Don't worry, give value...

A break from marking projects...

The HE press and lobbying groups are getting in a lather over referendum this week. And before that there is the usual rather undue focus on policy and lobbying with the state (in its widest sense) as the primary actor.

I just can't get away from the feeling that we have missed the point and have been for a long while.

Yes, we exist in a regulated industry. Yes, the world does not owe us a living. But we seem to forget that the reason why the UK HE sector does well is because we actually do deliver value to those we educate and do research with.

UK universities have become successful because they done this (and government has not got in the way THAT excessively). No matter what the imposed market structures may have been the research and teaching offer in the UK is sufficently strong for students, organisations and researchers to come across the world to engage with us (and often pay serious money for this).

Whatever the structure and policy of the state (in its widest sense), it is how we ensure that we keep providing value to our stakeholders that counts. The sector is full of committed and talented people who will find a way to make scholarship pay the bills.

We've had universities survive and thrive over a number of historical shocks for that reason. The sector has shown a remarkable capacity for reinvetion. We can continue to do so whatever happens, despite any shocks, so long as we focus on why UK HE has been successful up to now.

Like the economy in general, if you can offer something that gives real value to others, then they will come. We will do well to focus on that, and ask the state to allow us to do that.

We would also do well to help incolate this mindset into our students, so we can help them realise their potential when they become our alumni.

Academics ARE biased (but that's usually OK)

It was with interest that I read in the Times Higher Education an interestiing article exploring bias in EU-funded public policy-related professors when speaking about Brexit.

And it lead me to think - well of course. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I doubt if anyone really wants to make a career in what they do not believe in. As they are only human, they do have a point of view and it will leak out even if they are trying to be neutral. Of course, the funding system may (and I would argue does) distort the civil discourse in higher education on a more systemic basis. But to dismiss an individual on that alone would be wrong - that would be an ad homineum attack.

We just need to know where the argument is coming from and what outside influences may be in play (as in common in medical research). Then people can make up their own mind who or what they believe.

And making people to be able to make up their own minds about something (even if one may not agree with it) is surely what we working in higher education are about..

We can never remove bias, but for universities to maintain their role as a neutral space they can be transparent.

The article also notes the efforts of the academics concerned not to abuse their position.

And for those reasons I really see no problem in the situation that the article covers. What worries me are academic and orther 'independent' reports where the funding and influences are not in the open. I am unsure that the Brexit debate has been free of those.

How to burn an opportunity for universities to shine...

Marking can be time-consuming - but at least a break! And a chance to catch up on emails.

I received a rather distrubing email from one of my former universities. Since it is an open letter, I have no qualms about posting a link to it.

In summary, it is an open letter signed by the Principal and their Students Association President. It makes that case that the university gets a lot of EU funding and that Brexit would make this uncertain, so alums should think about this when voting.

A theme I will be likely to come back to again and again is the idea of the university as a 'neutral space'. Another is the corrupting influence of the state on the ideals of the university.

Now the role of the Students Association is a different matter. But for the University to have signed this off, I think was ill-advised.

First it gives an impression that the only reason that the university cares about the referendum is its funding stream. Wider aspects such as informing the debate in society are demoted.

Second, there is a danger that the Universty will alienate or further distance stakeholders, who may be more firmly in the leave camp.

Third, I cannot see that this letter would not have a 'chilling effect' on a free and open debate. Publically disagreeing with a stated position of the university will inevitably make some people pause for thoughr. Yes, there is a lot of softening language in the letter, but it is taking a position,

The first of the two are reputational. As an alumus I am not happy, but the University's reputation is its own to manage.

The final goes against what I believe universities are there for. What this letter loses sight of is that the university has a wider role in providing a neutral space for debate. The Brexit argument is also not really economic, it is really about issues of national vision and governance. The letter mentions this as an afterthought (in a way that could lead one to suspect that the 'debates' will be aimed to influence an agenda rather than get people thinking through all sides of the argument).

The above said, I would be a bad person to ask for a donation in the near future.

This should worry you...

I've been thinking about blogging again, especially regards concerns such as the creeping power of the state in higher education and how universities are buying into this (and not for the reasons that the Islington Guardian reading set and professional left wingers would have you believe).

But you know, other stuff got in the way (contracts, travel)...

