VC's Voice

---

In my last column, I made some critical comments about the proposals of the Quality Assurance Agency. Perhaps predictably, some have turned these remarks round on our internal academic audit system. That's fair game. We should give our own internal procedures the same critical scrutiny that we give the QAA. Indeed, as we prepare for "continuation audit" in early 2000, we have a good opportunity for that scrutiny. But there's a trade-off. The QAA promise us a "lighter touch" if it has confidence in our internal procedures for course approval, course monitoring and periodic review. Getting the internal mechanisms to work properly may be tiresome, but it will be less tiresome than a "heavy touch" from the QAA.

There are lessons from the way that regulation operates in the commercial world. If Camelot wants to launch a new lottery product, it does not finalise its proposal before submitting it to the lottery regulator - it consults the regulator informally, gets advice on what might be the problems and modifies its proposal in the light of that advice, so that by the time the formal proposal is made, most issues have been dealt with. In exactly the same way, every proponent of a new course or programme should get along to the Academic Office and discuss the proposal informally before it goes to the courses committees. This simple strategy would get rid of half the frustrations associated with academic audit.

I am mounting a campaign against the use of the term " Sussex House" except strictly as the name of a building. The phrase is often used to imply that the University administration is responsible for an unpopular decision that was actually made by academics. " My course proposal was turned down by Sussex House " invariably means "My course proposal was turned down by a committee of my academic colleagues". And when something really is the responsibility of the administration, it's better to be specific. To say "Sussex House has ruled this out of order" gives an impression of an impenetrable Kafkaesque bureaucratic machine; " the Exams Office says we're not allowed to do this" might persuade you to call up the friendly folk in the Exams Office and discuss the issue.

I welcome the latest AUT circular drawing attention to heavy faculty teaching loads - loads which are much heavier in the Arts schools than in most comparable universities. The AUT rightly links this to the issue of low student contact hours. Teaching patterns that worked in the 1960s may fail to satisfy either students or faculty now that student-staff ratios have risen. We all know that the University does not have money to throw at the problem (though in my next column I may have something to say about administrative costs) - it's for academic units to make the changes that are needed.

Suzi Clark writes in the Times Higher (December 4) "In these days of email and Intranets, ... university chief executives might be available to electronic supplications from ... academic staff and students. But name one email vice-chancellor, principal or rector who is accessible to staff complaints?" Answer: vc@sussex.ac.uk.

The barrage of "keep duty-free" publicity has had its desired impact: the UK government has changed its mind, though the EU might not. The arguments are well-publicised: duty-free sales allow transport operators to make huge profits which they then use to keep fares down, retain marginal ferry services, and maintain employment. But if duty-free is a good idea for the transport industry, why not extend it to the education sector? Let schools, colleges and universities sell duty-free goods to parents, employees, and over-18 students, and we'd have a healthy flow of income to raise the quality of education, rebuild old schools and laboratories, keep open village schools, and save teachers' jobs. Remember you read it here first.

  Contents      Next Article