[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes, there is so much bureaucratic nonsense in Higher Education - the 'educrats' have taken-over, and govern by 'strategies because they've never taught or written a scholarly book in their lives. Yet I would advise you to persevere with academia, because the current regime is unsustainable.

I've increasingly been tempted to take early retirement, but then think "why should I give up a career I've worked so hard for (and for which I am highly-respected by my students and academic colleagues, both at home and those who work in the same discipline overseas) because of the arrogant, incompetent, swaggering, 'suits' who try to micro-manage and endlessly audit us. If you go for a piss, they want to know what strategy or framework you used, and how your toilet visit provided 'value-added' to the university.

I too increasingly find ways of disengaging from this white noise of managerial nonsense; sending my (insincere) apologies to many of the endless committee meetings and Away-Days, not volunteering for extra activities, 'initiatives' or membership of yet another 'working group' or 'curriculum review', and only replying to university or management emails if I get a follow-up or reminder (most of the time I don't).

I focus on what I enjoy, and am deemed to be good at; teaching, and research (currently working on my 19th book) - which is what being an academic should be about, and why I entered the profession. Problem is that in the 1990s, the 'qualitocracy' began colonising academic registry, and spewing endless jargon-filled documents, form-filling, box-ticking, and report-writing.

It is sometimes claimed that "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach', to which I always add "and those who can't teach become university managers."

In my Department/Faculty, 60% of student fee income is siphoned-off by management to: a) pay for yet more parasitic managers, and b) cross-subsidise Departments which struggle to recruit students (STEM, basically) but are politically or reputationally too important to close. So we are constantly told that there is no more money for extra staff to teach the increased student numbers, but somehow we can always afford a new Director of Arse-Wiping, Assistant Dean of Paper-Clips, and a pro-Vice Chancellor of Photocopying - all of whom then impose yet more idiotic paperwork on overstretched, burnt-out, academic staff.

Universities have the worst of both worlds; operating as educational supermarkets in a neoliberal, competitive, free-market in which students are viewed as customers paying for a product (degree) supplied by service-providers (academics), but at the same time, managed like the former Soviet Union with its stupid 5-year plans and top-down targets, impenetrable layers of faceless bureaucracy, constant micro-management and monitoring of subordinates, endless command-and-control from the centre, but complete lack of accountability by senior managers who instinctively blame front-line staff for everything which goes wrong.

Yet we know what happened to the old Soviet Union in 1989-90, so my advice to any aspiring young academic would still be to hang-on in there, and don't let these managerial bastards deter you. They cannot be allowed to win, and they won't be around for ever.

My best advice is don't retire. Do what you know to be right and have a bit of fun with the lunatics when the chance arises.

Here is some correspondence from today with some bits redacted for obvious reasons:

Them: "We are preparing Period 2 marksheets by downloading available exam marks. We noticed that marking hasn’t been completed, or marks have not been uploaded to (our platform), for (course code) (Question X) & (course code) (Question Y).
In case helpful, please find attached guidance on marking.*
There are 294 marksheets being ratified at academic sub boards in period 2, and your support will ensure students can progress and graduate.
Please don’t hesitate to be in contact if you are experiencing delays with marking. Thank you for your time."

Me: "Hi X. The marking is incomplete because the people marking those questions haven’t marked them yet. I think the first marker is (name) so I am ccing. In case I am wrong, you have a list of markers and second markers that I sent you (I had to upload all the details to a web page - i took me 2 hours). It would make sense for you to check this and chase them direct rather than come through me (same applies to other courses and organizers.) You won’t be able to collate marks if we don’t get the marking done….and we are the only people who can do the marking whereas you are equally if not better placed to do chasing. Seems like a plan! Thanks for sending me the marking guides. I’ll take an hour off this afternoon to give them a good thorough read."

Them (their boss this time): "
Hi (me). Thank you for your email. We really appreciate your engagement with this. With 181 exams and 294 modules being ratified at P2 academic sub boards we are a little reliant on module organizers liaising with their markers. Additionally, we think conversations around marking are best placed between academics and we can be updated on progress. Thank you kindly."