So this article 'THE: Higher education bill seeks powerful Office for Students'.worries me greatly and disturbed my morning cup of coffee.

The article outlines  the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17. The part that alarmed me was:

"The OfS [Office for Students] would also have the ability to revoke an institution’s right to call itself a university, even if that right was granted by Royal Charter."

Just in case one were to look at that in disbelief, the wording of the draft Bill is as follows:

"43 Variation or revocation of other authorisations to grant degrees etc

(1) The OfS may by order vary or revoke an authorisation given to an English
higher education provider or an English further education provider—

(a) by or under an Act of Parliament, other than under section 40(1) of this
Act, or
(b) by Royal Charter, to grant taught awards, research awards or foundation degrees.

(2) That is the case even if the authorisation was given for an indefinite period.

The journalists seem to have their facts straight here. In short, the new OfS formed by this bill could revoke Cambridge University's Royal Charter without recourse to Parliament (and even an Oxford graduate would not wish this upon them).

The issue here is HEI autonomy and the levers that the state can use/abuse to align HEIs with its agenda. It is supposed to be hard to remove degree awarding powers, as that is a protection for HEIs against the state.

Now the state does have a legititmate say in how any monies it gives to HEIs are spent. That is covered by the contracts universties enter into (e.g. the HEFCE Financial Memorandum or Research Grants). A university is free to decide not to enter into them (eg.Buckingham).

Now in the case of private HEIs this is less of an issue as they do not typically take UK students or research grants.

But both types of HEI take international students and QAA inspections are a condition of their UKVI licences.

So an HEI is policed to ensure that it is performing its educational duties and public monies are spent for their intend purposes. For a public university, protracted loss of the ability to take overseas students can be a major blow (London Met, anyone). For a private HEI it would likely shut it down in short order as few have no other viable business model.

In any case, there would be accountablity through the courts to ensure that ministers are acting within the powers given to them by Parliament

The question is: why would the state legitmately need more than the above?

Also were degree awarding powers to be removed from HEIs, who should do it? There has been an increasing democratic deficit over the last 20 years of the increasing use of secondary legistation where decisions are taken away for Parliament and give it to ministers or delegated bodies. This is such an example.

It could be too easy to bully and gag HEIs. If an HEI was obviously not upholding academic standards, then it would be no issue in the hardest case getting Parliament to vote an Act enabling removal of powers as would be the case now for Chartered Universities. So why make it easier?

In short, the proposals seem to be overly powerful. It is unclear why these powers are needed outside of making it tidier for ministers or civil servants. But at what cost in the future?

I will be reading the Act and the surrounding literature in the coming weeks. At first glance it reads as a change of structures and if (more) student finance changes are not in the frame it may pass the public by. But such structural changes can soften up change for a less obvious agenda.

That is what worries me.

In the Press: Supporting CAS, PASC = Skills Doublethink, PQA...

It's amazing how busy you can get when you are no longer working! But I'm now on top of the post-work arrangements and getting ready to travel the world in mid-January. So now would be a good time to review and catch up on press coverage I've been involved in over the last few months.

The first is an article in ComputerWorldUK that I'm an occasional contributor to. It's a call to support the excellent Computing at School group.

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/management-briefing/2011/10/eric-schmidt-stated-the-problem-heres-how-we-can-fix-it/index.htm

There's little I can add to this article, except to reaffirm that supporting education is one of the most important things that the IT profession can do to secure its long-term future. Computing at School needs and deserves our full support.

The second was a response to the Public Accounts Select Committee (PASC) report on waste and overspend in public-sector IT. I wrote a byline article for PublicTechnology.net.

http://www.publictechnology.net/sector/central-gov/viewpoint-do-we-get-government-ict-suppliers-we-deserve

In the context of the PASC report I was also quoted in the following article making broadly similar points.

http://news.techeye.net/business/government-it-cartel-slammed

One reoccurring theme is that the public sector needs to up-skill its IT functions at the mid-career level. In this regard the Master of Information Leadership is clearly of its time. However, until I see proper investment in this area, I doubt we can take any claims of action on this problem seriously. Complaining about but not investing in your workforce is doublethink, irrespective of whether it is in the private or public sectors.

NB. I think that assuming that the private sector is immune from these issues of waste, weak talent management or mal-investment would be a mistake.

