Ask a lecturer II.

Eoin Macollamh

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Just a question about lectures in general. As a alot of people do in their lectures I'm constantly taking notes down but in many of my lectures all I do is just write notes and this results in me not listening to what is being said as I'm so busy taking notes. Alot of the time I will scan my notes after a lecture and I won't have a clue what it's all about and I often think I would of been better listening more to what was been said rather than trying to write notes a 200mph .... no wait I mean 280kph (metric system :mad: )

What would your advice be? Should I listen more and take down only the important points or is their any other technique would you advice?

You got it in one. Lectures are made to be listened to. This means a couple of things.

1) You have to treat them as if they were a conversation, even though only one person is (usually) talking. In other words, if a friend was telling you a story, you wouldn't feel the need to take notes and you wouldn't necessarily have to interrupt (if the story were clear). You'd listen and try to understand the gist of it.

2) You have to go to lectures in the right frame of mind. This means: not tired, not distracted, ready to listen. Easier said than done, I know.

3) (This is probably the most important) Lectures are not sequences of information and facts to be memorised and repeated on papers and exams. That's not what university education is about. Students can do OK by just parrotting what was said in lectures, but nobody who does that really excels. University is not secondary school and it sure isn't the Leaving Cert (which has a lot to answer for). From a lecturer's perspective, there is nothing more tiresome than reading 50 scripts all of which are like distorted versions of things I've said. The best students are those who don't spend their time in lectures trying to assimilate what is said: they spend their time, in their own minds, questioning it, trying to draw out its implications, trying to place it in contexts they already have. In other words, they make it their own. This does not necessarily require taking a lot of notes, but it does require some confidence in your own intelligence and, unfortunately, even very smart students at UCD are often lacking that confidence.

I sometimes like to lecture with no overhead as a way of forcing students to listen. They go crazy but that is because old (bad) habits die hard.

Why don't you try going to a lecture and just listening for the whole thing and then writing down immediately afterwards what you think the main points were? I'm pretty sure it'll make you a better student.

Also what is your position on Blackboard? I don't think Blackboard is been fully embraced by some departments and I feel it is a great tool that should be used more by some lecturers.

Blackboard is OK, but not significantly better than Online Classes was. As such, I don't really understand why they changed it. The people in Computing Services really do not have much of a clue about supporting teaching and learning. They don't understand that most academics are not comfortable with information technology. That means that even though the technology evolves quickly, Computing Services should think long and hard before instituting a system and longer and harder before changing it. Colleagues who had only just got used to Online Classes now feel they need retraining on Blackboard. And to what end? What's the great improvement? Indeed, I don't know what they're paying for Blackboard, but there are freely available solutions like Moodle that are just as good.

There is also an issue of copyright. Rumour has it that materials put on Blackboard become copyright of the university. I don't know if this is right, but I will want to know before I start putting teaching materials on the system, the way I did with Online Classes. This may seem like a small issue to you, but I can assure you that it is not. Suppose the university in the near future decides to offer degree courses over the internet. Suppose I've left for another job and they still have all my materials and also have the copyright on them. Not only is there nothing stopping them from using all my materials to teach (and make money from) the course that I created, but I myself can no longer use those materials without violating their copyright.

I'll need to get clear answers on this. Does anyone know the truth about this?

One more qusetion. Do you know these names: Stephen Mennell, Joe Brady and Barbara Traxlor-Brown/ Any gossip on any of these? ... Only kidding!
But anyway Mennell is a f**king legend!

I know I promised to be honest, but I've got to lay down a ground rule here: I won't be commenting in a gossipy way about any colleagues by name. It's not fair or collegial to have some anonymous colleague on the internet saying things about them that they can't answer. I realise I may have already violated this rule in some of my comments about the administration. After I finish this post I may have to go back and check/edit them.

Talking about their publicly-expressed views is another matter, however. That, it seems to me, should be OK.

Eoin Macollamh

syke wrote:

Erm thats the point. The publication model is on a sliding scale of value. Artsis at the lower end of that from a college point of view.

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. That's probably because you don't either. There's no such thing as a 'publication model'. Nor is there any 'sliding scale' being mooted.

Basically Brady's problem is that all the schools should be bringing in money.

I agree that that is his problem. I disagree with the apparent assumption that it is reasonable to expect research on courtly love poetry to bring in money in the same way that research on Death Gel (tm) does.

I don't believe I've said this.

You did say that lecturers were being 'forced' (your word) to bring in money. That's not true, even if I have no doubt that Brady would do it if he could.

What I have said is that college resource allocations are not standardised any more

I suspect that this means nothing.

and the system taking over determines allocations by how pro-active the schools are in generating grants, publications and research. Arts fares badly in this sense, thus you have the the responses like yours above towards the new administration.

Please. I hardly know where to begin with this. First, no new resource allocation model has been set out. If you think it has, well, you're wrong. Second, the vast majority (80-90%) of the budget for most departments goes to staff salaries. So the amount that could be allocated based on research and the rest will be tiny in any case. Third, nothing would accrue to the University if budgets were allocated based on the ability to attract outside funding. The appeal of outside funding to the administration is that it represents a cost savings to the University (they don't have to fund what's already funded). If they start giving out money to those who have attracted it from outside, they don't save anything. Fourth, Arts fares relatively badly in attracting grants because there are very few grants. If you think a university should be dominated by commercial interests, then that's a good thing and arts can wither and die. If you think, on the other hand, that arts have a worth to our society that cannot be measured in simple monetary terms, then you are horrified (as I am). Arts does not fare at all badly in terms of overall publications however. It is important to recognise that grants are not an end in themselves. We are not in the business of attracting grants for their own sake, no matter what Brady thinks. We are in the business of producing research and of teaching. In other words, we're not in business at all. And there are a couple of salient points to be made about that:

1) The importance of research must be measured qualitatively, not quantitatively. Reams of bull**** do not equal even one brilliant article. Shortsighted administrations and governments hate this fact. They want research to be countable in the way that pints of beer and acres of land are countable. They are not. Grant money is not research and measuring research by the article or the page or the book or the letter or the dollar is meaningless.

