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.

UCU, the Universities Strike and Me: Why I Am on Strike Today

If you read the papers, you may be aware that university lecturers are on strike today, at least some of them. I am one.

Why? Is it about the money. Well yes some, but being honest I am striking over pay only because nothing else was balloted and nothing else is on the table. So, yes. It is about the money.

It is about the money because in the last data I have seen, my VC makes more than the prime minister and more than the VC at our better sister University in the same city. No he isn’t worth it. At least I don’t think so. I’d think he was worth it if he sent half his salary to David Cameron. He’d still be well paid. I don’t even like the guy (David Cameron that is) but he has a very important and very difficult job and I respect him for the work he does, whatever disagreements I have with him and his policies. Just so you know, I don’t like Gordon Brown, or Blair, or Major, or Thatcher either. I can’t imagine enjoying sitting down to dinner with any of them. But they were all worth the money they were paid.

But if the money is only a minor issue, what are the others. There is only time for some of them.

In the university sector, only slightly over 45% are academic staff. This is sector wide. This value is an average and some universities will be below average. Some are perhaps very much below average. The Boards of Governors of UK universities include some very high powered corporate executives and former executives. I am stunned that this number is not discussed more. It makes me think they are asleep at the wheel and that perhaps they are not asking the right questions. Perhaps they are not that well informed, but I can’t imagine that any who owned their own business would tolerate a figure like that at least without some hard questions.

One estimate I have seen in the press is that at the new rate of fees, each hour of instruction costs a student £45. Beginning next week I will be giving a series of 10 lectures to approximately 200 students. This calculates to £90,000, just that set of lectures. I don’t make that much, not even close. Once Friday is over, I will have delivered 10 lectures to approximately 100 students ( another £45,000). I don’t mind that most of it doesn’t go to me, what I mind is...

... when I began university teaching, I was assigned an office and some lab space. That was a long time ago in the West Indies. There, I would lecture to a group of students and for roughly every two weeks of lecture, I would see every student in small tutorials (about 15 students but often fewer). The typical student there paid BD$200. 

... when I moved to the UK in 2005 (about the time the ~£3k top up fees were introduced), I was assigned to a shared office with one other person. I was assigned a small lab and would see each student in small tutorials (about 15 students) about once every 8 lectures. There was an open door policy for students which meant they could see me as long as I was in my office. Much of the time I spent with students involved showing them how to do computations of varying complexity using spreadsheets and I could do these conveniently at my desk. It mostly worked, but my office mate sometimes had to leave because he couldn’t stand to listen to me explain dilution computations AGAIN. 

... now, I work in a shared office with 5 people. Last year the instructional tutorials became something better called a “workshop” and there were two hours of these for 10 hours of lecture and were delivered to groups which were sometimes over 100. A new non-academic “pastoral” tutorial system was introduced. The open door policy no longer exists. I had the heart-breaking experience this year of having to tell students I couldn’t help them, not because I couldn’t at that instant in time, not because my other colleagues were in the office at the time, but because I knew if I broke discipline, within a few weeks the shared office would be more unusable than it already is for work requiring concentration. I felt terrible about this, but part of my job is to be an actor at times so as to not spread negativity. I truly miss the open door policy. I truly miss having an office allowing me to converse easily and non-disruptively with my students. In the years between 2005 and the present, I have had 5 different offices and I will soon move (partly) to the 5^th lab (this is for research not teaching). 

... my experience is that effort delivered to students is inversely proportional to the amount of money those students have been paying. At the same time grades have been inflated.

Some of my colleagues work in offices of 8 or more. There are environments where open plan offices work, apparently, but the evidence is this is not true of knowledge workers. The consequences for me in my 5 person shared office is that I work from home more than I did. Joke if you will about “working” from home, wink, wink, but it is not a joke. I hate it. I despise it. Every minute of my working at home is a sign of failure in my view. I hate it because, I actually like working with students. I hate it because I think it is important for me to be at the University as part of a community. I hate it because for me it represents a failure of vision. I hate it because, my students can’t find me. I hate it because, it makes my work invade my home life more than it already has.

I have colleagues scheduled for 8 hours days without break. I have colleagues who are allocated 2 hours to supervise final year dissertations.

This is just the beginning, but it gives a flavour. Over the course of this year I will teach somewhere between 350 and 400 students. With this size group, almost all statistical probabilities will be visited on one or another of those students. Me and my colleagues need to be there for them. Some of these colleagues will be on short-term or zero-hours contracts. If the year beginning now is like the one just ended, in addition to my teaching and research duties, I will also help students with financial problems, with depression, with mental illness, who have been robbed, who have been raped, who have been defrauded, who have had serious illness, who collapse, who are suicidal. I will write recommendations, I will advise police departments, and support former students to find jobs, to get through tough times, sometimes help them get accommodation. I will receive about 11000 emails and send about 4000. 

So, yes it is about the money, because the environment is not on the table. UCU is one of the few organisations speaking up. The Students Union is also doing good work.