Creative Writing

Writing minutes is a proper pain in the arse. It's bad enough having to write down what was actually said in the three hour committee meeting but it's even worse when you have to write what should have been said. And it's always the external examiners reports, which you might think are Quite Important. Problem is, there's a lot of them and no one can be arsed to read them so the Chair just says, 'anyone got anything to say on these?' By this time, people are just calculating how many biscuits they can stuff into their pockets when they leave so no one has anything to say.

So the next day, I write about how the committee carefully scrutinised each report and demanded immediate remedial action where bad practice was identified. I might try and do what that copper did and slip in song lyrics to the minutes to see if anyone notices:

"Professor Smith noted that we're living in a powder keg and giving off sparks."

Seamless! And no one ever reads them. Except for the QAA of course and I bet even they skim them.

A Total Eclipse of my Attention Span

Committed to Committees

Every university administrator will have something to do with committees at some point in their careers. Most universities are ostensibly governed by committee and they are the bodies charged with big decisions. So in theory, it's a committee that decides on Important Stuff.

The role of the administrator is to 'service' the committee. Now I'm a grown woman but I can't help a brief titter at this point. Maybe if I was actually 'servicing' the committee in a nudge-nudge kind of way people would actually read the minutes?!




My my! What a BIG agenda!


Anyway the theory of governance by committee is a bit like democracy. Lovely idea in theory and when it works, it's beautiful to behold. Honestly, seeing a committee properly scrutinise an external examiner's report makes my heart get all big and full, like a water balloon.

But when a committee goes bad (which incidentally sounds like the title of the lamest horror film ever) it's like a car crash in slow motion. Rambling digressions, non-sequitors and misunderstandings. And all of it supposed to be minuted.

Fortunately the University of Cockleton has devised an ingenious way around the inconvenience of committees: the working party. This is a selected group that examines a particular issue and reports back to a committee. The working party will make 'recommendations' to the committee but if the working party is chaired by the Dean of Really Important Stuff and the committee is chaired by Professor Bluster...well, the working party's recommendations become policy. Working parties are not obliged to publish their minutes as commitees are, or to have student representation so you have to ask who exactly scrutinises these groups and holds them to account?

Despite the fact that they're long and boring committees are the proper forum for decision-making in a university. After all, Important Stuff (eg tax) is nearly always a little bit dull. Committees can work if they are chaired properly and given a properly defined remit. That way, there's no need for administrators to have to practice the dark art of Creative Minute Writing.



The empty chair is in case Jesus comes again



Types of Administrator # 1: The Useless PA

The role of PA is much underrated. In fact, you often hear the job title prefaced with the word 'just,' as in 'she's just a PA.' This does a great disservice to the entire profession, which essentially keeps the University of Cockleton going. It's only due to them that academics not only turn up to meetings but actually have a clue as to what they're about.

You only realise how invaluable PAs are when you've experienced the Useless PA. The Useless PA is in no way personal and is damned if she's going to assist anyone. Oh sure, she wrote that she has 'IT skills' on her CV but that doesn't extend to anything complicated like Outlook. She's utterly bemused by these people who ring her and email her questions about Professor Bluster's diary: how the hell is she supposed to know what he's doing? And she really wishes they would stop cc-ing her into Prof Bluster's emails. She doesn't need her Inbox getting clogged up with all his shit. Well, at least she imagines it's getting clogged up because she doesn't actually know how to get into it...

If I stack files in front of this thing, will that stop the emails coming through?

Toilet Etiquette

I'm never entirely sure of how friendly one should be in the office toilets. Should one acknowledge co-workers as they're going in and out of cubicles? And then do you start a conversation with them? I did that last week with a colleague as we both stood next to each other drying our hands. I felt I had to break the silence so we ended up discussing how nice it would be to have a Dyson Airblade. Dorothy Parker it wasn't.

Toilets, especially for girls I think, are places of sanctuary. If you feel like you're going to have a cry you run to the toilets. If you sense your hair is suddenly going off piste, you run for the toilets. If you're suffering a hangover from the night before, you run for the toilets. And maybe the last thing you want is to have to make small talk.

Smart girls (and boys) use the disabled toilet. Total privacy and acres of space for whatever it is you need to do. Only problem is, the whole office is obviously getting smarter cos an unengaged, stench-free disabled toilet is like El Dorado these days.

And as to the toilet etiquette in the gents, I can only wonder.

So...what are your thoughts on quantitative easing?

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.