Hefce's cash clawback hits battered London Met

The senior management group at London Metropolitan University have had several years to avert the position that they have let themselves and their staff and students fall into, (£56 million in debt). Yet they continue to award themselves performance related pay increases. They arrogantly talk down to their staff in the sense that they claim that they ‘the management’ are the only ‘game in town’ in so much that they are the only ones that can ‘save’ the university – by having 330 voluntary redundancies (330-500 compulsory ones if they cannot reach the voluntary figure). If this was a private sector concern, the shareholders/backers would have voted the management out and appointed a more open and professional team. My confidence and belief in my senior management has been dealt a body blow, (many employees here would say they deserve a ‘good kicking’)…

I second that.

Quite incredible! How did it take HEFCE three years to find out they were overpaying? Stinks of incompetence on both sides. Surely, if the government can find billions to bale out incompetent banks, it can find a few million to bale out the biggest University in London - or doesn't the government really believe in widening access after all?

I agree, the solution is for government to fund London Met properly - no reduction in grant, no clawback of the previous overpayment - and to replace management by competent people who treat university workers with respect and recognise the right of union elected representatives to represent with and meet with members. If the cuts in funding go ahead, this will be punishing London Met staff, who do a brilliant job in difficult circumstances, and punishing students for mistakes by management. It will also make a joke of the government's commitment to widening access.

As one of the people at NTU who heard, and benefitted from, Amanda Sackur's visit, I find it both horrifying and ironic that her visit to us, to advise us on the proper procedures for handling the dispute we then had with our management, should have resulted in another dispute! I am horrified that such a useful and UNprovocative visit, where Amanda Sackur several times stressed the need to be moderate and reasonable in our attitude to our management, should have provoked such unreasonable behaviour at London Met. It is ironic because her contribution, helping us to clarify our position (to ourselves quite as much as to management) helped significantly, we believe, in the avoidance of just such a messy and unnecessary dispute as seems now likely to ensue. And since it is plain that the information London Met had came from NTU management, it will not do much for relations between management and academics at NTU either! I write this because I have already heard at least a dozen NTU people expressing their fury at this development. What a shambles!

I'd also like to know how Hefce made a mistake in its funding for so long. Is it like me misreporting my electric meter year alfer year and hoping that EDF doesn't notice? Or more a question of the goalposts being moved after the event? "Hefce is considering investing in the university .... if it is satisfied that the university can permanently reduce its operating costs" ... Is this a quote fom Hefce? Does anyone have any idea where they think the money is being wasted? Maybe I'm being naive, but I'd like to think that "reduce its operating costs" does not just mean "sack the teaching staff". "Student dropout rates affect the level of teaching grant that Hefce allocates to universities" ... and dropout rates will get worse as staff numbers continue to be reduced. So can the university break out of this downward spiral? The economic crisis is here, we know, but it is a shame if our universities die because they don't have the govt backing / management (take your pick, I don't want to judge here)

On the one hand, the trade unions should not purely be upset with LMU and/or attacking the company the work for - they should also be upset with HEFCE and be looking to jointly launch action to change HEFCE's opinion. In the current economic situation, it is definately poor form of HEFCE to do this to any University. Equally, it is poor form of any University to penalise the people at the bottom for mistakes at the top. On the other hand, the top brass at LMU continue to receive their fat cat bonuses, continue to lead with out direction, continue to ignore and underfund core business critical departments (eg. computing services, estates management, student enrollment and retention,) and continue to over fund a whole host of top brass HR staff who are so "top brass" that they pay for consultants in a time when they're threatening job losses. Poor form all round really, and as usual, the people at the bottom, those who are carrying the torches of the University, are those who suffer - which ultimately means that the customers suffer. It's a vicious loop and it needs to be ended at the top.

330 fte posts are to be axed. Just to put this number in perspective, this means between 14% and 20% of the entire workforce will go, depending upon the number of part time employees involved. This is not pursuant to any published plan, indeed it would appear that no consideration has been given to the effect that this will have upon course delivery or revenue in the future. The University was posting 8 figure deficits before the HEFCE clawback was announced.I suggest that a major part of the underlying problem lies in a bloated management structure, few if any of whom will feel the scythe of the grim Roper. These redundancies will almost certainly exacerbate the situation leading to further jobs losses in the future. Yes, HEFCE should have recognised the inaccuracy of the submissions at a much earlier stage, but the submissions should not have been inaccurate in the first place. If the resulting financial damage means that redundancies are inevitable, those responsible for the inaccurate submissions must take the first bullet. Apologies and resignations from the senior management are awaited.

We are well aware at Londonmet that HEFCE is also to blame for this mess. They, and therefore the government, are in denial as to what widening access really means. Atypical students don't always complete assessments when they should. (The reason for the dispute between HEFCE and Londonmet) They have many reasons for this some of them trivial, some of them rational and some of the truly tragic. They also often need extra support to get through a university course. Widening access comes with a price tag - one which this government is unwilling to pay. A Labour governemnt allegedly committed to widening access can find billions of pounds to bail out the banks but does not have the political will to find a few million to bail out a university deeply committed to widening access. A university based in the poorest part of London enabling access to higher education for some of the poorest students in the country. Shame on you. HEFCE should have a radical rethink on its behaviour towards Londonmet.

Don't allow our university to be destroyed through job cuts and course closures. The real cause of this dire financial situation is a combination of management arrogance and incompetence together with the failure of Hefce/Govt to sufficently fund its ‘widening participation’ agenda. Hard working staff and students are in no way to blame for this and should therefore not suffer as a result. Remove the management and fully fund a 'fresh start' for London Met. Let's face it, If there are £Billions to bail out City bankers - whose glittering offices are only a few miles down the road from our university - then there is sufficient funds to invest in the future of a university whose staff are deeply committed to widening access in order to give higher educational opportunities to all in our local community, not just those whose families can afford it! Sign the petition at www.petitiononline.com/nojobcut/petition.html

This disaster is of the senior management and governors making, they must be held accountable for their incompetence, the exploitation and bullying of employees and for allowing HEFCE's retrospective claim of £38M to remain unchallenged: reducing London Met's annual funding by £18M (can we expect this to be revised upward?). This pusillanimous and unashamed executive must not be allowed to continue to treat London Met as a sinecure, while its lecturers, motivated to continue to provide the rarest of opportunities, fight for its survival. What have we learnt class? Roper and cronies must go.

This is just like the situation in the banking sector where employees become the victims of management incompetence. Any bail out or financial support for Londdon Met should be linked to the resignation of the entire senior management and Governors of the University.

No denying an arrogant and overbearing senior management is at this university, nor the perception HEFCE is about as well organised as Harringay, but the merger never went deeply into anomalous and restrictive practices of both partners. Especially the Guildhall side where many posts are quite irrelevant hangovers from earlier days and the holders retained just in case the interest for said subjects re-emerge. In the wake of the Harrington affair North London staff had a more professional and realistic workplace attitude, the majority of former Guildhall staffs' attitude is similar to a 60's poly. As an aside a city FT PL hardly ever on the premises, asked for a 9 am meeting to start later to buy a cheap ticket; a reasonable man would expect a FT PL to have an annual ticket, why does nobody query why they only come to work when it suits them?. Many city staff have second jobs or lucrative consultancies, little wonder city staff complain about unfair contracts being imposed when in reality they are more professional and realistic in view of their job functions. HODs have to draw up lists (without any checks, balances or performance indicators) of their redundancy recommendations. All this will mean is mates will be looked after and old scores settled without addressing the core problems. Unless a John Harvey-Jones type arrives without preconceptions, capable of understanding all issues, the university's existance is questionable.

The personal comments made by "Former London Met Employee" though spiteful, do however, highlight some of the institution's problems since its ill-considered inception. I have not come across anyone formerly employed by London Guildhall who was in favour of the merger; the general consensus was that it was a pointless exercise from Guildhall's point of view since it was in the black financially (North London was not). The two institutions were miles apart, both geographically and in terms of corporate culture. However, the merger was forced through. Since the merger, the "North" way of doing things, particularly from a managerial and administrative point of view was made the standard across both campuses, regardless of appropriateness. However unpopular the merger, it would have made a lot more sense to take the opportunity to review certain procedures rather than simply impose existing, outdated ones. Additionally, staff are increasingly subjected to micro-management by those at the top of the food chain (bearing in mind that the current VC and Director HR are originally from North London). It is no wonder that London Met seems to be in such a poor state and that staff are highly demoralised. "Former London Met Employee" makes serious and inaccurate allegations about the professionalism of former Guildhall academics. Perhaps he/she could explain why it is, in my Department at least, that City Campus staff are forever having to teach at North Campus (sometimes at both sites in one day, several days a week - and the transport connections are very poor) whereas it is very rare to see a North person teaching at City. I am not aware of any colleagues that "have second jobs or lucrative consultancies" they wouldn't have time anyway, with their teaching load. The comment "they only come to work when it suits them" is very insulting, and simply not true. Finally, whether or not a FT PL has an annual season ticket or not is purely that person's business.