2) If you allow commercial interests to dictate what gets funded, then the only things that will be funded will be commercial. This idea is nothing more than an assault on academic freedom. The patentability of research has nothing to do with its value to society as a whole. Brady and his crew from medicine do not seem to have any sense of this. He's a young man for the position he holds and I see no signs that he has much of an idea of the ways a University is different from a medical school and the ways a medical school is different from a corporation.

Besides the fact you've questioned my knowledge without demonstrating any of your own, this seems to be the crux of the argument. With so many previous non-research-inclined presidents Arts got on just fine with dead money being pored in.

It'd be easier to take 'your knowledge' seriously if it weren't expressed in such an inarticulate way. Brady is not 'research-inclined'. If he were, nobody in the staff would be opposed to him, as we are also 'research-inclined'. What Brady is is 'private-grant inclined'. And private grant money and research have only the most tangential relation to each other.

Brady wants to change that all. Publications lead to grants and funding and attract better scientists. UCD fares poorly in this area at an international level and even at a domestic level when you look at the major funding body allocations to the Irish universities (I think UCD is 4th/5th overall).

Again, I repeat: grant income is not research. To think that it is is to confuse means and ends. As for UCD 'faring poorly': there are no reliable metrics for the international (or even national) comparison of universities. Any metrics you choose already exhibit a bias. For example, one way to measure a university is to look at the size and holdings of its library: the best universities have the best libraries. You never hear Brady using this measure and going out into the media hammering home the idea that we must improve the library. No, all he cares about is attracting grant money. And that's a subject the public finds relatively easy to understand. Add to that a little very unhelpful rhetoric (echoed by the likes of you) about how all those lazy lecturers are the problem and you play into the basest sort of public ressentiment.

But a UCD job is as hard to get a job at as is any other university I know of. The rigours of the hiring process are not to be sneezed at. So how is it supposed to have happened that UCD got stuck with a group of lazy slobs for lecturers? The fact is, it didn't. What it did get stuck with is a university that is woefully and chronically underfunded. So in a way, Brady is right: it's all about money. But the answer to that problem is not to get into bed with industry and let them dictate what the university should be. The needs of industry and the needs of the nation are not the same. The answer is to get the government to do what's needed (and what the OECD report said was needed) to fund the institution properly.

I've gone on long enough about this but one last word: fund-raising is not part of my job description. Fund-raising is not what I'm trained to do and it's not something that I'm competent to do. Fund-raising is what administrations should be doing. It's their job, not mine. And if UCD doesn't have enough funds, then the onus is on them to come up with them. It's not on me. But Brady wants us to do everything: teaching, research, fund-raising. So what, pray tell, is he going to do? What are his responsibilities? Where are the benchmarks on his performance? I know: he's responsible for the overall 'vision'. But he's shown no signs of having any vision. In order to know, for example, what sort of 'restructuring' is needed (or even whether any is needed), he'd need to consult with people who are experts in the various disciplines concerned. But he hasn't done that in any meaningful way. Instead, he called in a group of outside consultants, the WAG group (a subsidiary of Enron, I'm told) who are known to favour the elimination of pure research. Then he pulled a restructuring plan out of his ass, one that makes no sense for many of the disciplines involved and nearly caused a riot at the last meeting of Academic Council. So we are supposed to believe that he knows better than we do what is best for our discipline. He'd have to have the wisdom of Solomon for us to believe that. And he doesn't. Indeed, he hasn't shown much wisdom at all thus far.

Eoin Macollamh

rain on wrote:

So.. ahem.. back to the original topic; I have some more questions, this time motivated by the fact that I want to be a Big Smart Academic myself at some point in the future: Is it a rewarding job (not in the financial sense)?

Yes, it is a very rewarding job if you are the kind of person who loves ideas and learning and loves seeing students develop an interest in fascinating stuff. Best things about it: no boss, your time is your own, you get paid to read and write about books and ideas (if you're in arts). Worst things about it: short-sighted administration meddling, complete lack of suitable intellectual infrastructure (library, intellectual culture) and the mercenary attitude of many if not most of the students, who only want a credential with the least amount of effort.

What's the money like?

That's public information. You'll find the current pay scales here: http://www.ucd.ie/personl/html/ops/scales/current_salary_scales/current_salary_scales.htm

I'm on the top of the Post-95 College Lecturer scale and make €74,715. I don't know whether that seems like a lot or a little. I don't feel I'm badly paid. I also don't feel I'm overpaid. You have to remember that getting a PhD involves sacrificing several (in some cases many) prime working years. I didn't really start pulling down a salary until I was in my 30s. So the salary is not as much as it seems if you average it over a whole working life.

Was your post hard to get?

Yes. Posts in most disciplines are very hard to get. There can be 100s of applicants for a single job (but of course we're all a bunch of layabouts according to the President). This is a huge problem worldwide (in its limited way: it's not life and death). I am often reluctant to encourage excellent students to continue on to the PhD because I know it is going to be so hard for them to find work. Yes, in some sense the degree (and, especially, the learning) are their own reward, but it's a big investment of time if you're just going to find yourself out in the 9-to-5 working world with no real qualifications beyond intelligence.

