Tuesday 25th March 2014 - Careers, or content? What should drive learning?

There is, rightly, a great deal of emphasis placed today on the careers and other opportunities that students will open up to students as a result of undertaking their degree studies.  That has probably always been true for many students.  I was given no careers advice at my school, and ended up applying to study Geography rather than History at university (I liked History equally well) because my father told me that if I did a Geography degree there would be two jobs open to me - either as a cartographer or a teacher - whilst if I did a History degree I could only become a teacher.  

I am very keen that we should do everything we can to enhance the skills of our students for entry into the labour market - and should see those skills as in part generic and not simply related to their discipline.  I have today taken part in a conference panel to answer questions on how we might do that.

But we should also retain a broader view of what university education, particularly in a research-intensive university, should be about.  Helping our stduents succeed in getting jobs is important but it is only part of the task, just as working for a living will only be part of students' future lives.  We should be exciting students about their disciplines, about wider questions related to them, and about the application of research to the wider world.  We should be doing that in whatever subject a student is taking. We should be inspiring students in such a way that once they have completed their formal studies they will want to continue developing their understanding and thinking about their subject for many years to come.  Educating students for a future career is a functionalist aspect of a university: broadening students' intellectual horizons in many other ways and enhancing their general education.

Last semester some of the students in my final year class chose to write their projects as comparative studies of the (re)generation of national identities in two states of Central or Eastern Europe since the end of Communism.  Several of them chose the Ukraine as one of their comparisons.  The project task was in part to give students experience of comparative methods in social scientific analysis.  I haven't checked back with them, but I sincerely hope that those students have been watching recent events in the Ukraine with the benefit of the research they did for their oprojects, and will retain an interest in how developments might unfold over the coming months and years.  In other words, I hope they will retain an interest in the subject matter they dealt with as well as in the skills development they underwent.

In post-graduation surveys it is very reasonable to ask questions along the lines of 'Did your degree studies help you to secure the job you now hold?'  The answers may include reference both to disciplinary knowledge and also to generic graduate skills that were honed during study.  But another valid question might be 'Do you envisage over the coming years maintaining an interest in the subject(s) you have studied?'

Friday 14th March 2014 - Accidental ageism on campus

We pride ourselves, as a university, on trying to create an inclusive environment.  We attempt to integrate students and staff from different national origins and ethnic groups.  We have a multi-faith chaplaincy.  We have recently been identified as providing one of the best workplace environments in Britain for lesbian, gay, and transgender colleagues.

But my suggestion, in this blog, is that we have not tackled ageism on campus - and that the principal perpetrators of ageism are actually many of our students.

We currently have the student officer election campaigning in full swing.  Candidates and their supporters are out canvassing every day.  Yet observe who they are stopping.  Hardly anyone over the apparent age of about 21 is being stopped and talked to.  Watch a group of postgrads heading to Coffee Revolution or the University Arms and you will see them go unmolested.  Watch a group that looks as if they might be first years and the candidates leap towards them.  The other day a colleague who is also registered for a part-time degree had to persuade a canvasser that she was indeed registered for a degree here and was eligible to vote.  The candidates and their supporters (I think all but one of the candidates is an undergraduate student) don't seem to be able to recognise that those over 21 can be students too.

This is something that is also apparent at the start of each academic year, when leaflets are being distributed for cheap food offers in city restaurants, or cheap deals for various bars and clubs.  I've seen older students hold out their hands to receive such promotional materials only to have them withheld by the young individuals charged with getting the word across about the establishments they are promoting.  Such older students must feel in some way excluded from the life that is going on around them.

These actions are not malicious or intended to cause offence.  They result from a lack of awareness of the diversity of our community, and a failure to recognise that not all students are recent school-leavers in the age group 18-22.  So perhaps we need a concerted campaign with those who really are in that group to indicate to them that there are other students who are older than them, and that indeed those older students (mature undergraduates, and postgraduates) constitute a significant proportion of the total student population.  Then we might be able to show that we have conquered ageism and created a truly integrated community.

