The Devil is in the Memes

If standards agencies were run like higher education, the meter would now be less than a yard (about 5% less).¹

If the Prime Minister (£142,500/yr) were paid like the average University VC (£235,000/yr), he would be making around £681 Million/yr.²

If cafes were like higher education, they would have more than one person standing around for everyone serving you coffee (not people standing around when they should be serving coffee but standing around to manage, administer, and provide support).³

Footnotes:

1) Between 1995 and 2013 the proportion of 2.1 and firsts increased by about 14% according to the data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation. Yes, it is wikipedia...

... but this article says there may have been grade inflation in first class degrees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9792964/Number-of-first-class-degrees-has-tripled-since-late-90s.html.

... and this article thinks so too: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/why-are-so-many-more-firsts-being-awarded-than-ever-before-8456150.html

 

... and this article documents that at Cambridge the first class degree proportion grew from about 10% in 1960 to 22% in 2005. During that time the proportion of 2.1 degrees increased from 24% to 50% in the same period. 

There are always doubters.There are claims that when controlled for A-level grades little or no inflation has occurred (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25811702) ...

... not that there was any grade inflation in A-levels! No never...  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23695270. 

2) Assume that the average VC serves a population of 20,000 students. This means that a VC gets about £11.75/student. The Prime Minister serves a population of about 58 million people. At £11.75/person that is about £681 million a year. The PM may be underpaid. 

3) Academic staff make up 47.5% of the UK HE sectors employees. People on hourly paid and zero hours contracts were not included in that statistic. Data are here: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/files/equality-in-he-stats-report-2012-staff.pdf .

Note: this is not a UK only phenomenon. See for instance: 

http://chronicle.com/article/Administrative-Bloat-How-Much/135500/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/bureaucrats-paid-250-000-feed-outcry-over-college-costs.html

Oxymorons and the Pay for Performance Myth

In case no one noticed, the Vice-Chancellors of UK Universities (that is the UK equivalent of University President in the US) got themselves large average pay increases. For the Russell group it was about 8% average increase. For all of them the average was about 5.1%. This is an inflation beating pay increase.

Like many of their counterparts in industry who fancy themselves entrepreneurial risk takers, this is not matched by performance. Before continuing let’s be clear, somewhere in the system there is a VC who deserves that raise. This is not about that VC or any individual VC. Individually, I suspect there are successes or failures to celebrate. Somewhere there is a big fish in his or her small pond who is keeping it in good order. This is not about local success or failure. It is about the lot of them.

Collectively, they are doing a terrible job. Really awful.

Those are strong words. Why would anyone say such a thing?

You might say such a thing because they have presided over the looting of students and their parents. Net cost of education to students and their families has skyrocketed. There has been a three fold increase in fees to students on the watch of most of the current VCs. If they have been in post since 2004/5 the increase is still greater. In return for a little more cash in pocket, they sold out the idea of University Education as a public good. Well done.

You might say such a thing because in recent years there has been an 11% rise in the cost of student rents – something to consider in more detail another day. This transfer of cost and increased cost is not just a financial looting, but a looting of futures. Graduates released into the world who are massively in debt do not have the same options or mind set as those with more economic freedom. They won’t be taking as many big risks, because they have already taken one and that was on their education. 

You might say such a thing because while looting students and their parents and getting paid more themselves, the VCs have presided over years of sub-inflation pay rises for their academic staff. People understand a bit of shared belt tightening. Supposing costs to students were being held down and if belt tightening were shared, no one would have too much to say. However, neither is the case.

You might say it because the rudderless boat they are pretending to be Captains of is going nowhere. Into this leaderless vacuum comes Government, the Media, the League Tables, etc. and they are defining the terms of a debate the University VCs haven’t even shown up to. As one example, over the last few years, the University VCs have allowed their institutions to be collectively defined in terms of student satisfaction in the worst possible way (Note the “satisfaction” column here). Yes, student satisfaction matters, but in the scheme of things it is not the point of what a University does. Which matters more: student achievement or student satisfaction? 

More important than any of these reasons, you might say these VCs were failures because of grade inflation. Over the last 10 years, the VCs have presided over the continuing debasement of degree standards. It just goes on and on. If the VCs do not get their act together, degree granting will be “looked at” and regulated and perhaps, with the best of intentions, standardised exams will be given to define degree class. Yes, the league table generators have much to answer for, but at the root of the problem are the people responsible: University VCs. In the last academic year alone the number of first class degrees inflated 13%. Sorry to have to break it to you Ladies and Gentlemen of the VC Class, but you are doing a terrible job. Grow a spine. What version of “this one goes to 11” will you come up with to solve this problem you have visited upon your institutions? The day the university equivalent of the A* degree is introduced is the day every VC in the UK should be told to clean out their desks and the door slammed on their backsides as they leave for the last time. That day may be sooner than anyone thinks.

That is it in a nutshell. “Academic Leadership” is an oxymoron which means charging more, delivering less, calling it better, and taking more home in pay.

The 1% and me: More about strikes and UK Higher Education

There was another strike on the 3^rd of December. I participated. Why?

I participated in strike action because in my heart of hearts I believe Universities are sustainable. How does this belief matter?