Third I had the pleasure of being invited to blog for the Guardian Higher Education Network on Post-Qualification Admissions (i.e. applying to UCAS after A-level results are known).


http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2011/sep/27/post-qualification-applications-applying-university

One point I was like to add is that I support PQA not because it is the easy or convenient thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do for applicants. The moral dimension of the role of universities is an under-considered aspect of the admissions narrative, but essential to their long-term sustainability.

I was also mentioned in the launch of City's undergraduate scholarships that I'm sure will help attract more talented students to their computing undergraduate programme; something that I am immensely proud to have been involved with.

http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/careers/3311390/city-university-offers-computing-scholarships-for-undergraduates/

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/enterprise/3311734/city-university-offers-computing-scholarships-for-undergraduates/

I've had a great time doing press while at City University London and especially working with the consummately professional Luke Nava, the School of Informatics' press officer.

Any press from now on will be in a private capacity or for a future job. Watch this space.

'Metrics Puppies' or why Deming should be read by HE managers...

I've been reflecting on an interesting talk I attended at the IoE two months ago by Professor Rob Cuthbert called "Failing the Challenge of Institutional Evaluation: how and why managerialism flourishes". The talk and the discussion did miss an important point, alas...

An interesting anecdote was shared of a university with overall NSS scores not statistically significantly different from the norm. So instead of targeting the headline figure directly and cascading it aggressively down to the front line, they looked at the detailed responses and reviewed their practices in a considered way. Over the next few years the scores went up. But a few years later response was changed and ran using the management by objectives playbook - scores then back went down to where they were...

But this not just an HE issue - it illustrates the point that MBO can be dangerous.

Of course academics who can't teach shouldn't expect to be paid, but the vast majority want to do a good job. Interestingly there was the usual hand-wringing about managerialism in the discussion, but no concrete discussion of what an alternative would look like (apart from allowing academics to do as they please - quelle surprise?).

One name that was not mentioned was Deming - I guess engineering management isn't really in line with the overabundance of postmodernist or Marxist analyses of university management in the literature. To illustrate, the above situation could easily be retold in terms of his Red Bead Experiment. His proposal in essence is that the system of work determines most of the performance, so measurement is best used to understand how the system can be improved rather than aimed at exhorting the workforce to work harder/smarter/faster.

This applies to all sectors and arguably it is IMHO equally important in services as it is in manufacturing. For those interested in the debate between MBO and the more humanistic engineering management approach, Art Kleiner's 'Measures that Matter' article is an excellent introduction (albeit from an accounting viewpoint).

I close with by coining a new phrase: a 'metrics puppy' to describe the unthinking advocates of MBO. Those from the UK may have visions of the puppy that advertised toilet paper by chasing rolls of it with great energy. The blind chasing of measurements by making their transmission the object of management without understanding the work system is really no different - just not as cute.

PS. Posted using BlogPress from my iPad - so apologies if things go awry while I get used to it.

MIL: The Information Leader in Organisations and the Opening Talk (Sat 2 October 2010)

The MIL is designed to allow modules to be delivered in any order. However since we are starting with a first cohort we commenced with The Information Leader in Organisations (ILO). This is one of two modules below consider the role of the information leader in context, both with organisations and in wider society.

The aim of this module is to examine the role of the information leader past present and future and to provide a conceptual framework to understand how the role of the leader has evolved. We look at the CIO and their role and how the information function works in organizations in both strategic and operational terms. As the MIL is thematic, this means at supporting issues such a financial accounting, boards, as well as look at the CIO’s team and talent management (more on that in later postings).

As I was staying with the inducted MIL students I met them for breakfast and then we arrived at the Cass Business School building together and got coffee...:-)

The MIL weekend starts with a course director's session that sets the scene for the weekend. It is also where the syndicate group task is handed out and any logistics/announcements happen. I won't go into detail about what I said but suffice it to say it involved a Dirty Harry clip and the fact that in the early 20th century 'information officer' meant propagandist!

The opening talk was somewhat of a surprise. I wanted the students to appreciate one important fact: there is now right to the CIO/information leader role and if information leaders don't deliver value to their organisations then their role will become redundant. Needless to say I feel the role has an important future in society, but it is one we need to earn.