Another thing to bear in mind: it is that much more difficult to get a job if you insist on living in Ireland. There are only 7 universities here. They all recruit internationally. You almost have to search for jobs internationally once you have your PhD. That means you have to be ready to move to another country. Even then, there are no guarantees.

Are you happy with it?

Most of the time I am happy with it. However, even if the salary conditions are reasonable at UCD, the rest of the working conditions leave a lot to be desired compared to universities in some other countries. There is little in the way of a research infrastructure at UCD: the library is useless as a research tool, opportunities for research leave are few and far between and the teaching demands are somewhat heavier than at other places. Also, there is very little intellectual culture among the students, which gets wearying after a while: the courses all start to seem like remedial ones.

Is it a pleasant working environment?

It's OK. Colleagues tend to be a bit stand-offish and frosty. It's very hard to meet new people, particularly outside the faculty. There's much less of an intellectual hothouse than other universities I've been at: staff are rarely seen engaged in intellectual discussions outside of conferences or visiting lectures and students almost never attend talks by visiting academic speakers (as opposed to politicians, pop stars and footballers). Offices in the Newman building are dreary in the extreme. Plus we have many of the same gripes students have: lousy and overpriced food options, useless library, etc.

That sounds maybe worse than it is.

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. That's probably because you don't either. There's no such thing as a 'publication model'. Nor is there any 'sliding scale' being mooted.

My terms used there. Its already in place. Why do you think we have the RIS website is place?

I agree that that is his problem. I disagree with the apparent assumption that it is reasonable to expect research on courtly love poetry to bring in money in the same way that research on Death Gel (tm) does.

Well we agree on something then...and this is the main reason Brady has upset the Arts (that and also because they no longer have their foot in the presidents office).

You did say that lecturers were being 'forced' (your word) to bring in money. That's not true, even if I have no doubt that Brady would do it if he could.

Forced insofar as department allocation will depend on pro-activity. Deadwood (ie. lecturers who sit in their nice cosy tenure contributing nothing to university growth) will be stripped away.

I suspect that this means nothing.

Yesss great retort, run the debate society do you. Did you read the WAG report by any chance?

Please. I hardly know where to begin with this. First, no new resource allocation model has been set out.

I'm highly dubious as to what your role is if you haven't heard about this. Perhaps Brady has set Business, Med and Eng aside and is leaving Arts as they were but if you haven't seen the changes going on around your head as been under a stone. They are currently merging faculties, setting about implimenting the WAG report and all these are to compliment the way Brady envisiges the college being run: as a business.

If you think it has, well, you're wrong. .

LOL goto the front page and read the strategic plan. It draws heavily on the WAG report and sets out the goals that faculties are expected to achieve.

Go look at the strategic plan (I refer you to pages 16-18 but you best read the whole thing - there is a link on the UCD front page).

Look up the RIS (Link here) I specifically refer you to this part:

RIS will be particularly useful at certain times of the year, i.e. for the Report of the President and Quality Assurance Reporting. Information will be used in the creation of the President's Report annually and will therefore be used in the Resource Allocation Model.

Perhaps ask your colleagues who have seen any of Brady's presentation on the strategic plan and the resources allocation model.

Finally stop ranting about things you are obviously uninformed about.

Eoin Macollamh

OK, there's one infant I don't feel the need to debate.

Enjoy the business world, friend. And when you're 75 and on your deathbed and wondering what the hell was that thing you just lived through, maybe a nice Pepsi jingle will run through your head to give you the answer.

Sangre

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

OK, there's one infant I don't feel the need to debate.

Enjoy the business world, friend. And when you're 75 and on your deathbed and wondering what the hell was that thing you just lived through, maybe a nice Pepsi jingle will run through your head to give you the answer.

Saucer of milk table nine please!

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

OK, there's one infant I don't feel the need to debate.

Enjoy the business world, friend. And when you're 75 and on your deathbed and wondering what the hell was that thing you just lived through, maybe a nice Pepsi jingle will run through your head to give you the answer.

Yes, I figured you'd give up arguing when faced with evidence and fact.

Pity you had to go out with petty insults and name calling.

You might have managed to escape with dignity.

OfflerCrocGod

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

OK, there's one infant I don't feel the need to debate.

Someone just lost a debate.

OfflerCrocGod

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

However, the people from the medical faculty who are currently running the university have an obvious arrogance. They think they know a lot more than they do.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Also, no offence, but the average student isn't smart enough to interest me.

Go on clever man figure this one out.

Eoin Macollamh

This is good.

Do you draw pictures on your exam scripts, too?

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

This is good.

Do you draw pictures on your exam scripts, too?

Again, petty childish insults.

You're the only person on this thread who has stooped to personal insults so far.

Your supposed superior intellect isn't really showing here.

You still haven't addressed the WAG report or the RIS and the fact you seem to know nothing about the changes proposed and implimented by Brady in the college.

ecksor

The irony of

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

However, the people from the medical faculty who are currently running the university have an obvious arrogance. They think they know a lot more than they do.

is interesting here.

Eoin Macollamh

Why do I subject myself to this? OK, because you demanded it:

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'publication model'. Nor is there any 'sliding scale' being mooted.

syke wrote:

My terms used there. Its already in place. Why do you think we have the RIS website is place?

I'll say it again: there is no such thing as a 'publication model'. What is it supposed to mean?

We have an RIS ostensibly for the reasons given on the website. Namely:

Research Information System is a web-based and searchable database that will capture the research expertise and publications of the university's academic staff, post-doctoral fellows and postgraduate research students'. RIS will ensure that information pertinent to research activity within the university can be accessed from one central point within each department.