Me: "Thanks (them). I am happy to receive multiple emails as you find that various folk have not done their marking, go through my files to find out which is the unmarked question and look up who the markers are if I can’t remember, and then send an email to the marker, but please note that doing this will take me away from my marking, which may therefore be late.
Regards"

It all went quiet after that. The guide to marking (*above) is a seven page document that includes a statement that is my responsibility as module organizer (MO), (and this module is just one course on a large programme), is responsible for ensuring all the other academics who set and will mark questions get their marking done on time. This is how they justify checking what questions aren't marked then telling me, rather than contacting the responsible marker directly. I think the reason is that other academics who are not running the module but teach and mark on it just ignore chase emails from the academic centre. The assumption, presumably, is my colleagues won't ignore me. Ho, ho, ho.

The reason marking is late is we doubled student intake during covid because we did not anticipate A-level grade inflation and did not up the entry requirement. Add in the new complicated marking (see below), the need not only for second marking, but blind parallel marking, and a need for the final mark to fit on a 2-5-8 framework (no 63% or 74%) AND a need for all marks that differ between the two markers to be resolved by a meeting and discussion, no taking averages, because the average of 52 and 55% is 53.5 %, rounded up to 54% and that is not on the 2-5-8 framework, and you can guess the rest. We have this marks framework apparently because a student (not on my degree course I hasten to add) complained they got 53% and a mate got 54% and they cant understand how the marks differ, and someone decided we had to be able to explain. Oh, we can't explain. So let's use a sort of digital marking scale that leaves out some values. I bit like measuring the height of humans by rounding the measurement up to the nearest 4 inches**. Instead of telling the student to pull up his nickers and make me a cup of tea, the 'college teaching and assessment sub-committee' spent countless hours devising this new system, and forcing all departments from History to Nursing to use it.

Oh and there has been so much exam misconduct (students downloading answers onto exam hall laptops) I am also spending hours dealing with all of that.

I could go on, but it's late. Sufficed to say we WILL be late with marks this year because I am not compromising the integrity of my marking, and if the wankers kick off they will find it will blow up in their faces. Or would, were in not the fact that they have written all these documents that explains that the buck stops with the academics.

**I am now officially six feet four.

 

[Bodian]

Peer faces year’s ban from Lords bars for bullying two people while drunk

Kulveer Ranger resigns Tory whip after committee also recommends suspension from House of Lords for three weeks

www.theguardian.com

 

[Randy McNob]

We're all in it together

 

[chickens]

We're all in it together

I don’t like “wealth envy” as a rule, but surely it’s obvious to all, regardless of political persuasion, that this level of inequality is harmful to society?

Are there defenders of this? Not just the wealth to afford Rolls Royces, multiple stately homes, and the staff to maintain them (which I’m absolutely fine with) but the wealth to buy countries, subvert democracies and ensure that legislation, economic textbooks and education is bent to your will. Ensuring a friendly environment where “moar tax cuts” is seen as a better outcome than funded public services?

 

[BLOCK F]

I don’t like “wealth envy” as a rule, but surely it’s obvious to all, regardless of political persuasion, that this level of inequality is harmful to society?

Are there defenders of this? Not just the wealth to afford Rolls Royces, multiple stately homes, and the staff to maintain them (which I’m absolutely fine with) but the wealth to buy countries, subvert democracies and ensure that legislation, economic textbooks and education is bent to your will. Ensuring a friendly environment where “moar tax cuts” is seen as a better outcome than funded public services?

Well, regardless of the rights or wrongs of huge wealth, I’m glad Uncle Tony has a few bob!

 

[beorhthelm]

I don’t like “wealth envy” as a rule, but surely it’s obvious to all, regardless of political persuasion, that this level of inequality is harmful to society?

someone owns shares in company their family built up. what actually is the harm? and where would that be, they do their trade mostly in US and India.

as we have a hugely wealthy benefator owning BHA, hope some careful thinking in answers.

 

[Pevenseagull]

someone owns shares in company their family built up. what actually is the harm? and where would that be, they do their trade mostly in US and India.