Friday 28th February 2014 - The EU debate and the universities

Four months ago I was asked by the Guardian to write an article for their higher education web pages arguing that in the possible forthcoming debate on the UK's membership of the European Union, university leaders needed to take a strong line in pointing out the cost / benefit equation as it applied to their institutions.  I argued that the balance was almost entirely positive - the UK gets much more out of European research funds than it contributes through its budget payments, and schemes such as the Marie Curie and Erasmus exchange arrangements are very beneficial to agendas for internationalisation.

Some people draw attention to Switzerland and Norway as countries that are not EU members but who benefit from many aspects of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Today's news suggests that may be about to end.  Today it has been announced that Switzerland will no longer be a major partner in the European Research Council and will not be able to lead projects.  Similarly, it will not be part of student exchanges through the Erasmus scheme.  It seems that these are the out-turns from the referendum earlier in the month when the Swiss electorate narrowly voted to tear up the free movement of labour agreements it had with the European Union. 

The vote in that referendum interests me greatly.  (I did part of my doctoral research in Switzerland and have always had a keen interest in the country.) The very first journal article I published when I arrived in Sheffield, with a colleague, was on a Swiss referendum on immigration.  Plus ça change ... The analysis in that article almost exactly fits the voting pattern of the referendum two weeks ago - with German-speaking Switzerland voting to restrict immigratiuon and French-speaking Switzerland voting not to. 

Now we have a Swiss model of what could happen in the UK if a referendum here took us out of the EU; increased isolation in both research opportunities (particularly research funding, for which the European Union has been an increasingly important source) and the mobility of students and researchers.  I don't think that's a very enticing prospect for UK universities.

Friday 21st February 2014 - Gift giving

One of the little quirks of foreign visits between universities by senior staff is the presentation of gifts.  This seems to be an established protocol around the world.  The gifts have little or no monetary value, but an important aspect of any meeting between Vice-Chancellors, Pro-Vice-Chancellors or other university leaders is the exchange of gifts, accompanied (particularly where East Asian colleagues are involved) by the taking of photographs.  The excahnge of business cards comes first.  And again the East Asian practice is particular - cards being passed with both hands and scrutinised for some seconds.  I have a bilingual version of my business card - English on one side and Chinese on the other - which always impresses visitors from the Peoples' Republic.  They were printed for me while I was in China some years ago and delivered to my hotel room when I was already half way through my visit - so I have lots spare.

I suspect that a failure to produce something at the right moment could cause offence to some institutions.  It has only happened to me once.  I was on a short visit to a mainland European university and had taken only hand luggage.  That gave me the excuse, when the Rector presented me with a rather nice university tie (which I wear quite a lot) to apologise that I had been unable to bring our usual gift of a paper knife with me because it would have been confiscated at airport security.  (A paper knife is one of our standard gifts, alongside cufflinks, pens and other small items.)  In reality I had forgotten to bring anything.  My other embarrassing exchange moment was when, in a distant country, the recipient took from its box the porcelain mug adorned with the university crest that I had lovingly carried for some days, and proudly showed me the wording on the back, which I had not previously scrutinised - "Thank you for your visit to the University of Sheffield".  Thankfully the Rector to whom I was making this presentation did not have any English - although clearly his staff did and would later tell him about the inappropriateness of the item.  My worst experience of gift donation was on that visit to China some years ago when I was asked to carry Sheffield's gifts for several universities - copies of our centenary history "Steel City Scholars", each copy of which weighs about a kilo.  I spent several days lugging these from place to place.

None of the gifts I have received have been of any monetary value - and many of them have not had any practical use either.  Indeed, there are certain things that I still don't know what they are.  Most have the name of the institution concerned emblazoned on them in some way.  Visitors to my room can have a conducted tour of various items if they wish.  The three most practicable items I have received over the years have been a box of university chocolates (which were duly shared around) from an institution in a former Soviet republic (which were duly shared around), the tie I have already mentioned, and a sweat shirt from an institution in the Caribbean (although when I wear it people tend to assume I must have a degree from the place). 

This morning's exchange, with the President of a Chinese university, involved the unfurling of a handsome university banner from them and the presentation of a pair of cufflinks from me.

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.