'sometimes at both sites in one day, several days a week - and the transport connections are very poor', - you can get the 43 bus from Moorgate to Holloway Rd, tube from Aldgate East or Tower Hill to Holloway Road - only takes 30 mins. LOL

In response to Bloke: Given that most academics everywhere are snowed under most of the time these days, it's hardly a good use of time, is it, using London Transport between campuses on a regular basis? And the reality is that if you make an allowance for the possibility of a transport breakdown, then you may end up being really early with little to do but twiddle your thumbs in the canteen. Alternatively, it you don't make an allowance for potential transport problems, and something does go wrong, then you end up stressed and late, with students then complaining about you. And Ladbroke House, incidentally, is less convenient to get to than Holloway Road. We sometimes have to do this only to find we're teaching to 5 students (I've had less than that before now). I mean, really, it's just embarrassing. I think Former London Met employee (Roderick Floud perhaps?) is completely out of touch, if he was ever in touch. Our contracts encourage consultancy work, that's part of being an expert in something, but it all has to be declared, and certainly my HoD is quite assiduous about this.

I have to say that I get on very well with the new colleagues we gained when the two universities merged, but the merger itself, like most mergers, was an absolute disaster. Most mergers fail for exactly the reason that this one is failing - failure to take on board people management issues and the differences in the cultures of the two heritage organisations. As I say it is a very common mistake. However the senior management of London Met Uni had many experts available to them who could have helped them avoid this from among their own staff, in what is now the Business School and in the Psychology Department, and this unfortunately is indicative of senior management's attitude generally. Just how unsuccessful the merger has been is evident not only in the present crisis, but in the antagonism that still exists between some heritage staff, as evidenced in 'Former London Met Employee's comment. The whole situation is scandalous. The Government deserves censure for allowing such a situation to escalate, especially in a University where the staff are doing so much to ensure that members of disadvantaged communities are given opportunities to get valuable qualifications and training.

I'm actually very surprised at Former London Met employee's comment. Whatever people think about the merger, I've never found any animosity among ordinary lecturing staff related to which campus they're based on.

30 minutes Tower Hill to Holloway Rd?!! Ah, you just don't care if you arrive late 1 time in 5, the other 4 times you are right of course.

The vicious and heavy-handed attack on Dr Amanda Sackur is typical London Met management style. HR seem to rule the roost nowadays; I can remember when "Personnel" departments were there as a service to staff, and not to devise/implement methods of crushing individuals. HR at London Met seem to have have far too much influence on the overall management of the institution. London Met's industrial relations record is simply appalling, the word "consultation" is entirely absent from their vocabulary.

I think we can fairly safely assume that "Former London Met Employee" aka "Bloke" aka "@bloke" are one and the same troll and best ignored.

I sat through a meeting recently with an HoD and person from HR at London Met, to be told that tenured staff would be teaching around 18 hours per week, that the work would be highly stressed and pressured, and advanced planning was impossible. Of course, they were trying to put me off taking up the position I have accepted because I am covered by the Disability Discrimination Act and they don't want the hassle of dealing with that. Their view was that they could not deal with the "reasonable adjustments" proposed that would enable me to take up the post. I am now having to take legal advice as to where I stand here, because all of this was declared up front. If this is how they treat potential new recruits, then it does beg the question as to how they treat the incumbents. And although some of the comments here may well be trolling, the fact that such ill feeling exists between staff/former staff and the university is extremely worrying for someone who may well be working there soon.

Dear "Potential employee", If you decide to take up the post, despite all the negative comments here, you will definitely find that the vast majority of your colleagues are wonderful and that you can still enjoy most of your job. We are, in the main, united against higher management; although we would like to cooperate with them, they continue to be intransigent and heavy-handed. There are ways to subvert the system! Good luck and I hope it all works out for you.

"Perhaps he/she could explain why it is, in my Department at least, that City Campus staff are forever having to teach at North Campus ". Very easy to explain. In the case of my merged departments, we found that London Guildhall department was overstaffed and the staff had to come and teach at the North Campus to fill in their low number of teaching hours. Indeed, the merger should have beeen followed by shedding of the staff then across the merged university and in poarticular at the London Guildhall end. When the former London Guilldhall acdemic staff went on strike opposing the new contracts, boycotted exam invigilations and marking, the Norh staff had to step in to do their work. Their crude union stance, setting up picket lines at Holloway Road and waving their demo cards etc.. put off many colleagues and prospective students. In one department, the former London Guildhall academics were paid a few thousands more than their colleagues with similar cadre at the North Campus. and yet they opposed the new contracts!! In my reckoning the London Met has to shrink substantially. For many years the London Guildhall end was dreaming that their beloved university would rise from the merger ashes!! The senior management has to be bold and call for substantial reduction in staff across the university. With high drop out rates, high failure rates and poor quality student recruitment, almost all of them in clearing weeks in most deprtments, I even wonder why we need universities like this.

“Is it like me misreporting my electric meter year alfer year and hoping that EDF doesn't notice? YES. ..and dropout rates will get worse as staff numbers continue to be reduced” Can’t get worse than now as only a small percentage attend classes, according to my daughter. She, realising her mistakes transferred to another university from London Met in the second semester of her first year degree. She said most of her class mates were foreign students who came through clearing and all they wanted was to enter the country to do work. She also says that at the City Campus, the old London Guildhall U, the class size is often small , sometimes in single figures at the undergraduate levels. A few classmates not attending made her often only one of 3-4 attending, and she preferred this compared to larger class sizes at North Campus. That should make it clear why there are so many surplus staff at London GuildHall campus and why they travel to North Campus. But she found course delivery was of very poor quality and lecturers were poorly qualified compared to the London University where she has moved. I work in engineering industry. If I gave such poor services like the so called senior lecturers did, I would not have lasted even for a couple of weeks. These so called professionals let customers like my daughter down through their poor quality teaching. All they can do is to whinge. Grow up, face the real world. If Woolworth can disappear so can London Met.

Yep, some of these posters must be trolls. Single figure classes? Low teaching hours? Nutters.

Government, HEFCE and London Met management share responsibility for this mess. Government because its strategy of shifting funding responsibility to students via fees penalizes institutions such as LMU, HEFCE

Government, HEFCE and London Met management share responsibility for this mess. Government because its strategy of shifting funding responsibility to students via fees penalizes institutions such as LMU; HEFCE because retrospective and collective punishment of an institution is no way to manage Higher Education and LMU for scapegoating its staff and vicitimising those leading members of UCU it expects to lead a fightback. I urge everyone interested in defending Higher Education from the philstiines who run it by signing the petition in defence of Amanda Sackur (www.lmuucu.org.uk)

Bored with Trolls, Grow up. I agree with Gary. In fact I taught one such courses in which the number of students were 15 and at any one time only 5 attended, the rest did not. What he says about clearing and foreign students coming to work by enrolling in courses and disappearing is also true. No use in accusing those who tell the truth as trolls and nutters. I can list those courses at London Guildhall which have students in single figures. I hesitate because I might do harm to those collegues who teach those courses. This is the problem with you guys who I assume are lecturers active in the union and who picketed buildings Holloway Road not accepting the contracts offered, and not doing exam invigilations. That is the standard of professionalism you have. That alone lost a few hundred students as for the Secondary Schools in the Borough, it said so much about London Met and its academic staff. Malcolm Povey: London Met did not submit its data it appears becuase of the problems I mentioned above. I do not think the country is well served with universities like London Met and the academics who comment here whinging. I bet they will not get jobs anywhere else. Otherwise, they would have moved out like we did. The government should grasp the nettle and close a few universities like Londonmet. As I said above London Met has to shrink substantially and the figure of 330 is modest and should be in 4 figures to trim the fat. Hope Brian Roper takes courage and wields the axe.

Bored with the Trolls: I read you also questioned my assertion about low teaching hours at London Guildhall after the merger. The harmonisation of courses after the merger left with them not enough work load as they were already at a low base and hence teaching at North Campus became necessary to fill in the hours. You simply dismiss this calling me a troll. How could I have known about the salary differential between City Campus and North in relation to a department I know? How could I have known about the rejection of new contracts by London Guildhall Staff and their boycott of exam invigilations? By calling us trolls, you are hiding the Spanish practices you employed at LondonGuild hall end , pointed out by one of my colleagues' Former Londonmet employee. These posters from London Met think that they have God-given right to work in a manner they did and still they do. The merger should have seen substantial cuts of academic staff numbers across the board, starting with London Guildhall end. The way forward for London Met is to shrink substantially and leaving those who want to fight it on the wayside. The London Guildhall staff has to recognise that they are London Met staff and that their old university will NOT rise from the ashes. As I said, the taxpayers can live without such universities.