It's true that it does also say:

Information will be used in the creation of the President's Report annually and will therefore be used in the Resource Allocation Model.

I do not deny that it 'will be used in the RAM'. What I deny is that we have a new Resource Allocation Model in place or that a new one has been proposed. If you say I'm wrong, the onus is on you to show me where it has been proposed. No, pointing to the words 'Resource Allocation Model' on a website or in the strategic plan won't count. I should not have to point this out, but the words 'Resource Allocation Model' are not in themselves a Resource Allocation Model any more than the word 'aeroplane' is something you can fly around in.

Eoin MacOllamh wrote:

You did say that lecturers were being 'forced' (your word) to bring in money. That's not true, even if I have no doubt that Brady would do it if he could.

syke wrote:

Forced insofar as department allocation will depend on pro-activity. Deadwood (ie. lecturers who sit in their nice cosy tenure contributing nothing to university growth) will be stripped away.

Again you haven't a clue what you're talking about. First, as I said before (though in your 'refutation' you didn't see fit to address it) there are two factors that make this impossible. The first is tenure. There can be no 'stripping away' of those with tenure unless you plan to pay them for the remainder of their contracts. That costs money with no benefit to the university. The second is that salaries make up 80-90% of the budget for most departments. That means that, at best, your research allocation model can give 10-20% based on research output. It could grow over time, but those limits are not flexible at any given time. That's hardly going to 'strip away' anything at all.

By the way, even if the full amount of non-payroll funding were allotted based on research output, Arts would do very well relative to other faculties. Arts is among the most productive in research output.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

I suspect that this means nothing.

syke wrote:

Yesss great retort, run the debate society do you. Did you read the WAG report by any chance?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I suspect that the phrase 'college resource allocations are not standardised any more' means nothing. In particular, I don't think even you have any idea what you mean by 'standardised' or what you think it is for 'resource allocations' to be 'standardised' as opposed to 'not standardised'. I'm not saying it's false, mind. I'm saying it doesn't mean anything. It would have to mean something for it to be false.

But to answer your question, yes, I have read the WAG report. It's not an impressive document. If that's the quality of research that is to be promoted in the new UCD, god help us.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Please. I hardly know where to begin with this. First, no new resource allocation model has been set out.

syke wrote:

I'm highly dubious as to what your role is if you haven't heard about this. Perhaps Brady has set Business, Med and Eng aside and is leaving Arts as they were but if you haven't seen the changes going on around your head as been under a stone.

I'm highly aware of the changes going on (insofar as the administration has seen fit to apprise lecturers of them, which is not very far). What I dispute with you is not that there are changes in the offing. No, what I dispute is that a Resource Allocation Model--which is a document, setting out in detail how money is to be distributed--has been produced. If one had, I would have heard about it. You seem to think that a 'Resource Allocation Model' is a couple of phrases in a Strategic Planning document that wave their hands in the direction of research. It isn't. So if you say there is a Resource Allocation Model, I'd ask you to cite from it or shut up about it.

syke wrote:

They are currently merging faculties, setting about implimenting the WAG report and all these are to compliment the way Brady envisiges the college being run: as a business.

All of that is true, alas. It has nothing to do with the question I thought we were debating in this section which was whether a new Resource Allocation Model had been put forward.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

If you think it has, well, you're wrong. .

syke wrote:

LOL goto the front page and read the strategic plan. It draws heavily on the WAG report and sets out the goals that faculties are expected to achieve.

Go look at the strategic plan (I refer you to pages 16-18 but you best read the whole thing - there is a link on the UCD front page).

At the risk of belabouring the point: Yes, there is a strategic plan. Yes it draws heavily on the unchecked say-so of the WAG report. Yes it sets out goals. Yes on page 16 you have the words 'We will . . . establish research as a major driver of the UCD research allocation model'. But, no, this is not in itself a resource allocation model and any RAM proposed will be heavily constrained by tenured salaries.

Perhaps ask your colleagues who have seen any of Brady's presentation on the strategic plan and the resources allocation model.

Unlike you, I've been to them all. Unlike you, I've read all the documentation. Unlike you, I know what a research allocation model is and is not. Perhaps as a result, unlike you, I've been singularly unimpressed with the vision displayed in what I've seen.

But here's a question for you: why should anyone expect a university to be run like a business? You may have noticed that the best universities in these islands, Oxford and Cambridge, are not run like businesses at all. They have much more complicated structures of management and governance than does UCD. They have much more complicated academic structures. And yet they are the very best by any measure.

What makes them different from UCD is money. Lots and lots of money. All of this restructuring at UCD is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. There is no evidence (and I defy you to present any and please don't cite the utterly specious Shanghai report) that UCD is in any way underperforming or, more importantly, underperforming relative to its funding per capita. It may well be that the only problem is a lack of funds. But, again, that is the job of the administration, not the academic staff. The administration want to distract your attention from this. So Brady goes on and on about how UCD is a 'sleeping giant' (why not a 'starving giant'?) suggesting that the problem is really that lecturers are lazy layabouts. He finds a ready mindless echo in the likes of you. But then the question is: how did UCD get stuck with such lousy lecturers? Because, as I say, the hiring process at UCD is as rigourous as any anywhere. The answer is that (with a few exceptions) the lecturers aren't lazy at all.