Therefore we were glad to host Jem Eskenasi, CIO of Groupama. Jem has written on whether the CIO will become an endangered species. This talk looked at the changes going on in the industry, the commoditisation of technology, and drew on the work of Nick Carr and others. I think the students were surprised at the choice of first speaker, but they quickly saw what David Chan and I were trying to achieve. The debate was lively; I wanted to make sure that the MIL students were aware and could respond to the arguments against information as a source of competitive advantage.

One thing I want to achieve is for students to be exposed to a range of evidence, concepts and ideas and for them to critically evaluate this and make up their own minds. As such this was a good start to the MIL weekend.

More on this MIL weekend in later posts.

A helicopter view of the MIL

First of all, happy new year and hoping for a great 2011!

As should be obvious to readers of this blog, the Master of Information Leadership (MIL) is an executive masters degree specifically designed for experienced IT and information professionals who aspire to leadership positions such as Chief Information Officer.  The challenges that information leaders face cross traditional disciplines; the role is more than purely technological or managerial: it also brings in issues from law and social sciences.  The content of the MIL can be arranged around five themes (below). More information on the details can be found on the official MIL webpages.

• Role and Context (2 modules, 4 weekends)
• Strategic Change and Transformation (2 modules, 4 weekends)
• Delivery (2 modules, 4 weekends)
• Stewardship (2 modules, 4 weekends)
• Leadership (one module, 4 weekends)

The capstone is an Individual Project usual in a masters degree. We feel that generalist management offerings such as MBAs, though excellent in their own right, do not cover the specific range of skills needed for a CIO position (I'll write on this more in the future).

The design of the MIL is focused on combining professional experience and academic theory - I'll probably discuss this further in later posting but suffice it to say that the MIL includes aspects of both executive masters delivery and coaching.

The two cornerstones of the course are the study weekend, and the syndicate groups. The group is the base unit of learning in the MIL (we induct students as groups). These groups allow exchange of experience as well as a tight-knit peer support network. We also share across groups in the feedback sessions each weekend.

The MIL study weekends are delivered in London – Europe’s IT capital – at the Cass Business School, making it a convenient venue for professionals who may have to work on multiple sites (except for the September Professional Training weekends that take place outside City). The MIL is part-time over 28 months, over 10 weekends each year, so allowing students to fit it in with their work commitments.

So what happens during a typical study weekend?  Just over half the time comprises seminar presentations from experts within City and the CIO community to provide a theoretical underpinning, and how information leaders put this into practice. Each weekend will also feature a syndicate group task to give a firm grounding of the issues covered based on a practical case study; groups report back by presentation at the end of the weekend. We give feedback to all groups together and record the presentations for later reflection.

We support the MIL between the study weekends by online (and sometime on-site) tutorials, discussion boards and a dedicated course director to assist you with a take-home assignment to complete for the next residential weekend. The typical 2000-word take-home assignments comprise a list of assignment titles (students chose one) that requires students to focus on an issue raised in he weekend in depth, research and incorporate the academic and professional literature, and reflect that upon their experience. The blending of the evidence base with professional experience to produce a focused argument aims, with the academic support, to drive learning and its immediate application in the MIL student's current role.

Hopefully the postings later will make more sense now!

UCAS Clearing: Some Advice

Given the reports of an ever increasing shortage of undergraduate places this year, it is timely that I revisit the article 'Getting a computing course in clearing: Some advice' that I wrote for ComputerWorld UK last year. The key points of advice for students who find themselves in clearing were:

1. Don't panic - decide in haste, repent at leisure. Keep in mind the reasons why you chose your original course.
2. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Before the A-level grades come out, it's useful to have a list of target courses based on your previous research.
3. First thing on getting the grades to do then is to finalise your list of target courses in clearing. The UCAS website and the Independent have official listings.
4. Then start phoning universities. Clear thinking, with a systematic approach, will maximise your chances of success. Be polite and have your results ready as university switchboards will be busy.

Note that the UCAS Track website will not display decisions until the morning of the 19th August (usual practice), and this year not allow students to formally request clearing choices until the early evening (this is to give students time to make a considered choice, I presume). See the UCAS website for details of the process; I would read this before the results come out.

The article also has useful advice for parents:

"What can parents do? They can provide moral support and guidance in what may be a fraught few days. They can help find information on courses. What parents should avoid is phoning on behalf of applicants or acting as agents: admissions tutors will want to access the student, as it is the student who has to win the place on their merits."

