Submission on "College of Science Plan" of 3 May 2007

Submission from Paul Broady, Biological Sciences
15 May 07

1. Feedback
   • A 10 working day submission period is very brief for someone heavily involved with teaching etc. This largely prevents useful discussion with colleagues and time for careful thought.
   • In several places in the Plan there is insufficient information on which to base feedback. I refer to these below.
2. New government funding to universities
   • What implications does this have for the plan?
   • To what extent might it improve College finances?
3. The projected deficit
   • In the discussions which I have managed to attend there was substantial confusion with regard to what the "$2.2M deficit at end 2009" really means. This has not been helped by what might be faulty interpretations in the media.
   • Is it ~$700,000 cumulative each year for three years? Or what? We need a clear, understandable and accurate explanation of our position.
   • As this deficit seems to have plummeted from ~$4.3M to $2.2M in the last month due to an unpredicted increase in EFTS, then how might it continue to fluctuate over the next 3 y? For instance, how can we be sure the envisaged enrolments will be made mid-year? Or perhaps 2008 enrolments will decrease or, may be, even rise further? It seems to me that we need a plan which includes flexibility to cope with such fluctuations.
   • Already the current Plan, and previous suggestions for coping with a presumed deficit, have left people substantially bewildered. The level of bewilderment, concern and even anger seems an outcome which should be unnecessary over discussion of what seems to be a figure of less than 2% of our annual budget.
4. The contribution margin
   • We are expected to swallow hook, line and sinker the contribution margin system.
   • I have yet to see a full and understandable explanation of this including why the charge on our college is as it is.
   • Discussion with other staff has invariably failed to enlighten me and has usually revealed frustration and confusion on their part.
   • As this seems to be the basis of our woes it would be helpful for us to be convinced - by a detailed, yet understandable, analysis - that our contribution is being used by the "centre" in an efficient and effective way. Without such assurance it will be found that many staff remain disheartened by the system under which they are asked to operate.
5. Department reviews
   • It is planned to review the performance of each academic department / school. However, nowhere is mention made of the costs of the College Administration and Services.
   • Why are they not also being reviewed?
   • What are their costs? Are there any areas where these might be reduced and savings transferred to the work-face of core activities?
6. Technical support services
   • We are told that the academic departments have an "extremely high" technical : academic staff ratio.
   • This is unsupported by any comparative data. Please supply such data and in a way which convinces that like is being compared with like.
7. Workforce planning - academic staff
   • A similar comment to 6 above. We are told that we have a "relatively low" turnover of continuing academic staff. Also, it seems to be implied that we have a high proportion above 50 y.
   • Please supply comparative data from other similar institutions.
   • I am entirely sympathetic with the desire to create an effective and stimulating launch-pad for all early career academics. The most important aspect is for them to have time to apply their best creative thinking to both research and teaching. All should be provided with sufficient internal funding to at least maintain their research interests and their teaching load should be increased gradually over a number of years from a relatively low level. I think this is more important than trying to pick research "winners" for preferential support.
8. The stultifying hand of managerialism
   • I believe that success in teaching and research emerges most effectively by: a) allowing the people who undertake those activities to follow their enthusiasms and b) by maintaining the broadest possible diversity of interests within the institution.
   • The former produces a well-motivated community and the latter allows flexibility in responding to the needs, and whims and fashions, of broader society.
   • That enthusiasm usually includes a desire to keep at the cutting edge of one's field, to be "relevant" in one's interests and to effectively communicate those interests, i.e. to be effective in the core roles of the University.
   • Throughout the Plan, and unfortunately at higher levels of administration through to government, I detect a strong desire to push people into pigeon-holes, e.g. teach or research, research the managers' perceptions of society's needs, cut this subject, put our eggs into that basket.
   • This is bound to be a less advantageous approach for society as a whole. Much of the teaching / research work-force will feel pushed around and disenfranchised. Flexibility will be lost. Square pegs will be forced into round holes.
   • The College's main role should be in creating the freedom to allow enthusiasms to flourish. Our ability to attract funding and students would then happen in a much less forced manner. Some academics would be naturally attracted to the fashions of the day whilst others could continue on some seemingly arcane aspect which might become the next relevant area to emerge.
   • Such a relaxation of control by our managers needs trust and courage.

In the back of my mind, ever since the College system was established, has been a line in a newspaper article from that time. This was a comment from an un-named person in the Registry, that the new system "was really going to put the heat on the academics". So far, it does not seem to have been the heat of enthusiastic endorsement.