Another question that ought to be asked is this: has Hugh Brady or anyone on his team given any thought to the fact that the main research output in arts is the book, not the article, and that books take much longer to write? Someone who hasn't put out any research for a while is not necessarily just lying around. They might simply be getting ready to hatch an important book. The difference between a university and a business is that the personnel in a university have to be freed from the pressure to produce quickly. Otherwise, all that will be produced is useless makework. That model (tenure, academic freedom) has served us well for centuries. I see no compelling reason (reason as opposed to heated emotional rhetoric) to change it just because we've changed centuries or Presidents.

Red Alert

Well my tuppenceworth on this is that i know one member of staff in TCD which has been going through a less in-depth but all the same a hugh brady-esque "vision" of changes. It has left staff disillusioned, moral among staff and postgrads is very low.

For some comic relief, what do lecturers think of the incessant question-asker (every class has one!)?

GuanYin

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

I'll say it again: there is no such thing as a 'publication model'. What is it supposed to mean?

I already said it was my term and I chose badly. I meant that RIS based allocation.

I do not deny that it 'will be used in the RAM'. What I deny is that we have a new Resource Allocation Model in place or that a new one has been proposed. If you say I'm wrong, the onus is on you to show me where it has been proposed. No, pointing to the words 'Resource Allocation Model' on a website or in the strategic plan won't count. I should not have to point this out, but the words 'Resource Allocation Model' are not in themselves a Resource Allocation Model any more than the word 'aeroplane' is something you can fly around in.

Well we now at least have made progress to where you are admitting it exists. Well done. Although I guess it was hard for you to keep denying it.

Now. The model is already in place. Faculty allocations last year were weighted on, among other things, postgrads, peer reviewed publications and international presentations. This happened in two faculties that I know of, I can't speak for arts but it *is* part of the model that Brady has been pusing.

Again you haven't a clue what you're talking about. First, as I said before (though in your 'refutation' you didn't see fit to address it) there are two factors that make this impossible. The first is tenure. There can be no 'stripping away' of those with tenure unless you plan to pay them for the remainder of their contracts.

I never said anyone would be fired.

That costs money with no benefit to the university. The second is that salaries make up 80-90% of the budget for most departments.

Most departmentsin which faculty? Do you honestly believe this is the case in the research institutes? Do you know the answer or are you just guesing based on your own experience in Arts?

That means that, at best, your research allocation model can give 10-20% based on research output. It could grow over time, but those limits are not flexible at any given time. That's hardly going to 'strip away' anything at all.

Already there has been rumbling in the sciences, especially med and vet where there are a few older lecturers who see their tenure soley as teaching positions. HoD's are under serious pressure though and I imagine that is how "deadwood" will be dealt with.

By the way, even if the full amount of non-payroll funding were allotted based on research output, Arts would do very well relative to other faculties. Arts is among the most productive in research output.

This may be true, but in the RIS world international peer reviewed journals of high impact factors are the paydirt. Local or low impact factor journals do not earn the same amount of "points".

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I suspect that the phrase 'college resource allocations are not standardised any more' means nothing. In particular, I don't think even you have any idea what you mean by 'standardised' or what you think it is for 'resource allocations' to be 'standardised' as opposed to 'not standardised'. I'm not saying it's false, mind. I'm saying it doesn't mean anything. It would have to mean something for it to be false.

Riiiight. Are you actually making anypoint here? You could address the point for clarification if you were actually capable of having a debate. As it stands you seem to be content to attempt to belittle and pump your air of arrogance. *sigh* your credentials are slipping imho.

But to answer your question, yes, I have read the WAG report. It's not an impressive document. If that's the quality of research that is to be promoted in the new UCD, god help us.

Please elaborate on what you mean by this Its a very generalised sort of "horoscope" answer.

I'm highly aware of the changes going on (insofar as the administration has seen fit to apprise lecturers of them, which is not very far). What I dispute with you is not that there are changes in the offing. No, what I dispute is that a Resource Allocation Model--which is a document, setting out in detail how money is to be distributed--has been produced. If one had, I would have heard about it. You seem to think that a 'Resource Allocation Model' is a couple of phrases in a Strategic Planning document that wave their hands in the direction of research. It isn't. So if you say there is a Resource Allocation Model, I'd ask you to cite from it or shut up about it.

I'll ask for a copy of the powerpoint presentation next week

From the 2003/2004 presidents report

The first objective of UCD’s Strategic Development Plan is ‘to develop and foster excellence in research’. This continued to be actively developed throughout the year, including enhanced systems to track research outputs, since performance
measurement, based on key indicators, has been incorporated into the University’s resource allocation model.

Its online at UCD website. This includes the RIS system and a "points" system based on department pro-activity.

When I say new, I did mean in Brady's time by the way. Which covers 2003-present.

At the risk of belabouring the point: Yes, there is a strategic plan. Yes it draws heavily on the unchecked say-so of the WAG report. Yes it sets out goals. Yes on page 16 you have the words 'We will . . . establish research as a major driver of the UCD research allocation model'. But, no, this is not in itself a resource allocation model and any RAM proposed will be heavily constrained by tenured salaries.

Wrong. The press releases are available to anyone who wants to know the facts. All on UCD website.

Unlike you, I've been to them all. Unlike you, I've read all the documentation. Unlike you, I know what a research allocation model is and is not. Perhaps as a result, unlike you, I've been singularly unimpressed with the vision displayed in what I've seen.

You see when you make statements like these that are not only pompous and arrogant, but also uninformed and incorrect then its obvious that you are either not who you say you are, or just very informed about your surroundings.


[edit]I'm going to give you a chance to save face If you can, by coming clean that you're waffling, before I post a link to information that you must have missed in class

Cecilia

What do you think of the college media? Do any of the lecturers/Professors read the student newspapers, or do they just read official college publications?