I've worked in the admissions tutor role for a number of years so I know how much the A-level grades mean to people who wish to secure a place on the university course of their choice. All I'd like to say is good luck and I hope all goes well!

PS. All queries regarding courses at City University should be addressed to them directly, and not the comments of this blog (since this is my personal blog, as per comments policy and I'll be too busy to read them).

UG Open Day at City University London

I will be presenting the computing undergraduate programme at City's next University Wide Open Day on Sat 26th June 2010. If you are interesting in what we can offer, such as City's sector leading IT placements, the Professional Pathway and excellent employment outcomes, I look forward to seeing you there.

A slow knee jerk (computing student retention)

I'd like to introduce David Evan's Unqualified Remarks blog on the BCS website. It's a recent addition to the blogsphere, and already has a number of interesting, informed and thought-provoking posts. I expect that that I'll be linking to his posts - of course I may not agree all of the time!

One post that I thought was interesting was 'A quick knee-jerk on computing drop-outs'. It speculates from a Computing article that reports on the National Audit Office's report on graduate retention. In short Maths & Computing degrees have the lowest retention and completion rates (I don't like the term 'drop-out' - sounds like blaming the students). His speculations broadly were around three points.

1. ICT as taught in schools is a poor fit to that in universities - more on that later...
   
2. A maths/numerical/science background is probably more relevant to a computing degree than school ICT - no argument there, but perhaps this is worth unpacking further in future posts.
3. That since applications have dropped in recent years (since 2001, by almost half) universities are taking in students with lower A-level grades.

David did remark that he did not have research data to hand. Thankfully, there is some evidence base around computing retention. As head of a computing department you'd imagine I'd be looking at this closely - and you'd be right. There are some studies that I do have to hand that are relevant to David's argument, and I'd like to share them with you.

Let us start with the speculation around whether the drop in applications for computing degrees since 2001 has lead to poorer-quality students getting in.

I have taken a graph from the Developing the Future 2007 report that compares the performance of applicants for computing degrees to the overall pool of applicants (I assume that this is based on HESA data). As we can see there has not been a drop in the performance of computing applicants.


I admit that this is a finding that I find somewhat surprising as anecdotally I have heard that drops in entrance requirements have occurred (and given the drop in applications you would have expected this).

In any case there is a clear difference in ability between the average performance of all university applicants (around the BBB level), and that of computing applicants (around the CCC mark). So David may well be right about lower grades on entry, but it wasn't the recruitment crash that caused it.

What should be of real concern is that computing is losing ground - the gap in performance is getting wider year-on-year!

NB. I should take the opportunity to say that City has not followed the national computing recruitment trends - we are one of the minority of computing departments to have maintained both student numbers and quality since 2001. But it is fair to say that a lot of computing departments in the UK are under pressure. I'll be posting on this soon, I hope.

Now, onto what is taught in schools. I doubt that I could find any computing admissions tutor that is happy with ICT teaching in schools. To be frank, I find the syllabus of the BTEC National (a vocational qualification) more relevant to studying computing at university than A-level ICT since it focuses on technical issues. But back to the evidence base. The perception of students in schools and colleges has been studied, two relevant ones are:

1. Alison Mitchell et al, ‘Computing Science at University: what do pupils in Scottish schools think about it?’. Presentation at the Higher Education Academy Workshop on Progression, Retention & Recruitment, Edinburgh 2005.
2. Gillian Lovegrove and Anna Round, Report on the HEFCE-funded initiative ‘IT Professionals in Education, Increasing the Supply'. Newcastle/London, November 2005 and January 2006.

They concur with David's suspicions. What is clear from these studies is that students find ICT in schools to be unchallenging and a poor indicator of the challenging and rewarding careers available in the IT industry (or what a degree involves). It also seems to put off the more able students, and attract the less able - clearly not what we want. These studies deserve further analysis - there's a lot to discuss there.

As a final note David did mention that the ICT syllabus problem was (apparently) less in Scotland (though the Scottish study does seem to have very similar responses to the English studies of school attitudes). I'm familiar with the Scottish education system (having lived there for five years), but I've never looked at their school teaching of ICT in detail. But if readers can shed light on this claim, I'd be most interested.

PS. Of course, it goes without saying if you can throw any further light on the above issues - please post on my profile.