Tuesday 30th September 2014 - In a world of their own: walking with earphones on

I turned the corner and within a couple of seconds a young woman walked straight into me.  I took careful note of the next three students walking towards me and took evasive action.  The next one made a beeline for me and when I moved aside to let him pass he careered into me nevertheless - I had already noticed that he wasn't walking very steadily anyway.

None of these individuals was drunk as far as I know - after all it was only a little after 2 in the afternoon.  But they were all walking while texting on their mobile phones - and not achieving both very well.   (I hope their texts were better than their movements.)  Should we instigate an induction session for new students in how to walk and text at the same time?  Or a health and safety briefing on the dangers of doing both together?

When I drive my car into the car park in the morning pedestrians commonly carry on regardless of my approach, immune from the sounds of traffic by earphones, travelling in their own little world of sound.  How does the accident rate of those listening to music differ from those who don't?

Why aren't those texting students actually dictating their messages into their smartphones?  Surely most of them have got models with voice recognition and activation?  Or do they need a lesson in how to use that?

And those groups of half a dozen students walking along together all texting - are they actually texting each other rather than talking?

And finally, should I forgive those colleagues to whom I say 'hello' as I walk around the campus but who fail to reply because they are plugged in and don't notice me?

Perhaps someone could write a book of etiquette for the uses of mobile devices in public places, with a co-author to produce a risk analysis and safety instructions.

Tuesday 23rd September 2014 - What are portraits for?

Firth Hall, the main 'ceremonial' hall of the University, has been under refurbishment over the summer.  As a result the portraits that hang there have been removed.  I have mentioned an issue about the portraits before, in a blog of 2011 - the fact that they are all of men, all but one of them dead.

The Hall is now starting to take shape again, and I looked in today to see how it is getting on.  The portraits are not there (yet), but I reflected that I actually like the Hall better without.  The portraits clutter it up a bit.  It has simpler lines without them, and a cleaner feel.  (I have been reassured that when the portraits come back they will have been cleaned - but I'm still happy without them.)

What are portraits in public or semi-public spaces (such as Firth Hall) for?  I can think of two overt reasons, and one that is perhaps subliminal.  My two overt reasons for having them there are:
1. Because they are intrinsically good and interesting paintings in their own right.  How many portraits can be claimed to fill that criterion? Very few in my view.  How often one wanders through the portraited rooms of a stately home passing dozens of dreary pictures of the dead ancestors of the family, none displaying any flair or artistic merit.
2. Because they are of interesting people who onlookers will want to see and consider.

In relation to portraits in a university hall such as Firth Hall, I would observe that few portraits have any artistic interest, and that most of those depicted are also unlikely to create any glow of recognition or interest in the onlooker.  I have hosted alumni events where some of the older graduates present have reminisced about a particular vice-chancellor who presided over their graduation ceremony, but were we only to retain portraits of figures for whom that could be said we would now discard the paintings of those who presided over the university before about 1940.

I was thinking about this when I came across an article in yesterday's 'Guardian' newspaper about the Oxford college I attended - Hertford.  They have just taken down all the portraits from their Hall.  They found that they didn't even know who some of them were of.  In my view the College owns three portraits that merit display - but probably no more.  Two are of interesting and famous people (men) who were students of the college or its forerunners - William Tindale (the first translator of the Bible into English) and John Donne (the cleric and poet).  The third (which does not hang in the Hall) is of a recent Principal of the college - Geoffrey Warnock, the philosopher - painted by David Hockney.  To my way of thinking that would get in on artistic merit.

So what has Hertford College hung in its Hall instead?  It has put up photographic portraits of women associated with the college in the 40 years since it led the way to co-education in Oxford colleges by admitting women in 1974.  And therein lies the subliminal message that portraiture can convey - a message about what matters and is thought worthwhile.  All the Firth Hall portraits to date have been of men - former Vice-Chancellors of the University of Sheffield and others associated with its foundation.  I am delighted that we are about to unveil at least one portrait of a woman - but they will still be very much in the minority.  That doesn't seem to me to be a very appropriate subliminal message conveyed through the pictures on the wall.  (I will observe, before anyone points this out, that Sheffield does possess an excellent collection of portrait photographs of women, but they need seeking out.)

Putting on one side the former women-only colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, and some gender-segregated universities elsewhere in the world, I wonder what the overall male / female balance is in university portraiture.  Should we take that for granted, or think of new curatorial policies, and possibly new commissioning exercises? 

Tuesday 16th September 2014 - Advice on university choice

It's that time of the year again.  I don't mean the time when students reappear in large numbers on the campus (although that has started to happen today).  It's the time when candidates for university admission for next session seat casting around for advice.

I suspect I am not alone in having been asked, over the years, to talk through their choices with a number of friends, relatives and neighbours - or with their offspring.  And despite the fact that there is now a wealth of material available to try to guide choices, it's interesting to see how poorly informed many applicants are.  This applies to those attending good as well as poor schools; those with parents who are themselves graduates as well as those with no family background in higher education.  I participated in a breakfast discussion at the Guardian newspaper a couple of years ago on this topic, and we all agreed that as more information has become available to applicants, so they have become overwhelmed by the volume and come to depend more on gut instinct, advice from trusted sources, and peer group pressure - much of it misleading.

To those of us who work in universities it can come as a surprise to find that none of the things we 'know' about university hierarchies, appropriate A level combinations, the fees regime, subject choices and many other things are completely unknown to the people around us in our own families or living on our streets.  I've been told that universities that languish near the bottom of every league table are among the Russell Group; that subjects that are not taught by any of the elite universities are amongst the most prestigious; and I've even had people mix up the two universities in various cities when one is a high-performing institution with a world class reputation and the other is, let us say, not!

And I'm sorry to say that schools often don't do what they ought to help.  I have talked with a pupil who already had 4 grade As at AS level and who is clearly in the top few percent of the national distribution but whose school has given her advice on both subject and university advice which would clearly vastly underplay her talents and potential.  

I know of another pupil who was told to aim for Cs at A level, and the university choice to go with that, but who was fully capable of As and Bs.  The school perhaps preferred to provide advice en masse for its students rather than nurturing the best.

I have watched as graduate parents, or others directly connected with universities, have allowed their offspring to take A level combinations that immediately preclude them from applying to institutions that would stretch their abilities because those combinations do not lead to any recognised degree programme.

This is all somewhat distressing, but I don't really know what to do about it.  The task of bringing light to the advisory process seems so great.  I suspect that many schools and colleges do not have the time to devote themselves to individual advice to each pupil, and that in many schools the range of experiences that teachers have is itself somewhat limited.  How many schools in the UK do not have a single teacher who attended a top-rated university?  How many A level teachers of key subjects (such as Physics, Economics or History) do not actually have a degree in that subject but in something else?  One proposal that emerged a few years ago was for universities to be tasked with a primary role for the provision of advice on higher education in schools.  It's not a bad idea - although it would need heavy resourcing.

Over the years I have tried to help a number of sixth formers on an individual basis.  I do take some comfort that in every case they do seem to have been satisfied with the courses they were admitted to - and in almost all cases they listened to my advice.