Also, do lecturers talk about students in the bar/common room, or do ye mainly just talk about official stuff, academia, etc

Eoin Macollamh

syke wrote:

I already said it was my term and I chose badly. I meant that RIS based allocation.

What you said was 'my terms used there'. That's not much of an admission of anything.

syke wrote:

Well we now at least have made progress to where you are admitting it exists. Well done. Although I guess it was hard for you to keep denying it.

Apparently you have as much trouble reading English as you do writing it. I wrote:

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

'What I deny is that we have a new Resource Allocation Model in place or that a new one has been proposed.'

syke wrote:

Now. The model is already in place. Faculty allocations last year were weighted on, among other things, postgrads, peer reviewed publications and international presentations. This happened in two faculties that I know of, I can't speak for arts but it *is* part of the model that Brady has been pusing.

First of all, it did not happen. It was in the Resource Allocation model for 2002-2003 and, I believe 2003-2004, both of which had nothing to do with Brady (who came in as President in January 2004, not in 2003 as you claim). You can consult this on the Bursar's Office website at: http://www.ucd.ie/bursar/html/procedures/resource.htm . However, like many laws and rules at UCD (and in Ireland) this one was never enforced, in part because such a RAM would require full and compulsory compliance with the Research Information System and that has not yet been put in place. So, yes, it would seem that funding follows research (to the tune of 10%) even under the old RAM. Yet that appearance would be deceiving: it hasn't happened yet.

Brady's claims on this, by the way, seem to be perfectly contradictory. He'd like to have a higher percentage apportioned based on research. Or, so he says. But he hasn't really asked for that (or, rather, tried to push through an increase in the 10% number). He has instead hinted (based on recommendations from his friends in the WAG) that he'd like to have up to 20% of UCD's budget to be apportioned as his own personal little slush fund. That's a non-runner.

He and the registrar have also said, repeatedly, that they want 'money to follow students' much more so than it does now and also that they want to increase the allocation for research output. But their desires have not yet resulted in a new resource allocation model, or at least not one that's been made public.

Incidentally, the idea of money following students is a good one if it is kept within limits. It is a bad one, in my view, if it is--as Brady and Nolan keep suggesting it will be--the primary way of allotting funds. They don't seem to have given much thought (or maybe they don't care) about the way that such a model will distort the curriculum, letting students' interests dictate what is worth teaching and knowing. I can easily see it leading to an even further dumbing down of courses than is already evident.

syke wrote:

I never said anyone would be fired.

No, you used a metaphor. You said the 'deadwood' would be 'stripped away'. You'll have to explain the difference between being 'stripped away' and being fired.

syke wrote:

Most departmentsin which faculty? Do you honestly believe this is the case in the research institutes?

Again your problems with the assimilation of simple English. Did I say 'the research institutes'? I said 'most departments'. I stand by this. This has been repeated at numerous meetings of the Faculty of Arts by the Dean and the Registrar. I don't have it in a document, though I seem to remember seeing it in one somewhere.

syke wrote:

Already there has been rumbling in the sciences, especially med and vet where there are a few older lecturers who see their tenure soley as teaching positions. HoD's are under serious pressure though and I imagine that is how "deadwood" will be dealt with.

Meaning what? Are heads of departments (or Schools) going to force the unproductive to produce? As I've said before--and this is what started this incredibly tedious thread, if memory serves--their hands are tied on this and that's a good thing: Brady is not the sort of visionary that can be trusted in his plans to overthrow centuries of academic tradition that have served us well. Nothing has changed in the 21st century other than that the business world is getting a lot more insistent that they want to get their hands on the cash cow that is the global university system. They want it to serve them. So, apparently, do you. The lecturers at UCD, by and large, have a deeper vision of what a university is and can be.

By the way, the strongest resistance to the current restructuring plan is not coming from Arts. It's coming from Brady's home turf of medicine. Medicine brings in lots of outside research money. Brady wants to top-slice that money to fund his little discretionary fund. Medicine are refusing to play along.

syke wrote:

This may be true, but in the RIS world international peer reviewed journals of high impact factors are the paydirt. Local or low impact factor journals do not earn the same amount of "points".

Perhaps so, but what is 'high impact' and what is not are discipline-specific. In other words, it is not the case, as you seem to think, that 'high-impact' journals are all going to be in the sciences or in disciplines with practical applications. Each discipline will have some. To do it any other way is to change the working conditions and unfairly penalise some colleagues relative to others. Even Brady has no interest in seeing Arts disappear.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

But to answer your question, yes, I have read the WAG report. It's not an impressive document. If that's the quality of research that is to be promoted in the new UCD, god help us.

syke wrote:

Please elaborate on what you mean by this Its a very generalised sort of "horoscope" answer.

It's interesting that I'm expected to dutifully comply with your requests for elaboration and answer questions you ask me but you steadfastly refuse to engage my questions to you (like those in the last paragraphs of my last post).

What I meant is that the WAG group itself was composed almost entirely of people from the biological sciences, medicine, and business (there was one Professor from an Arts discipline out of 16 members of the Group). They spent most of their time talking to those in the biological sciences and--surprise, surprise--came to the conclusion that 'As a comprehensive contemporary university, UCD must build excellence both in the health-related areas represented in the Conway Institute and in the basic research areas of the life sciences outside those immediately associated with human health.' (WAG Report, p. IV-32). These are not people who have any conception that a university should serve any needs beyond those of business and, especially, the businesses they happen to be in.

