It’s not even that the administrators are highly paid (although many of them are), but that once a University moves away from research and education as being their sole purpose and starts becoming run more like a business there is an explosion in administration roles. My experience here is almost entirely from the US perspective and so acknowledge there are likely differences but the same forces are at play and the growth of the administrator class in our universities has been enormous (while full time educators end up working second jobs to keep themselves afloat).
2 Likes
I think the quality of lectures is far better now than when I was at uni. There are more academic staff on a teaching/education pathway (rather than research focus).
There is also far better individual support for students- academic, disability, wellbeing etc.
Much of this has been driven by student evaluation and student voice committees. Students have much more of a say in their education now, which is a good thing.
I would also say that students (in general) seem less independent and resilient, requiring infinitely more support than was ever available when I was at uni. There are many factors in this- school education system, mental health crisis and links to social media, and students own financial concerns. Many are reliant on food banks to get by.
On the question of where the money is going. I would concur with what has been said above. Highly paid directors whose focus is on finances, including developing the estate to attract international students, rather than learning and the development of new knowledge. Our uni has built beautiful new buildings, student accommodation etc, but is currently in the process of voluntary severance/redundancy of hundreds of staff
2 Likes
I was international coordinator at a previous institution. When explaining the education system here it almost started a riot when tuition fees were discussed. Scandinavian students spoke of no fees and grants up to masters level. American students spoke of unequal system of some getting scholarships and others leaving with over $100k of debt. UK has been somewhere in between but seems to be moving towards the US model, sadly.
It is not hard to run up $100k. Current tuition at one of my schools is $64k per year. Estimated total cost of attendance for a year is $89k before financial aid.
1 Like
Real Madrid and Makélélé springs to mind.
Can they not order for 3 wards…24 pints of milk…÷ 3 wards is 8 pints…as required…
I bet they’re contracted to a minimum order or something stupid like that. Its also possible someone isnt doing their job but public body procurement is all over the place
2 Likes
Yeah true…but when I worked as an LGO in 2010…I had to cancel and revise hundreds of contracts…to save money…
1 Like
Wouldn’t be the first example of a procurement department thinking they know better than the end user regarding what the end user actually wants or needs
4 Likes
The counter to this is the increasing reliance on adjuncts, which are roles that appeal to targets due to the perceived prestige, but they pay like FUCKING SHIT and often set the adjunct up to fail.
After I left academia I did it as a favour a few times when needed for my old department, but only in courses I had taught before so had no prep work required. But once I realized the extent to which they leaning on adjuncts across the board and how bad a salary that prorated to I told them to do one as it was apparent it was a financial choice. Me and another colleague figured out that if you extend the amount of work for one course (one that wasnt previously yours so you were required to prep before the lectures) to a full time role it came out at about $35,000 a year salary. Florida minimum wages is $27k FFS
4 Likes
Please dont get me started.
1 Like
Yeah the equivalent here is post-doc on a temporary contract. It’s brutal for them. Poorly paid and stress of having to perform and/or get grant income or they’ll have no job. I wouldn’t advise anyone to do a PHd unless there is a clear employment pathway for them
3 Likes
In an ideal world yeah, but it rarely happens. As I said, facts tell us that the UK voted to leave the EU. Yes or No? Yet, many people on this forum will have the opinion that people were lied to, didn’t know what they were voting for, were old, racist. Isn’t that all subjective, not factual. Yes, you could argue that figures show that people of that demographic were more likely to vote that way but the figures do not show how many of the same demographic voted to remain.
So just as opinions should be based on facts, opinions shouldn’t be dismissed because they are different.
1 Like
Differing opinions are fine on subjective matters: favourite band, best film, prettiest girl, etc.
But when objective matters are represented by demonstrable facts, incorrect opinions are simply bullshit.
4 Likes
Sorry, my fault. I was being way too optimistic, and completely over estimated your level of understanding.
I knew I should of used more pictures!
No, much of that is verifiably true. What is perhaps subjective is the scale of the influence of these things on the vote.
2 Likes
Should *have
4 Likes
‘people were lied to, didn’t know what they were voting for’ - factual
‘old, racist’- subjective/generalisations
The only one of those that’s a demographic is ‘old’
3 Likes
So how does this differ from the analogy I presented. The demonstrable fact is that 52% voted to leave. So, should I call your opinion incorrect or bullshit. I wouldn’t do either because it’s your opinion and facts can be used selectively, to suit a point.
Look, I am not trying to be a troll - waiting for Mascot to pipe up and make a joke about, people starting points with “I’m not a racist, but” - I just think that both sides are guilty of ignorance, and dismissing other peoples opinions as stupid. Maybe if people listened and actually considered views they did not agree with, the UK may not have voted to leave the EU, the USA may not of elected Trump - possibly re-electing him?
As you imply, both are demonstrable facts.
If someone presents a view on something objective which is in denial of the facts, and you cannot convince them that they are wrong, what else is there to do but call them out on their ignorance?
Hypothetically, if someone held the opinion that England won the 2022 World Cup, and no matter how many times you showed them Argentina lifting the trophy they wouldn’t change their mind, what would you do?
2 Likes