Bored with the Trolls: I read you also questioned my assertion about low teaching hours at London Guildhall after the merger. The harmonisation of courses after the merger left with them not enough work load as they were already at a low base and hence teaching at North Campus became necessary to fill in the hours. You simply dismiss this calling me a troll. How could I have known about the salary differential between City Campus and North in relation to a department I know? How could I have known about the rejection of new contracts by London Guildhall Staff and their boycott of exam invigilations? By calling us trolls, you are hiding the Spanish practices you employed at LondonGuild hall end , pointed out by one of my colleagues' Former Londonmet employee. These posters from London Met think that they have God-given right to work in a manner they did and still they do. The merger should have seen substantial cuts of academic staff numbers across the board, starting with London Guildhall end. The way forward for London Met is to shrink substantially and leaving those who want to fight it on the wayside. The London Guildhall staff has to recognise that they are London Met staff and that their old university will NOT rise from the ashes. As I said, the taxpayers can live without such universities.

London Met has become synonymous with a bad management that tries to deflect from its own incompetence by attacks upon unions organisation. Their latest action is despicable, however, even when compared to their own previous miserable standards. The attack on Amanda is an attack upon the freedom of trade unionists to organise. A principled university would be a citadel for the defence of the basic freedoms that sucessive generations have fought for and secured. Only the frightened and insecure attack the right to free speech and the right of trade unionists to organise without interference. And I personally cannot see how this management has the gall to carry on when they have been responsible for such a monumental cock up. They are the ones who should be sacked. And it is no way to run education, finding that there has been "overpayment" in the past and then trying to make future students pay. The closure of Woolworths was a tragedy for its staff, but univerisities are not shops, students are not customers, overwhelmingly they are young people at a crucial moment in their lives. No accountant, or

Focus please on the real issues here.A London University is facing 330 FTE. redundancies that have nothing to do with the recession that is infecting the rest of the UK/world.While comments from both former Guildhall/North London staff are valid in that there were discrepancies that could be deemed 'unfair' in both former institutions in does not help one iota with the situation now. By contributing to this blog we could be trying to stop some of the redundancies that management/Hefce seemed determined to make.

In fact,there has never been a time to be more united,united against managements descision,united against the Hefce clawback, and taking positive action to 'raise the issue' with the wider media and the government.Universities should be a place of ivestment during a global recession, so that those that find themselves without income/ purpose can be nurtured through relevant courses and structured career planning into society skilled to gain emplyment once the tide has turned,however long this takes, and with an experience that enhances them as an individual.

This can only be done by an institution that is united in purpose and why the plan to effect an immediate cost saving by reducing 15-20% of employees is devestaing, both to the organistion and its staff, and the wider community which encompasses people that can be considered some of the most impoverished in the country. It is exactly these people that there was a govenment/Hefce drive to attract through widening participation and this drive should be enhanced/expanded to include those that have recently been made redundant.and significant investment(as previously stated, a bank would have been 'bailed out' by now') should be a priority and something that we should be campaigning for,at the highest level.

London Met has become synonymous with a bad management that tries to deflect from its own incompetence by attacks upon unions organisation. This latest attack is another despicable from a management with a despicable record. The attack on Amanda is an attack upon the freedom of trade unionists to organise. A principled university would be a citadel for the defence of the basic freedoms that sucessive generations have fought for and secured. Only the frightened and insecure attack the right to free speech and the right of trade unionists to organise without interference. Personally I cannot see how this management has the gall to carry on when they have presided over such a monumental cock up. They are the ones who should be sacked. And it is no way to run education, discovering a supposed "overpayment" in the past and then trying to make future students pay. And univerisities should not try to be shops engaged in financial transactions, selling teaching. Students are not customers, overwhelmingly they are young people at a crucial moment in their lives. London Met and other universities exist to nurture and develop their talent and potential. Government accountants and an incompetent bullying management must not be allowed to sabotage this work. Let's give the fullest support to Amanada Sackur and fullest support to the whole London Met staff as they build the campaign against these attacks.

London Met has become synonymous with a bad management that tries to deflect from its own incompetence by attacks upon unions organisation. This latest attack is another despicable from a management with a despicable record. The attack on Amanda is an attack upon the freedom of trade unionists to organise. A principled university would be a citadel for the defence of the basic freedoms that sucessive generations have fought for and secured. Only the frightened and insecure attack the right to free speech and the right of trade unionists to organise without interference. Personally I cannot see how this management has the gall to carry on when they have presided over such a monumental cock up. They are the ones who should be sacked. And it is no way to run education, discovering a supposed "overpayment" in the past and then trying to make future students pay. And univerisities should not try to be shops engaged in financial transactions, selling teaching. Students are not customers, overwhelmingly they are young people at a crucial moment in their lives. London Met and other universities exist to nurture and develop their talent and potential. Government accountants and an incompetent bullying management must not be allowed to sabotage this work. Let's give the fullest support to Amanada Sackur and fullest support to the whole London Met staff as they build the campaign against these attacks.

"It is exactly these people that there was a govenment/Hefce drive to attract through widening participation.." "London Met and other universities exist to nurture and develop their talent and potential.." Let me give the problem analysis. London Met has no local constituencies-i.e schools and colleges from where they can recruit even 30% of its student numbers The students from schools and colleges in the area and indeed from any secondary schools or colleges with Sixth Form in this country simply do not want to come to London Met. London Met must be only a few handful of institutions which receives very few applications through UCAS route. It recruits almost all its students by running clearing weeks more than any university in this country. It recruits more overseas students than other universities I know, and those of them who did not gain entry in other new universities, we happily accepted them with no questions asked! I was involved in clearing work for a number of years at LondonMet and know how London Met accepts students who do not have even the very basic educational achievements expected for entry. We recruited students with failed A levels, GCSEs with U grades, Failed BTECs, overseas students with questionable education background in numbers for first year degrees. London Met was the place for students who failed their first year degree elsewhere to come to second year here. We stretched ‘the widening access’ concept to the limit and beyond. In all those years I worked at London Met, I have not come across a single student in my course who had A level passes or their equivalent. It was not surprising to me when the press reported a couple of years ago that a Nigerian student was able to enrol a few courses at London Met and collected a few tens of thousands of pounds from the Loan Company. I as a course tutor was constantly contacted by boroughs across the country about the progress of students who collected grants(then) and disappeared. Now It is student loans. Unsurprisingly, London Met courses have high drop out rates, low progression rates, high failure rates, low attendance to lectures and exams. etc.. and hence the data is pathetic and is not worth submitting without doing something about it. A poster here cited an example of self-read electricity meter reading for long and when the meter was read by the company, the shortfall in terms of pounds and pennies became huge. I am afraid that is the right analogy here. I blame the academic staff and the wingers here, for complying with the management in not withdrawing absentee students, in not insisting minimum entry qualifications and colluding with them in all manner to stay in their positions. I should point out that London Met did not make data available to find its place in the university league table either. The argument that somehow widening participation is going to be affected is ludicrous in the light of the above. Even a 40% reduction in academic staff will have very little effect on course delivery, as student absenteism is rampant. UK students collect loans and disappear from classes, and overseas students from outside the (Nigeria, Caribbean, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sourth America etc.). use their presence in this country to work and not to study, disappear from classes to do work in all kinds of places outside the university. All those years when I worked in London Met students were not withdrawn from the courses, despite absences in lectures and exams and kept on the roll. It suited both-London Met can claim student numbers, the students can happily work not attending classes. No threat of VISA expiry for overseas students. It is a spurious argument to say we nurtured students talents in their absence, when they dropped out and disappeared in large numbers!!! Tell me now, why this university should not shrink substantially and in the extreme why it should become another Woolworth.

No use in calling for the VC and his senior management team alone to resign. The HODs who toadied up to senior management and their departmental management team who toadied up to them in turn should also go. The latter allowed the ‘caustic data’ related to students to build up in each deprtment. They were responsible for no visions, not establishing minimal entry level qualifications and enforcing them through, not activel linking with constituencies of students and colleges in a way the students from there do want to come to London Met, promoting staff not on the basis of merit and allocating them responsibilities which are ill-fitting to them etc.. which dumbed down standards. As a result good staff left or took early retirement. The ones the university have now are the ones who cannot go anywhere because they get salaries beyond what they are worth and hence have to take a cut or in a majority of cases they are so poorly qualified compared to their peers in say better universities that the latter would not want them and hence remain as union activists and perennial wingers. Hence removing layers of Senior and middle management ( Deans, Ass Deans, HODs and ass HODs etc..) as well a large number of ‘deadwood’ academic staff which ‘Former London Met employee’ pointed out, London Met can easily slim down to 50% of what it is now. If there is all round improvement and the university moves up the league table, no reason why it should recruit actively students with A level failures, GCSE U grades and overseas students with questionable academic records in such large numbers. The country is not well served with this anomalous approach to ‘widening participation’. It is time HEFCE and the govt acted to shut such universities.