Further, the case for the claim that UCD is somehow underperforming at present--as it has been presented both in the WAG report and various strategic planning documents--is paper thin. On page II-1-2 of the WAG Report, you'll find the section on UCD's current status. The claim that UCD is underperforming rests on three meagre pieces of 'evidence' (inverted commas are hardly sufficient here):

1) Points for admission have been dropping (but, they say in the next sentence, this is the case nationwide).

2) In overall funding, UCD ranks third among Irish universities. But not only has this improved since they wrote that, but--and this is obvious to anyone who actually does research--research funding is not the same thing as research output. It's not even a suitable proxy. Much if not most of the research at UCD is funded by nothing more than the salaries of those involved.

3) UCD's ranking on the “Academic Ranking of World Universities,” 2004 edition published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. This study is utterly bogus in its methodology. I could go on at length about it but I won't because I'm sure everyone is finding this little pissing match very tiresome. But let me put it this way: if one of my students wrote so much as a course essay that was based on little more than the say-so of an unpublished study on a single website whose methods are utterly tendentious, I'd summarily fail them. But here the WAG group is advocating wholesale restructuring of an entire university with little more basis than that study.

This is what I mean when I said 'if that's the quality of research that is to be promoted in the new UCD, god help us'.

syke wrote:

I'll ask for a copy of the powerpoint presentation next week

University policy (as opposed to provisional proposals) are not made in powerpoint presentations. They may be proposed in them, but policy is written on paper and approved by the appropriate bodies. This ought to go without saying.

syke wrote:

From the 2003/2004 presidents report

The first objective of UCD’s Strategic Development Plan is ‘to develop and foster excellence in research’. This continued to be actively developed throughout the year, including enhanced systems to track research outputs, since performance measurement, based on key indicators, has been incorporated into the University’s resource allocation model.

This is actually not the case. It's been incorporated into the model (under Art Cosgrove, not Brady), but it hasn't been incorporated into the actual practice. I'm sure you can find statements in official Dublin Bus documents that claim that their buses all run on time, too.

[continued next message]

Eoin Macollamh

Its online at UCD website. This includes the RIS system and a "points" system based on department pro-activity.

Again, it hasn't been implemented to my knowledge. And this is not Brady's RAM. His--which I deny (as opposed to 'admit' if you're still having trouble)--has yet to be put forward in any detail.

When I say new, I did mean in Brady's time by the way. Which covers 2003-present.

You can't even get your basic facts right. Brady became President in January 2004.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Unlike you, I've been to them all. Unlike you, I've read all the documentation. Unlike you, I know what a research allocation model is and is not. Perhaps as a result, unlike you, I've been singularly unimpressed with the vision displayed in what I've seen.

syke wrote:

You see when you make statements like these that are not only pompous and arrogant, but also uninformed and incorrect then its obvious that you are either not who you say you are, or just very informed about your surroundings.

Um, the lines you're quoting were not statements of fact. They were surmisals based on the evidence at hand (namely, that you don't have a clue) followed by an opinion.

syke wrote:

[edit]I'm going to give you a chance to save face If you can, by coming clean that you're waffling, before I post a link to information that you must have missed in class

Oooh, a dramatic throwing down of the gauntlet. Colour me terrified.

This will probably be an old resource allocation model document from before Brady's time, probably the one from the Bursar's site that I linked to above. Yes, you can find documents that say that money will be allocated based on research. But: 1) they are not Brady's RAM; we haven't seen that yet and that's what we've been discussing; 2) they were never put into practice.

Think about it: we don't even know what the configuration of the University is going to look like next year. We don't know how many Schools there will be or how they are going to be configured. It would be impossible to have proposed a new resource allocation model in any detail before that restructuring has been decided.

OK, I've grown very tired of this debate, in part because you ignore my every attempt to broaden it out from narrow factual questions to the underlying philosophical ones. You're interested in a pissing contest, so you can bray to your friends about how you 'beat' a lecturer. You haven't, even if your equally uninformed friends think you have.

So bray all you like. This pissing match is not why I started this experiment and not the sort of interaction I'd hoped to have. I'm sure it is quite tedious for all concerned, not least of all me. So I'll let you have the last word on the subject and I'll move on to something else.

Eoin Macollamh

Cecilia wrote:

What do you think of the college media? Do any of the lecturers/Professors read the student newspapers, or do they just read official college publications?

Good question. I can't speak for everyone, but I read both the University Observer and the College Tribune. The former is a much better paper than the latter. The Tribune is almost unreadable. But, with regard to both of them, I'll never understand why students who apparently have a vocation to be journalists cannot master even very basic things like the possessive in English. The linguistic level of both papers is so low that it sometimes impedes communication. Which is saying something...

I enjoy reading Talleyrand when he/she is talking about University politics. It's uninteresting to me when he's talking about the endless internal machinations of the SU.

But I have learned things from both papers.

Also, do lecturers talk about students in the bar/common room, or do ye mainly just talk about official stuff, academia, etc

We rarely talk about students in social situations and especially not in the bar. It is bad form to talk about a student by name in a place where it might be heard by others. As a rule, those discussions go on behind closed doors and not in public. Perhaps, though, other lecturers aren't as conscientious.

We do, however, talk quite a bit about students in general terms (rather than commenting on specific students).

But we spend most of our social time with each other talking about academia (more so now than in years past, for obvious reasons) but also about developments in our fields as well as debating issues in those fields. I wish there were more of this or that there were more colleagues with whom I could have those discussions but things have become quite specialised and it's hard to find local interlocutors about one's interests.

Eoin Macollamh

Red Alert wrote:

Well my tuppenceworth on this is that i know one member of staff in TCD which has been going through a less in-depth but all the same a hugh brady-esque "vision" of changes. It has left staff disillusioned, moral among staff and postgrads is very low.

