jointly from a department at Sheffield and by a colleague at CITY.  The esteem in which the University of Sheffield, and the International Faculty at CITY College, is held in south-eastern Europe is considerable: here was a minister suggesting developing a programme with a foreign institution rather than with one of the 5 universities that he funds within his own country.  So I reflect that in addition to my colleague’s view that CITY staff don’t realise the quality of what they are doing, I would say “We don’t seem to recognise the potential that CITY has created for the University in the region.”  And we are going to have to develop something of the entrepreneurialism of CITY in the coming months and years.

(And before anyone thinks they can trip me up over the fact that I referred above to the Republic of Macedonia, I know all about the disputes about its name – the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Northern Macedonia and so on.  We thrashed that one around in a good-natured way last night, but the combination around the restaurant table of English, Greeks and Macedonians did not manage to come up with a solution acceptable to all parties.)