It’s not a new phenomenon of course. In the nineteenth century students who wished to do well in University examinations enlisted the services of private coaches. A coach like William Hopkins was known as ‘the senior wrangler-maker’ for his ability to assist men to the top of the University examination league table.
In many cases, the employment of coaches was less about dissatisfaction with the standard of teaching, but rather the absence of teaching. For example, in Cambridge in the early nineteenth century, there was little college teaching, no inter-collegiate teaching and no University teaching aimed at undergraduates.
Aside from a wry amusement over cycles of history and concerns about further media coverage on deficiencies in teaching provision, this story draws me into thinking about the contrast between narrow and broad conceptions of the functions of higher education. I am reminded of a reflection by John Venn on one of the coaches he employed as an undergraduate in Cambridge in the 1850s. He described the man as fairly well up in his subject but lacking ‘the power of originality that was desirable’. The coach was able to teach the required knowledge but did not facilitate the learning of a more general critical approach.
In the current day, with universities being urged by Government to ensure that their courses are relevant to the workplace and students are perceived to be taking an increasingly instrumental view of their degrees, there is a parallel tension. At last week’s Higher Education Academy conference, Alison Halstead (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Aston University) argued that students needed more than knowledge of their subject, but rather the skill of learning to learn and being adaptable to changing environments. In an article for Teaching in Higher Education, Molesworth, Nixon and Scullion make a similar critique, pointing to the link between ‘marketisation’ of Higher Education and a narrower pedagogical approach that limits broader personal development and transformation.
What happened in the nineteenth century? In light of public criticism and the perceived failure of Oxford and Cambridge’s attempts to reform themselves, the Government intervened with Royal Commissions to restructure teaching and finances. Hmmm, moving swiftly on….
No one can tell the difference between a Liberal Conservative Caucus and a Conservative Liberal one. There is nothing in the world more innocent than either. The most dare-devil action they ever take is to move for the appointment of a Syndicate ‘to consider what means, if any, can be discovered to prevent the Public Washing of Linen, and to report, if they can see straight, to the Non-placets.’ The result is the formation of an invertebrate body, which sits for two years, with growing discomfort, on the clothes-basket containing the linen. When the Syndicate is so stupefied that it has quite forgotten what it is sitting on, it issues three minority reports, of enormous bulk, on some different subject. The reports are referred by the Council to the Non-placets, and by the Non-placets to the wastepaper basket. This is called ‘reforming the University from within.’
A short blogging drought while I removed myself from Bath to Newcastle to take up a new role as Head of Quality in Learning and Teaching.
It’s strange being a new girl again – recognising the big picture ’stuff’ like political debates on quality management, discussions of the balance between research and teaching or the relationship between academic and administrative roles, but being slower than a really slow thing when it comes to everyday things, like knowing which route to take across campus or finding an envelope.
As well as getting to grips with a new environment, I’m trying to understand a manage a new team, budget, structures and communication; identify the ‘academic grain’ of a new institution; grapple with the deliveryof existing projects, and develop a sense of where the emerging priorities lie.
I’m also looking back – trying to pull together my thoughts on what I have learned professionally from my time at Bath. I find I keep slipping into lists of things done or knowledge acquired- completed PhD, became an audit secretary, survived an institutional audit etc. This may need to be the start of an ongoing list, but at least it’s a start. I have -
developed my own sense of professional identity. I emerged from Warwick thinking that was how academic administration was done, and I still remain committed to many of the elements of the ‘Warwick way’. During my time at Bath, I had the chance to consider and defend certain values, acquire new role models and observe different approaches in action – I identify myself as a generalist by intellectual as well as professional inclination, seeing the strength in understanding how parts of an organisation/service fit together as a broader whole, and I am strongly committed to a robust professional partnership with academic colleagues and student representatives (The professional administrator as Ginger Rogers? Able to do everything Fred Astaire did but in reverse and in high heels? There is of course the thorny issue of who should lead….). I aspire to but don’t always achieve the intellectual strength that comes from a combination of grasp of detail and bigger picture, and the grace that characterises some of the administrators I most admire;
thought more coherently about the type of higher education to which I am committed and best suited. Not all of it is fashionable – a hint of John Henry Newman, anyone? – but it’s what I think of as home;
realised that a little clarity of expression and structure, whether in policy or personnel management, can go an awfully long way;
sought to understand the intersecting layers of academic culture (back to working with the academic grain again!) - looking at the prerequisites of achieving cultural as well as structural change , as well as how momentum can be built through activity on a number of levels.
An interesting presentation today from a colleague about the work and ethos of the Students’ Union, which prompted a number of more general questions in my mind that might be applicable in the context of positioning and planning academic services in a higher education setting:
what are you there for? what are you trying to do?
how do you support/empower/enable students?
how do you contribute to the University community?
what are the ‘big issues’ for you/your institution right now and on the horizon?
how do your constituencies/stakeholders influence your direction/purpose/service?
how does your structure support delivery of your aims?
how do you evaluate your impact? how do you benchmark yourself against similar structures and organisations?
Okay, so apologies for the jargon! I winced at least three times at the use of stakeholder and cringed at the empowering….feeling unclean now.
I have established a new blog, Hinterland, where in future I will be posting – as the name suggests- about my interests outside work: films, art, books, shoes, ranting(!).
