Academic Species # 2: Professor Punk Rock

Professor Punk Rock was well 'ard in his yoof. He was into rock and roll and had an earring and everything. In fact he still has his earring. Your eyes snag on it as they flee the horror of his protruding chest hair. Professor Punk Rock was probably as much of a punk rocker as those white middle class boys from Surrey who go around calling each other 'blood.' But he's carried the ethos of his rebellious youth into his current role as Vice-Chancellor in charge of Important Stuff. Only instead of glassing someone in a pub, he's berating the Department of Difficult Science for having a shite student handbook. Rock on my friend.

Now where did I leave my Committee papers?

Restructure

Oh so there's going to be a 'restructure'? I see. How thoughtful of you to 'consult' us. That just means you'll get someone we've never met from HR to give us the push doesn't it? Does redundancy by another name taste less bitter? Nah. You can dress it up all you like Cockleton but we all know what the words 'strategic review' mean. See you down the Job Centre.

To Fee or not To Fee?

The House of Commons has passed a policy allowing univerisites in England to raise the cost of tuition fees to a maximum of £9000 a year. Students could potentially be graduating with £27,000 worth of debt which they would pay off when they being earning over £21,000 a year. This represents a massive increase from the current level of fees, which are around £3000 a year. Needless to say, the issue is somewhat controversial.

Part of me has sympathy with the argument that the tax payer should not have to fund students through university. Why should Mrs Miggins the cleaner have to pay her taxes so that Tarquin can have a jolly nice time for three years?

But then if you follow that argument, why should the tax payers pay for anything? I've never committed a crime so why should my taxes fund prisons and probation? I don't have children so why should I be paying for schools? In reality, I have no problem with my taxes paying for these things because I accept that they are needed for the good of society at large.

Higher education is also A Good Thing for society. Better education hopefully leads to a better informed electorate (although let's not forget that Nick Griffin went to Cambridge). Universities futher our understanding of the world through their research and produce the people we need to tackle the challenges of the future.

All this would seem to suggest that the government should wholly fund HE and student places for the good of society. The only sticking point is that students benefit enormously from a degree. They are set to earn considerably more over their lifetime than non-graduates. Is it not therefore reasonable to ask them to contribute something to the cost of that education?

But the debt that students will graduate with under the recently-passed legislation will surely mean that those from poorer families will be put off from going to university. And universities are the engines of social mobility. It is in everyone's interests to have a society where those who are able enough can gain a degree no matter what their circumstances.

And this is the crucial point: those who are able enough. I don't necessarily believe that everyone who wants to go to university should. I want to be an astronaut but that doesn't mean that NASA should be calling me up. Widening access does not mean allowing every single young person to go to university; it means enabling those who are capable to attend no matter what their circumstances. University is not for everyone and the government should seek to fund alternative routes into employment for those youngsters who are not of an academic bent.

It is not unfair to ask students to contribute something towards the cost of an education from which they will benefit for the rest of their lives. But this must be balanced against the need to ensure that poor, bright kids are still able to gain a degree.

Of course if the government wasn't cutting the teaching budget of universities by 80% then we wouldn't be having this debate. And there would be a bit less of this as well.

The Office Christmas Party

Ah, Christmas in the office. As we sit in our hats and scarves because the heating has broken down for the third year in a row and admire the fifteen year old decorations hanging limply from the door frames, we wonder what fresh horrors the festive season has in store. Because Christmas means the Office Christmas Party (or should that be partaay?)

A Christmas Party should be a very straightforward affair. Employees get taken to the pub by the boss, they buy all the drinks and everyone gets cheerfully drunk together. Job done. But at the University of Cockleton, they remember the true meaning of Christmas. Just as Christ was born to reconcile Man with God, so the Christmas Party hath been given unto us to unite Academics and Administrators.

This means that some poor sod will end up drawing Professor Bluster for their Secret Santa and buying him "comedy" socks out of sheer desperation and then enduring the further pain of  having to sit next to him in the pub and make excruciating small talk about his geraniums.

So a Christmas message to Cockleton management: I know we should all be rockin' around the (Fire Safety Officer-approved) Christmas tree together or something but come on! Imagine how disappointed the Three Wise Men would have been if they'd rocked up at Bethlehem and found that the Baby Jesus was actually an obnoxious teenager from Stevenage called Darren. After a long, hard year of administrating we just want to get pissed with our colleagues and have a bloody good moan. For verily, this is the True Meaning of Christmas.