Before considering that some facts. We have been offered a 1% raise. There are a lot of people in the UK hurting. There are a lot of people in the UK who are looking at no raises. But they deserve better and I hope they would fight for better pay if they were in my position. Because of who I am, perhaps I am not the best person to give a raise to. I am not a big spender and demand stimulates economies. I am too desperately trying to save for a retirement to be extravagant. 

For now, I do have a pension slowly building up but I expect it will have been gutted by the time I retire. Similarly, a lot of people in the UK have already had their pensions gutted or have none but the state pension. They deserve better and I hope they would care about their pensions if they had one. Pension theft is the new international sport.

What about the sustainability of Universities?

If inflation is running at 13% over a 3 year period of time and wages rise by 1% this is not sustainable over the long term. If this continues for 9 years, the standard of living will drop by 29%. I will retire in roughly 15 years. By then the effective wage of academic in Higher education will have dropped by 44%. This is not sustainable.

Do Universities have the money? I think they do, but they are spending it badly. Were fees flat (they are not) as they were mostly up until last academic year, fair enough. But with the new fees, last year there should have been about 8-10% increase in income from teaching. 

I have looked for the release of the financial statements of universities for academic year 2012/13. Usually they are signed off in November, but last I looked I could only find older ones. If income is going to increase 8-10% per year there should be enough to support a cost of living increase with some left over.

But no. We are looking at 1%. I am now part of the 1% - those with a 1% salary increase. 

If inflation were flat, fair enough. 

If income were flat or down for what we do, fair enough.

I don’t think either applies and the I think the Universities know that. There is a lot of money sloshing around on campuses. For evidence look at the building spree on campuses and associated research parks. 

I will strikenext time too, thank you very much.

What is the UK's Aggregate Staff Student Ratio?

How many staff to how many students? It depends on how you look at it.

In 2010/11 according to HESA data there were 2,562,100 University students.

In that same year there were 381785 employed in Higher education.

This gives a ratio of 6.7 students per staff member. Of course this includes everyone from Vice Chancellor's to cleaners. That is a very small and very interesting number.

What about the ratio of students to academic staff?

In 2010/11 there were 181348 academic staff employed in Higher education.

This gives a ratio of 14.1 students per academic member of staff. This is a low and somewhat interesting number. However, this includes staff classed as "Research Only".

Ok what about just those who teach?

In 2010/11 There were 140544 academic staff involved in teaching in the UK.

This gives a ratio of 18.2 students per member of academic staff involved in teaching in the UK.This is still an interesting and respectable number. However this number includes those members of academic staff that do both teaching and research. I also believe it is a head count and includes part time academic staff.

From a student's perspective, what is the ratio of students per academic staff member corrected for research and for part time?

I am sorry, I don't know that number. That is where the data dry up. I also don't know how they are classed. Sometimes a University might class someone as an academic member of staff that I might not. My guess is that it would be in the low 20s.

This data also excludes hourly paid lecturers and those on zero hours contracts.

6.7 students to each member of staff. That is an interesting number. VERY interesting.

Gender, Clinical Subjects, and the “New” Fee Structure: Perhaps an accident?

So it begins...

...the cuts. This was probably inevitable and predictable. The University of Leads is restructuring subjects in the School of Healthcare and if the unions are to be believed 3/4 of the subject areas in the School are under threat. While this looks to be the pruning of subjects related to and peripheral to medicine, it is an interesting case and the driver for change can be made more understandable (but no less dismaying) by three “unrelated” facts.

1) The “new” fee regime restructured the landscape of higher education in the UK.

 

2) In the “new” fee regime clinical subjects ended up with the least change in income.

3) The clinical subjects are dominated by women in the UK.

Except, these facts are not unrelated. They are related by the law of unintended consequences. Problem is that unintended consequences have a way of moving in biased directions.

 

i) The restructuring of UKHE is discussed here.

ii) The problem of clinical subjects is this: In January of 2013, HEFCE announced a slight revision to the price group structure (table 2 of the linked document is the useful information). This means that clinical subjects (Price Group A) enjoyed a 7.3% increase overall from 2010/11 to 2013/14. A useful inflation calculator may be found here. Unfortunately the Bank of England data stops last year. However, between 2010 and 2012 inflation in the UK averaged 4.2%.yr. That means that support for Price Group A (Student fees + government) which was £17784 in 2010/11 would be expected to be £19310 for 2012/13. It was, however, less one year later in 2013/14 (about £19100).  

The short statement of the problem of clinical subjects is: they are losing ground to inflation. Compare that 7.3% “rise” to other subjects: Price group B over 17%, Price Group C 21%, and Price group D 34%.

iii) UK Higher education is not Gender neutral territory. This document has the data. It is terribly unequal. Among support staff, women make up 78.6%. Among full time academics they make up 38.6% There is an issue here.

Women Dominate (>50%) the following subjects: Education, Health and Community Studies, Modern Languages, and Staff and student Facilities, Clinical Medicine, Nursing and Paramedical Studies, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences and Veterinary Sciences. Men dominate the rest. It is worth noting that the last four (Clinical Medicine, Nursing and Paramedical Studies, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences and Veterinary Sciences) employ over half of all female academics in the UK.

  

So here are the awkward questions...

 

Was there underlying gender bias in setting the price of clinical subjects?

Is anyone taking a very hard look at what is happening to clinical medicine and nursing programmes in the UK? The UK is facing skills shortages in some of these areas. Is there a pernicious gender bias at the heart of these shortages.