I will continue to update Intersecting Sets with posts where the primary focus is upon professional interests and Higher Education. The older posts on wider themes will still be available here, and have also been migrated across to Hinterland.
The bifurcation of content reflects a recognition that I blog for two rather different purposes (professional development and personal amusement) and, potentially, for two very different audiences (yes, people actually read some of this stuff!). I realised that although the starting point for Intersecting Sets was the personal intersection of a range of work, research and social interests, I am now more comfortable with posting to different ‘sets’ in separate places.
…just when I thought the whole audit shoe thing was going to be SO 2008, I get a new job in Newcastle and am about to start the whole process all over again.
Thankfully, I came across Mandarina shoes and am currently reduced to drooling over my keyboard:
Now I just need to choose between the Harris tweed and the tartan ones with the orange lining…
As everyone (well, everyone with a southern accent) keeps telling me, it will be cold up north, and so a nice warm pair of tweed shoes count as a sensible investment…
My first trip to see Stoke play at home in the Premiership…and they won despite being down to ten men and despite the best efforts of a referee who seemed to be watching a different match.
You know you’re in Stoke when:
- the main advertising in the Britannia Stadium is for chlamydia testing;
- a live feed from SkyTV, inviting Stoke fans to show the viewers at home that they were the loudest fans in the Premiership met with a stony silence;
- chants were adapted during the match to taunt Manchester players and supporters – ‘We only needed ten men’ and the less tasteful ‘Rob-in-ho. She said no’.
A recent post on University Diary about Newman’s Idea of a University led me to reflect on what a university is – a question that relates to previous ponderings on how we project a more positive image of English higher education, which pre-supposes that we have a clear idea of what we are here to do….
As University Diary argues The Idea of the University may not provide a ‘blueprint’ for a 21st century university, but I think that there are some interesting parallels in terms of the questions we can ask ourselves today:
Newman’s espousal of a liberal education was partially a contribution to contemporary debate about calls for university degrees to be more applied and provide a better preparation for professional life (in modern terms, think about the balance we are called upon to strike between general education of students to enquire and to think, and the more specialised demands of the employability agenda – what are we striving to provide in terms of a ’student experience’?);
the mid-nineteenth century was also a time of debate about the emergence of new academic diciplines and specialisms, such as history and the sciences (today we have diversified beyond those academic disciplines into foundation degrees, work-based learning, applied degrees relating to particular professions and branches of work. What is appropriate subject matter for a degree? How does this higher academic education differ from vocational preparation?);
- Newman wrote in the middle of a period of reform and self-conscious professionalisation in English academic life, and amid debate on the roles of the university in research and in teaching (what is the balance between research and teaching? what are the primary roles of academics?);
- finally, Newman wrote about the role of religion in an academic community (At first glance, this may seem to be less relevant to the 21st century, but in the year of the Darwin bicentenary and seeing that the debate with creationists is far from over in some quarters, there are still relevant questions to be asked about the nature of free academic enquiry and the values that underpin an academic community).
There is no one answer to each of these questions – the debate was robust enough in Newman’s day – just think of the variety of answers that can emerge from a considerably larger and more diverse sector today – but it would be a fitting tribute to the spirit of Newman and Darwin to at least attempt to ask ourselves the questions.
The challenges of good internal communication and how to secure engagement within a community were among my learning points from a recent major project. With that in mind, I noted with interest the following:
HEFCE-funded project on internal communications in Higher Education, Helix;
the Cabinet Office Employee Engagement Kit (thanks to Casey for her post on this).
With these in mind, I also found food for thought in a presentation from the Head of Web Services at a recent team meeting. She talked through the approach she and her team were taking to the provision of web services across the University:
the identification of core values for her team, e.g. aspiring to be seen as expert, professional, forward-looking;
the identification of core institutional themes to which all projects were aligned and all activity directed/focused, e.g. improving recruitment, growing reputation, exposing research, enhancing (student) experience;
positioning – knowing how her service fits (working with staff and working for students);
being able to express what these values, direction and themes mean for key audiences and stakeholders, and managing expectations accordingly.
I managed to forget to blog about this before Christmas – all the excitement of an Institutional Audit….
The picture is, of course, a little misleading – I got to see Hamlet but not with David Tennant. I mention this because as good as his understudy, Edward Bennett, undoubtedly was, I find it impossible to review his performance on its own terms. Bennett really did give an excellent performance but not memorable in its own right – there were gaps where the almost maniacal and mesmerising edge that Tennant can bring to a performance would have fitted.
It wasn’t a one-man show – Oliver Ford Davies as Polonius was beautiful, touching and funny. Patrick Stewart was magnificant (it being entirely understandable that an otherwise drippy and forgettable Ophelia should try to rip his clothes off at one point…:-) )
The set design was stunning with mirrored surfaces on the floor and backdrop. This was put to use from the very first scene, with the actors bouncing beams of light off the floor to illuminate each other’s faces in an eery opening scene. As the audience looked at its own reflection, the set became the embodiment of Shakespeare’s injunction to ‘hold the mirror up to nature’.
The bifurcation of content reflects a recognition that I blog for two rather different purposes (professional development and personal amusement) and, potentially, for two very different audiences (yes, people actually read some of this stuff!). I realised that although the starting point for Intersecting Sets was the personal intersection of a range of work, research and social interests, I am now more comfortable with posting to different ‘sets’ in separate places.
I managed to forget to blog about this before Christmas – all the excitement of an Institutional Audit….