No one who cares to take an objective view of the situation can deny that London Met is a deeply dysfunctional organization. Wide ranging measures will need to be taken to save it, if indeed it is worth saving. In terms of bad management, the rot goes much deeper than just Roper, Aylett, Nelson, and Link. The academic heads of department have all knowingly colluded with senior management in deliberately misreporting student data to the funding body, and these departmental heads must be held equally culpable when the axe comes. Some claim HEFCE are behaving unreasonably in instigating a claw-back. I say HEFCE are totally within their rights in demanding this refund - we are talking about tens of millions of pounds of tax-payers money that has been fraudulently misappropriated. If I were applying for a mortgage and I misrepresented my circumstances there would be severe consequences when the deception came to light. Why should London Met be treated any differently? If the decision makers decide that London Met deserves to survive in its current form (and the jury is still out on that one, even among fellow staff), then the place to start would be for the Government to take immediate action and replace Roper and his cronies (including the so-called Governors) with a new management team that are capable of successfully running an enterprise of this scale, and in doing so in an ethical manner. That’s not to say further and wide scale cuts in posts will not be required; they will, but without change at the top the sacrifice will be wasted. As for saving London Met at any cost in the name of ‘widening participation’, anyone with even half their wits should see this nonsense for what it is. 'Widening participation' is a laudable goal but not one that should be perused at the expense of either the tax-payer or low academic standards. It’s not fair on the tax-payer, and it’s certainly not fair on the students who, should they be fortunate enough to complete their studies, could well find themselves holding a qualification from an institution widely regarded among potential employers as one of the worst in the UK, and several thousand pounds in debt to boot. Change needed, and now please.

Disappointed Service Manager: I agree with you 100% Let me spell out where the axe should fall. 1. Roper, Aylett, Nelson, Link+ Director responsible for recruitment strategies. The bunker people, the Fuhrer + Keitls and Jodls 2. Academic HODs, associate HODs and the Department Management team members. The so called academic leaders who do every kind of machinations except as academic experts. The falsification of data is achieved here before it moves up to 1 3. Admission tutors who stretch ‘widening participation’ to a ridiculous lengthand admit students in hundreds who fail to satisfy the minimum entry (requirements we all understand) by a mile. The drop out genesis here. 4. Academic leaders of UG centres, who I heard have reinvented themselves in another capacity. These in many ways colluded with 1 and 2 above 5. PLs and SLs with course leadership responsibilities. They provided the rw data for falsification. No use by (2 – 5) above saying that the orders came from the bunker in 1 above. They are all equally culpable.

Rising to the nonTroll: I love the way you manage to escape your broad brush, carefully defining culpable to make sure the buck stops before it gets to: (6) Course tutors who didn't meet a single student with an A level or equivalent and who did clearing for several years :-) Tell me, did you protest and resign on principle, wait for an early retirement handout, or what? And what do your remaining ex-colleagues think of you calling them unemployable, overpaid, under-qualfied wingers (sic) ?

Godwin's Law!

Bored2 You are really illiterate. Read what have listed. 5. above says course leadership, that is course tutorship in case you need educating. There is no 6 you fool. It is clear why the poster Gary's duaghter moved to a better university. Unlike you, if you are still working at London Met, it appears you are, the very fact I am a Former London Met Employee should tell you that I left London Met. As far as my ex-colleagiues are concerned, they know thmeselves that they re unemployable, overpaid and underqualified wingers. The older ones will thrown in the towel and the younger ones are cursing that their fate condemned them to be with the likes of you!

There are a number of inter-related issues that are being discussed at the moment: 1) Is ‘widening participation’ a good thing; 2) Do students that fall within the agreed definition of ‘widening participation’ need extra support, guidance, training, etc, in addition to their more ‘self-directed’ peers? 3) If the answer to 2) is yes then to what extent should this be funded and in what way should it be applied? 4) Are students our ‘customers’ and if so does that mean they are always right? 5) Is a university the same as a commercial business (aka a factory) and our product, in essence, no different to a can of beans to be processed as cheaply and efficiently as possible and for the vast majority of spend to go into product control, branding and marketing? 6) Are academics a necessary evil in this production process or the lifeblood of the university system whose expertise and opinions need to be valued? To my mind we at London Met have a management that have acted in the same destructive manner as Rupert Murdoch, Eddie Shah, and Ian McGregor during the worst excesses of the Thatcher’s ‘no such thing as society’ era. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. They, and their fellow devotes of ‘new managerialism’, see universities such as ours as nothing more than business opportunities. What they foisted upon us was a ‘command structure’ that would relate each directionless wheeze and gimmick from the top as the next great ‘cultural imperative’. Any member of staff who questioned this was condemned as ‘unreconstructed’, lacking in ambition, or simply troublesome and in need of either conditioning or removal. Interestingly, for those who attack London Guildhall staff – almost the entire management structure and ethos that we now have at London Met was inherited ‘Borg-like’ from North London, as, incidentally, was the debt and high student drop out rates. Not one of our senior managers has any real interest in education, or in providing educational opportunity, other than in how it flatters their own egos to be seen to be at the helm of a large educational establishment. No doubt this is why they have wasted millions of pounds of funding on vanity projects such as the £30M Science Centre. In order to conceal their own muddle-headiness and lack of any coherent strategic direction, they crassly argued they were committed to ‘widening participation’ and ‘putting the student first’ and appeared/appealed to both HEFCE and the Government as such. However, what they have presided over is not ‘widening participation’ it is a ‘pile-them-in-sell-them-cheap’ policy that is coated with a very thin veneer of WP varnish. Unfortunately, for us, their concept of ‘widening participation’ seems to have dovetailed quite nicely with the bastardised version promulgated and poorly-funded by Government. So in terms of the questions I asked at the beginning: Yes, true and properly funded, ‘widening participation’ is a good thing – but it is not what London Met management have in mind when they use the term; Yes, such students need additional funding – for example, some ‘weaker’ students would benefit immeasurably if they were funded to do a ‘year 0’ rather than forced (often against the wishes of their course tutors) into year 1; they would benefit if they either had sufficient funds to do a full-time course full-time, rather than need to do paid work 30-40+ hours to financially survive, or, had the option to do the course part-time without incurring funding penalties. They also need more 1:1 guidance – interestingly, a model proving to be highly effective in other universities with better funding as reported elsewhere in this week’s Times Higher. Students are not our ‘customers’ and a university should not see itself narrowly as a ‘commercial business’. We should neither sneer at students accepted with weaker entrance qualifications, or treat them in a paternalistic fashion and refuse to stretch them for fear (as is currently the case) that they will fail and add to a poor retention figure which then elicits retrospective claw back of funding. How many of you know, for example, that when setting performance appraisal targets management have forcibly inserted arbitrary student retention and successful completion percentages for the modules we teach! We need respect for our students and respect for ourselves as academics – which means we do need to stand-up to management pressure to both hide problems and to finesse difficult issues away. However, more importantly, it means we need to be given respect from our management to do our job – not to be micro-managed, bullied, and silenced when we speak out. We are the ones that believe in real ‘widening participation’ and understand that it is both resource intensive and that it is not doable-by-numbers. I’ve taught some excellent students over the years. Many of which started with very limited qualifications, and all of which went on to good jobs or further research. That is why I became an academic in the first place. Incidentally, for those who talk about ‘those who can do, those who can’t…’ I previously held a senior roles in a number of major investment banks – now, there’s an entire industry that provides far less real value than an educational institution such as London Met that the Government are keen to ‘bail out’. If it can do it for them it can do it for us – and unlike them, we’ll through in a slightly-used senior management team as a down payment.

Mark from london Guildhall, Before the mergers, the departments at North had flat management structure. For example in many departments including ours, there were 'no subject area leaders and hence no 'subject standard examination boards'. Hence no firewalls in the depatment. In fact, there were no subject groups. Academics joined together when interested in a subject area. All were informal This structure was hoisted on to the North from London Guildhall creating an additional layer in the management structure within a department. FYI London Guildhall U grew up from City of London Polytechnic which should have been closed in ILEA time. It was the worst performing polytechnic in Greater London. We are not talking about some 'weaker students' with weak A and GCSE grades. We are talking about students who have no A levels and at best GCSE U grades. Hundreds of such students are admitted yearly during clearing weeks. These should not be in any university, period. The worst drop out figures originate from there. No amount of support will help them I am afraid the current problems are not due to senior management alone although they should take larger responsibility. As Disappointed Service Manager put it neatly the .malady runs deep, deeper into departmental levels, HODs, senior departmental staff and down, who were/are responsible for providing the drop out data which needed constant updating and the UG centres who had students-related oversight. All these people are responsible. The axe has to be swung across and downwards. As for govt and the taxpayers both can live with London Met closure.

" – interestingly, a model proving to be highly effective in other universities with better funding as reported elsewhere in this week’s Times Higher". If you are referring to Loughborough U or Leicester U, they are ranked at 12 and 14 resetively in the Times Good University guide. The student entry requirements there I believe are 3 or more A levels around 300 UCAS points and at least a pass in GCSE as compared to London Met students coming in with no A levels and the poorest GCSE grades. You wrongly focus on funding, like all the union members do. As I said earlier, I have taught classes with vvery few students at London Guildhall with a very healthy srudent staff ratio and id did not work. These students simply are not qualified for entry to any university.