Infosys made their biggest ever financial investment (£1.5billion) into BP two months before Sunak announced surprise expansion on north sea oil and gas licences.

 

[Goldstone Guy]

someone owns shares in company their family built up. what actually is the harm? and where would that be, they do their trade mostly in US and India.

as we have a hugely wealthy benefator owning BHA, hope some careful thinking in answers.

Ok, I'm not an economist but my understanding of what's happened is as follows: the harm is the massive and rapidly growing difference in wealth between the rich/ultra-rich and the rest of us, fuelled by the action of the ruling classes - ultra-low interest rates and money printing driving up asset prices (property, shares, commodities) which are mainly owned by the rich. Inflation won't affect them - if you've got a few billion it doesn't matter if a loaf of bread doubles in price. If everything you earn goes on rent, bills and food then it does matter. Yes I know raising interest rates hurts normal people with mortgages and most of the damage was done before Sunak came to power. Add to that their policies of under-funding and general screwing up public services (in this country at least) which the lower and middle classes rely on. If Rishi gets ill you can guarantee he won't use the NHS (although there'll probably be some cringeable staged publicity stunt of him going for a test at his local hospital).

And I've just read Pevenseagull's post above - no idea if it's true but then again I'm 100% certain if I look into it I'll find out it is true. The difference with TB is that he doesn't dictate rules and policies which increase his wealth (and makes others worse off).

 

[Bodian]

We're all in it together

"The Plan is Working"

His plan is quite clear, and it does indeed appear to be working for him and his wealthy mates.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Ok, I'm not an economist but my understanding of what's happened is as follows: the harm is the massive and rapidly growing difference in wealth between the rich/ultra-rich and the rest of us, fuelled by the action of the ruling classes - ultra-low interest rates and money printing driving up asset prices (property, shares, commodities) which are mainly owned by the rich. Inflation won't affect them - if you've got a few billion it doesn't matter if a loaf of bread doubles in price. If everything you earn goes on rent, bills and food then it does matter. Yes I know raising interest rates hurts normal people with mortgages and most of the damage was done before Sunak came to power. Add to that their policies of under-funding and general screwing up public services (in this country at least) which the lower and middle classes rely on. If Rishi gets ill you can guarantee he won't use the NHS (although there'll probably be some cringeable staged publicity stunt of him going for a test at his local hospital).

And I've just read Pevenseagull's post above - no idea if it's true but then again I'm 100% certain if I look into it I'll find out it is true. The difference with TB is that he doesn't dictate rules and policies which increase his wealth (and makes others worse off).

Took some finding

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

(I was wrong when I stated it was their biggest investment, it was their second biggest investment)

 

[Jim in the West]

"The Plan is Working"

His plan is quite clear, and it does indeed appear to be working for him and his wealthy mates.

And remember, WE are the elite, the "establishment", etc, etc. They (Rishi, Boris, Rees-Mogg and all their cronies) have managed to convince millions of ordinary folk that university lecturers, judges, doctors, Guardian-readers, climate campaigners, the BBC, artists, equal-rights activists, the "wokerati", advocates for safer streets, etc, etc are the problem!

 

[beorhthelm]

Infosys made their biggest ever financial investment (£1.5billion) into BP two months before Sunak announced surprise expansion on north sea oil and gas licences.

what does one multinational company using another multinational company got to do with the question? it's people trying desperately to make a conspiracy.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ok, I'm not an economist but my understanding of what's happened is as follows: the harm is the massive and rapidly growing difference in wealth between the rich/ultra-rich and the rest of us, fuelled by the action of the ruling classes - ultra-low interest rates and money printing driving up asset prices (property, shares, commodities) which are mainly owned by the rich. Inflation won't affect them - if you've got a few billion it doesn't matter if a loaf of bread doubles in price. If everything you earn goes on rent, bills and food then it does matter. Yes I know raising interest rates hurts normal people with mortgages and most of the damage was done before Sunak came to power. Add to that their policies of under-funding and general screwing up public services (in this country at least) which the lower and middle classes rely on. If Rishi gets ill you can guarantee he won't use the NHS (although there'll probably be some cringeable staged publicity stunt of him going for a test at his local hospital).

