Dr. John Hood, who is the vice-chancellor at the university, submitted plans to change the council structure so that there would be more lay-members and they would then have more of a control over matters such as finances. This caused outrage amongst some members as it would be a massive change in the ancient university's governance. There was a long debate and it resulted in a humiliating defeat for Dr. Hood when it went to a vote. This story was reported in such places as the BBC news website and the Guardian Unlimited website.
I then noticed a post about this on the Mortar Board, which is an education blog on the Guardian Unlimited site. The paragraphs which provoked my initial comment were the first two:
"Where now for Oxford? Dons today decisively rejected plans by the vice-chancellor John Hood to modernise the running of the ancient university.and the last one:
By a clear majority they expressed dislike of his proposal for a ruling council with a majority of outsiders from business, to bring Oxford into line with every other university in the UK except Cambridge."
"We must hope for an outbreak of Christmas goodwill in the university - after all there is far too much important scholarly work to be done to get distracted by who sits on what committee."I must admit that my initial response was a little reactionary, but it also got the basis of my point across. However, people disagreed with what I posted. I wasn't surprised - you can't make everyone agree with you. Some of the points did seem overly opinionated and just plain wrong though. One person posted:
"What may - or may not,'work' for lesser Universities is not good enough for the very best.Hmmm - 'the best'? I thought to myself, 'let's examine that statement'. The University of Oxford has been regarded as one of the top universities for a while now, but how good is it? The Times does the 'Good University Guide' every year and publishes rankings based on a series of criteria. Oxford appears at the top of the 2007 table, but then I looked at the figures more closely. According to the table, it doesn't have the highest average spend on facilities, the highest completion rate, the highest ranking for entry requirements, isn't the best for career prospects, doesn't have the best student:staff ratio and has no mark for student satisfaction. As it boycotted the National Student Survey that's another way we can't judge satisfaction.
Our younger son, educated at the local state comprehensive and the local sixth form college, is a graduate of Oxford and we are absolutely delighted with the way the University is, and has been for a long time."
Yes, it might have the highest number of degrees classed as 1st or 2:1, but academic achievement isn't the only thing that is considered by employers now. 'Soft' skills such as interpersonal skills and things that make you a well-rounded person are much more important (the career prospects figure is an indicator of this). In reality, while it might be the best in terms of degree results, I don't think it's the best overall. This response didn't seem to relate to the article anyway. It just seemed to be posted because I was disagreeing with something Oxford did.
Getting back to the point of the article, someone posted:
"Congratulations to Oxford academics for resisting the tendency to "modernise". i.e. change a university from a self governing community of academics (well sort of!) into a business"I'm sorry - this is just a ridiculous statement. Competition is getting much stronger nowadays (especially post-1992). Therefore it's important that a universities markets itself properly and has a strong grip on it's finances. It's important to get the funding required to provide high quality facilities to attract the students as well as providing good teaching quality. It's important that a university has a business aspect to it so that it can make the correct investments and make best use of it's funding. You have to accept at least some modernisations to stay with or keep ahead of the competition. It is standard practice to have a council structure like Dr. Hood was proposing and that standard has (mostly) worked for a number of years. Why do they assume it will fail at Oxford?
I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.
1 comment:
It's hard to say anything about Oxford without emphasizing it's ancient history: it is a university governed not by it's ruling academics, but more by it's tradition and history.
The academics tend to merely act as avatars and channels for these traditions.
History is a good thing, Hull University for example isn't exactly a "whipper-snapper" as they go, and has very strong long standing traditions, but then it was never too steeped in tradition, not being one of the oldest universities either, and a strong vein of "business" orientated academics, with minds rooted more in reality and day to day life than text books and their next PhD thesis, have helped to keep it abreast with modern practices.
Oxford will someday have to modernise, there is not a single organisation in the UK that has not had to change and adapt with modern practices, but it is the way in which change comes about which disinguishes one body from another. Because of their long standing traditions and history, boarding on religious dogma, especially when concerning the governance of the student body itself, Oxford will change in the way a very old oak changes, over a long period of time, very slowly, and with great effort. It is hard to picture this as most modern business practices have been "injected" into educational establishment over the past 50 years very quickly, making or breaking most establishment, and while this could happen at Oxford with a large internal political shift, it might just break the oak in two with a large thunder crack.
Of course, it's ridiculous to think that such practices, when accepted and implemented correctly, would not work in Oxford, the only barrier is the social/mental one in place by academics, some of whom have spent over half their lives within the shielded environment of academia, which while no different from most academics, they have spent this time in THE shielded environment of academia. Oxford presents such an artificial world, where an academics word is law, and most other concerns are minimal, that any such threat to this, for example external policies and ideas on governance and finance, are treated with utter contempt.
In some ways I would actually say this is a good thing, in some universities the control of the dreaded "bean counters" is so much so that changes to facilities, academic resources, and even teaching methods are brought in that are detrimental to the overall way in which students are taught about the world, about their positions as responsible adults, and also the materials they are taught about and with. Why might you ask? Merely to enhance the bottom line, and in some cases to provide a better view to academic performence, even if that peformance does not reflect real value.
Regards this last point, I don't think Oxford does any better than the bean counters.
Post a Comment