Can somebody, please, tell me why LMU has suffered the clawback? Amanda Sackur told a joint union meeting on Friday that it was becasue LMU progress students from level C to level I on the basis of passing 6, out of 8, completed modules. I cannot see what is the issue is as most universities use similar progression regulations. I would just like to known the reason behind the HEFCE decision please. Thank you

At the university we endeavour to succeed despite the university structure not because of it! The many comments that have been posted some bitter, others insightful. The reality is this situation I suspect could have been avoided had the senior management, had the courage and sincerity, to own up to their inadequacies and effectively fall on their sword. HEFCE are also culpable and I quite agree the government should bail LMU out (far more deserving than banks). However I also agree with those who suggest the senior management has to go, and that should be all the way down to and including associate director levels. Most of them are incapable of people management and cannot get us out of the spiral we have entered, trust is an important element that is sadly lacking, (the lunacy of clearing is a prime example of that). The worrying aspect of this is the vicious circle we could/will find ourselves in, is who in their right mind is going to send their child to a university which demonstrates such poor levels of management, trust will be lost and the numbers could make the university unsustainable and the hard work many of us have put in is destroyed. The answer could be a radical new approach to education but for that we need a change of emphasis and leadership.

The merger 6 years ago was entirely due to financial irregularities and multi-million £ debt from UNL, and it appears those lessons have still not been learned. Londomet's commitment to "widening participation" is just an excuse to enrol as many poorly-qualified high-paying foreign students as possible, knowing those students are not interested in completing their studies, but who just want to come to UK on a student-visa and disappear into the black economy. Further exascerbated by corrupt Spanish working practices, grossly incompetent 'deadwood' overstaffing, and hostile inter-campus non-cooperation and bickering, and pointless multi-million £ white-elephant IT consultancy projects. So where has this £38 million HEFCE overpayment actually gone??? The new hi-tech Science-block (£30million) and the awful ghastly Graduate Centre at Holloway road which looks like a (propheticly apt) broken sinking ship? What lunacy advocates investing so heavily in cosmetic 'showpiece trappings' when 30% of students drop out, and there are massive huge debts and huge staff layoffs? LMU bullying intransigent senior management (Roper, Aylett, Nelson, Link) are collectively responsible for this situation and must each be held accountable.

I started at Londonmet post merger and never truly experienced the "warfare" between Guildhall and North London that is reported here. I have worked both in the City and the North campus and in my experience Londonmet has a number of very professional, hard working individuals who are very rarely supported by meaningful leadership. I joined the University because I believe in its vision yet it seems we are fighting against all odds. Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? I hope so! Yes I have students who are not doing well but then again I have some brilliant students that are willing to learn whilst working hard to earn a living. Are there pockets of excellence? Yes I believe there are, I have seen good work in great teaching and great research projects. But morale is running low and I still see no signs of a good leadership anywhere on the horizon…. Be done with the redundancies let us pay the prize of failure, a prize that should have been paid by those at the helm. For the sake of students present and past I hope that leadership changes soon so that those lecturers that survive this can feel proud that they work for a respected organisation once again.

Senior management should take responsibility for the financial mess they have created and some of them should be included in the proposed job cuts. While some job cuts might be long overdue, a random reduction of jobs across the board is only going to cause more chaos in departments that are trying to recover from recent 'restructuring exercises' , which have led to staff shortages in some areas whilst leaving most of the deadwood intact. If it is necessary for londonmet to cut jobs to ensure a financially viable future, management should at least attempt to analyse which jobs are needed and which ones need to go before pulling a magic number out of their hat.

Unfortunately, if past experience of the way LMU restructures staffing levels is anything to go by, it will all be very 'personal', where HOD's will recommend who to make redundant based upon past personal grudges and who they feel professionally threatened by. All the dynamic intelligent experienced Independent Thinkers will be got rid of, and the sycophantic deadwood will be safely protected. The end result is always the same: Anyone who can get a job elsewhere will want to leave, and the deadwood who are unemployable and rely on brown-nosing will be the ones remaining. It all makes for a very depressing future for LMU as an institution.

There is method in their madness..... The other result of getting rid of the good staff and keeping the dead wood, is that academic levels will be dumbed down to such a level that the under-qualified students will find easier to cope with and therefore hopefully decrease the dropout rate. What that strategy shows is that LMU is more interested in retaining attendance figures for the funding, than on actually providing any credible standard of higher education. ........ LMU - London Morons University.

I agree that the VC and senior management team should fall on their swords. But that will not solve the systemic problems of London Met which are many and more often stem from departments. The HODs, and the department management teams (the so called academic leaders, a category which is not a recognised title in new universities, but were created in London Met to reward cronies of HODs and senior management teams), and in some departments the PLs who are promoted from the crony stock of SLs in the departments. This broad and fat layer in London Met should also go. Not much recruitment took place after the merger and within the last 4 years, those academic staff who were better and caught up in the departmental trap left, leaving only a very few good and able staff at the lecturer and SL levels. Even a few of them were leaving within the last 18 months. There is a large number of deadwood staff in each department following the above. They cannot leave as they are getting salaries which are way above their capabilities and expertise and no university is prepared to recruit them and match the salaries. There has been periodic restructuring going on even since PNL became UNL. Many academic staff left, many of them were ‘old timers’. At the time of the merger, the UNL departments had many new staff recruited around 2000. There were miniscule militant unionists around 2002. Compare this to the London Guildhall U situation around 2002. The new London Met absorbed all the unreconstructed militant unionists from London Guildhall and plenty of deadwood staff in each department from there. The proof of this was found in the Scargillism exhibited by those London Guildhall staff in the strike that took place a few years ago when new contracts were given. Even in a particular dept where a London Guildhall academic staff enjoyed a blanket £3,500 top up ( e.g. LGH lecturer pay in that dept = Noth lecturer pay + £3,500), they were unhappy with the new contract, went on strike at the time of May exams. The London Guildhall U was not the Oxford University on Thames as these claim. I am afraid, the deadwood staff in each department vastly outnumber the useful ones, if there are any at all. About ‘brilliant students’. Where did these come from? With a very few recruited through UCAS route and with about 140 UCAS clearing points ( many time very much less than this) when majority of students are recruited, I do not see brilliance lurking anywhere!! About the £30 million ‘Super Lab’ Science centre. It was a stupid creation meant to attract the media. The Head of Science then beaming at the media lens declared ’ beware Imperial’!! This ignoramus did not realise that his department was recruiting all students during clearing and most of them being absent from classes, the ‘Super Lab’ will be an expensive edifice. Yet he and the Director responsible for student recruitment were busy inviting news teams. Their enthusiasm was dampened when a terrorist student in science was caught red-handed building a Bin-Laden cell in a porta cab near this ‘Super Lab’!!! I heard he is still in a maximum security prison. Is London Met worth saving? NO.

It would seem that the university can find money to spend on consultants who work here for £800+ per day for 3-4 months at a time then when they leave their recommendations are not implemented. It would seem we are not so short of money that the executive group at London Met couldn't be paid their 'performance related bonuses' HEFC have audited this university for the last 5 years , how come they didn't notice before? What about the 35 million 'emergency' fund they have in the coffers? Why can't they use some of that? More importantly, why don't the executive group members and the board of govenors go so we can get in a management team who's interest lay in providing a good education to all and less interested in lining their own pockets ready for retirement.

hello all my partner works at the University and informed me about the short full this year so the managerment now will cut back on jobs question one if thay had the money given to them by the Government over the past years were is it now ? to if thay have spent it on what ? the Government should bal out the univertsity like they have banks and hold top managerment responiable and show them the door and keep the ground froce in there jobs as they have worked hard each year you should all go on strick and lobby out side the Government offices good luck to you all

In response to comments arising from my posting on 16 January, LMU work took me everywhere in city and north campus bringing me into contact with many academic and PSD staff, aquiring first hand experience of working practices and attitudes prevalent on both sites. One instance was selected from a laundry list of several dozen instances of questionable professionalism from my diary compiled during the five post merger years I was employed. How could my comments be personal or spiteful when I refrained from giving name and department; that response only brings to mind 'methinks the lady doth protest too much'. It was written to demonstrate the problem is not just senior management but endemic throughout the universitys structure. I will never report the minutiae of these issues, but all were noted accurately and dispassionately. Joining LMU post merger, I have no leaning to either former body, byzantine and Spanish practices are to be found in both campuses, but without doubt they're concentrated in the city campus. Many city based departments are percieved to have no bearing on the real world and careful scrutiny reveals they rely on past glories dating back to when they were created by titled benefactors. In the 80's the old PNL had an almighty shake up following the Harrington affair, the merger should have been an opportunity to do the same for city. Instead Senior managers ignored that area which effectively gave a green light to city prima donnas to defend their lifestyles. The numbers of comments on travel illustrates the problem, nobody mentioned the overground Moorgate line to Drayton Park, only 5 minutes walk from main north complex on Holloway Road or Ladbroke and Spring Houses. There are six trains an hour, Moorgate is 10 minutes away, even Commercial road is reachable inside 30 minutes without rushing. Yet most staff waste their time on buses or the roundabout tube route from Holloway Road to Kings Cross to Moorgate, Aldgate, Tower Hill etc.