And I've just read Pevenseagull's post above - no idea if it's true but then again I'm 100% certain if I look into it I'll find out it is true. The difference with TB is that he doesn't dictate rules and policies which increase his wealth (and makes others worse off).

it's true in the past 15 years actions of politicans have caused inflated asset prices. some have become wealthy on the back of that. the cause and effect is not the right way round for harm caused by people being wealthy, they didn't make the politicans take that action - unless again we're back to conspiracy? we're no worse off because shares in a company are valued highly, which is what most wealth is. I wonder who would say the politicans shouldn't have kept loose monetary policy and we'd be better if they let the market correct itself.

as this about Sunak, perhaps anyone with wealth should be barred from politics. maybe a case to make for that, so lets say that outright and open up discussion on who should and should not be allowed into politics.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

what does one multinational company using another multinational company got to do with the question? it's people trying desperately to make a conspiracy.

The Chancellor, Sunak, gave furlough money to his wife, for firms now closed down. You think people are desperately trying to make conspiracies?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

it's true in the past 15 years actions of politicans have inflated asset prices. some have become wealthy on the back of that. the cause and effect is not the right way round for harm caused by people being wealthy, they didn't make the politicans take that action - unless again we're back to conspiracy? we're no worse off because shares in a company are valued highly, which is what most wealth is.

as this about Sunak, perhaps anyone with wealth should be barred from politics. maybe a case to make for that, so lets say that outright and open up discussion on who should and should not be allowed into politics.

Maybe politicians should be more open and honest with their financial dealings.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Chancellor, Sunak, gave furlough money to his wife, for firms now closed down. You think people are desperately trying to make conspiracies?

well the poster didnt say anything on that, they want to link company deals.
we could say Murty's companies should have been barred from any furlough, should have funded them or closed them from the start. apply same to all politicans and their families, get the root of the issue rather than individuals.

yes, people are trying to make conspiracies, see many related running daily on social media. a lot of it's in the framing, like saying the Chancellor gave his wife's business money, rather than seeing it as any companies applied for money available.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

well the poster didnt say anything on that, they want to link company deals.
we could say Murty's companies should have been barred from any furlough, should have funded them or closed them from the start. apply same to all politicans and their families, get the root of the issue rather than individuals.

yes, people are trying to make conspiracies, see many related running daily on social media. a lot of it's in the framing, like saying the Chancellor gave his wife's business money, rather than seeing it as any companies applied for money available.

The press have been reporting it, not just social media. Why do you feel a need to defend them?

 

[beorhthelm]

The press have been reporting it, not just social media. Why do you feel a need to defend them?

not defending them, it's questioning the reasoning. asking if politicans and families should be not be involved in business.

 

[Bodian]

what does one multinational company using another multinational company got to do with the question? it's people trying desperately to make a conspiracy.

Surely you can see the optics here?

• Wife of Person A - owns large stake in Company 1
• Company 2 - makes profits from extracting oil/gas
• Company 1 - makes their largest ever investment, by investing in company 2 - their return will be directly related to the profitability of Company 2
• Person A - announces a surprise expansion for oil/gas licences, thereby ensuring the profitability of Company 2, thereby ensuring that his wife's company's investment will also be profitable.

Hardly a 'conspiracy' is it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely you can see the optics here?

• Wife of Person A - owns large stake in Company 1
• Company 2 - makes profits from extracting oil/gas
• Company 1 - makes their largest ever investment, by investing in company 2 - their return will be directly related to the profitability of Company 2
• Person A - announces a surprise expansion for oil/gas licences, thereby ensuring the profitability of Company 2, thereby ensuring that his wife's company's investment will also be profitable.

Hardly a 'conspiracy' is it.

you're literally presenting it as a conspiracy, inferring the deal was only possible because of links between company and influence on future government policy. getting the investment wrong along the way, BP bought services from Infosys.

the optics are indeed poor, people see what they want.