That is even more true of UCD. Staff at Trinity are at least having more success resisting it than we are.

The new administration hasn't really given much thought, in my view, to how demoralisation of the staff is likely to affect the quality of teaching and research in the university. As it is, staff this year are spending much if not most of their time reacting in various ways to the latest bombshell dropped from on high. Between restructuring and modularisation--both of which are being implemented in the most ham-handed way imaginable--none of my colleagues have had very much time for research and I haven't been able to devote as much time to preparing for classes as I would have liked.

For some comic relief, what do lecturers think of the incessant question-asker (every class has one!)?

We like anyone who is engaged. The incessant question-asker is engaged. Therefore: we like. If it gets out of hand, you have to have strategies to involve others, but it's usually not that hard. What we don't like are those who are disengaged: sporadic attenders, those who haven't done the reading, carbon blobs in tutorials, the hungover, etc.

Sangre

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

OK, I've grown very tired of this debate, in part because you ignore my every attempt to broaden it out from narrow factual questions to the underlying philosophical ones. You're interested in a pissing contest, so you can bray to your friends about how you 'beat' a lecturer. You haven't, even if your equally uninformed friends think you have.

Isn't syke a lecturer in medicine or something?

Q: Ever see any Pat Paterson graffiti in the lecturers' toilets?

Eoin Macollamh

Sangre wrote:

Isn't syke a lecturer in medicine or something?

I seriously doubt it. The guy (I assume it's a guy) is barely literate.

On second thought, maybe he is a lecturer in medicine.:rolleyes:

Q: Ever see any Pat Paterson graffiti in the lecturers' toilets?

I don't know what that is.

We don't have lecturers' toilets, at least not in Arts. We use the same ones the students use.

ecksor

I have a question. Would you be so rude in your debating style if you weren't operating under the assumption of anonymity?

That's a serious question, I'm considered rude by many, but people know who I am and often know how to find me if they're bothered.

Sangre

Q. Are you that lecturer that everyone hates because he is an arrogant twat who thinks his students aren't worthy of attending his class?

There is always one and I'm guessing its you.

Syth

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

We rarely talk about students in social situations and especially not in the bar. It is bad form to talk about a student by name in a place where it might be heard by others. As a rule, those discussions go on behind closed doors and not in public. Perhaps, though, other lecturers aren't as conscientious.

Some of my lecturers act to opposite to you. They do not try to be formal etc. all the time. I think it's a good way of being a lecturer. After all it's not secondary school anymore.

Eoin Macollamh

ecksor wrote:

I have a question. Would you be so rude in your debating style if you weren't operating under the assumption of anonymity?

That's a serious question, I'm considered rude by many, but people know who I am and often know how to find me if they're bothered.

To tell you the truth, I would. I went to a university where aggressive argumentation in defence of one's position were expected.

I also belong to other forums where I am not anonymous and debate in more or less the same way.

ecksor

Aggressive argumentation is one thing, snide comments about certain other groups of people are quite another and not helpful to anybody's opinion of you I would imagine, hence the anonymity angle.

Eoin Macollamh

Syth wrote:

Some of my lecturers act to opposite to you. They do not try to be formal etc. all the time. I think it's a good way of being a lecturer. After all it's not secondary school anymore.

Talking about students by name where others can hear it is not a question of formality or informality. It's a question of professionalism or lack of professionalism. It is as unprofessional to do that as it would be for your doctor to start talking about you and your diseases in public.

In general, I am quite informal with my students. At the same time, as I say, I am not their mate. That's important for pedagogical reasons among others.

Eoin Macollamh

ecksor wrote:

Aggressive argumentation is one thing, snide comments about certain other groups of people are quite another and not helpful to anybody's opinion of you I would imagine, hence the anonymity angle.

Snide comments? There really weren't that many (though I admit there were some).

Look, it's hard not to ridicule someone who begins discussion with this:

syke wrote:

Interesting opinion.

Once a non-arts staff member takes presidency the arts faculty begrudge and you get comments like this.

That's almost as insulting as anything I wrote in response. And it came first.

But it is a fact that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying much of what I've said here if I didn't have anonymity. I said that at the outset and it was the whole point of the experiment. Though I didn't come here planning to insult anyone, that guy's smug condescension and the monkey chorus beating on their pots and pans just got my goat. And that proves that I'm not the only one here taking advantage of anonymity. None of you would dare say half the things you've said to me here if you met me in person. And that, again, was part of the point of the experiment.

ecksor

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Snide comments? There really weren't that many (though I admit there were some).

Well, I'm not keeping count of them.

Look, it's hard not to ridicule someone who begins discussion with this:

Hey, I understand why people sometimes feel compelled to descend to that sort of behaviour. I just don't understand why the same people act as if they're intellectually superior, that's all.

That's almost as insulting as anything I wrote in response. And it came first.

Actually no, it didn't. Your comment about the medical faculty came before his comment, for all the difference that makes.

Though I didn't come here planning to insult anyone, that guy's smug condescension and the monkey chorus beating on their pots and pans just got my goat.

Hey, I'm not a fan of syke's debating style either and I'm friends with the guy. But he wasn't the first one on this thread with smug condescension. You've insulted the intelligence of your undergrad students and the academic committment of your colleagues amongst other things and now you're saying that the posters on this thread are the monkey chorus.

And that proves that I'm not the only one here taking advantage of anonymity. None of you would dare say half the things you've said to me here if you met me in person. And that, again, was part of the point of the experiment.

You might be surprised actually, but we'll never know I imagine.