Former London Met employee "There are six trains an hour, Moorgate is 10 minutes away, even Commercial road is reachable inside 30 minutes without rushing. Yet most staff waste their time on buses or the roundabout tube route from Holloway Road to Kings Cross to Moorgate, Aldgate, Tower Hill etc." The whinging about the bus travel is red herring. The fact is the LondonGuildhall staff do not want to come to teach at North campus. They want to keep on teaching their very few students, coming to work whener it suited them. They assume that they are like fellows of St Antony's College ,Oxford, choosing their own time to come and work I like you joined the university just after the meger, but like you was aghast at the degree of unprofessionalism and cronyism pervasive at the both campuses, particularly at the City campus which was where our HOD and his minions in the department management team were located. They were literally inhabiting in a bunker. The City of London Poly was not streamlined at any stage (Unlike PCL ,, PNL , Poly of East London Poly and Middx Poly which had heavy shake up) in the ILEA time. Rumour at one time that it was about to close, but grew into LondonHall U with Spanish practicesand unionism firmly in tact. As I said before,academic staff who can make difference through their contributions all left London Met. The last one I heard this week. Since the London Met employees want bail out like the banks, they should also accept redundancies in numbers occurring in banks. With its myriad woes, I see no benefit for tax payers in keeping this edifice going.

You all seem to have forgotten that 250 of the redundacies will be administrative staff as opposed to 100 academics. All of the above smacks of middle class protectionism. What are you going to say to the staff member who will get made compulsorily redundant with say five years service, and a payout of 5 x £350.00. The University has already stated that if you get made compulsorily redundant they will only pay the statutory minimum. And Former Londonmet Employee - I did forget about the WAGN service from Moorgate - just proves the point even more!

The policy of London Metropolitan University regarding hourly paid lecturers is somewhat exploitative. HPL’s are a valuable and integral part of all universities and should be treated as such. Londonmet also disregards EU ruling on offering permanent contacts to HPL's who have worked for a given time period. In fact Londonmet created a ‘zero hours’ contract for lecturers in this position to subvert EU law. Most universities including Kings etc. accepted EU ruling and absorbed HPL’s into their structure. If London Metropolitan University treated their staff with dignity and fairness, perhaps they could avoid being tagged as the Woolworth’s of universities. Regards, X. Ploited.

LMU work took me everywhere in city and north campus bringing me into contact with many academic and PSD staff, aquiring first hand experience of working practices and attitudes prevalent on both sites endemic not just at senior management but throughout the entire universitys structure. I was aghast at the degree of unprofessional non-cooperation, obstructiveness, hostility, and cronyism pervasive at the both campuses, particularly from the City campus. 90% of the City camp staff I met either expressed extreme reluctance to travel to North, or flatly refused to do so. The travel itself was not the issue. The real issue was that they refused to accept the perceived imposition of the merger and new contracts on their outdated working practices, and did not want their incompetence to be revealed. There is a large number of deadwood staff in each campus. They cannot leave as they are getting salaries which are way above their capabilities and expertise and no other company would employ them and match the salaries.

I joined PNL 20 years ago, and have seen several major staff restructuring exercises over the years, which have for the most part been embraced as a necessary way forward. When the UNL-LGU merger happened, UNL/North staff were strongly encouraged to embrace and accomodate our LGU colleagues, to help make a smooth transition into the new LMU organization, which we took a great deal of professional pride in doing. However, I too noticed first-hand, an endemic hostility and obstructiveness from LGU/City staff, who refused to cooperate with North camp colleagues, and to this day are stuck in a time-warp and refuse to accept that they are no longer "LGU".

All this tit for tat stuff is really irritating to a non-academic member of staff at London Met. The facts are that 330 people will lose their jobs in a time of recession. Every organisation has jobworths working there but it is not just they who will lose their jobs. It will be maintenance staff, low paid clerical staff, student advisers, security staff. It will be people with families to care for and support. It will be people who won't be able to pay their mortgages or rent and it will be people who won't be able to find new work just like that. Please don't forget that we're talking about human beings rather than fodder for your petty differences that should have been forgotten years ago.

Jaded and Bloke: In my time,the maintenance staff, clerical staff, seurity staff and the administrators in both campuses did stirling work. In the city campus particularly while the academic staff were indulging in Spanish practices, the maintenance and security staff were opposite- flexible where they can and helpful always. The axe should not fall on the low paid, but the umpteen academic managers and their side kicks who are promotedabove their capabilities.

£38 million fraudently obtained by submitting false student numbers. £30 million spent on Science block. £3 million on ugly Graduate Centre. Millions spent on various pointless management consultacy projects. All White Elephant projects for vanity's sake. Senior Management still on high salaries and huge PRP bonuses, but will keep their jobs. It will be the hardworking staff who will end up jobless in a recession, unable to get other jobs, unable to pay the bills, lose their homes, etc. Does management care? Not a bit.

Unfortunately, the axe will fall on the low paid as much as anyone else and all the focus on malpractice on this thread will do is detract attention away from them. Doesn't help anyone really, does it?

The point is, this is not the first time the university has been in dire financial trouble because of questionable creative accounting, and proves that Senior Managment are not competent to make sound financial planning decisions necessary to run a business. It is a foregone conclusion that after this situation is dealt with, in another 3 or 4 years the univeristy will be right back in this position yet again. No matter what redundancies are made this time around, the Senior Management Group of Roper, Aylett, Link, and Nelson must all go.

Former London Met employee2 you appear to be a very embittered individual with a personal axe to grind against your former colleagues. You also appear to hold a mass of contradictions in your head as evidenced from your frequent posts with regards to an institution you no longer work at. In your first post you identified with management and stated quite openly that you wished ‘The senior management to be bold and call for substantial reduction in staff across the university’. In a later post you went even further and identified directly with Roper – the person most on this blog, and certainly current London Met staff (both academic and non-academic) hold specifically responsible for our current troubles: ‘Hope Brian Roper takes courage and wields the axe’. You then take aim at so-called ‘Spanish practices’ at ex-LGU and the failure of academics there to acquiesce to management’s unilateral imposition of negative changes to their contract of employment. Now this is interesting on several levels. Firstly, staff across London Met (both ex-LGU and ex-UNL) took decisive industrial action that 1) threw out that imposed contract – and negotiated a better one – in line with the national contract at all other post-92 universities (As an aside, may I assume you work at one of those institutions now and benefit yourself from such a contract? Or, possibly, given your self-declared abilities, work at a pre-92 university whose staff enjoy even better conditions of service?) – which was then given to all academic members of staff (i.e., after the dispute ex-UNL academics ended up with a better contract than the one Roper had previously imposed on them in an earlier UNL dispute!). 2) Roper and co. ended up paying some £250,000 in legal costs when the courts deemed their attempt to impose their ‘preferred contract’ illegal! But, for me, the really major contradiction you have is that you berate ex-colleagues for doing precisely what union members (both ex-LGU and ex-UNL) did not do – i.e., acquiesce to ‘orders from on high’. Throughout the years since merger it has been such union colleagues across the university who have been involved in trying to resist the effects of dumbing down (by senior management) you describe: the removal of grass-root academics (as opposed to HoD, etc) from the (now in name only) Academic Board; the attempt to reduce from eight to six modules per year/course; the attempt to impose a zero-hour contract on poorly-paid HPL staff; the attempt to reduce teaching to placing lecture material on a website; the attempt to reduce individual academic contact time with students; and yes, the attempt to pressurise us to take on under-qualified students and to accept arbitrary (and highly inflated) imposed pass and completion rates per course/module as acceptable performance targets by which we will be judged, etc, etc… Now it might be you regard the fact that we fought these as a defense of Spanish practice. However, I consider them to be a defence of academic standards in a very hostile environment. So, what did you do about such issues other than accept them until you found another job to run to? At this point in time it is not about trying to foster divisions between ex-UNL and ex-LGU staff, such designations are now meaningless, or between non-academic and academic – we all rely upon one another and it is in all our interests to resist every job loss – not just those in our particular sector. That is why there were some 300 members of staff from both Unison and UCU at our very impromptu joint meetings last week – and where we pledged to fight these attacks as a joint academic/non-academics campaign. So, what exactly is your major contribution to stopping these attacks on staff and academic standards? To welcome them and write retrospective diatribes against those of us who at least have the guts to try to ensure resistance to further cuts and who are fighting for a positive change of direction and leadership to save our university while you skulk in blogland.

Again, the academic staff here asserting that Senior Management alone is culpable. In my time at London Met, the student numbers were collated after data received from departments + UG centres+registry offices. For a start, the module leaders were responsible for withdrawing students for no shows in lectures+ exams + courseworksat the start of the chain The subject area leaders at times objected to this as they said that their boss did not like any student to be withdrawn from modules. That was the start of the bad blood between me and the HOD and his minions. I remember a rare visit from my HOD to my unspacious office giving me a pep talk about the danger in withdrawing students despite them not setting their feet in the university after the induction week. I stuck to my withdrawals and took up job in an old university when opportunity came. Hence to me, as well as those 4 senior managers, the HODs + department management teams +course leaders are also culpable. .

