Thursday 30th January 2014 - Confusing titles in higher education

I spent part of today with a couple of Principals, a couple of Presidents, and a Rector -  as well as some Vice-Chancellors.  Most of these people were all actually in the same role - head of a university.  But there were a number of different titles on display. During the day I also met some Provosts and some Deputy Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors.  There were also Chancellors at the dinner I attended in the evening. A number of Pro-Chancellors and Chairs of University Councils were also present.

Most people, even those working in Universities, would find it hard actually to disentangle this variety of titles.  Students certainly find it difficult, and ordinary people in the street must find it even harder.  In my role as Pro-Vice-Chancellor I sometimes refer to my 'boss', and students then ask who the Chancellor is - leading me into explanations of the fact that the University's 'boss' is the Vice-Chancellor and that despite what seems to be a subservient title he is the head of the university and that role does not lie with the Chancellor.  But then in other universities the person in charge is the Principal, or the President, or the President and Vice-Chancellor (which sounds like two different people), or the Warden, or the Rector.  And Pro-Vice-Chancellors elsewhere are known as Pro-Wardens, or Sub-Wardens, or Vice-Principals, or Vice-Presidents, or titles such as Vice-President and Dean. But we all have the same functions in our institutions.

I have been reading references for promotions to readerships and personal chairs. (There's another odd title - a 'personal chair'.)  When these come from people working in universities outside the UK there is often great confusion - "From my reading of his CV, Professor X richly deserves promotion to the title of Reader".

If we were to try to reform this plethora of confusing titles we could go one of three different ways.  We could adopt the titles of public limited companies and name the 'boss' as the Chief Executive, surrounded by others with executive titles - and with Unviersity Council members seen as non-executive directors, with a Chair of the Board.  But that sounds rather too commercial for some tastes.  We could alternatively go for the North American mode of a President and Vice-Presidents.  For my money we would be best adopting the practice throughout Europe of a Rector running a university, supported by Vice-Rectors.  Many European universities do have some sort of Council, with a Chair.  That would do - without titles such as Pro-Chancellors: 'Council Member' is serious enough for thsoe 'non-executives' who aren't in the chair role. 

But what about the 'Chancellor' title?  There is no equivalent role in any European university I am familiar with.  That potentially opens up a discussion as to the role of Chancellors (noting that a single member of the Royal Family is actually Chancellor of a fifth of Russell Group universities).  Perhaps I'll leave that for another day.

Friday 17th January 2014 - Difficult admissions decisions

Being PVC for Learning and Teaching isn't all about big strategies, meetings to reform university-wide regulations, and lobbying government on big policies.  There is also quite a lot of work to do at the level of individual students.  As I have blogged about in the past, I am the last stage of appeal within the university.  I am also the person who ultimately makes the decision as to whether we should go ahead and process applications for admission from those with significant criminal records. 

In the case of these individuals, who may actually be in prsion at the time of applying, I don't make the decision on my own.  We have a very good system for circulating, confidentially, some details about the case to seek the veiws of various parties within the University. These vary according to the nature of the case but might include accommodation services, the Computer Service, the University Health Service,  the student support services, the department concerned.  They all provide a view on risk, informed by probation officers' reports and other documentation, and it is finally up to me to weigh up these opinions.  I will sometimes agree that an application can be fully considered but that if the individual firmly accepts an offer from us we may then need to consider certain detailed steps to take to support the individual concerned on arrival.  Sometimes the view is that it is too early for an applicant to be considered, and that another year of 'good behaviour' is needed before we can countenance admission.

I don't think I err on the side of leniency.  But I am very sympathetic to applicants where there is evidence of having turned over a new leaf, and where there is support from those who have been professionally involved with them over whatever offence it was they committed.  After all, in my view education is one of the most transformative of experiences, and (I can't at the moment find a better word although it smacks of religiosity) it can provide 'redemption' and a chance to start again.  And I know at least one member of the University's graduate community for whom the path from crime to their current very responsible and 'established' career lay via study here. I am sure there are many more.

Thursday 2nd January 2014 - Students as naïve consumers

Although this is my first blog post of 2014 (Happy New Year to all readers) it is actually a reflection on something I observed while out for a walk on Boxing Day.  In common with many others (I know that because I met other university colleagues whilst out) we had a family outing, meeting up with close friends for a walk in the Botanical Gardens and along Ecclesall Road to a café: we were 9 adults and 4 small children in total.

Looking in the windows of lettings agencies on Ecclesall Road we were struck by the offers being made to attract students to take up tenancies on advertised properties.  The most notable offer was '£500 of pizza for all tenants who sign up via us.'  We noted that it referred to 'tenants' and not 'tenancies' - suggesting that in a shared house of, say, six there might be £3000 worth of pizzas to be claimed.  The offer didn't specify a period for delivery, but most tenancies are for a year.  So that's an awful lot of pizza.

Within our party on Boxing Day it so happened that there were two GPs and a Whitehall civil servant who works on the 'public responsibility' agenda in public health.  It will be of no surprise that there was therefore quite a bit of discussion about this when we reached a café.  There was general agreement that the pizza offer was an irresponsible one, but was also a very clever marketing ploy aimed at students moving from their first to their second years for whom the thought of meals without preparation time would be extremely attractive.

But I was also reminded of the fact that the BBC News web site on Christmas Eve had carried a story about the supply of dangerous cheap counterfeit vodka, focusing in on Sheffield and quoting directly from two of our Student Union officers who have been campaigning to get a tighter clamp down on supply.  Again, though, the 'offer' made to students, possibly 'under the counter', can seem an attractive one.

There is much talk about students as consumers.  That generally focuses on course choices and the decision on which universities to apply to.  But the idea of students as consumers extends to other aspects of their lives.  In all these areas it seems to me that we should regard students as being 'naïve' consumers.  Late teenagers are expected to make life-changing decisions (and in some cases, as with counterfeit vodka or an excess of obseity-inducing fast food, life-threatening decisions) and they need more help and assistance to do so.  But where to draw the line on intervention is a difficult issue.  Someone on Boxing Day said to me 'Can't the University do something about that pizza offer?'  The question for me is what our response should be.