Friday 29th June 2012 - Recent changes in the university

From time to time the Quality Assurance Agency 'inspects' the university.  We had a visit from them in 2003 and another in 2007.  We will be undergoing an inspection in the autumn of this year.  The 2003 audit was generally positive but criticised the university for having multiple means of determining degree classifications, and was exercised about the ways in which students with similar sets of marks and performance could end in different degree classes depending on which department (or faculty) they were in.  We spent some time over the next couple of years creating the complex but comprehensive process for degree classification that we now have in place.

The 2007 audit was very complimentary about us, with only a couple of suggestions for action matched against four times as many points of commendation.  That was a very agreeable outcome for us.  We had a new Vice-Chancellor, Keith Burnett, arriving at the time of the audit, and we had chosen to write our self-evaluation document in the style of an explanation to him of how we maintain standards and quality across all our degree programmes.

We have less choice on how to write our self-evaluation document this time. The QAA has said that it doesn't want a narrative, but instead is looking for an evidence-based approach largely referring to existing documents and materials.  That said, they nevertheless ask for a two page account of the main changes since the last audit.  I have been working on those pages today and will be doing so over the weekend as well. It is actually quite difficult to reduce a discussion of changes between 2007 and 2012 down to a few words.  There have just been so many major developments.

These are the ones I have chosen to highlight - I'd be interested to see if anyone has other suggestions as to what I should add (or subtract):

1.     The new Faculty structure giving full resourcing powers to Faculties and increasing their levels of autonomy to act in ways that are more appropriate for their particular portfolios of activities.  With that have come new roles such as Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellors, FDLTs and FDRIs in place of Deans.  It has also strendthened the links between the acacdemic management of programmes and the allocation of resources to them.  If anyone sees any down-sides please let me know.

2.     Changes in the management of the postgraduate research student experience.  In particular the old Graduate Research Office has gone, to be replaced by closer integration of pgr activities into Research and Innovation as a whole and the new emphasis on Doctoral Researcher Development.  That has come alongside the evolution from the old RTP to the new DDP (Doctroal Development Programme) and the creation of new Doctoral Training  Centres.

3.     The end of the validation activities that the University used to carry out for colleges.  City College, our most important partner, has become a Faculty of the University, with full integration in the academic governance of programmes.  We are involved with more collabroations world-wide, but on a basis of equal partnership arrangements, handled through new structures.

4.     Changes in our stduent enhancement regimes, with the ending of funding for our two CETLs and the evolution of new ways of bringing students into enhancement and engagement activities through schemes such as SURE (Sheffield Undergraduate Research Experience) and the SALTs (Student Amdbassadors for Learning and Teaching).

5.     Changes in the student composition.  In particular, the nearly doubling of overseas students and the consequent changes in the need for student support activities - particularly (but not exclusively) in the English Language Teaching Centre.  Reductions in the numbers of undergraduate part-time students and the upcoming reorganisation of The Institute for Lifelong Learning (TILL).

Those are my top five.  What are yours?

Tuesday 19th June 2012 - London

I have a lot of meetings in London - sometimes two a week.  Most are not sessions where I am representing the University of Sheffield, although some are: most are in connection with various national groups of which I am a member - particularly for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) or the Higher Education Academy (HEA), but also some of the working groups of the Russell Group.  Today I had two London meetings - one at 0900 and the other at 1800. Rather than getting up at the crack of dawn and catching the first train, I travelled down after work yesterday and stayed in a hotel.

Three points have occurred to me during the day.

The first is about graduate destinations.  Both yesterday evening as I went in search of a meal, and this morning as I walked from my hotel to the location of my 0900 meeting I observed many people in their 20s and early 30s who I strongly suspect were graduates.  They were in (and outside) the pubs - it was a lovely evening yesterday; they were in small groups in the restaurants, often with a folder to hand suggesting they were on their way home from work; this morning they were hurrying through the streets of Covent Garden and Leicester Square and disappearing into offices, coffee and croissant in hand.  A disciplinary colleague of mine has described London as an 'escalator region' for graduates. Whilst other regions have career stairways that graduates can climb one by one, London provides opportunities for much more rapid advance - an escalator rather than a staircase - but one where the individual can decide at what point they want to get off and move elsewhere.  Every year I regret the negative attitudes that many of my students have to starting their careers in London - the attitude of 'anywhere but London' is rife and I think results in some of our graduates taking longer to fulfil their potential than they might.  Perhaps introcuing our students to possible role models who have taken the plunge and moved to London might help.

My second point relates to the timing of my day's meetings.  0900 is not a good time for those from outside London to assemble (it's not good for many from the outer suburbs of London either - London generally works on a later daily schedule than other British cities).  Many meetings convened by those who live and work in London do not take account of the travel arrangements of others.  Colleagues at my 0900 meeting had travelled from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - all, like me, had arrived the previous evening.   .And when London meetings are scheduled with good start times (1100 is suitable for people from most parts of the UK, either by train or plane) the pleasure taken by Londoners if the meeting finishes early is not shared by those who have come some distance.  If the timing for a meeting is indicated in the agenda as 1100 to 1500 then those of us from outside London, in order to cut costs, buy advance purchase rail tickets tying us to a specific return train.  A meeting that finishes an hour early results in us kicking our heels waiting for the clock to reach the original schedule.

But my third point is very personal.  I am an urban geographer. I love the buzz of big European cities.  I love the heterogeneity of the people, the variety of the buildings, the quirks of backstreets.   Central London last night and early this morning was an absolute joy (to me at least).  I don't really have any regrets about having to be there for an 0900 meeting today.