The module leaders were responsible for withdrawing students for no shows in lectures+ exams + coursework. The subject area leaders at times objected to this as they said that their boss did not like any student to be withdrawn. The dept managers make it clear to the subject leaders that withdrawing students is not acceptable. The HODs tell the dept managers that no student must be withdrawn. The Dep-VC tells the HOD's that withdrawing students is not an option... and so on. It all comes from the very top, and the pressure rolls down to the module leaders and SL's. It is ultimately pressure from the VC that is passed down the management chain. Making low-level redundancies and staff restructuring is pointless while the top management remains in situ.

Mark: You sure is a deadwood Unionist. It does not take me long to guess who you are. I am not confused. I did say Roper should wield the axe deep as I have explained later where these data originated from, when all the time you and your fellow unionists mostly from the old LGU end were accusing Roper and his senior management team alone. I have no personal axe to grind against my North campus ex-colleagues, but sure find the practices of the City Campus staff disgusting and unprofessional. That is because while they loath North Campus staff all the time., hate to travel to North Campus, dream of the rise of LGU from merger ashes, they want their esteemed North colleagues’ support them when it suits them!! They need strike fodder. Suddenly now, you the shop steward from the City Campus, discover that there are no UNL-LGU differences, and they do not exist these days!! This says a lot about the unreformed LGU and their cynical trade unionism we were discussing in postings. I joined the discussion when one of my ex-colleagues from North Campus alerted me about LGU unionists blaming the senior management alone while the subject area leaders and HOD (all from the old LGU ) in his department manufactured all these student data that Roper and his team got access to. As far as you union's Scargillism attitude , your strike a few years ago, absenteeism in exam invigilations did London Met’s faltering reputation no good. All the North staff received from your strike was to be lumbered with the work that you left undone while you were parading in Holloway Road carrying slogan cards. You remind me your union comrade Derek Simpson who constantly blames fat cats in business while lining his packets with perks and living in a mansion paid for by his stupid union members. You are using the hapless academic staff who found themselves trapped in this cesspit call London Met to further your ends. . What makes me snigger is the blame you attach to senior management for the recruitment of underqualified students in numbers. In fact, you guys recruited them as you wanted to continue working, sorry not working in your positions. Strage ways you define Spanish practices. Finally, coming to the university post merger, seeing the pathetic way it was run from departments, hating the embedded crony attitude, seeing the mound of academic deadwood stored in the City Campus, I recognised that the best I service I could do for the tax payer and to the society was to leave this cess pit. It is not running but is jumping out of a sinking ship full of pirates and swimming to the shore. Fortunately I did stay long at London Met and kept my professionalism and work ethics intact. I left just in time and any time later I too would have become an academic deadwood to join the heap at the LGU corners!! My contribution in this blog is to warn the public at large that London Met is not worth saving and it is time to cut the losses out and close it. As a taxpayer myself and an academic interested in maintaining standards in university sector, I have a duty to comment on the half-truths dished out by a certain section of London Met academic staff who hoodwink people by arguing that the exit of Roper and his senior management team would solve all the systemic problems of this university.

There are 2 issues here. (1) incompetent ineffective senior-level mis-management (2) gross overstaffing with a lot of dead wood protecting their spanish working practices. Both issues need to be addressed. There is no point addressing one without the other. Yes there needs to be a culling of staff. But there also needs to be a change of top management. The government should bail out the university on the condition that Roper, Aylett, Link and Nelson all resign. A new Senior Management Group needs to be brought in from outside to cull the dead wood from top to bottom.

Low entrance requirements - this should not be a bar to students coming to University. The Open University does an excellent job of educating students with little or no qualifications. Yes, standards have to be maintained and I would say in my experience by and large they are. There are some excellent students and many average ones and some poor ones who struggle through or who fall by the wayside. Some of our courses are internationally recognised and assessed so we are at the same standard as say (Oxford or Cambridge) in those areas. There are some outstanding areas too such as Art. I do think there are some problems - and it might be a good idea to start at the top - perhaps the Governors will recognise this at last and make the necessary adjustments. I enjoy my work and feel that on the whole I do a worthwhile job. Yes, there are problems and maybe more than many places I have worked - but some of the comments here are exaggerated.

Watch out, we'll get another repetition of the "truth" from "Former Londonmet employee"s who seem to think if it's worth saying something once it's worth saying 20 times. Most of us can read and remember all the comments in one go, so we don't need the same people repeating the same comments time after time! So if anyone else out there has novel, constructive views (and I am sure a lot of you do) to add to the debate I for one would like to hear them - please do not be intimidated by the force and volume of comments from only one or two sources.

It appears that certain trolls are attempting to portray the crisis as the fault of hard line left wingers at an unreconstructed Guildhall university. Perhaps the following should be considered. It is not the case that Guildhall was the only unreconstructed new university in London. As a response to financial problems in the mid 1990's significant restructuring took place, with the result that (not without pain) a leaner, financially stable university emerged by the end of the decade. Glance at the accounts for the two institutions in 2002. Guildhall had just 3 staff paid over £100,000 p.a. UNL had 16. Prior to the "merger" industrial relations at Guildhall were good and local industrial action was unheard of. Indeed Guildhall was a very pleasant place to work or study. Any union activism since then is the product of appalling management. If management choose to vary the employment contract unlawfully, is it unreasonable to oppose them? If management refuse to recognise the union and set up a puppet "representative council" with the specific intent of bypassing legal obligations to consult, why must we accept it? If management precipitate a financial crisis and blithely announce the loss of 330 plus jobs whilst ring fencing their own positions, should we not resent it? This is not Scargillism for the new millenium, the disputes did not arise over any resistance to genuine reform, the disputes arose because of management desire for absolute control for absolute control's sake. Any union activism at Londonmet is entirely the creation of Roper and Link

Just ignore them, please

I saw a quote from President Truman, 12 years before Watergate, who said in 1962 when Nixon was running as governor of California, "Richard Nixon is a no-good lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in." Any of LMU's senior bods names are substitutable in that sentence! An unsubstantiated rumour going round is the top lot have contracts guaranteeing them tax free severance payments which are the equivalent of 10 years salary; we are looking at a potential sum of £5M. Any truth in this?

I am working at the Moorgate site and I am leaving London Met at the end of the month. The staff who represent the unions, are very vocal always seem to do less and often use their political position to do less. It is not fair who comment on their own experiences at London Met as trolls. I am afraid I second their expereinces and is the reason I am leaving the University and going back to industry from where I came from a few years ago.. The management is appaling but much more appaling in my experience is the attitude of the departmental managers and senior academic staff. In my opinion London Met needs urgent reconstruction, getting rid of the senior management and a lot of departmental mangers and the hangers on who are the senior staff. Let us not compare London Met with Open University which has largely students who take one or two modules each term. They can work up from a low base and often take over 6 years to acculate the points to graduate. We are looking here at students who are less able even at foundation year level and are enrolled to do an UG work in 3 years.

Watch out we have Mark's comrades here who do not want the truth to be told. Typical of Scargillism. They are the union trolls. They adopt all kinds of tactics to shut up dissenters so that they can get their strike fodder. London GuildHall reconstructed! That must be the biggest joke of the decade. I urge those who are not time-warped, have work ethic awareness and expertise which is not mothballed to move out of London Met leaving this mound of deadwood academics to fight to the biiter end.

Guildhall staff never wanted the merger in the first place but it was forced onto us against our wishes. Holloway is a nasty dirty scummy area that nobody wants to work at. The sooner the chav North campus oiks are sacked, the better. Then Guildhall will get back to how it always was.

North London staff never wanted the merger in the first place but it was forced onto us against our wishes. Aldgate is a nasty dirty scummy area that nobody wants to work at. The sooner the chav City campus oiks are sacked, the better. Then North London will get back to how it always was.

@ City Slicker You think anyone at North campus wanted the merger apart from the Exec?

lol, @Northener @City Slicker, this is the only thing I miss about lonmet, good times... City, boo hiss!!

City Slicker, some name but really a strike fodder to comrade Mark. Just 24 hours ago, the comrade asserted that there are no differences between UNL and LGU staff and ridiculed me for bringing out a nonexisting feud! I know the visceral hatred that the LGU staff for have all things North. From your outbursts you have demonstrated what we knew all along- that even after years of merger, City Campus staff are day dreaming about LGU rising from the ashes! Let us examine what the City Campus is. It sits bang in the middle of Dickensian workhouses where the greedy thugs were sending children up the chimneys! Look at your Calcutta house, a typical Dickensian landmark. LGU the successor of the notorious City of London Polytechnic which even the leftist liberal ILEA thought was a malfunctioning and corrupt heap of embarrassment. LGU was not the Oxfod University on Thames but a edifice which was the home of militant trade unionists masquerading as academics. They were all without exception bunker dwellers. No wonder they do not want to travel to North Campus, a distance I walked within an hour from the City Campus. Northener: Comrade Mark the shop steward of strike fodders and dreamers of LGU golden days, want Roper and senior management team go not because of their arrogance and bungling but because they are from North Campus. But Mark and his comrades cynically attempt to brainwash the Northeners like you to join them in their jihad against London Met senior management team citing mismanagement, where as in reality even if Roper and Co were scrupulously clean they would still have wanted them to go anyway. I have been saying that in that strike when Mark and his comrades busy picketing the building where exams were taking place, people like me were invigilating the exams, called at the last minute to replace Mark and his comrades who abandoned the work preferring parading with their slogan cards outside the exam building in Holloway Road. Such was their dedication and work ethic. My advice to you is to join with your North colleagues and isolate these City Scargills. Let them dream on to wait for the second coming of their HOD messiahs some of whom who were rightlykicked out by a bold new deputy vice chancellor.

I volunteered to invigilate for those exams and it wasn't because I wanted the time off in lieu, it was because I didn't want the students to be disadvantaged. I don't think the merger was managed properly. The talk of no redundancies for 3 (?) years at the time was just to buy staff loyalty for the merger. Not good business sense. The axe should have fallen much sooner. Unfortunately, I think the loyalty is past it's sell by date now. I would also add that if I had been City based, seen everything being focused at North, then I may have felt simillar to my City colleagues.

The deficit could be recovered easily enough. Sell Tower Hill and Moorgate buildings. That will put a stop to any talk of LGU rising again.

North Campus Well said and I salute your professionalism and worth ethic. I stepped in at the last minute literally,I still remember that it was 5 mins to 2:00 and the City Scargillians who should have collected the exam papers from the registry were busy waving their slogan cards outside the building. I could see the mass of students waiting outside the Gym room on the top floor of the tower building with anxiety. I was fortunately joined by another Noth Campus colleague and we both distributed the papers to the two exams taking place in that room. It did not stop there. we had to invigilate a few more in the next few days. I had to mark those answer scripts assigned to the City Scargillians in our groups because there were many overseas students and students who were applying for jobs and higher studies who naturally did not want to wait for these Scargillians to settle their dispute which would have taken the best part of that Winter. They wanted to move on with their studies and lives. On that summer, I had to mark nearly 500 additional answer scripts meant to be marked by the City comrades. What is important to note is that besides the City campus lecturers and senior lecturers boycotting invigilations and tmarking of answer scripts, the departmental senior managers like subject area leaders joining them with the active blessing of the HOD in our case, the latter were all from the City Campus. The above delinquent HOD and the subject area leaders had the temerity to sit in judgement of our North Campus colleagues on their annual performance assessment portfolios (PADAS)!!! It can only happen at London Met.!! When this departmental management team with the HOD were kicked out last year by a new deputy viice chancellor, the North was happy that justice was done at last. I would close as a first step close the Scargillian-infested City Campus and send these comrades marching near Calcutta House!!

Former London Met employee2: I would add that I am PSD, so perhaps that illustrates the loyalty that London Met has lost :)

Northern Rock: Tower Hill should have gone long ago for a big sum!

Director of Estates... This has been a big problem as far as I can see. We had Mel Barlex, Neil Johnson and now we have a new one and I wish her all the best! But how has this been allowed to meander for so long? It has never been sorted out properly. Mitie anyone?

Oh Dear! Yes, HEFCE has the right and obligation, the LM collar has been felt. True, students without the necessary cannot complete or benefit from degree education and LM needs a national undergrad recruitment strategy rather than a Clearing fudge. So what now, a rush for the lifeboats or a concerted attempt to get to port? Get a recruitment strategy based on agreed entry requirements with course tutors involved, responsible and answerable for selection. Make false reporting of admissions and completions as much of a career termination as plagiarism. Intergrate with FE to provide vertical progression for those not capable of direct entry - don't loose them, do as the Aussie's do and really commit to widening opportunity (as well as get the income stream). Discuss partnering and franchising new opportunities with other HE providers, as well as sharing staff, sites, and opportunities. Agree with management and staff the period after which a failing course (no matter how 'valuable') wiill be closed, and expand your successful ones. Nothing revolutionary here, but is the will and partnership potential within LM still there? As an outsider you appear to have quite a few assets acdemically as well as socially. LM is also different for good reasons. Hopefully the rage is partnered by passion but you are in the doodoo. Ask Roper and seniors if they will accept half their earnings based on performance on completions, income etc! Then have a go! It would be a crying shame if LM's passion to generate many familys' first graduates was lost. Pretty certain you lot are capable of taking the hit as long as you get some leadership rather than instruction, but it is two-way. Good luck, even unis in the doodoo are offering the rest of us something more encouraging than the City. Anyone know a good banker? Sounds as if you need a good Finance Director to negotiate the repayments! Have lots near me, but tossers to a man.

Student recruitment consultant and careers publish : "Get a recruitment strategy based on agreed entry requirements with course tutors involved, responsible and answerable for selection. Make false reporting of admissions and completions as much of a career termination as plagiarism. Intergrate with FE to provide vertical progression for those not capable of direct entry - don't loose them, do as the Aussie's do and really commit to widening opportunity (as well as get the income stream)" Your suggestions: Recruitment strategy: Exists on paper, meetings held etc.. etc.. But London Met is a case where the local cluster of sixthform schools and college do not want their students to go to London Met. They have links with better universities in the area. You can see from the postings in another related thread. Very diificult to get to implement a vertical strategy when even the local FE college principal, once a governor in London Met prefer his students to go City University and UCL and have their reprsentatives in his governing body. If London Met attracts only handful of UCAS-routed applicants, all the paper-based UCAS clearing entry points of 140 are so for 3 A level grades ( if you count A=120, B=100, C=80 D=60 E=40 ..), it is even on the paper already very low with a D and 2 Es, goes out of the window. The large base of failed A level students and GCSEs becomes very tempting and they PLUS overseas students outside the EU with questionable grades and English proficiency ( who find London Met beckoning them and opportunity to work in London) make up the final numbers. The latter is simply adding to the immigration woes. From the clearing recruitment, you can see why the drop out rates are high and the data is allegedly massaged. Other HE providers,private colleges, a number of them recruit from overseas for their professionally certified courses, simply cannot meet the recruit numbers London Met needs. Widening access: If you have any experience in HE education, you will find that even better universities these days help first family degree entrants, without dropping the entry requirements. Student loans should help any aspiring and qualified A level student to get to university. The criteria should always be 'academically qualified' and stretching the sematics of 'disadvantages and widening access' is wicked and extreme. If one punishes false data reprting and plagiarism equally, one will find that very few staffand students are left! I know Australian universities well, their experience is very mixed. While better universities like ANU, Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland take the better students, universities like Charles Strut go for overseas distance learning route. We should also bear in mind that HSC in Australia is like Scottish Highers and while Scottish universities offer 4 year hons course which is their graduating qualification, in Australia a student can get a 3 year ordinary degree and for hons has to pass further year or build the additional courses in the 3year course portfolio. Not ideal.

Reading all the posts here and elsewhere in this blog with LMU threads, is it not obvious that London Met nad LMU and a few more like them in the new universities sector are not functioning as universties. In this economic downturn and unemployment figures going up fast, it appears irresponsible that universities like London Met are recruiting students from outside the EU only to find them competing for jobs with home graduates in the UK. We have been hearing protests about foreign workers taking away jobs here, even though they are from Italy, and have employment rights here as EU citizens. But students comin from hugeky overpopulated developing countries to compete for jobs here, well London Met is a bit irresponsible here. Is it time for universities like London Met to rethink in the light of their failure as universities, cut its misplaced global ambitions and slim down to a modest level in the first instance to become say an institue of training for Londoners, recruiting locally for vocational courses? The myth of 'multiplier effec in respect of overseas students has exploded as they compete for local jobs to survive. What hasdemontrated is that the post 1992 experiment of elevating every polytechnic to university status has failed, and the nonsense of being global is shown to be just that, nonsensical

"It would be a crying shame if LM's passion to generate many familys' first graduates was lost." How insulting! Some of us family first generation graduates are self-generating, you know; and we don't need the help of the local jumped-up former polytechnic to get us there. All we need is good quality sixth-form tuition, the encouragement to believe in ourselves, and a UCAS form, and we can do the rest. Every university in the country is a potential destination for us, not just the HE institutions that owe their existence to mopping up intellectual lightweights to make up the numbers.

I was raised by a single mother with 4 kids as our father passed away due to cancer. Those days in 1960s, it was really a struggle for my mother to raise us, doing part-time jobs. But she and my late father inculcated in us was the sense of responsibility, self-believe and above all hard work while we were at school. I went to a good university and graduated as the first graduate in my family. This nonsense of these, 'propped-up former polytechnics', recruting just about any one without laying down minimum acceptable academic background of A level/IB passes giving excuses of 'widening access/disadvantaged background' has come to the stage when it is call a halt to this detrimental exercise. It is very well for Blair to say 'education, education and education' but sending his sons to selective schools, and continue with his cry of 50% entry to universities ( which has given a green signal for these former polytechnics to lower their entry requirements to level that lets in whoever knocks at their doors), but sending his sons to Bristol and Oxford universities. The best solution in the first instance is to make UCAS form compulsary for all, home and overseas students, set a compulsary minimum entry requirement, and as English exam boards and IBO operate in just about all countries in the world, accept only qualifications obtained from these boards for entry to UK universities.

Apologies for my typos as I am partially sighted and some escaped correction.